Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) I don't think we can expect a very good return on whatever pieces are on the block if teams prefer filling their needs with free-agents. I don't follow. Most teams would rather overpay in terms of money than talent to fill their needs. As the quantity of quality free agents starts to shrink, teams are forced to explore the trade market for alternatives. That's when guys like Gavin & Thornton become attractive and we're just starting to get to that point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much demand for these chips. The off-season has barely begun. We've seen a lot more moves made in late December & January over the past few off-seasons. Plus free agency has been extremely slow this year. Since most teams would rather spend money than talent to fill their holes, we need guys like Nick Swisher & Edwin Jackson (I know he just did) to sign so a market can develop for our players. I'll start getting worried in late January if Hahn hasn't made any other big moves.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 03:03 PM) And if he had held onto Sergio because the deal wasn't there, then what? He'd have an injured player he couldn't trade. Also Kenny's lack on info on Molina makes me very seriously think that this was a Hahn move & Molina was a Hahn target. Kenny IIRC didn't even know what Molina was doing over that offseason. I wouldn't be surprised if last offseason KW kind of let Rick make some decisions on his own to prep him for the promotion. The Andrew Bailey trade happened shortly after the Santos deal was completed and it netted the A's Reddick and their current #6 prospect. That's incredibly more value than KW got for Santos, especially considering he had signed a cheap long-term extension with three team options earlier that off-season.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) I am hoping this was a green fail. Nope, meant to be black.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) If you traded on the stock market this way, you'd lose all of your money in about 6 weeks. Wait out for commodities to increase in value and deal them then. Deal them at highest value, not lower. That sort of thing. And let's be honest, one of KW's weaknesses was his impatience. He often took the first deal he liked instead of waiting for a market to develop for his players. We saw this most recently with the Sergio Santos trade where some teams didn't even know he was available.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) I love the early over-reaction to Hahn not doing anything with the very few, if any, chips he has. The few chips? What are you talking about? We have three SPs, three OFs, two veteran RPs, and plenty of prospects that have value and can be used to improve the team.

I think it's pretty reasonable at this point to assume Hahn is waiting for the last big SP & OF chips in free agency to fall before a move is made. I have no doubt Hahn would like to make an impact move, but the market needs to develop and hopefully opportunities will then present themselves.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 07:18 AM) Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN The Cubs have made strong progress on a four-year, $52 million deal with Edwin Jackson. That's a shame. I really enjoyed Jackson during his brief time here, will suck having to root against him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) The Tigers actually have money to spend because they sold out their ballpark. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) Well this isn't true. The Tigers have money to spend because of their rich owner. They actually receive money from MLB's revenue-sharing program. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:00 PM) Right. Attendance has nothing to do with payroll. Right, because that's what I said. However, I'm sure attendance is the reason the Tigers can spend more than their revenues over the past few years and have been able to sign guys like Fielder, Martinez, & Hunter while the Sox haven't. Definitely not because of the owner who is willing to put in more than he gets back or the revenue-sharing advantage they have over us.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) The Tigers actually have money to spend because they sold out their ballpark. Well this isn't true. The Tigers have money to spend because of their rich owner. They actually receive money from MLB's revenue-sharing program.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) And defense is arguably more important at Alexei's position And shortstop is arguably a harder position to fill. Also, Ramirez's contract was based on a higher level of offensive production than we got from him last season. If next year he has another 2012 type season with the bat, then that contract will start looking much worse.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) He's only had an OPS+ of above 100 once. None of his offensive numbers, save stolen bases, are impressive. You put a ton of stock in advanced defensive metrics and his base stealing ability to find any value in him. He can shove that $15M up his ass. Great post...agree 100%.

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.