FT35

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 02:23 PM) but can he do a standing back flip? Ha! Not sure...the video of his first hit/HR cut off there at the end.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) Did either Machado or Harper take a year off of baseball? I think that has to be factored in, as well as playing baseball in Cuba isn't the same as playing it even if the US minor leagues. With each Cuban position player we have seen bad habits and sectors of their game that needed to be worked on. 19 year old Dayan Viciedo needed basically 3 full minor league seasons (the last two mixed with short call ups) before he could play a full season in the majors at 23. We might see him at 21, but he probably won't be ready at 21. Fair enough...good point about the year off. I wouldn't be surprised to see him on a little fast track though. The dude is a monster athlete and really looks cut next to other 19 year olds. At 6'3" 205 at age 19--he's got possible Giancarlo Stanton body type once he fills out. (6'6" 245). Another 20 year old debuter too.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 12, 2017 -> 03:05 PM) I'm sure that has something to do with why he is not stateside yet, but also we do not need to throw him into Kannapolis before he has gotten some playing time in the DSL as a tune up. A year away from organized baseball is quite some time. A likely path would be: DSL, possibly some Rookie League and/or low A ball games in 2017 2018 start the season in low A, with good performance earning promotion and finishing the season at high A. 2019 start season at AA, possible AAA promotion second half of the season. 2020 likely some time in AAA, but good chance of a callup? I think this is conservative. Robert is 19 now--There are many young stars who make their MLB debut at age 20. Don't know if he's in this category or not yet--too soon to tell but both Manny Machado and Bryce Harper made their debut's at age 20--they seem to be doing OK. I think you're right about this year and next, but I would think IF HE PERFORMS the way he should and is capable of, 2019 could be the year we first see him at age 21.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) I think one thing that has really hurt Q this year is not having Sale pitching in front of him. They are such completely different pitchers stylewise that it takes batters a bit to get a read on Q's stuff after coming off a game against Sale. This just means Q should go to Boston!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 08:01 AM) Good post...but believe (for now) teams will shy away from offering super elite prospects like Torres...instead trying to acquire him for 3-4 players with two being MILB top 35-75. Absolutely--that key is "for now." So you don't trade him "now now now!!!"

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 09:41 PM) I guess the eye test doesn't matter at all. He's looked very mediocre. Couple the eye test with traditional stats like ERA and you get a very average pitcher right now. I think the eye test is in focusing on the big picture and viewing a pitcher like Quintana in the same way GM's do and not fans. Could Jeff Samardzija have pitched any worse than he did for us? It still didn't keep a team from investing $90 million dollars in him. Now think about that for a second and let it soak in...90...MILLION...dollars for a guy who was coming off an entire season where he posted a 5.13 ERA and really failed to demonstrate that he could get MLB hitters out with any consistency. He got the contract because GMs realize that pitchers are human also. Shark HAD demonstrated that he could get MLB hitters out with consistency--just not that year with us. GMs look at the numbers and ask "why?" Their people offer suggestions--shying away from a typical out pitch, afraid of the strike zone, maybe some tipping, maybe it's poor defense, maybe a technique glitch in the delivery. Things happen to good pitchers. They all post a mediocre season or 2 (unless you're Clayton Kershaw--which no one is claiming Q to be). Look at Verlander--working on his 3rd season of an ERA over 4.50 (that's mediocre). You think GMs weight the bad season with him--or the fact that he's a 6-time All-Star? The talent was ALWAYS there. Quintana has never posted a season with an ERA over 3.76. Is he struggling!? Absolutely! But no GM is going to look at Jose Quintana and say--well...he WAS one of the best pitchers in the league for the last 5 YEARS...but now he's not. What they are going to do is try to buy low because they know these things happen. Rick Hahn will field many ridiculous offers for Q now. And he will simply decline--because we all know that Quintana will right his ship. How tough is it to perform at your highest level for a team who is picked to potentially finish dead last in MLB--with your name floating around on a daily basis just waiting for your phone to ring telling you that you're relocating. All Q's slump means is that now might not be the best time to trade him...and honestly I don't think that has any impact on the organization and their plans moving forward. The rebuild is still on--it's not being "hurt" by Quintana's poor performance, it's not dependent on him being dominant now. There will be Gleyber Torres-type prospects available whenever the time is to move him on. The flip on Quintana will happen at the right time or it won't happen at all. There are other moves that have happened or will happen in the meantime that will improve this team (Robert signing, getting the draft picks signed, trying to move Robertson, etc.). This isn't even a spin of optimism or a sales pitch on Quintana...it's just the way it is. Fans might not see that shinny new prospect they all want at this moment--but there will be a top 100 list next year with different names on it--several will be good ones.

QUOTE (oldsox @ May 19, 2017 -> 06:28 AM) I always wondered why Hawkins was included in the Tulo trade with Toronto. He already had announced that was his final season. He wasn't any good any more. But he was Kahnle's teammate.... -Kahnlegate.

I would expect Sale to hear mostly cheers tonight. He certainly did a lot for our team when he was here. Even though he became a pain in the neck towards the end and the immaturity was unfortunate to see. Nothing changed the fact that he's one of the best in the game though. I know I appreciate all he did when he was here. I'd expect him to be his usual Chris Sale self tonight--tough to hit and frequently dominant.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ May 28, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) What does Holland get back? I was thinking about this too but came across a dilemma. Obviously it depends on the acquiring team's needs. If they REALLY need him, they would give up more, but what contender would be in such bad shape that Derek Holland would be the answer to all their problems and worth giving up a lot to get him. Eh... I think you're looking at a team who is OK with who they have, but have the desire to improve on one of their spots or to just go get a vet as a fallback option...with that outlook...they aren't going to break the bank to get a slight upgrade or a mid-grade insurance policy. So I think we should keep our expectations in check with Holland--even though the numbers are there this year. My guess it would be at best an organizational top 5-7 in a weak system, top 10-12 in a strong system. There may be a 2nd player added to supplement this scale. I would think a similar return could be had for Gonzalez--just maybe slightly lower since Holland is a lefty. There are better starting pitching options available--and chances are teams who are in the hunt will already have a strong rotation and Holland and Miggy wouldn't prove to be huge upgrades over what they have. I love predictions...so I'll say Holland to the spacious field of the Dodgers and Gonzalez to the Yankees to keep the ball on the ground (or back to Baltimore--although I would think they would be a team that would push harder for a better option). Of course injuries could change this completely. ha

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 30, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) The bunting thing sucks and has probably cost the sox a few runs this year but I've always said a manager should at least either be good tactically or "leader of men" wise. If you get both, he's a top 5-8 in MLB manager. For a minute, Guillen was a great leader of men and alright tactically, he had his s*** lineups and bunts but he was good with the pen. RV was awful tactically, awful leader of men. So far Renteria appears mediocre tactically (he does get the value of splits, especially for young players trying to gain confidence) and very good leader of men wise. Same grade I gave him a couple weeks ago, a solid B. Interesting. I like the logic.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 29, 2017 -> 05:22 PM) This is where you think a front office steps in and provides some data to demonstrate how stupid it is to bunt with two strikes. Welll...this is the same front office who gave Robin 3 years too many for him to get things figured out. It came with the canned talk track of "I'm not here to question his in-game decision making." Hahn, Williams...they always commented something along those lines when reporters would interview them--wondering WHY on EARTH Robin was still employed. I'm just glad we have an actual manager rather than someone who played and didn't even want the job. If he believes he has potential for success on the 2-strike bunt, he's probably got about 2 and a half years to try it out before there's any mention of it from the FO!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 26, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) C'mon, no Puig or Cespedes? Abreu? L. Robert? That's some pretty strong anti-Cuban bias there. Avi or Leury Garcia? Bellinger and Judge are looking great so far too, but way too early. I notice you left out Kris Bryant. Intentional? Rizzo? Lots of good choices...F. Freeman and a certain Reds' 1B named Votto come to mind as well. Sano if he keeps raking, but his defense sucks. Benintendi. Gary Sanchez. So much young talent. Mauer, as discussed earlier, and Molina. Posey. Sale. Maybe Lester. Kimbrel. K-Rod probably. BTW I left Rizzo off intentionally. The power numbers are there, but a .266 career hitter will have a tough case to make--especially as a first baseman. Votto is a good one--he's kind of Paul Konerko plus an MVP minus a ring. Sale could gain steam with a few more dominating years and a ring or 2--still a lot to accomplish. Not that rings have much barring on the HOF--just being with Boston and winning a couple couldn't hurt his case.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 26, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) Oops. Hard to think of a Trout as a veteran at 26 when he still hasn't reached his prime in late 20's. It sure is...I think people overuse the term "generational talent." Not every great young player is even close to a generational talent. I think we're seeing the true definition of the word with Mike Trout--he's the best of the very best. Pujols was there in his prime--Miguel's bat was always 1b behind Pujols. No one else is in Trout's league...THAT is what makes him a generational talent. We're lucky to witness. I'm hoping my next Sox game will be vs. the Angels--I gotta see him play.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 26, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) C'mon, no Puig or Cespedes? Abreu? L. Robert? That's some pretty strong anti-Cuban bias there. Avi or Leury Garcia? Bellinger and Judge are looking great so far too, but way too early. I notice you left out Kris Bryant. Intentional? Rizzo? Lots of good choices...F. Freeman and a certain Reds' 1B named Votto come to mind as well. Sano if he keeps raking, but his defense sucks. Benintendi. Gary Sanchez. So much young talent. Mauer, as discussed earlier, and Molina. Posey. Sale. Maybe Lester. Kimbrel. K-Rod probably. Bryant's there with Harper. I think those 2 are a tick above the others.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 25, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) #3? I mean that is kind of the point. When you are trying to stretch it to the three best catchers currently, it is probably going too far. We are talking about the best ever, and the best of a generation. It really shouldn't be a list. At a position like catcher, it should be 1, or maybe 2 guys. Exactly! I mean the number of Hall of Famers playing now is pretty low. Although you have a tremendous group of young players who are definitely HOF-worthy if they keep their career on track. You have Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, Robinson Cano, Mike Trout, I think Buster Posey, Ichiro, Clayton Kershaw, Cody Asche. I think those guys are in for sure. Hanley Ramirez was there, but had too many injuries I think. Some of you might have him there. Then you have Bryant & Harper who are the best of the young studs with guys like Machado, Lindor, Correa, Corey Seager, Betts, Bogaerts, Altuve, Arenado(?) and Goldschmidt. Guys like that have a strong chance of getting into that HOF conversation with little to no improvement to their game--just by playing and staying healthy. There may be more...There's no set number--just the best of the best. Certainly a bright future for baseball with the young talent coming in.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ May 25, 2017 -> 07:48 AM) Posey is on track I think. I agree. I think with the Championships, he might have solidified that spot even if he makes the switch to 1st full time and puts up decent numbers from here on. He was/is one of the best of his time--and even posted elite catcher numbers after the extreme injuries he's had. I'd vote yes on him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2017 -> 06:17 AM) Sal Perez and Molina are the only other catchers who are even close to being considered. Mauer is the interesting case with his split career...but he's probably not going to make it either. If his career ended in 2010 like Puckett, he gets in but not anymore since he became an average 1B/DH. Yeah Molina was on the inside track for sure before his injuries started. Mauer was a great catcher, but I think his almost complete lack of power may cost him. Yes, it's possible to see the slap hitters get in but usually you see a very high number of SB offset that lack of power. 6-time all-star certainly helps his case as being the best at his position though. We might have a case for him being in the conversation!

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2017 -> 07:34 PM) If Renteria is a bunt guy, get rid of him as soon as the team gets good again. Bunting is proven hazardous to a team's chances of scoring. I'm not a fan of the bunt either, but this might have to do with the fact that not a lot of guys can execute the bunt correctly--a fundamental issue.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ May 24, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) I think Kershaw is the only active starting pitcher who makes the Hall. Sabathia is borderline but I think he just misses it. Sale would need to be elite into his mid 30s and I don't see it happening. Felix was on track but he's been very mediocre his last few seasons and unless he returns to his previous form (unlikely) I don't see that happening either. If Bumgarner can nab a Cy Young or two I guess he has a shot, but no one else is in the conversation. At least until standards change to reflect the modern era. I think you're spot on with these names and their chances as of now. Maybe Max Scherzer and Verlander could be in this convo. I know I just posted a long line of thought on how to keep the significance of the win in the realm of what matters in assessing pitchers' HOF chances. But I'm not sure we should change the standard of what makes the HOF. You could pretty much make the same argument for catchers now. You have Posey, then up and comers like Sanchez, but aside from them, you really don't have a ton of catchers in the HOF conversation at this time. Should we change the standard so that more should qualify? Or should we just accept the fact that this era is light on HOF-caliber pitchers and catchers? Aside from the starters you mentioned, you are left with guys like Lester, Darvish, Cueto, Grienke, Hamels--all great pitchers...but are they Hall-of Famers!? How many guys like this would be in NOW if we changed the standard to include guys like this!?

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 24, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) If you believe in wins as a metric then you also have to believe that Jose Quintana is a mediocre pitcher, right? Wins as they are defined now, maybe. Mediocre, no, but Hall-of Fame? ehhh...I don't know...still early, but I would say no now even if he continues down this same path for the rest of his career.

Wins is the hang up because it's the only thing that matters but it doesn't matter. Lol. I don't think you can completely ignore it. When you look at a single win, it does not tell you the full story. But collectively, if you have a guy with more wins than anyone else over the course of his career, it does tell you something. You don't get lucky or benefit from a good team on your way to 200 wins. There are many times when the pitcher's performance is what directly led to the win. And nowadays, a ton of wins tells you that you are doing a whole lot right. The HOF-caliber pitchers tend to all have a lot of wins. It's not because they got lucky, but it's because they put their team in a position to win more times than not. To diminish the importance of the win, maybe a stat worth looking into could account for the % of a team's wins that a pitcher gets. Or a stat that compares their wins to the team's overall record for their career. Put the weight on stats like quality starts, maybe develop a new stat called "dominating starts" or something along those lines (7+ innings, 0-1 ER, 1.00 WHIP, 7+Ks). Weigh those stats 70-30 to a pitcher's actual wins. I still think you would find that most HOF-caliber pitchers would be strong in both. The exception would be guys like Quintana, who pitch well for bad teams--who could possibly get into the Hall on different metrics--but do you consider pitchers of Quintana's caliber Hall-of Famers? This is where you can get into trouble, but maybe the W stat needs an overhaul of criteria. One possible fix would be to use simple of logic. If a starting pitcher qualifies for a win and is "in-line" for the win when he departs, he gets credit for the win if his team ends up winning the game--regardless of whether the bullpen first blows the game. If a starter does not qualify for the win by failing to pitch the minimum innings in his outing, or leaves with his team tied or behind, he receives a "no decision," then the win will go to the reliever who was pitching when his team scored the winning run. Or keep the "Win" stat limited to starters--or any reliever who pitches the equivalent of 5 innings (the same a starter needs to qualify for a win)--otherwise a "team win" is earned. What if a game goes 18 innings and multiple pitchers pitch a qualifying 5 innings for the win you ask?! Nothing...because you cap a regular season MLB game to 12 innings and give the teams a tie to save the bullpens. You would RARELY have that problem and if you did, the win would go to the starting pitcher if he lift in-line for the win, the pitcher pitching at the time the winning run was scored--or a team win would be assessed. Examples: Quintana goes 8 innings of 1 run ball, leaves with a 3-1 lead. Robertson blows the save, Sox end up winning in the bottom of the 9th. Quintana gets the win. Quintana goes 4 innings, leaves with a lead, Chris Beck comes in and goes 5 innings--Beck gets the win because he qualified with 5 innings. Quintana goes 4 innings, leaves with a lead, Jennings pitches the 5th--Sox score winning run, Ynoa pitches the 6th, Jones pitches the 8th, Robertson the 9th--Jennings gets the win. Quintana goes 6 innings, leaves with Sox down 4-2, Jones goes 2 innings, Sox score winning run in 7th, Robertson pitches 9th--Jones gets the win because winning run was scored--Quintana was not "in-line" for the win when he departed. Quintana goes 5 innings leaves with the lead, Nate Jones pitches an inning and blows the lead, Chris Beck pitches 5 innings, Sox win it in the 11th--Quintana gets the win because he qualified and left "in-line" for the win--even though Beck pitched the qualifying number of innings (VERY unlikely scenario).

QUOTE (Wanne @ May 24, 2017 -> 12:16 AM) uhhh....yeah...this bunting crap is getting to be junior high level crap now. I get fundamentals and all...but c'mon man.... The other thing about Renteria is this...he is huge on defensive shifts. What's the best way to beat the defensive shift? Well a well-placed bunt on the 3rd base side of the field is tough to defend when your third baseman is standing on 2nd base. SO...from his perspective, when he sees teams in shifts on OUR hitters, his mind might be more apt to put the bunt on, because that's the play he's fearing when he puts his defensive shifts on.

I wasn't a fan of the hire at first, but I really missed the boat on him and am pleased to admit it. The fact that he has managed before really shows after watching Robin's teams the last few years. His decisions are more calculated. It just seemed like everything with Robin was a "gut" feeling decision making process. And OK...I get it...he played a crap ton of baseball, his gut feeling means more than most. But Renteria knows the managerial gambles that work more times than not and makes his decisions accordingly. You don't stick with a SP who has given up 4 runs in the 8th inning to "see if he can battle his way through it." Gut feeling or not, that's NOT a savvy decision, it's stupid. You don't take out Chris Sale for the 9th inning of a close game because he's at 100 pitches (and still unhittable). You don't roll out Ronald Belasario as your closer night after night and watch him blow games by the HANDFUL. I feel like Robin would roll the dice on his gut feelings with decisions that should have been calculated and then play the decisions that require your "gut" by the book--with not much to back them up from a data standpoint. Renteria--whether the gambles pay off or not--rolls the dice on the right things and goes with his gut on the right things. He has a better base of managerial understanding behind the decisions he makes. Many times it's a guessing game...but you don't have to decide blindly. Play your percentages and draw from experience--that's all you have as a manager and Rick certainly has that and uses those tools with better timing--regardless of the outcome. Obviously, I've not been in the clubhouse--ever...I'm speaking completely out of hunch here, but it seems like the guys are enjoying the game a little more and learning some things that are making them better players. I think he's the right man for this rebuild and could possibly build a connection with these guys that could transition to him being here when they get good. Guys and gals...has anyone else had the feeling that the Sox are doing a lot of things right now? Outside of trading Quintana, Frazier and Robertson for Torres, Judge, Meadows, Robles, and Bellinger (THESE BOARDS! HAHA) it seems like a lot of moves the fans want to see, the team is making a reality. I can't believe the pace of this rebuild...we will feel it more when we start going through 5-15 20 game stretches, but at least we have front office news that keeps our heads nodding, "yes."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 23, 2017 -> 08:42 AM) It would depend which teams could bid, and if there was a matching penalty. If some of the big boys were able to bid, I don't think Robert is a White Sox. Just like with Abreu, the teams that bid high, had first base pretty much covered so they were out. Boston was actually thinking about putting Abreu at 3B if they had signed him. Yikes.

Lost in the shuffle are the thousands of talented kids from our own country! I think we will be OK if we end up with a couple of filler Americans on our team. Who cares if we used all our resources on this 1 quality signing--once in a while the quality over quantity model is a nice change of pace. We're already home so we might as well go big. I LOVE the gamble on this kid.