witesoxfan

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 10:05 PM) So you are again comparing a super utility player to a potential cy cyoung winner, three more cy cyoung winners with one of them also being a mvp. Any other cy cyoung pitchers you want to compare a super utility player to. Your are bringing up him having a high war but wouldn't him being a super utility player have a affect on that. He played 5 positions last year so that has to take in account for is war. where is his break down per position. I will quit comparing Ben Zobrist to Cy Young pitchers when you quit calling him a super utility player.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 10:48 PM) Dude Dickey is a bad comparison. He's a knuckleballer, they pitch into their 40's. Wakefield pitched till he's 45, Charlie Hough retired at 46. Jamie Moyer tried to learn the knuckler and pitch again at 50. At the time of the trade, Toronto thought Dickey still has at least 3-4 good years left in him. On top of that, I don't think Dickey has that much mileage on his arm, so he's a safer bet to avoid the DL. So you don't believe that Ben Zobrist, at 34 years old, has another 3-4 good years left in him? I think he'd be a perfectly acceptable player until he's 38. I also said I thought that two top 100 prospects like d'Arnaud and Syndergaard was probably too much for Dickey in hindsight and that it may very well be too much for Zobrist.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) You are comparing a super utility player to a cy young award winner. Dickey had a career year in 2012 and won the cy young. That's why he was traded for top prospects. Zobrist isn't worth that type of return. Yes he is valuable but he is a super utility player that will be 34 in may next year and and is in his last year before free agency. I highly doubt teams are giving up top talent for a super utility player. Breaking Ben Zobrist down as a mere super utility player is oversimplifying him beyond recognition. It'd be like saying that Chris Sale has only been a swing guy because he's got about the same amount of relief appearances and starts over the last 5 years. That's absurd, no? The guy has absolutely been one of the most valuable players in the game over the last 5 years, moreso than RA Dickey. Over the last 5 years, he's accumulated 26.9 fWAR, good for 10th in the MLB. The only pitchers rated higher are Kershaw, Verlander, and Felix. WAR is not the end all, be all, but that paints a hell of a picture and if you think that Ben Zobrist is not going to cost a lot to acquire based on the idea that he is a "super utility player," you are going to be sorely mistaken. He absolutely is worth a top return and he will fetch a top return.

QUOTE (rowand's rowdies @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) Is Steve Pearce from BAL a trade target? He crushes LHP. Sell them on the Viciedo will be the next Nelson Cruz dream and throw in some prospects to get it done. Steve Pearce is a big, big part of Baltimore's plans. No way he's going anywhere.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 02:09 PM) I would think a package of Anderson & Montas could get a young, MLB-ready Ben Zobrist. 33 is way too old to send top prospects out. I know most teams want him but I also think most teams don't really want to pay top-prospect price. As stupid as it seems, maybe his price really is DV + lol. He's far too valuable a player. RA Dickey fetched Noah Syndergaard and Travis d'Arnaud (as well as Wuilmer Becerra) 2 years ago going into his age 38 season. I think that's a little excessive in hindsight, but it's going to take some very good prospects to get Zobrist.

QUOTE (midway @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) I agree with you here....why sign Drew when you have his clone on the roster already in Leury Garcia. Both of theses players have the ability to drive the ball...to maybe 2nd base, lmao!! When Garcia comes to the plate it's time to go grab a sandwich because the guy is pathetic to watch hitting. Based on this information, you'd also justifiably say that Adam Dunn could barely hit the ball to 2B too, I mean... Adam Dunn 2011 - .159/.292/.277, 496 PAs Stephen Drew 2014 - .162/.237/.299, 300 PAs Stephen Drew is coming off a terrible season but a comparison to Leury Garcia is not a valid comparison.

For the record, I would do the latter portion, in any form and in a very tepid manner, for Zobrist, which makes me think they'd ask for more. I also think Viciedo would make his way over but mostly as filler for the Rays.

Yeah, there's no problem reaching out, but there seem to be teams with better depth who are in better positioning to make a trade like that. To cover my ass a little bit, I'd say there's a 1% chance the Sox get him, but I don't think it's likely.

Here's what Jeff Sullivan suggested Zobrist's value would be: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jeff-sulliv...hs-chat-123014/ I read that and see "Tim Anderson or two of Montas/Danish/Micah Johnson." I say no to that.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) I was definitely wrong in the value in Zobrist, but he is 33 years old with only 1 more year left on his contract. He's an incredibly versatile player who is a very good hitter and is incredibly cheap. It'll be interesting to see what it takes to get him, but I think there are a few teams, notably the Cubs, who could cash in a couple prospects to acquire him. Given the lack of depth in the White Sox system, the high price it would take, his age, and his contract situation (or lack thereof beyond this season), he really doesn't. The nice thing about the Samardzija trade is that the Sox traded for him using a bunch of marginal players, guys who weren't high on talent but had put up results. They could ultimately be good to great players, but they weren't in the Sox long-term plans. Zobrist will require either high upside talent or similar players to the Samardzija trade, and the Sox are pretty much all out of the latter at this point, so they will need to give up Montas, Danish, or Anderson, and that's not something that's terribly reasonable at this point. Suggesting something crazy here, but if the Cubs gave up Javier Baez and Pierce Johnson right now, how on earth could the Sox logically top that? They could give up Anderson and Montas for sure, but that's not logical (and I'm not sure it would top the Cubs offer anyway). The Sox are going for it, but they are doing so with an eye towards the future. Trading for Ben Zobrist at this point is not making a move with an eye towards the future, it's making a move with an eye towards now. That is not in their agenda.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 10:58 AM) Could be available now that the Rays have signed SS Asdrubal Cabrera. Zobrist is in the last year of his contract at 33 years old. I think he would be a great platoon at 3B with Gillaspie, playing 2B giving Sanchez/Johnson time to develop and can platoon with LaRoche at DH. What do you guys think? I would offer Beck, Thompson, and Sanchez for Zobrist and Montgomery. So that's 2 disappointing prospects and a guy whose upside is that of an average player for a sabermetric god and a fallen prospect who was still very recently considered to be one of the best pitching prospects in the game. They'd hang up. You are giving up Montas/Danish plus another couple of good prospects at the very minimum for Zobrist alone. If you want Montgomery it's probably going to be Montas and Danish plus prospects for a total rental player. Beyond that, they could easily be asking for Tim Anderson in return too. This is just not a move that fits the Sox agenda right now.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 10:37 AM) Ozzie made several crucial calls during the playoffs which were arguably the most important calls of their respective games. bringing in El Duque with the bases loaded and no outs.... deciding to bring Buehrle in as a closer for the first time ever.... I could go on. His importance to that playoff run and outcome cannot be equated with 'any other member of that team' that is utterly foolish logic. Please do go on then. You noted 2 calls in 2 games that ultimately may have altered the outcome of their respective series, but the Sox won 11 games and played 12. How about bringing Hermanson into game 3 when the Sox were up by 1 and he hadn't pitched in a live game in almost a month? Why not go to your young fireballing closer when there are only 4 more outs to go? Why was Marte brought into game 3 of the ALDS in the first place? The fact that seemingly every move he made that postseason worked perfectly seems to be more fluky than it does a reflection of good management. I'm taking nothing away from him, because he won a World Series, but to say that he had more of an affect on it than the players seems silly. They're the ones who actually went out and won the games. I don't give any one person more or less credit for that team.

QUOTE (lvjeremylv @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 11:43 PM) Of course when acquiring players you go with the one with better stats (ERA, WHIP, K/BB ratio, batting average, RBI's, OBP, etc). My original question was, would you rather have had a season with lots of personal success while the team struggled, or one where your team did better while your stats suffered. I, personally, would rather be on a team that won more games. Or here's another one. Would you rather be Brad Johnson, NFL QB, who never did much in terms of personal stats or fame, but won a Super Bowl? Or Dan Marino who held lots of records but never won the big game? I, personally, would take the career of Brad Johnson. Some people might call that crazy, but I guess it's about personal preference. So in review. In hindsight, I'd take wins over anything. In looking to the future and trying to predict what's more likely to happen when compiling players on a team? I'll take stats and not look at wins, particularly for pitchers, because yes, they are quite overrated. Would I personally rather win a World Series or have better personal stats? I'd obviously rather win a World Series. But to get to that point, you need players who are good. A guy with a 4.85 ERA is not good. If Jeff Samardzija has a poor year but someone steps up and the Sox still win the division, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 05:30 AM) What do you call this, and this guy is an administrator? don't leave much space for a dope like me. Thanks, douglas There's plenty of space, all we ask is that you be courteous and respectful of others' beliefs.

This only makes sense if they do not believe that Carlos Sanchez is a starting player nor is Micah Johnson ready. Drew doesn't hit lefties well and that's the Sox biggest area of weakness on the bench.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 10:16 PM) I'll never forget Keith Law saying in like 2011 that a good Halloween costume would be to go as Alexei Ramirez by wearing a black shirt and wildly swinging a bat around, never actually making contact with anything. One of the most asinine comments I've ever seen from him, insinuating Alexei has contact issues. Also, couldn't it be possible the 17 teams AFTER the Sox in that draft may have thought Sale was an ace? I mean, it's not like he was taken in the 2nd round. There were rumors of Sale going in the top 10 too. All I'm saying is that Keith Law felt he was a reliever and he didn't think he had the slider he did. Sometimes they see guys on an off day or they get bad info and they're wrong. It doesn't mean they hate them or that they're totally uncredible or biased. I do remember the Lexi thing though, that was ridiculous.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 06:02 AM) Saying that I am wrong is a stupid thing to say, I just diagree with you. If you're confident in your system and your player development process then you shoul feel confident in your team's ability to develop those picks into solid players. The more draft picks you have, the greater influx of talent that enters the system, the more players you develop into major league caliber players and more you don't have to go out and sign players to big contacts and the flexibility you have as an organization. Look at the Cardinals. Well to each their own on the former, but I think this is greater than just trusting your player development. This was an opportunity to add some very good players while giving up merely draft picks and money for them. You say look at the Cardinals, but the Oakland Athletics and Baltimore Orioles have been incredibly successful too and they have incredibly varied and diversified rosters. The San Francisco Giants have brought in a ton glue guys from outside the organization while they've developed their core pieces. There's more than one way to build organizationally. The idea that the Sox keep developing their prospects to fill these holes at a later time period (because they could not do so at this juncture) has not been thrown out the window, but they also wanted to be competitive this year. I feel they've put themselves in a position to do so, many here do as well, they haven't crippled themselves financially at this point with overly cumbersome long-term contracts, and the best prospect they gave up during this entire process was Marcus Semien. This wasn't just going out and blindly spending money and trading away all the prospects. They give up a 2nd and 3rd round pick (and the respective slot values), but that doesn't mean they've abandoned the idea of building from within. Had they gone out and sold the farm for this year, I'd be upset and I wouldn't be the only one. But they haven't and the long-term term prospects of the minor league system itself are still intact. These were good moves the Sox made.

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 04:32 PM) I'd take Ozzie back in a heartbeat instead of the corpse we currently have. thanks, douglas I think you are one of the few, but you will have a friend in greg. Ozzie's act grew very old very quickly and getting rid of him was a blessing for this team. Initially it seemed he'd be great for young players but he quickly grew out of that phase and moved on to preferring veterans above all else and it really hurt the Sox in the long-run. I'm glad Ozzie's gone and am going to be just fine when he stays gone.

QUOTE (Douglas Rome @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) the other Sox site? I did find one powered by vBullitin, but it wouldn't accept me because it didn't like yahoo mail. Maybe I won't be welcomed here, someone earlier said this forum was for professional white collar folks who know a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff and don't like being talked to like a grandpa would talk to his grandkids. Anyway, I love the White Sox and I like to reminisce about baseball characters like Bill Veeck. thanks, douglas You are more than welcome to stay and post. We understand that you're a huge Sox fan and we'd love to have you around, but we also want you to be respectful of others' beliefs and opinions as well. There's no problem with disagreeing, debating, and arguing over points, but veiled attacks and insults are not allowed here.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) And he didn't develop the Raiders? Either which way, the Bears need football guys in there which is why Polian and Holmgren are their best chances. Polian is apparently in discussion about returning to Buffalo right now (in who knows what role), and I don't understand why you keep bringing up Holmgren...to be the coach? He'd immediately be the 2nd oldest coach in the league.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) I kind of agree with this, but I guess the only counterpoint I can think of is that baseball is really the only sport where the manager and coaches are actually in the field of play at times. What's weirder, to have a manager/coach in a jersey or to have your managers and coaches out on the field in a suit and tie? While that's true, football and basketball coaches do go out onto the field/floor quite a bit, even though they're not supposed to (except football coaches at the end of games). How much more of it stems from the fact that, until 30 or so years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see player/managers in baseball?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 12:53 PM) Managers shouldn't wear jerseys I agree. I think there should be different clothing for coaches and the manager, even if they've done it for this long. You don't see football coaches dressing up in pads or NBA coaches dressing up in a jersey and shorts. I do not believe this will ever change because people do not believe it to be an issue, but it's really weird when you get to thinking about it.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Good or bad cutler is here and the new coach needs to figure it out. Getting rid of jay unless you get at least one 1st round pick does nothing for the betterment of this franchise. Washington is a disaster that had nothing to do with Shanahan I think he would be worth a shot. If you can get another team to assume his contract, you free up cap space by moving Cutler with the idea being that you can get similar production from a guy for much cheaper. I think Cutler's value is a negative right now, but there will likely be a GM out there willing to give up a late round pick which frees up cap space. But if they don't feel there's anyone better, or Shanahan can maybe breathe some life into him, then they can keep him.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 11:32 AM) give me a freaking break. show the links of this so called info that you are spouting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/a..._n_4452480.html http://www.ibtimes.com/atlanta-braves-move...rtation-1470814 There are a couple

QUOTE (lvjeremylv @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 08:57 PM) I never said that. Would you rather be 7-15 with a 2.00 ERA, or 20-3 with a 4.75 ERA? Considering Rick Hahn just acquired a guy who went 7-13 with a 2.99 ERA last year over 219.2 IP, I think we know his answer.