PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie not pinch-hitting for Dunn


vinny
08-12-2011, 07:59 AM
If Dunn faces a lefty reliever, Ozzie's leaving him in because he "has confidence" in Dunn's abilities. :shakehead:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110811&content_id=23090982&notebook_id=23094050&vkey=notebook_cws&c_id=cws

Zakath
08-12-2011, 08:15 AM
Confidence ends when you're hitting .038 vs. lefties.

Didn't think it was possible, but so far August has been Dunn's worst month (.129, 4-for-31).

PaleHoser
08-12-2011, 10:09 AM
Is it too late for Dunn to consider switch-hitting?

(I don't know if this should be in teal or not. I'm half serious. It's not like he could do any worse.)

34rancher
08-12-2011, 10:33 AM
Is it too late for Dunn to consider switch-hitting?

(I don't know if this should be in teal or not. I'm half serious. It's not like he could do any worse.)

He is right handed isn't he?

kittle42
08-12-2011, 10:37 AM
I get why Ozzie has to say this, but if this team was really serious about winning games, with this few left to play, he would be persona non grata in that lineup.

JC456
08-12-2011, 11:47 AM
I'd just like to see him try something different. you know, close his stance, move closer to the pitcher, sit down at the plate, stand ontop of it, do something friggin different!

Tragg
08-12-2011, 11:49 AM
I get why Ozzie has to say this, but if this team was really serious about winning games, with this few left to play, he would be persona non grata in that lineup.

It's like it's the same ego play we've seen here for a while. We can't hit him against lefties.

amsteel
08-12-2011, 12:02 PM
As long as Dunn is in the lineup, the Sox are not putting their best lineup on the field.

Hypothetical: Bottom of the 9th in game 162 or 163, Dunn comes to the plate against a lefty (or righty even) with the based loaded 2 outs, game on the line. Does Ozzie PH him there? Because if he does it there he should be doing it already.

blandman
08-12-2011, 12:10 PM
As long as Dunn is in the lineup, the Sox are not putting their best lineup on the field.

Hypothetical: Bottom of the 9th in game 162 or 163, Dunn comes to the plate against a lefty (or righty even) with the based loaded 2 outs, game on the line. Does Ozzie PH him there? Because if he does it there he should be doing it already.

Every game is not game 163, you're creating a logical fallacy.

kittle42
08-12-2011, 12:26 PM
As long as Dunn is in the lineup, the Sox are not putting their best lineup on the field.

Hypothetical: Bottom of the 9th in game 162 or 163, Dunn comes to the plate against a lefty (or righty even) with the based loaded 2 outs, game on the line. Does Ozzie PH him there? Because if he does it there he should be doing it already.

I would let Dunn hit, because he'd go up trying to walk! OBP still important here with bases loaded.

Every game is not game 163, you're creating a logical fallacy.

Correct.

VMSNS
08-12-2011, 12:45 PM
With this team in the midst of a playoff race and only 1.5 months to go, Ozzie shouldn't give a crap about his own "confidence" in Dunn. We need to play the players that produce results in order to win, and Dunn gives you nothing right now.

Lip Man 1
08-12-2011, 12:52 PM
This is interesting given how many times we've heard or read this comment by Ozzie to the mainstream media:

"**** feelings, it's about winning..."

Lip

kittle42
08-12-2011, 01:07 PM
http://rotoworld.com/player/mlb/3304/adam-dunn

Yup.

Johnny Mostil
08-12-2011, 04:24 PM
http://rotoworld.com/player/mlb/3304/adam-dunn

Yup.

The .187 average since the 2010 ASG is depressing . . .

Anyway, going back to the original topic, I'm not sure why this is news. Guillén hasn't used a pinch-hitter for Dunn all year, has he? Why would he start now, or even in a hypothetical game 163? (I'm not saying he shouldn't . . .)

BainesHOF
08-12-2011, 05:43 PM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.

I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.

FielderJones
08-12-2011, 05:52 PM
I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.

Too young to remember the Bevington years, huh?

TDog
08-12-2011, 06:52 PM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.

I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.

Realistically, the bench isn't deep enough to pinch-hit for Dunn when you bigger needs may be to pinch run for Konerko and put in a defensive replacement for Quentin. Regardless of what Guillen is quoted as saying, Guillen really doesn't have the luxury of pinch-hitting for him. Perhaps if the team carried one or two fewer relievers and there was a deeper bench.

The problem isn't with Guillen playing Dunn. It is with Dunn being on the team, with the team signing a designated hitter with limited skills instead of attempting to field a more talented, more athletic team with more speed. It should have been obvious the day Dunn was signed.

Falstaff
08-12-2011, 07:58 PM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.

I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.
I agree. Regarding Dunn, what does it take to smell the coffee?
White Sox routinely spot the other team 4 easy outs; Ozzie makes the
line-ups. He could have put Omar in everyday at DH and we'd realistically get way more production, and would likely be a few games ahead, in first place. Reality ain't always pretty, but there it is. Deal with it Ozzie.

34rancher
08-12-2011, 08:06 PM
Realistically, the bench isn't deep enough to pinch-hit for Dunn when you bigger needs may be to pinch run for Konerko and put in a defensive replacement for Quentin. Regardless of what Guillen is quoted as saying, Guillen really doesn't have the luxury of pinch-hitting for him. Perhaps if the team carried one or two fewer relievers and there was a deeper bench.

The problem isn't with Guillen playing Dunn. It is with Dunn being on the team, with the team signing a designated hitter with limited skills instead of attempting to field a more talented, more athletic team with more speed. It should have been obvious the day Dunn was signed.
For some of us, it was. We were ripped and told how crazy we were.

Every game is not game 163, you're creating a logical fallacy.
And that's the problem with this team. No sense of urgency. Play every game as if it's 163, and you might play to see a game 7.

voodoochile
08-12-2011, 09:12 PM
For some of us, it was. We were ripped and told how crazy we were.


And that's the problem with this team. No sense of urgency. Play every game as if it's 163, and you might play to see a game 7.

Or your team might burn out by June and finish dead last 30 games back...

The Dude
08-12-2011, 09:54 PM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.

I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.


Agreed, this is brutal even for Ozzie standards.

BainesHOF
08-13-2011, 01:25 AM
Too young to remember the Bevington years, huh?

No. I remember Bevington. He wasn't the brightest. I watched the game on a Saturday afternoon when he motioned for a reliever and nobody was warmed up. He also mistakenly argued against his own team. He was surly. He was bad.

Guillen is worse. He's done more damage on a daily basis this season than anyone I've seen manage us dating back to Chuck Tanner. I don't think it's even close. Bevington, Manuel and Lamont were all bad, but Guillen is ridiculous. The fact that he's such an embarrassment off the field just makes him even worse.

Dan H
08-13-2011, 02:51 AM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.

I've never seen a worse-managed season in team history than this one.

I thought the Dunn signing was great when it happened, but I now have to admit how wrong I was. Maybe the White Sox organization can't do the same? Too easy for me to say when I'm not paying the guy millions?

Adam Dunn's behind should be on the bench until the season is over. It won't save the team in 2011, but at least the denial act would stop. Meahwhile Guilllen shouldn't be any where near the White Sox bench.

kittle42
08-13-2011, 04:02 AM
Guillen is worse. He's done more damage on a daily basis this season than anyone I've seen manage us dating back to Chuck Tanner. I don't think it's even close. Bevington, Manuel and Lamont were all bad, but Guillen is ridiculous. The fact that he's such an embarrassment off the field just makes him even worse.

Dead on.

Milw
08-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Realistically, the bench isn't deep enough to pinch-hit for Dunn when you bigger needs may be to pinch run for Konerko and put in a defensive replacement for Quentin. Regardless of what Guillen is quoted as saying, Guillen really doesn't have the luxury of pinch-hitting for him. Perhaps if the team carried one or two fewer relievers and there was a deeper bench.

The problem isn't with Guillen playing Dunn. It is with Dunn being on the team, with the team signing a designated hitter with limited skills instead of attempting to field a more talented, more athletic team with more speed. It should have been obvious the day Dunn was signed.
I was against the Dunn move when it happened (although I couldn't have imagined it would have backfired this badly). That said, wasn't the knock on KW that the Sox always go for "athletic" guys without considering whether they're baseball players? I'm not sure I personally ever really bought into that, but that was a common complaint in the past.

southside rocks
08-13-2011, 11:23 AM
At this point, it's no longer Dunn's fault. He's awful. It's Guillen's fault for playing him.



First of all, I wish Adam Dunn were on any team but the White Sox. I am not a fan of that type of player.

However, I would like to ask you: what SHOULD Ozzie do with him? They have 3 more years on Dunn's contract. If Ozzie benches him now, it does nothing to help Dunn get out of his awful slump, and he has to get out of it or the next 3 years of his contract are unthinkable.

I would like to see them trade Dunn after this season, but to do that and not end up eating 100% of the contract, the Sox have got to give Dunn the ability to get out of this and start showing other teams that he's not toast as a hitter.

There aren't any really good options for the Adam Dunn situation this year. It's easy to hate on Ozzie, but what do you suggest besides just putting Dunn in the corner and ignoring him for the next 3+ years while paying him a fortune?

Lip Man 1
08-13-2011, 01:19 PM
Southside:

Just playing devil's advocate. You basically bench Dunn the last six weeks, get him started on an off season conditioning program now. Give him the chance to rest and clear his head baseball-wise and start fresh in mid February.

Playing him right now obviously is just making the situation worse...for himself and the club.

Lip

blandman
08-13-2011, 01:30 PM
Jesus.

What's more important...trying to win this year when winning means an almost certain three game sweep, or getting Dunn fixed. Because if you sit him for the rest of the year, you sit him for four years. It's the kind of decision there's no going back from.

Lip Man 1
08-13-2011, 01:53 PM
Bland:

Why? Why do you say that if you sit him now you sit him for four years? Is he that mentally ****ed up? that soft mentally??

Seriously. He's having an awful (to put it mildly) time this year, who is to say some rest won't do him good for next year?

It's possible you are right, but I'm curious why you said what you did.

And if you're "trying to win this year" me thinks trying to do so with a guy who is basically an automatic out three to four times a game isn't the way to do it.

Lip

blandman
08-13-2011, 03:57 PM
Bland:

Why? Why do you say that if you sit him now you sit him for four years? Is he that mentally ****ed up? that soft mentally??

Seriously. He's having an awful (to put it mildly) time this year, who is to say some rest won't do him good for next year?

It's possible you are right, but I'm curious why you said what you did.

And if you're "trying to win this year" me thinks trying to do so with a guy who is basically an automatic out three to four times a game isn't the way to do it.

Lip

Lip,

Yes he is that mentally soft - I can't imagine anyone going through what he did this year not being mentally soft. And no, I don't mean as a reason, but as a result. Being that bad at your job for that long would wear on anyone. Losing his job right now would be the worst possible thing long term for both him and the organization. If they sit him the rest of the year, I don't believe there's any chance he'll ever recover.

As for winning this year - I think you should try and win, yes. But it's obvious even if we do "win", we aren't going anywhere. More emphasis should be on next year and the years to come, which Dunn has to be a huge part of.

southside rocks
08-13-2011, 04:08 PM
Southside:

Just playing devil's advocate. You basically bench Dunn the last six weeks, get him started on an off season conditioning program now. Give him the chance to rest and clear his head baseball-wise and start fresh in mid February.

Playing him right now obviously is just making the situation worse...for himself and the club.

Lip

I certainly see the appeal of that idea.

I also, in 44 years of watching baseball, cannot say I have ever seen a team do that to an established player. I think the chance that the Sox will be the first and do it with Dunn is so remote as to be considered an impossibility.

That would be announcing to the entire major league baseball community that Adam Dunn is in fact unable to play baseball at the major league level.

I know his play seems to demonstrate that to us, the fans, every time he's in the lineup; but for the management of a team to take that stance -- wow. After I fight my way out of the cloud of 'inconceivable' that fills my head, I think of MLBPA filing a grievance and winning, winning, winning.

It's simply not a realistic option.

Johnny Mostil
08-13-2011, 04:33 PM
I certainly see the appeal of that idea.

I also, in 44 years of watching baseball, cannot say I have ever seen a team do that to an established player. I think the chance that the Sox will be the first and do it with Dunn is so remote as to be considered an impossibility.

That would be announcing to the entire major league baseball community that Adam Dunn is in fact unable to play baseball at the major league level.

I know his play seems to demonstrate that to us, the fans, every time he's in the lineup; but for the management of a team to take that stance -- wow. After I fight my way out of the cloud of 'inconceivable' that fills my head, I think of MLBPA filing a grievance and winning, winning, winning.

It's simply not a realistic option.

I agree Dunn's not being benched (nor being sent to the minors), but on what grounds would the MLBPA file a grievance if he were to be benched?

Falstaff
08-13-2011, 04:45 PM
First of all, I wish Adam Dunn were on any team but the White Sox. I am not a fan of that type of player.

However, I would like to ask you: what SHOULD Ozzie do with him? They have 3 more years on Dunn's contract. If Ozzie benches him now, it does nothing to help Dunn get out of his awful slump, and he has to get out of it or the next 3 years of his contract are unthinkable.

I would like to see them trade Dunn after this season, but to do that and not end up eating 100% of the contract, the Sox have got to give Dunn the ability to get out of this and start showing other teams that he's not toast as a hitter.

There aren't any really good options for the Adam Dunn situation this year. It's easy to hate on Ozzie, but what do you suggest besides just putting Dunn in the corner and ignoring him for the next 3+ years while paying him a fortune?

Teams with a goal of winning field the best players/hitters possible.
Case in point: Last year the SF Giants won the world series yet left their highest paid pitcher (the once-great Barry Zito) off the playoff/world series roster. Why? Because despite his salary, he could not contribute as needed to winning. That approach to winning resulted in big trophy, you know the one White Sox fans would like to see again.

Don't play Dunn until he is better than the alternatives.
Heck, right now, I'd advocate bring back Dick Allen, I bet he's put
up better numbers, thats not teal either.

Boondock Saint
08-13-2011, 06:54 PM
Jesus.

What's more important...trying to win this year when winning means an almost certain three game sweep, or getting Dunn fixed. Because if you sit him for the rest of the year, you sit him for four years. It's the kind of decision there's no going back from.

This is absolutely baseless bull****. It's not possible to bench him in favor of a more productive player for the last 6 weeks of the season, then get him in shape/in the batting cages/out of his own head in time for next season? Better players than Adam Dunn have spent time on the bench for not producing. And it's not the earth shattering touch of death you're making it out to be.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
08-13-2011, 07:20 PM
Jesus.

What's more important...trying to win this year when winning means an almost certain three game sweep, or getting Dunn fixed. Because if you sit him for the rest of the year, you sit him for four years. It's the kind of decision there's no going back from.

Everyone said the '06 Cardinals were basically a bye for the other team once they clinched a playoff spot, then in the NLDS, then in the NLCS, then in the World Series (anyone remember someone on ESPN say "I pick the Tigers in three games"?). How did that work out? The Cardinals won the World Series, 83-79 record be damned. All that matters is getting there, then just roll the dice once you're at the table.

And your reasoning on Dunn is flawed beyond all reason. How does sitting him for the month and a half left of this season to clear his head and get away from all this pressure and backlash mean that he's benched the rest of his contract?! Adam Dunn has been nothing short of historically terrible this year, yet despite that, the Sox are still somehow in the running for the division.

It's getting to the point where tough decisions have to be made, benching Dunn being one of them. You can call up almost anyone in any level from the minor leagues and there's a very good chance he'll out-perform Dunn, Dunn's been THAT bad. However, that doesn't mean that once 2012 begins, that Dunn is on the outside looking in. He just needs to start working in the offseason, get into shape, and see where that takes him in spring training. This season could be an anomaly and he'll get back to speed next year (much like Konerko's 2003 season), or it could be the beginning of a hard, fast, graceless fall from the mountain, but we won't know until next year.

You make decisions based on your situation now, and your organizational philosophy. The philosophy was "All In" and although they haven't played like it, they're still in the running for the crown, so why not try to go for it this year? That was the goal all along, no?

blandman
08-13-2011, 07:26 PM
This is absolutely baseless bull****. It's not possible to bench him in favor of a more productive player for the last 6 weeks of the season, then get him in shape/in the batting cages/out of his own head in time for next season? Better players than Adam Dunn have spent time on the bench for not producing. And it's not the earth shattering touch of death you're making it out to be.

Please state precedent of 30 something slugger signing huge contract, losing his job in the first year of that contract, and coming back to live up to contract. Because where I'm standing, there's only one person throwing out baseless bull****...

blandman
08-13-2011, 07:29 PM
Everyone said the '06 Cardinals were basically a bye for the other team once they clinched a playoff spot, then in the NLDS, then in the NLCS, then in the World Series (anyone remember someone on ESPN say "I pick the Tigers in three games"?). How did that work out? The Cardinals won the World Series, 83-79 record be damned. All that matters is getting there, then just roll the dice once you're at the table.

And your reasoning on Dunn is flawed beyond all reason. How does sitting him for the month and a half left of this season to clear his head and get away from all this pressure and backlash mean that he's benched the rest of his contract?! Adam Dunn has been nothing short of historically terrible this year, yet despite that, the Sox are still somehow in the running for the division.

It's getting to the point where tough decisions have to be made, benching Dunn being one of them. You can call up almost anyone in any level from the minor leagues and there's a very good chance he'll out-perform Dunn, Dunn's been THAT bad. However, that doesn't mean that once 2012 begins, that Dunn is on the outside looking in. He just needs to start working in the offseason, get into shape, and see where that takes him in spring training. This season could be an anomaly and he'll get back to speed next year (much like Konerko's 2003 season), or it could be the beginning of a hard, fast, graceless fall from the mountain, but we won't know until next year.

You make decisions based on your situation now, and your organizational philosophy. The philosophy was "All In" and although they haven't played like it, they're still in the running for the crown, so why not try to go for it this year? That was the goal all along, no?

The '06 Cardinals had a bad record because they were injured all season. That same team, same pieces, won 100 games the previous year. That '06 Cardinals team, when healthy (and they finally were in the playoffs), was probably better than our '05 White Sox team.

As for Dunn, as I said before. State me precedence where someone signs a marquee contract and loses his job in the first year and then recovers. It's never happened before. Though plenty of guys have gone on to get benched and never return.

Boondock Saint
08-13-2011, 07:35 PM
Please state precedent of 30 something slugger signing huge contract, losing his job in the first year of that contract, and coming back to live up to contract. Because where I'm standing, there's only one person throwing out baseless bull****...

I'm not the one speaking in definitives here. A six week benching isn't going to ruin him as a player, which is what you said. If you want to make the argument that Dunn is finished as a player, that's fine. But don't try and tell me that sitting him for the rest of the season is some mythical point of no return. If he's done, he's done. If he isn't, missing the rest of the season won't hurt that.

TDog
08-13-2011, 07:36 PM
I was against the Dunn move when it happened (although I couldn't have imagined it would have backfired this badly). That said, wasn't the knock on KW that the Sox always go for "athletic" guys without considering whether they're baseball players? I'm not sure I personally ever really bought into that, but that was a common complaint in the past.

There is a difference between drafting "athletes" you want to make into baseball players and fielding an athletic baseball team. Of course, you can be very athletic and be someone who strikes out in a third of your plate appearance.

There are plenty of baseball players who can run and play very good defense and even can make contact at the plate. And during the offseason, pretty much any offseason of late, I was hoping a couple of them would end up on the White Sox.

Instead, the White Sox signed Dunn to a contract that prevents him from going anywhere on a roster so lacking in position players pretty much assures he will start frequently and can't be pinch-hit for.

It doesn't matter who the manager is.

blandman
08-13-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm not the one speaking in definitives here. A six week benching isn't going to ruin him as a player, which is what you said. If you want to make the argument that Dunn is finished as a player, that's fine. But don't try and tell me that sitting him for the rest of the season is some mythical point of no return. If he's done, he's done. If he isn't, missing the rest of the season won't hurt that.

You are framing the argument like he isn't losing his job in the middle of the pennant race, which is simply an incorrect assessment. That's what it is. That's happened to plenty of guys in the first year of big deals, and in every case that player just became an albatross. On the other hand, plenty of guys have had terrible starts adjusting to teams and leagues, but were able to work through it. If you're ready to assign albatross, then that's your deal. But don't expect the people on the hook to think writing off $40 million is even close to a good idea.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
08-13-2011, 07:47 PM
The '06 Cardinals had a bad record because they were injured all season. That same team, same pieces, won 100 games the previous year. That '06 Cardinals team, when healthy (and they finally were in the playoffs), was probably better than our '05 White Sox team.

Not according to everyone around at the time. Everyone was laughing at the Cardinals because they were the tallest midget in the "Comedy Central". No one gave the Cards a chance, injuries or not.

Which brings us to this fact: if the Sox had both super-underachieving players playing anywhere close to their averages, the Sox would be running away with this division. But they're not, and aside from a mini-stretch last week by Rios, both players show no signs of coming out of it. So what else is left to do? If you're serious about winning, you set them aside, say 'listen, you guys are just not cutting it this year' and put a couple of new guys in to do the job.

As for Dunn, as I said before. State me precedence where someone signs a marquee contract and loses his job in the first year and then recovers. It's never happened before. Though plenty of guys have gone on to get benched and never return.

OK, how many players have so grotesquely underperformed to the extent that Dunn has, with so many chances to turn it around, at the expense of the record of the team?

There's a point where you have to say "enough is enough" and look out for the best interests of the team and winning, for a change. You keep trotting Dunn out there the rest of the season, you lose the division by 3 games, then what? The team could get blown up, players get traded, and by that point, who cares if Dunn finally gets back to his normal self because the team is rebuilding. You know Jerry will do everything in his power to slash payroll if the Sox fall short.

Boondock Saint
08-13-2011, 07:52 PM
You are framing the argument like he isn't losing his job in the middle of the pennant race, which is simply an incorrect assessment.

Where and how? All I'm saying is that benching Dunn isn't a death sentence.

blandman
08-13-2011, 07:53 PM
Not according to everyone around at the time. Everyone was laughing at the Cardinals because they were the tallest midget in the "Comedy Central". No one gave the Cards a chance, injuries or not.

Which brings us to this fact: if the Sox had both super-underachieving players playing anywhere close to their averages, the Sox would be running away with this division. But they're not, and aside from a mini-stretch last week by Rios, both players show no signs of coming out of it. So what else is left to do? If you're serious about winning, you set them aside, say 'listen, you guys are just not cutting it this year' and put a couple of new guys in to do the job.



OK, how many players have so grotesquely underperformed to the extent that Dunn has, with so many chances to turn it around, at the expense of the record of the team?

There's a point where you have to say "enough is enough" and look out for the best interests of the team and winning, for a change. You keep trotting Dunn out there the rest of the season, you lose the division by 3 games, then what? The team could get blown up, players get traded, and by that point, who cares if Dunn finally gets back to his normal self because the team is rebuilding. You know Jerry will do everything in his power to slash payroll if the Sox fall short.

Do not base thoughts on the Cardinals '06 team from message boards. Or if you do, include what everyone says. Because I was signing their praises.

Comparing us to the rest of the Central is meaningless. We're getting the Yanks or the BoSox in round one, and winning even one game would be the ****ing miracle on 35th street. It would certainly have to be rain shortened.

Players with big contracts benched in the first year? Hell it happened to Andruw Jones a few years ago. First year in LA, totally bombed in the first half, sat the next half. Dodgers wondered why he wasn't ready next year. Morons...

blandman
08-13-2011, 07:55 PM
Where and how? All I'm saying is that benching Dunn isn't a death sentence.

Yes, it is. Benching a huge free agent pickup for the rest of the year is something that's happened a lot in baseball history, and it always turns out bad. The only time people have turned it around is if they weren't benched and played out of it. I'm not saying Dunn will, but the only way he will is if we don't do this.

It's moot anyway, the White Sox aren't stupid enough to do it either.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
08-13-2011, 08:07 PM
Do not base thoughts on the Cardinals '06 team from message boards. Or if you do, include what everyone says. Because I was signing their praises.

Comparing us to the rest of the Central is meaningless. We're getting the Yanks or the BoSox in round one, and winning even one game would be the ****ing miracle on 35th street. It would certainly have to be rain shortened.

Players with big contracts benched in the first year? Hell it happened to Andruw Jones a few years ago. First year in LA, totally bombed in the first half, sat the next half. Dodgers wondered why he wasn't ready next year. Morons...

I was going on more like what ESPN and other "experts" were saying. Now I'm not going to try to say that what ESPN says is gospel, because I believe the exact opposite. But yeah, message boards, newspapers, Baseball Tonight, etc. basically all but gave the trophy to the Tigers when the Cards turned out to be their opponent.

We've shown we got the pitching to handle the Yankees and Red Sox (hell, we swept Boston at Fenway), but we need the offense to show up more often to beat them. I'd be more worried about the Yankees, but they can be beat.

You forgot the part where Jones showed up to Dodgers camp totally out of shape after signing that contract, and where he didn't even get a "next year" because he was released the following offseason for being so bad and injured.

blandman
08-13-2011, 08:27 PM
I was going on more like what ESPN and other "experts" were saying. Now I'm not going to try to say that what ESPN says is gospel, because I believe the exact opposite. But yeah, message boards, newspapers, Baseball Tonight, etc. basically all but gave the trophy to the Tigers when the Cards turned out to be their opponent.

We've shown we got the pitching to handle the Yankees and Red Sox (hell, we swept Boston at Fenway), but we need the offense to show up more often to beat them. I'd be more worried about the Yankees, but they can be beat.

You forgot the part where Jones showed up to Dodgers camp totally out of shape after signing that contract, and where he didn't even get a "next year" because he was released the following offseason for being so bad and injured.

You're history is a bit off, he wasn't injured. You can't bench someone in a huge contract unless you release them. The griping will affect the whole team. The Dodgers were lucky and just ate one year. If we benched Dunn now, we'd have to eat $40 million, or bring him back next year knowing we won't win for four years because the clubhouse atmosphere will be tainted.

I think you answered your own statement when you said "ESPN".

edit: and on facing the Saux or Yanks....I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks we're winning a series with those teams is suffering from delusions. Their talent level is leaps and bounds above ours, in their lineups, pitching, and defense. Across the board better, no contest. I suppose several Yankees might die between now and the playoffs. But it's pretty ridiculous to be banking on that, outside of inside information.

BainesHOF
08-13-2011, 11:57 PM
However, I would like to ask you: what SHOULD Ozzie do with him?

As long as we still have a shot at winning the bad division, you definitely never start Dunn against lefties. At this point, he shouldn't start against righties either. He should have been starting against only righties, and batting very low in the order.

When/if we fall out of the race, you can do whatever you want with Dunn. It doesn't much matter. The next phase of his career will start with him working on his swing for the first time in the offseason. Then it'll be up to him to see if he can return to form in spring training and in the 2012 season.

Guillen has mishandled Dunn to a staggering degree.

blandman
08-14-2011, 05:00 AM
As long as we still have a shot at winning the bad division, you definitely never start Dunn against lefties. At this point, he shouldn't start against righties either. He should have been starting against only righties, and batting very low in the order.

When/if we fall out of the race, you can do whatever you want with Dunn. It doesn't much matter. The next phase of his career will start with him working on his swing for the first time in the offseason. Then it'll be up to him to see if he can return to form in spring training and in the 2012 season.

Guillen has mishandled Dunn to a staggering degree.

For the record, this opinion is only being championed on message boards. No one in baseball would dare do this. It's suicide for a manager, or for a general manager to allow. For some perspective, even Gary Mathews Jr. was given a full year of his contract. And that was for a better team than us.

southside rocks
08-14-2011, 08:34 AM
For the record, this opinion is only being championed on message boards. No one in baseball would dare do this. It's suicide for a manager, or for a general manager to allow. For some perspective, even Gary Mathews Jr. was given a full year of his contract. And that was for a better team than us.

This is true. That's why I asked, what options does Ozzie *really* have? Simply benching Dunn for the rest of the season is not an option. It's an emotional reaction, but it's not something a big-league manager has ever done to a player of this caliber (that is, not a rookie just up from AAA) and it's not something I can even picture a manager doing.

asindc
08-14-2011, 08:45 AM
You're history is a bit off, he wasn't injured. You can't bench someone in a huge contract unless you release them. The griping will affect the whole team. The Dodgers were lucky and just ate one year. If we benched Dunn now, we'd have to eat $40 million, or bring him back next year knowing we won't win for four years because the clubhouse atmosphere will be tainted.

I think you answered your own statement when you said "ESPN".

edit: and on facing the Saux or Yanks....I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks we're winning a series with those teams is suffering from delusions. Their talent level is leaps and bounds above ours, in their lineups, pitching, and defense. Across the board better, no contest. I suppose several Yankees might die between now and the playoffs. But it's pretty ridiculous to be banking on that, outside of inside information.

Neither Boston nor the Yanks have better pitching than ours. Defense, that's debatable at least. Boston's and NY's offensive superiority is clearly their trump cards, which can be mitigated to some degree in a playoff series. Nothing delusional about that.

Milw
08-14-2011, 11:58 AM
Jesus.

What's more important...trying to win this year when winning means an almost certain three game sweep, or getting Dunn fixed. Because if you sit him for the rest of the year, you sit him for four years. It's the kind of decision there's no going back from.
This is one of the sillier arguments I've ever seen on WSI, and that is saying a lot.

If Dunn really is the mental midget that you seem convinced that he is, then there's no hope for him, whether he's benched or not. If you're correct on that assessment, then F it, let's try to win, because he's already too far gone.

And if you're exaggerating and he's NOT the mentally weakest player ever, then we should bench him because YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME and he's not helping us right now, but his benching won't have any impact on his future ability.

Either way you look at it, having him as our regular DH at this point is the definition of baseball insanity.

Milw
08-14-2011, 12:03 PM
This is true. That's why I asked, what options does Ozzie *really* have? Simply benching Dunn for the rest of the season is not an option. It's an emotional reaction, but it's not something a big-league manager has ever done to a player of this caliber (that is, not a rookie just up from AAA) and it's not something I can even picture a manager doing.
There's no precedent for this because Dunn's slump is quite literally unprecedented.

If someone told you back in April that our everyday DH, who is among the highest-paid players in franchise history, would be hitting .160 in mid-August, my guess is you would have responded by saying "it's not something I can even picture..."

The point is, there's no historical guideline for handling this because it's really never happened before. In that context, declaring that no other manager has ever done it before is meaningless.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:21 PM
There's no precedent for this because Dunn's slump is quite literally unprecedented.

If someone told you back in April that our everyday DH, who is among the highest-paid players in franchise history, would be hitting .160 in mid-August, my guess is you would have responded by saying "it's not something I can even picture..."

The point is, there's no historical guideline for handling this because it's really never happened before. In that context, declaring that no other manager has ever done it before is meaningless.

No, it isn't. As I pointed out earlier, Andruw Jones was having an eerily similar year in his first year of a big contract with the Dodgers. They sat him the second half and he never recovered.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:24 PM
This is one of the sillier arguments I've ever seen on WSI, and that is saying a lot.

If Dunn really is the mental midget that you seem convinced that he is, then there's no hope for him, whether he's benched or not. If you're correct on that assessment, then F it, let's try to win, because he's already too far gone.

And if you're exaggerating and he's NOT the mentally weakest player ever, then we should bench him because YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME and he's not helping us right now, but his benching won't have any impact on his future ability.

Either way you look at it, having him as our regular DH at this point is the definition of baseball insanity.

This is one of the sillier arguments I've ever seen on WSI, and that is saying a lot.

Asking an owner to simply throw $40 million dollars away, after just asking him to spend it, is pretty ****ing ridiculous. If his GM asked the manager to do it, or if the manager simply did it, there's no doubt they would be canned. It's completely unreasonable and just plain stupid to be arguing that benching Dunn the rest of the year is an option. That's an argument only a fan can give, and a fan that completely has given to emotion over basic common sense.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:29 PM
Neither Boston nor the Yanks have better pitching than ours. Defense, that's debatable at least. Boston's and NY's offensive superiority is clearly their trump cards, which can be mitigated to some degree in a playoff series. Nothing delusional about that.

It's a short series. I'm drawing a blank on which matchup would favor us in either series.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:39 PM
This is one of the sillier arguments I've ever seen on WSI, and that is saying a lot.

Asking an owner to simply throw $40 million dollars away, after just asking him to spend it, is pretty ****ing ridiculous. If his GM asked the manager to do it, or if the manager simply did it, there's no doubt they would be canned. It's completely unreasonable and just plain stupid to be arguing that benching Dunn the rest of the year is an option. That's an argument only a fan can give, and a fan that completely has given to emotion over basic common sense.
Do a Google search for the term "sunk cost" and get back to me.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:42 PM
Do a Google search for the term "sunk cost" and get back to me.

That's exactly the point. YOU might want the owner to think it's a sunk cost, but it's not your money. And, if it's their money, there's really no one who would accept that it's a sunk cost this early with that much money on the line still. You argument is COMPLETELY reactionary and from an outside perspective. What you're asking is unreasonable for anyone on the inside.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:43 PM
No, it isn't. As I pointed out earlier, Andruw Jones was having an eerily similar year in his first year of a big contract with the Dodgers. They sat him the second half and he never recovered.
Fine. A sample size of one.

Regardless, you don't know that his benching had anything to do with him never recovering. The Dodgers could have played him every day for three years with results unchanged; we just don't know. And a sample size of one isn't exactly definitive.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:45 PM
That's exactly the point. YOU might want the owner to think it's a sunk cost, but it's not your money. And, if it's their money, there's really no one who would accept that it's a sunk cost this early with that much money on the line still. You argument is COMPLETELY reactionary and from an outside perspective. What you're asking is unreasonable for anyone on the inside.
You're saying it's unreasonable for me to look at a guy hitting .160 and wonder why he's in the starting lineup every day on a team that is supposedly "All In." If you really think that's unreasonable, then I think we're at an impasse.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:47 PM
Fine. A sample size of one.

Regardless, you don't know that his benching had anything to do with him never recovering. The Dodgers could have played him every day for three years with results unchanged; we just don't know. And a sample size of one isn't exactly definitive.

There's a laundry list of players who signed big contracts and were asked to sit at the end of the first year. None of them recovered. About a month ago the Bleacher Report did a "worst FA contracts" piece, and did write ups about how they all went. Feel free to take a peek at how each case went down. Many of the very worst were strikingly similar to what you're asking. Hell, the Pirates ruined Derek Bell by sitting him through struggles, and when he wasn't committed the next year had to pay him to sit at home!

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:49 PM
You're saying it's unreasonable for me to look at a guy hitting .160 and wonder why he's in the starting lineup every day on a team that is supposedly "All In." If you really think that's unreasonable, then I think we're at an impasse.

It's not an impasse when you're framing the argument. He's a $48 million recent free agent signing for an owner that rarely spends in the free agent market. That he's hitting .160 is the least important factor when determining whether or not he should sit. Championing the least important factor isn't an impasse, it's a logical fallacy.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:50 PM
Fine. A sample size of one.

Regardless, you don't know that his benching had anything to do with him never recovering. The Dodgers could have played him every day for three years with results unchanged; we just don't know. And a sample size of one isn't exactly definitive.
Also, Jones played 75 games that season, which means he lost his starting job somewhere around early June. This is mid-August. Very few people were really calling for Dunn to be sat in early June. The Sox gave Dunn an extra 50 games to figure it out and he's actually somehow getting even worse.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:51 PM
Also, Jones played 75 games that season, which means he lost his starting job somewhere around early June. This is mid-August. Very few people were really calling for Dunn to be sat in early June. The Sox gave Dunn an extra 50 games to figure it out and he's actually somehow getting even worse.

The point is he's not going to get out of it, ever, if they sit him. History has shown that. And I doubt the White Sox are as eager to accept a "sunk cost" as you seem to be.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:51 PM
It's not an impasse when you're framing the argument. He's a $48 million recent free agent signing for an owner that rarely spends in the free agent market. That he's hitting .160 is the least important factor when determining whether or not he should sit. Championing the least important factor isn't an impasse, it's a logical fallacy.
:o:

It's only unimportant if you think he's going to magically snap out of it, rendering performance to date moot. So from that perspective you're right. But please, tell me what evidence we have that he's going to magically snap out of it, because I see none. In lieu of such evidence, that he's hitting .160 is kind of an important factor.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:53 PM
:o:

It's only unimportant if you think he's going to magically snap out of it, rendering performance to date moot. So from that perspective you're right. But please, tell me what evidence we have that he's going to magically snap out of it, because I see none. In lieu of such evidence, that he's hitting .160 is kind of an important factor.

I submit an 11 year track record that shows this is simple mental struggles he needs to push through, not make worse by taking his job away.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:54 PM
The point is he's not going to get out of it, ever, if they sit him. History has shown that. And I doubt the White Sox are as eager to accept a "sunk cost" as you seem to be.
It's like the Lottery: You can't win if you don't play.

I'm asking for investment in high-yield CDs. You're asking for investment in a bunch of Powerball numbers. You may very well win bigger than me, but that doesn't make it logical.

SI1020
08-14-2011, 01:54 PM
Blandman - I agree with you that the Sox are no match for Boston and NY in a hypothetical playoff match. I disagree strongly on Dunn. No universal law would be broken if he were to be placed permanently on the bench. The money is already wasted, there is no reason to also waste games. All parties will be better off if relations were severed. It was a monumental mistake, one that could not be foreseen perhaps, but a disaster nonetheless.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:56 PM
It's like the Lottery: You can't win if you don't play.

I'm asking for investment in high-yield CDs. You're asking for investment in a bunch of Powerball numbers. You may very well win bigger than me, but that doesn't make it logical.

But you already invested $48 million in lottery tickets. You've got no money left, and some guy on the street is offering you twenty bucks for your tickets. Sounds like a plan.

blandman
08-14-2011, 01:58 PM
Blandman - I agree with you that the Sox are no match for Boston and NY in a hypothetical playoff match. I disagree strongly on Dunn. No universal law would be broken if he were to be placed permanently on the bench. The money is already wasted, there is no reason to also waste games. All parties will be better off if relations were severed. It was a monumental mistake, one that could not be foreseen perhaps, but a disaster nonetheless.

Dude, that's so reactionary it's ridiculous. It's year one. While it's already a bad investment, because we were built to win this year, it's unreasonable to think the team is willing to simply write off a four year huge money investment this early.

Milw
08-14-2011, 01:58 PM
I submit an 11 year track record that shows this is simple mental struggles he needs to push through, not make worse by taking his job away.
And I submit an 11-year track record of success that says he's not going to go cower in a corner with a stuffed animal if you bench him for six weeks.

I expect Dunn to eventually overcome this. I DON'T expect him to overcome this anytime soon, however.

Have you ever considered that maybe benching him is EXACTLY the motivation he needs to get it together for next year?

blandman
08-14-2011, 02:00 PM
And I submit an 11-year track record of success that says he's not going to go cower in a corner with a stuffed animal if you bench him for six weeks.

I expect Dunn to eventually overcome this. I DON'T expect him to overcome this anytime soon, however.

Have you ever considered that maybe benching him is EXACTLY the motivation he needs to get it together for next year?

This is exactly the point that can be proven ineffective through history. There have been dozens upon dozens of cases where a guy loses his job in a pennant race after signing a huge free agent contract. Exactly ZERO of them were able to overcome that in the following years.

SI1020
08-14-2011, 02:13 PM
Dude, that's so reactionary it's ridiculous. It's year one. While it's already a bad investment, because we were built to win this year, it's unreasonable to think the team is willing to simply write off a four year huge money investment this early. At what point do you pull the plug? When he's hitting .140? Never? He's an albatross and the team will be so much better off the moment he's gone. He seems like an OK guy and my best wishes to him and his family in this difficult time, but this is the worst slump for a hitter I've ever seen.

blandman
08-14-2011, 02:14 PM
At what point do you pull the plug? When he's hitting .140? Never? He's an albatross and the team will be so much better off the moment he's gone. He seems like an OK guy and my best wishes to him and his family in this difficult time, but this is the worst slump for a hitter I've ever seen.

It's not a matter of how low, but how long. It won't be this year. They'll probably give him all of next year too, if it continues.

asindc
08-14-2011, 03:38 PM
It's a short series. I'm drawing a blank on which matchup would favor us in either series.


After Sabathia, Beckett, Lester, and Rivera, which Boston or NYY pitchers would you rather have than ours?

BainesHOF
08-14-2011, 04:30 PM
For the record, this opinion is only being championed on message boards. No one in baseball would dare do this. It's suicide for a manager, or for a general manager to allow. For some perspective, even Gary Mathews Jr. was given a full year of his contract. And that was for a better team than us.

Yeah, you're right. It's suicide for a manager to manage his team into the playoffs.

SI1020
08-14-2011, 04:45 PM
It's not a matter of how low, but how long. It won't be this year. They'll probably give him all of next year too, if it continues. Wonderful. Can't wait.

blandman
08-14-2011, 05:25 PM
Yeah, you're right. It's suicide for a manager to manage his team into the playoffs.

Have you ever undermined your boss on a project? Did the outcome matter? Imagine if your boss spent $48 million and you undermined him, not giving his choice a chance. You think the outcome would matter?

blandman
08-14-2011, 05:36 PM
After Sabathia, Beckett, Lester, and Rivera, which Boston or NYY pitchers would you rather have than ours?

Bostons three starters in that series Lester, Beckett, and Bedard, are all having better seasons (and have better stuff) than the three guys that would go for us. And the back of their pen is better, with Papelbon and Bard.

The Yankees would throw Sabathia, and then have some options. But keep in mind Buehrle is having the best season out of all our starters. The Yanks have two veterans in Colon and Garcia having better seasons. So while it's not as clear cut with the Yanks, it's a hard case against them having a better rotation.

Not to mention, this is all in a vaccuum. Their starters against our lineup is a shutout waiting to happen. Our starters against there lineups means the bullpen needs to be ready.

SI1020
08-14-2011, 05:54 PM
It's foolish to think the Sox are legitimate contenders this year. If they back into the playoffs I doubt they will bring back memories of the 87 Twins or 06 Cardinals. They have a long way to go. I hope they end up above .500 this year and then there is a lot of work to be done.

asindc
08-14-2011, 06:05 PM
Bostons three starters in that series Lester, Beckett, and Bedard, are all having better seasons (and have better stuff) than the three guys that would go for us. And the back of their pen is better, with Papelbon and Bard.

The Yankees would throw Sabathia, and then have some options. But keep in mind Buehrle is having the best season out of all our starters. The Yanks have two veterans in Colon and Garcia having better seasons. So while it's not as clear cut with the Yanks, it's a hard case against them having a better rotation.

Not to mention, this is all in a vaccuum. Their starters against our lineup is a shutout waiting to happen. Our starters against there lineups means the bullpen needs to be ready.

1) Bedard isn't pitching in Seattle any more.

2) Papelbon and Bard are not having better seasons than our back two, though I suspected you might say that.

3) Colon and Garcia are not having better seasons than our top four starters.

4) We also have options, and they are better than Boston's and NYY's.

5) Other than Sabathia, Beckett, and Lester (who we usually beat up), none of their starters have shutout ability.

If you asked Cashman to trade his rotation for the Sox's, he would say "Hell yes!" before KW got a chance to change his mind. Epstein would give it serious consideration. They recognize green grass when they see it.

EDIT: This Does not mean that the Sox should be favorites in a series against either of them. They should not. But to say that it is delusional that they can be competitive against either team in a short series is just pessimism run amok.

blandman
08-14-2011, 07:09 PM
1) Bedard isn't pitching in Seattle any more.

2) Papelbon and Bard are not having better seasons than our back two, though I suspected you might say that.

3) Colon and Garcia are not having better seasons than our top four starters.

4) We also have options, and they are better than Boston's and NYY's.

5) Other than Sabathia, Beckett, and Lester (who we usually beat up), none of their starters have shutout ability.

If you asked Cashman to trade his rotation for the Sox's, he would say "Hell yes!" before KW got a chance to change his mind. Epstein would give it serious consideration. They recognize green grass when they see it.

EDIT: This Does not mean that the Sox should be favorites in a series against either of them. They should not. But to say that it is delusional that they can be competitive against either team in a short series is just pessimism run amok.

I don't agree with anything anywhere in this post.

1. Bedard is finally coming back into his own, and has elite stuff. If not for his injury history, I'd take him over anyone on our staff. For one game, there's no contest. We don't have anyone like that.

2. Papelbon and Bard are having ridiculous seasons, especially Bard. Even if you could argue our guys are better, and I'm not saying or thinking that we are, Boston gets the edge due to pedigree.

3. Check Colon and Garcia's numbers. Not only are they better, they've both been consistently low 3 ERA. Buerhle's the only one with a comparable season. Humber was, but now is falling apart. Probably isn't even in our playoff rotation.

4. What, specifically, is the matchup we're favored? Not seeing it. Even in a vaccuum. Unless you're pitching Buehrle game three. Then maybe.

5. What? Even the Yankees five guy, Burnett, has shut out stuff. Nova certainly does. And how you can say Bedard doesn't is just plain silly.

On Cashman - I disagree. I don't even think he'd trade Burnett straight up for Peavy. We don't have anyone like Sabathia. We don't have anyone like Nova, a young cheap guy on the rise. What we do have is a good lefty having a resurgence (who's not as good as there's), a reclamation project who's crashing (unlike the Yankee one's which are thriving), and your choice of Danks, Floyd, or Peavy in game three. But they're not having better seasons than any of the Yankees top three (or four in all but Danks case). But keep on thinking he'd do this trade....

What you call "pessimism run amok" I call rational thinking. The chances of winning one, just one, of those games is so miniscule it's not even worth talking about.

Golden Sox
08-20-2011, 09:40 AM
1) When the Cuban Tank is brought up in September and he starts playing and hopefully starts hitting, do they finally bench Adam Done? 2) Nobody is talking about this, but did anyone besides myself notice that the White Sox spent almost nothing on their recent draft choices. That's usually an indication that they might be selling the team.

blandman
08-20-2011, 11:57 AM
1) When the Cuban Tank is brought up in September and he starts playing and hopefully starts hitting, do they finally bench Adam Done? 2) Nobody is talking about this, but did anyone besides myself notice that the White Sox spent almost nothing on their recent draft choices. That's usually an indication that they might be selling the team.

1.) They'll rotate out Pierre and Dunn to get him at bats until we're completely out of it, then sit Pierre because he won't be back.

2.) Evidently we're selling the team every year! We spent a little less overall this year because we had no first round pick. What we spent in subsequent rounds was around what we normally spend in those rounds. We almost never pay over slot, which is a large reason why we almost never have any prospects of consequence.

Golden Sox
08-22-2011, 11:06 AM
DeAza got a big hit in yesterdays game against a left handed pitcher. If the White Sox had brought up DeAza sooner and Viciedo was with this team this year, wouldn't it be fair to say that the White Sox would of been in the 2011 Playoffs?

kittle42
08-22-2011, 11:09 AM
DeAza got a big hit in yesterdays game against a left handed pitcher. If the White Sox had brought up DeAza sooner and Viciedo was with this team this year, wouldn't it be fair to say that the White Sox would of been in the 2011 Playoffs?

1. Even though I have little hope for this team making the playoffs, the weak division mans this season isn't over yet.

2. While I cannot imagine either would EVER perform as badly as Adam Dunn, it's possible that over the course of a full season, neither de Aza nor Viciedo would contribute enough to provide enough aid to this horrid offense.

3. Please, please, please, for the love of god, it is "would have." "Would of" is never, ever, ever, ever correct.

A. Cavatica
08-22-2011, 09:32 PM
DeAza got a big hit in yesterdays game against a left handed pitcher. If the White Sox had brought up DeAza sooner and Viciedo was with this team this year, wouldn't it be fair to say that the White Sox would of been in the 2011 Playoffs?

Whether they would have made the playoffs or not, it is never fair to say they would of.

Tragg
08-22-2011, 10:20 PM
I don't agree with anything anywhere in this post.

1. Bedard is finally coming back into his own, and has elite stuff. If not for his injury history, I'd take him over anyone on our staff. For one game, there's no contest. We don't have anyone like that.

2. Papelbon and Bard are having ridiculous seasons, especially Bard. Even if you could argue our guys are better, and I'm not saying or thinking that we are, Boston gets the edge due to pedigree.

3. Check Colon and Garcia's numbers. Not only are they better, they've both been consistently low 3 ERA. Buerhle's the only one with a comparable season. Humber was, but now is falling apart. Probably isn't even in our playoff rotation.


5. What? Even the Yankees five guy, Burnett, has shut out stuff. Nova certainly does. And how you can say Bedard doesn't is just plain silly.

If you're going by "Stuff" the Sox starters have competitive, if not better, better peripherals across the board than the Yankees starters, except for Sabathia. My goodness, if Nova's numbers were on the Sox (low K rate, high WHIP), he's be considered a back end prospect. But he's on the other team, he's studly.
As for Burnett, been hearing that for years. Pure fools-gold.

soxfan1965
08-23-2011, 04:15 PM
This may have been answered already - but can they ask Dunn and/or Rios (maybe Peavy with injury issues) to restructure their contact with a pay cut in light of the fact that they are untradable and are hurting the team's ability to get other players or better compensate deserving current existing players? Or maybe reduce the guaranteed money and make it more performance based? I know they probably wouldn't agree to a 'diminished skills clause'. Seems to me they do this in pro football and players have agreed. I think Ted Willliams gave back up to 33% or so of his pay for a bad year to the Red Sox, who gave it to charity. I know the players union would oppose it, and the players would not like it, but since the performance is unusually bad, would it hurt to try to approach the players? Again, maybe too obvious, but is this feasible and has it been considered?

blandman
08-23-2011, 04:16 PM
If you're going by "Stuff" the Sox starters have competitive, if not better, better peripherals across the board than the Yankees starters, except for Sabathia. My goodness, if Nova's numbers were on the Sox (low K rate, high WHIP), he's be considered a back end prospect. But he's on the other team, he's studly.
As for Burnett, been hearing that for years. Pure fools-gold.

The "stuff" argument is only in regards to the ridiculous contention that Bedard will suck because he isn't pitching in Seattle. He's been better than everyone on our staff, by a long shot, and has better stuff than anyone on our staff, by a longshot.

But he's not pitching in Seattle.

As for Nova...I'm drawing a blank on which one of our current pitchers, other than a healthy Peavy, throws 95+.

Nellie_Fox
08-23-2011, 04:33 PM
This may have been answered already - but can they ask Dunn and/or Rios (maybe Peavy with injury issues) to restructure their contact with a pay cut in light of the fact that they are untradable and are hurting the team's ability to get other players or better compensate deserving current existing players? Or maybe reduce the guaranteed money and make it more performance based? I know they probably wouldn't agree to a 'diminished skills clause'. Seems to me they do this in pro football and players have agreed. I think Ted Willliams gave back up to 33% or so of his pay for a bad year to the Red Sox, who gave it to charity. I know the players union would oppose it, and the players would not like it, but since the performance is unusually bad, would it hurt to try to approach the players? Again, maybe too obvious, but is this feasible and has it been considered?The Players' Association would never stand for it. They wouldn't want the precedent. You can't compare to the NFL, because almost all of the contacts are non-guaranteed. If the player doesn't accept the re-structuring, he may well be released and he gets nothing. And Ted Williams was a different era.

asindc
08-23-2011, 04:39 PM
This may have been answered already - but can they ask Dunn and/or Rios (maybe Peavy with injury issues) to restructure their contact with a pay cut in light of the fact that they are untradable and are hurting the team's ability to get other players or better compensate deserving current existing players? Or maybe reduce the guaranteed money and make it more performance based? I know they probably wouldn't agree to a 'diminished skills clause'. Seems to me they do this in pro football and players have agreed. I think Ted Willliams gave back up to 33% or so of his pay for a bad year to the Red Sox, who gave it to charity. I know the players union would oppose it, and the players would not like it, but since the performance is unusually bad, would it hurt to try to approach the players? Again, maybe too obvious, but is this feasible and has it been considered?

Magic Johnson once re-structured his contract so they could sign a FA. The league office got involved but ultimately realized that it was perfectly legal. Now the practice has been banned in the NBA.

Milw
08-23-2011, 06:42 PM
This may have been answered already - but can they ask Dunn and/or Rios (maybe Peavy with injury issues) to restructure their contact with a pay cut in light of the fact that they are untradable and are hurting the team's ability to get other players or better compensate deserving current existing players? Or maybe reduce the guaranteed money and make it more performance based? I know they probably wouldn't agree to a 'diminished skills clause'. Seems to me they do this in pro football and players have agreed. I think Ted Willliams gave back up to 33% or so of his pay for a bad year to the Red Sox, who gave it to charity. I know the players union would oppose it, and the players would not like it, but since the performance is unusually bad, would it hurt to try to approach the players? Again, maybe too obvious, but is this feasible and has it been considered?
If your employer gave you the choice of working for less money or working for the same amount of money, which would you choose?

Exactly.

soxfan1965
08-23-2011, 08:18 PM
If your employer gave you the choice of working for less money or working for the same amount of money, which would you choose?
Magic Johnson once re-structured his contract so they could sign a FA. The league office got involved but ultimately realized that it was perfectly legal. Now the practice has been banned in the NBA.
The Players' Association would never stand for it. They wouldn't want the precedent. You can't compare to the NFL, because almost all of the contacts are non-guaranteed. If the player doesn't accept the re-structuring, he may well be released and he gets nothing. And Ted Williams was a different era.

Thanks for answers!

runningonE
08-24-2011, 06:03 AM
If your employer gave you the choice of working for less money or working for the same amount of money, which would you choose?

Exactly.

What a mindless response to a question that was posed very reasonably and thoroughly. He already covered that base.

Athletes make decisions you or I wouldn't make quite frequently (in regards to taking less money.) Jered Weaver did it just this week.

kittle42
08-24-2011, 10:31 AM
What a mindless response to a question that was posed very reasonably and thoroughly. He already covered that base.

Athletes make decisions you or I wouldn't make quite frequently (in regards to taking less money.) Jered Weaver did it just this week.

Boom, roasted.

I love posts like this! :D:

Harry Chappas
08-24-2011, 10:45 AM
Does anyone else worry that the effects of this horrendous season will ruin Dunn's psyche for years to come? Imagine if he starts next year in a slump. Ordinarily, that wouldn't be something anyone would freak out about, but when you consider this historically bad season, it's not inconceivable that he will devolve into the heaping pile of dung he is at present time. And how much leeway would next year's manager - whether it's Ozzie or someone else - give Dunn to get back on track? Sure, I'm playing the "what if" card, but when I look at Dunn, I see a guy so emotionally damaged that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he doesn't become a slugger's version of Rick Ankiel.

I've never been this disgusted with a Sox team. It's a huge injustice to players like PK and MB to have the Sox essentially forfeit 4 ABs a game to try to prove they were smart in signing Dunn. And what does that do for the mindset of the clubhouse? On a personal level, I'm sure they all like Dunn as he seems like a likable guy, but professionally, they have to wonder if the Sox are truly committed to winning or if they are beholden to a big contract.

kittle42
08-24-2011, 11:35 AM
Sure, I'm playing the "what if" card, but when I look at Dunn, I see a guy so emotionally damaged that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he doesn't become a slugger's version of Rick Ankiel.

Let's get him on a pitcher's mound! Reverse Ankiel! :D:

Milw
08-24-2011, 12:03 PM
What a mindless response to a question that was posed very reasonably and thoroughly. He already covered that base.

Athletes make decisions you or I wouldn't make quite frequently (in regards to taking less money.) Jered Weaver did it just this week.
Jered Weaver took less money to sign a contract with a team he wanted to play for. That's not the same as taking a pay cut on an existing contract. For one thing, he left money on the table for immediate job security--he doesn't have to worry about blowing out his arm next year and never getting his payday. Secondly, for all we know, the Angels told him that was as much as they were willing to pay, and he decided he'd rather take less to play for his preferred team. None of those scenarios apply for Dunn/Rios.

Now, if there was some incentive for Dunn/Rios to take a pay cut of sorts--for instance, if the Sox offered them more years at less per year, or fewer years at more per year--then sure, they'd probably negotiate. But just saying "Hey, how about you give us some of that money back because you suck" isn't really something that a reasonable person would agree to do.

soxfan1965
08-24-2011, 01:24 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf has probably had more losers than winners. The only "winner" I can think of was basketball, when he had a long term contract with Scottie Pippin. He wouldn't renegotiate Pippin's relatively low contract, but I believe he did ask Pippin if he was sure he wanted to sign a long-term contract before he signed. JR's not renegotiating became more difficult for Pippin when they brought in Toni Kukoc for more money. However, JR compensated Pippin well later when Paxson brought him in, much more than he was worth, which probably "made up" for past undercompensation. JR also gave Jordan the $30 million one year contract in his last season that probably was more for paying him for past championships. But when JR has a loser, like Julio Cruz, Jamie Navarro, Albert Belle, and now Dunn and Rios and probably Peavy. he has to eat those and has no recourse, to the detriment of the team. So that's why I thought there would be some wiggle room for these albatross contracts to work out something. But you wonder, like Gunny Highway said in Heartbreak Ridge to his men before they went to war, if it's time to say to these players, "It's time to earn your pay".

Milw
08-24-2011, 01:56 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf has probably had more losers than winners. The only "winner" I can think of was basketball, when he had a long term contract with Scottie Pippin. He wouldn't renegotiate Pippin's relatively low contract, but I believe he did ask Pippin if he was sure he wanted to sign a long-term contract before he signed. JR's not renegotiating became more difficult for Pippin when they brought in Toni Kukoc for more money. However, JR compensated Pippin well later when Paxson brought him in, much more than he was worth, which probably "made up" for past undercompensation. JR also gave Jordan the $30 million one year contract in his last season that probably was more for paying him for past championships. But when JR has a loser, like Julio Cruz, Jamie Navarro, Albert Belle, and now Dunn and Rios and probably Peavy. he has to eat those and has no recourse, to the detriment of the team. So that's why I thought there would be some wiggle room for these albatross contracts to work out something. But you wonder, like Gunny Highway said in Heartbreak Ridge to his men before they went to war, if it's time to say to these players, "It's time to earn your pay".
It's a nice sentiment, and there's no denying that Dunn and Rios aren't earning their pay... But here's how I picture that conversation going down:

JR: Alex, you're not really earning your salary here.
AR: I know.
JR: So, uh, it's time to step it up.
AR: Or what?
JR: Uh, well, I guess we'll bench you.
AR: OK.

Bottom line is the Sox have no leverage, unfortunately.

runningonE
08-24-2011, 03:50 PM
Jered Weaver took less money to sign a contract with a team he wanted to play for. That's not the same as taking a pay cut on an existing contract. For one thing, he left money on the table for immediate job security--he doesn't have to worry about blowing out his arm next year and never getting his payday. Secondly, for all we know, the Angels told him that was as much as they were willing to pay, and he decided he'd rather take less to play for his preferred team. None of those scenarios apply for Dunn/Rios.

Now, if there was some incentive for Dunn/Rios to take a pay cut of sorts--for instance, if the Sox offered them more years at less per year, or fewer years at more per year--then sure, they'd probably negotiate. But just saying "Hey, how about you give us some of that money back because you suck" isn't really something that a reasonable person would agree to do.

The prevailing (implied) logic in your response to soxfan1965 was that there were no extenuating circumstances that could cause a player to take less money, however you now acknowledge here, or unwittingly concede, that there can of course be certain circumstances that override the 'take all the money, all the time' mentality.

I think the circumstances surrounding Adam Dunn, his historically inept season, are valid enough that a seemingly reasonable person like him would think it's fair game to at least consider renegotiating his contract.

Would you say you would be shocked or even mildly surprised if you saw a headline in the winter that Dunn, not Peavy or Rios, was seriously considering renegotiating his contract? What about that happening next year, if his struggles continue?

Nellie_Fox
08-24-2011, 04:55 PM
I think the circumstances surrounding Adam Dunn, his historically inept season, are valid enough that a seemingly reasonable person like him would think it's fair game to at least consider renegotiating his contract.

Would you say you would be shocked or even mildly surprised if you saw a headline in the winter that Dunn, not Peavy or Rios, was seriously considering renegotiating his contract? What about that happening next year, if his struggles continue?
It WILL NOT happen. The Players' Association won't stand for it. They know that if they allow it even once, owners will be pushing for it all the time. Besides, you'd then have to allow the players to re-negotiate every time they have a better-than-expected year, too.

blandman
08-24-2011, 04:59 PM
The prevailing (implied) logic in your response to soxfan1965 was that there were no extenuating circumstances that could cause a player to take less money, however you now acknowledge here, or unwittingly concede, that there can of course be certain circumstances that override the 'take all the money, all the time' mentality.

I think the circumstances surrounding Adam Dunn, his historically inept season, are valid enough that a seemingly reasonable person like him would think it's fair game to at least consider renegotiating his contract.

Would you say you would be shocked or even mildly surprised if you saw a headline in the winter that Dunn, not Peavy or Rios, was seriously considering renegotiating his contract? What about that happening next year, if his struggles continue?

That's ludicrous.

kittle42
08-24-2011, 05:20 PM
I think the circumstances surrounding Adam Dunn, his historically inept season, are valid enough that a seemingly reasonable person like him would think it's fair game to at least consider renegotiating his contract.

Next to impossible. Better chance of me starting for Dunn at 1B tonight.

JC456
08-24-2011, 06:38 PM
I'd get a lawyer and I'd sue there butt for breach of contract! Failing to honor the deal by playing badly!

kittle42
08-24-2011, 06:47 PM
I'd get a lawyer and I'd sue there butt for breach of contract!

Where butt?

Milw
08-25-2011, 11:14 AM
The prevailing (implied) logic in your response to soxfan1965 was that there were no extenuating circumstances that could cause a player to take less money, however you now acknowledge here, or unwittingly concede, that there can of course be certain circumstances that override the 'take all the money, all the time' mentality.

I never made the claim that players would never take less money. I made the claim that players who already have a contract in place would never take less money without getting something in return. Try again.

howzer12
08-30-2011, 06:12 PM
This guy Dunn is the worst excuse for a ballplayer in the history of the sport. He should be ashamed of himself that he is stealing money and holding the White Sox franchise hostage. He has not helped the team win one game this season, unless you want to count his wind blown home run on 7/4 in the "balk off" game. He should do the honorable thing and retire immediately.

billyvsox
08-30-2011, 06:18 PM
IMO, this all goes back to the day he was run out of Arizona for stating "I only play baseball for the money".

Now he has the money and simply does not care. If the organization had done any due diligence on this bum, they never would have signed him.

I hated him then (I live in PHX), hated the signing and hate him now. I just wish we could get rid of him.

kittle42
08-30-2011, 07:51 PM
This guy Dunn is the worst excuse for a ballplayer in the history of the sport. He should be ashamed of himself that he is stealing money and holding the White Sox franchise hostage. He has not helped the team win one game this season, unless you want to count his wind blown home run on 7/4 in the "balk off" game. He should do the honorable thing and retire immediately.

Brain Daubach was worse. Ron Santo, too.

soltrain21
08-30-2011, 07:53 PM
This guy Dunn is the worst excuse for a ballplayer in the history of the sport. He should be ashamed of himself that he is stealing money and holding the White Sox franchise hostage. He has not helped the team win one game this season, unless you want to count his wind blown home run on 7/4 in the "balk off" game. He should do the honorable thing and retire immediately.

I read that in a painfully thick Chicago accent. My heart hurts.

A. Cavatica
08-30-2011, 08:05 PM
Brain Daubach was worse. Ron Santo, too.

Disagree on Daubach.

kittle42
08-30-2011, 08:05 PM
I read that in a painfully thick Chicago accent. My heart hurts.

Sometimes, other people really make it hurt to be from Chicago. This was one of those times, as I felt the same.

kittle42
08-30-2011, 08:06 PM
Disagree on Daubach.

I'm waiting for someone to get my reference.