Yasiel Puig Trade Rumors

[bmags]

I am sure they appreciate it, but why do you think the mods know more than everyone else? I bet even a couple of them don't even have a high school varsity letter.

 

I think I got some lamp one.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Puig is a big question mark. I'd deal Hawkins, Danish and another very low level prospect. I'd buy low on Puig and he may be the most realistic option because of value and the sox not having a deep system.

[caulfield12]

The Dodgers are asking for something that will help their major league team right now...same thing with the Braves listening on offers for Teheran and Vizcaino.

 

That's almost an impossible move to make for the Sox, considering the Dodgers' biggest need is in the pitching area.

 

They'd have zero interest in Avi Garcia or Carlos Sanchez, for example. Not a good match.

[caulfield12]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/trad...pitchers-4.html

Trade market for starting pitchers

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/catc...market-mlb.html

Trade market for catchers

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/07/mets...rade-talks.html

Looking at the price tags on some of the relievers the Mets are looking at, it's easy to see the White Sox sitting it out and hoping for help to come from within...

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Well no thanks LAD

[BlackSox13]

If the Dodgers want pitching, I would be more than happy to trade Shields for Puig.

[LittleHurt05]

I think the Royals should trade for him.

[FT35]

Well, not every prediction is going to be right...and just because a player has all the tools in the world doesn't mean they're going to take advantage of them.

 

I remember back in 1985, I must have bought 100 Eric Davis rookie cards thinking he was going to be the next Mays/Mantle. Didn't happen.

 

 

By WAR, Puig's at 1.0 (and looking at around 1.5-2.5 for a full season assuming he stays healthy and continues his recent improved play). That would place him 34th out of 53 in the category (qualified number of AB's). Not nearly up to the standards of his first two seasons, but if a bunch of "Avi Garcia could do that in his sleep in RF" posts come up, it will be pretty amusing.

 

In the context of AL MLB outfielders, 48th-51st out of 197 total players. So, if that's not a starting outfielder, I'm not sure what is.

 

Not a bad thought on the Eric Davis cards...we all thought he was going to be a stud. If you had only bought the McGwire instead! Still though, check the condition of your Davis cards...Graded PSA 10 copies of his 85 Topps cards are worth about $100 a piece. The McGwire is sitting pretty at $600 for a perfect 10 grade.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Well, not every prediction is going to be right...and just because a player has all the tools in the world doesn't mean they're going to take advantage of them.

 

I remember back in 1985, I must have bought 100 Eric Davis rookie cards thinking he was going to be the next Mays/Mantle. Didn't happen.

 

 

By WAR, Puig's at 1.0 (and looking at around 1.5-2.5 for a full season assuming he stays healthy and continues his recent improved play). That would place him 34th out of 53 in the category (qualified number of AB's). Not nearly up to the standards of his first two seasons, but if a bunch of "Avi Garcia could do that in his sleep in RF" posts come up, it will be pretty amusing.

 

In the context of AL MLB outfielders, 48th-51st out of 197 total players. So, if that's not a starting outfielder, I'm not sure what is.

 

1. I think many here will take you more seriously if you start using fWAR instead of rWAR as most consider it superior.

 

2. Why do you always say things like "that would place him 34th out of 53 in the category (qualified number of AB's)? WAR is essentially a counting stat. A player who has .6 fWAR across 150 PAs is more valuable than a player with .5 across 300. You can't discount him because he doesn't qualify for whatever arbitrary minimum number of PAs you choose. That would be like stripping the guy of a home run crown because he didn't have 500 PAs.

 

3. Using the superior fWAR and ignoring a minimum number of PAs, Puig has a fWAR of .3 (roughly .5 to .6 over the full year). That ranks him 88th among all outfielders. That is pathetic. Saladino has put up a .2 fWAR is well less than half the number of PAs.

[caulfield12]

1. I think many here will take you more seriously if you start using fWAR instead of rWAR as most consider it superior.

 

2. Why do you always say things like "that would place him 34th out of 53 in the category (qualified number of AB's)? WAR is essentially a counting stat. A player who has .6 fWAR across 150 PAs is more valuable than a player with .5 across 300. You can't discount him because he doesn't qualify for whatever arbitrary minimum number of PAs you choose. That would be like stripping the guy of a home run crown because he didn't have 500 PAs.

 

3. Using the superior fWAR and ignoring a minimum number of PAs, Puig has a fWAR of .3 (roughly .5 to .6 over the full year). That ranks him 88th among all outfielders. That is pathetic. Saladino has put up a .2 fWAR is well less than half the number of PAs.

 

 

If it's that simple, why does ESPN, who is supposed to be the foremost authority on sports news and information...choose not to use it?

 

Why would they deliberately want to be wrong if it's in their best interest to use the best statistics?

 

It wouldn't cost them more money to use a different version of WAR, would it? With the knowledgeable baseball guys over there like Law, Callis, Stark, Schoenfield...what's the reason? Has anyone ever asked that question?

 

 

And because simply having a higher WAR in a limited number of at-bats doesn't automatically mean it could be extrapolated out over a full season for a bench player.

 

If that was the case, the Reds would take Saladino for Bruce, the Dodgers Saladino for Puig? And yet we know both of those trades are pretty much unrealistic...right? Or even for Beltran to rent him for 2-3 months, or Josh Reddick. There are MANY players who wouldn't stand up over the test of full-time play, but their abilities can be maximized as part-time or bench players.

 

Regardless of what version of WAR you use, it's just ONE snapshot...one of hundreds of statistics you could look at, when assessing a position player. One thing that's clear statistically is that Puig's defense has improved pretty dramatically compared to years past.

 

But hey...if the White Sox want to go down with the Avi Garcia Ship, more power to them.

 

I'd hate to see how he grades out about right now.

Edited July 14, 2016 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

If it's that simple, why does ESPN, who is supposed to be the foremost authority on sports news and information...choose not to use it?

 

Why would they deliberately want to be wrong if it's in their best interest to use the best statistics?

 

It wouldn't cost them more money to use a different version of WAR, would it? With the knowledgeable baseball guys over there like Law, Callis, Stark, Schoenfield...what's the reason? Has anyone ever asked that question?

 

 

And because simply having a higher WAR in a limited number of at-bats doesn't automatically mean it could be extrapolated out over a full season for a bench player.

 

If that was the case, the Reds would take Saladino for Bruce, the Dodgers Saladino for Puig? And yet we know both of those trades are pretty much unrealistic...right? Or even for Beltran to rent him for 2-3 months, or Josh Reddick. There are MANY players who wouldn't stand up over the test of full-time play, but their abilities can be maximized as part-time or bench players.

 

Regardless of what version of WAR you use, it's just ONE snapshot...one of hundreds of statistics you could look at, when assessing a position player. One thing that's clear statistically is that Puig's defense has improved pretty dramatically compared to years past.

 

But hey...if the White Sox want to go down with the Avi Garcia Ship, more power to them.

 

I'd hate to see how he grades out about right now.

 

Whoa whoa whoa slow down there champ

 

[Dick Allen]

If it's that simple, why does ESPN, who is supposed to be the foremost authority on sports news and information...choose not to use it?

 

Why would they deliberately want to be wrong if it's in their best interest to use the best statistics?

 

It wouldn't cost them more money to use a different version of WAR, would it? With the knowledgeable baseball guys over there like Law, Callis, Stark, Schoenfield...what's the reason? Has anyone ever asked that question?

 

 

And because simply having a higher WAR in a limited number of at-bats doesn't automatically mean it could be extrapolated out over a full season for a bench player.

 

If that was the case, the Reds would take Saladino for Bruce, the Dodgers Saladino for Puig? And yet we know both of those trades are pretty much unrealistic...right? Or even for Beltran to rent him for 2-3 months, or Josh Reddick. There are MANY players who wouldn't stand up over the test of full-time play, but their abilities can be maximized as part-time or bench players.

 

Regardless of what version of WAR you use, it's just ONE snapshot...one of hundreds of statistics you could look at, when assessing a position player. One thing that's clear statistically is that Puig's defense has improved pretty dramatically compared to years past.

 

But hey...if the White Sox want to go down with the Avi Garcia Ship, more power to them.

 

I'd hate to see how he grades out about right now.

 

ESPN is the foremost authority on sports news and information?

 

You must think McDonald's is the foremost authority on how to make a burger.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Dick Allen

[lasttriptotulsa]

And because simply having a higher WAR in a limited number of at-bats doesn't automatically mean it could be extrapolated out over a full season for a bench player.

 

It doesn't matter. If a guy puts up 1 WAR in 10 games and then plays at replacement level the rest of the year he still puts up 1 WAR for the season. We're 85+ games into the season and there are 87 MLB outfielders that have put up a higher WAR than Puig. Somehow you want to rank Puig higher because it took him more at bats to be as productive as somebody who only plays part time? There is no justification that you can give that will say Puig has been a good player this year. And yet you want to give up resources for a basically replacement level player who is owed another $20 million over the next couple years and is a head case?

 

And your ESPN comment is one of the funnier things I've ever read on here.

 

[bmags]

If it's that simple, why does ESPN, who is supposed to be the foremost authority on sports news and information...choose not to use it?

Why would they deliberately want to be wrong if it's in their best interest to use the best statistics?

 

It wouldn't cost them more money to use a different version of WAR, would it? With the knowledgeable baseball guys over there like Law, Callis, Stark, Schoenfield...what's the reason? Has anyone ever asked that question?

 

 

And because simply having a higher WAR in a limited number of at-bats doesn't automatically mean it could be extrapolated out over a full season for a bench player.

 

If that was the case, the Reds would take Saladino for Bruce, the Dodgers Saladino for Puig? And yet we know both of those trades are pretty much unrealistic...right? Or even for Beltran to rent him for 2-3 months, or Josh Reddick. There are MANY players who wouldn't stand up over the test of full-time play, but their abilities can be maximized as part-time or bench players.

 

Regardless of what version of WAR you use, it's just ONE snapshot...one of hundreds of statistics you could look at, when assessing a position player. One thing that's clear statistically is that Puig's defense has improved pretty dramatically compared to years past.

 

But hey...if the White Sox want to go down with the Avi Garcia Ship, more power to them.

 

I'd hate to see how he grades out about right now.

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[caulfield12]

It doesn't matter. If a guy puts up 1 WAR in 10 games and then plays at replacement level the rest of the year he still puts up 1 WAR for the season. We're 85+ games into the season and there are 87 MLB outfielders that have put up a higher WAR than Puig. Somehow you want to rank Puig higher because it took him more at bats to be as productive as somebody who only plays part time? There is no justification that you can give that will say Puig has been a good player this year. And yet you want to give up resources for a basically replacement level player who is owed another $20 million over the next couple years and is a head case?

 

And your ESPN comment is one of the funnier things I've ever read on here.

 

 

If that proprietary statistical information is so valuable, then why wouldn't ESPN or another sports information outlet like The Sporting News simply buy it and make it their own?

 

Defense has evolved from Total Chances to Range Factor/UZR to Defensive Runs Saved...but each have their pluses and minuses. But to say DRS is the be-all and end-all is like saying Pythagorean is the best way to assess a manager's effectiveness or competency.

 

To totally discount another way of counting WAR doesn't make any sense when there's no more than 10-15 people at this entire site that could clearly and concisely tell the different between the two in five minutes or less to a "layman" or average baseball fan.

 

ESPN has improved greatly in terms of delivering statistical information, compared to where they were even 5 or 10 years ago.

 

If you took a poll and asked how many SoxTalk posters utilize FanGraphs at least once a week during the baseball season, or Baseball Prospectus, it's not going to be an extremely high number.

 

Having ESPN's numbers more readily and easily accessible and available to the average fan makes "regular" baseball discussions more well-informed, so I'm not going to completely discount one version of WAR. Everyone is free to keep making the same arguments about which statistic is better, for example, FIP, xFIP, Siera, DIP, pFIP, etc., it's getting to be overwhelming trying to sort through all of it. And it creates more fans who are making authoritative statements who haven't even watched the player in question even play a single game.

Edited July 14, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

So your argument is ESPN is deliberately being obtuse by NOT using that version of WAR?

 

When they're making inroads on e-sports/League of Legends, MMA, X-Games, lots of areas of sporting endeavor that didn't even exist 20 years ago?

 

Why would that be in their best interest, to use a fundamentally-flawed statistic if a CLEARLY SUPERIOR one is available?

[Kyyle23]

So much here. so much.

[Eminor3rd]

If it's that simple, why does ESPN, who is supposed to be the foremost authority on sports news and information...choose not to use it?

 

Lol.

[Dick Allen]

He does make a point. ESPN brought us the X Games, therefore, all their information must be superior.

 

It's just as logical as any of his other posts.

[bmags]

So your argument is ESPN is deliberately being obtuse by NOT using that version of WAR?

 

When they're making inroads on e-sports/League of Legends, MMA, X-Games, lots of areas of sporting endeavor that didn't even exist 20 years ago?

 

Why would that be in their best interest, to use a fundamentally-flawed statistic if a CLEARLY SUPERIOR one is available?

 

It's seems like you are legitimately curious here so I'll try.

 

Have you noticed how ESPN has a propensity to credit their reporters for news and other non-ESPN ones? Have you noticed how they hype up Hollingers PER over all other stats? Institutionally I would say they feel that giving credit to other sports sources acknowledges they failed. So of course they aren't going to use Baseball-ref WAR or fangraphs WAR, they'll make their own version. They didn't set out to, I'm sure, but when your braintrust is harold reynolds then it happens.

[lasttriptotulsa]

If that proprietary statistical information is so valuable, then why wouldn't ESPN or another sports information outlet like The Sporting News simply buy it and make it their own?

 

When has ESPN ever cared about being the most statistically accurate channel/site? They cater to the casual fan. Casual fans are going to understand rWAR easier than fWAR especially when it comes to pitching

 

Defense has evolved from Total Chances to Range Factor/UZR to Defensive Runs Saved...but each have their pluses and minuses. But to say DRS is the be-all and end-all is like saying Pythagorean is the best way to assess a manager's effectiveness or competency.

 

I don't think anybody has ever said DRS is the be-all, end-all defensive statistic. As a matter of fact that kind of goes against what I said earlier as far as fWAR being more well regarded than rWAR. fWAR uses UZR for defensive ratings, not DRS.

 

To totally discount another way of counting WAR doesn't make any sense when there's no more than 10-15 people at this entire site that could clearly and concisely tell the different between the two in five minutes or less to a "layman" or average baseball fan.

 

I would be money that that is not true.

 

ESPN has improved greatly in terms of delivering statistical information, compared to where they were even 5 or 10 years ago.

 

Okay, I'll give you that one but they still have a hell of a long ways to go.

 

If you took a poll and asked how many SoxTalk posters utilize FanGraphs at least once a week during the baseball season, or Baseball Prospectus, it's not going to be an extremely high number.

 

I would guarantee you that is not true. I would bet more people on here use Fangraphs to look up a players stats than use ESPN. You are about the only person I've ever seen on here link to a players ESPN page or an ESPN stats leaders page. It doesn't help that their new site is clumsy as f***.

 

Having ESPN's numbers more readily and easily accessible and available to the average fan makes "regular" baseball discussions more well-informed, so I'm not going to completely discount one version of WAR. Everyone is free to keep making the same arguments about which statistic is better, for example, FIP, xFIP, Siera, DIP, pFIP, etc., it's getting to be overwhelming trying to sort through all of it. And it creates more fans who are making authoritative statements who haven't even watched the player in question even play a single game.

 

This is a valid point. There are a couple on here (not naming names) who you can tell the only baseball knowledge they have is from looking at fangraphs.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

He does make a point. ESPN brought us the X Games, therefore, all their information must be superior.

 

It's just as logical as any of his other posts.

 

You mean to tell me that you have never noticed the strong correlation between skateboarding and Sabermetrics?