Eminor3rd

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.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 29, 2014 -> 05:38 AM) Quintana getting anything less than an A is ridiculous. He was amazing this year. Seriously. He had his best season and it isn't even arguable.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) I haven't given up on Davidson because I don't think his skillset deteriorated, he was just plain awful this year. I've given up on Johnson because if his stuff is where it was last year then he's just not a good pitcher. This is my view, too. Hopefully the stuff comes back, but there was really never a huge margin for error with him to begin with.

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) here is the first of which I know may be several more coming out. the re-ranking of the org and their system. according to bleacher rpt, the sox now is at 22. btw, any posters have faith on Erik Johnson coming back? http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2202809...-season/page/10 I don't because it really seems like his stuff declined, rather than him simply failing to put it all together. Had to be an injury.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) The steroid lines is a huge part of that story. There is no doubt that guys careers were prolonged and altered by that stuff. Same with Amphetamines. With those gone, I think we aren't going to see the soft declines that characterized the last generation of baseball, and instead we will see quicker breakdowns with age. The historical stuff is very undependable because the samples are poisoned by the steroid era and it is impossible to know which data is accurate and which was enhanced by PED's. I just realized I misquoted the article -- it's a 30 year sample, not 15.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) That article specifically relates to offense, and I don't think any of us are really in disagreement about his offense. What I'd like to see, basically, is that same curve but expressed as a year-over-year change in percentage of games played at primary position instead of offensive runs. I don't know if that exists, but my guess is that it would look significantly different for catchers against the league average. To your point though, there are plenty of examples of catchers staying catchers well past the innings total that Martin has racked up. The stat they used, though, was a counting stat, so playing time would theoretically be baked in. However, it isn't clear whether or not the sample is comprised of "player stats who were primarily catchers" or "stats derived from the catching position." In the latter case, you wouldn't know if some guys got hurt and disappeared, thus leaving the sample skewed only to those who remained (or became) healthy and productive. So, similar to what Dick Allen said, if it's the latter, then you may not have a representative sample. Good observation.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 12:20 PM) The last 15 years has been dominated by steroids. Also, only the better guys even catch much after 34 or 35. The numbers on that graph showed regular position players declining every year, but catchers actually improving at age 33 after several years of decline before declining again, which to me indicates a sample size problem or something else a little out of whack. Maybe that is the year the elite guys still catch and the back ups and not so good guys move on to other things. Aside from the random steroids line, that's an excellent criticism of the piece. Potentially skewed sample.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) Nagging stuff. It's harder to stay healthy at 32 years old. Catcher is the most physically demanding position. I don't think I'm stretching here. I don't think so either, intuitively, but that's why I was pointing to that article to show that over the last 15 years or so, that HASN'T been the case on the aggregate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) Interestingly, it was also noted above that "improving pitch framing" is one thing that can help a catcher age well with time, so that might be a skill Flowers could make up some ground on as well. That said, Martin's been really good at that for a long time, but it is probably worth asking how much we really believe the numbers on how big a difference it makes at this time. Yes, I accidentally ignored that part of your argument a couple posts ago. I think that "Tyler Flowers having a bunch of upside" is a better case against Martin than the inherent risk that comes along with Martin.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) I know you were referring to specific parts of catcher defense. I was specifically referring to catchers being forced out of position. I saw your data, but there are enough anecdotes that my point still applies here. Martin's high WAR is tied to him catching, and if he can't do that as often - which is not an outlandish claim to make - then he's a bad signing. But why would he be forced out of catching? Other than an unforeseeable injury.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) One other thing worth adding is a Martin/Flowers comparison. Martin is having a spectacular season, no doubt. For the last 6 years prior to this one, he's put up a combined .718 OPS (95 OPS+). Tyler Flowers this year put up a .693 OPS, that when park adjusted, comes to a 95 OPS+. Tyler Flowers was just about as productive with the bat last year as Russell Martin has been for the last 6 years of his career. Now maybe you're convinced that Martin is raking this year because he took on a new weight training routine (he did), and he'll be an 800+ OPS guy for the next 3 years, and maybe you're convinced that Tyler Flowers will never match what he put up again this year, I can believe both of those if you had a person with enough experience in player evaluation telling me so. But the downside risk on Russell Martin appears to me that he'll be Tyler Flowers/2014 with the bat for the next 4 years, maybe with a slightly better glove, for a much higher price. And on the other hand, Flowers is trending the right direction...which is something that isn't uncommon with catchers and happened to Martin himself. So there's a case to be made that its a large upgrade that hangs on Martin repeating his best year of the last 7 and Flowers no longer improving, and that's compared with a case that to me seems stronger that it would be a small upgrade at a high cost. Two things: 1. While I do not believe that Russell Martin will ever sniff 140 wRC+ again, I do think that the fact that recency provides important context for the way his performance is trending. He's spent the last two years over 100 wRC+, which is something Flowers has never really sniffed. While I think you're right to point out that Martin probably isn't a tremenoudlsy better hitter than Flowers, I do think it's safe to say he's a significantly better hitter. It would not be replacing Jeff Mathis with Mike Piazza, but it would be a clear and noticeable upgrade. 2. While I do believe reports that Flowers has improved defensively, I think there's a lot of evidence that the upgrade from Flowers to martin would be more than "slight." Here's Statcorner's pitch framing leaderboard for 2014: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php. Martin is 10th in the league; Flowers didn't crack the top 100. By FanGraph's total defensive metrics, Martin ranks 4th in the Majors,; Flowers is 18th. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=20,d I do not think Martin needs to repeat next year to be a substantial upgrade.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) Free Agent X is not just as likely to break down as a catcher over 30. Isn't that the reason we talk about age at all with free agents? It's not the only justification not to sign him - I pointed out paying for a career year and current roster construction and needs. Read my post above (and the linked articles), you're arguing that he's more likely to decline rapidly because he's a catcher, but that's not true at all.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) His skillset is that he's a catcher, which doesn't age well. What happens if he can only catch 80 games a year from age 32-36? 50 games? It's been known to happen. Then you're paying $60 million for half a catcher and a DH with a career wRC+ of 106 that is greatly boosted by a career year at age 31, when you already have a 1-2 WAR catcher on the roster. If we splurge this offseason it should be on pitching or in the outfield. I would be infinitely happier with a Russell Martin signing than a V-Mart one though. But there's a chance Martin will get more per year, given his position I just want to clarify that you're arguing that he'll be hurt a lot because he's a catcher, which is different than what I'm saying when I'm arguing that his skillset ages well. I'm talking specifically about his game-calling and pitch-framing, which studies have shown improve with age. When it comes to the things that decline with age, the difference between a good and bad catcher's throwing arm has been pretty convincingly argued as overrated (because pitcher behavior and catcher footwork more strongly correlate with CS% than catcher pop times: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-overrat...throwing-arms/), and catcher offense has actually occupied a substantially softer aging curve than that exhibited by other position players under the current offensive environment: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/catcher-agi...ve-not-a-cliff/ Finally: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) The important thing is Lyle Mouton.

QUOTE (spiderman @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) How old is Russell Martin? This seems like a horrible idea to me. The White Sox finally have payroll flexibility after having 7 or 8 players taking close to $90M or so several seasons. No Rios, Dunn, Konerko, Peavy, and Danks is probably their last big/bad deal. They made a commitment last off-season of adding MLB ready younger players. I don't mind spending on free agency, I just prefer not to make rash moves. I'd be much happier with a quiet(er) off-season where Hahn makes moves that will help now ,and for the future, even if there is a gamble involved (see Matt Davidson for one that probably isn't going to work). Russell Martin is currently 31 years old. The bolded line sounds a lot like signing Russell Martin. The case for Martin is that he is tremendously valuable on defense, and specifically in ways that actually IMPROVE with age. And, regarding his skills that are expected to decline with age, he has a long way to fall before he would ever be considered problematic. If you go into the contract expecting a 100-110 wRC+ and high-end defense for ~120 games a year, you're very likely going to get exactly what you want. For reference, he did all that but with 140 wRC+ this year. The case against Martin is that you're paying him after a career year, so even if you (correctly) don't expect him to repeat 2014, it's still going to drive his price up. But to where? $15m per year? If so, you're paying a guy coming off a 5 win season (and a 4 win season before that) to be a 3 win player. Even at $15m per year, his production could decline 40% and you still just be paying a market rate asset. And his skillset ages well. I can understand the argument for signing nobody at all, but Martin is a much safer bet to produce than Victor Martinez (who is five years older, more injury prone, and whose contributions rely on bat speed, which is something that often DOES fall off a cliff suddenly for guys in their mid to upper thirties) and looks like he's probably going to come in the same price range. I could be wrong about Martin's ultimate price, but to me, I'd feel really good about paying him up to $15m for each of the next four years. He makes the team substantially better immediately and is among the safest bets in this FA class to continue to contribute surplus value throughout the life of the contract.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) I think that package is right around what would be worthwhile, but I think I'd prefer to deal Beck over Danish right now. Just my belief, but I think with another good, healthy season, Danish is a guy who could be a top 3 prospect in the system and possibly a top 100 guy overall. There are going to be some who still view him as a reliever, but it's a worthwhile gamble in my mind. I'd look to deal someone like Beck instead, even though I really like Beck as a prospect. I'd definitely rather send Beck, but I don't think Beck gets it done.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 12:33 PM) Are you guys just not high on Danish and Hawkins??? That seems like an awful lot for a guy coming off an injured/down year. I love Danish and am hopeful for Hawkins, but let's be honest -- you're giving up a potential #3 starter who might be a good reliever instead plus a guy who you'd be happy with IF he becomes what Belt is today. Sure, both those guys COULD become stars, but they both very likely won't. That's worth it for a solid left-handed corner OF with solid pop that is controllable for 3 more years.