Eminor3rd

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) I agree. I have actually grown fond of Rios. A better than league average right fielder and I don't think, statistically speaking, Hunter Pence comparisons are too far off base. I also think that, especially with the level of outfielders available and the general direction of the franchise that the Sox absolutely must trade Rios this deadline. Rios is the best OF on the market right now. I don't think there's any question that he will not be around for the next contender, and so we need to take advantage of the fact that his value will never be higher.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 3, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) Not sure if this has been posted yet but it's a good article about Micker Zapata. It also mentions their plans to sign 2-3 more guys. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...ws&c_id=cws Lol at the last line of that article. Looks like the author forgot what he was going to type to end it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 08:56 AM) So the rumors are off of Billy Hamilton and towards pitching? WHY? We need hitters desperately, not more pitchers, unless they have the potential to be elite guys. Billy Hamilton isn't a hitter either, he's just a runner

I would imagine that IF Peavy shows that he's healthy in time, a trade to the Rockies would be centered on the very blocked Trevor Story.

Wow, very nice return for Feldman. Another scrap heap signing turned to gold.

QUOTE (Dizzy Sox @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 06:47 PM) Micah Johnson is having one of the best offensive seasons in the entire minor leagues...I can't see how he doesn't rate ahead of Sanchez, and in fact I would put him behind only E. Johnson, Hawkins, Thompson, Anderson, and perhaps now Zapata. Yeah, he's quite old for his level.

Very cool to get a headline talent out of Latin America. $600k is plenty to nab a couple organizational guys as well, which is usually ALL we end up with in a given year.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) And I completely agree with you. It would be lunacy to think otherwise, as it would be quite tough for one player to completely destroy a whole team. However, I felt like the Reds built their team around Dunn (was their highest paid player his final couple years there, I believe), and getting rid of Dunn and them becoming better wasn't completely coincidental. Unfortunately, you can tell I have too much Hawk in me and I agree with him that winning is a whole lot more than stats (although I don't go as far as he did with TWTW stuff, he made himself out to look like a complete idiot when he was saying that stuff on mlbn) and have to do with the culture of a team and their clubhouse. The point is that it is one thing to get a feeling about something and entirely another to insist it's true after you actually go look at the facts. No one is saying that a clubhouse cancer isn't a real problem, but you've made that claim without pointing to anything suggesting he's a clubhouse problem and also held to it in the face of all kinds of facts that refute it. There's nothing wrong with your opinion, it's just that this claim isn't really a matter of opinion.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 12:05 PM) I honestly did not see that post. But you can also look at his career stats with two outs in an inning, runners in scoring position with two outs, bases loaded with two outs, his decline in stats once the game enter the 7th-8th-9th (but is extremely good in extra innings), etc. With all these stats available, you can take a hand full of stats and make them show one thing, but then take another and they would show something else. And I am not a fan of the BR leverage stat. There are so many variations and different situations in baseball where sure, one situation based on runners on and how many outs might seem like high leverage, but there are so many different circumstances than can affect the degree of pressure. Stats are great and all, but when you actually get to watch a player every day for a couple years, I think you can throw the stats out the window. You are gonna learn much more about a player from watching them vs. live pitching than stats will ever tell you. And from what I have seen from Dunn, as well as read and heard from others who got to watch him every day in Cincinnati, the man is always around losing teams. I never said he is the sole driving force for these said teams being losers, but I think its a little more than coincidental. If you want to cast it simply as just bad luck, be my guest. I'm not going to try and make you out to be a village idiot, but don't try and make me out to be one either because you disagree with me. That is a ridiculous thing to say. Hundreds of experiments confirm the human brain's infallibility to remember things in proper perspective, so we use statistics as an objective measure of things to get over that hump. Decades of science disprove the bolded statement. Not everything can be measured, but when things CAN be measured, the raw evidence will always be more reliable than you or anyone else's selective bias. Show us the evidence that Adam Dunn is a loser that makes his teams worse -- several posters have shown evidence to the contrary.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 2, 2013 -> 12:16 AM) You don't walk over 100 times and strikeout 1/3 of the time by having great discipline. You do it exactly like Dunn does and being extremely selective. Obviously to walk as much as he does requires a level of plate discipline, but from what I have seen (I don't believe you need stats to backup everything you think if you have actually had a chance to see the player everyday for the past 2 1/2 years) he sits dead red for a pitch to hit out of the park, and if recognize early that it is not his pitch, he lets it go. The walks come by him being such a threat to hit a home run that pitchers are careful to avoid leaving anything out over the plate that he can hit out of the park. And him focusing on home runs and walking has certainly been in his best interest because it has made him a lot of money. The question though is if his style of play in the best interest of the team? I'd say possibly if he wasn't relied on to be the top hitter of the team. The bolded line above seems like a contradiction to me. Are you suggesting that he would have better plate discipline if he was more willing to swing at pitches that are harder to hit? And what does this have to do with him being a losing ballplayer who makes his team worse around him? There's nothing wrong with you questioning whether or not his skill set is a good fit for this team, but that's not what you said said before.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 06:52 PM) I'm shocked if you honestly believe this. Baseball is a game of ups and downs and GMs aren't going to overreact to one bad month like Soxtalk does. Teams are actually scouting him and will know if his June struggles are cause for concern (which I don't think they are). +1000 to this

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 05:56 PM) I completely understand plate discipline. So you are telling me all the times Dunn has had a full count and let a pitch go right down the middle for strike three, he was practicing good plate discipline? I tend to think he was sitting dead red for a pitch to hit for a home run, and if he didn't get it, he was hoping for a walk, which is a terrible approach, in my opinion. What piece of information do you have that leads you to believe that's the case? Because in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe that people will act in their best interests -- so I would assume Dunn would want to do the thing that would make him successful.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) And by the way, I don't really care about OPS, or mainly OBP, when it comes to 3-4-5 hitters. To me, I look at AVG, SLG, extra base hits, RBIs, and their stats with runners in scoring position and late/close situations. You don't need your number 3 hitter up looking to walk like Dunn does so much, you need him up there driving in runs. Walks are a by-product of a good plate approach in which the hitter swings at good pitches and takes bad pitches. No one LOOKS to walk. But they have to accept a walk, because if they don't then pitchers never have to give them good pitches to hit. For the LIFE of me, I don't understand why people cannot grasp this.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 05:10 PM) Gotta disagree with you here. Not all OPSs are equal IMO. If two guys have equal OPS, I'll always take the guy who has the higher OBP rather than SLG. Also, walking a lot is great, but when you hit .200, it's going to be tough to get that OBP above .305, which is exactly what's happened this year for Dunn. OPS is bad anyway. Use wOBA.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 04:19 PM) I completely disagree with you . Sox throws in some money plus you have Rios for another 1 1/2 years plus an option. A team in the West will be willing to take that risk because that division is for the taking. Look at what San Fran gave up for 2 months of Beltran. They got Zach Wheeler. I don't think getting Skaggs is a pipe dream. Would I do it if I was the GM of Arizona-NO. But they are desperate and need offense immediately in their outfield. Many trades like this have happened in the past. Everyone thought that Wheeler was an overpay though, even at the time.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Eminor, I thought I made my position clear. Trade all everyday players except maybe Beckham and maybe Tank. Keep ALL pitchers except Peavy, Crain, Thornton. Then why get upset when people talk about draft picks?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 10:47 AM) The problem is that we are building this system with a lot of all or nothing hitters. Raw power is great, Juan Francisco has a ton of it, but he is on his third franchise in the last three years because the cannot make enough contact for that raw power to play. I think that the approach needs to be more balanced that going after Courtney Hawkins one year and then going after virtually the same player the next year. I just want to see more guys that are consistent contact hitters in the system that can set the table for the power hitters. I agree with your premise about the danger of too many low contact guys, I'm just saying I don't think it's fair to call him an "all or nothing" hitter at age 16. Right now, he's nothing but a 16 year old kid with tools, he hasn't even developed his skills yet. No one knows what type of player he will become.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) Eminor, a couple of people have alluded to it, not just me. I happen to think he's a 'loser' like the one poster's comments on Dunn. I personally think he dogs it. He was our best player last year. This year he's got decent numbers that are dropping. He had that one abysmal year after immediately sucking after the Sox acquired him. I don't know if I'm allowed to bash players, so let's just say I don't like his style. If Rios is a great player and I'm being unfair, then I guess I am a bad fan. I just don't understand what you want out of this team. You hate even thinking about the team rebuilding, yet you are in favor of driving one of its only good players out of town because you don't like his style.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jul 1, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) I suppose it is also a coincidence that Dunn finally starts to hit once the White Sox are one of the worst teams in baseball? I didn't say it was Dunn's fault for the Reds being bad. However, I don't think it is a surprise that both the Reds and Nationals let him go and then both teams proceeded to become much better. Of course there are other reasons for their turnarounds as well, but I don't think you can ignore the Dunn effect. Honestly, I think Dunn is a loser because of two main reasons. The first reason is because he is not a very clutch hitter and that leads to reason number 2, he thrives in non-pressure situations. He is notorious for putting up big numbers when it doesn't matter. This line of thinking is ridiculous. There's just no evidence for this at all.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 30, 2013 -> 09:41 PM) I can't believe so many teams want Rios. I hope he's the first dealt. Never been a Rios fan. Don't like his game. Don't like his style. Just get a fair offer and deal him, Hahn. Why wait any longer?? Greg, you're impossible. He's the best position player on our team, and has been for two years now. He hits homeruns, plays good defense, steals bases, and hits for average. What do you want?

QUOTE (Jbabs34 @ Jun 29, 2013 -> 08:11 AM) I'm with Bernstein on this one. Look at it rationally...if the Sox go with a complete rebuilding mode, the EARLIEST they would be relevant would probably be in 5 years, and that's being generous considering how thin the farm system is. So, let's say in those 5 years Sale averages 190 innings a season - that's almost 1,000 innings pitched. Do you think his mechanics can hold up that long and still be as effective as he is today? It's certainly possible that he can, but I wouldn't put my money on it. So, if some GM called Hahn today and is willing to overpay - say 3 or 4 very solid prospects - how do you not entertain that idea? The problem is that there's no reason at all to assume we're five years from contention. How can you even plan for more than five years out? If you can't imagine a 24 year old will still be young enough to contribute the next time you have a shot to contend, you're saying that no one in your entire organization will save your team at any point. If you're talking about guys more than five years away, you're talking about guys in high school and college.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 29, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) Do fans of all horrible teams always talk about falling closer to the top draft pick in baseball? The sport with the most boring, worst draft, biggest crapshoot draft of all sports? My guess is you'd get laughed out of a bar or the Cell if you brought up this topic with most Sox fans. Who gives a frick about the draft? I care more about free agency and putting wins on the board and getting the best possible manager and hitting coaches as soon as possible. Have fun talking about the draft all the way til next June when we take some high school kid who may or may not make the bigs. Then don't f***ing post. Go talk to the fans at the bar at the cell about how the s*** season is the hitting coach's fault. Go pretend that that free agency can build you a winner by just continually signing the most expensive post-prime RBI monsters to ten year deals. Rejoice at every bad contract because "it's not my money, who cares?!?!" then call into boers & Bernstein and tell them about your ideas.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) It's important to make sure you have 3 third basemen on the roster for a doubleheader. Probably just a courtesy to the jetlagged Gillaspie and a chance to get Morel a couple more at bats. Given his strong AAA performance, I think everyone know he'd be up there getting a shot if not for Gillaspie's success.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 28, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) Mitchell wasn't a high ceiling prospect. He was a guy that struggled with contact in college that KW thought would all of the sudden learn how to hit when he got to the pros. He was a high floor prospect because he was close to being finished when he came out of college and you knew what you were getting, good speed, solid defense and power to the gaps, and he struggled to recognize breaking balls. KW was infatuated with athletes when drafting hitters over baseball players. Yeah I think you have a fundamentally different definition of "ceiling." Guys with raw tools who are successful despite a lack of advanced skills have the highest ceiling of all because they have the potential to get a lot better with the development of said skills. The way you just described Mitchell is pretty much the textbook definition of low floor/high ceiling. Boom or bust.