thxfrthmmrs

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:58 PM) I hear what you're saying. It just doesn't seem likely or the best allocation of resources for a rebuilding team to basically sell its highly ranked prospect(s) for cash in order to go to the free agent market. Trading Danks and Tim Anderson (and giving up a 2nd round draft pick), for example, for the ability to pay market value for the most expensive pitcher out there seems like one of the least likely strategies for the Sox. I also highly doubt they're going for Samardzija or Greinke or anyone else with one year left on their contract. Someone should keep a running list of every player during free agency that a reporter says the Sox "inquired" about. Then compare that to who is on the team on opening day. I don't think it takes Tim Anderson for someone to take Danks off our hands. And make no mistake, if we sign Scherzer, trade Danks and sign another good bat, we would be a contender, not a rebuilding team. I do agree with you however if we can't pull off those big moves, we should hold on to our prospects, because acquiring just Samardzija isn't going make you that much better.

How many years do you think Samardzija would get in his extension? Because Scherzer is only 6 months older than Samardzija, and his extension kicks in when he turns 31.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) John Danks is owed $29 million. That's the equivalent of ~5 fWAR. If you just assume "He'll do what he did last year" you'd say he's likely to put up just over 1 fWAR, so he's overpaid by about $20-$24 million. In other words, you need a prospect who is at least good enough to put up that amount, with some risk associated with it. I'd say you're talking about a guy at least in the top 10 of our system, probably top 5-6 given the risks associated, to get someone to do that. You need someone who could produce ~4 WAR for the next 2 years. Hypothetically, I wouldn't mind giving Yankees Semien or Carlos Sanchez if they are willing to take Danks off of us, if the deal would allow us to get Scherzer and another good bat. Then again you would ask why wouldn't Yankees just go after Scherzer themselves.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:03 PM) I can't imagine a situation where it makes sense for the above to happen. The Sox have cash, are building for the future, and therefore wouldn't want to give away top prospects. This suggests trying to give up what they want to keep (prospects) in order to get something they already have (cash/salary relief). The more likely scenarios for moving Danks are in a trade for someone similarly attached to a lot of salary (bad contract) or where the Sox eat a portion of the salary to get someone they want. The point I am making is if we want to acquire Samardzija, it actually takes less to get rid of John Danks and use the money saved to upgrade to Scherzer than to acquire Shark, sign him for an extension for a similar AAV, or watch him walk away after 1 year. Samardzija schedules to make close to $10 mil in arb this year, John Danks makes $14 mil. I assume Scherzer make end up with $25 mil AAV.

How much do you guys think we have to pay, in terms of prospects, if we want to ship John Danks off without eating significant amount of money?

A poster here, My sox Summer, I believe, attended 50 games a few years back for less than $500, and got lower level tix for some of the games too. If you really want to go to the games, the cost of the game isn't what's stopping you.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:33 AM) correct, but to rebuild that fan base, and due to economics today, lower them as well, We've lowered ticket prices twice over the past 5 years, where has that gotten us? And is the economy really bad today? We have the Dow closing in record highs on numerous occasions this year, gas prices dipping to record low in most states, companies ramping up their hiring plans, average MLB ticket prices are trending up year after year, decent players getting $100 million deals. I don't think the team need to cave in to the fans and reduce ticket price even further. Given our average cost of fan experience is only at league average, and costs less than the team located in a bankrupt city. I think the responsibility lies on JR. When he sees the right opportunity, he needs to open up the checkbook and get the right pieces to turn this team around, fans will come back to games when team starts competing (regardless of ticket price) and eventually he should see return on his investments. I think JR definitely realizes this, that's why you see us going after the likes of Tanaka and Scherzer the last 2 years.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) jeeze, if you look at the end of my post, i also mention fielding a better team. There was no offense to you. I read your post as either lowering ticket prices or fielding a winning team could get fans to show up. While on this subject I feel that only fielding a winning team will positively impact your attendance in the long haul.

This goes to show that we HAVE MONEY TO SPENT if we want to. $90 mil payroll is the floor, but I think JR will open up the checkbooks to go up to $100-$110 mil if he thinks signing Scherzer and a couple other piece (LF or 3B, and a bullpen arm) can turn this team around.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) this brings up the vicious catch 22. the sox says, they need to raise prices b/c the cost of players salary, low attendance, the sox will need to find a way to break even. (however no mention of the commercial revenue) however, if they lower the cost, more people will show up, if the sox field a team that can compete via, fa's, the majority more of fans will show up. which came first the egg or the bird?? LOWERING TICKET PRICES DOES NOT HELP. The 2006 team showed winning brings fans out, not lowered ticket prices. The ticket price were reduced sans 2010, yet our attendance gradually declined each of the past 4 years. Lower the ticket price might attract families who don't normally come out to ball games to come out once or even twice a year, but that's not the crowd you want to focus on. You want to attract fans who have money to spend to come out to the ball game consistently, like 10+ games a year. The only way to do that is to field a winning team, year in and year out. Lowering ticket price while not enjoying a positive spike in your overall attendance will put severe constraint on your budget. Your only hope is to strike gold during the draft, or be stuck in purgatory like the Pirates and Royals did for years. It is not a chicken or the situation. It is a raise the chicken healthy so it could lay more eggs situation. EDIT: Did a quick research and found that 2006 ticket prices were slightly higher than 2014 ticket prices, and that's without taking into account inflations for the last 8 years. Yet we averaged 36,000 a game that year, vs 20,000 this year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:18 AM) It's the opposite of the Moneyball niche to be exploited. Seemingly closer quality lefties whose careers suggest set-up roles but whose teams are hoping for closer results off a one or two year period of high productivity. JP Howell also comes to mind for some reason, here. I think it's more so an issue of necessity. Lefty bullpen arm is a top priority for the Sox, and Duke was arguably the best available after Miller. I certainly don't think Sox are expecting Duke to close for them.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 08:07 AM) Probably 20. But that's not the reason I gave up my season tickets after a decade. Going to a game is pricey and sometimes annoying as hell. You will drop 50 bucks on food and beer at least these days and the game experience is ok for the price. However, sitting in front of my or a bars giant HD TV is sometimes just as nice if not better. QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) I agree. I know this topic has been brought up many times in the past and has incited arguments. But, there's no arguing that it's just too damn expensive to go to many baseball games. I like to get to at least one Sox game a year, and we'll try to hit a ballgame while on vacation (regardless of who's playing). It's a cool experience to see a game live. But watching a game on my HDTV, kicked back in my chair with a 6-pack of Sam Adams that cost about the same as one beer at the park...that's cool, too. This is a valid dilemma for most Sox fans, and I will quote my previous post on this issue: P.S. The average cost of tickets and concessions is only slightly above league average, and the cost is way above league average for Cubs games. Of the metropolitan area that features 2 teams, the Sox revenue/attendance situation is similar to Oakland's. This probably has been said many times, attending games isn't a priority for Sox fans unless team is doing well, and for an extended period of time. Cubs fans would attend games if they have nothing better to do, being in a neighborhood full of recent college grads and young single people helps. Attending games is considered a treat for many Sox fans, as most of the fans come in from the suburbs or areas that are not close to the park. Most people living around the park are retired, low income, or don't care for baseball. With the Cubs taking away most of the well off, single, and upper echelon income level fans, it's hard for the Sox to consistently draw a large crowd. The revelation of the Blackhawks in recent years isn't helping either. I assume that we don't draw as well as other smaller market teams because they have more high income level fans than us, and their stadium is located in areas more accessible and around fans that are more interested in baseball, i.e. downtown, or an area where single people lives. Oakland stadium is also located in the less prosperous part of their metropolis, and the Bay area is one of the larger metropolitan areas in US. They had average attendance as little as 19,000 in 2011. Even though they were the team to beat for most of this year, they only averaged 25,000 a game this year. Then you can also take into account that average Sox ticket cost $26, vs $23 for Oakland, while premium ticket for Sox averages $85, and $48 for them. The Sox can consistently pull in larger crowd if they turn themselves into a perennial contender, or if they relocate their stadium and associate themselves with higher income level folks. But both of those can't be easily achieved. So we will discuss this same s***ty problem year in and year out.

Reading an Andrew Miller speculation article, it was mentioned that the record contract for a non-closing reliever is held by Jeremy Affeldt at only 3 years $18 million. With Miller's new salary hitting the $40 million range, it's crazy to think how much more expensive it is nowadays just to acquire bullpen arms.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:44 PM) It might not have quite the multitude of options that wrigleyville has, but there is plenty to do around the Cell. For every spot you name around the Cell, I can name 5 for the Wrigley area. The walkable options you have around the Cell is extremely limited. You wouldn't want to walk far south in that neighborhood. And no one wants to hangout at Chinatown after the game.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:52 PM) Aren't Dodgers supposedly dealing him because he has an opt out and thus would be kind of a rental? Or did I misread? Either way, I don't believe for one second the Dodgers are going to trade Greinke. Not unless they plan on signing Lester or making a couple other major moves. By the way, I must be the only one but if we could trade Anderson for Shark straight up and get him to sign for a slightly below market 4 year deal with a 5th year option, I'd be all over it. I'd probably even be willing to go 5 years. I think a rotation with Shark as our #3 with Rodon developing would be a huge step in the right direction and I still believe we can move Danks for an overpriced bat of some sort. PS: I'd try to trade others then Anderson cause he clearly can hit the ball but at the end of the day, I'd make the trade as long as Shark was around long term. Good catch. There is a strong chance he will opt out after next year and sign a 5 year year $120 mil contract with a new team, provided he stays healthy and performs this year. As for Shark, I think his price is that of trading for an ace, I just don't think it takes only Anderson to get him, especially if he shows interest in signing a below market value extension. And he's more of a #2 or even #3 starter than an ace.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:29 PM) Could you imagine what our farm system would look like after acquiring Greinke? Who cares? He isn't a one year rental, we would have him till he's 34, that's as good as it's going to get. I'd listen if Dodgers are willing to throw in some money.

I live in South Loop and make decent money for a single guy. I only go to about 5 Sox games a year, and probably just as much Cubs games. Why? Because most of my buddies who are Sox fans couldn't afford to go to more games. Most of my coworkers who could afford to go to games are Cubs fans. Plus, every time we go to Wrigley, there are always things to do after. And I consider myself a diehard Sox fan.

People need to stop comparing the Cubs to the Sox, their fanbase is 2 different cultures. Their stadium location/neighborhood attractions is day and night.

Of the metropolitan area that features 2 teams, the Sox revenue/attendance situation is similar to Oakland's. This probably has been said many times, attending games isn't a priority for Sox fans unless team is doing well, and for an extended period of time. Cubs fans would attend games if they have nothing better to do, being in a neighborhood full of recent college grads and young single people helps. Attending games is considered a treat for many Sox fans, as most of the fans come in from the suburbs or areas that are not close to the park. Most people living around the park are retired, low income, or don't care for baseball. With the Cubs taking away most of the well off, single, and upper echelon income level fans, it's hard for the Sox to consistently draw a large crowd. The revelation of the Blackhawks in recent years isn't helping either. I assume that we don't draw as well as other smaller market teams because they have more high income level fans than us, and their stadium is located in areas more accessible and around fans that are more interested in baseball, i.e. downtown, or an area where single people lives. Oakland stadium is also located in the less prosperous part of their metropolis, and the Bay area is one of the larger metropolitan areas in US. They had average attendance as little as 19,000 in 2011. Even though they were the team to beat for most of this year, they only averaged 25,000 a game this year. Then you can also take into account that average Sox ticket cost $26, vs $23 for Oakland, while premium ticket for Sox averages $85, and $48 for them. The Sox can consistently pull in larger crowd if they turn themselves into a perennial contender, or if they relocate their stadium and associate themselves with higher income level folks. But both of those can't be easily achieved. So we will discuss this same s***ty problem year in and year out.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) Well, didnt he miss 50 games the previous year due to a PED suspension? After examining his ISO+ over the past few years, it seems his source of power has been pretty consistent. But he's still a power only dude who doesn't get on base much. At the end of the day, when the bat speed goes away in 2 years, he will provide little to no value for the team.

I don't know about the Cruz deal. For a 2 year deal? Sure, but 4 years is too much of a commitment for a 34 year old player who eclipsed his previous year's HR total by 13. People say VMart is dued to regress because he put up career numbers at age 35, but I'd be more worried about Cruz. Bat speed is the first thing that goes away for aging players. There's a chance he puts up a lower OPS than Dunn out in Safeco, or in today's lingo, a similar wRC+.

Mirotic has been playing really well as of late. It's going to tough to get everyone enough playing time when Taj comes back. But it's a good problem to have.

Rangel Ravelo, he will be one of the names Beane would look for.

QUOTE (Sockin @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) I realize how dumb this is but Tim Anderson just tweeted 3 sad face emoticons... Probably because his mom served him dark meat on thanksgiving

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) What Semien has going for him is some BABIP-fueled minor league stats. First full MLB year was a failure. Beane will not pay us for 2014 Clutch Moments. Semien did walk in the minors, but not here. He's 24, the farm thing is done. The defense is considered limited besides his speed. Because of the minor league stats i'd see you getting a decent cost controlled reliever-type basically at this point at the absolute most. Semien is not a prospect. QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) Semien is at least an adequate defender around the infield and has the best offensive chops of any of our minor league infielders. The first rule of baseball is not to freak out over small MLB samples. I also have no clue where you get the idea that he's had BABIP-fueled MiLB stats. He's generally had fairly low BABIP numbers. He's a middle infielder with solid defensive skills, a great batting eye, production at high levels, and back-to-back 20 HR seasons between MiLB and MLB. That's a big deal. Agree with Jake here. The first post couldn't be more off base. You could argue that Semien's BABIP the past two years in the minors actually hurt his overall numbers. He had only little seasoning above AA last year and was definitely rushed up here. After spending some time in AAA this year, he made major improvements throughout the season and carried those improvements with him in September call up. Defensively, he will always be a solid to above average, but not spectacular defender at either 2B or SS. With some more seasoning, he definitely couldn't hurt you out in the field. I wouldn't call Semien a top prospect, but to call someone who just turned 24 and was a fringe Top 100 guy at the beginning of the year, who also just put up an 142 wRC+ season in AAA a non prospect is a quite frankly an absurd statement.