Blake Snell and Yu Darvish traded to San Diego

[bmags]

The pitching story of the last five years has been the continued dominance of our star pitchers into their 30s. Greinke, Scherzer, Verlander, Lester.

Darvish also has a good chance of being able to switching up his repertoire if his stuff changes.

Hes a really good pitcher and his contract is fine.

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, tray said:

Stats don't tell the whole story about these players. There is a lot more to player and trade evaluation, as you know. 

If Darvish  goes on the DL for an extended time or has another year like he had in 2018,  Ricketts and Hoyer will feel vindicated for that trade, even though they may have gotten zilcho (other than debt relief)  in return.   You just never know but age is something that is always  major factor for major league players. 

Of course, I am one that did not like trading Dunning . It is not that I did not want starting pitching depth. Rather, I just didn't want to trade Dunning to get it.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. Just disappointed because the White Sox could have been legitimate World Series contenders over the next three years without mortgaging the future by acquiring Darvish, who cost little in prospects. Darvish, Giolito, Lynn, Kopech, Keuchel/Cease is a legitimate World Series Championship rotation. The first solid 1-5 rotation since 2005.

The White Sox absolutely pissed away Darvish salary each of the past four seasons, when they tanking (still contend 2020 was more of a surprise with COVID / short season / shitty schedule). You can't piss away 15-20% of payroll when you are not even intending to compete. If money is so tight, it's inexcusable. High priced relievers while tanking? Seriously, WTF.

• 2020: $20.5M Parrot and Herrera (-0.4 bWAR) last year ($ before pro-rating for 60/162)
• 2019: $27.8M Herrera, Castillo, Alonso and Jay in 2019 - This was absolutely disgraceful
• 2018: $16.3M Soria & Castillo
• 2017: $18.0M Frazier & Holland
• 2016: Sale traded, tanking the new plan.

[Vulture]

Cubs received a 27 year old starter with a ~3.30 era since 2019. Maybe I’m missing something but the Sox didn’t have any one comparable to go along with four high upside SS and OF, albeit young, prospects to match that. So they would have had to have dipped into the upper tier of prospects for multiple selections

[FriendlyNorthsider]

On 1/1/2021 at 3:35 AM, South Side Hit Men said:

Child, please.

The White Sox, and any sane fan would want any of these three pitchers. The Darvish/Caratini trade would have filled two holes for little in prospect value. Snell required a higher prospect quality, but not their top guys. They are also under control for years.

Every pitcher on the planet is a potential injury risk.

I wonder what the package would look like considering the Sox are a top heavy farm system. Maybe Thompson, Steiver, Dalquist, and Bailey for Darvish, Caratini, and Kimbrel (Plus money to at least cover that contract). I know a lot of people would balk at Kimbrel as a throw in but he put it together in Sept. last year.

That would be a huge push forward in poker chips, but leaves the young core intact and doesnt touch the top five. 

[South Side Hit Men]

1 hour ago, FriendlyNorthsider said:

I wonder what the package would look like considering the Sox are a top heavy farm system. Maybe Thompson, Steiver, Dalquist, and Bailey for Darvish, Caratini, and Kimbrel (Plus money to at least cover that contract). I know a lot of people would balk at Kimbrel as a throw in but he put it together in Sept. last year.

That would be a huge push forward in poker chips, but leaves the young core intact and doesnt touch the top five. 

It would have been interesting, but barring a loss of Kopech, Vaughn or Crochet, I would have loved the move.

Welcome to SoxTalk!

[Flash]

3 hours ago, FriendlyNorthsider said:

I wonder what the package would look like considering the Sox are a top heavy farm system. Maybe Thompson, Steiver, Dalquist, and Bailey for Darvish, Caratini, and Kimbrel (Plus money to at least cover that contract). I know a lot of people would balk at Kimbrel as a throw in but he put it together in Sept. last year.

That would be a huge push forward in poker chips, but leaves the young core intact and doesnt touch the top five. 

Taking on Kimbrel's contract, along with Darvish' and Caratini' likely nonstarter for WS but might have tempted Cubs. In the end, I doubt there was much, if anything, WS could have offered to obtain Darvish and Caratini based upon their focus on young, tooled-up IF/OFs. 

[Dick Allen]

57 minutes ago, Flash said:

Taking on Kimbrel's contract, along with Darvish' and Caratini' likely nonstarter for WS but might have tempted Cubs. In the end, I doubt there was much, if anything, WS could have offered to obtain Darvish and Caratini based upon their focus on young, tooled-up IF/OFs. 

Taking on Darvish's contract was a non starter for the White Sox.  If they had signed Machado and Wheeler, since MLB won't let you trade international money this year, and that avenue is shut off for some financial relief,  JR would be trading them and giving up prospects to teams that would take the money.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Dick Allen

[SpringfieldFan]

Not the way I would want to build my org - straight up filling slots with numbers, grabbing the most expensive, talented guys on paper and throwing them in the mix thinking the value of the whole is simply the sum of the parts.

I would prefer to build the system by acquiring young talent that fits the team's philosophy and then give them exposure to the system and environment so they get integrated and become more than just a shiny add-on you pay premium for in hope it "fits".

[SonofaRoache]

7 minutes ago, SpringfieldFan said:

Not the way I would want to build my org - straight up filling slots with numbers, grabbing the most expensive, talented guys on paper and throwing them in the mix thinking the value of the whole is simply the sum of the parts.

I would prefer to build the system by acquiring young talent that fits the team's philosophy and then give them exposure to the system and environment so they get integrated and become more than just a shiny add-on you pay premium for in hope it "fits".

We did what you said in building the organization. Now is time to make additions to put us over the top for 5 years or so. We will have chances to build our system back up over the years, but we cannot stay pat and just be the Twins and A's. 

[Dominikk85]

1 hour ago, SpringfieldFan said:

Not the way I would want to build my org - straight up filling slots with numbers, grabbing the most expensive, talented guys on paper and throwing them in the mix thinking the value of the whole is simply the sum of the parts.

I would prefer to build the system by acquiring young talent that fits the team's philosophy and then give them exposure to the system and environment so they get integrated and become more than just a shiny add-on you pay premium for in hope it "fits".

That is very hard to do though. You need a strong home grown core but the astros wouldn't have won without adding cole and verlander.

The closest thing might be the dodgers who did make additions but only betts as a real superstar.

[FriendlyNorthsider]

23 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

It would have been interesting, but barring a loss of Kopech, Vaughn or Crochet, I would have loved the move.

Welcome to SoxTalk!

Thanks! Ive been reading for a long time, but decided to create an account as this probably the most active and informed message board for any team I have seen.  Like my name suggests, I'm a cubs fan but I got addicted to the rebuild process. I remember watching minor league box scores every night for Soler, Eloy, Cease, Gleybar, Russell, Baez, Bryant, and got to see it all come to fruition in 2016. Seeing what the Sox have done has been a ton of fun for me as a distraction from the Cubs obliterating their championship window. I think Hahn is one of the best GMs in the game and love watching guys like TA, Eloy, and Robert play ball, This team is so much more likable than they were in the Drake Laroache era. 

 

[FriendlyNorthsider]

11 hours ago, Dominikk85 said:

That is very hard to do though. You need a strong home grown core but the astros wouldn't have won without adding cole and verlander.

The closest thing might be the dodgers who did make additions but only betts as a real superstar.

The whole benefit of having a cost-controlled core of homegrown prospects and a great farm below them is that you have the financial and prospect capital to add star players while other teams are tapped out. I don't mind the Sox waiting until June or July to assess how close this team is before they push in chips more significant than Dane Dunning, but at some point you have to make some tough choices.

Players don't always devleop in a straight line. Jason Heyward had a 6 WAR year at 20 and a 1 WAR year at 26.  Addsion Russell was a 3.2 WAR player at 22 and is now batting .254 for the Kiwoom Heroes at 26. Between injuries or just natural regression you never know how long your window will be. If the Sox get out to a hot start and they can trade guys with a 2023 or 2024 ETA like Kelley, Thompson, or Bailey for an elite starter or even a rental like Kris Bryant if he gets back to form I would support it.

 

 

 

 

[poppysox]

2 hours ago, FriendlyNorthsider said:

Thanks! Ive been reading for a long time, but decided to create an account as this probably the most active and informed message board for any team I have seen.  Like my name suggests, I'm a cubs fan but I got addicted to the rebuild process. I remember watching minor league box scores every night for Soler, Eloy, Cease, Gleybar, Russell, Baez, Bryant, and got to see it all come to fruition in 2016. Seeing what the Sox have done has been a ton of fun for me as a distraction from the Cubs obliterating their championship window. I think Hahn is one of the best GMs in the game and love watching guys like TA, Eloy, and Robert play ball, This team is so much more likable than they were in the Drake Laroache era. 

 

Welcome!  I think "obliterating their championship window" is a well-put phrase.  The Cubs built a great core with last-place finishes and excellent drafts.  They certainly didn't have high-level veterans to trade in the Sale, Q, and Eaton mold. Then they overpaid on Q and Gleybar deals... didn't get Bryant extended or traded...start the process over.  Theirs is the reason I don't like these all in deals people are hyped for.  Both the overpay of so called superstars and the empty the farm type all-in moves.  Build a solid core like the Cubs and now the Sox did...use free agency to fill the holes with solid veterans...extend the contracts where possible creating both a solid core and tradable assets.  The best organizations seem willing to pay the fair price but do not get all-in on any one deal.  I know some will say the Cubs won the WS but I think they would have been better off with very good teams year after year.  They quite possibly could have won several WS rings by now and still be winning today.

[Dominikk85]

28 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Welcome!  I think "obliterating their championship window" is a well-put phrase.  The Cubs built a great core with last-place finishes and excellent drafts.  They certainly didn't have high-level veterans to trade in the Sale, Q, and Eaton mold. Then they overpaid on Q and Gleybar deals... didn't get Bryant extended or traded...start the process over.  Theirs is the reason I don't like these all in deals people are hyped for.  Both the overpay of so called superstars and the empty the farm type all-in moves.  Build a solid core like the Cubs and now the Sox did...use free agency to fill the holes with solid veterans...extend the contracts where possible creating both a solid core and tradable assets.  The best organizations seem willing to pay the fair price but do not get all-in on any one deal.  I know some will say the Cubs won the WS but I think they would have been better off with very good teams year after year.  They quite possibly could have won several WS rings by now and still be winning today.

Yeah but if you sign the non superstar free agents there is a good chance you end up with an encarnacion or la roche, those cheaper FAs often are older and have warts.

You can hit well on someone like that but some luck is always involved.

[poppysox]

3 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

Yeah but if you sign the non superstar free agents there is a good chance you end up with an encarnacion or la roche, those cheaper FAs often are older and have warts.

You can hit well on someone like that but some luck is always involved.

The Encarnacion & LaRoche deals were both praised at the time of them being announced.  I agree with you that they didn't work out...but for example, if EE would have been 80% of his former self we would have won the Central.  Since it didn't work out we cut bait with him and still have a good chance going forward.  If you go all-in with let's say Springer and he pulls an Encarnacion...you do catastrophic damage to the rebuild.

[ptatc]

18 minutes ago, poppysox said:

The Encarnacion & LaRoche deals were both praised at the time of them being announced.  I agree with you that they didn't work out...but for example, if EE would have been 80% of his former self we would have won the Central.  Since it didn't work out we cut bait with him and still have a good chance going forward.  If you go all-in with let's say Springer and he pulls an Encarnacion...you do catastrophic damage to the rebuild.

Similar to to the Heyward deal for the Cubs.

[Dominikk85]

Yeah that is right. A superstar deal is less likely to go wrong (at least in the first half of the contract, the final years often are ugly) but if it goes really wrong (player sucks already in the first half of a 10 year deal) it can really sink you while those older player short term deals are more likely to go wrong but more manageable if they do.

That's also why those extensions like sale were so valuable, you had a cost controlled guy through age 30 but obviously trading for such a guy is very expensive.

[Dominikk85]

On 1/2/2021 at 3:29 PM, bmags said:

The pitching story of the last five years has been the continued dominance of our star pitchers into their 30s. Greinke, Scherzer, Verlander, Lester.

Darvish also has a good chance of being able to switching up his repertoire if his stuff changes.

Hes a really good pitcher and his contract is fine.

That is right, there are more old pitchers doing well but there are also counter examples like felix hernandez who were done at 31.

A lot comes down to health, elbow injuries often can be overcome but a shoulder injury still often is the end.

[poppysox]

People have used the poker analogy before.  The player who goes all-in frequently does well until he gets burned...perhaps even getting knocked out of the game.  The player who manages his money prudently stays in the game longer but of course, that system is not foolproof either.  Just like at the poker table...both types have their advocates.

[Balta1701]

40 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

Yeah that is right. A superstar deal is less likely to go wrong (at least in the first half of the contract, the final years often are ugly) but if it goes really wrong (player sucks already in the first half of a 10 year deal) it can really sink you while those older player short term deals are more likely to go wrong but more manageable if they do.

That's also why those extensions like sale were so valuable, you had a cost controlled guy through age 30 but obviously trading for such a guy is very expensive.

You don’t sign a big money free agent for what they do in the last half of the deal. Anything you get from a guy in his last season is gravy on top.

You sign a guy to a 10 year deal because you think you can win in those first 5 years and he will put you over the top.

You make it a 10 year deal to stretch out the pain. You pay a 5 WAR player over 10 years because then you pay the guy $30 million per year in your competitive years and still have some room to maneuver, rather than $50 million a year over those 5 years. 

Plus...deals are movable if you’re in a bad spot. If a GM will give back real talent for Cano’s deal, then almost any deal is movable if you work at it.

If you’re worrying about being hurt in the final years of a long FA contract you’re doing it wrong. 

[RagahRagah]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

People have used the poker analogy before.  The player who goes all-in frequently does well until he gets burned...perhaps even getting knocked out of the game.  The player who manages his money prudently stays in the game longer but of course, that system is not foolproof either.  Just like at the poker table...both types have their advocates.

I've tried that. The poker analogies are apparently too complicated for some here. 

Which is sad because it's one of the easiest and best to use.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

You don’t sign a big money free agent for what they do in the last half of the deal. Anything you get from a guy in his last season is gravy on top.

You sign a guy to a 10 year deal because you think you can win in those first 5 years and he will put you over the top.

You make it a 10 year deal to stretch out the pain. You pay a 5 WAR player over 10 years because then you pay the guy $30 million per year in your competitive years and still have some room to maneuver, rather than $50 million a year over those 5 years. 

Plus...deals are movable if you’re in a bad spot. If a GM will give back real talent for Cano’s deal, then almost any deal is movable if you work at it.

If you’re worrying about being hurt in the final years of a long FA contract you’re doing it wrong. 

The biggest issue is if the player is bad in the first part of the contract. This can cripple a team if they sink a good portion of their budget into him.

[poppysox]

2 hours ago, RagahRagah said:

I've tried that. The poker analogies are apparently too complicated for some here. 

Which is sad because it's one of the easiest and best to use.

We keep trying to find the best way to express ourselves.  Sometimes I confuse myself.?