witesoxfan

Jon Jay is not the worst piece in the world, but he should not be much more than a complementary piece in any deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) The OF? Yes. The other one signed a minor league deal with the Nationals.

If you breathe enough oxygen over several years, you will eventually die.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) I think people look at Prince and make up their mind about what he is, but from watching him, he is much more athletic than people give him credit for and every year, every team he has been on comments on how he shows up to camp in shape and ready to go. If you want difference between him and Howard, look at GP's. Prince has been ultra durable while Howard has been anything but. I think that Arlington is a perfect fit for Prince. Similar, but Youngs were still better. I don't know I would be excited about giving up a middle of the order bat for a young(er) Michael Young either. I knew that the athletic mark would be taken that way. All major league players are going to have superior athletic qualities. I'm quite sure Prince Fielder would beat the average man in a 40 yard or 100 meter sprint. He can probably run farther and faster than most can too. The fact is, he's fat. I'm sure there's a lot of muscle under there too, but he's fat. Fat people do not age well, no matter how athletic they are. Hell, athletic people don't age well either - look at what's happened to Pujols in his age 32 and 33 seasons. Detroit got out of a huge commitment and brought in a guy who is probably going to be just as valuable at his position as Fielder was. He's also signed to a lesser deal, they get younger across the diamond, and they get better defensively across the diamond. Also, Michael Young was a stud in his younger days and an incredibly valuable player.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseba...to-oneyear-deal Very good price. Hoping he comes through and puts up a 3 WAR season

May as well include the next 2 then too. Those 3 really encapsulate the entire article and these sorts of scandals extremely well.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 10:31 AM) Actually, with the money Detroit is sending, Kinsler will cost more over the next three years. He has not been good away from Arlington, and Detroit has a ballpark that will not play to his strengths. Its not a bad trade for Detroit, but it is a better trade for Texas given that Fielder is built to play in that park. #1) Kinsler is a more valuable player, Detroit is just covering some of the difference in costs. They don't mind paying him more than Fielder. #2) Michael Young was labeled a product of Arlington; he was awful in 2012 and then somehow put up better numbers outside of Arlington this year. He's older, but I don't see there being much difference. #3) Texas is paying a generally inconsistent, out of shape, unathletic 1B $20+ million a year until like 2020. Compare Ryan Howard to Prince Fielder and tell me how you don't see a similar fate occurring. I love this trade for Detroit.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) Yeah, I;ve heard that, but I sort of doubt it. They JUST took on like $76m for Prince Fielder and have always been linked to Price. I can see them using the Cano money to extend Price and finding a shorter term solution at 2B to bridge to Odor. I hear Gordon Beckham is available.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) I think there are more questions about Martinez now than there were in July. There were grumblings that he may not be able to start in the majors given his pitch repertoire, but now the grumblings are amplified. If you see Martinez as a starter he is worth more than Ramirez, if not, than the value is about equal. There's just no way I could take a reliever straight up for Ramirez. That's silly. Martinez is a worthy gamble for Ramirez because of the possibility that he can start with the reliever option as a nice fall back. If he is viewed strictly as a reliever, no matter how electric he is, there's no way I can move Alexei straight up for him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 08:39 AM) Not even close. Just keep in mind, when I did my quick number and didn't look at AB, I gave Salty a 7.3 WAR. It is 6.9 for his career, and he had significant AB prior. Are you saying Vargas' WAR is irrelevant? That his contract is out of line? It wasn't manipulative, at least intentionally, and it wasn't really meant as a knock on Salty, although admittedly I don't want the sox to spend that money on him. It was comparative. A lot of people love Salty at $10 million per, but say the Royals are fools to give this guy, $8 million per. The Royals have a pitching need. I'm sure there are more people here than me who thought Ervin Santana was a waste of money last year, but it worked out fine for them. This probably will too, at least for the first couple of seasons. They have a big park. Vargas does well in big parks. I'm not saying his WAR is irrelevant. I actually really don't mind that contract for the Royals. It initially seemed like an overpay, but it's really not a bad deal. It's league average production for about league average rate. He's just a soft tosser who doesn't have a ton of upside which is why people have been overreacting. I think it's a perfectly acceptable, if boring, move for the Royals. I don't even have a problem with you comparing the WAR of a pitcher to the WAR of a hitter. The point of WAR is to try and be able to generally quantify the value of hitters and pitchers so we can value their production properly and compare them to one another. The only problem I have is you comparing Vargas over the last 4 years to Saltalamacchia over the last 4 years. As I said, if you want to make that comparison, my comparison of Halladay to Sale is on the table. Saltalamacchia has only had significant playing time over the last 3 years. Using 30 plate appearances from 4 years ago is absolutely ridiculous. #1) What players did 4 years ago is, for the most part, completely irrelevant to what they do today. Carl Crawford had a 7.4 WAR and Andres Torres had a 6.6 WAR in 2010. Do you want to bring them in and give them big deals? #2) Tying into that, recent production is much more relevant, applicable, and likely to be repeated. As has been pointed out 3 years - Saltalamacchia 7.1, Vargas 4.5 2 years - Saltalamacchia 5.5, Vargas 2.3 1 year - Saltalamacchia 3.6, Vargas 1.5 Don't you think you'd like to give out a contract based on those numbers, or do you still want to give out big deals to Colby Lewis, Tommy Hanson, Roy Oswalt, and Chad Billingsley?

QUOTE (Real @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 05:53 AM) who in your opinion is the greatest player in white sox history? in terms of pure talent Oh without question Joe Crede

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 08:13 AM) I do think it's funny it is cherry picking when I choose adding WAR that gives a guy a higher WAR than his career total. So what if they play different positions. The Royals need a pitcher, not a catcher and isn't a 2 WAR a 2 WAR no matter what position they play? If its $5 million per WAR, he has to average. 1.6 per to be "worth it". If it is $6 million per WAR, 1.3. He has averaged 1.8. I don't understand how that is a bad overpay. It probably is too long, but most pitchers contracts are too long. It's not even cherry picking but flat out out lying. Jarrod Saltalamacchia had 30 plate appearances at the major league level 4 years ago. That's complete and utter chickens*** to use that sort of argument. Roy Halladay has a 15.8 WAR over the last 4 years while Chris Sale's is only 11.7. Are you going to take Roy Halladay over Chris Sale or are you going to admit that the argument you used was absolutely stupid and the timeline manipulative and wrong?

I feel like I'm regurgitating Dave Cameron all the time now, but he has been on a kick lately about pointing out that teams are essentially giving out (x) year deals and expecting (x-y) years out of them, essentially trading lower yearly costs for extra years on top. He's speculated that teams are willing to give out 8-10 years to guys for $20-25 mill rather than pay them full price, which would range between $30-40 mill per year. Much of it has to do with fitting under the luxury tax or budgetary thresholds. If you can get surplus value initially, you'll take the loss later on because you will presumably be making up for that value with the next guy in line. It's surely not efficient, but that's why free agency is not meant to build teams but rather to supplement teams. Yes, if you can get a young, potential superstar, you can sign that, but this theory is exactly why signing a guy like Granderson to a multi-year deal is so crazy. The Sox would get his 3-5 WAR seasons (optimistically projecting) while the team struggles, and they'd get the 1-3 WAR seasons while they're looking to compete. You want to attempt to sign someone where you'll get value in 2 years or so to actually make the signing process more effecient. On the level of bringing in a high-priced player, the most extreme the Sox should really look is someone like Matt Kemp. He's got about 6 years and $120 mill left (didn't look at the specifics of his deal). He's been injury prone, but in years 3 and 4, he'd hypothetically still be putting up 5 WAR seasons. Of course, they'd have to trade for him, but the Dodgers could realistically move him. I think the Dodgers would be more likely to move Ethier or Crawford. The Sox should want nothing to do with either of those two. I still want nothing to do with Kemp, BTW.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 07:17 PM) Stores prefer it that way, they don't want their employees getting into confrontations with criminals When I was in college, I used my girlfriends card at a grocery store. The teller was an older lady, and she looked at the card itself. She gavee a look, and said with a smile "You don't look like a [wite's gf]." I just laughed and explained that it was her card and she laughed.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 04:54 PM) Jeez now I'm kinda sorry I brought up the freeze thing. Remind me to never mention him again lol FRIENDLY REMINDER: Don't ever mention David Freese again

QUOTE (WSFan @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) What do you mean by Peripherals? BB/K's? Yes. HR to some extent too. Worry less about the numbers that you do in the majors (ERA, H/9) and more about those numbers because they will paint a better picture of what kind of pitcher you have. Problem is that sometimes, especially in the minor leagues, those numbers lie.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) You do realize the first MLB action David Freese got was at age 26 which he had 34 PA. At age 27 he had 270. At age 28 he had 363. so according to this and you Conor is ahead of schedule and will be better then Freese Then compare their minor league numbers. Freese blows Gillaspie out of the water there too.

Career vs White Sox 7 G, 156 PA, 9 HR, .288/.342/.514/.855, 6.31 ERA, 1.49 WHIP Unless an ERA closer to 10 than 2 is good, then no.

I have no problem with Perez. He's a young, cost controlled catcher with apparently good fundamentals. He's not special, but he could be a league average catcher for a while. That's good value. For a lefty reliever? With the sheer number of lefties that throw hard in the minors and the free agent market, I'd much rather the Sox ignore lefties unless they guy they bring has some kind of special arm. Otherwise, it's a total waste of a roster spot. Once the Rule V is over, they can just trade for the guy if they want.

Dave Cameron made a great point in his Vargas write up...who would you rather have, Jason Vargas at 4 years, $32 million or Tim Lincecum at 2 years, $35 million?

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:49 PM) Freese has played 2 full seasons, not like he has 6 or 7 to go off of. One pretty good year and one bad. Like I said he has an injury filled past too so you can't really say "injury-plagued year." He will always have some injuries going on. He still managed to play 138 games this year, only 6 more then the previous year. Nobody wants David Freese. I don't think it's far fetched to say that most people here prefer Gillaspie to Freese. Given the state of the Sox, I'd much, much rather have Conor Gillaspie than David Freese. Freese is still a better baseball player than Conor Gillaspie. The numbers have all been laid out for you. It really couldn't be any clearer.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Indeed -- it just seems like they spent a ton of money to do it. Seems like they should use dollars to replace Ervin Santana first, then replace Chen with what's left. I don't think Moore is good with handling their payroll budget. I was mostly noting that facetiously. Jason Vargas blows and the Royals are stupid.

There's a bit of Mutombo to his game. Not a lot of touch, but his presence around the hoop really makes you think twice about coming in. Mutombo was bigger, but Davis is sick.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 03:14 PM) Brandon McCarthy ‏@BMcCarthy32 1h No it wasn't. RT @Ken_Rosenthal Kinsler’s agent: Trade was like “getting smoked on the side of the head” FTMFW

Someone had to replace Bruce Chen