Eminor3rd

As much as I rag on him, it feels good to hear Hawk's voice right now.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) i leave that part of the stats to yous guys, who are way smarter than i in this area. He basically looked just a touch better than John Danks last year, statistically. He's only a year removed from being really solid, though.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 20, 2015 -> 12:50 PM) in most cases you would be right, but they have players with no options and may be lost on the waiver list. if it is him, other players should be avail. According to Roster Resource (awesome website if anyone isn't aware of it), Wood and Turner are the only projected starters that are out of options, but it looks like they're going to be able to stash Turner on the DL for OD. Edwin Jackson definitely appears to be the odd man out when Turner comes back, though. http://www.rosterresource.com/mlb-chicago-cubs/

I don't see any reason that the Cubs would be looking to move their own pitching depth at this point.

Another round of underwhelming commercials. Meanwhile, the Mariners' are still awesome: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-leag...-013301127.html

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 05:35 PM) No, not the HOME OPENER. The very first game of the season Sox @ KC April 6. I'm off for those days and looking for ideas as to where to watch the game. Trip to KC anyone? Freakin New York City

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:27 PM) I would go with Carroll or Johnson. Have we gotten any reports on Johnson's velo this spring?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:15 PM) I think Beckham's signing was more about putting Saladino and the loser of Sanchez and Johnson into the minors to play every day so as to keep developing. They could care less if Gordo rots on the bench. I also believe the White Sox honestly believe that between their five leading starters and Brad Penny, they have enough to bridge the gap for Carlos Rodon to be ready to go by June at the latest. Another starter would have been behind Sale, Q, Smarj, Danks, Noesi, Rodon, and Penny, at least. Then you also have to look at guys like Johnson and Beck as possibilities for later in the season, or just a trade by then. RE: Beckham. If that's true, it makes more sense. In my admittedly completely non-professional opinion, I don't think Saladino has the potential to be a starter anyway, so I would think a bench role would be totally fine for him. But I can buy that they think he still needs everyday PT as totally plausible. RE: the rotation. You're right that they may believe that, but if so, I think that's a mistake. Between injury risk and the very real chance that Rodon is NOT ready, they really should have hedged more, even if it was just with the Dana Eveland types, IMO. Especially if money is plentiful enough that it was worth $2m to buy Saladino some more time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:13 PM) If they can afford $4 million, why are you complaining about Beckham's $2 million. Then they still should have a couple million to burn. You are moving the goalposts here. You have stated time and time again that the 2 million Beckham is getting pretty much is what they had left, because according to you they picked Beckham instead of anyone else, , which one of these guys would you have signed? They obviously couldn't have signed them all. And can you explain to me how guys who sign minor league contracts were blocked from signing with the White Sox because the Sox signed Beckham? Ok -- remove Vogelsong from that list and it's all south of $2.5m. The point stands. But if you're going to argue that $2m is meaningless rounding error, don't also point out that $4m is significantly more. THAT'S moving the goalposts. I would have rather signed any of those guys than Beckham. And I JUST typed, in the very post you quoted, that I don't have any evidence to suggest that signing Beckham prevented anything else financially, I simply know that we needed those guys but didn't get them, and I think it's safe to assume that there IS a limit to the budget somewhere. It's getting so hard to believe that you actually read what I type before you respond. Here's the point to argue against, if you're going to continue arguing: We needed a bench OF and at least one depth starter to fight for the spot that Brad Penny is trying to earn. I'm not happy that Beckham is going to be on the roster instead of one of those other things, because we already have a bunch of pre-arbs that can already be stashed in the minors to do for us what Beckham will now do. We just didn't need to spend money on him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) The $2 million is about as close to meaningless as it gets. That is the salary of a mimimum wage guy, which the roster spot would cost anyway, plus $1.5 million. In 2015, it is nothing. Yeah, I have no idea how tight their budgets actually are -- I just know we didn't get enough small-guy SP depth but we DID we Beckham, who I just don't think we needed at all. Could be no connection between those two facts.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:34 PM) Who was the guy you were thinking of when you told me the only reason Brad Penny would ever have to start a game for the 2015 White Sox was because they signed Gordon Beckham? Alexi Ogando, Paul Maholm, Chad Billingsley, Dana Eveland, Chris Volstad, Ross Ohlendorf, Scott Baker, Ryan Vogelsong, Tim Stauffer are all guys that signed for anywhere between minor league deal and $4m. Obviously none of those guys are awesome, but we needed more s*** to throw at the wall from a rotation perspective than we ended up getting (obviously since we're talking about going north with Penny), and I'm just not convinced we need another bench IF. No, I don't have any information specifically to suggest that Beckham was signed instead of any of those guys, but that's where the statement, "I'd rather have put that money toward some rotation depth" comes from.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 04:23 PM) With the way the offseason shook out, the real comparison to those players is the sox signing Bonifacio, not beckham. You should be angry they chose bonifacio over Denorfia if you really cared. Why? Bonifacio can cover both OF and IF.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 03:48 PM) Signing Gordon Beckham prevented absolutely nothing. The roster spot is as important as the $2m bucks. We needed pitching depth and OF depth, did not need IF depth. raBBit's list is good -- even if don't like those guys, they filled holes for us while Beckham is just another guy on a pile of guys we already had.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Mar 19, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) The same folks who criticize a Gordon Beckham, John Danks, Noesi, etal, are the first ones to slober all over some other teams reject or reclamation project. Beckham can bring a positive contribution to this team. He is a plus defender and can play three IF positions. He may come around and hit decently also. We should all hope for that and I believe he was signed for a reason and that was to be a super IF sub or at least be that role player at this time. We could have worse ready to step in to a starting role The issue isn't whether or not Gordon Beckham can adequately be a backup 2nd/3rd baseman, it's that a backup 2nd/3rd baseman was literally the last thing we needed to spend our limited resources on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 12:17 PM) Which would be a good spot for a Brad Penny, if healthy. Definitely, especially if he's really "touching 94." I imagine a relief roles in the MLB would be preferable to a starting role in the minors for him at this stage in his career.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 12:35 PM) Jeez, at least we could have come up with a cooler name for him. Seriously, what does it say about our imaginations that we thought "Erik with a K" was edgy enough to be exciting?

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 08:52 AM) Instead of having offshoots of Beckham and Penny talk in the Sale thread, let's just talk about the 25-man right now. Here's what I got... Lineup: Eaton CF, Cabrera LF, Abreu 1B, LaRoche DH, Garcia RF, Ramirez SS, Gillaspie 3B, Flowers C, Johnson 2B Bench: Bonifacio UTL, Beckham IF, Shuck OF, Soto C Rotation: Samardzija, Quintana, Noesi, Danks, Penny Bullpen: Albers, Webb, Jennings, Petricka, Putnam, Duke, Robertson DL: Sale, Crain, Jones (60-day) On the fence about Webb. He'll have a short leash if he sucks in April, and Crain is ready. The three guys to move off the 40-man: Leury gets traded Guerra and Brantly get moved off the roster too. One interesting thing about your projection is that there's no long-man/swing-man. I can't remember, have the Sox gone north without one before? It seems like they'd want a guy who could make a last-minute start or bail John Danks out of 2nd inning homerfest.

QUOTE (LDF @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 12:07 PM) any word on erik johnson. I think that we may have all collectively made him up. I'm not entirely sure he isn't just a subconscious/groupthink-related psychological coping mechanism that arose from the complete lack of pitching talent we had in the minors. Now that Rodon is around, we're not "seeing things" anymore.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 08:51 AM) This is it exactly. The reality is the Sox don't care if Gordon stinks as 25th man. This allows Saladino and Sanchez to play every day as starters in Charlotte and work on their games. They don't want them rotting on the bench for 150 ABs over the course of a season. The other reality is that if a player is good, he wouldn't be a 25th man. No matter who you bring in to do that job, they are going to have some major holes in their game. I am guessing with Gordon, the Sox went back to him because they know him, they know he won't cause problems in the clubhouse, they know his teammates like him, etc. Looking at another similar player in Jeff Keppinger, there were a few hints that he didn't meet a few of those things. The Sox like their stability, so why bring someone in from the outside who might upset the applecart? If we needed a right-handed infielder to fill out the bench, I wouldn't have a problem with Gordon. It's just that it was the LAST thing we needed. We really needed a similar-caliber SP or OF, but we spent money bringing back a guy whose skillset is not much different than the guys we have in AAA. It really has nothing to do with Gordon personally, it's just that his services don't warrant his salary on our current roster.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) 2009 Beckham was great. 2010 he hit well the second half. 2011 he was bad, but he has had his moments. He was on fire last year before he totally fell apart, then regained a bit of performance with the Angels. He has hit for power . Wasn't that awful in 2013 returning from a broken wrist which zapped his power. There is upside. He can hit for power, he is good defensively, and has hit well for decent stretches in the past. To me, that is upside. I guess for me, I don't think the fact that he has had streaks of usefulness really equates to upside. Lots of guys (most, even) are streaky, so it isn't accurate ton assume that periods of good performance dictate untapped potential on their own. I think you need a reason, traditionally or sabermetrically, to believe in upside. For example: guy just changed his swing, guy had a breakthrough with a new coaching staff, guy is healthy for the first time, guy learned a new pitch, guy got stronger and lost weight, guy hasn't had a chance to adjust to big-league pitching, guy has been unlucky with BABIP, guy has been unlucky with HR/FB rate, guy has shown an improved approach at the plate, guy moved to a more comfortable position, etc. With Gordon, though, there really haven't been any problems. There aren't any caveats or excuses. He's had an incredibly long leash and has been relatively fortunate with health. The only thing that's really warranted tinkering is his batting stance a bit. He's just had a good, long, healthy look with very few obstacles in his way, and when you average it out, he just hasn't been able to get it done. I struggle to come up with an aspect of his game or situation that indicates there is some upside left. And that's why I think Saladino is just as good for the bench role -- at least he checks the box of "we haven't seen him try at the ML level" and maybe even some of "lost time to injury." He's got some upside just because we don;t know how far he can go. It's the same reason I hold out hope for Avi Garcia in 2015 but wanted Dayan Viciedo cut at all costs. Those guys are very similar in terms of their flaws and upside (at least offensively), but I've watched Viciedo fail to adjust for 2000 plate appearances, whereas Garcia still has a shot to show me he can learn.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 08:40 AM) If Brad Penny is on the White Sox, everyone needs to quit complaining about Danks, Beckham and Flowers. He will be by far, the least valuable player on the roster. If Brad Penny is on the White Sox, that's EXACTLY why we've been complaining that we acquired Beckham instead of someone better than Brad Penny.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 08:29 AM) I would still rather have the certainty of Sanchez' defense, but Micah has the job. I'll be thrilled if I've been wrong about this. Same. I don't see much downside, though, to letting Micah run with it out of the gate and just optioning him to AAA if he isn't able to hack it. It can be Sanchez time then.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2015 -> 09:05 AM) Paulino had upside, but Beckham has none. That just isn't accurate. How is not accurate? Paulino was a guy with a big arm who hadn't managed to stay healthy enough to use it. The Sox thought he was finally healthy and that they could give him a shot to finally break out. Beckham is a dude with 2500 plate appearances of healthy, everyday play who just cannot hit to save his life. I suppose he technically has upside in the same way that every player in baseball technically has upside in the event that they have a miraculous moment of clarity and suddenly learn things that they never learned before. But that's so, so different than a pitcher who has the stuff but hasn't had a shot to stick on the mound yet. Plus, even if you want to put Beckham and Paulino in the same boat, that just brings us back to the original point about team construction. The one area that the team has incredible depth is in the Beckham-level glove-first MI category, so if you're going to spend $2m on a depth piece, it made no sense to spend it there instead of on pitching or an OF.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 09:11 PM) Trout or GTFO

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 17, 2015 -> 06:16 PM) While I agree on the first sentence I can't say as much past that. Despite Hahn saying so, it's arguable he is average at 3B defensively and his bat is well below average even when platooned. I am not going to validate giving someone a bench spot based off of them becoming on expert on bunting. The things you mention that make him a decent bench player would hold also true for Tyler Saladino. Saladino is a better infielder (surely on the left side at the least) and a better baserunner/pinch runner than Beckham. I am less confident that Saladino would be a better hitter than Beckham but it's not really much of a bar to beat. If he could hit league average against LHP he'd be a way better bench player than Beckham. While a lot of people aren't fans of Beckham as a player, my biggest gripe is the opportunity cost. We could have had Saladino and a RH defensive OF, strong RH bar or extra 5th starter type. Obviously the bench isn't going to full of all stars, but you want these guys to bring at least one great quality. Jordan Danks was lost with the stick most of the time but I felt great when he came in a defensive replacement. Bonifacio isn't going to carry the offense but he has speed and flexibility. Saladino may never amount to more than 50 MLB PAs but, right now he can come off the bench and pinch run late in games and defend just as well if not better than Beckham. What does Beckham bring? Above average defense at 2B? Color me un impressed. When GMs are building their Championship team they don't pound the phone lines looking for a bench player who can't hit against any type of pitcher and turns a good double play. I don't think anybody has been making this case against Beckham because of his Spring Training stats but those stats have certainly further enforced that argument if you value ST stats. The same people arguing against his utility and practicality (Eminor, shysocks, myself) can be seen doing so on the day he was signed: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=94456&st=0 Fortunately, to make this move, I think the Sox must think very highly of Beckham as an individual. It's not really a desirable position to be in for him, Gllaspie/Micah/Sanchez or for Robin and the coaching staff. So the Sox front office is definitely giving him a vote of confidence to handle the mental aspect of his assignment. Excellent summary.