PDA

View Full Version : Tigers 2011


munchman33
03-13-2010, 01:19 PM
Apparently, depending on the number of at bats Maggllio Ordonez gets this year, the Tigers could have as much as $72 million coming off the books next year (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/03/detroits-2011-payroll-situation.html). While at he beginning of the offseason it looked like the Tigers wanted to shed payroll, they're actually $15 million higher than last year. So thinking they'll sit on the money is probably blind optimism.

Given the big names available next offseason, I think it's fair to say we really need to strike this year while the Central is wide open. The Twins pen is hurting with the loss of Nathan. Come on Kenny, fix this DH business. We're good enough to compete in the division, but we're one piece away from being a real contender.

jamokes
03-13-2010, 03:25 PM
We are a real contender now especially with our starters.

JohnTucker0814
03-13-2010, 03:27 PM
Who out there is better than Andruw Jones at this point??? Adrian Gonzalez is not on the market, SD will wait until the deadline to make sure as many teams as possible are bidding... that's pretty much the way it will go from here out. Unless we can pull Minoso out of retirement... I don't see an upgrade right now.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 03:54 PM
We are a real contender now especially with our starters.

In the playoffs, in a short series with the Yankees or Boston, do you really think our SP edge (if we have one) is enough to compensate for the VAST difference in our lineups?

munchman33
03-13-2010, 03:56 PM
Who out there is better than Andruw Jones at this point??? Adrian Gonzalez is not on the market, SD will wait until the deadline to make sure as many teams as possible are bidding... that's pretty much the way it will go from here out. Unless we can pull Minoso out of retirement... I don't see an upgrade right now.

JD is the obvious better player out there than Andruw.

cws05champ
03-13-2010, 04:13 PM
In the playoffs, in a short series with the Yankees or Boston, do you really think our SP edge (if we have one) is enough to compensate for the VAST difference in our lineups?
Anything can happen in the playoffs...if you can scratch together some runs with great pitching you can win. Especially if you get hot at the right time. White Sox fans should know this more than anyone.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 04:31 PM
Anything can happen in the playoffs...if you can scratch together some runs with great pitching you can win. Especially if you get hot at the right time. White Sox fans should know this more than anyone.

Our offense in 2005 was better than this offense. So was our defense. And our bullpen. Apples and oranges.

Also, I didn't mean for this to be the focus so much as the Tiger's having enough to sign 4 or 5 marquee free agents next year.

oeo
03-13-2010, 04:35 PM
In the playoffs, in a short series with the Yankees or Boston, do you really think our SP edge (if we have one) is enough to compensate for the VAST difference in our lineups?

If they pitch the way they should pitch, the games would be low-scoring which makes the difference in the lineups irrelevant. Pitching can always keep you in games.

oeo
03-13-2010, 04:37 PM
Our offense in 2005 was better than this offense. So was our defense. And our bullpen. Apples and oranges.

None of those are facts and you know it.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 04:37 PM
If they pitch the way they should pitch, the games would be low-scoring which makes the difference in the lineups irrelevant. Pitching can always keep you in games.

Pitching can't overcome bad defense, unless you've got 5 250K guys.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 04:38 PM
None of those are facts and you know it.

:scratch:

What?

oeo
03-13-2010, 04:39 PM
:scratch:

What?

What's so confusing, munch? None of what you wrote is a fact, it's your opinion and a bad one at that. All three are pretty comparable. It's not apples and oranges, this team's makeup is almost an exact replica of the 2005 team's.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 04:56 PM
What's so confusing, munch? None of what you wrote is a fact, it's your opinion and a bad one at that. All three are pretty comparable. It's not apples and oranges, this team's makeup is almost an exact replica of the 2005 team's.

Yeah, except we're weaker defensively at every position except maybe the OF (and each is debatable), we don't have a lights out pen from top to bottom, we don't have leadoff hitter who'll get on base 35% of the time, and our 1B will not put up 40 homers like he did then.

But it's pretty much the same team!

The only similarity to 2005 is we have older and not as good versions of Konerko, AJ, and Buerhle. Rios is not likely to put up the kind of season Aaron had, Carlos might be too hurt to put up Dye numbers, Pierre can't get on base the way Pods did in his only healthy year here, Alexei is marginally better than Uribe, but his defense is not what Uribe's was in 2005, and Teahan in a career year is still probably worse than Crede across the board, ESPECIALLY defensively.

This team has better SP than 2005, but is not nearly as good across the board. Especially in the pen, how could you even think that? That pen was devastating. Hermanson didn't give up a run for like three months.

oeo
03-13-2010, 05:16 PM
Yeah, except we're weaker defensively at every position except maybe the OF (and each is debatable), we don't have a lights out pen from top to bottom, we don't have leadoff hitter who'll get on base 35% of the time, and our 1B will not put up 40 homers like he did then.

How do you know we don't have a lights out bullpen? The two best relievers going into 2005 were Shingo Takatsu and Damaso Marte. By the end of the year, Shingo was long gone and Marte was our worst arm in the pen.

I'll give you the edge on defense, though I don't think this will be a bad defensive team. However, the makeup of the offense is eerily identical. I'd give the edge in average to this team and homeruns to the 2005 team.

The only similarity to 2005 is we have older and not as good versions of Konerko, AJ, and Buerhle.

The only similarity is not a similarity? :scratch:

Rios is not likely to put up the kind of season Aaron had, Carlos might be too hurt to put up Dye numbers, Pierre can't get on base the way Pods did in his only healthy year here, Alexei is marginally better than Uribe, but his defense is not what Uribe's was in 2005, and Teahan in a career year is still probably worse than Crede across the board, ESPECIALLY defensively.

I GUARANTEE Rios has a better year than Rowand did in 2005. It won't even be close. How do you know Pierre can't get on base at .350 clip? Did you see Pods having a good year after a weaksauce year in 2004? Alexei is a much, much (much) better offensive player than Uribe. I also think he will improve a lot on the defensive side. He showed a lot of improvement at the end of the year. If he would stop getting lazy on the routine plays (something Uribe also did a lot of), he could be very good.

You seem to remember the 2005 team a lot differently than I did. I must have missed when all these guys were All Stars. I wish I would have saw that great offensive year from Rowand, damn. Joe Crede and his .757 OPS were ****ing awesome! Juan Uribe was so good...

The blinders have you thinking that team was a lot of what it wasn't. It was a good starting staff and a lights out bullpen. It wasn't even a great defensive team, it was a good defensive team. The offense eked out just enough runs to win. They kept games close with their pitching and were able to come back late and then lock it down. That doesn't sound similar to what this team is built to do?

This team has better SP than 2005, but is not nearly as good across the board. Especially in the pen, how could you even think that? That pen was devastating. Hermanson didn't give up a run for like three months.

How can I even think that? Because you can't predict a bullpen! Did you predict that Cotts would actually be worth something (and not just worth something, but an elite left-hand reliever?), Politte would have the best year of his career in his 30's, and Hermanson would be lights out? Going into each year without knowing what's going to happen, I would definitely take our current pen over that 2005 one. It was complete, utter luck. Look where they were a year later.

munchman33
03-13-2010, 05:43 PM
The only similarity is not a similarity? :scratch:


It's not a similarity at all. Sarcasm. Paulie is not putting up a 40 homer season. Buehrle is not putting up a 3.12 era. They have physically regressed.


I GUARANTEE Rios has a better year than Rowand did in 2005. It won't even be close.


How can you guarantee something that he didn't even accomplish last year?

How do you know Pierre can't get on base at .350 clip?

Because the last time Pierre played as a regular for a full season and put up an OBP higher than even .331 was...BEFORE 2005. What reasonable chance do you believe that has of happening? I repeat, "reasonable." Not miracle.

Alexei is a much, much (much) better offensive player than Uribe. I also think he will improve a lot on the defensive side. He showed a lot of improvement at the end of the year. If he would stop getting lazy on the routine plays (something Uribe also did a lot of), he could be very good.


He could be very good, yes. He also could be what Uribe became after that season. They are the most comparable of any two players on the respective squads, attitudes included.

You seem to remember the 2005 team a lot differently than I did. I must have missed when all these guys were All Stars. I wish I would have saw that great offensive year from Rowand, damn. Joe Crede and his .757 OPS were ****ing awesome! Juan Uribe was so good


They brought more pop and better defense. You think Teahan will have a .757 OPS? Maybe, if we're lucky. But he's still a brick out there compared to a vaccuum like Crede.


How can I even think that? Because you can't predict a bullpen! Did you predict that Cotts would actually be worth something, Politte would have the best year of his career in his 30's, and Hermanson would be lights out? Going into each year without knowing what's going to happen, I would definitely take our current pen over that 2005 one. It was complete, utter luck. Look where they were a year later.

I'm pretty sure I can predict this pen won't have three guys who sport a 1.97, 2.00, and 2.04 era, along with two other guys with era's in the low 3's and a stud rookie closer throwing 100 mph coming up in September. Call me physic, but I'd bet my life that doesn't come close to happening. This group was simply more physically talented. Injury got all those guys after 2005.

Oblong
03-14-2010, 08:06 AM
I'm not sure you'll see the Tigers sign any big name free agents. Cabrera and Verlander are both locked up to contracts that will pay $20 million each beginning in 2012. I also fully expect Magglio to vest for 2011. He needs 540 PA or 135 games to do that. He has combined vesting options for 2009/2010 but he'll reach the 540/135 first. With Guillen still on the team, if Magglio's there, then that locks up your DH combo. The team does have a few OF prospects that they'll want to see if they pan out so I don't envision a big splash in that area. I could see some minor free agent acquisitions like a Jason Kubel (just throwing that out there as an example). Perhaps in the infield if Scott Sizemore doesn't pan out at 2B.

I never believed that this off season began as a firesale, I've said that repeatedly. It was just a chance to sell high on a few guys and get younger, (and cheaper players), but money wasn't the primary factor.

doublem23
03-14-2010, 09:44 AM
What's so confusing, munch? None of what you wrote is a fact, it's your opinion and a bad one at that. All three are pretty comparable. It's not apples and oranges, this team's makeup is almost an exact replica of the 2005 team's.

Except that most of the guys on the 2005 team were, you know, good.

asindc
03-14-2010, 09:55 AM
Except that most of the guys on the 2005 team were, you know, good.

I know that we have disagreed on the DH situation this offseason but, leaving that aside, you are not saying that most of the guys on this year's team are not good, are you?

TommyJohn
03-14-2010, 10:34 AM
Anything can happen in the playoffs...if you can scratch together some runs with great pitching you can win. Especially if you get hot at the right time. White Sox fans should know this more than anyone.
I hate that saying-"anything can happen." It surely hasn't happened to the Twins' bink, bunt, scratch and claw team. They take the Central and go down in the first round with barely a whimper. Who wants a team like that? And 2005 is not a good comparion. The White Sox did not "get hot at the right time." They had the best record in the AL that year.

doublem23
03-14-2010, 11:27 AM
I know that we have disagreed on the DH situation this offseason but, leaving that aside, you are not saying that most of the guys on this year's team are not good, are you?

AJ - Above average hitting C, below average defensively
Konerko - Excellent defensive 1B, below average offensive 1B
Beckham - Sophomore, so it's hard to say for sure, but I expect him to be one of the best 2B in the AL
Alexei - Not really sure what to expect of him.
Teahen - Not good. At all.
Pierre - Not very good.
Rios - Potentially great. Potentially disastrous.
Quentin - Superstar when he's on the field, but can't count on him to be on the field.
Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel - Below average DH situation... by AAA standards.

Yeah, this team doesn't really excite me. If Every. Single. Thing. goes right, then we'll be OK, but if just 2-3 guys don't play to their absolute max. ceilings, we're in a lot of trouble.

Rotation should be one of the best in baseball, but the bullpen is a big concern, too, especially if Jenks is having problems and it's not even 1/2-way through March yet. Our bullpen gets very thin, very fast, and we don't have the luxury of being able to give even average pitchers a lot of significant innings. If we're going to win, we need lights out pitchers from the 1st to 9th innings.

SI1020
03-14-2010, 11:48 AM
AJ - Above average hitting C, below average defensively
Konerko - Excellent defensive 1B, below average offensive 1B
Beckham - Sophomore, so it's hard to say for sure, but I expect him to be one of the best 2B in the AL
Alexei - Not really sure what to expect of him.
Teahen - Not good. At all.
Pierre - Not very good.
Rios - Potentially great. Potentially disastrous.
Quentin - Superstar when he's on the field, but can't count on him to be on the field.
Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel - Below average DH situation... by AAA standards.

Yeah, this team doesn't really excite me. If Every. Single. Thing. goes right, then we'll be OK, but if just 2-3 guys don't play to their absolute max. ceilings, we're in a lot of trouble.

Rotation should be one of the best in baseball, but the bullpen is a big concern, too, especially if Jenks is having problems and it's not even 1/2-way through March yet. Our bullpen gets very thin, very fast, and we don't have the luxury of being able to give even average pitchers a lot of significant innings. If we're going to win, we need lights out pitchers from the 1st to 9th innings. Not trying to get you to buy me a drink but I have to say I agree with every single word of this post.

TheVulture
03-14-2010, 04:18 PM
... we don't have a lights out pen from top to bottom...

So spring of 2005, looking at Politte coming off seasons of 5.66 and 4.38 ERA, Hermanson's streak of 6 straight 4.06+ ERA seasons, Neil Cotts 5.65 ERA in 2004, I'm guessing you were predicting the Sox bullpen would shut down all comers.:rolleyes:

Pierre had a .365 OBP last year and .348 for the career. You're right, though, it would be a stretch to imagine him matching Pods' .351 OBP in 2005.

doublem23
03-14-2010, 05:00 PM
So spring of 2005, looking at Politte coming off seasons of 5.66 and 4.38 ERA, Hermanson's streak of 6 straight 4.06+ ERA seasons, Neil Cotts 5.65 ERA in 2004, I'm guessing you were predicting the Sox bullpen would shut down all comers.:rolleyes:

Nobody did and that's why that Sox team was expected to maybe fight for 3rd going into last year.

I'll expand on this thought more later, but now its time to talk about college basketball.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 06:05 PM
So spring of 2005, looking at Politte coming off seasons of 5.66 and 4.38 ERA, Hermanson's streak of 6 straight 4.06+ ERA seasons, Neil Cotts 5.65 ERA in 2004, I'm guessing you were predicting the Sox bullpen would shut down all comers.:rolleyes:

Pierre had a .365 OBP last year and .348 for the career. You're right, though, it would be a stretch to imagine him matching Pods' .351 OBP in 2005.

Pierre had limited at bats last year. And his .348 OBP is because more than half a decade ago he was a different player. He hasn't had a season as a regular since 2005 with better than a .331. I like Pierre, but he's older now. There's no chance he's putting up those numbers, especially coming to the American League for the first time so late in his career.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 06:26 PM
I'm not sure you'll see the Tigers sign any big name free agents. Cabrera and Verlander are both locked up to contracts that will pay $20 million each beginning in 2012. I also fully expect Magglio to vest for 2011. He needs 540 PA or 135 games to do that. He has combined vesting options for 2009/2010 but he'll reach the 540/135 first. With Guillen still on the team, if Magglio's there, then that locks up your DH combo. The team does have a few OF prospects that they'll want to see if they pan out so I don't envision a big splash in that area. I could see some minor free agent acquisitions like a Jason Kubel (just throwing that out there as an example). Perhaps in the infield if Scott Sizemore doesn't pan out at 2B.

I never believed that this off season began as a firesale, I've said that repeatedly. It was just a chance to sell high on a few guys and get younger, (and cheaper players), but money wasn't the primary factor.

There's still quite a lot of money leftover. And a lot of what they're losing is the deadweight payroll (Bonderman, Willis, Robertson). I can see them running at guys like Cliff Lee and Carl Crawford.

TheVulture
03-14-2010, 06:32 PM
Pierre had limited at bats last year. And his .348 OBP is because more than half a decade ago he was a different player. He hasn't had a season as a regular since 2005 with better than a .331. I like Pierre, but he's older now. There's no chance he's putting up those numbers, especially coming to the American League for the first time so late in his career.

No chance? There is no way you can say that with any knowledge that applies. There was "no way" Podsednik was going to do what he did last year, either, but Pierre has a better track record. Of course there is a chance. Hitting in a pitcher's park last year, he put up a .381 OBP on the road. He's 32, plenty of hitters have prime years at that age. I don't know if he will, but there is definitely a chance.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 06:42 PM
No chance? There is no way you can say that with any knowledge that applies. There was "no way" Podsednik was going to do what he did last year, either, but Pierre has a better track record. Of course there is a chance. Hitting in a pitcher's park last year, he put up a .381 OBP on the road. He's 32, plenty of hitters have prime years at that age. I don't know if he will, but there is definitely a chance.

I don't put any stock whatesoever in such a small sample size, especially when there's half a decade of sample size that says you're off base.

Huisj
03-14-2010, 08:25 PM
I don't put any stock whatesoever in such a small sample size, especially when there's half a decade of sample size that says you're off base.

So basically you just think that on paper the Sox aren't very good because you are looking at multi-year trends and predicting that those trends which you are seeing (which some are arguing you are seeing strangely) are all pretty much bad; you see everyone on the team basically declining.

Guess what? Baseball isn't played on paper. Strange things happen. Big years come out of nowhere. People rise to the occasion when you don't predict it. Change of scenery can have a big effect on people. Baseball is not a game where you can say "Player X did this in year A, B, and C, therefore he will certainly do this in year D." If it were, the Sox would have won about 81 games in 2005, and the Yankees would pretty much win the World Series every year.

I don't put any stock whatsoever in such a cut-and-dry version of predicting what sorts of years everyone on a team will have. As noted, did you use that method to predict the amazing bullpen years in '05? Did you use it to predict that Pods would be a catalyst that would make trading Lee worth it? Did you use it to predict that Loaiza would be in the Cy Young hunt in '03? Did you use it to predict that Floyd and Danks would turn into valuable starting rotation members to help the team to a division title in '08? Did you use it to predict that Quentin would hit the crap out of the ball in '08? Did you use it to predict that Dye would put together 5 valuable seasons for the Sox after numerous mediocre seasons and injuries in Oakland?

munchman33
03-14-2010, 08:38 PM
So basically you just think that on paper the Sox aren't very good because you are looking at multi-year trends and predicting that those trends which you are seeing (which some are arguing you are seeing strangely) are all pretty much bad; you see everyone on the team basically declining.

Guess what? Baseball isn't played on paper. Strange things happen. Big years come out of nowhere. People rise to the occasion when you don't predict it. Change of scenery can have a big effect on people. Baseball is not a game where you can say "Player X did this in year A, B, and C, therefore he will certainly do this in year D." If it were, the Sox would have won about 81 games in 2005, and the Yankees would pretty much win the World Series every year.

I don't put any stock whatsoever in such a cut-and-dry version of predicting what sorts of years everyone on a team will have. As noted, did you use that method to predict the amazing bullpen years in '05? Did you use it to predict that Pods would be a catalyst that would make trading Lee worth it? Did you use it to predict that Loaiza would be in the Cy Young hunt in '03? Did you use it to predict that Floyd and Danks would turn into valuable starting rotation members to help the team to a division title in '08? Did you use it to predict that Quentin would hit the crap out of the ball in '08? Did you use it to predict that Dye would put together 5 valuable seasons for the Sox after numerous mediocre seasons and injuries in Oakland?

It's lunacy to expect the unexpected with no basis in fact. We're not talking about a guy who had a down year or someone who was injured and is trying to work his way back. We're talking about a guy who for the last half decade has been declining steadily across the board due to old age. All of a sudden you think it's plausible he puts up numbers like he's 22 again? Give me a break. That's using the same logic that having one or more of Jones/Kotsay/Visquel in the lineup everyday will give us the kind of production we lost in Jim Thome's bat.

For the record, I lauded the Dye signing and was pissed at the Nick Swisher trade because I thought Quentin was already a better hitter and would eventually put up Pujols like numbers (and he nearly won the MVP that season). Look it up if you don't believe me.

It's not about what could happen. It's about what is realistic. Juan Pierre could put up a .380 OBP. I could also invent a cure for cancer this season. Both have about the same chance of happening.

Huisj
03-14-2010, 09:32 PM
Juan Pierre could put up a .380 OBP. I could also invent a cure for cancer this season. Both have about the same chance of happening.

You must be one heck of a doctor and medical researcher then. Wow. Get to work! I want to see that cure!

Wait, did anyone on here mention a .380 OBP?

doublem23
03-14-2010, 09:39 PM
So basically you just think that on paper the Sox aren't very good because you are looking at multi-year trends and predicting that those trends which you are seeing (which some are arguing you are seeing strangely) are all pretty much bad; you see everyone on the team basically declining.

Guess what? Baseball isn't played on paper. Strange things happen. Big years come out of nowhere. People rise to the occasion when you don't predict it. Change of scenery can have a big effect on people. Baseball is not a game where you can say "Player X did this in year A, B, and C, therefore he will certainly do this in year D." If it were, the Sox would have won about 81 games in 2005, and the Yankees would pretty much win the World Series every year.

I don't put any stock whatsoever in such a cut-and-dry version of predicting what sorts of years everyone on a team will have. As noted, did you use that method to predict the amazing bullpen years in '05? Did you use it to predict that Pods would be a catalyst that would make trading Lee worth it? Did you use it to predict that Loaiza would be in the Cy Young hunt in '03? Did you use it to predict that Floyd and Danks would turn into valuable starting rotation members to help the team to a division title in '08? Did you use it to predict that Quentin would hit the crap out of the ball in '08? Did you use it to predict that Dye would put together 5 valuable seasons for the Sox after numerous mediocre seasons and injuries in Oakland?

No one is discounting those miraculous seasons happen from time to time, but when you're banking on one... that's bad. I mean, if Pierre doesn't turn back into his prime self that gets on base and reeks havoc on the basepaths, this team is ****ed. It'll be April/May of last year all over again, with no lead-off hitter... I wonder what the Royals will want for Pods.

asindc
03-14-2010, 09:42 PM
No one is discounting those miraculous seasons happen from time to time, but when you're banking on one... that's bad. I mean, if Pierre doesn't turn back into his prime self that gets on base and reeks havoc on the basepaths, this team is ****ed. It'll be April/May of last year all over again, with no lead-off hitter... I wonder what the Royals will want for Pods.

What if he performs like he did last year over the course of 150 games this year?

mzh
03-14-2010, 09:44 PM
It's lunacy to expect the unexpected with no basis in fact..
And it's also lunacy to expect the same trends to continue with no fluctuations for years. As was said, if that were true the Yankees would win the World Series every year, and if rookie's didn't hit the ground running their careers would be busts. You have to expect unexpected things, just not from specific places. For all we know, you could be right about Pierre and he will disappoint, but Andruw Jones and PK might magically return to form and him .280/35/100 each.

oeo
03-14-2010, 09:45 PM
Except that most of the guys on the 2005 team were, you know, good.

Pods, Crede, and Uribe were all questionable in the lineup going in. There was a question whether Dye could stay healthy. Everett at DH rivals our current DH situation and Frank hadn't played major time in over a year. The bullpen was made up of nothing but Marte and Takatsu. The rotation had question marks in Contreras, Garland, and El Duque.

Come on. The 2005 team was not full of talent. It was a sum of the parts that made it good. They had great chemistry and played the us vs. the world theme. They had a lot of things go right, in fact, nothing really could go wrong. When Takatsu sucked, Hermanson stepped in. When Hermanson went down, we called up a rookie from AA that got the job done. When we couldn't buy a win, Contreras came out of the woodwork and became the best pitcher in the game. Jon Garland who wasn't worth much of anything came out and had the year of his life. El Duque kept his arm on and when he needed a break Brandon McCarthy did the job in impressive fashion. Neal Cotts who sucked before and has sucked since gave one hell of a performance. Cliff Politte who was no more than mediocre on a good year, was ****ing spectacular.

I think, without a doubt, this team has more talent than the 2005 team. That doesn't mean anything. The 2005 team had a lot of things go right for them. In terms of on paper, this team absolutely has more talent. So did the 2006 team, as well as the 2008 team and neither one did squat. But to say the 2005 team was full of talent is a joke.

I don't even know how seriously your opinion should be taken. You thought last year's team was as talented as they come, a 100-win team and this year's team sucks? Come on...

doublem23
03-14-2010, 09:47 PM
What if he performs like he did last year over the course of 150 games this year?

Great, then we only need 6 more guys to play up to their absolute top potential.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 09:56 PM
And it's also lunacy to expect the same trends to continue with no fluctuations for years. As was said, if that were true the Yankees would win the World Series every year, and if rookie's didn't hit the ground running their careers would be busts. You have to expect unexpected things, just not from specific places. For all we know, you could be right about Pierre and he will disappoint, but Andruw Jones and PK might magically return to form and him .280/35/100 each.

Two things:

1. All three of those scenerios need to happen the way this offense is currently built.

2. I don't discount fluctuations. But you are BANKING on the EXTREME, one so unlikely there is NO reason to predict it.

oeo
03-14-2010, 09:57 PM
Great, then we only need 6 more guys to play up to their absolute top potential.

You're talking out of your butt.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 09:59 PM
What if he performs like he did last year over the course of 150 games this year?

Once I saw Juan Pierre get a hit, and then steal a base. What if he did that every time he stepped to the plate!?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to take a small sample size with data completely out of the norm compared to years upon years of data and predict that's going to happen over a long period of time? Especially for an older player?

munchman33
03-14-2010, 09:59 PM
You're talking out of your butt.

Not from where I'm standing.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 10:03 PM
Pods, Crede, and Uribe were all questionable in the lineup going in. There was a question whether Dye could stay healthy. Everett at DH rivals our current DH situation and Frank hadn't played major time in over a year. The bullpen was made up of nothing but Marte and Takatsu. The rotation had question marks in Contreras, Garland, and El Duque.

Come on. The 2005 team was not full of talent. It was a sum of the parts that made it good. They had great chemistry and played the us vs. the world theme. They had a lot of things go right, in fact, nothing really could go wrong. When Takatsu sucked, Hermanson stepped in. When Hermanson went down, we called up a rookie from AA that got the job done. When we couldn't buy a win, Contreras came out of the woodwork and became the best pitcher in the game. Jon Garland who wasn't worth much of anything came out and had the year of his life. El Duque kept his arm on and when he needed a break Brandon McCarthy did the job in impressive fashion. Neal Cotts who sucked before and has sucked since gave one hell of a performance. Cliff Politte who was no more than mediocre on a good year, was ****ing spectacular.

I think, without a doubt, this team has more talent than the 2005 team. That doesn't mean anything. The 2005 team had a lot of things go right for them. In terms of on paper, this team absolutely has more talent. So did the 2006 team, as well as the 2008 team and neither one did squat. But to say the 2005 team was full of talent is a joke.

I don't even know how seriously your opinion should be taken. You thought last year's team was as talented as they come, a 100-win team and this year's team sucks? Come on...

OEO, I think the problem might be you don't know what to look for. I put big money down on the Sox that year because it was obvious to me the team was stacked with talent at every position, especially the pen. I would not do that on this team.

oeo
03-14-2010, 10:04 PM
It's not a similarity at all. Sarcasm. Paulie is not putting up a 40 homer season. Buehrle is not putting up a 3.12 era. They have physically regressed.

Buehrle is 30 years old, he can absolutely put up a 3.12 ERA. But that's irrelevant, anyway. The rotation as a whole is better.

How can you guarantee something that he didn't even accomplish last year?

Before he was traded it was pretty comparable. And the guy has been very good in his career when he's been motivated, which it appears the Sox have done to him.

Because the last time Pierre played as a regular for a full season and put up an OBP higher than even .331 was...BEFORE 2005. What reasonable chance do you believe that has of happening? I repeat, "reasonable." Not miracle.

What reasonable chance did you see Pods doing it last year? I don't really like Pierre, and I really don't like comparing each individual player. I will say, that as a whole, I think this is a better offense than the 2005 one. And I don't even like the offense.

He could be very good, yes. He also could be what Uribe became after that season. They are the most comparable of any two players on the respective squads, attitudes included.

They're not really comparable at all.

They brought more pop and better defense. You think Teahan will have a .757 OPS? Maybe, if we're lucky. But he's still a brick out there compared to a vaccuum like Crede.

Playing in the Cell? Absolutely, and he will be beyond that. He'll also give you a better batting average and the ability to steal bases.

I'm pretty sure I can predict this pen won't have three guys who sport a 1.97, 2.00, and 2.04 era, along with two other guys with era's in the low 3's and a stud rookie closer throwing 100 mph coming up in September. Call me physic, but I'd bet my life that doesn't come close to happening. This group was simply more physically talented. Injury got all those guys after 2005.

That group was not more talented in any way, shape, or form. How can you possibly say that?

The start of this portion does not match the end. Of course you can make that type of prediction, because it just doesn't happen. The Sox got extremely lucky.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 10:12 PM
That group was not more talented in any way, shape, or form. How can you possibly say that?

I'm going to touch on this, because it's likely you don't remember. But Pollitte and Hermanson were both former late innings guys because of their pure stuff. Each had injury issues, but limitless talent. I always thought Cotts would be a great lefty out of the pen. Vizcaino was a terrific innings guy in his career. And Marte, who ended up being the "worst" of the bunch, had already proven himself in that role. Throw in Shingo, who didn't last the year but was phenomenal the previous season, and there was plenty of reason to believe in that pen. This squad has a closer that seems to be falling apart, a closer coming off serious injury, a Scott Linebrink that's completely lost his control, Tony Pena (who's never had it), and Matt Thornton (nothing wrong with him).

oeo
03-14-2010, 10:14 PM
OEO, I think the problem might be you don't know what to look for. I put big money down on the Sox that year because it was obvious to me the team was stacked with talent at every position, especially the pen. I would not do that on this team.

The guy who makes outlandish predictions that are never right is telling me I don't know what to look for.

Take a look at their numbers and compare them to their careers. If you saw big years from Garland, Cotts, Contreras, Politte, Hermanson, Jenks, etc., you should have played the lottery instead of risking the money on bets.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 10:16 PM
No chance? There is no way you can say that with any knowledge that applies. There was "no way" Podsednik was going to do what he did last year, either, but Pierre has a better track record. Of course there is a chance. Hitting in a pitcher's park last year, he put up a .381 OBP on the road. He's 32, plenty of hitters have prime years at that age. I don't know if he will, but there is definitely a chance.



Wait, did anyone on here mention a .380 OBP?

Right above you.

oeo
03-14-2010, 10:18 PM
I'm going to touch on this, because it's likely you don't remember. But Pollitte and Hermanson were both former late innings guys because of their pure stuff. Each had injury issues, but limitless talent. I always thought Cotts would be a great lefty out of the pen. Vizcaino was a terrific innings guy in his career. And Marte, who ended up being the "worst" of the bunch, had already proven himself in that role. Throw in Shingo, who didn't last the year but was phenomenal the previous season, and there was plenty of reason to believe in that pen. This squad has a closer that seems to be falling apart, a closer coming off serious injury, a Scott Linebrink that's completely lost his control, Tony Pena (who's never had it), and Matt Thornton (nothing wrong with him).

You're full of it. Go take a look back at their careers. It wasn't just injury that changed things, they just weren't that good to begin with. They were career years and I'm thankful they happened, but that's exactly what they were.

And for the record, I said Marte was the worst of the bunch at the end of the year. I also said he was one of two arms that you could trust at the beginning of the year.

Also, Tony Pena 'has never had it.' :lol: The guy just turned 28 and has a great arm. You saw Cotts coming, but don't see anything in the future for Pena? I guess I should trust you as you 'know what to look for', though.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 10:19 PM
The guy who makes outlandish predictions that are never right is telling me I don't know what to look for.

Take a look at their numbers and compare them to their careers. If you saw big years from Garland, Cotts, Contreras, Politte, Hermanson, Jenks, etc., you should have played the lottery instead of risking the money on bets.

I did win $6000, actually.

And I'd rather be wrong from time to time than a homer.

Why is it when I'm negative about something, I get lambasted whether I end up right or wrong (Nick Swisher comes to mind), but when I'm positive about something (Quentin comes to mind), everyone conveniently forgets?

cws05champ
03-14-2010, 10:20 PM
I hate that saying-"anything can happen." It surely hasn't happened to the Twins' bink, bunt, scratch and claw team. They take the Central and go down in the first round with barely a whimper. Who wants a team like that? And 2005 is not a good comparion. The White Sox did not "get hot at the right time." They had the best record in the AL that year.
C'mon, they did get hot at the right time. I'm not saying they weren't a really good (if not great) team....and obviously my favorite team of all-time. Let's not forget that they struggled through August (12-16) and most of Sept where their lead got down to 1.5 games. Once they clinched in Detroit, all the pressure was lifted and they went 16-1 in their last 17. If that is not getting hot, I don't know what is.

And the difference between the 2005 Sox and the Twins teams was dominant pitching....which was my point to begin with. If you can pitch, anything can happen in the playoffs.

munchman33
03-14-2010, 10:21 PM
You're full of it. Go take a look back at their careers. It wasn't just injury that changed things, they just weren't that good to begin with. They were career years and I'm thankful they happened, but that's exactly what they were.

And for the record, I said Marte was the worst of the bunch at the end of the year.

In case you want to apologize to me, you're free to look up the things on this site I was saying about the 2005 team before the season.

Marte was the "worst" of the bunch that year, statistically. I put it in parenthesis because he was really good.

oeo
03-14-2010, 10:26 PM
I did win $6000, actually.

You couldn't think up the winning lottery numbers? You were on a roll!

And I'd rather be wrong from time to time than a homer.

Or you could look at it as a blind squirrel finding a nut once in awhile.

oeo
03-14-2010, 10:27 PM
In case you want to apologize to me, you're free to look up the things on this site I was saying about the 2005 team before the season.

Marte was the "worst" of the bunch that year, statistically. I put it in parenthesis because he was really good.

And he lost it at the end of the year. He was the guy that no one wanted to see because he wasn't getting the job done. He was a disaster in September. Jesus... I didn't say he was bad. The guy was great for us, for the most part, in his time here. He was not good at the end of 2005, though. In fact, he was awful.

If I was to search back to 2005, I would see you saying that all these guys were going to have career years? You were right in 2005 because you were being a homer. Again, if you saw the career years from some of these guys coming, you should have played the lottery because you really did see the future. If you want to give me some examples, I'd absolutely love to see them. I don't feel like searching through threads from 5 years ago.

doublem23
03-14-2010, 10:57 PM
You're talking out of your butt.

:violin:

OH FREAKING NO, I DON'T THINK THIS SOX TEAM IS WORTH ****.

BTW, weren't you all high on last year's team, too, so if my opinion is garbage, yours is right there with me.

We could be good. We'll probably suck. Thankfully we play in a Pee Wee division.

Huisj
03-15-2010, 12:06 AM
Right above you.

Ok, fair. I missed that among all the other comparison wondering if Pierre could do what Pods did in '05, which was 30 points lower than that.

As for bullpen, going into '05...

Hermanson was a journeyman swingman who hadn't really nailed down a role on a staff in years and battled injuries that hurt his formerly great fastball.

Cotts was young and showed decent stuff but also had lots of problems throwing strikes. Nothing pointed toward him being unhittable for a season.

Politte had had some pretty mediocre seasons (downright lousy with Toronto), had decent stuff, but didn't seem like anything more than an underachieving middle reliever trying to get one last chance to be something better than that.

Takatsu had come out of nowhere (even was horrible early on in '04) to fool the league with goofy 60 mph sidearm loopers and changeups. He was old and relied on tricks and novelty. Did anyone think he'd be dominant again?

Marte had show a great fastball and slider for a few years, but was trending downward. People still thought he'd be the key #1 lefty who could get lots of k's. He was arguable the only one of the bunch who didn't really fulfill expectations as he couldn't stop his control and confidence from slipping further.

Vizcaino was hard to read since he had had both decent and horrible years alternating back and forth for a few seasons. He pretty much matched about the best people should have expected from him, which was to be an ok middle reliever who ate some bridge innings and kept games the Sox were behind in close.

If you saw that group doing what they ended up accomplishing, you are amazing, and you also were doing exactly what you are ripping on everyone else for doing here--expecting talented people to bounce back from perceived slips in ability to perform well.

Putz was dominant not long ago, more dominant than anyone on that list above had ever been coming into '05. It is yet to be seen if his arm will recover well from injury, and expecting his former dominance isn't necessarily realistic. But isn't it realistic to think that he could bounce back and be an ok setup guy?

Jenks was dominant quite recently as well. Yes, he's battled some problems with frequent little injuries and there are questions about his velocity all the time from Sox fans. But he's not exactly old and he has more stuff to work off of than just a fastball, so why isn't it realistic to expect him to not totally collapse?

Thornton is good. No reason to expect him not to be other than just the normal "you can't predict relievers" argument. But it's hard to imagine a 6'6" lefty who throws totally effortless gas and has put together 4 solid seasons in a row losing it unless he gets hurt, which at this point, there is no reason to predict that on him any more than on anyone else.

Pena reminds me of Vizcaino. Good arm, hasn't been able to put it together consistently yet. He could surprise, he could flop. But the chances he'll be at least an average middle reliever are probably pretty good.

Linebrink still has some stuff it seems, but he's a mental headcase under pressure. But he's had success in the past, more than most of the guys from '05 had ever had, and he seemed healthy last year. He is a question mark who could go either way.

I'm still failing to see how the '05 bullpen going in clearly had more ability or potential to be good than this one has.

oeo
03-15-2010, 12:10 AM
:violin:

OH FREAKING NO, I DON'T THINK THIS SOX TEAM IS WORTH ****.

BTW, weren't you all high on last year's team, too, so if my opinion is garbage, yours is right there with me.

We could be good. We'll probably suck. Thankfully we play in a Pee Wee division.

I thought they'd win around 91 games in a weak division and lose in the first round of the playoffs. Quite a difference from 100 wins and a World Series, don't you think?

But that's not even the issue. The issue is you thought that was a great team, and you think this team (a better team with far less holes and more proven) is one of the worst in recent Sox history. The dots don't connect. Who did we lose that 30 games are coming off your predictions? Was it Josh Fields? Chris Getz? Maybe Brian Anderson?

The worst part of all of it, is you're basing it off of our DH situation, which you've mentioned already.

oeo
03-15-2010, 12:18 AM
I'm still failing to see how the '05 bullpen going in clearly had more ability or potential to be good than this one has.

You and me both.

asindc
03-15-2010, 07:58 AM
Once I saw Juan Pierre get a hit, and then steal a base. What if he did that every time he stepped to the plate!?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to take a small sample size with data completely out of the norm compared to years upon years of data and predict that's going to happen over a long period of time? Especially for an older player?

I don't know how ridiculous it is, but maybe the question should be posed to someone who made such a prediction.

asindc
03-15-2010, 08:01 AM
Great, then we only need 6 more guys to play up to their absolute top potential.

I take it that you do not think this offense will be good if everyone stays healthy and performs up to career norms, not necessarily top potential.

doublem23
03-15-2010, 10:22 AM
I thought they'd win around 91 games in a weak division and lose in the first round of the playoffs. Quite a difference from 100 wins and a World Series, don't you think?

But that's not even the issue. The issue is you thought that was a great team, and you think this team (a better team with far less holes and more proven) is one of the worst in recent Sox history. The dots don't connect. Who did we lose that 30 games are coming off your predictions? Was it Josh Fields? Chris Getz? Maybe Brian Anderson?

The worst part of all of it, is you're basing it off of our DH situation, which you've mentioned already.

I thought that was a good team last year, and, as I've said, the biggest thing that has changed from then and now is I've lost a lot of faith in Ozzie and KW because they're actually going into the season with this bone-headed lineup and pretending like everything is OK. Last year, I still believed in them as baseball execs. Now, I think they're clowns. So I don't have any faith in what they'll do, ergo, 80 wins max this year, here we come!!!

doublem23
03-15-2010, 10:24 AM
I'm still failing to see how the '05 bullpen going in clearly had more ability or potential to be good than this one has.

The fact that you have to keep bringing up the '05 bullpen should be the proof you need. No matter what they looked like coming into that season, we all know what they did, namely have several career years and catch lightning in a bottle. The fact that we need the 2010 Sox bullpen to repeat that performance, which was historically good, BTW, should tell you why this bullpen is suspicious for some of us.

asindc
03-15-2010, 10:55 AM
I thought that was a good team last year, and, as I've said, the biggest thing that has changed from then and now is I've lost a lot of faith in Ozzie and KW because they're actually going into the season with this bone-headed lineup and pretending like everything is OK.

As evidence of their pretending, I guess you are not referring to KW's attempts to acquire Matsui and Damon.

Last year, I still believed in them as baseball execs. Now, I think they're clowns. So I don't have any faith in what they'll do, ergo, 80 wins max this year, here we come!!!

Well, at least we now know the basis for your discontentment. Your pre-season assessment of this year's team is worse than your pre-season assessment of last year's team, even though---

Peavy has replaced Contreras
Garcia/Hudson have replaced Colon
Beckham has replaced Getz
Teahan has replaced Fields
Rios has replaced Wise/Anderson
Putz has replaced MacDougal
Kotsay has replaced Betemit

So despite those moves, your lack of faith causes you to assess this year's team at this point as being much worse than last year's team at this point. Well, I suppose that is one way of looking at it. I know I am glad that the roster spots formerly occupied by Colon, Contreras, Fields, Wise, Anderson, MacDougal, and Betemit have been upgraded.

oeo
03-15-2010, 12:17 PM
The fact that you have to keep bringing up the '05 bullpen should be the proof you need. No matter what they looked like coming into that season, we all know what they did, namely have several career years and catch lightning in a bottle. The fact that we need the 2010 Sox bullpen to repeat that performance, which was historically good, BTW, should tell you why this bullpen is suspicious for some of us.

Munch says he saw it coming and he now sees disaster coming for the 2010 White Sox. That's the discussion. Apparently munch sometimes sees flashes of the future. Pretty cool, actually.

I love this 'some of us' crap. Who you crappin' doublem?

I thought that was a good team last year, and, as I've said, the biggest thing that has changed from then and now is I've lost a lot of faith in Ozzie and KW because they're actually going into the season with this bone-headed lineup and pretending like everything is OK. Last year, I still believed in them as baseball execs. Now, I think they're clowns. So I don't have any faith in what they'll do, ergo, 80 wins max this year, here we come!!!

So you go from one extreme to the other? Take a step back and actually evaluate the team instead of trusting/not trusting the management.

TheOldRoman
03-15-2010, 02:05 PM
The fact that you have to keep bringing up the '05 bullpen should be the proof you need. No matter what they looked like coming into that season, we all know what they did, namely have several career years and catch lightning in a bottle. The fact that we need the 2010 Sox bullpen to repeat that performance, which was historically good, BTW, should tell you why this bullpen is suspicious for some of us.False. the Sox don't absoltely "need" their pen to catch lightning in a bottle and all have career years. Thornton is great. Jenks is solid at worst. If he can get over his calf problems, he will have a very good year with his new focus on conditioning. If Putz is healthy, he is instantly the best set-up guy in baseball, and that isn't even planning for him having a "career year", just picking up where he left off. If Linebrink is healthy he will be fine, especially for middle relief. Pena is a work in progress with great talent, but he has been pitching well this spring. He also will be middle relief.

The Sox are asking talented guys to do what they have done, not overachieve. The only somewhat chronic problem of the group is Linebrink and his various ailments. Putz pitched poorly while injured, then finally decided to have surgery. He should feel no ill effects of the surgery. Unless Bobby's calf turns into a big problem, the only ongoing injury concern is Liney. This bullpen is much more talented than the 2005 one, and it isn't particularly close. I am not implying they will be better than 2005, either. If everybody stays healthy this year, our bullpen will be elite. If everybody actually has career years, the bullpen will be historically great.

areilly
03-15-2010, 02:14 PM
If you can pitch, anything can happen in the playoffs.


So true (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=peavyja01&t=p&post=1).

oeo
03-15-2010, 02:28 PM
So true (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=peavyja01&t=p&post=1).

CC Sabathia was also a terrible postseason pitcher...until last year.

soltrain21
03-15-2010, 02:52 PM
So true (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=peavyja01&t=p&post=1).

Quite possibly the smallest sample size I've ever witnessed being used in the history of the Internet, and that's saying something.

doublem23
03-15-2010, 02:59 PM
So you go from one extreme to the other? Take a step back and actually evaluate the team instead of trusting/not trusting the management.

How many times to I have to ****ing post this?



Pierre - Not that good, and trendy downward
Beckham - Should be awesome, but he's got less than 1 year under his belt.
Konerko - Excellent in the field, below average a the plate (for his position).
Quentin - Superstar with serious health question marks
Rios - Potential star, potential disaster
AJ - Solid hitting C, below average behind plate
Teahen - Sucks
Alexei - Absolute question mark, I have no idea what to expect from him
Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel - Mind-numbingly bad.

That's my talent evaluation. I see 2 holes, one is gigantic, 2 guys I can trust, and 5 question marks. So spare me if I'm not printing up division champ. merchandise quite yet. The biggest thing we have going for us is that we're fortunate enough to play in a division with 4 other teams that aren't seriously committed to winning, either.

doublem23
03-15-2010, 03:00 PM
As evidence of their pretending, I guess you are not referring to KW's attempts to acquire Matsui and Damon.

Hey great, I'll go hang my Matsui and Damon jerseys up next to my 1994 World Series Champ t-shirt, too.

:thumbsup:

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:20 PM
Munch says he saw it coming and he now sees disaster coming for the 2010 White Sox. That's the discussion. Apparently munch sometimes sees flashes of the future. Pretty cool, actually.


I'm usually right. :shrug:

It isn't a blind prediction, it's my opinion of the talent assembled. You can disagree, but you aren't exactly giving reasons why you disagree. At least not based on history. I mean, if you want to think Pierre is going to put up a .350 plus OBP in regular playing time for the first time since 2004, that's fine. But your reasoning needs to be of the sort like "because of a new diet or training regimine or shark cartlidge." Or anything that would indicate more than just the outlying possibility. Otherwise you look like a homer. Or the person pretending to see the future.

I did rave about that 2005 pen's talent. You think because I was right it was just blind luck, and that I was being a homer? That's got to be the single most hilarious thing I've heard on this site. I've been called a troll before, but certainly not a homer!

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:27 PM
Jenks is solid at worst.

When you write things like this, people don't want to read the rest of your post. Bobby's had his share of troubles, and has obviously been trending down for years. He's a middle of the road closer. And even the best closer in baseball not named Rivera isn't going to pitch this year. You can't call ANY pitcher solid at worst, especially a bullpen guy, and even more especially Bobby Jenks.

Carolina Kenny
03-15-2010, 03:30 PM
No one is discounting those miraculous seasons happen from time to time, but when you're banking on one... that's bad. I mean, if Pierre doesn't turn back into his prime self that gets on base and reeks havoc on the basepaths, this team is ****ed. It'll be April/May of last year all over again, with no lead-off hitter... I wonder what the Royals will want for Pods.

Agreed, remember that 2005 was a Multi-Time Lifetime Experience.

My expectations for the season are very low. But I will give these guys a try anyway. What choice do I have, they are my team.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:33 PM
Anybody wanna talk about the Tigers? :cool:

asindc
03-15-2010, 03:35 PM
Hey great, I'll go hang my Matsui and Damon jerseys up next to my 1994 World Series Champ t-shirt, too.

:thumbsup:

Fine, if KW's lack of success in landing either of them can be considered pretending everything is fine, then let's look at the actual improvements in the roster from this time last year to now. That's reality.

spawn
03-15-2010, 03:39 PM
When you write things like this, people don't want to read the rest of your post.
Speak for yourself.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:42 PM
Fine, if KW's lack of success in landing either of them can be considered pretending everything is fine, then let's look at the actual improvements in the roster from this time last year to now. That's reality.

There are just as many (if not more) spots on the roster that are worse or potentially worse, even those occupied by the same people (for instance, Konerko will very likely not put up as good numbers as he did last year for a number of reasons). And the improvements are not nearly as vast as the loss of production at certain positions (most notably DH).

This team might be better than last years team, but it's just as likely not to be. And lets not forget...last year's team sucked ass!

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:44 PM
Speak for yourself.

:rolleyes:

If people don't want to read things simply because they're negative, they are welcome to watch sesame street. We're talking baseball here, and I'm going to call out blatant homerism.

spawn
03-15-2010, 03:47 PM
:rolleyes:

If people don't want to read things simply because they're negative, they are welcome to watch sesame street. We're talking baseball here, and I'm going to call out blatant homerism.
Sorry, but I actually wanted to read the rest of his post. You didn't. I'm telling you not to speak for all of us.

And Sesame Street is a great program. I learned a lot watching it. Bert and Ernie were my favorites. :wink:

TheOldRoman
03-15-2010, 03:48 PM
:rolleyes:

If people don't want to read things simply because they're negative, they are welcome to watch sesame street. We're talking baseball here, and I'm going to call out blatant homerism.Ah, so anything which doesn't prescribe to your personal baised views is Sesame Street? Oh no, I wish I could hang with the big boys. :rolleyes: That is just really poor, even for you. No need to bring up all the times you have been eviscerated on this board. Yet, I will anyway! If only the rest of us could have listened to your "real" big boy waxings to realize years ago that Derrick Rose is a horrible player and DLS has a 50% chance at the hall of fame.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 03:50 PM
Sorry, but I actually wanted to read the rest of his post. You didn't. I'm telling you not to speak for all of us.

And Sesame Street is a great program. I learned a lot watching it. Bert and Ernie were my favorites. :wink:

Yeah, I watch it too. :D:

I just really don't like it when people present unlikely predictions as common knowledge or fact. The most likely outcome in reference to Bobby Jenks is that, if he's healthy, he will continue to regress. And that's if he's healthy.

DSpivack
03-15-2010, 03:51 PM
Sorry, but I actually wanted to read the rest of his post. You didn't. I'm telling you not to speak for all of us.

And Sesame Street is a great program. I learned a lot watching it. Bert and Ernie were my favorites. :wink:

Bert and Ernie seem the sit back, enjoy baseball and don't argue types. I'd guess Elmo as a homer. Big Bird would be the eternal skeptic. Oscar the Grouch would clearly be the dark cloud. As for Snuffleupagus, I haven't a clue.

spawn
03-15-2010, 03:51 PM
Yeah, I watch it too. :D:

I just really don't like it when people present unlikely predictions as common knowledge or fact. The most likely outcome in reference to Bobby Jenks is that, if he's healthy, he will continue to regress. And that's if he's healthy.
This coming from the same person that said DLS is a future HOF'er? Kettle, meet pot.

voodoochile
03-15-2010, 03:56 PM
Bert and Ernie seem the sit back, enjoy baseball and don't argue types. I'd guess Elmo as a homer. Big Bird would be the eternal skeptic. Oscar the Grouch would clearly be the dark cloud. As for Snuffleupagus, I haven't a clue.

Cookie Monster would definitely have fun in the Parking Lot...

DSpivack
03-15-2010, 03:58 PM
Cookie Monster would definitely have fun in the Parking Lot...

That he would. Rather easy to picture him slugging back a beer, downing cookies and playing bags.

TheOldRoman
03-15-2010, 03:59 PM
Yeah, I watch it too. :D:

I just really don't like it when people present unlikely predictions as common knowledge or fact. The most likely outcome in reference to Bobby Jenks is that, if he's healthy, he will continue to regress. And that's if he's healthy.You are not only merely wrong, you're really most sincerley wrong. Caution - I am going to talk "real baseball" now. Bobby didn't regress at all. 2007 and 2008 were the best years of his career. In 2007 he took some gas off his pitches and had the an absolutely elite year. He was also good in 2008, even accounting for the time around his back injury. You can keep screaming Bobby regressed because he *chooses* not to throw as hard, but it isn't true. Bobby had a poor year by his standards last year, and injuries were a part of that.

If you want to go ahead and declare regression based on a one-year trend, be my guest.

SI1020
03-15-2010, 04:04 PM
Quite possibly the smallest sample size I've ever witnessed being used in the history of the Internet, and that's saying something. Post season samples are alway going to be small. I think he made a good point, in a short series it's great to have pitching but just about anything can and does happen. Of course I would be glad to see Jake pitch for the Sox in the playoffs.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 04:50 PM
You are not only merely wrong, you're really most sincerley wrong. Caution - I am going to talk "real baseball" now. Bobby didn't regress at all. 2007 and 2008 were the best years of his career. In 2007 he took some gas off his pitches and had the an absolutely elite year. He was also good in 2008, even accounting for the time around his back injury. You can keep screaming Bobby regressed because he *chooses* not to throw as hard, but it isn't true. Bobby had a poor year by his standards last year, and injuries were a part of that.

If you want to go ahead and declare regression based on a one-year trend, be my guest.

Oh jeez. Yeah, Bobby's only getting better. That's why he's allowing more hits per inning pitched, more walks per inning pitched, more homeruns, and getting fewer strikeouts. Because he's getting better. Because those are things pitchers strive to do. You know, allow more runs and more chances for runs. It means you're better.

Bobby is trending, and the injuries only complicate things more. Jenks is not solid at worst. He is solid at best, with a better than decent chance to be mediocre or hurt (or both) all year. I love Bobby too, but take the blinders off.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 04:51 PM
This coming from the same person that said DLS is a future HOF'er? Kettle, meet pot.

He's still young!

TheOldRoman
03-15-2010, 05:12 PM
Oh jeez. Yeah, Bobby's only getting better. That's why he's allowing more hits per inning pitched, more walks per inning pitched, more homeruns, and getting fewer strikeouts. Because he's getting better. Because those are things pitchers strive to do. You know, allow more runs and more chances for runs. It means you're better.

Bobby is trending, and the injuries only complicate things more. Jenks is not solid at worst. He is solid at best, with a better than decent chance to be mediocre or hurt (or both) all year. I love Bobby too, but take the blinders off.
Ok, I will try to remain civil. I made a post, you felt the need to call me out on it even though you were wrong. I reafirmed my position, but you had to be "difficult" again.

-His WHIP in 2007 (HIS BEST YEAR) and 2008 were both lower than in 2005 or 2006. His WHIP last year was still lower than 2006.
-Homers and walks were lower in both 07 and 08 than 05 and 06.
-His strikeouts were lower both years than in in the past, but once again, he made a concerted effort to become more of a finesse pitcher, and got better results because of it.
-His runs allowed and ERA were higher in 2006 than in 07, 08 AND 09.

Once again, he had a down year in 2009, and it wasn't even a "bad" year by MLB closer standards. No arguement based in reality can claim it is a trend. You are wrong.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
03-15-2010, 05:25 PM
Once again, he had a down year in 2009, and it wasn't even a "bad" year by MLB closer standards. No arguement based in reality can claim it is a trend. You are wrong.

Statistically, that may be true, but by July, I would get this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when Bobby entered the game...I had no confidence in him, and even when he made saves, he made them far more interesting than they had to be.

I'm not ready to tar and feather him yet, but he did concern me last year, and I'm just hoping that his injury/alcohol issues were the main cause of his struggles last year. If he keeps it up this year, that's when we should hit the "panic" button.

PennStater98r
03-15-2010, 05:50 PM
Pods, Crede, and Uribe were all questionable in the lineup going in. There was a question whether Dye could stay healthy. Everett at DH rivals our current DH situation and Frank hadn't played major time in over a year. The bullpen was made up of nothing but Marte and Takatsu. The rotation had question marks in Contreras, Garland, and El Duque.

Come on. The 2005 team was not full of talent. It was a sum of the parts that made it good. They had great chemistry and played the us vs. the world theme. They had a lot of things go right, in fact, nothing really could go wrong. When Takatsu sucked, Hermanson stepped in. When Hermanson went down, we called up a rookie from AA that got the job done. When we couldn't buy a win, Contreras came out of the woodwork and became the best pitcher in the game. Jon Garland who wasn't worth much of anything came out and had the year of his life. El Duque kept his arm on and when he needed a break Brandon McCarthy did the job in impressive fashion. Neal Cotts who sucked before and has sucked since gave one hell of a performance. Cliff Politte who was no more than mediocre on a good year, was ****ing spectacular.

I think, without a doubt, this team has more talent than the 2005 team. That doesn't mean anything. The 2005 team had a lot of things go right for them. In terms of on paper, this team absolutely has more talent. So did the 2006 team, as well as the 2008 team and neither one did squat. But to say the 2005 team was full of talent is a joke.

I don't even know how seriously your opinion should be taken. You thought last year's team was as talented as they come, a 100-win team and this year's team sucks? Come on...

One thing's for sure - this is the POTW!

Why? Because you got it oeo - and munch missed it!

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT THIS TEAM WILL HAVE BETTER NUMBERS THAN THE 2005 TEAM. However, on paper, this team shows more potential and more talent than the team on paper showed in March of 2005.

That's his point munch - and one hell of a fact at that.

PennStater98r
03-15-2010, 06:03 PM
As evidence of their pretending, I guess you are not referring to KW's attempts to acquire Matsui and Damon.



Well, at least we now know the basis for your discontentment. Your pre-season assessment of this year's team is worse than your pre-season assessment of last year's team, even though---

Peavy has replaced Contreras
Garcia/Hudson have replaced Colon
Beckham has replaced Getz
Teahan has replaced Fields
Rios has replaced Wise/Anderson
Putz has replaced MacDougal
Kotsay has replaced Betemit

So despite those moves, your lack of faith causes you to assess this year's team at this point as being much worse than last year's team at this point. Well, I suppose that is one way of looking at it. I know I am glad that the roster spots formerly occupied by Colon, Contreras, Fields, Wise, Anderson, MacDougal, and Betemit have been upgraded.

Don't forget the Platoon replacing Thome - who, God love him, was just horrible in the first two months of last season - and had many declaring his career over...

PennStater98r
03-15-2010, 06:13 PM
How many times to I have to ****ing post this?



Pierre - Not that good, and trendy downward
Beckham - Should be awesome, but he's got less than 1 year under his belt.
Konerko - Excellent in the field, below average a the plate (for his position).
Quentin - Superstar with serious health question marks
Rios - Potential star, potential disaster
AJ - Solid hitting C, below average behind plate
Teahen - Sucks
Alexei - Absolute question mark, I have no idea what to expect from him
Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel - Mind-numbingly bad.
That's my talent evaluation. I see 2 holes, one is gigantic, 2 guys I can trust, and 5 question marks. So spare me if I'm not printing up division champ. merchandise quite yet. The biggest thing we have going for us is that we're fortunate enough to play in a division with 4 other teams that aren't seriously committed to winning, either.

He's not asking you to simply give an assessment of this year's opening day roster. He's asking you why you thought last year's team was a 90 win team and this one is not.

You really thought Fields could give us more than Teahen?
Thought Getz would amount to much?
Anderson better than Rios?

You and munch have missed the point.

This team does have a high potential of achieving. We also have a shot at doing very little.

That said, the pitching will keep us in it. The bullpen WILL be better than last year and possibly 2005's expected outcome because the starting rotation is full of horses. Last year's bullpen started hot - kept us in it early to midseason - and then fell apart at the end because opposing line-ups had seen them too much. I suspect that if Peavy is healthy that the Peavy/Buehrle/Danks/Floyd/Garcia will do what 2005 pitching did for us - give us lots of innings and ease the job of the bullpen - saving them for later in the season...

munchman33
03-15-2010, 06:42 PM
Ok, I will try to remain civil. I made a post, you felt the need to call me out on it even though you were wrong. I reafirmed my position, but you had to be "difficult" again.

-His WHIP in 2007 (HIS BEST YEAR) and 2008 were both lower than in 2005 or 2006. His WHIP last year was still lower than 2006.
-Homers and walks were lower in both 07 and 08 than 05 and 06.
-His strikeouts were lower both years than in in the past, but once again, he made a concerted effort to become more of a finesse pitcher, and got better results because of it.
-His runs allowed and ERA were higher in 2006 than in 07, 08 AND 09.

Once again, he had a down year in 2009, and it wasn't even a "bad" year by MLB closer standards. No arguement based in reality can claim it is a trend. You are wrong.

I'm not looking at '05 and '06. I'm looking at the last three years. Looking further back would be pointless because Bobby was really young and, as you pointed out, using a different approach. The trends I discussed are apparent over the last 3 years. So much so that national writers have mentioned it.

We are still "civil". I don't remember hating you. :?:

munchman33
03-15-2010, 06:44 PM
One thing's for sure - this is the POTW!

Why? Because you got it oeo - and munch missed it!

NO ONE EVER SAID THAT THIS TEAM WILL HAVE BETTER NUMBERS THAN THE 2005 TEAM. However, on paper, this team shows more potential and more talent than the team on paper showed in March of 2005.

That's his point munch - and one hell of a fact at that.

Given the last line in that post, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking to me. I would not have called last year's team a 100 win team.

cws05champ
03-15-2010, 09:45 PM
I'm usually right. :shrug:

It isn't a blind prediction, it's my opinion of the talent assembled.

No, you usually have an opinion...doesn't mean you are right. Here's some munch quotes from a thread on 11-30-09:

Originally Posted by munchman33
The pen is the last place we need to spend money. We need an outfielder and a DH. Buying an arm AND keeping Bobby means we'll FOR CERTAIN be throwing out two of Viciedo, Flowers, and Danks next year.
So, we still have Bobby, and we brought in Putz.....are we still for certain going to throw out two of Viciedo, Flowers and Danks?


Originally Posted by munchman33
For what it's worth, last year's payroll was $96 million. And signs have not pointed, in any way, that we're going up from that point. I fully expect one of Bobby, Paulie, or AJ to be gone by opening day.

And how's that prediction looking?

Originally Posted by munchman33
And Danks/Quentin total will be closer to $10 million total than 6 million. Probably not 10, but definately not 6.

To Which I Responded: I think you are over estimating the amount 1st year arbitration eligible players get. If you look at a reasonable comp to John Danks in John Maine. After two seasons where he went 15-10,3.91 & 10-8, 4.18, his 1st year arbitration eligible request was $3M, and they eventually signed a 1yr $2.6M deal. And the White Sox don't typically go to arbitration with any players, usually agreeing on 1 yr deals.
Same with Quentin, reasonable comps for him are Andre Either, Cory Hart and Josh Willingham last year agreed to 1yr deals $3.6, $3.25 and $2.95M respectively.

So I think you can reasonably estimate $6-7M between the two guys. Pena will probably get under $2M, probably closer to $1.5M.

Originally Posted by munchman33
As much as I want that to be true, it's not what I've read. And it makes sense that they'd get more. Quentin did almost win an MVP. And Danks is not only better than Maine, but he's won in the playoffs. Those aren't reasonable comparisons unless you're saying they're sure to make more than these players.

What did Quentin and Danks get again? $3.2 and $3.45M, and Pena $1.5M

My point is, you are not always right. So you are entitled to your opinion but don't demean others and act like your opinion is always fact.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 11:00 PM
No, you usually have an opinion...doesn't mean you are right. Here's some munch quotes from a thread on 11-30-09:


So, we still have Bobby, and we brought in Putz.....are we still for certain going to throw out two of Viciedo, Flowers and Danks?




And how's that prediction looking?



To Which I Responded: I think you are over estimating the amount 1st year arbitration eligible players get. If you look at a reasonable comp to John Danks in John Maine. After two seasons where he went 15-10,3.91 & 10-8, 4.18, his 1st year arbitration eligible request was $3M, and they eventually signed a 1yr $2.6M deal. And the White Sox don't typically go to arbitration with any players, usually agreeing on 1 yr deals.
Same with Quentin, reasonable comps for him are Andre Either, Cory Hart and Josh Willingham last year agreed to 1yr deals $3.6, $3.25 and $2.95M respectively.

So I think you can reasonably estimate $6-7M between the two guys. Pena will probably get under $2M, probably closer to $1.5M.



What did Quentin and Danks get again? $3.2 and $3.45M, and Pena $1.5M

My point is, you are not always right. So you are entitled to your opinion but don't demean others and act like your opinion is always fact.

Um...I wouldn't say any of that was exactly wrong. The pen is not more important than the offense, Kenny simply misspent resources. Should I have predicted a bad move? We didn't trade one of those guys because, once again, we didn't add anyone to fill our biggest hole. Should I have predicted a bad non-move? Danks and Quentin settled without arbitration. We were talking about arbitration figures, hard to fault me since the situation never played out. And besides, the $8 million they settled on is just as close to your 6 as it was my 10. And that's only because they settled.

Instead of trying to point out how I was kind of wrong about something, you could focus your attention on the more obviously wrong. What should have happened didn't. Kenny had a really bad offseason. What I said should happen very much still should have happened. That's why we look like a third place 80 win team right now. Because I was still right.

cws05champ
03-15-2010, 11:49 PM
Um...I wouldn't say any of that was exactly wrong. The pen is not more important than the offense, Kenny simply misspent resources. Should I have predicted a bad move? We didn't trade one of those guys because, once again, we didn't add anyone to fill our biggest hole. Should I have predicted a bad non-move?
No you said FOR CERTAIN, we will be throwing out 2 of Flowers, Danks, Viciedo to play this year if we keep Bobby and spend money on the Pen. Do you think that will still happen now?

Danks and Quentin settled without arbitration. We were talking about arbitration figures, hard to fault me since the situation never played out. And besides, the $8 million they settled on is just as close to your 6 as it was my 10. And that's only because they settled.

Wrong again...go look at the thread. I brought up the one year deals settled on comparable players and that White Sox don't typically go to arbitration with any players, usually agreeing on 1 yr deals. I said Danks and Quentin will account for about $6-7M total and Pena around $1.5. You said Danks and Quentin combined would be closer to $10M, definitely not $6M and Pena would get $2M or more.

Instead of trying to point out how I was kind of wrong about something, you could focus your attention on the more obviously wrong. What should have happened didn't. Kenny had a really bad offseason. What I said should happen very much still should have happened. That's why we look like a third place 80 win team right now. Because I was still right.
You just don't get it...even with evidence to prove you are wrong, you still say you are right. :scratch:

My point was and still is, you have an opinion...as does everybody else. Stop acting as if you are better than others by demeaning others. You are not always right. The above was just from one thread. You are always encouraging others to "go back and look" at my posts. I did...and took your words exactly from the thread. I'm not twisting your words, you are trying to twist the "facts" anyway you can to swing an argument in your favor.

munchman33
03-15-2010, 11:59 PM
No you said FOR CERTAIN, we will be throwing out 2 of Flowers, Danks, Viciedo to play this year if we keep Bobby and spend money on the Pen. Do you think that will still happen now?



Wrong again...go look at the thread. I brought up the one year deals settled on comparable players and that White Sox don't typically go to arbitration with any players, usually agreeing on 1 yr deals. I said Danks and Quentin will account for about $6-7M total and Pena around $1.5. You said Danks and Quentin combined would be closer to $10M, definitely not $6M and Pena would get $2M or more.


You just don't get it...even with evidence to prove you are wrong, you still say you are right. :scratch:

My point was and still is, you have an opinion...as does everybody else. Stop acting as if you are better than others by demeaning others. You are not always right. The above was just from one thread. You are always encouraging others to "go back and look" at my posts. I did...and took your words exactly from the thread. I'm not twisting your words, you are trying to twist the "facts" anyway you can to swing an argument in your favor.


We didn't buy an arm, we spent minimally on the pen by acquiring Putz. We spent more on the DH position with Jones/Kotsay/Visquel. That was the acquisition. It was misspent, but it's not off of what I predicted. Instead of signing someone good, we took that money and signed crap for a little less (you can include trades for Teahen and Pierre with this), which also let us keep Paulie/AJ/Jenks for another year. They were bad moves (as a whole, not necessarily individually), and a lot of it shouldn't have happened. Things didn't work out for Kenny. You really think this is the team he tried to put together? You must think very little of him.

If Danks and Carlos reach all of their incentives, they'll be making more than $8 million combined (closer to nine). You are skewing facts to make things seem more extreme than they are. It is convenient for you to look at their base, but by settling before arbitration, they worked easily achievable incentives into their contracts.

cws05champ
03-16-2010, 07:51 AM
We didn't buy an arm, we spent minimally on the pen by acquiring Putz. We spent more on the DH position with Jones/Kotsay/Visquel. That was the acquisition. It was misspent, but it's not off of what I predicted. Instead of signing someone good, we took that money and signed crap for a little less (you can include trades for Teahen and Pierre with this), which also let us keep Paulie/AJ/Jenks for another year. They were bad moves (as a whole, not necessarily individually), and a lot of it shouldn't have happened. Things didn't work out for Kenny. You really think this is the team he tried to put together? You must think very little of him.

If Danks and Carlos reach all of their incentives, they'll be making more than $8 million combined (closer to nine). You are skewing facts to make things seem more extreme than they are. It is convenient for you to look at their base, but by settling before arbitration, they worked easily achievable incentives into their contracts.
And in the thread I was originally quoting, it was about Takashi Saito...and you said we don't need to buy an arm, and the result would be throwing the young guys out there. Saito got $3.2M...Putz got $3M. Here you go again trying to twist it around when your words are right there to look at. You make bold statements if this happens then this will be the result. Now you are going back on it. Why can't you just admit when you are wrong?

I am not skewing anything...once again, take a look at the thread. I am taking your words...not skewing anything. And what are Danks and Quentin's incentives for this year that can bring up their base salary?

PennStater98r
03-16-2010, 11:16 AM
And in the thread I was originally quoting, it was about Takashi Saito...and you said we don't need to buy an arm, and the result would be throwing the young guys out there. Saito got $3.2M...Putz got $3M. Here you go again trying to twist it around when your words are right there to look at. You make bold statements if this happens then this will be the result. Now you are going back on it. Why can't you just admit when you are wrong?

I am not skewing anything...once again, take a look at the thread. I am taking your words...not skewing anything. And what are Danks and Quentin's incentives for this year that can bring up their base salary?

It's pointless to argue at this point - because - between having a "get the last word in-personality" and a convenient memory - even faced with exact quotes as typed from his fingers - he'll still tell you that you don't know what you're talking about - while continuing to miss the point.

Munch - you've been called out - not simply because of your opinions - but because you do feel the need to get the last word in while telling everyone else they're wrong.

I challenge you to not reply to this post. I'll bet a arm that you will though - one thing's for certain. This will be my last post on this topic - because I am comfortable with my opinion - I believe we'll win the division and no longer care what your opinion is. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I don't trust it, nor do I care - and that's in great part due to your approach.

munchman33
03-16-2010, 04:27 PM
And in the thread I was originally quoting, it was about Takashi Saito...and you said we don't need to buy an arm, and the result would be throwing the young guys out there. Saito got $3.2M...Putz got $3M. Here you go again trying to twist it around when your words are right there to look at. You make bold statements if this happens then this will be the result. Now you are going back on it. Why can't you just admit when you are wrong?

I am not skewing anything...once again, take a look at the thread. I am taking your words...not skewing anything. And what are Danks and Quentin's incentives for this year that can bring up their base salary?

You are running on a number of very incorrect assumptions. When I said we don't need to buy an arm, I'm running under the assumption buying a pen arm will cost us $5-10 million dollars. Obviously, it did not. Obviously, that's where I was wrong. I believed we would add guys on minor league deals to the pen, but Kenny was able to find a project guy for minimal cost. That's great. But it doesn't prove me "wrong" by any means. We didn't spend $5-10 million on the pen. So we didn't need to trade those guys and were able to pick up salary at other positions. I'm sorry if you feel I misled you with the argument, and perhaps I could be clearer in the future. But you're still reaching to try to me look bad. The scenario I spoke of for said trade didn't happen. How can you hold me accountable for that? If A occurs, then B. But C occurred instead of A. Munchman you're wrong because B didn't occur, everything you are is lies! :rolleyes:

It's pointless to argue at this point - because - between having a "get the last word in-personality" and a convenient memory - even faced with exact quotes as typed from his fingers - he'll still tell you that you don't know what you're talking about - while continuing to miss the point.

Munch - you've been called out - not simply because of your opinions - but because you do feel the need to get the last word in while telling everyone else they're wrong.

I challenge you to not reply to this post. I'll bet a arm that you will though - one thing's for certain. This will be my last post on this topic - because I am comfortable with my opinion - I believe we'll win the division and no longer care what your opinion is. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I don't trust it, nor do I care - and that's in great part due to your approach.

It's easy to "not respond" when people aren't misrepresenting things you say and taking them 100% out of context. Go ahead with your moral superiority. I will enjoy the non-posts you'll make as this thread continues.

guillen4life13
03-16-2010, 08:16 PM
Maybe if this [hijacked] discussion were in person, it wouldn't seem this way, but the smart ass comments and holier than thou attitude while putting other people's opinions down (on both ends of the argument) makes a choice few of you seem kind of immature. It's one thing to refute an argument, but this discussion seems like it went a little further than that.

And wasn't this thread supposed to be about the Tigers anyways? I actually worry about them in 2011, but I do think the Sox will be able to compete. I hope for Paulie to sign a one year deal this coming offseason at a reduced salary to give one more year for Viciedo to develop in the minors. Pierzynski will be coming off the books also. If he will stay to serve as a backup LH catcher to help groom Flowers, that would be ideal as well. I've actually got an XLS file with contract info for the next 3 years per Cots to see how the Sox payroll situation (as it looks now) will change with contracts coming off the books and guestimates on how the younger players contracts will inflate by the year.

One thing I'll say: Mike Illitch is not the smartest guy with his money, but Dave Dombrowski is a quality GM and I do worry that he will build a very formidable team.

munchman33
03-16-2010, 09:28 PM
Maybe if this [hijacked] discussion were in person, it wouldn't seem this way, but the smart ass comments and holier than thou attitude while putting other people's opinions down (on both ends of the argument) makes a choice few of you seem kind of immature. It's one thing to refute an argument, but this discussion seems like it went a little further than that.

And wasn't this thread supposed to be about the Tigers anyways? I actually worry about them in 2011, but I do think the Sox will be able to compete. I hope for Paulie to sign a one year deal this coming offseason at a reduced salary to give one more year for Viciedo to develop in the minors. Pierzynski will be coming off the books also. If he will stay to serve as a backup LH catcher to help groom Flowers, that would be ideal as well. I've actually got an XLS file with contract info for the next 3 years per Cots to see how the Sox payroll situation (as it looks now) will change with contracts coming off the books and guestimates on how the younger players contracts will inflate by the year.

One thing I'll say: Mike Illitch is not the smartest guy with his money, but Dave Dombrowski is a quality GM and I do worry that he will build a very formidable team.

I don't think it's on both sides at all. OldRoman and I were having a pretty good discussion on expectations for Bobby Jenks, and while I don't agree with him (in calling anyone in our pen a lock to be solid, especially a closer who's had injury issue), I can at least now see where his opinion stems from. Other people felt the need to make things personal.

I'm very afraid of the Tigers in 2011. They've got that young core of SP, and tons off the books. And the Yankees/Red Sox don't have lots off the books. Could you imagine adding Beckett and/or Lee to that Rotation? Adding Crawford to the top of their lineup? They could get those three and a ton more for less than $72 million.

Hitmen77
03-16-2010, 11:10 PM
AJ - Above average hitting C, below average defensively
Konerko - Excellent defensive 1B, below average offensive 1B
Beckham - Sophomore, so it's hard to say for sure, but I expect him to be one of the best 2B in the AL
Alexei - Not really sure what to expect of him.
Teahen - Not good. At all.
Pierre - Not very good.
Rios - Potentially great. Potentially disastrous.
Quentin - Superstar when he's on the field, but can't count on him to be on the field.
Jones/Kotsay/Vizquel - Below average DH situation... by AAA standards.

Yeah, this team doesn't really excite me. If Every. Single. Thing. goes right, then we'll be OK, but if just 2-3 guys don't play to their absolute max. ceilings, we're in a lot of trouble.

Rotation should be one of the best in baseball, but the bullpen is a big concern, too, especially if Jenks is having problems and it's not even 1/2-way through March yet. Our bullpen gets very thin, very fast, and we don't have the luxury of being able to give even average pitchers a lot of significant innings. If we're going to win, we need lights out pitchers from the 1st to 9th innings.

I don't know, maybe this is spring optimism getting the better of my judgment, but I think this team's offense might be good enough to contend. I know it's only March 16, but I'm encouraged by how Rios and Quentin look so far. If these both of these guys can bounce back, that will be huge. Even Jones has looked good at the plate and has shed a bunch of weight. If he can be anywhere close to the player he was a few years ago (and stay healthy), that's huge.

Beckham could be great for us, AJ has been consistent, we've seen that Ramirez can be a good hitter. Konerko might be on the downward side of this career, but I don't think he's quite washed up yet. Pierre may not be great, but I don't think he's terrible either and I like his ability to steal bases. Teahen might be the weakest part of our lineup (if I had to guess at one "bust" for 2010, it might be him). But if he can play to his career average while the other guys produce, he'll be okay.

I think most agree that our starting rotation looks pretty solid. I know the bullpen has question marks, but Jenks, Thornton, and Putz may all be solid and Williams and Pena might not be terrible either.

Oh sure, I could easily expect that Quentin will get hurt, Rios will continue his downward trend, Jones will be a bust like he was for LA (and there's a reason why he signed for only $500k), Beckham will have a sophomore slump, Alexei will flounder, and Teahen will be the latest disaster from KC. Jenks will be dogged by injuries and a fading effectiveness, Putz won't return to how he was a few years ago, Pena will be lit up, Buehrle hasn't been the same since that Perfect Game, etc.

....but let's see how this plays out. I do have to say that it is refreshing to go into a season without a roster that includes the likes of Betamit, Fields, Anderson, Wise, Colon, and Contreras.

Domeshot17
03-16-2010, 11:16 PM
good debate here, munch and oeo are basically as opposite ends of the spectrum as you get.

Really, at this point what else is there to do but watch this play out. If it works, Ozzie and Kenny look brilliant. If it doesn't work, it should be Ozzie's ass (but it won't) but atleast 2011 will be the team Kenny wants with Ozzie told to shut up and coach. The one thing I don't like is all the whispers of a brewing fued behind the scenes. Kenny and Ozzie are both strong willed guys, so there is going to be conflict when things are going bad, and things have been going bad.

The pitching, on paper, is 2nd-4th best in the AL. The Bullpen could be just as good if things go well. The lineup, its middle of the road.

The team we compare well to is Seattle (assuming Bedard comes back healthy mid season and is good for the playoffs). Seattle has a much better top half of the rotation than us and looks to be much better defensively, but is actually weaker offensively.

It all comes down to Quentin. He is really the only player on this team capable of carrying the offense to the playoffs. Beckham might get there, but you do more harm than good asking a 2nd year player to do that, and Rios, while a very nice all around player if he returns to form, can't be one of your top 2 offensive players. The reality is PROBABLY a trip to the playoffs with Nathan down, but almost surely we draw the Yanks or Red Sox, and as sums of the whole, both are far far superior all around teams than us.

The Red Sox actually seem to the be the offensive team we are trying to be. No big power hitters anymore, but a team that uses doubles and timely hitting. The difference however, is Boston has a very balanced lineup, and has players who can hit BOTH over .300 and over .800 with an OPS. I don't know if we have 1 .300 hitter in our lineup, and the 2 best bets, Pierre and AJ, are far from 800 ops guys.

Should be a fun season, but Doublem is right in the sense that for us to do anything, anything at all in the playoffs, we need everything imaginable to go right. Peavy can go pitch for pitch with any number 1 in the league, but Burls will struggle vs. Lester and Lee.


In terms of the actual thread, Its really hard to tell what Detroit will do. They have some great pieces to build around, thats for sure. Anytime your team starts with Miguel Cabrera on offense and Verlander on the hill, if you are willing to commit 80-100 mil, you could do some damage. But again, the Yankees and Red Sox each are running out teams just so far superior to anyone else, it will be tough to really tell how good they can be until we see EVERYONE in 2011.

cws05champ
03-17-2010, 10:33 AM
You are running on a number of very incorrect assumptions. When I said we don't need to buy an arm, I'm running under the assumption buying a pen arm will cost us $5-10 million dollars. Obviously, it did not. Obviously, that's where I was wrong. I believed we would add guys on minor league deals to the pen, but Kenny was able to find a project guy for minimal cost. That's great. But it doesn't prove me "wrong" by any means. We didn't spend $5-10 million on the pen. So we didn't need to trade those guys and were able to pick up salary at other positions. I'm sorry if you feel I misled you with the argument, and perhaps I could be clearer in the future. But you're still reaching to try to me look bad. The scenario I spoke of for said trade didn't happen. How can you hold me accountable for that? If A occurs, then B. But C occurred instead of A. Munchman you're wrong because B didn't occur, everything you are is lies! :rolleyes:



It's easy to "not respond" when people aren't misrepresenting things you say and taking them 100% out of context. Go ahead with your moral superiority. I will enjoy the non-posts you'll make as this thread continues.

I never said you lied, I said you were wrong. I just presented facts. Fact, you said this:


Originally Posted by munchman33
For what it's worth, last year's payroll was $96 million. And signs have not pointed, in any way, that we're going up from that point. I fully expect one of Bobby, Paulie, or AJ to be gone by opening day.


And This:

Originally Posted by munchman33
And Danks/Quentin total will be closer to $10 million total than 6 million. Probably not 10, but definately not 6.


I'm not twisting anything. If you can find what Quentin and Danks incentives are for this year that would take them to $9-10M I would like to know myself, honestly. I can not find that information...so yes I based the $6-7M total on their base.

You missed the whole point. You have an opinion, as does everybody else. Don't act you are eminently more qualified to make an opinion, or that your opinion trumps others. With comments like "I'm usually right":shrug: and a :rolleyes: in response to others to degrade their opinions makes it personal. This thread hijack from me is done...Lets move on.

thedudeabides
03-17-2010, 11:06 AM
I never said you lied, I said you were wrong. I just presented facts. Fact, you said this:



And This:


I'm not twisting anything. If you can find what Quentin and Danks incentives are for this year that would take them to $9-10M I would like to know myself, honestly. I can not find that information...so yes I based the $6-7M total on their base.

You missed the whole point. You have an opinion, as does everybody else. Don't act you are eminently more qualified to make an opinion, or that your opinion trumps others. With comments like "I'm usually right":shrug: and a :rolleyes: in response to others to degrade their opinions makes it personal. This thread hijack from me is done...Lets move on.

There are no incentives. Danks is making $3.45 million and Quentin $3.2.

Huisj
03-19-2010, 12:39 PM
There are no incentives. Danks is making $3.45 million and Quentin $3.2.

But that's doesn't mean it's wrong to say that with their incentives they should make $10 million, because the incentives should have been included in their contracts if they had done what was supposed to happen this offseason, so it's actually wrong to say that they make what they actually make because if things had happened how they were supposed to happen, they'd be making $10 million with the incentives that they didn't have and not the $7 million that they are making instead.

:wink: