Jeremy

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Jun 23, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) I am not very familiar with the compensation pick system. If we were to lose Buerhle and Dye, how many picks would we receive and would they be 1st rounders or "sandwich" picks? How does it work? I suspect both qualify as Class A free agents, meaning that if we offer them arbitration and they sign with another team we get a first rounder and a sandwich pick. However, if the team's first round pick is in the top 10 or 15 spots, we'd get a second rounder instead.

Gio is our best pitching prospect and is having the best season of any of our minor league pitchers, even after taking level into account so it's a no brainer for me.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 2, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) I know EVERYBODY has thoughts on how to fix this, post them here. Ok, my idea won't fix anything, but at least it might help. Call up Prinz, Bukvich, Vasquez Send down MacDougal, Aardsma, and Day Owens in CF hitting leadoff everyday, platoon Terrero and Mackowiak in LF. Find a way to get Crede to go away, and put Fields at 3B. Let Masset pitch more out of the bullpen, and don't do anything nuts like call up Gio when he's not ready, same for Broadway (although they are way different guys). Ok, your turn. Gio and Egbert are pitching so much better than someone like Prinz that I don't think it'd be so crazy to give them a shot in the pen.

This is the smartest thing the team has done with the outfield in a long time. Burrying a 25 year old player who was a high level prospect a year ago on the bench was unconscionable. I still have no idea why KW and Ozzie thought it was an acceptable decision. Even if we lose an extra game or so because Terrero is a poor backup, we're still better off in the long term by trying to salvage things with BA. QUOTE(striker62704 @ Apr 29, 2007 -> 04:10 PM) I know we could really use Young and his .192 batting average. Man, imagine him and Jeremy Reed batting back to back. Wow. I'm pretty amazed by the complete disregard of sample sizes in this thread. Anderson is a bust because he's had 400 poor major league at bats? Take a look at Paully's first 400 major league at bats. It's not pretty but he turned out pretty well because two teams gave up on him when his value was at its lowest. Here's hoping we don't make the same mistake with Anderson. Even worse is forming conclusions based on less than 100 plate appearances or in the case of BA 19 (!). Let's look back at Konerko. He's hitting below .200. Does that mean we should cut him because the season's lost? I'd say not so I would form conclusions about BA, Young, BMac, or anyone else based solely on this season.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 11:04 AM) Apparently you haven't watched any of the last six games. The ball in KC of Meche was a line drive up the middle, hit as hard as any ball this season. He also ripped a double down the right field line on Tuesday night and then his double last night, which apparently was lightly hit as well. The problem is that he's still slugging a paltry .321 and hasn't topped .400 in any of the last six seasons. He can hit around 30 doubles and a few home runs but when you don't hit for average or take walks that's just not good enough.

I just think it's going to be too much money and too many years. Reinsdorf doesn't like to go more than three years for pitchers and if Buehrle's agent is worth anything he'll be asking for something comparable to the seven years that Zito got. I think Reinsdorf may be more sentimental than people realize and would stretch his principles a little bit to re-ink Mark but there's just too big of a gap between three years and six years. The shame in all this is that Mark's value was at an all time low in the offseason and something like four years at $13 might've gotten things done but Kenny had a huge chip on his shoulder about the exploding free agent market. Now, assuming Buehrle puts up his typical year, if we're going to match another team's offer I think we're going to need to come up with more like six years at $15 or 16 million and I can't see that happening.

Baseball Prospectus' Rany Jazayerli has an excellent, lengthy, free article on Charlie Haeger today. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6068

Is this team just completely incapable of learning from its mistakes? The Boone Logan experiment wasn't exactly a huge success last season. The track record of teams falling in love with players based on a several weeks in the thin Arizona air is quite poor. I entered the spring believing that Haeger is the organization's fifth best starter and that Sweeney and Fields are two of our four best oufielders and my opinion hasn't changed.

I very much appreciate the rationale of extending Vazquez while his value is artificially low. It's a good way to sign someone at a bargainand I'm pleased that Kenny recognizes that he's likely to pitch better than he has the past few seasons. The problem in my mind is that there are no bargains in this market. I suppose I would have waited until next offseason to see if any of the young pitchers establish themselves or the market comes back to earth. The move reaks of desperation if you ask me. Kenny knew he couldn't get any of the other pitchers to sign a slightly below market short term deal and didn't want to go into '09 without any of the current starters so he paid the guy that would be easiest to sign. Personally, I agree that Buehrle has an outside HOF shot and would've rather signed him right now while his value has dipped a bit. I'd rather pay $15 or even $17 million for a guy who figures to be great than one who figures to be merely above average or perhaps good. The only problem is I wouldn't want to go much more than four years with Buehrle. I do commend the Sox organization again for refusing to give pitchers 5-6 year deals.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 21, 2007 -> 01:41 AM) As much as I hate the idea, it's up to Anderson not to provide Guillen with an excuse to limit AB's. Play baseball without the entire sucking part and such decisions won't be necessary. Unless, of course, Guillen begins to play favorites; in which case may God help us. My concern is that the article talks as though Erstad has already been handed the starting CF job (or at least has the inside track). If he ends up with ABs because neither Sweeney nor Anderson can get the job done that's one thing but if Anderson has to win his job back from Erstad, I don't like where this is headed.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 24, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) Caught the tail end of it. What caught me is Hahn talking about the leadoff hitter. He basically said, "While it's not traditional, we are just looking for someone to get on base. If you can be disruptive on the basepaths like Pods is when healthy, thats a bonus, but just get on base, thats what we are looking for." I have been preaching that forever, and I'm glad some in the organization are saying the same things. Hopefully Ozzie will start to think that way... I agree wholeheartedly. It gets even better, I don't have a link or anything, but I seem to remember a similar quote attributed to Ozzie a month or two back. What bothers me is the organizations obsession with Pods' "lead off skills" strikes me as the only rational explanation for why he was resigned. If the team is completely open to letting Tad hit leadoff then why not just put Fields in left?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 19, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) Interesting note on Grilli ... I saw a Detroit columnist refer to Grilli as one of a number of "on the cusp" young pitchers in the Tigers organization. Wow. Being "young" and "on the cusp" at the age of 30 is rather impressive.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) 2. If KW had done a better job of drafting pitchers the last 6 years, do you think he'd still trade McCarthy? I mean the Sox haven't done a good job at all of this. Broadway is a #4 guy at best. Haegaer may bebeen the best of what was in the minors for the 2006 Sox and I'm not quite ready to anoint him a pitching savior. Personally, I don't view drafting as the problem. The drafts haven't been great but BMac, Young, and Reed were all elite prospects at one point in time. In my opinion Kenny's biggest problem has been his fixation with good but not great prospects like Sweeney and Floyd that has encouraged him to trade away players like McCarthy and Young.

QUOTE(J-MAN @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) AMEN! I couldn't have said it better! Kenny Williams has been right more often than not. My vote is Kenny and Coop saw something in B-Mac they didn't like and a chance to pick up potential. Kenny was a big part in bringing the only World Series winner to the South Side in my lifetime I would trust his judgement over the vast majority of the people on this board who never played the game and don't see these athletes on a daily basis. I can't wait to see these guys after they work with Cooper. Another thing that makes me extremely optimistic is the clubhouse atmosphere that is forming. I don't know how many of you read Bobby Jenks comments on how he can't wait to work together with these guys. I've seen this view a lot. I agree that Kenny and Coop in particular deserve some benefit of the doubt considering the success they've had up to this point. That said, I'm not willing to react to every move the Sox make by saying "Well, we'll just have to see what happens. Kenny knows what's best." You're right that he's suceeded more often than not but he's still made his share of mistakes. While I will never have access to the amount of information that he does, I feel that I follow baseball closely enough to form an opinion on transactions. I'm willing to stand by my opinions even when met with some scorn (I'd still defend my criticism of the Garcia since we likely could've signed him without the trade).

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 11:51 PM) Danks supposedly has a better curve, fastball, and his best pitch is his changeup, im pretty happy about that. Intruiging. Is that based on a scouting report that compares the two or grading of the pitches? I certainly don't doubt that Danks fastball is a better pitch. Is the fact that his change is his best pitch supposed to indicate it's better than BMac's change or not? I've seen some indications that the scouting community might favor Danks (I think he outranked BMac's peak ranking on BA's top 100 prospects list last year) so it wouldn't shock me. I guess some of my resistance there is that I have learned to approach BA's scouting reports with some skepticism over the years. I'd be interested to see a link to anything you're referring to though.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 26, 2006 -> 12:56 AM) That would mean he would have been the White Sox best pitcher this year or next year. How many pitchers even make the all star game, and when is the last one to come from Texas? B-Mac first needs to pitch with a sub 4.0 era for an entire season. Honestly, the second reason I objected to the Vazquez trade last season (in addition to parting with Young) was that as much as a value rotation depth, I thought it was entirely possible that McCarthy would post the best ERA on the staff. Obviously that outlook hadn't changed any this season. It'll be interesting to see if BMac can come within striking distance of our best pitcher.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 05:11 PM) Balta's perspective is the positive one. Others, like myself, believe him to be a fair pitching prospect with a ceiling of #3 who might be a number two but is not an Ace. He'll give up a lot of homeruns because that's what he's always done, and that's his achilles heel so far in his career. On personal notes, he has a teddy bear that he lugs around everywhere. You're likely to hear him yukking it up on the radio about it. And he does a lot of interviews. Personally, I think the Rangers got hosed. I'll just add that while the longball concerns aren't unfounded but in my eyes, this type of scouting report emphsizes a narrow conception of stuff. McCarthy's fastball is nothing to write home about but he does throw two plus pitches and his control is impeccable. BMac's repatoire might not be particularly sexy but in my opinion rates of 7 Ks per 9 IP in the majors and 10 K/9 in the minors belie the claim that his ceiling is that of a number three pitcher.

QUOTE(gosox41 @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) He may not be Top 100 and I haven't seen him pitch to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean he can't be a very good reliever. I have to trust KW, his scouts, and Coop on this one. High rankings are nice, but not every major leaguer was a top 100 prospect, especially when it comes to middle relievers. If minor league rankings meant success, then I must have missed all the victories Rauch and Ruffcorn got the Sox over the years. Bob Certainly being a highly touted prospect is not a prerequisite for success. I was simply addressing the description of Massett as a "top notch prospect" since I feel he's getting larger billing amongst Sox fans than he would from most partial observers. I'm glad you mentioned our scouts because I think scouting has played an enourmous role in our offseason moves. With the acquisition of Floyd, Kenny's "we'll continue to scout the players and not the numbers" comment, and his apparent preference for Danks over McCarthy, it appears we're weighing scouting reports as heavily as any team in the majors. Every team relies on scouts and trusts in their scouts' opinions, but a scout can only be so much more skilled than your average scout or the scouts would be making millions instead of the players. Consider it one of many reasons it will be fascinating to see how these moves turn out.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 12:54 AM) He's rising based on his Mexican League performance. Definitely. The Mexican League performance is exciting. I still don't think he cracks a top 100 though and I'd say you need to be in the top 30 or so to be considered "top notch" or elite.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 25, 2006 -> 12:25 AM) Phil Arivia joins the hate crew Now as mad as I am about bmac going, I understand what Massett and Danks are. Top of the line prospects. Maybe some of the morons out in the media should actually learn a thing or two about not to rely on certain numbers like ERA and ERA only. Like how many of the media realize that Danks has 2 variations on his curve. One that bites more that the Rangers havent really let him let loose with yet. I don't think that's entirely true. Massett was only rated the 8th best prospect in the Rangers' system. He's an exciting relief prospect but he's not one of the top 100 prospects in baseball most likely so it's tough to refer to him as "top of the line."

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) Danks>Mac, bottom line. Just to clarify, the basis for this is entirely the fact that Danks is lefthanded and a couple of scouting reports, right? I haven't been able to figure out any additional advantages Danks has over BMac. BMac gave up fewer homeruns and walks while striking out more batters with a lower WHIP and ERA in the minors. He reached the majors at 21 which is Danks' current age. The one pervasive argument I've heard in support of Danks is that he has the better stuff which allows him to project as a #1 whereas BMac projects as a #3. It just doesn't add up to me though that a guy who struck out over 10 batters per nine innings in the minors has mediocre stuff that limits his ceiling.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 11:23 AM) I dont mind the deal, but for the fact that our outfield is still god-awful in left and center. But what concerns me here are Kenny's statements that he had been scouting Danks and Masset since June; they were the crown jewels that he was intent on getting for our system. Kenny seems to have done this for a number of different prospects and every day major leaguers now, from Vazquez to Thornton, and I am wondering what others think about this strategy. I'm convinced that if you spend enough time focusing on one player, you will end up overvaluing that player, much the way that we tend to overvalue our own prospects. Is the obsession with Danks a good thing, or does it blind Kenny and prevent him from seeing far better options that may be out there, especially in the outfield? Fantastic post. I've been asking the exact same questions. It's hard to tell exactly what Kenny means when he mentions how there are a handful of players he would consider dealing for in trades who his scouts have been watching for months. My fear is that he is only considering deals for a select group of predetermined prospects. This seems problematic since presumably one would maximize returns in a trade by being open to trading for any prospect in any system. Furthermore, you raise a great point: if your scouts have watched a player for months and become fond of him, might you lose sight of that player's market value?