Luis Robert Leaves Cuba

I never said we had better talent than the Sox did to trade. I said we should have gotten more back. And when you say a closer it just happened to be the best one in baseball that was controlled for several years.
 
The White sox also gambled on quality with major concerns. Giolito/Lopez/Kopech all have major control issues and look to be trending in the wrong direction since the trade. If those guys fail, then you basically traded Sale and Eaton for some scraps and Moncada.
 
Prospects are also a crap shoot --- even the premium ones, look at how Buxton is performing with the Twins and he was a CAN'T MISS guy a couple years ago.

The point is, going after quantity gives you some extra lottery tickets. You look at the Upton trade and Mallex Smith/Dustin Peterson have both panned out pretty well so far, Peterson had a strong season last year and we flipped Mallex for Gohara.

I don't think theres a right or wrong answer in quantity/quality.... if you scout correctly, develop those players and get a little luck both can work just fine.
 
Hudson2 said:
I never said we had better talent than the Sox did to trade. I said we should have gotten more back. And when you say a closer it just happened to be the best one in baseball that was controlled for several years.
Click to expand...

Right, but it's still a closer. Even the best in the game has nowhere near the value of a Sale or a Quintana.

And you did compare our talent that we received back to the talent the Sox received back, so it seems legitimate to compare the talent given up as well.
 
smootness said:
Whether it would be a better rebuild is absolutely up for debate, seeing as most publications have us as a clear #1 and don't have the White Sox currently in even the top 3 or 4. But there is absolutely no doubt they started with better assets to give up.
Click to expand...

Same old stupid argument defending the Braves FO. Fact of the matter is the Braves watered down the returns for guys like Kimbrel and Simmons. The White Sox didn't water down their returns for Eaton and Sale.

Regardless of who had better assets to trade, or how much anyone likes any of the prospects either team got, the White Sox are rebuilding correctly because they are maximizing the possible future return of their present day assets. The Braves failed to do that, as has been hashed out several times by several posters.

In something with as much luck involved as scouting prospects you rate the process, not the results. It is clear many here do not grasp that concept.
 
Enscheff said:
Same old stupid argument defending the Braves FO. Fact of the matter is the Braves watered down the returns for guys like Kimbrel and Simmons. The White Sox didn't water down their returns for Eaton and Sale.

Regardless of who had better assets to trade, or how much anyone likes any of the prospects either team got, the White Sox are rebuilding correctly because they are maximizing the possible future return of their present day assets. The Braves failed to do that, as has been hashed out several times by several posters.

In something with as much luck involved as scouting prospects you rate the process, not the results. It is clear many here do not grasp that concept.
Click to expand...

Haha ok.

Any attempt to compare the returns of two teams that starts with 'regardless of who had better assets to trade' can be thrown out.

But please, share with me what you think a non-watered down return for Heyward or Upton looks like.
 
smootness said:
Haha ok.

Any attempt to compare the returns of two teams that starts with 'regardless of who had better assets to trade' can be thrown out.

But please, share with me what you think a non-watered down return for Heyward or Upton looks like.
Click to expand...

I will quote your sentence again in hopes you can start to understand the nuance of this discussion:

"Any attempt to compare the returns of two teams"

I literally said exactly this, "In something with as much luck involved as scouting prospects you rate the process, not the results". I am not comparing the returns, I am comparing the processes used by both teams.

Now look, I understand you are completely incapable of understanding what the part in bold means. I get that you are a little too stupid to grasp what "rating the process" means. Maybe an example I would use to explain it to a 9 year old would help?

You are offered a choice between 2 games of chance. Game 1 flips a coin 10 times, each flip awards your $1 for heads, and $20 for tails. Game 2 simply awards you $10 every time you flip the coin, for a total of $100.

The absolutely, unarguably, 100% guarnteed correct decision is to play Game 1. It has an expected return of $105, which is greater than the return of Game 2. No matter how Game 1 ultimately plays out, the process that led you to select Game 1 was correct. If every decision you make follows the correct process, eventually you will be better off than someone who consistently uses the wrong process.

Again, I know assimilating new knowledge is nearly impossible for you, but I hope it helps you understand what "rating the process" means. Probably not, oh well, I'm not very good at teaching concepts to simpletons.
 
Enscheff said:
I will quote your sentence again in hopes you can start to understand the nuance of this discussion:

"Any attempt to compare the returns of two teams"

I literally said exactly this, "In something with as much luck involved as scouting prospects you rate the process, not the results". I am not comparing the returns, I am comparing the processes used by both teams.

Now look, I understand you are completely incapable of understanding what the part in bold means. I get that you are a little too stupid to grasp what "rating the process" means. Maybe an example I would use to explain it to a 9 year old would help?

You are offered a choice between 2 games of chance. Game 1 flips a coin 10 times, each flip awards your $1 for heads, and $20 for tails. Game 2 simply awards you $10 every time you flip the coin, for a total of $100.

The absolutely, unarguably, 100% guarnteed correct decision is to play Game 1. It has an expected return of $105, which is greater than the return of Game 2. No matter how Game 1 ultimately plays out, the process that led you to select Game 1 was correct. If every decision you make follows the correct process, eventually you will be better off than someone who consistently uses the wrong process.

Again, I know assimilating new knowledge is nearly impossible for you, but I hope it helps you understand what "rating the process" means. Probably not, oh well, I'm not very good at teaching concepts to simpletons.
Click to expand...

Hurr durr White Sox gud

I understood your first post. You misunderstood mine. An evaluation of the process of trades has to evaluate the return. Unless you think trading Chris Sale for Emilio Bonifacio might somehow have followed the right process.

You think the White Sox did a better job because their returns were great. That is obvious. You also thought the White Sox might have the best farm system in baseball. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
 
The Braves:
- have gotten a higher number of pitchers in return for trades
- have focused more on pitching at the top of drafts
- got mostly even value overall in trades
- haven't yet constructed a winner

These are the reasons you've given for Coppy being below average.

The White Sox:
- have received 75% pitching in return for their trades
- have focused primarily on pitching at the top of drafts
- received even value back in trades
- couldn't build a winner around some great players for several years

These things have led you to believe that they are doing things perfectly.

And we're all the morons. Despite the fact that the people whose job is to evaluate prospects, trades involving prospects, and farm system construction have been basically unanimous in the belief that the Braves have done a great job building theirs. And despite the fact that the only thing you base any evaluation of the White Sox on are two trades in which they gave away huge assets, one in which they gave up a very valuable hitter for two pitchers.
 
You really do twist logic around in your head haha.

The White Sox have been rebuilding for about 4 months. We are discussing the process of the White Sox rebuild vs the process of the Braves rebuild, so most of the "points" you listed about them fall outside the time frame of the rebuild, and are irrelevant (a common theme for most "facts" you try to use to defend your positions).

I have never said the White Sox FO was amazing. I said they have orchestrated the first stages of their rebuild flawlessly, unlike the Braves. Claiming they have piloted the first 4 months of a rebuild perfectly is NOT equivalent to saying they are an amazing FO, or that they will be able to build a winner. It is unsurprising you are unable to distinguish those not-so-subtle facts though.

Did the White Sox water down the value of Sale by attaching a bad contract to him? No, they maximized the return for him.

Did the White Sox water down the value of Eaton by insisting the Nats send a crappy MLB OFer in return to replace him? No.

Did the White Sox go out and sign their version of Markakis for $44M to play for a losing team? No, they will likely use that money to sign Robert.

Is it really that hard for you to see that the White Sox are using a better process in the early stage of their rebuild? No matter how any of the prospects either team got in return ultimately performed, the White Sox are using a far superior process.

It's fine though. You simply can't grasp the concept of "process vs results". Hell, you can't even determine which facts are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Your lack of mental capacity is alarmingly. Did you have to have someone turn your PC on so you could visit these forums?
 
So drafts that don't fall clearly into a 'rebuild' phase are different than other drafts? Because they are clearly targeting pitching just as much as the Braves have been.

Your entire discussion about them conducting the initial phase of the rebuild is about literally two trades, two trades in which they received no better than equal value in return because they had two legitimately great assets to trade.

I will point this out again and see if you'll actually answer it this time - you like to talk about the Braves being stupid to pay guys at the major league level rather than leaving that money just in case Robert came available before the next international signing period. Yet the White Sox, who are prepared to completely blow through their international pool for Robert, did not do so last July when they could have, meaning they missed on plenty of talent. So they are making the decision now that not going after more talent then was simply a waste. How on earth can you say that is a good strategy yet kill the Braves for playing it the way they did?
 
smootness said:
So drafts that don't fall clearly into a 'rebuild' phase are different than other drafts? Because they are clearly targeting pitching just as much as the Braves have been.

Your entire discussion about them conducting the initial phase of the rebuild is about literally two trades, two trades in which they received no better than equal value in return because they had two legitimately great assets to trade.

I will point this out again and see if you'll actually answer it this time - you like to talk about the Braves being stupid to pay guys at the major league level rather than leaving that money just in case Robert came available before the next international signing period. Yet the White Sox, who are prepared to completely blow through their international pool for Robert, did not do so last July when they could have, meaning they missed on plenty of talent. So they are making the decision now that not going after more talent then was simply a waste. How on earth can you say that is a good strategy yet kill the Braves for playing it the way they did?
Click to expand...

Go look at a calendar. It lists months in chronological order. You will need to be armed with this knowledge to understand what I am about to write.

Got your calendar? Great!

The Braves blew their budget on July 2nd. Almost all of the major international talent was gone by the first week of July.

The White Sox were still trying to contend in July. The MLB baseball season ends at the end of October. If you look at that handy calendar, you will see that October is after July.

Do you know what that means? I'll help you connect the dots...

The Braves were already rebuilding last July, the White Sox were not. By the time the White Sox decided to blow it up, there wasn't much international talent left to sign.

Again, you are bringing up points completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Enscheff said:
I will quote your sentence again in hopes you can start to understand the nuance of this discussion:

"Any attempt to compare the returns of two teams"

I literally said exactly this, "In something with as much luck involved as scouting prospects you rate the process, not the results". I am not comparing the returns, I am comparing the processes used by both teams.

Now look, I understand you are completely incapable of understanding what the part in bold means. I get that you are a little too stupid to grasp what "rating the process" means. Maybe an example I would use to explain it to a 9 year old would help?

You are offered a choice between 2 games of chance. Game 1 flips a coin 10 times, each flip awards your $1 for heads, and $20 for tails. Game 2 simply awards you $10 every time you flip the coin, for a total of $100.

The absolutely, unarguably, 100% guarnteed correct decision is to play Game 1. It has an expected return of $105, which is greater than the return of Game 2. No matter how Game 1 ultimately plays out, the process that led you to select Game 1 was correct. If every decision you make follows the correct process, eventually you will be better off than someone who consistently uses the wrong process.

Again, I know assimilating new knowledge is nearly impossible for you, but I hope it helps you understand what "rating the process" means. Probably not, oh well, I'm not very good at teaching concepts to simpletons.
Click to expand...

You REALLY need to be in the company of smarter people than the likes of those on this board of simpletons. Perhaps your beloved WHITE SOX and their SUPERIOR PROCESS (that would be a methodology of going about things such as prospect mining, which is ALMOST, but not nearly so SUPERIOR as yourself) would have such an intelligent message board that could entice you to visit there...(cue 7 year old type locker room response from potential MENSA president in 3, 2, 1...)
 
percival said:
You REALLY need to be in the company of smarter people than the likes of those on this board of simpletons. Perhaps your beloved WHITE SOX and their SUPERIOR PROCESS (that would be a methodology of going about things such as prospect mining, which is ALMOST, but not nearly so SUPERIOR as yourself) would have such an intelligent message board that could entice you to visit there...(cue 7 year old type locker room response from potential MENSA president in 3, 2, 1...)
Click to expand...

You have 8 posts. Over half of them are bitching at me.

Are you an internet stalker? Creepy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top