Marty34

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) Maybe or maybe not alone. But combined with a couple similar deals, and yes. And the problem with building through free agency is that you have to keep paying those prices. So if Santana adds 2 wins for us in 2015 at that price, where are you going to get the rest? You can only pay market rate for talent so many times before you're bogged down. 31 year-old 3 starters just aren't it for us right now. Maybe they will be in a year or two. But even if we bought now to prepare for a year or two, we're then buying the decline years at the price of the prime years. I think one of the things to factor into this rebuild is that the White Sox will not buy top talent on the free agent market. They just aren't going to win a bidding war with the big boys. Draft, trade, and mid-tier free agency is the way they have to go. To mitigate the many risks that go along with mid-tier free agents I think it's best to buy early as the price will continue to rise.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:40 PM) How about the 2013 World Series Champs? Tell me more? I know the Sox took Brian Anderson a few picks before Pedroia, but other than that I'm not familiar with the way they built their team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) Made much MORE doubtful if the Sox spend the money they do have on mediocre guys just for the sake of spending it. That's what I mean when I say that $48m alone won't sink us, but we'll sure wish that $48m was available when we want to get a guy that will really move the needle. Really think that $48M is going to make a difference between outspending the top tier or not? I don't, but if it did that is the definition of albatross contract.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) None that are available. Theoretically, younger guys with a balance of some established track record and enough upside to mitigate risk. Now younger pitchers on the market are going to cost a lot more than that. It's doubtful that the Sox can outbid the big spenders for that type of pitcher.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) It's not the idea of signing a guy now because he won't be available later that is giving us problems, it's the guys that are available. Abreu is 26 and fills a huge organizational hole at 1B. Santana is 30 and represents a slight short-term upgrade and a very likely long-term problem. I think for the right guy, we wouldn't have issue at $48m + draft pick for a pitcher, but the guys on the market are just not the right guys. If they're the best available over the next few years, then we need a different strategy. If you needed a bullet proof vest but there was no kevlar around, you wouldn't use toilet paper just because it was the best option available for a vest -- you'd try to find a different way to avoid getting shot. What pitcher do you think is worth $48M over the next 4 years to the Sox?

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:44 AM) Kiley McDaniel's updated draft rankings broken into tiers. Interesting. http://sbb.scout.com/2/1376626.html Interesting that a scout thinks Turner could go ahead of Rodon. I have a sneaking suspicion that Hoffman will go ahead of Rodon (caveat being of course that it's early.)

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:00 PM) But what you HAVEN'T established is why the best use of the $48m (plus an extremely early 2nd round pick) is an aging, inconsistent pitcher on a 99 loss team. I've said it countless times because the prices are likely to go up. Be proactive and in the process save money. If Abreau had signed a 6y/$68M deal somewhere else, I'm convinced people would have been happy about it. Some of the same people who think it was a great signing by the Sox.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) Exactly. The only 2 budget teams were the Rays and Pirates. They had to be awful a long time to get the prospects they wound up with, and both teams have had huge misses at the top of the draft. As you made the terrific argument for in the other thread DA, (or was it his one?) it has little to do with spending and more to do with how good the scouting is.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:46 AM) Rays, Yankees, Red Sox, Pirates, Dodgers, should I keep going? Tell me more about the Rays and their success in spending in the draft. It's a damn shame when the Sox can't afford to outspend the Rays . . . As far as the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers go, pay no attention to the money they spend on payroll.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:33 AM) Sure. Andre Rienzo is projected at 0.9 WAR in the Oliver projections, while Steamer has him projected at a 0.6 WAR over 115 innings. Felipe Paulino is projected at 0.5 WAR, but that's taking into account that it's only over 7 starts due to not pitching much the previous two seasons. Over 30 starts, that's roughly 2 WAR. His Oliver projections are a little less cheery at 0.3 WAR over 60 IP, but that's still 1 WAR over 180 innings for $1.5 mill, which would still be a bargain free agent. Steamer projects Surkamp for 1 IP, but Oliver has him at 1.9 WAR over 107 IP. Steamer projects Ervin Santana at 2.7 WAR, Oliver projects him at 1.4 WAR, and the Fans project him at 2.1 WAR. These obviously don't mean anything, but even if you look at the high end for Santana and the low end for the combination of those 3, you are talking about paying $11.5 million more for less than 2 WAR of value in 2014 while limiting the knowledge you have of the pitchers' performances and abilities at the major league level. Rienzo is going to be in the pen. Paulino, Surkamp are not as good as Santana. We've already established a $48M contract for the Sox is not an issue.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) This. Keep your draft pick, overspend on the draft/international markets, and put the $35m+ toward a better player when you're closer to contending Who are the teams that overspend in the draft and international markets who have had success.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:53 AM) 1. You're the only one that thinks so 2. If $48m buys you a garbage pitcher, then why not save it and put it toward a decent one? We agree that a $48M contract is not an albatross for the Sox. Would you rather have Nolasco, Garza, or Jimenez?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Good thing you know that all those pitchers are garbage. Also good to know the Sox already brought in their free agent starting pitcher. Problem solved. Tell me soothsayer, what are the lottery numbers? I promise I'll split it. Isn't there a projected WAR for these young starters?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) If I actually spend the time compiling information for you to read, will you read it? Absolutely. My biggest problem with sabermetrics is how/when they are applied.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) 1. Andre Rienzo (25), Erik Johnson (24), Eric Surkamp (26), Charlie Leesman (26), Scott Snodgress (24), Chris Beck (23), Nestor Molina (25), Chris Bassitt (24) 2. The $48m alone isn't the issue, it's committing to paying it to an inconsistent pitcher into his mid-30's. This type of player is MUCH more likely to be bad than good going forward, especially a couple years down the road. 1.) Thats a whole lot of garbage and the one or two who may come out of that won't be blocked by a free-agent pitcher. 2.) Ok, so we've established a $48M contract is not an albatross to the Sox going forward, great. As far as the type of pitcher on the market, that's what $48M buys you.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) Oftentimes, yes. For example, if you think WAR and its components are wrong, then you should make a case for why you think that. You don't, though, you simply dismiss them by saying you don't care as if that makes facts go away. We're all open to it being wrong, but you have to show it. Prove to me that Wins Above Replacement is the end all be all. Sabrmetrics has its place too often though people use it as a crutch.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) Nah, TUC is a different person. I believe that Marty/greg actually believe the things he/she says, because he/she avoids critical debate about his/her opinions. When the 'facts' pile too high, Marty/greg just lays low rather than confront the pile, surfacing again later to say the same things again as if no one disproved them before. TUC, on the other hand, loves nothing more than pure entropy. He will back down from NOTHING because there is no argument that can stand up to the brute force of his fiery passion for stubbornness. TUC can seem like he wins arguments even when he is explicitly admitting defeat in said argument. This is a man that loves chaos and pain. A dangerous man, indeed. Let me guess critical debate involves Wins Above Replacement or some such.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 08:27 AM) 1. They have to give their young pitchers innings in order to let them develop and "see what they have." Singing declining veterans hinders this. You are arguing this vehemently in another thread AS WE SPEAK regarding Adam Dunn taking PT away from young players. 2. $48m IS an albatross because it is $48m they would NOT be able to spend to patch something else up. It might not be much in a vacuum, but this ISN'T a vacuum and there are other players we have and pay and will want to get later. Again, see every argument you've ever made about Adam Dunn. He "only" makes $14m per year. 1.) Who are these young STARTING pitchers you speak of? Dunn should be treated as a 1 year signing, seeing how they already have De Aza and Viciedo he is blocking players who need at bats. 2.) Classifying a $48M contract as an albatross with the Sox future payroll obligations being what they are is silly. Dunn's contract is not an albatross, playing him is the problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 10:45 PM) Only if said pitcher will actually still be good in a few years, which is why the Sox were looking at young pitchers, and not older ones. Sure, but there's minimal risk if the pitcher is bad and the core is good enough to contend because a $48M contract isn't going to be an albatross based on their future payroll committments. What happens if next offseason they need a couple of starters? It's either going to cost them a lot more or they will not fill both spots.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 08:08 PM) Every time you say "they haven't filled the hole in the rotation" like you just did a couple posts ago, that is what you are implying. My point has been they should be proactive in filling the rotation hole because they will save money. If it turns out that the core isn't good enough to contend in the next 3 years they have bigger problems than a SP @ 12M per.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 07:14 PM) Wow, congrats on getting the concept finally. Is there anyone here who wrote that Jimenez or Santana is the key to contending in 2014?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) What's going to be the most frustrating is when Santana and Jimenez inevitably have good seasons and the people in this thread point to that. That's never been the point. Curtis Granderson could have a good season and anybody pointing that out would get the same response from me - would it have been enough production over the player the Sox used instead to win a division title? If that answer is no, then the Sox made the right call both from the developmental standpoint, from the financial standpoint, and from a draft position standpoint. Considering most have the Sox pegged anywhere from 75-78 wins, odds are going to be very, very good that guys who have been 2-4 WAR pitchers for the majority of their careers aren't suddenly going to boost the Sox into the 90 win range, which is very likely what it's going to take to win the division. No, the most important years of those deals are going to be in 2015 and 2016 or so. So if they have a good '15 or '16 we will be proven right I guess.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 06:19 AM) Many being you and another person or two. The Sox landed one of the best offensive players available, traded for a young potential future star CFer, and traded for a young potential future 3rd baseman...all while saving money. I don't see how anyone could view this offseason as anything but a success. You can continue to say that the Sox should have signed one of those starting pitchers that you won't stop talking about. Thankfully one of them has been signed...for too much money and time. Soon the other will go, and that day will be a relief. Although, everyone knows that won't stop you. It would have been difficult for the Sox to have a bad off-season with as much work as they needed. They signed Abreau which they absolutely had to do. Outside of that they switched the potential of Santiago and Reed for the potential of Eaton and Davidson, we'll see how that works out. They haven't filled the hole in the rotation or catcher and their payroll is ~$86M. If Abreau and at least one of Eaton or Davidson pan out it's probable the rebuild took a step forward.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 08:04 PM) I know you are half joking and half ranting most of the time, but this is really a terrible and insulting comparison to the people who argue with you here. Nobody wishes you harm, they just disagree with you(repeatedly over the same things) Making it about the poster and not the post is a form of intolerance.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 07:47 PM) Hey, did you hear about this guy called Jose Abreu? No? You should frequent a Sox message board. That's a far cry from the offseason hopes of many.