PDA

View Full Version : Derek Lowe to the Sox? Uhhhhh no.


cws05champ
11-19-2009, 07:49 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10399504/Sources:-Braves-finding-it-tough-to-shop-Lowe

Ken Rosenthal concocted a pretty good story in his head that Derek Lowe and his $15per for the next three years was a good match to be traded to the Sox for Konerko. The cubs I can see but Lowe as our #5, ummm no thank you.

Boondock Saint
11-19-2009, 08:04 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10399504/Sources:-Braves-finding-it-tough-to-shop-Lowe

Ken Rosenthal concocted a pretty good story in his head that Derek Lowe and his $15per for the next three years was a good match to be traded to the Sox for Konerko. The cubs I can see but Lowe as our #5, ummm no thank you.

Lowe as our #5, I like. Adding a few million dollars in salary and not having a first baseman, I don't like. It makes zero sense.

sox1970
11-19-2009, 08:08 PM
No way. 1.515 WHIP last year in the NL. He'll be 37 next year. Pass.

JohnTucker0814
11-19-2009, 08:29 PM
They sending Heyward and other top prospects to guarantee us A. Gonzalez?

DirtySox
11-19-2009, 08:39 PM
They sending Heyward and other top prospects to guarantee us A. Gonzalez?

Freddie Freeman too plz.

oeo
11-19-2009, 08:40 PM
Lowe as our #5, I like. Adding a few million dollars in salary and not having a first baseman, I don't like. It makes zero sense.

The Braves would have to add more to their side, whether it's prospects or money, considering Lowe still has three years left on his deal.

DSpivack
11-19-2009, 08:49 PM
Fantastic rotation and no offense: we can be the Sox of the 60s again! Although I suppose we'd have to play defense, too.

soxinem1
11-19-2009, 09:29 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/I-Pass.png

DaveFeelsRight
11-19-2009, 09:36 PM
Lowe as our #5, I like. Adding a few million dollars in salary and not having a first baseman, I don't like. It makes zero sense.Gonzalez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lip Man 1
11-19-2009, 11:08 PM
Spivak:

The Sox of the 1960's had eight winning seasons and averaged 95 wins a year between 1963 and 1965.

I'll take those numbers thank you very much...especially with split divisions and expanded playoffs.

Lip

DumpJerry
11-19-2009, 11:25 PM
When you see the name "Ken Rosenthal" in the byline, stop reading unless you're into fiction.

palehozenychicty
11-19-2009, 11:26 PM
Spivak:

The Sox of the 1960's had eight winning seasons and averaged 95 wins a year between 1963 and 1965.

I'll take those numbers thank you very much...especially with split divisions and expanded playoffs.

Lip


That was then. This is now. I like Derek Lowe, but not for Paulie.

soxfanreggie
11-19-2009, 11:39 PM
$45 million left for him? No kidding they're going to have trouble shopping him. Maybe if they're willing to eat a large portion of that $45 million and throw in some prospects, I'd consider it. However, I don't think the Braves will want to throw in over $5 million a year and give up some young talent. They will have to do something drastic though to find someone to eat whatever they don't pick up of that contract.

NLaloosh
11-20-2009, 07:23 AM
If the Sox were going to spend another $ 45 mil. over 3 years it would be on a hitter. And, they currently have 6 starting pitchers.

Rosenthal is usually much better than this.

I think the Sox are in a good position right now and they can look for a real bargain - that's not Lowe.

oeo
11-20-2009, 02:53 PM
If the Sox were going to spend another $ 45 mil. over 3 years it would be on a hitter. And, they currently have 6 starting pitchers.

Rosenthal is usually much better than this.

I think the Sox are in a good position right now and they can look for a real bargain - that's not Lowe.

I see nothing wrong with what Rosenthal said. For whatever reason, everyone thinks because it doesn't specifically add anyone else to a potential deal, that it would be a straight up swap...not happening! The Braves would have to add more, or maybe even take on another contract like Linebrink.

I doubt Paulie would accept a trade to Atlanta, though.

russ99
11-20-2009, 02:56 PM
If the Sox were going to spend another $ 45 mil. over 3 years it would be on a hitter. And, they currently have 6 starting pitchers.

Rosenthal is usually much better than this.

I think the Sox are in a good position right now and they can look for a real bargain - that's not Lowe.

No, they have 4 starting pitchers and 2 question marks. Which I guess is a lot better than the 3/2 of last offseason.

Freddy had a nice September, but we can't assume we'll get a full season of high-level performance out of him, and Hudson's not a sure thing. He's a very nice prospect, but probably 2 years from being a Danks/Floyd mid-rotation starter.

Lowe for Konerko only makes sense if the Braves add in cash and/or prospects and then Kenny uses John Danks as a centerpiece in a bigger deal.

soxinem1
11-21-2009, 09:29 AM
I see nothing wrong with what Rosenthal said. For whatever reason, everyone thinks because it doesn't specifically add anyone else to a potential deal, that it would be a straight up swap...not happening! The Braves would have to add more, or maybe even take on another contract like Linebrink.

I doubt Paulie would accept a trade to Atlanta, though.

Exactly. When these writers come up with these rumors they should take things like a NTC into consideration, especially when talking about a guy a year from FA who will likely wind up playing for a west coast team within the next 12-14 months.

Thatguyoverthere
11-21-2009, 01:02 PM
No, they have 4 starting pitchers and 2 question marks. Which I guess is a lot better than the 3/2 of last offseason.

Freddy had a nice September, but we can't assume we'll get a full season of high-level performance out of him, and Hudson's not a sure thing. He's a very nice prospect, but probably 2 years from being a Danks/Floyd mid-rotation starter.

Lowe for Konerko only makes sense if the Braves add in cash and/or prospects and then Kenny uses John Danks as a centerpiece in a bigger deal.Name one starting rotation in baseball that doesn't have at least one question mark. In fact, name one starting rotation in baseball better than ours. We need a big bat, not a freaking 5th starter. Our rotation will be fine, and I think Freddy/Hudson will do fine out of the FIFTH spot in the rotation, where a 4.50-5.00 ERA is all that you need.

EDIT: I didn't mean to imply you saying that we needed a 5th starter over a big bat, but I'm just arguing the point that we need to worry all that much about our rotation, especially considering the expectations for a 5th starter.

NLaloosh
11-21-2009, 03:47 PM
I want to say this:

The White Sox starting rotation is about as solid as any in baseball right now. It is definitely the most solid aspect of the team.

That's why I advocate that the Sox not trade Dan Hudson or try to mess with it. Leave it alone and work on getting a leadoff hitter and LH power bat.

As far as I'm concerned, after inking Vizquel, signing Pods and Matsui would nearly ensure the division to the Sox.

That would come down to money. It would be nice to keep Jenks one more year and then trade him for prospects and it would be great if the Sox could keep all of the prospects they have right now and still make the playoffs.

I think they could do it by giving Pods and Matsui both two-year deals.

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 03:57 PM
I want to say this:

The White Sox starting rotation is about as solid as any in baseball right now. It is definitely the most solid aspect of the team.

That's why I advocate that the Sox not trade Dan Hudson or try to mess with it. Leave it alone and work on getting a leadoff hitter and LH power bat.

As far as I'm concerned, after inking Vizquel, signing Pods and Matsui would nearly ensure the division to the Sox.

That would come down to money. It would be nice to keep Jenks one more year and then trade him for prospects and it would be great if the Sox could keep all of the prospects they have right now and still make the playoffs.

I think they could do it by giving Pods and Matsui both two-year deals.

Just say no to Pods/Matsui in the OF.

NLaloosh
11-21-2009, 04:05 PM
Just say no to Pods/Matsui in the OF.


Matsui is the DH.

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 04:29 PM
Matsui is the DH.

That still leaves Pods in the OF

mzh
11-21-2009, 04:42 PM
That still leaves Pods in the OF

You could go with Jordan Danks

JermaineDye05
11-21-2009, 04:50 PM
You could go with Jordan Danks

Okay, then why did we sign Pods and Matsui?

Craig Grebeck
11-21-2009, 04:50 PM
You could go with Jordan Danks
And lose a ton of ballgames.

mzh
11-21-2009, 05:40 PM
Okay, then why did we sign Pods and Matsui?

I meant that as a given that we do not sign Pods. In fact, I don't see Pods and Matsui on the same team. I think if we sign one, we let the other go. I don't see KW bringing in two old lefty's who are absolute butchers in the field. If we were to sign Matsui I would seriously consider Danks, he seems like a younger version of Pods with more power and a ton of upside. Based on his history, is oculd be as much of a risk to put the leadoff spot in Podsednik's hands as it would be for Danks.

Craig Grebeck
11-21-2009, 05:47 PM
I meant that as a given that we do not sign Pods. In fact, I don't see Pods and Matsui on the same team. I think if we sign one, we let the other go. I don't see KW bringing in two old lefty's who are absolute butchers in the field. If we were to sign Matsui I would seriously consider Danks, he seems like a younger version of Pods with more power and a ton of upside. Based on his history, is oculd be as much of a risk to put the leadoff spot in Podsednik's hands as it would be for Danks.
He seems like a guy who couldn't hit in AA. But no time like the present to screw up player development.

mzh
11-21-2009, 05:51 PM
He seems like a guy who couldn't hit in AA. But no time like the present to screw up player development.

It has pretty much been agreed upon that the injury nagged him throughout the year. Look at his September and AFL performance compared to the rest of his time in Birmingham.

People always speak of players who have been ruined by being rushed to the big leagues, but I honestly cannot think fo any players like Danks or Beckham that had real star potential but turned out bad just because they were brought up to the big leagues too early. I'll concede that point if I can get some real examples.

Craig Grebeck
11-21-2009, 06:00 PM
It has pretty much been agreed upon that the injury nagged him throughout the year. Look at his September and AFL performance compared to the rest of his time in Birmingham.
Agreed upon by whom? People who weigh one month of AA data and statistics from a hitter's paradise too much? There is no consensus. Hell, I'd say the consensus is that Danks strikes out far too much to be successful in AAA next season, let alone MLB.

People always speak of players who have been ruined by being rushed to the big leagues, but I honestly cannot think fo any players like Danks or Beckham that had real star potential but turned out bad just because they were brought up to the big leagues too early. I'll concede that point if I can get some real examples.
Danks has star potential? News to me. He is a solid defender and projects to have a decent bat if all goes well, but he's probably a fourth outfielder.

And if you think Danks has star potential, there are a ton of guys who appeared to be more talented but failed at the major league level.

mzh
11-21-2009, 06:07 PM
Agreed upon by whom? People who weigh one month of AA data and statistics from a hitter's paradise too much? There is no consensus. Hell, I'd say the consensus is that Danks strikes out far too much to be successful in AAA next season, let alone MLB.

As you said, the consensus of whom? Who agreed upon that?

Danks has star potential? News to me. He is a solid defender and projects to have a decent bat if all goes well, but he's probably a fourth outfielder.

I may be wrong, he may not have star potential, but he sure as hell has more potential than a 4th outfielder on a team with 2 outfielders and a possible third that has consistently proven that he cannot have two good seasons in a row and is the polar opposite of Danks on defense. And I'd still like to know the prospects that were ruined by being brought up too early.

NLaloosh
11-21-2009, 06:15 PM
It has pretty much been agreed upon that the injury nagged him throughout the year. Look at his September and AFL performance compared to the rest of his time in Birmingham.

People always speak of players who have been ruined by being rushed to the big leagues, but I honestly cannot think fo any players like Danks or Beckham that had real star potential but turned out bad just because they were brought up to the big leagues too early. I'll concede that point if I can get some real examples.


I'm trying to think of a polite way to express my disbelief that anyone could think that in 2010 Danks could be as good a leadoff hitter in the Major Leagues as Scott Posednik.

mzh
11-21-2009, 06:18 PM
I'm trying to think of a polite way to express my disbelief that anyone could think that in 2010 Danks could be as good a leadoff hitter in the Major Leagues as Scott Posednik.

I'm not saying that Danks could be that good, I just think that he could possibly be as good as Podsednik might be, given his inconsistent history. As I have said, Podsednik has proven constantly that he can't follow up a good year with another good year, going into slumps for even years at a time.

Craig Grebeck
11-21-2009, 07:19 PM
As you said, the consensus of whom? Who agreed upon that?
People I trust. People who don't believe in the AFL as a significant indicator of talent/potential through statistics. It's all about scouting down there.

I may be wrong, he may not have star potential, but he sure as hell has more potential than a 4th outfielder on a team with 2 outfielders and a possible third that has consistently proven that he cannot have two good seasons in a row and is the polar opposite of Danks on defense. And I'd still like to know the prospects that were ruined by being brought up too early.

Honestly? You can't think of a single prospect who was rushed to the major leagues and had their development ruined? You're a White Sox fan, right?

Find me a list of MLB players that put up OPS under .700 in AA and turned out to be productive major leaguers the very next season.

mzh
11-21-2009, 07:31 PM
Honestly? You can't think of a single prospect who was rushed to the major leagues and had their development ruined? You're a White Sox fan, right?

Find me a list of MLB players that put up OPS under .700 in AA and turned out to be productive major leaguers the very next season.

I can think of players, but not players who have the potential to be all-star caliber in my opinion. And I still haven't heard anybody name prospects that busted explicitly because they weren't given time to develop in the minors.

Again, I never said that I thought that Danks could be a productive player next season, I just said he might be as good as Scott Podsednik. And in case you have never actually played baseball, when you sprain your wrist it definitely affects your swing, and we do not know how much that injury nagged him during his time at AA.

tm1119
11-21-2009, 08:16 PM
I can think of players, but not players who have the potential to be all-star caliber in my opinion. And I still haven't heard anybody name prospects that busted explicitly because they weren't given time to develop in the minors.

Again, I never said that I thought that Danks could be a productive player next season, I just said he might be as good as Scott Podsednik. And in case you have never actually played baseball, when you sprain your wrist it definitely affects your swing, and we do not know how much that injury nagged him during his time at AA.

Youre making Jordan Danks out to be a can't miss prospect, which contrary to what is said around here, he is not. His physical ability and overall skill set just dont project as more than a slightly above average MLB OF at best. I find it hard to believe that a kid like him is going to succeed very early in his professional career and before hes even ever seen a AAA pitch. Leave him in AA and let him develop his on base skills. His ability to do that well is most likely going to make or break him.

Heffalump
11-21-2009, 09:51 PM
His physical ability and overall skill set just dont project as more than a slightly above average MLB OF at best.

I didn't know we had a pro scout at WSI. Welcome !

tm1119
11-21-2009, 10:50 PM
I didn't know we had a pro scout at WSI. Welcome !

Hmm.... Little to no power and only slightly above average speed. What exactly do you expect from him? Sorry I dont drink all the White Sox cool-aid and have Jordan Danks as my starting CF after 70 AB's in the AZ fall league.
Im not trying to knock Jordan or anything. I do think he can be a very solid player(something like a Randy Winn), but 70 AB's in an instructional league doesnt suddenly turn him into something that hes not. That fact that hes even being discussed as a starter this year is only a sign of the glaring holes still left on this team.

mzh
11-21-2009, 11:00 PM
Hmm.... Little to no power and only slightly above average speed. What exactly do you expect from him? Sorry I dont drink all the White Sox cool-aid and have Jordan Danks as my starting CF after 70 AB's in the AZ fall league.
Im not trying to knock Jordan or anything. I do think he can be a very solid player(something like a Randy Winn), but 70 AB's in an instructional league doesnt suddenly turn him into something that hes not. That fact that hes even being discussed as a starter this year is only a sign of the glaring holes still left on this team.

Add a high-average bat and above average glove and you still have a player with a bigger skill set than Scott Podsednik. I am not trying to deny any of this, I accept that it is unreasonable to expect him to be an above-average everyday player based on a month plus the AFL, all I am saying is that I think he would be no more than a risk than bringing back Scott Podsednik and that I would rather spend money somewhere else.

tm1119
11-21-2009, 11:20 PM
Add a high-average bat and above average glove and you still have a player with a bigger skill set than Scott Podsednik. I am not trying to deny any of this, I accept that it is unreasonable to expect him to be an above-average everyday player based on a month plus the AFL, all I am saying is that I think he would be no more than a risk than bringing back Scott Podsednik and that I would rather spend money somewhere else.

In the future could he be this? Absolutely. Is he going to do this his rookie year? Unlikely. Remember, he hasnt even seen AAA pitching yet. Just because he may or may not be a better option than Pods doesnt make him the right option.

On a side note, the Braves are lacking both a 1B and a closer. It seems like if we really wanted to trade both Paulie and Bobby the Braves actually do seem to be a very logical fit. I wonder how much of Lowe's contract we could get them to eat and who else we could get sending a package of both Bobby and Paulie to them.

mzh
11-21-2009, 11:28 PM
In the future could he be this? Absolutely. Is he going to do this his rookie year? Unlikely. Remember, he hasnt even seen AAA pitching yet. Just because he may or may not be a better option than Pods doesnt make him the right option.

Whether it is the right option or not, with so many holes to fill in different places we might not have a choice. What I am saying is that if we want the money to go after a guy like Matsui or Vlad, we could still kill two birds with one stone (right field and leadoff) without having to pay Pods.

tm1119
11-21-2009, 11:44 PM
Whether it is the right option or not, with so many holes to fill in different places we might not have a choice. What I am saying is that if we want the money to go after a guy like Matsui or Vlad, we could still kill two birds with one stone (right field and leadoff) without having to pay Pods.

Yeah I see your point, but 2 questions. Is having 1 of Vlad or Matsui + a very questionable rookie better than having a leadoff hitter like Pods or Winn + a DH like say Thome? And what if Danks fails? We've already established that we dont have a suitable everyday player for RF on our current roster. We would then have to play with Kotsay in RF or make a trade.
Obviously it all depends on how Danks plays if he is given the opportunity. Its just my opinion that there is a better chance of him failing this season than him succeeding.

mzh
11-21-2009, 11:53 PM
Yeah I see your point, but 2 questions. Is having 1 of Vlad or Matsui + a very questionable rookie better than having a leadoff hitter like Pods or Winn + a DH like say Thome? And what if Danks fails? We've already established that we dont have a suitable everyday player for RF on our current roster. We would then have to play with Kotsay in RF or make a trade.
Obviously it all depends on how Danks plays if he is given the opportunity. Its just my opinion that there is a better chance of him failing this season than him succeeding.

Is Randy Winn on the market? If so I would take him for a 2-3 year deal and let Danks stay in the minors, hands down. If it came to a decision between Vlad/Matsui + Danks or Thome + Pods, I would have to go with the former because I think that the risk factor in Pods and Danks is essentially even because while Pods has never proven in his career that he can follow up on a good season, the fact that Danks has a better raw skill set, IMO, balances out the slightly higher risk factor in that Danks hasn't seen big league pitching. In other words, it makes sense to go with Danks over Pods because the risk/reward is basically the same IMO, except with Danks you save the money needed to go after Vlad or Matsui.

tm1119
11-22-2009, 12:12 AM
Is Randy Winn on the market? If so I would take him for a 2-3 year deal and let Danks stay in the minors, hands down. If it came to a decision between Vlad/Matsui + Danks or Thome + Pods, I would have to go with the former because I think that the risk factor in Pods and Danks is essentially even because while Pods has never proven in his career that he can follow up on a good season, the fact that Danks has a better raw skill set, IMO, balances out the slightly higher risk factor in that Danks hasn't seen big league pitching. In other words, it makes sense to go with Danks over Pods because the risk/reward is basically the same IMO, except with Danks you save the money needed to go after Vlad or Matsui.


Yes Randy Winn is a free agent right now. Not sure how much money he will actually command, or if hes even a legit option for us. Just pointing out that Pods isnt the end all be all for our options.
Agree on that. nd I think you are selling Pods a little short personally, even though Im not completely sold on him myself. I actually hope neither Pods or Danks are in our starting OF next year. I hope we can both agree to that.

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 02:42 AM
Whether it is the right option or not, with so many holes to fill in different places we might not have a choice. What I am saying is that if we want the money to go after a guy like Matsui or Vlad, we could still kill two birds with one stone (right field and leadoff) without having to pay Pods.
Why do you think he can leadoff? Would you want a sub .300 OBP at the top of the order?
I can think of players, but not players who have the potential to be all-star caliber in my opinion. And I still haven't heard anybody name prospects that busted explicitly because they weren't given time to develop in the minors.
So players who had the potential to he all star caliber, in your opinion? Since I don't live inside your brain, I'm not going to be able to come up with a list. Sorry.
Again, I never said that I thought that Danks could be a productive player next season, I just said he might be as good as Scott Podsednik. And in case you have never actually played baseball, when you sprain your wrist it definitely affects your swing, and we do not know how much that injury nagged him during his time at AA.
Ah yes, he might be as good as a below average MLB outfielder. Well, he should certainly leadoff. Sounds like a ringing endorsement.

I played. I know how much injuries affect a guy's swing.

cards press box
11-22-2009, 03:04 AM
Add a high-average bat and above average glove and you still have a player with a bigger skill set than Scott Podsednik.

I wonder what kind of market will develop for Nick Johnson. As his stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/johnsni01.shtml) show, he doesn't hit for a lot of power but, man, he gets on base a lot. He had 8 HR and 62 RBI in 574 at bats with Florida and Washington last year but his OBP was .426. His career OBP is .402.

Johnson, to be sure, has had problems with injuries. Perhaps he could stay healthy if he was the DH most of the time. I admit that it would be unusual to sign a DH who doesn't mash and, on top of that, to lead him off. Of course, both Brian Downing and Wade Boggs led off for their teams. Downing's career OBP was .370 and Boggs' career OBP was .415. Johnson's on-base skills are similar.

Look, I'm not saying the Sox should do this and I'm certainly not opposed to more conventional solutions. But could the Sox realistically get a Chone Figgins to lead off? Do the Sox have any interest in Coco Crisp and is he healthy? I don't know the answer to these questions. I just wonder what other Sox fans think about the concept of signing Nick Johnson and having him lead off for the Sox.

NLaloosh
11-22-2009, 08:48 AM
Kenny is pursuing Pods for 2010 because he is the Sox best option for the leadoff spot. He's a White Sox, is comparatively inexpensive, did the job well last year and wants to return.

Is he a great player? No. Is he good defensively? No. Should he be signed long term? No.

But, the Sox don't have to give him a big contract or give up draft picks or prospects to get him.

He's a very good stop gap for 2010 and they will likely agree to terms with him. Obviously, Scott is trying to get the best deal he can with this likely being his last chance at a lucrative contract.

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 09:13 AM
Kenny is pursuing Pods for 2010 because he is the Sox best option for the leadoff spot.
Disagree.

He's a White Sox, is comparatively inexpensive, did the job well last year and wants to return.Inexpensive compared to whom? Players who have sucked three of the last four years? Certainly not.

Is he a great player? No. Is he good defensively? No. Should he be signed long term? No.
Should he be signed short-term? Probably not.

But, the Sox don't have to give him a big contract or give up draft picks or prospects to get him.The same could be said of Orlando Hudson or Randy Winn.

He's a very good stop gap for 2010 and they will likely agree to terms with him. Obviously, Scott is trying to get the best deal he can with this likely being his last chance at a lucrative contract.God help us.

cards press box
11-22-2009, 10:47 AM
If the Sox don't re-sign Scott Podsednik, what are their options to lead off? And are those options internal or not?

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 10:57 AM
If the Sox don't re-sign Scott Podsednik, what are their options to lead off? And are those options internal or not?
You could put Gordon there, or you could wait it out and see what options come out in February. Hurrying to ink Podsednik doesn't do a thing for this team.

Tragg
11-22-2009, 11:06 AM
He's a very good stop gap for 2010 and they will likely agree to terms with him. Obviously, Scott is trying to get the best deal he can with this likely being his last chance at a lucrative contract.
No he is NOT a good stopgap because we will be moving into 2010 with the precise same major weakness we had in 2009 - bad defense.
Further, as for leadoff, it's important, but it's not like Pods is great at it: in his best years, he's good leadoff hitter, not great. - and if his obp dips below .340, he's neutralized and becomes a liability....and that has a good chance at happending, as he has never strung together 2 good years in a row. Some years, the bounding balls get through at a slightly higher rate than others.

Guillen's (and Williams) abject indifference to defense is particularly perplexing considering the resources we've used to bolster the starting pitching - and then we want to back it up with clown defense. Beckham could easily lead off: I know, I know, it's "A waste"; perhaps, but we'll have good production at leadoff.

If Williams goes into 2010 with an outfield of pods, q and rios, he's NOT making a serious effort to win.

cards press box
11-22-2009, 11:15 AM
You could put Gordon there, or you could wait it out and see what options come out in February. Hurrying to ink Podsednik doesn't do a thing for this team.

In his column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-22-rogers-inside-baseball-nov22,0,1657141.column) this morning, Phil Rogers projects that: (i) the Yankees will re-sign Johnny Damon but not Hideki Matsui (in order to rotate the DH slot among Damon, Jorge Posada and Alex Rodriguez) and (ii) the White Sox will sign Matsui. At this point, Matsui has to DH and, if he doesn't sign with the Yankees, his options are limited to a few teams, one of whom is the White Sox. So this projection is not illogical.

I have no idea if Rogers based his projection on some information he learned or if he is just hypothesizing (probably the latter, I suppose) but let's assume for a moment that Rogers is correct. As an initial, matter, I don't think the Sox want to lead off Gordon Beckham unless they have no other choice. Ideally, Beckham will end up hitting 2nd or 3rd. If Matsui is the Sox primary DH next year, then the Sox would not have a spot for Scott Podsednik, unless the Sox moved Carlos Quentin to RF and put Podsednik in LF. If the Sox sign Matsui but do not re-sign Podsednik, then the leadoff man would probably be the starting outfielder other than Quentin and Alex Rios. That would seem to point to either Jordan Danks or a free agent that falls to the Sox in this market. I'm not sure who that would be.

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 11:51 AM
In his column (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-22-rogers-inside-baseball-nov22,0,1657141.column) this morning, Phil Rogers projects that: (i) the Yankees will re-sign Johnny Damon but not Hideki Matsui (in order to rotate the DH slot among Damon, Jorge Posada and Alex Rodriguez) and (ii) the White Sox will sign Matsui. At this point, Matsui has to DH and, if he doesn't sign with the Yankees, his options are limited to a few teams, one of whom is the White Sox. So this projection is not illogical.

I have no idea if Rogers based his projection on some information he learned or if he is just hypothesizing (probably the latter, I suppose) but let's assume for a moment that Rogers is correct. As an initial, matter, I don't think the Sox want to lead off Gordon Beckham unless they have no other choice. Ideally, Beckham will end up hitting 2nd or 3rd. If Matsui is the Sox primary DH next year, then the Sox would not have a spot for Scott Podsednik, unless the Sox moved Carlos Quentin to RF and put Podsednik in LF. If the Sox sign Matsui but do not re-sign Podsednik, then the leadoff man would probably be the starting outfielder other than Quentin and Alex Rios. That would seem to point to either Jordan Danks or a free agent that falls to the Sox in this market. I'm not sure who that would be.
If Kenny is half as smart as I think he is, this team will not open with Danks on the 25 man roster. He'll find a way to prevent that from happening.

mzh
11-22-2009, 12:28 PM
I have no idea if Rogers based his projection on some information he learned or if he is just hypothesizing (probably the latter, I suppose) but let's assume for a moment that Rogers is correct. As an initial, matter, I don't think the Sox want to lead off Gordon Beckham unlessthey have no other choice. Ideally, Beckham will end up hitting 2nd or 3rd. If Matsui is the Sox primary DH next year, then the Sox would not have a spot for Scott Podsednik, unless the Sox moved Carlos Quentin to RF and put Podsednik in LF. If the Sox sign Matsui but do not re-sign Podsednik, then the leadoff man would probably be the starting outfielder other than Quentin and Alex Rios. That would seem to point to either Jordan Danks or a free agent that falls to the Sox in this market. I'm not sure who that would be.

This seems to be the biggest issue. If we sign Matsui, then we don't theoretically have room for Pods. If we resign Pods, we will have to either get a cheap outfielder and DH Pods (not likely, IMO), or find a cheap DH (as in Thome). I would rather go with Matsui and without Pods simply because even if we have to go somewhere in the organization to leadoff, at least we have a sure bat at DH and hopefully a better glove than Pods. IIRC, there was this kid named Miguel Negron (http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=434598) who had above-average years in Birmingham and Charlotte in 08 and 09. Maybe someone like him will pop up during spring training.

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 01:30 PM
This seems to be the biggest issue. If we sign Matsui, then we don't theoretically have room for Pods. If we resign Pods, we will have to either get a cheap outfielder and DH Pods (not likely, IMO), or find a cheap DH (as in Thome). I would rather go with Matsui and without Pods simply because even if we have to go somewhere in the organization to leadoff, at least we have a sure bat at DH and hopefully a better glove than Pods. IIRC, there was this kid named Miguel Negron (http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=434598) who had above-average years in Birmingham and Charlotte in 08 and 09. Maybe someone like him will pop up during spring training.
Surely you jest.

DSpivack
11-22-2009, 01:47 PM
Surely you jest.

Well, to be fair, he said someone like him. I just took that to mean a minor league free agent or spring training invite that surprises and catches on, not Negron specifically.

I haven't heard De Aza mentioned yet in terms of the OF and leadoff spot. Not an ideal option, but I wouldn't be shocked if that's who ends up there.

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Well, to be fair, he said someone like him. I just took that to mean a minor league free agent or spring training invite that surprises and catches on, not Negron specifically.

I haven't heard De Aza mentioned yet in terms of the OF and leadoff spot. Not an ideal option, but I wouldn't be shocked if that's who ends up there.
To be fair, Negron sucked. He's organizational fodder.

Teams like the Royals hope for a surprise from a guy like De Aza, teams with our payroll go after major league players and put De Aza in as a pinch runner. This is a losing strategy.

DSpivack
11-22-2009, 02:43 PM
To be fair, Negron sucked. He's organizational fodder.

Teams like the Royals hope for a surprise from a guy like De Aza, teams with our payroll go after major league players and put De Aza in as a pinch runner. This is a losing strategy.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Sox should do that, just that I won't be shocked if they do.

mzh
11-22-2009, 03:37 PM
To be fair, Negron sucked. He's organizational fodder.

Teams like the Royals hope for a surprise from a guy like De Aza, teams with our payroll go after major league players and put De Aza in as a pinch runner. This is a losing strategy.

Wow, you must be a season ticket holder for Charlotte if you can get enough of a scouting report to say that a .280 hitter outright sucks. he was a top 5 draft pick a few years ago, so he had potential obviously. I'm not saying we should use Negron, I'm just defending my point. Hoping to get lucky with guys like de Aza may not be the best winning strategy, but we might just not have a choice. Best case scenario, we get Johnny Damon and use Kotsay as our DH. But the most likely case is taht we will not have enough money to get a big bat like Matsui or Vlad for DH and bring back Pods, so it really depends on whether KW wants to put proven talent in the DH spot and take a big risk on the outfield/leadoff position or put mediocre-below average talent in both positions.

DirtySox
11-22-2009, 03:45 PM
Best case scenario, we get Johnny Damon and use Kotsay as our DH.

In what world is Kotsay DHing a best case scenario?

mzh
11-22-2009, 03:48 PM
In what world is Kotsay DHing a best case scenario?

Because as of right now other than trading for Crawford or Upton, signing Damon puts a quality player in two of our big holes, outfield and leadoff.

Tragg
11-22-2009, 05:14 PM
Because as of right now other than trading for Crawford or Upton, signing Damon puts a quality player in two of our big holes, outfield and leadoff.

It give us 2 left fielders and bad defense.
We need a right fielder.

mzh
11-22-2009, 05:28 PM
It give us 2 left fielders and bad defense.
We need a right fielder.

According to reports I've heard, Quentin is a natural right fielder, he played it in college and Arizona. Why would we go after Crawford supposedly if we weren't going to move him to right?

Craig Grebeck
11-22-2009, 08:48 PM
Wow, you must be a season ticket holder for Charlotte if you can get enough of a scouting report to say that a .280 hitter outright sucks. he was a top 5 draft pick a few years ago, so he had potential obviously. I'm not saying we should use Negron, I'm just defending my point. Hoping to get lucky with guys like de Aza may not be the best winning strategy, but we might just not have a choice. Best case scenario, we get Johnny Damon and use Kotsay as our DH. But the most likely case is taht we will not have enough money to get a big bat like Matsui or Vlad for DH and bring back Pods, so it really depends on whether KW wants to put proven talent in the DH spot and take a big risk on the outfield/leadoff position or put mediocre-below average talent in both positions.
1. Negron sucked. A sub .700 OPS in the IL? Good grief.
2. Try top 18 pick. Yes, he had potential all those years ago when he was drafted. Not anymore.
3. We have a choice.
4. I'd call that the worst case scenario, re: Damon and Kotsay. Holy ****.