Eminor3rd

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=19564 Ben and Sam preview the White Sox' season with Ken Funck, and Pete talks to Chicago Tribune White Sox beat writer Mark Gonzales (at 16:24).

Cool article

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/pre...ing-chris-sail/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 10:25 AM) Also, Keith Law published his org list today, but it is for Insiders only. 28. Chicago White Sox The system is improving, helped by a draft where the team opened up and looked more at prep players up top, and progress from a couple of arms already in the system, including two less-heralded pitchers from the 2011 draft (Erik Johnson and Scott Snodgress).

Wait, are you the mhall that is sometimes in Baseball Mogul leagues?

He's Dan Johnson, but maybe a a bit worse. Former top prospect that turned out to be a AAA mistake hitter.

Turns out Sale is the real deal for 200 innings

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 02:20 AM) Rolen may be done; honestly. Ben Zobrist would ideally fit their need the most, but who knows what he'd cost. I actually think Zobrist would cost more than Olt.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 31, 2013 -> 07:54 PM) Rangers could use an OF bat with Cruz situation up in the air. A Rios-for-Olt deal might make sense with Keppinger moving to a corner OF spot for the time being. Makes sense, but I think the Rangers can get more.

I'm in

If A-Rod gets his contract voided, it'll be because he's useless as a player. No one will want him.

QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 30, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) Coop'll fix him. Quintana 2.0 etc. Sickels on Brackman:

No

Nah, it adds value to guys that can handle non-=specialized roles and makes roster construction creative -- you have to choose your advantages and disadvantages.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 28, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) This is exactly what the sox have been looking at the last year or so. and a reason why prices have normalized over the offseason. For sure -- just wondering if anyone else felt the way I did.

Here's a tangent, but one that could at least get us to stop talking about board moderation: I was thinking about ticket sales and my own habits of attending games, and I realized something: I don't think the team's record affects how many games I will attend, whatsoever. Every year, I go to about 3-5 games, and watch about 100-120 on TV, no matter how well the team is playing. I was wondering why this is the case, when it seems the main narrative here is that people go to games more when the team is good, presumably because it is only interesting to go if the outcomes are meaningful or the quality of play is high. Further, it seems that people are willing to pay a higher price if the team is good, but that they feel that those prices should drop if the game outcomes mean less. There are a couple things here that don't resonate with me. First is that I think I view attending a game as an experience whose value is derived (mostly, playoffs and pennant races notwithstanding) from everything OTHER than the meaning or quality of the baseball being played. That is, I am a pretty "dedicated" fan in that I pay a lot of attentiont to the team and that my mood is tied greatly to the team's success, but that physically being at the game has nothing to do with any of that. I can watch the games on TV, and in fact, I prefer to watch them on TV nearly all the time because it's way easier to actually follow what is happening. If my interest is in the on-field events, the TV is far superior. If I want to go "do something," showing up at a game is an excellent option. In fact, If I lived in another city, I'd probably still go to 3-5 games per year to see whichever team was there, no matter how little interest I had in that team. Secondly (given everything I just said above), the price of tickets being tied to the quality of the team makes no sense to me, personally. When I think about it, the price of tickets needs to be competitive with other types of things I can choose if I want to go and "do something." Because the ballpark experience is the entire draw, it seems silly for me to expect to pay less when the team isn't good or to be content paying more when they ARE good. So, on a macro level, this makes the common argument of "well they need to maintain a certain level of competitiveness or the fans will stop going to games altogether" kind of a ridiculous one, in my mind. To me, the experience doesn't change enough to cause my behavior to shift with winning percentage. In fact, if the teamsustained enough failure to lower my overall interest, it would more likely affect how much I watched them on TV than it wouild affect how often I attended games. Now, all of this would be different is we couldn't watch the games on TV. If you had to go to the park in order to stay on top of everything, like I suppose you used to, this is all different. So I'm wondering if our atitudes as fans are sort of "behind the curve" when compared to our actual behaviors. Anyway, this is all totally from my perspective. I can see how a more casual fan than a typical Soxtalk poster or even just a person who gets different things out of the ballpark/TV viewing experience may feel differently, but it seems there's some unresolvable dissonance in how we've been viewing these things and I wanted to see how everyone would respond to the stuff above. Thoughts?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 02:51 PM) Take the last 3 games against Cleveland out, what's his OPS? Right, so Kenny failed by not trading for a lefty-platoon player for Viciedo sometime over the last three weeks of the season.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 12:02 PM) Nope. Meaningless baseball on the radio is brutal. Especially when I'm looking forward to listening to B & B on my commute home, and instead it's a bunch of minor leaguers playing ball. I understand how people watch on TV, but spring training on the radio kills me. I don't disagree with you at all about the game, but B&B are the WORST. Oh my god they're excruciating.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) And yet, the Sox were in first place with two weeks to go, and he was hardly the only one who struggled in those final two weeks. I can't even point to WAR or anything in this situation - if, like, 2 guys step up and play better, the Sox, at the very least, likely have a play-in game against Detroit. Instead, Detroit got hot, the Sox got cold, and they lost the division. Exactly. It's one thing to evaluate in retrospect, but these decisions weren't made in retrospect, Marty. The Sox had this thing in the bag -- all they had to do was exactly what they had been doing thew entire season. By the time everyone knew it was over, it was already over.

QUOTE (WilburWilhelm @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:08 PM) I completely disagree. Any player that strikes out 222 times and bats .204 is a poor hitter in any spot in the order. Only two more long years till that bum is gone. The Sox would be better off batting Keppinger third. I'm not dissing your intuition, I think it makes sense, too. But if you are working within the context of the players we have on our team, you are simply incorrect, factually. If you don't believe me, look up Tom Tango's research on batting order optimization by linear weights.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) Paco Martin Lyle Mouton!

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) True, but a large part of that is due to Moustakas's glove. I was just referring to their offensive stats. Moose was a bit better last year, but not significantly. Indeed, though if you neutralize his defense, he still had a 2 fWAR season. But, your point is taken -- Moustakas has definitely been better offensively, but not drastically better.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2013 -> 08:54 AM) Moustakas is younger than Beckham, but so far their numbers aren't very different. Moustakas just had a 3.5 WAR season. Beckham just had a 0.8 WAR season.

#Barves got Upton. Guess we can stop talking about Kubel to the Sox now.

I'll be three rows back behind home plate on that second Angels game