Jake

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 6, 2014 -> 09:27 AM) I'm pretty sure that Jason Castro is worth more than Quintana. There's certainly no way we'd ever get both him and Altuve for Quintana and Sanchez. I'd say QUintana and Sanchez sounds about right for Castro alone. I agree. The question isn't who else to ask for from them, it is what else will they want from us? And they will be right to ask. A catcher under team control with the talent and ability he has is worth a lot. Catcher is such an unbelievably thin position around the league. If you can get a Jason Castro, you do it. The question, of course, is whether we can eventually replace Q? Perhaps not this year. However, I feel more comfortable that we can do something about the rotation that I do that we can get a catcher as good as Castro at any price.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 5, 2014 -> 07:52 PM) Are you saying going forward? Because Melo played on some pretty good nuggets teams Good wasn't the right word -- I question whether a team with Melo on it can win championships.

I'm not convinced that a team with Carmelo on it can be good. But, unlike the tanker crew, I'll certainly consider doing something that would almost certainly make the team a perennial playoff team if management avoids Knicks-like idiocy. Why in the world would Melo want to play for Thibs, though?

I don't think it's the "only" excitement of the postseason for Bears fans -- it certainly is guaranteed to be a game(s) in which pretty much all Bears fans will have the same rooting interest, though

I probably watch a lot more summer olympics, but I care about no Olympic result more than hockey

I would trade Quintana for Jason Castro without hesitation

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Jan 4, 2014 -> 03:21 AM) Society is in pristine shape. Impeccably pristine shape. Somehow I looked at that and decided her phone had an amazing camera ...but the phone is in the picture

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 4, 2014 -> 11:39 PM) Can an ESPN Insider copy and paste this for us? http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove13/...team-winter-mlb Soxtalk's administrators don't like for us to do this, as it can ultimately get this site in trouble. If anyone wants to share, do it via a few select snippets and paraphrasing

Those crazy Canucks might just put Sharp/Toews on the same line at Sochi

I think Wootton is a s***ty DE and adequate DT. However, he is an ideal 3-4 DE

My dad is terrified of Facebook. He says he might try it if he can find a way to block his entire extended family.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2014 -> 03:53 PM) I like the idea, but MLB has very much been against selling their own players, because then it simply becomes a bidding war. Instead of doing that, why not trade him for another blue chip prospect for a team that has a glut of those? Or trade him for a couple good, strong B-B+ prospects? Then you can maximize your assets while appeasing MLB. FWIW, I don't think we are far away from seeing a mega deal like the Sox were talking about needing for Chris Sale this past winter. I doubt it's going to be the Sox, but I don't think it's far off. You really don't see blue-chip for blue-chip deals very often. Teams always overvalue the talent and undervalue the money. I'm guessing, at least at first, you'd consistently get better money by selling than by trading (unless you're a clever scout, which is not the same as doing better in the market)

Tyler Flowers

In his last prospect year, Baseball America had this to say: Baseball Prospectus gave him a 1.9 FRAA (fielding runs above average), which is not great but is indeed above average. FanGraphs had him as -1.1 runs above average. His -2.4 UZR/150 (not "awful" in itself) is almost completely dragged down by his 16 errors, which at times appeared rather flukey and, at worst, correctable. Even if not, there are no metrics calling what he did last year bad. His worst statistic is the not-all-that-well-regarded Defensive Runs Saved, from which he got a -4, which is between what Bill James calls average and below average. They use the word "awful" to describe a player that gets -15, FWIW

I highly recommend this article from FanGraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/masahiro-ta...pect-valuation/ The gist of it is that baseball today really, really values prospects and Tanaka is proof-positive of that. Teams are not happy with the whole "pay for past success and hope for some present" system and therefore go balls out when they can throw money at anticipated production rather than past-prime production. My favorite part was when he brings up the idea of what other prospects would get on the open market. How much is Xander Bogaerts worth? He's younger, less injury risk as a position player, and just as highly regarded in prospect rankings. That got me thinking...instead of a struggling team trading prospects, why not sell them? If a small-market team had a prospect that, for whatever reason, didn't fit, why not sell? If the A's had Xander Bogaerts but also great, cheap players blocking him, why not just send a notice to the other 29 teams asking for bids? A small-market team could benefit immensely from selling a player for $100 million.

To call Conor Gillaspie's glove "awful" is quite a stretch. I'd say "solid" or "adequate" or "a tick above Keppinger." He was having an excellent year until a weird, De Aza-esque run of errors late in the season

FWIW, Hahn said on the day we signed Paulino that they aren't expecting him to be ready for opening day

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 2, 2014 -> 12:41 AM) I'm not a libertarian. I'm not trying to be edgy when I say this, but libertarians are way caught up in trying to prove that what they want benefits the greater whole. It won't. People will suffer pretty hard if the safety net is cut out from under them. I just couldn't give a care in the world about those people and whether they can't find work or put food on the table or whatever does not matter in the slightest to me. In the long this will benefit the country as those people either adapt to a world where they have to earn something or just die off, but the transition will be nasty. Libertarians idiotically believe everything will be perfect right away. You're a libertarian. The people you're talking about are also typically called libertarian, but they're really interested in free markets. You're interested in personal liberty above all else. While free markets are a related idea, those who are into free markets often feel that way because they think it's better for the whole, as you say. Put another way, you like free markets because you see them as a logical consequence of a liberty-maximizing society. The people you disagree with really like free markets and see personal liberty as a consequence of a working market economy.

Flacco is easily the worst QB of that trio, regardless of circumstance. I've tried to defend Romo with all of the 4th quarter stats and this and that, but the dude just excels at f***ing up in a big way when it matters most. It is unquantifiable. At least Cutler spares us by dicking things up early.

Bennett doesn't even get to be like Kwame Brown because nobody ever thought Bennett made sense in that stratosphere of the draft.

Let's not use passer rating too liberally here. QBs don't play in a vacuum and I'm not convinced it measures them well, even in a vacuum.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 2, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) What about companies who sell marketed products but pay customers more? If they pay customers, I'm buying.

I really don't think Garcia can hit well enough to even be a bench player at this point. Roll with Elmore. Might take Elmore over an OF, even, and have a normal 4 man bench.

If only Cutler could find the end zone like Favre... Let's be real though, Favre put up some absolute duds in several seasons. His worst seasons were sub-Cutler, but his best seasons got you rings.

It shows you that a good DH will be worth paying for -- of course, that will tempt you to overpay for a bad one. In the non-steroid era, teams are really struggling to figure out what to do with that spot.