Eminor3rd

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 10:25 AM) Last three years, their offensive numbers are remarkably similar. Soto separates himself a little with the peripheral stuff. Have to imagine Flowers has the edge for defense/familiarity with staff. Geo Soto: .219/.291/.381, 81 wRC+, 8.9 BB%, 24.5 K% Flow Flow: .222/.281/.381, 82 wRC+, 5.9 BB%, 35.5 K% The two drastic differences there are the walk and k rate, which I'm guessing means that Flowers BABIP has been 40 or so points higher than Soto's. Strangely, I'm not sure how to look at guys' stats over a custom period of time. EDIT: Figured it out -- Flowers = .315, Soto = .262 Here's a custom leaderboard comparing those two from 2012-2014 if anyone is interested: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...ayers=9134,3707

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 23, 2015 -> 08:38 AM) No chance in hell Kluber gets put in front of Sale. Reigning Cy Young winner? No chance in hell?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 08:41 PM) Who said I wanted to be fair ? Opinions don't have to be fair . You got yours I got mine . If I was all that bothered by negativity I would've been gone long ago. I personally believe Avi wil turn out to be a pretty good player regardless of the flaws that are there. I am counting on him to makes strides mentally, defensivey and offensively . That's the great thing about youth , they can get much better or those flaws will eat them alive. It's the same with all of them , keep up or move aside. I don't see any threads that say "I'm drinking the Kool-aid " so I'm pretty used to the "biting nails" aspect of fandom. The good thing about getting old is that things get put in their proper perspective without all the youthful "gnashing of teeth" . Gnash away one and all but once in a while you'll get chided for it . My response has nothing to do with your opinion on Avi though -- your post is essentially telling people to stop posting if they disagree with what you're saying. You're original post was literally discouraging the expression of a dissenting opinion, it wasn't expressing your own opinion.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 08:18 PM) Maybe it was his slider that was getting hit for the HR's and since he basically abadoned the slider the HR's have decreased . Could be. I think there's a way to check that out on Brooks

I'm with Dick Allen here -- at least Soto has shown he's capable of being an above-average bat. He's a long-shot to regain his form, but there's really no significant difference between him and Flowers right now if Soto is healthy.

I love it. No risk at all, has the potential to be our best catcher if he's healthy. If we're not going to pay up to acquire a "real" catcher, throwing a bunch of somewhat intriguing crap at the wall is the next best option. Between Flowers, Soto, Kottaras, and Brantly, we've got a better chance of finding a decent season of performance.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) I haven't seen the Brooks Baseball numbers and graphs, but I'd like to see how the movement on his two and four seamers have changed over the years. It's just weird to see pitchers with his mileage maintain or increase velocity past 30. Hell, it's weird to see ANY pitcher maintain or increase velocity past 30, not considering mileage on their arm. My guess is that the Royals did suggest to him that he should pitch to contact. Don't be afraid to put guys away, but we have an insanely good defense, so feel free to work quick and work in the zone, because we have guys that will go and get it. I think he'd have to get away from that some in Chicago. What I find most interesting about his pitch selection is the cutter/slider. They are pitchers that are distinctly different but they have similar movement, so I think they can confuse pitch recognition software OR he is consciously throwing his slider harder in spite of movement to sneak up on guys or he's throwing his cutter slower to generate more movement. Again, I can't verify any of this stuff without Brooks and I just won't have time during the day to do that, but let's take a look at the usage (via PITCHf/x; cutter, slider) 2009: 7.1, 12.0 2010: 8.9, 7.9 2011: 4.4, 11.2 2012: 5.0, 15.4 2013: 17.6, 3.2 2014: 25.3, 0 He went to the Royals in 2013. Did they ask him to abandon the use of the slider and focus on the cutter (a pitch with less movement, thus being easier to hit, but also hard to square up) or is his ability to throw a real hard moving slider diminishing to the point that he's really only able to throw a cutter? Without watching [hours and hours] of video, I'd have no way of knowing. I'd also be unable to just call up Shields and ask him. However, pitching theory would dictate that you can use the cutter in the zone more often as it's disguised as a fastball and then breaks at the last second, inducing weak contact. The same cannot be said for the slider, as they work better when moving away from a hitter or, if it's a real honker, back-dooring or front-dooring a hitter, and thus they are not as easy to throw in the zone while getting away with it. I'm sure there's more to it, and the above may honestly be gobbledygook, but it logically makes sense and at least provides some working models for what's caused some of the "lack of velocity" regression without an actual lack of velocity. The pitch mix thing is super interesting. Is it a temporary KC coaching effect, or is it an example of a guy evolving as he ages and his stuff diminishes?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 10:52 AM) I initially thought Shields' velocity was on the downward trend given what we know about precedent and pitchers getting older, but check this: FG Pitch Type, FB velocities: 2011: 91 2012: 92.3 2013: 92.2 2014: 92.4 And then we look at his PITCHf/x (four seam, two seam) 2011: 90.9, 91 2012: 92, 92.1 2013: 92.2, 92.1 2014: 92.5, 92.1 The velocity of his cutter hit a high of 89 in 2012 but has typically been around 86-87. I'd offer 4/$80 in some form, but wouldn't budge from that. If some team wants to risk the 5th year, then I'd be out. That's crazy -- I feel like I've read that he's lost velocity everywhere. Good find, you crazy Dakota person! We can't trust what we read these days Maybe it's just that his results are consistent with a loss in velocity: K/9: 2012 - 8.82 2013 - 7.71 2014 - 7.14 BB/9: 2012 - 2.29 2013 - 2.68 2014 - 1.74 So this basically tells us that he's either lost K's and made up for it with fewer walks, or that he's consciously decided to allow more contact. The former is bad because he is relying more on his defense, making his performance much less reliable, especially considering he was pitching in front of the best defense in the league. The latter could be good depending on the type of contact he's allowed. Ok, so contact: GB%: 2012 - 52.3% 2013 - 41.6% 2014 - 45.2% HR/FB% 2012 - 13.4% 2013 - 8.6% 2014 - 9.7% Even though I didn't list it, basically every year before 2012 he had HR/FB's between 11-13%. So it looks like as soon as he got to KC, he started giving up way more contact, but that contact was more a lot more fly balls and those fly balls have left the park at a lower rate than ever before. Given that his career FIP/ERA are within 5 points of each other, there's no reason to believe that he has an unusual ability to suppress hard contact, which means the only logical conclusion is that he's benefited greatly from some combination of (1) good defense, (2) favorable park factors, and (3) lucky homerun rates. It's a little too perfect that all of those things got stronger the minute he got to KC. So moving into a situation where he's pitching in a bandbox in front of a defense that is mediocre at best makes that regression look pretty likely. Good find on the velo -- maybe that's not what's causing him to regress. But SOMETHING is, or at least has been.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 03:10 AM) here is a friendly question. if that final piece of the missing puzzle is a prospect |s| being moved, you rather fore go a trip to the playoff, b/c you value the prospects more?? I don't think there'll ever be a black and white answer to that question. You don't "want" prospects or veterans, you "want" wins. And depending upon who the prospect is, who the veteran is, what the present looks like, what the future looks like, etc., you make the call with the largest overall impact.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 03:37 AM) First, disappointment that Hahn didn't sign another piece and now this. Already setting up scapegoats for the upcoming season when it goes bad. Despite what we all think we know about baseball even scouts can't tell who will be good and who will be bad most of the time. So yes I like Avi because he's strong young and fast and tore up AAA. He's got flaws like every player so can I just look forward to the optimism of spring without all this negative Sox fan crappola ? I know optimism is kind of equated with blind faith and surely anyone smarter will dig deeper and find reasons anyone can fail. So optimism equals idiocy and negativity equals brainiac .I will now take my happy pills and imagine every young Sox player has a chance to be very helpful to the team. I don't think this is fair at all. Firstly, are we supposed to avoid discussing anything that isn't overwhelmingly positive? Negativity doesn't "equal brainiac," but objective does equal "reality," and we're fans that want to talk about Sox as they actually are. Secondly, there's much more to it than "he's strong young and fast and tore up AAA." There are specific types of flaws we've seen in players that have correlated to high bust rates and many of them are present in Avisail Garcia. No one is saying that he's hopeless, but there's a huge level of risk with him and it's coming in a year where the Sox have no replacement at all. We're depending on him taking a huge step forward next year to contribute to success needed to justify the acquisitions and risks that have been taken elsewhere on the roster. I don't mean this next question to sound as harsh as it reads -- it's more a rhetorical question -- but if you don't want to think about it and just want to go into the season hoping instead of knowing what you might expect, what are you doing on a message board?

Good work, Big Finn

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 22, 2015 -> 01:09 AM) Sign James Shields if his price tag does indeed fall to around 4 years 75 million and it means being able to trade John Danks? Yes. Only if BOTH those conditions are true.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 07:59 PM) here is the same question i asked before. if the skills are there, would you sign him, if the upside is a tick lower than Jose A???? Yeah, the upside is "best player in the game" because he can supposedly handle SS at least for a while, and could move to 3B if he gets big. But he's a prospect. This is the type of thing the Dodgers can afford, but there's really no chance we'll get involved.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 06:47 PM) Really, if you want to assume that Samardzija is going to leave (and I think you can safely make that assumption), I'd have no problem bringing Shields in. It at least guarantees you another starter beyond this year while allowing room for Rodon next year and, draft pick wise, you'd actually come out ahead (giving up a 4th this year for Shields while getting a sandwich next year for Samardzija). It essentially eliminates the possibility for a Samardzija extension, but I think I'd be OK with that in this scenario. If you can get Shields for 4 years, $80 mill or so, you can likely count on him to be good for the next 2 years (3-3.5 WAR) and solid-average the next two (2-2.5 WAR). If we assume 3.5 and then a half win reduction each following year, we'd be looking at approximately 11 WAR, which would be about $7.28 mill per win, which really isn't a bad price to pay on the open market. That's if he doesn't get 5 years, which is something that throws a huge kink into the whole thing. At 5/$100, assuming the same regression, you're looking at $8 mill per win. That's not outrageous, but makes it more difficult to justify, and older players have a tendency to fall off more quickly and become unplayable. He's most likely gonna get that fifth year, and at 33 and losing velocity fast, he's more likely to turn into a more expensive John Danks than he is to be a mid-rotation guy throughout the life of that deal. There's no question he's a huge upgrade for us in 2015, but this would NOT fit the current RH plan of making upgrades that aren't enormous future risks. He's already "just" a "good #3," and his further decline could happen as early as 2016. Not for $100m, man. Lot of miles on that arm and the velo is already fringe and on its way down. On the plus side, we'd only be giving up a 4th round draft pick at this point, lol.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 05:23 PM) someone please give me the 'scouting report' on why we feel he has so much potential? Sometimes it feels like everyone gets giddy just because he had the "Little Miggy" nickname.... Basically, he has so much talent that he made it all the way to the Majors despite not really knowing how to play baseball. People can dream that if he learned how to hit/field, he could be an absolute monster.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 06:13 PM) Just because it's something to talk about, Jeff Sullivan, in connecting dots, thinks the White Sox would be a good landing spot for James Shields. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/finding-a-p...-james-shields/ This is not saying that the White Sox are interested or they've reached out or anything, it's merely speculation saying he'd fit in well in the rotation. He's not wrong, but I don't see this as something they'd do. I do see them exploring perhaps the trade market or a reclamation project or a stopgap of some type still. Szymborski agrees: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ested-teams-mlb

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 03:24 PM) WTF?! I LOVE eggplant parmesan! Haha, THAT was the reaction I was going for

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 03:53 PM) My point is..."prospects", more often than not, remain nothing more than prospects. IMO, if you can trade them for proven commodities that can help you win NOW, you do it. As some wise dude once said, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.". Right, but they're a necessary evil. The fact that they bust a lot just means you need a bunch of them. If you don't develop any homegrown talent, you have to buy it on the free agent market, and the Sox can;t afford that. I mean, look at this year's team: Payroll is almost $120m and we still have holes to fill, despite the fact that our contract situation is relatively clean AND we have several major contributors that have come from our system. I can't think of a single WS winner that didn't have major core pieces that were homegrown. I'm with you on the bird-in-the-hand thing, but prospects are about the future, where aging veterans are far from sure things themselves. If we're going to actually achieve this "sustained winning" thing, we gotta always keep on eye on the three-year plan.

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 03:57 PM) Am I the only one who's not completely sold on Avi? Please reassure me. You are not the only one. I wish I could re-assure you. The most hopeful thing I can say is that he hasn't really had a good long chance to get settled in and make adjustments.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 02:22 PM) the the beauty of having you smart posters here. to calm the excited posters like me. but come on, all the fans can see the improvement and see that it is not yet completed. JR, wants to have the money committed first, well the surplus of players is now and the supply is dwindling. yes you do have a good , no a great point, but with young prospects to come up and fill in the holes that may develop, the sox can't do that. yeah they can invest in 1 more SP, the positional lineup looks great, but the pitching is going to carry this team. yeah, a strong 1-3 sp is great for playoff time. but the sox need to get there and without injury. the salary is between 115-118 mil, go and get another rental. Yeah, I also would have liked to see a reclamation-type pitcher thrown in on a one-year deal -- and we may still see that happen.

QUOTE (Stev-o @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 12:55 PM) Hello...I've been reading this site for quite awhile, and I finally decided to "dip my toe in the water". I don't understand the posters' infatuation with prospects...other than Gio Gonzalez, when was the last time, over the last 10 seasons, that the Sox traded away a prospect who amounted to anything? Welcome to the board, Stev-o. This is flawed logic. 1. Just because the Sox haven't traded anyone significant lately doesn't mean prospects always bust. Look at all of the young superstars in the game right now. 2. By looking only at the prospects that the Sox have traded, you're limiting yourself ONLY to the ones they were willing to give up. For example, do you think they ever considered Chris Sale to be trade bait? 3. Gio Gonzalez IS an example of what these guys can turn into.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 12:59 PM) That's not how compensation works anymore. The Sox will offer him a one year contract for somewhere around 15-17 mil, depending on what the number is next offseason, and if he rejects and signs somewhere else we get their first round pick if is unprotected. That's not right -- the signing team does lose a pick, but we don't "get" that pick. Instead, we get a comp round pick, between the first and second rounds.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 11:19 AM) The big thing here is that nothing we have done so far weakened our prospects in the future. No key pieces of the team were given up. No ridiculous contracts were signed. The worst thing we did it potentially handicap the ability to spend more dollars in 2015. What we did was to open up our window a year, maybe even two years, early. We opened that window and left ourselves the type of squad is going to be looking to win for the next few years. Is it perfect? No. But then again no team in the AL Central is perfect. The leaders all have major holes. Yep, you're right. We did give up SOME future value, but it felt like we got more present value in return. For example, the Samardzija trade did cost us some real prospects, but left the top ten intact. Semien is real value, but was part of our deepest position on the chart. The Robertson deal carries real risk in future spending flexibility, but it's 4/46, not 7/175 or something, so the downside is significant, but not crippling. All the deals, individually, felt like they were either good deals or, at worst, market rate deals, and that adds up to a pretty savvy offseason that toes the line between present and future really nicely.

QUOTE (Armchair Hahn @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 10:57 AM) Ok, i should back off of my comments on Peralta at SS. He was decent enough judging from metrics Yeah, Peralta is the anti-Fowler.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 10:42 AM) Dunn being replaced by LaRoche is a big one. De Aza being replaced by Cabrera is another big difference too. As we saw with Jeff Keppinger though, merely making contact doesn't guarantee that it's good contact. Indeed, indeed. Welp, that was another fun little crirclejerk we just had, lol.