Dam8610

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 03:55 PM) Is this board truly reflective of the country's opinion of Trump? I was in Dallas area over the weekend and I asked two rich oil people (one man, one woman) what they thought of Trump. One immediately declared: "I like him," adding that he says some dumb things on Twitter but aside from that she liked him. Then the other person said the economy actually was improving and he also liked Trump. Then I hear he gets half cheers/half boos as the national title game. You'd think it would be 90 percent boos if you read this board and listen to the pundits and Hollywood types bash him daily. I know Hollywood tore into Trump at the Golden Globes, but Hollywood should be more humble and silent right now with the scandal going on. I'm just saying ... has Trump had some accomplishments that are making 50 percent of Americans think he's OK to good? His approval rating hasn't cracked 40% for most of his presidency, so probably not.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 02:28 PM) Yet if I or Greg write he sucks, there is a lot of backlash. We are arguing with math. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts FIP or xFIP. If your claim is he sucked last year, that's just factually not true. The numbers do disagree with you in that regard. If your claim is that he will suck in 2018, you're entitled to your opinion, but all of his numbers from 2017 show a positive trend, so I'm hopeful that he will be a useful piece who can net the team some talent in July, and if he's not, it costs the team nothing but money.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 12:30 PM) It seems to me this particular example doesn't really fit the bill. Using FIP and xFIP after last season, you wouldn't have predicted his FIP and xFIP numbers in 2017, and would have told anyone who did that they are arguing with math . The fact is, even if this is all you claim it is, it is not 100%, and everyone has access to this information. To become better than average, one must find anomalies with these numbers. Personally, I think his numbers were a bit inflated towards the positive, and he will be 34 years old with 2 TJS under his belt. Regression seems way more likely than anything else. The entire crux of this argument appears to be your lack of understanding that a chance of something happening is not a guarantee or prediction that it will happen.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 12:06 PM) This isn't entirely true. It's not math. It's models developed by people who decided which factors they think is important to predict outcomes. It's not 1+1=2. It's predictive models based on some people's opinions. The models require high level mathematics, specifically regression modeling, to work. Just because it's not arithmetic doesn't mean it's not mathematics. At the highest levels, mathematicians don't even use numbers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2018 -> 10:19 AM) I remain the exact opposite, I think that it is extremely uncommon for pitchers like Verlander to become available at the waiver deadline. Yes, there are always expensive pitchers available at that point, but not genuine all stars. When I make this point I'm thinking of something like this happening in 2019 - the White Sox sign Machado and suddenly they're way better than anyone expected, on pace for 90-some wins, but with a huge weakness in lets say center field. Let's say that Yelich is still available then, but the price is extremely steep like "top pitching prospect in baseball Dylan Cease". You've got 2 choices - hold onto the prospect or go for the win. I've been circling 2020 all offseason as the year we're going to destroy the league, but if we're there in 2019 and we need one high priced piece to put us over the top, I'd make a deal of that sort. Maybe you could find a cheaper option, but I'd say you "MUST" fill that hole, and I found the moves the Astros made pre-Verlander to be totally lacking. Hell, Gonzalez from the White Sox would have been an upgrade for them at the trade deadline with where their rotation was sitting and they didn't even do that. They needed help desperately and didn't do it until the very last possible second. The danger in not making the move is illustrated by a number of teams recently. I'll take the Mets as one of my favorite comps because we're looking to have the kind of starting rotation in 2 years that took them to the World Series. In 2015 they had a dominant starting rotation, but they needed offense. They traded Fulmer to Detroit for Cespedes and it put them within a couple of baserunning moves of possibly bringing home a trophy. The Mets could easily have said "look at how dominant our rotation is, we should hold onto our prospects and play for 2016". Yes, they'd like to have Fulmer back right now, he's been strong in Detroit. But if they had said "let's wait, 2015 isn't that important and our rotaiton is only going to get better" - they'd have been completely wrong. Their vaunted starting rotation has since completely collapsed. They paid a high price, took their shot, and got almost there. I'd much rather do that if things came together in 2019 than hold onto everyone and assume nothing will go bad in the future. You absolutely have to know when the right time to strike is, but you could find anecdotal examples of this in every imaginable permutation over and over again throughout baseball history I'm sure. My point is the White Sox tried being impatient and "going for it" every year for about a decade with little to no success. Hahn then implemented a strategy of being patient and forcing teams to come to his price for his players, and in less than a year it took the White Sox from one of the worst farm systems in baseball to arguably the best for two years running. This wasn't accomplished by being impatient and taking the first offer on everyone who had value to get them out of town. It was accomplished by waiting and forcing other teams to come up to the price desired. Similarly, the Astros did gamble, but their gamble was smart. Essentially, it was "some team will get desperate and want to move a player we need for something of value at some point, and the price will come down to the level we find acceptable". Sure, it was a bit risky and could've cost them the 2017 World Series, but with the talent they have, they have a very long competitive window (unless something unforeseeable like injuries takes it away), so missing 1 of 10 or so shots may not have been a big deal to them. I'd prefer this rebuild to be the launch point for a prolonged period of sustained success, and I think the way to achieve that will be the same way the White Sox so quickly went from the outhouse to the penthouse of farm systems. Be patient, wait for a desperate team to match your need, and strike when the other team meets your price. Becoming the desperate team and overpaying for a present need depletes the surplus value that the team has worked very hard to build and will eventually lead to being back in the rebuilding process. Now, if the scenario you describe happens, I'd take that risk as well, but for me it's because I don't see Cease becoming that successful (even if the prognosticators are calling him the top pitching prospect in baseball) and even if he is, there's probably not a rotation spot for him here. Also, it's a 1 for 1 deal, which means that the Marlins were likely desperate and the White Sox will get good value from the deal. I'm not advocating never dealing prospects, I just want the team to go about it in the same way that has found them success recently, as well as other franchises like the Astros. Be patient, make teams meet your price, and strike when the time is right.

QUOTE (pablo @ Jan 8, 2018 -> 10:34 AM) BA's "weaknesses" of the Sox Farm system is pretty comical. And I don't even necessarilly agree with it. This. There are quite a few players beyond the top 10 or even 15 in the White Sox farm system for whom it isn't a stretch to see a productive MLB future. In that regard, the system is very pitching heavy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2018 -> 07:21 PM) If the market had not come to them right when it did, would the prospects they kept have been worth the 2017 world series title? It's hard to say what the marginal value difference would've been between trading for Verlander then versus, say, meeting the White Sox ask for Q in January. What I do know is, as another poster said, theirs is the model I'd prefer the White Sox front office to follow when it comes time to acquire talent. Rick Hahn has shown admirable patience in getting other teams to meet his asking price for the players he's traded away, so I'd hope he doesn't throw all the surplus value he's worked very hard to build trying to get that final piece that may or may not make it work. Of course if it works it's worth it, but the Astros didn't know they would win it all when they traded for Verlander.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2018 -> 04:54 PM) I totally agree, I just don't want to do what the Astros did - when we have a team sitting there ready to win 100 games, and we have a totally obvious need from the offseason through the trading deadline, a need big enough that it has a strong chance of costing us a trophy if it is not met....don't pass on it to hold onto prospects. Fill the need, don't play for 2021 if your team is ahead in the division by 10 games in 2020 and you need 1 player to round it out. The Astros totally passed on filling their need and then were bailed out by a team suddenly more willing to shed salary. Another way of looking at this is they waited for the market to come to their price and struck when it did, which is exactly what I'd want the White Sox to do. They kept their farm system from going completely barren while still getting the quality of pitcher they needed, and likely extended their contention timeframe by doing so. Put another way, they won the World Series and still have arguably the best farm system in their division. It's an enviable position, and their patience played a large part in putting them there.

QUOTE (Moncada @ Jan 7, 2018 -> 01:31 PM) I would say 75-100 wins bc our division is gonna be awful. Our pitching should be getting better and better This bold prediction puts the team anywhere from Top 5 pick to World Series contender.

QUOTE (mac9001 @ Jan 6, 2018 -> 04:13 PM) Ryan Cordell is our starting RFer by July. To be replaced by Eloy Jimenez in August.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 7, 2018 -> 10:32 AM) From Rosenthal’s latest: “— The White Sox were not only the team interested in reliever Joakim Soria, whom they acquired from the Kansas City Royals on Thursday in a three-team trade that also included the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Oakland Athletics also wanted Soria, and like the White Sox envisioned him as a potential late-inning weapon who might yield a significant return at the non-waiver deadline.” Glad to see Hahn can see past a statistic that isn't particularly useful in terms of predictive value for non-closers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 04:32 PM) If the White Sox took on the full salaries of both Kazmir and McCarthy, that would be just under $30 million for 2018. Let me put it this way.... for $26 million, the White Sox got Luis Robert. It would have to be a pretty big return. Gohara?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 04:13 PM) Only one of those guys is a Dodger today. Right, forgot McCarthy and Kazmir went to Atlanta in the Kemp deal. In that case, same question, replacing 3 Dodgers with 2 Braves.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 04:00 PM) Guys who come to mind... Martin Prado, Kelvin Herrera, Matt Kemp, Brandon McCarthy, Scott Kazmir, Jacob Ellsbury,... So if the Sox took those 3 Dodgers, how many of the Dodgers Top 10 prospects would they come with?

Soria was a Top 25 reliever in MLB in 2017 by fWAR and a Top 75 reliever in MLB in 2017 by bWAR. If Kansas City traded him because they think he's bad, then I wouldn't trust their talent evaluation staff much.

Jordan Stephens and Seby Zavala are two guys that I hope get opportunities soon, because there may not be spots for them for much longer.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 01:49 PM) Examples? If Soria was thought of as highly around MLB as he is on this board, not only would the Royals have been able to trade him and not eat money, they wouldn't have had to include a valuable piece with him. They had to do both. Or maybe they like the prospects they got back?

I think they should target Jaime Garcia. LHSP with control issues, seems like a perfect Coop project that could yield dividends in the form of a deadline trade (when an asset like him is likely to be at his highest value), and if he's awful from the start, cutting your losses is pretty easy when Rodon gets back.

Soria was worth 1.1 bWAR and 1.7(!) fWAR last year. A 1 WAR season is a good season for a reliever. A 2 WAR season is an amazing season for a reliever. As the above numbers suggest (bWAR is more reliant on stats that tell on field results, while fWAR relies more on peripherals and predictive stats), Soria pitched better than his results suggested, and even his results made for a good season for a reliever. He's going into his age 34 season, and effectively has 2 years of control. If he pitches well, he should bring a quality return in July should the Sox decide to move him. If he pitches poorly, they're not required to keep him beyond this year. The best part is Hahn got him for nothing. Peter went to LAD for Avilan. I don't understand how anyone could be unhappy about any part of this trade, and I liked Peter.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 5, 2018 -> 12:05 AM) Let's put it this way. He had three clean 8th inning leads in July and August (3-2, 8-7 and 4-3) and blew all of those key games. The most egregious example, though, was August 15th vs. the A's. Entered the 8th with a clean 8-4 lead (not even a save situation), managed to give up 4 runs and only recorded one out. That was the killer game in their season (think Thome vs. Matt Thornton). Lost 10-8. From July 8th through August 15th (15 outings), he had: 1 Loss (started the 9th clean with a 1-1 tie against BALT) 3 Blown Saves 1 Blown 4 run lead 5 Holds So he blew the Royals 2017 season AND has the peripherals to suggest a bounceback year that could cause him to be a good flip candidate to get more prospects for the rebuild? Sounds great to me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 06:38 PM) Friedman and Hahn have a pretty good working relationship. Guessing dodgers needed Team to take salary to work out, called one Sox Hahn should leverage that relationship to raid their farm by taking on some or all (depending on what else is coming back) of the Kemp deal.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 4, 2018 -> 02:47 PM) This Sessions news is unreal. Who the hell is even for this, aside from private prison companies? Even the Republican politicians from these states are up in arms. Big Pharma.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 3, 2018 -> 10:14 AM) Adolfo Sheets Stephens Clarkin Skoug To sum it up. Skoug over Call is dumb, but solid list otherwise.

Seems like a good chance to take. Also may indicate how they're leaning on Abreu.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2018 -> 03:19 PM) I read what you copy and pasted Iwritecode. I can buy that. You have supported your stance well. In a debate I'm sure your evidence, if the article was substantiated as true and correct, would deem you the victor in any debate with me on this. The article is from Snopes, they're known as fact checkers and well respected by pretty much everyone. What further substantiation do you need?