Jake

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:26 PM) Lol, in a "random" drug test setting, why would Konerko get selected 10-11 times. It's like they are purposefully testing him because they know he is clean I swear they did this in my high school

Catching Rondon looks like a nightmare

Maybe I'm being dumb, but I just don't like having a pitcher be the best part of a deal. Especially if this deal might be our only major move

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 09:10 PM) In that video on Crain that balta posted, Ventura stated he wanted to try and keep the pitchers around 100. Give or take 10%

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 09:08 PM) Ventura is not afraid to let these starters go a long time out there on the mound. The recent industry trend is to try to stretch starters out towards 120 pitches per outing. Not necessarily trying to average that much, but definitely try to get them used to being in excess of 100-105

Maybe I'm desensitized, but I wasn't that grossed out by it. Can't tell if it's dislocation or fracture

Death by homers and death by chopped singles all in one game

I'm not in love with Middlebrooks by any means, but if they're going to sell low on a talent like that, I'm happy to see if he can pan out around here. I'm not sure how much other talent I'm sacrificing to roll that dice, but in theory I'm all for it.

I'd like to have Middlebrooks. I don't know if I can say with certainty how much of the talent of a deal he should comprise, but we should get some guys like him.

What has impressed me most about Josh so far is his ability to make intra-game adjustments at the plate. Sometimes, he makes intra-at-bat adjustments.

John's doctor fixed my shoulder in May so I get to ask him about John on a fairly regular basis. He tells me that the most optimistic outcome for John is that roughly August is when he could start to have normal velocity and normal command. He said the surgery is very simple, reinjury risk is low, but recovery takes a bit and he would be surprised if John pitches like his old self before he gets an offseason at normal health. This is where I'm coming from thinking that John will be okay.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:27 PM) Oh, for a moment I thought it might have had something to do with money... Money plays a role. Money is meant to buy you certainty. Young players not costing money is meant to offset the risk that they are worthless.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) Ok, and why do we need to turn Danks into young players? Firstly, we don't have to do that. If you did, it is like most deals - you think the collection of players you receive will be worth more wins than the guy you trade away. Particular to our situation, unless something changes, chances are that a trade of Danks for young (or old? I don't give a s***) bats involves trading from a position of strength to cover a position of need.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:19 PM) When the best scenario is that you basically break even, and the odds of that are low, it's probably not smart to miss out on the chance of taking a mulligan on the deal. Tell me why it is that young players are so desirable again? With the TV money going out next year and just normal player salary inflation, it gets easier and easier to outperform the $15 million number as time goes on

I don't hate Kepp, but he's about the last guy I want to see up with a man on first and 2 out

When will we see Paulie take a nice, aggressive cut on a fastball and loft it over the LF fence?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:10 PM) Nice timing of Hawk and Stoney bashing the defense and then another Alexei error. Pretty tough error, kind of like Rios getting charged for one last night

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:06 PM) Why not? Just because we got an average at best catcher in the long run, and our pseudo lead off hitter is getting on a hot streak, but is still clueless on defense? I also do not believe Beckham is a long term solution just because his BABIP is at an unsustainable .370 clip, and he has sacrificed all his power in the process. Yes, we don't have any glaring offensive weakness at this point, outside of third base. Gillaspie's offense just isn't going to cut it. The bigger issue is we don't have an above average offensive player at any position outside of Rios. A good offense would feature at least two all stars and one borderline all star. Rios is a borderline all star at best, and should be batting 5th or 6th in a good offense. By the way, none of our hitters have an OBP of over .800 From a typical lineup stand point, I would say we are missing a legit leadoff hitter, and legit number 3 and 4 hitters. Frankly they are the most important holes to fill. Our leadoff hitter is perhaps the strongest spot in our lineup

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:05 PM) Why are you taking this huge gamble for no or a very remote upside possibility? The odds of him being an important piece either because we're competitive or because he turns into a valuable asset are remote. Maybe 2 in 10? I don't know why you'd want to spend all the money on those odds when you could take a mulligan. It's just silly. Additionally, he's probably going to be taking the innings of someone we should be developing instead. There is a gamble of letting John Danks pitch for a contender w/ a mid-3's ERA as he is quite liable to do. I think there is a far better chance than 20% that he ends being around a $15 million/year pitcher. Contracts have their setbacks, but in the end, lots of people want a guy like a healthy John Danks. If you want to build your team/farm up, you want to be able to turn him into young players. If you want to be good, you want a battle-tested pitcher on your team. I wouldn't stamp my feet and cry if we let him go in this mythical scenario, but I don't think it's so cut and dry.

I think Phegley doesn't really have that much power. He just makes near-perfect contact on a surprisingly consistent basis

Dayan's poor pitch selection has turned into an unbelievable ability to make contact on really bad pitches

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:56 PM) Why would Sox do that? Maybe a three-way deal

Entering today, Micah has a 1.1 BB% in A+ compared to 11% in A-

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:43 PM) Yeah, and the last 2.5 years? Lets assume we're paying him generally what he was worth between 2008-2011. Is that fair? Why would you gamble that he'll be worth what we're paying him in a best case scenario when a) he hasn't been worth anywhere near that since 2011 and b) we suck? It's like paying $45 million for the chance at a decent prospect two years down the line. You're acting like "a" is a random occurrence, as if we have no way of knowing when that lack of production will end. We know why he quit producing, too. We have a nice guess for that - next year. We saw this same progression with Jake Peavy where he needed a full offseason of normal activity and health before he came back to normal. Given how much Danks has improved some aspects of his game and we can see his velocity getting closer to normal, it is not unreasonable to think he's going to return to normal. The sucking is meant to be temporary. If he plays out his contract, he'll be here when we don't suck. If we suck longer than intended, the plan is to move him when he's looking like his old self. He won't pitch worse than this, that seems like a fair assumption. Therefore, this is his minimum value and if we're not planning to increase salary, the money isn't a consideration at this point. The same people that would take him off our hands for nothing would rather do that a year from now when there is 15 million less owed to him, too. By then, he might be pitching well enough that the contract looks reasonable again.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) It's just a lot of money for someone that's going to be a #4 or 5 starter most likely for you. Indeed. If he's his old self, he won't be our 4-5. If not, there are worse expenditures of money.