Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) Yeah, it would be so White Sox to have Konerko and his .900 + OPS start against LHP, relegating Dunn to the bench against the lefties he doesn't hit. The horror. Isn't Nolasco a righty?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 21, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) That's ok. I think the best place to break a pitcher in is via the pen. When in doubt look to Earl Weaver. Why do you think that? Are you not concerned for his conditioning? Do you remember how bad Sale/Quintana/Santiago all tired out toward the end of the season right after being converted from the pen?

QUOTE (scs787 @ Feb 20, 2014 -> 07:25 PM) Lol, there's a log jam in the OF too. Keep it simple Robin, Dunn vs RHP and PK vs LHP.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 20, 2014 -> 03:40 PM) From that article, I agree that their level of replacement players is too high, because there are not players that perform on the level that they indicate readily available. It would be nice to see a sample of what a roster of replacement players would statistically look like, understanding the difficulty as some players defense pushes their bat and vice versa, but a median range of performance of what a replacement level player would be expected to produce would help to analyze actual players against it. I understand they have offensive and defensive WAR, but it is inadequate to me if I can not tell in what areas the player is either offensively proficient or deficient. I for one am not a big fan of WAR, and it really comes from my belief that there is no such thing as a replacement level player. I would rather see a +/- of league median statistics. I don't know enough about the mechanics of the replacement calculation to argue for or against it, but to me it doesn't matter too much. What's important is that there is an established denominator of SOME kind. The best part of WAR to me is being able to compare players against the same baseline, whatever that baseline happens to be.

QUOTE (Señor Ding-Dong @ Feb 20, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) The 68 million dollar man.

You can't say a $50m contract is or isn't an albatross without context.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 20, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) Chronologically speaking, the Mets, Cubs, and Phillies fall in line with this too. You could make an argument for the Angels, but I think their primary problem is making poor choices in free agency rather than a payroll problem, but due to the two albatrosses they have in Hamilton and Pujols, they are going to be paying a lot more in the coming years if/when they lock up Trout, and even going year to year with him could get very expensive very quickly. Also, we can't act like ARod's contract with the Yankees right now is something that's easily movable or isn't an albatross of a contract, because it's not and it's very much a terrible contract. I also think the Dodgers could be in a lot of trouble in the next 3-5 years when some of these funds suddenly dry up because they've spent so much in luxury taxes. Not to mention the Astros. The Cubs , Astros, and Mets are both going through extremely tough rebuilds exclusively because of poor long-term contract decisions. The Yankees have been mediocre the past few years thanks to an attempt to avoid the luxury tax threshold, and they are now living the nightmare of the end of ARod, Teixeira, and Sabathia contracts that they bought along with the earlier prime years. With all due respect, Marty, I have no idea how you can look around baseball and say that albatross contracts are rarely a factor in sustained success. 10% of the league is in full disaster recovery rebuild, and at least another 10% are aging contenders with their hands tied. And these are all medium to large markets. It took the Pirates 20 years to build a winning core of players without the luxury of affording an albatross, and the Rays have traded multiple franchise-level players (Price is next) in order to avoid having to extend them. The Twins (Mauer) and Brewers (Braun) are next in line as those guys start to decline.

He was just so homer-able last year. He would look brilliant for a couple innings and then just start tossing up softball pitches chest high. I honestly think he got really lucky on a lot of those hangers. He really easily could have a had a disastrous debut if not for a handful of shanked foul balls that could have been moonshots.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 06:15 PM) Your face smells. witesoxfan is a smellface. End of thread.

That's insane that Law considers Gatewood a top 5er but McDaniel has him in the sixth TIER.

Law's the one that actually likes Rienzo, right?

QUOTE (Dunt @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) I really dont understand the Peter Bourjos dicksuck fest. I get he is a great defender, but come on. I think the Bourjos thing has a lot to do with context. An elite defender in CF was what they needed most, and what they needed second most was room for Wong in the infield. They essentially handled their (admittedly small) entire offseason wishlist in one fell swoop.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) I think that's his ultimate role and I think he has the stuff to be a good one. Still, I'd keep him in the rotation for now and keep him starting and stretched out. I think he can be a starter, but he REALLY needs to work on his command. I would love to see him in AAA learning how to keep the breaking ball down.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) I would pass. His velocities and stuff didn't impress me when I saw him pitch, and his minor league numbers in the higher levels are pretty mediocre. I think the Sox already DFA'd Liam Hendriks, and then picked him back up. We call him Dylan. Imagine that 1-2 punch at Charlotte though!

Also in the Honorable Mention: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-best-tr...014-off-season/

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) We would be his 4th team this offseaaon. Nobody wants this guy...or everyone does depending how you look at it. But we seemingly had 2 chances at him befire. What changes now? Nothing, perhaps.

It's AL, so we get priority, right? He hasn't done well in the Majors at all, as we know, but he did destroy the minors. Championship for Charlotte, worst case!

I subscribe to the Szymborski/Sullivan school of pitcher risk: we should always be scared of all pitchers getting injured all the time.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) Dad's a top shelf mechanic truth be told. A cooper comparison perhaps. Haha, we're driving this one into the ground. Pun intended.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 03:53 PM) So Paulino is blocking Rienzo. Who would have though that? Seriously though, they should groom Rienzo as a set up guy. So we should sign ANOTHER pitcher!

No one mentioning what happened in the session...

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) On the flipside, a friend of mine bought his son a used car 20 months before his 16th birthday and it's running 6 years later. Low mileage then. Sounds like Abreu, not Santana. Also, Santana will be collecting more miles while you wait for your driver's license.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Really think that $48M is going to make a difference between outspending the top tier or not? I don't, but if it did that is the definition of albatross contract. Maybe or maybe not alone. But combined with a couple similar deals, and yes. And the problem with building through free agency is that you have to keep paying those prices. So if Santana adds 2 wins for us in 2015 at that price, where are you going to get the rest? You can only pay market rate for talent so many times before you're bogged down. 31 year-old 3 starters just aren't it for us right now. Maybe they will be in a year or two. But even if we bought now to prepare for a year or two, we're then buying the decline years at the price of the prime years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) I am really concerned about the international signing period. The Yankees are supposed to break the bank this summer, go way over their limit and take the penalties that go with it. I read where they basically have already agreed to contracts with 4 or 5 of the top guys. Hopefully that is just rumor, but if true, that is punch to the gut of the White Sox. This concerns me too. Hopefully the Sox will at least be able to focus on one or two guys and leverage their relationships.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) Now younger pitchers on the market are going to cost a lot more than that. It's doubtful that the Sox can outbid the big spenders for that type of pitcher. Made much MORE doubtful if the Sox spend the money they do have on mediocre guys just for the sake of spending it. That's what I mean when I say that $48m alone won't sink us, but we'll sure wish that $48m was available when we want to get a guy that will really move the needle.