Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) Yeah, Andre Ethier He's coming off a similar season to Danks, he's owed more money, he's locked up longer, and he's older. The Dodgers pick up $12 mill of the final year of the deal, which still saves them money overall and cuts the Sox cost from $18 mill to $8.5 mill ($6 mill plus $2.5 mill buyout). Frankly, to me, that's the deal that makes the most sense if there's any deal that makes sense. The only issue is, if you're the Dodgers, can you do better? Sure, Ethier is a black hole, BUT if you're going to eat most of the money anyway (which is essentially what you're doing by accepting Danks' contract), wouldn't you rather dump him for some single A live arm that could be a reliever? I'd be shocked if there wasn't some team, somewhere, that would take Ethier at the cost of say, $10m over three years, and give up something that at least has some prayer of turning into a cost-controlled RP. Unfortunately, the Dodgers need a bad starter about as much as they need a bad outfielder. Danks is extra bad because it doesn't even make sense to send him to the bullpen because of his poor velocity and neutral platoon splits.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) I'll keep it short: I don't think you should trade a guy if there's absolutely no one to replace him. Reed was a suitable closer. I happen to think he was a good 25-year-old closer (40 saves in 2013), many say he was average to bad in spite of his save totals. The same people say Hahn had a replacement in Nate Jones, who got hurt. I feel about Jones the way many feel about Reed, that he was never the answer. The guy the Sox got for Reed (Davidson) doesn't bother me near as much as we traded a guy who was not effectively replaced. I think the Sox reached 2 over .500 at one point after a good amount of games this past season despite having no bullpen. My contention is not having a closer and other bullpen pieces finally was the reason this team got buried back into oblivion. Yes, I'd feel a lot different about the trade if Nate Jones replaced Reed and been lights out with 30-50 saves. In actuality, nobody replaced Reed. As far as Davidson, he appears to be a huge bust, but some insist he had to be devastated after not getting the job in spring training and it sent him into a season-long tailspin. Maybe he'll make the team next spring training and be the answer at third for 10-15 years to come. We shall see. I am not a Reed hater, though. Even though many on here say he sucks, I like his save totals. So what if he has some shaky saves. So does Greg Holland of the Royals. He puts guys on base in many of his saves but usually gets the save. So far I'd say Arizona won the trade; that could change if Davidson turns into a good to great hitter/fielder. This is the most reasonable post you've ever made, greg. Kudos.

Maybe people will just ignore this thread. Maybe?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 09:45 AM) No reason to do so. Nothing can happen until after his third year. Realistically, it probably won't be worth it for Abreu to even worry about it until after his forth year, unless he can put himself into the Miguel Cabrera/Mike Trout stratosphere of hitters. Here's the other thing: Might the shrewdest move be to eat up six years of Abreu and let him walk? At age 33? Let someone else buy his last one or two good years for the cost of five bad ones? Look, I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'.

Danks is terrible and his market value is negative. All of the proposals you guys are coming up with where it seems like a really good idea for us won't happen because you're right -- it would be a really good idea for us and thus a bad idea for the other team. If we're gonna move Danks, it's going to be for a similarly problematic guy. One where you really have to squint to see the upside. Because that's what Danks is.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 13, 2014 -> 06:53 PM) How has Melky paid for what he did? A suspension? Whoopee. The only reason he admitted it was he was caught trying to cover it up, hilariously. I dont obsessively care about him outside of the sox, but I do not want to be put in a position where I'd be rooting against the white sox. So I would probably just not. Come on man, he didn't kill anyone. A lengthy, unpaid suspension that ultimately cost him literally millions of free agent dollars by putting his expected performance in doubt seems pretty reasonable to me.

This was an unquestionably awesome trade then and still is now. There were many, many question marks with him and many, many reasons to believe he wouldn't repeat his 2013 performance, sabermetrically and otherwise. Excellent example of take a risk on a giving a bunch of innings to a talented arm and selling high.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 12, 2014 -> 10:07 AM) See if we can get Dom Brown for the Danks bros. Lol come on, man.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 10, 2014 -> 07:02 PM) let be honest, the signing of Jose A was a huge surprise and a very pleasant one. no one and I mean no one would have imagine Jose A would be a huge success. now If I remember correctly, KW saw him, liked him and then called JR. now here is the wildcard. why did JR take it upon himself to go and outbid everyone to sign him. also didn't he outbid by 10 mil. the sox got very lucky, plain and simple. What? He was essentially the best hitter in Cuban history. Some scouts had doubts about his transition, but the potential for a star hitter was always known. Secondly, a TON of us were very hopeful of signing him from day one because the situation was ripe for it -- we had low payroll commitments, had a franchise icon 1B announcing his retirement, were looking to spend on high-end talent without draft pick compensation attached thanks to being in year one of a rebuild, and all the teams that could outspend us had long-term, expensive solutions at 1B already. Every team in the ML had eyes on him, but the Sox were in the best position to spend and the best position to be the team that ultimately took the gamble. It was an obvious fit from day one.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) Exactly my point. Not only is he often injured, a terrible contract and what not. If you want the Sox to get him, they would have to trade away a package of some of their best prospects, which makes sense considering that they have been trying to rebuild the farm system up for the past few years. And the Rox would probably want Adams and Montas, and another prospect. That's a horrible deal for the Sox. Like I said in the post you quoted, I'm not even sure I would support it, I'm just saying we DO have the ammo, and there's an argument to be made that the combination of our financial flexibility and his backloaded contract will lower the size of his market and thus his ultimate price.

Eaton. I don't know why, though, but I can se him as the type of guy whose body REALLY starts to break down around free agency. He may actually be a good six-and-out guy.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) When you are starting Jordan Danks for a month or a month and a half, trading actual good prospects for GarGo makes even less sense. I'd rather they get someone they could actually count on to play 150-155 or more games. Not someone you hope at this stage defies what his history has shown. The idea would be that his limitations and contract put a ceiling on his value. If it tuns out the trade market is treating him like he doesn't have an injury history, you bow out. But the logic is that that package of prospects will be smaller than you might think, in large part because of the questions you raise.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) Conor Gillaspie was a better hitter this year and costs zero dollars. How was Conor Gillaspie a better hitter than Pablo Sandoval this year? CG: .282/.336/.416, 7 HR, 108 wRC+ PS: .279/.324/.415, 16 HR, 111 wRC+ They were remarkably similar offensively, actually, but Sandoval comes out a touch ahead. Even if you assume it's roughly the same, (1) Sandoval's longer track record suggests he's a better candidate to repeat, and (2) Sandoval is a way, WAY better defender. I'm not saying we should get Sandoval, but he's unquestionably better than Gillaspie.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 06:50 AM) I still wouldn't quite give up on Thompson, but my faith has been in a steep drop for a while. Engel is in a similar mode to other toolsy OF's who haven't put it together - Thompson, Mitchell, Walker. Though Engel is faster than all those guys, and has more raw power than Walker. I see Trayce's floor as the next Jordan Danks. Which is fine, as I'm sure we must be approaching the option limit for how many times we can jerk him around

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 02:22 PM) Seems these outs also seem to work for the team if they can walk away. It worked like a charm for JR with Albert Belle. And I'm sure the Yankees regret not walking away from ARod or CC when the time came. Sign these guys and give them an out in 2 or 3 seasons. It keeps them motivated for more cash. Then let them walk away. I agree with that 100%. It's probably easier said than done, but if you're a GM, you should probably be willing to give a guy up who still has a good year or two in him for the sake of not getting stuck with the garbage. I think there's some baseball axiom that says "I'd rather trade a guy a year early than a year late." If you were shrewd, you could totally bulls*** your way into getting short-term, high AAV deals on premium free agents simply by playing a hard-line and acting like you "conceded" an opt-out. The key is not being afraid to let him go despite the temptation to "extend your window" another year or two. The downside is, of course, that if something goes terribly wrong early, you're still stuck with the major albatross.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) Didn't CC have an out, and actually is on his second Yankee contract? Yep.

Orioles extend Hardy. Makes the Alexei market sexier. Just sayin' http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/10/orio...-j-j-hardy.html

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) One exception to date is Grienke. Well the Yankees probably said that about Sabathia, too, in year two of the deal

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 10:43 AM) I pretty much agree with this. But there are also times where, if signing or trading for a new player, it is at least worth knowing a bit about the personality involved. Really just looking for those outliers - guys like Zambrano whose behavior and reputation indicate they could have a significant effect on the clubhouse (and there are some on the positive end too). Then you consider that with all the other factors. But you don't want it to weigh a lot (unless it is an extreme like Zambrano) because, as you said, there's really no predicting the final outcome. Yeah, definitely. The outliers have "baggage," and a team needs to investigate that kind of a guy and add it to the list of risk factors. But then, sometimes the mercurial guy fits perfectly, i.e. Yunel Escobar amidst Tampa's "Island of Misfit Toys."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) But there's plenty of examples like the Twins from 2001-2010, the Rays, the Royals this season, the Cardinals since around 2005....where their minor league system excelled and they had the talent/depth for a group of players to progress a level at a time, building a winning tradition at every stop along the way...by the time they got to the big leagues together, they simply expected to keep playing at a championship level just like they did in the minors. When they've had 3-4 seasons playing together, let's say a set of middle infielders, or a catcher being familiar with all of the pitching staff, it makes a HUGE difference for a team. They develop a trust and a bond with each other....that you will never see when those guys are just throw together for the first time in Chicago. IMO, that's one of the major reasons for some of the defensive issues we've had over the last decade or so...along with favoring offense/home runs over "defense first" players because of the stadium. Getting rid of guys like DeAza and Viciedo...if the Sox continue to make mental mistakes, you might have to start pointing the finger at the dugout instead of the players themselves if the trend repeats itself with a whole new cast of characters. MAYBE, JUST maybe...we finally have that with the Rodon/Hawkins/Anderson/Danish/Montas/Barnum/Rondon group in A ball. 2009 Birmingham started out to be that kind of a team as well. But it has been super rare. That just seems like post-hoc reasoning to me -- you list some examples, sure, but what about every other team that also won? Or what about the 2013-14 Red Sox: cited as posterchildren for a rebooted clubhouse chemistry for going worst-to-first, only to find themselves right back at worst the next season with essentially the same team. Also, that's a team built almost completely through free agency and trades in a single offseason, the very opposite of a crop of guys being developed at the same time. Like I said, I believe strongly that chemistry affects wins and losses, but I don't think there's anything remotely close to a consistent, predictable explanation for what creates good chemistry. There are a whole bunch of different personalities in a whole bunch of difference situations, and I don't think you ever really know what you're going to get.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 8, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Also, my favorite SoxTalk rant about homegrown players. Specifically Gio. A classic, indeed.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 12:34 PM) Is there a thread for the Yasmani Tomas sweepstakes? I know his current projections sound a lot like Tank but... The Sox have money to spend Tomas would fit the "core" age group the Sox have spoken of No compensation attached to signing him The Sox have a hole in the outfield to fill This seems like a signing right up the Sox alley. The only thing is he is right handed. Of course they can be very wrong, buyt FWIW, the scouting consensus on Tomas is that he is very likely to be vastly overpaid and has a better-than-average chance of being the first truly big-time Cuban bust. From what I've read, a lot of guys think he's eerily similar to Viciedo, but with a bit more footspeed and a bit less arm.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 11:34 AM) In theory this makes sense, but the best free agent pitcher of any offseason gets the kind of titanic overpay that makes you say "That team will regret this" even as it's happening. And, every single time, they do regret it.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) After taking into account CarGo's splits, injuries, and the fact he's owed 53M over the next three years, I don't get why people continue to bring up his name. Can someone offer a rational explanation please. Shields is another name that gets brought up and yet makes no sense given his age and length of contract he will get. Maeda is another guy I wouldn't get my hopes up for. I'm really hoping the Sox don't waste their time on him. RE: CarGo -- because without those warts, he wouldn't be available at all. The high money is what limits his market, and our low payroll gives us a chance to play there -- to overpay on a contract like that using the equity that Sale/Quintana/Abreu's contracts have bought us and still end up breaking even from a team salary/production standpoint. His relatively young age and the nature of his injury history alos means he comes with considerable upside, if you assume a fully healthy year is a possibility. Given the Rockies change in leadership, a change in "direction" for them is more likely than ever, making it more likley that CarGo is on the block. I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the CarGo train necessarily, but there's a logical argument to be made, certainly.

It's funny how "cohesive" a team gets when they win a few games. I think there's definitely an effect for chemistry, but I think it's close to completely unpredictable, both in magnitude and frequency. As a GM, the best you can do is put the best talent you can on the field and respond to behavioral outliers as they show up.