Joc Pederson: ??​​​​​​​?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

I want Pederson if for no other reason than to not have to watch Adam Engel every night. He drives me crazy.

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I think that's fair a fair take.  I see it both ways.  To be fair, I said if the price isn't that high.  If the Sox are acquiring Joc without MM, I think the value I'd be willing to give up would be slightly less. In any event, I don't think anyone is giving up much of anything for Joc with the FA market still flush with options.

Who?  Pollock, no way.  CarGo, Adam Jones And Marwin Gonzalez?   No CFers there.

[ChiSox59]

Just now, caulfield12 said:

Who?  Pollock, no way.  CarGo, Adam Jones And Marwin Gonzalez?   No CFers there.

I said anyone.  As in, no other teams are going to be bowling LAD over for Joc either.  I wasn't referring to only the Sox.  If you can get Joc for something like Bummer + Lambert or Stephens, I am doing it all day everyday, regardless of Machado.  I would prefer to hold onto lottery tickets like Fulmer and Bush, personally.  

[Stealth G.O.A.T.]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Just to stress, I did not say that in 2018 his offense was wiped out by his defense, I said the exact opposite - that in 2018 his weak defense was wiped out by his decent offense, which is true but which I guess the words did not come across here.

You are correct. I read through it and misinterpreted. My apologies on that.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Stealth G.O.A.T.

[he gone.]

6 minutes ago, Lillian said:

If it takes this rebuild until 2023 - 2024 to produce a contender, then I would have to agree that it has failed.

Depends on what you, yourself, consider a contender. I think I'm in the minority that making the playoffs and being a TRUE contender for a ring are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that making the playoffs means you have a legit shot of winning it all, then I think it's realistic starting in 2021/2022.

I just think there's a difference between making the playoffs with a young roster (particularly pitching) and coming out the other side with a ring.

[BigSexy23]

Did anyone else notice Joc doesn't strike out that much for a power bat?

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I said anyone.  As in, no other teams are going to be bowling LAD over for Joc either.  I wasn't referring to only the Sox.  If you can get Joc for something like Bummer + Lambert or Stephens, I am doing it all day everyday, regardless of Machado.  I would prefer to hold onto lottery tickets like Fulmer and Bush, personally.  

LAD would hang up the phone and laugh.  Just offering 3 or even 4-5 guys like that doesn’t do anything for a win the WS or bust team like the Dodgers, unless they can be envisioned as high leverage relievers.

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

1 minute ago, BrianAnderson said:

Depends on what you, yourself, consider a contender. I think I'm in the minority that making the playoffs and being a TRUE contender for a ring are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that making the playoffs means you have a legit shot of winning it all, then I think it's realistic starting in 2021/2022.

I just think there's a difference between making the playoffs with a young roster (particularly pitching) and coming out the other side with a ring.

Yeah there's def. a difference.. No one was worried about the Twins when they made it a few years ago.  There are teams EVERY year that make it that you know aren't going anywhere.  The A's last year also come to mind immediately.

[Lillian]

What if the Dodgers are really trying to clear an OF spot for Harper, and the Pollock talk is just a ploy to throw off the Phillies? I doubt that they would be that determined to trade Pederson, in order to sign Pollock. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Lillian

[ChiSox59]

Just now, caulfield12 said:

LAD would hang up the phone and laugh.  Just offering 3 or even 4-5 guys like that doesn’t do anything for a win the WS or bust team like the Dodgers, unless they can be envisioned as high leverage relievers.

I agree, LAD probably doesn't take that deal.  But they seem motivated to move Joc.  They want to add Pollock and need to move someone. IMO, the whole Joc move makes so much more sense as a LAD salary dump with Hill tied to the deal with minimal return from the Sox, but seems cold water has been thrown on that idea from those in the know.   

[bmags]

The As may not win 97 but they have some really awesome prospects coming up and some that already arrived. They also have a payroll this year 13 million less than ours but will almost certainly destroy us in the standings. For some reason they don't feel the need to add herrerras, colomes and nova, which may combine for like 2 WAR, for 23 million. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, BrianAnderson said:

Depends on what you, yourself, consider a contender. I think I'm in the minority that making the playoffs and being a TRUE contender for a ring are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that making the playoffs means you have a legit shot of winning it all, then I think it's realistic starting in 2021/2022.

I just think there's a difference between making the playoffs with a young roster (particularly pitching) and coming out the other side with a ring.

I'm conflicted on this. A few years ago, you could legitimately say that you just needed to make the playoffs - remember the Royals and Giants world series where they were both wild card teams.

It seems like the past 3-4 years we have entered a new era. The Royals were clearly one of the best teams league wide in 2015. In 2016 the Cubs were a superteam. In 2017 the Astros were a superteam. In 2018 the Red Sox were a superteam. The Dodgers and Indians, when they lost those world series - both of them have been 100 win superteams in the last 3 years.

It seems like there's been a shift the last 3-4 years. You used to be able to think you had a chance as a wild card team. Now? You come in as a wild card team, even as a hot one...and you hit one of these 100 win team buzzsaws, and you are simply outgunned. 

If anyone feels like that is changing this year, please say why, but it looks to me like if you want to have a legitimate chance to win a world series you need a roster that is loaded. You need a roster that's going to win 98 games on its own and then you need to have the ammunition to go out at the trade deadline and make yourself even better, otherwise you're going to hit some team that did. The Yankees, Astros, maybe a couple others, they sure look like they're going to win 100 games this year and if you go into a wild card or divisional series against them with an 88 win team that snuck through with a wild card win, you will be going home. 

Following that logic - when I think my team is capable of winning 95+ games, hopefully 2021, I also need to have a ton of extra talent that I can trade, hence why I don't want to give it up now for minor upgrades. 

[OmarComing25]

32 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

We'll never find common ground on this, which is fine. My stance continues to be 9 of 10 times this isn't true. The Braves, Rockies, and Brewers had a very SLIM shot this year of winning it all. I understand this isn't the NBA, but even the perfect year for the Brewers... and let's say for fun they beat the Dodgers... they were not getting through the Red Sox gauntlet. That team was TIRED. Offense was fine.. the pitching was taxed.

 

Odds entering playoffs in 2018 in Vegas pretty much mirror my thoughts.

• Los Angeles Dodgers: 9/2
• Cleveland Indians: 8/1
• Houston Astros: 7/2
• New York Yankees: 7/1
• Boston Red Sox: 3/1
• Milwaukee Brewers: 7/1
• Colorado Rockies: 10/1
• Atlanta Braves: 12/1

I'm not sure how those odds mirror your thoughts. The Brewers had the same odds as the Yankees. 7 to 1 or 10 to 1 aren't very slim odds considering the playoffs feature 8 teams after the wild card games and that the odds are supposed to be slightly unfavorable to give the house an advantage. Even 12 to 1 isn't that crazy.

Edited January 23, 2019 by OmarComing25

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, cjgalloway said:

Yeah there's def. a difference.. No one was worried about the Twins when they made it a few years ago.  There are teams EVERY year that make it that you know aren't going anywhere.  The A's last year also come to mind immediately.

What? The A's won 97 games. 

Not only that but every single team that makes the playoffs has a decent g shot of winning. Its absurd to say you can contend for a division for years but not the World Series. 

The favorite wins in baseball less than pretty much every other sport (Hockey is similar). 

If the Sox are competing for the division then they're competing for a title. It's that simple. At most you're a +250ish underdog for a series - which equates to about a 28% of winning the series. That's far from a zero chance possibility. It's easy to say the A's had zero chance now that it's over, but if you really thought that you should have taking out a loan against your net worth and bet it all on the field vs the A's. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I'm conflicted on this. A few years ago, you could legitimately say that you just needed to make the playoffs - remember the Royals and Giants world series where they were both wild card teams.

It seems like the past 3-4 years we have entered a new era. The Royals were clearly one of the best teams league wide in 2015. In 2016 the Cubs were a superteam. In 2017 the Astros were a superteam. In 2018 the Red Sox were a superteam. The Dodgers and Indians, when they lost those world series - both of them have been 100 win superteams in the last 3 years.

It seems like there's been a shift the last 3-4 years. You used to be able to think you had a chance as a wild card team. Now? You come in as a wild card team, even as a hot one...and you hit one of these 100 win team buzzsaws, and you are simply outgunned. 

If anyone feels like that is changing this year, please say why, but it looks to me like if you want to have a legitimate chance to win a world series you need a roster that is loaded. You need a roster that's going to win 98 games on its own and then you need to have the ammunition to go out at the trade deadline and make yourself even better, otherwise you're going to hit some team that did. The Yankees, Astros, maybe a couple others, they sure look like they're going to win 100 games this year and if you go into a wild card or divisional series against them with an 88 win team that snuck through with a wild card win, you will be going home. 

Following that logic - when I think my team is capable of winning 95+ games, hopefully 2021, I also need to have a ton of extra talent that I can trade, hence why I don't want to give it up now for minor upgrades. 

Come on... how are the Cubs a Superteam? The Dodgers too? What? They havent won anything. The Red Sox were a Super Team too? I think you're getting a bit carried away with the term. 

The reason there were more 95+ win teams is because the bottom of the league has been so bad due to the rebuild trend. The Red Sox would barely have been favored vs a team in their own division. They would have been even vs the Astros. There's nothing super about the teams, they're just good baseball teams.

The speaking in absolutes around here for a baseball playoff series is horribly misguided. As I noted above, at most you're about 3-1 to win the series; that's hardly a zero chance outcome. Nothing has changed in the past 3 or 4 years. It's still the same game that a 100 loss team could win a 7 game series vs a 100 win team because baseball is a funny game with small margins for error that gives anyone a chance in a small sample setting.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Balta1701]

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Come on... how are the Cubs a Superteam? The Dodgers too? What? They havent won anything. The Red Sox were a Super Team too? I think you're getting a bit carried away with the term. 

The reason there were more 95+ win teams is because the bottom of the league has been so bad due to the rebuild trend. The Red Sox would barely have been favored vs a team in their own division. They would have been even vs the Astros. There's nothing super about the teams, they're just good baseball teams.

The speaking in absolutes around here for a baseball playoff series is horribly misguided. As I noted above, at most you're about 3-1 to win the series; that's hardly a zero chance outcome.

That Cubs team won 102 games. The Indians came off their world series appearance and won 100 games the next year. The Dodgers Astros World Series had what, 205 wins between them? The Red Sox won 108 games. These teams are on a completely different level from the champions we saw half a decade ago. 

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

If it's contingent on trading Pederson, why would a Pederson trade come after? But before or after, he's bound to be right.

I’m not sure that guy understands what the word contingent means.

[mqr]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Nothing has changed in the past 3 or 4 years. It's still the same game that a 100 loss team could win a 7 game series vs a 100 win team because baseball is a funny game with small margins for error that gives anyone a chance in a small sample setting.

Friendly reminder that the White Sox functionally beat the Astros in a 7 game series in 2017 and the Red Sox in 18

[mqr]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

That Cubs team won 102 games. The Indians came off their world series appearance and won 100 games the next year. The Dodgers Astros World Series had what, 205 wins between them? The Red Sox won 108 games. These teams are on a completely different level from the champions we saw half a decade ago. 

Those win totals are in large part because the bottom of the league is historically bad. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

That Cubs team won 102 games. The Indians came off their world series appearance and won 100 games the next year. The Dodgers Astros World Series had what, 205 wins between them? The Red Sox won 108 games. These teams are on a completely different level from the champions we saw half a decade ago. 

No they arent. As I said, wins have been inflated by the bottom of the league. The A's won 97 games. The difference between 97 wins and 100 wins is equal to about 5 plays in a season. Were the A's a super team or is the fictitious 100 win mark the barometer you go by?

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

Question wasn't for me, but I'll answer my own opinion.

Contending for division -- as early as 2020, but realistically 2021 or 2022.

Contending for a pennant -- as early as 2021, but realistically 2022 or 2023.

Contending for a WS -- as early as 2022, but realistically 2023 - 2024.

Obviously many, many moves can be made that change that timeline. Also development of our younger guys play an important role of moving this up or back.

General feeling this: Kopech, Cease, Dunning, etc. have talent, but like any other rookie pitchers or batters will have their flashes of greatness and learning experiences. They will also have to build up innings and not fizzle as the year wears on. Then build up playoff experience. To me, 2020 is the learning experience, 2021 is putting it together, but when your arms fizzle down the end (think of Braves this year or Astros on their first year of making playoffs). 2022 is when you probably have expectations of winning an ALDS and where I'd be disappointed if we didn't. 2023 is when I start having WS expectations if all goes to plan. Again, this all can shift up a year or back a year based on injuries and setbacks. AKA -- kopech loses a year... if dunning ends up losing a year this year .... burdi losing a year ... adolfo losing half a year .... Robert losing half a year .... Hansen losing his control and prospect status .... fulmer being a bust ..... burger losing almost 2 years... This list will continue to grow. Maybe losing out on Macahdo and Harper.. etc. etc. etc.

 

A successful (AND REALISITIC) rebuild (IN MY OPINION) would be this:

2019: Acquire Machado to 8-9 year contract ... I actually want him at ages 34/35. I think he's a pure bat ala Beltre, Pujols, MIggy. Don't think ages 34/35 will blow you away, but think he'll still be good. Acquire major league talent on a 2-3 year basis that pushes the young guys. learning experiences, no major injuries, giolito takes a nice step forward. lopez continues to progress. Get a good, healthy year out of Rodon to where we either extend or trade him. Moncada takes a giant step forward to being a fringe all-star each year. 77 wins and competitive through the whole year.

2020: Bring up Madrigal. Have one of our OF prospects force the issue and be up by June. Cease up. Kopech back. Have our top prospects learn at the MLB level. 82-85 wins. Be in the hunt through August.

2021: Build build build upon the last year. bring in TOP TALENT supplemental FA to fill holes of prospects that didn't pan out. spend spend spend. 90-94 wins. Win the division. win 1-2 playoff games

2022: Build upon the last year. no slump after making the postseason. 90-95 wins. Win ALDS series. compete in ALCS .. winning at least 2 games.

2023-2025: Make or win the World Series or Bust.

 

 

So you're saying you want to add Mike Trout? He'll be the top free agent in 2021.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No they arent. As I said, wins have been inflated by the bottom of the league. The A's won 97 games. The difference between 97 wins and 100 wins is equal to about 5 plays in a season. Were the A's a super team or is the fictitious 100 win mark the barometer you go by?

I think the A's were a quite good team that was like a historic division winner. Their pythagorean record was 95 wins. The Astros last year was 109 wins and the Red Sox's was 103. The Dodgers' was 102. This is a new thing in baseball, these teams that are this far ahead of what used to be good enough to win a division, and a couple of them every year.

[OmarComing25]

I wouldn't call the Indians in 2016 a super team, they had their #2 and #3 SP injured in the playoffs and had to rely heavily on Josh freaking Tomlin to get within one win of winning the World Series. They went the farthest of any Indians playoff team in the past few years but that version was easily the worst of them due to injuries. Kind of like how the worst team of the 2008-2012 Phillies did the best in the playoffs.

Edited January 23, 2019 by OmarComing25

[he gone.]

24 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I'm conflicted on this. A few years ago, you could legitimately say that you just needed to make the playoffs - remember the Royals and Giants world series where they were both wild card teams.

It seems like the past 3-4 years we have entered a new era. The Royals were clearly one of the best teams league wide in 2015. In 2016 the Cubs were a superteam. In 2017 the Astros were a superteam. In 2018 the Red Sox were a superteam. The Dodgers and Indians, when they lost those world series - both of them have been 100 win superteams in the last 3 years.

It seems like there's been a shift the last 3-4 years. You used to be able to think you had a chance as a wild card team. Now? You come in as a wild card team, even as a hot one...and you hit one of these 100 win team buzzsaws, and you are simply outgunned. 

If anyone feels like that is changing this year, please say why, but it looks to me like if you want to have a legitimate chance to win a world series you need a roster that is loaded. You need a roster that's going to win 98 games on its own and then you need to have the ammunition to go out at the trade deadline and make yourself even better, otherwise you're going to hit some team that did. The Yankees, Astros, maybe a couple others, they sure look like they're going to win 100 games this year and if you go into a wild card or divisional series against them with an 88 win team that snuck through with a wild card win, you will be going home. 

Following that logic - when I think my team is capable of winning 95+ games, hopefully 2021, I also need to have a ton of extra talent that I can trade, hence why I don't want to give it up now for minor upgrades. 

This is a very good take. I guess I didn't consider the past as much as I should have. I think the change may have to do with the newer "tanking" method as well. more and more teams are copying the tanking method of the cubs and Astros of past which is allowing more talented players to be available. Then the top teams acquire those guys creating super teams. Who knows how long that goes on for... pendulum always swings. So maybe by 2022 you do have a Royals/Giants or 83 win cardinals situation on your hands again.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, OmarComing25 said:

I wouldn't call the Indians in 2016 a super team, they had their #2 and #3 SP injured in the playoffs and had to rely heavily on Josh freaking Tomlin to get within one win of winning the World Series. They went the farthest of any Indians playoff team in the past few years but that version was easily the worst of them due to injuries. Kind of like how the worst team of the 2008-2012 Phillies did the best in the playoffs.

And then the next year they went out with a roster that was only slightly upgraded and won 102 games. That team was a force. They were weaker in 2018 because their bullpen collapsed, but they're still a roster comparable to a normal division winner.