Balta1701

I would certainly do that too but now we're at the point where the Dodgers are just giving stuff away in the hypothetical. I'd happily take free things from them too.

No it is not. You can get fair value for an automobile, but if you already own 5 automobiles for only 2 drivers in your vehicle and are in a huge amount of debt, then the 6th automobile will not provide you appropriate value even if you get a very fair price for it. Even if the new car is nicer than the ones we already have.

The White Sox should not be making fair value deals right now where they send out guys with many years of control. There will be a time for that. But it is not this day.

Are you referring to early in the offseason when he said they'd have to seek pitching help outside the organization or something more recent? Because they have obtained pitching from outside the organization, it was just Ivan Nova.

At the very least we'll know more about what kind of progress Collins has made, compared to the pitchers. If we sign one of the big fish this offseason, we'll have a need at 1b next offseason, and then we'll probably have room for 1 more player somewhere, whether that's pitching or catching or 3b or elsewhere.

I'd disagree and think it's the collapsed market...except those things may have specifically hit the Yankee management and the fact that their money isn't in this game is probably a big reason why this isn't done yet.

Honestly I think the only incorrect statement is probably "Machado has a small list of teams he would play for". I think he would go just about anywhere if they put the right money on the table.

That incredibly low dollar amount also indicates that there weren't very many teams who thought he had much in the tank.

Well then it seems like you have a choice. You can start trading away those guys early to get your team ready in 2020 and be as depleted as the 2018 Cubs system by 2023, or you can hold onto your guys like the Astros, endure a 2016-like disappointment, but have replacements ready when your first round hits free agency like the Stros have right now.

So trading away promising guys who are only 18 years old right now would be a bad thing?

Well yes, the playoff roster specifically was definitely weaker than the roster during the season or the one they put on the field the next season, because as you note their starting pitchers had all gotten hurt, and they were still good enough to push the Cubs to 7+ games.

And then the next year they went out with a roster that was only slightly upgraded and won 102 games. That team was a force. They were weaker in 2018 because their bullpen collapsed, but they're still a roster comparable to a normal division winner.

I think the A's were a quite good team that was like a historic division winner. Their pythagorean record was 95 wins. The Astros last year was 109 wins and the Red Sox's was 103. The Dodgers' was 102. This is a new thing in baseball, these teams that are this far ahead of what used to be good enough to win a division, and a couple of them every year.

That Cubs team won 102 games. The Indians came off their world series appearance and won 100 games the next year. The Dodgers Astros World Series had what, 205 wins between them? The Red Sox won 108 games. These teams are on a completely different level from the champions we saw half a decade ago.

I'm conflicted on this. A few years ago, you could legitimately say that you just needed to make the playoffs - remember the Royals and Giants world series where they were both wild card teams. It seems like the past 3-4 years we have entered a new era. The Royals were clearly one of the best teams league wide in 2015. In 2016 the Cubs were a superteam. In 2017 the Astros were a superteam. In 2018 the Red Sox were a superteam. The Dodgers and Indians, when they lost those world series - both of them have been 100 win superteams in the last 3 years. It seems like there's been a shift the last 3-4 years. You used to be able to think you had a chance as a wild card team. Now? You come in as a wild card team, even as a hot one...and you hit one of these 100 win team buzzsaws, and you are simply outgunned. If anyone feels like that is changing this year, please say why, but it looks to me like if you want to have a legitimate chance to win a world series you need a roster that is loaded. You need a roster that's going to win 98 games on its own and then you need to have the ammunition to go out at the trade deadline and make yourself even better, otherwise you're going to hit some team that did. The Yankees, Astros, maybe a couple others, they sure look like they're going to win 100 games this year and if you go into a wild card or divisional series against them with an 88 win team that snuck through with a wild card win, you will be going home. Following that logic - when I think my team is capable of winning 95+ games, hopefully 2021, I also need to have a ton of extra talent that I can trade, hence why I don't want to give it up now for minor upgrades.

Just to stress, I did not say that in 2018 his offense was wiped out by his defense, I said the exact opposite - that in 2018 his weak defense was wiped out by his decent offense, which is true but which I guess the words did not come across here.

I feel like it was the case almost everywhere that the defenses all of a sudden reasserted themselves starting in November.

His career numbers continue to be a poor reflection of what he did the last 2 years. 2014-2016 I will totally agree, he was a solid OF. The last 2 years, his numbers have been generally weak no matter which position you put him in. He's good enough at routine plays but he's got no shot at anything that isn't hit close to where he's playing - Out of like 20 balls that were 50/50 balls for normal outfielders the past 2 seasons he got to something like 1 or 2. You're quoting Edgar Martinez's career numbers to me as an argument that he should be our DH in 2019 as he's a hall of fame caliber player - ignoring the minor fact that he isn't the same player he was during the 1990s.

Would you be willing to give up a fair price, someone like Basabe, in order to make that preference for the Jay and Pederson setup in the OF happen?

You literally told me that I couldn't look at the fact that Joc's defensive numbers over the past 4 years have pointed straight down and said that only the average counts, and now you're telling him "It just doesn't tell the complete story about the players". Well fine, tell the complete story of the players, because you're deliberately leaving a lot out. Joc Pederson's offense wiped out his weak defense last year, but he failed to do so in 2017, that year he hit .212 with a .738 OPS and was bad enough that he was comparable to Engel overall. That's part of the story of this player too. Tell his story - he's no longer fine in CF, he's trended downwards substantially since 2016 but you say that you can only draw a flat line across that and care about the average, which blocks out part of the story. If he hits like he did in 2018 that's good enough to overcome it, but if he hits like he did in 2017 it does not, and if you put him out there against too many LHP then his overall offense is going to look really bad, so you better be ok with paying the price in trade for a guy who needs a platoon partner. Your blunt statement "there's literally no arguing on that point" is true, as long as you "don't tell the complete story about the players".

It seems very clear when I look at Pederson's statistics that the player he was in 2015 and 2016 has very little to do with the fielder he is in 2017 and 2018. In 2018 overall in the OF, he was a -18, and in 2017 it was -17 - that's 17 runs below average over a full season and that's counting all the OF positions. You're correct that he was a decent defensive CF earlier in his career, but you're missing the story if you swamp out his really poor last 2 years with the remainder of his career. UZR shows the same thing, a guy who was average earlier in his career but who has gotten substantially worse starting in 2017.

What matters for me is not wins in the year 2017, 2018, or 2019. What matters for me is wins in the year 2021 or 2022 and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. So, first and foremost I still don't want to give up a lot as those resources are far more valuable in 2021 than they are now. But here's a question I don't know the answer to. What hurts a young pitching staff more, a weak offense or a weak defense? One of our priorities right now is developing several young pitchers. That will have far more impact than the difference between 67 and 69 wins next year. What is best for them, having a lead more often, or having someone to bail them out if a ball is hit into the gaps? I'm not sure, but I think that's the more important question to answer.

Written entirely without using the words "Rape", "Sexual Assault", or any version thereof. Not exactly a surprise.

The CBA won't be negotiated until 4 years have passed. A guy with an opt-out after 3 years could opt out in October and then find themselves stuck with no contract in the middle of a lockout on December 1, with no ability to sign a contract for several months and little time for teams to figure out the new CBA before the season starts. I don't know what preparation the agents are doing for that, but that sounds like a terrible place for a player to be. Conveniently, an opt out after 4 years should fit pretty well for the white sox. I'd do that.

He appears to be a catcher, so sure.