Dick Allen

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:56 AM) I'm told his wife pushed for the surgery. That made me laugh.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) Also, DA, I really am curious whether or not you liked the EJax signing? Personally, I hate it because of the potential for exactly how it's turned out (so far), but I really see the situations as parallel. EJax historically has a higher ERA than those guys. I wouldn't want to pay him what the Cubs paid him and it wasn't like he was coming off a stellar year in WASH. I think Santana and Jimenez are both better than him. I could see where you would think it's the same thing, but again, I'm not sure I would want either. I'd probably talk to Cooper. The thing is, the Cubs were going to be bad with Jackson or without. He can still go out this year and pitch really well and they will be able to flip him. It won't be as advantageous as flipping him last year, but it still gets the job done. There is risk with every player you acquire performing. There is a better chance Jimenez and Santana have better WARs from here on out than the second round pick, whoever that turns out to be. So to me, the compensation pick wouldn't come into play deciding whether or not I was interested in signing them. I would only use it to lower the contract.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Well here I thought they may have wanted to keep Addison Reed and/or Hector Santiago, but Hahn proved creative and capable of getting great, diversified value out of those two. Maybe the organization feels comfortable with Marcus Semien at 3B and the opportunity comes to acquire Buster Posey. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, but work with me. If the Giants and Sox agree on a preliminary package, the White Sox aren't going to say "No, unfortunately even though Matt Davidson is the one and only player in the organization you'd take to seal this deal, we just can't trade him at this point." The initial point was that the Sox are running out of players that other teams want to trade for, when in reality, that could not be further from the truth. The truth is that the White Sox are running out of players they want or are willing to trade. That is a very good thing and it lets you know that the rebuild has gone very well thus far. The White Sox don't have a lot of guys they can get much for. That is true. And say they wanted Posey. Realistically, of the 11 guys you mentioned , unless you are trading Chris Sale, it is going to take several of them for even a consideration. It is one reason why adding some pitching right now or other players, even if it means guys like Rienzo have to pitch in the bullpen or Charlotte makes sense. You need to add talent to the organization, not just watch several almost guaranteed to fail prospects play to say you gave them a shot.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Really? You are telling me no one is going to trade for Daniel Webb or Chris Sale or Jose Quintana or Matt Davidson or Jose Abreu or Avisail Garcia or Adam Eaton or Dayan Viciedo or Alejandro De Aza or Jake Petricka or Erik Johnson? I could continue but I figured 11 was a good start. But aren't those the guys you want to keep? There is not a surplus of talent in this organization. Except for people collecting a check from the White Sox, every baseball person will tell you that. Why are you against the White Sox adding good players?

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) Okay so you're saying if Jimenez performs well we can trade him to recoup that pick. Fine, it's a wash. If he performs poorly, we can trade Quintana or someone next year to recoup the pick. But we could just trade Quintana NOW and not have to recoup ANY picks and our value is higher. So you're spending money on a possible wash (with some chance of getting more) with the possibility of lost value (we liquidated the value of Q, plus lost a pick and replaced Q with a bad Jimenez). No. Just no. What would you rather have, what the Sox acquired for Jake Peavy or a 2nd round pick? We are getting to the time of the offseason where relative bargains can be had. There are some decent names who right now appear to be available next offseason. Certainly some will not be on the board, and others will probably want what Tanaka got, and a couple of them will probably get it. If the Sox don't want to commit to a guy like Santana or Jimenez, fine. But they should definitely be shopping the next tier down.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) No, Dick, that IS the point. If those moves don't help the Sox win more games or put them in the playoffs over the next 2 years, then you use the young players you have on the team and see what they are capable of. Jimenez and Santana are going to cost the team 4 years at $10+ million per year. That is money they can't take back and spend at another time. That's the level of contract that kept the Cubs from making a more appropriate offer for Tanaka that could have landed him in Chicago. I have no problem adding talent, but it has to be reasonable. A $40+ million contract at this stage with the talent left on the board just is not reasonable. They don't HAVE to go get a catcher at this point. They have 3-4 guys they can use. It's likely that all 4 fail, but if they can find something reasonable, then it saves them money and/or in the future. It is reasonable because if you suck, its a $5-7 million commitment and all you need is a solid 3 months of production and you acquire prospects who have already developed, instead of waiting for a guy for years and years and years. If you don't think the Sox need a catcher, you are kidding yourself.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) To Dick and FutureIsNear: Honest question - how many games do you believe the Sox will win this year without Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? How many do you think they'd win with either of them? Next honest question - how many games do you believe the Sox will win NEXT year without Ervin Santana or Ubaldo Jimenez? How many do you think they'd win with either of them? That's not the point. The point is raising the talent level, and increasing assets that can be used or make other assets available to be used to acquire assets in areas of need. For example, there is no secret the Sox could use and need a catcher. It isn't like one is just going to fall into their lap. If they have enough surplus to trade 2 or 3 pitchers to get one, it probably will be the way to go. Again, I'm not so sure Santana or Jimenez is the answer, but adding talent, no matter what position, makes a lot of sense when your talent level is lacking.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) But you can take an Avisail Garcia type prospect with the 2nd round pick that you have to forfeit to sign him. And then if he has a bad year - which is very, very possible - you can't do so. The Sox have 7 starters I feel comfortable with them starting in the majors this year, and that number could easily turn into 8 or 9 by the end of the year. There is no need for them to sign a free agent in which they'd have to give up draft pick compensation at the moment. Frankly, I don't know if Garcia will pan out, but I would rather acquire him at his development stage than the unknown in the second round. I'm not saying I would rush out and sign Santana or Jimenez, but picking up a veteran pitcher at this stage makes a lot of sense. Increase the inventory. Money aside, banking your future on future 2nd round picks is a bigger longshot than banking on Santana or Jimenez being All Stars. This speeds up the rebuild. You want to play it close to the vest, you wind up like the Cubs who are now saying to their fans their rebuild might not be complete until next decade.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 10:04 AM) The risk is that the dude is 31. Check pitchers historically from ages 18-30 and pitchers from ages 31-42. They tend to lose velocity, lose break, and become more injury prone. It's going to be all downhill from here for Santana. You may get another 3.75 ERA, 210 IP year out of him this year, but for what? A 76 win team? Maybe he pushes them to 78? The value of those additional wins on the value added win curve is very small. The following year, he might be at 4.00 and 200 IP. It's not going to continue to get better. By the time the Sox are expected contenders - we'll say 2016 - Santana is going to be 33 years old with 2 years remaining on his deal. The Sox will have had ample opportunities to add starting pitchers in the meantime that are as good or better than Santana, and they won't come at the price that Santana does. Tanaka made sense because he is 25. You can expect that he'll get better. You can't say the same for the remaining starting pitchers. Those are the only types of players the Sox should be targeting at this point. That's why Santana does not make sense. The point is if you get that kind of year out of him and the team is a 76 win team, he is easily tradeable. You get another Avasail Garcia-type prospect. If you are going to sign a free agent pitcher, chances are if they aren't 30, they will be soon.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 24, 2014 -> 06:12 AM) Talk about trolling. Sale can continue to improve as he pitches. Sitting him for a year (I'm still baffled by the mere suggestion) would do nothing but possibly cause him to regress. There are health risks for anyone, and Sale is not a bigger health risk than any deal the Sox can enter into. Signing a 31 year old pitcher to a 4 year $40MM+ contract has much more risk. Here's the point that you are missing (or refuse to accept): There is no reason to go spend money on a veteran starting pitcher just to sign a veteran. It doesn't make any sense, and we should just stop talking about it. If it is a good pitcher it increases the talent level and inventory of the pitching staff, and the ability to turn so,e of that inventory into other pieces. I am not thrilled with Jimenez or Santana moving forward, but if the White Sox think they will be quality pitchers for a couple of years, it makes a lot of sense signing them and flipping them or trading someone else because of their presence. The White Sox are running out of parts to trade. You want to rebuild through the draft, just look at Theo. it takes a long time. The goal is to get better. The we lost 99 games so we should not sign good players makes no sense to me.

Last year if you knew the Sox would lose 99 games, the consensus would have been signing Jake Peavy was dumb. Wait until you are ready to win. But signing Peavy ultimately got you Garcia. I think the plan would be the same. Sign a guy to help you win, if you don't, it increases the pitching stock and someone could be traded near the deadline for prospects. It could all blow up in your face, But if you have some money, it is worth a consideration.

I got my BP today. They really like Sale, Q, Johnson, Jones, Belisaro and even Danks. Offensively, they kind of like Abreu and think Eaton has a chance. The write up liked Davidson, PECOTA did not. Everyone else.....not so good.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 06:38 PM) So based on the fact that you're probably right about this....we should outbid people at the lower end of this year's SP market because...? I think the argument is the price of pitching is only going to go higher. It is a decent argument.the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels and Cubs don't appear to be biddiing on thr remaining guys. Next year they probably will. Face it, if any of them needed a 1b/DH, Abreu is probably a richer man.

Garza hasn't sign. Speculation is something is wrong with the physical.

Congrats to JR, his partners and all their heirs. According to Forbes, the Bullies are worth $1 billion.

The snow belt is just getting hammered this year. I really wouldn't be able to take it if I lived there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) So what if one of the teams is a dome built team, and the other is a power running team that benefits from being outside? The field isn't playing neutral at that point. I think playing indoors or perfect weather conditions is neutral. Both teams would be able to be at their best with the given conditions. The running team might lose it's advantage without bad weather, but that wouldn't be neutral. The benefit the running team loses from not being outside is the increase in ability of it's opponent, not a decrease in their offensive performance.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) Oh no it is f***ing not. Drunk driving is drunk driving. Since when are people so gullible when it comes to this s***? You all drink, right? You know. Why is it not enough to just say "it's up to you if you had too much but if you kill someone it's your ass"? Other than the part about the innocent person being killed and the ripple down effect their death could have on others, really nothing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Wasn't there a pretty good rain coming down in the 2006 SB? Yes, and as I stated, you can't eliminate weather entirely unless you play indoors, and they are going to be moving the SB around, so that really is not realistic. But you have almost a 100% chance of weather being a big factor if the SB is played in NY or Chicago. They threw NY a bone, I would bet if the weather is anywhere near awful, the only cold weather cities to host a SB from now on , will have a dome to play in.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:17 PM) It's kind of neutral in that it's s***ty and not what they're used to for both teams. It is bad for both teams, and maybe not this year an issue, one team might be used to the cold, the other team not so much, and why have a championship be possibly determined by a wet ball or a gust of wind, slipping on a snowy field? Unless you play indoors, you obviously can't eliminate it entirely, but IMO, the last thing you want to be a factor if not the determining factor when it's a one game winner take all for best in your sport, is weather. They made it this far playing in domes and warm weather cities. The old don't fix what isn't broken comes into play here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) who cares j4l is a huge Biebs guy.

I prefer watching games in ideal conditions. It lessens the chance the game is not decided by who played and/or was coached better, but by a freak play. Players are at their best IMO, in ideal conditions, and so is the quality of football. If Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago, add about 10k to Soldier Field and throw on a roof. You'll get some Final 4's, some Big Ten championships, a Super Bowl or 2, and who knows what else? Plus they would have to go to fake turf which would finally end that back and forth.

QUOTE (Paulstar @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) I don't think either have very good upsides, but Phegley shows more of a natural hitting ability than Flowers so that leads me to believe Phegley has a better chance of becoming a serviceable MLB backup/platoon catcher. I think people should be more focused on realistic expectation of performance than "upside". Waiting for players to get close to their upside gets a lot of guys looking for new jobs.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) I agree. Sale and Quintana are anchors. Johnson should become a rotation anchor. Danks has us financially strapped and has potential to be good again now that he is through with his recovery period. Take the best of Paulino/Surkamp/Rienzo and try to make value out of them out of the 5 spot. The White Sox have just shown you that Danks, and for that matter, Adam Dunn, have not financially strapped them considering they were willing to spend over $100 million in salary and another $20 million in posting fee for Tanaka.

One problem Phegley has, which if your profession is a catcher, can be considered alarming, is actually catching the ball. Chances are no one will want to ever see Flowers, Phegley or Nieto catch another game for the White Sox once October rolls around, but teams aren't exactly trading away outstanding catchers who hit a ton at the moment.