PDA

View Full Version : We're number 23!


downstairs
02-17-2009, 01:13 PM
I usually don't whine about power rankings, but this is just too good:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11386278

Sox at #23. Go ahead and no pick us to repeat in 2009, fine. But a division winner that didn't do too much over the offseason? You're thinking that the regression of 1-year-older players is going to take us from basically first to worst?

whitem0nkey
02-17-2009, 01:28 PM
were 13 on Fox sports.

hi im skot
02-17-2009, 01:43 PM
:shrug:

doublem23
02-17-2009, 01:45 PM
Can't argue too much with this dude's reasoning... There are holes all over this roster.

I would like to know what formula he used to devise these rankings.

ChiSoxFan81
02-17-2009, 01:46 PM
Meh. If they played games on paper, the Tigers had the division last year. How'd that work out?

Boondock Saint
02-17-2009, 01:46 PM
He sees Quentin as the only guy on the upswing? Has he never heard of Alexei Ramirez or John Danks?

This guy is an asshat, and his opinion should be respected as such.

SOXfnNlansing
02-17-2009, 01:46 PM
nowhere to go but up. It'll be fun watching the Yankees and cubs drop down. Cripes, the Sox are just above the Royals on cbs!

tm1119
02-17-2009, 02:20 PM
I usually don't whine about power rankings, but this is just too good:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11386278

Sox at #23. Go ahead and no pick us to repeat in 2009, fine. But a division winner that didn't do too much over the offseason? You're thinking that the regression of 1-year-older players is going to take us from basically first to worst?

Did you forget that we lost our starting SS, 3B, CF, and 4th best starter? And the players we are replacing them with are all unproven. Now, I'm not saying that we are going to be any better or worse, but you cant really argue with someones reasoning to thinking that our team will get worse. This team is basically going to live or die based on the play of young unproven players.

Dibbs
02-17-2009, 02:25 PM
Well, it is certainly possible. His reasoning is fair. It could be a long year.

kittle42
02-17-2009, 02:36 PM
Did you forget that we lost our starting SS, 3B, CF, and 4th best starter? And the players we are replacing them with are all unproven. Now, I'm not saying that we are going to be any better or worse, but you cant really argue with someones reasoning to thinking that our team will get worse. This team is basically going to live or die based on the play of young unproven players.

Rational assessment.

I love when people get all up in arms about these rankings.

spawn
02-17-2009, 02:57 PM
Rational assessment.

I love when people get all up in arms about these rankings.
It's quite entertaining.

chaotic8512
02-17-2009, 03:09 PM
Normally I don't really get into pro-Cubs, anti-White Sox conspiracy or anything like that, but take a deeper look into his comments:

- He lauds the Cubs, has nothing really positive to say about the White Sox. He says that Dye, Konerko, Thome, and Pierzynski are due for regression, while Lee and Soriano will magically have one good year in them, with absolutely no justification for either.
- He calls Scott Podsednik a "dirty uninformed scamp". Ow.
- He actually acknowledges Dusty Baker's "arm-shredding" tendencies. Possible old wounds hurting.
- Lastly, possibly his most telling sign, he gives kudos to Andy McPhail.

I've seen a lot of Yankee fans, but this guy bleeds blue. I've never been more sure of anything in my life.

(Pretty sure that whole post is in something like half or two-thirds teal... you make the call.)

spawn
02-17-2009, 03:21 PM
I'm sure this has been said ad nauseum, but really, why get worked up over pre-season rankings? I've yet to see a World Series won before the first pitch of a Spring Training game is thrown. Every team has to prove it on the field. I'm pretty sure the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox players aren't looking at the rankings and thinking to themselves "Season's over boys!"

areilly
02-17-2009, 03:46 PM
Rational assessment.

I love when people get all up in arms about these rankings.

Oh come on Kittle, haven't you been paying attention?

Starting pitching: upgraded.
Speed: speedier.
Defense: way improved.
Power: more powerful.
Lineup: well-rounded.
Awesomeness: totes.
Playoff winnability: Big time.
Super geniusness of under the radar GM Kenny "Grind-o-matic" Williams: Unquestioned.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some World Series tickets to go line up for.

doublem23
02-17-2009, 04:12 PM
I would like to thank you for putting that in teal and not igniting a 10-page fight over whether or not the Sox are actually speedier and more powerful.

spiffie
02-17-2009, 04:21 PM
I would like to thank you for putting that in teal and not igniting a 10-page fight over whether or not the Sox are actually speedier and more powerful.
Hopefully with Jerry Owens getting more time this year the Sox will be speedier. And a full year of Josh Fields would add more power to the lineup. So it is kind of true.

veeter
02-17-2009, 04:39 PM
Rational assessment.

I love when people get all up in arms about these rankings.I get more upset that these rankings are taken seriously, by the media and fans, than I do the rankings themselves.

SoxSpeed22
02-17-2009, 05:01 PM
If there's one thing CBS sports writers know how to do, it's make asses of themselves over and over. Pete Prisco is still employed there. We were 22nd in 2005, our season will depend on the young guys.

sullythered
02-17-2009, 05:02 PM
I, nor anyone else, has ANY idea how well/poorly the Sox are gonna do this year. Baseball is a funny game. It is the one that we try the hardest to predict, yet it is the most difficult sport to.

So much depends on mental approach, chemistry, and feng shui that it just can't be done. That's what makes it beautiful. And that's what makes the opinions of guys like this as valid/invalid as mine, your's, or anybody's.

Btw, 1000 posts!!! It only took me five seasons!!!

jdm2662
02-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Number 23???

http://www.chetcoppock.com/photos/portrait/chet2_160x230.gif

"I didn't know Michael Jeffrey Jordan was playing on the White Sox!"

MarySwiss
02-17-2009, 06:13 PM
Number 23???



"I didn't know Michael Jeffrey Jordan was playing on the White Sox!"

Ewwwww! Not Coppock! Please make him go away! Edit: Never mind; I just did.

Meanwhile, I and the Mr are heading to Laughlin soon, and I plan to put a few dollars on the Sox to win the ALCS and the World Series. I hope the oddsmakers read that CBS Power Rankings column. :cool:

SOXSINCE'70
02-17-2009, 06:42 PM
Number 23???

http://www.chetcoppock.com/photos/portrait/chet2_160x230.gif

"I didn't know Michael Jeffrey Jordan was playing on the White Sox!"

I thought it was a reference to Robin Ventura or Jermaine Dye.:D:

Frontman
02-17-2009, 07:37 PM
Meh. If they played games on paper, the Tigers had the division last year. How'd that work out?

And the Sox were to repeat in 2006, and the Cubs were supposed to win in 2007 AND 2008.

I care oh-so-little for these projections.

WhiteSox1989
02-17-2009, 07:49 PM
And the Sox were to repeat in 2006, and the Cubs were supposed to win in 2007 AND 2008.

I care oh-so-little for these projections.


That should have been the first response to this thread.

Followed by, why is anyone surprised?

DumpJerry
02-17-2009, 08:34 PM
Because of this and the BP thread, I've been calling my rep to cancel my season tickets.

WhiteSox1989
02-17-2009, 08:47 PM
Because of this and the BP thread, I've been calling my rep to cancel my season tickets.

Exactly.

voodoochile
02-17-2009, 09:20 PM
Personally, I love the fact that the projections are all over the map. Some have the Sox winning the division or even finishing 2nd. Some have the Sox finishing last. It's the ultimate condemnation of these supposed experts that they can't even agree. It really does prove that no one know nothing until the games are played...

whitesox901
02-17-2009, 09:51 PM
I love the underdog role!

soxwon
02-17-2009, 09:57 PM
Did you forget that we lost our starting SS, 3B, CF, and 4th best starter? And the players we are replacing them with are all unproven. Now, I'm not saying that we are going to be any better or worse, but you cant really argue with someones reasoning to thinking that our team will get worse. This team is basically going to live or die based on the play of young unproven players.

Talk to me after we win the world series!!!!

guillensdisciple
02-17-2009, 10:08 PM
Talk to me after we win the world series!!!!


Ditto.

DumpJerry
02-17-2009, 10:55 PM
Predicting how a baseball team will finish after 162 games is like predicting Lottery numbers. There are too many unknowns in February. Injuries, mid-season trades, breakout years, failed years, etc.....

Just sit back, strap it down and enjoy the season!

gosox41
02-17-2009, 11:33 PM
I usually don't whine about power rankings, but this is just too good:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/11386278

Sox at #23. Go ahead and no pick us to repeat in 2009, fine. But a division winner that didn't do too much over the offseason? You're thinking that the regression of 1-year-older players is going to take us from basically first to worst?


I think 23 is extreme, but t he Sox have more question marks then the Twins, Indians, and Tigers.

If Owen, Fields, and one of the second basemen hit...
If Floyd and Danks can repeat off last season...
If Colon, Richard, etc can make up for the 200 innings Javy gave us...


Not saying the other teams fon't have issues but that's 7 roster spots right there.

Again, not saying we're the 23rd ranked team, but I can see doubts.

oeo
02-17-2009, 11:38 PM
Rational assessment.

I love when people get all up in arms about these rankings.

Carlos Quentin the only guy on the way up?

I don't think it's rational at all. It's more of this guy being completely confused. Seriously, look at some of the teams he puts ahead of the Sox. Cards, Reds, Giants (!), O's, Tigers (do they even have a pitching staff yet...if so, that's news to me). Hell, they're only right in front of the Nationals who can't do anything right.

The one good thing he says about the Sox is the rotation being solid enough, and that's the most questionable thing about this team. This guy must have gotten his info from Phil Rogers.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-18-2009, 12:27 AM
nowhere to go but up. It'll be fun watching the Yankees and cubs drop down. Cripes, the Sox are just above the Royals on cbs!

Actually... :tongue:

guillensdisciple
02-18-2009, 12:46 AM
Well guys, at least we are 7 below 30.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-18-2009, 12:53 AM
Well guys, at least we are 7 below 30.

Above*... I'm on a roll! :redneck

guillensdisciple
02-18-2009, 01:00 AM
Above*... I'm on a roll! :redneck

Oh crap, this is going to get me confused. Since 30 is a higher number, I assumed we were below, I might be wrong- how do you figure it is above?

spawn
02-18-2009, 07:48 AM
Oh crap, this is going to get me confused. Since 30 is a higher number, I assumed we were below, I might be wrong- how do you figure it is above?
I'm assuming it's because if you look at a list from 1-30, 23 would be above 30. I understood what you meant though.

Craig Grebeck
02-18-2009, 09:34 AM
Carlos Quentin the only guy on the way up?

I don't think it's rational at all. It's more of this guy being completely confused. Seriously, look at some of the teams he puts ahead of the Sox. Cards, Reds, Giants (!), O's, Tigers (do they even have a pitching staff yet...if so, that's news to me). Hell, they're only right in front of the Nationals who can't do anything right.

The one good thing he says about the Sox is the rotation being solid enough, and that's the most questionable thing about this team. This guy must have gotten his info from Phil Rogers.
Why shouldn't the Giants be ahead of us? Look at that pitching staff. They very well may win the NL West.

Marqhead
02-18-2009, 09:46 AM
Why shouldn't the Giants be ahead of us? Look at that pitching staff. They very well may win the NL West.

Look at that batting order, they might very well score less than 600 runs.

Thome25
02-18-2009, 10:19 AM
The power rankings mean absolutely NOTHING. I went back and looked at ESPN's past power rankings (I couldn't find archived copies of CBS Sportsline or Fox Sports' past MLB Power rankings.) and when the "experts" had us high on the list we usually had a pretty bad season and when they had us ranked low on the list, we usually did pretty well for ourselves.

It's usually a bad sign when the so-called experts think highly of your team because they're almost always wrong.

kittle42
02-18-2009, 10:42 AM
Carlos Quentin the only guy on the way up?

I don't think it's rational at all.

I was referring to the post I was quoting.

thedudeabides
02-18-2009, 11:25 AM
Why shouldn't the Giants be ahead of us? Look at that pitching staff. They very well may win the NL West.

They were 9th in the NL in era last year, have one of the worst offenses in baseball, and a very shaky bullpen. But, other than that I'd put them in front of the Sox.

Craig Grebeck
02-18-2009, 11:30 AM
They were 9th in the NL in era last year, have one of the worst offenses in baseball, and a very shaky bullpen. But, other than that I'd put them in front of the Sox.
Call me crazy, but I'll take a rotation of Lincecum-Cain-Johnson-Sanchez-Zito.

Marqhead
02-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Call me crazy, but I'll take a rotation of Lincecum-Cain-Johnson-Sanchez-Zito.

I would too, but I'd also bet a lot of money that they wont have a better record than the Sox. All in all, they are not a very impressive team.

Craig Grebeck
02-18-2009, 12:02 PM
I would too, but I'd also bet a lot of money that they wont have a better record than the Sox. All in all, they are not a very impressive team.
I would probably say the same thing about the White Sox. Considering the division the Giants play in, I believe they'll have a better record than the Sox, unless Kenny makes 1-2 additional moves.

thedudeabides
02-18-2009, 12:03 PM
Call me crazy, but I'll take a rotation of Lincecum-Cain-Johnson-Sanchez-Zito.

That has the makings to be a good rotation, but Sanchez and Zito were pretty below average last year, and who knows what RJ has left. Not to mention they're bad in every other aspect of the game. They were 72-90 in a very weak division and did little if anything to improve. I have no idea what your argument is here?

Marqhead
02-18-2009, 12:24 PM
I would probably say the same thing about the White Sox. Considering the division the Giants play in, I believe they'll have a better record than the Sox, unless Kenny makes 1-2 additional moves.

Fine then. Gentlemans bet.

You take the Giants, I'll take the Sox. At the end of the season we'll see who's eating crow.

oeo
02-18-2009, 12:47 PM
Why shouldn't the Giants be ahead of us? Look at that pitching staff. They very well may win the NL West.

You can't win if you can't score runs.

They did so much with a good pitching staff last year...

Craig Grebeck
02-18-2009, 12:48 PM
Fine then. Gentlemans bet.

You take the Giants, I'll take the Sox. At the end of the season we'll see who's eating crow.
I will get back to you about this on Opening Day, only to see what shakes out with regards to personnel in the spring.

Marqhead
02-18-2009, 12:49 PM
I will get back to you about this on Opening Day, only to see what shakes out with regards to personnel in the spring.

That's fair, but I stand to change my opinion by then as well. If the rosters remain as they are right now, I think the Sox will win more games.

chisox123
02-18-2009, 01:32 PM
MSNBC just released their predictions and have the Sox coming in last with the Twins winning the division. He says that there is to much slow-footed thump, and to many question marks throughout the rest of the line up. While there are plenty of question marks, last place, come on. He also says that Alexei could have trouble making the move to short, even though it is his natural position. He projects our record at 78-84. I know that it's still February and this is just another prediciction but still, last place?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6841778/?pg=12#spt_MLB_Spring_preview

kittle42
02-18-2009, 01:44 PM
MSNBC just released their predictions and have the Sox coming in last with the Twins winning the division. He says that there is to much slow-footed thump, and to many question marks throughout the rest of the line up. While there are plenty of question marks, last place, come on. He also says that Alexei could have trouble making the move to short, even though it is his natural position. He projects our record at 78-84. I know that it's still February and this is just another prediciction but still, last place?

78 wins will probably end up better than last place in the central, but I don't think 78 wins is that crazy of a prediction on the more negative end.

cws05champ
02-18-2009, 02:21 PM
78 wins will probably end up better than last place in the central, but I don't think 78 wins is that crazy of a prediction on the more negative end.
That's the thing about this Sox team...I can see them winning 73 games or around 90 games. The division this year is the most difficult to predict in recent memory and I can see anyone of the 5 teams rising up to finish 1st if things go right.

I don't blame national writers from afar with their predictions of doom for the Sox. They don't follow them like we all do...all they see is the loss of Crede, OC, Vazquez, Swisher et al and replaced with unproven youngsters. Whether all of the above guys were good or not they were proven veterans and a little easier to predict one way or another.

Let them make their predictions for Doom...the Sox always outperform these silly predictions that are made early in the spring.

Craig Grebeck
02-18-2009, 03:24 PM
That's the thing about this Sox team...I can see them winning 73 games or around 90 games. The division this year is the most difficult to predict in recent memory and I can see anyone of the 5 teams rising up to finish 1st if things go right.

I don't blame national writers from afar with their predictions of doom for the Sox. They don't follow them like we all do...all they see is the loss of Crede, OC, Vazquez, Swisher et al and replaced with unproven youngsters. Whether all of the above guys were good or not they were proven veterans and a little easier to predict one way or another.

Let them make their predictions for Doom...the Sox always outperform these silly predictions that are made early in the spring.
Do you mean to say they don't follow the Sox in the same incredibly biased manner that the fans do? Vazquez and Swisher are significant losses when you look at who is replacing each.

kittle42
02-18-2009, 03:31 PM
Do you mean to say they don't follow the Sox in the same incredibly biased manner that the fans do? Vazquez and Swisher are significant losses when you look at who is replacing each.

So is Cabrera if you consider 2B his replacement.

Now, of course, people will fire back at this saying Vazquez was erratic, Swisher had the worst year of his career, and Cabrera didn't bring the good entirely. These are all correct statements. But Grebeck is right - you have to try to look at these reports as being done fairly objectively, and mostly as the team looks on paper at this very time.

To an outsider, the Sox have lost a gold-glove caliber starting SS, an OF/1B whom the people making these lists probably think (based on career stats) will at least bounce back somewhat, and a SP who would still provide you 200+ innings and a league average ERA, at worst. They have replaced this personnel with unproven rookies and Bartolo Colon.

On paper, my friends, that don't-a-looka-too-good. On paper. And that's all these things are.

voodoochile
02-18-2009, 03:47 PM
MSNBC just released their predictions and have the Sox coming in last with the Twins winning the division. He says that there is to much slow-footed thump, and to many question marks throughout the rest of the line up. While there are plenty of question marks, last place, come on. He also says that Alexei could have trouble making the move to short, even though it is his natural position. He projects our record at 78-84. I know that it's still February and this is just another prediciction but still, last place?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6841778/?pg=12#spt_MLB_Spring_preview

Last place with 78 wins in our crappy division? No ****ing way. He's essentially saying everyone else is going to finish above .500 that's insane.

Are the Sox the only team with 3 question marks in their defensive alignment in the division? Everyone else is not only set but set with a solid player? :scratch:

Marqhead
02-18-2009, 03:49 PM
Last place with 78 wins in our crappy division? No ****ing way. He's essentially saying everyone else is going to finish above .500 that's insane.

Are the Sox the only team with 3 question marks in their defensive alignment in the division? Everyone else is not only set but set with a solid player? :scratch:

I'm also not a big fan of any of the rotations in the division save the Twins. This is the main reason for my added optimism. However the concerns provided by Grebeck and Kittle are very real.

voodoochile
02-18-2009, 04:02 PM
So is Cabrera if you consider 2B his replacement.

Now, of course, people will fire back at this saying Vazquez was irratic, Swisher had the worst year of his career, and Cabrera didn't bring the good entirely. These are all correct statements. But Grebeck is right - you have to try to look at these reports as being done fairly objectively, and mostly as the team looks on paper at this very time.

To an outsider, the Sox have lost a gold-glove caliber starting SS, an OF/1B whom the people making these lists probably think (based on career stats) will at least bounce back somewhat, and a SP who would still provide you 200+ innings and a league average ERA, at worst. They have replaced this personnel with unproven rookies and Bartolo Colon.

On paper, my friends, that don't-a-looka-too-good. On paper. And that's all these things are.

Say it isn't so...

You know those little red dotted lines under misspelled words can really help improve your posting...

areilly
02-18-2009, 04:16 PM
Let them make their predictions for Doom...the Sox always outperform these silly predictions that are made early in the spring.

2006.

And that is all I have to say to that.

Rohan
02-18-2009, 04:28 PM
Screw power rankings. They don't mean jack until we've started playing games, those will change drastically.

kittle42
02-18-2009, 04:37 PM
Say it isn't so...

You know those little red dotted lines under misspelled words can really help improve your posting...

I know. For some reason, they don't show up on my work computer. Must find a way to change those settings!

AZChiSoxFan
02-18-2009, 05:54 PM
Do you mean to say they don't follow the Sox in the same incredibly biased manner that the fans do? Vazquez and Swisher are significant losses when you look at who is replacing each.

No I don't mean to say that. I do mean to say that it's a joke that these national writers seem to know less about the Sox than the average poster here does. I mean, after all, isn't it the job of these national writers to know a little something about what they are covering? Oh wait, sorry. Nevermind.

Sure, because Swish was such a vital cog in what the Sox achieved last year.

cws05champ
02-18-2009, 05:55 PM
Do you mean to say they don't follow the Sox in the same incredibly biased manner that the fans do? Vazquez and Swisher are significant losses when you look at who is replacing each.
I agree, but did you not read the 2nd sentence of mine that you highlighted?

"Whether all of the above guys were good or not they were proven veterans and a little easier to predict one way or another"

So as I stated it's hard for us or anyone to predict correctly what the Sox will do because of the youngsters that are coming and replacing veterans....and once again in my first sentence I said I can see them winning 73 games just as I could see 90 wins.

Tragg
02-18-2009, 11:57 PM
Do you mean to say they don't follow the Sox in the same incredibly biased manner that the fans do? Vazquez and Swisher are significant losses when you look at who is replacing each.
23rd? Come on.
And the Indians soar to #9 because of the mediocre players they picked up?

Williams 7, Shapiro 1.

Thome25
02-19-2009, 11:03 AM
USA Today (in their Sports Weekly AL Spring Training Preview.) has us ranked 10th overall 6th in the AL and 2nd in the AL Central.

oeo
02-19-2009, 11:10 AM
USA Today (in their Sports Weekly AL Spring Training Preview.) has us ranked 10th overall 6th in the AL and 2nd in the AL Central.

This and the Fox Sports rankings I can understand. I was more upset with these CBS rankings because of who was in front of us. They should be at least middle of the pack, not in the bottom half.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-19-2009, 05:05 PM
Call me crazy, but I'll take a rotation of Lincecum-Cain-Johnson-Sanchez-Zito.

I would too. But they can't score for ****. Trust me, I bet on their games a lot last year (mainly the under when they played the Dodgers and Giants). They scored the 2nd least amount of runs (640) last season. Only the Padres (637) scored less.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-19-2009, 05:07 PM
23rd? Come on.
And the Indians soar to #9 because of the mediocre players they picked up?

Williams 7, Shapiro 1.

Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood aren't "mediocre" improvements.
Carl Pavano may end up helping a bit also.
Throw in Hafner and V-Mart being healthier?

Huge improvements.

Frontman
02-19-2009, 06:51 PM
Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood aren't "mediocre" improvements.
Carl Pavano may end up helping a bit also.
Throw in Hafner and V-Mart being healthier?

Huge improvements.

An aging pitcher who is one good throw away from ending a career that never lived up to the promise and a solid utility player are huge improvements? I'll give you Hafner being healthy will do wonders for their lineup, but the Ohio Cubs aren't impressing me as being massive improvements.

Craig Grebeck
02-19-2009, 06:54 PM
An aging pitcher who is one good throw away from ending a career that never lived up to the promise and a solid utility player are huge improvements? I'll give you Hafner being healthy will do wonders for their lineup, but the Ohio Cubs aren't impressing me as being massive improvements.
DeRosa is far more than a solid utility player.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 07:43 PM
Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood aren't "mediocre" improvements.
Carl Pavano may end up helping a bit also.
Throw in Hafner and V-Mart being healthier?

Huge improvements.

Ha ha ha... Mark DeRosa is barely worthy of a starting position, Kerry Wood's arm is always a ticking time bomb, and Travis Hafner will probably not be hitting again until he's no longer required to pee in a cup.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 07:44 PM
DeRosa is far more than a solid utility player.

Yeah, that's why he's never won a regular job at any stop in his career.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 08:25 PM
Yeah, that's why he's never won a regular job at any stop in his career.
Just because the Cubs were stupid enough to keep playing Fukudome in RF last year, it doesn't diminish DeRosa's value.

Also, I think people are underestimating just how good Kerry Wood was last year.

Now, I don't think the Indians are a 90-win team (Hafner and Martinez could legitimately be toast), but no one in the central is. And the Indians are the only team I am confident will win 85 games. I'd rank them first.

In fact, I'd rank the central teams CLE-CHI-DET-MIN-KC, with no one better than #12-15, no one except KC worse than #20-23.

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 08:44 PM
Just because the Cubs were stupid enough to keep playing Fukudome in RF last year, it doesn't diminish DeRosa's value.

Also, I think people are underestimating just how good Kerry Wood was last year.

Now, I don't think the Indians are a 90-win team (Hafner and Martinez could legitimately be toast), but no one in the central is. And the Indians are the only team I am confident will win 85 games. I'd rank them first.

In fact, I'd rank the central teams CLE-CHI-DET-MIN-KC, with no one better than #12-15, no one except KC worse than #20-23.

I would put Miinesota above the rest of the group, if only because of their pitching.

The Sox should be in the top two because they return a large part of the lineup that put up good numbers, a decent staff with a few ?s and a good bullpen.

Cleveland on paper is a decent team, but they were exposed last season. They will probably rebound, but who knows.

Detroit has done nothing to catapult them to the top of the league. Suspect rotation, suspect pen. Lineup with good pop, but still has holes.

KC has improved, but they are still a couple seasons away from contending.

Frontman
02-19-2009, 09:09 PM
Just because the Cubs were stupid enough to keep playing Fukudome in RF last year, it doesn't diminish DeRosa's value.

Also, I think people are underestimating just how good Kerry Wood was last year.


DeRosa was over-valued by the fanbase here in Chicago. He's a solid player, and any roster would want him; but he isn't a top 30 player at ANY position he plays.

And one good year does not make up for 12 of disappointment. Wood had a great year last year. So great that the CUBS PASSED ON HIM. Something tells me that Wood might look good, he might start out good, but something isn't right if the Cubs passed on their posterboy for the past decade.

whitesox901
02-19-2009, 09:14 PM
Why all the Tribe Love?

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 09:15 PM
Why all the Tribe Love?

Grady Sizemore envy? :shrug:

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 09:28 PM
DeRosa was over-valued by the fanbase here in Chicago. He's a solid player, and any roster would want him; but he isn't a top 30 player at ANY position he plays.

And one good year does not make up for 12 of disappointment. Wood had a great year last year. So great that the CUBS PASSED ON HIM. Something tells me that Wood might look good, he might start out good, but something isn't right if the Cubs passed on their posterboy for the past decade.
Agree to disagree on DeRosa. I think he's easily a top-30 second baseman, borderline top 30 third baseman.

As for Wood, I don't necessarily think it was a great signing, due to injury concerns, but he did have an excellent year last year. And he's had a few more good ones, 1998 and 2003 come to mind off the top of my head.

Frontman
02-19-2009, 09:47 PM
Agree to disagree on DeRosa. I think he's easily a top-30 second baseman, borderline top 30 third baseman.

As for Wood, I don't necessarily think it was a great signing, due to injury concerns, but he did have an excellent year last year. And he's had a few more good ones, 1998 and 2003 come to mind off the top of my head.

Agreed on Wood, disagree on DeRosa.

Next up on from the mezzanine, we review the signings of Sabathia and Burnett. :wink:

doublem23
02-19-2009, 10:11 PM
Also, I think people are underestimating just how good Kerry Wood was last year.

Nobody is saying Wood wasn't great last year, or that if he stays healthy he'll be a great pickup for Cleveland, but as everyone knows he's a major injury risk. If he's the guy that stabilizes your bullpen, well, you'd better have a good Plan B because it's very likely you'll need it.

tm1119
02-19-2009, 10:25 PM
DeRosa was over-valued by the fanbase here in Chicago. He's a solid player, and any roster would want him; but he isn't a top 30 player at ANY position he plays.

And one good year does not make up for 12 of disappointment. Wood had a great year last year. So great that the CUBS PASSED ON HIM. Something tells me that Wood might look good, he might start out good, but something isn't right if the Cubs passed on their posterboy for the past decade.

What you just said is that Mark Derosa is THE worst starting 2nd baseman in the MLB, and a few teams even have a backup 2B that is also better. That statement could not be further from the truth. He is easily a top 15 2B and arguably top 10.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 11:06 PM
What you just said is that Mark Derosa is THE worst starting 2nd baseman in the MLB, and a few teams even have a backup 2B that is also better. That statement could not be further from the truth. He is easily a top 15 2B and arguably top 10.

Easily top 15. Arguably Top 10? :rolling:

Mark DeRosa really isn't that great. .279/.348/.422. OK numbers, but not great. He's a valuable player, but come on, he's not a franchise player.

He's also 34 and coming off a career year. Yeah, DeRosa's nice, but let's not pretend like the Tribe picked up A-Rod.

tm1119
02-19-2009, 11:22 PM
Easily top 15. Arguably Top 10? :rolling:

Mark DeRosa really isn't that great. .279/.348/.422. OK numbers, but not great. He's a valuable player, but come on, he's not a franchise player.

He's also 34 and coming off a career year. Yeah, DeRosa's nice, but let's not pretend like the Tribe picked up A-Rod.

Since when does being the 11th or 12th best 2B in the league make you a franchise player? And if you look at his numbers since '06 there is no real argument that he has been a top 15 2B in the league. Hes been averaging about a .290 AVG, .365 OBP, .820 OPS, with 15 HRS and 75 RBI's. Again, easily a top 15 2B.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-20-2009, 12:31 AM
Easily top 15. Arguably Top 10? :rolling:

Mark DeRosa really isn't that great. .279/.348/.422. OK numbers, but not great. He's a valuable player, but come on, he's not a franchise player.

He's also 34 and coming off a career year. Yeah, DeRosa's nice, but let's not pretend like the Tribe picked up A-Rod.

In my book, OK numbers equate to an OK player.
So which one is he, an OK player or a valuable player (HUGE difference)?

You don't even know where you stand when it concerns DeRosa and you're questioning other peoples' views?

DeRosa also brings a lot into the clubhouse. He is loved by all of his former teammates and I don't see that changing. I'm not saying he's a "franchise player", no one even hinted at that until you brought it up. But he's not a chump either.

I think some of you Cubs haters can't take the filters off and talk about current/former Cubs players without the bias. I've always said that if I'm ever accused of being a Cubs hater, I correct people and say I'm a Cubs FAN hater. The team is talented. Extremely talented. Now, their luck? That's another issue.

I won't take this conversation further, right now. But when the Tribe and Sox play, when DeRosa knocks in a few key runs here and there, when I read some of you writing things like, "That ****ing former Cub! What a piece of ****!", and when Wood converts most all of his saves against us and the same people say other stupid things, that's when I'll continue this convo.

kittle42
02-20-2009, 01:04 AM
I think some of you Cubs haters can't take the filters off and talk about current/former Cubs players without the bias. I've always said that if I'm ever accused of being a Cubs hater, I correct people and say I'm a Cubs FAN hater. The team is talented. Extremely talented. Now, their luck? That's another issue.

I won't take this conversation further, right now. But when the Tribe and Sox play, when DeRosa knocks in a few key runs here and there, when I read some of you writing things like, "That ****ing former Cub! What a piece of ****!", and when Wood converts most all of his saves against us and the same people say other stupid things, that's when I'll continue this convo.

Good call, except my favorite memory of Kerry Wood is the Sox coming back from an 8-0 deficit against him.

But really, I do agree with you. Cubbie hatred comes through very much in those kind of responses.

whitesox901
02-20-2009, 01:17 AM
I don't have anything against DeRosa, It's because he's a Cubs, its cause he's going to be an Indian :redneck

But seriously, I think he'll be a bust is because he's in his thirties and just came off a career year, the same way I feel about Cliff Lee

doublem23
02-20-2009, 01:33 AM
In my book, OK numbers equate to an OK player.
So which one is he, an OK player or a valuable player (HUGE difference)?

You don't even know where you stand when it concerns DeRosa and you're questioning other peoples' views?

What part of OK numbers and valuable player did you have difficulty understanding? He put up those "OK" numbers in the best lineup in the National League; the Cubs offense was a machine last year. Even if you think there's no major skill disparity between the AL and NL, he'll be moving from a very good offensive team to an, at best, average offensive team. His value is enhanced because he can play multiple positions, but come on, people, they picked up a utility infielder/outfielder, not the missing piece to a championship puzzle.

As for Wood, NO ONE IS DENYING HE'S A GOOD PITCHER, we're just reminding everyone that his arm is very, very fragile. The 66.1 IP he threw last year were the most he's thrown since 2004. Suggesting Kerry Wood might not be effective all year because of his well documented injury history is not saying "he totally sucks."

Some of you need to take your blinders off about these ex-Cub players. I know they had a good team last year, but playing with the Cubs doesn't turn you into some sort of baseball god.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-20-2009, 01:34 AM
Good call, except my favorite memory of Kerry Wood is the Sox coming back from an 8-0 deficit against him.

But really, I do agree with you. Cubbie hatred comes through very much in those kind of responses.

There should be no reason for Wood to be in an 8-0 game. :tongue:

I don't want to make it sound like DeRosa will single-handedly defeat the Sox EVERY time the Tribe play them. No. But I'm predicting that he will play a big role in the outcome of a couple of games (out of the 19 or so in which we play Cleveland). Same goes for Wood. I see him having 5 save opps against us this upcoming season and converting all but one. Complete bull**** predictions obviously.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 01:35 AM
Good call, except my favorite memory of Kerry Wood is the Sox coming back from an 8-0 deficit against him.

But really, I do agree with you. Cubbie hatred comes through very much in those kind of responses.

Sometimes you guys dig too deep to find "Cubbie hatred." Suggesting Mark DeRosa isn't a superstar or the Kerry Wood might spend the year on the DL isn't some sort of anti-Cub bias. They're just facts.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-20-2009, 01:47 AM
What part of OK numbers and valuable player did you have difficulty understanding?

Hmmm, maybe the FACT that "OK numbers" aren't put up by valuable players? Just a guess. But you clearly are making sense and I'm just not understanding you. :rolleyes:


He put up those "OK" numbers in the best lineup in the National League; the Cubs offense was a machine last year.

.285 BA, .376 OBP, .857 OPS, 21 HR, 87 RBI, 30 2B, 3 3B, 6 SB, 0 CS
this a year after...
.293 BA, .371 OBP, .791 OPS, 10 HR, 72 RBI, 28 2B, 3 3B
this a year after...
.296 BA, .357 OBP, .813 OPS, 13 HR, 74 RBI, 40 2B, 2 3B

Oh yeh, "OK" numbers. And "only one productive year".


but playing with the Cubs doesn't turn you into some sort of baseball god. .

Who the hell said anything about DeRosa being a "baseball god" or compared his acquisition to that of A-Rod's or called him a "franchise player"?! :dunno:

You're making things up now to fool yourself into thinking we're making DeRosa sound like Albert Pujols. The problem is, you're failing to realize that you're TRYING (unsuccessfully) to make him sound like Juan Uribe.

This is one of your worst arguments, if not the worst, ever. Quit now and just admit you said what you said without really knowing how well DeRosa has done the last 3 years and because you hate the Cubs.

Frontman
02-20-2009, 08:17 AM
The love affair with DeRosa continues long after his departure. Like most Hollywood superstar actors; he even gets the fans of other teams to fall in love with him.

:wink:

Just keep saying "a week from Sunday, a week from Sunday, a week from Sunday..."

kittle42
02-20-2009, 10:32 AM
Sometimes you guys dig too deep to find "Cubbie hatred." Suggesting Mark DeRosa isn't a superstar or the Kerry Wood might spend the year on the DL isn't some sort of anti-Cub bias. They're just facts.

Oh, I agree with both those things, but dismissing Wood as a bound-to-be-injured guy and, thus, worthless, is ridiculous. You are not doing that - in fact, I agree with your position on both players completely - but some are.

Hell, if the Cubs signed Manny, some here would figure out a way to turn Manny Ramirez into the equivalent of Joe Borchard.

Craig Grebeck
02-20-2009, 10:33 AM
DeRosa was over-valued by the fanbase here in Chicago. He's a solid player, and any roster would want him; but he isn't a top 30 player at ANY position he plays.

And one good year does not make up for 12 of disappointment. Wood had a great year last year. So great that the CUBS PASSED ON HIM. Something tells me that Wood might look good, he might start out good, but something isn't right if the Cubs passed on their posterboy for the past decade.
1. The last three years disagree heavily with your statement regarding DeRosa. He's been great.
2. The Cub braintrust is not infallible. They wanted to save that money to pay Milton Bradley, and felt Kevin Gregg would get the job done. Not smart.

areilly
02-20-2009, 10:36 AM
Oh, I agree with both those things, but dismissing Wood as a bound-to-be-injured guy and, thus, worthless, is ridiculous. You are not doing that - in fact, I agree with your position on both players completely - but some are.

Kerry Wood has been injured in one way or another in eight of his ten major league seasons. The odds of him doing it again are substantially high.

Eddo144
02-20-2009, 10:42 AM
In my book, OK numbers equate to an OK player.
So which one is he, an OK player or a valuable player (HUGE difference)?
I agree with your take on DeRosa, but I would like to point out that even an "OK" player is valuable. The Sox lost an OK player in Cabrera and may very well wind up with a black hole at 2B. OK goes a long way when there are 30 teams.

Eddo144
02-20-2009, 10:43 AM
Sometimes you guys dig too deep to find "Cubbie hatred." Suggesting Mark DeRosa isn't a superstar or the Kerry Wood might spend the year on the DL isn't some sort of anti-Cub bias. They're just facts.
I didn't hear anyone arguing that DeRosa is a superstar, just that he's a rather valuable player. Someone earlier referred to him as "mediocre", that's what led to this debate.

Frontman
02-25-2009, 10:31 PM
Anyone see on the MLB Network ticker that Wood is now hurt, and won't throw for "an extended period" due to an injury to his back?

I believe a lot of us who were showing "Cubbie hatred" by saying he was injury prone might be so much haters rather than just being people who paid attention the past 12 years....

Speedy recovery for Wood, as I never want to hear that a player is hurt, but when someone over 12 years keeps getting hurt, it wasn't a leap of faith to think he might get hurt again in year 13...

WhiteSoxFan84
02-26-2009, 02:45 AM
I agree with your take on DeRosa, but I would like to point out that even an "OK" player is valuable. The Sox lost an OK player in Cabrera and may very well wind up with a black hole at 2B. OK goes a long way when there are 30 teams.

Your definition of "OK player" and mine are completely different.
Recent "OK players" on the White Sox roster: Juan Uribe, Pablo Ozuna (although Hawk and DJ tried their best to make us believe that 2007 was a failure because he was injured, what a load of crap), Rob Mackowiak, Alex Cintron, Darin Erstad, etc.
An All-Star/Gold Glove shortstop making $9M last year, is not an "OK player". But again, our definitions of the term are completely different.



Anyone see on the MLB Network ticker that Wood is now hurt, and won't throw for "an extended period" due to an injury to his back?

I believe a lot of us who were showing "Cubbie hatred" by saying he was injury prone might be so much haters rather than just being people who paid attention the past 12 years....

Speedy recovery for Wood, as I never want to hear that a player is hurt, but when someone over 12 years keeps getting hurt, it wasn't a leap of faith to think he might get hurt again in year 13...

He could sit out all of ST and still pitch the whole regular season.
Pat yourself on the back if he misses an extended period of time during the season. Or heck, any more than a week during the regular season. Not saying it's impossible, but this ST is 6 weeks. Some guys may not want to be throwing the whole time.
As for your last statement about him being hurt so much over the 12 years, how many games has he missed since moving to the bullpen?
Most all of his injuries occurred when he kept trying to be a starter.

Frontman
02-26-2009, 08:12 AM
Your definition of "OK player" and mine are completely different.
Recent "OK players" on the White Sox roster: Juan Uribe, Pablo Ozuna (although Hawk and DJ tried their best to make us believe that 2007 was a failure because he was injured, what a load of crap), Rob Mackowiak, Alex Cintron, Darin Erstad, etc.
An All-Star/Gold Glove shortstop making $9M last year, is not an "OK player". But again, our definitions of the term are completely different.


He could sit out all of ST and still pitch the whole regular season.
Pat yourself on the back if he misses an extended period of time during the season. Or heck, any more than a week during the regular season. Not saying it's impossible, but this ST is 6 weeks. Some guys may not want to be throwing the whole time.
As for your last statement about him being hurt so much over the 12 years, how many games has he missed since moving to the bullpen?
Most all of his injuries occurred when he kept trying to be a starter.

He did a stint on the DL last season too during the "comeback" year. (Granted, it was for being a moron and trying to 'fix' a blister on his throwing hand; still missed time on the DL.)

My point on bringing that back up is that it seems that if you are critical of the Cubs or former Cubs players; some around here immediately go to the "Cubbie hatred" mantra. Which reminds me of a certain WSCR host who can't handle anyone who disagrees with him about baseball and immediately labels the caller "Musta been a Sox fan..."

WSI has a lot of intelligent baseball fans; but sometimes they fly a bit too quickly with the labels and the annointings.

Eddo144
02-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Your definition of "OK player" and mine are completely different.
Recent "OK players" on the White Sox roster: Juan Uribe, Pablo Ozuna (although Hawk and DJ tried their best to make us believe that 2007 was a failure because he was injured, what a load of crap), Rob Mackowiak, Alex Cintron, Darin Erstad, etc.
An All-Star/Gold Glove shortstop making $9M last year, is not an "OK player". But again, our definitions of the term are completely different.
I would call Uribe (post-2005), Ozuna, Cintron, and Erstad "bad" players, not "OK" ones. If they shouldn't be in the lineup, they're not "OK". Mackowiak was "OK" offensively, but a horror in the field, so I wouldn't say that he was "OK" overall.

Cabrera was an All-Star and Gold Glove shortstop in the past. Last year he was just "OK". And salary is absolutely no way to judge a player's quality. Does Quentin's low salary make him any less good?

Tragg
02-26-2009, 01:50 PM
He's in his mid 30s; his obp has been great for the last couple of years (he was mediocre or worse until his early 30s), but if he drops back to 10-15 homers and a .350 obp, which is reasonable, "Great" would not be the term to describe him.
That plus Kerry Wood and a few plugs....I'll take the Sox.

soxinem1
02-26-2009, 02:57 PM
I normally do not care what these ranking say. Teams always drop or rise in double digits in as little as a week> However:

WAS only one behind us, BAL, TEX, OAK, and CIN ahead?

Except maybe the A's, none of those teams even have a decent front three in their rotations.

So we have question marks. So what? Who doesn't?

But remember, these amateur ranking guys love to cover their tracks in a heart beat. If the team starts well, we will move up?

Frontman
02-26-2009, 03:30 PM
But remember, these amateur ranking guys love to cover their tracks in a heart beat. If the team starts well, we will move up?

Without Rowand, Crede or DeRosa? Never in a million years will the Sox start well!

Whitesox029
02-26-2009, 04:25 PM
Can't argue too much with this dude's reasoning... There are holes all over this roster.

I would like to know what formula he used to devise these rankings.
:D:There is no formula at all. He did this on a whim. You can tell by the first ranking:

1. Phillies
"They get the top slot in the initial rankings because they're the defending champs."

Which is a boldfaced contradiction of his reasoning for the Sox' ranking. I.E., this guy just sat down at his computer, looked at the baseball prospectus rankings, and changed them just enough so as not to plagiarize them. Probably took him 20 minutes, tops.