Vance Law

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) f*** Hanley. He's not an option. YOU'RE not an option.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 05:23 AM) Interesting. Tim Dierkes said they are. I'll take Law's word over Dierkes though. Either of those guys would just be making guesses. If he's going to get $12, $13, $14 million a year for minimum 3 years, maybe 4. Reasonable to assume he'll take $35 - $40 million rather than $15.9.

Other 3B options Uribe Freese Trade Hanley

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 04:37 AM) If we had held our bullets until this offseason, we wouldnt be forced to pass on Heyward, Gordon, Cespedes, Zobrist, Wieters, Chris Davis, etc. If the players (LaRoche, Melky) hadn't played so poorly, there wouldn't be a perceived need to replace them. They would also have value in a trade if there was a desire to upgrade. "Buying too early" isn't a problem. Players underperforming/losing value is a problem. Players aren't players. They're assets with a value and a cost.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) Frazier will cost a couple of mid level prospects at most I strongly disagree

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 08:15 PM) For my ultra cheap, but compete plan, give me Murphy, Rasmus/Fowler and Frazier. Not sure if you're being serious with "ultra-cheap"? Edit: Murphy, for example, MLB Trade Rumors guy suggested will get a QO and Chase Headley money. And that's before his playoff antics tonight. Rasmus, I assume, will get at least Melky's contract. Fowler similar. Frazier ends up being probably around $20 mil for the 2 years plus several prospects in the trade.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 08:19 PM) No one disagrees that Maddon is a better manager, we're just saying it wouldn't move the needle that much if we don't get better players. Not to mention, Joe Maddon has a job. Terry Collins is in the post season for the first time in 11 seasons of managing. It is just his 4th winning season and the first time he's won more than 85 games. He's pretty much been worthless as a manager for 10 years, but this year he is a GREAT manager because he told his team to get into the NLCS.

This makes sense. And I look forward to this thread being hijacked with bats*** ideas and pointless arguments.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 06:10 PM) I think the problem with the 2015 moves is they did not upgrade any position with young talent. How do you upgrade a position with young talent?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) Two years being the key point. huh?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) I agree with you. General consensus seems to be that the Sox buried themselves for the next few years by "going for it" in 2015, but I don't think that's the case at all. I liked the moves they made almost solely because they DIDN'T bury themselves. Offering high dollar/low years free agent contracts, trading only mid-tier prospects exclusively from positions of depth, and continually increasing (or at least maintaining) investment levels in amateur talent despite the ML payroll increase are about the best possible strategies for building a sustained winner without nuking the entire system and turning Bridgeport into a post-apocalyptic wasteland for five years in the process. Sensible comment displaying ability to hold two thoughts in head at same time. What is it doing on this site?

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 06:54 PM) As I originally posted, I had not seen the Cubs play until this series. Look how Joe Maddon is making changes with his lineup. I would think having a lineup w 4 rookies playing key roles makes his job a lot tougher than a team w a strong veteran presence. Aha, so it's Maddon's "making changes with his lineup" that causes them to succeed. Having the game's #1 prospect (Bryant) and 3 more of the top 15 or so position prospects isn't particularly relevant. Maddon would be having the same success with Cubs prospects like Brett Jackson and Josh Vitters. That's how good Maddon's lineup changes are.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Oct 15, 2015 -> 10:14 AM) If we hadn't taken a shot this past offseason and made 2015 a rebuilding year instead, then 2016 probably wasn't going to have high expectations either. The only move that could potentially really hamper us past 2016 was Melky and that's just for 2017. Other than that it's the two draft picks and Semien (who would be nice to have right now). At least we didn't gut a top farm system and hamper ourselves with horrible contracts like the Padres did. 2 draft picks minus 1 draft pick (that we'll get from Shark QO) = 1 draft pick

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 07:34 PM) I was going by this since there's not much to go by for now. http://www.southsidesox.com/2015/10/7/9469...dent-in-payroll Avi at 2.3M and Jennings at 700k. Hadn't seen that estimate before. If Avi gets even that much of a raise in arbitration, this system is messed up. But even still we're talking about small enough dollar amounts that those two players shouldn't be considered money saving cuts. They shouldn't impact whether the Sox go after any particular free agent.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 06:54 PM) He definitely does. The manager creates an atmosphere that either encourages or discourages the team. As I originally posted, I had not seen the Cubs play until this series. Look how Joe Maddon is making changes with his lineup. I would think having a lineup w 4 rookies playing key roles makes his job a lot tougher than a team w a strong veteran presence. The manager creates the atmosphere and ultimately is the cheerleader and the ass-kicker. Read Terry Francona's book about all the drama that comes with the job. Ned. Yost.

No. That's just what they'll be expecting us to do.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:39 PM) Wasn't exactly efficient allocation of resources. Ventura should have allocated the resources differently? QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:39 PM) Not really...because Jennings was terrible, Petricka took a step or two back and the back end was bad. We spent a ton on Robertson and Duke and became merely below average. Wasn't exactly efficient allocation of resources. "took a step back" is a silly thing to say regarding relievers whose performance varies more widely from year to year than any other players. They signed Robertson, Duke, and Albers. Got Jones back. Got rid of Downs, Belisario, Linstrom, and Cleto and just like that Ventura had moved them from the #28 to the #15 bullpen in the game.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) Or it could be shifting him all over the field (see Beckham, Semien, Viciedo) wasn't helpful for him settling in and becoming comfortable at one position. Actually, I just misremembered. I thought he stunk in his 2nd season, his first at shortstop. He was actually good then. He just stunk at playing 2nd base his rookie year. I'd remove him from the players I listed.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:28 PM) You're giving Ventura more credit than Hahn for Albers, Robertson, Duke and Jones' recovery/health? Thank you. You proved my point. With different better players, the Sox got better results. The manager doesn't remotely f***ing matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 04:21 PM) I don't give the FO for trying and then using a strategy with an extremely high rate of failure. The accurate metaphor is trying to satisfy your retirement needs by putting the $100k you've saved up in the lottery. Then yelling "I totally tried to retire a millionaire!" Yes, you tried, but you didn't assess the fact that it would be surprising if that strategy worked. It might work if we try it again next year, eventually if you put $100k into the lottery every day you would win, but it might well take decades. If spending money on free agents = trading in your 401K for lottery tickets, what is the analog for simultaneously holding onto your prospects and young players? Rodon, Fulmer, Anderson, Montas, Thompson, Sanchez, can we call them lottery ticket printing machines? Or are they gold bouillon? Blank checks?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:14 PM) Except everyone acknowledges Ozzie was a very effective manager (especially handling the bullpen and giving starters like Garland more rope than Manuel) in his first five or so years on the job. The biggest complaints were the Sunday line-ups and benching Anderson for Mackowiak in 2006. Maybe showing too much preference or deference to veterans vs. younger position players. Ventura GREATLY improved the bullpen from 2014 to 2015.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 05:00 PM) How did they develop Ramirez? Was bad at shortstop initially. Then he was good at shortstop.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 12:55 PM) Step one: Hire a professional manager. The White Sox won the World Series with Ozzie Guillen as the manager. The manager doesn't matter.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 09:06 PM) I loved the Fulmer pick, but I am a little concerned this team can't develop fielding talent. The WAR statistics for developed fielders under Williams are staggeringly bad. Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, Alexei, Sanchez, Saladino, Trayce. Chris Getz and Eduardo Escobar both not bad.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Oct 13, 2015 -> 09:52 PM) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GZ9...pub?output=html If the Sox were to cut bait on Avi and Jennings, they could have enough left over to sign a few free agents, for instance, like Parra and Zobrist. The payroll would be about the same as it was this past season. I'm not a fan of signing Zobrist, just using him as an example. Avi and Jennings? They're not going to cost $2 million between them. You'd have to replace them with guys making 500k each for a total of $1 million. You've saved $1 million. How does that move have any impact on signing free agents or not?