thxfrthmmrs

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 09:38 PM) I'm getting more and more convinced Ravelo is in it. Can be wrong though. I've been saying that from day one. It makes too much sense. Though I'd prefer Ravelo to Hawkins as a prospect, much higher floor, power coming along, and could contribute in the ML as soon as next year.

Matt Davidson and Erik Johnson

K-Rod... Worth pointing out the guy end up with a negative fWAR last season. How does a guy with his K%, ERA, and WHIP worth negative WAR you ask? He gave up 14 HR's in just 68 innings last season, with a FIP of 4.50. He might cause a lot of heartaches in a park like the Cell. It might just be a fluke, but he might be someone we might want to steer clear of.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) He has given a new definition to the word "brick". That's exaggerating a bit, Lance Born Ready owns that definition. He's very hesitant to go into the paint this days (saving himself for meetings and graduations I assume), and he's still a very mediocre shooter. Unless he plays with more confidence and attacks more, he's going to be a very ordinary player offensively. He's also been very bad at fighting through screens, and it's no surprise he had the worst +/- in that game Saturday. It could be that he's still trying to get used to playing 30 minutes a game after 2 1/2 years off, we will check back in a month from now.

Rose is having a terrible game both shooting the ball and defending the ball.

We thought they would re-negotiate Brock's contract as well but they apparently didn't. Another PPV where they wrestle for the number 1 contender. This is becoming the UFC now.

Another game where the opposing QB has almost as many TD passes as incompletions. The pass defense this year is the worst I've seen.

Look at Jimmy's Facebook page, he's such a likeable dude. This little girl knows best: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=290403...e=2&theater

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 06:15 PM) The Sox don't need to send prospects to save money. That's the same sort of absolute clowning they've been doing for 5 years. The Sox NEED their MI depth. The Sox have no 2B. they will have no SS in 2 years (if it was up to me, next year). They need those guys to fight it out and then sort them out. Semien could end up being a nice major leaguer. QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 06:28 PM) I'd do 5/100 on Shark. MUch prefer that to a Scherzer deal The Sox can afford that and don't have to shed salary to do so. Most of all, the Sox need holes plugged. Get a competent LF: 2 competent starters. Another bullpen pitcher. Sox were well below average in those spots last year, which is what dragged them down. You are contradicting yourself a little bit here. To acquire Shark, they'd need to give up Anderson+; Alexei; or Semien plus another Top 5 prospect to get it done. Yet it takes us less in terms of prospects to get rid of John Danks, and hypothetically sign Scherzer and Melky. And you believe we should hold on to our prospects. I don't think I need to go in depth that Scherzer is the superior pitcher compared to Shark, far superior if you look at his 12 WAR versus 6.7 for Shark the last 2 years. On top of that, Scherzer has been solid in his 12 postseason starts vs 0 starts for Shark. I'd trust the former in a playoff matchup over the latter, playoff experience is a bonus for a young team like this. It's worth mentioning you also said we need 2 competent starter as well, yet advocate to keep Danks. Do you also think Danks' contract is a dead weight? If you get Shark and keep Danks, you basically do not have any cap space to get the LF, starter, and bullpen arms that you talked about. I'd like to hear your plan of acquiring Shark and make all those moves without shredding salary and trading prospects.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 06:09 PM) I think Samardzija is a 5/$100 guy and I think Scherzer is probably around 8/$200. I am going with 7/$175 mil. I haven't heard 8 years rumored around yet. Essentially, you'd be paying Shark one less year than Scherzer, and the latter is the safer bet and better pitcher, IMO.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:58 PM) I hear what you're saying. It just doesn't seem likely or the best allocation of resources for a rebuilding team to basically sell its highly ranked prospect(s) for cash in order to go to the free agent market. Trading Danks and Tim Anderson (and giving up a 2nd round draft pick), for example, for the ability to pay market value for the most expensive pitcher out there seems like one of the least likely strategies for the Sox. I also highly doubt they're going for Samardzija or Greinke or anyone else with one year left on their contract. Someone should keep a running list of every player during free agency that a reporter says the Sox "inquired" about. Then compare that to who is on the team on opening day. I don't think it takes Tim Anderson for someone to take Danks off our hands. And make no mistake, if we sign Scherzer, trade Danks and sign another good bat, we would be a contender, not a rebuilding team. I do agree with you however if we can't pull off those big moves, we should hold on to our prospects, because acquiring just Samardzija isn't going make you that much better.

How many years do you think Samardzija would get in his extension? Because Scherzer is only 6 months older than Samardzija, and his extension kicks in when he turns 31.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:08 PM) John Danks is owed $29 million. That's the equivalent of ~5 fWAR. If you just assume "He'll do what he did last year" you'd say he's likely to put up just over 1 fWAR, so he's overpaid by about $20-$24 million. In other words, you need a prospect who is at least good enough to put up that amount, with some risk associated with it. I'd say you're talking about a guy at least in the top 10 of our system, probably top 5-6 given the risks associated, to get someone to do that. You need someone who could produce ~4 WAR for the next 2 years. Hypothetically, I wouldn't mind giving Yankees Semien or Carlos Sanchez if they are willing to take Danks off of us, if the deal would allow us to get Scherzer and another good bat. Then again you would ask why wouldn't Yankees just go after Scherzer themselves.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 05:03 PM) I can't imagine a situation where it makes sense for the above to happen. The Sox have cash, are building for the future, and therefore wouldn't want to give away top prospects. This suggests trying to give up what they want to keep (prospects) in order to get something they already have (cash/salary relief). The more likely scenarios for moving Danks are in a trade for someone similarly attached to a lot of salary (bad contract) or where the Sox eat a portion of the salary to get someone they want. The point I am making is if we want to acquire Samardzija, it actually takes less to get rid of John Danks and use the money saved to upgrade to Scherzer than to acquire Shark, sign him for an extension for a similar AAV, or watch him walk away after 1 year. Samardzija schedules to make close to $10 mil in arb this year, John Danks makes $14 mil. I assume Scherzer make end up with $25 mil AAV.

How much do you guys think we have to pay, in terms of prospects, if we want to ship John Danks off without eating significant amount of money?

A poster here, My sox Summer, I believe, attended 50 games a few years back for less than $500, and got lower level tix for some of the games too. If you really want to go to the games, the cost of the game isn't what's stopping you.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:33 AM) correct, but to rebuild that fan base, and due to economics today, lower them as well, We've lowered ticket prices twice over the past 5 years, where has that gotten us? And is the economy really bad today? We have the Dow closing in record highs on numerous occasions this year, gas prices dipping to record low in most states, companies ramping up their hiring plans, average MLB ticket prices are trending up year after year, decent players getting $100 million deals. I don't think the team need to cave in to the fans and reduce ticket price even further. Given our average cost of fan experience is only at league average, and costs less than the team located in a bankrupt city. I think the responsibility lies on JR. When he sees the right opportunity, he needs to open up the checkbook and get the right pieces to turn this team around, fans will come back to games when team starts competing (regardless of ticket price) and eventually he should see return on his investments. I think JR definitely realizes this, that's why you see us going after the likes of Tanaka and Scherzer the last 2 years.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 11:03 AM) jeeze, if you look at the end of my post, i also mention fielding a better team. There was no offense to you. I read your post as either lowering ticket prices or fielding a winning team could get fans to show up. While on this subject I feel that only fielding a winning team will positively impact your attendance in the long haul.

This goes to show that we HAVE MONEY TO SPENT if we want to. $90 mil payroll is the floor, but I think JR will open up the checkbooks to go up to $100-$110 mil if he thinks signing Scherzer and a couple other piece (LF or 3B, and a bullpen arm) can turn this team around.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) this brings up the vicious catch 22. the sox says, they need to raise prices b/c the cost of players salary, low attendance, the sox will need to find a way to break even. (however no mention of the commercial revenue) however, if they lower the cost, more people will show up, if the sox field a team that can compete via, fa's, the majority more of fans will show up. which came first the egg or the bird?? LOWERING TICKET PRICES DOES NOT HELP. The 2006 team showed winning brings fans out, not lowered ticket prices. The ticket price were reduced sans 2010, yet our attendance gradually declined each of the past 4 years. Lower the ticket price might attract families who don't normally come out to ball games to come out once or even twice a year, but that's not the crowd you want to focus on. You want to attract fans who have money to spend to come out to the ball game consistently, like 10+ games a year. The only way to do that is to field a winning team, year in and year out. Lowering ticket price while not enjoying a positive spike in your overall attendance will put severe constraint on your budget. Your only hope is to strike gold during the draft, or be stuck in purgatory like the Pirates and Royals did for years. It is not a chicken or the situation. It is a raise the chicken healthy so it could lay more eggs situation. EDIT: Did a quick research and found that 2006 ticket prices were slightly higher than 2014 ticket prices, and that's without taking into account inflations for the last 8 years. Yet we averaged 36,000 a game that year, vs 20,000 this year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 01:18 AM) It's the opposite of the Moneyball niche to be exploited. Seemingly closer quality lefties whose careers suggest set-up roles but whose teams are hoping for closer results off a one or two year period of high productivity. JP Howell also comes to mind for some reason, here. I think it's more so an issue of necessity. Lefty bullpen arm is a top priority for the Sox, and Duke was arguably the best available after Miller. I certainly don't think Sox are expecting Duke to close for them.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 08:07 AM) Probably 20. But that's not the reason I gave up my season tickets after a decade. Going to a game is pricey and sometimes annoying as hell. You will drop 50 bucks on food and beer at least these days and the game experience is ok for the price. However, sitting in front of my or a bars giant HD TV is sometimes just as nice if not better. QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) I agree. I know this topic has been brought up many times in the past and has incited arguments. But, there's no arguing that it's just too damn expensive to go to many baseball games. I like to get to at least one Sox game a year, and we'll try to hit a ballgame while on vacation (regardless of who's playing). It's a cool experience to see a game live. But watching a game on my HDTV, kicked back in my chair with a 6-pack of Sam Adams that cost about the same as one beer at the park...that's cool, too. This is a valid dilemma for most Sox fans, and I will quote my previous post on this issue: P.S. The average cost of tickets and concessions is only slightly above league average, and the cost is way above league average for Cubs games. Of the metropolitan area that features 2 teams, the Sox revenue/attendance situation is similar to Oakland's. This probably has been said many times, attending games isn't a priority for Sox fans unless team is doing well, and for an extended period of time. Cubs fans would attend games if they have nothing better to do, being in a neighborhood full of recent college grads and young single people helps. Attending games is considered a treat for many Sox fans, as most of the fans come in from the suburbs or areas that are not close to the park. Most people living around the park are retired, low income, or don't care for baseball. With the Cubs taking away most of the well off, single, and upper echelon income level fans, it's hard for the Sox to consistently draw a large crowd. The revelation of the Blackhawks in recent years isn't helping either. I assume that we don't draw as well as other smaller market teams because they have more high income level fans than us, and their stadium is located in areas more accessible and around fans that are more interested in baseball, i.e. downtown, or an area where single people lives. Oakland stadium is also located in the less prosperous part of their metropolis, and the Bay area is one of the larger metropolitan areas in US. They had average attendance as little as 19,000 in 2011. Even though they were the team to beat for most of this year, they only averaged 25,000 a game this year. Then you can also take into account that average Sox ticket cost $26, vs $23 for Oakland, while premium ticket for Sox averages $85, and $48 for them. The Sox can consistently pull in larger crowd if they turn themselves into a perennial contender, or if they relocate their stadium and associate themselves with higher income level folks. But both of those can't be easily achieved. So we will discuss this same s***ty problem year in and year out.

Reading an Andrew Miller speculation article, it was mentioned that the record contract for a non-closing reliever is held by Jeremy Affeldt at only 3 years $18 million. With Miller's new salary hitting the $40 million range, it's crazy to think how much more expensive it is nowadays just to acquire bullpen arms.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:44 PM) It might not have quite the multitude of options that wrigleyville has, but there is plenty to do around the Cell. For every spot you name around the Cell, I can name 5 for the Wrigley area. The walkable options you have around the Cell is extremely limited. You wouldn't want to walk far south in that neighborhood. And no one wants to hangout at Chinatown after the game.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:52 PM) Aren't Dodgers supposedly dealing him because he has an opt out and thus would be kind of a rental? Or did I misread? Either way, I don't believe for one second the Dodgers are going to trade Greinke. Not unless they plan on signing Lester or making a couple other major moves. By the way, I must be the only one but if we could trade Anderson for Shark straight up and get him to sign for a slightly below market 4 year deal with a 5th year option, I'd be all over it. I'd probably even be willing to go 5 years. I think a rotation with Shark as our #3 with Rodon developing would be a huge step in the right direction and I still believe we can move Danks for an overpriced bat of some sort. PS: I'd try to trade others then Anderson cause he clearly can hit the ball but at the end of the day, I'd make the trade as long as Shark was around long term. Good catch. There is a strong chance he will opt out after next year and sign a 5 year year $120 mil contract with a new team, provided he stays healthy and performs this year. As for Shark, I think his price is that of trading for an ace, I just don't think it takes only Anderson to get him, especially if he shows interest in signing a below market value extension. And he's more of a #2 or even #3 starter than an ace.