Eminor3rd

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 28, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) I doubt it, they have no need for Davidson because they have Votto at first and Frazier at third. Plus, I think thats giving up on Davidson to early. He had one bad year like Bruce, he'll figure it out and still could be this teams third baseman of the future. Note the green text, friend

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:48 PM) You can't have a talent like Jose batting 4th. Every spot lower in the order gets you fewer plate appearances per season. There's a TON of evidence that the 4th batter receives more RBI opportunities than the 3rd batter. I wish I could link to it but it's not available online, as it is sold in Tom Tango's "The Book," which I highly recommend. In fact, the same study shows that the 2nd batter often gets more than the 3rd batter. Also, for reference, each spot in the lineup receives an average of 18 fewer plate appearances than the one before it, over the course of a full season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) No, that is obviously Bryant. But you've got to have SOMETHING that at the very least, you know you are going to get out of this if the worst case happens, all the prospects bust. I can see a legitimate argument that you'd prefer Castro to Russell. But it's still a minimum of Bryant, Soler, Castro, and another guy that's a tier down. And the Cubs would just never do that. I feel like the Cubs would try to pass off Baez as a top tier guy, then include Alcantara and some lower dudes. After intense negotiations, their best offer might be ONE of Bryant/Soler + a couple third tier guys. Or maybe one of Bryant/Soler + Castro to clear their SS logjam.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:33 PM) I'm talking about for purposes of this conversation. I am not "tagging" you for anything. Castro has been a relatively valuable player for most of his career. He certainly provides a little bit of certainty in regards to what you are getting. It would be difficult to hang up the phone if names like Castro, Bryant, and Soler were mentioned. He's got value as a part of a total package, but he's not a guy that "gets me listening" on Chris Sale.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:09 PM) See, you keep downplaying prospects, and then selecting only prospects. Why not include someone with a little more certainty in terms of performance? Like who? They don't have anyone except Rizzo, and that's the last place on the diamond we need help. Notice I selected nothing but advanced, upper minors guys that have maintained their upside. And, individually, they all have probably less than a 50/50 shot to reach their ceilings. Collectively, you feel like one probably will. Also, please don't tag me for "downplaying prospects," as I am usually on the other side of that debate. If I'm "downplaying" them, it's only when I'm comparison with what is literally the most ideal possible outcome for them, which is when they turn into superstars the year after signing long-term extensions that pay them like bench players. EDIT: Also, I'm not trying to make anyone angry. Lillian informed me that I'm acting like an asshole today and she's probably right and I'm sorry. I can't seem to get the "edge" out of my posts today for some reason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 06:07 PM) Because he might pass through, where another team won't take him. That way they can keep him, and outright assign him to Charlotte. I'm surprised this wasn't Wilkins. Me too, considering the signing was LaRoche. Maybe they felt Carroll was a better bet to go unclaimed?

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Yes, you would certainly think that would be the case. However, apparently our organization has not shared our embracement of this principle. We haven't had much left handed, potent hitting, in quite a while. I often think that this team was constructed upside down, with almost all Left handed pitchers, and almost all right handed hitters. It has always seemed very perplexing to me. I wouldn't assume it's for lack of trying, though.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) A lot of information right there, so we are looking at: Eaton ? Abreu LaRoche Avi Gillaspie ? ? ? To me, this only makes sense if you have a switch-hitting 2 batter, or you believe more in the concept of lineup protection than you believe in the ability of specialized high-leverage relievers to mow down guys when they have the platoon advantage. Since Eaton is lefty and "locked" in at leadoff, it sets the tone of the lineup to require a lefty in the three hole: L Eaton R ???? L LaRoche R Abreu L Gillaspie R Garcia ? ???? ? ???? ? ???? Now, if you get Melky for the two hole, or if Semien hits well enough to stay there, you can "reset" the pattern of handedness and put Abreu at three while still forcing the other team to burn a bunch of relievers or throw against the platoon advantage later. This is ideal if you think it's important for LaRoche to "protect" Abreu: L Eaton S Melky/Semien R Abreu L Laroche R Garcia L Gillaspie ? ???? ? ???? ? ????

There's a whole culture around fake news now that is just baffling.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 03:47 PM) Let me ask you this... What pieces could the Cubs give you that you would accept for Sale? At absolute minimum, Bryant + Soler + Russell + Edwards. That's the point where, if it happened, I can squint and see it as good, but I'd still be uneasy. And that's already completely unrealistic from the Cubs' perspective -- they would never even consider it. And no other system in the league can touch that offer. I mean, if we make that trade, we're basically making a play to become what the Cubs are now, except we're in a worse position.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) You're lottery analogy is WAY overstating how difficult it is to analyze prospects in today's day and age. Every prospect that has been mentioned in this thread is in their early 20's with sustained success in the high levels of the minors. If we were to get 6 prospects back are they all going to reach their potential? Of course not, that would be naive to think so. But you're lottery analogy is also extreme in the opposite direction. Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:45 PM) But it isn't random; it's not like we have never seen the players. It isn't like we don't select the players. It isn't like we don't ultimately get to choose whether to accept or deny. I understand there is uncertainty in the finished product you will receive, and that will drive the offers and the process. I think you're both underestimating the bust rate. Further, even among the ones that don't bust, few end up reaching their ceilings. This estimate is way too rosy: "Reality is more like 3 would do what we hoped, 1 would be disappointing but still a useful player, and the other 2 would be utter failures." 50% of notable prospects turn into what you hoped? I think it's more like 20%

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:57 PM) No, you misunderstood me. Tongue-in-cheek, refers to my comment; "we have most of the good lefties". It's obviously not true that we actually have most of them. It just seems that way. That's what I meant by "tongue-in-cheek". So, now that we have clarified our intentions with these comments, what would be the best way to statistically examine my hypothesis? The hypothesis is; There are significantly more right handed pitchers, and they represent the vast majority of the pitches thrown in games. Therefore, employing hitters who are productive vs right handed pitchers, provides a generally more effective offense. The practical application of this principle is that, although a hitters composite stats may not be that impressive, if he is very good vs. RH pitching, he is going to be good in many more at bats, because he naturally doesn't face LH pitchers nearly as often. Of course, the ideal hitter is one who is good vs. all pitching. However, short of obtaining that ideal, I would prefer hitters who are good vs. RH pitching, over those who are relatively better vs. LH pitching. I'd appreciate all constructive comments, as this is a simple, but very important concept. A team is going to lose a lot of games, no matter how good they are. The objective is to be as effective as possible, for as much of the time as possible. Since RH pitching is by far the most common, it only makes sense that it is advantageous to have a lineup that is effective vs. that RHP. This is what has bothered me so much about the Sox having been so conspicuously void of any left handed offensive force in their lineup. Oh sure, we have Eaton and Gillaspie, but I'm talking about middle of the order hitters. Adam Dunn was a failure, and he was the only viable LH option, for the entire time he was in Chicago. Perhaps now some of you can understand why I want a player like Ethier to join LaRoche, in the heart of the order. Even if the team doesn't do that well vs. LHP, it's worth it to have a better chance to win in those majority of at bats and games, when facing RHP. I think that you have certainly established the argument that we need left-handed hitters. I think we all agree. I like that LaRoche addressed that, and I think we're fortunate that we're actually in a market where left-handed power is less expensive than right-handed power. As for Ethier: the idea of him makes sense, but his cost is truly prohibitive. I think he's popular on here for people who assume he'll come with salary relief, but we need to remember that if he does, he'll cost us talent. The only way we get him "free" is if we take the money. To me, there was room for one high-money, one dimensional acquisition for left-handed power, and that went to LaRoche. I think if we eat another $10-15m on Ethier, we're going to find ourselves hard-pressed to make the pitching upgrades we need to make for the team to have a fighting chance at a WC berth in 2015. All of that said, the next biggest priority behind pitching has GOT to be a left-handed LF, IMO. I just don't know that Ethier is the answer.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) No, but you're right about my having commented a few times that most of the good southpaws are on the Sox. Of course, it's a little "tongue-in-cheek". If there was any "tongue in cheek" to it, it was just because you asked someone to compile a list that I thought you had literally already compiled, haha. I'm sorry.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) I would have figured someone would take on Carroll. Someone took Axelrod, so why not?

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) To me they(above posters) are way more worried about intangible things like "value" of a contract rather than the actual tangible things like talent on the field. But you're card analogy works as well. This is apple and oranges. The "value" of the contract is only "valuable" if it allows you to acquire more talent to make a winning team. It seems like a lot of people are assuming we're defending the idea that Sale should be enough to win a WS on his own because he has surplus financial value on his contract. The argument is that we're better off using the advantage he gives us to build around him rather than trading him and hoping we luck into finding a guy like him again.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) It just sounds to me like you are viewing this as a poker game or something...and Chris Sale and Abreu are Aces and Q is a King...and we can only hold 5 cards, so why trade our Aces and Kings? Well what if we can trade one of those Aces for an Ace, two Kings and a Queen? You can't, though. That's my whole point. You can trade it for four more random cards, all of which are way more likely to be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or J than any of those other things. There are situations where that makes sense, but not when you're trying to win the hand. Another analogy. Lottery tickets. Let's say there's a lottery where you can win a million bucks, and every ticket has a 1 in 20 chance to win. Let's say you can get five of those. How much are you willing to pay? each one is, essentially, worth 5% of the prize, so the total value of the five lottery tickets is $250,000. Trading Sale for five high end prospects would be like spending $900,000 for five shots at a million, a total value of $250,000. In order to get close to even value, you need 20 tickets. And no team has or is willing to trade 20 high end prospects for Sale. And they all actually have a way lower than 5% chance to turn into Mike Trout anyway.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) There is a combination of assets that is though. You may be right, it doesn't matter regardless, since neither of us makes the decisions. Which calls into question all the time we spend on this board in the first place

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:58 PM) You are oversimplifying this. Ultimately, every player is an asset. The teams that put together the highest sum total of assets within their own particular financial constraints generally have the most sustained success. If you can potentially increase the sum total of your assets by trading any one of your assets, regardless of it's surplus value, it's something one needs to explore. I am not blindly advocating trading Chris Sale or one of the Jose's for a handful of prospects. If you've read my posts on the matter if trading Sale, I'd advocate for at least one high-ceiling talent who has seen some level of sustained success in the mlb, plus some high-ceiling pedigreed prospects, plus an additional veteran or two. Now admittedly, I don't know that any team in baseball would accept those demands - and that's fine - but if one does, I am certainly going to explore it. I'm not going to refuse to trade him because he represents surplus value. This is not a zero sum game here. Right, but I'm saying there is no available asset that is equal or greater to Sale. The amount of of lottery ticket prospects you'd have to compile to be comfortable trading Sale is not a reasonable amount. I get that everyone's saying "you have to be blown away," but you're NOT going to be. A team would have to make a dumb deal to be competitive, and they won't. So, in the universe we're in, there isn't a deal that exists where it makes to trade Sale. I guess I just don't think it's fun to think about stuff that never has a chance to happen, and maybe I should stay out of these threads and let people have their fun.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:41 PM) My summary of your post after reading it...This is my opinion. It's fact. Deal with it. Its not the same scenario, but the Cardinals let arguably the best hitter of the generation walk for nothing and have continued to have success since. Its perfect proof that there is no 1 player that is more valuable than good organizational depth. The Cardinals realized they could replace Pujols with 3-4 players at the same $ amount and actually be better off. If you wouldn't trade 1 SP for 3 everyday regular players + 2 very good young arms you're crazy. All there is to it. If you were arguing that you didn't like certain things about the individual prospects it would be 1 thing, but the idea that there is no package that could replace Chris Sale's value is ludicrous at best. The key differences are that (a) the Cardinals were already a great team, looking for the best way to stay great, and (b) Pujols was a pending free agent, not a 25 year old star signed for nothing for six year. If Sale was 30 and a free agent, this would be a completely different discussion. Likewise, if the Cardinals were rebuilding and Pujols was 25, they wouldn't have moved him.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) Wrong, option B is how you end up like the Royals of the 90's, having a couple stars but not having enough depth to ever make a run. Thats the option where you get to see players like Chris Sale win championships in other cities while you remenice on his time as a White Sox and how he should have won Cy Youngs, but couldn't win enough games because of the talent around him. In option "A" you move one of those players and supplement the other stars that remain with above replacement level players, if some reach star status that is icing on the cake. The teams in the WS this year are great examples, neither could be considered to have more than a couple of star players (especially with Cain out), but are solid enough all around that they make up for it. Obviously Sale and Abreu are off the table, but a Q trade could fill a lot of holes and provide enough upgrades that the Sox can contend next season and each of the years that they still have Sale under contract. This stuff below: QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) I don't think that's wrong at all. The Royals, unlike the White Sox, were unwilling to spend money to fill those other holes and also made some god awful trades during that time frame. I have no problem trading Chris Sale and/or Jose Quintana after the 2017 season if the Sox have shown no signs of competitiveness, because that leaves them with something like 2-3 years of control each, which is still incredibly valuable, and gives the Sox another 3 years with the current team. If that's not enough time, it was never going to happen. However, if you fill the major holes in the lineup with either guys that are currently here or guys from outside the organization - the areas that could use upgrades from last year are C, 2B, LF, RF, DH, SP, SP, SP, and we'll just say bullpen in general - then the Sox are looking fine. That's easy to say, but you can also look at a few of those holes and pencil in upgrades - 2B is Semien, RF is Garcia, DH is LaRoche, one of the SP is Rodon, one of the relievers is Duke, one of the relievers may be Webb - and it's starting to look a lot better fairly quickly. There's no rush to trade these guys off. Yeah, if someone makes an absurd offer for Quintana, you take it, but nobody's going to do that. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:37 PM) The Royals never made any attempt to keep any of their stars, and repeatedly traded them off until it became an absurd joke. They had no depth because they kept planning for everybody to be stars at the same time, and as wite said they never spent money to fill the holes. Option B only fails if you refuse to add to your $40m payroll. I am not advocating that we should freeze the roster as it is for five years and see if it wins.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) Your sarcasm aside, no I haven't. I wasn't being sarcastic, I feel like I've read posts from you where you illustrate that there aren't any strong left-handed starters in the Central, except for ours.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) Would someone please provide a list of the good Left Handed starters in our Division? Without compiling such a list, my impression is that most of the good southpaws are on the Sox. Therefore, I still think we could use one more middle of the order type left handed bat. Ethier is still my favorite candidate, as he absolutely rakes vs RHP. I'd love to see him sit on days that a southpaw is starting for the other team, and have him available to pinch hit against a tough RH reliever, in the late innings. At any rate, if someone can provide that information, I'd be grateful. While you're at it, if you can list how many good LH relief pitchers there are, that would be interesting as well. Off hand, I would guess that the number of both LH starters and relievers, is very small. I think you've made that list for us several times.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:47 AM) I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. There is not "one" blueprint. There may be "a" blueprint which has worked recently, but that doesn't make it "the" blueprint. The name of the game is to win the World Series. The name of the game is to build sustained success. While I concede that having players like Sale and Quintana signed to the contracts that they are has extreme value, it has little value if the rest of the roster isn't strong enough to leverage that value into sustained success (as another poster also mentioned). No one is going to disagree with you about Sale and Q being incredibly valuable. But their value is limited by the talent of the whole. While we are moving in the right direction, the talent of the whole still remains our problem here. If we could acquire other players to increase the value of the whole beyond what it would reasonably be with Sale or Q, that is something that needs to be explored. If we could bring back other versions of Sale or Q, that is something that needs to be explored. We can sit and drool over the excess value we're getting from guys like Sale and Q until we've worked ourselves into a frenzy, but it doesn't win us anything. I recognize that the odds of replacing the excess value Sale or Q bring by trading them may be unlikely - and that should be factored into the decision to trade them - but you simply cannot tell me that there is no trade of these players that could make sense for us, because it simply is not true. Ok so our current situations is this: we have a handful of star-level players who are controllable and cheap. We can either (a) get rid of them for different players who are controllable and cheap and hopefully will reach star-level or (b) leverage the advantage that those players give us and actually try to win a World Series. If your goal is to win a WS, option B is the only option. Option A is a perpetual cycle of "maybe next year." My point is NOT that you can win by ONLY acquiring assets with surplus value. That's impossible. My point IS that trading Sale or Quintana at this point is a characteristic of option A. There is a point where Sale and Quintana should be traded. That point is somewhere around 2018 in the instance that those players may no longer fit into the plan for the next five years because they are older/less effective/no longer in possession of several years of below-market control. We are ONE year into this current cycle of Hahn building a perpetual winner. We must stay the course. There is no realistic package that we can get for Chris Sale that will bring us closer to the WS than keeping Chris Sale, and we have not given this core a chance to win. It is not time to tear it down.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:45 AM) It does the Sox no good to have two really good starters signed to good contracts if the roster is not in a position to compete. If you have the opportunity to plug multiple roster holes at the same time and put the team into a place where it can contend, you absolutely must do it. Your window with Sale and Q is until 2019, and after that they will move on to a more competitive team with a larger payroll and all you will get in return is a draft pick. I don't think Sale can be traded as there isn't a way for a team to match his value, but the Sox need to think really hard about trading Q to help put the entire roster in a better position to compete in the window that Sale is still here. So when do you decide you're in a good position to compete? What does that actually look like? Collecting 25 year old superstars signed to laughably below market extensions IS rebuilding. That's the blueprint! We're one year into a rebuild, and you want to tear it down and rebuild? Do people still actually believe that you can get a whole team of prospects to show up at the exact same time and be a winner? There is no team in the league, at any given time, that cannot expect to compete within five years.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 10:29 AM) I didn't want to start a new thread, so I figured this might be the best one to post in. The winter meetings are coming up quickly, and the Sox will surely be busy. They've already made a couple decent moves by filling two important holes. One could argue (rightfully so) that Duke and LaRoche don't completely fill those holes, though. Obviously the bullpen needs more, and we'd all like to see one more LH bat. I get concerned, though, when I see a team like the Red Sox make two huge moves in one day, signing two of the more coveted free agents...two free agents that the White Sox have been linked to in some fashion. Now, I think we can all agree that spending $100 million on Sandoval is an overpay, and we're glad our Sox didn't make that move. But, I'm still concerned because I just don't see the White Sox making that one BIG move that gets the attention of the baseball world. I don't care what ESPN thinks; they'll be wetting themselves over the BoSox's new acqusitions for quite a while. But what about getting the attention of other teams? Will the White Sox be making any moves between now and spring training that will make them true contenders for 2015? I could possibly see the Sox signing Melky, but that seems a little less likely after the signing of LaRoche. There is still the possibility of Alexei being traded in a move that brings Kemp or Ethier to the Sox. That could be big, but it still lacks what the Sox will need to be truly considered contenders. I guess what I'm getting at is, what moves will get the Sox over the hump for 2015? I'd love to see the Sox shock the baseball world and sign Scherzer. Then have them make a trade that sends Danks' bloated contract somewhere in return for an outfielder. There are a few free agents that could help the Sox right now, but with the Ramirez and Sandoval signings, there's no doubt that the quality free agents are going to cost a lot. There are trade opportunities that could help the Sox right now, but to get what we'd really want it would take Quintana. Do the White Sox have a hope, a prayer, a chance to compete in 2015 without blowing up the budget and/or trading some young, cost-controlled talent? I want to say yes, but I get more concerned each day. The "biggest" remaining acquisition has to come via trade now, IMO. The problem with free agency is that you, by definition, pay market rate for your improvements. You cannot afford market rate for 5 or 6 improvements, unfortunately. Think about it this way: we pretty much all like the Duke and LaRoche signings individually, or at least we agree that the Sox got "good value," even if some of us don't like the players. Despite that, those two guys add up to about $18m in new payroll next year. Most of us around here agree that the most the Sox will add is $30-40m. Nearly HALF of that is gone, addressing just two needs. I've liked the idea of Melky at ~$12m per year, but if you do that now, you're suddenly at $30m and you haven't addressed the rotation at all, and still need AT LEAST on RH reliever. And Tyler Flowers is still your catcher and Phegley is his backup. It's trade time. Free agency is like sugar in your diet -- must be used sparingly.