2 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Cool.   So what would he have to give up  for one of the best closers in baseball in August and not be played?

Sorry, I can't remember everyone's roster at that time.  Chances are, Yanks would have gone elsewhere to dump Chapman only to re-sign him that off season.  I have no idea what their (Yanks) second best option would have been.  I wasn't privy to those negotiations.  I can tell you that at the time I thought Cubs gave up too much for Chapman.  It would have been like Sox giving up Robert last August for a reliever with two months of service left, assuming Sox were contending for Division title.  Sometimes you just have to walk away.  Theo didn't, and he got played by Yanks GM.

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

Yea well if we are gonna crush Chapman for blowing the lead in game 7 then we should acknowledge that Miller actually lost that game

 

It's almost like trading a lot for a reliever at the break is a bad idea.

Just now, oldsox said:

Sorry, I can't remember everyone's roster at that time.  Chances are, Yanks would have gone elsewhere to dump Chapman only to re-sign him that off season.  I have no idea what their (Yanks) second best option would have been.  I wasn't privy to those negotiations.  I can tell you that at the time I thought Cubs gave up too much for Chapman.  It would have been like Sox giving up Robert last August for a reliever with two months of service left, assuming Sox were contending for Division title.  Sometimes you just have to walk away.  Theo didn't, and he got played by Yanks GM.

You weren't privy but you are sure that Theo got played.  And the Yankees made two deals for closers who were remarkably similar in return, within a month of each other, the cubs won the World Series but they got played.

and no it is not like giving up Robert because the Sox didn't have a World Series capable roster currently playing, so that is a terrible analogy.

good talk let me know when you are privy 

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It's almost like trading a lot for a reliever at the break is a bad idea.

Well both relievers got their teams to game 7 of the World Series so I would think it was worth it

44 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

What's a little mind-blowing is that the Yankees were able to trade Miller a few days later for an equally valuable return...and it wound up being a question of Miller vs Chapman for dominance in the playoffs. Had the Yankees not gotten that return for Chapman maybe the Yankees don't open up and trade Miller either.

How was the return for Miller equally valuable?

3 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Well both relievers got their teams to game 7 of the World Series so I would think it was worth it

Yes, Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman are the reason their teams made the World Series. Not the position players who played every inning, or the starters who threw significantly more innings.

I wonder why relievers aren't the highest paid players in baseball as they lead their teams to World Series'.

5 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

You weren't privy but you are sure that Theo got played.  And the Yankees made two deals for closers who were remarkably similar in return, within a month of each other, the cubs won the World Series but they got played.

and no it is not like giving up Robert because the Sox didn't have a World Series capable roster currently playing, so that is a terrible analogy.

good talk let me know when you are privy 

Theo got played because he gave up 20+ WAR for 1 WAR. 

Again, no matter how much weight you want to put into present value vs future value, it was a shit trade.

He traded, basically, 120 million for 5 million. If you think that's a good deal, to each their own.

People really shouldn't evaluate trades in baseball based on a series outcome.

The point of a trade is to maximize your chances of winning by maximizing your value. Just as people want to argue they won with him, so we don't know what would happen without... I can argue the Cubs may have been even better the past three years and won a title in those years because of the value a player like Torres provided.

The job of a GM is to maximize the playoff opportunities to increase the chances of winning - the playoffs are a lot of luck so getting there more often will lead to more titles. They won one, but their window closed. Had they not made the bad trades, they could still be within their window providing them with more chances of winning which could have led to more wins.

In no way can you trade 120 million for 5 million and feel like you came out on top.

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Theo got played because he gave up 20+ WAR for 1 WAR. 

Again, no matter how much weight you want to put into present value vs future value, it was a shit trade.

I'm sure Theo is fretting about the WAR exchange right now 

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

He traded, basically, 120 million for 5 million. If you think that's a good deal, to each their own.

People really shouldn't evaluate trades in baseball based on a series outcome.

The point of a trade is to maximize your chances of winning by maximizing your value. Just as people want to argue they won with him, so we don't know what would happen without... I can argue the Cubs may have been even better the past three years and won a title in those years because of the value a player like Torres provided.

The job of a GM is to maximize the playoff opportunities to increase the chances of winning - the playoffs are a lot of luck so getting there more often will lead to more titles. They won one, but their window closed. Had they not made the bad trades, they could still be within their window providing them with more chances of winning which could have led to more wins.

In no way can you trade 120 million for 5 million and feel like you came out on top.

Dude come on.   The point is to win, not to accrue WAR.   This is crazy talk

3 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I'm sure Theo is fretting about the WAR exchange right now 

Yes, I'm sure Theo feels like he lost the deal because he's intelligent. 

Just because you won the lottery, it doesn't make it a smart investment. 

Edited December 3, 20196 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

Just now, Kyyle23 said:

Dude come on.   The point is to win, not to accrue WAR.   This is crazy talk

No, the point is to maximize your opportunities of winning a title.

It's amazing how Andrew Friedman is widely regarded as the best GM in baseball yet he's never won. I wonder why Dombroski lost his job, again, while Friedman could sign blank checks anywhere he wanted to be Baseball President.

Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes, I'm sure Theo feels like you lost the deal because he's intelligent. 

Just because you won the lottery, it doesn't make it a smart investment. 

Ok, I have disagreed plenty with you in this last couple pages but i never questioned your intelligence.  I'm done arguing now, but you can fuck off.

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

Ok, I have disagreed plenty with you in this last couple pages but i never questioned your intelligence.  I'm done arguing now, but you can fuck off.

I am not questioning your intelligence; I'm merely saying Theo isn't evaluating decisions based on emotions or SSS outcomes. Apologies if you took that differently.

The lottery analogy is about as good as I can use there.

Edited December 3, 20196 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

12 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Ok, I have disagreed plenty with you in this last couple pages but i never questioned your intelligence.  I'm done arguing now, but you can fuck off.

I think he was talking about Theo. So fuck back in here and be tortured by no news like the rest of us. 

15 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, the point is to maximize your opportunities of winning a title.

It's amazing how Andrew Friedman is widely regarded as the best GM in baseball yet he's never won. I wonder why Dombroski lost his job, again, while Friedman could sign blank checks anywhere he wanted to be Baseball President.

It also depends or the organization. Theo broke a very long drought in Chicago, so it made sense to him to go after that ring at all costs. I wouldn't have made that trade, but it did make some sense for them. Now that the Cubs have that title and 3 straight NLCS's, longevity will be the key.

The Red Sox let Dom go because they got over the hump and won it all a few times. Now they want to be in it every year because they have high payrolls. As for us, we don't need to make an all in trade but it won't get the GM fired doing so. The deal for Shields was bad because he sucked before we got him, and we weren't winning a title that year. 

WAR flags fly forever.

30 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Theo got played because he gave up 20+ WAR for 1 WAR. 

Again, no matter how much weight you want to put into present value vs future value, it was a shit trade.

The Cubs and Yankees both knew the potential Gleyber Torres had. In no world did Theo believe the Cubs would come out on top with a WAR vs WAR debate. That was a move strictly to win a world series that year. In hindsight, I bet Theo makes that move again. 

18 minutes ago, ron883 said:

The Cubs and Yankees both knew the potential Gleyber Torres had. In no world did Theo believe the Cubs would come out on top with a WAR vs WAR debate. That was a move strictly to win a world series that year. In hindsight, I bet Theo makes that move again. 

There is certainly arguments to be made that weight present value significantly more than future value for a team in a pennant chase; as I said though, no matter what your weights are, there's just no defending giving up 120 million in surplus value for 5 million. 

The Cubs could have gotten significantly more for Torres had they decided to move on from him - they could have gotten a package that could both help them now and in the future. They didn't do that. 

It's OK to like the outcome of a trade as a fan, but when evaluating a GM you shouldn't be evaluating him solely based on an outcome. The GM doesn't control outcomes as much as you'd like. Their job is to make fair value, or above value, trades and acquisitions. Anytime you give up significant surplus value in a deal, you've set the organization back.

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes, Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman are the reason their teams made the World Series. Not the position players who played every inning, or the starters who threw significantly more innings.

I wonder why relievers aren't the highest paid players in baseball as they lead their teams to World Series'.

But they pitched in the higher leverage situations when the starters failed. Do not underestimate the importance of the BP especially in today's game when starters rarely go more than 5 innings.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

But they pitched in the higher leverage situations when the starters failed. Do not underestimate the importance of the BP especially in today's game when starters rarely go more than 5 innings.

Baseball is a copy cat game - starters never should have been pulled that early in games. Starters are better than relievers. KC succeeded with the Bpen piece and teams copied. This past post-season, the two teams in the World Series relied heavily on their starters going deep into games. Be a trend setter, not a follower. Following a trend means you'll likely be behind.

Better than the Cubs isn't something that I care all that much about.  If the Cubs stink and the White Sox are mediocre, I won't be filled with joy.

14 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:

Better than the Cubs isn't something that I care all that much about.  If the Cubs stink and the White Sox are mediocre, I won't be filled with joy.

Mediocre vs Bad yeah, it really doesn't matter. But being really good when the other team is shit is a huge deal and I really wish people would stop using 'The Cubs do not matter at all' as some smarter than you meatball bash. 

I have a ton of friends who were 10-12 in 05 and ended up growing up Sox fans with Cub fan parents. I'm sure the inverse is true now. Being better than the Cubs is good for the bottom line which is theoretically good for baseball purposes.

Edited December 3, 20196 yr by mqr

The next year belongs to the Cubs, the 4 after that, the Sox. If the Sox sign more high quality free agents that shift may happen next season 

13 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:

Better than the Cubs isn't something that I care all that much about.  If the Cubs stink and the White Sox are mediocre, I won't be filled with joy.

Don't know about you, but I'm tired of people forgetting we exist. I love being in the light.