White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on winning the AL ROTY award unanimously, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:07 PM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB98 View Post
If teams aren't going to offer the Sox a top prospect for Peavy, then they can stick it. The Sox can simply hold on to Peavy and let him finish out his contract then. Even if next year is a transitional year, there will still be 162 big-league games played, and somebody has to pitch.

Peavy is too good a pitcher to just give away. There's nothing that says he must be traded.
Oh yeah, I completely agree with you. If the Sox don't get anything of value I'm all for keeping him then. I just think that he will be undervalued due to his injuries that he has had year after year.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-14-2013, 12:37 AM
gosox41 gosox41 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurr View Post
Ahhh...read his prospect report from a website.
High power potential. Lacks defensive skill.

Sounds like a White Sox player to me! Suit him up!
So much for things changing under Hahn. Only one trade, but still.

And I read that he passed up on football to play baseball. How many of these guys do we need to figure out that in most cases the 2 sport athletes who go to baseball just don't develop?

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-14-2013, 11:53 AM
TomBradley72 TomBradley72 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Antioch, IL
Posts: 5,652
Default

Peavy is NOT a #2 pitcher on a contender- he's barely over .500 in 4 seasons in the AL with a 4.00+ ERA- CAN be very effective in short stretches when he's healthy- but I think a contender would view him as #3 at best.

He was 4-7, 4.00 ERA in the 2nd half last year- if he can prove he's healthy- his value will be highest at this trading deadline- vs. holding on to him for next year.

With Sale, Santiago, Quintana, Danks, E. Johnson (AAA)- I think we can have solid rotation without him- so if we can get decent value- I say go for it.
__________________
TomBradley72
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/334c0314
2014 Record: 2-3
2005-2013 Record: 49-38
MLB Parks Visited: 24, MiLB Parks Visited: 11
"When I heard the National Anthem it hit me," Jose Abreu said through White Sox spokesperson Lou Hernandez. "I love the Anthem. When I learn English Iím going to sing it."
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-14-2013, 12:16 PM
soxfanreggie soxfanreggie is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Normal, IL/Sarasota, FL
Posts: 10,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomBradley72 View Post
Peavy is NOT a #2 pitcher on a contender- he's barely over .500 in 4 seasons in the AL with a 4.00+ ERA- CAN be very effective in short stretches when he's healthy- but I think a contender would view him as #3 at best.

He was 4-7, 4.00 ERA in the 2nd half last year- if he can prove he's healthy- his value will be highest at this trading deadline- vs. holding on to him for next year.

With Sale, Santiago, Quintana, Danks, E. Johnson (AAA)- I think we can have solid rotation without him- so if we can get decent value- I say go for it.
I agree. I'd rather get something for him and save the $$$ than keep him if we don't surround him with any talent next year. I'm sure we can get something decent for him, but it probably isn't going to be a "great" prospect. Even if he comes back throwing great, teams would feel it's just a matter of time until he's on the DL again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-14-2013, 12:26 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,942
Default

Why are all Sox message boards obsessed with "saving money". With the new rules there is a cap on what you can give draft picks and foreign free agents, and going over carries big penalties for the future. The Sox aren't going to sign the huge free agents, since A. They never do and B. Just about every one that gets close to or 9 figures on the free market seems to be dead weight pretty quickly. Hahn said they had money to ADD this season, so they aren't going to be going broke, and they have money coming off the books and another $25 million from the national TV contract to play with next year. Any move now that includes players on the team that are signed for next year should be focused on talent coming back, not financial savings.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 07-14-2013, 12:46 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickallen15 View Post
Why are all Sox message boards obsessed with "saving money". With the new rules there is a cap on what you can give draft picks and foreign free agents, and going over carries big penalties for the future. The Sox aren't going to sign the huge free agents, since A. They never do and B. Just about every one that gets close to or 9 figures on the free market seems to be dead weight pretty quickly. Hahn said they had money to ADD this season, so they aren't going to be going broke, and they have money coming off the books and another $25 million from the national TV contract to play with next year. Any move now that includes players on the team that are signed for next year should be focused on talent coming back, not financial savings.
To me it just depends on the deal. Thornton was not worth $6 million/year at this point, so moving his contract makes sense. I think the same is true of Dunn and Ramirez, although moving their contracts would not be easy. But with other players, like Peavy, Crain and others, you are correct; the goal should be in getting talent back in return.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-14-2013, 01:01 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 13,000
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Peavy's WHIP was 1.1 last year and 1.16 this year; that's number 2 starter territory. Teams, at least theoretically, should pay a premium in desperate times, which, if they if they are if in a pennant race and need a good starter. Plus, the supply of available starting pitchers is extremely thin.
The Rangers #2 starter, Derrick Holland has never had a WHIP below 1.2
And, again, if nothing materializes, keep him for next year.
As DickAllen points, money shouldn't be anywhere close to a major concern.
He's our best trading chit, presuming he gets healthy. He's better than most of the GOOD pitchers on contenders. So is Crain, but not as valuable as he's a reliever. Others, like Rios, aren't going to be better than the good hitters on contenders...they will be better than a hole the contender might have, but they won't pay that much just to plug a hole.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-14-2013, 01:21 PM
TheVulture TheVulture is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCCWS View Post
Based on what???? This site has him as their 36th rated prospect.

http://www.soxprospects.com/moreprospects.htm
Sickels had him rated 13th for 2013 at C+ rating. This kid may not be an elite prospect, but it seems like he should at least have a chance to make the big leagues. He seems to have a good power/speed combo, I don't know how any could reasonably expect more for Thornton or how this could be construed as a pure salary dump. He's the kind of prospect you need to fill up on and hope a couple pan out.

37 extra base hits in 343 PA this year, seems promising to me.
__________________
A bad idea is better than no idea at all- Hawk
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-14-2013, 01:56 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dickallen15 View Post
Why are all Sox message boards obsessed with "saving money". ...
I really don't understand the obsession either, especially in the case of Thornton. Saving money is something management can do to improve this year's bottom line, but it does nothing to improve the team. They didn't save future money with Thornton because they sent the Red Sox what hanging on to Thornton would have cost them in the future.

But I remember reading a Chicago Tribune game story about a loss in 1970 in which the reporter (in the lack of objectivity that only sports journalists are allowed to get away with), questioned Carlos May's hustle by not breaking on a 3-2, 2-out pitch on which Gail Hopkins was called out on strikes, despite being paid $20,000 a year, something I aspired to at age 13 and something the reporter was probably looking up at. Resentment over underperforming players' salaries predated free agency, when an abstract argument could be made for money to spend being equivalent to talent in your system.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-14-2013, 02:18 PM
SI1020 SI1020 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deep in the heart of Dixie
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I really don't understand the obsession either, especially in the case of Thornton. Saving money is something management can do to improve this year's bottom line, but it does nothing to improve the team. They didn't save future money with Thornton because they sent the Red Sox what hanging on to Thornton would have cost them in the future.

But I remember reading a Chicago Tribune game story about a loss in 1970 in which the reporter (in the lack of objectivity that only sports journalists are allowed to get away with), questioned Carlos May's hustle by not breaking on a 3-2, 2-out pitch on which Gail Hopkins was called out on strikes, despite being paid $20,000 a year, something I aspired to at age 13 and something the reporter was probably looking up at. Resentment over underperforming players' salaries predated free agency, when an abstract argument could be made for money to spend being equivalent to talent in your system.
That's roughly 120K a year in today's currency.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-14-2013, 03:29 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
That's roughly 120K a year in today's currency.
It depends on what inflation formula you use to make the adjustment, but that isn't the point. Still I doubt that fans would complain about Thornton's salary if the Sox were paying him substantially less than the current major league minimum.

The minimum salary for a major leaguer in 1970 was $13,500. The highest paid player on the White Sox was Aparicio making $40,000. There was no free agency, at least not on players' terms. Saving money didn't translate to signing a big free agent contract in the off-season. Aparicio couldn't even go to arbitration with his .313 batting average and Gold Glove. If he held out, he just wouldn't be paid while the White Sox deprived of his talents. (As it turned out, he was traded to the Red Sox in the off-season after the White Sox gave him a $20,000 raise.)

Salaries should have been irrelevant to fans. But when I went to the games before free agency, before the big money, fans would complain about salaries. I heard people complain after Hopkins dropped two foul pop-ups in a game that he dropped them using a $60 glove.

Getting rid of Thornton's salary for the remainder of the season will do nothing to improve the Sox because it doesn't save them money in the future. The trade will do nothing to improve the Sox if Jacobs doesn't develop into a productive major leaguer. The pitchers who replace Thornton in his role on the team will not be as dependable as he was, even as inconsistent as he was.

But fans will feel better if someone making so much money for so little production is gone. It has always been that way, as irrelevant as it is.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-14-2013, 03:50 PM
Iron Dragon2 Iron Dragon2 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 137
Default

I like this trade and I don't really care what they get in return. Let the purge continue!
__________________
Iron Dragon: 194 posts
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-14-2013, 04:02 PM
SCCWS SCCWS is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVulture View Post
Sickels had him rated 13th for 2013 at C+ rating. This kid may not be an elite prospect, but it seems like he should at least have a chance to make the big leagues. He seems to have a good power/speed combo, I don't know how any could reasonably expect more for Thornton or how this could be construed as a pure salary dump. He's the kind of prospect you need to fill up on and hope a couple pan out.

37 extra base hits in 343 PA this year, seems promising to me.
Sickels, like many of these ratings, are pretty dated and subjective. The #12 propect for Boston is Iglesias who is hitting .375 in 52 games. Sickels said:

" His glove is excellent but his bat is so bad that it may be tough to keep him in the lineup anyway
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-14-2013, 04:47 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCCWS View Post
Sickels, like many of these ratings, are pretty dated and subjective. The #12 propect for Boston is Iglesias who is hitting .375 in 52 games. Sickels said:

" His glove is excellent but his bat is so bad that it may be tough to keep him in the lineup anyway
I'm guessing his hot start this season is unsustainable.

His minor league numbers were pretty bad:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=iglesi001jos
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-14-2013, 07:56 PM
SCCWS SCCWS is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
I'm guessing his hot start this season is unsustainable.

His minor league numbers were pretty bad:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/mi...d=iglesi001jos

Thornton lost his Boston debut giving up 2 walks and a flare to right.
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 07:31 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.