Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (staxx @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) Am i the only one surprised Trayce is gone so early? Especially with rios/de aza gone We still got Mitchell, Tekotte, & Danks around and if one of our starters or Wise were to go down, one of these guys would make the team. Therefore, those three guys need to play so Hahn and the coaching can make the best decision if need be.

According to the Score, some reporter at USA Today is saying the Bears are interested in Jake Long.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 05:54 PM) Mildly surprised that Castro and Molina went out so quick. Definitely surprised by Castro, although they're probably just running out of innings. Also, Molina optioned to AA. Castro & Rodiguez to AAA. The rest sent to minor league camp.

10 cuts today per the Score. Simon Castro, Santos Rodriguez, Nestor Molina, Erik Johnson, Scott Snodgress, Stephen Gartrell, Marcus Semien, Trayce Thompson, Seth Loman, & Keenyn Walker.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) With the system that they are building and the ability to have a payroll north of $150 million annually, yes they better get to a position in which they are the favorites to win that division every season. Do you think they are going to stop adding players? They will also have high pick at the top of each round next year again. Most people on this board hate the Cubs because they are on the other side of town, or blue, or their parents told them they should a long time ago. That doesn't matter. I am trying to look at this objectively. I think Theo and Jed are smart guys. I am not going to dismiss them just because they are running the Cubs and for some reason that makes them destined to fail. Doesn't make any sense. I think in 2015 they are contending. I don't think the Cubs are destined to fail. I just think rebuilding takes a hell of a lot longer and is much riskier now because of the CBA changes. Theo can't just outspend everyone on amatuer talent like he used to. And quite franky, draft position helps but only so much. They actualy need to out-scout and out-develop the competition. I'm not sure if Theo and Jed will actually be able to do that. Regardless, it's going to take a lot of time before that system, even if everything goes right, starts making positive contributions at the major league level. 2015 is a complete pipe dream for the Cubs to become competive unless they start buying major free agents. I mean, two of these top 100 prospects have like 30 games of minor league experience.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 12:51 PM) For my two cents, it makes best sense to have the lefties separated as much as possible, but to have Sale #1, so that the lefty in the #5 slot (Danks or Quintana) is a different look than the guy you just saw. I wouldn't slot Q and Danks together. Sale Peavy Quintana Floyd Danks I agree with your logic, but I'd ideally like Quintana #5 and Sale #1 to have the largest separation in terms of velocity. That way if a team has to face both of those guys in a series, they go from slow velocity one day to super fast velocity the next.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Mar 11, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) Barring a huge change in thinking, the Cubs should get to a spot within the next 2-3 years where they should be favored to win that division on a consistent basis. This has to be the most comical statement I've seen on this site yet. So having 4 top 100 prospects, several which are 2-3 years away, will guarantee them favorite status in the NL Central in 2-3 years. This despite you already acknowledging they have almost no pitching in their system. How does that make any sense to you? Also, can we please stop pretending systems automatically lead to major league success. It's getting really tiring to bring this up, but look at the Royals for god's sake. They've had monster systems in the past few years and yet they haven't been able to win at all. I get the Cubs have a big financial edge over them, but money isn't going to be enough to build a consistent winner. At some point they'll need their prospects to turn into major league contributors and I'm still skeptical of these four guys who are ranked so highly because of their tools and not their production.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 10, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) AMOUR really should have been the movie of the year, but there's just not enough people who have sat through it....it would have been another version of THE ARTIST and that's terrible for Academy Award tv ratings, lol. But yeah, there were no GREAT movies. Lincoln, Django, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi, Silver Linings, even Flight was one of the nominees, LES MIZ...having watched all of them, there wasn't a standout. There were a lot of GREAT individual performances, clearly, but not one great movie, overall. I'm with you, I think Amour was the best of the nine nominees, but there wasn't that one amazing movie this year. Life of Pi and Silver Linings Playbook were both great and worthy nominees, but neither seem like a true Best Picture winner to me. Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty were the two movies I had really high expectations for but failed to meet them. Zero Dark Thirty was very entertaining, but it didn't wow me by any means. I was blown away by the Hurt Locker and for some reason I didn't get that same reaction with Zero Dark Thirty, probably because I knew how it was going to play out. As for Lincoln, for some reason I was completely disappointed. Daniel Day-Lewis was unbelievable in his role, but I felt the movie was slow at times and quite frankly I was expecting a more comprehensive tale of the man. The movie should have been called "The 13th Amendment" instead, since that was the basis of the entire movie.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Mar 10, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) Their ticket sales are not gonna erode. Come on. But yeah, it's possible that the vast majority of these highly-talented prospects could turn out to be crap. That shouldn't be a revelation to anyone. So they're a "real organization" because they're willing to gamble 5 or more seasons on a rebuilding process that has a good chance of not workinng out? I still don't get what your original point was other than to troll.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) The one thing he's right about is that by 2015 they won't have a lot of bad money on their roster from the current players... But that's because they'll have 2 players under contract out of the current group. Castro and Jackson. Basically, yes they'll have some money to spend, but they're literally starting from scratch, and it will be a couple years before they can do so. Um, so will we and we're not rebuilding. As of now, we'll have four guys under guaranteed contracts prior to the 2015 season: Sale, Danks, Ramirez, & Keppinger. I guess I don't see what the point is. Also, with the new CBA rules, the Cubs might get a slight advantage by rebuilding (higher picks, larger bonus pools), but it probably won't be a signicant enough of an edge to build a vastly superior farm system unless they actually hit on more of their picks. The physical act of going out and losing 100 games several years doesn't allow them to scout better. Again, given the new CBA rules, I think there is little incentive to do a full rebuild. At some point, I expect the Cubs to lose patience and just start overpaying guys in free agency.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 10, 2013 -> 01:20 PM) Nevermind those 100+ years of futility... They have one cornerstone player right in Castro, and it reamins to be seen what his future holds. That's it. So even if their farm system is good, there is no guarantee of anything. The Sox had the #1 farm system in baseball in 2000 and an insanely young and talented roster. Those teams did squat. See this is what I find so funny about his post. He's acting like having 4 top 100 prospects is going to lead to guaranteed success for the Cubs. This is a team that lost 100 games last year. They don't have much of a core at the major league level. And most of their 4 top 100 prospects are at least 2 or 3 years away from hitting the big leagues if all goes right. I'm friends with a couple of smart Cubs fans and they're starting to realize this rebuilding thing is going to take a lot longer than they originally expected, especially with all the CBA changes. Theo is going to have a real hard tume accelerating the rebuilding process without all the loopholes he took advanagage of before. This isn't the NBA, one top draft pick isn't enough to change a franchise's fortunes. They're going to have to string together several big drafts and then wait a few years while those guys develop. Who knows when or if that will ever happen for them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 10, 2013 -> 12:48 PM) Bell and Gillespie would both be options to replace Konerko at 1B next year...assuming Viciedo doesn't move to 1B with either Mitchell/Thompson/Walker making the progression to full-time starter in 2014. Sure, they'd both be options at 1B if you're trying to lose 100 games next year. Otherwise, Bell should be AAA depth (probably with another organization) and Gillaspie should be a reserve corner IF or part of a platoon at 3B. Under no circumstance does either guy fit as a starting 1B on a competing team.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 9, 2013 -> 05:12 PM) Not really, but I just saw Canada and Mexico get into a huge bench-clearing brawl. GM's cringing all over baseball. I understand why they want to make the game more international, but for the American fan, I don't see the appeal. Mexicans fighting Canadians? Seems like a good reason for Americans to watch. I'll have to catch some highlights.

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Mar 9, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) Really don't know what to make of this. If you believe them, then scouts are very skeptical about Hawkins. LOL at no White Sox players. Strong K-Dub stench. How about them Cubs, though. 18. Almora OF 20. Baez SS 36. Soler OF 54. Vizcaino SP Check out how a real organization does things. Yeah, the Cubs are quite the organization. Look at all those overrated prospects! Our first round pick (also a HS OF) out-produced theirs, yet our guy doesn't make the top 100 but theirs is #18? That's just f***ing stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2013 -> 12:38 PM) Chris Sale could have easily gotten more money in the latter years, but to do that, he'd have to go through the normal arbitration and free agency process, where none of the money is guaranteed. Through normal arbitration, it would take him 2 to 3 seasons to earn this much. He'd be minimum salary this year, $10 million or so next year, $14 million or so the next year, and then closer to $20 million in the 4th year. Basically he traded a guaranteed salary for an early arrival at free agency. If you're a player with any worry about injury risk, and you're content with where you are, it's the right move. If he had any injury, then he might never earn that $30 million since it wouldn't get there until the 4th season. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done the deal. I'm saying he probably have gotten more if pushed harder. Based on his comments, I don't think he was looking to milk every dollar out of us. Sounds like he just wanted to get a deal done quickly. I think Hahn would have been willing to go higher, especially with those option years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) This deal wasn't a massive hometown discount. It's a reasonable deal for a kid under 25 to sign. He could blow his elbow out tomorrow, never pitch again, and walk away with $33 million dollars based on 1 really good season as a starter. Maybe he could have talked the team out of another couple million, but that is a real good deal for him too. I've got to be honest, I think Hahn pulled off quite the deal. I read the article on Fangraphs that listed 8 comparable deals and it seems like the Sale deal was better than most and possibly all of them. Minimal salary increase in his final pre-arb year, low prices for the three arbitration years, and an extremely low first free agency year. The salary for those guaranteed years should have been much higher, especially since a lot of those comparable deals are now several years old and the cost of pitching continues to rise. Also, getting two cheap options is incredible. Come on Balta, it's one thing for Sale to forego possible income down the road to lock in some money now, but you're telling me he couldn't have got way more in those two option years? $12.5 million & $13.5 million is what #4 starters will be making in 2018 & 2019.

Part of my reasoning to trade De Aza is to so while he still has good value. I don't think he'll be worth the cost long-term, especially in a corner, so if we can move him after the 2013 season while he he still has two arb years left, a team desperate for a leadoff hitter and/or CF may give up something of value for him. At some point, if we want to make the most of the asset, we either need to resign or trade him. And everyday we hold on to him and burn up his arb years the less valuable he becomes.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 09:42 PM) Last year I said they would contend for the division. I feel differently this year primarily because of the workloads on Sale and Peavy last year, an offense that's core is a year older, and a division where the Royals and Indians have improved. What about Verlander and Scherzer's workloads? And do the Tigers not have to play the Royals & Indians this year?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 08:41 PM) Why pay Ramirez $26M over the next 3 years when they aren't going to the postseason? For the love of god, can you please stop speaking in absolutes? Also, I don't understand why you think it's so far-fetched we make the playoffs. If Danks is healthy, which is looking likely so far, then our rotation can be one of the best in baseball. Our bullpen also has the potential to be one of the best in baseball. Plus our defense was one of the best in baseball last year and has arguably gotten better. Yes, our offense is a question mark, but that doesn't mean it's going to bad next year. If the pitching holds up, which is a concern for every team, we have a decent chance at making the playoffs next year. I guess I can't comprehend why you are so negative about the Sox. Do you think our starters are going to break down? You can't really be denying their talent right? Look around the league, few teams have rotations as talented as ours.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) If I owned property within a mile Wrigley I'd have to think seriously about unloading it. I think moving is a real threat and the day they announce it, property values are going to drop like a rock. Might as well start calling it South Uptown. Good thing you're not a real estate agent, because that will never happen anytime soon. Wrigley is their gold-mine and the Cubs can posture however they want, but no one is stupid enough to fall for their bluff. Moving away from Wrigley would be franchise suicide.

Career minor league OPS: Gillaspie .777 Morel .786 And Morel's would have been much higher had he not put up a .492 OPS in AAA this past season.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) Why is that so great? Seriously, outside of his first year in the PCL (an .842 OPS which isn't that good for the league), he's done nothing to suggest he should be a starter.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 02:24 PM) Thompson is nowhere close to ready . Mitchell is the only one who looks like he can be ready but that's if he puts together a solid season at AAA where he improves his average somewhere above .280 which he hasn't even come close to doing for a full season yet. The Sox will be lucky if any of the prospects in the outfield can even come close to being how good De Aza is. I actually disagree with your entire post. 1) I said if Thompson shows he's ready after the 2013 season, then I'd trade De Aza to open up a spot for Thompson. I'm definitely not saying he's ready now and I'm not even saying he will be ready after this season. My idea was simply conditional on his readiness. However, if you followed his development last year, you'd know Thompson was a much improved player in the 2nd half of his stint at A+ and while at AA. If he plays like that player this year, he'll be ready for the majors by 2014. 2) I still have hope for Mitchell, but I think Thompson actually passed him in term of development this past season. Thompson actually made adjustments offensively and improved as the year went on, while Mitchell started out fast but struggled significantly the rest of the year. Given the clear edge Thompson has defensively, I think Thompson has a much better chance of earning a job in our outfield in 2014 than Mitchell. 3) Mitchell doesn't have to hit .280 to be an effective player. He needs keep his walk rate high (~15%) first and foremost, without letting his K% rate get too crazy (over 30%). If he can do that, with his mix of speed and power, he could be very a dangerous leadoff hitter despite a low BA. Whether he can do that against advanced pitching remains to be seen, but if you're hoping he hits .280 you simply don't understand the type of player Jared Mitchell. 4) This is the point that bothers me the most. De Aza isn't that great of a player. He put up a .759 OPS last year and wasn't anything special in CF. Plus his SB % wasn't very good. Look, I think he's solid leadoff hitter and all-around player, since he can do a little bit of everything at a premium position. However, I think all four of our top OF prospects have higher ceilings than De Aza, but I'm just going to focus on one. IMO, given the value of Thompson's defense in CF, it won't take much offense from him to exceed De Aza's value as a player. And that's completely ignoring the fact that he's already demonstrated elite power and above average BB % as a 21 year old in A+ & AA. To think he has no chance of ever coming close to being De Az caliber player is crazy to me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 08:04 AM) If ADA stays healthy this season and there are 2 outfielders knocking on the door, it's entirely possible the team may decide he's the one to move. He's the oldest, the others have a long time pre-arb, and he'd be able to bring a guaranteed major league return. If ADA doesn't stay healthy this year, then we may very well want the extra depth and use that as a way to ease one or two of these guys in. I personally think if Trayce Thompson shows that he's ready this year, then you trade De Aza in the offseason and go with Thompson in CF. All the scouting reports rave about his defense in CF and his bat would more valuable there. Obviously you'd be down another left-handed bat and a leadoff hitter, but you could try to address those needs at other positions. I just think at some point we'll need to make room for some of these young OFs and De Aza is a guy who get you a nice return if he has another solid year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2013 -> 06:42 AM) I don't really think you can draw that conclusion yet. Gillaspie has no major league track record to speak of. He's a high doubles guy who'd be playing in a part that takes away doubles with its small gaps. Yeah, I think some people are jumping too quickly on the Gillaspie bandwagon. I'll admit I'm excited about the possibly of him becoming quality role player for us, but he's still a complete unknown at the major league level. Wanting to give him a starting job based on a strong spring training seems like a very bad idea to me. Plus he's never produced enough in the minors to suggest he should ever be a regular. Let's see how does in April & May and if all goes well we can find a way to get his bat into the lineup more. For now he remains an unknown quantity.