Dick Allen

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 06:19 PM) I had my over/under at 39.5 plate appearances. Suck on that. What do you think about Dye? I've got my number at 6. Innings.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 06:19 PM) 78 games, 76 at bats. Solid. You can talk about how much lead off guys were getting paid this past offseason, funny how KW is going to pay Pods more per plate appearance than any of them.

Reifert said it probably would be Owens coming up. At least when Garland pitches, they should let Garland hit and DH for Owens. He really can't hit. QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 06:14 PM) I'm stunned that are three starting outfielders from opening day are injured at the same time. Who would have ever thought Pods and Erstad would get hurt? How long will Dye last? My over/under is 6 innings.

The should name the AL DL after Pods and the NL DL after Prior and Wood(s). As far as Buerhle leaving money on the table, I don't think there's any doubt if he has a second half like his first half he would be able to get more than 4 years and more than $14 million if that is accurate. If he gets hurt like a lot of people think is inevitable, he would be leaving money on the table. Take Bartolo Colon . He signed for 4 years with the Angels. If he had just taken 3 at the same price, there is no way he would have been able to get what he's being paid this year on the open market due to his surgery. If Buerhle has an injury that ends his career, any additional money he could have signed for would have been "left on the table".

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 04:43 PM) tank was under the legal limit.... his BAC was .072 which is just under the legal limit of .08......so tank did not break the law.... He may have been legal but he's still stupid. Going 40 in a 25 at 3:30 am and only .008 from being drunk, after all he's just been through. Probably a half a beer from being in a lot of trouble. Don't worry, Tank will hook up with another team and find his way to legal problems again.

I really don't know how going to 4 years with Buerhle could be considered going out on a limb considering they extended Vazquez 3 years with a year remaining on his deal in essence giving him a 4 year deal, and he has 3 years and about 400 innings on Mark. Buerhle seems like he would put a lot less wear and tear on his shoulder and elbow with the way he pitches as opposed to Vazquez.

I wonder what percentage of players with blanket NTC get traded. It seems a lot of them do.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) You're missing the point. Ozzie HELPED Jon make the jump. Therefore, it didn't happen immediately when Ozzie began managing Jon, but AS Ozzie managed Jon. Keep in mind that despite cutting his walk rate, which was even lower in 06' than in 05', his WHIP was about the same in 06' as it had been the rest of his career. And yet he won 18 games. Now I know wins and losses aren't the preeminent statistic as far as starting pitchers go, but I certainly think Jon was a far better pitcher in 06' than in 04', 03' and 02', despite a similar WHIP. Because he was Jekyl and Hyde. He was awful the first couple of months but got wins because the offense wason fire. Wins are wins as far as I'm concerned. He was very good his last 20 or so starts. I just saw nothing in 2004 that was any different than the previous Garland. In 2005 he had a little plan, threw strikes, kept his pitch count low, was able to get a lot of wins at the beginning of the season and he built confidence.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) I remember Garland even alluding to one of the big changes in his career occurred when Ozzie came in and actually showed confidence in Jon. Ozzie let Jon work himself out of jams and because of it developed into one of the better pitchers in baseball (also partially because Jon matured). In fact, one of the things that sometimes frustrates me is also the thing that I like most about Ozzie (his willingness to stick by his starters and show them the rope). Funny he didn't say that in 2004. His numbers were the same to a little worse than 2003. He cut down on his walks and started to win.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) I don't think anyone disagrees with you that cutting your walk rate, or your WHIP, will help you. You're pointing to that as the sole reason for Jon's success. We are not. I thought yesterday afternoon's game was a prime example of the affect Ozzie has had on Jon. All his other numbers were pretty much the same.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) He gave him an extension because he was manager of the year in 00' and he won a division. He really had no other choice. I also like Jerry more than most, I even defended the infamous "Neal Cotts" start in New York. But his handling of Jon Garland, IMO, was poor. I'm not sure if you believe Ozzie's opinion about Jon came from Hawk or not, but even Ozzie stressed that he had to give Jon the chances to work through his own struggles, and he did so. Don't get me wrong- I don't think Jon was a crap pitcher under Jerry- but I don't think there is much of a chance Jon would have matured into the guy he is now if Jerry had continued to be manager of this team. He gave him an extension after 2000 even though he was under contract through the 2002 season, and at that point as you pointed out earlier was well on his way to almost ruining Jon Garland.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) Ozzie had a ton to do with the maturation of Jon Garland. Even Jon will say so. Any other opinion is really a huge stretch. I disagree. He cut his walk rate in half. If Ozzie can get pitchers to do this, how come the bullpen is the mess it is?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) Yeah, want to know why it was worse? Because Jon had to learn how to get out of his own jams instead of leaving in the 4th and 5th inning everytime he got himself in any trouble. We are seeing the results of the learning process now, aren't we? Manual had to lift him to win games, but Ozzie didn't? I understand part of Jon's success as a pitcher came as a result of his natural progression and maturation. I also have seen a crapload of pitchers never take that step, so to assume it was going to happen regardless or automatically is a bit of a leap if you ask me. I give a lot of credit to Ozzie for Jon's success, and I don't think it is entirely coincidental that Jon has become the pitcher he has under Ozzie. Garland averaged about half an inning more a start under Ozzie than he did under Manuel and then suddenly in 2005 he cut his walk rate almost in half. He figured out how to pitch. Give Ozzie the credit if you will, I will give it to Garland. If Manuel was so bad, how do you give KW a pass on giving him a contract extension? I do think Manuel's time was up when he was canned but I think he was decent. I have a higher opinion of him than the Hawkeroo.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) So by your definition there is no better GM in all of baseball during the Williams tenure, because no GM has won more than one World Series. In the Al, the Twins, Indians, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, and Rangers all have worse GMs because they have never won a WS, while Boston and Anaheims GMs are on par with Kenny, because they have won once since Kenny came in as GM. KW is definitely not living up to his quote you have at the bottom of your posts. When is he going to start with the answering?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) You're right about the Erstad/Garland trade. Erstad was one year removed from a 240 hit season. My mistake. I didn't say Jerry Manual ruined Jon, I said he nearly ruined him. And maybe I did buy Hawk's bs a bit too much in the past, but I don't think it's entirely coincidence that Jon started thriving under Ozzie Guillen, a manager who gave him a chance to learn how to get out of his own jams. It's pretty impressive how he has come along in doing so, wouldn't you agree? You did notice Garland's first year under Ozzie was worse than his last year under Manuel. Garland matured as a pitcher. Manuel had to lift him, he had to win games. Interesting that a GM would be willing to trade a guy 1 year removed from a 240 hit season and a great glove guy, team guy, all else (I do admire the way Erstad plays, and all the intangibles he brings, he's just not all that good) for a 22 year old almost ruined pitcher. I personally think Garland would have had the same success in recent years no matter who was making out the line-up card. I think he matured and became a better pitcher. Its funny how with some young pitchers managers get praised when they pitch a good game and the manager yanks them before something bad can happen. I hear Hawk say all the time that it leaves a good thought in the young pitcher's mind. I guess Manuel's insistence not to use the wheel play really pissed Hawk off, although he didn't get mad at Ozzie after he stopped using it after a couple of months.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) I didn't give him a break on an overrated farm system as Vice President of Player Development. I gave him a break as GM. He built the system that was rated highly. Unfortunately, nothing panned out. He was intelligent enough to trade much of it away as GM. He did have Lee/Maggs/Thomas/Buehrle. But Crede/Rowand/Garland didn't develop into anything until 2004 or so. Valentin sucked. Don't know why he was even mentioned. And Thomas was injured for nearly two full seasons and the majority of another during the 5 years Williams had him. The Garland trade came after Erstand had one of the most impressive seasons ever as a leadoff hitter and Jerry Manual had nearly ruined Jon Garland through his inept managing. He could have trusted in his farm system and continued with the "Kids can play" nonsense, and he didn't. He was aggressive, built up the rotation, and avoided the mistakes teams like Detroit and Kansas City continually made. KW took over after the 2000 season, Valentin was still a pretty good player. The Erstad/Garland trade happened after Erstad hit .258 with 9 homers and a pretty weak OBP. Garland was 22 years old, and its laughable you think Jerry Manuel ruined him. I think you buy Hawk's BS a little too much. I guess if your happy with 82 or 83 win seasons or finishing in 2nd or 3rd place almost every year, KW could be a hero. I like winning. Which to me means making the playoffs.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) He inherited a team that very well could have been in the same place Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit were those years they were bad. And he refused to accept that and brought in players that at least made us competitive. I know, I know, he inherited a division winner. One that was based on smoke and mirrors, so don't even go there. He also inherited a top-5 farm system. That same top-5 farm system that produced absolutely nothing of any consequence. Considering KW's job before becoming GM, its laughable you would give him a break on an overrated farm system. He had Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Crede, Valentin, Rowand, Buerhle, Garland, Durham just to name a few players built into the system when he took over. Unless he gave them away, which he did with Garland when he traded him for a broken down Erstad only to luckily have the Angels heirarchy not approve the trade, and he did give away Durham. With that talent base, the really were never in any danger of losing the 100+ games KC and Detroit seemed to flirt with almost every season.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) He has had nothing but winning seasons in his tenure, he has a .537 winning percentage (best in team history), has never finished lower than 3rd, AND has a world series ring. Feel free to criticize, he is certainly not perfect - but he absolutely has a history of winning. How impressive is that percentage when for 5 of those seasons the Sox played 2 of the worst teams in basebal 38 times a season, and Cleveland as well for about 3 or 4 years was brutal.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Yeah those trades he made, with major pieces of the team, in 2003 and 2004 really bit us in the ass. But I can see why you wouldn't have any faith...KW has no history of winning. He's won once. Its not like he has a history of winning. 1 time in 7 years in a 5 team division is below average. Considering he has had the most resources to work with in several of those seasons and considering how poor Detroit and KC and for several years Cleveland were in the division, it makes his history even worse. His "I'm used to winning" line several weeks ago was laughable. 2005 was great, but he was very fortunate a lot of things went his way, even with guys who turned him away. It doesn't take anything away from it, but its not like KW is head and shoulders smarter about baseball than any other GM in the game. His arrogance since 2005 is obvious. He has all the answers, yet with a payroll over $100 million, all the best talent, the greatest coaches, the best owner, the best manager, his team finished 3rd last year and is in 4th this year in a 5 team race. I think its time KW get off his high horse.

Paulie is heating up.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) Strained left rib muscle for Barbaro. Once again, thanks KW! Which charity is getting more money this year White Sox charities or Pods? I'm sure he's a nice guy, but how can you count on him to stay healthy? Of course, KW knows better than anyone.

I still have a hard time believing the NTC was something that suddenly popped up at the end of the negotiation. I really think its something that is being used to make both sides look good. Buerhle looks good because he's willing to accept a big discount in exchange for it, and the White Sox look good, because when Buerhle goes away, the issue isn't money. I personally think the White Sox and Buerhle's agent played Joe Cowley and whoever is the Score's informant like a fiddle and nothing serious went on this past week. I think it all was spin preparing for Buerhle's departure. QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) So, keep them on your team by giving them everything they want. No trade clauses have interesting ways of handcuffing what can and can't be done to a team. Things change, its best to stay flexible. As for Garland, it guarantees squat. Garland was practically guaranteed to not sign an extension, Garland was practically guaranteed to be traded etc. if you believe the media reports. Which is a lot of what this situation is, media reports. I posted on another thread to wait and see what happens in this situation before jumping to conclusions and I still believe that is good advice. It hasn't been an issue for years, it won't be an issue for the next draft. Another reason to stay flexible, the budget may need more $$ for the draft. You are worrying about nothing with this. Now if they start drafting Boras clients then I am worried right along with you. Screw sandwich picks. They cost a lot, and with the White Sox recent history, chances are they will be very mediocre selections.

I just don't know why anyone would want KW just to take the draft picks for Dye or Buerhle. Their bonuses would have an effect on the White Sox payroll, and with the way the Sox have drafted, chances are they won't be very good players. Pick up guys who have had bonuses already paid and have had at least a little success in professional baseball. BTW, anyone else sick of seeing Josh Fields strikeout?

What is all this talk about ridding themselves of Buerhle if something happens to him? If he blew out his shoulder or elbow or whatever, no team is going to want to pick up the contract NTC or no NTC. Its apparent the White Sox at the very least don't want pitchers with full NTC, so Buerhle's White Sox days as well as Garland's are numbered anyway. Frankly, I think these "negotiations" were all hatched for PR. I'm sorry, but why would you go through the entire song and dance of negotiating years and numbers and get caught up in a NTC? Wouldn't that be a starting point? Considering you have to accept a "hometown discount" isn't it fair to assume you need something in the contract saying you will be in said "hometown"?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) You know what, KW and co. all had the right idea, but it was horrible, pitiful execution. All of the negotiations should have been under closed doors, and there shouldn't have been this much info released. Its the "we really tried" technique that you knew was coming. They even went as far as saying the money was right, so the Sox wouldn't have come off as lowballing.