Chisoxfn

The $17.5M per season isn't that bad. The years is what makes it bad. I am kind of surprised he didn't end up getting more. I'm sure it came down to him deciding between a 3yr 60 and the 4yr 75 or something like that. That deal in year 4 will likely be pretty bad, might even be in year 3, would expect him to be able to still be pretty productive in years 1 and 2. Who knows though.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) JR is a CPA. How be damn. Never knew that.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) Cliff Stein should be your hero. Ted Phillips main accomplishment is getting Soldier Field renovated which seems like a failure to me. I'm more referring to a CPA running a professional sports franchise. Doesn't happen very often or at least I don't think it does.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) IMO, what the Bears need to do is hire Bill Pollian as a consultant or interm President, and have him evaluate the football operation from Emery to Trestman to all the coaches. Have him clean house if the entire house needs to be cleaned and put the people in place to be successful. Ted Phillips, God love him, is an accountant. Let him handle the business side. The football side needs to be handled by a football person. Enough of the BS. Completely agree. That said, as a CPA, Phillips is my hero.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 08:38 AM) Shanahan would be interesting. I kind of hope he would try and keep Kromer on as asst OC/line coach. That's pretty much all I would ask for. Whomever comes in, can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. The way I see it, bring in who you want and who you trust. I'm sick of this. Emery is basically the grand puppet in all of this and seems to be missing on a lot of blame. He's the clown who hired Trestman and also the guy who ultimately hired all of the assistants pretty much. Bottom line, he's as much if not more a fault to this disaster then Trestman.

I think it is way too likely Sox and Dodgers match up. I even wonder if a deal goes as far as Sox getting an OF and one of the Dodgers maligned relievers + cash for Danks. I wouldn't be opposed to buying low on Wilson/League. Might even turn into something mega with legit prospect or two coming to the Sox as well along with Ramirez. Probably too complicated but again, see a lot of pieces that could make sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) I don't see it happening. I agree with you. I don't know what is more likely, Sox going 6 years on a big money FA starter or Sox doing this. Neither are very likely. I think Sox would be willing to go 4 yrs and big money on a FA starter though.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 07:41 AM) I don't even think its going to be a JR issue. He's willing to spend. The real problem is throwing away the next two years of amateur LatAm signings - which I don't think Hahn or KW are willing to do, just when that pipeline has started working again. I think you have to say if we do this, we need to either pull back funds from those next two years or you take those funds and say this is an excess signing and dump even more money right now to sign up more guys. Plus long-term, you might see international draft sooner and therefor may not actually have to serve out the extent of the penalties. Bottom line, if you are going to take the hit, you need to make sure you aggregate as much talent as possible now. One intangible lost is you are basically two years removed from the network so how close you are to that pipeline and relationships you build might not be as strong since you won't be a player for a couple years (vs. teams that are perennial players).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 05:40 AM) If the bids are going to be that high, I agree. The bigger question is would we even bid in excess of our allotment? If that answer is no, then its a non-starter. If the answer is yes, then I don't know why they wouldn't be aggressive if they liked their scouting. I realize some of the big boys were out of the Abreu sweepstakes but we weren't shy in that regard and by all accounts we were pretty aggressive with Tanaka as well.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 08:19 PM) I just don't know. I really need to read what others will say tomorrow, after they see him. for me, my money would be on Jose Fernadez and / or Tomas. this is subject to chg. A lot of misinformation will come out starting tomorrow. Teams will leak reports of a slow bat, etc. Lots of misinformation to confuse people or attempt to scare people. Happens quite often in the major international FA market.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) I think it would be tough to tell. Eric Thames, who played for Toronto and Seattle and is similar in age, put up close to the same power numbers this year in Korea. He did show some power during his MLB career. I wouldn't want to be the guy that gave him a ton of money, but it is possible he could be a steal if you got him on the cheap. Yep. How long did it take Choo to adjust / how did his statistics overseas correlate?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) Anyone think the White Sox will have interest in this guy? He should be posted. Obviously he played in the Korean league. He is 27 years old. He hits RH. He's 6'0, 180 pounds. He plays SS/3B. AVG- .360 OBP-.463 SLG-.756 38 HR 107 RBI Here is a snippet from Keith Law who has Kang as his 15th rated Free Agent: Kang seems to have split scouts into two disparate camps: Those who see a power-hitting middle infielder, and those who see an unathletic corner guy whose power won't translate outside of Korea. I'm closer to the former camp, as I see a swing that will generate legit plus power even once he leaves his hitter-friendly home park in the Yangcheon District of Seoul. Kang has a huge leg kick and gets his lead foot down late, which could create timing issues, but the swing is rotational, and I don't think the power surge he has had the past three years is strictly a function of the rising level of offense in the KBO. It's a power swing more than a hitting-for-average swing, which makes it somewhat more important that he stay in the middle infield. He's not as fleet afoot as you would want a shortstop to be, but he has good enough hands and gets good reads off the bat, making up for some deficiencies with a 60 arm. While MLB teams are probably looking for more pure range in their shortstops now, I'd give Kang every chance to show he can handle the position, especially given the scarcity in the middle infield in this free-agent crop. He'll be posted under the old highest-bidder system, rather than the capped system now in place for NPB free agents. I'd guess at a winning bid of $15-20 million. Here is some youtube footage of Kang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYp6zt627oA I am intrigued. Even if he didn't play defensively at SS, could be a nice option at the hot corner. I also presume if he could play SS, you could also peg him at 3B. I will trust the Sox international scouting on this though but definitely a guy I would expect to look at. Could be a nice value play, all things depending.

Interesting. I don't know what to think about that idea.

Meh. He was just helping the Bears out by trying to draw attention off of them. He needs to get new people to give him PR advice, but what he said is probably what a lot of people think.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 04:55 PM) Having plays that don't require reads is playing to Jay's strength (or, put better, playing away from his weaknesses). He has the huge limitation of constantly locking onto a receiver pre-snap and not knowing how to find anyone else. If a scheme is giving him a clearer pre-snap read, it's probably better. If the play is off in a second or two, you are not playing downfield which is Jay's biggest strength. You are minimizing his arm and focusing on short-term accuracy. He is pretty accurate down the field (compared to other players) but when it comes to short throws, that is not his strength. I do not think this offense is currently playing into his strengths. We see no use of his mobility and minimal downfield plays.

This thread will be closed. We encourage people to start new discussions, etc, and for separate threads to exist.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:56 PM) I heard they are playing against a lot more zone and can't figure it out. Probably because beating a zone requires more smarts but also typically longer develop plays and plays that work against zone coverage. My presumption is we don't have a lot of plays in our arsenal that work on it since the bulk of the offense is get the ball out of our QB's hand near instantly and chew up short yardage. Zone D's will snuff that out and make you go the distance. To beat the zone, you need to hit on slower developing plays that open up deeper issues in the zone, etc, or find nuggets in the more intermediate passing lanes (depending on the types of zone coverages as there are always weak spots), however, we seem to struggle in being able to do anything close to it. The fact that 6 weeks later and we still haven't adjusted tells me everything I need to know about our offensive genius calling the shots.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) This is the one spot I'm ok with paying the premium price. He's unlikely to be worth whatever contract he'll get because teams will pay for the fact that they need someone to fill this position, but we're talking about a left handed reliever who fills a need who is 29 and has a 2.57 ERA the last 3 years while pitching in Boston. We have the need, we clearly need a lefty this year to have any shot, Surkamp and Snodgress might be able to contribute but they're not good enough reasons to not do this kind of move. We both agree, so it must be a good idea.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) I don't know what UZR you're looking at but the one I'm looking at does not show that. Aoki was a below average fielder his first 2 years and a barely average fielder last year - he'd only be an upgrade since Viciedo was so bad. Nick Markakis has been bad to terrible on defense for the last 6 years according to UZR. I just did a search under fangraphs. I was surprised to see him and Markakis there. Maybe I had a bad filter, I don't know, but it made sense given that Gordon and Heyward were amongst the top outfielders along with Billy Hamilton. It was in the advanced stats. I hadn't given it much thought so I just cherry picked based upon the list following that stat (so I'm not saying it is an end all be all) but my point is it is a lot easier to find and be able to get a potential good defensive player then a good hitter, imo, especially when you are talking outfield. Link

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) If you can suggest an available, good defensive corner OF, I'm listening for names? My presumption is you could trade for a Jackie Bradley, who Boston has soured on. Also depends on what the view is of best statistics for defensive players. For example, if you focus on UZR, Bradley, Markakis, Aoki all rank very highly amongst outfielders. They don't necessarily all rank highly from a DWAR perspective. Dustin Ackley might be easily available. Again, I'm focusing on defense here and not saying that all of these players are there. Maybe you have that guy on your current roster in Jordan Danks (not sure how he'd grade out defensively over a full season).

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) I think the league figured some things out. I think it has a lot more to do with the league figuring Trestman and this offense out. It is entirely too simple and too predictable and opposing defenses know exactly what is coming. I think a lot of our offensive problems are scheme. I also think Jay is just not cut out to be an elite QB but this scheme doesn't exactly do him favors. It essentially plays up his weaknesses and when you watch our offense more and more you see that the vast majority of the plays are set from the start (on where ball is going, etc). That doesn't play well into the strength of a QB who can buy time and make big plays with his feet and arm. Right now we really don't allow our offense to break down opposition defenses. We also really miss having a receiver who has speed who can create seperation and stretch the seams. Jay and his fumbles are to be frank, probably his biggest problem. His picks really haven't been that bad, especially when you adjust for some of those throws where the wideouts were awful. This stuff is a total team collapse though but the biggest reason I want Trestman out (in addition to his inability to be an overall leader of this team) is the fact that we seem to be getting pantsed on our offensive scheme and everyone appears to know what is coming, etc. That is an awful sign when you are supposed to be an offensive guru.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) At some point I really think the Sox need to take advantage of the fact that their #1 and #2 are being paid like a #4 and #5 Then you eventually throw in Rodon to the mix and Noesi as a cheap 5 (assuming Danks is traded) and that rotation is not expensive at all. After thinking more, I'm against it if Danks is still here, but I'm for it if he's gone. Sale- 6M Max- 25M Q- 3.4M Noesi- 1.9 Bassitt/Rodon- 500K Total- 36.8M Conversely the top 5... Dodgers rotation- 78M Phillies- 74M Yankees-74M Tigers- 73M Giants- 65M This is my line of thought. Use what we have currently to try and turn this into a significant competitive advantage and also one which is a huge competitive advantage if you get into the post-season as well. A front three of Sale / Big FA / Q (if healthy) is as good as any front 3 in the game. A year from now it might even be better, depending on Rodon developing as well. It could provide you with 4 legit weapons, 3 of which are cost controlled and in the post-season you very much need 4 starters (top 3 being more important). Allows you to be cheap / more developmental with 5th spot too (Noesi or others could fit the bill there).

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 12:48 PM) How do you define the money being right? The marginal benefit from another number 1 is less than the marginal benefit of using that money in places of real need. For example, a number 3 and a good LF would benefit the sox more than a number 1 I don't think that is the case. Having another ace pitcher helps you win games to an extent, regardless of who is in your lineup. Plus our lineup will still have guys like Abreu, etc. I think you can find good defenders for less and get away with not having big bats in certain spots in the lineup when you have great pitching.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 10:38 AM) Or more recently, the Dodgers and Tigers. I don't think they have gotten nothing. Both have been perennial contenders. I wish we would have had the success of either franchise over the past few years. Dodgers farm system is also fantastic. Tigers would appear to be heading in the opposite direction but the Dodgers, while they have a high payroll, have been extremely focused on minor league development, etc.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 10:37 AM) Plus, the Sox are not going to double the payroll for only three players. That's just horrible managing of money and in fact just look at what spending like that has done for the Yankees, nothing. Technically speaking, if you have confidence in your farm system and lots of cost controlled guys, as long as it doesn't prevent you from continuing to sign your cost controlled guys to fair extensions, the thought process of going big isn't a bad idea.