Chisoxfn

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) I have no idea. Didnt really seem to me that would be the brotherhoods style to be marauders like that, they seemed (to me at least) to be the type that would be stealing from kingdoms as opposed to murdering peaceful settlers. But anything i know about them is based on the short couple episodes that they have been in My thoughts are maybe this is where you get the story of their leader sacrificing himself for Catelyn Stark (so she can be reborn) and following that the Brotherhood kind of disbanded, persay, and turned more into pillagers. I was surprised when they ended up murdering everyone as I wouldn't have expected this from the brotherhood (rather to your point, they were more likely to steal and pilfer the rich). I figure the Hound is going to reunite with someone tied to the starks (or Brienne). Arya would seem the least likely possibility given where she currently is and we know the Hound wants to find and has been somewhat loyal to the Stark girls. This is my non book reading theory so hell if I know. Plus I like spending my time speculating on this vs. wasting my time on what goes on in Mereen (where they have taken characters I liked and made them crappy) and dealing with the Mother of Dragons (eh...BORING). Give me more of the North and more of Marjorie and Tyrell and the soon to be resolution that goes on with the High Sparrow (who is a good actor). Basically I enjoy all the main houses (even enjoy the houses I don't like, because they play such awesome roles) except for the Mother of Dragons (and that stupid women trio who are terrible and I'm sure are going to reappear here soon). Sad part was, I once thought the Mother of Dragons was an interesting story but they show somewhere took it in an awful direction (maybe because I thought Mormont was a good character and enjoyed the initial moments, even the end of last season with the sons of harpy and everything was interesting but this season she's been brutal, imo....not sure if it is bad stories or if she just isn't near the actress as this show has some people who literally just steal the spotlight, with quite a few very strong female characters).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) Wait, that was the brotherhood without banners that killed Brother Ray and that establishment? Pretty sure that was. The Hound mentioned they were followers of the lord of the light. Maybe I'm wrong?

Sidenote...I hope we get more of Lyanna Mormont....she was awesome on camera. She came off as so badass for someone so young. Way better than the stupid dragon queen that annoys me.

I also wonder if Sandor is going to lead us to Catelyn Stark (since their are rumors of her return)...not sure, but wonder if some in his upcoming battle with the brotherhood without banners (I didn't see the preview for next week so I presume he's about to go and fight them all) leads to that. Or if Catelyn will emerge to her brother or Sansa.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 10:04 PM) I watched it then the one after it where Adi Wyner talked more extensively about pitch framing. Lets just say it made me smile when he finished up by saying he didn't think it was as important as other sabermetricians seem to think. I' ve argued many times that its flawed just from a common sense standpoint without a math background. Flavum, thanks for sharing that segment. It was really really good.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 07:13 PM) So who is going to recommend some shows? If you like just absolute awesome action, I highly highly recommend Strike Back. Honestly...it reminds me of a unfiltered, badass 24 (without the time sequencing). The two main characters have fantastic energy and its just awesome. Reminds me of the awesome action movies of the early to mid 90's. Not saying it is realistic, but it is so damn entertaining (just finished the final season this past week).

I think the pacing of this past week's episode was nice, but I also liked every character they spent time on (and I like House Tyrell...grandma is awesome). I hope Blackfish doesn't die and somehow him and Snow unite together. Curious who Sansa was sending the Raven too (presume it was Lord Baylish, but I suppose it could have been to the iron islands?).

My favorite episode of the season I think.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Flashback to Chris Rock/Jackie Chan scene in Rush Hour. I lold. Love me some rush hour. Tucker and chan had such fantastic chemistry and energy in those movies.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 05:06 PM) The last time a team led the league in cumulative WAR and played in the WS was 2010.results are more important than surplus WAR. Call it WAR, call it whatever you want. But you are best served by having good players who are cost-controlled, especially, when you have real salary confines. WAR is the easy stat for people to throw around, but it obviously isn't the end all, be all. Kind of like people are so focused on FIP, which has inherent limitations in its own right vs. the reality that the real driver of actual performance for any one season is by actual runs allowed and actual runs scored.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 05:03 PM) Surplus value is "not related to on the field performance"? So the total value generated by a person has nothing to do with how they actually play on the field? Ok then. I'm out. Lets spin it another way. The only way a team with a $130M payroll is going to win the world series is if they generate significant surplus value. They can't possibly pay the market rate for WAR (if we are going to focus on WAR) or the market rate for wins as they could never possibly get it in budget, so the importance of having surplus WAR when you have a confined payroll is it actually allows you to beat those teams with greater payrolls (not a novel concept). Best chance at producing surplus WAR is by developing your own internal talent (and we could say WAR or we could just say surplus performance). Guys like Sale / Q deliver that in buckets (so does Rodon & Eaton). It also provides you the means to add additional WAR more at the going rate (as you are going to pay market rate in FA and reality is FA is not your place to get surplus value, especially on big contracts and if you go dumpster diving, you have potential for more surplus value, but you also have super wide variability of performance which clearly isn't a goal either). Reality is the Sox benefit from having as many good, cost controlled players as possible (don't care what stat you want to measure it by) and to do that you need to develop internal talent (which you supplement through trades and free agency...i.e., to construct a roster that gels better and fills voids that you can't fill from within). Our current approach to roster development has largely been to develop position talent via trades and FA and that just doesn't provide the same value as if you can do it successfully internally and it puts us in a tough position. To some extent being awesome at developing pitchers helps combat that, but even than, when we have used FA resources, we have struggled (see: Adam LaRoce / Adam Dunn / PY Melky (CY Melky is producing just fine) and when we have tried via trade, we have largely missed (see: Matt Davidson / Avi Garcia....Frazier I'll give some credit there even though we clearly also gave in that deal with Trayce being a damn good performer with the Dodgers this year and Lawrie looks like an early win). Wendleken is with A's but wasn't blowing it out in AAA (too soon to say anything) and Erwin right now is struggling in A ball (not a good sign). That said, Lawrie hasn't been a total stud either. We talk highly about him but he hasn't been some awesome player by any stretch of the imagination. He's a league average player at best.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:11 PM) I think this is similarly incorrect. Take the example of Trayce - he could darn well have a shot at an all star game this year, but his salary going out is a pittance. That would not be because Trayce is a failure, that would be because Trayce's salary is set by pre-arb. What you'd really have to do is take it a full step further and calculate "Surplus WAR" for every guy sent out, the total WAR they produce minus the WAR that is paid for by the team over the first 6 years, and this has become so much math that even I'm giving up. I think if you had a database you could run some vlookups off of with salary / war / etc all, there it would work and that includes a list of all players traded and received, etc. I'm not spending the time to do it, but theoritically a solid blog type piece from someone. There is some extent a difference between pre arb and post arb guys and the reality of what should be expected and clearly there is more value in a guy who puts up a higher WAR than two or three guys who equate that same total, but in general, I agree with your previous post. Theortically, best thing the Sox could have done is trade every positional prospect we had drafted over the past 15 years...only upside

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) They do develop pitchers, which is what keeps them in business. There will always be a market for pitchers. Doesn't do you any good if you can't hit. Baseball is more than just pitching and it isn't like they have a history of moving those pitching assets for really talented positional talents. Not to mention, teams just don't trade prospects for prospects that often so it doesn't work. I stick to my point, if you can't draft and develop positional talent, you can't have a franchise that will have any sort of sustained success. Now I'm not saying they can't do that now, they have new people, to some extent in charge, and maybe things will change, but Ken Williams has been here for a pretty long time to have no positional talents to show for.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:38 PM) This is exactly why I am OK with these types of deals. Player development hasn't been their strength. Finding players from the higher levels of the minors, on through to major league veterans has been what they have been much better at. A deal like we saw for Frazier is exactly what the Sox do best. And that deal could end up working horrifically (if Trayce keeps doing what he's doing for a # of cost-controlled years). And either way, it is impossible to succeed as a MLB franchise if you can't develop position talent. Literally impossible. You can say that is why you are okay trading guys, but fundamentally, none of it matters if you can't develop. That is kind of the most critical part of the long-term success of a franchise, especially one that doesn't have the payroll of the Dodgers / Yankees / Red Sox.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) As highly rated as that group was, they pretty much all busted, pretty much like almost every player that has been traded away from this organization, except for a very few exceptions. If you really want to prove something, instead of just ranting, I would love to see a study done of the WAR we have traded away, and the WAR we have received in trades during Hahn and Williams time here. I have a feeling it would be incredibly slanted towards the Sox. I said this earlier...saying we haven't traded anyone of value is just another way of saying we haven't drafted anyone of value from a positional perspective in this century (cause we certainly haven't developed any who produced for the White Sox either). Only major rookie positoinal contributions made were international free agent signings involving more experienced players (Iguchi, Alexei and Abreu). Chris Young is probably the best position player traded away (along with Trayce) and from a WAR perspective, I presume Chris Young has the highest WAR of any positional player the Sox drafted this century (back in 2001) with a career WAR of 17. I honestly don't know how you go 16 years of drafting and not have any positional successes. Literally flabbergasts me (Trayce and Chris Young would be the two potential exceptions and Chris Young largely had his professional impact over 2 seasons) and other than those two years was really nothing more than a serviceable role player and who knows what Trayce will end up being. There in lies the crux of the situation....if we could actually develop worth a darn, we'd have better position players and a better overall team. We were able to get away with it early on, since we benefited from the successes of Rowand, Crede, Carlos Lee, Maggs of the late 90's (who made there professional impacts in the late 90's and early 2000's).

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:11 PM) And they will sign many other players similar to Tatis in a month. They can't just sign a million of them. They have a limited pool and limited resources in these areas and a farm system that has lacked. What I'm saying is you can't write this guy off because he is so young that he's more likely to bust. Initial reports have been very encouraging and he's the type of kid who has the talent to emerge as one of the better prospects in the system with time. This could be an impact player. Yes, I said could, but when you are trading a guy who could be that for a guy who another team had to eat half his contract and is only slightly better (at his current clip) than your other options at the respective position (while actually still costing a decent amount of financial flexibility), I say that you shouldn't give up that type of piece for said player. That is it. The Sox have gotten lucky that Trayce Thompson is the best guy they have given up in recent years, but he's also the best position prospect the Sox have developed since Joe Crede / Aaron Rowand. Seriously...that is embarassing and it starts with drafting and player development that has failed since 2000 / 2001 (I'm sure I'm missing someone) but it legitimately has been since the Schueler era ended that we have really developed any sort of meaningful positional talent. That, one would think, would be utterly impossible to have happen, but it has. Literally, nothing of any meaning and I don't know what is worse, that we haven't traded away many great position players (yeah, that can make us feel better) but who cares, we haven't drafted / developed any either (who went on to play with us or play somewhere else)) or that we literally haven't drafted / signed a meaningful position prospect this century.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:06 PM) It worked magically with Correa though. Correa was not seen as the #1 prospect. They took him #1 and got Lance McCullers because of it. I remember a lot of people mocking the Astros for taking Correa. Laughable looking back.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 12:57 PM) I like the trade for it's value, and hopefully moving Gonzalez to the bullpen helps as well. But still think we are a bat and bullpen piece away, if this trade doesn't impact our ability to grab those pieces then I'm a happy camper. I don't see Miguel as having the stuff to be a short-inning reliever. I usually look at the softer tossing starters as being guys who are not good relievers. I typically view relievers as guys who have that one plus plus type pitch but struggle having a plethora of pitches. Miguel clearly is a solid swing-men and maybe he can be more than that. I actually think he's better than Latos and they put the wrong guy in the pen, but given the Sox record with Latos and his stats, his contract (and why he signed here in the first place...i.e., the opportunity to start), as reasons why they put Miguel in the pen vs. Latos. Funny cause I think Latos in shorter stints actually has more of that "reliever" makeup.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 12:54 PM) They didn't give up anything of note. Tatis is a long shot to make the majors by 2020 and EJ was done here and had no value. They got a solid #3-#4 starter that eats innings and he costs around $10 million per season. That's what those guys cost. He's also an asset moving forward because of how much the Padres are playing. The trade was a no brainer. Complaining about it is in fact quite stupid. If that is what those guys "cost", than I'd argue the trade isn't a no brainer since we are paying "what they cost" plus giving up assets. While Tatis is a long-shot, he is still a very talented long-shot for his age and someone we committed valuable international FA resources to and who has received pretty positive early reviews. I don't consider that a nobody. If it was just Johnson, I'd have less to complain about, but Tatis was what this org had to make strides on (actually getting meaningful contributions from its international front and while he was 5 years down the road, it takes a long time to do things like this) and it takes time to build up a system (something we continue to not do). And this is coming from someone who is all for leveraging prospects for trading and filling other needs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:34 AM) Let me put it this way. 7 innings and 3 ER is an era of 3.86. Shields has been below a 3.86 era in every full season he has pitched since 2010. Shields had an era of just over 3 before the 10 run disaster where he was left out there to rot on the vine. In fact if Shields is pulled after he gave up 7 runs in 2 IP in that game, instead of being sent out again for the 3rd inning, his era for the season is sitting at 3.91, or almost exactly what 3 runs every 7 innings would average out to. Yes, his ERA would be that, but his ERA was not indicative of how he had been pitching this year. I agree his stats are skewed, plus there is a difference between 7 innings and 3 running's and something less than that. The bold statement if he's good for 7 innings and 3 runs most outings, well, that is not something a huge list of pitchers can do. And his ERA benefited from pitching half his games @ PETCO.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) Anyone who expects him to be an ace needs a new prescription. If he can go 7 and give up 3, he's that #4 guy (probably a 5 on a really good team). Latos, season wide, has been a 5. Gonzales not really that (but slowly improving I suppose). So, if the Sox can get 7 give up 3, he'll be a help. My issue is that I don't think he can deliver that. But maybe he can - when you're on a bad team like the Padres, it's easy to lose focus, etc. If he can go 7 and give up 3, he's a #2/#3 on most teams, a #3 on a good team.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) Carl Crawford made a lot of money. He should enjoy it. Its things like this that make you realize you really should just stay the hell away from big ticket free agency and focus your resources on cost-controlled players (via trade) and drafting and development and buying out known commodities good years. Missing on this type of deals can totally set a franchise back where as having a prospect bust doesn't necessarily financially jeopardize your team from contending, etc. You see far fewer teams win because of the game of FA then the other way around. If you are going to be a medium payroller and smaller franchise, you really can't intend on competing unless you really nail it on the draft, development and savy trade equation and than playing a little bit of lotto on shorter term / lower profile FA signings which fit defined needs.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:08 AM) I wouldn't disagree. We will never know, but that outing certainly didn't help the Padres side of things. One of the national guys said a couple teams backed off after that. It would seem to me they weren't too serious then to begin with. Everyone has a bad game, and he actually was a bad call from saving himself 8 runs I believe. Yeah - I think it is absurd when people write off guys or don't acquire someone because of one game (unless an injury surfaced). Bad games are going to happen. That said, often times it is hard to seperate the emotion from the list.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) I think you are thinking of Hostetler. Yeah - I knew Hostetler was from the Braves, for whatever reason I thought somewhere Rick spent some time in Atlanta before joining Chicago (remembered his prevent agency background).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) That was definitely an issue. The rumored trade did come before the shaming, so that was probably done knowing he was gone. The only question would have been was there enough offered from other teams for him to move, or did the Padres owner know he was going to be a White Sox so he ripped him? I do agree, if they weren't trading him, that doesn't get said. And it was probably the timing that was the reason why the Sox got Shields. Usually in early June teams still aren't ready to start trading veterans (Padres clearly an exception) so given the Sox slide, I'm guessing the front office knew starting pitching was on there list, and given where they were, they needed to react sooner vs. later and this is the direction they had to go (I don't think they make this trade had they now had as bad of a slide as I think it would have bought them more time to wait out the market). I've long felt they were going to be aggressive this deadline and Hahn has given every indication that will be the case. Things don't work in a vacuum and it isn't like I think this is some awful deal and I hope Shields kicks butt (I like the fact that he's actually been on successful teams and pitched in a lot of success games cause the reality is, until this most recent off-season, by and large, the lockeroom was surrounded mainly by guys who have grown up around losing and who haven't benefited from a culture of winning). Yes, there were exceptions but a guy like Shields does bring some valuable intangibles. I hope Shields opts out cause it means he'd have pitched this club to like a world series cause it is going to take some epic run (including post-season success) to get him more money than what he currently is set to get.