witesoxfan

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:03 AM) Ya I think I'd much rather have Kemp due to age. I forgot about Hamiltons drug abuse. He's been rode hard and put out wet. Hamilton scares me. I like the guy just not sure that's the route. I think Id rather go all out for Victor or Sandoval than trade for Hamilton. So would other teams, which is my entire point. You are talking about giving up a fairly valuable package of prospects plus eating anywhere between $50-75 million of his contract over a 5 year period when, other than the second half of this year, he's been fairly mediocre in recent years. He's also very bad defensively despite his athleticism. Victor Martinez is not going to happen. There's just nothing about Victor Martinez that fits the Sox agenda right now. Sandoval is also likely going to cost $15+ mill a year for 5 years when he's got the type of body type that simply does not age well. Andre Ethier also makes sense too, giving the same type of circumstances, but he may cost more in terms of players too. The Dodgers do need to move at least one of those outfielders and maybe two. I'll finish this up by basically saying that I see no way the Sox will be involved with Kemp, nor do I see them being big players in free agency, and that their focus will likely be set on Ethier or Hamilton.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 09:00 AM) How about the Halos chipping in ~$30 million and having the return be Jon Danks? I don't think the Angels would do it. Frankly, they have their own version of John Danks right now in CJ Wilson. Plus, Arte Moreno has shown no propensity to penny pinch, and taking on Danks's contract would presumably cut the amount they free up towards their luxury tax threshold from $25 mill to $11.5 mill, and I'm not sure they have a lot of use for Danks beyond even that - I think they'd ultimately rather sign Felipe Paulino instead of giving $13.5 mill a year for Danks.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 08:54 AM) Hamilton's been between a 1.25-1.75 WAR player for two consecutive seasons. He'll turn 34 early next season and he's probably older than that in terms of overall health/body damage-wise from the drug abuse earlier in his career. Kemp is 29, only three seasons removed from an absolutely monster season....and has really rallied statistically the 2nd half of the season, which is evidence of a more reliable turnaround. He's got the 963 OPS in the 2nd half, whereas Josh Hamilton's at 659 and dealing with yet another problem, this time a shoulder. Kemp fits that profile of a player at least close/r to his prime (29-33 when we're contending), and younger than Adam Dunn, for sure, when we acquired him. And of course, there's that never-ending dream that an outside free agent just comes in and lights it up at USCF, even though it never really happened with Swisher or Dunn as projected. I'd definitely try to work out a deal for Kemp (either with or without Danks) before I'd give 4/$60 to Melky Cabrera or whatever it would cost us to take on the Josh Hamilton contract disaster. Ideal, no? An MVP talent still....probably. Other teams see this as well. Frankly, you may see a team desparate enough assume the entirety of his contract believing he has turned a corner. If not, I doubt the Dodgers will kick in more than $25 mill, making him $16.5 mill per year moving forward, and I imagine they'll ask for a better prospect or player as well. There is less long-term risk with Hamilton and it will cost less both personnel-wise and monetarily. For the record, I'm not saying I'm on board with any of those moves. I'm just trying to connect dots here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 08:50 AM) I'm not giving up much of anything useful for that level. Hamilton has been worth ~$10 million and ~$6 million in the fan graphs world over the last 2 seasons. If the White Sox paid $14 mil a year for the remaining 3 years of his contract we'd still be paying a premium price compared to his recent performance. Right, this is always why I think they'd have to give up something closer to $50-55 mill to trade him. If you can get Hamilton at ~$11 mill per year, you can take the risk moving forward. The Sox will be in the market to compete without having to give up a lot prospect wise simply to build depth within the system. That will involve taking on risks. If Hamilton can revert back to being even a .280 hitter (which would basically be a 120-130 wRC+), the Sox have an absolute steal in him, and there's ultimately a chance that he could be even better than that. He could also be much, much worse, which is why the Sox won't give up anything of significance for him.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 08:38 AM) I'm not sure I'm down for that. He's 33 and often injured. So let's say 43 million we pay over 3 seasons. For what prospects? I have no idea how badly the Angels want to dump Hamilton. While he's on their payroll, he's a $25 million hit towards their luxury tax threshold (if I recall correctly, because his AAV is $25 million - 5 year, $125 million deal - that is his hit towards the luxury tax, not his annual salary). I'm not entirely sure how it works when a player is traded and cash is sent along with him, but if the acquiring team assumes the $25 million hit but only has to pay him whatever is guaranteed (meaning the Sox would pay him $10-15 mill but take a $25 million hit towards the luxury tax, which they are nowhere near reaching anyways), then it seems they'd be fairly motivated to move him to free up $25 million in salary expenditures they didn't have previously. Who that is and how the organization has judged these players has yet to be seen. Frankly, there are a lot of guys it could be. It likely would be someone's darling prospect - as Sanchez was for a few people when he was dealt to Oakland - but I don't see any way they'd give up someone in the top 10 at this point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 10, 2014 -> 08:19 AM) Just for a history comparison, how much did the Halos pick up when they dumped Vernon Wells? $28.1 mill of his then remaining $42 million, so 2/3rds

You also don't want to trade for a disgruntled player because he is not playing CF to play him in LF and DH. Hahn has specifically mentioned taking on a LH bat and taking on a bad contract to save some prospects. If he combines those two, you're talking Ethier or Hamilton, and my instinct says it will be Hamilton. When he's been healthy he's still been an above average bat, the Sox and Angels have a fairly good working relationship, the Angels have a glut of outfielders at this point, and the Angels have shown a propensity to eat contracts in the past when they need to move someone. Hamilton's owed $83 million over the next 3 years. For the Angels to move him, I'd imagine they'd have to pick up $40-50 million of his contract, depending upon the prospect/player the Sox would give back.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) Belisario's definitely gone, not offered the opportunity to return. Viciedo and Nate Jones are question marks at the moment. Flowers will stay. I guess it also depends on how accountants want to allocate Abreu's signing bonus...all monies into 2014, spread out over multiple years, etc. If Nate Jones isn't offered arbitration (which, given his injuries this year, he might get like $900k at the most, which might be covered by insurance anyways), I imagine it would be with a handshake agreement to bring him back. The Sox really like him, even to the point of favoring him for the closer role prior to his Spring Training injury (from which he never fully healed). I also can't see how Viciedo wouldn't be offered arbitration as well, regardless of whether he's with Chicago long-term. I could see the Sox interested in trying to swap him for someone like Dominic Brown too.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) Any guesses on what it would take to get Justin Morneau? He's 33, has 2 more years on his contract, and is having a real good year. I've read where they would like to move Rosario to 1B. Not sure that Morneau is the type of player the Sox should target. He has limited usefulness as he's relegated entirely to 1B or DH, he's older, and he's a rough slide or a trip from likely having his career ended.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) While I have the statistical background to do a very serious analysis of WAR, I've never really taken the time to do it. I think one of the problems is that we are basing metrics on "replacement level" instead of "league average". I get that replacement level comparisons create better marginal difference when comparing players, but I think it runs into some issues when comparing across positions. If you are a league average 1B, you receive negative credit for your defense. If you are a league average SS, you receive positive credit for your defense. In one way it makes sense because SS defense is much more important than 1B defense, but at the same time you can really distort the value of the two positions. Maybe instead of having predetermined offsets for defensive value, just compare each player to the positional norms for both offense and defense to determine value. Players that play those positions receive those +/- adjustments based on the position itself, not the defense. Because 1B is easier to play, there is a larger negative adjustment in play to compare players between 1B and SS to try and determine total value. DH receives the largest negative adjustment because there is literally no skill involved in being a DH defensive except for knowing to stay off the field. Those adjustments have been determined based largely upon how teams have constructed their lineups historically and the numbers those positions have posted. It might be time to recalculate some of those numbers, but based solely upon numbers, the DH position would receive a higher adjustment than 1B due to the way teams use the DH in today's game, which is not logical. You won't see a 1B defensive ability being degraded because he plays 1B - you can absolutely provide positive defensive value at 1B and Pujols is a guy who's done it before. Instead, I'd say it's because they have less of an opportunity and they are simply not asked to make a lot of plays that would vastly improve their contributions defensively. Along the same lines, a SS isn't given credit for his defense because he plays SS but is given credit solely because he plays SS and the idea is that someone like Jose Abreu would absolutely cost his teams more wins at SS than would be worthwhile. Compare the likely ranges of Andrelton Simmons and Jose Abreu at SS - is it far-fetched to think that Simmons will save you 60 more runs than Abreu at SS? I don't think it is, and the positive positional adjustment that Abreu got for playing SS (+7.5) is easily negated by his incredibly poor defense (say -27.5, and that's being generous).

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 7, 2014 -> 11:39 PM) Their value for trading is not as high as other positions. You sound like Greg, ridiculous and incredible. So you'd rather have a gaggle of Eduardo Escobars or Cleuluis Rondons playing 1B throughout the minor league system? That seems to essentially be what you're arguing for. Teams do try and find as many versatile and athletic players as possible at prime positions - Dan Black played some catcher, and both Ravelo and Wilkins have played 3B. They have proven to be inadequate at those positions. Someone still has to play 1B, and they liked those guys' bats enough, so they moved them over to 1B. If they didn't like their defense or their bat, they'd be released, not just stowed away at 1B. Every single organization does this. The White Sox 1B depth is fine.

BILLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSS

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) Stanton's going to get more than 25 million per year, it would seem. Even if he does, I still don't think the Sox would have a problem with it. His $/WAR (which is what teams will pay for players on the open market) is anywhere between $30-40 mill per season, depending on which dollar figure you look at, and when you get true stars like that who are incredibly marketable, you also increase the value of the franchise a small percentage too with both ticket sales and tv ratings, so they can further justify it that way. I think you're right, he'd get closer to $30 mill a year.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) Yes, minors. I love Quintana, but I would trade him for Stanton (assuming we'd extend him, even at 8yr/$200m or something), if for no other reason than the position player has a much safer long-term outlook. Would not move Quintana for Heyward, partially because Quintana + his contract is more desirable than Heyward + his likely extension value. I feel the same way and you worded it much better than I did. I think where we disagree on this one is that I don't think the Sox would have any problem giving Stanton $25 mill a year. Thanks to the contracts they've signed with Sale and Quintana (assuming you didn't use Quintana to acquire him), they've gained some leeway in giving out extra money, and he'd clearly be worth it. Beyond that, I think he's the type of player who you can trade too if you need to recoup some value. He's also a very good candidate for an opt out after 4 years, which hurts the club long-term but assures you get more than the initial service time guarantee. Again, all hypothetical, but it's fun to try and quantify the value of certain players on the team.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) If I was reasonably sure we could extend Heyward or Stanton, there is literally no one in the system I wouldn't part with to get either. Actually maybe I would say no to Rodon in a Heyward trade. I am making the assumption that you're talking minor leagues. Abreu and Sale are obvious off-limits at this point. Where's Quintana on this list for you?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 02:59 PM) No, I wouldn't. Because we'd still be left with our crappy crappy bullpen that lacks any leadership, Ventura as manager, expected/predictable below-average offensive production from every position in the line-up going into 2015 but Stanton/Abreu/Eaton and maybe Ramirez and Avisail Garcia...stuck with John Danks in the rotation for two more years and also not 100% sure what Noesi's going to produce, and lacking plus defenders all around the diamond and not an extraordinary amount of team speed or fundamentally-inclined players. Heck, we don't even have any type of guarantee that Rodon's going to be a #2 as early as 2016. Assuming Micah and Semien both played a lot and gained experience in 2015, they'd have enough speed finally...which means that acquiring Mike Stanton would be the ultimate "win now/all in" move for one season only, 2016, even moreso than Adam Dunn was. If I firmly believed that Anderson was going to be a franchise player and cornerstone to build around and would stick at either SS or 2B, there's just no way I'm making that gamble if I'm Hahn. It's only an interesting question because of that final 2016 contract year. That's where the calculus of risk of NOT doing anything significant and having Abreu/Sale/Quintana/Eaton/Avisail get injured starts to weigh on your mind as a GM. However, it's not the kind of move that fits Hahn's suggested pattern of "sustainable success" by any sort of definition. Sorry to cross sports here, but this logic sounds exactly like the Bulls under GarPax. I truly do believe that Tim Anderson will be a good shortstop at the major league level, but if you were put into an opportunity like that to acquire (another) bonafide superstar, you absolutely pull the trigger and you don't look back. In this instance, it wouldn't solely be a win-now move because Stanton is going to be 25 years old next year and you would re-sign him to a huge deal - sometimes, that's the price of business. It would be a move for the short-term and the long-term. This does fit sustainable success because you'd have 2 top 30 hitters in the game and 2 top 30 pitchers in the game for like the next 5 years at the very minimum. You can seriously fill in around that and let it roll for a while. Plus, that intial offer wasn't including Rodon either, who could be good. You constantly criticize and say that the plan wouldn't be to compete until 2017 or whatever and then wouldn't trade 4 prospects for Giancarlo Stanton because those prospects could be good? That is why the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" was invented. There's no need to talk about Stanton anymore because it's beyond a pipe dream.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 01:26 PM) If they are supposed to be sports REPORTING, then they need to mention the name as long as it is the Washington Redskins. Otherwise they are editorializing instead of reporting. The masses just want the news, the score, the facts. We don't give a s*** how you as a writer 'feel' about anything. And the NFL needs to tell its announcers to do their jobs are report the games. If players get fined for expressing opinions and such during games by even wearing an 'unapproved' headband, then announcers need to be fined for not using the official name of one of the teams they are broadcasting. While I do think the name should be changed, this post is also 100% correct.

QUOTE (The Wiz @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) Masterson definitely could be a guy the Sox bring in though. A 1 year deal worth around 6 million with incentives is exactly the type of deal he should get and wouldn't be a major risk for the Sox. If he blows, oh well wasted a couple million for 1 year. If he rebounds you have a great trade chip or possible QO FA for 2016 to get a draft pick out of. Plus the White Sox track record with pitchers could make him extremely interested in the Sox. I would be on board for a move like that.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) Yeah, I don't get why it's so bad to lose a 2nd round pick that is years away but trading away several prospects to acquire a player is acceptable. I've never said I have a problem with it. I said I don't expect them to this offseason due to the age and quality of the free agents out there compared to the quality and age of those who will likely not receive qualifying offers. If Victor Martinez or James Shields receive qualifying offers - again, I see no reason they wouldn't - that will deter the White Sox from signing them given the expected depreciation of value expected throughout those deals. If a quality free agent were hitting the market that received a qualifying offer that fit a huge need or would provide a signficant upgrade - Adam Dunn from 2011 would be the example I'd give in this instance, no matter how poorly that panned out - I'd have absolutely no problem with the Sox signing them. QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) Giancarlo Stanton on the White Sox is a pipe dream. Not sure why it keeps getting discussed, especially in the lose for a draft pick thread. It was just a hypothetical in this instance to an incredibly vague question. I only suggested it for example's sake.

And you all thoroughly destroyed my $30 million Masterson argument. Of course, you guys aren't in the front office of a major league team, so you guys were never idiots to begin with. I can still call the front office people that do it idiots at least.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) I would offer him $30 million spread evenly over 300 years, but he only gets paid while still alive. Yeah well then he's gonna get his head cryogenically frozen and when they figure out how to revive people 225 years from now, he's going to be asking for a back payment with interest included, and that will end up somewhere around the billion dollar mark.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 11:52 AM) Abreu's heat map over the last four weeks is insane. Look at down and away. https://twitter.com/msimonespn/status/507564608714858496 Bust him up and in or down and in. And if you miss, he's hitting it. He's good.

QUOTE (The Wiz @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 11:39 AM) I don't understand how the previous offseasons relate to this one at all. First off this upcoming offseason the Sox will literally have at least 30 million to spend I'd say. 2nd off, 2014 is/was clearly a rebuilding/retooling year while we wait to clear the roster of the deadweight. The Sox aren't the Cubs, they can't commit to a long term rebuild over several years and still expect to draw fans to the park. They definitely are going to make 1 big free agent signing because they have to and try and get some excitement around the team, 2nd round draft pick be damned. I'm not suggesting they commit to a long-term rebuild. I'm suggesting that the types of players who will [likely] receive a qualifying offer that the Sox might be interested in otherwise will not be worthy of giving up a draft pick. The previous offseason is meaningful (as are the offseasons before that) because it sets a precedent for how teams look to upgrade their teams. The Sox have shown in the past that they believe it is more cost effective for them to trade assets as opposed to signing free agents. It increases their range of options for which to choose and also decreases the amount of money they will spend on the transaction. It does not mean they don't sign free agents, just that they do it only when appropriate - Abreu and Dunn come to mind immediately, while they made several lesser signings and were involved on the Tanaka bidding until the end. I believe they will spend money, but I do not know how they will do it. I do not believe they will be signing someone that is tied to draft compensation. The one guy who I think they might be interested for whom there is a possibility that a qualifying offer might be made is Russell Martin, and frankly that may be enough to deter them. Here are the potential free agents, rather than a list of like 10 guys. It gives a much clearer indication of who will be available. There are plenty of interesting names for whom the Sox could show a lot of interest. There's still not a ton of high quality free agents. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensa...gents-for-2015/

I will let you believe what you want to believe and just leave on the note that, if a team gives Justin Masterson $30 million for any length of time, they are run by idiots. The Justin Masterson move might work for them, but a team with foresight that poor will make a lot more mistakes beyond that.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) Sure, at least one of Semien/Johnson/Sanchez. One of Danish and Montas. Probably Hawkins, although is power is badly needed in the major league outfield, it's at least 1 1/2 to 2 seasons away. Barnum would be nice to hold onto to see if he can develop, just like Rondon. So if you traded Semien or Sanchez, Danish or Montas (choose the one who becomes either a starter or closer, trade the other), Courtney Hawkins and let's say Trey M., what exactly does that get you? We'd still hold onto Rodon, Adams, Timmy Anderson, two of our middle infield prospects, Danish or Montas, Davidson and Erik Johnson, Beck, etc., but what would you realistically expect to get in return for those guys? I don't know, and I don't know why you're limiting it to just those guys. If you offered Semien, Montas, Hawkins, and Michaczewski for Stanton, and they said they'd do it if you substituted Anderson for Semien and Beck for Montas, are you really going to say "NO ANDERSON IS OUR FUTURE WE CANNOT DEAL HIM AT ANY COST!" when Stanton is that good? Of course, not, you'd make that move in a second. (they likely wouldn't say that, this was merely a hypothetical example of when you'd trade certain players). So much of what you are saying is subject to the teams with whom you'd be doing business, how they value the players, and who you're trying to acquire. A team like the Astros or Padres are likely going to value prospects over established players, while you may be looking to make 2-3 smaller upgrades or looking to acquire a bad contract or a lesser player via trade instead. Speculation like this is idle and pointless. I'm saying three things - that the Sox are almost certainly not going to sign a free agent tied to draft compensation, they will still be active in free agency otherwise, and that they will likely seek upgrades through trades. I'm really not saying anything else. It's not profound or bold in any way.