OmarComing25

QUOTE (Frank_Thomas35 @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) I personally am not worried about Laroche I think he bounces back big time this year. If you add Upton or Cespedes his bat continues to slide down in the order and the less we rely on him. I'm okay with Laroche on this team, if we have the money to sign one of these guys, I think the line up is better with one of the big three PLUS Laroache. Yeah I'd rather just keep LaRoche and bet on a bounce back than just give him away for nothing while paying 90% of his contract. I doubt the $3 million in savings is going to be the difference between getting one of the Big 3 or not.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) Omar: The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion. I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..." Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...) Mark I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much.

I'm not sold on Gordon either. I don't like his age, his offense isn't great, he can't play RF, he's coming off an injury, and I don't think his defense will stay elite going forward, which is where the bulk of his value comes from.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I saw mlb.com had an article with the Cubs as the projected best rotation in baseball (at least by war) and the Sox weren't in the top five...not surprising I guess. http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=SP They used these projections but limited it to just the top 5 pitchers. Projections for us are assuming Johnson and Turner share the load in the 5th spot, Rodon gets worse from last year instead of better, and Quintana sees decent regression. There's some upside in our projections, but a lot of it depends on Johnson.

Anyone have concerns about Gordon coming off an injury at his age?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2015/12/20/mike-m...partner=ya5nbcs Matheny not happy with Heyward's comments Funny thing is the Cardinals have a younger team than the Cubs. The Cubs position players are quite young, but they have one of the oldest pitching staffs in baseball.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) So who says we are just talking about the last three seasons? Ah yes BP, the "bible" of stat-geeks everywhere. LOL. The same magazine who after badly mis-predicting the Sox 2005 season received a flood of letters from upset Sox fans letting them know where they could take their sabermetrics. Sheehan then angerly denounced those same fans in a letter / column as I recall and started to backtrack with some of the numbers by offering "excuses." He got it wrong, period then because he was pissed off that he was called out for it reacted like a child with a tantrum. With respect, stats are fine and useful but they are not the be all-end all BP thinks they are. Billions and billions of variables go into a team and a season many of which simply can not be categorized (i.e. weather, injuries, fluke plays and bad umpire calls.) But I digress and I apologize. Just curious how long it took you to write up this doctorate to prove your point? And that's not a criticism by the way, I admire your dedication. To me this is just baseball, not a life or death struggle to prove something. All I know is that if I can have different ways of scoring runs not just the home run (which as I stated is not a bad thing) I expect my chances to win games will be greater. Home run hitters go into slumps, low average hitters by definition don't get a lot of hits period, hence the low average. Give me some balance...home run hitters and guys who hit for high average and guys who can run and put pressure on a defense and I'll take my chances. Mark Your assertion was that home or nothing offenses were a big reason why the Sox haven't made the playoffs consistently, yet I just showed you that our last playoff appearance was off the back of one of the most homerun or nothing offenses in baseball history. You can hate on BP and stats all you want, but the data shows that HR-dependent offenses are more likely to make the playoffs than the more balanced offenses. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th most homerun-dependent offense in baseball that year, the idea that the balanced offense won us the championship is a myth. You say home run hitters go into slumps, which implies that non-homerun hitters don't. Every hitter goes into slumps. Do you have any proof that homerun-dependent offenses go into prolonged slumps more often? And again, I never said balance in an offense was a bad thing, I said I just wanted the better players, whoever they are. If the choice is between Player A and Player B, and Player A adds more "balance" to the offense but is clearly the inferior player, then give me Player B every time. If a guy like Cespedes means a return to the homerun or nothing offenses of the past, I don't care as long as that means we're scoring runs.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) That's assuming they get to the playoffs of course as many Sox teams have showed in the new century, "home run or nothing" often gets you exactly that come October...nothing...because with all the droughts during the regular season you lose to many games to qualify for the post season. Not saying at all that home run are bad, U.S. Cellular is a hitters park but it is significant to me that the best success this franchise has had in decades came in a year when they had great balance and could beat you offensively in a number of ways. Mark http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=17470 The 2008 White Sox were the 5th-most HR-dependent playoff team ever, with only the 2012 Yankees, the 2014 Orioles, and the 2015 Astros and Yankees ahead of them. I'll take the "HR or nothing" offenses any day over the crap we've seen the last three years.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) That's assuming they get to the playoffs of course as many Sox teams have showed in the new century, "home run or nothing" often gets you exactly that come October...nothing...because with all the droughts during the regular season you lose to many games to qualify for the post season. Not saying at all that home run are bad, U.S. Cellular is a hitters park but it is significant to me that the best success this franchise has had in decades came in a year when they had great balance and could beat you offensively in a number of ways. Mark Here's the White Sox offenses from 2008-2015 2015: 32% 2014: 38% 2013: 36% 2012: 46% 2011: 37% 2010: 37% 2009: 41% 2008: 48% Funny enough, the season where the offense was by far the most "HR or nothing" was the last season the Sox made the playoffs, and 2012 was the closest we've come to the playoffs since then, and the offense was also heavily-reliant on homeruns then too. The two seasons where we had our most "balanced" offenses were also easily the two worst offensive outputs. Balance is nice to have in the offense of course, but I think you're overrating it. Just give me the better players. I don't think you can have too much power. 2005 was great and all but the pitching had a lot more do with the championship than the offense. The Sox led the AL in ERA that year, but were 9th in the AL in runs scored. In the playoffs the Sox bashed 18 homeruns in 12 games for 32 runs, or almost 48% of the total output. A balanced attack is not what won us the World Series.

.235/.295/.340

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 12:02 PM) Re the 2005 White Sox offense. It is all fine and dandy what you said, the fact is they scored the exact same percentage of their overall runs via the home run as the supposed softball team line up of 2004. Since switching parks, if his team doesn't hit homers, they are screwed. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mlb-play...yths-to-ignore/ HR-reliant offenses also tend to do better in the playoffs.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 11:47 AM) OBPs should carry over. Walk rates sure, but OBP is also tied to batting average.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 19, 2015 -> 09:40 PM) I don't know, the rumors are they are looking for another OF and SP. I'm guessing they sign Gordon and trade for another pitcher. I think they can get Gordon to bite on 3 year contract with a 4th year option. The cubs made it to the NLCS so that could be enticing to Gordon. No way they have enough money left, and if they sign Gordon where does Schwarber play?

QUOTE (oldsox @ Dec 19, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) Tony, I was away from my computer using an IPad, which is a struggle for me, the print being very small, etc, so I made a one word comment. Ditto. Just re-inforced what Mike said. Last season, IIRC, Jones had a lot of troulbe getting anyone out, particularly in the last 6 weeks. I think they even shut him down the final 2 nweeks or so, which, to me, is not conduscive to giving a 3 year contract. Lets see how he does, but they could have buttoned him him for less than a million easily. I thought he should prove he can get hitters out first, that's all. Way to go, Mike. As pointed out already, his HR rate was pretty fluky, his peripherals were great, his strikeout rate was elite, and even with the HRs his ERA was still solid. Not sure how that translates to "had a lot of trouble getting anyone out".

Come on Davis, do us a solid and accept Baltimore's offer.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 03:36 PM) It's not scientifically proven or anything like that, but isn't it fair to say that a pitchers velocity "falls off" as they age? Jones' main asset is his ability to light up the radar gun and I just don't know how effective he'll be in a few years when he's only hitting 93 or 94 instead of 98 and 99 like he is now. It's a 3-year deal, not a 7-year deal.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) You got me too. Only a troll would question 8 million for a pitcher who gave up homers at an alarming rate. I'm just not into 81 wins and home run derby like you sages You really love making conclusions based off small sample sizes.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 11:06 AM) He's already 29. It seems like power relievers like him decline around that age, or at least lose some of their velocity/pure stuff. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Jones being as good as he was during the duration of this contract. He's being paid pennies though, $8M over 3 years is nothing in this day and age. Even if he declines a bit he'll easily be worth the contract. QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 11:14 AM) How much would he have earned in Arb? Looks like more sentimentality At this point I'm 90% convinced you've been trolling us this whole time. This can't be a serious post.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) I thought that was the Mariners (Lind). Pirates traded for Jason Rogers.

He was a bit on and off this year, but he was also coming off injury. When he's on he's as nasty as anyone. Good deal.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 09:58 AM) Give them another call, phone stalk them, throw in another 2 million. Do whatever it takes to open up the DH spot for Melky and bring in 2 outfielders. Cmon Hahn! Pirates just traded for a 1B from the Brewers, right? That door is closed.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 09:29 AM) They don't need to dump Robertson, just back load any free agent deal so the Danks/Laroche money that is coming off the books next year gets reallocated. It's been posted before and remains valid imo. If we are going to go for the wildcard, we shouldn't be dumping an established closer. Internal option-wise, Nate Jones scares me as a 9th inning guy, but I'll take him in the 7th/8th as a bridge to #30. Why is the wildcard the goal here? The division is wide open and for the taking, especially if we get Upton or Cespedes.

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 09:18 AM) Don't ever believe teams are truly out on a player even when they say they're "out". A lot of bluffing going on. That being said it's been reported that the Sox need to clear some space to sign one of these guys. Personally I'd trade LaRoche to Pittsburgh and pick up whatever part of the salary the Sox have to pick up just to get him out of here, at this point he adds nothing to the team. Then I'd try to deal Robertson. There might be some teams that would be interested in him and I'm of the belief that you can always find a closer either in house or sign a few guys on 1 year deals to compete for it. Robertson's deal is probably holding up a signing right now. Hahn already offered to pay $8 million of LaRoche's salary to the Pirates and they turned it down.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 09:12 AM) Ken Rosenthal just said on MLBN that an O's beat writer said that the O's aren't spending 100 million+ on a player other than Chris Davis. So now, that is the Angels, Giants, Cardinals, and O's now out on the big OFs. That leaves the Sox, Nationals, Tigers, and Royals that have reported interest in the big 3 OFs. Doesn't feel like the Tigers/Royals would be in on Upton either, seems like he's there for the taking.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 18, 2015 -> 07:20 AM) Alexei does not improve this team. There really is an absolute disdain for imperfect young players in this organization. Love the mediocre vets however. Then how do you explain all the opportunities Beckham and Viciedo got to turn it around? Also Hahn already said Saladino was going to be the SS, you're making s*** up again.