Paint it Black

NL baseball is all about fundamentals, remember that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 9, 2013 -> 07:05 PM) without whom we'd have two more losses... it's early guys. seriously. We would have lost on Sunday? Please explain. I'm simply watching him pull his head at bat after at bat. It's maddening.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Apr 9, 2013 -> 07:04 PM) Viciedo is such a frustrating player to watch, anyone agree? Completely. With that said t have never been a believer.

Oh look, another crap at bat from Viciedo

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) Also, the free market does what it does -- it helps the top dog and hurts the lowest on the ladder. The current system exploits young Latin Americans in particular with just a few getting huge payouts. This democratizes the process to an extent and will hopefully give more young ballplayers a shot to play in the USA. My hope is this will lead to the end of the camps run by individual teams in South America and the Caribbean where young people slave away for years hoping for a tiny bonus while forsaking their education, health, etc. With the recent death of a young man in an MLB camp, I hope MLB is looking for ways to forage for talent without employing so many cost saving measures that they can't even provide medical care to the kids they put out on the field every day in hopes of a few thousand bucks. That's not happening. In fact, I would argue the buscon's provide such services like medical care and education.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) So you're mad that they won't shell out guaranteed money to guys who may never see the major leagues? So if Viciedo had completely busted, never made the MLB roster, and pocketed $10M, you'd be OK with that? I don't see how that risk is any different than paying a free agent that same amount of money. Their future isn't guaranteed just like a free agent's. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) Oakland was one small market team, but they've shown a willingness to spend internationally in the past. Tampa Bay, Cleveland, and San Diego are three quick examples of small payroll teams that will benefit from this. There are inevitably other examples as well. Beyond that, if there is a competitive balance to amateur free agents within the US and Canada, why shouldn't there be the same balance for amateur international free agents? Hell, the NBA requires Europeans who want to come over to go through the draft process even if they played professionally. It simply doesn't make sense to allow the possibility of a monopoly on a single market, which is exactly what the previous rules allowed. Personally, it sounds more like you have a problem with a spending cap than you do a worldwide draft. Baseball has been and really is still the one sport where you can allocate a lot of money to a 2nd or 3rd or 10th round pick (although I'm not as famiilar with hockey's rules). Nowadays, you just can't spend as much. I never argued Texas a small market club, but I think it's foolish to argue they're a large market club too. Fruther, I completly disagree that small market teams will benefit from an international draft. Currently, clubs like the ones you mentioned can get high celing talent on the cheap when compared to the free agent market. Lumping an international draft in with the draft cap (yes I also hate that too) kills smalls market teams even more (let alone the draft cap puts them at a competative disadvantage once again) simply because the international market and the draft are really the only places these clubs can compete for talent at a fair level. The NBA also requires kids to go to college for a year. Further, their sport is different on so many levels. Not as deep of a minor league system, only 2 draft rounds, and obviously smaller rosters. MLB can barely police their age investigations for the J2 signing day as it is, why should we think they can do if for a draft? I don't think you can compare the two leagues at all. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) All of those players went to the highest bidders, not the teams with the biggest needs. It doesn't make any sense to have a draft system that is set up to put the worst teams back on top, but then sabatogue it based on where you were born. Its not about money, its about balance in the game. No major league team is using their high round picks on need. This isn't the NFL. Obviously, the Reds felt a need in pitching and went out to spend the money on Chapman. What's the problem here? The small market team won the top talent by spending the cash they wanted to. The new draft system only punishes small market teams for spening money to improve their club. It's that simple. The current draft system does not allow for the best talent to go to the worst teams (See: Appel and Houston because Houston had more high rounds picks last year they they were going to have to pay without hitting the cap)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 7, 2013 -> 06:57 PM) It is a great idea to balance the flow of international talent to the teams that can't spend with the Yankees of the world. Except this isn't true, unless you want to argue that Cespedes, Chapman, and Sano were all signed by big markets. Further, the Rangers are probably the biggest player internationally, and I would hardly call them a big market franchise (nor would I argue they're small, but you get my point). Most international talent isn't being gobbled by the NY/BOS/LA's of the baseball world. An international draft is just another way for the owners to hold onto more cash and pay international talent less than they are worth. If you want to side with the poor multi-millionaire owners, be my guest. I'd rather see the players make more money. There is a financial incentive for all of these kids in Latin America, and to reduce that hurts the sport. It's one of the reasons why kids in states are now playing Football and Basketball because the shot and quick money when you're young (nevermind full scholarhips to college vs college baseball players only getting partial shares). QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 8, 2013 -> 12:35 AM) Because then Paint it Black can't complain about the Sox not spending big bucks on foreign players At least we're at step one of admitting them you have a problem. And lets define "big bucks" here. A few million on high ceiling talent is "big bucks" yet spending 4 times that on average players in the free agent market is apparently good business.

Hawk is day drinking again with his Beckham comments

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 7, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Price was horribleSabathia rebounding nicely today though.

Wow that got out quick.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 7, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) he sucks now, but even in 2011 he was still a really productive hitter. Agreed. Burn in just tired of the "rangers are going to miss Young" line because he's bad now.

Michael Young sucks and I'm tired of the BS leadership narrative that surrounds him.

A world draft is a horrible idea and just another way MLB is screwing up internationally. The new CBA is awful.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:46 PM) How about a situation in which the defense never puts a glove/hand to the ball... yet they record three outs in an unassisted fashion? 3 straight hitters batting out of order?

I just renewed my plates. I had a bunch of expenses coming up, so I couldn't foot the bill for what the renewal + new plates was going to cost. I do want these though (even if it's like $40 extra a year) and they would look sweet on my gray and silver Mini Cooper.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 3, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) While I disagree that everything went right last year, I think we can agree that a lot of things went wrong in 2011 and we only lost 83 games. To expect all those same things to go bad again in 2012 was foolish enough, but to expect the team to get 17 games worse on top of it is just embarrassing. I'm not saying people should have been optimistic about last year's team, but no MLB scout should be that wrong when evaluating an entire team. Fair points. I really like your angle here and willing to agree with this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2013 -> 11:05 AM) Really? Was I the only one who saw our opening day starter be terrible and then go down for the season with surgery? Ask yourself what would happen to any number of other teams if they had exactly that sentence happen to them. That's not "Nearly everything" going right, that's a huge loss. That's 3, 4 wins we might have lost. That's the margin between us and a playoff spot. And it forced trades that depleted our bench for good measure. If you want to reply "yeah but I said nearly", then let's throw in our opening day 3b's back going out, our 1b's wrist, the month we lost from our opening day CF, the time we had 7 rookies in our bullpen. A lot of stuff went wrong last year. Our GM and farm system just overcame enough of it to keep us in the race. Hense the word nearly. My point is you had nearly every major factor on this team go right (Dunn, Rios, Peavy). And besides, the luck of Quintana for much of the season in effect cancels out some of the "Danks went down" thing. Plus, (per BP) Danks' highest WARP was 3.6 which was in 2008. Can't really throw 4 extra wins on him when he has never done it. You're simply naming 1 injury (lets be real here, Danks is a good 3rd starter. He's not a "#1" if we're defining it). All teams go through this. Hell the Tigers lost their starting "catcher" / DH in VMart for the entire season. And the bullpen thing doesn't fly with me either. That's exactly another thing that went RIGHT for them is having a bunch of rookies come up and play well.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 2, 2013 -> 08:38 AM) I'm referring to the scout who said he thought we could lose 100 games last year. Two teams lost 100 games last year, the Cubs & the Astros, and I think most of us all thought those two teams would be in the bottom five. How anyone could think the Sox were that caliber of bad coming into last season, especially someone who is paid to evaluate baseball players, blows my mind. I mean, the point it, there were a TON of questions. Nearly everything went right last year. It happens. And to be frank, if Detroit had played up to their capability last year, it's really a moot point about last years season.

As a 4 year subscriber to BP, I recomend paying the yearly fee. Hell Jason Parks is worth the ~$40 a year by himself.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) From a pure athletic standpoint, it would be hard to not go with Jared Mitchell. That will probably never happen, bt we are talking Santa here. Came here to say this. He would look great at the top of the order and in CF, but again, I'm not betting on it at this point.

My father. But the weird thing to me is he grew up a Cubs fan. At that time he lived in Beecher and didn't have cable, so he was only able to watch the Cubs. When he got to high school he stopped watching baseball, but went to Disco Demolition because he loved the Loop and Dahl at that time. Moved to Milwaukee at age 19, moved back around age 21. Got back into baseball becaue of coworkers and became a White Sox fan for some reason. I was born in 1987 and probably one of my oldest memories was watching the 1993 playoffs. I was in kindgergarden and my teacher was a Sox fan. Obviously I was obsessed with Frank Thomas. I loved baseball as a kid but didn't REALLY fall in love with it until 2005. Now it's pretty much all I consume, sports wise.

I wouldn't touch Hamilton with a 10 foot pole. Way too much baggage, always good for a hot month and then a bunch of meh. He was AWFUL the last few months of last season too. Not to mention it's fair to ask how much damage he did to his body in his 20's. He could be a much "older" 31 if that makes any sense.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) Will they give Morel a chance to beat out this stiff? I think we'll all be clamoring for Morel if he's healthy. I would love a scouting breakdown or analysis on what you see in Morel that I'm (and almost everyone for that matter) not.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 5, 2012 -> 06:18 PM) Another band-aid in the Teahen mode, about the exact same financial commitment, actually. This kind of flies in the face of the typical KW move, in that we're "buying high" instead of hoping for a rebound, so there's more risk involved. Let's hope he doesn't become a liability before the final season of his deal. Two years would have been more ideal...but Sanchez, no matter how you try to twist his stats around, doesn't profile as a corner infielder. This type of move is one that gives the White Sox farm detractors reason to criticize. There was nothing resembling an in-house candidate (just like last season when we made the desperation play to fit Hudson into that hole), and it's costing us a bit. Now Floyd and AJ become the next question marks to deal with...and one would imagine Thornton and Crain, with their salaries being somewhat similar to what Keppinger will be making. Comparing this deal to the Teahan deal is a really bad false comparison since Teahan wasn't available in the open market. You probably HAD to give Keppinger 3 years. I wouldn't really call this move a band-aid though. I mean, what would you have realistically liked Hahn to do? The market for third basemen is awful and Morel just isn't a viable option. Even further, it feels like third base is a really down position in baseball right now. Only a handful of guys I would call very good and it drops of fast after that handful.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 05:35 AM) Doesn't Lavarnway seem to project as less than Flowers. I don't know enough about him to evaluate but based on numbers, it seems like Flowers is actually the closer candidate between these two. Less power, but he's a left handed hitter. Defense is average on his best day as well. I just think t this point it's better than paying for catching via free agency.