Marty34

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 07:19 PM) Good points Marty. Also like to add high taxes, high cost of living, high health insurance premiums and an Illinois' population has been declining for years. People just don't have the money they once had. Its really no surprise at all that attendance is declining year after year. The population decrease in Illinois is shocking, the south side and burbs has been hit particularly hard in this economic downturn. I'm an optimist though when it comes to this and believe it's ripe for a turnaround when the overall economy gets better. Look at yesterday's attendances: Baltimore 15.7 74 degrees, Philadelphia 26.5 74 degrees, Texas 23.1 52 degrees (Texas 52???) Anyway, seems like a lot of places in MLB are having a downturn in ticket sales.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 14, 2014 -> 09:23 PM) This is not true. I'll give you an example: when we were trading Alex Rios, the Pirates were involved. It was rumored that the Sox wanted Alen Hanson but that the Pirates were not interested in making such a deal. Alex Rios had a long track record as an effective major leaguer, whereas Hanson had literally NO track record, and in fact, his stock had recently fallen from a disappointing minor league season. Why would the Pirates not be anxious to make that trade, given their obvious need and the very, very obviously better track record for Rios? Because projection is more important. Track record is definitely a factor in projection, but the ultimate measure of a player's value on the field is what he WILL produce when you acquire him. What matters is projection. This is also why team control affects trade value so highly -- you're buying future performance, NOT past performance. Then why did you ask me the question about Peavy and Feldman, insinuating that the only thing different was track record? No, it's NOT a matter of opinion. FanGraphs reports Pitch F/X data that records exactly how many s***ty pitches Viciedo swings at based on the academic definition of the strikezone. It's fact. And I still don't understand what this has to do with the New York Times. Paulino had loud tools and a career derailed by injury. The White Sox felt that he was fully healthy and that he could be successful under their tutelage. It seems they were wrong, but I'd much rather they try when they feel they've got a shot. It isn't about Paulino, it's about what Paulino represents: a team that has had a great deal of success with pitching reclamation projects continuing to try to be successful with pitching reclamation projects. It sucks that it hasn't worked in this instance, but it's good that they continue to take the shot. On Rios: Erratic past performance, and contract are the reason few wanted him. Again, track record of erratic past performance. On Peavy/Feldman: You're the one who said track record didn't matter. On Fangraghs: The academic version of the strike zone isn't necessarily the strike zone they use in games. It may be the "best data we have", but it doesn't make assumptions based off of it any closer to fact than those not based off of it. On Paulino: I don't care if they signed him for the pen, but to be a 4th starter was a ridiculous leap of faith on Hahn's part.

QUOTE (SouthSidePride05 @ Apr 15, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) If we don't draw as many fans as last season, this will be the 8th straight season that attendance has declined from the previous season. I see it as a downward trend that will only get worse until we're drawing less than 10K a year and last in attendance by a considerable gap. I don't even think a winning season and a postseason appearance will change things at this point. I think the only way to draw fans again is to tear down the stadium and build a new one. Somewhere far away from 35th and Shields. What's wrong with 35th Street? By the way, Cubs attendance has been in a 5-year decline, likely to be 6. It's the normal ebb and flow of things. In the day an age of expanded playoffs, it just is not good enough to contend every one in a while, a playoff drought like the one the Sox have had is going to really cut into the season ticket base. Add to that the bottoming out last year, a Hawks team that has captivated the city since Rocky Wirtz took over, and an awful unemployment rate, and you get the attendance issue. The fascinating thing is the Sox generate enough revenue to be middle-of-the-pack when they don't fill the seats. Flavum has a really good handle on this.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 13, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) Alright, Marty. I'll bite again. 1. This is completely unrelated to the topic 2. What does "performance vs. track record" even mean? Is performance not the primary component of track record? They are not mutually exclusive. It makes no sense. 3. What I DID say in an earlier thread is that GMs should (and increasing DO) pay for players (in both money and assets) based on the performance they expect going forward as opposed to the performance that has occurred in the past. Track record is one thing that can inform a projected performance going forward, but it would be foolish to use it exclusively. Why could Carlos Beltran only sign a 2yr/$26m contract this offseason? His track record suggests he's a borderline hall of famer! Should someone have paid him $100m? Because that's what Ellsbury got and Ellsbury doesn't have as good a track record. 4. Regarding Peavy/Feldman: There are more factors that go into trade value than simply the quality of one player versus the other. Here are some examples: number of suitors, contract length, contract dollars, budget of teams involved, value of marginal wins to team involved, personality of front office, ownership expectations, near and long-term revenue opportunities, perceived window of competition, etc. You're comparing two different players with different contracts who were traded from two different teams to two other different teams at different parts of the season and expecting that their trade values should be compared apples to apples. That's like saying "if this burger isn't better than steak, how come it cost the same today as a steak cost in 1911?" What in this god-forsaken world does FanGraphs have to do with the NY Times? If I want to learn about the latest in global politics, I'll read the NY Times. If I want to know if Dayan Viciedo has stopped swinging at s***ty pitches, I'll read FanGraphs. I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You shouldn't, now that we actually know he's bad. But there was reason to believe we could fix him at little cost when we acquired him, and that's a good thing. 3. Age is the player stat that matters most. Track record caps whatever trade value a player has. Paulino even if he had a good first half wasn't going to get you much do to his track record. 4. of course there are many factors. As far as Fangraghs goes, it is their opinion that Viciedo swings at sh**ty pitches. I watch his AB's and have the same opinion. As far as Paulino goes, he was bad before he was signed. I'd rather have spent money on a capable Ml starter.

Mentions of Trea Turner being liked by the Sox scares me. Is that scenario, Rodon, Kolek, and Beede left @ #3?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 13, 2014 -> 09:44 AM) Is this really a real question? You can't be serious. The question wasn't directed at you.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 12, 2014 -> 09:58 PM) Fangraphs is at the forefront of mainstream baseball analysis right now. Even conservative outlets are buying in -- Fox Sports JUST signed a contract with FG to have them start writing articles for them, for example. Also, FanGraphs has NOTHING to do with us being hopeful about Felipe Paulino. That would be like me saying, "Man I hate paying Chicago street sweeping tickets. THANKS OBAMA." I would be inclined to take your anti-SABR criticisms seriously (because there are a lot of valid criticisms to make) if you ever even put an ounce of effort into actually understanding what you're talking about. You don't even know what you hate about it, you just hate it for the sake of hating it. It's like when a child wants to play in traffic and won't listen to his parents when they try to explain why he can't. I guess the question would be this: why is FanGraphs awful? I don't expect you to answer that because you never do. Because you don't actually read it and have nothing to say about it. You just know Hawk probably wouldn't like it. I think there are a lot of promising things going on with the White Sox. I just notice you never want to talk about them. You seem to just like raining on everyone's parade. Like, why was it so hard to accept that witesoxfan was happy that Paulino had a shot to be good on the cheap? It looks like the gamble isn't paying off. No one will argue that. But why couldn't we be happy about taking a low-risk shot in the dark? I'm still waiting for your answer about how, if performance matters more than track record as you claimed in an earlier thread, why Jake Peavy returned more in a trade than Scott Feldman last year. As far as Fangraphs goes it has been elevated by the people who read it to something more than opinion. It's got a LONG way to go before it reaches the stuature of the NY Times. Why should I be happy that even though Paulino is awful, he is cheap?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Apr 12, 2014 -> 09:40 PM) No, it was pure hope from raw tools and upside. The scoutiest, non-Fangraphs thing there is. I'm glad you could feel good about s***ting all over it anyway. Here's a question: what are you going to post if things ever start going well? Sorry, but Fangraphs is awful. You don't think things are going well right now?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 12, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) Cooper has done a terrible job with the bullpen. Agreed. He's a great self-promoter though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 12, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) Paulino. It's time to take him out of the roation. No idea what YOU PEOPLE saw in him. Wasn't particularly good before, injured, and certainly not good now. Nieto is why you can have A level players on the roster. Scott Downs is 39. He's done, apparently. There's more but let's start with these three, particularly Paulino. It's Rienzo time. Had to be a bootleg statistic offered up by Fangraphs. Paulino is and was a waste of time.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 08:24 PM) A wrist injury would be worse. At the shoulder, a 3rd degree separation would have been worse. They can fix this one and have a good success rate with it. He will be fine by spring training. He could probably be ready by September but by that time why push it much, unless they want to get him some at bats. I guess I'm trying to figure out the difference in how this this injury affects bat speed for a hitter as opposed to pitch speed for a pitcher. To a novice like myself, happening to the lead shoulder like it did, it seems pretty serious.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) Marty, perhaps you would understand this better with an illustration. Let's look at all the high school position players drafted in slots 3 to 6 (so Sox pick plus some reach bandwidth) of the 1st round in recent years, and see how long it took them to reach the majors... 2013 P5, OF Clint Frazier, CLE - Hasn't reached majors, not yet assigned, played partial Rk ball season, multiple years away if he makes it 2012 P6, OF Albert Almora, CHC - Hasn't reached majors, in A ball now, mutliple years away if he makes it 2011 P5, OF Bubba Starling, KCR - Hasn't reached majors, struggling in A ball 3 years after draft, at least 2 more years away if he makes it 2010 P3, INF Manny Machado, BAL - Reached majors in late '12 (2 years after draft), major league regular 2009 P3, OF Donovan Tate, SDP - Never reached majors, out of baseball 2008 P3, INF Eric Hosmer, KCR - Reached majors in 2011 (3 years after draft), now a major league regular P6, C Kyle Skipworth, FLA - Reached majors briefly in 2013 (5 years after draft), back in AAA now, has never put it together 2007 P3, INF/OF Josh Vitters, CHC - Reached in 2012 (5 years after draft), marginal prospect at this point, hasn't been back 2006 none 2005 none 2004 none 2003 P5, OF Chris Lubanksi, KCR - Never reached majors, out of baseball P6, OF Ryan Harvey, CHC - Never reached majors, out of baseball Now, what this should show you, is a few things. One, position players in slots 3-6 out of high school are very unusual picks, because of the risk and long development time. Two, out of the 10 players (7 of which have had any sort of real look yet), 3 never even reached the majors. The other 4 with any real dev time to work with took 2, 3, 5 and 5 years to make it. From 2011, Starling arrives no earlier than 2015 and more likely 2016 or later - 4-5 years from draft, BEST case. From 2012, Almora is still in A ball and needs multiple years more - so he's 4-5 years minimum as well. Frazier is so new he's probably not work discussing. Basically, taking any position player in the draft out of high school with that high a pick is little better than a 50/50 on them even making it, and for those that do, they take typically 4 to 5 years to get there (Machado being the one outlier). And by the way, most of these guys are not CATCHERS - a position requiring significantly MORE development time. Bottom line, if you draft a high school catcher with this pick, you can expect a roughly 50% likelihood of full-on bust, and if he even makes it, count on at least 4 or 5 years to get to the majors. Now ask yourself... if you have said - your own post - that you don't even trust pitchers in A ball to be part of any plans... how can you possibly think it is a good idea to change your draft plans for the 3rd overall pick based on an injury on the major league roster? The Garcia injury closes the gap between needing an impact bat or a pitcher in my view. If the college pitcher that they want is there they should take him, but if it comes down to a HS pitcher that's going to three years to develop or a bat that is going to take three years to develop there is little difference in need.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 05:09 PM) Pitching might be a bigger need than hitting even with Garcia's injury. We have two sure-fire guys in Sale/Quintana. Danks is still an unknown if he can become a solid pitcher again (though it looks promising), Paulino won't be here passed this year, Johnson is still unproven and behind him, we do not have any sure fire ML starters. I would argue impact pitching is still a bigger need than hitting. Valid point, but I think this injury may have closed the gap to the point where they might be better off taking the HS hitter (less risk) ahead of the HS pitcher (more risk.)

QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 04:00 PM) It would be more challenging in the right as it would be the throwing shoulder. He should recover fine. His throwing shoulder isn't as important though as his lead shoulder when swinging. I think this is one of the worst injuries a power hitter can have.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) Which has virtually zero to do with taking a high school position player in the first round of the draft. The need for an impact bat just got greater. If it came down to Rodon, a HS pitcher, or Jackson, I could see the Sox taking Jackson now.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 02:51 PM) No rational front office makes draft decisions based on one injury on the major league team. Any bat the Sox draft would take at least three to four years to make an impact and by then Garcia will have been healed long ago. It's a bad injury, happening to his lead shoulder like that . . . I think you have to proceed with this rebuilding as if he's not going to be what was hoped.

With Garcia's injury they may now need to take a potential elite bat like Jackson. Buy the pitching.

Untrained eye of course, but when I look at video tape Hoffman looks the best. Aiken is impressive as a HS, but that would be too big of a risk for this outfit.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) Surkamp perhaps key to the immediate future if either of our mlb righties continues to struggle Goldberg likely a guy key to a dynamic young bullpen Hahn's trying to put in place, how soon? idk, but I look forward to it compared to this season of fat/old, retread/flip hope, injury recovery/lottery ticket types. But if any shred of new talent that we can trust for the future emerges, it's a boon to the rebuild, and nobody's locked in for next year, which is nice. I might be able to take only one season of this.. Danish and Jaye could be rotation fixtures, or not. Jaye's timing is more predictable if he continues to do well and it wouldn't be crazy to see him on the South Side to start next season. And if you believe recent reports about Jaye, both are potentially plus pitchers at mlb level, which is exciting. I think it's a waste of time to projecting pitching prospects until they put together a track record at AA. In other words, we're in trouble if these guys are in the Sox plans.

The problem is the rotation.

Look at that gut on Belsario. He must have been at the buffet while being late to report to spring training.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 9, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) And that makes them a behemoth? Yes, they are a sleeping giant.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 9, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) Where do the Sox rank in MLB in revenue? Middle-of-the-pack.

Why would a revenue behometh like the Sox be at the top of the teams to relocate?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Apr 9, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) Its all about the $$$. If the Sox re-location will contribute more to the revenue sharing plan, MLB would be all for it. The Sox were set to re-locate about 25 years ago to the Tampa/St Pete area before the legislature stepped up to provide funding to keep the club in town. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...ine/MAG1067374/ The same logic can be applied to every team.