Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2018 -> 03:44 PM) If they consider him a 50 but with high variance I could see him left off, but I'm hoping they still consider him a 50. Can't wait for team lists to come out to see. He was a 45 on last year’s Cubs list. While I think he should be a 50, I’m not sure that Longenhagen will feel he did enough in 2017 to make that jump. The fact that he’s 22 and hasn’t cracked High A or 100 innings in his career is somewhat troubling. At some point the baby gloves have to come off and Cease will have to prove he can handle a starter’s workload against more advanced hitters. Until that happens I can understand why people would be skeptical despite his insane stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2018 -> 03:55 PM) Another more hopeful comp could be Kyle Tucker of the Astros. 18 year old out of the draft in 2015 he put up a .647 OPS, 19 year old in 2016 improved to .798, 20 year old in 2017 improved to .874 to make him a major prospect. The home runs went from 3 to 9 to 25 those years. Yeah, I think people need to be realistic with Rutherford and hope for gradual improvements. As long as he shows some reasonable signs of progress next year, I’ll remain optimistic with him. Development isn’t always linear and he has the physical tools to make a big leap at some point.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 4, 2018 -> 02:36 AM) https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-network-top-10...ion/c-264680678 Abreu 6th at 1b, Tyler Flowers 9th at catcher... I am so confused about this post. What does Tyler Flowers have to do with anything?

One nice thing about Rondon is he is only 27 and has three years of control left. If Coop can somehow fix him, he could become a valuable piece.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Feb 3, 2018 -> 01:13 AM) Just what this council needs: the insights of baseball’s most tenured yet most severely flawed and obviously most failed owner with a seat at its table.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 12:59 PM) One of the reasons they would ever be in the ballpark with Machado is the money they save now. I'm not sure I follow. Do mind elaborating?

QUOTE (Sarava @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 12:33 PM) If they have an inkling that they might spend $300+ mil on Machado next winter, then yes I think they would take it easy on the bank account leading up to that to better afford it. And I love the Luis Robert signing. He's a bigtime prospect. He was billed as a guy that very well could be a top 5 or 10 prospect in short order. And did that affect next year's chances? Well, all the numbers come from the same place. But I've thought all along, they spent the $50 mil, knowing the next year's payroll (2018) would be significantly lower. In any event, you aren't going to get a Luis Robert caliber prospect for Kemp's contract. But hey, if you can, then I could accept hurting the chances of signing Machado next year. But it's not happening. The Dodgers are stingy with their prospects. They certainly aren't giving up a haul to remove one contract. Machado’s $300M contract is going to be over 10 years or more. We’re not paying for all of that up front. Taking on Kemp’s contract really shouldn’t impact our ability to land Machado next year. The bigger concerns will be how much of our future payroll are we willing to to commit to one player and how much long-term risk are we willing to take on in terms of contract length. Short-term cash flow really shouldn’t be a problem for us.

I’m all for buying prospects. We practically have zero commitments beyond next season. Adding a portion of say Matt Kemp’s salary over the next two years won’t impact our ability to be major players in free agency from a dollars standpoint. The real challenge we face however is that helping out the Dodgers (or Yankees) makes them stronger competitors in next year’s free agent bonanza. Given that adding a Manny Machado type will already be an uphill battle, I think any deal where we take on a bad contract from a big spender will require a premium prospect return.

I like it.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 06:28 PM) I don't think it is a coincidence that the White Sox and Bulls have both slashed payroll significantly. So I don't see any significant bumps in payroll until the Sox are ready to compete................or JR sells. ? Of course they’re both cutting payroll, they’re both at the front-end of rebuilds. What exactly are you suggesting?

Hopefully Reinsdorf can convince him to get rid of competitive balance picks.

Celeste is f***ing awesome. Also excited for Night in the Woods coming out on Switch today.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 03:21 PM) Jon Morosi‏Verified account @jonmorosi 24m24 minutes ago Eric Hosmer’s camp has continued pushing for a contract of more than 7 years, source says. [He is a young free agent at age 28.] The #Royals’ need to re-sign him (and capacity to pay him) increased with this week’s Brandon Moss trade. @MLBNetwork @MLB Lol...please sign Hosmer to a 7+ year deal Royals. That would be f***ing sweet as hell for us.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:56 PM) It would be crazy as it won't help build up the strength. He needs the innings. If he can't start, he won't go to the pen either. Exactly. We need him to build up strength so he can potentially be a post-season asset in 2019 or more likely 2020.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 07:37 AM) I think it's time I block greg, his posts absolutely make my blood boil. There’s no escaping greg. Even if you block him, you’ll see all the responses to his outlandish posts. The best you can do is hope it’s all an act and try to look the other way.

The good news for Lopez (& Giolito) is by being one of the first guys up in the rebuild, he’ll get plenty of time to prove himself before they consider shifting him to a bullpen role. I think he’d really have to stink for someone like Adams or Stephens to take his spot, so he’s probably got until Dunning is ready before his job security might be in jeopardy.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 11:26 AM) Well then you and I are in agreement other than perhaps our opinions of projection systems and the likelihood we each attribute to Avi increasing his power numbers. I think we’re just arguing over what the word “objective” means as I generally agree with you on projection systems. I do think I’m less optimistic on Avi’s power improving but I’d love to be wrong on that. Obviously the raw power & bar speed is there if he can find the right amount of loft.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 10:57 AM) Projection systems are not objective. They are conservative and prone to missing talent breakouts by nature because they use past data on a weighted basis to predict future results. It is objective to say that there are a wide range of possible outcomes for Avi's 2018 and the rest of his career, and that based on last year's data, some of the more positive possible outcomes have become much more likely than we would've expected even a year ago. I don't think anyone here is saying anything more than that. What? Projection systems are the definition of objective. They may not be smart enough to identify potential breakouts with any level of precision and are most definitely conservative, but they are 100% fact based and don’t rely on personal feelings or biases like all of us here do at times including myself. As for Avi, of course there are a wide range of outcomes and generally speaking they’re moving in a positive direction from his career norm. I’ve said that multiple times in this thread. All I’ve been arguing this entire time is that there is far more certainty that his BABIP will regress next year than his power will develop. I’ve made it clear that I think he can be a 2 WARish player next year even with that batting average regression (which is a huge improvement from what he was) and to remain a 4 WAR player he must find a way to generate more power. For some reason, when people like me make these statements, there is a small subset of posters here that get butt-hurt.

QUOTE (turnin' two @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 09:06 AM) Avi could win the MVP, Triple Crown, cure cancer, dress in tights and fight crime by night and control the movement of the heavens and there would still be people that hate him and think he should do more. This “hate” narrative around here is beyond absurd. The dude was a career negative WAR player up until last year. People can keep ignoring that and the .392 BABIP he had last year all they like, but let’s not act like this guy is a proven superstar or something. There are legitimate red flags with him that have been pointed repeatedly. I have no idea why that offends so many people but it’s getting ridiculous. I’m all for optimism, but there’s nothing wrong with being objective at the same time.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 08:44 AM) His BB% increased and K% declined throughout the year, his BB% last year was below his career average, O-swing% was below career average, Z-swing% was well above career average, Z-contact% was well above career average, contact% was the highest it's been since his partial seasons, swstr% was career low. All of those things point to improved plate discipline or the potential for it. His pull rate was well above career average, hard contact rate was well above career average, soft contact rate was well below career average, FB% above career average, IFFB% below career average, he had one of the highest average exit velocities in MLB, and he had some sort of arm injury in July, after which he didn't hit a HR for a month and a half. All of those things point to improved power numbers or the potential for it. Which of those metrics are predictive based on a one year sample? There’s a reason projection systems are predicting a huge fall-off for him in 2018. And by no means am I suggesting these systems are the end all be all (cause they’re not), but I’m not sure any of what you posted changes my mind much other than his plate discipline might be a bit better than I originally anticipated. I’m simply not going to expect power improvement until his adds more loft and I am not sure anything you provided here suggests a massive change in loft is coming.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 07:50 AM) I am sure they will use the rotating dh option primarily in A and A+. However, there is a likely time share in AA at catcher between Zavala and Collins. From a prospect standpoint, they take priority over Hawkins for me. Maybe there will be some trading during spring training. Also, you never know how injuries may affect the best paper plans. Good point and I agree. Hawkins likely be a true 4th OF in terms of playing with some DH at-bats sprinkled in. And that’s fine because Hawkins has proven he’ll never be a big league player. He’s really just a warm body at this point.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 08:04 AM) Gonzalez will be in CF primarily at whichever level he's at IMO. Heres my guess on how it shakes out. Charlotte: Polo, May, Cordell, Palka, etc Birmingham: Jimenez, Booker, Fisher Winston Salem: Robert (CF), Adolfo (RF), Basabe (LF), Call Kannapolis: Gonzalez (CF), Rutherford, Dedelow, Destino Couple thoughts here. I don’t anticipate Gonzalez spending too much time in Kannapolis, so eventually there will be overlap with him and Robert in CF once both are in Winston Salem. At that point, I think the majority of the playing time in CF goes to Robert. Just seems like they’re bound to be together for at least a few months next season and there’s no easy way around that. I also think they’re going to start Rutherford off in the more offensive friendly BB&T Ballpark in an effort to boost his confidence (Merkin has already been floating this, though it could just be speculation). And Polo only has 143 PA’s in AA so far in his career. I think they give him six weeks there in CF, at minimum, before bumping him up to AAA. As for Booker, I think he goes wherever there is a temporary opening, whether due to injury or promotion.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 01:55 AM) Personally while I believe in advanced stats to a degree there is an over reliance on them.Baseball Common Sense 101 tells me when you hit .330 you did a lot right and just didn't get lucky. While I will have to agree that his batting average is likely to regress because of a large number of infield hits it wasn't just luck . I think we forget baseball takes a large amount of skill to get hits and all this talk about his numbers declining to pre 2017 is just people hedging their bets playing the odds that previous bad seasons still outweigh the 1 good one. Why can't the Sox have a player who breaks out in a big way ? Happens all the time. The only way to get a feel for a player is to watch a lot of games. I don't mean 1/2 the games I mean at least 75% and watch what the player is doing up there in the batters box. There's a lot to be said for actually watching/studying baseball. First, let me give you credit about Avi. He actually got better last year and became a better player. You believed in him and deserve credit for that. Having said that, no one can sustain a .392 BABIP. It’s not about an over reliance on advanced metrics, it’s based on actual historical evidence. The highest career BABIPs (by some truly amazing players no less) come in around .350. Do you actually believe Avi is going to continue to be better than the best ever by a good 40 points? It’s not going to happen. His batting average is most definitely going to regress some. Having said that, I think he can still maintain an incredibly high BABIP and remain a .290ish hitter. And that’s fantastic IMO. The real question is can he add power or improve his plate discipline. That’s what will truly define a breakout. I honestly don’t see any reason to believe his plate discipline will improve by any significant margin at this point, but the power theoretically could. If it does he could be a damn good RF like he was in 2017, otherwise he’s probably league average at best. I personally don’t think adding loft is a simple task, but I’m more than willing to give him a shot this coming year because his fielding & base-running are no longer huge value drains and he’s got a non-zero chance of being a star.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 09:55 PM) Explain how the advanced stats scream regression without using the acronym "BABIP". That's the only one that is strongly favoring negative regression, and other advanced metrics point to the possibility of positive regression in both power and plate discipline. If he puts up a .290/.360/.540 line, is he any less valuable? Because I could see that based on his 2017 numbers factoring negative BABIP regression with positive regression in the power and plate discipline categories. It’s more than just BABIP, although it’s obviously the big one. I’ve read multiple articles that suggest regression is coming for a multitude of reasons and I’m pretty sure one of them had a metric that suggested even his 2017 power numbers were a bit flukey. If I can find it, I’ll make sure to post it. What metrics suggest positive regression for power and plate discipline?

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 30, 2018 -> 05:57 PM) Another thing people should stop doing is referring to Native Americans as Indians. Sure, "Cleveland Native Americans" doesn't have the same ring to it, but Indians... are... from India. Sorry, Columbus, but you missed your target. I guess I’m missing the point here. Are you suggesting that referring to a Native American as an “American Indian” would be offensive? Maybe I’m not informed on the issue, but my understanding is a vast portion of the world back then was considered part of “India”. Regardless, the Cleveland Indians aren’t based on modern day Native Americans but Indian tribes that existed in the early days of America. So calling them the “Cleveland Native Americans” really does not make any sense.