Dexter Fowler as a secondary option

[Dick Allen]

So, would you be okay with trading the Shark package for 3 years of Fowler at that price? Basically that has to be the mindset behind signing a QO free agent at this point.

People would have been thrilled had the Sox signed Shark to a 5 year $90 million extension last offseason. Would you rather they did that or sign Fowler for something a little higher than Span received? It's an upgrade, and the 3 years cost slightly higher than 1 year of Cespedes.

[Dick Allen]

I don't know if it's just a pick, it's the committing to a likely-bad defensive OF with limited power. His OBP is great, but, at least with Jackson you know it's a placeholder to upgrade. With Fowler, it's committing to a pretty average OF for a long time.

His power the last several seasons seems to indicate a 15 homer guy if he stays healthy. His defense isn't stellar, but it's not horrible. He gets on base, and can run. And he gets Avi off the field.

 

It sure beats sending another top prospect or 2 away for a guy like Dickerson or Blackmon.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Knackattack]

3 years of Fowler is not a bad deal considering he can shift to LF next season when Melky is DH. And our OF may not hit for a ton of power this season, but we've added about 50 HR to the infield between Frazier/Lowrie, and if LaRoche/Avi are platooned at DH I could see them combining for 30.

[SoCalSox]

So, would you be okay with trading the Shark package for 3 years of Fowler at that price? Basically that has to be the mindset behind signing a QO free agent at this point.

 

That logic is a bit broken to me.

 

Would you rather trade that prospect package for the 28th overall pick? Shark pitched pretty awful for them last year & they didn't reach the playoffs. At some point, we as fans have to concede that they simply "lost" that trade & move on instead of trying to make up for it.

 

People acting like that draft slot is just some sure thing confuse me. For as many Mike Trouts, there are 3-5X as many players who simply don't work out. Drafting is a calculated risk, more-so than a FA such as Fowler, IMO.

[shysocks]

I can't see Fowler getting more than 3/36 or 4/45

I guess we'll find out. I can imagine $15M a year pretty easily.

[SoCalSox]

I don't know if it's just a pick, it's the committing to a likely-bad defensive OF with limited power. His OBP is great, but, at least with Jackson you know it's a placeholder to upgrade. With Fowler, it's committing to a pretty average OF for a long time.

 

He averages about 2 WAR per year. I'd say that's a little better than average. He's just about to turn 30, too. He still has some good years left, plus the eye test tells me he's a bit better defensively than broken defensive metrics.

[Dick Allen]

That logic is a bit broken to me.

 

Would you rather trade that prospect package for the 28th overall pick? Shark pitched pretty awful for them last year & they didn't reach the playoffs. At some point, we as fans have to concede that they simply "lost" that trade & move on instead of trying to make up for it.

 

People acting like that draft slot is just some sure thing confuse me. For as many Mike Trouts, there are 3-5X as many players who simply don't work out. Drafting is a calculated risk, more-so than a FA such as Fowler, IMO.

A few days ago I went back to the #28 pick from present back to 2008. Now present, you can't tell but the only player selected with the #28 pick you wouldn't trade for Fowler was Gerrit Cole, but he didn't sign.

 

You also miss out on the expanded draft pool, but having your entire #10 pick entire draft intact still makes that OK.

[bmags]

His power the last several seasons seems to indicate a 15 homer guy if he stays healthy. His defense isn't stellar, but it's not horrible. He gets on base, and can run. And he gets Avi off the field.

 

It sure beats sending another top prospect or 2 away for a guy like Dickerson or Blackmon.

 

But how much does it beat just getting Austin Jackson who will get you plus defense to go with your elite pitching (1-3) and doesn't tie you up long-term?

 

Also - "not horrible" defense is what I heard about Melky and it seems to usually indicate pretty terrible.

 

It's just a waste of resources. Is the more money, more years and a pick better than Jackson?

 

Fowler is a good player, but I like him a lot less when he is rounded out by Eaton and Melky, whom total will provide us with 45 some hrs a year.

[shysocks]

People acting like that draft slot is just some sure thing confuse me. For as many Mike Trouts, there are 3-5X as many players who simply don't work out. Drafting is a calculated risk, more-so than a FA such as Fowler, IMO.

I don't think anybody is calling it a sure thing. The point is that when a pick hits it's worth so very much. And while it's easy for us fans to ask for all the free agents and assume it's only money, committing that money and potentially hamstringing other moves carries just as much risk as anything. We've already seen this offseason that money tied up in LaRoche played a role in preventing activity.

 

[/b]

He averages about 2 WAR per year. I'd say that's a little better than average. He's just about to turn 30, too. He still has some good years left, plus the eye test tells me he's a bit better defensively than broken defensive metrics.

2 WAR is the definition of average. I'm not being a smartass. That's what average is.

Edited January 26, 2016 by shysocks

[Y2Jimmy0]

But how much does it beat just getting Austin Jackson who will get you plus defense to go with your elite pitching (1-3) and doesn't tie you up long-term?

 

Also - "not horrible" defense is what I heard about Melky and it seems to usually indicate pretty terrible.

 

It's just a waste of resources. Is the more money, more years and a pick better than Jackson?

 

Fowler is a good player, but I like him a lot less when he is rounded out by Eaton and Melky, whom total will provide us with 45 some hrs a year.

 

 

Excellent Point. This is why I'd much rather have Austin Jackson, who was also a 2 WAR player last year.

[Eminor3rd]

The pick is just another part of the cost. Its loss will be reflected in the contract terms.

[Hatchetman]

Estimated value of a late draft pick is $15-$20MM, so figure that into what you offer. I'd rather have Austin even without considering the value of the lost pick.

[fathom]

Excellent Point. This is why I'd much rather have Austin Jackson, who was also a 2 WAR player last year.

 

Getting Desmond and Jackson makes so much sense

[Y2Jimmy0]

Getting Desmond and Jackson makes so much sense

 

 

It's the only scenario in which giving up a pick makes sense.

[Eminor3rd]

[/b]

 

He averages about 2 WAR per year. I'd say that's a little better than average. He's just about to turn 30, too. He still has some good years left, plus the eye test tells me he's a bit better defensively than broken defensive metrics.

 

Seconding shysocks -- 2 WAR is indeed precisely league average. It's easy to confuse "average" with "replacement level." You do have a point though, in that it is a mistake to assumethat an "average" player doesn't hold substantial value. MLB teams give just as much playing time to "below average" players as they do to "above average" ones.

[bmags]

Just to reiterate - Fowler is a good (er...average) player whom certainly makes us better, but how much better is a question to me and I really can't any more offensive upgrades that do not come with upgraded D.

 

We've seen how good Sale and Q can be in front of a horrible defense. How good are they when you cut out X number of baserunners per year with good defense? How much better is our bullpen? I'd like to see it while we still have Q/Sale.

[OmarComing25]

[/b]

 

He averages about 2 WAR per year. I'd say that's a little better than average. He's just about to turn 30, too. He still has some good years left, plus the eye test tells me he's a bit better defensively than broken defensive metrics.

2 WAR is pretty average. Look at the median WAR by position for 2015 (using only qualified hitters):

 

C: 2.4

1B: 3.0

2B: 2.4

SS: 1.7

3B: 3.9

LF: 2.6

RF: 2.4

CF: 2.8

 

Those obviously are missing a lot of players (there were less than 20 qualified players on average for each position, so all 30 teams aren't going to be represented in each sample), but if you factor those in the median still likely falls in the 2 WAR range. It's nothing that special, unless you are upgrading from a black hole, which we are.

[Dick Allen]

2.3

2.2

1.4

3.2

 

The last 4 seasons Fowler's WAR. The 1.4 he missed a third of the season so he still is well above a 2.0 on average.

 

 

[fathom]

It's the only scenario in which giving up a pick makes sense.

 

Sign Desmond to 3 yr deal, Jackson to 1 with option. After 2016, Desmond or Anderson can transition to the outfield or Anderson becomes a great trade chip.

[southsider2k5]

A few days ago I went back to the #28 pick from present back to 2008. Now present, you can't tell but the only player selected with the #28 pick you wouldn't trade for Fowler was Gerrit Cole, but he didn't sign.

 

You also miss out on the expanded draft pool, but having your entire #10 pick entire draft intact still makes that OK.

 

No matter what you think of the pick, this is twisted logic. Saying that the 28th pick hasn't been good rarely, so we shouldn't care about picking 28th is silly.

 

The 2015 draft shows why the draft pool is nice. We basically got two quality draft picks in the first 10 rounds, and then had to fill it up with slot/under slot signings to fit Zangari in.

 

[Dick Allen]

No matter what you think of the pick, this is twisted logic. Saying that the 28th pick hasn't been good rarely, so we shouldn't care about picking 28th is silly.

 

The 2015 draft shows why the draft pool is nice. We basically got two quality draft picks in the first 10 rounds, and then had to fill it up with slot/under slot signings to fit Zangari in.

Right but that was missing a 2nd and 3rd rounder. Even if they give up the pick here, they still have their normal full draft. The fact is there are overwhelming odds Fowler, 10 years from now, was a better player than the guy the team would have selected with pick #28 or what the additional draft pool would have brought. Of course it could be the other way around, but look at the bright side, their second rounder moves up a spot if they lose the comp pick.

[Y2Jimmy0]

2.3

2.2

1.4

3.2

 

The last 4 seasons Fowler's WAR. The 1.4 he missed a third of the season so he still is well above a 2.0 on average.

 

 

 

And the last 4 years for Jackson are : 2015-2.3, 2014-0.9, 2013-3, 2012 5.4. He also played half his games at SAFECO Field recently. Jackson is the great defender that the White Sox need.

[Dick Allen]

And the last 4 years for Jackson are : 2015-2.3, 2014-0.9, 2013-3, 2012 5.4. He also played half his games at SAFECO Field recently. Jackson is the great defender that the White Sox need.

I wouldn't mind Jackson and do think his trade to Seattle screwed him up, but if you look at his splits, people would argue Safeco had anything to do with it. And isn't your home park built into your WAR?

[shipps]

Something tells me that Fowler had the best year of his career that he will have have when he was with the Cubs last year. He was riding that magic they had. I would pass on him.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I wouldn't mind Jackson and do think his trade to Seattle screwed him up, but if you look at his splits, people would argue Safeco had anything to do with it. And isn't your home park built into your WAR?

 

 

Yeah it probably is actually. I'd be on board with Fowler if he were a better defender.