GreenSox

I like that list. It's more dynamic than most of the others, and recognizes improvement and potential in the A ball players. It also recognizes a player like Alvarez, who had a sensational year, although he was old for the group. iI like the top five and they should not be touched.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) 2) He is left-handed, which will help balance the lineup, and he tortures right-handed pitching (.304/.383/.507 career). Unfortunately he has never been good against lefties, and we might even benefit from sitting him against them in favor of Avi or Jerry Sands. The Sox performed second-worst in the majors against left-handed pitching last year and you might say that adding Ethier would exacerbate things, but the addition of Todd Frazier (.833 OPS career against lefties) and a likely correction in Jose Abreu's splits (.658 OPS vs LHP in 2015, 1.098 in 2014) will offset any additional problems caused by Ethier. Well the Sox wouldn't sit Dunn against lefties, wouldn't sit Laroche until the very end. So I wouldn't count on that. QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) 3) He is primarily a corner outfielder so he doesn't require us to move Eaton around, something I'm not a big fan of. He got bad defensive marks at the beginning of his career, but in the last five years both DRS and UZR have him as essentially average. I would like a good fielder, I really would, but Ethier is a guy I can live with. Eaton's not a particularly adept CF, so I don't see a problem with moving him around. This is the kind of player the Sox should trade for Danks; or better, included in a throw in in return for all of the prospects for Frazier. Bottom line, you can't give up any young player above a C prospect for Ethier. As a contender, this team is and would be thin as a reed.

QUOTE (kevo880 @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 02:54 PM) Not much given up for Dickerson. Wish that would have been the Sox getting him. Nice value trade for Rays. The kind of trade the Sox should have been making the last 3 years.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 02:54 PM) I think there is zero chance the Sox sign Desmond, which is fine by me btw. Hope you're right.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 10:24 AM) Thoughts on Corey Dickerson? Rosenthal tweeted out this morning that some in the game think he's the most likely of the Colorado OFers to go. Rays are involved. Could come cheaper than the others as well. What would it take to get him? His injury is problematic. But in general, this is the kind of player that the Sox should target with their package of 3/4 ML ready prospects rather than 1 or 2 years of these veterans Williams is so attached to. I don't know where they come up with this artificial 3 year (now 2) year window in the first place. It certainly doesn't match Sale or Q's contract. Offer E Johnson for him

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 25, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) Yeah for a poster who likes to harp on Frazier's 2nd half stats, Desmond had a higher WAR after the All-Star Break than the likes of Anthony Rizzo, JD Martinez, and Justin Upton, and was equal to Nolan Arenado. When you have to use 1/2 season stats to justify major investments, it kind of makes my point. Not to mention Desmond's defense is less than exemplary. I wouldn't have gotten either one of them. And a bad 2nd half wasn't the only reason I didn't want Frazier (bad splits; Sox terrible historical track record with NL sluggers; we had 3B hole filled adequately; Frazier cost 3 good ML ready prospects). Not getting one of the big 3 OF is a big miss. If we take Hahn at his word that he wants to build this org. so it consistently wins, you have to use the FA market, esp. one who wouldn't cost a draft pick. And when KW puts forth this artificial 3 year window, which is now year 2, when OF was as big a problem as 3B (bigger defensively last year), and yet they let these players pass, it speaks loudly of lack of coherent front office strategy.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 25, 2016 -> 06:31 PM) One thing I keep reminding myself is that Avi has set the bar so low that any upgrade could be a difference maker when compared to Avi. That's why I'm open to the idea of players I normally wouldn't want much to do with, like Markakis and Gardner. And those guys will cost legitimate young players. That's why the Sox needed to sign someone so as not to further deciminate an already thin pool of young talent.

Ian Desmond's OPS has gone down for 4 successive years. Last year it was .674. To expect that to suddenly change if he's on the Sox is howling at the moon. No way is that worth a draft choice. It's not a quality investment. The biggest weakness (among several weaknesses) on the Sox right is the abysmal OF defense. That could be mitigated somewhat by using Schuck consistently in late innings, if Ventura is up for it (but he wasn't last year; that may have been due partially, but not totally, because the Sox were behind so often in late innings). Given that the Sox gave up 3 young players for 2 years of Frazier, and weakened OF and BP in the process, they have to do something about the OF to at least give themselves a chance to contend. The idea of signing the averagish Fowler makes me queasy, but it would be better than Desmond. I'd still go cheap for now and get Jackson and see if he and Shuck can be used to field a defensive void.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 25, 2016 -> 12:47 PM) LOL I don't know if there has been a young guy who has been looked down upon more than Avi. At least not with the Sox. Young guys are generally looked down upon on here, if they are on the Sox. An equivalent young player on another team is someone the Sox should trade for. And still, Avi had a higher walk rate than Melky.

Who knows what went down. These media-driven notions that the Nats offer of 5/100ish was "higher" are silly....The Mets' 3/75 with an opt out is a much better offer. The Sox FO just doesn't execute very well, however. Seem to lack a coherent strategy and the ability to pull the trigger.

Signing Desmond would be ridiculous. He's nothing special, costs a high draft choice and salary. He would be adding a veteran for the sake of a veteran. If the Sox won't give young players a chance - and there's really only 1 position left - they'll never get anywhere. They may not be able to avoid Fowler -they've come this far loading up with KW "proven veterans" - but, as a basically averageish ballplayer, he's not worth the price either. Jackson's the best choice.

If Lagares was on the Sox with his .667 OF OPS, people would want him gone yesterday. We traded an defensive fielder (who raked in his cup of coffee) who was universally termed a "fourth OF."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 03:36 PM) The main frustration is the two steps forward, one step back thing. A year or so ago, it looked like we were really going to make a concerted effort to become at least a consistent top 12-18 farm system, but our jumping up in the ratings temporarily was more about the accumulation of high first round picks. If they had gone over budget one year and loaded up on international signings, dipped into South Korea (Kang, for example was available but "blocked" by Gillaspie and Davidson) or Japan, it just feels like Groundhog Day where we keep repeating the same exact pattern but expecting a different set of results. I agree with you. The Sox FO simply lacks the patience to build the org. They tried for one year, improved the team 10 games, and then the Kenny Williams philosophy roars back in. Trade 4 young players for 1 year of Shark...who by the way gave the Sox the SAME WAR he generally puts up, but for the career year that the Sox, predictably, chased. And they did the same thing this year. Trade young players ("fourth outfielder" they tell us) for 2 years of Frazier; but this time the NL slugger will finally slug....we hope....... They better get Cespedes, or the hole will only get deeper. They aren't standing pat: it will be lose a high draft choice for the averageish Fowler or load up the prospects for someone in July.

Fowler is goofy, but would fit well as a #2 hitter (Melky there is silly). But the comp pick price is too high. Sox biggest need is to build the org, something they lack the patience to do.

For goodness sakes there's nothing wrong with depth in the pen. Don't have to immediately start trading and dumping when you may have 1 extra player. Sox may actually take it a little easier on the starters and need these guys. ERA particularly deceptive stat for relievers.

Infield D should be good with 2 improving young players plus 2 vets. I thin Sanchez will hit although I don't know where. Re signing Alexei would have been daft.

The Sox should consider claiming the OF the Rockies just waived.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 05:27 PM) In the end though, Cooper has just as much right to rip the fans as the fans do to rip the FO. As a fan, I am not in the least bit offended by Cooper's words. I see nothing wrong with people speaking their minds. It's bad management to rip your customers. especially considering the poor product Cooper et al have put on the field for the most part.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 18, 2016 -> 03:58 PM) Funny read from an Astros writer POV. He makes some good points that won't be popular with folks that want the Sox to sign Cespedes. http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2016/1/18/107...igning-cespedes "Second, Cespedes isn't a great hitter. I'll pause while the over-reactors pontificate. Done yet? He's not a great hitter. He's a good hitter coming off of a magnificent walk year. And the most important thing to know is: never get involved in a land war in Asia. Only slightly less important is this: never overpay for a free agent after an awesome walk year that could be classified as an outlier." he's basically right, but what's the alternative? Give the few remaining prospects for Cargo, whose game is full of holes itself? And while Cespedes had a career year, at least the trend is upward. Given that they traded 3 solid (if not better) prospects for 2 years of Frazier, they've got to follow this up some way. (Now if it's Cargo, I'd hope they don't follow it up and just take the losses with Frazier). And note that the Sox would be better in the pen and in the OF had they not made the Frazier trade, so they've go to firm some stuff up. But they have to do something. Perhaps they could make a small trade for an upgrade; maybe Austin Jackson. But to do what they did for Frazier and not follow it up is the same practice that has repeatedly failed.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 14, 2016 -> 12:26 PM) Per Olney the Reds are taking offers for him. The Sox have been long thought to have interest in this guy. I assume that the "offers" consist of how much of his salary teams are willing to accept.

Congrats to Alexei. Onward and upward for the Sox.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 13, 2016 -> 04:37 PM) Colorado can keep CarGo and the 37M he's owed. Amen And of course the Sox sorely lack organizational depth.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) They signed Heyward and were pretty clear their OF to start the year is going to be Schwarber, Heyward, and Soler. Heyward is an elite RF; CF remains to be seen. Soler and Schwarber defensively challenged. If they thought Fowler was a quality CF, he'd be back. He's not.

The Cubs have no CF. Why then are they not bringing this guy back? Sign Austin Jackson. Forget Fowler. At least Jackson has played most of his career in pitchers' park; Fowler the opposite. Jackson also plays much better D, which SHOULD matter to a team who had rancid outfield defense like the Sox. And of course he is cheaper, shorter duration and doesn't cost a draft choice.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Jan 12, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) Wilmer Flores is a SS who hit 16 HR last year, is 24, arb eligible and trending upwards. You're not getting that for Avi Garcia + your garbage, the Mets open that conversation with some one like Spencer Adams. Please. They can open the conversation however they want, but he has an OBP under .300. he's a highly speculative player. Yes he improved, but from numbers that were terrible. nothing special defensively either. He's like Saladino in a slow improvement cycle, but with less D. You don't trade top prospects for Wilmer Flores.