Chisoxfn

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 10:11 AM) Then you're also willing to buy the "Davidson sucked this year largely due to disappointment about not starting the season with the White Sox as the Opening Day starter at 3B" theory? No. Ethier's suckitude has been an OPS+ below his career norms but not horrendous, ~96 OPS+. Ethier is in another realm. Paid big money and always been a starter and someone whose production has been worthy of being a starter, so no, I don't think it is a valid argument at all.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) I'm not excusing the commissioner for a clear abuse of power. I put 95% on the commish and 5% on him. You simply can't have a commish that is a dick or pulling shady stuff. Completely agree. I'm so glad and always make sure to let my commish (also my good buddy) in my league know how nice it is. Commish should have a little extra authority to ensure things are fair (that no one is paying someone a kick back to sneak a trade through, etc). A good commish can make / break a league. I do like the idea you proposed about the whole league having first right of refusal but then it also kind of takes the sport out of being the aggressor on the trade market, etc. Kind of weak too. I prefer having a vote system with the commish having the authority to step in and an alternate commish who steps into affairs in which the commish's team is involved (in this case I'm the alt commish). Even then it usually goes to a full vote with a majority rules. Rare that it happens cause in my league everyone plays fair but we've had a few teams come into our league who pull some extremely shady inter trades that you need to have commish get involved (where clearly a last place team is making a move). Those teams are not invited back. We also added in the bonus payment that the last place team has to pay (to ensure everyone is playing all the way to the end).

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 09:40 AM) Since I'm already a TWC customer, I'm certain that they will charge me for coming out. I'm not currently a DirecTV customer, so they're going to have to offer to do it for me really cheap if not free if they really want my business. I would just tell them that. Worse case guy comes out and you slip him 20 bucks or something. That has usually been my approach to doing things. I do know that my experience is cable companies are better at doing in-house stuff for free then direct tv. Not sure why since in most instances you are working with contractor's either way but I'm the type that doesn't want holes between my exterior to interior of my house, massive cables running all over the place, etc. I want it to be clean.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 07:54 AM) Without looking at names, if you tell me a guy has had 1 good season in the last 5 and another has had 4 good seasons in the last 5, I think the player most likely to have a good season the following year is the guy with 4 good seasons. Yes, there is a risk, but there is with any move. Ethier has a track record productivity but he's seen his playing time diminish substantially this year due to a logjam in the OF and 1B which can mess with a player's psyche and rhythm, both of which are important to production. The Dodgers would have to include a considerable amount to make the deal worthwhile - he's guaranteed $54.5 mill over the next 3 seasons, so I'd say they need to cover approximately $24 million, at the bare minimum (John Danks just so happens to be owed $28.4 mill over the next 2 seasons, which is $26 million over 3 seasons). You give them Danks, Trayce Thompson, and Kevan Smith/Adrian Nieto/Josh Phegley and see where they're at. There a lot of reasons to explain Ethier's downside that aren't he's past his prime. Most of them have to go with inconsistent playing time and overall unhappiness with the situation. I think Ethier is a really nice fit who can play a solid LF and could also fill in at 1B and DH and play match-ups. You then find a right handed bat as well who you can use in the outfield and at DH as well. You still have plenty of AB's to go for Semien / Sanchez / Johnson too.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 06:31 AM) For Justin Morneau? I think you're crazy. Well then call me crazy.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) I think you're missing the point of the arguments that are being made. Or at least what I'm making. Based on what we knew when the trade was made, I'll make it every time. If you told me Davidson would have about as bad a season as we could imagine, I wouldn't want him. But the idea of trading Addison Reed for a top-100 caliber 3B prospect in AAA is fantastic no matter which way you turn it. Now, if you want to say the White Sox missed the boat on the scouting and maybe even argue that the only reason we could make the deal is that AZ knew he was overrated, then I think that's legit. But it's separate from the idea of making the deal based on what we knew at the time. IF I am Hahn, I am looking back at the trade and the scouting reports and asking our scouts what we missed. Its one thing for guys to fail at the major league level but what he did was fail on an epic proportion. I wish something would come out about a back injury or something that would give more hope. The concept of the trade was a fine one, but our scouting department missed the boat on this one and ultimately we should have targeted another guy. Note: I'm not saying you should be 100% right all the time, that is impossible, but this was a pretty major fail. On the bright side, our scouting department did do a good job at understanding the upside of Addison Reed and knowing some of his limitations. That said, Reed is going to have a long major league career and will have some above average seasons out of the pen.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 08:29 AM) If the Sox had the option of swapping Davidson/Reed again, I would do it. Then I would spin Reed off for a different player. Point being, last year Reed and Davidson had similar values. I would argue Davidson had more especially considering the state of the Sox. Now, after Davidson's abortion of a season, Reed has more value. That doesn't make Reed some stud, just the better contributor of the two. I remember last offseason where it seemed like everyone was excited and posting about Hahn's big four acquisitions since the deadline (Abreu, Eaton, Avi and Davidson). When certain posters started constructing mock lineups with all four reaching their potential, flocks of posters came in with reminders that away from Abreu, the other three players had roughly a 40-60% chance of being regular contributors. Obviously Abreu was a homer, Eaton's right behind him, Garcia is making great strides and Davidson fell on his face. The Sox hit on at least two of their big four with Garcia looking to be a third hit. Why is it so hard for those same posters to accept that Davidson didn't workout? Has anyone ever been able to find a player who had a season like Davidson's in AAA and turned into a big leaguer? My favorite illustration that Davidson was overrated at the time of the trade. Eaton in 562 PAs for Reno (PCL) in 2012 - .381/.456/.539/.995 Davidson in 500 PAs for Reno in 2013 -. 280/.350 /.481 /.831 To be frank, if we want to complain, we should focus our complaints on the Sox scouting department because they bought on Davidson's hype and not his actual skill-set and swing. You can't be that bad in AAA without some major flaws that should have been pretty easy to identify. Maybe they thought they would be easier to fix but making major adjustments to a AAA player swing is not easy. Minor changes, sure, but major changes don't happen much by that point in a players professional development (not from a hitting perspective).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 07:56 AM) To equate the Reed hypothetical to the scenario you just envisioned, we would need to be sending Davidson to another team in exchange for a statistically declining reliever making a decent relievers salary. You are the one who mentioned the three horseman of the Suck-pocalypse as some sort of equals, not me. Again, no one is trading anyone for those guys, so your scenario doesn't work outside of an opportunity to mention failed relievers as a non-sequitur. Under no circumstances could we trade Davidson for Addison Reed right now. Under none. Reed has > trade value then Davidson.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 07:27 AM) With Reed's price tag about to go up, and coming off of a bad year, it would be tough to choose. It really isn't. Davidson is beyond awful. Reed, while flawed himself, is at least a solid major league player and a guy that can be a solid piece to your pen. Elite closer, no, good closer, probably not, better then what we have, absolutely and he is a guy who could and should get better. If he gets too expensive in a year or two and production isn't there, non tender him. What is the loss...it isn't like Davidson is going to get anything. Under no circumstances would the Sox be able to flip Davidson back for Reed this year (unless we gave up something else). I would be stunned if Davidson is even in the Sox future plans at this point. Yes, I'm sure they have a plan laid out for him but I would imagine he is no longer the 3B on their big board.

QUOTE (MAX @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 09:36 AM) What do you think AZ could get for Reed today? Not a whole lot.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 08:55 AM) And the line Arizona leaked was they didn't think Davidson could stick at 3B. I am sure , though, that was at least a little PR induced, although he isn't exactly Adrian Beltre with the glove. It doesn't matter now. I hope Davidson is better and can buck the odds and be what they thought he would be. It is just that right now, that doesn't seem like a bet many would take. The odds are better than winning the Powerball. So we have that going for us. Not many guys have had success at the next level with some of the periph's he has put up. We aren't talking about a 19 year old with these periph's. Power potential sure, but also nothing that looks like a plus defensive plus anything else. I think the odds are highly against Davidson and I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox cut bait on him for another teams failed prospect. I hope I'm wrong but Davidson was a prospect who probably did more to hurt his status then almost any other prospect in baseball this year (non injury related).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 08:51 AM) What the hell, let's look at it through the context of WAR First, these are the offensive players that we'll hypothesize won't be on the roster next season in any sort of meaningful way: De Aza - 0.6 Dunn - 0.1 Michael Taylor - -0.2 Josh Phegley - -0.2 Gordon Beckham - -0.4 Andy Wilkins - -0.6 Dayan Viciedo - -0.7 Paul Konerko - -1.0 Leury Garcia - -1.1 That's -3.5 WAR that is replaced offensively. Pitching wise, these are the guys we can assume won't be with the Sox: Ronald Belisario - 0.6 Scott Downs - 0.1 Charles Leesman - -0.1 Taylor Thompson - -0.1 Matt Lindstrom - -0.1 Frank Francisco - -0.1 Maikel Cleto - -0.2 Andre Rienzo - -0.4 Felipe Paulino - -0.5 That's -0.8 WAR that is no longer being added (and this is not including Leury Garcia and Adam Dunn, who accounted for -0.1 WAR pitching). This removes context, but some of those innings were incredibly important and some were totally meaningless. We'll leave it as such. We'll assume the Sox make, bare minimum, 4 moves (names aren't important but will be included as examples), and other reasonable assumptions about others. Andre Ethier (2 WAR) for De Aza/Viciedo - +2 Ervin Santana (2.5 WAR) for John Danks - +1.7 Scott Caroll (0 WAR) for multiple mopups - +0.3 Joba Chamberlain (1 WAR) for Belisario/Lindstrom - +0.5 Carlos Rodon (3 WAR) for Carrol/Rienzo/Paulino - +2.5 Carlos Sanchez (1 WAR) for Carlos Sanchez/Gordon Beckham - +1.7 WAR Marcus Semien (1 WAR) for Marcus Semien/Leury Garcia - +1.8 WAR That alone adds 10.5 WAR. If you assume that the Sox will use guys like Gillaspie and Ethier at 1B (and yes, raBBit, I thought Ethier had played more 1B in his past) with Semien as the utility player, you've removed the two biggest blackholes offensively. And, if you rotate guys around, Dunn's WAR as a DH will not be hard to improve either. Further, if you remove guys who are likely not going to play in games that matter (Wilkins, Phegley, Taylor), you can add another win to that total as well. Assuming 2 more wins in the next 5 games, the Sox will end the year at 74-88. Add roughly 11-12 wins to that, and the team is at 85 or 86 wins. That's a team that's in contention. Again, I generally hate looking at WAR as black and white as this, so take this with a huge, huge grain of salt, but the concept of contention without spending a large chunk of money is most definitely possible. Obviously you are using WAR from a standpoint that doesn't exactly work out, but the reality of the situation, doing those moves doesn't put your team in a hole going forward and moves you much closer and into contention. A couple things bounce your way and you win 90 games and are a playoff team and maybe you are looking to acquire another piece. Your young talent continues to get developed (no one of any value is getting blocked in these scenarios). It really is the perfect way of moving forward. Note: I also condone us making a major foreign signing as well, presuming our scouting department has confidence in the player.

My goodness...10 years already. Wow.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Well, two of the four lines will have TVs. The other two will not, but they are in the bedrooms of kids aged 6 and 4, so I don't think I want the wifi equipment at either of those outlets. Then just go with my plan B and have the Direct TV guy (or TWC guy) run an extra line to the spot you want your router. I say either of them because I'd find out who would do it for the cheapest. I presume you want them to fish the lines and keep everything hidden in the walls, etc, and I believe Direct TV charges for that (it isn't part of a standard installation).

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 06:23 PM) Wouldn't say that. Petrino and Sabana were making bank in the nfl but quickly left when they realize they can have way more control and still make money in college. Michigan probably fires their AD and offers the farm to Harbaugh. This is a guy who is the ultimate control freak as evidenced by his in house fighting in SF. He'll have to think about it. Neither of them were successful. They ran back before they were going to get fired.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 24, 2014 -> 08:15 AM) OK, what was constructed with the house was a box on the outside of the house. The box has one coax input that can come from cable/satellite, and then that box splits the signal to the four rooms in the house that have built in cable outlets. It was what the DirecTV was originally connected to and now it is what TWC is connected to. So are you saying that the TWC will have to continue to run like it is now and that DirecTV will have to run a new line from the dish? Direct TV would run a direct line into that box and then if the cables you have are the appopriate cables, can then split the line to the appropriate boxes and then keep the TWC line going to whichever place your modem is. Worst case scenario is you have the modem at the same spot as the tv, in which case there would be one new drop that has to be ran to connect. Or you could have the flexibility of moving the modem to another spot that you have a cable line and no tv (if you are all wifi vs. hard connect). You just have to stay on your installer and make sure he does it. Its pretty simple, even if you don't have the gadget, usually they have flagged what rooms each line is for but worse case you do a little trial and error.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 04:26 PM) The White Sox clearly need a starting pitcher right now, I agree with this, but I despise the idea of signing anyone to even a 1 year deal if they think Rodon can appear in the big leagues before the end of 2015. No matter what they do they should know exactly how he gets to the big leagues next year and that can't be "relying on someone to get hurt". I'd rather go with Caroll/Rienzo out of the gates for a month, lose games, and then have Rodon take over, than sign someone to a 1 year deal and then have Rodon spend the year in the minors because of the big money guy we signed. That's why I kinda think Masterson makes sense. After this season he should be cheap enough that we won't feel bad if he's replaced in June with Rodon if pitching poorly. Bottom line, you want to waste another season or hope the offense and other 4 starters can make up for the gap in production. When you have Quintana, Sale, and Abreu, plus other Alexei, Eaton, Avi, etc, that just seems like a gigantic waste of those players. By signing a quality vet starter to a short term deal, you are not impeding future progress (or tying up future money that can go to young players) nor are you blocking the space of a productive player, as by moving Danks, you have another spot for Rodon to pitch and in a less pressure situation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 04:21 PM) But it sure seems like even with the "Trade Danks for someone else's garbage" the end result is that we have a below league average player at least at 1 position in either case. Either its Danks or its whoever we trade Danks for. Either way we're overpaying for a below league average player for the next couple years. Then, on top of that, we're paying market value for a player like Santana to fill a hole we created. Every time someone comes up with another free agent plug I feel like I have the same response, all we're doing with that free agent signing is moving laterally and then hoping that our trash turns into treasure I don't see how you are moving laterally. At the very worst, you are upgrading a position. That is not a lateral decision. Under your ideology it would be impossible to ever field a contending team unless you happened to have 9 young players all develop during the same 1-2 year stretch which to be frank, would appear to have been proven to be nearly impossible. And then, only then, is it okay to spend some money on other guys that would put you over the top. The reality is at some point, you have to make what are less efficient signings from a pure value perspective to generate the wins necessary to make your team a contender. What you can't do is saddle yourselves with 5 years of potential poor decisions as part of that process, but right now, spending 12 M/yr over 2 years at a market value for a pitcher who is above WAR is a move that makes this club better and if Rodon develops quicker then expected, you are talking about a top of the line rotation that makes them very much ready to compete. And again, if you are able to trade Danks for a player with a better WAR then him (which is possible depending on the desperation of various teams) then you are also upgrading at another area, even if it is a slight upgrade. Again...making the team better. I'd understand if people are talking about signing Santana to a 5 year deal but that is not the case (or are talking about Shields at 5 years).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) Sounds good in theory if Ethier's slump is an anomaly caused by inconsistent playing time and not the signal of a decline. Also, his splits are even more pronounced than in 2011-2013. The Dodgers are more likely to want to keep Hanley Ramirez and move him to 3B after Uribe leaves at the end of 2015, but there's also a very good chance Hanley ends up with an AL team where he can DH occasionally instead of being exposed to the rigors of SS everyday, where he's one of the 5-6 worst guys in baseball defensively but the best offensively. They can patch the back end of their rotation, rather than take on a bad contract. I think they'd be willing to send Ethier?Crawford AND money for something, but NOT take on Danks. You clearly have to rely on your scouts but I'd reckon if you move Danks you can figure out a way to stay in an economic neutral position while getting one of Crawford / Ethier. I lean towards Ethier as I think he is a better bet to be healthy. Crawford is better character guy but injuries certainly have impacted his production. Ethier has been a pretty reliable offensive player and I think a lot of his struggles are more related to playing time, etc. I also think you can find a cheap platoon option that can hit left handed pitching (maybe it is Viciedo, I don't know..career 800+ OPS, although not a good OPS against lefties this year) and then you are truly maximizing productivity and ensuring guys stay fresh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) See, my biggest disagreement is on the latter part. I think you're completely destroying your flexibility if you sign a >$10 million+ pitcher and you have to take on a separate bad contract to move Danks. You're stuck dealing with that bad contract and you're dealing with a pitcher probably on a multi-year deal on top of that. If we take on a $10 million+ pitcher to fill a rotation spot and move Danks for someone with equal salary, then we're talking about a salary commitment for the next 2 years of >$75 million+ just for those guys without solving the bullpen holes or the lineup holes. Unless they guy you're trading for under the bad contract for bad contract swap suddenly returns to whatever form earned him his contract, by going out and spending money on a veteran to replace Danks you're leaving yourself the same hole. It's a lateral move that to me removes flexibility by tying up additional money. 2 yrs is pretty short term in nature. You are talking about the season you are playing and one follow-up season. That is nothing to fill major positional holes on your team. The alternative, which is having below league average players at two positions, which are pretty crucial. Not when you are trying to contend. At some point, you will have some inefficiencies with the use of the cash if you are going to contend (unless you get extremely lucky). Nothing that is being discussed over a 2 year time frame is going to be an extreme detriment to the franchise. 4 years, sure, but 2 years, you aren't hindering yourself. Santana at the proposed 2 year deal is at a market friendly deal with minimized downside risk because if there was an injury you aren't looking at a huge capital outlay.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 03:59 PM) There's the problem. Any of these 2-3 WAR pitchers are a tiny upgrade because you don't put them in the spot Rodon is going to take before next season ends, you need to put them in Danks's spot. So, we're paying $10 million+ a year for Santana and we're paying money to get rid of Danks, so we're paying $20 million+ per year for a 1-2 WAR upgrade in the rotation. Financially there's no way this makes sense unless Danks is swapped for a different position player at a similar cost, putting the sunk cost onto a different spot. And if you're doing that, why are you spending money on your starting pitching staff when you're just trying to run out the contract of someone like Upton in the OF? I presume you are doing it because you are trying to field a contending team sooner. You aren't replacing Rodon, rather you are replacing Danks with Santana and putting less pressure on Rodon. You are going with a rotation of Sale / Q / Santana / Noesi / Rodon. You then are running out a more capable outfielder that you got for Danks (say Ethier) and then moving guys like Bassit / Carroll to the bullpen and maybe making another bullpen signing. Plus you might be exploring other positional upgrades as well. Clearly you also have to figure out a way to add one more bat to the mix as well. A 1-2 WAR upgrade can be a pretty significant difference in the grand scheme of things, especially if who you got for Danks (while overpriced) is a 1-2 WAR upgrade as well over your existing starter in the outfield. Now you are talking 2-4 WAR upgrade, which doesn't amount to 2-4 wins and could actually have a much larger impact then that. Bottom line you are making your team better while not adding on any extremely long term deals so when guys like Ethier / Santana come off books, the timing goes well with other young guys on the existing roster who can get raises, etc, plus you also have flexibility to add new pieces to put you further over the top potentially. Note: Ethier has been a 3 WAR player in 5 of the past 7 years. Compare that to Viciedo who has been a

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 12:15 PM) Are we talking about the same "good" Jets defense that gave up 426 yards and 31 points to the Packers? They have a great run defense but average to slightly above average defense as a whole IMO. The Lions defense has actually looked much better than the Jets Lions D has been phenomenal. Of course I'm the guy that picked the Lions to win the division with the thought that with a new coach they would play more disciplined football. Lions have looked excellent defensively.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 12:46 PM) I NEVER thought I'd say this even a few months ago but I think I'd stick with Flowers at catcher and use resources elsewhere. Yeah. I just have realized catchers suck and ours sucks just a little less then a lot of them, especially when you factor in the positives on the defensive side of the ball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) I would. The last thing we need to do is waste our resources on a mediocre starting pitcher. Santana at that price is a good move. He's been a 2.5-3 war pitcher in 3 of the past 4 years all while throwing over 200 innings in 3 of the last 4 years (I guess technically he hasn't done it yet but I believe he has 2 starts left this season). Stuff is good as well and what he does struggle with from time to time would appear to be something our coaching staff excels at. I really like this idea, more so if you can find someway to get some form of cash savings for Danks.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 23, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) The idea is it would be mostly a wash. The reality is that we need a LF, so it would make sense for us if the money was close to even. But why would the Dodgers do it? Maybe if they think they can turn Danks into an effective reliever? At some point you need innings eaters and he could fit that bill, especially with some of the injuries. Haren is a FA as well so he could slide in. They have had injury issues in back end of rotation and they clearly need to clean up the clubhouse a bit. Right now there are too many issues internally and a lot of it would appear to be tied to the logjam of outfielders and players not comfortable/happy in their current roles. I honestly don't know what else Dodgers could do? Danks seems more attractive then others but when giving up expensive players with big contracts you can't expect much in return. At least in this case, we get a solid play. Hell, if it is Ethier, you get a guy with a good OPS + every year but this year. Is he done, could be, but it could also be largely driven by his attitude issues. That said, you got to manage the personality. I don't know, maybe they'd rather have Crawford who is more of an injury risk. Either way, we need outfielders and left handed bats and both of these guys, while extremely overpaid, have a shot at still being productive players and filling needs.