Eminor3rd

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.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 07:11 AM) again, setting them selves up not to go forward. the window of opportunity is now, why do this and have a 1 yr rental in jeff s is they will not go all the way. tell me, can you actually see the sox going far in the playoff, or even make the playoff with this rotation??? i am a die heart fans of sox baseball. but other teams are still getting themselves in a position to acquire more pieces. the window of opportunity is now...... I think you're right that the team has holes and lacks depth, but now you're seeing why so many of us were/are hesitant to "push the chips in" so soon. I think many of us often forget that there's only so much a GM can accomplish over a given period of time. You can't just say "I want that guy" and pay up -- other parties have to agree to contract condition and trade proposals, and things are ALWAYS more complicated than we assume from the fan perspective. The best way to look at this team is that it's definitely good enough to contend. Yes, most things are going to need to go well. Yes, an injury or two could derail it. But this signals a period of time where Rick Hahn is planning (and will be expected) to put a competitive team on the field every year that he holds his job. But you're going to be able to find holes. You're not likely to be able to go into a season confident that every position looks awesome.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 10:26 AM) It's not a bad thing though. At the very minimum, it puts more balls in play which will increase the opportunities for hits. If it's an infield fly, it won't matter as much as those are outs 99% of the time too. The White Sox have brought better hitters in, so the reduction in strikeouts shouldn't be much of a revelation. Yeah, it's just usually such a topic around here, I thought people would be interested in knowing that the team is built to make much more contact than it has recently. A lot of that might just be NOT having Dunn though, lol.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/colby-rasmu...and-strikeouts/ The research also points out that strikeouts aren't really correlated with differences in projected offense, though. Which really seems kind of self-explanatory to me, because obviously the effect of those strikeouts is baked in from the start, but whatever.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 12:32 AM) so if this is the year to go for it This is where you're wrong. It's not about it being THE year to go for it, it's about it being the first of many years to go for it. With the second WC, we're seeing teams strive to be "in contention" frewquently in stead of building a super team for a year or two and having to tear it down later. If we commit too much of the future to 2015, we're going to be right back in a rebuild. QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jan 21, 2015 -> 12:32 AM) Not free, but wouldn't be too expensive I think you're underestimating the cost. The Samardzija trade was a coup, but we don't have another Semien to give up and we shouldn't expect other GMs to value quantity over quality like Beane has done for years. Especially not the Nats, who have no need for modest upgrades at this point since they have possibly the best team on paper already.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 16, 2015 -> 06:54 PM) The list is in alphabetical order. Oh, haha.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Jan 20, 2015 -> 02:17 PM) Fine, 89.5. You can season and prepare the hat however you'd like. It might as well taste good. If I fried it and buried it in cheese, could it really be THAT much worse than eggplant parmesan?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 20, 2015 -> 10:14 AM) Fowler is weird, because both UZR and DRS show him as a very bad fielder, but a few of the other statistics show that he's OK in the field, nothing special but nothing terrible either. I think he'd be better served in LF personally. Fowler has become sort of the poster child for the "wow, we thought he was good because he's so fast but he sure doesn't actually catch a whole lot" awakening that the defensive metrics are just now starting to unearth. The opposite can be said for slow guys that get good jumps -- in a way, this is our first taste of measuring "instincts," albeit in a very heavy-handed, results-based way.