lasttriptotulsa

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 6, 2016 -> 04:22 PM) I don't believe he would have a draft pick attached to him if he chooses to opt out. I don't think that makes him eligible for a QO. If he opts out the Mets can still make him a QO. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/10/expl...fer-system.html "Qualifying offers operate independently of options. Hence, a player can receive a qualifying offer even if their option is declined (whether by team or player) or if they opt out of a deal."

I think from the time he signed that contract it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he would opt out unless he tanked or got hurt. If they decide to go for it they definitely need to take a look. He probably won't beat the $23.75 per he was due the next two years by a whole lot. The question is whether he is willing to sign a long term deal or if he is going to want another similar contract with an opt out after one year and a large signing bonus paid up front again.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 5, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) Drake and Adam, not just Adam And when LaRoche played there his kid was basically a part of the team. So again, who cares? It baffles me that this actually bothers people.

Honestly, who really cares? The dude played for the Nationals and was a popular player. So he's throwing out the first pitch at a game, big deal.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) So what? still not a good 1-5 hitter... He's pretty much the definition of a 4-5 hitter. Those are your power guys. If they one thing he does well is put the ball out of the ballpark, why would you put him at the bottom thus limiting his chances to do so? You lose roughly 17-19 plate appearance every spot you drop someone in the order over the course of the year.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) Last I checked, Frazier leads MLB regular 3rd base guys in strikeouts, and lowest BA.. The original plan was to have Frazier as the guy in the lineup to protect Abreu.. it didn't happen.. as far an extension, I think it depends on how the rest of the lineup shakes down.. despite the power, I don't see how Frazier fits into the 1-5 hole.. too many lost offensive opportunities in 16' without enough bonafide hitters 1-5 Last I checked he was also 2nd in home runs and 7th in RBIs.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Oct 4, 2016 -> 08:15 AM) I would say THE best clutch hitter, so much so that for my money, if there are two outs in the bottom of the ninth with the tying run at third base, and Harold Baines and Frank Thomas are on the bench, I go with Bainesy every single time. He was that good in the clutch IMO. Just for s***s and giggles I looked at some splits in certain clutch situations for comparison sake: Runner on 3rd, 2 out (your scenario): Baines - .236/.349/.362 Thomas - .298/.464/.599 RISP: Baines - .291/.379/.460 Thomas - .312/.447/.569 RISP, 2 out: Baines - .280/.392/.448 Thomas - .291/.453/.565 Late & Close: Baines - .284/.360/.474 Thomas - .275/.412/.482

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) My brother pointed something out to me. When Robin played, I really wasn't nearly the fan a lot of others were. We called him the Boy Wonder, and on occasion the Boy Blunder. I liked him, but I really didn't appreciate him as a player all that much. The weird part is many of those who just loved him as a player, hated him as a manager. I didn't love him as a player (although looking back, he was better than pretty good) and had no problem with his managing. I think there are a lot of people who don't really appreciate how damn good Robin was as a player. From '91 to '97 when Frank and Robin were both during their peaks playing together, Frank averaged 6.7 fWAR per 162 games and Robin averaged 5.6 fWAR. I'm sure most people would look at you like you're crazy if you were to tell them that Robin was almost as good as Frank at that time. If you look at their overall careers, Robin averaged 4.4 fWAR per 162 and Frank averaged 5.0 fWAR per 162. There was a hell of a lot of value in that glove of Ventura's and I think if he were playing today putting up similar numbers he would be a much bigger star than he was then.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 01:53 PM) He was a pretty good OF before the leg problems. Not a HOFer in my mind. Defintely a could have been. Yep. Agreed. I view him pretty much the same way I view Ventura. Hall of Fame talent whose career fell a little short of being Hall of Fame worthy. With the increasing acceptance of advanced statistics I do think Ventura will get a closer look if he makes it onto a Today's Game Era ballot than he did on the original ballot. His 56.7 career fWAR is pretty damn good.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 01:48 PM) Just 16 home runs and 134 hits separates him from being just shy and a near shoe-in. The combo of the 16 homers and 134 hits would have put him in a very exclusive club of guys who had 3,000 hits AND 400 home runs. If you check the records, I believe there are fewer than ten who have accomplished both feats (admitting I haven't looked at this stat in a while). I thought back in 2001 when Frank Thomas went down with a season-ending injury and they plugged Baines into the DH slot that he would get there. But he was 41 at the time and had just flat run out of gas, and they ended up releasing him in June of that year, if I recall correctly. So close, yet so far, unfortunately. The '94 strike might have cost him the 400 homers but I don't think that would help his case that much. Being short of 3000 hits really cost him. If he gets that, he's in. I was always hoping he would get there and with the resurgence he had at age 40 I thought he had a shot but then he just completely hit a wall the next year and faded pretty quick.

Case For Inducation: His 2866 hits and 1628 RBIs are the most of any eligible player, without PED suspicion that is not in the HOF. .289/.356/.465 - 121 OPS+ 384 HRs (65th all time) 1628 RBIs (32nd all time) 2866 Hits (45th all time) 4604 Total Bases (41st all time) 1606 Runs Created (69th all time) 6X All Star 1X Silver Slugger 2X Top 10 MVP voting 2X Edgar Martinez Award winnger Case Against Induction: 38.4 fWAR - far short of the 60 that Bill James has used as a standard to talk HOF DH factor - 1643 games as DH, just 1061 in the OF Classic Compiler

Harold Baines will be on the ballot for possible induction into the HOF by the "Today's Game Era Committee" along with Albert Belle, Will Clark, Orel Hershiser, Davey Johnson, Mark McGwire, Lou Piniella, John Schuerholz, Bud Selig and George Steinbrenner. Probably won't get in and I've always viewed him as a little shy of being deserving but as a Sox fan I would like to see it happen. There are definitely worse players in the HOF. http://baseballhall.org/hof/2017-todays-game-era-ballot

Using weighted averages it looks like the average was 85-86 wins.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=98487

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) Maddon helped the Cubs win 6 extra games or so. Savvy trades for Rizzo, Arieta, Hendricks, Russell and a closer nabbed in Rule V were worth a lot more wins. And not a "proven veteran" among them, Kenny Williams. You honestly think a good manager is worth an extra 6 wins a year? Come on. That would rank them the equivalent of a top caliber player. If that were the case they would make far greater money than they do.

I don't think relievers should ever win the Cy Young anymore. It was one thing when they would pitch 100 innings a year but in this day and age where they throw 60-70 innings they are just not deserving. Give Britton the Mariano Rivera award and be done with it. To say that Britton has been a better pitcher this year than Sale, Kluber, Porcello, etc when he pitches one inning every couple days is an insult to what those guys accomplished in over 3 times as many innings.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) Is Sale going to make his last start? That could change his place in the standings. Even if he does I bet most guys have their votes already in by then.

WI looks legit. Defense is tough. Held LSU and Michigan St to a combined 13 points. That's impressive.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 23, 2016 -> 02:28 PM) It seems to me a 101/93 is noticeably worse than a 100/96, and Bevington won at least three more games than Ventura probably does this year no matter what Robin does, with worse metrics, but you're saying that Bevington and Ventura are roughly equivalent and that Bevington should still be more derided? Ok, I don't get it. That team may have played slightly above its talent level but it had nothing to do with Bevington. The guy was painfully bad. Much worse than Robin.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 23, 2016 -> 01:27 PM) Ok, I'm looking. Um. The regular lineup for 1997 season featured Ray Durham with one of the worst OPS's of his career, Chris ".582 OPS" Snopek at 3B for most of the games, Ozzie Guillen sporting a .612 OPS for 140+ games at the ass end of his career, Jorge Fabregas at C with about a .680 OPS, Al Belle in the worst season he had in the late 90s. Frank Thomas had a great year and Ventura played part time. The pitching... Jamie Navarro at 9-14, Danny Darwin, James Baldwin, Wilson Alvarez only startign 22 games....need I go on? Only two starters had above .500 records and they were ONE GAME above .500. Bevington still managed them to 80 wins. How? I don't honestly know. Maybe Frank's WAR was 80 that year. I never thought I would see the day that somebody was defending Terry Bevington on here. I like how you conveniently leave out that though it was one of Belle's worst seasons he still had .274/.332/.491 slash with 30 HRs, 45 2Bs and 116 RBIs. Also you are completely ignoring the production of Baines, Martinez and Cameron. Frank was so damn good then that he basically provided the offensive of 2 average hitters. This lineup has nothing of the sort in it other than Abreu for the last month and a half. Even in that month and a half his numbers don't reach what Frank did for an 8 year span. Overall the '97 team had a slightly better offense (101 to 100 OPS+) and a slightly worse pitching staff (93 ERA+ to 96 ERA+) and they managed to win 80 games. This years team is on pace to win 77 games. Let's not pretend like Bevington was some sort of managerial genius because he managed 80 wins compared to Ventura's 77 on what are both average teams.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 23, 2016 -> 12:44 PM) And yet, for all of Bevington's incompetence and stupidity, he still managed that club to a winning record over 3 years. And for all of Robin Ventura's skill and acumen as a major league player, since September 1, 2012, he manages this team to an average of 71 wins per season over 4+ years. Obviously, it turns out that you don't need a brain or wits or to know the difference between "warming" and "not warming" or "foul" or "fair" or arguing a call in favor of the White Sox to manage them to a winning record.... so what's Ventura's excuse, then? Really? Look at some of those lineups from 1995-1997. It's easy to manage when you're lineup is anchored by a 1st ballot Hall of Fame first basemen, and a Gold Glove, Hall of Fame talent third basemen and features guys like Harold Baines, Tim Raines, Danny Tartabull, Ray Durham, Tony Philips, Dave Martinez and Lance Johnson.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 12:53 PM) I'm cherry picking the seasons in which this team made the playoffs to highlight the reasons WHY they made the playoffs. Let me cherry pick another stat for you: the four worst white sox teams, record-wise, since 2000 have something in common - they all didn't really hit too many home runs. The 2005 White Sox did not make the playoffs because of their offense. That's just ridiculous. They made the playoffs because they had the best pitching staff in baseball with career years from several pitchers. The 2005 team had a .262/.322/.425 slash line, 476 extra base hits and scored 741 runs. The 2016 team has a .257/.318/.407 slash line and is on pace for 471 extra base hits and 679 runs. The 2016 team actually has a higher OPS+ at 99 versus 2005's 95. I'm not saying the 2016 team has a good offense by any means but the one run every three games more that the 2005 team scored than the 2016 was not the reason they have that trophy. That offense as a whole was nothing to write home about.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) I just think that it would have most benefitted the club to see him manage the 2nd half of the year if he's honestly a candidate. If he didn't want that chance, that's enough for me to move on to someone else. I'm sure he's a great guy, but he wouldn't be managing my baseball team. So you would not hire somebody who's managed before and has already been with the team for the full year as essentially the "assistant manager" simply because he respected Robin enough to not take his job during the middle of the season? That's a pretty ridiculous reason. They know what they have in him. Managing a handful of games this year in garbage time is not going to change their opinion of him.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) I think Renteria would be a major upgrade over Robin. He turned the team on the North Side into a decent team with very little work with. The Sox have much more talent than the Cubs did at that time. 73-89 is a decent team?

QUOTE (Coach @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) As I mentioned, that was just one example I have seen. Apparently, lack of hustle to 1st base on a routine grounder is ok with you. Good luck to whatever team you coach. Is it okay? No, it's not. But overall it's not a problem on this team. Everybody's whipping boy Avi plays as hard as anybody. Eaton was told to dial it down so he didn't hurt himself. Rip on Robin and the staff all you want for an apparent lack of hustle, but the truth is it was a lot bigger problem in the Ozzie managed years with guys like Dye, Konerko and AJ. What I'm saying is that if you think the problem with this team is a lack of hustle you're delusional. The problem is talent, plain and simple.