WCSox

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) They mentioned that Kershaw was the second batter up in the following inning. Torre was hoping Kershaw could finish the inning, because if he didnt finish the inning, Torre would of had to do one of two things: 1. let the reliever that replaced Kershaw bat in the second spot of the next inning(after giving up the lead and being put in a situation where you need to score runs) 2. Blow 2 relievers in 1 inning by putting in a pinch hitter in the bottom of the 5th in the pitchers spot. I understand the logic, but it applies much better to the top of the 7th than the top of the 5th. They were only down by two when it was clear that Kershaw was struggling. What worse, having your pitcher bat in the bottom of the 5th or facing the heart of the Phillies lineup with a guy who was clearly struggling to throw the ball over the plate? That was a monumentally-dumb decision by Torre. Not to mention very surprising, as I consider Torre one of the best in the game. That's the kind of gamble that you make with somebody like Buehrle, not a nervous rookie who just gave up a three-run homer, walked the opposing pitcher, and threw three wild pitches. Torre could've at least mitigated the damage by bringing in a LOOGY to face Utley and Howard.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) First half: 2009: 32.2 IP, 1.93 ERA, 1.29 WHIP 2008: 38 IP, 2.37 ERA, 0.92 WHIP 2007: 39.1 IP, 2.52 ERA, 1.09 WHIP 2006: 42.2 IP, 2.74 ERA, 0.94 WHIP Second half: 2009: 23.1 IP, 8.49 ERA, 2.19 WHIP 2008: 8.1 IP, 9.72 ERA, 1.80 WHIP 2007: 31 IP, 5.23 ERA, 1.61 WHIP 2006: 33 IP, 4.64 ERA, 1.58 WHIP You have to go back to 2005 to find the last time Linebrink had a good second half. He's had excuses every year, but 4 straight seasons looks like a theme here. He got traded to the Brewers halfway through 2007, and that probably didn't help. No idea why he he went from stud-to-dud the prior year, though. My best guess is that he's had shoulder problems for years and it finally became so bad last year that he couldn't pitch through the pain. I'd be interested in seeing his first- and second-half velocities over the past four seasons. I've never really understood Linebrink. Back in March, he said that he didn't know if his shoulder would ever be 100% again. He had a average-to-mediocre first half, and then completely lost his command... but was still routinely hitting 94 on the gun. I hope for the best, but have the sinking feeling that we'll end up releasing him next December.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) To be clear though, I don't want Taveras at all. The only reason I made the suggestion is because he's the one contract I thought of that might make sense in a Linebrink deal. I just want to see us get out of as much of that contract as we can. If the Sox really wanted to move Linebrink, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Taveras is just two years removed from a really good season, and it's fathomable that he could exceed expectations again.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) The problem with Linebrink though is that he really fades in the second half when we need him the most. Honestly, if there was any way in the world that I could get out from Linebrink's 2011 salary without raising payroll in 2010 I'd do it. I agree though that Linebrink has a ton more upside, but how many years in a row has he faded like this? And the thing is, he'll go out there throwing 95 and have bite on his splitter, but he gets everything up. It's like as soon as he loses confidence his entire season is over. It's the mental aspect and the fatigue aspect that make me want him gone more than anything, although I am pretty confident he'll help us in the first half of 2010 because his track record says that is likely. Linebrink faded in 2008 because of a shoulder injury. He faded in 2009 because of command, but was still throwing in the mid-90's. So, it doesn't appear to be a long-term physical problem, and I have a difficult time believing that a veteran with a highly-successful past has a habitual "mental fatigue" problem.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) Unless the Sox think Taveras could start, I don't think I do that deal. The Sox pen was awful last year, but Linebrink is healthy and while he sucked and makes too much, he has been a very good reliever most of his career (as recently as a season ago with the Sox) so I'd be hard pressed to dump him if we weren't getting either good payroll relief or a player that we valued a bit. Bottom line I see more upside in keeping Linebrink than going with Taveras, unless of course Sox brass thinks of Taveras as there leadoff hitter (and honestly, I hope that isn't the case). I agree with this. It would be nice to have Taveras hit 9th and play CF/LF, but not at that price and not at the further weakening of our already-bad bullpen. On the other hand, if Taveras is released, signing him on the cheap might be a decent backup plan.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:11 AM) I'm curious to see what the Sox do with Jenks and Konerko. To me those are the two guys the club could move to free up quite a bit of payroll and allow for some more flexibility. The problem is I'm not quite sure the chips the Sox would receive in return would be very beneficial and than you have to ask the question, could I spend the money saved better or not and I'm not so sure. But I do expect the Sox to try everything they can to move Jenks/Konerko/Linebrink and I believe a guy like Connor Jackson is someone the Sox would target. In general I look at them targeting guys who have had a good season or two, are coming off a down year, but have good tools and skills and they'll take a shot on em. On a sidenote, when it comes to Connor Jackson, does anyone know if he is 100%. I know he missed practically the whole season with Pneumonia. But I'd love to put Jackson in our lineup. He's a pretty safe bet to hit .290-.300 with a .360+ OBP, solid power, solid doubles, etc. Nothing flashy, but just a good overall hitter who would be a great bat to have in the lower part of the order (6 or 7). I don't see the Sox dealing Konerko. At least not right now. Not only is Connor Jackson something of a question mark, he's a step down from Paulie, and dealing Konerko isn't going to help sell season ticket packages. Then again, if the Sox are in the crapper in July, all bets are off.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) Bad loss by the Dodgers. There pen didn't hold up and Kershaw was a mess. Why in the heck did Torre leave Kershaw in to face Utley and Howard, after he walked Hamels and was having obviously difficulty throwing strikes? Didn't the Dodgers have another LHP available?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 08:35 AM) Every player wants as much money as they can get. And yet, the Sox still have a team, and still sign players to contracts. And yet, many players sign for less than what they can get (Buehrle, for example). If Abreu is going to test the FA market (as this news suggests), there will probably be a bidding war over him. It seems unlikely that Kenny will be willing to over-pay for Abreu, who is past his prime anyway.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 08:00 AM) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/base...gels/index.html Abreu rejected a 2 year 16m extension from the Angels, so there's your starting point Sounds like he wants as much money as he can get. That means that we won't be signing him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) Additionally, I tend to think, as others have mentioned, that our search for a 3b is complete and that Beckham will be staying there for the forseeable future. I have no problem leaving Beckham at 3B. But in the unlikely event that a high-impact player like Zimmerman or David Wright became available through a trade, I'd definitely take advantage of Beckham's flexibility. Fortunately for the Sox, the type of hitter they need right now usually plays 1B, RF, LF, or DH. So it probably won't matter.

QUOTE (League @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) The Nats just signed him to a 5 year deal or something last offseason, I highly doubt he's going anywhere. My mistake.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) So since it appears the consensus here is that you trade Hudson before Buerhle, and he has more trade value anyways, who are some players we should be targeting to acquire for him? Ideas? IF I'm looking to deal Hudson, I'm on the phone with the Nats discussing Zimmerman. He still has 2-3 years left under team control, no?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) Mark Buehrle isn't going to go anywhere unless the Sox bomb next year. That's what I've been saying all along. And even in a worst-case scenario, moving him is far from a certainty.

QUOTE (League @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) That could be true, but Crawford has proven to be the more consistent player and I'm sure the Rays still see themselves as a contender in 2010. Crawford projects to be a better offensive player next season and has already signed one contract to stay in Tampa Bay, whereas Upton is going to start getting more expensive soon as well. I don't want to look like I'm saying we should go trade Hudson for Upton or some other crazy trade idea, I just wanted to use him as an example of what I believe Hudson could be worth right now. If TB wants to go for it next year (and why wouldn't they?), it's possible that they hold on to both. They'll get draft picks when Crawford leaves as a FA. Understood about Hudson. Not trying to put words in your mouth or anything.

QUOTE (League @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) The Rays are supposedly looking to clear room in their outfield for Desmond Jennings, if they can get value like Hudson for him, I'm sure they'd deal him. Given that Upton's value took a hit this year and is likely to go back up when he produces next year, it would arguably make more sense to deal Crawford, who is only under contract for one more year and is a lot more expensive than Upton. Right now, I agree. A year from now... who knows.

QUOTE (League @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) If we really need to trade a pitcher, look at Daniel Hudson. His value will probably never be higher than it is right now, and we could probably make a killing off of him due to his low cost which would enable us to trade him to a smaller market team. I can live with relying on Freddy Garcia in the #5 spot, and some one like Hudson could be the centerpiece of a trade for a starting outfielder along the lines of a B.J. Upton or Hunter Pence. I completely disagree with this. Young, cheap, high-ceiling starting pitchers under team control for several years are the most valuable asset in MLB. If Hudson throws 60 innings in the bigs next year and does reasonably well, his value will skyrocket because he already has the highly-successful minor league numbers and favorable scouting reports on his side. Note that Kenny didn't even entertain the idea of including Hudson in the Peavy deal. Also, keep in mind that the Sox no longer have cheap back-of-the-rotation options in Richard and Poreda. With their starting rotation becoming VERY expensive, the Sox need somebody like Hudson for long-term flexibility. If I'm Kenny, it would literally take somebody like Zimmerman or Ethier to get me to part ways with Hudson. Given Upton's recent shoulder surgery, really bad 2009 season, and his well-chronicled knuckle-headness, I don't trade for him at this point. If the Rays are looking to deal a relatively inexpensive player with Upton's skills when he's under control for three more years, I immediately suspect that something's wrong with him (either physically or mentally).

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) You're pulling these "reasons" out of your ass. There is nothing alarming about Buerhle in any way. This "he can't touch 90mph anymore" is also bulls*** too. Mark is a master at taking things off his pitches so just because the gun on TV doesn't say 90 doesn't mean he can't touch it. Bullcrap. Mark was getting absolutely shelled back in mid/late 2006 when he was struggling to hit 87 on the gun. Yeah, you're right. Those guys are all going to suck. Mark's a much better long-term plan. Right, just like Keith Foulke, John Danks, Gavin Floyd, and Matt Thornton. They would all be instant bombs. The $14M/year freed up would also obviously be wasted. Thank God.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Here's the deal. He is signed for 2 more years. He has said he will retire when his contract is up. So he's around for 2 seasons. His performance declined in the second half. If the Sox are to make the playoffs, he not only will he have to not fall apart in the second half, he will have to come up big in the playoffs. He did it before he can do it again. I love Buerhle because you can write down what he's going to give you in April and its almost always close. So if he pitches well and into the playoffs, his performance seems to fade the next season, which, according to him, would be his final one. Ozzie has said he's going to be a #4 guy. #4 guys, who make $14 million a year, who say they will be retiring in 2 seasons, and who will be 5/10 guys halfway through next season, seem very tradeable to me if they can get back serious value which would include established players and can't miss prospects, not a Javy Vazquez return. That's the only way you can trade him. The PR hit would be huge. I just wonder what his value is. If giving him up can fix the bullpen and maybe add a real good position player, it at least would have to be considered. His perfect game was great. What followed was not so great. I would rather he pitch a 5 hitter and finish the rest of the year strong than what happened. YOUR IDEA IS SO DUMB! DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:29 PM) I was speaking in generalities which you took personally. I cannot help that. You specifically called me a "shill." Don't try to weasel your way out of it now. Nice try, but I said that he MAY BE ENTERING the downslope of his career. The evidence? How about him not being able to reach 90 mph on the gun anymore? Or him pitching like crap in August? Or the 2000+ innings already on his arm? I'm not saying that his arm is going to fall off next year or anything, but I'm convinced that we've seen his best days. Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season. If we dealt Mark in another 9-12 months, I think that we'd get a very nice package of prospects in return. In addition, the $14M freed up could be spent on a FA #4 or #5 hitter, something our team desperately needs. Some of it could also be spent on locking up Danks. And, again, this all hinges on how Hudson develops, how our offense responds next year, who (if anybody) Kenny acquires this winter, and a number of other variables. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should definitely run Mark out of town. But I do think that Kenny needs to CONSIDER the possibility of moving him for both salary relief and younger players if things don't go well over the next 12 months.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) Join date = level of fandom, IMO. BTW this "team" over "players" bulls*** doesn't work when you trade your best "players" for a bunch of trash that then becomes your "team." Go ahead and mock my man love for Mark. Post your big solution, like how trading him is going to make us so much better. Talk about all those great players we're going to get and then how we're going to spend his money in all those other areas which will make us so much better. Your idea is dumb as all hell and I'm calling you on it. Mark is a franchise player in his prime and on a market-level deal and you want to trade him so we can make the playoffs easier. Yeah, okay. Here's a good thread And another Hope you enjoy them. I've never posted on a Cardinals board before and I've never suggested that Mark be traded to the Cardinals, so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think that dealing a $14M starting pitcher who will soon be entering the down-slope of his career - when you have an ace two two other young, legitimate #2's in your rotation - is a good idea, that's your business. Other people in this thread disagree with you. And, despite what you think, they're not "dumb." BTW, calling me a "shill" and a "motherf***er" don't strengthen your argument at all.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) I said click the X. I'm sure there's a "Bring back Holliday???" thread on CardinalsTalk.com waiting for you. This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 12:26 PM) Robin Ventura was probably my favorite player during those years, and as much as I love Robin, there is no f***ing way I'd compare him to Buehrle. Buehrle threw 2 no-hitters including a perfecto, started an All-Star game for us, pitched a CG in the ALCS for us, saved a World Series game for us, even hit a home run for us against the Brewers this year, among other accomplishments like ranking in wins and ERA (which underscore perfectly how under-appreciated he is, again) and being the only lefty in baseball right now that I can think of that has a shot at 300 wins. And off the field he's loved even more. Ha, so we're going to deal Mark and get back to the play-offs? HOW? We will LOSE THAT TRADE. We will NOT get back Mark's value. What are we going to do after that? Spread some money around? WHERE? Who is it that the Sox could reasonably acquire with Mark's money that will make this team better than it will be with Mark? The ideas on this board are f***ing pathetic, like we'd deal Mark and use the money to sign injury-prone Nick Johnson and give out another bad contract to a reliever or something, that's probably the solution. Or take on Milton Bradley or Juan Pierre with that money. Brilliant! Or maybe we'll sign or trade for a Borass client (yeah right, like that will ever happen). Let me know why we can afford to weaken our staff. Because the last thing you're supposed to do when you have a strong starting staff is weaken it. As for dealing Mark if we're out of it in July, WHY would we be out of it in July? This division is going to suck next year just like it has the last two. We were like 8 games below .500 or something in June and we still were in it late despite playing bad baseball. The only way this team is out of the race by July 2010 is if the whole f***ing plane crashes. And even then, the 2010 Charlotte Knights could still win some ballgames against the likes of the Indians and Royals. I can't believe I have to defend how important it is to keep Buerhle. And anyone who feels the need to respond to this post with an argument in favor of dealing Mark or shopping Mark shouldn't even bother. Just click the X in the browser window because you're not a Sox fan. You're an undercover Cardinals shill once again trying to stir up s***. Wow, sounds like somebody has a massive man-crush on Mark. Sorry to break this to you, but he's married. I like Mark, but I'm a Sox fan first and foremost. Players come and go, but the organization is more important to me than anything else. If dealing Mark can help free up salary for a more balanced team that has a better shot of getting this team back to the WS, I'm all for it.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) Remember when Kenny was going to trade him how like every Sox fan on the planet was b****ing about the Sox being petty for not giving him more than 3 years? Remember the chants at the Cell and how loud they were? Let's see, the last time our fan base reacted so passionately over a player was...? Fisk maybe? And that was BEFORE he threw a perfect game. No, I think anyone who is saying a Buehrle trade wouldn't be disastrous for this franchise is wrong, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. In theory, we could trade Buehrle and get back a bunch of players who turn out and then go on to win another World Series, but that's not very likely. What is likely is that the fans would be pissed as hell and ticket sales would drop, the players we'd get back would never become anywhere near as good as Buehrle and at least one large piece would be a straight bust (who would hurt our record while we played him to see if he was a bust or not), It's nice to see that you have an open mind. I'm sure that many Sox fans were pissed that Schueler let Robin Ventura walk after the '98 season. He's about the best comparison that I can think of in terms of fan popularity. The Sox only drew 1,339,000 back in '99, but it wasn't because they let Ventura walk. It was because of the White Flag trade. This is clearly reflected in the massive drop-off in attendance from '97 to '98. The drop-off from '98 to '99 was minimal in comparison... 1997 - 1,865,000 1998 - 1,391,000 1999 - 1,339,000 2000 - 1,948,000 Magically, the fans returned in 2000, with Herbert Perry playing 3B. And this highlights my point: Sox fans like their players, but they like winning a lot more. The PR fallout from dealing Mark would be short-lived and completely wiped out by another trip to the playoffs. Also, keep in mind that we're a full four years removed from the 2005 WS and that Mark is no longer the unquestioned ace of the staff. In fact, he may only be the 4th best pitcher on the staff next spring. If re-signing Mark didn't net the Sox a single playoff series win, why would fans react in the same way to dealing him, especially with Peavy, Floyd, and Danks anchoring the rotation? I'm not suggesting that the Sox deal Mark this winter. I'm suggesting that they consider it if they're out of contention by the deadline next year, when "a major hit to the rotation" will be a moot point. QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) You guys who think Mark should be traded need to have your heads examined. Go back and look at the perfect game threads. Every motherf***er here was slobbering all over his nuts, as we all should, and every single sports media outlet was going on about how under-appreciated he is, and how the fans outside of Chicago don't understand how good he is. Yeah, and then Mark pitched like crap in August and helped knock the Sox out of contention. Or does that not count, because pitching a perfect game is more important than playing in October? It's not personal, it's business. If we have a lesser-than-before Mark taking up $14M in salary budget on a team that can't hit, is keeping that Perfect Game-winner around more important than strengthening the team?

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) I have a hard time seeing Mark in a differnt uniform,thats just me.I thought the time to trade him was 2 yaers ago when they were talking contract........He's value was never higher. We didn't have Peavy and Hudson back then, and Floyd and Danks hadn't developed into #2-quality pitchers at that point.

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) Being the 4th starter would lessen his "load" a bit and Yes it would be a lot for a 4th starter,but you have to pay him anyway. I'm sure that Mark would still throw over 200 innings a year in the #4 spot (as Danks did this year). And you don't have to pay him if you trade him. Again, a lot of this depends on how the rest of the teams plays, and especially how Hudson develops. But if in another year or two, Hudson, Peavy, Floyd, and Danks are all throwing the ball well and the team needs more offense, trading Mark is almost a no-brainer.