GGajewski18 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) There is 0 reason that this trade should not happen tonight unless other names are being discussed. Edited December 9, 2014 by SoxPride18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 08:44 PM) Not worried about the payroll at all. I think we have more money to spend than people were predicting anyways but if Hahn wants Melky and Robertson/KRod then they'll work out the payroll issues. I could easily see Sox payroll in the 100-110 range if they want. We did it 5 years ago, no reason JR would't do it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:40 PM) I would venture to guess that WAR has more correlation to actual wins than any other statistic I really can't see that. Supposedly WAR looks at "just another guy" that can be acquired but not an average. Kershaw is only 7 wins better than him and that is the top in the game? Â Sorry to derail the discussion Ill stop but using WAR as the only justification to refute a comment whenit is so abstract always irks me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 07:35 PM) An underrated aspect about acquiring Samardzija is that he's a huge name in the Chicagoland area, and he's someone that I think fans would go out to watch pitch (oh great, more ND fans at Sox games) Hey nothing wrong with that. Gotta remember when the original Mayor Richard J Daley was around being Irish in Chicago was a huge deal and the middle class (basically a ton of south side White Sox fan city workers ) looked to ND as the symbol of having their children do better than they did. Those city workers are all retired now but their children went to college and were the original Yuppies and inherited their love of the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Where's the rumored 4 player deal coming from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:42 PM) http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/chicago-white-sox/payroll/ Â You realize that table is missing like 15 players, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thxfrthmmrs Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:42 PM) http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/chicago-white-sox/payroll/  It does not account for arb cases, which amounts to $10 mil, and pre arb guys, which is another $6 mil.  http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CH...-salaries.shtml  BR has much more in depth info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 05:47 AM) Where's the rumored 4 player deal coming from? Â Poster JDsdirtysox (I think, JD something) posted it, and someone else said he has sox connections. Seem to fit bucket's "some will hate this" narrative well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Rosenthal just said that the Sox A's deal will get done, just a matter of time. Â They were talking about what the A's do next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 but they don't understand that my time is me being more tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:47 PM) You realize that table is missing like 15 players, right?   QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:47 PM) It does not account for arb cases, which amounts to $10 mil, and pre arb guys, which is another $6 mil. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CH...-salaries.shtml  BR has much more in depth info.  My bad. thanks for the clarification. Forgot about Keppinger and all the buy outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Love how the A's trade Moss for a 24 year old MI that wasn't even a top 5 prospect for the Indians and they are wanting 3 top of our prospects for a one year guy? I guess our prospects are probably over valued but I really like Trey and Danish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:48 PM) Rosenthal just said that the Sox A's deal will get done, just a matter of time. Â They were talking about what the A's do next. Where did he say this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:51 PM) Where did he say this? Â MLB Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:48 PM) Poster JDsdirtysox (I think, JD something) posted it, and someone else said he has sox connections. Seem to fit bucket's "some will hate this" narrative well. No he didn't. Just said it was done and Danish is in it. (That was me who said he has a source btw) Someone posted the rumored deal from a twitter guy named rickslat. Edited December 9, 2014 by SoxAce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vance Law Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Dec 9, 2014 -> 12:35 AM) More like 65. 80 is right, including Tank and the other arb players with estimates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:39 PM) Lets look at this another way, Kershaw was 21-3 with a WAR of 7.5. Did the average starter who made as few starts as Kershaw, did the average replacement level starter win that many games? I know there are other aspects that contribute but then go as far as the average winning percentage, etc. I don't know the answer just posing the thought. However, I'd also point out that you can't just add WAR's and say that is how many more games you will actually win. I know you just can't add WAR. This is also part of the problem as its too abstract. You also cannot use the average players as it doesn't pertain to the average player  When the cimment was used it was said that lester couldn't provide 15-20 more wns because kershaw only had a 7 WAR. So this would assume lester woud take the place of the cubs worst or 5 starter not even an average starter  Anyway this is discussion for another day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:45 PM) I really can't see that. Supposedly WAR looks at "just another guy" that can be acquired but not an average. Kershaw is only 7 wins better than him and that is the top in the game? Sorry to derail the discussion Ill stop but using WAR as the only justification to refute a comment whenit is so abstract always irks me.  Yeah, we're comparing to the "average replacement" player, which means that lots of replacements will be better or worse than 0 WAR. I think the main thing about WAR that is counterintuitive is just that it's not going to give any one player a ton of credit for winning a game. You're not going to play so well in a single that game that you get anything close to 1 WAR. But, in our minds, we might be thinking, "this game was won by THIS guy." But WAR says no, all kinds of other guys had to not f*** up to make that possible so they get some measure of credit (even if credit = not being docked WAR). But it also seeks to remove context, so that if Clayton Kershaw played for teams that aren't nearly as good, we still can compare him to players that are on great teams.  Pitching WAR is a little more debatable. Over small sample sizes, including at the level of a single season, FIP-based WAR is generally more accurate. Over longer stretches, though, RA/9-WAR is better...you can think of that as an ERA-based WAR. I usually look at both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigHurt3515 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 When I wake up tomorrow this thread will be on page 180 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm really tired, so this deal needs to be done now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:54 PM) Yeah, we're comparing to the "average replacement" player, which means that lots of replacements will be better or worse than 0 WAR. I think the main thing about WAR that is counterintuitive is just that it's not going to give any one player a ton of credit for winning a game. You're not going to play so well in a single that game that you get anything close to 1 WAR. But, in our minds, we might be thinking, "this game was won by THIS guy." But WAR says no, all kinds of other guys had to not f*** up to make that possible so they get some measure of credit (even if credit = not being docked WAR). But it also seeks to remove context, so that if Clayton Kershaw played for teams that aren't nearly as good, we still can compare him to players that are on great teams. Â Pitching WAR is a little more debatable. Over small sample sizes, including at the level of a single season, FIP-based WAR is generally more accurate. Over longer stretches, though, RA/9-WAR is better...you can think of that as an ERA-based WAR. I usually look at both. Â Actually from my analysis of various stats I like SIERA for pitching. It relyydoes the best job of isolating the pitcher's responsibility for runs scored which really what is all about. Edited December 9, 2014 by ptatc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:00 PM) "Maybe the White Sox could get David Robertson too..?"Â "Well if the White Sox did get Robertson, could the Yankees compete in the AL East?" Â No, no, no, he said "If the they get Headley, and they get Robertson, and use A-Rod as some sort of floating DH, could the Yankees compete in the AL East?" Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayan024 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 what is the rumored current deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (dayan024 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 11:06 PM) what is the rumored current deal? Shark for Semien, Danish and Trey M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Dec 8, 2014 -> 10:55 PM) When I wake up tomorrow this thread will be on page 180 And I'll say half of it will be posters b****ing about the deal led by peavy44. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.