witesoxfan

If it ends up an "er," it is a racial slur. If it ends in an "a," it CAN be acceptable but it is not ALWAYS acceptable. For me, when I was in college, I made to ask any black guys I hung around with that were using it if it were OK that I did too. They said yes and I was really excited. This proves how white I really am.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) I don't see how the Cubs don't go get Longoria. I think they'd have to give up way more than they would be comfortable with, but they are one of the teams that definitely has the ammo.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) Depends, Balfour actually has a chance to be a bonafide piece, depending on what the Sox internal scouting reports say on his down 2014 season. If he pitches like he did the 3 years prior, who cares, he fits into your immediate plans. In the case of the Red Sox, they are not getting an integral piece but are moving a guy with high upside at a much more premium position than Viciedo current plays. If I were to trade Viciedo, I'd want someone else's talent who might turn into our upside, a raw player who might have some upside, or a quality player who fills a more integral need. What I'm suggesting is that Hanigan can be just as valuable as a piece like Balfour. In 264 plate appearances last year and 603.2 innings in the field, Hanigan was worth 1.2 WAR and he's regarded as a guy who is a very good defensive catcher who puts the bat on the ball and draws a bunch of walks. He's also been very strong against left handed pitching in his career, though last year was a bit of an outlier, with a .258/.377/.385 line and a 110 wRC+ in 439 plate appearances. I think Middlebrooks got quite overhyped based on his strong appearance and that he could easily be a bad baseball player. I should scale it back a bit and say that I understand why they made this move, but I really hope they have some sort of fall back plan because I do not have a lot of faith in Middlebrooks long-term.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) He was absolutely atrocious in the MLB. He struck out almost 50% of his plate appearances. He has no place on a MLB roster. I'm the eternal optimist about players being able to improve and progress but not from someone that bad. With him it's that classic saying "if he gets any at bats, something went seriously wrong and it was an awful season." While I don't disagree with the latter, you are making a pretty quick judgment based on 45 plate appearances. Personlly, I thought his swing looked long but it also looked like his timing was off as he was behind everything. It can take some time to get that down. I don't disagree with the last part, and I don't want Andy Wilkins getting significant at bats at all, but given the choice between Wilkins or Shuck if LaRoche were to go down for a short period of time, I'd rather take my chances on the guy who went bonkers in AAA last year than a guy who is a career .264/.307/.333/.640 hitter who was barely better than league average in the PCL last year. Wilkins seems to be a guy who can at least run into one or two.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 03:48 PM) If LaRoche goes down, he's a DH, wouldn't want Andy Wilkins DHing for me in a trillion years You're right, JB Shuck, Matt Davidson, and Jordan Danks are much better options. Unless the Sox bring in someone that represents depth like that, Wilkins isn't going anywhere. The guy tore the absolute cover off the ball in AAA last year. He's good insurance to have in the event of an emergency.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) I think the Padres made out like bandits. The only upside in this trade is Middlebrooks. I'm not saying he'll reach it but I'd bet on him before I bet on Davidson, I'd tell you that much. Hanigan actually fills a hole for Boston and they had absolutely no use whatsoever for Middlebrooks. We'll say the Sox traded Dayan Viciedo to the Rays for Grant Balfour, would you say the Rays automatically win that trade because Viciedo represents the only upside in that deal?

I think we should move it all into its own separate thread so we can have a catch-all for the catch-alls.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) He's still a backup. I am using an analogy here. Trade made sense for both teams, Red Sox overpaid to fill a need, Padres got great value from the deal. I think Middlebrooks is garbage, so I think the Red Sox made a fine deal.

Jesus, what are the Marlins doing this offseason? I don't think I've liked any of the moves they've made.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 11:42 AM) I'm just not living in la la land re the realities of finance. You can't load the team up with contracts that are based on what the player did in the past and have a quality team with a payroll of $120 million. You have to find bargains and that means either young players or some Dyes and AJs who were signed cheap off of bad years. I'd much rather have traded for Donaldson and sign him to a 4 year extension than to load up on Longoria and pay him until he' 37, even though the hype seems to have people convinced Longoria is a Hall of Fame player. Even in a down year, Longoria was still a very valuable player and he is signed to a very cheap deal. I think you are paying $20+ mill per year for Donaldson when he's the same age as Longoria and arguably is riskier in the short-term. That doesn't seem wise to me either. It's a moot point all together, as neither of these guys are getting dealt (again, in Donaldson's case).

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) No question. If Sox want to spend big money on a pitcher, he's the choice. What if Rodon shows he's ready in 2015? Is it wise to go with 4 top of the rotation starters? Or should you trade one and firm up weaknesses elsewhere and live with 3 top of the rotation starters? Or not sign Samardizja and use the $20 million to firm up other spots. More information will be available in 6 months. And if TWO of the top pitching prospects show readiness, that will give the Sox a lot of weaponry. Depending on the price, I don't mind signing Samardzija now, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to wait either. There is no rush to sign him, but for real, if the price is right and you do find that there are other holes to shore up and Rodon is great, you can still move either Samardzija or Quintana and get very good value in return.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 10:07 AM) Does Jim Harbaugh have what it takes to be Head Coach and GM? Does it make sense to offer him both positions with the Bears? Is that even the ideal arrangement? IIRC, only Pete Carroll has won a Super Bowl under it. Carroll only gets final say on players. John Schneider is the GM there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 09:58 AM) Bob Nightengale ‏@BNightengale 17s17 seconds ago And now the #Padres are about to get thier third baseman by trading catcher Ryan Hanigan to #RedSox for Will Middlebrooks, per @JeffPassan Will Middlebrooks might be the 3B version of Jeff Francouer.

I do think that, if the Rays could get some of the money taken care of, Tampa and San Diego seem like a logical match for Quentin. Of course, Viciedo may be a match too, right? Right?

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 09:33 AM) I think he wanted Homer Bailey money last off-season before his strong year. It wouldn't surprise me if the Sox have to pony up 20 million annual to get it done. I'm thinking in the range of 5-100ish. You can sign him to the 6/$105 this year, which is $17.5 mill, but pay him $10 mill this year in the last year of arbitration and then it becomes a 5/$95 extension which is damn near $20 mill, and he'd probably be able to feed his family.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) I'd swap Wilkins for AAA bullpen man, no room for him here You still need depth. If LaRoche goes down, he provides at least some sort of upside to the position.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 09:26 AM) So like 6 years $105 million? 5 years $90 million? Something like that or more? I know he wanted Homer Bailey money before. 6 years $105 million. I think he can get $20 mill a year if he wants. I'd guess 5/$100, but perhaps there's some sort of discount. I would be very good with 6/$105 if they could rip up his contract this year and start the 6-year deal now.

I think the A's will try and diversify Phegley's game, putting him in LF and RF and maybe getting some work at 1B too. He's shown he can hit AAA pitching at the very least, so maybe he can figure out his game and they can work his bat into the lineup. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns into a decent major leaguer, but his future was no longer with the Sox organization.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) An R-squared of .43 doesn't strike me as all that great. Give it more than two years of data and that would maybe go up, but this shouldn't really convince us of anything we didn't already know. The projections have the right idea but there are enough big misses to seriously caution against using them as the gospel. I mean, just eyeballing, it looks like there are maybe ten teams that exceeded their projection by 10 WAR or more. That's a sixth of the sample. The most valuable paragraph is easily the one below. If your projection isn't favorable, you're a longshot: I think that's the point of these projections - it's to give us some sort of grasp of what these teams might look like. And, considering they've only been doing this for 3 years or so, they're bound to improve and refine their equations and techniques. The article states that these things do matter and that they are worthwhile because they do show some correlation between zWAR and sWAR and fWAR, even if it's not perfect. If the R-squared were way, way worse, I think we could throw it out the window. Also, I find the final paragraph to be the most valuable and important (emphasis mine): I've kind of been preaching this for a while when looking at Steamer and ZiPS projections...these things aren't going to look favorably upon the White Sox for a ton of reasons, but this isn't cause for getting upset, because these aren't the gospel and no one has ever claimed they should be seen as such. They are a baseline as to how we should look and react to teams going into the season, and these projections are saying maybe we should temper expectations a little because, even with a lot of holes replaced, this was still a team that lost 89 games last year. Improving by 12 games and winning 85 games would mean that, in 3 years on the job, Rick Hahn took a terrible team with little talented up and down the system and he's transformed it into a competent MLB team with some semblance of talent up and down the minor league system. The Orioles were projected for 32 zWAR last year and then lost 3 of their top 5 players, yet they still won 96 games. ZiPS and Steamer would have suggested that they would have lost 90 games, but that's why they play the games.

quick edited the post so it doesn't immediately go to my brown-nosing of a 1st comment of "THANKS JEFF U R SO AWESOME SIGN MAH BOOBIES"

I posted this in our previous discussion of projections for the Sox, but this needs to go here too. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/does-projec...thing/ When we talk about projections, and you have disagreements with them, this will be referenced often. Projections are not trying to be perfect. Metaphorically speaking, they are painting a picture of what you look like in October of year "x" based on how you have looked in every year prior to that. Given that it's based in the future, we have absolutely no idea what you will look like, but given the circumstances, we can probably make an educated guess. That's all this is, and if it's incredibly wrong on a few samples, it doesn't mean the system or the process is wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) Have you actually seen a good presentation/plot of how well these prediction systems do at predicting people's actual performance? It's an admittedly small sample size, but this begins to paint a picture.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) Titans vs Jaguars tonight. Been looking forward to this one all week. CANT WAIT

That is really nice Jas, but I don't think you're going to get $50 for it.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 03:03 PM) I dont know why, but I like this move a lot. Hasn't had an OPS+ below 98 since 2010, high walk rate, good BB:K rate. Makes a lot of sense as a back, makes you kind of wonder why they even traded for Brantly as Kottaras seems like a much better backup option. Unless this is an indication that Flowers might be headed elsewhere? They claimed Brantly off waivers. He was essentially free.