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

[mqr]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

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. 

...and lost in the ALDS to a team that they were 11 wins better than.

Edited January 23, 2019 by mqr

[OmarComing25]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

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. 

I'm just talking about the 2016 playoff iteration of the Indians though. That version of the team was hardly a force. They weren't any better than Oakland last year.

[he gone.]

27 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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. 

Answer this question objectively then. You are given $100 entering the 2018 MLB playoffs. Who do you put your money on at the Vegas odds. You can select three bets. Try and not let what happened effect your decision.

 

I'd take $50 on the Yankees at 7/1 cause of that bullpen

I would have taken $25 on the Indians at 8/1 based on their starting rotation and ability to have shutdown games + Ramirez/Lindor offense potential + playoff experience

And Dodgers for $25  at 9/2 because I didn't trust the other teams in the NL.

 

I would have lost my money obviously, but I also would have never considered the A's, Rockies, Braves, or Brewers at those odds.

[Balta1701]

 

Just now, OmarComing25 said:

I'm just talking about the 2016 playoff iteration of the Indians though. That version of the team was hardly a force. They weren't any better than Oakland last year.

Well yes, the playoff roster specifically was definitely weaker than the roster during the season or the one they put on the field the next season, because as you note their starting pitchers had all gotten hurt, and they were still good enough to push the Cubs to 7+ games. 

[he gone.]

which is not to say there is absolutely no chance they win. I am saying that it was highly unlikely they could win a 5 game series, then a 7 game series ... then another 7 game series.

There's a difference between Trevor Cahill, Wade Miley, and Anibal Sanchez going head to head for one game and winning and consistently doing it on the big stage against a Chris Sale or going against Mookie Betts or Astros lineup.

Again my opinion. I'd just say those 4 teams had a less than 10% chance combined to win the WS against the participants last year.

[OmarComing25]

7 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

which is not to say there is absolutely no chance they win. I am saying that it was highly unlikely they could win a 5 game series, then a 7 game series ... then another 7 game series.

There's a difference between Trevor Cahill, Wade Miley, and Anibal Sanchez going head to head for one game and winning and consistently doing it on the big stage against a Chris Sale or going against Mookie Betts or Astros lineup.

Again my opinion. I'd just say those 4 teams had a less than 10% chance combined to win the WS against the participants last year.

Wade Miley actually pitched a lot better than Sale in the 2018 playoffs.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

10 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

Answer this question objectively then. You are given $100 entering the 2018 MLB playoffs. Who do you put your money on at the Vegas odds. You can select three bets. Try and not let what happened effect your decision.

 

I'd take $50 on the Yankees at 7/1 cause of that bullpen

I would have taken $25 on the Indians at 8/1 based on their starting rotation and ability to have shutdown games + Ramirez/Lindor offense potential + playoff experience

And Dodgers for $25  at 9/2 because I didn't trust the other teams in the NL.

 

I would have lost my money obviously, but I also would have never considered the A's, Rockies, Braves, or Brewers at those odds.

None of this is relevant. You said they had zero chance and that's statistically false. 

You said they would compete for a division but not the World Series. That makes zero sense and is simply wrong. If you're competing for your division then you're a contender to win it all. 

If the A's were 100-1, I'd have been all in on the A's. You are saying they could be 100000-1 and it wouldnt matter because they have zero chance of winning which is simply wrong. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

12 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

which is not to say there is absolutely no chance they win. I am saying that it was highly unlikely they could win a 5 game series, then a 7 game series ... then another 7 game series.

There's a difference between Trevor Cahill, Wade Miley, and Anibal Sanchez going head to head for one game and winning and consistently doing it on the big stage against a Chris Sale or going against Mookie Betts or Astros lineup.

Again my opinion. I'd just say those 4 teams had a less than 10% chance combined to win the WS against the participants last year.

Well your fictitious percentage is exactly that. Those four teams made up 40% of the playoff participants. For them to have less than a 10% chance, combined, to win (when they weren't facing each other too), would mean they all had less than a 8% chance of winning their one series vs other "super teams" which is simply wrong.

I'll tell you what. This year you give me the four teams that have zero chance of winning, and give me 10-1 on all of those teams, and I'll take it for any amount.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[he gone.]

8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

None of this is relevant. You said they had zero chance and that's statistically false. 

You said they would compete for a division but not the World Series. That makes zero sense and is simply wrong. If you're competing for your division then you're a contender to win it all. 

If the A's were 100-1, I'd have been all in on the A's. You are saying they could be 100000-1 and it wouldnt matter because they have zero chance of winning which is simply wrong. 

You like speaking absolutes a whole lot. I just said those 4 teams, in my opinion had less than a 10% chance of winning. I also said earlier that it was a slim chance a team would win.

[he gone.]

7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Well your fictitious percentage is exactly that. Those four teams made up 40% of the playoff participants. For them to have less than a 10% chance, combined, to win (when they weren't facing each other too), would mean they all had less than a 8% chance of winning their one series vs other "super teams" which is simply wrong.

I'll tell you what. This year you give me the four teams that have zero chance of winning, and give me 10-1 on all of those teams, and I'll take it for any amount.

I hope your day job isn't being a lawyer. You're bad at proving your points. Find me where I said there was absolutely no chance of teams winning...

And sold. I'll will 100% do that deal with you. $100 on any 4 teams of my choice into the playoffs. I'll save this post.

[Wisebri224]

What exactly does this banter have to do with Joc? Maybe I missed it a few pages ago:).

[he gone.]

1 minute ago, Wisebri224 said:

What exactly does this banter have to do with Joc? Maybe I missed it a few pages ago:).

Boredom.

[OmarComing25]

28 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

 

Well yes, the playoff roster specifically was definitely weaker than the roster during the season or the one they put on the field the next season, because as you note their starting pitchers had all gotten hurt, and they were still good enough to push the Cubs to 7+ games. 

That is my point. Their playoff roster was far from being a super team yet they still came within a couple plays of winning the World Series.

Edited January 23, 2019 by OmarComing25

[Soxbadger]

11 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

I hope your day job isn't being a lawyer. You're bad at proving your points. Find me where I said there was absolutely no chance of teams winning...

And sold. I'll will 100% do that deal with you. $100 on any 4 teams of my choice into the playoffs. I'll save this post.

Orioles, Marlins, Padres.

You can pick the last one

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

7 hours 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.

 

 

I like it except for the fact next off season is a good year for a big starting pitcher FA purchase. I think just like Machado is a key so is a whale starting pitcher as you said because of Kopech Cease and Dunning all being early in their careers.

Contrary to popular belief I think there's an outside chance at contending in 2020. But that does have lots of variable as you suggested and I'm open to seeing if those variables turn out well.

The main guy that I have been having opposing opinions with regarding Pederson said if have we have to wait til 2021 to contend the rebuild is a failure because the earlier prospects will be in their arbitration years. I don't know why anyone would think that . If getting Pederson means the rebuild is doomed unless we contend before 2021 I have a major argument with that kind of thinking.

Edited January 23, 2019 by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

17 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

I hope your day job isn't being a lawyer. You're bad at proving your points. Find me where I said there was absolutely no chance of teams winning...

And sold. I'll will 100% do that deal with you. $100 on any 4 teams of my choice into the playoffs. I'll save this post.

What? Bad at proving what? I broke down the math for you to show you how absurd it is to say those 4 teams had less than a 10% chance of winning the world series combined. Its simply inaccurate. The market will tell you that with the prices set. 

40% of participants did not have a 10% chance of winning. Even if you thought they were much worse than the remaining 60%, their odds would still come in at about 25% if their price was +300 in every series. Given that the A's were about -110 in their first series, that already negates the +300 requirement.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

I like it except for the fact next off season is a good year for a big starting pitcher FA purchase. I think just like Machado is a key so is a whale starting pitcher as you said because of Kopech Cease and Dunning all being early in their careers.

Popular to popular belief I think their an outside chance at contending in 2020. But that does have lots of variable as you suggested and I'm open to seeing if those variables turn out well.

The main guy that I have been having opposing opinions with regarding Pederson said if have we have to wait til 2021 to contend the rebuild is a failure because the earlier prospects will be in their arbitration years. I don't know why anyone would think that . If getting Pederson means the rebuild is doomed unless we contend before 2021 I have a major argument with that kind of thinking.

A rebuild in which you traded mlb stars for MLB ready prospect would be a complete failure if it takes 5 years to even be competitive. Arguing otherwise completely ignores the assets that were moved and acquired to kick off the rebuild. 

[TomPickle]

I sure am glad this off season has dragged to the point where every thread becomes a debate on whether or not it is worth it for the White Sox to try to not be bad on purpose for the next two seasons.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

2 hours 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. Our best young core is arguably Moncada, Jimenez, Robert, Madrigal, Kopech, Lopez, Cease, Dunning, Anderson, Collins and whomever they select with the #3 pick, in this year's Draft. It is too early to assume anything, but it is being projected that they will take Andrew Vaughn. Here are the ages, for those players, in 2023:

Moncada  28

Jimenez  27

Robert.  26

Madrigal. 26

Kopech  27

Lopez. 29

Cease   28

Dunning  29

Anderson  30

Collins  28

Vaughn. 25

Those guys should have established what kind of players they are going to be, earlier than those ages. There are very few outstanding prospects, in the organization, who are younger than these players, so it is likely that the rebuild will depend heavily on this core. The other names, such as Burdi, Rutherford, Basabe, Adolfo and Hansen are all in this same age group. Again, if they haven't figured it out until they are that old, then at least this phase of the rebuild will have indeed failed. We would be looking at guys approaching arbitration and would have to depend upon a whole new crop of prospects, or be prepared to spend some big money. 

I'll take a World Series win next year or in 5 years. If that happens I'd have to say the rebuild was a success, Beats waiting another 88 years.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

28 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

A rebuild in which you traded mlb stars for MLB ready prospect would be a complete failure if it takes 5 years to even be competitive. Arguing otherwise completely ignores the assets that were moved and acquired to kick off the rebuild. 

So if we are in the World Series in 2021 the rebuild is a failure ? How bout if we win it in 2022 or 2023 ?

[Chicago White Sox]

Anyone want to make predictions of what a deal for Joc might look like?

IMO, Jace Fry would be a fair cost and something that both sides might be open to.  Bummer/Bush does seem light from the Dodgers perspective.

[ChiSox59]

10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Anyone want to make predictions of what a deal for Joc might look like?

IMO, Jace Fry would be a fair cost and something that both sides might be open to.  Bummer/Bush does seem light from the Dodgers perspective.

We have any INTL dollars left to spend in this period?  Dodgers have been mentioned with this Yolbert Sanchez guy.  I'd love to include some of that to offset the prospect cost.  

[Eminor3rd]

12 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Anyone want to make predictions of what a deal for Joc might look like?

IMO, Jace Fry would be a fair cost and something that both sides might be open to.  Bummer/Bush does seem light from the Dodgers perspective.

I think it’s gonna be more than that. Just because there appear to be several teams involved, and you gotta beat all the bids you would feel good about to be the winner. 

[Eminor3rd]

1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

We have any INTL dollars left to spend in this period?  Dodgers have been mentioned with this Yolbert Sanchez guy.  I'd love to include some of that to offset the prospect cost.  

We are still in the penalty box and traded all our cash. Orioles are gonna end up with Sanchez because they traded for a ton of money after all the good guys signed. Marlins blew theirs on Victor Victor. I think there might be one other team that still has a good chunk left, but orioles have the most. 

[Jose Abreu]

1 minute ago, Eminor3rd said:

I think it’s gonna be more than that. Just because there appear to be several teams involved, and you gotta beat all the bids you would feel good about to be the winner. 

At some point, if our goal is to shore up CF until Robert is ready, it would just make more sense to sign Pollock for 2 years