PDA

View Full Version : Mackowiak anyone?


JermaineDye05
10-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Does anyone know what his contract situation is and when he'll be a free agent? I would really like to get him back as I think a lot of people undervalued him. He was probably one of our best bench guys and pinch hitters and more then likely our best base runner not with speed but with instincts. I really think he was the perfect fit for this ball club, him and Pablo Ozuna won a lot of games for us while on that bench. Anyways, if he's a free agent this season I'd really like to see Kenny take a shot at re-signing him.

sox1970
10-11-2007, 03:34 PM
:o:

No way.

Sockinchisox
10-11-2007, 03:43 PM
No, because Ozzie will insist on starting him Vs RHP.

rdwj
10-11-2007, 03:44 PM
Are you his dad?

Huisj
10-11-2007, 04:07 PM
He's a decent player in the right role, but my guess is that he can't really serve that roll on the Sox. He could be good on a team that has a sort of transient lineup where there are a number of guys who are borderline starters and there are lots of semi-platoon opportunities, but those spots don't really exist with the roster the Sox have right now. Plus the temptation for Guillen to make him a full time starter again would be too great.

JermaineDye05
10-11-2007, 04:20 PM
For all the people that don't want Mack on the team because they don't want Ozzie starting him against RHP. Would you rather him use Andy Gonzalez? I didn't think so.

eriqjaffe
10-11-2007, 04:31 PM
For all the people that don't want Mack on the team because they don't want Ozzie starting him against RHP. Would you rather him use Andy Gonzalez? I didn't think so.As long as he's not in center field,

Rob Mackowiak > (Darin Erstad + Andy Gonzalez)

FWIW, the Padres hold a $3.25 million option for 2008.

WSox597
10-11-2007, 04:50 PM
I'd take Mackowiak, in any position but CF. And especially over the two "ballplayers" by the names of Cintron and Gonzalez.

Those two are combination men, can't hit and can't field.

Rob is head and shoulders above both of them. But by his own admission, and his pleas to the manager, he doesn't belong in CF. He knows it, we know it, the only one who didn't know it was the manager. Go figure.

I think there is a contract option for next year for him, which is part of the reason he was traded. That, and nobody else could be hornswoggled into taking either of the other two. Nobody else was that desperate.

Foulke You
10-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Rob is a valuable bench player but he had a pretty awful year for us in '07. He got to play almost every day when Pods and Erstad went down and all he could do with the opportunity was hit .200 with very little power. I'd bring Mack back if he was cheap but I could see an NL team forking over some cash for him because of his value as a pinch hitter. I just don't see a fit on the '08 Sox for a backup corner outfielder. Erstad would make more sense to me since he plays better outfield defense than Mack, can play all 3 outfield positions, and can also play a gold glove 1B.

LITTLE NELL
10-11-2007, 06:18 PM
Macks BA with the Sox was a respectable .278. I would not mind seeing him back.

thomas35forever
10-11-2007, 07:08 PM
Why? We're trying to improve our roster, not go Alomar on somebody.

Huisj
10-11-2007, 07:19 PM
Macks BA with the Sox was a respectable .278. I would not mind seeing him back.

Yeah, and that .278 was the highest BA on the team. He actually started hitting really well when he started playing every day.

Lefty34
10-11-2007, 07:22 PM
I am deeply saddened that some of us White Sox fans out there have been roped into this whole "grinder" motif. Mackowiak is not a grinder in the tradition sense (grinders are usually considered GOOD), rather, he is more of a crappy utility player with a career BA just over .260 and a season-by-season OBP that should make everyone sick to their stomach. And for those of who you do not consider Mack-attack a grinder: congratulations; but that is only the first step.

Sure, Mackowiak hit a stunning .278 with the Sox in 07, but let's also look at his other, more telling stats: .354 OBP (sub par at best), .418 SLG (he had only 13 extra base hits in 237 at-bats) and he walked a mere 23 times, compared with 53 strikeouts. Ladies and gentlemen, these stats aren't just sub par, they are HORRENDOUS! Rob Mackowiak is one of the most horrible baseball players I've ever seen, and I cannot come to think why so many of us think to like him. Listen, think back to this summer, and when you think of a ground-ball out to 2B to end the inning, who do you think of? Rob Mackowiak. He is absolutely horrible, and I hope to God that we never see him in a White Sox uni ever again. Good riddens to a terrible ball player.

Sockinchisox
10-11-2007, 07:26 PM
For all the people that don't want Mack on the team because they don't want Ozzie starting him against RHP. Would you rather him use Andy Gonzalez? I didn't think so.

No, Fields should play every day, and once Fields starts going through a week period of not hitting, Fields will turn into a platoon with Mackowiak, I'm not OK with that.

MarySwiss
10-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Does anyone know what his contract situation is and when he'll be a free agent? I would really like to get him back as I think a lot of people undervalued him. He was probably one of our best bench guys and pinch hitters and more then likely our best base runner not with speed but with instincts. I really think he was the perfect fit for this ball club, him and Pablo Ozuna won a lot of games for us while on that bench. Anyways, if he's a free agent this season I'd really like to see Kenny take a shot at re-signing him.

I agree completely. He's a good role-player who was forced into playing in spots where he was--IMO, anyway--obviously uncomfortable.

JermaineDye05
10-11-2007, 07:33 PM
I am deeply saddened that some of us White Sox fans out there have been roped into this whole "grinder" motif. Mackowiak is not a grinder in the tradition sense (grinders are usually considered GOOD), rather, he is more of a crappy utility player with a career BA just over .260 and a season-by-season OBP that should make everyone sick to their stomach. And for those of who you do not consider Mack-attack a grinder: congratulations; but that is only the first step.

Sure, Mackowiak hit a stunning .278 with the Sox in 07, but let's also look at his other, more telling stats: .354 OBP (sub par at best), .418 SLG (he had only 13 extra base hits in 237 at-bats) and he walked a mere 23 times, compared with 53 strikeouts. Ladies and gentlemen, these stats aren't just sub par, they are HORRENDOUS! Rob Mackowiak is one of the most horrible baseball players I've ever seen, and I cannot come to think why so many of us think to like him. Listen, think back to this summer, and when you think of a ground-ball out to 2B to end the inning, who do you think of? Rob Mackowiak. He is absolutely horrible, and I hope to God that we never see him in a White Sox uni ever again. Good riddens to a terrible ball player.

You are blind. Looking at the everyday stats, doesn't give Rob justice. He's a smart player who is a very good utility man who can play average in the outfield and also at 3rd. He's also a very smart baserunner, have you forgotten how many routine double plays he beat out? or how about all the runs he got us by knowing where his outfielders are and who they are. Don't let your hate for Mack blind you from the fact that he's a darn good bench player. He hit .308 against righties in 2006 with a .365 OBP. I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say he's 'terrible' and 'horrendous' I'd say you have some grudge against Rob not sure what it is though.

JermaineDye05
10-11-2007, 07:35 PM
No, Fields should play every day, and once Fields starts going through a week period of not hitting, Fields will turn into a platoon with Mackowiak, I'm not OK with that.

Fields won't be in left the whole season, expect Crede to be traded and expect to see a new left fielder and Josh the starting 3B.

misty60481
10-11-2007, 08:04 PM
Mack had 19 extra base hits,not bad considering Ozzie had a regular playing CF who could only manage 12 extra base hits in over 120 more at-bats.

ShoelessJoeS
10-11-2007, 08:16 PM
Are you his dad?Lol, this had me rollin'

JB98
10-11-2007, 08:32 PM
I don't understand the Mackowiak hate. People don't want him back because Ozzie "would play him too much."

NEWSFLASH!!!! Ozzie uses his bench A LOT, so I just assume have guys who can play coming off the bench. Mackowiak and Ozuna qualify. Andy Gonzalez and Terrero, not so much.

JorgeFabregas
10-11-2007, 08:51 PM
.358 obp is not sub-par--it's a little above average. A .770 OPS is pretty solid for a bench player.

Huisj
10-11-2007, 09:44 PM
.358 obp is not sub-par--it's a little above average. A .770 OPS is pretty solid for a bench player.

Yeah, .358 is above average for sure for OBP. In fact, it's more than a little above average, it's pretty significantly above average. The OBP for the whole AL this season was .338. I've never heard anyone think a .358 OBP is bad, unless maybe the discussion was about Frank Thomas or Jim Thome.

I think the situation is the opposite of what Lefty34 portrayed in his big post. It's not that some sox fans overvalue him because he's a grinder, it's that Lefty34 drastically undervalues him because doesn't like him, not because he's a bad player. But you know, don't let stats get in the way of personal taste when trying to make an argument about why someone sucks.

Lefty34
10-11-2007, 09:59 PM
If I was to remember how many routine DP's he beat out, I would have to recall how many potential DP's he hit into, which, if you're saying the number he beat out was a big one, then the number he hit into is also a big one. Consider this, what is a better situation: runner on 1st with no outs or a runner on 1st with one out?

Maybe I was overstating it when I said that Mack is "terrible", but he certainly isn't someone that deserves to be given a great free agent contract just because he can kinda get on base sometimes (.358 OBP won't land you on any Billy Beane squad).

champagne030
10-11-2007, 10:06 PM
No, because Ozzie will insist on starting him Vs RHP.

And in CF. :drunken:

Lefty34
10-11-2007, 10:09 PM
And to clarify, I don't hate Mackowiak as a ball player (he is blessed with abilities that I could never dream of); what I absolutely hate is the term "gridner" that is thrown around by the Sox and the fans that think that a team .250 BA is "grindy". It just so happens that Mackowiak is one of these players that was brought in under the false flag of "grinderball". I just want people to see him for what he is: a bench player who will not do anything spectacular and seldom will he be above-average.

And I do not doubt at all his superb baserunning abilities and ability to read the defense. However, 13 extra-base hits is not good for a guy getting 200+ AB's a season, I don't care if he is a bench player or an everyday guy.

102605
10-11-2007, 10:32 PM
NO! I wouldn't watch a game again.

kittle42
10-11-2007, 10:39 PM
.354 OBP (sub par at best)

Many people want a lesser OBP at leadoff next year.

JB98
10-11-2007, 10:40 PM
And in CF. :drunken:

Mackowiak did not start a single game in CF for the Sox in 2007.

champagne030
10-11-2007, 10:45 PM
Mackowiak did not start a single game in CF for the Sox in 2007.

No, but his play was one of several reasons we didn't make the playoffs in '06....And GrindErstad took his spot. Bring him back and he's a option in CF if we don't sign a legit CF.......

FedEx227
10-11-2007, 10:57 PM
Can we as Sox fans ever move on or are we doomed to hope for the returns of ex-players week after week. Rowand and Mackowiak were good for what they did, but how about we move on and try new things?

Mackowiak was serviceable but just because he was on this team in 06 doesn't mean we should get him again, there are plenty of players that can fill his role that we haven't already had.

JB98
10-11-2007, 10:59 PM
No, but his play was one of several reasons we didn't make the playoffs in '06....And GrindErstad took his spot. Bring him back and he's a option in CF if we don't sign a legit CF.......

Ozzie stated in spring training of 2007 that Mackowiak would not play CF again. He never played CF again.

champagne030
10-11-2007, 11:05 PM
Ozzie stated in spring training of 2007 that Mackowiak would not play CF again. He never played CF again.

Because he had GrindErstad. Give Ozzie either one and they'll be in a platoon at CF before you can say grinder or quality AB.

Lefty34
10-11-2007, 11:23 PM
I MUST say as a Sox fan that I held Mackowiak in higher regard than Optimus Grind (thanks FedEx) during the last season. However, he is still an aging utility player who can be replaced by any number of young kids in the minors (look, they can't hit major league pitching till the SEE major league pitching). And as far as platooning goes, I wouldn't put much stock into that because with the DH in the AL, platooning isn't that big of a deal because you automatically have an open slot that you can fill with any kind of bat you want; as opposed to in the NL where platooning becomes a WAY bigger factor because of the pitcher. So Mackowiak was OK for the all-out crappy season we had this year, but let us not torture ourselves with another round of hard ground outs just because this guy can hit right handed pitchers (Note: most pitchers in the MLB, in the WORLD, are right handed, so let us give credit where credit is actually due).

AZChiSoxFan
10-11-2007, 11:59 PM
Does anyone know what his contract situation is and when he'll be a free agent? I would really like to get him back as I think a lot of people undervalued him. He was probably one of our best bench guys and pinch hitters and more then likely our best base runner not with speed but with instincts. I really think he was the perfect fit for this ball club, him and Pablo Ozuna won a lot of games for us while on that bench. Anyways, if he's a free agent this season I'd really like to see Kenny take a shot at re-signing him.

:rolleyes::bs::anon::whatever::puking:

You can't be serious. I'm starting to get seriously worried. A few days ago we had a thread in which some stated that it would be a good idea to have Erstad back. Now this. Cue the "I hope Pods comes back" thread.

FedEx227
10-12-2007, 12:02 AM
Since we can't trust Toby Hall to stay healthy, anybody know the prospects of getting Sandy Alomar back in the shuffle?

Huisj
10-12-2007, 12:21 AM
Since we can't trust Toby Hall to stay healthy, anybody know the prospects of getting Sandy Alomar back in the shuffle?

The Mets might be willing to talk for the right package. He hit a super .136 for them in emergency time this year. He's the reason they blew the division lead! They're sure to want him out of that town!

Lefty34
10-12-2007, 01:32 AM
Jarmaine, I am not blind: regardless of the 2006 season (which was 2 years ago) Rob Mackowiak is still an average at best major league player. So ok, you want to use 2006 statistics, well so do I: in 2006, Mack-attak's VORP (the number of runs the player contributed over what an average AAA player would have given the same chance the player in question had) was a 10, meaning he contributed 10 more runs than, let's say, Ryan Sweeney would have in the same amount of playing time. Not enough? Ok. Well, again in 2006, Mackowiak's WARP (the wins a player has contributed over an average AAA player) was a meager 1.7. Now, to put this into perspective, Alex Rodriguez (who is admittedly not a bench player nor is Rob Mackowiak near him in terms of talent, but nonetheless) had a VORP of 51.6 and a WARP of 6.0. Seeing as how VORP is very good at explaining a player's contribution and value given his percentage of team AB's, Mack got his VORP with 290 AB's, while A-Rod got his with 600+ (a much more difficult task). And with WARP, since the number of wins involved (in the real world) get exponentially bigger with the value of the WARP, we can see the Mack's WARP pales in great comparison to that of A-Rod's.

Since Mack is a bench player, (if you see him as an every day player your argument becomes even more unfounded), his above numbers in 2006 (say nothing of his 2007 numbers) would still be below average (if A-Rod's AB's were reduced to the same team percentage as Mackowiaks, I think we would see that A-Rod's numbers as a prototypical bench player would still dwarf those of Mackowiak's).

Lefty34
10-12-2007, 01:38 AM
And again, I am not trying to completely discredit an argument that Mackowiak is a SERVICEABLE bench player (especially since how my numbers may be off seeing as how I've been hitting the booze a little), however, at his age, I just do not see him as a viable option for the SOX bench, seeing as how there are many other, younger, players out there who can fill his spot.

Grzegorz
10-12-2007, 05:37 AM
Because he had GrindErstad. Give Ozzie either one and they'll be in a platoon at CF before you can say grinder or quality AB.

If the fear is that the manager would misuse this resource, why focus all the derision on the resource and not on the field manager?

Mack, if used in his proper role, would be an asset to this team.

Frater Perdurabo
10-12-2007, 07:06 AM
It just so happens that Mackowiak is one of these players that was brought in under the false flag of "grinderball".

I don't recall that being the case. I don't remember a single instance of "Grinder" and "Mackowiak" being in the same sentence, other than yours. Other WSI members and I at various times from 2003-2005 thought Mackowiak would be a good pickup because at the time, the Sox didn't have much LH hitting. His splits v. RHP always have been good and his OBP is above the league average. I was pleased but surprised the Sox got him for Marte, especially after Marte's pretty bad 2005 (he was Ozzie's designated reliever when Ozzie wanted a HBP, an inherited runner to score, a wild pitch, or a walk). It wasn't his fault that Ozzie played him out of position in CF. I would welcome him back as a bench player and would have no problem with him getting full platoon time against RHP, as long as he doesn't play a single inning in CF.

Frater Perdurabo
10-12-2007, 07:08 AM
Come to think of it, if the Sox were able to get a shortstop who could lead off (Furcal?), and a CF like Hunter or Rowand, and hypothetically if Crede was traded or non-tendered (thus moving Fields to third), I'd have no problem with an Ozuna/Mackowiak platoon in left field.

veeter
10-12-2007, 07:18 AM
:o:

No way.No ****ing way! Now, a return of a healed Freddy Garcia, would be nice.

hi im skot
10-12-2007, 09:18 AM
Come to think of it, if the Sox were able to get a shortstop who could lead off (Furcal?), and a CF like Hunter or Rowand, and hypothetically if Crede was traded or non-tendered (thus moving Fields to third), I'd have no problem with an Ozuna/Mackowiak platoon in left field.

Yikes.

D. TODD
10-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Mac won't hurt, but he won't help much either so unless he comes at a bargain look elsewhere, or go young (Sweeny, Anderson, etc.)

JermaineDye05
10-12-2007, 10:52 AM
Mac won't hurt, but he won't help much either so unless he comes at a bargain look elsewhere, or go young (Sweeny, Anderson, etc.)

If the Sox go young with Sweeney or Owens in left I want them starting instead of getting AB's off the bench. I'd want Mackowiak for the bench because he and Ozuna were big assets to the team in 2006 and 2007 Mack's numbers were down because he was starting and he's not suited for that, off the bench he's a big help.

AZChiSoxFan
10-12-2007, 10:59 AM
Since we can't trust Toby Hall to stay healthy, anybody know the prospects of getting Sandy Alomar back in the shuffle?

Hopefully we can get Kenny Lofton and Carl Everett back as well.

Frater Perdurabo
10-12-2007, 12:45 PM
Yikes.

Re-read the conditions I imposed before it. I don't WANT Crede to leave. But if he did, and Fields took over 3B, and the Sox got Hunter and Furcal, I could live with a Mack/Ozuna platoon in left. Here's the lineup: Furcal, Fields, Thome, PK, Dye, AJ, Hunter, Mack/Ozuna, Richar. It's actually quite good.

sox1970
10-12-2007, 12:49 PM
Re-read the conditions I imposed before it. I don't WANT Crede to leave. But if he did, and Fields took over 3B, and the Sox got Hunter and Furcal, I could live with a Mack/Ozuna platoon in left. Here's the lineup: Furcal, Fields, Thome, PK, Dye, AJ, Hunter, Mack/Ozuna, Richar. It's actually quite good.

Platoons are for losing teams.
Hunter will be playing for the Rangers next year.

hi im skot
10-12-2007, 12:50 PM
Re-read the conditions I imposed before it. I don't WANT Crede to leave. But if he did, and Fields took over 3B, and the Sox got Hunter and Furcal, I could live with a Mack/Ozuna platoon in left. Here's the lineup: Furcal, Fields, Thome, PK, Dye, AJ, Hunter, Mack/Ozuna, Richar. It's actually quite good.

No, I completely understand what you're saying. While it's not a bad lineup, you're still giving up a lot defensively in LF. I'd rather give Owens a shot in left with Ozuna getting the OCCASIONAL start.

I guess I'm still in the camp (as I think you are, too) that hopes Crede makes it back and Fields gets a chance to figure out LF.

TDog
10-12-2007, 01:31 PM
He's a decent player in the right role, but my guess is that he can't really serve that roll on the Sox. He could be good on a team that has a sort of transient lineup where there are a number of guys who are borderline starters and there are lots of semi-platoon opportunities, but those spots don't really exist with the roster the Sox have right now. Plus the temptation for Guillen to make him a full time starter again would be too great.

This is an excellent analysis. I'm not sure that Guillen would be tempted to start Mackowiak, though, if the Sox in the last two years had a more established lineup. Had the Sox not traded Rowand, Mackowiak wouldn't have played center field, certainly not approaching the frequency he played center in 2006. On the 2005 team, Mackowiak would have been one of the guys in the background in the postseason, like Blum. who only got one at bat, or Harris, who only got two. The fact that Harris was a big part of winning Game 4 after Blum was a huge part of winning Game 3 speaks to the importance of solid bench players.

Mackowiak would be a great guy to have on your bench. I was one of the people who thought, before trading for him, when he played for the Pirates that he would look great on the Sox. I don't know if he would have been better than others on the 2005 bench or that he would have a place on the 2008 bench.

Lefty34
10-12-2007, 01:51 PM
I'm surprised I haven't seen more talk about Aaron "I only lift to make my traps bigger" Rowand....thank God. Though, although Mack and Rowand are both defensive liabilities, Rowand at least could power the ball into the gaps once in awhile.

FarWestChicago
10-12-2007, 04:01 PM
Because he had GrindErstad. Give Ozzie either one and they'll be in a platoon at CF before you can say grinder or quality AB.And you know this how? Oh, that's right. You just hate and think you know everything. :rolleyes:

champagne030
10-12-2007, 10:25 PM
And you know this how? :rolleyes:

I've paid attention the last two years. :D:

FarWestChicago
10-13-2007, 07:37 AM
I've paid attention the last two years. :D:Paid attention and took some serious yoga classes. You certainly know how to stretch. :D:

Chicken Dinner
10-13-2007, 03:04 PM
Rob Mackowiak of
2 years/$5.3M (2006-07), plus $3.25M 2008 club option

acquired in trade (from Chicago White Sox) 7/31/07
signed extension 1/06 (avoided arbitration)
06:$2.25M, 07:$2.75M, 08:$3.25M club option ($0.3M buyout)
1 year/$1.5M (2005), plus performance bonuses

avoided arbitration 1/05 ($1.8M-$1.35M)
$90,000 in performance bonuses
$25,000 for 125 starts or 560 PAs
$30,000 for 130 starts or 580 PAs
$35,000 for 135 starts or 600 PAs
1 year/$0.335M (2004)
1 year/$0.322M (2003)
ML service: 5.077

JB98
10-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Because he had GrindErstad. Give Ozzie either one and they'll be in a platoon at CF before you can say grinder or quality AB.

You're delusional.