Eminor3rd

So fire Robin, right?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 6, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) I think we can replace Quintana (maybe not in terms of exact of value) much easier than any of the positional holes. This FA class is robust with SP and offers nothing in terms of positional players unless you want to give 200 M to either Upton or Heyward. Weiters, Gordon and Ian Desmond are the next tier. Catchers: Alex Avila (29) Chris Iannetta (33) John Jaso (32) George Kottaras (32) Jose Molina (41) Dioner Navarro (32) Brayan Pena (34) A.J. Pierzynski (39) Matt Wieters (30) Third Base: Joaquin Arias (31) Mike Aviles (35) Gordon Beckham (29) Willie Bloomquist (38) Kevin Frandsen (34) David Freese (33) Jonathan Herrera (31) Maicer Izturis (35) – $3MM club option with a $1MM buyout Don Kelly (36) Jeff Keppinger (36) Casey McGehee (32) Aramis Ramirez (38) Sean Rodriguez (31) Juan Uribe (37) Shortstop: Joaquin Arias (31) Mike Aviles (35) Willie Bloomquist (38) Asdrubal Cabrera (30) Ian Desmond (30) Stephen Drew (33) Alcides Escobar (29) – $5.25MM club option with a $500K buyout Maicer Izturis (35) – $3MM club option with a $1MM buyout Cliff Pennington (32) Alexei Ramirez (34) – $10MM club option with a $1MM buyout Sean Rodriguez (31) Jimmy Rollins (37) Brendan Ryan (34) – $1MM player option Do any of these players make a lot of sense for the Sox? I don't see it. Maybe Ben Zobrist but I am sure he has plenty of team who will be interested in his services. The Sox have C, 2B, SS, 3B as tremendous holes. I assume they'll go with some combo of Micah and Sanchez at 2B. They're probably stuck with one of Flowers or Alexei at C/SS. I don't see any enticing free agents at 3B or C/SS unless you want to take a significant risk on Wieters. I think trading Quintana for a gaggle of players is the best way to replenish our weakness. Then replace Quintana's spot in the rotation with one of the options at SP. EDIT: Which shrewd FA signings do you see in the list? I am with you on that philosophy, not that the Sox have been able to convert on such a strategy, but I don't see any of these types of options in this class. Avila, Ianetta, Weiters, and Jaso would all be substantial catching upgrades. Two are bad defensively, but they can all hit -- and Flowers is bad at both. Ramirez and Uribe would be great short-term signings to upgrade third. I'm assuming we'll pick up Alexei's option and that he'll bounce back to some degree. I think we need at least one FA even WITH Quintana. Could we get two? Probably. But, in general, FA money is inefficient money whereas sub-market extension money is efficient money. Exchanging one for the other is going to result in some sort of loss. Also, I'll flip the availability thing around: If you trade Quintana, who is available to fill those same holes?

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 6, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) I don't think that's true at all. Williams says this is Year 1 of a 3 year plan to maximize the window of opportunity with this current core. I think this past offseason absolutely resembled the team trying to do just that: signing an elite closer, trading for an ace starting pitcher, signing a slugger to bat 4th in the lineup - if those aren't "all in" type moves to try and win with this core, I don't know what is. In fact, both Williams and Hahn practically said as much after the Cabrera signing when they were gushing over Reinsdorf's so-called "competitive spirit" after he approved going over budget to sign the guy. They were as "all in" as they could get. I think when they say three year plan, they actually do mean "do or die" in each year. What else could it mean if you are trying to "maximize" the window of opportunity with this core? The problem is that for the first half of Year 1, it's pretty much been all "die", unfortunately. They are going to have to work hard to find a whole bunch of better players with whom to supplement this core if they hope to win during this window of opportunity. Because when you examine the cost of all of the moves they made, you'll notice that it all falls in the short-term, which is what removes the "die" component from "do or die." The reason that "all-in" has been such a costly proposition the past fifteen years is because teams have borrowed a tremendous amount of their future resources to pay for present upgrades. The White Sox very specifically did NOT do that with the latest round of acquisitions. After 2016, the only market rate contracts we'll be stuck with are Melky and Robertson at roughly $12m apiece. The long-term contracts for Sale/Quintana/Abreu/Eaton will still be in place, Avisail will still be in the throes of the arbitration process, and the way the SP market is shaping up, we may get nearly as much back for Samardjiza as we gave up in the first place. Considering the magnitude of the "upgrades" we made, we've retained an incredible amount of flexibility even just two seasons from now.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 6, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) You have quite the poor imagination then. I think you're using your analytical mind and none of your imagination if that's all you can "imagine" . Youth, ability , contract, sustained success, all on Q's side but no hype and one hyped up lousy hit or miss prospect is all you can see in a trade for him ? Yea I might overvalue our players but c'mon now you can do better than that . Ok I can do better. Best return I can imagine for Quintana is Mookie Betts, Mookie Wilson, Kate Upton, 1996 Brady Anderson, and the Thunder God, Thor. I imagine we can send back John Danks' contract but also keep John Danks for depth. We'll also receive cash considerations and a bunch of IHOP gift cards to be distributed to Soxtalk posters in accordance to who has posted the fewest times complaining about Robin Ventura.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 6, 2015 -> 02:09 PM) Well how do you expect the Sox to fill some of their positional black holes if they don't move Quintana? Trade Samardzija, try to trade some relievers, make some shrewd FA signings, and work hard to develop players internally. It isn't ideal, but that's the same set of solutions we'd have to use to replace Quintana, too. As I said before -- in my mind, trading Quintana opens up as big a hole as it replaces. If we're worried about how much money the Sox would need to fill those positional holes in FA, then we have to realize that filling that hole in the rotation is just as expensive. Quintana's contract is an asset even if it isn't at the position of most need, because it allows for us to allocate financial resources elsewhere.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 6, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) If that's the return, Q won't be traded. I agree and I hope he won't.

This is consistent with what I've been saying all along. We need to realize that the league is changing -- the polarity of competing vs. rebuilding is becoming a thing of the past. Yes, the White Sox were trying to put a winner on the field this year, but it was NOT an all-in, do or die plan. I know, Balta, you are concerned about the financials, and I think what you bring up makes sense if we assume a static payroll and a new big ticket pitcher -- but it IS possible for the payroll to increase, and if the FO is stating that they are on pace for a three year plan, it's safe to assume that they have the resources they need.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 4, 2015 -> 07:08 PM) Again swihart was asked as a starting point by Philly and boston told them no. Why would he then be available to stating point for quintana. Because Hamels makes like $100 million more than Quintana. But, that said, I said I think Swihart is like the BEST case scenario. Like he's the best guy I can imagine Quintana bringing, I don't think it's likely he's included.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) I really don't think Rodon forced the issue that much, his first start or two at Charlotte weren't that great and he still had stuff to work on like his changeup (same thing that Fulmer might have to work on btw) but they still pushed him up to the big leagues as soon as they got the extra year of rights for him. Barring a complete overhaul of the management and front office and barring injury that's my guess, we see him break in next April/May. For a rebuilding team, that's not bad anyway, may as well get his first year in the bigs done when the rest of the roster is this weak and a few bad starts don't cost us anything. Right but that's because we had Hector Noesi. Ideally, I'd like them to do better than that. We've been, once again, lucky with pitcher health. I think the dieal plan for Fulmer going into the season is depth with a September callup. We can adjust accordingly if we have options.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) I don't see any reason to expect them to do much different with Fulmer from how they treated Rodon this year. If he forces the issue, I expect you're right. But it's not a given that he'll be ready.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) First crack at that? Johnson. Second crack? Beck. 3rd crack? If neither of those guys hold it, Fulmer won't be all that far away. Fourth crack at that? Montas. And then we'll have Adams, whatever pitcher we take with our first round pick in 2016, and who knows who else might step up out of the last couple drafts as well. That's a decent enough list that for a truly rebuilding team they should look at trading out of that top 3 to fill the remaining holes in their organization. Yeah, that's plan B. But I'd like to see them bring in the Jason Hammel-type guy first to try to make an early season run and second to have a moveable asset at the deadline. If EJ/Beck beats him for the spot, fantastic. And I'm guessing Fulmer won't really be in the mix until a bit later in the season anyway -- perhaps in the vacated spot post-deadline.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) I still don't think the White Sox have the money...but even more generally look at it this way. The White Sox keep drafting starting pitchers with their top picks, they keep trying to develop starting pitchers, their lineup is unbelivably weak and their lineup is by far the biggest flaw with their organization. It would be completely backwards for them to spend money on the starting rotation when their lineup is this crappy. Then again, it was completely backwards for them to have a philosophy of "Let's trade pitching for hitting" and then trade position players for Samardzija anyway. I agree. Trade Jeff, let him sign a big FA deal somewhere else. Go into the offseason trying to sign a short-term veteran on a short deal, use money to fill the holes in the lineup. Sale/Quintana/Rodon is a fine top three, you8've got Danks in there at 5 regardless, so go grab a 4 arm and that's fine.

Very cool play

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 4, 2015 -> 02:32 PM) I know I probably sound like a broken record but I've been on this Sox-BoSox Quintana trade long before this thread. I've said Vazques, Marrero, Margot and Edwin Escobar is fair for both teams and I still think it makes sense. I think asking for Swihart will get you nowhere. You're probably right.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 4, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) What do you think is fair then? QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 4, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) Really? One of the best 20-25 pitchers in the game signed long term to a very team friendly contract? Pay up...or you won't get him. Generally speaking: Betts is untouchable, you guys are treating him as merely a starting point for a deal. Swihart would be a realistic prized centerpiece, you guys are treating him like he could be the second or third piece. There's no way they'd give up both Margot and Devers, and probably only one of them if the centerpiece is a notch below Swihart. THey'd probably push hard to make on of those two THE centerpiece. Let me be clear: I'm NOT advocating trading Quintana. The best case scenario, realistically, is probably Swihart, Kopech/Chavis, two solid arms you haven't heard of. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just trying to be realistic. We need to remember that a young, controllable, above average position player is more valuable than a similar pitcher, and positional prospects are valued extremely highly right now.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 4, 2015 -> 02:09 AM) Can't you guys watch John Danks pitch and see SOMETHING that is very very good? I said he's sucked on occasion. He's also pitched very very well. And he battles. You can't watch him pitch and see ability and competitiveness? He's got talent and check his starts. He's had some good ones the last two seasons. Some excellent outings! To not give him credit is flat out wrong. I didn't say he was Sandy Koufax. He's a great No. 4 or 5 starter, though. No, he's not. He's been one of the ten worst starters in the league over the last three seasons by both ERA and fWAR. By definition, that is NOT a great No. 4 or 5 starter. Only a handful of guys have been worse. Yes, he's had some great outings, but he's had Way, WAY more really bad outings. Yes, I like that he tries hard and gives it his all. But I'd still replace him in a second if I could, because I like it when the White Sox win. And no matter how hard he tries, he's bad. For every great outing, he'll have 7 or 8 clunkers. He used to be good, but he just isn't anymore. Shoulders are rough.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 11:42 PM) I hardly ever say "I told you so" on here. But I have to in regards to Danks. I told you guys Danks is NOT trash. I said he's had some stellar outings to go with the pathetic ones. I told you I like the way he battles. Danks is not an excellent pitcher but he's not worthy of the hate spewed on this board. He's just not. Danks has had some good outings the past 2 seasons. He simply HAS. Great win again. Well the Sox are trying to play with our emotions and tell us they actually have a decent team. I'm not going to believe yet, just wait and see and enjoy the wins. Please please please though, give MR DANKS some credit!!!! It is deserved. Lol greg. Really? http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=P Look at those numbers. Are you going to say "I told you so?"

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) I'd rather have Jeff Hoffman We all would. Pentecost's stock has dipped since draft day, though, so he may actually be a realistic target. Hoffman has had helium.

Guys, you know how we all make fun of those ridiculous bloggers who have ridiculous notions of their favorite players' trade values? That's what you all sound like.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) Curious as to what the metrics are for measuring that. Are the measurements based on the impact on the actual 9-inning game that the manager has within his control (lineups, pitching decisions, strategical/tactical decisions, etc.)? How does one measure a manager's ability to have his team ready to perform on a daily basis? How does one measure a manager's ability to get a roster all pulling in the same direction? Say what you want about how big of an impact a decision to steal with 2-outs in the 7th has in a tight game. But what about the ability to have a veteran come in and hit to his potential as opposed to one or two standard deviations below his potential over the course of a year like we are seeing? That's exactly my point, shack: we know that a manager affects these things, but we don't know how much and we don't know if a guy is helping or hurting. So, again, I'm not claiming anything about Robin, because I don't know. YOU (the collective you) are claiming that Robin is failing at making his veterans perform. How do you know? If you want to make the argument that the failure of a pinch-hitting veteran is RV's fault, you are then claiming that a different coach would make the difference. Demonstrate that. Research has not been able to find correlations between any specific manager and any specific ability or characteristic. The studies are hazy because not much is found. There appear to be some managers who consistently keep their players in position to perofrm at their best -- until all of a sudden they can't anymore. Ron Gardenhire was god until he wasn't god anymore. Joe Maddon was a miracle man until the miracles stopped. Joe Torre was a bum until he landed in the Evil Empire during it's period of being the Microsoft of baseball. Who is next? Clint Hurdle, maybe? I don't have any bookmarked articles like I often do, because manager stuff has always kind of put me off. It's so cloudy and frustrating that I haven't been drawn to it. But if you Google around or klook at some of the classic books, you'll see a lot of effort put into trying to isolate it to very little success. This is why, when posters start saying stuff like the team isn't prepared on a daily basis" and "RV has to make the batters move the runners over instead of striking out," I gotta call shenanigans. NONE of us know how prepared the team is. NONE of us know what they work on or what the coaches tell them to do in big situations. It's WAY more likely that they're being told to succeed in all of the glaringly obvious ways that we all know players can succeed, but they're simply failing. Alexei Ramirez does NOT need extra ground-ball practice. That's NOT the difference. A pep talk might help sometimes,l or it might not, but none of us know.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 10:43 AM) He got a really dumb organization to give him $42 million by performing during a contract year. If hypothetically that were chemically-aided, why would he stay on them and risk a positive test that would cost him that money through a suspension? He's well below a career 100 wRC+ hitter if you don't count the clearly steroid-aided Giants and probably Royals seasons. Quick bit of math had him at 90 even assuming he was clean last year. A 30 year old hitter with a career 90 wRC+ putting up a 67 isn't that big of a dropoff or unprecedented in any sense. This is one of those things where speculation rules. It's the same thing as the manager thing -- we don't know if he's on PEDs or not, we don't know WHEN he was and wasn't, we don't know WHAT he was on, and we don't know how much it helped or didn't help. You're welcome to jump to whichever conclusions that you want regarding all of that, but if you're being intellectually honest, you should acknowledge that you don't actually KNOW what you're talking about here. None of us do. Regardless -- we're talking about what Hahn should/could have expected from Melky this year. If you're going to argue that he should have planned for a 60-something wRC+, I just don't think you have any ground to stand on. This year is WAY off everything we've seen over the entire roller coaster of his career for the past five years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 08:35 AM) The good news is that Melky Cabrera's career is one replete with honor and dignity and respect for the game and since he's such a respectable person with no reputation for lying to the league you can have 100% confidence that Melky Cabrera would never do anything during a contract season that would have impacted his performance that year. You have moved the goalposts, Balta. We're not talking about honor, we're talking about wins. RE wins: Melky is a career 100 wRC+ hitter. At 30 years old, he's putting up 67. PEDs are irrelevant because he's performed both well and badly when both on and off PEDs. If you think he was still on them last year, why do you think he still isn't now?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Fair enough. I understand your desire to determine causation, and that's a reasonable desire. Unfortunately, I'm not sure many FOs have the patience to determine whether the manager is part of the problem...but they may be able to determine much more quickly that the manager is not part of the solution. Let's entertain the thought that Balta is correct - and I suspect that he is, at least partially - and that this is an organizational problem. Perhaps then Robin is sharing blame across a wider spectrum rather than carrying more of it himself. Either way, have we seen anything out of the guy which would suggest he is some tremendous leader? Has he done anything which would suggest that he is managing a team that would be winning if not otherwise handicapped by poor organizational philosophies/development? Is this guy a leader in an organization lacking them? To the bolded: absolutely. The FO is in the best position to evaluate him, so we have little choice but to trust them. We may not WANT to trust them, but we aren't privy to clubhouse dynamics like they are. To the second point: I agree, I have not seen anything to suggest RV is adding value to the organization. However, there has been a lot of work done to try to evaluate what a manager CAN contribute, and most of it points to the idea that the manager doesn't make much of a difference at the end of the day. That is NOT to say that the manager's job isn't important, but rather that the difference between the best manager in baseball and the worst is relatively small. So, you're right: I have no grounds and little interest in defending RV. I just think it's silly to spend so much time being so sure he needs to go because I don't think doing so fixes the team.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 09:01 AM) http://mweb.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-h...proposed-dealsv White sox are listed #10. Suggesting shark traded to the blue jays for catching prospect Max Pentecost That would be amazing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2015 -> 09:02 AM) Completely unprecedented...except for the 68 he put up in 2008. And not that far from the 77 he put up in 2010. Then suddenly in 2011 he got a lot better and in 2012 he was great except for some reason he missed about 50 games. Then he had a tumor removed and had the best season of his career two years after that 50 game suspension. The point stands, despite the fact that I somehow missed referencing his bad age-23 season seven years ago.