Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 08:02 AM) Honestly, I'd imagine Zobrist is one of the more untouchable players around. From everything I've heard, the Rays absolutely love him and he pretty much personifies their play style. Yeah I agree. I think people around here like to drop the "it would cost Sale" bomb way too much, but in all honestly Zobrist is a great, versatile player under team control for three years at a club friendly rate. There's just no reason for the Rays to move him right now unless it makes their existing team better and the only guy who does that on the Sox is Sale. Unfortunately, Zobrist is just a pipe dream.

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but how about Berkman as a LH bat? He might be a bit costly, but he could DH and play 1B with a very slim chance of playing some RF. I think if we go out and trade for a left-handed bat, it's got to be a long-term solution. We literally have nothing in the minors that will be able to help us anytime soon, unless Jared Mitchell cuts his strikeout totals significantly (which is highly unlikely). After that, we're talking about Keon Barnum, who is most likely 4 or 5 years away if he even makes it at all.

I just think trading Viciedo is risky given that we'll have five guys in our starting lineup over the age of 30 next year. We desperately need to develop some young position players soon or we're going to be in a real bad spot in the next year or two when Rios, Dunn, & Konerko are all possibly gone. Viciedo will be 24 to start next season and is under control for five more years. There's an incentive to stick with him and develop him into a legit middle of the order bat. There just isn't much behind him in the system.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) Actually, the effect could be pretty substantial. We only had Youkilis for 1/2 of a season, and even when we had him, he really wasn't the "high OBP" guy Boston had. Over the whole season, the Sox averaged a .286 OBP out of their 3b slot last year, and that's including the time Youk was there. Flowers could hit .180 and still match the OBP that the Sox got out of 3b last year, and Keppinger ought to match AJ pretty well on that mark, if not beat it. Good points, I sometimes forget how epically bad Morel was last year. Flowers should easily exceed that .286 OBP, hell he did so last year in minimal playing time. I just think Keppinger's BA is due to fall some and so will his OBP as a result. If so, his OBP may not be that much better than A.J.'s was last year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) More OBP and more contact, btw, is exactly what we've changed by the 2 guys swapped out. We've added a guy who takes a lot of pitches and a contact guy. But we lost a contact guy (A.J) and a guy who takes a lot of pitches (Youkilis). The net effect is pretty nothing. I do think Sanchez will be given a chance pretty quickly if Beckham struggles out of the gate and that would definitely give the bottom of the lineup more contact and OBP.

The Sox were 7th in runs scored in all of baseball last year. 7 of the 9 starters are returning. Of the two spots with new starters, only catcher is a clear downgrade. The opening day ages for our current lineup is 29, 33, 33, 37, 32, 24, 31, 27, & 26. So based on this info, we have one spot where we should definitely expect less production (catcher). We have another spot (1B), where age would suggest at least some regression and possibly a significant decline in production. We have four other guys at the tail-end of their primes, who have provided inconsistent production over recent years. Two of these guys are coming off great years, two are coming off below-average years. As a group, it's reasonable to expect them to be a little worse next year, but I wouldn't expect a significant decline overall. So the question becomes how much better will Viciedo, De Aza, & Beckham be next year and can Flowers exceed expectations? Can these four guys offset some of the likely declines in production mentioned above. IMO, I don't see the offense as a whole being that much worse next year unless Rios or Dunn have another historically bad season or if Konerko finally falls victim of age. In terms of total runs, I'd expect them to score less, but not significantly less. The real problem with our offense isn't gross output, but it's how streaky and inconsistent it can be at times. Unfortunately, that will require more contact & OBP.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 24, 2012 -> 08:38 PM) Iirc the issues with boras go all the way to Reinsdorf Yeah, I think that Reinsdorf has the most issues with him. We were unable to sign some high-end draft picks, in particular Bobby Seay, due to Boras. After that, we pretty much ignored all high-end Boras clients in the draft. Then you have some big free agent fiascos like Ordonez and A-Rod that pissed off both KW & Reinsdorf. I think a lot of people forget how serious we were in the A-Rod derby. IIRC we had the second highest offer on the table and Reinsdorf wanted to have a sit-down with A-Rod to try selling him on the idea of playing in a big market like Chicago, but Boras refused and A-Rod took the Rangers' much higher offer. The only good news is that Hahn seems more willing to work with Boras. In fact, I believe he's been our go-to-guy with all Boras dealings, such as the Andruw Jones signing a few years back. Hopefully this relationship will continue to improve and the Sox will consider drafting some Boras clients in the future, because we've passed on way too much talent in the last few years.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) What's funny is you don't even see how intolerant you were being with this post, not to mention condescending, because you actually believe your opinions are better than this and that his opinions have no insight, and should carry no weight whatsoever. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) This is an absolutely LOL worthy reply, which I expected. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Actually, that WAS the point...so it's you that missed it...laughably. You do realize that almost every post you make in this forum is condescending right? I had to double-check that you're in fact the guy on here who talks down to everyone about everything. Don't know why I'm even wasting my time arguing with you. The mighty Y2HH already has all the answers!

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Actually, that WAS the point...so it's you that missed it...laughably. Your point is that the word "extremist" is exclusive to terrorists? Then you're just plain wrong and are apparently arguing for the sake of it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) This is an absolutely LOL worthy reply, which I expected. Yes, it was cherry picking, for the exact example I posted. If it's ok for you to take something he said and compare it to others in an extreme situation, then it's equally ok for me to cherry pick you calling him an extremist and compare it to ACTUAL extremists. By the way, a lot of people have called Chicago, as a whole, a war zone. Of course, he lives in Lincoln Park, which I wouldn't dub a war zone...but it's not all that far from one. I actually don't understand your post. Yes I called him an extremist, I didn't know its use was limited was limited to terrorism. Here's the definition of the word: Where does it say "terrorist" in there? Duke takes an extreme view on gun control, which makes him an extremist on the issue. I'd call someone saying to ban guns altogether an extremist as well. You're arguing semantics right now and missing the point entirely.

Yeah, Freel had been suffering from mental health issues for a long time and they were well-documented. I really hope people don't try linking this to concussions or any other political issue.

^ You honestly think's Kubel BA would have jumped 47 points with better protection?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 09:36 AM) you don't think that an opinion backed by rational thought and consideration is worth somewhat more than an opinion based in ignorance? so if I have an opinion because I've looked at the data, done the research, and thus I've decided to believe A, that it's worth EXACTLY the same as someone who says "screw all that, I believe B because that's what my daddy told me to believe." or "that's what this 2000 year old book tells me to believe" or "that's what Glenn Beck tells me to believe"? because the problem with this is that ignorance is EASIER, so more people are going to be ignorant than not. giving them equal voices is probably what's led us to dive headfirst into the crapper like this the last 15 years, because major corporations, news media and pundits are choosing to FEED the ignorance and misinformation to create support for certain parties and platforms. the fact that we have instantaneous access to information would - theoretically - help people become MORE informed, but unfortunately it's done just the opposite, and strengthened and increased the amount of ignorance in this country... and it's really a shame. This is a great post. Thank you.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Back to my original point, you love cherry picking things he says, such as calling Chicago a war zone, and then telling him it's insulting to others that actually live in areas with high gang activity I love this, because it's not even close to cherry picking. Nuke has called Chicago a "war zone" multiple times and said you'd "have to be an idiot to not own a gun" or something to that manner and I've already called him out on this before. I'm sorry, but Nuke lives in Lincoln Park. It's not a war zone over there, I know because I live 5 minutes away. Unfortunately, it is a war zone is some areas of this city and it's a god damn serious issue. It's offensive to the innocement victims of gang violence when Nuke acts like it's a city-wide problem and then uses it for his political agenda.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 23, 2012 -> 08:43 AM) Well, well...aren't you intolerant of others? While I may agree that some of Duke's posts are a bit over the top, saying things like your ashamed to live somewhere because of "extremists" like him, and implying that he shouldn't have as much political say as you is pretty extreme in and of itself, and goes against everything this country stands for. Not to mention, you love cherry picking things he says, such as calling Chicago a war zone, and then telling him it's insulting to others that actually live in areas with high gang activity...but it's ok for you to call him an "extremist"? Watch as I do the same thing to you as you: Extremists drive planes into buildings and kill innocent civilians, and it's a f***ing insult to the men and women of our military that face *actual* extremists on a daily basis when you compare a forum poster to one of them. See how easy that is to do? First, you can always leave this embarrassing country that gives others a voice you deem inferior to your own, since it seems as if you've missed the point of being here in the first place. ...and second, and more importantly, he deserves equal say in policial matters, regardless of what you or others may think of his opinions. What makes your opinions more important than his? What's funny is you don't even see how intolerant you are, not to mention condescending, because you actually believe your opinions are better than this and that his opinions have no insight, and should carry no weight whatsoever. This country was designed with the very thought of keeping people such as yourself at bay in the case they rise to power. To prevent people from forcing their opinions on others because they "know" they're superior opinions. I don't claim to have all the answers and I don't think my opinion is better than most. What I do know is that "extremists", regardless of what political side they fall on, are destroying this country. We struggle to make progress on many issues because no one will give up any ground. I'm sorry, but there are people out there suggesting "arm the teachers!" and "more guns = less violence!". These are just idiotic ideas that get in the way of real discussion. I'm the owner of three guns, all used for hunting and I respect people's right to own guns for sport or self-defense. I think people suggesting "no more guns!" is just as bad as "more guns are better!" approach. I just know there is a middle ground that can be found, that will slightly inconvenience gun owners but make this country safer. Hell, I've seen numerous ideas in this thread that would work. Unfortunately, groups like the NRA and people like Duke refuse to make any changes and the country suffers as a result.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 02:55 AM) Nah, you just make the whites feel really guilty about something that happened 150 years ago and exploit that to funnel a bunch of money into the drug trade and housing projects. When that system implodes and gives us places like contemporary Chicago (aka a f***ing war zone) you won't blame the policies that disarmed good citizens and acted as a stimulus check for gangs. But as long as it furthers the expansion of The State, which is about the only god you're willing to tolerate our kids being indoctrinated with at your mind control camps, innocuously referred to as public schools. Also, you brought up identity politics. I didn't, so don't get all whiny on me. Dude, give it a f***ing rest. You are the perfect example of why we need more gun restrictions. Every one of your posts is filled with delusions and I get angry just reading them. I'm honestly ashamed to live in this country because there are so many stupid, crazy, extremists like yourself that get an equal say in political matters. You can't even have a rational discussion without rambling on about some nonsense unrelated the issue at hand. This country is doomed and it's because of people like you who can't accept the smallest amount of change without screaming about their freedoms being taken away by the big bad government. Also, stop calling Chicago a "war zone". I don't care if you got mugged in Lincoln Park on your way home from Starbucks, it's f***ing insulting to the people actually who live in areas with high gang activity and are at risk on a daily basis.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) The Sox talking Sanchez up was probably an effort to raise both his trade value and to help them see if someone would offer something big for anyone else in their IF. If they go into this season with him as a starter, it's a rebuilding year. At the best he should be a year away. I think Sanchez could possibly steal 2B from Beckham by the all-star break, but at this point there is no absolutely no reason for him to start anywhere but AAA next year. That way he can continue to develop and still provide a nice insurance policy at all three IF positions. As for adding a left-handed bat, it's either got to be a big time bat like Markakis or someone on the cheap who can fill a bench spot. I have no interest is trading talent for an expensive platoon player who doesn't offer any positive defensive abilities.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) No. I f***ing hate that guy. Plus he's not that good. Yep, his OPS was .150 higher at home than on the road last year. Regardless, he's a very average offensive player who can't play defense and is not an upgrade for our team.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) We desperately need a starting catcher. Everyone for Matt Wieters. Do you think Mike Napoli sucks offensively? Flowers has the potential to be a very similar offensive player, but is actually a good defensive catcher.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) Floyd + DeAza for Markakis + Arietta is a great deal for both teams IMO. For Baltimore, they cut salary, get an easily extendable Floyd (few good SP are going to want to play in Baltimore, especially at fair market value or less), plus they get a controllable OF who they can also afford. And for the Sox, Arietta has a lot of potential, is a righty, and Markakis helps now. Also if I spelled Arietta's name incorrectly it is because I am a rebel & rebels like me do things like that on purpose, not necessarily because they are too lazy to look the player up on baseball-reference. I see three problems included De Aza in such a trade: 1) We'd still only have two left-handed hitters in the lineup 2) We'd have no leadoff hitter 3) Rios would have to play CF I'm not against moving De Aza, but unless a second move is made, I don't think this trade alone works for us.

I could see them having interest in an experienced starter and even at his worst Gavin is an innings-eater, which is something the Orioles desperately need given that only 1 SP pitched more than 135 innings last year. Floyd could make even more sense for the Orioles since he's from Maryland and would probably be willing to sign a more affordable extension than a lot of similar pitchers. Honestly, I'd probably do a Rios+Floyd for Markakis+prospect trade. Rios & Markakis each have two years left on their deal plus a team option, but Markakis' salary is a lot higher. $15M per in 2013 & 2014 and the option is for $17.5M, which seems unlikely to be exercised. I'm not sure why the Orioles would want to move Markakis, but he's exactly what's missing from our offense: a high AVG, high OBP guy who bats from the left-side of the plate. That would leave us with a lineup of De Aza, Keppinger, Markakis, Konerko, Dunn, Viciedo, Flowers, Beckham, & Ramirez. I'd still look to add a left-handed infielder into the mix (as a starter, platoon, or bench player), but this offense seems much more balanced than last year's.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) I think that former Sox catcher Mark Johnson will manage them. God was he an awful baseball player. He was fourth in that horrible streak of 1st round picks we had from 1991 to 2006 or 2007. Good god did we waste a lot of high draft picks.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) Multiple people have explained that it does not make sense, and a pitcher is more valuable than a hitter. You conveniently forget that this hitter does not play defense, therefore reducing his value as an everyday player. It's more a matter of marginal value. At their best, it would be much harder to replace Danks' production than Martinez's production. Martinez is a terrific hitter when healthy, but it's not difficult to find a pretty decent hitter to plug in at DH, hell we all remember the Jim Thome fiasco. Finding a replacement for a #3 starter (possibly low-end #2 starter) is extremely difficult. The dropoff would be much more significant.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) Was that the original question? I don't understand what you mean by "perfomance-wise, ignoring salary completely." Please clarify. It was, just wanted to make sure you knew what I meant.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 12:35 PM) If Veal replicates his 2012 performance over a full season then he very well could be. It is highly improbable he does that based on his previous track record, but for arguments sake, say he turned the proverbial corner last season, yeah he could be I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's possible Veal outperforms Thornton next year. Unfortunately, relievers are so volatile year to year that very few GMs would have a ton of faith in Veal, especially based on such a small sample size. On the otherhand, Thornton has been one of the more consistent left-handed relievers in the game and I honestly think some GMs would be willing to pay a premium for that. If a GM has no quality lefties in his pen, Thornton suddenly becomes very attractive. Obviously $6 million ain't cheap, but if the alternative is crap, some GM will come to the table with a decent offer.