Eminor3rd

It might, especially at first. But I suspect that the feeling of "watering down" the playoffs will reduce interest in the earlier rounds too. The playoffs are a boon because they're exciting, and a big part of them being exciting is that they're rare. I'm talking out of my ass here, of course. This is just my gut mixed with generic econ.

There just isn't enough difference between an elite team and a mediocre team, in terms of chances to win a given game, for this many teams to make sense in the playoffs in baseball, IMO. I also think it's ridiculous to expect something like this would increase spending. If you lower the talent bar necessary to make it in, you just make it more realistic for young, cheap teams to gamble on hitting on a couple breakouts to make it in. With a couple small market exceptions, bad teams already regularly spend each year on a token veteran or two to plug a big hole. I don't know what the solution is for making those teams spend, but it isn't this.

Well, most of it wasn't with the Rangers, but A Rod produced like 80 WAR during that deal or something

I know NYY considers SS to be their biggest need by far. I'd only slightly revise your comment to, "I'd be surprised if the Tigers didn't land either Correa or Baez" and obviously the impact is pretty different between those two outcomes.

I mean I've got doubts, too. I do expect that they'll try trade for at least one. But I expect that, when all is said and done, their definition of "significant" will differ from mine.

This was never really an option for the White Sox. But this being the price is why I've been concerned about missing on the smaller pieces like Frazier/Escobar. At some point, Romy becomes the best option. And that's fine IF they get a real hitter in RF and sign a significant starter (or two).

Both?

You’re right that elite relievers are worth more at the deadline. But my point is that ALL relievers are. Already having an elite closer, the Sox were not in a position to extract the maximum value from Kimbrel as a top of the line closer, but we’re willing nonetheless to pay an incredibly steep price to buy one and absorb all the risk with it, instead of paying a much lower price for a good middle or setup man, who was nearly just as likely to produce a similar value or bust. Was it possible that Kimbrel would have settled into the setup role well, and performed peak Kimbrel feats in huge moments in the playoffs, making all the difference? Yes. But it was very nearly just as likely that someone like, idk Kendall Graveman would perform just as well in the same situations. The aggressiveness of the move wasn’t the problem — if Hendriks had been lost for the season, for example, the Sox could have made the same trade and it would have made sense even if Kimbrel ended up sucking just as much. Because the Sox would have been in a much likelier position to benefit from the difference between Kimbrel and the next best thing. But in the situation they were in, they made a massive gamble to acquire an asset in which there were simply many more scenarios where it either busted, or it wasn’t going to make a meaningful difference compared to other available, and quite frankly more appropriate options that cost less. It was a desperate move in a situation that did not require a desperate move. Anyway I don’t know if the point I’m making is the one you’re arguing with Balta against, and if so I apologize for derailing (I know how frustrating that is), but it does sound to me like he is arguing more about the logic than about Kimbrel himself.

You didn’t have to “know it was coming” to judge the deal, even when it happened. It was a bad deal because relievers are wildly inconsistent over half seasons, and the difference between elite ones and merely good ones over half season is very small. It was a bad deal because they traded a core piece of their team for a luxury player that was only ever going to be marginally better than more affordable alternatives, and had a high likelihood to bust all along. It wasn’t about Craig Kimbrel specifically. You can’t expect anyone to predict the future, but you should expect them to know how to play the odds.

Fo-wul-kowah

Foal-k

Adam Frazier moved for a couple useful spare parts. Would have been a great high-floor get just like Escobar. Confusing start to what promises to be a very strange off-season.

Escobar at that deal to the mets hurts. The Sox could have guaranteed that third year and I’d have felt good about it. Solidified the position and left a bit to go after Rf and Sp still. Someone else said it, but the Sox must just not like him or the other way around. It isn’t that he was the best available, but I think it may turn out that he was the best option at the price when you consider that there were a couple other spots that needed addressed.

“Elmer Bible” is an 80 grade name, though

That was my reaction too, lol

Ahh, ok.

I’m asking this question legitimately, because, as we all know, the social media space has turned into an animate cloud of malignant, cancerous unreality and contradiction: When was the last time Bob Nightingale rumored something that actually occurred for the White Sox? It seems like it might be never, but I really can’t keep track.

Not a bad deal on paper, I just continue to question how the white Sox prioritize their spending every season. It isn’t a ton of money, but it IS significant, and it doesn’t address their top three needs It will make a lot more sense when/if Kimbrel is traded, of course. And if that trade is decent, I’ll like this signing.

Very interesting

For sure, and in hindsight, it’s hard to argue his choice to sacrifice his earnings for the benefit of his personal development wasn’t absolutely wise. If he didn't start adjusting to the league for another couple years, there’s virtually no shot that he would have done what he just did this season. It’s nonsense to incentivize a player to do something other than what is going to lead him to reach his ceiling. We’re all lucky as fans that Ohtani ignored the incentive.

I THINK it was two years. He would have needed to be 25 years old.

Might be part of the reason I can’t tell the difference lol

Heyman reporting he’s going to be posted tomorrow, which means his thirty day window would begin. Given that a lockout would freeze transactions, does that mean he’s going to rush and sign before dec 1?

Same thing as CVS or Walgreens. Maybe only in nyc?

I’m gonna be honest: When I go into a chain pharmacy, I don’t think I even consciously register whether it’s a CVS, Walgreens, Duane Reade, etc.