Jeremy

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 26, 2010 -> 09:44 AM) No. In fact, I've never really been serious about firing Cooper once. Its more of my defense for Greg Walker. I just find it odd that no one ever mentions Cooper when the pitching falls apart, but if guys don't hit, its always on Walker. When the pitching is great, Cooper is the greatest. When the hitting is great, it has nothing to do with Walker. Just last week, Walker was being blamed for Morel, a rookie, swinging at pitches in the dirt. Almost like Walker told him to go up there and swing at everything, and Morel like a robot listening. The only hitter I can remember having a lot more success after he left the White Sox than he did while a White Sox is Swisher, and he didn't work with Walker at all. Hudson looks like a HOFer right now. He's pretty much *always* thrown strikes. His BB/9 was 2.3 heading into this season and then he walked fewer than three batters per nine innings in Charlotte this year. Hawk drove me nuts when Hudson pitched by - as he typically does with young pitchers - disregarding Hudson's minor league track record and assuming he had problems with control and/or challenging hitters because he was walking guys at the major league level. Yeah, his control was abominable on the whole in his three starts with the Sox but the sample size was minuscule. In the long run, you've got to imagine a pitcher will come close to replicating the style - if not the success - he demonstrated in the minors. It would be pretty silly to assume Hudson would walk a lot of guys based solely on those three starts in light of his performance in the minors. Aside from the theory that the Sox base everything on their scouting - which is inevitably often wrong - I don't have much of an explanation for why the team made this trade but I sure hope those three starts for the big league club were taken with the appropriate grain of salt.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 05:19 AM) The only example of a really high priced player coming in from the outside, there are basically two, Rios and Peavy. If you look at the other big/ger contracts, like Jenks, Konerko, Buehrle and AJ, they don't really fit that example. Now you can add Pierre, Linebrink and Teahen (all players who could/should have been replaced by a good farm system) and that starts to show some of the roots of the problem. We also have Quentin, Ramirez, Sale, Santos and Viciedo that are bringing some younger players into the mix. I didn't mean to suggest that the problem is just acquiring players who make eight figures a year. It's a matter of looking at the entire picture and striking the proper balance where you internally develop enough cheap young players that you have the financial flexibility to add veterans when necessary. We saw how the Sox have failed in that regard when they were financially unable to add a quality DH in the off season. The team doesn't have much salary coming off the books in the off season, particularly if Konerko is resigned, so I only expect that problem to become worse. It doesn't matter weather it's, say, five veterans making 17 million each that are driving up the payroll or 15 guys making 5 million a piece; either way, veterans tend to be expensive and create a payroll crunch. I'd say the Sox problem is more of the latter; the problem isn't having too massive deals so much as it is having so very few guys on rookie contracts. QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 06:10 AM) Well, considering that we signed Alexei for basically $1.25 million per year, signed Putz for $3 million, signed our 5th starter for $1 million, traded for Quentin, Danks, Floyd, Thornton, developed Buehrle and traded for Konerko early in his development, and drafted Beckham, I'd say we've done pretty well at identifying talent in FA and in other organizations and acquiring it while the costs are low. Personally, I don't care where these players come from, as long as we are identifying talent and acquiring it when it is affordable. Whether we draft these guys ourselves is irrelevant since we have proven we've been able to acquire them using the resources available to us. I'd still take our core and place it against that of most teams. We just need to get it done on the field. I agree that if we get cheap talent, I don't care how we do it. I'm perfectly content with challenge trades where we deal one young player for another (e.g. McCarthy-for-Danks, Carter-for-Quentin). I applaud deals where we move overpriced veterans for young talent (e.g. Garcia for Floyd). I'm also pleased whenever we supplement our farm system by signing Latin players. I don't even have a problem per se with trading prospects for veterans: sometimes when you have a hole you're badly struggling to fill, you're in a tough playoff race, the veteran salary is very reasonable, and/or the length of the veteran's deal is very reasonable then it's the sensible thing to do. The problem is that to Kenny, trading prospects for veterans seems to almost always be the sensible thing to do. An inordinate number of the trades he makes are of that variety and it shows when you look at how the payroll is constructed: we have the fourth highest median payroll in the majors. It's nice that we have some nice bargains here and there but pretty much all teams have that and some teams have many more bargains than we do. We'd have more if we had more players like Beckham; if we had Hudson for the minimum instead of Jackson for several million.

Yikes, these Jackson over Hudson arguments are embarrassing: Yeah, the same weak league where our new ace Jackson posted an ERA over 5 this season? Arizona has an extreme hitters park and a porous defense, it's not so easy to pitch for that squad. Also, if we're going to discuss the difficulty of the hitters a pitcher is facing, shouldn't we be mentioning that Jackson has pitched exclusively against 28th and 21st best offenses in the majors since joining the Sox? This argument pretty much only works if you evaluate the entire trade based solely on the three (really, two of the three) starts Hudson had for the Sox this season and nothing else either he or Jackson has done in their careers. Is anyone serious willing to defend this approach to evaluating trades and or players? Of course we should consider players' performances prior to a trade - a few weeks is way to soon to judge a trade - but you can't do that by cherry picking a tiny sample size that supports your argument. You also have to look at Hudson's stellar minor league numbers and the fact that Jackson has only had one above average major league season. QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 03:54 PM) Do you realize what an advantage it is to be able to sign players at a relatively low cost that you have a very good idea of what kind of production you are going to get? Do you realize how frustrating and expensive it can be to try and develop and then ultimately live through the growing pains with young prospects? I've been asking this of the guys who complain the loudest about our lack of developing more of our draft choices, and no one seems to want to address it. There is a reason that you can't really point to any sustained success out of these "building philosophy" teams, other than perhaps the Twins, who have yet to win a playoff series under this philosophy - the odds of all these young players clicking together is extremely slim. By the time you can sort out the busts from the studs, the flash in the pan guys from the consistent performers, they reach arbitration and FA and get very expensive very fast. I don't see a lot of players signed at a relatively low cost. We have the 7th highest payroll in baseball, despite gaping holes at multiple positions, because we are paying large salaries to a number of players. The many trades Kenny has made where he ships off prospects making the minimum for well paid vets is a big reason for this. I'm not sure which teams have had success constantly dealing cheap young players for pricey veterans, with the possible exceptions of those with much larger spending power such as the Red Sox and the Yankees. Of those teams, even the Red Sox have placed an emphasis on promoting their draft picks to the big league club with Buchholz, Paplebon, Bard, Ellsbury, Lester, and Pedroia all drafted by Boston since 2002. The only White Sox draft pick from that time period that's contributing in the majors is Beckham.

Wait, if the Sox don't use one of their best prospects as a part-timer that means he's not in their future plans? Huh?!

I apologize if this has been addressed already but why are we in a logical position to acquire Gonzalez? He's a great hitter who's inexpensive for two years but will cost a ton afterward. Seems like it makes the most sense to gut your farm system for him if you're already a 90+ win team, meaning that he has a good shot to help you win a championship in the next two years, or if you're a team who won't have any trouble signing him to a huge extension. We're neither: we look like merely an 85 win team with a chance to make some noise in the AL central and I'm not sure we can be counted on to throw heaps of cash at Gonzalez. Doesn't it make more sense for Gonzalez to get traded to a team like Boston?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 7, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) Generally and historically teams do not want their best players at 2nd base. It's a very high contact/risk position. The Sox have already lost much of their power from last year and with Konerko at the top of the list to provide any kind of major salary relief we could lose even more. Imagine the outcry if, God forbid, we lose Beckham to an injury due to a collision at 2nd base. That's why is so rare to have guys like Utley , Sandberg and Morgan at a position like 2nd base. The fact that great hitters don't often play 2B is pretty indisputable but what's the basis for your rationale that it's because teams don't want to play good players there? In all the years I've been following baseball, this is the first time I've heard anyone claim organizations avoid playing valuable players at 2B due to injury concerns. If second base is so dangerous, why aren't we often talking about all the injuries sustained there each season? I certainly believe that teams prefer to play excellent middle infielders at SS when possible. That explains why Jeter, Hanley Ramirez, ARod, Nomar, Tejada, etc. weren't brought up as second basemen. Players who do end up at 2B seem to end up there either because they don't have the defensive chops to play shortstop (Utley, Pedroia) or they're blocked at SS. There's another obvious reason teams "avoid" playing their best players at 2B: most of the "best players" aren't nearly good enough defensively. For instance, many of the top 10 position players in the AL MVP voting last season - Morneau, Youkilis, Quentin, Hamilton, and Pena - could never play second. The winner did play second base while others might potentially play that position if they didn't already play a more challenging position (Mauer, Sizemore).

I just don't see a ton of upside in buying out his arbitration years, since we retain the rights to him through those years no matter what. Sure, it's beneficial if we work out a good deal that ends up making him more affordable over the long run, so it's alright to make him an offer that's good for the team. However, I don't see any urgency to buy out those years and I'd want to do whatever's possible to minimize the risk, considering his health history. QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes again. Think about this: we go to arb with Quentin and he probably gets like $3M or thereabout. If he has a monster 2010, then he could be looking at $8-10M easily (look at the arb situations for Prince and Howard). Now, if in 2011 he gets hurt and doesn't put up big numbers then he becomes a non-tender OR trade for very little candidate simply because through arbitration we won't be able to cut his salary sufficiently. Giving Carlos an extension that buys out his 3 arb years plus one FA year full of team options with buyouts makes the most sense IMO. The problem is, that's only one possible scenario and hence not a terribly likely one. Furthermore, if CQ is coming off a season where he did nothing, non-tendering him isn't the end of the world.

Beckham is the cornerstone, so I don't see why you'd keep him at a position where his bat doesn't play as well it could elsewhere. That said, I've been struggling to find a good option at third, outside of Figgins, who I don't think we'll pursue too seriously.

He definitely has a shot but with three players also in the mix for the honor, I think you've got to take the field.

The starting rotation looks extremely promising. However, it's hard for me to get terribly excited about next season when in the second half, after we'd assembled the starting lineup that figures to come very close to what we put on the field next season, we were 23rd in runs scored, 26th in batting average, 23rd in on base percentage, and 24th in slugging. This team badly needs to add a few big bats in the off season but probably will not because most of the lineup is set and there doesn't appear to be much money to throw around. On top of that, the bullpen imploded in the second half and needs serious help.

We need to add at least one, preferably two, big bats at the corner spots and DH. Dunn, Johnson, Adam LaRoche, Figgins, Bay. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have the resources in most cases.

I don't really understand the article. Of course the team was legitimately flawed; that's why people expected them to contend to win a weak division and not a strong division or the wild card; that's why people hoped they could pull off 85 wins, not 95 wins. I'm not ready to call the players massive underachievers because I think most people pegged them between 76 and 86 wins and they're on pace to end up on the lower end of that spectrum. I absolutely think they're a disappointment though. Kenny had better not be assembling a $95 million dollar team that's expected to go 77-87. If the author believes that's what happened, I think he should be direct and pointed in his criticism of Kenny.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 07:13 PM) 1. In 9 full seasons Bradley has played 100 games 4 times. He's played over 120 only 3 times. I was responding to your claim that he doesn't hit for enough power to DH, not the durability issue. At no time did I claim that he's durable; if that's one of the top priorities in filling the DH slot, you don't want him or Thome. OBP, i.e. not making outs, is the most valuable quality a hitter can have. Statistically, it's said to be four times more valuable than SLG%. Obviously, fielding is unimportant for a DH. If you have some idea about a potential DH who hits well, runs the bases well, hits for power, has great durability, and comes cheap, then I'm all ears; to me that sounds like a very highly paid player. So far the only option you've named is Thome, who doesn't run well, isn't durable, and has little time left in his career; he's a solid option but the idea that he dwarfs Bradley is silly. Erstad "lit the world on fire" once, nine years ago so that's a rather inapt comparison. Even if you throw out last season entirely, Bradley isn't a poor power hitter. A .450 slugging percentage is perfectly fine; right now Beckham has the second highest SLG% of any of our regulars at .453. If a .375 OBP and a .450 SLG% is completely unacceptable production from our DH, you're setting a very high bar and I'm curious about how you propose to meet it with what appear to be limited resources. I picked 2005 for a very specific reason and it wasn't that Thome played poorly: his body failed him and it resulted in a ton of missed games and horrific production. It's not remotely unfathomable that the same thing could happen to when he'll be turning 40 and it's clear that his body is not holding up well. Believing that a 39 year old who can barely run the bases because his back is so screwed up is a lock to maintain his performance for two more years is insanity. The idea that Bradley can't hold a candle to Thome in any regard is just embarrassing, biased hyperbole on your part. Thome does have a substantial edge in OPS but this happens to be Bradley's worst offensive season in the last seven. It's laughable to think that Bradley can't run the bases better than Thome or that he's not "withing 50 miles of Thome's jockstrap" in positive categories like hitting for average (.257 to Thome's .246) or getting on base (.378 to Thome's .372). Age really is just a number to you, eh? First Thome's decrepit body is no concern and now Linebrink is going to become healthier and more effective than he's been in at least a year as he approaches his 34th birthday? If Bradley's making $2 million (from the Sox) and posting by far the worst numbers of his career, you can just cut him; finding a way to "get rid of him" isn't a serious concern. The reason to expect improvement isn't because of a trade, it's because he's slugging 53 points below his career average for no apparent reason and he's still young enough that you'd expect him to bounce back. The reason to have some optimism about his health is that someone who plays half as much (because he's DHing) shouldn't get injured as often. Clearly he's a flawed player but you can't acquire a DH for $2 million who's not; the only alternative you've named carries a huge risk that you want to ignore based purely on unbridled optimism. Obviously, you have some personal distaste for Bradley because he doesn't receive one iota of that optimism (in contrast, he's getting off to a a putrid start next season and then having a huge blow-up) and believe he sucks even though the numbers conclusively demonstrate that he can hit.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) The difference is, AJ was a Major League catcher, which we needed. Carl Everett (the second time) was our DH, which we needed because Frank was out. Floyd was a young SP, which we needed. Jenks was a young, cheap power arm, which we needed. I don't see any hole on this club that Milton Bradley would fill other than DH, because we certainly wouldn't want him in the OF, Yep, he's pretty clearly a DH and it wouldn't make sense to sign him if he couldn't effectively fill that role for us. Because a player's previous season is by no means perfectly reflective of how he'll perform the next season and Bradley has slugged .545, .563, and .501 in some previous years? Because in his career he's slugged .537 when relieved of the duty of playing the field? Because we're currently 19th in the league in OBP and his OBP is 20 points higher than anyone on the team? Thome at $2 or $3 million would be a very fine option; that doesn't mean Bradley at a similar salary would not also be a good option. Thome's downside is pretty obvious: he'll turn 40 next season and his body is starting to seriously fail him. He might hold up well enough to DH for another year and have a season comparable to this one but he might instead see a serious decrease in productivity or games played due to his health. In the one season where Bradley primarily played DH, he played in 126 games. I'd put Thome's over/under for games played somewhere in that vicinity for next season. Thome's been missing an average of over 20 games a season lately as it is and you can't expect him to be every bit as healthy at 40 as he was at 37. Linebrink isn't really the one to compare him to, it's whoever plays DH instead, because someone has to fill that role. If Thome has a season like his '05 and we're paying him something comparable to what we're paying Bradley, we'd be every bit as obligated to keep him in the lineup, no? C'mon, how high are the odds of Linebrink developing into a serious trade chip? I mean they're not non-existent but they're way too small to justify scuttling a deal for someone who can play a decent DH for us next season and help us in the OBP department in the process. It seems as though maybe you didn't read the OP, which said that the Cubs could be expected to pay 80% of Bradley's salary. In that case, I don't see how his large contract is relevant from the Sox's perspective. As far as his attitude, I don't know why you'd continue to bring it up after you conceded that it shouldn't be a deal breaker if you can get a reasonably productive player who fills a need. Bottom line: if Bradley comes cheap and can hit, acquiring him for the DH slot should be considered.

Yes!!! This is the first genuinely smart decision Ozzie has made in a while.

Ozzie is all about putting his young players in the best possible position to succeed, eh?

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 07:14 PM) Are you f***ing kidding me with having Flowers bunt? I wasn't sure any manager could be so stupid.

Strikes me as a no-lose situation considering how terrible Jose has been lately. Worst case scenario is that we give Hudson a shot and he shows his inexperience. Best case scenario is that Peavy is ready and pitches well. Really, what do we have to lose?

Josh is up to .302/.380/.556 so I guess this thread was every bit as premature as it seemed when it was started.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 11:06 PM) I can't believe no one has listed this trade yet: El Duque, Rocky Biddle and Jeff Liefer for Bartolo Colon. KW completely fleeced Minaya with this trade. Definitely one of his best. Certainly a great deal but when you look at it in context, I wouldn't say that Minaya was fleeced. A number of teams were giving away players that off season due to the financial climate - Millwood was also traded for a bag of balls - so I think Minaya knew he wasn't getting much in the way of talent.

QUOTE (chisoxpride2 @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) If you could somehow add a player similar to the likes of chone figgins... sexy kinda Why not Figgins himself? He's a free agent this off season. 3B Figgins 2B Beckham RF Dye DH Thome 1B Konerko LF CQ CF Rios C AJ SS Alexei The biggest problem I can see is that it might be too expensive, though you could always replace Thome or Dye with someone cheaper.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 04:33 PM) Looking back, the Ritchie trade is a wash. Wells is mediocre and not much of a loss. Everyone else never played that well anyway. Wha??? You're evaluating the trade based solely on the current contributions of the players involved, seven years later? Here's a little history lesson for you: Wells in 2002: 198 IP, 3.58 ERA, 118 ERA+ Ritchie in 2002: 133 IP, 15 losses, 6.06 ERA, 74 ERA+ Wells was even better in '03, when he posted a 3.28 ERA. That same season we finished just four games back of the Twins and the fifth starter's spot was a huge albatross for the team. Ritchie was so horrible that we had non-tendered him by then and he would only pitch about 30 more major league innings in his career. In other words, that trade arguably cost us a playoff appearance. Calling the deal "a wash," couldn't describe it much less accurately.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) Did Barcelo ever actually have it? I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't remember much about him. Just that he was tall. He was pretty good when healthy, he just had a lot of arm problems.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 05:03 AM) In my mind, Josh is at a disadvantage because at his best, he shares a similar skillset as several of our other players. He is almost too redundant and unnecessary. At his worst, he is almost impossible to place in a major league lineup because he does not make contact nearly enough. On the other hand, Getz possesses a different skillset from most of the rest of our roster, and thus, even when he is scuffling a bit, he is capable of doing a few things that our other players, for the most part, cannot. That probably creates a bit more breathing room for him in terms of his performance. IMO, people tend to overstate the importance of strikeouts (or the lack thereof ) for hitter. I also think you're overstating the extent to which Fields resembles other players on the roster (I assume you're referring to Dye, Paully, Thome, etc.) because unlike our other sluggers he can run relatively well. That said, if the argument is simply that Getz should have been the guy because he best diversifies the roster, that's a fair argument - just not one I've seen in the past few pages of this thread. Seems unfair to Josh to speculate that the reason he got demoted is that he didn't work well with the coaching staff; by all accounts, he's a pretty good guy. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Clearly with the way Beckham and Getz have played, the White Sox choosing to give them playing time over Fields was the correct choice. I really don't understand your argument. "Anyone who insists that Fields wouldn't have improved in June and July is wrong because...we just don't know." Would that also work for anyone who insists Corky Miller wouldn't have been an All Star catcher if the White Sox hadn't sent him down? No, because that's an absurdly extreme example. No one objective and open minded believes the chances of Josh Fields making some adjustments and hitting better than terribly at the major league level - something he's done in the past - is just as likely as a career minor league becoming an All-Star. Fields didn't get this far because of where he was drafted. It's because he consistently earned a spot as one of the team's top prospects by hitting a strong .275/.359/.459 in the minors and then showed he could have success at the major league level by hitting .244/.308/.480 as a rookie and, as you mentioned, earning votes for the rookie of the year award despite receiving just over 270 at bats. Getz, by comparison, failed to match Fields' minor league performance. QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) There was no hindsight involved when I bumped this thread. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, and this can be seen in my comments earlier in the thread. There was never any Fields vs. Getz competition, only a hypothetical in the OP's mind. The two players were in totally different situations and were not comparable. It didn't take much forethought to look at Fields and Getz, see their numbers falling (Fields's numbers were never actually that great early on, actually), and see the difference between the two. At this stage in his career, after all the talk of 2007 and the fact that he's had 300-something PAs already, Fields should be close to a finished product. Instead, he's regressed, a lot, and has never adjusted to his weaknesses. Getz was getting his full-time play in the majors, started hot, and pitchers adjusted to him. This thread was started at around Getz's lowest point, while Getz was still trying to adjust. Nobody's claiming to predict Getz being on fire right now, but one doesn't have to be Nostradamus to say "Getz stands a good chance of improving here, let him get through this". Hey, I'll give you credit for recognizing that Getz could turn it around. However, as you admit you didn't come close to predicting that he'd hit .360 over a month and it remains to be seen whether or not Fields can make improvements, so I disagree somewhat with bumping the thread and claiming vindication. Bump the thread and pat yourself on the back in 500 at bats or so if Fields continues his downward spiral.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 03:40 AM) So what you are suggesting is that we move Gordon Beckham to 2b, now that we have FORCED him to play a position he has NEVER before played in his life, one that he finally is displaying some competency in, and no doubt finally gaining some confidence in, JUST so we can give Josh the OPPORTUNITY to rebound like Chris Getz did, on the mere CHANCE that he may be able to repeat what Getz did, DESPITE the fact that Josh has had PLENTY of opportunities to this point and has CONSISTENTLY FAILED to show EITHER the willingness or the ABILITY to shorten his swing so that he might make contact with a MEDIOCRE major league fastball? Sorry, not buying it. C'mon, you're perfectly capable of reading my posts, including the one that preceded this one: Point #1: Anyone who claims they knew Getz was going to hit .324 in July or .340 after the ASB (notably, in just 47 at bats) is full of it. Point #2: Anyone who insists that Fields wouldn't have improved in June and July is wrong because...we just don't know. Some fans seem to show a strong preference for players that are new to the major league club over players with more experience. To some extent, it's worth remembering that Fields hit .275/.359/.458 in the minors and was a first round pick whereas Getz hit .286/.361/.381 and was drafted in the 5th round. Furthermore, Fields previously showed that he's capable of holding his own in the majors when he put up solid numbers and finished 7th in ROY voting back in '07. Obviously he struggled mightily in '08 and didn't get off to a very good start this season but when people complain about a player to this degree it sounds more like frustration than levelheaded evaluation. Point #3: Gordon had spent very little time at 3B when we called him up and had spent most of his formative years as a middle infielder. The idea that he had to play 3B and couldn't play any 2B at that point makes little sense.