PDA

View Full Version : Getting a little frustrated


crazyozzie02
11-20-2006, 02:03 AM
I know that im tired and probably overreacting, but i need to vent a little. Im getting a little frustrated about the sox and this offseason so far. All these rumors that we are being feed have no merit to them unlike ones in the past (ie rowand for thome). Then the cubs are kinda making us look bad. They go out and get derosa (big deal), then they go out now and get Soriano. I seems like the sox are letting all the good free agents go away and we are going to be left with the same team as last year. I have no problem with that except that i think we need a player that can add a much needed spark to this team. I know that im gonna get ripped, but i just want to know your guys opinion.

Colin

RadioheadRocks
11-20-2006, 02:12 AM
Think back to 2004 when the Cubs thought they had the WILD CARD (!!!) in the bag when they signed Nomar Garciaparra... that should make you feel better! :cool:

KRS1
11-20-2006, 02:14 AM
Please....

Relax, none of the FA's are worth nearly what they are getting, and we have the luxory of waiting to see what develops for us in the trade department. Its only Novemeber 20th, and IMO, it is to our advantage to let things sort out and fall into place, rather than rush into a deal. Thats not to say if the right deal comes up that satisfies our needs and KW's asking price, we shouldnt pull the trigger. BUT............. We are in a position where we can hold onto our commodities and not lose out in the long run. I know everyone wants the impact move that we all know is coming to happen yesterday, but thats just not the way it works. Deals dont work themselves out over night, and if we can get teams into a bidding war over the most saught after good in baseball(quality SP) by sitting back, then thats exactly what needs to be done.

DoItAllJoeHall
11-20-2006, 02:25 AM
The Cubs are making deals and signings because they are looking to get out of the cellar. The White Sox are looking to make the moves that make sense because they are in a more favorable position so to speak. We dont need to overhaul anything to get better...just tweak.

SoxFan64
11-20-2006, 02:57 AM
Ask yourself one question, would you trade our entire team for the Cubs entire team (inc. Soriano) right now. If the answer is "no", then KW and his staff are doing just fine. If the answer is "yes", then Hendry and his stafff are doing better. I vote for KW. What do you vote for?

IOW, if you are the long standing GM of a sorry no-account high payroll last place team, the Urinal's fans are starting to not attend games, the Corporate bosses are eager to look good, and you are lucky to have survived the purge that cost the job of both the President and the Manager you would do almost anything to look like you are doing something.

I have great faith in Kenny. We are doing just fine.

anewman35
11-20-2006, 06:28 AM
Do people really forget this quicky how Kenny works? Under The Radar... I'm sure Kenny is working on plenty of stuff that we can't even imagine right now. It's still VERY early.

Jjav829
11-20-2006, 07:20 AM
Did you just call signing Mark DeRosa a big deal? :?:

My opinion is that it's November 20th. Teams have been able to sign players for one week. Have a little patience. There have been, what, 6 or 7 players signed? I don't see how that constitutes "letting all the good free agents go away."

Besides, what were you expecting? The Sox were never going to be serious players for any of the big names. Most of our action will come through trades. Our free agent signings will probably be limited to Roberts/Pierre, a reliever or two and a backup catcher, if that.

CurtisEBear
11-20-2006, 07:37 AM
It's still early. The Thome deal wasn't announced until Thanksgiving. After that, the deals came fast and furious.

I predict there will be plenty of news out of the Sox front office in the next couple of weeks.

I think its telling that the Sox appear to be involved in nearly 3/4 of the trade rumors out there. The bosses aren't standing pat.

samram
11-20-2006, 07:48 AM
Did you just call signing Mark DeRosa a big deal? :?:

My opinion is that it's November 20th. Teams have been able to sign players for one week. Have a little patience. There have been, what, 6 or 7 players signed? I don't see how that constitutes "letting all the good free agents go away."

Besides, what were you expecting? The Sox were never going to be serious players for any of the big names. Most of our action will come through trades. Our free agent signings will probably be limited to Roberts/Pierre, a reliever or two and a backup catcher, if that.

Technically, that's a fact.:D: But yeah, there's three months until spring training starts and only a couple top FAs are off the market. The trade market will heat up when teams have lost out on the guys they targeted and they have to look elsewhere to fill holes.

And to the thread starter, stop worrying about the Cubs. Soriano does add to their offense, but they have one actual major league starting pitcher and no closer that I'm aware of. And remember that Aramis just got paid- that's got Adrian Beltre written all over it.

Hitmen77
11-20-2006, 08:09 AM
I know that im tired and probably overreacting, but i need to vent a little. Im getting a little frustrated about the sox and this offseason so far. All these rumors that we are being feed have no merit to them unlike ones in the past (ie rowand for thome). Then the cubs are kinda making us look bad. They go out and get derosa (big deal), then they go out now and get Soriano. I seems like the sox are letting all the good free agents go away and we are going to be left with the same team as last year. I have no problem with that except that i think we need a player that can add a much needed spark to this team. I know that im gonna get ripped, but i just want to know your guys opinion.

Colin

Please explain how the Cubs are making us look bad? By sinking $136 million on one player? Also, why do you think the DeRosa signing is a "big deal"? Doesn't that pretty much amount to a lateral move at 2B compared to where the Cubs were last opening day? Does that move make us look bad? If you think so, then would you trade Iguchi straight up for DeRosa?

Soriano does improve the Cubs, but he's not work $136 million. I'm glad the Sox didn't chain themselves to that kind of contract.

infohawk
11-20-2006, 08:38 AM
I don't think the Sox will be big players on the free agent market. They'll get what they need via trade. If they sign a free agent or two, it's likely to be a lesser player(s). Face it, the Sox don't have a real need to do much in free agency. They are a good team that just needs to fine-tune a bit, primarily the bullpen. They had a "bad" season last year and still won 90 games.

bigredrudy
11-20-2006, 08:49 AM
Did you just call signing Mark DeRosa a big deal? :?:

My opinion is that it's November 20th. Teams have been able to sign players for one week. Have a little patience. There have been, what, 6 or 7 players signed? I don't see how that constitutes "letting all the good free agents go away."

Besides, what were you expecting? The Sox were never going to be serious players for any of the big names. Most of our action will come through trades. Our free agent signings will probably be limited to Roberts/Pierre, a reliever or two and a backup catcher, if that.
KW has already indicated that Roberts wants too long of a contract-3 years I think the Cub action will make the Sox rethink some of what they had planned

ondafarm
11-20-2006, 08:51 AM
It's still early. The Thome deal wasn't announced until Thanksgiving. After that, the deals came fast and furious.

I predict there will be plenty of news out of the Sox front office in the next couple of weeks.

I think its telling that the Sox appear to be involved in nearly 3/4 of the trade rumors out there. The bosses aren't standing pat.

If I was KW and had the most valuable commodity in the game, a proven starting pitcher, to trade, then I would sit quietly at the GM meetings and just listen to everybody who brings me an offer. Then I'd take all the offers back and talk to my people about each one and I'd work the phone for a bit on the best three or four deals. That'd take me most of a month.

I don't expect anything until December.

delben91
11-20-2006, 08:55 AM
I think the Cub action will make the Sox rethink some of what they had planned

Unless I'm missing something, the Sox are competing with the Twins and Tigers next year...not the Cubs.

If KW changes his plans because the Cubs signed DeRosa, Soriano, and re-signed Wood and Ramirez...then KW isn't the GM we all think he is.

Goose
11-20-2006, 09:09 AM
Unless I'm missing something, the Sox are competing with the Twins and Tigers next year...not the Cubs.

If KW changes his plans because the Cubs signed DeRosa, Soriano, and re-signed Wood and Ramirez...then KW isn't the GM we all think he is.

Truer words have never been spoken (or written, as it were)!

1917
11-20-2006, 09:12 AM
We don't need a lot ladies and gentlemen....we havea good team. we don't need a 17 mil a year player....we need some fill in's....we won 90 games last year....granted we came in 3rd, but it was almost a fluke....Flubs were the worst team in the NL...the GM's job is on the line, they are going to go for broke....we'll be fine....

Pierzynski 12
11-20-2006, 09:14 AM
KW, find a leadoff hitter and a left handed reliever. :gulp:

oeo
11-20-2006, 09:18 AM
KW has already indicated that Roberts wants too long of a contract-3 years I think the Cub action will make the Sox rethink some of what they had planned

Why? Kenny is not that stupid to make decisions based on what stupid decisions the Flubs make. So the Flubs got Soriano...big deal. Soriano 1)Can't pitch and 2)Can't carry them to a title. You need a team to do that, and that massive amount of money they just spent on Soriano could kill even the smallest possibility of them putting together a real team.

The Sox do not need to go out and sign Soriano to a stupid contract. The Flubs needed something to keep their fans happy, so they went ahead and signed the biggest FA to a massive contract...when they could have spent that money much more effectively to actually improve their team. When you have $136 million to spare, do you spend it on a powerhitting leadoff hitter, or go after the big FA pitchers like Zito/Schmidt? The Flubs did nothing in that trade, other than prove that they're still going to pay a ****load of money for a losing team.

As for Robertson, I'm happy if the Sox don't sign him. IMO, he's mediocre (and definately overrated), and just an older version of Pods...so why not just bring Pods back?

The Sox have nothing to worry about in respect to the Flubs. The Sox have a team, the Flubs have Carlos Zambrano, Derek Lee, and Alfonso Soriano.

CaptainBallz
11-20-2006, 09:34 AM
The Sox have nothing to worry about in respect to the Flubs. The Sox have a team, the Flubs have Carlos Zambrano, Derek Lee, and Alfonso Soriano.

Don't forget the mighty Aramis Ramirez...:rolleyes:

Yeah, I'll just echo the rest of the sentiments in this thread that it's too early and nothing that substantial has gone down to warrant being jealous or feeling outmaneuvered by the ****ing Cubs.

Sox still have plenty of pieces to deal and very specific gaps to fill. It will get done. I have a very good felling that KW & co. learned a valuable lesson in '06 about going into the season with a "let's see if this works" mentality about obvious weaknesses.

Patience grasshopper...

BanditJimmy
11-20-2006, 09:40 AM
On paper today (if we did not make any other moves), we are still the most complete team out there.


We couldn't play any worse than we did last year, yet we won 90 games.


Kenny will fix whatever needs fixing if he feels it will impove this team in some shape or form.

Pierzynski 12
11-20-2006, 09:43 AM
On paper today (if we did not make any other moves), we are still the most complete team out there.


We couldn't play any worse than we did last year, yet we won 90 games.


Kenny will fix whatever needs fixing if he feels it will impove this team in some shape or form.

On paper we would need a leadoff hitter.:whistle:

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 09:46 AM
This year has been crazier than last already, starting with an underachieving player (Drew) who doesn't even want to play opting out of a deal that pays $13 million per season. Has anyone looked at how many games he's missed in his career?

Pierre asking for $10 million? Matthews Jr. even more, based on one season?

I'm starting to think we might even end up with Pods and Uribe again next year at this rate. It's insane to pay that type of money to Pierre when Pods will be in the $2/3/4 million range in arbitration.

The Cubs have spent $200 million or so and still have TWO huge holes to fill in their rotation. They STILL have an issue with their closer.

Soriano is like Sosa, a Roto league stud who strikes out way too much for leadoff, cannot execute or play fundamentally-sound baseball. It might help them sell tickets and build the hype up for next year, but it doesn't make for a winning team.

Ted Lilly, Vincente Padilla, Randy Wolf, another Japanese hurler you have to "bid" on first just to get the right to negotiate...these are the cream of the crop of the second tier. After Schmidt and Zito, who are definitely not worth $13-15 million per season, those type of pitchers are still in position to get $8-10 million. They're all 4th/5th caliber starters. KW simply has to wait for Schmidt and Zito to sign and then the rest of the market will come to him with demand outstripping supply in the musical chairs game. The Red Sox decided $22 million per season was better than $15 million and future uncertainty/injuries...and the fact that smart marketing to the Japanese market will get them $10 million per season or more back in return on investment. Actually, a smart move and the reason they might overtake the Yankees next year.

If KW was smart, he would think about dealing two starters and get back young pitching prospects to replace those we've traded the last two years (Gio, Haigwood, Lumsden, Chris Young). We need one more reliever, and shoring up the LF/CF situation without paying huge FA money to someone like Dave Roberts or Pierre.

Garland for Otsuka and Danks/Diamond (minor league top pitching prospects) would go a long ways...KW has to find that next Contreras/Loaiza/Thornton. Of course, we would prefer the next J. Santana or Liriano.

And I would definitely trade Garcia for Erwin Santana. I don't think we see wholesale changes until after the 2007 season.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 10:10 AM
On paper today (if we did not make any other moves), we are still the most complete team out there.


We couldn't play any worse than we did last year, yet we won 90 games.


Kenny will fix whatever needs fixing if he feels it will impove this team in some shape or form.
On paper we have a LF with a balky groin who doubles as a leadoff man who generally leads off with an out. We have a CF who may or may not be able to hit better than .230 this coming year. We have a SS who got on base less regularly than any other starter in the AL. We finished third even though at least 2-3 of the other starters had career years that they will be hard pressed to duplicate. We have two large holes in the bullpen. We have a starting rotation with one guy coming off of a terrible year who may or may not bounce back, another guy who seems to lose his mind in the 5th inning, another guy who only seems to pitch well in the playoffs or in Anaheim, and an old guy who after the all star break posted a 5.40 ERA and may or may not be back in form next year.

The Sox have a good team base to work from, but if they sit still there is a good chance they will spend this October the same way they spent last October.

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 10:22 AM
On paper we have a LF with a balky groin who doubles as a leadoff man who generally leads off with an out. We have a CF who may or may not be able to hit better than .230 this coming year. We have a SS who got on base less regularly than any other starter in the AL. We finished third even though at least 2-3 of the other starters had career years that they will be hard pressed to duplicate. We have two large holes in the bullpen. We have a starting rotation with one guy coming off of a terrible year who may or may not bounce back, another guy who seems to lose his mind in the 5th inning, another guy who only seems to pitch well in the playoffs or in Anaheim, and an old guy who after the all star break posted a 5.40 ERA and may or may not be back in form next year.

The Sox have a good team base to work from, but if they sit still there is a good chance they will spend this October the same way they spent last October.

None our our starters pitched well the entire season or equalled their "career norms," with the exception of Garland in the wins category. But his ERA has horrible the first six weeks and a battle to get down to 5 for most of the remainder of the season.

If Contreras is 100% healthy (which is a much better bet than Prior or Wood), Garcia has a full offseason to rest (his fastball was coming back at the end, at least low 90's) and Buehrle does as well, it's like adding an ace FA acquisition.

We need one more reliever. With the exception of the Twins, no team in baseball has a high-quality bullpen, 1-6.

Pods, same argument, he has another year to rest and rehab. Usually, players are better their second year coming back, and Pods has a pattern of good year/bad year. Uribe wasn't as good offensively as 04 and 05, but you put up 20 homers and 75 RBI's per season from that spot with good defense and you don't have a problem...as long as you get the starting pitching.

Our pitching records a 3.75 or below ERA with the team AS IS, we're probably in the playoffs again. Of course, Boston is stronger now...I don't see the Tigers falling off much below 90 wins either, unless they sustain some major pitching injuries or Kenny Rogers falls apart. The Angels still have offensive woes, and Oakland has to replace Zito AND Thomas now. In fact, the Blue Jays might be more of a force in the WC race than any of the remaining AL West teams.

palehozenychicty
11-20-2006, 10:36 AM
Of course, Boston is stronger now...I don't see the Tigers falling off much below 90 wins either, unless they sustain some major pitching injuries or Kenny Rogers falls apart. The Angels still have offensive woes, and Oakland has to replace Zito AND Thomas now. In fact, the Blue Jays might be more of a force in the WC race than any of the remaining AL West teams.

I don't know about that. They have an unsettled middle infield, outfield, and their rotation is injury prone, both starters and relievers. They don't have a closer or any good setup men. Timlin may be finished, etc. Toronto looks better than Boston right now. But it's early.

INSox56
11-20-2006, 10:37 AM
Of course, Boston is stronger now...I don't see the Tigers falling off much below 90 wins either, unless they sustain some major pitching injuries or Kenny Rogers falls apart. The Angels still have offensive woes, and Oakland has to replace Zito AND Thomas now. In fact, the Blue Jays might be more of a force in the WC race than any of the remaining AL West teams.

How is Boston stronger? They still haven't signed Matsuzaka, not to mention that the guy's completely unproven.

I don't see the Tigers performing like that again...Bonderman and Robertson had the better part of a full point lower on their career ERAs last year, I don't know if that'll continue and I'd be surprised if it did. Verlander, who knows what all those innings will do to him, especially being a fireballer.

If we don't pitch like a bunch of retards next year, I'd say we win the division again...and that's as is now.

NoNeckEra
11-20-2006, 10:39 AM
On paper today (if we did not make any other moves), we are still the most complete team out there.


We couldn't play any worse than we did last year, yet we won 90 games.

We had the weakest 90 win season I've ever seen.
All our wins came in April, May & June when our offense was hot and against weaker NL teams during interleague play.

Then pitching caught up to our hitting, our pitching faltered, and we were below average for the last half of the year.

Please fix this. Yes, it's broken.

jdm2662
11-20-2006, 10:45 AM
I know that im tired and probably overreacting, but i need to vent a little. Im getting a little frustrated about the sox and this offseason so far. All these rumors that we are being feed have no merit to them unlike ones in the past (ie rowand for thome). Then the cubs are kinda making us look bad. They go out and get derosa (big deal), then they go out now and get Soriano. I seems like the sox are letting all the good free agents go away and we are going to be left with the same team as last year. I have no problem with that except that i think we need a player that can add a much needed spark to this team. I know that im gonna get ripped, but i just want to know your guys opinion.

Colin

1. Are you overreacting? The answer is yes.

2. The Cubs making the Sox look bad? How so? They signed a FA. So what? They threw a lot of money at a player with many flaws to make their fan base happy. If you haven't learned yet, one player doesn't make a diference. A complete team wins championships. Signing Soriano would not make me happy at all. I don't go ga-ga over signings. They mean nothing until I see them on the field. Quit worring about what the ****ing Cubs do.

3. What exactly where you expecting this off season? The Sox already have several good players locked up. They have some holes that need to be filled yes. However, with the money on the FA market through the roof, players aren't going to commit unless they get the best offer.

4. My only comment about the signing, it's football seaon and the Bears should be the lead story. While this is certainly news, the Bears are 9-1...

BanditJimmy
11-20-2006, 10:52 AM
On paper we have a LF with a balky groin who doubles as a leadoff man who generally leads off with an out. We have a CF who may or may not be able to hit better than .230 this coming year. We have a SS who got on base less regularly than any other starter in the AL. We finished third even though at least 2-3 of the other starters had career years that they will be hard pressed to duplicate. We have two large holes in the bullpen. We have a starting rotation with one guy coming off of a terrible year who may or may not bounce back, another guy who seems to lose his mind in the 5th inning, another guy who only seems to pitch well in the playoffs or in Anaheim, and an old guy who after the all star break posted a 5.40 ERA and may or may not be back in form next year.

The Sox have a good team base to work from, but if they sit still there is a good chance they will spend this October the same way they spent last October.

It's is easy to point out the issues we have in LF and CF but please also point out that no team can claim to have the following:


-6 starters who can each throw 200+ innings and win 14-15 games.
-The 3-4-5-6 middle of the line up ..... which is the best in baseball IMO
- 3 possible closers in McDougal, Thornton, & Jenks.


Some teams can match us in one or even two of those items mentioned above .... but none (right now on paper) can claim all three.


Do I want Kenny to make moves to improve this team, hell ya. The flaws are right there and easy to see (LF, CF, SS). But those same flaws and even more of them could have been said about the 2005 team who won the World Series. If our pitchers whould have pitched in 2006 the way we know they can, No one on this board would see a problem with Uribe, Pods, or Anderson. Why? because we would have won the World Series again in 2006.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 10:56 AM
None our our starters pitched well the entire season or equalled their "career norms," with the exception of Garland in the wins category. But his ERA has horrible the first six weeks and a battle to get down to 5 for most of the remainder of the season.

If Contreras is 100% healthy (which is a much better bet than Prior or Wood), Garcia has a full offseason to rest (his fastball was coming back at the end, at least low 90's) and Buehrle does as well, it's like adding an ace FA acquisition.

We need one more reliever. With the exception of the Twins, no team in baseball has a high-quality bullpen, 1-6.

Pods, same argument, he has another year to rest and rehab. Usually, players are better their second year coming back, and Pods has a pattern of good year/bad year. Uribe wasn't as good offensively as 04 and 05, but you put up 20 homers and 75 RBI's per season from that spot with good defense and you don't have a problem...as long as you get the starting pitching.

Our pitching records a 3.75 or below ERA with the team AS IS, we're probably in the playoffs again. Of course, Boston is stronger now...I don't see the Tigers falling off much below 90 wins either, unless they sustain some major pitching injuries or Kenny Rogers falls apart. The Angels still have offensive woes, and Oakland has to replace Zito AND Thomas now. In fact, the Blue Jays might be more of a force in the WC race than any of the remaining AL West teams.
You misunderstood or I failed to speak clearly in my previous post. When I said 2-3 starters had exceeded career norms, I was speaking of the everyday players, specifically thinking of Dye, Crede, and Pierzynski.

But hey, the rest of the post is worth a look anywho.

-Regarding Contreras...first I guess I fail to see what Mark Prior or Kerry Wood have to do with this discussion, but ok. Jose is 35 at the very least. Considering the rather shoddy history of accuracy with Cuban players ages, he could very well be 37 or 38, but even if he's exactly the age he's listed at, he's at a point when injuries become a major concern. I suspect he will be better than he was in August, where he posted a 7.50 ERA, but to automatically expect him to return to the dominant form he had at the end of 2005-1st half of 2006 seems overly optimistic.

-Freddy is actually someone I have good vibes about. I think wherever he goes this year he will do well, as he seemed to be learning how to pitch around the changes in his game.

-The problem with your assessment that a bit of rest will help Mark is that there was very little changed about his pitching that I saw. He and Herm and Ozzie all said his health was fine. His velocity was pretty much the same as before. The only difference seemed to be that where before he would get guys to hit balls off the hands or the end of the bat, now they were squaring up on him and blasting away. If it was just exhaustion that's great. Of course, the more ominous possibility can be found on Mark's Baseball-reference page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/buehrma01.shtml) where the number one similar pitcher to Buehrle that they list is Teddy Higuera. Six years of above-average ERA, followed by sharp decline.

-We need more than one reliever. David Aardsma, though an interesting acquisition is still unproven. We have three arms that inspire confidence (Jenks, Thornton, MacDougal). We seemingly had a stronger pen going into 2006, and we see what happened. No part of the team needs to have more contingency plans available for it than the bullpen, as no part is more undependable year to year. Odds are one of the guys we think will be awesome this year will likely go to hell, since that generally happens every year to about 1/3 of relievers seemingly. The Sox need, especially given Ozzie's maddening penchant for LaRussa-esque matchup games, to have a very deep and strong bullpen.

-Podsednik has had 1.5 good seasons in his career. He had all of LAST offseason to rest and recover and it didn't seemingly help him. At some point the idea that he is a speed guy who has simply lost a step needs to come into play. Podsednik is a player for whom everything has to be going perfectly for him to be a useful contributor, and it seems unlikely to me that he will be perfectly healthy and in April 2005 condition next year or ever again.

-Juan Uribe is a waste of space at SS. The days of being able to excuse someone for being an awful hitter in the 8 or 9 spot are over, especially in the AL. Yay, Juan had 75 RBI. With the performances of the guys in front of him it amazes me he only had 75 RBI. And if all his swinging from the heels at every ****ty pitch he sees is only getting him 20 HR a year to go with his almost mind-bogglingly bad .257 OBP then I am going to have say that's a bad tradeoff. And his defense, though above-average, is still being overrated from the glow of 2005 and the 9th inning of Game 4 of the World Series.

-We recorded a 3.61 ERA in 2005. That year was Buehrle's best year, exceeding his career ERA by .71. That year was Garland's best year, exceeding his career ERA by .96. That year was Jose's best full year, exceeding his career ERA by .67. That year was Garcia's 3rd best year, exceeding his career ERA by .14. We got once-in-a-lifetime years from Hermanson, Politte, Cotts, and hell even Vizcaino played above his career numbers. To expect the pitching staff, now 2 years older (which is really only a positive for Garland) to duplicate that performance is probably going to lead to disappointment. Especially considering that our 5th starter right now is a guy who has had an ERA of about 4.71 over the last three seasons. If everything breaks positively, this team should be able to put together an ERA around 4.10-4.20 or so.

BanditJimmy
11-20-2006, 10:58 AM
1. Are you overreacting? The answer is yes.

2. The Cubs making the Sox look bad? How so? They signed a FA. So what? They threw a lot of money at a player with many flaws to make their fan base happy. If you haven't learned yet, one player doesn't make a diference. A complete team wins championships. Signing Soriano would not make me happy at all. I don't go ga-ga over signings. They mean nothing until I see them on the field. Quit worring about what the ****ing Cubs do.

3. What exactly where you expecting this off season? The Sox already have several good players locked up. They have some holes that need to be filled yes. However, with the money on the FA market through the roof, players aren't going to commit unless they get the best offer.

4. My only comment about the signing, it's football seaon and the Bears should be the lead story. While this is certainly news, the Bears are 9-1...


to add to this.


The Cubs won 65 games (I think) compared to the Sox who won 90.


If you think the Soriano signing makes the Sox look bad, call me when the Cubs sign Zito, Schmidt, & Carlos Lee...... then you will have an arguement.

It would take those 3 additional signings and then some for the Cubs to sniff 90 wins.

FielderJones
11-20-2006, 11:00 AM
It would take those 3 additional signings and then some for the Cubs to sniff 90 wins.

The and then some would include some starting pitching. How are the Cubs going to get that?

spiffie
11-20-2006, 11:10 AM
It's is easy to point out the issues we have in LF and CF but please also point out that no team can claim to have the following:


-6 starters who can each throw 200+ innings and win 14-15 games.
-The 3-4-5-6 middle of the line up ..... which is the best in baseball IMO
- 3 possible closers in McDougal, Thornton, & Jenks.


Some teams can match us in one or even two of those items mentioned above .... but none (right now on paper) can claim all three.

I'm not sure what the point of these are:
-Yes, we have guys who can throw a lot of innings. Let's actually see McCarthy throw a 200 inning season and win 14-15 games before we proclaim him able to do so, but otherwise we have 5 guys who do that. But what does it really do if the guys go out and throw 200 innings of mediocre ball. Hell, Gil Meche threw nearly 200 innings last year, and probably would have won 15 games with the Sox considering his ERA was lower than our team ERA, but everyone here is mocking teams thinking about signing him. Yes, it is good that we have a starting rotation that is settled, but as we saw last year with those guys that can end up being a failure as easily as a success.

-The middle of the order is awesome. Thome, Konerko, Dye, Crede are not the problem. Neither is Pierzynski. The problem is that the lineup we had last year was the equivalent of a Porsche sitting in a tar pit. Our 1, 8, and 9 holes were just that, giant gaping holes.

-I don't see how having three possible closers makes us better. You could say that about any team with multiple good bullpen arms. Thornton has never been a closer and could easily be like LaTroy Hawkins (great setup man, awful closer). MacDougal as a closer had a season with 27 saves but 8 blown saves. So I'm not sure how relevant this part is.

soxinem1
11-20-2006, 11:11 AM
[quote=jdm2662;1415803]1. Are you overreacting? The answer is yes.

2. The Cubs making the Sox look bad? How so? They signed a FA. So what? They threw a lot of money at a player with many flaws to make their fan base happy. If you haven't learned yet, one player doesn't make a diference. A complete team wins championships. Signing Soriano would not make me happy at all. I don't go ga-ga over signings. They mean nothing until I see them on the field. Quit worring about what the ****ing Cubs do.

3. What exactly where you expecting this off season? The Sox already have several good players locked up. They have some holes that need to be filled yes. However, with the money on the FA market through the roof, players aren't going to commit unless they get the best offer. [quote]

You are correct. With a GM that has proven to make deals that have us saying 'How did he do that?', or that has shown little interest in high-profile FA's (and refusing to over pay for second tier guys), we should show some discipline.

It's barely a month after the World Series ended, and we do not need a makeover, we need fine tuning. Other teams like the cubs need roster help throughout the lineup, not one crash signing and a half-a** attempt to fill other glaring holes.

In this case, corporate greed (trib) meets individual greed (Soriano). Don't let amother 'team' 's stupidity make you too anxious.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 11:11 AM
Before people on this board get overly excited about the "Cubs making the Sox look bad" with the signing of Soriano. Here are a couple of facts about Soriano's impact on a team's won/loss record.

In Soriano's final year with Texas (2005) the Rangers finished 79 - 83 and that team had 6 players, besides Soriano, that hit over 20 homeruns. Teixeira hit 43 that year.

In 2005, Washington finished 81 - 81 WITHOUT Soriano. Last year, WITH Soriano, Washington finished 71 - 91.

Do any of you wonder why the Yankees and/or Texas were not in the bidding to get Soirano back when both of those teams could use a right handed hitting outfielder, since the Yanks traded Sheffield and the Rangers will probably lose Carlos Lee? Here is the answer: Because Soriano is not a difference maker in a team's won/loss record.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 11:16 AM
Before people on this board get overly excited about the "Cubs making the Sox look bad" with the signing of Soriano. Here are a couple of facts about Soriano's impact on a team's won/loss record.

In Soriano's final year with Texas (2005) the Rangers finished 79 - 83 and that team had 6 players, besides Soriano, that hit over 20 homeruns. Teixeira hit 43 that year.

In 2005, Washington finished 81 - 81 WITHOUT Soriano. Last year, WITH Soriano, Washington finished 71 - 91.

Do any of you wonder why the Yankees and/or Texas were not in the bidding to get Soirano back when both of those teams could use a right handed hitting outfielder, since the Yanks traded Sheffield and the Rangers will probably lose Carlos Lee? Here is the answer: Because Soriano is not a difference maker in a team's won/loss record.
2005 Rangers Team ERA - 4.96 (12th out of 14 AL teams)
2005 National Team ERA - 3.87 (4th out of 16 NL teams)
2006 Nationals Team ERA - 5.03 (16th out of 16 NL teams)

Yup, it's Soriano's fault his teams lost, and that the Nats went down last year.

samram
11-20-2006, 11:31 AM
2005 Rangers Team ERA - 4.96 (12th out of 14 AL teams)
2005 National Team ERA - 3.87 (4th out of 16 NL teams)
2006 Nationals Team ERA - 5.03 (16th out of 16 NL teams)

Yup, it's Soriano's fault his teams lost, and that the Nats went down last year.

Obviously, pitching makes the difference, but I think his point is Soriano isn't going to fix the big problem the Cubs have in the rotation.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 11:37 AM
Obviously, pitching makes the difference, but I think his point is Soriano isn't going to fix the big problem the Cubs have in the rotation.
On this point I totally agree. But there is a maddening tendency to look at a single player, see that his teams don't win, and decide that player must not be good and totally ignore everything else. Alfonso Soriano could have hit 100 HR, .400 batting average, and baked homemade cookies for the clubhouse every day last year and the Nats wouldn't have done jack.

samram
11-20-2006, 11:44 AM
On this point I totally agree. But there is a maddening tendency to look at a single player, see that his teams don't win, and decide that player must not be good and totally ignore everything else. Alfonso Soriano could have hit 100 HR, .400 batting average, and baked homemade cookies for the clubhouse every day last year and the Nats wouldn't have done jack.

Yeah, and that tendency is really dumb, as we saw with the "Blame A-Rod for the Rangers' sucking and Yankees' failures" crowd.

For those who feel the Cubs are making the Sox look bad, check out Buster Olney's column. It's insider material, but his basic take is that the $224M the Cubs have taken on in the past week gets them really no closer to the WS and they're just a strange team. I'm intrigued/amused by the thought of a Murton/Floyd-Soriano-Jones OF on those windy days or any other day.

Lillian
11-20-2006, 12:08 PM
You misunderstood or I failed to speak clearly in my previous post. When I said 2-3 starters had exceeded career norms, I was speaking of the everyday players, specifically thinking of Dye, Crede, and Pierzynski.

But hey, the rest of the post is worth a look anywho.

-Regarding Contreras...first I guess I fail to see what Mark Prior or Kerry Wood have to do with this discussion, but ok. Jose is 35 at the very least. Considering the rather shoddy history of accuracy with Cuban players ages, he could very well be 37 or 38, but even if he's exactly the age he's listed at, he's at a point when injuries become a major concern. I suspect he will be better than he was in August, where he posted a 7.50 ERA, but to automatically expect him to return to the dominant form he had at the end of 2005-1st half of 2006 seems overly optimistic.

-Freddy is actually someone I have good vibes about. I think wherever he goes this year he will do well, as he seemed to be learning how to pitch around the changes in his game.

-The problem with your assessment that a bit of rest will help Mark is that there was very little changed about his pitching that I saw. He and Herm and Ozzie all said his health was fine. His velocity was pretty much the same as before. The only difference seemed to be that where before he would get guys to hit balls off the hands or the end of the bat, now they were squaring up on him and blasting away. If it was just exhaustion that's great. Of course, the more ominous possibility can be found on Mark's Baseball-reference page (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/buehrma01.shtml) where the number one similar pitcher to Buehrle that they list is Teddy Higuera. Six years of above-average ERA, followed by sharp decline.

-We need more than one reliever. David Aardsma, though an interesting acquisition is still unproven. We have three arms that inspire confidence (Jenks, Thornton, MacDougal). We seemingly had a stronger pen going into 2006, and we see what happened. No part of the team needs to have more contingency plans available for it than the bullpen, as no part is more undependable year to year. Odds are one of the guys we think will be awesome this year will likely go to hell, since that generally happens every year to about 1/3 of relievers seemingly. The Sox need, especially given Ozzie's maddening penchant for LaRussa-esque matchup games, to have a very deep and strong bullpen.

-Podsednik has had 1.5 good seasons in his career. He had all of LAST offseason to rest and recover and it didn't seemingly help him. At some point the idea that he is a speed guy who has simply lost a step needs to come into play. Podsednik is a player for whom everything has to be going perfectly for him to be a useful contributor, and it seems unlikely to me that he will be perfectly healthy and in April 2005 condition next year or ever again.

-Juan Uribe is a waste of space at SS. The days of being able to excuse someone for being an awful hitter in the 8 or 9 spot are over, especially in the AL. Yay, Juan had 75 RBI. With the performances of the guys in front of him it amazes me he only had 75 RBI. And if all his swinging from the heels at every ****ty pitch he sees is only getting him 20 HR a year to go with his almost mind-bogglingly bad .257 OBP then I am going to have say that's a bad tradeoff. And his defense, though above-average, is still being overrated from the glow of 2005 and the 9th inning of Game 4 of the World Series.

-We recorded a 3.61 ERA in 2005. That year was Buehrle's best year, exceeding his career ERA by .71. That year was Garland's best year, exceeding his career ERA by .96. That year was Jose's best full year, exceeding his career ERA by .67. That year was Garcia's 3rd best year, exceeding his career ERA by .14. We got once-in-a-lifetime years from Hermanson, Politte, Cotts, and hell even Vizcaino played above his career numbers. To expect the pitching staff, now 2 years older (which is really only a positive for Garland) to duplicate that performance is probably going to lead to disappointment. Especially considering that our 5th starter right now is a guy who has had an ERA of about 4.71 over the last three seasons. If everything breaks positively, this team should be able to put together an ERA around 4.10-4.20 or so.

Thanks for a very well reasoned and thoughtful analysis. That was a particularly good assessment of our pitching staff. I agree with you, and I'm very worried about our rotation, even if we do have a surplus, in terms of quantity. The question is; how do we fix it, at the same time we address the team's other shortcomings?

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 02:24 PM
You don't fix it.

You have to go out there and find the best possible return in value for Garcia or Garland, as both are the most attractive acquisitions for other teams.

Contreras, with an offseason to rehab and take care of his lingering leg and sciatica issues, is at least a 50/50 bet to return to normal, so dealing him now would be difficult and get little in return.

Buehrle is a huge question mark as well...there would probably be just as many GM's who would take Mark Mulder on a one year deal with club option (all incentives) than would take Buehrle at $9.5 million for one year.

Vazquez would be a little more difficult to trade, but would be the third option if I was another GM, after Garland and Garcia.

Of course, the obvious question is doesn't dealing Jon (who we have under control for two more years) weaken the team?

Well, not if 1) he's peaked as an MLB pitcher 2) he gets us a somewhat proven closer like Otsuka and 3) another starter with the capability of being a 2/3 in our rotation, like Danks or Diamond.

The whole key, of course, is acquiring another McCarthy...but hopefully an affordable and workhorse version of Liriano/Santana of the Twins.

Saving the money on two starters would give us the money/payroll flexibility to fix LF/CF/SS.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 02:41 PM
2005 Rangers Team ERA - 4.96 (12th out of 14 AL teams)
2005 National Team ERA - 3.87 (4th out of 16 NL teams)
2006 Nationals Team ERA - 5.03 (16th out of 16 NL teams)

Yup, it's Soriano's fault his teams lost, and that the Nats went down last year.

I don't recall stating that it was Soriano's fault that is his teams lost. I was just trying to convey to the people on this board that seem to be a little frustrated about the Cubs moves and lack of Sox moves that Soriano isn't the Cubs ticket to a World Series Championship. In his career, he has never been a differnce maker or a guy that can carry a team on his back, like a Reggie Jackson, Albert Pujols or even for one season like Dick Allen in 1972. The Cubs have a real need for starting pitchers and a dependable closer. It would have made a whole lot more sense for them to spend the $136M on those needs instead of giving it to one player that has never been a difference maker or even a great guy to have in the clubhouse.

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 02:47 PM
Magglio and Lee=$23 million

El Duque, Pods, AJ, Dye, Hermanson, Iguchi=LESS

The Cubs will never learn. This was was dumber than the A-Rod deal, because 1) Soriano is aging and a speed player, 2) he's not even a very good outfielder and 3) his OBP's and strikeouts are lousy patterns for a leadoff hitter, 4) he doesn't play SS or C, and he's certainly "iffy" at best in CF. And, they already ruined/wasted their cheap/younger/affordable CFer in Patterson!!! This is like selling off an underperforming mutual fund for the one that had the best return last year...it's a double-hit.

See Granderson, Curtis. Yes, Granderson helped the Tigers to the World Series...but it was their pitching that really got them there, and their lack of patience, low OBP's and high K rate finally caught up with them...along with the defensive miscues.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-20-2006, 03:12 PM
I think its telling that the Sox appear to be involved in nearly 3/4 of the trade rumors out there. The bosses aren't standing pat.

That's what I think. Kenny could be trying to up the price for our extra(s) SP a little, considering how much some of these overated FA's are going for.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 03:15 PM
I don't recall stating that it was Soriano's fault that is his teams lost. I was just trying to convey to the people on this board that seem to be a little frustrated about the Cubs moves and lack of Sox moves that Soriano isn't the Cubs ticket to a World Series Championship. In his career, he has never been a differnce maker or a guy that can carry a team on his back, like a Reggie Jackson, Albert Pujols or even for one season like Dick Allen in 1972. The Cubs have a real need for starting pitchers and a dependable closer. It would have made a whole lot more sense for them to spend the $136M on those needs instead of giving it to one player that has never been a difference maker or even a great guy to have in the clubhouse.
No player can carry a team on his back for a season, no matter how romantic your notion of him might be. Albert Pujols had a great season, but he still led his team to a barely over .500 season.

Your line was "Here is the answer: Because Soriano is not a difference maker in a team's won/loss record." I would say that it is impossible to tell what he will do for a team when he is surrounded with such ****ty pitching. Was he a difference maker for the Yankees when they went to the World Series with him? If you are not going to give him credit since they had plenty of other guys, you kind of have to extend the same thing to him going the other way.

soxinem1
11-20-2006, 03:25 PM
I guess this means that the cubs do not see such a great future for their current version of Mike Harkey, Ty Griffin, Lance Dickson, and Corey patterson (and all the other failed cubspects), which is Felix Pie.

If Fonz is in CF for EIGHT (yeah, right!) years, where does Pie go? Maybe Tampa Bay, perhaps?

caulfield12
11-20-2006, 03:27 PM
You're forgetting Kevin Orie, Bobby Hill, Gary Scott, Dwight Smith and Jerome Walton.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 05:00 PM
No player can carry a team on his back for a season, no matter how romantic your notion of him might be. Albert Pujols had a great season, but he still led his team to a barely over .500 season.

Your line was "Here is the answer: Because Soriano is not a difference maker in a team's won/loss record." I would say that it is impossible to tell what he will do for a team when he is surrounded with such ****ty pitching. Was he a difference maker for the Yankees when they went to the World Series with him? If you are not going to give him credit since they had plenty of other guys, you kind of have to extend the same thing to him going the other way.

So are you saying Soriano is worth the $136M and he will make a difference with the Cubs? If so, I disagree with you and, quite frankly, I really don't care if you disagree with me. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion. By the way, ask some older baseball fans if Dick Allen's 1972 season and Carl Yastrzemski's 1967 was just a "romantic notion". Let's just continue to disagree and move on from here.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 05:26 PM
Obviously, pitching makes the difference, but I think his point is Soriano isn't going to fix the big problem the Cubs have in the rotation.

Samram: Thanks for understanding what I meant. I never stated it was Soriano's FAULT that his teams were losing. Spiffie was putting words in my mouth, so to speak. My point was that Soriano did not make a difference on mediocre teams such as the Rangers and Nationals; thus, I don't see him making a difference on a mediocre Cubs team. Obviously, Texas and Washington had some pitching problems but so do the Cubs. Soriano is not going to fix the Cubs pitching problems. Now with spending $136M on Soriano and talk of signing Cliff Floyd, that will probably leave the Cubs with little to spend on much needed pitching.

ChiSoxLifer
11-20-2006, 05:36 PM
Let's put it this way. If the White Sox don't win the World Series and follow that up with a 90 win season, the Cubs DON'T sign Soriano. South side success, trash on the field, empty green seats, oh yah, and 96 losses embarrassed the Tribune co. into signing Soriano to that ridiculous contract.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2006, 05:46 PM
Rick Morrissey apparently agrees with you (his column today)

Lip

MUsoxfan
11-20-2006, 05:52 PM
Let's put it this way. If the White Sox don't win the World Series and follow that up with a 90 win season, the Cubs DON'T sign Soriano. South side success, trash on the field, empty green seats, oh yah, and 96 losses embarrassed the Tribune co. into signing Soriano to that ridiculous contract.

According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/sports/baseball/20chass.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin), they may just feel they're spending other peoples money at this point.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 07:19 PM
Samram: Thanks for understanding what I meant. I never stated it was Soriano's FAULT that his teams were losing. Spiffie was putting words in my mouth, so to speak. My point was that Soriano did not make a difference on mediocre teams such as the Rangers and Nationals; thus, I don't see him making a difference on a mediocre Cubs team. Obviously, Texas and Washington had some pitching problems but so do the Cubs. Soriano is not going to fix the Cubs pitching problems. Now with spending $136M on Soriano and talk of signing Cliff Floyd, that will probably leave the Cubs with little to spend on much needed pitching.
And once again, you make a statement you cannot prove in any way shape or form, one which is untrue. I would say it is infinitely more likely that Soriano made a vast difference. The problem is that the difference was taking a team that would have finished with an awful record and helped them finish with a less awful record. And lest I be again accused of putting words in your mouth, here is your exact quote:
Because Soriano is not a difference maker in a team's won/loss record.

That was the quote I argued with. If you had said "Soriano won't lead them to the playoffs without an upgrade to the pitching staff." I would have nodded my head as I read it and moved on. Because I don't think he will lead them to a division unless they find some pitching or a bunch of young kids develop all at once like the Tigers had happen this year.

And yes, the notion that one great player is able to carry a group of scrubs to greatness is a romantic one. Dick Allen had an absolutely awesome year in 1972. An OPS of 1.023. Amazing year (though in OPS terms not even his best season). And his team came in second place. With Carlos May hitting 308/405/438 and stealing 23 bases (making the all-star team). With Pat Kelly stealing 32 bases and getting on at a 355 clip (making the all-star team that year). With Wilbur Wood coming in 2nd in the Cy Young voting, 7th in the MVP voting, and making the all star team. With Terry Forster saving 29 games with a 2.25 ERA. So, if a team with 4 All-Stars and 3 guys in the top 30 of the MVP voting was carried by one man, well, I guess we're using different definitions of the word.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 07:49 PM
And once again, you make a statement you cannot prove in any way shape or form, one which is untrue. I would say it is infinitely more likely that Soriano made a vast difference. The problem is that the difference was taking a team that would have finished with an awful record and helped them finish with a less awful record. And lest I be again accused of putting words in your mouth, here is your exact quote:


That was the quote I argued with. If you had said "Soriano won't lead them to the playoffs without an upgrade to the pitching staff." I would have nodded my head as I read it and moved on. Because I don't think he will lead them to a division unless they find some pitching or a bunch of young kids develop all at once like the Tigers had happen this year.

And yes, the notion that one great player is able to carry a group of scrubs to greatness is a romantic one. Dick Allen had an absolutely awesome year in 1972. An OPS of 1.023. Amazing year (though in OPS terms not even his best season). And his team came in second place. With Carlos May hitting 308/405/438 and stealing 23 bases (making the all-star team). With Pat Kelly stealing 32 bases and getting on at a 355 clip (making the all-star team that year). With Wilbur Wood coming in 2nd in the Cy Young voting, 7th in the MVP voting, and making the all star team. With Terry Forster saving 29 games with a 2.25 ERA. So, if a team with 4 All-Stars and 3 guys in the top 30 of the MVP voting was carried by one man, well, I guess we're using different definitions of the word.

Saying that Soriano did not make a difference in a teams win/loss record and saying that it was Soriano's fault that his team lost games is NOT the same thing. Learn how to read. Also, take a good look at the rest of the 1972 White Sox team (i.e. Mike Andrews, Rich Morales, Luis Alvarado, Jay Johnstone, Rick Reichardt) and tell me you see a contending team there without Dick Allen. Now get off my back with your total nonsense. Again, I don't give a damn what you think and I willl not respond to anymore of your twisted resposes.

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 08:18 PM
[quote=spiffie;1416452]And once again, you make a statement you cannot prove in any way shape or form, one which is untrue. I would say it is infinitely more likely that Soriano made a vast difference. The problem is that the difference was taking a team that would have finished with an awful record and helped them finish with a less awful record.

Spiffie: This is my last response to you. You state that I made a statement that I cannot prove (I have no idea to which statement you are referring). Then you make the statement that it is infinitely more likely Soriano made a vast difference by taking a team that would have finished with an awful record and helped them finish with a less awful record. Can you prove that in any way shape or form? I would say that statement is untrue. Prove me wrong.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 09:29 PM
Saying that Soriano did not make a difference in a teams win/loss record and saying that it was Soriano's fault that his team lost games is NOT the same thing. Learn how to read. Also, take a good look at the rest of the 1972 White Sox team (i.e. Mike Andrews, Rich Morales, Luis Alvarado, Jay Johnstone, Rick Reichardt) and tell me you see a contending team there without Dick Allen. Now get off my back with your total nonsense. Again, I don't give a damn what you think and I willl not respond to anymore of your twisted resposes.
I'm trying to get the hang of this reading thing I swear. I have most of the letters down, it's just those ones at the end that confuse me.

Awww...don't be grumpy, it's almost Thanksgiving! And I did take a look at the 1972 team, and I saw exactly what you just said. They wouldn't have made it into second place without Dick Allen. Or Wilbur Wood. Or likely Carlos May. Or likely Stan Bahnsen. I don't think if you replaced those last folks with guys like you just mentioned that they come in second no matter how well Dick Allen played.

Flight #24
11-20-2006, 09:43 PM
Samram: Thanks for understanding what I meant. I never stated it was Soriano's FAULT that his teams were losing. Spiffie was putting words in my mouth, so to speak. My point was that Soriano did not make a difference on mediocre teams such as the Rangers and Nationals; thus, I don't see him making a difference on a mediocre Cubs team. Obviously, Texas and Washington had some pitching problems but so do the Cubs. Soriano is not going to fix the Cubs pitching problems. Now with spending $136M on Soriano and talk of signing Cliff Floyd, that will probably leave the Cubs with little to spend on much needed pitching.

If I might paraphrase: This signing significantly improves the Cubs. It probably doesn't do so enough to make them a real contender though. While I would ordinarily have thought that they could spend $17M/yr in a more effective fashion, I'm currently not so sure since it seems that this year may be a significant upward movement in FA costs. So it may not be the case that you could effectively sign 2 good starters instead of Sori.

spiffie
11-20-2006, 09:45 PM
Spiffie: This is my last response to you. You state that I made a statement that I cannot prove (I have no idea to which statement you are referring). Then you make the statement that it is infinitely more likely Soriano made a vast difference by taking a team that would have finished with an awful record and helped them finish with a less awful record. Can you prove that in any way shape or form? I would say that statement is untrue. Prove me wrong.
No fair, you said the last post was your final response to me. Your statement was Soriano made no difference. Once again, our only argument comes in how you define a difference. If you say "Soriano doesn't make them division champs" we agree, and all this anger you seem to be feeling goes away.

But you're right, my statement is also quite hard to prove. I could argue simply that common sense would say that having a player of Soriano's stats is most likely much more helpful to them last year than if they had a callup from AAA in his spot, or even an average major league player. I might say let's compare their production in 2005, where they scored 107 more runs with only 2 major changes in their lineup (both of which were important, as Ryan Zimmerman was a major change). Surprisingly according to all the defensive metrics the LF position was stronger defensively with Soriano in 2006 than the assortment of guys who played the position in 2005. But you're right. I cannot prove that the Nats would have won less games with Marlon Byrd in LF than Alfonso Soriano. I can only say it seems as likely to me as the Sox would have been better off with Timo Perez at DH than Jim Thome.

ondafarm
11-20-2006, 09:47 PM
A word or two about the Flubs. Last year, IMO, they were a pretty boring team. Once Lee went down they had very little pop, everybody pitched around Aramis and their starting pitching was cobbled together. Their attendance was down.

I don't see anything they do this offseason, apart from spending like the yankee$ making them a contender. So when you are down, you sign an exciting guy or two and bring some kids up. Aramis will cost you more games with his glove than Crede (by a long shot) but he will also hit a few homeruns. Double that for Soriano. Lee will be back and he should add more excitement. They have some interesting rookies who will make mistakes but also play more exciting baseball. The Flubs will make money this next year. Great for them.

As a White Sox fan, I hope the Sox take 6 off the exciting Flubs. The Sox are contenders and need just a bit of fine tuning. Finding the right guy is harder than finding one big exciting hitter or two. The Sox need to make one big trade this winter. Just one, but they need to get it exactly right. I am not frustrated at all. KW is taking his time, working the phones and hopefully coming up with the right guys. Upgrades needed, in order: RP , LF, SS, BUC, CF. Or maybe RP, RP, LF, SS, RP, BUC, CF.

TaylorStSox
11-20-2006, 09:53 PM
It's official. I'm dumber than I was 4 minutes ago. :?:

Chipol
11-20-2006, 10:26 PM
That's what I think. Kenny could be trying to up the price for our extra(s) SP a little, considering how much some of these overated FA's are going for.

I can also see a scenario where the inflated FA contracts work against us. After all, we are looking to deal based on the logic that McCarthy at $350k can deliver the same outcome as Garcia/Vasquez/etc. at $10 - 12M. So what if Texas sits back and says, Danks at $350k can do the same thing for me as Vasquez/Garcia?

Goodman6
11-20-2006, 11:00 PM
[quote=spiffie;1416563]No fair, you said the last post was your final response to me. Your statement was Soriano made no difference. Once again, our only argument comes in how you define a difference. If you say "Soriano doesn't make them division champs" we agree, and all this anger you seem to be feeling goes away.

Call me a liar for saying I won't respond to you anymore, but now that you seem to be less attacking, I can now respond to you in a nice way. I am not angry, I just felt like I was being deposed by a slick attorney. Geez.... I was afraid to type anything as you seemed to be hanging on every word.

Yes, I agree with you that I don't think Soriano makes the Cubs division champs............... without improving the pitching rotation and getting a reliable closer.

Obviously, I do care what you think as I wouldn't have answered your posts if I didn't. Have a great Thanksgiving and let's just hope we can celebrate with our White Sox again next October.

Tragg
11-20-2006, 11:06 PM
Wait for the winter meetings in a few weeks...that's when Williams will open for business.
Knowing myself, I'll probably wish he hadn't, but we need to make some moves.

What's the deal with Uribe and his legal troubles? Do we officially need a shortstop or not?

caulfield12
11-21-2006, 07:08 AM
I can also see a scenario where the inflated FA contracts work against us. After all, we are looking to deal based on the logic that McCarthy at $350k can deliver the same outcome as Garcia/Vasquez/etc. at $10 - 12M. So what if Texas sits back and says, Danks at $350k can do the same thing for me as Vasquez/Garcia?

The problem is that Texas is losing Padilla and their pitching is a joke. They don't have four quality starters right now...or even two.

So they're not in the same position as the Sox, to bring in one pitching prospect. There's not the same pressure on McCarthy as there would be on Danks to "save the team." Look at the A's and Angels, the Rangers know what they're up against, they can't start the year with Millwood, Rheinecker and Koronka....and I'm pretty sure they lose Eaton too. Which sucks, because they had a young, affordable Chris Young and they dumped him.

The Rangers can't afford to go with a total youth movement after Millwood.

Flight #24
11-21-2006, 09:50 AM
I can also see a scenario where the inflated FA contracts work against us. After all, we are looking to deal based on the logic that McCarthy at $350k can deliver the same outcome as Garcia/Vasquez/etc. at $10 - 12M. So what if Texas sits back and says, Danks at $350k can do the same thing for me as Vasquez/Garcia?

McCarthy has shown he can be an effective major league starter. Danks has not. McCarthy is also slated to be the #5 starter on a team with 4 horses who can each go for 200+IP. Danks would probably be the #3 on the Texas staff right now, not because he's that good but because their pitching sucks.

If they have any hope of contending, they need to get a solid veteran or 3 in. In this market, that's kind of tough to do, which makes Garcia/Vazquez/Buehrle pretty attractive.

INSox56
11-21-2006, 10:10 AM
Wait for the winter meetings in a few weeks...that's when Williams will open for business.
Knowing myself, I'll probably wish he hadn't, but we need to make some moves.

What's the deal with Uribe and his legal troubles? Do we officially need a shortstop or not?

Uribe was cleared of all charges. Merkin today on the sox page said that he doesn't believe Young will be going anywhere, so I don't see us with anyone but Uribe in 2006...unnnnnfortunately.

rwcescato
11-21-2006, 10:11 PM
Ask yourself one question, would you trade our entire team for the Cubs entire team (inc. Soriano) right now. If the answer is "no", then KW and his staff are doing just fine. If the answer is "yes", then Hendry and his stafff are doing better. I vote for KW. What do you vote for?

IOW, if you are the long standing GM of a sorry no-account high payroll last place team, the Urinal's fans are starting to not attend games, the Corporate bosses are eager to look good, and you are lucky to have survived the purge that cost the job of both the President and the Manager you would do almost anything to look like you are doing something.

I have great faith in Kenny. We are doing just fine.

I also know that if we took the entire team we have now, that we can still win the World series. Besides Pods has a good year every other year. In 2007 I bet he has a good year.