Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 03:42 PM) The best way for the Sox to improve over the next couple of years is to deal Quintana and Danks and backfill those rotation spots with Johnson and Beck. Adding a mid-rotation guy this year allows them to make that transition easier. This makes no sense at all. Danks IS the mid-rotation guy you want to add. Danks is not worth anything in a trade, so why would you spin your wheels? And what are you trading Quintana for? If they believe last year's performance is stable, the best thing they can do is to extend him before he can demand market value and then move on to filling the next hole.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) How long do you think it will take the Sox farm system to start producing the talent needed to contend? My guess 3-5 years. Again -- this is NOT a sound approach. Adding talent to all levels is the goal. You asked before when is the right time. It ISN'T the offseason after losing 99 games. It will depend upon how the core develops. It may be as soon as next offseason. More likely, it's two offseasons.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) So can a trade of Chris Sale if that's the goal. Chris Sale IS young talent. I'm not following your logic.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Explain to me how adding a talented player at a reasonable price hurts any team in any situation. I'd love to hear how signing Ervin Santana is going cause a screeching stop to our entire rebuilding process. $60m can go a long way in acquiring and developing young talent. Or it can go to a post-prime version of Matt Garza. Remember that they did not buy 27yo Garza, they bought 30-34 Garza. EDIT: Not to mention that post-prime Garza would be taking innings away from either Erik Johnson or Andre Rienzo, two guys who needs to log some innings for their development. If we didn't have Danks already, then sure, throw a stabilizing vet into the mix. But Danks is here to stay, so that's who we have.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) The Sox are not building through the draft, if they were they would have traded for players in AA and below. The Sox are diversifying, prioritizing talent at all levels, which is the smart way to build for sustained contention. The "all eggs in one basket" method is what has led to Dayton Moore's futility.

Blech.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) Honestly, I've changed my tune overall on Castro, but I still don't know that I deal Quintana for him and I don't know that Houston adds anything to Castro if they are dealing him for Quintana. A move I might make is something like Quintana and Phegley for Castro and Peacock. I'd make that deal. But yeah I don't think I'd do Quintana + prospects for Castro at this point. I WOULD do EJ + more prospects though. Like maybe EJ + Hawkins + Phegley. I like Hawkins but we can find an OFer later.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) I think it would be better to address the rotation this year in an effort to save money. As shown by the Tanaka pursuit, it's going to be difficult to get a true top-of-the-rotation via free-agency. If Jimenez is terrible at least he'll be relatively cheap. We may not need one, though. If Jimenez was a safer bet, I'd be on board. But if we was a safer bet, he'd be a lot more expensive too.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) And I'm sure people said that about Castro in 2011. His rep was that he was a defense first, slap hitting catcher. He put those ideas to rest last year, didn't he? I doubt Phegley puts up anything near what Castro did, but I don't think the odds of him becoming a John Buck type of catcher are bad. It's dangerous to use outliers to predict the future, though. Castro's success illustrates that anyone CAN break out, but it doesn't make a convincing argument that Phegley is likely to break out. I agree with you that giving Phegley a shot is among our better options. And I agree that Castro's price may be (probably is) way too much to pay in our situation. But I don't agree that acquiring Castro at a reasonable cost would be a bad acquisition for us just because he's a bit older. Castro is unquestionably and significantly better than Phegley. I think the team is designed to try to be competitive in a three year window, and Castro is a good bet (not infallible, of course) to be a substantial contributor in that range.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) People want Castro. I continue to point this out Castro 2011, first taste of big league action - .205/.286/.287/.573 , 206 PAs, 41 K's, 22 BB Phegley 2013, first taste of big league action - .206/.223/.299/.522, 213 PAs, 41 K's, 5 BB Castro walked more. That's it. Right, Phegley has a shot. But Castro then actually broke out. It's the bird in the hand.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:58 AM) Back end of the rotation could be ugly. I wouldn't mind them taking a chance on Jimenez as he'll be cheaper due to draft pick compensation, just turned 30, and has the stuff to be a front-of-the-rotation guy. I don't think he;s going to be as affordable as we all hope.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) We have to dump an IF too. Possibly two. Yeah I agree with wite that Semien and Davidson can start in AAA. If they force their way onto the roster, a DFA of Keppinger wouldn't be impossible. I mean, for all of our talk about how much payroll space the Sox can use on FAs, we haven't really considered that eating ~$8m to lose Keppinger probably wouldn't kill us. What I really DON'T want is De Aza or Viciedo as 4th OFs. They both should have some actual trade value now, but a half season of part-time play will only negate that. I think the time to move one of them is now.

We gotta move an OF, ideally for a C. If not a C, then best prospect available. That's all though. None of this Matt Garza garbage

The thing about Quintana is that is very likely at his absolute peak. He's already gained velocity and his control is his best attribute, so if he's going to regress at all, its' almost certainly going to be downward. Best case scenario for him is maintain.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) Once I was part of a marching band. We wore these really cool wristbands. A long, narrow band of cloud was above us. Doors are banded with iron to make them stronger, but the marching band is stronger than those doors. Oh and there was a band of caribou. Hope I don't get banned! (I found 8 different definitions for band and used as many as I could) If we get Tanaka and thus remember this thread fondly, this is a good POTY candidate

QUOTE (timbo @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 11:52 AM) How do they make sense ? Win-now, rapidly aging core, weak rotation, lots of money.

I'm still predicting NYY. It makes the most baseball sense, and if they're willing to spend $115m, why not $130m? I mean it isn't like they don't HAVE the money. If they're going to blow the luxury tax away at all, why be outbid by $10-15m?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 04:01 PM) Exactly. This is why guys like Granderson and Ethier make no sense for the White Sox. Even if they are 3 win players and you are only paying them $8 mill a year (they obviously cost more than that), that is only an improvement from context-neutral 75 wins to 78 wins. What the hell good does that do? That's why I really didn't like that move for the Mets. However, if you are an 86 win team, and you can bring in a 2 WAR player who will be replacing a -1 WAR player, that's essentially 3 additional wins, and it pushes you to 89 wins, which is almost always a playoff birth. You also see teams taking a discount and paying for production upfront in exchange for an inflated, backloaded contract and paying extra for a worse product. Then they rinse, lather, and repeat. The OTHER thing about this is actually the financial situation, which is a topic brought up by Baseball Between the Numbers (which, while dated, is still an excellent read). It basically states that the difference in monetary value between wins 76 and 80 is next to nothing, but the distance between 86 and 88 is very large. So, if you are close, it makes sense to buy, buy, buy. Unfortunately, teams so often overestimate themselves and you see situations like the 2007-08 Mariners. You must be patient and know for certain what your talent level is. The Pirates, more than anybody else in baseball, have figured this out and have been overly conservative, and it's paying dividends for them now. I'll just second that Baseball Between the Numbers is awesome -- one of my favorite reads of all-time. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about sabermetrics if only for the incredibly complete primer on the use of linear weights to measure run values, which is an incredibly important concept for today's stats.

QUOTE (bulokis @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) If the cubs dont sign him this weekend, Hahn will probably announce it during soxfest. The deadline for Tanaka is around the soxfest days! Nah, they'll want to announce it beforehand to increase Soxfest attendence, methinks.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 03:26 PM) I'm beginning to expect Tanaka to sign with the White Sox. To expound, the Sox frankly need a guy like Tanaka just as much if not moreso than a team like the Yankees. Yes, they have a young, rebuilding team, but other than Sale, they have no one in the same stratosphere as Tanaka. The team has improved quite a bit this year and frankly, with luck, could be in the playoff chase with that pitching staff. The Yankees are old and they are going to have to go through a transitional/rebuilding phase shortly, even if it's only this year and maybe next. The Cubs have done very, very little to actually improve the roster this winter and in fact their financial situation will get worse after this year, while the Sox' gets better. I think even with Tanaka, they're 2+ years away. I'm not going to be shocked/sad/surprised/whatever if he signs elsewhere, even the Cubs, but I think the Sox are the favorites at this point. I disagree strongly that the WS need him more than the Yankees. The fact that the Yankees are old means that they are at a much greater risk of falling into a lengthy rebuilding period if they don't put young, ML-ready core pieces in place soon. SP also just happens to be the weakest part of their franchise, from top to bottom. This just so happens to be the strongest part of the WS franchise, from top to bottom. The Yankees have WAY more to lose by not signing Tanaka. And, luxury tax or not, they have much more spending power and were just gifted ~$25m of ARod's money from Bud Selig.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) One thing that comes up on a regular basis is "this guy has to produce x to be worth $y." While this is technically true, I don't believe we should look at it like that. What you want to see is a x as low as possible with y as high as possible. Assigning actual values to WAR like that is, to me, inherently wrong. Yes, $6-7 mil is the going rate for 1 WAR on the open market, but if you sign someone to that, you should try and get better value because there are teams paying guys $15 million who are doing absolutely nothing because it's a bad contract. Those numbers get so high not because every team is paying $7 million for each individual win but because there are bad and good contracts out there cancelling each other out and tugging that value either way (which is usually up). If you are the GM, you want to bring in guys that are good and will help you win. The Rangers are probably going to regret the Choo signing in 5 years, but in the meantime, he is going to help them out tremendously and could even help them win a World Series. So, when talking about Tanaka making $20 million, or $120 million over the duration, yes he will technically need to accrue about 20 WAR over the duration of that contract (3.33 WAR per year), but you don't sign him to be a #3-4 starter. You sign him to be a 5-6 WAR starter, an ace. Whenever I think of market-rate WAR dollars, I'm using it as a watermark for downside. However, that only really makes sense in a vacuum. Depending on each team's place on the win curve, it could make sense for them to purchase "additional wins" at market rate or even substantially above market rate to push them over the edge.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 03:15 PM) That is cool. We actually do that for our top 25...a few of us submit our top 30 prospects and we combine them. Getting the site's top 10 list would be cool though too. It's also funny how similar they are. Either we as a board develop favorites and biases towards prospects and we're totally off, we pay too much attention to numbers and not enough to tools, or we are more dialed in than so called experts. There probably is a good deal of groupthink going on, but we also mostly consume info from the same sources haha

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 08:43 AM) A composite ranking so far from 16 responses. I assigned #1=10 points down to #10=1 point. For consistency's sake, I want ahead and assigned Abreu as #1 to the couple of people who didn't think he was a prospect and bumped everybody else down one notch, because he technically qualifies as a prospect and I think we all agree he should be #1. 1. Abreu 160 points 2. E Johnson 139 points 3. Davidson 129 points 4. Semien 98 points 5. Hawkins 84 points 6. Anderson 82 points 7. Beck 54 points 8. Danish 37 points 9. M Johnson 35 points 10. Webb 22 points 11. Sanchez 17 points 12. Thompson 13 points 13. Barnum 4 points 14. May 3 points 15. Bassitt 2 points T-16. Snodgrezz/Zapata 1 point Good idea. You know, it would be cool to have a section of the site that listed our top prospects lists. It could include the FS list and a 'crowdsourced' one like this.

QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) We had no problems of this nature with Shingo SHINGO!

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) I loved the Dunn signing LOVED it. I did, I did.