Lillian

I don't understand the almost unanimous desire to trade Rios. He was arguably our best offensive player. Many of us felt that his problem was that awful stance he employed last year. Once the coaching staff got him to alter his mechanics, he became the offensive player that K. W. expected him to be. He was very consistent, and never had a single slump. Moreover, much like his 2010 season, he hit into a lot of hard outs. He is still relatively young, and has a lot of tools. He even seemed to become a pretty good club house guy. I think that he should have been hitting third, which would have likely made him even better, with Dunn, Konerko and A. J. hitting behind him. I'm not saying that the Sox shouldn't consider moving him for the right package, but why are so many seemingly eager to get rid of him?

For those of you who don't think that Nate Jones is a viable option to close, all I can say is I don't know what games your watching. He looks very dominant to me. I'd rather see him face 3 batters in the 9TH. The difference is that he has gotten better as the season has progressed, while Reed has gotten worse. Moreover, he has thrown 10 more innings than Reed, so he has demonstrated more stamina and durability. While he had a couple of appearances where he failed to retire the two batters he faced, he nevertheless has not given up a run in 15 consecutive appearances.

Whatever happened to K. W.'s veiled suggestion that the Sox try to exploit Cabrera's injuries by bunting? I think he called it "playing smarter". I thought that Cabrera appeared to be a little less hobbled last night. Was that true? In fact, you have to wonder if a team couldn't successfully bunt down the first base line, with Fielder over there. I know that he's pretty athletic considering his weight, but he probably doesn't move that well charging a ball and fielding it. We had 3 left handed speedsters in the lineup last night. De Aza, Wise and Hudson all could have tried dragging the ball down the first base line. Still no bunts to either side of the infield. ?????

QUOTE (Cali @ Sep 10, 2012 -> 09:05 PM) Holy crap an Addison Reed 1-2-3 inning! Sox need to take advantage of this momentum! Yep, the first one in his last 19 appearances!!!!! It would have been nice if he had also struck someone out, instead of allowing two guys to smoke balls on the line to right, in almost exactly the same spot. Fortunately, Rios was standing right there. However, at least he didn't give us all one of his typical "heart stopping" finishes.

Left handed hitters are hitting .319 against Guthrie this year. I hope R. V. uses a few of them today, even with Dunn out of the lineup. De Aza CF Wise LF A. J. C Johnson DH The rest of the lineup should include the regulars: Rios RF Konerko 1B Ramirez SS Beckham 2B Youk 3B

QUOTE (sunofgold @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 06:23 PM) Got the job today. Sure it was like riding a big fast upside-down spiraling rollercoaster. But at the end, itsallgood. Sox management cannot afford to be so complacent. I hope that they're not thinking "It's all good", because it's not!!! These kinds of performances are going to cost the team wins. The problem has to be addressed before it's too late.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) Whenever Lillian makes a thread about replacing someone, they do better. Well, maybe not so much. My suggestion certainly didn't help Reed today, did it?

I rest my case!!!!! Addison Reed needs to be replaced as the closer.

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) Breaking News: Addison Reed sucks, unsure of meaning of 1-2-3 inning. Apparently, so is Reed!!!

Well, there went that.

Maybe Reed can break his 17 game streak of consecutive appearances, without a "one, two three" inning.

Well, Reed is likely to get another chance here in a few minutes. Let's see if he can bring his string, and have himself a quick "three up, three down" inning, for a change.

It's worth noting that most closers are power pitchers, and that they pitch better out of the full windup. Every time that Reed puts base runners on, he has to pitch out of the stretch. Since he has not had a single appearance in his last 17, where he was able to retire the side in the order, he has had to pitch out of the stretch, quite a bit. That consideration makes the comparable numbers even more favorable for Nate Jones, when you take into account that Jones is quite often brought in with runners on base, and has to pitch out of the stretch. As a closer, Jones would have the opportunity to start with no runners on, affording him an even better chance of keeping guys off base. Reed, on the other hand, is making his own problems, by putting so many guys on. I wonder how many other closers have had 17 consecutive appearances, without a single one, two, three innning.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 8, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) Because Nate Jones is worse. Are you sure that Jones is worse? In his last 19 appearances, dating back to July 22ND, which is the same period that Reed has failed to have even a single "three up, three down" inning, Jones has only allowed 2 earned runs in 15.1 innings, with 12 stikeouts and 6 walks. He appears to be getting better, with more experience. He does have the raw stuff to close. I hope he can develop a really good off speed pitch to go along with his 98 to 100 MPH fast ball. Nate could be our closer next year, if not sooner. I agree that E.R.A is not that important for a closer, as one bad outing can really skew the numbers negatively. However, if you look at a large number of outings, and detect a pattern of ineffectiveness, that is meaningful, and Reed has not been very good for quite a while. On the other hand, Jones has been very good over the same period.

Reed hasn't had a "one, two, three" inning since July 17TH. In his last 17 appearances, he has allowed at least one base runner. He is not dominating hitters, as a closer should. Most of us have been uneasy when he comes into a game, and he is simply not a "lights out" closer. I don't know who should take his place, but I hope they try someone else. Would you feel confident with Reed closing, if the Sox make it to the Post Season? Whom would you suggest as another candidate to close?

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Aug 27, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) Sale Danks NewQ xxxx xxxx For as much as he talks like a stand up guy, I don't see Peavy coming back. He'll get a big (relative to his performance the last few years anyway) offer and sign elsewhere like Buehrle. I don't trust Hector or Floyd as anything but a 5th, don't trust Liriano signing, don't trust Q not being a fluke. I'll admit I'm biased, but give me some MB back for 6m, 8m, 9m the next 3 years. I've stated this elsewhere on Sox Talk, but I think that the Sox will exercise the one year option on Peavy. The marginal cost of $18 million is not that bad for a healthy Peavy. I suspect that J. R. is less reluctant to give a guy big money for one year, than he is to commit to a long term, expensive contract, especially for a pitcher. The Sox will need at least one top of the rotation, right handed starter next year, to balance a staff with so many lefties. I think it will be Sale, Danks, Peavy, Quintana, and a new rhp to replace Floyd, whom I think will be traded, once he has proven that he's healthy again. I just can't imagine that they would resign Liriano, with so many lefties, unless they move Quintana to the bullpen, as the new left handed set up man to replace Thornton. If K. W. could move Floyd and Thornton, the money saved there might allow them to spend the money on Liriano. How expensive he will be will likely, at least in large part, be determined by how well he pitches down the stretch. If Liriano were back in the rotation next year, perhaps they could get by with Axelrod as the 5TH starter. It doesn't appear that either Castro or Molina will be anywhere near ready. In any case, it will almost have to be a righty, if not from within the organization, then a new acquisition.

Here is something very interesting, which may favor the Sox, and perhaps influence the rotation the rest of the way: Look at these comparative AVG., OBP, SLG, OPS, split stats of our remaining opponents: Games 2 MARINERS VS LHP .240 .288 .371 .659 VS RHP .229 .297 .361 .658 Games 4 ORIOLES VS LHP .247 .314 .393 .707 VS RHP .242 .303 .410 .712 Games 7 TIGERS VS LHP .250 .325 .401 .726 VS RHP .278 .344 .436 .780 (#1 IN MLB) Games 6 TWINS VS LHP .264 .333 .405 .738 VS RHP .261 .324 .395 .720 Games 6 ROYALS VS LHP .258 .312 .390 .701 VS RHP .269 .320 .410 .730 (#7 IN MLB) Games 3 ANGELS VS LHP .264 .323 .427 .750 VS RHP .276 .333 .442 .775 (#2 IN MLB) Games 6 INDIANS VS LHP .230 .308 .354 .662 VS RHP .263 .331 .410 .741 (#11 IN MLB) Games 4 RAYS VS LHP .234 .320 .369 .689 VS RHP .238 .314 .384 .698 The only teams on our schedule with a significant disparity in offensive production versus LHP compared to RHP, are the Tigers, Royals, Angels and Indians. In all four cases, they hit RHP much better than LHP. In fact, the Tigers and Angels are #1 and #2 in all of MLB. The Sox have a left handed dominated starting rotation. Not only does this all favor the Sox, but it might be a good reason to put Gavin Floyd on an even "shorter leash". I'd rather see Santiago start over Floyd, but if not, it might be a good idea to use the same tactic that Robin used Monday night. If Floyd can't get going out of the gate, get him out of there, and bring in Santiago. Sale, Quintana, Liriano, and Santiago should all match up pretty well vs. these teams that don't hit left handed pitching as well as they do right handed pitching. With Peavy being the only RHP in the rotation, this could be a significant advantage.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 16, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) It should be pretty well accepted that generally speaking the more lengths you go to to make contact, the less your power will be. You raise a very interesting point. In the interest of clarity, are you suggesting that if Dunn could put the bat on the ball with the average consistency of most good power hitters, that his home run totals would necessarily decline? Konerko, Pujols, Cano and the youngster Trout are all guys who hit home runs, but don't strike out 1/3 of the time, which is exactly what Adam has done since donning a Sox uniform. I contend the opposite. I assert that because of his extraordinary size and natural strength, that a very high percentage of his fly balls are going to leave the yard. Logically, the more fly balls he can hit, the more homers he will have, and the more times he hits the ball, the greater the chance for him to hit one of those fly balls, which in turn might go over the fence. Moreover, no one is considering the relatively few number of doubles, and singles that he hits, also a direct result of the high strike outs. That means that he is not giving his team mates much of an opportunity to drive him in. Consider this: Dunn has scored an incredibly few 69 runs, for a guy with 34 HRs and 81 RBI's. Think about it this way; he has only scored 35 runs, which he didn't drive in himself with a homer. When you factor in the Sox' high team batting average with runners in scoring position, it becomes quite apparent that unless Dunn hits a homerun, he doesn't do much offensively to help his team. He is batting in front of Konerko, Rios and A. J., all of whom have had great years offensively, and yet Dunn has only scored 35 times when he didn't drive himself in with a homer!! As an aside, it's another good argument for moving him down from 3RD in the order. Look, I'm thrilled with his "comeback year", and the fact that he has hit a lot of very meaningful homers, but it seems a shame that he can't seem to do better than his .200 batting average, with all of those strike outs. Even his OBP is relatively low, when you consider all of the walks he takes. Just because he's having a good year, doesn't mean that it couldn't be significantly better. I think that he could be one of the best hitters in the game, if he could just figure out a way to make contact more often. Actually, the higher avg. and OBP, with fewer strike outs, which he produced in the N. L., would be fine with me. An average of .260 would look pretty good about now, wouldn't it?

My point is simply that he should do whatever he could to increase his rate of contact. Everytime he strikes out, he misses an opportunity to hit the ball out of the Park. He has the natural strength that Bonds only acquired with PEDS. It just seems a shame to use it for tape measure homers, instead of more hits and homers, even if the ball didn't travel quite so far. I guess it's the inverse of the old adage about "quantity vs. quality". I'd take more, even if they weren't so prodigious. He could probably hit 60 HRs every year, if he could just put the bat on the ball a little more frequently. There are various ways that he could increase his rate of contact: 1) Choke up 2) Use a lighter bat 3) Shorten his swing 4) Hit outside pitches to the opposite field It seems odd that he has never tried any of these things. His homers are not a function of his great skill as a hitter, but rather a function of his natural strength. A .200 batting average, and all of those strike outs should tell him that he is not utilizing his talent to the fullest. However, I understand that he will likely never change.

It still seems to me that he would benefit by trying to do whatever he could to make better contact. As strong as he is, balls are going to leave the yard, without his having to take such a long swing. He doesn't need to hit the ball 450 feet. He just needs to hit it long enough to clear the fense. Barry Bonds, used a light bat, choked up on it, and we know how that worked out. Why not try a similar approach? Every time he strikes out, and fails to make contact, he reduces the odds of hitting a homer to zero. Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on making contact? A good portion of Dunn's swings and misses could result in home runs, if he could just put the bat on the ball.

Gavin Floyd's mechanical issues are just maddening. How does a guy who has been pitching all of his life, frequently forget how to throw? If he were injured, or had a little problem with control, that would be understandable, but his inability to remember to stay back, or "closed" as Cooper would say, must be very perplexing to the coaching staff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 08:32 AM) Here's the problem...unless Sale hits the DL with a serious problem before the end of this year, you cannot spend $10-$20 million on a 6th starter as "Insurance" for him. You're not going to give Peavy $18 million to be insurance for Sale and then consign yourself to putting Gavin Floyd in the bullpen in case Sale gets hurt (or in case Danks can't come back despite what doctors say). If you're signing Peavy, it's because you think it's a good investment of resources, not to cover yourself in case Sale can't go. Apparently you misunderstood my previous post. My point about Sale's durability had nothing to do with Peavy. I think Peavy would be a good risk on the one year option, for the marginal difference of $18 million over the buy out. I was talking about what to do with Sale, if he can't remain a starter. The two topics were not really directly related

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) We're not going to go through all this effort stretching him out this year, having him have serious success, and then put him back in the bullpen unless his arm forces us to. I agree. That was precisely my point: "If Sale proves not to be durable enough to be a starter........."

As some of you have pointed out, the Sox are not going to have 4 lefties in the starting rotation. Someone has to go to the pen, be traded, or not resigned. If Sale proves not to be durable enough to remain a starter, the Sox may revert back to plan B, and make him the closer. It isn't the best way to optimize his talent, but it's better than having him injured, or significantly limited in the number of starts. If that were to happen, there would be room for the other three lefties in the rotation. It would be a shame to not be able to keep Sale in the rotation and give the staff a true "Ace". At least the Sox would have a "lights out" closer, which Reed certainly is NOT!

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 05:45 AM) How is one year playing with fire? The whole point here is we can get #1 starter production (if he can stay healthy) without a long-term commitment or sacrificing any young assets by picking up the option. The marginal cost is $18 million, only $3 million more than some people are willing to pay him annually on a three year deal. I understand there is some risk he won't stay healthy, but I'd counter we don't have a great chance at making the post-season next year without him and if he does get injured it only impacts 2013. Plus if he does stay healthy, we'd probably get a compensation pick for him. Again, there is some risk involved in picking up the option, but it's isolated and the potential rewards greatly are much greater IMO. You make a very compelling argument. Having him for one year, at the marginal cost of $18 Million is not nearly as risky as a long term deal. It isn't the high annual cost of some of these contracts that makes them such a bad investment, it's the long term commitment, especially to a pitcher. It's just too difficult to predict the health and longevity of pitchers. I think a smart owner would welcome the opportunity to pay 3 or 4 "aces" big money, all on one year contracts. What is scary is having to commit to several years of big money for a player who may be injured or ineffective. That can really hamstring a team for years.