PDA

View Full Version : White Sox, Angels Express Interest In Carl Everett!!!


DickAllen72
01-28-2008, 04:20 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

:D::gulp::supernana:

Sockinchisox
01-28-2008, 04:23 PM
Print the World Series tickets.

asindc
01-28-2008, 04:35 PM
Probably as Thome insurance.

hi im skot
01-28-2008, 04:36 PM
Carl Everett = Tuff

oeo
01-28-2008, 04:39 PM
I'd imagine he would have to show something pretty damn good to make the team (where would this team fit a backup DH at?). But, would he even come back here? He had some bad things to say after 2005.

goon
01-28-2008, 04:41 PM
I just saw saw this on Mariners website.

Everett in '08.

Sockinchisox
01-28-2008, 04:42 PM
Probably as Thome insurance.

We have plenty of Thome insurance. If he goes down Swisher could move to right, Owens to center, and Quentin in LF while Dye DHs. Or Swisher could move to 1st while Paulie DHs.

SoxNation05
01-28-2008, 04:44 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/signaturepics/sigpic7528_6.gif:everett: "Ahhhh Hell no"

Daver
01-28-2008, 04:45 PM
We have plenty of Thome insurance. If he goes down Swisher could move to right, Owens to center, and Quentin in LF while Dye DHs. Or Swisher could move to 1st while Paulie DHs.

Quentin would go to right before Swisher.

veeter
01-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

NardiWasHere
01-28-2008, 04:53 PM
His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

Oh shut up.

hi im skot
01-28-2008, 04:54 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/signaturepics/sigpic7528_6.gif:everett: "Ahhhh Hell no"


:rolling::rolling::rolling:

mjmcend
01-28-2008, 04:54 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

Yep, Thome is why we didn't repeat in '06. He didn't eat enough dirt.

SoxNation05
01-28-2008, 04:54 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.
So in other words you think Carl Everett is better than Jim Thome? If that is so we may be a dynasty right now. 2006- we have a better three hole hitter in one of the best lineups in the league and probably make the playoffs. Plus Brian Anderson stays in the minors and maybe sooner or laters lives up to his talent. We also have Haiglewood and Gio still in the system.

veeter
01-28-2008, 04:55 PM
Oh shut up.Whaaat. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

veeter
01-28-2008, 04:56 PM
So in other words you think Carl Everett is better than Jim Thome? If that is so we may be a dynasty right now. 2006- we have a better three hole hitter in one of the best lineups in the league and probably make the playoffs. Plus Brian Anderson stays in the minors and maybe sooner or laters lives up to his talent. We also have Haiglewood and Gio still in the system.I think you're agreeing with me. Are you?

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2008, 04:58 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.
Oh, for ****'s sake.

santo=dorf
01-28-2008, 04:59 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.
Yeah Thome's never been part of a winner. Just ignore all those Cleveland teams.

In 2005.....Jim Thome posted an OBP 49 points higher than Everett. Just sayin'

In 2006, Thome had a monster season while Carl Everett completely washed out of the MLB.

Your post is really silly as Carl Everett was not the determining factor in 2005 and Thome as the replacement was not a problem in 2006. Really, this is Cub fan mentality.

"We shoulda never got rid of Dunston or Gracie!"

Sockinchisox
01-28-2008, 05:00 PM
Quentin would go to right before Swisher.

Ya, you're probably right.

sox1970
01-28-2008, 05:01 PM
Veeter will come around when the Sox get some better pitching. Then Thome's sucking against lefties and double plays won't stick out so much.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2008, 05:03 PM
Thome posted a 1.014 OPS in 2006 - an OPS+ of 155 and still gets the bull**** treatment around here. Everett posts a .746 OPS in 2005 with an OPS+ of 94. and gets lauded for his play being included in the "formula for winning."

Everett blows and hasn't even been decent in five years. As a DH on our championship team he was embarrassing.

The man has no character and no ability as a baseball player.

Jim Thome is the consummate leader who possesses 100% class and has amazing baseball talents.

SoxNation05
01-28-2008, 05:04 PM
I think you're agreeing with me. Are you?
No way!!!!!!!!!

veeter
01-28-2008, 05:06 PM
Yeah Thome's never been part of a winner. Just ignore all those Cleveland teams.

In 2005.....Jim Thome posted an OBP 49 points higher than Everett. Just sayin'

In 2006, Thome had a monster season while Carl Everett completely washed out of the MLB.

Your post is really silly as Carl Everett was not the determining factor in 2005 and Thome as the replacement was not a problem in 2006. Really, this is Cub fan mentality.

"We shoulda never got rid of Dunston or Gracie!"Who was the determining factor in 2005? Carl was as big a part as anyone. He moved runners over and was clutch. He was also a great clubhouse man. Of course it's silly to think he'd be more valuable than Thome right now. I get that. I just never liked how he was brushed aside. Combine that with the fact I've never liked the Thome presence. He's the greatest guy in the world, but the offense changed when he got here.

SoxNation05
01-28-2008, 05:07 PM
Thome posted a 1.014 OPS in 2006 - an OPS+ of 155 and still gets the bull**** treatment around here. Everett posts a .746 OPS in 2005 with an OPS+ of 94. and gets lauded for his play being included in the "formula for winning."

Everett blows and hasn't even been decent in five years. As a DH on our championship team he was embarrassing.

The man has no character and no ability as a baseball player.

Jim Thome is the consummate leader who possesses 100% class and has amazing baseball talents.
once again:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/signaturepics/sigpic7528_6.gif:everett: "Oh HELLLLLL no"

veeter
01-28-2008, 05:07 PM
Veeter will come around when the Sox get some better pitching. Then Thome's sucking against lefties and double plays won't stick out so much.Thank you.

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2008, 05:07 PM
He's the greatest guy in the world, but the offense changed when he got here.
Yeah, it got a lot better.

kjhanson
01-28-2008, 05:12 PM
Who was the determining factor in 2005? Carl was as big a part as anyone. He moved runners over and was clutch.

In your defense, Carl did hit .299/.351/.495 with runners in scoring position in 2005, but his 2nd half was downright pathetic:

2nd half: .228/.305/.386 (246 ABs)
Yes, that's right, our DH slugged .386 in one half of baseball. (Jerry Owens slugged .371 in 97 AB's in Sep/Oct. last year)

kittle42
01-28-2008, 05:13 PM
veeter, thanks for making this thread embarrassing.

santo=dorf
01-28-2008, 05:16 PM
Yeah, it got a lot better.
You're wasting your time. Post that kittle42 would call "1985 Bears" like are really embarrassing.

If there are any Marlins, Yankees, Cubs fans or fans of other visiting teams lurking right now, I'd just like to let you know veeter's opinion of Jim Thome is not representative of the Chicago fanbase. Of course there was a thread here where the OP didn't think the Sox's DH ranking near the bottom in most offensive categories was a problem at that position. :rolleyes:

As for the DP remark:
2006: 4 DP's
2007: 10 DP's

Everett's 2005 "clutch" stats:
Late and close: .156 BA, .253 OBP, .247 SLG. Those are Borchard numbers.
veeter, thanks for making this thread embarrassing.
Excellent timing, as usual.:cool:

veeter
01-28-2008, 05:31 PM
You're wasting your time. Post that kittle42 would call "1985 Bears" like are really embarrassing.

If there are any Marlins, Yankees, Cubs fans or fans of other visiting teams lurking right now, I'd just like to let you know veeter's opinion of Jim Thome is not representative of the Chicago fanbase. Of course there was a thread here where the OP didn't think the Sox's DH ranking near the bottom in most offensive categories was a problem at that position. :rolleyes:

As for the DP remark:
2006: 4 DP's
2007: 10 DP's

Everett's 2005 "clutch" stats:
Late and close: .156 BA, .253 OBP, .247 SLG. Those are Borchard numbers.

Excellent timing, as usual.:cool:You have got to be kidding. What did I say that was so embarrassing? I never said Carl was better than Thome, never. You've read way too far into what I said.

veeter
01-28-2008, 05:32 PM
Yeah, it got a lot better.For the first half of 2006. It's sucked ever since.

oeo
01-28-2008, 06:30 PM
For the first half of 2006. It's sucked ever since.

I'm confused as to how that is Thome's fault...

soxwon
01-28-2008, 06:37 PM
Vegas odds dropped from 12-1 to 3-1 if we get everett

JB98
01-28-2008, 06:52 PM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

Thome has played on quite a few winning teams in his career, unless it was just my imagination when Cleveland was kicking everybody's ass in the 1990s.

veeter
01-28-2008, 07:01 PM
Vegas odds dropped from 12-1 to 3-1 if we get everettDon't make me drop a Carl Everett Haiku on you.

areilly
01-28-2008, 07:23 PM
We have plenty of Thome insurance. If he goes down Swisher could move to right, Owens to center, and Quentin in LF while Dye DHs. Or Swisher could move to 1st while Paulie DHs.

Is there anyone else who can play 3B (assuming Crede is gone)? I'm surprised Fields hasn't been mentioned here as Thome insurance.

oeo
01-28-2008, 07:27 PM
Is there anyone else who can play 3B (assuming Crede is gone)? I'm surprised Fields hasn't been mentioned here as Thome insurance.

Uribe, but there are better options which have already been listed.

Brian26
01-28-2008, 07:35 PM
Everett blows and hasn't even been decent in five years. As a DH on our championship team he was embarrassing.

The man has no character and no ability as a baseball player.

Neither you nor I have any right to judge Everett's character. I've heard some pretty cool stories about Everett trying to motivate our guys down the stretch in '05 when this team was getting lazy. Nobody knows the whole truth.

Everything else aside, although I like Everett, there's no way his bat speed is going to be able to catch up to major league pitching after being away for a year and a half (no knock against independent ball). The Thome vs. Everett debate is insane.

Everett got some big hits down the stretch, including those two big triples at Comerica in the last series, and a couple of big hits in the ALCS. And how can you ever disrespect a guy that went after Garner like he did? I like the guy, but its time to move on.

Noneck
01-28-2008, 07:47 PM
I think Everett is kinda long in the tooth now and was a better hitter left handed than right. But I'm all for a cheap right handed DH to platoon with Thome. It may help the OBP vs. lefties and hopefully the righty DH wouldn't be base clogger and can play a position. But the main caveat in doing this would be so Thome wouldn't get the required number of plate appearances to guarantee his '09 contact. Its nice be able to buy him out if he doesn't fit in the '09 plans.

santo=dorf
01-28-2008, 08:03 PM
I think Everett is kinda long in the tooth now and was a better hitter left handed than right. But I'm all for a cheap right handed DH to platoon with Thome. It may help the OBP vs. lefties and hopefully the righty DH wouldn't be base clogger and can play a position. But the main caveat in doing this would be so Thome wouldn't get the required number of plate appearances to guarantee his '09 contact. Its nice be able to buy him out if he doesn't fit in the '09 plans.
So apparently you have a problem with having a DH that will post an OPS in the upper 900's to 1000. There was also talk at the time of the trade that the White Sox and Phils have a handshake agreement for philly to pick up the tab on his contract for 2009. $8 million for a proven ~1.000 OPS.

:threadsucks :threadsucks


The original "source" on this was the Scott Gregor of the Seattle MLB.com site. It really sounds like a joke.

JB98
01-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Neither you nor I have any right to judge Everett's character. I've heard some pretty cool stories about Everett trying to motivate our guys down the stretch in '05 when this team was getting lazy. Nobody knows the whole truth.

Everything else aside, although I like Everett, there's no way his bat speed is going to be able to catch up to major league pitching after being away for a year and a half (no knock against independent ball). The Thome vs. Everett debate is insane.

Everett got some big hits down the stretch, including those two big triples at Comerica in the last series, and a couple of big hits in the ALCS. And how can you ever disrespect a guy that went after Garner like he did? I like the guy, but its time to move on.

I agree. Everett did a nice job when he was here, but I don't think there is any place for him on the 2008 Sox.

Frater Perdurabo
01-28-2008, 08:12 PM
I agree. Everett did a nice job when he was here, but I don't think there is any place for him on the 2008 Sox.

Clutch coach? :redneck

jabrch
01-28-2008, 08:19 PM
Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

Same with Charles Barkley, Dan Marino and Ernie Banks. Their style must have gotten in their way...

Or maybe their teams weren't good enough?

Nah - Veeter is right. It is Thome's style that is the reason teams he has been on hasn't won.

Noneck
01-28-2008, 08:40 PM
So apparently you have a problem with having a DH that will post an OPS in the upper 900's to 1000. There was also talk at the time of the trade that the White Sox and Phils have a handshake agreement for philly to pick up the tab on his contract for 2009. $8 million for a proven ~1.000 OPS.


I have NO problem with a guy that posts OPS in the upper 900's to 1000. But I would love to have someone with an OPS over 1100 from the left side and someone over 675 on the right side that wasn't a base clogger and can play a position.

I believe we have gone over the Thome contract previously but I will go over it one more time. If Thome doesn't have 550 PA in 08 the Sox are able to buy him out for 3m. If he gets 550 PA he is guaranteed 13m of which 5.5m is paid by PHI, leaving the Sox on the hook for 7.5M. That amount is a reasonable amount for what Thome has put up in the past 2 years but what assurance does one have that he will put up those numbers this year? The platoon scenario that I stated would give the Sox an out if Thome doesn't produce and may help the club since his stats are not great vs. lefties.

Finally, I don't know what right handed DH's are available that could fit this situation, Everett is not the guy, so this may be a moot point anyway.

kittle42
01-28-2008, 10:44 PM
that wasn't a base clogger


Is that you, Dusty?

veeter
01-29-2008, 06:10 AM
Same with Charles Barkley, Dan Marino and Ernie Banks. Their style must have gotten in their way...

Or maybe their teams weren't good enough?

Nah - Veeter is right. It is Thome's style that is the reason teams he has been on hasn't won.My first post sucked. I do not think Thome is the only reason we haven't won another title. And I am in no way debating Carl Everett is the better player. I'll just say, that getting insurance for Thome this year would be a very, very, very good idea.

mcp5185
01-29-2008, 06:36 AM
I have NO problem with a guy that posts OPS in the upper 900's to 1000. But I would love to have someone with an OPS over 1100 from the left side and someone over 675 on the right side that wasn't a base clogger and can play a position.

I believe we have gone over the Thome contract previously but I will go over it one more time. If Thome doesn't have 550 PA in 08 the Sox are able to buy him out for 3m. If he gets 550 PA he is guaranteed 13m of which 5.5m is paid by PHI, leaving the Sox on the hook for 7.5M. That amount is a reasonable amount for what Thome has put up in the past 2 years but what assurance does one have that he will put up those numbers this year? The platoon scenario that I stated would give the Sox an out if Thome doesn't produce and may help the club since his stats are not great vs. lefties.

Finally, I don't know what right handed DH's are available that could fit this situation, Everett is not the guy, so this may be a moot point anyway.

I have one problem with signing a guy to be the platoon DH. All signs are pointing to a 12 man pitching staff, which would only leave four bench spots. Whoever would be signed as the platoon DH, would have to be able to play defensive positions as well. Especially considering houw much Ozzie loves using the bench. I would imagine Thome will get some days off against lefties, and could very well get hurt, so I don't think he will get 550 PA anyways.

The Dude
01-29-2008, 07:52 AM
Carl was so huge for us in 2005. Yet, because of KW's love for Thome, Carl was put on the 'pay no mind list' in a hurry. I'd have been pissed too. But if he has something left in the tank, he would be an asset. His unselfish style was perfect for winning. Thome's style is perfect for having great stats and..well, not winning.

Yeah, cry me a river Jurassic Carl. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I've never seen Thome's play win games especially in contrast to the almighty Carl. All those BB's, runs scored, RBIs, and HRs are always in crap situations. And since Thome is not a team player, these all occur to help the team lose so he can just pad his stats.

Goose
01-29-2008, 08:34 AM
I think Everett is kinda long in the tooth now...

You just don't get expressions like that anymore...

This needs to make a major comeback in the American Youths' lexicon.

Oblong
01-29-2008, 09:52 AM
I've never understood the argument against a baseball player that they "only cared about stats" and were "not a team player". That's a concept that doesn't really exist in baseball. It can make sense in hockey or basketball where a guy can hog the ball or puck and take too many shots. But baseball's an individual game. How exactly does a player put up good numbers but not contribute to his team's overall success?

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2008, 10:08 AM
How exactly does a player put up good numbers but not contribute to his team's overall success?

I realize that hitting .300 or hitting 40 homers or collecting lots of strikeouts does help the team.

But trying to inflate one's stats often leads to failure, which can hurt the team, such as:

Swinging for a homer (and striking out) when a single to right field will score the run

Trying to pull the ball (and grounding out to the third baseman) when a grounder to the second baseman will advance the runner

Trying too hard to get a strikeout (and giving up a XBH) when a ground ball will get the batter out

Taliesinrk
01-29-2008, 10:20 AM
I've never understood the argument against a baseball player that they "only cared about stats" and were "not a team player". That's a concept that doesn't really exist in baseball. It can make sense in hockey or basketball where a guy can hog the ball or puck and take too many shots. But baseball's an individual game. How exactly does a player put up good numbers but not contribute to his team's overall success?

El Cabello

Oblong
01-29-2008, 11:28 AM
I realize that hitting .300 or hitting 40 homers or collecting lots of strikeouts does help the team.

But trying to inflate one's stats often leads to failure, which can hurt the team, such as:

Swinging for a homer (and striking out) when a single to right field will score the run

Trying to pull the ball (and grounding out to the third baseman) when a grounder to the second baseman will advance the runner

Trying too hard to get a strikeout (and giving up a XBH) when a ground ball will get the batter out

How does a pitcher try to get a strikeout over a ground ball?

If getting a single or hitting a ball to the second baseman were as easy as you make it sound then guys would just hit singles all the time and bat 1.000 and every runner from third with less than 2 outs would score. This isn't a video game or strategy board game.

FedEx227
01-29-2008, 11:44 AM
I've never understood the argument against a baseball player that they "only cared about stats" and were "not a team player". That's a concept that doesn't really exist in baseball. It can make sense in hockey or basketball where a guy can hog the ball or puck and take too many shots. But baseball's an individual game. How exactly does a player put up good numbers but not contribute to his team's overall success?

Exactly, especially in baseball. These guys are professionals there's not a whole lot you can do in baseball to purposely enhance your stats at the expense of your team.

But hey, Thome doesn't eat as much dirt or grind red-wood trees like Everett, thus he sucks.

Pretty much we need to bring back the entire 2005 team because that's clearly the only way you win a championship, if you aren't like the guys on that team you'll never win a title, plain and simple. (No teal needed)

Frater Perdurabo
01-29-2008, 12:32 PM
How does a pitcher try to get a strikeout over a ground ball?

If getting a single or hitting a ball to the second baseman were as easy as you make it sound then guys would just hit singles all the time and bat 1.000 and every runner from third with less than 2 outs would score. This isn't a video game or strategy board game.

Hyperbole always reduces something to the level of absurdity.

If hitting a homer or hitting a single were equally easy (or equally difficult), then there would be as many (or more) HRs than singles.

With practice, it's easier to hit a ball to the right side of the infield or to try to work with the pitch thrown to you than to swing as hard as you can to pull the ball into the cheap seats. But fans dig the long ball, so too many players try too hard to hit homers and end up striking out too often in critical situations.

Oblong
01-29-2008, 01:27 PM
Hyperbole always reduces something to the level of absurdity.

If hitting a homer or hitting a single were equally easy (or equally difficult), then there would be as many (or more) HRs than singles.

With practice, it's easier to hit a ball to the right side of the infield or to try to work with the pitch thrown to you than to swing as hard as you can to pull the ball into the cheap seats. But fans dig the long ball, so too many players try too hard to hit homers and end up striking out too often in critical situations.

So you want Konerko, Dye, and Thome to spend their spring training time become punch and judy slap hitters because who knows, there may be a game in July where the winning run's on third and there's 2 outs.

I think they are smart enough hitters to know what they have to do in certain situations and adjust accordingly. I think most great hitters do that. But they are in an environment where they will fail more than they will succeed so the failure gets magnified more than it should. When they do fail in that situation it's not because they want to hit HR for their stat line.

thomas35forever
01-29-2008, 04:21 PM
My first post sucked. I do not think Thome is the only reason we haven't won another title. And I am in no way debating Carl Everett is the better player. I'll just say, that getting insurance for Thome this year would be a very, very, very good idea.
True, but I think we can do better than Crazy Carl. We can trade for a top hitting prospect.

doublem23
01-29-2008, 04:38 PM
True, but I think we can do better than Crazy Carl. We can trade for a top hitting prospect.

With what? Our surplus of minor league talent? If the Sox are going get someone else, he's probably going to have to come via the FA route, unless KW pulls a 180 and decides to implode this roster.