PDA

View Full Version : JJ Putz


SoxNation05
11-06-2009, 09:14 PM
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/mets-and-putz-will-probably-part-ways/

Supposedly, he is done in the big apple. I think he could be a more effective version of Dotel. It would definetly be a buy-low signing which is good.

Just as idea because I am not onboard for our 8th inning righty to be Tony Pena.

BadBobbyJenks
11-06-2009, 10:01 PM
If we moved Jenks I would definitely take a look at Putz.

DirtySox
11-06-2009, 10:03 PM
If we moved Jenks I would definitely take a look at Putz.

I like Putz, but am uninformed as to what his injury situation was last year.

Sargeant79
11-06-2009, 10:32 PM
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/mets-and-putz-will-probably-part-ways/

Supposedly, he is done in the big apple. I think he could be a more effective version of Dotel. It would definetly be a buy-low signing which is good.

Just as idea because I am not onboard for our 8th inning righty to be Tony Pena.

I was thinking about this the other day myself when I first read that he was likely going to have his option declined. I think there is actually big potential for a steal here. He was hurt all last year and was really good up until that point for a few years running. If the price is right, I'd be all in favor of signing him.

palehozenychicty
11-08-2009, 01:30 PM
He's a good option. I'd welcome him.

Marqhead
11-08-2009, 01:53 PM
How much is he going to cost? They declined a 9.1 mil option on him. Injured or not i doubt he's looking to take much of a pay cut.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2009, 03:28 AM
Link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/multiple-teams-in-on-putz.html)

Foulke You
12-08-2009, 03:31 PM
He is a good reliever when healthy but the guy has been pretty injury prone lately.

SoxNation05
12-08-2009, 05:49 PM
I started a thread about this being a good idea and I'm still on board.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2009, 07:06 PM
"Hot after Putz"

Link (http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2009/12/sox_closing_in_on_reliever_jj.html)

I like.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2009, 07:10 PM
I think the best part of that article is that Matt used the term "bromance"

DirtySox
12-08-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm a fan of Putz. Especially if he isn't too expensive.

getonbckthr
12-08-2009, 07:35 PM
apparently score reporting Sox are very close to signing Putz.

goofymsfan
12-08-2009, 07:39 PM
JJ is my second favorite player just a smidgen behind Scotty. I'd love for the Sox to sign JJ. The only thing that would make me happier than seeing JJ go to the Sox is for him to come back to the M's (which I don't see happening)

Danielgosox38
12-08-2009, 08:28 PM
Oh my, please get this done. This would be AWESOME.

gr8mexico
12-08-2009, 10:09 PM
Matt Thornton is recruiting JJ
http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2009/12/sox_closing_in_on_reliever_jj.html

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 11:20 PM
Big risk here. Remember he had no fastball last year.

This would be a patented KW pickup: Let the former team go through the time and expense of rehab, and move in for the rehabbed player.

But if he has his stuff back, look out!

Are there any updates anywhere on his velocity or throwing? I've heard nothing about him since his season ended.

spongyfungy
12-08-2009, 11:23 PM
lol bromance

can't help but think of 'guy love' song from scrubs

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-09-2009, 12:57 AM
apparently score reporting Sox are very close to signing Putz.

I would feel more comfortable with him on the team rather than putting Hudson or Nunez in the bullpen. So long as he returns to form, this would be a great deal. Would make Jenks expendable though.

NLaloosh
12-09-2009, 07:06 AM
I just really want the jersey!

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 07:53 AM
I'd assume Jenks is gone if Putz is signed. I'll do a dance if a quality outfielder comes via trade.

soxfanreggie
12-09-2009, 10:35 AM
Well if he went down with bone spurs in his elbow in June, I'm guessing he had them the entire season. I'm not sure if that was the whole cause of the 5.22 ERA, but for the right price, I'm willing to give him a shot. I doubt he commands anywhere near the $5 million he got in '09, probably more like the $2.2 million he got in '07 with a bigger mutual option for '11 (with club buyout) and some good incentives. He could also sign a 1-year deal and hope to turn things around to sign a bigger contract in 2011.

I really hope Thornton is on the Sox for a long, long time. If it works out and he can perform, I hope Putz is here too.

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 10:49 AM
I'd assume Jenks is gone if Putz is signed. I'll do a dance if a quality outfielder comes via trade.

Sounds like this might be the case. Olney says that the White Sox are indeed shopping Jenks.

VeeckAsInWreck
12-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Go towards the bottom of the article, it mentions that Matt Thornton has been trying to do some recruiting.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091209&content_id=7781380&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I suppose he would be a replacement for Dotel.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 05:00 PM
Link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/chicago_white_sox/index.html)

More updates. According to Cowley, Putz wants to pitch for the Sox.

Rockabilly
12-09-2009, 05:02 PM
I hope KW gets this deal done. Than trade Jenks and Flowers to the Rays for Upton.

tm1119
12-09-2009, 05:08 PM
The only way I would like this deal is if it leads to a Jenks trade. Bring in Putz for around 3-4 mil and then trade Jenks' 7mil gives us some much needed cap room. Not sure how much better or worse our bellpen would be though. Guess it all depends on how healthy Putz really is.

Nellie_Fox
12-09-2009, 05:09 PM
The only way I would like this deal is if it leads to a Jenks trade. Bring in Putz for around 3-4 mil and then trade Jenks' 7mil gives us some much needed cap room. Not sure how much better or worse our bellpen would be though. Guess it all depends on how healthy Putz really is.What "cap?" There is no cap.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 05:11 PM
I hope KW gets this deal done. Than trade Jenks and Flowers to the Rays for Upton.
Yuck. Would need more than Upton -- a guy I adore. That's just too much for a guy who has underperformed.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 05:13 PM
The only way I would like this deal is if it leads to a Jenks trade. Bring in Putz for around 3-4 mil and then trade Jenks' 7mil gives us some much needed cap room. Not sure how much better or worse our bellpen would be though. Guess it all depends on how healthy Putz really is.

I don't know about our bellpen, but our bullpen will be an even bigger question mark. :tongue:

I like the idea of bringing in Putz as it solidifies our bullpen with Jenks and gives us more options. If we get Putz, I only trade Jenks if he can bring us a Carl Crawford or BJ Upton type player.

tm1119
12-09-2009, 05:15 PM
What "cap?" There is no cap.

Yeah Im just so used to saying that. I guess spending cash instead of cap would be more appropriate.

And I doubt that the Rays would even do a Flowers + Jenks for Upton deal, no way we get more from the Rays.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Get Putz and Matsui, that would make me a very happy Sox fan.


I can live with Beckham leading off.

Rockabilly
12-09-2009, 05:28 PM
my team for next season

1 Coco Crisp LF ( FA)
2 Goron Beckham 2B
3 Carlos Quentin DH
4 Paul Konerko 1B
5 BJ Upton RF (Jenks& Flowers)
6 AJ Pierzynski C
7 Alexei Ramirez SS
8 Alex Rios CF
9 Mark Teahen 3B

bench- Kotsay 1B-OF, Jones OF, Vizquel Utily, Olivio C ( FA)

Rotation- Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd Garcia

Pen- Hudson RR, M Gonzalez LR (FA), Carrasco RR, Pena RR, Linebrink RR, Putz RR ( FA) Thornton LR.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 05:28 PM
Get Putz and Matsui, that would make me a very happy Sox fan.


I can live with Beckham leading off.

I can't, we'd lose so many runs because of that. The guy is a natural born run producer, you'd be wasting him at the top of the order.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2009, 06:02 PM
I can't, we'd lose so many runs because of that. The guy is a natural born run producer, you'd be wasting him at the top of the order.


Grady Sizemore is making a very nice career for himself leading off when everyone knows he is better suited for the 3 hole.

Besides, you only lead off once per game. Who says Beckham can't produce from the 9 hole if 7-8-9 are getting on base for him.

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 06:07 PM
Besides, you only lead off once per game. Who says Beckham can't produce from the 9 hole if 7-8-9 are getting on base for him.

Agreed. While I don't necessarily want Beckham leading off, the necessity of an ideal leadoff hitter is overstated.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 06:07 PM
Grady Sizemore is making a very nice career for himself leading off when everyone knows he is better suited for the 3 hole.

Besides, you only lead off once per game. Who says Beckham can't produce from the 9 hole if 7-8-9 are getting on base for him.

and we wonder why the Indians are such a bad team and have trouble scoring runs

PalehosePlanet
12-09-2009, 06:09 PM
my team for next season

1 Coco Crisp LF ( FA)
2 Goron Beckham 2B
3 Carlos Quentin DH
4 Paul Konerko 1B
5 BJ Upton RF (Jenks& Flowers)
6 AJ Pierzynski C
7 Alexei Ramirez SS
8 Alex Rios CF
9 Mark Teahen 3B

bench- Kotsay 1B-OF, Jones OF, Vizquel Utily, Olivio C ( FA)

Rotation- Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd Garcia

Pen- Hudson RR, M Gonzalez LR (FA), Carrasco RR, Pena RR, Linebrink RR, Putz RR ( FA) Thornton LR.

No way in hell do you include Flowers in that deal. TB would have to add more players to make that happen.

Also, you do realize that Mike Gonzalez will probably get about 6-7 million a year don't you? If we sign Putz to about 3-4 mil and Crisp for about 3-4 mil where would we have the money for Gonzalez?

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2009, 06:12 PM
and we wonder why the Indians are such a bad team and have trouble scoring runs


The Indians struggle to score runs because the guys that they have invested to be their big producers have failed or can't stay healthy (Hafner, Peralta, Garko, etc).



That's the equivalent of our big boppers not hauling their weight (Konerko, CQ, Rios, etc).

SoxSpeed22
12-09-2009, 06:19 PM
The Indians struggle to score runs because the guys that they have invested to be their big producers have failed or can't stay healthy (Hafner, Peralta, Garko, etc).



That's the equivalent of our big boppers not hauling their weight (Konerko, CQ, Rios, etc).Or it could be because their best run producer is leading off instead. :dunno:
Either way, I think Putz can work here as a 7th/8th inning guy.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 06:21 PM
The Indians struggle to score runs because the guys that they have invested to be their big producers have failed or can't stay healthy (Hafner, Peralta, Garko, etc).



That's the equivalent of our big boppers not hauling their weight (Konerko, CQ, Rios, etc).

That is the bulk of it, yes. However, one can argue that if players like Cabrera and Choo were hitting in front of Sizemore for the majority of the year, then their run total would be significantly better

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 06:25 PM
FWIW, the Indians scored 50 more runs than the Sox last year.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2009, 06:26 PM
FWIW, the Indians scored 50 more runs than the Sox last year.
No way. No. No way.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 06:27 PM
FWIW, the Indians scored 50 more runs than the Sox last year.

I think that just shows how valuable pitching can be and how bad Jeremy Sowers is.

soxinem1
12-09-2009, 06:51 PM
I think the best part of that article is that Matt used the term "bromance"

I would have said 'I hope J.J. does well in any role Ozzie Putz him in'.

soxinem1
12-09-2009, 06:53 PM
FWIW, the Indians scored 50 more runs than the Sox last year.

That is a lie! They only scored 49 more runs!!:smile::smile:

DirtySox
12-09-2009, 06:59 PM
No way. No. No way.

Just sayin'.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2009, 07:09 PM
That is the bulk of it, yes. However, one can argue that if players like Cabrera and Choo were hitting in front of Sizemore for the majority of the year, then their run total would be significantly better


I am struggling to understand what your point is here.


All I am saying if the Sox have no other choice but to fall back on Gordon being the lead off hitter than so be it. I can accept that if it allows them to be able to do other things with their lack of cash in hand right now to plug other holes. A reliever (Putz) and a middle of the order run producer (Matsui) with Gordon leading off I have no problem accepting rather than them foolishly over-spending or over-trading for the sake of getting a true "lead off" hitter.

Besides, for one season right now, give me Matsui in a run producing slot over Ramirez or Beckham. I would feel so much better about Matsui hitting 5th than I would if Alexei or Gordon were there. I am talking about next season only.

JermaineDye05
12-09-2009, 07:24 PM
I am struggling to understand what your point is here.


All I am saying if the Sox have no other choice but to fall back on Gordon being the lead off hitter than so be it. I can accept that if it allows them to be able to do other things with their lack of cash in hand right now to plug other holes. A reliever (Putz) and a middle of the order run producer (Matsui) with Gordon leading off I have no problem accepting rather than them foolishly over-spending or over-trading for the sake of getting a true "lead off" hitter.

Besides, for one season right now, give me Matsui in a run producing slot over Ramirez or Beckham. I would feel so much better about Matsui hitting 5th than I would if Alexei or Gordon were there. I am talking about next season only.

My main concern is that putting Gordon in the lead-off role will cause him to get away from what he normally does at the plate because a lead off hitter and a run producer have completely different games and I'm fairly certain that their approaches are different as well.

Gordon right now, has the potential to drive in over 100 runs consistently and I'd hate for the White Sox to risk ruining him by putting him in the lead off slot.

slavko
12-09-2009, 10:16 PM
My main concern is that putting Gordon in the lead-off role will cause him to get away from what he normally does at the plate because a lead off hitter and a run producer have completely different games and I'm fairly certain that their approaches are different as well.

Gordon right now, has the potential to drive in over 100 runs consistently and I'd hate for the White Sox to risk ruining him by putting him in the lead off slot.

That's a good call. But Kenny has a master plan for the top of the lineup, right? It can't be Beckham.

Baron
12-09-2009, 11:20 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10496890

White sox still talking to Putz

DirtySox
12-10-2009, 09:14 AM
Apparently the Cubs and White Sox are the two teams most interested in Putz. White Sox already offered a 2.5 Million contract with incentives to reach 6 or 7 million. He is going to workout a second time for the Cubs on Friday.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog/_/post/4730140/name/levine

NLaloosh
12-10-2009, 09:37 AM
Why don't the White Sox keep Jenks and Putz to at least start the season?

That way, they could end up having the best rotation and the best bullpen in the league.

Then, it wouldn't matter so much who leads off or DH's. I would think the Sox could almost guarantee themselves a playoff spot like that.

Tragg
12-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Why don't the White Sox keep Jenks and Putz to at least start the season?

That way, they could end up having the best rotation and the best bullpen in the league.

Then, it wouldn't matter so much who leads off or DH's. I would think the Sox could almost guarantee themselves a playoff spot like that.
I think an athletic RF would help the team more than Jenks. For one thing, we need some OF defense to support the pitching staff.

Our pen should be pretty good anyway.

NLaloosh
12-10-2009, 09:47 AM
I think an athletic RF would help the team more than Jenks. For one thing, we need some OF defense to support the pitching staff.

Our pen should be pretty good anyway.

Well, the Sox will definitely add one more outfielder but I'd rather have a lock down bullpen than a little more offense.

Even with Putz, whose health is questionable, this bullpen is not all that impressive. If they keep Jenks and Putz returns to form then watch out! This team could go far.

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2009, 10:21 AM
Well, the Sox will definitely add one more outfielder but I'd rather have a lock down bullpen than a little more offense.

Even with Putz, whose health is questionable, this bullpen is not all that impressive. If they keep Jenks and Putz returns to form then watch out! This team could go far.
It's not about having a little more offense, it's about having any offense to speak of.

NLaloosh
12-10-2009, 11:50 AM
It's not about having a little more offense, it's about having any offense to speak of.

That's a ridiculous comment. Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik is at minimum a decent offense.

Thatguyoverthere
12-10-2009, 11:53 AM
It's not about having a little more offense, it's about having any offense to speak of.Agreed. If KW doesn't get at least one of Dunn/Matsui/Delgado I'm going to be pissed. If we don't then the 2010 White Sox will be the 2009 Giants.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2009, 11:54 AM
That's a ridiculous comment. Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik is at minimum a decent offense.


Is he back :?:

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2009, 11:56 AM
Agreed. If KW doesn't get at least one of Dunn/Matsui/Delgado I'm going to be pissed. If we don't then the 2010 White Sox will be the 2009 Giants.


Agreed.

The last thing the Sox want to do is piss away a golden opportunity with what they currently have in the rotation.


I don't think the Sox will be foolish to over-spend in an average lead off hitter, but I am pretty sure a big bat is coming here. Just my feeling.

Domeshot17
12-10-2009, 12:14 PM
That's a ridiculous comment. Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik is at minimum a decent offense.

It wasn't last year.

The only new additions to that offense are: Teahen who had a .734 OPS last year and is only a marginal upgrade defensively (league average type 3b) and Andruw Jones who didn't hit the Mendoza line either of the last 2 seasons.

You can tell me a full year of Gordon can make a huge difference, but the Sox were in first place last year with him and he didn't make any difference except that without him we might have finished last.

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2009, 01:25 PM
That's a ridiculous comment. Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik is at minimum a decent offense.
Save Beckham and (maybe) AJP, are any of those guys guarantees to be better than average? And save Rios, are any of them guarantees to be above average defensively?

Taliesinrk
12-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Refer to my post in the Pods-Tigers thread. Putz and Jenks would be more valuable to this team than an average (at best) OF we get for Jenks trade and Putz. When you have a rotation as good as the one the Sox put together, it's not "wasting the talent" (as was previously mentioned here) if you choose to put together a solid BP and defense rather than upgrade your offense a bit. In fact, it's better to have a solid BP and marginal offense with a dominant rotation than what you guys are advocating for. If you don't believe me, come look at the gamethreads in July and August when MB puts up 7 strong to give us a 2-run lead only to have linebrink come in and blow it in the 8th. A BALANCED offense is the key. The comparison to the Giants of last year is off in many regards. And, at the risk of being crucified, I'll bring up the '05 Sox for the second time here today. Does anyone remember how much the media slammed that offense saying how weak it was? How the Sox didn't put up enough runs and that would be their downfall? The difference was that they could beat you in multiple ways. Speed, sacrifices, the long-ball, etc. On any given day, they could adjust and play to the score... Power (which the Sox have had PLENTY of for the past 4 years), cannot. It's time the Sox get back to that philosophy. Would you guys argue that a line-up of Pods, Iguchi, Everett, Konerko, AJP, Rowand, Uribe and Crede (pre-05 season) would be light years ahead of Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik?

There's a reason that the A's are one-and-done each year in the playoffs. It's the stat-heads that run their team.

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2009, 02:55 PM
There's a reason that the A's are one-and-done each year in the playoffs. It's the stat-heads that run their team.
Yeah! Or the Red Sox and their cabal of statheads, or the Phillies and their small-ball guys like Howard, Werth, Utley, (formerly) Burrell, etc. Or even the Yankees! They won because of Brett Gardner!

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2009, 02:56 PM
There's a reason that the A's are one-and-done each year in the playoffs. It's the stat-heads that run their team.


I am not understanding you here. You are speaking from both sides of your mouth.

One you want the Sox to put all their eggs in the Pods basket (playing small ball, obp% ,etc) and then you go mention the "one and done" A's who play baseball under this same philosophy.

The A's suck because they can't hit HRs and drive in runs. That's why their offense sucks. That's why every offense that sucks in baseball ends up sucking. It's a thumper league. You have to mash to score runs. You need run producers in the middle of the order.

spawn
12-10-2009, 03:15 PM
Yeah! Or the Red Sox and their cabal of statheads, or the Phillies and their small-ball guys like Howard, Werth, Utley, (formerly) Burrell, etc. Or even the Yankees! They won because of Brett Gardner!
OK...this made me laugh. :rolling:

WhiteSox5187
12-10-2009, 04:16 PM
Save Beckham and (maybe) AJP, are any of those guys guarantees to be better than average? And save Rios, are any of them guarantees to be above average defensively?

I see no reason why Paulie can't put up the numbers he put up in 2009, I think he was hurt most of 2008, so I think that explains the downward trend for that year. But he can still be a 30 HR and 90 RBI guy. If Quentin can stay healthy (big if) he can put up similar numbers to Konerko (though I wonder about his average) and one has to hope that Rios can return to the mean of his career. Alexei seems like he is a lock to hit .270 with 20 HRs.

I think the Sox priorities should be: bullpen, leadoff hitter, big bat, defense.

Thatguyoverthere
12-10-2009, 04:18 PM
Yeah! Or the Red Sox and their cabal of statheads, or the Phillies and their small-ball guys like Howard, Werth, Utley, (formerly) Burrell, etc. Or even the Yankees! They won because of Brett Gardner!:rolling: Exactly! I'm tired of hearing how we don't need power. We play in US CELLULAR FIELD, we should be playing to our park's strengths. And the '05 offense hit over 200 homeruns, that offense did well enough partly because it could mash. We need a power bat.

WhiteSox5187
12-10-2009, 04:22 PM
:rolling: Exactly! I'm tired of hearing how we don't need power. We play in US CELLULAR FIELD, we should be playing to our park's strengths. And the '05 offense hit over 200 homeruns, that offense did well enough partly because it could mash. We need a power bat.

I really don't think anyone is calling for a return to the Sox of the 1960s where their lead power guy hit 15 HRs; I think what people want (or what I want at least) is a balance. You can't just load up on guys that hit .250 with 100 K's but also hit 30+ HRs. Yea, we NEED power guys in the lineup, but having a guy or two who can get on and steal a few bases to be around those guys (and in theory ensure they see a few more fastballs) wouldn't be bad either.

tm1119
12-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Apparently we have made a formal offer to Putz, but hes still waiting on other offers. http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog/_/post/4730140/name/levine

The guaranteed money sounds about right, but I'd like to know what kind of incentives could get him to 7mil, and how obtainable they actually are.

spawn
12-10-2009, 05:06 PM
Apparently we have made a formal offer to Putz, but hes still waiting on other offers. http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog/_/post/4730140/name/levine

The guaranteed money sounds about right, but I'd like to know what kind of incentives could get him to 7mil, and how obtainable they actually are.
This has already been posted here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2395226&postcount=46).

Taliesinrk
12-10-2009, 07:33 PM
Yeah! Or the Red Sox and their cabal of statheads, or the Phillies and their small-ball guys like Howard, Werth, Utley, (formerly) Burrell, etc. Or even the Yankees! They won because of Brett Gardner!

Surprise, surprise, Grebeck. I almost pre-emptively posted about the Red Sox because I knew that you would try to drop it in here... I didn't see the Phillies bandwagon comments coming though. Both of the examples you used are typical of you. Let's ignore their rotations and bullpens. Let's pretend like the Red Sox had average 1-5 pitchers and that their bullpen was dominated with names like Linebrink.

Let's ignore the fact that the Phillies were unable to repeat solely due to their BP and a starter or two not performing as well the following year. Let's act like the Phillies have guys that can only hit homeruns... I mean, you know that Utley guy is HR-or-nothing, right? And who cares about the fact that Jimmy What's-his-name has that thing noonce cares about called speed. Defense? I'm not sure the guys up the middle on that team would even know what to do with a glove. I mean they have that Hawaiian guy... certainly he doesn't know how catch a baseball, right? I mean he's from the Pacific!!!! I bet that just because those guys all have great OBP/OPS/ABCs it's o.k. that they all strike-out 120 times per year. They must all do that, right? They wouldn't ever sacrifice bunt or steal bases because statistically, that's a stupid thing to do. I know Charlie Manuel isn't stupid.

So let's throw out all the bull**** and not speak in generalities. There are members of the Red Sox organization that believe in the same stats nonsense that you preach, but that doesn't mean that it's the end-all be-all. Let's not selectively pick 3-or-4 guys from a line-up and ignore the rest of what that '08 Phillies line-up brought (balance). You can jump off the empire state building screaming good one-liners about how stats will win championships, but when you hit the ground, the facts won't have changed: Pitching and defense win championships, period. As long as you have a somewhat consistent and balanced offense, it'll be enough to back strong pitching.

:rolling: Exactly! I'm tired of hearing how we don't need power. We play in US CELLULAR FIELD, we should be playing to our park's strengths. And the '05 offense hit over 200 homeruns, that offense did well enough partly because it could mash. We need a power bat.

:rolling: I can't stop laughing at your post either... good one. Why don't you tell me where I said we don't need power? You can also feel free to inform me of how you think that Konerko, Quentin, Ramirez and what Rios and Teahen can add, don't provide any of it.

But, thanks to your post, I'm glad we haven't learned from 2000 when the Sox, IIRC, had the most prolific offense in history and were swept out of the first round of the playoffs not even putting up a fight. I'm glad we ignore the years of Jose "Mr. 230 avg, 30 HR" Valentin, Carlos "I really don't like that big blue wall" Lee, Magglio Ordonez, and Frank Thomas. I guess all the years with those guys (and guys like them) in the line-up weren't "playing to our park's strengths", right? I guess the Sox lost those years because they didn't have more Jose Valentins in the line-up? It couldn't have anything to do with the game the fans played each week of "guess who's going to pitch in the 4 and 5 spots today", could it? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Sox had middle infield defense like that of caruso, valentin, royce (I'm supposed to be good at defense) clayton, or D'Angelo Jimenez, could it?

The White Sox won in 2005 because they could score runs in many different ways (did I ever say they couldn't hit HRs)? It's funny you make the point you do in your post, and then completely ignore how the '05 line-up was constructed or how they performed. Did that line-up "play to the park's strengths"?

If you build your offense around an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, you'll be disappointed. As shown in '06, the lights are either on with that kind of team, or they're off.... and typically, there's not a whole lot of middle ground. Good Pitching, defense, and fundamentals don't slump... there's no arguing that. If you want to see the pinwheels on the scoreboard light up a few more times this year, I'm not blaming you. What I'm saying is that I'd sacrifice a few fireworks during the game to see the Sox players shaking hands on the field after it, and the way to do that is by strengthening their pitching and defense and building a balanced line-up.

Pablo_Honey
12-10-2009, 09:11 PM
There are members of the Red Sox organization that believe in the same stats nonsense that you preach, but that doesn't mean that it's the end-all be-all.
False, ignorant statement. Never did I hear any clear-headed statheads declare their stats as "be-all and end-all." They are just trying to tackle the game in a different way, nothing wrong with that. I've read Craig clearly saying that before in some other thread.

You can jump off the empire state building screaming good one-liners about how stats will win championships, but when you hit the ground, the facts won't have changed: Pitching and defense win championships, period.
Oh yeah, tell that to the 2009 Yankees who only had an ace, decent #2 and #3 starters, horrible #4 starter and non-existent #5 starter. Or the 2008 Phillies with their #3 starter having an ERA of 4.55. Or 2007 Red Sox that had to depend on Beckett to bail them out while their other starters struggled. Or 2006 Cardinals...and so on and so forth. Seriously, anything can happen in postseason. It's not as simple as "pitching and defense."

I guess the Sox lost those years because they didn't have more Jose Valentins in the line-up?
I'm sure Jose Valentin is exactly the type of hitters stat people do NOT want in their lineup. Zero patience and low walk totals to show for it. Homeruns aren't the only thing they care about, you know.

The White Sox won in 2005 because they could score runs in many different ways (did I ever say they couldn't hit HRs)?
If you have guys that can draw a lot of walks and hit a lot of homeruns, there is no need to bunt guys over because if a guy gets on, 1) the next batter draws a walk, you have a runner in scoring position without costing an out, or, 2) the next batter gets an extra base-hit, scoring the runner.

It's funny you make the point you do in your post, and then completely ignore how the '05 line-up was constructed or how they performed. Did that line-up "play to the park's strengths"?
They had the fourth most homeruns in the league, dead last in doubles, 4th least triples, 3rd lowest batting average, so yes the lineup played to what the park was designed for: HOMERUNS. Honestly, "Ozzie Ball" is a big myth. Sox bunted only 53 times, one below the league average. The only thing "small ball" about our lineup was that we had 3rd most steals in the league (but we also led the league in caught stealing)

Lip Man 1
12-10-2009, 09:17 PM
Pablo:

You happened to leave out this fact.

In 2005, the White Sox were in the top five in the league in:

Sacrifice Flies
Home Runs
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Bunts
Infield Hits.

That's called BALANCE my friend. Which is a big reason why they won so many close games. They could beat you with a bunt, a bloop or a blast.

Championship teams usually have a number of ways to win games...the Sox need to return to that capacity.

Lip

Pablo_Honey
12-10-2009, 09:26 PM
Pablo:

You happened to leave out this fact.

In 2005, the White Sox were in the top five in the league in:

Sacrifice Flies
Home Runs
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Bunts
Infield Hits.

That's called BALANCE my friend. Which is a big reason why they won so many close games. They could beat you with a bunt, a bloop or a blast.

Championship teams usually have a number of ways to win games...the Sox need to return to that capacity.

Lip
I shamefully admit that I stand corrected, I was unconciously blocking out other stats while looking the numbers up. Still, not every championship team has more than one way of scoring though. The most recent example is the 2009 Yankees, who were around the league average in all those categories except homeruns where they simply destroyed the league with 244 homeruns. So, yes, I suppose the argument can go both ways.

soxinem1
12-10-2009, 09:34 PM
Pablo:

You happened to leave out this fact.

In 2005, the White Sox were in the top five in the league in:

Sacrifice Flies
Home Runs
Stolen Bases
Sacrifice Bunts
Infield Hits.

That's called BALANCE my friend. Which is a big reason why they won so many close games. They could beat you with a bunt, a bloop or a blast.

Championship teams usually have a number of ways to win games...the Sox need to return to that capacity.

Lip

While I agree on the BALANCE analogy, a lot of luck and breaks helped that team too, such as the record in the division, and beating CLE several times in 1-0 games (not to mention their lopsided record in one-run games).

The balance also extended into the pitching department, with several previously borderline relievers having career years and only utilizing six starting pitchers the entire season.

This team needs balance in the way of having guys who can beat you with a more versatile offense, unlike the inconsistent 2006-2009 teams.

Corlose 15
12-10-2009, 09:38 PM
While I agree on the BALANCE analogy, a lot of luck and breaks helped that team too, such as the record in the division, and beating CLE several times in 1-0 games (not to mention their lopsided record in one-run games).

The balance also extended into the pitching department, with several previously borderline relievers having career years and only utilizing six starting pitchers the entire season.

This team needs balance in the way of having guys who can beat you with a more versatile offense, unlike the inconsistent 2006-2009 teams.

I think any championship team has to have a little luck on the health front. I think 2004 ends up a lot different if Maggs and Frank don't both go down for over 100 games.


This team needs to be able to win games when their power hitters are slumping, and balance and speed will help them do that.

A. Cavatica
12-10-2009, 10:12 PM
That's a ridiculous comment. Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Paul Konerko, Alexei Ramirez, Andruw Jones, Mark Teahen, A.J. Pierzynski, Alex Rios and Scott Posednik is at minimum a decent offense.

And that's an even more ridiculous comment. Jones is done, Rios was horrible last year, Konerko and Ramirez and Teahen and Pierzynski are average at best, Podsednik is not even on the team. Only Quentin and Beckham are plus offensive players, and Quentin has health questions.

(Before someone chirps that Konerko is a good hitter, he was 19th in OPS out of 23 qualified MLB first basemen last year. Pierzynski was 4th of 9 qualified C. Alexei was 11th of 19 SS. Teahen was 14th of 20 3B.)

NLaloosh
12-11-2009, 06:26 AM
And that's an even more ridiculous comment. Jones is done, Rios was horrible last year, Konerko and Ramirez and Teahen and Pierzynski are average at best, Podsednik is not even on the team. Only Quentin and Beckham are plus offensive players, and Quentin has health questions.

(Before someone chirps that Konerko is a good hitter, he was 19th in OPS out of 23 qualified MLB first basemen last year. Pierzynski was 4th of 9 qualified C. Alexei was 11th of 19 SS. Teahen was 14th of 20 3B.)

Yeah, you're right. The more I think about it we should add that Bobby Jenks will never pitch again since he ended the season injured.

Freddy Garcia's career ended in 2007 so it must be a different Freddy Garcia in the 2010 rotation.

Mark Buehrle had a 4.99 ERA in 2006 so the Sox were fools to give him a long term contract knowing that he'd never pitch another good game after that.

Jake Peavy, like Alex Rios, had his first down year so now he sucks, too.

ARod struck out in his last at bat. He's garbage now.

Tiger Woods will never play golf again.

And, I heard Ozzie had a couple of beers last night so now he's too much of an alcoholic to manage a major league team.

I'm glad that you and I can keep things in perspective.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 08:49 AM
Surprise, surprise, Grebeck. I almost pre-emptively posted about the Red Sox because I knew that you would try to drop it in here... I didn't see the Phillies bandwagon comments coming though. Both of the examples you used are typical of you. Let's ignore their rotations and bullpens. Let's pretend like the Red Sox had average 1-5 pitchers and that their bullpen was dominated with names like Linebrink.
1. I don't understand your usage of the word "bandwagon." Doesn't make any sense.
2. We were talking about offense. That's why we're not bringing up their rotations/bullpens. Yes, you need good pitching and good defense to win it all. A good offense helps too.

Let's ignore the fact that the Phillies were unable to repeat solely due to their BP and a starter or two not performing as well the following year. Let's act like the Phillies have guys that can only hit homeruns... I mean, you know that Utley guy is HR-or-nothing, right? And who cares about the fact that Jimmy What's-his-name has that thing noonce cares about called speed. Defense? I'm not sure the guys up the middle on that team would even know what to do with a glove. I mean they have that Hawaiian guy... certainly he doesn't know how catch a baseball, right? I mean he's from the Pacific!!!!
1. I think they just weren't as good a team as the Yankees. Yankees were more talented than the Phillies (which is saying something). There will be fluctuations in pitching performance in a seven game series, even with good bullpens and rotations.
2. Yes, Utley is a good hitter. So is Werth. So is Howard (though extremely overrated). They are all good hitters. Good hitters = good offense. A mix of bad and good hitters in the guise of "offensive balance" i.e. what you are advocating = not as good. It's pretty simple: get good hitters. We lack good hitters, and we won't win a championship with such a below average offense.

I bet that just because those guys all have great OBP/OPS/ABCs it's o.k. that they all strike-out 120 times per year. They must all do that, right? They wouldn't ever sacrifice bunt or steal bases because statistically, that's a stupid thing to do. I know Charlie Manuel isn't stupid.
1. I love when people rip me for using statistics by making up acronyms such as "ABCs" or VORPSAUCE or WHIRLYDERBY or whatever. If you want to have a legitimate argument or discussion about an aspect of baseball analysis with which you disagree, don't lower the discourse to the level of petulant elementary school students. Debate the notion, debate the idea, debate the theory, hell, debate me -- just don't drag the discussion down in the mud. These are interesting topics, and adults can discuss them in an interesting and respectful manner.
2. I'm okay with stealing bases at a high rate. If you're good at it, do it. Rollins is/was good at it. Podsednik isn't, and he hasn't been for a long while. But Rollins isn't a good player because he steals bases, he's a good player because he hits the ball. Take away his stolen bases and he's still (prior to this season at least) a damn good player; take away 100 points from his OPS and keep the stolen bases and he's not very good.
3. You're right, I don't care for sacrificing before a tie-game, ninth or later situation. But that's not a matter of statistics v. scouting -- TDog and I both loathe managers that employ smallball in the early innings.
4. Is Charlie Manuel stupid? I haven't really thought about it. Probably not.

So let's throw out all the bull**** and not speak in generalities. There are members of the Red Sox organization that believe in the same stats nonsense that you preach, but that doesn't mean that it's the end-all be-all. Let's not selectively pick 3-or-4 guys from a line-up and ignore the rest of what that '08 Phillies line-up brought (balance).
Yes, there are members of the front office that employ SABR ideas to their analysis. They also have scouts, but much of their franchise has been built on the principles of statistical analysis. Every single team in the league uses statistics in their front offices, just some more than others. And, like the Phillies, the Red Sox win because of their mashers and pitching and defense -- not because of bunting.

You can jump off the empire state building screaming good one-liners about how stats will win championships, but when you hit the ground, the facts won't have changed: Pitching and defense win championships, period. As long as you have a somewhat consistent and balanced offense, it'll be enough to back strong pitching.
I'm not crazy. I don't jump off buildings.

Define somewhat consistent and balanced offense for me. I'm curious. You're far more likely to win with a good offense.

:rolling: I can't stop laughing at your post either... good one. Why don't you tell me where I said we don't need power? You can also feel free to inform me of how you think that Konerko, Quentin, Ramirez and what Rios and Teahen can add, don't provide any of it.
Save Quentin, who is extremely injury prone, all of those guys are safe bets to hit below the league average for their position. Take away positional adjustments (as Daver would advocate), and they're still not good. Other than Rios, none of them offer much defensively. Sure, Konerko is alright at first base, but defense at first base isn't near as important as third base.

But, thanks to your post, I'm glad we haven't learned from 2000 when the Sox, IIRC, had the most prolific offense in history and were swept out of the first round of the playoffs not even putting up a fight. I'm glad we ignore the years of Jose "Mr. 230 avg, 30 HR" Valentin, Carlos "I really don't like that big blue wall" Lee, Magglio Ordonez, and Frank Thomas. I guess all the years with those guys (and guys like them) in the line-up weren't "playing to our park's strengths", right? I guess the Sox lost those years because they didn't have more Jose Valentins in the line-up? It couldn't have anything to do with the game the fans played each week of "guess who's going to pitch in the 4 and 5 spots today", could it? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Sox had middle infield defense like that of caruso, valentin, royce (I'm supposed to be good at defense) clayton, or D'Angelo Jimenez, could it?
No one is arguing against defense. I've been advocating defense all offseason. I'm displeased (thus far) because the offense is stacked with mediocre hitters. My displeasure would only go so far if they played defense, but they don't do that either.

The White Sox won in 2005 because they could score runs in many different ways (did I ever say they couldn't hit HRs)? It's funny you make the point you do in your post, and then completely ignore how the '05 line-up was constructed or how they performed. Did that line-up "play to the park's strengths"?
Yes, they hit a ton of home runs. They had more good hitters in 2005 than the current roster. Unfortunately, the 2005 defense was far better than what we've got as well.
If you build your offense around an "all-or-nothing" philosophy, you'll be disappointed. As shown in '06, the lights are either on with that kind of team, or they're off.... and typically, there's not a whole lot of middle ground. Good Pitching, defense, and fundamentals don't slump... there's no arguing that.
No, there is arguing that. There is no black and white in baseball. Everything slumps. Is Mark Buehrle a good pitcher? He slumps for months at a time.
If you want to see the pinwheels on the scoreboard light up a few more times this year, I'm not blaming you. What I'm saying is that I'd sacrifice a few fireworks during the game to see the Sox players shaking hands on the field after it, and the way to do that is by strengthening their pitching and defense and building a balanced line-up.
I want good hitters who play good defense.

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 08:50 AM
Yeah, you're right. The more I think about it we should add that Bobby Jenks will never pitch again since he ended the season injured.

Freddy Garcia's career ended in 2007 so it must be a different Freddy Garcia in the 2010 rotation.

Mark Buehrle had a 4.99 ERA in 2006 so the Sox were fools to give him a long term contract knowing that he'd never pitch another good game after that.

Jake Peavy, like Alex Rios, had his first down year so now he sucks, too.

ARod struck out in his last at bat. He's garbage now.

Tiger Woods will never play golf again.

And, I heard Ozzie had a couple of beers last night so now he's too much of an alcoholic to manage a major league team.

I'm glad that you and I can keep things in perspective.
Apples and spaceships on every count.

asindc
12-11-2009, 09:01 AM
Yeah, you're right. The more I think about it we should add that Bobby Jenks will never pitch again since he ended the season injured.

Freddy Garcia's career ended in 2007 so it must be a different Freddy Garcia in the 2010 rotation.

Mark Buehrle had a 4.99 ERA in 2006 so the Sox were fools to give him a long term contract knowing that he'd never pitch another good game after that.

Jake Peavy, like Alex Rios, had his first down year so now he sucks, too.

ARod struck out in his last at bat. He's garbage now.

Tiger Woods will never play golf again.

And, I heard Ozzie had a couple of beers last night so now he's too much of an alcoholic to manage a major league team.

I'm glad that you and I can keep things in perspective.

I have often said that I don't dismiss statistical analysis, I just object to the over-reliance on such to the point that the proponents of such seemingly ignore the actual play on the field.

More to your point, I applaud your post because I read too many posts that write off a player for a bad season/bad half-season/injury-prove season/below average season, or any season in which the player did not perform in the top 10% of players at his position.

Enough. All but a select few players go through lengthy bad stretches. Slumps should not be automatically taken as an indication that a player will suddenly go from good to consistently bad. As you said, perspective, people!

Craig Grebeck
12-11-2009, 10:32 AM
I have often said that I don't dismiss statistical analysis, I just object to the over-reliance on such to the point that the proponents of such seemingly ignore the actual play on the field.

More to your point, I applaud your post because I read too many posts that write off a player for a bad season/bad half-season/injury-prove season/below average season, or any season in which the player did not perform in the top 10% of players at his position.

Enough. All but a select few players go through lengthy bad stretches. Slumps should not be automatically taken as an indication that a player will suddenly go from good to consistently bad. As you said, perspective, people!
But there are factors that NLaloosh's post doesn't take into account, such as age, injury, reason for decline, etc. If your justification for a player's presence on the roster is that he just very well may return to being a good player or become one (despite years of being an average one -- Mark Teahen) then you probably aren't in a very good position to compete.

LoveYourSuit
12-11-2009, 01:47 PM
But, thanks to your post, I'm glad we haven't learned from 2000 when the Sox, IIRC, had the most prolific offense in history and were swept out of the first round of the playoffs not even putting up a fight. I'm glad we ignore the years of Jose "Mr. 230 avg, 30 HR" Valentin, Carlos "I really don't like that big blue wall" Lee, Magglio Ordonez, and Frank Thomas. I guess all the years with those guys (and guys like them) in the line-up weren't "playing to our park's strengths", right? I guess the Sox lost those years because they didn't have more Jose Valentins in the line-up? It couldn't have anything to do with the game the fans played each week of "guess who's going to pitch in the 4 and 5 spots today", could it? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Sox had middle infield defense like that of caruso, valentin, royce (I'm supposed to be good at defense) clayton, or D'Angelo Jimenez, could it?

.

Cut the BS with this. Everyone knows if the Sox would have had one inch of pitching for all those years they would have been contenders each one of those seasons.

SoxNation05
12-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Bingo.

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 05:43 PM
Have a cookie.

SoxNation05
12-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Have a cookie.

Jealousy.

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Jealousy.

Not quite.

NLaloosh
12-11-2009, 07:16 PM
Not quite.

Yes. It is.

Boondock Saint
12-11-2009, 07:32 PM
:popcorn:

soltrain21
12-11-2009, 07:35 PM
Yes. It is.

Ha. Every ****ing free agent gets posted on this board with the message that we should pick them up. One turd finally stuck to a wall. Who cares?

Lundind1
12-11-2009, 09:25 PM
Ha. Every ****ing free agent gets posted on this board with the message that we should pick them up. One turd finally stuck to a wall. Who cares?

:rolling:

SoxNation05
12-11-2009, 11:03 PM
Ha. Every ****ing free agent gets posted on this board with the message that we should pick them up. One turd finally stuck to a wall. Who cares?

I had like a .5% of being right so you're jealous.