PDA

View Full Version : Sox interested in Rafael Soriano


Sockinchisox
01-01-2011, 09:00 PM
But they have very little money left, need to free up space.

http://twitter.com/#!/SI_JonHeyman/status/21378102181494784

JermaineDye05
01-01-2011, 09:05 PM
I imagine we'd have to trade someone like Teahen first.

DirtySox
01-01-2011, 09:05 PM
For a second round pick, might as well.

NLaloosh
01-01-2011, 09:50 PM
He would be the perfect final piece for this team. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have that king od money left and his agent is boras.

cards press box
01-01-2011, 10:35 PM
The Sox have money coming off the books next year, so a multi-year contract for Soriano is not out of the question. Still, the Sox would probably try to move some salary. If KW could move Scott Linebrink, don't underestimate his ability to move Mark Teahen.

One more possibility -- if Soriano doesn't get the multi-year deal he wants elsewhere, perhaps he signs a one year deal with the Sox and tests the free agent market next year.

Gammons Peter
01-01-2011, 10:58 PM
Jackson would have to go and Sale moves to the rotation

cards press box
01-01-2011, 11:07 PM
Jackson would have to go and Sale moves to the rotation

Long term, the Sox want to start Sale. And if the Sox deal Jackson, they might be able to fill a hole (bullpen?), add to organizational depth (a catching propsect and/or lefty bat?) or do both. If the Sox made these moves and added Soriano as their closer, I suspect that the Sox will do pretty well.

soxfanreggie
01-01-2011, 11:18 PM
The Sox have money coming off the books next year, so a multi-year contract for Soriano is not out of the question. Still, the Sox would probably try to move some salary. If KW could move Scott Linebrink, don't underestimate his ability to move Mark Teahen.

One more possibility -- if Soriano doesn't get the multi-year deal he wants elsewhere, perhaps he signs a one year deal with the Sox and tests the free agent market next year.

What we would have to eat on Teahen would probably still leave us well short. If we can dump him, fantastic.

As for the payroll going into 2012, we still have to set aside more if we want to re-sign Alexei. He will demand much more than $1.1 million. I hope we have some We'll also have to re-sign/replace Pierre, Danks, MB, and Quentin. Danks will be pretty expensive. As for the others, hopefully we can find a homegrown replacement for Pierre and maybe Phegley will start emerging to prepare for life w/o AJ eventually.

chisox616
01-02-2011, 12:49 PM
I was wondering why no one linked Soriano to the Sox yet. I wasn't aware of the fact that he was a Boras client, but he would be the absolute perfect piece to complete this team...

GAsoxfan
01-03-2011, 09:20 AM
The Sox have money coming off the books next year, so a multi-year contract for Soriano is not out of the question. Still, the Sox would probably try to move some salary. If KW could move Scott Linebrink, don't underestimate his ability to move Mark Teahen.

One more possibility -- if Soriano doesn't get the multi-year deal he wants elsewhere, perhaps he signs a one year deal with the Sox and tests the free agent market next year.

I think that's a definite possibility. Last year he accepted the Braves arbitration offer because he didn't expect to get the kind of deal he wanted in free agency.

russ99
01-03-2011, 09:51 AM
He would be the perfect final piece for this team. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have that king od money left and his agent is boras.

I really don't see the Sox having an interest for what they expect to sign for. If Kenny won't pay Bobby $8M, why would he pay more for Soriano who has similar health concerns.

Besides, nobody wants to pay Boras' asking price.

Hmm... could this be yet another planted "interest" story by Boras to get more teams into the mix?

Supposedly Heyman often leaks info from agents.

NLaloosh
01-03-2011, 02:28 PM
I really don't see the Sox having an interest for what they expect to sign for. If Kenny won't pay Bobby $8M, why would he pay more for Soriano who has similar health concerns.

Besides, nobody wants to pay Boras' asking price.

Hmm... could this be yet another planted "interest" story by Boras to get more teams into the mix?

Supposedly Heyman often leaks info from agents.

Well, I do agree that it won't happen. However, I do think the Sox are interested because Soriano is simply better than Jenks. He is worth $ 8 mil. per year at least. But, I don't think any deal will be worked out.

wulfy
01-03-2011, 03:23 PM
Edwin Jackson to the Yankees could probably make this deal happen $$ wise, couldn't it?

JermaineDye05
01-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Edwin Jackson to the Yankees could probably make this deal happen $$ wise, couldn't it?

I really want to keep our pitching rotation intact. Unless Kenny gets an offer similar to what he got for McCarthy.

PennStater98r
01-03-2011, 05:35 PM
I really don't see the Sox having an interest for what they expect to sign for. If Kenny won't pay Bobby $8M, why would he pay more for Soriano who has similar health concerns.

Besides, nobody wants to pay Boras' asking price.

Hmm... could this be yet another planted "interest" story by Boras to get more teams into the mix?

Supposedly Heyman often leaks info from agents.

Perhaps the story around Jenks' mouth that dominated the media over the end of the year is why the Sox cut him loose...

That's not to mention that a healthy Soriano is better than a healthy Jenks - without the mouth.

LoveYourSuit
01-03-2011, 06:52 PM
I really want to keep our pitching rotation intact. Unless Kenny gets an offer similar to what he got for McCarthy.


I don't understand why people want to move a SP when Peavy's situation is up in the air.

A. Cavatica
01-03-2011, 07:29 PM
I don't understand why people want to move a SP when Peavy's situation is up in the air.

In Jackson's case, because of that career 1.485 WHIP. That is bad.

And because the Sox are monitoring Peavy's progress. If they do decide to move a SP it's because they know Peavy will return this season.

Jackson did pitch well for us, but I'd just as soon have Freddy and lots of cash that could be put toward Soriano.

The rotation could be Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, or Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, Garcia in the short term.

A. Cavatica
01-03-2011, 07:35 PM
I don't understand why people want to move a SP when Peavy's situation is up in the air.

By the way, baseball-reference.com says Jackson is (statistically) Kyle Lohse or Mike Moore. If you can deal a #4 starter for a bullpen ace, why wouldn't you do it?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksed01.shtml

LoveYourSuit
01-03-2011, 07:39 PM
In Jackson's case, because of that career 1.485 WHIP. That is bad.

And because the Sox are monitoring Peavy's progress. If they do decide to move a SP it's because they know Peavy will return this season.

Jackson did pitch well for us, but I'd just as soon have Freddy and lots of cash that could be put toward Soriano.

The rotation could be Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, or Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, Garcia in the short term.


I highly doubt it has been that high for his last 2-3 seasons.


Besides, A rotation of Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, Garcia if Peavy does not come back is IMO a very medicore rotation and not something I would want to take my chances on.

Right now, I have Jackson as my #2 behind Danks and ahead of Buehrle.

WhiteSox5187
01-03-2011, 07:55 PM
I highly doubt it has been that high for his last 2-3 seasons.


Besides, A rotation of Danks, Floyd, Buehrle, Sale, Garcia if Peavy does not come back is IMO a very medicore rotation and not something I would want to take my chances on.

Right now, I have Jackson as my #2 behind Danks and ahead of Buehrle.

You're right, last year with Arizona it was higher.

Daver
01-03-2011, 08:03 PM
I don't understand why people want to move a SP when Peavy's situation is up in the air.

Are you trying to say Lucas Harrell can't replace Jake Peavy?

LoveYourSuit
01-03-2011, 08:06 PM
You're right, last year with Arizona it was higher.

:rolleyes: Yeah, let's ignore his 1.26 in Detroit '09 and 1.21 with the Sox last year.

LoveYourSuit
01-03-2011, 08:07 PM
Are you trying to say Lucas Harrell can't replace Jake Peavy?

Some fans think 200 inning pitchers just grow on trees.

A. Cavatica
01-03-2011, 08:37 PM
The nice thing about a career average is that includes those good seasons.

And the bad ones.

In 2007, his WHIP was 1.758. In 2008, it was 1.505. In 2010 with Arizona, it was 1.496 (and the full season average was 1.395, higher than Freddy's 1.376).

So let's stop pretending Jackson isn't expendable. A more interesting question is how much Soriano would help.

ZombieRob
01-03-2011, 08:43 PM
The nice thing about a career average is that includes those good seasons.

And the bad ones.

In 2007, his WHIP was 1.758. In 2008, it was 1.505. In 2010 with Arizona, it was 1.496 (and the full season average was 1.395, higher than Freddy's 1.376).

So let's stop pretending Jackson isn't expendable. A more interesting question is how much Soriano would help.
If you go by that way of thinking, any Sox pitcher is expendable.

WhiteSox5187
01-03-2011, 08:46 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah, let's ignore his 1.26 in Detroit '09 and 1.21 with the Sox last year.

Should we also ignore his 1.527 WHIP in the second half of '09? The guy has NEVER had a whole solid season and there is a reason he has been on four teams in the past three seasons.

palehozenychicty
01-03-2011, 08:47 PM
If they can figure it out financially and cut some cash out, I'm down. None of our pitchers, despite the track records, are absolutes.

A. Cavatica
01-03-2011, 09:01 PM
If you go by that way of thinking, any Sox pitcher is expendable.

Hmmm. I looked up the career WHIPs of the other starters.

Peavy...1.185
Buehrle...1.280
Danks...1.297
Floyd...1.368
Sale's is 1.071, but of course the sample size is too small.

So I disagree, no other Sox starter is as expendable as Jackson.

By the way, Freddy's at 1.299 for his career, despite being 35 and having lost his velocity. And even Tony Pena has a career WHIP of 1.361, in 359 innings.

Clayton Richard? 1.449. Bartolo Colon? 1.338. Jose Contreras? 1.364. Javier Vazquez? 1.254. Jon Garland? 1.380. Brandon McCarthy? 1.363.

Like I said, 1.485 is bad.

DumpJerry
01-03-2011, 09:03 PM
Hmmm. I looked up the career WHIPs of the other starters.

Peavy...1.185
Buehrle...1.280
Danks...1.297
Floyd...1.368
Sale's is 1.071, but of course the sample size is too small.

So I disagree, no other Sox starter is as expendable as Jackson.

By the way, Freddy's at 1.299 for his career, despite being 35 and having lost his velocity. And even Tony Pena has a career WHIP of 1.361, in 359 innings.

Clayton Richard? 1.449. Bartolo Colon? 1.338. Jose Contreras? 1.364. Javier Vazquez? 1.254. Jon Garland? 1.380. Brandon McCarthy? 1.363.

Like I said, 1.485 is bad.
http://images4.cpcache.com/product/263759014v7_480x480_Front.jpg

LoveYourSuit
01-03-2011, 09:18 PM
I have a feeling Jackson has become the Dotel of Starting Pitchers. White Sox fans just looking for a guy to hate.


With his arm and Coop having him for a full season, I will take my chances (based on the results here last year).

If anyone needs to be traded to dump salary, trade Quentin then.

DumpJerry
01-03-2011, 09:19 PM
I have a feeling Jackson has become the Dotel of Starting Pitchers. White Sox fans just looking for a guy to hate.


With his arm and Coop having him for a full season, I will take my chances (based on the results here last year).

If anyone needs to be traded to dump salary, trade Quentin then.
Finally, someone says something that makes sense! And no stats were hurt making this point.

DirtySox
01-03-2011, 10:12 PM
Finally, someone says something that makes sense! And no stats were hurt making this point.

Indeed. Speculation and hearsay are the foundation for all salient arguments.

cws05champ
01-03-2011, 10:41 PM
I have a feeling Jackson has become the Dotel of Starting Pitchers. White Sox fans just looking for a guy to hate.


With his arm and Coop having him for a full season, I will take my chances (based on the results here last year).

If anyone needs to be traded to dump salary, trade Quentin then.

No doubt it was because so many disagreed with trading Hudson for Jackson. If Jackson had been traded for some other minor leaguers I think a lot would feel differently.

DumpJerry
01-03-2011, 10:44 PM
Indeed. Speculation and hearsay are the foundation for all salient arguments.
Hearsay? Do you know what hearsay is? There is no hearsay in the post I quoted.

doublem23
01-04-2011, 09:54 AM
Hearsay? Do you know what hearsay is? There is no hearsay in the post I quoted.

Right, that was all factual, well-researched information.

khan
01-04-2011, 11:20 AM
Yeah, opinions should be formed without any factual basis. Stats? Actual results? Numbers? BAH! I mock facts!!


I say you should form your opinions based on emotions, and what the media and SOX front office TELLS me to think! And once I'm GIVEN an opinion by my emotions, the media, or the SOX front office, despite all facts and numbers and reality, you should DEFEND that opinion to the end!! Also, ATTACK people who base their opinions on factual reality!! Call them "egg heads." Or "propeller heads." Or "stat geeks."

After all, emotions are more real than numbers.






As an aside, Jackson isn't going anywhere. And Soriano isn't coming here. KW has to keep his tradition of fielding incomplete teams, giving away value, and overpaying mediocre players going.

DirtySox
01-04-2011, 11:48 AM
It's fine to be hopeful or take the position that EJ will thrive next year because of Coop. People can be optimistic all they want. I hope he has a career year and cements himself as a Type A free agent before he inevitably leaves to test free agency. It's also okay to proceed with some trepidation considering how strikingly inconsistent he has been over the years. I have no idea what we will get out of Edwin. I wouldn't be surprised if he is a lights out staff ace, and I also won't be surprised if he turns into a pumpkin. Through and through, it's quite silly to keep sniping even the most basic and accepted pitching metrics because one might not like the picture they paint.

Lip Man 1
01-04-2011, 12:29 PM
Khan says:

"As an aside, Jackson isn't going anywhere. And Soriano isn't coming here. KW has to keep his tradition of fielding incomplete teams, giving away value, and overpaying mediocre players going."

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

And despite all that the Sox consistently have winning seasons. (Seven plus a .500 season in 10 years he has been in charge.) That's not the 'be all-end all' to be sure, but a team in MLB has never made the postseason with a losing record. Have a winning record at the very least and you have a statistical chance of playing in October.

Can Kenny do some things better? Of course...but the same can also be said of every G.M. in the game.

Lip

esbrechtel
01-04-2011, 12:30 PM
I am all for going after Soriano but not at the expense of a starting pitcher.

asindc
01-04-2011, 12:33 PM
Khan says:

"As an aside, Jackson isn't going anywhere. And Soriano isn't coming here. KW has to keep his tradition of fielding incomplete teams, giving away value, and overpaying mediocre players going."

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

And despite all that the Sox consistently have winning seasons. (Seven plus a .500 season in 10 years he has been in charge.) That's not the 'be all-end all' to be sure, but a team in MLB has never made the postseason with a losing record. Have a winning record at the very least and you have a statistical chance of playing in October.

Can Kenny do some things better? Of course...but the same can also be said of every G.M. in the game.

Lip

No it can't! KW should have started 2010 with someone like Brendan Harris starting at 3B, or Boone Logan in the bullpen (or Javier Vazquez, for that matter), or Andy Sonnenstine in the bullpen, or Bengie Molina/Matt Treanor at starting catcher. Then maybe the team would have been complete.

Zisk77
01-04-2011, 12:48 PM
Yeah, opinions should be formed without any factual basis. Stats? Actual results? Numbers? BAH! I mock facts!!


I say you should form your opinions based on emotions, and what the media and SOX front office TELLS me to think! And once I'm GIVEN an opinion by my emotions, the media, or the SOX front office, despite all facts and numbers and reality, you should DEFEND that opinion to the end!! Also, ATTACK people who base their opinions on factual reality!! Call them "egg heads." Or "propeller heads." Or "stat geeks."

After all, emotions are more real than numbers.






As an aside, Jackson isn't going anywhere. And Soriano isn't coming here. KW has to keep his tradition of fielding incomplete teams, giving away value, and overpaying mediocre players going.


No "eggheads" "stat geeks", etc aren't people who value statistical data they are people that ONLY accept statistical data.

Both subjective (which I think you are trying to portray as irrationally emotional only) or qualitative data and quantitaive data are important and relevant.

Some examples:

- One defensive zone rating system had Alphonso Soriano as one of the best defensive LFers. I'll trust my emotional eyes and say he sucks defensively.

- Hypothetically, lets say we have a 2 hitter who has 50 ab's with a runner at 2b and no outs. 40 times he successfully hits a ground ball or flyball to the right side and advances the runner to 3b. He also has 25 succesful sac bunts. Now statistically he is penalized for advancing the runner on the non-sac ab's and not rewarded or penalized for the sac's (other then the sac stat). His batting average is .240 with 33 rbi's and 8 hr. Many would conclude by stats that he wasn't a very valuable offensive member of the club according to his factual statistics. The reality however, he probable gave his team ability to score a lot of easy runs (and thereby win games) by sacrifising his own statistics. If he just tried to get hits he may have hit .270 with 55 rbi's and 12 hrs and been far less valuable to his team.

-also you can handpick which stats are important on whether a player is good or bad. For instance Edwin Jackson....Career numbers are so-so so he is expendable for trade...Or Jackson was awesome in his short stint with sox (backed up with stats (ERA, K's, Ground balls etc). Coopmade an adjustment with him that seemed to work...Coop has had similar success with other quality arms. Jackson is at the age where many players reach their potential. Jackson is in a contract year when many acheive for obvious reasons. Therefore don't trade Jackson.

Both above points have validity.

One possible solution might be Sale to rotation Jackson to Close?

doublem23
01-04-2011, 12:49 PM
And despite all that the Sox consistently have winning seasons. (Seven plus a .500 season in 10 years he has been in charge.) That's not the 'be all-end all' to be sure, but a team in MLB has never made the postseason with a losing record. Have a winning record at the very least and you have a statistical chance of playing in October.

Can Kenny do some things better? Of course...but the same can also be said of every G.M. in the game.

Lip

7 winning seasons, but only 2 play-off appearances, and this despite having arguably the most resources in this lousy division.

Lip Man 1
01-04-2011, 12:55 PM
Double:

I'd say you are partially correct although Detroit outspent the Sox in a few of those seasons and the Twins payroll last year was about 95 million, right in the ballpark with the Sox and Zisk it's 'interesting' that you mention Jackson as a closer. When I was in Chicago last year after he was acquired I heard exactly the same line of thinking coming from some of the front office when I was talking with them.

I don't think Jackson as a closer is currently in their line of thinking but you never know.

Lip

asindc
01-04-2011, 12:59 PM
7 winning seasons, but only 2 play-off appearances, and this despite having arguably the most resources in this lousy division.

This is something that is often said, but I wonder if many people really think about it. Yes, Chicago is the largest metro market in the division, but that does not tell the enitre story. The Sox' core base is the Chicago Metro area and immediate surrounding areas (NW Indiana, areas west and south of the city), but Detroit's core base in all of Michigan and the Toledo area, and Minny's core base is all of Minnesota and much of the upper plains (the Dakotas).

So in reality Detroit might have the largest core fan base in the division, with Minny not being as far behind the Sox as commonly perceived. Add to this mix the fact that pizza man in Detroit is probably the richest owner in the division and the Pohlads are probably not far behind (it actually might be the other way around), and the actual resource gap, if there is one at all, is probably not significant enough to matter. Speaking of owners, if we are talking about available resources, aren't we scrutinizing the ownership group rather than the GM?

asindc
01-04-2011, 01:00 PM
No "eggheads" "stat geeks", etc aren't people who value statistical data they are people that ONLY accept statistical data.

Both subjective (which I think you are trying to portray as irrationally emotional only) or qualitative data and quantitaive data are important and relevant.

Some examples:

- One defensive zone rating system had Alphonso Soriano as one of the best defensive LFers. I'll trust my emotional eyes and say he sucks defensively.

- Hypothetically, lets say we have a 2 hitter who has 50 ab's with a runner at 2b and no outs. 40 times he successfully hits a ground ball or flyball to the right side and advances the runner to 3b. He also has 25 succesful sac bunts. Now statistically he is penalized for advancing the runner on the non-sac ab's and not rewarded or penalized for the sac's (other then the sac stat). His batting average is .240 with 33 rbi's and 8 hr. Many would conclude by stats that he wasn't a very valuable offensive member of the club according to his factual statistics. The reality however, he probable gave his team ability to score a lot of easy runs (and thereby win games) by sacrifising his own statistics. If he just tried to get hits he may have hit .270 with 55 rbi's and 12 hrs and been far less valuable to his team.

-also you can handpick which stats are important on whether a player is good or bad. For instance Edwin Jackson....Career numbers are so-so so he is expendable for trade...Or Jackson was awesome in his short stint with sox (backed up with stats (ERA, K's, Ground balls etc). Coopmade an adjustment with him that seemed to work...Coop has had similar success with other quality arms. Jackson is at the age where many players reach their potential. Jackson is in a contract year when many acheive for obvious reasons. Therefore don't trade Jackson.

Both above points have validity.

One possible solution might be Sale to rotation Jackson to Close?

That might be the same defensive rating system that rated Juan Pierre above Alex Rios last year.

Domeshot17
01-04-2011, 01:05 PM
The most expendable Sox Pitcher is Buehrle. With what he makes, you could trade him to fill a hole or for prospects, use the money to sign a top flight closer and use the remaining 6 million to sign a reliable back end starter.

Chez
01-04-2011, 01:13 PM
Hearsay? Do you know what hearsay is? There is no hearsay in the post I quoted.

Right, that was all factual, well-researched information.

Not to put words in Dump's mouth, but I suspect he was referring to the legal definition of hearsay. And he's right, using the legal definition of the term "hearsay", there is no hearsay in the post he quoted. And this courtroom is now adjourned. :D:

DumpJerry
01-04-2011, 01:17 PM
Hearsay? Do you know what hearsay is? There is no hearsay in the post I quoted.

Right, that was all factual, well-researched information.
What does that have to do with a statement made by another person to prove the matter asserted? Nothing. Therefore, it is not hearsay and it is allowed in.

khan
01-04-2011, 01:56 PM
Can Kenny do some things better? Of course...but the same can also be said of every G.M. in the game.

Lip
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Oh, I forgot: If I'm not perpetually genuflecting before the icon of KW, I'm being overly critical, right?

I apologize for offending the prophet KW.

No "eggheads" "stat geeks", etc aren't people who value statistical data they are people that ONLY accept statistical data.
Punctuation is your friend.

Both subjective (which I think you are trying to portray as irrationally emotional only) or qualitative data and quantitaive data are important and relevant.
Emotions have got jack and **** to do with Carlos Quentin's inability to move better than a 40 year old geezer. Whether you wear your lucky hat to a game has jack and **** to do with Juan Pierre's throwing arm. And whether or not you made it to The Cell in time for dollar dog night has got jack and **** to do with whether or not Abuelo Omar should EVER DH.

In short, emotions mean NOTHING towards understanding which player is good, and which player is not good at baseball.

- One defensive zone rating system had Alphonso Soriano as one of the best defensive LFers. I'll trust my emotional eyes and say he sucks defensively.
Link? [No offense, but] If you don't have the citation for this, I'll have to call BS on this one.

Moreover, I don't value many defensive metrics as being valid, until we see it proven to be reliable.

-also you can handpick which stats are important on whether a player is good or bad. For instance Edwin Jackson....Career numbers are so-so so he is expendable for trade...Or Jackson was awesome in his short stint with sox (backed up with stats (ERA, K's, Ground balls etc).
And if you look at Jackson's supposedly "awesome" stint with the SOX, you'll see that this is a myth as well. He had an AWESOME august [vs. Baltimore, an injured Detroit, and a dead Cleveland], and a ****ty September.

This supposedly "awesome" stint is a microcosm of his entire career: up-and-down-and-up-and-down.

Coopmade an adjustment with him that seemed to work...Coop has had similar success with other quality arms. Jackson is at the age where many players reach their potential. Jackson is in a contract year when many acheive for obvious reasons. Therefore don't trade Jackson.

Both above points have validity.
I can agree.

But my point is to base YOUR opinion on reality. Not on emotion. Not on what the moronic media tell you. Not what KW tells you. Base your opinion on some factual basis.

One possible solution might be Sale to rotation Jackson to Close?

Or, trade Jackson away, before he craps his pants, gets injured, or in some other way screws this team over. Use the savings in payroll to solve other problems. [See the trade of Carlos Lee to acquire a leadoff man and a valuable bullpen arm as an example of this exact sort of thing having worked well in the past. In other words, 2 holes were solved by trading Lee away.]

cards press box
01-04-2011, 02:13 PM
Or, trade Jackson away, [and] use the savings in payroll to solve other problems. [See the trade of Carlos Lee to acquire a leadoff man and a valuable bullpen arm as an example of this exact sort of thing having worked well in the past. In other words, 2 holes were solved by trading Lee away.]

I think that's the rumor du jour this week. As this link (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/white-sox-eyeing-soriano-done-spending.html) suggests, the Sox are considering signing Rafael Soriano but may need to clear payroll space to do so. The Yankees certainly need a starter and, thus, a Jackson to the Yankees deal makes sense. You are not a big Jackson fan but even some of us who think he's a fine pitcher can see the merit of: (a) trading Jackson for something of value from the Yankees (Brett Gardner? Austin Romine? both?), (b) avoiding having to deal with Jackson's impending free agency, (c) creating a slot for Chris Sale to move into the starting rotation and (d) using the savings on Jackson's salary to sign Soriano to be the closer.

If the Sox do this, they would probably need to pick up a swingman/5th starter type to have enough starting until Jake Peavy returns. If the Sox go this route, I think that Tom Gorzellany would make a good choice (if they could get him from the Cubs), as he can spot start and would ultimately provide another lefty arm in the bullpen.

kittle42
01-04-2011, 02:58 PM
What does that have to do with a statement made by another person to prove the matter asserted? Nothing. Therefore, it is not hearsay and it is allowed in.

Lawyering, baby!

Lip Man 1
01-04-2011, 03:09 PM
Khan :

I understand you appear to be a really smart individual (not being facetious) but do you have to debate every single point? Look at Zisk's statement as a whole and the general point he is trying to make. I think you lose that at times when trying to completely dissect every single nuance. This isn't a debate and points aren't being kept.

With due respect Khan, as Mr. Gumby would say:

http://hauntingthunder.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mr-gumby.jpg

"My brain hurts..."

Lip

Zisk77
01-04-2011, 04:17 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me.

Oh, I forgot: If I'm not perpetually genuflecting before the icon of KW, I'm being overly critical, right?

I apologize for offending the prophet KW.


Punctuation is your friend.


Emotions have got jack and **** to do with Carlos Quentin's inability to move better than a 40 year old geezer. Whether you wear your lucky hat to a game has jack and **** to do with Juan Pierre's throwing arm. And whether or not you made it to The Cell in time for dollar dog night has got jack and **** to do with whether or not Abuelo Omar should EVER DH.

In short, emotions mean NOTHING towards understanding which player is good, and which player is not good at baseball.


Link? [No offense, but] If you don't have the citation for this, I'll have to call BS on this one.

Moreover, I don't value many defensive metrics as being valid, until we see it proven to be reliable.


And if you look at Jackson's supposedly "awesome" stint with the SOX, you'll see that this is a myth as well. He had an AWESOME august [vs. Baltimore, an injured Detroit, and a dead Cleveland], and a ****ty September.

This supposedly "awesome" stint is a microcosm of his entire career: up-and-down-and-up-and-down.


I can agree.

But my point is to base YOUR opinion on reality. Not on emotion. Not on what the moronic media tell you. Not what KW tells you. Base your opinion on some factual basis.



Or, trade Jackson away, before he craps his pants, gets injured, or in some other way screws this team over. Use the savings in payroll to solve other problems. [See the trade of Carlos Lee to acquire a leadoff man and a valuable bullpen arm as an example of this exact sort of thing having worked well in the past. In other words, 2 holes were solved by trading Lee away.]


Ok, not sure what you are arguing here with the Quentin/Pierre emotion thing here. Probably a previous argument with another poster that i didn't read. The passage I quoted had you seemingly dismissing subjective or qualitative data as emotional drivel.

Sorry about puntuation, but was in a hurry as my lunch break was almost over.

As far as my reference being bs because I had no link, I could care a less what you think. I'm not about to go scouring the internet to proove I'm some internet tough guy. I heard the discussion on the radio where the topic was stats versus scouting. It was cited against the "stat head" argument. The defender of stats claimed anomalies do happen from time to time. You can look up stat if you choose to waste time or maybe even the score podcast.

I don't base my opinion on what Hawk, Kw, or the media says about baseball. I base it on what I see. I trust that I have a pretty good understanding of the game as I do derive part of my income from coaching baseball.

As I said before, I think you can come up with valid arguments for both keeping and trading Jackson. In your C. Lee Example, it would all depend on what a Jackson suitor would be willing to give back in trade. Is it likely they would trade quality starter for quality starter in return?

TheVulture
01-04-2011, 04:36 PM
Trading starting pitching to free up salary room for bullpen help? Brilliant.

khan
01-04-2011, 06:15 PM
Khan :

I understand you appear to be a really smart individual (not being facetious) but do you have to debate every single point? Look at Zisk's statement as a whole and the general point he is trying to make. I think you lose that at times when trying to completely dissect every single nuance. This isn't a debate and points aren't being kept.
Lip, I did agree with him where I could, and I disagreed with him where I had to do so.

Also, I post this way, so as to make it clear as to WHAT I am responding. This way, it is easier for a reader to later understand what I am getting after in a post. This has nothing to do with "scoring points," and everything to do with me trying to agree where I can while furthering a dialogue.

Ok, not sure what you are arguing here with the Quentin/Pierre emotion thing here. Probably a previous argument with another poster that i didn't read. The passage I quoted had you seemingly dismissing subjective or qualitative data as emotional drivel.
I posted it jokingly once in this thread, and twice in response to you. Emotions mean jack and **** when defining a player as being a good one or not. Subjective/qualitative measures may or may not be of value. [But I note that you haven't made an example of when/where they have been of value to you or to others.]

Sorry about puntuation, but was in a hurry as my lunch break was almost over.
Fair enough. Shoddy construction can make your points seem to be less valid, that's all I was after.

As far as my reference being bs because I had no link, I could care a less what you think. I'm not about to go scouring the internet to proove I'm some internet tough guy.
1. We are all aware that defensive statistical analysis is at best, flawed. So for you to lead your argument with "defensive statistics" is not a strong basis for an opinion.

2. If you had a robust defensive measure, I would be interested in seeing it.

3. The claim you made about Soriano seemed so outlandish as to be [probably] unsupported. It has NOTHING to do with being a "tough guy," and EVERYTHING to do with my quest to help people support their views with factual reality.

I heard the discussion on the radio where the topic was stats versus scouting. It was cited against the "stat head" argument. The defender of stats claimed anomalies do happen from time to time. You can look up stat if you choose to waste time or maybe even the score podcast.
The media is filled with mouthbreathing morons that can't pick their own nose the right way, let alone construct a cogent thought.

In any case, we're not having a "stats vs. scouting" discussion. We're having a discussion as to why stats have validity, despite some having an insane fear of them.

I don't base my opinion on what Hawk, Kw, or the media says about baseball. I base it on what I see. I trust that I have a pretty good understanding of the game as I do derive part of my income from coaching baseball.
You state this, and yet you rail against "egg heads," "stats," and "numbers." How about some examples as to why "what you see" has value? How about defining "subjective" or "qualitative" measures, and how they can help one understand the game, rather than railing against numbers?

The other thing about "what you see" is that memories can be deceptive. Numbers [in general] can't be altered over time. We can harken back fondly to the days of Rudy Law [for example], and how we remember him as an awesome leadoff man.

But then we look @ his numbers, and his ****ty slash lines contradict "what we saw." [Or what we THOUGHT we saw.]

As I said before, I think you can come up with valid arguments for both keeping and trading Jackson. In your C. Lee Example, it would all depend on what a Jackson suitor would be willing to give back in trade. Is it likely they would trade quality starter for quality starter in return?
I can agree that there are reasons to keep Jackson, and there are good reasons to trade $8.35M and a craptacular career WHIP off this team.

Having said that, I don't know that a quality starter is what one should strive for in a Jackson trade. Rather, I think it would be better to solve multiple holes, either directly through the return in trade, OR in salary savings, which could enable FA signings to solve roster problems.

SephClone89
01-04-2011, 06:44 PM
Sox are on Hot Stove tonight for 30 Days, 30 Recaps.

Everyone thinks they look pretty good. Mitch Williams thinks that Peavy will never be the pitcher that he was.

Gammons and Rosenthal both think the Sox should stretch the payroll and sign Soriano.

DSpivack
01-04-2011, 06:49 PM
Sox are on Hot Stove tonight for 30 Days, 30 Recaps.

Everyone thinks they look pretty good. General sentiment that Peavy will never be the pitcher that he was.

Gammons and Rosenthal both think the Sox should stretch the payroll and sign Soriano.

I still dream of some team [in the US? Japan? Korea?] picking up Teahen's salary and it's not as much of a stretch.

Lip Man 1
01-04-2011, 06:59 PM
I'd love to see the Sox sign Soriano, he and Thornton at the back end of the bullpen could be very good and then you have some flexibility with Sale depending on the Peavy situation.

Lip

cards press box
01-04-2011, 07:01 PM
Sox are on Hot Stove tonight for 30 Days, 30 Recaps.

Everyone thinks they look pretty good. Mitch Williams thinks that Peavy will never be the pitcher that he was.

Gammons and Rosenthal both think the Sox should stretch the payroll and sign Soriano.

Mitch Williams might be right but we just don't know, do we? Don Cooper seemed to think that Peavy had more freedom in his motion than Cooper had previously seen. We'll just have to see how that works out.

Signing Soriano does make sense, particularly if the Sox then start Sale and can move Jackson to fill other needs.

khan
01-04-2011, 07:28 PM
I still dream of some team [in the US? Japan? Korea?] picking up Teahen's salary and it's not as much of a stretch.

I dream of this as well. AND of some team picking up the $8.35M from Jackson.

Between the $4.75M from Teahen, and the $8.35M from Jackson, KW could sign Soriano, AND a SP with a less-than-1.485 career WHIP, AND a better utility player, AND still have money left over for the trade deadline. [And possibly, some money to extend Danks or Ramirez.]

Tragg
01-04-2011, 07:32 PM
I dream of this as well. AND of some team picking up the $8.35M from Jackson.

Between the $4.75M from Teahen, and the $8.35M from Jackson, KW could sign Soriano, AND a SP with a less-than-1.485 career WHIP, AND a better utility player, AND still have money left over for the trade deadline. [And possibly, some money to extend Danks or Ramirez.]

OR
We could keep Guillen out of the talent evaluation business, and thus likely never would have traded for jackson in the first place and we could easily afford Soriano.

Zisk77
01-05-2011, 12:47 AM
Lip, I did agree with him where I could, and I disagreed with him where I had to do so.

Also, I post this way, so as to make it clear as to WHAT I am responding. This way, it is easier for a reader to later understand what I am getting after in a post. This has nothing to do with "scoring points," and everything to do with me trying to agree where I can while furthering a dialogue.


I posted it jokingly once in this thread, and twice in response to you. Emotions mean jack and **** when defining a player as being a good one or not. Subjective/qualitative measures may or may not be of value. [But I note that you haven't made an example of when/where they have been of value to you or to others.]


Fair enough. Shoddy construction can make your points seem to be less valid, that's all I was after.


1. We are all aware that defensive statistical analysis is at best, flawed. So for you to lead your argument with "defensive statistics" is not a strong basis for an opinion.

2. If you had a robust defensive measure, I would be interested in seeing it.

3. The claim you made about Soriano seemed so outlandish as to be [probably] unsupported. It has NOTHING to do with being a "tough guy," and EVERYTHING to do with my quest to help people support their views with factual reality.


The media is filled with mouthbreathing morons that can't pick their own nose the right way, let alone construct a cogent thought.

In any case, we're not having a "stats vs. scouting" discussion. We're having a discussion as to why stats have validity, despite some having an insane fear of them.


You state this, and yet you rail against "egg heads," "stats," and "numbers." How about some examples as to why "what you see" has value? How about defining "subjective" or "qualitative" measures, and how they can help one understand the game, rather than railing against numbers?

The other thing about "what you see" is that memories can be deceptive. Numbers [in general] can't be altered over time. We can harken back fondly to the days of Rudy Law [for example], and how we remember him as an awesome leadoff man.

But then we look @ his numbers, and his ****ty slash lines contradict "what we saw." [Or what we THOUGHT we saw.]


I can agree that there are reasons to keep Jackson, and there are good reasons to trade $8.35M and a craptacular career WHIP off this team.

Having said that, I don't know that a quality starter is what one should strive for in a Jackson trade. Rather, I think it would be better to solve multiple holes, either directly through the return in trade, OR in salary savings, which could enable FA signings to solve roster problems.


1. I wasn't railling against the "stat heads". Let me say again, its the people who ONLY use stats when making asessments. Stats do not show the whoe picture and people also hand pick which stats are important or not. You yourself qualified which stats were important and which should be ignored in regards to teh "myth" of Jackson having a good run with the sox. You said his good outings came against bad teams such as Balt. and Det. However you failed to mention that Balt. was playing there best ball of the season when we played them and the Det. is a good hitting team. Det. mediocrity was due to bad pitching and poor defense.

2. Qualitative is scientific data that is not empiracile. That is measured with numbers (statistics) but are valid pieces of information. Example: Tigers are Black and orange mammals. None of that can be proved quantitaivly. A Tiger isn't 5.5m black and orange or 3 L mammal. Because Qualitaive data is not empiracle it can be somewhat subjective. Tigers are rust and black.:redneck

3. Yes I understand that radio personalities are blowhards, but that wasn't my point. The point is there was a real metric that supported the assertion that Soriano was a good defensive LF. I didn't make that up. I'm not going to bother to find a link and you can call bs on it all you want. I know I'm not lying about it and don't care if you believe me or not. If you feel like wasting your time finding it you can search out the podcast or look at various defensive metrics.

4. I thought it was clear in my example of the hypothetical 2 hitter being valuable despite the statistics suggesting otherwise. Once again not railing on the value or use of statistics, but stats are tool that should be combined with actually watching the player for yourself when evaluating them. Its a combination of stats and qualitative analysis.

5. The problem with just following stats is that they can be misleading or misinterpreted. Example. I watched Illinois defeat Wisconsin in basketball. I thought Illinois rebounded well. The stats showed Illinois out rebounded Wisconsin which supported my observation. However, wisconsin had 2 more offensive rebounds than Illinois which spurred the "Chicken littles" to cry that Offensive rebounding was still a major problem. Why? Because they failed to interpret the significance of this stat - FG% Illinois 56% Wisky 35%...You can't get offensive rebounds if you do not miss shots!!!!

Finally, I think yo miss the overall point I'm trying to make. That point is there is nothing wrong with using stats but not as the end all to be all. The must be combined with common sense. Observing every game a player plays for a season by qualified eyes is a valid assessment and not some appeal to emotional sentimentality or media propaganda (although some posters hers I'm sure are guilty of that.)

Also I don't care to argue whether Jackson should stay or go. Thats and argument I'm not interesting in discussing. However, you said that you would trade him to fill multiple holes. I understand that, but I asked would we be getting a starter in return? Because wouldn't trading Jackson create yet another hole in the rotation? Because in your Example - Lee for Pods and Viscaino, it was an Of for an Of and a reliever (and a minor leaguer too, I think).

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 08:58 AM
Sox are on Hot Stove tonight for 30 Days, 30 Recaps.

Everyone thinks they look pretty good. Mitch Williams thinks that Peavy will never be the pitcher that he was.

Gammons and Rosenthal both think the Sox should stretch the payroll and sign Soriano.

I saw the rerun of this last night. They were projecting Infante and Harrel to be in the bullpen to go along with Sale, Thornton, Santos and Pena. (That's assuming Peavy is back. If Peavy doesn't return any time soon and Sale has to stay as a starter, then that one more spot in the bullpen to fill.)

Yes, Gammons said that the Sox should consider going after Soriano even if it means taking a loss for this year (....then he said "who am I kidding, they'd still make a profit - just less of one..." :redneck). They saw a bullpen with Soriano and Santos from the right and Sale and Thornton from the left as potentially devastating to opposing teams. (again, that's assuming Sale doesn't have to be a starter for most of this year).

It's really unfortunate for the Sox in 2011 that Peavy got injured. If he had stayed healthy, we might be going with a starting rotation of Jake, MB, Danks, Floyd, and Hudson; Sale in the bullpen; and an extra $8 million in payroll that is not being spent on Jackson.

russ99
01-05-2011, 09:42 AM
I saw the rerun of this last night. They were projecting Infante and Harrel to be in the bullpen to go along with Sale, Thornton, Santos and Pena. (That's assuming Peavy is back. If Peavy doesn't return any time soon and Sale has to stay as a starter, then that one more spot in the bullpen to fill.)

Yes, Gammons said that the Sox should consider going after Soriano even if it means taking a loss for this year (....then he said "who am I kidding, they'd still make a profit - just less of one..." :redneck). They saw a bullpen with Soriano and Santos from the right and Sale and Thornton from the left as potentially devastating to opposing teams. (again, that's assuming Sale doesn't have to be a starter for most of this year).

It's really unfortunate for the Sox in 2011 that Peavy got injured. If he had stayed healthy, we might be going with a starting rotation of Jake, MB, Danks, Floyd, and Hudson; Sale in the bullpen; and an extra $8 million in payroll that is not being spent on Jackson.

Naw, I'd take an established starter with success in the AL in Jackson over a kid who can't get through 5 AL innings in Hudson anyday. Besides, it's not our payroll to pay. If the Sox decide to spend more on some players, I have no issue with that.

Too much of the player hate going around is based on salary and not on what the player does. Personally, I'm not especially thrilled that Buerhle's making $14M this year, or that Quentin could top $5M but I'm not gonna hate the player or cheer against him for that.

At this time we really don't know about Peavy. He could be good to go or he could miss some time. The team says he's on track so I guess we'll find out when pitchers and catchers report. Regardless, to assume Sale can jump into a big league starting spot with no minor league time is iffy at best.

soltrain21
01-05-2011, 10:02 AM
Naw, I'd take an established starter with success in the AL in Jackson over a kid who can't get through 5 AL innings in Hudson anyday. Besides, it's not our payroll to pay. If the Sox decide to spend more on some players, I have no issue with that.

Too much of the player hate going around is based on salary and not on what the player does. Personally, I'm not especially thrilled that Buerhle's making $14M this year, or that Quentin could top $5M but I'm not gonna hate the player or cheer against him for that.

At this time we really don't know about Peavy. He could be good to go or he could miss some time. The team says he's on track so I guess we'll find out when pitchers and catchers report. Regardless, to assume Sale can jump into a big league starting spot with no minor league time is iffy at best.

He started, what, four games? He didn't really get much of a shot, now did he?

doublem23
01-05-2011, 10:09 AM
OR
We could keep Guillen out of the talent evaluation business, and thus likely never would have traded for jackson in the first place and we could easily afford Soriano.

OK, and you know how exactly, that Ozzie had anything to do with the acquisition of Edwin Jackson?

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 10:27 AM
Naw, I'd take an established starter with success in the AL in Jackson over a kid who can't get through 5 AL innings in Hudson anyday. Besides, it's not our payroll to pay. If the Sox decide to spend more on some players, I have no issue with that.

Too much of the player hate going around is based on salary and not on what the player does. Personally, I'm not especially thrilled that Buerhle's making $14M this year, or that Quentin could top $5M but I'm not gonna hate the player or cheer against him for that.



I know others have ranted about Jackson (some have done so incessantly), but my comment isn't anti-Jackson because I'm not a Jackson "hater". But you can't ignore payroll considerations here.

No, it's not our money, but if Sox ownership has decided to spend a certain amount on payroll this year, Jackson's salary takes an $8 million chunk of that whether I, you, or anyone else on WSI personally is paying for it or not. I doubt JR is going to decide on a payroll bump to a certain level and then say "eh, let's spend yet another $8 million more that I wasn't going to part with just to make up for Edwin's salary".

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 10:28 AM
He started, what, four games? He didn't really get much of a shot, now did he?

Welcome to WSI. Any Sox player who isn't great in his first few games is garbage who is never going to improve.

doublem23
01-05-2011, 10:41 AM
Welcome to WSI. Any Sox player who isn't great in his first few games is garbage who is never going to improve.

Well that depends on the POV you're taking, some players (especially those on the Sox) deserve all the time in the world to prove they are capable MLB players, no matter how much evidence they compile to the contrary.

kittle42
01-05-2011, 10:48 AM
Well that depends on the POV you're taking, some players (especially those on the Sox) deserve all the time in the world to prove they are capable MLB players, no matter how much evidence they compile to the contrary.

Like the great BA. Or, I am guessing, Beckham if he has another subpar season.

Hitmen77
01-05-2011, 11:04 AM
Well that depends on the POV you're taking, some players (especially those on the Sox) deserve all the time in the world to prove they are capable MLB players, no matter how much evidence they compile to the contrary.

Yes, people can go to extremes on both sides. Some players will never amount to anything if they're not instantly successful and according to others, the Sox never gave players like BA "a chance to succeed".

Somewhere in the middle is rational thought.

khan
01-05-2011, 01:10 PM
Use spell check. It makes it easier to read your thoughts. It makes your thoughts appear more telling when you do.

1. I wasn't railling against the "stat heads". Let me say again, its the people who ONLY use stats when making asessments. Stats do not show the whoe picture and people also hand pick which stats are important or not.

You yourself qualified which stats were important and which should be ignored in regards to teh "myth" of Jackson having a good run with the sox. You said his good outings came against bad teams such as Balt. and Det. However you failed to mention that Balt. was playing there best ball of the season when we played them and the Det. is a good hitting team. Det. mediocrity was due to bad pitching and poor defense.
Baltimore was so ****ty that any random run of luck would have been mistaken for "playing well."

Detroit was then without Maggs and Damon was also having his worst month of the season. In other words, two of their more important hitters either weren't available or weren't performing well. Jackson didn't face anything of note in his one miraculous month.

2. Qualitative is scientific data that is not empiracile. That is measured with numbers (statistics) but are valid pieces of information.
What is "empiracile?" Also, the second fragment makes no sense and no point at all. Most importantly, you fail (again) to illustrate HOW "subjective" observations have helped you to understand the game.

3. Yes I understand that radio personalities are blowhards, but that wasn't my point. The point is there was a real metric that supported the assertion that Soriano was a good defensive LF. I didn't make that up.
I'm not attacking you, but without any citation or evidence, it certainly seems like you did make it up. In my quest to have people back their opinions with factual basis, I have an interest in finding out if in fact there is a metric that suggests what you stated.

More importantly, I'm interested in finding an appropriate metric that accurately measures defensive effectiveness in baseball. My asking you for it ISN'T me attacking you. It's one fan asking another if in fact he's found some new knowledge.

4. I thought it was clear in my example of the hypothetical 2 hitter being valuable despite the statistics suggesting otherwise.
Actually, you're illustrating the use of the incorrect statistic to measure what happened. Using the wrong number to measure the wrong thing is akin to trying to drive a screw with a ball peen hammer. [It's the wrong tool for the job.]

I was thinking that you'd arrive at that, but I guess you didn't for some reason.

5. The problem with just following stats is that they can be misleading or misinterpreted.
And again, this is part of the puzzle. However, "empiricile" observations can be missed as well. This is not isolated to the use of numbers.

For example: An observer can watch Edwin Jackson dominate a ****ty Baltimore team of AA quality, and [stupidly] come away with the idea that Edwin Jackson is a golden god. However, if you observed that his career numbers are horrid, you would understand that he just got lucky against an unworthy opponent. This is an example of the eye being fooled, but the stats being absolutely correct.

Or a GM can observe a SP's lucky 1st half of 2009, and come away with the stupid idea that this un-named SP is good at baseball. But if that same GM failed to observe the rest of a certain SP's career, he'd stupidly overpay in trade for a guy who really isn't that good. [DESPITE that SP's lucky half of a season or month of good form.]

Finally, I think yo miss the overall point I'm trying to make. That point is there is nothing wrong with using stats but not as the end all to be all. The must be combined with common sense. Observing every game a player plays for a season by qualified eyes is a valid assessment and not some appeal to emotional sentimentality or media propaganda (although some posters hers I'm sure are guilty of that.)
Spell check please.

Again, can you give examples of what observations a "qualified eye" should take? I'm asking you politely, so don't think that I'm attacking you in any way. You simply have failed to provide any valid examples of "empiricile" observations being of value.

Also I don't care to argue whether Jackson should stay or go. Thats and argument I'm not interesting in discussing. However, you said that you would trade him to fill multiple holes. I understand that, but I asked would we be getting a starter in return? Because wouldn't trading Jackson create yet another hole in the rotation? Because in your Example - Lee for Pods and Viscaino, it was an Of for an Of and a reliever (and a minor leaguer too, I think).
See, here's my view with respect to a potential Jackson trade. Tell me if there's anything here that is unreasonable in your view:

1. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. However, they can frame a guideline of what a player is likely to do in the future.

2. Edwin Jackson has a poor history as a player in his career. He has never had a complete season where he was more or less consistently-good for the majority of the season. [In his one lucky year of 2009, he was good in the 1st half, followed by pants-crapping in the 2nd half. In 2010, he had 1 lucky month, surrounded by 5 ****ty ones.]

Moreover, his career WHIP is a craptacular 1.485. Most replacement-level SPs in the game could attain a 1.485 WHIP. [WHIP is not the ONLY metric we could use, but for brevity, I'll use WHIP as an illustrator.]


3. The ****ty 1.485 WHIP [as a template of "roughly" what we might expect him to do in the future] is not very difficult to find in MLB, in the minors, in FA, or abroad. I believe that many SPs, including Daniel Hudson, Chris Sale, Freddy Garcia or even Lucas Harrell could attain a 1.485 WHIP in 2011.

4. Therefore, getting a SP in return in a hypothetical trade isn't all that pressing, IMO. A GM could sign a replacement SP that could attain a 1.485 (or lower) WHIP for MUCH LESS than Edwin Jackson's $8.35M. Or, Chris Sale could be moved to the rotation, and a replacement LH RP [for Sale] could be signed for much less than $8.35M.


In other words, there is no real loss in trading away a 1.485 WHIP, when replacements for this level of "performance" are cheap and readily available.

Daver
01-05-2011, 01:27 PM
Use spell check. It makes it easier to read your thoughts. It makes your thoughts appear more telling when you do.


This from someone that goes to extreme measures to make his posts virtually unreadable.

spawn
01-05-2011, 01:58 PM
This from someone that goes to extreme measures to make his posts virtually unreadable.

No kidding. As soon as I see the multiple quotes in the post, I don't even bother reading the post. The whole layout gives me a headache just looking at it.

NLaloosh
01-05-2011, 02:09 PM
Trading starting pitching to free up salary room for bullpen help? Brilliant.

Yes, we need more pitching so trade some to get some. It makes perfect sense. The more it unbalances the more it balances out.

NLaloosh
01-05-2011, 02:09 PM
Use spell check. It makes it easier to read your thoughts. It makes your thoughts appear more telling when you do.


Baltimore was so ****ty that any random run of luck would have been mistaken for "playing well."

Detroit was then without Maggs and Damon was also having his worst month of the season. In other words, two of their more important hitters either weren't available or weren't performing well. Jackson didn't face anything of note in his one miraculous month.


What is "empiracile?" Also, the second fragment makes no sense and no point at all. Most importantly, you fail (again) to illustrate HOW "subjective" observations have helped you to understand the game.


I'm not attacking you, but without any citation or evidence, it certainly seems like you did make it up. In my quest to have people back their opinions with factual basis, I have an interest in finding out if in fact there is a metric that suggests what you stated.

More importantly, I'm interested in finding an appropriate metric that accurately measures defensive effectiveness in baseball. My asking you for it ISN'T me attacking you. It's one fan asking another if in fact he's found some new knowledge.


Actually, you're illustrating the use of the incorrect statistic to measure what happened. Using the wrong number to measure the wrong thing is akin to trying to drive a screw with a ball peen hammer. [It's the wrong tool for the job.]

I was thinking that you'd arrive at that, but I guess you didn't for some reason.


And again, this is part of the puzzle. However, "empiricile" observations can be missed as well. This is not isolated to the use of numbers.

For example: An observer can watch Edwin Jackson dominate a ****ty Baltimore team of AA quality, and [stupidly] come away with the idea that Edwin Jackson is a golden god. However, if you observed that his career numbers are horrid, you would understand that he just got lucky against an unworthy opponent. This is an example of the eye being fooled, but the stats being absolutely correct.

Or a GM can observe a SP's lucky 1st half of 2009, and come away with the stupid idea that this un-named SP is good at baseball. But if that same GM failed to observe the rest of a certain SP's career, he'd stupidly overpay in trade for a guy who really isn't that good. [DESPITE that SP's lucky half of a season or month of good form.]


Spell check please.

Again, can you give examples of what observations a "qualified eye" should take? I'm asking you politely, so don't think that I'm attacking you in any way. You simply have failed to provide any valid examples of "empiricile" observations being of value.


See, here's my view with respect to a potential Jackson trade. Tell me if there's anything here that is unreasonable in your view:

1. Past performance is not guarantee of future results. However, they can frame a guideline of what a player is likely to do in the future.

2. Edwin Jackson has a poor history as a player in his career. He has never had a complete season where he was more or less consistently-good for the majority of the season. [In his one lucky year of 2009, he was good in the 1st half, followed by pants-crapping in the 2nd half. In 2010, he had 1 lucky month, surrounded by 5 ****ty ones.]

Moreover, his career WHIP is a craptacular 1.485. Most replacement-level SPs in the game could attain a 1.485 WHIP. [WHIP is not the ONLY metric we could use, but for brevity, I'll use WHIP as an illustrator.]


3. The ****ty 1.485 WHIP [as a template of "roughly" what we might expect him to do in the future] is not very difficult to find in MLB, in the minors, in FA, or abroad. I believe that many SPs, including Daniel Hudson, Chris Sale, Freddy Garcia or even Lucas Harrell could attain a 1.485 WHIP in 2011.

4. Therefore, getting a SP in return in a hypothetical trade isn't all that pressing, IMO. A GM could sign a replacement SP that could attain a 1.485 (or lower) WHIP for MUCH LESS than Edwin Jackson's $8.35M. Or, Chris Sale could be moved to the rotation, and a replacement LH RP [for Sale] could be signed for much less than $8.35M.


In other words, there is no real loss in trading away a 1.485 WHIP, when replacements for this level of "performance" are cheap and readily available.

May I suggest xanax?

Frater Perdurabo
01-05-2011, 02:42 PM
No kidding. As soon as I see the multiple quotes in the post, I don't even bother reading the post. The whole layout gives me a headache just looking at it.

Me too.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
01-05-2011, 02:59 PM
Hey khan, if I wanted to read a Dickens novel, I'd go to the library.

We get it, you're well-versed. But damn, dude, tone it down, please. Less is more sometimes.

kittle42
01-05-2011, 03:02 PM
Less is more sometimes.

That's what I'm always telling my bosses!

russ99
01-05-2011, 03:52 PM
See, here's my view with respect to a potential Jackson trade. Tell me if there's anything here that is unreasonable in your view:

1. Past performance is not guarantee of future results. However, they can frame a guideline of what a player is likely to do in the future.

2. Edwin Jackson has a poor history as a player in his career. He has never had a complete season where he was more or less consistently-good for the majority of the season. [In his one lucky year of 2009, he was good in the 1st half, followed by pants-crapping in the 2nd half. In 2010, he had 1 lucky month, surrounded by 5 ****ty ones.]

Moreover, his career WHIP is a craptacular 1.485. Most replacement-level SPs in the game could attain a 1.485 WHIP. [WHIP is not the ONLY metric we could use, but for brevity, I'll use WHIP as an illustrator.]


3. The ****ty 1.485 WHIP [as a template of "roughly" what we might expect him to do in the future] is not very difficult to find in MLB, in the minors, in FA, or abroad. I believe that many SPs, including Daniel Hudson, Chris Sale, Freddy Garcia or even Lucas Harrell could attain a 1.485 WHIP in 2011.

4. Therefore, getting a SP in return in a hypothetical trade isn't all that pressing, IMO. A GM could sign a replacement SP that could attain a 1.485 (or lower) WHIP for MUCH LESS than Edwin Jackson's $8.35M. Or, Chris Sale could be moved to the rotation, and a replacement LH RP [for Sale] could be signed for much less than $8.35M.


In other words, there is no real loss in trading away a 1.485 WHIP, when replacements for this level of "performance" are cheap and readily available.

You can't have it both ways. You can't play up Jackson's periods of bad performance as the real deal and discount his good performance as "lucky", especially the 3 months of dominant pitching in Detroit in 2009.

I'm willing to take the good with the bad in Jackson, and by no means consider him an ace.

Look at Javy Vazquez, who's mentioned as a similar pitcher to Jackson at his age on Baseball Reference.

He was also considered overpayed by some and put together good months and bad months in his career with the Sox. I can't understand why wouldn't anyone want an decent experienced mid-rotation guy like Vazquez or Jackson on your team who at times can go on a good run, especially if your team is going "all in" for the playoffs...

khan
01-05-2011, 04:25 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't play up Jackson's periods of bad performance as the real deal and discount his good performance as "lucky", especially the 3 months of dominant pitching in Detroit in 2009.

He was also considered overpayed by some and put together good months and bad months in his career with the Sox. I can't understand why wouldn't anyone want an decent experienced mid-rotation guy like Vazquez or Jackson on your team who at times can go on a good run, especially if your team is going "all in" for the playoffs...
Here, I'll keep it short:

1. I look at his "good" runs of form as lucky because they are fewer and farther between than the vast tracks of ****ty performance in his career. His bad months in 2009 number just as many as his good months in 2009. His bad months in 2009 and 2010 are closer to his career norms than his lucky months.

2. His obese contract may very well prevent KW from solving other problems. [Like signing Soriano.] As I've said elsewhere, you can find a WHIP of 1.485 elsewhere for cheaper. [Which would allow you to sign Soriano and to solve other problems in the roster.]

Lip Man 1
01-05-2011, 04:58 PM
Spawn:

Agree with your feelings 100%.

Lip

KMcMahon817
01-05-2011, 05:34 PM
No kidding. As soon as I see the multiple quotes in the post, I don't even bother reading the post. The whole layout gives me a headache just looking at it.

Agreed.

TomBradley72
01-05-2011, 06:18 PM
May I suggest xanax?

+1- scarey.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 09:43 AM
Sorry to rain on everyone's Edwin Jackson parade but, can we please go back to the original thread subject?

Jackson is becoming WSI's pitching equavalent to BA. People around here love to hate him. He's a good pitcher and a more than serviceable #4....90% of teams out there would love to have him as their #4 and here we are arguing because he doesn't pitch like Cy ****ing Young. I mean how pathetic are we around here sometimes?

Does anyone have any Soriano news? What are the odds he signs with us? Is he linked to any other clubs?

doublem23
01-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Jackson is becoming WSI's pitching equavalent to BA. People around here love to hate him. He's a good pitcher and a more than serviceable #4....90% of teams out there would love to have him as their #4 and here we are arguing because he doesn't pitch like Cy ****ing Young. I mean how pathetic are we around here sometimes?

And for the millionth time, it's not that people think Jackson is bad (although, some obviously do), it's also that he's going to get paid $8 M this season, which is kind of significant when the Sox are openly talking like they've maxed out their payroll and can't sign a player they probably really, really need.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 09:51 AM
And for the millionth time, it's not that people think Jackson is bad (although, some obviously do), it's also that he's going to get paid $8 M this season, which is kind of significant when the Sox are openly talking like they've maxed out their payroll and can't sign a player they probably really, really need.

Why don't we have someone pull up pitchers with numbers compareable to his and what they're making.

And I don't think 8mil is alot for a #4. I just think people are looking at what Hudson made in comparison.

But, we honestly don't know what Hudson is and what he will be. So the argument is moot at this point.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 09:56 AM
Why don't we have someone pull up pitchers with numbers compareable to his and what they're making.

And I don't think 8mil is alot for a #4. I just think people are looking at what Hudson made in comparison.

But, we honestly don't know what Hudson is and what he will be. So the argument is moot at this point.

Looking over Edwin Jackson's career, I really don't think we know what he will be either. And yeah, $8 M is a lot when you're roster looks like it's 1-2 players short.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 10:04 AM
Looking over Edwin Jackson's career, I really don't think we know what he will be either. And yeah, $8 M is a lot when you're roster looks like it's 1-2 players short.


I don't want any part of of the EJ love-hate argument.

I started a thread for this conversation and any other EJ debate:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=125385

soltrain21
01-06-2011, 10:23 AM
The whole he is a "number four" starter is dumb. The whole idea of pitchers having numbers in the rotation is dumb.

Quite frankly - his numbers don't make him worth 8 million dollars. That's all their is to it.

russ99
01-06-2011, 10:33 AM
Does anyone have any Soriano news? What are the odds he signs with us? Is he linked to any other clubs?

It's pretty quiet on Soriano, but that's due to nobody wanting to sign him for what Boras wants. Looks like his "Sox have interest" ploy didn't work.

Thome25
01-06-2011, 11:06 AM
The whole he is a "number four" starter is dumb. The whole idea of pitchers having numbers in the rotation is dumb.

Quite frankly - his numbers don't make him worth 8 million dollars. That's all their is to it.

You're saying exactly the same thing on both ends of your argument because his "numbers"/abilities are what determine his spot in the rotation and whether he is a quote/un-quote #4.

Just compare his salary to the salary of other pitchers with similar stats to determine his market value.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Thome:

Was told today that the Sox are moving "cautiously" on Soriano and the fact that Boras is his agent is no longer the issue that it was in the past. Was reminded that the Sox were in the discussion for Damon for a long time last year and Boras is his agent as well.

Person I talked with is convinced Kenny will get more bullpen help but feels he'll have to move some salary first (Teahan???)

Lip

NLaloosh
01-06-2011, 12:13 PM
Lots of luck moving Teahen's salary. For what they'd have to pitch in it would be better to just keep him. They need some depth and they really have no outfield depth at all.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 12:30 PM
LaLoosh:

I guess if Kenny could move Linebrink he can find a way to move Teahan. Agree on another outfielder. I think the Sox would like to get a right handed hitter if they could to fill that role (assuming they could move Teahan)

Lip

sox1970
01-06-2011, 12:54 PM
LaLoosh:

I guess if Kenny could move Linebrink he can find a way to move Teahan. Agree on another outfielder. I think the Sox would like to get a right handed hitter if they could to fill that role (assuming they could move Teahan)

Lip

His name is Teahen, and good luck moving that contract.

doublem23
01-06-2011, 12:59 PM
His name is Teahen, and good luck moving that contract.

Yeah a major difference is that Linebrink's deal is up after this season, so the Braves just took a flyer on him for a year, maybe he can put it back together in the NL and the Sox picked up an awful lot of this remaining year.

Teahen is under contract for 2 more seasons and is owed a ludicrous $10 M during the final two years of this deal.

sox1970
01-06-2011, 01:03 PM
Yeah a major difference is that Linebrink's deal is up after this season, so the Braves just took a flyer on him for a year, maybe he can put it back together in the NL and the Sox picked up an awful lot of this remaining year.

Teahen is under contract for 2 more seasons and is owed a ludicrous $10 M during the final two years of this deal.

To me, it's Kenny's worst deal as GM. Not the trade, but the immediate extension.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 01:37 PM
Agree that to move him the Sox would need to pick up a large chunk of his salary. But if the Sox are now truly in a spot where 'every dollar counts,' then even if they had to pick up say seven million of his deal and ship him to, I don't know, say Pittsburgh, that 'frees up' three million for the next few years.

That money could probably get you a relief guy, certainly a back up outfielder, maybe two.

It's in Kenny's best interest, in my opinion, to see if he can pull this off. I think he's trying but I have no confirmation on that.

Lip

Sargeant79
01-06-2011, 01:41 PM
To me, it's Kenny's worst deal as GM. Not the trade, but the immediate extension.

Absolutely agree

JermaineDye05
01-06-2011, 01:58 PM
Thome:

Was told today that the Sox are moving "cautiously" on Soriano and the fact that Boras is his agent is no longer the issue that it was in the past. Was reminded that the Sox were in the discussion for Damon for a long time last year and Boras is his agent as well.

Person I talked with is convinced Kenny will get more bullpen help but feels he'll have to move some salary first (Teahan???)

Lip

I think Boras likes to use the Sox to drive up the price for the teams with more money.

Jim Shorts
01-06-2011, 02:02 PM
I think Boras likes to use the Sox to drive up the price for the teams with more money.

I think Heyman is on Boras's payroll

russ99
01-06-2011, 02:20 PM
To me, it's Kenny's worst deal as GM. Not the trade, but the immediate extension.

Again, there was a reason for that, Kenny didn't just decide to give him an extension for no reason, he was going to his last team-controlled year as a arbitration eligible.

IMO, Kenny's error is trading for a guy who he thought was going to have a bump in performance, but he doesn't - which is more in line with his track record.

The error ws not signing a guy to avoid arb and to pick up a few FA years cheap, which plenty of shrewd GMs do.

In keeping, if the Sox give Quentin a 3 year deal to avoid his last arb this year and he has a bad 2011, will you guys rip him like Teahen? :wink:

NLaloosh
01-06-2011, 02:22 PM
Agree that to move him the Sox would need to pick up a large chunk of his salary. But if the Sox are now truly in a spot where 'every dollar counts,' then even if they had to pick up say seven million of his deal and ship him to, I don't know, say Pittsburgh, that 'frees up' three million for the next few years.

That money could probably get you a relief guy, certainly a back up outfielder, maybe two.

It's in Kenny's best interest, in my opinion, to see if he can pull this off. I think he's trying but I have no confirmation on that.

Lip

I agree.. However, freeing up $ 3 mil. over two years still doesn't allow them to sign Soriano now.

BTW, as bad as the unnecessary Teahen extension was it pales compared to the unncessary Peavy trade.

There is absolutely nothing hamstringing this team more than Peavy's injury, Peavy's contract and the loss of young pitching talent. All of which could have easily been foreseen at the time of the trade.

sox1970
01-06-2011, 02:29 PM
Again, there was a reason for that, Kenny didn't just decide to give him an extension for no reason, he was going to his last team-controlled year as a arbitration eligible.

IMO, Kenny's error is trading for a guy who he thought was going to have a bump in performance, but he doesn't - which is more in line with his track record.

The error ws not signing a guy to avoid arb and to pick up a few FA years cheap, which plenty of shrewd GMs do.

In keeping, if the Sox give Quentin a 3 year deal to avoid his last arb this year and he has a bad 2011, will you guys rip him like Teahen? :wink:

I'm not ripping Teahen. He is who he is-- a decent hitter who mostly is a streaky hitter. He can occasionally get a big hit, but overall is a replaceable player. He's not a plus fielder anywhere on the field. They had a free year to evaluate him in a Sox uniform. He wasn't going to make a ton if he went to arbitration, and they already knew Morel was a decent prospect. It would have been a nice, clean break with him last month on the non-tender date, but now the Sox are on the hook for 2 years/10 mil for a bench player.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2011, 02:35 PM
LaLoosh:

No it doesn't you're right but that money can go to shoring up the bullpen regardless or getting a 4th outfielder.

Lip

doublem23
01-06-2011, 02:37 PM
Again, there was a reason for that, Kenny didn't just decide to give him an extension for no reason, he was going to his last team-controlled year as a arbitration eligible.

IMO, Kenny's error is trading for a guy who he thought was going to have a bump in performance, but he doesn't - which is more in line with his track record.

The error ws not signing a guy to avoid arb and to pick up a few FA years cheap, which plenty of shrewd GMs do.

In keeping, if the Sox give Quentin a 3 year deal to avoid his last arb this year and he has a bad 2011, will you guys rip him like Teahen? :wink:

This is nonsense, no matter how you want to cut it the Teahen deal is terrible. I don't give a **** what it has to do with his arb clock or whatever, Teahen's a waste of a roster space and we locked him up for 2 extra years and $10 M. That's just a horrible move. There's a reason the notoriously cheap Royals paid us to take him off their hands and it's not the generosity of their hearts. Its because he sucks. Shrewd GMs don't give bloated contracts to ****ty ballplayers, no matter how many excuses you want to try and make for them.

The Teahen deal was a complete mistake. It's OK to admit it.

russ99
01-06-2011, 02:51 PM
This is nonsense, no matter how you want to cut it the Teahen deal is terrible. I don't give a **** what it has to do with his arb clock or whatever, Teahen's a waste of a roster space and we locked him up for 2 extra years and $10 M. That's just a horrible move. There's a reason the notoriously cheap Royals paid us to take him off their hands and it's not the generosity of their hearts. Its because he sucks. Shrewd GMs don't give bloated contracts to ****ty ballplayers, no matter how many excuses you want to try and make for them.

The Teahen deal was a complete mistake. It's OK to admit it.

Ok, that's one opinion, but that .290/.357/.517 line he put up in 2006 and to a lesser extent the .258/.353/.410 in 2007 had to come from somewhere.

I don't think he's as bad as some Sox fans think or as good as Kenny thought when making the deal. Maybe he can give us numbers in the middle in 2011.

For example, look at Swisher with the Yankees this year, those kinds of turnarounds can happen.

Domeshot17
01-06-2011, 03:12 PM
I think it should be a rule that in order to use stats in an argument, they have to come from one of the last 3 seasons in order to matter. I could give two craps how good Mark was in 2006, it didn't make him a good ball player in 2010 and doesn't mean he will be worth 500k let 5 mil in 2011.

ron_j_galt
01-06-2011, 04:54 PM
Ok, that's one opinion, but that .290/.357/.517 line he put up in 2006 and to a lesser extent the .258/.353/.410 in 2007 had to come from somewhere.

I don't think he's as bad as some Sox fans think or as good as Kenny thought when making the deal. Maybe he can give us numbers in the middle in 2011.

For example, look at Swisher with the Yankees this year, those kinds of turnarounds can happen.

Teahen's 2006 came from the same place as Swisher's 2008. Swisher's performance in 2010 was similar to his performance in 2006, 2007, and 2009. There was no turnaround; he hit like he usually does.

Similarly, Teahen's performance in 2010 was just like his performance in 2008 and 2009, slightly worse than 2007, and nothing at all like his 440 PA in 2006. He's 29 years old with 2,000 meh PAs in the last four years and 440 good ones from 2006. Any projection above "empty .270" is based on wishful thinking. He's exactly who he appears to be, and due to the extension he's all ours.

Tragg
01-06-2011, 08:29 PM
Ok, that's one opinion, but that .290/.357/.517 line he put up in 2006 and to a lesser extent the .258/.353/.410 in 2007 had to come from somewhere.

I don't think he's as bad as some Sox fans think or as good as Kenny thought when making the deal. Maybe he can give us numbers in the middle in 2011.


That's the hitting.
Who the heck scouted his defense? That's absolutely inexcusable.

dickallen15
01-06-2011, 09:29 PM
That's the hitting.
Who the heck scouted his defense? That's absolutely inexcusable.
I'm pretty sure Teahen was a Buddy Bell recommendation .

russ99
01-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Sounds like the Yankees (or anyone else) have no interest in Soriano at his asking price.

Boras busted on his fake news plants yet again... :tongue:

JermaineDye05
01-07-2011, 02:26 PM
Sounds like the Yankees (or anyone else) have no interest in Soriano at his asking price.

Boras busted on his fake news plants yet again... :tongue:

Now comes news that Soriano is close to signing with a team for significantly less than his demands, then the Yankees or someone else will pony up the dough. This is classic Boras.

A. Cavatica
01-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Now comes news that Soriano is close to signing with a team for significantly less than his demands, then the Yankees or someone else will pony up the dough. This is classic Boras.

Or "under the radar"?

JermaineDye05
01-07-2011, 03:27 PM
@jonmorosi (http://twitter.com/#%21/jonmorosi) Jon Morosi



Price on Soriano would need to drop way, way down for #WhiteSox (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23WhiteSox) to get him, source says. #Chicago (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23Chicago) #MLB (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23MLB)

52 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#%21/jonmorosi/status/23462611093823488) via web Favorite (http://twitter.com/#) Retweet (http://twitter.com/#) Reply (http://twitter.com/#)

Lip Man 1
01-07-2011, 03:46 PM
While I'd love to get him there are other relief guys still out there who can help.

Lip

A. Cavatica
01-07-2011, 04:31 PM
While I'd love to get him there are other relief guys still out there who can help.

Lip

Getting the best guy -- Soriano -- would push everyone else down to a less important role, so I'm crossing my fingers that Kenny can move Teahen or Jackson or convince JR that this is his going to be his last chance at another title.

If we don't get him then Crain had better come through.

Lip Man 1
01-07-2011, 04:58 PM
Cavatica:

Absolutely...all I'm saying is it's not the end of the world if they don't. Two guys who could come cheaper and help are Balfour and Rauch for example...there are others too.

Lip

rdivaldi
01-08-2011, 12:34 AM
the loss of young pitching talent. All of which could have easily been foreseen at the time of the trade.

Young pitching talent? Clayton Richard (27) is a serviceable 5th starter; however, Adam Russell (27) is barely a mop-up reliever, Aaron Poreda (24) is a headcase that can't throw strikes, and Dexter Carter (23) can't make it out of A Ball.

DumpJerry
01-08-2011, 09:20 AM
Young pitching talent? Clayton Richard (27) is a serviceable 5th starter; however, Adam Russell (27) is barely a mop-up reliever, Aaron Poreda (24) is a headcase that can't throw strikes, and Dexter Carter (23) can't make it out of A Ball.
Poreda appeared in 78 AA and AAA games (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=poreda001aar) in 2010. Never made it to The Show in 2010 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/poredaa01.shtml). Damn you, Kenny!:angry:

I questioned how bright he was. He was on my Facebook friend list for a while. During the offseason while he was with San Diego, he posted how he and friends were at Lake Tahoe for skiing and boarding. He then posted about how much he had snow boarding. This is how you get your contract canceled, Mr. Genius.

Taliesinrk
01-08-2011, 01:06 PM
Young pitching talent? Clayton Richard (27) is a serviceable 5th starter; however, Adam Russell (27) is barely a mop-up reliever, Aaron Poreda (24) is a headcase that can't throw strikes, and Dexter Carter (23) can't make it out of A Ball.

In his first full year as a major league starter (this past year), Richard threw over 200 IP, went 14-9 and had a 3.75 ERA. Granted, some of his stats are skewed by pitching at PETCO, but he went 8-3 on the road. Each year he's been in the bigs, his WHIP has fallen. Maybe something will happen, and he'll decline (and stop progressing, at that), and you'll be right. But until then, Clayton Richard is better than a "serviceable 5th starter".

rdivaldi
01-08-2011, 01:44 PM
Maybe something will happen, and he'll decline (and stop progressing, at that), and you'll be right. But until then, Clayton Richard is better than a "serviceable 5th starter".

If you look at Clayton's splits, you'll see that his numbers started nosediving in the second half of the season. His WHIP numbers are very telling.

July: 1.63
August: 1.42
September: 1.59
October: 1.69 (only one start though)

As the NL started adjusting to him, they started pounding the ball against him. Petco makes pitchers look much better than what they really are.

I like the kid, he's a quality individual with good life on his fastball. But really, unless he gets some secondary pitches, he's a 5th starter that's fortunate to be playing in a hitting graveyard in a weak league.

rdivaldi
01-08-2011, 01:47 PM
Sorry to be hijacking the thread guys/gals. I'd love to get Soriano in our bullpen.

WhiteSox5187
01-08-2011, 02:16 PM
Young pitching talent? Clayton Richard (27) is a serviceable 5th starter; however, Adam Russell (27) is barely a mop-up reliever, Aaron Poreda (24) is a headcase that can't throw strikes, and Dexter Carter (23) can't make it out of A Ball.

The lack of a serviceable fifth starter can undo the team as it did with us in 2002, 2003, 2004 and ALMOST did in 2008 and helped play a role in our undoing in 2009. But I liked the Peavy trade, I'm glad we made that. The worst trade we made though was with both Swisher trades. Gio is 25 and appears to be a very good starter in the making.

Taliesinrk
01-08-2011, 02:45 PM
If you look at Clayton's splits, you'll see that his numbers started nosediving in the second half of the season. His WHIP numbers are very telling.

July: 1.63
August: 1.42
September: 1.59
October: 1.69 (only one start though)

As the NL started adjusting to him, they started pounding the ball against him. Petco makes pitchers look much better than what they really are.

I like the kid, he's a quality individual with good life on his fastball. But really, unless he gets some secondary pitches, he's a 5th starter that's fortunate to be playing in a hitting graveyard in a weak league.

I'm with you about getting back to the original thread (and will let you have the last word, if you'd like), but I can't agree here. You can argue hitters made adjustments, etc., but his entire season's performance is MUCH better than a "serviceable 5th starter". In fact, didn't the entire Padres team fade hard down the stretch? (He also had a respectable 2:1, K:BB ratio that I forgot to mention). You may think he only has that kind of stuff (and maybe you have a great scout's eye), but the facts remain that his performance last year, his performance the year before (once made a full-starter upon arriving in SD - vs. jumping around and making spot starts like he was in chicago) coupled with his solid minor league career in which he improved in every single year, and even more impressively, with every single talent level jump, all indicate he's better than what you're giving him credit for... stats or not, he's 19-11 since going to SD. Furthermore, you should expect a somewhat delayed development from him considering he played football in college.

I like Peavy, and am not blaming KW for the trade (not sure I would have made it, but certainly don't think KW was wrong for doing so)... either way, I think you're selling Richard short.

Lip Man 1
01-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Talie:

All I know is what I saw when he was with the Sox, a pitcher who struggled to go five innings and allowed a lot of runs.

I think PETCO helped him out a lot more than the numbers say.

I simply don't think over the long term he would have been effective with the Sox. To me it was a gamble worth taking.

Lip

NLaloosh
01-08-2011, 04:38 PM
Young pitching talent? Clayton Richard (27) is a serviceable 5th starter; however, Adam Russell (27) is barely a mop-up reliever, Aaron Poreda (24) is a headcase that can't throw strikes, and Dexter Carter (23) can't make it out of A Ball.

Clayton Richard alone has outperformed Peavy.

However, the main thing is that even if they didn't want these 4 guys they could have traded them in other deals for pieces they needed. They didn't need to unload 4 promising young pitchers and take on Peavy's long and exhorbitant contract at a time when he WAS injured and had been battling injuries the past two seasons. AND, San Diego was dying to unload that contract. What other team was about to take it ? That's my point.

They could have traded these guys before the 2010 season or at the 2010 July deadline for help. I'll bet Washington would"ve taken Richard and Poreda for Dunn in July. That would've been a lot more helpful to the Sox than Manny freakin Ramirez.

I just don't like the way Kenny throws pitching prospects around like they are a dime a dozen. They are not. They are valuable for depth and valuable in trade. 2 for Pierre, 4 for Peavy, 2 for Swisher, 2 for Jackson and then he trades Javier Vazquez and what pitching do we get back ? That's why there's no pitching in the system.

Taliesinrk
01-08-2011, 04:56 PM
Talie:

All I know is what I saw when he was with the Sox, a pitcher who struggled to go five innings and allowed a lot of runs.

I think PETCO helped him out a lot more than the numbers say.

I simply don't think over the long term he would have been effective with the Sox. To me it was a gamble worth taking.

Lip

Ugh. I feel bad when the threads get hijacked, but I keep wanting to respond. I agree with a some of what you've said, but I think during his time with the Sox he had performances that showed a good upside. I always thought he was someone that had room for growth (developmentally explained by not focusing solely on baseball until after college) and I wonder how much him not having a solid routine that season with the Sox played a role in his performance (going from the pen to starting and beginning the season prepared as a RP).

That said, Peavy was a proven commodity and I was definitely ok with KW getting him. I thought he paid a steep price when he made the move, and I wasn't sure it was worth Peavy, but that said, I wasn't 100% sold on Richard either... so I still (even after Peavy's problems with the Sox) don't have a problem with the move that was made. I just think that calling Richard a serviceable #5 is selling him short. You may be right about PETCO and I don't think, at the time, that it was certain that he'd be bad OR good with the Sox. Either way, he's still somewhat young (... he's not old), has shown improvement, and IMO has shown no reason to suspect he's going to regress. Therefore, I can't understand why he's being referred to as a serviceable #5.

russ99
01-09-2011, 12:42 PM
Clayton Richard alone has outperformed Peavy.

However, the main thing is that even if they didn't want these 4 guys they could have traded them in other deals for pieces they needed. They didn't need to unload 4 promising young pitchers and take on Peavy's long and exhorbitant contract at a time when he WAS injured and had been battling injuries the past two seasons. AND, San Diego was dying to unload that contract. What other team was about to take it ? That's my point.

They could have traded these guys before the 2010 season or at the 2010 July deadline for help. I'll bet Washington would"ve taken Richard and Poreda for Dunn in July. That would've been a lot more helpful to the Sox than Manny freakin Ramirez.

I just don't like the way Kenny throws pitching prospects around like they are a dime a dozen. They are not. They are valuable for depth and valuable in trade. 2 for Pierre, 4 for Peavy, 2 for Swisher, 2 for Jackson and then he trades Javier Vazquez and what pitching do we get back ? That's why there's no pitching in the system.

Had Peavy been healthy last year this deal would be a steal for the Sox. Now, it's pretty even given Peavy can pitch the same way after his injury.

The fact is Richard was helped by the pitchers park at Petco, who's to say he would have done as well here?

Also, it's easy to deal pitching prospects when they're not up to snuff with what's considered a good prospect. Only Hudson, Poreda and Fausto would have been considered top 20 prospects on another team with a good system and only Gio and Richard (and maybe Ely but he could be a rookie fluke) has gone on to be a decent pitcher in the bigs.

Had we held on to our prospects and Kenny not made his usual deals, this is what our rotation would be:

Buehrle
Gio
Richard
Ely
Hudson

Would that good enough for 4th place in the AL Central? Would you be happy with that rotation?

DirtySox
01-09-2011, 12:48 PM
Now, it's pretty even given Peavy can pitch the same way after his injury.

I'm not so sure about this. The injury is uncharted waters and we really have no idea of how he will perform upon returning. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, but him returning to form is not some absolute sure thing.

Taliesinrk
01-09-2011, 03:25 PM
I'm not so sure about this. The injury is uncharted waters and we really have no idea of how he will perform upon returning. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, but him returning to form is not some absolute sure thing.

Not trying to be an ass, but I think you're misreading his post (which I found funny because I did too until I re-read it). At least, the initial way I read it was that it's a given that Peavy can pitch the same way after his injury... but if you re-read it, he's saying the trade is even... given (assuming) that Peavy can pitch again. I'm pretty sure you're in agreement.

cards press box
01-09-2011, 04:03 PM
Had Peavy been healthy last year this deal would be a steal for the Sox. Now, it's pretty even given Peavy can pitch the same way after his injury.

I'm not so sure about this. The injury is uncharted waters and we really have no idea of how he will perform upon returning. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, but him returning to form is not some absolute sure thing.

Tell you what, guys, I don't this that Jake Peavy will pitch the same as he did before -- I think he will pitch better. The doctors who have spoken about the surgery have compared it to Tommy John surgery and said that the muscle, if it heals properly, will be stronger than it was previously. And, remember Don Cooper's comments in December that Peavy was throwing the ball free and easy (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101220&content_id=16350410&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb). Prior to the injury last year, Peavy's motion seem forced and somewhat labored to me.

I have a good feeling that Peavy will have a great comeback year and that his surgery will be considered groundbreaking in sports medicine circles.

JermaineDye05
01-09-2011, 05:34 PM
Tell you what, guys, I don't this that Jake Peavy will pitch the same as he did before -- I think he will pitch better. The doctors who have spoken about the surgery have compared it to Tommy John surgery and said that the muscle, if it heals properly, will be stronger than it was previously. And, remember Don Cooper's comments in December that Peavy was throwing the ball free and easy (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101220&content_id=16350410&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb). Prior to the injury last year, Peavy's motion seem forced and somewhat labored to me.

I have a good feeling that Peavy will have a great comeback year and that his surgery will be considered groundbreaking in sports medicine circles.

The thing that concerns me is that Jake's delivery is not free and easy. It's pretty strenuous.

I'm mostly concerned about the mental aspect of the injury. Will it cause Jake to alter his delivery, and, if so, how will that affect his pitches?

NLaloosh
01-09-2011, 05:46 PM
Tell you what, guys, I don't this that Jake Peavy will pitch the same as he did before -- I think he will pitch better. The doctors who have spoken about the surgery have compared it to Tommy John surgery and said that the muscle, if it heals properly, will be stronger than it was previously. And, remember Don Cooper's comments in December that Peavy was throwing the ball free and easy (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101220&content_id=16350410&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb). Prior to the injury last year, Peavy's motion seem forced and somewhat labored to me.

I have a good feeling that Peavy will have a great comeback year and that his surgery will be considered groundbreaking in sports medicine circles.


I hope you're right. I just have the opposite feeling. I don't believe that Jake will have one full successful season in his Sox career. That's my feeling. I can't wait to be proven wrong.

SoxFanEarl
01-10-2011, 10:39 AM
Oh my goodness, will you guys just shut up about the Peavy thing and wait and see what happens? I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, but for gods sakes, give the guy and the White Sox a break. No one knew that Peavy was going to get injured. It is what it is. Its part of the business of baseball. You guys can "what-if" all you want about Richard. All I know is that he did not cut the mustard here on the southside. End of Story. Now if you guys want to continue to talk about Richard, then go do it on a San Diego board. Let's just keep hoping that the doctors have fixed Peavy and he will be back to being a dominate starting pitcher again.....which then all this nonsense being talked about will be forgotten!

doublem23
01-10-2011, 11:03 AM
They could have traded these guys before the 2010 season or at the 2010 July deadline for help. I'll bet Washington would"ve taken Richard and Poreda for Dunn in July. That would've been a lot more helpful to the Sox than Manny freakin Ramirez.

Absolutely no chance. Richard is kind of a bleh, Poreda is absolutely worthless. Hudson was a better prospect than either of those two.

DumpJerry
01-10-2011, 11:21 AM
Oh my goodness, will you guys just shut up about the Peavy thing and wait and see what happens? I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, but for gods sakes, give the guy and the White Sox a break. No one knew that Peavy was going to get injured. It is what it is. Its part of the business of baseball. You guys can "what-if" all you want about Richard. All I know is that he did not cut the mustard here on the southside. End of Story. Now if you guys want to continue to talk about Richard, then go do it on a San Diego board. Let's just keep hoping that the doctors have fixed Peavy and he will be back to being a dominate starting pitcher again.....which then all this nonsense being talked about will be forgotten!
:welcome:
It's the offseason. You'll learn that this kind of hand wringing goes on every November-April.

SoxFanEarl
01-10-2011, 11:25 AM
Yeah, I know your right. It just gets a little frustrating to read all the negativity, when OUR team has gone out and helped themselves and their fans with their moves this offseason. Plus, this was a Rafael Soriano thread, not a Jake Peavy/Clayton Richard/Aaron Poreda thread.

Tragg
01-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Oh my goodness, will you guys just shut up about the Peavy thing and wait and see what happens? I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, but for gods sakes, give the guy and the White Sox a break. No one knew that Peavy was going to get injured.
He was on the DL when the Sox traded for him. He was a huge injury risk because of his motion and delivery.
That said, we didn't give any elite prospects for him.
The elite prospect was given to rent Edwin Jackson for a year and a half.

doublem23
01-10-2011, 12:24 PM
He was on the DL when the Sox traded for him. He was a huge injury risk because of his motion and delivery.
That said, we didn't give any elite prospects for him.
The elite prospect was given to rent Edwin Jackson for a year and a half.

It's barely debatable to call Hudson an "elite" prospect, he was simply #1 here because our farm system is so barren.

Beckham and Sale were/are elite prospects. Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had... Anderson? Crede? Rauch?

DumpJerry
01-10-2011, 12:40 PM
It's barely debatable to call Hudson an "elite" prospect, he was simply #1 here because our farm system is so barren.

Beckham and Sale were/are elite prospects. Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had... Anderson? Crede? Rauch?
Frank Thomas and Jack McDowell.

Daver
01-10-2011, 12:41 PM
Beckham and Sale were/are elite prospects. Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had... Anderson? Crede? Rauch?

Borchard, Anderson was a notch below that, and I have a hard time considering any pitcher as an elite prospect.

Tragg
01-10-2011, 01:10 PM
It's barely debatable to call Hudson an "elite" prospect, he was simply #1 here because our farm system is so barren.

Beckham and Sale were/are elite prospects. Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had... Anderson? Crede? Rauch?
Well, he sure as heck pitches like one. Something that eye for talent in the Sox dugout missed (not surprisingly).

DirtySox
01-10-2011, 01:11 PM
Hudson wasn't an elite prospect. He was definitely a very good prospect though. I still think he's a middle of the rotation guy, maybe a 2 at absolute best.

A. Cavatica
01-10-2011, 09:06 PM
Frank Thomas and Jack McDowell.

Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez.

Borchard was an elite prospect until he got above AA.

Most of the front-line talent that's come out of our system in recent years (Buehrle, Ordonez, Caballo, Rowand, Crede, Cameron) was far from elite status.

LoveYourSuit
01-10-2011, 09:15 PM
Alex Fernandez, Wilson Alvarez.

Borchard was an elite prospect until he got above AA.

Most of the front-line talent that's come out of our system in recent years (Buehrle, Ordonez, Caballo, Rowand, Crede, Cameron) was far from elite status.

Alvarez was not a White Sox prospect.

He was part of what we received in the Harold Baines trade to Texas.

Tragg
01-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Hudson wasn't an elite prospect. He was definitely a very good prospect though. I still think he's a middle of the rotation guy, maybe a 2 at absolute best.

Yea, well, what did we get for him? A 2 at best with 5 times the salary and 20% of the contract years.

A. Cavatica
01-11-2011, 06:35 AM
Alvarez was not a White Sox prospect.

He was part of what we received in the Harold Baines trade to Texas.

Alvarez had one career start, zero innings pitched, infinite ERA when we got him. He was still a prospect.

doublem23
01-11-2011, 06:38 AM
Well, he sure as heck pitches like one. Something that eye for talent in the Sox dugout missed (not surprisingly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

Lip Man 1
01-11-2011, 11:21 AM
Cavatica:

But Alvarez wasn't groomed in the Sox system, I don't consider him a Sox prospect.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
01-11-2011, 11:46 AM
Alvarez had one career start, zero innings pitched, infinite ERA when we got him. He was still a prospnect.

Yes, but not our prospect.

guillensdisciple
01-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Since I can't find it in this thread, any relevant information on this guy and the Sox?

DirtySox
01-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Since I can't find it in this thread, any relevant information on this guy and the Sox?

Not really. The Sox having the money to sign him seems quite unlikely.

CPditka
01-11-2011, 12:54 PM
Interesting tid bits:

Buster_ESPN (javascript:void(0);): Heard this: Chad Qualls is looking for a one-year deal, looking to re-establish valuebefore going back out on the market.

Buster_ESPN (javascript:void(0);): Heard this: The perception of teams is that the asking price for Grant Balfour is coming down a bit...


I wouldnt mind adding Qualls to closer team, and Sale to starter for the season.

dickallen15
01-11-2011, 01:37 PM
Interesting tid bits:

Buster_ESPN (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);): Heard this: Chad Qualls is looking for a one-year deal, looking to re-establish valuebefore going back out on the market.

Buster_ESPN (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);): Heard this: The perception of teams is that the asking price for Grant Balfour is coming down a bit...


I wouldnt mind adding Qualls to closer team, and Sale to starter for the season.

Isn't Qualls the guy Paulie took deep in the WS?

VMSNS
01-11-2011, 01:39 PM
Isn't Qualls the guy Paulie took deep in the WS?

Yes. On the first pitch, I believe.

SoxNation05
01-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Isn't Qualls the guy Paulie took deep in the WS?

Most certainly.

WhiteSox5187
01-11-2011, 02:09 PM
Isn't Qualls the guy Paulie took deep in the WS?

Didn't Pods have a grandslam off of Qualls the very next time he pitched against the Sox at Comiskey in 2006?

PalehosePlanet
01-11-2011, 05:15 PM
Didn't Pods have a grandslam off of Qualls the very next time he pitched against the Sox at Comiskey in 2006?

Crede is the one who hit the granny off Qualls. Pods hit a granny off Pettitte the night before.

Also, unless Qualls will take 500 K and an ST invite, no thanks.

A. Cavatica
01-11-2011, 05:53 PM
Yes, but not our prospect.

doublem said "Beckham and Sale were/are elite prospects. Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had". I was just putting Alvarez's name out there, since we had him; I never claimed we developed him.

Randar68
01-12-2011, 02:42 PM
Before them, I can't even think of the last one we had... Anderson? Crede? Rauch?


Gotta be Rauch. Minor League Player of the Year and #1 prospect in baseball according to more than one publication. Doesn't get any more "elite" than that.

DirtySox
01-13-2011, 08:50 PM
http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/190827556/jon_heyman_normal.jpg
SI_JonHeyman (http://twitter.com/#%21/SI_JonHeyman) Jon Heyman
#yankees (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23yankees) agree to terms with rafael soriano

(http://twitter.com/#%21/SI_JonHeyman/status/25731057428992000)

Brian26
01-13-2011, 08:55 PM
http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/190827556/jon_heyman_normal.jpg
SI_JonHeyman (http://twitter.com/#%21/SI_JonHeyman) Jon Heyman
#yankees (http://twitter.com/#%21/search?q=%23yankees) agree to terms with rafael soriano

(http://twitter.com/#%21/SI_JonHeyman/status/25731057428992000)

Come on.
:thud:

JermaineDye05
01-13-2011, 09:09 PM
Come on.
:thud:

soriano deal is thought to be for about $35 million for 3 yrs 15 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/25732258144985089) via web Retweeted by 46 people
http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/190827556/jon_heyman_bigger.jpg (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman)
SI_JonHeyman (http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman)
Jon Heyman

All a game by Boras once again.

chisox616
01-13-2011, 09:11 PM
Best not to overpay for a reliever. Glad we didn't give him that contract :\

Taliesinrk
01-13-2011, 09:20 PM
ridiculous. seriously.. that's insane. I hope rivera pitches for 3 more years so that the yankees can pay a set-up man that much.

DirtySox
01-13-2011, 09:31 PM
Best not to overpay for a reliever. Glad we didn't give him that contract :\

No kidding. Wow.

I suppose the Yankees had/have money burning a hole in their pocket after missing out on everything.

A. Cavatica
01-13-2011, 09:32 PM
Way too much to pay for a closer.

DirtySox
01-13-2011, 09:34 PM
Way too much to pay for a closer.

He's a setup man now. :tongue:

sullythered
01-13-2011, 09:59 PM
Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!!! We didn't get Cliff Lee or Carl Crawford. Waaaaaaaahhhh!
It's not fair! We're the Yankees, we're supposed to get whoever we want! Waaaaaaahhh!!!!






Let's just give a guy starter's money to set up.

pythons007
01-13-2011, 10:33 PM
So if Rivera does decide to retire after his two year deal. The Yankee$ will have a closer for a year. This is genius! $11.67 Mil a year for a setup guy? Seriously?

I read this on Yahoo, and an ignorant Yankee fan said, "finally Cashman did something". These douchebag Yankee/Red Sox fans don't understand how good they have it.

Oh, look one of the best players in the league is a free agent, I just know he'll be a Yankee. That's exactly what has to be going through the mind of all of their fans.

I would have loved to have seen the reactions on their faces when they found out Cliff Lee signed with the Phillies.

Domeshot17
01-13-2011, 11:09 PM
I guess I don't understand...The Yanks signed the best arm in the FA market to set up, so we are going to complain and cry about it? Yah they overpaid, but they are the Yankees, they can do that and it doesn't hurt. Soriano setting up gives them the makings of a great bullpen, probably the best 8th and 9th combo in baseball, and puts them back in line to compete for a world title. If they can get a lead into the 6th inning, their bullpen is going to win a lot of games for them.

sullythered
01-13-2011, 11:59 PM
I guess I don't understand...The Yanks signed the best arm in the FA market to set up, so we are going to complain and cry about it? Yah they overpaid, but they are the Yankees, they can do that and it doesn't hurt. Soriano setting up gives them the makings of a great bullpen, probably the best 8th and 9th combo in baseball, and puts them back in line to compete for a world title. If they can get a lead into the 6th inning, their bullpen is going to win a lot of games for them.
Allow me to explain: **** the Yankees.

That is all.

Taliesinrk
01-14-2011, 12:03 AM
I guess I don't understand...The Yanks signed the best arm in the FA market to set up, so we are going to complain and cry about it? Yah they overpaid, but they are the Yankees, they can do that and it doesn't hurt. Soriano setting up gives them the makings of a great bullpen, probably the best 8th and 9th combo in baseball, and puts them back in line to compete for a world title. If they can get a lead into the 6th inning, their bullpen is going to win a lot of games for them.

it does kind of hurt. it raises the entire market when this crap happens.

102605
01-14-2011, 12:15 AM
Didn't Pods have a grandslam off of Qualls the very next time he pitched against the Sox at Comiskey in 2006?

Crede did on the first pitch swinging just like Konerko did in the WS. That Crede ball landed 2 rows in front of me. From the moment it came off the bat I thought it was coming to my hands.

ComiskeyBrewer
01-14-2011, 01:42 AM
Years 2 and 3 of this deal are actually player options. Soriano could just opt out after this season if the market for closers is better next year. He could also opt out in two years just to force the Yankees to give him a big extension if they really want him to be the heir to Rivera. Seriously, this deal is crazy good for Soriano.

Hitmen77
01-14-2011, 09:52 AM
I guess I don't understand...The Yanks signed the best arm in the FA market to set up, so we are going to complain and cry about it? Yah they overpaid, but they are the Yankees, they can do that and it doesn't hurt. Soriano setting up gives them the makings of a great bullpen, probably the best 8th and 9th combo in baseball, and puts them back in line to compete for a world title. If they can get a lead into the 6th inning, their bullpen is going to win a lot of games for them.

If I were the Yankees and had $$$ burning a hole in my pocket, I'd throw this kind of money around too. I don't fault the Yanks for doing this, but it once again points to how MLB's system is broken. Whaat? A chink in the armor of the Yankees? Have no fear, they'll just buy up some more all-stars to put them back over the top!!! How do they do it? NYY and Bos are such well run teams with smart ownership!

It's just ridiculous what the Yankees (and Red Sox too) can do to lock up playoff spots year after year. Their payroll last year was $40 million more than Boston and just about DOUBLE the payroll of some big-market high payroll teams. That's not healthy competition, that's just a farce.

I hope this turns out to be a terrible deal for the Yankees. But how do you define "terrible" for them? Even if Soriano somehow flops, they'll just throw more money at other all-stars. There's practically no such thing as a "bad contract" for them.

seventyseven
01-14-2011, 10:32 AM
I hope this turns out to be a terrible deal for the Yankees. But how do you define "terrible" for them? Even if Soriano somehow flops, they'll just throw more money at other all-stars. There's practically no such thing as a "bad contract" for them.

You just hit the nail on the head -- and this is why a salary cap is needed in baseball or else this only gets worse over time. I personally have lost some interest in baseball because I'm tired of seeing the same teams in the postseason.

The rich teams in MLB can afford to spend recklessly and get away with it. The rest of the teams cannot.

The Pirates screwed up with the Kendall deal and it set them back years. The Royals screwed up with the Meche deal -- same thing.

The Yankees blow $40M on Pavano, and it's a minor bump in the road.

Sargeant79
01-14-2011, 01:20 PM
ridiculous. seriously.. that's insane. I hope rivera pitches for 3 more years so that the yankees can pay a set-up man that much.

Even if that's the way it plays out, it won't matter to the Yankees. They can afford to use that kind of money for toilet paper.

russ99
01-14-2011, 04:42 PM
LOL. Wait until Soriano hurts his arm and keeps re-upping those player options...

Idiots. You can write it in stone, the Yankees will always cave to Boras no matter how ridiculous the demand.

doublem23
01-14-2011, 04:47 PM
LOL. Wait until Soriano hurts his arm and keeps re-upping those player options...

Idiots. You can write it in stone, the Yankees will always cave to Boras no matter how ridiculous the demand.

Yeah, well, they have basically an unlimited payroll so what difference does it make to them?

They payed Carl Pavano like $40 M over 4 years to make 26 total starts for them and still, they went to the playoffs 3 of those 4 years and won less than 90 once.

Domeshot17
01-14-2011, 06:56 PM
Yeah, well, they have basically an unlimited payroll so what difference does it make to them?

They payed Carl Pavano like $40 M over 4 years to make 26 total starts for them and still, they went to the playoffs 3 of those 4 years and won less than 90 once.

Its amazing what winning consistently, truly consistently, does to a franchise.

Daver
01-14-2011, 06:58 PM
You just hit the nail on the head -- and this is why a salary cap is needed in baseball or else this only gets worse over time.

How does enforcing a written guarantee of the owners profit margins do anything to resolve the issue?

Taliesinrk
01-14-2011, 07:13 PM
How does enforcing a written guarantee of the owners profit margins do anything to resolve the issue?

:thumbsup:

cards press box
01-15-2011, 12:13 AM
Its amazing what winning consistently, truly consistently, does to a franchise.

It's even more amazing what an enormous advantage in local media revenue by virtue of geographic accident does for a franchise.

How does enforcing a written guarantee of the owners profit margins do anything to resolve the issue?

I agree that a salary cap has its own problems, as evidenced this year when the Blackhawks conducted a mini-fire sale trading off some of its young talent just after winning the Stanley Cup. The Hawks certainly would have liked to keep those players, most of whom were developed in the Hawk minor league system, but could not and still comply with the NHL's salary cap.

What I suggest is what Bill Veeck suggested around a half-century ago: have the two teams that play on the field share all of the media revenue (including local revenue) that the game itself generates. Under this system, the Yankees would still have an advantage, just not the ridiculous one they have enjoyed in this era when their payroll has often been 50% higher than the second highest team.

Hitmen77
01-15-2011, 01:13 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tom_verducci/01/14/soriano.pettitte/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

If Verducci is correct, the Yankees are paying $49 million over 3 years for Soriano when you factor in the luxury tax penalty.

Nellie_Fox
01-15-2011, 01:36 AM
Its amazing what winning consistently, truly consistently, does to a franchise.It's far more a product of being in a market area of some 23 million people in the media center of the country.

NLaloosh
01-15-2011, 04:29 PM
I can't wait to start laughing when the next big Borass client is on the market and half the people on here will get all worked up about the possibility that the White Sox are going to get him.

It never fails.

DirtySox
01-15-2011, 04:46 PM
I can't wait to start laughing when the next big Borass client is on the market and half the people on here will get all worked up about the possibility that the White Sox are going to get him.

It never fails.

Did people really get worked up? Seems to me that there wasn't much evidence to get heavily invested in the possibility of a Soriano signing. I always thought it was more wishful thinking. This thread doesn't even get close to the Damon drama of last year.