OmarComing25 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:25 PM) The problem is - the numbers in CF are completely unclear. Last year, Fowler was a better defender than Eaton in CF, Eaton was a poor defender and Fowler was close to average. However, in 2014, Eaton was close to average and Fowler was abjectly terrible, worse than Eaton was in 2015. So somehow Fowler went from godawful to ok and Eaton went from ok to poor. Adding in previous years for Fowler does not help - he bounced between poor and average in years before that also. If you can predict which one of them will be better next year go ahead. I have no idea. They could both be terrible, they could both be ok, one could be ok and the other terrible, and I find no way in the available stats to offer a prediction. If you go by DRS, Fowler was considered a poor defender in 2015 as well. Big discrepancy between DRS and UZR for him in 2015, though Eaton had an even larger discrepancy in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) If you go by DRS, Fowler was considered a poor defender in 2015 as well. Big discrepancy between DRS and UZR for him in 2015, though Eaton had an even larger discrepancy in 2014. So basically either way if you were to pick which one to put in CF it's a coin flip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:41 PM) So basically either way if you were to pick which one to put in CF it's a coin flip. Hillary approves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) He's probably better suited for RF than Fowler. It all might be moot, but I really think the Sox will sign Fowler. That's it for me, Eaton is better suited for right than Fowler so that's how I'd line them up if we were to sign Dexter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) He's probably better suited for RF than Fowler. It all might be moot, but I really think the Sox will sign Fowler. I think raBBit's post below bolsters the idea of Eaton to RF in the event the Sox sign Fowler. QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Eaton had a shoulder injury last year that messed with his arm. He had a clean up surgery at the beginning of the offseason. Eaton has a terribly difficult time playing at USCF. He can't pick up the ball for whatever reason. He's worked with multiple different coaches, tried different glasses, etc. Not sure what they'd do if they signed Fowler, but there's a rationale for Eaton moving to RF even if he's the better defender of the two. I remember you mentioned this earlier in the off season about Eaton having trouble picking up the ball in CF last season. Maybe a move to RF would help? ST would help Eaton adjust to RF but there's no way to know if he will pick up the ball better until he's in RF at USCF. It's an interesting scenario if the Sox were to sign Fowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarComing25 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 It's a shame they don't have UZR and DRS splits for home/away. I'd be really curious to see Eaton's splits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunt Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Eaton had a shoulder injury last year that messed with his arm. He had a clean up surgery at the beginning of the offseason. Eaton has a terribly difficult time playing at USCF. He can't pick up the ball for whatever reason. He's worked with multiple different coaches, tried different glasses, etc. Not sure what they'd do if they signed Fowler, but there's a rationale for Eaton moving to RF even if he's the better defender of the two. This, coupled with the notes with the numbers you included on Desmond, make me really think that the Sox are best suited to sign both Desmond and Jackson. Improve outfield defense, base running, and overall offense while sacrificing some defense at SS. I think I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (Dunt @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) This, coupled with the notes with the numbers you included on Desmond, make me really think that the Sox are best suited to sign both Desmond and Jackson. Improve outfield defense, base running, and overall offense while sacrificing some defense at SS. I think I can live with that. I wonder what Jackson is even looking for in terms of a contract. I have barely heard anything about him. At the very least you know he will catch the ball and run into one occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) I wonder what Jackson is even looking for in terms of a contract. I have barely heard anything about him. At the very least you know he will catch the ball and run into one occasionally. Boras is probably holding out for a pretty good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggins Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Can't imagine he gets more than Denard Span. Probably a good contract baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 in the Puig article, Merkin has stated that the sox 'appear unwilling' to give up a pick for Fowler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 06:39 PM) in the Puig article, Merkin has stated that the sox 'appear unwilling' to give up a pick for Fowler Merkin is not making much sense. If they aren't willing to give up a pick for Fowler, then why would they even talk to him? And if they are unwilling to give up a pick for Fowler, why would they have any interest is paying the price for Puig? I really wanted Puig, but that thing with his sister, even though he supposedly was cleared, made me think he is a time bomb not worth the trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 4, 2016 -> 01:51 AM) Merkin is not making much sense. If they aren't willing to give up a pick for Fowler, then why would they even talk to him? And if they are unwilling to give up a pick for Fowler, why would they have any interest is paying the price for Puig? I really wanted Puig, but that thing with his sister, even though he supposedly was cleared, made me think he is a time bomb not worth the trouble. I'm sure we will see a tweet in next few days by Nightengale that says Sox are staying put. As for Puig, hell no. Too much of a clubhouse distraction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 07:53 PM) I'm sure we will see a tweet in next few days by Nightengale that says Sox are staying put. As for Puig, hell no. Too much of a clubhouse distraction Or Fowler wants 4 years, Sox won't go over 3 and moving on... Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Ya, much rather sign Fowler and give up the pick than trade good prospects for Puig. ^that sentence was purposely NOT written in green^ Thank you, for your support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyAcosta41 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) Ya, much rather sign Fowler and give up the pick than trade good prospects for Puig. ^that sentence was purposely NOT written in green^ Thank you, for your support. As they say in the legal biz, "I concur." (Actually, I've never said that while in the legal biz, or anywhere else, until just this moment.) Puig would invariably cost at one of Anderson, Fulmer, Adams, plus X. The 28th pick in this year's draft is unlikely to be the equal of any of those players, plus, all three of them are closer to the proverbial show than Mr. 2016-28. And yes -- I also understand that sacrificing that pick ALSO has overall pool implications. And then, for this White Sox team at this time, I'd rather have Fowler than Puig (particularly because the "Puig experience" brings more in a somewhat negative sense than just Puig the player). Locking down a grinding OBP machine like Fowler is just what this team needs -- certainly for the next two years. Fowler. -or- Jackson plus Desmond. I'd prefer either route to Puig. One edit -- on reflection, Puig at his best certainly brings greater talent and even better OBP. However, for the reasons related to the prospects, any incremental advantage to Puig just seems too risky -- he could easily be a distraction and one more addition makes us a solid contender, but not any kind of prohibitive favorite. As a contender, I just can't see the risk of Puig, especially given the far greater cost. Edited February 4, 2016 by CyAcosta41 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (CyAcosta41 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:28 PM) As they say in the legal biz, "I concur." (Actually, I've never said that while in the legal biz, or anywhere else, until just this moment.) Puig would invariably cost at one of Anderson, Fulmer, Adams, plus X. The 28th pick in this year's draft is unlikely to be the equal of any of those players, plus, all three of them are closer to the proverbial show than Mr. 2016-28. And yes -- I also understand that sacrificing that pick ALSO has overall pool implications. And then, for this White Sox team at this time, I'd rather have Fowler than Puig (particularly because the "Puig experience" brings more in a somewhat negative sense than just Puig the player). Locking down a grinding OBP machine like Fowler is just what this team needs -- certainly for the next two years. Fowler. -or- Jackson plus Desmond. I'd prefer either route to Puig. Agree with what you say here Cy and I would like to add to it. Puig is coming off of a down hear and I know these things happen but when factoring in what Kershaw and the Van Slyke's have said about Puig along with the nonsense of pushing his sister. I just have to say no thanks. Doesn't sound like much of a fit with the likes of Abreu and Frazier. On a side note. Let's say the Sox did trade for Puig. How many games into the season would the Sox make it before Puig and Lawrie got into a brawl? I can see those two clashing in a big way. I think it's best for the Sox to stick to the ideas of Fawler, Desmond, Ethier and Jackson as possibilities. I like the idea of Saladino getting a shot at SS but I kinda like the idea of adding Ethier and Desmond too. Edited February 4, 2016 by BlackSox13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmooncreeping Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:43 PM) Agree with what you say here Cy and I would like to add to it. Puig is coming off of a down hear and I know these things happen but when factoring in what Kershaw and the Van Slyke's have said about Puig along with the nonsense of pushing his sister. I just have to say no thanks. Doesn't sound like much of a fit with the likes of Abreu and Frazier. On a side note. Let's say the Sox did trade for Puig. How many games into the season would the Sox make it before Puig and Lawrie got into a brawl? I can see those two clashing in a big way. I think it's best for the Sox to stick to the ideas of Fawler, Desmond, Ethier and Jackson as possibilities. I like the idea of Saladino getting a shot at SS but I kinda like the idea of adding Ethier and Desmond. Exactly! You beat me to it, was just about to post the 'how long before a cage match breaks out between Puig and Lawrie'...good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 08:45 PM) Exactly! You beat me to it, was just about to post the 'how long before a cage match breaks out between Puig and Lawrie'...good stuff Cheers to that! I know Puig is a big boy but Lawrie is intense like a cage fighter, I wouldn't want Lawrie pissed me. Glad he's on the Sox, look out Royals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 How do we know that Puig and Lawrie clashing would be a bad thing? I dunno about anyone else, but I am a fan of bringing in a bit more character and a bit more life to this roster. It seems like over the course of the last several years, we've really lacked some of that spunk and character and the result is some teams that seem to sleepwalk through weeks or months at a time, or fail to respond to challenges. Frankly, I'd rather see us error on the side of a bit too much chaos than the walking dead rosters we've had over the past several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 If you win, Puig and Lawrie will be besties. If you lose, it wont matter anyway. Winning builds clubhouse chemistry, just get talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisox05 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Jon morosi on mlb network said he doesn't see the Sox getting ethier. Said he was the Dodgers best hitter after all star break and they may want to see him going forward. Tho that seems to be his opinion. Also said sox are more heavily involved in the free agent market with fowler and Desmond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 09:41 PM) If you win, Puig and Lawrie will be besties. If you lose, it wont matter anyway. Winning builds clubhouse chemistry, just get talent. Didn't work for the Dodgers clubhouse. Greinke, Van Slyke, Turner and Kershaw all had problems with Puig. Doesn't sound like much chemistry to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 10:30 PM) Didn't work for the Dodgers clubhouse. Greinke, Van Slyke, Turner and Kershaw all had problems with Puig. Doesn't sound like much chemistry to me. Yet they won the division with 92 wins. They lost in the playoffs because the Mets pitching staff was so good. That had nothing to do with chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 10:30 PM) Didn't work for the Dodgers clubhouse. Greinke, Van Slyke, Turner and Kershaw all had problems with Puig. Doesn't sound like much chemistry to me. The counterargument is Kemp, Puig, Hanley and Co. all got along great in that second half of 2013 when they went like 42-9. Part of the problem is having too much talent on one team and players being benched is that it leads to jealousy (see Cavs) when not every player is treated in the same way. Mattingly let Puig get away with a lot his rookie year and then it was difficult to get the genie back in the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts