Harper to Phillies 13yr/330 mil

[TaylorStSox]

2 minutes ago, fathom said:

Yet he’s a good fit for the Cubs where you have exceptional offense at other positions. Run prevention is something they’ve really excelled at thanks in large part to Heyward 

Is that why they're trying to get out of that contract? 

[Chicago White Sox]

45 minutes ago, Flash said:

Guessing Theo would say no. That said, Heyward might be polarizing but at an avg. of $12M a yr., he's worth it. Sox would get a major upgrade at 3 positions plus a back-end starter with upside. Better bang for the buck than Harper without the risk. 

Yup, definitely need to add a 1 to 2 win OF to a long multi-year contract when seven our top 15 prospects are OFs.

[JoshPR]

Epstein has told horas to wait... Boras is Such a scum. Looks like the sox will be shut out. Wanna know how brass is gonna play this... Oh yeah we got nova.....

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, TaylorStSox said:

What? What in the hell does Eaton have to do with anything? First, Eaton is a CF, which automatically makes him more valuable. Second, we didn't move Eaton for a HOF'er. Third, Eaton was making $2.7mm when we moved him. We traded him in a rebuild. I have no idea how that example has anything to do with the discussion. 

Are you really unable to remember the recent past?

Eaton played RF for the WHITE SOX the season preceding the trade when he built up huge fWAR and bWAR numbers.

A lot of it was attributable to his RF assist totals...please check the numbers, he never graded out well in CF.  In fact, it was his outfield assist numbers that largely elevated his defensive rating, just like the year that Avi graded out passably in RF.

If Adam Eaton didn’t put up a huge (and healthy) WAR numbers playing RIGHT FIELD (aka a corner outfield position) for the White Sox, he wouldn’t have been perceived as so valuable to Rizzo.

But apparently we should now completely discount those WAR numbers because of players like Heyward, Eaton and Alex Gordon.

By the way, it wasn’t only the Cubs who saw evidence of value there...the Cardinals offered Heyward a similar contract.

Edited December 23, 2018 by caulfield12

[YonderLaroche]

Sox should go after heyward and have the Cubs pitch 4-6 million a year in , he's still a great defender that  needs a change of scenery 

[TaylorStSox]

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

Are you unable to remember the recent past?

Eaton played RF when he built up huge fWAR and bWAR numbers.

A lot of it was from his RF assist totals...please check the numbers, he never graded out well in CF.  In fact, it was his outfield assist numbers that largely elevated his defensive rating, just like the year that Avi graded out passably in RF.

If Adam Eaton didn’t put up a huge (and healthy) WAR numbers playing RIGHT FIELD (aka a corner outfield position) for the White Sox, he wouldn’t have been perceived as so valuable to Rizzo.

But apparently we should now completely discount those WAR numbers because of players like Heyward, Eaton and Alex Gordon.

By the way, it wasn’t only the Cubs who saw evidence of value there...the Cardinals offered Heyward a similar contract.

Eaton - 5 years/23.5MM

Heyward - 8 years/184MM

 

There's a slight difference in trade value, yeah? 

[fathom]

36 minutes ago, bryank1202 said:

Sox should go after heyward and have the Cubs pitch 4-6 million a year in , he's still a great defender that  needs a change of scenery 

If the Cubs can’t fix his swing, I have no faith the Sox can

[Baron]

2 hours ago, TaylorStSox said:

My favorite part about Heyward is he's the textbook example of why defensive WAR is garbage when actually evaluating whether you want a player, especially a corner OF. You can make the case for a SS, CF or C, but even then I'm skeptical. 

Yeah...who likes saving runs? Dumb statistic. I prefer bad outfield with horrible defensive WAR. Makes the game much more fun. 

Edited December 24, 2018 by Baron

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, TaylorStSox said:

Eaton - 5 years/23.5MM

Heyward - 8 years/184MM

 

There's a slight difference in trade value, yeah? 

Now you're COMPLETELY changing the argument.   You argued that defensive "overemphasis" in the WAR numbers overvalues corner outfielders.

Somehow, the Cubs managed to win a World Series with Heyward, and the Royals with Gordon.  Lots of very smart (arguably better at their jobs than Hahn) GM's pursued both in Free Agency.  Wait, Rick Hahn was one of those guys chasing after Alex Gordon, wasn't he?

 

By the TaylorStSox Theory of Corner Outfield WAR, the White Sox are sitting on top of the biggest prospect goldmine in the history of the game.

All we have to do is simply convince the rest of MLB to overvalue Luis Gonzalez, Steele Walker and Chase Rutherford...because they each can play CF or a corner with "plus" level defense, making them all possible "Eaton/Heyward/Gordon Lites" and worth bundles to other teams.

I'll reserve lumping Adolfo (because his defense is mostly related to his arm/elbow, could end up at DH/1B), Basabe (because there are too many question marks about his OBP/offensive game still)...but you could certainly ARGUE for adding Basabe to the "Eaton Lite" group as well.

And that doesn't even count Jimenez and Robert (who will be traded over Hahn's dead body).

 

With four and possibly five "overvalued" minor league outfielders...the White Sox should be set up to be competitive for at least a decade with all the talent they're likely to get back on the trade market, right?

If we're just going to throw out totally subjective arguments (corner outfield fWAR/bWAR based more on defense than offense) without providing any type of analysis/rebuttal that's not an emotional/subjective/qualitative one, then you're going to have to eat this one.

Or we can just stop arguing about WAR and go back to Greg's preferred method of analyzing players that we've used for over a century.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

56 minutes ago, Baron said:

Yeah...who likes saving runs? Dumb statistic. I prefer bad outfield with horrible defensive WAR. Makes the game much more fun. 

What would be a team that this applies to, I can't really think of one off the top of my head...?   (TEAL)

Of course, when we DO produce a good defensive outfielder (Engel), he just so happens to be one of the very worst hitters in this particular generation (post-PEDs) of baseball players.

Edited December 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[Jack Parkman]

14 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

What would be a team that this applies to, I can't really think of one off the top of my head...?   (TEAL)

Of course, when we DO produce a good defensive outfielder (Engel), he just so happens to be one of the very worst hitters in this particular generation (post-PEDs) of baseball players.

Where's Mike Cameron when you need him? Can we get a Cameron clone please? 

[HoosierSox]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Where's Mike Cameron when you need him? Can we get a Cameron clone please? 

Luis Robert in 2020. 

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, HoosierSox said:

Luis Robert in 2020. 

One can only hope. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

5 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

How is Heyward past his prime?

He’s 29 freaking years old.  It’s not physical, it’s completely psychological with him.   

Carl Crawford was 30 when he was traded to the Dodgers.  That’s the better example, but there aren’t many that fit.

Prince Fielder was 29 when he was traded to the Rangers by DET.

 

5 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

4.7, 1.9, 5.3, 3.1, 4.7, 5.6

If we got that “prime” out of Moncada, the entire board would be doing cartwheels.

That was his age 21-26 seasons.

That’s over 25 fWAR.   I’m not sure all the White Sox position prospects from 2009-2018 have accomplished that collectively, if you take out Alexei and Abreu (since they never played in our minor league system).

Sometimes this is too easy, In the 1st post you argue Heyward isn't past his prime because he's only 29 years old.

2nd post you list his "prime" between his age 21-26 seasons which the stats clearly show using your own example.

[caulfield12]

54 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

 

Sometimes this is too easy, In the 1st post you argue Heyward isn't past his prime because he's only 29 years old.

2nd post you list his "prime" between his age 21-26 seasons which the stats clearly show using your own example.

So we should now expect players to peak at age 25 and 26, and decline at 27, 28 and 29?

Got it!!

The original argument was that he didn't even have a prime.   Historically, every baseball expert has "EXPECTED/PREDICTED" ages 27-28-29 to be the three prime years (on average) for the majority of MLB players.

Do you agree with that?  YES/NO?   (Answer one.)

Obviously, it's going to retroactively seem (looking back) that he peaked at age 25 or 26 since his game has been off for the last 3 years (comparatively)...but a GM who had previously won 3 World Series titles (well, 2.5 since almost all of the players were put there by Epstein) and the GM of the Cardinals were dumb to value Heyward highly?

If we look at Eaton, we would argue that he peaked at age 28, if we want to make a comparison.  Or Alex Gordon, at age 30.   So 29 certainly fits within that range.

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by caulfield12

[fathom]

I know there's a lot of skepticism with him, but Incarcerated Bob seems to be implying he might have some news on Harper tonight.  He also retweeted the sun-times article about how the WSox fans should be prepared for disappointment.  Bob has been pretty accurate with things so far this offseason.

[Chicago White Sox]

31 minutes ago, fathom said:

I know there's a lot of skepticism with him, but Incarcerated Bob seems to be implying he might have some news on Harper tonight.  He also retweeted the sun-times article about how the WSox fans should be prepared for disappointment.  Bob has been pretty accurate with things so far this offseason.

What has he been accurate with?

[TheTruth05]

55 minutes ago, fathom said:

I know there's a lot of skepticism with him, but Incarcerated Bob seems to be implying he might have some news on Harper tonight.  He also retweeted the sun-times article about how the WSox fans should be prepared for disappointment.  Bob has been pretty accurate with things so far this offseason.

That dude is a fraud

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

1 hour ago, fathom said:

I know there's a lot of skepticism with him, but Incarcerated Bob seems to be implying he might have some news on Harper tonight.  He also retweeted the sun-times article about how the WSox fans should be prepared for disappointment.  Bob has been pretty accurate with things so far this offseason.

I saw that. I have a feeling I'm going to go from a Sox fan that could care less from the Cub to a Sox fan that hates the Cubs. 

[Chicago White Sox]

7 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I saw that. I have a feeling I'm going to go from a Sox fan that could care less from the Cub to a Sox fan that hates the Cubs. 

What are you guys referring to?

[fathom]

7 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

I saw that. I have a feeling I'm going to go from a Sox fan that could care less from the Cub to a Sox fan that hates the Cubs. 

Even if they (Cubs) get Harper, that's not going to change much in terms of the relevancy of the Sox.  They're already about as irrelevant as possible in Chicago.  The only Sox fans remaining are likely not going to jump ship now, as they would have done that in 2016.

[macsandz]

Anyone that thinks there will be any movement on the elite FA front before mid January is either paying no attention to logic or completely gullible. 

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

What are you guys referring to?

Nothing in particular, just my gut. That random twitter account that no one really knows what to make of said he has big news regarding Harper: 

Obviously taken with a grain of salt (if he even deserves that). It's harder and harder to stay optimistic as this drags on. Just want all this crap to be over with! 

2 hours ago, fathom said:

Even if they (Cubs) get Harper, that's not going to change much in terms of the relevancy of the Sox.  They're already about as irrelevant as possible in Chicago.  The only Sox fans remaining are likely not going to jump ship now, as they would have done that in 2016.

I'll never jump ship. What I was getting at is how this offseason could potentially changed the Sox irrelevance. If the Cubs end up becoming a reason that doesn't happen - fuck them. So sick and tired of them being treated like the golden calf of Chicago. We deserve nice things too.

Edited December 24, 2018 by CWSpalehoseCWS

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

5 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

So we should now expect players to peak at age 25 and 26, and decline at 27, 28 and 29?

Got it!!

The original argument was that he didn't even have a prime.   Historically, every baseball expert has "EXPECTED/PREDICTED" ages 27-28-29 to be the three prime years (on average) for the majority of MLB players.

Do you agree with that?  YES/NO?   (Answer one.)

Obviously, it's going to retroactively seem (looking back) that he peaked at age 25 or 26 since his game has been off for the last 3 years (comparatively)...but a GM who had previously won 3 World Series titles (well, 2.5 since almost all of the players were put there by Epstein) and the GM of the Cardinals were dumb to value Heyward highly?

If we look at Eaton, we would argue that he peaked at age 28, if we want to make a comparison.  Or Alex Gordon, at age 30.   So 29 certainly fits within that range.

 

Hey I can't help what you said. It's there in black and white. Historical expected primes don't apply to today or to every player You can't argue about his age 29 season still being his prime when you then listed his prime from 21-26.  And actually I just looked it up and you were wrong about that too. It was his age 20-25 seasons from the WAR's you listed. It's now 3 subpar seasons (age 26 1.0 WAR age 27 1.0 , age 28 2.0 ) later and you're saying he's still in his prime when his 26- 28 seasons were not nearly as good as his other younger prime. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot now say his prime was age 20-29.

Based on his stats his prime was 20-25 .Since he's been with the Cubs he's got 4 WAR in 3 seasons. Yes Epstein made a huge mistake paying him that much . He contributed 1 WAR the year the Cubs won the World Series and most of that was with the glove since he was so bad hitting that year. Comparing him to other players matters not as each individual player has their own prime , I could say Bryce Harper's prime was certainly younger since his best 2 seasons were age 22 and 24.  We will just have to wait and see if he is still capable of putting up similar seasons from age 26 and beyond.

 

[caulfield12]

So then you're agreeing he had an "early" prime, or you agree that those numbers are largely irrelevant for corner outfielders who accrue most of their value defensively, especially RFers?

And your argument is that we can no longer assume a player's prime should extend to his age 27~29 seasons?

Or just not to Heyward...so what does that tell us about Bryant' s value?   

Shouldn't a player who gets most of his value offensively be more liable to fade defensively if he has peaked early from a physical standpoint?   If Heyward's floor is 1 as a defender, what's Harper's peak at 1B or DH?   And how could that possibly be worth $300+ million?

 

At any rate, it's a bifurcated argument.  Point 1 was whether Heyward ever had a prime.  Point 2 was the idea that it was for "over the hill" contracts, which FWD suggested.   So my response was that Heyward at age 29 should still be in his prime.  Athletically, that's true.  From an offensive standpoint, it's one of the biggest mysteries in the game.  The odds aren't great of recapturing his previous form, but the physical tools are still there after these past three years.  It would seem crazy to declare a hitter over the hill at 26, 27 or 28, because something else is going on beyond the normal aging curve.

Edited December 24, 2018 by caulfield12