White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:05 PM
PaleHoser PaleHoser is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,391
Default Behind the Scenes with the Tigers Recent Deals

Interesting read on the Tigers recent trade failures. This may shed some light on the market (or lack of one) last week.

https://amp.freep.com/amp/1913091001
__________________
“It's not the high price of stardom that bothers me...it's the high price of mediocrity." - Bill Veeck

"If I was going to storm a pillbox, going to sheer, utter, certain death, and the Colonel said 'Shepherd, pick six guys", I'd pick six White Sox fans because they have known death every day of their lives and it holds no terror for them." - Jean Shepherd
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:59 AM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,743
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Neither Greene nor Castellanos warranted "impact" prospects. For a 1/3 season player like Castellanos, teams won't pay for what he hit last year and the year before. I didn't look at the prospects to see if I thought the return was decent..but impacts weren't going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:16 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
Neither Greene nor Castellanos warranted "impact" prospects. For a 1/3 season player like Castellanos, teams won't pay for what he hit last year and the year before. I didn't look at the prospects to see if I thought the return was decent..but impacts weren't going to happen.

But isn't the point of trading players at the deadline to contenders to get back more than your players are worth?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:22 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
But isn't the point of trading players at the deadline to contenders to get back more than your players are worth?
It’s about taking present value, which the team currently is in no position to take advantage of, and turning it into potential future value.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-06-2019, 02:01 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

If your future value is diminished because there is only one-third of a season left, there isn't any point. Teams making trades at the deadline are dumping talent while contending teams are raiding them. It's not about what teams are getting at the deadline, other than the shaft. It's about how the contenders are getting increasing the distance between baseball's haves and have-nots.

The Quintana trade wasn't about getting back what he was worth (although it isn't a direct analogy because he had more that the remainder of the season under control), it was about getting as much from the Cubs as the White Sox could because the Cubs had an imperative need for a starting pitcher. Trades aren't made by arbitrators determining value. The trade deadline is supposed to be desperate teams overpaying. Otherwise, the system only perpetuates the status quo by treating non-contenders as farm teams.

The Cubs' acquisition of Chapman, if the Quintana analogy is flawed, wasn't about fair value for an imminent free agent. But if it is about such fair value, the White Sox didn't miss anything by not trading Abreu et al. at the recent deadline.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-06-2019, 02:16 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,820
Default

Sure there is a point. You’re getting players who have a chance to contribute to a winning team in future seasons. In exchange, you’re giving up players who have no chance to do the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-06-2019, 02:46 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

You're getting players who have a minimal chance to help you. You're player(s) the contending team doesn't value for a cornerstone in your lineup.

You are agreeing that it's about a player's intrinsic value, considering his remaining contract rather than a player's inflated value to a team with a imperative need for the player's skill set, just as people stopping for gas in Cordes Junction pay more than they would a bit down I-17 in Phoenix. The trade deadline isn't about struggling teams building for the future, although it may have been historically. If you are only getting some sort of intrinsic value, the deadline is about contending invoking some sort of right to quality players, the occasional longshot coming through or player not really understood at the time of the trade (Tatis fits in there somewhere) notwithstanding.

If it's only about intrinsic value rather than contender-desperation value, the non-contending teams should be holding out and demanding more. The point to the deadline, the point to teams trading some of their best players to build for the future, is to get more than they are worth.

But if it's about straight objective value for production, independent of a team's need for that production, White Sox fans should be happy their team didn't trade Abreu.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-06-2019, 02:50 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
You're getting players who have a minimal chance to help you. You're player(s) the contending team doesn't value for a cornerstone in your lineup.

You are agreeing that it's about a player's intrinsic value, considering his remaining contract rather than a player's inflated value to a team with a imperative need for the player's skill set, just as people stopping for gas in Cordes Junction pay more than they would a bit down I-17 in Phoenix. The trade deadline isn't about struggling teams building for the future, although it may have been historically. If you are only getting some sort of intrinsic value, the deadline is about contending invoking some sort of right to quality players, the occasional longshot coming through or player not really understood at the time of the trade (Tatis fits in there somewhere) notwithstanding.

If it's only about intrinsic value rather than contender-desperation value, the non-contending teams should be holding out and demanding more. The point to the deadline, the point to teams trading some of their best players to build for the future, is to get more than they are worth.

But if it's about straight objective value for production, independent of a team's need for that production, White Sox fans should be happy their team didn't trade Abreu.
Minimal chance > zero chance. Hence the trades...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-06-2019, 03:31 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Minimal chance > zero chance. Hence the trades...
Hence the perpetual losing. Minimal chance is a system where losers continue losing because contenders are not just allowed to but expected to raid the losers at the end of July. With the case of pending free agents, you could argue that the minimal chance of the bonus draft pick developing is superior to the minimal chance of the prospects. Either way, the difference between minimal chance and no chance is, well, minimal.

Make every deal after April a waiver deal. Give teams who want to block trades for components the teams in front of them may need a chance to offer a better deal. Set up an actual bidding war for players at the trade deadline (something that currently only exists in theory) and losers wouldn't end up on the losing end of trade deadline deals.

As it is, the minimal chance isn't so different from paying a hard-working employee with a few lottery tickets. Trading for prospects at the deadline is, or at least is evolving into a lazy way to build a winner anyway. The best thing about it from a general manager's point of view is that by the time it becomes clear it isn't working, the GM has had steady employment for years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-06-2019, 03:53 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Hence the perpetual losing. Minimal chance is a system where losers continue losing because contenders are not just allowed to but expected to raid the losers at the end of July. With the case of pending free agents, you could argue that the minimal chance of the bonus draft pick developing is superior to the minimal chance of the prospects. Either way, the difference between minimal chance and no chance is, well, minimal.

Make every deal after April a waiver deal. Give teams who want to block trades for components the teams in front of them may need a chance to offer a better deal. Set up an actual bidding war for players at the trade deadline (something that currently only exists in theory) and losers wouldn't end up on the losing end of trade deadline deals.

As it is, the minimal chance isn't so different from paying a hard-working employee with a few lottery tickets. Trading for prospects at the deadline is, or at least is evolving into a lazy way to build a winner anyway. The best thing about it from a general manager's point of view is that by the time it becomes clear it isn't working, the GM has had steady employment for years.
So the losing teams are better off keeping their players, finishing as also-rans anyway, and getting nothing for those players when they sign elsewhere...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:52 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
So the losing teams are better off keeping their players, finishing as also-rans anyway, and getting nothing for those players when they sign elsewhere...

Yes.

If you are looking at some sort of book value, holding on to your pending fan-favorite imminent free agents promotes a better relationship with your fan base, particularly your season-ticket holders who would miss the players if you trade them away and could be overcome with a feeling of being betrayed at renewal time. Even if you get more than book, you could be getting back players who do you little good in the long run. When the Cubs traded Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel to the A's in 2014, the Cubs, at the time, supposedly got a great haul. Russell, the A's top prospect and one of baseball's elite prospects, has never lived up to his elite promise. Billy McKinney, high on the A's prospect list, never played for the Cubs and was a throw-in for Chapman two deadlines later having never played for the Cubs. Also from the deal, Dan Straily only pitched 13.2 innings for the Cubs and gave up 18 earned runs. The Yankees demanded much more than two-month rental value for Chapman and got Torres, Warren, McKinney and a minor leaguer from the Cubs, and even had Chapman back in a Yankees uniform the next off-season.

But more than the minimal help a team might get by trading a fan-favorite for lesser prospects, the problem with book-valuing the deadline deals is how it manipulates the divisional races.

I certainly don't believe the White Sox should have traded Abreu for a long-shot minor leaguer, a commodity the White Sox already have in their system. If you are going to trade popular quality players at the deadline, you have to make the other team give up a lot, much more than book value, even some major league talent, for the sake of your team and the sake of the game.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:48 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 11,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Yes.

If you are looking at some sort of book value, holding on to your pending fan-favorite imminent free agents promotes a better relationship with your fan base, particularly your season-ticket holders who would miss the players if you trade them away and could be overcome with a feeling of being betrayed at renewal time. Even if you get more than book, you could be getting back players who do you little good in the long run. When the Cubs traded Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel to the A's in 2014, the Cubs, at the time, supposedly got a great haul. Russell, the A's top prospect and one of baseball's elite prospects, has never lived up to his elite promise. Billy McKinney, high on the A's prospect list, never played for the Cubs and was a throw-in for Chapman two deadlines later having never played for the Cubs. Also from the deal, Dan Straily only pitched 13.2 innings for the Cubs and gave up 18 earned runs. The Yankees demanded much more than two-month rental value for Chapman and got Torres, Warren, McKinney and a minor leaguer from the Cubs, and even had Chapman back in a Yankees uniform the next off-season.

But more than the minimal help a team might get by trading a fan-favorite for lesser prospects, the problem with book-valuing the deadline deals is how it manipulates the divisional races.

I certainly don't believe the White Sox should have traded Abreu for a long-shot minor leaguer, a commodity the White Sox already have in their system. If you are going to trade popular quality players at the deadline, you have to make the other team give up a lot, much more than book value, even some major league talent, for the sake of your team and the sake of the game.
If Rick Hahn starts making a habit of keeping free-agents-to-be for the last two months of go-nowhere seasons, I want him fired. I certainly don’t give a **** about supposedly preserving the integrity of pennant races when my favorite team is not a factor in those pennant races. All I care about is my favorite team doing everything possible to try and get better for the future. Hopefully by that time, there will still be enough ammo in the farm system for the Sox to be active participants on the buyers’ side of the market.

Keeping Abreu accomplished nothing. Keeping Colomé accomplished nothing. The 2019 trade deadline was a failure for the White Sox. The 2018-19 offseason was also a failure for the White Sox.

Just because you personally dislike it when teams trade major leaguers for minor leaguers doesn’t mean it’s the incorrect thing to do. Just because you personally dislike it when teams prioritize hitting for power over hitting for contact doesn’t mean it’s the incorrect thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:14 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,244
Blog Entries: 9
Default

I'll add in here, that most fans start tuing their team out come the end of the season if they aren't in the playoff race and no amount of "fan favorites" is going to change that. The only people who care that much are diehard fans. Casual fans only care about winning and losing. Diehard fans tend to understand the nuance of trading away players in go nowhere season(s) to try and get better for the future, so keeping "fan favorites" in some effort to appease the fan base during lost seasons seems like a losing proposition no matter how you slice it.

Sure there are meathead fans who follow individual players and will be upset to see them go, but there just aren't enough of them to make a difference. Fans of Chris Sale or Jose Abreu or Frank Thomas even shouldn't be allowed to dictate the future of the franchise and if our GM is running the team to appease those particular subsets we're ****ed...
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-07-2019, 12:46 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 18,524
Default

I pretty much want Rick Hahn fired anyway, but I would certainly want him fired if he began trading impending free agents without getting a quality return, not a return that is limited to going-nowhere minor leaguers.

If you're actually getting something for your best players, it's a different story. Quintana, especially Quintana in decline wasn't a bad deal, although the big-return prospects needs to show a lot of collective improvement. Not trading Abreu for the sort of returns teams were getting at the trading deadline is something Hahn has done right. It's going to be at least a couple of years before this team will even be able to think about contending. Trading popular players for warm bodies simply going to make it harder for fans to continue being fans.

Of course, the integrity of the game isn't simply the White Sox's problem. But it is a problem because when the White Sox do start winning again, there may be fewer fans because so many have left the sport because of its lack of integrity.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-07-2019, 04:12 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Just because you personally dislike it when teams trade major leaguers for minor leaguers doesn’t mean it’s the incorrect thing to do.
Assuming the MLB starter(s) ability to help (wins, value, public relations) the club to contend for a title over a timeframe is less than the minor leaguers obtained in the exchange for those MLB starter(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
Just because you personally dislike it when teams prioritize hitting for power over hitting for contact doesn’t mean it’s the incorrect thing to do.
As long as the the club's offensive striking power is maximized.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004

Last edited by Grzegorz; 08-07-2019 at 04:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.