PDA

View Full Version : Sox Can Stop Quentin From WBC


Lip Man 1
01-28-2009, 09:40 PM
Shut him out Kenny!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-29-white-sox-brite-carlos-qujan29,0,6970050.story


Lip

hawkjt
01-29-2009, 12:14 AM
I hope Carlos' mind is not set on playing...he should not play. He can play next time. He needs to work on avoiding a sophmore slump.
Coincidentally, I just flipped on MLB Network and they were showing the top ten defensive plays by AL outfielders and #6 was Carlos doubling up the Detroit SS at first base from deep left field...sweeeet!!

EuroSox35
01-29-2009, 12:20 AM
I don't see the big deal about Quentin playing; he's not a pitcher, and we were hearing how he could've been ready to play last October if we got deeper into the playoffs, I doubt he has to be brought along slowly...

In Quentin's case, I just don't see how the WBC would make him more likely to be injured then anything the Sox would have him do. So he faces good pitchers instead of AA scrubs, big deal

I'm much more worried about Dotel and Thornton...

JermaineDye05
01-29-2009, 12:21 AM
Shut him out Kenny!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-29-white-sox-brite-carlos-qujan29,0,6970050.story


Lip

Jeez that scared me, I misread it. I thought it said "Sox can't Stop Quentin..."

I'm not as worried about hitters as I am pitchers when it comes to the WBC, however I'd rather see TCQ in the White Sox uni.

hawkjt
01-29-2009, 12:22 AM
I don't see the big deal about Quentin playing; he's not a pitcher, and we were hearing how he could've been ready to play last October if we got deeper into the playoffs, I doubt he has to be brought along slowly...

In Quentin's case, I just don't see how the WBC would make him more likely to be injured then anything the Sox would have him do. So he faces good pitchers instead of AA scrubs, big deal

I'm much more worried about Dotel and Thornton...


Carlos has a history of injury...and in a game situation he is always more likely to dive to catch a ball or barrel into the catcher at home play and hurt his shoulder...why take chances...he is paid by the Sox,not WBC to take those chances in Sox Games.

Domeshot17
01-29-2009, 01:00 AM
Am I the only one who would love him in the WBC? Carlos is healthy. He was good to go in OCTOBER if we advanced to round 2. He has had plenty of time to heal. The biggest worry now is its been a while since he has faced live pitching in real game like situations, and how off his timing is. What is going to help him more, batting against double a pitchers or major league arms in the WBC? He is young and in great shape. He takes excellent care of himself. Let him go get his ABs, work his kinks out with some of the best coaches in the game (and not Walk!!) and come back a monster.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-29-2009, 01:26 AM
Let him play!

If he's stupid enough to hurt HIMSELF again then I'd rather he do it now and not towards the end of the season/playoffs when we really need him. And truthfully, if he's that dumb, I'd deal his ass. But he won't do it again. He knows he cost himself, literally, a very legit shot at winning the AL MVP and doing special things for the Sox not only in September but also in October. That thought may also come into play when he's deciding whether to play in the WBC or not. But truthfully... I'd rather see him play and pick up some steam by bashing HRs off of Canada's and Italy's finest going into ST. :redneck

guillensdisciple
01-29-2009, 08:27 AM
Wait, if he isn't a pitcher, and he is supposedly healthy, what wrong could there be in Quentin participating against top notch pitching instead of crappy pitching in the minors? If he goes to the WBC, he has enough time to see all the worlds best pitch, which will prepare him for the actual season. When he gets to spring training, I am sure Ozzie will modify his routine, so he gets more rest before the season begins. Either way, he will see some competitive baseball before the actual season begins, which can only help him during the regular season.

doublem23
01-29-2009, 08:33 AM
I would like a Carlos Quentin Team USA jersey. Do it, TCQ.

soltrain21
01-29-2009, 08:43 AM
Who cares if he plays? He could get hurt bringing groceries in his house. It's his choice if he WANTS to play, and I think you guys are being ridiculous being pissed about it.

I'm going to walk to work today and it is sort of icy out. Is that okay with you guys?

areilly
01-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Wait, if he isn't a pitcher, and he is supposedly healthy, what wrong could their be in Quentin participating against top notch pitching instead of crappy pitching in the minors? If he goes to the WBC, he has enough time to see all the worlds best pitch, which will prepare him for the actual season. When he gets to spring training, I am sure Ozzie will modify his routine, so he gets more rest before the season begins. Either way, he will see some competitive baseball before the actual season begins, which can only help him during the regular season.

Haven't you heard? It's not about Carlos Quentin playing for Carlos Quentin.

Furthermore, it's not about Carlos Quentin playing for Team USA. It's about Carlos Quentin playing for Team US.

SoxfaninLA
01-29-2009, 10:14 AM
Am I the only one who would love him in the WBC? Carlos is healthy. He was good to go in OCTOBER if we advanced to round 2. He has had plenty of time to heal. The biggest worry now is its been a while since he has faced live pitching in real game like situations, and how off his timing is. What is going to help him more, batting against double a pitchers or major league arms in the WBC? He is young and in great shape. He takes excellent care of himself. Let him go get his ABs, work his kinks out with some of the best coaches in the game (and not Walk!!) and come back a monster.

Agree 100%. I hate the idea of pitchers participating in this thing, but as long as they have a clean bill of health I think it could only help the hitters. There is nothing wrong with facing live, competitive, word class pitching for a couple of weeks. Carlos is 100% healthy, and this will help him get back in the swing of things a little quicker after an extremely long layoff.

Sad
01-29-2009, 12:56 PM
Who cares if he plays? He could get hurt bringing groceries in his house. It's his choice if he WANTS to play, and I think you guys are being ridiculous being pissed about it.

I'm going to walk to work today and it is sort of icy out. Is that okay with you guys?

I hear ya... I don't know why such a fuss with the WBC... like it screws up players for April or something...

hi im skot
01-29-2009, 01:51 PM
I'm going to walk to work today and it is sort of icy out. Is that okay with you guys?

No, take the bus you jackass.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 01:58 PM
I really hope somebody in the Sox organization exercises some mental fortitude and blocks Quentin from playing. Whether a player is a pitcher or a normal position player, the WBC is just unnecessarily messing with private owners' multi-million dollar assets. I know this is Bud's pipe dream, but risking injury to players in an extraneous exhibition has reached an all-time high in the WBC.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 02:17 PM
I really hope somebody in the Sox organization exercises some mental fortitude and blocks Quentin from playing. Whether a player is a pitcher or a normal position player, the WBC is just unnecessarily messing with private owners' multi-million dollar assets. I know this is Bud's pipe dream, but risking injury to players in an extraneous exhibition has reached an all-time high in the WBC.

I don't think players should play in spring training, either. I mean, why risk injury? And batting practice? That's insane, you can't win games during batting practice. Play the 162 games that count, and that's all. Nobody should pick up a bat or ball any other time, period.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 02:50 PM
I don't think players should play in spring training, either. I mean, why risk injury? And batting practice? That's insane, you can't win games during batting practice. Play the 162 games that count, and that's all. Nobody should pick up a bat or ball any other time, period.
Spring training games are not taken seriously; sure, the players are trying to succeed, but it's not a game that counts.

The WBC, supposedly, "counts". Which means players will be diving for balls or sliding hard to break up double plays. You really can't see the higher risk for injury there?

That's like saying you're as likely to get inured cross-country skiing as regular skiing - you're on skis either way, after all!

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 02:53 PM
I don't think players should play in spring training, either. I mean, why risk injury? And batting practice? That's insane, you can't win games during batting practice. Play the 162 games that count, and that's all. Nobody should pick up a bat or ball any other time, period.

That is not what I said, but way to go. The WBC is a useless exhibition that does very little, if anything, to further a player's abilities at baseball. Let's say you are a younger MLB player playing in the WBC, and you have the good fortune to be on a team that goes all the way. How many AB's are you going to get? 25? 30? How can that possibly be worth anything when weighed against the risk of injury both to you and your ACTUAL team in the MLB? The answer is that it can't, and the WBC is an unneccessary risk to MLB team assets. So, because it's thursday, ask yourself who are you crapping?

anewman35
01-29-2009, 03:05 PM
Spring training games are not taken seriously; sure, the players are trying to succeed, but it's not a game that counts.

The WBC, supposedly, "counts". Which means players will be diving for balls or sliding hard to break up double plays. You really can't see the higher risk for injury there?

That's like saying you're as likely to get inured cross-country skiing as regular skiing - you're on skis either way, after all!

Players play an entire season, playing hard. If they're lucky, they play another month at the end of the season. An extra week of games where they are playing full speed (as opposed to half speed) or whatever is amazingly unlikely to do any harm at all. Now, I don't really care about the WBC at all, and I'm sure I won't watch it, but it's silly to see all the complaining because of the .0000000001 chance that some player has some major injury that wouldn't have happened without the WBC. It's baseball. These people are PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYERS. I think they can deal.

areilly
01-29-2009, 03:09 PM
How can that possibly be worth anything when weighed against the risk of injury both to you and your ACTUAL team in the MLB? The answer is that it can't, and the WBC is an unneccessary risk to MLB team assets. So, because it's thursday, ask yourself who are you crapping?

That's awesome. Not "the health of players" or "human beings exercising free will" but "MLB team assets."

:rolleyes:

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 03:17 PM
Spring training games are not taken seriously; sure, the players are trying to succeed, but it's not a game that counts.

The WBC, supposedly, "counts". Which means players will be diving for balls or sliding hard to break up double plays. You really can't see the higher risk for injury there?

That's like saying you're as likely to get inured cross-country skiing as regular skiing - you're on skis either way, after all!

I'm curious to hear from the players themselves how serious they take these games in the WBC compared to spring training, Winter ball, the ASG and regular season games. Nobody seems to have a problem with the players playing in any of them except the WBC...

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:28 PM
Players play an entire season, playing hard. If they're lucky, they play another month at the end of the season. An extra week of games where they are playing full speed (as opposed to half speed) or whatever is amazingly unlikely to do any harm at all. Now, I don't really care about the WBC at all, and I'm sure I won't watch it, but it's silly to see all the complaining because of the .0000000001 chance that some player has some major injury that wouldn't have happened without the WBC. It's baseball. These people are PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL PLAYERS. I think they can deal.
Why take that risk if they don't have to? That's all I'm saying. What if I told you I'll give you $1 million. Then I told you that you could either take it now, or after one roulette spin where a double zero means you get nothing, anything else adds $1. Why in the world would you take that risk?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:31 PM
That's awesome. Not "the health of players" or "human beings exercising free will" but "MLB team assets."

:rolleyes:
But that's what they are in the eyes of the organizations they play for. The Sox are spending hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars for Carlos Quentin to play baseball for them.

Think of it this way: if you did a highly-skilled, yet dangerous, job for a construction company that built high-rise buildings, do you think your employer would like you doing the same work for free for a different, non-competing, company on weekends? No, because there's the risk you could die or get injured, thus costing your employer.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 03:32 PM
That's awesome. Not "the health of players" or "human beings exercising free will" but "MLB team assets."

:rolleyes:

Great, more moral high-handing...

These are players under contract with private employers for a particular service to be rendered during a certain period of time. The WBC is a "tournament" (read: exhibition) that is outside the purview of that player's contract with the private employer. Although the MLB would never allow an MLB player's contract to be written with a clause prohibiting participation in the WBC, the WBC is still unnecessary. The risk for injury is still there (however small some THINK it might be), and it should be viewed as gambling with private assets that is sanctioned by the MLB.

areilly
01-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Think of it this way: if you did a highly-skilled, yet dangerous, job for a construction company that built high-rise buildings, do you think your employer would like you doing the same work for free for a different, non-competing, company on weekends? No, because there's the risk you could die or get injured, thus costing your employer.

What if that weekend job was with a different arm of my parent company And, more importantly, what if I really liked doing construction jobs - so much so that yes, I would do it for free in my spare time?

Then what? Do you, franchise owner, take precedence over the CEO?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:42 PM
I'm curious to hear from the players themselves how serious they take these games in the WBC compared to spring training, Winter ball, the ASG and regular season games. Nobody seems to have a problem with the players playing in any of them except the WBC...
And yet many, many people have a problem with players riding motorcycles or playing pickup basketball games in the offseason, both of which come with injury risk comparable to playing competitive baseball.

As for winter ball, I was under the impression that it was played by players doing rehab or younger players who need to improve their game. If an established star on my team were playing winter ball, I wouldn't like that either.

The All-Star Game is different, in that it's an official MLB event. Plus - didn't you hear? - "this time it counts!"

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:46 PM
What if that weekend job was with a different arm of my parent company And, more importantly, what if I really liked doing construction jobs - so much so that yes, I would do it for free in my spare time?

Then what? Do you, franchise owner, take precedence over the CEO?
I don't see how playing for Team USA is a job under a different arm of the Chicago White Sox organization. And many companies that require top physical or mental condition have rules against moonlighting, doing a second job during your off-hours.

And don't bring personal liberty into this. You have the right to do construction jobs if you enjoy them. Your employer also would have the right to terminate your employment.

I don't understand your last question. Aren't franchise owners the CEO of the franchise? So why wouldn't they have ultimate say?

areilly
01-29-2009, 03:47 PM
Great, more moral high-handing...

These are players under contract with private employers for a particular service to be rendered during a certain period of time. The WBC is a "tournament" (read: exhibition) that is outside the purview of that player's contract with the private employer. Although the MLB would never allow an MLB player's contract to be written with a clause prohibiting participation in the WBC, the WBC is still unnecessary. The risk for injury is still there (however small some THINK it might be), and it should be viewed as gambling with private assets that is sanctioned by the MLB.

1. "Assets" implies ownership, in this case of a human being. That's been illegal in this country for a long time.
2. Of course risk for injury is there. So is the risk of a player having fun and learning a thing or two. Such risks also exist in spring training and if you really want to get specific about it, Carlos Quentin actually has hurt himself in spring training before.
3. Quentin et al answer to the Sox but the Sox answer to MLB. With the bolded section in your post above you made my point for me.

4. Barring unforeseen complications impairing their attainment, I wish to see employee #20 quantify his goals. An action item list containing targets of measurable increased output would be preferrable.

Daver
01-29-2009, 03:47 PM
You people make it seem that baseball players are made out of glass.

They're baseball players, not athletes.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 03:48 PM
Why take that risk if they don't have to? That's all I'm saying. What if I told you I'll give you $1 million. Then I told you that you could either take it now, or after one roulette spin where a double zero means you get nothing, anything else adds $1. Why in the world would you take that risk?

To the players, clearly it doesn't mean nothing or they wouldn't do it. And it's their decision, not yours or mine

anewman35
01-29-2009, 03:51 PM
I don't see how playing for Team USA is a job under a different arm of the Chicago White Sox organization. And many companies that require top physical or mental condition have rules against moonlighting, doing a second job during your off-hours.

It would be different if this was something not run by MLB. But it's not. If MLB or any particular team had an issue with it, then I think they'd be in their rights to stop players, but, for the most part, that doesn't happen. If the teams (which spend SO MUCH MONEY ON PLAYERS! OMG!) can somehow deal, so can fans. Besides, if it does well, that helps MLB, and that helps the teams.

areilly
01-29-2009, 03:53 PM
I don't understand your last question. Aren't franchise owners the CEO of the franchise? So why wouldn't they have ultimate say?

I meant CEO of the parent company. Reinsdorf, MLB franchise owner, answers to Selig (MLB equivalent of CEO) much like I would answer to Jim Skinner if I opened up a McDonald's.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:54 PM
1. "Assets" implies ownership, in this case of a human being. That's been illegal in this country for a long time.
2. Of course risk for injury is there. So is the risk of a player having fun and learning a thing or two. Such risks also exist in spring training and if you really want to get specific about it, Carlos Quentin actually has hurt himself in spring training before.
3. Quentin et al answer to the Sox but the Sox answer to MLB. With the bolded section in your post above you made my point for me.

4. Barring unforeseen complications impairing their attainment, I wish to see employee #20 quantify his goals. An action item list containing targets of measurable increased output would be preferrable.
1. Oh, come on. "Assets" implies things of worth to the company. I hate to break this to you, but if you have a job, you're considered an asset to your employer.

2. If Quentin has been hurt during spring training in the past, that's more reason to not want him to play extra games. Hell, I'd be OK with him sitting on the bench throughout spring training.

3. Yes, technically. But officially, the Sox play his salary. They stand to lose much more than MLB if Quentin can't play come April.

4. I know you're mocking, but I sure hope that team management asks for quantifiable goals when signing players to big contacts. In what universe should a corporation, designed to make money and succeed in their field, not ask its prospective employees what their goals are?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:55 PM
You people make it seem that baseball players are made out of glass.

Their baseball players, not athletes.
Well, of course, Daver. But they still do get hurt, Quentin especially. Having a body able to avoid injury is a definite skill, and some, like Cal Ripken, Jr., are better than others, like Carl Pavano.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:56 PM
To the players, clearly it doesn't mean nothing or they wouldn't do it. And it's their decision, not yours or mine
Yes, it's their decision and right. But it's also their employer's right to prohibit them from playing if it's included in the contract both parties signed. That's the case here.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 03:56 PM
What's amusing to me is the people who keep insisting "it means nothing". If we're going down that road, what, really, does the major league baseball season "mean"? It's just all people who aren't us playing some sport, when it comes down to it who gives a **** about any of it? There are billions of people out there who couldn't care less about baseball, should we just cancel MLB entirely?

If the people running it care, and the people playing it care, then it "means something", even if you don't think so.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 03:58 PM
Yes, it's their decision and right. But it's also their employer's right to prohibit them from playing if it's included in the contract both parties signed. That's the case here.

And I said that exact thing above - if I hear the Sox saying they don't want their players playing, ok, then I might agree that the players shouldn't play. Have the Sox said that?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 03:59 PM
It would be different if this was something not run by MLB. But it's not. If MLB or any particular team had an issue with it, then I think they'd be in their rights to stop players, but, for the most part, that doesn't happen. If the teams (which spend SO MUCH MONEY ON PLAYERS! OMG!) can somehow deal, so can fans. Besides, if it does well, that helps MLB, and that helps the teams.
And if the Sox do have issue with it, they'll prevent Quentin from playing.

As a fan of baseball, I'd like to see all the best players play in the WBC. That would make it more entertaining. I'd also like to see every good player put on the White Sox roster. But that's not what's best for every franchise. Don't confuse what fans want with what's best for teams. If that were the case, we'd be drinking free beer at the games.

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:00 PM
1. Oh, come on. "Assets" implies things of worth to the company. I hate to break this to you, but if you have a job, you're considered an asset to your employer.

2. If Quentin has been hurt during spring training in the past, that's more reason to not want him to play extra games. Hell, I'd be OK with him sitting on the bench throughout spring training.

3. Yes, technically. But officially, the Sox play his salary. They stand to lose much more than MLB if Quentin can't play come April.

4. I know you're mocking, but I sure hope that team management asks for quantifiable goals when signing players to big contacts. In what universe should a corporation, designed to make money and succeed in their field, not ask its prospective employees what their goals are?

You can't be serious.

Hell, lets just leave him on the bench all season long so that he's ready for the playoffs!

You people make it seem that baseball players are made out of glass.

They're baseball players, not athletes.

I agree with the first sentence but the second one made me :scratch:.

ath·lete (āth'lēt') Pronunciation Key
n. A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:01 PM
And I said that exact thing above - if I hear the Sox saying they don't want their players playing, ok, then I might agree that the players shouldn't play. Have the Sox said that?
No, but I believe this all started by us discussing if the Sox should say that.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:03 PM
What's amusing to me is the people who keep insisting "it means nothing". If we're going down that road, what, really, does the major league baseball season "mean"? It's just all people who aren't us playing some sport, when it comes down to it who gives a **** about any of it? There are billions of people out there who couldn't care less about baseball, should we just cancel MLB entirely?

If the people running it care, and the people playing it care, then it "means something", even if you don't think so.
Yes, it means something. Bungee jumping or stunt biking can "mean something" to me if I enjoy it, but that doesn't mean my employer (or friends or family) shouldn't try to get me to stop doing it.

The success of the Chicago White Sox obviously matters very much to Jerry Reinsdorf and others in the organization. The World Baseball Classic matters very little to them.

Bud Selig, on the other hand, probably cares more about the success of the WBC than that of the White Sox.

Carlos Quentin signed a contract to be paid by Jerry Reinsdorf's organization, not Bud Selig's. That's why the regular season means more.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:04 PM
As a fan of baseball, I'd like to see all the best players play in the WBC. That would make it more entertaining. I'd also like to see every good player put on the White Sox roster. But that's not what's best for every franchise. Don't confuse what fans want with what's best for teams. If that were the case, we'd be drinking free beer at the games.

I understand the needs and wants and rights of the franchises, but the players have to have a say too. If the franchises had their say, they'd want players to spend 365 days a year focused on nothing but baseball, no free agency, and $10000 a year contracts. Just because the teams want something doesn't automatically mean they should get it.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:05 PM
I understand the needs and wants and rights of the franchises, but the players have to have a say too. If the franchises had their say, they'd want players to spend 365 days a year focused on nothing but baseball, no free agency, and $10000 a year contracts. Just because the teams want something doesn't automatically mean they should get it.
Right, which is why there are contract negotiations. Quentin obviously wasn't passionate enough about playing in the WBC to get this clause removed from his contract.

The players definitely have their say; they belong to the most powerful union on the planet and have huge contracts, free agency, and an offseason. Don't make this sound like the big, bad franchises are controlling every aspect of their players' lives by prohibiting them from baseball-related activities that could hinder their ability to perform up to their employment agreement.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:06 PM
Carlos Quentin signed a contract to be paid by Jerry Reinsdorf's organization, not Bud Selig's. That's why the regular season means more.

Means more to who? To him? You don't know it does (and, really, his motivations are none of our buisness). To you? Nobody is paying you, why should you care if the people on the field are getting paid or not, or by who?

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:08 PM
I agree with the first sentence but the second one made me :scratch:.

ath·lete (āth'lēt') Pronunciation Key
n. A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

It's a quote from John Kruk, who did once say he wasn't an athlete, he was a ballplayer.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Means more to who? To him? You don't know it does (and, really, his motivations are none of our buisness). To you? Nobody is paying you, why should you care if the people on the field are getting paid or not, or by who?
Sorry, that's why the regular season should mean more to Quentin, professionally.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:09 PM
Well, of course, Daver. But they still do get hurt, Quentin especially. Having a body able to avoid injury is a definite skill, and some, like Cal Ripken, Jr., are better than others, like Carl Pavano.

People get hurt crossing the street too.

This whole thread cracks me up.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:09 PM
Right, which is why there are contract negotiations. Quentin obviously wasn't passionate enough about playing in the WBC to remove this clause from his contract. The players definitely have their say; they belong to the most powerful union on the planet.

Are we actually even sure that a team is allowed to forbid their players from the WBC? I recall some teams requesting some players not play, but I really don't think MLB would look very kindly on a team flat out forbidding their players from playing.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:10 PM
You can't be serious.

Hell, lets just leave him on the bench all season long so that he's ready for the playoffs!
The regular season games directly determine which teams make the playoffs. Spring training games don't. If he's ready to play without spring training, I see no reason to play him, for the same reason players like LaDanian Tomlinson sit out every preseason game in the NFL.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:11 PM
Sorry, that's why the regular season should mean more to Quentin, professionally.

Let's say I'm Carlos Quentin. The regular season means a lot to me, I want to earn my paycheck, but I also love my country and want to represent it. Considering I play baseball 200 or so times a year (and would, in any case, be playing baseball anyway), I'm not especially worried about getting injuried, any more than I would be every other day of the year. Does that make me a bad person? Am I letting the White Sox down?

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:11 PM
1. "Assets" implies ownership, in this case of a human being. That's been illegal in this country for a long time.
2. Of course risk for injury is there. So is the risk of a player having fun and learning a thing or two. Such risks also exist in spring training and if you really want to get specific about it, Carlos Quentin actually has hurt himself in spring training before.
3. Quentin et al answer to the Sox but the Sox answer to MLB. With the bolded section in your post above you made my point for me.

4. Barring unforeseen complications impairing their attainment, I wish to see employee #20 quantify his goals. An action item list containing targets of measurable increased output would be preferrable.

1. Nice try. There is a difference between owning someone and owning certain rights from their respective bundle of rights. Also, if a person is under contract, they can be considered and asset to the person holding the contract.

2. All the more reason to limit the risk of injury outside of the normal baseball operations of an organization!

3. And what was your point, again? Just because an organization answers to some higher power does not change the fact that a decidedly meaningless off-season baseball tournament is a stupid gamble with other people's money on the line.

4. In your attempt to be sarcastic you actually displayed a good baseball idea! This might be new for you, but that idea would actually be good for #20, that way we know where some improvements in his game can be made. Good point.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:12 PM
People get hurt crossing the street too.

This whole thread cracks me up.
Come on, the likelihood of getting hurt crossing the street is much lower than the likelihood of getting hurt playing baseball or taking part in any athletic event.

As for the hilarious nature of this thread, imagine you ran a construction company and had a big project, which requires all your employees to be in tip-top mental and physical condition, starting Monday morning and lasting a full month. Would you really want your best employee to be playing an intense sporting event on Sunday afternoon? Or going out drinking all day Sunday? No, of course not, you'd want him to be well-rested and in good shape to perform his job to the highest level. That's what we're discussing here.

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:12 PM
It's a quote from John Kruk, who did once say he wasn't an athlete, he was a ballplayer.

Describing Kruk, it makes sense. :D:

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:13 PM
Are we actually even sure that a team is allowed to forbid their players from the WBC? I recall some teams requesting some players not play, but I really don't think MLB would look very kindly on a team flat out forbidding their players from playing.
Yeah, the linked article states that the Sox have a right to remove Quentin from the Team USA roster.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:15 PM
Let's say I'm Carlos Quentin. The regular season means a lot to me, I want to earn my paycheck, but I also love my country and want to represent it. Considering I play baseball 200 or so times a year (and would, in any case, be playing baseball anyway), I'm not especially worried about getting injuried, any more than I would be every other day of the year. Does that make me a bad person? Am I letting the White Sox down?
You really believe that? For many players, playing baseball is a trade, not a hobby. They do it when they're getting paid for it or when it puts them in better shape to play well. I highly doubt Carlos Quentin will be playing pickup games in February if he isn't on a WBC roster.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:15 PM
You really believe that? For many players, playing baseball is a trade, not a hobby. They do it when they're getting paid for it or when it puts them in better shape to play well. I highly doubt Carlos Quentin will be playing pickup games in February if he isn't on a WBC roster.

Do you even know when the WBC is?

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:16 PM
Come on, the likelihood of getting hurt crossing the street is much lower than the likelihood of getting hurt playing baseball or taking part in any athletic event.

So what.

I can't think of a single way to get in baseball playing shape than by playing baseball.

You people are making Mount Aetna out of an anthill.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:18 PM
Do you even know when the WBC is?

Don't cast doubts on some immaterial factoid (at this point, anyway) just to shift the spotlight away from his criticisms of your points.

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:19 PM
The regular season games directly determine which teams make the playoffs. Spring training games don't. If he's ready to play without spring training, I see no reason to play him, for the same reason players like LaDanian Tomlinson sit out every preseason game in the NFL.

Has there ever been a player in MLB history that has walked in on Day 1 of spring training and say "OK, I'm ready to play a 162-game season. I don't need to see any live pitching. All that work I did in the batting cage should be good enough. Besides, I might get hurt if I play an ST games."

It's just a bad idea and I can't believe you even brought it up.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:19 PM
So what.

I can't think of a single way to get in baseball playing shape than by playing baseball.

You people are making Mount Aetna out of an anthill.
I edited that post with the following:

"As for the hilarious nature of this thread, imagine you ran a construction company and had a big project, which requires all your employees to be in tip-top mental and physical condition, starting Monday morning and lasting a full month. Would you really want your best employee to be playing an intense sporting event on Sunday afternoon? Or going out drinking all day Sunday? No, of course not, you'd want him to be well-rested and in good shape to perform his job to the highest level. That's what we're discussing here."

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:20 PM
So what.

I can't think of a single way to get in baseball playing shape than by playing baseball.

You people are making Mount Aetna out of an anthill.

OMGZ LOLZ MISPELLING!!!!1!! Your points mean nothing now!!!!






Or were you going with the latin spelling?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:20 PM
Has there ever been a player in MLB history that has walked in on Day 1 of spring training and say "OK, I'm ready to play a 162-game season. I don't need to see any live pitching. All that work I did in the batting cage should be good enough. Besides, I might get hurt if I play an ST games."

It's just a bad idea and I can't believe you even brought it up.
No, there probably hasn't. I said if he's ready on day one.

Practically, yes, he'll need to play during spring training. But due to the nature of spring training, he at least can only work until he's ready, or gradually increase his workload until he's in prime shape. With the WBC, he would likely be playing hard from the get-go. That's the difference.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:20 PM
Don't cast doubts on some immaterial factoid (at this point, anyway) just to shift the spotlight away from his criticisms of your points.

It's not immaterial. He'll be playing baseball games anyway, that's the entire point. The argument is entirely different if the WBC was outside of spring training, but it's not.

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:22 PM
You really believe that? For many players, playing baseball is a trade, not a hobby. They do it when they're getting paid for it or when it puts them in better shape to play well. I highly doubt Carlos Quentin will be playing pickup games in February if he isn't on a WBC roster.

He'll be playing baseball the exact same time the rest of his teammates from the Chicago White Sox are playing baseball. He'll just be playing it on a different field against a different team.

I don't see what the big deal is.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:22 PM
I edited that post with the following:

"As for the hilarious nature of this thread, imagine you ran a construction company and had a big project, which requires all your employees to be in tip-top mental and physical condition, starting Monday morning and lasting a full month. Would you really want your best employee to be playing an intense sporting event on Sunday afternoon? Or going out drinking all day Sunday? No, of course not, you'd want him to be well-rested and in good shape to perform his job to the highest level. That's what we're discussing here."

You can't control what an employee does on his own time.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:23 PM
OMGZ LOLZ MISPELLING!!!!1!! Your points mean nothing now!!!!






Or were you going with the latin spelling?

What does this have to do with this thread?

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:24 PM
He'll be playing baseball the exact same time the rest of his teammates from the Chicago White Sox are playing baseball. He'll just be playing it on a different field against a different team.

I don't see what the big deal is.

But he might TRY a little harder! And everybody knows that trying leads to sure-fire injury!

EndemicSox
01-29-2009, 04:25 PM
To the people still ripping him for hurting his wrist, give it a break. It was a freak accident.

IMO, the WBC would be an excellent test for Quentin, assuming he is 100% healthy. Much better than spending a week in freaking Arizona....

oeo
01-29-2009, 04:27 PM
Well, of course, Daver. But they still do get hurt, Quentin especially. Having a body able to avoid injury is a definite skill, and some, like Cal Ripken, Jr., are better than others, like Carl Pavano.

GMAB, Quentin had a couple of fluke injuries; he's not injury prone. This is the same crap we heard when Dye came here. He, too, only had a couple of fluke injuries. **** happens.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:28 PM
You can't control what an employee does on his own time.

You can if they are under contract during the time period you are attempting to regulate and that contract contains clauses prohibiting acts that would be detrimental to the person's abilities to perform the contract.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:30 PM
It's not immaterial. He'll be playing baseball games anyway, that's the entire point. The argument is entirely different if the WBC was outside of spring training, but it's not.
Yes, but as I said in the above post:

...due to the nature of spring training, he at least can only work until he's ready, or gradually increase his workload until he's in prime shape. With the WBC, he would likely be playing hard from the get-go. That's the difference.

You really don't see the difference between playing in a controlled spring training game and in a competitive WBC game?

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:31 PM
No, there probably hasn't. I said if he's ready on day one.

Practically, yes, he'll need to play during spring training. But due to the nature of spring training, he at least can only work until he's ready, or gradually increase his workload until he's in prime shape. With the WBC, he would likely be playing hard from the get-go. That's the difference.

If him possibly playing in 7 or 8 games that "count" instead of 7 or 8 "meaningless" ST games is the difference between him being ready for the season or being over-worked, he probably shouldn't be playing in the MLB.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:31 PM
He'll be playing baseball the exact same time the rest of his teammates from the Chicago White Sox are playing baseball. He'll just be playing it on a different field against a different team.

I don't see what the big deal is.

They won't be drilling, working on mechanics or conditioning. They won't be playing games in which they are removed from the lineup after an at-bat or two, they will be playing actual full-speed baseball. Those drills and cage-time mean a lot more than people give them credit for.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:32 PM
You can't control what an employee does on his own time.
Control? No.

Terminate a contract if they perform an action specifically prohibited by said contract? You'd better believe you can.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:32 PM
You can if they are under contract during the time period you are attempting to regulate and that contract contains clauses prohibiting acts that would be detrimental to the person's abilities to perform the contract.

Since when do construction employees sign individual contracts?

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:32 PM
You really don't see the difference between playing in a controlled spring training game and in a competitive WBC game?

If he'd had surgery a month ago and was still recovering and not in baseball shape, I'd see your point. But this is somebody who was very close to coming back in a PLAYOFF series months ago. If he was ready then to play at the very highest level (and he'll be ready to play MLB games 2 weeks after the WBC)l, I think he can handle it.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:33 PM
If him possibly playing in 7 or 8 games that "count" instead of 7 or 8 "meaningless" ST games is the difference between him being ready for the season or being over-worked, he probably shouldn't be playing in the MLB.
It's not a matter of being overworked. It's a matter of minimizing injury risk.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Control? No.

Terminate a contract if they perform an action specifically prohibited by said contract? You'd better believe you can.

How many players do you think have language in their contracts forbiding them to play baseball?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:34 PM
Since when do construction employees sign individual contracts?
I don't know, some might. You don't know everything about everyone's employment everywhere.

But the topic at hand involves a baseball player who did, in fact, sign and individual contract.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:34 PM
How many players do you think have language in their contracts forbiding them to play baseball?
I know of at least one: Carlos Quentin. His contract allows the White Sox to forbid him from playing in the WBC.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:36 PM
It's not a matter of being overworked. It's a matter of minimizing injury risk.

If teams were as worried about injury risk as you seem to think, they'd never have important players play a single spring training game, ever. Clearly, they aren't too worried.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:37 PM
I know of at least one: Carlos Quentin. His contract allows the White Sox to forbid him from playing in the WBC.

I don't think it's anything in his contract that does it - it's a WBC rule that the team has the right because he was injured, if I'm reading it correctly. It's not some legal right the White Sox have, though.

Lefty34
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
Since when do construction employees sign individual contracts?

Classic, just classic attempt to appear all-knowledgeable. Nit-pick all you want, but the facts about contracts and their powers over people and their actions still remain.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
If teams were as worried about injury risk as you seem to think, they'd never have important players play a single spring training game, ever. Clearly, they aren't too worried.
Not true. They need players to practice during spring training in order to be in the best condition to play on opening day. It's a matter of minimizing injury risk, not eliminating it completely. This means pulling players after one at bat, or having them play in only half the games.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
I know of at least one: Carlos Quentin. His contract allows the White Sox to forbid him from playing in the WBC.

Says who?

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:38 PM
I know of at least one: Carlos Quentin. His contract allows the White Sox to forbid him from playing in the WBC.

Read the article again. It's nothing to do with his contract with the Sox.

They have the right under WBC rules because of the wrist injury he suffered last year.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:39 PM
I don't think it's anything in his contract that does it - it's a WBC rule that the team has the right because he was injured, if I'm reading it correctly. It's not some legal right the White Sox have, though.
Well there's still a contract there somewhere; either the players' union as a whole signed a contract pertaining to the WBC or it's in individual players' contracts.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:40 PM
Not true. They need players to practice during spring training in order to be in the best condition to play on opening day. It's a matter of minimizing injury risk, not eliminating it completely. This means pulling players after one at bat, or having them play in only half the games.

It seems quite possible that a week of playing harder against better competition would help Carlos Quentin get in better condition for opening day than normal spring training games. Seems worth the slight injury risk to me.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:40 PM
Says who?
Fine, I stand corrected, it may not be his individual contract that allows for this. It may instead be the players' union as a whole that signed some contract allowing teams to do this.

There must be a contract somewhere, or else the Sox could not forbid him.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:41 PM
Well there's still a contract there somewhere; either the players' union as a whole signed a contract pertaining to the WBC or it's in individual players' contracts.

Or, the WBC might just have it as a rule that a team can prevent an injury player from playing and it's not in any contract at all.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:42 PM
It seems quite possible that a week of playing harder against better competition would help Carlos Quentin get in better condition for opening day than normal spring training games. Seems worth the slight injury risk to me.
OK, now here's a real coherent argument!

I can't really argue with this statement. It's my personal belief that a week of playing harder isn't much of an advantage. There's no real way to prove it, however.

So in this aspect, you may be right. It could very well be that it would better suit Quentin to play hard for a week rather than drill and condition in spring training. I personally wouldn't risk the injury if I had a say, but that doesn't make it wrong.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:42 PM
There must be a contract somewhere, or else the Sox could not forbid him.

That's not true at all. The WBC could just say that they've decided that they won't let any player who was injured and who's team doesn't want him to play in the tournament. Why would that require a contract?

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:42 PM
Classic, just classic attempt to appear all-knowledgeable. Nit-pick all you want, but the facts about contracts and their powers over people and their actions still remain.

Again, how many players do you know of that have language in their contract that forbids them to play baseball.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:43 PM
Or, the WBC might just have it as a rule that a team can prevent an injury player from playing and it's not in any contract at all.
I highly doubt that. The players' union had to agree to this ridiculous scheme by Selig, so there must be some sort of contract.

Or else what would prevent Quetin from just saying, "I'm going to play anyway"?

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:45 PM
I highly doubt that. The players' union had to agree to this ridiculous scheme by Selig, so there must be some sort of contract.

Or else what would prevent Quetin from just saying, "I'm going to play anyway"?

If Quentin said that, the WBC could just say, "Ok, all USA games are forfits".

I'm not saying there's not a contract, but I'm just saying there doesn't have to be. Like, I'm pretty sure in the WBC, there's a rule that there are 4 balls in a walk. It's probably not in the contract, though.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:45 PM
Again, how many players do you know of that have language in their contract that forbids them to play baseball.
Come on, Daver, quit arguing semantics. There is obviously a rule that allows teams to forbid players from playing. You know as well as anyone that everything regarding MLB has contracts involved. Who cares if it's an individual player's contract or the union's contract as a group?

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:47 PM
If Quentin said that, the WBC could just say, "Ok, all USA games are forfits".

I'm not saying there's not a contract, but I'm just saying there doesn't have to be. Like, I'm pretty sure in the WBC, there's a rule that there are 4 balls in a walk. It's probably not in the contract, though.
You're right, it could be in the rule book. Of course, in order to play, I'm sure the players sign something saying that they will obey the rule book. That's a contract.

In every league you were ever in, I'm sure there was a contract saying you'd obey the rules. In Little League, I'm sure your parents or guardians signed it, but it still existed.

Contracts are everywhere. Nothing is just a "rule" in the professional world.

Iwritecode
01-29-2009, 04:48 PM
Honestly, I don't think there's anyway to quantify "injury risk".

Whether he's playing in the WBC, playing a ST game with his teammates or shagging fly balls on an off day there's going to be an injury risk.

But I don't see how anyone can say that by playing a few games in the WBC his chance of injury goes up by XX% over him doing drills with Ozzie and co. or whatever else they might have him doing in ST.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:50 PM
People might find this page interesting, it explains who exactly it is running the WBC and what exactly the rules are. Especially the fact that the MLBPA is involved in running it along with MLB...

http://www.worldbaseballclassic.com/2006/about/index.jsp?sid=wbc

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:50 PM
Honestly, I don't think there's anyway to quantify "injury risk".

Whether he's playing in the WBC, playing a ST game with his teammates or shagging fly balls on an off day there's going to be an injury risk.

But I don't see how anyone can say that by playing a few games in the WBC his chance of injury goes up by XX% over him doing drills with Ozzie and co. or whatever else they might have him doing in ST.
You're right, so this is purely subjective. In my opinion, the unknown increased injury risk is scary enough to forbid him from playing in the WBC. The White Sox could feel differently, though. I would hope that they at least put some real though into it.

thomas35forever
01-29-2009, 04:51 PM
I wish Carlos would follow Danks' example of putting the team first. Risking his wrist too early in games that count could be a bad thing. If he plays and gets hurt, I will officially hate the WBC forever.

sox1970
01-29-2009, 04:52 PM
I wish Carlos would follow Danks' example of putting the team first. Risking his wrist too early in games that count could be a bad thing. If he plays and gets hurt, I will officially hate the WBC forever.

It's ok to hate it forever now.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:52 PM
People might find this page interesting, it explains who exactly it is running the WBC and what exactly the rules are. Especially the fact that the MLBPA is involved in running it along with MLB...

http://www.worldbaseballclassic.com/2006/about/index.jsp?sid=wbc
Thanks for the link. Considering the MLBPA is involved, I feel even more confident there's a contract that's been signed agreeing to these rules. The union knows how to cover its ass.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 04:52 PM
I wish Carlos would follow Danks' example of putting the team first. Risking his wrist too early in games that count could be a bad thing. If he plays and gets hurt, I will officially hate the WBC forever.

If he plays in spring training and gets hurt, will you hate Spring Training forever? If he plays in regular season games and gets hurt (like, you know, he did) will you hate regular season games forever?

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:53 PM
Come on, Daver, quit arguing semantics. There is obviously a rule that allows teams to forbid players from playing. You know as well as anyone that everything regarding MLB has contracts involved. Who cares if it's an individual player's contract or the union's contract as a group?


You're the one that brought it in the first place, and now that you can't back your argument you accuse me of semantics?

This whole thread just keeps getting more hysterical.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:55 PM
If he plays in spring training and gets hurt, will you hate Spring Training forever? If he plays in regular season games and gets hurt (like, you know, he did) will you hate regular season games forever?
Nah, because the WBC is a gimmick thought up by Selig. National pride is just a front, as many players play for a country they've never lived in (Mike Piazza and Italy, for example).

Spring training is a yearly tradition, where teams get together to train for the season. I care about the White Sox being ready, not Team USA or Team Japan or any other WBC team.

And the regular season games are the whole point of this, so no, I will never hate regular season games.

thomas35forever
01-29-2009, 04:57 PM
If he plays in spring training and gets hurt, will you hate Spring Training forever? If he plays in regular season games and gets hurt (like, you know, he did) will you hate regular season games forever?
No. There is a difference. He would not be playing WBC games in a White Sox uniform. If he's going to get hurt, I'd rather he do it with us and not with Team USA.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 04:58 PM
You're the one that brought it in the first place, and now that you can't back your argument you accuse me of semantics?

This whole thread just keeps getting more hysterical.
Fine, I admit I'm wrong.

Just like you were wrong that an employer can't restrict an employee's behavior. You never backed that up with anything, either, by the way; you only asked me to name a specific example. And you know what? Maybe no individual player has a contract that allows their team to forbid them. In that case, you win. But there is most definitely a contract that allows it somehow, or else the Sox wouldn't be able to forbid Quentin.

Daver
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
No. There is a difference. He would not be playing WBC games in a White Sox uniform. If he's going to get hurt, I'd rather he do it with us and not with Team USA.

This post wins as most hysterical so far in this thread.

It puts all other misguided logic to absolute shame.

sox1970
01-29-2009, 04:59 PM
If he plays in spring training and gets hurt, will you hate Spring Training forever? If he plays in regular season games and gets hurt (like, you know, he did) will you hate regular season games forever?

I'll answer that even though it's not directed to me.

The bottom line for me is that if he gets hurt in a spring training game, or a regular season game, or a minor league rehab assignment...at least he did it on White Sox time. This WBC is just international marketing....nothing more, nothinig less. It doesn't mean anything. It's garbage.

If Quentin or anyone else gets hurt, their team is going to be pissed beyond belief. If they get hurt wearing a White Sox uniform, then it's just part of the game.

Daver
01-29-2009, 05:00 PM
Fine, I admit I'm wrong.

Just like you were wrong that an employer can't restrict an employee's behavior. You never backed that up with anything, either, by the way; you only asked me to name a specific example. And you know what? Maybe no individual player has a contract that allows their team to forbid them. In that case, you win. But there is most definitely a contract that allows it somehow, or else the Sox wouldn't be able to forbid Quentin.

Take a look at this countries labor laws and you will find your answer as to what an employer can ask out of an employee.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 05:01 PM
This post wins as most hysterical so far in this thread.

It puts all other misguided logic to absolute shame.
So would you also be OK if Alexei played for the Cuban team (if that were allowed by Cuba)?

Patriotism should have nothing to do with the White Sox organization's decision.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 05:03 PM
Take a look at this countries labor laws and you will find your answer as to what an employer can ask out of an employee.
Again, I'm not saying that can actually prevent me from doing something. I am saying, however, it can be a breach of contract.

So you're correct the White Sox can't physically stop Quentin from going to the WBC and playing, in the same way you can't physically stop an employee from drinking all day on a Sunday. It would void his contract, however, just as you could void your employee's if you were shrewd enough to include it in his contract.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 05:04 PM
Nah, because the WBC is a gimmick thought up by Selig. National pride is just a front, as many players play for a country they've never lived in (Mike Piazza and Italy, for example).

Spring training is a yearly tradition, where teams get together to train for the season. I care about the White Sox being ready, not Team USA or Team Japan or any other WBC team.

And the regular season games are the whole point of this, so no, I will never hate regular season games.

Everything that's in baseball now is a "gimmick" that was invented by somebody. In 2005, did you say you didn't care about the World Series because it was just a gimmick invented by a few teams in 1903?

Plenty of things that at the time probably seemed as silly to some people as the WBC (if not more so) like the All-Star Game, spring training, television broadcasts, divisions, playoffs, wild cards, the DH, farm systems, etc etc etc. Just because something is a new gimmick doesn't mean it's bad.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 05:05 PM
Everything that's in baseball now is a "gimmick" that was invented by somebody. In 2005, did you say you didn't care about the World Series because it was just a gimmick invented by a few teams in 1903?

Plenty of things that at the time probably seemed as silly to some people as the WBC (if not more so) like the All-Star Game, spring training, television broadcasts, divisions, playoffs, wild cards, the DH, farm systems, etc etc etc. Just because something is a new gimmick doesn't mean it's bad.
No, of course that doesn't mean it's bad. I like interleague play, the DH, and instant replay, to name a few.

But I follow baseball to root for the White Sox. I care about things that affect the White Sox' chances of success.

anewman35
01-29-2009, 05:07 PM
But I follow baseball to root for the White Sox. I care about things that affect the White Sox' chances of success.

Honestly, me too. I don't care about the WBC at all. I guess the difference between us is I don't think the WBC does affect the White Sox chance of success in any meaningful way.

Eddo144
01-29-2009, 05:09 PM
Honestly, me too. I don't care about the WBC at all. I guess the difference between us is I don't think the WBC does affect the White Sox chance of success in any meaningful way.
It's likely that it won't. But I'd still rather have Quentin practicing, working out, and playing with the Sox than with another team. There's injury risk involved either way, so while it may sound weird, I'd rather have him get hurt while trying to help the Sox.

DirtySox
01-30-2009, 04:28 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/01/soxfest-tidbits-updates-etc.html

Quentin not taking part in the WBC.

areilly
01-30-2009, 04:29 PM
http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/01/soxfest-tidbits-updates-etc.html

Quentin not taking part in the WBC.

Good. Now he'll never ever get hurt.

Lefty34
01-30-2009, 04:44 PM
Good. Now he'll never ever get hurt.

Not in the WBC, at least.

Eddo144
01-30-2009, 05:07 PM
Good. Now he'll never ever get hurt.
I think you meant to say, "Good. Now he'll never get hurt playing in a meaningless competition that cannot possibly help the White Sox at all."

Daver
01-30-2009, 05:09 PM
I think you meant to say, "Good. Now he'll never get hurt playing in a meaningless competition that cannot possibly help the White Sox at all."
Great, he can save for punching an inanimate object after a strikeout instead.

areilly
01-30-2009, 05:17 PM
Great, he can save for punching an inanimate object after a strikeout instead.

Strikeout bad! Cleveland bad! CARLOS SMASH!

Lefty34
01-30-2009, 06:03 PM
Strikeout bad! Cleveland bad! CARLOS SMASH!

It'd be funnier if he referred to himself as "TCQ"

Lip Man 1
01-30-2009, 07:30 PM
That's two down and three to go!

:D:

Lip

downstairs
01-31-2009, 08:37 AM
This is why they need to stop this WBC sillyness. Its botched, rigged, and really not that entertaining to baseball fans. To countries that didn't grow up with baseball, its probably nothing more than a passing curiosity.

khan
02-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I've already posted that I hate this stupid farce of a tournament.

I'm happy that Danks and Quentin have asked out. I'd really like it if the rest would opt out as well, for reasons I've already posted. In particular, the other relief pitchers that have been invited, since I think that the bullpen is going to have a heavier load this season than last.

But I'd REALLY like to have AJ in camp and working with the SOX pitchers as early as possible. I'd like to have the piecemeal 4th/5th starters have as strong a relationship as possible with the starting catcher. I'd like to have the spring training competition between Broadway/Marquez/Poreda/Richard for the 5th spot to take place with AJ in attendance.

Iwritecode
02-02-2009, 11:03 AM
I think you meant to say, "Good. Now he'll never get hurt playing in a meaningless competition that cannot possibly help the White Sox at all."

We call that Spring Training. :shrug:

Eddo144
02-02-2009, 11:50 AM
We call that Spring Training. :shrug:
Isn't the whole purpose of spring training to get the team together and work on fundamentals/get in baseball shape?

Iwritecode
02-02-2009, 11:55 AM
Isn't the whole purpose of spring training to get the team together and work on fundamentals/get in baseball shape?

I'm pretty sure he can do that no matter which team/field he's playing on.

Eddo144
02-02-2009, 12:21 PM
I'm pretty sure he can do that no matter which team/field he's playing on.
Not really (and this has been discussed a great deal in this thread). In spring training, teams are working on drills and training exercises in a controlled environment. That is, if the Sox feel Quentin needs to work on something specific, he will. In the WBC, for instance, teams are playing in games, where they don't control the situations they're in.