Eminor3rd

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 26, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) No Another low OBP strikeout hitter who plays poor defense. At this point, I'd take a good platoon in left, and they could rotate DH as well. I'm with you here -- Cespedes is a complementary piece that expects to be paid like a core piece. You can get that production much, much cheaper.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 24, 2014 -> 04:10 PM) Jason Heyward had an OPS of .735 last year and is signed for 1 more year. The idea that it takes multiple top prospects to get his services for a year is crazy. The only thing sillier is that the Sox should be the team to do it. The Sox have had 3 90 win seasons (and 3 playoff berths) in the last 20 year using that approach. WARNING: OPS Rant Omg why are people still citing OPS and treating it like it's a proxy for a player's overall value? Not only is OPS bad, but everyone is still tuned to the standards of the steroid era, when every outfielder had to be 800+. This is simply NOT representative of baseball today. Let's use numbers that (a) properly weight the constantly changing value relationship between OBP and SLG, and (b) are actually adjusted to the offensive era that we are in. 2014 Jason Heyward: 110 wRC+, +24.1 UZR, 5.4fWAR. This is a guy who hit 10% better than league average and played elite defense in 2014 -- in fact, almost as elite as you can possibly be. The result was an all-star caliber player. You would NOT expect the +25 UZR to be sustainable (though he's done it before in 2012), but since he's always been between +10 and +25, it's reasonable to expect a +10-15. And since the wRC+ is actually a touch BELOW his career of 117, there's no reason to believe he won't be sitting at 110-115 next year. And that would be an awesome season and he would be the best position player on our team, save Abreu. Please stop citing OPS, it's problematic. It gives us an inaccurate picture of the truth and we have better tools that are just as easy to find and utilize. Ok, I'm done. I'm sorry, GreenSox. I know I'm a jerk. The point about the one-year of control is huge, but for like three pages here it looks like everyone is talking about a trade being contingent on an extension. The part that makes it interesting is that his value would conceivably be lower than one might think simply because of the lack of control. I'm not sure how it would be affected if all involved parties knew that a handshake extension agreement was being made.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 22, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) Everyone can be terrible next year. No reason to ever spend money in an effort to improve. As Stacey says, if you are scared, buy a dog. Not wanting to spend money on players you think are bad has nothing to do with being scared.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) I'd rather talk Adam Dunn out of retirement vs Morales. Especially in a two-year deal. To me, he's only a candidate on a one year pillow contract and only if we fail at our main plan.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 01:57 PM) this is not a Danks response but a response for any player in this situation. The contract is sign and sealed. no one can change that, no one. he got hurt, thru no fault except for bad luck. am I happy no. am I saying dump him, no, the sox can not do that. why, rule and the union will prohibit that. what can the sox do about him, nothing. trade him, been there and no one is biting. can he come back, maybe, doubt it, but crazier things have happen. the sox will have to coop with this hole for the length of his contract. What do you mean? Of course they can dump him. They could release him outright if they wanted. They just still have to pay him.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 02:17 PM) different level of cheating. how can 1 come up with an excuse for 1 example of a cheat and let the others go by. it has to be 1 penalty. plain and simple. there is no degrees of interpretation. Rose was not accused of cheating. The ban against betting exists so as not to encourage players/managers to intentionally risk or throw the game in the interest of covering a point spread or whatever.

The only argument for keeping Danks is that we don't have anything else to spend the money on. But if you're (the collective you're) one of the posters who wants the Sox to get in on buying some talent, you've got to be comfortable with the fact that $15m of what we can afford is going to John Danks over each of the next couple years. That is a substantial portion of the resources our front office has to make a winning team. I applaud all of your efforts to squint really hard and see some semblance of hope, but no matter how much you cherry pick, the reality is this: Danks had a shoulder injury that sapped a significant amount of his velocity. In order to throw at his old velocity, he has to sacrifice his command. In order to regain his command he has to pitch at 88. To succeed at 88, he has to have elite control, and he does not have said elite control. There IS a chance he rebounds into a good pitcher next year, either by recovering velocity or by simply pitching his nuts off all year with no mistakes. That chance is VERY small. If you think the team needs another punted year to develop and build talent, then taking those long-odds on Danks makes a ton of sense. But if you want to compete, there's a 90-95% chance that Danks is a financial hurdle; 5-10% chance he contributes.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) I know what you mean but basically Danks averaged one s***ty start per month over a six month season and outside of that one s***ty start, he was pretty good. I'll take that. I believe this is what scs787 is saying, and I agree. Maybe I just prefer rainbows and unicorns, leave me alone you hippo.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) what gets me is when Danks signed his contract, he was healthy. he got hurt in the performance of his job, pitching for the white sox. is it his fault that he got hurt or that he sign a contract before he got hurt. this is the main reason why the players combine and formed the union. to protect themselves. if no team wants to take a risk on him the player but they then have to take his contract. he pitch well for the sox, before his injury and still should have loyalty of the fans. if not, then fans are indeed fickle. Oh, I don't HATE him for getting hurt or being bad. I just don't want him on my team anymore. I have a John Danks shirsey I still wear. Also, I don't feel anyone owes him any sympathy -- he signed a contract that guaranteed him fifty million dollars regardless of his performance, and he's going to be paid every penny. He is plenty "protected."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 09:58 AM) Basically Milton Bradley sucked at The Game of Life, always getting himself into some sort of Twister, and never really able to Connect Four good years together. Bravo haha

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) Except that it is. He has a track record of using PED's in contract years and then falling off the map, which should make anyone take pause when looking at his number from this season. There will always be room for question and speculation because of his past. I would say the same thing about Nelson Cruz and Peralta as well. This is all moot anyway, he is going to receive a QO and that coupled with the money that will be required to sign him will not make the acquisition worth it. There's nothing wrong with talking about how PEDs or lack thereof might affect a guy's performance going forward. My snarky comment was because that is NOT what greg is talking about. He is talking about his personal aesthetic displeasure with Melky, which is related to his PED use, which would make his acquisition grounds for a "ruined offseason."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 07:30 AM) I would rather he have 20 or more really good starts with the 6 or 7 real clunkers, than have a consistent 5.00 ERA for all of his starts. The fact is, most of the time Danks did not suck, advanced stats be damned. And yet he DID suck plenty enough to single-handedly lose 6 or 7 games, which is tremendously significant. Think about the impact of seven guaranteed losses. And when he wasn't single-handedly losing the game, he came in as a mid-rotation starter giving up a little over 3 runs per nine innings. And you can't get those 25 middling starts without taking the 7 automatic losses. The reason 3.16 is a "good ERA" is because it assumes that you INCLUDE the clunkers. If a guy is allowing over three runs per nine when he's at his best, he isn't very good.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 05:53 PM) Also, since everyone loves when I cherry pick....Throw out his 6 truly dreadful starts and he had a 3.18 ERA for 26 starts (164 innings)....Call those innings luck if you must, but as a 4th/5th starter I'll take a guy who gets shelled once a month if he's also keeping us in games the other 4-5. His contract does change things a bit, so with that said I'm cool with trading him for a decent offer. Don't think we need to just dump him or that trading him should be a priority though. QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 11:05 PM) You make some very good points here. Obviously, when Danks was bad he was horrendous but a 3.18 ERA over 26 starts is pretty damn impressive. I knew he was pretty good outside of his bad starts but I did not think he was that good. Fwiw, I don't think you're cherry picking at all. But reality doesn't work that way, lol. He did NOT have a 3.18 ERA because he DID have 6 dreadful starts. EVERY pitcher looks good when you remove all their bad performances.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Oct 21, 2014 -> 06:11 AM) However, if they decide to wait one more year, doesn't a trade of Ramirez make sense? Personally, I think so.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 05:07 PM) I know alot of people on here don't want John Danks to be on the team, but getting rid of him for the sake of not wanting him on the team I don't get. He is mostly likely a former shell of himself and doesn't put up the prettiest numbers. Higher era and has a issue of coughing up the long ball. But you are also talking about the second most durable starting pitcher on the staff for this year. He did tied Quintana with 32 starts most on the team. Also had 193.2 innings pitched this year which is only 6.2 innings short of Quintana's at 200.1. The fact that he made it through the whole year with out going down helps that fact that in the first month of the season the Sox lost Sale, Johnson, and Pualino. Danks and Quintana were the only ones left from the opening day rotation at that time. For most of the year the Sox were trying to fill at least one spot in the rotation. Danks didn't do anything fancy when he pitched but what he did do was eat innings which is most you can ask for from a pitcher especially being the 5th starter. Losing most of your opening day pitching staff in the first 2 months doesn't help. Getting rid of Danks for the sake of not wanting him now opens up 3 holes in the rotations with not alot of back ups just for the 2 spots doesn't make sense. You would have to replace at least 190 innings and 32 starts which on the open market would be coughing up a chunk of change besides the fact you already have 2 open spots in the rotation. Your not likely getting much back for him even if you sending money with him. If you he puts up same amount of innings and starts with a era in the low 4s then I'm fine with that as the 5th starter. Also the thing about him winning 11 starts is him having career year I would take. Quintana only put up 9 wins in each of the last 2 seasons and danks was only one win behind sale this year. People talking about wanting McCarthy as he only put up 10 wins this year and which is the highest hes ever won and hes always injured. Innings are valuable, but replacement-level innings are not. We could get all of those innings out of Scott Carroll + Andre Rienzo for $480k, for example. We have plenty of guys that can be bad for us all year -- Danks is the only one that costs $15m.

All of those lists are pretty spot on, IMO. Only gripe I would have is Roostifier hanging #5 on Ravelo, which seems too aggressive to me. But, aside from that, seems like we're all on the same page.

Cespedes is very overrated.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Oct 18, 2014 -> 02:42 PM) WAR has its flaws and should be used as only part of evaluating a player. At some point common sense needs to be put into the equation. WAR puts way too much stock in flawed defensive metrics. If you trust WAR that much than that means both Zobrist and Alex Gordon were more valuable than Abreu last year. And I'm just not accepting any kind of argument that says this. Which is just you saying that you refuse to accept any argument that you may be underrating the value of defense.

Floyd is a candidate for a minor league deal, IMO. He had TJ that didn't "take," and was bleeding internally in his elbow by the end of his first start back. I just don't see any way I'd guarantee any number of millions to him until he proves his arm will hold together.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) We may not have a problem dealing with Boras like we used to, but that doesn't change the fact that he typically takes his clients to free agency and attempts to get top dollar for them. And quite frankly, he's very successful at doing that. The reality is if Rodon is as good as advertised, he's likely going to get a contract in free agency that will be above our risk tolerance. I'm actually quite astonished this many people are finding this notion hard to believe. So what? 98% of big free agent pitcher contracts turn out TERRIBLE. Let's take his six best years and let some other team deal with him.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) Just touching on Dayan's "room for growth" -- look at his comps through 25 on b-ref: Willie Montanez (971) George Hendrick (968) Jeremy Hermida (964) Rick Reichardt (958) Dick Kokos (955) Carmelo Martinez (954) Charlie Spikes (954) Andy Van Slyke (953) Cliff Floyd (950) Luis Gonzalez (949) Not exactly a row of guys that turned into average or even above average players. Hendrick had a nice career but he put together a season (124 OPS+) at 24 that Dayan could only dream about. Van Slyke obviously was on teh complete opposite side of the spectrum with defensive value. Dayan reminds me of Wily Mo Pena. Crap defense, crap running, solid power, even good power, but no on base skills, no contact skills. Mo washed out of the league after he proved he couldn't hit enough to stick as a regular. I can see Dayan going to Japan in a few years and having a good career, but I can't see him having a good career in MLB without a major, major jump in contact skill or patience. Things that just aren't likely to happen. Wily Mo is KILLING Japan right now, though!

Media memes die SO slow. Clearly, our team has no problem dealing with Boras at this point. We can all see that now, right?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 07:24 AM) But this team easily could compete for a division crown. You improve 3-4 spots on the team, improve the bullpen in general, and you could easily be talking about a 12+ win jump. With an estimated free agent value of $11 mill (the average of what Quintana qualifies for from the White Sox for his first 2 years of free agency), the White Sox have Quintana set up as 30%/49%/63%/80%, which even favors the player a little bit compared to the typical 40/60/80. Even if you assume Rodon's free agent value will be $15 mill, you're looking at this: Super 2: 0.5/0.5/4.5/7.5/9.5/12 = $34.5 Non S2: 0.5/0.5/0.5/6.0/9.0/12 = $28.5 $6 million is, in the long run, a very minimal amount extra Nice, repost this in the PHT thread where we're currently arguing about Rodon being in the f***ing bullpen or some crap.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 17, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) Its management of resources, do you really want to invest a large share of your resources in a SP when you have one for free sitting in waiting? Personally I would rather invest that money in the lineup and in the pen and take a shot on reclamation guy that you can spin at the deadline - as the Cubs have done each of the last two years. Rodon isn't the only pitcher on the horizon, Bassit is not far away nor is Beck and Danish will probably be ready to break camp with the team in 2016. I just don't want to unnecessarily tie up payroll in duplicative assets when there are holes at 2B, LF and DH that need to be addressed. Volquez may not be the answer, but he is one of a bunch of guys on that list that have potential to take a step forward and provide the Sox some value at the trade deadline. Whoever the Sox get, I would not want them to go anything beyond a 1 year deal with an option, similar to the Paulio deal. Dude, killer use of "duplicative."

None of this matters right now. By the time Rodon is testing free agency, our situation will be drastically different. We cannot predict what we'll need or not need in 6 years. Right now, it's this: Keeping him down for two weeks delays his free agency by a year. Keeping him down for three months avoids Super Two. It costs SO little to get that extra year of control that we should definitely do that, almost no matter what he does in the Spring. Beyond two weeks though, we should let his development dictate his promotion path. Avoiding Super Two saves us maybe $5-6m if everything goes right all the time with his career, and if everything goes right all the time, we'll gladly pay an extra five million bucks. I cannot see any argument at all to stick him in the bullpen for any amount of time, other than Steve Stone frequently mentions that it was a common practice in the 70's or whatever.