Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) Well, it kind of does. There's still a question as to whether or not the improvement was due to experience rather than a natural predilection for one over the other. That's relevant because of his arm strength, which would profile him as a right fielder. Thank you for posting this. I don't understand why anyone would purposely ignore the reason behind his better defense play in LF vs RF. Considering he played RF in the minors, it would highly suggest that his improvement in LF was due to general experience in the OF and not something inherent to LF itself. Like you said, Viciedo has the arm for RF and would be more valuable at that spot. Not giving him another chance in RF based on a small sample of games at a new position would be foolish IMO, especially if the position opens up in the near future.

What exactly makes RF harder to play than LF? I get you want a good arm in RF, which Viciedo obviously has, but in terms of catching and getting to the ball I don't see a difference, at least not at the Cell. And I could be totally wrong here, but I actually would think more balls would be hit to LF given the amount of right-handed hitters in the league. If true, I would think RF would actually be easier to play as long as you have a good arm, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 08:41 PM) I will bet there are more assault rifles in the city than there are in "hillbilly" country. It's amazing the sterotypes that come out. Do you own an assault rifle? Not sure why you're catching feelings here. My point was that assault rifles serve no practical purpose, but please get caught up in the "hillbilly" comment. And just so you're aware I'm not anti-guns in the slightest, I just think people needing to own an assault rifle is ridiculous.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Well, the FAKE lead off hitter the Sox currently happen to be employing, actually is younger than Bourn, slugged better than Bourn and got on base the same amount as Bourn and is about $15 million a year cheaper. He also bats left handed. I honestly don't care what Bourn's WAR has been, IMO he's incredibly overvalued due to his defense. Also, he's a guy whose value is tied directly to his speed (SBs & range) and once that goes he'll quickly become average at best. I definitely don't want to be the team paying him $15 million a year when that happens. Plus as you point out we have a much cheaper and somewhat comparable alternative.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 07:58 AM) Is the answer to make them safer take away MY guns? Seriously, because some people are f*cked in the head, do you think the solution is to stop ME from having a gun? And Tex, your suicide story would have happened anyway. He didn't just decide to do it because he had access to a gun. That is a whole different bag of issue. I'd like to hear your honest opinion on gun policy. We all know this guy suffered from mental illness. Every single person that does one of these cowardly attacks is either sick or just plain stupid. Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to identify all these people and even if you did there's nothing you can do them to guarantee they won't do something crazy. What we can control is their ability to kill people in large quantities as best we can. What purpose does an assault rifle serve other than making some hillbilly feel powerful? It's not used for sport and it's not used for self-defense unless China decides to invade at some point. It's intended to be a killing machine and should not be allowed for purchase in this country. I don't even understand how they were ever legal in the first place. Banning them would be a small and simple way to possibly limit the amount of deaths in an attack like we saw this week. Obviously such a ban doesn't truly guarantee anyone safety, but I see no benefit to this country by allowing its citizens to purchase assault rifles. Do you disagree on this?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 15, 2012 -> 10:31 AM) if you live in a place that's so unsafe that your family's at risk, what kind of parent would you be if you didn't MOVE!? Well let's be honest, there are plenty of people in this city that can't afford to move their families and unfortunately a lot of them live in the major problem areas. They aren't automatically bad parents. Having said that, I do agree with Dick's point. As long as you can afford to, moving your family to a safer area is always going to be the better choice than buying a handgun for your home.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 05:38 PM) People who fight with guns are p*****s IMO. Unfortunately since alot of those p*****s reside in Chicago I have to own one so I can clip a motherf***er if he tries to break in and hurt my family. I would rather have zero guns. Oh god, I'd love to hear what neighborhood you live in. Life must be rough in Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast. And I'm not trying to pass judgement on your economic status, I've lived in Lakeview for six plus years. I just find this kind of talk from people living in nice areas of the city to be quite comical. Our 4-unit condo building was broken into about six months ago, while I was in the building, and I don't feel the need to have a gun in my unit for my family's safety. This s*** happens EVERYWHERE, both in the Chicago suburbs and other major cities. Please stop using Chicago as a reason for needing to own a firearm unless you live in one areas that has a real problem.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 15, 2012 -> 03:36 AM) Man if you DONT own a gun for home defense in Chicago you're a f***ing idiot. We are living in American Afghanistan, a city held under terror by an unstoppable onslaught of crime. When can we point out that Chicago is going to break 500 homicides this year and, BY TOTAL COINCIDENCE, also has the tightest gun control in the United States? 30 is a tragedy, 500 is a war. Oh give me a f***ing break. Unless you live in the worst areas of Chicago, you have the exact same worries as any other city in this country. And not only is this issue specific to certain areas, it's also highly highly-gang related, so making guns easier to attain would be by far the dumbest thing we could do. Do you live in one of these areas?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 03:03 PM) He's not the only one, my manager cancelled a team outing to see Batman because of the shooting. With the recent rash of gun attacks, you can't blame people for being cautious, especially because they are popping up in such public places. I completely understand being concerned about your kids well-being at school for a while, that would only be natural after a horrific event like this. But to worry that one psychopath will inspire someone to copycat a previous psychopath and as a result not see a movie is too much for me. This was a random act of violence by someone with serious mental illness. These events will never stop and could happen at any place at any time. Either you can live in fear, lock your doors, and never go outside or you can respect that life is not guaranteed and enjoy it while it lasts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Ok, legit emotional reaction, someone tell me I have nothing to worry about. I was planning to go see The Hobbit tomorrow afternoon. I can't get out of my head all the cases of people getting caught with guns on their way to movie theaters after the last one. Someone reassure me rationally on this, please? Jesus f***ing Christ, are you serious?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 05:41 PM) As of right now, some of the pitchers available on the free agent market next season who are or have been close to that level (High 3's ERA in the NL, low 4's ERA in the AL). Depending on how this year goes, some of these guys might well get paid near that level, maybe even for fewer years. Gavin Floyd RA Dickey Dan Haren Tim Hudson Phil Hughes Ubaldo Jiminez Josh Johnson Tim Lincecum Edinson Volquez And...Matt Garza. I'm talking about this year. God only knows how much free agents will be getting next year when the new TV money kicks in, plus who knows if any of those guys would sign with the Cubs, let alone two or three of them. All the Cubs know is that Sanchez was willing to sign this year and fill one of the several holes in their rotation. Sometimes you have to overpay, whether it be money or years, to fill your needs. I'm not saying this is a great move and it definitely has risk, but given the Cubs' lack of pitching and their inability to throw unlimited money at the draft and amateur international free agents, I do think it's a solid move.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) No it's not a solid deal for the Cubs. #3 starters are regularly available on the free agent market and can be had easily for that kind of money. He'll be 29 this year and unless someone is seeing something I'm not, the Cubs will be shooting for another high draft pick this year even if Sanchez turns into Verlander. The earliest the Cubs could possibly compete, IMO, is 2014; if they think this is their last rebuilding year, then this is $15 million blown, and $15 million less they'll have to spend next year when they are more certain what their actual needs are. If they aren't going to be ready for a post-2013 spending spree and competing in 2014, then this deal is even worse. I think it's pretty clear by this deal that they are targeting 2014 to be competitive. And your comment about having less to spend in 2014 when they finally know their needs is ridiculous. They need starting pitching and lots of it. That won't change between now and next year, so there is no reason to wait until then. Do you really expect them to acquire 2-3 quality starters in one off-season in addition to other needs they might have to fill? The Cubs had to give Sanchez 5 years to make this deal happen, but the cost per year itself isn't that outrageous, at least not in this free agent market. Also, who are all these starters on the market that are as good as Sanchez?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) Sanchez to Cubs for 5 years and $75 million. The Tigers will be looking for pitching now I assume. Pretty solid deal for the Cubs. Sanchez is a good #3 starter and they can easily to afford to pay him $15 million a year to fill that role. Obviously five years is fairly risky, but at least they're getting him for his prime years.

Rumors of the Cubs signing Anibal Sanchez. If true, guys like Quintana and Floyd quickly become more attractive.

5 years/$125 million

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 06:50 PM) There's no hate at all. It's just the sox entire team makeup can't be low OBP, low AVG guys who all hit RH. Alexei, Gordon, Flowers and Rios reverting back to his career norms all project to be similar type hitters as Dayan. The Sox supposedly put his name out there. If they are willing to dangle him, they may be worried other teams may be able to solve him. With his very respectable 2012, you'd think he'd be a cornerstone. Hahn may be thinking differently. And if teams offer up enough talent to fill multiple holes, I could see where a trade would make sense. I wouldn't call Flowers low OBP and I wouldn't call Rios low average, but I agree that our offense is too right-handed and needs more high contact and/or high OBP hitters. If Hahn really wants to improve the offense he's got to move one of our right-handed hitters, I just don't think Viciedo is the guy to move. He has the potential to become a solid contact hitter with plus power and is under team control for five more seasons. Unless you can use him in a package for a left-handed middle of the order hitter, I don't see a reason to move him.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) His 96 OPS+ disagrees. If you can get someone to give up anything for Viciedo, please do. Wow, you're really going to say a guy blows based on one full season worth of stats. I guess if you don't put up Mike Trout or Bryce Harper stats your rookie year then you're worthless and have no chance of improving.

I still think Hamilton at 4 years/$25 million per makes a ton of sense for us. Trade Rios & Thornton for prospects and we'd only be adding $6.5 million in salary. 1. De Aza, CF 2. Keppinger, 3B 3. Hamilton, RF 4. Konerko, 1B 5. Dunn, DH 6. Viciedo, LF 7. Flowers, C 8. Beckham, 2B 9. Ramirez, SS #1 Sale #2 Peavy #3 Danks #4 Floyd #5 Quintana CL Reed SU Crain SU Jones MR Veal MR Omogrosso or veteran MR Leesman or Septimo LR Axelrod or Santiago (loser starting in AAA)

Missing 3 games in the middle of a pennant race for the birth of his child is what pissed me off. Every man has a right and IMO an obligation to be with their wife or girlfriend during child birth, but I can't comprehend how it required him missing 3 games. He obviously took off as much time as he felt he could, which may make him a good husband/father but a very s***ty teammate. I'm pretty sure someone on here with inside knowledge posted that this rubbed teammates the wrong way.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 05:17 AM) Viciedo comes to mind as a guy likely to be traded. Hahn should be looking at higher OBP guys. In the short term a guy like Jason Kubel could play LF, as the sox need consistent production. Viciedo could bring back some talent for the long term-LH bat, someone who could hit for avg, get on base. Think a guy in AA, AAA, maybe ready by end of next year but for 2014. Dayan prob. Won't hit for avg. and won't walk at all. the sox run the risk of him pulling a Gordon, peaking in his first year. I just don't get the hate Viciedo gets on this board. The kid is going to turn 24 next March and only has one full major league season under his belt, yet so many people are ready to write him off already. What in god's name makes you think he may have already peaked? Also, I bolded the part of your post that bothers me the most. The kid is going to hit a lot better than .255 and I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes close to a .300 hitter in his prime. And while he'll never have a great OBP, he's going to walk a lot more as he matures as a hitter and naturally becomes more selective. He showed great improvement in this area in his last season in AAA and even showed some signs for us last year. And let's not forget that this kid hit 25 home-runs as a rookie. The power is his best tool and I'm not sure why so many people are eager to get rid of it given the age of our current 3, 4, & 5 hitters.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 8, 2012 -> 09:58 PM) I just think Keppinger is not even as good as Teahen, that's all. Give it a rest troll.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 8, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) My source gets held to a higher standard by the posters that don't like me. That's the way it goes on here. Marty, I actually think you're an intelligent baseball fan. Unfortunately, the minute you came on here and claimed that Hahn would ever consider bringing back Guillen as manager, you lost all credibility of possibly having a real source. There are so many reasons Hahn would never bring him back, but let me just name three. 1) Loyalty to KW over Guillen 2) Hahn is a numbers guy, Guillen goes by instinct 3) Oney called him and other members of the front office "nerds" Guillen will never be back with this organization as long Hahn & KW are around. If you are honestly suggesting otherwise, then you are some sort of troll, because you know too much about baseball to be this stupid about this particular issue.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 10:38 PM) This is exactly right. This isn't the NBA though. If we give up 4 or 5 good pieces, we'd most likely struggle to build around Upton. Marty, what to guess the cost would be?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 7, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) He did. I don't understand this apparent zeal of the Sox to trade him. He gave us the best leadoff work in a decade. Because his value is at an all-time high, he seems injury prone, and some have questioned his ability to play CF. I get he was very solid as our leadoff hitter last year, but I think there's a case for moving him now while his value is still high. Also, OF is our deepest position in terms of depth in the minors and we have a couple guys who will be knocking on the door in the next season or two. Having said all this, I'm not necessarily advocating trading him. I just think you have to gauge his value, and if even a single GM thinks he's close to an elite leadoff hitter and is willing to pay a premium for him, you move him in a heartbeat and worry about your own leadoff guy later.

These De Aza & Viciedo rumors are both from a Tribune article last night. It was interesting that the article said Hahn was looking for prospects from Seattle for Viciedo. I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in Tribune published rumors, but they do support the notion that Hahn is willing to move quite a few players, including any of our outfielders, to improve the team one way or another. As for Upton, he's a great player but I'd be worried about the cost. If they're asking for Andrus plus from Texas, I don't want to know what it would cost us. Given the overall lack of talent in our organization, I'd rather risk big money on Hamilton then trade four or five good pieces for an area of organizational strength.