PDA

View Full Version : The White Sox have very little DEPTH?!?!


chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 09:40 PM
Reading Stark's latest writing over at ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings), he mentions in the "Reasons to think the Sox won't win" section that we have very little DEPTH.

Reading that just floored me, as I think we have a very deep bench in Hall, Ozuna, Anderson, and Uribe! To be honest with you, I am confident that each of those guys can do great things both on the field and with the bat. This could be one of the deeper benches we've had at least in the last decade!

kittle42
06-08-2008, 09:43 PM
If you read it again, you will see that what he is saying is that the Sox have little to no organizational depth, and he's right. What else is down in the minors other than Fields (and *maybe* Richar and Broadway and Egbert) and none of those, save Fields somewhat, is a real, consensus blue-chipper.

And I wouldn't go so far as to call our bench that deep. It's a good, versatile bench. But if injuries happen and more than one of those dudes has to start every day, we'll be in trouble.

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 09:45 PM
He also mentions that this isn't a very deep TEAM, to which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

SOXfnNlansing
06-08-2008, 09:45 PM
We have a good bench, but it can be debatable. The thing I find troubling about that article is the fact that we have 2 excellent starting pitchers, 2 way above average starting pitchers, 1 average starting pitcher, and THE BEST BULLPEN IN BASEBALL!

With these facts we know about our team this deep into the season, who cares about what others say about our team.

ps we lead the majors in HRS to boot.

chisoxmike
06-08-2008, 09:47 PM
It's really not a deep team. Ozuna, Hall, Anderson, Uribe are all decent bench players. But as Kittle said, if there is an injury, we're in trouble. And there is NO help in the minors. None.

balke
06-08-2008, 09:53 PM
It's really not a deep team. Ozuna, Hall, Anderson, Uribe are all decent bench players. But as Kittle said, if there is an injury, we're in trouble. And there is NO help in the minors. None.

This is a flat out lie. The only injury that immediately puts the Sox in a horrible position offensively is if A.J. goes down.

Too many players play multiple positions for the Sox right now for 1 injury to hurt the team tremendously. And this Bench is like 3 times better than last years bench. The guy who started at SS the past 4 seasons is the utility guy. I've already laid it out in different threads, but the flexibility of this lineup would absorb 1-2 injuries. Beyond that it would get scary possibly, but I think the majority of teams have that problem.

Owens and Fields would add at least something if there were a big injury. Owens would be good enough off the bench, and the Sox could just slide Ramirez out there or Anderson instead.

BigPapaPump
06-08-2008, 09:55 PM
I think the lineup is very strong and the bench is alright. My concern is the starting pitching and how fortunate we have been to have such good starts from Contreras, Floyd, and Danks. Who do we have whether in the bullpen or in the minors to plug in if any of them fails or gets hurt?

TomBradley72
06-08-2008, 09:57 PM
I think we have a deep and balanced major league roster, but his assessment of the organization is accurate. Potential position player call ups: Fields,Owens, Richar and Getz...everyone else is journeyman material. Potential pitching call ups: Broadway, Wassermann, MacDougal and Russell.
That's it...not only for AAA, but AA as well. So he's right....there's a pretty big drop off if we get with the injury bug.

But with the way the Indians, Tigers and Twins are looking....even 88-89 wins might win this division...and we can deliver that even with some injuries.

thedudeabides
06-08-2008, 09:57 PM
It's really not a deep team. Ozuna, Hall, Anderson, Uribe are all decent bench players. But as Kittle said, if there is an injury, we're in trouble. And there is NO help in the minors. None.

Well, just answer me, what one injury would put us in trouble?

chisoxmike
06-08-2008, 09:58 PM
This is a flat out lie. The only injury that immediately puts the Sox in a horrible position offensively is if A.J. goes down.

Too many players play multiple positions for the Sox right now for 1 injury to hurt the team tremendously. And this Bench is like 3 times better than last years bench. The guy who started at SS the past 4 seasons is the utility guy. I've already laid it out in different threads, but the flexibility of this lineup would absorb 1-2 injuries. Beyond that it would get scary possibly, but I think the majority of teams have that problem.

Owens and Fields would add at least something if there were a big injury. Owens would be good enough off the bench, and the Sox could just slide Ramirez out there or Anderson instead.

Owens blows and should come nowhere near this team. Fields isn't doing much in the minors since he's been hurt this year.

Frater Perdurabo
06-08-2008, 09:58 PM
He's right, there isn't much organizational depth.

But also remember that the very format of his article necessitates him to say something positive and something negative about each team.

It's really pretty good if the only thing that he can say that's negative is that we'd be in trouble if someone got hurt.

oeo
06-08-2008, 09:58 PM
It's really not a deep team, but unless we lose multiple guys at the same position, we'll be alright. As mentioned, we have a lot of guys that can move around. It's a versatile team, so injuries won't hurt unless we have a whole slew of them...and that would hurt every team in baseball.

balke
06-08-2008, 09:59 PM
I think the lineup is very strong and the bench is alright. My concern is the starting pitching and how fortunate we have been to have such good starts from Contreras, Floyd, and Danks. Who do we have whether in the bullpen or in the minors to plug in if any of them fails or gets hurt?

If one pitcher goes down, its not really going to be a big problem. If a starter goes down, Broadway, Masset, Loaiza, Ohka, all battle it out for a starter job. If a reliever goes down, Macdougal, Wasserman and Ohka battle it out. I don't think those guys pose the same problems the Sox faced in 04' with Danny Wrong.

chisoxmike
06-08-2008, 10:01 PM
Well, just answer me, what one injury would put us in trouble?

Oh I don't know. Crede. Quentin. Thome. Pierzynski. Any of the guys. I'm not saying the season would be done if a player was out for a week or two. But the players that would fill in would be a downgrade defensively and offensively. Anderson is the only one who can hold up his end in the outfield.

balke
06-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Owens blows and should come nowhere near this team. Fields isn't doing much in the minors since he's been hurt this year.

Meh, that's your opinion. As an emergency backup option as he is, he's not that bad. Way better than luis Terrero being the emergency backup last season. He wouldn't start much if at all, he'd come in as a pinch runner and late game OFer in blowouts. I think right now he blows and needs to stay away, but if injuries came up his speed would add a new tool to this team.

Tragg
06-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Reading Stark's latest writing over at ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings), he mentions in the "Reasons to think the Sox won't win" section that we have very little DEPTH.

Reading that just floored me, as I think we have a very deep bench in Hall, Ozuna, Anderson, and Uribe! To be honest with you, I am confident that each of those guys can do great things both on the field and with the bat. This could be one of the deeper benches we've had at least in the last decade!
In some senses he's right. Who starts if a starter goes down? We really don't have a minor league pitcher ready to start.... maybe Broadway, but I don't think so.
Who do we replace, say, an injured Thornton or Logan with. Now, our 3-5 guys in the pen have been so good that what will serve as a replacement on some teams won't on this one.
Do you see a hitter that could come close to the production of Dye, Quentin, Thome or Konerko on the bench or in the minors?
Anderson could play; Uribe could play - you're right,.
But so far, so good. But we haven't had an injury that hurt (we've had 2 and they helped) so it's untested.
We should be able to build depth over the next 2 years AND use the free agent market to plug roster holes. Need to hold onto the young players we do have.

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Owens blows and should come nowhere near this team. Fields isn't doing much in the minors since he's been hurt this year.

Owens is only hitting 10 points lower than Fields right now. His power numbers aren't the greatest; but, he definitely has some speed that can help make up for that.

Daver
06-08-2008, 10:03 PM
Meh, that's your opinion. As an emergency backup option as he is, he's not that bad. Way better than luis Terrero being the emergency backup last season. He wouldn't start much if at all, he'd come in as a pinch runner and late game OFer in blowouts. I think right now he blows and needs to stay away, but if injuries came up his speed would add a new tool to this team.

Jerry Owens really isn't very good at playing baseball.

balke
06-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Oh I don't know. Crede. Quentin. Thome. Pierzynski. Any of the guys. I'm not saying the season would be done if a player was out for a week or two. But the players that would fill in would be a downgrade defensively and offensively. Anderson is the only one who can hold up his end in the outfield.

Crede has a decent backup in Fields. He's better all around than Fields, but Fields was contributing a lot last season with his power and RBI. Losing Thome right now may help the team. I think A.J. would hurt a lot though. I think the drop off in offense would be a lot, and you'd have to rely on Armstrong or Lucy not to crap down their legs as new guys in town.

TomBradley72
06-08-2008, 10:04 PM
If one pitcher goes down, its not really going to be a big problem. If a starter goes down, Broadway, Masset, Loaiza, Ohka, all battle it out for a starter job. If a reliever goes down, Macdougal, Wasserman and Ohka battle it out. I don't think those guys pose the same problems the Sox faced in 04' with Danny Wrong.

Ohka completely blows. If we're in such bad shape that he's on the major league team...we WILL be in trouble at that point.

Lip Man 1
06-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Fanatic:

This thread was up earlier in the week here if memory serves and remember some of those comments are not Stark's, they come from other people in the A.L.

Lip

balke
06-08-2008, 10:05 PM
Jerry Owens really isn't very good at playing baseball.



That's true, but he most likely wouldn't play much baseball with one injury. he'd take Anderson's spot on the bench and pinch run late in games. The Sox would have speed late in games.

TomBradley72
06-08-2008, 10:05 PM
The injuries that would kill us: AJ or Jenks. We've got the depth to handle a single injury just about everywhere else.

balke
06-08-2008, 10:07 PM
Ohka completely blows. If we're in such bad shape that he's on the major league team...we WILL be in trouble at that point.


I doubt a lifetime 4.14 ERA is going to cripple this team. Danny Wright was putting up an +8 ERA for the Sox as a #5. You guys think other teams in baseball just have aces laying around in the minors just waiting for that big callup? Ohka would be like the 4th starter to get a shot. Masset would be first.

Edit: actually Loaiza would probably be first, but Masset would be ready to go I'm sure.

gf2020
06-08-2008, 10:08 PM
And there is NO help in the minors. None.
Josh Fields hit 23 homeruns in 2/3rds of a year last season. Is there any other team that can claim they have someone like that in the minors?

It's really not a deep team. Ozuna, Hall, Anderson, Uribe are all decent bench players. But as Kittle said, if there is an injury, we're in trouble.
If a middle infielder goes down, Uribe, a marginal starter for some teams who we won a world series with, steps in.
If a power bat goes down, Josh Fields, who again hit 23 home runs, steps in.
If AJ goes down, Hall, he of the 356 BA, steps in.

If you want to make to take it to pitching staffs, our bullpen has significantly more depth than anyone in the division. Are the Tigers, Indians and Twins' sixth starter options that much more attractive than Loaiza or Broadway?

This lack of depth thing, especially when its used to compare us to division foes, really annoys me. If the Tigers have such great depth, why did they bitch about the loss of Granderson nonstop for a month? Or why does Borowski's absence matter to the Indians?

MCHSoxFan
06-08-2008, 10:09 PM
The injuries that would kill us: AJ or Jenks. We've got the depth to handle a single injury just about everywhere else.

Yes...EXACTLY!!!

thedudeabides
06-08-2008, 10:17 PM
Oh I don't know. Crede. Quentin. Thome. Pierzynski. Any of the guys. I'm not saying the season would be done if a player was out for a week or two. But the players that would fill in would be a downgrade defensively and offensively. Anderson is the only one who can hold up his end in the outfield.

AJ would be my only worry. Quentin goes down, it would hurt but Anderson takes over in center and Owens is brought up.(I'm not a huge fan). Crede goes down there's Fields. Thome goes down Fields is up. I see some pretty easy answers. If you have a slew of injuries your screwed. Any team would be. The bullpen is solid and the rotation barring two pitchers going down would be fine. I'm not saying the Sox are in perfect shape, but I disagree they have no depth. Swisher, Ramirez, Ozuna, and Uribe can all play multiple positions. Where's the big problem with depth?

munchman33
06-08-2008, 10:22 PM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

TomBradley72
06-08-2008, 10:23 PM
I doubt a lifetime 4.14 ERA is going to cripple this team. Danny Wright was putting up an +8 ERA for the Sox as a #5. You guys think other teams in baseball just have aces laying around in the minors just waiting for that big callup? Ohka would be like the 4th starter to get a shot. Masset would be first.

Edit: actually Loaiza would probably be first, but Masset would be ready to go I'm sure.

Ohka is 1-8 with 5.01 ERA at Charlotte. He sucks.

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 10:28 PM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

We wouldn't be ****ed if we lose one guy in the rotation. I could see the bullpen might be a minor issue; but, with the way our starters are pitching, they aren't being overworked as it is, so that wouldn't be much of an issue. I'd be a little more worried about losing a guy in the pen if our starting pitching wasn't this good.

Daver
06-08-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

Haeger.

No one on this team can catch him though.

Chilli Palmer
06-08-2008, 10:37 PM
Haeger.

Pass.

voodoochile
06-08-2008, 10:39 PM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

Well, they just picked up Loaiza for some SP depth along with Broadway. Either of those would probably make serviceable #5's.

Bullpen doesn't concern me at all. There are 6 pitchers I have faith in right now so the loss of one wouldn't kill us especially with both MacDougal and Wasserman in the minors. Heck, even Ohka might do okay as a reliever, it's as a starter where he sucks.

So, we might show a bump in the road if either of these situations happened (though with the trade deadline still coming, I would count on KW to fix the problem), but we wouldn't even be close to being ****ed, but since it's you, Munch, I'll had a healthy handful of salt and translate that as moderately problematic and call it a day...:tongue:

Lukin13
06-08-2008, 10:41 PM
Oh I don't know. Crede. Quentin. Thome. Pierzynski. Any of the guys. I'm not saying the season would be done if a player was out for a week or two. But the players that would fill in would be a downgrade defensively and offensively. Anderson is the only one who can hold up his end in the outfield.

Fields slides in for Crede.

Anderson replaces any outfielder, or Konerko (Swisher to 1st).

Fields replaces Thome at DH.

Pierzynski: there are only a handfull of teams with depth at Catcher and from the outside looking in, most would say the Sox have a strong backup in Hall.

The Sox are in good shape on offense...

thedudeabides
06-08-2008, 10:45 PM
Starting pitching depth, in my eyes would start with Masset. They picked up Loaiza and he could fill in if he had to. Broadway is another option. If you have four solid starters the Sox are in a good position to fill in a fifth. How many teams really run even four deep as it is?

AnkleSox
06-08-2008, 10:54 PM
Oh I don't know. Crede. Quentin. Thome. Pierzynski. Any of the guys. I'm not saying the season would be done if a player was out for a week or two. But the players that would fill in would be a downgrade defensively and offensively. Anderson is the only one who can hold up his end in the outfield.

This would be the same scenario for ANY team who has a starter go down. The reason the other player is a backup is because he is worse offensively and/or defensively at the position. I don't think there's any team in the majors that has minor leaguers who they expect to out-produce their starters.

jdm2662
06-08-2008, 11:07 PM
This would be the same scenario for ANY team who has a starter go down. The reason the other player is a backup is because he is worse offensively and/or defensively at the position. I don't think there's any team in the majors that has minor leaguers who they expect to out-produce their starters.

Cha ching. This is what I said last season of the complaints of the Sox having no depth. If the players on the bench were good enough, they'd be starting on other teams.

HomeFish
06-08-2008, 11:14 PM
Bullpen is definitely our weak point. Loaiza, Masset, and a bunch of AAA guys could start. But who could replace Linebrink or Jenks?

IlliniSox4Life
06-08-2008, 11:19 PM
This would be the same scenario for ANY team who has a starter go down. The reason the other player is a backup is because he is worse offensively and/or defensively at the position. I don't think there's any team in the majors that has minor leaguers who they expect to out-produce their starters.

Exactly.


Sure, we don't have many A+ prospects in the minors just ready to come up, but most teams don't have that many. When you have those kinds of guys, they tend to be on the team.

AJ going down would probably hurt us a lot, but Hall seems to have improved offensively this year. He's nowhere near as bad as he was last year. Losing a starter or a reliever (esp. Jenks) would also hurt, but our pitching staff is probably the best in baseball right now. So if we lose one guy out of that, the whole thing probably won't crumble. We might go from the best staff in baseball to somewhere around 5th. It wouldn't be the end of the world.


And in the end, who knows what will happen. We lost our closer two times in 2005, and we still won the World Series.

Blueprint1
06-08-2008, 11:20 PM
In my opinion Masset would be starting on most teams in the NL.

balke
06-08-2008, 11:21 PM
Bullpen is definitely our weak point. Loaiza, Masset, and a bunch of AAA guys could start. But who could replace Linebrink or Jenks?

Dotel and Thornton. Bring back Wasserman, and you're weaker but not devastated.

gogosox16
06-08-2008, 11:21 PM
In my opinion Masset would be starting on most teams in the NL.
I could see him being a starter down the road, but for the time being I believe he's in the perfect spot for this club

kittle42
06-08-2008, 11:35 PM
Haeger.

No one on this team can catch him though.

Charlie Haeger isn't really very good at pitching.

kittle42
06-08-2008, 11:37 PM
In my opinion Masset would be starting on most teams in the NL.

Here we go again with the blanket "NL is AAAA" statements.

That switch over to the NL really made Zito's ERA go down!

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 11:48 PM
Charlie Haeger isn't really very good at pitching.

I'll give him credit for his knuckleball...That is all.

HebrewHammer
06-08-2008, 11:50 PM
Can we just play TCQ at all nine positions?

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2008, 11:54 PM
Can we just play TCQ at all nine positions?

I'm sure the wonderful scientists at the University of Chicago can clone him. Hell, make him pitch too! Team TCQ would win the rest of the games, including in October!

jabrch
06-08-2008, 11:56 PM
That's lazy journalism.

champagne030
06-08-2008, 11:59 PM
Ohka is 1-8 with 5.01 ERA at Charlotte. He sucks.

Yep. We'd be pretty ****ed if a starter or Jenks went down. And Walnuts, Thome and Swish better start hitting or a tCQ injury would be bad too....Just too much offense taken out of the lineup if those other guys are still hitting like ****.

Save McCuddy's
06-08-2008, 11:59 PM
I think the lineup is very strong and the bench is alright. My concern is the starting pitching and how fortunate we have been to have such good starts from Contreras, Floyd, and Danks. Who do we have whether in the bullpen or in the minors to plug in if any of them fails or gets hurt?

At some point, you acknowledge that Danks and Floyd are both 1st round draft picks and were obviously projected for quality production at some point in their careers. This acknowledgment can lead to acceptance of the fact that they should be pitching as well as they have been. We're fortunate that they have decided to realize their promise while with our club, but there are less and less reasons every day to fear that they'll relapse into previous patterns.

Contreras on the other hand is more of a leap of faith. This I'll grant you. But we have all seen what can happen when he gets hot. It's scary and I'm a believer for the foreseeable future.

Vernam
06-09-2008, 12:02 AM
In my opinion Masset would be starting on most teams in the NL.I wonder if Texas would take Masset back straight-up for McCarthy? I'm pretty damn sure the Sox wouldn't do it -- and if they would, that'd be one embarrassing trade for the Rangers. There, I just answered my own question.

When our starting position players play the way they did this week, the Sox look deep. Uribe sitting on the bench with Ramirez blossoming at 2B makes us look deep. But we're a bad week away from looking like we have no depth at all. So our bench players' stock depends on how the starters play, which makes no sense, but that's the way it is. If you're backup to some stiff, by definition you aren't worth ****. So this week, our bench players' stock rose even if they didn't do a damn thing.

Vernam

Blueprint1
06-09-2008, 01:23 AM
Here we go again with the blanket "NL is AAAA" statements.

That switch over to the NL really made Zito's ERA go down!

Your right the NL is just as deep when it comes to pitching. That's why everyone in the league is bashing the ball against the horrible bullpens. :rolleyes:

oeo
06-09-2008, 01:55 AM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

I think Masset is probably our best choice to insert into the rotation if someone was to go down, but unfortunately it appears they're trying to move him to late inning role again.

I could see him being a starter down the road, but for the time being I believe he's in the perfect spot for this club

Again, the organization doesn't appear to feel the same way. Loaiza was brought in to move Masset to a more defined role at the back end of the bullpen. I think they view him as a set up man.

TheVulture
06-09-2008, 02:48 AM
Yep. We'd be pretty ****ed if a starter or Jenks went down.

I can't think of many teams with five good starters let alone a Loaiza and a Massett laying around.

BRDSR
06-09-2008, 09:25 AM
I think the Sox have a number of options as far as a 5th starting pitcher should one of the current five go down, probably in this order: Loaiza, Masset, Broadway, Ohka. Just be sheer probability, I think one of those four would do a very servicable job. The problem is the time it would take to find out which one that is. You want to give each one two or three starts to let them get into a groove, and all of a sudden you've lost 6-8 straight games from your 5th starter. While each of them might fill the role adequately, I'm not confident that any one of them will.

Other than that...an injury to Jenks or AJ would be pretty tough to handle. When the offense is struggling, an injury to TCQ would be devastating as he seems to be the only one not subject to the struggles of this offense. Other than those three, I'm not too concerned. There are enough solid bullpen contributors that I think someone would step up and fill Linebrink's role okay. People have mentioned Thome, but he is the most replaceable because he's at DH and anyone can play DH (plus Thome's not exactly having a career year). In my opinion, any injury besides Quentin that results in BA getting a lot of starts doesn't weaken this team substantially.

The depth on the major league club is average in my opinion. The organizational depth is below average.

kittle42
06-09-2008, 09:26 AM
Your right the NL is just as deep when it comes to pitching. That's why everyone in the league is bashing the ball against the horrible bullpens. :rolleyes:

Obviously, one league is most always going to be better in hitting, and the other in pitching. The balance has shifted this year. However, I don't think that validates a statement that Nick Masset could be starting for any NL team.

balke
06-09-2008, 09:34 AM
Charlie Haeger isn't really very good at pitching.


Hehe, we thought of the same smart ass response.

He's about comparable quality wise as a starter as Owens is an OFer. An option, but not a good one. Think of his knuckleball as Owens speed. They each have the one thing and nothing else.

But, Haeger as a 5th starter option? Who knows. Players click out of nowhere all the time. See: TCQ. He has 2 less HR's than I had optimistically marked him down for getting this entire season.

oeo
06-09-2008, 09:38 AM
Obviously, one league is most always going to be better in hitting, and the other in pitching. The balance has shifted this year. However, I don't think that validates a statement that Nick Masset could be starting for any NL team.

He could be at the bottom of most AL rotations, and succeed. Of course, he needs to keep his command.

When he's locating his pitches, and not walking guys, he can be a good pitcher. He's not garbage like you seem to think.

eastchicagosoxfan
06-09-2008, 10:39 AM
Can we just play TCQ at all nine positions?
What if he played a team of nine Ditka's?

kittle42
06-09-2008, 10:57 AM
He could be at the bottom of most AL rotations, and succeed. Of course, he needs to keep his command.

When he's locating his pitches, and not walking guys, he can be a good pitcher. He's not garbage like you seem to think.

I don't think he's garbage. I question whether he's a viable starting option. He's good at what he's doing right now.

doublem23
06-09-2008, 11:07 AM
He could be at the bottom of most AL rotations, and succeed. Of course, he needs to keep his command.

When he's locating his pitches, and not walking guys, he can be a good pitcher. He's not garbage like you seem to think.

I don't think he's garbage. I question whether he's a viable starting option. He's good at what he's doing right now.

Considering guys like Nate Robertson, Miguel Batista, Jarrod Washburn, Brett Tomko, and Steve Trachsel are being trotted out every 5th day by some AL teams, I'm sure that Nick Masset would be a starter in the right situation. He wouldn't be very good, but he'd be a starter.

jabrch
06-09-2008, 11:32 AM
Nick would be starting today for every team in the Central.

And if we lose Jenks, we are just fine. Our bullpen is a strength, not a weakness. Linebrink or Dotel can close. Everyone just moves up a slot. How many teams have the bullpen depth we do?

slavko
06-09-2008, 01:02 PM
The injuries that would kill us: AJ or Jenks. We've got the depth to handle a single injury just about everywhere else.

In '05 Shingo went, and Hermie came on, Hermie went, and Jenks came on. I'm not a Billy Beane fan, but BB says you can make a closer out of anyone. Masset has closer stuff, has closed, and told the Tribune he could do it again. I think he's right. He's a pinch of Cooper magic away. AJ is another case entirely.

This is sooooo different than a year ago!

hawkjt
06-09-2008, 01:26 PM
expected to start in center this year as late as mid-spring training when he got hurt?
Guess I am the only one left in the Owens fan club.
I think if we had an outfield injury the guy slated to be your starting center field 2 months ago would provide adequate depth in the outfield off the bench...just my opinion.

Knock on wood...hermie keeps the injury bug away...in the end health is probably the most important factor in winning the division. So far,so good.:D:

munchman33
06-10-2008, 06:31 PM
I don't think he's garbage. I question whether he's a viable starting option. He's good at what he's doing right now.

Yeah, he'd need another good pitch to start regularly.

fozzy
06-11-2008, 03:46 AM
the key to our bench depth is how versatile our starters are. if you just glance at our bench with ba, ozuna, hall and juan you think it's is nothing special... but with swisher being able to cover all 3 of spots and 1b, TCQ being able to cover both outfield spots, alexi can play both ss and 2b were alot deeper then people think. the spot we don't have an everyday back up is 3b and fields is waiting in AAA. sure aj getting hurt would kill us but what team could lose their starting catcher? hall is about as a back-up catcher as there is. we have so many big bats in TCQ, crede, dye, aj, swisher, paulie, and thome if one gets hurt or isn't hitting the rest of them can cover for it.

if a starting pitcher goes down? yes it'll hurt but with our staff we may not have a true number 1... but all 5 of our starters have pitched like #3's or better. who was our #5 in 2005? orlando hernadez. Masset right now could be starting for 1/2 the teams in the majors. broadway has been dominate in AAA.

bullpen? yea jenks goes down it hurts but how many teams have two former closers pitching great like dotel and linebrink. also throw in how masset, logan and thorton have pitched. how many teams have two lefty's in the pen and neither of them are just specialist?

fozzy
06-11-2008, 04:11 AM
Obviously, one league is most always going to be better in hitting, and the other in pitching. The balance has shifted this year. However, I don't think that validates a statement that Nick Masset could be starting for any NL team.

accept maybe the astros, cardinals and philles what 5th starter would you want on this team? i'd take masset over all them. the other 3 it's a toss up.

jabrch
06-11-2008, 10:00 AM
broadway has been dominate in AAA.

To the grammarians of WSI - this is one I have always wondered about. Doesn't feel like a properly used word to me.

Can someone save me the research time? It is dominant, isn't it? Dominate is a verb?

jabrch
06-11-2008, 10:19 AM
accept maybe the astros, cardinals and philles what 5th starter would you want on this team? i'd take masset over all them. the other 3 it's a toss up.

Speaking of grammar...

TornLabrum
06-11-2008, 10:31 AM
To the grammarians of WSI - this is one I have always wondered about. Doesn't feel like a properly used word to me.

Can someone save me the research time? It is dominant, isn't it? Dominate is a verb?

Dominant is the adjective. Dominate is the verb.

It would be proper to say, "Broadway has been dominating AAA."

Gerry
06-11-2008, 05:54 PM
To the grammarians of WSI - this is one I have always wondered about. Doesn't feel like a properly used word to me.

Can someone save me the research time? It is dominant, isn't it? Dominate is a verb?

The proper version would be "Broadway is dominant in AAA, but if called up he will be dominated."

turners56
06-11-2008, 06:11 PM
Nick would be starting today for every team in the Central.

And if we lose Jenks, we are just fine. Our bullpen is a strength, not a weakness. Linebrink or Dotel can close. Everyone just moves up a slot. How many teams have the bullpen depth we do?

I'm scared. If you look at his numbers as a closer, they're real bad.

turners56
06-11-2008, 06:11 PM
Dominant is the adjective. Dominate is the verb.

It would be proper to say, "Broadway has been dominating AAA."

He also dominated the Royals last year in his only start. What does that say about the Royals? xD.

chisoxfanatic
06-11-2008, 06:46 PM
I'm scared. If you look at his numbers as a closer, they're real bad.

He hasn't been a closer here yet; but, I'm completely confident that, if Jenks went down, he COULD take his place. Dotel seems to have an increase in confidence in pressure situations, which could really bode well in closing scenarios.

fozzy
06-12-2008, 12:20 AM
i'm sorry it was 3 in the morning and i was piss drunk :gulp:. i didn't realize that this was english class.

Nellie_Fox
06-12-2008, 12:52 AM
i'm sorry it was 3 in the morning and i was piss drunk :gulp:. i didn't realize that this was english class.At the risk of sounding Yogi-esque, if English class was the only place you needed to use proper English, then you wouldn't need English class at all, because if you didn't take English, you wouldn't need English class.

kittle42
06-12-2008, 12:54 AM
i didn't realize that this was english class.

I love this argument, as if school is the only place one should use language properly.

One of the reasons for the dumbing down of society, in my opinion.

Stringer
06-12-2008, 01:10 AM
with Juan and Brian riding the pine? and Josh and Danny down in AAA?

I don't think so

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 05:32 AM
This is a flat out lie. The only injury that immediately puts the Sox in a horrible position offensively is if A.J. goes down.

Too many players play multiple positions for the Sox right now for 1 injury to hurt the team tremendously. And this Bench is like 3 times better than last years bench. The guy who started at SS the past 4 seasons is the utility guy. I've already laid it out in different threads, but the flexibility of this lineup would absorb 1-2 injuries. Beyond that it would get scary possibly, but I think the majority of teams have that problem.

Owens and Fields would add at least something if there were a big injury. Owens would be good enough off the bench, and the Sox could just slide Ramirez out there or Anderson instead.

LF, RF, SS, 2B

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 05:34 AM
It's really pretty good if the only thing that he can say that's negative is that we'd be in trouble if someone got hurt.


Maybe if this were basketball it would be....but injuries do tend to happen in baseball.

We were pretty fortunate in 2005 not to have any serious injuries (except that one to the greatest baseball player ever to play for the White Sox--although we pretty much figured on that one)...maybe we can be fortunate again.

Luckily we have a modicum of depth at pitcher--where injuries are most likely and often most devastating.

I could deal with losing Dye or even TCQ for a long time with no one to back them up. But if we were like the White Sox of 2003 and 2004 with no 5th starter to speak of AND lost a starting pitcher? We'd be ****ed.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 05:36 AM
Anyone else here thinking about the rotation or bullpen?

We lose one guy, and we're immediately ****ed. There isn't a pitcher we have in AAA that belongs in the show.

Sure, if we lose Burly of Vazquez for the season we're ****ed.

But you think Masset can't step in and give us 3-4 starts of 4-5 runs over 4-5 innings if someone misses a month?

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 05:37 AM
That's lazy journalism.

Did you even read the article?

Didn't think so.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 05:39 AM
At the risk of sounding Yogi-esque, if English class was the only place you needed to use proper English, then you wouldn't need English class at all, because if you didn't take English, you wouldn't need English class.

I was all set to get sanctimonious, and then I laughed.

Why do I need I.D. to get I.D.?

Lillian
06-12-2008, 09:02 AM
If an injury occurred to a starter around the All Star break, it wouldn't surprise me if the Sox signed Freddy Garcia. Come to think of it, maybe they should sign him anyway, just for insurance.

TornLabrum
06-12-2008, 09:08 AM
At the risk of sounding Yogi-esque, if English class was the only place you needed to use proper English, then you wouldn't need English class at all, because if you didn't take English, you wouldn't need English class.

Okay, this is one that always messes me up, but shouldn't that be, "if English were...."?

Lillian
06-12-2008, 09:18 AM
Okay, this is one that always messes me up, but shouldn't that be, "if English were...."?

Yes, it should be "were".

Lillian
06-12-2008, 09:23 AM
Here is a link regarding the issue of Freddy Garcia.

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3436931&type=blogEntry

I think Ozzie's personal relationship with Freddy, and his history with the Sox should give them the inside track, if they want him. I would love to see it, if he's able to be effective. You can never have too much pitching.
Moreover, signing him would keep him away from a team that we might have to beat, in order to reach the W.S.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 09:50 AM
Okay, this is one that always messes me up, but shouldn't that be, "if English were...."?

yes. it is describing what the circumstance would be if a condition that is not currently true WERE true. thus it is the subjunctive, and thus requires "were"

I suspect that Nellie_Fox knows that, however, and is merely imitating Yogi Berra's vernacular

balke
06-12-2008, 10:17 AM
LF, RF, SS, 2B

LF, RF, SS - Alexei Ramirez fills in CF and Uribe goes to 2nd
2B - Uribe goes to 2B

Uribe has been your starter at SS for 4 seasons, he's an average 2Bman. So the real loss there isn't really going to shatter the offense. Losing Quentin would be a big blow, but with the big 3 heating up, the Sox would survive.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 10:38 AM
LF, RF, SS - Alexei Ramirez fills in CF and Uribe goes to 2nd
2B - Uribe goes to 2B

Uribe has been your starter at SS for 4 seasons, he's an average 2Bman. So the real loss there isn't really going to shatter the offense. Losing Quentin would be a big blow, but with the big 3 heating up, the Sox would survive.

In either case Uribe is playing full time.

In the case of Alexei in the OF, not only is Uribe playing full time, but Alexei is put into a position where he has looked awful in the past.

Sorry, no sale

voodoochile
06-12-2008, 10:53 AM
At the risk of sounding Yogi-esque, if English class was the only place you needed to use proper English, then you wouldn't need English class at all, because if you didn't take English, you wouldn't need English class.

Okay, this is one that always messes me up, but shouldn't that be, "if English were...."?

As I read that, English is not the noun, but the adjective. Class is the noun. Class is also singular. Does that change the were to was?

If English classes were the only place...

If English Class was the only place...

I'm not a grammar expert in any sense of the word, but so many big guns are weighing in on this topic, I thought I'd jump in...:tongue:

balke
06-12-2008, 11:09 AM
In either case Uribe is playing full time.

In the case of Alexei in the OF, not only is Uribe playing full time, but Alexei is put into a position where he has looked awful in the past.

Sorry, no sale

The White Sox won in 2005 with Uribe at SS, how is he going to cripple the team at 2B? Depth isn't having all-stars waiting for an injury to pop up and steal a position. Depth is having players who are adequate enough to not cripple your team in the event of injury to a starter.

For example, the White Sox pitching staff in 2003-2004 had little to no depth. Every starter that came to fill in for an injured or struggling pitcher completely got shelled. They cost the Sox the season.

The White Sox in 2007 had the same problem with Erstad/Pods/Ozuna/Crede/Thome etc. getting hurt. When your OF has Terrero playing everyday, and Cintron/Mackowiak/Gonzalez getting regular playing time, there's a serious problem.

I'd take Uribe over any of those guys.
The trade off of Alexei to Uribe at 2B won't have that effect. And to think playing CF is going to get into Alexei's head at the plate is an absurd argument. He's progressed as the season has gone on, it has nothing to do with where he's playing defensively. You probably buy that "comfort" crap from Soriano as well in terms of batting leadoff.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 11:43 AM
The White Sox won in 2005 with Uribe at SS, how is he going to cripple the team at 2B? Depth isn't having all-stars waiting for an injury to pop up and steal a position. Depth is having players who are adequate enough to not cripple your team in the event of injury to a starter.

For example, the White Sox pitching staff in 2003-2004 had little to no depth. Every starter that came to fill in for an injured or struggling pitcher completely got shelled. They cost the Sox the season.

The White Sox in 2007 had the same problem with Erstad/Pods/Ozuna/Crede/Thome etc. getting hurt. When your OF has Terrero playing everyday, and Cintron/Mackowiak/Gonzalez getting regular playing time, there's a serious problem.

I'd take Uribe over any of those guys.
The trade off of Alexei to Uribe at 2B won't have that effect. And to think playing CF is going to get into Alexei's head at the plate is an absurd argument. He's progressed as the season has gone on, it has nothing to do with where he's playing defensively. You probably buy that "comfort" crap from Soriano as well in terms of batting leadoff.

2005!!!!1

balke
06-12-2008, 11:57 AM
2005!!!!1

Well, back to the more important discussion here of grammar. It seems Fquaye149 you have made the most elementary mistake of having far too many exclamation points in your response, one of which was not even an exclamation point. If you look closely, you'll find the last exclamation point to be the number one.

fquaye149
06-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Well, back to the more important discussion here of grammar. It seems Fquaye149 you have made the most elementary mistake of having far too many exclamation points in your response, one of which was not even an exclamation point. If you look closely, you'll find the last exclamation point to be the number one.

:redface:

Nellie_Fox
06-13-2008, 01:27 AM
Okay, this is one that always messes me up, but shouldn't that be, "if English were...."?

Yes, it should be "were".Thank you one and all.

yes. it is describing what the circumstance would be if a condition that is not currently true WERE true. thus it is the subjunctive, and thus requires "were"

I suspect that Nellie_Fox knows that, however, and is merely imitating Yogi Berra's vernacular
http://www.needlenose.com/i/fubar/flanagan.jpgYeah, that's the ticket!

As I read that, English is not the noun, but the adjective. Class is the noun. Class is also singular. Does that change the were to was?

If English classes were the only place...

If English Class was the only place...

I'm not a grammar expert in any sense of the word, but so many big guns are weighing in on this topic, I thought I'd jump in...:tongue::shrug: