CyAcosta41

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 03:54 PM) Obviously it was a reply to Cy Acosta...if we can't talk about the risks of standing pat that goes along with the assumption that Cespedes isn't worth the attendant risk, then what's the point of discussing Cespedes at all anymore? Great, Cespedes...too risky! So then what? Please explain what move doesn't carry a downside. Cali has been arguing about Cespedes for weeks and nobody has rebutted his point that we don't have enough proven run producers...highlighting that fact with his RBI and RISP (which will inevitably be described as luck or random or anomalies) numbers but I have yet to see a good response other than just a string of personal character attacks on Cespedes from shadowy sources. Short answer because I'm aware that I easily fall into the category of posters who can make every post a Supreme Court brief. Of course every move carries a possible downside -- the downside of making affirmative moves A, B, or C, and the downside of making no affirmative move at all in standing pat. Umm ... exactly why are we arguing the obvious. My most basic point is let the pros do their job. I get that it's an awful lot of fun for fans that truly understand and study the game to play armchair GM or manager. I'm guilty as charged myself. Big time. But, I also try hard to keep in mind that the people who actually have these jobs in the real world, people who generally have made baseball their life's work, have access to a lot more information than we do, and virtually every one of them are working hard to make sound, professional, and sometimes shrewd decisions to earn their keep and advance their personal careers. Back on point, while many of us believe Cespedes is a must-have given the current makeup of this team and our window for contention (and I lean slightly in this direction myself), it's certainly possible that those ACTUALLY making the decisions don't agree. RH and company might indeed feel that Cespedes (or Upton or Gordon) are nothing more than nice-to-haves -- they'll acquire them at no more than X, and failing that will go forward with alternate plans (likely not explaining those alternate plans to any one of us). If a real world GM is wrong too often -- failing to land Cespedes because unwilling to do what it takes, deciding on stiffs like Davidson, LaRoche, and (perhaps) Avi instead of better choices -- then said GM won't be long for GM world. I'll always have my own opinion on preferred ways to build a franchise and, of course, on particular players, but I'll confess that at times like this I get tired of fans who think their own way is THE way and the pros who do this for a living simply don't know what they're doing.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 09:14 AM) Well, that's all well and good, but the one thing you left out is the fact that "our" terms don't seem to be in line with the terms other teams are operating under in the open market at the moment. "Our" terms comprising the three year contract approach don't align with the five+ year contracts that the other similar talents are currently receiving in this free agent season. So we can stick to our guns and try to operate under "our" terms, but I'm afraid by doing so we'll be left out in the cold with no addition of the available premium talent that we definitely have a need for. Always enjoy the rock solid analysis in your posts, but seems to me that we're circling around the same point and might not be in disagreement at all. I'm in no way suggesting that "our" preferred terms includes three years for anyone, no matter what. We can all quibble about the baseball pros and cons of the talent targeted by RH and the Sox (and I think we've been less than adequate overall in targeting the right people), but it strikes me as silly to think that RH and company lack the intelligence to do his full-time job in a professional manner. Hahn is a Harvard educated attorney; listen to him for a minute and you realize he's a very bright individual. Despite the goofiness of media blurbs, does anyone think for a moment that the Sox would actually have a "three or no deal" policy, no matter what? You're right, if that were "our" policy, we'd be entirely out of synch with the rest of baseball. Instead, and what I was suggesting, was "we" value specific targets in specific ways. Stated differently, there might be "nice to haves" and then "must haves." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that in the opinion of those whose opinions matter for the organization (management -- not the fans and certainly not the media), management determined Cespedes to be a "nice to have." Get him on our terms and we'll take the known risks (obviously with the considerable upside potential too); however, no taking unnecessary risks (outside of our terms), no chasing. On a personal level, I think that getting any one of the big-three (not relevant now, but I preferred Gordon's skill set overall for this team, although I think Gordon was never truly on the market at all) actually a "must have" and the calculus changes to something dramatically different than the calculus for the nice to haves. Everyone can have their opinion, of course, but no way do the Sox have some rigid "three years or bust" policy. In fact, I'm convinced knowing their past, knowing the creativity of the management team, and knowing the near inside info I was told, they presented a three year deal with a host of asterisks -- an opt out and option years. That's what THEY thought Cespedes was worth. It doesn't matter that WE might have disagreed or done differently if we were holding down their jobs. Finally, the Sox did what it took to reel in Adam Dunn with a four year deal -- Dunn's best deal on that market. They considered him and his left-handed boom or bust approach a must have at the time (somehow I wasn't around when they called to ask my opinion, so they missed me telling them that I've always hated that style of slugger). Just last year, they bested the market and gave David Robertson a four year deal because they considered getting that "lock-down closer" a must have. They'll do what it takes when a guy achieves that "must have" status, but they'll let the "nice to haves" go if the price exceeds their internal assessment of value. That's a sound way to run any business that isn't simply a play-toy of a wealthy billionaire owner. I think a lot of the angst going on in this thread is simply some Sox fans valuing Cespedes more than Sox management does. Now, continually making the wrong choices is a good way for management to lose their job, but sticking to sound process is not.

FWIW (and it ain't worth much) ... Knocking down some beers with another big-time knowledgeable Sox fan ... similar to many of us in understanding the landscape of players throughout baseball and thirsting for knowledge about how these deals go down. Like me, he's a transactional attorney, so we get a special kick out of deal structuring as well (billionaires paying multi-millionaires, and all that jazz). HE has a friend that was a long-time Sox investor/advisor on the business side of baseball. According to MY friend, HIS friend said the Sox were and continue to be IN on Cespedes, but on their terms and are determined to not chase because of outside opinion. I think most of us agree that's very consistent with this ownership group from Day #1. No surprise there. They LIKE Cespedes, but don't LOVE him -- they'll take him as a value play, and that's value determined by their metrics. He's also told the framework of the possible deal is what many have suggested (this isn't rocket science): * Base deal is 3 years for X * Player opt out after year 2 * Mutual option for year 4 (player option vests upon objective performance) * Second mutual option for year 5 (player option vests upon objective performance in year 4, if any) In essence, POSSIBLY a 5 year deal with big bucks under certain circumstances. Plus, player outs to reenter the market should he feel like doing so for various reasons. Personally (and, of course, if true), I applaud the Sox for try to land a guy with a very high ceiling (but with a definite low-ish floor at this contract amount), but on their terms. At the end of the day, not only do you want a guy that wants to be here, you want a guy that is taking a deal because he's happy to get this particular deal. Mindset is important on most personal service contracts, but especially where there is reason to believe that the "talent" is a bit mercurial. I like the thought of bringing a guy in who is contractually motivated to out-perform his contract in a monster way over the next two years to benefit himself. This framework jives with the two-year plan for some of our other talent.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 17, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) To my understanding, the thought is that with dvrs, on demand services, Netflix and the like, live sports is the best value for advertisers since they're watched live I think the above is often true, but far from true across the board. Personally, over the past 2-3 years, apart from the 10-12 home games a year I attend in person, I've moved from watching about 75% of the other innings on television to darn close to 100%. And that's through the magic of DVR. Stay away from news sources of all kind (including social media), DVR the game, and watch all the games when they best fit my schedule on any given day. Fringe benefit is zipping through the many dog games or the ABs of players who infuriate you (second half last year, I didn't watch a single AB from LaRoche or Avi unless it was in ultra-fast mode). Consequently, advertisers got nada from me. Well, Coors and Lexus did, but only because of their fine casting decisions of that one Coors bikini girl and that one Lexus blonde with the dazzling smile. A man must make exceptions here and there.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 17, 2016 -> 01:07 PM) It's fine to disagree. I seem to be the only one with this point of view. He is extremely good at his job. I wouldn't deny that. I just don't see it in this case. Well said. Lots of value in considered disagreements and not blindly sipping on the Kool-Aid. Doing the latter is okay if you're in Jones Town, or, if you're a Cubs fan.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 17, 2016 -> 11:54 AM) That is usually the agent's job, to negotiate a better deal than the original. I'm sure they are really happy that the Orioles offered that big deal prior to realizing there was no money for big contracts this off season. My comments were directed toward the "what a great job Boras did." He basically looked at the original offer and turned into Butthead and saying" Uh, OK." He earned a large chunk of change for really no negotiating. Davis could have agreed to their first offer with no representation and did nearly as well without paying an agent. With all due respect (because you are generally one of my must-reads here on Soxtalk), I could not disagree with you more. Boras ... was the reason the Orioles offered Davis what they offered him originally. The O's knew who they were dealing with and likely saw no value in trading opening show salvos. In addition, the first formal "offer" was likely tendered following all sorts of informal communications outlining what Davis expected to see. And then, following the crazy money going to good plus, but hardly superstar Hayward, we see this wacky market that nobody predicted -- pitchers, even journeymen, getting mega dollars, position players having to scratch and claw, and the top of the market position players suddenly being all but ignored. The Orioles could have moved on from Davis at any time, they could have dropped their offer by 25% or more with this new reality, and yet, Boras did what he does -- postured, obfuscated, created technically possible but really illusory markets (see Davis as a corner OF'er), and most all NEVER, EVER caving to get the same total dollar deal that had been offered under VERY different circumstances months previously. I think if you only focus on the agent's job being "to negotiate a better deal than the original," you erroneously give Boras and Co. no credit for that crazy original, plus you miss the subtlety of him getting anything close when in the interim there had been an almost stock market crash on position players. And the full truth is that Boras didn't even get the original deal -- the $1M more than he got in AAV is eclipsed by the significant deferral that is very unlikely to have been part of the first incarnation of the deal. But the Evil Prince got close. With a markedly changed market. With only one true bidder (it's amazing how Boras does that time and time again). If you're Hosmer, Moustakas, Kris Bryant, or our very own Carlos Rodon, do you like Boras more or less than you did a month ago. To me, looking at the full situation, you have to like the guy more ... a LOT more. I dislike virtually everything about that guy, but I have to give him his props. And if I or my son had been a top baseball talent, I wouldn't hesitate to use him -- focusing only on playing the game, letting Boras do what he does, and keeping clear from the firestorm to minimize becoming collateral damage at a personal level. Scott Boras is the consummate hired gun.

I try to generally avoid paralysis through over-analysis and just keep things simple and REAL (there can be so much clutter and white noise) ... no matter the temporary real or staged stalemate on Davis, no matter the exact payment on the finalized deal and how it compared to the deal that had been on the table for months, that Boras was able to get that deal offered in the first place (on Chris effin Davis), that he and everyone could watch the position player/hitter market move as it did, that there could be no other serious landing spot for Davis, and that anything close to that original deal was still available later is classic Boras in every way. The dude is the evil magician. The lawyer in me loves him; the baseball and Sox fan in me detests him. Amazing that he could pull this off, but now that he's out of the way (just his foul air to still breathe), we'll have pretty quick resolutions on Cespedes, Upton, and Fowler. PS ... And Boras being Boras is why there is no effin doubt that the RH is already working on the best exit strategy for Carlos Rodon after getting a number of strong years out of him when the Sox hold all the cards.

Sorry -- neglected in my pre morning coffee state to make clear (as I did last evening) that the overall interest in Markakis (as a fallback option) also requires no prospect we really care about being shipped to the Braves as part of any trade, possible difficult contract for difficult contract aspect (Danks? LaRoche???), and some level of Braves financial commitment. It's been rumored in some circles that the Braves want to dump. IF his medicals check out (always have confidence in the Sox on this), then he's well worth taking a flyer on as a possible Plan whatever (but I never suggested he's anywhere near our ideal plan, simply an incremental upgrade). Reasonable minds can differ. That accounts for the ability of MANY trades to be done in the first place.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 06:19 AM) Markakis hit 3 HRs in nearly 700 ABs. His ISO last year was .080. For perspective, Carlos Sanchez's ISO was .103. He may have a nice OBP, but no way in hell am I committing $11M/per for three years to a corner OF with those kind of power numbers. I'm certain you're raising this for argument's sake rather than believing his 2015 ISO stops any serious consideration of Markakis as Plan B (or C, D, or E). How about adding these to the brew: * Advanced professional hitter for nearly a decade * Continuing ability to be a left-handed stick * Regularly among OF leaders in OBP * Low-ish strikeouts, plus has a clue about situational hitting * Been a doubles-machine many years of his career * Last year's power numbers (first year in the NL) "MAY" be a total outlier * IS a RF * Passes the eye-test as a good defender (understand that the somewhat controversial advanced defensive metrics are mixed) * $11M AAV for the next 3 years is likely solid value for his likely WAR (likely to age fairly well given his body type) * Cool name Seriously, I can't believe I'm appearing to be an advocate for bringing in 2016 version Nick Markakis. There are all sorts of possible moves I hope we hit on before I go to Plan Whatever. That said, for some of the reasons set forth above and more, he is absolutely a solid incremental addition worth considering if we need to. It's about fit for a particular team. Brute thumping isn't the only gauge of any player, plus what tools can a possible acquisition bring to a team that a certain team might otherwise have in short supply? A football team in need of OL help doesn't forego a prospective lineman because he can't run a sub 5.0 40.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 10:42 PM) People seriously want Markakis? Kemp? Why? I'll bite. I for one have no interest in Kemp. Way too expensive for current capabilities. If you can afford him, then you can afford to win the Cespedes auction. But a guy like Markakis is a pro's pro. At $11M, he's a good player and priced fairly. The Sox aren't free spenders and will rarely win a bidding war, primarily because they refuse to play. So you win one occasionally, wrap up some stars on sweetheart deals (hello Sale and Quintana), lock in another one on a fair deal (Abreu), and get incremental improvements where you can. I'm hip to getting a whole bunch of incremental improvement even if all of the individual names don't shout current "star." For instance, add 2 WAR each (possibly more) in RF, 2B, and C ... on top of the maybe 4-5 additional WAR (hopefully) at 3B ... and you've got yourself something like a 10 game swing. Hope that the better team and vibe gets improvement out of Melky and LaRoche (and I think that will happen; it almost has to), plus the better team and competitive spirit brings out the absolute best in Sale, Q, Robertson, and Abreu, and I think that with the always required dollop of good luck, we'd have a contender on our hands. If you have a borderline strong team, you make these incremental improvements every time you can. Of course that assumes that you're intelligent in selecting the specific players for these incremental improvements AND you're budget sensitive so you leave something available for stretch additions and/or next year.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 10:04 PM) Marlins signed E Jax. Thank God. Wouldn't have been a major target of mine, but he could have competed for #5 with Beck and Carroll, with Jackson sliding over to long-relief (where he looks like he'll have success) if he doesn't win a #5 starter competition. Tough to keep track of the comings and goings of these one time shooting stars and now vagabonds. Next you'll tell me Tommy Hansen isn't available. What? Too soon? No offense Tommy -- may you R.I.P.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:15 PM) Who would you replace Danks with in the rotation? Turner, likely not. Beck or Carroll? You'd seemingly have to go for Fister, Latos, Gallardo, Chen, Kennedy, etc. Which are going to cost another $10-15 million, so let's just imagine we're adding something like $8-10 million overall to the payroll, putting us around $127-130. That's seemingly doable. I think the biggest issue there is how willing the Braves are to take Danks for one rebuilding season...rather than just giving up a little subsidy/sweetener to rid the Markakis contract but not taking on additional commitments, since they're also partially on the hook for Arroyo as well. All things considered, they might be more motivated to dump Swisher or Bourn first. Funny how a once "sexy" player like Markakis has turned into boring. I think that's overstated. He's a pro. Given the construction of this team and the window to succeed, his skill-set is a nice match with the Sox. There are time to take a wild flyer on potential and there's a time to make a good bet -- pay some value, but be pretty confident that even the likely "floor" will give you good overall improvement. It's why for me, I rated the big-3 OF'ers for the Sox: Gordon > Cespedes > Upton (albeit that Cespedes gets an asterisk because his ceiling might be devastating game changer). Taking on Markakis @ $11M, giving up Danks @ nearly $16M, and signing a veteran 4-5 level starter at whatever is inconsequential for a team going for it. And I trust in the Sox ability to select that vet -- personally, I like the idea of Latos, wouldn't touch today's Fister, but might consider E. Jackson as long as Coop continues to whisper in his ear. Assume the other EJ (Johnson) can get it done as a #4 and go from there. If the team performs as expected, but the back end of the rotation looks weak down the stretch, then pony up and rent a starter at the deadline. Finally, past history and performance tells me that many NL GMs will have their eye on John Danks in this last year of his contract. Soft-tossing lefties with guile have a way of spinning some magic facing 8-man lineups with lots of slap hitters and big ballparks. NOT saying I love the idea of trading for Markakis; just saying I wouldn't go crazy over budget to sign Cespedes because the money savings could intelligently make this year's squad a better team in a variety of ways.

It would be VERY White Sox to go after Nick Markakis IF the Sox can't land Cespedes (I'm not buying that we've ever been a player for Upton) within the JR budgetary parameters. Kenny always gets his man (and all that jazz). The Sox have been linked to Markakis at various times during his Orioles heyday. Sure, he's not the star he was once projected to be. And his power numbers have diminished to the point where the best that can be said currently is that he has "gap power." But he's a professional hitter, left-handed, a very likely bet to attain the .350 OBP that is needed and so elusive for the Sox, good doubles guy, strikeout rate is decent, and has always shown that good baseball IQ (that is especially valuable in a #2-hole guy). I know the advanced metrics show his fielding reputation has always been overrated, but he's a lot better than what we have, and he has a strong arm as well. In a way, he's almost a poor man's, rightfield playing Alex Gordon. Widely rumored that Braves want to move him and his contract. At $11M, he comes quite a bit cheaper AAV in 2015 than Gordon (admittedly not the same caliber of player). Have to imagine the requested return will be reasonable -- i.e., no significant prospects going to the Braves. In fact, not inconceivable they'd take a year of John Danks to rid themselves of three years of Markakis (and I'm firmly in the camp that John Danks would be a solid #3 or a damned good #4 pitching in the NL). I'd do it. I'm not willing to totally give up on Avi, but it's time to disrupt his world so he understands that at some point raw athletic prowess needs to translate into major league performance.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 10:06 AM) With Boras representing Hosmer and Moustakas, they're gone. Cain is probably about a 30-40% chance to stay, but then you're also having to replace Wade Davis, Volquez, Escobar...that's six core members right there hitting FA simultaneously. It's why keeping Gordon after 2017 isn't logical...not when they can spread that money across 2-3 younger guys and not have to deal with the declining last three years of a five year deal when they're going to be forced to rebuild/retool. Right now, Perez, Soria, Herrera, Ventura and Duffy are the main ones under control into 2018-19. Good info. Thanks. Without stirring up the too frequent crap you take about the "Royals fan" thing, your specific info simply buttresses what the industry wide feeling seems to be about the Royals. They love Gordon; they'll pony-up (to a point); but there's only so far they're going to go, given his age, and given their overall situation. Put simply, they have bigger fish to fry. That's why there is something of a unique opportunity here. The Sox (or another team) can swoop in, better the in-house offer by a significant margin, while still getting an excellent all-around player at something close to the market-price for his WAR. Yes, they'll pay a premium above the Royals price. Makes sense that he'll need to be pried away from his comfort zone. Fine. Pay it. He'll still be a relative bargain (even if you have to go 5 years -- if it makes you feel better, think of it internally as the first 4 years of the 5 year deal at the higher 4 year price, invest the savings, and the 5th year price for a diminished performer somehow is less offensive to our delicate sensibilities). I say go for it. Market inefficiency there to be exploited. And it's all the better because Gordon's overall basket of skills is better for what THIS team, OUR team, needs. Maybe not the high ceiling in one or two categories that Upton or Cespedes might provide, but strong scores in so many areas. I'm here many years as Cy Acosta and have only posted ~150 times (lurked from 2002/2003 with no account as well). Don't post that often because (a) I prefer reading other's opinions, and (b) I generally only offer my opinion if it's something I feel strongly about. I'm not going to keep flogging this horse, you know. It's personal opinion, armchair GM'ing. If I were Hahn, I'd do X. Well, allowing for the factor that RH certainly has access to a lot of hard info that I'm not privy to that might better inform his subjective opinion, I know that if I were Sox GM, I'm all about locking-up the all-around player Gordon -- reaping the benefit of his defense, left-handedness, all-around strong offensive game, fire on the field, supposed quality in the clubhouse -- then pocketing the savings over an Upton or Cespedes signing for more moves later this year or next year.

QUOTE (Frank_Thomas35 @ Dec 24, 2015 -> 08:37 AM) Unfortuantely with the reports out there, that AV you suggest is not going to be enough to to sign him. If we were offering that he would just go back to the Royals, but according to Heyman AGs camp told them as of now they are out because they were offering basically the same contract you just suggested. If the money is close he'll go back to KC, the only way he leaves is if he gets more money, closer to the $20 mil/year or if he gets that 5th year. All "reports" I've seen had the AG group seeking 5 years at an AAV of $20K per and the Royals "allegedly" offering 4 years at an AAV of $12-13M. Of course, all agents and clubs use the press for leverage and obfuscation. However, if the above reports are true or nearly so, then letting Gordon choose between 4/$72M and 5/$80M is quite a bit better than anything the Royals have on the table. Personally, my belief is that with all the younger talent coming up for the Royals who need to be signed the next 1-2 years, they've got a line in the sand pegged for Gordon. At or below that line, they'll welcome back their native son with open arms. Above that line, they'll feel the need to be disciplined for the priorities that Hosmer, Perez, and Moustakas have over AG because of age, position, or both. I think the Royals ceiling is likely $15-16M AAV. I haven't seen anything that suggests they've offered nearly that high (which is why his agent is likely working hard to create the reality or illusion of a market). I think a White Sox offer of 4/$72M or 5/$80M is likely $10M or more better than what the Royals would offer. That's likely enough to get him to move to the Dark Side. And if necessary, I'd bump it up to 4/$76M or 5/$85M. KC is in the proverbial pickle. Gordon is ripe for the plucking. Get 'er done, Rick.

Perhaps this is how it's playing out: RH (to Gordon's agent, Casey Close): We want your guy. We also want the PR spike that comes from a holiday gift for our fans. 4/$72 ($18M AV). Very strong offer. If you need that 5th year, it's 5/$80 ($16M AV). Offer open until 12/30, but then we move on. Get your guy to join next year's division champ. And he won't have to flail at Sale.

I'm all for an Alex Gordon signing. In a vacuum, both Cespedes and Upton are bigger offensive threats than Gordon, even though Gordon is a strong offensive player in his own right. But this isn't a vacuum, it's selecting one player to best fit our circumstances. Weighing everything, I think that means Gordon -- and rather handily. Factors that make Gordon the chosen one, include: * His OBP is better and should continue to be better * Handedness does matter and the Sox need a strong left-handed bat * The Sox don't need another masher, they need a talented overall bat (I'd go Eaton, Melky, Gordon, Abreu) * Defense matters. A lot. And the Sox need it badly. The others aren't bad, but Gordon is strong. * Gordon has a track record of success in the AL Central. * $$$. Repeat, $$$. Gordon might cost 4/$72M (something like that). The others are likely both at least 6/$130M. The Sox could plow some of this savings immediately into pitching, or save some as additional war-chest for the deadline deal that we'll undoubtedly need this year for our playoff push. Yes, he has some cons: he's a little older, has a recent injury (I trust our medical/training team), and doesn't have the same "shock and awe" factor as the other two. Even if those things matter, they pale in comparison to his many pros. For me, Gordon fits our circumstances the best, but you'll hear no complaints from me about either Cespedes or Upton (different pros and cons, but similar overall impact from my perspective).

If speculation about what it would take for Upton or Cespedes match with the reality, then I'm as happy as can be that they made neither of those deals. Given how the White Sox are currently configured, both of these over-hyped rentals add little to the mix. If you're renting, then you need as sure fire of a difference maker as you can find. Both of these slump-prone sluggers are ... well, blah. Maybe, maybe you take them if someone is giving them away for dime-a-dozen prospects. But if you're dipping into the top prospect tier for a just now developing system for ... that ... then I'd see it as a horrible deal in concept (no matter how it actually turns out). I'm surprised a Danks for Ethier deal couldn't work (or high-priced Danks for high-priced superfluous (to someone) offensive player. Seems tp be a classic win/win. As for Jeff S., my hunch is they didn't receive anything near what Cueto or Hammels fetched. Not needing him themselves is one thing (and they do need him, plus he does bring a low-ish draft pick), but getting out of being perceived as a trading b*tch has value. You want the guy, then you have to pay something reasonably attractive for us. Otherwise, your loss. I have no interest in the Sox being the old KC Athletics to the modern equivalent of the 40s and 50s Yankees. My thought is the reason they didn't trade Smardjiza is the returns weren't attractive. Q is as good as gone in the offseason. Essentially auction him off to all of baseball -- someone will get a no doubt about it Top 30-40 starter (plus a lefty who has been as consistent as any pitcher in years); the Sox should absolute expect to get the proverbial "haul." And they need that haul for sustained success.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jun 10, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) I went to the same high school as Stadler and have a brother who's a student there and a brother who's a teacher and football coach there. Just texted them to ask about Stadler, and here's what they say: "No. Too mentally weak. Just got beat up in his last high school start too." "He is 6'8" and has a straight fastball that reaches about 88. He is soft with no offspeed pitches. One of the best players on North just scoffed at that text because Fitz isn't very good." I haven't seen him pitch so I don't know, but what do you see in him? Well, reasonable minds can differ, eh? College baseball super-heavyweight ASU wants him, so there's that. Won't go into details, but I have very direct GBS connections and have seen Fitz pitch a couple of times. Very talented high school pitcher ... with bell-curve quality high school coaching (meaning adequate) ... with enormous upside. Can't coach 6'8" or 6'9". Give the kid his "man strength," coach him up (ASU or quality minor league staff), and 88-90 becomes 95-97 just like that. Intelligent and likable kid. Good family. Brothers playing Division I sports. Yes, took a loss in last high school tourney game. Multiple scouts in attendance overheard muttering about typically poor high school umpires squeezing the kid unmercifully. QB of the football team too, for Pete's sake. Soft? Mentally weak? So easy to throw out labels. Anyway, I have no idea whether the kid will ever pitch in the pros, but just like ASU feels great about giving him one of their incredibly coveted spots, some GM will try to entice him away from ASU with a disproportionate bonus. Someone will always take a shot on someone with extreme measureables. I'll call it the Micker Adolpho Zapata theory.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) Samardijiza is actually in line to start the opener so far. But so is Quintana -- they both pitched yesterday. My take -- the Sox will go with Quintana. He's been an exemplary citizen and performer for a few years now. National recognition means nothing -- everyone who knows baseball knows that Quintana and Samardzija are in the same general tier of pitcher. This is where having a respected ex-player like Robin comes into play. He knows when it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other (in terms of quality), the locker room benefits by going with the guy with seniority. And my read on the blue-collar, union guy JS is that he'd actually respect that decision MORE than going with the new kid on the block (and maybe that's another tipping factor in the re-signing decision).

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 01:30 AM) Surkamp over Snodgress. And I would bet we sign another reliever by the end of the winter meetings. Nate Jones says hello!

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 11:28 PM) Any time busts come up its Navarro and rightfully so. People should have a look back at just how bad he was. Navarro to the Sox is like Edwin Jackson to the cubs. Very similar in how bad they were. Navarro was abysmal. And the Sox were afflicted with the double whammy -- he was horrible AND durable. As a Sox fan I hated his on field performance like none other (and heard all the rumors about what a terrible teammate he was as well). But a good friend bought into the Navarro hype for his Fantasy Team and Navarro just killed his team all year long -- THAT was hilarious.

In my opinion, this played out exactly as would be expected. NOBODY was going to take current version Adam Dunn for all or most of this season at those $$$, unless they had no other options. That said, in this era where power is so much more difficult to find, there were always going to be 2-3 playoff contenders who would have interest for Dunn's particular skill set (and as much as I dislike that overall type of player, Dunn certainly has SOME value) for their September stretch run and possible playoff run as well. From all accounts, Oakland, SF, and the Dodgers were bidding on Dunn at the deadline. It's likely there was another team or two involved as well. Rick Hahn is a very smart man. I'm sure he made every bidder understand that there was interest from multiple sources and that they should be prepared to make their best possible bid because high bidder gets the commodity (such as it is). I'm also sure he made it clear that he wouldn't simply give Dunn away -- the Sox were already committed to the salary and they could just sit him in September once rosters expand (translation -- going forward, deal with us as equals because we're not going to be anybody's biatches). When the dust settled, Sanburn plus $1M or so of salary relief must have been considered best deal on the table. And Dunn to the A's it is. And a little more for the war chest next year. A live arm plus ANY money was a win. Best of luck, Adam. I'm not at all a fan of one dimensional slugger types, but that isn't his fault -- he is what he is and the Sox paid for that (albeit that they get the one dimensional slugger in decline, rather than one of the surest bets in baseball history up to that point). By all accounts he's a super good guy. The world could use more of those.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) ... The last season Surkamp started at full strength, he won the AA pitching triple crown. He now has a better K/BB, K/IP rate in AAA. Nobody said he's Jesus Christ ... Of course he isn't. JC has amassed far more saves. Easy jokes aside, I'm all in favor of seeing what Surkamp can do in the Bigs. I respect what Jake has to say about not jerking pitchers around. My own baseball background is such that I understand that a linear, orderly, sensible development plan is the better idea when circumstances allow. Unfortunately, circumstances don't always allow. At least not for every "prospect." Surkamp comes to us as something of a failed prospect. Perhaps that's too harsh. Maybe it's best to call him a suspect prospect -- someone who is more likely the classic AAAA player than anything else. He's had a good amount of success in the minors. There are certainly quality major league left-handed starters who had roughly his type of arsenal. But, at some point, the only real question is whether his "stuff" plays at the major league level. And you know that only by checking that out. Thus far -- in an admittedly VERY limited run -- it hasn't. But that doesn't mean that much. You need only look at players like Gillaspie and Eaton to see that it's foolish to assume a prospect's ceiling from his first taste of the Bigs. I'm quite sure what many are worrying about here doesn't worry Surkamp in the least. The Parent Club wants him. No matter the current role, the Sox want to see if he's capable of getting major league hitters out. If he can show that he can do that consistently, then all sorts of opportunities open up for him. And with his specific tools, that most likely means L.H. starter.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jun 23, 2014 -> 07:39 PM) That was an excellent job by Flowers to take a straight fastball right now the middle. Nothing you can do with a fastball right now the middle but just watch it blow through your wheelhouse and turn around and walk back. One problem with your analysis ... Tyler Flowers doesn't have a "wheelhouse."