Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) 2013 second half Viciedo .291/.327/.792 He also did much better vs. RHP in 2013. He couldn't hit RHP at all previously. Another strange thing considering USCF dimensions, Viciedo actually hit better on the road than at home. He is still a baby. A year younger than Eaton. My evaluation of him is just based on completely non-professional opinion that he can't recognize pitches. And so I think his upside is limited -- but based on his results and age, I can totally understand not wanting to give up on him.

I think he's worth more to us than to another team.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 10:11 AM) What's the point of keeping De Aza around over Viciedo? Are you really going to keep him long-term? Is he a piece you really feel comfortable with being part of your long-term core? Clearly we're not serious about competing this year and 2015 will be De Aza's last year of team control, so either you sign him to an extension or move him while he still has some value. I know I don't want to commit to De Aza long-term. Also, I get half of this board hates Dayan Viciedo because he doesn't draw a lot of walks, but he has more offensive potential than all but a handful of players in organization. If we're punting this season, we'd be foolish not to give him 600+ PAs and see if he can turn into a legitimate middle of the lineup hitter. Power is at a premium right now, just look at the Trumbo deal, and to sell low on Viciedo would be incredibly short-sighted IMO. This is a player with four years of team control left who can possibly part of our long-term core, why give up on him in a throwaway season just to keep De Aza? The point of keeping De Aza round over Viciedo is that De Aza is a way better player than Viciedo. I'm not thrilled with De Aza being a long-term player, but I'm more thrilled than I am with Viciedo. I don't hate Viciedo because he doesn't draw walks, I hate Viciedo because he's a bad offensive and defensive player. Not only does he not walk, he also doesn't hit, which means he doesn't get on base, which means he gets out A LOT. Sure, he has power, but he proved to you how much that matters when you do literally EVERYTHING else poorly -- you end up with like 12 homeruns. Sure, he might get better, but I haven't seen any indication that he will. He looks totally clueless at the plate.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) Balta, Gordon is rated as one of the better 2B defenders in the league According to Hawk Harrelson, but no one else.

There's just so little downside to picking anyone in the Rule V draft. If he sucks, he just eat some cash and send him packing. Since we have the worst catchers in the Majors, it makes sense to take flyers on guys like this when it costs next to nothing. Also, I would be shocked if this actually stopped Hahn from continuing to shop for a better C. Again, worst case is they pay the fee to return Nieto.

Ackley > Beckham simply because he's younger and thus has a better chance to figure it out and improve. I probably wouldn't trade De Aza for him given our glut of half-decent MI prospects, but I'd probably be happy trading Viciedo for him.

Beckham is a below-average Major League player. He is not worthless, but he is absolutely NOT someone that should block anyone promising. He's had plenty of time to show us what he is, and the result is a guy that should be discarded when something better comes along.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) I hate the trade, not the man. There's a difference. Why do you not like this trade? I think it's a great trade.

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 03:25 AM) Not a catcher, dont need another DH.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) I'm really hoping this is just a precursor to a trade about to go down Either a trade or an indication that they are definitely planning on targeting a several guys in Rule 5. Which would be strange because C is really the only position this team needs to fill in a Rule 5 scenario.

Why would the Phillies do that?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I am not convinced that Sanchez isn't Montero all over again, over hyped because of the organization he is in, but a bat that wont play at any other position and a glove that wont let him stay behind the plate. I've heard he's made some big strides defensively lately. The plate discipline got WAY better in AA last year too. He's a prospect I'd love to have.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) People talk about how they don't want to be perpetually bad, but then discuss the idea of moving Sale. That's the way you become perpetually bad. Right. I mean that's the Royals 25-year bad streak right there. They developed a lot of good players along the way, but they didn't hold onto them.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) The plan would be to get 3-4 building blocks for him. I would only trade Sale if we would get absolute studs back at multiple positions. Right but that's not realistic. You can't trade $20 for $50.

QUOTE (Jillian Michaels' Abs @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) Seager is pretty awesome and has the trajectory to be a Saber wetdream. I DOUBT seattle trades him now that they've committed 10 years to "winning" baseball. No chance. Seattle just pushed the chips in. They'll be trading prospects, not anyone that can contribute immediately.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 6, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) Jon Morosi is saying the Mariners think they have the pieces to get David Price. The Sox have to listen on Chris Sale. They'd be nuts not to. The offer the ends up getting Price won't be enough to make us happy about Sale. Age and contract add much more value to Sale. There's no way the M's will give up enough for Sale when they can give up less for Price. Plus, come on. If you don't hold on to 24 year old stars signed affordably through their age 30 seasons as building blocks, what are you doing? What is the plan there?

Lol, how does this make him a class act? I mean, I have nothing against him, but I'm not seeing this as something deserving praise.

I think they love Miller. My guess is they will try to package Franklin in a blockbuster deal next week. I'd guess that they don;t feel like their offseason is done.

Joel Sherman reporting that the Mets have agreed to terms with Granderson. Four year deal. Good news.

With three 1B/DHs on the 25 man, I'm guessing Abreu ends up getting 130-140 games in. And that's fine. 500-550 PA

If Abreu is hitting, he's going to be on the field.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) Do you really think the #53 pick has a better chance of contributing to winning than Curtis Granderson? I do! But note that that is a different question than "do you think the #53 will be a better player than 33 year old Granderson" Because I think the chances are high that Granderson's contributions won't be near enough to help our team compete in the current window. I think that the #2 pick, even if it is ultimately a role player, has an excellent chance of contributing to our team in a time where that contribution will help add up to a playoff appearance. It's a risk, of course, but there's big upside there too. But I still think that's the wrong question. Because Granderson will cost more than just the pick. He'l cost money that could be invested elsewhere and he' cost PT that could be used for development elsewhere. So the decision to sign Granderson is based on the value of the pick PLUS other things; the pick doesn't have to be more valuable than Granderson on its own for the deal to be a bad idea.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) Hopefully he is one to buck the trend, but the odds are stacked against the second rounder being a big contributor. History shows it. They have only signed 3 second rounders in team history with career WARs over 2. 2 of them are relievers Drafted 43 and 23 years ago. The other is Ryan Sweeney. Yeah, I mean the pick has a relatively low chance of being awesome, but it DOES have a chance, and therefore it has value. And the TYPE of value it has is extra attractive to our 99 loss team when compared to the exclusively short-term value of Granderson. So the DP compensation should absolutely be a factor. You can argue they should sign Granderson anyway, but I don't think you can argue the DP is a meaningless part of the equation. Plus the posters above are right to cite the players that have been good and rafted in the second round as opposed to just SOX player drafted in the second round. There is talent to be had there, history shows us that much.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) Just pointing out if the Sox signed Granderson and forfeited the pick, Granderson has a far better chance of being a better player for the team than that pick does. If you want to argue he isn't worth the money or whatever, that's fine, as far as the pick, it should be insignificant. You crazy! The second round pick is NOT valueless, thus your argument that forfeiting something of value should have no effect on the decision to sign him is just flat out wrong. What about Erik Johnson? Second round pick, yes? Had we forfeited that pick, we'd be down our #1 prospect today.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 5, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) Wes Whisler Craig Italiano Chad Huffman Kyle Lotzker Seth Lintz Brooks Pounders Todd Cunningham Dwight Smith Collin Wiles Andrew Knapp The last 10 #53 picks. The draft pick should not be a deterrent in signing Granderson. Brooks Pounders lol. Seriously though, it should absolutely be a deterrent. Granderson is just not that good anymore. Even if the pick is a shot in the dark, we shouldn't be willing to give it up for a stopgap on a bad team.