Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) I don't think the White Sox should be spending money on pitching in the least. Moving Danks and LaRoche would help, but that's still the Sox spending a huge amount of money at the position where they're by far the deepest and strongest. Remember, you'd then be flipping Q and Shark (so would we really be that deep in pitching). I actually recently advocated for moving Shark / Q and then signing Buehrle (you can go more short-term and he brings a certain presence to him that I think would be valued). That said, I'm a loyalist to Buehrle. His arm could fall off but I almost think he's the type that would take a 1 yr deal each year and you could make the decision each year (just as he could make his same decision as to whether he wanted to play).

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 11:42 AM) My contacts are condemning behaviors of the FO. This is not a race to trade your asset. Yes, the market is shrinking and yes there are more pitchers available but that doesn't mean you undersell your only good asset on the market. I was saying we should have traded Samardzija earlier regardless of the team's hot streak. I am on record saying so. That doesn't mean that because the supposed top contender for Samardzija paired up with the strangest FO in baseball to trade for a different pitcher means the FO struck out on July 23rd. There are plenty of teams in the market for SP. I do think they should act quickly and move him soon but no trade between the two strangest front offices in baseball will get me to a conclusion that the Sox' FO totally f***ed up the trade deadline here on July 23rd. I have patience and understanding of the process so I won't make rash decisions based on one singular related transaction. I agree with this post and I also say Crasnick's tweet could be a mirade of things and it could have even been the Sox working on keeping any leverage they have (I don't really think they have a lot, in the case of Shark) but they'll do what they can to spin things. I still think we should aggressively look at moving Q and Shark. Would anyone be interested in Shields (if say the Pads would do Danks for Shields and cash (or maybe Danks and LaRoche).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) I generally agreed with you until the last line. Avi's been so bad this year that "The White Sox would be better with De Aza right now" is unarguably true. Long term would they be better with him? Well, Avi's been so bad that if the White Sox want to really field a competitive roster next year he needs replaced. If they're ok rebuilding, he can have another year or two to see if he can turn into something useful. He might well just be a guy we waste 4 years on without ever getting anything positive. Depends on your view. If you think purely this year and ignore salary, then I agree, De Aza has been better. That said, he was a dumpster fire in Baltimore to start the season and long-term I don't know if the answer holds true or not. Thinking down the line, as down as I am on Avi, I still think he has more upside and promise and thus I think given where we stand today as a team (e.g., out of the race and looking towards next year), i'd rather have Avi on my roster (and the extra cash) then De Aza. All this said, I always liked and appreciate De Aza. He was a far better player then Sox fans gave him credit for.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I'll add this to my mental list of systematic problems with this front office. You and I agree. Question is who could have been so foolish to buy into this thing at that point. It seems like this club has a history of overplaying their cards and falling too "in love" with their paper rosters. To your point, something you talk about pretty consistently (and I agree with), the Sox have historically (really since KW took over) underachieved (actual production vs. paper expectations). Some of that could be luck but at some point, it begs the question of why are we consistently wrong (it has happened under 2 different managers).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:24 AM) But you saw the winning streak, this team coulda been a contender! Even when we were winning, I still said the defense and offense sucked too much and it was time to put the focus to next year (while still potentially buying). If things worked out and you end up winning, great, but I'm not not making moves when your playoff odds are below 5% and your team has sucked defensively for 2 full seasons (and now most of a 3rd season).

It really irks me that the Sox took so long and the market has now turned far more neutral.

All I know is we played uninspired the whole tourney. Played like complete ass.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) None of the kids cared that parents were not at the games. On the South Side of Chicago in Mt. Greenwood, most of the parents at the time worked hard and partied hard. They either didn't come home until very late at night after work drunk, as drinking and driving wasn't as big a deal back in the day (the cops on the south side tended to make sure you got home but rarely arrested you), or they would be too tired to go to one of their kids' little league games or youth basketball games. They liked to stay home and sit in the yard and slug beers or watch the Sox on TV. Parents wouldn't even dream of talking to their kids' Little League coaches. Like I said, my dad was shocked at the quality of play (outstanding play) when he finally went to one of our playoff games. I know parents of kids on our LL team were happy the fields at 115th Street were not that far away and all the kids rode their bikes to the games. Then they wouldn't have to drive the kids to the games. The weird thing is the kids who played Little League on my team are one of the first generations to monitor every moment of their kids' lives after their lives were so carefree and un-monitored. Weird. So Greg, what you described, is not a way I could personally parent / raise my kids. I didn't have kids so I could ignore them and not be their and help raise them. I'm not going to be their to hand everything to them, but I do want to be their for their sports moments, etc. And when I had kids, I understood it came with responsibilities and that meant that often times my priorities would take a back seat (and I don't view it as a bad thing...you just have fun doing different things). Before my kids, I wouldn't have wanted to go to the park, but now taking my daughter to the park and pushing her on the swings is something her and I enjoy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) I believe one of the same people who had Micah leapfrog AAA this year also went on record saying that the gulf between AAA and the bigs has never been bigger. With the pitching in the bigs right now, I have to agree with that too. Makes me really want them to let these guys work at AAA. With the gulf that big, doesn't it really mean that the gulf between AA and AAA is probably smaller then ever, so you might as well get them to the bigs and just understand you need to have guys develop at the major league level? And just know that you need to be patient. If you saw combination of production and tools you liked in the minors, it means you need to give a guy a chance. If you saw anything less then that, then sure, be less patient.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) Same with me. My parents were at pretty much every single sporting event I ever played in and for the most part, my friends/teammates had their parents there watching them as well. My parents were far from helicopter parents. I was allowed to walk the 6 or 7 blocks to school by the time I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I was allowed to ride my bike around my neighborhood and I was allowed to play outside until it got dark but they very rarely missed any of my games. Based on stories I've read and movies/TV shows I've seen, the generation before mine didn't have a lot of parent involvement in sports. I'm thinking maybe back in the 60's or 70's. Not so much in the 80's and 90's. Yep. I was the same way. Other then sports, my friends and I had bikes and we'd go all over the place without our parents. Basically from daylight to sunset we were on the roam and then usually back in the neighborhood around nightfall, but even then, more often then not (at least in the summer) outside shooting hoops or just running around.

My daughter is doing that too Jeff. We read a book where the response to everything is a kid saying "no" and then eventually the kid learns to change how it is asked to care more about the other person. For about a week, no matter what I asked my daughter, she thought she was playing along with the book and would say..No, No, No. Do you want ice cream? No Do you want to go to the park? No Do you want a graham cracker? No Do you want a vitamin (basically a gummy bear)? No I would find it all comical cause the above 3 things are basically her favorite 3 things in the world. With the 1st the one she almost never gets and the other three things that we do with her every day. I don't think I ever thought I'd turn into as patient of a parent as I am (given how impatient I am in general). Hopefully I stay that way.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) If the Dodgers were willing to do Shark+ for Puig, what would you guys offer? I would trade Shark, Montas and Avisail for Puig. I don't think they want Avi but I'd do it. I don't really care, get me Puig.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) TBH, I think there is some changes happening. That Futuresox article with the pitching coach at Kanny talked about how they think prospects need to stay in their level to learn how to adjust. Seems like everyone in lower levels is on that page. I'm wondering if the Courtney Hawkins saga actually caused some changes with promotions, though the radical changes for getting all hitters on the same approach ain't happened. I don't align our methodologies around pitching prospects and positional prospects. We have a track record of being an above average organization at developing pitching and it would appear have a proven and successful strategy and strong communication channels in the organization. Now maybe the same exists on the positional side but the track record (and a sustained one) doesn't line up. We haven't developed jack when it comes to positional prospects.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) <!--quoteo(post=3201965:date=Jul 22, 2015 -> 04:48 PM:name=Chisoxfn)-->QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 04:48 PM) <!--quotec-->You showed me one stat. One freaking stat. That is "all the other performance" issues. Most every team in baseball would take Jeff and plug him into their #2 or #3 spot. If you showed me the stat and he was getting hit massively harder and was no longer a good pitcher, sure, I could bite, but what I am telling you is that stat would regress anyway (due to change in leauge) and then you take away early starts where he might have been pressing, and you have a trend where that reduction in K/rate isn't near as significant. I work with numbers enough to know you can find any player and complain about them. Maybe we should stay far away from Mike Trout because his strikeout rate increased exponentially from the 1st two years. I can cherry pick stats all day long. Is their a signficant # of stats that say Shark isn't a solid #2 / frontline #3 and that I shouldn't expect that going forward? Has his stuff fallen off a cliff? I can't do any better to show Samardzija's K-rate rolling off a cliff than this image. Unfortunately the board won't let me embed it. If this isn't a trend of a guy showing his age I don't know what is. So I take that image and I look at the peak year and then the year after is the same (esentially) as the year prior to the peak (so the anomaly might be the one peak year). Then the subsequent year (which was last year), his NL only performance had a rate pretty close to the previous year (so again not really any decline). Since he moves to the AL, you had a decline (which is expected) and then this year a further decline, although some of it driven by some early struggles (where he might have been pressing or whatever else). Their is more to this story then just looking at the picture and I've explained potential reasons behind each and it is why I keep going back to the point that the $ value matters and what do our scouts and baseball people say about his stuff (is it degrading, etc)? Is their other issues / alarming problems with injuries or other things that are altering mechanics or command that are potential longer term issues? I don't know those answers but I do have potential explanations for those anomalies that make me far less concerned.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) It dropped from 8.6 to 8.0 when he went to Oakland last year for >100 innings. It's down a lot even from where he was in Oakland. Not really..you take away that 1st month where he struggled and the difference in k/rate isn't much different then some of the other random variations he's had season to season.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) Despite all the other performance issues that tell me to stay away and the fact that the white sox are piling up pitching prospects that should be in line before him, I also think the trump card remains "if the White Sox have $17.5 million to spend next offseason why on Earth are they spending it on their starting rotation"? You showed me one stat. One freaking stat. That is "all the other performance" issues. Most every team in baseball would take Jeff and plug him into their #2 or #3 spot. If you showed me the stat and he was getting hit massively harder and was no longer a good pitcher, sure, I could bite, but what I am telling you is that stat would regress anyway (due to change in leauge) and then you take away early starts where he might have been pressing, and you have a trend where that reduction in K/rate isn't near as significant. I work with numbers enough to know you can find any player and complain about them. Maybe we should stay far away from Mike Trout because his strikeout rate increased exponentially from the 1st two years. I can cherry pick stats all day long. Is their a signficant # of stats that say Shark isn't a solid #2 / frontline #3 and that I shouldn't expect that going forward? Has his stuff fallen off a cliff?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:40 PM) seriously? this is all you have on a guy who supposedly has tons of articles written about him being a clubhouse cancer? expecially out of boston, a city that routinely destroys the character of players on the way out. Beane didn't like him cause Cespedes didn't listen to him. Him not listening to coaches advice on hitting approaches is different then being a clubhouse cancer. The trade of Cespedes and what he brought to the lineup and his fit in the clubhouse were both viewed as some (although it was probably more to do with injuries) as reasons why the A's faltered down the stretch. On an unrelated note, a lot of people liked Hanley in LA. Clubhouse cancer gets overused. Was AJ a cancer, depends on who you'd ask, but many saw him as a great player to have on your team. Everyone like him, nope.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:39 PM) His Krate went from 8.2 to 7.1 (last year to this year). Is that a decline, sure, but when you put it in context and assume some variabliity due to luck / other factors, he's basically been above average to great in terms of k-rate. This years rate at 7.1 would be "average", however, again if you adjust out his first month of baseball, you are talking about a K-rate in excess of 7.5 and back in the above average range. And whether you want to throw out those starts or not, I'm just saying the recent trend seems to indicate he's still an above average pitcher with above average stuff. He could have been pressing or a million other things he had to deal with. Additionally, this is a guy who moved from the NL to the AL (technically a little over halfway through last season), so I would expect his k-rate would come down given the fact that he stopped facing a pitcher 2-3 times a game. You can throw out what you want but in my world, I don't necessarily reach conclusions when you can throw out an early part of someone's season. if his stuff was detioritating then, I might have another case. In fact, to me, if you put the stats behind it and have conversations and actually think he's better then he is, you might truly get a value depending on what he wants to take (probably not cause no 30 year old pitcher who is nearing FA is going to sign a bargain contract or it at least isn't likely). And your k-rate is one thing and again k-rates can drop if someone is working on throwing less pitches / getting people out earlier in the count (to go deeper into games). It happens, pitchers make adjustments as they mature and he might still be working through some components. The HR rate being up is often times a fluky stat in and of itself and if you adjust for that, you'd have a guy whose ERA would be lower as well. Bottom line, I don't see any justification for staying away from him with a 20 foot pole. He's got relatively low mileage for his age and good stuff. Is he an ace, hell no. Is he a solid #2 and amazing #3, yes, yes he is, and if you can get him at a fair price, then you think long and hard about it. On a sidenote, i am an advocate of trading Shark and Q and then making a run at Shark again in the off-season, but if he truly were willing to sign a 4 year deal that would be a hometown discount, I'd be willing to listen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 01:31 PM) The bolded is exactly what I'm focusing on with his K-Rate. His K-Rate is the worst of his career. you giving that list of his positive starts could be answered by me giving the list of his negative starts from the beginning of the year. Reality? Jeff Samardzija last year had the best strikeout rate of his career and the best numbers of his career for a reason - they're directly linkes. This year his K-Rate is very much down, 30% lower than last year, and that's not a statistical fluke, it's been that way the entire year. Almost entirely because his K-rate is down, he's a worse pitcher. That doesn't make him a bad pitcher, it makes him a middle of the order starter right now. He'll have some good games, like he did against Toronto, but when he can't put people away with the strikeout he'll also have some weak games like he did his next time out against KC. The balance between them is set based on whether or not he can strike people out. If people are putting the ball in play enough against him, he will get beat too often. If he's this pitcher again next year, he's a solid #3 starter that can help a team with a good offense to the playoffs. But...that huge, sudden drop in K-rate should be extremely concerning to any team wanting to bid on him. If he's giving up strikeouts for those other things...he's losing games because of it. If he's willing to lose games because of this strategy, then we should expect he's a 4-ish ERA pitcher in the future. If the White Sox win 86 games this year and need a pitcher in the middle of the rotation to put them over the hump and have a ton of money to spend, fine he's a candidate for that. For a long term deal, for a team that struggled this year, is extremely weak on offense, and keeps spending their first round pick on pitchers anyway? I wouldn't touch a guy whose K-rate plummeted like this with a 20 foot pole. His Krate went from 8.2 to 7.1 (last year to this year). Is that a decline, sure, but when you put it in context and assume some variabliity due to luck / other factors, he's basically been above average to great in terms of k-rate. This years rate at 7.1 would be "average", however, again if you adjust out his first month of baseball, you are talking about a K-rate in excess of 7.5 and back in the above average range. And whether you want to throw out those starts or not, I'm just saying the recent trend seems to indicate he's still an above average pitcher with above average stuff. He could have been pressing or a million other things he had to deal with. Additionally, this is a guy who moved from the NL to the AL (technically a little over halfway through last season), so I would expect his k-rate would come down given the fact that he stopped facing a pitcher 2-3 times a game. You can throw out what you want but in my world, I don't necessarily reach conclusions when you can throw out an early part of someone's season. if his stuff was detioritating then, I might have another case. In fact, to me, if you put the stats behind it and have conversations and actually think he's better then he is, you might truly get a value depending on what he wants to take (probably not cause no 30 year old pitcher who is nearing FA is going to sign a bargain contract or it at least isn't likely). And your k-rate is one thing and again k-rates can drop if someone is working on throwing less pitches / getting people out earlier in the count (to go deeper into games). It happens, pitchers make adjustments as they mature and he might still be working through some components. The HR rate being up is often times a fluky stat in and of itself and if you adjust for that, you'd have a guy whose ERA would be lower as well. Bottom line, I don't see any justification for staying away from him with a 20 foot pole. He's got relatively low mileage for his age and good stuff. Is he an ace, hell no. Is he a solid #2 and amazing #3, yes, yes he is, and if you can get him at a fair price, then you think long and hard about it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 11:28 AM) More so than that, his performance this season suggests he would be a terrible choice for a long-term, high-dollar investment, particularly for a team where it's at best questionable whether they'd be able to field a decent team around him in the first year. His last 12 starts. 11 times he has gone at least 7 innings. 8 times he has given up 3 runs or less. 10 times he has given up 4 runs or less. 6 times he has given up 2 runs or less. 7 of those starts he has given up the same or less hits then innings pitched. I realize his strikeout numbers are down, but he is still getting 7K / 9 innings, which is pretty strong and has good ground ball rates (especially after his early struggles) while home run rate is up significantly (fluky stat, but from .6/9 inning to 1 / 9 inning). He also has a new hitting coach and might even be strategically pitching to contact. He is also pitching slightly deeper into games (on average) this year vs. last year. By no way am I saying he's having a great year, I'm just saying that I don't know how much of his production is combo of a little worse luck and a full season in a better league (vs. only partial season in AL in prior year and that was all in a pitchers park). Are strikeout numbers down because he's pitching more to contact and working on getting more groundball outs / early inning outs to go deeper into games? To me the question is what is the deal but I don't know that I would bet more on him being like he was thus far this year or more like him being how he was the past 4 years (blended average). Unless we think his stuff isn't their or has degraded.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) Worth noting that this costs the White Sox an additional $4 million-ish as well (price of a reliever, maybe ~price of a decent backup catcher next year, etc.) Where do you get the $4M number from? I'm kind of confused. Comp picks don't get $4M. Or are you talking about paying him for the remainder of this year?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) So, first problem - if the Dodgers are more willing to move Puig because they got Crawford back from most recent injury, then Cespedes doesn't necessarily fill a need for them? Beyond that, I'm too out of touch with LA to know how the team is looking at him right now. Talent-wise no they wouldn't do that, but getting rid of a guy sometimes you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. I am on a major get Puig mode. I think talents like that rarely become available. Heck, I'm even intrigued if the Dodgers make a knock your Sox off type deal for Sale. They are the team (along with the Cubs) who could give me the combo of young major league talent and top prospects.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 11:10 AM) So, first problem - if the Dodgers are more willing to move Puig because they got Crawford back from most recent injury, then Cespedes doesn't necessarily fill a need for them? Beyond that, I'm too out of touch with LA to know how the team is looking at him right now. Talent-wise no they wouldn't do that, but getting rid of a guy sometimes you do things you wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think Crawford has a place right now. Caught Rick Monday on yesterday (might have been the day before) and he basically said from what he's heard, no one really knows what Carl is going to do and what to expect. He might be moved(along with a mountain of cash). Also, when I was listening to Rick Monday, it reiterated how terrible our broadcasters are. I heard smarter dialogue in the 10 minutes with Monday then I've heard on every Sox telecast combined this season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 11:05 AM) I meant Tigers. Price and Cespedes for Puig. Would the Dodgers do it? I think if I am Dombrowski, I would if he is waving the white flag. That would be an interesting deal. If I'm Dombrowski, I'd do it. I think maybe you could get Puig for Price on his own (major coup if you compare to what they gave up for Price, imo). Then see what you can get for Cespedes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 22, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) For some reason I disagree. You don't think the Dodgers would trade Puig for a rental? Price puts them over? I think they'd prefer using Puig for a cost controlled arm.