Balta1701

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) From watching and deducing using stats, De Aza is a wreck in CF. It's passable in short stints, but he is not comfortable. On the other hand, I have no problem with him in the corners. UZR actually has him as a slightly negative value LF over his career as well. At best he's a small upgrade over Viciedo but even in LF he's not a huge upgrade, and in RF his arm would be even more exposed than it is in LF. You can put him there and get adequate results but it's just not the best way to use either him or the backup OF spot. If I'm taking Viciedo out in the 8th inning, I want a serious defensive upgrade, and that's not De Aza.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) That's my biggest issue with the NCAA. I like the idea of protections for the players in the event of injury and extending scholarships to players based on certain conditions (staying at the program 4 years or whatever), but at the end of the day, they still receive a lot of benefits from the college that normal students do not. But why is it illegal for Johnny Manziel to sell his autograph for money or the Ohio State players to sell their Rose Bowl rings for tattoos? They earned that status/reward and it's their own property, why can't they sell it? Key point...the word "illegal" there...none of those kids were charged with or committed a crime, only NCAA violations.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:31 PM) You mean LF, right? Yes. Although Viciedo ought to fit better in RF and Garcia ought to fit better in LF on this roster, but that ship has probably sailed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) Grad students can receive full-ride scholarships plus stipends (and work outside of school if they want, which can be very difficult to student athletes to do because of NCAA rules) without it being taxable income. They're pressing for various things, but they aren't arguing for big paychecks right now. Just so it's said, the stipend I received as a grad student was considered taxable income. Interestingly though it was exempt from payroll taxes. The tuition however, was not taxed, obviously a big deal.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:17 PM) I don't think anybody is going to cry themselves to sleep if the Sox lose Jordan Danks, but the thing I wonder is do the Sox really want to pay a fourth outfielder over $4 million when they could keep Jordan Danks around at less than 25% of the cost. Danks proved to me last year that he has enough to stick as a fourth outfielder. He is a good defender and has good speed. That's really what you're looking for in a fourth outfielder. I certainly would not just give De Aza away as he has at least a little value, but I would certainly try to move him. In addition to this, De Aza is a terrible fit as a 4th OF with this roster. He isn't a solid defender at any of the 3 positions so you're not going to use him as a defensive replacement and expect a big improvement. There's a lefty in the OF who might well hit leadoff already, so he's not going to take many at bats from the CF. The RF has good speed so he's not going to pinch-run for the RF very often. The LF is a righty without much speed so you could in theory get him some at bats there, but all 3 OF guys are players you want playing every day either to develop them or to see if it's time to cut the cord and let the RF go. On top of that, De Aza got off to a very slow start last year, which doesn't bode well for him coming off the bench a few times per week either. Jordan Danks is sort of the ideal 4th OF for this roster. Cheap, able to be used as a defensive replacement at any position, and a lefty so you can sit the 2 right-handed corner OF's when they actually need a day off.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:17 PM) [/i] Exactly. So why is the Super Bowl different? Because in the NFL the super bowl is played on a neutral field unlike the championships of the other 3 major sports which have 4/3 splits. This is probably particularly important for the NFL where only 1 game is played at each level - difficult to justify giving one team home-field advantage in a 1-game single elimination format.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 02:05 PM) We allow weather conditions to still be a factor all of the way up until this one game. If we are really looking for "ideal" wouldn't it be ideal to get the best two teams regardless of weather for the whole season? Changing it for the last game of the year is just ignoring the rest of the season where that doesn't apply. Then in that case every game should be played on a neutral field, because home field conditions are very important to every team. And anyway, you don't get the best 2 teams in most seasons. You get some combination of teams that perform well at the right time and teams that take advantage of their circumstances quite well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) If the elements are such a worry for the Super Bowl, why aren't they the same level of important for who goes to the Super Bowl? I think the big difference there is that you earn the right to have games in your stadium whereas the super bowl is supposed to be a neutral field.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 01:07 PM) in recent memory, has a trade like this occurred so late in the process? I can't seem to recall a Spring Training move that was of significance like this would be. I would imagine that there's always a few back-end-of-the-roster moves in ST. That's how we wound up with Matt Thornton, for example.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 11:16 AM) Keith Law just ranked White Sox 27th . Shocked by how low he had us. I thought we would be closer to 20. Is he counting Jose Abreu as part of the system? You don't count him and it looks a lot worse.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Yeah, there won't be a LF platoon, but ADA could backup all the OF positions and still get a fair amount of AB's. (I still think this is a terrible idea)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 10:28 PM) Too bad Rose won't... Hell, he won't even "walk".

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 05:56 AM) Let's hope the sox org and Buddy Bell has learned about rushing these kids too much. Thank god Jacob May for example figured it out after starting off so brutal in Kanny. I can see how Davidson might benefit from some extra AAA time...but there's no reasonable standard by which he'd be "rushed" if he were on the roster out of ST. Dude's had a full year at every minor league level, including full years at AA and AAA, hasn't clearly been overmatched at any level, had a cup of coffee in September in the big leagues already and wasn't immediately terrible in those first few at bats. That doesn't mean he's ready, but based on any reasonable standard he's not being "rushed too much" like some of the other guys we bring along.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 08:06 PM) I could not give one damn about WAR and contracts. As stated earlier in the thread, some bootleg WAR related formula told me the Sox got a fair deal when they signed Dunn. Thankfully no team employing Bill James or anyone like that has recently won a World Series, so Adam Dunn's collapse not being predicted is the only plausible data point.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 06:43 PM) The Atlanta forecast is calling for 1 to 3 inches of snow tomorrow. It was nice knowing you all. I'm going to run to the store and buy all the bread I can. Iirc you can count the numbers of plows they own on one hand.

This ESPN compilation of total spending over the last 5 years and wins to show for it is worth looking through. 16-30 and 1-15.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:45 PM) Here's a question that I don't think has been asked yet... Lets say the Sox believe Paulino strings together a good 1st half (something he is more than capable of doing)...What sort of package would he be looking at? Would a team rather have the cheap production of Paulino, or the more proven guy who's getting paid a lot more? IMO, if Paulino puts together a solid first half the Sox would likely hold onto him through the season given that we have an option year on him. We might consider moving him next offseason if Beck/Rienzo/Someone else forces our hand, but we could also be in a position of clearing Danks out instead or making a larger move at that point. I kinda doubt that teams would jump with a solid offer for Paulino at the deadline, at least not one that would make me move him if he were pitching that well.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) I see Garcia as being an Alex Rios type guy, which is why I had him in the #3 hole. Offensively he could hit about .280, hit 20 HR, steal 20-30 bags. That's where I feel he is likely to land statistically. I'd agree, just wondering whether he is best suited to hit there now and whether that's best for this roster.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) Finally someone agrees with me on Alexei and the 2 spot. I don't see Garcia as a the two hitter. The FO repeatedly refers to him as a middle of the order hitter. The ideal thing would be for Beckham to hit like .300-ish for the full season because even with the streak of righties that makes the order work a lot better (and the streak of righties is almost unavoidable somewhere).

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) Wouldn't Garcia hit too many home runs to be a #2 hitter? I have him going 24/77 in the 3/5 holes. If there is such a thing, perhaps he could do so. But the counterpoints are, he has some speed, him hitting in the #2 slot has him getting extra at-bats on the year, it makes the lineup flow a little better than having 3 righties back to back going 2-4 (Ramirez, Garcia, Abreu), and I personally dislike Alexei in the 2-slot as I think it hurts his approach at the plate, taking away some of his power numbers (which could, btw, help him be a more tradeable asset if he can push those numbers higher again).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) Amen to your last sentence. It's like there is a group on here who wants bad players cause it means we're still rebuilding. It's not like the cost of going to a game is going to decrease any, so why not put the heat on our front office to spend some money and get some more good players?? Ignoring of course the big cut in ticket prices last year.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) While I'm not 100% convinced he's ready, I think he showed enough in his cup of coffee in the majors last year to get a shot if he has a good spring. This team really isn't expected to win anything anyways and I think he probably could put as good of numbers as Keppinger or Gillaspie. I wonder if the plan really isn't for him to start in the majors and Hahn is just stating he may go to AAA to not completely diminish the little value that Keppinger and Gillaspie have. There's probably also an element of making sure Davidson gets himself prepped for the challenge coming into ST on day one as well. But yes, there's still no place for all these guys on the roster together.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) This is how rebuilding goes. Ultra conservative is what the Cubs are doing by not taking risks at all. The White Sox have taken plenty of risks this offseason already and those moves have been lauded by the fans on here. And yet, the Cubs last year decided that even though they weren't quite ready to bring their kids up they might be able to benefit from signing a reliable, middle of the order pitcher to a 4/$50 contract. They have since declared that was a major mistake.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 01:45 PM) Another setup I kinda like is Avi batting second w/ Abreu batting third, Dunn fourth, Viciedo, Davidson, Ramirez, Flowers, Beckham. Unless Beckham or whatever it is that takes the 3b spot can hit like a #2 hitter, this is probably my favorite lineup for this roster right now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 12:55 PM) I'd be curious the last time this actually happened to anyone in MLB. I sure can't recall it. Very few teams leave themselves the ability to take on >$7 million in salary commitments at the trading deadline, and if they do, they aren't looking to take on guys who they're obligated to pay for multiple years down the road. We heard that a whole lot with Peavy last year, that even though his next year was affordable and reasonable, teams outside the largest markets were really hesitant to commit the payroll for an additional season. We heard it enough that it actually surprised me how many teams seemed to take themselves out of the running at the deadline because they didn't want to pay the extra year.