Balta1701

But also no Lester, so no titles.

This conversation started with the statement that they were done "being cute" with service time after Madrigal and Kopech, I added that Vaughn would probably not be up opening day in 2021 to "be cute" with service time. Somehow you're agreeing with me that he won't be up opening day 2021 but telling me I can't define that as a "service time game" even though it's manipulating service time for some reason. Anyway, later.

Jose does not have to be at 1b for 80 games to make sure Vaughn gets the extra year of team control.

There's another 1b under contract right now, so I see no reason why Vaughn would be 100% guaranteed an opening day 2021 spot even if Encarnacion isn't back.

I'd still expect they will continue "being cute" with Vaughn into early 2021, barring injuries or something like that where the issue is forced.

What would count as a monster spring for Madrigal? I mean, lots of guys hit .400 in the spring and aren't called up, and he's not exactly likely to end the spring with 10 home runs.

When the Dodgers traded for Machado, they gave up 1 player in the top 100 and a handful of depth pieces. As of right now, guys in that trade are the #5, #9, and #27 prospects for the Orioles organization. The only one who has made the big leagues, a year and a half later, is a 28 year old 2b. That's a far cry from "one MLB ready asset and another top prospect".

Note what is happening with Betts, Lindor, and to a lesser extent Bryant (odder because of the grievance). Lindor is currently 2 years away from free agency and Cleveland cannot get returns that are strong enough to move him. Same thing as Betts right now - Boston could move him but the returns would be minimal. Moncada will not be as good as Lindor or Betts, will not have anything near the record of multi-year performance of Lindor or Betts, but could easily be in the same boat. The Dodgers would certainly like Lindor, but they are not parting with a top 10 prospect for him under the current circumstances, even when they haven't really improved their team otherwise. Trading Moncada for "Another wave of young MLB ready controllable talent" is something the market right now is telling you will not happen. If you want to move Moncada next year for 2 guys ranked in 50-100 range, you can probably do that, but that's not "MLB-ready" most of the time. If you want to wait 2 years, you're going to get even less.

1. Why on Earth do people consider the Cubs to be a cautionary tale? "The Cubs are a debacle, they only won 1 world series and had 4 straight playoff appearances out of their rebuild". People would have a problem with that here? 2. Robert is signed through 2027. Jiminez is signed through 2026. 3. Moncada could be at risk of walking anyway if we're unprepared to spend $300 million on a player, because that's likely to be the going rate for a top 5 3rd baseman three years from now. 4. Budget constraints are flexible if new revenue sources become available. For example, if you have a ballpark that is on average <50% full, and you are able to increase that to 66% full, you will see a substantial increase in revenue that should be able to affect your budget.

But if we're specifically talking about Mookie Betts, it's worth noting that for top line players like that during this offseason, the White Sox declared themselves out of the game before it started.

While I agree with you, it's also worth considering that the downside of the conservative rehab was that Dunning basically won't have thrown competitive pitches in 24 months by the time he returns. For a player who needs reps to develop, that's a worry too.

That's literally the point of every one of these contracts. Just as an example - in Fangraphs valuations, Mookie Betts last year was worth $53 million. You are not going to pay him even $45 million for any one season in his next contract, which would be roughly fair value for his expected performance in the first few years. However, he's going to get that money - you could sign him to a 7 year, 350 million deal that pays him $50 million a year, or you can up it to 10/$375, you're basically offering him $8 million a year for each of those last 3 years, it gives your team the ability to pay him under $40 million a year during the years that you are most likely to be competitive, and if he holds together as even a 1-2 win player over the final few years of his contract you also get that performance out of him. Whoever does sign him for that kind of money, that's how they do the math. Plus, if there's an opt-out in there that the player is good enough to take, then you might even get out of the commitment for those last few years.

Apparently these double roles are pretty normal for ESPN folks. David Ross was on air while having a similar job with the Cubs. Frank Thomas is a "Special Consultant for business operations" for the White Sox.

So something like Walker + Stiever would have at least been in the ballpark? Maybe a bit low?

This really isn't a bad setup for cincinnati either. They had to guarantee a lot, but those opt outs really aren't bad for them either. If he opts out after either year 1-2, that means he had really good performance for them and that they came out on top - paying him for less production than they got - which is possible for him now that he's out of Detroit. Furthermore, so far no one has said that there are any clauses about a qualifying offer in that contract, so if he opts out Cinci can get another 2nd round pick for him leaving.

The real answer is: one powerful individual dislikes threads that are just catch-all and prefers that discussion of interesting topics or articles is put into threads specific to each article.

Which do you think had more plate appearances with RISP?

anyone have the cojones to ask Hahn about wasting his international signing dollars?

No he doesn't, even if he hits, RF remains a long-term problem, which I still think was the meaning of that statement.

I don't read it that way either. Mazara is only under team control for 2 years and therefore right now he isn't a "long term" option regardless of performance - even if he's been anointed as the starting option for this year.

With Eloy we had a good idea of how much money it would take to make it happen. Ditto Robert. They gave up 1 year of control and got the 2 highest contracts in history for guys who had never come up. How much does Madrigal get? Does his contract compare to Anderson's? He's still a top draft pick and a top 50 prospect, should he get an offer closer to Eloy's? Is he a future all star or a future average player? Is he willing to give up several years of control like Anderson or only 1 year like the other guys? I legitimately don't know how to value him without a big league track record.

We have a potential case on campus.

If the White Sox had an open DH spot I would happily pay him well more than Calhoun. I'd be totally willing to put him in the OF on a multi-year deal with the ability to move him to DH as a fallback. But, we've got an expensive DH already.

As of now, who is likely to start at SS in Charlotte?