PDA

View Full Version : Quit Worrying about Position Players


rowand33
12-12-2007, 07:37 PM
Let's all be realistic here as we cry in our beers about losing position players...

this is the offense as it stands today:

CF-Owens
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
Lf-Quentin?
C-AJ
2B-Richar

that offense will be fine (I stress the word fine) if Thome, Konerko, and Dye rebound (which I'd say the smart money is on) and Fields hits 30 HRs and 100 RBI.

I think Juan Pierre is a guy we need. As sad as that is, I seriously do.

This offense:

CF-Pierre
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
C-AJ
LF-Owens/Quentin
2B-Richar

can get it done. With Pierre and Cabrera setting the table, the mashers can mash behind them.

Either way, I don't look at either of those lineups and think "100 loss team"

What scares me is this

Buehrle
Vazquez
Contreras
Danks
Floyd

Our pitching staff is what's scary.

Will Vazquez repeat 2007 or 2006?
Is Contreras just done?
Can one of Danks or Floyd do their best to impersonate Garland's numbers?

And then there's the bullpen...

Quit crying about Rowand, Hunter, and Cabrera. They'd have helped, sure.

Let's concern ourselves more with shoring up the piching staff

thomas35forever
12-12-2007, 07:39 PM
Let's all be realistic here as we cry in our beers about losing position players...

this is the offense as it stands today:

CF-Owens
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
Lf-Quentin?
C-AJ
2B-Richar

that offense will be fine (I stress the word fine) if Thome, Konerko, and Dye rebound (which I'd say the smart money is one) and Fields hits 30 HRs and 100 RBI.

I think Juan Pierre is a guy we need. I seriously do.

This offense:

CF-Pierre
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
C-AJ
LF-Owens/Quentin
2B-Richar

can get it done. With Pierre and Cabrera setting the table, the mashers can mash behind them.

Either way, I don't look at either of those lineups and think "100 loss team"

What scares me is this

Buehrle
Vazquez
Contreras
Danks
Floyd

Our pitching staff is what's scary.

Will Vazquez repeat 2007 or 2006?
Is Contreras just done?
Can one of Danks or Floyd do their best to impersonate Garland's numbers?

And then there's the bullpen...

Quit crying about Rowand, Hunter, and Cabrera. They'd have helped, sure.

Let's concern ourselves more with shoring up the piching staff
Amen, brother.

JB98
12-12-2007, 07:41 PM
I'm nervous about the lineup, but I agree the pitching staff is the biggest concern.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2007, 07:41 PM
Who knows..when all is said and done that may very well be 'the plan...'

Lip

Domeshot17
12-12-2007, 07:43 PM
Guys

Kenny Williams told me 29 other teams want Gavin Floyd for the front of their rotation

pitching is not a problem

chisoxmike
12-12-2007, 07:47 PM
Yes, the pitching staff on a whole is the biggest concern for me. But Jerry Owens can not be on the team next year.

Oldschoolsoxguy
12-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Yes, the pitching staff on a whole is the biggest concern for me. But Jerry Owens can not be on the team next year.

Owens should be one of the bench outfielders if he's on
the team.Get the starting rotation addressed first.Bedard
or Haren please.We do have enough chips to trade if
Oakland or Baltimore is serious.

ericiii
12-12-2007, 08:43 PM
Yes, the pitching staff on a whole is the biggest concern for me. But Jerry Owens can not be on the team next year.

If you had the choice, would you upgrade Jerry Owens in center field or Contreras, Danks, or Floyd in the rotation? Center field is the least of our worries.

rainbow6
12-12-2007, 09:14 PM
Perhaps this should be in another thread, or it has been addressed before - I apologize in advance. But can someone enlighten me why there seems to be universal hatred for Owens on this board?

I'm not saying that it isn't deserved - last year, for personal reasons, was the first year in 20 plus years of being a Sox fan that I wasn't able to keep up with the team and watch the games.

Having said that, Owens stole over 30 bases in less than 100 games (I think) and hit over .260. I'm aware his OBP was low, which is obviously not something you're looking for in a lead off hitter, but did he not show any signs of improvement? Is he a poor defender?

Can he not, concievably, be a Scotty-pods type? Not a great outfielder, but disrupts the opposing pitcher and creates scoring opportunities...

Again, I'm not defending him, but I'm begining to assume that Owens is hopeless based on the posts I've read this off season.

Noneck
12-12-2007, 09:21 PM
Owens should be one of the bench outfielders if he's on
the team.Get the starting rotation addressed first.Bedard
or Haren please.We do have enough chips to trade if
Oakland or Baltimore is serious.
OK I'll bite. Tell me the "chips" we have to get Haren? Hope you aren't considering Alvin, Theodore and Simon.

JB98
12-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Perhaps this should be in another thread, or it has been addressed before - I apologize in advance. But can someone enlighten me why there seems to be universal hatred for Owens on this board?

I'm not saying that it isn't deserved - last year, for personal reasons, was the first year in 20 plus years of being a Sox fan that I wasn't able to keep up with the team and watch the games.

Having said that, Owens stole over 30 bases in less than 100 games (I think) and hit over .260. I'm aware his OBP was low, which is obviously not something you're looking for in a lead off hitter, but did he not show any signs of improvement? Is he a poor defender?

Can he not, concievably, be a Scotty-pods type? Not a great outfielder, but disrupts the opposing pitcher and creates scoring opportunities...

Again, I'm not defending him, but I'm begining to assume that Owens is hopeless based on the posts I've read this off season.

I think Owens is a better outfielder than Pods. And he's comparable as a basestealer. But he just doesn't take a lot of pitches. He has a long swing and doesn't seem capable of driving the ball down the lines or in the gaps with any consistency. His OBP leaves something to be desired for a leadoff hitter. He just isn't ideal in that spot.

cards press box
12-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Amen, brother.

Let me second this motion. Hallelujah! The only thing worse than the aggravating Chicken Little mentality on this board is the smug posture of Cub fans who are rejoicing over the recent transactions. Well, they may be singing a different tune if their starting rotation (other than Zambrano) comes flying back to earth, as it very well might in 2008. I guess Cub fans are unencumbered by the fact that their team laid a pretty convincing egg against Arizona last October.

If the Sox add Pierre and some more bullpen help, they will be fine.

Fantosme
12-12-2007, 09:41 PM
Perhaps this should be in another thread, or it has been addressed before - I apologize in advance. But can someone enlighten me why there seems to be universal hatred for Owens on this board?

I'm not saying that it isn't deserved - last year, for personal reasons, was the first year in 20 plus years of being a Sox fan that I wasn't able to keep up with the team and watch the games.

Having said that, Owens stole over 30 bases in less than 100 games (I think) and hit over .260. I'm aware his OBP was low, which is obviously not something you're looking for in a lead off hitter, but did he not show any signs of improvement? Is he a poor defender?

Can he not, concievably, be a Scotty-pods type? Not a great outfielder, but disrupts the opposing pitcher and creates scoring opportunities...

Again, I'm not defending him, but I'm begining to assume that Owens is hopeless based on the posts I've read this off season.

The only thing Owens does well is run. And as he never gets on base, that skill is of little use. The leadoff hitter needs to have a high OBP, and Owens' OBP is just pathetic. He can barely hit the ball out of the infield. His defense is nothing special. He should be a pinch runner, not the leadoff hitter of a club that expects to be in playoff contention.

PeoriaSoxFan
12-12-2007, 09:50 PM
Agreed, this pitching staff is a worry. But, you are delusional if you aren't concerned about this offense. I believe that I am correct in saying that this offense was ranked dead last, or at least in the bottom three, in all offensive categories last year, including the weaker hitting NL. That is bad and makes the pitching look even worse. What has changed? O. Cabrerra, good. What else? Nothing. This outfield has been bad for 2 years and it looks like #3 is coming up. For whatever reason, the OF isn't a high priority to KW, based on the results of what has happened. Quentin? Maybe, but the guy is a .230 career hitter. If you aren't worried about him, why are you worried about Gavin Floyd? He is a career minor league underachiever as well. I hope Quentin is a steal, but he might be Luis Terrero. And then Danny Richar? What the heck did he proove last year? He had a low avg/obp and showed limited fielding range. I don't care if anyone calls me a dark cloud or whatever. I love the Sox, but this is concerning. The offseason isn't over yet, but who is left? We are left looking at trades, which forces us to even further deplete a depleted farm system.

Jjav829
12-12-2007, 09:55 PM
It's all a problem. This team has a lot of holes. Starting rotation, bullpen, offense. There are holes and question marks all over.

However, I would agree that the starting rotation is a bigger issue to me than the offense. While we're clearly lacking in the outfield, we have enough other decent hitters that this offense will be, well, decent.

The starting rotation is definitely a bigger issue. We pretty much know what we'll get from Buehrle. Yeah, he's had a couple down years, but overall, he's been a top of the rotation pitcher. After all, it's all up in the air. Contreras has had two really good halves in his career. Gavin Floyd is a huge question mark. Vazquez had a good year last year, but there's always going to be the same questions about him. Can he pitch well when it matters? Most of his best work was done after the Sox were basically out of contention. Can he rely be a #2 on a contending team? I doubt it.

ericiii
12-12-2007, 10:01 PM
Agreed, this pitching staff is a worry. But, you are delusional if you aren't concerned about this offense.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it serves a purpose in this thread.

YEAR W L RS RA
2007 72 90 693 839
2006 90 72 868 794
2005 99 63 741 645


As you can see, we only scored 50 less runs last year vs 2005, but we allowed almost 200 more runs last year vs 2005. We need to stop worrying about hitting and worry more about pitching!!!

DickAllen72
12-12-2007, 10:02 PM
I'd love to see the Sox upgrade over Owens, but I'd rather have Owens over Pierre. Pierre may actually be a downgrade.

rowand33
12-12-2007, 10:05 PM
Agreed, this pitching staff is a worry. But, you are delusional insane if you aren't concerned about this offense. I believe that I am correct in saying that this offense was ranked dead last, or at least in the bottom three, in all offensive categories last year, including the weaker hitting NL. That is bad and makes the pitching look even worse. What has changed? O. Cabrerra, good. What else? Nothing. This outfield has been bad for 2 years and it looks like #3 is coming up. For whatever reason, the OF isn't a high priority to KW, based on the results of what has happened. Quentin? Maybe, but the guy is a .230 career hitter. If you aren't worried about him, why are you worried about Gavin Floyd? He is a career minor league underachiever as well. I hope Quentin is a steal, but he might be Luis Terrero. And then Danny Richar? What the heck did he proove last year? He had a low avg/obp and showed limited fielding range. I don't care if anyone calls me a dark cloud or whatever. I love the Sox, but this is concerning. The offseason isn't over yet, but who is left? We are left looking at trades, which forces us to even further deplete a depleted farm system.

The offense being fine is dependent on Thome, Konerko, and Dye returning to form and Fields taking the next step (I think we can pencil him in for a Richie Sexson-esque .240 30 HR 100 RBI next year). Cabrera gives us a solid #2. We need somebody to lead off. I have my fingers crossed for Juan Pierre. Rip on him if you want, but if he hits .290 and steals 50 bags, he'll help the team and is an upgrade over anything we have.

If we signed Rowand... If we signed Hunter... the offense would still reolve around Thome, Konerko, and Dye returning to form and a leadoff man bringing brought in. Really, Fukudome is a bigger loss than either of those guys because he could have lead off for us. I regress, if you're going to buy into the idea that Thome, Konerko, and Dye will reboudn with Rowand/Hunter, why not buy into it without? We have enough offensive potential that I'm not worried (though I really wanted an upgrade).

To go on a brief tangent here:

If I'm KW, I try to get Pierre AND Patterson for the offense. Do you know why the 2005 team was so good? We were solid defensively, had great pitching, and didn't have a hole in the lineup. It wasn't filled with super stars, but there wasn't a single easy out. Your worst hitters were Crede and Uribe, who you could pencil in for 20ish homers and about 70 RBI; not too shabby. So let's emulate now that we've missed out on the stars. Sign patterson to play center. You add speed to the bottom of the order and get a stellar defensive CFer. He'll only post an OBP of about .310, but you live with it. Pierre plays left (where his noodle arm can't hurt us) and leads off. Giving you a lineup of:

Pierre LF
Cabrera SS
Thome DH
Konerko 1B
Dye RF
Fields 3B
AJ C
Richar 2B
Patterson CF

or something. That lineup has great speed (Pierre, Cabrera, Fields, Richar, and Patterson) and a lot of pop (Thome, Konerko, Dye, Fields). Sign me up.

Anyways... no matter what the offense looks like...

Ultimately, Rowand or Hunter would not be the difference between the 20 wins we'll need to sniff the playoffs. Sure, they would help. Not saying they wouldn't, but we have bigger concerns. We need more bullpen help. We need to sign a vet to compete with Floyd and Danks. Those 4th and 5th spots in the rotation are critical, and making sure both of those are solid could add those 20 wins. Sign Colon. Sign Benson. Sign Clement. Sign somebody! Sure, those guys suck. Guarantee them nothing. If they still have something, great! They pitch for us, stick one of the kids in the pen or AAA. If not, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If we're going to lose out on superstar position players... fine. I don't care. I just really hope we upgrade the pitching.

nccwsfan
12-12-2007, 10:11 PM
Yes, the pitching staff on a whole is the biggest concern for me. But Jerry Owens can not be on the team next year.

Please explain why you believe this and why it's unfathomable that someone with only 350AB's in the majors cannot possibly improve in his first full season. If it's his OBP he went .340 from July on- if it's his defense put him in LF and work to find a CF.

What is the hangup on Jerry Owens?

ksimpson14
12-12-2007, 10:14 PM
That's the point rowand33, my man. Some bullpen arms aren't coming out of thin air. And Kenny already stated weeks ago he was set with his rotation (which I thought and still think is a joke). We were hoping the offense could pick up a little slack. Either way, it's not fine like this, it's full of guys who would be better at being a DH, and aren't great at situational hitting. We're banking on a ton to just be decent as an offensive team. Fields 30/100, seriously? This isn't taking injuries into account, with Dye and Quentin, I am not confident in our health, and you know someone else will pop up.

I completely agree the pitching is scary. But to help that, we'd probably have to pick into our already weak lineup or minor league system. This is why I was using the Rowand thread as a huge venting point of this disappointing time (both last season and this offseason).

ksimpson14
12-12-2007, 10:18 PM
And to add on, I would be scared to see what this team looks like if Buerhle hadn't given in (which is exactly what happened, he took a hit to stay, straight from Kenny's mouth, who seemed irritated as he admitted he was about to finalize a deal that afternoon if Buerhle hadn't gone down). Or if Dye was not promised anything and didn't resign.

Maybe some prospects for Buehrle, but then what, you trade them away for a bat, and have the holes of another pitcher and prospects? I think we're stuck in between, undecided on whether to win now,or in a few years (Kenny flat out said after the Garland trade, he wanted to win now, as he turned down multiple good prospect packages for Garland, that was straight from his mouth in a CSN interview), but everything else has been ****ed up since then.

That's why I think we'll see some big changes next week, I think Kenny might consider 'blow it up' time

ChiSoxLifer
12-12-2007, 10:40 PM
It's all a problem. This team has a lot of holes. Starting rotation, bullpen, offense. There are holes and question marks all over.

However, I would agree that the starting rotation is a bigger issue to me than the offense. While we're clearly lacking in the outfield, we have enough other decent hitters that this offense will be, well, decent.

The starting rotation is definitely a bigger issue. We pretty much know what we'll get from Buehrle. Yeah, he's had a couple down years, but overall, he's been a top of the rotation pitcher. After all, it's all up in the air. Contreras has had two really good halves in his career. Gavin Floyd is a huge question mark. Vazquez had a good year last year, but there's always going to be the same questions about him. Can he pitch well when it matters? Most of his best work was done after the Sox were basically out of contention. Can he rely be a #2 on a contending team? I doubt it.

Why not? Although the Sox were out of contention, Vazquez still pitched against contending teams. He pitched very well versus Cleveland and Detroit who were still trying to make the playoffs. Everyone keeps wondering when this guy will live up to his potential. Well, I think he's taken a huge step to finally being the pitcher they thought he would be. Although I don't have a crystal ball I'm not too worried about Javier. The other three...well I can't say I'm not worried.

I hope KW uses the "found" money from the Hunter/Jones/Fukudome/Rowand/Cabrera fiasco to beef up the bullpen and hope someone trades us a starting pitcher for our fringe prospects.


I really don't think the offense is going to be a problem, either. In fact, I do see a "Progression to the mean". On a side note, why do the Sox need a leadoff hitter than can steal bases? I would be happy having a guy that can work the count, have a nice OBP, and plays good defense. Grady Sizemore leads off for Cleveland and he's had 33/22/22 stolen bases in 3 years. There just aren't many guys that steal a lot of bases and I really don't think they're necessary.

Eh...just ranting I guess. Although I think the Sox still have some talent, I think we're hoping for too many things to bounce our way to win this division. I pray I'm wrong.

Tragg
12-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Let's all be realistic here as we cry in our beers about losing position players...
can get it done. With Pierre and Cabrera setting the table, the mashers can mash behind them.
Using scarce resources to acquire a .330 OBP player like Juan Pierre is ridiculous. .330 OBP and no power is an offensive negative. We'll never pull out of this mire by trading talent for that. Owens is just as good as Pierre right now; and he costs 90% less in dollars and he we don't have to give up talent for him.

Danks and Floyd are risks - they are also young and talented. Better them than a veteran 5th starter type.

We had the offense with Garland instead of Floyd and we won 72 games. this team may win 65; big deal. It could also win 80.

rowand33
12-12-2007, 10:42 PM
Fields can definately hit 30 hrs and drive in 100 runs.

Project out his numbrs (23 HRs and 67 RBIs in 373 ABs) to a regular season (assume 550 ABs) and he has 34 HRs and 99 RBI.

I think 30/100 is a safe assumption given his history, and honestly, may be conservative, as it assumes no progression on his part.

As for bullpen help, plenty of viable options out there. #1 on that list: Matt Wise.

chisoxmike
12-12-2007, 10:43 PM
Why not? Although the Sox were out of contention, Vazquez still pitched against contending teams. He pitched very well versus Cleveland and Detroit who were still trying to make the playoffs. Everyone keeps wondering when this guy will live up to his potential. Well, I think he's taken a huge step to finally being the pitcher they thought he would be. Although I don't have a crystal ball I'm not too worried about Javier. The other three...well I can't say I'm not worried.



Can't pitch for a contending team. For.

rowand33
12-12-2007, 10:50 PM
Using scarce resources to acquire a .330 OBP player like Juan Pierre is ridiculous. .330 OBP and no power is an offensive negative. We'll never pull out of this mire by trading talent for that. Owens is just as good as Pierre right now; and he costs 90% less in dollars and he we don't have to give up talent for him.

Two questions:
1) How is Owens, in any way, as good as Juan Pierre right now? Based on what?
2) What did Scott Podsednik do in 2005 that Juan Pierre couldn't do in 2008?


Danks and Floyd are risks - they are also young and talented. Better them than a veteran 5th starter type.

I'm not saying give the job to a veteran 5th starter. I said bring somebody in to compete for the job. Surely, you can't think Floyd has done anything to earn a spot in our rotation.

We had the offense with Garland instead of Floyd and we won 72 games. this team may win 65; big deal. It could also win 80.

Again, if this team is to succeed, no matter who we sign, it will be contingent on Thome, Konerko, and Dye rebounding. Thus, we did not have this offense with Garland when we won 72 games. Agreed, if the same offense from 2007 shows up, we'll finish behind the Royals.

Tragg
12-12-2007, 11:18 PM
Two questions:
1) How is Owens, in any way, as good as Juan Pierre right now? Based on what?

2) What did Scott Podsednik do in 2005 that Juan Pierre couldn't do in 2008?



I'm not saying give the job to a veteran 5th starter. I said bring somebody in to compete for the job. Surely, you can't think Floyd has done anything to earn a spot in our rotation.



Again, if this team is to succeed, no matter who we sign, it will be contingent on Thome, Konerko, and Dye rebounding. Thus, we did not have this offense with Garland when we won 72 games. Agreed, if the same offense from 2007 shows up, we'll finish behind the Royals.
1) Owens had an OBP of .321 last year; Pierre's for the last 3 years were .326, .330 and .331. The difference is scant. On ther other hand, Pierre costs 10 times more in dollars AND we'd have to give talent for him.

2)a)Under what sort of analysis is Pierre likely to hit .350 OBP? That's what Pods did. b) Pods was solid, not great, in 2005. Pods was above average when he got on base at a .350 clip AND did a bit of swiping. What was great all season was the pitching and D - that's why we won. had Pods hit .330, we wouldn't have made the playoffs.

As for Floyd, he pitched well in spots. That's all Danks did. 7 or 8 of Floyd's last 10 appearances were positive efforts. Floyd blew up worse than Danks did - his bad games were really, really ugly. On the other hand, factor out 2 starts (2 of his first 3) and his ERA looks a lot better. And his first start was in that infamous double header against the Twins, the lowpoint of the season, in which the sox were humiliated in 2 straight games. Floyd did what everyone else did.

I'd love to get a lead off hitter on this team. But Pierre is a very small improvement over Owens (I think Richar would be better than Owens) - what would you give up for this marginal improvement and 10Mill in salary? ( and if you don't want the 10Mill, which the sox assuredly won't, that will mean top prospect. For Juan PIerre. Gag.)

soxfan43
12-12-2007, 11:32 PM
I think the problem is here, we are hoping some of the guys rebound from last year, hoping Fields, Owens, Quentin and Richar progess as players, hoping theback of the rotation doesn't fall apart. Detroit, Boston, etc have far fewer question marks on their teams that they hope work out. If all the young guys improve, if the vets rebound, sure maybe we can compete with the top teams in the AL and make Kenny look like a genious again. But that is hoping for a lot of things to go right. It all worked in 2005, but I have a hard time believing it can all ALL go right again.

Hitmen77
12-13-2007, 12:21 AM
Let's all be realistic here as we cry in our beers about losing position players...

this is the offense as it stands today:

CF-Owens
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
Lf-Quentin?
C-AJ
2B-Richar

that offense will be fine (I stress the word fine) if Thome, Konerko, and Dye rebound (which I'd say the smart money is on) and Fields hits 30 HRs and 100 RBI.

I think Juan Pierre is a guy we need. As sad as that is, I seriously do.

This offense:

CF-Pierre
SS-Cabrera
DH-Thome
1B-Konerko
RF-Dye
3B-Fields
C-AJ
LF-Owens/Quentin
2B-Richar

can get it done. With Pierre and Cabrera setting the table, the mashers can mash behind them.

Either way, I don't look at either of those lineups and think "100 loss team"

What scares me is this

Buehrle
Vazquez
Contreras
Danks
Floyd

Our pitching staff is what's scary.

Will Vazquez repeat 2007 or 2006?
Is Contreras just done?
Can one of Danks or Floyd do their best to impersonate Garland's numbers?

And then there's the bullpen...

Quit crying about Rowand, Hunter, and Cabrera. They'd have helped, sure.

Let's concern ourselves more with shoring up the piching staff

Our current roster has alot of question marks. Owens, Quentin, Richar, and even Fields haven't proven themselves over an entire season. That's about half the lineup (4 of 9) who haven't played a full season in the majors. They could all have solid seasons - but it's more likely that we'll be going through a lot of growing pains with these guys.

The starting rotation has alot of question marks too. Only Buehrle has been consistently solid. Javy has been up and down in his career. We all know about Jose's troubles last year. Danks and Floyd have talent - we'll see if they can put it together in '08. Again, we're counting on a lot of things all to go right.

The bullpen? I would like to see the Sox get one more serviceable reliever.

We'll see....

Hitmen77
12-13-2007, 12:28 AM
I posted this in another thread, but I think it serves a purpose in this thread.

YEAR W L RS RA
2007 72 90 693 839
2006 90 72 868 794
2005 99 63 741 645


As you can see, we only scored 50 less runs last year vs 2005, but we allowed almost 200 more runs last year vs 2005. We need to stop worrying about hitting and worry more about pitching!!!

If that's true, then why did KW's "master plan" involve committing $25 million of our payroll to Hunter and M. Cabrera?....not to mention the amount of talent (likely a bunch of pitching talent) we would have had to give up for Cabrera?

I don't get it. What is the Sox philosophy? Is it "pitching and defense wins championships"? Or is it to commit $75 million on a CF until he is 37 and to sell the farm for a offensive monster who is not that great at defense...with Jerry Owens being the fallback if we don't land those guys.:?:

Oldschoolsoxguy
12-13-2007, 01:24 AM
OK I'll bite. Tell me the "chips" we have to get Haren? Hope you aren't considering Alvin, Theodore and Simon.

Ok Walt Williams,here you go:Danks,Gio,Egbert,Broadway,DLS/Poreda/
Fields (yeah i know Chavez is still with Oakland) Quentin/Richar/and of course Anderson & Sweeney as the last man in...so tell Billy Beane he can have his pick of any 3 guys of the first 9 listed.If he wants a 4th,take one
of the outfielders.Point is,there is SOME quality there don't you think ?

ChiSoxLifer
12-13-2007, 02:07 AM
Can't pitch for a contending team. For.

I guess my point was that when pitching against two contending teams that absolutely had to beat him, he shut them down.

However, if I remember correctly, in August and September of 2006, in his last 12 starts, he allowed 3 runs or less. The Sox got shut out in 3 of his starts. I admit his whole season wasn't all that great but it looked like he pitched pretty well when they really needed him. Too bad the rest of the team couldn't keep up.

He's basically been the team's best starter for the past season and a half. It's definitely not his fault the team didn't contend this year.

ChiSoxLifer
12-13-2007, 02:14 AM
If that's true, then why did KW's "master plan" involve committing $25 million of our payroll to Hunter and M. Cabrera?....not to mention the amount of talent (likely a bunch of pitching talent) we would have had to give up for Cabrera?

I don't get it. What is the Sox philosophy? Is it "pitching and defense wins championships"? Or is it to commit $75 million on a CF until he is 37 and to sell the farm for a offensive monster who is not that great at defense...with Jerry Owens being the fallback if we don't land those guys.:?:


Maybe he really doesn't think the pitching is all that great and won't admit it. Thus, he needs to upgrade the offense and the defense. Struck out on both ends. Although I think the offense will come back closer to 2006 than 2007 on its own.

The Sox have a great one, two, ten, and eleven on the pitching staff. It's the three through nine that scares me.

Frater Perdurabo
12-13-2007, 07:26 AM
Mike (rowand33) has a solid and realistic plan.

The 2005 offense, especially without Frank Thomas, was exceedingly average.

Remember in April 2005 how many Sox fans (including me and PHG among others) clamored for Frank's return?

Remember the pages and pages of posts wishing for Griffey? (Many wanted to bench Rowand to get Griffey in the lineup. Now lots of fans think that Armageddon has come because the Sox didn't want to sign Rowand.)

Remember the Windsock Douchebags and their protégés and disciples on WSI ripping on KW for only getting Geoff Blum when the Sox "desperately needed a bat?"

Remember all the threads begging for KW to acquire Joe Randa to replace Crede, because Crede simply wasn't hitting very well (until September and until the playoffs)?

Carl freaking Everett was the primary DH!

I'm with Mike. Get Pierre. Get Patterson. Or play the youngsters. Let Owens, Quentin, Anderson and Sweeney battle it out.

Put the resources into the bullpen and sign a veteran starter like Colon or Clement to an incentive-laden contract to compete for a spot in the rotation.

Noneck
12-13-2007, 08:25 AM
Ok Walt Williams,here you go:Danks,Gio,Egbert,Broadway,DLS/Poreda/
Fields (yeah i know Chavez is still with Oakland) Quentin/Richar/and of course Anderson & Sweeney as the last man in...so tell Billy Beane he can have his pick of any 3 guys of the first 9 listed.If he wants a 4th,take one
of the outfielders.Point is,there is SOME quality there don't you think ?
Some quality, Yes. Enough quality? Probably not but even if you are right noway the Sox will give up the farm. Those guys are cheap for many years to come. Losing the top 3 would leave the farm with slim pickins.

goon
12-13-2007, 09:15 AM
It's all a problem. This team has a lot of holes. Starting rotation, bullpen, offense. There are holes and question marks all over.

However, I would agree that the starting rotation is a bigger issue to me than the offense. While we're clearly lacking in the outfield, we have enough other decent hitters that this offense will be, well, decent.

The starting rotation is definitely a bigger issue. We pretty much know what we'll get from Buehrle. Yeah, he's had a couple down years, but overall, he's been a top of the rotation pitcher. After all, it's all up in the air. Contreras has had two really good halves in his career. Gavin Floyd is a huge question mark. Vazquez had a good year last year, but there's always going to be the same questions about him. Can he pitch well when it matters? Most of his best work was done after the Sox were basically out of contention. Can he rely be a #2 on a contending team? I doubt it.

The Sox are lacking in an outfield position, CF. Quentin or Dye can handle RF, Quentin or Owens can handle LF.

veeter
12-13-2007, 09:42 AM
Yes, the pitching staff on a whole is the biggest concern for me. But Jerry Owens can not be on the team next year.This 'Jerry Owens sucks' stuff is a joke. It's just not true.

Jjav829
12-13-2007, 09:48 AM
Why not? Although the Sox were out of contention, Vazquez still pitched against contending teams. He pitched very well versus Cleveland and Detroit who were still trying to make the playoffs. Everyone keeps wondering when this guy will live up to his potential. Well, I think he's taken a huge step to finally being the pitcher they thought he would be. Although I don't have a crystal ball I'm not too worried about Javier. The other three...well I can't say I'm not worried.


Because his track record says that when the spotlight gets bright, he fades. His best years came while pitching in anonymity in Montreal. When he went to the Yankees, he blew up. In his two postseason appearances, he posted a 9+ ERA. He's like the anti-Josh Beckett.

Vazquez will turn 32 this season. After posting an ERA of 4.4+ for 3 consecutive seasons, has he actually turned the corner at the age of 32, past his peak seasons? Or was last season simply a fluke for a guy who has been a mediocre pitcher? I highly doubt it's the former. The latter is much more likely. That's not to say he's going to blow up and post a 5 ERA this year, but it's more likely that he'll finish somewhere around 4.3 with a near .500 record. Not awful, but not exactly a #2 starter on a contending team.

ericiii
12-13-2007, 11:34 AM
Maybe he really doesn't think the pitching is all that great and won't admit it. Thus, he needs to upgrade the offense and the defense. Struck out on both ends. Although I think the offense will come back closer to 2006 than 2007 on its own.

The Sox have a great one, two, ten, and eleven on the pitching staff. It's the three through nine that scares me.

I hate to use Boston as a reference, but Boston's playoff record in 2005 and 2006 should speak volumes about why pitching is so important. For the most part, they had the same lineup in 2007 that they did in previous years. It wasn't until they added pitching to the equation (both starting and relief) that they became dominant in the 07 playoffs.

RowanDye
12-13-2007, 12:21 PM
Mike (rowand33) has a solid and realistic plan.

The 2005 offense, especially without Frank Thomas, was exceedingly average.

Remember in April 2005 how many Sox fans (including me and PHG among others) clamored for Frank's return?

Remember the pages and pages of posts wishing for Griffey? (Many wanted to bench Rowand to get Griffey in the lineup. Now lots of fans think that Armageddon has come because the Sox didn't want to sign Rowand.)

Remember the Windsock Douchebags and their protégés and disciples on WSI ripping on KW for only getting Geoff Blum when the Sox "desperately needed a bat?"

Remember all the threads begging for KW to acquire Joe Randa to replace Crede, because Crede simply wasn't hitting very well (until September and until the playoffs)?

Carl freaking Everett was the primary DH!

I'm with Mike. Get Pierre. Get Patterson. Or play the youngsters. Let Owens, Quentin, Anderson and Sweeney battle it out.

Put the resources into the bullpen and sign a veteran starter like Colon or Clement to an incentive-laden contract to compete for a spot in the rotation.

I agree with most of this except for Pierre. People trying to compare him to Pods are forgetting one glaring difference, we were only relying on Pods' wet noodle in LF!

Why pickup another weak-armed left-handed hitting slap hitter to play CF? I just don't see why you would pay that much money for such a minimal improvement over Jerry Owens.

As for the plan going forward, at this point I say we sign Patterson and Shannon Stewart (if he's healthy). Combined these guys shouldn't cost more than $8-9 M next year.

Stewart would start and leadoff against lefties. Yes, I know he's not great against lefties, but I think he would be better than Owens in that role. When Stewart starts, Patterson plays CF.

Against most righties, Owens would start in LF and leadoff. Again, Patterson plays CF.

Because Quentin is the least proven and coming off an injury, he starts out as the 5th outfielder. He would get some starts in LF with Owens leading off and playing CF. If Quentin returns to OBP machine, then maybe we can try him in the leadoff spot at some point.

In this scenario we have 2 guys that can play CF AND 2 guys that can leadoff for minimal cost and no loss of prospects.

Then try to sign Vizcaino, or make some kind of package with MacDougal/Aardsma/Crede/Uribe to get another arm.

rowand33
12-13-2007, 12:33 PM
I agree with most of this except for Pierre. People trying to compare him to Pods are forgetting one glaring difference, we were only relying on Pods' wet noodle in LF!

Why pickup another weak-armed left-handed hitting slap hitter to play CF? I just don't see why you would pay that much money for such a minimal improvement over Jerry Owens.

As for the plan going forward, at this point I say we sign Patterson and Shannon Stewart (if he's healthy). Combined these guys shouldn't cost more than $8-9 M next year.

Stewart would start and leadoff against lefties. Yes, I know he's not great against lefties, but I think he would be better than Owens in that role. When Stewart starts, Patterson plays CF.

Against most righties, Owens would start in LF and leadoff. Again, Patterson plays CF.

Because Quentin is the least proven and coming off an injury, he starts out as the 5th outfielder. He would get some starts in LF with Owens leading off and playing CF. If Quentin returns to OBP machine, then maybe we can try him in the leadoff spot at some point.

In this scenario we have 2 guys that can play CF AND 2 guys that can leadoff for minimal cost and no loss of prospects.

Then try to sign Vizcaino, or make some kind of package with MacDougal/Aardsma/Crede/Uribe to get another arm.

That's why you shift Pierre to left and have Patterson in center.

I would accept Stewart as the left fielder and leadoff guy, but I'd rather have Juan Pierre for the SB threat.

SWFLWhiteSoxFan
12-13-2007, 12:42 PM
Shannon Stewart was name forgotten in all this...I wouldn't mind Pierre's speed in center, and Stewart's clutch hitting with a bench of Owens, Pablo, Quentin, and Uribe...

Tragg
12-13-2007, 02:53 PM
That's why you shift Pierre to left and have Patterson in center.


AHHHHHHH. At least Owens/Anderson and Quinten will win 72 games with a chance to improve their game and the team.

Patterson and PIerre??? Yikes!

Jerko
12-13-2007, 02:56 PM
Isn't Stewart hurt more than Pods is/was? He's not the answer IMO.

JRIG
12-13-2007, 02:56 PM
AHHHHHHH. At least Owens/Anderson and Quinten will win 72 games with a chance to improve their game and the team.

Patterson and PIerre??? Yikes!

But they're fast!!! Speed kills!!! And contrary to public opinion, a new study shows you can steal first base. So Pierre and Patterson might be OK now!

JB98
12-13-2007, 03:22 PM
That's why you shift Pierre to left and have Patterson in center.

I would accept Stewart as the left fielder and leadoff guy, but I'd rather have Juan Pierre for the SB threat.

I'm with Tragg on the Pierre issue. The guy is a more experienced Jerry Owens, and he's about $11 million more expensive. And we'd have to give up Crede or a prospect to get him.

Stewart intrigues me. But I think they'd either have to put BA in CF or sign a defensive specialist to play CF under that scenario.

Stewart/Owens/Dye as a defensive outfield would be a nightmare.

ChiSoxLifer
12-13-2007, 03:28 PM
Because his track record says that when the spotlight gets bright, he fades. His best years came while pitching in anonymity in Montreal. When he went to the Yankees, he blew up. In his two postseason appearances, he posted a 9+ ERA. He's like the anti-Josh Beckett.

Vazquez will turn 32 this season. After posting an ERA of 4.4+ for 3 consecutive seasons, has he actually turned the corner at the age of 32, past his peak seasons? Or was last season simply a fluke for a guy who has been a mediocre pitcher? I highly doubt it's the former. The latter is much more likely. That's not to say he's going to blow up and post a 5 ERA this year, but it's more likely that he'll finish somewhere around 4.3 with a near .500 record. Not awful, but not exactly a #2 starter on a contending team.

Ok, so you say a season and a half of stellar pitching is not enough proof that he's turned it around but will use a two game sample size that he's a bad postseason pitcher?

Jjav829
12-13-2007, 07:27 PM
Ok, so you say a season and a half of stellar pitching is not enough proof that he's turned it around but will use a two game sample size that he's a bad postseason pitcher?

I never said he's a bad postseason pitcher, I said then when the spotlight gets bright, he fades, like he did in New York or for most of the Sox 2006 season when we were in contention.

If you want to think that at the age of 31 he has suddenly become a sub-4 ERA, 15-win type of pitcher, be my guest. But history would indicate that it's very unlikely.

RowanDye
12-13-2007, 08:03 PM
I'm with Tragg on the Pierre issue. The guy is a more experienced Jerry Owens, and he's about $11 million more expensive. And we'd have to give up Crede or a prospect to get him.

Stewart intrigues me. But I think they'd either have to put BA in CF or sign a defensive specialist to play CF under that scenario.

Stewart/Owens/Dye as a defensive outfield would be a nightmare.

I think Patterson's defense in CF would make up for it, and he would provide a nice stolen base threat at the bottom of the order. I'm just not sure how much his agent affects the legitimacy of signing him.

Mike Cameron has a good glove as well, but I don't really want him on the team.

Also, I've heard someone mention a trade for Norris Hopper who I think has a decent glove.

JRIG
12-13-2007, 08:17 PM
I never said he's a bad postseason pitcher, I said then when the spotlight gets bright, he fades, like he did in New York or for most of the Sox 2006 season when we were in contention.

Most of 06? He had an ERA of less than 4.00 four of the six months of the season. Now, he was very bad for June and July. But for most of '06, Vazquez was exactly what we thought he'd be. And the bullpen blew a crapload of wins for him.

Javier Vazquez is the very least of our worries heading into '08.

DickAllen72
12-13-2007, 10:35 PM
But for most of '06, Vazquez was exactly what we thought he'd be. And the bullpen blew a crapload of wins for him.

Javier Vazquez is the very least of our worries heading into '08.
I agree 100%, but be careful how you choose your words. You may have to pay Dennis Green royalties. :wink:

JRIG
12-13-2007, 10:49 PM
I agree 100%, but be careful how you choose your words. You may have to pay Dennis Green royalties. :wink:

That phrase will never be thought of in the same way again....:D:

How about this: Vazquez has provided almost exactly the level of performance we should have expected of him. Yeah, that'll work :cool:

Jjav829
12-14-2007, 08:11 AM
Most of 06? He had an ERA of less than 4.00 four of the six months of the season. Now, he was very bad for June and July. But for most of '06, Vazquez was exactly what we thought he'd be. And the bullpen blew a crapload of wins for him.

Javier Vazquez is the very least of our worries heading into '08.

Ok, so "most of 06" was a bit of an exagerration, statistically speaking. However, we all remember the 5th/6th inning blowups Vazquez had in 06.

My point still remains. I don't think Vazquez is a #2 on a good team.

No, Vazquez is absolutely not our biggest worry. Even if he has the expected regression back to his career norms, he's still a decent pitcher. And in terms of worries for '08, there's easily 3 bigger worries in the starting rotation, plus the worries about the offense and bullpen.

oeo
12-14-2007, 08:17 AM
Can't pitch for a contending team. For.

You have no evidence of this; give it up. He couldn't pitch for non-contending teams either.

How about he regained his confidence and doesn't hang that damn curve ball everytime he gets in a tough spot?

oeo
12-14-2007, 08:20 AM
I never said he's a bad postseason pitcher, I said then when the spotlight gets bright, he fades, like he did in New York or for most of the Sox 2006 season when we were in contention.

Or like he did for a 77-win Arizona team? :rolleyes:

That argument blows. It never was an argument before; everyone that thought he sucked just said he sucked. So after he has a solid year, you went to the stat book to find some awful coincidence and called it fact.

Jjav829
12-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Or like he did for a 77-win Arizona team? :rolleyes:

That argument blows. It never was an argument before; everyone that thought he sucked just said he sucked. So after he has a solid year, you went to the stat book to find some awful coincidence and called it fact.

I know you love Vazquez, and you know I'm not exactly his biggest fan. I never presented anything as fact. I simply said, using my opinion, not fact, that he is not a #2 starter on a contending team, and that I don't think he will repeat his 07 numbers. And I also presented his lack of success after leaving the black hole of Montreal, combined with his blowups in the 5th/6th innings (which even Yankees fans noticed) as evidence as to why I don't think he's a guy who does well when the games get more meaningful.

Now if you can show me an example of a pitcher who suddenly "found it" at the age of 31/32, I would love to re-consider. But I don't know of many. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Jamie Moyer. He learned to pitch rather than throw at a later age and had his best years after turning 34. But he's an anomaly. With most pitchers, you know what you're getting by the time they turn 30.

JRIG
12-15-2007, 11:22 AM
I know you love Vazquez, and you know I'm not exactly his biggest fan. I never presented anything as fact. I simply said, using my opinion, not fact, that he is not a #2 starter on a contending team, and that I don't think he will repeat his 07 numbers. And I also presented his lack of success after leaving the black hole of Montreal, combined with his blowups in the 5th/6th innings (which even Yankees fans noticed) as evidence as to why I don't think he's a guy who does well when the games get more meaningful.

Now if you can show me an example of a pitcher who suddenly "found it" at the age of 31/32, I would love to re-consider. But I don't know of many. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Jamie Moyer. He learned to pitch rather than throw at a later age and had his best years after turning 34. But he's an anomaly. With most pitchers, you know what you're getting by the time they turn 30.

Well, David Wells and Al Leiter are two off the top of my head.

But I think the bigger point is you're completely discounting Vazquez' work in Montreal. This guy put up incredible numbers from '01-'03. He doesn't have to "find it." He's always had it, and he's been great for 10 of 12 months with the White Sox. As you said, though, I love Vazquez and you're, well, skeptical. So for the White Sox sake I hope he proves me right. :D:

Jjav829
12-15-2007, 11:49 AM
Well, David Wells and Al Leiter are two off the top of my head.

But I think the bigger point is you're completely discounting Vazquez' work in Montreal. This guy put up incredible numbers from '01-'03. He doesn't have to "find it." He's always had it, and he's been great for 10 of 12 months with the White Sox. As you said, though, I love Vazquez and you're, well, skeptical. So for the White Sox sake I hope he proves me right. :D:

I'm not discounting it. The fact that I'm even discussing this shows I'm taking it into account. If he didn't have those three good seasons, it would be pretty simple to show that he was an awful pitcher. It's those three good years in Montreal that even make this something worth discussing. Why was he so good in 2001, 2002 and 2003, yet not so good in 2004, 2005 and 2006? Was it the New York factor? There is the opinion out there that some players just don't succeed in New York, be it because of the media, the increased pressure on the players to succeed, or whatever other reasons. Maybe Vazquez just fell into that group and it scarred him to the point where he needed a few years to get back on track. Or maybe Vazquez is just a mediocre pitcher who had a good run due to pitching in the NL in a situation where there wasn't much focus on him.

I don't know. I don't claim to have any answers, simply opinions. And my opinion is that those 3 years that stand out in Montreal are probably indicative of a mediocre pitcher taking advantage of not having to face a DH, and pitching in a less pressure filled situation. We'll see what happens in 2008.

goon
12-15-2007, 01:01 PM
I'm not discounting it. The fact that I'm even discussing this shows I'm taking it into account. If he didn't have those three good seasons, it would be pretty simple to show that he was an awful pitcher. It's those three good years in Montreal that even make this something worth discussing. Why was he so good in 2001, 2002 and 2003, yet not so good in 2004, 2005 and 2006? Was it the New York factor? There is the opinion out there that some players just don't succeed in New York, be it because of the media, the increased pressure on the players to succeed, or whatever other reasons. Maybe Vazquez just fell into that group and it scarred him to the point where he needed a few years to get back on track. Or maybe Vazquez is just a mediocre pitcher who had a good run due to pitching in the NL in a situation where there wasn't much focus on him.


For the strongest argument on why Vazquez did so poorly in New York you would have to look at his first year in Arizona and Chicago as well. Basing an argument only from his numbers, it's obvious Vazquez has struggled, initially, after switching teams. Four above average seasons ALL with Montreal, then three mediocre seasons with three different teams, followed by one above average season after sticking with the same team.

The "pressures" of playing for the Yankees is certainly a possibility, but that argument doesn't hold up when you look at the pattern of his career, when you go strictly by the numbers.

Vazquez is awesome, but others have their doubts and I don't blame them. He struggled in '05, but to me, it was clear he always battled on the mound, he seemed very competitive despite his late inning blow-ups and two awful months in June and July. IMO, he's been the Sox best pitcher the last two seasons, unfortunately, without playoff appearances, that doesn't mean much.

soxfanreggie
12-15-2007, 01:31 PM
I'm not yet going to count on Fields hitting 30 and driving in 100. I might give him 23-25 HRs and 85 RBI, but he'll have to hit 30 and 100 for a complete season or two before I will rely on those numbers.

I wouldn't mind having Patterson in CF if we can get a LF leadoff hitter. He would give Owens some competition, and hopefully we can get something out of either.

I also wouldn't mind signing a Clement, Livan Hernandez, or Benson to an incentive-laden contract (one year, club option for 2nd year with low buyout-say $500k). Give them a base of $800k-$2 mil or something with a chance to earn up to $7 or 8 mil and maybe even vest the 2nd year of the deal (2nd year could be $4 or 5 mil with some additional incentives). I think you can throw in big incentives for over 160, 180, and 200 innings, and maybe some extras for hitting 12, 15, and 18 wins. If you can get 12+ wins out of a 4th or 5th starter, that's pretty good. I would take that risk for one of those guys for low-cost. If these guys want to continue to play (and they don't need the money), they might be willing to go with an incentive-based contract.

cleogogo
12-15-2007, 05:24 PM
I am in the "we need pitching" corner. I think Bedard would fit nice into our rotation. But i have questions. Is he still available? Can we afford to give up players to aquire him? And now that Haren was traded, who is our competition to sign him? Thanks

Tragg
12-15-2007, 05:42 PM
If we're going to sign a broken down pitcher, I would suggest one with some back-class.