Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Jason Hammel

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:26 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:As for Rymer Liriano, back in 2011, MLB.COM had him as the Padres #3

    In 2012 he was the Padres #1 and considered #51 in all of basbeall

    In 2013, he missed a year due to injury.  However, he still cracked MLB top 100 at 79

    In 2014 he fell to #5 in the Padre org and out of the top 100.  Most likely due to injury recovery

    2015, he went to the Brewer org where he rated #21.  He missed 2016 with injury.

    So Liriano was not a huge flop.  He got hurt and was never given a chance.

    He was a flop. If he wasn't a flop, he would have gotten a chance despite injury.


    HE MISSED THE ENTIRE 2016 SEASON DUE TO INJURY MR READING COMPREHENSION
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7215
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:34 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:As for Rymer Liriano, back in 2011, MLB.COM had him as the Padres #3

    In 2012 he was the Padres #1 and considered #51 in all of basbeall

    In 2013, he missed a year due to injury.  However, he still cracked MLB top 100 at 79

    In 2014 he fell to #5 in the Padre org and out of the top 100.  Most likely due to injury recovery

    2015, he went to the Brewer org where he rated #21.  He missed 2016 with injury.

    So Liriano was not a huge flop.  He got hurt and was never given a chance.

    He was a flop. If he wasn't a flop, he would have gotten a chance despite injury.


    HE MISSED THE ENTIRE 2016 SEASON DUE TO INJURY MR READING COMPREHENSION

    Then how can you say if he was never given a chance?
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:37 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Heck, the 2012 Sox won 85 games with a team that about the same as this one.  Other than the catchers spot of course.
    ********************************************************
    Now this is not to say let's go for it.  But this notion that the White Sox are destined for 100 loses and that signing Wieters will do nothing but screw them out of a #1 pick is really nothing more than speculation by one person who refuses to see any other alternative

    So it's now the drive for 85 !  Yippee.
    OK, say we buy that  Abreu=Konerko, Lawrie=Beckham, Anderson=Ramirez (who was brilliant defensively that year), Frazier= Dunn (same 40 HRs and shitty BA), Cabrera= DeAza (last decent yr on Sox), Gonzalez=Floyd and even throw in Wieters to equal Pierzynski. 
    Still a couple glaring omissions from the 2012 team.  Sox had both Quintana and Chris Sale and his 3.05 ERA and 6 WAR. Plus Peavy and his 3.37 ERA and 5 WAR. Who in 2017 would duplicate Peavy ? Shields ?   Plus Rios had the best season of his career and that was 5 WAR.  Liriano ain't gonna come close to that. 
    Most important, even with Sale aboard, and Peavy, Rios, Pierzynski having career years, the Sox still got the booby prize and were watching TV in October.  
    Here we were, finally ready for a season where the Sox faced up to reality, are willing to take their medicine, be patient, and build for the future.  But now you want to put them back on Fantasy Island again...


    LEARN HOW TO READ

    BETTER YET, LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE

    YOU HAVE BORING THIS BOARD FOR 2 WEEKS WITH FALSE LOGIC, BOGUS STUDIES, AND MISINFORMATION

    THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS TELLING YOU TO FUCK OFF

    You are dealing with what ifs. What if Wieters is signed? What if we don't have a catcher? Who the fuck cares? This team isn't making the playoffs. There is no Goddamn reason to pick up a catcher who may have something left in the tank to carry them through this year or the next. If he isn't already on the team and isn't part of the long term plan, he can fuck off! As someone who actually spends money and goes to games, I am looking toward the future. I want to see if the Kids Can Play, not if some 31 year old douchebag who wants to AUDITION for a contract with another team can play.


    You are dealing with what ifs


    DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Plus there are no kid catcher to play until Zach Collins is ready.

    And you are claiming apathy is a argument to do nothing.  


    ***********************


    There is an old saying that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  Part of being prepared is improving yourself whenever and wherever possible.  Even if it doesn't seem like much.  This is what winners do.  Losers say fuck it why bother.  So excuse me if I take offense to the thought that my White Sox should adopt a losing philosophy.  The best way to break a bad habit is to never start the habit in the first place.


    this idea that its ok to fuck it because you don't see how it matters is one of the baddest habits to have


    Always strive to get better and you will get better.  And that should start today, not first thing next Monday.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:38 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:As for Rymer Liriano, back in 2011, MLB.COM had him as the Padres #3

    In 2012 he was the Padres #1 and considered #51 in all of basbeall

    In 2013, he missed a year due to injury.  However, he still cracked MLB top 100 at 79

    In 2014 he fell to #5 in the Padre org and out of the top 100.  Most likely due to injury recovery

    2015, he went to the Brewer org where he rated #21.  He missed 2016 with injury.

    So Liriano was not a huge flop.  He got hurt and was never given a chance.

    He was a flop. If he wasn't a flop, he would have gotten a chance despite injury.


    HE MISSED THE ENTIRE 2016 SEASON DUE TO INJURY MR READING COMPREHENSION

    Then how can you say if he was never given a chance?


    Start over from the beginning and figure it out Rob
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7215
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by alohafri on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:40 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:As for Rymer Liriano, back in 2011, MLB.COM had him as the Padres #3

    In 2012 he was the Padres #1 and considered #51 in all of basbeall

    In 2013, he missed a year due to injury.  However, he still cracked MLB top 100 at 79

    In 2014 he fell to #5 in the Padre org and out of the top 100.  Most likely due to injury recovery

    2015, he went to the Brewer org where he rated #21.  He missed 2016 with injury.

    So Liriano was not a huge flop.  He got hurt and was never given a chance.

    He was a flop. If he wasn't a flop, he would have gotten a chance despite injury.


    HE MISSED THE ENTIRE 2016 SEASON DUE TO INJURY MR READING COMPREHENSION

    Then how can you say if he was never given a chance?


    Start over from the beginning and figure it out Rob

    Yeah? He's a flop.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2546
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:02 pm

    There is an old saying that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  Part of being prepared is improving yourself whenever and wherever possible.  Even if it doesn't seem like much.  This is what winners do.  Losers say fuck it why bother.  So excuse me if I take offense to the thought that my White Sox should adopt a losing philosophy.  The best way to break a bad habit is to never start the habit in the first place.
    this idea that its ok to fuck it because you don't see how it matters is one of the baddest habits to have
    Always strive to get better and you will get better.  And that should start today, not first thing next Monday.>>


    This sounds like a Kenny Williams rah-rah speech. Looks to me that the Sox already have a losing habit and it's not because they haven't signed enough Matt Wieters types but because they have gotten too many of them. (LaRoche, Dunn, Cabrera, Latos, Shields, etc.)  OK, that's what a team does when it's trying to contend - fill holes.  Problem is they didn't "improve" a damn thing because they were in decline. 
    Now you are spinning the ridiculous theory that Sox will develop a loser's mentality if it fails to sign Matt Wieters.  Baloney.  They just don't need another vet who might easily be someone no one else wants.  This time they don't have to fret about a "hole" at Catcher anymore than they have to fret about RF, CF, 2b, DH holes.   They ain't gone anywhere.

    For a change, it's refreshing to see a Sox Mgmt acknowledge reality. I only wish they'd acknowledge it faster and trade Quintana when the bloom is still on the rose, and try to find a taker for Frazier.  Maybe Robertson as well.   Melky will have to wait till July. 

    Last but not least, teams rebound from 60 -75 win seasons all the time and end up in the playoffs within the next two years.  Not just talking the Cubs either.  Orioles, Indians, Red Sox, Rangers, Pirates, A's have all done those kind of turnarounds since 2010. Hell, the Astros regularly lost 100+ games from 2011-2014, and they made the playoffs in 2015 and were in the hunt until the very end in 2016.  They built that team around young players they got in trade and by high draft picks.  Now both BP and FG have them as a playoff team in 2017.  That's the kind of perennial contender the Sox need to become. 
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2546
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:51 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Yeah? He's a flop.
    Liriano is worth a flyer at this point.  Here's a report on him before he got hurt in 2016..

    <<<Liriano’s DFA and subsequent trade to the Padres caught me by surprise, since he has shown enough promise in recent years to be an interesting prospect. Though the shine has worn off, to me he looks, at worst, like a viable fourth outfielder with enough speed to play all three spots in a pinch. Apart from some hip slide and a little tendency to hook around the ball, I like his swing a lot, too. He can put the ball in the air even when he’s fooled a bit, and has the raw strength to still have potentially above-average to plus power.
    His strikeout issues stem partly from poor contact rates, but it looks like he has more work to do on his approach and pitch recognition to keep them in check. His hip slide may play a small part, since he has nowhere to go but around the ball or continue sliding out on his front foot if he’s too early. I do think he has enough pitch-recognition deficiencies that he won’t be a high-average guy, but his swing and physicality should allow it to play up a bit.
    It’s not out of the question that he’s a future starting outfielder with even a slight improvement to his game plan and/or discipline, though as we’ve seen sometimes before, teams tend to know their own guys better than anyone. But, sometimes they don’t.>>
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Nomads44 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:31 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Nomads44 wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:Liriano was once a top 100 prospect if I am not mistaken

    Tillson was a consistent top 10 in the Cards org

    Now these are the type of guys you audition

    Tilson made the Cards' top ten once a couple years ago, coming in at #9.  Liriano was a huge flop, but indeed was #49 baseball wide in 2012.  They are each worth fliers, but all this is common sense.  Don't know why you are stressing your points so much.  If Wieters is CHEAP, why not, but he is an older stopgap.  If nothing else, I would hope for a "Wieters' type equivalent" in return from one of the trades yet to be made.  If it can be a strong prospect C, fine, but if it is a major league ready medium prospect, that might suffice until Collins is ready.  Not arguing against Wieters unless it is a high cost, just really confused by your pressing your point as if he is the "must have" answer.  Narvaez and Soto might prove enough for this season.  Neither will be an all star, but we don't need an all star.  We just need to put one that can handle the position behind the plate.

    JUST CHECKED THE ARCHIVES ON MLB 

    TILSON RATED #9 IN 2013, #7 IN 2014 AND #7 IN 2015 FOR THE CARDS

    2016 HE MADE THE BIGS.

    TILSON IS A LEGIT PROSPECT WORTHY OF A CHANCE.

    THE WHITE SOX HAVE ZERO CATCHERS AS GOOD OR AS READY AS TILSON

    THAT IS WHY YOU SIGN WIETERS.

    THERE ARE 486 GAMES TO BE PLAYED B4 THE 2020 SEASON BEGINS.

    CONTRARY TO SOMEBODY'S FALSE LOGIC, YOU CAN'T CAN'T PICK WHEN YOU FLIP THE SWITCH FROM LOSER TO WINNER


    I neglected to say I was using the Baseball America winter ratings that are published once a year.  It is almost always what I list as I have load their top ten into my database each year. 

    MLB's ratings change frequently as far as I can tell, so at any given point in time, the 8-9-10 guys might change.  I do not know where to find the MLB archives for ratings.  That would be nice to bookmark.  Could you send it, please?

    Concerning Liriano, BBA shows these:  2012 SD #2 and #49 overall, 2013 SD #5, 2014 SD #6, 2015 SD#6.  I consider that a bust based on his 2012 rating as a very high prospect that was no longer even rated as a starter five years down the road as BBAmerica projects the starting lineups, rotations and closers in five years.

    I was very happy with the Liriano pickup and had hoped for the Sox to trade for prospects like him for the past 20 years, if not forever.

    If Liriano is not a flop, then Jeremy Reed was not, either.  Each got injured and never able to reach expectations, let alone just being reliable major leaguers.

    I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Nomads44 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:48 pm

    I see the Baseball-Reference.com has a summary of ratings on the minor league page.  Considering the above three discussed. 

    Jeremy Reed was rated as a monster with two seasons in a row in the top 50 (#25 and #33)

    Liriano pretty much matches what each of us has reported.

    Tilson's page shows NOTHING for MLB, BBA or their other source - Baseball Prospectus, which I am not sure I have ever seen.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=reed--002jer

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=lirian001rym

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=tilson000cha

    Tilson had snuck by me as a huge prospect and you found a significant number archived.  Curious where these are.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:45 pm

    Nomads44 wrote:I see the Baseball-Reference.com has a summary of ratings on the minor league page.  Considering the above three discussed. 

    Jeremy Reed was rated as a monster with two seasons in a row in the top 50 (#25 and #33)

    Liriano pretty much matches what each of us has reported.

    Tilson's page shows NOTHING for MLB, BBA or their other source - Baseball Prospectus, which I am not sure I have ever seen.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=reed--002jer

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=lirian001rym

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=tilson000cha

    Tilson had snuck by me as a huge prospect and you found a significant number archived.  Curious where these are.

    MLB archives back to 2011.  You can find it by going to the White Sox current Top 30 at the official team sight
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:56 pm

    I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.


    ******************************


    JIM, 


    I consider the disagreement on Wieters is based on flawed logic and apathy as opposed to a sound baseball decision.


    Wieters is 3 yers yunger and clearly better than Geo Soto.  Soto is the person that would lose a job.  Not some promising kid.  So how does one explain the inconsistancy that Soto is OK but Wieters isn't


    The only potential danger Wieters presents is a drop in draft order.  But this is such a huge unknown.  Plus there are so many factors that have nothing to do with the catchers spot when it comes to draft order.  A major stats company just projected 76 wins. Thats not a 1 or a 2 but a ten.  Didn't Roger claim anything after 5 is a crapshoot?


    So I take the attitude that you improve whenever and wherever possible.  Plus Wieters probably has more of a future than any Sox catcher in camp not named Collins


    XOXOXOX
    KARK

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2470
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by frank bonifacic on Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:24 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Heck, the 2012 Sox won 85 games with a team that about the same as this one.  Other than the catchers spot of course.
    ********************************************************
    Now this is not to say let's go for it.  But this notion that the White Sox are destined for 100 loses and that signing Wieters will do nothing but screw them out of a #1 pick is really nothing more than speculation by one person who refuses to see any other alternative

    So it's now the drive for 85 !  Yippee.
    OK, say we buy that  Abreu=Konerko, Lawrie=Beckham, Anderson=Ramirez (who was brilliant defensively that year), Frazier= Dunn (same 40 HRs and shitty BA), Cabrera= DeAza (last decent yr on Sox), Gonzalez=Floyd and even throw in Wieters to equal Pierzynski. 
    Still a couple glaring omissions from the 2012 team.  Sox had both Quintana and Chris Sale and his 3.05 ERA and 6 WAR. Plus Peavy and his 3.37 ERA and 5 WAR. Who in 2017 would duplicate Peavy ? Shields ?   Plus Rios had the best season of his career and that was 5 WAR.  Liriano ain't gonna come close to that. 
    Most important, even with Sale aboard, and Peavy, Rios, Pierzynski having career years, the Sox still got the booby prize and were watching TV in October.  
    Here we were, finally ready for a season where the Sox faced up to reality, are willing to take their medicine, be patient, and build for the future.  But now you want to put them back on Fantasy Island again...


    LEARN HOW TO READ

    BETTER YET, LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE

    YOU HAVE BORING THIS BOARD FOR 2 WEEKS WITH FALSE LOGIC, BOGUS STUDIES, AND MISINFORMATION

    THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS TELLING YOU TO FUCK OFF

    You are dealing with what ifs. What if Wieters is signed? What if we don't have a catcher? Who the fuck cares? This team isn't making the playoffs. There is no Goddamn reason to pick up a catcher who may have something left in the tank to carry them through this year or the next. If he isn't already on the team and isn't part of the long term plan, he can fuck off! As someone who actually spends money and goes to games, I am looking toward the future. I want to see if the Kids Can Play, not if some 31 year old douchebag who wants to AUDITION for a contract with another team can play.


    You are dealing with what ifs


    DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Plus there are no kid catcher to play until Zach Collins is ready.

    And you are claiming apathy is a argument to do nothing.  


    ***********************


    There is an old saying that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  Part of being prepared is improving yourself whenever and wherever possible.  Even if it doesn't seem like much.  This is what winners do.  Losers say fuck it why bother.  So excuse me if I take offense to the thought that my White Sox should adopt a losing philosophy.  The best way to break a bad habit is to never start the habit in the first place.


    this idea that its ok to fuck it because you don't see how it matters is one of the baddest habits to have


    Always strive to get better and you will get better.  And that should start today, not first thing next Monday.
    They don't have a losing philosophy- they have a losing record, a front office populated by losers with a losing history regarding draft picks and trades, and a propensity to spend BIG money on players who USED to be good.
    MAYBE. because they can't figure out who WILL be good -so they have to hope to strike it rich with players who are past their prime. But they can argue that they had a good record-albeit 3-5 years before.

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2470
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by frank bonifacic on Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:26 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Heck, the 2012 Sox won 85 games with a team that about the same as this one.  Other than the catchers spot of course.
    ********************************************************
    Now this is not to say let's go for it.  But this notion that the White Sox are destined for 100 loses and that signing Wieters will do nothing but screw them out of a #1 pick is really nothing more than speculation by one person who refuses to see any other alternative

    So it's now the drive for 85 !  Yippee.
    OK, say we buy that  Abreu=Konerko, Lawrie=Beckham, Anderson=Ramirez (who was brilliant defensively that year), Frazier= Dunn (same 40 HRs and shitty BA), Cabrera= DeAza (last decent yr on Sox), Gonzalez=Floyd and even throw in Wieters to equal Pierzynski. 
    Still a couple glaring omissions from the 2012 team.  Sox had both Quintana and Chris Sale and his 3.05 ERA and 6 WAR. Plus Peavy and his 3.37 ERA and 5 WAR. Who in 2017 would duplicate Peavy ? Shields ?   Plus Rios had the best season of his career and that was 5 WAR.  Liriano ain't gonna come close to that. 
    Most important, even with Sale aboard, and Peavy, Rios, Pierzynski having career years, the Sox still got the booby prize and were watching TV in October.  
    Here we were, finally ready for a season where the Sox faced up to reality, are willing to take their medicine, be patient, and build for the future.  But now you want to put them back on Fantasy Island again...


    LEARN HOW TO READ

    BETTER YET, LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE

    YOU HAVE BORING THIS BOARD FOR 2 WEEKS WITH FALSE LOGIC, BOGUS STUDIES, AND MISINFORMATION

    THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS TELLING YOU TO FUCK OFF

    You are dealing with what ifs. What if Wieters is signed? What if we don't have a catcher? Who the fuck cares? This team isn't making the playoffs. There is no Goddamn reason to pick up a catcher who may have something left in the tank to carry them through this year or the next. If he isn't already on the team and isn't part of the long term plan, he can fuck off! As someone who actually spends money and goes to games, I am looking toward the future. I want to see if the Kids Can Play, not if some 31 year old douchebag who wants to AUDITION for a contract with another team can play.


    You are dealing with what ifs


    DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Plus there are no kid catcher to play until Zach Collins is ready.

    And you are claiming apathy is a argument to do nothing.  


    ***********************


    There is an old saying that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  Part of being prepared is improving yourself whenever and wherever possible.  Even if it doesn't seem like much.  This is what winners do.  Losers say fuck it why bother.  So excuse me if I take offense to the thought that my White Sox should adopt a losing philosophy.  The best way to break a bad habit is to never start the habit in the first place.


    this idea that its ok to fuck it because you don't see how it matters is one of the baddest habits to have


    Always strive to get better and you will get better.  And that should start today, not first thing next Monday.
    They don't have a losing philosophy- they have a losing record, a front office populated by losers with a losing history regarding draft picks and trades, and a propensity to spend BIG money on players who USED to be good.
    MAYBE. because they can't figure out who WILL be good -so they have to hope to strike it rich with players who are past their prime. But they can argue that they had a good record-albeit 3-5 years before.

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2470
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by frank bonifacic on Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:27 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Heck, the 2012 Sox won 85 games with a team that about the same as this one.  Other than the catchers spot of course.
    ********************************************************
    Now this is not to say let's go for it.  But this notion that the White Sox are destined for 100 loses and that signing Wieters will do nothing but screw them out of a #1 pick is really nothing more than speculation by one person who refuses to see any other alternative

    So it's now the drive for 85 !  Yippee.
    OK, say we buy that  Abreu=Konerko, Lawrie=Beckham, Anderson=Ramirez (who was brilliant defensively that year), Frazier= Dunn (same 40 HRs and shitty BA), Cabrera= DeAza (last decent yr on Sox), Gonzalez=Floyd and even throw in Wieters to equal Pierzynski. 
    Still a couple glaring omissions from the 2012 team.  Sox had both Quintana and Chris Sale and his 3.05 ERA and 6 WAR. Plus Peavy and his 3.37 ERA and 5 WAR. Who in 2017 would duplicate Peavy ? Shields ?   Plus Rios had the best season of his career and that was 5 WAR.  Liriano ain't gonna come close to that. 
    Most important, even with Sale aboard, and Peavy, Rios, Pierzynski having career years, the Sox still got the booby prize and were watching TV in October.  
    Here we were, finally ready for a season where the Sox faced up to reality, are willing to take their medicine, be patient, and build for the future.  But now you want to put them back on Fantasy Island again...


    LEARN HOW TO READ

    BETTER YET, LEARN HOW TO ANALYZE

    YOU HAVE BORING THIS BOARD FOR 2 WEEKS WITH FALSE LOGIC, BOGUS STUDIES, AND MISINFORMATION

    THEN YOU WONDER WHY I'M ALWAYS TELLING YOU TO FUCK OFF

    You are dealing with what ifs. What if Wieters is signed? What if we don't have a catcher? Who the fuck cares? This team isn't making the playoffs. There is no Goddamn reason to pick up a catcher who may have something left in the tank to carry them through this year or the next. If he isn't already on the team and isn't part of the long term plan, he can fuck off! As someone who actually spends money and goes to games, I am looking toward the future. I want to see if the Kids Can Play, not if some 31 year old douchebag who wants to AUDITION for a contract with another team can play.


    You are dealing with what ifs


    DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Plus there are no kid catcher to play until Zach Collins is ready.

    And you are claiming apathy is a argument to do nothing.  


    ***********************


    There is an old saying that luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  Part of being prepared is improving yourself whenever and wherever possible.  Even if it doesn't seem like much.  This is what winners do.  Losers say fuck it why bother.  So excuse me if I take offense to the thought that my White Sox should adopt a losing philosophy.  The best way to break a bad habit is to never start the habit in the first place.


    this idea that its ok to fuck it because you don't see how it matters is one of the baddest habits to have


    Always strive to get better and you will get better.  And that should start today, not first thing next Monday.
    They don't have a losing philosophy- they have a losing record, a front office populated by losers with a losing history regarding draft picks and trades, and a propensity to spend BIG money on players who USED to be good.
    MAYBE. because they can't figure out who WILL be good -so they have to hope to strike it rich with players who are past their prime. But they can argue that they had a good record-albeit 3-5 years before.

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2470
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by frank bonifacic on Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:31 pm

     Don't know what the hell happened there -did nt enter post three times. Entered and then got notice of new post before so hit save. Then a long delay and same note so hit save.
    Didn't know it had already been posted (and twice)
    avatar
    sox55
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1869
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 62
    Location : Pleasant Prairie , WI

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by sox55 on Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:25 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.


    ******************************


    JIM, 


    I consider the disagreement on Wieters is based on flawed logic and apathy as opposed to a sound baseball decision.


    Wieters is 3 yers yunger and clearly better than Geo Soto.  Soto is the person that would lose a job.  Not some promising kid.  So how does one explain the inconsistancy that Soto is OK but Wieters isn't


    The only potential danger Wieters presents is a drop in draft order.  But this is such a huge unknown.  Plus there are so many factors that have nothing to do with the catchers spot when it comes to draft order.  A major stats company just projected 76 wins. Thats not a 1 or a 2 but a ten.  Didn't Roger claim anything after 5 is a crapshoot?


    So I take the attitude that you improve whenever and wherever possible.  Plus Wieters probably has more of a future than any Sox catcher in camp not named Collins


    XOXOXOX
    KARK




    Get Gordon a catchers mitt!!
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2546
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:49 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.


    Tilson and Liriano are by most evaluators likely future 4th OFers but then again Jose Bautista and Justin Turner were deemed non-prospects and future utility guys when they were in their mid 20's.  Not saying either one will make remarkable turnarounds like that, but the point is Sox have the luxury of finding out whether either of them has a shot at a career. If they do, it's like found money.  If not, no big deal because the Sox weren't going to the playoffs in 2017 anyway. 
    I honestly feel the same about Narvaez.  If he had no business in the majors, that's another story.  I'm not saying Sox should make a complete sham of any spot. But Narvaez didn't embarrass himself in his brief trial last year.  He doesn't have a great arm but his other defensive skills are good. He doesn't have much power but he could develop more and he has a good batting eye. Give him a shot at 400 AB's, which he wouldn't get by hauling in a vet like Wieters who the Sox would play 2/3 of the time. I'd say it's 50-50 that he'll be a decent, cheap backup in 2019 who could help Collins understand the young Sox pitching staff.  That benefit alone makes it worthwhile where the SOLE future benefit Wieters has is being flipped for a prospect in midseason.  I'd say the odds of getting a prospect better than Narvaez by trading Wieters in July are about same as Narvaez himself proving he can be a useful major leaguer.  So give the kid a shot.  Everything to gain and nothing to lose (except a few more games and that actually is a benefit too).
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7215
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by alohafri on Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:54 am

    frank bonifacic wrote: Don't know what the hell happened there -did nt enter post three times. Entered and then got notice of new post before so hit save. Then a long delay and same note so hit save.
    Didn't know it had already been posted (and twice)

    I think you were tired of missing out on this fabulous non-political thread that you subconsciously entered it three times to catch up.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7215
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by alohafri on Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:54 am

    sox55 wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.


    ******************************


    JIM, 


    I consider the disagreement on Wieters is based on flawed logic and apathy as opposed to a sound baseball decision.


    Wieters is 3 yers yunger and clearly better than Geo Soto.  Soto is the person that would lose a job.  Not some promising kid.  So how does one explain the inconsistancy that Soto is OK but Wieters isn't


    The only potential danger Wieters presents is a drop in draft order.  But this is such a huge unknown.  Plus there are so many factors that have nothing to do with the catchers spot when it comes to draft order.  A major stats company just projected 76 wins. Thats not a 1 or a 2 but a ten.  Didn't Roger claim anything after 5 is a crapshoot?


    So I take the attitude that you improve whenever and wherever possible.  Plus Wieters probably has more of a future than any Sox catcher in camp not named Collins


    XOXOXOX
    KARK




    Get Gordon a catchers mitt!!

    Just don't give him a bat. He can't use it.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:30 am

    alohafri wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote: Don't know what the hell happened there -did nt enter post three times. Entered and then got notice of new post before so hit save. Then a long delay and same note so hit save.
    Didn't know it had already been posted (and twice)

    I think you were tired of missing out on this fabulous non-political thread that you subconsciously entered it three times to catch up.


    I THOUGHT IT WAS HIS ALZHEMIERS CATCHING UP WITH HIM
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:52 am

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:I took tons of flak with my love for the prospects back then and it was called WIN NEVER.  Now you are parroting what I have always wanted as if it is a new idea.  Just because the board disagrees with you on something does not mean we are at extreme ends.  You want Wieters and maybe even 4-5 more wins.  I sense the rest of us don't much care how many wins we get this year, especially if it can pave the way to a better draft pick.  I don't think anyone is advocating throwing games.  But let the kids and the auditions get their feet wet and see what they can do.


    Tilson and Liriano are by most evaluators likely future 4th OFers but then again Jose Bautista and Justin Turner were deemed non-prospects and future utility guys when they were in their mid 20's.  Not saying either one will make remarkable turnarounds like that, but the point is Sox have the luxury of finding out whether either of them has a shot at a career. If they do, it's like found money.  If not, no big deal because the Sox weren't going to the playoffs in 2017 anyway. 
    I honestly feel the same about Narvaez.  If he had no business in the majors, that's another story.  I'm not saying Sox should make a complete sham of any spot. But Narvaez didn't embarrass himself in his brief trial last year.  He doesn't have a great arm but his other defensive skills are good. He doesn't have much power but he could develop more and he has a good batting eye. Give him a shot at 400 AB's, which he wouldn't get by hauling in a vet like Wieters who the Sox would play 2/3 of the time. I'd say it's 50-50 that he'll be a decent, cheap backup in 2019 who could help Collins understand the young Sox pitching staff.  That benefit alone makes it worthwhile where the SOLE future benefit Wieters has is being flipped for a prospect in midseason.  I'd say the odds of getting a prospect better than Narvaez by trading Wieters in July are about same as Narvaez himself proving he can be a useful major leaguer.  So give the kid a shot.  Everything to gain and nothing to lose (except a few more games and that actually is a benefit too).


    I SEE YOU STILL HAVEN'T CONDUCTED A STUDY REGARDING THE CHANCES OF PLAYERS WITH HIGHER OBP THAN SLG

    ITS BEEN MY OBSERVATION THAT THESE TYPE OF PLAYERS DON'T LAST VERY LONG AND YOUR LUCKY TO EVEN GET ONE DECENT FULL YEAR OUT OF THEM.  THE MOST LIKELY REASON IS THAT AN OBP GREATER THAN SLG IMPLIES AN OFFENSIVE SKILL SET THAT IS MOSTLY WALKS AND HARDLY ANY POWER.  MLB PITCHERS ARE VERY QUICK TO FIGURE THESE PLAYERS OUT.  SINCE THEY KNOW THE BALL WON'T BE HIT VERY HARD, THEY CHALLENGE THEM MORE AND NEGATE THE WALKS.  ONCE THE WALKS DISAPPEAR, SO DOES ALL THE OFFENSE.

    THIS IS OMAR NARVAEZ

    NARVAEZ HAS CONSISTANTLY HAD HIGHER OBP THAN SLG.

    EXCEPT HIS BRIEF STINT IN AAA WHERE HE HAD A 292 OBP AND A 327 SLG

    *********************************************

    WHAT REALLY IMPRESSES ME IS HOW YOU THE STAT GURU COMPLETELY MISS 2016 WAS NARVAEZ FIRST YEAR ABOVE A BALL.  HIS COMBINED AA/AAA STATS READ 290 OBP 313 SLG FOR A WHOPPING 603 OPS.

    BUT WE ARE GOING TO THROW OUT ALL THAT BECAUSE HE LOOKED OK IN HIS FIRST 100 MLB AT BATS.

    RON KARKOVICE LOOKED IMPRESSIVE HIS FIRST 100 AB, POSTING A 758 OPS IN 1986.  

    ************************************************

    WHAT IS HILLARIOUS IS THAT YOU'D BE ALL OVER ANYBODY TRYING TO TOUT A PROSPECT WITH A 600OPS ABOVE A BALL

    BUT SINCE YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME, THAT 600 OPS BECOMES A NOT ONLY A 50-50 CHANCE, BUT PROVE HE HAS THE INTANGIBLES TO MENTOR SOMEBODY JUST 3 YEARS YOUNGER IN THE FINER POINTS OF THE GAME.  INTANGIBLES THAT YOU CLAIMED WHERE MEANINGLESS B4

    **********************************************

    BOTTOM LINE, ANY SERIOUS ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE WHITE SOX ACTUALLY HAVE IN CAMP WILL YIELD A GIANT SUCKING ABYSS AT CATCHER.  SO WIETERS MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD.  THE GAMES STILL HAVE TO BE PLAYED.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2546
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:25 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:I SEE YOU STILL HAVEN'T CONDUCTED A STUDY REGARDING THE CHANCES OF PLAYERS WITH HIGHER OBP THAN SLG
    TS BEEN MY OBSERVATION THAT THESE TYPE OF PLAYERS DON'T LAST VERY LONG AND YOUR LUCKY TO EVEN GET ONE DECENT FULL YEAR OUT OF THEM.  THE MOST LIKELY REASON IS THAT AN OBP GREATER THAN SLG IMPLIES AN OFFENSIVE SKILL SET THAT IS MOSTLY WALKS AND HARDLY ANY POWER.  MLB PITCHERS ARE VERY QUICK TO FIGURE THESE PLAYERS OUT.  SINCE THEY KNOW THE BALL WON'T BE HIT VERY HARD, THEY CHALLENGE THEM MORE AND NEGATE THE WALKS.  ONCE THE WALKS DISAPPEAR, SO DOES ALL THE OFFENSE.
    THIS IS OMAR NARVAEZ
    NARVAEZ HAS CONSISTANTLY HAD HIGHER OBP THAN SLG.
    EXCEPT HIS BRIEF STINT IN AAA WHERE HE HAD A 292 OBP AND A 327 SLG
    *********************************************
    WHAT REALLY IMPRESSES ME IS HOW YOU THE STAT GURU COMPLETELY MISS 2016 WAS NARVAEZ FIRST YEAR ABOVE A BALL.  HIS COMBINED AA/AAA STATS READ 290 OBP 313 SLG FOR A WHOPPING 603 OPS.
    BUT WE ARE GOING TO THROW OUT ALL THAT BECAUSE HE LOOKED OK IN HIS FIRST 100 MLB AT BATS.
    RON KARKOVICE LOOKED IMPRESSIVE HIS FIRST 100 AB, POSTING A 758 OPS IN 1986.  
    ************************************************
    WHAT IS HILLARIOUS IS THAT YOU'D BE ALL OVER ANYBODY TRYING TO TOUT A PROSPECT WITH A 600OPS ABOVE A BALL
    BUT SINCE YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH ME, THAT 600 OPS BECOMES A NOT ONLY A 50-50 CHANCE, BUT PROVE HE HAS THE INTANGIBLES TO MENTOR SOMEBODY JUST 3 YEARS YOUNGER IN THE FINER POINTS OF THE GAME.  INTANGIBLES THAT YOU CLAIMED WHERE MEANINGLESS B4
    **********************************************
    BOTTOM LINE, ANY SERIOUS ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE WHITE SOX ACTUALLY HAVE IN CAMP WILL YIELD A GIANT SUCKING ABYSS AT CATCHER.  SO WIETERS MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD.  THE GAMES STILL HAVE TO BE PLAYED.

    I saw a Catcher named AJ Ellis work behind the plate for the Dodgers with a similar profile - high BB's, limited power. 18th rd draft pick.  Mid 600's OPS in A ball in his early -mid 30's similar to Narvaez.
     AJ has gone on to 2000 big league AB's since and was a valuable help to Dodger pitchers.

    Catcher is a non-hitting position on a lot of clubs.  Fan Graphs has Narvaez at 650 OPS projected. That puts him bottom 1/3 but not at the very bottom. In fact, FG has Sox Catchers projected at   27th in WAR with other non-contenders like Colorado, Atlanta (Flowers), and Arizona as worse. 

    So two questions and I am now officially done with this thread:
    1 - If the Sox as contenders used stiffs like Flowers at Catcher why is it such an assault to the senses
         and sensibilities of Sox fans if these guys turn out to be stiffs ?  It's not like it's a new thing and at
         least now it's more excusable since Sox aren't pretending to contend. Narvaez acquitted himself
         well in a brief trial last year, he has some capabilities that are worth testing.  The Sox have a legit
         interest in seeing whether he can work out or not. This is the year for "test runs"

    2 -  If 3 other non-contenders are taking flyers with questionable/arginal Catchers why is it the Sox's  "DUTY" to spend  $ 5 -8 million on Wieters to upgrade the spot ?   Who is this DUTY owed to ?  MLB ? The fans ?      Or is just you as individual fan ? 


    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:31 pm

    MORE SICK ELEPHANTS

    NONE OF WHICH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WIETERS BEING BETTER THAN SOTO

    NONE OF WHICH DEALS WITH THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE WHITE SOX CAMP

    BTW, AJ ELLIS IS NOT A SIMILIAR COMP, BUT A SUPERIOR COMP.  HE ROUTINELY HAD OBP OVER 400.  NARVEAZ DOESN'T.  ELLIS MINOR LEAGUE OPS IS 785.  ABOUT 100 POINTS HIGHER THAN NARVAEZ.

    SO AGAIN, ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PRESENTING FLAWED OPINIONS BASED ON FALSE LOGIC AND FAULTY ANALYSIS

    MAYBE IF YOU ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE REAL ISSUE INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELIBERATELY DISAGREE WITH ME, AND YOUR BOGUS ELLIS EXAMPLE IS PROVE POSITIVE TO ME THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, THEN MAYBE THIS DISCUSSION COULD ENDED EARLIER

    YOU AND A CERTAIN SOMEONE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE GAME STILL NEEDS TO BE PLAYED AND YOUR APATHY IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.  AND YOUR SUGGESTION THAT THE SOX SHOULD FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF LOSING TEAMS IS BEYOND SILLY
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2008
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:33 pm

    More of Rogers false logic


    Braves signed 34 year old Kurt Suzuki this winter


    The Diamondbacks also signed a 34 year old cathcer.


    Rockies have Tom Murphy, who is rated #10 prospect in the org.  Navaerz never rated as a sox prospect.


    so 2 of 3 are going with old farts.  The other had a legit prospect that is ready.  something the White Sox don't have.  so the rest of MLB appears to be doing more or less what the KARK thinks.  Not the phony choices presented by those that consider apathy an option




    Are there any more phony arguements you people want to see the KARK shoot down?
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7215
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by alohafri on Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:39 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:More of Rogers false logic


    Braves signed 34 year old Kurt Suzuki this winter


    The Diamondbacks also signed a 34 year old cathcer.


    Rockies have Tom Murphy, who is rated #10 prospect in the org.  Navaerz never rated as a sox prospect.


    so 2 of 3 are going with old farts.  The other had a legit prospect that is ready.  something the White Sox don't have.  so the rest of MLB appears to be doing more or less what the KARK thinks.  Not the phony choices presented by those that consider apathy an option




    Are there any more phony arguements you people want to see the KARK shoot down?

    I don't follow the Braves or the Diamondbacks, but are they in a rebuild mode or do they think they are in a position to compete for that all important second wild card slot? It does make a difference. And why would they choose Suzuki or the other 34 year old catcher instead of Wieters?


    You could be comparing apples to oranges.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Jason Hammel

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:04 pm