Two-Gun Pete

Why do posters continue to dream up "packaging" this player with that player in trade, when this has not been Hahn's preference in word or in deed? I suppose anything's possible, but I don't recall him wanting to do things that way...

Yeah, there's no way Avi is THIS good: Here's where he is now: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...amp;position=OF As others have said, his Babip is artificially high. To put this into context, I found another FG reference that showed the Top 10 Babips from 1945 to 2013: http://www.fangraphs.com/community/the-ten...ips-since-1945/ Of the Top 10 Babips, all of them were either from players with excellent contact skills, or had top footspeed, or had their "career year" in terms of luck. To my view, Avi fits BEST into the "luck" category, moreso than being a HOF contact type, or top footspeed type. To those who are believing in his start to 2017, I advise against irrational exhuberance. Avi's simply not THIS good, and if he can be moved for anything of value, he should be moved, IMHO.

I can't figure out why anyone would worry about Matt Davidson as having any sort of future @ 3b when complaining about this pick. Sure, Davidson's enjoying what will probably be his "career year." But, I also think as I typed this, he just struck out. Again. His 40% k rate and sub-.300 OBP means he's a placeholder, at best. I think Hostetler & Hahn know this, I that could be one reason why Burger was the pick here.

I've gotta say that I'm surprised that the Sox signed him. I was wrong to doubt that it would happen, but I am glad to be wrong. Here's hoping that Robert will be a BIG part of this team's future!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2017 -> 07:14 AM) That is some petty and impressive grudgeholding. Yeah. Nothing quite like one random spring training performance to get people's rocks off. But that aside, I'm not here everyday, so I often miss the chance to close loops on things.I didn't want the other poster to think i didn't have the courtesy to reply to his rant.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Mar 19, 2017 -> 09:26 PM) Hopefully today taught you not to believe in your own misinformed narrative which I gave you ample chance to prove otherwise on your oft injured rants. Yeah, you just might want to cross the goal line with your argument before spiking the football. Here's hoping young Mr. Rodon finds his health & his form soon.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 09:39 AM) The point you are missing is that he is correct. Most will fail. The odds of this player being a star in the MLB are slim. The key is not to spend wildly on all the FA prospects. The key is to evaluate them properly and determine the risk. Then you assign a price tag that you feel is acceptable for the risk. They did this with Viciedo and outbid other teams and it didn't workout. They do need to take the risk at some point but they can't just go crazy on all of them. No, I fully understand that prospects are an "asset class" with inherent downside risk. But then, most successful portfolios include some speculative holdings that could fail, but could also lift an entire household's fortunes by itself. Taking educated, & calculated risk is central to any successful enterprises strategy. And again, while past performanceis no guarantee of future results, we have no precedent of a young, highly-regarded and highly-pursued int'l FA signing here. I don't believe it is as much about cheapness as it is about risk aversion. After all, Abreu and Ramirez were pros for several years, & had performed reasonably well. That track record (in the eyes of this org) likely attenuated any downside risk in their eyes. I would like to hope that this org will have changed their view on this, but I doubt it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) It's a fun argument when signing Viciedo, Ramirez and Abreu doesn't matter, but that also being high in final biddings for Soler and Tanaka also doesn't matter, because the point is don't you understand the white sox are cheap and you can't prove otherwise? All of the successful int'l FAs cited here were either veteran players (Ramirez, Abreu) or were not highly-regarded by the industry (Viciedo). All of the highly-desired and young int'l FAs that involved a competitve process to sign (Soler, Tanaka) ended up signing elsewhere. Given that Robert seems to be the latter type of int'l FA (young, highly-regarded, and with many suitors), I expect Robert to sign elsewhere. I don't believe it is a "cheapness" issue, so much as it is a risk-averse issue. And no where have I posted otherwise. I'll guess the "we tried to sign Robert, but look at the other guys we signed" press conference will be on June 15th.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) Considering 1 out of 30 teams actually signs a player, the majority of times, most teams FAIL to sign an individual player, therefore we probably should consider Robert signing with anyone a longshot. Sure. But as a SOX fan with my eyes wide open, I can see through their so-called "pursuit" of young international FAs, and the subsequent press conferences as farces intended to try to dupe us. Until they prove otherwise, I'll continue to doubt this org in terms of their seriousness in actually LANDING young FAs. YMMV.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 08:31 AM) Your point was that they were cheap though. No,that isn't central to my view on this. My view is that this organization hates to sign prospects because (in Jerry's words, not mine) "Prospects are just prospects." Moreover, recent history indicates that this organization will inevitably fail to get the 20 year old youngster in international FA, but when it comes to landing the 30+ year old veteran who's in decline, "Kenny always gets his man."

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 08:13 AM) The White Sox finished 2nd on Jorge Soler and offered him in the $25 million range. He took 9/30 from the Cubs. Sox also had a monster offer for Masahiro Tanaka. I've criticized JR a fair share over the years for draft and international spending habits but this is different. If the people he trusts in his organization want this guy, he'll spend the money. Ok, you realize that your two examples cited here are FAILED international signings, right? Failing to sign Soler and failing to sign Tanaka actually makes it appear more likely that the Sox will (here's that word again) FAIL to sign Robert, based on historical precedent. I'm not picking on you, but KW & RH coming to a press conference to tell the fans "we tried" to sign Robert seems like an extension of the failures with Soler & Tanaka.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 21, 2017 -> 07:51 AM) A lot of us(including myself) never thought the Sox would go into rebuilding mode and here we are. I obviously have no clue if we're going to sign him but we're going to be very much involved in this. I hear you. But I also hear Jerry say, "Prospects are just prospects." I also recall a decade of refusal to go over slot in the draft (under the previous CBA.). And I also can't recall a young international FA of Robert's prominence being signed by this Front Office. There's a long history of behavioural precedence to contraindicate this type of signing as being likely. I'd be as happy as a pig in slop if Robert were to sign here, but as a SOX fan with my eyes wide open, I'm accustomed to disappointment and stupid front office decisions. We'll see...

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Apr 20, 2017 -> 10:24 PM) I recall Abreu signing during the playoffs with the Red Sox as an interested team, who were in the post-season. Would be tough to make a signing at that time. I don't recall the timing, but signing a 27 year old Jose Abreu doesn't seem to be anything like pursuing a 19/20 year old Robert. The former seems like KW's treasured policy of pursuing veterans. Any pursuit of Robert would seem to go contrary to Reinsdorf's reluctance to spend on "just prospects." Moreover, I can't recall an example where this org beat out other MLB teams to sign a youngster where other teams were interested and involved in pursuing a youngster. Belle, Borchard, and Abreu were veteran players, unlike Robert. Borchard was a draftee. Viciedo did not gin up as much interest & competition for his services as Robert. I see no precedence in recent years from this org. On balance, signing Robert seems incredibly unlikely to me.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Apr 20, 2017 -> 09:33 PM) Do the Cardinals have a history of spending big? A better question is: "Do the Cardinals (or Pads or Reds) have an owner who is on record as being against spending money on prospects?"

Yeah, I don't see Robert signing here. Not with THIS ownership, & not with THIS front office. But most of all, I cant see this happening here at the prices he's rumored to command. I'll guess that we'll get to see Robert play in St Louis for a decade.

Yeah, why not? After all, the Tim Anderson extension has worked like a charm so far. Also, lock up Davidson for another 5-6 years, while we're at it.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Apr 17, 2017 -> 12:28 PM) Would love for Davidson to be getting everyday at bats between 3B and DH. #Irrationalexuberance #45%K-rate

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 5, 2017 -> 04:00 PM) It's really both for him. He's still very raw skills-wise, partly due to lack of play, but he definitely lacks skill. Tools he's got though, and he's a fine age for Kanny as others said. With respect to Adolfo, even though I've believed that he sucks out loud, Ill add my voice to those who look hopefully to his 2017 season. If he can stay healthy, & keep the K-rate under ~25%, I'll consider it a great season for Micker Adolfo.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Mar 27, 2017 -> 01:49 AM) Whether it is right or wrong, the problem some have with Davidson is that he had some very down years in the minors when he was hitting around .200. That made people give up on him or believe that he had a relatively low ceiling. It was disappointing to see after all the hype when he was traded to the Sox. Many of us had him penciled in as our starting third basemen for the next 5-6 years and it just didn't work out. Couple things: 1. Good players tend to have good numbers throughout their MiLB careeers. Davidson, OTOH, only had good numbers in extremely offense-skewed assignments. (In the California league, & in Reno.) 2. There never was a chance that he was ever going to become a starter in The Show. He simply strikes out too much. Whoever thought he was ever going to become a starter allowed this Front office to lie to them. Again. 3. His former "Too 100 Prospect" status should be a cautionary tale for those who want to give away Q for "Top 100 Prospects" who are flawed. 4. I sincerely hope that Davidson does well, as I do for all SOX players. I simply don't see it happening for him.

QUOTE (striker @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 09:44 PM) If I were Huntington I'd send Meadows for Q. It's not just about 7 years of Meadows, it's about competing in the small window you have with McCutchen and Cole. You can always unload Cole, McCutchen and even Q at the 2018 deadline if you are out of it. The Astros have loads of talent. I'd trade with them even if I couldn't get both Martes and Tucker. Give me Perez, Whitley, Laureano, Hernandez, M. Sierra This. Although, it would have to be Meadows ++ for Q. Look @ the Gazette's story, & @ Glasnows performance, it looks like he's not a future TOR SP, & may be destined to the pen, if he makes The Show. For the Pirates, when will they be able to acquire an affordable TOR SP in his prime? And when will they have another window like this one to compete? The scrubs may be in their division, but they may very well have a post-WS hangover, as is common for many champs. Meanwhile, st louis, Milwaukee, & cincy all look flawed to various degrees. If it doesn't work, they can always resell Q, & Cutch, & rebuild. If Q were traded to Pittsburgh, & he underperforms or gets hurt, there are outs in the contract just 2 years from now. Clinging to Meadows, & praying that their starting staff is enough to get them to the postseason is fool's gold, IMO.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Mar 20, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) Torres has yet to play above A ball. Torres = schmuck. Just sayin'... NO offense, but there's no need to be reductive in your argument. Torres has proven something @ high A, whereas The Three Schmucks [Rutherford/Kaprelian/Mateo] have NOT, as I type this. It is fair to note that the Three Schmucks could prove something this year, and become actual prospects, rather than suspects. But until they do, they're A-ball Schmucks who haven't EARNED the roses that the Prospect Industrial Complex types throw at their feet. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 20, 2017 -> 05:49 PM) But to lump a bunch of top 30-40 prospects together as "A Ball shmucks" is just flat out destructive logic. Any good system needs depth at all levels, and great systems have high-upside depth at all levels. Limiting our sights to a guy who can contribute next year has been what has been central to this team's inability to build a productive farm system despite years of failure at the MLB level. The only reason guys with this much upside are available at all is solely BECAUSE there's risk associated with not having been challenged at higher levels. Judging these types of guys as the same as anyone else in the low minors is nonsensical. Look, I think it is fair to want "depth" in the system. But Q is a TOP Asset that DEMANDS TOP Assets in return. Guys who are "top 30-40," based SOLELY on their reputations, and not on their ACTUAL performance are suspects, not prospects. [Again, they can become worthy assets by proving it on the field; Yankee "prospects" are notorious for being over-hyped without any performance to back up their hype.] Middling "reputation-only" types can be throw-ins to a Q trade, or pieces gotten for lesser assets, such as Melky or Frazier. Or, if this front office doesn't go back to their moronic ways of drafting from years ago, depth can be found in the draft. But the original post to which I replied in this thread suggested that: Rutherford [twice-injured in the past ~18 months, and only 130 PA in rookie ball, and similar results to Korey Zangari], Kaprelian [Only 18 IP in A ball, and an elbow injury], and Mateo [inferior results to Tilson @ high A, and inferior to Basabe in Low-A] would be worth the Top tradeable asset in the business. I happen to disagree. If ~3 months of [alleged] wifebeater Chapman = Gleyber Torres, FOUR YEARS of Q is worth Torres ++, period. Again, we just need to be patient.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 19, 2017 -> 07:59 PM) The short answer is that both Rutherford and Kapreilian have added substantial value since being drafted. Rutherford only fell to the Yankees in the first place because of signability issues and an injury he was dealing with at the end of the year. They're both easy top 50 prospects that some would consider top 25 prospects, and they're value is on the upswing. Mateo is substantially more interesting than Tilson I'm as much a fan and supporter of sabermetrics as anyone on this forum has ever been, and even I have to say that if you're judging the future value of A-ball prospects based on their stat-lines, you're doing it wrong. To claim that Kaprielian isn't an "actual prospect" is to illustrate that you don't know anything about Kaprielian. Even if any of these things are true, neither of the repeatedly injured Rutherford, nor the 18 IP-in-A+ Kaprelian, nor Mateo have proven enough to be the centerpiece to a trade for Q, full stop. All three may have substantial upside, as you claim. But at the same time, all three are far enough away from The Show, or have significant flaws as well. The Prospect Industrial Complex routinely over rates prospects, and history has shown that most of them fail. So, if you're trading away a PROVEN, TOR, LHP, @ that contract for a pile of A-ball schmucks, you're doing it wrong. The equation remains Torres ++ is what the Yankees have to give up. No Torres = No Q. Hell, they got Torres for a few months of a reliever. A GREAT reliever (with off the field issues, BTW ), but still "just" a reliever. This fandom has to be patient, rather than pining for the quick trade of the best pitching asset on the market for a pile of A-ball schmucks that haven't proven anything. Getting less than full value for Q will set this franchise back for YEARS, so better to wait for another club to become desperate.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 11:23 PM) For example: Rutherford+Kapreilian+Mateo would be phenomenal. OK, I'll bite. Even though I'm not a big supporter of the Prospect Industrial Complex that overvalues "tools" and undervalues actual outcomes, help me understand why I shouldn't hate that suggested trade. Here's what I see out of that trio you suggest: Rutherford: 130 measly PA in Rookie Ball means he's lightyears away from The Show. Piles of "golden gods" DOMINATED Rookie Ball, only to ultimately end up working @ Home Depot. Hell, even Korey (with a "K") Zangari hit more HR than this guy @ Rookie Ball. Kaprelian: 3 measly games @ A+ means he's lightyears away from The Show, & still has a lot to prove before he's an actual prospect. Mateo: An "amazing" 99 wrc+ in A+ ball (2nd exposure to the level) last year. For reference, the much-hated Charlie Tilson had a wrc+ of 121 in his 2nd go-around @ A+, with a lower K rate. On top of all of this, Yankee prospects are generally suspects, in that they're overhyped in a lot of cases. So, again, why should the top SP available in trade be stupidly given away for a pile of A ball bums? For me, no Torres in the trade = no Quintana for the Yankees, full stop. And even at that, Torres still hasn't made the jump past AA with his prospect status intact. In all honesty, the Yankees prospects have yawning flaws, or are too far away from The Show for my liking, or have not shown themselves to be superior to extant members of the SOX system.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) and repeating AA doesn't really make sense. I think i disagree with this. As others have said, Moncada's ~31% k-rate in 200 or so PA in AA is a reason for concern. At the same time, he could still use some polishing defensively as well, since he was used @ more than one spot in the infield. I don't see the harm in him starting the 1st month or so in Birmingham, working down his K-rate a bit, & perfecting the pivot @ 2B. Then, assuming he does well to reduce his Ks, move him up to Charlotte, before giving him a Sept call up. Again, this is assuming he progresses as we expect that he should. After all, he's only 21, and i don't even think he's had 1,000 PA in the entirety of his career.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 09:57 AM) Vs RHP: 1. Anderson SS 2. Tilson CF 3. Abreu 1B 4. Cabrera LF 5. Frazier 3B Vs LHP: 1. Anderson SS 2. Tilson CF 3. Abreu 1B 4. Cabrera LF 5. Frazier 3B Great topic while we all wait for Opening Day. I think that Anderson, given his abolute hatred of taking walks and taking pitches, is not (yet) the right man to lead the offense. I hope that one day he will be, but right NOW, I would hope that Renteria can read numbers & scouting reports better than Ventura. The said, (assuming that he gets over being a China Doll) Tilson has shown an ability to walk & take pitches. For me, he'd be my Leadoff Man, at least, vs RHP. Vs. LHP, id try Anderson there, but give him a short leash. Whichever one is not leading off on a particular day can bat low in the lineup, or grab some bench for a day. For the rest of the top half of the lineup, my goal early in this season is to MAX what our tradeable pieces can be. So, Id probably put Cabrera 2nd in the lineup on most days, with Abreu or Frazier to follow, depending on which one matches up best vs the opponent, &/or whichever on is on good form. Once Melky & Frazier are gone, if they want to bat Anderson & Tilson atop the lineup everyday, go right ahead. But beforehand, Cabrera/Frazier need to have as many chances to inflate their numbers, so that they can return useable pieces in trade.