CaliSoxFanViaSWside

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 07:30 AM) It will be interesting to see specifically what happens to Chris Sale over the next few years. Sale may believe 100% in Schneider's method and would be foolish to change it. On the other hand innings and wear and tear pile up so even if he has a major injury there wouldn't be a way to pinpoint why . Time has proven Herm's method as reliable but like everything else not foolproof .

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) As a fan it's kind of hard to know what to make of injury concerns like that anyway. If it means he can't stay past the 5th inning, then okay, move to pen. If they are like tim lincecum, I mean, ride it and hope they don't get injured. But what are you supposed to do with a probability like that? I think you just treat him like any other starting pitcher. You monitor innings increasing them incrementally each year and hope they build endurance. In Lopez' case he wasn't with the Sox last year so I am inclined to believe with the the big increase he had they will monitor him very closely. But with Herm Schneider and staff I like his chances at avoiding arm problems. That in itself might be the biggest reason why the Sox have traded for a lot of pitching. They know they are pretty good at developing and having less injuries with them.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 01:15 PM) Stroman? He's a few inches smaller even. But generally I agree with you, but Sox should give him every opportunity to start. The Sox will probably be extremely careful with Lopez this year. Whether or not you believe in the Verducci Effect , the fact remains Lopez surpassed his career high in innings pitched last year more than anyone. The lines of communication between Lopez and the Sox must be 100 % clear.

QUOTE (turnin' two @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) Lopez is 6'0 -185 Pedro Martinez 5'11-170 There were a whole bunch of experts that thought Pedro was destined for the pen because of his size. That is why he was available in a trade, twice. In no way am I saying Lopez is the next Pedro. I am saying that pitchers can be great regardless of height and build. It'd be quite a bungle in the jungle to banish him to the pen too quickly. I see what you did there . Nice

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) Lopez will more than likely end up as a reliever. Very few starting pitchers with his size and frame have held up as starters. I hope that I am wrong, but I still feel he could be a dynamic reliever for us Just remember back in the day people and baseball players were smaller and plenty held up as starters . I think it has more to do with 1. genetics and 2. mechanics. And 2 might be far behind 1.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Snot is running down his nose. ... while skating away on the thin ice of a new day.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) I wonder what offers for Weiters look like right now? If we are talking the cheap end, he is absolutely a guy worth taking a shot on. I'm thinking he signs a 1 year below $10M maybe in the 7-8 range , even less if these execs. take pitch framing very seriously.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) Levine said that he is hearing from our scouts that Lopez is the best of the group. They think he is the closest. I heard him say that yesterday and at first was in shock but then I remember who was the person saying it. Could be valid though. It could be valid. He's a smallish guy for a pitcher so there are questions about his durability but his repertoire is pretty good as is his stuff. If you haven't seen it yet here's a little video and story on that 11 K game he had with the Nats. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/196369140/re...in-over-braves/

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) My irrational love of Hansen tells me he still has the highest ceiling of all our arms, even though I know it's really Rodon and Giolito. Throw Kopech into the discussion too. Just imagine 100MPH on the black on both sides of the plate up and down in the zone hitting all 4 corners. Now that's a ceiling.

QUOTE (Jeff Liefer @ Feb 12, 2017 -> 04:15 PM) Hey guys, I lurk. Dan here. Reason I didn't have too much time. Played indy ball for the past few years. I run a blog now. Guess who out of the top 15 OBP (losers) would improve to an amazing level even with the K's... Caveat? He has to show boat his homers and lure the pitcher to get HBP... only twice. It's all on my blog. But I'm excited if it ends up working... https://shop.insurgentkinematics.com/blogs/...bout-regression OK color me confused .How does taking away 2 homers while adding 2 HBPs lead to an over .050 swing in OBP ? Aren't HR's counted as getting on base ? If Slugging percentage is the number of total bases divided by the number of at bats how does his slg% go up by taking away 8 total bases and adding 2 HBP which don't figure into slg right ? You're theoretically only reducing his number of at bats by 2 right ? I haven't done the math obviously but am I missing something or you are . I hope its me because I would sure check my math and formulas before I printed anything in a blog and plugged it to multiple baseball message boards ( which I'm sure you did ).

Jethro Tull on the list at #96.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) Nice getting Hansen some love, but I feel like he has to prove more to be considered a top 100 prospect He blew away rookie ball hitters, but still needs to show more control against better competition EhVlad Guerrero Jr. made some top 100's and he's only 17 and never been in full season ball yet. Just depends on your criteria .

Just want to throw this out there in case this misconception about Q still exists that he doesn't go very far into games. Last year Chris Sale lead the AL in outs per start at 21. There were a bunch of guys tied for 2nd with 20 outs per start including Q.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) He's also a good framer, whereas Wieters is a horrible one. I'd be in favor of the move. That's good because I have some old rock n roll concert posters that need framing.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 11:58 AM) Maybe he's saying the different types of players being offered of the course of various deals. Maybe one deal was 2 Top 50s and MLB player, the other was 3 Top 50s. Is twitter such a difficult medium to master that people cannot be more clear in the intended meaning or are tweeters just purposefully vague in order to disguise their ineptitude or ignorance of their native tongue ?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 07:51 AM) I think ownership did its job that year providing the means for a winning roster. Anytime a team wins a WS or gets to a WS, you need some luck, but to call aseason lucky when the team was in first place every single day is crazy. That was a great team that only trailed when it was down 1-0 in the ALCS. Luck goes both ways. 2003 and 2004, 2006, I don't think you could say it was an ownership failure the team didn't make the playoffs. I know you understand that no one is saying that particular team was anything but great from start to finish. So why you keep talking about it is just avoidance of the real issue. From time to time like the blind squirrel looking for the acorn, most of the time the search is fruitless. The same could be said of the Sox effort to build a winning franchise, one that can at least make 2 playoff appearances in a row. The piecemeal method of building a team worked once for which we are all eternally grateful. The Sox ownership and front office have been the blind squirrel and the Championship was the acorn but like that analogy points out, as most seasons have proven , the search usually ends in disappointment. Now, to be clear, I am not saying I have any idea into the amount of money the Sox have to spend or if the efforts are anything but 100% honorable, just that the results , outside of 2005, have fallen short and in that context , was a lucky year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2017 -> 05:24 AM) One lucky year of never not being in first place and going 11-1 in the postseason. Close to unprecedented. Could still be considered a lucky year if you see that the master plans of the front office didn't work particularly well for most of the years Reinsdorf owned the team. But for one brief shining year everything came together. Blind squirrel/acorn theory.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:35 AM) The number seems high to me but I started reading Passan's book, and he claims 52% of pitchers wind up on the DL every year. Speaking of the DL , when John Danks was placed on the DL in late May 2012 the White Sox recalled.... Jose Quintana.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 06:35 AM) The number seems high to me but I started reading Passan's book, and he claims 52% of pitchers wind up on the DL every year. Has Q been on the DL even once in the past 4 years ? I tend to think not.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 05:24 AM) 1) 60-102. This will be a train wreck of a season. It will be the start of one of the worse eras in team history. 2018 will be worse. I'm hoping JR sells the team after this season. After Frazier, Cabrera and Lawrie are gone after this season the 2018 team payroll will be the lowest in MLB. It will be the perfect scenario for JR to sell the team. The new owner will have the lowest payroll with no big long term contracts on the books. JR bought the team from Bill Veeck in 1981 under the same circumstances. 2) I try to listen to White Sox Weekly every Saturday on WLS-AM. I find it interesting that the host rarely takes calls from the fans. Last week he had some guest on and they both said they expect JR to spend some big money on some premier free agents in the future. (Harper + others) JR hasn't signed a top free agent since Albert Belle. They're dreaming if they think he's going to start doing it next season. I would think a new owner would sign some players before JR would. This is what Hahn recently said "When the time comes, we will be prepared to be aggressive, and free agency is used usually as a means to round out a championship-caliber roster. We know that's part of this. We are obviously not there at this time, but when the time comes, we are prepared to be aggressive. "Jerry has been on board in support of this from the start. He's as competitive as anybody. He's as impatient as anybody. He hopes ideally that we get this thing done as quickly as possible. " Taken from a whitesox.com article. So might not be 2018 but later.But like you I'll believe it when I see it. I'll go with 100 losses this year. Unfortunately I see some of the new pitchers up this year when Holland breaks down and others are ineffective and they will take their lumps, most likely Fulmer, Giolito and/or Lopez.

QUOTE (Soha @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) Cashman said the White Sox are right now where the Yankees were last summer. They're doing the same thing we are. It's the same thing as the Sox wouldn't turn around and trade Moncada and Giolito for anything either. Not sure I believe that. Since when have the Yankees decided they weren't going to be competitive ? The Yankees are the greatest franchise in baseball history with very small periods of not attempting to compete.They have a boatload of cash albeit more when they get rid of some contracts, but still I say the Yanks are all in it next year so even getting Q now would still be prudent. The idea that Q isn't worth Rutherford and Frazier is utterly preposterous . Prospects = suspects. Just because Sanchez played great for a half season doesn't mean all Yankee prospects are golden. Odds are one of those 2 end up never being a starter on a regular basis . Q is a proven commodity over and over and over and over again. I'm not against the rebuild but some of you are in for a shock when some of these guys we traded for have major injuries or just never pan out.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 04:45 PM) First time I've seen the Phillies connected to Q. https://www.fxtribune.com/m/?id=537307 I've always been a huge fan of Q ( as I am with most young Sox players (Avi coughcough). I remember many here using the term smoke and mirrors with Q's surprising performance in his 1st 2 years with the Sox. Even now with his name all over trade rumors and many more learning how good he has been its hard to believe he is still under rated but he is. A recent example is when MLBN lists it's top 10 players at all positions. Usually they have their unbiased "Shredder" then a group of panelists so they end up with multiple opinions of a top 10 list. Even though the list is called Top 10 Right Now the panelists use varying ways for who to put on their lists. Some use the players total body of work some use only the last year, some the last few years, yet I can never recall ever seeing Q on any ones list in the years they have been doing Top 10. This year John Smoltz not only listed his Top 10 but even listed his Top 20 since their are so many starting pitchers as compared to starting players at other positions. Q wasn't even in his top 20. Yet when you read what was in the article you listed ,"Since the start of 2013, Quintana is one of only seven pitchers in baseball to make 120 starts, toss 800 innings and post an ERA+ of 115 or better. The other six: Max Scherzer, Corey Kluber, Jon Lester, Madison Bumgarner, David Price and Cole Hamels. We're talking about one of the best and most consistent starters in baseball for the last four years" it should blow you away he is listed among those pitchers. But we still even have our fans saying he might not be in the Top 20 pitchers also. We have national writers saying he's a number 3 starter. Hahn hasn't even been able to snag a couple decent prospects for him yet. I don't know what these other teams are looking for but it should be a pitcher exactly like Q. Still youngish, consistently good, injury free, amazing contract (just look at the contracts most of those other 6 guys are like !) and most likely not to flop. He is a pitchers pitcher and I hope if he is moved that he kicks ass because he is a pros pro and will do any franchise proud.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:05 PM) It might make sense to limit April and September games, but those last thirty give teams an additional opportunity to look at their 40 man roster. With content providers like cable/satellite, they want as many live games as possible to justify those packages...which of course flows from the original broadcast rights deal. 154 is more realistic, because of historical precedent. Of course, you also have add ons like WBC and games in Japan, Australia, Mexico, etc. No matter how long the season is teams will always need to look at their rosters and adjust accordingly. More teams in the playoffs with a shorter season will provide programming content that will generate higher ratings . Might not be on the localized networks but spread amongst the channels like TBS, ESPN, FOX CSNBC. MLBN with funds most likely distributed to all teams but more to the teams involved in the playoffs. Most local afilliates are owned by a larger conglomerate anyway like CSN Chicago by NBC which would probably also be in the mix to pick up playoff games. I just think 154 games with extended playoffs still makes the season too long and increased injury risk to superstars as well as all players. I know a much shorter season is a radical idea and many things including broadcast rights contracts would need to fall in line so the odds of it ever happening are very long indeed but I still think it makes more sense.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 06:08 AM) Well there are a lot of free and available players who aren't getting signed so I wonder if that model as a way to maximize player value isn't obsolete. There's a cap on what a team can pay international signees so I don't see how a draft affects total dollars. And if you aren't competitive you aren't putting much money into free agents. I would think issues like roster expansion, cutting back season to 154 games and expanding playoffs would be more player friendly. Without commenting on FA salaries I often think the 162 game schedule is long overdue for a change but not sure if extended playoffs is needed . Pitchers already have too many injuries and extended playoffs would mean more short starting rotations when the 4th starter isn't usually used ( dependent on the type of series( 1/3/5/7 games). Obviously the farther you go in the playoffs means the best pitchers in the game will go through the most stressful innings . Not sure risking the health of the biggest pitching names in baseball is a very prudent idea. 1 game series seems so un baseball like when the season is based on having a great teams and a 1 game playoffs might hinge on who has the best 1 or 2 starting pitchers. Playoffs then become not who has the best team but who has the the best 2 starters and the best 2 bullpen pieces. The long season is a test of the depth of talent and short playoff series just contradict that. But I am sure if the season ever gets shortened playoffs probably would be expanded .Playoffs games generate much more revenue for most teams so why not just make it more like hockey and decrease the regular season to 100 games and have all playoff series be 7 games except the 1st round with top teams getting byes. Now that idea is too radical and would screw with the record books but makes more sense and would give teams a lot more incentive to be competitive .

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 11:46 AM) http://www.chicagonow.com/future-sox/2017/...2017-full-list/ Yes thank you I found it , figuring it would be on FS. But wasn't there supposed to be a thread on it here with a link to the article so we could discuss it here on Soxtalk lile there was for the 16-30 prospects ?