White Sox Interactive Forums
Minor Observations

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:35 PM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
I don't buy that Shields was obviously washed up when they got him. His final start with San Diego was horrible, giving up 10 earned runs. Before that start he had an ERA of 3.06 through his first 10 starts of the season. The Sox were hoping that they got a solid number 3 veteran starter for half his salary at the time. Clearly didn't work out that way. You win some and lose some trades. Tatis has yet to even play in AAA, so who knows what he'll be. The trade is lopsided currently though.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...hielja02.shtml

He was a 34 year old pitcher on the downside of his career with a ton of innings already on his arm. Lots of folks had wanted the Sox to sign him the year before when he went to San Diego but they very wisely decided not to sign an aging veteran to a predictably bad long term contract.

Then, a year later, they traded a quality young prospect for an even older Shields with worse numbers. The trajectory was obvious. ERA, WHIP, FIP, ERA+, all of them markedly worse. Perhaps "washed up" overplays the point but the point still stands. It was an obviously bad trade at the time for a pitcher clearly heading in the wrong direction.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:44 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
I don't pay a lot of attention to international lists so perhaps he wasn't on others but but he was on MLB's own list and the comments are quite favorable.

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2015/?list=int

And in my mind that is what we traded for Shields and it was an obviously bad trade at the time.

The fact that he turned in such a good year last year is remarkable. As I said earlier, you are quite right that was surprising, but the trade was bad on its face both for Shields and for giving up a quality international prospect that hadn't even been given a chance to show us his stuff at the time.
I can understand that point, I guess the comment was more all inclusive, not just to you, with the whole idea that Hahn can't be trusted to properly rebuild because we got really unlucky here. Further, its never really been clear if acquiring Shields was Hahn or KW (no moves really ever were clear until the rebuild began).

At the time, The Sox FO made a move in win now mode where they bought, what they felt, was an impact arm for, at the time, a totally wild card prospect and a back rotation bust.

It was very bad luck that Tatis had a great year, but it isn't like he has done anything at the big league level. He has a world of potential, but even MLB pipeline moved him from a 50 contact-40 power - 50 run - 60 arm - 50 field to 55 contact 60 power 50 run 60 arm 55 field. He basically went from a grade 50 player to a grade 65 in a year. No one saw this coming. No one was calling the Sox winners for stealing Tatis for 700k, he just blew up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-12-2018, 12:59 PM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I can understand that point, I guess the comment was more all inclusive, not just to you, with the whole idea that Hahn can't be trusted to properly rebuild because we got really unlucky here.
That I agree with you on completely.

Quote:
Further, its never really been clear if acquiring Shields was Hahn or KW (no moves really ever were clear until the rebuild began).
It happened on Hahn's watch so as far as I am concerned it was Hahn's trade. I don't buy the whole KW ruling from the shadows thing. BUT... I do think that Hahn was working within the philosophy/framework that KW left behind.

Quote:
At the time, The Sox FO made a move in win now mode where they bought, what they felt, was an impact arm for, at the time, a totally wild card prospect and a back rotation bust.
But that is where I fault them for not seeing the obvious with Shields. In my opinion, he was typical of the try-to-do-it-on-the-cheap mentality and not a true go for it mentality.

Quote:
It was very bad luck that Tatis had a great year, but it isn't like he has done anything at the big league level. He has a world of potential, but even MLB pipeline moved him from a 50 contact-40 power - 50 run - 60 arm - 50 field to 55 contact 60 power 50 run 60 arm 55 field. He basically went from a grade 50 player to a grade 65 in a year. No one saw this coming. No one was calling the Sox winners for stealing Tatis for 700k, he just blew up.
No question that Tatis's year was a surprise. But I saw him as a legit prospect that I was interested in watching develop. So I was unhappy about losing him even with no expectation of what he did last year.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-12-2018, 01:09 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,617
Default

Thats all fair points. To me, the alarming thing about Shields was the home run rate in Petco.

I wasn't really high on Tatis at the time, just because of the volatility of the non elite international guys. It was easy to see Vlad JR being a star, Tatis, was just a fringe guy at that time.

There is enough smoke to me where KW was much more visible during those years. It also was a very KW MO trade (pick up a former rival stud past his prime in an effort to force a playoff appearance) But either way, we got burned on the deal.

That said, if its 2020 and the Sox are good and need a number 3 SP, I still wouldn't hesitate to trade a 16 year old lottery ticket to get one. I just hope there is better evaluation on who to acquire.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:08 PM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...hielja02.shtml

He was a 34 year old pitcher on the downside of his career with a ton of innings already on his arm. Lots of folks had wanted the Sox to sign him the year before when he went to San Diego but they very wisely decided not to sign an aging veteran to a predictably bad long term contract.

Then, a year later, they traded a quality young prospect for an even older Shields with worse numbers. The trajectory was obvious. ERA, WHIP, FIP, ERA+, all of them markedly worse. Perhaps "washed up" overplays the point but the point still stands. It was an obviously bad trade at the time for a pitcher clearly heading in the wrong direction.

So was the Lester signing that same year also predictably bad? He was on the wrong side of 30 and had tons of innings too. Shields was pretty much a model of consistency who didn't rely on high velocity to be successful. Hindsight is 20/20. Other than his 1 outing before being traded he had better numbers than the previous few years.... and his previous 5 years were great. The Sox bet on that 1 start being an outlier. Clearly not a good trade now, but saying it was obviously a bad trade at the time doesn't hold up.

I really hope WSI can move past Tatis Jr. and focus on the great players we have coming up instead. Gio Gonzalez is really the only prospect in recent memory that we traded that has actually turned out to be something good.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:48 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is offline
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
But that is where I fault them for not seeing the obvious with Shields. In my opinion, he was typical of the try-to-do-it-on-the-cheap mentality and not a true go for it mentality.
But they never had a true go-for-it mentality.

Ventura is proof.

They might have been angling for a wild card spot, but they were never actually set up to get back to, and win, a World Series. (An 85-win team that squeaks into a wild card spot if everything goes right is fool's gold.)
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-12-2018, 10:28 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 34,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
But they never had a true go-for-it mentality.

Ventura is proof.

They might have been angling for a wild card spot, but they were never actually set up to get back to, and win, a World Series. (An 85-win team that squeaks into a wild card spot if everything goes right is fool's gold.)
Agreed. Especially for example in the early 2000's where they were always a starting pitcher short (and it always came back to bite them on the ass.)
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-12-2018, 11:14 PM
rdivaldi rdivaldi is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago - Mayfair
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
I really hope WSI can move past Tatis Jr. and focus on the great players we have coming up instead. Gio Gonzalez is really the only prospect in recent memory that we traded that has actually turned out to be something good.
When Tatis becomes an everyday major leaguer, that sort of discussion becomes relevant. At this point it's just bellyaching by people who need to bellyache...
__________________
<a href=http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=3256 target=_blank>http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...achmentid=3256</a>

March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:43 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
So was the Lester signing that same year also predictably bad? He was on the wrong side of 30 and had tons of innings too. Shields was pretty much a model of consistency who didn't rely on high velocity to be successful. Hindsight is 20/20. Other than his 1 outing before being traded he had better numbers than the previous few years.... and his previous 5 years were great. The Sox bet on that 1 start being an outlier. Clearly not a good trade now, but saying it was obviously a bad trade at the time doesn't hold up.

I really hope WSI can move past Tatis Jr. and focus on the great players we have coming up instead. Gio Gonzalez is really the only prospect in recent memory that we traded that has actually turned out to be something good.
I don't know about Lester. He doesn't play for the Sox so I didn't pay any attention. As I recall from his A.L. days he was a better pitcher to start with.

In any event, this has nothing to do with hindsight. I said at the time, and I wasn't alone, that this was a bad trade for a pitcher on the obvious downside. This is not revisionist in the least.

It was an obviously bad trade. Period.

We got an aging pitcher with a ton of innings on his arm whose numbers were degrading and we gave up a real prospect (one of the few we had at the time) to get him.

It was an obviously bad trade... at the time. And worse in retrospect.

If you want to go back and pull up posts from the time of the trade you will find me and several others saying so. If you go back another year and look at the time he was a free agent you will find some people calling for the Sox to sign him and others saying it will be a bad sign for an aging pitcher with too many innings on his arm and numbers clearly degrading. This is not news.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:43 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdivaldi View Post
When Tatis becomes an everyday major leaguer, that sort of discussion becomes relevant. At this point it's just bellyaching by people who need to bellyache...
Bingo. Tatis hasn't done anything but hit homers at A. High ceiling, but floor doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:44 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
But they never had a true go-for-it mentality.

Ventura is proof.

They might have been angling for a wild card spot, but they were never actually set up to get back to, and win, a World Series. (An 85-win team that squeaks into a wild card spot if everything goes right is fool's gold.)
Yes, and that is what I was saying. This was a typical White Sox go for the cheap fix trade. It was not a true go for it trade.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:54 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 12,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
I don't know about Lester. He doesn't play for the Sox so I didn't pay any attention. As I recall from his A.L. days he was a better pitcher to start with.

In any event, this has nothing to do with hindsight. I said at the time, and I wasn't alone, that this was a bad trade for a pitcher on the obvious downside. This is not revisionist in the least.

It was an obviously bad trade. Period.

We got an aging pitcher with a ton of innings on his arm whose numbers were degrading and we gave up a real prospect (one of the few we had at the time) to get him.

It was an obviously bad trade... at the time. And worse in retrospect.

If you want to go back and pull up posts from the time of the trade you will find me and several others saying so. If you go back another year and look at the time he was a free agent you will find some people calling for the Sox to sign him and others saying it will be a bad sign for an aging pitcher with too many innings on his arm and numbers clearly degrading. This is not news.
I would be curious to see where people called Tatis a real prospect, because at the time, he wasn't. He wasn't a top 10 or even 20 guy.

I totally am fine with and buy the idea people thought Shields was done. But I honestly call BS on thinking Tatis was a legit prospect, because no one did, none of the people who follow this intently, none of the people who do it professionally. Fernando Tatis Jr. In his short time with the White Sox, never cracked the top 20 of a putrid farm.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:34 AM
hoosiersoxfan hoosiersoxfan is offline
Co-Winner WSI 2018 NFL Pick'em Contest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,916
Default

Hindsight is definitely 20/20 in the Shields/Tatis discussion.

Here's the thread from when the trade went down. Details about it broke around pages 6-7

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...d.php?t=144976

Comments on there saying the "Sox fleeced the Padres", "Tatis is a lotto ticket with a lot of potential, but neither is likely to make the Sox regret making this deal.", and "They got Shields for basically nothing."

Also plenty of posts that were on the money saying how they wanted nothing to do with Shields at all.

It does seem like most people were focusing on losing Erik Johnson at the time and not Tatis.

Also kind of funny that there are people in this thread saying they were against the trade at the time. Go back and read their posts from that thread and you can see that wasn't the case.

Last edited by hoosiersoxfan; 02-13-2018 at 10:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:55 AM
ChiSoxNationPres ChiSoxNationPres is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew C White View Post
I don't know about Lester. He doesn't play for the Sox so I didn't pay any attention. As I recall from his A.L. days he was a better pitcher to start with.

In any event, this has nothing to do with hindsight. I said at the time, and I wasn't alone, that this was a bad trade for a pitcher on the obvious downside. This is not revisionist in the least.

It was an obviously bad trade. Period.

We got an aging pitcher with a ton of innings on his arm whose numbers were degrading and we gave up a real prospect (one of the few we had at the time) to get him.

It was an obviously bad trade... at the time. And worse in retrospect.

If you want to go back and pull up posts from the time of the trade you will find me and several others saying so. If you go back another year and look at the time he was a free agent you will find some people calling for the Sox to sign him and others saying it will be a bad sign for an aging pitcher with too many innings on his arm and numbers clearly degrading. This is not news.

I don't doubt that you weren't a fan of the trade when it was made. But as I said, other than the 1 bad outing before the trade his numbers were excellent. You have said over and over that it was an obviously bad trade, numbers don't back that up though. I'll leave it at that.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:01 AM
Andrew C White Andrew C White is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxNationPres View Post
I don't doubt that you weren't a fan of the trade when it was made. But as I said, other than the 1 bad outing before the trade his numbers were excellent. You have said over and over that it was an obviously bad trade, numbers don't back that up though. I'll leave it at that.
Sorry, but it was not just one bad outing. You can see numbers, predictably for an early thirties pitcher with a lot of innings, declining across the board.
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 04:26 AM.




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.