Dam8610

QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 09:57 AM) The Sox used the "tandem starter" idea in the minors last year. They're using it this year in AAA to see if they can pull Erik Johnson back to pre-2014 form.

So piggyback them into 6 innings of good pitching and have 2 long men in the pen? Not the worst idea I've ever heard.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 17, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) Career 2-2 3.26 ERA 38.2 IP 45K 1.241 WHIP His worst away parks are Baltimore, Texas, Cleveland, and LAD Cleveland seems to have his number, which is a problem.

Looks like they're playing strategy so far. If Rodon starts April 26, I may buy a lottery ticket.

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 14, 2015 -> 08:12 AM) http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/proba...ex.jsp?c_id=cws Noesi is starting tomorrow. I'd have Danks start on Friday afternoon, and start the regular rotation on Saturday. Sale, Samardzija, Quintana, Noesi, Danks It gives Sale an extra day and the rotation is in the order they wanted in the first place. That makes sense, and puts them in great position for the KC series, though it means Danks starting in Detroit. I'd like the best pitching possible going against Detroit and KC. I wish there was a way the Sox could throw their top 3 at both.

If EJ remembered how to pitch, the rest of the division/league should become very concerned.

So Quintana starts today against Cleveland and Danks starts tomorrow, then there's an off day before Detroit. That means for Game 1 in Detroit, the Sox could preserve their rotation order and go with Noesi, or they could opt for Samardzija on full rest. The upside of giving Noesi the nod is getting everyone an extra day of rest and going into the KC series with Samardzija-Sale-Quintana-Danks. The downside is Noesi starts the first game against Detroit. The upside of skipping Noesi is you get Samardzija-Sale-Quintana in Detroit. The potential downside is that would put both Danks and Noesi in line to start against KC, but that's where things could get interesting. If the White Sox wanted to get really bold and aggressive, they could throw out Shark in game 1 in Detroit, then instead of Noesi starting the fourth game against KC, they could call up Rodon and throw Sale-Quintana-Danks-Rodon at them. I know it's an unlikely scenario, but it would be a really interesting way to work the matchups against the two best opponents in the division and break Rodon into the majors early on if the FO feels he's ready. I think the White Sox will probably start Noesi in Detroit. What would you do?

The last time the White Sox had a team this talented was the last time they made this many radical changes to the roster in the off-season, 2005. They have three starters capable of producing 5+ WAR over 200 innings, an MVP caliber hitter, several above average hitters around him, a rebuilt, reloaded bullpen, a couple players who could be poised for breakout campaigns, and a rookie phenom waiting in the wings. That doesn't even touch on some potential bounceback candidates that also exist. Of course a few things will have to break right (they always do for success to happen), but I see a team poised for greatness. Hopefully I'm wearing the correct pair of Magic Tyler Flowers glasses.

Any chance Scherzer would take a 1 year deal if it was worth about 25-35% more on a per year basis than what he'd get in a long term deal?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) I sure didn't like it then and I wouldn't like it now. It was a bad value trade. Nevertheless, I will continue to object to bad value trades even though that one, coupled with about 8 other moves, netted a world championship. You consider that a bad value trade? Two OFs, one of whom became a decent player, one of whom completely flamed out, and a C who never really had more value than a backup or below average starter. That is what the White Sox traded for at worst a #2 caliber starter and arguably a fringe ace. You call that bad value? If that's the case, then what on Earth would you consider good value?

Any chance the Sox get this guy? If he can be a .750-.800 OPS guy, he'd be a great 2B starter/3B platoon partner with Gillaspie.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 13, 2014 -> 11:27 PM) You guys have anything else on your Christmas list? Santa Hahn has a big bag of goodies this year. As in wish list? Chase Headley.

Wasn't Noesi's line with just the White Sox much better overall? I seem to remember a third of a run difference in his overall ERA and his White Sox only ERA.

Not a bad price, much better if he extends before free agency next year. I would've preferred to give them both Johnson and Sanchez to giving them Semien, but I'm guessing that's why they wanted Semien. Definitely an upgrade to the rotation and now the Sox have a rotation I could see as being competitive. Sale Quintana Samardzija Noesi Danks (to be Rodon by midseason) That could be one hell of a rotation. I would say one more bat is needed at this point to make everything come together.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) his bat is like Alejandro De Aza with a lot more walks and a lot less strikeouts Fixed it to reflect an accurate comparison.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 07:07 PM) I love how you throw out Alexei as some worthless piece of trash. Two years of a 10 million dollar top 10 shortstop is more than just a throwaway. Semien will likely never be as good as Ramirez's age 33 and 34 seasons. You really need to refine your reading comprehension. I said Semien, Anderson, and more was a laughable proposal, and something that started with Alexei and didn't give much more would be more reasonable. If you don't think Semien will ever be better than Alexei's next two seasons, you can have that opinion, but it doesn't make much sense given that Semien put up about league average OPS at his position as a rookie and Alexei is likely to decline over the next two seasons. I'd certainly want to see a lot more from Semien before I came to any type of conclusion like that.

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) Looks like this might end up happening! Semien, Anderson, ? ? If that's where the trade would start, then I would hope Hahn would hang up the phone laughing. Maybe send them Alexei, but Semien AND Anderson AND more? No thank you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 05:16 PM) I could see the bad contract for bad contract swap if we still needed the lefty and Ethier might have made sense, but now that we don't desperately need a middle of the order lefty, its just hard to see any obvious match. We don't need an overpaid right fielder nearly as badly now and clearing Danks only makes sense if we're going to easily replace him in the rotation, which isn't going to be cheap anyway. Could Alexei + Danks net Kemp + a better than lottery ticket prospect, or Kemp + two or three lottery tickets? That just seems like a match that makes sense to me. The Sox lower their payroll obligation, acquire a middle of the order OF bat (who would essentially be paid 4/30), and rid themselves of Danks, allowing Bassit and Noesi starting opportunities. Meanwhile, the Dodgers get an upgrade at SS and the back end of the rotation starter they're looking for, not to mention clearing their OF logjam. Is it just me, or does that make a lot of sense for both sides and seem like a reasonable deal?

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) I'm just trying to understand the Q+ part of what's been speculated. I wouldn't say its "crazy", I mean Bruce and Latos have solid value and its not like Sanchez or Semien have done mind boggling things in their debuts so I would say their value is rather limited til they take the next step. Q holds 99.99999% of the value in the trade. It would have to be Bruce, Cueto with a cheap extension, and Chapman in my book to get Q+. They could also throw in that catcher of theirs I suppose. The trade may sound ridiculous, but that's about where Q is value wise.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 01:34 AM) Interesting exercise, except even though Quintana is about the same surplus value montetarily, you also have to factor in that if Trout and Quintana both continue to have similar 2014 campaigns until 2020, Trout has just amassed 51 WAR, while Quintana has accrued about 32 WAR. So, yes, Q and Trout may give you similar bang for your buck, but you'd still be better off with him on your team than Quintana. Not assuming you don't understand that, but I just want to make sure other posters don't get confused thinking that Q and Trout have the same value. I would think the use of the phrase "surplus value" would cover that, but that said, just because Quintana would "only" put up 32 WAR over 6 seasons doesn't mean he should just be traded away. If Trout is 51 WAR over the same 6 years, that still kind of illustrates that Quintana is likely one of the most valuable players in the league for that time span regardless of contract, and shouldn't just be offered up as trade bait unless you're getting several quality major league contributors or one or two extremely high caliber major league contributors in return. When you factor contract in, it becomes nigh impossible to get value out of Quintana in a trade.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:40 PM) Ultimately, they have spent about $17M so far and have around $40-45M they are wanting to blow, which leaves them with $23-28M left to spend. Melky- 4 years/$60M ($15M) Headley 3 years/$21M ($7M) That would leave them with about $6M or so to spend on a RHSP and another reliever. Would need to see a trade or two unless they plan on spending more. Those are low end numbers on both of those guys as well, which is why I said it's a pipe dream.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:34 PM) Except pitchers have a much higher likelihood of career-threatening injuries than position players. Sure you can come back eventually from TJ...and Stanton almost had his career ended...but shoulder/labrum injuries are killers It's the age old argument about a pitcher with 32 starts vs. 150+ games from an everyday player...especially at SS or CF. Fine, then, assign Quintana about 90% of the value you'd assign Trout and then move on with the analysis. Bruce is still nowhere near worth that. Let alone the absurd idea of the Sox giving up more than Quintana for Bruce.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:23 PM) So this is sort of crazy. Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million. Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million. Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout. This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020. So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract. THANK YOU! Maybe now all this "trade Q" crap will die. How's Chris Sale look in this sort of analysis, by the way?

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 08:18 PM) Completely agree. Ultimately, it would be nice to see a catching upgrade as well but I'm not overly impressed with any of the players they have been tied to so far, especially the expensive Montero. If they can ink Melky and turn their focus to their pitching, I would be more than happy with those two improvements (LaRoche and Melky) In a real pipe dream, you could also add Headley and be in very good shape. From there, a 3 starter and a pen arm might actually make a team that could compete for a playoff spot.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 20, 2014 -> 08:21 PM) Early. Revisiting talks. Might take Q + Hahn should hang up the phone laughing if Q is even mentioned, let alone +. Q is a 5+ WAR pitcher. A 3-ish WAR OF is not worth a 5+ WAR LHSP.