Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) The Sox said they will bring in veterans in the right situation. James Shields is 33 and going to command 4 years and likely some sort of committment (via option or vested option) to a 5th year. The last time the Sox gave that kind of contract out for a free agent pitcher was John Danks, and he was a much, much better candidate for a 5 year contract at that time and it has bitten them squarely on the ass. That is not the right situation. I'd give the Sox a 0.1% chance of signing James Shields so as to protect myself from flat out saying "They are not going to sign James Shields." We need a subforum for listing wite's odds of certain events happening.

QUOTE (beautox @ Oct 9, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) I don't get the shields love across the board and how he fits into this teams short and long term goals. He is going to be 33 at the start of '15 and is going to command at least a 4 year deal if not something closer to 5-6 + at least 1 option and buy out and will cost us our second round pick and the money assigned to that pool. Why not go after Maeda who is younger, won't cost as much and fits the sox window across the board. You aren't alone, friend beautox.

That that pitching staff is ugly behind Quintana. Crazy how quickly something can go from a strength to a weakness.

Wait, was the Danks and Flowers for Puig thing NOT sarcastic?

I just don't see Robin Ventura as one of even the top ten issues that our team needs to address.

I would love Belt, too, but I can't think of any reason the Giants would trade him. Nava is intriguing, though. That's exactly the type of guy I imagine being part of our OF/DH rotation, and he'll definitely be available.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) I have seen zero connection between the White Sox and Tomas. There was plenty of news about the Sox seeing Viciedo and Abreu ahead of time, and of them wanting him. I have literally seen NO stories about the Sox scouting or having interest in Tomas, besides this one. From what I understand, every team had someone at his first public showcase, but the Sox haven't been listed as being at anything since. I saw the Padres had a private workout with him, for example.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) Is there some pun attached to what a "CO" is that I'm missing or doesn't it depend on the player and the contract? I mean if you got Scherzer for less than detroit offered him last year wouldn't you quite happily part with the pick? Yeah, teams shouldn't really factor the pick in at all when it comes to guys like Scherzer. It's about the money and time with him. If giving him 7/$180m or whatever sounds like the right move to your team, then you need the pitcher much more than the pick. Also, if you have a protected pick at all, then Scherzer at 7/$180m almost definitely does NOT sound like the right move for your team

QUOTE (Dunt @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) Ya I thought about that after my post, forgot about that change Thinking about it now, that was a super interesting and completely unbalanced rule, wasn't it? Haha, talk about dissuading a team to re-sign their guys. How would you like to be a dude with a high pick tied to you?

QUOTE (Dunt @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) This is an excellent point and would also be interesting in terms of order with which they sign people. Is the signing of say Victor Martinez even more valuable if you give the Tigers a 4th round pick instead of a potential 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? I would definitely think so. That's now how it works anymore -- the Tigers are going to get a sandwich pick, regardless. The only place the protected pick matters is with the team that loses it. Teams don't "give" their picks anymore, they just disappear.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) I really like the idea of adding Morrow, but not as a starter. I'd get kinky with it and take a risk on Morrow in hopes that he can turn into the next Wade Davis. I love the idea of guys that could try to be starters in the spring, but that we could easily move to the bullpen without a second thought. I think Morrow and Masterson both fit into this category, and since they won't come with draft pick compensation, I'd be comfortable outbidding several teams on AAV if it's one year or one year with an option.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 07:29 AM) No, that is the perfect example as to why you make a move like that. They gave Paulino a shot to prove himself, he didn't, and they jumped ship immediately. They gave Downs a shot, he stunk, and they jumped ship immediately. Frankly, I think they kept Belisario because the stuff was still good and they wanted to see if they could get him straightened out and, bottom line, they need SOMEONE to pitch those innings. They couldn't, and he'll likely be non-tendered this offseason. So I believe Eminor would like to thank you for the perfect example of what the Sox should do. They can probably shoot a little higher up the ladder than Paulino, but the idea remains. Also, when the good you are trying to acquire is unique by itself, and you are going up against 29 other teams, the player has a lot of leverage, especially early on. Someone who has had success like Masterson in the past will likely command a lot of 1 year offers and he'd likely take 1/$6 mill compared to 1/$10 with a team option for year 2 because he has a higher earning potential with the 1/$6. I am very sure he'll get a standard one year deal. Exactly! Thanks, caulfield!

Aside from the sunglasses promo, there just isn't a lot of upside, IMO. Even if he does still possess some skill "if healthy", he's got two years of age between him and his 122 wRC+ from 2012, and he's really a 1B/DH. That's a little better than Adam Dunn, but it comes from the right side and we can't be sure it's really still in him anyway. As a "last resort," sure, but it would mean that Hahn really missed on a lot of others. To me it's less about money and more about just finding a better solution than that overall.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 01:52 PM) Of course they say they can be contenders, isn't that what they are supposed to say? There's an aweful lot of holes to fill in one off season. Hahn has already said they are not going on a free agent spending spree but they can bring in higher salary players via trade. That's great but that will cost prospects and will the Sox have enough quality prospects to bring in a few hitters to help the offense? I would rather spend that 12M on a player that can help the Sox long term, not for just one year. For a team like the Sox that have so many holes to fill. Masterson is the finishing touch the team signs after they have the other pieces in place to make them a contender. It's like a read option. You go in looking for one thing (contention), but if it isn't working out, you have an easy backup plan. This model of "contending while rebuilding" makes a ton of sense for a lot of reasons. Chiefly, you're trying to dodge service time AND wean guys into a full season of innings anyway. It doesn't hurt to throw some innings at a veteran and see what you have, particularly when you can then trade him to give your system even more prospects.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) What do advanced stats say about Shields and his immediate future as he continues to age? I'm not being smart aleck I'm serious. Cause the eye test tells me he's not dominant and could be a huge free agent bust moving forward. I am right now listening to talk radio and the hosts are saying he's not worth the money and the Royals properly will let him walk. Granted they can't afford him but they also are saying good riddance because he's certain to be on the decline. Little surprised people on this board wanted to get rid of Buehrle and want Shields. Interesting considering the ages of said pitchers at times of signing. His velocity is down and he's maintaining his excellent K/BB ratio by conceding more contact, which means (1) his success is much more reliant on having an elite defense, which the Royals do but other teams do not, (2) his success is and will continue to be much more reliant on batted ball luck, and therefore potentially volatile, and (3) his decline in stuff has been superficially underrated by 1 and 2 this year. I'm with you on this one. Shields has been a great player, but he's a ticking free agency time bomb at this stage.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Yup. Last I read it was speculated to be about 15.1M. As for Masterson. If he does get 12M, I hope its not with the Sox. No way in hell Masterson is worth that. I would give him 8M and offer an additional 1-2M in performance incentives. The thing about 1 year deals is that it just doesn't matter that much UNLESS it's money that could have gone somewhere else. With the Sox likely not to be real players in the big multi-year deal market, there's a good chance this year's payroll could sustain $12m easily without taking away from anything else Hahn wants to do. If that's the case, then we gotta do it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 08:19 AM) This is why I think Masterson is a great fit for the Sox. He wants a short term deal. The Sox have one eye on the future with some of the pitching in the minors. Cooper is the master fixer upper. It just makes too much sense. The other thing I like about Masterson is that if he fails as a starter, he could make a great right-handed setup guy.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 1, 2014 -> 07:34 AM) I absolutely loathe the Kansas City Royals so I took no pleasure in seeing the one guy I wanted to find success and have an opportunity to do something get eliminated.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 06:23 AM) Now we're just arguing semantics. You said Chris Beck, one or two fliers, & Tank for good measure. Beck isn't a top 10 prospect, and I wouldn't consider the fliers to be top 15 guys when Beck barely makes the cut. When I say three guys in the 6 to 15 range I'm talking Montas or Danish as the headliner, with two other guys like Sanchez & Ravelo (or even Beck) included. That's a significantly better package than what you proposed. I would argue that we've been arguing semantics since you began arguing What I actually said was "a mid-top ten guy" and then suggested in parentheses that it might be Chris Beck. The important part of the sentence wasn't Chris Beck, it was Mid-top ten guy. Many people consider Beck to be around the middle of the top ten in our prospects lists. It's okay if you don't -- to be honest I'm not that high on him either -- but then you can insert a different name in there instead. Even assuming Beck = someone like Montas or Danish, what I proposed might be a little low, certainly. Hence the rest of the post detailing that the offer might be way off. Either way, I think your indication that my post was completely bonkers isn't exactly being fair to all of the words and sentences it contained other than "Chris Beck."

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 30, 2014 -> 07:25 PM) Come on Balta, Bruce had a horrible 2014 season, but do you actually think he forgot how to play baseball or suddenly aged seven years? From what I've read he was never 100% this season due to a knee injury. As long as he can fully recover in the offseason, I see very little reason expect much less than his pre-2014 performance. If so, trading him for Chris Beck would be a firable offense IMO. If I'm Hahn, Bruce is definitely a guy I go hard after. I'd be willing to give up three guys in the 6 to 15 range for him without hesitation. Not sure that will be enough, but I think it's worth a shot in the off-chance the Reds are desperate to rebuild and no-one is offering more. That's pretty much EXACTLY what I suggested in my post, except adding Viciedo, lol.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 30, 2014 -> 10:40 AM) Wait a minute. You have been an Addison Reed is terrible guy all along. Check out Guerra's xFIP and FIP. Reed was effective too, through the lense of a decent setup guy.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 30, 2014 -> 09:55 AM) The thing is, you can have a crap team with a good bullpen and compete for the playoffs. Just look at the Indians. Swisher was god awful. Kipnis was down. Bourne was hurt. Asdrubal and Masterson sent packing and bad. Yet they put together an almost entirely new bullpen that was nails and were in it until the last week or so. But what is the difference between their bullpen plan and ours? Theirs could have imploded too. The Sox actually have a great recent track record of piecing together good bullpens with strong arms from the farm system complemented by a couple veterans. They failed this year, but the process is one that's worked in the past and is no different from the processes working elsewhere.

This is more "pie in the sky" than usual for me, but what about Jay Bruce? Reasoning: Reds are looking like a disaster now and are expected to start a rebuild, beginning with unloading their pending FA starters. Bruce is under contract, but he still costs a significant amount of money and is coming off a terrible year. So he could be available. Why would we want him? He is one year removed from being good and is still currently left-handed. He's a good defender. He is under contract for two more years at $12m per year with an option on the end. I think 2/24 is more in line with the risk I'd be willing to take on a NOW type of bat, and if it worked out, we could extend him or just let him go to free agency. What would he cost? Tough to say. He obviously has upside and a good track record, but holy crap did he have a terrible, terrible year in 2014. How much did that sink him? I think I'd be willing to send a mid-top ten type of prospect (Chris Beck?) along with a flier or two and throw in Viciedo for good measure if they want him. I don't know if that would get it done or get me laughed off the phone, honestly. I mean he was worth -1.1 fWAR in 2014, lol.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 28, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) I am sure the Red Sox don't regret hanging on to Big Papi. Of course not -- one year contracts at a time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 28, 2014 -> 07:16 AM) I would like you to show someome who had Martinez's career numbers, and a guy who lead the league in Ops and OBP as a 35 year old, who becomes as useless as you claim the next 3 seasons. Paulie had wrist, back and hip problems, Maggs had a vertical fracture of his ankle, which supposedly is much mor of a problem than a horizontal fracture, and he wound up fractuiring again in the same spot, His lifetime slash line is also almost identical to Paul Molitor, except Victor's slugging is a little higher. Check out his 36-38 seasons. Not only do you need to factor injury risk, but we also need to realize that Victor Martinez is having his BEST season by far. This is a career year. He's not likely to repeat even if he DOES stay healthy. You're suggesting that he's been a superstar his entire career, but he never approached this type of season at the plate even in his prime. He's a career 125 wRC+ -- which is very good, especially for a catcher -- but is at 167 this year. That's in a different ballpark altogether. Additionally, there are several outlier peripherals that are major red flags for regression. Chiefly: 6.6% K rate (compared to a career 10.4%) and a 16.0% HR/FB rate (compared to a career 10.7%). All the performance risk that applies to Russell Martin's career year applies to Victor's. More injury risk applies to Victor thanks to age. Because half of Martin's value comes from defense (and most of that from aspects of defense that age well), he's MUCH more valuable even if they both regress 25%. And Victor is probably going to make more money, at least on an AAV basis, despite the fact that they were similarly valuable this year: Victor @ 4.4 fWAR, Martin at 5.2 fWAR. They both come with risk, for sure, as any free agent does. But I definitely think Martinez comes with more, and it's primarily due to age.