witesoxfan

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:53 AM) Meh, I'm not even sure what that means. Hahn has been bringing in good, young, cost controlled players into the franchise. Kemp is not good (-0.5 WAR the past two years combined), he's not young (will be 30 on September 23rd), and he's not cheap ($107 million over the next 5 years, which is just over $21 mill per season). The idea of bringing a prospect along with that is not nearly attractive enough, even if it were Pederson, Urias, or Seager (which the Dodgers wouldn't do anyways).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:34 AM) Tick tock, the clock is ticking and still no Beckham trade yet. Maybe the team loves his defense and won't part with him. Rock ... give us the inside scoop on Beckham. Who likes him? Jerry? Hahn? Is he considered untouchable by the higher ups? Is he good clubhouse guy? Why have the Sox not parted ways yet with Beckham? The White Sox will deal him in the right deal, meaning if they get someone to give up a minor league player for him, he's likely gone. You can do some of this logic in your head greg.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) Would a trade of Danks for prospects be a sign the team does not plan on winning again next year? I'd say yes that's what it means. You'd be totally weakening an already pathetic staff. The White Sox team ERA is 4.13 and their team FIP is 4.09. John Danks is at 4.40 and 4.63. Thus, John Danks is actually making the White Sox "pathetic" pitching staff even more "pathetic." Seriously greg, think before you speak. Maybe do some research. I understand that you may have some emotional attachment to John Danks, but he's not that good of a pitcher anymore. If the Sox get prospects, meaning the plural form of the word prospect, then they've already won.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) Then no thanks. If they could get Pederson or Seagar, that would make things interesting. Depending on what they wanted back I think I'd do it if they gave up one of those 2. The Sox would be insane to even be involved with this in the first place. It goes against anything Hahn has tried to create.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:17 AM) I'm guessing it's because they have already decided they are bargain-bin shopping and won't give up a real prospect, and everyone else is asking for a real prospect. Danks remains the best possible option for taking cash instead of giving up talent. Either way, we're not getting anything nice for him, because by eating most of his contract, we'd be getting him to what he SHOULD be paid based on his performance. When teams get talent back by taking money, it's because they're able to create surplus value with the contract of the player being moved. There's no surplus value available in the Danks situation. There are a lot of dudes making league minimum that can put up a 4.50 ERA. Right. I think ideally you'd get someone like Zoilo Almonte or Francisco Cervelli and that would be it.

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:14 AM) Looking at his statline for the last 10 starts... doesn't look all that great, but not terrible, either. 62 IP, 58 H, 15 BB, 1 HR, 49 ER, 33 K Regions Field suppresses power, so we'll see how he does in the more lively BB&T Park. 18 ER, not 49. I had no idea why a 7.11 ERA seemed as though it was "not terrible."

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:50 AM) Instead of all this talk about #4 and #3, how about that he ranks 85th of 92 qualified starters in FIP, 86th of 92 in xFIP, and 85th of 92 in SIERA. Last year was his recovery year. This year was supposed to be his bounceback year. Meanwhile, his velocity is showing no signs of coming back, his strikeouts are almost the same as last year and his walk rate has nearly doubled. All across the board his numbers are down on last year, barring giving up less homers, and last year's homer number was flukily high anyway. I think Danks is a better pitcher than his peripheral stats indicate, but agree that he's a fairly average to slightly below average pitcher. I think there's a market for him, but the Sox won't get a lot if they move him. My questions arise in why the Yankees would be interested in him. Maybe they feel he'll play well in their park, but his peripherals are poor and the Yanks have been acquiring guys based on peripherals a lot more this year.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) If your SB% is 63%, then you are running too much, regardless of how much that is. Ramirez is 85%, and Garcia is 91%. They are doing it right. De Aza is another one who needs to run less. 63% is a little low, but my gut tells me it's not far off from being worthwhile to steal in today's environment. The 75% threshold that we've all engraved into our brains was from an offensive environment that was incredibly different from today's where runs were a lot easier to come by and base runners getting out was one of the worst things you could do. Now playing for one run is much more valuable (though it still does not make the sacrifice bunt worthwhile unless you are playing for 1 run and the runner is on 2B with nobody out and the guy at the plate is not a very good hitter).

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) I would agree with that. When you are measuring upside though Barnum has a ton of upside and Ravelos is pretty limited. The MLB.com article says that the Sox have given Barnums power an 80 grade on the 80 point system. In my mind Ravelo's closest ML comp right now would be Gaby Sanchez. EDIT: Barnum is by far one of the biggest boom or bust guys in the system, if he hits you have a gold mine. Ravelo just doesn't have that upside, Ravelo does have a much better chance of reaching the majors though his ceiling right now would seem to be a bat off the bench. I think his expected role will be bat off the bench. I think his ceiling is that of a solid to good starting 1B, a .300/.370/.480, 40 2B, 20 HR kind of player.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 10:38 AM) That has nothing to do with projections. Barnum has a ton of raw power that he needs to translate into games, Ravelo does not. We are talking about prospects and trying to determine their ceilings based on the tools they present. The list is basically saying that Barnum has a better chance of refining his swing to make more consistent contact than Ravelo is going to all of a sudden develop power. Again these are projections based on upside and it is hard to see Ravelo developing into much more than he is now. If Ravelo were a LF, 2B, or even would have been able to stay at 3B, his profile looks a lot better long term, but if he is indeed limited to 1B, his value is not very high. This disagrees with Nathaniel Stoltz's scouting report on him. Stoltz has said previously that, while he may not be a lock to become a 20 homer guy, he definitely has the talent and ability to do so. http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/rangel-ravelo-1b-sleeper/ I like the prospects of Ravelo becoming a regular at the MLB level far more than I do Barnum's.

Ravelo is 22, showing fantastic doubles power, and absolutely murdering the ball otherwise. He's not a small guy and he's showing everything you want a prospect to show. Ravelo is absolutely higher on my list. I'd like to see the power translate a little better, but I have no problem with what he's done thus far.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 09:05 AM) Boras system making these guys free agents, albeit with a ceiling of what they can sign for, still means a few teams would have all these players sign with them, while other teams , even if they offer the max, will always come in 2nd or 3rd. It is actually very rare this occurs, and would not have occured IMO, if the Astros didn't have the 2nd pick overall next year to fall back on. There is no doubt in my mind Aiken got screwed, but it is hard to imagine a system is totally slanted against a 17 year old who is guaranteed $3-$7 million before throwing a pitch above high school level. I do think the advisor vs. agent thing needs to dissappear, and let them have people with experience who know what is going on negotiate for them, but the idea of more free agent HS kids getting paid is exactly what the slot system is trying to avoid. Let the worst teams have the best shots at these players. I agree about the 2nd pick thing. Maybe if you offer a guy 100% of his value, you can recoup a similar pick the following year (no matter if he is injured or not), indicating that a player was generally unresponsive, but in a situation like Houston's - where they could offer him $8+ mill, agreed to $6.5, and then that offer decreased to $5 mill - they shouldn't be compensated as much as they have been.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) The NFL system is perfect for the teams/owners. It's all about the up-front money. The owner can cut the player after any season and is obligated to pay no more money. So let's say Dunn was an NFL player, after that first season he could have been let go with the team saving all that cash. Ditto Rios when he was sucking. They could cut him and boom, save all that money. So let's kill the small guy who actually makes the money for the team, kick him to the curb because they made an improper fiscal decision, and keep the wallets fat. Let's create signing bonuses and hold outs and poison pill contracts too. No, the NFL system is not a good one for the players, and that's how it should be. What happens when this system is in place and Chris Sale decides that "My career could be over on any given pitch and I know I'm worth more than $11 million, I'm just not going to show up to Spring Training until they give me $20 million?" Because of the current system, he knows he's signed to a contract and he simply can't make that request. Maybe think things through and consider all possible outcomes before declaring something to be a good idea. The NFL runs a system where teams are constantly cutting good players simply because they can no longer afford them.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jul 27, 2014 -> 06:34 PM) How long have we been saying that? I don't think you can compare Rios to Dunn. Rios at least could play outfield, has some speed. Dunn hits right handed pitching very well. Dunn doesn't have a lot of value in the sense that you are going to get a very good prospect for him, but he has enough that some team will give up a player who has some legitimate baseball skills for him. Frankly, if the Sox end up keeping Dunn, I think it will be with the intention of signing him to a small extension. If they have no desire to do that, they'll get him to a contender to try and get him a World Series ring.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 27, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) Who has the LEAST value of the three: Beckham, Dunn, Belisario: rank them. I go: Belisario most value, then Beckham, then Dunn. We trade all three maybe we get another Jon "The Missing" Link. Dunn has more value than Beckham. Beckham is a DFA candidate right now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:59 AM) De Aza. You win the prize. Seriously, it's amazing how bad Howard is nowadays.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) Thank you! That phrase has been whored so often it should be renamed Paris Hilton. Whoa, easy now

Who would you rather have in your lineup? Ryan Howard: .224/.305/.377/.682, brings nothing else to the table Mysterious Man: .235/.306/.359/.665, 13 SBs, 68% SB%

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:51 AM) If you got them for an effective cost of say $5 million annually, would you rather have Howard or Dunn going forward. Cyanide. At $1-4 mill, I'd rather have Dunn. He can at least stand in the outfield and shag fly balls during a live game, he still draws walks and that power isn't going away any time soon. Howard is just brutal.

I see this and imagine an Onion type headline stating "Phillies don't want bad baseball player on team, want someone to help pay for bad baseball player's contract."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:30 AM) If Sale was pitching, I'd love the Sox chances against any team. Sale and Q. Both can go toe to toe with a lot of pitchers.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) Classic "buyers or sellers" situation. If we do buy and make the playoffs, this team still wouldn't make it out of the wild card round. Honestly, I would have said that about a lot of teams that ultimately did end up winning it all. It's a matter of being hot at the right time. I thought the Tigers were a mortal lock to make it to the World Series last year. I simply won't ever discount or count on teams to make it to the World Series. That said, this version of the Sox team making the playoffs is quite unrealistic.

I wouldn't even bother looking at Johnson. Putz was release (and has yet to sign with a team, which means he's likely considering retirement), it was with the idea that his peripherals would translate. It was also a month ago, so the Sox had more of a chance then (sort of). Sergio Santos still had youth on his side, so you could possibly keep him around for a few years. There is no upside to Jim Johnson though.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) Although the chances of this actually happening are incredibly tiny, it is nuts to think the Cubs could have 3 40+ HR guys in the middle of their lineup in Bryant, Schwarber and Baez. That's not even counting Rizzo. Baez looks like the most likely to bust. He seems an all-or-nothing type -- either he's an 8-time all star or he doesn't even stick in the majors. Let's not get too amped up over Schwarber yet. Incredibly small sample size (which, frankly, his A- and A trips were too), but he's been far less impressive at A+.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 25, 2014 -> 09:13 AM) Kendrys Morales: .234/.259/.325 - .584 Corey Hart: .214/.295/.332 - .627 Logan Morrison: .209/.265/.346 - .611 Justin Smoak: .208/.279/.352 - .630 The only logical conclusion we can come up with from this analysis is that Kendry Morales is powered by fresh sushi.