White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-31-2013, 10:39 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 12,933
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I mean, I don't see Bourjos as any kind of world beater, but in his defense, the Angels have had a plethora of high priced, veteran OF for seemingly ever now, so it's not like he's had a lot of chances to break through, either.

But I like his defense and I like his speed, two things that this team has sorely lacked in CF and in the lineup. Even if he isn't an everyday player, he potentially can split time with De Aza so he doesn't break down as he has the last couple of years he's been asked to play everyday. Of course, that would also require a manager with some creativity, which I am not sure we have.
We shouldn't give up a quality pitcher to get a no-hit OF
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-01-2013, 08:36 AM
cws05champ cws05champ is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Del Boca Vista, Florida
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Name I expect to see in Black and White next year: Andre Either
Where is he gonna play?? Unless we get rid of Viciedo or De Aza....

Eithier: 482 AB's .273/.360/.423 12 HR, 52 RBI
Viciedo: 441 AB's .265/.304/.426 14 HR, 56 RBI

I just don't see the point in taking on ANY salary of Eithier when we have a similar player in Viciedo already in the fold.

Also, NO on Trumbo...he can't play defense and profiles as a 1B down the line. Bourjos has exactly ONE season with more than 200 AB's, so you just can't give up anything of significant value for him. He provides great defense but is nothing more than a part time OF that will play 2-3 times a week and be a defensive replacement. Ask yourself if he will give you that much more than Jordan Danks gives us right now.
__________________

H2H1 Champion 2011, 2012
Dynasty Runner up 2012
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-01-2013, 08:53 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cws05champ View Post
Where is he gonna play?? Unless we get rid of Viciedo or De Aza....

Eithier: 482 AB's .273/.360/.423 12 HR, 52 RBI
Viciedo: 441 AB's .265/.304/.426 14 HR, 56 RBI

I just don't see the point in taking on ANY salary of Eithier when we have a similar player in Viciedo already in the fold.

Also, NO on Trumbo...he can't play defense and profiles as a 1B down the line. Bourjos has exactly ONE season with more than 200 AB's, so you just can't give up anything of significant value for him. He provides great defense but is nothing more than a part time OF that will play 2-3 times a week and be a defensive replacement. Ask yourself if he will give you that much more than Jordan Danks gives us right now.
Um.... are you serious? Either had an OPS 60 points higher and was a 4 WAR player 2 years ago and a 3 WAR player last year. Tank? 0.9 WAR 2 years ago and 0.1 WAR last year

to put this in another light, Either WOULD HAVE BEEN OUR BEST PLAYER 2 YEARS IN A ROW... and its really not that close!
__________________

Last edited by Domeshot17; 11-01-2013 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-01-2013, 09:55 AM
cws05champ cws05champ is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Del Boca Vista, Florida
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Um.... are you serious? Either had an OPS 60 points higher and was a 4 WAR player 2 years ago and a 3 WAR player last year. Tank? 0.9 WAR 2 years ago and 0.1 WAR last year

to put this in another light, Either WOULD HAVE BEEN OUR BEST PLAYER 2 YEARS IN A ROW... and its really not that close!
Look at the money owed and the age of the players though. Either is 32 years old and is owed a minimum of $69M over the next 4 years through 2017. Viciedo (24) is still under team control through 2017 and will probably be owed an estimate of only $3.5M this year.

Is it worth this marginal upgrade in OBP, which is where the difference in OPS was? If I'm a GM I'm not going to pay for what a players WAR was a year or two years ago, but his potential WAR going forward. And I'll take a chance on Viciedo's years 25-28 over Either's years 32-35.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-01-2013, 10:33 AM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cws05champ View Post
Look at the money owed and the age of the players though. Either is 32 years old and is owed a minimum of $69M over the next 4 years through 2017. Viciedo (24) is still under team control through 2017 and will probably be owed an estimate of only $3.5M this year.
Anyone else in the system is still under contract too, should we just throw anything in the outfield then?

Either at any dollar amount is a better option than Viciedo for free. And I'm not even an Either fan. You're right, he is overpaid. But he's a useful piece and Viciedo is not. Hell, you could pickup Either to make things not so bad in the short term and trade him high if someone's desperate for an outfielder.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-01-2013, 11:07 AM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Anyone else in the system is still under contract too, should we just throw anything in the outfield then?

Either at any dollar amount is a better option than Viciedo for free. And I'm not even an Either fan. You're right, he is overpaid. But he's a useful piece and Viciedo is not. Hell, you could pickup Either to make things not so bad in the short term and trade him high if someone's desperate for an outfielder.
I also think the Dodgers are going to be forced to eat some of that money. Either at 50-70% of his current salary > Tank.

I also think Either would get a nice jump in stats based on the ballparks.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-01-2013, 11:08 AM
soxnut1018 soxnut1018 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cws05champ View Post
Is it worth this marginal upgrade in OBP, which is where the difference in OPS was? If I'm a GM I'm not going to pay for what a players WAR was a year or two years ago, but his potential WAR going forward. And I'll take a chance on Viciedo's years 25-28 over Either's years 32-35.
The difference between .304 and .360 is not marginal.
__________________
"Occasionally I will rock our scouts with a little quote or two from Lil Wayne. No one can put together a phrase better than that gentleman." -Bears GM Phil Emery
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-01-2013, 11:36 AM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut1018 View Post
The difference between .304 and .360 is not marginal.
I know, right? We're talking about a difference of being amongst the worst in the league and the best. You couldn't ask for a more better example of how one player is leaps and bounds better than another.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 12,933
Blog Entries: 2
Default

I see the As didn't pick up Chris Young's option. Can he still play top level defense?
It's got to start with improving the defense of this team.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-01-2013, 06:19 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
I see the As didn't pick up Chris Young's option. Can he still play top level defense?
It's got to start with improving the defense of this team.
Yes, but he's a total jamoke offensively and exactly what we don't need more of in our lineup. Unless you're a catcher, you should ride the pine in the bigs with that skillset.
__________________
People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-01-2013, 07:20 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRS1 View Post
Yes, but he's a total jamoke offensively and exactly what we don't need more of in our lineup. Unless you're a catcher, you should ride the pine in the bigs with that skillset.
For a rebuilding team that needs to focus on development, the only reason not to get a veteran, defensive CF is because you're developing your CF of the future on the major league club. Please designate that player, I don't see him on the roster or available to us by other means.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-01-2013, 07:44 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
For a rebuilding team that needs to focus on development, the only reason not to get a veteran, defensive CF is because you're developing your CF of the future on the major league club. Please designate that player, I don't see him on the roster or available to us by other means.
There's a lot of reasons not to sign a player beyond your myopic prescription answers. For example, they may just suck at the plate and wouldn't help a team that already has a terrible lineup. I'd rather put up with De Aza's D than watch Young strike out every other time he doesn't pop the ball up to the infield.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-01-2013, 07:51 PM
blandman blandman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRS1 View Post
There's a lot of reasons not to sign a player beyond your myopic prescription answers. For example, they may just suck at the plate and wouldn't help a team that already has a terrible lineup. I'd rather put up with De Aza's D than watch Young strike out every other time he doesn't pop the ball up to the infield.
Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-01-2013, 08:05 PM
KRS1 KRS1 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.
What the crap? Seriously? Because I don't want a player who would actually manage to make one of the worst lineups in baseball - EVEN WORSE - I'm now a delusional dreamer?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-01-2013, 08:39 PM
Brian26's Avatar
Brian26 Brian26 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,445
Blog Entries: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Can we save the 2014 White Sox championship talk until after they pick up the requisite 22 other players not currently in our system required to accomplish that feat? I know you find anything short of that near-sighted, but, gosh darn it, I'm a sucker for reality.
The Sox only have three players worth keeping and need to replace 22 in order to win a championship? Really? These hyperbolic statements are beyond silly.
__________________
2014 Attendance Record: 4-5; 0.444
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.