Eminor3rd

Single = 2 Victory Points (VP) Double = 5 VP Triple = 10 VP Homer = 20 VP Gavin K = 2 VP (+1 VP if Hawk does NOT say HE GAWWN) Gavin BB = -2 VP Fantastic defensive play = 10 VP Viciedo makes no errors = 10 VP Dunn doesn't strike out = 10 VP Royals defenders collide = 10 VP

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) What does a score of +100 equate to with regards to baseball runs? Nobody knows, but it HAS to be good.

Dingers and great pitching.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) Macdougal is the first one I thought of. Also Boone Logan who is somehow still in the league. Check out the numbers since he left the Sox: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=P

Seriously?

Haha, I like how the sync the BOOMs up with homeruns, but like a third of them are other players launching them off of our pitchers.

Holy god

Farmer and DJ can't of a single team, ever, that had purple uniforms (Colorado Rockies).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say that's ridiculous. If you use the traditional definition of a 3 hitter, you are looking for a guy who hits for average, power, and has speed. That's Alex Rios. If you want the sabermetric definition of a 3 hitter, you are looking for a guy who primarily gets on base and hits for power, strikeouts and average be damned. That's Adam Dunn. +1 to this. I think Adam Dunn, if he's right, is our ideal #3 hitter. Whether or not he can back to a .360+ OBP, however, is a big question.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 10:34 AM) POTUS will be ready..... Barack Obama ‏@BarackObama 50m Ready for Opening Day. Hmmm, he could be a LOOGY

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 02:53 PM) 2011 was not a financial disaster. The Sox have done a great job making the public believe they have no money. Reinsdorf said they lost money. Why are you so confident he's lying?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) There is always a time and place to overpay, whether by money or players, to try and compete. With the Sox current positioning, that time was not now. There are some building blocks in place, but it is an older team without a true identity moving forward - even 2 years from now, there are going to be several contracts off the books that the team will look drastically different than it does going into this year. And while you can say this is generally true, I believe that you could realistically see 9 completely different players as starters in the lineup in 3 years. I don't see that as likely - I think Flowers, Viciedo, and De Aza will still likely be here at the very least - but it's still very possible. There aren't many teams you can say that about. Spending any more significant money could have very easily been a waste. There was no reason to tear it down either because this team could easily win the division this year too. I don't see that as likely either, but again, it's very possible. Going to either extreme would not have been smart. It rarely is. Additionally, you (Marty) presume that there are always great buys available on the market. The first part of the 21st century is littered with the corpses of teams that decided to spend on whatever was available because it was "time." (See Rockies/Hampton, Dodgers/Pierre, Marlins/Bell, etc.). There may not have been anything on the market that Han was comfortable investing in at market rates this year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) You're assuming they would not be a better team, draw more fans, and make a postseason. You're assuming we know more about their finances than they do.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 07:19 PM) What if I'm wrong? They could easily afford another $30M on this payroll. Why the hell would it make sense for them to operate at a loss of $8m-$12m?

Bump for the addition of everything else. Sorry I didn't keep up, I was in Phoenix all last week without my laptop. CA: #19 1B: #12 2B: #20 3B: #23 SS: #16 CF: #13 RF: #21 LF: #25 DH: #12 (of 15) SP: #8 RP: #7 Avg Rank (counting DH as #24): #17 Surprises: Bullpen being so high, RF and DH being so low. Interesting, though, that the average ranking is 17, which feels about right. Thoughts? Was this an interesting "series" for everyone?

Very cool.

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) I don't get how pass balls are added to wild pitches when evaluating a catcher. One is an error on the pitcher and the other on the catcher. Is this some sort of attempt to diminish AJ's defense? That would be ironic because there will be plenty of pitches thrown outside of Flowers reach that he will not get to because of his size and lack of mobility -- pitches that another catcher, even AJ at his advanced age, would block or catch. Better catchers will stop more wild pitches because they're better, even if the mistake was on the pitcher. Think about how people around here like to give Paul Konerko credit for scoops. It's the same reason errors aren't enough alone to rate defense -- what does and what doesn't happen are both important. Derek Jeter wins gold gloves for making only 8 errors a year while Alexei makes 18, but Alexei Ramirez routinely makes 100-150 more infield assists than Jeter because of the massive difference in range. Think of preventing wild pitches as a proxy for range as a catcher.

QUOTE (southside_hitman @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) The rankings are just opinions based on statistics and projections based on prior years and various subjective factors. These aren't opinions at all though, these are rankings based on mathematical projections. The only subjective part is the playing time breakdown.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) I too have expectations for Viciedo this year. His history seems to show a nice jump when he sees a league for the second time. For him it all comes down to pitch recognition, I think. Toward the end of last year it looked like he was making conscious effort to be more selective, but that he was just purely guessing. I don't question his ability to develop a better approach, but I do question his ability to actually recognize what's being thrown to him.

Bump for the addition of SS and CF. These both seem about right to me, though I'm a believer that Alexei will bounce back and be a top ten guy. I also added a running summary list that looks like this: CA: #19 1B: #12 2B: #20 3B: #23 SS: #16 CF: #13 RF: LF: SP: RP: So far we look very, uh, middle of the pack.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 16, 2013 -> 11:08 PM) I think it's one of those things where if this team is to reach its maximum potential Dunn has to produce from the three spot. Yes, this is true. If he can produce 80% of his prime, he's the three hitter. If he's washed up, bury him at the bottom.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 06:53 PM) If Drew and Ramirez both continue to decline would you rather be obligated to pay Ramirez $20M over 2014 and 2015 or Drew $0 over the same time frame? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 06:58 PM) If he doesn't would you rather be looking for another SS with a market shortage have one signed at a discount? This^ Ramirez is an above average SS. They cost more than $7m on the market. If you have one year of Drew for $9m, you have to pay market price for a SS the next tw years too, which is more than $7m. I don't understand how you don't get this. Here's another way to put it: Over Alexei's five year career, he's been worth 14.3 WAR, which averages out to be ~2.9 WAR per season. Over the past several seasons, the average price paid on the open market per WAR has been about $5m. So, an average season by Alexei Ramirez (2.9 WAR) would be worth $14.5m on the open market. You can argue whether or not he's worth that much, but the fact of the matter is that on the free agent market, that's what a 3-win player has been going for. So if you have a 3-win player for $7m a year, you have substantial surplus value.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 05:36 PM) A team would rather pay Drew $9.5M than trade for Ramirez and pay him $27M. You can't be serious, Marty. You can't keep referring to $27m like it's over one year. They have to pay a SS for the next two years too, whether or not it's Drew.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 15, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) Just for fun, do you think there was a team this offseason who would have taken that contract? I don't think there was. This is just not true. Did you see what Arizona gave up for Cliff Pennington? $7m per year for an even league average SS is valuable, and Alexei was above league average even in his worst offensive season.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) This has to be the most comical statement I've seen on this site yet. So having 4 top 100 prospects, several which are 2-3 years away, will guarantee them favorite status in the NL Central in 2-3 years. This despite you already acknowledging they have almost no pitching in their system. How does that make any sense to you? Also, can we please stop pretending systems automatically lead to major league success. It's getting really tiring to bring this up, but look at the Royals for god's sake. They've had monster systems in the past few years and yet they haven't been able to win at all. I get the Cubs have a big financial edge over them, but money isn't going to be enough to build a consistent winner. At some point they'll need their prospects to turn into major league contributors and I'm still skeptical of these four guys who are ranked so highly because of their tools and not their production. The Royals have also done a poor job leveraging their system in trades. Plus literally all of their pitchers bombed. You're right that nothing is guaranteed and you're right that any setbacks will likely push their window beyond 2-3 years, but they are positioned very well for success in a few years. The fact that Epstein hasn't pissed his first few years away like Moore gives him a longer leash and, though you acknowledged it, the financial advantage is massive. The Cubs can easily handle a payroll around $150m if they're filling that park, whereas I don't think the Royals have ever even touched $100m. If you consider the average outcomes, the Cubs are going to be competitors in 2-5 years. Everything might go wrong and the front office might make dumb decisions like Moore, but those are both less likely outcomes at this point.