Eminor3rd

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.

Yeah, just intuitively, it's probably something like: 1. Has two good pitches, but not three, leading to a bigger than normal split for "times through the order" 2. Has fringey control, meaning that he has probably dialed his velo back to limit walks, but has more in the tank if he could get away walking 4.5 per 9 3. Has trouble with runners on base, suggesting that he has trouble repeating his mechanics when shifting from the windup to the stretch and may benefit from just getting used to going out of the stretch all the time

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) The last time Montero had the BABIP luck Flowers did last season, he was worth 4.6 WAR, and that probably underestimated him by a lot because he's a great framer Steamer has him projected for 3 WAR (again, consider framing) and Flowers for 0.9 (framing to be considered here too but not as much) He'd be an unquestionable upgrade Eh, he hasn't exactly had BAD luck the past two years. That's too much money to risk on a two-year bounceback play for me.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) There's retrospect to that. No one really knew what he would do in the majors. Today, he'd get twice his salary. But that's a major part of what made it a worthwhile gamble, the discount you got by taking the risk. Such is not the case under normal circumstances. Retrospect shows that it paid off, but it was a good gamble before we knew that.

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) I was thinking about the bullpen issues, and ways to approach fixing it. One idea was to look at SPs who could be good candidates for a secone life as a closer/reliever. Thinking of it briefly one thought was to look at the 1st inning splits for all mlb and milb SP that could potentially be buy low candidates. I have no idea how to easily pull together that data. Is there a good site availbale that you guys know of that could help? Interesting thought. I don't know of any site that has the ability for you to get a list with those splits, but if you wanted the data, you might try shooting David Appelman at FanGraphs an email. They have a ton more data than they actually display on the site. That said, I'm not sure this is a good way to identify RP candidates, simply because SPs don't tend to throw anywhere near their hardest in the 1st inning and that they often purposely withhold some of their pitches to save for the second and third times through the order. I think you may be onto something in principle, though. There probably are some consistent indicators of what characteristics of starters make them good candidates for the bullpen. I'd bet that teams have their own criteria internally, but it would be cool to develop something for the public.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:34 AM) Made up? Here's what you wrote again: but they are always most valuable on day one. I will give you a break. Your boy Keith Law did say it was a bonehead move by the White Sox. By the time they are any good, he will be in freefall. Victor Martinez is what we would consider a "typical free agent," in that he is an MLB player that has been around for a while and is now free to sign with other teams. Jose Abreu, on the other hand, is what we would consider an "exceptional free agent," in that he entered our market by illegally fleeing his country, thus bringing circumstances into the fray that are both unusual and thus not normally applicable to the tendencies of free agency. An observant fan might notice that the discussion we're having in this thread is in regards to Victor Martinez. A good indicator is the presence of his name in the thread title. Those in this thread read my post and understood that I was referring to "typical free agents" like Victor Martinez. It's okay that you didn't -- English is a terribly subtle language and, along with any written form of communication, words often contain "implied meanings." it's easy to get confused. In summary: Jose Abreu = upside, long-term contribution, chance to be underpaid Victor Martinez = no upside, short-term contribution, almost definitely overpaid Therefore, signing Jose Abreu is not similar to signing Victor Martinez, and so assuming that the the results of the former signing will apply to the latter merely by virtue of similarity would represent a logical fallacy. Does that make sense? Or were there any ambiguous words in there that you can misconstrue so that you can keep trying to "win the argument" the same way Ryan Braun "won" his PED case?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:17 AM) And the problem with free agents is that they are nearly ALWAYS diminishing assets. Their rate of decay varies, but they are always most valuable on day one. That is your quote. Jose Abreu is a diminishing return. Quit insulting my intelligence. Of course I see the difference. But you have to pay up to get Jose Abreu. I am sure you are happy they didn't wait until they could win before signing him. And I fully expect them to contend next year. That apparently is another difference we have. You are insulting ALL of our intelligence(s?) by pretending to be dense about this. Also note the word "nearly" in what you quoted above. Abreu is clearly a special case to everyone here, and you know it, so you can stop pretending I painted myself into some corner that you made up.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:06 AM) When has signing a 36 year old to a 3-4 year guaranteed free agent contract (and not a convicted in the court of public opinion PEDS user) ever worked out in baseball history when that player was coming off an anomalous statistical career timeline performance in his contract year, which happened to be in his mid 30's? Been asking that question for pages. BUT, evidently signing a 27-year old advanced MLB prospect with tremendous upside at a rate of a league average contributor was a similar gamble.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) I am not switching arguments. You made my point. You have to spend money to sign good players. Besides, if the White Sox do improve just a little bit, the cost for signing a free agent will become a 1st round pick if they wait. Again, I wouldn't go 4 guaranteed years for Martinez. 3 with performance based incentives to make it 4, but he is perfect for the White Sox line up. Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY not see the difference between Jose Abreu and Victor Martinez? Seriously?

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) JR is smart, they have this profit / lose marginal for every yr of that yr expenses and profit. yeah, he may have lost for 2013 but no one factoring the profits the other yr. nor are they factoring other profits that is not listed that is associated with the running of the org. being smart and taking a smart gamble can get the sox a player like Hector Noesi and looses like Paulino. Dumpster diving...... i love it. the sox did not become a 2 billion org for nothing. Well said.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Yes, according to Forbes the White Sox lost money in 2013. But JR has had his minions tell us they only strive to break even every year. If that is truly the case, they have some catching up to do. The last time they lost money in a season was 2001, since then, according to Forbes, they have pulled a $189 million profit. Can we quit the crying poor for the White Sox? They have even trained the media into thinking they are broke. Remember when they signed Dunn? Paulie and AJ were out the door, until they weren't. JR was asked, "where did you get the money?" "You save a little here, save a little there" that was the response. This refrain continues to make no sense. It does NOT matter how much money JR has. It does NOT matter how much you think he should spend. There is a ceiling to the amount of money that the Sox will spend on payroll. This is a fact. You must let that sink in. It has never been higher than about $125m, and every single time it crests, it falls by $20-30m the next season. The reality is that if you commit to bringing it up there, you'd better be happy with the team you have, because if it isn't good enough, money isn't going to magically appear to patch it up. And the problem with free agents is that they are nearly ALWAYS diminishing assets. Their rate of decay varies, but they are always most valuable on day one. Again, no one is afraid of spending the money, but everyone is afraid of impatience leading to four more s***ty years. All signs point to spending the big dollars when you need the benefit immediately. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) There is plenty of money. Dumpster diving gets you Felipe Paulino. Get some real players. Hahn is "getting some real players." He just isn't using free agency. And since he isn't using free agency, he has short-term dollars left over, that he uses on lottery tickets like Felipe Paulino. It is erroneous to view Felipe Paulino and his ilk as an alternative to a high end free agent. Rather, Felipe Paulino is just gravy that is thrown on top of a completely different acquisition model. We are better for taking gambles on Felipe Paulino, but that is a completely unrelated thing to taking gambles on Victor Martinez.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:35 AM) To be fair, two teams that look very mediocre just played in the World Series. But neither of those two just maxed themselves out for the next several years by committing to declining veterans. Like I said somewhere recently (maybe earlier in this thread), it makes some sense to be a .500-ish team, but only if you can SUSTAIN it. You can't sustain it by pushing all in on a crap hand. Maybe you get the shot in the dark for a year, but guess what happens next? Rebuild. Hahn, like so many others right now, is aiming for this to be the final rebuild. I don't know if it's possible, but the idea is to take lumps now to put together something that can be reasonably competitive every year. Pushing all in on Victor Martinez, Melky Cabrera, a reclamation project starter, and a couple overpaid relievers at this point feels like taking a half court shot in 2015 at the cost of not having a prayer for the next three or four years.

I think I agree with caulfield. The problem is this: posters have taken dozens of well-thought-out stabs at what going "all in" would look like this year. Some seem insane, some seem conservative, etc. And to me, ALL of them leave us with what looks like a very mediocre team.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 07:34 AM) I am coming very late to this party, so I will say this only Bravo. excellent post. on a side note dang, I wish I could write like this. Thanks man!

Oh man.