shysocks

QUOTE (VAfan @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 10:16 AM) I think it's funny to see the transition on this post from when there was still speculation that we were close to signing Robertson, to after the news broke that he'd signed. It was generally -- no, no, no, too much money ... To -- yes, yes, yes! -- who cares about the money, it's not ours! Sure that's a little overstated, but still, there's quite a contrast. Count me among those thrilled by this move. I don't write on here that much anymore, but last season got quite a debate going for my post about whether the bullpen was Hahn's fault. If you flipped the KC bullpen for the Sox bullpen last year, we would have been in the race for a wild card slot, and we know how valuable those turned out to be. So it appears Mr. Hahn has learned his lesson and isn't willing to waste any more seasons trying to patch together a cheap bullpen. Hooray for that! That's just fandom - for some, not all. I'm one who didn't want to pay Robertson, but now that he's ours I'm finding ways to rationalize it. We're inclined to be happy about things the Sox do because we devote so much time to following them. Otherwise we'd run into some bumpy cognitive dissonance.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 08:30 AM) I hate the contract. Love the pitcher. I'll get over it because it's not my money though. Word. These moves better mean we are ALL ***ING IN, bolded, though. No messing around.

Got it.

Even for free brownies?

Sure I'm not the only one to find humor in the bizarro Coop'll Fix 'Im scenario in play here.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) If 1.5 years of Shark cost Addison Russell, it makes sense that one year (plus the advantage of being Shark's hometown team) ... would equal Tim Anderson. This is not from an i-like-the-Sox perspective but from the perspective that you need to believe there are multiple Shark offers out there. We have to beat other offers, and you dont beat them with Marcus Semien+Ravelo or whatever. You need to offer something of worth. From the A's perspective, which again you have to consider-- Tim Anderson helps Oakland save some face for losing Addison Russell. This is well-reasoned but I don't think it placates me. Just because the A's overpaid for him in the first place doesn't mean the Sox need to get involved in a rebound overpayment.

QUOTE (Bigsoxhurt35 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) My guess is we're trying to get him without giving up Anderson. But all these tweets then deleted are kind of interesting. The tweet being deleted later certainly lends it even more crypticness.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) proven starting pitching with his amount of career pitches is a TOTALLY different ballgame. No question he's a better player than Moss but it seems Oakland is just giving their guys away like Oprah. In light of that, if it seems like we've overpaid for Samardzija it will just be upsetting, that's all.

Just submitting for general consideration: After seeing the return the A's got for 2 years of Moss, if I think "Hey, I'll miss that guy" for more than five seconds about whoever we give up for Samardzija, I'm gonna be pissed.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 06:16 PM) Hard to disagree. Scrooged is the best Xmas movie. Home Alone would like a word. You people going to bat for "All I Want For Christmas Is You" are puzzling to me. I'd rather get stabbed in the ear with a toothpick than hear that song. It's so shrill.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 05:17 AM) That demo was really pretty but I hope it's not just alot of grass and a big map. Open world and a huge map has so much potential for that game that they need to make all the villages bigger I'd say. I also like how you don't have to control the horse as you shoot arrows or other things. The demo didn't do much for me - if you just look high level, nothing we saw (other than horse autopilot, which is definitely cool) was fundamentally different from than, say, Twilight Princess. I know they're promising an open world structure but it didn't really show up. And I don't know how it could show up in a short video, anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) Which is exactly why this entire concept makes no sense unless we're getting a solid discount on his next contract. It's going to take someone solid to get him, there's a reason why Tim Anderson's name has come up. Tim Anderson would be a fair return for Samardzija and if the White Sox had won 87 games last year that would be a perfectly reasonable gamble for the team to take, that extra pitcher could put us over the top in 2015. Since the White Sox have won 75 games the last 2 years, that deal suddenly makes no sense for us because even if everything goes right, making a 15 win jump is hard. The only way that would make sense is if we could look beyond 2015 and expect the pitcher to be present at a continuing discount. Yup. And expecting either that discount to be there or that extra negotiating window to have any meaning would be based on nothing substantial. I'd be surprised if Samardzija doesn't make it to free agency, wherever he ends up.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 05:47 AM) if the sox sign David Robertson, he will cost a draft pick as comp. For that and other reasons, going after Robertson is a mistake. The positive: It would be a clear sign that the Sox are willing to throw their weight around.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 06:41 AM) The Chicago #Whitesox are looming as the #frontrunner to acquire #Athletics ace Jeff Samardzija after the clubs engaged in serious talks https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/541918673565261824 Oakland and the White Sox have been frequent trade partners through the years. Execs on both sides say they work well together. #Samardzija https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/541924420751605760 #frontrunner? Hashtag frontrunner?? I don't think BNightengale understands what hashtags are for.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 7, 2014 -> 09:17 AM) I HATE Christmas music. It's so bad and you're all wrong for liking it. QFT. It's that special time of year when we remember how annoying Mariah Carey is.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 06:11 PM) I was using some hyperbole but in so many words that's what this means "the amount of balls that fall in for hits against pitchers do not correlate well across seasons". I call BS on that. A pitcher who can consistently hit his spots and keep hitters off balance with varying speeds will have significantly more success on balls in play being outs. Will there be exceptions every once in a while where a guy inside outs a blooper or something? Of course, but there have been plenty of guys who made successful careers out of pitching to contact and not striking a lot of guys out. There is actual data that says it's not BS. It's not like people just make this stuff up out of thin air.

Not in my alphabet.

Cameron updated the midseason rankings on Fangraphs, inspired by the Keri article. Sale moved up from 11 to 8 and is now, notably, the only pitcher in the top 10. Abreu moved from 10 to 6. Q fell from 37 to 44. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-trade-...fseason-update/

For a board newb, can somebody explain what's going on?

Don't overvalue prospects. I think Moss would come fairly cheap and would be an okay solution. The year-over-year offensive decline is a worry.

It comes down to this: QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 10:09 AM) Now, I know that someone is going to object on the basis that those pitches, thrown in a game situation, might put to much stress on the pitcher’s arm. To that, I can only reply, “oh poor pitcher”. Tell that to the old timer hurlers, who routinely threw close to double the amount of pitches, thrown by today's pitchers, every start, and did it every 3 days. Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. The old timers played when there was a lot less money in the game. When these guys are getting paid what they are, "oh poor pitcher" becomes a very big deal. The health consequences of this would be very real. What happens in the fourth game when your starter can't give you six innings but every reliever had to carry multiple innings the night before because it was their game? Not every side session is going to go as smoothly as Bumgarner's did.

Mostly arguing with myself now, but another thought I had in relation to their current deals: Let's say Hamels' 2019 option for $19M vests. That would have him being paid $109M over the next five years. Quintana's salary over that time would be $30M. Russell Martin, the top catcher on the market this offseason, got 5/$82. If a team traded for Quintana instead of Hamels, they could then go out and essentially sign Russell Martin with the salary difference. That's why Q's trade value > Hamels'.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) Well s*** that dates back forever. You could even tell there were weird relationships forming in both KOTOR's too. I probably forgot about that because all that mattered in either of those games was HK-47. (Exaggerating. Those games were great.) Unrelated - as one of the 12 people still playing Titanfall (seriously, many playlists have fewer than 100 people playing worldwide during peak hours), I can tell you that if you ever enjoyed that game, get back in. It went on sale for 12 bucks recently and is crawling with bad kids, so now's the time to hop on and feel good about yourself.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 5, 2014 -> 05:52 AM) Put them both on the open market and Hamel's is going to get the better contract and be more in demand. Part of Q's value is tied to his team friendly contract. That's the point of the discussion. If a team is trading for a starting pitcher, would they rather pay 31-year-old Hamels at least $90 million for the next four years, or 26-year-old Jose Quintana $19.6 million for the same years with two very cheap team options tacked on the end? If a team could just draft either one to have for a year they'd probably pick Hamels due to his consistently excellent track record, but in a discussion about trade value, the contracts are soooo far apart that you'd probably have to pay a lot more to pry Quintana away from the Sox. To whoever asked why Quintana is pegged for regression, it's definitely because of his low HR/FB rate last year.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) Don't cry yourself to sleep when I'm right dude! Ugh. He kept pointing out that the Sox won 73 games last year as if it shut down any opposition. I'm still facepalming.