Eminor3rd

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) How do we know the Sox haven't already locked up some of that top talent? How do we know that the government isn't being run by super-intelligent space monkeys that live in the center of the moon? We don't, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's the case.

I'm so f***ing tired of this s***. I want to know how I feel about my team in 2016. Pitchers and catcher report like tomorrow.

QUOTE (SoxSteve @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 04:29 PM) Question for some on this board. What is up with this WAR fascination when determining if the guy is a good fit or not? I see alot of post where this guy is a 2 WAR and this guy is a 3 WAR. I'm not against any metrics at all and teams should try to use everything at their disposal to win games but WAR is the last thing i look at when determining if i want the player on my team. I don't need the WAR number of CESPEDAS, GORDON or UPTON to know that i wanted them on the Sox. I have no idea what is was not should i care. All i know that i wanted any of them with Gordon and Upton being most desirable because of the OBP. Some teams probably wanted Cespedas because they need the power. To each there own. Do most here look at war for a determination on what fits the Sox best? To me it's a non factor but maybe I'm in the minority. Thanx It's a very convenient short-hand that gives us an idea of the magnitude of impact a guy would make. So, for example: We all wanted Justin Upton on the team. We all agree that he would improve us via higher OBP, more power, and slightly better defense. But his cost is very high. Is he worth it to the White Sox? We all know he's better, but how can we tell that he would be "worth" the resources he would cost? By using WAR, we can quickly get a sense for where the biggest "black holes" are in our team, from the perspective of total value. When you look at the projections, it shows that Garcia looks like a 0 WAR guy, and Upton looks like a 4 WAR guy, so we say that making that specific upgrade could mean the difference of up to 4 wins, which is obviously huge. Compare that to Saladino, who projects as a 2 WAR guy, and Desmond, who projects (at the most optimistic) as a 3 WAR guy, and we see that the difference might only be about 1 win. So we conclude that getting a guy like Upton would have made a much larger marginal impact than getting someone like Desmond, and probably a wise use of resources (assuming the resources were there in the first place). It's essentially just for context and comparison. All of the specific performance numbers you mentioned are what make up the WAR, but it's close to impossible for us to accurately compare their relative values all at once. WAR let's math determine that so we don't just have to rely on our gut feelings. You may feel like defense is the biggest team issue, and I may feel like OBP is our biggest issue. Both of us might be right, but who knows? If you're a GM, you want an objective way to weigh the magnitudes of those factors, both in terms of your team's composition and the options available to replace them.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 11, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) If we signed Desmond I'd rather try him in the outfield, platoon Avi/Adam and let Tyler stay at short. I know that's not going to happen but I'd prefer that route. ...which shows you how wrong Heyman is when he says that a SS upgrade is a better fit than another OF. Which is why we should sign a real OF instead.

This is not a solution.

I think the best system is to do away with the QO altogether. Revenue is at a record high and teams are more aware of service time/asset cost than ever. With any semblence of proper planning, practically every team can afford to extend its superstars if it really wants to, and they all know well enough to trade them otherwise. The compensation for losing the player is the monster package of prospects to acquire when you trade them, or it's the 6 best years of the player's career you got to use.

Orioles back in on Fowler. Hahn continues to dick around. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/orio...ter-fowler.html

QUOTE (Dunt @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 05:08 PM) Sox brass is going to get pounded if Avi is your starting RFer And they should, honestly. When the market is completely flush with options and prices are lower than they've been in years, you have to make a move that makes as much sense as this one has.

QUOTE (Tannerfan @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) Why does Law not like Fulmer? Law seems to be very conservative about mechanics -- he's got a history of expecting guys with funky deliveries to break down.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) True. I'm not mad about it or anything. Its chump change. I just can't fathom a scenario that Turner breaks camp with the Sox (baring injury), and he's probably getting paid too much to be claimed off waivers if he doesn't. So basically you're paying him $1.5M to play in Charlotte. Maybe he has a nice spring and another teams swoops him up, but I kind of doubt it. Depth is very important, and doubly so for your pitching staff. At the same time, it's hard to get ML starters to sign knowing they'll be stashed in the bullpen or AAA until an injury happens. To me, $1.5m for one fo those guys is well worth it.

QUOTE (SoCalSox @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 10:42 AM) If they can get Fowler at 2/20, what the f*** are they waiting for? I imagine it's more likely that they're waiting for Fowler to cave in to that price than the other way around.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2016 -> 10:57 AM) Yeah I still think that deal is too low. Kendrick is very specifically a 2b or a DH. Fowler could pass in 3 OF positions, or DH (in a literal sense). He is younger than Kendrick. There's no reason he should be stuck to that specific deal. I'd be surprised if less than 12 mill per year. I would, too. But I just want to point out that comparison pricing in this situation is a fallacy -- "market rates" only apply when demand significantly outstrips supply. In the case of free agency, and ESPECIALLY late-offseason free agency, every time a guy signs a deal, he removes a major chunk of demand along with the supply he provides. Dexter Fowler is not currently shopping in the same environment that earlier free agents (even Kendrick) signed. So who knows? He could get sign any manner of crazy deal.

Probably removes another suitor for Fowler.

I'll say it again: to anyone still referencing the existence of a hard "three-year contention window" that we're currently in -- that quotation was taken entirely out of context. Williams' was referring to the idea of a rolling three-year outlook, specifically that ideas need to fit into that process.

LaRoche depth

Wow, nice. Could be a very important depth move. Kudos to the front office today.

I could have sworn Yulieski was already playing in the NPB. I also thought it was spelled, "Gourriel." Anyway, if I'm thinking of the right guy, he's got major swing-and-miss issues and scouts didn't think he could make enough contact to be a MLB star. Then again, many said the same about Abreu.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) So my dad, die hard Dodger fan, says there has been a lot of talk in LA about Sox being aggressively interested in Puig. No inside sources, just what people on the radio are speculating. Evidently Dodgers are trying to push Ethier. But long story short, it is getting coverage in LA media as well (with there reports being the Sox aren't offering the front line pitching the Dodgers want...which I presume means Hahn is trying to get a deal sold around prospects). That probably means you need to get a 3rd team in and have the Sox give those spects to the third team with the Dodgers getting a front line pitcher. Interesting. Hahn seems to be a pro at three-team deals. Which team has high-end pitching to move for prospects, though? EDIT: Tampa, duh.

I'm not totally certain, as this is totally an emotional thing for me and who knows what my emotions are going to do. But I'm pretty sure I would stay a fan. After all, I've been a Sox fan living outside of Chicago much more often than I've been a Sox fan living IN Chicago, so it won't change how I consume the product. For some reason, I feel like I'd be more likely to stay a fan if they were still called the "White Sox."

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) I bet people would be shocked that Coghlan had a higher fWAR than Fowler last year. He's a hard platooner though -- literally 0 wRC+ against lefties in 2015

For real though pitchers and catcher report in two weeks. This needs to get done.

What's the format?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) It is though kind of. They spent a ton of money on the international market instead of spending it on the roster. They also signed a couple of free agents (Feldman, Hammel) with the intention of trading them. These are things that "rebuilding" teams do. Yes, but those aren't things that you have to tank to be able to do. The Dodgers are doing those things, too.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Feb 3, 2016 -> 12:10 PM) You are coming off the Astros and Cubs both tanking during the most recent CBA, so I'm not sure its a non-issue. Obviously it has worked well for them to accumulate talent to either join their ML rosters or to be used as trade chips to acquire ML assets. It is obviously an issue, I was hoping the Sox could have taken advantage of the system in the impending rebuild after this rebuild fails. People focus on the number one pick, but it is about much more than that, it is about having the financial flexibility in the draft to select top talent in the later rounds of the draft. When the Astros selected Correa and signed him to an underslot deal, they were able to select guys like Lance McCullers and Rio Ruiz later in the draft using the money banked on the Correa deal. Both guys were thought top 30 talents. Then when they selected Aiken, they had deals worked out with Jacob Nix and Mac Marshall, again two really highly thought of guys that were thought to be tough signs. Obviously Aiken not signing hurt that, but they came out ahead when they were able to sign three of the top 10 players in the draft this season re-allocating money from the Aiken pick again. The circumstances that led to the tanking were well underway before the CBA. Neither team is poised to repeat the strategies that got them there. The fact that they nailed a couple draft picks over several years isn't evidence that tanking is a preferred strategy -- I'd argue the fact they have become good despite botching two drafts is actually evidence to the contrary. And that's because the speed of both teams' (and ESPECIALLY the Cubs) turnaround is as much or more due to shrewd trading and international signings (which are not benefits that are enabled by tanking) as it is due to high draft choices.

Great work, Matt. Welcome!