Dick Allen

QUOTE (Baron @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) I dont agree with the article on the last place finish but the overall point still stands. It's been an unacceptable offseason so far. If they are going to call it an offseason, I agree. But I don't think that is the case.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 10:02 AM) Please look at Bruce's actual numbers both offensively and defensively in recent years and forget about the brand name/reputation. .226/.294/.434 145 strikeouts. Jay Bruce's numbers, and I agree, the Sox should stay away. Yet on the other hand you seem to ignore Ian Desmond's numbers .233/.290/.384 187 strikeouts I know he plays SS, but you have touted him as a possible OF as well. The biggest concern about Desmond is 3 years in a row his batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage dropped, and his strikeouts rose. Is it not a desirable pattern.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) We made lots of them for Alexei and Dunn and numerous others throughout the years... http://deadspin.com/ian-desmond-solves-the...scre-1711269609 And he made 8 errors in the first 15 games and played quite well after that...but those two weeks planted the idea in the minds of some fans he was a defensive liability. If anything, you want to have guys like that with something to prove on your team...the old chip on the shoulder often works wonders. Fowler won't have the same edge on the Sox that Jackson and Desmond would bring, trying to reestablish themselves and prove the doubters wrong. So you want a guy with something to prove, but a guy who also supposedly caved under the pressure of turning down $107 million. His defensive liability comes from the fact he makes a lot of bad plays, but apparently makes up for them as well. I think also people look at his offensive decline the last several seasons with an increased strikeout rate, and see a guy who if he came to the White Sox would be switching leagues, and the team hasn't had too much luck with that, at least initially. I advocated signing this guy back before the got Lawrie, and then Frazier. I thought he could move to 3B. But signing him has a couple of issues. First on a multi-year contract, if Anderson is the SS of the future and that starts next season, how would Desmond react to having to change positions for a rookie? Some guys don't go for that. And assuming Lawrie and Frazier work out, where would he play? The OF? He loses a lot of value there. Both Desmond and Jackson were playing for a payday in 2015 probably with the supposed chip on their shoulder you seem to think is important. They both faceplanted. As a buy low, it could make some sense, but using the chip on their shoulder doesn't hold water because if it did, they wouldn't be in the situations they are in.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 09:21 AM) Be sure to walk around the downtown area and relax in the parks. Really cool layout down there. The river section is the main tourist trap, sort of a poor man's navy pier, but still worth walking up and down. There's a visitor/tourist center somewhat close by if you need a jumping off point. Didn't Hawk come from there? There should be a statue. Mercy.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) Can someone please post the drs and uzr and range factor numbers for Desmond? He was terrible offensively and defensively the first 2-3 months last year but it doesn't fit at all with his career numbers in those two areas. Most of it has been attributed to the stress and pressure of rejecting a 7 year, $107 million contract extension. Not to mention the Nationals have been better judges of offensive talent than the Sox, they can't be totally wrong about a player who spent his entire career there and is still just 30. Why don't you post them? Desmond might be fine, but excuses, except for an injury don't work. Just because someone speculates about it on the internet doesn't make it true. If he couldn't handle turning down $107 million, maybe he shouldn't have turned down $107 million.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2016 -> 08:34 AM) http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseba...very-incomplete Cbssports writer implores Sox to sign Fowler/Jackson and Desmond. Seems to prefer Garcia/Cabrera platoon in rf to Garcia/LaRoche dh platoon. DH Navarro or Saladino against lefties? Last paragraph seems to be pretty spot on, albeit tough. So they are a last place team, but if they sign Fowler or Desmond they are a contender? LMAO.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Some folks scoffed at FS putting him in the Top 30. He's got very good zone judgment and bat to ball feel, plays good defense with a strong arm. Has consistently put up some of the best BB:K rates in the system. Catchers always have a better chance at a NRI to spring training just based on practicality.

He was #3 before Harold. RIP No Neck. My brother's all time favorite.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) That isn't just who he traded. It is who he passed up to draft less expensive players, and the draft picks they gave up to sign players. It isn't as simple as who they traded away. So another answer for nobody. I will give you they passed on Boras clients, but so did a lot of teams. Other than that, they gave Borchard the biggest bonus of all time at the time. KW fired Duane Shaffer because of his bad drafts. It wasn't bonus money that made them pick Mitchell over Trout. And how many draft picks did they give up to sign players? They gave up one for Dunn, other than that he was the first free agent from another team KW gave more than $20 million. The vast majority of draft picks wind up in a different profession. Some are good, and some you hope can become inventory for trade. I will give you there will be a player or more available at 28 who will be a future all star, and maybe even better than that. What evidence does one have that the White Sox will select him? The better chance is it becomes someone you can trade someday for someone like Fowler. That is essentially what you would be doing anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:23 PM) Which is exactly the point. When you give away these guys, you create future holes for the major league team. This is what Kenny did for 10 years. Who did Kenny give away other than Gio who would changed the White Sox fortunes in the slightest? He sold high on a lot more prospects than he did not.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) The pick itself is important because we do have to stock the farm with some talent. You never know if some one slides due to some concern and tears it up quick making another player expendable to help for 2017. However for a player like Desmond or Fowler who you could get a little cheaper than normal, I'd be okay with losing it. You would still have 2 picks in the top 50, and it may behoove the Sox to spend some of the money they would have spent on pick #28 internationally, maybe even go over the allotment. I guess technically you can say they would spend it on Fowler, but the alternatives cost money as well.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) At market price, when there are other options. So no, I am not missing that, I am just able to handle the different considerations for different options for the white sox and come up with conclusions for what's best for the White Sox. You, on the other hand, are solely entertained by taking what you take to be a "board opinion", mash multiple opinions into a single, made-up poster, and push the made-up poster's opinion to an illogical extreme that suits you: the 28th pick is more valuable than Dexter Fowler. No, but the 28th pick + market price and years may be reason to not sign a player that provides just elite OBP to Sox. I have no idea how you get to that conclusion about me. I just think Fowler is worth giving up the 28th pick. That's all. Considering all the trade proposals on this site including Anderson, and some thinking certain players would cost Fulmer, I would be fine giving up the 28th pick for a pretty significant upgrade considering it was an extra pick as it is. It is funny, I defended the Sox not trading Shark last year and mentioned this pick. It wasn't considered nearly as valuable then. If Fowler was signed to a contract last July and the Sox traded Shark for him, I doubt many would say the draft pick was more important than the player.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) I think it was a Dodger scout that said this kid just flat out CANT play. I know I read it somewhere but I cant find it. I dont think the cricket guys will translate over to baseball as some might think at first thought. Maybe someone will, but you are better off signing a guy like this than opening some academy trying to develop players who have never played playing against players who have never played.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 02:59 PM) Not if it happens midseason. And who are you going to be able to draft at 28 next June that will help the White Sox midseason?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) So? The White Sox just acquired Brett Lawrie for JB Wendelken and Zach Erwin, yet by your current logic path, those players would have no bearing on the future of the white sox because they are not top picks and top prospects. The extra budget pool we acquire with the 28th pick lets us get a couple more JB Wendelken and Zach Erwin and possibly a gigantic lottery winner. The explicit players may end up not succeeding for the white sox, but that doesn't mean they are without value if they don't make big leagues for the White Sox. Not at all. One of them they actually acquired as a throw in for the Peavy deal. The other guy was picked last year without the 2nd and 3rd rounders. What you are missing is the Sox would be getting the services of a major league player. One that has outperformed Brett Lawrie.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) The problem really comes if someone at the major league level flops or gets hurt with that lack of depth. You can pick up OF off the scrap heap though. Signing Fowler makes just as much, actually more impact on your immediate depth than a draft pick who won't be ready for a while.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) Wasn't that all overblown with KW? Hahn apparently had no problems dealing with him over Rodon (yet.) Scott Boras is a problem for every team. Unless you want to give Austin Jackson a deal like KC gave Ian Kennedy, he is prepared to wait it out, at which point any alternatives will be gone. I have no idea what they are asking right now, but I assume if it was anything like a 1 or 2 year deal for $8 million a year, he would have a team.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) I think you are missing the forest for the trees here, Dick. If we want to continue to spur top level FAs and use our farm to get major league ready players, that single pick may lead to 3-4-5 additional high school or other players into our system that otherwise would not be. Last year was extremely thin with among other things 2 picks missing and then less signings after. It should be even more valuable to Sox, not less. If Carson Fulmer is a pitcher, no matter how well the other draftees do, the 2015 draft is a big success. When Larry Himes rebuilt the White Sox, his first rounders were studs. In 3 of his 4 drafts, the rest of the draft produced pretty much next to nothing. The only guys he drafted after the 1st round that signed and helped the White Sox were in 1990 with Ray Durham and Jason Bere. He also drafted Bob Wickman that year who was eventually traded for Steve Sax. Yet those drafts turned the White Sox into contenders for a while.

The problem with Austin Jackson is Scott Boras.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) The whole premise is you need to get somewhat lucky and find one superstar. Yao Ming singlehandedly put basketball on the map in China. If you had an American version of Pele and the US Men won a World Cup, things would definitely start to change...look at the incoming talent (albeit non minority) drawn into the PGA the last decade because of Tiger Woods, for example. Russian female tennis players or South Korean female golfers...just takes one. Those sports don't require as much time to master as does hitting a baseball. If you aren't exposed to it, it isn't something you can just pick up because you're a great athlete. Jared Mitchell was a great athlete.

Here's a SSS article on the Avi/Peavy trade. The Sox were asking for the right guys from Oakland. http://www.southsidesox.com/2013/7/31/4573...-trade-analysis

All the players that have been mentioned did play in HS and were exposed to the sport much earlier than that. What is going to motivate some cricket player from stopping cricket so he can attempt to somehow beat tremendous odds, move halfway across the world and play baseball? And that decision is going to have to be made probably when they are 12-14 years old at the very latest. The million dollar arm guys got a combined $8k bonus. Are there any baseball leagues in India? I look at it this way, how many Americans play in the Premier soccer leagues in Europe? And there is a ton of soccer playing here. In the suburbs, you see far more soccer games than baseball games in the parks on a Saturday afternoon. Being athletic helps, but being a baseball player is better. It's a huge untapped population, but even the bad players on a major league team are great. The amount of money and time it would take would be prohibitive. You are better off spending that money on scouting and signing these young international free agents.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 01:42 PM) Odds are pretty high that the player drafted #28 by the Sox this year is automatically their #4 prospect (being some combination of Anderson, Fulmer, and the #10 pick), and a decent chance at being a top 100 prospect in the game within the next year or two. The team also then has a few options in the draft. They could go the Astros route of saving money on their top pick, and then getting a sliding player at #28. They could go under on the 28th pick, and pick a guy with a big demand that they might not have drafted at #10. They could go under slot at either #10 or #28 and use that money to bring in a post round 10 HS kid that had planned on going college and add another kid they didn't have a chance at before. For the team that has traded away 3 of their top 10 prospects in the last few months, that has a lot of value. I know you keep saying they have a "normal" draft if they give up the pick, but I think a large part of why they didn't give up Samardjiza was because of assigning a specific value to that particular pick. It is an asset. The big difference is if the Sox do hit on a major league player with that pick, they will pay them $1.5 million over three years while they would pay Fowler somewhere around $10 million a year for each of three years. So while the odds are low of it happening, if it does happen, the payoff is big. That Astros route didn't work out so well for them. I think the would have been better off with Bryant and Rodon rather than Appel and Aiken.

Steve Stone was on White Sox Weekly a couple of weeks ago and he was emphasizing the White Sox really wanted a LH hitter. He almost made it sound like they actually had some interest in Chris Davis. Cespedes has reverse splits so that would have worked. They were in until the end with Gordon. So I think if it came down to it, Fowler being a switch hitter, even though Jackson is about the same vs. both sides would win out as more desirable for RH.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 26, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) And the last 4 years for Jackson are : 2015-2.3, 2014-0.9, 2013-3, 2012 5.4. He also played half his games at SAFECO Field recently. Jackson is the great defender that the White Sox need. I wouldn't mind Jackson and do think his trade to Seattle screwed him up, but if you look at his splits, people would argue Safeco had anything to do with it. And isn't your home park built into your WAR?