Machado do-over

[Balta1701]

Just now, Thad Bosley said:

The White Sox have money to spend, too, and lots of it.  And they may be in an even more enviable position given they don't have any luxury tax implications to be concerned with.  

Yeah, but I can give you 220 million reasons why the White Sox won't be involved in that bidding even if they should be.

I said a couple weeks ago, my personal favorite fantasy for this offseason is to have them schedule a time at the winter meetings to make their presentation to Boras and Cole, they go through their wonderful professionally made video and all the meetings, Boras then asks for an offer, the White Sox hand him a freshly prepared offer for 5 years and $75 million and Boras, without missing a beat, immediately hands them back an already prepared bill for his time they just wasted that he brought to the meeting with them. 

[mqr]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This team was not going to have enough to compete this year even if they signed Machado and Harper. We knew that last offseason. We didn't know how this season would go, we didn't know Rodon would be the one who got hurt, we didn't how how much Eloy and Lopez would struggle, we didn't know Anderson and Giolito and McCann would break out, but there was zero chance of putting a competitive roster out there. There were just too many holes. 

 When we tried to put together competitive rosters at a $150 million price tag last offseason on here, on my list of things we needed to do was "Replace Giolito" because coming into this season there was no honest way you could count on him as even a #5 starter on a competitive team. 

Next offseason is different. Kopech, Madrigal, Robert, and hopefully Collins and Vaughn are coming. Cease is another year along the line. Hopefully Eloy is a breakout candidate. Maybe Lopez is pointing in the right direction. There are still holes, there are still decisions to make, it is still entirely possible that our GM will do what he usually does and we'll wind up with 75 wins on the year, but we should be in far better position on paper to make a turn in the right direction.

Yeah, unless harper or machado could throw 6 innings on a consistent basis, they weren't changing anything about 2019

[Thad Bosley]

31 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah, but I can give you 220 million reasons why the White Sox won't be involved in that bidding even if they should be.

I said a couple weeks ago, my personal favorite fantasy for this offseason is to have them schedule a time at the winter meetings to make their presentation to Boras and Cole, they go through their wonderful professionally made video and all the meetings, Boras then asks for an offer, the White Sox hand him a freshly prepared offer for 5 years and $75 million and Boras, without missing a beat, immediately hands them back an already prepared bill for his time they just wasted that he brought to the meeting with them. 

I think if you looked in the dictionary for the definition of the term a "fool's errand", it would be described as trying to think you could somehow be successful in signing a Scott Boras premium free agent for a below market amount.  It'll be interesting to see how, or even if, the Sox approach Cole this offseason.  

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Thad Bosley said:

I think if you looked in the dictionary for the definition of the term a "fool's errand", it would be described as trying to think you could somehow be successful in signing a Scott Boras premium free agent for a below market amount.  It'll be interesting to see how, or even if, the Sox approach Cole this offseason.  

Deep down I don't even think they'll make a pretend showing of it this year, they'll spend their time on a target like Bumgarner. One press report I believe from last offseason basically said that they didn't really speak to Boras at all after their time with Harper at the winter meetings, which tells you how they approached it - dramatically underbid, if at all. 

[ChiSox59]

52 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah, but I can give you 220 million reasons why the White Sox won't be involved in that bidding even if they should be.

I said a couple weeks ago, my personal favorite fantasy for this offseason is to have them schedule a time at the winter meetings to make their presentation to Boras and Cole, they go through their wonderful professionally made video and all the meetings, Boras then asks for an offer, the White Sox hand him a freshly prepared offer for 5 years and $75 million and Boras, without missing a beat, immediately hands them back an already prepared bill for his time they just wasted that he brought to the meeting with them. 

In other words - you basically find more enjoyment in the Sox failing than succeeding. 

[mqr]

7 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

In other words - you basically find more enjoyment in the Sox failing than succeeding. 

See, ole rick was on to something

Edited August 20, 2019 by mqr

[Greg Hibbard]

Full disclosure, I was convinced that the Sox should have pursued Machado and was very disappointed with what happened. However, after scrutinizing his numbers this season and last, I just don't really get why he's SO valued. I must be missing something.

I understand that at his position, his defense carries a lot of weight, but his offensive numbers have never seemed overwhelmingly good to me. And if defense doesn't really carry nearly as much value as offense does in terms of "wins", why is he so valuable?

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

5 minutes ago, Greg Hibbard said:

Full disclosure, I was convinced that the Sox should have pursued Machado and was very disappointed with what happened. However, after scrutinizing his numbers this season and last, I just don't really get why he's SO valued. I must be missing something.

I understand that at his position, his defense carries a lot of weight, but his offensive numbers have never seemed overwhelmingly good to me. And if defense doesn't really carry nearly as much value as offense does in terms of "wins", why is he so valuable?

Because he was only 26 years old and entering the prime of his career! Yet, he’s having one of the worst seasons of his career so maybe we’ve already witnessed the best version of Manny Machado (e.g., year before FA 2018 season).

Generally, I’m not a fan of giving hundreds of millions to a player with questionable character. And no, I’m not just talking about the bullshit stuff like laying a bat by a catcher’s feet on a pop up or attempting to throw a bat at a pitcher but not hustling in the freakin playoffs and then showing zero remorse afterwords is a huge red flag regarding an individual’s character.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Deep down I don't even think they'll make a pretend showing of it this year, they'll spend their time on a target like Bumgarner. One press report I believe from last offseason basically said that they didn't really speak to Boras at all after their time with Harper at the winter meetings, which tells you how they approached it - dramatically underbid, if at all. 

Bumgarner would be a great fit and pickup for the Sox.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

5 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Yup, with the Yankees and the Dodgers both having money to spend, he'll pass Price's mark. I'm not sure how much he'll pass it by, but if you are serious about signing Gerrit Cole the numbers you just wrote are the starting bid.

People just haven't accepted the reality about these Yankees. They don't overspend just to acquire guys. I find it hard to believe that Cole is expected to generate much more than 25 WAR over the 7 years, and most teams aren't going to pay much more than 220,000,000 for 25 WAR. 25 WAR is a really reasonable forecast for Cole. 

People thought 300 million was the starting rate for Manny and Harper and it wasn't. Pitchers contracts have not seen the same level of inflation as position players because pitchers have an extra level of risk tied to them. 

I'd say Cole gets 7/220. If it's much more than that I'd be shocked and I wouldn't be interested.

We'll never see another A-Rod like contract in baseball. I'm not claiming collusion but ownership very obviously wants to limit these big contract spikes beyond standard.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

People just haven't accepted the reality about these Yankees. They don't overspend just to acquire guys. I find it hard to believe that Cole is expected to generate much more than 25 WAR over the 7 years, and most teams aren't going to pay much more than 220,000,000 for 25 WAR. 25 WAR is a really reasonable forecast for Cole. 

People thought 300 million was the starting rate for Manny and Harper and it's just not. Pitchers contracts have not seen the same level of inflation as position players because pitchers have an extra level of risk tied to them. 

I'd say Cole gets 7/220. If it's much more than that I'd be shocked and I wouldn't be interested.

25 WAR on paper right now is worth something like $270 million on the free agent market. 

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

25 WAR on paper right now is worth something like $270 million on the free agent market. 

So Nova is worth $15-20M next year (and this year)? Assuming 1.5-2.0 WAR again next year. Yikes...

[BackDoorBreach]

17 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

People just haven't accepted the reality about these Yankees.

Yeah, Hal is not the same type of owner as his Dad.  I expect them to be in the mix because of need and them shedding some payroll but they don't overspend anymore.

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

So Nova is worth $15-20M next year (and this year)? Assuming 1.5-2.0 WAR again next year. Yikes...

Right now, for 2019 Fangraphs pegs him as having been worth $12.5 million, with 20% or so of the season remaining. Whether someone will actually pay that or not who knows...but back onto Cole, that's why it's notable that the Dodgers and Yankees are involved. They may not pay stupid money, but with those 2 teams involved, you won't be seeing a huge discount. 

[Jack Parkman]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Right now, for 2019 Fangraphs pegs him as having been worth $12.5 million, with 20% or so of the season remaining. Whether someone will actually pay that or not who knows...but back onto Cole, that's why it's notable that the Dodgers and Yankees are involved. They may not pay stupid money, but with those 2 teams involved, you won't be seeing a huge discount. 

It wouldn't shock me if the Cubs got involved on Cole as well. They have Hamels, Lester, and Quintana coming off the books over the next 2 seasons. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

25 WAR on paper right now is worth something like $270 million on the free agent market. 

According to what?

The WAR/dollar number used by fangraphs is high. Even if you to buy that number and say it is 9.5 million per WAR, you get 230ish million not 270. That number does not scale evenly below 2 WAR and above 5 WAR. If it did, trout would be signing for 80 million per year.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Right now, for 2019 Fangraphs pegs him as having been worth $12.5 million, with 20% or so of the season remaining. Whether someone will actually pay that or not who knows...but back onto Cole, that's why it's notable that the Dodgers and Yankees are involved. They may not pay stupid money, but with those 2 teams involved, you won't be seeing a huge discount. 

No big free agent is signing for a discounted rate. 

Manny and Bryce didn't sign for a discount. People need to do way with that thought process. Machado wouldn't have gotten 330 million if the Yankees and dodgers were involved. 

The Yankees and Dodgers are two of the most analytically driven organizations in baseball. They're not overpaying someone just to acquire them. If it goes over their value of the player they'll simply move on.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

According to what?

The WAR/dollar number used by fangraphs is high. Even if you to by that number and say it is 9.5 million per WAR, you get 230ish million not 270. That number does not scale evenly below 2 WAR and above 5 WAR. If it did, trout would be signing for 80 million per year.

1. The Free Agent dollars per fWAR crossed over $10 million before 2017, I don't have precise 2018 numbers but baseball salaries have remained flat for about the last 3 years so I used the 2017 estimate of $10.7 million. Your $9.5 million is a discount. 

2. That is never how MLB contracts work and you should understand that. A team could sign a guy to a 1-2 year deal and offer them $50 million for each of those years, and it might make sense for the player to take it, but the team doesn't want that. Teams sign guys to contracts that are 7+ years long because it allows them to spread out the risk: the player is likely to have seasons at the back end where he is not worth the money, but is also likely to have seasons at the front end where he's underpaid. During those years at the front end, you can then take the extra money and use it to sign other players, hopefully enough to put you over the top for a world series. No one signs guys at age 28 because of what they'll do at age 35; they are getting paid at age 35 so that the team can spread out the risk.

3. Had Mike Trout hit the free agent market I have literally no idea what he would get. I would guess that he would have topped $500 million, assuming he stayed healthy up until that. It might well have gone higher. 

[GermanSoxFan]

The $/WAR number isn‘t a valuation of what one win should be worth on the open market, but rather what one win ended up costing. That‘s an important distinction that includes every FA signing that bombed.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1. The Free Agent dollars per fWAR crossed over $10 million before 2017, I don't have precise 2018 numbers but baseball salaries have remained flat for about the last 3 years so I used the 2017 estimate of $10.7 million. Your $9.5 million is a discount. 

2. That is never how MLB contracts work and you should understand that. A team could sign a guy to a 1-2 year deal and offer them $50 million for each of those years, and it might make sense for the player to take it, but the team doesn't want that. Teams sign guys to contracts that are 7+ years long because it allows them to spread out the risk: the player is likely to have seasons at the back end where he is not worth the money, but is also likely to have seasons at the front end where he's underpaid. During those years at the front end, you can then take the extra money and use it to sign other players, hopefully enough to put you over the top for a world series. No one signs guys at age 28 because of what they'll do at age 35; they are getting paid at age 35 so that the team can spread out the risk.

3. Had Mike Trout hit the free agent market I have literally no idea what he would get. I would guess that he would have topped $500 million, assuming he stayed healthy up until that. It might well have gone higher. 

As I said youre using a horribly efficient number to asses Coles contract number. A number, that if anywhere near accurate or believed by teams would be leading to much larger contracts for free agents than is currently taking place. 6 WAR players aren't betting 60/million a year salaries (even on short terms).

As you scale the system up, the cost per WAR gets lower. As you scale the system down, the per WAR cost gets lower. A 3 WAR player doesn't earn 30 million on the FA market. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, GermanSoxFan said:

The $/WAR number isn‘t a valuation of what one win should be worth on the open market, but rather what one win ended up costing. That‘s an important distinction that includes every FA signing that bombed.

Yes. This. 

[Balta1701]

45 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

As I said youre using a horribly efficient number to asses Coles contract number. A number, that if anywhere near accurate or believed by teams would be leading to much larger contracts for free agents than is currently taking place. 6 WAR players aren't betting 60/million a year salaries (even on short terms).

As you scale the system up, the cost per WAR gets lower. As you scale the system down, the per WAR cost gets lower. A 3 WAR player doesn't earn 30 million on the FA market. 

No they're not. Instead they're signing them to 5 year, $150 million deals or 10 year, $300 million deals - betting on there being 6 win seasons somewhere in the early years and then dropoffs in the later years. You are letting the length of the contract fool you; the teams do that as a hedge against risk and also because if a player has some longevity it makes the deal more friendly to the team, as we've seen with pitchers like Greinke in recent years.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

16 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

No they're not. Instead they're signing them to 5 year, $150 million deals or 10 year, $300 million deals - betting on there being 6 win seasons somewhere in the early years and then dropoffs in the later years. You are letting the length of the contract fool you; the teams do that as a hedge against risk and also because if a player has some longevity it makes the deal more friendly to the team, as we've seen with pitchers like Greinke in recent years.

Here is someone explaining better than I.

https://community.fangraphs.com/on-war-its-linearity-and-efficient-free-agent-contracts/

[Moan4Yoan]

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Yeah, but I can give you 220 million reasons why the White Sox won't be involved in that bidding even if they should be.

I said a couple weeks ago, my personal favorite fantasy for this offseason is to have them schedule a time at the winter meetings to make their presentation to Boras and Cole, they go through their wonderful professionally made video and all the meetings, Boras then asks for an offer, the White Sox hand him a freshly prepared offer for 5 years and $75 million and Boras, without missing a beat, immediately hands them back an already prepared bill for his time they just wasted that he brought to the meeting with them. 

But what about the chance for Cole to earn an additional $50 million in incentives if he pitches 200+ innings at ages 34 and 35?

[poppysox]

11 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I would guess he lands the biggest pitching contract ever which puts him around 7 years 220 million. I would be incredibly hesitant to give Gerrit Cole 7 years and 220 million. Pitching is aging better and he's been durable so I'd consider it, but I would not go north of 7/220 even a single penny.

Rich for my blood.