Look at Ray Ray Run

Benyamin Bailey, OF, Chicago White Sox: Bailey is a pretty classic, if XXL, teenage corner outfield power projection bat in the DSL 35+FV they also have an excerpt about Stiever in the article as well. Bailey starting to pop up on prospect boards now. onathan Stiever, RHP, Chicago White Sox: Stiever’s velo is way up compared to where it was in the spring, and he was recently promoted to Hi-A, which is more age-appropriate for a college arm in his first full pro season. 40+FV

I'm irish and german with a little Scandinavian thrown in there......

Control is frequently the last thing to fully come in line for power pitchers. If you traded every young power pitcher who struggled to go deep into games when he was young you would have traded nearly all of them.

It's been 3 starts. My lord.

Thor will likely only cost a top 40ish guy with a couple interesting prospects paired. The sox could acquire Thor if they want. I'd consider it for anyone but for Mad and Robert in the minors right now.

Greg it's amazing. We want to trade the guys we acquired to start the rebuild when the rebuild hasnt even finished. We've got another guy trading cease for a position player when pitching depth is badly needed. Pretty soon kopech will be thrown out there too and we can just trade every young controllable asset we got and just continually rebuild and never actually try to win. We'll have great prospect rankings though!

Lol at trading Moncada and Giolito. Some Sox fans have lost their minds. Love OP who is "tired" of the leader of the teams act. Truly amazing the amount of hot takes going on in here. OP may just be trolling. Jack saying he'd consider trading Gio and Yoan is pretty hilarious.

Uh, no... but if it makes you feel better sure. And of course you dont want to go through my post history because it disproves your point. I've talked about how awful of a baseball player I was at the end, though; that's for sure.

Once again, find a post where I do this. 500+ posts without one citation to your point. Have a good day as I'll surrender on this too.

Jajaja feelings mutual.

It's like being critical of Ptac and saying hes bragging for citing from a position of knowledge on medical issue. I appreciate those type of contributions. If I hurt your feelings, sorry. Nothing personal.

Sigh.... 2k posts... cited my background when asked once and one other time... .1% of my posts have included anything about myself. .1% = ALL the time. Amazing stuff truly. I'm sorry bmags. I'm an uneducated idiot whose opinion sucks. Humblebragging about math; weird stuff going on.

Well no, I actually found zero evidence of it in 500 posts prior to the one to Jack. I do recall citing my background three times on here - twice when asked, and once when someone told me I was an uneducated idiot or something like that. You can go scroll through 20 pages of my post history and see ZERO examples of it so you saying I do it all the time is a lie and disingenuous. I don't really have a long post history here. To say it's done all the time, and it hasn't happened in 22+ pages of posts, I think you are misrepresenting me but keep on keeping. Have a good one.

Show me where I do that. I'll wait. If someone cites their background or something, maybe, but I never support my posts via my background because it adds nothing. You go search my post history and show me where I do this "all the time." Thanks. Posted 2k times. Go through my past 500 posts and never once was this cited with the exception of mocking jack for doing it to CWS. Bmags says "I do it all the time." I'm not going to go any further back as I know I certainly dont do it "all the time" and certainly dont use it as a Crux for my opinion. I get that my style can rub people wrong sometimes, I'm pretty blunt, but dont misrepresent what I say. Forums are a funny place.

In the trading world? Sure. There's lots.

I think you missed my point, clearly. You will never see me cite my background/career/education in discussions online because it's irrelevant and if you can't enunciate your position and support it with analytics or facts then your background is irrelevant and is only used as a crux to defend your unsupported position.

Yeah, I'd love Conforto but he won't come cheap that's for sure.

Sure but he's a god awful RF'er so saying he plays RF isn't really a ++ in this case. Mazara is a left handed Avi Garcia; better tools and appearance than outcomes.

Why would the Sox trade from a position they lack depth (SP) to fill one of the only offensive holes left in the organization - that's assuming that every OF prospect but for Robert fails too. Why would the Sox trade 2 extra years of control of Lopez, who has been more valuable in his career to date than Mazara despite significantly less PT, for Mazara? Mazara is trash. Unless the Rangers have soured on him so much they just want to move him, it's not worth it. Anyone comparing Alex Rios and Mazara are over the top about Mazara. At this point based on his production to date, Mazara has less than a 5% of reaching the career WAR Alex Rios had. Rios had two 5+ WAR seasons, 1 4+ WAR season and 2 3.5 WAR seasons and 1 3 WAR season; and every one of those BUT for one came before his 30th birthday. Mazara better get moving. Rios was frustrating because you felt like he had the talent to be a 5 WAR player every year and he had inconsistencies in his game but he was a good MLB player.

Why?

Yeah, I'm confused why those are a knock on the guy.

Sure, after a 15 year period of increases. Jack, you've floated two very odd conspiracy theories in this thread. 1. That striking out less hurts your OBP. 2. That velocity in baseball hasn't consistently increased for over a decade which has, in turn, contributed to a rise in K-Rates. You also felt the need to judge Madrigals k-Rate with guys who played in an era where k-rates were significantly lower in general. All around, it was an interesting night for you but I appreciate the discussion.

What happened in 2010? Do you read posts before you respond to them? Velocity had been on a steady climb for more than a decade. It has nothing to do with this stuff you keep citing incorrectly.

That change didnt happen in 2007. They changed their velocity readings at the start of 2017, and by year end it didnt have a positive impact on velocity. It's the same data sets and you misunderstood what you read.

Yes they are. Jack it is amazing how you read something on fangraphs and completely misrepresent what it says. Did they change the point like 12 years in a row? No To say pitchers don't throw harder today than 20 years ago is incredibly wrong Let's see. Bullpens have gotten vastly better and bullpen velocity is absurdly higher. The amount of 100 mph pitches went from like 50 a year to 1000+. This trend grew and grew year over year. Do you see how that chart showed a steady rise?