PDA

View Full Version : Hot Stove Power Rankings


Norberto7
01-11-2005, 09:09 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/01/11/hotstove.rankings/index.html?cnn=yes

They have the Sox ranked at the twelfth best off-season. Not so sure I agree with this...Giants, Twins...Brewers? Arrrgh. Oh well, at least it's eleven spots better than the Baby Bears.

darklord23
01-11-2005, 09:12 PM
bah we should be a little higher than that

MUsoxfan
01-11-2005, 09:18 PM
I think that's about right. We didn't get any of the greatest players out there, but we got the job done. Also...the Brewers are that high because they usually end up in the hole during the offseason. Now they have money do spend and improve the team with

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-11-2005, 09:21 PM
How can the A's be in the top 10? I don't understand what's so amazing about trading 2 of the best pitchers in the league for unproven talent. I think it's fair to say the Sox should be a bit higher, but I'm satisfied that they're in the upper half. It's not as if any of these preseason rankings matter anyways..

MUsoxfan
01-11-2005, 09:23 PM
How can the A's be in the top 10?
Juan Cruz

JUribe1989
01-11-2005, 09:32 PM
How can the A's be in the top 10? I don't understand what's so amazing about trading 2 of the best pitchers in the league for unproven talent. I think it's fair to say the Sox should be a bit higher, but I'm satisfied that they're in the upper half. It's not as if any of these preseason rankings matter anyways..
The A's? The A's? I'm sorry but anything after that I refuse to read in the article.

Brian26
01-11-2005, 09:35 PM
The A's? The A's? I'm sorry but anything after that I refuse to read in the article.
That's a joke. Giving up Mulder and Hudson for kids (no matter how highly they are touted) is not worthy of that much praise. Maybe they'll prove me wrong 3 years down the line. Right now, though, those trades aren't praiseworthy.

Jurr
01-11-2005, 09:37 PM
Yeah...some expert named Luft ranked these....man...I'm impressed.

rwcescato
01-11-2005, 09:45 PM
How can the A's be in the top 10? I don't understand what's so amazing about trading 2 of the best pitchers in the league for unproven talent. I think it's fair to say the Sox should be a bit higher, but I'm satisfied that they're in the upper half. It's not as if any of these preseason rankings matter anyways..
I agree with the" it doesn't matter anyways." Who cares. If the tribune did the rankings the Sox would be 30th. I just hope we get one article this weekend with Soxfest and all. But there will be 10 articles on who the flubs could get for trading the cork man.
Rich

OzzieBall2004
01-11-2005, 09:47 PM
Thats stupid, but how many times in the past 4 seasons have you read that we were going to win the AL central....I remember many o' publications that had us winning it, and look what we have to show for that. I don't mind getting the shaft from so no talent clown before the season even starts.

CleeFan101
01-11-2005, 10:14 PM
im actually a big fan of what the A's did this offseason... the only thing that doesnt make sense to me is why sign Kendall if you going to trade Mulder and Hudson but i think they guys they got in return were solid and they were going to lose Hudson in a year and i was kind of wondering about Mulder with the way he finished last year

johnny_mostil
01-11-2005, 10:32 PM
How can the A's be in the top 10? I don't understand what's so amazing about trading 2 of the best pitchers in the league for unproven talent. I think it's fair to say the Sox should be a bit higher, but I'm satisfied that they're in the upper half. It's not as if any of these preseason rankings matter anyways..
How can the Twins be ranked highly when they let Koskie, who is a good player, get away? That leaves Cuddyer at third, who's OK, and the incredibly bad Luis Rivas playing every day again. :bandance:

johnny_mostil
01-11-2005, 10:33 PM
im actually a big fan of what the A's did this offseason... the only thing that doesnt make sense to me is why sign Kendall if you going to trade Mulder and Hudson but i think they guys they got in return were solid and they were going to lose Hudson in a year and i was kind of wondering about Mulder with the way he finished last year
Or maybe they know something about Mulder? Hmmm...

Nick@Nite
01-11-2005, 10:57 PM
Is there even a rhyme or reason as to how teams are racked & stacked according to their 'power ranking'?

infohawk
01-12-2005, 09:13 AM
How can the Twins be ranked highly when they let Koskie, who is a good player, get away? That leaves Cuddyer at third, who's OK, and the incredibly bad Luis Rivas playing every day again. :bandance:I was going to make exactly the same point about Koskie not being mentioned. Also, weren't the Twins wanting to trade Jones at some point last year? The guy's 2004 batting average was only .254 and his .OBP was a paltry .315. It's beyond me why the analyst thinks that signing Jones to another year was such a coup. I'd rather have Lew Ford and his .299 average and .381 .OBP and low salary patrolling right field than Jones and his $5 million dollar salary.

1917
01-12-2005, 09:23 AM
No mention of Hermanson or Vizquiano...we should be in the top ten for for sure. Damn Twins resigned Radke and get a higher rank? please

sircaffey1
01-12-2005, 09:23 AM
I guess this "analyst" thinks we got worse this off season. If the Twins who have acquired no one and lost Guzman and Koskie, are ranked ahead of us, then he must think we got worse. How can the Twins be ranked 10th by just retaining Radke and Jones? Blah....

Baby Fisk
01-12-2005, 09:30 AM
What a load of hooey. I agree with sircaffey about the Twins. No key acquisitions and they've actually moved up in the rankings. Hooey! :angry:

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 10:12 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/01/11/hotstove.rankings/index.html?cnn=yes

They have the Sox ranked at the twelfth best off-season. Not so sure I agree with this...Giants, Twins...Brewers? Arrrgh. Oh well, at least it's eleven spots better than the Baby Bears.
Let's see:

- Red Sox replaced Pedro, Lowe, Cabrera with Clement, Wells, Renteria and that qualifies for the 2d best offseason? Yanks don't lose anyone, and add Randy J for Vazquez and that counts worse?

- Twins don't add anyone, and that counts as great?

- A's swap 2 of the top 10 pitchers for a bunch of could-be's and that counts highly?

Imagine that, the 2 teams that the media gushes over get high rankings despite moves of questionable impact. Seems to me like they constructed the ranking prior to having any actual team data, then fillied in the moves after the fact.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 10:15 AM
Let's see:

- Red Sox replaced Pedro, Lowe, Cabrera with Clement, Wells, Renteria and that qualifies for the 2d best offseason? Yanks don't lose anyone, and add Randy J for Vazquez and that counts worse?

- Twins don't add anyone, and that counts as great?

- A's swap 2 of the top 10 pitchers for a bunch of could-be's and that counts highly?

Imagine that, the 2 teams that the media gushes over get high rankings despite moves of questionable impact. Seems to me like they constructed the ranking prior to having any actual team data, then fillied in the moves after the fact.I'm SHOCKED!!!!

MeanFish
01-12-2005, 11:21 AM
I'm SHOCKED!!!!
Should that be in teal?

Anyway, it seems as though the list is devoid of any semblance of actual analysis. Just take each team's offseason, throw it into the hype machine and wham: instant list. I find it kind of funny though that the D-Backs and Cubs got knocked, one for bad moves and the other for simply doing nothing. It's funny because the Twins did nothing and made the top ten, and the Mets overspent on a bunch of guys too and they're #1.

Of course, the list is rather pointless until the season starts. There's a reason they actually play the games.

idseer
01-12-2005, 11:27 AM
i seriously doubt if ANY other team filled 4 major holes on there rosters.
i'm not sure what this guy was looking at, but it sure wasn't the important things for each club.

surfdudes
01-12-2005, 11:29 AM
If it doesn't come out of Gammons mouth, I don't believe any of it...

maurice
01-12-2005, 12:16 PM
The rankings have no logical consistency. If you rank the Mets first overall, because they got high quality players and by disregarding the financial side, you can't rank the twinks and the A's high also. If you rank the A's and twinks high, because of the financial side and by speculating that certain players will succeed down the road, you also have to rank the Sox higher and cannot possibly rank the Mets first overall.

santo=dorf
01-12-2005, 01:24 PM
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/ml/teams/twins/)Minnesota Twins (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/ml/teams/twins/)
The Twins have kept Brad Radke and Jacque Jones while allowing the easily replaceable Cristian Guzman to leave via free agency. Now they are trying to lock up Cy Young winner Johan Santana to a long-term contract. If they succeed, consider this offseason a wild success.
Key additions: None

(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/ml/teams/twins/)

So how are they in the top 10? Seattle didn't do anything to improve their pitching staff, and the Angels dumped Guillen, signed Finley instead of Beltran, didn't get Johnson, failed to sign Clement, but settled for Paul Byrd.

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 01:41 PM
The rankings have no logical consistency. If you rank the Mets first overall, because they got high quality players and by disregarding the financial side, you can't rank the twinks and the A's high also. If you rank the A's and twinks high, because of the financial side and by speculating that certain players will succeed down the road, you also have to rank the Sox higher and cannot possibly rank the Mets first overall.
Well if you take into account the context of each team. Mets have cash to spend so they can afford buy success while Twins and A's have to pitch their pennies and make shrewd moves to be successful. Thus the question is, did the moves given the situation the team is in, help or hurt the team chances of success in 2005. That is very logical question for this article, I would think.

raul12
01-12-2005, 02:50 PM
Well if you take into account the context of each team. Mets have cash to spend so they can afford buy success while Twins and A's have to pitch their pennies and make shrewd moves to be successful. Thus the question is, did the moves given the situation the team is in, help or hurt the team chances of success in 2005. That is very logical question for this article, I would think.
But given that logic, wouldn't it follow that the White Sox would be almost No. 1 considering what they've done with their budget? Oh well, like someone else said, we've done jack the last three years, so why should they give us respect?

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 03:12 PM
But given that logic, wouldn't it follow that the White Sox would be almost No. 1 considering what they've done with their budget? Oh well, like someone else said, we've done jack the last three years, so why should they give us respect?
The rankings depend on how good you feel about the Sox moves. Other then this board and few other places, the general feeling is the Sox got taken on the Lee trade. Here, most people love that deal.

SOXintheBURGH
01-12-2005, 03:20 PM
"The Blue Jays are bringing back Billy Koch for $900,000, or one dollar for every reason you can think of not to sign Billy Koch."

Guy got something right.

maurice
01-12-2005, 04:29 PM
IMHO, it's irrational to ignore the long-term financial consequences of moves for any team not named "Yankees" or to arbitrarily speculate that certain players will suddenly become more productive in 2005 while ignoring the potential to improve for other teams' players. Focusing only on 2005 makes BB's offseason moves look positively moronic. It would be very difficult to argue that the A's improved themselves for 2005 by trading their two best starting pitchers, even in light of financial constraints. The moves were made as part of a long-term plan.

The Twins, at best, broke even . . . helped by at least one major home-town discount. :angry:

OTOH, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the 2005 Sox will be better than the 2004 Sox. For example, it seems pretty clear in retrospect that the Sox helped themselves in the Lee trade, when you consider what they did with the money saved.

Finally, extremely high resources notwithstanding, it's arguable that the huge sums of money the Mets spent on a handful of guys might have been better spent on different players. For example, looking only at 2005, I'd rather have Al Leiter (and some of the other pitchers available) than Kris Benson. Looking down the road a piece, some of the big-money deals may bite them in the arse. Nonetheless, it will have been a productive offseason for them if they remain smart enough to avoid Sosa.

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 04:53 PM
The rankings depend on how good you feel about the Sox moves. Other then this board and few other places, the general feeling is the Sox got taken on the Lee trade. Here, most people love that deal.
I've yet to see an analysis of the trade that factors in everything, i.e. AJ, Duque, Pods, Vizcaino for Lee and concludes that the Sox "got taken". It's a lot easier to look at the straight trade from a talent perspective and say "Sox got screwed", but it's shoddy analysis.

Not that that's unexpected. The media feeds their own biases, as is evident from the "power rankings".

HoustonAstros967
01-12-2005, 05:24 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jacob_luft/01/11/hotstove.rankings/index.html?cnn=yes

They have the Sox ranked at the twelfth best off-season. Not so sure I agree with this...Giants, Twins...Brewers? Arrrgh. Oh well, at least it's eleven spots better than the Baby Bears.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the A's are above the sox. THE A'S!!!! I guess trading away three good pitchers for almost nothing is their definition of good offseason moves. The White Sox downgraded their outfield a bit but they brought in some quality players to replace them(Dye and Podsednick). They also brought in El Duque! The Sox have one of the best rotations in baseball. Overall the team greatly improved defensively and you couldn't have asked for more. The deserve to be up there with the Mets and Yankees.

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 06:29 PM
Houston:

The Sox could have one of the best rotations in baseball if everything breaks right.

Remember Hernandez may have some shoulder issues and who knows what you are going to get out of Contreras or Garland.

It's better then it was but I'm not going to compare it to the Yankees, Braves or Cubs just yet. (just to name three teams...)

Lip

SoxFan76
01-12-2005, 06:49 PM
Houston:

The Sox could have one of the best rotations in baseball if everything breaks right.

Lip
Lip, that is the case for every team in the MLB.

BRDSR
01-12-2005, 07:27 PM
Remember Hernandez may have some shoulder issues and who knows what you are going to get out of Contreras or Garland.

I have to disagree about Garland. I think we can expect at least a .500 year from Garland at about 12-12. It's that push over the top that we all want that will make him more like 15-10. The other two, you're right, but at least we know they have a great upside.

johnny_mostil
01-12-2005, 08:27 PM
Lip, that is the case for every team in the MLB.
Detroit? Baltimore? Tampa? No.

SoxFan76
01-12-2005, 08:57 PM
Detroit? Baltimore? Tampa? No.
Duh, my fault. I meant every "top" staff in the league. They all have question marks. Nothing is EVER definite.

Soxzilla
01-12-2005, 10:11 PM
I like how he counts the Kris Benson acquisition for the Mets, which occured during the middle of the season, and makes no mention of the White Sox signing Freddy Garcia at the BARGAIN he came for.

If that isn't the deal of the off-season, the only other one I can think of was that trade that involved sending Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik, Aj Pierzynksi, El Duque and Luis Vizcaino, oh, and cash considerations. I'm not sure what that team was, maybe someone can enlighten me?

:reinsy
"I love Cash ... can he play second base?"

I also enjoy how he contradicts himself with the A's and Cardinals. First he praises the A's for dumping Mulder for some future hall of famers, while, in the next paragraph, he praises the Cardinals for nabbing one of the top pitchers in the game for next to nothing.

NonetheLoaiza
01-12-2005, 10:16 PM
I think that's about right. We didn't get any of the greatest players out there, but we got the job done. Also...the Brewers are that high because they usually end up in the hole during the offseason. Now they have money do spend and improve the team withExactly. The Brewers actually filled a hole by getting a right handed power bat in the number 4 hole. What was his name again???

I said this in another thread too, but I'm looking forward to the Brew Crew season to see if they can put it all together this year. (By together, I mean finish at or near .500).