iamshack

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Arizona didnt pick up additional money more than the Yankees were picking up. In fact, at first they demanded anyone picking up Vazquez would pay his entire salary. They kept some of that Yankee money. The Sox are paying Vazquez approximately $10 million a year, maybe a little more. And if Vazquez continues to pitch like he's pitched, there is no way the White Sox will offer him arbitration in 2008 when minimally he must be offered almost $10 million. It wouldn't matter if Arizona was paying ALL of his salary. Vazquez does not receive a check from the WS, the Yankees, and Arizona. The money is paid in cash and it is over with. So the WS are currently paying ALL of Vazquez's $11.5 million this year, and are on the hook for $12.5 million next season. Yes, they did receive what, $5 million from Arizona in the trade? So basically, that means the money coming out of the WS pocket is about $9 million this season and $10 next year. But if Vazquez is traded, it isn't like that money leaves the White Sox and goes with Vazquez. If he were traded tomorrow, the team that acquires him will be responsible for the pro-rated amount of his salary this season (approx 5.3 million or so?) and ALL $12.5 million next year. Of course, the WS might send cash, as the other teams had to to move him, but in that case, they had better be getting some damn good players back, not some slop of prospects. Either way, his salary makes him difficult to move to anyone other than a contender, and we aren't giving him to any contender.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 09:23 PM) well, i think we can all i agree the article was a bulls*** cheap shot at Jenks. I don't think the 03' article was crap, assuming those were actual quotes by Jenks about the self-mutilation. You have to admit (despite our love for Bobby now), that at the time, that was a tremendous story. Are you telling me that if that article came out now, about an Angel's prospect, you wouldn't find that extremely interesting? I don't think he portrayed Bobby as anything other than tragic, which, if he hadn't turned things around, they would have stayed.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 09:10 PM) *cough*7.5mill in 06*cough* *cough*6.5mill in 07*cough* I hate to break it to you, but he still makes what he was making despite how much cash the DBacks gave to the White Sox. So any deal of Vazquez to the Mets or any other contender would still require them to pay Javy his full salary- whether the WS were willing to send some of the money they received from the DBacks to the team Javy was traded to is an entirely different matter. *cough* $11.5 million in 06' *cough* *cough* $12.5 million in 07' *cough*

Folks, Javy is going nowhere this season. Only contenders take on $12 million/yr contracts, and there ain't no contender that is trading us what we want/need. Forget about trading Javier Vazquez.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) Are you Ross Gload? Ha, no. Anyone think Ross bears a striking resemblance to the Milfhunter? QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 06:31 PM) This might not be too bad of a deal if it were Vazquez for Rowand straight up... I mean yes AROW is struggling but we all know he is capable of getting hot... and lets face is Vazquez has hardly any value because of that awful contract he has... If we can get AROW, dump Vazquez, and not have to pay any of his contract then I take that deal in a second. However we'd have to make a seperate trade for bullpen help... and no deal on Mack... How many times must it be clearly pointed out that the Phillies are looking to DUMP salary, not take on $12 million dollar salaries? The ONLY way Vazquez goes to Philly is in a deal for Abreu, and even that has no chance of happening.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) CAREER BY POS GP GS INN TC PO A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 96 34 424.1 428 405 22 1 33 .998 9.06 .795 Total as LF 30 17 157.2 35 33 1 1 0 .971 1.95 .892 Total as CF 1 1 6.1 2 2 0 0 0 1.000 2.84 1.000 Total as RF 33 20 188.1 53 50 1 2 0 .962 2.44 .803 I left the games/innings here because I think it's pretty hard to judge people, especially outfielders, on 150 innings (that's enough for 1-2 errors) So why not leave the games/innings in the Mackowiak table?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 05:37 PM) Fine. Here's your evidence. Rob M.'s career fielding numbers: CAREER BY POS A E DP FPCT RF ZR Total as 1B 1 0 4 1.000 9.87 1.000 Total as 2B 133 8 23 .966 5.19 .856 Total as 3B 292 18 39 .956 2.98 .783 Total as LF 3 0 0 1.000 1.90 .871 Total as CF 5 4 1 .985 2.26 .809 Total as RF 16 6 8 .980 1.97 .841 For comparison at 3rd base: Joe Crede Total as 3B 1054 53 115 .965 2.65 .774 At 3rd base career, Mack has a fielding percentage barely below Crede's. He has higher Range Factor and Zone Rating numbers, if people believe those actually mean anything. At 2nd base, Mack's committed more errors than most everyday 2nd basemen, but his RF and ZR are again respectable. Can you post the same for Gload now?

Simply because the masses believe one thing does not make them right. You have provided absolutely no evidence that Mackowiak plays the infield well, and from everything we have to go on, he doesn,t because he hasn't played there for us with the exception of playing third for half a game and looking absolutely terrible. Some said he looked poor there because he hasn't played there in forever. Well, if he isn't taking ground balls there for us it is because we have no intention of playing him there and so he won't play there, but in the OF instead. And if Brian heats up with the bat, Rob sure as hell won't be playing center. Which relegates him to LF or RF, which is 2 positions, not 7. Ross can play 1b, or LF. And the difference between Gload and Mackowiak at the corner positions is so negligible that it certainly isn't worth the value of a LH bullpen arm with a career 3.17 ERA. Once again, don't misunderstand me. I am not saying Rob sucks. I am saying it was a mistake to trade for a redundancy. Their numbers at the plate are nearly identical this season and for their career. And I apologize for you, but as Ozzie said maybe Podsednik can play center for the Brewers, but he can't play center for a World Championship team, the same applies to Rob. He may be able to play 7 positions for the Pirates, but he sure as hell cannot for a World Championship team.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) You're wrong. You're just wrong. You can use stats or your own eyes, and both will tell you that Mackowiak is better than Gload. Which stats? Gload has a career OPS of .751. Mackowiak has a career OPS of .747. Mackowiak has had more experience in the field because he played for a s*** organization. Don't say I am wrong just because you cannot justify your argument with anything more than "Rob is great, and he can play 3B horribly, but Gload cannot at all!" Or "Damaso didn't get along with Ozzie, so he sucks and has no value!"

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) And he was useless to us, and I doubt many teams wanted anything to do with him if "all" we could get for him was s***ty Rob Mackowiak. Everyone on this board will tell you that Mackowiak is better than Gload in just about every facet of the game. Simply because he could not stay here does not mean we needed to trade him for a player we already pretty much had. And he sucks now? He's having a fine year in Pittsburgh if you ask me, and the Pirates will probably more back than a bench player when they trade him in two weeks. Once again, this is not an "I hate Rob" thread. But take off the local boy glasses and objectively look at it.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:27 PM) Mackowiak's ability to play 7 friggin positions makes him more valuable than a headcase lefty who has already been replaced exceptionally well by Matt Thornton. The fact that Gload throws left-handed probably doesn't help his chances when it comes to playing in the infield. God is nasty sometimes, and Gload is cursed with throwing with his left hand. Of course, if he could throw it 95 with below average breaking stuff, he would be blessed to throw with his left hand. Such is life. Just because one has played 7 positions does not mean he plays them well. Let's remember folks, this is not Chone Figgins playing all over the field for the Angels (actually a good team). This is a guy who played all over the field for the Pirates, who have sucked balls for close to 15 years now. Rob is an average player. Just like Gload would be if given the chance.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) No, he's not slightly better. Ross Gload is a very poor outfielder, and Mackowiak is actually a pretty good corner outfielder. And yes, it really was worth one of the "better" left-handed bullpen arms in recent years. Damaso Marte is still garbage, don't let his ERA fool you. His ERA was saved last year by all of the good relievers cleaning up his messes. He walks a ridiculous amount of hitters, and his WHIP still looks pretty bad to me. We continue to pass over Gload because he clearly isn't what the organization feels is what is needed. Gload is such a fringe major leaguer, while Mackowiak is one of the best utility players in baseball. That is a reason he was passed over. Mackowiak can do a lot, whereas Gload can do very little (and he offers no power at a power position). Gload is so useless in comparison to Mackowiak. I cannot understand how someone could believe otherwise. How would you even know about Ross, we have never given him a chance. The one year we did, in 04', Gload posted an .854 OPS, something Rob has never even approached until this season. If Gload is a fringe player, and Mackowiak is one of the best utility players in baseball, I submit that the only f***ing difference is playing time. With Mackowiak coming from the Pirates, he received that. Gload, actually being on a good team, did not. As for Damaso Marte being garbage, he has a 3.17 ERA. Clearly you don't mean to suggest that he has been the recipient of an otherworldly number of good relievers cleaning up for him for the past FIVE YEARS, including this year, in which he has a 2.97 ERA. Idiot or not, Damaso has a damn good arm.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) That's so wrong. And about playing 3B, the guy hadn't gotten any time there in weeks, maybe months. He wasn't just going to suddenly go in there and play stellar defense when he hadn't had any time there in a while. Ok, so I will admit that Mackowiak is a slightly better OF. He is slightly below average, while Gload is below average. Was that really worth one of the better left-handed bullpen arms in recent years? I just don't understand why we continue to pass over Gload for guys that are equally wart-ridden.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 04:00 PM) He's batting .309 with a .396 OBP...he provides a great back up for LF/RF and almost the entire IF. He just isn't a CF, although Ozzie keeps putting him there. Ross Gload couldn't play LF or RF decently if his life depended on it, and he certainly couldn't even attempt to play 3B or 2B. What in the hell kind of comparison is that? Does anyone else feel the same as this guy? I think Rob has been a great addition to the club. I honestly can't see why anyone would think otherwise, unless they're saying so because Ozzie is playing him out of place. I think Gload would be just as capable in the OF if he got consistent time there. I think we saw the other day that Rob cannot play third base very effectively. Gload is hitting .295 with a .373 OBP. Not a big difference given their respective amount of at bats. I just think adding Rob to the team was redundant, especially considering we gave away a solid LH bullpen arm. Don't mistake me for saying we should have kept Damaso. I was just never happy with what we got in return.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 12:26 PM) What do you mean? I mean I think Rob Mackowiak was a mistake. In my view, he is pretty much the exact same player as Ross Gload, except the Pirates sucked so they allowed Rob to play more positions than we allowed Ross to play. I would have rather dealt Damaso (since apparently we couldn't keep him here because of his attitude) for something else, rather than for a clone of Gload. To be honest with you, I cringe everytime Rob is in the lineup instead of Brian.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) On that one I would agree. They can even have combinations of multiple people. However, Brandon and Brian are off limits to me. Brandon is a nice pitcher to have, but were it not for the financial position of this team, I would gladly include him in a deal for a young superstar player. However, with salaries beginning to rise dramatically, a few players getting closer to FA (Mark, Joe) and a payroll at or about $100 million, Brandon's ability to pitch at a relatively decent level combined with his low cost make him a fairly necessary piece for us to hold on to. We are going to need him in that rotation soon not because his talent is forcing us to put him there, but because our payroll is. If it were purely from a talent perspective, I can't see how you could pass on a Carl Crawford or Miguel Cabrera for the sake of what Brandon might one day become.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) In our never-ending search to find another righty outfielder, don't you think Luis Matos would be a perfect fit for the last guy on the roster? He's an excellent defensive player, and he can play all 3 OF positions. Also, he runs pretty well, which would give us another option off the bench. All I hear are negative things about this guy from O's fans. As much as I think Rob Mackowiak was a mistake, I would rather have him out there than Matos.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) Sure....but it wouldn't work for Tampa. If we want Crawford, McCarthy's going to have to be included in the deal. From what I have read, The DRays want 1 frontline starter and 1 midline starter for Crawford. However, he may not even be available anymore as they have recently dealt Gathright and Huff. I imagine if he is available, something to the tune of McCarthy, Fields, and Haeger may get it done, but they may even ask for someone like Cotts as well. I would deal BMac and prospects for Crawford in a heartbeat if not for the salary constraints we already have.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 10:26 AM) Gotcha. I'm pretty sure the Ritchie trade came under Kenny's regime. Why does everyone still b**** about that deal so much? Who did we trade to get Ritchie? Fogg and Wells? Was it Sean Lowe as well? It isn't like the Pirates have been basking the glow of the superstar aces we have given them to get back Todd Richie...

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 09:42 AM) You wouldn't say that if you were the spouse of a Doctor. Besides that, doctors are human. Some are going to make mistakes. If improper treatment led to the worsening of the injury, then there may be some merit. But, if it only delayed the diagnosis, this lawsuit is BS. Well, there is something that is known as "failure to diagnose," which could cause some big problems for sports physicians...

QUOTE(pcullotta @ Jul 13, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) That was a great post. Here is a link to the Baseball Prospectus article that goes over the "Stolen Base Percentage has to be over 75%" argument. BP Article I'm sorry, but just because you can come up with a number which justifies what successful % leads to optimal run production is just not accurate. It doesn't factor in some of the quantifiable effects of stolen bases like errant pick-off throws, errant throws to the base by the catcher, the number of subsequent hits that were allowed because of fielders moving to cover the bag, the change in actual pitches the hitter may see (more fastballs?), or any of the non-quantifiable effects of stolen bases such as the pressure put on the pitcher, the pressure put on the defense, , etc., etc., etc. What BP and the almighty Joe Sheehan have done here is at best perhaps created a "rule of thumb." It does not apply to the more noteworthy basestealers (Podsednik, Crawford, Reyes, Figgins, Freel, etc.) who's effects on the pitcher and defense just by reaching base can completely alter the mood or feeling of a game. This is a good article about basestealing, but honestly, it barely scratches the surface.

I believe pickoffs count as a caught stealing only if the runner breaks for the next base on the throw over. If he attempts to just dive back to the base, I believe it is counted as a pickoff. I also think there is something to the fact that the team has a much better record when Scottie plays, but you also must remember, the games that Scottie sits out also happen to be the games against tough left-handed starters. It probably has more to do with the coincidence that we are playing a Scott Kazmir, or an Eric Bedard, or whomever, then the fact that Scottie isn't playing. As for the idea of adding successful stolen bases to slugging percentage and adjusting it, that's just an idea. Obviously, the fact that getting thrown out should have more of a negative effect than the positive effect of making it safely is something to think about, as well as the fact that slugging percentage is a statistic meant to differentiate power hitters from singles hitters with similar OBP's. It was just a suggestion, but one that I think is a hell of a lot better than the way we currently look at leadoff hitters/basestealers. And yes, I do think the 75% rule is f'ing arbitrary and stupid. Baseball is an amazingly complex game- stop trying to quantify everything into numbers to assign value to it. Accept that there are flat out things that cannot be accurately quantified sometimes. Cease painting every player or situation with the same brush. It cannot be done.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) He is 7 for 21 in July. Before officially proclaiming him "capable with the bat" I'd like to see success over a period longer than 4 or 5 games. Me too...unfortunately Ozzie decides to put Mackowiak in there every other damn game.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 09:54 PM) With all due respect, why do you assume Anderson has a higher ceiling than Rowand. Because Hawk tells us he does? Because Kenny Williams tells us he does? Because he had a decent year in the minors in 2005? Road sides from here to Cooperstown are strewn with the corpses of failed young players that baseball GM's have assured would be impact players. What makes you think Anderson won't join them? I'm willing to concede that the real Brian Anderson might not be a .192 hitter. But I'm also willing to concede that he may be. Well, for 1, Brian is already a better defender than Aaron, so he really doesn't have all that far to go to surpass Aaron. Outside of his 400 or so at bats in 04', Aaron really hasn't brought alot to the table offensively. I think it is pretty clear that unless Brian hits at this rate for the remainder of his career, he has a higher ceiling than Aaron Rowand.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 12, 2006 -> 09:50 PM) Nomo was released about a month ago. Hmm, well, I suppose Shingo would just have to count on meeting up with Tadahito in the City for sushi. They could alternate between Chicago and Arlington Heights.