michelangelosmonkey
-
Posts
973 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by michelangelosmonkey
-
-
11 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:
How would they do at preventing runners from taking the extra base. Stopping runners from scoring from 2nd on a single, scoring from 1st on a double or going first to third on a single. Preventing runners from taking the extra base is kinda a big deal for a right fielder and It would be a god damn merry go round with Vaughn/Sheets in right field.
Yes...that's what dWar measures. You sacrifice defense for offense. Frank Howard had a three year run with an average -3 dWAR and positive 2.5 WAR. It doesn't matter how you get your WAR. To keep suggesting that a bad defender will ruin the team is just wrong.
-
8 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:
You just compared Manny Ramirez to 3 dudes that will be lucky to ever combine to come remotely close to a single season of what Manny produced at the plate. Laughable comparison aside, Manny’s bat made up for his bad D. Vaughn is the only of this combo platter amalgam of bad worthy of playing everyday, but not in RF. Sheets is a statue running in mud in the OF. Engel can’t stay healthy and shouldn’t face RH pitching. Vaughn is adequate in LF but lacks the range for RF. If I’m over exaggerating how bad they will be, you and others are blatantly ignoring the bad trying to squint and wish for it to be some magical solution not needing desperately to be addressed. It’s silly IMO to expect them to be a passable solution let alone a good one.
Yes I said the combo platter would hit .850 OPS which is not impossible given platoon advantages and obvious upside...it was you that compared them to Daniel Palka who was bad offensively and defensively. To suggest they would be legendarily bad is wrong. 1/3 of the innings will be played by an elite defender...and Vaughn who never played RF before was competent. Yes this is not perfect but neither is it terrible (and Conforto is NOT a good defender..-0.6 dWar). Anyway the larger point is you have limited resources to fix three holes...2b, RF and 5th starter. I'd rather see Combo +Rodon than Comforto + Keuchel.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:
Three non top 100 prospects isn’t getting you Ketel Marte.
That is our #1, 2 and 3 prospects. I think you are dramatically undervaluing that package based on a 19 year old #1 draft pick who looked very good in his first year in pro ball, a top 10 international prospect from two years ago who had a tough time adjusting to American ball, and a $1 prospect who after two major surgeries and sitting two years came back last year and held his own in the majors. If that package doesn't get Marte...well they can keep Marte.
-
11 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:
I really think those advocating for a Sheets/Vaughn/Engel “combo platter” are ignoring how catastrophically bad that platoon would be on defense for an entire season. There is a possibility they could be above average offensively, but we are talking Daniel Palka bad defensively. I don’t know Conforto’s game all that well but I have to believe his defense makes up for whatever slight edge the “combo platter” might have at the plate.
I think you are dramatically overstating how bad the combo platter defense would be. Engel is an elite defender, Vaughn caught everything hit within fifteen feet of where his statue was and Sheets...is a lefty power bat. But fine, let's play your game...Manny Ramirez might have been the worst outfield every...he consistently put up -2 dwar and yet had a 4 WAR regularly. Lots of different ways to win games. What we do know about the combo platter is that it will cost $20 million less per year than Conforto and you can use that money to resign Rodon. I think Rodon >>> Keuchel vs Conforto >combo platter.
-
1 hour ago, poppysox said:
I agree. Everything I read calls Conforto an above-average bat and passable right fielder. The Sheets/Vaughn/Engel "combo platter" would be considerably better than "above average" IMO. The "combo platter" would give us a similar defense as Jermayne Dye. Not great but I'll take it if we can get a massive upgrade at 2nd and pitching.
Yes I don't get the panic. Eloy puts up an .850OPS in left and the combo platter puts up an .850 OPS in right...and some extra fly balls drop in?? Oh well. I like the idea of getting Ketel. I think you can put together an attractive package to get him...Montgomery, Cespedes and Burger? Then resign Rodon and lets go win the World Series.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, GreenSox said:
Not as dismal an eval as I would have expected for the #30 farm.
I remember the write-up the Angels as a #30, and I think I would have needed an IV had that been the Sox.I agree GreenSox. It's not like our top twenty is filled with a bunch of diminishing prospects. 8 of our top ten are 21 or younger...and the top "old guys" would be Cespedes who is really in his first year in US, during COVID and is way to early to give up on, and Burger who made huge leap forward after his injuries. In fact if the analysis were not "top farm systems" but it was "rank organizational talent age 22-27" and then "rank organizational talent 18-21" I think we might be #1 in the first and top ten in the second. When building a championship window you need that second wave to hit in about two or three years...not now. I like the idea of Kath, Montgomery, Colas, Cespedes Kath, and all the 20 year old pitchers beginning to bloom this year and next for major league replacement. ,
-
31 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
Every single team in baseball makes $100 million in cash before they ever sell a single ticket, beer, or hat. The season makes them money, no doubt, but a majority of cash flow comes from non-ballpark revenue.
That's not $100 million in profits...that's income from which they spend money. Still it was a bit unfair that I used the Met's as the example above.... I only used them as they are the most recently sold...but not every team is run as stupidly as the Mets. Which is one of the big problems with the CBA. All teams get $50 million in national TV money, only the Brewers and Marlins make less than $40 million in local TV money and everyone but the Marlins draws a million fans. So basically every team has $200 million in revenue with some much much more than that from which they pay their bills.. Yet you have teams like the Orioles last year that only spent $40 million in player salaries. That team is happily making good operating income...but probably not getting much in franchise asset appreciation. The value of the franchise from 2002 to 2011 only went up $100 million...or $10 million a year from a starting investment of $300 million. Lot's of other investments will get you much more than that so perhaps you need the operating income. But if you are trying to negotiate the CBA the demands of the Orioles and Tyler Nevin (random minimum salary player for Orioles) count as do the Dodgers and Max Scherzer.
-
12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:
If you and I had the things the owners have to make their profits look smaller we would all have incomes that wouldn't require paying tax. If you really think franchise values keep going up even though owners only generate enough revenue to keep the lights on (JR doesn't even have to pay the light bill), you have drunk the kool-aid. It's funny, the pro teams that have to publicly report their incomes serm to have no problem paying the bills.
I think this is what Poppy is talking about "I have drunk the Kool aid" just seems like a pointless personal attack that make message boards ugly. But yes, I think a baseball team is closer to a Picasso than a hardware store. Sure there is a value to positive operating income to some degree. Manhattan high rises don't let tenants in for free...but much of the real estate value is the tax free appreciation of scare assets. If you want to argue otherwise...Steve Cohen paid $2.5 billion for the Mets. A fair return on that investment would be 10% a year. You think the Mets made more than $250 million in profits? Last year the Met's had $230 million in player payroll. There would be all sorts of other costs..,marketing, executive staff security, etc etc. Let's just arbitrarily call it $50 million. So $300 million in total expenses They had 1.5 million in attendance at $100 game day revenue makes $150 million in income. Another $54 million in local TV. $50 million in National TV. Maybe $25 million in radio broadcasting? Where is this hidden fortune you are seeing? My numbers are just back of an envelope...I'm sure there is some kind of scholarly study done on this...but no...I don't believe there is a massive operating profit to running a team. But there IS massive value to the asset...Yankees were sold 50 years ago and are now worth $5 billion more than they were last sold for. That's $100 million annual, tax free, appreciation in their asset. THAT'S what owners care about. That and the fame they get for owning one of these rare assets.
-
3 minutes ago, NWINFan said:
The simple fact is that baseball economics changed some time ago. Fans who went to 3-5 games a year used to matter and now they don't. Fans who sat in the bleachers used to matter. Now it is the people who sit in the sky boxes. Why should the owners or the players care about the average fan? We can't put up millions of dollars to give stadiums dumb ass names or can we provide corporate sponsorships or pay a ton of money to sit in some special section.
I don't plan on attending a major league game this year. There is an un-affiliated minor league team not far from me. There is no cost for parking, and ticket places are more than reasonable. My daughter worked for the team for two summers and had the time of her life, so I feel a little loyalty. The beer will still be cold. The sun will still be warm. And I still can watch baseball. Not major league caliber, but I will still watch baseball.
I am tired of the arrogance of MLB and its demands for blind loyalty. They are not entitled to 3,000.000 in attendance and expect fans to sit in some stupid, insane upper deck. They can keep their skyboxes and stadiums that cater to the rich. The hell with the lockout.
I mean that's just bad math. 30,000 fans x $100 in game day revenue x 81 games dwarfs any other source of revenue the teams make. Fans going to the games matter a LOT. They want you at the game. And honestly...when Kopech is pitching and Robert has been on a hot streak...you want to go. I was at the Packers/Niners playoff game...that feeling you get when 80,000 fans are cheering in unison...not much in life can replicate that joy (or the collective pain when the stupid punt gets blocked and returned for a touchdown).
-
4 minutes ago, poppysox said:
I certainly don't blame the players for trying. I think they're trying for some of the wrong things but that's their right. In the end, the owners hold the better hand and the sooner players realize this the sooner we get baseball.
Honestly outside of Curt Flood (only you and I are old enough to remember this reference) the players don't give a damn about those coming after them...nor should they. When I'm negotiating my salary I am not thinking about the good of the other workers in the office, or the benefits of those in college that will come and take my job in a few years...I just want mine. In fact if I can squeeze my company with the knowledge that I will increase my personal wealth in ten years but the company will be bankrupt after I leave? Sign me up. That's the problem with the pro player argument/anti owner. Everyone is in it for themselves including the fans (we want baseball and for our teams to have a fair shot at winning occasionally) . I think really the biggest challenge is within the ownership room...Dodgers are fine with allowing unlimited free agency because they have all the money. Rays want long time control over young players because they are good at development. How do you square these things...because if you don't...the Dodgers will win every year and baseball will die from boredom.
-
13 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:
But you get it both ways. Take the White Sox. They tank for a few years bring payroll down to nothing, make huge profits that supposedly will be spent when the rebuild is over. The rebuild is over and prices go up to pay for the increased payroll.
While I agree with you any concession to the union will ultimately be paid for by paying customers, don't think for a second they won't try to bleed every available cent out of you even if players gave them everything they wanted.
If you look back the last thirty years White Sox attendance is about 20,000 fans a game except in years where they compete and then it would average 30,000 (rough numbers for the argument). 10,000 fans a game x $81 games x $100 a game is $81 million . If the owner businessman (I know I've argued this before in a lot of other threads) just wants to maintain a small profit (the real wealth comes from franchise appreciation) yes...tanking means they cut payroll by $80 million and contending means they raise it by $80 million. All businesses try to "bleed every cent out of you". $7 for $0.50 worth of popcorn at a movie theater? But they are all based around pricing models. Some big retailers were happy to run at a loss because their "real" business was real estate speculation. Run the business to pay the light bill and wait for the underlying asset to go up. Baseball ownership is really no different. Herb Kohl (retail genius) bought the Bucks for $18 million, lost money every year, and then sold them for $550 million. That's the game. BUT, and so many people seem lost on this, real estate CAN go down in value. If you pay $3 billion for the White Sox and baseball manages to bungle their way out of popularity...you could see your $3 billion decline to $2 billion in ten years. Some speculation that this is happening with NBA franchise values the last few years. In a sense a sports franchise is like any collectible. It is never worth its underlying asset (the stream of income from the business) but is worth things because of it's scarcity. If that asset losses its popularity (Beanie Babies, 1970's baseball cards, Crypto) the asset can plummet in value. This is ALL the owners care about...but it plays in our favor...most don't care about the nickels in annual cost/expense that is being haggled over...they care about the golden goose. In some sense this "battle" going on keeps baseball in the national debate which may be their goal. Who knows.
-
54 minutes ago, poppysox said:
I know you think the overwhelming numbers on this site favor your viewpoint. However, of the over 6000 members of these forums only approximately 15 members have participated in the recent days of posting on this subject. Many good posters have given up because they don't like the gang tackle approach used by a few. Sadly, half of those 15 posters are admin who should welcome opposing viewpoints but instead attempt to steamroll those with opposing views.
Poppy's right on this point. Message boards are no fun when a handful of load voices shout down debate. It's NOT an idiotic position to support the owners. There is ONE thing the owners care about...the future value of their franchises. There is ONE thing the players care about...the short term earnings from playing this sport. The owners have a much greater incentive to care about the competitiveness of the league than the players do. If the new collective bargaining agreement mean that in 15 years the value of baseball franchises will plummet...why would the players care? And this is the tricky part...you have the Dodgers with $200 million in annual revenues and the Marlins with $100 million in revenues largely because of geographic and demographic issues they don't control. Yet you need a structure that will allow the Marlins a chance to win versus the Dodgers. Meanwhile on the players side you have the Dodgers who have 4 pitchers earning a combined $125 million and a dozen players earning a combined $5 million. How do you get all those guys making $500,000 caring about the same things as Max Scherzer making $34,000,000? I should think there is no real common front on any side...the issues are hugely complicated. But i also don't think billionaire owners are idiots...and they know for them to continue to make double digit annual growth on the franchise value they have to protect the sports popularity. The players should not care about that at all. So if you want to get on one side or the other...the owners side might be closer to the fans side.
-
4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:
When’s the last time a playoff team with a Top Ten payroll successfully kept a player in-house doing this?
The Angels, for example, definitely want Iglesias back on a 3-4 year deal…but no QO accepted. The Dodgers didn’t have the option with K.Jansen since one was previously offered earlier in his career. Both are at least 50/50 bets to return to their prior teams.
I'm not sure Carlos Rodon situation comes along very often. You have a pitcher who basically didn't pitch for two full seasons...then comes back and is arguably the best pitcher in baseball for the first four months of the season. Then pitches only 28 innings the last two months. He averaged barely over 5 innings per start. Then the team that has him doesn't offer him a QO. If you are a team on the outside trying to make sense of this you sure would be cautious, wouldn't you? I think half the people on this board would be disappointed if the "only" starting pitching move we made this winter was resigning CR for 3 years. I think there is a scenario where CR is the best pitcher in baseball the next three years...hard to make that case for any of the other more expensive free agents pitchers. Go look at Chris Carpenters career, Adam Wainwright, John Smoltz. Lot's of guys with arm troubles in their late 20's that are great in their 30's.
-
1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:
Scott Boras will not play games like that with his clients. People go to Scott Boras because he won’t play games like that. The idea that he will do some favor that helps the team at the expense of his player? Not Boras. If you want a Boras client, you pay the price for that player. If you want that price lower, you need leverage like a QO that limits his offers. Avoiding the QO was potentially worth $10-$20 million to Rodon, if he can pass a physical.
I respect you Balta but this idea that you know what Boras will do is more omniscience than I'm willing to offer you. What we know with certainty is the mystery. Sox granted Boras and CR a benefit worth $20 million (your estimate) and will cost them a draft pick? It's intriguing. If he signs Poppy's deal with someone else...it is #2....if he signs Poppy's deal with us it's #3. IF he signs 5/$100 with someone...you shrug and move on.
-
6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:
I will suggest a 4th, and I’m not sure if I believe it but it makes more sense that your #s 2 and 3 - the Sox had a handshake agreement with Boras prior to 2021 to not use the QO on Rodon if he stayed for that tiny deal.
More sense? I think its possible but at that point in 2020 NO ONE wanted Rodon and the idea we would have to agree not to guarantee $18 million for the 2022 season for Rodon to sign just seems like a ":why bother". It's not like the franchise tag in football where he would be FORCED to sign with us if he had an amazing year. The QO is only a tiny impediment to other teams signing him. So we all agree that the QO is an asset...and one that the White Sox have thrown away...it's one of the most intriguing questions in the off season. I have to believe Hahn is playing this like a chess match...we move then what will they likely move so I can make my next move. #2 is the easy one...they think his arm IS about to fall off...they are in a greater position to know this than anyone and if they think that there is no way they make a QO offer because CR would just sign it and get $18 million. The other option is way trickier....why would you just throw away that asset if you aren't stupid and you didn't have to? I just think there HAS to be behind the door negotiations with Boras. It's much easier for Boras to shop CR if there isn't a draft pick involved...so if we do this for you...what will you do for us? It would also be a plus in CR mind...not only was he on a great team where he liked a lot of the players...but they gave him a chance this year when no one else did...and then didn't attach the QO. Goodwill with the agent, goodwill with CR doesn't mean we get him for cheaper...just a tie goes to the White Sox.
-
On 11/23/2021 at 6:55 PM, Jerksticks said:
What if you want to push hard for a championship though? Rodon is a HUGE risk from my armchair. Lot of money for non-guaranteed innings
Yes but who ISN'T a huge risk? Robbie Ray is two years older and as recently as 2020 had an ERA of nearly 7. Yes he's coming off a great year...but he's pitched 8 years in the majors and has had a WAR above 1 twice. Plus the predictions are he will be 4/$100m and costs a draft pick. Would you bet your life that he would have a better year than Keuchel? Keuchel's had 6 seasons with WAR above 2. Yes Ray's stuff is sexier and he had a much better 2021...but Keuchel's already on the team and had a MUCH better 2020.
Stroman? Would be our 5th righty and probably #5...5/$90 plus draft pick would be a lot to pay for a guy that is 31 and been a 2 WAR pitcher.
Max, Verlander and Kershaw have been amazing...but huge risk.
Again part of the goal I think should be threading the needle and getting multiple WS's. Rodon was 3rd overall pick in the draft, had brief touches with greatness and then arm trouble. There are pitchers that have a history of early arm trouble that then come through it. I detailed in an earlier thread about Mike Minor...missed two complete seasons and then put up 14 WAR in the next three. Rodon was amazing last year...what everyone thought he could be. Yes he wore down after 130 inning but he basically didn't pitch for two years before that...building up arm strength IS a thing. A dominating lefty power pitcher is what the White Sox need. There are really only three reasons the White Sox didn't put a QO on Rodon--1, Soxtalk preferred belief that the White Sox are idiots, 2. They think his arm is about to fall off and they are worried he would accept the free $18 million. 3. They are keeping everyone guessing...playing footsie with Boras and Rodon and if his market is soft they have good will to get him for say 3/$50, Of all the moves they could make this winter I would most like to see that.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Two-Gun Pete said:
Maybe, but seeing how RH addressed the vs RHP kryptonite with Hernandez, and the RF hole with NOBODY, I think RH has earned every scrap of critique.
After all, these are still the geniuses that gave you James Shields and Jeff Samardzija.
1. Did the white sox need the same things as TB and LAD at the TDL? Did TB & LAD have the exact same holes as the SOX? If not, then this is a canard.
We're still waiting to see how Kimbrel was going to solve the RF hole. If he was not going to solve the RF hole, then it was the wrong acquisition.
And even if there was a small issue with the RH setup men, it wasn't just straight up kryptonite to this team, as it was having no solutions for RF, & scant additions to defeat RHP.
2. You yourself posted a few weeks ago that Kimbrel was only good in 54% of his innings in recent seasons. IOW, it was barely better than a coin flip that Kimbrel would be good. And again, how would Kimbrel solve RHP, or solve RF?
...just askin'...
Ohmigod...let it go. The White Sox took a calculated gamble on creating a post season relief core that would be legendary. That IS a path to World Series victory...you get 9 innings to score and the other team only gets 6. And you know what? It didn't frigging work. Kimbrell for whatever reason was other worldly until July and then was bad. It happens. Sad they didn't fix RF...you know who was the PERFECT RF fix? 27 year old lefty power hitter, strong defense, reasonable contract for 2021/2022...strong career and had put up a 4.2 WAR up to the trade deadline? Go ask the Yankees how Joey Gallo worked for them. Of course Gallo would have cost us Madrigal and Crochett...but I know you'd be on the board bitching about it if we had made that trade too. It's so fun to follow a sport and then look in retrospect at what went wrong and scream to the heavens how stupid we are for everything that didn't go right. .
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:
His xFIP was actually lower in the 2nd half than the first half. He did give up harder contact and more HRs, but the K rate improved and the BB rate was the same. Not sure there is enough there to be overly concerned.
But why Gausman or Stroman over Rodon? All three are coming off career years but Rodon was way better....and OK he wore down at the end of the year but that is the same excuse you gave for Gausman's late season failings. Further...Rodon is a lefty...we go on and on in this board about getting a lefty hitter but having a starting rotation of 5 righties seems a bigger problem. I still think Rodon is their secret signing. He hit 99 mph in that playoff game so it's not like his arm was falling off. I also don't think Rodon gets a mega deal because of the worries of his past.
I also wonder about Keuchel. He had a terrible year but he's had a good career...if you are sending $7 million to the Mets in that trade that means you only clear $11 off the books. OK it's not nothing but I can see a key role for him as your long man and swing starter. The guy was fifth in Cy Young voting as recently as 2020 and won the gold glove this year. Maybe he's done but he has always seemed to me like Buehrle...crafty lefty that is a great fielder. Buehrle had one of his worse years ever at 34...and then followed it up with two of his best years. Giving away assets makes me nervous.
-
13 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:
Very true - it was why I love the Rodon QO or Rodon 3 to 4 year deal at reasonable price (that got Rodon the security he desired but had a fair risk / reward for the franchise). Either options for Rodon seemed great. 1 year deal - if he pitches like he previously did great and he moves on a year from now. If he doesn't, you took a shot at someone you know can be an ace but you move on next year / have flexibility to take on a longer term deal at the deadline because all you risked was 1 year.
If you went multi-year, you feel like if Rodon really is healthy - you got something cause a healthy Rodon may not replicate last year's numbers but more often than not he's going to be pretty good. Hard not to be with that sort of stuff.
Following the tea leaves on this it seems like a multi-year offer to Rodon is my bet. His market is depressed...no one knows his arm strength more than the White Sox...they were kind to him and his agent by not attaching the QO...and man when he was good last year he was Corbin Burnes good...and what do we need more than a TOR lefty? Sure he wore out at the end but it seems like CaliSoxfan was predicting that all year. You just don't ramp up from 0 to 190 innings in a year. He got up to 120 last year and could be 180 this year. 3 years $50 million with injury clauses? That's Kimbrell's money...so you trade him and still have money for Semien...Vaughn in RF. Let's go get a World Series.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:
But the Padres did actually win a playoff series last year. Nobody will be satisfied just having a seat at the playoff table next year...at least I hope aspirations are grander than that.
I've been saying for months the Sox will have a top five payroll. I think the goal for everyone is World Series. I just hate the theory that if you don't pay the top guy the top money you are stupid. We already have our $300 million guys...Robert, Jiminez, Moncado, TA...we just don't have to pay them that...so we can allocate the money to mid level contracts. Still hoping for one mega deal...Semien or Max...but it's nice we don't have money tied up in bad contracts.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:
Oh they spend....I just hate their strategy. I'd rather them spend in FA for actual impact players rather than throwing around mid-range contracts for guys like Keuchel and Graveman.
Yes why can't we emulate the Phillies, Mets and Padres strategy...$300 million contract guys basically guarantee the playoffs.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:
The problem with this logic is how much of that .800+ against RHPs comes against the high-end ones that you face in the playoffs? The reality is lineup balance does matter and it gets exposed against tougher competition.
I mean...elite pitchers are elite pitchers against everyone. Corbin Burnes this year had a .477 OPS vs righties and .561 versus lefties. Rodon's splits were virtually identical against lefty and righty. I think the question is would you rather have a righty top 25 bat hit against a righty or a lefty top 50 bat against a righty. Paul Goldschmidt equivalent vs Avisail Garcia (23 vs 49 OPS) equivalent but one has a handedness advantage. I'd prefer the great hitter vs the good hitter with handedness advantage. I'm not really sure who you can trade the 24 year old Vaughn earning $550,000 for that would have the same upside. If we are shooting the moon with this rebuild...yes cheap controllable core pieces shouldn't be traded. Brian Reynolds? He's two years older, $4 million more and about to hit Arb 2...meaning he's about to get a lot more expensive.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Colome's Hat said:
Neither. Let's stop this foolishness.
This is so right. I think we have all twisted ourselves in knots over this righty/lefty business. If we think, as I suspect all of us do, that both Eloy and Vaughn will be top 25 hitters...which this past year was an .870 OPS (Marcus Semien)...it is nearly impossible to reach that without hitting at least .800+ versus righties. Vaughn struggled against righties his rookie year...I showed in another thread that he and Mike Schmidt's rookie years were very similar...MS was terrible against righties his rookie year and then hit .880 against them the next 18 years. We are also twisted over this defense thing...Abreu is 35 this coming season. His end is in sight...Vaughn will be at first for ten years...we are going to forgo that because for one year he has to play right? As for the bad outfielders...really...you have hitters the caliber of Jose Ramirez in right and in left...and both are young enough to be competent defensively...you don't want that? Finally they are both cost controlled for five more years. For our window to be long we need affordable young players. Don't touch these guys!!!
-
2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Tray has a very disturbing hatred for Vaughn and will use anything in his disposal to rip him accordingly. He much prefers his favorite young Cuban in Eloy Jimenez.
It's ok to be irrational over some players...I'm actually having fun researching hall of famers that were terrible in their rookie years. Mike Schmidt at the same age as Vaughn (23) had a slightly lower OPS and many more strikeouts. He was also a rh hitter that was TERRIBLE against rh pitchers (.600 OPS his rookie year) The next year he put up an OPS of over .900 and maintained that .900 OPS for the next 17 years (and career OPS of .890 against rh pitchers after that first season). Sometimes when you see greatness it's actually there and baseball requires patience. One of the arguments for having Vaughn as everyday RF this year is just to unlock his bat. Abreu's 35 this year...Vaughn is 24. Abreu is stubborn about playing 1B. Give him another year and then start the transition in 2023.
-
3
-
MLB 2021-2 off season thread
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
The thing that terrifies me about trading AV is looking at the comparables with Mike Schmidt. MS and AV both debuted to much acclaim at 23, each had a bit over 400 at bats, each put up a "disappointing" OPS around .700, and neither could touch right handed pitching (almost identical .610 OPS). And then, as expected Mike Schmidt at 24 began destroying baseball. I'm not saying AV will become a Hall of Famer...but it's not ridiculous to say that is his upside. Also note...MS career OPS vs RH pitchers settled in just under .900 over his next 7000 at bats. A bit of patience hoping for greatness.