Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) Both of them suck.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Team VMart. I do NOT want to pay him for his random career year, foregoing the next Spencer Adams and signing up for a better than 50/50 shot at an ugly, expensive fall from grace in a couple years when we're better positioned to compete. Don't get me wrong, guys, I like the IDEA of Victor Martinez, too. But all the signs are there, guys. All the signs. It's like this:

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 07:20 AM) I don't worry about Super 2 status nearly as much as I do the extra year of control. If they keep him in the minors for 3 weeks, they control him through 2022 as opposed to 2021. This

Sale is dialed.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 08:16 AM) The Cubs did pick right before the Sox 2 years in a row when the Sox had to rebuild in the 80s. They took Mike Harkey, the Sox had to settle for Jack McDowell (This was luck, as I read an article about Al Goldis several years ago, and the Sox really did want Harkey. The next year, they drafted The Ty Griffin. The Sox had to settle for The Boy Wonder, Robin Ventura. This isn't the NBA. You still needs a lot more luck in the MLB draft, even when drafting high, and you can always make your allocation work out. This is why I haven't been a "tanking" proponent at all this year. If were legitimately in the conversation for top 3, it would be different, but the difference between 6 and 9 or whatever is not even close to as valuable as the breakouts of our current players that might lead to more winning.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) The possibility has to exist. Michael Taylor does exist. He is a human entity currently playing baseball for the Chicago White Sox baseball organization. Unicorns do not exist except in fictional fantasy and video games. You're assuming you won't one day get your meat from video games.

Super, super awesome early list with great info: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2015-mlb-draft-top-51/

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 10:29 AM) Adam Dunn's done nothing but help Oakland's offense so far: .292/.370/.542 so far. Right but he's a turd, that was TUC's point. Not the hitting.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) The time before that, it wound up OK. There were signs Dunn was on the downslope. He struggled the second half of 2009 and had never played in the AL or been pretty much a full time DH. There were a bunch of red flags. VMart is far less risky and a totally different hitter even if he is a little older. He isn't a swing and a miss type of guy. I think these guys age better. Harold Baines put up big numbers between ages 36 and 40. Martinez is substantially older at this point than Dunn was and has a storied injury history that includes two real bad knees from catching so long. I agree that his skillset probably ages better, but that's why it's still working five year past where Dunn began to turn into a role player -- age will still catch up and there's more of it at play than ever. I think you've got an argument that Martinez at 31 is less risky than Dunn at 31, but I can't see one that says Martinez at 37 is less risky than Dunn at 31.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:07 AM) I am going to predict a lot of upset fans after this winter. Yeah, I agree. You can only make awesome trades when other GMs are willing to give you the shot. I think a lot of people don't realize what a great offseason this past one was in terms of getting big-time controllable talent, and it should NOT be our baseline going forward. An average offseason will not be as good as last year's.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) I, for one, greatly appreciated what Dunn did, but that's beside the point. I'm basically just trying to figure out what Hahn is getting at and Hamilton and Ethier are ideas and connecting the dots. I think I would honestly rather that the Sox started Wilkins all year to see if they have anything in him. I appreciate what Dunn did, too. But the entire SOX NATION wanted him to die in a brutal farming accident, so given that thought process, I'm not understanding the yearning for a higher risk version of the same thing as a replacement.

Wait, did I miss something? Why would the rebuilding Astros trading their young, cost-controlled player to us for our worse cost-controlled players?

I do not understand you guys. You could not WAIT to get Adam Dunn out of town -- a lefthanded DH who strikes out a ton (30.6%) and is putting up a 117 wRC+ -- because he was grossly overpaid at $14m per year. Now we want to take on the ass end of Josh Hamilton's backloaded contract -- a lefthanded DH/OF who strikes out a ton (28.6%) and is putting up a 113 wRC+ -- at like $25m per year. So what if they throw money in? It's still going to be at least Adam Dunn money for a declining, injury prone, one dimensional DH-in the making.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 06:20 PM) I wouldn't like that deal either. As I said earlier though, I'm still on the fence re: any "big" moves as it is. I don't care about the second rounder - in fact I'd LOVE to exchange that pick for a proven player - but the players and the years.... I'm not just not sure there is a fit right now because of the number of holes on the team. One thing I do think is pretty dumb though is throwing money at the McCarthy tier of pitchers (not just him specifically) because the best we can hope is that we get him on a deal that fits what we're doing now and that we can recoup a decent spect for him at the deadline. I would much, much rather concentrate on developing another SP who could potentially be a core piece than throw some run of the mill vet out there (and yes, McCarthy & that tier is very run of the mill all things considered). I'm not in love with the idea of running out and making some big trade either. Now if it's Stanton or something that is different, but even there you have injury issues and the potential to lose the player to FA. You'd have to have a pretty good feeling about an extension before doing that. Also definitely count me in the camp of going 5/$100M on Shields vs. 7/$200M for Scherzer, for exactly the reasons you have mentioned here. Scherzer's deal will have a huge chance of blowing up in the face of whatever team gives him that. Look at the last CC deal - the Yanks should have called his bluff and let him walk. And while Tanaka's deal looked like it could be bad later, did anyone really think this early? Looking at the Mets with Santana, the Kevin Brown deal, the Yanks with Pavano, the Zito deal in SF where he was a lefthanded Scott Carroll on Day 1, etc. there's just too much evidence to say that a 7 year deal is a bad, bad thing to do. 5 I draw the line unless it is a special situation, but I don't want to do that for Shields. Shields - one last thing, I'm not disputing that he is in the early stages of his decline nor am I disputing that he will likely lose some of the physical stuff going forward. IMO he;s the type that can deal with physical regression better than others. Some athletes can't make it work anymore after they lose some of what they have physically, others however can, and Shields isn't the type that I'd look at and say "major injury risk" or "no durability/this guy can't hold up," or "this guy won't be able to record outs with lesser fastball velocity." So I think in some key ways he's safer (a whole lot safer than big fastball, big slider Scherzer by a mile) even though I've always seen Shields as a #3 who outplays his ability into a #2 type of role (very similar to the way I view Quintana). I don't really believe in #2's and #4's, just really 1's, 3's, and 5's, and Shields has never for me been a 1, just a real competitive type of 3. In the end, I'm not sure where you fall on this, but I just don't know about making veteran additions. I think 2016 is more the year we should be looking at, and if we do make a money move then go big or go home, get a RHSP who is good enough to slot between Sale and Q, because if you do you might win something. Otherwise, stay away from the vets for the most part and focus on adding more youth. I agree with pretty much all of this -- though I don't necessarily think playing in the McCarthy tier is necessarily the worst thing. I DO think that doing so is akin to virtually punting another season for development, a lot like this year, but if there are no smart splashes to make, that may be the best way to go.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) First, I wouldn't give Shields 5 years. 4 is the most I'd go. Well we're not on the same page here. In a weak FA class where there should be several large market buyers, guys like James Shields get valued based on how many better options are ahead of them/behind them, not based on how he fairly compares on a $/WAR scale. I think Shields is going to end up somewhere in the range of 5yr/$100m. I think, based on his performance trends (trading K's for contact, maintaining K/BB ratio by walking fewer and giving up more hits), he's going to be a notch worse immediately next year. That guy can still be a useful mid-rotation piece, but you can only reasonably EXPECT that for year one and maybe two of the deal. I'm not offended by the idea of him being overpaid after that, but that kind of contract can really hamper the team's ability to do other things when it's paid to a 4th or 5th starter. I mean think about how we're treating John Danks at $14m. Yeah, Shields has farther to fall, but he's a lot older and has a lot more miles on that arm, and he's going to be more like $18-20m. And the signs of decline are already there.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 04:19 PM) God we have to rehash this again. There's nothing wrong with gambling. Gambling is done every day. You gamble that you won't get killed everytime you get in your automobile and drive around, but you wear a seatbelt and try to drive a safe car with an airbag as added protection to better your odds. Trading prospects for proven players, as a rule, is gambling with the odds overwhelmingly in your favor. The fact that Kenny's good moves is a long list while his bad moves are a shorter list full of easily identifiable moves is an example of this. You can't be a GM without taking risks, without gambling. Of course you have to gamble. But you do NOT have to take a bad gamble, where the odds are currently against you and you have reason to believe those same odds will improve in the near future.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) 1) How do you KNOW Shields is a bad deal? 2) If you KNOW this, please let me know what crystal ball you are using and where I can find it. 3) Please then let me use that crystal ball, or at least use it for me and tell me who you KNOW is not going to be a bad deal? None of us KNOW anything. We can only ASSUME. Shields is a good bet to be able to pitch well alter into his career. Granted, I wouldn't be in a rush to throw 5 years at him at any amount, but the reality is this: -If you want a good player you should be prepared to overpay -in free agency you overpay via money and potentially a draft pick (2nd rounder in our case) -through trade you overpay via minor league talent I would much rather keep the talent, or do like what the Cubs said they would do re: additions, i.e. use one or the other, not both (why they didn't give up money AND talent for Hamels). Shields or someone else can come via payroll room, and so what if we overpay a few million? If it means the difference between exciting baseball and s***ty baseball, and it means the difference between keeping our minor leaguers or trading them, go for it. One thing I loved about KW is that he wasn't afraid to make a bad deal. He made logical moves for the most part which is why most of them turned out well. He made some bad moves too, took on some bad deals & gave up Gio, but he wasn't afraid to f*** it up. If you're afraid to deal and only want the most ideal trades & best contracts possible then good luck ever getting better, because trying to do that without taking a risk is impossible. Because he's 33, his velocity has been on the decline, his strikeouts have been on the decline, and his WHIP has been on the rise. He is a textbook bad contract. I'm not saying he won't be useful next year, but he will not be useful for much longer than that, and you're going to give up a draft pick. If you do that, you need to be sure that your window is now.

Between the two of you, we may set a Soxtalk record for "line breaks on a single page"

If you want to sign a bad deal like Shields, you have to have a better plan offensively than "Avisail Garcia might realize his potential." Abreu isn't enough on his own, and all of our other best hitters fall into the category of "ehhh he might not be horrible given his position."

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) The payroll was around $85 mil this year, as the BR figures does not include the contracts traded away. The Sox will spend money to bring the payroll back up to around that range, we just don't know which direction they want to go with this, i.e. buying low on Masterson and others or bring in James Shields Ah, thxfrthclrfctn

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) OK, but that seems to be a different issue. One one hand, you are saying that a replacement level 1B hits better than a replacement level SS, so a 1B needs a better wRC+ than the SS in order to generate the same amount of value. Yet on the other hand, the baseline for defensive runs saved is being adjusted because an average SS saves more runs on defense than an average 1B. It seems like the 1B is getting dinged twice for the same issue. I'm not familiar enough with how positional adjustment factors into DRS to argue otherwise. I would agree that, on the surface, it makes no sense to make an adjustment for a counting at any point but the final stage. But does WAR use DRS? I know fWAR uses UZR.

If there's nothing good to buy, I wouldn't assume the payroll will reach 90m. It was 64m this year. It'll go up for sure.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 11:58 AM) A couple thoughts on the Danks stuff... 1) It makes no sense to "replace" Danks with someone earning salary, it makes sense to replace Danks with Rodon who is earning the minimum. It also makes sense to replace Carroll with Noesi. The $$$ spent would need to go to a rotation upgrade at the #2 slot otherwise there's really no reason to spend it (might as well trade for a prospect/project with ability & throw him out there). Our future rotation should be: Sale-RHP-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon, and Noesi can't be that 2. We're not going to run out a 4 or especially 5 lefty rotation, s***, remember the uproar over Axelrod takign the 5th spot from Santiago? We're not doing 4 lefties, we are having 3. 2) A lot of what has been suggested here about another righty is crap, i.e. throwing money at Brandon McCarthy and the handful of innings he may pitch. I'm not sure why so many people like that idea anyway. But if you add a Shields or something along those lines, an actual #2/#3 quality starter, you are upgrading the rotation as a whole, not just replacing Danks. You would be upgrading every spot 3-5, making Q a 3 and Noesi a 4 and Rodon a 5, while getting your L-R balance. The other ideas like trading for Homer Bailey if possible, signing Latos, etc. these are a lot better than McCarthy. We need a #2 not a #4/#5 if we want to try to win anything. 3) Danks (and here we go back to the same thing I tried to get people to understand with Dunn) is guaranteed IIRC $28.5M combined over the next 2 seasons. The Sox are *obligated* to pay him, but they are not *obligated* to pitch him 150+IP during those 2 seasons. They can really do anything they want with him as long as he gets paid. So, if you can move him to another team and get that club to take on maybe $12-16M of that obligation ($6M-$8M per over 2 seasons) then you are just clearing money out, which would be wise for us. I really hope we don't go through the Dunn s*** again with Danks, but if there is even a *hint* around ST of a better pitcher/pitching prospect having to start in Charlotte or the bullpen to "work on something" so we can run Danks out there, it'll be pretty obvious what is going on. And at that point, in a sane world, if the Sox can't find any salary relief then he just goes to the pen like IIRC both Odalis & Oliver Perez had to do in recent years as lefties signed to big deals. My guess: the Sox will be whiners abotu Danks, not move him over the offseason, and Rodon will start in the pen for "innings concerns" as a means of trying to build Danks trade value for July. Which is bulls***, but I'd put good odds on that. 4) Danks reportedly received interest from the Yanks and Marlins so maybe they would hvae some level of interest. In a more radical idea, I think the perfect fit might be the Houston Astros. Not only is Danks a Texas native who came up through the Rangers system, he's also a perfect candidate for their "piggy back" system they seem to be trying to bring up to the Majors. Danks isn't much of a "durability" starter anymore, but he can definitely give you 5 innings. Also the Astros are stupid. So would they take on Danks at $6M per or so? If they would then we'd have more cash available, and even if we had to go back to the same 5th starter clusterf*** we had this year, at least there is a chance we'd pick up another project like Noesi was and have some shot at greater future value than what Danks provides. 5) Lastly the money again - we really need to stop acting like babies about this stuff. All the Sox want to do is act like babies about playing s***ty players on s***ty deals instead of paying them to go elsewhere.... well look around the league, just about every team with anything resembling a competitive payroll has to deal with this stuff at least once every few years. Bad contracts are an inescapable economic reality of the game of baseball, might as well get used to it and make performance-based decisions instead of "woe is me" emotionally charged baby whiner decisions. Even if some team offers to take Danks at $5M per for 2015-16 then you save $10M and open up a rotation slot for someone with a shot to be better. Paying Danks just to be bad accomplishes nothing, and no matter whether Danks is our #5 or Scott Carroll/heap of garbage is our #5 we're not going to be winning anything anyway. A lot of this makes a ton of sense and a lot of this is completely bonkers and makes me shake my head ("smh"). You are my favorite caricature on this board, TUC. My favorite part: "In a more radical idea, I think the perfect fit might be the Houston Astros. Not only is Danks a Texas native who came up through the Rangers system, he's also a perfect candidate for their "piggy back" system they seem to be trying to bring up to the Majors. Danks isn't much of a "durability" starter anymore, but he can definitely give you 5 innings. Also the Astros are stupid."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 12:48 PM) OK, but I guess my point is that nobody is ever going to put Abreu at SS, so saying that Andrelton would save 60 more runs than Abreu at SS is really meaningless. If you replaced both players with guys who were replacement level players at those positions, there is not going to be a 60 run swing between the two teams. Teams allow an average of 665 runs per year. I think that article stated that 86% of run prevention is pitching and 14% is defense, so defenses are responsible for allowing 93 runs per year as a team. No single player is 60 runs better defensively than another player. Something is out of whack, here. I just haven't taken the time to figure out exactly what that is. The idea of positional adjustment is for an objective frame of reference for comparison. Without it, it's difficult to lend context to the difference between a SS with a 98 wRC+ and a 1B with a 112 wRC+. Which is better for your team? The answer is, of course, that it depends on who you're replacing. If you had to go with a run of the mill replacement at each position, the position adjustment give you a common denominator of pure production. A replacement level 1B is a better hitter than a replacement level SS, so a good hitting SS's production plays up more than a good hitting 1B's does.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 11:23 AM) It was up to date. They update it in real-time actually. I was looking at it last night at the end of the game, assuming it was up to date. It had his game scores listed, but still said 89. Must just be a short delay.