PDA

View Full Version : Rogers On Central


Lip Man 1
01-24-2008, 07:40 PM
Phil has a quick look at the toughest division in baseball, the A.L. Central:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/fast-food-for-3.html


Lip

doublem23
01-24-2008, 07:51 PM
After that asisine column he actually claimed to be his own about his "+1/-1 system" of analyzing a team's off-season moves, I can't see why anyone would even bother reading his work. It was literally the dumbest thing I've ever read about baseball... and I've been posting here for almost 8 years!

MarySwiss
01-24-2008, 08:04 PM
Phil has a quick look at the toughest division in baseball, the A.L. Central:

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/01/fast-food-for-3.html


Lip

Let's see, where to start? I know! A Tribune blog called "Hardball." That just might be the biggest oxymoron--and I'd like to stress the "moron" part--ever. Look who the contributors are!

I used to respect Rogers, but if he really believes the tripe he wrote here....

Hey, Phil! The White Sox do know their audience. Which is why I firmly believe that KW isn't done yet and that the Sox will contend. In 2008.

fquaye149
01-24-2008, 08:16 PM
and the White Sox, who at least lead baseball in one thing—stubborness.
:rolleyes:

at the least I think De Los Santos and Gonzalez are too intriguing to sacrifice while you chase your tail.
:rolleyes:

what a waste of my time

Domeshot17
01-24-2008, 08:18 PM
its okay

for years the trib has been saying the sox will suck

for years the trib has said this is the year of the cub

we have a title

they dont

game over

ZombieRob
01-24-2008, 08:29 PM
I actually thought the reader who responded to his column made some very good points .Kudos to him.

oeo
01-24-2008, 08:29 PM
:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:

what a waste of my time

All Phil Rogers articles are the same. They may start differently, but what it ends up being is a Sox-blasting piece [of crap].

munchman33
01-24-2008, 08:56 PM
You people are being ridiculous. Phil put it about as nicely as anyone could, even giving credence to the small chance that we could win.

It would take a freakin' miracle for us to win the division next year. That's the truth. Phil doesn't even put it that bluntly. And he gets lambasted around here not going all kool-aid gaga like the rest of you.

Wake up people. The Tigers and Indians are both candadites for 100 win teams. We'd need them both to desperately underachieve, as well as overachieve considerably ourselves, to even sniff the playoffs. He doesn't "bash" us. Phil put it politely. Kudos to him for showing a little class.

fquaye149
01-24-2008, 09:18 PM
You people are being ridiculous. Phil put it about as nicely as anyone could, even giving credence to the small chance that we could win.

It would take a freakin' miracle for us to win the division next year. That's the truth. Phil doesn't even put it that bluntly. And he gets lambasted around here not going all kool-aid gaga like the rest of you.

Wake up people. The Tigers and Indians are both candadites for 100 win teams. We'd need them both to desperately underachieve, as well as overachieve considerably ourselves, to even sniff the playoffs. He doesn't "bash" us. Phil put it politely. Kudos to him for showing a little class.

It's not about Phil's opinion on the division race. I tend to agree with his outlook.

It's the smarmy way he goes about trying to rip on management

oeo
01-24-2008, 09:19 PM
You people are being ridiculous. Phil put it about as nicely as anyone could, even giving credence to the small chance that we could win.

It would take a freakin' miracle for us to win the division next year. That's the truth. Phil doesn't even put it that bluntly. And he gets lambasted around here not going all kool-aid gaga like the rest of you.

Wake up people. The Tigers and Indians are both candadites for 100 win teams. We'd need them both to desperately underachieve, as well as overachieve considerably ourselves, to even sniff the playoffs. He doesn't "bash" us. Phil put it politely. Kudos to him for showing a little class.

:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure most people realize that.

Rogers makes a point to blast the Sox at everything they do, in every article that he writes. That's the problem. Could he actually write a piece that praises the moves Kenny has made? He's done a lot this offseason. The only thing Phil looks at it, is what they lost, though. They got Swisher? Who the **** cares...they lost Gonzalez, DLS, and the great Ryan Sweeney. They got Cabrera? Who cares...they lost Garland. OTOH, he doesn't look from this pessimistic angle for the other four teams.

Then sometimes he'll come here trying to defend himself with some bull**** about being an American League fan, blah, blah, blah. The guy's a joke.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-24-2008, 09:57 PM
You people are being ridiculous. Phil put it about as nicely as anyone could, even giving credence to the small chance that we could win.


When somebody besides Brandon McCarthy is christened a "proven workhorse" for as much as 8 major league wins I'll begin to believe you've done anything more than embarrass yourself trying to defend Phil Rogers.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 10:23 PM
When somebody besides Brandon McCarthy is christened a "proven workhorse" for as much as 8 major league wins I'll begin to believe you've done anything more than embarrass yourself trying to defend Phil Rogers.

Not that I agreed with Phil about Brandon, but a lot of people here were especially upset that Brandon was traded. More like the majority of people.

Anyways, I don't find anything wrong, untruthful, or devious about Phil's latest column. It seems a pretty fair assessment.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 10:26 PM
:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure most people realize that.

Rogers makes a point to blast the Sox at everything they do, in every article that he writes. That's the problem. Could he actually write a piece that praises the moves Kenny has made? He's done a lot this offseason. The only thing Phil looks at it, is what they lost, though. They got Swisher? Who the **** cares...they lost Gonzalez, DLS, and the great Ryan Sweeney. They got Cabrera? Who cares...they lost Garland. OTOH, he doesn't look from this pessimistic angle for the other four teams.

Then sometimes he'll come here trying to defend himself with some bull**** about being an American League fan, blah, blah, blah. The guy's a joke.

I think Phil's point is that we lost both of those trades. And we still aren't that great.

It's his opinion. He isn't out to get the White Sox. That's his assessment. That's a lot of experts assessments of our team. The only people not seeing that seem to be lingering around here.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 10:27 PM
It's the smarmy way he goes about trying to rip on management

Maybe management shouldn't make it so easy.

goon
01-24-2008, 10:54 PM
It would take a freakin' miracle for us to win the division next year.

An 8 out of 10 on the exaggeration scale.

santo=dorf
01-24-2008, 10:54 PM
the toughest division in baseball, the A.L. Central:
Based on what?

cws05champ
01-24-2008, 11:10 PM
I think Phil's point is that we lost both of those trades. And we still aren't that great.

It's his opinion. He isn't out to get the White Sox. That's his assessment. That's a lot of experts assessments of our team. The only people not seeing that seem to be lingering around here.

And we all know how great the experts are at picking the baseball standings, year in and year out.

When you look at the names on the rosters in black and white, right now...I tend to agree with Phil about his assesment(other than thay Minn is better than the Sox). However, what most people tend to overlook are the personalities of the players involved. As more and more stat heads want to throw statistics that state why the Sox can't/won't win, I think most overlook what a great clubhouse personality can do for a team and it's chemistry. Guys such as O.Cabrera and Swisher are great clubhouse guys and one would hope they will mesh with some of the other personalities well to give us a team that will not only be fun to watch, but really competative.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 11:19 PM
And we all know how great the experts are at picking the baseball standings, year in and year out.

When you look at the names on the rosters in black and white, right now...I tend to agree with Phil about his assesment(other than thay Minn is better than the Sox). However, what most people tend to overlook are the personalities of the players involved. As more and more stat heads want to throw statistics that state why the Sox can't/won't win, I think most overlook what a great clubhouse personality can do for a team and it's chemistry. Guys such as O.Cabrera and Swisher are great clubhouse guys and one would hope they will mesh with some of the other personalities well to give us a team that will not only be fun to watch, but really competative.

If the Indians and Tigers weren't so good, I might agree with you. But we need more than just a great clubhouse and everyone at peak. We also need the other teams not performing at peak.

munchman33
01-24-2008, 11:21 PM
An 8 out of 10 on the exaggeration scale.
http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/thumb/300px-Kool-Aid2.jpg

munchman33
01-24-2008, 11:22 PM
Based on what?

Phil addresses that in the article too, bringing up our top four teams records against the other great teams in the league.

voodoochile
01-24-2008, 11:39 PM
http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/thumb/300px-Kool-Aid2.jpg

Ah, I see, we're back to name calling and stereotyping. I thought we were trying to get past all that and that the pessimists were the ones crying for the change more than anyone (and I do mean crying... :whiner: )

Freaking miracle my ass, it will merely take Floyd and Danks to go .500 for the Sox to be playoff contenders at least. If KW acquires one more starter via retread FA signing or by trading Crede (and others?) the Sox clearly have the offensive talent to compete with anyone in the AL this season.

Of course, it's hard to see that when your locked in the bathroom pissing your pants...

munchman33
01-25-2008, 02:12 AM
Ah, I see, we're back to name calling and stereotyping. I thought we were trying to get past all that and that the pessimists were the ones crying for the change more than anyone (and I do mean crying... :whiner: )

Freaking miracle my ass, it will merely take Floyd and Danks to go .500 for the Sox to be playoff contenders at least. If KW acquires one more starter via retread FA signing or by trading Crede (and others?) the Sox clearly have the offensive talent to compete with anyone in the AL this season.

Of course, it's hard to see that when your locked in the bathroom pissing your pants...


Floyd and Danks are both going to go .500? C'mon Voodoo. That's a stretch. And it's a huge leap of faith that Contreras rebounds to a guy with an era less than 5. Let's face it, we're gonna need 40 wins from those three guys to even sniff competing. And that's only if Buerhle and Vazquez both pitch lights out.

Someone in this division is going to win 95-100. Maybe two teams. How are we realistically going to do that with this hodge-podge rotation? Or do you think the bullpen is going to win 30+ games? :rolleyes:

Not impossible. But highly unlikely. I'm not going to sit here and watch every column that spells out our weaknesses get shot down as simply "sox hate." That's ridiculous. We could win the division, but we're significantly more likely to be under .500.

harwar
01-25-2008, 06:09 AM
:rolleyes:

Rogers makes a point to blast the Sox at everything they do, in every article that he writes. That's the problem. Could he actually write a piece that praises the moves Kenny has made?
Then sometimes he'll come here trying to defend himself with some bull**** about being an American League fan, blah, blah, blah. The guy's a joke.
Yea like when he came in here in dec.of 05 just to sell more copies of his book.
That's the only book about the White Sox that i don't own.

itsnotrequired
01-25-2008, 07:11 AM
I think Phil's point is that we lost both of those trades. And we still aren't that great.

How on earth can anyone say, correct or otherwise, that either team "lost" on these trades? Not even a single game has been played.

spawn
01-25-2008, 07:56 AM
I actually thought the reader who responded to his column made some very good points .Kudos to him.
His comment was better than the column.

soxinem1
01-25-2008, 08:13 AM
:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure most people realize that.

Rogers makes a point to blast the Sox at everything they do, in every article that he writes. That's the problem. Could he actually write a piece that praises the moves Kenny has made? He's done a lot this offseason. The only thing Phil looks at it, is what they lost, though. They got Swisher? Who the **** cares...they lost Gonzalez, DLS, and the great Ryan Sweeney. They got Cabrera? Who cares...they lost Garland. OTOH, he doesn't look from this pessimistic angle for the other four teams.

Then sometimes he'll come here trying to defend himself with some bull**** about being an American League fan, blah, blah, blah. The guy's a joke.

Don't forget, he has to compete for readers of assinine columns with the other wad from the Sun-Times!:rolleyes:

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 08:17 AM
Maybe management shouldn't make it so easy.

ah! i see how it is! how did you miss the hangar 18 appreciation thread :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

SBSoxFan
01-25-2008, 08:30 AM
The only people not seeing that seem to be lingering around here.

That's because we lead the league in stubbornness. :thumbsup:

Also, I'm not a journalist, but "stubbornness" has 2 n's in it, not one.

WizardsofOzzie
01-25-2008, 09:19 AM
:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure most people realize that.

Rogers makes a point to blast the Sox at everything they do, in every article that he writes. That's the problem. Could he actually write a piece that praises the moves Kenny has made? He's done a lot this offseason. The only thing Phil looks at it, is what they lost, though. They got Swisher? Who the **** cares...they lost Gonzalez, DLS, and the great Ryan Sweeney. They got Cabrera? Who cares...they lost Garland. OTOH, he doesn't look from this pessimistic angle for the other four teams.



Quite true if you think about it. What have the Twins done this off-season? Lost 2/5th's of their rotation, including a young, promising guy in Matt Garza. They lost Tori Hunter, arguably one of their best players over the last 7 years or so. And to top it off they are looking to trade one of the best pitchers in the league, and yet Phil has them "A tick better than the White Sox"? :rolleyes:

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 09:32 AM
Floyd and Danks are both going to go .500? C'mon Voodoo. That's a stretch. And it's a huge leap of faith that Contreras rebounds to a guy with an era less than 5. Let's face it, we're gonna need 40 wins from those three guys to even sniff competing. And that's only if Buerhle and Vazquez both pitch lights out.

Someone in this division is going to win 95-100. Maybe two teams. How are we realistically going to do that with this hodge-podge rotation? Or do you think the bullpen is going to win 30+ games? :rolleyes:

Not impossible. But highly unlikely. I'm not going to sit here and watch every column that spells out our weaknesses get shot down as simply "sox hate." That's ridiculous. We could win the division, but we're significantly more likely to be under .500.

Well at least now you're being rational.

Why not? 40 games is only 13 apiece and that's before we add in the idea of acquiring another arm which is certainly possible and even expected.

And yes, I do expect Contreras to bounce back. I truly believe his problems last year were mental not physical and that he showed it well at the end of the season. He even has only one good half and he'll put up 10 of your 40 wins right there.

I expect 20-25 wins out of the bullpen. If you are going to compete for the playoffs you simply have to have it in today's game.

40 + 22 means the Buehrle and Vazquez only need 16 apiece to get the Sox into serious playoff contention and after that, it's a bounce here or a bounce there and the Sox are in. The offense is going to make up for a lot more deficiencies this year too. The starting pitching will be able to have an off night because I think we're going to put 850 runs on the board this year minimum.

SBSoxFan
01-25-2008, 09:36 AM
Well at least now you're being rational.

Why not? 40 games is only 13 apiece and that's before we add in the idea of acquiring another arm which is certainly possible and even expected.

And yes, I do expect Contreras to bounce back. I truly believe his problems last year were mental not physical and that he showed it well at the end of the season. He even has only one good half and he'll put up 10 of your 40 wins right there.

I expect 20-25 wins out of the bullpen. If you are going to compete for the playoffs you simply have to have it in today's game.

40 + 22 means the Buehrle and Vazquez only need 16 apiece to get the Sox into serious playoff contention and after that, it's a bounce here or a bounce there and the Sox are in. The offense is going to make up for a lot more deficiencies this year too. The starting pitching will be able to have an off night because I think we're going to put 850 runs on the board this year minimum.

You're right. Contreras won 10 games last year. :o: And I expect him to bounce back as well. This team could easily win 85-88. Hopefully they'll find a way to steal 5-10 more.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Well at least now you're being rational.

Why not? 40 games is only 13 apiece and that's before we add in the idea of acquiring another arm which is certainly possible and even expected.

And yes, I do expect Contreras to bounce back. I truly believe his problems last year were mental not physical and that he showed it well at the end of the season. He even has only one good half and he'll put up 10 of your 40 wins right there.

I expect 20-25 wins out of the bullpen. If you are going to compete for the playoffs you simply have to have it in today's game.

40 + 22 means the Buehrle and Vazquez only need 16 apiece to get the Sox into serious playoff contention and after that, it's a bounce here or a bounce there and the Sox are in. The offense is going to make up for a lot more deficiencies this year too. The starting pitching will be able to have an off night because I think we're going to put 850 runs on the board this year minimum.

Voodoo the problem is that that's a best case scenerio. And even if it all happens, we probably still just miss the playoffs.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 10:41 AM
How on earth can anyone say, correct or otherwise, that either team "lost" on these trades? Not even a single game has been played.

You're right. And there's absolutely no market for trade analysis, hot stove, or any other such opinion on things that haven't happened yet. :?:

That has got to be the lamest excuse to defend a bad trade ever. "You can't say it's lopsided until you see all ends." That's hindsight. It doesn't exist in the baseball world. In the real baseball world, Kenny had pieces of value that he traded for pieces of less value.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 10:44 AM
Quite true if you think about it. What have the Twins done this off-season? Lost 2/5th's of their rotation, including a young, promising guy in Matt Garza. They lost Tori Hunter, arguably one of their best players over the last 7 years or so. And to top it off they are looking to trade one of the best pitchers in the league, and yet Phil has them "A tick better than the White Sox"? :rolleyes:

He said until they actually trade Santana. And they added Upton to a lineup with Maur and Morneau.

As for the optomist/pessimist argument, well, those other teams didn't go 72-90 last year.

itsnotrequired
01-25-2008, 10:51 AM
You're right. And there's absolutely no market for trade analysis, hot stove, or any other such opinion on things that haven't happened yet. :?:

That has got to be the lamest excuse to defend a bad trade ever. "You can't say it's lopsided until you see all ends." That's hindsight. It doesn't exist in the baseball world. In the real baseball world, Kenny had pieces of value that he traded for pieces of less value.

KW didn't trade Garland for Neifi Perez. Gio and DSL have done nothing at the MLB level. To suggest these trades are "losses" is just as weak as someone saying KW fleeced his opponnents.

Discussing trades is totally fine but making definite, absolute statements before anything has even happened strikes me as a lame analysis...if you can even call it "analysis".

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 10:57 AM
Voodoo the problem is that that's a best case scenerio. And even if it all happens, we probably still just miss the playoffs.

Actually, no. Best case scenario is Floyd and Danks have breakout seasons, go 18-12 with ERA's in the high 3's. Contreras pitches an entire season like he did the first half of 2006, Buehrle wins 20 and posts an ERA in the low 3's. Vazquez does the same and the offense puts up 950 runs as the Sox win 105 games and stomp into the playoffs.

Come on, Munchman. It isn't as hopeless as you make it sound...

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 10:59 AM
KW didn't trade Garland for Neifi Perez. Gio and DSL have done nothing at the MLB level. To suggest these trades are "losses" is just as weak as someone saying KW fleeced his opponnents.

Discussing trades is totally fine but making definite, absolute statements before anything has even happened strikes me as a lame analysis...if you can even call it "analysis".

You're arguing with the guy who says DLS is a shoe in for the HOF (100% unless he has a career ending injury), so don't expect rational discourse on the subject of that trade...

itsnotrequired
01-25-2008, 11:06 AM
You're arguing with the guy who says DLS is a shoe in for the HOF (100% unless he has a career ending injury), so don't expect rational discourse on the subject of that trade...

I felt I had traveled this road before...

spawn
01-25-2008, 11:07 AM
You're arguing with the guy who says DLS is a shoe in for the HOF (100% unless he has a career ending injury), so don't expect rational discourse on the subject of that trade...
No kidding. The fact that he considers the Sox trading away two players who have yet to throw one pitch in the majors for an established major leaguer a a bad trade speaks volumes. But then, DLS IS a shoe-in for the HOF, so what do we know. :rolling:

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 11:38 AM
It's not even whether Rogers is right in theory.

In many ways, the idea of what Phil Rogers is saying is often right.

It's just that he says it in such a smarmy, ad hominen way against Sox management, that he's like Mariotti lite (another writer who often says the right thing but in a dead-wrong way, just like Rogers)

munchman33
01-25-2008, 02:44 PM
Actually, no. Best case scenario is Floyd and Danks have breakout seasons, go 18-12 with ERA's in the high 3's. Contreras pitches an entire season like he did the first half of 2006, Buehrle wins 20 and posts an ERA in the low 3's. Vazquez does the same and the offense puts up 950 runs as the Sox win 105 games and stomp into the playoffs.

Come on, Munchman. It isn't as hopeless as you make it sound...

Voodoo, if only ONE of those first three things happened, I'd be entirely shocked.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 02:52 PM
KW didn't trade Garland for Neifi Perez. Gio and DSL have done nothing at the MLB level. To suggest these trades are "losses" is just as weak as someone saying KW fleeced his opponnents.

Discussing trades is totally fine but making definite, absolute statements before anything has even happened strikes me as a lame analysis...if you can even call it "analysis".

Oh come one. In what universe is Cabrera <<< Jon Garland.

Yours. And that of biased people. Because in no way is anyone who understands baseball going to give an unbiased opinion stating an all star shortstop is worth a an all star starting pitcher. Factor in that Garland is much younger, and there shouldn't even be a discussion.

ilsox7
01-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Oh come one. In what universe is Cabrera <<< Jon Garland.

Yours. And that of biased people. Because in no way is anyone who understands baseball going to give an unbiased opinion stating an all star shortstop is worth a an all star starting pitcher. Factor in that Garland is much younger, and there shouldn't even be a discussion.

And in no world does anyone crown an A ball pitcher as a surefire HOFer.

It's certainly more plausible, given many factors (team needs, contracts, etc) to argue that Cabrera is at least as valuable to the Sox as Garland than to say a guy who has not thrown one pitch in MLB is going to the HOF barring an injury. Saying that pretty much removes all of your credibility.

fquaye149
01-25-2008, 02:58 PM
I didn't know they had a HOF for middle relievers

sullythered
01-25-2008, 03:00 PM
Voodoo, if only ONE of those first three things happened, I'd be entirely shocked.
You'd be entirely shocked if Mark Bueherle wins 20 with an ERA in the low 3's? Wow, you sure are easily shocked.

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 04:28 PM
Has Garland ever actually appeared in an all-star game?

Oh and other factors come into play including need (as the GM sees it) signability (as the GM sees it) and replacability (as the GM sees it).

spawn
01-25-2008, 04:37 PM
Has Garland ever actually appeared in an all-star game?

He has...2005.

The Immigrant
01-25-2008, 04:43 PM
And in no world does anyone crown an A ball pitcher as a surefire HOFer.


http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/pwned-56303.jpg

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 04:43 PM
Voodoo, if only ONE of those first three things happened, I'd be entirely shocked.

Well of course you will be, but not because they are impossible, but because you have NO FAITH and you'd rather be right and see the Sox lose than to be dead wrong and see them win, IMO. If the Sox get off to a poor start this season, I expect you to be everywhere saying, "I told you so." However, should they get off to a hot streak, you won't be seen or heard from until they hit a rough patch (and they will, every team always hits one) then you'll come crawling out to tell us all how right you were and how this is the beginning of the inevitable end you predicted back in December and continued to hammer on all off-season long.

Oh and just for the record, which three things will shock you?

Buehrle wins 20?
Vazquez wins 20?
Contreras puts up two great halves (probably mean he wins 20)?
Danks and Floyd win 18?
The offense scores 950 runs?

How about this?

Buehrle and Vazquez each win 18.
Contreras and Danks each win 14.
Floyd wins 13.
Bullpen posts 20 wins.

Offense scores 875 runs.

That's 97 wins and it's not at all impossible to see it happen unless you have zero faith at all...

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 04:44 PM
He has...2005.

Okay then, shows you how much attention I pay to that crap...

spawn
01-25-2008, 04:51 PM
Okay then, shows you how much attention I pay to that crap...
Well, he IS a perennial All-Star. I don't know how you could've missed this.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2008, 06:20 PM
Voodoo, if only ONE of those first three things happened, I'd be entirely shocked.Munch, quit being a total pansy. Back up your words. Man up. You have already declared the 2008 season over and a disaster. Show some spine; join phylum chordata. You come back next October and gloat and brag about your greatness and then prognosticate on 2009. All you are doing now is whining. You have made a prediction. Back it up. BTW, you're still welcome to post in the Lot. :D:

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:26 PM
Well of course you will be, but not because they are impossible, but because you have NO FAITH and you'd rather be right and see the Sox lose than to be dead wrong and see them win, IMO. If the Sox get off to a poor start this season, I expect you to be everywhere saying, "I told you so." However, should they get off to a hot streak, you won't be seen or heard from until they hit a rough patch (and they will, every team always hits one) then you'll come crawling out to tell us all how right you were and how this is the beginning of the inevitable end you predicted back in December and continued to hammer on all off-season long.

Oh and just for the record, which three things will shock you?

Buehrle wins 20?
Vazquez wins 20?
Contreras puts up two great halves (probably mean he wins 20)?
Danks and Floyd win 18?
The offense scores 950 runs?

How about this?

Buehrle and Vazquez each win 18.
Contreras and Danks each win 14.
Floyd wins 13.
Bullpen posts 20 wins.

Offense scores 875 runs.

That's 97 wins and it's not at all impossible to see it happen unless you have zero faith at all...

You're right Voodoo. I obviously want to see the sox lose. I don't know what I was thinking. :rolleyes:

The three shockers I see are Floyd, Contreras, and Danks winning as many games as you say they will. Floyd and Contreras are 18 game loser candadites more than they are 15 game win candadites.

Are you going to disappear when the team starts 8-15, until they go on a three game winning streak? I can play that game too. I told you so's are an eventuality because someone is always right.

The facts are that this team is not the best team in the division, by far. They're coming off a 90 loss season, meaning they need to improve double digits...JUST TO GET TO .500. And, they lost a starting pitcher, leaving us with three starters who sported 5+ eras last year. And one of those guys is probably 40 and doesn't throw like he used to (and no, his last few starts were not that impressive, as his stuff wasn't all that great). Now you're telling me that on top of that, we'll improve another 15+ games on top of the aforementioned 10 and win the division? No offense, but to act like that's anything but a longshot is pretty farfetched.

ANYWAYS, my original point was that posters should not attack those that think this team isn't a 100 win team. Because it clearly isn't even close. So if someone tells you this team is going to finish in fourth, they don't need to be called haters, or trolls, or attacked for their opinion. Because they're a lot closer to correct than the kool-aid crew is. At the end of the season this team has a better chance at being below .500 than it does being at 95-100 wins. Sure, there's a chance for both. And in actuality, we'll probably be somewhere in between. But a lot of you are acting like 95 wins is an eventuality. When it isn't even close.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:30 PM
Munch, quit being a total pansy. Back up your words. Man up. You have already declared the 2008 season over and a disaster. Show some spine; join phylum chordata. You come back next October and gloat and brag about your greatness and then prognosticate on 2009. All you are doing now is whining. You have made a prediction. Back it up. BTW, you're still welcome to post in the Lot. :D:

:cool:

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Has Garland ever actually appeared in an all-star game?

Oh and other factors come into play including need (as the GM sees it) signability (as the GM sees it) and replacability (as the GM sees it).

We have three shortstops on the roster.

DumpJerry
01-25-2008, 06:38 PM
Munch, all I have to say is don't quit your day job.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:45 PM
Munch, all I have to say is don't quit your day job.

I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see this team as a good bet to make the playoffs. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Daver
01-25-2008, 06:46 PM
We have three shortstops on the roster.

That is offset by having one first baseman.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:48 PM
That is offset by having one first baseman.

:rolling:

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 06:51 PM
We have three shortstops on the roster.

3? I count 2. I expect Rameriz to start the year in AAA. I expect Uribe to ride the bench or be traded. He's at least a backup in case Richar falls flat on his face. Still, who cares how many SS the Sox have? If they can't find room for them, to play another position (most SS can play a second spot pretty easily because they are so athletically gifted - it's traditionally the most athletic defensive position on the field) they can ride the bench, start the year in AAA get traded or get cut. It's not a sign that the Sox are doomed to failure because they have too much talent at one of the most important positions on he field. Cabrera's the starter, it's pretty simple. The rest is just whining for whining's sake.

But, hey, at least you've backed off from the Sox needing a Divine act to win the division to merely being a long shot so I got that much going for me...:rolleyes:

munchman33
01-25-2008, 06:56 PM
3? I count 2. I expect Rameriz to start the year in AAA. I expect Uribe to ride the bench or be traded. He's at least a backup in case Richar falls flat on his face. Still, who cares how many SS the Sox have? If they can't find room for them, to play another position (most SS can play a second spot pretty easily because they are so athletically gifted - it's traditionally the most athletic defensive position on the field) they can ride the bench, start the year in AAA get traded or get cut. It's not a sign that the Sox are doomed to failure because they have too much talent at one of the most important positions on he field. Cabrera's the starter, it's pretty simple. The rest is just whining for whining's sake.

But, hey, at least you've backed off from the Sox needing a Divine act to win the division to merely being a long shot so I got that much going for me...:rolleyes:


You're wearing me down. :cool:

I brought up the three shortstop thing because you brought in the replacability issue. I'd much rather have Garland in the rotation with Uribe and Ramirez here than Cabrera and Floyd.

You know, initially I was for the trade. I thought it was a move in the right direction, and that we'd address the rotation eventually. We might have lost the trade, but it was, at least, an upgrade at short. However, it seems we will not be addressing the rotation any further. So I am no longer happy with that trade. Unless we get Bedard.

voodoochile
01-25-2008, 06:57 PM
I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see this team as a good bet to make the playoffs. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Good bet? No. Impossibility or completely out of the realm of possiblity? Not even close.

You expect Dye, Thome and Konerko to have even worse number than last year. Most people would say that's unlikely given their career averages.

You don't see the addition of Cabrera (HE'S THE STARTING SS) and Swisher as being major additions. Most people do.

You don't seem to think Linebrink and Dotel will fill a major hole from last year's team. Most people feel KW did a great job fixing a major problem from last year's team.

You feel that Danks and Floyd are unlikely to be successful or even go .500 and for Contreras to continue to decline. I guess time will tell, but I remain cautiously optimistic that these pitchers will be moderately successful this season, more so because the offense is going to put 5.5 runs per game on the board most likely and that's even if Owens doesn't make it as a leadoff hitter..

What you see as major long shots, I see as solid chances and honestly, I don't know how I feel about the Sox chances come September and October at the moment, but I still think KW has another card or two up his sleeve, so ask me again in March.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 07:10 PM
Good bet? No. Impossibility or completely out of the realm of possiblity? Not even close.

You expect Dye, Thome and Konerko to have even worse number than last year. Most people would say that's unlikely given their career averages.

You don't see the addition of Cabrera (HE'S THE STARTING SS) and Swisher as being major additions. Most people do.

You don't seem to think Linebrink and Dotel will fill a major hole from last year's team. Most people feel KW did a great job fixing a major problem from last year's team.

You feel that Danks and Floyd are unlikely to be successful or even go .500 and for Contreras to continue to decline. I guess time will tell, but I remain cautiously optimistic that these pitchers will be moderately successful this season, more so because the offense is going to put 5.5 runs per game on the board most likely and that's even if Owens doesn't make it as a leadoff hitter..

What you see as major long shots, I see as solid chances and honestly, I don't know how I feel about the Sox chances come September and October at the moment, but I still think KW has another card or two up his sleeve, so ask me again in March.


I don't deny the improvements. I'm most excited about, believe it or not, Swisher, who I think will be able to hit 40 homers in our park. I wouldn't have done that trade (as you know), but I do not deny his abilities.

I do feel we are weaker in the area that counts most, that being starting pitching. On top of that, you've got two very complete teams in our division with better lineups and better starting pitching.

On the core....well, I expect Konerko to rebound. Thome has become a health risk. And Dye, well he always was one. Two injury free years for us doesn't change that. Not to mention, Dye's 2006 was out of character.

oeo
01-25-2008, 07:21 PM
I don't deny the improvements. I'm most excited about, believe it or not, Swisher, who I think will be able to hit 40 homers in our park. I wouldn't have done that trade (as you know), but I do not deny his abilities.

I do feel we are weaker in the area that counts most, that being starting pitching. On top of that, you've got two very complete teams in our division with better lineups and better starting pitching.

Let Garland go already. He was not going to be re-signed. We have a much greater shot at re-signing Cabrera than we did Garland. He's gone, I'm over it.

Also, who's the other team with a better rotation? The Tigers? Ha! They have the same question marks we do in their rotation. They have Verlander, and then an over-the-hill (appears to be finished) Kenny Rogers, a young guy that has never reached his potential in Bonderman (actually regressed last year), a guy that has regressed the past two seasons in the National League, and Nate Robertson. That rotation scares you? If they have things go right, they'll be a damn good team, but a potent offense only takes you half of the way.

That Tigers team could blow up in Dombrowski's face. The guy's a risk taker and has pretty good luck so far, so maybe it won't...but there's a damn good possibility with the combination of aging veterans and the iffy rotation he has up there.

On the core....well, I expect Konerko to rebound. Thome has become a health risk. And Dye, well he always was one. Two injury free years for us doesn't change that. Not to mention, Dye's 2006 was out of character.

And then Dye had another monster second half last year...:dunno:

ilsox7
01-25-2008, 07:36 PM
I don't deny the improvements. I'm most excited about, believe it or not, Swisher, who I think will be able to hit 40 homers in our park. I wouldn't have done that trade (as you know), but I do not deny his abilities.

I do feel we are weaker in the area that counts most, that being starting pitching. On top of that, you've got two very complete teams in our division with better lineups and better starting pitching.

On the core....well, I expect Konerko to rebound. Thome has become a health risk. And Dye, well he always was one. Two injury free years for us doesn't change that. Not to mention, Dye's 2006 was out of character.

I don't think anyone would take issue with this type of analysis and viewpoint about the Sox. It's when you start throwing around terms like miracle, impossible, and HOFer that people get up in arms. As for Rogers, it's more how he writes about the Sox as opposed to what he writes. Then again, he has written some real stinkers the last 15-18 montsh (+/- analysis)!

turners56
01-25-2008, 09:22 PM
I was reading the comments and I liked this one the best...

"Um...the Tigers have Justin Verlander. He's better than the entire Sox rotation combined. So don't talk about Detroit not having the pitching to win, because they do when coupled with that offense, which will be the best in baseball.

And how will two bad baseball players (Crede and Uribe) net the Sox a "quality starter and reliever"? The Sox have an outside shot of coming in 3rd this year, but 4th or the "Cell"ar seems more likely."

Woohooo you have Justin Verlander, the guy who's 1-5 against the Sox in his career...go you!!! I think he forgets the point that one starter doesn't make the rest of the rotation better. He makes the rotation as a whole better, but the guys behind him matter too...

munchman33
01-25-2008, 10:06 PM
I was reading the comments and I liked this one the best...




Woohooo you have Justin Verlander, the guy who's 1-5 against the Sox in his career...go you!!! I think he forgets the point that one starter doesn't make the rest of the rotation better. He makes the rotation as a whole better, but the guys behind him matter too...




Justin Verlander might be 1-5 against the Sox in his career. But he definately is better than any starter we have.

Anyways, I'm not sure why you would post this. 1-5 the Tigers are stronger in the rotation than we are, especially 3-5.

FarWestChicago
01-25-2008, 11:28 PM
Munch, quit being a complete, embarrassing, whining, pansy. Shut the **** up. You have made your predictions. We all accept you are perhaps the greatest genius in the last half century. Now, shut the **** up you whining *****. Come back in October and celebrate your endless genius. Show the world you are a trans-Nobel prize winner. Just shut the **** up with the endless, mindless repetitive bull****. You are detracting from your overarching, ungodly brilliance by resorting to such silliness. To be a god, you must act like a god; not a petulant child. And, you are still quite welcome to post in the Lot. :D:

Vernam
01-25-2008, 11:38 PM
All Phil Rogers articles are the same. They may start differently, but what it ends up being is a Sox-blasting piece [of crap].Yes, Phil Rogers: The thinking man's Jay Mariotti. :cool:

Tonight on Tribune Live, he made obnoxious comments following a clip of Kenny addressing the Sox Fest faithful. It was weirdly personal, about how KW needs to "stop taking himself so seriously." OK, Williams is kind of intense and even sanctimonious, but who the **** is Rogers to tell him he's too wrapped up in his job? He went on to say that being a GM isn't such a hard gig. :angry: :rolleyes:

Vernam

Chilli Palmer
01-25-2008, 11:41 PM
Munch, quit being a complete, embarrassing, whining, pansy. Shut the **** up. You have made your predictions. We all accept you are perhaps the greatest genius in the last half century. Now, shut the **** up you whining *****. Come back in October and celebrate your endless genius. Show the world you are a trans-Nobel prize winner. Just shut the **** up with the endless, mindless repetitive bull****. You are detracting from your overarching, ungodly brilliance by resorting to such silliness. To be a god, you must act like a god; not a petulant child. And, you are still quite welcome to post in the Lot. :D:

POTW.

ilsox7
01-25-2008, 11:42 PM
Yes, Phil Rogers: The thinking man's Jay Mariotti. :cool:

Tonight on Tribune Live, he made obnoxious comments following a clip of Kenny addressing the Sox Fest faithful. It was weirdly personal, about how KW needs to "stop taking himself so seriously." OK, Williams is kind of intense and even sanctimonious, but who the **** is Rogers to tell him he's too wrapped up in his job? He went on to say that being a GM isn't such a hard gig. :angry: :rolleyes:

Vernam

It has become rather obvious that Rogers has something personal against the White Sox organization. He has allowed those feelings to show up in his writing quite often, which is about as unprofessional as it gets. It's sad b/c he used to be a pretty good baseball writer, IMO.

munchman33
01-25-2008, 11:55 PM
Munch, quit being a complete, embarrassing, whining, pansy. Shut the **** up. You have made your predictions. We all accept you are perhaps the greatest genius in the last half century. Now, shut the **** up you whining *****. Come back in October and celebrate your endless genius. Show the world you are a trans-Nobel prize winner. Just shut the **** up with the endless, mindless repetitive bull****. You are detracting from your overarching, ungodly brilliance by resorting to such silliness. To be a god, you must act like a god; not a petulant child. And, you are still quite welcome to post in the Lot. :D:

DLS IS A HALL OF FAMER!!!

SBSoxFan
01-26-2008, 06:42 AM
Justin Verlander might be 1-5 against the Sox in his career. But he definately is better than any starter we have.

Anyways, I'm not sure why you would post this. 1-5 the Tigers are stronger in the rotation than we are, especially 3-5.

I think the point is that even the Justin Verlanders and Johan Santanas of the world still only start about 1/5 of their teams games.

Your other comment is quite debatable.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 08:26 AM
I think the point is that even the Justin Verlanders and Johan Santanas of the world still only start about 1/5 of their teams games.

Your other comment is quite debatable.

Debate it!

Seriously, which battle do you think we win? Perhaps Bonderman - Vasquez? That's probably about as close to a toss up as there is, but I'd personally take Bonderman.

FarWestChicago
01-26-2008, 08:49 AM
Debate it!

Seriously, which battle do you think we win? Perhaps Bonderman - Vasquez? That's probably about as close to a toss up as there is, but I'd personally take Bonderman.Munchstrodamus, what is it going to take to stop the tears? It almost seems you value crying in public over being a precognitive savant. What the heck is going on here? You claim you are a prophet. You have predicted the future. Now, be a good prophet and disappear until your gift is revealed for all to see. Your "woe is me" act really detracts from your ascension to genius. I prefer to think of you as a bold man who has made profound statements about the future and is willing to stand by them rather than as a whining crybaby. You have an opportunity here. Don't blow it.

And the Lot is still open for day to day posting without the stress involved with prophecy. :D:

soxtalker
01-26-2008, 08:50 AM
It has become rather obvious that Rogers has something personal against the White Sox organization. He has allowed those feelings to show up in his writing quite often, which is about as unprofessional as it gets. It's sad b/c he used to be a pretty good baseball writer, IMO.

I don't think that's obvious at all. What is obvious is that he doesn't think that KW is going down the right path. But so do a lot of people in the media as well as fans. Hopefully, they are wrong and KW is right. He's one of those who cover the Sox pretty closely (unlike, say, the national media), and, if anything, he probably hopes that his guesses are wrong. (IIRC, he has acknowledged in the past when he has been wrong.) Writing articles about a bad team in July-September (or in future years, if the poor farm system leads to that) probably isn't very appealing compared to writing about a good team.

I would argue that the only writer that really seems to take shots at the Sox on a personal level is Mariotti. And the Sox management -- JR, KW, OG -- have, IIRC, alluded to that and shot back at times.

soxinem1
01-26-2008, 09:06 AM
Basically, the Sox will need to own the Central like they did for most of 2005. Sure, they played DET well the past few years, but that stuff has a way of changing very quickly. The Tigers won when they had to against us.

But we have to really play better against MIN and CLE in the division. I'm not too sold on the Indians this year, as their rotation has many ????? like ours, but I like our relief corps on paper better than most anyone in the ALC.

voodoochile
01-26-2008, 09:28 AM
I don't think that's obvious at all. What is obvious is that he doesn't think that KW is going down the right path. But so do a lot of people in the media as well as fans. Hopefully, they are wrong and KW is right. He's one of those who cover the Sox pretty closely (unlike, say, the national media), and, if anything, he probably hopes that his guesses are wrong. (IIRC, he has acknowledged in the past when he has been wrong.) Writing articles about a bad team in July-September (or in future years, if the poor farm system leads to that) probably isn't very appealing compared to writing about a good team.

I would argue that the only writer that really seems to take shots at the Sox on a personal level is Mariotti. And the Sox management -- JR, KW, OG -- have, IIRC, alluded to that and shot back at times.


I will admit one thing. The Minors may be pretty barren, but KW has a LOT of young eggs in his current basket. Yeah, they're the only eggs he owns, so some of them better hatch, but at least Richar has shown promise, Quentin was considered a can't miss stud and Fields looks like he will mature nicely.

Floyd, Danks, Owens and Anderson are the question marks and all of them have shown some promise in one form or another on the major league level. I'm really hoping KW manages to get the Cabrera contract extension signed because it will free up so many other possibilities with the kids and I'm not sure if Rameriz will actually amount to anything though at that price it was certainly a risk worth taking.

Still, ALL of those players will be contributing either on the team or by being traded in the next few years. There are only a few truly "old" guys on the team - Contreras and Thome. PK, Buehrle, Vazquez, Dye and AJ all will be solid contributors for several more years yet, so the Sox have a great mix of youth and experience if things go right. If Rameriz works out too, the sky's the limit...

fquaye149
01-26-2008, 11:01 AM
I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't see this team as a good bet to make the playoffs. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

No, I'm with you in theory.

However, both you and Phil Rogers's ways of backing up your arguments and blasting good acquisitions is pretty preposterous, and it makes it hard for people to come to either of yours's defense

voodoochile
01-26-2008, 11:10 AM
No, I'm with you in theory.

However, both you and Phil Rogers's ways of backing up your arguments and blasting good acquisitions is pretty preposterous, and it makes it hard for people to come to either of yours's defense

Exactly. It's not the belief that the Sox are going to have a hard time competing this year in the ALC that causes problems, it's the over the top hyperbole that gets me riled up.

It won't take a miracle and best case isn't 90 wins. That's where our meeting of the minds turns into a butting of the heads.

FarWestChicago
01-26-2008, 11:12 AM
No, I'm with you in theory.

However, both you and Phil Rogers's ways of backing up your arguments and blasting good acquisitions is pretty preposterous, and it makes it hard for people to come to either of yours's defense

Exactly. It's not the belief that the Sox are going to have a hard time competing this year in the ALC that causes problems, it's the over the top hyperbole that gets me riled up.Why is something so obvious to you two lost on our depressive geniuses? :dunno:

fquaye149
01-26-2008, 11:13 AM
Why is something so obvious to you two lost on our depressive geniuses? :dunno:

THE SOX LEAD THE LEAGUE IN STUBBORNNESS!

just leave poor britney...I mean, phil rogers alone!!!!

Lip Man 1
01-26-2008, 01:06 PM
Phil was on Chicago Tribune Live! yesterday and repeated his comments about trading away the farm system (future) and that the Sox are a better team right now then last season but not close to overtaking either Cleveland or Detroit or both.

I like Phil, he's been good to WSI but I think his position would be better if the players the Sox traded away over the past few years actually DID something when they got to the major leagues.

Chris Young is about the only player Kenny has traded who has made any kind of real impact.

Scott Reifert on his blog had a list of pitchers Kenny has traded away for example, and none of them really did anything. Some mediocre relief pitchers in the show was about as good as it got.

No 20 game winners, no All Star's... nothing.

Phil's position is usurped by these facts.

That leads me to conclude two possible things.

1. Either those minor league players weren't very good in the first place which MAKES them expendable and therefore no big loss.

2. The REAL question is what were they doing in the system in the first place.

The issue is the sad state of the Sox farm system overall not who has been traded and failed to do anything in the big leagues.

If Phil wants to investigate my second point, I'm all for it. It's a serious issue. But I can't get all worked up over the fact that Kenny is dumping kid players who don't amount to much as a group.

Personally I don't think the Sox should ever have to 'rebuild' as Phil implies. What they need to do over the next few seasons is buy and trade to solve their problems THEN when the farm system is finally starting to produce actual talent, you can 'back off' that philosophy, start mixing in the kids and start slowly lowering the payroll.

Till then they must get talent by any means necessary.

Lip

soxinem1
01-26-2008, 01:24 PM
Personally I don't think the Sox should ever have to 'rebuild' as Phil implies. What they need to do over the next few seasons is buy and trade to solve their problems THEN when the farm system is finally starting to produce actual talent, you can 'back off' that philosophy, start mixing in the kids and start slowly lowering the payroll.

Till then they must get talent by any means necessary.

Lip

The only problem is that the GM and Field Manager have no history in doing such a thing.....

turners56
01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Justin Verlander might be 1-5 against the Sox in his career. But he definately is better than any starter we have.

Anyways, I'm not sure why you would post this. 1-5 the Tigers are stronger in the rotation than we are, especially 3-5.

He said better than the ENTIRE rotation, not just any single person. That's why I would post it.

turners56
01-26-2008, 01:42 PM
Debate it!

Seriously, which battle do you think we win? Perhaps Bonderman - Vasquez? That's probably about as close to a toss up as there is, but I'd personally take Bonderman.

Bonderman has good stuff, but so does Javy. Let's not forget Javy was 4th in strikeouts last year in the AL and in the top 15 for ERA. Bonderman has topped 200 ks once and has never had a ERA below 4. It looks like he had a career year in 2006, whereas he wasn't that impressive (playoffs really made his stock grow though). The guy is a hard thrower, but his inability to be consistent and healthy is something that makes him debatable. Vazquez is coming off one of his best years in his career and he's always been healthy, I think Javy has the edge if they were to face-off tomorrow. In addition to that, if Buehrle got some run support and some bullpen help last year, he would of had one of his better years too. Going 10-9 with a 3.50 ERA just tells you how much the rest of the team blew up on him. For the 1st and 2nd spots, the White Sox can be every bit as good as the Tigers. As for 3-5, it's another story.

However, Jose Contreras has a trend going on since he's been in a White Sox uniform. He sucks for one year (second 04 to first half 05), whereas he is terrible in one half of one year, then sucks for the next half. But in the second half of the following year and then the half year to follow (second half 05, first half 06) he is just brilliant. Then once again, you have the roller coaster ride of late 06 and then the horrendous stretch of early 07. Even though the second half of 07 was just as bad as the first, Contreras finished strong. If Jose can get his mind straight and follows that sequence, he's due for a good first half...dunno about the stretch though lol. If you look at Willis, he had a bad year too. The two guys are comparable in numbers, but nobody in their right mind would take the 40 year old (who knows?) over the 20 something Willis, but if Contreras can pitch well at 35, why not pitch well at 37?

kaufsox
01-26-2008, 02:33 PM
Chris Young is about the only player Kenny has traded who has made any kind of real impact.


and really, if 5 or 6 solid major leaguers came from the deals KW made, he's still doing good business. The odds are SO high against a prospect making an impact that all of the worries about "trading away the future" tend to ring hollow.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 02:52 PM
Bonderman has good stuff, but so does Javy. Let's not forget Javy was 4th in strikeouts last year in the AL and in the top 15 for ERA. Bonderman has topped 200 ks once and has never had a ERA below 4. It looks like he had a career year in 2006, whereas he wasn't that impressive (playoffs really made his stock grow though). The guy is a hard thrower, but his inability to be consistent and healthy is something that makes him debatable. Vazquez is coming off one of his best years in his career and he's always been healthy, I think Javy has the edge if they were to face-off tomorrow. In addition to that, if Buehrle got some run support and some bullpen help last year, he would of had one of his better years too. Going 10-9 with a 3.50 ERA just tells you how much the rest of the team blew up on him. For the 1st and 2nd spots, the White Sox can be every bit as good as the Tigers. As for 3-5, it's another story.

However, Jose Contreras has a trend going on since he's been in a White Sox uniform. He sucks for one year (second 04 to first half 05), whereas he is terrible in one half of one year, then sucks for the next half. But in the second half of the following year and then the half year to follow (second half 05, first half 06) he is just brilliant. Then once again, you have the roller coaster ride of late 06 and then the horrendous stretch of early 07. Even though the second half of 07 was just as bad as the first, Contreras finished strong. If Jose can get his mind straight and follows that sequence, he's due for a good first half...dunno about the stretch though lol. If you look at Willis, he had a bad year too. The two guys are comparable in numbers, but nobody in their right mind would take the 40 year old (who knows?) over the 20 something Willis, but if Contreras can pitch well at 35, why not pitch well at 37?

You're right, it is close at 1 and 2. I might even switch to Javy after looking at their career numbers.

But, with Contreras.... Well, we can't be sure he's 35. And it will take more than a good first half from him. He'd have to put together a stellar full season. I honestly don't think he has the mental or physical stamina to accomplish that. And that's provided he even can throw like he used to. I hope I'm wrong.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 02:56 PM
Exactly. It's not the belief that the Sox are going to have a hard time competing this year in the ALC that causes problems, it's the over the top hyperbole that gets me riled up.

It won't take a miracle and best case isn't 90 wins. That's where our meeting of the minds turns into a butting of the heads.

To be fair, I remember saying winning the division would take 95-100 wins and that it wasn't impossible, just not very likely.

IMO our best case is about 95-97 wins. I think the offense will be above average, and we'll probably be pretty good defensively and in the pen. I'm just extremely skeptical about our rotation. We've got three question marks, and no minor league system to back up those question marks.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 03:00 PM
Munchstrodamus, what is it going to take to stop the tears? It almost seems you value crying in public over being a precognitive savant. What the heck is going on here? You claim you are a prophet. You have predicted the future. Now, be a good prophet and disappear until your gift is revealed for all to see. Your "woe is me" act really detracts from your ascension to genius. I prefer to think of you as a bold man who has made profound statements about the future and is willing to stand by them rather than as a whining crybaby. You have an opportunity here. Don't blow it.

And the Lot is still open for day to day posting without the stress involved with prophecy. :D:

I wouldn't know what else to do with my offseason. :(:

"Jesters do often prove prophets"
-Joseph Addison

ilsox7
01-26-2008, 03:03 PM
To be fair, I remember saying winning the division would take 95-100 wins and that it wasn't impossible, just not very likely.

IMO our best case is about 95-97 wins. I think the offense will be above average, and we'll probably be pretty good defensively and in the pen. I'm just extremely skeptical about our rotation. We've got three question marks, and no minor league system to back up those question marks.

I'd guess the majority of WSI agrees with this.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 03:09 PM
I'd guess the majority of WSI agrees with this.

Yeah, I think the disagreement comes in how much of a question mark those three guys are. Because I believe Contreras and Floyd are pretty huge.

fquaye149
01-26-2008, 03:19 PM
Yeah, I think the disagreement comes in how much of a question mark those three guys are. Because I believe Contreras and Floyd are pretty huge.

I agree.

But that has nothing to do with why Rogers is a joke of a writer...

I's one thing to think Contreras and Floyd won't play well this year. It's another to constantly insist that all question marks on this team are a result of systematic, oft-"insidious" managerial incompetence

Vernam
01-26-2008, 03:24 PM
I'd guess the majority of WSI agrees with this.Yep, and I'm one of them. Does that make the opinion compelling or just a statement of what's painfully obvious? :wink:

If he'd been on a championship team last year, Vazquez's performance would have brought Cy Young consideration. He and Contreras have now essentially swapped places in the rotation. What that means is that our third starter (or fourth if Ozzie inserts him between Danks and Floyd) is less than two seasons removed from being a pretty dominating pitcher. How many teams can say that about their third or fourth starter? Yeah, he's a question mark, but he showed enough late last year to indicate he can be at least serviceable, and maybe more.

I think our rotation will be okay. If the bullpen is better than okay, then things could get exciting. But the #1 thing I'm looking for is whether we show some life on the basepaths and in bunting, hitting behind runners, etc. That's what it takes for Ozzie's juices to flow, and that enthusiasm can wear off on the rest of the team. I believe that's basically what happened in 2005.

When things went bad starting in mid-2006, Ozzie seemed bored, like he was afraid to lose his temper and prove his detractors right. This year, if the team shows any signs that it lacks fire, I anticipate that he'll go ape****. And well he should. If there's a single reason I'm optimistic about 2008, it's that I know Ozzie won't sit quietly through another season like that.

I know there's only so much a manager can do, but we've got a team that should easily handle most others in the AL. As for Detroit and Cleveland, let's see how they deal with the crushing expectations they'll be facing.

Vernam

munchman33
01-26-2008, 03:42 PM
I agree.

But that has nothing to do with why Rogers is a joke of a writer...

I's one thing to think Contreras and Floyd won't play well this year. It's another to constantly insist that all question marks on this team are a result of systematic, oft-"insidious" managerial incompetence

Well, if you're going to leave questions marks, why leave them there? Especially when you didn't have to? I think that's where Phil is coming from. We have questions in the most important area. Our GM traded a good starter away. And then he traded our closest to ready minor league starter (not to mention God-man DLS :cool:). And all you here from Kenny is how great he thinks the rotation will be, and that it's not something he's looking to improve. Honestly, it kind of doesn't make sense.

fquaye149
01-26-2008, 04:03 PM
Well, if you're going to leave questions marks, why leave them there? Especially when you didn't have to? I think that's where Phil is coming from. We have questions in the most important area. Our GM traded a good starter away. And then he traded our closest to ready minor league starter (not to mention God-man DLS :cool:). And all you here from Kenny is how great he thinks the rotation will be, and that it's not something he's looking to improve. Honestly, it kind of doesn't make sense.

Your opinions are phrased, even here, in a less high-minded, less ad-hominem, less- possessing all the answers sense than Phil's column. That's the point

Compare this line of reasonable questioning of Kenny's moves (i.e. "why do we have these holes? Is it possible to substitute proven performers for ?'s, or did the market, both trade and FA, dictate that it wasn't realistic to solve all our problems) to, for instance, Phil's approach to the McCarthy and Garcia trade:

"This is an insidious plot to break up the World Series pitching staff so that Kenny doesn't have to pay pitchers!"

Oops--what it turned out to be was Kenny getting some talented arms for a dead arm (Garcia) and an unproven small-framed pitcher (McCarthy). Yes, he let Garland go, but he re-upped Burly and Vazquez.

Now, we didn't NECESSARILY have a way of knowing that, and certainly, if someone disagreed with Kenny's moves they weren't WRONG by virtue of disagreeing with them, but to immediately start characterizing those moves as an INSIDIOUS PLOT TO CUT PAYROLL is just plain tabloid journalism.

It's WSCR-caller caliber commentary. It's HANGAR 18 caliber analysis. And it's Phil Rogers's stock and trade.

That's why comments like "The White Sox lead the league in stubbornness" is so ridiculous. He's trying to characterize Kenny's moves as "Kenny is too arrogant to make smart moves because he wants people to talk about him more than he wants the team to be successful."

Agree or disagree with Kenny's moves. That's the nature of sports and especially sports journalism. But to make an analytical article into an attack on the GM's character is ridiculous, and, once again, is Phil Rogers's stock and trade

TheOldRoman
01-26-2008, 04:36 PM
It's WSCR-caller caliber commentary. It's HANGAR 18 caliber analysis. And it's Phil Rogers's stock and trade.

I miss the days of Rogers or Moronotti writing some inflamatory drivel, Hangar posting it, and then saying "You know, he is right."

He was quite a character. How could someone spend half of their time whining that the Sox are cheap, stupid and basically the worst organization in the history of sports, and spend the other half of his time complaining that they don't get enough respect from the media? :?:

spiffie
01-26-2008, 04:58 PM
I miss the days of Rogers or Moronotti writing some inflamatory drivel, Hangar posting it, and then saying "You know, he is right."

He was quite a character. How could someone spend half of their time whining that the Sox are cheap, stupid and basically the worst organization in the history of sports, and spend the other half of his time complaining that they don't get enough respect from the media? :?:
Henry is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

munchman33
01-26-2008, 05:12 PM
Your opinions are phrased, even here, in a less high-minded, less ad-hominem, less- possessing all the answers sense than Phil's column. That's the point

Compare this line of reasonable questioning of Kenny's moves (i.e. "why do we have these holes? Is it possible to substitute proven performers for ?'s, or did the market, both trade and FA, dictate that it wasn't realistic to solve all our problems) to, for instance, Phil's approach to the McCarthy and Garcia trade:

"This is an insidious plot to break up the World Series pitching staff so that Kenny doesn't have to pay pitchers!"

Oops--what it turned out to be was Kenny getting some talented arms for a dead arm (Garcia) and an unproven small-framed pitcher (McCarthy). Yes, he let Garland go, but he re-upped Burly and Vazquez.

Now, we didn't NECESSARILY have a way of knowing that, and certainly, if someone disagreed with Kenny's moves they weren't WRONG by virtue of disagreeing with them, but to immediately start characterizing those moves as an INSIDIOUS PLOT TO CUT PAYROLL is just plain tabloid journalism.

It's WSCR-caller caliber commentary. It's HANGAR 18 caliber analysis. And it's Phil Rogers's stock and trade.

That's why comments like "The White Sox lead the league in stubbornness" is so ridiculous. He's trying to characterize Kenny's moves as "Kenny is too arrogant to make smart moves because he wants people to talk about him more than he wants the team to be successful."

Agree or disagree with Kenny's moves. That's the nature of sports and especially sports journalism. But to make an analytical article into an attack on the GM's character is ridiculous, and, once again, is Phil Rogers's stock and trade

Okay, the insidious plot stuff does seem a bit over the top. I still like the stubbornness comment though. He probably could have said the "right" thing for Kenny to do was to rebuild instead of his current route. But, once again, there is nothing wrong with that comment. Kenny is being stubborn, and he's going to try to win with a core that produced 90 losses last year.

Besides, Phil's column is an editorial, right? Shouldn't there be opinion and style? I don't want to him simply write "Kenny's wrong, they should rebuild." That's boring. Calling Kenny stubborn, which once again is not false, makes for a better read. I think people tend to look too much into these things. Phil is not a Marriotti type writer.

voodoochile
01-26-2008, 05:53 PM
Henry is a nutjob wrapped in a schizophrenic inside a tinfoil hat.

Fixed your post...:tongue:

santo=dorf
01-26-2008, 06:44 PM
Oh and just for the record, which three things will shock you?

Buehrle wins 20?
Vazquez wins 20?
Contreras puts up two great halves (probably mean he wins 20)?
Danks and Floyd win 18?
The offense scores 950 runs?

How about this?

Buehrle and Vazquez each win 18.
Contreras and Danks each win 14.
Floyd wins 13.
Bullpen posts 20 wins.

Offense scores 875 runs.

That's 97 wins and it's not at all impossible to see it happen unless you have zero faith at all...
GMAB. Here we go with the WSI extremism.....

Buehrle won 19 games 6 years ago, and the closest he's been to 20 wins was 16. Vazquez in his best year won 16 games.
Contreras can win 14 games, but to put it into contrast, he won 15 in 2005.
Danks won't win anywhere near that amount if he can't hit 190 innings.
Gavin Floyd has a career record of 8-10 in 29 careers starts, and won 1 whopping game last September.

The 875 runs isn't likely to happen because even in 2006 we scored 868 runs. Of course it doesn't matter too much the total number of runs a team scores, because it doesn't help when you win a game with a softball score of 16-5, and then struggle to put up 4 runs over the next two games. Look at the 2003 White Sox as an example (explosive offense, but scored 791 runs.) Then there's the entire argument of judging pitchers 1950's style by the number of games he wins in a season.

Yes it's not an entire impossibility as it could happen, but you can say the same thing about winning the lottery or finding life on Mars.

Of course instead of acting like kool aid drinking cub fans some posters raise legitmate questions about this team, specifically the rotation. But it's a lot more cool and easier to just label them a dark cloud, or giving up on a the season early, and then IF the things don't go the right way, the posters are now using hindsight and are happy that they are right instead of the Sox winning. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: What an easy cop-out. That doesn't remind of the offseason of 2005, in fact it reminds me more of the offseason before the garbage 2007 season, specifically the signing of Erstad and resigning of Podsednik.

Debate it!

Seriously, which battle do you think we win? Perhaps Bonderman - Vasquez? That's probably about as close to a toss up as there is, but I'd personally take Bonderman.Will you please stop spelling his name wrong?

Frater Perdurabo
01-26-2008, 07:21 PM
:tomatoaward

sullythered
01-26-2008, 07:48 PM
Buehrle 18 wins
Vazquez 16 wins
Contreras 15 wins
Danks 14 wins
Floyd 9 wins
Broadway 3 wins

pen 24 wins

Sox score 741 runs

Is that crazy?

munchman33
01-26-2008, 08:02 PM
Will you please stop spelling his name wrong?

Who, Vasquez? :cool:

munchman33
01-26-2008, 08:02 PM
Buehrle 18 wins
Vazquez 16 wins
Contreras 15 wins
Danks 14 wins
Floyd 9 wins
Broadway 3 wins

pen 24 wins

Sox score 741 runs

Is that crazy?

No. But it isn't bloody likely either.

Nellie_Fox
01-27-2008, 01:37 AM
Fixed your post...:tongue:I normally oppose "fixed your post" posts, but damn voodoo...:rolling:

SBSoxFan
01-27-2008, 06:44 AM
Debate it!

Seriously, which battle do you think we win? Perhaps Bonderman - Vasquez? That's probably about as close to a toss up as there is, but I'd personally take Bonderman.

Well, a couple people have addressed this since your post. However, I agree, I'd take Bonderman over Vasquez, but, in athletic parlance, Bonderman isn't fit to carry Javier Vazquez's jock.

Munchman, why are you so eager to drink the Tiger/Bonderman kool-aid, but not the Sox kool-aid? :tongue:

Verlander is better than Buehrle; Vazquez is better than Bonderman. I have complete faith in a turnaround from Contreras. I completely doubt that he's not physically capable as you previously said. What makes you believe Rogers will be so much better this year? Didn't he miss most of last season? And, although there's the great debate about Contreras' age, I'm sure Rogers is still older. So, if I had to chose one to falter this year, it would be Rogers. You can have Robertson over either Danks or Floyd, although Danks easily could have been a 10-game winner last year. But Willis and his 5+ ERA from the NL doesn't scare me. Since there's relatively little data on Danks and Floyd, we'll have to see how it plays out there. The most I could concede is that the starters are a wash.

I also believe the fact that the Sox hit Verlander well carries some weight. I'd rather see him opposing the Sox than Rogers. I'd always be an advocate of obtaining pitchers who do well against division opponents. That's where losing Garland might hurt. I think he was good against Detroit, Cleveland, and Minnesota.

munchman33
01-27-2008, 11:33 AM
Well, a couple people have addressed this since your post. However, I agree, I'd take Bonderman over Vasquez, but, in athletic parlance, Bonderman isn't fit to carry Javier Vazquez's jock.

Munchman, why are you so eager to drink the Tiger/Bonderman kool-aid, but not the Sox kool-aid? :tongue:

Verlander is better than Buehrle; Vazquez is better than Bonderman. I have complete faith in a turnaround from Contreras. I completely doubt that he's not physically capable as you previously said. What makes you believe Rogers will be so much better this year? Didn't he miss most of last season? And, although there's the great debate about Contreras' age, I'm sure Rogers is still older. So, if I had to chose one to falter this year, it would be Rogers. You can have Robertson over either Danks or Floyd, although Danks easily could have been a 10-game winner last year. But Willis and his 5+ ERA from the NL doesn't scare me. Since there's relatively little data on Danks and Floyd, we'll have to see how it plays out there. The most I could concede is that the starters are a wash.

I also believe the fact that the Sox hit Verlander well carries some weight. I'd rather see him opposing the Sox than Rogers. I'd always be an advocate of obtaining pitchers who do well against division opponents. That's where losing Garland might hurt. I think he was good against Detroit, Cleveland, and Minnesota.


There isn't much kool-aid with that team. They've been good for a while now. And Rogers is a better bet for production than Contreras is. Rogers isn't inconsistent. Dontrelle Willis could end up being their five. And let's not forget that last year was his only down year.

But the biggest difference between in our teams is that they can deal with a failure. Injuries happen, guys have bad seasons, etc. And the Tigers are freakin' stacked with pitching talent in the minors ready to step up. We, on the other hand, don't have a decent arm within three years of the majors.

SBSoxFan
01-27-2008, 12:18 PM
There isn't much kool-aid with that team. They've been good for a while now. And Rogers is a better bet for production than Contreras is. Rogers isn't inconsistent. Dontrelle Willis could end up being their five. And let's not forget that last year was his only down year.

But the biggest difference between in our teams is that they can deal with a failure. Injuries happen, guys have bad seasons, etc. And the Tigers are freakin' stacked with pitching talent in the minors ready to step up. We, on the other hand, don't have a decent arm within three years of the majors.

I think there's a lot with Bonderman. It's that tricky non-colored stuff that makes you think you're drinking water until it's too late! I don't agree that Rogers is a better bet than Contreras. I don't follow anyone's farm system, but I do agree, it looks like the Sox could ill-afford any setbacks to their starters.

munchman33
01-27-2008, 06:55 PM
I think there's a lot with Bonderman. It's that tricky non-colored stuff that makes you think you're drinking water until it's too late! I don't agree that Rogers is a better bet than Contreras. I don't follow anyone's farm system, but I do agree, it looks like the Sox could ill-afford any setbacks to their starters.

That's just the thing. Kenny has fallen in love with Danks and Floyd. For some reason, he's expecting them to both pitch like aces. That's a bad enough idea on it's own. But he also doesn't have a backup plan. :(:

voodoochile
01-27-2008, 07:24 PM
That's just the thing. Kenny has fallen in love with Danks and Floyd. For some reason, he's expecting them to both pitch like aces. That's a bad enough idea on it's own. But he also doesn't have a backup plan. :(:

Actually, he's expecting them to pitch like #4-5 pitchers who will hopefully improve because they are young.

sircaffey1
01-27-2008, 09:35 PM
There isn't much kool-aid with that team. They've been good for a while now. And Rogers is a better bet for production than Contreras is. Rogers isn't inconsistent. Dontrelle Willis could end up being their five. And let's not forget that last year was his only down year.

But the biggest difference between in our teams is that they can deal with a failure. Injuries happen, guys have bad seasons, etc. And the Tigers are freakin' stacked with pitching talent in the minors ready to step up. We, on the other hand, don't have a decent arm within three years of the majors.

The Tigers are not "freakin stacked" with regards to immediate impact pitching prospects. They traded almost all of it away for Renteria, Cabrera, and Willis. Bazardo and perhaps Porcello if he moves fast, but other than that, there's nothing special at all.

Trading Miller, Jurrjens, Trahern, Badenhop, and De La Cruz emptied most of the upper level talent.

Oblong
01-27-2008, 10:11 PM
And the Tigers are freakin' stacked with pitching talent in the minors ready to step up. We, on the other hand, don't have a decent arm within three years of the majors.


Just to weigh in.... not anymore. A guy named Bazardo was pegged to be the fifth starter until the Cabrera/Willis trade, now he's going to be a bullpen guy. Other than that, in my opinion, you've got some fringe guys who max out at a #5 or bullpen guys. Jair Jurrjens was traded for Renteria and Miller/Dallas Trahern/Eugenio De La Cruz were sent for Willis/Cabrera. Those were the guys thought of as decent prospects that were close to the majors. Probably 4 of the top 6 pitchig prospects. Right now the #1 pitching prospect, and #1 prospect overall, hasn't played an inning of pro ball and is only 18. So that gives you an idea on the farm strength in therms of arms.

I'll agree with SBSoxfan's take on the Tiger starters. He's echoing what many Tiger fans think about the staff. Potential to be very good but 3 big question marks and a 4th guy where if he's average then it's considered a good year. Willis and Bonderman both said they were hurt. Bonderman did go on the DL and was eventually shut down. Willis said he pitched through it. Kenny Rogers is old. Too many question marks to be entirely comfortable.

munchman33
01-28-2008, 01:37 AM
I'll agree with SBSoxfan's take on the Tiger starters. He's echoing what many Tiger fans think about the staff. Potential to be very good but 3 big question marks and a 4th guy where if he's average then it's considered a good year. Willis and Bonderman both said they were hurt. Bonderman did go on the DL and was eventually shut down. Willis said he pitched through it. Kenny Rogers is old. Too many question marks to be entirely comfortable.

Okay. I'll trade you ours for yours, straight up.