thxfrthmmrs

White Sox - traded a more valuable piece in Adam Eaton 2 1/2 years ago for 2 ML ready piece and another prospect and 2 1/2 years later still trying "develop" these 2 ML ready pieces. Rays - traded a declining pitcher for 2 ML ready piece and another prospect and are reaping off those pieces immediately. Call it better scouting, better player development, one is clearly a better ran organization, despite having to work with much less.

Anyone has the number of Tampa’s baserunners vs the Sox baserunners in this series? It’s gotta be embarrassingly bad at this point.

I could picture JR saying Don’s a great guy, he’s respected and has been here for almost 20 years. Let him ride it out here until he’s ready to hang it up.

It’s pretty clear Don Cooper hasn’t helped the young pitchers progress, in fact he hasn’t done so in the last 5 years. It’s time to look elsewhere but who are we kidding, JR is running this ship.

The lineup will never score enough runs as long as Don Cooper is still our pitching coach.

Given offer ends today, I'd create new MLB account and redeem offer from that account. I am pretty sure you could get the original subscription refunded within 30 days. Happened to me a few years back where I forgot to cancel renewal. I called and they gave me a refund within minutes.

I haven't seen this posted here, and no this isn't an April Fool's joke. There has been an ongoing T-Mobile promotion for any new or existing customers (3/25-4/1, so today is the last day) where you could redeem their offer on T-Mobile Tuesdays and get free MLB TV subscription for the year. Follow link below to login to your T-Mobile account and redeem. I'm not one of their customers but my wife is and I was able to redeem offer from her account. This could work with your family or friend's account as well. https://www.t-mobile.com/mlb Mods feel free to move thread to another forum.

I think trading Howard is absolutely the right thing to do, it's addition by subtraction. More of Davis/Cohen/rookie RB in Nagy's offense and less of Howard is going to make this offense better. That said. I think you could have held out for a better pick by trading him later, i.e. before start of camp, especially it's for a 2020 pick only.

Those other situations are also very sad. As long as Eloy puts up a 3 WAR seasons (as projected by many publications) and Palka shows any kind of improvement, we won’t be a bottom 5 OF.

Indians, Tigers, Royals, Blue Jays, Marlins, and Orioles say Hi.

Beltre and Chavez played in a different era, looking at raw numbers do not do these players justice. Looking at these players through age 25: Beltre - 23.4 bWAR, 17.3 oWAR, 7.8 dWAR, 0 GG Chavez - 20.2 bWAR, 19.2 oWAR 2.5 dWAR, 3 GGs Machado - 33.8 bWAR, 25.8 oWAR, 11.3 dWAR, 2 GGs Like others have said, Beltre was incredibly consistent throughout his career and built one of the best resume for a 3B in the entire history of MLB. Chavez could have had some HOF considerations as well given the good start to his career, but injuries robbed him of his prime and his output quickly tailed off after age 27. Manny has had the best start to his career out of the three, and he's given no reason he's on the trajectory of Chavez. As of now, he is one of the greats of the present players and also one of the great 3Bs through age 25 in the history of the game.

You said Machado isn’t elite or even great, verbatim. By all measure Machado and Stanton are at least great players. Manny is on the border line of great and elite. This isn’t basketball where only 15-20 players are considered great and 3-4 are elite. If you just consider the top 5% of the active MLB roster as great players, that’s roughly 40 players, and 1% as elite, that’s roughly 8-10 players. I don’t think you could name 40 players better than Manny or Stanton. Manny is also a lot closer to the conversation of elite than the level below.

I think comprehension has failed you. You said Machado isn’t elite or even great and pointed out Stanton as an example of someone who isn’t even consider “great” who signed for $300M, to which I responded with good enough backing that Stanton is at least great, and Manny is even better. So your original statement is nonsense. Regardless, using whether a player was pursued by big market teams as a barometer for a player’s greatness is a narrow-minded and elitist argument. There are plenty of great ways to measure a player’s value, and what you said isn’t one of them.

Giancarlo is not elite but he's great if you take the subjectivity out of the equation. 40 WAR before age 29 season. 34.5 WAR during 7 year peak, and average 7 year peak for HOF'er at his position is 42.1 WAR. Manny got bigger AAV than Stanton, and is considered to be better subjectively and statistically.

Players who are not great nor elite do not sign for $300 millions.

Pretty sure if Harper had to do it again, He'd had taken that 10/$300M extension from Nationals too. Extension is the new way to go.

FIFY

Was hoping they roll the dice on Berry but HHCD will do. Can’t complain about the price at all. By my calculation they still have about $13.5M cap space (more if you count Top 51). I wonderful if Houston is next or they are looking to trade for a contract with a team trying to free up space.

I think the Larsen deal eats into the Top 51 salary by $1M, they currently still have about ~$18M functional cap to work with, and that factors in the cap hit for draft picks. That's a pretty solid number to work with. I think the Bears are waiting for prices to drop a bit before dipping into the pool to address the remaining needs,and see if the remaining guys are willing to take a pay cut as FA goes on. With cap we have remaining, I am hoping we could get Houston and Eric Berry for 2 year deals. I don't expect Berry to cost a lot at this point with his recent injury history. I would trade Howard for a 5th rounder and sign Ty Montgomery. Depending on how much discount Berry/Houston takes we should have enough to address the K / P situation. We could then plug in remaining holes with the picks we have and get depth pieces in OL, DL, SS to backup Berry, and a QB to succeed Daniels.

WOW would have loved Bell at that price and we could have fit him into our cap space. We better pull off an impact signing because I'd be upset we missed Bell for marginal players.

He will be paid earlier, in March actually. But you're right that the signing bonus could be spread over several years, increasing Mack's dead cap the next several years but creating cap space short term.

My last post on this topic, but it's becoming apparent you're missing the point and using your stats incorrectly. To summarize what you said: 1) High pitches are easier to elevate - true, but this means nothing in isolation, easier to elevate does not suggest better results 2) High fastballs are easier to square up - false Since you're a statistical person, I think you'd also see the fallacy of using the numbers you pointed to here: https://community.fangraphs.com/effect-of-pitch-selection-on-launch-angle-and-exit-velocity/ The up and in (good) pitches are one of the worst pitches for hitters to hit (as suggested by the EV you linked to). The up and away (mistake) pitches produced the best results (by measurement of EV and LA). But let's also consider that for those mistake pitches go a long way and has much higher exit velocity, henced average EV are skewed, but that doesn't mean they are happening more frequently (because the results are more favorable for the pitcher) compared to a low pitch. If you want to have a good leg to stand on, use batting average, wOBA, or xwOBA that weights each event the same. So to have a blanket statement that high fastballs are easier to hit (as Parkman and Dick Allen were debating you on had you read their posts carefully) or easier to square up, you're stats falls short of proving your point by a 90 degree launch angle.

Glad you asked, see one post above.

You're all over the place with your posts, and muddying the line between elevating a pitch (launch angle) vs. squaring up. They're not one of the same. I will also pretty you weren't talking about fastballs only in your posts.

What you're missing is what you said simply does not support your argument. You posted only average launch angle on pitches and their location, but what about their contact % on high vs. low fastballs? To say it's easier to "square up on a high fastballs", you must show batters today have better results hitting the high fastball vs low ones, which I have shown you the opposite is correct.