Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) I think the exact opposite. Kemp belongs somewhere that he can DH. Grandal actually graded out as one of the best framers in the league last year, Wieland is good but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Given the logjam the Dodgers had in the OF and the pressure they are assumed to be under to reduce payroll, clearing $7m and improving your C situation AND adding quality pitching depth AND some other prospect seems like a coup. The Padres spent $77m to maybe not get much better, especially if Kemp's defense doesn't improve. Said another way, I don't really see what strategy the Dodgers are implementing here. I presume they are going to make a major push at Cole Hamels but it seems like they are to some extent, just making moves to make moves. If I were the Dodgers, I'd have been doing what I could to move Ethier and Crawford, not Kemp.

I've long said the Sox need to stop comingling developmental funds with major league contracts. It is just ludicrous. We need to set aside and investment good money into our farm system regardless of what is going on with major league club.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) I think the exact opposite. Kemp belongs somewhere that he can DH. Grandal actually graded out as one of the best framers in the league last year, Wieland is good but hasn't been able to stay healthy. Given the logjam the Dodgers had in the OF and the pressure they are assumed to be under to reduce payroll, clearing $7m and improving your C situation AND adding quality pitching depth AND some other prospect seems like a coup. The Padres spent $77m to maybe not get much better, especially if Kemp's defense doesn't improve. Kemp at 77M has a chance to be a legit value and the Padres needed to make a splash. I really don't quite grasp what the Dodgers are doing. I think they are no better today than they were at the end of last year, possibly slightly worse. And on top of that, while getting rid of Kemp's contract, they also have put themselves in a position where they have a couple guys that will be walking a year / getting big contract (Rollins / Kendrick). Yes, Dodgers have guys in place but I think the Angels did best in that 3 team trade. Getting a young cost controlled power arm that is near to big league ready is a major coup for a club like the Angels. Yes, Kendrick was good but with the Angels payroll that move was fantastic, imo. I will say I think Grandal is a pretty darn good player. I also am not a big buyer of the "pitch" frame concept. I think there are significant flaws in the early statistics behind it but I do agree it is an important concept but IIRC, there is a lot of variability depending on the pitch frame / defensive catching metrics that you look at.

Dodgers are busy but I don't know that they are a better team today than they were at the end of last year. Good fit for a flyball pitcher like Bmac.

Wow. Nice move for Padres. $32M cash and I think they got maximum value for Grandal. I don't like what the Dodgers were doing.

Given the Tigers defense, Cespedes move is nice for them. Porcello is a nice get for the Red Sox though and I presume they will try to sign him to an extension. I wanted Cespedes on the southside but would not have been able to justify this type of price.

QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 05:04 PM) Marlins must have LOVED Gordon... They are idiots. Yeah, I really can't rationalize the trade at all. Especially when you factor in Haren and his 10M contract.

I guess Dodgers traded Dee Gordon and Dan Haren for one of Marlins top prospects (top 50 pitching prospect in baseball). Presuming he still counts as prospect despite making 7 or 8 big league starts a year ago.

So wait....Dodgers give up Dee Gordon for Jimmy Rollins or are they getting more than that?

Wow...that is surprising...Nebraska steals Oregon State's coach and Oregon State goes to Big 10 and steals Wisconsin's coach. Really surprising as Wisconsin is a much better job on paper. Does Anderson have west coast ties or something?

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) So it WAS beneficial for Nieto? He was able to learn about life at the big leagues, learn from big league players and coaches, and what it takes to stay in the majors. It wasn't beneficial for the team in that he didn't provide much value for us. Define beneficial. I think it would have been more beneficial for Nieto to get every day playing time, however, as an organization, we have a catcher that we wouldn't have had who looks like he could be a nice back-up and has league average potential, all for $25K + the league minimum salary we paid him. While it might not have helped us win games last year, he is an asset we have today that we wouldn't have had otherwise and that asset is more valuable than what we invested in him in year 1.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 02:08 PM) If you take a player in the MLB portion, you have to keep them in the majors or on DL the entire season, and there are strict limits to the DL length. Whomever you pick needs to be on the 25-man roster the full year, or you lose 25k and give them back. Not that 25k is a problem, but it is more an issue of degrading your roster if all you want to do is hide someone. In Nieto's case, the team had a very real need. And that pick was still a mistake IMO, he was obviously not ready, though he wasn't quite as bad as I thought he'd be. The worst part was he basically lost a year of development, while not providing anything on the roster that existing players in the system couldn't have done just as well. If they grab someone, it is because they think they have a legit shot to help the club, likely an arm. It wasn't beneficial for Nieto but It was beneficial for us. We have a guy now in our organization that we could give extended playing time down in AAA who can take a lot of what he learned from his playing time last year. Was he prepared for the majors, no, but was he able to learn a lot, I would certainly hope so. Last year this club was in a perfect position to make that sort of move and in retrospect I'm very glad they did. This time I find it less likely, unless they see a guy that they think they could pencil in to the back end of the pen and let grow. Worse case, Coop can't work some of his magic in spring training and you give him back to another team. You basically pay $25K to get a free flyer on a guy.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 01:54 PM) Yep not a lot of room in the alleys and pretty large foul ground by modern park standards. The cell is playing only slightly above avg for runs the last few years I believe . I still say some of the park effects get impacted by how good the home teams offense and pitching staff is. If you had a great offense and lousy pitching staff, you will likely see some skewed park effects (albeit I am sure they are normalizing the results of the above average offense / pitching staff vs. other parks but there could still be issues in that process). You also have other factors such as how well various teams are built for their home park, etc.

Graham / De Paula both sound like intriguing options for our bullpen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:26 AM) If you have a compete nt 2B, and have $240 million floating around, and a bunch of holes, you don't blow $240 million on a 2B. Gordon Beckham---garbage .244/.306/.374 Dustin Ackley---perfect fit .245/.309/.366 LMAO Ackley is a nice fit cause he can play multiple positions in the IF / OF and can leverage his match-ups. Beckham was more limited in the positions he could currently play. Ackley has also been showing some upside. I still don't know if the M's would make this deal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 11:21 AM) If he was a nice option, someone they would actually want playing 2B, they could spend that money elsewhere. They had to overpay to get him out of NY. Dick, I like most of your posts, but this is kind of crazy. The M's needed to make a major splash one way or another. Ackley can play multiple positions, they signed Cano cause he was by far the biggest impact bat available. Is Ackley on the same planet as Cano, absolutely not. Ackley, in my opinion, is a better fit for this club than DV. It is kind of that classic change of scenery for both guy strategy. Also a great clubhouse guy as well. Ackley is not an all star though and I don't think anyone is claiming he is.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:24 AM) Josh Johnson, Brett Anderson. i hope i got the names spelled right. Both of those would be pretty bad ideas. Can't stay healthy and / or don't look like near the players they once were. Both would be downgrades over our current 4 / 5, imo.

QUOTE (AlSoxfan @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) Very good point. We're very slim on starting pitchers. If someone should get hurt we'll be in big trouble. 1 more starter would be nice and maybe move Noesi to the pen. Who would be the question and at what cost? I'm thinking a 1 yr. contract would be enough to get us through till the young guys get more time in the minors. I kinda liked Masterson because he'd be more willing to sign for 1 yr. but there may be others. I still feel our biggest need right now is a corner outfielder and with little money left..??? Two of our top prospects are starting pitching prospects (arguably 3 of our top 5 or 6 guys if you look at Rodon / Montas / Danish). I think if we add another starter it will be because we are moving Danks and will use Noesi as a bridge until some of the other guys are more ready. I would be stunned if we went anything past 1-2 years on a pitcher given what we have in our stable.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:45 AM) That's true. Sox just seem to have a thing with Castro. I just don't see how we can justify spending significant resources on catcher when we have far greater holes, specifically our outfield defense (and an outfield spot in general) and our defense at 3B. I'd put catcher behind quite a few spots in my priority least (including an improvement in the rotation and another reliever).

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:43 AM) 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. Chris Beck? This team needs another arm. No...one more acceptable than the other given his price and the fact pattern that you are talking about a potential 5th starter. Or at least more acceptable. I think far more pressing concerns are our team defense. The problem in these circumstances is these are guys we have penciled in at 4 and 5. Noesi also did show some signs of progress vs. Danks.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:30 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:30 AM) 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. I didn't realize his money wasn't guaranteed prior to the start of the season. Much more acceptable risk when you phrase it that way.

Longoria would be an insane fit, but I can't imagine it happening. Maybe if we had Rodon as bait but can't trade him for a while anyway.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:26 AM) They obviously feel like they can get something for him. I hope they surprise me. Clearly that would appear to be the case but I personally am not expecting much of a return for him, if at all. I think this could be one of those scenarios where we misjudged the market, although I hope I am wrong and they (KW / Hahn) clearly know the market better than I do.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 10, 2014 -> 08:27 AM) If they are able to trade him for something else, that pretty clearly shows why they didn't non-tender him. 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.