PDA

View Full Version : Do the Math


bmwal
01-06-2007, 10:46 AM
addition by subtraction
Politte, lost how many games?
Kotts, how many?
How many games were the WS out of the division?

Now we have McDougal for a whole season
We have Konerko healthy
We have a LEGIT backup catcher who hits around 300 against lefties
Is that at least a ten game swing?

we have a bullpen that should limit the wear and tear on our starters
all we need is a SS that isnt a pain in the ass both at bat and off the field
and most of all we won't need Macowiak playing center.
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny? With all these new pitchers in abundance and Texas looking for Pitching badly Put 2 and 2 together you get WHAT?

ilsox7
01-06-2007, 10:48 AM
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny? With all these new pitchers in abundance and Texas looking for Pitching badly Put 2 and 2 together you get WHAT?

You don't get Young.

esbrechtel
01-06-2007, 10:56 AM
as much as i would love to have young, what are we going to do trade their pitching prospects back to them?

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 10:59 AM
addition by subtraction
Politte, lost how many games?
Kotts, how many?
How many games were the WS out of the division?

Now we have McDougal for a whole season
We have Konerko healthy
We have a LEGIT backup catcher who hits around 300 against lefties
Is that at least a ten game swing?

we have a bullpen that should limit the wear and tear on our starters
all we need is a SS that isnt a pain in the ass both at bat and off the field
and most of all we won't need Macowiak playing center.
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny? With all these new pitchers in abundance and Texas looking for Pitching badly Put 2 and 2 together you get WHAT?

Yes, and Dye, Konerko or Thome might get hurt, Thornton could regress (or Jenks), Pods might be stuck in 2006 form, Anderson hits .240 with 8 homers and 42 RBI's....we're not a 100 win team unless Buehrle and Contreras both go out and win 20+.

And we just traded with the Rangers, any pitchers we have to give up would be question marks, unless you want to trade one of our horses...and that doesn't make sense, because the odds are pretty high that Uribe will be our starting SS this season.

There are a ton of players that might look good on our roster, but we're not in a position to go out and trade for them, and we'd be paying too much if we did.

jabrch
01-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Caufield - why are you so negative about everything?

ondafarm
01-06-2007, 11:29 AM
Caufield - why are you so negative about everything?

He's getting my season :violin::violin::violin:

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 11:43 AM
Caufield - why are you so negative about everything?

I don't find him being negative. It is fairly baseless to assume that since Player A has been replaced with Player B for the upcoming season, that Result C will occur.

That being said, I'm pretty excited about the upcoming season.

downstairs
01-06-2007, 11:46 AM
I don't find him being negative. It is fairly baseless to assume that since Player A has been replaced with Player B for the upcoming season, that Result C will occur.

That being said, I'm pretty excited about the upcoming season.


Exactly! The negativity and positivity has become foolish. Sure, you gotta speculate... but wow, I've read so many baseless scenarios on here its giving me a headache.

This season is filled with question marks- but those are both possibly good and possibly bad.

In the end.... That's why they play the games.

soxwon
01-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Yes, and Dye, Konerko or Thome might get hurt, Thornton could regress (or Jenks), Pods might be stuck in 2006 form, Anderson hits .240 with 8 homers and 42 RBI's....we're not a 100 win team unless Buehrle and Contreras both go out and win 20+.



i see the glass is half empty!!!!

WizardsofOzzie
01-06-2007, 11:57 AM
addition by subtraction
Politte, lost how many games?
Kotts, how many?
How many games were the WS out of the division?

Now we have McDougal for a whole season
We have Konerko healthy
We have a LEGIT backup catcher who hits around 300 against lefties
Is that at least a ten game swing?

we have a bullpen that should limit the wear and tear on our starters
all we need is a SS that isnt a pain in the ass both at bat and off the field
and most of all we won't need Macowiak playing center.
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny? With all these new pitchers in abundance and Texas looking for Pitching badly Put 2 and 2 together you get WHAT?
Is that spelled that way because he signed with the Kubs? :redneck

ondafarm
01-06-2007, 12:21 PM
Yes, and Dye, Konerko or Thome might get hurt, Thornton could regress (or Jenks), Pods might be stuck in 2006 form, Anderson hits .240 with 8 homers and 42 RBI's....we're not a 100 win team unless Buehrle and Contreras both go out and win 20+. . .

Caufield, I see you as a glass is half broken and smashed kind of guy.

jabrch
01-06-2007, 03:12 PM
I don't find him being negative.

His response to the post (which essentially said we still look like a contender - a statement nobody should be disputing) by saying, "Yes, and Dye, Konerko or Thome might get hurt,"

If that's not negative, then I have no idea what is.

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:19 PM
His response to the post (which essentially said we still look like a contender - a statement nobody should be disputing) by saying, "Yes, and Dye, Konerko or Thome might get hurt,"

If that's not negative, then I have no idea what is.

Its not being negative, its being rational and is a perfectly acceptable response to someone stating that the 2007 team will be better than the 2006 team because of an improved bullpen. A long term injury to a Dye, Thome or Konerko player can put the hurt on a team pretty quickly. And who's to say the bullpen will be better? The bullpen isn't even set yet. I mean, remember how excited some people were about the bullpen at the start of the 2006 season? Who knew that Cotts and Politte would totally melt down?

I want Mags back
01-06-2007, 03:22 PM
[quote=bmwal;1456330
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny? [/quote]

What is a World Series uniform

please dont use WS to abbriviate White Sox
WS means World Series

type one more letter and use SOX. not difficult

no one calls us the WS's they call us the Sox. we arent gonna confuse it with the red sox if u ddont use a W, so just use SOX

itsnotrequired
01-06-2007, 03:25 PM
What is a World Series uniform

please dont use WS to abbriviate White Sox
WS means World Series

type one more letter and use SOX. not difficult

no one calls us the WS's they call us the Sox. we arent gonna confuse it with the red sox if u ddont use a W, so just use SOX

I'm sure your extremely easy to understand post will set him on the right path.

:rolleyes:

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:00 PM
Everyone FORGETS we were the least injured team in baseball the last two seasons.

Is that going to hold up forever? Remember when every pitcher we had (seemingly) was injured from 2000-2002?

Seriously, I would love to be able to confidently predict (see OP) that this was a 100 win team, but I can't credibly predict this with Floyd/Haeger as the #5 and without even seeing how Buehrle and Contreras look in ST.

Is Jenks going to become the 2nd or 3rd best reliever in the game? I think he was better than most of us expected last year. Is Thornton "real" or is he another Cotts waiting to happen?

There's just way too many question marks right now. Are we better positioned for 2008/09/10? Yeah, sure. But I'm not convinced how we are better (for this season) with Luis Terrero, the questions hanging over Uribe, the #5 spot, BA, Pods...Vazquez has been moved to 4 from 5, etc.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:09 PM
Caufield - why are you so negative about everything?

This goes for "ondafarm" too...

You're telling me you EXPECT the White Sox to win 100 games this year, and anything that doesn't lead to that apparently foregone conclusion is being a "dark cloud" or pessimistic?

Well, we might as well just start printing the World Series tickets right now.

Oops, didn't we say the same things last January?

Nothing is guaranteed in baseball, least of all a team's health. While I don't see how the Cubs have a better chance to win the Series, I'm not EXPECTING the Sox to win it either. HOPING, sure.

jabrch
01-06-2007, 04:48 PM
This goes for "ondafarm" too...

You're telling me you EXPECT the White Sox to win 100 games this year, and anything that doesn't lead to that apparently foregone conclusion is being a "dark cloud" or pessimistic?

Well, we might as well just start printing the World Series tickets right now.

Oops, didn't we say the same things last January?

Nothing is guaranteed in baseball, least of all a team's health. While I don't see how the Cubs have a better chance to win the Series, I'm not EXPECTING the Sox to win it either. HOPING, sure.

I don't expect this team to win 100 games. Nobody should expect that because only one or two teams do. I expect this team to be a contender. That's it. 88, 90, 95, 100, whatever. And they are a contender; in fact, a one of the better of the contenders. But I'm certainly not going to predict Sox injuryies to dampen someone elses optimism and I'm certainly not going to predict gloom when there is no reason for it.

If you try to be negative so you can either be pleasantly surprised by a WS winner, or if not say you were right, then congrats. You win. But there is absolutely no reason to logically be as negative about everything when there are no reasons to. For crying out loud a Pittsburgh Pirates fan should sound like you. A Royals fan should sound like you. Your team is still a contender, in fact still one of the favorites (top 10 for sure) to win it all.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 04:58 PM
I don't expect this team to win 100 games. Nobody should expect that because only one or two teams do. I expect this team to be a contender. That's it. 88, 90, 95, 100, whatever. And they are a contender; in fact, a one of the better of the contenders. But I'm certainly not going to predict Sox injuryies to dampen someone elses optimism and I'm certainly not going to predict gloom when there is no reason for it.

If you try to be negative so you can either be pleasantly surprised by a WS winner, or if not say you were right, then congrats. You win. But there is absolutely no reason to logically be as negative about everything when there are no reasons to. For crying out loud a Pittsburgh Pirates fan should sound like you. A Royals fan should sound like you. Your team is still a contender, in fact still one of the favorites (top 10 for sure) to win it all.

I would say 75% of the posts here about the two pitching trades were "negative" towards KW.

You will find not one negative word or post (from me) with anything but praise for KW in any of those discussions.

I just think it's a little rose-colored thinking to believe we'll win 100 games. It would be like if I believed as a Chiefs fans they were about to score 28 points in the 2nd half after not getting a first down in the first half. It's simply not realistic thinking.

It we had more "pragmatic/realistic" Colin Powells in our government who just don't sit there and drink the "Kool-Aid," we wouldn't be in such a terrible mess today. It's better to challenge the conventional thinking than to be led like sheep over the side of a hill into a river.

jabrch
01-06-2007, 05:06 PM
I would say 75% of the posts here about the two pitching trades were "negative" towards KW.

So what? First off, the # of posts that were negative came from an overwhelmingly small number of posters; and in partiuclar from a number of posters that haven't been around here for long. Second, I would never want to be compared to the bottom 75% of this board. If you are OK with that - that's cool. Third, I am talking about your posts, not anyone elses. Why bring them into the picture? You bitch about a team that is a contender. I don't get it.

I just think it's a little rose-colored thinking to believe we'll win 100 games. It would be like if I believed as a Chiefs fans they were about to score 28 points in the 2nd half after not getting a first down in the first half. It's simply not realistic thinking.

YOU WERE THE FIRST PERSON IN THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT 100 GAMES. What in the hell are you talking about?

100 games is not what we are/should be shooting for. It's making the post season.


It we had more "pragmatic/realistic" Colin Powells in our government who just don't sit there and drink the "Kool-Aid," we wouldn't be in such a terrible mess today. It's better to challenge the conventional thinking than to be led like sheep over the side of a hill into a river.

Your political views on our "mess" is unintersting to me. And your assessment that Politics and White Sox Baseball are comparable based on the fans views and the ignorance of politicians and voters is outlandishly ridiculous. Finally, your point that there are these "Kool-Aid" drinking fans that have some tremendous negative impact on the team is assinine also. The outcome of the game has little to do with if the fans come to a message board and bitch.

You win Caufield - I'm done arguing with you. You can be as negative as you want. I hope that your campaign to rid Sox-fans of the optimism makes you happy in some twisted sort of way. For me, it won't impact me anymore - cuz I won't see it.

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 05:10 PM
"Now we have McDougal for a whole season
We have Konerko healthy
We have a LEGIT backup catcher who hits around 300 against lefties
Is that at least a ten game swing?"

FROM OPENING POST...

90 + 10=100

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 05:15 PM
So what? First off, the # of posts that were negative came from an overwhelmingly small number of posters; and in partiuclar from a number of posters that haven't been around here for long. Second, I would never want to be compared to the bottom 75% of this board. If you are OK with that - that's cool. Third, I am talking about your posts, not anyone elses. Why bring them into the picture? You bitch about a team that is a contender. I don't get it.


If you are KW, do you PLAN on our team being as healthy this year as it was in 2005 and 2006?

In 2001 and 2004, we were exposed.

In 2007, what happens if one of our starters goes down to injury (Top 4 pitchers, or Konerko/Thome/Dye)? Do we have ENOUGH to sustain that type of loss?

The Twins managed to cover up injuries to both Radke and Liriano, the Tigers with Maroth and Polanco and D. Young, we'll see if KW has enough.

It's certainly debateable whether we have enough in Cintron as well as LF and CF.


YOU WERE THE FIRST PERSON IN THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT 100 GAMES. What in the hell are you talking about?

100 games is not what we are/should be shooting for. It's making the post season.

If you are KW, do you PLAN on our team being as healthy this year as it was in 2005 and 2006?

In 2001 and 2004, we were exposed.

In 2007, what happens if one of our starters goes down to injury (Top 4 pitchers, or Konerko/Thome/Dye)? Do we have ENOUGH to sustain that type of loss?

The Twins managed to cover up injuries to both Radke and Liriano, the Tigers with Maroth and Polanco and D. Young, we'll see if KW has enough.

It's certainly debateable whether we have enough in Cintron as well as LF and CF. Was KW "being negative" when he had McCarthy in the pen as insurance for the starters? It's always good to be ahead of the curve, even if we didn't have any pitching injuries last year, it doesn't mean we will have the same luck this year.

Hitmen77
01-06-2007, 05:43 PM
Everyone FORGETS we were the least injured team in baseball the last two seasons.

Is that going to hold up forever? Remember when every pitcher we had (seemingly) was injured from 2000-2002?



I don't believe that because we had few injuries in '05 and '06, that means our odds are greater in '07 for injuries because "we're due".

If we're going to play that game then what happens to the Tigers if Rogers (age 42), Maggs (bad knee), and IRod (age 35) go down with injuries?

What happens if the Twins lose Mauer, Morneau or Santana? When was the last time Santana was injured? Isn't he due? Or what if Mauer and Morneau stay healthy but come down to earth a little after a monster season?

What happens if the Indians lose C.C. Sabathia for an extended period.


Injuries can happen to anyone and are mostly hard to predict (unless you're talking about someone like Griffey or Prior). Is there any reason to believe the Sox are more at risk from injury or less able to cover for them than our division rivals?

caulfield12
01-06-2007, 05:50 PM
So what? First off, the # of posts that were negative came from an overwhelmingly small number of posters; and in partiuclar from a number of posters that haven't been around here for long. Second, I would never want to be compared to the bottom 75% of this board. If you are OK with that - that's cool. Third, I am talking about your posts, not anyone elses. Why bring them into the picture? You bitch about a team that is a contender. I don't get it.



YOU WERE THE FIRST PERSON IN THIS THREAD TO TALK ABOUT 100 GAMES. What in the hell are you talking about?

100 games is not what we are/should be shooting for. It's making the post season.




Your political views on our "mess" is unintersting to me. And your assessment that Politics and White Sox Baseball are comparable based on the fans views and the ignorance of politicians and voters is outlandishly ridiculous. Finally, your point that there are these "Kool-Aid" drinking fans that have some tremendous negative impact on the team is assinine also. The outcome of the game has little to do with if the fans come to a message board and bitch.

You win Caufield - I'm done arguing with you. You can be as negative as you want. I hope that your campaign to rid Sox-fans of the optimism makes you happy in some twisted sort of way. For me, it won't impact me anymore - cuz I won't see it.

At least spell asinine correctly. Second, you jump all over me about who started to the "100 game comments" since you apparently didn't notice that was the argument of the originating post...oh, well.

I do think my comparison is relevant. There are plenty of parallels. Anyone who questions the prevailing wisdom is vilified or attacked for being too negative or a dark cloud. I personally prefer boards where there is a more reasonable interchange of ideas. It's certainly your priviledge only to listen to those who agree with you or always say positive things about the White Sox, once again, that's your decision.

maurice
01-08-2007, 04:02 PM
I'm not convinced that we were all that healthy in 2005. I know that caulfield didn't mean it this way, but that's an often used shot against the 2005 team from folks who argue that our success was pure luck.

During the course of the 2005 season, the Sox:
- Lost their HOF DH, got him back briefly (34 games), and then lost him again
- Lost their 3B to chronic back problems but got him back in the nick of time
- Had their leadoff hitter significantly limited by injury for about half the season
- Lost their veteran closer and were forced to rely on an unproven AA pitcher
- Lost a veteran starter and were forced to rely on an unproven pitcher for 10 starts;
got the veteran back but then lost him again to injury during the playoffs
There also was the Marte mystery injury situation. That's not the portrait of an unusually healthy team, IMO. Had the Sox just missed the playoffs, we'd be citing these injuries as the reason we fell short.

As for the 4 veteran starters now on the team, it's reasonable to expect each of them to pitch 190+ innings. Their injury history (or lack thereof) to date is not luck. They're simply horses, IMO. The rest of the roster does contain a handful of injury concerns, OTOH.

ondafarm
01-08-2007, 04:40 PM
As a former player, I can say that a lot of injuries can be prevented by resting guys on a regular schedule. Sure, one sees catcalls about why can't professional athletes play every day, but the truth is that everybody gets worn down over the course of a long season. Regular rest helps everybody perform at their highest level, especially at the end of the season and when you are rested you are much less likely to injure yourself. Freakish accidents can still occur but those are actually incredibly rare if a guy is in optimal playing condition and that especially means mentally sharp.

Ozzie seems to know and understand this and even though he takes a lot of heat for his Sunday, get-away day lineups, he probably wins the Sox five to ten more games because his players are rested throughout the season.

I, myself, caught more than 100 games for three straight seasons and my injuries both occurred when I was not mentally sharp and instead exhausted.

ohiosoxfan12
01-10-2007, 07:19 PM
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny?

Yes......Young would look real good in chicago. Doubt it happens, but we could deff. use him.

digdagdug23
01-10-2007, 08:08 PM
Wouldn't Michael Young look good in a WS uniform Kenny?

Yes......Young would look real good in chicago. Doubt it happens, but we could deff. use him.

**** in one hand; wish in the other, see which one fills up first.

PaulDrake
01-10-2007, 09:24 PM
I would say 75% of the posts here about the two pitching trades were "negative" towards KW.

You will find not one negative word or post (from me) with anything but praise for KW in any of those discussions.

I just think it's a little rose-colored thinking to believe we'll win 100 games. It would be like if I believed as a Chiefs fans they were about to score 28 points in the 2nd half after not getting a first down in the first half. It's simply not realistic thinking.

It we had more "pragmatic/realistic" Colin Powells in our government who just don't sit there and drink the "Kool-Aid," we wouldn't be in such a terrible mess today. It's better to challenge the conventional thinking than to be led like sheep over the side of a hill into a river. For me that would be General Shinseki. Back to baseball, a most unpredictable sport. The Sox have a number of veteran everyday players who need to remain healthy and productive. Contreras and Buehrle need to show that the second half of 06 was just a brief aberration. The bullpen must be improved and at least one or two of those newly acquired "arms" must show some real promise. It could all happen. I'm one of those not cool with KWs off season moves, but admire his candor and aggresiveness. I hope it all pays off, and further hope that the Jim Hendrys of the world haven't ruined it for the Jerry Reinsdorfs.