Dick Allen

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Loaiza got the Sox Contreras, El Duque was pretty cheap, and Freddy Garcia the second time around was effective too. They've had plenty of luck. Don't use El Duque. He was pretty awful as a White Sox. He did have one incredible inning. And Freddy when he came back was mediocre at best. If Santana put up the numbers these guys did, if the Sox signed him, you would point out how awful he was. I like Jimenez better than Santana, but Santana eats innings. One thing your saber cohort ripped me for was valuing IP, but a guy that gives you 200 IP near the bottom of your rotation does wonders for your bullpen.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) So then they are good at identifying talent from outside the organization? Then my belief in Paulino is foundation for that and we should expect big things out of Surkamp too. Not many bargain basement starters with the exception of Loaisa have worked out well with the Sox. KW spent big money on the rotation during his time.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:54 AM) Tell me more about the Rays and their success in spending in the draft. It's a damn shame when the Sox can't afford to outspend the Rays . . . As far as the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers go, pay no attention to the money they spend on payroll. Exactly. The only 2 budget teams were the Rays and Pirates. They had to be awful a long time to get the prospects they wound up with, and both teams have had huge misses at the top of the draft.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:46 AM) I'd rather see these guys get clobbered and/or hurt so that the organization knows what its needs are going into next year and they can spend more money towards filling those needs. If it's a starter, a catcher, and a second basemen, then they suddenly have $11.5 million more while they add a prospect in the second round to the minor leagues. If Rienzo, Paulino, Surkamp, Beck, or anybody else step up and become legitimately good #5 starters, then they have $11.5 million to spend on other aspects of the team. The Sox have proven capable of developing starting pitching. Why would you spend anything extra on it at this point in the franchise's development? I think the Sox have proven to be good at developing pitchers, but not necessarily starters. Sale is one, but he really wasn't developed in the White Sox organization. Quintana had most of his developmental time elsewhere. Johnson the jury is still out. Most other Sox effective starters, with the exception of Buehrle, were developed elsewhere. The team is always going to need starting pitching. If you can get it at a good rate now, it could be a good time to jump. The prices aren't going down. What you could have for $40 million now might cost you a lot more than that next year, if you can even get it. I think that is the point Marty and TUC are trying to make. Bailey will be off the board. There is a good chance Lester will be off the board, Scherzer, if he is available isn't going to be in the Sox range, and going after a pitcher isn't like the Sox pursuit of Abreu when teams that normally spend ridiculous money, had no real 1b DH opening. Everyone always has a spot for a good pitcher, at least at the beginning of free agency, and the Sox may be good enough this season where the price to sign one isn't a second round pick, but a first rounder.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 11:33 AM) Sure. Andre Rienzo is projected at 0.9 WAR in the Oliver projections, while Steamer has him projected at a 0.6 WAR over 115 innings. Felipe Paulino is projected at 0.5 WAR, but that's taking into account that it's only over 7 starts due to not pitching much the previous two seasons. Over 30 starts, that's roughly 2 WAR. His Oliver projections are a little less cheery at 0.3 WAR over 60 IP, but that's still 1 WAR over 180 innings for $1.5 mill, which would still be a bargain free agent. Steamer projects Surkamp for 1 IP, but Oliver has him at 1.9 WAR over 107 IP. Steamer projects Ervin Santana at 2.7 WAR, Oliver projects him at 1.4 WAR, and the Fans project him at 2.1 WAR. These obviously don't mean anything, but even if you look at the high end for Santana and the low end for the combination of those 3, you are talking about paying $11.5 million more for less than 2 WAR of value in 2014 while limiting the knowledge you have of the pitchers' performances and abilities at the major league level. $11.5 million for a 2 WAR is right in line with what teams pay free agents. Johnson is in the rotation. The others, meh. Do you really need to see Surkamp get clobbered? Your spin is interesting because you love Paulino and will go out of your way to project optimism for him. You mentioned 180 IP. HE HAS NEVER PITCHED 180 INNINGS IN A SEASON AS A PROFESSIONAL. How can you throw that out there as even a slight possibility for a guy coming off surgery?

I was watching CSN the other night and it was mentioned Rick Hahn's favorite advanced metric number had to do with runs cost or created. I had never heard of it, but I believe 42 was in the title.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) Like seriously dude, there's a thread posted in the forum and stuff. Has anyone ever added up a team's individual WARs at the end of a season and posted the actual WAR standings? To me that would be the most interesting and would show how truly accurate WAR is as a major tool. I refer to it myself, but if it truly is accurate, the numbers should add up pretty close to actual results.

Phil Rogers speculated the White Sox primary catcher in 2014 is not yet with the team.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) Does "shifts" imply that the SS or 3B moves to other side of 2B? I saw Ramierez and Beckham play "in the hole" or "the other way" quite a bit last year. It would be interesting to see what qualifies as a shift. A step here, a step there may not seem obvious or qualify but make a huge difference, and unless they shifted some OFs to the bleachers when Axelrod and Danks were pitching, I don't recall the Sox being burned too badly by that last year. Actually catching the ball was a problem.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 17, 2014 -> 08:42 PM) Watching Winning Time. For those that were alive back then, could Cheryl Miller have played in the NBA? I don't mean being a star, just sticking on a roster. No chance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 07:27 PM) So then why does Adam Dunn need to be released if that contract does no harm to the team? While I totally disagree with releasing him, doesn't releasing him mean exactly the opposite of the contract doing harm to the team. Guys making nothing get released all the time. It says his play is doing harm to the team.

Melo said he isn't getting traded.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 12:19 PM) Because players who put up the best stats are always drafted highest? Im not even sure Doug McDermott will be a top 5 pick, and hes likely going to be one (if not the most) productive player in this NBA draft class. Since you weren't alive back then you don't realize that even if the Bulls thought Greenwood was better than Bird, and I know you refuse to believe me, but there was no chance of that, there is no way they would have passed on the box office Bird would have brought the team. The Bulls were in a lot different place back then. 5 years later they were sold to JR, and JR didn't pay them 1 penny with MJ on the roster. He assumed some debt.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Who said that he wasnt a great player in College? I loved Oden and likely would have taken him over Durant (unless of course there was a red flag with his knee but Im just presuming the Blazers arent that dumb after the Bowie incident.) The point is its easy now to say "Why would you pick Oden", its much harder when you dont have the luxury of hindsight. So youre basically making my point, its easy now to say "Why did someone pick Oden", it was much harder back then. But injuries wouldn't have been an issue with Bird vs. Greenwood. As the college player of the year in 1979 Bird averaged 28.6 points, 14.9 rebounds and 5.5 assists a game. Even though Greenwood probably could beat him in a 40 yd. dash, and probably jump higher than him, Bird was clearly the better player.

It appears he is following over 30,000 people, places and things.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 11:15 AM) I wasnt alive back then. But youre arguing that no team has ever made a bad decision, no team has ever stupidly fallen in love with a player. So, sorry, unless you are actually Rod Thorn, you are just speculating. And its a waste of time to speculate, because it involves things outside of your control. Like you dont know if the Lakers would have picked Larry or Magic. But yes I get that in 2014 its easy to say what would have happened. Just like we can all say that there is no way the Blazers would ever select Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan or that Greg Oden would be picked over Durant. Oh wait. (edit) Now Im just confused. The Bulls did select Greenwood #2, they could have had Moncrief or Kelser, but picked Greenwood. Are you actually now arguing that the Bulls wouldnt have selected the player they actually selected at #2????? This is really confusing. No. I was confused by your post and thought you were saying there was a possibilty they wouldn't have had Magic or Greenwood. Believe what you want to believe, but Bird would have been a "top" pick in 1979, and if it were guaranteed he would have not gone back to school, more than likely he goes before #6 in 1978.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) You cant definitely say they would have drafted them. Someone passed on MJ with Bowie, someone passed on Durant for Oden. So while you can say "The Bulls could have had Bird", theres nothing to guarantee it. Not to mention: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers Had the Lakers selected Larry, the Bulls would have gotten neither. So its pointless to speculate. You weren't alive back then. No offense, but Bird and Magic were college basketball, and even if Rod Thorn thought Greenwood would turn out better, there is zero chance he passes on Bird. And if they got neither, they probably wind up with Magic's MSU buddy Kelser or Sidney Moncrief. I doubt they take Cartwright with Artis Gilmore around. It's not like David Greenwood was Mr. Athleticism either.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:59 AM) How can you be so sure? The year before 5 players were picked in front of Bird, none of them were considered as good of prospects as Magic or David Greenwood. So you cant just say "Oh the Bulls would have definitely drafted Bird." I was alive back then. I can definitely say the Bulls would have drafted Bird. Bird and Magic were clearly the best 2 players in college basketball. I don't know how anyone can conclude a team would give up a 6th pick to draft someone they had a definite chance not to sign, and think he isn't top pick material. Just ask anyone who watched college basketball back then if there is any chance the Bulls would have passed on Bird to draft Greenwood. 5 players who signed and played were drafted before him. None that went back to college for a year.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) I wasnt alive but allegedly Greenwood was pretty highly regarded and some believed as good (if not better) than Magic. So its impossible to say. There is no way the Bulls would have passed on Bird.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) I don't think that's disputing anything I said there. I think going #6 when you aren't leaving school is a top pick. Do you really think the Bulls would have still taken David Greenwood at #2 if Bird were available?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:38 AM) Rose likely can be serviceable. If not the entire ship is sunk because you cant have that huge contract and not even get average production. If he can stay healthy, he will be more than serviceable. He was starting to round into form when he went down with the meniscus. This latest injury isn't nearly the problem an ACL tear is as far as getting back to previous levels. He is still quite young. My fear is more injuries. As long as he's healthy, and gets the rust off, he'll be good to go.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) ? He went 6th overall after his junior year despite the Celtics not being sure whether he was going to go pro or stay in college for his senior year (he stayed in school and the Celtics retained his right). And had he been drafted the next season, he would certainly have gone #2.........to the Bulls.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) He doesn't have the athleticism to be a top 5 pick in this draft. I don't see it. If that is a killer, neither would Larry Bird.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) You guys hear Sager's report last night that Boozer was supposedly told by Garpax that he would not be traded "for sure" before the deadline and his contract would not be bought out next year unless it was to bring in a superstar? I wonder (1) if that's true and (2) why Boozer is getting mouthy all of a sudden. He's been so good the last few years of being quiet and playing his game. Why the sudden need to talk to the media? The reason they won't trade him is because they can't. The Knicks are over the cap if Melo walks. Taking Boozer's $16 million next year is $16 million + luxury tax penalty. And the penalties become much more severe next year. What cost the Lakers $29 million this year would cost $75 million next. He can't be amnestied by any team other than the Bulls. Any trade rumor that includes Carlos Boozer is totally made up. Lance Stevenson and/or Danny Granger. Those are guys who realistically might be Bulls next year. And his contract can't be bought out. It is guaranteed. If the Bulls amnesty him, he still gets paid, it just doesn't count against the Bulls cap. I think how it works is they have some sort of auction and the Bulls pay the difference between the high bid and his contract figure.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) I just hate it when parents say stuff along the lines of "where WE are going to school." You're not going anywhere, buddy. Your kid is. Don't forget it. When that happens, it does give the impression the parent(s) are looking for a little something for themselves.