Eminor3rd

QUOTE (QuickJones81 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:10 AM) I was thinking about the bullpen issues, and ways to approach fixing it. One idea was to look at SPs who could be good candidates for a secone life as a closer/reliever. Thinking of it briefly one thought was to look at the 1st inning splits for all mlb and milb SP that could potentially be buy low candidates. I have no idea how to easily pull together that data. Is there a good site availbale that you guys know of that could help? Interesting thought. I don't know of any site that has the ability for you to get a list with those splits, but if you wanted the data, you might try shooting David Appelman at FanGraphs an email. They have a ton more data than they actually display on the site. That said, I'm not sure this is a good way to identify RP candidates, simply because SPs don't tend to throw anywhere near their hardest in the 1st inning and that they often purposely withhold some of their pitches to save for the second and third times through the order. I think you may be onto something in principle, though. There probably are some consistent indicators of what characteristics of starters make them good candidates for the bullpen. I'd bet that teams have their own criteria internally, but it would be cool to develop something for the public.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:34 AM) Made up? Here's what you wrote again: but they are always most valuable on day one. I will give you a break. Your boy Keith Law did say it was a bonehead move by the White Sox. By the time they are any good, he will be in freefall. Victor Martinez is what we would consider a "typical free agent," in that he is an MLB player that has been around for a while and is now free to sign with other teams. Jose Abreu, on the other hand, is what we would consider an "exceptional free agent," in that he entered our market by illegally fleeing his country, thus bringing circumstances into the fray that are both unusual and thus not normally applicable to the tendencies of free agency. An observant fan might notice that the discussion we're having in this thread is in regards to Victor Martinez. A good indicator is the presence of his name in the thread title. Those in this thread read my post and understood that I was referring to "typical free agents" like Victor Martinez. It's okay that you didn't -- English is a terribly subtle language and, along with any written form of communication, words often contain "implied meanings." it's easy to get confused. In summary: Jose Abreu = upside, long-term contribution, chance to be underpaid Victor Martinez = no upside, short-term contribution, almost definitely overpaid Therefore, signing Jose Abreu is not similar to signing Victor Martinez, and so assuming that the the results of the former signing will apply to the latter merely by virtue of similarity would represent a logical fallacy. Does that make sense? Or were there any ambiguous words in there that you can misconstrue so that you can keep trying to "win the argument" the same way Ryan Braun "won" his PED case?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:17 AM) And the problem with free agents is that they are nearly ALWAYS diminishing assets. Their rate of decay varies, but they are always most valuable on day one. That is your quote. Jose Abreu is a diminishing return. Quit insulting my intelligence. Of course I see the difference. But you have to pay up to get Jose Abreu. I am sure you are happy they didn't wait until they could win before signing him. And I fully expect them to contend next year. That apparently is another difference we have. You are insulting ALL of our intelligence(s?) by pretending to be dense about this. Also note the word "nearly" in what you quoted above. Abreu is clearly a special case to everyone here, and you know it, so you can stop pretending I painted myself into some corner that you made up.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:06 AM) When has signing a 36 year old to a 3-4 year guaranteed free agent contract (and not a convicted in the court of public opinion PEDS user) ever worked out in baseball history when that player was coming off an anomalous statistical career timeline performance in his contract year, which happened to be in his mid 30's? Been asking that question for pages. BUT, evidently signing a 27-year old advanced MLB prospect with tremendous upside at a rate of a league average contributor was a similar gamble.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) I am not switching arguments. You made my point. You have to spend money to sign good players. Besides, if the White Sox do improve just a little bit, the cost for signing a free agent will become a 1st round pick if they wait. Again, I wouldn't go 4 guaranteed years for Martinez. 3 with performance based incentives to make it 4, but he is perfect for the White Sox line up. Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY not see the difference between Jose Abreu and Victor Martinez? Seriously?

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) JR is smart, they have this profit / lose marginal for every yr of that yr expenses and profit. yeah, he may have lost for 2013 but no one factoring the profits the other yr. nor are they factoring other profits that is not listed that is associated with the running of the org. being smart and taking a smart gamble can get the sox a player like Hector Noesi and looses like Paulino. Dumpster diving...... i love it. the sox did not become a 2 billion org for nothing. Well said.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Yes, according to Forbes the White Sox lost money in 2013. But JR has had his minions tell us they only strive to break even every year. If that is truly the case, they have some catching up to do. The last time they lost money in a season was 2001, since then, according to Forbes, they have pulled a $189 million profit. Can we quit the crying poor for the White Sox? They have even trained the media into thinking they are broke. Remember when they signed Dunn? Paulie and AJ were out the door, until they weren't. JR was asked, "where did you get the money?" "You save a little here, save a little there" that was the response. This refrain continues to make no sense. It does NOT matter how much money JR has. It does NOT matter how much you think he should spend. There is a ceiling to the amount of money that the Sox will spend on payroll. This is a fact. You must let that sink in. It has never been higher than about $125m, and every single time it crests, it falls by $20-30m the next season. The reality is that if you commit to bringing it up there, you'd better be happy with the team you have, because if it isn't good enough, money isn't going to magically appear to patch it up. And the problem with free agents is that they are nearly ALWAYS diminishing assets. Their rate of decay varies, but they are always most valuable on day one. Again, no one is afraid of spending the money, but everyone is afraid of impatience leading to four more s***ty years. All signs point to spending the big dollars when you need the benefit immediately. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) There is plenty of money. Dumpster diving gets you Felipe Paulino. Get some real players. Hahn is "getting some real players." He just isn't using free agency. And since he isn't using free agency, he has short-term dollars left over, that he uses on lottery tickets like Felipe Paulino. It is erroneous to view Felipe Paulino and his ilk as an alternative to a high end free agent. Rather, Felipe Paulino is just gravy that is thrown on top of a completely different acquisition model. We are better for taking gambles on Felipe Paulino, but that is a completely unrelated thing to taking gambles on Victor Martinez.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:35 AM) To be fair, two teams that look very mediocre just played in the World Series. But neither of those two just maxed themselves out for the next several years by committing to declining veterans. Like I said somewhere recently (maybe earlier in this thread), it makes some sense to be a .500-ish team, but only if you can SUSTAIN it. You can't sustain it by pushing all in on a crap hand. Maybe you get the shot in the dark for a year, but guess what happens next? Rebuild. Hahn, like so many others right now, is aiming for this to be the final rebuild. I don't know if it's possible, but the idea is to take lumps now to put together something that can be reasonably competitive every year. Pushing all in on Victor Martinez, Melky Cabrera, a reclamation project starter, and a couple overpaid relievers at this point feels like taking a half court shot in 2015 at the cost of not having a prayer for the next three or four years.

I think I agree with caulfield. The problem is this: posters have taken dozens of well-thought-out stabs at what going "all in" would look like this year. Some seem insane, some seem conservative, etc. And to me, ALL of them leave us with what looks like a very mediocre team.

QUOTE (LDF @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 07:34 AM) I am coming very late to this party, so I will say this only Bravo. excellent post. on a side note dang, I wish I could write like this. Thanks man!

Oh man.

This is very cool: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-...ual-experiment/ Kiley McDaniel audio commentary referring to a three GIF set showing three versions of Montas' slider from his outing the other night.

Montas with highest velo among starters: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs...ing-to-pitchfx/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 05:42 PM) But $4.5 million goes a decent part of the way towards finding a better OF. That's a lot of money to waste on an insurance policy against coming up empty in the free agent market when $4.5 million extra to spend is insurance against coming up empty anyway! I just think we can stomach it for this year while the payroll is really low. In years where we're maxing it out, I don't think you'd even consider it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 05:21 PM) I can't think of him as an insurance policy because I can't think of him being useful in a backup role. An insurance policy is what you use when something goes wrong, so what do we do if things go right and we find a better starting OF somewhere? Like I said we can't keep him on the bench because he's such a poor fit for that role, he's shown no success with the bat to justify thinking of him as a DH option, basically he's an insurance policy against us failing to find a replacement for him. But Hell, play that guy we just picked up on the waiver wire, he literally cannot be worse. Yeah, he's a bad reserve. If you find a better OF, you DFA him. The bolded is exactly what I mean by "insurance policy."

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 05:16 PM) Remember the Sale/Martinez incident ? It was Avi who told Martinez that Sale thought he was getting signs from CF which is a more recent thing than the Fielder incident so I'm pretty sure Avi and Victor are friends. I think when talking mentors a fellow countryman will always be a better choice for influence. My many many yrs. of being a Sox and baseball fan tell me its the intangibles that often make a difference . So while I will always applaud your logical way of looking at things taking VMart from the Tigers and a possible adjustment yr. needed from LaRoche to facing AL pitchers at his age and the publicity surrounding a VMArt signing are things that can't be ignored or pushed aside as negligible. I don't mean to imply that those things are negligible; I agree that they are important. I just think that too often we ASSUME they'll be in play when they may not. For example: we assume that every Cuban player will insist on being around the most other Cuban players. In reality, maybe just having one or two is enough, or maybe it helps for the first season but doesn't matter to a guy who has gotten his feet wet in the league, or maybe some of the guys know each other but don't particularly LIKE each other. Or in terms of mentorship/leadership: we assume that Victor will be a great leader, but who says we don't already have one on the team? I think it's really hard to predict which guys will get along with each other, and there's a decent chance that a new leader emerges from anywhere. So getting Victor isn't necessarily the choice between a leader or no leader. I just don't think it's safe to assume that the intangibles that a guy brings will make a significant difference. Intangibles, in general, always matter in the end, but they don't often appear and operate in predictable ways.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) I wouldn't. I'm done with him, and I'm convinced that he'll be the starting LF if he's tendered a contract because that means no one wanted him before that deadline. He's not going to have higher value in January than now, he's a terrible, terrible, terrible option as a backup OF because of defense and baserunning, and we've already seen Rick get stuck with guys people talked about him trying to trade because he offered them arbitration and no one wanted them until the end of the year. The bolded is a great point. Still, $4m isn't much for an insurance policy. Because if he couldn't find anyone better over the offseason, we might as well give him another shot in the dark until someone else emerges. However, I'm saying that assuming that I'd be totally comfortable DFA'ing him at any time and eating that money. If his contract guarantees his roster spot, then I'd dump him for sure.

As anti-Viciedo as I am, I'd tender him a contract. You try to trade him, but if that fails, you find him a platoon partner. If that fails, you give him another year or replace him and eat the $4m. This is a season where we can afford to carry that $4m in dead weight in the worst case scenario.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) Also get no mentor for Avi and less excitement in the general fanbase for signing a superstar and we don't hurt the Tigers. Also I really hate National League hitters coming to the AL. I think Abreu will be a fine mentor. Maybe LaRoche will be, too. And we know the fanbase will get excited when we win, not before (at least in any measurable sense), so I think think we should be focused on that overall. Also, wasn't Victor caught up in the middle of the Avi vs. Prince Fielder debacle? Maybe he was a mediator, but it's a definite possibility that Victor does NOT like Avi, especially considering it seems like Avi was pretty clearly in the wrong. Or at least, either no one was in the wrong or Avi was in the wrong.

I just can't get on board with a 6+yr/$100m+ contract to a 30+ pitcher at this point in MLB. I mean I think that literally ALL of them have turned out bad so far. You can argue maybe that Sabathia's current flaming disaster was worth the production up front, but still. So maybe one has worked, arguably.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) Of the 5, 2 hit LH, one will cost you more than Victor, and the other hit like Leuri Garcia this year and has and agent named Boras. I don't think anyone's disputing that Victor is the best hitter available this year, but they are all either substantially younger, substantially cheaper, or don't come with draft pick compensation. Balta's point, I think, is that there are other options and that there are always other options. I really think LaRoche is the best option. If we all agree that healthy expectations for Martinez and LaRoche are ~125 and 115 wRC+, respectively, then we're talking the difference in going with LaRoche equalling about getting 10% less offense for 50% fewer total dollars, 50% fewer years, and no draft pick compensation. You get most of the production and a bunch of money to spend on something else too.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) Dick was saying either a switch hitter or a LH because we need a LH badly . Morse ,Butler and Cuddyer are RH . Sandoval was pitiful against LH's this year and isn't a DH and Morales was just plain pitiful all around . Not solved at all. Not to nitpick, but RE: Sandoval, if you want a LH hitter, you are concerned with his performance against RHP, not LHP.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 03:34 PM) Guess the difference between our arguments is that I don't see VMart as the most risky by far. You mentioned Adam Laroche as a possibility. He's 13 months younger than VMart but he's not very good against LH's. Of course he'd be cheaper and be able to play a better 1st base than Martinez in late innings and occasional starts. So he's essentially useless against LH's and his K's hurt you in those runner on 3rd and less than 2 out situations. Martinez has shown throughout his career that he is equally good against LH's and RH's . You also have the same arguments for rapid decline because of the similarities in age. Sure you can sign him for 1 or 2 less years probably but I'd rather have the guy who can be a bigger threat against all pitchers and in late innings when teams bring in a specialist. I don't think his performance is any riskier than LaRoche's, but when you factor cost, Victor is a riskier proposition.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) Riskiest would be giving one of those pitchers over $100 million or giving Scherzer a 7 year contract. If you are thinking, 3 years $48 is a doable thing, it would have to go a lot higher than that to be as risky as those signings. Yeah, that's probably true. What I meant to say was that Martinez represents the highest combination of high risk and short-term return. James Shields is the pitching equivalent this year.