Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 16, 2014 -> 07:32 AM) Melky has a ton of warts. It is very understandable why some wouldn't want the White Sox to sign him. That's not why it would ruin greg's offseason though. I'm not real high on him either, honestly. But it's because I'm not sure how good he is.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 16, 2014 -> 06:34 AM) Why would that ruin your offseason? Because greg is more concerned about our players being likeable than he is about our team winning games.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 01:14 PM) and I will still continue to say, he may surprise many next yr. I still think he will rebound. I am done with danks discussion. I am really battling an uphill battle. keep up the good discussion. I hope you're right, I just don't see any reason to believe. Danks is a command-based pitcher, and from what is now a pretty generous amount of "rebound time," he can only touch his old velocity of low 90's by sacrificing his command. He's comfortably in the mid to upper 80's. When he's on, it'll play, but the margin for error is SO slim there that if he's having even a slightly mediocre night, he's going to give up BOMBS. I predict 4-5 good starts out of him next year that make you drool a bit, but also 4-5 total meltdowns and 15-20 starts of 4.50-5.00 ERA. To be effective he really needs to be near his best every night, and that's just too much to ask of anyone.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) I did not know that about Gillaspie, there goes that... Let's put it this way. Since Belt is likely to fill the LF void left by Morse, the Sox will likely have to over pay to get Belt and that's not likely to happen either. I would love to have Belt but the idea is just not very reasonable. Montas could be used as part of a package for Travis Snyder tho. Belt: You're right, prob not available. Just saying that's the TYPE of guy to target with a guy like Montas. Snider: Holy god Hahn would be instantly fired if he traded Montas for Snider.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) Those are 3rd tier guys. We have one of our own - Danks. Danks is not even close to a third-tier SP today. He is replacement level at $14m per annum.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Trading the little bit of young pitching we have is not advisable. That's how we got into this mess. Sox couldnt' even cobble together a decent starting 5 last year, not to mention a bullpen. Sure as heck don't need another Swisher trade. We're not talking about trading our guys for like Matt Kemp or anything, we're talking about cost-controlled, mid-to-late twenties guys that fill long-term holes, like Brandon Belt. Building around pitching prospects is incredibly risky business -- or at least riskier than building around positional guys. To me, we have enough holes to fill on the roster that I'll gladly trade some risky upside for a bird in the hand, so long as said bird is controllable with upside.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 09:55 AM) Sub .400 SLG the past two years. If you hit him second, that's fine, but that doesn't cut it for a guy who might hit 3rd, 5th, or 6th on this team. Steamer projects a 109 wRC+. You wouldn't take something like that batting 5th or 6th?

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 07:48 AM) I truly believe in how the sox brass will identify the priority of their needs. I see the sox going internal with Phegley or thru a trade. if 1 of the other posters who is very good with the advance stats, maybe they can answer this. I believe Flowers had a better 2 half than he did in the first half. does anyone have a guess why if this is true? You are correct, and substantially: 1st half: 61 wRC+ 2nd half: 149 wRC+ Also, by month: Apr: 132 May: 75 Jun: 8 (lol) Jul: 103 Aug: 97 Sept: 174 http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?p...amp;season=2014

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) As I said in another thread, with Morse heading to FA and leaving LF vacant it makes too much sense for the Giants to put Belt in LF. But for conversations sake, Lets say he can be had for the right price. I agree that Montas would raise an eye but what else do the Sox have to send with Montas that the Sox aren't trying to hold onto? I wonder if there's any chance they would have interest in Gillaspie since it looks like Panda is going to FA. I don't think Gillaspie/ Montas makes a trade but could be intriguing enough for trade discussions to continue/ get started. Didn't Gillaspie have a public falling out with SFG before they dumped him? I doubt they'd want him back. Also, I think it would take more. Like Montas/Semien/random flyer or two. Maybe even a stronger #2 piece than Semien, actually.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) A large part of his negative view is his low baseball IQ in the OF. If that wasn't there, it would change everything. To me it is rather like saying if Paul Konerko was fast, would you like him better. Well sure, but that ain't gonna happen. I was just responding to the post that said Rasmus has been essentially Viciedo at the plate 2 of the last 3 years. I was making the point that you can take that level of offense if it comes with high-end defense.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 09:34 PM) Rasmus' D would be nice, but offensively he's basically been Viceido 3 of the last 4 years. If he comes rather cheap( I'm talkin 7-8N) I guess it wouldn't be the worst signing though. But if Viciedo played high-end defense, would you dislike him so much? I know I wouldn't.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 07:31 AM) and I am not going to disagree. however others might think differently. Chiefly, his children

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 15, 2014 -> 07:29 AM) oh cmon now, this is baseball at its best. discussing the value of certain players. this is fun. My whole point is that it is precisely NOT discussing players of certain values. It's discussing acquiring players based on things that are NOT related to their value.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 07:55 AM) His war would have 5th on the staff at the cost of nothing. It's a hole. If you wish we had a 0.7 fWAR out of our 5th spot, you're not factoring in opportunity cost. The fact that our 5th starter happened to be worse doesn't change the fact that a 0.7 fWAR starter isn't very valuable.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 08:10 PM) I think you missed the mark on my reasoning. Are people in sports going to use drugs while on your favorite team? Yes, they are. The team really has no choice in the matter. When the team chooses to attract and acquire a proven cheat with a tens of millions of dollars that is entirely different. I understand that I have taken a hard stance on this but that's how I feel. I think of all the pitchers who were affected by Cabrera's cheating and it makes me sick. He likely contributed to the demise of some young pitchers careers while using PEDs. The consequences of his actions are far reaching and not easily defined. I'm so glad I don't care about PEDs this much. What a stressful thing to have to want your team to NOT acquire players that will help it win.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 12:25 PM) This is an interesting idea with logical points made to support it. I agree that a guy like Montas does not need to be shopped as teams will naturally inquire about his availability. I'm very curious as to what kind of return Montas would bring or with him as part of a package. I think this is the type of guy that would have to start a conversation about, say, Belt.

Obviously I want Martin, but I acknowledge that he may end up too expensive. I've always loved Aoki, even though it seems like no one got on his hype train until his power disappeared, strangely -- I guess being on a playoff team will do that. I'd take him on a two or three year deal at $6-7m AAV I like the LaRoche idea at like 2/$24m or so.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 06:08 PM) Again, didn't read the 1st 14 pages of this thread so don't know if he's been mentioned yet, but what about Travis Snider? He doesn't exactly have a ton of MLB success yet, but he's still 26 and has some great pedigree as a top prospect not that long ago. His slash of .264/.338/.438 wasn't exactly bad for a part time player and his 13 HR's is 359 AB's is pretty good. I'm sure the Pirates aren't exactly in a hurry to trade him as he's still fairly cheap, but with McCutchen, Polanco, and Marte in their OF already I'm sure they can be convinced....As to what it would take to get him? No clue, its tough call on what his value is (he wasn't trade for much originally) and what the Pirates need. I like the idea. I'd take a flyer. But then I'd still go out and try to shop for a better guy.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 11:28 AM) Agreed. Taking Danks and sending money with Ethier would negate a nice size portion of the potential savings as far as the Dodgers are concerned. Assuming they really do want to shed 50M off of next years payroll. On the flip side they do have Hanley and Uribe's salaries coming off the books so if they nickel and dime here and there it can happen. So, instead the Sox send Alexei and Gillaspie to LA for Ethier and a low level prospect. Then the Sox put Semien at 3B, sign Hanley to play SS, sign Melky to play LF with Ethier being the 4th OF/ DH. The rest of the money goes into the bullpen and we all hold hands while skipping down the street together into the 2015 playoffs. I know you're being whimsical (hence and ), but Hanley is not a SS at this point. We wouldn't be able to handle that, IMO. Also, Alexei and Gillaspie better net us more than Etheri and a low level prospect, haha.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) Oh good grief. Davidson at 23 has one bad season in the minors and he's no longer a prospect? That's just silly. Now if Davidson tanks again at Charlotte in 2015, then I can see saying he's not a prospect but for now, he absolutely IS a prospect. This. His value is substantially lower than it was when we acquired him, but saying he isn't a "prospect" is way too strong.

I'm excited about Montas. That said, I wouldn't mind trading him at the crest of his hype. I'm not saying SHOP him, but if we want to get in on some star-level guy on the trade market, I'd love to dangle Montas as a centerpiece. Reasons: 1. Velocity doesn't go anywhere but down. Guys with great velo and poor command tend to quickly turn into guys with ok velo and poor command. Scouting report sounds eerily similar to Ubaldo. 2. Selling high on him would cap a great return for Peavy. This guy was a distant #2 piece that has turned into what is currently a very valuable asset. 3. Pitchers get hurt, especialyl when they throw 80-grade gas. Risky to keep this asset, less risky to give it to someone else in exchange for the bird in the hand.

That report was written like SEO copy trying to reach Google page one for the search term, "fastball."

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 08:53 AM) Yeah, Andre Ethier He's coming off a similar season to Danks, he's owed more money, he's locked up longer, and he's older. The Dodgers pick up $12 mill of the final year of the deal, which still saves them money overall and cuts the Sox cost from $18 mill to $8.5 mill ($6 mill plus $2.5 mill buyout). Frankly, to me, that's the deal that makes the most sense if there's any deal that makes sense. The only issue is, if you're the Dodgers, can you do better? Sure, Ethier is a black hole, BUT if you're going to eat most of the money anyway (which is essentially what you're doing by accepting Danks' contract), wouldn't you rather dump him for some single A live arm that could be a reliever? I'd be shocked if there wasn't some team, somewhere, that would take Ethier at the cost of say, $10m over three years, and give up something that at least has some prayer of turning into a cost-controlled RP. Unfortunately, the Dodgers need a bad starter about as much as they need a bad outfielder. Danks is extra bad because it doesn't even make sense to send him to the bullpen because of his poor velocity and neutral platoon splits.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 14, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) I'll keep it short: I don't think you should trade a guy if there's absolutely no one to replace him. Reed was a suitable closer. I happen to think he was a good 25-year-old closer (40 saves in 2013), many say he was average to bad in spite of his save totals. The same people say Hahn had a replacement in Nate Jones, who got hurt. I feel about Jones the way many feel about Reed, that he was never the answer. The guy the Sox got for Reed (Davidson) doesn't bother me near as much as we traded a guy who was not effectively replaced. I think the Sox reached 2 over .500 at one point after a good amount of games this past season despite having no bullpen. My contention is not having a closer and other bullpen pieces finally was the reason this team got buried back into oblivion. Yes, I'd feel a lot different about the trade if Nate Jones replaced Reed and been lights out with 30-50 saves. In actuality, nobody replaced Reed. As far as Davidson, he appears to be a huge bust, but some insist he had to be devastated after not getting the job in spring training and it sent him into a season-long tailspin. Maybe he'll make the team next spring training and be the answer at third for 10-15 years to come. We shall see. I am not a Reed hater, though. Even though many on here say he sucks, I like his save totals. So what if he has some shaky saves. So does Greg Holland of the Royals. He puts guys on base in many of his saves but usually gets the save. So far I'd say Arizona won the trade; that could change if Davidson turns into a good to great hitter/fielder. This is the most reasonable post you've ever made, greg. Kudos.

Maybe people will just ignore this thread. Maybe?