Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) Not sure how plugged in Frank is but he thinks the sox are going to grab Upton. As in, the Big Hurt?

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:44 PM) Welcome to Soxtalk! The LaRoche injury stuff is from the very end of this blog post, which was written right around the time he really started to go into the tank. I believe injury played some role in his bad season, but with reports coming out of the Sox trying so hard to dump him on the Pirates, maybe the role isn't as large as I once thought. I think it is more that the Sox aren't as happy with LaRoche's fit and they don't want a backup 1B (plus they are trying their best to be as creative with payroll as possible). So in their eyes, they have better uses for the roster spot and resources (if they could have saved 4-5M). Realistically, I think the most they could save is $2M and at that point, I think LaRoche is worth given a shot to.

QUOTE (JRL @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:38 PM) I have to disagree on how likely a Laroche bounceback is though. I think theres some small chance, and once your paying him $10 mil to go away, doesn't pay not to eat 2 mil extra and hold out for that small chance that he does rebound, and if not just DFA him. But, Laroche is 36. A decline due to age completely makes sense. We're not in the steroid era anymore where players all of a sudden "magically" maintain their primes through their late 30s and even in to their 40s. Especially since I don't remember seeing anything about any injury that you refer to as heavily contributing to his awful performance, certainly nothing terribly significant. I agree that if LaRoche is here he should NEVER be playing vs lefties, but the problem was Trayce would have been his natural platoon partner and he's gone (not that I mind trading him, as long as we're not done yet after acquiring Frazier). Well I think if we add an outfielder, it means Avi improves due to playing more vs. lefties, LaRoche improves due to not playing lefties and bottom line, LaRoche had hand issues that hampered him last year. So while I agree with age regression, I buy into a part of his drop off being more injury related. I expect the LaRoche we see next year is closer to the LaRoche of old vs. the LaRoche of last year (meaning we'll see some age regression but given how far he fell last year, I largely drive more of that to injury regression and than just being burried). A clean slate to start the season will be huge (along with help).

I do agree it would be nice to get Baez, but unless we are giving them Q or Rodon, it isn't happening (and I'm not implying straight up...we'd need something else). We'd have to dangle or prospects in a 3 team deal (and you aren't getting Baez without Fullmer).

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:55 PM) Its not feasible becuase the sox are already paying two OFs good money. There is only room for one more, unless he trades LaRoche. If you add two outfielders, you are talking a ton of money invested in the outfield (when you factor in Melky). It makes zero sense. Sox aren't making two big money moves and they aren't going to use their other chips to get a 2nd outfielder. It is a delusional expectation, imo. If Sox make a 2nd move, it is SS or a pitcher (pen or starter or maybe even a prospect they like that they think can slide in).

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) Because there's no room for Baez to start the way their roster is currently constructed and they need pitching badly. Okay...and none of the guys the Cubs get would help them in the near turn. Beck is a fringe starter while Danish and Adams are still a ways away. If the cubs are dangling Baez it is in a larger package for Fernandez or some other good young cost controlled major league arm.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:51 PM) Am I the only one that would like to see Javy Baez on the South Side? I'm intrigued by his potential. I bet Adams/Danish/Beck and someone else would get him. Why would Cubs want to move Baez for guys who don't help their short-term world series aspirations?

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) I also like that we haven't added any major salaries yet (though we lost 6 prospects in at least top 30, and 3 in the top 10). I am pretty confident that we have at least 2 more big moves coming. 1 think 1 big and 1 more like the Lawrie deal (so a solid upgrade).

QUOTE (venom4789 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:45 PM) So does trace even get playing time with all the outfielders on the dodgers. Still think this is a great trade for the white sox. Puig will get moved, I think. Maybe they completely drop Crawford. Trayce is going to get time. He's got the defensive value that the others don't.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) I would cry tears of joy if Hahn ended the offseason by getting Cespedes and Gerardo Parra. I think it will be one position player and one pitcher.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:39 PM) But its true. If they give up something worthwhile you can complain. The prospects weren't much considering the Sox need for a 3B. Monras may have been needed next year but so would a 3B so you traded a good 3B for a possibly good reliever. You cant deny that the Sox do not have a good 3B ready for next year. Howefer everyone says that relievers are wasy to find and replace. It is also true that sometimes a prospect is more valuable to team B than team A. For example, if I had Mike Trout two years into the league, and than 3 top prospect CFer's, as I value those prospects, I need to understand that my best use of those resources is trade (vs. internal purposes). Similarly, if I have a ton of middle infield prospects, I can't play them all. I just can't do it. So I either convert some of them for other talent or I let half of them go to waste (and maybe they all fail, who the hell knows). You have to pick and choose what you are going to use. I still love the Shark trade because of the premise that we really never gave up any game changer for a guy who has been a game changer in his career (he was coming off an absurdly strong season). Sure he wasn't good with the Sox but I would make that move 100 times out of 100. The Frazier deal differs slightly in that we gave up one guy who had a real opportunity (Montas) and is considered pretty good. Far better than anything given up for Shark, but we also are getting a guy who is under control for an extra year and is well above average at his position.

I kind of think Sox aren't going to stop with an OF bat. They seem to be hinting at being even more aggressive than that this year. I'm fired up. I got a feeling the next domino will fall before Christmas. Either way, the real Christmas gift I want is new White Sox world series memories a year from now

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:29 PM) I like your confidence, but I really think it begins and ends with wins I agree. At this point, Sox fans have seen too many paper champs fold. It will be critical for this club to get off to at least a solid start. Critical.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:24 PM) 100% Jas. Like I said, if they can star the year strong or with some momentum, I think it will make a difference. If they fall flat, all the attitude in the word doesn't mean anything. Which is why, given the Sox trying to contend, this team has to still believe in Ventura. You don't make this type of investment two years in a row if the Sox didn't have full faith in Robin to lead the ship. You don't hire a cabi to drive your Maserati (at least I presume you don't).

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:24 PM) The initial thoughts were the sox got both, not one of frazier or ethier. I know and I was shaking my head because Ethier has negative value. Ethier the player is solid but when you factor in his contract, we would have been doing ourselves a disservice. If we had gottne Ethier, either we would have been getting a bunch of cash from the Dodgers too, or giving up less prospects. If we gave up this same package and got Ethier too (without cash) my opinion of the deal would have been lesser.

QUOTE (JRL @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:22 PM) I have a feeling that Avi has almost no trade value. Don't claim to know what GMs are thinking, but don't see why he would at this point. Kind of like Viciedo last year. Packaging him with LaRoche obv will only serve to lessen that. Also, Mark Reynolds got 1 yr/2.5 Mil from Colorado. He would seem to be a reasonable comp for LaRoche except that Reynolds can actually play multiple positions and is younger. My point is that if we assume Laroche would get about 1 yr/2.5 Mil if he were a free agent, we'd need to eat about 9.5-10 mil of his salary to trade him. At that point, its probably just more worthwhile to keep him and pray for a bounceback, even if its highly unlikely Great post and I agree fully. I also think odds of bounce back are pretty great. I firmly believe his performance was severely impacted by injury. We also have a deeper bench and can better leverage him (i.e., sit him against all lefties). Oh and historically speaking, he's been an OBP guy (and provides a power left handed bat), both of which I'd consider needs. I personally love our team more with Laroche here vs. gone (cause I realistically see him being a productive player for us). You add in an impact OF bat and now the Sox can better play match-ups, keep guys fresh, and be better prepared to fill in for injury. In theory, we should be in a position that to maximize players ability at success.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) i would be really honest here and remember i have been advocating a trade with laroche and prospects / players to sweeten the deal. but do i really think that will happen??? nah. This org can't afford to dump prospects purely to get out of a contract, imo. We are talking one year too. Absolutely under no circumstances should they do that.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:08 PM) Holy f*** I thought this topic had finally died off. NOBODY IS TRADING FOR LAROCHE!!! I doubt the Sox have given up on this notion. That said, I think they are better served seeing how he feels heading into spring training. Any dollar savings will be minimal (after we throw in the cash). Exception is if we have targeted another expensive 1 year guy somewhere else that we think might be a better fit to our puzzle. Problem for problem swap.

By the way, for those clamoring for Ethier (who I've long been an advocate of), if we did this same package and got Ethier, I'd be telling you all we got hosed and robbed blindly (due to his payroll constraints).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) Probably until he dies. But he wouldn't run the team into the red every year. Assuming they haven't paid out any of the partners, they should have quite the war chest sitting somewhere. But the problem with overspending is it leads to more overspending, and then you get into big trouble. I agree. You have to pick and choose your battles and be prepared to deal with the consequences. Having our expensive guys coming off the books (and most of them being largely unproductive) is a nice win in the near future. Additionally, no one we added this off-season to date really impacts payroll much (I'd like to do something with Frazier to be honest...although I'd wait half a season to do it...figure out for sure that he's the right fit). Than the asset of having Q / Sale, etc. It provides you the luxury to overspend a bit on FA, elsewhere. I'll miss Montas the most because I think its relatively slam dunk (in terms of prospects...which means still obvious risk) he at a minimum, becomes a high impact, cost controlled reliever.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:08 PM) Actually, he's just chairman. I don't believe that he's the majority owner. I don't know that their is any true majority owner in the sense that you have one owner who truly has control (and can push any decision he wants). I think he is the majority stakeholder though.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) I'm sad to see Trayce go. Having said that this is a good move. Sox need to sign a 3WAR OFer, If they do that they're sitting at about 36WAR as projected from steamer. That puts us in the thick of it for the wild card and the central, with a fair amount of upside in projections regarding Sale, Quintana and Eaton, with some additional upside in Lawrie, Johnson, Danks & Saladino. What were our projections entering 2014 & 2015 (out of pure curiosity) vs. reality.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) Adam Eaton ‏@AdamSpankyEaton 3h3 hours ago Hmm @FlavaFraz21 ... I've heard great things... #WelcomeToTheSouthSide Todd FrazierVerified account ‏@FlavaFraz21 @AdamSpankyEaton hahaha can't wait big dog. It's time Avila is also supposed to be a good clubhouse guy, and Lawrie has an edge that can go either way. I think there is going to be a different attitude on this team if they come out strong. Agree on some edge. That said, Robertson and LaRoche were supposed to be rock solid clubhouse guys as well. I want wins baby, wins.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) I dunno...baseball is a strange game. I enjoy the different methods of projecting/evaluating a team, whether it be WAR or other advanced statistical metrics. But in the end, there is a lot of psychology that comes into place over a 162 game season that simply cannot be quantified or measured. The 2015 team is not as bad as the record would suggest. If you use the record as your baseline from which to project, yeah, there is virtually nothing they can do to become "contenders" in 2016 or 2017. It's just too big of a leap to turnover over the course of 1 or 2 offseasons. And yet, these kind of leaps in actual performance are made fairly frequently in reality. I'm not saying I think they are "there" yet, but if they were to acquire another OF bat such as Cespedes or Upton, I really do think they might have something there. A lot of things could come together with Eaton/Abreu/Frazier/Cespedes or Upton/Cabrera/LaRoche in a bounce back year with a rotation of Sale/Quintana/Rodon/Danks/Johnson and the pen we have. Get that team on a bit of a roll with a bit of confidence and I guarantee you they could outperform any projections fairly easily. I actually agree with a lot of what you have been posting recently. I think we have similar thoughts on our coaching staff, the general state of the organization, thoughts on how to improve, etc. That being said, what the FO has done thus far this offseason is not only admirable, but pretty unbelievable, to be honest. I think what we are seeing is a combination of Kenny's acquisition strategy and Hahn's negotiating skills. I will admit this deal will be a bit less exciting without another fairly significant acquisition, given the window we are looking at, but I will wait and see what else these two can pull of. Good post.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 11:59 AM) The "defense" point isn't a "wouldn't want him", argument, it's just "is he going to be as good as the language people are using would suggest". Some of that is also me wondering whether I understand the defensive stats enough, because Bryant being right next to Frazier seems to make no sense to me if Bryant is a guy who should be moved away from 3b and Frazier is "Well above average". The "wouldn't want him" part comes from me continuing to think this team is no where near as good as they want to believe they are. Bryan ranked very positively defensively. So again, Frazier being in his group is not a bad thing at all. No one is talking about moving Bryant to the outfield anymore and either way that was more a move of maximizing talents with Baez in the equation, etc. Alex Rodriguez was an excellent defensive shortstop, should we point to the fact that he was moved (wrongly in this case) to 3B because of Jeter an indication he was a crappy shortstop? No. http://statliners.com/2015/08/14/kris-brya...e-chicago-cubs/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0817-story.html