WCSox

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) The very thought that Oswalt *could* be declining is reason enough to not trade for him when taking into account the money he is owed. You could say that about ANY pitcher over the age of 30 - or Jake Peavy, who had elbow problems last summer. There's always risk involved. For the record, I wouldn't mind Halladay either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 27, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) Roy Oswalt is 3 months younger than Roy Halladay. And isn't constantly fighting injuries.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) He's 32. He's no more than a big name (with a big contract) at this point in his career. He's 31 and had a 1.18 WHIP last season. Your argument is based on 11 starts. I agree that Oswalt in his early 30's *could* be declining, but it's not like he's an NFL halfback, who almost unfailingly experience sharp drop-offs in productivity at age 32. Unless there's something you know about Oswalt's health that you're not sharing with us, your argument is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation. QUOTE (BearSox @ May 27, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) As Steve said, his ERA has been rising every year over the past 3 years. ERA is based heavily on one's bullpen, and Oswalt's has eroded significantly over the past five years. WHIP is a better evaluation of his performance, and his 1.18 WHIP last season was the fourth-lowest of his career - and substantially lower than the WHIP that he put up in his back-to-back 20-win seasons. How often to pitchers whose skills are being diminished with age dominate the second half of a season?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Pass on Oswalt. Far too much money owed, downhill side of career. Pure conjecture on your part, based on less than two months worth of starts.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 27, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) Oswalt is not a #1 or #2 starter right now. A year from now he might not even be a #3 starter. Small sample size. Mark Buehrle wasn't a #3 or #4 starter in 2006. How'd that work out?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 27, 2009 -> 06:50 AM) Is dealing for Peavy necesarily going for it "now"? The guy is signed through 2012 and most likely would have an option picked up for '13. This guy stabilizes our team for years. Not necessarily, but you'd have to think that they're in a better spot right now with Thome, Dye, and Konerko... not to mention Buehrle still in his prime and under contract. Jenks, Dotel, and Linebrink will also be difficult to replace. I was also factoring in a strong chance of Peavy being dealt from Chicago before the end of his contract. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 27, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) Trust me, the Sox are looking at a 3-5 year window right now, so any pitcher they get has to fit into the plan that they'll be able to help the Sox compete for the next 3 to 5 years, well, as long as its a pitcher you have to give up substantial talent for. I honestly don't think that the Sox will have near the talent three years from now that they've had for the past season and a half. That's not to say that they'll suck or anything, but replacing Thome, Dye, Konerko, Jenks, Dotel, Linebrink, and possibly Buehrle will be next to impossible. The farm system looks better than it's been for a while, but nobody's going to confuse it with the collection of talent that Larry Himes put together in the late '80s. Given that Kenny tends to not give more than three-year deals to pitchers, I don't think that a five-year window is applicable. Unless the Sox end up trading for somebody really young like Verlander or Felix Hernandez, and getting one's hands on those guys would be incredibly difficult and costly. I disagree, and feel that Oswalt would be a better deal for the Sox than Peavy. Even if we discount the talent that the Sox will be losing over the next three years, Oswalt's contract is MUCH more manageable. Trading for Oswalt, picking up JD's option, bringing up Beckham, and offering a one-year deal to Thome this winter could make a for a very strong 2010 Sox.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ May 26, 2009 -> 08:48 PM) If the Sox played in a pitcher's park in the NL he'd be here already. Which makes one wonder why he'd want to pitch in Wrigley, which is definitely NOT a pitcher's park in the summer.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 26, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) and even though I don't really buy Ozzie being all that loved by his players I don't buy it either. I'm sure that some of them really like him, others think that he's a decent manager, some others are indifferent, and I'm sure there's a contingent that doesn't like him at all. In other words, he's like a lot of other bosses.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ May 26, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) i think kenny would probably prefer to go after a pitcher who is still in his mid to late 20's, rather than someone who'll be in their mid-30's by the time their contract is over Since completing a deal for Peavy clearly means that the Sox are going for it NOW (rather than next year when Thome and Dye are gone, or the following year when Paulie is gone), methinks that Kenny would be perfectly fine with a lesser financial commitment to an older pitcher like Oswalt.

QUOTE (sox1844 @ May 26, 2009 -> 06:42 PM) I don't know... just by talking to other fans, listening to different media outlets, I just get the impression that Ozzie is an absolute clown, the total laughingstock of baseball. And their opinion is informed and worth listening to because...? If Ozzie's such a laughingstock, why does Kenny put up with him? Does Kenny seem like the type of GM who would put up with an incompetent manager? I don't know of many people who openly love their bosses, but I know quite a few people who get along with them relatively well. Look at it this way: Thome and Vazquez both waived their NTCs to play in Chicago. Vazuez, Dye, Contreras, and Buehrle all signed extensions after playing under Ozzie. The latter signed for a massive hometown discount. Paulie re-signed with the Sox, despite a better offer from another team. Garland has said that Ozzie is the best manager he's ever played for. Given all of that, I don't think that I don't think that Ozzie was a factor in Peavy not accepting a trade to the Sox.

QUOTE (maki @ May 26, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) they've also arguably had better teams themselves. a team that meddles along at .500 for a quarter season working through the kinks with a well-constructed team or one battling through injuries is a completely different story where you have to decide if they're simply underachieving or will figure it out. Even if we "figure it out" we can't play .600 baseball from here on out. Given that Floyd, Danks, and most of the offense is under-performing and we're not far below .500, I don't think that things are that bleak. Even without a big-name addition at the deadline, this team is capable of winning 90-92 games. And that's about what it'll take to win the Central.

Paging Roy Oswalt. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2009 -> 06:09 AM) Last night was as impressed with Danks as I have ever been. He literally had nothing last night. He couldn't keep his change from bouncing, his fastball was topping out at about ninety, and he didn't even try his curveball in the early innings. I'm wondering if Danks is going through a "dead arm" period, brought on by the 201 innings he threw last year (his previous high was 156, in 2005).

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 26, 2009 -> 08:22 AM) I meant as far as having tons of talent and not necessarily living up to it. I agree with that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 26, 2009 -> 06:25 AM) Hell, you really could say the same thing about Anderson today which would make that whole thing moot. Anderson doesn't have 54 HRs and 71 2Bs over the past two full seasons. Granted, Anderson hasn't had anything near Young's playing time, but his horrible approach at the plate would make 20 HRs difficult (8 in 2006 with 405 PAs). Crede (.306) and Alexei (.309) are proof that OBP isn't everything, especially in the bottom half of the order. And before you get the wrong idea, I've gone on the record several times here in support of the Vazquez/Young deal. Solid starting pitching trumps all, IMO.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ May 25, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) Give him nothing. Young has a career OBP of .297 playing in a band box in the NL. And that's about the same as Brian Anderson. And he's been more brutal this year. Young has twice as many MLB at bats as Anderson, and does not appear to be getting better. Even with his power, his OPS is below average for an NL CF in each of his 2 full seasons. Not exactly a star, and not exactly league average yet. Young had a combined 54 HR, 71 2B, and 44 SB between '07 and '08. Agreed that his OPS is indefensible, but his combination of slugging percentage, speed, and defensive capability are definitely above league average. Given that Crede's OBP hung right around .300 in his first few years in the league as well (and hasn't really improved much since), I wouldn't write off Young just yet. I don't foresee him ever hitting at the top of the order, but the talent is definitely there.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ May 25, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) It would be hard to see Ozzie as a raging idiot when 90% or more of the time he's either laughing, cracking jokes, or throwing sunflower seeds at someone. The national media types characterize Ozzie as a violent, angry, gay-bashing loose cannon. The reason? Unless Ozzie attracts attention by saying and doing controversial things, none of them pay attention. As for how we would know that veterans are telling the truth when they say they like Ozzie, consider this: At time, Garland, Contreras, Buehrle, Dye, and AJ re-signed with the Sox, avoiding free agency where they clearly would have bolted had they not wanted to play for Ozzie. Jim Thome and Javy Vazquez waived NTC clauses to come here, despite Ozzie's reputation in national media. Paulie left more money and a better climate on the table in order to return and play for Ozzie. Willie Harris, OC, and Swisher were the only players I can think of that had a problem with Ozzie. There was the Maggs issue, but Ozzie started that by attacking Maggs for his comments about JR. If there was a real problem, chances are we'd have seen or heard about a Toronto-style blow-up at some point. It's also very telling that Ozzie has publicly gushed over guys like Mark, Paulie, Thome, and Griffey. The respect is mutual.

Having the freedom to enjoy baseball is a wonderful thing.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 25, 2009 -> 06:49 PM) Or a very good baseball player anymore. I'm not sure what his problem is this year, but I wouldn't give up on him just yet.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) As far as this idea of ravaging and pillaging the farm system, there's no example of a player who came up through our system who has become a star somewhere else. If anything, Peavy should be encouraged that the GM is willing (unlike the Angels, for example) to deal prospects for results in the short-term. Frank Francisco is the only prospect (and he was only with us for a year after the Howry trade to the Red Sox) we've had in our system that has been a big success somewhere else, and he's gone through his own set of problems (injuries, chair throwing). I'll give him Chris Young, although he isn't exactly a "star." And with Garcia's quick demise shortly after that deal and Contreras' string of injuries after mid-2006, we were pretty fortunate in hindsight to have Javy shore up the middle/back of the rotation. If Passan had done his homework, he would've noticed that the majority of the prospects that Kenny has traded away for veterans over the past five years have either gone on to become mediocre MLB starters or haven't panned out at all. There's a reason that Kenny didn't bother to hang onto these players: They weren't that great. And many of these prospects have been traded for other (often superior) prospects and young players (Danks, Floyd, Quentin) who have done well at the ML level under the Sox coaching staff. But I suppose that it's a lot easier to neglect one's due diligence and attack an aggressive and outspoken general manager for not running a team according to a desk jockey's preconceived notions of how a GM should operate his franchise (despite Kenny's overwhelmingly positive results). Because, you know, controversy sells and increasing hits to Yahoo Sports increases advertising revenue, which is the sole function of Mr. Passan's position.

Hawk and Stoney calling the game, to boot.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ May 25, 2009 -> 06:21 AM) He's still "ahead" of schedule for when he was supposed to return from the injury, and he's trying to get the feel for his pitches back. You won't even give him that chance in AAA? It seems silly to declare a talented pitcher done after a rough start in the majors. Maybe he makes it back, maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't, it doesn't hurt the major league team as they'd have to pay his salary either way. If he does make it back, he can be extremely valuable to the team. I agree, and am saddened at all of the Jose-bashing. There was talk that he wouldn't be back until after the ASB. Give the guy a break, and give him the opportunity to earn his way back into the rotation. After what he's done for this organization, I'd say that he's earned that opportunity.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 25, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) 7:05 PM MDT tonight on the MLB TV cable channel, if your provider carries it, features Sox game versus LAA. I am lucky enough to get that channel here so I'll be behind the big screen. Danks for the Sox Thanks, I was just about to post this. My evening just got a lot better. Woo-hoo!

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 25, 2009 -> 07:44 AM) The article is the perspective of one guy who does not follow the Sox as closely as most here. Often times the out of town writer opinions take a season or two to change. The opinions have to be formed while writing on deadlines. The writer does not have the luxury of living and dying with one team, so they are never as accurate as the hometown beat writers. Not being a homer beat writer doesn't excuse blatant ignorance. If you don't know what you're talking about, either educate yourself or don't write an ill-informed article that actual fans will tear to pieces. The inference that Ozzie can't get along with veterans is the type of Mariotti-esque shock-jock garbage that is intended to increase readership, rather than to reflect reality and provoke thought. If this guy wants to take the Mariotti road and pander to the lowest common denominator to make a buck, that's his business. But I'll call him on it every time.

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 24, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) guys, who honestly thinks Peavy didn't make the best decision for himself, career and stat-wise? No argument there. Too bad Passan's criticism of the way that Kenny and Ozzie run the Sox is about as mature and professional as his haircut. Stat-wise, he may do better in the NL. But if we define "better" as "winning a championship," I don't necessarily agree. Peavy is also far from a lock to be traded this season. The only big spenders in the NL are the Mets, and I don't see them adding to their $150 million payroll. The Cubs can't add a dime to their payroll right now and I seriously doubt that Towers would trade him to a division rival like the Dodgers. That basically leaves the Cardinals and Braves, and the latter already failed to come to terms with the Padres this past winter.