Eminor3rd

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) Of course it's his age. Just 3 or 4 years ago Alexei was a borderline elite SS....me or anyone else shouldn't be denying that. But as all athletes who get into their 30's he's declining. His RZR (revised zone rating) is pretty damming of this. He went from exceptional in 2012 (.837) to pretty poor (.730) this past year. Maybe it was an anomaly, but betting on a soon to be 34 year old SS to turn his D around is a pretty poor bet in my opinion. The biggest change was the range factor, at least in UZR. Do you really believe he lost 15 runs worth of defensive range over the course of 12 months? I think your point is generally correct -- he's declining. But it's not likely that he's already "bad." I mean, I'm down with trading him. I was creating threads about it LAST offseason.

Shocking. Cannot understand the deal for OAK at all.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) So they were flawed 3 or 4 years when they were in Alexei's favor too right? Or just when you choose to disagree with them? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) Any stat that said Alexei was mediocre last year was crap. I think you guys are both wrong. - Having a -0.7 UZR is the same thing as having a zero UZR, which means average, which MIGHT be your definition of "mediocre," but is really just that it doesn't hurt you or help you. - The public, for some reason, tends to act as if defense is a remarkably consistent skill where guys are constantly playing at their exact true talents, whereas everyone accepts that offense is streaky. There is no evidence, however, to suggest this is the case. - The public assumes that UZR/DRS are inaccurate without multi-year samples, when the truth is that they are just not PREDICTIVE without multi-year samples, which is very different. That Alexei had a "mediocre" season defensively does not make him a true-talent "mediocre" defender, just as the fact that he was previously elite does not mean that he is currently elite. Probably his age has slowed him a bit, but probably it did not turn him from high-end to below average in the span of one season. He is most likely a tick above average and just didn't have a great season. Both the eyeball test AND the sabermetrics point to this conclusion.

Minor league deal, I assume? Seems like they're doing everything they can to squeeze Jordan Danks out.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) I would take him in a heartbeat. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) Obviously, although Boston was thinking about trying to make Abreu a third baseman.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 02:56 AM) Signing a 35-year-old DH is about the biggest "WIN NOW" move they could have ever made. Rebuilding teams don't spend like that on aging assets that aren't easily moveable in a "flip for prospects" scenario like you can easily do with pitchers, and sometimes OFers. There's a huge difference between a "win now" move that risks future assets and one that doesn't affect them at all. The LaRoche signing is in the latter category. The truth, as always, isn't black and white. Our "window of contention" is less of an open/shut thing and more of a continuum. Yes, we're trying to win in 2015, but we're not trying as hard as we expect to be trying in 2016, and definitely not as hard as we expect to be in 2017. Rick Hahn's behavior to this point has been to do everything he can to win today so long as it has close to no effect on winning tomorrow. That's not punting the season, but it's also definitely not a situation where he's giving up prospects, draft picks, or future dead money to get the best guys on the field next year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 11:32 AM) Votto would be pretty nice. Not at 9/$200m for ages 32-41 coming off an injury-riddled season.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) I doubt it, they have no need for Davidson because they have Votto at first and Frazier at third. Plus, I think thats giving up on Davidson to early. He had one bad year like Bruce, he'll figure it out and still could be this teams third baseman of the future. Note the green text, friend

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:48 PM) You can't have a talent like Jose batting 4th. Every spot lower in the order gets you fewer plate appearances per season. There's a TON of evidence that the 4th batter receives more RBI opportunities than the 3rd batter. I wish I could link to it but it's not available online, as it is sold in Tom Tango's "The Book," which I highly recommend. In fact, the same study shows that the 2nd batter often gets more than the 3rd batter. Also, for reference, each spot in the lineup receives an average of 18 fewer plate appearances than the one before it, over the course of a full season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) No, that is obviously Bryant. But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust. I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:33 PM) I'm talking about for purposes of this conversation. I am not "tagging" you for anything. Castro has been a relatively valuable player for most of his career. He certainly provides a little bit of certainty in regards to what you are getting. It would be difficult to hang up the phone if names like Castro, Bryant, and Soler were mentioned. He's got value as a part of a total package, but he's not a guy that "gets me listening" on Chris Sale.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:09 PM) See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects. Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance? Like who? They don't have anyone except Rizzo, and that's the last place on the diamond we need help. Notice I selected nothing but advanced, upper minors guys that have maintained their upside. And, individually, they all have probably less than a 50/50 shot to reach their ceilings. Collectively, you feel like one probably will. Also, please don't tag me for "downplaying prospects," as I am usually on the other side of that debate. If I'm "downplaying" them, it's only when I'm comparison with what is literally the most ideal possible outcome for them, which is when they turn into superstars the year after signing long-term extensions that pay them like bench players. EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to make anyone angry. Lillian informed me that I'm acting like an asshole today and she's probably right and I'm sorry. I can't seem to get the "edge" out of my posts today for some reason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:07 PM) Because he might pass through, where another team won't take him. That way they can keep him, and outright assign him to Charlotte. I'm surprised this wasn't Wilkins. Me too, considering the signing was LaRoche. Maybe they felt Carroll was a better bet to go unclaimed?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Yes, you would certainly think that would be the case. However, apparently our organization has not shared our embracement of this principle. We haven't had much left handed, potent hitting, in quite a while. I often think that this team was constructed upside down, with almost all Left handed pitchers, and almost all right handed hitters. It has always seemed very perplexing to me. I wouldn't assume it's for lack of trying, though.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) A lot of information right there, so we are looking at: Eaton ? Abreu LaRoche Avi Gillaspie ? ? ? To me, this only makes sense if you have a switch-hitting 2 batter, or you believe more in the concept of lineup protection than you believe in the ability of specialized high-leverage relievers to mow down guys when they have the platoon advantage. Since Eaton is lefty and "locked" in at leadoff, it sets the tone of the lineup to require a lefty in the three hole: L Eaton R ???? L LaRoche R Abreu L Gillaspie R Garcia ? ???? ? ???? ? ???? Now, if you get Melky for the two hole, or if Semien hits well enough to stay there, you can "reset" the pattern of handedness and put Abreu at three while still forcing the other team to burn a bunch of relievers or throw against the platoon advantage later. This is ideal if you think it's important for LaRoche to "protect" Abreu: L Eaton S Melky/Semien R Abreu L Laroche R Garcia L Gillaspie ? ???? ? ???? ? ????

There's a whole culture around fake news now that is just baffling.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Let me ask you this... What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale? At absolute minimum, Bryant + Soler + Russell + Edwards. That's the point where, if it happened, I can squint and see it as good, but I'd still be uneasy. And that's already completely unrealistic from the Cubs' perspective -- they would never even consider it. And no other system in the league can touch that offer. I mean, if we make that trade, we're basically making a play to become what the Cubs are now, except we're in a worse position.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) You're lottery analogy is WAY overstating how difficult it is to analyze prospects in today's day and age. Every prospect that has been mentioned in this thread is in their early 20's with sustained success in the high levels of the minors. If we were to get 6 prospects back are they all going to reach their potential? Of course not, that would be naive to think so. But you're lottery analogy is also extreme in the opposite direction. Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:45 PM) But it isn't random; it's not like we have never seen the players. It isn't like we don't select the players. It isn't like we don't ultimately get to choose whether to accept or deny. I understand there is uncertainty in the finished product you will receive, and that will drive the offers and the process. I think you're both underestimating the bust rate. Further, even among the ones that don't bust, few end up reaching their ceilings. This estimate is way too rosy: "Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures." 50% of notable prospects turn into what you hoped? I think it's more like 20%

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:57 PM) No, you misunderstood me. Tongue-in-cheek, refers to my comment; "we have most of the good lefties". It's obviously not true that we actually have most of them. It just seems that way. That's what I meant by "tongue-in-cheek". So, now that we have clarified our intentions with these comments, what would be the best way to statistically examine my hypothesis? The hypothesis is; There are significantly more right handed pitchers, and they represent the vast majority of the pitches thrown in games. Therefore, employing hitters who are productive vs right handed pitchers, provides a generally more effective offense. The practical application of this principle is that, although a hitters composite stats may not be that impressive, if he is very good vs. RH pitching, he is going to be good in many more at bats, because he naturally doesn't face LH pitchers nearly as often. Of course, the ideal hitter is one who is good vs. all pitching. However, short of obtaining that ideal, I would prefer hitters who are good vs. RH pitching, over those who are relatively better vs. LH pitching. I'd appreciate all constructive comments, as this is a simple, but very important concept. A team is going to lose a lot of games, no matter how good they are. The objective is to be as effective as possible, for as much of the time as possible. Since RH pitching is by far the most common, it only makes sense that it is advantageous to have a lineup that is effective vs. that RHP. This is what has bothered me so much about the Sox having been so conspicuously void of any left handed offensive force in their lineup. Oh sure, we have Eaton and Gillaspie, but I'm talking about middle of the order hitters. Adam Dunn was a failure, and he was the only viable LH option, for the entire time he was in Chicago. Perhaps now some of you can understand why I want a player like Ethier to join LaRoche, in the heart of the order. Even if the team doesn't do that well vs. LHP, it's worth it to have a better chance to win in those majority of at bats and games, when facing RHP. I think that you have certainly established the argument that we need left-handed hitters. I think we all agree. I like that LaRoche addressed that, and I think we're fortunate that we're actually in a market where left-handed power is less expensive than right-handed power. As for Ethier: the idea of him makes sense, but his cost is truly prohibitive. I think he's popular on here for people who assume he'll come with salary relief, but we need to remember that if he does, he'll cost us talent. The only way we get him "free" is if we take the money. To me, there was room for one high-money, one dimensional acquisition for left-handed power, and that went to LaRoche. I think if we eat another $10-15m on Ethier, we're going to find ourselves hard-pressed to make the pitching upgrades we need to make for the team to have a fighting chance at a WC berth in 2015. All of that said, the next biggest priority behind pitching has GOT to be a left-handed LF, IMO. I just don't know that Ethier is the answer.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) No, but you're right about my having commented a few times that most of the good southpaws are on the Sox. Of course, it's a little "tongue-in-cheek". If there was any "tongue in cheek" to it, it was just because you asked someone to compile a list that I thought you had literally already compiled, haha. I'm sorry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) I would have figured someone would take on Carroll. Someone took Axelrod, so why not?

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) To me they(above posters) are way more worried about intangible things like "value" of a contract rather than the actual tangible things like talent on the field. But you're card analogy works as well. This is apple and oranges. The "value" of the contract is only "valuable" if it allows you to acquire more talent to make a winning team. It seems like a lot of people are assuming we're defending the idea that Sale should be enough to win a WS on his own because he has surplus financial value on his contract. The argument is that we're better off using the advantage he gives us to build around him rather than trading him and hoping we luck into finding a guy like him again.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen? You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand. Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000. Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) There is a combination of assets that is though. You may be right, it doesn't matter regardless, since neither of us makes the decisions. Which calls into question all the time we spend on this board in the first place

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) You are oversimplifying this. Ultimately, every player is an asset. The teams that put together the highest sum total of assets within their own particular financial constraints generally have the most sustained success. If you can potentially increase the sum total of your assets by trading any one of your assets, regardless of it's surplus value, it's something one needs to explore. I am not blindly advocating trading Chris Sale or one of the Jose's for a handful of prospects. If you've read my posts on the matter if trading Sale, I'd advocate for at least one high-ceiling talent who has seen some level of sustained success in the mlb, plus some high-ceiling pedigreed prospects, plus an additional veteran or two. Now admittedly, I don't know that any team in baseball would accept those demands - and that's fine - but if one does, I am certainly going to explore it. I'm not going to refuse to trade him because he represents surplus value. This is not a zero sum game here. Right, but I'm saying there is no available asset that is equal or greater to Sale. The amount of of lottery ticket prospects you'd have to compile to be comfortable trading Sale is not a reasonable amount. I get that everyone's saying "you have to be blown away," but you're NOT going to be. A team would have to make a dumb deal to be competitive, and they won't. So, in the universe we're in, there isn't a deal that exists where it makes to trade Sale. I guess I just don't think it's fun to think about stuff that never has a chance to happen, and maybe I should stay out of these threads and let people have their fun.