lasttriptotulsa

QUOTE (Coach @ Oct 7, 2015 -> 08:00 AM) You don't have to tell me. Here's what I will tell you. There is no downside by having Shuck as the full time DH. He could not be any worse than LaRoche. At the very least, Shuck could surprise everyone, but it would be worth an effort to look at. What's the worst that could happen? He sucks? We already had that as the DH this past season. There is a downside to having Shuck as a full time DH. It's that he is not very good. As a fourth outfielder/pinch hitter he is fine but no manager in their right mind would have Shuck as a full time DH. You're much better off rolling with LaRoche and hoping he can return to pre-2015 form. I think the odds of that happening are better than the odds of Shuck being even somewhat useful as a full time DH. At least with LaRoche batting there is a chance he will run into one and hit it out.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 7, 2015 -> 01:58 AM) He's worth more than that at his age? $5.5 million is a good bench or decent middle relief pitcher these days not a starter who puts up a sub 4.00 ERA with around 200 innings. According to Fangraphs Buehrle was worth roughly $16.8 million this year. If Buehrle plays another season, which I don't expect, somebody will be willing to give him a 1 year, $10-$12 million contract. If the Sox could move Danks without eating salary I would love to have Buehrle back but you're not going to get him for $5.5 million.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) just b/c i can acknowledge his accomplishment and his good works, i still have my negative opinions on his work. he can't or he seems to me to not gauge contracts or length or value a player. second, i agree with your statement. but you are right about finding talent. Uh. Are you still b****ing about the Seabrook contract? It's already been explained to you ad nauseam. Do you need someone to explain yet again why it's as long as it is? You're like a broken f***ing record.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 09:26 AM) Sorry Adam Eaton was a -8.8 in 2o14 according to the listed Fangraphs WAR. QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 09:31 AM) Actually he hasn't . in 2 years with the Sox, which is our only way to measure it. he's been -8.8 and -21.2 . Now if you want to look up his DRS numbers be my guest. He was -1.6 in 2014 and -8.8 in 2015. He is -21.2 for his career which includes what has to be a fluky -11.2 in just 66 games with the D-Backs in 2013.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 08:01 AM) Do you guys not realize how bad Soto got? You have to look at the season as a whole. He put up a 1.1 fWAR in roughly a third of a full season worth of plate appearances.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) If Stone is negotiating, he obviously will have a say. Maybe Chip Caray can be like he grandpa and work both sides of town. Oh God please no!!

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) cleaver.... and btw, 2 things. get the list of those on the board for both the sox and bulls and compare. and second, for you major size of your pea size intellect, how many times i am saying keep the bulls out of the equation. You accuse me of having a pea size intellect when you write cleaver instead of clever and sentences like "for you major size of your pea size intellect"? What the f*** is that supposed to mean anyways? Is that English? QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 08:13 AM) they are businessmen first and foremost. they want to max the profit. so if this was their only major income coming in, ok, but they also have the bulls company and all the other sub companies associated with the sports industry..... How exactly are you saying keep the Bulls out of the equation when in an earlier post you listed the Bulls as a revenue stream for the owners. If JR solely owned the teams he could take a hit on the Sox because of the Bulls success, but as just one of many owners, some of which are part of both teams but not all, he cannot do that. He has a responsibility to look out for the other owners. Think of it this way, if you and me owned a business together and decided to sell, how would you feel about me wanting to accept a lower offer because I have an additional successful side business that you are not part of? I would bet you wouldn't be very happy. If JR overspends on the White Sox he is basically taking money out of the rest of the ownership groups pockets to fund his pet project.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) the list of owners of both the hawks and bulls are extremely close with maybe a few different names. now take JR out of the equation and pls stop making excuses for the owners. we have or at least i have seen them many times over the course of many yrs. i have been fighting this battle a long freaking time. i am saying on looking at the big picture of dollars and cents. the owners of the sox does have to have their profits to make ends meet, nor are they surviving on this as a survival of their family. this is an investment in which they have made money or the course of their intial investment. now lets look at the money, this is by all mean not their only investment and i am sure of that. so any lost will be good in a tax write off. they pay big bucks for, what i am sure of corp tax acct and lawyers to help them. they will make that money back. I'm not going to argue with you on this anymore but I will say you are dead wrong. The finances of the Bulls have nothing to do with the finances of the Sox. While JR is the majority owner and the face he still has to look out for the other investors. Every time I read one of your posts I think of an old saying, "it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". That would be good advice for you to take.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 12:23 PM) exactly and therefore, the sting of loosing money from 1 company should be soften the sting from making money from the second company. let alone all the tax breaks coming from this. lets not forget they do make money from the sub companies. however i do see and understand your point. The Bulls and Sox do not have the same ownership group. Just because JR is making money off the Bulls doesn't mean that other Sox owners are and would not be too happy with JR overspending just because he is doing good financially. There are a lot more people involved than just JR and he has to look out for their interests too.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) Granger is barely two hours away from USCF. He drives home every night too. 4 hour round trip commute.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 3, 2015 -> 08:13 AM) and do you believe everything someone tells you??? they are businessmen first and foremost. they want to max the profit. so if this was their only major income coming in, ok, but they also have the bulls company and all the other sub companies associated with the sports industry..... i have heard one owner and his grandstanding on how much he is a baseball fan and he would loose money blah... blah... when the time has come, put up this money, max out what you can or go in the black for 1 yr to a yr of building a dynasty.... but make sure you have the right person at the helm. second, major contracts will be coming of the books next yr, anywhere from 28+ mil to 38 mil depending on Alexei contract. after that yr, the team will have an additional 13+ mil coming off again depending on this yr fa signing. at this time the farm and the minor league should start supporting the parent team with smart drafts that hopefully the players developed as hope and let alone the int't players they signed. next all the additional money they will make b/c companies want to partnered up with a winner. it will be easy from that point on. Boy they should just put you in charge because you have it all figured out. It's so easy. Now have fun explaining to members of the Sox ownership group why they are making less money because the Bulls are successful. The Bulls and Sox are two separate entities. Their finances have NOTHING to do with each other even if they have some of the same people in their respective ownership groups.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 1, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) Fewer teams make the playoffs in MLB than the other sports. The Sox have sucked but as far as comparing across other sports... *shrug* Exactly. If MLB had the same type of playoff seeding as the NBA the Sox would basically have a been a perennial playoff team for the past 25 years give or take a season here and there.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) I didn't say that, I'm just trying to counter your assertion that he has "no reasonable shot at all" to be an above-average MLB hitter. But any regression from his AAA stats at all puts him at average or below. If he's roughly a 110 wRC+ hitter in AAA, chances he is not going to be there in the Majors. I'm just not going to base my opinion of him on his 100 or so PAs he's had in the Majors where's he played out of his mind. I think some on here are just ignoring the fact that the current .257 ISO and .338 BABPI (basically the equivalent of a prime Frank Thomas) are just not realistic numbers for him and once his numbers regress to the norm the opinion around here will change real fast.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 10:42 AM) Thompson's wRC+ by year: 2010: 106 2011: 114 2012: 120 (A+), 153 (AA), 46 (AAA, only 20 PA though) 2013: 107 2014: 108 2015: 114 With the exception of his 100 PA in rookie ball and his 20 PA in AAA in 2012, he's been an above-average hitter every year. So you're telling me that you don't see any drop off at all in him from AAA to MLB?

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) Correct me if I'm wrong (don't know where to really look for this) but in the years Heyward struggled with the bat, wasn't he always positive WAR-wise due to his great defense? (I also know that WAR isn't the end all be all) Heyward had just one year where he was a below Major League average hitter with a 96 wRC+ in 2011. His fWAR that year was just 1.9 (basically league average). I think that may be about where Trayce Thompson could be at. Every other year Heyward's wRC+ has been at least 110. I don't think Trayce Thompson has a reasonable shot at that at all. I think Trayce's peak is a average to slightly above average Major Leaguer. Remember he put up low .700 OPSs in AAA.

Based on the scenarios, I don't think it compares to Avi's on July 4.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 11:33 AM) Eaton is 17th in the MLB this year in baserunning value according to Fangraphs. There's more to it than just stealing bases. I think if he can get his technique down he has enough speed to be a 30 SB guy on top of being a good base runner.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 10:11 AM) Eaton .332/.414/.478 since the All Star break, yet "Robbie" continues to play him. Just another sign of incompetence. Not to mention Alexei and Melky at .282/.331/.444 and .297/.339/.479 respectively. In all likelihood all three of those guys will be on the team next year so they should all still see substantial playing time. I think Robin has done a pretty decent job getting all of the young players in the lineup. He's given a substantial number of at bats to Saladino, Olt, Johnson and Thompson over the last few weeks.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 09:40 AM) No contradiction. He's a "keeper" in the sense that he's a decent baseball player. I hope the Sox trade him because he's not as good as his numbers, he'd return value and you can't build a team trading prospects only. Trayce Thompson is a building block and should be our CF next year. But Robbie boy keeps wheeling out Melky, Alexei and Eaton day after day after day. My God, when will this insanity end? Eaton has put up better numbers at the Major League level than Trayce Thompson did in AAA. Yet Trayce Thompson is a building block? How is Eaton not as good as his numbers? He has 1400 Major League at bats. That is a pretty substantial sample size and I don't think there is any reason to believe he has even peaked yet. You know who's not as good as their numbers so far? Trayce Thompson. Trading Eaton wouldn't really make all that much sense. He is locked up for 6 more years at a very team friendly contract. Nobody is going to blow you away with a trade offer and you would be lucky to get one guy back who ends up as good as Eaton so what the f*** would be the point in trading him?

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 11:18 PM) Looks like daughter learned the tricks from mama... Chicago Tribune reporting accuser's friend no longer fully backs accuser's version of events and has expressed reluctance to testify. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0924-story.html I think that is why the grand jury was probably postponed in the first place. This woman's claim is falling apart fast.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) I understand the difficulties with it, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do -- it's AN age-old question: are the athletes today better than the athletes of yesterday. I contend yes, but there are many that disagree. Yeah if you look at it that way of course athletes today are better. I think the progression of every Olympic record proves that point.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 11:14 AM) Walsh was also facing a much smaller pool of talent. No black, Latino, or Asian players. It was easier to be dominant in his era. Yes there was a much smaller pool of talent but there were also far less spots available. 16 teams as opposed to 30.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 10:58 AM) Again, I'd reiterate -- were the batters striking out less because they felt like striking out less, or were the pitchers not throwing stuff that was hard to hit? A little of both, sure, but what evidence is there to suggest one over the other? When it comes to the pitchers, I'd posit that merely the fact that they were throwing 400-500 innings is evidence that they were throwing lesser stuff. Sale couldn't do what he does and throw 400 innings, obviously. When it comes to the hitters, the best evidence for a contact-oriented approach would be fewer HRs hit overall, but at the same time, the SLG rates weren't nearly as far removed in say, 1917, than they are today. Guys were also running higher BABIPs consistently. I said in my original post that the old guys were just as VALUABLE in context, but I stand by my original point that Chris Sale is way harder to hit. And this is what I don't like. Sale is harder to hit by who? Players today or players in Walsh's era? If you say Walsh's era, well that's obvious. You can't give pitchers 100 years of science and technology to use to advance themselves but not hitters. This is why you can't compare eras. You can only compare a player in relation to his peers. And in Walsh's era, he was every bit as dominant as Chris Sale.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 09:51 AM) This is one of the most interesting instances of rate stats vs counting stats, IMO. It also should absolutely put to rest the idea that old-timey pitchers were as dominating as today's aces. The Hawks of the world can claim that these guys were throwing "as hard as anyone" and that they just didn't have radar guns, but there's just no way that's true. Now, the old-timey aces very well may have been just as VALUABLE as today's ace because of the massive disparity in workload, but it seems too obvious to me that they made a clear tradeoff to prioritize innings over dominance. And there can't be much question who would would be superior on a per-batter basis. That Sale is on the verge of overcoming an old-timey COUNTING stat record is, IMO, as indicative of how insanely dominant he is as well as it is indicative of how relatively weak the Sox history of high-end pitching is. After all, it SHOULD be impossible to break a counting record like that despite throwing less than HALF the innings. Yes the Sox history of high end pitching has been weak alright. The guy who's record Sale is about to break only has the lowest career ERA of all time while sporting a very comparable FIP- over his prime as Sale has. It was a completely different era with two completely different styles of baseball being played. Trying to compare the two is pretty absurd. Walsh pitched at a time when some batters might strikeout 15-20 times in a season. Now anything under 100 is considered pretty acceptable. This has as much to do with the batters and the style of play as it does your perceived lack of domination from the pitchers. The fact that this record has stood so long has very little to do with a Sox lack of high end pitching. Walsh's record is the 65th highest single season total post 1900. Of the 64 ahead of him, 27 of those seasons are held by Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Steve Carlton and Roger Clemens. Bert Blyleven who is 5th all time in strikeouts had a career high of 258. 269 strikeouts is a high total and a pretty damn tough record to beat.

The Dodgers basically have bottomless pockets. Why would they want to give up substantial prospects for Sale when they can just go out and sign David Price?