witesoxfan

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:04 PM) Still doesn't matter. Getting the #1 pick means you get your top guy guaranteed + more money to spend overall. You're still banking on your scouts, but if you don't trust them then the franchise was doomed regardless. I swear everyone arguing against this seems to think the only 2 options are: Lose 100 games and get the 1st pick or win 99 and get the 29th. We're talking about a garbage team that's already a lock to get a top 5 pick, lose a handful more games and now you're getting the #1 pick. Complete nonsense to not want that. To each their own. I will never enjoy the White Sox losing.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) And Benintendi went 1 pick before Fulmer. 2 meaningless wins on a s*** team let them slide 1 spot and miss a guy higher on their board. And the White Sox still probably would have picked Fulmer. You guys keep mentioning this anecdote, but the Sox would have had to have picked Benintendi. This is why scouting is that much more important than where you actually pick.

Get him in so bmags changes his name!

QUOTE (Soha @ Jun 4, 2017 -> 05:40 AM) You don't think the Cubs ever went full tank? Come on, who are we kidding here? They were in bigger tank mode than the Sox have been so far in this rebuild. They made zero effort to actually be competitive in the first few years of the Theo regime. Their 101 tanked losses in 2012 were rewarded with a guy named Kris Bryant. And I think your point of the Cubs 5 top 10 picks illustrates exactly how important tanking can be. Because Kris Bryant is the only one of those 5 guys that has established himself as more than a role player. And he was taken with the 2nd pick in the draft. The other guys were taken 4th, 6th, 9th and 9th...and none have shown to be worth those picks at this point (granted Happ hasn't had a chance to prove it one way or another yet). Maybe they will eventually. Maybe they won't. Or maybe they are worth their picks and it just illustrates how much worse picking 4th, 6th or 9th is compared to 2nd. Finally - if the Sox had 3 more losses in 2014, they would have drafted Andrew Benintendi instead of Carson Fulmer. That sure would have been nice, eh? Have you looked at the 2012 Cubs team? There are some pretty good players on that team. Maybe suggesting that they didn't full tank is incorrect, but they didn't have a good team regardless. They didn't gut their roster like the 1997 Marlins did or didn't have a team so devoid of talent that they couldn't win games like the 2003 Tigers. Frankly, your position regarding the draft position strengthens my argument. Where you end up really doesn't matter because the MLB draft is a crapshoot any way you slice it up. It's incredibly important to bring in the necessary talent, but that talent doesn't always work out. The best thing to do is to acquire as many young assets as you can and weed them out from there. Finally, if the Sox had taken Ian Happ instead of Carson Fulmer, I don't think you'd be asking that question. Happ went 1 pick after Fulmer. And it's not like the books is closed on Carson Fulmer yet either.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 07:03 PM) Nobody is going to be upset at a 96 win team, which isn't in any way realistic and no sane person's argument. If they're going to miss the playoffs anyway, win 60 games and get the highest possible pick you can so you don't miss the top guy on your board by 2 meaningless wins. See, but they are going to end up with a bad record. I think this is pretty much a foregone conclusion. To me, it's just easier to shrug off the losses at this point. Actively rooting for losses is backwards logic. "Runners on first and second for Abreu, let's hope he grounds into a double play." Like, what? That's the way I see people watching the game when they are hoping for the Sox to lose. If they end up with the 3rd pick or the 5th pick instead of the 1st, it doesn't really matter. From 2011 to 2015, the Cubs picked in the top 5 twice, still picked in the top 10 every year, and ended up with Baez, Almora, Bryant, Schwarber, and Happ. I don't think they ever went full tank trying to win 60 games, they just didn't have very good teams so they ended up at the bottom. That's pretty much the point I'm trying to portray - the Sox are going to lose a lot of games, so you may as well hope for wins and be grateful when they do, because it's not going to happen a lot. I mean, if that's what people are hoping for, then by all means, do it. I can't stop you. I just think it's a bit wrong.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 04:06 PM) Because losses position the White Sox to situate themselves close to winning a championship, which is the goal. I guess I'm one who doesn't understand the need to root for losses. To me, my mentality is more along the lines of being happy when they win and not caring when they lose. I will never be happy when the White Sox lose, even if it's for the greater good. I mean, seriously, if the White Sox ended up going 96-66 this year, winning the division, and storming through the playoffs, would the reaction here really be "well they should have lost, this is stupid"?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 04:50 PM) No, I guess it was Anthony Ranaudo? But we did do the same with Noesi from Seattle. Oh no, Noesi was Texas. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TE...201404200.shtml

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 04:39 PM) Didn't we crush a kid from the Rangers last year and then pick him up off waivers like 2 weeks later? You mean Hector Noesi?

I was the biggest backer of Frazier this past offseason, even so far as suggesting he be tendered a qualifying offer. However, I had completely eliminated Matt Davidson as a possible replacement, and while his egregious strikeout rate is terrible - his 37.7% strikeout rate is only 4th worst in the league, based on 130 plate appearances, just ahead of Joey Gallo and just behind Miguel Sano, Keon Broxton, and Chris Davis - his BABIP is actually somewhat sustainable at .343, though that will also fluctuate because that's based on balls put in play and, well, I really don't have to describe the rest. Still, Frazier is in the last year of his deal, so it's a sunk cost, and the Sox really should see what they have in Davidson full time as a 3B. At what point to you either deal him for anything you can get or flat out DFA him? I wanted to bring this up to eat my own crow and that a qualifying offer for Frazier is outrageous at this point, but also to see what people think. I do think they'll hang on to Frazier until late August at the latest to get him onto a contender. Before even that, I think a team will find his "versatility" - 1B/3B - useful, and will pull the trigger and trade a kid who is worth a s*** for him as he turns it around a bit. Frazier is sporting an uncharacteristic .190 BABIP, which should turn around, although maybe only to .230-.250, given his propensity to hit flyballs. You all think the Sox last that long?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:29 PM) You are one rich man. Why thank you, here is a $10 token.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:48 PM) Yet Trout has one playoff appearance in 5 full seasons The 2012 Angels went 89-73, which was good for the 6th best record in the AL. However, the Detroit Tigers, at 88-74, did make the postseason, as the 7th best team in the AL, narrowly edging our White Sox, who went 85-77. The 2013 Angels went 78-84, finishing 16 games behind the division winning Oakland Athletics. Mike Trout put up 10.5 fWAR that year. His fellow offensive teammates - those who had positive WARs - combined for 16.5. Outside of Mike Trout, they averaged about 1 WAR a piece. I said you could win if you had decent players. LeBron James wouldn't win with 4 Jo Jo English's surrounding him. BTW, JB Shuck received 478 plate appearances that season. He accrued 0.5 WAR. The 2014 Angels won 98 games, Mike Trout was a total bust in the playoffs (if I remember), and they ran into the buzzsaw that was the Kansas City Royals. That still does not sound right. Ironically, 2014 was the "worst" season of Mike Trout's career. He was worth 7.9 fWAR. The 2015 Angels went 85-77. Mike Trout was worth 9 WAR. His fellow offensive teammates - again, those with positive fWARs - combined for 13.3. For comparison, in what was one of the worst offensive teams I've ever seen, the positive contributors to WAR for the 2015 White Sox combined for 10.4 WAR. The 2016 Angels went 74-88. Mike Trout was worth 9.4 WAR, but this was the first season you could say that they were really bad. The offensive backed it up - positive contributors combined for a majestic 14.2 WAR. The Angels pitching staff contributed 5.9 WAR. The whole staff. Chris Sale was worth 5.2. Clayton Kershaw was worth 6.5 in 149 innings. The Angels combined for 5.9 in 1421.1 innings. The Angels have not done a good job of surrounding Mike Trout with talent. Yes, it is harder for find league average players in the major leagues, but for god's sake, there has been f***-all surrounding Mike Trout. I would give Mike Trout a 10 year, $500 million contract and never think twice.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:13 PM) It's a little bit harder to breeze through a season when your entire pitching staff isn't having a career year. Almost everyone pitched out their ass last year. I don't think Russell is a good major leaguer. He'll stick around because he plays a decent shortstop, but his bat is terrible. It's fun to look at his stats from last year when he wasn't playing the Reds or Padres AAAA pitching. Addison Russell is a perfectly fine major leaguer. Dude is a great defensive shortstop with power. Doesn't seem like he'll ever hit better than .250-.270, but if he can hit a few dingers, hold his own at the plate, and flash the leather, he'll be in the majors a long time.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 31, 2017 -> 07:30 PM) I'll admit I'm only speculating based on publicly available information (which isn't much). And you're 100% correct there could have been other factors that constrained the market. But the one fact we do have is there was a limited supply of quality starting pitching available in free agency and a limited amount of teams that had a surplus to trade. The market should have been theoretically great. Again, maybe there were other factors that we're unaware of did hurt Quintana's market. We'll never really know. Regardless, if I were Hahn I guess I'd ask myself why I'd expect those constraints to suddenly go away and if a sudden change in supply of quality pitchers would more than offset them. Outside of perhaps banking on some trade deadline desperation, I don't see how Hahn could have realistically expected future markets to be better with any level of certainty. I don't know that the market was necessarily that great beyond Boston. It was a limited market for starting pitching both on the supply and demand side. New York is in quasi-rebuilding mode and I don't think Cashman was or maybe even still is ready to go out and add a marquee starting pitcher. The Pirates showed interest but when was the last time they spend anything significant on a starting pitcher other than as a high 1st round draft pick? Houston seemed most logical this offseason, but they had every reason to look into letting their current guys go - they were, frankly, about 8 deep in their rotation, even if they were not great options beyond about #3. They're on pace to win 114 games, so I think they have been justified thus far in waiting. They still seem like a good option should Quintana turn things around, and I don't doubt that he will. Beyond those 3, who else was going to be buyers for Quintana? Atlanta was in the same boat as New York and Colorado was tepid, as they should have been. Looking at teams that could have been in play, the Cubs were overconfident in their World Series winning rotation, Cleveland would probably have to had to pay a premium, Seattle wasn't interested in anything other than much more than back of the rotation filler, the Angels still couldn't get Quintana with their system, the Nationals had a pretty loaded rotation to with which to begin...and I really don't see any other matches. The Sox may have overvalued Quintana, but I don't think Hahn is the kind of guy who would shy away from something that was close. I genuinely think teams were looking to acquire Quintana at the price of a cost controlled or #3 starter or a rental #2 starter. Quintana should not be valued as such.

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ May 31, 2017 -> 08:13 PM) Dave Cameron stating the obvious on Q: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dave-camero...phs-chat-53117/ He is correct that Quintana's swinging strike percentage is down for the second straight year, so while the K/9 is currently a career high, there's enough smoke there to think that it's a bit fluky. However, his idea that his homer suppression, or lack thereof, is somehow a thing now based on 64 innings is a large and overcalculated assumption. I guess I'm not really reading into much of Quintana's struggles early on other than maybe, in hindsight, thinking he is actually better classified as a #2 moving forward opposed to a #1 starter despite the value he has put up as a starting pitcher.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 31, 2017 -> 11:22 AM) They were around .500 and in 8th place. There was a chance but it was minimal. One hitter doesn't really carry a team in the MLB. It's not the NBA. It was a small chance, but they went from having a chance to having no chance, so I guess a sort of disagree that one hitter can't carry a team. It certainly requires a special sort of talent, but Trout is that special sort of talent, and he's the only guy in the MLB that I would say can do something like that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 30, 2017 -> 10:44 PM) I seriously hope they didn't think they actually had any kind of chance. With Trout, they did. He was on pace for like a 12 WAR season. Any team with a player like that can be competitive with filler around him.

QUOTE (Footlongcomiskeydog @ May 31, 2017 -> 12:06 AM) The Sox have 3 legit position player prospects right now (Moncada, Robert, Collins). I'm pretty sure that Hahn and company were planning to flip Q and add a couple more top 100 prospects to that list. Not trading Q this year is a giant step backwards in the rebuild in my opinion. How are the Sox gonna build up the farm if they don't trade one of their most valuable chips? Oh good god, step back from the ledge.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ May 30, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) Hahn has said no player is untouchable. Both radio shows are asking in terms of abreu cause of moncada and robert in the system. Hahn said they do take in clubhouse presence in matter of trading players but said if some comes and offers for a player they will consider it. In other words, if you want to overpay for Jose Abreu and treat him as if he is a 4-5 WAR player, which is how we value him based on his on and off field contributions, we will gladly trade him.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ May 29, 2017 -> 05:06 PM) Considering the years both are having that's really sticking to your guns. Schwarber hasn't done anything all that impressive in the majors besides having a discerning eye. The World series is a minuscule sample size that shouldn't even be counted. Can't blame you for having no faith at all in Avi given the much bigger smaller size of sucking but Avi is only 1.5 years older than Schwarber has a better arm is faster, and a better fielder. I really don't see many positives on Schwarbers side yet. If you are basing your opinion on how bad Avi has been I still don't think Schwarber is capable of playing anywhere but perhaps 1st base in the future. He doesn't have nearly enough speed to ever be considered barely average in the OF even if he ran terrific routes. The dude has 475 plate appearances at the MLB level. Garcia almost has 4 times that amount of experience. If it took Garcia that long to "figure" things out, why wouldn't you believe in Schwarber?

I would still trade Avi for Schwarber so fast it would make your head spin. Kyle Schwarber is more than a year and a half younger than Avisail Garcia and his talent is far superior to that of Avisail Garcia. The hit tool is superior, if not by much, but his power is far superior and Schwarber could legitimately be a 40 homer threat in the coming years. In 475 plate appearances at the major league level, Schwarber has hit 23 homers. It took Garcia almost twice that long to reach the same number. I'm incredibly happy to be wrong about Avisail thus far, but there's no question, given the choice, I'd take Schwarber over him any day.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 30, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) Stay the course Yep. Dump short term assets for future assets, regardless of standing, and bring up young guys. If they end up winning 84 games, that's not a bad thing.

QUOTE (Nokona @ May 27, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) Remember that guy from the Yankees from like 15 years ago who went off during the playoffs from out of nowhere. Because I can't remember his name... Shane Spencer?

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 27, 2017 -> 12:13 PM) Who cares about batting average? The sabes people don't give a flip about BA. Batting average is very important. Without considering context, the most desired appearances per at bat as thus: Home run Triple Double Single/Walk Out The top 3 are all batting average dependent. Now, if you add context - in this instance, one baserunner - a single becomes preferable to a walk. A runner on 1st can advance to 3rd on a single, but cannot on a walk; a runner on 2nd can score on a single, but doesn't move on a walk; a runner on 3rd WILL score on a single (barring the least likely of exceptions), but will not move with 2 walks. What a "sabe" would argue is that the value of batting averages lacks context - it suggests that a home run is equal to a single, which is clearly is not. Thus, things like Iso should be look at while considering batting average too. If a guy is a .270 hitter but has an Iso of .080, he can be a starter, but he should be hitting lower in the lineup. On the flip side, a guy who is a .270 hitter with an Iso of .250 should be hitting near the middle of the lineup because he's a significant power threat. You just hope he is also disciplined enough to walk enough too.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 27, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) Feel sorry for him. His salad days are over as a big leaguer. No longer a prospect after this season's flop at the plate. No

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2017 -> 09:09 PM) The difference is that I've learned since chisox.com/WSI to have a thicker skin and not to get a persecution/martyr complex, lol. Everyone has their quirks, it's "just" a message board, and not life or death...it doesn't (or shouldn't) affect our sense of self-worth or families or anything really meaningful, since it's all in good fun and SHOULD be for entertainment purposes only. For example, this year I've learned: 1) Dick Allen really isn't as bad as I thought 2) I never should have listened to Northside about Kevan Smith 3) This board is a lot more conservative/moderate than most like Rabbit tend to believe 4) As well as Rabbit writes about baseball, he's equally infuriating talking about anything non-baseball related 5) Fathom will never change, nor will Greg (both in mostly good ways!!) 6) Southsider2K5 and Witesoxfan and Heads22 remain the 3 mods "everyone would most like to have a beer with" 7) KYyle having an upper and lower case Y in his name is still annoying to the English/grammar side...but he knows more than everyone I grew up with combined about Marvel Comics 8) ElRockin is the best baseball fan in White Sox history 9) The rebuild has really lightened the mood around here and it's easier for people to get along in terms of baseball discussions, but definitely not politics...cool to see some old posters come back, too...wish Scenario hadn't disappeared, and Cubano so we could discuss Moncada/Robert/Victor Mesa Jr. 10) Balta is doing the sane thing by not overreacting to every political development like some of us since NOV 8 11) J4L is still shook up that Schwarber's legend is on the wane, but now he can annoy us with LeBron GOAT talk again (Warriors in 6, book it baby!) You don't have just one beer with me. Physically impossible.