SoxHawk1980

Would this be addition by subtraction? Probably not. Cintron really isn't any good. But I don't know if the hitting will be any worse. On another note, this shows why it really isn't a good idea to carry a gun around. Sometimes people get shot. It certainly is. But I could easily see KW trading something for the awful Christian Guzman. He's one of those players that KW has an odd man crush on.

I certainly buy into the conventional wisdom that AJ will have a good year if he's facing fewer LHP because of Toby Hall's presence on the team. But the real question is: Is Ozzie going to significantly decrease AJ's playing time by platooning him with Hall? Last year, AJ had 509 AB's. 368 vs. RHP and 141 vs. LHP. How many of those LHP at bats is Ozzie willing to take away from AJ?

So the past successes tell you that whoever they acquire now will be turned into something good. What do the failures tell you? What does Boone Logan tell you? It tells me that you can't always count on every KW bullpen acquisition to be good. I'm not exactly going out on a limb here.

So Masset's minor league performance isn't meaningful but one winter league stint is meaningful? I'm glad he did well in Mexico this winter, but all kinds of players do well in winter leagues and it is hard to attach much meaning to that. And I doubt that a winter league performance ever much affected any player's value. The fact that we did well with the Jenks reclamation project doesn't necessarily mean that any and every pitcher with good stuff that we acquire can be turned into a good reliever. Jenks and Massets situations are very, very different.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that because KW was right on Jenks then he must be right on Masset? That doesn't make any sense. KW has been wrong about guys too. My point is that he's a decent prospect and that's about it. He has good stuff and hasn't peformed well in the minors at all. He's not 1/4 the prosect Danks is, so to say that the trade is as much about Masset as Danks is pure BS. He's just trying to hype both prospects. I didn't say anything at all about Kenny's "bullpen construction." I just said called Kenny on his BS about how Floyd was going to be challenging BMac for a rotation spot anyway because Floyd is so good and his combination of pitches, blah, blah, blah. Maybe Floyd can get it together in AAA. Maybe he'll be ok out of the bullpen. But there is no way he's ready to be a decent major league starter in 2007. If you're talking about Masset, I've already spoken to that issue. And he may turn into a decent arm out of the pen. But I doubt he'll ever be a bullpen ace and, as I said, KW's BS about the deal being as much about him as about Danks is ludicrous. Quite the contrary. I don't believe that people will agree with me in the end. I think that those who spin every move KW makes into something positive for the Sox for the present, future and all times will take whatever happens in 2007 and torture their "logic" into arguing that everything KW did was just right.

I think everyone should get realistic about Kenny's Floyd and BMac hype. Part of KW's job is public relations. He's going to spin this as much as possible. I haven't read any scouting report or prospect report on BMac that projects him to any less than a legitimate, solid #3 SP. If that's what Kenny means by "serviceable" then I think he needs a new thesaurus. Of course, Kenny chose his words wisely. Without really tearing him down, he wants to make BMac look as mediocre as possible. Speaking of spin... If anyone really thinks that there would have been serious competition between BMac and Floyd for a rotation spot, then you'll believe just about anything. Floyd may have talent, but he needs a big fix. He's been back and forth between AAA and the majors for the last few years and hasn't performed well at either level. Without a major fix, do you think his "group of pitches" will work great at USCF and other AL ballparks, while they just happened to not work so well in Philly, the NL and AAA ballparks? Since no one else will, I'll call BS on that. If KW actually said that the trade was just as much about Masset as it was about Danks, then this goes beyond spin to pure prevarication. Masset is a decent prospect by most accounts, but not a great one. He has very good stuff, but his minor league performance is unimpressive to say the least. He's a huge maybe with none of the prospect hype of a guy like Danks. It is anything but clear that he'll be a good reliever, much less a decent SP. Unfortunately, so does George W. Bush.

There was a lot of talk about Milledge and his relationship with the team and the coaching staff here in the local NY media. There was the incident you mentioned, but other things as well. Reportedly, many players saw him as a prima donna who acted like he was a star even though he was just a prospect. At one point late in the season, some player(s) took everything out of his locker and replaced it with a dress. This fueled some preexisting but unsubstantiated rumors that he is gay.

Yes, every team has question marks. The Sox have more in 2007 than they did in 2006. They also have less overall major league talent than they had in 2006. We were a third place team last year. I don't think we can simply rely on the other teams in our division and the rest of the AL getting worse. I think we needed to get better as well. We didn't. Not for 2007. Great point. Cleveland is a very good young team that very clearly underachieved last year. People talk about Minnesota and Detroit (hopefully) both regressing but ignore Cleveland. Typically when these discussions are had on this board, Cleveland is dismissed with a brief "their bullpen sucks." Well, their bullpen is at least somewhat improved and their rotation and offense makes them possibly our key competition in 2007. We need to improve over 2006 to win the division. The Twins, Tigers and Indians won't all just hand it to us.

That's cool. There is a best case scenario, and a worst case scenario and a big, gray middle ground. Clearly we'll fall somewhere in the middle. I just think there are too many question marks for us to have any confidence that enough of them will turn positive for us to get to the WS. Heck, I hope we can even make it to the playoffs.

All pitchers need command and control in addition to their stuff. It appears that KW has worked hard to add velocity to the bullpen. It takes more than velocity. Yes, the AAA bullpen has depth. The major league bullpen does not. That's a problem for the major league team and is one of the reasons this bullpen is not greatly improved. Yes, every player has to get their shot sometime. Hopefully if they are ready to perform well at the major league level. I don't know how many of these guys are. That's a problem for the Sox. Uribe's 2006 was very similar to his 2005. I think that's the kind of hitter he is. In 2004, he variable might have used some supplements to help his power. If he improves, I think it will be minimal. Podsednik wasn't just awful last year. He is awful. He basically had one good year for Milwaukee and that wasn't too recent. His skills have diminished to the point where he is a zero-tool player. He isn't good at anything, and I don't expect him to get any better as he ages. I think Anderson will do somewhat better. The improvement could be significant, or minimal. His improvement over the course of the 2006 season didn't give me great reason for optimism. He went from awful hitting in the first half of the season to merely bad hitting in the second half. I wish I had seen some actual good hitting from him. I don't know how much of that we can expect in 2007. His ERA was just like 2002, 2003 and 2004, which is basically his career average. 2005 is clearly an outlier. Now, what about his peripherals? His WHIP was back to his old (major league average form). His K/9 was actually below his career average and worse than 2002 and 2003. His K/BB was better because he gave up fewer walks. Overall, his peripherals were very similar to the rest of his career. About major league average. Average is exactly what we should expect from Jonny. Luis has parts of 4 major league seasons to prove that he's a major league player. In that time, he hasn't shown much at the plate. I think he's shown that he can't hit. And it isn't like he was some great hitting prospect in the minors. In 1016 career AAA AB's, his OBP was .357 and his SLG was .479 for an OPS of .836. That's a pretty good AAA hitter. It shouldn't be surprising that a guy who is only a pretty good AAA hitter can't hit in the majors. That's pretty common. He isn't half the hitter Mackowiak is. But he's twice the fielder. So now BA has a backup who can field but can't hit. That's not a net improvement. It was a good article, but I just think it needs more balance. These guys have downside as well as upside.

So you're saying that Danks will take the 5th rotation spot? That is definitely possible. But the real question is how do you think he'll do? It is much easier to have a great spring and make the team than to actually pitch well in the majors. I think that if he starts the season in Chicago, then he's being rushed. And I don't think that will be good for his development. I doubt he's ready and I don't think he'd pitch well at all for the Sox this season. It would be much better for Danks and the Sox for him to spend a full season as a starter in AAA and work on becoming that ace we all want him to be.

I think they'll contend for the division and have a chance to make the playoffs, but I can't say that they look like they have a very good shot of making it back to the WS. Vastly improved bullpen? Vastly? As compared to the bullpen the Sox had in the second half of 2006, the 2007 bullpen subtracts Cotts, adds Aardsma, Masset and maybe Sisco. That's a vast improvement? Aardsma and Masset are inexperienced and little tested in the majors. They are big question marks. Sisco has been pretty awful recently and is an even bigger question mark. I like Thornton, but this the only good major league season he's ever had. And in 2006 he had mostly low leverage innings. In 2007 he'll be the #1 lefty setup man. And he's 30, so he's not exactly a young, developing kid. Yes, this bullpen definitely has power. But depth? Yeah, there's a lot of them. But mostly this "depth" is untested kids. And I don't know that a bullpen "defined by youth" is a particularly good thing. The section on "second tier hitter production" was full of fan optimism about only small drop offs from some players and significant improvements from many more players. Basically all the bad hitters are going to get better. Sounds like best case scenario to me. Similarly, the article posits that the entire rotation is going to improve. Buehrle's season was a "fluke". Garland's second half was the real deal (apparently his first half was a fluke too). And apparently there are no worries about Vazquez and Contreras either. And then there's the 5th starter spot where the article's author hails AAA depth giving the Sox "flexibility in the 5th spot." Translation: we have many horses for the merry-go-round of rotation fifth starters. There is no mention in this article about the possibility that Buehrle's bad season might actually mean something. There is no mention that Garland's overall season production fell right back in line with most of the seasons in his major league career. There is no mention of the decline that most pitchers of Contreras's age experience. Oh yes, and we'll get "better production out of center field" from a more capable backup to Brian Anderson. Who is this? Terrero? He's certainly better defensively in CF than Mackowiak, but he can't hit his weight. Terrero will catch more balls than Mack, but he'll also make a hell of a lot more outs at the plate. How is this a net improvement that will give us "more production"? Just my humble opinions.

There would be some fan b****ing. But if you used that money to bring in some good major league player(s), that would really help appease the fan base. This is particularly true if Buehrle has another non-ace season in 2007. If he shows himself not to be an ace for two years, then I don't think most fans would be saying, "give him anything he wants." I wouldn't ever offer Buehlre a 6-year deal. There are very few pitchers good enough to warrant that kind of long-term risk. And Buehrle has a hell of a lot of innings and pitches on that arm.

I think there would be much less. If you let leak that Buehrle is asking for $15+ million a year for 4+ years and then say that the team is going to spend that money to fill other holes, that would quell much fan unrest.

I think both are pretty solid #3 starters, with Vazquez being more erratic from year to year. What this team really needs is a dependable ace. Best case scenario, when do you think Danks could actually pitch like an ace for a full season in the majors? I'd say the best (reasonable) case would be 2009. - edited to change 2008 to 2009. I think 2008 will be Danks first full season in the majors and I doubt he'd pitch like an ace in that season. 2009 is more reasonable if he progresses to ace pitching.