PDA

View Full Version : So who goes?


Lip Man 1
10-03-2009, 11:43 AM
So who goes?

Once again it’s an important off season for Kenny Williams and the organization. More talent is needed for crucial spots for the roster.

Kenny has never been afraid to roll the dice and given that they’ve had two losing seasons in the past three years, it’s very possible that the level of off season activity is higher than the past few years. Kenny’s reputation is now coming into question by a lot of Sox fans.

So who does Kenny try to move / cut / let go? Remember he obviously, isn’t going to gut 20 guys off the roster (although with Kenny you never say never…)
but I get a sense he’s going to float a lot of names as potentially leaving through different means…free agency, trades, outright releases, retirements.

Here’s my guess on the players he may try to move off the roster, at one time or another, based on situations and what he may be able to accomplish at various points in time.

Again these are possibilities in my mind:

PITCHERS:
Octavio Dotel, Bobby Jenks, Scott Linebrink, Jeff Marquez, Randy Williams

CATCHERS:
Ramon Castro

INFIELDERS:
Josh Fields, Brent Lillibridge, Jayson Nix

OUTFIELDERS:
Jermaine Dye, Scott Podsednik, Dewayne Wise

----------------------------------------------

The list was even longer a month ago, Kenny has already discarded Bartolo Colon, Jim Thome, Jose Contreras and Jack Egbert. There’s still a lot of names on the list, some of them are now dead weight and simply have to go. The question is, like last off season, can he replace them with talent at least as good or better?

We’ll see.

Lip

DirtySox
10-03-2009, 11:46 AM
A bunch of those names are minor league organizational filler. They likely will continue as such. It's not like there are oodles of prospects on their way to replace them and they hold almost no trade value.

voodoochile
10-03-2009, 11:47 AM
I think Williams, Jenks Nix and Pods are all back with the team. The rest are minor league, DFA or traded.

sox1970
10-03-2009, 12:12 PM
Podsednik, Dye, Castro, Fields, Lillibridge, Wise, Dotel, Williams, and Jenks.

delben91
10-03-2009, 12:16 PM
Peavy, he'll never adapt to the AL.

Craig Grebeck
10-03-2009, 12:20 PM
Why would he try to move Lillibridge? Half the names on this list aren't going anywhere, nor would it make sense to cut them loose.

HangWiffum
10-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Everyone but Peavey and Beckham are on the playing table this offseason.

cards press box
10-03-2009, 12:25 PM
I think Williams, Jenks Nix and Pods are all back with the team. The rest are minor league, DFA or traded.

I agree that Pods and Nix will be back but am not as certain about Jenks or Williams. I don't think the Sox are as down on Jenks as some believe. But if the Sox can fill a hole by trading Jenks, they might do it. We just have to see what needs the Sox can address in the free agent market.

I think Williams might be back, too, particularly if they make Thornton the closer. If that happens, the Sox would probably have two additional lefties in the bullpen and Williams could be one of them.

voodoochile
10-03-2009, 12:28 PM
I agree that Pods and Nix will be back but am not as certain about Jenks or Williams. I don't think the Sox are as down on Jenks as some believe. But if the Sox can fill a hole by trading Jenks, they might do it. We just have to see what needs the Sox can address in the free agent market.

I think Williams might be back, too, particularly if they make Thornton the closer. If that happens, the Sox would probably have two additional lefties in the bullpen and Williams could be one of them.

I'm almost positive Williams will be back as a loogy if nothing else. I wouldn't be shocked to see Jenks get traded either, but don't think it's guaranteed either.

cards press box
10-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Everyone but Peavey and Beckham are on the playing table this offseason.

Phil Rogers' column suggesting that a Peavy/Zambrano deal is possible is, without a doubt, the silliest item I have read in the Chicago papers in quite a while. I am aware that Cub fans everywhere would surely want to see this happen but the whole notion is ridiculous.

The Sox spent two years pursuing Peavy; he is not only the #1 pitcher on the Sox but is probably the best pitcher in the division. The idea that the Sox would remotely consider dealing him to the Cubs is the ultimate Cub fan pipe dream.

Frater Perdurabo
10-03-2009, 12:41 PM
This is what I THINK will happen: Dotel, Dye are gone. Jenks, Linebrink, Williams, Castro, Fields, Nix, Pods, Wise stay. Marquez & Lillibridge to AAA.

I think budget constraints (real or perceived) cause the 2010 25-man roster to be: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Garcia, Jenks, Linebrink, Thornton, Pena, Williams, Carrasco, Hudson, Pods, Rios, TCQ, Beckham, Alexei, Getz, PK, AJ, Nix, Kotsay, Castro, Fields, Wise. :(:

The sliver lining to this dark cloud is that after saving money with this cheaper roster, and after rotating the DH between Fields, PK, TCQ and Pods for the first half of the year (thus ensuring that each of them is fresh), I think KW can make a mid-season deal to acquire a reliever and either Adam Dunn or Carl Crawford.

LITTLE NELL
10-03-2009, 12:47 PM
Keepers: The starting 4
Thornton
Carrasco
Beckham
Paulie
TCQ
AJ
Rios
Kotsay as 4th outfielder
Hudson
On the bubble:
TCM
Pods
Nix
Garcia
Dotel
Jenks

The rest are out of here.

russ99
10-03-2009, 12:55 PM
So who goes?

Once again it’s an important off season for Kenny Williams and the organization. More talent is needed for crucial spots for the roster.

Kenny has never been afraid to roll the dice and given that they’ve had two losing seasons in the past three years, it’s very possible that the level of off season activity is higher than the past few years. Kenny’s reputation is now coming into question by a lot of Sox fans.

So who does Kenny try to move / cut / let go? Remember he obviously, isn’t going to gut 20 guys off the roster (although with Kenny you never say never…)
but I get a sense he’s going to float a lot of names as potentially leaving through different means…free agency, trades, outright releases, retirements.

Here’s my guess on the players he may try to move off the roster, at one time or another, based on situations and what he may be able to accomplish at various points in time.

Again these are possibilities in my mind:

PITCHERS:
Octavio Dotel, Bobby Jenks, Scott Linebrink, Jeff Marquez, Randy Williams

CATCHERS:
Ramon Castro

INFIELDERS:
Josh Fields, Brent Lillibridge, Jayson Nix

OUTFIELDERS:
Jermaine Dye, Scott Podsednik, Dewayne Wise

----------------------------------------------

The list was even longer a month ago, Kenny has already discarded Bartolo Colon, Jim Thome, Jose Contreras and Jack Egbert. There’s still a lot of names on the list, some of them are now dead weight and simply have to go. The question is, like last off season, can he replace them with talent at least as good or better?

We’ll see.

Lip

Lip, I'd think it would depend on the budget. If Kenny has lots of payroll to work with, then I'd think the large majority of these names would be gone, and Kenny could really upgrade the talent level on the big league club.

If payroll is reduced even further from this year's $100M level for 2010, I'd think that Williams, Lillibridge, Nix, Pods and Wise could be back, since we have little major-league ready prospects to cover those positions, and they could be brought back at lesser salary than other options on the open market.

I also doubt Linebrink will be gone, since it would be very hard to move his salary, and the Sox are not in a financial position to eat that large of a contract.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2009, 12:55 PM
Here's why Nix is on the list. Because the Sox might go after Figgins and because they already have Getz. In either case, Nix who has some value can be used as part of a larger deal.

Lillibridge is on the list because Ozzie has already made it very clear what he thinks of him.

As far as the minor league fillers, I think Kenny wants them out of the organization completely and will try to remove them from the 40 man roster to create space for some of the kids in the lower ranks who are moving up the ladder under Buddy Bell.

Lip

voodoochile
10-03-2009, 01:03 PM
Keepers: The starting 4
Thornton
Carrasco
Beckham
Paulie
TCQ
AJ
Rios
Kotsay as 4th outfielder
Hudson
On the bubble:
TCM
Pods
Nix
Garcia
Dotel
Jenks

The rest are out of here.

No chance are those two even close to "on the bubble"...

voodoochile
10-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Here's why Nix is on the list. Because the Sox might go after Figgins and because they already have Getz. In either case, Nix who has some value can be used as part of a larger deal.

Lillibridge is on the list because Ozzie has already made it very clear what he thinks of him.

As far as the minor league fillers, I think Kenny wants them out of the organization completely and will try to remove them from the 40 man roster to create space for some of the kids in the lower ranks who are moving up the ladder under Buddy Bell.

Lip

If they land Figgins, they'd be more likely to trade Getz than Nix, IMO. Getz is strictly a 2B. Nix has at least the potential to become a utility guy.

StillMissOzzie
10-03-2009, 01:10 PM
The only name on Lip's list I'd disagree with is Podsednik. I think that this one time, KW will succumb to fan pressure/desire and keep a fan favorite.

SMO
:gulp:

Craig Grebeck
10-03-2009, 01:13 PM
Here's why Nix is on the list. Because the Sox might go after Figgins and because they already have Getz. In either case, Nix who has some value can be used as part of a larger deal.

Lillibridge is on the list because Ozzie has already made it very clear what he thinks of him.

As far as the minor league fillers, I think Kenny wants them out of the organization completely and will try to remove them from the 40 man roster to create space for some of the kids in the lower ranks who are moving up the ladder under Buddy Bell.

Lip
Name names.

sox1970
10-03-2009, 01:16 PM
The only name on Lip's list I'd disagree with is Podsednik. I think that this one time, KW will succumb to fan pressure/desire and keep a fan favorite.

SMO
:gulp:

Podsednik is a fan favorite? Who knew...

captain54
10-03-2009, 01:34 PM
the offense seriously needs to be addressed, specifically the middle of the order...4,5,6 and 7...

With Dye gone, you can plug Kotsay into one of the slots...desperately need Quentin to bring the BA up, and of course have Rios get his act together.

So you're 4, 5, 6 and 7

Konerko
Quentin
Kotsay
Rios

You could go into 2010 with these 4, but if any one or God forbid two of them wet the bed, we're screwed. I think Kenny will roll the dice with Pods, Beckham and AJ as 1, 2, 3...Figgins gets signed and bye bye Getz

Hudson, Garcia, Torres...all available for #5....best case scenario is Garcia remains solid, allowing Hudson and Torres as trade bait

I honestly don't think the bullpen is going to change much, unfortunately...Thornton as a closer is a great idea on paper, but there's really no replacement for him on the horizon.

delben91
10-03-2009, 02:04 PM
This is what I THINK will happen: Dotel, Dye are gone. Jenks, Linebrink, Williams, Castro, Fields, Nix, Pods, Wise stay. Marquez & Lillibridge to AAA.

I think budget constraints (real or perceived) cause the 2010 25-man roster to be: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Garcia, Jenks, Linebrink, Thornton, Pena, Williams, Carrasco, Hudson, Pods, Rios, TCQ, Beckham, Alexei, Getz, PK, AJ, Nix, Kotsay, Castro, Fields, Wise. :(:

The sliver lining to this dark cloud is that after saving money with this cheaper roster, and after rotating the DH between Fields, PK, TCQ and Pods for the first half of the year (thus ensuring that each of them is fresh), I think KW can make a mid-season deal to acquire a reliever and either Adam Dunn or Carl Crawford.

So you think we go into 2010 with a opening day roster of only players already on the Sox 40 man? No offseason movement at all? Not even a minor signing? Zero?

I can picture no big splashes, but an offseason with no moves by KW that bring anyone back to the organization? Really?

TheVulture
10-03-2009, 02:36 PM
On the bubble:
TCM

:?:

Frater Perdurabo
10-03-2009, 02:38 PM
So you think we go into 2010 with a opening day roster of only players already on the Sox 40 man? No offseason movement at all? Not even a minor signing? Zero?

I can picture no big splashes, but an offseason with no moves by KW that bring anyone back to the organization? Really?

I think it is possible that JR might tell KW that he already is at his budget limit, and therefore KW does not sign any free agents this offseason.

I think it is more likely that KW makes some shrewd trades, but those are almost impossible to predict. Who would have predicted either Swisher trade, either Vazquez trade, either Garcia trade, the Colon trade before 2003, the Wells trade before 2001, the Lee/Pods trade, etc.?

DickAllen72
10-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Nix stays.

soxfan22
10-03-2009, 03:01 PM
Pods to stay

LITTLE NELL
10-03-2009, 03:38 PM
No chance are those two even close to "on the bubble"...
My bubble list is made up of guys who could be traded to improve the team or replaced by better players through free agency. I'm not sold on Garcia as our 5th starter and TCM was not exactly Luis Aparicio this year.

Noneck
10-03-2009, 04:18 PM
TCM was not exactly Luis Aparicio this year.

But, Oh so cheap for 2 more years.

voodoochile
10-03-2009, 06:24 PM
My bubble list is made up of guys who could be traded to improve the team or replaced by better players through free agency. I'm not sold on Garcia as our 5th starter and TCM was not exactly Luis Aparicio this year.

For that price you'd move him back to 2B and trade Getz first, but it's not going to happen.

MarkZ35
10-03-2009, 06:43 PM
Unless Pods is expecting a huge pay raise he'll be back. He has been the most consistent offensive player this year. I know he is more injury prone and not great in the field but he was probably the best hitter this year.

Alexei is not getting traded unless the Sox receive a very nice return. His contract is dirt cheap. I believe he makes just over 1 mil. a year. That's nothing.

soltrain21
10-03-2009, 06:52 PM
This is what I THINK will happen: Dotel, Dye are gone. Jenks, Linebrink, Williams, Castro, Fields, Nix, Pods, Wise stay. Marquez & Lillibridge to AAA.

I think budget constraints (real or perceived) cause the 2010 25-man roster to be: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Garcia, Jenks, Linebrink, Thornton, Pena, Williams, Carrasco, Hudson, Pods, Rios, TCQ, Beckham, Alexei, Getz, PK, AJ, Nix, Kotsay, Castro, Fields, Wise. :(:

The sliver lining to this dark cloud is that after saving money with this cheaper roster, and after rotating the DH between Fields, PK, TCQ and Pods for the first half of the year (thus ensuring that each of them is fresh), I think KW can make a mid-season deal to acquire a reliever and either Adam Dunn or Carl Crawford.


You don't know Kenny Williams very well, do you?

gr8mexico
10-03-2009, 07:26 PM
Move Mark Buehrle
Mark would bring in some great talent.

A. Cavatica
10-03-2009, 07:42 PM
Alexei is not getting traded unless the Sox receive a very nice return. His contract is dirt cheap. I believe he makes just over 1 mil. a year. That's nothing.

He would have been an excellent piece in a Halladay deal, but now that the Sox have Peavy that ship has sailed. I don't see him getting traded in anything less than a blockbuster.

sullythered
10-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Move Mark Buehrle
Mark would bring in some great talent.
Mark Buehrle is some great talent.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2009, 09:25 PM
Remember friends and neighbors what Kenny himself told the Chicago media. "When we lose I generally move players..."

Lip

TheBigHurtST
10-03-2009, 09:27 PM
This is what I THINK will happen: Dotel, Dye are gone. Jenks, Linebrink, Williams, Castro, Fields, Nix, Pods, Wise stay. Marquez & Lillibridge to AAA.

I think budget constraints (real or perceived) cause the 2010 25-man roster to be: Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, Garcia, Jenks, Linebrink, Thornton, Pena, Williams, Carrasco, Hudson, Pods, Rios, TCQ, Beckham, Alexei, Getz, PK, AJ, Nix, Kotsay, Castro, Fields, Wise. :(:

The sliver lining to this dark cloud is that after saving money with this cheaper roster, and after rotating the DH between Fields, PK, TCQ and Pods for the first half of the year (thus ensuring that each of them is fresh), I think KW can make a mid-season deal to acquire a reliever and either Adam Dunn or Carl Crawford.

I just can't see the Sox keeping Jenks. I'd personally be disappointed if he was back next year.

Noneck
10-03-2009, 10:16 PM
Remember friends and neighbors what Kenny himself told the Chicago media. "When we lose I generally move players..."

Lip

He moved or dumped after last year and they didn't lose. The moving or dumping will probably depend on the budget he is told to abide by.

gosox41
10-03-2009, 10:20 PM
So who goes?


Again these are possibilities in my mind:

PITCHERS:
Octavio Dotel, Bobby Jenks, Scott Linebrink, Jeff Marquez, Randy Williams

CATCHERS:
Ramon Castro

INFIELDERS:
Josh Fields, Brent Lillibridge, Jayson Nix

OUTFIELDERS:
Jermaine Dye, Scott Podsednik, Dewayne Wise

----------------------------------------------

The list was even longer a month ago, Kenny has already discarded Bartolo Colon, Jim Thome, Jose Contreras and Jack Egbert. There’s still a lot of names on the list, some of them are now dead weight and simply have to go. The question is, like last off season, can he replace them with talent at least as good or better?

We’ll see.

Lip

No need to get 20 guys off the roster. This team is not in as bad shape as it may seem for next year (though that doesn't mean there isn't areas that need improvement.)

Linebrink will be back because no one wants him.
Nix will be back because he is good, cheap, and Ozzie really likes him.
Pods will be back because KW knows this team needs speed and needs it desperately.
Wise will be back because Ozzie loves him as a pinch runner and 5th OFer. Keep in mind that I don't think he'll be back.

I think there is an excellent chance Jenks will be traded, but only if they get a good return.


Bob

Lip Man 1
10-03-2009, 10:46 PM
Bob:

Reread my original post again. All the names I listed were in my opinion, possibilities...that Kenny might consider depending on circumstances. That includes a multiple player deal involving some of these guys for other teams 'castoff's' for want of a better word.

He's already dumped four and the season isn't even done yet...it's very reasonable to think he can unload through various means another five or six guys. That puts you basically at double figures.

Lip

fram40
10-03-2009, 11:40 PM
I also doubt Linebrink will be gone, since it would be very hard to move his salary, and the Sox are not in a financial position to eat that large of a contract.

I don't understand this line of thinking and I wonder if Sox management actually thinks that way (everyone accuses them of it).

Economically it makes no sense - whatever they owe Linebrink is a sunk cost. It cannot be recovered - why keep him on the roster to lose games. The only (additional) cost if Linebrink is dumped is the replacement cost - what is the minimum salary these days? 400K?

Baseball-wise - it makes even less sense to keep him on the roster if he continues to pitch poorly. Unfortunately, I expect the Sox will give him two or three months next season. If he continues to suck - they will DFA him.

If the Sox cut Linebrink - just DFA him now, please - and replace him with a rookie, it costs only 400K per season. Are the Sox really going to keep such a bad performer over less than $1 million for two seasons? I don't see it.

Tragg
10-04-2009, 12:57 AM
Of the expiring contracts, I'd bring only Kotsay back and only for a bench role. (not a platoon role, Oz; bench role).
I'd let Dye, Podsednik and obviously Wise walk.
Dotel is a close call whether or not to offer arb- he's expensive.
Williams - if his contract expires, I might bring him back-he's okay for a situational lefty.
We need a RF.

SBSoxFan
10-04-2009, 01:37 AM
Of the expiring contracts, I'd bring only Kotsay back and only for a bench role. (not a platoon role, Oz; bench role).
I'd let Dye, Podsednik and obviously Wise walk.
Dotel is a close call whether or not to offer arb- he's expensive.
Williams - if his contract expires, I might bring him back-he's okay for a situational lefty.
We need a RF.

I don't understand the desire to let Podsednik go. Who will lead off? The Sox have gone too many times without a legitimate lead off man. Podsednik has shown he's healthy, and he was consistent all year long. It seems worth it to try to get him back for a couple of years until the Sox can fill his spot from within.

Noneck
10-04-2009, 01:46 AM
I don't understand the desire to let Podsednik go. Who will lead off? The Sox have gone too many times without a legitimate lead off man. Podsednik has shown he's healthy, and he was consistent all year long. It seems worth it to try to get him back for a couple of years until the Sox can fill his spot from within.

I agree and this is the 1st time since the Sox have had him that he has proved that he can stay healthy for a whole year. He did say early in the year that he has found a way to stay healthy and he has. And if anyone really believes the Sox can get Figgins, They are living in a total dream world.

whitesox_09
10-04-2009, 02:51 AM
This year was a disappointment for sure but we broke in a lot of young guys. Beckham needs no explanation as everyone can see his trajectory. If Rios can play up to his potential and Quentin remains healthy, the team already is improved over the opening day roster. On top of that, if Getz does not play with a serious injury (double sports hernia), he hits .275 at worst with 30 SB...Adding Peavy, I guarantee Vegas has our sox the favorite to win the central next year.

jabrch
10-04-2009, 05:27 AM
Remember friends and neighbors what Kenny himself told the Chicago media. "When we lose I generally move players..."

Lip


Alternatively - don't pay an oune of attention to what KW says. He is only putting information that he wants out there. Watch what he does.

russ99
10-04-2009, 08:38 AM
I think it is possible that JR might tell KW that he already is at his budget limit, and therefore KW does not sign any free agents this offseason.

That's highly doubtful, since effectively Peavy and Rios replaces Contreras and Thome on the opening day payoll ($85M) and cutting loose Dye and Dotel give Kenny $13M to play with before any potential free agents are asked to come back.

Jenks and Carlos will get a raise in arb, and Jenks would be right on the border of his value vs. his salary, so if the Sox trade him as many think they will, the Quentin salary is the only one really increasing this offseason.

So, If Jerry keeps the payroll around $100M, and the Sox still re-sign Pods, Garcia and Kotsay, there would be approx. $10-20M left under the budget for acquisitions.

russ99
10-04-2009, 09:15 AM
OK, so my last post on avaliable payroll was vague, so here's the 2010 Sox payroll obligations:
(option move expected in bold, '09 numbers in italics)

Peavy - 15
Buehrle 14
Konerko - 12
Dye - 12/1
Rios - 9.7
Pierzynski - 6.25
Jenks - 5.6 (+ arb)
Linebrink - 5
Floyd - 2.75 (edited)
Viciedo - 2.25
Thornton - 2.25
Ramirez - 1.1
Garcia - 1
Quentin - .55 (2009 - ++ arb: est 4-6)
Wise - .55 (+ arb)
Danks - .52 (++ arb: est 3-5)
Carrasco - .44 (+ arb)
Pena - .43 (+ arb)
Fields - .41
Williams - .41
Lillibridge - .4
Getz - .4
Nix - .4
Armstrong - .4
MacDougal - .35 (buyout)
Beckham - min
Flowers - min
Hudson - min
Nunez - min
Torres - min
--------
Total: $83.25M (all fixed for Floyd error)
With Danks & Quentin (and Carrasco/Pena) increases - $94.25M
With a Jenks trade - $89.25M

Sox Free agents (with 2009 salaries):
------------------------------------------
Dotel - 6
Castro - 4.6
Podsednik .8
Kotsay - 1.5

If Jerry stays at $100M, it looks like Jenks or another big number needs to be dealt for Kenny to have that flexibility...

tstrike2000
10-04-2009, 09:24 AM
Pods, Nix, and Jenks I think are all staying. The rest depends on what moves KW wants to make.

cornball
10-04-2009, 09:53 AM
So who goes?

Once again it’s an important off season for Kenny Williams and the organization. More talent is needed for crucial spots for the roster.

Kenny has never been afraid to roll the dice and given that they’ve had two losing seasons in the past three years, it’s very possible that the level of off season activity is higher than the past few years. Kenny’s reputation is now coming into question by a lot of Sox fans.

So who does Kenny try to move / cut / let go? Remember he obviously, isn’t going to gut 20 guys off the roster (although with Kenny you never say never…)
but I get a sense he’s going to float a lot of names as potentially leaving through different means…free agency, trades, outright releases, retirements.

Here’s my guess on the players he may try to move off the roster, at one time or another, based on situations and what he may be able to accomplish at various points in time.

Again these are possibilities in my mind:

PITCHERS:
Octavio Dotel, Bobby Jenks, Scott Linebrink, Jeff Marquez, Randy Williams

CATCHERS:
Ramon Castro

INFIELDERS:
Josh Fields, Brent Lillibridge, Jayson Nix

OUTFIELDERS:
Jermaine Dye, Scott Podsednik, Dewayne Wise

----------------------------------------------

The list was even longer a month ago, Kenny has already discarded Bartolo Colon, Jim Thome, Jose Contreras and Jack Egbert. There’s still a lot of names on the list, some of them are now dead weight and simply have to go. The question is, like last off season, can he replace them with talent at least as good or better?

We’ll see.

Lip

Personally, I think KW is in a great position. Who stays and who leaves are based on what is available in the trade market and/or who he can sign via free agency. I would think it is safe to say Dotel and Dye will not be back for the same or similar money they make now.

Having said that, my guess is, Dye, Castro and Dotel are gone.

Lillibridge, Jeff Marquez will not be make the team next year, possible AAA

Fields will be traded; while Jenks, Linebrink will be marketed to see if they could return value (little in return for Linebrink)

Pods, Williams, Nix, Wise are in a holding pattern pending possible moves.

The offense needs to be improved, DH and an outfield spot. Depending on the way they are obtained rests the fate of the guys on the bubble. I would think all players are available for trade except for the big 4 in the rotation, GB, AR, Rios and CQ.

cornball
10-04-2009, 10:00 AM
OK, so my last post on avaliable payroll was vague, so here's the 2010 Sox payroll obligations:
(option move expected in bold)

Floyd - 5




Not to be picky, but this is good news for you. GF contract for 2010 is for 2.75 and increases to 5 in 2011.

Hope that makes you feel better.

johnny bench
10-04-2009, 10:09 AM
So far, the answers to OP are mostly focused on talent evaluation. I think there are a couple of other questions that Sox management are asking themselves now, about 2010 income, and aspirations for 2010.

1. Since income (attendance, merchandising, sponsorships) is down compared to previous year, by how much more do we expect income to drop in 2010? Or, do we think that the trend will reverse?

2. What is our competitive goal for 2010? Is it enough to build our roster to beat the Tigers and Twins, make the playoffs and hope our pitching is good enough to get us beyond the first round? Is our current roster good enough to do that now with some minor changes? Do we try to take advantage of other teams weakened financial conditions to pry away better talent to build a team that is better able to compete with Boston, Angels and New York?

My take is that sox management will continue to be what they have always been. They saw the downward trend in attendance in 2008 vs 2007 (even with a division winner) and cut payroll accordingly for 2009. We can expect more of the same w/r/t 2010 payroll. I don't think it is safe to assume a $100MM payroll for 2010. The relevant question is how much they will increase payroll beyond the $70MM or so that is already contractually committed.

For me, this starts to answer the second question about competitive goals for 2010. Sox management can easily convince themselves that the Tigers will have to contract 2010 payroll as well because 2009 attendance will be down 700K, more than 20% less than 2008. Since the Tigers barely hung on at the end of this year, and are going to have to cut payroll, can they really be a serious threat?

The Twins are a tougher competitive nut to crack. Nathan is under contract until 2011, Morneau until 2013. Mauer is a potential wild card because his contract is up after 2010. This winter, Mauer is the legendary "never will his trade value be greater" guy. Where do you think Mauer would go if he were traded? Of course, I'm thinking Boston or New York, who desperately need a strong, young catcher. If the white sox step up and sign mauer next year, then you know they really are serious about competing with the big payroll teams.

So, if you want to know if the sox will spend any money at all this winter, then watch to see if the Twins trade Morneau. If Morneau is traded, the sox will put away their wallets. If he stays, they'll spend enough to stay competitive, but, at a lower total payroll than 2009.

Sox
10-04-2009, 10:35 AM
I still dont understand why some on here think that Scotty Pods will be gone. He's had a great season with the Sox and personally I think that he is one that stays. IMO I would love nothing more than to see Linebrink traded. He's a shaky reliever at best out of the bullpen. I was highly disappointed when the Sox got rid of Jim Thome. I never really understood that move. I felt that Jim was always another consistent clutch player on this Sox team.

SCCWS
10-04-2009, 10:38 AM
So far, the answers to OP are mostly focused on talent evaluation. I think there are a couple of other questions that Sox management are asking themselves now, about 2010 income, and aspirations for 2010.




.


The Twins are a tougher competitive nut to crack. Nathan is under contract until 2011, Morneau until 2013. Mauer is a potential wild card because his contract is up after 2010. This winter, Mauer is the legendary "never will his trade value be greater" guy. Where do you think Mauer would go if he were traded? Of course, I'm thinking Boston or New York, who desperately need a strong, young catcher. If the white sox step up and sign mauer next year, then you know they really are serious about competing with the big payroll teams.

So, if you want to know if the sox will spend any money at all this winter, then watch to see if the Twins trade Morneau. If Morneau is traded, the sox will put away their wallets. If he stays, they'll spend enough to stay competitive, but, at a lower total payroll than 2009.


Boston already acquired their catcher for the future.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2009, 11:47 AM
Russ99:

According to Mark Gonzales of the Tribune by his calculations the Sox have 10 players under contract for 2010 for a total of 71.55 million. That includes Viciendo.

Just FYI.

Lip

voodoochile
10-04-2009, 11:52 AM
Russ99:

According to Mark Gonzales of the Tribune by his calculations the Sox have 10 players under contract for 2010 for a total of 71.55 million. That includes Viciendo.

Just FYI.

Lip

Danks and TCQ get arb.

Also, it's Viciedo, no N...

johnny bench
10-04-2009, 12:01 PM
Danks and TCQ get arb.



They'll pay Danks. TCQ is not a lock.

voodoochile
10-04-2009, 12:12 PM
They'll pay Danks. TCQ is not a lock.
That's just silly...

cards press box
10-04-2009, 12:14 PM
Move Mark Buehrle
Mark would bring in some great talent.

I don't see this at all. The quartet of Jake Peavy, Mark Buerhle, John Danks and Gavin Floyd will be the heart of the 2010 White Sox. Freddy Garcia will be one more year removed from surgery and will be a top flight 5th starter. Dan Hudson is probably the 6th starter/long reliever (if he is on the roster) and I think he will be a stalwart in the Sox rotation for years to come. What's more, having Buerhle on the roster is like having a 2nd pitching coach for the young pitchers. Buerhle is going nowhere but 35th and Shields.


They'll pay Danks. TCQ is not a lock.

Both are locks. TCQ and Gordon Beckham are the Sox' cornerstones among their position players.

Gavin
10-04-2009, 12:24 PM
Denying Scott Podsednik is like looking past a wonderful girlfriend because you're holding out for Eva Longoria.

getonbckthr
10-04-2009, 01:09 PM
I have a gut feeling Prince Fielder will be our DH next season.

johnny bench
10-04-2009, 01:13 PM
Both are locks. TCQ and Gordon Beckham are the Sox' cornerstones among their position players.

You might be right about TCQ, and I might agree with you if not for TCQ's injury history, and near certainty of more time on the DL. Last night (saturday) he was HBP twice, once on the wrist. Sooner or later his hand is going to get broken again. He hasn't yet played a complete season, and he is completing his 4th year in major leagues. Why will 2010 be different?

Are you saying that he isn't going to get injured again? Are you saying that you can be on DL and still be a cornerstone?

Maybe we will pay him. But I have to believe that KW is going to be searching for a cheaper alternative, especially if arbitration for TCQ really will come in at $6MM.

russ99
10-04-2009, 01:40 PM
Not to be picky, but this is good news for you. GF contract for 2010 is for 2.75 and increases to 5 in 2011.

Hope that makes you feel better.

Thanks for the heads up on that, and I feel great about the 2010 Sox. :D:

Just wanted to get an idea about were we are at on salary so far. I updated my original post (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2363803&postcount=46).

MarkZ35
10-04-2009, 01:58 PM
Denying Scott Podsednik is like looking past a wonderful girlfriend because you're holding out for Eva Longoria.
I really like this comparison. I agree, I don't understand the Pods hatred. He was the life line of this team for most of the season. Will he have the same amount of success next year? Maybe but every player is a risk.

Martinigirl
10-04-2009, 02:26 PM
I really like this comparison. I agree, I don't understand the Pods hatred. He was the life line of this team for most of the season. Will he have the same amount of success next year? Maybe but every player is a risk.

I can't understand it either. The man has done more than anyone imagined possible for him to do this year yet somehow it is not enough.

I really believe he will be back next season. I also think Bobby will be back. And as much as I don't want him to be back, I think we will see Scott Linebrink back because no one else will want to pick up his contract.

DirtySox
10-04-2009, 02:32 PM
Pods will explore free agency.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091004&content_id=7318294&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws&partnerId=rss_cws

Tragg
10-04-2009, 04:07 PM
I don't understand the desire to let Podsednik go. Who will lead off? The Sox have gone too many times without a legitimate lead off man. Podsednik has shown he's healthy, and he was consistent all year long. It seems worth it to try to get him back for a couple of years until the Sox can fill his spot from within.

He's got no position. He's a poor defender. Quentin plays left. Putting Podesednik at DH is just Guillen clowning. That's not serious. Just contrast Thome's production to Podsednik's. Guillen can't possibly put Kotsay and Podsednik to handle OF and DH and expect to win.

And what does he bring? -a solid obp, with no power, in a good year - and the good years arent' consistent. Beckham or Getz can lead off.

As constructed, this is a .500 team. AJ and Pods had near career years- AJ, Pods, Konerko are again. Changes need to be made. I'd start with an athletic RF and let the two aging corners go.

Noneck
10-04-2009, 04:10 PM
Pods will explore free agency.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091004&content_id=7318294&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws&partnerId=rss_cws


The most interesting part of this is he wants to be a starter wherever he goes. I am sure that a guaranteed starting position will part of his negotiations.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2009, 06:10 PM
If that's the situation than thanks Pods and good luck wherever you go.

A 33 year old who can't seem to put back to back healthy seasons together, who is awful defensively and seems to take mental vacations on the bases is not what the Sox need.

Lip

NLaloosh
10-04-2009, 07:23 PM
I can't understand why Pods and Nix wouldn't be back.

If it were me, I would sign Figgins and keep the roster like this:

1. Beckham
2. Ramirez
3. Nix
4. Getz
5. Konerko
6. Kotsay
7. Flowers
8. A.J.
9. Quentin
10. Rios
11. Pods
12. Figgins
13. Lillibridge

I think this squad would produce enough offense to support an outsatnding starting rotation of:

1. Peavy
2. Danks
3. Floyd
4. Buehrle
5. Garcia
6. Hudson

Bullpen: I don't know. I'm ok with trading Jenks if they get back atleast 2 really good young arms.

Dotel- good bye. I think they are stuck with Linebrink. Pena will need to step up and be better. I don't think that I would sign any FA here.

Spend the money on Figgins.

Hitmen77
10-04-2009, 08:35 PM
OK, so my last post on avaliable payroll was vague, so here's the 2010 Sox payroll obligations:
(option move expected in bold, '09 numbers in italics)

Peavy - 15
Buehrle 14
Konerko - 12
Dye - 12/1
Rios - 9.7
Pierzynski - 6.25
Jenks - 5.6 (+ arb)
Linebrink - 5
Floyd - 2.75 (edited)
Viciedo - 2.25
Thornton - 2.25/.25 (club option)
Ramirez - 1.1
Garcia - 1 (option)
Quentin - .55 (2009 - ++ arb: est 4-6)
Wise - .55 (+ arb)
Danks - .52 (++ arb: est 3-5)
Carrasco - .44 (+ arb)
Pena - .43 (+ arb)
Fields - .41
Williams - .41
Lillibridge - .4
Getz - .4
Nix - .4
Armstrong - .4
MacDougal - .35 (buyout)
Beckham - min
Flowers - min
Hudson - min
Nunez - min
Torres - min
--------
Total: $83.25M (all fixed for Floyd error)
With Danks & Quentin (and Carrasco/Pena) increases - $94.25M
With a Jenks trade - $89.25M

Sox Free agents (with 2009 salaries):
------------------------------------------
Dotel - 6
Castro - 4.6
Podsednik .8
Kotsay - 1.5

If Jerry stays at $100M, it looks like Jenks or another big number needs to be dealt for Kenny to have that flexibility...

This is what has me most concerned about this offseason. I don't expect the Sox 2010 payroll to be much higher than this amount.....but we still have at least one, maybe two (if Pods doesn't return), huge holes in our lineup to fill.

We're losing both Dye and Thome' production for next year. Yes, we all want to get away from slow-footed sluggers, but that's A LOT of power and production form the heart of the lineup that needs to be replaced if we're serious about contending. It's not very comforting to see that we might already be near our salary limit.

Lip Man 1
10-05-2009, 11:44 PM
Some have questioned why I put Nix on the list of guys Kenny may explore dealing, another clue came out today as Ozzie told Chuck Garfein that he's already told Nix (and Lillibridge) that if they don't improve offensively they won't be with the club.

Ozzie added that both those guys are "trying to play a big man's game" (i.e. hit home runs) and they can't because "they are little guys." He said they strike out to much and don't get on base enough.

Just FYI.

Lip

khan
10-06-2009, 12:57 PM
Armstrong - .4
Flowers - min

Lillibridge - .4
Getz - .4
Nix - .4

Hudson - min
Nunez - min
Torres - min

Minor query, but, why include these players in the total?

Either Flowers OR Armstrong will be on the big club, with the other in AAA. Even if you cut Armstrong, another player at the same position will have to be in the 40-man, and probably at the same salary.

The same is true for the grouping of Getz/Nix/Lillibridge and the group of Hudson/Nunez/Torres: Assuming no trades, 2 of each group will be in Chicago, with the other in AAA. Even with a trade or DFA, the third player in each group that doesn't make the team will be replaced by another player in the 40-man, at roughly the same salary.

Dotel - 6
Castro - 4.6
Podsednik .8
Kotsay - 1.5
With the built-in increases to returning players [Danks/Pena/Carrasco/Quentin, etc...], I can't fathom a $6M BP arm or a $4.6M backup catcher being included, UNLESS some other pieces are moved. Since Casto isn't exactly a key piece to a WS contender, I don't see him returning. Unless Dotel is willing to take a paycut, he's gone, too.

Pods and Kotsay [at the right price] can be contributors to this team. I'd guess that a COMBINED $4-$5M/yr between the two players wouldn't be a bad deal, IMO. Yes, I recognize their shortcomings, but [perhaps] budgetary constraints limit KW's ability to go get better[READ: more expensive] replacements.

If Jerry stays at $100M, it looks like Jenks or another big number needs to be dealt for Kenny to have that flexibility...
Agreed.

Looking at these numbers, I don't see any way that the SOX go get Figgins. Even if JR moves the budget to ~$110M for 2010, there would still have to be some cutting, which opens up other holes to fill. To me, that means that bringing back Pods for a year or two at a reasonable price makes budgetary sense.

From a competitive standpoint, [Assuming no major pieces are lost this offseason] the team needs some BP help and a reliable middle-of-the-order bat to be competitive. I simply don't know how KW will get this done at this point.

soltrain21
10-06-2009, 01:09 PM
Some have questioned why I put Nix on the list of guys Kenny may explore dealing, another clue came out today as Ozzie told Chuck Garfein that he's already told Nix (and Lillibridge) that if they don't improve offensively they won't be with the club.

Ozzie added that both those guys are "trying to play a big man's game" (i.e. hit home runs) and they can't because "they are little guys." He said they strike out to much and don't get on base enough.

Just FYI.

Lip

Ozzie picks the weirdest guys to call out. Who is expecting Nix and Lillibridge to hit?

Crestani
10-06-2009, 01:19 PM
Some have questioned why I put Nix on the list of guys Kenny may explore dealing, another clue came out today as Ozzie told Chuck Garfein that he's already told Nix (and Lillibridge) that if they don't improve offensively they won't be with the club.

Ozzie added that both those guys are "trying to play a big man's game" (i.e. hit home runs) and they can't because "they are little guys." He said they strike out to much and don't get on base enough.

Just FYI.

Lip


Nix can hit the occasional home run as we have seen. He is also a grinder. I like Nix and hope he stays. Yes he has to cut down on the strike outs, but he has a better than average glove and can play multiple positions and comes cheap.

We also don't need Pods and all of his brain farts any longer! We need a Carl Crawford leading off and then move TCQ to RF.

asindc
10-06-2009, 01:29 PM
Nix can hit the occasional home run as we have seen. He is also a grinder. I like Nix and hope he stays. Yes he has to cut down on the strike outs, but he has a better than average glove and can play multiple positions and comes cheap.

We also don't need Pods and all of his brain farts any longer! We need a Carl Crawford leading off and then move TCQ to RF.

I think I can confidently speak for every other WSI poster in saying that we all would prefer Crawford over Pods. The issue, though is.... say it with me boys and girls.... $$$$$$$. Pods is being discussed because he might be our best option for lead-off, not because he is preferable to the very few other viable options that might be available.

hawkjt
10-06-2009, 01:43 PM
The market for Figgins is going to be strong. That will drive up the market for Pods. I hope Kenny does not wait on Pods, hoping that he can pick him up as a bargain late in the FA season...leadoff guys that can hit .306 and with oba of .355 and steal 30+ bags..will be in demand in this new era of less power,more running baseball.

I just hope that Pods price has not gone up too much...I was hoping for a 2 year 4-5 million dollar deal, total....but figgins will probably get 4 year 40 million...and he gets hurt as much as Pods.

Zisk77
10-06-2009, 01:51 PM
I think Jenks is staying put.

Nix might be moved in a package deal, otherwise supersub.

Dye gone :whiner:. Castro gone. Maybe Pods, maybe not.

linebrink will be shopped and gone if any takers but don't hold your breathe.

Dotel gone unless he accepts arb (don't do it).

Sorry if this echoed others, I wasn't about to read entire thread on lunch break.

LoveYourSuit
10-06-2009, 01:58 PM
Sadly I have given in to the fact that we must keep Pods for budget reasons.


We need a big bat in the middle of the order, I rather use any money available to get a run producing bat. I don't have faith in Quentin, Konerko, & Rios to be the middle of the order to take us to a championship.

kufram
10-06-2009, 02:26 PM
I don't blame Pods one bit for exploring free agency. Earlier this year his career was over. I say bring him back and if he plays himself off the team so be it, unless you can land another PROVEN leadoff. Pay him $1.00 more than anyone else will.

What a waste putting Beckham at leadoff. Other guys can hit first but few can leadoff.

Pods' faults are apparent but his value is proven, his fitness looks better than it has ever been, and at least the fire is burning in him. He gets on base, people!

Regarding the rest, for me Dye is gone (sadly), Lillibridge is gone, Wise is gone, Fields (of course) is gone, Dotel is gone... sadly Linebrink is staying. Castro and Marquez are replacable.

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2009, 02:48 PM
Nix can hit the occasional home run as we have seen. He is also a grinder. I like Nix and hope he stays. Yes he has to cut down on the strike outs, but he has a better than average glove and can play multiple positions and comes cheap.

We also don't need Pods and all of his brain farts any longer! We need a Carl Crawford leading off and then move TCQ to RF.
Quantify this, please.

voodoochile
10-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Quantify this, please.

You can't be serious and guess what, not everyone needs to quantify every single aspect of the game to see it as valid...:rolleyes:

And no, I'm not really defending the comment, but I do find it ridiculous to expect that comment to be quantified.

russ99
10-06-2009, 02:58 PM
Minor query, but, why include these players in the total?

Either Flowers OR Armstrong will be on the big club, with the other in AAA. Even if you cut Armstrong, another player at the same position will have to be in the 40-man, and probably at the same salary.


The same is true for the grouping of Getz/Nix/Lillibridge and the group of Hudson/Nunez/Torres: Assuming no trades, 2 of each group will be in Chicago, with the other in AAA. Even with a trade or DFA, the third player in each group that doesn't make the team will be replaced by another player in the 40-man, at roughly the same salary.


Those guys are on the 40-man and could conceivably make the big league roster next year. All the .2 and min guys will get a small salary bump.


With the built-in increases to returning players [Danks/Pena/Carrasco/Quentin, etc...], I can't fathom a $6M BP arm or a $4.6M backup catcher being included, UNLESS some other pieces are moved. Since Casto isn't exactly a key piece to a WS contender, I don't see him returning. Unless Dotel is willing to take a paycut, he's gone, too.

I have to think other pieces are being moved to clear room, which is the only reason Jenks would be getting shopped on the market now. But other big names would be more difficlut to move. Konerko's got a NTC and is our lone holdover experienced power bat, A.J's replacement(s) aren't ready, and Peavy/Rios won't be moved. I also very much doubt Buehrle would be moved. Linebrink could be gone, but I don't see another team taking him without having the Sox eat payroll.

And Dotel's already gone. He wants to play on the East Coast and wants a shot to close.


Pods and Kotsay [at the right price] can be contributors to this team. I'd guess that a COMBINED $4-$5M/yr between the two players wouldn't be a bad deal, IMO. Yes, I recognize their shortcomings, but [perhaps] budgetary constraints limit KW's ability to go get better[READ: more expensive] replacements.

I'd expect possibly one to be back, but this could be a late Jan/Feb re-signing, since Kenny won't attempt to outbid anyone for these guys.


Agreed.

Looking at these numbers, I don't see any way that the SOX go get Figgins. Even if JR moves the budget to ~$110M for 2010, there would still have to be some cutting, which opens up other holes to fill. To me, that means that bringing back Pods for a year or two at a reasonable price makes budgetary sense.

From a competitive standpoint, [Assuming no major pieces are lost this offseason] the team needs some BP help and a reliable middle-of-the-order bat to be competitive. I simply don't know how KW will get this done at this point.

That's the big question. If Jerry's going for it, $110M isn't beyond the realm of possibility, especially if they have better success re-signing or acquiring new advertisers. The Sox have spent more than that in recent years. And the ad market is improving, it's nowhere as bleak as last offseason. And with the horses in the rotation for a title push, Jerry could just roll the dice on a higher payroll anyway.

The one thing he's not doing is cutting, since that was a disastrous move last season. If he wants to sell tickets and sell advertisers on the product, chopping payroll again isn't the way to do it.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 03:03 PM
And no, I'm not really defending the comment, but I do find it ridiculous to expect that comment to be quantified.

I don't think it's that outrageous. You could look at defensive range, clutch hitting, ability to put the ball in play, pitches taken in the zone versus out of the zone...any number of ways to quantify the type of player someone is. To just take someone and call them "grindy" because they seem to exude effort is preposterous. Only players of the highest quality of talent don't have to in order to survive in the MLB. The other 95% have to give it their all in order to stay.

khan
10-06-2009, 03:23 PM
Those guys are on the 40-man and could conceivably make the big league roster next year.
This may be true, but I rather doubt that BOTH Flowers AND Armstrong will be in the team. I doubt that Hudson AND Torres AND Nunez will be in the team, unless some more important parts are moved. I doubt that Nix AND Getz AND Lillibridge are in the team, unless KW loses any sense of budget, and ships out Ramirez.

On top of this, if all of these guys[Flowers/Armstrong/Hudson/Nunez/Torres/Getz/Lillibridge/Nix] are in the team, there will be additions to Charlotte's roster at or near their salary levels. In turn, counting all of these guys is a bit redundant, no?

At the same time, if you're including all the guys in the 40 man, why not count guys like Clevelan Santeliz, Lucas Harrell, Jon Link, and Jeffrey Marquez, too?

All the .2 and min guys will get a small salary bump.
I've already conceded this as likely.

That's the big question. If Jerry's going for it, $110M isn't beyond the realm of possibility, especially if they have better success re-signing or acquiring new advertisers. The Sox have spent more than that in recent years. And the ad market is improving, it's nowhere as bleak as last offseason. And with the horses in the rotation for a title push, Jerry could just roll the dice on a higher payroll anyway.
Oh, I agree with this. But we never really know what's in KW's mind until he's already made a move, do we?

The one thing he's not doing is cutting, since that was a disastrous move last season.
We don't know if they're not cutting. They have already shipped out Thome and Contreras. If memory serves, they had a list of players that were available after the waiver deadline that they were trying to shed.

We don't know that not re-signing some of 2008's FAs didn't allow the signing of Rios/Peavy. So we don't know if cutting budget was a disasterous move, from the business side of things.

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2009, 03:56 PM
You can't be serious and guess what, not everyone needs to quantify every single aspect of the game to see it as valid...:rolleyes:

And no, I'm not really defending the comment, but I do find it ridiculous to expect that comment to be quantified.
I want to know what about Jayson Nix's game gives the quoted poster the idea that he is a grinder. I don't see why it's ridiculous. Going around applying labels with no basis is idiotic.

voodoochile
10-06-2009, 03:58 PM
I want to know what about Jayson Nix's game gives the quoted poster the idea that he is a grinder. I don't see why it's ridiculous. Going around applying labels with no basis is idiotic.

The whole concept of grinder is an emotional evaluation, IMO.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2009, 04:07 PM
Love:

Who knows, Pods may get an offer that blows the Sox out of the water. As Noneck stated it appears from his comments there will be no hometown discount and his agent is going to decide simply on the amount offered.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2009, 04:13 PM
The whole concept of grinder is an emotional evaluation, IMO.
Ok. I still want to hear the poster's reasoning. It's an overused term and concept that makes no sense whatsoever.

Tragg
10-06-2009, 04:18 PM
How in the world is Beckham at leadoff "a waste". This notion that you want your leadoff hitter to slap-hit singles and no more is weird.
It's not like it's Jim Thome leading off.

sox1970
10-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Between the minors and the Sox, Beckham had 70 extra base hits this year. You want him to drive in runs. That's why you don't bat him leadoff. I think he's an ideal 3-hitter.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 04:21 PM
The whole concept of grinder is an emotional evaluation, IMO.

Then why give it credence if it's based on emotion and not fact? :?:

Once again, I don't see a problem with Grebeck challenging that statement. The poster might have well of said "We should keep Jason Nix because I think he is awesome." That's swell and all, but we really need something more if you're trying to make that a point.

Tragg
10-06-2009, 04:24 PM
There's no reason to get rid of Nix or Kotsay -they are utility ballplayers, Williams often trades real talent to acquire utility talent, so that step won't be needed. But the field staff needs to get it through their skull than they are utility players, NOT platoon players.

All we need is a RF and perhaps a 3B; and if we get a 3B and move Beckham, Getz, who has value, is expendable.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2009, 04:30 PM
Munch:

Because baseball is not simply a business that is decided or acted upon completely by graphs, charts, statistical analysis or made up figures by eggheads sitting in their basement with PHD's from MIT.

Baseball has a million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, stapled, collated, accessed or filed.

If baseball was simply a computer technologists dream than there would be no need to play any games on the field, we could do it in an air conditioned, climate controlled room and save everyone the trouble.

I'm sure Daver will chime into this discussion before much longer :D:

Lip

munchman33
10-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Munch:

Because baseball is not simply a business that is decided or acted upon completely by graphs, charts, statistical analysis or made up figures by eggheads sitting in their basement with PHD's from MIT.

Baseball has a million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, stapled, collated, accessed or filed.

If baseball was simply a computer technologists dream than there would be no need to play any games on the field, we could do in in an air conditioned, climate controlled room and save everyone the trouble.

I'm sure Daver will chime into this discussion before much longer :D:

Lip

Everything is quantifiable. The problem is that most advanced statistics are misused and/or misunderstood.

voodoochile
10-06-2009, 04:44 PM
How in the world is Beckham at leadoff "a waste". This notion that you want your leadoff hitter to slap-hit singles and no more is weird.
It's not like it's Jim Thome leading off.

Because he's going to hit for a fair amount of power as he gets older. He's the type of guy who can easily put up 70-80 XBH from the looks of things. Having guys like that leadoff gives them less chances to drive in runs.

voodoochile
10-06-2009, 04:46 PM
Then why give it credence if it's based on emotion and not fact? :?:

Once again, I don't see a problem with Grebeck challenging that statement. The poster might have well of said "We should keep Jason Nix because I think he is awesome." That's swell and all, but we really need something more if you're trying to make that a point.

I have no problem with challenging it, but to expect a quantified evaluation in response to that challenge is silly, IMO.

voodoochile
10-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Everything is quantifiable. The problem is that most advanced statistics are misused and/or misunderstood.

Um... no...

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2009, 04:53 PM
Munch:

Because baseball is not simply a business that is decided or acted upon completely by graphs, charts, statistical analysis or made up figures by eggheads sitting in their basement with PHD's from MIT.

Baseball has a million variables that can't be quantified, qualified, folded, stapled, collated, accessed or filed.

If baseball was simply a computer technologists dream than there would be no need to play any games on the field, we could do in in an air conditioned, climate controlled room and save everyone the trouble.

I'm sure Daver will chime into this discussion before much longer :D:

Lip
Once again Lip resorts to his usual "stats 4 nerdz!" mad libs-esque playbook. Well played.

I have no problem with challenging it, but to expect a quantified evaluation in response to that challenge is silly, IMO.
Because it's a silly statement that means absolutely nothing. I want the original poster to define the term he/she used and then explain how it applies to Jayson Nix. That's all. This isn't an argument about stats vs. scouts, like Lip seems to be baiting me for -- this is an argument about a stupid term being used all the time.

Daver
10-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Everything is quantifiable. The problem is that most advanced statistics are misused and/or misunderstood.

Please quantify heart, character, and desire, you choose the player.

Also please provide the formula used to quantify it.

southside rocks
10-06-2009, 05:28 PM
Please quantify heart, character, and desire, you choose the player.

Also please provide the formula used to quantify it.

An excellent read, on this topic, is a book that's out of print but worth the search: by Kevin Kerrane, it's titled Dollar Sign on the Muscle: The World of Baseball Scouting.

The chapter on 'The Whole Ball Player' alone is worth the price of the book. I can't find a diagram of the chart online, but it's a circle, divided like this:

Top half of the circle chart reads: Can Be Seen with Eye

Pitcher: arm strength, fast ball, curve ball, slider, other pitch, control

Infielder-Outfielder: arm strength, use of arm, speed, hands, fielding, range, hitting, power

Catcher: arm strength, use of arm, hands, receiving, hitting, power, speed

General for all Players: stamina, durability, anticipation, hustle, reflexes, size, coordination, agility, poise, instinct base running, eyesight

The bottom of the chart reads: Can Not Be Seen with Eye

Attitude: desire, drive, willingness, hunger ambition, aggressiveness

Mental: intelligence, baseball sense, teachability, knowledge of game

Personality: improvement, consistency, maturity, adjustment, stability, temperament, disposition

Winner: stomach, heart, competitiveness, pride, confidence

Background: family, habit.


Good book. Interesting to read about that little-analyzed aspect of the game.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 06:24 PM
I have no problem with challenging it, but to expect a quantified evaluation in response to that challenge is silly, IMO.

Well, calling Jayson Nix a grinder is more silly. Is he a slap hitter? Does he move runners over a lot? Does he dive for balls to make up for a lack of range? NO.

Jayson Nix is a poor defensive player who can help because he can play multiple positions adequately in a pinch. He doesn't make good contact, but has a little bit of power. He's useful, and I want him back next year. But people throw the term grinder around just because they like someone who has one or two tools. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

Um... no...

People do misuse and misunderstand statistics. No statistic is meant to say player A is better than player B. They are meant to say player A rates better when when we weigh these variables higher than others. If you're looking for something in particular, they are a great tool.

The problem is people don't know how to use them. And I'm including most publications in that.

Please quantify heart, character, and desire, you choose the player.

Also please provide the formula used to quantify it.

If you truly believe those attributes lead to a desirable outcome, then yes. You quantify based on the outcome.

I realize that sounds like bull****. But if you're telling me someone gets more hits, reaches more balls, etc. because of their "heart," then it's certainly quantifiable through their results over the minimal production their skills would provide.

Tell you what, you tell me which players are all heart and no talent. Take the league averages for B.A., homeruns, steals, et al and subtract the difference. There's your formula. We can call it DAVORP. :cool:

Daver
10-06-2009, 06:29 PM
If you truly believe those attributes lead to a desirable outcome, then yes. You quantify based on the outcome.

I realize that sounds like bull****. But if you're telling me someone gets more hits, reaches more balls, etc. because of their "heart," then it's certainly quantifiable through their results over the minimal production their skills would provide.

Tell you what, you tell me which players are all heart and no talent. Take the league averages for B.A., homeruns, steals, et al and subtract the difference. There's your formula. We can call it DAVORP. :cool:

You didn't answer my question.

You said anything was quantifiable, so exactly how do you go about quantifying what I asked? What percentage, exactly, gets assigned from the general skillset?

munchman33
10-06-2009, 06:41 PM
You didn't answer my question.

You said anything was quantifiable, so exactly how do you go about quantifying what I asked? What percentage, exactly, gets assigned from the general skillset?

I suppose I meant to say having heart, desire, et al. are things inherent in all major leaguers and have little to no bearing beyond what already shows up in their numbers.

Whether you hit .280 because your heart wanted it more or you're riding by on talent alone, you freakin' hit .280. What good does quantifying "heart" after that do? If anything, it shows little room for improvement. I want the lazy ass .280 hitter who might hit .320 if my manager lights a fire under his ass.

Maybe you want to look at situational hitting? Because guys like Manny Ramirez who obviously get by on talent alone still put up the best situational statistics.

You pick players based on how they produce. Heart and character are things you can look at after, if you think it will affect team chemistry. But team chemistry isn't going to do you a whole lot of good if you're 79-83 at the end of the year and in third place.

Daver
10-06-2009, 06:44 PM
I suppose I meant to say having heart, desire, et al. are things inherent in all major leaguers and have little to no bearing beyond what already shows up in their numbers.

Whether you hit .280 because your heart wanted it more or you're riding by on talent alone, you freakin' hit .280. What good does quantifying "heart" after that do? If anything, it shows little room for improvement. I want the lazy ass .280 hitter who might hit .320 if my manager lights a fire under his ass.

Maybe you want to look at situational hitting? Because guys like Manny Ramirez who obviously get by on talent alone still put up the best situational statistics.

You pick players based on how they produce. Heart and character are things you can look at after, if you think it will affect team chemistry. But team chemistry isn't going to do you a whole lot of good if you're 79-83 at the end of the year and in third place.

I really just want you to answer my question, because you are the expert that can quantify anything, except what I ask.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 06:49 PM
I really just want you to answer my question, because you are the expert that can quantify anything, except what I ask.

Fine Daver, you can't quantify heart, determination, love, character, and things that are just ideas.

But those ideas, if they do matter like you say they do, will show up in every statistic because they should be changing said player's production. Correct?

Daver
10-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Fine Daver, you can't quantify heart, determination, love, character, and things that are just ideas.

But those ideas, if they do matter like you say they do, will show up in every statistic because they should be changing said player's production. Correct?

Will they?

A player can put up great numbers while not giving a rat's ass about where his team is in the standings because he has a desire to get paid, not a desire to compete.

But, hey, it's just an idea, with no value since it can't be turned into numbers.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 07:50 PM
Will they?

A player can put up great numbers while not giving a rat's ass about where his team is in the standings because he has a desire to get paid, not a desire to compete.

But, hey, it's just an idea, with no value since it can't be turned into numbers.

Daver, what exactly are you driving at? That a player's heart has no affect on their production, some affect, a profound affect?

Or are you trying to get at "doing the little things" in order to win? Because situational hitting and productive outs are very quantifiable.

Does production from a desire to "get paid" versus production over a desire to win mean a whole lot? Perhaps that's debatable. But not when the "get paid" player is simply a better baseball player. Production on the field is always the first thing you need to look at. If two players aren't that different, then desire can be evaluated. But to pass a far more productive player because of what drives him? That's bordering lunacy.

I'll say this. We didn't lose the division this year because of heart, drive, determination, or any of those things. We lost the division because Carlos Quentin couldn't play for most of the season. We lost the division because Jermaine Dye got too old to play baseball. We lost the division because of poor infield defense. We lost the division because we relied on guys like Chris Getz, Josh Fields, Brian Anderson, and Dewayne Wise to contribute at levels their talent didn't allow over stretches far too long. We lost the division because Scott Linebrink became a head case in the second half. We lost the division because Jose Contreras did the same. We lost the division because Bobby Jenks regressed, like most of us thought he would, and he blew too many saves.

We did not lose the division because this team needed more heart. We fell short because of the holes we had. There were a lot of them.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2009, 08:18 PM
Munch:

As often as this team laid down / failed to show up / went through the motions for stretches this season I think you CAN say they needed more heart, more leadership. McDowell called them out on this is May, the next interview with WSI whom I spoke with Thursday did the same thing on the question of leadership.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-06-2009, 08:22 PM
Munch:

As often as this team laid down / failed to show up / went through the motions for stretches this season I think you CAN say they needed more heart, more leadership. McDowell called them out on this is May, the next interview with WSI whom I spoke with Thursday did the same thing on the question of leadership.

Lip
I'd say it appears that we failed to show up/laid down/went through the motions because our ballclub -- especially in the early going -- wasn't very talented at all.

Daver
10-06-2009, 08:51 PM
Daver, what exactly are you driving at? That a player's heart has no affect on their production, some affect, a profound affect?


Do they?

You are the one that is supposed to be quantifying these things for me, since you can quantify anything.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 09:13 PM
Do they?

You are the one that is supposed to be quantifying these things for me, since you can quantify anything.

I cannot quantify what you want me to.

munchman33
10-06-2009, 09:16 PM
I'd say it appears that we failed to show up/laid down/went through the motions because our ballclub -- especially in the early going -- wasn't very talented at all.

ding ding ding ding

Jermaine Dye didn't fall apart because he had no heart. No one said Jermaine had no heart before this year. And he's a major contributor to this year's disappointment. Ditto Quentin. It was injuries that held him back. He carried the offense for stretches last year.

This team didn't win because they weren't talented enough. They couldn't hit enough. There were bottom of the league in most offensive categories. The reasons vary from age, to injury, to lack of talent. If "heart" or "courage" or any other intangible factor played a role, it was secondary to the gaping holes in the roster. This team wasn't close to good enough. They came in third in a week division. It shouldn't surprise anyone. Maybe the intangible "heart" factor can overcome those things? But why look for that? Talent is so much easier to find. It's quantifiable!

Daver
10-06-2009, 09:21 PM
I cannot quantify what you want me to.

So they have no value because you can't quantify it?

shingo10
10-06-2009, 11:34 PM
I know the reasons for thinking Jenks will be gone but can anyone explain why that would help the team?

Granted he had a down year, granted he had health issues. But if nothing else, He can be moved to the 7th or 8th or something where we could get use out of him. I just don't see how a bullpen that's already questionable at best would be any better without Jenks.

Now, I can 100% see the value of not having Linebrink. He actually hinders the success of the team every time he enters the game. But I don't know how we'd be able to get rid of him.

The Winter Meetings can not come soon enough. If nothing else I do believe that Kenny will always strive to improve the ballclub. It may not always work, but at leat he tries.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2009, 11:40 PM
The thinking is that he could make a killing in arbitration, trading him again in theory frees up salary space in what could be a buyer's free agent market plus you may get a player for him in the deal itself.

Think of when Kenny traded Lee, freed up space and got A.J., Pods, Iguchi and Hernandez.

Now who knows what he may be able to get for him.

Lip

soxfanreggie
10-06-2009, 11:56 PM
Talent is so much easier to find. It's quantifiable!

Isn't it really the "use of talent" that's quantifiable? There are plenty of talented people who never make it. The people who can positively use their talent are the ones who stay.

shingo10
10-07-2009, 12:33 AM
The thinking is that he could make a killing in arbitration, trading him again in theory frees up salary space in what could be a buyer's free agent market plus you may get a player for him in the deal itself.

Think of when Kenny traded Lee, freed up space and got A.J., Pods, Iguchi and Hernandez.

Now who knows what he may be able to get for him.

Lip


I see the rationale I guess. Just doubtful that they could find a suitable talent to replace them. It's just a wait and see situation I suppose like so many other scenarios this offseason.

I can't remember ever being this excited going into an offseason for the reason of knowing that it will be a different team next year. Usually I'm dreading the changes.

khan
10-07-2009, 10:21 AM
The thinking is that he could make a killing in arbitration, trading him again in theory frees up salary space in what could be a buyer's free agent market plus you may get a player for him in the deal itself.

Think of when Kenny traded Lee, freed up space and got A.J., Pods, Iguchi and Hernandez.

Now who knows what he may be able to get for him.

Lip
Oh, I'm all for this. But if it means that the team has an ill-equipped closer, I'm not as sure. If it means that other players in a weak BP get "moved up" a slot, I'm not as sure that this is the best path to pursue.

Creating budget space to solve problems is a good thing, IF, in doing so, it does NOT create new problems to solve.

As I'm not entirely sure as to who is available to be a setup/closer-type pitcher for this team, I can't feel entirely on-board about moving Jenks. At the same time, for as much as I like what Jenks has done for this team, I don't particularly like having a $7M+/yr closer on a team with budget constraints and holes to fill. I don't particularly like paying a guy for what he's already done instead of what he MIGHT do for a team.

khan
10-07-2009, 10:29 AM
So they have no value because you can't quantify it?
So if we can't quantify those things, can we quantify "FIRE" and "PASSION?"

How about "Chicago-Tough?"

How about being a "Blue Collar Guy?"

And "Giving 110%?"

Rocky Soprano
10-07-2009, 10:37 AM
McDowell called them out on this is May, the next interview with WSI whom I spoke with Thursday did the same thing on the question of leadership.

Lip

When was the last time that we had a player actually stand up and "lead" this team?

Konerko does not seem to have what it takes to lead.
I would think AJ would be the perfect guy, but it doesn't seem like he does it either.

voodoochile
10-07-2009, 10:48 AM
So if we can't quantify those things, can we quantify "FIRE" and "PASSION?"

How about "Chicago-Tough?"

How about being a "Blue Collar Guy?"

And "Giving 110%?"

:iron

Hope that helps...

khan
10-07-2009, 10:55 AM
:iron

Hope that helps...

Whoever that guy is, I don't think he can hit the curveball. I don't think he can hit to the right side with men on base. I don't think his arm is strong enough to play RF.

All joking aside, while I recognize the desirability to have players with good "intangibles," it is definitely better to have players with good "tangible" attributes. While it is important to have guys with all of the things that aren't quantifiable, it is MORE important to have guys with attributes that ARE quantifiable.

voodoochile
10-07-2009, 11:04 AM
Whoever that guy is, I don't think he can hit the curveball. I don't think he can hit to the right side with men on base. I don't think his arm is strong enough to play RF.

All joking aside, while I recognize the desirability to have players with good "intangibles," it is definitely better to have players with good "tangible" attributes. While it is important to have guys with all of the things that aren't quantifiable, it is MORE important to have guys with attributes that ARE quantifiable.

Hope you were joking about the "whoever that guy is crack", but you are both right and wrong.

Ideally you want talented players who are also hard workers. Talent only goes so far. Michael Jordan is the greatest player in NBA history (and possibly all time) because he worked his ass off all the time. For all his talent he was an overachiever.

Not trying to start another discussion, but one player who comes immediately to mind is Rowand a marginal talent who worked his ass off to become a good player. Yes, it's still preferable to have Willie Mays in CF, but talent only takes you so far. The hardest workers will always maximize whatever talent they have so if they have enough they will be successful even if they don't have as much as other players do.

asindc
10-07-2009, 11:10 AM
I will add that hard work, desire, and heart will carry you through rough stretches better than if you don't have those attributes. Most of us hardcore fans can "feel" it when a player is not giving it his all, and that is probably the most unforgiveable sin. All else equal, the player who has more want-to will perform better over time and will do it at the most important times. None of it can be quantified, but you know when a player has it and when he doesn't.

khan
10-07-2009, 11:20 AM
Hope you were joking about the "whoever that guy is crack", but you are both right and wrong.

I don't see where I'm "wrong." I've already recognized the need for certain unquantifiable attributes. But they cannot exceed the importance of quantifiable attributes.


Ideally you want talented players who are also hard workers. Talent only goes so far. Michael Jordan is the greatest player in NBA history (and possibly all time) because he worked his ass off all the time. For all his talent he was an overachiever.
Don't overstate this. If he couldn't hit a jumpshot, or dribble, he'd never be an NBA player. If he was physically, mentally, or intellectually handicapped, he'd never play competitive basketball.

Before work ethic comes into the equation, ability comes first. This is universally true, irrespective of the arena of competition. This is true in your and my businesses, inasmuch as it is true in MLB or the NBA.
Not trying to start another discussion, but one player who comes immediately to mind is Rowand a marginal talent who worked his ass off to become a good player. Yes, it's still preferable to have Willie Mays in CF, but talent only takes you so far. The hardest workers will always maximize whatever talent they have so if they have enough they will be successful even if they don't have as much as other players do.
And don't understate talent, either. Again, if Rowand had broken his neck in his dirt bike accident instead of his shoulder, he never would have played thereafter. Even before this, if Rowand [or any other player in MLB] couldn't hit/catch/throw/run to a sufficient degree, they'd never play competitive baseball.

I'm a hard worker. I'm coachable. I have "fire" and "passion." But I don't have enough ability to play MLB-level baseball, and neither do [probably] anyone else on these boards. And this is due to our collective lack of sufficient ability to play baseball, not due to our lack of "intangibles."

I get a kick out of guys who OVERemphasize "unquantifiable" attributes, and UNDERemphasize the "quantifiable" attributes. A guy still has to have the ability to hit, catch, throw, and run to a suitable degree to be an MLB player.

I also get a kick out of [SOME] posters who deride statistical analysis [usually geezing geezers who don't recognize that it's a good thing to be able to quantify ability] and hype up abilities that can't be measured.

cws05champ
10-07-2009, 11:20 AM
Everything is quantifiable. The problem is that most advanced statistics are misused and/or misunderstood.
Can you quantify Milton Bradley's douchiness?

If you just look at stats then Bradley's contract is not as big an albatross it currently is. The thing you can't quantify is his personality and how it affects the whole team and chemistry. There's a reason some guys are considered clubhouse cancers.

khan
10-07-2009, 11:34 AM
Can you quantify Milton Bradley's douchiness?

If you just look at stats then Bradley's contract is not as big an albatross it currently is. The thing you can't quantify is his personality and how it affects the whole team and chemistry. There's a reason some guys are considered clubhouse cancers.

Actually, if you looked at his LH/RH splits, you'd see why it was a bad idea to bring him onto that team in the first place. If you recognize the reason for bringing him to that team [which was to bring on a strong LH bat to that lineup], you'd see why it was a bad contract.

If you look at what other players with similar-or-better stats, you'd see why it was a bad contract. If you counted his games played in the OF over the course of his career [which is a stat], you'd see why it was a bad idea to bring him to the NL.

If Milton Bradley were hitting .320/.410/.910 or thereabouts, I PROMISE you that no ****heads from the media or from that fanbase would be bitching about the contract.

asindc
10-07-2009, 11:53 AM
Some human resources managers have four catagories for employees:

1) The bright/industrious type is most desirable for obvious reasons. Among baseball players, Peavy is a good example.

2) The bright/lazy type is next desirable, because when he does work, he produces good results. Manny Ramirez is probably a good example here.

3) The dull/lazy type is next desirable, believe it or not. The theory is that while he is likely to screw up any work he does, at least he won't screw up much work that will require types 1 and 2 to fix. Wilson Betemit comes to mind. Played so bad the Sox had to get him off the field, and seemed to lack the work ethic to get back. Which leaves...

4) As noted above, the dull/industrious type is the worst because they will screw up so much work, types 1 and 2 have to find a way to make up for it. Linebrink in the second half of this year comes to mind.

The point for this discussion is that while Manny Ramirez might be a better player the Jake Peavy (reasonable minds might disagree), I think a majority would choose Peavy over Manny for their respective teams. Desire, heart, hard work... not entirely quantifiable, but you know it when it is there.

voodoochile
10-07-2009, 11:57 AM
I don't see where I'm "wrong." I've already recognized the need for certain unquantifiable attributes. But they cannot exceed the importance of quantifiable attributes.



Don't overstate this. If he couldn't hit a jumpshot, or dribble, he'd never be an NBA player. If he was physically, mentally, or intellectually handicapped, he'd never play competitive basketball.

Before work ethic comes into the equation, ability comes first. This is universally true, irrespective of the arena of competition. This is true in your and my businesses, inasmuch as it is true in MLB or the NBA.

And don't understate talent, either. Again, if Rowand had broken his neck in his dirt bike accident instead of his shoulder, he never would have played thereafter. Even before this, if Rowand [or any other player in MLB] couldn't hit/catch/throw/run to a sufficient degree, they'd never play competitive baseball.

I'm a hard worker. I'm coachable. I have "fire" and "passion." But I don't have enough ability to play MLB-level baseball, and neither do [probably] anyone else on these boards. And this is due to our collective lack of sufficient ability to play baseball, not due to our lack of "intangibles."

I get a kick out of guys who OVERemphasize "unquantifiable" attributes, and UNDERemphasize the "quantifiable" attributes. A guy still has to have the ability to hit, catch, throw, and run to a suitable degree to be an MLB player.

I also get a kick out of [SOME] posters who deride statistical analysis [usually geezing geezers who don't recognize that it's a good thing to be able to quantify ability] and hype up abilities that can't be measured.

I never denied that a certain base level of talent is necessary to play professional sports.

Crestani
10-07-2009, 12:30 PM
Ok. I still want to hear the poster's reasoning. It's an overused term and concept that makes no sense whatsoever.


Sorry I took so long to get back to your question but I had business commitments that could not wait.

I based my comment on his being a grinder on the visual observations I made with his play. I attended several games in Anaheim when the Sox played the Angeles. One particular game Nix broke up a double play by up-ending Aybar. The next inning he went deep up the middle and made one of the best catch and throws I have ever seen. I turned to my wife and said, "that's what a grinder is".
So there you are, I think he is a grinder IMO.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 01:24 PM
Sorry I took so long to get back to your question but I had business commitments that could not wait.

I based my comment on his being a grinder on the visual observations I made with his play. I attended several games in Anaheim when the Sox played the Angeles. One particular game Nix broke up a double play by up-ending Aybar. The next inning he went deep up the middle and made one of the best catch and throws I have ever seen. I turned to my wife and said, "that's what a grinder is".
So there you are, I think he is a grinder IMO.

Have you watched the other games Jayson Nix played in? Because in all of those other games I turned to my friends and said "now that's what a grinder isn't."

Jayson Nix is about as grinder-y as Jaime Navarro.

Zisk77
10-07-2009, 01:27 PM
The thinking is that he could make a killing in arbitration, trading him again in theory frees up salary space in what could be a buyer's free agent market plus you may get a player for him in the deal itself.

Think of when Kenny traded Lee, freed up space and got A.J., Pods, Iguchi and Hernandez.

Now who knows what he may be able to get for him.

Lip


I know what we will not get for him...a quality closer.

SoxSpeed22
10-07-2009, 01:38 PM
I know what we will not get for him...a quality closer.We do have a quality pitcher in Thronton, who passed his audition for closer this year. The bigger problem is that we need a quality left-handed reliever to replace Thornton as a set-up man. JP Howell is a super two player. So I wonder if the Sox can trade Jenks to Tampa Bay for Howell and somebody else.

Craig Grebeck
10-07-2009, 02:05 PM
Have you watched the other games Jayson Nix played in? Because in all of those other games I turned to my friends and said "now that's what a grinder isn't."

Jayson Nix is about as grinder-y as Jaime Navarro.
What he said.

Crestani
10-07-2009, 03:03 PM
Have you watched the other games Jayson Nix played in? Because in all of those other games I turned to my friends and said "now that's what a grinder isn't."

Jayson Nix is about as grinder-y as Jaime Navarro.


Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

I happen to think he is! I have seen him play a lot this year, in person and on Directv. I think he is a grinder IMO. Yes he has some issues with strike-outs and driving in runs, but he is a very good fielder and turns the double play better than Getz, once again in my opinion.

Nothing qualifies your opinion as better than mine.

spawn
10-07-2009, 03:37 PM
Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

I happen to think he is! I have seen him play a lot this year, in person and on Directv. I think he is a grinder IMO. Yes he has some issues with strike-outs and driving in runs, but he is a very good fielder and turns the double play better than Getz, once again in my opinion.

Nothing qualifies your opinion as better than mine.
I wouldn't have even bothered answering the question. The only reason he wanted an answer was to tell you how wrong you were. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, because IMO, as you said, you are entitled to your definition of what it is.

cws05champ
10-07-2009, 03:39 PM
Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

I happen to think he is! I have seen him play a lot this year, in person and on Directv. I think he is a grinder IMO. Yes he has some issues with strike-outs and driving in runs, but he is a very good fielder and turns the double play better than Getz, once again in my opinion.

Nothing qualifies your opinion as better than mine.

If we use VORP (Value over replacement poster) I think we can quantify that...:smile:

dickallen15
10-07-2009, 04:46 PM
I don't know if Nix is a grinder or not but I do know he hit below .200 vs. RHP and hit .175 at home. That's soon to be an insurance salesman if there isn't dramatic improvement.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 05:11 PM
Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

I happen to think he is! I have seen him play a lot this year, in person and on Directv. I think he is a grinder IMO. Yes he has some issues with strike-outs and driving in runs, but he is a very good fielder and turns the double play better than Getz, once again in my opinion.

Nothing qualifies your opinion as better than mine.

You are entitled to the opinion that Jayson Nix is a good defensive player just as people are entitled to the opinion that the universe revolves around the earth and santa claus is real. It doesn't make Jayson Nix a good defensive player when he's obviously not. When you say things like that, you should expect people to attack it. You can have an opinion, but it can be wrong too. My opinion is better than yours because it's based on fact and not emotion. Don't get angry at me for calling bull****.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 05:25 PM
Which is why Ozzie called out Nix (and Lillibridge) again when he spoke with Chuck Garfein on Monday. For those who missed it Ozzie said he told them they strike out to much and don't get on base enough. He said if they don't improve they won't be on the club.

And while we're on this subject perhaps someone can "quantify" how an organization can have eight winning years, and five playoff appearances in the decade with mediocre talent like the Gomez's, Span's, Mays', Punto's, Bartlett's and so on this decade.

Geez you think maybe it's because of the things that you can't measure? Intelligence, desire, heart?

The Twins have had talented players over the years, some very good ones...but they haven't had enough on paper to accomplish what they've done...this decade and this year.

Someone explain that one to me please.

Lip

spawn
10-07-2009, 05:30 PM
You are entitled to the opinion that Jayson Nix is a good defensive player just as people are entitled to the opinion that the universe revolves around the earth and santa claus is real. It doesn't make Jayson Nix a good defensive player when he's obviously not. When you say things like that, you should expect people to attack it. You can have an opinion, but it can be wrong too. My opinion is better than yours because it's based on fact and not emotion. Don't get angry at me for calling bull****.
*****. Your opinion is no better than his. Nix is a good second baseman. He's a terrible shortstop. And you've had quite a few bull**** arguments around here (DLS is a future HOF'er, Derrick Rose will be a bust of epic proportions, the list goes on and on and on and on). :dtroll:

SoxSpeed22
10-07-2009, 05:39 PM
Nix and Lillibridge were part of the growing pains for the Sox this season. If the young guys can't progress, it won't matter how good our starting pitching is.
There is no reason to have Jayson Nix on this team next season. He does not have a true position and he strikes out a ton. He has some pop, but not enough to justify the low average and high amount of strikeouts.
Lillibridge has to strengthen up and shorten his swing. He also has to be able to handle the bat well, if he is going to stay. This includes being able to bunt for a base hit and being able to hit a major league fastball. Lillibridge's defense is good enough to warrant as a utilityman/ pinch-runner, but needs to be able to hit to stay on the team.

Craig Grebeck
10-07-2009, 06:12 PM
Which is why Ozzie called out Nix (and Lillibridge) again when he spoke with Chuck Garfein on Monday. For those who missed it Ozzie said he told them they strike out to much and don't get on base enough. He said if they don't improve they won't be on the club.

And while we're on this subject perhaps someone can "quantify" how an organization can have eight winning years, and five playoff appearances in the decade with mediocre talent like the Gomez's, Span's, Mays', Punto's, Bartlett's and so on this decade.

Geez you think maybe it's because of the things that you can't measure? Intelligence, desire, heart?

The Twins have had talented players over the years, some very good ones...but they haven't had enough on paper to accomplish what they've done...this decade and this year.

Someone explain that one to me please.

Lip
So Denard Span is actually super good and Jason Bartlett just finished an amazing season.

Domeshot17
10-07-2009, 06:23 PM
So Denard Span is actually super good and Jason Bartlett just finished an amazing season.

add to the Fact they have 2 MVP calibur hitters in their lineup complimented by 2 more 20 + homer 90+ RBI guys and a fantastic bullpen. They also know how to teach pitching in the minors.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-07-2009, 06:51 PM
add to the Fact they have 2 MVP calibur hitters in their lineup complimented by 2 more 20 + homer 90+ RBI guys and a fantastic bullpen. They also know how to teach pitching in the minors.

I'd like to see the Sox organization teach base running, fielding, and bunting. But, hey, who cares about the little things? They don't matter, right?

Zisk77
10-07-2009, 07:18 PM
We do have a quality pitcher in Thronton, who passed his audition for closer this year. The bigger problem is that we need a quality left-handed reliever to replace Thornton as a set-up man. JP Howell is a super two player. So I wonder if the Sox can trade Jenks to Tampa Bay for Howell and somebody else.


Thornton is a quality pitcher ... no doubt, but he in no way has proven himself as a closer in his brief stint. Matts (can someone explain why I cannot use apostrephes on this site?) slider has gotten better but he still is pretty much a one trick pony.

Your absolutely right in that it would open another huge hole in the pen to replace the role of Matt.

If we trade Jenks to TB we should get Crawford. Im not a big fan of Howell. he is a finesse lefty and needs batters to chase bad pitches to be effective.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2009, 07:38 PM
Grebeck:

I LOVE absolutely love how you nit pick to death everything anyone says.

OK let me rephrase it...(although you know damn well what I was driving at...) how does a team short on real talent and depth practically every year due to payroll limitations accomplish what they do? (Notice I said in my original post the Twins had some very good talent over the decade)

ANSWER: Because they have intangibles, things that can't be measured in a goofy graph and a great farm system that teaches fundamentals.

Heart, guts, work ethic, baseball intelligence.

Things the eggheads sitting in their basements with an advanced degree from MIT can't measure.

I hope you feel better now that I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

They usually have mediocre overall talent yet get great results basically because "they want it..."

Now I'll sit back and wait for a two page reply complete with graphics, slides, graphs and everything else that normally comes with sabermetricians.

Lip

Domeshot17
10-07-2009, 07:45 PM
Grebeck:

I LOVE absolutely love how you nit pick to death everything anyone says.

OK let me rephrase it...(although you know damn well what I was driving at...) how does a team short on real talent and depth practically every year due to payroll limitations accomplish what they do? (Notice I said in my original post the Twins had some very good talent over the decade)

ANSWER: Because they have intangibles, things that can't be measured in a goofy graph and a great farm system that teaches fundamentals.

Heart, guts, work ethic, baseball intelligence.

Things the eggheads sitting in their basements with an advanced degree from MIT can't measure.

I hope you feel better now that I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

They usually have mediocre overall talent yet get great results basically because "they want it..."

Now I'll sit back and wait for a two page reply complete with graphics, slides, graphs and everything else that normally comes with sabermetricians.

Lip

Lip, it is measurable. Mauer and Morneau is as good of a 1-2 punch as there is in baseball. They don't piss away first round draft picks so their payroll is cost effective. When you can develop players who contribute, they make the league minimuim. When your players love their manager and the team, they sign long term deals that don't break the bank.

Imagine what the Sox payroll would look like if 3-4 of the positions on the field were filled by guys we developed, who were making 300-400k

dickallen15
10-07-2009, 08:05 PM
Grebeck:

I LOVE absolutely love how you nit pick to death everything anyone says.

OK let me rephrase it...(although you know damn well what I was driving at...) how does a team short on real talent and depth practically every year due to payroll limitations accomplish what they do? (Notice I said in my original post the Twins had some very good talent over the decade)

ANSWER: Because they have intangibles, things that can't be measured in a goofy graph and a great farm system that teaches fundamentals.

Heart, guts, work ethic, baseball intelligence.

Things the eggheads sitting in their basements with an advanced degree from MIT can't measure.

I hope you feel better now that I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

They usually have mediocre overall talent yet get great results basically because "they want it..."

Now I'll sit back and wait for a two page reply complete with graphics, slides, graphs and everything else that normally comes with sabermetricians.

Lip

Slowly but surely they are transforming their offense from a punch and judy to pretty powerful, probably with their new stadium in mind. A heart of the order of Mauer, Morneau, Kubel and Cuddyer is top shelf. Span is a pretty good player. Delmon Young may still be a good player. The other thing is they have had some good pitching over the years and last but certainly not least, they don't kick the ball around. Their pitchers have to get 27 outs.

cws05champ
10-07-2009, 08:11 PM
Lip, it is measurable. Mauer and Morneau is as good of a 1-2 punch as there is in baseball. They don't piss away first round draft picks so their payroll is cost effective. When you can develop players who contribute, they make the league minimuim. When your players love their manager and the team, they sign long term deals that don't break the bank.

Imagine what the Sox payroll would look like if 3-4 of the positions on the field were filled by guys we developed, who were making 300-400k
You mean like Beckham ($400K), Getz ($400K) and Alexei ($1M)?

Domeshot17
10-07-2009, 08:48 PM
You mean like Beckham ($400K), Getz ($400K) and Alexei ($1M)?

Beckham is the only of the 3 who is a signifigant player. Getz and his pedestrian OPS is replacable, and Alexei got outslugged but Scotty Pods this year. Lets face it, Alexei went from The Cuban Missile in year 1 to the Cuban Missile Crisis in year 2

munchman33
10-07-2009, 08:51 PM
*****. Your opinion is no better than his. Nix is a good second baseman. He's a terrible shortstop. And you've had quite a few bull**** arguments around here (DLS is a future HOF'er, Derrick Rose will be a bust of epic proportions, the list goes on and on and on and on). :dtroll:

Please. Those arguments were legit contentions held by people in the media and scouting as well. There's a difference between predictions turning out wrong and saying something kool-aid that's completely wrong now. He didn't say Jayson Nix will become a good defensive player. He said he was. That's asinine. Absolutely beyond rational thought. Being average at 2B and below average at others is not being a good defensive player, espcecially when your role is a utility guy. He's barely adequate at 2B, and that's mostly because Getz is so much worse.

Let's look at it this way. Getz didn't exactly light up the plate this year. And he's about the worst defensive 2B in the league. Why didn't Nix see more playing time there, if he was SOOO much better defensively? Especially given Ozzie's propensity to play defense over hitting?

Oh, that's right. Because it isn't true. Nix isn't good defensively. You just wanted to argue for the sake of arguing with me. :dtroll:

Daver
10-07-2009, 09:11 PM
Especially given Ozzie's propensity to play defense over hitting?


Now you are just making things up out of thin air.

spawn
10-07-2009, 09:11 PM
Getz isn't the worst second baseman in the league, but then you do have a propensity for exaggeration :rolleyes:

And you're right. I live to argue with you munch. :rolling:

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:16 PM
Getz isn't the worst second baseman in the league, but then you do have a propensity for exaggeration :rolleyes:

And you're right. I live to argue with you munch. :rolling:

He has no life on his arm and below average range. Maybe he's not the worst defender, but I can't think of any everyday 2B that are worse.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:17 PM
Now you are just making things up out of thin air.

That made me smile. I know you're getting at Josh Fields, but I don't think that was Ozzie's choice.

whitesox_09
10-07-2009, 10:21 PM
Please. Those arguments were legit contentions held by people in the media and scouting as well. There's a difference between predictions turning out wrong and saying something kool-aid that's completely wrong now. He didn't say Jayson Nix will become a good defensive player. He said he was. That's asinine. Absolutely beyond rational thought. Being average at 2B and below average at others is not being a good defensive player, espcecially when your role is a utility guy. He's barely adequate at 2B, and that's mostly because Getz is so much worse.

Let's look at it this way. Getz didn't exactly light up the plate this year. And he's about the worst defensive 2B in the league. Why didn't Nix see more playing time there, if he was SOOO much better defensively? Especially given Ozzie's propensity to play defense over hitting?

Oh, that's right. Because it isn't true. Nix isn't good defensively. You just wanted to argue for the sake of arguing with me. :dtroll:
I am curious what you do for a living that gives you such confidence to knock Major League ball players as if you have any clue what you are talking about when judging talent? I don't want a reply because I don't want to get in a conversation about your profession - just trying to make a point. To be clear, this post isn't necessarily directed at you but many others on this site. Yeah, the team didn't make the playoffs this year and it is extremely disappointing. That being said, we played 2 rookies in Beckham and Getz in the infield and both were in consideration at one point for Rookie of the Year. One got worn down and one played with what seems to be a serious injury. In terms of Alexei, he is truly becoming a very good defensive SS. Add in the growth of a full season for both starting rookies, give Nix more time as well and the team suddenly has a young competitive infield. Combine that with the new pitching staff and they are favorites to win the division. In summary, get a clue and get a grip.

Daver
10-07-2009, 10:30 PM
That made me smile. I know you're getting at Josh Fields, but I don't think that was Ozzie's choice.

Josh Fields, Dewayne Wise, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Jerry Owens, I could continue but I might get ill. Saying that Ozzie Guillen uses a defense first approach is laughable to say the least.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:31 PM
I am curious what you do for a living that gives you such confidence to knock Major League ball players as if you have any clue what you are talking about when judging talent? I don't want a reply because I don't want to get in a conversation about your profession - just trying to make a point. To be clear, this post isn't necessarily directed at you but many others on this site. Yeah, the team didn't make the playoffs this year and it is extremely disappointing. That being said, we played 2 rookies in Beckham and Getz in the infield and both were in consideration at one point for Rookie of the Year. One got worn down and one played with what seems to be a serious injury. In terms of Alexei, he is truly becoming a very good defensive SS. Add in the growth of a full season for both starting rookies, give Nix more time as well and the team suddenly has a young competitive infield. Combine that with the new pitching staff and they are favorites to win the division. In summary, get a clue and get a grip.

Oh dear. The old "what qualifies you" argument. :rolleyes:

In two words: common sense.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:33 PM
Josh Fields, Dewayne Wise, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Jerry Owens, I could continue but I might get ill. Saying that Ozzie Guillen uses a defense first approach is laughable to say the least.

Now hold on. Don't confuse Ozzie's hatred for Brian Anderson with a lust for poor defensive outfielders. Those are two entirely different issues.

There wasn't another choice with Fields. When there was, Uribe played there almost every day.

Daver
10-07-2009, 10:40 PM
Now hold on. Don't confuse Ozzie's hatred for Brian Anderson with a lust for poor defensive outfielders. Those are two entirely different issues.

There wasn't another choice with Fields. When there was, Uribe played there almost every day.

Where did I say that?

But your suggestion that he would let personal feelings cloud his judgment on making a lineup speaks volumes on why your credibility is suspect on many things you try to comment on.

whitesox_09
10-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Now hold on. Don't confuse Ozzie's hatred for Brian Anderson with a lust for poor defensive outfielders. Those are two entirely different issues.

There wasn't another choice with Fields. When there was, Uribe played there almost every day.


I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because we want the same thing. You make good points about players who got time early in the year that didn't work out. You need to acknowledge this year for what it was though, a rebuilding year. The team went through growing pains, trying different players and picking up players of need. The final product however is a competitive team for years to come. You seem to focus on how bad the infield is but I think its an area that could be of strength for many years to come. The team went through many players for a reason, to find the pieces for the future.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:54 PM
Where did I say that?

But your suggestion that he would let personal feelings cloud his judgment on making a lineup speaks volumes on why your credibility is suspect on many things you try to comment on.

It was a joke.

edit: also Daver also I think that for all of our disagreements, we both agree that defense is at least just as important as offense.

munchman33
10-07-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because we want the same thing. You make good points about players who got time early in the year that didn't work out. You need to acknowledge this year for what it was though, a rebuilding year. The team went through growing pains, trying different players and picking up players of need. The final product however is a competitive team for years to come. You seem to focus on how bad the infield is but I think its an area that could be of strength for many years to come. The team went through many players for a reason, to find the pieces for the future.

I don't think the team, as assembled, is all that good. I think we COULD win with this infield. But there'd be a better margin for error if we had Beckham at 2B and got a good defensive 3B, like Figgins or Beltre, in free agency.

The infield defense was bad this year. I didn't see a ton of improvement. Errors don't tell you everything. Getz in particular was really bad at relay throws. There wasn't a team that wouldn't run home on hits to right and right center against us.

Zisk77
10-08-2009, 12:07 AM
He has no life on his arm and below average range. Maybe he's not the worst defender, but I can't think of any everyday 2B that are worse.

he does have a below average arm, but why do you think his range is poor? Let me guess, some zone rating statistic?

Craig Grebeck
10-08-2009, 03:20 AM
Grebeck:I LOVE absolutely love how you nit pick to death everything anyone says.
A little fact-checking never hurt anyone. You named a few guys who had no business in the group, or in your characterization, and I pointed it out.
OK let me rephrase it...(although you know damn well what I was driving at...) how does a team short on real talent and depth practically every year due to payroll limitations accomplish what they do? (Notice I said in my original post the Twins had some very good talent over the decade)

They have a bunch of decent pitchers and plugged enough holes to go 86-76. I don't think they're very good at all, but I also think they won this year because they made some shrewd deadline moves and have the best player in the American League. Still, they're 86-76, let's not go crazy. A few more bounces went their way and they won the division.

How did they win other years? Similar reasons, and the fact that they had Johan Santana and a pretty amazing bullpen.

ANSWER: Because they have intangibles, things that can't be measured in a goofy graph and a great farm system that teaches fundamentals.
Can I ask you something? How do you know their farm system teaches fundamentals any more than ours does? Perhaps they just are better at drafting. Perhaps the players from their minor league system are just flat-out more talented.

They may not have developed Brian Anderson or Josh Fields -- but I find it far more likely they would have never drafted either.

Heart, guts, work ethic, baseball intelligence.

We've got plenty of that. What we don't have is the best player in the American League and a pretty solid bullpen.

Things the eggheads sitting in their basements with an advanced degree from MIT can't measure.

Lip, do you have some massive insecurity regarding MIT or something? For ****'s sake man, get over this "stats are death!" meme you give me on every post. All I said was that Denard Span is actually a good player. What on earth does that have to do with an "advanced degree" at MIT?

Oh, and by the way, I study history and creative writing -- neither of which have anything to do with statistics or mathematics.

I hope you feel better now that I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

They usually have mediocre overall talent yet get great results basically because "they want it..."

Now I'll sit back and wait for a two page reply complete with graphics, slides, graphs and everything else that normally comes with sabermetricians.

There is absolutely no evidence -- anecdotal or otherwise -- that the Twins "want it more" than the White Sox. None. We wanted it pretty ****ing badly this year. Why did Dye fall so hard? Because he's old. Aging players do this sometimes -- especially ones with checkered injury histories (prior to his time with the White Sox) that appear to be losing a step (or a few steps, or dozens, in Dye's case).

If we're characterizing any team in the Central as having mediocre talent, it should be us.

soxfanreggie
10-08-2009, 08:40 AM
How did they win other years? Similar reasons, and the fact that they had Johan Santana and a pretty amazing bullpen.
...
We've got plenty of that. What we don't have is the best player in the American League and a pretty solid bullpen.
...
If we're characterizing any team in the Central as having mediocre talent, it should be us.

You have to give the Twins front office some credit for some solid draft picks and acquisitions. They took some risks, but boy did some of them really work out.

Mauer was a great pick over Prior. I'm not sure if they went for Mauer because of signability or because he was a Minnesota guy (or both), but here's someone who could go down as one of the best catchers of all-time.

Another great draft pick: Justin Morneau in the 3rd round as the 89th overall pick of the '99 draft. With an MVP and multiple All-Star selections to his credit already, another great pick. Was it their eye for talent? Their penchant for picking up great northern baseball players? Who knows.

Picking up Santana in the Rule 5 draft, another great move.

Three players who have been among the best in the league at their positions, and at times the best. Although Santana is gone, they still have Mauer and Morneau locked up. Although he will be due a LOT of money after next season, I can still see the hometown guy Mauer sticking around. He may turn down millions more to do it, but I can see it happening.

No matter why the moves were made, the Twins made the right ones here and they have paid off big-time.

Somewhere, Jake Peavy is crying because you hurt his feelings. He asks you to not refer to him as mediocre. :wink:

whitesox_09
10-08-2009, 09:39 AM
I don't think the team, as assembled, is all that good. I think we COULD win with this infield. But there'd be a better margin for error if we had Beckham at 2B and got a good defensive 3B, like Figgins or Beltre, in free agency.

The infield defense was bad this year. I didn't see a ton of improvement. Errors don't tell you everything. Getz in particular was really bad at relay throws. There wasn't a team that wouldn't run home on hits to right and right center against us.

Why stop there? Let's try to get every free agent who has been an all-star and trade for Pujols? This team probably can't afford anything you are suggesting. Obviously, Ozzie and Kennie like the young guys for a reason. You seem to be a big stat guy. Take a look at Getz's numbers at the plate by month. He had an awful May I believe which is understandable to have a bad month as a rookie. I also believe he hit in the mid.300's for two months and got hurt the last 5 weeks but played through hit...and still stole 25-27 bases. Beckham isn't a point of contention at all and lets just agree he is a future all star. If Alexei can start the year faster than the last two seasons, he could be a potential all star one year. It's because of these things that management has seen that gave them the confidence to save money on the terrible infield you describe and go spend on Peavy and Rios (who I think rebounds very well next year.) The Tigers and Twins are nothing special and a few games here and there and they can definitely win the division. If they make the playoffs, our pitching gives us a chance in every single series - especially round 1.

Craig Grebeck
10-08-2009, 09:45 AM
Why stop there? Let's try to get every free agent who has been an all-star and trade for Pujols? This team probably can't afford anything you are suggesting. Obviously, Ozzie and Kennie like the young guys for a reason. You seem to be a big stat guy. Take a look at Getz's numbers at the plate by month. He had an awful May I believe which is understandable to have a bad month as a rookie. I also believe he hit in the mid.300's for two months and got hurt the last 5 weeks but played through hit...and still stole 25-27 bases. Beckham isn't a point of contention at all and lets just agree he is a future all star. If Alexei can start the year faster than the last two seasons, he could be a potential all star one year. It's because of these things that management has seen that gave them the confidence to save money on the terrible infield you describe and go spend on Peavy and Rios (who I think rebounds very well next year.) The Tigers and Twins are nothing special and a few games here and there and they can definitely win the division. If they make the playoffs, our pitching gives us a chance in every single series - especially round 1.
Chris Getz should have no part in this infield next season. I was a big supporter of him prior to this season (you can look up mine and lillian's Getz vs. Nix debates for evidence), but he's far too fragile and below average with the glove to be counted on.

I'm all for Beltre, Figgins, or any other competent 3B.

Craig Grebeck
10-08-2009, 09:48 AM
You have to give the Twins front office some credit for some solid draft picks and acquisitions. They took some risks, but boy did some of them really work out.

Mauer was a great pick over Prior. I'm not sure if they went for Mauer because of signability or because he was a Minnesota guy (or both), but here's someone who could go down as one of the best catchers of all-time.

Another great draft pick: Justin Morneau in the 3rd round as the 89th overall pick of the '99 draft. With an MVP and multiple All-Star selections to his credit already, another great pick. Was it their eye for talent? Their penchant for picking up great northern baseball players? Who knows.

Picking up Santana in the Rule 5 draft, another great move.

Three players who have been among the best in the league at their positions, and at times the best. Although Santana is gone, they still have Mauer and Morneau locked up. Although he will be due a LOT of money after next season, I can still see the hometown guy Mauer sticking around. He may turn down millions more to do it, but I can see it happening.

No matter why the moves were made, the Twins made the right ones here and they have paid off big-time.

Somewhere, Jake Peavy is crying because you hurt his feelings. He asks you to not refer to him as mediocre. :wink:
Peavy really shouldn't be singled out. Our entire starting five to six is extremely talented, and our bullpen is a little above average (assuming they do the right thing and stick Nuñez there).

But the defense and offense looks quite mediocre. This past season we were aging and declining, and we'll most likely see part of that trend continue unless KW finds a bag full of money or another TCQ trade.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:14 AM
Chris Getz should have no part in this infield next season. I was a big supporter of him prior to this season (you can look up mine and lillian's Getz vs. Nix debates for evidence), but he's far too fragile and below average with the glove to be counted on.

I'm all for Beltre, Figgins, or any other competent 3B.

I'm all for this, too. Now, how can this team afford them, without cutting other players that would ultimately cause more holes for KW to fix?

If not, Getz @ the league minimum + 2 quality relievers might be more valuable to this team than Figgins + a craptacular BP, no?

Craig Grebeck
10-08-2009, 10:19 AM
I'm all for this, too. Now, how can this team afford them, without cutting other players that would ultimately cause more holes for KW to fix?

If not, Getz @ the league minimum + 2 quality relievers might be more valuable to this team than Figgins + a craptacular BP, no?
Don't spend money on the bullpen. It'll bring you guys like Scott Linebrink. The best thing to do is find guys undervalued in other organizations and do some baiting and switching and see what works best. Look at Oakland: they are overflowing with quality relief pitchers (and little else) and they haven't spent a dime on a free-agent arm.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:31 AM
And while we're on this subject perhaps someone can "quantify" how an organization can have eight winning years, and five playoff appearances in the decade with mediocre talent like the Gomez's, Span's, Mays', Punto's, Bartlett's and so on this decade.

Geez you think maybe it's because of the things that you can't measure? Intelligence, desire, heart?
No. They've simply been better at baseball than their division opponents. They've hit, pitched, ran, and fielded better than their division opponents. And all of these things [except for defense] can be reasonably quantified.

Until the current managers in Chicago and Detroit, Minnesota has had a huge advantage over all of their opponents in terms of their managers as well. [EDIT] They've also done a better job at identifying, acquiring, and developing their own talent than their opponents.

The Twins have had talented players over the years, some very good ones...but they haven't had enough on paper to accomplish what they've done...this decade and this year.
I don't know about you, but maybe you might want to compare Minnesota's 3-4-5-6 hitters to the SOX's or the Tigers. For all this group-think about how Minnesota are a bunch of slap-hitters, they can pound the **** out of the ball BETTER than the SOX, and on a par with Detroit.

Someone explain that one to me please.

Lip
Lip, you're an intelligent poster and I enjoy reading much of what you write. But downplaying the measurable/quantifiable while overstating superfluous(sp?) ideas like "Intelligence, desire, heart" is below you.

As a fandom, we should face the fact that the SOX are an expensive, but underpowered team that is fundamentally flawed. We should face the fact that Minnesota are a stronger collection of talent in every department except for the starting rotation than the SOX.

khan
10-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Don't spend money on the bullpen. It'll bring you guys like Scott Linebrink. The best thing to do is find guys undervalued in other organizations and do some baiting and switching and see what works best. Look at Oakland: they are overflowing with quality relief pitchers (and little else) and they haven't spent a dime on a free-agent arm.

Sure. But IMO, one of the flaws in this team is the bullpen, even WITH the reasonably-effective Jenks and average-at-best Dotel. Without these two, IMO, the bullpen is even MORE flawed.

Signing Beltre or Figgins for say, $8M+/yr limits the dollars available for the bullpen, and may not be possible without shedding some more contracts. [i.e. Jenks or Konerko] But losing one of those guys might make one of this team's weaknesses even more pronounced.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 10:51 AM
To all those calling for Adrian Beltre hear this.

His agent is Scott Boras.

End of story.

Lip

Moses_Scurry
10-08-2009, 11:44 AM
A little fact-checking never hurt anyone. You named a few guys who had no business in the group, or in your characterization, and I pointed it out.

They have a bunch of decent pitchers and plugged enough holes to go 86-76. I don't think they're very good at all, but I also think they won this year because they made some shrewd deadline moves and have the best player in the American League. Still, they're 86-76, let's not go crazy. A few more bounces went their way and they won the division.

How did they win other years? Similar reasons, and the fact that they had Johan Santana and a pretty amazing bullpen.

Can I ask you something? How do you know their farm system teaches fundamentals any more than ours does? Perhaps they just are better at drafting. Perhaps the players from their minor league system are just flat-out more talented.

They may not have developed Brian Anderson or Josh Fields -- but I find it far more likely they would have never drafted either.


We've got plenty of that. What we don't have is the best player in the American League and a pretty solid bullpen.


Lip, do you have some massive insecurity regarding MIT or something? For ****'s sake man, get over this "stats are death!" meme you give me on every post. All I said was that Denard Span is actually a good player. What on earth does that have to do with an "advanced degree" at MIT?

Oh, and by the way, I study history and creative writing -- neither of which have anything to do with statistics or mathematics.


There is absolutely no evidence -- anecdotal or otherwise -- that the Twins "want it more" than the White Sox. None. We wanted it pretty ****ing badly this year. Why did Dye fall so hard? Because he's old. Aging players do this sometimes -- especially ones with checkered injury histories (prior to his time with the White Sox) that appear to be losing a step (or a few steps, or dozens, in Dye's case).

If we're characterizing any team in the Central as having mediocre talent, it should be us.

This brings up a pretty good point. When was the last time you thought of any players on the Twins as being "old" or "past their prime"? They've done an excellent job of trading away players just before they start to slip. Sure, they're still productive at their new teams, but they don't seem to be as good as when they we're with the Twins. Santana was incredible with the Twins. He's still pretty good with the Mets, but it does seem like the innings are taking a toll.

Meanwhile, the Sox seem to be loaded with aging veterans every year! Could the ages of the key players be the reason why the Twins always seem to come on strong in August, September while the Sox seem to slide in the late months most years?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the Sox have second half slides in most years after starting out strong. I can't remember many second half surges by the Sox. Maybe 2003 or 2001. This goes pretty far back too. Even the good years, they seem to start out strong and try to coast through the second half. 1996 was a prime example of this. 2000 was also a very good example. In 2005, they were lucky to build such a huge lead early. I know they still did well in the 2nd half, but I think the first half was still far superior.

TomBradley72
10-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Chris Getz should have no part in this infield next season. I was a big supporter of him prior to this season (you can look up mine and lillian's Getz vs. Nix debates for evidence), but he's far too fragile and below average with the glove to be counted on.

I'm all for Beltre, Figgins, or any other competent 3B.

I agree...I think the #1 move for the offseason is getting a veteran 2nd baseman who can also play a leadership role out on the field. I don't see Beckham or Alexei playing that role and I think it hurt TCM to not have a veteran who knows the league next to him in the infield. Getz is a nice player, but his position is our biggest gap to address.

asindc
10-08-2009, 12:07 PM
This brings up a pretty good point. When was the last time you thought of any players on the Twins as being "old" or "past their prime"? They've done an excellent job of trading away players just before they start to slip. Sure, they're still productive at their new teams, but they don't seem to be as good as when they we're with the Twins. Santana was incredible with the Twins. He's still pretty good with the Mets, but it does seem like the innings are taking a toll.

Meanwhile, the Sox seem to be loaded with aging veterans every year! Could the ages of the key players be the reason why the Twins always seem to come on strong in August, September while the Sox seem to slide in the late months most years?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the Sox have second half slides in most years after starting out strong. I can't remember many second half surges by the Sox. Maybe 2003 or 2001. This goes pretty far back too. Even the good years, they seem to start out strong and try to coast through the second half. 1996 was a prime example of this. 2000 was also a very good example. In 2005, they were lucky to build such a huge lead early. I know they still did well in the 2nd half, but I think the first half was still far superior.

I think you have a good point there. This is an example, IMO, of how their philosophy of building a team works well. I still think that they are built to win a lot of regular season games but not built to win championships. But their strong suits of scouting, drafting, and developing work well for them in this regard since it gives them a deeper pool of young players to work into the roster when needed (i.e., Duensing this year).

MisterB
10-08-2009, 12:16 PM
This brings up a pretty good point. When was the last time you thought of any players on the Twins as being "old" or "past their prime"? They've done an excellent job of trading away players just before they start to slip. Sure, they're still productive at their new teams, but they don't seem to be as good as when they we're with the Twins. Santana was incredible with the Twins. He's still pretty good with the Mets, but it does seem like the innings are taking a toll.

Meanwhile, the Sox seem to be loaded with aging veterans every year! Could the ages of the key players be the reason why the Twins always seem to come on strong in August, September while the Sox seem to slide in the late months most years?

I'd attribute it to the fact that the Twins seldom re-sign players once they hit free agency or trade them before they get to that point. Fortunately for them they have a productive enough farm system that they can get away with being cheap and having high player turnover.

kufram
10-08-2009, 12:33 PM
The Twins play solid, fundamental baseball and play as a unit. That must come from their lower level training. The White Sox definitely do not play good, basic baseball or they would have scored more runners in scoring position with no outs this last year. If anyone could bunt (well, Pods can bunt... but he's the guy on third) we would have won more games. The White Sox did not play as a unit and there seemed to be something missing as a team at just the wrong time.

The second advantage the Twins have had was the dome. That will change and I suspect they will have a few more make-up games at undesirable times in the future.

The Sox were younger in the infield this year and some patience is needed. It is funny how Getz was seen as having a good, solid year from visiting managers and analysts. With Kotsay and Konerko at first giving some veteran presence Beckham, Ramirez, and Getz are going to be good soon. Figgins is a lot of money for something you already have for cheaper in Pods.

Bullpen?? Hell, I don't know what you do. Pick some and hope it works seems to be the science involved.



This brings up a pretty good point. When was the last time you thought of any players on the Twins as being "old" or "past their prime"? They've done an excellent job of trading away players just before they start to slip. Sure, they're still productive at their new teams, but they don't seem to be as good as when they we're with the Twins. Santana was incredible with the Twins. He's still pretty good with the Mets, but it does seem like the innings are taking a toll.

Meanwhile, the Sox seem to be loaded with aging veterans every year! Could the ages of the key players be the reason why the Twins always seem to come on strong in August, September while the Sox seem to slide in the late months most years?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the Sox have second half slides in most years after starting out strong. I can't remember many second half surges by the Sox. Maybe 2003 or 2001. This goes pretty far back too. Even the good years, they seem to start out strong and try to coast through the second half. 1996 was a prime example of this. 2000 was also a very good example. In 2005, they were lucky to build such a huge lead early. I know they still did well in the 2nd half, but I think the first half was still far superior.

Paulwny
10-08-2009, 12:35 PM
Which is why Ozzie called out Nix (and Lillibridge) again when he spoke with Chuck Garfein on Monday. For those who missed it Ozzie said he told them they strike out to much and don't get on base enough. He said if they don't improve they won't be on the club.

And while we're on this subject perhaps someone can "quantify" how an organization can have eight winning years, and five playoff appearances in the decade with mediocre talent like the Gomez's, Span's, Mays', Punto's, Bartlett's and so on this decade.

Geez you think maybe it's because of the things that you can't measure? Intelligence, desire, heart?

The Twins have had talented players over the years, some very good ones...but they haven't had enough on paper to accomplish what they've done...this decade and this year.

Someone explain that one to me please.

Lip

The Twins have a minor league system which teaches the fundamentals of the game plus a manager in Gardenhire who knows his players, what they can and can't do on the field ,

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 01:47 PM
Moses:

Ozzie has had one season in his six years as manager where the Sox won more games in the final 81 contests, then in the first 81. He's also had one season where the 81 game splits were exactly the same. In the other four years they won fewer games in the final 81 games than in the first 81.

Part of this is attributed to injuries (aka 2004) but most of it to me seems to be because of the inconsistent hitting.

Lip

Moses_Scurry
10-08-2009, 01:58 PM
Moses:

Ozzie has had one season in his six years as manager where the Sox won more games in the final 81 contests, then in the first 81. He's also had one season where the 81 game splits were exactly the same. In the other four years they won fewer games in the final 81 games than in the first 81.

Part of this is attributed to injuries (aka 2004) but most of it to me seems to be because of the inconsistent hitting.

Lip

I'd be interested to see the numbers pre-Guillen. It seems to me like the second half fades go much farther back. I know that they faded pretty badly in '96, '99, '00, '02, '04, and '06 after strong starts. In '05 it was a minor fade that they weathered. In '97, '98, '99, and '07, they were pretty bad from the start.

The closest thing to second half surges they've had pretty much since '83 were only two years, '01 and '03. The '01 "surge" was only enough to put them over .500, and the '03 "surge" only led to another fade. Thats 26 years of fades or consistently bad seasons!

Also, the Twins have let their free agents go because they are cheap, but They're also pretty much past their peaks in almost all cases. Ortiz is the only free agent they've let go in recent memory that went on to do better with his new team than with the twins. The last "over-the-hill" guy I can remember on the Twins was Radke.

munchman33
10-08-2009, 04:15 PM
Chris Getz should have no part in this infield next season. I was a big supporter of him prior to this season (you can look up mine and lillian's Getz vs. Nix debates for evidence), but he's far too fragile and below average with the glove to be counted on.

I'm all for Beltre, Figgins, or any other competent 3B.

This is exactly my sentiment.



Getz @ the league minimum + 2 quality relievers might be more valuable to this team than Figgins + a craptacular BP, no?

What two quality relievers do you think you can get for the same price as Figgins? Relief pitching, even in the $4-6 million range, is an incredible gamble. The only sure things will be getting a lot more money than that. And I'm not even sure there's a lot of quality relievers out there to begin with.

khan
10-08-2009, 04:33 PM
What two quality relievers do you think you can get for the same price as Figgins?
I'll admit that it is a bit early in the offseason for me to have thoroughly researched this query. At the same time, I believe that the bullpen is ONE question mark that requires 2 [or more] quality arms, even if the SOX include Bobby Jenks. Do you disagree?

Relief pitching, even in the $4-6 million range, is an incredible gamble. The only sure things will be getting a lot more money than that. And I'm not even sure there's a lot of quality relievers out there to begin with.
Oh, I don't disagree with this. But Beltre isn't coming here, due to his agent. That leaves Figgins, who at his price may solve ONE hole, but cause other holes in this team to be opened up. Given the possible budgetary constraints, I don't know how Figgins is even possible for this team. Many observers of this team have already dismissed the possiblity of Figgins coming to Chicago.

Outside of Beltre, who WON'T come here, and Figgins, who PROBABLY won't come here, what competent 3B do you see coming here, AT a feasible price?

munchman33
10-08-2009, 05:05 PM
I'll admit that it is a bit early in the offseason for me to have thoroughly researched this query. At the same time, I believe that the bullpen is ONE question mark that requires 2 [or more] quality arms, even if the SOX include Bobby Jenks. Do you disagree?


Oh, I don't disagree with this. But Beltre isn't coming here, due to his agent. That leaves Figgins, who at his price may solve ONE hole, but cause other holes in this team to be opened up. Given the possible budgetary constraints, I don't know how Figgins is even possible for this team. Many observers of this team have already dismissed the possiblity of Figgins coming to Chicago.

Outside of Beltre, who WON'T come here, and Figgins, who PROBABLY won't come here, what competent 3B do you see coming here, AT a feasible price?

I think the pen will come together through a combination of trades, our minor league system, and role changes. I think Thornton is the closer, I think the setup guy will come from one of Linebrink, Pena, and Carasco (whoever steps up). The others will make the team as middle relievers. Hudson, Garcia, and Torres could provide a starter and two relievers right there. Jon Link will be in the mix as well. I wouldn't assume relief pitching is high on the free agent agenda. Kenny will look, but the answers out there are more expensive and likely not very different than what's already here. Unless he's willing to throw $10 at a reliever. And I doubt that.

Beltre's agent factor will probably be neutralized by the market. He's not a star. I can see him getting $5-8 million on a one year deal, or two years with the same money per.

khan
10-08-2009, 05:38 PM
I think the pen will come together through a combination of trades, our minor league system, and role changes. I think Thornton is the closer, I think the setup guy will come from one of Linebrink, Pena, and Carasco (whoever steps up).
Yuck. Getz is closer to being an average player at his position than Linebrink at this point. Pena hasn't shown the consistency-yet, though it might come. Carrasco has been essential for this team and this bullpen, but he hasn't had the setup role as yet. Moving Thornton up a notch also creates a left-handed hole in the bullpen that isn't easily closed.

Hence, losing Jenks but moving up Thornton creates [at least] 1 hole in the bullpen. Not re-signing Dotel creates another hole in the bullpen. In fact, losing your RH & LH setup men from the previous season is a big deal, in my view. Trying to close these holes with the old/expensive/ineffective [Linebrink] or the young/unproven [Pena & TBD for the LH setup man] is no recipe for success, IMO.

The others will make the team as middle relievers. Hudson, Garcia, and Torres could provide a starter and two relievers right there. Jon Link will be in the mix as well. I wouldn't assume relief pitching is high on the free agent agenda. Kenny will look, but the answers out there are more expensive and likely not very different than what's already here. Unless he's willing to throw $10 at a reliever. And I doubt that.
I think its more likely that one out of Hudson and Torres will continue to progress, while the other will regress. I find it curious that Link was not included in the September call-ups.

Beltre's agent factor will probably be neutralized by the market. He's not a star. I can see him getting $5-8 million on a one year deal, or two years with the same money per.
One issue is money, sure. The bigger issue is a personal one between Boras and the White Sox front office. That's a harder gap to bridge.

Beltre might get $5-8M/yr, but it won't be here.

DickAllen72
10-08-2009, 05:53 PM
Slowly but surely they are transforming their offense from a punch and judy to pretty powerful, probably with their new stadium in mind. A heart of the order of Mauer, Morneau, Kubel and Cuddyer is top shelf. Span is a pretty good player. Delmon Young may still be a good player. The other thing is they have had some good pitching over the years and last but certainly not least, they don't kick the ball around. Their pitchers have to get 27 outs.
As the teams stand right now, that's a better middle four than what the White Sox have.

Everyone just assumes that the Twins are going to be unsuccessful because they are leaving the dome. But as you accurately pointed out, they seem to have a plan and given their track record I would never count them out as contenders in the AL Central.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2009, 06:12 PM
Stated again... defense, speed, fundamentals don't care if you're inside or outside.

Lip

white sox bill
10-08-2009, 06:45 PM
Linebrink,Williams,Marquez and Lillibridge need to go make another team miserable. Fields and Wise should be right behind them.

SteveFakeBlood
10-08-2009, 06:55 PM
Please. Those arguments were legit contentions held by people in the media and scouting as well. There's a difference between predictions turning out wrong and saying something kool-aid that's completely wrong now. He didn't say Jayson Nix will become a good defensive player. He said he was. That's asinine. Absolutely beyond rational thought. Being average at 2B and below average at others is not being a good defensive player, espcecially when your role is a utility guy. He's barely adequate at 2B, and that's mostly because Getz is so much worse.

Let's look at it this way. Getz didn't exactly light up the plate this year. And he's about the worst defensive 2B in the league. Why didn't Nix see more playing time there, if he was SOOO much better defensively? Especially given Ozzie's propensity to play defense over hitting?

Oh, that's right. Because it isn't true. Nix isn't good defensively. You just wanted to argue for the sake of arguing with me. :dtroll:

Munch, I agree with a lot of what you're saying- so it pains me to point out that you went against your own argument here. There are quantifiable stats to PROVE Getz is better defensively than Nix and NOT the worst defensive second baseman in the AL- here they are:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/seasontype/2/position/2b/league/al/count/41/qualified/false/order/true

To summarize:

- Getz had fewer errors than Nix in 50 MORE games.
- Getz has a better fielding percentage than Nix
- Getz has a better range factor than Nix
- Getz had a better fielding percentage and range factor than Brian Roberts, Jose Lopez, Robinson Cano, Akinori Iwamura, Alexi Casillas and Alberto Callaspo. And a better fielding percentage than Ian Kinsler.

You can even take it further and look at MLB stats for Qualified 2nd Basemen:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/seasontype/2/position/2b

Where if he he qualified his Range Factor and Fielding Percentage would've put him in the Top 10.


I'm not saying he's great or even anything more than average (because yes, numbers can lie), but he's not the worst in the league and he's not worse than Nix.

I don't quite understand your hatred for Getz. He hit .261/.324 (better average and OBP than TCQ and OBP within range of AJ, Kotsay and TCM) and stole 25 bases in 27 attempts (those numbers were also a bit better than Jayson Nix's). If you look at his splits, he started hot, went through a slump, started to hit well consistently (.324 in July, .276 in August), got injured and not surprisingly was cold again when he came back. Not too surprising for a Rookie. Don't completely give up on the guy after one season- give his hitting and fielding a chance to improve before you mark him as Andy Gonzalez.

~Steve

Daver
10-08-2009, 07:40 PM
Can I ask you something? How do you know their farm system teaches fundamentals any more than ours does? Perhaps they just are better at drafting. Perhaps the players from their minor league system are just flat-out more talented.

They may not have developed Brian Anderson or Josh Fields -- but I find it far more likely they would have never drafted either.



Spend twenty minutes talking to a scout for the Twins and you would know how they approach player development and their general drafting theory, spend a little more time talking and you will have a decent grasp of their overall drafting approach.

munchman33
10-08-2009, 08:07 PM
Yuck. Getz is closer to being an average player than Linebrink at this point. Pena hasn't shown the consistency-yet, though it might come. Carrasco has been essential for this team and this bullpen.


You have to give him the chance, because of the money and the history. And as down as people are on Linebrink...his trouble is mental. It isn't out of the realm of possibility he puts it back together.



I think its more likely that one out of Hudson and Torres will continue to progress, while the other will regress. I find it curious that Link was not included in the September call-ups.


He didn't have the best season at Charlotte, but he'll be in the mix.


One issue is money, sure. The bigger issue is a personal one between Boras and the White Sox front office. That's a harder gap to bridge.

Beltre might get $5-8M/yr, but it won't be here.

I doubt Beltre would rather be a backup somewhere than has his agent deal with us.

munchman33
10-08-2009, 08:19 PM
Munch, I agree with a lot of what you're saying- so it pains me to point out that you went against your own argument here. There are quantifiable stats to PROVE Getz is better defensively than Nix and NOT the worst defensive second baseman in the AL- here they are:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/seasontype/2/position/2b/league/al/count/41/qualified/false/order/true

To summarize:

- Getz had fewer errors than Nix in 50 MORE games.
- Getz has a better fielding percentage than Nix
- Getz has a better range factor than Nix
- Getz had a better fielding percentage and range factor than Brian Roberts, Jose Lopez, Robinson Cano, Akinori Iwamura, Alexi Casillas and Alberto Callaspo. And a better fielding percentage than Ian Kinsler.

You can even take it further and look at MLB stats for Qualified 2nd Basemen:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding/_/seasontype/2/position/2b

Where if he he qualified his Range Factor and Fielding Percentage would've put him in the Top 10.


I'm not saying he's great or even anything more than average (because yes, numbers can lie), but he's not the worst in the league and he's not worse than Nix.

I don't quite understand your hatred for Getz. He hit .261/.324 (better average and OBP than TCQ and OBP within range of AJ, Kotsay and TCM) and stole 25 bases in 27 attempts (those numbers were also a bit better than Jayson Nix's). If you look at his splits, he started hot, went through a slump, started to hit well consistently (.324 in July, .276 in August), got injured and not surprisingly was cold again when he came back. Not too surprising for a Rookie. Don't completely give up on the guy after one season- give his hitting and fielding a chance to improve before you mark him as Andy Gonzalez.

~Steve

Those defensive numbers do make him look better. But I'm more concerned with the range and arm package. He's like a 1B too good defensively to play the position. The package doesn't translate well to other positions. I mean, I seriously think I have a stronger throwing arm. And I might say I'm kidding, but in the back of my mind I'm actually thinking there's a chance that's true. I've never seen a 2B with a weaker arm. He literally rainbows relay throws.

I thought his batting numbers were atrocious. Hitting .260 is bad enough. Hitting .260 with no power (and I mean NO power) doesn't have a place in the majors, unless you're walking more than you get hits or you steal bases like Ricky Henderson. I can say with extreme confidence Getz will never do either of those things.

There's just WAY too many holes in his game. He's not good enough to be an everyday guy. I'm glad he's likable and all. I wish we had more players that were. But he's not good enough to play everyday. Especially not when there's a better replacement on the roster playing out of position just to fit him in.

Daver
10-08-2009, 08:27 PM
There's just WAY too many holes in his game. He's not good enough to be an everyday guy. I'm glad he's likable and all. I wish we had more players that were. But he's not good enough to play everyday. Especially not when there's a better replacement on the roster playing out of position just to fit him in.

The player would be playing out of position at second base too, and you would be wasting his arm playing him at second.

munchman33
10-08-2009, 08:39 PM
The player would be playing out of position at second base too, and you would be wasting his arm playing him at second.

Wow Daver.

I've never heard anyone say 2B was a position you could "waste" an arm before.

Second basemen turn a helluva lot more DP than third basemen do. Not that I don't agree third basemen need a strong arm to throw across the field. But I'm at a loss if you think a good arm is "wasted" at a key defensive position.

The transition to 2B from shortstop has been done thousands of times before and is generally seemless. And Gordon isn't all that great at 3B.

russ99
10-09-2009, 10:40 AM
Getz was a rookie this year, don't forget that. He had a nice season, and should improve, especially defensively.

Nix is only good for the occasional homer. He had an awful rookie year with the Rockies, then didn't do much this year to change anyone's mind about him.

I'd like to see an infield upgrade (for hitting reasons) this offseason, but if not then Getz will do just fine.

khan
10-09-2009, 12:27 PM
Stated again... defense, speed, fundamentals don't care if you're inside or outside.

Lip
Lip, I'm not singling you out, but your post illustrated a bit of blind group-think by much of White Sox fandom, chicago media, and the front office...


Quick question for the group:

Did the Minnesota Twins have more 20+ HR hitters, or 20+ Stolen Bases players this season. [Once SOX fans, the media, and the front office recognize this, will this group-think about the Twins being a speedy slap-hitting team go away? PLEASE?]

Subquestions:

A. Which team had more .850 or higher OPS hitters, our WHITE SOX, or the Minnesota Twins?
B. Which team had more [EDIT]25+ and 30+ HR hitters, our WHITE SOX, or the Minnesota Twins?

For the purpose of these questions, I'll even allow the inclusion of players that are no longer in the roster.


Look these up, then come back and tell us what you find. Then tell us if you STILL think the SOX need a speedy leadoff man moreso than a middle-of-the-order slugger.

khan
10-09-2009, 12:36 PM
You have to give him the chance, because of the money and the history. And as down as people are on Linebrink...his trouble is mental. It isn't out of the realm of possibility he puts it back together.

He (Link) didn't have the best season at Charlotte, but he'll be in the mix.

So you see the "master plan" for the bullpen is to have a guy with a 1.66 WHIP, a guy who melted down time after time, a guy who's 33 as one setup guy. For the other, the SOX are supposed to use a former long reliever or a youngster who apparently crapped his pants in Charlotte. Is that the plan?

Oh, and for the LH setup guy, what's the plan? Williams?

Color me as not convinced. A Bullpen with this as it's setup men will lead to the SOX sucking a horse's ass in 2010, despite what looks like a fine starting rotation.

I doubt Beltre would rather be a backup somewhere than has his agent deal with us.
I doubt Boras and the SOX front office will be able to make nice long enough to find out.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having a proper 3rd baseman, and moving Beckham to somewhere in the middle infield, where he'd be a star. But I doubt Beltre or Figgins will happen.

I'll ask again:

Do you have any other names of any other [EDIT]available 3rd basemen of reasonable quality [other than Figgins or Beltre] that can be had at a reasonable pricetag?

Lip Man 1
10-09-2009, 01:43 PM
Khan:

My reference to speed wasn't specifically focused on stolen bases. I'm just talking about overall team speed...can you cut down balls hit into the gap? Can you score from first on an extra base hit, from second on a single? Can your infielders range far enough to get to a few extra ground balls a week?

That was my point on speed. It never goes into a slump.

No question the Sox need at least one power middle of the order bat (see my column 2009: On the Brink). But to disregard the leadoff spot ESPECIALLY if Podsednik leaves is doing that area a grave disservice.

Lip

russ99
10-09-2009, 04:37 PM
I'll ask again:

Do you have any other names of any other [EDIT]available 3rd basemen of reasonable quality [other than Figgins or Beltre] that can be had at a reasonable pricetag?

FA's
----
Geoff Blum HOU
Craig Counsell MIL
Joe Crede MIN
Mark DeRosa STL
Pedro Feliz PHI
Troy Glaus STL
Jerry Hairston NYY
Mike Lamb MIL
Melvin Mora BAL
Juan Uribe SF

Also among FA's Hank Blalock and Aubrey Huff have played 3B for entire seasons before and Miguel Tejada should move from SS to 3B to extend his career.

dickallen15
10-09-2009, 04:41 PM
According to the Tribune, the Sox have contacted Pods' agent about a return engagement.

Lip Man 1
10-09-2009, 04:45 PM
DeRosa and Mora interest me greatly should the Sox decide to move Beckham to 2nd (which I don't think is going to happen...)

Lip

#1swisher
10-09-2009, 05:17 PM
DeRosa and Mora interest me greatly should the Sox decide to move Beckham to 2nd (which I don't think is going to happen...)

Lip
DeRosa @ 3b, Beckham @short and A. Ramirez @ 2b.
Why Gordon at 2b when after reading WSI his natural position is short stop? Alexei proved himself @ 2b in 2008, in 2009 he made 99 errors @ short.
I know he's Ozzies' guy...he didn't think Beckham was ready either, maybe he'll change his mind.

khan
10-09-2009, 07:26 PM
FA's
----
Geoff Blum HOU, Craig Counsell MIL, Joe Crede MIN, Mark DeRosa STL, Pedro Feliz PHI, Troy Glaus STL, Jerry Hairston NYY, Mike Lamb MIL, Melvin Mora BAL, Juan Uribe SF

Also among FA's Hank Blalock and Aubrey Huff have played 3B for entire seasons before and Miguel Tejada should move from SS to 3B to extend his career.

OK. Thanks for your research.

Out of this list, only Mora and Glaus really interest me.

DeRosa is a GREAT utility guy [which is what I thought Mackowiac SHOULD HAVE been], but he sucked as an every day player for Cleveland.

Tejada is intriguing, but what would it take to sign him?

The rest of those guys either are too old [Counsell's 38, Blum's 36], too injured [Crede], or have significant flaws in their game to the point that they wouldn't really be upgrades [Uribe, Hairston, Feliz] to this team.

khan
10-09-2009, 07:37 PM
Khan:

My reference to speed wasn't specifically focused on stolen bases. I'm just talking about overall team speed...can you cut down balls hit into the gap? Can you score from first on an extra base hit, from second on a single? Can your infielders range far enough to get to a few extra ground balls a week?

Fair enough. But your earlier post referenced "...defense, speed, fundamentals..."

Most of the [bolded] things you posted in this post are related to defense. I agree that this team needs more defense. But the true problem with this team is that it scored fewer runs than it allowed the opposition to do so. This, DESPITE allowing the fewest runs in the division this year.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/stats/team-totals

Certainly, part of that is defense, and having Rios and Beckham for a full year will improve matters. Having the infield mature another year will help matters. But not having EVEN ONE 30 HR HITTER is a major, GLARING problem. Particularly in this park and in this league.