22 minutes ago, Tony said:

Again, this is your classic message board debate, void of any real world implications. Everything has to be Side A or Side B. No middle ground. 

You can use stats...AND scout. You know, like every front office in the world does.

I agree with the stats and scouting approach, but also that there seemed to be no middle ground. There is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that I like that goes something like "If you can't change someone's mind in the first five minutes, you aren't going to so don't waste your time." I feel like this was one of those times and I should have cut myself off earlier for my own sanity. 

1 minute ago, GenericUserName said:

I agree with the stats and scouting approach, but also that there seemed to be no middle ground. There is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that I like that goes something like "If you can't change someone's mind in the first five minutes, you aren't going to so don't waste your time." I feel like this was one of those times and I should have cut myself off earlier for my own sanity. 

Sorry to interject but I really hate that quote because it really goes against everything I believe whether it be politics, sports, the meaning of life, whatever when I have a discussion with someone I try to sort of present what I believe in a well reasoned way then listen to the otherside with an open mind.

If you are trying to "convince" someone that implies that you've closed yourself to the possibility you maybe wrong.

55 minutes ago, Tony said:

Listen to any Theo Epstein interview from the last year. Everyone is using similar analytics, the playing field has to sort of leveled off in terms of data collection, everyone is doing it. His point is scouting, the human element has become that much more important now. The pendulum is starting to swing back to scouting in that regard. 

Its the same argument when people say “XYZ stat is meaningless, don’t even look at it.” Which I’ve always said is a dumb approach. You should never use one stat to evaluate a player. We live in an incredibly rich Information Age, why rely on just one piece of information? Talent evaluators certainty don’t. And that’s not to say some stats aren’t as important as others.  Use every piece of data available to you (that doesn’t mean just stats either) and make your best judgement. 

The point that I was making is that stats are more objective that scouting, which is one guy's opinion based on the eye test. Amateur scouting and pro scouting are different. You have way more data in the pros than you do at the amateur level. At the amateur level the eye test is way more important than when you have Trackman, pitch fx and other quantitative tools. Those things give you so much more info that you don't have otherwise. I'm a pretty analytical guy. I like numbers and they always make sense. Subjective stuff drives me nuts and I don't understand it well due to my autism. Though logically it makes sense to use all information, quantitative data is more comfortable for me personally. It only makes sense that more information. Honestly it makes zero sense to me that anyone anywhere can look the same data and come up with two wildly different opinions. One person is dealing with reality and the other is delusional. I fail to grasp the concept of subjectivity. 

Edited July 28, 20187 yr by Jack Parkman

50 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Sorry to interject but I really hate that quote because it really goes against everything I believe whether it be politics, sports, the meaning of life, whatever when I have a discussion with someone I try to sort of present what I believe in a well reasoned way then listen to the otherside with an open mind.

If you are trying to "convince" someone that implies that you've closed yourself to the possibility you maybe wrong.

That's where I personally make the distinction between arguing and debating. I have had debates lasting several hours that resulted in both parties walking away with (at least slightly) changed minds and I loved those. However I also think there are times when you argue with someone you think will never change their mind which makes you also want to never change your mind. I feel like you can usually tell in those first few minutes which way its going to go and if you realize its an argument, better to just walk away so you don't drive yourself insane. 

 

7 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

Torres is already producing at the major league level. There's no argument at all that Jimenez is an equivalent asset.

Give it about a month then. 

18 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

The only org right now that could probably sway me is the Padres.  I would happily take Mejia, Allen, & Naylor for Rodon.

An offer of Soroka, Allard, Riley, and Contreras from the Braves would have me listening.

7 hours ago, iamshack said:

Give it about a month then. 

Yeah, whatever the perceived values are. I can't imagine any Sox fan being willing to trade Eloy straight up for Gleyber. The superstar potential is just too enormous.

As for Rodon. I'd really hate to move him. That would definitely be a step back in the rebuild. But if him and Boras aren't willing to play ball on an extension (and only the Sox know this answer), then you have to listen to potential offers.

1 hour ago, Sarava said:

Yeah, whatever the perceived values are. I can't imagine any Sox fan being willing to trade Eloy straight up for Gleyber. The superstar potential is just too enormous.

As for Rodon. I'd really hate to move him. That would definitely be a step back in the rebuild. But if him and Boras aren't willing to play ball on an extension (and only the Sox know this answer), then you have to listen to potential offers.

The argument wasn’t Eloy vs Gleyber right now, or in the future.  It was whether 2017 Eloy’s trade value as an A ball prospect (at the time he was traded) was equal to Gleyber’s trade value right now—after already blowing through the minors and succeeding at the ml level.  Those values are obviously not equivalent. 

The fact that Eloy’s value has exploded since the 2017 trade due to his production at the AA and AAA levels only further proves that point.

Edited July 28, 20187 yr by 35thstreetswarm

46 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

The argument wasn’t Eloy vs Gleyber right now, or in the future.  It was whether 2017 Eloy’s trade value as an A ball prospect (at the time he was traded) was equal to Gleyber’s trade value right now—after already blowing through the minors and succeeding at the ml level.  Those values are obviously not equivalent. 

The fact that Eloy’s value has exploded since the 2017 trade due to his production at the AA and AAA levels only further proves that point.

The post I replied to was referring to a month from now. But yeah, I saw where the conversation started. And of course I agree that Gleyber's value right now is a lot higher than Jimenez's was before he was traded. I think Eloy was hitting .271 at the time of the trade. He's been a freak since then. In a good way of course

3 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

The argument wasn’t Eloy vs Gleyber right now, or in the future.  It was whether 2017 Eloy’s trade value as an A ball prospect (at the time he was traded) was equal to Gleyber’s trade value right now—after already blowing through the minors and succeeding at the ml level.  Those values are obviously not equivalent. 

The fact that Eloy’s value has exploded since the 2017 trade due to his production at the AA and AAA levels only further proves that point.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but if we want to actually be accurate, then let’s be accurate. Gleyber’s stock was down after hyperextending his elbow last year and then struggling in spring training this season. He came up to the majors several weeks later, and as we have seen with a few others (Ozzie Albies), his ability to hit the Major League baseball for power far outweighed his pereceived ability and his production in the minor leagues. Thus, his value has since skyrocketed from where it was even as a minor leaguer. Secondly, Eloy’s value actually really exploded in 2016, when he raked across two full levels of A ball. Certainly he carried that through the last 18 months, but he really became an elite prospect in 2016, to be fair. 

My comment about “give him a month,” was in reference to the characteristics of Major League Baseball’s current ball. There is NO doubt in my mind that Eloy will come up and produce immediately. He isn’t a guy that is getting by on talent alone - this dude understands how to hit at a professional level. I truly believe we are looking at a Manny Ramirez type of hitter here. When he comes up, with this particular baseball, I feel like his stock will make a similar or greater jump than what we’ve seen from some of the other kids that have come up. 

14 minutes ago, iamshack said:

My comment was tongue in cheek, but if we want to actually be accurate, then let’s be accurate. Gleyber’s stock was down after hyperextending his elbow last year and then struggling in spring training this season. He came up to the majors several weeks later, and as we have seen with a few others (Ozzie Albies), his ability to hit the Major League baseball for power far outweighed his pereceived ability and his production in the minor leagues. Thus, his value has since skyrocketed from where it was even as a minor leaguer. Secondly, Eloy’s value actually really exploded in 2016, when he raked across two full levels of A ball. Certainly he carried that through the last 18 months, but he really became an elite prospect in 2016, to be fair. 

My comment about “give him a month,” was in reference to the characteristics of Major League Baseball’s current ball. There is NO doubt in my mind that Eloy will come up and produce immediately. He isn’t a guy that is getting by on talent alone - this dude understands how to hit at a professional level. I truly believe we are looking at a Manny Ramirez type of hitter here. When he comes up, with this particular baseball, I feel like his stock will make a similar or greater jump than what we’ve seen from some of the other kids that have come up. 

Great post.

Would the Padres have interest? They have a ton of prospects that could help.

4 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Would the Padres have interest? They have a ton of prospects that could help.

I just can't see any team giving up a lot for Rodon right now. Yes, the talent is there but he needs to prove he can stay healthy,

4 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Would the Padres have interest? They have a ton of prospects that could help.

If the Rays are demanding Tatis or Gore, I would definitely position Rodon as a slightly cheaper alternative.  Would still require a haul and a couple of their next tier of prospects.

Meijia, 2 of Paddack, Morejon or Baez, Naylor, and Ruiz or get lost Padres.  

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

Meijia, 2 of Paddack, Morejon or Baez, Naylor, and Ruiz or get lost Padres.  

I hope Hahn demands they overpay since they screwed the sox over on Shields medicals. 

1 hour ago, soxfan2014 said:

I just can't see any team giving up a lot for Rodon right now. Yes, the talent is there but he needs to prove he can stay healthy,

/thread 

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

Meijia, 2 of Paddack, Morejon or Baez, Naylor, and Ruiz or get lost Padres.  

I looked up the minor league stats of those players.  Man, Padres farm system is loaded.  They could trade for both Rodon and Archer.

Just now, oldsox said:

I looked up the minor league stats of those players.  Man, Padres farm system is loaded.  They could trade for both Rodon and Archer.

Yah, they can afford to overpay for a younger cost controlled pitcher.  At some point they will.  Most of their arms are a few years away. 

11 minutes ago, oldsox said:

I looked up the minor league stats of those players.  Man, Padres farm system is loaded.  They could trade for both Rodon and Archer.

They have such a good farm system that they could trade themselves into playoff contention in one year. 

4 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

They have such a good farm system that they could trade themselves into playoff contention in one year. 

But instead, they'll do things such as give $150 million to the worst first baseman in baseball. 

Just now, Jose Abreu said:

But instead, they'll do things such as give $150 million to the worst first baseman in baseball. 

Yep, which is why I am less worried about them having such a good farm system and kind of hoping they overpay for Archer. 

On 7/27/2018 at 8:16 PM, Jack Parkman said:

The point that I was making is that stats are more objective that scouting, which is one guy's opinion based on the eye test. Amateur scouting and pro scouting are different. You have way more data in the pros than you do at the amateur level. At the amateur level the eye test is way more important than when you have Trackman, pitch fx and other quantitative tools. Those things give you so much more info that you don't have otherwise. I'm a pretty analytical guy. I like numbers and they always make sense. Subjective stuff drives me nuts and I don't understand it well due to my autism. Though logically it makes sense to use all information, quantitative data is more comfortable for me personally. It only makes sense that more information. Honestly it makes zero sense to me that anyone anywhere can look the same data and come up with two wildly different opinions. One person is dealing with reality and the other is delusional. I fail to grasp the concept of subjectivity. 

You use subjectivity when you have no choice -- when the data available is incomplete or insufficient. Unfortuntaly, ithe data with prospects is frequently incomplete or insufficient.

On 7/27/2018 at 8:16 PM, Jack Parkman said:

The point that I was making is that stats are more objective that scouting, which is one guy's opinion based on the eye test. Amateur scouting and pro scouting are different. You have way more data in the pros than you do at the amateur level. At the amateur level the eye test is way more important than when you have Trackman, pitch fx and other quantitative tools. Those things give you so much more info that you don't have otherwise. I'm a pretty analytical guy. I like numbers and they always make sense. Subjective stuff drives me nuts and I don't understand it well due to my autism. Though logically it makes sense to use all information, quantitative data is more comfortable for me personally. It only makes sense that more information. Honestly it makes zero sense to me that anyone anywhere can look the same data and come up with two wildly different opinions. One person is dealing with reality and the other is delusional. I fail to grasp the concept of subjectivity. 

Not trying to be offensive here or anything, but I think the beauty of being human beings is exactly what you think makes us delusional...the fact that one person can take one set of data or information, and the other can take the same set, and both can have completely different opinions and ideas. It's what makes us who we are....the world would be boring if we all thought and acted the same way. All you need to do is go to Wal-Mart to see how vastly different people can be  I don't call it delusional, I call it entertaining haha.

All joking aside, we all have different experiences, different kinds of education, different kinds of influences, different sets of beliefs, different kinds of upbringings...when you look at the grands scheme of things and start to chisel it out a bit, you actually begin to wonder how 2 people see the same set of objective information and actually come to the SAME conclusion, because people are just so different from each other.

Unfortunately, all you have to do is look at our current political and social climate, and see that it's not easy for people to accept others when their opinions differ from them, because it doesn't make sense or comes off as offensive, when all you really have to do is try to understand the other person a little bit and God-forbid agree to disagree a little. But, that's neither here nor there. Wrong thread to start this kind of conversation.

Edited July 30, 20187 yr by Scoots