LDF

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 05:12 PM) Maybe a bullpen arm like Webb and a decent minor leaguer or two (May/Engel) could get Castro. I know the Sox have their own glut of catchers right now, but Castro/Conger/Corporan/Stassi....seems like something has to give. in this state of flux the sox is in, the sox can't have too many catchers, esp young ones.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:57 PM) Agree with your first comment. Don't agree with the second. The Sox will be okay if they can improve their offense. That to me is the remaining biggest issue. Because with better offense, their marginal 4th and 5th guys will win enough games to keep them in the race, their better bullpen will have more games to save, and their best pitchers should win a lot of games. Where can they improve the offense? Adding a big bat in LF would work. But if they can't afford a Melky Cabrera, then they can make minor improvements in LF, with righty platoons for LaRoche and Gillaspie, a better backup catcher, possibly improvement at 2B, and having a decent 4th OF who can play CF to cover if/when Eaton goes down. I think Rodon is the way the Sox will improve their rotation this season, possibly by starting him in the pen and working him in the latter half. on how Hahn is doing this rebuild, while it has me excited as a sox fan, i am very lost in trying to figure this out. the sox can get ball players which the team needs, hole to be filled. but i see that the sox can not have it both ways, the hole to be filled and good defense.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) My issue with keeping him is I think our defense is absolutely pathetic and we can't consciously build our team around pitching and not focus on defense. I see no way that Viciedo turns into a positive defender, which means he has to really really really hit to provide significant value. I actually think he could do that, but feel he's just a really bad fit on our current roster. my issue is with DV, he has some promise, then it was like the next 2 yrs he stopped listening to the coaches.

QUOTE (AlSoxfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) Thank you an I agree. I do remember when they put Fisk in the 2 spot an he had one of his best yrs. ever hitting there. i remember a game in Minny with the old park, which was new at the time. they the twins were making fun or something against the sox. the sox #2 hitter was up, he had like 10 check swings where the ball went into the twins dugout. that let to the twins hitting him to get him on base. the next time up, he did that same thing, and the same thing with the twins hitting him. he was extremely funny, he was the a hitter who had great control of his bat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:07 PM) This would be my guess also, if they grab a college senior who they can sign under slot in the first that means they can save a bit and go over slot somewhere in later rounds to make up for having no 2nd rounder. that will be very interesting. put this draft in an all new light. ummm, undeslot.... who??? maybe a pitcher, hs pitcher.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) You should also probably avoid making an acronym out of free agent pitcher. that mean i have to reteach my slef english.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:43 PM) Without looking it up, tell me which 2014 line was John Danks, and which was Hector Noesi: 4.75 ERA (4.83 FIP), 6.42 K/9, 2.92 BB/9, 1.46 HR/9, 38% GB (0.6 fWAR) 4.74 ERA (4.76 FIP), 5.99 K/9, 3.44 BB/9, 1.16 HR/9, 42% GB (0.8 fWAR) Actually, don't bother. I already forget which one is which because they're basically the same. If John Danks is unacceptable, Hector Noesi is also unacceptable. Rodon's ETA is not guaranteed, nor is his instant dominance when he does arrive. The best remaining options behind these two are Andre Rienzo and Eric Surkamp. Cris Beck? This team needs another arm. i couldn't have put it any better.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) Yeah...we'll see what they get. If they get something of extremely minimal value, then i'd say it wasn't worth the risk of being stuck paying him 4+M. it is not over yet.. but what a gamble.

flipping Danks to LA for 1 of their outfield. Kemp is sign thru 2020 Crawford sign thru 2018 Etheir sign thru 2018. for me, i would deal with Crawford or Etheir.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:30 PM) If the Sox don't want him on the roster, they could waive him during Spring Training and be on the hook for 20% of his salary. So they really aren't even risking $1 million. And there is always a chance they wouldn't mind keeping him. Steverson was quoted a month or so ago raving about how hard he works, and how much he wants to be good. He is still pretty young. real nice info there. thanks for sharing. it really makes sense now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) I'd think if we signed Volquez, we'd see Danks moved for a Dodger outfielder (or another outfielder of sorts). I'd be absolutely okay with that. i didn't think of that. yeah i agree, i am down with it.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) I read this, chuckled, looked away, then read it again and chuckled harder. I am an adult. oh crap..... now i get it. dang i am really slow. good one.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) I don't care to get into an advanced stat discussion. I especially don't care to get into why it is dumb to state that OBP is an advanced stat. The discussion on the 2 hole was completely separate. you made the statement of dumb, explain yourself. it shouldn't be hard. next, i know nothing of advance stats or anything like that. i am completely lost when posters start using these stats to make a point. i never said anything to support what ops or anything to that. i wouldn't know what i am talking about. ref #2 why mention anything of dumb like i do anyway.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:55 PM) The middle schooler part of me just laughed.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) another question, why have an OBP player if he is batting #2? the #2 hitters has a whole different set of mentality to think of. QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) A lot of really dumb things have been said in this thread. QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) it is even dumber if you are not stating your problem, only just to voice an opinion. QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days. QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:45 PM) Studies also show that your #2 hitter actually comes to bat in "key/pressure/critical/important" moments more often than any other spot in the lineup. Furthermore, the #2 hitter is going to see quite a bit more at bats throughout the year than the #4 hitter - assuming the same guy bats #2 and #4 all year. Now, your "best hitter" isn't necessarily your most powerful or even productive hitter, they're simply someone who drives the ball, doesn't strike out a whole lot and gets on base. Two of the better "pure hitters" in baseball - Votto and Mauer - primarily bat in the two hole. I could go on for awhile, but the point is, plenty of elite baseball minds think your best all around hitter should bat #2. you are saying and giving opinions on something that was not mention. #2 hitter does have alot of responsibility in his at bat.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:42 PM) So I am absolutely not trolling here whatsoever, but I think Ervin Santana makes a hell of a lot more sense than Edinson Volquez. yeah i agree as well, but yrs and starting at what salary?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) How many times has he made it over 150 innings in a season since 2007? Once? Or twice? once, i think

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Most elite baseball minds would tell you that your best hitter should hit #2. And let them hit, none of this "get em' over, get em' in" BS. Both have merits, but the 2 hole is not utilized in the "traditional" way by many teams these days. i am old fart and do not know the advance stats and all. i am old school. #1 get on base, #2, move him over, let #1 cause havoc on the base path, lead off, steal a base. #3,4,5 let them hit away. btw imo the best hitter is always been #3.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) There is literally no need for Volquez, would be wasted money unless they are going to flip Danks.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) Unless the money is substantially less for Volquez, I'd much rather have McCarthy. durability issues.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) Only if it's a cheap one-year deal. Otherwise, please no. EDIT: You know what - please no regardless. YESSSS i have been on his band wagon for 2 months now.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Bruce is going to be expensive prospect-wise. The other three - not so much. I think Victorino could be had for very little. Problem with him is that he only had 1 year left on his contract (at $13M), and then we're in the same position again next year. But hell, it lots like we're going for it, so why not. Shane V is 1 yr left as you said. the needs to get the players that their tenure will be stagger. to have to get players to keep the roster fresh, look at Philly, Wash and other teams who will try to move playerr, if the players agree to, to get new players. it is the best to keep the flow of new players without letting the team get old.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) No he is not there to "move the runner over". Wasting outs in front of the meat of the order to "move that runner over" is a clown-ball. He is there to get on base. Yes, getting a hit is better than a walk. He is there to get on base so that the meat of the order can drive him in. You want someone athletic there who can run the bases, sure. that is the first i ever heard that, lol. i am ending this now.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:13 PM) I am not saying that you don't. I'm saying that I think getting back Ackley is maximizing your return. i am sorry if it sounded as i was angry. i am not. i like this conversaton. as i said in another post, getting the max would be nice, but hi this case, gettng a useable part is better than not trading him.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) I would say mid-salary, at least average defensively by the numbers, reputedly above average. Looks like a great buy-low candidate to me. The kicker is that his price actually needs to be "buy low," and it looks like that may not be the case. If we buy him, I want the risk to be reflected in the price. a very good point. but all things being equal, that option may nit be there for the sox.