witesoxfan

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) from "if someone else wasnt manager, the Sox would have far and away the best record in the league" to "we should lose on purpose" "But what kind of manager is Ventura to have instructed his team to lose on purpose?" OR "Ventura is an awful manager, how could he win this game when the team clearly needs to lose to cement their draft position?"

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) The time before that, it wound up OK. There were signs Dunn was on the downslope. He struggled the second half of 2009 and had never played in the AL or been pretty much a full time DH. There were a bunch of red flags. VMart is far less risky and a totally different hitter even if he is a little older. He isn't a swing and a miss type of guy. I think these guys age better. Harold Baines put up big numbers between ages 36 and 40. Paul Molitor was OK too but he was a bit less consistent season to season too. I don't think Martinez would be as bad as Dunn nor as flawed a hitter, but is bringing him in on a 3/$45 deal (just a guess, maybe he wouldn't get that) for this team going to be a move that puts them over the top? The reason you bring in players at that point in their career is if they do put your team over the top or they come very cheaply. Even if it's still productive and good, I don't feel like it's a stretch to say that it's all downhill from here for Victor. QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:45 AM) You just have to fight with me!!!! Seriously you're smart enough to tell the difference between Victor Martinez and Adam Dunn as hitters. Also, admit it: you'd be excited if we went into ST with a team that was worth a s*** for once. Overall there has been little reason for excitement every season since 2011 which obviously was a bomb. The best things we were looking forward to were things like Sale as a starter, Abreu's debut, s***ty players finally being gone, etc. but over the last 3 ST there was never any reason to consider the Sox a contender for anything. I can't say with any sort of certainty how excited I'd be or, rather, how much more excited I'd be than normal in Spring Training. I don't think that team is ready to win a division or move on in the playoffs, and Shields and Martinez aren't getting any younger. It would be nice to take those cogs away from division rivals, but they could also replace them just as well or find production elsewhere. Also, going into 2012, I was really excited that Ozzie was gone, and the team came out and played their ass off all year.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:28 AM) Okay so here, consider this: Rotation: Sale-Shields/Latos-Quintana-Noesi-Rodon Pen: reclamation project/bargain signing for closer 7th & 8th primarily you have Putnam & Petricka Guerra is your 6th inning guy you sign/trade for a lefty setup man Carroll/Bassitt/Rienzo battle for the long man role 1 spot left for a lefty (ideally) but if all the lefties blow you take another righty L C Castro (trade for him amirite?) R 1B Abreu S 2B Sanchez R SS Alexei S 3B Headley (signing) S DH VMart L/R LF Platoon Connor & Tank, with Connor the backup 3B, some 1B time as well and Tank as your other player you may at another position should you desire L CF Eaton R RF Avi Bench: Some guy at C, Semien UT, Moistness, Leury for defense & s*** also running fast All we have to do is make a bunch of trades & signings and tear the free agent market a new asshole but hey it could be done.... I still see no reason why Houston would trade Castro despite the down year. I also still don't know why so many people are trying to move Gillaspie to LF. Also, signing Victor Martinez at this point is an incredibly risky move. Regardless of giving up the draft pick, you are talking about bringing in a 36 year old who is having a career year on a multi-year deal likely worth $15 mill per year. I mean, it's been so long, I'm trying to remember the last time the Sox brought in a 30+ year old DH on a multi-year deal...I don't remember how that one panned out. Oh well, I'm sure everything would be fine.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:16 AM) So you would say the Rays are doing well right now...by including last season's results? That's PART of the truth, sure...but you could just as easily argue they'd be fighting for the playoffs now with Shields AND PRICE AND Wade Davis. Not to mention their attendance has been abysmal...even more abysmal than usual for them. At any rate, I made a bet with Dick Allen that Beckham would hit under .240 and he wouldn't ever mention Don Cooper again...not sure if he's going to honor that one. So a second one. I'd be more than happy to wager whatever you want that the Royals are going to make the playoffs at least this season. The Royals making the playoffs for the first time in 29 years without a single player with more than 20 homers or 100 RBI's is pretty strong evidence of the difference he's made to that team. With how poorly their offense has performed, no, I don't think so. They weren't competing with David Price, why would replacing someone like Jake Odorizzi with James Shields have effected their position that greatly? I'm not wagering that a team that's in first place will or will not make the playoffs - they probably will. I'm just calling bulls*** on you implying that the Rays regret trading Shields and that they haven't done anything without him when they clearly have. They're still considered one of the premier organizations in the game despite their lack of spending for a reason.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) I appreciate what Dunn did, too. But the entire SOX NATION wanted him to die in a brutal farming accident, so given that thought process, I'm not understanding the yearning for a higher risk version of the same thing as a replacement. I'm glad it sparked some discussion. I'm not a huge fan of Hamilton, but there is upside in his bat like no one else that would be available. the question is how much of that upside is left? I'm guessing very little. And it would still take about $50-60 million from the Angels for that trade to work for the Sox (and I've said it a couple different times, I just don't see why the Angels would take Danks back given that they really don't have a spot for him in the rotation or the bullpen). That overall seems like more of a Yankees or Red Sox move. QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) Yeah, I agree. You can only make awesome trades when other GMs are willing to give you the shot. I think a lot of people don't realize what a great offseason this past one was in terms of getting big-time controllable talent, and it should NOT be our baseline going forward. An average offseason will not be as good as last year's. I think it depends a lot upon people's expectations. I don't see them getting involved in heavy bidding for a big free agent - Jose Abreu, after all, did sign the biggest contract in franchise history - but some bullpen acquisitions, a starting pitcher, and maybe an outfielder is about what I expect them to bring in. I think they'll continue the re-tooling process next year to some degree with the hopes that they'll be able to compete.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Which organization is in a much better position right now, at this exact moment in time? So you're completely ignoring an extremely valid point because it totally contradicts your initial argument. You should run for Congress. I mean, seriously, you said this: They've done fine, given that they made the playoffs without him. How many times have the Royals made the playoffs with James Shields? That answer, at this juncture, is 0.

Look how the Rays have done without him? They won a play-in game against Texas, beat the Indians in the Wild Card round, and then lost in the LDS in 4 games to the eventual World Series champions. ...unless you're going to tell me that the reason that their offense has scuffled this season and has seen numerous players hit below their career averages and/or poorly all together was because of James Shields, in which case, I'm going to say that you're full of it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 08:30 AM) I also feel like scouting would be a bit more improved today. Yes and no. It's hard to deny that it's improved and I think the productivity of the top 10 and top 15 has improved, but even looking at just last year's draft, we already saw signs of Appel struggling and the #6 pick (Colin Moran) from that draft was already traded. It's definitely not a crapshoot, but much of drafting players is still projecting how they'll develop and grow and then praying that they don't get hurt.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:27 PM) With only a few weeks left in the year, am I the only one that feels this MLB season has sucked? The most covered stories in the media seem to be Jeter's retirement and the collision rule at home. No record breaking statistics, etc. this year to get intrigued by. I've talked about this with a guy who knows a bit about baseball but really doesn't like it and he's talked about how the MLB has done just an absolutely terrible job of marketing themselves. Frankly, they cut off the hand despite the arm - the lack of interest nationally in baseball has so much to do with them embracing steroids to build interest and marketability and then tearing it all down and destroying the credibility of their players. It's bad that 4 years ago, MLB had an absolutely incredible story in Jose Bautista coming out of nowhere and having a 54 homer season, and that wasn't met with "what an incredible accomplishment, look at this emerging hitter in Toronto finally figuring things out" but instead it was "he's probably on steroids." The Bosch Witch Hunt didn't help anything either.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 11, 2014 -> 08:16 AM) The Cubs did pick right before the Sox 2 years in a row when the Sox had to rebuild in the 80s. They took Mike Harkey, the Sox had to settle for Jack McDowell (This was luck, as I read an article about Al Goldis several years ago, and the Sox really did want Harkey. The next year, they drafted The Ty Griffin. The Sox had to settle for The Boy Wonder, Robin Ventura. This isn't the NBA. You still needs a lot more luck in the MLB draft, even when drafting high, and you can always make your allocation work out. I've seen you mention a few times that the Sox really liked Jeff Jackson in '89 too, especially as a hometown boy, but the Phillies snagged him at 4, three picks ahead of the Sox, and they had to settle for Frank Thomas.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 11:55 PM) 1.) No? Please expound. 2.) South side of Chicago? In Mt. Greenwood? Of course there were fights. All the time. And if you got bloodied parents didn't go crying to the other person's parents. 3.) Little kids can't do that kind of damage one-on-one. Generally speaking anyway. Once somebody gets in a punch that hurts the fight ends pretty quickly. 4.) I guess. Nobody says "We suck worse so we're better because we get a higher draft pick." The posters on this board are more knowledgable and understand the [slight] benefit of having a worse record when it comes to draft time. Nobody in school would argue anything along those lines.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 05:56 PM) Back in the day there were fights at our grade school and high school over Cubs record vs. Sox record. I can imagine how the teachers are so happy nowadays there are no fights. At the grade school recess or gym class the Cub fan says, "Ha ha. The Cubs have a better record than your Sox." And the little Sox fan instead of tackling him counters with ... "who gives a s***? I want to lose We get the better draft pick! Ha ha. We win. We get the better draft pick." No

QUOTE (professa @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) Jackson is not as bad as Danks. Look at the FIP. I would just say they've both been terrible this year. FIP just says that Jackson should have put up better numbers, but he didn't, so we can't suddenly take that away from him. I think, long-term (which is 2 years), there is more upside with Jackson but a safer pitcher in Danks, which is to say that both will likely be bad moving forward. My thought regarding that was that, at the very least, Jackson could theoretically be good out of the pen with his arsenal, but that's not a given either.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) Oh, thanks. I knew it was too good to be true. Actually, that would be really bad if true. He might be closer than we all realized to the majors, but he's still not close at all, and he'd be burning his options and a spot on the 40 man roster way too early. I can see a cup of coffee next year if he performs well. If.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) Vmart will sign with tigers and Jackson for danks is worse. I strongly disagree that Danks is better than Jackson.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 01:51 PM) This. He's owed $89 million over the next three years. Unless the Angels are willing to throw in around $60 million, I want no part of Josh Hamilton. For the record, that's been about the only way it's ever been in consideration.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) Im not going to blame Cutler for the Holmes play. It wasnt the best play call (Forte had been kind of good) and it was 1 on 1 with the Bears wr having slightly better position. I think that its overall a better strategy to go to Forte or Bennett, but not really going to blame that entirely on Cutler. I don't think anyone is, it just so happens that Cutler threw the ball and a 1st down there would have been huge towards the Bears winning. It was more ironic than anything else that Cutler just so happened to have 3 plays that had such negative WPA's. It was a close game, any big plays, positive or negative, are going to have a huge influence in a situation like that. Oh, and this

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) I'm not sure how the Holmes play, where he slipped out of his break, can be in that conversation while neither of McCowns picks made the list. It's WPA. If the Bears get a first down there, they can continue on towards trying to score a touchdown which would have sealed the game. Instead, it stalled the drive and forced a 4th down, where the Bears tied it up.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 12:34 PM) How can you ignore that 2 of his decisions LOST the Bears the game? That pick to the nose tackle was inexcusable for a guy in his 8-9th year in the league. Jay Cutler actually had 3 of the 6 plays that hurt his team the most according to Win Percentage Added. The two picks plus the incomplete pass to Holmes on the 3rd down of the final drive in regulation. EDIT: I'm an idiot, I knew someone would mention it and you did yourself.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 04:49 AM) They have depth but not best collection of prospects or a single 'legit' prospect the position. And no, Andy Wilkins does not count. You are correct in that they do not have a very good prospect that plays 1B in the minors right now (though Wilkins, Ravelo, and Barnum all count as prospects in some light). They did have one last offseason, but their best 1B prospect graduated from prospect status to MLB superstar. Kite was correct in theory that the Sox should not go out drafting guys who are pure 1B prospects unless their hitting tools - meaning bat control and power - are off the charts good, like Prince Fielder. Otherwise, if they don't hit, they really aren't prospects. Frankly, 1B prospects in the minor league systems is like seriously the absolute least of my concerns and almost always will be. Yeah, you need someone who can hit at 1B, but the Sox do have that and, if you don't have a good prospect at 1B but have several in LF, RF, or 3B, you just move them over to 1B.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) I do not understand you guys. You could not WAIT to get Adam Dunn out of town -- a lefthanded DH who strikes out a ton (30.6%) and is putting up a 117 wRC+ -- because he was grossly overpaid at $14m per year. Now we want to take on the ass end of Josh Hamilton's backloaded contract -- a lefthanded DH/OF who strikes out a ton (28.6%) and is putting up a 113 wRC+ -- at like $25m per year. So what if they throw money in? It's still going to be at least Adam Dunn money for a declining, injury prone, one dimensional DH-in the making. I, for one, greatly appreciated what Dunn did, but that's beside the point. I'm basically just trying to figure out what Hahn is getting at and Hamilton and Ethier are ideas and connecting the dots. I think I would honestly rather that the Sox started Wilkins all year to see if they have anything in him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) I felt okay about it because Jim Thome was perceived as a HOF level slugger, careers were lasting longer at that time, and he had no PEDS allegations or even whispers. Finally, Thome was also reported to have one of the best work ethics in the game of baseball. If there's a better parallel, it's someone like Jermaine Dye. Let's not forget, it's USCF....someone like Ethier's just not nearly the threat level of a Matt Kemp. At this point, he's a nice complimentary player, like a Nick Markakis. He's not the centerpiece of your offseason campaign or strategy to improve the team. If he is, disaster awaits. A lot like James Loney, he's a nice player to have on your team, he's a SOLID player for a couple more seasons, but he's a platoon guy and not the kind of thump you need to hit behind a Jose Abreu. Just last year Ethier was a 119 wRC+ player and he's consistently been in the 120s and 130s in his career. If you replace Viciedo with Ethier, you are talking about a huge, huge upgrade both offensively and defensively. That's nothing to scoff at. He's a better hitter and better power threat than Markakis is. He's also better than James Loney too. You are also missing the points where Hahn is looking for a left handed bat, Kemp bats right handed, and he's still going to cost much more on the trade market. Why have you not acknowledged those points? I also don't understand why you're justifying not acquiring him because he wouldn't be the centerpiece of your offseason. That's ridiculous. Andre Nieto wasn't the centerpiece of last offseason, so did the Sox make a bad move in bringing him in? Who cares if he wouldn't be the "centerpiece?" You would assume more than one move is made. In the 2004-05 offseason, who was the White Sox "centerpice?" I ask because there was no centerpiece, there was a collection of moves made that seemingly all worked out and the Sox ended up winning the World Series as a result.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) Then he needs to be non-terrible at fielding that position, which isn't quite the case currently and probably will get worse with age. Hamilton isn't considered terrible at fielding his position. Not necessarily good, but he's most definitely not terrible.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) Why would we want to spend ANY money on a guy with a 710 OPS against righties....and 7 years older than Viciedo? Just because he's left-handed? He's beyond Adam Dunn bad against lefties, with a 533 OPS. I just don't see any point in paying platoon outfielders that kind of crazy money when they're clearly on the downside of their careers. If we're doing that, we might as well bring back Alex Rios. Ethier's going to be 33 on Opening Day next season and 34 in 2016. No way. He's got a 656 OPS after the ASB and is hardly playing. If you were talking 2011-2013, when he put up a 900ish OPS in a large sample of AB's against righties, we might have something. At this stage, in his twilight, he's just not worth it. We don't want a roster like we had in 2013 with a majority of players closer to the end than the beginning of their careers. He's hardly playing because the Dodgers have better options. That's not his fault. Acquiring Ethier now would be reminiscent of the Sox trading for Thome. Not due to the careers, but just given the situations. Thome was coming off an injury plagued year where he put up a wRC+ of 90 and was heading into his age 35 season. How did you feel about that move at the time? To compete and get better, you have to assume risk, and if you can minimize that risk by receiving money or paying less in terms of prospects and shortening the long-term commitment while also taking on a guy who could very well bounce back, you can go ahead and take that risk. QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:25 AM) Hamilton is also getting paid approximately one s***load more than Dunn was. Right, but given this situation, he'd actually be paid pretty similarly to Dunn was during his time in Chicago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) I don't remember this being how it worked when they sent Vernon Wells to the Yankees, I believe the Angels took the luxury tax hit in that case rather than the Yankees. The Yankees being over the tax by a lot would have made taking him on cost them like $10 million more per season, it seemed like in that case the luxury tax hit the team that was paying to move him. That is the part that I'd have to do some actual digging in the CBA to figure out how the luxury tax hit is spread out, and I don't have the time to do that right now. Besides that though, I still don't think the Angels would be interested in Danks. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:14 AM) Kemp's the only guy we should be targeting, forget about Crawford and Ethier at this point in their careers. 15:$21M, 16-19:$21.5M annually $107 million's a scary number. That said, if they could get it down to around $68-84, it's doable. Danks would definitely have to go...and I think I might balk more about taking on John Danks' deal if I was LA than selling low and sending money along with Matt Kemp. I'd probably offer to chip in $6 million per season...making our payout $77 million over 5 years. That's fairly similar to the Abreu deal. There are 28 other teams in the league besides the Dodgers and White Sox and many of them are going to be willing to trade for Matt Kemp too. You aren't going to get Matt Kemp (plus cash) for John Danks alone. The Sox also are not going to essentially sabotage their MLB team to acquire Matt Kemp either. Frankly, I don't think Matt Kemp will be traded. I think they'll look to move Ethier and they'll find takers.