Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 09:46 PM) Fortunately, the Sox have several more options than Andy Wilkins or "spend 50 million this offseason, do everything they can to win a playoff spot, be "all -in" again, and be saddled with 3-4 more losing seasons afterwards if things don't work out." I know you're the resident "rest all the players once a week guy" but I am not sitting Abreu for Wilkins simply because Wilkins is left-handed. Sure, Abreu will need days off but he should still play 150-155 and get plenty of starts at DH. We don't need to carry an extra 1B unless they have the ability to be in the lineup everyday a la Dunn this year. As far as you thinking Wilkins can have an .800 OPS in MLB, I don't even want to touch that. Unless he's going to slug close to .500 that's not going to happen and if the Sox had a guy on the bench with an OPS of .800 would he stay on the bench? This team surely needs players on the rookie contracts to perform but that doesn't mean we give any guy who's had success in Charlotte a role. Hell, let's just make Garcia the DH and have Jordan Danks and Stephan Gartrell round out the outfield! In any case, I don't know what your fascination is with the payroll and all the arbitrary numbers being thrown around but one thing that is certain is the Sox aren't going to come back with a smaller payroll next year. Whether the plan is to compete next year or in 2016, I would take any wager saying the Sox payroll will grow in each of the next two seasons. This year is probably a lower-end starter, a few bullpen arms and maybe a hitter. I think Hahn will address the left-handed hitter void via trade and he will most likely be an outfielder. To be clear, I do hope they have a rotating DH, I just don't want Wilkins to be any part of it. Fortunately, for me at least, the front office isn't going to pencil Wilkins into any 2015 role. I'd rather see the DH be occupied by Abreu, Garcia, left-handed bat and anyone needing rest. Ideally, they bring in two outfielders, one being a left-handed bat with thump and the other being a strong defender. Great post. Agree with everything here.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 07:09 PM) I read the studies and they make sense, but I'm skeptical as to the controls and just how you separate a kid that gets spanked frequently with one that gets spanked sparingly or infrequently. One would think frequent spankings are also correlated with lower income, educational level, potential alcohol and/or drug abuse within the family, all of which probably correlate to weaker parenting skills. I just wondering if we're talking about the kid who gets his ass kicked a few times a week or the kid who gets whacked maybe once every three months for kicking the family dog. Or both. Edit: Balta, feel free to comment on your studies. This a great post. Seems like there is a misunderstanding of correlation vs causation here. Balta seems to believe that spanking children directly results violent outcomes later in life. However, while spanking and future violence may be correlated, I seriously question that there is any cause and effect to the relationship. In fact, I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned bad parenting skills, which is likely the true cause of future violence, not the spanking specifically. I will argue with anyone that spanking can be a useful tool for parents if used appropriately (mildly) and infrequently. Obviously it should be used as a last resort or in extreme circumstances, but to say it automatically makes someone a bad parent or that their kid will be more violent in life is beyond ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 06:06 PM) You're right, that was poorly phrased. Both are extremely bad, neither produces good results, both lead to kids who are more violent and the exact degree to which that occurs probably is obscured by other factors. In either case, Adrian Petersoning a kid and spanking a kid both lead to children who grow up to be more violent, more likely to commit violent crimes, and there is likely a variance between the levels that I cannot see is statistically significant. Is that more clear? Yes, but I'm still going to call BS on it. First off, your comments imply spanking always leads to negative outcomes, which can't possibly be true. Second, there is no way in hell that full-on physical abuse has anywhere of a similar impact as light spanking. It's just a ridiculous suggestion and I would question the credibility of any article you post that suggests just that. And can you please explain in a bit more detail what you mean by violence? Are we talking about violent crimes here? Getting into fights at school? Willing to use violence to defend yourself or your loved ones? There are varying degrees of violence and grouping them all into one bucket seems like a pretty convenient way to support this "spanking is evil" argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2014 -> 05:46 PM) Spanking or other physical contact is not that different from full on physical abuse in the end result, in either case it really does bad things to the outcome of the child. Wait what? You're honestly trying to tell us that light spanking and full-on physical abuse lead to similar outcomes in life? If so, I'll call BS on that and any "scientific" study you have that claims this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2014 -> 07:57 PM) And yet, it appears to have been surprisingly accurate for predicting the 2014 white sox. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but coincidences do happen in life. That doesn't change the fact that WAR is NOT a predictive stat and IS context neutral. WAR is a great tool for comparing the value varying players provided over a set period of time, but the stat is routinely misused and this right here is a great example.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Sep 16, 2014 -> 07:19 PM) the problem with using WAR to project is that WAR is a description of what happened, not "what's going to happen". And context neutral, so using 2014 WAR to predict 2015 wins is unlikely to be very accurate.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 16, 2014 -> 03:52 PM) I totally agree. This is why I HATE that people use WAR to actually calculate win totals for a season. An average bullpen could improve our win total tremendously. So very true. Context does matter and it's completely ignored by some people because it's difficult to measure. And before someone says, "no one is calculating win totals using WAR", I see certain posters repeatedly take our current record and then add the WAR of potential additions and say "that only gets us to ## wins next year". Hell, Balta does this in about 50% of his posts regarding offseason moves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2014 -> 03:10 PM) I see. So it's a terrible thing to jump to conclusions, but hey, obviously the person is undeservingly entitled. I mean, that's just a fact right? Otherwise you'd look like quite the fool responding to me saying that I was jumping to conclusions while ignoring the people who are absolutely certain that this is an entitled, cranky, complaining kid. I responded to your post because I'm sick of people copying and pasting random internet articles and regarding them as fact. I never called the girl entitled, but she sure as s*** broke a school rule and didn't accept the corresponding consequence. That's a fact, the rest is pure speculation and I don't see why you'd give her side of the story more weight than the school/police here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Because her mom was on the other end of the phone at the time and whatever was being talked about related to her mom's medical condition, which probably means her mom actually wanted her to stay in touch. Because entitlement. A truly strong kid doesn't care about their family's health conditions. That's the lesson a real American needs to learn. Sounds like you really know this girl and her family. Glad you're able to be a character witness for them and prove to us that the girl who broke a rule and refused to accept the consequence was really just a good ole American hero coming to the rescue of her mentally-ill mother. Good thing people never lie when they get in trouble or else we may need to hear both sides of the story before we jump to conclusions.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 13, 2014 -> 12:26 PM) Outdoor sports don't seem draw well in Florida. When the Dolphins under Dan Marino were in the post season you could walk up before game time and buy a ticket. I'd like to see the Sox move out of state if only for more revenue but at the same time the community is so much better than when there was Comiskey Park. I'd prefer they stay as oppose to have that area get run down. Why in the world do you think they'd make more revenue outside of Chicago? Even with s***ty attendance last year, we were about 14th or 15th in the league in revenue. I can't think of one city without a baseball team that would be more attractive than being the second team in Chicago.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Sep 13, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) I'm just grateful they didn't move to Sarasota back in the late 80's. The Sox are still here, us fans have a nice stadium to watch a game at and we can tail gate One thing that I do occasionally think about is the fact they were pretty close to building the new park in Addison, IL. I wonder how that could have changed things? Now that I live in Elmhurst & work in Bloomingdale, the idea of a Sox park in Addison sounds pretty amazing. But back in my city days, driving to the west suburbs to watch a Sox game would have sucked balls. I think the Sox would get a pretty different mix of fans if they moved out to the burbs. Taking the L to and from the game is just such a convenient and cheap form of transportation for younger, city-dwelling fans. I think they would have lost a ton of those fans by being in Addison.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Sep 5, 2014 -> 01:20 AM) The guy who bats second gets the most plate appearances. Is this is a riddle or something? The guy that bats leadoff gets the most plate appearances.

QUOTE (daggins @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 06:02 PM) I like that Hawkins numbers improved, but most of the in person scouting i've read this season tells me he still can't recognize breaking pitches. I have a feeling he is going to struggle badly next season. Davidson is obviously way down, Barnum down, Trayce slightly down (only improved slightly repeating a level, still young) Beck, Ravelo, Engel pretty much neutral M. Johnson, Michalczewski, Danish up substantially thats 10, but not the top ten. Ravelo neutral? Showing a plus hit tool against AA pitching shouldn't be over-looked. I wish the power was there as much as anyone, but his season was a huge positive nonetheless.

Gillaspie >>>>>>> Davidson Hindsight might be a b****, but guys that hit below .200 in AAA would have got destroyed in the majors. There really is no argument to be had here.

QUOTE (The Wiz @ Sep 4, 2014 -> 11:39 AM) I don't understand how the previous offseasons relate to this one at all. First off this upcoming offseason the Sox will literally have at least 30 million to spend I'd say. 2nd off, 2014 is/was clearly a rebuilding/retooling year while we wait to clear the roster of the deadweight. The Sox aren't the Cubs, they can't commit to a long term rebuild over several years and still expect to draw fans to the park. They definitely are going to make 1 big free agent signing because they have to and try and get some excitement around the team, 2nd round draft pick be damned. Yeah, I don't get why it's so bad to lose a 2nd round pick that is years away but trading away several prospects to acquire a player is acceptable.

Where can I get platoon stats on Conor pre and post all-star break? Is it possible he's been facing more LHP in the second half?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:54 PM) I like to study all of the teams' systems, but the Cubs or Astros are more entertaining for differing reasons. That's fine but you're literally name-dropping Cubs prospects for no reason.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 10:44 PM) Then you've still got Russell, Almora, Schwarber, McKinney and Vogelbach. Your obsession with Cubs' prospects is unparalleled.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 3, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) B&B and other shows have been touching on the topic of Baez lately. It is way too early to make any sweeping generalizations. However, if Baez ends up being Mark Reynolds, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. He's a 2B. Even if he K's a ton, plays average defense, and hits 30-35 bombs a year with a low average, I'd take that. Many would be disappointed with that but jeez how many 2B hit like that? Not many. Mark Reynolds can draw walks though, so I'm not sure that's a great comp offensively. It's way too early to jump to any conclusions, but Baez is going to make some serious strides to be worth a damn.

Right now these guys seem like locks for next year: 1B: Abreu 2B: Johnson/Semien/Sanchez SS: Ramirez 3B: Gillaspie CF: Eaton RF: Garcia That's six spots in our lineup already filled. As of today, here's how we'd fill the other spots internally: C: Flowers LF: Tank/Semien/Danks/Taylor/Mitchell DH: Tank/Wilkins/Taylor I agree that LF & DH are higher priorities, but improving at catcher should also be on the to-do list. Flowers may be passable by league standards, but hoping for average production out of a position should never be a goal. I'm pretty sure Hahn will be looking for an upgrade this offseason, whether he can find one at semi-reasonable price will be the true challenge.

Grandal is the guy I really want. Even in a down year, he's posted a wRC+ of 105 against RHP. He and Flower would make a great platoon and give us above average production at the position. Sucks that Austin Hedges had a bad year, not sure the Padres will be motivated to move Grandal this offseason.

Quintana is currently 9th in WAR for starting pitchers. Even if you don't love advanced metrics, it's quite clear that Jose is an incredible pitcher. Moving him creates yet another hole in the rotation and pushes back our competitive window another 2 to 3 years IMO. I'm 100% against trading Quintana. Him, Sale, & Rodon can be the core of an elite rotation for the next 5 years. Trading him for potential impact players is a bad idea when he already is one and is already signed to a team-friendly long-term deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 1, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) That people made it personal? Who made it personal other than TUC?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Aug 31, 2014 -> 12:05 PM) If absolute best effort is not having an offseason program, then yeah, Dunn put in his best effort. Dunn seems like a decent dude but it was a move that had to made. Dumping Beckham, ADA and Dunn just makes me so much more excited for the offseason. There should be lots of new faces all over the place. Unfortunately, Dunn leaving town brings on the unintended consequence that TUC will have to come up with new material, sigh. 100% agree raBBit. Not sure I understand why exactly Adam Dunn was an A+ human being, but he must have done some great things in his life off the baseball field to deserve such praise. On the field, he was extremely bad for us. Including 2011, he provided us with -1.3 WAR for the small price of $55M. Excluding 2011, he averaged about 0.6 WAR a season. While I'm not one who sees WAR as the be all end all, it should be pretty apparent that the dude sucked for us outside of 2012. I don't wish him ill-will, but I definitely won't be glorifying a guy who provided us with minimal contributions for a f***ton of money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 09:09 PM) All it takes is a bit of history, the Forbes numbers, and some common sense. Yup, let's start with some history, six out of the seven years prior to this season the Sox had a $100M+ payroll. And then let's consider your beloved Forbes numbers, where the Sox lost $3M last year with a $120M payroll. Now add some common sense, like an additional $20M in national TV money and the fact that the Sox offered Tanaka a seven figure deal this past offseason, and it's easy to see a $100M payroll next year is beyond a reasonable assumption.