Eminor3rd

At a glance, the only difference in his productivity is that he simply started hitting homers. The only thing I can see in his peripherals is that he's swinging at more pitches -- both good and bad -- than he did at the beginning of his career.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 07:45 PM) This is very true but also very depressing lol I still idolize select players (Sale, Konerko, Thome, etc), but I don't think I'll do that anymore when I get to the point when I'm older than all the players in MLB. That just seems weird honestly. To be fair: If you're a teenager, by the time you're older than all the players you won't agree with practically anything you think now.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:13 PM) How do you justify voting for Piazza but not Bagwell? No clue. Our Ticket sales VP held an office HOF ballot today and the results were identical. Griffey and Piazza, no Bagwell.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 08:57 AM) Ok. He was a better hitter but does the fact that he couldn't play defense make him a better player? The way I look at it is that the WAR side of it bakes in the penalty. Even with the DH penalty knocking a win and a half off of every season, he still comes out looking like he belongs. So to me, that means his offense was superlative enough to put him in.

Yeah you have to remember that the Sox could NOT have had Gordon at 4/72 -- they would have needed to beat that offer by enough to pull him away from KC. Minimum is probably 4/80, maybe more. So evaluate whether you wanted him at 4/80 or 4/85 at least. Maybe the answer is still yes. I think I'm on the fence at that price, especially given that there are other options.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 04:51 PM) Martinez is an interesting case with being primarily a DH. That's more the issue. If Thomas was the only one between him and the MVP, he should have finished higher in the voting. If a player sucks so bad defense that he was a DH even at a young age is he one of the best players of a time? Yeah but look at those numbers. In 1995, Martinez was a 7.0 WAR DH! Jesus Christ. OBP of .470. How do you even slug .628 while only hitting 29 homers? 52 doubles is how, lol. I get that the DH can be a penalty, but that guy was MASHING on an otherwordly level for a pretty sustained amount of time. I mean, if the DH penalty knocks those numbers down THAT much, then I think you'd have to make an argument that no relief pitcher should ever be considered for the HOF under any circumstances. I don't think anyone will argue that Mariano Rivera shouldn't be in, yet Edgar Martinez was substantially more productive than Rivera. Martinez was NINETEEN WAR better than Ortiz currently is, despite playing in over 800 fewer games. I apologize for saying Ortiz was better at peak -- I didn't have the numbers in front of me.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 05:26 PM) Is it even true that Ortiz was better in relation to his peers? Whether you go by fWAR or bWAR Martinez has a substantial advantage by WAR, and when it comes to hitting the only thing Ortiz has on Edgar is HR (granted by a big margin), while Edgar is better at everything else, especially in OBP. Though Ortiz did lead the AL in wRC+ (157) during his offensive peak ('03-'07), during Edgar's offensive peak ('95-'00), he also led the AL in wRC+ (163) if you don't count McGwire's two and a half seasons in the AL during that time (and you shouldn't). If you go by full career instead of offensive peak Edgar looks better than Ortiz compared to his peers by wRC+. Yes Ortiz has more top 5 MVP finishes, but that assumes the voting in those isn't flawed, and he for sure didn't deserve to be top 5 in '03 or '04. Yeah, that's true. wRC+ is the best tool in this case (comparing hitters to the context they were in). Edgar comes out ahead of Ortiz even controlling for the steroid era.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 04:35 PM) I'd argue differently when one of the two finished 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th in MVP voting during a 5-year stretch. You can argue about PED speculation if you'd like, and that's probably fair, but the original comment was if PEDs were a non-issue Oh I wasn't talking about PEDs at all. I think I'd agree that peak Ortiz was a bit better in relation to his peers than Martinez was, but Martinez's peers were so much better at the time that it feels like splitting hairs. I'm not willing to think of Edgar as a lesser player simply because he peaked in the same years as Frank Thomas.

I honestly don't think teams care nearly as much about years as we think they do. At the top of the free agent market, I think the most important number is total committed dollars. Years and AAV are important for cashflow purposes, but I think the owners see it as "we are paying $100mm for that player" much moreso than they're thinking "this player will be overpaid on a per-year basis in the last year of this contract," and when it comes to those types of mega-deals, the GMs involve ownership heavily in terms of how they affect the budget. Because of inflation, deferred money can even be an advantage for owners -- they just have to be willing to grant an annual budget exception if it makes sense to do so.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) Meh. If PEDs were not an issue at all, Ortiz still has better case. He's probably going to finish 19th all time in HR and 22nd in RBI. He's finished in the top 5 of MVP voting 6 times and has 10 AS Games. Edgar Martinez had a better BA/OBP but he never finished in the elite of the league. Martinez is like Mike Mussina in that regards. If the bolded is true of Edgar Martinez, it's also true of David Ortiz. Their career accolades are very similar, actually. Bunch of Silver Sluggers and AS appearances, no MVPs. Ironically, David Ortiz is a seven-time recipient of the MLB's Edgar Martinez award, lol.

Gordon is the best roster fit for 2016 because he checks all of our "most needed attributes" boxes. Left-handed, high-end defender, OBP focused, comfortable in AL. We need dudes on base in front of the power guys (Abreu, Frazier)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) And the big part of that is the very flukish looking Pittsburgh time. This year he is going back to Toronto. Again, I'm not saying Happ is legit or that it was a good deal. I'm just saying it makes more sense that the Jays think something changed in Pittsburgh, not that his career average was worth 3/36.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 02:25 PM) In his 20 AL starts, he pretty much was about as bad as John Danks in 2015. I'm not saying I would have given Happ the deal, personally, but the alternative explanation (that the Jays eagerly paid 3/36 because that's what they think 180 innings of 4.60 ERA is worth) is one that I don't buy for a minute. Teams gave three year deals for mid-4 ERAs in the steroid era sometimes, but not in today's environment.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) "Because the Dodgers have already provided a $28.5 million signing bonus, the Braves will simply be responsible for the $32.5 million Olivera is owed from 2016-20. Atlanta also saved some money as the Dodgers are picking up an undisclosed portion of the approximate $7.6 million owed to Arroyo, who has been recovering from Tommy John surgery since the Braves acquired him from the D-backs in the Touki Toussaint deal a month ago. Though the 30-year-old Olivera has played just 19 professional games, the Braves have seen enough of him in international play and during multiple workouts this past winter to believe it made much more sense to provide him an average annual salary of $6.5 million over the next five seasons than to pay the much more significant price that would have been required to land a proven bat via free agency or trade." Mlb.com Something else to consider...financially. ?

Look at Happ's 2015 season. THAT is why he got a three year deal. The Danksian previous seasons are why it was only 3/36. Like I said, if Danks pulls out a 3.50-ish ERA this year, he'll sign a decent little contract, too. But he hasn't done anything remotely close to that since his injury. Happ has, exactly once, but he did it and it was this past season. That's the difference.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) I think a 3 yr deal at a higher AAV with a 4th year option is ideal for the Sox Unfortunately it's ideal for a lot of teams, Royals included. If Gordon ends up signing for 3/60 with options/opt-outs, I don't think he'll do it with the White Sox.

In general, I think that controversy and uncertainty makes sports/entertainment more interesting, because the whole point of it is to think and form opinions and takes stands, etc. It's just fuel for the fire. Like the MVP race every year, for example: everyone is calling for more objective standards, yet the MLB could not possibly be LESS incented to do that because the whole point of the award is to create interesting content in the offseason, and the more heatedly people argue, the more they are engaged. However, all of this HOF/drug use stuff has had the opposite effect for me. First I bounced from one strong opinion to the other, then I turned bitter and felt sad and hoped it would pass, and now I just feel like the HOF is kind of a joke and I just stopped caring about it. It produce a mixture of indifference and slight negativity in my brain. Now, unfortunately, I can truly say that I almost don't care at all who gets in the HOF. It's a shame, but there it is.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pricing-ale...hree-year-deal/

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 4, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) I appreciate John Danks more than most, but there is virtually no chance he is on the 2017 roster. While, yes, his rank as a qualified pitcher has left a lot to be desired, if you look at teams' 5th starter position, they use a lot of non qualified guys. I doubt many teams get much more out of their #5 starter than the White Sox. But even if he is better than he is been, he would become a 5 and 10 guy in 2017, giving him full trade protection. The White Sox save that for guys like Buehrle and Konerko and Fisk, not Johnny Danks. He's a goner unless he wants to pitch for total reclamation project money on a 1 year deal. Agreed. This season is his chance to pitch back up to mid-rotation consideration. If he does, he could sign a Happ contract like someone said. If not though, the opportunity cost of locking a 5th starter into your rotation is higher than merely his salary, because you want to give those innings to rookies with upside who are getting acclimated to the majors. Without some improvement, he's going to be seen as a stopgap, which means he'll sign late in the offseason or early at a very low and possibly incentives-based deal. If the White Sox end up giving him that deal, it probably means something went wrong -- either injuries or failed development of younger guys.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 1, 2016 -> 02:23 PM) Wat

75 - 80 wRC+ w/ +8 Defensive runs saved = ~1.0 - 1.5 WAR

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 03:53 PM) Agree. And, frankly, same with Laroche and his salary. and if you're going to move Robertson, move him when teams were hot for a late inning guy; big prices were paid for those pitchers (albeit the prices were paid in *shudder* prospects). Pitching also seems to be the most inflated asset at the deadline.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nate-jones-...all-smart-deal/

If we get rid of Robertson, we would then be in the market for late-inning relief pitching. As I've said before, if one dude's $12m salary gets in the way of signing a $100m+ player, then JR needs to sell the franchise and get into another line of work.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) I did something? Just sayin', two major injuries in short amount of time. That was a lot of time and effort to come back from those injuries. And that amount of money won't cripple the Sox playroll. Good for him and his career. He hurt his butt, remember?