Balta1701

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:46 AM) It was only a meniscus injury. There doesn't seem to be any structural damage from what I can find. It wouldn't concern me with trading for him. To say it a different way...I don't think the White Sox should be paying full price for anyone with where their roster is - that means either in trades or in FA. They're not in a position where a single player likely puts them over the top this season. I can see taking on someone like Cargo - with his value beaten down to the point the Rockies might just let him go, but I don't know why the Reds would give us a discount on Bruce.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 05:55 AM) This board is a very intelligent baseball group, although a little too advance stats oriented for my like, so I find it strange that many of you don't like Jay Bruce. A healthy Jay Bruce is a top level baseball player. I don't like knee injuries and I don't like giving up high level talent for guys coming off knee injuries. If I'm taking on a guy after a knee injury, it ought to be at a discount reflecting the injury. Why would the Reds give him up for a discount?

QUOTE (glangon @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:55 AM) If you do that then you give up the 2nd round draft pick which Hahn has been unwilling to do so far. If you want to give up that 2nd round pick, you are as well spending a little more and going for it with Scherzer. Like I said before, the calculus for me is that the value of Tim Anderson or Marcus Semien, guys who have already made it to high levels in the minors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the value of a 2nd round pick. 2nd round picks are nice, I wouldn't give them up flippantly, but a 2nd round pick who even winds up in a system's top 5 is pretty rare, let alone a 2nd round pick who makes the big leagues. The draft is that big of a gamble. We got really lucky with a guy who fell & was still singable last year, and even then he's years away from AAA.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:24 PM) Indiana should always play at home in the challenge. Alma Mater 1. Current employer 0. Thanks for living up to my trash talk to the Pitt students earlier this week, Hoosiers .

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:50 PM) lol ..... ok you got me there. dang i should have known i was missing something with the advance stats with yous guys. nice job. i still think he is better. Markakis has been better, but he's been extremely disappointing the last several years. De Aza has hit about as well as I'd expect, making him a decent player, but he's been extremely frustrating on defense with the bonehead plays. De Aza and Markakis for $4-$5 mil a year don't seem bad, and that's about what we paid De Aza last year, but man...paying them beyond that just doesn't seem to fit this roster. Of course, paying a worse outfielder $4.4 million seems equally crazy to me.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:48 PM) i know what you are saying, but lets look at this way, he has to be put on the 40 man roster for the waiver. just like Jones, after the allotted time, when Jones goes back on IR and if either one is not ready, then you attached them to the IR as well. there is room on the 40 list. There's 1 spot available right now and we're already removing people who I think could have contributed next year as much as these guys. I'd like to think we could do better with that open spot.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:44 PM) thanks, i appreciate what you are saying, but side by side, stats wise, DeAza come no where near him. De Aza's OPS the last 2 years combined is .716. Markakis the last 2 years combined is .707. De Aza has outhit Markakis the last 2 years. So he comes so close to Markakis that he's passed him.

The question is whether anyone will offer them a major league deal. For us, that would require putting them on the 40 man and right now that's something I'd hesitate about a bit. If either are up for a minor league deal with a ST invite then they'll have their choice of teams to go to, and with our reputation we've got as good a chance as any.

Drops Mic.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 08:32 PM) why all the negativity on Markakis?? if he comes at a nice salary, why not take a chance? 2016 fa class has some real nice bats. There's no reason to believe he'll come at a nice salary. It seems like he's likely to earn a >$10 million a year multi year deal and he's not that much better than De Aza was.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 05:41 PM) Oh well, salary cap won't matter. This team will just need to simmer with it's parts. Add in more wing depth this draft. I love having a player who can get fouls at will. It's what I always hated about other teams and I love it so much. Yeah, I can't complain at all about having to match that contract. It'll cost them what, $5 mil a year in cap space. Oh darn.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 06:17 PM) I hope he makes trades similar to the ones last year: well-thought out that fill a need and which doesn't hurt the farm. This would in theory do those things, because the Rockies can't expect teams to give up much if they're absorbing that contract, but doing so would instead cost us our financial flexibility going forward.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:48 PM) while i do understand what you are saying, I just don't believe when a mlb in today will leave money on the table. I mean a nice portion of money. Think about it, will a player leave 3-5 mil on the table b/c they didn't like a for whatever reason they have of a certain place. $5 million on a $100 million deal? Yes, I think a guy would leave that on the table. People leave that on the table just by the states they move to if they head to a state with a high tax rate. $5 million per year on a $100 million deal is a much bigger change.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:45 PM) The ONLY one I can think of is upside, and that's less likely to show up in a part-time role. The $4m isn't really the issue -- it's the use of a 25 man roster slot on someone who doesn't help you win. A guy who can add value defensively is much better. Viciedo doesn't add value defensively OR offensively. I'd tender him a contract as a backup plan for starting LF. But I'd DFA him in a second if I got a real option in LF. The White Sox aren't going to eat a $4 million contract in January and I find it highly unlikely they'll be able to trade him in January if they haven't traded him yet. Only exception is if he's a "bad contract throw in" in a larger deal where he's treated as about as useful as Danks. IMO, he's a very likely starting corner OF if he's brought back. There's literally no other role for him on this roster. He's a terrible backup option, he's not taking playing time away from Laroche at DH, he's not moving positions.

The issue is that Cargo's H/R splits are both bigger than most people's and bigger than most people who play in Coors. Is he a guy who puts up a .900 OPS at home if he leaves or is he a guy who puts up an .800 OPS at home if he leaves? That's the issue you have to figure out, and I wonder if such extreme H/R splits genuinely makes him untradeable. The Rockies wouldn't give him up for nothing, but teams won't trust him outside of Coors with those kind of career splits enough to give up major talent and take on that kind of money.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) It is just pathetic. It amazes me how stupid our staff is. Think about it another way...we have a turnover prone QB (historically speaking and currently speaking) and we continuously do nothing but throw. You throw more and you are going to have higher turnovers but the turnover % is also going to typically go up when you are throwing that much. Defenses know what is coming, play action doesn't work, you don't have a good mix, can be more likely you are in 2nd / 3rd and long situations, etc. It is brutal how bad this team is ran. I hope there is a lot of truth to the rumors some of the national radio guys keep talking about Harbaugh / Chicago and returning to his roots. Just curious, it's been mentioned that Cutler audibled out of runs some times, do we know how often that happened?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 04:32 PM) Eh, how's that different than actual bullying in school? We all dealt with it at some point. That's part of being a kid. Obviously it can go to far, and people should be protected/punished for it, but if Facebook is your life, you need to get a f'n life. Kids put too much stock on their internet/social media accounts. I'm in favor of breaking that trend, not embarrassing it and nurturing it even more. I for one don't think "That's part of being a kid" is how I feel about a couple people I had to deal with while growing up, and none of those ever got to the point where some things I've seen on twitter get to.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) Yes. I'm not sure where I stand legally on this. I think it's a good question to answer for the USSC. However, I think, for media companies, they have a responsibility to help employees with the hate mail. Women journalists just get killed with disgusting comments and emails constantly. Constantly. Twitter, it's just gross. How do they deal? Will they rely on individual flagging? They get in trouble when a popular person gets a tweet removed because trolls flagged it. But ultimately, not sure this isn't their problem. The thing I've seen happen to a whole lot of people is "a giant surge of harassing posts from accounts that are then deleted before the reports are processed". Twitter basically throws up their hands then even when people might be able to connect them to existing accounts.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) I think a ton of people have gotten in trouble over "social media" posts. It's easy to be a tough guy on the internet. I hope tons of people get arrested/thrown in jail for internet threats. I think that people getting in trouble for them happens very, very rarely. Twitter is actually starting to get some notoriety as a place where it's very easy to harass and threaten people with no consequences.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) I wouldn't, when you figure in that Bruce could make $37.5M over the next 3 years (if his last option is picked up), while Cargo will cost you $53M over those same 3 years. Bruce has only played less than 148 games once since 2009. CarGo has never reached that mark. Plus we don't have much time to give at the DH slot now either.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Dec 2, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) He certainly didn't get haul for Josh Donaldson. But I agree with you, after thinking about what the cost would be in players and their years of control combined with Shark's impending contract status, I think the Sox would be smarter to look elsewhere. IMO, if we're willing to spend what it takes to extend him, go sign Shields, keep the player we'd trade, and sacrifice a 2nd round pick that is much less likely to be a contributor. Yeah you get a guy who is older, but you keep the high minor league player and frankly Shields has for much of his career been a better pitcher than Samardzija.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 02:43 PM) I would like this trade, but the worst part about acquiring Saunders is that it would most likely take us out of the running for a real impact LF. I think that is what this team needs most. That said, I would take Saunders and a top tier RHP over, say, Ethier and some scrapheap RHP or just rolling with Bassit in the 5 spot. All depends on which way Ricky goes, but I'd be surprised to see him acquire a mid-tier LF without seeing what he can get his hands on at the winter meetings next week. I would be content moving our corner OF spots from terrible to tolerable next year. Let Jose, Chris, and Jose carry the team, just don't drag them down with a black hole in the corner OF.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) I agree. I want Semien to be the starting 2B next year and use Sanchez as trade bait. I don't imagine that either of them have that much trade value. Sanchez's tools don't sell me on "Here, spend a lot to trade for me" and Semien needs to now establish that he's a full time big leaguer to show that he's a high value asset, including being better on defense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) Why do you say that? Just a combination of offensive firepower/production and speed. They always go after speed IMO, don't they?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2014 -> 02:19 PM) And I want Mariotta, dammit He seems like the quintessential Raiders draft choice doesn't he?