Chicago White Sox

Unless they created a new 100 year curse by acquiring a scumbag like Chapman to win it all, and it that case it may not be worth it. ?

I think Robert coming back will create a couple of dominos. Assuming it’s late May, Basabe will be around 160 games in High A. Given how dominant he’s been, I can’t see them giving him more than that many games. And given that Booker is 24 years old & playing well, I think we see both him & Basabe get a bump to AA. This would open spots for Robert and hopefully Gonzalez in W-S. Hopefully we see moves with the pitching staff as well. Unfortunately, the veteran bullpen depth in Charlotte is preventing a guy like Hamilton from getting a bump right now. At some point in the next couple of months they’ll have to make room for him there (I don’t see a direct promotion to the majors). I could see Johnson get a bump to High A sooner. I also expect one of Stephens or Guerrero to get a bump to AAA once Hansen is back.

The scary part is we’re still missing two of our top four prospects and Jimenez hasn’t really even broken out yet. But you’re right, so far so good overall!

A is Davidson, B is Judge although I may have had a few too many drinks and pulled Stanton’s Statcast data by accident.

Damn, we just missed an Engel blast by inches.

It almost seems like you hope he’s injured ?

Adolfo with HR #6.

Name the following two players: A) 14.3% BB rate, 30.4% K rate, .340 ISO, Hard Hit % 53.4%, Barrels/PA 11.0 B) 17.7% BB rate, 29.1% K rate, .246 ISO, Hard Hit % 53.3%, Barrels/PA 9.6

And wouldn’ Everyone but Greg agrees!

Ok, I think Davidson is a legit major league hitter.

You must not have watched him ealier this season when he wasn’t swinging the bat and was basically just looking for a walk. And again, I don’t see how BABIP regression has anything to do with his reduced K rate and improved power output, which has had a more significant impact on his batting line as of late.

100% this. If you’ve watched him he’s been far more aggressive at the plate and you can see that by an improved K rate but slightly refucwd BB rate. The quality of contact has also been much better. It’s great that his BABIP has improved, but come on, I’m not overly impressed by someone predicting a sub .200 BABIP is going to return to the mean. The improvement in his numbers as of late is tied to his change in approach and not some batted ball luck.

Was Lambert scratched? Kubat is pitching for WS tonight. Also, Collins with a single & Jimenez with a double in the 1st.

Anyone seen Lambert pitch this year? The numbers have been incredible and it sounds like he may have seen a velocity increase.

The problem you guys aren’t acknowledging is how much upside risk is there really for us with a 10 year contract at record breaking AAVs. You’re ultimately paying for the surplus value in those early years. That’s when the majority of value occurs. It all depends on when the opt-out takes place in the contract. If I can get four guaranteed years, I’m ok with losing a little upside in years 5-7 if I can avoid the likely downside in years 8-10. If it’s only two guaranteed years it's a completely different story.

If this is somehow a budgeting debate, I’d argue you should budget based on the most likely outcome (i.e. the opt-out is exercised) and have a fall back plan in case it’s not. There’s nothing wrong with having two possible paths depending on what decision is made. Obviously you can’t ignore those post opt-out years, but you don’t typically budget from a worst case perspective. The Cubs most certaintly thought Heyward would be opting out as some of their core guys started getting expensive and I’m sure their plan has now changed. Our goal, just like it was for the Cubs, is to maximize a short window that has a higher degree of certainty (since core guys are cost controlled) and adding a guy like Machado does that regardless of opting out or not.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’ll happily pay Machado $140M over four years and be ok with losing a valuable asset at that point in time. If he’s a 6+ WAR player he’s probably providing $80M+ in surplus value over that period of time. He will probably only provide half or less of that value over the remaining years of the contract. Sucks that we have to replace him then, but at least we got to enjoy all that surplus value during a big chunk of our competive window. If he sucks, the opt-out doesn’t really matter because we’d have been on the hook anyways. Again, I’m not actually arguing that an opt-out is good for a team from a theoretical standpoint, but rather it can work out really well if the probabilities play out as they should.

The opt-out is a reality so I’m not sure why you would ignore it. The reality is if we sign one of these guys they’re getting such a clause and there’s a certain proabability it gets exercised. I know the Heyward outcome sucks, but the reality is it’s likely a 90% chance or so these guys opt-out the first opportunity they have. So again, the likely outcome is we’re signing one of these guys to a 3 or 4 year deal with a player options for another 6 or 7 years. That would work well for us given that Moncada & others will start getting expensive right around that time. If one of these guys fails to use their opt-out, well then we just got unlucky. Having said that, we can’t be afraid to take calculated risks and Cubs were still able to win a World Series despite their miss on Heyward. I do agree an opt-out after two years would be a no-go. A minumum of three and preferably four would be my requirement.

Harper & Machado will certainly get opt-outs and will likely use them. I’ll happily take the prime years of either of the two and let them leave after four years or so. If we’re afraid to sign true young superstars when we’ll have minimal financial obligations then we might as well fold up shop.

Don't forget we have a TV deal that will be expiring soon. Adding a legit superstar could add some value there as well.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to manage that though. We wisely targeted assets that were closer to the majors in the Sale & Eaton deals and those guys will be up before the rest of our top prospects. Nothing wrong with having waves of talent, but it also means that we can't waste significant time before we start adding in free agency. Have to view Moncada as a guy who will leave when hits free agency after the 2023 season, which means our goal should be maximizing a 2020 to 2023 window.

That seems like a total waste of team control. Unless he goes on an absolute tear, I'd keep him in AA/AAA this year and call him up mid-May of 2019. I don't really care about the Super 2 deadline for Eloy when we're already burning service time for Moncada, Lopez, Giolito, etc. The additional months of develop is far more important than the additional money IMO.

If Madrigal is the BPA you take him and use him as a trade chip later. Obviously if it's close, lean towards need, but nothing wrong using a few of our prospects including this pick to acquire a cost-controlled star at some point.

I will say this. We are close enough to competing that you don't pass on young, positional super-stars next off-season. The #1 goal for us should be trying to snag one of Machado or Harper. That's an uphill battle obviously, but players of that ilk don't come around very often and we should take some swings now. Just for arguments sake, a lineup built around Machado/Harper, Moncada, Abrue, Jimenez, & Anderson is a damn good starting point. You'd also have guys like Castillo, Davidson, & Sanchez in the mix. There's a lot of potential in that lineup and that doesn't even include Avi for potentially his last year and another veteran on a short-term deal. On the pitching side we'll have a rotation built around Rodon, Kopech, Lopez, & Giolito with Fulmer or one of the more fringe guys (Stephens, Adams, Guerrero) in the mix. The bullpen will need some work but we if add an elite closer like Kimbrel, a veteran lefty, and get back Burdi I think we can put together a solid to good bullpen. Again, I'm not expecting this team to automatically compete for a playoff, but they'd have enough young talent for the team to take a massive leap if things go right.

I guess I see it the opposite way. Both are fringe prospects IMO, but I think Booker's defensive ability & speed provides a far clearer path to the majors as a potential 4th OF type. Unless Fisher suddenly learns how to hit for power, he's going to have a hard time finding a role in the majors. And the fact that's he striking out nearly 39% of time after an unwarranted promotion doesn't make me optimistic his offensive game will suddenly click. I'm not suggesting we completely give up on him, but I'd rather give Booker a look in Birmingham's OF over Fisher at this point time. And adding some positional versatility would only be a good thing for Fisher.