Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) No. Possible injury did not matter to Law. It appears from his comments below, the stuff is doubted. I don’t love the arm action, but this idea that arm action guarantees injury has to die. It’s all probability, and there have been pitchers with subpar mechanics who’ve pitched in the majors for several years before getting hurt, as well as plenty of pitchers with "clean" arm actions who got hurt anyway. Back to Sale, I’m more concerned that he’s a sidearming lefty without much of a breaking ball. If you knew nothing about him but that one sentence, what would you say he was in the big leagues? In that same analysis, he rated Sale's slider as a '40' on his MLB Draft Grading Scale, with a projected future rating of '45'. A 40 on that scale translates to "Well below-average ability". A 45 is still below average and translates to "11th/12th men on a pitching staff". And here is a little snippet of Law's chat in Dec 2011 when Sale was going to be a starter AFTER a year and a half in the big leagues: Do you like Chris Sale's move to the rotation and where do you see him as a future starter? Klaw (1:35 PM) No, I don't. I see. Didn't see that anywhere before, looks like you're right. Still. Just because a guy misses on an unusual prospect doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's all probability. On another note, Jason parks just tweeted this: Jason Parks ‏@ProfessorParks 20m I really wanted to include Tim Anderson. RT @AndrewNemec @ProfessorParks For you, who was the hardest guy to leave off the top 101 list?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 12:07 PM) Keith, what are your thoughts on Chris Sale? Klaw(1:25 PM) I ranked him 47th. The White Sox took him 13th. You do the math. Why is his opinion any better than any random "scout"? People always rag on ESPN, but if ESPN hires someone, he is considered some sort of genius guru in that field. The evidence shows Keith Law's opinions tend to be just as wrong as most everyone else. Even after the 2011 season, Law couldn't or wouldn't rank Sale in the top 50 players under 25. The reason a lot of people didn't like Sale that high, Law included, is because they thought he was a major injury risk and they were afraid he would have platoon issues like almost every pitcher with his type of release has. No one doubted the stuff, lots doubted the risk level. It turned out as well as it possibly could have for us, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to have not wanted to take that risk back then.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 10:43 AM) Big Hurt = very nice It was, indeed, the correct decision.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 06:46 PM) You keep saying this for some reason, probably because De Aza was able to hit 3 more HRs than Viciedo in 43% more plate appearances. Fact is Viciedo's ISO was .161 and De Aza's was .142. Viciedo was the better power hitter...end of story. De Aza has been unquestionably better than Viciedo the past two years, and it isn't even remotely close.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 03:54 PM) If he doesn't go in wearing a Cleveland cap, all hell will break loose. ... in Cleveland, which is pretty much hell frozen over anyway.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 01:25 PM) Indians. No questions asked. Personally I think it's kind of dumb for Maddux to go in with no logo. He played more years with the Braves, won 3 of his 4 Cy Young there, won his only World Series ring there and his numbers are far superior as a Brave than as a Cub. Yeah I was surprised, too. I know he played the same number of seasons with the Cubs, but that dude is a Brave in everyone's mind. My Cub fan friends think of him as a Brave.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 12:32 PM) Hall of Famer, Indians hat. No question.

Insane how many people think you can trade draft picks. These aren't even baseball fans, lol.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 11:07 PM) Heard Hoffman really impressed in his interview. Great presence. Big org love right now for this kid. All love his approach and work ethic. All don't love his long-toss regimen but he's committed to it. A lot can change but all things being equal, if he's there at #3 I'd be shocked if they passed. Good. I like what I've read. Thanks for the info, friend.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 06:54 PM) Sox fans hate Dunn. The atmosphere at the park is already depressing because it's 85% empty, hearing 6k try and muster up enough to boo a guy makes you not want to go to that park. He needs to go ASAP. You simultaneously want us to add expensive free agents and dump our top contributors at any cost. Here's the reality: Sox fans will show up when we win, and won't show up when we lose. I don't care it's the goddamn Teletubbies on the roster -- attendance will correlate positively with our chances to make the playoffs.

I don't think Dunn moves. He wouldn't be worth much and Hahn has mentioned he is worried about left handed pop in our lineup.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2014 -> 07:50 AM) I think if any team really wants Keppinger, the offers won't change. I think most GMs think of their roster before trying to screw another GM. It wasn't like Jeff Keppinger was going to bring back anything of use anyway. This. Keppinger is the most likely guy to get moved to a team in Spring Training that just suffered a long-term injury to an infielder. He's a stopgap no matter how you look at it, and the absolute best we can expect is some salary relief and MAYBE a live arm.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 09:13 PM) WAR, fWAR, I really don't care when it comes to deciding whether a contract is good when it is signed. Do you even have any idea what sport we're talking about? You don't need sabermetrics to tell you that mediocre pitchers get worse in their 30s.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 07:06 PM) I could not give one damn about WAR and contracts. As stated earlier in the thread, some bootleg WAR related formula told me the Sox got a fair deal when they signed Dunn. Lol. Marty. Holy s*** man.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:43 PM) Imagine the haul the Sox would be able to get for Quintana and still go forward with that rotation? Oh and by the way the payroll for 2016 would be ~65M with Santana. Except 34 year old Santana will very likely suck. We're not even sure he's good now. Here's his last 5 seasons by fWAR, starting with the most recent: 3.0, -1.0, 2.6, 1.9, 1.1 That averages out to 1.56, where a league average player is roughly 2.0. And you want to give up ~$15m/yr and a top 50 draft pick for his decline years?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:49 PM) Santana affords them the ability to deal Danks. For what? Salary relief?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 05:19 PM) We disagree. I'd love to see a rotation of Sale, Hoffman, Johnson, Santana, and Beck in 2016. You'd rather have a 34 year old Ervin Santana than a 28 year old Jose Quintana?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) Still could have gone wherever he wanted. But this is why his salary was low and contract was tradeable: the terms of the contract were not representative of the highest bidder for his services.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:38 PM) If you thought last year was tough to go through . . . You haven't seen anything like a team that struggles to score runs and lacks rotational depth. Those 200 innings that PeavySantiago pitched last season have to made up by someone(s). The Sox could be unwatchable by June with this rotation. And you want to push chips in to add a mid-rotation starter? This is the point Marty. The team will probably be bad and Ervin Santana isn't going to fix it. There's no point in wasting resources on him right now. Resources need to go to things with the potential for surplus value. Post-prime 3 fWAR pitchers on the free agent market do not do this.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) Free agent could have gone wherever he wanted. How many times has his situation occurred and why does something have to be common to do it? Again, JP opted to sign an extension before reaching the market.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 04:14 PM) There's no point in reading your post beyond this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/santaer01.shtml Look at his career performance. Factor in the ups with the downs and and he's at least a solid pitcher. His 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013 seasons were very good and should bring back a high return on the trade market. If he pitches up to previous levels he will bring back a quality return. Please look at the numbers next time. This is a common and enticing way to look at things, but flawed. Remember, they are older now -- you are not paying for the mean of their prime seasons, you are paying for their mid 30's.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Why are we crafting all these arguments that put the pitcher's ideal wants in mind? Because the player has to agree to sign the contract. And if you lie to him, you get a bad rep (Marlins)

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:24 PM) You just be very upfront. If they chose to go somewhere else, that is their right. But it probably isn't as simple as you think. There are going to be teams in July looking for pitching that aren't looking to sign these guys now. I think that's true, but if he signs with a winner, he'll either already be on a winner at the deadline or he will also be in the same position to be traded to a different one. The only way it would make sense for him to sign with the Sox is if they were offering significantly more money, so much so that it was worth waiving his right to choose his destination. And if they pay so much more than all the other teams are willing to pay, it becomes very unlikely that some new team is going to pop up and be willing to pay that price later. So if you can move him, you have to eat a bunch of money. And realistically, front offices are typically not cool with doing that, so you have to settle for a weaker return in some sense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:13 PM) No. The wise guy comment guy who really believes KW could have a good farm system if he really wanted one is the one trolling. I am answering every response. Too bad he wanted a bad one. Mike Trout would have been sweet in CF. What does this have to do with free agent pitchers?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 27, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) $12-13 million a year for 3 or 4 years is pretty good security in my book. Option A: 3-4yr, $12-13m, choose a winner to play for Option B: 3-4yr, $12-13m, get traded somewhere completely out of your control in 4-6 months