Eminor3rd

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) the power numbers are less than DV. Well, the homers are less, but you'll notice that Saunders actually has a higher SLG. Which really just underscores the issue with Viciedo, which is that he doesn't hit enough to take advantage of his power. He clearly HAS more power than Saunders, but it actually PLAYS lower.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) a good point with the stats added. many thanks. however how does the power stats look like? Looks like he's a 15-ish homer/25-ish double guy over a full year. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=OF

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) Have you looked at Saunders' stats? It hardly would be a coup. It'd be two change of scenery guys like somebody stated on here. Saunders gets hurt a lot and that article made it sound like he's lazy. Another fourth outfielder type. Yeah, in fact his stats are all I'm going off of. Haven't seen him play much. Let's see: 2014: Saunders: .273/.341/.450 (126 wRC+) Viciedo: .231/.304/.405 (88 wRC+) Steamer 2015 Projections (all we have so far): Saunders: .244/.324/.405 (110 wRC+) Viciedo: .253/.304/.435 (104 wRC+) So the 2014 numbers are not even remotely close, and Steamer projects substantial negative regression from Saunders as well as substantial improvement from Viciedo, and yet Saunders STILL comes out ahead. I'm also willing to bet that Saunders will play much better defense. And also he's left-handed. No idea how this wouldn't be a huge win for us. EDIT: I mean, we're not even sure we're going to tender Viciedo a contract, right?

I don't want Samardzija for anything close to what I think he'll reasonably command.

That would be a coup for us. Saunders > Viciedo without question.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) LaRussa hated Rasmus. The Sox could have had Rasmus when they trade EJax but didn't want him when he was cheaper and more highly thought of as a prospect. I have a hard time believing JR signs off on Rasmus, especially for 3 years. This guy has a lot of issues. I agree with this. We could have had him when he was more promising, and instead we decided we'd rather just be free of Mark Teahen. The ship has sailed there, methinks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Yeah, it just seems like we're a little short here. Feels like the plan should be to do whatever we can to get competitive via trade for 2015, fill in the holes with low-commitment guys inf ree agency, and then take that core all the way in 2016. VMart-type signings to be considered next offseason.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) Whereas Flores appears to be overly dependent upon his arm for his arm strength (as in, he's throwing primarily with his arm and not using his legs to generate strength, velocity, and accuracy on his throws), Semien appeared to be rushing his footwork - his feet were quick, but his arm was lagging behind, and as a result his backfoot would often rush up too soon, leading to his throws sailing a bit. I still think Semien's role on the club next year will be as a supersub and he'll get a significant amount of playing time to see whether he can stick at the MLB level. I think he will. I think that, both in the field and at the plate, Semien is at the point where he needs to learn IN the Major Leagues. I hope he gets the shot you think he shall have.

QUOTE (PorkChopExpress @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) OK, here's a crazy idea. Prince Fielder. He has 6yrs/$144M left on his contract, $30M of which is already covered by the Tigers in the Kinsler trade, so 6yrs/$114M. Texas still needs to send money back, obviously, but sending another $24M makes him a $15M/year player. Or you can send Danks back their way to unload his contract. Send his brother, too. Hell, send Viciedo, too. Texas seems to be in the market for an OF anyway. The risk is obviously that Fielder had fusion surgery to repair a herniated disk in his neck last year, but had no injury concerns prior to that, and in fact played 162 games the three previous years. He is on the wrong side of 30 (31 next year) and has always had the weight issue, so who knows how he'll bounce back from the surgery. But that is why I think there might be a chance Texas considers trading him. They were atrocious last year, and getting Prince Fielder back is not going to fix their problems. Getting him off the books allows them to find other solutions. And if Fielder returns to even close to what he was, that's a big LH DH/1B to insert in the lineup behind Jose. I worry about the tail end of that contract, but if it means the Sox are in serious contention 2015-2017, I think it's worth it. Just spitballing. We don't want that contract. It was a time bomb the minute it was signed, and it has already started to explode. I continue to get angry every time I think about how Texas let Detroit off the hook with it.

He probably COULD play there, but putting him there comes with a high opportunity cost, because it seems like his bat is probably best suited for the middle infield, and then that prevents us from getting a better bat to stick in LF. Basically, it might end up being the best configuration for us next year, but it shouldn't be the plan right now for the offseason.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 07:02 PM) Why would a rebuilding team like the Mets trade for a 33 year old SS when they have a young budding 23 year old already there in Wilmer Flores? Murphy is at second so where does Flores fit in? Alexei makes zero sense for the Mets and just another reason why Levine is a complete and utter moron. Have you seen Wilmer Flores play SS? It's actually kind of sad. He looks kind of like Hunter Pence, like he's out of some early N64 baseball game with blocky, polygon graphics. The mildest way to put it is probably that he makes routine plays look very difficult, and difficult plays look like miracles. He came up this year for a bit and surprisingly kind of held his own. And everyone was impressed, but in the way you're impressed with something that you assumed was total garbage when it turns out to be anything more than that. I think most of Mets fans, at least, are kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop on his SS defense. Like, it's cool that he's been able to defy the odds, but you can't expect to keep making these plays when your feet and arms move the way his feet and arms do. EDIT: Here's a PERFECT example: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wilmer-flor...-shortstop-yet/ Notice his footwork in the third GIF down. I dare you to watch that and not laugh.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 04:43 PM) Refresh my memory on Semiens D at SS...passable? Passable, probably. But it seems like we'd rather use Sanchez there and leave Semien at second.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) I agree. Whether they can get it done is another question. Here is an article the saber guys might like: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2014/11/5/71...defying-outlier I think this is the TL;DR crux of the article: He's definitely a fascinating case. Is Vlad Guerrero a good comp? I'd hate to set expectations against an n of 1, though. I might be worse than an n of zero.

I think Hamilton is a disaster, and I would want to punch myself in the face watching him flail away at literally every pitch thrown to him. I don't have high hope for Danks either, but at least he's only got a couple years left on the contract.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) Ethier has though See, even Dodgers Digest has talked about it: http://dodgersdigest.com/2014/11/03/mailba...n-trading-puig/ (this was also mentioned in the comments for the FGs article The Dodgers still have too many outfielders.) I think that is the most logical move the Sox can make while gambling on Danks' value. If the Sox have to include a piece or the Dodgers do or the Dodgers have to eat some salary, so be it. However, I think they can save more money and get more value personnel-wise by moving Kemp or Crawford, and I think they'll continue using Ethier as a very expensive 4th outfielder unless someone is willing to eat his whole salary. Yeah, I imagine that Danks/Ethier has already crossed Friedman's mind, but that it's probably plan C or D. My guess is that Plan A is to trade Kemp for some real value. But, I'm in support of the swap if it goes that far. That said, I also expect Friedman to be aggressively lowering payroll when each of these OFs move, so if we're eating the difference, we better not be sending any talent back. Ugh, Friedman. Ok, now I'm just afraid of Friedman and his dark leprechaun trading ways. I don't want him to fleece Hahn.

Crawford surprisingly hasn't been as useless as Danks, unfortunately.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 12:39 PM) Fair enough. I mean assets are assets, whether it be cash or talent. Ultimately, this will vary by suitor. In our situation, I would think we would focus on taking cash over giving talent, not simply because of our payroll commitments but because of our relatively bare cupboards of talent. If their preference is on talent rather than shedding cash, I think we probably become less than an ideal suitor to them. The most valuable asset I might consider actually moving is Quintana. Don't get me wrong -- I'm with you on the talent/money thing. If we can eat the whole contract and give up nothing but spare parts, I'd prefer it. I wouldn't move Quintana, though. I value him higher than any of our prospects individually, save Rodon.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) But why would we cant them to cover half? We'd rather eat the money and keep our talent, don't you think? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean THEY are willing to make that move. Dick Allen pointed out that the trade can be framed as either change in direction or a salary dump. They're in a position where they don't NEED to frame it as a salary dump for the very fact that he is such a tantalizing bounceback candidate coming off of just one down year. So it may be safe to assume they say, "Hey, we're not looking to dump him, we need some talent back. But we understand the risk, so we're willing to cover a substantial chunk of his salary. Call us back if that makes sense to you."

It's probably true to say that the Rockies are NOT looking for salary relief, and are willing to send money to get talent. Let's say they cover half. What do you think it takes from us to get it done at half salary?

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 08:05 PM) It says more about Flowers than it does Montero. I'm just reminding people that Normal Luck Tyler Flowers is still probably a bad player. Obviously any Montero deal would depend on how much money they send and who we send. I'm with you there. I still think that C is the easiest big upgrade for us to make on the position side, after LF.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) I would put the chances of the White Sox acquiring Shuck with the intention of him being the regular LF at 0%. For sure -- this is a depth play. If Shuck is the primary starter out of ST, something went wrong.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) This is why we keep you around here. QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 10:23 AM) Eminor, you've become one of the best posters on this site. Great post.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 10:21 AM) The problem is, there is no way the Rockies eat salary and trade CarGo for some B level at best prospects. Salary dumping CarGo probably costs the Rockies more money in the long run than just paying him to play or sit on the DL for them. Yeah, that offer might be a little light with the salary attached. Might be more realistic to say that offer could float if we ate all the money.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 07:32 PM) Not that it's relevant to the Sox, but why did the Astros make this trade? They gave up 2 decent prospects for a player they don't seem to need. Mike Fast works for the Astros, and he pretty much pioneered modern pitch-framing metrics. So, we don't really know how valuable pitch-framing is, but we know who the best framers are, and we know that Mike Fast thinks they're pretty valuable.

There's a situation where I'd be in favor of this move, simply because it is an upside play. He's 28, he's left-handed, he is under control for 3 years, he would represent a substantial defensive upgrade in LF. However, that situation does NOT include a return of premium prospects. I think that their asking price will be high, but I don't think anyone will give them what they want. After his price comes down a bit, maybe we could get involved. Firstly, the Sox would HAVE to be comfortable with his medicals. Someone mentioned there are rumors that he's got some serious chronic knee issues. If that's the case, then no deal. But if our staff thinks that his injury history is just bad luck or, at the very least, is not indiciative of any specific long0term issues, then I'm in. Secondly, I think the centerpiece of the deal has to come from the second or third tier of our system. Someone like Chris Beck, Rangel Ravelo, or Adam Engel. Thirdly, Viciedo has to go back and represent SOME value. All in all, assuming the Sox get to look at him and don't find signs of chronic injury risk, I'd probably be comfortable with Beck + Viciedo + Trayce Thompson + some random, where the Rockies take on something like a quarter to a third of Gonzalez' salary. Here's why: I think the home/away split thing is way overstated. The fact is, nearly every player has a substantial home/away split. CarGo's is a bit bigger than normal, but just looking at the gap is misleading. You'd have to compare it to the average gap, and you see a much smaller effect. Also, it isn't rational to expect that he'd put up his career Away numbers in his new home park. His home number may be smaller, but they'll still be boosted home numbers. And the Cell is a bandbox too. Finally, this is a good chance to look at his career through the lense of park-adjusted wRC+. Since he got to Colorado, his wRC+ have been: 117, 144, 126, 119, 147, 83. So that's one down year among a whole bunch of great performances even AFTER adjusting for park. The dude can hit. Why is this different than VMart? It's an upside play. It's also risky, but it won't cost as much money and it's got a chance of producing substantial value the entire time he's here. So, I'm not saying I'm DEFINITELY for getting CarGo, but I do think that there is a plausible situation where I would be for it. It's worth us taking a long look, IMO.