PDA

View Full Version : Kenny speaks.....again


Sockinchisox
12-12-2007, 11:08 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071212&content_id=2324389&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Discuss.

chisoxmike
12-12-2007, 11:14 PM
Williams also cautioned that the White Sox are not in dire straits at this position, with Jerry Owens showing the ability to be a catalyst in the second half of last season.:thud:

Martinigirl
12-12-2007, 11:15 PM
IT is a rational take on the situation, therefore most people here will disregard it and use it as a springboard to ***** just a little bit more about Kenny, if that is even humanly possible.

HebrewHammer
12-12-2007, 11:17 PM
I picture him surrounded by empty whiskey bottles and old photos of Rowand, Hunter and Fukudome.

The next time I hear Kenny speak, I want him to be telling us that he traveled back in time and signed Ty Cobb to play centerfield and leadoff. Or found a person living in the present that can handle playing centerfield on a day to day basis in the major leagues.

kaufsox
12-12-2007, 11:17 PM
well, what is supposed to say? "yep, I suck. Don't come to the park in 2008." sheesh

MUsoxfan
12-12-2007, 11:19 PM
IT is a rational take on the situation, therefore most people here will disregard it and use it as a springboard to ***** just a little bit more about Kenny, if that is even humanly possible.


Agreed.

I agree with KW about Owens. We don't need Owens to hit. It would be a nice luxury for him to be able to hit, but it shouldn't be required. What is required is that PK, Thome, AJ, Dye, Fields hit the ball. Those are the guys that are expected to do it and didn't do it last year.

doctor30th
12-12-2007, 11:20 PM
"Well, it is for reasons that I would prefer not to go into, and we didn't feel for our purposes it was a smart idea," said Williams, who maintained ongoing dialogue with Craig Landis, Rowand's agent, until the final announcement. "But it has nothing to do with Aaron Rowand. I congratulate him and I'm happy for him and his wife."


Maybe they were afraid that he would only play 100 games a season after getting various broken bones over the next 5 years. Maybe it has nothing to do with Aaron and everything to do with the Mitchell report and a worry that he might decline after it is released. Who knows, I don't fault Kenny for not getting any of the 3 CFs.

Noneck
12-12-2007, 11:21 PM
PR damage control control , It goes on in every company. It is following the natural course of events.

WhiteSox5187
12-12-2007, 11:30 PM
I still think this team has more holes than Kenny is letting on. Yes acquiring Cabrera was a good move and I'm willing to give Quentin a shot...but we really need a CF and we need a leadoff guy...and there are three awfuly big question marks in our rotation. So I'm a little less than thrilled with where we are right now. But hey, that's why they play the games. Maybe these guys are all future all-stars and we will dominate the AL Central...or maybe not. We'll find out.

HebrewHammer
12-12-2007, 11:34 PM
Maybe they were afraid that he would only play 100 games a season after getting various broken bones over the next 5 years. Maybe it has nothing to do with Aaron and everything to do with the Mitchell report and a worry that he might decline after it is released. Who knows, I don't fault Kenny for not getting any of the 3 CFs.

I thought that quote was worded strangely. "Reasons we would not like to get into," makes me think Mitchell Report. If he did juice, here's hoping he did it after 2005.

doctor30th
12-12-2007, 11:38 PM
I thought that quote was worded strangely. "Reasons we would not like to get into," makes me think Mitchell Report. If he did juice, here's hoping he did it after 2005.


I'm just saying, he did look a little bigger and barrel chested after his motorcycle accident. It was hard work to come back from that, I just hope that's not the reason we didn't sign him or the reason he signed the day before the report came out. I'm hoping it was just hard work.

rowand33
12-12-2007, 11:42 PM
this really bummed me out:

"We wanted to upgrade at shortstop, get a setup guy for the bullpen, acquire Carlos Quentin -- and not a guy like him, but actually Carlos Quentin -- and address our center field position," Really?!??!

That guy better be ****ing good... Also, we damn well better bring in more bullpen help.

Oh, and while my screen name indicates I love rowand, I've been on record for months that I think he'll be in the Mitchell Report.

Soxfest
12-12-2007, 11:43 PM
If KW really thinks he accomplished 3/4 of his off season goals already his main goal must be 90 losses.:angry:

ilsox7
12-12-2007, 11:44 PM
If KW really thinks he accomplished 3/4 of his off season goals already his main goal must be 90 losses.:angry:

I heard KW wants to go for 100 losses in 2008.

eriqjaffe
12-12-2007, 11:46 PM
Really?!??!:KW
"I love it when Plan 1A comes together!"

Jerome
12-12-2007, 11:53 PM
Jerry Owens is a catalyst? By that measuring stick, BA is an All star, just put him in CF we'll be fine.

IceczMan
12-13-2007, 12:06 AM
Whether or not Rowand is or isnt in the Mitchell report, how does that have any effect on the fact that the sox were willing to offer 4 years and not 5? Mentioning the Mitchell report doesnt make any sense. I doubt Kenny's mentality was, 'Oh, well because you may have taken steriods, we cant offer you a fifth year.' I dont see how that report has any relevance to this situation. Am I missing something?

kobo
12-13-2007, 12:08 AM
If KW really thinks he accomplished 3/4 of his off season goals already his main goal must be 90 losses.:angry:
Let's see, he stated that his goals were We wanted to upgrade at shortstop, get a setup guy for the bullpen, acquire Carlos Quentin -- and not a guy like him, but actually Carlos Quentin -- and address our center field position so it looks like he did accomplish 3 out of 4. People are quick to forget that just about everyone around here was calling for Uribe's head most of last season and the beginning of the off season. He gets Cabrera and people are upset. He adds a reliever and people say he overpaid, yet they want him to overpay for Torii or Rowand. CF is a bit of a hole right now, but I'd rather go into the season with Owens in CF rather than Coco Crisp, so I hope he doesn't go after him.

The only quote in the article that rubbed me the wrong way was what he said about not offering Hunter $90 million. I'm not sure what we could have done, short of anything up to offering $90 million, and we don't have those kind of resources.

Sockinchisox
12-13-2007, 12:09 AM
Whether or not Rowand is or isnt in the Mitchell report, how does that have any effect on the fact that the sox were willing to offer 4 years and not 5? Mentioning the Mitchell report doesnt make any sense. I doubt Kenny's mentality was, 'Oh, well because you may have taken steriods, we cant offer you a fifth year.' I dont see how that report has any relevance to this situation. Am I missing something?

The report had nothing to do with the years, not many people believe he would last 5 years playing CF with the reckless abandon that he does. The Giants were the only team to give him 5 years.

MUsoxfan
12-13-2007, 12:12 AM
The only quote in the article that rubbed me the wrong way was what he said about not offering Hunter $90 million.

He's right. We don't have those kind of resources. The Sox were willing to pony up the 5/75 he wanted. 5/90 is quite a large leap. That $3m extra per year can be put to some great use.

IceczMan
12-13-2007, 12:13 AM
The report had nothing to do with the years, not many people believe he would last 5 years playing CF with the reckless abandon that he does. The Giants were the only team to give him 5 years.


Yea I know. I also agree that it was a smart move if Kenny actually believed that Rowand would be spending more time on the DL than on the field in the later years of the contract. I was just responding to the speculation that steroids played a role in not signing Rowand. I should have quoted the past posts. My bad.

ksimpson14
12-13-2007, 12:14 AM
I'm not surprised by the Jerry Owens thing, that was said weeks ago by him, right after he traded Garland (Comcast interview)

He and I don't see eye to eye on the goals. By this article, it sounds like he thinks the bullpen is fixed. 1 person? I don't think so...he doesn't mention SP at all, again, even if Contreras is great, it still needs a lot go right, not to mention losing Garland, 200 innings to replace when your pen already sucked...SS, seemed like the biggest upgrade, but to me, it was last on the list, since we had a good defensive solution there already, so he can't hit, stick him 9th, but use Garland for the more important holes...and of course, CF, where we've done nothing.

Nothing personal at all, but doesn't sound like a great job to me, if this is school or work, I'dve failed or been fired by now. Getting an A+ a few years ago means nothing if I can't graduate after an F last year

Blueprint1
12-13-2007, 12:19 AM
I'm not surprised by the Jerry Owens thing, that was said weeks ago by him, right after he traded Garland (Comcast interview)

He and I don't see eye to eye on the goals. By this article, it sounds like he thinks the bullpen is fixed. 1 person? I don't think so...he doesn't mention SP at all, again, even if Contreras is great, it still needs a lot go right, not to mention losing Garland, 200 innings to replace when your pen already sucked...SS, seemed like the biggest upgrade, but to me, it was last on the list, since we had a good defensive solution there already, so he can't hit, stick him 9th, but use Garland for the more important holes...and of course, CF, where we've done nothing.

Nothing personal at all, but doesn't sound like a great job to me, if this is school or work, I'dve failed or been fired by now. Getting an A+ a few years ago means nothing if I can't graduate after an F last year

I agree if we were going to trade a starting pitcher I feel we should have got more in return. I feel the team is no better than it was at the end of last season. We have a SS now but we are missing a starter.

Soxfest
12-13-2007, 12:27 AM
Let's see, he stated that his goals were so it looks like he did accomplish 3 out of 4. People are quick to forget that just about everyone around here was calling for Uribe's head most of last season and the beginning of the off season. He gets Cabrera and people are upset. He adds a reliever and people say he overpaid, yet they want him to overpay for Torii or Rowand. CF is a bit of a hole right now, but I'd rather go into the season with Owens in CF rather than Coco Crisp, so I hope he doesn't go after him.

The only quote in the article that rubbed me the wrong way was what he said about not offering Hunter $90 million.

Again.....nothing has changed with this team.

If KW really thinks he accomplished 3/4 of his off season goals already his main goal must be 90 losses.:angry:

doctor30th
12-13-2007, 12:29 AM
Whether or not Rowand is or isnt in the Mitchell report, how does that have any effect on the fact that the sox were willing to offer 4 years and not 5? Mentioning the Mitchell report doesnt make any sense. I doubt Kenny's mentality was, 'Oh, well because you may have taken steriods, we cant offer you a fifth year.' I dont see how that report has any relevance to this situation. Am I missing something?


I would lean more toward the part of my statement that said they might worry about him only playing 100 games a year.

kittle42
12-13-2007, 12:52 AM
As others in this thread have said, it is merely PR positive spin at this point. He cannot come out and say "we have failed to set ourselves up to give us the best chance to compete in the AL Central."

Yet, how anyone can objectively say that this is not the case is mind-boggling to me.

areilly
12-13-2007, 12:56 AM
He's right. We don't have those kind of resources. The Sox were willing to pony up the 5/75 he wanted. 5/90 is quite a large leap. That $3m extra per year can be put to some great use.

That $3mil could've meant the triumphant return of Darrin Erstad and Andy Gonzalez.

It's Dankerific
12-13-2007, 02:44 AM
Hunter worth 5/$75, Rowand's not worth 5/$60? How much does he expect Aaron to take?? Would it have been more palatable if it was 4/$55??

Fantosme
12-13-2007, 03:00 AM
If it was his plan all along to upgrade at SS, then why did he resign Uribe?

kevin57
12-13-2007, 05:57 AM
I hardly believe I'm saying this but perhaps it is time to bring back BA for CF (assuming he's healthy). He would be a definite upgrade defensively. Offense punch? We can hope he's improved but even if he hasn't, let us not take our eyes off the ball. What hurt us more than anything else last year was pitching...mostly relievers and then starters (*cough* Contreras *cough*). Yes, our hitting was anemic, but in '05 hitting went through some terrible slumps. We often got just enough to survive, and last year, if our hitters (Konerko et al.) had had even decent numbers we would have been fine, so BA's hitting is not what would alarm me.

Goals not to be ignored:

1. pitching (especially in the pen);

2. speed (somebody has got to offset our Sherman Tanks).

Frater Perdurabo
12-13-2007, 06:06 AM
I'm surprised no one's quoted this segment yet:

In the case of Fukudome, Williams understood that the White Sox made the highest offer among the interested teams. Fukudome simply wanted to be the first Japanese player for a particular franchise, an honor already belonging to Shingo Takatsu with the White Sox, and had a desire to stay in right field. Shigetoshi Hasegawa also gave Fukudome a strong recommendation for Cubs manager Lou Piniella from their days together in Seattle.

Maybe no one's quoted it because it doesn't fit the "pants pissing dark cloud party line" that "KW sucks."

:kukoo:

SBSoxFan
12-13-2007, 07:22 AM
I'm surprised no one's quoted this segment yet:



Maybe no one's quoted it because it doesn't fit the "pants pissing dark cloud party line" that "KW sucks."

:kukoo:

But I think it says Fukudome is more interested in being the center of attention than playing for a winning team. If that speaks to his overall character, I'm kinda glad he didn't sign with the Sox.

I guess, technically, the Cubs are a winning team, and I could think of several reasons, all else being equal, to chose to sign with them over the Sox, but that "me first" stuff doesn't work when there's 25 guys in play.

Juice16
12-13-2007, 08:19 AM
I'm surprised no one's quoted this segment yet:



Maybe no one's quoted it because it doesn't fit the "pants pissing dark cloud party line" that "KW sucks."

:kukoo:

I have seen people discuss this yesterday. What is with the "pants pissing dark cloud" BS? I can easliy lable all the "In Kenny We Trust" crowd as the cool aid drinking silver lining crowd, but name calling is a little childish. Just as you are tired of people calling for Kenny's head, I am tired of the people who blindly defend him. I think most of us are in the middle, Kenny is our guy but we are not too happy with the way the offseason is going. No, there is no dark cloud over my head and I did not just piss in my pants beacuse I don't sip the cool aid.

nevr say dye sox
12-13-2007, 08:29 AM
I think KW is trying to save face by saying Fukedome signed with the Cubs because he wanted to be the first Japanese Player in the organization. He knows that Fukedome has signed, and has his money, he's not going to come out and defend his decesion or discuss KW comments. That's just KW tyring to make good on faliure to imporve this ball club. I highly doubt that was his reason. However, it sounds better than the Cubs are a much better team and will win their division again this year, and it will take us the whole length of Fukedome's contract to even sniff the playoffs again.

SoxGirl4Life
12-13-2007, 08:32 AM
I think KW is trying to save face by saying Fukedome signed with the Cubs because he wanted to be the first Japanese Player in the organization.

Fukudome's agent said that. sheesh.

hi im skot
12-13-2007, 08:33 AM
Fukudome's agent said that. sheesh.

Details, schmetails!

itsnotrequired
12-13-2007, 08:33 AM
I think KW is trying to save face by saying Fukedome signed with the Cubs because he wanted to be the first Japanese Player in the organization. He knows that Fukedome has signed, and has his money, he's not going to come out and defend his decesion or discuss KW comments. That's just KW tyring to make good on faliure to imporve this ball club. I highly doubt that was his reason. However, it sounds better than the Cubs are a much better team and will win their division again this year, and it will take us the whole length of Fukedome's contract to even sniff the playoffs again.

How is KW trying to save face? If Fukudome wanted to be the first Japanese player for a given organization, wanted to stay in right field and the Rangers offered more money, how has KW performed poorly on this one?

KW can be faulted for a lot of things but not signing Fukudome isn't one of them.

soxfan21
12-13-2007, 08:34 AM
I think most of us are in the middle, Kenny is our guy but we are not too happy with the way the offseason is going.
This is exactly where I stand on this. I think that not all of the things happening this season are Kenny's fault, and that he does not control everything that has happend or will happen for the rest of this offseason. I just hope things get better before they get any worse.

balke
12-13-2007, 08:37 AM
I see a HUGE conflict here from Whitesox.com

1) Joe Crede will be tendered an offer by midnight most likely
2) Josh Fields WILL play 3B and most likely for the Sox
3) KW mentions nothing about LF
4) The Sox are looking at Coco Crisp

So they are probably keeping Fields who actually has trade value, and trying to trade Crede who has no trade value? Is Crede going to play LF? What the hell is going on with LF?

This Coco Crisp crap has to stop now. That is NOT an answer. Jerry Owens' first 300+ at bats have produced way more than Crisp's did coming into the league. And if they think having both and moving one to left is the answer, then they are beyond dumb.

This whole thing is giving me a headache.

Scottiehaswheels
12-13-2007, 08:38 AM
In regards to the 4 years not 5 for Rowand... is there some super stud CF prospect out there in this years draft we're going after perhaps? Could that be a decent reason? When are Sizemore/Granderson available for FA?

It's Time
12-13-2007, 08:39 AM
I'm surprised no one's quoted this segment yet:



Maybe no one's quoted it because it doesn't fit the "pants pissing dark cloud party line" that "KW sucks."

:kukoo:

BS! The comment that he signed with the Cubs because he wanted to play RF and wanted to be the 1st player from Japan to play with them, is nothing more then a polite way of saying: "You guys suck!"

Or to quote the Japanese groundscrew from the movie major league:

"They're ****ty!"

If I were Kenny, I'd make other plans during Sox fest.

It's Time
12-13-2007, 08:46 AM
That whole article is damage control and a load of bull****. I also love how Fukadomes' agent said "the other Chicago team".

SBSoxFan
12-13-2007, 08:51 AM
I see a HUGE conflict here from Whitesox.com

1) Joe Crede will be tendered an offer by midnight most likely
2) Josh Fields WILL play 3B and most likely for the Sox
3) KW mentions nothing about LF
4) The Sox are looking at Coco Crisp

So they are probably keeping Fields who actually has trade value, and trying to trade Crede who has no trade value? Is Crede going to play LF? What the hell is going on with LF?

This Coco Crisp crap has to stop now. That is NOT an answer. Jerry Owens' first 300+ at bats have produced way more than Crisp's did coming into the league. And if they think having both and moving one to left is the answer, then they are beyond dumb.

This whole thing is giving me a headache.

There's a thread on this in WTS. Owens in LF, Anderson in CF. :tongue:

Frontman
12-13-2007, 08:52 AM
The report had nothing to do with the years, not many people believe he would last 5 years playing CF with the reckless abandon that he does. The Giants were the only team to give him 5 years.

Especially since Rowand isn't a power hitter. If he was, I could see the 5 year deal for a A.L. team, as he could then be moved to the DH.

And as Martini said, its a rational statement, and I for one am not about to jump on Kenny about this.

The Sox will go into the season with the best team Kenny manages to build. I won't complain or gripe about the "loss" of Hunter/Fukudome/Rowand.

If no member of the 2007 squad had been moved, and Kenny banked on them "bouncing back" then I'd be aggravated. But the removal of Cintron/Pods/Erstad, the moving of Garland to get Cabrera, and the aquisition of Quenton shows me that the organization is trying to field a solid team.

nevr say dye sox
12-13-2007, 09:05 AM
soxgirl4life read the article again, it acutally says a white sox source was told by agent Joe Urbon. This means damage control and actually was never said by Fukedome's agent.

SoxGirl4Life
12-13-2007, 09:06 AM
soxgirl4life read the article again, it acutally says a white sox source was told by agent Joe Urbon. This means damage control and actually was never said by Fukedome's agent.

They had a clip of the agent on the radio saying that.

Jurr
12-13-2007, 09:15 AM
Especially since Rowand isn't a power hitter. If he was, I could see the 5 year deal for a A.L. team, as he could then be moved to the DH.

And as Martini said, its a rational statement, and I for one am not about to jump on Kenny about this.

The Sox will go into the season with the best team Kenny manages to build. I won't complain or gripe about the "loss" of Hunter/Fukudome/Rowand.

If no member of the 2007 squad had been moved, and Kenny banked on them "bouncing back" then I'd be aggravated. But the removal of Cintron/Pods/Erstad, the moving of Garland to get Cabrera, and the aquisition of Quenton shows me that the organization is trying to field a solid team.
People seem to need the addition of big name players to make themselves feel better about their ballclub. Todd Ritchie, David Wells, and Billy Koch were established guys. Hell, people even applauded the signing of Erstad because he was a "name". Results aren't always guaranteed because of past accomplishments.

I read the book "Feeding the Monster" over the past week. What's funny about that book is the parts about Epstein being of the mindset that he was willing to sacrifice a year or two of wall-to-wall veterans to give his young nucleus of home grown guys a chance to establish themselves. He knew that the Red Sox probably wouldn't win a WS in '06, but he figured that they would be better served by providing the organization's youth a chance to perform. With some of that youth, they won a WS in '07.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take a few steps forward.

santo=dorf
12-13-2007, 09:29 AM
This Coco Crisp crap has to stop now. That is NOT an answer. Jerry Owens' first 300+ at bats have produced way more than Crisp's did coming into the league.
Prove it. Their numbers look similar to be, with the edge going to Crisp.

kobo
12-13-2007, 09:33 AM
soxgirl4life read the article again, it acutally says a white sox source was told by agent Joe Urbon. This means damage control and actually was never said by Fukedome's agent.
The agent was on the Score yesterday saying the same thing. I heard the clip a few times yesterday.

tstrike2000
12-13-2007, 09:42 AM
Agreed.

I agree with KW about Owens. We don't need Owens to hit. It would be a nice luxury for him to be able to hit, but it shouldn't be required. What is required is that PK, Thome, AJ, Dye, Fields hit the ball. Those are the guys that are expected to do it and didn't do it last year.

So we need Owens to just play CF and look pretty for the girls? If that was the case, then no one would care that we lost out on Hunter and Rowand besides the fact they're more established center fielders.

voodoochile
12-13-2007, 09:45 AM
Prove it. Their numbers look similar to be, with the edge going to Crisp.

In addition, Crisp is only signed for 2 more years at a total cost of $10.5M with a .5M buyout or a $8M salary in 2010. So he's not a long term deal, just someone who can act as a backup plan while the kids develop or something better comes along. He's not an ideal leadoff hitter, but he's not old and broken down the way recent inexpensive FA signings have been and he'd be a solid player off the bench if nothing else.

asindc
12-13-2007, 09:48 AM
I have seen people discuss this yesterday. What is with the "pants pissing dark cloud" BS? I can easliy lable all the "In Kenny We Trust" crowd as the cool aid drinking silver lining crowd, but name calling is a little childish. Just as you are tired of people calling for Kenny's head, I am tired of the people who blindly defend him. I think most of us are in the middle, Kenny is our guy but we are not too happy with the way the offseason is going. No, there is no dark cloud over my head and I did not just piss in my pants beacuse I don't sip the cool aid.

(Emphasis added.)

Fair enough. But I will repeat what I've said in other threads: If the KW-bashers just limited their critique to what has actually been done/not done and explain why they disagree with what has been done/not done (not just say, "He should have done whatever it takes to sign [whomever]," but tell us what you think he should have done specficially, such as, 5/95 to Hunter or 5/70 to Rowand), I have no problem with it. It's the, "we might as well give up now" sentiment that is irksome to so many of us.

wulfy
12-13-2007, 09:48 AM
He's right. We don't have those kind of resources. The Sox were willing to pony up the 5/75 he wanted. 5/90 is quite a large leap. That $3m extra per year can be put to some great use.

What will $3MM a year buy you in 2009?

balke
12-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Prove it. Their numbers look similar to be, with the edge going to Crisp.

First season with 90+ games both hit about .267, Owens was on base more by about .020 pts. Owens Stole twice the bases. Crisp had 2 more HR and 6 more doubles.

For what the Sox are looking for with a leadoff hitter, I'll take the higher OBP and SB's. Crisp's power is about as valuable as Podsednik's. I'd probably rather have Pods back in LF than Crisp in CF. Plus Crisp gets injured every other season.

SBSoxFan
12-13-2007, 09:54 AM
In addition, Crisp is only signed for 2 more years at a total cost of $10.5M with a .5M buyout or a $8M salary in 2010. So he's not a long term deal, just someone who can act as a backup plan while the kids develop or something better comes along. He's not an ideal leadoff hitter, but he's not old and broken down the way recent inexpensive FA signings have been and he'd be a solid player off the bench if nothing else.

Wouldn't that be an incredibly expensive bench? Crisp at ~$5M, and Uribe at $4.5M?

Hitmen77
12-13-2007, 09:55 AM
PR damage control control , It goes on in every company. It is following the natural course of events.

Agreed - this is just spin. That 3/4ths talk is just BS. On paper, the Sox still look like a 4th place team next year.

Interesting that he specifically wanted Carlos Quentin. The guy certainly has potential. I guess we'll see starting in April if he'll be solid for us.

voodoochile
12-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Wouldn't that be an incredibly expensive bench? Crisp at ~$5M, and Uribe at $4.5M?

Not really and since there's nothing that can be done about Uribe anyway, it's a sunk cost, so it shouldn't affect the discussion either way.

BadBobbyJenks
12-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Maybe they were afraid that he would only play 100 games a season after getting various broken bones over the next 5 years. Maybe it has nothing to do with Aaron and everything to do with the Mitchell report and a worry that he might decline after it is released. Who knows, I don't fault Kenny for not getting any of the 3 CFs.


or that he couldnt justify giving 12 million per over 5 years to a guy who is going to hit 7th in our lineup

balke
12-13-2007, 09:56 AM
Wouldn't that be an incredibly expensive bench? Crisp at ~$5M, and Uribe at $4.5M?

Like he would honestly come here to sit on the bench. He'd be the leadoff hitter starting, probably with Owens in LF. I don't see why they wouldn't just put Fields in LF if they are going to do something that stupid.

Edit: Actually I know why. Because Coco Crisp is a cute name and will make it seem like the Sox got a CFer, when they really didn't do anything but compound their problems at the position.

Law11
12-13-2007, 09:57 AM
Agreed.

I agree with KW about Owens. We don't need Owens to hit. It would be a nice luxury for him to be able to hit, but it shouldn't be required. What is required is that PK, Thome, AJ, Dye, Fields hit the ball. Those are the guys that are expected to do it and didn't do it last year.

Thats what people said about BA too. Oh we dont need him to hit. Then he hits 200 and everyone gets all over him.

Hitmen77
12-13-2007, 09:59 AM
I just don't think Crisp is a likely possibility for us. Is Boston going to deal him before the Santana situation settles out? After that, I think the Red Sox are going to ask for way too much in return for him.

MUsoxfan
12-13-2007, 09:59 AM
What will $3MM a year buy you in 2009?


$3m here, $2m there, $4m, etc.. somewhere else adds up really quick. You're looking at the small picture

MUsoxfan
12-13-2007, 10:04 AM
So we need Owens to just play CF and look pretty for the girls? If that was the case, then no one would care that we lost out on Hunter and Rowand besides the fact they're more established center fielders.


No, we need him out there improving everyday. It's not especially vital that he come out and hit .310 right away when we have plenty of guys that are payed good money to do that. Maybe one day he will hit and have those numbers and it will be a bonus. At some point the Sox have to expect some of their homegrown talent to flourish and not have to buy every position. That gets to be insanely expensive.

Give Owens a year our there and see what happens

Dolanski
12-13-2007, 10:05 AM
If half the people here were GMs of the White Sox, we would be a team of over the hill overpaid losers, but that wouldn't matter because, hey, we are all BIG NAMES. See last year's San Fran Giants to get an idea of how good a team like that is.

I hate arm chair GM season.

PalehosePlanet
12-13-2007, 10:09 AM
I think the fans will always be upset unless a team signs a big name free agent. KW could make 7 mid size or smaller moves and the majority of fans will still be upset. Then start the "cheap" rumblings.

It's like when an NFL team has a top 5 pick and select an offensive lineman, the fans all grumble because they wanted the sexy, big name QB, or RB.

fquaye149
12-13-2007, 10:11 AM
Agreed.

I agree with KW about Owens. We don't need Owens to hit. It would be a nice luxury for him to be able to hit, but it shouldn't be required. What is required is that PK, Thome, AJ, Dye, Fields hit the ball. Those are the guys that are expected to do it and didn't do it last year.

What defensive position will Owens be playing, then? I'm really confused because he's an awful, awful defensive CF

ws05champs
12-13-2007, 10:22 AM
The report had nothing to do with the years, not many people believe he would last 5 years playing CF with the reckless abandon that he does. The Giants were the only team to give him 5 years.
Perhaps Kenny has learned something from last year's experiences with the DL. Pods, Erstad, Thome, Dye, Hall, Crede, Ozuna and MacDougal all spent either significant time on the DL or played many games hurt and below 100%. Even Cintron and Uribe were out a few games for personal reasons. And if you could go on the DL for mental health reasons, perhaps Contreras should have been on it too. One of the key factors in 2005 was that almost everyone was healthy throughout the season. Yet look what happened towards the end of the season when Pods was injured. The Sox are not like the Yankees where if someone goes down we just reach into the farm system or throw money and prospects at at team to fill a hole.

I wonder if someone developed a computer program which predicts when Rowand hits a wall and finally shatters into pieces.

cheezheadsoxfan
12-13-2007, 10:26 AM
What defensive position will Owens be playing, then? I'm really confused because he's an awful, awful defensive CF

Exactly, so if we're going to have a lousy hitting CF why not just stick with BA who's great on defense?

tstrike2000
12-13-2007, 11:06 AM
If half the people here were GMs of the White Sox, we would be a team of over the hill overpaid losers, but that wouldn't matter because, hey, we are all BIG NAMES. See last year's San Fran Giants to get an idea of how good a team like that is.

I hate arm chair GM season.

Ok, well I guess everyone's a arm chair GM in your opinion. I'm confused then. Williams has stated how much '07 upset and embarrased him and doesn't want to see that again. I'm glad we didn't overpay for Hunter. However, if we're going to see what our young guys can do, then great. But in my view it goes against the notion of contending for the division unless quality talent is brought in at key positions.

fquaye149
12-13-2007, 11:09 AM
Exactly, so if we're going to have a lousy hitting CF why not just stick with BA who's great on defense?

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4535/helloexactlyle3.gif

JRIG
12-13-2007, 12:12 PM
What defensive position will Owens be playing, then? I'm really confused because he's an awful, awful defensive CF

This is the big problem I've had with Owens being our "fallback" guy in CF. Sure he's impotent at the plate, but he's also a terrible defensive player as well. That's a bad combo, and at 27 already he's not likely to improve all that much. I'm not sure what qualities he brings to the table other than base stealing, which would make him a terrific pinch runner.

JB98
12-13-2007, 01:58 PM
Exactly, so if we're going to have a lousy hitting CF why not just stick with BA who's great on defense?

I guess because we need a leadoff hitter. When Owens gets on, he makes more things happen on the bases than BA does.

I'm not an Owens fan, but I think I'd rather roll the dice with him than trade for Crisp. Why help the ****ing Red Sox out? Crisp is a more experienced, slightly better version of Owens. Is that worth giving up players for in a trade? Not IMO.

And I disagree with anyone who says we don't need Owens to hit. If he's batting leadoff for us, we sure do need him to hit.

munchman33
12-13-2007, 02:39 PM
Exactly, so if we're going to have a lousy hitting CF why not just stick with BA who's great on defense?

Probably because he makes for a not so nice clubhouse. I mean seriously, if you don't listen to coaches and are constantly drawing the ire of management, you make for a very unsettling work atmosphere. That's true outside of baseball, can't imagine it's any less true in a clubhouse.

btrain929
12-13-2007, 02:44 PM
What defensive position will Owens be playing, then? I'm really confused because he's an awful, awful defensive CF

Of course his arm is extremely weak, but I don't think he was that bad with the glove??? It seemed like he covered pretty good ground in his time in CF. Of course his arm is more suitable in LF than CF, but you're making him sound like he was Mackowiak bad in CF, which isn't true.

fquaye149
12-13-2007, 02:55 PM
Of course his arm is extremely weak, but I don't think he was that bad with the glove??? It seemed like he covered pretty good ground in his time in CF. Of course his arm is more suitable in LF than CF, but you're making him sound like he was Mackowiak bad in CF, which isn't true.

He doesn't play in position well and takes awful routes.

He has good speed, but putting him in CF is like putting Podsednik in CF

PalehosePlanet
12-13-2007, 03:00 PM
He doesn't play in position well and takes awful routes.

He has good speed, but putting him in CF is like putting Podsednik in CF

Yes, but Owens won't do a little skip and a hop before the ball bounces off the edge of his mitt ala Pods.:D:

fquaye149
12-13-2007, 03:02 PM
Yes, but Owens won't do a little skip and a hop before the ball bounces off the edge of his mitt ala Pods.:D:

Ooh, but what if he does a hop skip and a jump instead!

DickAllen72
12-13-2007, 04:27 PM
Is Crede going to play LF? What the hell is going on with LF?

Carlos Quentin.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2007, 04:44 PM
Not the imitation of, or the wannabe but the REAL Carlos Quentin. LOL

:D:

Lip

santo=dorf
12-13-2007, 04:51 PM
First season with 90+ games both hit about .267, Owens was on base more by about .020 pts. Owens Stole twice the bases. Crisp had 2 more HR and 6 more doubles.

For what the Sox are looking for with a leadoff hitter, I'll take the higher OBP and SB's. Crisp's power is about as valuable as Podsednik's. I'd probably rather have Pods back in LF than Crisp in CF. Plus Crisp gets injured every other season.
Way to completely change your argument.

You went from "first 300 at-bats" to "first season with 90+ games." :rolleyes:

Here's another thing you didn't mention. Crisp made his MLB debut at the age of 22. Owens was 25.

kobo
12-13-2007, 05:04 PM
Here's another thing you didn't mention. Crisp made his MLB debut at the age of 22. Owens was 25.
When did Owens start playing baseball? I thought he didn't start to play baseball full time until after he got hurt playing football, which was in 2003 at the age of 22. If that is the case, isn't it at all possible that Owens hasn't reached his potential yet and could possibly have a breakout season next year?

balke
12-13-2007, 05:07 PM
Way to completely change your argument.

You went from "first 300 at-bats" to "first season with 90+ games." :rolleyes:

Here's another thing you didn't mention. Crisp made his MLB debut at the age of 22. Owens was 25.

Crisp's first 127 At-bats were nearly identical if not worse worse if it makes you feel any better.

If you went and dissected the exact first 300 at-bats, and came up with something better, good for you. I just went by the first time they got 300 in a season. Its just easier by sight. He would've been 23 by that 2nd season BTW.

balke
12-13-2007, 05:08 PM
When did Owens start playing baseball? I thought he didn't start to play baseball full time until after he got hurt playing football, which was in 2003 at the age of 22. If that is the case, isn't it at all possible that Owens hasn't reached his potential yet and could possibly have a breakout season next year?


No, no player could ever possibly reach the potential of a Coco Crisp past the age of 23.

Hitmen77
12-14-2007, 07:35 AM
This is the big problem I've had with Owens being our "fallback" guy in CF. Sure he's impotent at the plate, but he's also a terrible defensive player as well. That's a bad combo, and at 27 already he's not likely to improve all that much. I'm not sure what qualities he brings to the table other than base stealing, which would make him a terrific pinch runner.

The answer to this problem is to just drink some White Sox kool-aid and then you'll feel perfectly fine about Owens as our CF. You'll suddenly see the light that the Sox are better off with someone who lives on infield singles and is an inadequate fielder CF than spending the market rate on a proven veteran.

...or perhaps you'll hold out hope for a big trade in which we part with some of our top pitching prospects to land someone to fill that hole in CF. Nevermind that our philosophy has been that pitching wins and that we'll win by stocking up on young arms. It's time to trade away some of those young arms to get Coco Crisp.

balke
12-14-2007, 08:24 AM
Not the imitation of, or the wannabe but the REAL Carlos Quentin. LOL

:D:

Lip



Then I predict he'll be injured this season because they won't allow him the proper time to let his arm heal from surgery.

oeo
12-14-2007, 08:27 AM
Let's see, he stated that his goals were so it looks like he did accomplish 3 out of 4. People are quick to forget that just about everyone around here was calling for Uribe's head most of last season and the beginning of the off season. He gets Cabrera and people are upset. He adds a reliever and people say he overpaid, yet they want him to overpay for Torii or Rowand. CF is a bit of a hole right now, but I'd rather go into the season with Owens in CF rather than Coco Crisp, so I hope he doesn't go after him.

I think it's pretty evident what we've learned from this offseason: White Sox fans are insane. Every last one of us.

Big Hurt #35=HOF
12-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Insane! No just concerned. Kenny has figured out a way to get this SOX fan excited at the start of every year. 2005 I felt I was the only SOX fan that saw some light at the end of the tunnel. But then again I loved the Todd Ritchie / Royce Clayton moves. In 05 I was upset until the AJ and then Gucchi moves. I guess my point is we still have time here, but it is hard to even "day-dream" together a decent team right now.

I'm thinking the only option left that could get me excited about this year would be a trade for Jaun Pierre (BA=.293 and 64 stolen bases last year). Wont take much to get him. $9mm a year for two more years, and the Dodgers want to get rid of his salary and play Kemp. I will take him in CF, and Owens or Quentin in LF. Then your looking at:

Pierre L
Crabrera R
Thome L
Paulie R
Dye R
AJ L
Fields R
Uribe R
Owens L

This alone wont do it for me. We need to get another starter or 2, 1 year deals and get lucky with one like we did with Loiza. Also this would push the young guys and have them fight for their starting job. Maybe a Colon, Benson, Silva, Lieber, Prior??, etc etc.

And do the same for the pen: 1 year deals two more guys:Wickman, Foulke, Dotel, Julio, etc etc

We still have Crede to dangle, and maybe make some trades still. I also don't think everyone will have another down year, and some of these young hard throwers have to improve.

LETS GO KENNY! LETS GO SOX!

BainesHOF
12-14-2007, 11:17 AM
I don't buy whatsoever that those were Williams' four goals. The dead giveaway is that dumping Uribe and his salary was not stated as a goal. I know with Uribe on the team you don't expect Williams to say it's a goal, just don't try to con me.

rowand33
12-14-2007, 12:21 PM
Pierre AND Owens in the same outfield would kill our pitchers.

fquaye149
12-14-2007, 12:24 PM
Pierre AND Owens in the same outfield would kill our pitchers.

But they watch film on offense! and they can steal 40 bases (while getting caught 20 times a piece)

juschill
12-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Let's see, he stated that his goals were ... so it looks like he did accomplish 3 out of 4.

That quote from KW seems like he made it up after the fact. This was never his stated set of goals from Day 1.

steely712
12-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Agreed, I would have been a lot more pissed off at the beginning of the off season if I knew that Quentin was 1 of four things he wanted to get done in the off season. I like Quentin, but does he really do that much for our team? How about a leadoff man on that list Kenny?

salty99
12-14-2007, 01:40 PM
Kenny's full of ****. What other GM would sign a SS for 4.5 million and then trade for another one?

itsnotrequired
12-14-2007, 01:42 PM
Kenny's full of ****. What other GM would sign a SS for 4.5 million and then trade for another one?

A GM that either had to sign the first one by a given date or lose him. Also, a GM that didn't want to trade for a SS with another GM who knew that team didn't have any shortstop options at all.

salty99
12-14-2007, 01:44 PM
A GM that either had to sign the first one by a given date or lose him. Also, a GM that didn't want to trade for a SS with another GM who knew that team didn't have any shortstop options at all.


Usually I am pretty level-headed about these things, but I would rather lose him and go with ANYONE else than pay Uribe 4.5 mil. I mean geez Eckstein signed for the exact same deal.

spiffie
12-14-2007, 01:53 PM
But they watch film on offense! and they can steal 40 bases (while getting caught 20 times a piece)
Hey, and neither of them go months at a time with a sub 200 average! And over 162 Owens projects out to 55 steals and 12 CS, which will go down as he learns how to avoid good pickoff moves! But sure, let's somehow turn this into another chance to pause and ponder the martyrdom of St. Brian Anderson, patron saint of immature prospects who hit 220.

russ99
12-14-2007, 02:46 PM
Usually I am pretty level-headed about these things, but I would rather lose him and go with ANYONE else than pay Uribe 4.5 mil. I mean geez Eckstein signed for the exact same deal.

You (like most of us) would rather have seen the Sox ditch Uribe.

But then, would you also have been OK with Kenny giving up additional assets to get Cabrera? Assets like Broadway, Sweeney or Gio??

That's the kind of bad offers Kenny would have gotten without any viable SS option on the roster.

fquaye149
12-14-2007, 03:19 PM
Hey, and neither of them go months at a time with a sub 200 average! And over 162 Owens projects out to 55 steals and 12 CS, which will go down as he learns how to avoid good pickoff moves! But sure, let's somehow turn this into another chance to pause and ponder the martyrdom of St. Brian Anderson, patron saint of immature prospects who hit 220.


Also, neither of them are rookies who hit .250 during the second half of their rookie season! (to be fair, Owens is).

.220 is the 2nd most misleading statistic I've ever seen in baseball, a close second to "134 Games Played in 2006 proves that he got his fair share of opportunity"...

spiffie
12-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Also, neither of them are rookies who hit .250 during the second half of their rookie season! (to be fair, Owens is).

.220 is the 2nd most misleading statistic I've ever seen in baseball, a close second to "134 Games Played in 2006 proves that he got his fair share of opportunity"...
Here's the problem as I see it. The 2006 White Sox were a team in contention for a playoff spot. They had a player who was certainly a worse fielder, but would have had to be Pete Gray with an arm injury to his good arm for his fielding to make up the gap between he and Anderson at the plate.

Now even factoring in Anderson's wonderful six week stretch, here are the guys who as rookies in 2006 had more AB's than poor Brian. Note the OPS of each guy:
Hanley Ramirez 633 0.833
Ryan Zimmerman 614 0.822
Dan Uggla 611 0.818
Prince Fielder 569 0.831
Josh Barfield 539 0.741
Kenji Johjima 506 0.783
Josh Willingham 502 0.852
Nick Markakis 491 0.799
Conor Jackson 485 0.809
Mike Jacobs 469 0.798
Melky Cabrera 460 0.752
Ronny Paulino 442 0.754
Ian Kinsler 423 0.801
Russell Martin 415 0.792
Andre Ethier 396 0.842
Brian Anderson 365 0.649

Of the rookies who had more AB's than Anderson in 2006, only one of them had an OPS within 100 points of Anderon's dismal performance. I'm sorry if people think platooning the worst full-time rookie in all of baseball in 2006 for a guy hitting 308/384/453 against LHP (which is who Mackowiak got 80% of his PA's against) is somehow bad baseball or proves that Ozzie Guillen hated Brian Anderson's devilishly good looks or whatever the bull**** of the day is, but if you're trying to win games, and trying to get a team back to the playoffs, there is no way to keep Anderson in that lineup every single day when you have a weapon like Mackowiak was at the plate that year sitting on the bench.

And really, the whole "Anderson hit 250 in the second half! He was improving!" argument might hold more water if he didn't bust out a 188/222/304 line in September.

fquaye149
12-14-2007, 04:33 PM
Here's the problem as I see it. The 2006 White Sox were a team in contention for a playoff spot. They had a player who was certainly a worse fielder, but would have had to be Pete Gray with an arm injury to his good arm for his fielding to make up the gap between he and Anderson at the plate.

Now even factoring in Anderson's wonderful six week stretch, here are the guys who as rookies in 2006 had more AB's than poor Brian. Note the OPS of each guy:
Hanley Ramirez 633 0.833
Ryan Zimmerman 614 0.822
Dan Uggla 611 0.818
Prince Fielder 569 0.831
Josh Barfield 539 0.741
Kenji Johjima 506 0.783
Josh Willingham 502 0.852
Nick Markakis 491 0.799
Conor Jackson 485 0.809
Mike Jacobs 469 0.798
Melky Cabrera 460 0.752
Ronny Paulino 442 0.754
Ian Kinsler 423 0.801
Russell Martin 415 0.792
Andre Ethier 396 0.842
Brian Anderson 365 0.649

Of the rookies who had more AB's than Anderson in 2006, only one of them had an OPS within 100 points of Anderon's dismal performance. I'm sorry if people think platooning the worst full-time rookie in all of baseball in 2006 for a guy hitting 308/384/453 against LHP (which is who Mackowiak got 80% of his PA's against) is somehow bad baseball or proves that Ozzie Guillen hated Brian Anderson's devilishly good looks or whatever the bull**** of the day is, but if you're trying to win games, and trying to get a team back to the playoffs, there is no way to keep Anderson in that lineup every single day when you have a weapon like Mackowiak was at the plate that year sitting on the bench.

Mackowiak played pathetically awful defense at a defensive position. Sorry. That's the way it is.

Our pitching was bad enough in 2006 without giving up outs. You can talk about rookies at other positions and talk about Mackowiak's great batting average (ignoring the fact that he was an awful situational hitter and baserunner) but the bottom line is, on a team with pitching that needed all the help it could get, playing a ****ing infielder in CF is inexcusable, no matter how "bad an attitude" the only competent CF on the team had.


And really, the whole "Anderson hit 250 in the second half! He was improving!" argument might hold more water if he didn't bust out a 188/222/304 line in September.


Um...so what that means is that his July and August must have been extremely well. It's not a matter of improving (although he clearly was). It's just a matter of showing that he clearly was capable of stringing together a prolonged period of success.

And gee, don't you think 2007's spring training seemed to suggest he was continuing to be able to string together successful periods?

Or not. Let's bat him exclusively against the best pitching in the AL Central to be sure. What better way to test how well a rookie's improved than to have him only hit against hte likes of Johan Santana and CC Sabathia.

102605
12-14-2007, 04:44 PM
Anderson better not be in any of the plans for 2008.

DumpJerry
12-14-2007, 04:50 PM
:tomatoaward

fquaye149
12-14-2007, 04:52 PM
Anderson better not be in any of the plans for 2008.


Yeah, because if he's not, as it stands, Owens will be our starting CF! That truly is a much better situation :rolleyes:

jabrch
12-14-2007, 04:52 PM
isn't it at all possible that Owens hasn't reached his potential yet and could possibly have a breakout season next year?


That depends entirely on who you ask...I believe it is very possible that Jerry Owens is better in 2008 than he was in 2007. His second half was better than his first half. His last two months were better than the monts before it. There is reason to believe that things could be better - if you want to believe things can be better.

spiffie
12-14-2007, 04:53 PM
Mackowiak played pathetically awful defense at a defensive position. Sorry. That's the way it is.

Our pitching was bad enough in 2006 without giving up outs. You can talk about rookies at other positions and talk about Mackowiak's great batting average (ignoring the fact that he was an awful situational hitter and baserunner) but the bottom line is, on a team with pitching that needed all the help it could get, playing a ****ing infielder in CF is inexcusable, no matter how "bad an attitude" the only competent CF on the team had.




Um...so what that means is that his July and August must have been extremely well. It's not a matter of improving (although he clearly was). It's just a matter of showing that he clearly was capable of stringing together a prolonged period of success.

And gee, don't you think 2007's spring training seemed to suggest he was continuing to be able to string together successful periods?

Or not. Let's bat him exclusively against the best pitching in the AL Central to be sure. What better way to test how well a rookie's improved than to have him only hit against hte likes of Johan Santana and CC Sabathia.
Mackowiak played poor defense. Did he play 200 pts of OPS worth of awful defense? As for the attitude thing, no one felt the need to bring that up until the FOBAs all suddenly started to turn him into a martyr, only benched because of some irrational hatred of Ozzie's. You don't need to talk about BA the human being to justify him splitting time, and again, let's be clear, he split time. He wasn't benched. He wasn't demoted. He was only started 4 days a week instead of 6.

If we're going to start using spring training stats to justify giving a guy playing time, prepare for people to point out that Mackowiak had a 1.065 OPS in spring training. And Eduardo Perez had a 1.477. All his good spring training stats have shown thus far is that Brian Anderson is a terror in March in Arizona.

As for the pitchers, I don't have the time to look it up, but I'm pretty sure at some point on the site someone posted something about BA's pitching opponents and how he did against them. It wasn't very good, even against the not so good pitchers. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me that BA flourished against all but the toughest pitchers in the AL.

salty99
12-14-2007, 04:58 PM
You (like most of us) would rather have seen the Sox ditch Uribe.

But then, would you also have been OK with Kenny giving up additional assets to get Cabrera? Assets like Broadway, Sweeney or Gio??

That's the kind of bad offers Kenny would have gotten without any viable SS option on the roster.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but that's what happens when you're farm system is horrible. I hope against hope that Uribe is traded away.

fquaye149
12-14-2007, 05:20 PM
Mackowiak played poor defense. Did he play 200 pts of OPS worth of awful defense? As for the attitude thing, no one felt the need to bring that up until the FOBAs all suddenly started to turn him into a martyr, only benched because of some irrational hatred of Ozzie's. You don't need to talk about BA the human being to justify him splitting time, and again, let's be clear, he split time. He wasn't benched. He wasn't demoted. He was only started 4 days a week instead of 6.

If we're going to start using spring training stats to justify giving a guy playing time, prepare for people to point out that Mackowiak had a 1.065 OPS in spring training. And Eduardo Perez had a 1.477. All his good spring training stats have shown thus far is that Brian Anderson is a terror in March in Arizona.

As for the pitchers, I don't have the time to look it up, but I'm pretty sure at some point on the site someone posted something about BA's pitching opponents and how he did against them. It wasn't very good, even against the not so good pitchers. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me that BA flourished against all but the toughest pitchers in the AL.

a.) I've seen articles that have suggested that, yes, the difference between superb CF defense and abysmal CF defense might be worth 200 OPS points or more
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200
Through his first 54 games in center, though, he has saved 10 runs more than the average center fielder by RAA (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=raa), and 15 more than a replacement glove.Since Mack's glove is well below replacement, do you really think that over 162 games, Mackowiak would produce with his bat 60 runs more than BA? HA!

b.) if you really think that Mackowiak's bat is really a 200 point OPS difference when hitting against anything but exclusively-favorable matchups, I think you need to reevaluate what Mackowiack's #'s as a full-time starter would say about that

kittle42
12-14-2007, 07:22 PM
A thread arguing about three crap players (Owens, Anderson, Mackowiak) and which is less bad? What an offseason.

Frater Perdurabo
12-14-2007, 07:45 PM
a.) I've seen articles that have suggested that, yes, the difference between superb CF defense and abysmal CF defense might be worth 200 OPS points or more
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5200
Since Mack's glove is well below replacement, do you really think that over 162 games, Mackowiak would produce with his bat 60 runs more than BA? HA!

b.) if you really think that Mackowiak's bat is really a 200 point OPS difference when hitting against anything but exclusively-favorable matchups, I think you need to reevaluate what Mackowiack's #'s as a full-time starter would say about that

Thank you for posing that article. I'd never seen it before, but I basically agree. But I think the difference is greater than the numbers. That's because numbers can't quantify defense very well.

Also, defense can have a tremendous "compounding effect." For example, a great OF catch - and therefore an out - shortens the inning, keeps a hitter off the basepaths, and often prevents a run from scoring. Shortening an inning makes it easier on the pitcher. An easier inning for the pitcher means he usually can go longer in the game and thus means the bullpen gets used least. This means that over time, the bullpen is used less often and therefore gets seen less and therefore is more effective.

Conversely, a defensive play not made - even if it's not an error - lengthens innings, makes it harder on pitchers, means that pitchers are more likely to make mistakes, leads to shorter outings for starters, leads to bullpens being used more, leads to bullpens being less effective, leads to the worst pitchers being used more, and simply leads to losses. This just doesn't show up in the statistics, but anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that it's true, even if it cannot be easily quantified.

Ignoring or downplaying defense at critical defensive positions - most especially SS and CF - is a sure way to make a team lose.

JNS
12-14-2007, 08:32 PM
Ignoring or downplaying defense at critical defensive positions - most especially SS and CF - is a sure way to make a team lose.

And that's why being strong up the middle is so crucial. Especially SS, CF, and C.

TO KW's credit, C has been solid for three years. He has dealt with SS for a few years. But 2B and CF are still very much in flux.

For myself, I don't want to see either Owens or Anderson out there. Both have such strong downsides. Yeah, both have the potential to improve, but not into 3 dimensional players. Anderson is already good on D, but I really don't see him raising his average more than 10 - 15 points. He looked like Michael Jordan up there against breaking balls. That makes him a 9-hole hitter on a good offensive team.

Hell, he KILLED us at the plate in 06. Some of that might be put at Ozzie's feet, but after all, that's why he put Mack in there some of the time. by his own admission, he was desperate for some stick out of the CF position. As it turned out, Mack cost us more with his glove than he produced with his bat, but my point is, BA was so bad up there that Ozzie, right or wrong was willing to risk Mack's disastrous OF defense to get a little more punch in there.

Owens? His speed will get him by for a while. But he had the lowest OBP of any AL outfielder who had more than 300 (I think that's the number) ABs. When he gets on, there is a decent chance he'll turn it into a double, but with an OBP of under .350, so what? Let's just say he's no Ralph Garr at the plate! Not that you would much want a Ralph Garr either.You just can't put a guy with those on-base numbers in the 1-hole. So if it's a choice between the two, unless there is some vast improvement in one of them in Arizona, I vote for BA while holding my nose.

This is why the loss of Hunter hurts so much. I know he isn't a lead-off guy either, but look and the general composition of the team with him added in CF, and in the 5 or 6 hole. Plus the leadership intangibles. He brings so much more to the table than Rowand. ****!

So what to do? Whatever anyone says about how "Kenny will do something, it's only December" all I can ask is "who?"

Carlos Quinton may turn into the next George Foster, but without a quality CF, we are fairly ****ed, especially if we move Crede and have 1/2 of the infield (2B and 3B) very inexperienced.

If we are going to be able to get anyone worth a ****, we will need to sign Crede, move Fields and one of the good young pitchers (I would hope not Gio, but that's who they - whomever they are - will want) for some guy we haven't thought of yet, or Juan Pierre or Young Kenny Williams.

That's why I really don't understand the folks who crow about how the Angels are overpaying Hunter and it's great that we didn't get him. We are probably going to have to get somebody, and believe me, we will overpay. And overpay in young talent, which is much harder to find and develop that some lousy ducats.

Frater Perdurabo
12-14-2007, 09:56 PM
JNS - the idea of "strong up the middle" is to get the best possible DEFENSE up the middle. That's why the corners traditionally are considered the "power positions."

With Cabrera, SS is no longer an offensive black hole. Even the best teams can afford to play a defensive "specialist" player in the nine hole if they are solid 1-8. So IMHO it's OK to put a CF in there to get the best possible defense, and that's why I think it's possible to start BA if the Sox can get a legitimate leadoff hitter to play LF.

Maybe that legitimate leadoff hitter in LF is Owens. Maybe it's Pierre.

.290/.340/50 SB leadoff hitter in LF
Cabrera
Thome
PK
Dye
Fields/Crede
AJ
Richar
Anderson

That's a lineup with good speed at the top and bottom, good OBP at the top, good power 3-6, and gap (doubles) power at 2, 8 and 9.

drewcifer
12-14-2007, 10:01 PM
JNS - the idea of "strong up the middle" is to get the best possible DEFENSE up the middle. That's why the corners traditionally are considered the "power positions."

With Cabrera, SS is no longer an offensive black hole. Even the best teams can afford to play a defensive "specialist" player in the nine hole if they are solid 1-8. So IMHO it's OK to put a CF in there to get the best possible defense, and that's why I think it's possible to start BA if the Sox can get a legitimate leadoff hitter to play LF.

Maybe that legitimate leadoff hitter in LF is Owens. Maybe it's Pierre.

.290/.340/50 SB leadoff hitter in LF
Cabrera
Thome
PK
Dye
Fields/Crede
AJ
Richar
Anderson

That's a lineup with good speed at the top and bottom, good OBP at the top, good power 3-6, and gap (doubles) power at 2, 8 and 9.

Can't disagree an ounce. Said it myself a week or two ago - Pierre is a fit.

But his contract sucks.

champagne030
12-14-2007, 10:39 PM
Can't disagree an ounce. Said it myself a week or two ago - Pierre is a fit.

But his contract sucks.

The problem is that Pierre would need to come with a boatload of cash and that'll cost a significant prospect(s). And the other option is Owens makes Pierre look like Ichiro. Plus, neither will have an OBA of .340. Sure, it looks nice on paper, but Richar, Owens/Pierre, BA......pass if we're trying to contend. Building for the future? Absolutely, run Richar, Owens and BA out there.

JNS
12-14-2007, 11:51 PM
JNS - the idea of "strong up the middle" is to get the best possible DEFENSE up the middle. That's why the corners traditionally are considered the "power positions."

With Cabrera, SS is no longer an offensive black hole. Even the best teams can afford to play a defensive "specialist" player in the nine hole if they are solid 1-8. So IMHO it's OK to put a CF in there to get the best possible defense, and that's why I think it's possible to start BA if the Sox can get a legitimate leadoff hitter to play LF.

Maybe that legitimate leadoff hitter in LF is Owens. Maybe it's Pierre.

.290/.340/50 SB leadoff hitter in LF
Cabrera
Thome
PK
Dye
Fields/Crede
AJ
Richar
Anderson

That's a lineup with good speed at the top and bottom, good OBP at the top, good power 3-6, and gap (doubles) power at 2, 8 and 9.

Please re-read my post. I SAID that C and SS were taken care of, and that 2B and CF were not. And that if one had to choose between Anderson and Owens, I would take Anderson IN SPITE OF HIS AWFUL OFFENSE, BECAUSE OF HIS GOOD DEFENSE.

Sheesh.

As for the good lineup, exactly who is this .290/.340/50 SB leadoff hitter in LF? Who? If you can't name even any potential names it's just a rich fantasy life. Or that old Cubs fan thing of "trading Mark DeRosa and Theriot for A-Rod." How do we get this guy - are you talking about Quinton? We don't even know if he will be ready to play in April. Or if he can come close to those numbers - he hasn't yet. Oh, I forgot, he was the "big fish" KW was talking about. He was the A1 guy for Plan A1.

And we have both Crede and Fields or just one of them?

And we still have unknowns and known weaknesses in the 8 and 9 holes. Richar might be able to hit, or he might not.

And Anderson hurt us in the 9 hole when we had a better lineup in 06.

Hey! Let's make Uribe the lead-off man!

Yeah, it's OK, but not particularly competitive in the AL Central.

fquaye149
12-15-2007, 12:02 AM
.340 OBP at the leadoff spot is unlikely

btrain929
12-15-2007, 12:25 AM
I haven't seen or heard many trade rumors revolving the White Sox lately. Hopefully that's a good thing, meaning something is in the works and is close to getting done. Last time I posted something similar to this, the Garland/Cabrera deal went down the next day. Lets make a nice move before Christmas to address our holes in CF, bullpen, or even our bench.

Frater Perdurabo
12-15-2007, 06:14 AM
And Anderson hurt us in the 9 hole when we had a better lineup in 06.

I guess this is the point on which I disagree. Otherwise, I agree with a lot of what you said previously.

:smile:

Tragg
12-15-2007, 09:14 AM
You (like most of us) would rather have seen the Sox ditch Uribe.

But then, would you also have been OK with Kenny giving up additional assets to get Cabrera? Assets like Broadway, Sweeney or Gio??

That's the kind of bad offers Kenny would have gotten without any viable SS option on the roster.
Why should Williams singularly have to entertain bad offers? We gave up a solid major league starter for Cabrera. It's not like we got some bargain price - we didn't. There was nothing special about that trade - we could have made that deal with or without the Uribe signing.


It sounds like people are saying that Williams has to sign a player he doesn't need in order to get a fair deal a trade...I certainly hope it hasn't come to that, but perhaps it has. It's just amazing how so many Sox players have "no value". And in the end, the Sox used their best trading chit on a non-weakness (well, a lot on this board perceive Uribe as a weakness; but Williams paid him $4.5 million, so it shouldn't have been a weakness to Williams; and you don't pay bad SS $4.5 million.) All part of the grand plan.

BTW, this works both ways. Now people know we have to get rid of Uribe, so it's unlikely we will be able to.
Same with the other positions in which we have excess.

JRIG
12-15-2007, 09:32 AM
You (like most of us) would rather have seen the Sox ditch Uribe.

But then, would you also have been OK with Kenny giving up additional assets to get Cabrera? Assets like Broadway, Sweeney or Gio??

That's the kind of bad offers Kenny would have gotten without any viable SS option on the roster.

OR, KW could have signed David Eckstein to the same 1-year, $4.5 million dollar contact he gave Uribe...which Eckstein just signed with Toronto.

Now I'm no Eckstein fan, but I'd rather have one year of him at that price and still have Garland as trade bait than the situation we have right now.

fquaye149
12-15-2007, 10:25 AM
OR, KW could have signed David Eckstein to the same 1-year, $4.5 million dollar contact he gave Uribe...which Eckstein just signed with Toronto.

Now I'm no Eckstein fan, but I'd rather have one year of him at that price and still have Garland as trade bait than the situation we have right now.

I wouldn't, for a number of reasons (and the media blitz isn't the only one! I swear!)

JRIG
12-15-2007, 10:32 AM
I wouldn't, for a number of reasons (and the media blitz isn't the only one! I swear!)

Defense? I know he's not in the upper echelon of guys, but you could find a low-cost defensive whiz to play the late innings if needed. Eckstein also has leadoff experience and has OBP'd better than .350 each of the last 3 seasons...qualities we could use.

Again, I'm as shocked as anyone to be arguing for Eckstein, but considering the circumstances and lack of long-term commitment it would have been a fine option.

JNS
12-15-2007, 11:49 AM
I guess this is the point on which I disagree. Otherwise, I agree with a lot of what you said previously.

:smile:

I have a neighbor who played in the minors in the 90s. He works for the park district now. He played with Juan Pierre and loves the guy. He's been talking for a couple of years about ow the Sox should get him.

I guess the question is, would be be getting the 2003 hotshot Pierre, or the 2006 Killer Bee sort-of-a-flop Juan Pierre? Plus his big salary - maybe the Dodgers would cover some of that. Problem is, whether it's him or someone else, we will overpay at this point. I mean, given the Sox chances now, is he worth Gio? I don't know - I'm doubtful.

And maybe now that Anderson has decided to act like a pro, he may be the answer. They seemed to think so in 06, otherwise they probably would not have dealt Rowand.

I have another friend whose son played against Anderson in college and knows him a bit. Says he's a total maniac.

CF is a real conundrum at this point.

SBSoxFan
12-15-2007, 11:59 AM
I have another friend whose son played against Anderson in college and knows him a bit. Says he's a total maniac.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I ask this in all seriousness. Perhaps we've seen the negative side of Anderson being a "maniac." Here's hoping we see the positive side soon! :gulp:

JNS
12-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I ask this in all seriousness. Perhaps we've seen the negative side of Anderson being a "maniac." Here's hoping we see the positive side soon! :gulp:

Good question - I have no idea. He says (I have no clue as to whether this is true) that he's covered with tats, and talks about driving through brick walls (like Rowand?) and stuff like that.

My guess is that it is part of the "attitude" or maturity issue that seems to have popped up lately. Back when BA was starting in the first half of 06, and failing miserably at the plate, I heard nothing about not listening to coaches, or clubhouse problems, or bad attitude, but it seems that was the case at least to some degree.

Maybe if he can channel that energy into his play, but increase his ability to listen and respond to coaches, focus on what he needs to do to improve it'll be a good thing. Or he can end up like a lot of guys with great talent who cannot forge it into the sort of overall package that equals a major league baseball player.

I think that's more true with the NBA - there are playgrounds all over Chicago and everywhere else full of tremendously talented guys, who certainly have the physical and basketball skills to get to the pros, but don't have the mental skills - the coachability, the team play, the fitting into a particular scheme, etc. Anderson may or may not be of that ilk. if he works out, our CF problem may be solved for quite a while. Hopefully we will find out in Arizona.

balke
12-15-2007, 12:37 PM
OR, KW could have signed David Eckstein to the same 1-year, $4.5 million dollar contact he gave Uribe...which Eckstein just signed with Toronto.

Now I'm no Eckstein fan, but I'd rather have one year of him at that price and still have Garland as trade bait than the situation we have right now.

Could've would've should've. I think that price is a lot lower than most were thinking Eck would get, and at the time they were still saving pennies for Hunter.

JRIG
12-15-2007, 12:51 PM
Could've would've should've. I think that price is a lot lower than most were thinking Eck would get, and at the time they were still saving pennies for Hunter.

So shouldn't KW get at least some blame for completely misreading the market on Eckstein?

balke
12-15-2007, 12:56 PM
So shouldn't KW get at least some blame for completely misreading the market on Eckstein?

I mean that depends. Could be his market value went down simply because KW got Cabrera. If there's no real bidding war for Eck, he can't demand as much.

fquaye149
12-15-2007, 01:14 PM
Defense? I know he's not in the upper echelon of guys, but you could find a low-cost defensive whiz to play the late innings if needed. Eckstein also has leadoff experience and has OBP'd better than .350 each of the last 3 seasons...qualities we could use.

Again, I'm as shocked as anyone to be arguing for Eckstein, but considering the circumstances and lack of long-term commitment it would have been a fine option.

It all depends if we can extend Cabrera.

Frankly, I would just as soon have Uribe as Eckstein. And I think Garland's trade value, is, sadly, pretty much nil.

I mean, we could have probably traded him for Crisp...but I couldn't support that trade.

Frankly, Eckstein in the leadoff spot would be a disaster, imo, .340 OBP or not.

santo=dorf
12-15-2007, 03:32 PM
So shouldn't KW get at least some blame for completely misreading the market on Eckstein?
Eckstein painted himself in a corner. Tejada was traded, Cabrera was traded, Renteria was traded, Uribe was re-signed, John McDonald was re-signed, and Vizquel was re-signed. The need that needed SS got them, but the BJ's decided to take up on him as long as he was cheap.

I'd like to see how KW moves Uribe unless he would rather have a way overpriced bench player.

balke
12-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Eckstein painted himself in a corner. Tejada was traded, Cabrera was traded, Renteria was traded, Uribe was re-signed, John McDonald was re-signed, and Vizquel was re-signed. The need that needed SS got them, but the BJ's decided to take up on him as long as he was cheap.

I'd like to see how KW moves Uribe unless he would rather have a way overpriced bench player.

He is overpriced, but I like the depth if he stays. They could wait and trade at the deadline at this point. Uribe might even be the best option at 2B. This will allow the Sox to back up the infield and not rely solely on Ozuna.

Lip Man 1
12-17-2007, 03:50 PM
In the latest "mailbag" at White Sox.com, writer Scott Merkin includes this on some of Kenny's recent comments (i.e. Detroit is closer to keeping up with us...):

"No. 1, if people don't understand the dry humor, I don't give a [darn]," Williams said. "Over the years, I've developed something that has, and will, keep me fresh and that's humor. No. 2, if you want to look at it from a different angle, look at the head-to-head results from the last six or seven years."

From what I can remember, there were eight reporters with Williams when he made the much talked about comment in Nashville, and none of us thought he was joking at the time.

I've been told Williams appeared on a television program right after our interview session, made the same comment and clearly indicated it was meant with humor."
----------
Just FYI.

Lip

JC456
12-18-2007, 12:06 PM
IT is a rational take on the situation, therefore most people here will disregard it and use it as a springboard to ***** just a little bit more about Kenny, if that is even humanly possible.

It's just that Kenny is disingenuous. He talks a good game, but much like his pitching staff last year, delivers poorly or not at all. As a fan of any professional sports franchise, I do not like liars. The White Sox lied about talks with Rowand. Rowand stated in an interview with Mike North the Sox had not spoken to him or his agent for two months. If you read the Sox reports, they state they were talking with him until the deal was made. That is just a flat out lie and proves only one thing, there is no trusting this team.

They won only 72 games last year because they deal cheap.

One World Series in 80 plus years and the way they deal today, it will be another 80 years until another one.

voodoochile
12-18-2007, 12:12 PM
It's just that Kenny is disingenuous. He talks a good game, but much like his pitching staff last year, delivers poorly or not at all. As a fan of any professional sports franchise, I do not like liars. The White Sox lied about talks with Rowand. Rowand stated in an interview with Mike North the Sox had not spoken to him or his agent for two months. If you read the Sox reports, they state they were talking with him until the deal was made. That is just a flat out lie and proves only one thing, there is no trusting this team.

They won only 72 games last year because they deal cheap.

One World Series in 80 plus years and the way they deal today, it will be another 80 years until another one.

POTWeak

:whoflungpoo:

:chickenlittle:

Jurr
12-18-2007, 12:15 PM
It's just that Kenny is disingenuous. He talks a good game, but much like his pitching staff last year, delivers poorly or not at all. As a fan of any professional sports franchise, I do not like liars. The White Sox lied about talks with Rowand. Rowand stated in an interview with Mike North the Sox had not spoken to him or his agent for two months. If you read the Sox reports, they state they were talking with him until the deal was made. That is just a flat out lie and proves only one thing, there is no trusting this team.

They won only 72 games last year because they deal cheap.

One World Series in 80 plus years and the way they deal today, it will be another 80 years until another one.
Snore.

Deal cheap, huh? Well, I thought the Sox did a pretty damn good job in '06 ADDING TO a team that won a world series. Jim Thome for Aaron Rowand? Javy Vazquez for prospects (and Vizcaino)? Puh-lease.

Here's the deal. The Sox have had a 100 mil+ payroll for a couple of years now, and the results haven't been there. Now they are saddled with a lot of contracts for some players entering their twilight years. There comes a time where you have to entertain the thought of getting a little younger and trusting your farm system. You can't just keep adding 15-20 mil per year guys to your roster.

JC456
12-18-2007, 12:40 PM
Snore.

Deal cheap, huh? Well, I thought the Sox did a pretty damn good job in '06 ADDING TO a team that won a world series. Jim Thome for Aaron Rowand? Javy Vazquez for prospects (and Vizcaino)? Puh-lease.

Here's the deal. The Sox have had a 100 mil+ payroll for a couple of years now, and the results haven't been there. Now they are saddled with a lot of contracts for some players entering their twilight years. There comes a time where you have to entertain the thought of getting a little younger and trusting your farm system. You can't just keep adding 15-20 mil per year guys to your roster.

Deal cheap yes! Buerhle took less money, Dye took less money. They're ones who wanted to take less money, unfortunately there are other higher quality players who won't and they won't be here.

As for watching the minor league talent, that was done in 2007 and it wasn't very pretty.

Andy Gonzalas, puh-lease!

BTW, the prospect dealt to Arizona for Vazquez, happens to be a darn good leadoff CENTER Fielder!

santo=dorf
12-18-2007, 06:00 PM
It's just that Kenny is disingenuous. He talks a good game, but much like his pitching staff last year, delivers poorly or not at all. As a fan of any professional sports franchise, I do not like liars. The White Sox lied about talks with Rowand. Rowand stated in an interview with Mike North the Sox had not spoken to him or his agent for two months. If you read the Sox reports, they state they were talking with him until the deal was made. That is just a flat out lie and proves only one thing, there is no trusting this team.

They won only 72 games last year because they deal cheap.

One World Series in 80 plus years and the way they deal today, it will be another 80 years until another one.
18 months out of hibernation for this?

JC456
12-19-2007, 12:19 PM
yep!:dtroll:

eriqjaffe
12-19-2007, 12:35 PM
BTW, the prospect dealt to Arizona for Vazquez, happens to be a darn good leadoff CENTER Fielder!...who posted a .295 OBP for a team that finished 14th in the NL in runs scored.

Just because he was 27/33 in stolen bases doesn't mean he should be leading off. I don't remember anybody clamoring to have Jose Canseco lead off when he stole 40 bases for Oakland back in '88.

Chris Young - Speed = Ron Kittle.

JC456
12-19-2007, 12:50 PM
...who posted a .295 OBP for a team that finished 14th in the NL in runs scored.

Just because he was 27/33 in stolen bases doesn't mean he should be leading off. I don't remember anybody clamoring to have Jose Canseco lead off when he stole 40 bases for Oakland back in '88.

Chris Young - Speed = Ron Kittle.

All I know is he helped that team into the playoffs! He must have been doing more than just making outs.

Iwritecode
12-19-2007, 01:08 PM
All I know is he helped that team into the playoffs! He must have been doing more than just making outs.

They were 4th in the NL in ERA (second in their division) but 14th in runs scored. He was a contributing factor but I'm guessing their pitching was a bigger reason for them making the playoffs.

jabrch
12-19-2007, 01:09 PM
All I know is he helped that team into the playoffs!

So did Julio Lugo, Josh Barfield, Wes Helms, etc....I believe, and I may be wrong, that there are a lot of players on the DBacks that deserve much more credit for their season than Chris Young.

He must have been doing more than just making outs.

Yes - he hit a few HRs and stole some bases. But he didn't get many hits, didn't get many walks, and wasn't a very productive baseball player in a very large number of his plate appearances.

kittle42
12-19-2007, 02:30 PM
So did Julio Lugo, Josh Barfield, Wes Helms, etc....I believe, and I may be wrong, that there are a lot of players on the DBacks that deserve much more credit for their season than Chris Young.



Yes - he hit a few HRs and stole some bases. But he didn't get many hits, didn't get many walks, and wasn't a very productive baseball player in a very large number of his plate appearances.

You know nothing! He MUST have been doing more than making outs!

JC456
12-20-2007, 05:01 PM
So did Julio Lugo, Josh Barfield, Wes Helms, etc....I believe, and I may be wrong, that there are a lot of players on the DBacks that deserve much more credit for their season than Chris Young.



Yes - he hit a few HRs and stole some bases. But he didn't get many hits, didn't get many walks, and wasn't a very productive baseball player in a very large number of his plate appearances.

Yeh, justify your position all you want. In the end I think the majority of fans wouldn't mind him roaming center field at USCEL this year.

kittle42
12-20-2007, 09:47 PM
Yeh, justify your position all you want. In the end I think the majority of fans wouldn't mind him roaming center field at USCEL this year.

Not as much as I'll enjoy watching Vazquez rack up 15-18 wins.

santo=dorf
12-20-2007, 09:56 PM
Not as much as I'll enjoy watching Vazquez rack up 15-18 wins.
Come on Kittle, you're better than this.

Using wins as a metric? I know you've questioned it before. Javier won 15 games last year for the first time since 2001 when he won 16. With the garbage lineup currently penciled in for next year, I have a hard time seeing how he will get the necessary run support to win up to 18 games.

Is it coincidence that last year he pitched like his Expos' days while the Sox were playing like the Expos?

SBSoxFan
12-20-2007, 10:03 PM
Come on Kittle, you're better than this.

Using wins as a metric? I know you've questioned it before. Javier won 15 games last year for the first time since 2001 when he won 16. With the garbage lineup currently penciled in for next year, I have a hard time seeing how he will get the necessary run support to win up to 18 games.

Is it coincidence that last year he pitched like his Expos' days while the Sox were playing like the Expos?

Even now, the lineup looks better than last year. So, who knows?

Rounding_Third
12-20-2007, 10:47 PM
Even now, the lineup looks better than last year. So, who knows?

I totally agree. While not getting the FA OF we wanted, I still believe the offense will be plenty potent. The concern is definitely with the pitching. In hindsight, after failing to get that last piece, I wish we could pull the Garland deal back. But it is what it is. With Fields for a full year and Crede & Cabrera added to the lineup, its very strong. And I'll take Owens over Crisp for the price. Owens is a heady player who should continue to improve. He understands the game very well. At least we have a potentially good leadoff hitter. Had we gotten one of the FA Cf's, we would have had a dilemma with leadoff. Its a very thin sliver lining but one nonetheless. Baseball is such an unpredictable game, you just never know how some things will turn out.

Scottiehaswheels
12-21-2007, 10:58 AM
Latest and greatest on chisox.com (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071221&content_id=2335219&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)


"Something will be decided by April 1," said Williams of the Crede-Fields situation. "In terms of us moving forward, it's not a bad position to be in, with two quality guys."

So I guess we're planning on playing the first game of the season in Cleveland with both guys on the staff? :D:

salty99
12-21-2007, 11:00 AM
"Something will be decided by April 1," said Williams of the Crede-Fields situation. " :D:


Revolutionary thinking there!

Scottiehaswheels
12-21-2007, 11:01 AM
Revolutionary thinking there!
I just find it funny because the first game of the season is actually March 31st....

salty99
12-21-2007, 11:04 AM
"..as well as coming up short on a somewhat remote trade candidate in Miguel Cabrera."


Amazing how these writers can spin stories sometimes.

Sockinchisox
12-21-2007, 11:21 AM
New Williams article from whitesox.com.

nothing really new, Crede is still progressing very well. He also states he has a hard time believing a Konerko trade would make the team any better.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071221&content_id=2335219&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

SBSoxFan
12-21-2007, 01:53 PM
New Williams article from whitesox.com.

nothing really new, Crede is still progressing very well. He also states he has a hard time believing a Konerko trade would make the team any better.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071221&content_id=2335219&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

This is my favorite part because I imagine KW looking at all the PPDC's when he says it :rolling: :

I have to look at where we were and where we are going. ... I have not found a way to articulate that point in a way that people understand or accept."

SBSoxFan
12-21-2007, 01:54 PM
"..as well as coming up short on a somewhat remote trade candidate in Miguel Cabrera."


Amazing how these writers can spin stories sometimes.

Scott Merkin is definitely a Pollyanna, but, do you think the Sox were front runners?

jabrch
12-21-2007, 02:03 PM
Yeh, justify your position all you want. In the end I think the majority of fans wouldn't mind him roaming center field at USCEL this year.

At what cost?

I'd still rather have Javy than him.

JC456
12-26-2007, 12:29 PM
At what cost?

I'd still rather have Javy than him.

I'd rather hava an everyday player that can bring in 10 fold the number of wins one pitcher can bring in!

Championships are made being strong up the middle defensively. Since Rowand's departure and now the loss of Iguchi, the Sox are very weak up the middle. They were weak last year and in 2006. I'd say the lack of a quality Center Fielder in 2006 cost them the division and a playoff spot.

To provide a McCarverism; the more balls that are caught, the fewer base runners and at bats for the opposition.

Center Field is the most critical position on the team and the Sox continue to dis it.

balke
12-26-2007, 12:38 PM
I'd rather hava an everyday player that can bring in 10 fold the number of wins one pitcher can bring in!

Championships are made being strong up the middle defensively. Since Rowand's departure and now the loss of Iguchi, the Sox are very weak up the middle. They were weak last year and in 2006. I'd say the lack of a quality Center Fielder in 2006 cost them the division and a playoff spot.

To provide a McCarverism; the more balls that are caught, the fewer base runners and at bats for the opposition.

Center Field is the most critical position on the team and the Sox continue to dis it.

There's no such thing as a single position player who can do that. Especially Aaron Rowand.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 12:40 PM
I'd rather hava an everyday player that can bring in 10 fold the number of wins one pitcher can bring in!

Please show your math. I'm genuinely curious. Really - 10 fold...this ought to be interesting.

Championships are made being strong up the middle defensively.

Not really. Boston won a WS with Damon in CF. Florida won one with Pierre in CF. Arizona did it with Finley at age 36. And the Yanks had Bernie Williams for a few - when he was not so spry either.

But your use of conventional baseball hyperbole is OUTSTANDING. You could have easily said "pitching wins championships" or "the best way to win is to ourscore your opponent" and your strawman would be equally as flimsy.

Winning baseball teams are (more often than not) balanced baseball teams.
To provide a McCarverism; the more balls that are caught, the fewer base runners and at bats for the opposition.

How many balls does Chris Young catch that Jerry Owens/BA/Sweeney/Etc. don't catch?

Center Field is the most critical position on the team

That's debatable - and purely subjective. I could easily argue for #1 SP or SS.

spawn
12-26-2007, 01:20 PM
There's no such thing as a single position player who can do that. Especially Aaron Rowand.
I don't know what you're talknig about. Aaron Rowand is the only reason we won the WS in '05. Everyone knows that! Also, Rowand was the MVP of the NL...not Jimmy Rollins. Rowand let him have that out of the kindness of his heart!

Save McCuddy's
12-26-2007, 05:31 PM
At what cost?

I'd still rather have Javy than him.

I'd rather we went into '06 with McCarthy in the rotation, Vizcaino in long relief, El Duque spot starting until we traded him and Young in the wings.

Javy pitched great last year which went a long way toward vindicating the deal -- but that doesn't change the fact that strategically for the '06 White Sox it wasn't an intelligent trade. We were defending champs with a 1 to 2 type starter in Contreras and a 2 in Buerhle, 3 in garland and 3/4 in Freddy. Vazquez was trending down at the time and never pitched above the 3 level in the AL. Can't see how that was the piece we needed. We couldn't have been thinner in CF at the time (wait, maybe we are now) and the bull pen lacked depth. That deal needs to be judged in context as well as by the sum of its parts.

petekat
12-26-2007, 06:41 PM
Nice holiday image! Whiskey bottles, 3 days of stubble and a collection of chinese takeout boxes. Actually, Ive always envisioned Kenny (and Jerry) having access to a time machine. Always somehow able to bail out on starting pitchers before their past due date. (Garcia, Esty, Sirotka, ALvarez, Black Jack, Fernandez). Maybe they've seen Garland's future?:(:



I picture him surrounded by empty whiskey bottles and old photos of Rowand, Hunter and Fukudome.

The next time I hear Kenny speak, I want him to be telling us that he traveled back in time and signed Ty Cobb to play centerfield and leadoff. Or found a person living in the present that can handle playing centerfield on a day to day basis in the major leagues.

Daver
12-26-2007, 06:53 PM
At what cost?



What difference does it make, it's not going to come out of your checking account.

jabrch
12-26-2007, 07:43 PM
What difference does it make, it's not going to come out of your checking account.

The cost isn't in dollars Daver - the cost that we are discussing (I think) of keeping Chris Young would have been Javy Vazquez. Of course it doesn't come out of my checking account - but it comes out of the team's ledger - either $ if it is money, or in the case we were discussing, straight from the roster.

Anyhow, what does my checking account have to do with this?

JC456
12-27-2007, 10:52 AM
Please show your math. I'm genuinely curious. Really - 10 fold...this ought to be interesting.

Well let’s look at a span of 30 games. A starting pitcher will pitch six games in a five man rotation. That pitcher can go 1 and 5 in that span. It is possible in that same 30 game span that an everyday player can contribute in 10 wins of those 30 games by defensive plays or by successful at bats. i.e., starting a rally, driving in a run, extending an inning, or sacrificing.


Not really. Boston won a WS with Damon in CF. Florida won one with Pierre in CF. Arizona did it with Finley at age 36. And the Yanks had Bernie Williams for a few - when he was not so spry either.

But your use of conventional baseball hyperbole is OUTSTANDING. You could have easily said "pitching wins championships" or "the best way to win is to ourscore your opponent" and your strawman would be equally as flimsy.

Winning baseball teams are (more often than not) balanced baseball teams.
The one thing about the players you mention is they seem to play on winning teams. Maybe it is because of their play or other valuable assets.


How many balls does Chris Young catch that Jerry Owens/BA/Sweeney/Etc. don't catch?
In a game or a series, if it is one, that is enough. That may be the difference in making the playoffs.

jabrch
12-27-2007, 11:04 AM
Well letís look at a span of 30 games. A starting pitcher will pitch six games in a five man rotation. That pitcher can go 1 and 5 in that span. It is possible in that same 30 game span that an everyday player can contribute in 10 wins of those 30 games by defensive plays or by successful at bats. i.e., starting a rally, driving in a run, extending an inning, or sacrificing.

That's just not true. That's not even fuzzy math - that's fantasy. If you pitcher went 1-5, it is highly likely that your lack of hitting had something to do with it. And there is absolutely no MLB player in the history of the game who has been worth 1/3 of his team's wins over any projectable period of time. That's just not even remotely possible even with the greats of the game, much less a guy who can not get on base even to a .300 clip, nor can he get his batting average over .250.

The one thing about the players you mention is they seem to play on winning teams. Maybe it is because of their play or other valuable assets.

What in the heck are you talking about? The Yankees didn't win WS because of Bernie Williams alone. The Red Sox didn't win a WS because of Damon. And nobody has won because of Pierre either. No single player wins. The Yanks and Red Sox won WS because of the depth and balance their teams had - including, but not limited to, their strong pitching staffs.

In a game or a series, if it is one, that is enough. That may be the difference in making the playoffs.

That's not true either. In evaluating the question of what the cost was of Young (and deciding that it is Javy Vazquez) the one ball per game or series (and I am not even sure that this is correct depending on who is in CF) would have virtually no meaning in comparison to the value of Vazquez. If one catch was the difference between making the playoffs, then you were much better off with Javy than with a replacement calibre starter anyhow - so the one ball meant nothing in the context of the discussion.

hi im skot
12-27-2007, 11:31 AM
I'd rather hava an everyday player that can bring in 10 fold the number of wins one pitcher can bring in!

Championships are made being strong up the middle defensively. Since Rowand's departure and now the loss of Iguchi, the Sox are very weak up the middle. They were weak last year and in 2006. I'd say the lack of a quality Center Fielder in 2006 cost them the division and a playoff spot.

To provide a McCarverism; the more balls that are caught, the fewer base runners and at bats for the opposition.

Center Field is the most critical position on the team and the Sox continue to dis it.

Uh, catcher?

balke
12-27-2007, 12:56 PM
[quote=jabrch;1757448][/COLOR]

That's just not true. That's not even fuzzy math - that's fantasy. If you pitcher went 1-5, it is highly likely that your lack of hitting had something to do with it. And there is absolutely no MLB player in the history of the game who has been worth 1/3 of his team's wins over any projectable period of time. That's just not even remotely possible even with the greats of the game, much less a guy who can not get on base even to a .300 clip, nor can he get his batting average over .250.

Thanks, youíve helped make my point. The ineffectiveness of below average players donít help pitchers win games. So Jave or any other pitcher on the staff will loose more often with below average talent in the field and at the plate.

Fantasy? Not true, I believe players like Hunter and Rodriguez have proven that they are worth 1/3 of a teamís wins over a period of games. Just last year Rodiriguez had outstanding play with walk off home runs and clutch hits. In an eleven game span last year Rodriguez drove in 23 runs and the team won 10 games in that span. In the only loss he was still 2 for 4 hitting. In my world any quality hitter can go on a hitting streak and hit successfully in 20 plus games. Who knows the value of those hits? They have to help contribute to success if success is achieved. A pitcher will only pitch and maybe win three of those 11 games.

In that same span of time or even outside that time a fielder can contribute defensively by making a catch/play that is tough or unexpected, or making a put out at second, third or home, maybe even robbing a hitter of a home run, i.e., Torri Hunter.


What in the heck are you talking about? The Yankees didn't win WS because of Bernie Williams alone. The Red Sox didn't win a WS because of Damon. And nobody has won because of Pierre either. No single player wins. The Yanks and Red Sox won WS because of the depth and balance their teams had - including, but not limited to, their strong pitching staffs.

I never said one player is the reason for a teamís success. I stated that quality of everyday players contribute to the success more often than a pitcher. And, for a period of time that one player can carry a team, i.e. like Rodiriguez last year. A pitcher cannot win more than 1 out of 5 starts where a player can contribute in all 5 and invoke a winning streak.

Balance? And how do you suppose those teams maintain balance? They bring in quality players.

The fact that the White Sox seem to avoid bringing in the above average players only increases the probability that failure will be achieved. But balance comes from brining in talent.

Quality players seem to only play for teams committed to winning. Committed meaning they actually sign free agents or make deals to bring in quality players. Kenny hopes for the planets to align, like 2005, and I believe players know this and avoid the Sox. Outside of that year however, Kenny has done little to improve the team. The only big name player we get is at the end of his career. And young talent is forfeited due to extended contract necessity.



Please god if you're going to quote people, learn how to use the quote function. That's lazy and annoying to everyone else who's trying to make sense of your rant.

spiffie
12-27-2007, 01:36 PM
Please god if you're going to quote people, learn how to use the quote function. That's lazy and annoying to everyone else who's trying to make sense of your rant.
I'm not sure better quoting will help you in this endeavor.

spawn
12-27-2007, 02:20 PM
Please god if you're going to quote people, learn how to use the quote function. That's lazy and annoying to everyone else who's trying to make sense of your rant.
That's why I didn't even bother reading that post. It would've been an effort in futility.

MyDogSnores&Fart
12-27-2007, 05:51 PM
Uh, catcher?

Every position up the middle should be considered most important - SS, CF, and C are very critical defensive positions. 2B not as much, but it is very noticeable when your 2B is very good or very bad (Tadahito Iguchi version 2007) defensively. A mediocre 2B doesn't hurt as much as a mediocre C/SS/CF.

JC456
12-27-2007, 06:51 PM
That's just not true. That's not even fuzzy math - that's fantasy. If you pitcher went 1-5, it is highly likely that your lack of hitting had something to do with it. And there is absolutely no MLB player in the history of the game who has been worth 1/3 of his team's wins over any projectable period of time. That's just not even remotely possible even with the greats of the game, much less a guy who can not get on base even to a .300 clip, nor can he get his batting average over .250.

Thanks, you’ve helped make my point. The ineffectiveness of below average players don’t help pitchers win games. So Jave or any other pitcher on the staff will loose more often with below average talent in the field and at the plate.

Fantasy? Not true, I believe players like Hunter and Rodriguez have proven that they are worth 1/3 of a team’s wins over a period of games. Just last year Rodriguez had outstanding play with walk off home runs and clutch hits. In an eleven game span last year Rodriguez drove in 23 runs and the team won 10 games in that span. In the only loss he was still 2 for 4 hitting. In my world any quality hitter can go on a hitting streak and hit successfully in 20 plus games. Who knows the value of those hits? They have to help contribute to success if success is achieved. A pitcher will only pitch and maybe win three of those 11 games.

In that same span of time or even outside that time a fielder can contribute defensively by making a catch/play that is tough or unexpected, or making a put out at second, third or home, maybe even robbing a hitter of a home run, i.e., Torri Hunter.

What in the heck are you talking about? The Yankees didn't win WS because of Bernie Williams alone. The Red Sox didn't win a WS because of Damon. And nobody has won because of Pierre either. No single player wins. The Yanks and Red Sox won WS because of the depth and balance their teams had - including, but not limited to, their strong pitching staffs.

I never said one player is the reason for a team’s success. I stated that quality of everyday players contribute to the success more often than a pitcher. And, for a period of time that one player can carry a team, i.e. like Rodriguez last year. A pitcher cannot win more than 1 out of 5 starts where a player can contribute in all 5 and invoke a winning streak.

Balance? And how do you suppose those teams maintain balance? They bring in quality players.

The fact that the White Sox seem to avoid bringing in the above average players only increases the probability that failure will be achieved. But balance comes from bringing in talent.

Quality players seem to only play for teams committed to winning. Committed meaning they actually sign free agents or make deals to bring in quality players. Kenny hopes for the planets to align, like 2005, and I believe players know this and avoid the Sox. Outside of that year however, Kenny has done little to improve the team. The only big name player we get is at the end of his career. And young talent is forfeited due to extended contract necessity.