LUIS ROBERT TRADED

[Chick Mercedes]

7 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Would it be crazy to expect a GM to look at the Split stats of a player he is acquiring?

I wouldn’t think so. I suppose at the end of the day it depends on the bottom line. It was just revealed that Getz is a big picture, organization direction guy, doesn’t get down in the weeds. Responsible for all his department directors to be on top of the details. Yet there he was, in front of the cameras all over the podcasts and media shows talking as if he intimately knows the players. He doesn’t. Can he work that way? Sure I guess. Depends on how well he has staffed his baseball organization. He’s got to get back into his office and stay behind his desk

Edited 22 hours ago by Chick Mercedes

[Chick Mercedes]

I’m going to fall into the following final take. Namely, did Getz make the trade based on doing poor homework, and bad information? Based on acquiring a switch hitter?   We have a serious problem to fix then. He’s got to fix the pipeline. At least he now knows the information pipeline is faulty. Conversely, if the trade would have been done anyway, it’s still problematic. But it’s OK if Getz found a problem to fix without damaging the production.

Edited 22 hours ago by Chick Mercedes

[WestEddy]

27 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

I’m going to fall into the following final take. Namely, did Getz make the trade based on doing poor homework, and bad information? Based on acquiring a switch hitter?   We have a serious problem to fix then. He’s got to fix the pipeline. At least he now knows the information pipeline is faulty. Conversely, if the trade would have been done anyway, it’s still problematic. But it’s OK if Getz found a problem to fix without damaging the production.

I think most of Getz's early trades were unremarkable. Whether that was because of poor scouting information, or whatever, I feel that the difference between the Bummer and Cease trades, then the Vargas and Crochet trades, targeting Shane Smith and Vasil - he found a weakness, and got better at it. 

If this is some sort of issue (which I don't believe is), I trust the guy to identify and correct a serious flaw. If he actually thought for two(?) years that he was targeting and pursuing a switch-hitter, I think they'll fix that. Again, I think it's ridiculous to think that for two years (or however long they had been after Acuña) NOBODY thought it important to find out which way he batted - is a level of stupid I find insulting and feel no responsibility to take on and be outraged over. 

My take on this is that scouting and R&D worked together to put together a list of targets that were probably either post- or beneath hype they could work with. They got the guys they wanted and Getz either mixed him up, or as he said, got overly excited and said a wrong thing. It's already been a thing he misuses words (Overstate vs. Understate). 

I fully encourage everyone to be concerned and see this as a red flag. I'm not, and I don't. 

And - I don't mean that like I think you're insulting me. There's a level of outrage here that just grows to the point where I'm expected to take on somebody's outrage because "this time, it's really concerning", when they turn every single gaffe or slump into evidence of tragic incompetence. 

Edited 22 hours ago by WestEddy

[WhiteSox2023]

2 hours ago, Chick Mercedes said:

I’m going to fall into the following final take. Namely, did Getz make the trade based on doing poor homework, and bad information? Based on acquiring a switch hitter?   We have a serious problem to fix then. He’s got to fix the pipeline. At least he now knows the information pipeline is faulty. Conversely, if the trade would have been done anyway, it’s still problematic. But it’s OK if Getz found a problem to fix without damaging the production.

I still think it was more than likely that Acuna had simply been the Mets’ offer for Robert the entire time.  We heard Acuna’s name for months and the trade never happened.  Then we heard about the Sox being open to eating potentially up to half of Robert’s remaining money in the right deal, but also how Jerry would likely not want to eat any money for Cohen in a Mets trade due to their rivalry.  Perhaps the Sox would have eaten some of the money for a better return from a more frugal payroll team than the Mets (Pirates, Reds?) but I am doubtful.  The absolute rapid fire succession of moves that Getz made after Robert’s $20 million was freed up tells me otherwise.

So ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if Getz didn’t really look into Acuna all that much because it was pretty much a take it or leave it offer, along with eating all $20 million of Robert’s deal.  From the Mets’ perspective and even before their offseason moves, Acuna was always the guy that made the most sense for them to trade for Robert due to a roster redundancy at similar positions that Acuna plays, the fact that he was out of options, and that he is a post-hype prospect with declining value.  I wouldn’t doubt that Getz likely knows a lot more about other Mets prospects that they simply refused to give up, including @Chicago White Sox‘s favorite target Ryan Clifford.

 

[southsider2k5]

6 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

I still think it was more than likely that Acuna had simply been the Mets’ offer for Robert the entire time.  We heard Acuna’s name for months and the trade never happened.  Then we heard about the Sox being open to eating potentially up to half of Robert’s remaining money in the right deal, but also how Jerry would likely not want to eat any money for Cohen in a Mets trade due to their rivalry.  Perhaps the Sox would have eaten some of the money for a better return from a more frugal payroll team than the Mets (Pirates, Reds?) but I am doubtful.  The absolute rapid fire succession of moves that Getz made after Robert’s $20 million was freed up tells me otherwise.

So ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if Getz didn’t really look into Acuna all that much because it was pretty much a take it or leave it offer, along with eating all $20 million of Robert’s deal.  From the Mets’ perspective and even before their offseason moves, Acuna was always the guy that made the most sense for them to trade for Robert due to a roster redundancy at similar positions that Acuna plays, the fact that he was out of options, and that he is a post-hype prospect with declining value.  I wouldn’t doubt that Getz likely knows a lot more about other Mets prospects that they simply refused to give up, including @Chicago White Sox‘s favorite target Ryan Clifford.

 

Yeah look, I could even see getting the LAST guy into the deal confused a LOT easier than the headliner.  You are right that Acunas name had been in the rumor mill since the first Mets rumor reporting. He is 100% the guy they should have studied the most and in excruciating detail. 

If the last guy, who was a newly drafted 12th round pick from a non-baseball school was the one you mixed up,  it would have been more understandable.  Not great mind you, but lack of exposure,  recent pro, last guy in a deal could come from a list of guys, or even be the guy added in last minute to sufficiently sweeten a deal to close it.

Acuna is the headliner.  He even has MLB ABs, not to mention the YEARS of MiLB stuff.  He should be all over you analytics studies.  He's the reason you made the deal.  He's the reason you picked this deal instead of a better talent offer, but including cash, to the Reds.  He's the reason you might have taken a lesser Mets offer instead of including cash.  Acuna is the guy you can't miss on, and you are making a literal back of baseball card mistake on?  And not one person in the organization fixes is after 4 times?  

If he really doesn't do research into the work his people underneath him are doing in a trade, to the point where he doesn't know the players he is getting, why is he the GM?

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yeah look, I could even see getting the LAST guy into the deal confused a LOT easier than the headliner.  You are right that Acunas name had been in the rumor mill since the first Mets rumor reporting. He is 100% the guy they should have studied the most and in excruciating detail. 

If the last guy, who was a newly drafted 12th round pick from a non-baseball school was the one you mixed up,  it would have been more understandable.  Not great mind you, but lack of exposure,  recent pro, last guy in a deal could come from a list of guys, or even be the guy added in last minute to sufficiently sweeten a deal to close it.

Acuna is the headliner.  He even has MLB ABs, not to mention the YEARS of MiLB stuff.  He should be all over you analytics studies.  He's the reason you made the deal.  He's the reason you picked this deal instead of a better talent offer, but including cash, to the Reds.  He's the reason you might have taken a lesser Mets offer instead of including cash.  Acuna is the guy you can't miss on, and you are making a literal back of baseball card mistake on?  And not one person in the organization fixes is after 4 times?  

If he really doesn't do research into the work his people underneath him are doing in a trade, to the point where he doesn't know the players he is getting, why is he the GM?

Because the majority of top flight GMs wouldn’t accept trying to compete with a limited, bottom 3 payroll.

One supposes that it could get back to $100+ million by 2028…but that’s still a long 4 1/3rd years (already) and will really be six total years of the Sox not being close to competitive barring a miracle in 2027.

Edited 11 hours ago by caulfield12

[Timmy U]

22 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Because the majority of top flight GMs wouldn’t accept trying to compete with a limited, bottom 3 payroll.

One supposes that it could get back to $100+ million by 2028…but that’s still a long 4 1/3rd years (already) and will really be six total years of the Sox not being close to competitive barring a miracle in 2027.

No one knows what 2028 budgets will look like after 2027. I don’t believe the owners will get a cap, but something is going to narrow the payroll disparity across the league or there will be no baseball. I suspect Manfred is going to win on packaging all MLB TV and splitting the proceeds evenly. Even without a cap, that would vault mid-market teams like the Sox into the $200 mil range on payroll. At that point, the Sox may have internal options to spend it on, or they could take a big swing.

[WhiteSox2023]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yeah look, I could even see getting the LAST guy into the deal confused a LOT easier than the headliner.  You are right that Acunas name had been in the rumor mill since the first Mets rumor reporting. He is 100% the guy they should have studied the most and in excruciating detail. 

If the last guy, who was a newly drafted 12th round pick from a non-baseball school was the one you mixed up,  it would have been more understandable.  Not great mind you, but lack of exposure,  recent pro, last guy in a deal could come from a list of guys, or even be the guy added in last minute to sufficiently sweeten a deal to close it.

Acuna is the headliner.  He even has MLB ABs, not to mention the YEARS of MiLB stuff.  He should be all over you analytics studies.  He's the reason you made the deal.  He's the reason you picked this deal instead of a better talent offer, but including cash, to the Reds.  He's the reason you might have taken a lesser Mets offer instead of including cash.  Acuna is the guy you can't miss on, and you are making a literal back of baseball card mistake on?  And not one person in the organization fixes is after 4 times?  

If he really doesn't do research into the work his people underneath him are doing in a trade, to the point where he doesn't know the players he is getting, why is he the GM?

Agreed.  I’m not defending him.  I just think that’s what likely happened.

But yeah, the fact that no one corrected Getz after he made the same misstatement four times is scary.

Edited 10 hours ago by WhiteSox2023

[Texsox]

The systemic problems seem woven into the DNA of the team going back over a century, through multiple owners on down 

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, Timmy U said:

No one knows what 2028 budgets will look like after 2027. I don’t believe the owners will get a cap, but something is going to narrow the payroll disparity across the league or there will be no baseball. I suspect Manfred is going to win on packaging all MLB TV and splitting the proceeds evenly. Even without a cap, that would vault mid-market teams like the Sox into the $200 mil range on payroll. At that point, the Sox may have internal options to spend it on, or they could take a big swing.

Increasing existing payroll $120 million for the White Sox can't be done from more equitable shared RSN rights alone.

The national baseball contractsbad day up to only around $550 million total.

Let's say the bottom ten markets are currently generating $15-20 million through MLB/ESPN, the middle ten are around $30-40 million.

That’s a total and average of $525/20 or $26.25 million for the bottom 20 teams.  Nonody has the exact numbers for these MLB subscription based models vs. RSN's, but I actually might be on the low side.

For example, the Sox used to be at $70 million five years ago or so and that was roughly league average back then.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2024/01/each-teams-local-broadcasting-arrangement.html

So you're looking at even lower numbers due to subscribers not wanting to pay additional ESPN+/Disney fees and the lookout potentially angering fans if not resolved in a way that gives those bottom 20 fanbases some  significant hope.

LAD $196 officially 

NYY $143 million

Toronto is a black box/Rogers $150???

Angels/Phillies $125 million

Rangers $111 million

Braves/Mariners $100 million

Cubs $99 million

Red Sox $97 million

Mets $88 million

11 teams=$1.334 billion

 

If you split that in half, you'd have $650 million roughly to share with approximately 19 teams, you could raise about $34 million per team.

The White Sox would be able to spend $114 million instead of $80, let's say.

That's not going to get you anywhere near $200.

If you split those 11 "unfair big market" packages up 100% across 30 teams...you'd be at $68 million and the Sox could spend $148 million, but still well/way short of $200.

And that massive penalty is largely coming down on the heads of those top five teams/big markets.

 

At any rate, the number would be in a range between $114-148 for the Sox.

Maybe $130, if you split the difference???

Success and fairness/equity is going to be based on getting those other 15 teams away from advantageous RSN deals/own privately owned networks like Marquee/YES and into the full thirty team package Manfred really wants to sell...finally having leverage over those bigger fanbases to force them all into becoming ESPN+/Disney customers.

That's going to be a process that takes at least 3-5 years to unwind (ending all RSN's)...quite optimistically.

So maybe something like $150 million floors and $300-325 million ceilings?

And dealing directly with the issue of deferred contracts as well.

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by caulfield12

[Lip Man 1]

19 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The systemic problems seem woven into the DNA of the team going back over a century, through multiple owners on down 

There is some truth to this, the main reason always seems to revolve around Money. Either Sox owners didn't have it, or refused to spend it. 

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There is some truth to this, the main reason always seems to revolve around Money. Either Sox owners didn't have it, or refused to spend it. 

Except 2006-2008 and 2021-2023...

[Lip Man 1]

44 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Except 2006-2008 and 2021-2023...

Six seasons out of 125 isn't exactly a track record for success. 

[caulfield12]

7 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Six seasons out of 125 isn't exactly a track record for success. 

Especially when 2023 was a disaster...and ESPN is now predicting yet another 100+ loss season despite all the seeming optimism surrounding the team (Colson/Mune/Cholowsky).

[Ducksnort]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Especially when 2023 was a disaster...and ESPN is now predicting yet another 100+ loss season despite all the seeming optimism surrounding the team (Colson/Mune/Cholowsky).

Obviously it's not apples to apples, and also obviously this is a long shot, but it's not unheard of for a team to completely surprise everyone and win a lot more than people were expecting. The Sox could be that team this year. 

[PaleAleSox]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

Especially when 2023 was a disaster...and ESPN is now predicting yet another 100+ loss season despite all the seeming optimism surrounding the team (Colson/Mune/Cholowsky).

They aren't losing 100 this year. 

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, Ducksnort said:

Obviously it's not apples to apples, and also obviously this is a long shot, but it's not unheard of for a team to completely surprise everyone and win a lot more than people were expecting. The Sox could be that team this year. 

They certainly did that in 1977 and 1990.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, PaleAleSox said:

They aren't losing 100 this year. 

Well, one way to look at baseball now is that the 24th team in CLE still has a 20%+ shot at the playoffs...Miami at #25 just under 10% and the bottom five teams basically no shot at all.

Are teams #25-27 similar in the not???

The big problem with MLB is there's no parity at all among the top 3-5 teams.  It's so darned top heavy right now.

Not just LAD vs. the rest of the West but also Detroit in the Central despite not really having that one superstar hitter.

[kitekrazy]

3 hours ago, PaleAleSox said:

They aren't losing 100 this year. 

Quite possible in an injury prone league

lack of minor league depth hurts any organization