Chisoxfn

Juan is a good player who does a lot of things well and some things really poor. In general, he's a pretty valuable player for a club. It is a bit pricey but I can think of worse ways to spend your money. But I always loved Juan so I'm a bit biased.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:27 AM) Which suggests trouble for the Jets, Patriots, and Packers in a couple weeks. I won't go that far. This is a good team with holes and it is an improving team. I said all year this team would get better and better and as of now I can't be anything less than exstatic with the job the coaching staff has done and with what the players have done. However, there is still a lot of tough games on our plate and in no way am I going to act as if the Minny/Detroit games are guaranteed wins (Minny is a talented team and Detroit, despite 2 losses, has played some damn good football). Add in New England, the Jets, and Packers and you are talking about one tough finish and we need at least 2 more wins to feel good, 3 to be a lock. Hopefully the Bears keep getting better and keep playing above average, winning, football!!!

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:13 PM) BTW, Rose is now up to 27, 8 and 5 a game, what a joke! Lately he's been taking some really ill-advised shots though, imo. Still playing ridiculous though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 07:01 AM) Exactly the point of why career free throw percentage isn't some sort of be all for the last minute. I completely disagree. I don't care if you are cold or warm, you should be able to come in and make free throws. Guys pratice em all day. Even if he was running a ton, he might only get a couple shots a game. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be ready/capable of hitting his free throws. He had warmup shots at the half and before the game. Only person to blame those missed free throws on are Lucas himself and I'm pretty sure he'd tell anyone that.

That is incredibly messed up. What kind of dog is it Soxy? Bulldog?

Lucas is a career 81% free throw shooter and I always thought you want your best free throw shooters on the court at the end of the game.

These are assinine rumors that make no sense. Why not just use Dallas McPherson as our full time 3rd baseman? And yes, I'm being sarcastic!

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 24, 2010 -> 09:24 AM) Just cause CarGo didn't win the MVP is no reason to end your life! Ehhh....this sites better without ya Jordan LOL

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) While you've spent time tryinga to convince me of something I already believe...that the fangraphs dollar system is complicated but still remains a useful way of looking comparitively at player value if you pay attention to the reasons why it does what it does...you still haven't argued at all about why the Huff deal is a terrible deal. I am diong that because you are using fangraph $ values to show me why he is a bargain and that is plain ridiculous and isn't what those dollar values were created for. I won't argue that he wasn't effective last year, he was, very much so. I'd argue that I'd have little confidence expecting 11 to 12 M per year production out of him.

11 or 12 million a year per year is ridiculous when in recent years you have had guys like Vladdy, Abreu, Damon, etc signing for cheap deals that are also veterans. If you sit around and have 6 to 8 million to play with, you will be able to sign an effective offensive player. Now the Giants decided they wanted to move now and I can understand that, especially since they will be gaining a lot of revenue due to there world series win (i.e., 2011 season tickets sales increase), but I think if you are going to spend that sort of money per season, there are other opportunities out there, such as signing a Adam Dunn for a little more or even a Paul Konerko. Both are less streaky players in general, very effective, good clubhouse guys, etc. Now on the bright side Giants are only paying 2 years but Huff has had a very up and down career, imo. He's been effective at times, but in no way is he one of the best first baseman in baseball and giving him that sort of money over two years is paying him in a manner similar (on a per season basis) to some of the best in the game.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) They aren't actually assessing a monetary value that, but instead using a monetary figure to help correlate performance on the field to how much it is worth given market conditions. They aren't suggesting that the Giants should have paid Bonds $37.8 million in 2004, but they are instead showing how good he was offensively using his WAR multiplied by the price teams pay for 1 win share. Bonds was a 12.2 WAR player in 2004 - meaning he was worth just over 12 wins all by himself - and teams paid $3.1 million per win share (price of win share, or pWS) in 2004; thus, Bonds' WAR*pWS = $37.8 mill. Mark Kotsay was a bad player, and I don't think it's really debatable that his presence on the team cost the Sox wins. Thus, he has a negative WAR. Taking his WAR*pWS = some negative number. He's not actually worth negative dollars, but instead it helps compare how bad he was. Exactly, which is why I said you can't compare that value to what a player is making. The only thing you can do is take those numbers and use them as just another way to evaluate a players effectiveness, but to just say, well fangraphs says he is wroth this and is getting this than the difference makes him a steal or bust, well that is ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:59 AM) Really? You can't look at the White Sox's roster for the past 5 years and think that there are guys who it would have improved the team if they'd been replaced by random waiver wire acquisitions at the end of spring break? Andy Gonzalez, Brian Anderson, Mark Kotsay, etc.? Ya, and if you replace them, that isn't negative money. It is a sunk cost and I completely disagree with the fangraphs concept when it comes to $value. Not to mention it can ignore other key factors such as certain players can't get what that money is worth regardless due to them being pre arb or early in there arbitration factors. There are just a lot of flaws to the system that make me devalue a lot of these numbers.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) How do those numbers mean very little? WAR is calculated based off of offensive and defensive ability. Their monetary values correlate with the money teams pay per win share, and I think it's generally around $4 mill or so. So, technically, if Huff produces a 6 WAR, he'll be worth his contract. The only thing I don't like about it is that UZR is incorporated into it, when I almost think they should use a 3 year UZR rating just due to the discrepancies from year to year. Anyways, their monetary values are obviously not that simple (ooh, Alexei is worth $6 million and Konerko is worth $7.9, and Quentin is only worth $650K) and quite a bit more goes into the justification of a contract and whether or not it's ultimately "worth it." Oh, and Aubrey Huff was worth -$6 million last year because he was absolutely horrendous offensively (.694 OPS, which is Kotsay-ian) in a year where offense was not nearly as down as it was this year, and he didn't measure well defensively. Again, it doesn't mean he was going to sign up to give $6 mill back to whatever organization he played for, but it does mean that he was a huge detriment to whatever team he did play for. I don't think you can argue with that. No one can be worth negative money. That is the point. So when you have guys in the negative, you now are ultra inflating the other parties.

I don't really like fangraph player values, in fact I downright hate them. The numbers they have mean very little and you can't just arbitrarily compare those numbers to what someone is getting paid. It is pretty impossible to be a -6 million per year player, imo.

Stupid stupid stupid move.

People really don't use common sense. If the Sox bid 3yrs 48 million and the Tigers bid is 4yrs 50 million, why in the hell would the Sox not just offer the extra year and 2 million? Clearly the Sox didn't offer 3 years and 48 million.

The latest reports seem to indicate he has in fact signed with the Tigers?

Interesting. He is a left handed bat that would add value and I suppose fill a need. That is a lot of money though.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) When the heck is Boozer coming back? Supposedly the 1st week of December. Might slide into the 2nd week though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 09:04 AM) I'm surprised it took someone that long to write that. Now I will admit, Deng has injury problems that could blow up in his face. But he's playing the best basketball of his career right now and appears to be a pretty darn solid fit in Thib's motion offense. He has his flaws and limitations and isn't worth what he gets paid, but as long as he's on the court (and he appears to be showing that those 2 years might have been flukes), he's been a relatively productive ballplayer.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 08:37 AM) Baron is the 3rd most unmovable contract right next to Luol Deng and Elton Brand in the NBA. You're not going to get any pieces for him. Kaman can net you something, but then you better hope DeAndre develops quickly which it doesn't look like he will. This is so laughable. Baron Davis and Elton Brand are worthless, while Luol Deng is a 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 3 apg player who will play solid defense and shoot a pretty good field goal percentage. Your hate of all things Deng is ridiculous. And yes, Deng has a big contract, but please don't compare him to Brand/Davis.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Nov 21, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) Haters gonna hate... If people think they're too "cool" or "old" to read Harry Potter, that's fine. But they're missing out. I hadn't read the book, but as always thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I liked this more than the last Harry Potter, which coincidentally was the one I liked the least.

Wow, Iowa beat Alabama. Bahahaaa. I will say that for every team Iowa beats this year.

Coker looked good all game, I wish we would have seen more of him.

SHould have been. Either way, Iowa would have f***ed it up. They proved it this year, that they weren't able to close out games and do the little things to win. 4 losses when they had leads in the final 2:30 minutes.