Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 29, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) Put Jimenez in this rotation and they can compete for a playoff spot. There just was no downside. What alternate reality do you think we're talking about? No downside? It's happening in Baltimore before your very eyes! QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 29, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) .....if everything goes right. If it goes wrong, which I very possible, there is a 4 year 50 million dollar downside ...and it already has! he's 2 mph down on his fastball and has a FIP and ERA well over 4.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) He is down about 1.5 MPH from last season. Last year his numbers up until this point were far worse than they are this year. He came back pretty strong. Fangraphs said last year he put up a 3.2 WAR and his performance was worth $16.1 million. Even his performance this season they claim is worth $3.5 million. You can think he won't be any better, but to say definitively he will not is what I object to. When the season is over, bury me all you want about me wanting the Sox to sign him. Not now. I am probably Beckham's biggest backer on this board. I don't think for a minute he is better than Pedroia. To take numbers with these small sample sizes, when one or two good starts or bad games switches things around, and come to 4 year conclusions is silly. I assume that when Marty refers to "upside," he's talking about his 5-6 WAR season in Colorado when he was average 94 mph. At the time when he had to be signed, he was coming off that 3.2 win season, so the guy you'd "expect" to get is that gradually declining 3 win guy. At the time, Marty was arguing that guys like Ubaldo need to be signed now, even if we won't compete for a few years, simply because they won't be available to sign when we need them later. And I had said something along the lines of "there will always be a 3 win guy that can be had for market rate in the offseason." So that's what Marty, I think, was asking me to identify guys that will be available next year that could pitch as well as Ubaldo. The Beckham/Pedroia analog doesn't work because Pedroia has been consistently good for several consecutive seasons, is not at an age where we would expect steep decline, and hasn't had any changes in his physiology or tools to suggest a premature decline. So as of today, it's safe to expect his true talent is closer to his career numbers than the most recent small sample. Ubaldo, on the other hand, is four years removed from his All-Star level status and has suffered a consistent and significant decline in stuff the entire time. Further decline at his age and with his velocity loss would fit both a typical career arc and the career arc he's shown, so it's easier to believe in his 1.8 fWAR pace. Steamer thinks he'll end up at 1.9, ZiPS at 2.5, and both seem reasonable to me and also a pretty natural next step for an early-thirties guy who just put up 3.2 fWAR and lost a couple mph on his fastball. But this is really the crux of my opposition of the signing: I didn't expect Ubaldo to be as bad as he has been, but I knew it was very realistic that he could be. The best case scenario for him, given the age and velocity, was that he would maintain his 3 win pace for a year or two and then get worse. So we'd pay market rate for his contribution when it wouldn't move the needle for us, and then he'd be overpaying him when we did need it. And that's best case. There is also downside, which, right now, appears to be occurring -- he loses more velocity and declines immediately. So now in what should be the best part of the deal, you're already paying a 2-2.5 win guy like a 3 win guy and can expect that to get worse, AND for the Sox, he isn't even going to make the difference in a good or bad season. Why take that downside risk with so little reward at stake? Marty thinks that guy might still have a 5 win season in him, but I don't think that's even in the realm of possibility without his lost velocity.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) That's a bad list and doesn't have the upside that Jimenez has. Unless he regain 4 mph in FB velocity, I don't see any reason to believe Ubaldo has the upside to be what he once was.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) I did read it, but when someone types this: I would agree that Dustin Pedroia "hasn't hit any better than" Dustin Pedroia you have to admit, it's a little unclear and doesn't make a lot of sense. Well, it was 4y/$50m and he hasn't pitched any better than Andre Rienzo. I think it's safe to say that there are many pitchers on that list who can be expected to pitch as well as Andre Rienzo and can be had for 4y/$50m. I would agree that Dustin Pedroia "hasn't hit any better than" Dustin Pedroia, I wouldn't say "Gordon Beckham is better than Dustin Pedroia." These are your 2 comments. If you are being consistent, if Ubaldo Jimenez at this point can only be expected to pitch as well as Andre Rienzo, wouldn't you have to say Gordon Beckham now should be expected to be better Dustin Pedroia? You can say he hasn't pitched better than Rienzo, I don't agree, but I can understand that, but you did lock his performance into Rienzo-like forever with the second part of your comment based on 10 starts. Ok, I obviously made a typo on Dustin Pedroia, but did you seriously not know what I meant?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) Your whole thing is that Jimenez's contract is bad. What available pitchers next year are a better gamble than him in that price range? Good question. Going off that list of guys on the last page, I think these guys should be able to put up a 1.8-ish fWAR season in the first year of the deal and should be available for 4/50 or less: Brett Anderson * Josh Beckett Chad Billingsley * A.J. Burnett * Chris Capuano Wei-Yin Chen * Jorge De La Rosa Scott Feldman Gavin Floyd Jason Hammel Dan Haren * Roberto Hernandez Hiroki Kuroda Colby Lewis Justin Masterson Brandon McCarthy Jake Peavy Ryan Vogelsong Jerome Williams No idea what Masterson will get. I think it'll be about what Ubaldo got.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:10 PM) So please tell me how Beckham fares to Pedroia. This post is documented evidence that you don't even read what I write.

QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ May 29, 2014 -> 01:46 PM) Wow. Didn't realize that the recovery rate was that high. That's awesome. The rate from the first TJ is that high, but the rate from the second TJ is absolutely horrible. If a guy has one and doesn't significantly change his mechanics, he's a safe bet to need another at some point. The sooner he has one, the sooner he has another.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Using your logic, wouldn't that mean Gordon Beckham is as good as Dustin Pedroia? Rienzo FIP 4.85 xFIP 4.44 WAR 0.1 Jimenez FIP 4.22 xFIP 3.98 WAR 0.6. Yeah that's about the same. If you pay $5 million a year for a 1.0 WAR (and there has been chatter it is actually closer to $6 million), despite having a performance that is vomit-inducing, Jimenez is barely below breakeven. But I guess you throw the advanced stats out when they don't help make your point. Lots of errors in your logic here, Dick Allen. Let me help you out. 1. WAR is a counting stat. Jimenez's current, barely significant advantage of 0.5 fWAR is marginalized further if you control for innings pitched. And before you argue that Jimenez should get credit for having more innings, note that Jimenez has three additional starts. Rienzo actually has more IP per start. So, on a per start basis, we're talking about a difference in fWAR of roughly 0.3. Remember this the next time you make your bimonthly post about how WAR is BS because it says a guy with 7.0 WAR is definitively better than a guy with 6.7 WAR. 2. Once again I'll point out the difference between what I type and what you claim I type: the phrase "he hasn't pitched any better than" is not the same thing as "he is better than." I would agree that Dustin Pedroia "hasn't hit any better than" Dustin Pedroia, I wouldn't say "Gordon Beckham is better than Dustin Pedroia." 3. There is a major disconnect between your understanding of the $/WAR figures your referencing and the inherent value of an individuals performance in relation to actual wins. The $/WAR figures are descriptive figures about what the free agent market chooses to pay per WAR. This does not apply, at all, to pre-free agency players and therefore cannot be used compare salaries across those player types. This is why we say "needs to do X to live up to his contract" but we DON'T say "his performance is/isn't worth having because he is paid more/less than $5-6m per WAR." This is because the free agent market is NOT the only place one can get WAR. Ubaldo's contract, in a vaccuum, could break even in free agent dollars if he averages about 2.5 fWAR per season (which, btw, he is NOT on pace to reach in this season), but in the context of roster construction, you have to compare that with what you can already receive at a much mroe efficient valuation internally (someone like Rienzo could give you, say 2 fWAR at like $200k per). The only time you'd opt for the higher rate production you'd get from the free agent is if (1) the production simply cannot be matched more efficiently elsewhere, either with a single replacement player or several, and (2) the difference you're getting is enough to make a substantial difference in the outcome of your season (like if Ubaldo was the final piece to push the Sox over the edge.) In summary, given that the marginal difference between the production of Ubaldo and that of Rienzo has been both (1) not statistically significant and (2) not even remotely close to enough to make a difference in the White Sox season, I would conclude that, for all practical purposes, the White Sox would not be any better off with Ubaldo and would have a bad contract, too. I would liken it to choosing between a hamburger for $2 and a hamburger with fries for $75. Neither will help you reach your goal weight, but at least one only cost you $2.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 29, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Anyone other than Aiken/Rodon/Kolek/Nola is a failure. I'm not going to be upset if they choose Jackson. But I will be upset if they pass on Rodon or Aiken.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ May 29, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) He's continued to get physically stronger, develop his pitches, and become more of a pitcher on the mound in terms of figuring out how to get through tough games/innings when he doesn't have a full arsenal. You shouldn't be surprised. He's pretty good. Don't get me wrong, I like him and always have. I just thought he was going to be a 3 fWAR guy going forward, and right now he's looking like a 4-4.5 fWAR guy.

I just don't see how you roll the dice on an injury guy at #3 when that guy wasn't even clearly better than a healthy guy that's also available there.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 29, 2014 -> 11:06 AM) So what? You build your team expecting to catch lightning in a bottle? There are outliers and exceptions, but it's retarded to build your team expecting that to happen. I loathe when people use outliers as examples. It's such poor logic? Is there another Jenks? Montas doesn't have 4 elite pitches. I agree with your logic regarding outliers, but I think the reality is that there are very few relievers that can be relied on to produce stable results for more than a couple years. To some degree, the art of building a bullpen is lightning in a bottle every year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 29, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) Jimenez at 3y/$39M is a more than reasonable risk looking at these pitchers. Well, it was 4y/$50m and he hasn't pitched any better than Andre Rienzo. I think it's safe to say that there are many pitchers on that list who can be expected to pitch as well as Andre Rienzo and can be had for 4y/$50m.

QUOTE (TRU @ May 29, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) Maybe, but can that be confirmed? You think they liked Paulino over Reinzo as 5th starter? That would have to be true if the intention was for Paulino to be in Charlotte but it didnt work out that way. Nah, can't confirm it, but given that it happened so early in the offseason, I think it's a fairly safe bet that they didn't think, "okay, that's it. No more need for pitching."

I almost want to give Quintana an A. From a DIPS/FIP/fWAR perspective, he's actually on pace to have a BETTER season than last year. I truly thought last year was his peak, but that may not be the case.

QUOTE (TRU @ May 29, 2014 -> 10:13 AM) You're both right and wrong. Signing anyone is technically a "gamble". Signing Paulino wasn't a "Were going to sign this guy, send him to Charlotte, and maybe hit lighting in a bottle." gamble. He was a "This guy is a part of our major league rotation." gamble. Yuck. I don't think that's true. I think they signed Paulino to be the former, and then failed to put together enough depth to avoid him being in the rotation. That's where the criticism belongs, IMO.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) The scout I read was quoted as saying the draft was stronger than last year, but not that great and high school heavy. Maybe Jason Parks is correct and the Sox will get a star with the second round pick and I will be the biggest fool ever to walk the face of the earth. I thought they should surrender the second round pick. Signing those players in the future will cost a 1st rounder. Yeah, draft pick comp is going to be pretty interesting going forward. There's a ton of reason to believe it'll be reworked significantly in the next CBA, but considering all the onus for change will come from the Player's Association, I'd be shocked if the cost didn't end up being LESS to the signing team in order to avoid stripping leverage from the free agents. If I had to guess, I'd say the next iteration will keep the comp pick for the QO team but remove the lost pick from the signing team. Who knows though.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:52 AM) Can Viciedo even be effective as a DH/1B? Or Davidson, for that matter. If he can keep up a 117 wRC+, then yes. It won't be elite, or even star level, but it'll work.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) The draft isn't supposed to be all that strong, and is high school heavy. I got in trouble for pointing out taking a HS kid in the second round, chances are he won't be able to help you , if at all, until 2019 or 2020. I just listened to Jason Parks say this is a "very deep draft" on a podcast last night. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) They gave up a first rounder for Dunn. Does that make you think they should do it again?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) Quintana and Sale are the only Sox starters with a lower xFIP than Jimenez this season. That doesn't make it a good idea to pay a below average starter $50m. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:32 AM) That doesn't sound like ruining the team's ability to compete. That's not what I said. This is what I said: QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ May 28, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) It's Rick Hahn. If he misses more than he hits, he'll be fired. Put the pitchfork away and save it for situations that will actually affect our ability to compete. Like if we had signed Ubaldo or something. What this means is that greg should not call for Hahn's head over missing on a player that can be released at no cost. He should call for Hahn's head on a player that will cost enough to hamper the team's ability to make moves (and thus compete) going forward. Ubaldo, who is making $50m over several years, falls into that category. That would be a miss that will hurt us this year, next year, and the year after that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 29, 2014 -> 08:08 AM) What are Paulino's, Noesi's and Carroll's numbers? You said Ubaldo, and it was a troll to continue an argument I am sure, would hurt the White Sox chances of competing. Yet guys doing worse have pitched and the White Sox have competed. I also believe moving forward, Jimenez will pitch better. But he hasn't exactly been vomit-inducing like was mentioned some other time before. And he put together a few really nice starts. Paulino, Noesi, Carroll = bad and free and expendable any day. Ubaldo = bad and so expensive that he affects a team's ability to spend going forward. And locked in for multiple years. "Not exactly vomit-inducing and has put together a few really nice starts" is not good enough for the productive end of a 4 yr/$50m contract. How are we still arguing about this?

EJ needs his velocity back

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2014 -> 08:11 AM) By that logic, he won the game, so he did his job.

We really have no payroll issues at all. We have only one bad contract (Danks), and he's managed to remain effective enough to at least hold down a rotation spot. That we could simply cut Keppinger is evidence that the front office agrees. Anyway, the effect of that should be that the front office should NOT feel pressured to eat salary. It should all about maximizing talent this year.

On a podcast last week, Jason Parks said that as of that day, he'd prefer Nola over Kolek, citing two primary reasons: 1. People assume too much that it's a given that someone as raw as Kolek can develop the "pitchability" to become a frontline starter 2. People are underrating the quality of Nola's stuff -- touches 96, sits 93/94 and has three good pitches