Dam8610

The last time the White Sox had a team this talented was the last time they made this many radical changes to the roster in the off-season, 2005. They have three starters capable of producing 5+ WAR over 200 innings, an MVP caliber hitter, several above average hitters around him, a rebuilt, reloaded bullpen, a couple players who could be poised for breakout campaigns, and a rookie phenom waiting in the wings. That doesn't even touch on some potential bounceback candidates that also exist. Of course a few things will have to break right (they always do for success to happen), but I see a team poised for greatness. Hopefully I'm wearing the correct pair of Magic Tyler Flowers glasses.

Any chance Scherzer would take a 1 year deal if it was worth about 25-35% more on a per year basis than what he'd get in a long term deal?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) I sure didn't like it then and I wouldn't like it now. It was a bad value trade. Nevertheless, I will continue to object to bad value trades even though that one, coupled with about 8 other moves, netted a world championship. You consider that a bad value trade? Two OFs, one of whom became a decent player, one of whom completely flamed out, and a C who never really had more value than a backup or below average starter. That is what the White Sox traded for at worst a #2 caliber starter and arguably a fringe ace. You call that bad value? If that's the case, then what on Earth would you consider good value?

Any chance the Sox get this guy? If he can be a .750-.800 OPS guy, he'd be a great 2B starter/3B platoon partner with Gillaspie.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 13, 2014 -> 11:27 PM) You guys have anything else on your Christmas list? Santa Hahn has a big bag of goodies this year. As in wish list? Chase Headley.

Wasn't Noesi's line with just the White Sox much better overall? I seem to remember a third of a run difference in his overall ERA and his White Sox only ERA.

Not a bad price, much better if he extends before free agency next year. I would've preferred to give them both Johnson and Sanchez to giving them Semien, but I'm guessing that's why they wanted Semien. Definitely an upgrade to the rotation and now the Sox have a rotation I could see as being competitive. Sale Quintana Samardzija Noesi Danks (to be Rodon by midseason) That could be one hell of a rotation. I would say one more bat is needed at this point to make everything come together.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) his bat is like Alejandro De Aza with a lot more walks and a lot less strikeouts Fixed it to reflect an accurate comparison.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 07:07 PM) I love how you throw out Alexei as some worthless piece of trash. Two years of a 10 million dollar top 10 shortstop is more than just a throwaway. Semien will likely never be as good as Ramirez's age 33 and 34 seasons. You really need to refine your reading comprehension. I said Semien, Anderson, and more was a laughable proposal, and something that started with Alexei and didn't give much more would be more reasonable. If you don't think Semien will ever be better than Alexei's next two seasons, you can have that opinion, but it doesn't make much sense given that Semien put up about league average OPS at his position as a rookie and Alexei is likely to decline over the next two seasons. I'd certainly want to see a lot more from Semien before I came to any type of conclusion like that.

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Nov 29, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) Looks like this might end up happening! Semien, Anderson, ? ? If that's where the trade would start, then I would hope Hahn would hang up the phone laughing. Maybe send them Alexei, but Semien AND Anderson AND more? No thank you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 05:16 PM) I could see the bad contract for bad contract swap if we still needed the lefty and Ethier might have made sense, but now that we don't desperately need a middle of the order lefty, its just hard to see any obvious match. We don't need an overpaid right fielder nearly as badly now and clearing Danks only makes sense if we're going to easily replace him in the rotation, which isn't going to be cheap anyway. Could Alexei + Danks net Kemp + a better than lottery ticket prospect, or Kemp + two or three lottery tickets? That just seems like a match that makes sense to me. The Sox lower their payroll obligation, acquire a middle of the order OF bat (who would essentially be paid 4/30), and rid themselves of Danks, allowing Bassit and Noesi starting opportunities. Meanwhile, the Dodgers get an upgrade at SS and the back end of the rotation starter they're looking for, not to mention clearing their OF logjam. Is it just me, or does that make a lot of sense for both sides and seem like a reasonable deal?

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) I'm just trying to understand the Q+ part of what's been speculated. I wouldn't say its "crazy", I mean Bruce and Latos have solid value and its not like Sanchez or Semien have done mind boggling things in their debuts so I would say their value is rather limited til they take the next step. Q holds 99.99999% of the value in the trade. It would have to be Bruce, Cueto with a cheap extension, and Chapman in my book to get Q+. They could also throw in that catcher of theirs I suppose. The trade may sound ridiculous, but that's about where Q is value wise.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 22, 2014 -> 01:34 AM) Interesting exercise, except even though Quintana is about the same surplus value montetarily, you also have to factor in that if Trout and Quintana both continue to have similar 2014 campaigns until 2020, Trout has just amassed 51 WAR, while Quintana has accrued about 32 WAR. So, yes, Q and Trout may give you similar bang for your buck, but you'd still be better off with him on your team than Quintana. Not assuming you don't understand that, but I just want to make sure other posters don't get confused thinking that Q and Trout have the same value. I would think the use of the phrase "surplus value" would cover that, but that said, just because Quintana would "only" put up 32 WAR over 6 seasons doesn't mean he should just be traded away. If Trout is 51 WAR over the same 6 years, that still kind of illustrates that Quintana is likely one of the most valuable players in the league for that time span regardless of contract, and shouldn't just be offered up as trade bait unless you're getting several quality major league contributors or one or two extremely high caliber major league contributors in return. When you factor contract in, it becomes nigh impossible to get value out of Quintana in a trade.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:40 PM) Ultimately, they have spent about $17M so far and have around $40-45M they are wanting to blow, which leaves them with $23-28M left to spend. Melky- 4 years/$60M ($15M) Headley 3 years/$21M ($7M) That would leave them with about $6M or so to spend on a RHSP and another reliever. Would need to see a trade or two unless they plan on spending more. Those are low end numbers on both of those guys as well, which is why I said it's a pipe dream.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:34 PM) Except pitchers have a much higher likelihood of career-threatening injuries than position players. Sure you can come back eventually from TJ...and Stanton almost had his career ended...but shoulder/labrum injuries are killers It's the age old argument about a pitcher with 32 starts vs. 150+ games from an everyday player...especially at SS or CF. Fine, then, assign Quintana about 90% of the value you'd assign Trout and then move on with the analysis. Bruce is still nowhere near worth that. Let alone the absurd idea of the Sox giving up more than Quintana for Bruce.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 09:23 PM) So this is sort of crazy. Mike Trout is owed $144 million through 2020. If he puts up 8.5 fWAR the next few years, which is roughly what he's done the last few (higher than the last 2 but lower than his first 2) he will put up $260 million worth of value at $5 million/fWAR (probably an underestimate but an ok one). The difference between what he would be paid and what he would produce, his excess value, is $116 million. Jose Quintana is owed $46 million through 2020. He put up 5.3 fWAR last year. If Jose Quintana puts up that same fWAR through 2020, he would be worth $159 million. The excess value Quintana Baswould produce is $113 million. Basically, if you assume the injury/collapse risk is about equal...Right now, Jose Quintana with his contract included should have about the same value as Mike Trout. This is not sarcastic. The excess value Quintana should produce is comparable to the excess value Mike Trout should produce through 2020. So if you would not trade Mike Trout and his contract for some player right now, you should not trade Quintana for that same player right now. Maybe if it's close and the guy is a better fit fine, but assume no injuries and no improvement from either and wow...Quintana + his contract is disturbingly close in value to Mike Trout + his contract. THANK YOU! Maybe now all this "trade Q" crap will die. How's Chris Sale look in this sort of analysis, by the way?

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Nov 21, 2014 -> 08:18 PM) Completely agree. Ultimately, it would be nice to see a catching upgrade as well but I'm not overly impressed with any of the players they have been tied to so far, especially the expensive Montero. If they can ink Melky and turn their focus to their pitching, I would be more than happy with those two improvements (LaRoche and Melky) In a real pipe dream, you could also add Headley and be in very good shape. From there, a 3 starter and a pen arm might actually make a team that could compete for a playoff spot.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 20, 2014 -> 08:21 PM) Early. Revisiting talks. Might take Q + Hahn should hang up the phone laughing if Q is even mentioned, let alone +. Q is a 5+ WAR pitcher. A 3-ish WAR OF is not worth a 5+ WAR LHSP.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 05:00 PM) Would we pay 4 years and $40-44 million to DeAza? Because offensively, that's the kind of production we're looking at. Markakis clearly has better fundamentals and fewer brain cramps and is beloved by Showalter (supposedly), but he's not going to be the difference-maker he was projected to be five years ago. If I had a gun to my head, I'd choose Cabrera, but not a big fan of either acquisition at these price points. If you don't value superior defense, striking out much less, or walking much more, then yes, Markakis is exactly like De Aza.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 15, 2014 -> 07:40 PM) They're unlikely to go after Liriano or Peavy again. You've got Volquez, Hammel, Vogelsong, Masterson, Brett Anderson, Floyd, Josh Johnson that would all be value plays. E. Santana, if they want to pay $10-12 million for three to four years. The argument over Santana has changed a bit since last year, although the odds of adding him with Danks still in the field aren't extremely high. Those guys one year away from fa like price shark and fister could be made available as well between now and midseason. Plus Maeda and Kuroda. I like the idea of Santana. Is there a reason no one has mentioned Billingsley?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 07:25 PM) Really surprised to hear you say that. You talk of building the farm yet you'd be willing to give up a 1st and 2nd rounder over a 2nd and 3rd rounder only a year apart so it really makes no difference in the contention window but means very much in the talent level. Luckily I think Hahn knows that if theres going to be a large influx of talent this is the year to do it . If you need more talent next year, then at least Hahn's got more tradeable assets because right now we can get very little in trade unless we trade prospects and don't think Hahn will be doing that either unless he thinks he's fleecing someone. So basically thats 3 factors that say add as much talent as you can this year : 1. Protected 1st round pick 2. Low payroll 3. Lack of tradeable assets outside of the core and prospects. This is not an " All In " approach as some have labled it. It's just the most logical conclusion to come to when looking at factors that matter. Signing Victor Martinez is the definition of an all-in move, because not only are you committing a significant portion of your payroll dollars, but you're committing them to a guy who is highly likely to produce diminishing returns over the life of the contract, because players in any sport tend to age like milk after 35, with the rare exception that usually ends up in a Hall of Fame. Further, you're taking assets away from your farm system by signing him. Note that I am not advocating against signing free agents this offseason, nor am I advocating against a strategy that takes assets away from the farm system. My point is that the timing has to be right, and right now is not the right time.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) Exactly. If the Sox wait til next years FA then its likely the Sox don't have a protected first rounder and then hind sighters come out saying the Sox shouldn't sign any top free agents because the last player they signed that cost a first round pick was Adam Dunn and we know how the song will go from there. If there's a year when the Sox should fill a few holes through FA, this is it. The more I hear about CarGo and his horrible contract, the more I like the idea of going after Rasmus who would give similar production, one year younger, cheaper and will not cost anyone from the farm teams. Rasmus AND VMart would add some very nice power from the left side and Rasmus is definitely an upgrade over Tank in LF. I would try to give the Yanks some competition with regards to Headley too. If the Sox aren't willing to spend on a few quality free agent bats and a reliever or two then they should stop with the " we think we can contend" bs because there's no friggin way they will without spending the money. Then comes another season of excuses starting with " attendance is down and the whole bleeding heart bag o bs. The only player on your list I wouldn't pursue is Martinez because he has a QO, and he's old and will get WAY too much on the Free Agent market.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 06:53 AM) Next year our 1st round pick might not be protected so if you want a premium hitter or 2 which comes attached with a qualifying offer then your giving up a 1st rd. draft pick. If we get a premium hitter or 2 this year. we give up a 2nd and 3rd round draft pick. Also if you target some of those guy above will it not impact the Sox ability to get those guys next year since you have now occupied much of the payroll flexilbilty ? If we're going to make moves for premium talent then this is the ideal year for it. I disagree. I think that because this team is at least a full season away from contention no matter what they do, they might as well stock up the farm system as much as possible this year while also building toward a contender. Yes, it means losing a higher pick next year in all likelihood, however, when you're shifting toward contention, building the farm becomes less of a concern, though it should still exist as a concern.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 07:24 PM) I think the site is still battling on who to target this offseason. Yes, but I was asked rationally to defend my position, so I figured I'd oblige. Really this year should still be about finding value, while next year could bring splash moves and contention. That's just my opinion, of course.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) For those of you who advocate not spending big now, but rather continuing to rebuild, with an eye toward 2016, exactly what would you do? Who would you try to acquire now? Who would you target for 2016? Glad you asked Q1) What would you do? A1) I would target players who didn't get QOs and try to get 75% or so of the value of the players who did get QOs with 50% or less of the per year money, and 25-35% of the overall contract commitment. In doing so, I also give myself another full year of building the farm system as I don't lose my second round pick and the related slot allocation from my bonus pool. Q2) Who would you try to acquire? A2) Markakis, Headley, LaRoche, McCarthy, Billingsley, Miller, Duke, and Hochevar are examples of players I would target. None have a QO, and all could make impact contributions in 2015 and 2016. Q3) Who would you target in 2016? A3) A lot of that would depend on how the 2015 season worked out, but likely a premium hitter, maybe two, possibly a pen arm, and defense. That is, provided, of course, that I got at least one hitter, one 3-4 level starter, and at least two pen arms this off-season.