Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) I feel the same way and you worded it much better than I did. I think where we disagree on this one is that I don't think the Sox would have any problem giving Stanton $25 mill a year. Thanks to the contracts they've signed with Sale and Quintana (assuming you didn't use Quintana to acquire him), they've gained some leeway in giving out extra money, and he'd clearly be worth it. Beyond that, I think he's the type of player who you can trade too if you need to recoup some value. He's also a very good candidate for an opt out after 4 years, which hurts the club long-term but assures you get more than the initial service time guarantee. Again, all hypothetical, but it's fun to try and quantify the value of certain players on the team. Yeah, I mean I think on paper they absolutely could give him that, just like you say. It's just so completely bigger than anything they've ever done, that at some point you really do have to wonder if the level of risk tolerance is a mandate from ownership. But you're right: in theory, that's exactly the luxury that those below-market extensions afford. Then again, they also just dished out the largest contract in international free agent history this winter. Regarding his eventual annual salary -- I think there's a huge difference if he gets extended or if he hits free agency. Either way, teams have shown willingness to take on years to deals rather than increase annual salary past the 'ceiling' of 25-30m. In free agency, I don't think there's any doubt he's on track for 30m+, but in the event of an extension, I think he'll be more concerned with the grand total than the yearly rate, and a team will ultimately tack on a few more years to keep it in the mid 20s per year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) And what makes you believe the White Sox, as of right now, or going into this off-season, would be in a position to convince him to sign that type of long-term extension to a 95% degree of certainty? I don't believe that. I was just commenting on the notion that someone wouldn't give up those prospects for him. The answer is they WOULD if the situation was right, which is one where they have some sort of preliminary communication with Stanton's agent about his willingness to extend (essentially in return for getting out of Miami) and that the White Sox understand and are comfortable with their projections about what it's gonna take to get it done. The Sox can't get him anyway, and that's because another team can easily outbid our best offer, assuming that offer does not include Sale/Abreu, which it shouldn't and never would.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) No, I wouldn't. Because we'd still be left with our crappy crappy bullpen that lacks any leadership, Ventura as manager, expected/predictable below-average offensive production from every position in the line-up going into 2015 but Stanton/Abreu/Eaton and maybe Ramirez and Avisail Garcia...stuck with John Danks in the rotation for two more years and also not 100% sure what Noesi's going to produce, and lacking plus defenders all around the diamond and not an extraordinary amount of team speed or fundamentally-inclined players. Heck, we don't even have any type of guarantee that Rodon's going to be a #2 as early as 2016. Assuming Micah and Semien both played a lot and gained experience in 2015, they'd have enough speed finally...which means that acquiring Mike Stanton would be the ultimate "win now/all in" move for one season only, 2016, even moreso than Adam Dunn was. If I firmly believed that Anderson was going to be a franchise player and cornerstone to build around and would stick at either SS or 2B, there's just no way I'm making that gamble if I'm Hahn. It's only an interesting question because of that final 2016 contract year. That's where the calculus of risk of NOT doing anything significant and having Abreu/Sale/Quintana/Eaton/Avisail get injured starts to weigh on your mind as a GM. However, it's not the kind of move that fits Hahn's suggested pattern of "sustainable success" by any sort of definition. Giancarlo Stanton is 24. You would only make this move if you felt 95% sure you could extend him, and there's no way that would be less than a seven year deal at the absolute minimum. That would absolutely be a better bet for production than all of those guys. Can you think of a better and more likely sourced of sustained production than Stanton's age 25-32 seasons? I like Anderson, but I'd be shocked if the chances he ever becomes as productive as Stanton are more than 1%.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) I am making the assumption that you're talking minor leagues. Abreu and Sale are obvious off-limits at this point. Where's Quintana on this list for you? Yes, minors. I love Quintana, but I would trade him for Stanton (assuming we'd extend him, even at 8yr/$200m or something), if for no other reason than the position player has a much safer long-term outlook. Would not move Quintana for Heyward, partially because Quintana + his contract is more desirable than Heyward + his likely extension value.

No one in the White Sox minor league system has the ceiling of what Stanton currently is. We'll never get him because someone else will beat our absolute best offer and moving those kind of prospects is dumb without virtually guaranteeing a long-term extension, which will be $200m+, which the WHite Sox probably wouldn't consider.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 09:42 AM) You don't have to bring in Heyward or Stanton. You don't have to trade someone from the major league team. You can, but you don't have to. The Sox right now have plenty of good prospects that, while nice to have, are non-essential. If I was reasonably sure we could extend Heyward or Stanton, there is literally no one in the system I wouldn't part with to get either. Actually maybe I would say no to Rodon in a Heyward trade.

A bunch of teams will line up to give Masterson that 1yr/$6m though, which means it'll be more than that to get him.

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Aug 31, 2014 -> 01:06 AM) Then it's very problematic as a statistic. The baseline right now for a premier player is 5 WAR. Anything within 20% of that in either direction and you cannot say for certain the statistic is proving anything between the two players? If a dude is slugging 20% more than the other guy, or getting on base 20% more I can definitively say "hey, this dudes better at getting on base than the other dude" and there's no argument. Why do you think those components aren't a factor? Look, it's this simple: WAR represents a summation of the idea of using context neutral statistics for the purposes of accurately comparing players across context. This is a very important concept for roster construction and it simply CANNOT be done using traditional statistics that depend on situation. However, the nature of stripping context is the the numbers rely on averages, and the nature of counting stats is that the context of accumulation can never be taken away. Thus, we always have to be aware of the error bars. There is NOTHING wrong with this concept if you just accept it for what it is. I've said this a million times and the false argument still persists: NO one anywhere is making an argument that WAR should be used as a definitive, to-the-decimal-point way to rank player value, because the error bars overlap substantially. However, it IS currently the best way to accurately combine offensive and defensive contribution and create tiers of similarly valuable players. Example: RBI will NOT tell you who the best hitters are. RBI will, though, tell you which hitters factored most heavily in the run production of their teams this year. OBP/SLG will get you closer to who the best hitters are, but how do you assess the balance of power and frequency on base? Linear weights do this (wOBA, wRC+). Errors don't tell you who the best defenders are, but they will tell you who made the fewest mistakes. Your eyeballs can tell you a lot about a single guy, but you can't compare him to another guy you haven't seen enough with any level of accuracy. Regressed UZR is the best thing we currently have at comparing different guys across context. But now how do we tell how the value of one guy's defense compares to another guy's offense? Now you need WAR. Each of these numbers answers a different question. Accept the benefits and limitations of every stat and revel in being enlightened with what each can tell you. THIS I COMMAND (with love and tenderness)!

QUOTE (BaconOnAStick @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:02 AM) Baserunning, sure. I'll give you that. But this PREMIUM DEFENSIVE POSITION REPLACEMENT LEVEL crap has to stop. Any player who can hit like Abreu holds tremendous value, I'd go so far as to say unequaled value. Abreu is the only player, regardless of position slugging above .600. Not only that, he's the only one even close. He's the only player in baseball that has even a remote chance of an OPS over 1.000. He leads MLB in wOBA and WRC+ too, lack of baserunning and all. It doesn't matter what position Abreu plays, he is cramming much more offense than anyone else in baseball into one spot in the lineup. There are plenty of teams that are not getting Abreu like production out of their 4 and 5 hitters combined (totally unverified claim). Don't give me the "well you see Trout plays center and the average center fielder can't hit near as well as the average first...", Abreu so far out classes what anyone in baseball does with the bat arguments over positional semantics are worthless. Positional scarcity IS important, but it's more than that. It also comes down to why positional scarcity is even an issue -- dudes in CF make a TON of outs that dudes at 1B don't. By playing CF, Trout is contributing more defensive value. This is not a knock on Abreu, who is extremely valuable. It's just acknowledgement of how awesome Trout is. He's killing you on both sides of the ball. Abreu is killing you on one side and adequately filling a hole on the other.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 08:18 AM) Gillaspie is weak defensively and he has not hit as well late into the season. Beyond that, it's easy to overlook the production, both offensively (even if below average) and defensively that Tyler Flowers has provided. Frankly, in today's game, if you have a catcher that can play close to 75% of the games behind the plate and remain a non-blackhole at the plate, you have a fairly valuable commodity. That he's also been productive defensively is an added bonus. I think, if Semien shows he's good defensively at 3B, Gillaspie is going to be a guy that sees significant time at DH next season. Not to say he won't play 3B or 1B next year (making the assumption, of course, that he'll be with the team), but if there's a better alternative at 3B, you go that route. Sorry for not reading your response and typing out essentially the exact same thing two posts later.

I think it illustrates two things: 1. We have overrated Gillaspie because of his hot start and because we forget that his below average defense really makes a difference. I'm not saying he;s been bad, just that he hasn't been all April/May the entire year. 2. It's a reminder of how important and still mysteriously underrated the Catcher's role is on defense. The bar for offense is just so low. To me, since Flowers has improved his defense to the point of "some people think he's actually really good," he could make a really solid backup. But it's the most obvious opportunity for an upgrade on the roster. Gillaspie, I think, is different in that he can hold that position down for a few years if we need him to do so, and I won't be bothered at all. But there's a better long-term solution there. Unfotunately it may not be Davidson, but we can do better.

Also, I've always liked Pablo Sandoval, but there are maybe actually NO examples of guys that fat being good in their 30's. And he's kind of famous for being really difficult to convince to lose weight. I'm not trying to be mean, but with a trend that stark, that's a very high level of risk. These types of deals are so risky anyway that I don't like the idea of taking one that comes with more risk than usual. You guys are right, this FA class sucks. That's why it's Russell Martin or bust to me.

Hanley already whined his way back to SS from 3B once. I don't want a guy who's going to pout if his team won't let him be a liability out there until the day he's gone.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) Probably me and you. Third one is wite. Yup

Wonder who the two Russell Martin votes are

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) I wouldn't give Martin more than $40 million and I think the market will probably agree. I think something around 3 years for $36 million is the most he'll get. I also feel like that's worth it considering he's been a 4-5 WAR player the past two years despite a mediocre 2013 with the bat. Also, the skillset is one that should age well. Elite defender with improving plate discipline? I'll take it. Even if his bat declines to Flowers levels, he'll be a plus gamecaller until he retires.

Just say no to James Shields, guys. He's beginning his decline. He's 33, velocity and strikeouts are down. This is EXACTLY the type of guy you do NOT want to win the bidding on. Do not pay a guy for what he WAS.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) Flowers replacement would cost more in players or cash than it is worth. See McCann, Brian or Montero, Jesus. Seattle lucked out with the injury to Pineda but if he comes back to what he was, that was bad trade for Seattl. Nah, just try to win the bidding for Russell Martin. Anything south of 4/60.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 12:24 PM) I stand by my previous post. Honestly, I would rather have Dunn. Unquestionably. So would the Phillies

Even free, Ryan Howard is a wasted roster spot. No one who was mad we kept Konerko can want Ryan Howard. YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) Dan Hayes ‏@CSNHayes 1h Tyler Flowers has 2 bWAR and 1.4 fWAR despite a less than league average showing on offense. Enough to convince you? http://bit.ly/1qoqppi Enough to convince me he can be a slightly below average big leaguer if his defense remains strong, yes Dan Hayes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to upgrade there.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) That would create quite a messy situation for me, personally. In more ways than one for me.

QUOTE (joejoedairy @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) I would be calling the rockies and seeing if they have any interest in moving Cargo. They are likely to lose Tulo as well so maybe a complete overhaul might be something the rockies would consider. It would be tough but its not like that core has gotten them anywhere so far. Not sure if this is enough but I'd offer something like Hawkins, Sanchez, Beck and Montas Contract is 16 mil for '15, 17 mil for '16 and 20 mil for '17 I've got this dream scenario in my head where the Sox, Yankees, and Rockies hook up for a three-way deal this offseason that sees Alexei going to NYY, Tulo coming to Chicago, and prospects from us and NYY going to Colorado. Neither team maybe has quite the prospect ammo for Tulo by themselves, the Yankees won't want to take the big contract, but the Sox low payroll obligations would allow us to do just that. Among the prospects we would send would be a couple of the advanced MI guys that would be blocked by Tulo. Maybe Micah as a headliner, opening second for Semien/Sanchez, with the loser filling the utility role. Or maybe we just send Tim Anderson and little else. But I know, dreaming.

QUOTE (LDF @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 09:25 AM) good point but as LittleHurt05 said, i can deal with Flowers. i rather save what ever salary the sox will use to get a better player at another position. Which position? LF is the next biggest hole unless you want to bail on all of our MI prospects.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 09:20 AM) In the post steroid era, .250 with 30 homers is a star. Unless the OBP is .280 and the defense is butchery. Then you're a worse version of Mark Reynolds. If the Sox can't do any better, then we can give Viciedo a shot to be our 7 hitter, but this is another guy who has had a LONG leash and a LOT of attention and just isn't working out. "Yeah but he manages to hit a slightly above average amount of homers" is pretty equivalent to "yeah but he plays slightly above average defense at second" for Beckham.