Balta1701

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 03:43 PM) What's the team going to look like in 2016 and what do you do with Sale in 2014? I let Chris Sale go out and see if he can win the first of 5 consecutive cy young awards in 2014, and I have no idea what this team is going to look like in 2016 given that from the roster last season there are about 3-4 guys actually under team control for that long.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 03:41 PM) The draft pick is meaningless in this because its value can easily be recouped. By trading the guy who you've already overpaid? Since you're so stressed out about him, we can recoup it just like we can with Adam Dunn right now, right?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) How was it that Dunn's contract was deemed a good deal for the Sox when it was signed? Every player transaction is unique and at this point in time it would behoove the Sox to shore up the rotation for a moderate investment in order to give themselves more options to improve the team in 2015 and 2016. The White Sox believed they were an "All-in" team, trying to win at all costs. That means they were in a place where it made sense to pay full price on the FA market to fill in holes because 1-2 wins could have been the difference between missing the playoffs and making the playoffs. If you can convince me the white sox are in a position right now where 1-2 extra wins from Santana puts us in the playoffs, you can make a strong case for that being a good deal. If you can't make that argument, then it is a terrible proposal.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) I get where you're getting your 3/$33M. How does that make 3/$40M a steal? That's $7M unaccounted for if he forgets to age and puts up the same rates he has over the last three years. Plus the draft pick and plust the fact that you're paying for him now as well so you can't use the price in 2016 to cover teh first 2 years of the contract.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) You got me B. Anyway, stathead types told me Dunn's contract was a good one for the Sox and that could not have been further from the truth. What will the price of a WAR be in 2016? At current rates of inflation I'm going to guess in the range of $6-$7 million.

Woj talking about ANthony free agency options:

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) I was wrong on that one. Maybe, I'll start posting pithy one-liners. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) WAR is just one way of looking at it and in this case not relevant.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 08:43 AM) I've heard some recommendations for the Blacklist You'll enjoy it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 01:17 AM) Yeah I think I'm just so thrown off by how common sexual assault incidents have been in college athletics. I want perpetrators removed and charged. I hate it. QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 11:07 AM) It's disgusting. Just think...10 years ago there were probably just as many, but people were more scared to come forward.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) Advantage Seattle "Peyton Manning's legacy is tarnished because he can only win super bowls under bad conditions when the running game has to carry him".

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) Dunn had the highest OPS and OPS÷ on the White Sox last year. And the dope with the crack about Ventura, just classless. You might get more info if yoj just politely tell him you think he should be screaming all the time. What horrible examples they were to the kids at those seminars. I'm going to waste the day now trying to come up with something that could legitimately be called OPS÷.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 01:22 PM) http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/01/al-c...ins-tigers.html Apparently Ervin Santana's price may have dropped all the way to 3/40M. Everybody still horribly against a 3 year deal? QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 26, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) At that price he's a steal, no reason not to sign him. Over the last 3 years, Ervin Santana has put up 4.6 fWAR. If I go with paying $6 million per WAR, over the last 3, when he was ages 28, 29, and 30, years he's been worth $27 million. Ergo, it's a steal to give up $40 million and a draft pick for the right to pay him $40 million over his age 31, 32, and 33 seasons? Actually, you're right, "steal" is the word I'd use to describe that...but I think I'd be using in the sense of "Stealing money".

QUOTE (staxx @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) Drafting players that are near MLB ready are usually the "safe" picks that end up being the Lance Broadways of the world. Take the best player with the highest ceiling. Don't worry about being able to contribute right now. But a guy who is farther away is simply going to be a higher risk. A guy 4-5 years away has 4-5 years of risks of injury and other things going wrong. On top of that, guys who are near MLB ready have been playing against older, higher-quality competition already themselves, so that gets thrown into the assessment as well.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) A ranking of the signability/guestimated costs for the top draftees, especially the pitchers, would be cool. If anyone here has that expertise, much appreciated. It's not exactly what you asked for but here's the slotting amounts for last year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) We do agree, there must be something wrong with me. If this is a cover not to take Kolek, I think it's a bad idea. Like you said the #3 pick is too rare not to take the BPA. From what everyone seems to be saying, there's 2 guys head and shoulders above the others as things stand now and then a number of guys who could distinguish themselves at 3. Is my assessment wrong in that? If you could save $500k on your first pick by taking a guy who might otherwise go number 5 at #3...while not sacrificing a lot in talent, that's like adding an extra 3rd rounder to the draft. The setup has to be right, you don't want to do that when the #3 pick is head and shoulders above the #4, but so far no one seems to be making a case that there's an obvious #3 guy in any of these threads.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) You still got Viciedo as the next Vlad, B? QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) I was wrong on that one. Maybe, I'll start posting pithy one-liners.

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:24 PM) My friend tried ordering a Abreu jersey shirt for a Christmas gift, but his order was cancelled by the MLB shop. He placed it again...cancelled again. So he gives them a call to see why it keeps getting cancelled. He was told, "He is too new of a player", so they couldn't complete his order, even though "Abreu - 79" was an option on the website. Not sure if things have changed a month later, but just a heads up if you try to order it at the MLB Shop. Is it possible they're just not 100% sure he won't change his number?

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) I could go both ways on that. (Prefacing this: It's obviously still early and many things can and will change.) Unfortunately at this point in time, there is a clear top two tier of Rodon/Hoffman, then a drop off in talent level. There is no clear cut number 3 pick. You could make a feasible argument for MANY players at 3 right now. Kolek, Jackson, Turner, Gatewood, Gettys, Beede, Touissant, Holmes etc. If there is little distinction in who the Sox think the BPA is amongst the players available at 3, grab the cheaper guy and spread the savings on the premium tougher signs later. It helps stock the farm and creates depth for the apparent goal of having a more self sustained organization. The Royals did it last year by grabbing Hunter Dozier at 8, which enabled them the money to sign Sean Manaea later. The Astros did it in 2012, taking Carlos Correa 1st, allowing them to sign McCullers & Rio Ruiz with the savings. It's an interesting option, but if for whatever reason the Marlins don't take Hoffman the Sox better pounce on that. Hell, the savings the White Sox got in their top few rounds last year allowed them the money it took to sign a guy like Trey Michalczewski later on, and they wound up having more than a couple guys who had 3rd round talent out of it.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) Agree that this would be a bad idea. Disappointing that they are even considering it. Of course, considering the very concept blew your mind last year to the point you declared the draft a failure.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 12:40 PM) I thought the point of making this year's team better was a bad thing. I see you're now declaring your idea of adding a pitcher this year to be a mistake.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 11:40 AM) It happens on multiple sites. I also have problems with my iPad crashing and shutting down both in Safari and other apps. It happens at least once a day. I would get an occasional crash in 6, but since updating to to 7, it happens all time. After looking around, it seems to really common. Apple is supposed to come out with an update soon that fixes it. I can't remember the last time Safari crashed on me on a fairly old iphone model.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 01:26 PM) You don't post pithy one liners? Interesting

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 10:56 PM) It's such a cool nickname though. Ya, he's been bad as of late. Maybe he needs to play more.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 25, 2014 -> 08:37 AM) I know Goodell has talked about this, but I don't see it happening. The Super Bowl is played from 6:30-10:30 pm ET on a Sunday, because that is the exact window that gets the absolute highest TV ratings, which in turn gets the absolute maximum TV contract from the networks. Having a Super Bowl in London means kickoff is no later than 3pm ET. I don't know much about sports on TV in Europe, but there would have to be an awfully big ratings boost there in order for it to make financial sense to do it. Would 11:30 local time be too late to start the game? Could they push it to 10:30 and do an hour earlier in the U.S.?

Shooting reported at Columbia Mall in Maryland. 3 people dead including the shooter based on current reports. Mall has not been fully evacuated yet.