Eminor3rd

$3.5m = less than one WAR on the open market. No brainer to me.

We give up draft picks to sign QO free agents, guys.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) But even the most locked in saberheads admit defensive WAR at the very least, is a work in progress. So that measurement can be off. I just wonder why the Angels don't seem to like this guy very much if he is destined to be so good. They paid big money to keep him off the field. Right, but the knock on defensive metrics is that they take large samples in order to become predictive. Guys with long track records of substantially positive numbers aren't considered to be off. It also helps when the scouts echo the same types of praise. I wonder why they wanted to keep him off the field too --but I wondered that about Napoli as well.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) LOL, such as.....??? Take more walks? Oh wait, Parra does that better. Strike out less?? Oh wait, Parra does that better. Hit for average? Oh wait, that's Parra too. Get on base? Nope, still Parra. How about play defense. Naaaah, Parra again. How about hit homeruns? Nope. How about hit doubles? Oh wait, no. Maybe he has a better throwing arm? Nope. How about hit triples? HEY THERE IT IS!! Steal bases? Yes! That's two! So yeah, Bourjos can do "LITERALLY" everything Parra can do, and better......except he can't. Oh wait, he does hit triples at a higher rate, and he's a better baserunner. Oh, and Bourjos is right handed, while Parra is a lefty, and we all know how this team is dying for right-handed hitters, so I guess ya got me there. I think you missed some sarcasm.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) Not all runs are created equal, so I disagree with your "a run saved is a run scored". Balance is a critical part of winning games and our offense was arguably the worst in baseball last year. Therefore, medium-sized investments in the offense can lead to large returns, resulting in more wins than simply the sum of the WAR we'd be adding. Now, I'm not arguing that improving the defense is pointless, I just think you can get a lot more bang for your buck (or talent) by adding to the offense, especially if we can improve the team's OBP. I don't believe Bourjos helps us there despite his career high .333 OBP last year. Also, you're hyping him up as a "3-4 win player in a full season" and yet after 3 major league seasons he's only had one 3+ WAR season which happens to be 3 years ago. Durability matters and if he can't stay healthy he'll never be a 3/4 WAR player and you'll be relying on replacement-level talents for two thirds of the year. BTW, what happened to his defensive numbers this past year? It appears they slipped quite a bit. Given that his value is so heavily tied to his defense is this a concern to you? I never said htat all runs are created equal, but when your team is horrendous at both offense and defense, getting them on either side helps the same. He was a part time player the past couple seasons because of roster, not injury EDIT: The reason you look at WAR at this point is because you cannot possibly predict event sequencing going into the season. A run saved is absolutely equal to a run scored -- it's the context that makes it true that not all runs are created equal. That's an entirely different thing.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) If you're sending over Danks, you're most likely picking up a lot of his contract, so now we lose 2 starting pitchers including a good young one and a Gordon Beckham and we're just getting another Gordon Beckham back? I don't understand that all. I would assume we'd take the cost savings from Danks and invest in a short-term reclamation project or two. Worst case, we definitely have the bodies to fill two spots.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) His 2.7 year WAR was 2012 ,it was 2.2 in 2013 according to fangraphs. Sorry, going off of memory there. Still, the point remains.

QUOTE (bruni @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 12:46 PM) Remember when I started this post, I never imagined trading one of our starters - one for one - for Bourjos. I proposed trading a starter for Bourjos AND one of the Angel catchers - Conger or Iannetta. For a young, proven MLB #3/4 starter under team control, a return of Bourjos AND a major league experienced catcher is warrented. I also wanted the Angels' to throw in a minor leaguer to boot, so I am well aware of the premium needed to trade young, controllable pitching. That said, let's look at a few key facts: 1. De Aza, who is on the wrong side of 30, just produced what is likely his best offensive season and what did it get the White Sox? 99 losses. To keep him, the WSox will need to anti up between $3 and $4.5 million through arbitration. For all the offensive production, the countless baserunning errors and other related brain dead plays exposed De Aza as who he is - a replacement level starter who hurts teams in the long run more than he helps. He should be long gone off this roster in 2014. 2. No way the White Sox will be without Alexi or Viciedo in 2014. Did you see the Abreu press conference yeaterday? No way the WSox take away the internal Cuban suport group for their new prize Abreu. WAY too much invested financially and otherwise for the WSox to do anything to compromise getting the very best of Abreu. Jose will have a hard enough time transitioning over - the WSox are going to give him as much support as possible which means Alexi and Viciedo stay through 2014. 3. Borjous has had tough luck with freak injuries but he is a gem. His defense helps cover for Viciedo in left and he is more than capable of matching the best of De Aza's offensive numbers from 2013 if starting every day. I have personally seen him play and practice in Arizona during spring training and the kid can HIT. He was consistantly out distancing home runs hit the same day by Hamilton and Poujos and his speed and pure baseball instincts are miles ahead of De Aza, Danks or any other pretender on the White Sox current 40 man roster. He is for real and the Angels are going to regret giving up on him. Let their loss be our gain! All trades have risk, but it is clear that Hahn will not be shy about taking more risks and more action to improve the team. I agree that they lilely have just one bite of the trade a starter apple. I also believe that getting in return a potential gold glove center fielder just entering his prime and on the cheap ($1.1 mil) and for 3 years of team control PLUS acquiring a catcher like Conger that you can rotate with the winner of the Flowers/Phegley bake off to be the back up is filling two big holes. Now only 3rd base is the glaring weakness but a poi poi combo platter of Semien, Keppenger, Gallespie may be the best the WSox can do for 2014 unless something else falls into their lap. 1. Borjous 2. Semien 3. Garcia 4. Abreu 5. Dunn 6. Viciedo 7. Alexi 8. Conger 9. Beckham World Series/Playoff bound - not a chance. Better than the misery of 2013 - absolutely and now with several players entering prime years and upside potential. Yeah, De Aza is not a replacement level starter, he's coming off a 2.7 WAR season, which was the second highest total on our team (among position players). No idea why people are so anxious to hang the brunt of those 99 losses on De Aza. Almost every other player on our team was worse.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) I don't disagree, but just curious as to why you would be so confident in Lawrie and so certain that Beckham won't ever come close to meeting his potential? I get it that Beckham has sucked for 4 years now, but Lawrie seems to be going down the same path... You're right, I just think Lawrie hasn't burnt out yet. He's how I felt about Beckham two years ago, haha. But maybe Jays fans feel the same about Lawrie. Watching guys rot in front of your eyes gets old.

QUOTE (Frank_Thomas35 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) Take it for what it's worth: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/tor/toront...p;vkey=news_tor Not sure if I'm on board of trading Beckham at this point, if the kid can stay healthy I think he puts it together next year. I really think trading him comes back and bites us, I really think GB is an all-star that needs to bust out. I also would be disappointed since I have his jersey. But if it did happen what would a package of GB/Danks or GB/Santiago net us. I assume most people would want Lawrie back As a start? Beckham can retire, as far as I'm concerned. He's a stopgap at this point. It's always possible he'll break out, but it's always possible ANYONE will break out. That doesn't mean you make sacrifices to hold your breath. I'd send all three of them for Lawrie and not think twice. Santiago is the only one with substantial value, IMO.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) Point is you don't deal Quintana or Santiago for a guy like Bourjos because that was the best offer on the market. Bourjos is not a key piece for a team rebuilding, he's a 27 y.o. bottom-of-the-order hitter. I agree with the first statement, but not the second. A run saved is a run scored, and Bourjos is arguably the best in the bigs in CF. And we were atrocious defensively. He's a 3-4 win player in a full season -- which would make him better than all of our position players last year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 11:59 AM) The "trade market" is continually evolving. It's impossible to judge with any degree of accuracy what is an acceptable trade based on deals in the recent past. That is a bold statement. With ANY degree of accuracy?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) Places to stick him for 2014: 1) In a trade 2) On the nontender list I'm very close to giving up on him, too. Not sure he has any trade value, though.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 11:14 AM) Not sure playing 81 games per season in USCF is the right home park for Bourjos to take most advantage of his skill set...still, it would be a huge plus to have the best CF in baseball to cover all that ground between Viciedo and Garcia. The only issue is the cost in terms of trade, and also figuring out what to do with DeAza. To me, the bigger question is what to do with Viciedo. I think De Aza will be a defensive asset in LF, making him an unquestionably better player on both sides of the ball. Obviously Viciedo has more upside, but with Abreu and possibly Konerko coming back, there's nowhere else to stick him for 2014.

QUOTE (glangon @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) If you take away average, the stats in the minors are not that much different. Danks with regular playing time at the end of last season was hitting consistantly and does have a sweet throwing arm. Interesting how you post Bourjous peak in the minors but not Danks, for the argument sake - in 2012 for AAA Charlotte Jordan Danks hit .317/.428/.514/.942 Every stat there is better than Bourjous peak season in the minors. What this comes down to is that you are arguing about trading away our 3rd / 4th rotation pitcher for a player who is not much better than our projected OF back up in 2014. I don't see how that has value long term. I would want better than that if I'm trading away Santiago. I definitely wouldn't trade Q for Bourjous. As previous posters have said, we may have one shot at trading away a starting pitcher, I wouldn't want to waste it on Bourjous. I think you have a point, but the fact of the matter is that Bourjos has a 4+ win season in the majors under his belt. Jordan Danks has never even SNIFFED that level of production. The tools match up but the results just don't.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I seriously think they can get Bourjos with Snodgress/Beck plus Petricka It seems to me like the Angels want pitching that can contribute immediately. Those guys have a chance of contributing in 2014, but I don't think the Angels are in a position to use it as a "see what we have with some guys" type of year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) I'd be disappointed if the Sox were looking at it that way. If Quintana could bring back Soler and Almora or some of the packages mentioned for Smardzija they'd be silly to turn those down when they have the available cast to reasonably replace him in the rotation via free agency. I agree with you, but there's no way in hell Quintana could bring Soler OR Almora, let alone both. And I think the Cubs/media are way overestimating the value of Samardzija. I'm not making an argument that Quintana isn't close to as valuable as those guys in my opinion, just that the current state of the trade market doesn't value him nearly as high as those types of prospects. There are only a handful of guys that will pry those names loose, and it's guys like Stanton.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) The Sox are only going to get one chance to trade a SP and they have to find a better return than Bourjos. That's a fair statement, but what do you want instead? We're all so adamant about getting ML ready talent, but if you want it also to have cheap team control and upside, you're narrowing the field quite a bit. I'd prefer the speculated Lawrie swap, but this seems more realistic because the Angels are confirmed to be shopping him.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 30, 2013 -> 09:53 AM) In the minors, Bourjos was a .291/.345/.455/.799 hitter. He never repeated a level, peaking at .303/.357/.493/.850 in AAA. In the minors, Danks was a .267/.354/.423/.777 hitter. He was in his 4th season in AAA when the Sox called him up last year. Bourjos is also a far, far better defender. Danks is generally rated as average to above average. Bourjos is rated incredible to best defensive outfielder in the game. Yes, I would give up valuable pieces for Bourjos, not a doubt in my mind. He'd be a terrible leadoff hitter, but anywhere between 7th and 9th in the order would be awesome. He has the ceiling of an All-Star player. This ^ We'd all like someone better, but you can only acquire what is actually available. Bourjos is a substantial upgrade for us in CF, gives us options for our OF going forward (could De Aza or Viciedo be traded? Certainly as complementary pieces in a deal), and, most important of all, he has the elusive combination of upside and team control, which is what the 99 loss Sox need more than anything right now. Bourjos has been relegated to a part-time role by Scioscia because of Trout, Trumbo, and Hamilton (and also Vernon Wells for a while rofl), it's not unreasonable to believe he can be better with consistent playing time -- indeed, his best seasons have come as a starter.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) But if you read post 144, your clarification is something totally different. No it's not. When I was saying "it," in post 144, you thought I was referring "to the decision to change pitchers." As in, "the decision to change pitcher has nothing to do with pitcher's tiredness." In my clarification, I'm trying to explain that "it" in post 144 is referring to the disparity that leads to the starkly increasing slash lines of league hitters each time through the lineup.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) I can't see him opting out after three years anyway. I believe the highest 4th year player award is still Ryan Howards $10mil. His 4th year is scheduled to be at $10.5 million. It would '18 and '19 that the Sox could get hit, as they comps get going to higher paid players instead of lower arb status players. That's not how it'l work though, they'll talk about the highest 4th year RAISES instead of total salaries. It'll be that Ryan Howard got an extra $10m or whatever.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Then why would you post what you posted in post #144? Just read the first bolded sentence in my last post. That is the direct answer to your question the first time you asked it. That is the clarification of post 144.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm NOT saying that a pitcher's stuff on that given day has nothing to do with the hitters' performance against him the 2nd/3rd time around, I'm just saying that the hitters' ability to adjust to the stuff is an element that is being overlooked, and that its significance is shown by those slash lines. So, if managers were successfully able to judge whether a pitcher should stay in or not based on his stuff, you wouldn't see such a substantial effect each time through. It's speculated that the disparity can be explained by some combination of (1) the fact that managers are flat out horrible at judging if their starters have anything left, (2) the hitters adjust to stuff quickly, or (3) the managers are purposely leaving their starters in too long for the sake of saving their bullpens. Personally, I don't think that #1 is true, at least not to the extent that it would show such a massive effect. I think a combination of #2 and #3 are true, with #2 also being supported by the disparate effectiveness of RP performance over short spans and the fact that the "best" starters find it necessary to vary approaches against hitters over the course of the game, i.e. not showing a breaking ball until the 3rd or 4th inning. So, my overall point is that #2 is a much larger effect than managers and typical fans are aware, and that the risk of leaving starters in a long time can be justifiable during the season for the sake of #3, but that in high leverage games, it would behoove a manager to, at the very least, employ a very short hook on his starter and consider planning to remove him after the second time through the lineup regardless of game situation, unless of course it's a blowout.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) This morning you saw his career numbers fit your argument better so you switched. Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point? HOLY GOD it isn't a non-factor! Do you actually read responses or do you just say the same things regardless of what people write?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this. It was me that said that, then I later clarified it but you must not have read that part.