witesoxfan

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 4, 2014 -> 07:19 AM) Fair enough. Appel wasn't looked at as an underslot, value signing though. That was my point. They haven't made a habit of going under slot in round 1. They did it once with Correa. And it's not like Correa was a bad prospect to begin with. This isn't like the Royals taking Christian Colon.

Baseball is an absolute crapshoot in the draft, even at the top. Mike Trout was taken 25th or whatever, Pujols in the 13th, yada yada yada. The entire point of baseball is just collecting as much talent as you can by whatever means possible in a rebuild. Wins 74 or 76 games would be a great step in the right direction, especially if it means young players were playing well. That's still a likely top 10 draft pick and, if not, it's like 11, 12, or 13. Frankly, I couldn't give a s*** where the Sox end up in the draft.

If/when he does respond, it will likely be loving Davidson, liking Abreu but not sure overall just due the size of the contract and the profile of Abreu as a 1B, non-athletic player, and a large amount of indifference on Nieto because it's a Rule 5 pick and Rule 5 picks are always so meh.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) Well, if true, this escalated quickly.... Baseball Report ‏@NickHamelinMLB 10m Report: #DBacks SS Didi Gregorius is now on the trading block and may get moved soon. In his final 54 games and 197 PAs, Gregorius put up a .202/.296/.295/.591 line.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:29 PM) It would be like running a dryer that has higher resell value (Viciedo or De Aza) thus lowering its value (wear and tear) and not using the Dunn dryer to preserve its miniscule resell value because the Dunn dryer cost you way more to begin with and you don't want to look like a total dumbass. Of course, this is all subjective, and forcing those guys to DH actually hurts their value since their value comes not from their bat, but from their ability to play LF at a respectable level.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:31 PM) Bears: 4-3, 3-4, 4-3 under, some sort of other hybrid? 9 Velcro, all day every day.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) These washing machines are a damn ripoff. 1.25 for one load? who even carries quarters anymore?! Well the best one has a dollar bill slot as well as a card swiper. The last, 7th one only takes dimes, nickels, and fifty cent pieces.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:17 PM) aha. Thanks, wite /pats self on back /not ignored (for now)

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 03:07 PM) Ok I see now. Well then in this context Dunn would be the 8th washing machine & it's constantly regurgitating detergent back onto the customers. Of course, this defective 8th washing machine might be quite a big hit at a rave party where the idea *is* to be bombarded with soapiness and bubbles, so maybe you send both this 8th washing machine and Dunn to said nightclub and the machine can pump out bubbles while Dunn's donkey ass can hand out bracelets at the door. No, you still aren't following. In this instance, Dunn would be a dryer, which has nothing to do with washing machines at all. The washing machines represent the starting rotation while dryers would represent the hitters. The 8th washing machine is Ubaldo Jimenez. In this instance, Dunn would be a dryer whose high heat cycle is too hot, the low heat cycle is too cold, and it constantly jams with lint, but it still works and someone might give you $30 for it, which is better than kicking a $150 machine out to the curb and getting nothing back.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:56 PM) So you've got 7 washing machines but you only have the demand for 5? And yet you still insist on paying extra maintenance costs for two dated machines which demand doesn't even necessitate? Hmm, this all reminds me of the dilemma the Sox are facing with Dunn. They've already spent the money on Dunn, just like you have already bought 7 washing machines. Two of these machines are defective (presumably well out of warranty as they'd have both been replaced by any no-lemon guarantee) just like Dunn is a defective #4 hitter. Both the extra washing machines and Dunn are unnecessary for the future success of the business. With your washing machines, rather than continue to pay into a sunk cost which you already know was an unnecessary investment in the first place, the proper choice would be to liquidate your 2 extra washing machines (take whatever you can get for them and stop paying into them via maintenance costs) and then when demand increases to where you need a 6th washing machine, you can then buy a new one under a new warranty which will cover you into the future. Similarly, the Sox should take whatever they can get out of their own sunk cost i.e. Dunn rather than continue to invest resources (playing time) into it. Dunn - thank you for the analogy wite - is basically the baseball version of a defective washing machine that was completely unnecessary in the first place. You're not following. Of the 5 that are primarily used, you need to routinely maintain 2 of them. Thus, you have 2 others that work. All 7 are necessary. If you take one of them out, then suddenly you can't meet the demand. If that demand were ever decreased, I'm sure you could sell one of those machines and recoup some of your cost. You are suggesting putting that machine on the side of the road.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:45 PM) This is a mistake by Hahn. The Ultimate Champion has put this argument to rest very eloquently. Dunn shouldn't be on the Opening Day roster. I've done the same. There's no harm in having Dunn on the roster - who is he legitimately holding back? De Aza? people want to string him up by his toenails too - so, if it's a sunk cost, and you can possibly recover some of that cost, you have a win. That is Finance 101. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) If you think the Sox will be in a position to contend for a playoff spot over the next 4 years, Jimenez is an absolute steal. How? Do you understand what marginal value is? There could easily be a large hole that opens up on the roster (or one remains) and the Sox will then have no money to fill that hole. Would you rather have a rotation of Sale, Quintana, Johnson, Danks, and Paulino/Rienzo/Surkamp with Matt Wieters catching, or Sale, Quintana, Johnson, Danks, Jimenez with Phegley/Flowers/Nieto catching?

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) Is there an ignore button? Actually, yes there is. Click on a user's name, go to their profile, and click on the options drop down list. Click ignore user, and confirm on the following screen. You will still see their quoted posts, but not the original.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:34 PM) The White Sox are a rebuilding team with money. Isn't exploiting market inefficiencies what smart teams should do? What are you talking about? What market inefficiency? There's also the aspect of marginal value that you are, for whatever reason, not taking into consideration. Jimenez might be worth 4 more wins than Erik Johnson over the duration of his contract. Do you really want to spend $50-60 million for 4 wins over 4 years? I'm saying, literally, that instead of 77 this year, you'd win 78. Do you truly, honestly, 100% believe that's a smart business decision? If you do, then I'd like to sell you apples that are better than the ones you can get in the store (but only marginally so) for $10 a piece.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) Absolutely, I want to know how the Sox rebuild effort is hurt if your best case scenario comes to fruition. Washing machines

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:26 PM) You're not wrong. It's bizarre that there are people who 1.) WANT to give this rotation a try, 2.) believe the addition of Jimenez or Santana kills the rebuild. Thirty years of Chairman Reinsdorf's ownership has conditioned Sox fans to think first about the payroll. Yes, because bringing in 30 year old pitchers at $15 mill a year over 4 years SCREAMS rebuilding. That's something all the teams that rebuild properly do.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:19 PM) Even taking your best case scenario of having 5 pitchers as good as Jimenez, how does his addition hurt the Sox rebuild? Is this a serious question? Say you're running a laundromat, and you have Seven washing machines. Five of them are usually sufficient to get the job done, but there are two of them that occasionally need maintenance so the other two, lesser quality ones are used. They get the job done, but not as well. You are spending $200 a day to run these and take home $400, and you continually make a profit of $200. Someone offers you the opportunity to bring in another washing machine that is just as good as the first five (though you, being a smart businessman, know it's not necessary because you only need five). This increases your daily costs to $350. You are still only bringing in $400, but now you've cut your profits to $50.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) Why 89 wins? The Sox have virtually no money locked up in long-term commitments. They can easily add money in the coming years. The smart thing to do would be to take advantage of the market on these guys (Jimenez or Santana) because it's highly unlikely their caliber of pitcher will be available at the discount they are going to go for. Because the value added of 3 wins for Jimenez for a 75 win team is negligible, if not outright harmful. The value added of 3 wins to an 89 win team may take them from first team out to last team in. This, of course, is all dependent upon what type of assets you have in those positions. The Sox happen to have 7 starting pitchers right now who they can use, and 5 of them could easily be as good as Jimenez next year.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 02:06 PM) Go Marshawn Lynch and Jordy Nelson! Everybody has to care about my fantasy team until we get a 2014 fantasy thread! No

I'm not talking merely about value. I'm talking about overall production. I am saying that I think there's a 50/50 chance that Paulino is as effective next year as Jimenez. Durability is an entirely different facet of this where I am fully aware that Jimenez is a far, far safer bet. If by productive, you meant total value, then yes, Jimenez is more likely to be more valuable regarding both production on the field and having the ability to stay on the field. As a pure pitcher, it's a tossup.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) But Paulino who has a career ERA right at about 5.00, should have a decent chance to outperform him even though he missed last season and only pitched 37 innings in 2012. Again, you are not basing this on any logic. If it really was 50/50, either Paulino would have received A LOT more money than the White Sox gave him, or Jimenez would have to settle for A LOT less than he is going to be paid. His career ERA as a starter is 4.45, whereas it's above 9 as a reliever. He had an ERA of 4.26 as a starter in 2011 and he was absolutely filthy in 7 starts in 2012 with an ERA of 1.67. There is plenty of logic to figure that he will do well. Regardless of any of this, Paulino is the far, far better investment.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 01:18 PM) He is coming off surgery. He has pitched 37 innings since Ozzie Guillen was managing the White Sox. Jimenez has been far more productive in the past as a starter. Because you are not a fan of Jimenez, you discount that and ignore all of Paulino's warts. It might work out the way you claim, but your conclusion is only based on your personal bias. Any reasonable person would conclude that the odds are far longer than 50/50 Paulino outperforms Jimenez. No, I actually happen to like Jimenez, especially his stuff, but he's been an incredibly inconsistent pitcher over his career and he's just as likely (if not moreso) to put up an ERA over 5 as he is to put one up under 3.50. They both have a lot of warts.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Paulino may be good he may be awful. He pitched 37 innings in 2012 and 0 in 2013, and before that he was pretty awful. For anyone to suggest he has a decent chance to outperform Jimenez in 2014, is not basing it on anything you really should base anything upon. Just basing it on because they say so. I don't necessarily agree just because Paulino has been incredibly productive as a starter before. However, if you were to ask who is more likely to stay healthy, I'd give Jimenez about a 95% chance of doing that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) After watching NFL for past decade, I'm less enthralled with crazy schemes than coaches who are able to develop talent and teach their scheme to perfection. Seems Carroll is very good at both. That whole organization seems on the same page, and that is so rare in the NFL and difficult to accomplish. See Browns. Even if you offer stability it's not easy. They appear to be on the upswing, but the Bills fit that model too.

He has no *trade* value at the moment because of his contract. He has plenty of value as a hitter, especially against right handed pitching. If he hits well in a platoon, the Sox could easily get someone to eat $2-5 million of his deal, which is $2-5 million the White Sox don't have to pay and will pay if they release him. It's also of note that the Sox likely are working with teams and willing to eat quite a bit of his salary to facilitate a trade, but outright releasing him isn't going to happen. You can argue it till you're blue in the face, but it's not going to happen, so you're ultimately wasting your time.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 3, 2014 -> 10:52 AM) That's the same thing he does now. It wasn't coaching that made the Seahawks D so outstanding, it was pure speed and talent. Now I think Carroll has a major say in personnel and they gutted the entire roster when he showed up, so he definitely deserves credit for that. Carroll has final say on all personnel decisions.