witesoxfan

Wait, why do you not think Axelrod will be anything more than a fill-in? Because he only throws 89? Not minding the fact that he has been good this year and has fantastic command. I mean, seriously, let the dude pitch and prove that he's a worthless AAAA pitcher.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ May 9, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) What a tool Andrew is... why is he so belligerent? He's an airplane

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 9, 2013 -> 09:10 AM) When has Williams ever done that? He's done the "Incentive laden 1 year deal" a couple times (Garcia, Colon), but those were minimal salary. I'm saying that's what Halladay will cost, not that Williams has done it. Maybe not $8-10 mill, but $5 mill down with incentives to take it to $15 mill or so.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 8, 2013 -> 08:58 PM) Meanwhile, Pedro Hernandez continues his dominance against the Red Sox in his career. Boston vs Hernandez -- .528/.553/1.028/1.580

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 8, 2013 -> 09:51 PM) So the whole difference is Weaver's out and Santana is gone? Has to be more to it than that. Or Hamilton's piss-poor start. To compare it to a real life situation, let's say you have a sprained ankle, and to heal that sprained ankle, you put a band-aid on your shoulder. Make sense?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 8, 2013 -> 07:31 PM) http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9255584/...ng-roy-halladay Ammunition for the "pitchers don't easily recover from shoulder problems" crowd. Although Danks has age on his side. BTW, Roy Halladay coming off this type of injury would be a typical KW pick-up. Incentive-laden one year deal with an option for the following season. Maybe Williams should go GM the Dodgers then where he can spend $8-10 million on a 1 year flyer.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2013 -> 03:41 PM) I can see 55 power on the high end. And I think he has a decent approach. The problem is the long swing. It's the same thing with Tyler Flowers. He's got maybe 65 power, but the hit tool is probably 35, so you'll be happy if he reaches 20 homers. Could Danks hit 20 in a full season in the MLB? I can squint and see if he manages a .260 BA or so, but I can't see a .260 BA over a full season. And all that's fine if he's playing a scratch or slightly above average CF, but at first base? I mean a very good season would look like .250/.320/.430 with 20 bombs, right? I'll take .220/.340/.520 with 35 bombs from post-prime Adam Dunn instead. And that season from Dunn has to be way more likely. I'm with you 100%. I think first base is a stretch for him - if I'm going to take a chance on a guy at 1B, their ceiling with the bat has to be atleast 40-65/70 or 55-55 or whatever else you can come up with that's above average. Point being you NEED an above average bat compared to the overall league average at 1B, there's no other way around it. If you are below the league average offensively, then 99.9% you are wasting production (unless you are seriously dealing with 7 other individuals who are so far advanced offensively and defensively that your 8th or 9th best hitter is relegated to playing 1B). If it's a case like Konerko this year or 10 years ago, then there's nothing you can do about it, but going into the year with Jordan Danks at 1B is like going into the year with Darin Erstad at 1B. (who said stat heads don't use scouting information)

ITS STILL FLAT I am saying this is like saying a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square, and that I called a square (high top fade) a rectangle (flat top). It is a flat top, it's just something white people can't grow. (this is so much better than talking about Derrick Rose, who incidentally would look good with a high-flat-top fade)

QUOTE (Soxfest @ May 8, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) Braves lead the NL in strikeouts slowly but surely he will rub off and decline. no

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2013 -> 03:30 PM) I really can't see him being more than a 4th OF. If he improved his defense a lot, maybe a second division CF. To my eye, he's got maybe 50 grade power and MAYBE a 40 grade hit tool. Am I off base? I don't think so. Sub-mediocre hitter for average, average to above average power, terrible at making contact. Basically, if the Sox are going to sell pieces off this year, I wouldn't mind seeing him get a shot at extended playing time just to see if there is anything there. Unlike a lot of these other guys I've suggested, the Sox already have control of him.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 8, 2013 -> 03:23 PM) Waitt... what? Jordan Danks at first base? Why the- What... his only tool is speed. His Iso is .160 in 1300+ AAA plate appearances (which includes a .685 OPS his first year), and it's right around .200 over his previous 300 plate appearances at the level. He's got about 55 power too.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 8, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) It's very lonely around here being a Jordan Danks fan. But I would love to see him play more. His numbers are similar to Rick Ankiel's. I'm not suggesting he's going to become a middle of the order hitter at any point in the near future, but he certainly has pop in his bat. With regular playing time he might turn into a decent player. A guy who tops my personal list right now is Michael Taylor from Oakland. If there was something Oakland wanted for him in particular, I'd absolutely consider it. They have Michael Choice who is younger in AAA too, so he can be insurance for Reddick if need be. Give em Beckham and get Green, Weeks, or Barton back along with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) Those are the types of player we have been targeting apparently. A Jose Quintana who couldn't rise in the Yankees system. A Connor Gillaspie who was blocked in SF. Blake Tekkote who wasn't going anywhere. I think this is the right philosophy too. You see studs like Carlos Quentin and Chris Davis rise out of the ashes simply because their original team could get them to break through the struggles. Another guy that fits is Eric Thames in Seattle. The PCL is a little trickier because the numbers are so ghastly, but he has constantly showed good power, average, and plate discipline and is a guy who has never really gotten a shot. (PS - another guy who fits this criteria is...Jordan Danks)

If the Sox are looking to start moving players, I am targeting 25-28 year olds change of scenery or players who are blocked who are still producing at AAA. Three that come to mind right away in Pittsburgh are Alex Presley, Jerry Sands, and Ivan DeJesus (though Sands doesn't quite fit the criteria as he's been dreadful this year). You can get a lot of these types of players for below their value and for smaller pieces (primarily low level prospects, mediocre starting players, and relievers) and they can contribute to your team immediately. You obviously want to get young players and prospects, but these others seem to present themselves to a quick rebuild and, at least in my mind, they are just as likely to be successful. I think the reason teams avoid this route is because you can find out, fairly quickly, that the player does not fit in with the team, they become virtually valueless, and then they are out of options and you lose them within a 6-12 month time frame anyways, where as with 21-24 year olds, you let them develop for a year or two, they don't get it, and then you release them almost anonymously (which is what happened with Jon Gilmore).

QUOTE (DirtySox @ May 7, 2013 -> 06:41 PM) There is generally a large difference in drafting 7th versus 17th. There's also a large difference in drafting 10th versus 11th.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ May 8, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) It's the hair. Derrick's gotta grow one of those high top hairstyles (whatever they're called). Flat top --- http://deadspin.com/what-does-grant-hill-t...itics-496195188 Yes, let's compare a broken ankle from which Hill came back and (tried) to play on 6 months after surgery to a torn ACL 15 years later after he hasn't played for more than 12 months. Because Hill isn't bitter or anything. There is so much wrong with this piece that it goes beyond the realm of reasonability and simply enters the realm of blowing Derrick Rose.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 8, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) I think the White Sox should be AROUND Paul Konerko. He's only 37. He's been brought back from the dead more than Michael Myers. PAUL KONERKOSTEIN YO

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:49 AM) He blew out his ACL the same day Derrick did... Clearly not 110%, he would have shattered the backboard and helped a mother give birth immediately following if he had.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 8, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) That's because of 1994 (CLE/DET/KC/Cincy/CHW/PIT were all hardest hit and took the longest time to recover from the strike). Then Dolan tore apart the late 90's team in around 2002 and finally the core of the 2007 team as well. That's three seismic events that would devastate almost any fanbase. They weren't affected by the strike. At all. They were 4th in attendance in '94 and 2nd in attendance in '95. They then sold out like 5 million straight games. The 2002 thing certainly did have an effect, and that is probably exhibit A as to why you don't go into sudden rebuild mode. The Indians have won the division and been in the postseason exactly once since that point in time. And they really didn't sell off the 2007 team. They got off to a slow start and then traded Sabathia because they weren't going to be able to retain him, but he was really the only piece they lost. It was primarily everything working itself over the course of a 2 year period - they were 5 games better than their Pyth W-L in 07 and 4 games worse in 08. BTW, I don't believe any team has ever gotten less in such a short period of time for two Cy Young winners as the Indians did for Sabathia and Lee.

I'm sure they didn't do it the year after they opened the stadium in any of those circumstances

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 8, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) 94 Rockets. Unless you consider Sam Cassell or 2-3 year man Robert Horry a star. Showing my age and lack of research, didn't realize they didn't trade for Drexler until the following season. You're obviously right, but worth mentioning is Otis Thorpe putting up 14/10 that year next to (because of) Hakeem.

You can seriously make the argument that the only two teams to win an NBA Championship in the last 30 years that didn't have atleast 2 stars on it were the 2004 Pistons and the 2011 Mavericks.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 8, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) Um, no. We've done this multiple times. I'm not afraid of evolution. Some are. I'd much rather talk about tonight's game. How about the 88 and 89 Pistons? 3 Hall of Famers in Rodman, Dumars, and Thomas as well as Laimbeer and Aguirre. Or the 86 and 87 Lakers? Magic, Abdul-Jabar, Scott, and Worthy? The 85 Celtics had Bird, McHale, and Parish No matter how you slice and dice it, the NBA has always been a league that is driven by its stars. EDIT: The rest of the 80s is Lakers, Celtics, and 76ers. That 76ers team had Moses Malone and Julius Erving, two stars, plus Cheeks and Toney

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 8, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) Just chillax. Sometimes the internet hangs up here in China because the connection speeds are about the same as AOL 1996. I will hit respond, it will stick for 30 seconds and I'll refresh and resend and then it will show 2-3 identical posts because I'm using a proxy since the entire internet here comes through 7 underwater pipes on the floor of the ocean controlled strictly by the Great Firewall of China. I was posting in the game thread and forgot I jumped out of it. Don't get so worked up. Haha, sorry, I'm not worked up at all, I just thought...holy s***, that is random

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 7, 2013 -> 10:05 PM) CLE has a much better RECENT (90's and early 2000's) tradition of fan support and sell-outs. If he can keep that team in Wild Card contention in the 2nd half, at least during the core summer months...I think it will pick up. They had 5000 walk-up for a Friday or Saturday game recently when the weather was nice. And a much worse recent (as in the last 5 years) tradition of not showing up to games