16 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The Anderson comparison is actually quite vital here. Tim Anderson had 199 community college plate appearances before he was drafted after playing football beforehand and that was the sum of his recorded baseball statistics. Nick Madrigal has been playing baseball all his life, had 501 recorded plate appearances in High School, was drafted in the 17th round out of High School, and had 670 plate appearances at Oregon State. Nick Madrigal should be better right now than what we saw last season.

Even with all of those advantages, Tim Anderson considerably outperformed Madrigal in their rookie age 23 seasons. Most here expect Andrew Vaughn to be a much more significant contributor next season during his Age 23 season, despite the lack of defensive contribution.

bWAR Seasons recent #1 picks - Draft Picks which reached the majors by Age 23:

• Tim Anderson (17) 2.4
• Carlos Rodon (3) 1.7
• Carson Fulmer (8) 0.5
• Nick Madrigal (4) 0.5 [2020 shortened season]
• Andrew Vaughn (3) - Age 23 in 2021 (TBD)
• Garrett Crochet (11) - Age 23 in 2022 (TBD) [0.3 bWar 2020 shortened season]

Zack Collins (10) , Zack Burdi (26) and Jake Burger (11) did not reach the majors by age 23.

 

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Dude what the bleeping bleep?

No. Not one bit. The bolded could not be more wrong.

We are having this conversation because he was incredibly bad at running the bases and was poor at fielding his position. I can deal without the power if the other things you said were true. I cannot give him credit for things he wasn't good at. 

Easy there big fella whats the ruckus all about ? I didn't accuse you of that . Most of what I said pertained to you so focus on that ,not bolding one reference I made to the Madrigal haters. I don't think your a hater. You have legitimate concerns as do I . I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on the guy since trading too many guys with years of cheap $ ahead of them and limited payroll concerns over rule my thoughts on his ability to become a good player doing good things and improving enough to be an asset. Trading him now just means taking on more payroll to fill his position and more payroll and prospects given up to fill the starting pitching hole.

1 minute ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Easy there big fella whats the ruckus all about ? I didn't accuse you of that . Most of what I said pertained to you so focus on that ,not bolding one reference I made to the Madrigal haters. I don't think your a hater. You have legitimate concerns as do I . I'm just not ready to throw in the towel on the guy since trading too many guys with years of cheap $ ahead of them and limited payroll concerns over rule my thoughts on his ability to become a good player doing good things and improving enough to be an asset. Trading him now just means taking on more payroll to fill his position and more payroll and prospects given up to fill the starting pitching hole.

Well, your post was in reply to me, and then blamed that on a vague "Some". I think that was a fair interpretation.

8 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

And the point in response is that Nick Madrigal should have been a nearly complete player by the time he came up. This is his current scouting report at the WhiteSox homepage, praising the things I'm focusing on that were missing from his game last year, including his baseball IQ.

https://www.mlb.com/prospects/whitesox/nick-madrigal-663611

And that response is bullshit . There is only one rookie of the year and most of the time it's based on more than 29 games. So now you it want it based on 29 game + however many games he'll played in his 1st 2 months next year ? How generous of you to allow him another 55 games to reach his ceiling when Anderson took 3 years. It doesn't really matter how raw you were .Once you are up you are expected to perform . Timmy learned on the job against the best. Madrigal has to do the same thing yet you want more from him based on how he played against inferior competition.

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

14 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

That was brought up by the guy not defending Madrigal. The point I made was rookies have to improve and neither Robert, Madrigal nor TA showed they were even close to being complete players  and had/have plenty of room to grow.

Anderson and Robert have unlimited athletic ability.  Of course they were going to get better because they are so incredibly physically gifted.  Madrigal is the opposite of that. If he stops running into outs and making errors he still won't be a difference maker because he's so physically limited.  He has no burst to be a difference maker on the basepaths.  He has limited range and arm strength to be a difference maker on defense and he is obviously limited at the plate because he has no power.  He has very little room to get better. 

2 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

And that response is bullshit . There is only one rookie of the year and most of the time it's based on more than 29 games. So now you it want it based on 29 game + however many games he played in his 1st 2 months next year ? How generous of you to allow him another 55 games to reach his ceiling when Anderson took 3 years. It doesn't really matter how raw you were .Once you are up you are expected to perform . Timmy learned on the job against the best. Madrigal has to do the same thing yet you want more from him based on how he played against inferior competition.

Yes! I want more from him. You used the word ceiling here - Nick Madrigal was not a "high ceiling" player, whereas Tim Anderson was. Nick Madrigal was a "High Floor, low ceiling" player. In other words, Nick Madrigal should be a guy you can count on to not struggle - by the exact phrase you used. 

I'm out.

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Well, your post was in reply to me, and then blamed that on a vague "Some". I think that was a fair interpretation.

"Some" is accurate not vague. Some means some not you.

17 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

As long as you can promise me that you will be calling for his head if he's struggling on defense and with baserunning mistakes in May of next year, I will give him a pass on his rookie year. That's the biggest point - he doesn't get 4 years to develop at those things. He needs to be good at them right now. Will you join me in that agreement?

So there is no possibility that he can learn pitchers, learn the OF arms and learn who to run on after 29 games last year and one month in 2021? It is absurd to think that players can't improve after 50 games in the MLB. There is no guarantee he will but to say he can't after May is ridiculous.

Personally, I would prefer he test the limits right now and learn how aggressive he can or can't be.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

So there is no possibility that he can learn pitchers, learn the OF arms and learn who to run on after 29 games last year and one month in 2021? It is absurd to think that players can't improve after 50 games in the MLB. There is no guarantee he will but to say he can't after May is ridiculous.

Personally, I would prefer he test the limits right now and learn how aggressive he can or can't be.

Frankly, if his ceiling is what, a 3 win player at best, and figuring out MLB quirks will take him years and not months, then yes, we are better off trading him and signing LaStella. This team wants to compete in 2021. 

1 minute ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Anderson and Robert have unlimited athletic ability.  Of course they were going to get better because they are so incredibly physically gifted.  Madrigal is the opposite of that. If he stops running into outs and making errors he still won't be a difference maker because he's so physically limited.  He has no burst to be a difference maker on the basepaths.  He has limited range and arm strength to be a difference maker on defense and he is obviously limited at the plate because he has no power.  He has very little room to get better. 

He has plenty of room to get better . If he had fielded and ran the base well but not great he probably was a 1 WAR guy in 29 games or at least .5 . Extrapolate that to 150 games and its 2.5 WAR or beyond . Which is exactly what we could reasonably expect if he improves. Robert could also improve incrementably or by leaps and bounds which is what separates him from Madrigal which I also have already noted.

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Frankly, if his ceiling is what, a 3 win player at best, and figuring out MLB quirks will take him years and not months, then yes, we are better off trading him and signing LaStella. This team wants to compete in 2021. 

If it takes years, then I would agree. However, you have barely given him a month.

7 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes! I want more from him. You used the word ceiling here - Nick Madrigal was not a "high ceiling" player, whereas Tim Anderson was. Nick Madrigal was a "High Floor, low ceiling" player. In other words, Nick Madrigal should be a guy you can count on to not struggle - by the exact phrase you used. 

I'm out.

Toolsy guys always have the highest ceilings . Once in the bigs though that toolsy stuff with poor results doesn't cut it. How much time it takes before you give up is based on a lot of things. Giving up on our young core can have many future consequences. It's one thing to trade away guys years away while expecting to compete. It's quite another to get rid of years of control for guys already on the 25 . We did that with Dunning and I was ok with it .

Doing it with another guy from the 25 who is basically your starting 2nd baseman doesn't seem all that appealing when you have to spend more money to replace him and more money and more prospects to also fill the SP pitcher hole. Just sign a FA  SP for heavens sake and leave some money for RP, maybe another LH bat .

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by CaliSoxFanViaSWside

11 minutes ago, ptatc said:

If it takes years, then I would agree. However, you have barely given him a month.

Not only that played all of last year injured and will be recovering from surgery in the 1st few months of cold weather and rain if the season starts on time.

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

As long as you can promise me that you will be calling for his head if he's struggling on defense and with baserunning mistakes in May of next year, I will give him a pass on his rookie year. That's the biggest point - he doesn't get 4 years to develop at those things. He needs to be good at them right now. Will you join me in that agreement?

This is so ridiculous.

Why May of next year? Who the hell comes up with these arbitrary numbers? How long did Soxtalk give Moncada? I believe it was longer. And after enough time I would definitely call it like it is. But why would anyone call for someone's head? And who said he needed 4 years? He's had less than half a year!

Stop being so dramatic. So much damn hyperbole and double standards.

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by RagahRagah

Just now, RagahRagah said:

Why May of next year? Who the hell comes up with these arbitrary numbers? How long did Soxtalk give Moncada? I believe it was longer. And after enough time I would definitely call it like it is. But why would anyone call for someone's head? And who said he needed 4 years?

Stop being so dramatic. So much damn hyperbole. 

How good was the rest of the team around Moncada? What is Moncada's ceiling? How is it so hard to see the difference between those guys? 

Moncada - raw player, imported from Cuba, incredibly high ceiling, on a team with no championship aspirations in the first 2 years.

Madrigal - experienced player, low ceiling but supposedly high floor, on a team that wants to win a championship right now.

That's why I gave May of next year. If he's struggling months into next year with the things he's supposed to be good at, then we can't waste a season on him.

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

How good was the rest of the team around Moncada? What is Moncada's ceiling? How is it so hard to see the difference between those guys? 

Moncada - raw player, imported from Cuba, incredibly high ceiling, on a team with no championship aspirations in the first 2 years.

Madrigal - experienced player, low ceiling but supposedly high floor, on a team that wants to win a championship right now.

That's why I gave May of next year. If he's struggling months into next year with the things he's supposed to be good at, then we can't waste a season on him.

I agree about the floor/ceiling. But that is not the point. You're being extremely hyperbolic and holding a guy who has only played about a quarter of a season to ridiculously unrealistic standards that apparently you didn't apply to anyone else you are using as an example, as if Tim Anderson came right out of the gate playing great baseball.

It doesn't matter if his ceiling is lower, he is still a human being and is allowed to make mistakes and be nervous/jittery and take time to grow like EVERYONE ELSE you yourself used as an example, and you have given him virtually no time at all. 

How many seasons did we "waste" on Moncada?

"High floor" doesn't mean he's not allowed growing pains for a year or 2 like virtually every other rookie has. FFS.

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by RagahRagah

1 minute ago, RagahRagah said:

I agree about the floor/ceiling. But that is not the point. You're being extremely hyperbolic and holding a guy who has only played about a quarter of a season to ridiculously unrealistic standards that apparently you didn't apply to anyone else you are using as an example, as if Tim Anderson came right out of the gate playing great baseball.

It doesn't matter if his ceiling is lower, he is still a human being and is allowed to make mistakes and be nervous/jittery and take time to grow like EVERYONE ELSE you yourself used as an example, and you have given him virtually no time at all. 

"High floor" doesn't mean he's not allowed growing pains for a year or 2 like virtually every other rookie has. FFS.

Tim Anderson was a raw player, and in 2017 he was on a team that was being dismantled!

If Madrigal needs to grow for several years like Tim Anderson, fine. He should be traded to a team where he can do that, and LaStella signed to fill the hole. 

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Tim Anderson was a raw player, and in 2017 he was on a team that was being dismantled!

If Madrigal needs to grow for several years like Tim Anderson, fine. He should be traded to a team where he can do that, and LaStella signed to fill the hole. 

Moving the goalposts now, I see.

And I disagree regardless. Our lineup is stacked and we have solid overall defense. And you think the guy who started off hitting .340 in his first year is the guy we can't afford to let grow? Are you serious? 

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by RagahRagah

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

How good was the rest of the team around Moncada? What is Moncada's ceiling? How is it so hard to see the difference between those guys? 

Moncada - raw player, imported from Cuba, incredibly high ceiling, on a team with no championship aspirations in the first 2 years.

Madrigal - experienced player, low ceiling but supposedly high floor, on a team that wants to win a championship right now.

That's why I gave May of next year. If he's struggling months into next year with the things he's supposed to be good at, then we can't waste a season on him.

I disagree. He gets at least half a season to show improvement.  I know you have an extreme bias when it comes to him but you just aren't being fair or realistic.

Unless by next year you mean 2022 then I agree but it's probably a little long of a timeline.

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by ptatc

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Nick Madrigal coming up last year and being a below average baserunner and fielder and making a number of mental errors is like buying a brand new Honda Civic, taking it to a mechanic, and being told the engine won't start, you need a new transmission, one tire is completely worn out, the battery leaked and melted its way through to the ground, and two of the doors fell off. In which case, you are probably more likely to suspect something is wrong with your mechanic. 

If the Civic drove you successfully around town last year, we would not be having this conversation. 

This is a horrible analogy.  There is nothing predictive about the handful of blunders that Madrigal made last year in the field and on the bases.  You can overreact all you want to a tiny sample size, but the kid at a very minimum will be an average fielder and base-runner when it’s all said and done (and should be above average).  Just to reiterate what I posted yesterday, but Steamer & Zips project him as a 2.6 to 2.2 fWAR player next year.  These projection systems are normally incredibly conservative with young players and yet both see him being a league average or better 2B in his first full season despite regression with his BABIP.  I agree with @Harold's Leg Lift & @fathom that he’s a limited player due to a complete lack of power, but the hit tool is going to translate to the majors and his defense & base-running will be much better over the course of a full season than we saw in 2020.  

Nick Madrigal should be a useful & dirt cheap player for the Sox over the next six years which is plenty valuable, but the lack of ceiling also makes him more expendable than other core players.  If a team overvalues his skillset, he’s definitely a guy you move.  If not, hopefully you enjoy a 2.5 to 3.0 win 2B for the next half decade, even if it’s driven by a bunch of slaps & singles.

22 hours ago, Dominikk85 said:

His sprint speed was 77th percentile last year. That is not buxton or hamilton level but well above average.

Please say Engel level who is just as fast as Buxton, if not a shade faster, according to statcast.

33 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This is a horrible analogy.  There is nothing predictive about the handful of blunders that Madrigal made last year in the field and on the bases.  You can overreact all you want to a tiny sample size, but the kid at a very minimum will be an average fielder and base-runner when it’s all said and done (and should be above average).  Just to reiterate what I posted yesterday, but Steamer & Zips project him as a 2.6 to 2.2 fWAR player next year.  These projection systems are normally incredibly conservative with young players and yet both see him being a league average or better 2B in his first full season despite regression with his BABIP.  I agree with @Harold's Leg Lift & @fathom that he’s a limited player due to a complete lack of power, but the hit tool is going to translate to the majors and his defense & base-running will be much better over the course of a full season than we saw in 2020.  

Nick Madrigal should be a useful & dirt cheap player for the Sox over the next six years which is plenty valuable, but the lack of ceiling also makes him more expendable than other core players.  If a team overvalues his skillset, he’s definitely a guy you move.  If not, hopefully you enjoy a 2.5 to 3.0 win 2B for the next half decade, even if it’s driven by a bunch of slaps & singles.

A very good overview of what amounts to Madrigals floor.

Actually Madrigal is an extremely high ceiling guy.   That’s why he was drafted #4.  If he hits his ceiling he’s a ridiculously valuable and unique player that every team would kill to have at 2B.  
 

His floor is actually really really low.  His floor is this weak-hitting guy who doesn’t really hit for a high average, barely gets on base and has absolutely no power.  Ozzie Guillén but even worse.  
 

His ceiling/floor is almost unanimously misunderstood.  He was a super risky pick for this exact reason.  High risk with super high reward potential.  

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by Jerksticks

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

This is a horrible analogy.  There is nothing predictive about the handful of blunders that Madrigal made last year in the field and on the bases.  You can overreact all you want to a tiny sample size, but the kid at a very minimum will be an average fielder and base-runner when it’s all said and done (and should be above average).  Just to reiterate what I posted yesterday, but Steamer & Zips project him as a 2.6 to 2.2 fWAR player next year.  These projection systems are normally incredibly conservative with young players and yet both see him being a league average or better 2B in his first full season despite regression with his BABIP.  I agree with @Harold's Leg Lift & @fathom that he’s a limited player due to a complete lack of power, but the hit tool is going to translate to the majors and his defense & base-running will be much better over the course of a full season than we saw in 2020.  

Nick Madrigal should be a useful & dirt cheap player for the Sox over the next six years which is plenty valuable, but the lack of ceiling also makes him more expendable than other core players.  If a team overvalues his skillset, he’s definitely a guy you move.  If not, hopefully you enjoy a 2.5 to 3.0 win 2B for the next half decade, even if it’s driven by a bunch of slaps & singles.

Overall I agree with this.  If Nick ends up being a David Eckstein type I don't understand why people think there's an issue with that. He's a perfect 9 hole hitter. He doesn't even need to have power. @Balta1701's assertion that we basically can't afford to let him grow into a role during a contention window when our lineup is so stacked and he hit .340 in his rookie quarter-season anyway is just absurd, as are so many of the premature arguments being used against him. 

Edited January 7, 20215 yr by RagahRagah

13 hours ago, RagahRagah said:

Overall I agree with this.  If Nick ends up being a David Eckstein type I don't understand why people think there's an issue with that. He's a perfect 9 hole hitter. He doesn't even need to have power. @Balta1701's assertion that we basically can't afford to let him grow into a role during a contention window when our lineup is so stacked and he hit .340 in his rookie quarter-season anyway is just absurd, as are so many of the premature arguments being used against him. 

I can’t speak for others, but maybe people have higher expectations for a #4 overall pick than a 19th round pick.