Chicago White Sox

Hawkins will be in AA to start next year, repeating the level a third time would be a huge slap in the face to his confidence. And I agree he'll likely struggle next year, but there is no reason he can't spend 2 years in AA and still make progress.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 27, 2014 -> 11:08 AM) Seems like it should go in the reverse order. Parks can definitely affect types of hits differently, and can affect left/right handed hitters differently. Triples are clearly harder to come by in the Cell than at Comerica, and homers are clearly much easier to come by at Yankee Stadium for lefties than righties. If we are just blanketly saying that the Cell inflates offense by 4%, then that doesn't give me much confidence in that system. Seems pretty lazy to me. See, this was my exact concern. Do slap hitters like Juan Pierre & Scott Podsednik gain as much when playing at the Cell as guys who tend to put more loft on the ball? I would guess not, but it sounds like wRC+ spreads the benefit to all players equally. And to layer in more complexity, there is also some seasonality/variability to park effects. Tempetature, wind, etc. aren't static, meaning it's difficult to measure how much incremental run production in a given period of time was due to favorable weather vs. a team simply having a hot streak.

Eminor3rd, since you're the wRC+ guru, can you please explain how the park adjustments work in the metric? While I'm a huge fan of what the statistic is attempting to do and use it frequently, I can't help but be skeptical that adjusting for park factors is that simple/clean of a process. Not all players benefit the same from playing in a given park, so if the park adjustments are applied equally to all players then I would have to consider the stat somewhat flawed. Looking forward to your response, as this has been a question bothering me for quite some time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) Unfortunately that's not how the world works. They have to make a decision on Viciedo by the start of December, and it'll be weeks after that before they know whether they'd have missed out on other targets. You're acting like they can't move Viciedo if they tender him a contract which remains to be seen. Either way, I'm certain Hahn will gauge Viciedo's trade value before deciding to tender him or not. Obviously they won't use him as a backup plan if they feel he will be impossible to move.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 26, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Why would we add two starting caliber OFs? With Eaton and Garcia penciled in, we could add one in left... but then we have DV and Danks and your other guy you wanted to add on the bench. Shouldn't we only keep 4 OFs on the MLB roster? Or did you plan on trading Viciedo? You missed my point on using a rotating DH. I'm suggesting having four starting-caliber OFs on the roster, one of whom would DH on any given day. Quite frankly, I don't want Viciedo on this team next year unless we miss out on all other OF/DH targets. I was probably his biggest fan coming into this past season, but it's time for us to move on, even though I think doing so has some chance of burning down the road.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Oct 25, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) I'm pretty sure Mitchell has one option remaining and Thompson has 2. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone? I'm fairly certain you are right.

QUOTE (MnSoxFan @ Oct 25, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) I am hoping he surprises as a reliever and is our closer next year. If Addison Reed can do it I think Bassitt can. Let Putnam and Petricka stay in setup roles. I think the Sox will bring in a veteran reliever to close, but I do think Bassitt will be a key member of our pen at some point next year.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 25, 2014 -> 07:41 AM) I know; neither do Mitchell or Thompson. Hence my question. Why would they prefer losing Sierra to either Thompson or Mitchell? He's obviously a better hitter, probably a better fielder; is it Sierra's histrionics on the bench? I don't think the Royals would have claimed Thompson or Mitchell. Still don't get it. I'm almost 100% positive that Mitchell & Thompson have options left, so I'm not sure where you're getting your info from. Regardless, Sierra was let go because they didn't think he had a good shot of making the 25 man roster and knew they would have lost him anyways. We can safely stash Mitchell & Thompson at AAA and technically have some OF "depth". Totally different scenarios, so I'm not sure why you're comparing the two.

While Sierra is such a small piece that we probably shouldn't draw any conclusions from letting him go, I can't help but think this means we plan on adding two starting-caliber OFs this offseason and going with a rotating DH. In that event, having a strong defensive-minded 5th OF that can play all three positions makes a lot of sense. I see the role being late-inning defensive replacement, pinch runner, occasional pinch hitter, and Adam Eaton fill-in when he inevitably gets hurt. Sierra simply doesn't fill that role as well Danks does.

Dude, if you're the commissioner of course you let that trade go through. Denying a trade because you're bitter someone didn't accept your s***tier offer is some real cowardly s***. And going to the other trade partner and trying to convince him to make a trade with you instead of the deal he's already agreed to is probably even worse. I hope there is no money involved in your league, because I know I would straight up leave over a stunt like you're suggesting, even if I wasn't one of the two teams involved in a trade. A commissioner that abuses his power will always destroy a league, especially if it's f***ing with people's money.

Shields will definitely get four years from someone, possibly even five, with an AAV in the $17M to $20M range. So realistically we're talking about it taking somewhere between 4/$70M and 4/$80M to get him. Way more than this 3/$45M speculation. I was pretty high on targeting him this offseason, but I've been convinced by some on this board it's a bad idea, especially with this long post-season run.

The one guy who should be up for top 10 consideration but is missing from every list is Jacob May. He had an excellent 2nd half putting up a slash line of .288/.374/.469/.843 with a BB:SO ratio of 25:27. Throw in solid defense in CF and excellent speed (37 SBs last year) and you have one of the more exciting prospects in the system. In fact, going through the system right now, I'd actually put him at #10. Top 15 Prospects 1. Carlos Rodon, LHP 2. Tim Anderson, SS 3. Micah Johnson, 2B 4. Frank Montas, RHP 5. Tyler Danish, RHP 6. Courtney Hawkins, RF 7. Spencer Adams, RHP 8. Carlos Sanchez, 2B/SS 9. Matt Davison, 3B 10. Jacob May, CF 11. Rangel Ravelo, 1B 12. Trey Michalczewski, 3B 13. Chris Bassitt, RHP 14. Micker Aldalfo, OF 15. Chris Beck, RHP

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 06:02 PM) Interesting and then became head scratching once the Edwin Jackson for John Danks proposal came up. I myself have thrown some s*** out there but that trade proposal is flat out dumb, period. I immediately stopped reading when I got to that part of the article. Sox fans rely too much on the " Coop will fix em" bulls***. Coop is a good pitching coach but let's face it, if Coop could fix everybody the Sox pen would not have been so bad. I will take Danks over Jackson anytime. Jackson was pretty good with us, at least for a portion of his tenure here. I think there is some history in place to suggest "Coop may fix em". Not saying I'm in favor of this move or not, but I can see some logic to it from both perspectives.

My view on the rotation is to add the best RHP you can this offseason (within reason) and basically have Danks, Noesi, & Rodon compete for two spots during Spring Training. In a perfect world, all three guys look great and Rodon can spend April in Charlotte "working on things", which would give Danks and Noesi another month to be evaluated. If Rodon blows them out of the water, then I'm fine with the loser being forced into the bullpen to start the season. What I don't want is to sign a some scrap heap starter that basically is filler until Rodon is ready. Strengthen the top three spots of the rotation by adding a good RHP or at least one with the potential to be like Masterson. Once comes Rodon comes up, I don't want more than one of Noesi or Danks in the rotation or the team will struggle to be competitive IMO.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 09:12 PM) Perhaps you can read the link to find out! I read the link and still don't get it. It was just bunch of stupid tweets trying to be clever/funny.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:03 PM) Once again, it's up to Frank Gore for my team. Had that Dez Bryant TD dive not been called back, I'd be sitting pretty good. Instead it comes down to Gore vs. Foster, down by 2 pts. You're f***ed.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 05:47 PM) You've just added on $59 million in salary, more or less. I would be shocked if they doubled the payroll in one offseason coming off such a non-eventful year revenue-wise. Our payroll was $59M this year?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 03:43 PM) Whites riot over pumpkins in NH and Twitter turns it into epic lesson about Ferguson What is your point in posting this? And why does this have anything to do with Ferguson?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) I think they have to deal him before December 2. Why? Are they unable to trade him for a period of time if they tender him a contract?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 18, 2014 -> 12:31 AM) So I'm really starting to wonder if I really want Markakis to be signed anymore, at least for any substantial money. I keep asking myself, okay, if I were to offer Markakis 3 yrs/$39M, would I be okay with offering De Aza anything close to that? And I keep telling myself, HELL NO. I feel like I would go 2 yrs/$16M w/ De Aza if I was forced to make him a real offer. The thing is, I wouldn't want to ever offer him anything other than a 4th OF spot for pennies. So it's hard to tell myself that I'd pay Markakis that much more. The player De Aza was for us from 2011 to 2013, is not the player he is today. A lot of his value was tied to his ability to play a solid CF, which is no longer the case. He's now a platoon corner OF, which has some value since he represents the strong half and provides very good range. But let's not use history to gauge his value now, because he's no longer the same player.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 18, 2014 -> 01:14 AM) Ben Zobrist is such an unfathomably weird advanced metric player. He puts up the craziest WAR totals and it never quite seems right. He is like the Javier Vazquez of position players when it comes to advanced metrics. We "should" have to give up the farm for a guy who is 5+ WAR every single season, but for some reason I just don't feel comfortable trading major pieces for Ben Zobrist. It's hard to even come up with a fair trade in my head because everything I'd WANT to give up for him is far less than what his production dictates he SHOULD get from us. He is 33 years old, so that should be noted as well, but....I guess I'll throw this out there..... Carlos Sanchez, Frank Montas, and Chris Beck? I feel like his numbers are worth way more than that, but I just can't bring myself to want to give up more. Even if you believe his WAR figures are accurate, he's 33 years old and has one season of team control left. No way you give up that package for him. In fact, that package might be able to land you a guy like Jay Bruce, who is younger and provides multiple years of control at a very reasonable price.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) So what? 98% of big free agent pitcher contracts turn out TERRIBLE. Let's take his six best years and let some other team deal with him. That has been the point I've been arguing all along. View him as a six year asset, which is perfectly fine, but don't waste one of those seasons in the bullpen.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) Media memes die SO slow. Clearly, our team has no problem dealing with Boras at this point. We can all see that now, right? We may not have a problem dealing with Boras like we used to, but that doesn't change the fact that he typically takes his clients to free agency and attempts to get top dollar for them. And quite frankly, he's very successful at doing that. The reality is if Rodon is as good as advertised, he's likely going to get a contract in free agency that will be above our risk tolerance. I'm actually quite astonished this many people are finding this notion hard to believe.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 12:07 PM) 1) Rodon is just as likely to stay here as he is to leave. If you honestly feel this way, then you're completely ignoring history. Both in terms of what Boras clients have demanded (signed for) and the size/length of contacts the Sox have given to pitchers. Sure there is a small chance that Rodon fires Boras or forces him to agree to an early extension, but if he does reach free agency he's pretty much as good as gone. Therefore, you manage the asset accordingly and derive as much value out of it as you possibly can over the next 6+ years.

I can't comprehend why anyone would want to waste an entire year of Rodon in the pen. We're talking about a guy that most likely (say 90%) will be leaving our organization as soon as he can test free agency. On top of that, it's not like we have 5 quality starters preventing him from being a productive member of our rotation next year. Furthermore, he would fail to build up arm strength and would unlikely to provide us with an innings jump in 2016. The whole idea is absolutely mind-boggling to me.