Eminor3rd

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) I wouldn't hate to see Alex Guerrero involved in any Alexei/Danks and dodgers deal. The guy can really rake, just wish he had a better glove at SS. Normally I would agree, but speculation is that it's such a bad glove that it doesn't even belong in the infield. The Dodgers had him penciled in as the 2014 2B, but sent him to the minors instead so that Dee Gordon could play because he needed that much work defensively.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:04 PM) No, this is exactly what I don't want. Signing one year wonders who are over 30 and have been released a couple of times the last 2 years. Coming into this season, the White Sox didn't think he was worth 1/5 of what they paid Scott Downs or they could have signed him for exactly that. Now he's worth $15 million over 3 years? Hopefully the difference here is that the White Sox believe that what he changed last year is both significant and sustainable. I get what you're saying, and I agree in premise -- but at least with this guy we have reason to believe he legitimately made a change that raised his true talent level.

I just hope that whatever he did last year is sustainable. I mean you want to talk about an outlier... I know they aren't related at all, but I think I have some irrational worry leftover from the very, very similar Keppinger deal, who was also coming off of a strange, late-career breakout. Overall, I'm into it. We needed a lefty who has some idea how to pitch, and we got him for $5m per year. Fine.

Well, that's reasonably exciting news, no matter how you feel about moving Alexei. The Dodgers have a good system. Though, admittedly, I'm not sure how DEEP it is. Alexei isn't going to net the famous guys up top, I don't think.

Ethier is NOT getting 550 PAs in 2017. He's already a platoon bat.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 09:40 AM) Well, considering the Dodgers want Kershaw, Greinke, Ryu, Haren and Scherzer to be their rotation, anything's possible. They don't need Danks, though. They DO need to clear Kemp's salary, because clearly he has the most value of the three names we keep mentioning. NOBODY needs Danks. That's the problem with these proposed swaps. It's basically "Dodgers give us Ethier for free along with most of his salary covered," because Danks is valueless. Maybe they WOULD do that if it was the best offer, but SOMEONE out there will do the same deal but send back a live-arm prospect instead, so if we want him, we'll have to beat that slightly.

I'm a huge fan of both Kiley's work AND the FanGraphs podcast -- but that was the worst ANYTHING I've heard in a long time.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 12:29 AM) Bowden did speculate about Miller, CarGo and Heyward moving. You know what they say about a broken clock?

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 06:14 PM) If you don't value superior defense, striking out much less, or walking much more, then yes, Markakis is exactly like De Aza. The defense is very arguable.

I like 3 @ 15 better

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) Not alot but you not going to need to totally shop in the luxury aisle. If you look at the Giants and royals who went to the world series they had alot of in house talent. Other players they acquired through with good prospects. Also signed by spending some money to get players. The sox don't have the luxury of a good deep farm system to acquire the likes of hunter pence or james shields. So they go route of trying to target talent through smarter moves like getting Eaton or davidson. Also have have try to spend wisely cause of the higher payroll with players they were stuck with. Now the have a chance to spend but be smart about it. This is not consistent with signing relievers to long-term contracts.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 01:22 PM) My initial reaction would be "What else are they going to do?" You just don't spend $18 million on two relievers and call it quits at that point. They'd have to add at least one starter and one outfielder, and you could argue that they could add another outfielder beyond that and perhaps an additional catcher. Same

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 12:44 PM) I don't think they have to... They have Holiday (no one's going to take him with his contract at this point in his career), Jay, Heyward, and Bourjos. And let's face it, Bourjos is a 4th OFer at this point. Plus Piscotty and Grichuk

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) Miller was a top 10 prospect no so long ago and still has done a decent job on the major league level and is controlled for several more years. I don't understand why some think this is a steal. The Braves usually don't make really bad trades. Miller was showing signs of a collapse in his stuff. I think I saw somewhere that his swinging strike rate HALVED over the course of one year. So I think that's it. Otherwise, 5 years of control for one year of Heyward would be hard to stomach.

Welp. Yeah, I mean, as badly as I wanted him, I didn't want him 5yr/$82m bad. Plus draft pick comp.

It's more than just the lump sum dollars -- it's also freezing yourself form the entire market for two years. For a team that's trying to building a "sustainable winner," that's a MAJOR drawback.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 12:35 PM) Tho you have to love the 2 and half ish years the sox got of crain. Right, exactly. You acquire relievers when you want them for like two years. Which, by the way, Crain BARELY reached. He was injured for the last three months of his time with us. And the Twins sure didn't like THEIR two years with him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 17, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) The last time we invested "heavily" into set-up guys, it didn't go so well with MacDougal, Dotel and Linebrink. It literally NEVER goes well. That's the point. Miller is no doubt better than Duke/Thatcher, but there's such a strong precedent that relievers aren't good for more than a couple years. There are a handful of like legendary guys that are exceptions, basically, but otherwise long-term reliever deals NEVER work. Or if they do, it's like less than 5% of the time.

They basically HAVE to move an OF now.

I would unquestionably prefer getting both Duke/Thatcher on 2yr deals than Miller at 4 years and $10m+ per. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the next time a four year deal for a reliever works out, it'll be the first. Or at least AMONG the first. I can't think of one right now.

It's an upside play -- you get him if you think there's a good chance he bounces back. If he does, you can try to extend him, if he doesn't you let him go. Houston might be willing to deal him at that price because they have other catchers they like more. Of course, it must come at the price of an upside play. If it costs them something that assumes he'll definitely bounceback, then it's a dumb deal. if this gets done, I assume it will be later in the offseason, because HOU is going to ask for a bunch at first, but it stands to reason that his price will come down as they get closer to going into the season with like 4 catchers.

I think Thompson is going to end up as a 4th OF. Probably not a lot different than a right-handed version of Jordan Danks.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/luhn...s-outfield.html

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) Castro is better than Flowers, but IMO, there are bigger fish to fry. I'd keep all the trade assets available for the bigger fish and if you keep getting shutdown, then go after this upgrade. I agree with that. A deal to make if you miss on your OF/SP targets.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 14, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) What changed your mind? You used to be pretty gung ho for Salty? The concept of pitch framing makes a lot of sense, and the better framers should be worth a lot more than the poorer ones. I just think there are too many factors that cause some strikes to be balls and some balls to be strikes other than the catcher. The two different formulas I have seen used, most of the top 5 are the same except for order, but below that, there is a wide variance. Flowers is terrible in one and one of the better framers in another. I feel like everything I see referenced comes from StatCorner: http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php Do you remember which other sources you've seen? I feel like Baseball prospectus had their own but I can't find anything other than Team Rankings