Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (sammy esposito @ Nov 25, 2013 -> 06:35 PM) We traded for Thome who had a big contract from Philly that worked for us. Why wouldn't there be any takers in say the national league that could use a player with his high obp and power enhanced by a huge discount. Dunn had a .320 OBP last year, which would put him 97th overall in baseball. Above-average sure, but I definitely would not qualify that as high. Unfortunately as a true three outcome player, that low of an OBP simply doesn't cut it.

Super Mario Kart was definitely the most challenging and rewarding game in the series, since it required legitimate skill to be good at. Probably the best Mario Kart game from a technical standpoint, but being limited to two players does suck if you go back now and want to play multiplier. Regardless, I still had a f***ton more fun playing Mario Kart 64 than the SNES version. Just so easy for anyone to pickup and play. Double Dash was pretty good as well, but lost some the magic of the 64 one for whatever reason.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 23, 2013 -> 08:16 AM) Have you played Mario Galaxy 1 and 2? Because the improvements are right there The Galaxy games represent some of the best pure gaming ever IMO. It will be interesting to see how 3D World stacks up to them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 04:55 PM) For trade talks having heated up, the white sox still appear pretty cold. Have Tanaka, Garza, Santana, & Nolasco signed yet? How much starting pitching has been traded so far? Unless a team gets aggressive, Hahn needs to wait for the market for his players to establish itself.

QUOTE (JoshPR @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 04:11 AM) D. It's his opinion.. j/k I'm not going to argue stats, but i too think salty ain't that good. Strikes outa bunch, can't trow, ca't hit lefties. For 10 mil, i'd bring AJ back for probably less. And people here know i wasn't too fond of AJ his last few years here.... But we're talking about two players who play two completely different positions and two organizations with completely different needs and resources. Whether the Royals signing Vargas to a $4/32M deal or the Sox signing Salty to a 4/$40 are good moves is completely irrelevant to one another. Each move needs be evaluated separately in their own context.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 22, 2013 -> 01:09 AM) Here's what scares me about Phegley. A. He's a bad defender. He really doesn't have any tools behind the plate. B. His swing is ugly. The plane is weird. It looks manufactured and it's slow. C. I haven't seen him actually square up many balls. Even the HR's he's hit have been a result of a huge guy making decent contact. They're pushed out. There's no pop off the bat. They're just giant fly balls. I need to see him hit a couple rockets. No tools behind the plate? Doesn't he have a great arm?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 10:53 PM) Almost as ridiculous as giving Roy Oswalt $5 million. When have I ever said anything about Roy Oswalt?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 10:40 PM) Yeah, but Vargas has 3 out of 4 over 1.5. Salty is primarily based on one season. Judging by what you supposedly are supposed to pay per WAR, this contract isn't so out of line. Any time you give a pitcher 4 years, it is a gamble. Lol...keep spinning this every way you can. Despite your claim that Salty's value is primarily based on one season, his WARs in 2011 & 2012 would still be higher than Vargas's WARs in 2 of the last 3 seasons. Regardless, this is such a ridiculous argument on so many levels.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 10:26 PM) Last 4 years, Vargas 7.2 WAR. Last 4 years, Salty 7.3 WAR, yet Vargas sucks a crazy overpay at 4 years $32 million and Salty is worth 4 years and $40 million. Explain. You've got to be the king of cherry-picking stats. Why don't we look at just the last 3 years? Salty at 7.1 vs Vargas at 4.5. Or how about the last 2 years? Salty at 5.5 vs Vargas at 2.3. Or maybe just last year? Salty at 3.6 vs Vargas at 1.5. Nope, let's purposely include the year (2010) when Salty had 30 plate appearances in order to make some bogus claim. We all get you think Salty sucks. Do you really have to derail a completed unrelated thread with this nonsense?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Nov 21, 2013 -> 07:16 PM) Beckham played a good 3B for the sox. Gillespie would be okay for 1 year - see if he can improve. He had a near 9% walk rate, which is stupendous for this organization. Put MS there - that would be fine too. Certainly don't use assets on a declining veteran there for this transition year. I honestly don't see us entering the 2014 season with both Ramirez & Beckham on the team. IMO, one of these guys will be traded this offseason. If that happens, Semien will be needed in the middle infield. And quite frankly, I'd rather not use him as a bandaid at 3B if he's going to be a 2B/SS long-term. Let him develop him defensively where he protects to be.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) Someone needs to repackage all this bulls*** into non-10,000 word form. From what I have seen and read, I don't really give a s*** what they do to A-Rod and what they do to do it. It is clear to me that the MLB is having to take certain measures just to combat the measures A-Rod will take to save his own ass. Fighting a little fire with fire. People do need to know that no, there isn't an amount of money you can make and thus pay away witnesses and whatever else. Thank you. f*** A-Rod to the fullest. The guy is a multi-time user and deserves NO sympathy whatsoever.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) I expect to see at least one of our SP's get dealt, soon. Are you able to provide any more details? Which pitcher(s)? What teams are they talking to? What are the Sox asking for?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) Add players with surplus value that can be retained for several years. Only add market rate talent when it pushes you over the edge. The current state of free agency is that years are in demand more than dollars in some cases -- making market-rate acquisitions ALWAYS buys present value at the cost of future value, whether that's in terms of dollars or other players. Asking them to exhaust future resources on a team most likely destined for mediocrity is a recipe for short and long term disaster. It's like going all in on a low pair, hoping the river gives you three of a kind. It's a bad gamble. No offense, this is a lot easier said than done. How would you go about acquiring these players?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:59 PM) Not arguing it should be spent. Arguing that they can spend it if they want to. How much OP did the Sox make in 2013?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 06:53 PM) There is a correlation, but it isn't necessarily strong. If you concede that, on what basis are you arguing that the $10 million should be spent? To achieve what? Dan Uggla of course!

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 01:25 AM) Here's the thing with Headley: He's a win now piece. So it means the Sox would have to go all-in, meaning as a set of moves. Now, I'm a proponent of those moves (as evidenced by my Crazy Quin GM hat that I wear half the time), but more so with free agents. So you'd need to sign someone like Salty to $40M/4 years to have it make sense. Lets say you trade for Headley. What are you trading, knowing he's about to become expensive in 1 year and that he was very unhealthy last year? Addison is a steep price because he's an effective, cost controlled closer. Hector has a good chunk of value as well. What I'd offer: Santiago/Keppinger/Thompson or Rienzo/Thompson for Headley. Nothing more. If Hector is in the deal, you'd need to sign someone like Floyd as rotational insurance for Rienzo/Johnson. Santiago is way more valuable than Reed. And I'm totally against trading for Headley unless you can sign him to an extension as part of the trade. The whole point here is to be able to offer him some long-term security before he hits free agency. He very well may reject your offers and want to test free agency, which is why the deal would have to be conditional on an extension. The reality here is that once Headley reaches free agency, there will be more competition for his services and you'll have to sacrifice a draft pick even if you're the lucky winner. I'd rather take my chances and see if he's willing to take a long-term deal now if the cost is only Reed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 05:32 PM) NEITHER DOES YOURS. Yet somehow you think that's a great reason why we should be willing to dump the talent we do have for him. You offer up that deal, he leaves as a free agent. Congrats. You have taken several guys under team control, turned it into a $10 million, 1 year contract for a team that is rebuilding and an early 2nd round pick. No one here has stated they wanted to trade for Headley on a 1 year deal. The underlying assumption has always been IF we could sign him to an extension. So you're basically arguing against something no one here has said. On top of that, all you seem to care about is surplus value and not actual production. Your ridiculous "5 year/$15M extension" argument demonstrates that clearly. We need good ball-players and to get those players we'll have to spend money and/or talent. Reed is a good, young closer, which is nice to have, but more of a final piece to the puzzle. For us to be a legitimate contender, we need to add several bats to our lineup in the near future. If we can trade a good, young closer for one of the better 3B in all of baseball that's a tremendous deal for us. There is such thing as positional scarcity and 3B happens to be one of the weakest positions in baseball right now. It also happens to be one weakest positions in our organization. But let's ignore those points, along with the significant production edge Headley provides over Reed, and only consider surplus value. The problem is that you think everything is going to turn around with our current players and that there will suddenly be a ton of Abreu-like deals out there for us. The reality is that some our likely just suck, our system is weak at the upper levels and that our cash isn't going to do us much good under the new CBA, especially if we're afraid to spend it on good players (like Headley in your case). Given that you think trading for Headley and then extending him is such a horrible idea, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to rebuild this offense to the point where we can be legitimate contenders within a couple years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) He's on the wrong side of 30 and he's already going to make $10 million+ next year. Addison Reed will still make a whopping $500k next year. If we assume 1 WAR ~ $5 million, headley right now is about a 3 WAR player if he doesn't decline some next year. Reed is about a 1 WAR reliever. Headley could put up $5 million more than he's worth next year, Reed could put up $5 million more than he's worth next year. For 1 year, that might be a fair deal...problem is, Reed is under team control at a limited cost for 4 years, Headley is under team control for 1 year. So for Headley, you're trading for him, probably committing $40 million+ to him, and you're giving up a guy who will outperform what he's paid for the next 3 years. Reed alone is a monstrous overpay for Headley. Ditto Semien. Ditto every other prospect you can think of who has a chance to contribute to the major league roster. Headley isn't a bad player but he's going to be fairly paid. You don't give up guys who are underpaid for guys who are fairly paid unless you're desperate to compete right now. It's a terrible idea for the white sox...especially given that they're gutting their payroll this year. Wow...first off, Headley is 29 years old, but second, I know your new thing is that all players start declining at 30 which is completely ridiculous. Third, as much as you want to hype up the Gillaspie/Keppinger platoon, Headley would be a significant upgrade in all aspects of the game and would add much needed balance to our lineup. Fourth, Reed is a f***ing reliever and relievers are very replaceable. Fifth, Reed will be cheap next year, but let's not pretend he won't be hitting arbitration thereafter. Sixth and most importantly, I don't care who provides more surplus value, we desperately need to add talent if we want to be competitive in the near future. Since we don't have a great farm system, that means we'll have to do it through free agency and the trade market. That means giving up money and/or talent to fill major weaknesses. I'm sorry, but they don't award the team with the most surplus value a World Series trophy. This all comes down to production and Headley is a f***ton more productive than Addison f***ing Reed. Again, if you can trade for Headley AND lock him up like I originally said, then you do it in a heartbeat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) LOL, I wouldn't give up either of those guys on their own for him. I'd trade Reed plus a prospect for him in a heartbeat if I could lock him up to an extension. Not sure why everyone is so down on Headley. He's still one of the better 3B in baseball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) LOL, I wouldn't give up either of those guys on their own for him. I'd trade Reed plus a prospect for him in a heartbeat if I could lock him up to an extension. Not sure why everyone is so down on Headley. He's still one of the better 3B in baseball.

I'm torn if Semien should start the season in the majors or AAA, and while I lean towards the majors, I'll be happy as long as he's getting regular at-bats. Using him as a backup or platoon infielder would be the worst case scenario. Consistent playing time is the most important thing for his development, regardless where it happens IMO.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:28 AM) I have no idea at all why you would expect the payroll NOT to be lower. 99 loss team, seven straight years of declining attendance. $25M in extra TV money. I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I would expect a lower payroll because of competitive reasons rather than declining attendance. That extra TV money should easily offset that.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 16, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) Jaso would be a good offensive upgrade for ~300 plate appearances for the next three years. I don't think he's worth sacrificing much of the pitching depth for. He'd get more than 300 PAs, but otherwise I agree.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) oops. fixed. Yeah $40/ month is expensive haha. Alright, now that makes much more sense. Might need to look into getting a subscription.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Nov 15, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) This. I have an insider account and I don't really mind ripping their content (although I don't post it here). I have been a BP subscriber for 5 years now and it rules. It's only like $40 a month. The writing it top notch and if you like the prospect stuff it's the best coverage out there. I hope the bolded part is a typo, because nothing seems cheap about that.