Balta1701

I assumed this was going to be pictures of Joc Pederson captioned by things he is imagining. "If I push enough air into my cheeks I can inflate them to scare away predators".

Someone would have to want one of those players. As of now, the Bulls are where you wind up when you are expendable.

Well, that answers the question about whether to consider extending him this year.

The articles this morning mentioned both shoulder and elbow issues for Graterol, and if he's got a shoulder problem that I wasn't fully detailed on I might hesitate too. Delaying because you got cold feet after you already bit the bullet and announced the trade so that your fans had to see the commentary for 2 days...that'd be silly.

Frankly, that would have been a better result than what this organization has done for the last decade. But more seriously - -if you're using prospect capital in trades, it should not be low reward trades. When you are bringing back people with limited amounts of control (Betts, Mazara), you ought to be doing so when you are acquiring a key piece or two for a team that is already close enough that this move has a good chance of putting you over the top the very next year. It shouldn't be a "hey maybe this time it'll work out" gamble, and that's the type of move we specialize in. Betts would have been a great get for us, but even the optimists aren't 100% sure where this team will be next year, so giving up prospect resources for him would be a mistake. Mazara might be a great get for him, but even the optimists aren't saying that he's the guy who was going to put us over the top next year. Pederson would have been a great get for us...and the return the Angels have sent to the Dodgers appears so weak that even I couldn't complain about losing it while following that set of rules.

"The odds that ______ has as much of an impact as ______" is probably 10% or less. Tatis and Shields, Semien and Samardzija, Bassitt and Samardzija, Montas and Frazier, Hudson and Jackson, a pile of money and Teahen. I mean, you say it enough times and it's got to be correct eventually right? The flaw in "becoming obsessed with a guy who has limited control and overpaying for him because it's not likely to hurt us" has been so well illustrated that we had to rebuild for 3 years because of it. You're probably correct this time...because that statement can't be wrong every single time we do this trade.

Note that I did not say "There's no development left for Mazara", that's the phrase you made up. In the post you replied to I literally said "Even if it works out this time", I literally left open the possibility you said I ignored. Even if there is development left for Mazara, it's giving up the 6 years of control to get a "might get better" guy who we only control for 2 years is the mistake. Because that's what sets it up to bite us. Even if Mazara shows substantial development - he's more expensive next year and then gone. And even if Walker shows no development and this case works out well, the reward is limited because he has only 2 years of control. That's how you do low reward, moderate risk moves. And yeah, the odds are that this one won't bite us in the tail, but that's because the last several of these have bitten us so badly that we're due for luck.

All of that would be true and reasonable but at the same time giving up minor league talent that you could control for 6+ years for that gamble is a mistake even if it works out this time. We've heard that same story before about how the guys we give up won't come back to bite us, and then it's true until it catastrophically wasn't.

Oh and Encarnacion since you have to come up with an extra $40 million.

The White Sox were not in a position to part with Madrigal alone. Do this deal without Vaughn, Madrigal, Kopech, Jiminez, Cease, Robert, Moncada, or Giolito.

Ideally? An employee of a major billion dollar company speaking in a role as a representative of that company on a public network.

Oh so having a better player, Joc Pederson, in RF for 2020 would have been a benefit? Because you just argued against this guy, who questioned how signing a guy for 2020 helps you any year beyond 2020.

Apparently it is from what people have just said to me.

Because we could extend him? Dude your logic literally applies 100% to Joc Pederson under the exact same phrasing.

You set the standard yourself by saying "I'm more focused on beyond 2020". Under those rules, you're right, you can't trade minor leaguers for guys that have limited control. You're doing this "I like having these guys for 2020 and I'm ok to spend resources on 2020 but I don't believe in the team for 2020 so I'm more concerned for later years" contradiction repeatedly here to wiggle around while saying both of them.

Yes the White Sox have Keuchel for multiple years but as I stated there are always comparable pitching options available if you're willing to spend money, so if the White Sox cannot compete this year then why are you spending the money this year? Bauer, Stroman, Odorizzi, Minor, Ray - even if some of them get extended, there will be pitchers available on the free agent market next year, so if you don't believe the White Sox are competitive this year why are you paying a premium to have that player this year? There will similarly be relievers available next year, so if you don't believe the White Sox have a chance this year, why spend the money this year?

Yeah but you just contradicted yourself, you said you were concerned more about beyond 2020 and then you just admitted that Walker has as good of a shot at contributing to a team as any of the other outfielders and yet you were willing to sacrifice that guy for Mazara in 2020. If you were "more concerned about the team beyond 2020" you would want as many options beyond 2020 as possible as you don't know that any of them will work out.

Then isn't the complaint about Steele Walker more valid?

I don't think it's likely that the White Sox win 95 games next year, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility, so yeah a better player is useful, and a better player at a lower price than we paid would be even better. If I applied the same standard that you did, "What good is helping the Sox win more games for 1 year", then pretty much every deal the White Sox made this year looks like a bad deal as they're paying a lot of money to have Keuchel, Encarnacion, Cishek here this year when there would be comparable options available next year.

I'd say it's 10%, the Dodgers could offer him that $420 million deal he supposedly asked the Red Sox for if they really want to make it happen, but they really shouldn't, at least until they see how this season goes.

Did I miss something in that deal last night? Because it looks like the Angels gave up less for Pederson than the White Sox did for Mazara.

Ironically, this could actually make it slightly possible for the Red Sox to be bidders on Betts. The Dodgers paid a fair price for the player with 1 year of control, and in the process the Red Sox get out of the multi-year penalties this year and free up a small amount of payroll next year.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28639320 So uh....Pete Rose has a point and I don't like saying that.

100% agree given the results. 2 titles versus 0.