PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone else sick of the whole Thome argument?


thomas35forever
09-08-2010, 02:37 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.

Go White Sox
09-08-2010, 02:41 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.

Youre exactly right and by the way even if they did resign Thome would he really be doing as good as he doing Minnesota...No

To be honest im glad hes gone...when he was with the Sox i never really liked the guy...

#1swisher
09-08-2010, 02:42 PM
I never wanted Thome:o:

The Dude
09-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Youre exactly right and by the way even if they did resign Thome would he really be doing as good as he doing Minnesota...No

To be honest im glad hes gone...when he was with the Sox i never really liked the guy...

Wow great post! :rolleyes:

JB98
09-08-2010, 02:43 PM
I don't disagree with the argument, but I am tired of hearing it.

It's time to move on.

thomas35forever
09-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Youre exactly right and by the way even if they did resign Thome would he really be doing as good as he doing Minnesota...No

To be honest im glad hes gone...when he was with the Sox i never really liked the guy...
As much as I agree with the initial decision, we don't know how good he'd be doing here if he came back here. Also, how can you not like the guy? He won the Blackout game for us.

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2010, 02:46 PM
Based on the results so far this year, which are fact, yes Thome would have made a huge difference and yes we would be in 1st place based on his production this year which is another fact.


Could he have been injured here, yes, but the same could have happened in Minnesota and as we see he is 100% healthy.

And Minnesota is not a LH hitter friendly park for a power hitter.

DirtySox
09-08-2010, 02:47 PM
I'm sick of the asinine arguments that this team somehow is better with Kotsay. Especially the cherry picking of specific games in which Kotsay did something good used as evidence.

I suppose if I was on the Kotsay side, I would be tired of being proven wrong all the time though.

russ99
09-08-2010, 02:48 PM
I don't disagree with the argument, but I am tired of hearing it.

It's time to move on.

Disagree with the argument, since it's a completely different situation between what Thome would have been expected to do here, and how he was used in Minnesota, which has much to do with his performance at age 40.

And IMO the whole argument is a bit of sour grapes. Everyone can point fingers after the fact, but it was tough to make the call at the time.

Besides, I've always maintained that not bringing back Thome wasn't the poor decision here, it was that Kenny didn't get anyone else either.

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2010, 02:49 PM
As much as I agree with the initial decision, we don't know how good he'd be doing here if he came back here. Also, how can you not like the guy? He won the Blackout game for us.


:?: Why, does wearing a different uniform convert him into another person?

The only thing that's a fact is the numbers he has put up facing ML pitching this year.


He was going to face those same guys had he been playing here.

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2010, 02:50 PM
Disagree with the argument, since it's a completely different situation between what Thome would have been expected to do here, and how he was used in Minnesota, which has much to do with his performance at age 40.

And IMO the whole argument is a bit of sour grapes. Everyone can point fingers after the fact, but it was tough to make the call at the time.

Well, maybe the Minnesota coaching staff is head and shoulders above ours.

Madvora
09-08-2010, 02:50 PM
I don't think they necessarily needed Thome, but they shouldn't have gone five months into a season without a DH.

SoxSpeed22
09-08-2010, 02:51 PM
After last year, I was convinced that Thome was done, so I didn't have a problem with not bringing him back.
If we don't win the division, it will be because of 1) the horrible start of the season and 2) we couldn't beat our own division, while the Twins could.

LITTLE NELL
09-08-2010, 02:51 PM
Class act while he was here but it did not break my heart to let him go.
We had too many slow guys clogging up the middle of the lineup.
I'm sort of a proponent of the rotating DH, I don't like it when we play NL teams and a guy like Thome who can't play the field sits on the bench and goes stale. The only trouble is Kotsay and Jones were not the answer to that scenario.

JB98
09-08-2010, 02:55 PM
Disagree with the argument, since it's a completely different situation between what Thome would have been expected to do here, and how he was used in Minnesota, which has much to do with his performance at age 40.

And IMO the whole argument is a bit of sour grapes. Everyone can point fingers after the fact, but it was tough to make the call at the time.

Besides, I've always maintained that not bringing back Thome wasn't the poor decision here, it was that Kenny didn't get anyone else either.

That's fair. I've made that same statement myself on these forums. IMO, a lack of production at DH has cost the White Sox this season. Not bringing back Thome would have been fine if they had acquired someone else. They didn't, until last week when they brought Ramirez aboard.

All that said, I sympathize with the OP in this thread because the whole discussion has grown tiresome. There isn't a single point that can be made on this topic that hasn't already been made, ad nauseum.

Go White Sox
09-08-2010, 02:59 PM
As much as I agree with the initial decision, we don't know how good he'd be doing here if he came back here. Also, how can you not like the guy? He won the Blackout game for us.

No HE didn't win the game for them, the 2008 Chicago White Sox did....I should know i saw it in person :smile:

I like him as a person he was a class act and a good interview but i always would have rather had Aaron Rowand over him..and besides the HR in the Blackout game and few others he never really got clutch hits...i just never really liked him as a player.

thomas35forever
09-08-2010, 02:59 PM
Class act while he was here but it did not break my heart to let him go.
We had too many slow guys clogging up the middle of the lineup.
I'm sort of a proponent of the rotating DH, I don't like it when we play NL teams and a guy like Thome who can't play the field sits on the bench and goes stale. The only trouble is Kotsay and Jones were not the answer to that scenario.
This. I said at the start of the year that Kotsay was a career pinch hitter and should be treated as such. If that didn't work, I guess I was hoping Jones would come through and his BA hasn't been too hot either.

DumpJerry
09-08-2010, 02:59 PM
Based on the results so far this year, which are fact, yes Thome would have made a huge difference and yes we would be in 1st place based on his production this year which is another fact.


Could he have been injured here, yes, but the same could have happened in Minnesota and as we see he is 100% healthy.

And Minnesota is not a LH hitter friendly park for a power hitter.
Ok, how about putting some of your "facts" into a proper context. So far this year, he has had 297 plate appearance in 96 games. The last time he had so few PAs was the injury year of 2005 when he played the field being a NL player (242 in 59 games). The context of why he has so few PAs this year is simple: Morneau is gone. If Thome had been a full-time DH for us this year, we're looking at close to 600 PAs for the season. Do you think his body can take that now? I don't. It's been reported in the past couple days that his back is acting up on him again. This is after a light season of work.

Bottom line: you cannot take Thome's numbers this year and assume he would have done the same thing with us or any other team where he would have been a full-time DH. He is probably doing what he is doing right now because the season has not worn him down because Morneau did not leave until the ASB.

PorkChopExpress
09-08-2010, 03:02 PM
Based on the results so far this year, which are fact, yes Thome would have made a huge difference and yes we would be in 1st place based on his production this year which is another fact.


Could he have been injured here, yes, but the same could have happened in Minnesota and as we see he is 100% healthy.

And Minnesota is not a LH hitter friendly park for a power hitter.

The fact is those results are with Thome in a Twins uniform. It is not a fact that those results would be the same were he in a Sox uniform. And yes, the uniform makes a difference. You are surrounded by different hitters in the lineup, different coaches during practice and a different manager during games.

I am tired of hearing that because Thome did well this year with the Twins, he would have done the same with the Sox. Is it unheard of that a player play better to prove he is not done when a team has given up on him? Is it unheard of that a chnage of scenery positively affects a player? These are factors that must be taken into consideration and in the end make the conclusion that Thome would be doing exactly the same on the Twins or Sox impossible. It's similar to the butterfly effect (I think). If you go back in time and change one thing, the future from then on out is changed and you don't get the same results.

Rdy2PlayBall
09-08-2010, 03:06 PM
Instead of hurting the Sox now by playing well for the Twins, he would be hurting the Sox now by playing like crap because he's tired. Take your pick.

KMcMahon817
09-08-2010, 03:09 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.

Me. It's a dumb argument. Sure, at times during the season, plugging Thome into the DH spot would have been nice, but it wouldn't have changed much. If Thome is around that means no Jones, and honestly, their power numbers are similar, and while Thome doesn't see the field, Andruw still plays an above average outfield. Without Andruw, that means Quentin stays in RF late in games, possibly costing us the one or two games that Big Jimmy would have won.

I love Thome. He is one of the best ever. But his time in a Sox uniform was over. They needed to change the dynamic of the team, and they have. And really, it has been pretty successful, sans April/May.

soxinem1
09-08-2010, 03:10 PM
I don't think they necessarily needed Thome, but they shouldn't have gone five months into a season without a DH.

This is the most rational and correct assessment. While I disagree with the assumption that Thome coming back here made us a stronger team (after all, he could have pulled a muscle in his back or something and been rendered useless), the fact that we went over five months without replacing him is a bigger issue. Thome even as a role player would have been better than what we started the season with.

If LaRoche, Dunn, etc., would have been picked up, then hey, at least you had a void filled on paper and addressed the need. But going with Kotsay as your primary DH was a stupid idea no matter how you cut it.

Hearing Ranger rationalize his 'since the beginning of August the White Sox lead MLB in everything offensively' crap does nothing to address the fact that in April and May when only Jones and Konerko were hitting, another proven bat like Thome, even as a platoon DH, would have made a big difference.

Additionally, JT going to MIN didn't make the Twins stronger, it gave them more depth. If they do not have Thome and Morneau goes down, that lineup takes a hit big time. So yes, he did add something substantial.

If PK went down like Morneau, we aren't even in the race.

And if we lose, it is because the lineup was MIA for the first 60+ days of the season. We were closer to KC and CLE than DET and MIN in the standings during the first few months.

DumpJerry
09-08-2010, 03:10 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.
My question for you is: if you're sick of it, why did you start this thread? You surely knew it would turn into a multipage "discussion" within mere minutes.......

DirtySox
09-08-2010, 03:13 PM
That's fair. I've made that same statement myself on these forums. IMO, a lack of production at DH has cost the White Sox this season. Not bringing back Thome would have been fine if they had acquired someone else. They didn't, until last week when they brought Ramirez aboard.

All of this. Rotating DH fine, bring in a player that can hit. The crap used in this rotating DH hurt this team despite the versatility is brought. Terrible production out of the DH spot this year has been a detriment in the long run, and it could have easily been fixed a variety of ways.

Also, the base-clogging argument people throw around here sucks. The team is advancing bases at almost an identical rate to last year, despite losing the "base-cloggers."

thomas35forever
09-08-2010, 03:15 PM
My question for you is: if you're sick of it, why did you start this thread? You surely knew it would turn into a multipage "discussion" within mere minutes.......
You just answered your own question. Tell me what's wrong with it. Am I not allowed to vent on here?

SI1020
09-08-2010, 03:39 PM
I haven't read much of the thread but I'm sorry I just don't think it's going away soon. It was a dumb move not covering the DH situation and nothing is going to change my mind about that.

Crestani
09-08-2010, 03:44 PM
My question for you is: if you're sick of it, why did you start this thread? You surely knew it would turn into a multipage "discussion" within mere minutes.......



Exactly..!!

TDog
09-08-2010, 03:51 PM
I don't think they necessarily needed Thome, but they shouldn't have gone five months into a season without a DH.

I don't believe Manny Ramirez will help the White Sox that much. He would help the Sox more if he could play a position.

In 2005, the White Sox only had an exclusive DH for 28 games.

asindc
09-08-2010, 03:57 PM
Yes.

doublem23
09-08-2010, 03:58 PM
I don't believe Manny Ramirez will help the White Sox that much. He would help the Sox more if he could play a position.

In 2005, the White Sox only had an exclusive DH for 28 games.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In the American League you're allowed to have a guy on the team whose sole purpose is to HIT.

The 2005 White Sox bounced around DH's so much because of injury, make no mistake, if Big Frank was healthy all season long that number would be something more like... 130 games. They did it out of neccessity, not plan. Oh, and the 2005 White Sox had an average, at best, offense. They won because they had great pitching.

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Ok, how about putting some of your "facts" into a proper context. So far this year, he has had 297 plate appearance in 96 games. The last time he had so few PAs was the injury year of 2005 when he played the field being a NL player (242 in 59 games). The context of why he has so few PAs this year is simple: Morneau is gone. If Thome had been a full-time DH for us this year, we're looking at close to 600 PAs for the season. Do you think his body can take that now? I don't. It's been reported in the past couple days that his back is acting up on him again. This is after a light season of work.

Bottom line: you cannot take Thome's numbers this year and assume he would have done the same thing with us or any other team where he would have been a full-time DH. He is probably doing what he is doing right now because the season has not worn him down because Morneau did not leave until the ASB.

He would not have had 600 PAs here.

I dont' know what makes you think that.

doublem23
09-08-2010, 04:07 PM
He would not have had 600 PAs here.

I dont' know what makes you think that.

Likely the fact that he had 600 PA in 2 of his 3 full seasons here, and was on pace for 600 PA in 2009 before being traded, too.

Once again you seem to be confusing the terms "fact" and "my opinion." I understand, that is some A+ vocabulary. "Opinion" has like... 3 syllables. It's tough keeping track of them sometimes.

DumpJerry
09-08-2010, 04:09 PM
He would not have had 600 PAs here.

I dont' know what makes you think that.
2006=610 PAs
2007=536 PAs
2008=602 PAs
2009=417 PAs (not with Sox in September, prorates to 500 if he played all six months with us).

Yeah, you're right, you don't know what (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/thomeji01.shtml) would make me think that. I just pulled it out of thin air.

Red Barchetta
09-08-2010, 04:14 PM
Outside of Thome's walk off HR against us in Minneapolis, I really don't think his production at DH vs. our parade of DHs this season is the deciding factor. The Twins have simply outplayed the SOX, especially within the Central division. It's not over and the SOX may end up on top, however if the Twins win the division, Thome will not be the primary reason IMO.

As to Thome playing for the SOX, I think he is a class act and definite future HOF player, especially after he hits #600 sometime early next season. However, like many others, I got sick of the infield shift, all-or-nothing HR approach that clogged the middle of our order with Dye and Konerko. It's wasn't just Thome, rather the combination of Dye, Konerko and Thome that had to change.

From a SOX fan perspective, I would have rather kept Frank for 2 (3?)more seasons, allowing him to retire with the SOX and moved Dye into the DH role last season. I'm not holding the quick exit from the 2008 playoffs as the deciding "Thome vs. Thomas" debate.

cards press box
09-08-2010, 04:23 PM
I don't disagree with the argument, but I am tired of hearing it.

It's time to move on.

Agreed.

As much as I agree with the initial decision, we don't know how good he'd be doing here if he came back here. Also, how can you not like the guy? He won the Blackout game for us.

In a way, Minnesota got lucky. Because of his long swing, Jim Thome is not suited to pinch hitting or coming off the bench. By his own admission, he couldn't play every day and, for the first half of the season, he didn't. When Justin Morneau went down, he proved to be the perfect insurence policy: a lefty DH with power who could play 80 to 100 games.

Look at it this way: the Twins got lucky with Thome in the same way that the Sox got lucky with Omar Vizquel. The Sox could not have played Vizquel for 156 games at age 43. But Vizquel will probably play in about 100-110 games and he has been effective in that role.

I don't think they necessarily needed Thome, but they shouldn't have gone five months into a season without a DH.

That is true, too.

TDog
09-08-2010, 04:24 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In the American League you're allowed to have a guy on the team whose sole purpose is to HIT.

The 2005 White Sox bounced around DH's so much because of injury, make no mistake, if Big Frank was healthy all season long that number would be something more like... 130 games. They did it out of neccessity, not plan. Oh, and the 2005 White Sox had an average, at best, offense. They won because they had great pitching.

And if the White Sox win this year, it will be because of their great pitching. The 2006-2009 White Sox didn't get past one ALDS because they didn't have great pitching, despite having Thome at DH. The American League allows teams to have someone on the bench who can do nothing but hit (actually, the National League does as well, although such players get fewer at bats), but it doesn't given them an extra roster spot. It's still just a 25-man roster.

It is irrelevant whether the 2005 White Sox used position players at DH for five months out of the season out of necessity or design. The fact is, that the White Sox have never been so successful. A DH who can't play the field and needs to be run for can be limiting over the course of a season. When the AL went to the DH in 1973, most teams were only carrying 10 pitchers. The Angels for a brief time in the early 1980s were only carrying nine.

Manny Ramirez was technically on the White Sox 25-man roster in August, but effectively, he hasn't been part of the team since the rosters expanded. If the Sox make the postseason, there will have to be decisions made on the postseason rosters, which would have to include Ramirez, but you aren't going to be resting players in the postseason. If all goes right, you don't need to go so deep into your bench.

Manny Ramirez could be huge in the postseason. He may yet be huge in September just as Ted Kluzewski was for the 1959 White Sox (although the archaic rules at the time forced him to play first). But if the White Sox even get to the postseason this year, it will have more to do with the acquisition of Jackson.

LoveYourSuit
09-08-2010, 04:24 PM
Likely the fact that he had 600 PA in 2 of his 3 full seasons here, and was on pace for 600 PA in 2009 before being traded, too.

Once again you seem to be confusing the terms "fact" and "my opinion." I understand, that is some A+ vocabulary. "Opinion" has like... 3 syllables. It's tough keeping track of them sometimes.


Thanks for the lesson there, champ! :rolleyes:

Anyways, again, my point is that he was not going to see 600 ABs this year. He would have split time with A Jones and Quentin at DH whenever LH pitchers would be out there.

captain54
09-08-2010, 04:29 PM
I'm not a big fan of how the Sox addressed their offense needs in the offseason....kind of lame how they had to scramble for a bat at the trading deadline and ended up not landing one until Sept 1

However, I think the Thome argument is equally as lame...there are a lot of other reasons why things happened the way they did in 2010

if you look at the "walkoff game" Aug 17, vs Minny....Kotsay was 3-5 with a homer and 2 RBI...

If Danks didn't give up 4 run in the first, and Konerko didn't hit into an inning ending DP in the 9th, the Sox wouldn't have been in the position to
go in to extras, which led to the fateful 10th....

Rdy2PlayBall
09-08-2010, 04:31 PM
Thanks for the lesson there, champ! :rolleyes:

Anyways, again, my point is that he was not going to see 600 ABs this year. He would have split time with A Jones and Quentin at DH whenever LH pitchers would be out there.No... probably not. IF he was going to be on the Sox, he would be the starting DH. No committee... that why he isn't on the Sox right now.

While were at it, if he was on the Sox, he could have gotten injured opening day, anything could happen. We have NO idea if he would have produced here, or anywhere, at anytime. I think the discussion is a lost cause. The only good that could have come out of this is him retiring, which didn't happen.

Zisk77
09-08-2010, 04:55 PM
My question for you is: if you're sick of it, why did you start this thread? You surely knew it would turn into a multipage "discussion" within mere minutes.......


Ding! Ding! Ding! I can't wait for the new tread, I'm sick of people wanting to fire Greg Walker but...

Dibbs
09-08-2010, 04:59 PM
I know we would be closer to 1st place. How can you think this team wouldn't have won more games with him at DH vs Mark Kotsay? I think those people that think that need to shut up and stop being ridiculous personally.

Also, it has much less to do with Jim Thome than it was having no DH at all. DHing Mark Kotsay almost every game is a fireable offense. It's like throwing in the towel before the season started.

PorkChopExpress
09-08-2010, 05:04 PM
I know we would be closer to 1st place. How can you think this team wouldn't have won more games with him at DH vs Mark Kotsay? I think those people that think that need to shut up and stop being ridiculous personally.

Also, it has much less to do with Jim Thome than it was having no DH at all. DHing Mark Kotsay almost every game is a fireable offense. It's like throwing in the towel before the season started.

How can you possibly "know" this? No one can "know" this. You know your opinion is that we would be closer to first, but you don't know that we would be closer to first.

voodoochile
09-08-2010, 05:06 PM
Since like April. It got old months ago.

The milk got spilled and flowed under the bridge.

He gone...

Time to move on...

spawn
09-08-2010, 05:15 PM
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

LongLiveFisk
09-08-2010, 05:18 PM
My question for you is: if you're sick of it, why did you start this thread? You surely knew it would turn into a multipage "discussion" within mere minutes.......

I wanted to say that but wasn't sure if I could do it without sounding like an ass....:redface:

canOcorn
09-08-2010, 05:21 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In the American League you're allowed to have a guy on the team whose sole purpose is to HIT.

The 2005 White Sox bounced around DH's so much because of injury, make no mistake, if Big Frank was healthy all season long that number would be something more like... 130 games. They did it out of neccessity, not plan. Oh, and the 2005 White Sox had an average, at best, offense. They won because they had great pitching.

We still had 135 games with a guy whose primary job was to DH. Dino played 107 games as DH and Frank for 28 games.

Dibbs
09-08-2010, 05:36 PM
How can you possibly "know" this? No one can "know" this. You know your opinion is that we would be closer to first, but you don't know that we would be closer to first.

How do we know anything? Why not get rid of everybody and see if we can win with all minor leaguers and washed up utility men. Is it not possible they could still win the division? This isn't philosophy.

What if we had nine Jim Thome's vs nine Mark Kotsay's? What offense do you think would be better? It's the same thing as having one Jim Thome vs one Mark Kotsay. If you don't realize Thome, or any other potential DH for that matter, would help win more games than Mark Kotsay, there is not much I could explain to you.

PorkChopExpress
09-08-2010, 06:01 PM
How do we know anything? Why not get rid of everybody and see if we can win with all minor leaguers and washed up utility men. Is it not possible they could still win the division? This isn't philosophy.

What if we had nine Jim Thome's vs nine Mark Kotsay's? What offense do you think would be better? It's the same thing as having one Jim Thome vs one Mark Kotsay. If you don't realize Thome, or any other potential DH for that matter, would help win more games than Mark Kotsay, there is not much I could explain to you.

Explain how you know that Thome, or any other potential DH for that matter, would help win more games than Mark Kotsay. That's all I want. You can't say definitively that one would be better than the other if circumstances were changed, so don't. If your opinion is that Thome would have been a better option because there was more of a likelihood of success, than say that. But that's not what I'm hearing (reading). You're saying you "know." And it's not philosophy, it's basic debate. You are basing an argument on opinion but calling it fact. You're argument is thus faulty and I am simply pointing that out.

DumpJerry
09-08-2010, 06:09 PM
People, people, this thread has been totally hijacked! The OP said he was sick of these discussions!





By the way, I think the only reason why the Sox screwed up by not signing Thome is it allowed the Twins to get him. If a non-ALC team had signed him, things would be the same today as they really are.

Dibbs
09-08-2010, 06:09 PM
Explain how you know that Thome, or any other potential DH for that matter, would help win more games than Mark Kotsay. That's all I want. You can't say definitively that one would be better than the other if circumstances were changed, so don't. If your opinion is that Thome would have been a better option because there was more of a likelihood of success, than say that. But that's not what I'm hearing (reading). You're saying you "know." And it's not philosophy, it's basic debate. You are basing an argument on opinion but calling it fact. You're argument is thus faulty and I am simply pointing that out.

I guess what I am trying to say is pretty simple. Good players help your teams win games. Bad players contribute to losing games. Mark Kotsay equals bad, real bad. Historically bad in terms of a DH.

Any of Vlad, Thome, Damon etc. would have contributed to more wins. To argue any other way is inconceivable to my brain.

PorkChopExpress
09-08-2010, 06:17 PM
I guess what I am trying to say is pretty simple. Good players help your teams win games. Bad players contribute to losing games. Mark Kotsay equals bad, real bad. Historically bad in terms of a DH.

Any of Vlad, Thome, Damon etc. would have contributed to more wins. To argue any other way is inconceivable to my brain.

I guess we're just not seeing eye to eye. I'm not saying I wouldn't have rather had Thome, Vlad or Damon than Kotsay. I'm simply saying that I don't know they would have helped the team more or less because I simply can't say that, and for someone to say they know for a fact that something would have worked out in a certain way is incovceivable to me.

Dibbs
09-08-2010, 06:53 PM
I guess we're just not seeing eye to eye. I'm not saying I wouldn't have rather had Thome, Vlad or Damon than Kotsay. I'm simply saying that I don't know they would have helped the team more or less because I simply can't say that, and for someone to say they know for a fact that something would have worked out in a certain way is incovceivable to me.

Well now you do know now that I've informed you. Barring a miracle, Vlad, Thome, Damon or similar = more wins than Kotsay. It is ridiculous to argue any other way. Just like Mariano Rivera = more wins than Bobby Jenks. We could go on forever with examples. The fact is, Kenny really messed up listening to Ozzie. We did not have a DH on this team for five months.

GoGoCrede
09-08-2010, 07:52 PM
I don't disagree with the argument, but I am tired of hearing it.

It's time to move on.

Agreed. It's been argued from every angle to death.

TommyJohn
09-08-2010, 08:27 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.What! Blasphemy!

I'm also tired of the second-guessing, and all the arrogance of "YES! They would be in first place!" Well, I'm glad they feel that way. Me, I remember all the bitching and moaning about "base cloggers" and "station-to-station" baseball. Now that one of the "base-cloggers" is gone, everyone wants him back. And if the White Sox don't win the division this year, we'll hear about the great Thome tragedy of 2010 and how the Sox would have been a shoo-in for the playoffs with him on and on unto infinity. But I say look on the bright side. Those who are groping for a reason to hold a grudge after 2005 wiped out 1994 and 1997 have a new one.

Frater Perdurabo
09-08-2010, 09:09 PM
I'm sick of the asinine arguments that this team somehow is better with Kotsay. Especially the cherry picking of specific games in which Kotsay did something good used as evidence.

I suppose if I was on the Kotsay side, I would be tired of being proven wrong all the time though.

Indeed.

cws05champ
09-08-2010, 10:57 PM
I for one am. "We should have re-signed Thome." "We'd be in first place now with Thome." "Thome begged to come back."

Shut up. All of you. We don't know where this team would be right now if he were around. Thome in the lineup could mean we're still a home-run-or-nothing ball club and let's face it: management has wanted to move away from that mentality. We could be further back from the Twins for all we know. Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year. If the Sox lose the Central this year, it won't be because Thome didn't come back and went to the Twins instead. It'll be because the Twins simply were the better team. One man does not decide a division race. It takes a TEAM effort. The Sox will either win the race together or lose it together. Forget Thome. Even if he is the X factor, baseball is about taking chances and it sucks if that doesn't pay off sometimes, but you live with it.
Their were plenty of people that were saying at the time when they made the decision it was a horrible move to let him go....that he should have been brought back as a platoon DH with Jones.

Take a look at the stats, people. Their DH and our DHs have about equal production this year.

Really?

Twins AB's for their DH's: .270/.373/.497 (.870 OPS); 25 2B, 25 HR, 94 RBI
White Sox AB's for DH: .244/.319/.400 (.719 OPS); 22 2B, 16 HR, 56 RBI

If you are tired of people talking about it then you should complain about it in one of the 12 existing threads that discuss it. By starting a new thread on it you open yourself up for criticism.

doublem23
09-08-2010, 10:59 PM
I'm also tired of the second-guessing, and all the arrogance of "YES! They would be in first place!" Well, I'm glad they feel that way. Me, I remember all the bitching and moaning about "base cloggers" and "station-to-station" baseball. Now that one of the "base-cloggers" is gone, everyone wants him back. And if the White Sox don't win the division this year, we'll hear about the great Thome tragedy of 2010 and how the Sox would have been a shoo-in for the playoffs with him on and on unto infinity. But I say look on the bright side. Those who are groping for a reason to hold a grudge after 2005 wiped out 1994 and 1997 have a new one.

Oh, please. I'll admit I tire of the "we'd be in 1st with Thome" line of thinking, but the Sox's decision to hand over PAs to Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay was indefensible. The closest I've come to a career in baseball is running a team on my Play Station and I knew that was going to come back to haunt us. What limited defensive flexibility they provide is washed away by the fact they are utterly awful.

The argument is tired because there's still a handful of posters here who defend the Sox's plan as if it was a sage move that's just gone terribly wrong (like the Peavy deal), but it's not. Kotsay and Jones are washed up vets that would struggle to find roster spots, let alone significant at bats, with almost any other team in the Majors.

Domeshot17
09-08-2010, 11:03 PM
Home run or nothing ball club brought us a title in 2005 and playoffs in 2008 (even though we were never a homer or nothing club, it is just an ignorant argument people make).

Speedy Grindy no strike outs high SB lineup got us a ****ty season last year and 2nd place this year.

Maybe next year we can have an American League Lineup to go with our Rotation.

mcsoxfan
09-08-2010, 11:23 PM
Was this question posed by the manager?
I see the Ozzipologists are out in force.
You're a loyal bunch but very naive - just the way ownership likes it.

doublem23
09-09-2010, 12:33 AM
Was this question posed by the manager?
I see the Ozzipologists are out in force.
You're a loyal bunch but very naive - just the way ownership likes it.

Jesus ****ing Christ, did Reinsdorf run over your puppy?

Newsflash, it's not 1994 any more.

Craig Grebeck
09-09-2010, 12:55 AM
It was a mistake. Pure and simple.

doublem23
09-09-2010, 12:58 AM
It was a mistake. Pure and simple.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to admit that.

Hell, the mistake really wasn't even letting Thome walk, although he sure would look good as a platoon DH making $1 M a year, the mistake was not replacing him with anything that resembles Major League talent. If Kotsay or Jones were 22-year-olds, I could at least be talked into some half-baked retooling while contending nonsense, but they're just old and bad. OK, the DH fiasco won't be the #1 reason it appears the Sox will be playing golf the 1st week in October, but it's up there.

Craig Grebeck
09-09-2010, 12:59 AM
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to admit that.

Hell, the mistake really wasn't even letting Thome walk, although he sure would look good as a platoon DH making $1 M a year, the mistake was not replacing him with anything that resembles Major League talent. If Kotsay or Jones were 22-year-olds, I could at least be talked into some half-baked retooling while contending nonsense, but they're just old and bad. OK, the DH fiasco won't be the #1 reason it appears the Sox will be playing golf the 1st week in October, but it's up there.
Yes. Also, I don't think the White Sox would win the division with Thome, but it wouldn't have hurt.

And let's not forget who was put on the roster in Jim's stead: no, it was not Kotsay, it was Randy Williams.

doublem23
09-09-2010, 01:09 AM
Yes. Also, I don't think the White Sox would win the division with Thome, but it wouldn't have hurt.

And let's not forget who was put on the roster in Jim's stead: no, it was not Kotsay, it was Randy Williams.

Randy Williams pitched 25 games for the Sox in 2009, maybe his addition was "Thome's spot" just because of the timing of it all, but Kotsay and Jones have, for all intents and purposes, been Thome's replacement as they've combined for 227 PA as DH.

Craig Grebeck
09-09-2010, 01:14 AM
Randy Williams pitched 25 games for the Sox in 2009, maybe his addition was "Thome's spot" just because of the timing of it all, but Kotsay and Jones have, for all intents and purposes, been Thome's replacement as they've combined for 227 PA as DH.
Of course; but I'm more prickly about Ozzie's desire for an extra guy in the bullpen than his desire for a rotating DH. I actually like the idea a lot, just not in 2010.

russ99
09-09-2010, 01:31 AM
I guess what I am trying to say is pretty simple. Good players help your teams win games. Bad players contribute to losing games. Mark Kotsay equals bad, real bad. Historically bad in terms of a DH.

Any of Vlad, Thome, Damon etc. would have contributed to more wins. To argue any other way is inconceivable to my brain.

Kotsay was signed as a bench player, and Kenny only had 50 cents... and yet they can somehow find $3M for Jackson and $5M for Manny in July and August.

Kenny better not cry poor this year, or I'm done spending money on this franchise.

Frater Perdurabo
09-09-2010, 07:25 AM
Stubbing your toe is a mistake. Typos are mistakes.

Refusing an inexpensive Jim Thome so you can have Kotsay and Jones rotate at DH, and thus keep Randy Williams, was a bad decision, and many of us said so at the time.

Craig Grebeck
09-09-2010, 08:25 AM
Kotsay was signed as a bench player, and Kenny only had 50 cents... and yet they can somehow find $3M for Jackson and $5M for Manny in July and August.

Kenny better not cry poor this year, or I'm done spending money on this franchise.
Manny money is deferred, for one, and don't you know by now that budgets are not static? They change over time; and if we learned anything from the Deadspin leak, teams make a ton of coin if they go to the postseason.

Ozzie flat out said that he didn't want Jim Thome. Hard to blame someone else for that.

ewokpelts
09-09-2010, 08:53 AM
no. i'm glad this is blowing up in ozzie's face completely.

Hitmen77
09-09-2010, 09:29 AM
Kotsay was signed as a bench player, and Kenny only had 50 cents... and yet they can somehow find $3M for Jackson and $5M for Manny in July and August.

Kenny better not cry poor this year, or I'm done spending money on this franchise.

The Sox aren't spending $3 million on Jackson this year. His total salary this year is $4.2 million and the Sox are paying about 1/3 of that. Also, the Sox are paying Manny about 3.3 million this year, not $5 million.

That's roughly $4.5 million total for both guys.

.....and yet, why can't people understand why the Sox are paying Teahen $4.75 million? That amount is cheap (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2617389#post2617389)!

If you're going to threaten to boycott the Sox because it's all KW's fault (but leave Ozzie alone!), then at least be consistent in your argument.

beasly213
09-09-2010, 09:41 AM
Kotsay was signed as a bench player, and Kenny only had 50 cents... and yet they can somehow find $3M for Jackson and $5M for Manny in July and August.

Kenny better not cry poor this year, or I'm done spending money on this franchise.


Ugh...I am so sick of hearing this. The White Sox are NOT cheap. Kenny Williams and Jerry Reinsdorf are NOT cheap. What is Kenny Williams supposed to say in the media? "Hey agents and ball players we have a ton of money to throw around some come on over and demand a ton of it!"

The 50 cents to a dollar saying is just something Kenny says to make it appear they don't have money to spend when the clearly do.

The not signing a legit DH wasn't a money thing, it was a dumb personell decision thing.

whitesoxfan
09-09-2010, 09:55 AM
Kotsay was signed as a bench player, and Kenny only had 50 cents... and yet they can somehow find $3M for Jackson and $5M for Manny in July and August.

Kenny better not cry poor this year, or I'm done spending money on this franchise.

Ding ding ding.

Two trade deadlines in a row, we've come up with money for Peavy and then money for Jackson and Manny. This money just isn't appearing out of nowhere. They've had the funds all along to go out and spend. There's absolutely no excuse to cry poor this offseason after taking on Peavy's gigantic deal and another $8 million for Jackson.

I expect PK to get re-signed and hell, I want Manny re-signed for a year too.

whitesoxfan
09-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Ugh...I am so sick of hearing this. The White Sox are NOT cheap. Kenny Williams and Jerry Reinsdorf are NOT cheap. What is Kenny Williams supposed to say in the media? "Hey agents and ball players we have a ton of money to throw around some come on over and demand a ton of it!"

The 50 cents to a dollar saying is just something Kenny says to make it appear they don't have money to spend when the clearly do.

The not signing a legit DH wasn't a money thing, it was a dumb personell decision thing.

Kenny acts like he has the budget of a 10 year old who gets a $10 dollar allowance per week during the offseason.

It was a stupid personnel decision but we've acted like we're cheap in the last couple of offseasons. That better change because of not one big deadline move, but a couple in back-to-back seasons.

beasly213
09-09-2010, 10:02 AM
Kenny acts like he has the budget of a 10 year old who gets a $10 dollar allowance per week during the offseason.

It was a stupid personnel decision but we've acted like we're cheap in the last couple of offseasons. That better change because of not one big deadline move, but a couple in back-to-back seasons.


Did you read what I said? I agree that he says things that makes him sound cheap but actually he's not. The White Sox team pay roll for 2010 is over 108 Mil. Good for 7th in MLB. How is that cheap?

russ99
09-09-2010, 10:06 AM
Did you read what I said? I agree that he says things that makes him sound cheap but actually he's not. The White Sox team pay roll for 2010 is over 108 Mil. Good for 7th in MLB. How is that cheap?

It's not cheap, but it's not like other clubs who have a window of contention and spend a little more to go for it.

And in general, the Sox have spent fairly well, but at the trade deadline when you have to give up prospects for talent.

Kenny (and Jerry's) failings is to not address holes in the offseason with quality talent and then assume you can buy up questionable players and expect them to put up career years. Sometimes that works out (Dye, Pierzynski), but more often it does not.

How many years in a row now have we gotten the "50 cents" speech at the winter meetings?

beasly213
09-09-2010, 10:12 AM
It's not cheap, but it's not like other clubs who have a window of contention and spend a little more to go for it.

And in general, the Sox have spent fairly well, but at the trade deadline when you have to give up prospects for talent.

Kenny (and Jerry's) failings is to not address holes in the offseason with quality talent and then assume you can buy up questionable players and expect them to put up career years. Sometimes that works out (Dye, Pierzynski), but more often it does not.

How many years in a row now have we gotten the "50 cents" speech at the winter meetings?


....Again I know they SAY the 50 cents line, but it isn't true. The Sox know it and fans should know it. The Sox spend money! The problem is they sometimes don't spend it in the right places. Yes not re signing Thome was a mistake in hindsight but they didn't not resign him because they were cheap. They didn't not go out and get another DH because they were cheap.

They were just dump in thinking they could get good production out of Jones/Kotsay.

Red Barchetta
09-09-2010, 10:16 AM
Oh, please. I'll admit I tire of the "we'd be in 1st with Thome" line of thinking, but the Sox's decision to hand over PAs to Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay was indefensible. The closest I've come to a career in baseball is running a team on my Play Station and I knew that was going to come back to haunt us. What limited defensive flexibility they provide is washed away by the fact they are utterly awful.

The argument is tired because there's still a handful of posters here who defend the Sox's plan as if it was a sage move that's just gone terribly wrong (like the Peavy deal), but it's not. Kotsay and Jones are washed up vets that would struggle to find roster spots, let alone significant at bats, with almost any other team in the Majors.

I agree. Here are the stats:

Kotsay/Jones Stats (Averaged as one player):

Games - 96
AB - 283
Runs Scored - 34
Hits - 66
HRs - 13
RBIs - 36
AVG - .233

Kotsay/Jones Stats (Overall):

Games - 192
AB - 566
Runs Scored - 69
Hits - 132
HRs - 26
RBIs - 72
AVG - .233

Compared to Thome:

Games - 96
AB - 241
Runs Scored - 42
Hits - 67
HRs - 22
RBIs - 52
AVG - .278

The intangibles is that Kotsay and Jones played defense and allowed lineup flexibility that Thome did not as evidenced by their ability to play at the same time. Personally, I don't think losing Thome hurt the SOX. Rather their inability to sign a better hitter/fielder/player (DH) than Kotsay and/or Jones.

asindc
09-09-2010, 10:17 AM
....Again I know they SAY the 50 cents line, but it isn't true. The Sox know it and fans should know it. The Sox spend money! The problem is they sometimes don't spend it in the right places. Yes not re signing Thome was a mistake in hindsight but they didn't not resign him because they were cheap. They didn't not go out and get another DH because they were cheap.

They were just dump in thinking they could get good production out of Jones/Kotsay.

... or thinking that no one would be stupid enough to pay Damon $8 million a year when the best offer he had gotten to that point was $7 million.

DumpJerry
09-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Well, sports fans, it happened. After only 297 PAs, Thome was a last minute scratch last night because of an abdominal strain. This tells me if we had signed him as a full time DH, we would have been left high and dry by the ASB.

Hitmen77
09-09-2010, 12:28 PM
Oh, please. I'll admit I tire of the "we'd be in 1st with Thome" line of thinking, but the Sox's decision to hand over PAs to Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsay was indefensible. The closest I've come to a career in baseball is running a team on my Play Station and I knew that was going to come back to haunt us. What limited defensive flexibility they provide is washed away by the fact they are utterly awful.

The argument is tired because there's still a handful of posters here who defend the Sox's plan as if it was a sage move that's just gone terribly wrong (like the Peavy deal), but it's not. Kotsay and Jones are washed up vets that would struggle to find roster spots, let alone significant at bats, with almost any other team in the Majors.

It was a mistake. Pure and simple.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to admit that.

Hell, the mistake really wasn't even letting Thome walk, although he sure would look good as a platoon DH making $1 M a year, the mistake was not replacing him with anything that resembles Major League talent. If Kotsay or Jones were 22-year-olds, I could at least be talked into some half-baked retooling while contending nonsense, but they're just old and bad. OK, the DH fiasco won't be the #1 reason it appears the Sox will be playing golf the 1st week in October, but it's up there.

Yes. Also, I don't think the White Sox would win the division with Thome, but it wouldn't have hurt.


:clap::clap::clap:

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as the bolded part from Doub, here's the chronology from some posters:
Februrary: How do you know the decision to not bring back Thome will be a bad one? You have no right to criticize this until we play some games.
September: Stop living in the past! Hindsight is 20/20, you know! Everyone can point fingers after the fact. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2616786#post2616786)

With logic like that, no decision would ever be subject to any scrutiny.

Hitmen77
09-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Disagree with the argument, since it's a completely different situation between what Thome would have been expected to do here, and how he was used in Minnesota, which has much to do with his performance at age 40.

And IMO the whole argument is a bit of sour grapes. Everyone can point fingers after the fact, but it was tough to make the call at the time.

Besides, I've always maintained that not bringing back Thome wasn't the poor decision here, it was that Kenny didn't get anyone else either.

Maybe someone can help me out on the timeline of how this unfolded last winter. When the Sox turned down Thome's bid to return, who was left on the market for the Sox to go after to fill the DH spot? Serious question here. I don't remember who was left for the Sox to get.

Don't tell me just a list of all the available players from last winter because some were already signed by the time the Thome decision was made. Also, I don't think the Sox even considered Damon available. IIRC, it was only at the last minute (when Damon & Boras overplayed their hand) that the Sox had a chance to get him. He wasn't seriously on the table as an option in January.

WhiteSoxFTW
09-09-2010, 03:35 PM
If Morneau wouldn't have been out for most of the year, then Thome wouldn't have gotten even half the at-bats he has now...and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

With limited at-bats, Thome's effect would be minimal. He said it himself, he has to have a lot of at-bats to get into a groove and succeed.

RedHeadPaleHoser
09-09-2010, 03:38 PM
If Morneau wouldn't have been out for most of the year, then Thome wouldn't have gotten even half the at-bats he has now...and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

With limited at-bats, Thome's effect would be minimal. He said it himself, he has to have a lot of at-bats to get into a groove and succeed.

And now with his increased AB's, he's got a strained oblique. I wonder how this will affect them come the last few weeks of the year.

dickallen15
09-09-2010, 03:39 PM
If Morneau wouldn't have been out for most of the year, then Thome wouldn't have gotten even half the at-bats he has now...and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

With limited at-bats, Thome's effect would be minimal. He said it himself, he has to have a lot of at-bats to get into a groove and succeed.
Seems to me the Sox had about 300-400 plate appearances available which is what he will get in Minnesota. He would have helped the Sox, I don't know why everyone can't admit that.

WhiteSoxFTW
09-09-2010, 03:52 PM
Seems to me the Sox had about 300-400 plate appearances available which is what he will get in Minnesota. He would have helped the Sox, I don't know why everyone can't admit that.

That's not my point. I am not going to argue that Jim Thome *could* have helped this team, and he probably *would* have (based on how ****ty Mark Kotsay and Andruw Jones were offensively).

My point is that if Morneau wouldn't have gotten hurt, Thome's numbers would *most likely* be not enough for us to have this arguement. He would have gotten significantly less ABs and, thus, would have had a much, much lower production.

It's all a bunch of "ifs" no matter what way you look at it.

TDog
09-09-2010, 03:57 PM
Seems to me the Sox had about 300-400 plate appearances available which is what he will get in Minnesota. He would have helped the Sox, I don't know why everyone can't admit that.

It isn't a matter of admitting anything. I don't see how Thome would have done as well for the White Sox. He would be playing in a different lineup. He would be coming up in different situations. Pitchers could pitch around him with less consequence. As it is, Thome with the Twins has only one more intentional walk than Kotsay with the White Sox (3-2).

If Thome were on the Sox, it would still be about the pitching.

The offense has looked lethargic the last three days with Manny Ramirez as the DH. You can't assume the offense would be less lethargic in April or May with Thome in the lineup.

It's Dankerific
09-09-2010, 03:57 PM
If Thome was in Chicago, He wouldnt be playing for minnesota, even if he sat on the bench every day.

Craig Grebeck
09-09-2010, 04:23 PM
It isn't a matter of admitting anything. I don't see how Thome would have done as well for the White Sox. He would be playing in a different lineup. He would be coming up in different situations. Pitchers could pitch around him with less consequence. As it is, Thome with the Twins has only one more intentional walk than Kotsay with the White Sox (3-2).

If Thome were on the Sox, it would still be about the pitching.

The offense has looked lethargic the last three days with Manny Ramirez as the DH. You can't assume the offense would be less lethargic in April or May with Thome in the lineup.
Yikes. A statement with no basis or factual reasoning. Following your logic, I can also claim that I don't see how Thome doesn't do better with the White Sox than he has with the Twins. He would be playing in a familiar lineup, with a familiar hitting coach, in a smaller ballpark.

TDog
09-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Yikes. A statement with no basis or factual reasoning. Following your logic, I can also claim that I don't see how Thome doesn't do better with the White Sox than he has with the Twins. He would be playing in a familiar lineup, with a familiar hitting coach, in a smaller ballpark.

The White Sox offense never looked lethargic with Jim Thome anchored at DH?

The idea that Thome would have his current numbers in the White Sox lineup is hypothetical. The idea that his numbers would have translated into more wins is wishful thinking.

thomas35forever
09-09-2010, 04:48 PM
If Thome was in Chicago, He wouldnt be playing for minnesota, even if he sat on the bench every day.
You could say the same if he were with any of the other 28 teams.

It's Dankerific
09-09-2010, 04:50 PM
You could say the same if he were with any of the other 28 teams.

you may not realize this, but the management controls the roster of THIS team and could have easily had Thome (and therefore prevented Minnesota from having him as an option when Morneau got hurt).

doublem23
09-09-2010, 04:59 PM
You could say the same if he were with any of the other 28 teams.

You can cut that number in 1/2, Thome wasn't going to the National League.

Frater Perdurabo
09-09-2010, 09:01 PM
The White Sox offense never looked lethargic with Jim Thome anchored at DH?

What makes this lineup "not lethargic" is not Mark Kotsay instead of Jim Thome. It's Alex Rios instead of Jermaine Dye, and Juan Pierre leading the league in stolen bases, and Omar Vizquel performing exceptionally well as the #2 hitter.

Replacing Kotsay with Thome in the 5/6-hole does not make the 2010 Sox lineup "lethargic."

PaleHoser
09-09-2010, 11:51 PM
Although I understand Ozzie's argument that Thome is one-dimensional, I'm a bit concerned that management has a hang-up about the fact that a one-dimensional player at DH leaves them hamstrung in interleague play.

Those games amount to 10% of the season, and the "H" in "DH" stands for hitter. It's no accident the the Sox are a .500 team against the American League and it's because the other team usually has a middle of the lineup hitter in the DH slot and we have someone who can play the field but who more often that not should be on the bench.

This has turned out to be a very expensive lesson for management, considering it's costing the club almost three times as much for one month of Manny Ramirez than it cost the Twins for an entire season of Thome.

The fact they were willing to eat that cost gives me hope that this is something that will be fixed in the upcoming off-season and we won't be playing at such a disadvantage next season.

BainesHOF
09-11-2010, 10:43 AM
Keeping Thome would have been the thing to do...if we had a good manager. Batting him cleanup at this stage of his career was assinine. But Ozzie is gutless when it comes to veterans. Our manager talks a good game, but all it is is talk. His desire to be liked outweighs logic and hurts the team.

Gardenhire handled Thome the right way.

The Dude
09-12-2010, 08:34 AM
Miss 2 games with abdominal strains...no problem. Another game winning HR for big Jim in extra innings. Good for him, he deserves this! The White Sox and their polarizing play of late, do not.
And I'll NEVER be sick of this argument since it is one of the top reasons we are in 2nd place looking to finish there. But hey, we have Mark brothers. T and K are leading us to the promised land. :o:

Dan H
09-12-2010, 09:54 AM
The thing that upset the most was Guillen's tirade about Thome in August. It left me with the impression that he knew the White Sox were not going to overcome the Twins and wanted to cover his butt. This is from a guy who insisted that he "believed in this team."

Maybe Thome would've made a difference. Meanwhile the White Sox have much larger issues. The 2010 team was wildly inconsistent. The 26-5 run saved what could have been a totally lifeless year and shouldn't hide the fact that the club is not really a playoff team. The team had winning streaks of 7, 8, and 11. With those kind of streaks, why is this team looking up at the Twins?

Thome will get his 600th home run some time next year. It most likely will be his last year. In the meantime, what are the White Sox going to do to turn the franchise into a real winner? Or next year are we going to be asking the some stale questions about why the Sox can't beat the Twins?

Rikirk
09-12-2010, 10:05 AM
We could have had Thome on the team, he offered his services...
Would have been nice to see a lineup with maybe Konerko, Rios, Quentin and maybe Manny...
Yes I like the Home Run...

But alas...wasnt meant to be...Ozzie wouldnt have it, and I hate him for that.

Taliesinrk
09-12-2010, 10:10 AM
Keeping Thome would have been the thing to do...if we had a good manager. Batting him cleanup at this stage of his career was assinine. But Ozzie is gutless when it comes to veterans. Our manager talks a good game, but all it is is talk. His desire to be liked outweighs logic and hurts the team.

Gardenhire handled Thome the right way.

I feel like I'm fairly middle-of-the-road on this, but your critique is off (not that Ozzie was necessarily right). It's not fair to compare how Gardenhire has handled Thome, vs. how Guillen did, because of how dynamically different the line-ups are (/were - in the case of the Sox). If the Sox had Mauer and Morneau, you can put down just about all you've got that Ozzie isn't batting Thome 4th - and in fact, because Ozzie wouldn't want to bat 3 leftys in a row, I'd guess that he probably isn't batting him 5th even. Further, add in the power and production that Cuddyer and Kubel bring and you have (NOT including Thome), 3 out of 4 guys hitting from the left side of the plate. The Sox had who (is it whom?) from the left side? I just think this is apples and oranges. That said, I'm not saying going with Kotsay was the right move... I'm merely pointing out that Gardenhire's roster is in all reality, probably a better fit for someone in Thome's position.

nccwsfan
09-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Said it before and I'll say it again- the fortunes of the 2010 team have largely been parallel to the pitching (starting rotation all year, bullpen since August). Offense has more often than not productive enough to win games- yes DH is a weakness on this team but how easily we forget 12 months ago how this was a station to station ballclub and wished for more flexibility in the lineup.

Count me in as very tired of this argument, and for people calling for Ozzie's head on a platter.

Hitmen77
09-12-2010, 05:42 PM
The thing that upset the most was Guillen's tirade about Thome in August. It left me with the impression that he knew the White Sox were not going to overcome the Twins and wanted to cover his butt. This is from a guy who insisted that he "believed in this team."

Maybe Thome would've made a difference. Meanwhile the White Sox have much larger issues. The 2010 team was wildly inconsistent. The 26-5 run saved what could have been a totally lifeless year and shouldn't hide the fact that the club is not really a playoff team. The team had winning streaks of 7, 8, and 11. With those kind of streaks, why is this team looking up at the Twins?

Thome will get his 600th home run some time next year. It most likely will be his last year. In the meantime, what are the White Sox going to do to turn the franchise into a real winner? Or next year are we going to be asking the some stale questions about why the Sox can't beat the Twins?

Excellent post.

russ99
09-12-2010, 05:49 PM
Keeping Thome would have been the thing to do...if we had a good manager. Batting him cleanup at this stage of his career was assinine. But Ozzie is gutless when it comes to veterans. Our manager talks a good game, but all it is is talk. His desire to be liked outweighs logic and hurts the team.

Gardenhire handled Thome the right way.

Really, that's a good one. Thome was a crapshoot, the guy is still 40 years old, and it's real easy to crow on how right you are in hindsight.

If Thome stayed here would you have been OK with his limited at-bats? Or would you be whining and crying along with the others every time his name wasn't in the lineup? You say Gardenhire handled him the right way, but would you sit still for him handled the same here, especially when whipping-boy Kotsay would be playing in his place?

And, please name one veteran player on this team that Ozzie was "gutless" with. Ozzie's desire to win outweights all the garbage attributed to him around here.

I see a team here with a good shot to win 90 games, you guys make it look like we've been in last place all season. Maybe if we didn't have a good team some of these petty complaints would be valid, but they're not.

Lip Man 1
09-12-2010, 07:20 PM
My thoughts on this issue are well documented but just in case...

I said this winter I was totally in favor of the Sox getting away from the 'home run or nothing, 'clog the bases' approach to baseball and STILL advocate that style of play.

Every year since 2005 they were getting farther and farther away from that notion of 'balance.' It had to stop. The Sox badly needed to get younger AND MORE ATHLETIC on the field.

The fault, as others have posted, wasn't the fact the Sox got rid of Thome a class guy and a good player, it was the fact they didn't replace him with anything better than Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsey.

Whatever the reason or reasons they didn't fill the spot with a good player and it came back to hurt them plus the fact that Thome signed with a divisional rival.

Again though when you cut through everything, it comes down to talent regardless of the style you want to play...'home run or nothing,' 'Ozzie-Ball,' or the 'put-put' style of the 1950's and 1960's the Sox used with tremendous success. If you don't have the talent to play the style you want, you lose games.

It's that simple and the Sox were short on talent in certain areas this season.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
09-12-2010, 08:21 PM
My thoughts on this issue are well documented but just in case...

I said this winter I was totally in favor of the Sox getting away from the 'home run or nothing, 'clog the bases' approach to baseball and STILL advocate that style of play.

Every year since 2005 they were getting farther and farther away from that notion of 'balance.' It had to stop. The Sox badly needed to get younger AND MORE ATHLETIC on the field.

The fault, as others have posted, wasn't the fact the Sox got rid of Thome a class guy and a good player, it was the fact they didn't replace him with anything better than Andruw Jones and Mark Kotsey.

Whatever the reason or reasons they didn't fill the spot with a good player and it came back to hurt them plus the fact that Thome signed with a divisional rival.

Again though when you cut through everything, it comes down to talent regardless of the style you want to play...'home run or nothing,' 'Ozzie-Ball,' or the 'put-put' style of the 1950's and 1960's the Sox used with tremendous success. If you don't have the talent to play the style you want, you lose games.

It's that simple and the Sox were short on talent in certain areas this season.

Lip

Lip, you and I are in agreement in many things, including this issue.

I think the Sox addressed their overall team speed with Rios (who hit well enough early in the year to be moved up to #3, and his performed well enough to stay there), and Pierre (league leader in steals). Alexei also has excellent speed, even if he doesn't steal many bases. Beckham has decent speed, too.

However, I do think the Sox would have been in much better shape this year if they had Thome - or one of a number of other, better hitters - instead of Kotsay.

Nelfox02
09-12-2010, 08:49 PM
Thome will get his 600th home run some time next year. It most likely will be his last year.


I for one, hope he gets it. I would rather he not achieve it wearing a Twins uniform, but after the season he gave them this year and how big it seems each of his second half homeruns have been.......I think there is a good chance he is back there

Lip Man 1
09-12-2010, 10:39 PM
Interesting story and provides numbers for the discussion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0913-white-sox-brite--20100912,0,3994057.story

Lip

hi im skot
09-12-2010, 11:32 PM
Interesting story and provides numbers for the discussion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0913-white-sox-brite--20100912,0,3994057.story

Lip

Anybody catch the major typo in this story? I imagine it will be corrected by tomorrow morning, but apparently a former White Sox legend is DHing for the Twins...

guillensdisciple
09-12-2010, 11:39 PM
I don't want to get involved in this argument, but this has been a huge irritant on WSI for a while. Jim Thome should have just got out of here riding in the sunset. Now he annoys me.

Frater Perdurabo
09-13-2010, 07:34 AM
Interesting story and provides numbers for the discussion:

[URL]

Lip

Many of those 16 HR and 55 RBI were produced by Paulie and TCQ when they were DH-ing.

And when Paulie was DH-ing, who was playing first base and thus making outs in the lineup?

Oh, and Thome has put up his numbers playing PART TIME.

khan
09-13-2010, 12:04 PM
It seems, to this observer, that the only posters who are "sick of the whole Thome argument" are two types:

1. Those who fall all over themselves to toe the company line and accept everything that the organization does; These sheeple are very cub fan-like in their admiration of dumb moves by the organization.

2. Those who don't look at what a player can provide to an organization [i.e. Thome still crushes, punishes, and destroys RHP. Andruw Jones still can play defense better than ~75% or more of the OF in the AL.], but rather, look at a player's weaknesses. [i.e. Thome can't play a defensive position or go from 1st to home on a single.]


I for one am not "sick of the whole Thome argument," because as a fan of this team, I feel we have a right and responsibility to hold them accountable. I don't think we should be sheeple who are content with something that happened 5 years ago, and accept mediocrity as a result.


Honestly, if you were against retaining Thome and/or against having a real DH before the season, accept that you were dead wrong, and move on. If you were in favor of a proper DH/Thome as part of that solution, accept that there will be those fans that will twist and contort reality, and discuss it with as much civility as you can muster.

DumpJerry
09-13-2010, 12:14 PM
Anybody catch the major typo in this story? I imagine it will be corrected by tomorrow morning, but apparently a former White Sox legend is DHing for the Twins...
Not yet corrected......

TDog
09-13-2010, 12:32 PM
Many of those 16 HR and 55 RBI were produced by Paulie and TCQ when they were DH-ing.

And when Paulie was DH-ing, who was playing first base and thus making outs in the lineup?

Oh, and Thome has put up his numbers playing PART TIME.

The rotating DH was not conceived to get more productivity out of the DH spot, but to get more productivity out of the team as a whole, to rest players from their defensive responsibilities occasionally to keep them fresh. It was borne, not out of a desire to compete in interleague play, but out of frustration in 2009 that Quentin or Konerko needed to DH, but the regular DH couldn't play the field, just as he couldn't play the field during the interleague games. Kotsay has ended up with more DH time than anyone else because he has been the best left-handed bat off the bench as the team faces right handed hitters. Thome was traded away, in large part, because he wasn't able to rotate defensively.

Konerko is having the best season of his career, an he also is DHing more than he ever has in his career. There is a possibility those two things are related, but overall, Konerko is making fewer outs than he ever has in his career. DH numbers notwithstanding (and Ramirez is hitting below the average for White Sox DHs since coming to the Sox witbout a glove), the White Sox might be better off without Thome.

I have said I don't think Thome would have helped the White Sox win more games in April and May when there would be no one driving him in when he walked and no one for him to drive in when he came up to bat, and he was getting off to a poor start anyway. I don't believe Thome would have helped the White Sox win more games in June and July when the White Sox were winning more than two-thirds of their games without him. I don't believe he would have helped the team win more games in August when the White Sox led the AL in runs scored but Jenks, Thornton, Putz and Santos blew more late leads than they held.

It is entirely possible that had the White Sox signed Thome after trading him away that the both the Twins and White Sox would not be as strong as they have been this season.

kufram
09-13-2010, 02:57 PM
I am sick of the Thome argument because it has all been said... over and over again. But I'll say my bit one more time and then I'm truly done with it because it is yesterday's news.

I'm glad we moved away from the Thome-type and the team offensive numbers just don't support the argument that we needed Thome so desperately as some insist.

What I think we need is people like Kotsay/Jones but that perform better than they have with the bat. That being said the offense doesn't stink as much some believe. They just didn't show up at first. THAT wasn't in anybody's plan. Konerko's year is, in my view, one of the successes of the new DH plan.

If you don't accept that the future DH's of the world are going to be different from the Thome prototype, that's fine by me... believe what ever you want.... I don't feel the need to call you names or categorize you... I just don't think you appreciate that needs have changed.

I'm glad Thome has had the year he has had because he is a great player and I admire him and I wish we'd had that production from Kotsay/Jones. But we didn't. That's it. That's not why we are 6 games back. There is no one reason, but the pitching hasn't been there and the streaky-ness of the offense has cost us.

asindc
09-13-2010, 03:07 PM
I am sick of the Thome argument because it has all been said... over and over again. But I'll say my bit one more time and then I'm truly done with it because it is yesterday's news.

I'm glad we moved away from the Thome-type and the team offensive numbers just don't support the argument that we needed Thome so desperately as some insist.

What I think we need is people like Kotsay/Jones but that perform better than they have with the bat. That being said the offense doesn't stink as much some believe. They just didn't show up at first. THAT wasn't in anybody's plan. Konerko's year is, in my view, one of the successes of the new DH plan.

If you don't accept that the future DH's of the world are going to be different from the Thome prototype, that's fine by me... believe what ever you want.... I don't feel the need to call you names or categorize you... I just don't think you appreciate that needs have changed.

I'm glad Thome has had the year he has had because he is a great player and I admire him and I wish we'd had that production from Kotsay/Jones. But we didn't. That's it. That's not why we are 6 games back. There is no one reason, but the pitching hasn't been there and the streaky-ness of the offense has cost us.

Well said.

dickallen15
09-13-2010, 03:13 PM
I am sick of the Thome argument because it has all been said... over and over again. But I'll say my bit one more time and then I'm truly done with it because it is yesterday's news.

I'm glad we moved away from the Thome-type and the team offensive numbers just don't support the argument that we needed Thome so desperately as some insist.

What I think we need is people like Kotsay/Jones but that perform better than they have with the bat. That being said the offense doesn't stink as much some believe. They just didn't show up at first. THAT wasn't in anybody's plan. Konerko's year is, in my view, one of the successes of the new DH plan.

If you don't accept that the future DH's of the world are going to be different from the Thome prototype, that's fine by me... believe what ever you want.... I don't feel the need to call you names or categorize you... I just don't think you appreciate that needs have changed.

I'm glad Thome has had the year he has had because he is a great player and I admire him and I wish we'd had that production from Kotsay/Jones. But we didn't. That's it. That's not why we are 6 games back. There is no one reason, but the pitching hasn't been there and the streaky-ness of the offense has cost us.

The White Sox have 16 homers and 55 RBI out of their DH's this season. Not having a guy like Thome hurt whether you will admit it or not. KW admitted it and will pay Manny 2.5 times what he would have had to pay Thome, but for only one month of service, and guess what, Manny is half way done with his White Sox career (assuming the Sox don't get virtually eliminated fairly soon and he deciding he needs another vacation) and has yet to record an extra base hit or RBI.

Bruizer
09-13-2010, 03:15 PM
Not yet corrected......

That's so funny! Glad to hear Frank's having a good year! :cool:

SI1020
09-13-2010, 03:32 PM
The White Sox have 16 homers and 55 RBI out of their DH's this season. Not having a guy like Thome hurt whether you will admit it or not. KW admitted it and will pay Manny 2.5 times what he would have had to pay Thome, but for only one month of service, and guess what, Manny is half way done with his White Sox career (assuming the Sox don't get virtually eliminated fairly soon and he deciding he needs another vacation) and has yet to record an extra base hit or RBI. Exactly. The late season acquistion of an over the hill head case was a tacit admission of failure.

TDog
09-13-2010, 03:43 PM
Exactly. The late season acquistion of an over the hill head case was a tacit admission of failure.

You can read into things as you will, but the acquisition came with the expansion of the rosters. If the White Sox make the postseason, frontline players won't be resting so the lack of flexibility won't be an issue.

That is why I didn't think the acquisition would hurt. The problem is, the White Sox might have gotten more production from their DH doing what they had been doing, just as the White Sox might won more 2009 games without Rios in center last year, although that acquisition paid off this year.

I don't see Manny Ramirez returning to the Sox next year, though.

SI1020
09-13-2010, 04:07 PM
You can read into things as you will, but the acquisition came with the expansion of the rosters. If the White Sox make the postseason, frontline players won't be resting so the lack of flexibility won't be an issue.

That is why I didn't think the acquisition would hurt. The problem is, the White Sox might have gotten more production from their DH doing what they had been doing, just as the White Sox might won more 2009 games without Rios in center last year, although that acquisition paid off this year.

I don't see Manny Ramirez returning to the Sox next year, though. You don't need a DH then why get one? That is all I was trying to say.

TDog
09-13-2010, 05:02 PM
You don't need a DH then why get one? That is all I was trying to say.

If you could play the season with a 30-man roster, a DH who can't play the field and needs to be run for late in the game wouldn't be a problem. If your roster were big enough, the Yankees could sign the best DHs against lefties and righties and platoon them.

Baseball is constantly evolving. When the DH rule first went into effect, teams carried fewer pitchers because starters went longer and there were fewer specialized relievers. Now full-time DHs can be liabilities because there are fewer non-pitcher roster spots. The full-time DH (your Tony Olivas and your Ron Bloombergs) were able to contribute, although not as much as people had expected.

I have believed for a couple of years now that the next evolution will be for AL teams to go more with a rotating DH, unless they have legendary hitters at the ends of their careers. That is why Frank Thomas and, to a lesser extent, Barry Bonds didn't file their retirement papers until they were out of baseball for more than a year, all that time waiting to be signed by an AL team in search of a DH. (I'm not sure if Barry Bonds has filed his papers yet, but, of course, he carries additional baggage.) I think it is the way to get the most out of teams over the course of a long season.

If Mark Kotsay had hit the entire season the way he did in August, White Sox fans wouldn't have a problem with the rotating DH.

Daver
09-13-2010, 05:20 PM
If Mark Kotsay had hit the entire season the way he did in August, White Sox fans wouldn't have a problem with the rotating DH.

Yes I would still have a problem filling a position designed for a professional hitter with a group of players that are more role players than they are hitters. The idea behind the DH was to eliminate a poor hitter from the lineup, not to provide a place for multiple poor hitters.

kufram
09-13-2010, 05:21 PM
The White Sox have 16 homers and 55 RBI out of their DH's this season. Not having a guy like Thome hurt whether you will admit it or not. KW admitted it and will pay Manny 2.5 times what he would have had to pay Thome, but for only one month of service, and guess what, Manny is half way done with his White Sox career (assuming the Sox don't get virtually eliminated fairly soon and he deciding he needs another vacation) and has yet to record an extra base hit or RBI.


If you read my post you will see that I agree that the offensive production from the DH wasn't good enough. But we did NOT need a "guy like Thome". We needed our offense to show up sometime in April. Thome would not have given PK the DH at-bats nor filled in at first. Manny is an afterthought and ain't carrying us anywhere. He might put some bums on seats for a couple of homestands.

russ99
09-13-2010, 05:57 PM
It seems, to this observer, that the only posters who are "sick of the whole Thome argument" are two types:

1. Those who fall all over themselves to toe the company line and accept everything that the organization does; These sheeple are very cub fan-like in their admiration of dumb moves by the organization.

2. Those who don't look at what a player can provide to an organization [i.e. Thome still crushes, punishes, and destroys RHP. Andruw Jones still can play defense better than ~75% or more of the OF in the AL.], but rather, look at a player's weaknesses. [i.e. Thome can't play a defensive position or go from 1st to home on a single.]

I for one am not "sick of the whole Thome argument," because as a fan of this team, I feel we have a right and responsibility to hold them accountable. I don't think we should be sheeple who are content with something that happened 5 years ago, and accept mediocrity as a result.

Honestly, if you were against retaining Thome and/or against having a real DH before the season, accept that you were dead wrong, and move on. If you were in favor of a proper DH/Thome as part of that solution, accept that there will be those fans that will twist and contort reality, and discuss it with as much civility as you can muster.

Hm... Why would I ever assume people who love to point fingers would stop finger pointing.

3. Realizing that Jim Thome turned 40 this year, and thinking that the team made the right decision, but upset that better players weren't brought in to allow the fundamentally sound rotating DH concept a chance to work.

Also, calling out everyone who loves to spout on how so right they are about this, when a large majority of them would have made the same decision at the time, not remotely expecting that Thome would have the kind of year he's having.

GoSox2K3
09-13-2010, 07:36 PM
Hm... Why would I ever assume people who love to point fingers would stop finger pointing.

3. Realizing that Jim Thome turned 40 this year, and thinking that the team made the right decision, but upset that better players weren't brought in to allow the fundamentally sound rotating DH concept a chance to work.

Also, calling out everyone who loves to spout on how so right they are about this, when a large majority of them would have made the same decision at the time, not remotely expecting that Thome would have the kind of year he's having.

:?: Huh? So now you're claiming that a "large majority" of people were in favor of the Thome move at the time and are only complaining about in in hindsight?

I have to hand it to you, you keep coming up with original b.s. day after day. Yesterday it was claiming the low post total on the post game thread was all the "dark clouds" running and hiding (never mind that it was the Bears home opener, people were outside enjoying the beautiful day, etc) and today it's that people are only claiming they're right out this now (after the fact).

I'd just like to know if you really believe this stuff or if you're just being a good "Ozzie is never wrong" soldier. But at any rate , keep up the good work! :tiphat:

Frater Perdurabo
09-13-2010, 08:19 PM
Thome was traded away, in large part, because he wasn't able to rotate defensively.

Wrong. He was traded to the Dodgers to give him a chance to win a World Series, something the Sox realized they would not do last year.

Konerko is having the best season of his career, an he also is DHing more than he ever has in his career. There is a possibility those two things are related, but overall, Konerko is making fewer outs than he ever has in his career. DH numbers notwithstanding (and Ramirez is hitting below the average for White Sox DHs since coming to the Sox witbout a glove), the White Sox might be better off without Thome.

I have said I don't think Thome would have helped the White Sox win more games in April and May when there would be no one driving him in when he walked and no one for him to drive in when he came up to bat, and he was getting off to a poor start anyway. I don't believe Thome would have helped the White Sox win more games in June and July when the White Sox were winning more than two-thirds of their games without him. I don't believe he would have helped the team win more games in August when the White Sox led the AL in runs scored but Jenks, Thornton, Putz and Santos blew more late leads than they held.

It is entirely possible that had the White Sox signed Thome after trading him away that the both the Twins and White Sox would not be as strong as they have been this season.

What's wrong with the idea of having signed Thome, not re-signing Kotsay, and simply used Thome to DH instead of Kotsay? This is how the rotation would ideally have been handled:

Thome: 70 DH starts (all against RHP)

Quentin: 55 DH starts (all against LHP; this is significantly more "rest" at DH than he's gotten this year)

Paulie: 25 DH starts (mostly against RHP, allowing Teahen [or Viciedo if injury to Teahen] to play first; Paulie has DH-ed 22 times so far this season)

Rios: 6 DH starts (whenever)

Pierre: 6 DH starts (whenever)

Jones ends up with at least 67 starts in the OF; plus substitutions when TCQ, Pierre and Rios don't DH but simply get a game off; plus many appearances as the late-inning defensive replacement.

This plan has/had all of the purported advantages of a rotating DH, plus the MAJOR advantage of having Thome and his 1.000+ OPS instead of Kotsay's Brian Anderson-esque .687 OPS, plus getting Jones and his superior OF defense into the outfield more often than he has had.

Essentially Thome and Jones would be sharing time in the lineup, and combining for ~40 homers. Wouldn't that be nice to slot into the #6 spot in the lineup?

But some of us would rather have Mark Kotsay than Jim Thome.

khan
09-13-2010, 08:59 PM
3. Realizing that Jim Thome turned 40 this year, and thinking that the team made the right decision, but upset that better players weren't brought in to allow the fundamentally sound rotating DH concept a chance to work.
This falls under the grouping of the sheeple who toe the company line. In my previous post, that would fall under the first category. In other words, posters like you.

Also, calling out everyone who loves to spout on how so right they are about this,
Actually, I don't bring this up unless ozzpologists like yourself and front office sheeple like Tdog bring it up. Just wear the reality that your opinion about this was wrong. And wear the reality that your buddy Ozzie was [once again], utterly, totally, and completely wrong about the decision HE announced at Soxfest.

Better yet, learn how to sort good work from bad work from our favorite team, and maybe you will evolve from a sheeple or an ozzpologist.


when a large majority of them would have made the same decision at the time, not remotely expecting that Thome would have the kind of year he's having.

1. You're utterly full of **** here. I was DECIDEDLY in favor of retaining Thome, as part of the DH solution, all the way back in the past offseason. So your unadulterated crap about "sour grapes" and "hindsight" doesn't apply to THIS poster, anyway.

2. I also don't recall "a large majority" being excited about the craptacular DH solution this past offseason.

3. I reasonably expected continued good performance by Thome v. RHP. Your buddy Ozzie Guillen is/was apparently too illiterate to read Thome's v. RHP/v. LHP splits in recent seasons, and therefore, deploy Thome appropriately. That Thome CONTINUES to crush, punish, and destroy RHP is not a surprise to me, anyway, if you can read Thome's splits in recent seasons.

khan
09-13-2010, 09:09 PM
Wrong. He was traded to the Dodgers to give him a chance to win a World Series, something the Sox realized they would not do last year.
Yeah, it never ceases to amaze me how the sheeple contingent twist and contort reality to fit their delusions and revisionist history. You're exactly right, in that Thome was traded so as to be given a chance to win a WS.


What's wrong with the idea of having signed Thome, not re-signing Kotsay, and simply used Thome to DH instead of Kotsay? This is how the rotation would ideally have been handled:

Thome: 70 DH starts (all against RHP)

Quentin: 55 DH starts (all against LHP; this is significantly more "rest" at DH than he's gotten this year)

Paulie: 25 DH starts (mostly against RHP, allowing Teahen [or Viciedo if injury to Teahen] to play first; Paulie has DH-ed 22 times so far this season)

Rios: 6 DH starts (whenever)

Pierre: 6 DH starts (whenever)

Jones ends up with at least 67 starts in the OF; plus substitutions when TCQ, Pierre and Rios don't DH but simply get a game off; plus many appearances as the late-inning defensive replacement.

This plan has/had all of the purported advantages of a rotating DH, plus the MAJOR advantage of having Thome and his 1.000+ OPS instead of Kotsay's Brian Anderson-esque .687 OPS, plus getting Jones and his superior OF defense into the outfield more often than he has had.

Essentially Thome and Jones would be sharing time in the lineup, and combining for ~40 homers. Wouldn't that be nice to slot into the #6 spot in the lineup?

But some of us would rather have Mark Kotsay than Jim Thome.
Here's what the Ozzpologists, the sheeple, and Ozzie Guillen will tell you:

1. Despite the very clear evidence of this season, and the AVALANCHE of evidence over the course of his career that Thome crushes, punishes, and destroys RHP/is middling v. LHP, Jim Thome will never be successful as a part time player.

2. The league average defense played at the easiest position to play on the field @ 1B by Mark Kotsay is tantamount to "flexibility." Never mind that Teahen, Nix, and others in/used to be in the roster can/could have easily play/played the easiest position on the field.


Here's what I would say to your suggestion about signing Thome instead of Kotsay, and then deploying Thome as you suggest:

1. I favor/favored doing exactly this, and have believed that Thome should play ONLY v RHP for years. [When Thome was on ~$15M/season, it was a little more difficult to justify, but @ his current number, sharing the DH spot is not an issue by any measure.]

2. Using Thome, et. al in this manner would require the manager to use his ability to read, and to use his intellect in assembling a lineup that maximizes a player's/group of players abilities. This has been an area where the manager has fallen short on occasion.

SI1020
09-13-2010, 09:14 PM
Yes I would still have a problem filling a position designed for a professional hitter with a group of players that are more role players than they are hitters. The idea behind the DH was to eliminate a poor hitter from the lineup, not to provide a place for multiple poor hitters. Exactly. Why is that so hard to admit?

TDog
09-13-2010, 09:20 PM
Wrong. He was traded to the Dodgers to give him a chance to win a World Series, something the Sox realized they would not do last year.
...

That was the belief floating around here. That may have been Thome's perspective, but it was not the team's perspective. Thome was popular, and fans consoled themselves with the belief that the White Sox were "lending" him to the Dodgers. That may have been the PR line. The truth was they were moving in another direction. The White Sox traded Thome and made no effort to re-sign him.

russ99
09-13-2010, 09:23 PM
This falls under the grouping of the sheeple who toe the company line. In my previous post, that would fall under the first category. In other words, posters like you.


Actually, I don't bring this up unless ozzpologists like yourself and front office sheeple like Tdog bring it up. Just wear the reality that your opinion about this was wrong. And wear the reality that your buddy Ozzie was [once again], utterly, totally, and completely wrong about the decision HE announced at Soxfest.

Better yet, learn how to sort good work from bad work from our favorite team, and maybe you will evolve from a sheeple or an ozzpologist.




1. You're utterly full of **** here. I was DECIDEDLY in favor of retaining Thome, as part of the DH solution, all the way back in the past offseason. So your unadulterated crap about "sour grapes" and "hindsight" doesn't apply to THIS poster, anyway.

2. I also don't recall "a large majority" being excited about the craptacular DH solution this past offseason.

3. I reasonably expected continued good performance by Thome v. RHP. Your buddy Ozzie Guillen is/was apparently too illiterate to read Thome's v. RHP/v. LHP splits in recent seasons, and therefore, deploy Thome appropriately. That Thome CONTINUES to crush, punish, and destroy RHP is not a surprise to me, anyway, if you can read Thome's splits in recent seasons.

Splits, whatever. I saw with my own eyes how bad Jim Thome was with us the second half of last year, and so did the management of this club.

If he was so obviously going to pull a 180 this year, how come no other team signed him until late January, at a cut-rate no less. Blame Ozzie and Kenny all you want, but nobody else wanted him after last season too, and the Twins took a low-risk move giving him a shot months after the Free Agent period opened.

And seriously, I've had enough of your asinine name-calling. How many posts do I have to show you out of the 7,000 I've made here where I questioned the team?

khan
09-13-2010, 09:32 PM
Splits, whatever. I saw with my own eyes how bad Jim Thome was with us the second half of last year, and so did the management of this club.
Sure. And we've seen with our own eyes other players have craptacular 2nd halves last year [like Rios]. We've seen Konerko take 6 to 8 week vacations from hitting in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Exactly what is your NEW convoluted point here?

If he was so obviously going to pull a 180 this year, how come no other team signed him until late January, at a cut-rate no less.
Oh, is this a question? Here's a better one:

Why is your statement germane in any way? He's a great player, has been a great player, and even in his "down years," crushes, punishes, and destroys RHP. [Which happens to be the overwhelming majority of pitching in MLB.]

There was no "180" pulled here. This was a great player doing what he's ALWAYS done. [Especially v. RHP...] This was a great player being used PROPERLY USED, rather than OVERused by a lesser baseball mind than Gardenhire(sp?).


Blame Ozzie and Kenny all you want, but nobody else wanted him after last season too, and the Twins took a low-risk move giving him a shot months after the Free Agent period opened.
Which reinforces the reality that the minnesota front office and field manager are more competent than your buddy Ozzie and the SOX's front office. THEY were intelligent enough to:

1. Read Thome's splits,
2. Accurately gauge the market for Thome,
3. Seize the appropriate opportunity to add him as a cheap option for their offense, and [perhaps most importantly],
4. PROPERLY deploy Thome as a weapon.


As a result, minnesota has prospered, while the SOX have suffered a significant loss this season.

Frater Perdurabo
09-13-2010, 09:37 PM
That was the belief floating around here. That may have been Thome's perspective, but it was not the team's perspective. Thome was popular, and fans consoled themselves with the belief that the White Sox were "lending" him to the Dodgers. That may have been the PR line. The truth was they were moving in another direction. The White Sox traded Thome and made no effort to re-sign him.

You still have not answered why you think what the Sox actually did this year - choosing and privileging Kotsay - is somehow better than the rotation I proposed above and restate here for clarity:

Thome: 70 DH starts
Quentin: 55 DH starts
Paulie: 25 DH starts
Rios: 6 DH starts
Pierre: 6 DH starts

What you and the other Ozzpologists are arguing is that Kotsay for 70 DH starts is/was/would be better than Thome for 70 DH starts.

russ99
09-13-2010, 09:41 PM
You still have not answered why you think what the Sox actually did this year - choosing and privileging Kotsay - is somehow better than the rotation I proposed above and restate here for clarity:

Thome: 70 DH starts
Quentin: 55 DH starts
Paulie: 25 DH starts
Rios: 6 DH starts
Pierre: 6 DH starts

What you and the other Ozzpologists are arguing is that Kotsay for 70 DH starts is/was/would be better than Thome for 70 DH starts.

Except that Kotsay only started at DH for 45 games.

Domeshot17
09-13-2010, 09:41 PM
Splits, whatever. I saw with my own eyes how bad Jim Thome was with us the second half of last year, and so did the management of this club.

If he was so obviously going to pull a 180 this year, how come no other team signed him until late January, at a cut-rate no less. Blame Ozzie and Kenny all you want, but nobody else wanted him after last season too, and the Twins took a low-risk move giving him a shot months after the Free Agent period opened.

And seriously, I've had enough of your asinine name-calling. How many posts do I have to show you out of the 7,000 I've made here where I questioned the team?

But see, this line of thinking is wrong. It is kind of like how Tony Pena has so many people who think their eyes tell he has been a good RP because of a few big games.

Thome if used properly is still an asset. Minnesota is proving that. As much as you want to ke saying it was the right call, it has been proven not to be. Ozzie was the backbone of not bringing him back.

Gardenhire has managed circles around Ozzie this year. The Twins don't have the talent the Sox do, but they are prepared, have a real leader running the ship, and play with a winning attitude.

You just can't pretend Thome hasn't been big for the Twins, and you can't pretend having him here would have hindered the Sox.

kobo
09-13-2010, 09:48 PM
Am I an Ozzpologist or sheeple if I believe in the rotating DH concept, but think the Sox ****ed up by only having Kotsay and Jones to fill that spot?

Also, while Thome has had a great year, there is no guarantee he would have the same year if he was in a White Sox uniform. I also think it's ridiculous to blame the outcome of the season on Thome/no Thome. Would Jim Thome been able to pitch in April and May? We can all pout and cry and stomp our feet all we want over not having Thome this year, but if the Sox actually played like a MLB club in April and May this topic would be moot right now.

khan
09-13-2010, 09:50 PM
[Sorry, I missed this late addendum on your part. I believe in replying with context intact, wherever possible.]

And seriously, I've had enough of your asinine name-calling. How many posts do I have to show you out of the 7,000 I've made here where I questioned the team?

1. This isn't name-calling at all. YOU'RE the one who has "keep ozzie" as your signature. YOU'RE the one who constantly defends your buddy Ozzie, the front office, and toes the company line.

2. I'd be happy for you to dig up a post of your from the past ~6 months or so that was in any way critical of Ozzie and/or the front office, WITH CONTEXT, and I'd gladly state that I've been wrong. But I simply don't recall you EVER being anything other than a raving fan of Ozzie. [Less so about the front office.]

3. Again, just accept that your opinion was and is wrong, and that your buddy Ozzie was wrong, rather than continuing to manufacture convoluted spin of the facts here.


For MY part, I'm OK when I'm wrong about the SOX. I have been on many occasions. But I can separate my fandom of the TEAM from hero-worship of the front office and the field manager. I can give them credit where credit is due, and critique where critique is due.

khan
09-13-2010, 09:55 PM
Am I an Ozzpologist or sheeple if I believe in the rotating DH concept, but think the Sox ****ed up by only having Kotsay and Jones to fill that spot?
No. But the posters who are insistent on defending a foolish decision are acting like ozzpologists and sheeple.

Also, while Thome has had a great year, there is no guarantee he would have the same year if he was in a White Sox uniform.
Sure. But wouldn't it be fair to assume that it would be probable?

I also think it's ridiculous to blame the outcome of the season on Thome/no Thome. Would Jim Thome been able to pitch in April and May? We can all pout and cry and stomp our feet all we want over not having Thome this year, but if the Sox actually played like a MLB club in April and May this topic would be moot right now.
Actually, the topic is "Is anyone else sick of the whole Thome argument." [Which is odd, because it's the ozzpologists and sheeple that are "tired" of the topic, but they're the ones bringing it up.]


I don't think anyone is supporting the opinion that the outcome of the season is on Thome/no Thome. I think that many, if not most believe that the SOX would have been better off with Thome or some other actual DH instead of Kotsay.

By extension, since Thome crushes, punishes, and destroys RHP, is cheap and WANTED to be here, this is why many here wanted Thome back, IMO.

TDog
09-13-2010, 11:40 PM
You still have not answered why you think what the Sox actually did this year - choosing and privileging Kotsay - is somehow better than the rotation I proposed above and restate here for clarity:

Thome: 70 DH starts
Quentin: 55 DH starts
Paulie: 25 DH starts
Rios: 6 DH starts
Pierre: 6 DH starts

What you and the other Ozzpologists are arguing is that Kotsay for 70 DH starts is/was/would be better than Thome for 70 DH starts.

I'm not an apologist for Guillen. I advocated going to a rotating DH before the White Sox actually did so. I think it is the next AL trend because I don't think teams will be able to afford to carry a player who cannot even play first base. I didn't understand why the Twins signed Thome in the offseason, except that they go after old White Sox in the way White Sox go after old Indians. If Morneau hadn't gone done, Thome would have proved a liability the way Frank Thomas proved a liability on the A's during his second tour there.

Kotsay has played 97 games. He has started 45 games at DH. Figuring the nine games in National League ballparks, that's about one-third of the available DH starts. I really don't see your point. I am sure there are people who believe Thome could have easily replaced Kotsay on the 25-man roster, but Thome can't play first and he can't play the outfield. With Ramirez getting all the starts at DH, Konerko didn't even have the luxury of DHing the second game of a doubleheader, and he had to be pinch-hit for the next day before missing a couple of games.

You look at players like Quentin and Teahen and Pierre and you get the feeling the Sox have a team full of DHs. But at least those players can be used on defense.

I just continue not to believe there is enough room on a 25-man roster anymore to carry a player who can't play in the field.

SI1020
09-13-2010, 11:51 PM
You look at players like Quentin and Teahen and Pierre and you get the feeling the Sox have a team full of DHs. But at least those players can be used on defense.

I just continue not to believe there is enough room on a 25-man roster anymore to carry a player who can't play in the field. I'd rather carry the player that can only hit than run out a bunch of stiffs in his place that can't hit worth a damn. You know I think most of us who disagree with what the Sox did will if not concede, at least acknowledge your point. OK, you don't want a base clogging masher who can't play a position. If you want to go in a different direction, at least make sure you have the personnel to pull it off. The Sox didn't and it hurt them.

asindc
09-14-2010, 09:15 AM
I'd rather carry the player that can only hit than run out a bunch of stiffs in his place that can't hit worth a damn. You know I think most of us who disagree with what the Sox did will if not concede, at least acknowledge your point. OK, you don't want a base clogging masher who can't play a position. If you want to go in a different direction, at least make sure you have the personnel to pull it off. The Sox didn't and it hurt them.

That is a fair point, but it seems to be lost on a few people who wanted Thome back. I went on record before the season started approving of the Jones' acquisition and Kotsay having a limited role on the team. I'm not happy with how much Kotsay has played, but even the most strident critic of the Jones' move has to acknowledge that he has contributed more than they thought he would.

Lost in this current version of the season-long debate is that KW did attempt to acquire Johnny Damon and there were at least rumors that he tried to get Hideki Matsui before then. The point is that management wanted better personnel than they eventually went into the season with, but it did not work out. If you want to criticize KW for not landing a bigger fish, then go right ahead (I'm glad he did not get into a bidding war over Damon). But let's not pretend he was satisfied with Jones/Kotsay all along.

I also said before the season started that the Sox would win 91 games and I thought that would be good enough to win the AL Central. The Sox are on pace to win 89 games. I thought that if the Twinkees did end up winning the AL Central, it would be because their pitching was better than I expected. Such has been the case since the AS break. If Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing had been pitching like Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing, then the Sox would likely be no worse than 2 games out at this point, no matter what Thome has done.

Pitching. It is what will decide the fate of either team this season, and IMO that has been true from the start.

dickallen15
09-14-2010, 09:31 AM
That is a fair point, but it seems to be lost on a few people who wanted Thome back. I went on record before the season started approving of the Jones' acquisition and Kotsay having a limited role on the team. I'm not happy with how much Kotsay has played, but even the most strident critic of the Jones' move has to acknowledge that he has contributed more than they thought he would.

Lost in this current version of the season-long debate is that KW did attempt to acquire Johnny Damon and there were at least rumors that he tried to get Hideki Matsui before then. The point is that management wanted better personnel than they eventually went into the season with, but it did not work out. If you want to criticize KW for not landing a bigger fish, then go right ahead (I'm glad he did not get into a bidding war over Damon). But let's not pretend he was satisfied with Jones/Kotsay all along.

I also said before the season started that the Sox would win 91 games and I thought that would be good enough to win the AL Central. The Sox are on pace to win 89 games. I thought that if the Twinkees did end up winning the AL Central, it would be because their pitching was better than I expected. Such has been the case since the AS break. If Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing had been pitching like Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing, then the Sox would likely be no worse than 2 games out at this point, no matter what Thome has done.

Pitching. It is what will decide the fate of either team this season, and IMO that has been true from the start.

2 or 3 weeks ago, when Jones average dipped below .200, there were plenty of calls for his release.

asindc
09-14-2010, 09:53 AM
2 or 3 weeks ago, when Jones average dipped below .200, there were plenty of calls for his release.

And now?

kufram
09-14-2010, 11:49 AM
That is a fair point, but it seems to be lost on a few people who wanted Thome back. I went on record before the season started approving of the Jones' acquisition and Kotsay having a limited role on the team. I'm not happy with how much Kotsay has played, but even the most strident critic of the Jones' move has to acknowledge that he has contributed more than they thought he would.

Lost in this current version of the season-long debate is that KW did attempt to acquire Johnny Damon and there were at least rumors that he tried to get Hideki Matsui before then. The point is that management wanted better personnel than they eventually went into the season with, but it did not work out. If you want to criticize KW for not landing a bigger fish, then go right ahead (I'm glad he did not get into a bidding war over Damon). But let's not pretend he was satisfied with Jones/Kotsay all along.

I also said before the season started that the Sox would win 91 games and I thought that would be good enough to win the AL Central. The Sox are on pace to win 89 games. I thought that if the Twinkees did end up winning the AL Central, it would be because their pitching was better than I expected. Such has been the case since the AS break. If Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing had been pitching like Slowey, Blackburn, Baker, and Duensing, then the Sox would likely be no worse than 2 games out at this point, no matter what Thome has done.

Pitching. It is what will decide the fate of either team this season, and IMO that has been true from the start.


This is the measured assessment of the issue I've been looking for and seemingly have been unable to make myself. The rudeness of one particular poster in this debate makes me irritable and I dig my heels in. Bottom line? Thome doesn't win or lose the division for neither the White Sox nor the Twins. It's far out of proportion and there are so many better things to talk about.

doublem23
09-14-2010, 12:27 PM
I just continue not to believe there is enough room on a 25-man roster anymore to carry a player who can't play in the field.

Obviously, teams had been making it work since when, the 1970s?

dickallen15
09-14-2010, 12:50 PM
Obviously, teams had been making it work since when, the 1970s?

And some how, someway, the team ahead of the White Sox in the standings has been able to carry one, and another playoff team has a guy who has only played the field 17 times in the heart of its line up everyday.

dickallen15
09-14-2010, 12:57 PM
And now?
His numbers still aren't as good as Thome's last year when the haters said he was washed up.

TDog
09-14-2010, 02:09 PM
Obviously, teams had been making it work since when, the 1970s?

Teams are carrying more pitchers now than they were in the 1970s. The A's even had room for both a designated hitter and a designated pinch runner during a couple of seasons This is an evolutionary thing. In the 1970s, you had four-man starting rotations and there were AL teams that only went five deep in the bullpen because they didn't need more relievers. You had more than 10 20-game winners because pitchers were going deep into games (on three days rest). They weren't being removed for pinch-hitters in the fifth or sixth inning. It wasn't until statheads started analyzing pitch counts that things changed.

Pitching has evolved to demand five-man rotations and specialists that have made rarities out of complete games. And some successful teams have already gone to a rotating DH without fanfare. The Twins had a rotating DH last year. The Yankees have used 13 players at DH this year. Only two have appeared as a DH in more than 30 games. One is their veteran catcher. The other has as many games on defense as he has as the DH.

With the rosters expanded, teams can now carry all the pitchers, all the designated hitters all the designated runners and all the defensive replacements they believe they will need. Before that, I'm not sure if the Twins were going with one less position player or one less pitcher than the White Sox, and it's really not relevant because the Twins bullpen has been worked harder than the White Sox bullpen and it's been more successful. If Morneau didn't go down, Thome plays a lot less. Mauer DHs more. So does Kubel. The Twins rotate their DH more with players who can play defense, as they have in the past. Morneau would provides the Twins with more production than Thome has. Thome seems to have been Plan B, perhaps signed by the Twins so he wouldn't be available for the White Sox to sign midseason.

I really had no idea why the Twins signed Thome. But last year their rotating DHs (Kubel appeared in 82 games at DH but also 53 in the outfield) hit .292, which was second in the league.

Last year the White Sox, primarily with Thome at DH, got a .250 average out of their DH and Jim Thome only hit .245. If Thome had more speed, if he weren't removed for pinch-runners late in close games, if there were other players on the Sox driving him in, his walks would be more helpful. The White Sox DHs are only hitting .242 this year, but there is no reason to believe that management should have known going into the season that that they would get substantially more out of their DHs if they had gone with Thome while sacrificing the ability to use the position to keep players fresh and nurse nagging injuries.

The irony is, the White Sox went to what worked for the Twins last year, with different personnel, and it hasn't worked. The Twins ended up going with what didn't work for the White Sox last year, with the White Sox personnel, and it has worked.

khan
09-14-2010, 02:48 PM
Teams are carrying more pitchers now than they were in the 1970s. The A's even had room for both a designated hitter and a designated pinch runner during a couple of seasons This is an evolutionary thing. In the 1970s, you had four-man starting rotations and there were AL teams that only went five deep in the bullpen because they didn't need more relievers. You had more than 10 20-game winners because pitchers were going deep into games (on three days rest). They weren't being removed for pinch-hitters in the fifth or sixth inning. It wasn't until statheads started analyzing pitch counts that things changed.

Pitching has evolved to demand five-man rotations and specialists that have made rarities out of complete games. And some successful teams have already gone to a rotating DH without fanfare. The Twins had a rotating DH last year. The Yankees have used 13 players at DH this year. Only two have appeared as a DH in more than 30 games. One is their veteran catcher. The other has as many games on defense as he has as the DH.

With the rosters expanded, teams can now carry all the pitchers, all the designated hitters all the designated runners and all the defensive replacements they believe they will need.
Thank you for this. However, this is totally, entirely, and utterly immaterial. Many teams have "DH-only" types and do just fine. Texas [with Vlad and his 17 games in the field out of ~136 appearances, Boston [with 'roider Ortiz and his grand total of 4 appearances @ 1B], Minnesota [with Thome] and many other teams in this and other seasons have been able to handle it.

Thus, it really isn't an issue, and wasn't an issue, IF the manager has the ability to properly deploy player assets. What's more, since you seem to be a "in Kenny we trust" type, I'll state that there already are/were enough guys in the roster that can stand @ 1B on the days Konerko doesn't. There already are/were enough guys who can play all of the other positions in the field, with Vizquel [all IF positions], Teahen [1B/3b + some OF], Nix [all IF positions + some OF], Jones [all OF positions], and even Lillibridge [MI + some OF].

Again, I'll complement KW in that KW did a fairly good job in assembling a flexible bench, but he didn't need any more flexibility.


Before that, I'm not sure if the Twins were going with one less position player or one less pitcher than the White Sox, and it's really not relevant because the Twins bullpen has been worked harder than the White Sox bullpen and it's been more successful. If Morneau didn't go down, Thome plays a lot less. Mauer DHs more. So does Kubel. The Twins rotate their DH more with players who can play defense, as they have in the past. Morneau would provides the Twins with more production than Thome has. Thome seems to have been Plan B, perhaps signed by the Twins so he wouldn't be available for the White Sox to sign midseason.
Frater has already spelled out a framework as to how this team could have utilized a proper DH platoon. Thome's RH counterpart in a DH platoon could have come from a combination of Quentin, Konerko, and others. [Note that Thome's handedness fits neatly with the handedness of the players that can "rest" as a DH in this team.]


I really had no idea why the Twins signed Thome. But last year their rotating DHs (Kubel appeared in 82 games at DH but also 53 in the outfield) hit .292, which was second in the league.

Last year the White Sox, primarily with Thome at DH, got a .250 average out of their DH and Jim Thome only hit .245.
Yes. And Ozzie overused Thome, despite the overwhelming evidence that he should be mainly a v. RHP type of hitter alone.


If Thome had more speed, if he weren't removed for pinch-runners late in close games, if there were other players on the Sox driving him in, his walks would be more helpful.
So now walks/NOT making an out are harmful things to a team?


The White Sox DHs are only hitting .242 this year, but there is no reason to believe that management should have known going into the season that that they would get substantially more out of their DHs if they had gone with Thome while sacrificing the ability to use the position to keep players fresh and nurse nagging injuries.
Again, see Frater's post about how a proper rotation could be utilized. I'd have LOVED to have Thome's elite production v. RHP, paired with decent production by other players in the roster v. LHP.


The irony is, the White Sox went to what worked for the Twins last year, with different personnel, and it hasn't worked. The Twins ended up going with what didn't work for the White Sox last year, with the White Sox personnel, and it has worked.
Actually, they were more intelligent, in that they continue to limit Thome's exposure to LHP. They simply have smarter people in the front office and in the field manager spots than the SOX.

TDog
09-14-2010, 03:29 PM
Frater has already spelled out a framework as to how this team could have utilized a proper DH platoon. ...

So now walks/NOT making an out are harmful things to a team? ...

First of all, Frater doesn't have to worry about managing a team. You can't be wrong if you deal in hypotheticals after the fact to make your point.

Secondly, walks to an RBI hitter with first base open and runners in scoring position don't help your team. Walks to a slow runner with no one on base often don't help your team. It isn't a question of making outs or not making outs. If you have a runner on third base and less than two outs, depending on the game situation, a deep fly out is generally better than a walk. When Thome walked a number of times last year before Konerko followed him by hitting into a doubleplay, it wasn't Thome's fault that Konerko hit into a doubleplay, but in many of those situations, he didn't help the team by not driving in a a run. Last year 29 percent of Thome's walks came with first base open and 41 percent came with no one on base. Regardless, he registered his lowest walk total of any season in which he played more than 100 games.

Come to think of it, had Thome led off a late inning in the Twins recent 1-0 12-inning win, the Twins might have lost. They would have had to pinch-run for him and he isn't around to hit a home run in the 12th.

In your hypotheticals, if Gardenhire is avoiding what Guillen did wrong in handling Thome, i.e. exposing him to the tough left-handed relief pitching that handled him so easily late in games during Thome's years with the White Sox, Gardenhire would have pinch-hit for Thome when Thornton was closing down the Twins during the last White Sox trip to Minnesota. Instead Gardenhire was just as inept as Guillen and let him hit.

Thome wouldn't have won any more games for the White Sox. If the White Sox had signed him as a free agent after trading him away, the buzz on WSI would be how stupid management was for staying with the past instead of picking up someone better for that role.

But the fact is, more teams are defining their DH as a bat off the bench rather than an aging, limited player on the downside of his career.

asindc
09-14-2010, 03:39 PM
An objective observer's take on the situation (ignore the Ozzie speculation... it's a re-hash):

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ozzie-guillen-would-be-good-fit-to-manage-florida-marlins-091410

doublem23
09-14-2010, 03:50 PM
An objective observer's take on the situation (ignore the Ozzie speculation... it's a re-hash):

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/ozzie-guillen-would-be-good-fit-to-manage-florida-marlins-091410

I don't know, I thought replacing Kotsay with Thome was pretty ridiculous then, too. I know, even though I've been watching baseball for basically as long as I remember, since I wasn't born into the good ol' boys clique I'm not allowed to have an opinion (since, how would I KNOW ****ty Mark Kotsay would turn out to be worse than future HOF Jim Thome!?)

khan
09-14-2010, 04:07 PM
First of all, Frater doesn't have to worry about managing a team. You can't be wrong if you deal in hypotheticals after the fact to make your point.
I can't speak for Frater, but I have been vocal about wanting Thome to have limited exposure v. LHP for a few seasons. I also have been vocal about wanting to have a decent hitter as part of the DH solution this season, not a ****ty hitter who really doesn't do anything well as the primary DH.

So again, let's stop with the "after the fact" bull****.

Secondly, walks to an RBI hitter with first base open and runners in scoring position don't help your team. Walks to a slow runner with no one on base often don't help your team. It isn't a question of making outs or not making outs.
Actually, your previous post didn't qualify when/how Thome's walks occur/occurred, but feel free to continue to move the goalposts.

And yes, it IS about making outs/not making outs. All things being equal, not making an out is better than making an out.


If you have a runner on third base and less than two outs, depending on the game situation, a deep fly out is generally better than a walk. When Thome walked a number of times last year before Konerko followed him by hitting into a doubleplay, it wasn't Thome's fault that Konerko hit into a doubleplay, but in many of those situations, he didn't help the team by not driving in a a run.
1. Are you applying this same critical eye to Mark Kotsay for his AVALANCHE of failures in RBI situations?

2. Again, not making an out is almost ALWAYS better than making an out.

Last year 29 percent of Thome's walks came with first base open and 41 percent came with no one on base. Regardless, he registered his lowest walk total of any season in which he played more than 100 games.
And yet, despite more convoluted and tortured logic, Thome continues to produce. But I'll play along with you for a moment:

Exactly what do these situational percentages have to do with the very real fact that Thome is a better hitter than Kotsay?

Come to think of it, had Thome led off a late inning in the Twins recent 1-0 12-inning win, the Twins might have lost. They would have had to pinch-run for him and he isn't around to hit a home run in the 12th.
[And here's the Tdog convoluted cherry-picking at work. He uses "if" and "had" and "might have" and other hypothetical statements an awful lot, doesn't he?]

By the way, Thome DID get the game winning HR. How many walkoff HITS of any type does Kotsay have this season?

In your hypotheticals, if Gardenhire is avoiding what Guillen did wrong in handling Thome, i.e. exposing him to the tough left-handed relief pitching that handled him so easily late in games during Thome's years with the White Sox, Gardenhire would have pinch-hit for Thome when Thornton was closing down the Twins during the last White Sox trip to Minnesota. Instead Gardenhire was just as inept as Guillen and let him hit.
See, Gardenhire is smart enough to limit his exposure to LHP, not eliminate it. Thome has 249 AB, but only 72 v. LHP this season.

Thus, a LIMITING, not eliminating of exposure. Guillen simply didn't have the ability to read Thome's splits, or is as willfully ignorant as you are being here. [Of course, Kotsay's pitiful .077 OPS v. LHP makes Thome's numbers v. LHP look positively Ruthian.]

By the way, these aren't "hypotheticals." These are actual results of Gardenhire LIMITING Thome's exposure to LHP.


Thome wouldn't have won any more games for the White Sox. If the White Sox had signed him as a free agent after trading him away, the buzz on WSI would be how stupid management was for staying with the past instead of picking up someone better for that role.
[See the hypothetical statements and convoluted line of thought by the front office's best friend on WSI again?]

I'll just say that Thome's 1.149 OPS v. RHP will say otherwise. Kotsay's BA-esque .739 OPS v. RHP also will say otherwise.

The SOX will always be a better team with better players in the team. Thome is simply a better player than Kotsay, thus the SOX would have been in a better position to win more often as a result. Do you disagree?

Also, I and many others here who know how to value a designated HITTER would have been fine this year with Thome as part of the DH solution.


But the fact is, more teams are defining their DH as a bat off the bench rather than an aging, limited player on the downside of his career.
That may be your opinion, but this statement is FAR from your previous supposition that the larger pitching staffs require all hitters to play a position. The very real evidence of teams all over the AL using a DH-only type further nullifies your latest convoluted attempt to justify Kotsay's inclusion in the team.

asindc
09-14-2010, 04:08 PM
I don't know, I thought replacing Kotsay with Thome was pretty ridiculous then, too. I know, even though I've been watching baseball for basically as long as I remember, since I wasn't born into the good ol' boys clique I'm not allowed to have an opinion (since, how would I KNOW ****ty Mark Kotsay would turn out to be worse than future HOF Jim Thome!?)

Then you "knew" more than the 12 AL GMs whose DHs have produced a lower OPS than the Twinkees' DHs this year. (By the way, I think it is disingenous for you as moderator to suggest that anyone has implied that you are not allowed to have an opinion on this [or any other, for that matter] subject.) I do give you credit for recognizing it as an opinion and not fact, which is more than some have demonstrated in expressing their opinions.

doublem23
09-14-2010, 04:11 PM
Then you "knew" more than the 12 AL GMs whose DHs have produced a lower OPS than the Twinkees this year. (By the way, I think it is disingenous for you as moderator to suggest that anyone has implied that you are not allowed to have an opinion on this [or any other, for that matter] subject.) I do give you credit for recognizing it as an opinion and not fact, which is more than some have demonstrated in expressing their opinions.

I'm not sure where you've been but one of the primary rallying calls for the crowd that always side with Ozzie, Williams, or the front office is that we, as fans, shouldn't ever question their judgment since they're "baseball people."

asindc
09-14-2010, 04:26 PM
I'm not sure where you've been but one of the primary rallying calls for the crowd that always side with Ozzie, Williams, or the front office is that we, as fans, shouldn't ever question their judgment since they're "baseball people."

I won't speak for anyone else, but the distinction I always make is between an opinion that is offered as if it is fact and and an opinion that is offered as such. I especially take exception with an opinion-as-fact when it is presented as if the person offering the opinion knows more about the particular situation than management does. This is not because I think management should be defended at all times, but because it is annoying to read an opinion-as-fact when it is offered by someone who is convinced they know all there is to know about any given situation.

(By the way, none of this applies to your statements in this thread. I'm speaking of a highly vocal minority who speak with the same limited knowledge about the organization that the rest of us do, but speak as though that is not the case.)

khan
09-14-2010, 04:32 PM
I won't speak for anyone else, but the distinction I always make is between an opinion that is offered as if it is fact and and an opinion that is offered as such. I especially take exception with an opinion-as-fact when it is presented as if the person offering the opinion knows more about the particular situation than management does.

Do you mean statements like the one made here by another poster?


But the fact is, more teams are defining their DH as a bat off the bench rather than an aging, limited player on the downside of his career.



And, by the way:


Hideki Matsui, Jack Cust, Vlad Guerrero, Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Adam Lind, and Nick Johnson all agree with this "fact" that very few teams use DH-only types.

Frater Perdurabo
09-14-2010, 08:00 PM
I just continue not to believe there is enough room on a 25-man roster anymore to carry a player who can't play in the field.

Rotating the DH is a great idea, especially if you have more good hitters than you have positions for them to play on the field. The Yankees and Rangers come to mind.

The White Sox don't have enough good hitters.

Even if Manny plays the rest of the season as the DH, Kotsay will have been the DH more than any other player on the team. That is a crime.

With the way the roster was constructed (without Thome), I had no problem with Kotsay playing first once or even twice per week or so to allow Paulie to DH. But Quentin should have been DH-ing 3-4 times per week, with Jones playing right field during those games. This would have improved the outfield defense AND would have kept Quentin healthier and in the lineup more often.

This would have meant more ABs for Jones and fewer for Kotsay. At least Jones brings impressive power and the ability to steal bases with his crappy average. Kotsay brings nothing, other than the ability to pop out and GIDP.

TDog
09-14-2010, 08:55 PM
Rotating the DH is a great idea, especially if you have more good hitters than you have positions for them to play on the field. The Yankees and Rangers come to mind.

The White Sox don't have enough good hitters.

...

The White Sox, with the rotating DH, had a .299 batting average for the months of July and August. They led the league in runs scored in August, although they had a losing month.

Since they put a "real DH" into the lineup, they have hit about 50 points lower. Their batting average for September is the worst in the league. Ramirez is not only not hitting, but he isn't helping make other hitters better.

Going into Tuesday night's game Manny Ramirez seemed to be making an argument for a rotating DH.

Domeshot17
09-14-2010, 09:02 PM
The White Sox, with the rotating DH, had a .299 batting average for the months of July and August. They led the league in runs scored in August, although they had a losing month.

Since they put a "real DH" into the lineup, they have hit about 50 points lower. Their batting average for September is the worst in the league. Ramirez is not only not hitting, but he isn't helping make other hitters better.

Going into Tuesday night's game Manny Ramirez seemed to be making an argument for a rotating DH.


Well since you are cherry picking, does that mean April May and June are anti rotating DH?

Also, since when is batting average the end all be all. Omar Vizquel is hitting like 295 or something, but has hardly produced many runs. Manny has not been great, but given a full season of him versus Kotsay, it is an easy choice.

Frater is right, the rotating DH works when you have talent. The rotating DH doesn't work when you aren't putting your best 9 guys out there.

Frater Perdurabo
09-14-2010, 09:31 PM
The White Sox, with the rotating DH, had a .299 batting average for the months of July and August. They led the league in runs scored in August, although they had a losing month.

Since they put a "real DH" into the lineup, they have hit about 50 points lower. Their batting average for September is the worst in the league. Ramirez is not only not hitting, but he isn't helping make other hitters better.

Going into Tuesday night's game Manny Ramirez seemed to be making an argument for a rotating DH.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the "concept" of a rotating DH if you have enough good hitters on your team.

Using Mark Kotsay - who has spent most of this season hititng like a left-handed veteran version of Brian Anderson - as your DH more than any other player on your roster - whether for 162 games or 45 - is the problem.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Frater Perdurabo
09-14-2010, 09:43 PM
Kotsay is 14th on the team in OBP.

Kotsay is 14th on the team in SLG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in AVG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in OPS.

Even if you remove the players who have better numbers due to small sample size (Castro, Lillibridge, Lucy, Viciedo, etc.), Kotsay remains ninth or tenth on the team in each of these categories. I completely understand and accept having Kotsay play first base occasionally to allow Paulie to rest at DH (even though Teahen and then Viciedo could have done so if Kotsay was not on the roster).

But why on earth would anyone think it's a good idea to have Kotsay DH even one game, much less 45, which is more than any other player on the team?

Hitmen77
09-14-2010, 10:10 PM
Kotsay is 14th on the team in OBP.

Kotsay is 14th on the team in SLG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in AVG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in OPS.

Even if you remove the players who have better numbers due to small sample size (Castro, Lillibridge, Lucy, Viciedo, etc.), Kotsay remains ninth or tenth on the team in each of these categories. I completely understand and accept having Kotsay play first base occasionally to allow Paulie to rest at DH (even though Teahen and then Viciedo could have done so if Kotsay was not on the roster).

But why on earth would anyone think it's a good idea to have Kotsay DH even one game, much less 45, which is more than any other player on the team?

Hey, if he does poorly, just say that he didn't change the outcome of a single game this year. Also say that, since the Sox had other weaknesses and lost some games for other reasons, that having a good DH just doesn't make a difference.

That seems to be one of the strongest arguments for Ozzie's decision around here.

TDog
09-14-2010, 10:33 PM
Kotsay is 14th on the team in OBP.

Kotsay is 14th on the team in SLG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in AVG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in OPS.

Even if you remove the players who have better numbers due to small sample size (Castro, Lillibridge, Lucy, Viciedo, etc.), Kotsay remains ninth or tenth on the team in each of these categories. I completely understand and accept having Kotsay play first base occasionally to allow Paulie to rest at DH (even though Teahen and then Viciedo could have done so if Kotsay was not on the roster).

But why on earth would anyone think it's a good idea to have Kotsay DH even one game, much less 45, which is more than any other player on the team?

Because he still has outperformed Manny Ramirez.

doublem23
09-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Because he still has outperformed Manny Ramirez.

That doesn't mean he doesn't suck. Maybe Manny just sucks, too.

Frater Perdurabo
09-14-2010, 10:56 PM
Because he still has outperformed Manny Ramirez.

Thome has outperformed both of them.

Thome has outperformed EVERY current Sox regular v. RHP.

Facts are stubborn things.

SI1020
09-14-2010, 11:04 PM
I don't think anyone has a problem with the "concept" of a rotating DH if you have enough good hitters on your team.

Using Mark Kotsay - who has spent most of this season hititng like a left-handed veteran version of Brian Anderson - as your DH more than any other player on your roster - whether for 162 games or 45 - is the problem.

What is so hard to understand about this?I keep asking myself that.

russ99
09-14-2010, 11:07 PM
Kotsay is 14th on the team in OBP.

Kotsay is 14th on the team in SLG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in AVG.

Kotsay is 15th on the team in OPS.

Even if you remove the players who have better numbers due to small sample size (Castro, Lillibridge, Lucy, Viciedo, etc.), Kotsay remains ninth or tenth on the team in each of these categories. I completely understand and accept having Kotsay play first base occasionally to allow Paulie to rest at DH (even though Teahen and then Viciedo could have done so if Kotsay was not on the roster).

But why on earth would anyone think it's a good idea to have Kotsay DH even one game, much less 45, which is more than any other player on the team?

Since he's hit only hit 8 HRs all season, SLG and OPS aren't good comparison stats since they're heavily weighted towards home run hitters, so let's look at average.

But he's 15th on the team in average, but 9th in at-bats.

You guys are whining and crying about our 9th hitter... Only the Red Sox and Yankees expect average production of their 9th hitters.

I have a much bigger problem with guys that are getting lots more at bats and not producing. Two players on the team are 15th on the team hitting .236. One you think is the worst player in a Sox uniform ever, the other is OK since he hits lots of homers, and is someone lots of people want at DH, Carlos Quentin.

Again, I'm not saying Kotsay should be getting more at-bats, but let's criticize equally, not pick one guy as the whipping-boy.

doublem23
09-14-2010, 11:11 PM
Again, I'm not saying Kotsay should be getting more at-bats, but let's criticize equally, not pick one guy as the whipping-boy.

Well, he wasn't batting 9th all year. In fact most of his PA have come in the middle of the order, and he's an easy whipping boy because

A) He's the worst player on the roster.
B) There was an easy, cheap upgrade possible
C) Anybody with any sense knew what would happen if Kotsay played basically everyday
D) Some people still defend him, as if he somehow has made the team better this year.

Perfect storm for a whipping boy.

slavko
09-14-2010, 11:35 PM
Big Jim is 30 pounds less Big, to my eyes. Getting dumped sends a message, even to a superstar.

Craig Grebeck
09-15-2010, 08:31 AM
Since he's hit only hit 8 HRs all season, SLG and OPS aren't good comparison stats since they're heavily weighted towards home run hitters, so let's look at average.
You say this all the time -- and it makes less sense each time I read it. You don't just dump power stats because a guy isn't a power hitter.

"Hey, my argument sucks, but if we skew the comparison away from a sucky part of my argument, so there's no focus on one of the many aspects of how my argument sucks, my argument might suck a little less!"

But he's 15th on the team in average, but 9th in at-bats.Yes. He sucks.

You guys are whining and crying about our 9th hitter... Only the Red Sox and Yankees expect average production of their 9th hitters.He batted much higher than that almost all season long.

I have a much bigger problem with guys that are getting lots more at bats and not producing. Two players on the team are 15th on the team hitting .236. One you think is the worst player in a Sox uniform ever, the other is OK since he hits lots of homers, and is someone lots of people want at DH, Carlos Quentin.Okay.

Again, I'm not saying Kotsay should be getting more at-bats, but let's criticize equally, not pick one guy as the whipping-boy.Kotsay is the whipping boy because he represents everything that went wrong prior to the 2010 season. It's just happened in slow motion, and it's been all the more agonizing and terrible for those of us who tried to point out the sheer bat**** craziness that was the Thome decision.

FarmerAndy
09-15-2010, 03:31 PM
The argument seems to have become Thome vs. Kotsay/Rotating DH, like those were the only two options.

Sure, it's easy to look at what Thome's doing now and then say what a bad move it was to let him go. Looking back now, sure I wish we had him. But just because I know what I know now I'm not going to say that I thought it was a huge mistake to let Thome go at the time. In fact, I thought it was probably the smart thing to do.

That being said, I wasn't banking on Mark Kotsay being the most regular in a rotation of weak bats at DH. I was guessing (or hoping, I guess) that he DH spot would be used to spell the likes of Konerko and Quentin in the field until Kenny could pick up a more solid bat, which I figured (or again, hoped) would be long before August 31st.

The Kotsay/rotating DH has been a big problem on this team all year. But let's not pretend that if the Sox had brought back Thome we would be where the Twins are right now.

Minnesota has bettered us this year for many different reasons. And I don't think that Kenny not bringing back Thome was a horrible descision. I guess it sort of looks that way in hindsight, but baseball is funny like that.

Somebody on page 1 of this thread said it best - The problem wasn't not bringing Thome back, the problem was not getting anybody else.

ewokpelts
09-15-2010, 05:15 PM
again, a thome/jones dh rotation is what i would have preferred. kotsay is a joke no matter where u put him. and as your primary dh? *****