PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie-Ball Is Apparently Back...


Lip Man 1
10-23-2007, 06:56 PM
So says Ozzie from a story now on White Sox.com.

"I'm tired of playing station-to-station baseball. I'm tired of hitting 200 home runs to get something going. I'm tired of striking out too many times. In Spring Training, we are going to turn the switch on right away. We are not going there to see how players get ready for the season."

If Ozzie actually means what he says, that HALLELUJAH!

It's about time!!

I take this, of course, with a grain of salt, because Ozzie said the same things heading into the 06 and 07 spring camps... all be it never as forcefully.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071023&content_id=2279373&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Lip

DSpivack
10-23-2007, 06:57 PM
What does that actually mean?

chisoxmike
10-23-2007, 07:02 PM
They said that last year.

Until the bullpen stops blowing leads and the offense figures out how to hit change ups, we ain't winning **** next year.

Lip Man 1
10-23-2007, 07:03 PM
That Cox was hired SPECIFICALLY to teach aggresive baserunning, bunts and fundamentals according to the story.

Of course if he doesn't have the players at the top and bottom of the order to pull this off them he's spinning his wheels.

To me Ozzie has made it clear the type of team he wants, now we'll see if Kenny delivers it to him.

Lip

KyWhiSoxFan
10-23-2007, 07:07 PM
If he really is tired of playing station to station baseball, that means there are going to be a lot of new faces in the lineup next year. You can't have Thome, Dye, Konerko, Crede, Pierzynski all back and expect any different brand of ball. That is 55% of the lineup right there.

DoItForDanPasqua
10-23-2007, 07:07 PM
They said that last year.



Yeah, remember "back to the grind?" He should have been honest and said they intend on swinging for a homer on every single pitch.

Madvora
10-23-2007, 07:18 PM
I started a thread about this same thing based on a similar comment by Ozzie a few weeks ago.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93506

I'll believe it when I see it now. I don't know if I can trust this talk anymore.

soltrain21
10-23-2007, 07:25 PM
Yeah, remember "back to the grind?" He should have been honest and said they intend on swinging for a homer on every single pitch.


Did Ozzie ever say that? Wasn't that just a marketing campaign?

gobears1987
10-23-2007, 07:32 PM
If he really is tired of playing station to station baseball, that means there are going to be a lot of new faces in the lineup next year. You can't have Thome, Dye, Konerko, Crede, Pierzynski all back and expect any different brand of ball. That is 55% of the lineup right there.
Crede is a sure bet to be gone then. It just isn't worth the risk with his back. Yes I know he had surgery and appears to be recovering well, but this is still something that will likely linger with him the rest of his life.

I can't see AJ going as we have no other option at catcher. Toby Hall is going to need surgery for his torn labrum.

Dye, Thome, and PK are each movable. I expect 1 of the 3 to go.

ChiSoxFan35
10-23-2007, 07:59 PM
It's about personal. He says it every year, but last year may have been a blessing in disguise. No more 05 excuses for anyone(it was the best, but it has to be separated from future years), and it was a slap in the face that makes these claims lead to changes.

I'm excited for this offseason. When we are in between like this, Kenny usually does something weird or crazy and pulls something out of his hat. He could come out and say that the team will be exactly the same (extreme example) and it will mean nothing. My only worry is that Kenny has pulled some nice stuff off where the other team's return is garbage (not always, but multiple times), other GMs aren't blind so it could be a lot tougher to pull something off.

upperdeckusc
10-23-2007, 08:32 PM
the only reason that this yr might actually be different with our spring training plans.....is because the past few yrs, ozzie has said what he's wanted to do, but even tho it wasnt implemented, we had really good yrs (world series and 90 win season). now that we **** our pants in '07, now theres no reason to stay the same in spring training. change must happen, and hopefully that poor performance is what will kick it into gear come march.

Hitmen77
10-23-2007, 08:53 PM
Talk means nothing to me. They said this last year. I'll believe it when I see the results.

Watching the playoff teams this month able to lay down bunt after bunt just puts the White Sox to shame. It's like night and day.

JB98
10-23-2007, 09:36 PM
Crede is a sure bet to be gone then. It just isn't worth the risk with his back. Yes I know he had surgery and appears to be recovering well, but this is still something that will likely linger with him the rest of his life.

I can't see AJ going as we have no other option at catcher. Toby Hall is going to need surgery for his torn labrum.

Dye, Thome, and PK are each movable. I expect 1 of the 3 to go.

Toby Hall needs surgery? Link?

areilly
10-23-2007, 09:39 PM
Talk means nothing to me. They said this last year. I'll believe it when I see the results.

They even said it during this past season. Anyone else remember all the KW tough talk about the huge changes there were going to be? Remember OG threatening to roll heads if guys didn't deliver?

Then what? Wow, trading away a supersub and a 2B they were most likely going to let walk. Way to shake things up there guys.

salty99
10-23-2007, 09:41 PM
Well then if what Ozzie says is true then Juan Uribe should be gone.

oeo
10-23-2007, 10:28 PM
Well then if what Ozzie says is true then Juan Uribe should be gone.

Uribe will be gone (or they will buy out of his contract and sign a cheaper deal for him as a bench guy). I just don't see how the organization would still have high expectations for him. If he was going to reach his offensive potential, he would have done it already.

WhiteSox5187
10-24-2007, 12:21 AM
Uribe will be gone (or they will buy out of his contract and sign a cheaper deal for him as a bench guy). I just don't see how the organization would still have high expectations for him. If he was going to reach his offensive potential, he would have done it already.
At the offseason last year people were saying there were three holes the Sox needed fixed, a leadoff guy, shortstop, and CF. What did Kenny do? He got Erstad...so don't count on him automatically getting rid of Uribe just because everyone around here thinks that's the right thing to do. Kenny has made many moves that have defied logic.

As for going back to speed, look I think that there is nothing wrong with the middle of the lineup where you have guys like PK, Thome, and Dye hitting. Even if they are all slow. I think what Ozzie means is that we need the guys hitting in front of them and hitting behind them to get on and make things happen on the basepaths. We can't just keep waiting for 3-4-5 to come up and hit in order to score runs. I don't think anyone in the Sox organization, or Ozzie himself, is expecting those guys to lay down more bunts and start stealing bases. But if you have speedy guys on and Thome hits a two out double or a single, well then we can bring in some runs. that's what we did in '05. I think we can win and still be fast with a lineup featuring Paulie, Thome, JD, AJ, and Crede...you just have to have a lot of speed at 1-2 and again at 8-9 and you might also talk it over with those guys as to how to break up the lineup. Remember Crede hit in the eighth spot throughout the playoffs in '05. So if you have speed (and the ability to move guys over) at 1-2 you know have three BIG chances to drive those guys in with Paulie, Thome and JD. I'd then have a speedy guy who can get on base (Danny Richar might be the type of guy who could fill this spot) at number six followed by AJ. Now AJ would have to work a lot on his bunting this off season, so now you'd have essentially another leadoff guy following the heart of the order at number six and AJ would be able to either a) drive him in or b) move him over. This brings up Crede (or Fields I guess) at eight with another chance to drive a run in. Have a guy with potential speed at number nine (if we keep Jerry Owens in center or left next year, this would be a good spot for him) to serve as almost a second leadoff guy...I think that could work...I should also probably try and find a way to put Fields into that line up...hah, it probably won't work.

And that is why I'm not a manager.

LITTLE NELL
10-24-2007, 04:58 AM
Uribe will be gone (or they will buy out of his contract and sign a cheaper deal for him as a bench guy). I just don't see how the organization would still have high expectations for him. If he was going to reach his offensive potential, he would have done it already.
No doubt Uribe is gone because he doesnt come close to what Ozzie wants.

santo=dorf
10-24-2007, 06:31 AM
Yawn.

The Sox hit 200 homers in 2005.
In 2006 the Sox led the league with 236 HR's and won 90 games
The Sox failed to hit 200 homers in 2007.

Strikeout rank
2007: 9 (1149)
2006: T-16(1054)
2005: 17(1002)
2004: 18 (1030)

2007 was the abnormal year. Ozzie is full of it when he's acting like this has been going on for a long time.

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 07:44 AM
Strikeout rank
2007: 9 (1149)
2006: T-16(1054)
2005: 17(1002)
2004: 18 (1030)

2007 was the abnormal year. Ozzie is full of it when he's acting like this has been going on for a long time.

Also, strikeout totals have been increasing across the AL for the last three years. At-bats per strike out rates:

2007 5.312
2006 5.517
2005 5.683

Jerko
10-24-2007, 08:27 AM
I'm so sick of this ozzieball stuff. The Sox played Ozzieball when they won it all supposedly, and they've had basically the same team for the 2 years since. Konerko was slow in 05. Dye was slow in 05. Everett/Thomas were slow in 05. AJ was slow in 05. Crede was slow in 05. The difference was Pods/Gooch drove people nuts at the top of the order and Crede came thru with a lot of clutch hits batting after the "big 3" guys... So when Pods gets hurt all the time and Gooch keeps getting moved out of the 2 hole, maybe that makes the lineup look slower than it really is. Complaining about the middle of the order is a joke IMO.

ondafarm
10-24-2007, 08:31 AM
I hope Ozzie really means it and can do it in 2008. As to Thome, PK, Dye, Crede and AJ, I don't think any of them are going anywhere, although it could happen. Crede would be most likely. I believe that Thome and PK are both 5/10 men and have full trade veto rights.

Jerko
10-24-2007, 08:33 AM
I hope Ozzie really means it and can do it in 2008. As to Thome, PK, Dye, Crede and AJ, I don't think any of them are going anywhere, although it could happen. Crede would be most likely. I believe that Thome and PK are both 5/10 men and have full trade veto rights.

I think the 5 of the 5/10 rule is 5 years with the same team, so Thome doesn't fall into that.

spiffie
10-24-2007, 08:33 AM
I hope Ozzie really means it and can do it in 2008. As to Thome, PK, Dye, Crede and AJ, I don't think any of them are going anywhere, although it could happen. Crede would be most likely. I believe that Thome and PK are both 5/10 men and have full trade veto rights.
Thome shouldn't have 5/10 rights should he? He's only been with the Sox for a couple years. I don't believe 5/10 rights carry over from team to team, though I could be mistaken,

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 08:45 AM
I think the 5 of the 5/10 rule is 5 years with the same team, so Thome doesn't fall into that.

Correct. As a clarification, it is 5 years with your most recent team, not just any team. So Thome had 10-5 status back in Cleveland but hasn't had it since due to being on Philly for only three years and the Sox for two. The Sox could trade him if they wanted to but back in 2001, Cleveland could not have traded him without his permission.

eriqjaffe
10-24-2007, 08:48 AM
...and Paulie just completed his ninth full season. Off-hand, I'm not sure if the 10/5 is based on MLB service time or if you have to be on a major league roster an entire year so he may or may not have 10/5 rights.

Either way, he has a limited no-trade clause involving 6 teams he can't be dealt to without permission, although I'm not sure who those teams are.

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 08:51 AM
...and Paulie just completed his ninth full season. Off-hand, I'm not sure if the 10/5 is based on MLB service time or if you have to be on a major league roster an entire year so he may or may not have 10/5 rights.

Either way, he has a limited no-trade clause involving 6 teams he can't be dealt to without permission, although I'm not sure who those teams are.

The rule is on the active roster for 10 full seasons. Konerko has 9.141 years of service time. After 2008, he will be a 10-5 player (assuming he isn't sent to the minors or some other bizarre reason).

eriqjaffe
10-24-2007, 08:55 AM
The rule is on the active roster for 10 full seasons. Konerko has 9.141 years of service time. After 2008, he will be a 10-5 player (assuming he isn't sent to the minors or some other bizarre reason).I wonder what the 6 "no-trade" teams are...

oeo
10-24-2007, 09:47 AM
I'm so sick of this ozzieball stuff. The Sox played Ozzieball when they won it all supposedly, and they've had basically the same team for the 2 years since. Konerko was slow in 05. Dye was slow in 05. Everett/Thomas were slow in 05. AJ was slow in 05. Crede was slow in 05. The difference was Pods/Gooch drove people nuts at the top of the order and Crede came thru with a lot of clutch hits batting after the "big 3" guys... So when Pods gets hurt all the time and Gooch keeps getting moved out of the 2 hole, maybe that makes the lineup look slower than it really is. Complaining about the middle of the order is a joke IMO.

I know 2005 was such a long time ago, but the differences were much more than our 1 and 2 spots in the lineup getting it done. We were getting sacrifices from Pods to Crede, hell even Frank joined in when he was playing. They were taking the extra bases, not waiting for the 2-run or 3-run homer. They could hit the homerun, but they could also manufacture runs in other ways, as well. That's what 'Ozzieball' is...always putting the pressure on the other team. Make them make mistakes, and then cash in on them.

So you would rather wait for the 3-run homer again, since you're so sick and tired of hard-nosed baseball?

The Sox hit 200 homers in 2005.
In 2006 the Soxled the league with 236 HR's and won 90 games
The Sox failed to hit 200 homers in 2007.I think the point Ozzie is trying to make is, we can't wait around for the longball like we've done the last two years. In 2005, yes we hit 200 homeruns, but we also were bringing in runs in different ways, as well. He said he doesn't want to play the 'station-to-station' crap, which means taking extra bases, getting 'em on, over, and in, etc. He's not complaining about homeruns; they're part of the game, but relying on the homerun is what the problem is.

AZChiSoxFan
10-24-2007, 10:06 AM
It's about personal. He says it every year, but last year may have been a blessing in disguise. No more 05 excuses for anyone(it was the best, but it has to be separated from future years), and it was a slap in the face that makes these claims lead to changes.

I'm excited for this offseason. When we are in between like this, Kenny usually does something weird or crazy and pulls something out of his hat. He could come out and say that the team will be exactly the same (extreme example) and it will mean nothing. My only worry is that Kenny has pulled some nice stuff off where the other team's return is garbage (not always, but multiple times), other GMs aren't blind so it could be a lot tougher to pull something off.

I hope Kittle42 isn't reading this thread!

Jerko
10-24-2007, 10:30 AM
OEO, my point is that I believe the Sox could have had been playing hard-nosed baseball for the past TWO seasons since the personnel is essentially the same as it was the LAST time they played hard-nosed baseball...... Actually they TRIED Ozzieball for a while last year but they stranded so many guys on 3rd and left the bases loaded so many times, I think Ozzie was tired of giving up outs since nobody ever came up with a big hit. Then when all the injuries hit, that was it. RISP was horrible last year so you kind of HAD to wait for the homer at times.

wdelaney72
10-24-2007, 10:38 AM
In 2005, we had one speed threat.

The sox won in 2005 because of:
1) Outstanding pitching
2) Hitting the ball out of the ballpark. The difference is there were runners on base whent he ball went out of the park.
3) Solid Defense
4) Did I mention outstanding pitching?

I agree. Ozzie's full of it.


Yawn.

The Sox hit 200 homers in 2005.
In 2006 the Sox led the league with 236 HR's and won 90 games
The Sox failed to hit 200 homers in 2007.

Strikeout rank
2007: 9 (1149)
2006: T-16(1054)
2005: 17(1002)
2004: 18 (1030)

2007 was the abnormal year. Ozzie is full of it when he's acting like this has been going on for a long time.

ondafarm
10-24-2007, 10:47 AM
The rule is on the active roster for 10 full seasons. Konerko has 9.141 years of service time. After 2008, he will be a 10-5 player (assuming he isn't sent to the minors or some other bizarre reason).

Konerko has more than five years major league service and so cannot be sent to the minors without his permission.

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 10:49 AM
Konerko has more than five years major league service and so cannot be sent to the minors without his permission.

Right, there would have to be some very strange things happening for him not to be a 10-5 after next season.

eriqjaffe
10-24-2007, 10:53 AM
Right, there would have to be some very strange things happening for him not to be a 10-5 after next season.Or, on the not-so-strange side, he'd have to be traded before he hits that magical 10 years of service time.

oeo
10-24-2007, 11:21 AM
In 2005, we had one speed threat.

The sox won in 2005 because of:
1) Outstanding pitching
2) Hitting the ball out of the ballpark. The difference is there were runners on base whent he ball went out of the park.
3) Solid Defense
4) Did I mention outstanding pitching?

I agree. Ozzie's full of it.

Again...it was more than just that. Do you people really forget the aggressive style of baseball that we played? We cashed in on the opportunities given to us, we didn't just wait around for the homerun (although we could hit a lot of them).

Tannerfan
10-24-2007, 11:31 AM
I'll believe it when they move the fences back at The Cell. You should have a bigger outfield if you want to play that style.

Lillian
10-24-2007, 11:44 AM
I'm so sick of this ozzieball stuff. The Sox played Ozzieball when they won it all supposedly, and they've had basically the same team for the 2 years since. Konerko was slow in 05. Dye was slow in 05. Everett/Thomas were slow in 05. AJ was slow in 05. Crede was slow in 05. The difference was Pods/Gooch drove people nuts at the top of the order and Crede came thru with a lot of clutch hits batting after the "big 3" guys... So when Pods gets hurt all the time and Gooch keeps getting moved out of the 2 hole, maybe that makes the lineup look slower than it really is. Complaining about the middle of the order is a joke IMO.

This is a very valid point. I also agree with those of you who have asserted that this team is not going to be able to do the things that Ozzie says he wants to do, unless there are some different players.

It does seem as though we need to replace at least one of the slow players with someone who can run. As I've said before; Konerko is the most logical guy to go. We need one big left handed bat, so Thome isn't going anywhere.
We need the great defense at third, so Crede should stay. However, Fields is too good not to be in the lineup. First would seem a good spot for him to play. He should be able provide enough offense to replace Konerko's production, without a significant drop off.
Konerko probably has as much trade value as anyone on our team, and the Angels still look like the best fit. They have several short stops. What about Cabrera, a good relief pitcher, and one prospect for Konerko?
It would be nice if we could also pry Figgins away from them, but that would likely take one more player from the Sox. The Angels have coveted Konerko for a while, and they still need someone to protect Vlad in the lineup. He would likely agree to go to L.A., as has been mentioned here many times.

Now, if you sign Rowand, or any Center fielder who can provide both offense and defense, you probably don't need to do anything else to get this team ready to play the way Ozzie wants.

If they can't get Figgins, then Owens can play left, and lead off. Rowand has hit best in the number two spot, so that might be a solution to that problem. Cabrera is probably even a better fit there.

You can all figure out the rest of the lineup with this personnel, but it would give us good defense, and plenty of speed. Fields runs better than he showed this season, as he was nursing a hamstring injury from early in the year. Owens, Richar, Cabrera, Rowand and Fields all run well enough to let Ozzie play his kind of game.

Of course, there is always the option of trading Garland for a real impact speed guy, but it seems a shame to give up starting pitching.

FedEx227
10-24-2007, 11:48 AM
Ozzieball and grinder are just marketing slogans taken too seriously. We've never played Ozzieball or grinderball. We pitched the hell out of the ball in 2005, and got hits when we needed to.

I think what this team really needs to do is cut down on the high strikeout guys. We just can't have that anymore. Even more so than speed guys, we need guys who can get on base. Whether by a walk, by a single, by a double... just get on base. I've had enough of Uribe's 4 pitch strikeouts.

If that means the end of Crede then so be it. Fields at 3B, Owens in LF, FA in CF, FA at SS.

gobears1987
10-24-2007, 12:08 PM
Toby Hall needs surgery? Link?
This is something we knew during Spring Training. He just postponed it so he could play last year, but he will never be able to be a starting catcher until he gets that surgery done.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 12:21 PM
Jerko:

OEO has it down pat...it's about OFFENSIVE BALANCE.

It's NOT just being able to swing from your heels and 'hope' to hit the ball 500 feet.

Here's some stats you may find interesting.

In 2005 the Sox were in the top five in each of these offensive categories in the American League:

Home Runs
Sacrifice Bunts
Sacrifice Flys
Infield Hits
Stolen Bases

That, my friend, is BALANCE. Which is why the Sox won a ton of one run games. (And that's not even talking about pitching)

THAT's what the Sox so badly need to get back to...BALANCE.

Lip

Foulke You
10-24-2007, 02:32 PM
THAT's what the Sox so badly need to get back to...BALANCE.

Lip
Absolutely Lip. There wasn't one single thing the '05 Sox did offensively. They did EVERYTHING and they did it well. We need that balanced lineup again. Compare that to the '07 Sox offense that didn't do anything right offensively. We struck out way too much, our situational hitting was the worst, we couldn't lay down a sacrifice bunt to save our lives, we couldn't get a sac fly to save our lives, we hit into a million DPs, and we couldn't steal bases. This left the Sox waiting for a big home run to save the day and the homers didn't come like they did in years past as our HR total fell in '07.

Jerko
10-24-2007, 02:52 PM
Lip I agree that the Sox need balance, but I'm sick of Ozzie pontificating about this when HE is the guy that calls the shots! You want Ozzie ball, send a runner when Thome bats. Don't just let him stand there on base because you're afraid to take the bat out of Thome's hands. That's Ozzie HIMSELF waiting for the 2 run homer. I'm also sick of people preaching for Kenny to get "Ozzie type" players. 7 of the 8 position players, and 4 of the 5 starting pitchers, returned in 06 (and the start of 07, save Garcia). If they were Ozzie type players in 05, they're Ozzie tpye players in 06. Did they all change, or did he? 07 is hard to judge because we had crap out there from May on, but again, if Ozzie wants to get back to Ozzieball, all he had to do the past 2 years was make the calls. He's in charge. Players aren't going to bunt, steal or sacrifice if he doesn't tell them to.

Domeshot17
10-24-2007, 03:11 PM
Lip and OEO (to an extent) have it right, its about balance. However, in 2005, it was ALL ABOUT PITCHING. Does anyone remember the dog days, when we were winning games 2-1 3-1, all the talks of needing a Griffey or someone over Everett after Frank went down. Our offense pretty much sucked.

Ozzie wants the 2003 Florida Marlins. He wants a bunch of guys who steal bases. The problem is you can't have an NL team in the AL and expect to win and Kenny Williams knows that. Its not about hitting homers or not hitting homers, its about getting guys on base. Fields should never hit 2 because he doesnt get on base well. Owens is a TERRRRRIIIBBBLLEEEE lead off man because he is worse then pods at getting on base. Then we have a 7 8 9 of guys who cant get on, and now no one is on when one of our guys does go deep. Its about hits, walks, getting guys in scoring position, not just stolen bases and bunting.

For as much as we wanna see Richar I could see us getting Castillo to man 2b. He is one of Ozzie's favs from the florida days and knows how to get himself on base.

thomas35forever
10-24-2007, 03:12 PM
I'll believe it when they move the fences back at The Cell. You should have a bigger outfield if you want to play that style.
All right, we'll move the bullpens back where they were and take out the seats that filled them up.

Domeshot17
10-24-2007, 03:22 PM
This is a very valid point. I also agree with those of you who have asserted that this team is not going to be able to do the things that Ozzie says he wants to do, unless there are some different players.

It does seem as though we need to replace at least one of the slow players with someone who can run. As I've said before; Konerko is the most logical guy to go. We need one big left handed bat, so Thome isn't going anywhere.
We need the great defense at third, so Crede should stay. However, Fields is too good not to be in the lineup. First would seem a good spot for him to play. He should be able provide enough offense to replace Konerko's production, without a significant drop off.
Konerko probably has as much trade value as anyone on our team, and the Angels still look like the best fit. They have several short stops. What about Cabrera, a good relief pitcher, and one prospect for Konerko?
It would be nice if we could also pry Figgins away from them, but that would likely take one more player from the Sox. The Angels have coveted Konerko for a while, and they still need someone to protect Vlad in the lineup. He would likely agree to go to L.A., as has been mentioned here many times.

Now, if you sign Rowand, or any Center fielder who can provide both offense and defense, you probably don't need to do anything else to get this team ready to play the way Ozzie wants.

If they can't get Figgins, then Owens can play left, and lead off. Rowand has hit best in the number two spot, so that might be a solution to that problem. Cabrera is probably even a better fit there.

You can all figure out the rest of the lineup with this personnel, but it would give us good defense, and plenty of speed. Fields runs better than he showed this season, as he was nursing a hamstring injury from early in the year. Owens, Richar, Cabrera, Rowand and Fields all run well enough to let Ozzie play his kind of game.

Of course, there is always the option of trading Garland for a real impact speed guy, but it seems a shame to give up starting pitching.

Sorry but there is more holes in this theory then swiss cheese. (1) You don't send a message to the fans and more importantly the players that 2 years removed from resigning Konerko and naming him the Captain you move him because he might get 10/5 rights. The moment you do that anyone we try to sign or resign is going to demand a NTC, and it gets into that.

(2) You ABSOLUTELY trade Garland before Konerko. Garland has had 1, 1 good year in his entire career, 2005. Now here comes the he won 18 games in 2006 arguement and just had a down year in 2007. The problem with that logic is 2007 he had better numbers almost in every category except wins. Which means he is a product of run support. He doesn't ever have a good K:BB ratio, his whip is never real low, has only had 1 year with an ERA below 4. The only good thing about Garland is he can give you 200 innings which might be in question because of the knot in his shoulder.

So lets see, you trade your team leader on and off the field, who doesn't take many days off or go on the DL, who doesn't ***** or moan to the media and who is in the top 10 at his position or you trade your 3rd or 4th best pitcher (hes wayyyy behind Burls and Javy) who is either going to want Ace money to be a number 3 or 4, or walk away for a draft pick or 2, who can still get you a sick return on how over rated he is, and who stats wise may not be a top 50 starting pitcher in the entire league.

Choice is pretty easy to me. Im confident enough in what I saw from Gavin Floyd that he can give us a mid 4 era with a 1.35 whip and a 1 1/2:1 to K:BB which is what Garland brings to the table.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 03:41 PM
Dome:

Time will tell but from what I've seen from Mr. Gavin (Deer In The Headlights Look) Floyd the ONLY reason he's even considered for the 08 team is because he's out of options.

He pitched well in September when the Sox were long out of it. How did he look during the summer?

I'd trade him in a heartbeat and keep Garland but I don't know who'd want him.

Lip

DickAllen72
10-24-2007, 04:13 PM
If he really is tired of playing station to station baseball, that means there are going to be a lot of new faces in the lineup next year. You can't have Thome, Dye, Konerko, Crede, Pierzynski all back and expect any different brand of ball. That is 55% of the lineup right there.
That's one reason Crede has to go. He's the only one that has a young replacement seemingly somewhat ready to take his place.

If they can sign Rowand and somehow get a star SS, they'll be alright with Owens in LF. Then they can play "Ozzieball" which really is just a misnomer for solid fundamental baseball.

I'm talking solely on the offensive side here. Pitching and defense are also important, and with Fields at third, Owens in LF and an aging Dye in RF the defense is a question mark. And then of course there is the bullpen.....

DickAllen72
10-24-2007, 04:18 PM
I agree that the Sox need balance, but I'm sick of Ozzie pontificating about this when HE is the guy that calls the shots! You want Ozzie ball, send a runner when Thome bats. Don't just let him stand there on base because you're afraid to take the bat out of Thome's hands. That's Ozzie HIMSELF waiting for the 2 run homer.
:thumbsup: Bravo! :Rocker:
:cheers:

jabrch
10-24-2007, 04:49 PM
Dome:

I'd trade him in a heartbeat and keep Garland but I don't know who'd want him.

Lip - If the choice was Floyd or Gar, we'd all take Gar. The choice is actually Floyd and $12MM or Garland.

It isn't quite as easy a decision to make when you frame it that way, is it?

dickallen15
10-24-2007, 04:59 PM
Lip - If the choice was Floyd or Gar, we'd all take Gar. The choice is actually Floyd and $12MM or Garland.

It isn't quite as easy a decision to make when you frame it that way, is it?
The people who chose Floyd must not have season tickets they would like to unload the last month and a half of the season. If Floyd is in the rotation, the White Sox will be in a lot of trouble, especially if Danks doesn't make dramatic improvement.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 05:32 PM
Jab:

Given the thread title in another section about baseball revenues topping 6 BILLION, I think the Sox can 'afford' Garland's salary don't ya think?

Like Dick said, if you have a beat up Contreras, Floyd AND Danks as 60% of the starting rotation next season, you're in SERIOUS trouble.

How's that for 'framing' the decision eh?

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=94047

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-24-2007, 05:41 PM
Garland is not worth 12 million. He is a very durable, solid, healthy pitcher, but if you can get a good package for him, you move him. We need to get younger, fast. What do you think the team should do Lip?

Jab:

Given the thread title in another section about baseball revenues topping 6 BILLION, I think the Sox can 'afford' Garland's salary don't ya think?

Like Dick said, if you have a beat up Contreras, Floyd AND Danks as 60% of the starting rotation next season, you're in SERIOUS trouble.

How's that for 'framing' the decision eh?

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 05:47 PM
Craig:

Pitching wins pennants...has 2005 been that long ago?

There are numerous threads where folks have given their opinions as to what the Sox should do in 2008, who they should get rid of and who they may be able to get, say for the bullpen.

I've offered opinions in those threads.

But generally the trend hasn't favored the Sox getting a whole hell of a lot when they have peddled their players the past few years have they?

Trading Garland doesn't 'automatically' solve a lot of the issues with this team even though many seem to cling to that notion.

The price for pitching is sky high and will get higher, that's the new 'reality' I suggest everyone from the fans to the Sox front office get used to that concept.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
10-24-2007, 05:53 PM
Yes, pitching is an aspect of winning, just like defense and hitting. The stars aligned for us in '05-I highly doubt we will see Jon Garland post an ERA that low in the AL the rest of his career. I'd be surprised if he ever ventures below 4, personally. He's a good pitcher, but with the money we have invested in Burls/Vaz/Contreras (considering he is absolutely immovable) it would be foolish to shell out ANOTHER long term, high dollar contract to a starter.

If a package of 3-4 young players comes available, you have to examine the idea of throwing in the towel on 2008 and playing for 09-10.

Gregory Pratt
10-24-2007, 05:55 PM
I haven't read the whole thread but "Ozzie Ball" won't be back until we get players who aren't lazy and fundamentally retarded -- that is, players who know how to run the basepaths (which means knowing how to "run" and how to lift their legs and run), hit-and-run, aim to hit line-drives.

Lillian
10-24-2007, 05:56 PM
Sorry but there is more holes in this theory then swiss cheese. (1) You don't send a message to the fans and more importantly the players that 2 years removed from resigning Konerko and naming him the Captain you move him because he might get 10/5 rights. The moment you do that anyone we try to sign or resign is going to demand a NTC, and it gets into that.

(2) You ABSOLUTELY trade Garland before Konerko. Garland has had 1, 1 good year in his entire career, 2005. Now here comes the he won 18 games in 2006 arguement and just had a down year in 2007. The problem with that logic is 2007 he had better numbers almost in every category except wins. Which means he is a product of run support. He doesn't ever have a good K:BB ratio, his whip is never real low, has only had 1 year with an ERA below 4. The only good thing about Garland is he can give you 200 innings which might be in question because of the knot in his shoulder.

So lets see, you trade your team leader on and off the field, who doesn't take many days off or go on the DL, who doesn't ***** or moan to the media and who is in the top 10 at his position or you trade your 3rd or 4th best pitcher (hes wayyyy behind Burls and Javy) who is either going to want Ace money to be a number 3 or 4, or walk away for a draft pick or 2, who can still get you a sick return on how over rated he is, and who stats wise may not be a top 50 starting pitcher in the entire league.

Choice is pretty easy to me. Im confident enough in what I saw from Gavin Floyd that he can give us a mid 4 era with a 1.35 whip and a 1 1/2:1 to K:BB which is what Garland brings to the table.

Your first point is well taken. However, I'm not convinced that Crede is the guy to trade. I'm not as confident in Field's ability to replace his defense at third. Moreover, you have to question what kind of trade value he would have coming off of the back surgery. Konerko is the one commodity that has trade value. I like Paulie a lot, but if we have to replace one of the big, slow bats with speed, he is still the best candidate.
We just resigned Dye, we need Thome's left handed bat, and Crede won't net you the speed and onbase percentage that the Sox need. So who else besides Crede, would you trade in order to get accomplish what most everyone agrees they need to accomplish this off season?

Perhaps the biggest problem with my suggestion is that Cabrera is making $10 million a year, and only has one year left on his contract. That doesn't make him the best option for short.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 06:06 PM
Craig:

The point you bring up is the core of the issue.

The Sox have not said 'they are throwing in the towel' on 2008 have they? Everyone from Kenny to Ozzie is 'claiming' they are going to 'contend' next season.

If so they have NO choice, none, zero, zip, nada but to keep Garland.

Without him you have little chance to 'contend' in the toughest division in baseball.

The Sox frankly are between a rock and a hard place probably for the next two or three seasons and they know it.

If they unload players, fans will see right through the 'contending' talk and leave in droves. They'll be back to 18 thousand a game. The Sox can not afford to go back to the 'bad old days' before 2005. They simply can not.

On the other side the farm system is barren with little talent. The Sox can't really expect 'help' from the minors until the new 'philosophy' brought in by the new farm director has a chance to take hold.

In my opinion for the Sox to claim they are going to 'contend', and to keep the turnstiles spinning at the current rate, they are going to have to pay the price for the next two or three seasons in getting talent and take their chances. That means a payroll at or above the current level.

IF in two or three years, the farm actually starts producing some kids who can actually turn into bona fide major league players THEN they can afford to lower payroll, trade off some vets for two or three kids for the future and plug in the current farm prospects. They can continue to 'contend' and keep the fans happy and showing up. As well as keeping themselves relavant in the Chicago area through the media.

To me that's the only possible chance they have to get out of their current mess. Just my opinion.

Lip

ShoelessJoeS
10-24-2007, 06:57 PM
Wasn't last years motto 'Back to the Grind'????

Noneck
10-24-2007, 08:36 PM
Lip - If the choice was Floyd or Gar, we'd all take Gar. The choice is actually Floyd and $12MM or Garland.

It isn't quite as easy a decision to make when you frame it that way, is it?

82-66 record and average over 200 innings in the past 6 years compared to a crap shoot. It would be an easy decision for me unless the 12MM was used for another reliable durable pitcher.

thomas35forever
10-24-2007, 10:42 PM
Wasn't last years motto 'Back to the Grind'????
For awhile, yes. Though it was still used, the primary motto became "We Are Chicago Baseball." I think I agree with some of the posters on here in saying the Sox depend on too many marketing terms to describe their style of play. It worked in 2005, it doesn't work anymore. We need a whole new approach to the game if we're ever going to get back in contention. Also, guys like Buehrle and AJ need to motivate their teammates better.

JB98
10-24-2007, 10:51 PM
This is something we knew during Spring Training. He just postponed it so he could play last year, but he will never be able to be a starting catcher until he gets that surgery done.

He's not a starting catcher, period. I don't know why people keep asserting he needs surgery. The 2007 Sox were eliminated from realistic contention in June. They were dead in the water by late August. And Hall remained on the active roster. If he needed surgery, don't you think he would have shut it down midseason?

And the season has been over for a month now. When a player needs surgery, he always has it immediately after the conclusion of the season, so that he can return as quickly as possible the following year.

Other than just your speculation, I see no reason to believe Hall is going under the knife.

Brian26
10-24-2007, 11:00 PM
He's not a starting catcher, period. I don't know why people keep asserting he needs surgery. ..... If he needed surgery, don't you think he would have shut it down midseason?

Other than just your speculation, I see no reason to believe Hall is going under the knife.

Hall was quoted several times as saying he wasn't 100% healed. He tried to play through the pain and stretch out his arm, but he still has the torn labrum.

I don't know why he didn't just shut it down and get it fixed once it was apparent that the Sox weren't going to contend.

Domeshot17
10-24-2007, 11:06 PM
82-66 record and average over 200 innings in the past 6 years compared to a crap shoot. It would be an easy decision for me unless the 12MM was used for another reliable durable pitcher.

The 82-66 is very much run support. Garland career numbers outside of wins (which is a terrible stat to judge an SP) align him very closely with the following pitchers:


Carlos Silva (although Silva Destroys Garland in K:BB ratio)
Doug Davis
When He starts Miguel Batista
Jason Marquis
Jarrod Washburn
Paul Byrd
Dave Bush

All of those guys give you 190+ IP a year with a mid 4 era and a whip between 1.25 and 1.45. That is Garland in a nutshell. Hes a glorified number 3 or 4, nothing more nothing less.

Would I keep him at 12 mil, maybe. That said, The only way I do it is if JR is willing to push payroll up bigtime and that 12 mil is meaningless, but if some team is out there and willing to pay for him like hes a 1 or 2, you HAVE to take it.

Say that 12 mil does matter, it counts, its 12 mil you take or leave.

If we got offered a package like last year which we foolishly turned down, and we got offered a young talented CF with a ton of Speed (Tavares) along with a top pitching spec (Hirsch) and a floyd esque busted spec with an outside shot of turning it around (Bucholtz) plus 11 mil to go after a free agent SS/2b/RP/RP/SP (however you spend it) would you take it.

Lets say for example just because I dont know what his market will be Colorado took that deal for example.

Would you trade Garland for Tavares Hirsch Buzholtz Linebrink (4 mil) and Jason Jennings (6 mil). What if that 11 mil was used to land Fukudome or Arod or Cuban sensation Alexei Ramirez (who can play all 3 OF spots and the middle IF). Then you have Konerko for a few more years, you have your team looking very good, and more allocated. If you deal Konerko over Garland (not sure where I said trade Crede before) now you might have the same stuff, but garland walks in a year and out of all the stuff you did with the money you did not add a cleanup hitter.

It would be very smart to trade Garland, very very smart.

JB98
10-25-2007, 01:02 AM
Hall was quoted several times as saying he wasn't 100% healed. He tried to play through the pain and stretch out his arm, but he still has the torn labrum.

I don't know why he didn't just shut it down and get it fixed once it was apparent that the Sox weren't going to contend.

I have no doubt he was less than 100 percent. His performance this season was subpar by any standard. But if he needs surgery, then why isn't he having it done now? Other than various assertions and speculation on this board, I haven't read anything in months about the possibility of Hall having surgery.

ondafarm
10-25-2007, 08:12 AM
I can't name a pitcher who doesn't count on run support for his wins. That includes Nolan Ryan, Cy Young, Wilbur Wood, etc. Oh, I just came up with one: Babe Ruth. Since pitchers don't bat nowadays, everybody seems to now.

Madscout
10-26-2007, 06:31 PM
It would be very smart to trade Garland, very very smart.

Except for the fact that pitching wins championships, pennats, etc.

Except that you can't just plug in numbers like ERA and get wins. Like his #s or not, Garland wins, he keeps us in games. Sure he gets shelled sometimes, but so does every other pitcher on our staff. ERA (unless rediculously low) does not automatically get plugged into an equation and out pops X or so wins. There are pitchers that go out and have a bad few innings and then shutdown the oposition.

Lastly, except that if you have a pitcher coming from FA , you literally have to catch lightning in a bottle, because the Yanks are going to bid like crazy for him with thier **** staff. And good luck getting teams to let go of some arms for what it costs now. Pony up and pay the man.

schmitty9800
10-29-2007, 01:38 AM
Firejoemorgan.com ripped the crap out of Ozzie for this and I agree with every word. http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/10/pecota-predicts-2008-white-sox-0-162.html

Lillian
11-19-2007, 07:58 PM
This is a very valid point. I also agree with those of you who have asserted that this team is not going to be able to do the things that Ozzie says he wants to do, unless there are some different players.


Konerko probably has as much trade value as anyone on our team, and the Angels still look like the best fit. They have several short stops. What about Cabrera, a good relief pitcher, and one prospect for Konerko?
It would be nice if we could also pry Figgins away from them, but that would likely take one more player from the Sox. The Angels have coveted Konerko for a while, and they still need someone to protect Vlad in the lineup. He would likely agree to go to L.A., as has been mentioned here many times.

Now, if you sign Rowand, or any Center fielder who can provide both offense and defense, you probably don't need to do anything else to get this team ready to play the way Ozzie wants.

If they can't get Figgins, then Owens can play left, and lead off. Rowand has hit best in the number two spot, so that might be a solution to that problem. Cabrera is probably even a better fit there.

You can all figure out the rest of the lineup with this personnel, but it would give us good defense, and plenty of speed. Fields runs better than he showed this season, as he was nursing a hamstring injury from early in the year. Owens, Richar, Cabrera, Rowand and Fields all run well enough to let Ozzie play his kind of game.

Of course, there is always the option of trading Garland for a real impact speed guy, but it seems a shame to give up starting pitching.

I'm not trying to say "I told you so", but this earlier post of mine is interesting. I still feel like with Rowand in center, we could very well have the offensive holes fixed.

Grzegorz
11-19-2007, 08:04 PM
I'm not trying to say "I told you so", but this earlier post of mine is interesting. I still feel like with Rowand in center, we could very well have the offensive holes fixed.

Great; you get nowhere in this game without pitching.

SoxyStu
11-19-2007, 08:10 PM
I'm not trying to say "I told you so", but this earlier post of mine is interesting. I still feel like with Rowand in center, we could very well have the offensive holes fixed.

When you post the same thing in 2 different threads...you are :P

kobo
11-19-2007, 08:10 PM
Great; you get nowhere in this game without pitching.
It's Nov. 19. There are going to be more moves and deals made before the middle of February of 2008 when pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training. People really need to relax.

Grzegorz
11-19-2007, 08:15 PM
It's Nov. 19. There are going to be more moves and deals made before the middle of February of 2008 when pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training. People really need to relax.

Oh, I am relaxed... I am just observing that the most important component in building a winning ball club needs to be addressed before going into the 2008 campaign.

Jurr
11-20-2007, 07:16 PM
Yeah, remember "back to the grind?" He should have been honest and said they intend on swinging for a homer on every single pitch.
That slogan was in reference to your teeth as you crawl into bed, pissed off over another abominable performance.

SI1020
11-24-2007, 01:28 PM
If he really is tired of playing station to station baseball, that means there are going to be a lot of new faces in the lineup next year. You can't have Thome, Dye, Konerko, Crede, Pierzynski all back and expect any different brand of ball. That is 55% of the lineup right there. Exactly. Ozzie just doesn't have the team to play the brand pf ball he professes to like. In fact, outside of the first half of 05, when did his teams consistently play "Ozzie Ball"?

Madvora
11-24-2007, 02:16 PM
Exactly. Ozzie just doesn't have the team to play the brand pf ball he professes to like. In fact, outside of the first half of 05, when did his teams consistently play "Ozzie Ball"?
You're exactly right. The first half of 2005 was probably it
There were a few times in the playoffs too, like Dye bringing in Willie Harris in WS game 4 and the Ozuna steal while pinch running for AJ in ALCS game 2.

Jurr
11-24-2007, 02:28 PM
You're exactly right. The first half of 2005 was probably it
There were a few times in the playoffs too, like Dye bringing in Willie Harris in WS game 4 and the Ozuna steal while pinch running for AJ in ALCS game 2.
Yeah, I agree, though that team had an innate ability to score just as much as it needed to. Look at the clinching game against Boston. A suicide squeeze closed the book on that one.

I truly believe that it all comes down to a team clicking together at the right time. If your pitching is great, but your offense is stagnant, it takes a toll on your pitchers. They try to be perfect, and they end up hurting themselves. If the offense is going and the pitching sucks, the hitters end up pressing too much.

If you look at this past season, it seemed like the offense was non existent at the beginning of the year while the pitching was pretty good. Just when the offense began to get it together, the staff was shot.

The game of baseball is such a psychological game. The '06 team had plenty of talent...more than enough to win a ring. Why didn't they get it done? Well, nothing came together. The pitching sucked when the offense was hot, then the offense fell apart once the pitching came around.

What the Sox need to do is focus on setting the tone early in '08. Hopefully they come out ready to play, wearing a little chip on their collective shoulder. The '05 team featured a bunch of castoffs that all pulled together to get the job done. What caused all of those guys to have career years in the same season? I don't think it's a fluke. It's the fact that their focus was contagious, and they all were pulling from the same end of the rope.

We don't need players whining about contracts. We need players coming into the season with a focus on getting the job done. Ozzie ball wasn't really about bunting and getting the guy over. It was about every player focusing on the job they had to do and picking each other up. These guys are all skilled, or they wouldn't be in the pros.

When they focus on every aspect of their games, they win. Ozzie needs to get these guys back to that "team" mindset.