PDA

View Full Version : 2010 Roster Will Be Tied To Revenue


Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 09:52 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-14-white-sox-chicago-aug14,0,1949075.story

If the Sox blow a chance to get Figgins they'll regret it. Does anybody think Podsednik (a terrible outfielder by the way) can do it again? At 34?? If he can't, who leads off? Same old problem.

Oh and how about the little matter of a 5th starter (which is costing the Sox big time this year). They don't need a 20 game winner, they don't need an All Star, just a competent pitcher who isn't 50 years old (Contreras), weighs 400 pounds (Colon) or can't get out of the 5th inning (Richard).

Now is not the time to go cheap JR...not if you want those advertising deals renewed and fans to pay premium prices for tickets next off season.

Kenny's done a lot of good work but there's still miles to go, there's work to be done as the poem goes. Finish the job, don't start to cut corners.

Lip

gobears1987
08-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Don't believe anything that Kenny says about payroll. He made comments in early July that suggested the Sox would be cutting payroll and not to expect anything. He then went under the RADAR and got us Peavy and Rios.

Don't believe anything Kenny has said. I would think after all the years we would learn this lesson by now. Kenny wants Figgins, and if Kenny wants a player, then he goes out and gets him no matter what. If Figgins becomes a free agent, then you can be sure Kenny goes after him.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 09:58 PM
Figgins will be a free agent after this season...we'll see.

Lip

illinifan1368
08-13-2009, 10:00 PM
Please, not another Figgins thread

gobears1987
08-13-2009, 10:00 PM
Figgins will be a free agent after this season...we'll see.

Lip
We're assuming the Angels don't extend him, but yes barring that he does become a free agent.

DirtySox
08-13-2009, 10:16 PM
I'd imagine they go cheap on a 5th starter or stay in house with Hudson.

I don't think Pods will be back. I doubt he will continue to put up the numbers he has so far this year, he's brutal in the outfield, and is questionable running the bases.

Frater Perdurabo
08-13-2009, 10:17 PM
Let's not "borrow trouble," Lip. Let's enjoy these next seven (and hopefully more) weeks instead.

As for next year, Rios has solved the CF problem. Pods would be acceptable in LF and leadoff; Dye and Quentin can share RF and DH duties. Peavy/Buehrle/Floyd/Danks may be the best rotation 1-4 in the majors.

Losing Contreras pays for Peavy. Losing Thome pays for Rios. Losing Dotel pays for that fifth starter. Getting Peavy back in a few weeks helps win the division, boosts season ticket sales for 2010, and thus provides the money to upgrade LF/leadoff to Figgins over Pods.

rocky biddle
08-13-2009, 10:31 PM
Let's not "borrow trouble," Lip. Let's enjoy these next seven (and hopefully more) weeks instead.

As for next year, Rios has solved the CF problem. Pods would be acceptable in LF and leadoff; Dye and Quentin can share RF and DH duties. Peavy/Buehrle/Floyd/Danks may be the best rotation 1-4 in the majors.

Losing Contreras pays for Peavy. Losing Thome pays for Rios. Losing Dotel pays for that fifth starter. Getting Peavy back in a few weeks helps win the division, boosts season ticket sales for 2010, and thus provides the money to upgrade LF/leadoff to Figgins over Pods.

Stop with that nonsense. This is a travesty. A travesty!!!

areilly
08-13-2009, 10:39 PM
He then went under the RADAR and got us Peavy and Rios.

I hope he grinds his way to building a team with a chip on its shoulder that no one believes in, because that team would never stop believin'!!! IN KENNY WE TRUST!

Oh for the day "under the radar" be relegated to the same fate as Brandon McCarthy's much-derided nickname...

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 10:40 PM
Frater:

Your views intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
08-13-2009, 10:48 PM
Frater:

Your views intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Lip

Hey Lip:

Obviously KW shouldn't bypass an opportunity to upgrade ANY position, and no one is truly untouchable, but do you think Chris Getz has performed well enough (projects to .267/.325, with 26 doubles, six triples and 28 steals) to earn the 2B job for 2010? He seems to handle the bat well, plays solid defense, and is an excellent baserunner and base stealer.

doublem23
08-13-2009, 10:50 PM
Figgins is going to be 32 next year, I don't see why he's such a sure thing when Scotty Pods is such a huge risk. Figgins will get a much nicer deal on the open market. If you can sign him, he'd fit in nicely, but breaking the bank on Chone Figgins, a guy who really doesn't fill a pressing need for the 2010 Sox is misguided... At best.

Noneck
08-13-2009, 10:58 PM
I really hate the threats of going with the unproven youth if they don't win the division. If it is for the reason that the youth will give the Sox a better chance to compete, that's ok, but it doesn't seem that way. It is like, you pay now and you have to suffer because we didn't do our job.

doublem23
08-13-2009, 11:03 PM
I really hate the threats of going with the unproven youth if they don't win the division. If it is for the reason that the youth will give the Sox a better chance to compete, that's ok, but it doesn't seem that way. It is like, you pay now and you have to suffer because we didn't do our job.

Every good team is a mix of youngsters and vets, if the Sox think they can just buy every FA on the market and bring home a winner, they are seriously mistaken, especially a guy like Chone Figgins, who if you actually look at his stats, you'll notice he's not the steadiest player ever.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/figgich01.shtml

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:12 PM
Now is not the time to go cheap JR...

Seriously? Sometimes you are a cartoon of yourself.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:14 PM
Double:

Let's see...Figgins can lead off...the Sox could need that next year if Podsednik is gone but more importantly, regardless of if Pods leaves, it helps solidify that area for the next few years. That's something Posednik can not do. Yes it's only two years but to a major league player two years can be a lifetime ditto for an organization.

Figgins can play multiple positions giving Ozzie even more flexibility which he craves. Play him at 2nd, play him at 3rd, play him in center...regardless of where he plays if you sign him he must play somewhere every day.

Figgins given the Sox more speed and good base stealing ability.

If you simply are comparing him to Podsednik straight up, he wins easily... now add in the flexibility factor and his signing if he's on the market is an absolute no brainer for the White Sox.

Frater:

Regarding Getz my views are fairly well known. I think he's a nice role player... could be a super utility guy playing once or twice a week in the starting lineup but usually coming off the bench in the late innings as a lefty slap hitter and a speed guy on the bases.

As far as a "regular" starter... until he improves his defense and more importantly his mental understanding of the game, hitting .265 isn't enough for me. Now have him hit .300 or .320 and that's different circumstances.

If the Sox were to get Figgins as the starting 2nd baseman next year and move Getz to the ultility slot, I won't bitch.

Jab:

Thanks for the insight! My point is, you've spent all this money on Peavy and Rios... don't start chiseling, don't start cutting corners...go the distance, finish the job, fill the remaining holes. That's not so hard to understand is it?

That's like someone who spends fifty grand on a Corvette and then bitches about the insurance or someone who spends a million on a home than chisels on the landscaping.

Lip

tacosalbarojas
08-13-2009, 11:17 PM
Figgins is going to be 32 next year, I don't see why he's such a sure thing when Scotty Pods is such a huge risk. Figgins will get a much nicer deal on the open market. If you can sign him, he'd fit in nicely, but breaking the bank on Chone Figgins, a guy who really doesn't fill a pressing need for the 2010 Sox is misguided... At best.Thank you. The fixation on Figgins is such a waste IMO.

gobears1987
08-13-2009, 11:18 PM
Thank you. The fixation on Figgins is such a waste IMO.It isn't just a fan fixation. It's Kenny's fixation, and I've learned over the years that if Kenny is fixated on a player, then it is best to just let him get that player.

doublem23
08-13-2009, 11:20 PM
If you simply are comparing him to Podsednik straight up, he wins easily now add in the flexibility factor and his signing if he's on the market is an absolute no brainer for the White Sox.


Except that Figgins will likely need a much larger paycheck than Podsednik will and while Figgins can play multiple positions, it's not like he plays one we're seriously hurting at any more.

I'm sure the Sox were "cheap" in 2005 when they let Maggs walk, but they turned the money they would have only paid him and turned it into Dye, Pierzynski, and Iguchi.

Strictly on the baseball field yes, Figgins is probably more valuable than Pods, but you're ignoring a very important factor (cost). Which, I understand, since it flies in the face of your argument.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:20 PM
Taco:

So are you suggesting someone else? Or do you think Podsednik can play the game again at the same level next year at 34? With his history?

Just wondering.

Lip

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:26 PM
Double:

A few things.

First, and I know it's trite, but it's not my money I could care less. I care about winning... not profit... which to me is the first reason why sports teams exist... especially when they are a public trust AND when tax payers subsidized the building of the stadium which the owners have a sweetheart lease agreement with.

Second more importantly, like I told Jab, you're going to spend all this money on Peavy and Rios then you jeopardize it because you might not have a lead off hitter again? Do you remember the follies for this offense the first five weeks (even with Podsednik they are having issues but that's another discussion...) plus the fact Podsednik may not even be an option, then what?

My only argument is to win the pennant. Everything else from balance sheets to the feelings of the players, the media and the like are all a very distant second.

The Sox have the guts of a very serious, very deadly team next year. I'd hate to see them piss that chance away because they "forgot" something.

Lip

Daver
08-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Double:

A few things.

First, and I know it's trite, but it's not my money I could care less. I care about winning... not profit... which to me is the first reason why sports teams exist... especially when they are a public trust AND when tax payers subsidized the building of the stadium which the owners have a sweetheart lease agreement with.

Second more importantly, like I told Jab, you're going to spend all this money on Peavy and Rios then you jeopardize it because you might not have a lead off hitter again? Do you remember the follies for this offense the first five weeks (even with Podsednik they are having issues but that's another discussion...) plus the fact Podsednik may not even be an option, then what?

My only argument is to win the pennant. Everything else from balance sheets to the feelings of the players, the media and the like are all a very distant second.

The Sox have the guts of a very serious, very deadly team next year. I'd hate to see them piss that chance away because they "forgot" something.

Lip

Rios can hit leadoff.

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Jab:

Thanks for the insight! My point is, you've spent all this money on Peavy and Rios... don't start chiseling, don't start cutting corners...go the distance, finish the job, fill the remaining holes. That's not so hard to understand is it?

That's like someone who spends fifty grand on a Corvette and then bitches about the insurance or someone who spends a million on a home than chisels on the landscaping.

Lip

That's crap Lip.

They just committed to about 100mm for 2 guys over the next 5 years - and you talk of being "cheap".

It's like going to a dinner party and bitching that the caviar they served with the Dom Perignon is Beluga and not Seruga...or whatever the hell good/bad caviar is.

It's like telling your supermodel girlfriend to make sure she doesn't get a pimple on her ass.

It's like winning the 500mm lottery and bitching that you have to share it with someone else who got the same numbers.

CHEAP? Are you ****ing serious Lip?

No team (worse than us) made a claim on Rios - because nobody wanted to spend the money. No other teams showed interest in Peavy (at least not that has been made public) because nobody wanted to pay that kind of cash and give up prospects.

CHEAP? REALLY? Come on Lip. If they stop now, and don't get Figgins, it isn't because they are CHEAP. It is because they reached the threashold of what an operating budget allows. That's not too hard to understand... is it?

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:32 PM
Daver:

Can he? I thought I saw a thread here at WSI that said he's done it, but very rarely and the long term results weren't known because he hasn't done it that much.

Can you supply some numbers?

If Rios can that certainly changes the dynamic.

Lip

anewman35
08-13-2009, 11:33 PM
The Sox have the guts of a very serious, very deadly team next year. I'd hate to see them piss that chance away because they "forgot" something.

Lip

Every team, no matter how much money is spent, is going to have some hole on it. I'd hate to overpay for Figgens to fill some hole we imagine we have, just to have something else come up and not be able to afford to do anything about it. And, yes, I know you think that JR should spend unlimited money on the team and there should never come a time where we can't afford to do something, but that's just not realistic (and not very fair, either). If we could get him for a decent contract, sure, but don't act like he's the one thing determining how this team does next year.

kittle42
08-13-2009, 11:34 PM
Lip:

Why do you refuse to ever use the quote function?

kittle42

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:34 PM
Nothing gets Jab going like defending ownership.

Jab there's no point in going over it again. Finish the job for next year, they need a lead off hitter and they need a 5th starter, get it done.

Period.

If it's the word that upsets you so, feel free to suggest another one. I concede it may have been used injudiciously.

Lip

KenBerryGrab
08-13-2009, 11:35 PM
Kenny gets out of the gate on 2010, filling the centerfield hole, giving himself flexibility on Thome-Dye and ensuring one of the best top 4 rotations in the AL, and there's kvetching it might not be enough?

I honestly don't get it.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:37 PM
Anew:

I'm not determining anything. It's interrelated. You've read the article, my point is, it's stupid to spend the money they have... they see it come apart because the leadoff position is still a black hole (especially if Podsednik leaves) and the 5th starters go 5-18 (kind of like this year...)

Lip

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Ken:

Do you want to try to win a mediocre division next year or take on the Yankees / Red Sox and Angels for the pennant? Your choice.

Lip

anewman35
08-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Nothing gets Jab going like defending ownership.

Jab there's no point in going over it again. Finish the job for next year, they need a lead off hitter and they need a 5th starter, get it done.

Period.

If it's the word that upsets you so, feel free to suggest another one.

Lip

Name me a single team in baseball that's solid at every starting position and all 5 starter spots. If we could get that, great, but I don't think it's fair to say Kenny hasn't finished the job if he hasn't gotten solid players at every single spot available.

doublem23
08-13-2009, 11:39 PM
Nothing gets Jab going like defending ownership.

Jab there's no point in going over it again. Finish the job for next year, they need a lead off hitter and they need a 5th starter, get it done.

Period.

If it's the word that upsets you so, feel free to suggest another one.

Lip

And nothing gets you going like ripping ownership that in the past 10 years has won 3 division titles, 90 games twice, and, oh yes, a World Series.

They know what they're doing more than you. Just deal with it.

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:39 PM
Nothing gets Jab going like defending ownership.

Jab there's no point in going over it again. Finish the job for next year, they need a lead off hitter and they need a 5th starter, get it done.

Period.

If it's the word that upsets you so, feel free to suggest another one.

Lip

I don't disagree that I'd like a team with no holes - all-stars at every position. It isn't impossible that we will have that. But if we don't, CHEAP is assinine.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:40 PM
Jab:

Again they wrong word may have been used. Suggest another one or deal with that.

Lip

anewman35
08-13-2009, 11:41 PM
Ken:

Do you want to try to win a mediocre division next year or take on the Yankees / Red Sox and Angels for the pennant? Your choice.

Lip

Do you want to have a good, solid team for the next few years or spend way too much getting into bidding wars to sign solid leadoff men and 5th starters and then not have any flexibility to upgrade if another hole opens up?

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Anew:

Kenny has little to do with this. He takes his orders just like everyone else.

That's why you give him a pass on the start of the off season. I'm sure he was in a box and had no option but to get / use stiffs like Lillibridge, Betemit, Miller, MacDougal etc.

I didn't like it and it dearly cost the Sox but I don't think it was his doing. Kenny's not stupid, he knows those guys would have a hard time winning in triple A.

As far as other holes, you deal with the here and now. You know they need a 5th starter, you know they may need a leadoff hitter. Those are almost certain. What may happen in the future has to be dealt with in that time. Anything can happen. If you try to deal with everything that could happen in the future you get paralyzed and do nothing because something "may" happen.

Besides isn't the minor league system supposed to get better? Maybe that solves your future issues. Remember the big four pitchers are only locked up for a few more years, the window isn't as big as you seem to imply.

Lip

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:43 PM
They know what they're doing more than you. Just deal with it.

It's not about knowing more than Lip. My point is that this is not about "cheap". This is about management that has just gone out and spent money that no other franchises were willing to do. They got a legitimate front of the rotation starter to go with Mark, fronting Danks/Floyd. They got a CF with a proven track record up until this year. And they paid a huge price both in prospects (they gave up the 5th starter in Richards) and in $ commitments.

I'm not saying they are smart or dumb...that's subjective. But CHEAP? Lip - that's ridiculous - even for you - given how much we have seen them spend in the part month.

hawkjt
08-13-2009, 11:44 PM
I don't get the pods hate around town...yea, he screwed up getting picked off twice in the Seattle series..but when was the last time the Sox had a leadoff man who hit .300+ the whole year? remember how bad out offense was without a decent leadoff man early in the year?
I think Pods looks healthier than ever...his new stretching regimen is really working.

I have no problems with paying him 1-2 million next year to play left, while figgins commands 8 million elsewhere.

Frater Perdurabo
08-13-2009, 11:46 PM
Frater:

Regarding Getz my views are fairly well known. I think he's a nice role player... could be a super utility guy playing once or twice a week in the starting lineup but usually coming off the bench in the late innings as a lefty slap hitter and a speed guy on the bases.

As far as a "regular" starter... until he improves his defense and more importantly his mental understanding of the game, hitting .265 isn't enough for me. Now have him hit .300 or .320 and that's different circumstances.

If the Sox were to get Figgins as the starting 2nd baseman next year and move Getz to the ultility slot, I won't bitch.

Sign Figgins to lead off, and I think you can platoon Getz/Pods in the #2 spot in the lineup, as both are excellent bunters, work walks, make good contact, and run/steal bases exceptionally well:

Figgins LF/2B
Getz/Pods 2B/LF
Beckham 3B
Dye RF/DH
Quentin DH/RH
Paulie 1B
AJ C
Rios CF
Alexei SS

Plus, with Figgins' ability to play 2B/LF/3B/CF/SS, here's the bench:
Kotsay OF/1B/pinch hitter
Flowers C/1B/DH/pinch hitter
Nix 2B/3B/SS/LF/pinch runner
Castro C

Rotation: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, free agent/Hudson
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Linebrink, Pena, Carrasco, youngster/free agent

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:46 PM
Anew:

Kenny has little to do with this. He takes his orders just like everyone else.

That's why you give him a pass on the start of the off season. I'm sure he was in a box and had no option but to get / use stiffs like Lillibridge, Betemit, Miller, MacDougal etc.

I didn't like it and it dearly cost the Sox but I don't think it was his doing. Kenny's not stupid, he knows those guys would have a hard time winning in triple A.

Lip

Another thing to consider is that KW realized his dollar would have more value in July/August than it did before the season started. Remember the price Peavy was going to cost back then to the Cubs? VITTERS (read Beckham) + 4 more prospects. Rios wasn't available - so he'd have had to get his OF via FA. Maybe Bradley? Maybe Ibanez - who knows... He just got Rios for nothing because he didn't overspend in more expensive offseason dollars.

There's multiple angles to look at this from. Keying in on the "JR is Cheap" angle is really surprising in the face of so much evidence that this just isn't true.

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Sign Figgins to lead off, and I think you can platoon Getz/Pods in the #2 spot in the lineup, as both are excellent bunters, work walks, make good contact, and run/steal bases exceptionally well:

Figgins LF/2B
Getz/Pods 2B/LF
Beckham 3B
Dye RF/DH
Quentin DH/RH
Paulie 1B
AJ C
Rios CF
Alexei SS

Plus, with Figgins' ability to play 2B/LF/3B/CF/SS, here's the bench:
Kotsay OF/1B/pinch hitter
Flowers C/1B/DH/pinch hitter
Nix 2B/3B/SS/LF/pinch runner
Castro C

Rotation: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, free agent/Hudson
Bullpen: Jenks, Thornton, Linebrink, Pena, Carrasco, youngster/free agent

I was so expecting the bottom of this post to have some proposal to deal PK somewhere... :-)

anewman35
08-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Ken:

Do you want to try to win a mediocre division next year or take on the Yankees / Red Sox and Angels for the pennant? Your choice.

Lip

It's really funny you mention the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels. Do you have any idea what kind of crap all those teams have thrown out in the starting rotation? It would be a real stretch to say any of them have 5 solid starters, and it's quite possible that you could argue that our rotation now is up there with the ones they have (before you even add Peavy). So, clearly, a solid 5th starter is hardly the key ingrediant to winning baseball.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:49 PM
Jab:

You've made your point on the word "cheap". How many times do I have to say it may have been the wrong one...what more do you want, blood?

That's why I also used the words chisel, cut corners.

Lip

Daver
08-13-2009, 11:50 PM
Daver:

Can he? I thought I saw a thread here at WSI that said he's done it, but very rarely and the long term results weren't known because he hasn't done it that much.

Can you supply some numbers?

If Rios can that certainly changes the dynamic.

Lip

What numbers?

What he can run in the forty?

People vastly over rate the importance of the leadoff spot, which is important once a game for the most part. You take the hitter in your lineup that combines getting on base and baserunning the best and hit him in that spot and be done with it.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2009, 11:52 PM
Anew:

If the 5th starters weren't so miserable this year the Sox would have a commanding lead in this division even with their other issues. They've used Contreras, Colon and Richard in that slot, those guys are 11-20 with seven weeks left. That's not a factor? Look at your history too. Look at the numbers for 1996 and 2003, cost them a post season slot both years.

Do you think the big four next year are good enough to compensate for the 20 or so games they Sox may drop because of having dung back there? With respect...I don't.

All I know is that for whatever reason the Yankees / Red Sox and Angels usually win 93 95 98 games a year. I don't know about you but I'd gladly take that then take my chances in October.

Lip

skobabe8
08-13-2009, 11:55 PM
Does Chone Figgins have any idea how much his name is brought up over here? I would wager we talk about him as much, if not more, than any Angels Interactive site that may exist.

anewman35
08-13-2009, 11:58 PM
Anew:

If the 5th starters weren't so miserable this year the Sox would have a commanding lead in this division even with their other issues. Look at your history too. Look at the numbers for 1996 and 2003, cost them a post season slot both years.

Do you think the big four next year are good enough to compensate for the 20 or so games they Sox may drop because of having dung back there? With respect...I don't.

All I know is that for whatever reason the Yankees / Red Sox and Angels usually win 93 95 98 games a year. I don't know about you but I'd gladly take that then take my chances in October.

Lip

The Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels are in the top 4 in the league in Runs scored per game. We're 10th. In runs per game, Boston is third, New York is 8th, LAA is 11th, we're 5th. PITCHING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. And that pitching figures to be better next year even with a usual crap 5th starter, just by virture of Peavy being in it. If we can upgrade smartly, fine, but the pitching is not the problem this season. Obviously it's one game, but I think yesterday was a pretty clear example of that.

Frater Perdurabo
08-13-2009, 11:59 PM
I was so expecting the bottom of this post to have some proposal to deal PK somewhere... :-)

He's not going to get dealt, and I've dealt with that fact. :tongue:

With the need to lock up Jenks, Danks and Quentin, and long-term dollars committed to Buehrle, Peavy and Rios, they will need to shed payroll, I am assuming the Sox would not re-sign Paulie after his deal expires. I would like the Sox to groom Flowers to become a full-time lineup fixture in 2011, playing about 50 games each at C, 1B and DH. This would allow AJ to remain but with a slightly reduced catching workload as he ages (maybe playing some DH to keep his high-average bat in the lineup more often).

jabrch
08-13-2009, 11:59 PM
Jab:

You've made your point on the word "cheap". How many times do I have to say it may have been the wrong one...what more do you want, blood?

That's why I also used the words chisel, cut corners.

Lip


It's not the word - it's the message. No matter what you do to soften it - the message is still the same. You believe that ownership needs to spend more. I don't care what word you use. Your message is the same. And your message seems to ignore everyhing that has been done from keeping Mark Buehrle, to keeping PK to investing in international FA like Alexei and Viciedo to above slot signing bonuses to guys like Danks to getting 1st round picks like Beckham and Mitchell in early to adding bench depth like Kotsay...and on and on...oh yeah - and picking up 52mm over 4 for Peavy and 60mm over 5 for Rios.

It isn't cutting corners. It isn't any other word you choose to use that still means cheap.

That's horsecrap Lip.

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 12:00 AM
What numbers?

What he can run in the forty?

People vastly over rate the importance of the leadoff spot, which is important once a game for the most part. You take the hitter in your lineup that combines getting on base and baserunning the best and hit him in that spot and be done with it.

It may only be the leadoff guy once a game, but it's still a position that always bats shortly before the heart of the order and one that over the course of a season will see more PA than any other on the team. Obviously it makes sense to have a player with the attributes you mentioned.

I really don't understand what the big news is. Payroll is ALWAYS tied to revenue. It's been that way forever under KW and JR. This is like saying, "The sky is blue."

Frater Perdurabo
08-14-2009, 12:00 AM
Does Chone Figgins have any idea how much his name is brought up over here? I would wager we talk about him as much, if not more, than any Angels Interactive site that may exist.

Juan Pierre once had this honor. Then Carl Crawford did. :D:

DirtySouthsider
08-14-2009, 12:01 AM
Lip:

I am on your side in this discussion. I believe the Sox should go out and attempt to get Figgins (or Brian Roberts) to help complete their lineup because it helps secure the massive investment that have already made for next year.

It's not a negative connotation. It's business sense.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 12:03 AM
Jab:

They we are at an impasse and can not resolve the issue. I stand by my comments even though you seem to have decided they have one meaning when the reality is something else. You are assuming some things and you'd be wrong. And I think you'd agree we're not talking about the 5th guy in the bullpen or a backup catcher. Getting a solid leadoff guy and a decent, competent 5th starter are important spots on a team.

Anew:

I'm referring more to the past ten years or so. Not specifically stating just this season. Those three have an established recent history of excellence. They are doing something really right since they seen to be in the playoffs every year. And you can't win a World Series if you're on the golf course the first week of October.

Lip

Noneck
08-14-2009, 12:10 AM
Lip,

I remember last year when you mentioned that your sources said the Sox would get Figgins and Hudson. I of course wanted that to happen but couldn't believe the Sox would put out for them. I guess Figgins never really became available and the Sox amazingly couldn't afford Hudson. I would love for the Sox to get Figgins, but they wont pay the price.

Finally to the ones stating how extravagant the chairman is these days. Lets wait and see what the 2010 opening day payroll is.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 12:15 AM
No Neck:

I think to be totally accurate I passed along the info that I was told those would be the top two targets, that Kenny and Ozzie were tired of what the offense had sunk to. I never make guarantees about anything concerning trades, signing and so forth.

Lip

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 12:16 AM
Lip,

I remember last year when you mentioned that your sources said the Sox would get Figgins and Hudson. I of course wanted that to happen but couldn't believe the Sox would put out for them. I guess Figgins never really became available and the Sox amazingly couldn't afford Hudson. I would love for the Sox to get Figgins, but they wont pay the price.

Finally to the ones stating how extravagant the chairman is these days. Lets wait and see what the 2010 opening day payroll is.

If they keep Dye, it's the same as this year with the money saved from MacDougal going toward a few increases.

TCQ isn't going to break the bank because he didn't have a great year. They might even be able to get that long term deal in place because he might be more anxious to lock up his future.

Danks didn't have a great season either. He won't break the bank in arbitration, but it will be a hefty raise.

I expect Bobby to sign a longer term deal and he'll get a small raise in the process.

Who knows what Pods costs to bring back. He wants to stay but I cannot imagine the Sox offering him big money or more than 2 years with team option for 3.

I think right now if they bring back Dye they are easily looking at an opening day payroll of $100M+.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 12:19 AM
Voodoo:

I think this would be a mistake but I think Jenks will be traded and Dotel let go. Maybe they get some bullpen guys out of it but without those two the pen could be an issue too.

Bobby could get really good money next year in arbitration.

I'm assuming from your scenario that Thome, Contreras, Dotel and Castro are gone, they can be free agents. Carrasco maybe as well, not sure.

Lip

BadBobbyJenks
08-14-2009, 12:19 AM
KW takes on Peavy and Rios and we have people whining about being cheap? Seriously?

Noneck
08-14-2009, 12:20 AM
No Neck:

I think to be totally accurate I passed along the info that I was told those would be the top two targets, that Kenny and Ozzie were tired of what the offense had sunk to. I never make guarantees about anything concerning trades, signing and so forth.

Lip
Lip,

Sorry, I didnt mean it that way. Yes you said they were the big 2 targets. Maybe with Figgins they did try to no avail but not with Hudson. Why was that? For 3m? Im not blaming you or your sources. Its just the way things are.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 12:21 AM
No Bobby not "cheap"-- about finishing the job and not risking those tremendous signings because of some other important issues.

Lip

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 12:22 AM
Voodoo:

I think this would be a mistake but I think Jenks will be traded and Dotel let go. Maybe they get some bullpen guys out of it but without those two the pen could be an issue too.

Bobby could get really good money next year in arbitration.

Lip

Dotel's gone for sure, IMO. I think Pena will be fine in that role for a lot less money.

I don't see Bobby breaking the bank because he had such a mediocre year. I also think his bout with kidney stones might cause him to rethink his desire to go year by year and thus he might compromise and sign a 3 year deal at like 5/6/7 which would leave next year's cost neutral to this years.

Noneck
08-14-2009, 12:27 AM
If they keep Dye, it's the same as this year with the money saved from MacDougal going toward a few increases.

TCQ isn't going to break the bank because he didn't have a great year. They might even be able to get that long term deal in place because he might be more anxious to lock up his future.

Danks didn't have a great season either. He won't break the bank in arbitration, but it will be a hefty raise.

I expect Bobby to sign a longer term deal and he'll get a small raise in the process.

Who knows what Pods costs to bring back. He wants to stay but I cannot imagine the Sox offering him big money or more than 2 years with team option for 3.

I think right now if they bring back Dye they are easily looking at an opening day payroll of $100M+.

I look at the article Lip posted and maybe I read too much into it. Are they are talking about dumping Jenks, AJ, PK, Dye, Thome and even Burls? Who the heck knows what they will do if they don't meet their revenue expections. As I said, Lets wait till opening day 2010 to see how big a payroll the Sox have.

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 12:34 AM
I look at the article Lip posted and maybe I read too much into it. Are they are talking about dumping Jenks, AJ, PK, Dye, Thome and even Burls? Who the heck knows what they will do if they don't meet their revenue expections. As I said, Lets wait till opening day 2010 to see how big a payroll the Sox have.

That's ridiculously paranoid...

What would be the purpose of bringing in Peavy and Rios if they did that?

Common sense says it's not even close to a possiblity.

Noneck
08-14-2009, 12:42 AM
That's ridiculously paranoid...

What would be the purpose of bringing in Peavy and Rios if they did that?

Common sense says it's not even close to a possiblity.

Sell season tics, to renew and obtain advertising contracts? btw: Yes I am paranoid with this ownership and always will be. I don't trust them and never will. I am being very honest now and I am sure there are a lot like me out there but are afraid to admit it here. Or Who knows, maybe I am the only one.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 12:44 AM
I agree with Voodoo on this point. Peavy and Rios make no sense if they plan on dumping the bulk of their expensive guys. I never rule anything out with this organization after watching them closely for over 25 years but that stretches rationality.

Voodoo regarding Pena, you'll get a lot of folks who disagree with you. That's just what I hearing from people.

No Neck:

A source just got back with me on Orlando Hudson, for what it's worth:

"As for Orlando Hudson, they didn't see enough stats (SBs) that jumped out last year."

This person also looked over this thread and had the following observations:

"As for Hudson, he could be in the rotation in 2010. Maybe it's him vs. Freddy for the fifth spot in 2010. I don't think Jeff Marquez will be the answer. Omogrosso's development has been stunted. Can't use Carrasco because you can't trust T. Pena in the pen."

"KW seems to be doing all he can to win this year. I wouldn't rule out another move."

"Pods has played very tight since the Rios deal. Not a good sign this time of year."

"For some reason, Kenny hasn't spent on a leadoff hitter. Afraid of Pierre, Matthews Jr. and Dave Roberts in 2007 and went with Pods (for $2.9 mill) and regretted it. Figgins is more of an NL player but fits great in Ozzie's style."

As always take these comments for whatever they may be worth to you.

Lip

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 12:46 AM
Sell season tics, to renew and obtain advertising contracts? btw: Yes I am paranoid with this ownership and always will be. I don't trust them and never will. I am being very honest now and I am sure there are a lot like me out there but are afraid to admit it here. Or Who knows, maybe I am the only one.

With a payroll that has been well above average for the last several year and the recent additions of Peavy and Rios I would think you could put some of that paranoia down.

Noneck
08-14-2009, 12:53 AM
A source just got back with me on Orlando Hudson, for what it's worth:

"As for Orlando Hudson, they didn't see enough stats (SBs) that jumped out last year."




Lip,

Thank you so much for the best laugh I have had in a long time.

jabrch
08-14-2009, 01:13 AM
That's ridiculously paranoid...

What would be the purpose of bringing in Peavy and Rios if they did that?

Common sense says it's not even close to a possiblity.

You must be new around here.

Whitesoxfan23
08-14-2009, 05:23 AM
I agree with Voodoo on this point. Peavy and Rios make no sense if they plan on dumping the bulk of their expensive guys. I never rule anything out with this organization after watching them closely for over 25 years but that stretches rationality.

Voodoo regarding Pena, you'll get a lot of folks who disagree with you. That's just what I hearing from people.

No Neck:

A source just got back with me on Orlando Hudson, for what it's worth:

"As for Orlando Hudson, they didn't see enough stats (SBs) that jumped out last year."

This person also looked over this thread and had the following observations:

"As for Hudson, he could be in the rotation in 2010. Maybe it's him vs. Freddy for the fifth spot in 2010. I don't think Jeff Marquez will be the answer. Omogrosso's development has been stunted. Can't use Carrasco because you can't trust T. Pena in the pen."

"KW seems to be doing all he can to win this year. I wouldn't rule out another move."

"Pods has played very tight since the Rios deal. Not a good sign this time of year."

"For some reason, Kenny hasn't spent on a leadoff hitter. Afraid of Pierre, Matthews Jr. and Dave Roberts in 2007 and went with Pods (for $2.9 mill) and regretted it. Figgins is more of an NL player but fits great in Ozzie's style."

As always take these comments for whatever they may be worth to you.

Lip


Hey Lip, you seem to have useful information quite a bit, are you friends with people who work for the Sox or something?

tsoxman
08-14-2009, 06:06 AM
I really hate the threats of going with the unproven youth if they don't win the division. If it is for the reason that the youth will give the Sox a better chance to compete, that's ok, but it doesn't seem that way. It is like, you pay now and you have to suffer because we didn't do our job.

With the Peavy and Rios deals, there is no way the Sox can go with youth..The risks embedded in these two deals were the amount of payroll they were adding and the fact that they traded their two of their top pitching prospects-guys they could have had cheap for a while.

anewman35
08-14-2009, 08:12 AM
"For some reason, Kenny hasn't spent on a leadoff hitter. Afraid of Pierre, Matthews Jr. and Dave Roberts in 2007 and went with Pods (for $2.9 mill) and regretted it. Figgins is more of an NL player but fits great in Ozzie's style."

As always take these comments for whatever they may be worth to you.

Lip

The 2007 White Sox would have still sucked if you'd plugged in the best leadoff man in baseball (we finished 24 games out) and we'd have spent a lot more money (and possibly still be on the hook for a lot more money) for what, exactly? Maybe by some miracle we win 10 more games! And still finish 14 out. And get a lower draft pick and don't get Gordon Beckham. Yeah, that seems like it would have been a better plan.

anewman35
08-14-2009, 08:14 AM
Hey Lip, you seem to have useful information quite a bit, are you friends with people who work for the Sox or something?

I'm not saying he doesn't, but it doesn't take too much insight to say that you can't rule out Kenny Williams making another move. He's Kenny Williams, you can never rule out him doing almost anything...

jabrch
08-14-2009, 08:27 AM
I'm not saying he doesn't, but it doesn't take too much insight to say that you can't rule out Kenny Williams making another move. He's Kenny Williams, you can never rule out him doing almost anything...

Lip (and I say this respectfully) is as well informed as he is opinionated. That's a good thing even though is information, like his opinion, isn't always right. :D:

dickallen15
08-14-2009, 08:30 AM
Figgins has been a good player, but he's getting older. Signing him for big money is asking for trouble. You might get one good full year out of him.

Ron Karkovice
08-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Figgins has been a good player, but he's getting older. Signing him for big money is asking for trouble. You might get one good full year out of him.

or 3:redneck

balke
08-14-2009, 11:20 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-14-white-sox-chicago-aug14,0,1949075.story

If the Sox blow a chance to get Figgins they'll regret it. Does anybody think Podsednik (a terrible outfielder by the way) can do it again? At 34?? If he can't, who leads off? Same old problem.

Oh and how about the little matter of a 5th starter (which is costing the Sox big time this year). They don't need a 20 game winner, they don't need an All Star, just a competent pitcher who isn't 50 years old (Contreras), weighs 400 pounds (Colon) or can't get out of the 5th inning (Richard).

Now is not the time to go cheap JR...not if you want those advertising deals renewed and fans to pay premium prices for tickets next off season.

Kenny's done a lot of good work but there's still miles to go, there's work to be done as the poem goes. Finish the job, don't start to cut corners.

Lip


Chone Figgins is 1 tweaked hamstring from being completely worthless. He is going to be expensive and 32 years old (I believe that's around the same age Pods started having hammy issues). I don't want to see the Sox blow a ton of money on Figgins.

5th starter, Contreras if he were cheap would be fine by me. I don't know what people really expect out of the 5th starter spot. At this point, I'd wait to see how Garcia develops, and keep an eye on Hudson. There might be a cheap Garland type this offseason as well.


To call a Gm who just paid for one of the top pitchers in baseball and an expensive CFer cheap, it is pretty weak.

There's a ton of talent, enough to win it all here. These guys just gotta find a rhythm and live up to potential. Then decisions can be made about next year.

Dye, Konerko, Quentin, All these guys have 40 HR potential and can hit .300 in a season. There's a lot of hitting and a lot of pitching. Contreras' last start was a good sign to me. He was doing well til the 5th. If this Rotation kicks it in high gear for a month, the Sox will be in 1st place in no time.

jdm2662
08-14-2009, 01:19 PM
This board never ceases to amaze me.

The day of the trading deadline, this whole board was pissing and moaning. "Oh, the Tigers and Twins are getting better. Kenny, do something. How dare you Kenny, etc. This team sucks! They are cheap bastards. How dare they?" and so on

Then, I leave work only to find out the Peavy deal went through. I just laughed so hard, but I reserved myself from making any such posts. Then, the Sox got Alex Rios for nothing.

A word of advice to all, Kenny talks out of his ass many times. I stopped taking he or Ozzie seriously years ago. You should do the same. Worry about what they do and not what they say.

gobears1987
08-14-2009, 01:26 PM
A word of advice to all, Kenny talks out of his ass many times. I stopped taking he or Ozzie seriously years ago. You should do the same. Worry about what they do and not what they say.
Give the man a cigar!

You're dead on there. I honestly think Kenny intentionally throws these quotes out there to keep people from guessing where he is going with his moves.

soxyess
08-14-2009, 01:36 PM
Figgins is too obvious a deal for Kenny. Im can see Kenny working on a deal for Carl Crawford. Crawford gives you speed, defense, a little pop and 50 SB's a year. He'll be only 29, and can play right field. Watch for Jenks to be moved as part of a deal for Crawford. Dye will be gone, and dont be surprised to see PK moved to the Angels. This gives you more salary relief.

kobo
08-14-2009, 01:52 PM
Give the man a cigar!

You're dead on there. I honestly think Kenny intentionally throws these quotes out there to keep people from guessing where he is going with his moves.
Yeah, but I'm getting tired of the quotes stating that they can only do so much unless the fans turn out.

Rocky Soprano
08-14-2009, 02:07 PM
Figgins is too obvious a deal for Kenny. Im can see Kenny working on a deal for Carl Crawford. Crawford gives you speed, defense, a little pop and 50 SB's a year. He'll be only 29, and can play right field. Watch for Jenks to be moved as part of a deal for Crawford. Dye will be gone, and dont be surprised to see PK moved to the Angels. This gives you more salary relief.

I would LOVE to see Crawford on the Sox but I am not holding my breath on that one.

TDog
08-14-2009, 02:09 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-14-white-sox-chicago-aug14,0,1949075.story

If the Sox blow a chance to get Figgins they'll regret it. Does anybody think Podsednik (a terrible outfielder by the way) can do it again? At 34?? If he can't, who leads off? Same old problem.

Oh and how about the little matter of a 5th starter (which is costing the Sox big time this year). They don't need a 20 game winner, they don't need an All Star, just a competent pitcher who isn't 50 years old (Contreras), weighs 400 pounds (Colon) or can't get out of the 5th inning (Richard).

Now is not the time to go cheap JR...not if you want those advertising deals renewed and fans to pay premium prices for tickets next off season.

Kenny's done a lot of good work but there's still miles to go, there's work to be done as the poem goes. Finish the job, don't start to cut corners.

Lip

The Sox aren't going to get Figgins.

You should have applied for the GM job, and dazzled the chairman with your plan, just as Ken Harrelson did all those years ago.

NLaloosh
08-14-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't know but I'm pretty damn impressed with what Kenny has accomplished for the 2010 team already:

3B- a full season of Gordon Beckham over Josh Fields
2B- again a more experienced Chris Getz/ Jason Nix
CF- Alex Rios over Brian Anderson / Dewayne Wise

And, Jake Peavy in the starting rotation instead of an over-the-hill Bartolo Colon.

It looks like the Sox will be much improved next year without many more additions.

However, whether to bring back Dye, Thome, neither or both will be HUGE decisions and difficult ones.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Thanks for the insight T-Dog!

Lip

russ99
08-14-2009, 02:28 PM
I'd imagine they go cheap on a 5th starter or stay in house with Hudson.

I don't think Pods will be back. I doubt he will continue to put up the numbers he has so far this year, he's brutal in the outfield, and is questionable running the bases.

One pickoff while napping and he's questionable running the bases? Gee. I guess you forgot all his stolen bases, going to third from first and scoring from first all those times this year...

And I'm sorry, Pods will never be a gold glover but he plays adequate defense, especially in LF. And the Sox could do a lot worse for their bench, especially considering it won't take much for him to re-up.

And Kenny & Jerry should know by now with this fanbase, is that revenue is driven primarily by how the team does on the field, which is part of the reason they went out and got Peavy and Rios.

DirtySox
08-14-2009, 02:57 PM
One pickoff while napping and he's questionable running the bases? Gee. I guess you forgot all his stolen bases, going to third from first and scoring from first all those times this year...

And I'm sorry, Pods will never be a gold glover but he plays adequate defense, especially in LF. And the Sox could do a lot worse for their bench, especially considering it won't take much for him to re-up.

And Kenny & Jerry should know by now with this fanbase, is that revenue is driven primarily by how the team does on the field, which is part of the reason they went out and got Peavy and Rios.

How about the multiple pickoffs, oversliding of bases, and an average stolen base percentage. Couple that with below average fielding, a history of injuries, and the likelihood his future production will not be close to what he's doing this year.

I would rather not see him as our everyday LF of the future, but wouldn't be opposed to him coming off the bench.

Also, leadoff isn't a position. (Perhaps someone mentioned that already)

Lip Man 1
08-14-2009, 03:39 PM
Jab:

Forgot to mention this earlier.. we've had spirited differences on things concerning the Sox but I've always appreciated the fact that you are always civil about them, it never gets personal or insulting with you and I'm grateful for that. I always get the sense that you want to discuss issues and not try to be a smart-ass, or 'one up' someone to impress the board.

:smile:

Lip

Pear-Zin-Ski
08-14-2009, 04:09 PM
To win a World Series you have to have a lot of good players and then you will have to have some unexpected contributions from the average guys on your team. I think the Sox should be much more focused on getting a fifth starter more than anything. You are never going to have the "perfect" set of guys out there.

And to whoever mentioned the case of "do you want the Sox to win a very medicore division or be able to compete against the Yanks/Halos in the playoffs?" I think this season has been a testament to The Sox being a VERY good team that for some god forsaken reason does not get it done against some of the bottom feeders and not just in our own division. Baseball is a wild game.

Rockabilly
08-14-2009, 04:11 PM
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/soxnet/2009/08/does-ken-williams-have-one-more-trade-left.html

Pear-Zin-Ski
08-14-2009, 04:17 PM
How about the multiple pickoffs, oversliding of bases, and an average stolen base percentage. Couple that with below average fielding, a history of injuries, and the likelihood his future production will not be close to what he's doing this year.

I would rather not see him as our everyday LF of the future, but wouldn't be opposed to him coming off the bench.

Also, leadoff isn't a position. (Perhaps someone mentioned that already)

Then who else are we going to trot out there? Anyone else with a higher average stolen base percentage, better at sliding, not injury prone, bright future, above average defense and can bat in the one slot?

There are a set of IDEAL conditions and a set of REALISTIC conditions. The bottom line is, even if The Sox do not pick up any more pieces to the puzzle in the winter, I fully believe they will be atop the AL Central come September 2010. Or does WSI not believe in optimism?

jabrch
08-14-2009, 04:30 PM
Jab:

Forgot to mention this earlier.. we've had spirited differences on things concerning the Sox but I've always appreciated the fact that you are always civil about them, it never gets personal or insulting with you and I'm grateful for that. I always get the sense that you want to discuss issues and not try to be a smart-ass, or 'one up' someone to impress the board.

:smile:

Lip

Thanks Lip - I appreciate our discussions. Agree or not on the interpretations, you always have a set of facts to support your arguement. I appreciate that.

JBC

jabrch
08-14-2009, 04:34 PM
Then who else are we going to trot out there? Anyone else with a higher average stolen base percentage, better at sliding, not injury prone, bright future, above average defense and can bat in the one slot?

There are a set of IDEAL conditions and a set of REALISTIC conditions. The bottom line is, even if The Sox do not pick up any more pieces to the puzzle in the winter, I fully believe they will be atop the AL Central come September 2010. Or does WSI not believe in optimism?

Figgins is one option. We could also bring back a similar team next year and play Rios in CF without any other major changes. I think that team would be a heavy favorite, with Rios and Peavy all year, to win this division even if it means Getz at 2B and Hudson, DJ or someone either from the system, or someone making a few million, in the 5th starter spot. The biggest concern I have right now for 2010 is the pen. Dotel is gone - we need to replace him.

LoveYourSuit
08-14-2009, 06:32 PM
I look at the article Lip posted and maybe I read too much into it. Are they are talking about dumping Jenks, AJ, PK, Dye, Thome and even Burls? Who the heck knows what they will do if they don't meet their revenue expections. As I said, Lets wait till opening day 2010 to see how big a payroll the Sox have.


Other than Buehrle, you can have the rest of that list.

It's time to get younger, faster, and more flexible as a team.

I like the 2 moves Kenny just made because both are moves for the future.

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 06:43 PM
Other than Buehrle, you can have the rest of that list.

It's time to get younger, faster, and more flexible as a team.

I like the 2 moves Kenny just made because both are moves for the future.

That's simply ridiculous. The future is now. A three year window just opened and you want to dump the heart of the order with no concrete plan to replace it.

Freaking dumbest idea Ive read in a long time...

LoveYourSuit
08-14-2009, 07:13 PM
That's simply ridiculous. The future is now. A three year window just opened and you want to dump the heart of the order with no concrete plan to replace it.

Freaking dumbest idea Ive read in a long time...


So what's your plan, to keep spending and spending re-upping with these guys until they have to be pushed around in wheel chairs?

Perhpas you haven't noticed, "the heart of the order" has led us to below .500 baseball 2007 forward.

When is it time to turn the page Voodoo?

Before you go insulting me with "dumbest idea Ive read in a long time," I don't think your clever idea of keeping "the heart of the order" around gets away from the dumb territory too.

My philosophy with the 4 horses you will have on that bump next season, don't let your bats and gloves lose games for you. Time to change the philosophy here on defense and offense. Getting Alex Rios is a step in the right direction.

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 07:28 PM
So what's your plan, to keep spending and spending re-upping with these guys until they have to be pushed around in wheel chairs?

Perhpas you haven't noticed, "the heart of the order" has led us to below .500 baseball 2007 forward.

When is it time to turn the page Voodoo?

Before you go insulting me with "dumbest idea Ive read in a long time," I don't think your clever idea of keeping "the heart of the order" around gets away from the dumb territory too.

My philosophy with the 4 horses you will have on that bump next season, don't let your bats and gloves lose games for you. Time to change the philosophy here on defense and offense. Getting Alex Rios is a step in the right direction.

Yes yes... by all means sign them all for thirty years. There simply is no middle ground, keep them forever or dump them immediately...

Last I checked that heart of the order won a division title last year and is in the hunt this year and is all still productive.

I expect to lose Thome or Dye this off season, probably Thome. I expect a four headed rotation in the OF and DH next year. I expect that to be fine.

Hey, weren't Buehrle and Danks and Jenks all on the team from 2007 forward? Better dump them too...:rolleyes:

Guess what, slow power hitters are a NECESSARY part of ANY successful ball club...

LoveYourSuit
08-14-2009, 07:39 PM
Yes yes... by all means sign them all for thirty years. There simply is no middle ground, keep them forever or dump them immediately...

Last I checked that heart of the order won a division title last year and is in the hunt this year and is all still productive.

I expect to lose Thome or Dye this off season, probably Thome. I expect a four headed rotation in the OF and DH next year. I expect that to be fine.

Hey, weren't Buehrle and Danks and Jenks all on the team from 2007 forward? Better dump them too...:rolleyes:

Guess what, slow power hitters are a NECESSARY part of ANY successful ball club...

I don't disagree with anything there but people who get bent out of shape if Kenny dumps any 2 of:

Thome
PK
Dye
AJ
Pods
Jenks

Are completely living in LaLa land and need to start coming to grips that you can't afford to keep everyone nor is it a good idea for the sake of keeping a flexible roster.

voodoochile
08-14-2009, 07:49 PM
I don't disagree with anything there but people who get bent out of shape if Kenny dumps any 2 of:

Thome
PK
Dye
AJ
Pods
Jenks

Are completely living in LaLa land and need to start coming to grips that you can't afford to keep everyone nor is it a good idea for the sake of keeping a flexible roster.

Lose Thome, keep the rest.

Craig Grebeck
08-14-2009, 07:49 PM
Figgins is too obvious a deal for Kenny. Im can see Kenny working on a deal for Carl Crawford. Crawford gives you speed, defense, a little pop and 50 SB's a year. He'll be only 29, and can play right field. Watch for Jenks to be moved as part of a deal for Crawford. Dye will be gone, and dont be surprised to see PK moved to the Angels. This gives you more salary relief.
And gives the Angels a player they don't want/need! Brilliant!

I agree with Voodoo on this point. Peavy and Rios make no sense if they plan on dumping the bulk of their expensive guys. I never rule anything out with this organization after watching them closely for over 25 years but that stretches rationality.

Voodoo regarding Pena, you'll get a lot of folks who disagree with you. That's just what I hearing from people.

No Neck:

A source just got back with me on Orlando Hudson, for what it's worth:

"As for Orlando Hudson, they didn't see enough stats (SBs) that jumped out last year."

This person also looked over this thread and had the following observations:

"As for Hudson, he could be in the rotation in 2010. Maybe it's him vs. Freddy for the fifth spot in 2010. I don't think Jeff Marquez will be the answer. Omogrosso's development has been stunted. Can't use Carrasco because you can't trust T. Pena in the pen."

"KW seems to be doing all he can to win this year. I wouldn't rule out another move."

"Pods has played very tight since the Rios deal. Not a good sign this time of year."

"For some reason, Kenny hasn't spent on a leadoff hitter. Afraid of Pierre, Matthews Jr. and Dave Roberts in 2007 and went with Pods (for $2.9 mill) and regretted it. Figgins is more of an NL player but fits great in Ozzie's style."

As always take these comments for whatever they may be worth to you.

Lip
I'm sure Kenny regrets passing on Pierre, Sarge Jr. and Dave Roberts. Classic Lip!

tsoxman
08-14-2009, 08:25 PM
Chone Figgins is 1 tweaked hamstring from being completely worthless. He is going to be expensive and 32 years old (I believe that's around the same age Pods started having hammy issues). I don't want to see the Sox blow a ton of money on Figgins.
.

And at what point do we start counting on out farm system to fill some of these voids? The 'buying everything off of the shelf' only works sometimes for the Yankees. I would pass on Figgins unless he came chep which he probably won'y.

thedudeabides
08-15-2009, 12:04 AM
Lip,

I know you really want Figgins, and even go as far as insinuating the offseason could be a failure, if they don't get him, but there are a lot of factors that may be outside of the Sox hands in acquiring him. I'm surprised nobody has really touched on some of them.

1. He could easily re-sign with the Angels.

2. And this may be the most important. Would he even want to play here? The Sox could have interest, but he may not. He may want to stay on the west coast ,or play in the National League, may have a preference on a single position the Sox won't offer, or simply take the longest and largest contract he can get(Which I doubt would be from the Sox). I don't think he is a player to break the bank for.

3. What would be the cost of signing him? Both fiscally and player wise? I know he's a free agent, but bringing him in could mean losing Dye and Thome. He could approach a 8-10 million dollar a year contract, for 3-5 years. We just don't know, and there are a lot of teams who will be seeking a versatile, and true leadoff man. He is a national league managers dream.

4. Others have mentioned, but he he has had some injury problems in the past(115 games in 2007 and 116 games in 2008), and he is a player that greatly relies on his legs. If he loses a step or two, which is going to happen during the course of his next contract, he will lose some of his value. Maybe, a lot of it.

5. If he requires a 3+ year contract at 8-10 million, how much flexibility do the Sox lose? That would be a lot of money to take on Peavy, Rios, and Figgins in a half a year span, and have promising youth that needs to be signed. This could handcuff the team to address unexpected weakness or depth, both midseason and future offseasons.

The Sox now have more options at leadoff than they have in the past. Pods could be brought back, or Rios, possibly Getz, Beckham, and Alexei. All have more ability to leadoff than our options in the past. The Sox will take all of these things into consideration next year, and I would be very surprised if Figgins is on the Sox next year. I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

jabrch
08-15-2009, 12:17 AM
Lip,

I know you really want Figgins, and even go as far as insinuating the offseason could be a failure, if they don't get him, but there are a lot of factors that may be outside of the Sox hands in acquiring him. I'm surprised nobody has really touched on some of them.

1. He could easily re-sign with the Angels.

2. And this may be the most important. Would he even want to play here? The Sox could have interest, but he may not. He may want to stay on the west coast ,or play in the National League, may have a preference on a single position the Sox won't offer, or simply take the longest and largest contract he can get(Which I doubt would be from the Sox). I don't think he is a player to break the bank for.

3. What would be the cost of signing him? Both fiscally and player wise? I know he's a free agent, but bringing him in could mean losing Dye and Thome. He could approach a 8-10 million dollar a year contract, for 3-5 years. We just don't know, and there are a lot of teams who will be seeking a versatile, and true leadoff man. He is a national league managers dream.

4. Others have mentioned, but he he has had some injury problems in the past(115 games in 2007 and 116 games in 2008), and he is a player that greatly relies on his legs. If he loses a step or two, which is going to happen during the course of his next contract, he will lose some of his value. Maybe, a lot of it.

5. If he requires a 3+ year contract at 8-10 million, how much flexibility do the Sox lose? That would be a lot of money to take on Peavy, Rios, and Figgins in a half a year span, and have promising youth that needs to be signed. This could handcuff the team to address unexpected weakness or depth, both midseason and future offseasons.

The Sox now have more options at leadoff than they have in the past. Pods could be brought back, or Rios, possibly Getz, Beckham, and Alexei. All have more ability to leadoff than our options in the past. The Sox will take all of these things into consideration next year, and I would be very surprised if Figgins is on the Sox next year. I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.


Nice post...

I'm not opposed to Figgins on principle. But I am opposed to making him a lynchpin that the 2010 season hinges on. There are many options. There are also many factors that would make getting him the wrong decision. There are also many constraints that need to be factored into the decision model that management uses.

If it were as simple as saying that you can point to one player, and say that success or failure would hinge on getting him, more teams would win the WS. It's just not that easy.

I agree with Lip that getting Hudson would have been a nice move - but if we did - would that have constrained us from making either the move for Peavy or Rios? And would that be good or bad? I'm not sure. I'm not as convinced as he is about Figgins.

Lip Man 1
08-15-2009, 01:47 AM
Dude:

I have been told that the only person who cares for Figgins with the Angels is Mike Scioscia. Everyone from his teammates to the G.M. want him gone. I started hearing this last season by the way. So we'll have to see.

Grebeck:

If you read the post those are not my words. I am passing along what I've been told, for whatever that may be worth to you.

Reading is a skill... I know that if it doesn't include statistics or graphs that it's difficult for you but I'm sure as someone who understands the language of propellerheads that you'll be able to get though it if you try again.

Lip

Lip Man 1
08-15-2009, 01:51 AM
Jab:

Given that Hudson's deal is for 3.5 million I don't think that would have been a sticking point.

It was completely a buyer's market and is expected to be again this off season which might (notice I said might) preclude any notions that Figgins is going to get eight million a year or such.

Also point of clarification, I never intended to say that he was the lynchpin of the off season and that if the Sox didn't get him it would be a failure. That 5th starter position is looming more and more criticle which has to be factored in.

I will say that of all the options listed by some, all have serious flaws or serious unknowns attached to them. Figgins, on paper, seems far and away the safest bet particularly if the expectations of the market hold.

(Sounds like we're talking about the stock market doesn't it?) LOL

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
08-15-2009, 07:44 PM
I can see Kenny working on a deal for Carl Crawford.

Lose Thome, keep the rest.

I like soxyess' Crawford pipedream! Salary-wise, Rios replaces Thome, while Crawford replaces Dye. TCQ & Pods share LF/DH. Lineup:

Pods, Bacon, Crawford, Paulie, TCQ, AJ, Rios, Getz, Alexei

Now you've got speed at 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9; a .300+ average at 1, 2, 3 and 6; XBH power at 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9; and the lineup is LRLRRLRLR. Getz' patience and bat control at 8 allows Rios to act almost like a leadoff hitter when the bases are empty, but Rios also is in a spot where his XBH power can drive in runs when guys are on base. Alexei also thus would be in a good RBI spot. But if Alexei gets on, Pods has the patience to let Alexei steal a base and/or move him over with the hit and run. Then Bacon is in a prime RISP spot, too. Plus, Bacon would see a steady diet of fastballs, with FOUR basestealing threats hitting in front of him. And because Bacon also can steal a few bags, Crawford will see more fastballs. (Playing 81 games at the Cell, Crawford would hit 25 HRs to go along with his 30 doubles and 60 steals.) Thus, with Crawford hitting in front of them, Paulie and TCQ ALSO would see more fastballs and thus GIDP less. Basically, opposing pitchers almost have to throw a lot of fastballs to this entire lineup, and I guarantee that this lineup puts up a ton of crooked numbers and bats around a lot, too. So, how can you not like that lineup with Crawford hitting third instead of Dye?

For 2011, if you need money to extend Buehrle, you can let Paulie leave, since you've got organizational depth with Flowers and Viciedo. And you also have Danks (with Mitchell waiting in the wings) to replace Pods.

hawkjt
08-16-2009, 09:00 AM
Dude:

I have been told that the only person who cares for Figgins with the Angels is Mike Scioscia. Everyone from his teammates to the G.M. want him gone. I started hearing this last season by the way. So we'll have to see.

Grebeck:

If you read the post those are not my words. I am passing along what I've been told, for whatever that may be worth to you.

Reading is a skill... I know that if it doesn't include statistics or graphs that it's difficult for you but I'm sure as someone who understands the language of propellerheads that you'll be able to get though it if you try again.

Lip


Why would Figgins be so unpopular with the Angels? ...he is a .300 leadoff guy who is a decent defender...is he a bad guy? Does he overvalue himself? Is a a clubhouse cancer?

When a very good player is that unpopular, you have to ask youself if you want to give him the 30+ million to come into your clubhouse while you dump a popular guy in Pods who makes 1/10th of the that money.

Lip Man 1
08-16-2009, 12:47 PM
Hawk:

You're assuming he gets 30 million or so in an off season that is expected to go like the last one...strongly in the buyer's favor.

Lip

...
08-16-2009, 01:19 PM
Just say no to Chone Figgins.

UChicagoHP
08-16-2009, 01:35 PM
Just say no to Chone Figgins.

If he wants $8-10 million per, I agree...

If his poor season means the Sox can get him cheaper, I'd take him over Pods due to the Chone's D. Pods will probably be looking for 3-5 million per for 2-3 years, and I really wouldn't trust the guy with a contract longer than1 year. Tough call, but that is why Kenny Williams is one of the best in the biz, I'm confident he do everything in his power to make the correct call.:gulp:

Man Soo Lee
08-16-2009, 02:19 PM
Given that Hudson's deal is for 3.5 million I don't think that would have been a sticking point.

Hudson has incentives for plate appearances that could increase the total cost to 8 million. He already has enough plate appearances to earn ~6.5 million.

jabrch
08-16-2009, 02:32 PM
Jab:

Given that Hudson's deal is for 3.5 million I don't think that would have been a sticking point.

It was completely a buyer's market and is expected to be again this off season which might (notice I said might) preclude any notions that Figgins is going to get eight million a year or such.

Also point of clarification, I never intended to say that he was the lynchpin of the off season and that if the Sox didn't get him it would be a failure. That 5th starter position is looming more and more criticle which has to be factored in.

I will say that of all the options listed by some, all have serious flaws or serious unknowns attached to them. Figgins, on paper, seems far and away the safest bet particularly if the expectations of the market hold.

(Sounds like we're talking about the stock market doesn't it?) LOL

Lip

3.38mm base...but
$4.62M in performance bonuses: $0.15M each for 150, 175 PAs; $0.2M each for 200, 225, 250, 275, 300 PAs; $0.25M each for 325, 350, 375, 400, 425, 450, 475, 500, 525, 550, 575 PAs; 10,000 for each PA 576-632

That's 8mm. Definitely not chump changes - not that he wouldn't have been worth it - just that it would need to be managed by cutting some other spend. Assuming we weren't going to change payroll, what 8mm would you not have wanted to spend that we could have vacated? None of us care how much of JRs money he spends or doesn't spend, but we are also all aware that it isn't just JRs money. The White Sox have a budget and a payroll different from JR.

I don't think that any single move that wasn't made was a move that I would consider "not completing the job". The more the better, obviously...but net/net, I think Williams has assembled a damn strong team if we just get a few breaks. In the AL this year, that's good enough to win. There are no dominant teams this year, and that includes the Angels, Yanks and Red Sox. We have proven we can bet the first two, and the latter has been most unimpressive lately. (for fun, look at their rotation right now)

thedudeabides
08-16-2009, 02:44 PM
Jab:

Given that Hudson's deal is for 3.5 million I don't think that would have been a sticking point.

It was completely a buyer's market and is expected to be again this off season which might (notice I said might) preclude any notions that Figgins is going to get eight million a year or such.

Also point of clarification, I never intended to say that he was the lynchpin of the off season and that if the Sox didn't get him it would be a failure. That 5th starter position is looming more and more criticle which has to be factored in.

I will say that of all the options listed by some, all have serious flaws or serious unknowns attached to them. Figgins, on paper, seems far and away the safest bet particularly if the expectations of the market hold.

(Sounds like we're talking about the stock market doesn't it?) LOL

Lip

I'm sorry Lip, but this is just factually incorrect. As a couple other have pointed out, there were a lot of incentives involved. He is on pace to make over $7 million this year, and he would have cost the Sox their first round pick. With the $7 million the Sox would have paid him, you can be sure they wouldn't have made either the Peavy or Rios deal.

Looking back on it Hudson would have cost $7 million, Jared Mitchel, and possibly one of Peavy or Rios. That is a heavy cost.

I know it's easy to have hindsight on what the Sox should have done, but look at the big picture while doing so.

jabrch
08-16-2009, 02:46 PM
I'm sorry Lip, but this is just factually incorrect. As a couple other have pointed out, there were a lot of incentives involved. He is on pace to make over $7 million this year, and he would have cost the Sox their first round pick. With the $7 million the Sox would have paid him, you can be sure they wouldn't have made either the Peavy or Rios deal.

Looking back on it Hudson would have cost $7 million, Jared Mitchel, and possibly one of Peavy or Rios. That is a heavy cost.

I know it's easy to have hindsight on what the Sox should have done, but look at the big picture while doing so.

Well said. There are a lot of things that GMs need to consider. While it clearly would have been better in the short term to have Hudson than Lillibirdge/Nix/Getz, the cost may have been much larger over the long term.

Lip Man 1
08-16-2009, 08:26 PM
Dude:

This and that...

1. Valid point about Hudson's deal. However given what he can do for a team and that those were specifically what the Sox badly needed, one could make the case that signing Hudson even if it meant costing them Rios could have been worth it. Good outfielders are far more plentiful then good 2nd baseman. Time will tell who has a better "game" in the next few seasons, Hudson or Rios, we'll have to wait and see.

2. Giving up draft picks doesn't bother me in the slightest given the Sox history with them and to me a proven major league player is far more valuable than the "potential" of any minor league draft pick regardless of how high they are selected. Even the most heralded prospects fail a lot more than ones who make it.

Lip

balke
08-16-2009, 09:53 PM
Dude:

This and that...

1. Valid point about Hudson's deal. However given what he can do for a team and that those were specifically what the Sox badly needed, one could make the case that signing Hudson even if it meant costing them Rios could have been worth it. Good outfielders are far more plentiful then good 2nd baseman. Time will tell who has a better "game" in the next few seasons, Hudson or Rios, we'll have to wait and see.

2. Giving up draft picks doesn't bother me in the slightest given the Sox history with them and to me a proven major league player is far more valuable than the "potential" of any minor league draft pick regardless of how high they are selected. Even the most heralded prospects fail a lot more than ones who make it.

Lip

Rios + Getz > Hudson + Wise/Anderson

Can't tell me its easy to find a CFer... Sox would've done so a long time ago.

Lip Man 1
08-16-2009, 10:12 PM
Balke:

Would they? At least one connected individual has told me that Kenny doesn't place the same premium on outfielders / leadoff spot that many fans do.

That makes some sense since until getting Rios, the Sox hadn't had a true center fielder since November 2005.

And I'm not saying they are easy to come by, (and I specifically said outfielders not center fielders if you re-read my post) but they are more plentiful than good 2nd baseman simply because there are more outfielders in the major leagues numerically than second basemen.

Lip

Daver
08-16-2009, 10:25 PM
Balke:

Would they? At least one connected individual has told me that Kenny doesn't place the same premium on outfielders / leadoff spot that many fans do.

That makes some sense since until getting Rios, the Sox hadn't had a true center fielder since November 2005.

And I'm not saying they are easy to come by, (and I specifically said outfielders not center fielders if you re-read my post) but they are more plentiful than good 2nd baseman simply because there are more outfielders in the major leagues numerically than second basemen.

Lip

Calling Aaron Rowand a true CFer is a stretch that I am not willing to make, the White Sox haven't had a CFer since Lance Johnson from my perspective.

Lip Man 1
08-16-2009, 10:37 PM
Daver:

I grant you Aaron had his moments but certainly he was the best the Sox have had in a long time.

It's interesting since this franchise has been known for outstanding center fielders (Oscar “Happy” Felsch and running through guys like Jim Landis, Tommy Agee, Ken Berry, Chet Lemon, Rudy Law and Johnson) to not have had one in a very long time.

Lip

longshot7
08-17-2009, 01:37 AM
Calling Aaron Rowand a true CFer is a stretch that I am not willing to make, the White Sox haven't had a CFer since Lance Johnson from my perspective.

What about DARREN LEWIS?????

Hitmen77
08-27-2009, 12:41 PM
FWIW, here are the Sox payroll commitments for 2010 (in $million):

Peavy: 15 Buehrle: 14 Konerko: 12
Rios: 9.7
AJ: 6.25
Linebrink: 6
Floyd: 2.75
Thornton: 2.25 (club option)
Viciedo: 2.25
Ramirez: 1.1
Jenks: ??? (5.6 this year, arbitration eligible)
Quentin: ??? (.55 this year, arb eligible)
Danks: ??? (.52 this year, arb eligible)
Getz, Beckham, Nix, others: league minimum
That's $71 million for everyone down to Ramirez (not including the ??? for arbitration eligible players or the total for all the league min. players). How much will Jenks, Quentin and Danks expect to make in either arbitration or a new contract next year?

I'm expecting the Sox to decline Dye's $12 million option ($1 million buyout), but maybe he'll return with a lesser contract that is more in line with his huge 2nd half dropoff this year and his age (36 next year). Thome, Contreras, Pods and Dotel are free agents . If all these guys leave, then the Sox need to find a 3rd starting OF and a DH. There is also the question of 5th starter.

Zisk77
08-27-2009, 01:19 PM
Why would Figgins be so unpopular with the Angels? ...he is a .300 leadoff guy who is a decent defender...is he a bad guy? Does he overvalue himself? Is a a clubhouse cancer?

When a very good player is that unpopular, you have to ask youself if you want to give him the 30+ million to come into your clubhouse while you dump a popular guy in Pods who makes 1/10th of the that money.

Actually I have heard that Chone was a clubhouse problem

Also, before its all said and done Getz may be better than Hudson considering age and Hudson's reoccurring wrist fractures.