Eminor3rd

No one wants this, no matter how many times you say it.

I don't think I've (personally) read anything that says India is a big league SS. I'm for BPA.

For me it's the Royals. Over the years, I've found my hate waxing and waning depending upon which of the others is good at the time (Indians in the 90's, Twins for most of the 2000's, Tigers for the John Danks era, etc.), but the Royals never go away. And how the players have comported themselves after their victory has only made it worse.

A deal can still end up an overall net positive if the player opts out (as in "this team has been better off signing this player than not having signed the player"), yes, but the same deal would be better if the opt out wasn't there. Even in the example of Belle: yes, it worked out better for the Sox in retrospect, because Belle declined suddenly and unexpectedly, but Reinsdorf and many others were extremely upset at the time that it happened, because Belle was worth more than the remainder of his contract -- which is why it made sense for him to opt out and find a better deal. If the opt-out wasn't there, the Sox could have also avoided a declining Belle by trading him at that time, and the return would have been a net positive that reflected the surplus value of the deal. This isn't to say that an opt-out should never be accepted in a deal, it's just that it is a player advantage and should come with a cost during negotiations. All of that "paying for the surplus value in early years" still applies to a deal with an opt out. The team is still on the hook for that money, should the player age as expected or worse than expected. All of the "upside" is lost, because if the player ages better than expected, and thus the team is in line to get more of that surplus value than what they paid for, the deal gets torn up. Essentially all of the risk normally associated with a long-term, big money deal is still on the team, but without the potential for reward. It's the fact that the decision is in the hands of the player, not the team, that makes the difference. If, at the time of the opt out, the balance of money/value for the remainder of the deal is off in either direction, the team is guaranteed to get the worse end of it.

Balta is right here -- the opt-out is NEVER a good thing for team at the time it is signed. There are situations where it could end up being a blessing, in retrospect, if a player declines sharply and unexpectedly, but make no mistake -- it is a leverage point in favor of the player. The simple way to look at it is this: the player will only opt out if his contract contains significant surplus value at the time of the opt-out. If that occurs, even if the team wants to employ a strategy where they use the best years of the contract and get rid of the player for the decline, the team would be better off trading the contract than having the player depart for nothing. The player only opts IN if the contract is underwater or a wash. If the player opts OUT, the team loses a valuable asset.

This

I think it could have done a lot of his development as a hitter, but I don't see a substantial difference in the process of learning SS at the AAA or MLB level. Yeah, the balls are hit harder and the runners are faster, so we're going to see him have to develop in a more physically demanding environment, but I can't see how it would actually be stunting him in any way. It's not like he's going to pick up bad habits or anything as a result, you know?

It's hard to make the case that an infielder's defensive development was ruined by an aggressive call-up.

I f***ing hate the Royals

I got extremely excited when his velo was up/arm slot down in the Spring. ST stats don't predict much if anything, but mechanical and procedural changes generally do. But if the velo is back down, and the fastball doesn't have more run, he's not even going to be a #3. This version of Giolito only has one weapon (the curveball), and he can't command or control it well enough to use it more than sparingly. Is it the cold? I don't know, but I hope so.

No one is going to complain about too much content

At this point, I agree. I want him to focus on getting better at hitting, not learning a new position. That said, I VERY much wanted them to move him to when they acquired him. I think it would have been the best move at the time, but that ship has sailed.

Two thoughts on your post: First: I think we have to stop and remind ourselves why we like "good and cheap." The answer is because the more "good and cheap" pieces we have, the more resources that are available to purchase additional talent. THis means we eventually have to USE those resources for the math to work out. These cheap pieces are critical for the foundation of a successful team, but if we fail to shift our sights at some point, then we fail to capitalize on the advantage that it afforded us in the first place. We could have very efficient production all around the field, but if those guys are all 1-3 win players, we still aren't going to win any games. Second: I think all of the scenarios you mentioned are realistic and possible, but I don't think any of them are MORE likely than the standard scenario: useful-but-mediocre players remain so, and Machado remains a star level player. Further, even if you do get a logjam, I don't think you've really got much of a problem at all. Because again, "good and cheap" players are valuable trade chips. It's also worth considering how much more valuable depth is in the current game than it used to be. For example, if it turns out that Anderson is a 4 win player, Machado is a 5 win player, and Sanchez is a 3 win player, you still may get a TON more value out of using Sanchez as a utility guy who can rest either player without a substantial loss in production, and who can step in a starter should either hit the disabled list. My point is, I don't think you ever really have to worry about having too many good players, because desired assets tend to be fungible. The only thing you have to worry about is if too many of those players end up BAD. In that scenario, with so many holes to plug, can you afford to put so many resources into filling just one? Now, if Anderson becomes a star in the next four months and Machado INSISTS on playing SS only, that changes the calculus. But we'll know about that before we get a chance to sign him.

Superstar position players that are young enough to be expected to stay stars throughout your entire contention window don't show up very often. Normally, I'm a fan of signing free agents at the time that you need them, so as to minimize the risk of regression and injury -- but sometimes market forces incentivize teams to consider different types of risks. I'm in favor of signing Machado (or Harper) because this is when he's available. You can't get him when you'd rather have him. Yeah, it's too soon for this team to sign short term assets, but it's never too soon to add long-term assets. Also, RE: Harper vs. Machado -- our minor league system depth chart should literally no bearing on which one we choose. Unless the guy being signed blocks a currently contributing MLB player, thus reducing the effectiveness of the addition, you can't worry about it. Most of these guys will bust, and even if they don't, and you DO create a logjam, you can trade the prospect for something you need more.

Welcome, brother. Be patient with us.

I imagine this one will be more of a "bullpen game" then a full-blown "start" for Fulmer or whoever else takes the ball.

It's a cold stretch for a bad team. It will get better on its own. The answer is "keep running them out there." It IS hard to watch though. In case anyone needs ideas, what I've been doing is watching Japanese baseball instead, lol.

Not holding anybody back? What on Earth are you talking about?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 17, 2018 -> 03:38 PM) He's 8 for 41 which is .195. 10 RBI in 12 games is good. Five homers is good. However ... he had 3 of the homers and 5 of the RBI in one game. Yikes. 2 HRs and 5 RBI in the last 11 games. Remember I am not a statnik. I like the walks obviously and I still worship Davidson, but ... disappointment is creeping in because of my fan eyetest. I'm glad I'm not controlled by advanced stats. His first season he has 26 HRS and 68 RBI in 443 at bats. Before advanced stats that was rookie of the year contention, baby. You are unbelievable.

It's gonna get better, and worse, and better, and worse, and better, and worse before we get where we really want to be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 09:38 PM) So, apparently so far this year Tommy Kahnle has been an utter disaster with an ERA close to 9. His fastball is down 3 mph and the Yanks are worried. Always Trade Relievers™

QUOTE (ChiSox1917 @ Apr 15, 2018 -> 02:48 PM) The problem is that the league is far past due for expansion. It's now been 20 years now since the last expansion team, and it really should be about every 10-15 years that two teams should be added. Bring back the Expos, and then add one to three more expansion teams and you'll see a reversal of that trend. Expansion hurts pitching more than it does hitting statistics. ...which incentivizes specialization, which leads to more relievers.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 10:43 AM) This is like someone posted this when Uribe was playing, their computer went down, and as soon as it got rebooted all this time later, it finally posted. Holy s*** this IS Juan Uribe.

QUOTE (insiderinfo @ Apr 13, 2018 -> 11:27 AM) I really don't like him at second base. It's been messing up his swing so much. His trip to the minor leagues hleped, but I think he should go back to hitting right handed only. He was more patient and saw more pitches. He is an under rated shortstop with a cannon for an arm. Why did Ventura moved him to 2b? Does he think Ozzie didn't know is a a good shortstop? He strikes out way too much now. Tony thinks he is gonna come around and start peppering the ball all over the field. I don't think he will every be the same until he goes back to swinging right handed and plays shortstop. Are these the best boards for sox talk? I cna't find the boards on the whitesox website no more. By "Juan," do you mean Yoan Moncada? What is the connection between playing second base and not swinging well?

"It's funny." -- Rick Hahn