Greg Hibbard

any news from anyone whatsoever?

I did a little more digging because I was not too familiar with his career numbers and I was really pleasantly surprised. I think what we can all agree on: Despite Thome's sluggishness and age, his OBP (arguably the most important indicator of consistent offensive performance) obviously puts him in an elite class. He was #25 in the AL and #55 overall in 2008. Now, check this out....for being #25 in the AL and #55 overall...very good numbers...he also had his worst season with 200 ABs or more batting average wise EVER at .244. It's not even close - his closest qualifying batting average is like .266. His OPS was more than 100 points off of his career average. Is it likely that he had that precipitous of a decline overnight because of age? I doubt it. His fundamentals have not changed much and neither has his approach. He does not look to have lost that much. If Thome puts up a number even 15 points lower than his career batting average and 20 points lower than his career OPS, you'll be dancing on the f***ing ceiling with that production. It would translate to .264/.386/.540/.920 with about 30 homers and 90 RBI, and it's not only realistic, it would be among the best for DH's. IF HE STAYS HEALTHY.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) Thome isn't exactly a liability on the basepaths. He's pretty slow, but he is a smart baserunner, and he's faster on the paths than Konerko, Crede, AJ, and some others who have been on the team in recent years. I think he tends to get a worse rep than he deserves in that department. He might be a smart baserunner, but IIRC he got sent a lot of times and was out at the plate. Maybe that's on the third base coach, but many times it wasn't even close. Also, Thome has an expected injury factor that limits the number of games we can use him in. Based on his history and makeup, him playing 150+ games in 2009 would be miraculous.

I think you guys are piling on a bit. I also think the point is well taken that it would be refreshing to see this team not have to play at least 1 (probably 2 and sometimes even 3) DH's in the field because in essence they are putting a guy at DH who essentially can no longer play the field. Pie in the sky with me for a minute and think about being able to use a guy like Fields at DH who actually has value defensively (albeit not a whole lot) and isn't a liability on the basepaths. Thome is still a very valuable baseball player in terms of getting on base, that's true. But how many times has him being on the basepaths cost us a subsequent out in an inning because he is slow as dirt? This is an unquantifiable statistic, but a very real aspect of the game. It applies to Konerko too. .362 OBP means less if essentially the man cannot score from second on a single.

#1 is obviously the Sox winning the Championship in Game 4, but #2 is the ALDS performance by El Duque with the bases loaded and nobody out. I'll think about it, but I sort of doubt game 163 even makes the top 5 for me.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 12:42 AM) You mean winning the division is not the ultimate goal? YOU'RE KIDDING! Last I checked, you had to survive this little 162 game marathon before you're allowed to participate in the postseason. How we matchup with other teams from other divisions in February is as irrelevant as irrelevant can possibly get. Starting in April until the end of September, we have to be better than the Royals, Indians, Tigers and Twins. It was extremely clear at the midway point of last season that no matter who the division winner was in the AL Central, they would get handily trounced in any (particularly short) playoff series. Surprise, surprise. And before you say "2006 Cardinals," let's discuss how many times the postseason team with the best record in their respective league makes the WS as opposed to the team with the worst, particularly in the AL, particularly in this AL period of dominance (going back to 1992). Here's the answer: 8 of the past 16 WS have featured the best AL record in the WS, and 2 of the past 16 have featured the weakest divisional winner. "As long as we win the division, even if it's with only 79 wins"...that's losertalk...I'm sorry.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) For the Tigers: Can Verlander bounce back from a horrible season in which he lost 17 games and had an ERA close to 5? Can little-known Armando Galarraga, a guy that like Danks/Floyd has had one good year, either repeat or improve in 2009? Can Jeremy Bonderman get back to his 2006 level after two years of bad? Nate Robertson? Dontrelle Willis? Suck and more suck. Can Joel Zumaya pitch more than 20 innings? Can Brandon Lyons,a guy who sucked in the NL, get it done in a tougher league when Zumaya inevitably goes down with another injury? Fernando Rodney? See Bonderman. The rest of their 'pen? Yikes. For the Indians: Can Cliff Lee come anywhere close to repeating his '08 in '09? Which Fausto Carmona will they get? The all-star version in '07 or the hippo s*** version of 2008? Can Anthony Reyes hold it down as a starter after a 2-14, era over 6 as one in 2007? Can Carl Pavano stay healthy (lol@that one)? Jeremy Sowers? Aaron Laffey? Yeah. Can Kerry Wood's fragile arm hold up another year in a much tougher league? Will Victor Martinez ever be the same? Will Travis Hafner continue to suck? What will they get from the unproven Andy Marte at third? For the Twins: Can their starting staff, unproven before last year, be just as good again? Will Liriano make it through the whole season? Can they consistently get the ball to Joe Nathan? Can Denard Span repeat his 2008? Can Carlos Gomez live up to the hype? Can Michael Cuddyer bounce back after an injury-plagued 2008? For the Royals: Not even worth it. So as you can see, EVERY team has MAJOR questions going into the year. Just some have less than others. But as you can see, NOBODY in our division (and I came up with all this off the top of my head. I could go even more in depth if I chose to) is in any better shape going into this season than we are. Yeah, but the major benchmark for success in 2009 should not be winning a s***ty division and putting ourselves in a position to win 1 out of 4 playoff games against much stronger AL teams.

QUOTE (Jimmywins1 @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) Danks year was completely solid and fluke free, there are pretty much no signs that he should regress. If anything, we should be expecting more out of him in 09. What about dead arm from piling up innings like never before? There's no other explanation for Buehrle's 06 season other than arm fatigue and subsequent loss of velocity/command after pitching 270 innings combined regular season/postseason.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) It was never there to begin with. We have lowered our payroll. We did not keep it constant. So just because it was theoretically budgeted at some point, our budget was reduced this year because of economic conditions. It's staying in your pockets, or it's staying in some employer's coffers who laid off Joe laborer, or it's staying in some big corporation who did not renew their skybox tickets (or won't renew for 2010). That's where it went. I can understand people being sympathetic to economic conditions, but to be fair, revenue was just fine for the White Sox in 2008 and we averaged almost 31,000 fans in attendance, 76% capacity. Since they won the World Series in 2005, The Sox have had over 30,000 seats in the stands 3 straight years (36,000 in 2006) and while they have increased payroll, I would sincerely doubt it more than offsets their increased revenue, especially when you factor in certain aspects such as salaries being paid by other teams. EDIT: just saw the comment about attendance and sponsorships, so I guess that's a good point, but do we really expect the White Sox not to pick up other sponsors somehow? Is it fair to expect a decline in attendance this year? Absolutely, given the economic conditions. A precipitous decline? Hell no. At worst I could see it dipping to 27-28k, 2005 levels.

Again, if that's the market right now...why are we selling off components without adding big pieces. We have not added significant players yet we have effectively said we're going into next season without replacing Contreras and Vazquez with similarly reliable talent.

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Feb 12, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) If every GM had the ability to have as many "sure things" as you seem to expect, the game of baseball would be pretty boring, imo. This team has fewer "sure things", fewer proven components that have performed consistently over several seasons and are in the middle portion of their career and relatively injury free than any other team since 2000, IMO. As far as pencilling people in, I could go with Buehrle for 14-18 wins, Konerko for .250/25/80, Dye for .280/30/100, and hope the rest of the guys who had great seasons last year don't regress. As for other options, if there weren't any....why give up Vazquez? Why give up 200 innings of vet performance to merely shed payroll? Why jettison Swisher when he value has bottomed out?

Assuming all the major deals are done and we head into Spring training with close to the current roster... Why would an experienced, seasoned GM head into spring training/regular season relying on so many of the same things going right that went _inexplicably_ right last season? It's one thing to praise him for scooping undervalued legit major leaguers and turning them into productive major components on a team. It's quite another to thing they will magically retain what can only be described as peak value year after year after year. Even if we accept the fact that CQ is a fantastic all-around ballplayer, how many individuals are able to his .290/30/100 year after year after year? How many that do break out with a single season like that are pitched much differently in year 2 and regress a bit? Even if we can establish that Gavin Floyd has come around and developed into a solid #3 starter, how do his peripherals suggest anything but a ceiling of 15-17 wins and a slightly above average ERA given his skill set/tools? Is it likely that Ramirez will be able to have a similar season and have as many clutch hits? Is it acceptable to just pencil John Danks in for another 3.32 ERA season - a season that was over 2 runs in ERA better than his previous? Moreover, why are we even considering relying on guys like Contreras (injuries), Richard (little experience), Broadway (wayyyy unproven) as part of a competitive major league rotation? Why is Josh Fields going to work out at third base? Who sees anything of value in Wilson Betimet and why? Why are incomplete and substandard guys like Brian Anderson, who has admittedly been screwed over at times by this organization, still being considered as starting pieces of the puzzle? Why is this team still saddled with effectively 4 dh's, a problem we have wrestled with for going on 6 years? I guess my main question is...where the bleeping hell is our insurance policy? There are so many questions regarding this team that as it appears now the decision making process has been somewhat baffling. From a transparency standpoint, all that's been done is shedding of payroll, and no major pieces have been added. What's especially baffling about this is that KW is setting this team up to be constructed primarily in such a way that he will shoulder 100% of the blame if it does come in at anything less than 80 wins. He's asking somewhat unproven breakout stars to sustain apparently unsustainable levels, and asking AAAA (my term for major/minor 'tweener like Betimet) and AAA caliber players to rise to occasions they haven't been asked to rise to before.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) Hard to argue with the current roster. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there anyone who's going to take a chance on him, or will he have to sit out this season or even possibly call it a career? Is he even healthy enough to play? I have not heard a peep since he went on the 60 day. I know Oakland's going in a different direction, but what other clubs even make sense? Seattle maybe?

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) I think he is "set" as in content. He isn't the type of guy who isn't always listening or exploring. I also think this whole "payroll maxed out" talk is for the birds. I think in recent years he has voiced how they didn't have the prospects or money at the deadline to pull a deal. This year I think we will play it out and if we are in it, we'll add actually add a big time piece at one of these "holes". If we are out of it...Dye, Thome, etc. will all be out the door. Maybe even a Jenks. Really what it comes down to is knowing how to play the game. Why would you ever say "we're still looking for a piece" or "we're not happy" - there is no value in either of those statements. You always want to say you're happy with what you have.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:03 PM) Haha. I'm glad I'm not the only person who thought of that when I saw the title

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) A guy with a .400 OBP at the top of the Sox's lineup with limited speed would be far more useful than a guy with a .350 OBP and good speed. That was, I think, part of the idea with Swisher last year, unfortunately his suckitude overwhelmed that best laid plan, so we got stuck with Cabrera and his .334 OBP in that slot. I'd love to add a .400 OBP guy to the top of that order, but unless that is Getz/Lillibridge (both of whom have put up decent OBP's in full seasons in the minors, .382 for Getz and about .418 for Lillibridge, both of them a couple years back in the minors) we're just not going to find that person. ^^^^^^^ Speed is overrated, in some ways. It's nice to have alongside OBP, but unless you have a surefire stolen baser at the top of the lineup healthy, but it's debatable as to how often you should attempt the steals because of the out risk. If the Sox could just lay down bunts and move runners along instead of hitting into DPs almost every other inning, that would go a long way too.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Well, look at the 2005 season, when we weren't even an alleged contender (I know this is yet further condemnation of the idea of judging a season before spring training starts, as I tried to do in another thread). 1) Nobody knew anything about Iguchi, besides the fact that KW had scouted him through tape and what he got/expected to get in terms of a contract were very divergent....maybe because of K. Matsui's failure with the Mets. 2) Takatsu was already suspected to be a one-trick pony, and nobody had a clue of the emergence of Hermanson (especially), Cotts or Politte. 3) Nobody knew how AJ would do in a "crazy" clubhouse coming off the gossip/innuendo of that SF year. 4) Did El Duque have anything left (similar to concerns about Colon, Contreras and maybe Garcia) 5) Pods was coming off a season when he hit around .240 in the NL 6) We'd lost Valentin, Ordonez and Carlos Lee, three of our best power hitters....we're replacing much less in the line-up this year (Swisher, Cabrera, Uribe/Crede and Griffey) 7) Nobody knew what we could get out of Frank Thomas at that point... 8) Garland and Contreras, especially, had never proven themselves to be "big game" or anything but average MLB pitchers...especially Jose, who would morph/evolve into the best in the game for a period of almost one year 9) Brandon McCarthy was another Sox prospect/suspect with high expectations and no clear idea what he'd produce 10) Jermaine Dye...nobody had an idea what he would do for the next four seasons either, coming off injuries and signing for less with Chicago than he could have gotten elsewhere, he was just seen as a "high reward/low risk" signing, but anyone who predicted MVP numbers consistently, I would like to see that thread/post/message. This is a great point...but I was talking about the pitching staff specifically from #2 down.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 05:55 PM) Would evaluating Floyd's pre-2008 MLB stats have given you any clue about how he would play last season? Ditto for Danks. So... how were they useful? I don't think saying the approach that _x player_ will be as good because he was good last season has been an accurate indicator of future performance ever. Look man, I offered up the explanation statistically as to why Gavin Floyd had an anomylously great season. So far the counterargument has simply said "look man, he was good last year...he'll be good again!" without any analysis whatsoever as to WHY he was good last year or why he'll be good this year. Again....WHY will he be good this year? He had a lot of things go his way statistically and given his makeup a regression is almost certain. In the history of baseball, it's been all-but statistically PROVEN that a player cannot veer THAT far off of a stat like BABIP in one season and sustain it. It's just not possible, given what BABIP measures. Bear in mind that BABIP and his makeup (meaning the pitches he is capable of throwing) has nothing to do with his history in philly or even 07 with the Sox.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) We also have the potential to receive contributions from Viciedo, Beckham, Poreda and even Flowers this year...or, at the latest, next. Fields should put up much better overall offensive numbers than the position gave us last year. Ramirez's numbers SHOULD be plenty better at SS than Cabrera. Contreras and Colon have the ability to step up as well. There's no reason to believe that, combined with Marquez, those three can't replicate Vazquez's numbers. There's one more thing...we should have more payroll flexibility and the minor league depth chart to bring in a really good player if we're in at the ASB. Honestly I have no bloody idea what to expect from Fields offensively. I can't even begin to predict this. We do know that defense will be much, much worse. I think it's interesting that Contreras, Colon, even Garcia who's not even signed yet, along with Floyd and Danks and the rest of the young dudes - these aren't guys who are in a position to be evaluated strongly either because of injury (Contreras), age (all), conditioning (Garcia and Colon), or lack of a proven track record (all the young guns). The only pitcher who it seems we can project with any sort of confidence is Buehrle, IMO. I can't recall when we've entered a season as an alleged contender with so many question marks from #2 on down.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 03:46 PM) I always find it interesting when people try and project a 25 year old pitcher's future based on his 'career-to-date' MLB stats. So we should throw our hands up and say "we have no clue what's going to happen" with any pitcher 25 or under? How is this useful? Clearly there are some peripherals that are useful to analyze and tend to paint a picture of what's somewhat predictable. I'm not saying it's always correct, but it's certainly useful. Some people think that Floyd's results are because of a somewhat wacky BABIP number and some other things - and I think that's worth noting. for example http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php...orward-or-fluke http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playe...7&type=full

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) I'm surprised you haven't died of shock already, given how the Sox have outperformed predictions so often. Please - spare me the melodramatics. The fact of the matter is that during the 2000 season, Carlos Lee, Mags Ordonez, Jim Parque, Mike Sirotka and James Baldwin all had career years. Four of those six guys were young and unproven. The next two years (after hitting .301 as a 24 year old in 2000), CLee had years of .264 and .269 respectively - and eventually grew into a superstar. Parque was never the same pitcher again, Sirotka was injured and never made it back to the big leagues. Would you have guessed all of those things would have happened after 2000? Of course not. But it was likely one or two of those things was going to happen in hindsight, given that all players played way above expectations in 2000. If your argument is that they had a breakout season and we can expect similar results, here's my counter: What about Gavin Floyd's peripherals suggest that he's going to be able to sustain success long term? Other than "he won a lot of games despite he peripherals not being very good" - what exactly is your argument for him? He pitched a ton more innings than he ever has before and I'm afraid of dead arm and the fragile psychology that has plagued in every year except the last. I don't see him being quite as bad as he was in philly, but I just can't see him being quite as good given his peripherals and history. Is it more likely that Quentin is going to be the next Frank Thomas at 25, and continue to hit .300/30/100 for the rest of the peak of his career, or is it more likely that he outperformed even slightly and is overdue for a slump at some point? I think he's the real deal, but I think that real deal can be someone who's .280/27/90 or someone who is .300/30/100. I think it's more likely that he's due for a slump at some point, even a minor one. After Buehrle pitched 1,000,000 innings in the 2005 season, he immediately followed with a fairly dreadful 2006 season. I agree that Danks in the WBC is a bad, bad, bad idea and I think even if he pitches the same we are expecting a ton from a young pitcher, just as we expected a ton from him last year. Ramirez is very young, and although I love what I've seen from him, I think penciling him in for the same kind of year is absolutely foolish. Here's what I think is GOING to happen: Danks will be almost as good, Quentin will be almost as good, Ramirez will be almost as good, and Floyd will not be as good. Our pitching staff, thin as it is, will be even thinner and we'll be in it all year but be just short. I don't see disaster, but I can't see how this team has improved and penciling in those four guys for the same years seems utterly ridiculous.

QUOTE (Karko's Throat Skin @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 04:04 PM) With all the chicken littles around here...can someone tell me how we have gotten worse? We lost Swisher, Vazquez, Crede, Uribe, Griffey....I have no doubt that Owens/Anderson, Fields, Getz, and Colon/Marquez can match or damn near match what those players offered to this team last year. I also expect Konerko to come back very strong, as is his MO. While I don't think this is a 90 win team, I do believe it is a 84-86 win team and a competitor in the division. Because just like after 2000 heading into 2001, we have at least four young players who had absolutely off-the-charts career years in terms of expectations vs. results. All are young and thus, prone to variance much more than vets. I don't care if you think Quentin and Ramirez and Danks and Floyd are all the real deal, and think are all capable of doing what they did in 2008 in 2009, the likelihood of all four of them having years that good again is just infinitessemily small given what we've seen in 110 years of the modern era of baseball. What's likely is that 2 or 3 of the four will have comparable years - and 1 or 2 of them will have mediocre to bad years in comparison, or there will be an injury. Do I expect Konerko to hit .240/25 again? No, but I don't expect much more from him than .265/32, which is not going to make too much of a difference, honestly. Therefore, I would have expected KW to factor in the fact that all things considered, the stars sort of aligned for the White Sox in terms getting great years unexpectedly - and they won the division by the hair of their chinny chin chin - and didn't even win 90 games given all those great years. Even if I call Vazquez vs. Colon a wash, and Swisher vs. Anderson a wash (which it's clearly not - Anderson as-is is a significant offensive downgrade), where have the White Sox vastly improved? They haven't, and they've certainly lost major league depth, especially in the infield and centerfield.

If the White Sox do give him 7-8 starts, it still could cost us something in terms of intangibles/development/time/wins if he really performs poorly. Maybe others don't see him getting that much rope, but if our options are colon vs. CR/AP I'm not really sure why they wouldn't give Colon more rope than some might think.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) It did get them to the playoffs for about five years straight. What's your definition of worked? Winning a world series. Who cares about division titles?