Disco72

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 03:20 AM) Not even close. While Wells and Fogg aren't doing much any more, they're both still in the league, and at least both had a couple solid seasons, which could have helped us a lot in 2002 through 2004. Agreed - while neither Wells or Fogg became studs, they were serviceable starters. Wells, especially, could have been a legitimate #4 or #5 in the AL during a time where the Sox really needed a decent starter.

Just to clear something up - Ozzie never said Thome would bat 5th against lefties. I'm trying to find the Tribune article which said that (I can't find it in the archives). The day AFTER the Trib posted the "Thome to bat 5th vs lefties" article, an article stated that Ozzie never discussed that with Thome and that Thome would stay at #3.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) It's something KW had to do to basically revitalize this team. I think everyone saw last season we had an "aging core". Thome, Konerko, Dye etc. all over 30, Contreras in the rotation etc. So we need some young guys who are on the up-swing, while those guys I mentioned before will be on the down-swing to balance things out. The Swisher acquisition for example. I guess for me, I'm just a little annoyed that we're not seeing Richar at 2nd, and Fields should argubly be playing 3rd (but he's not for other reasons). So the Sox could be getting even younger (and argubly getting better not worse, but they don't think that), and I think fans get a little dissappointed with those type of excuses. It is risky, but if the Sox want to jump up the standings, it's the type of thing they need to do. Some debate - we agree on most everything on this! I like the mix of young and experienced this year - it is a necessity if the Sox want to avoid a prolonged rebuilding. I'm getting increasingly worried about Dye (and I'm usually one of his supporters), but I also think we'll see some more youth (Fields, Richar, etc) as the season progresses.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 07:50 AM) Shocking how many people thought Masset, despite how brutal he was last year, was worth keeping. Many thought he could be a viable starting pitcher, of course it was based on one game in 45 degree weather with the wind howling in. I too, believe there's a decent chance Masset could clear waivers but I really don't think that's the issue. The White Sox need a lamb. Wasserman can't go 3 innings or 4 innings in 3 days. They tried to stretch Thornton recently, but saw that probably wouldn't be a good idea. Wasserman didn't lose a competition with Masset. His being sent down has a lot more to do with Danks and Floyd not being relied on to give you consistent innings and the fact that the bullpen is loaded with 1 inning guys. Maybe they send Wasserman down and have him work on getting stretched out, or leave him as is and if there is an injury or poor performance he can come up. This has everything to do with Masset being able to give you multiple innings, maybe not quality innings, probably not quality innings, but they need someone who could save a couple of guys some days, and Masset was that guy by default. I totally agree with DA. Masset will be used for mop-up on days where one of our starters totally craps his pants. If Masset gets into winnable games, then I'll be upset. The Sox don't need a 'long' man on winnable games because the deep bullpen can go 4-5 guys deep of one inning each if a starter performs well but has to leave a little early. Even then, I think this is Masset's last chance. If he pitches like he did last year, he's gone.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) Well I mean there's lots of ways you can look at that, and it's a really interesting subject, and the one I probably most enjoy discussing about actually. I mean with young players, how much lee-way do you give them if they're a starter. Do you bench em if they produce like Brian Anderson did in his 1st season? Should the Sox have made a change before then? Did BA deserve another opportunity sooner? Because obviously you want GOOD young players, but I'd say the % rate of players who can produce straight away from being up from the minors would be quite low of course, probably around 15-20% maybe? And that's why someone such as a Josh Fields could have been so valuable, because he would have been a building block at 3rd, but the Sox already had a guy there that they couldn't trade, and are stuck with him for the moment paying him 5.1M. And with some players, they just take a while before things click. And you can't just have all veteran players on your team making more than the minimum, otherwise you'd end up with a huge payroll. And the Red Sox had some really good young players last season of course. The 2 players I'm most looking forward to seeing this season from your group this season are Ramirez and Quentin. Right now, I don't think anyone can accurately predict what they're going to do (although I'd say Quentin if given regular AB's is capable of a .800-.850 OPS). I agree, it's a really interesting topic. Ideally, you bring one or two young guys along with a veteran, experienced team. The Sox tried that with Anderson in 2006, and it didn't work (we'll ignore the discussion of why it didn't work). The other extreme is the 'luxury' of being a team that does not plan on competing - you can let the guys go out and play and see what happens. I don't like that extreme as I think rebuilding programs are pretty risky. The Sox are in an odd no-man's land this year. They have to develop some young players because they can't spend much more than they are now, but it is almost impossible to compete in the AL right now without a stacked lineup. As much as KW is trying to "win now" (and I think he means it), he is also trying to find out if some of these younger guys can play. It is also a risky move - I hope it pays off.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 07:26 PM) Looks like the scouting report is out on A-Ram... ...and it's pretty accurate and effective.

The problem with cheap, young players is that not all of them can actually play. Hopefully, after this year, we'll know if young pitchers like Floyd and Danks can compete and if other guys like Fields, Anderson, Quentin, Owens, Rameriz, Richar, etc. can also play (or continue playing) well at a major league level. If the answer is yes, that opens up a ton of options for the Sox. However, some of them are more than likely going to fail.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2008 -> 05:58 PM) Jerry Reinsdorf is still cheap and nothing will ever convince me otherwise. Why isn't AROD at 3rd!!!!! Crede is too clutch.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Mar 28, 2008 -> 05:36 PM) I liked getting Freddy but thought KW gave up too much, in particular Olivo. For some reason, Ozzie did not care for Olivo and to be honest, his career really never blossomed the way I thought it would. Maybe there were reasons that Ozzie and the Sox thought Olivo wouldn't blossom? Olivo was pretty well hyped though. I remember reading articles that compared him to Victor Martinez.

With players willing to go all-or-nothing to get the absolutely highest payday in free agency, its hard to believe that many wouldn't use PEDs if it helped accomplish that goal. While there is no 1:1 correlation between the two, the mitigating factors like ethics are impossible to know. I guess my point is that players that seek the highest payday may be more likely to be perceived as potential PED users. Maggs fits into that category. I have no idea if he did or not but was very disappointed in how his tenure with the Sox ended.

Trading Cameron for Paulie has to be among the best.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 10:02 PM) uckfae ouyae. When it is 95 and 90% humidity from April to August, you'll have your revenge.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) Correction - its THUNDER snowing. 75 and sunny today in Atlanta.

86-89 wins - offense is much better, starting pitching a little better than last year, and the bullpen is good but not transcendent.

I'm not a huge fan of Masset, but he's the last guy out of the pen. Hopefully, he'll only be needed for mop-up duty, and it is silly to think we won't need some mop-up given the rotation. I'm optimistic about the 3-4-5, but each of them will still struggle at times. The Sox have some good talent in the bullpen but have a real problem with guys who have had injuries or are not effective for more than an inning. Not having a long guy is a problem waiting to happen. If Masset sucks, bring up Haeger or Broadway to fill that role. It doesn't make sense to waste our "good" bullpen guys in blowouts, and there are going to be some bad days in my opinion.

QUOTE(The Beast @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) I just am curious about the makeup 25-man roster and if KW keeps Masset over Wassermann, which potentially could be a truly stupid move. If the Sox keep Wasserman (who I like, by the way), just wait until one of Count/Floyd/Danks goes 2-3 innings and/or the game goes into extras and Ozzie has to destroy one of his "one inning" guys (pretty much the rest of the pen) like he did Vizcaino in 2005. I'm sure people will find it pretty stupid that we don't have an innings eater to take those innings.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) Not according to their website: http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/team/dept...ex.jsp?c_id=ana Garland was listed 3rd. The Angels don't look so tough in the West now with that rotation.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) With Lackey hurt as well, Garland is now their #1. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-angrep...,1,340320.story So what's their rotation now until Lackey comes back...Garland, Weaver, Saunders, Santana, Moseley? Maybe Weaver will be their #1. Suddenly, the Angels look very beatable in the AL West.

QUOTE(max power @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 03:48 PM) What we should be comparing is what they had going into 2005, not what they had in 2005. ERAs in 2004 of B-le, Garcia, Garland, Count, and Duque: 3.89, 3.81, 4.89, 5.53, 3.30 (in only 84.2 innings). ERAs in 2007 of B-le, Vaz, Floyd, Count, and Danks: 3.63, 3.74, 5.27, 5.57, 5.50 (Floyd: 70IP, Danks: 139IP) EDIT: added 2007 stats

That 1994 team was fantastic....probably better than the 2005 Sox, but that's an argument I'm not sure I want to start! I remember sitting in a hotel with my Dad in to visit during my freshman year of college to watch the 1993 playoffs (yep, old guy alert). One argument I will start is that these "failed dynasties" are great examples of why the game is played on a diamond, not on paper. All those teams were supposed to be transcendent...and look what happened. Things can go wrong in a hurry.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 11:09 AM) agreed. i've seen a lot of bad white sox baseball in my life, thankfully not as often in the last 10 years as in the first 25. I think it was those 80s teams that make me so against a rebuliding program. It just isn't easy to fill an entire roster with good players. Other teams have failed at it, and I remember the Sox failing at it.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) i do agree that the sox improved significantly in the offseason. but, did they improve enough to overcome two of the best teams in baseball who are both in their division? i don't think they did, although i would be happy to be proven wrong on that. some of the other stuff, to me, is just people complaining because they like to complain. That is another question - and one that can only be answered over 162 games. Clearly, on paper, the Sox are, at best, the third team in the division. Like others have said, it really depends on the 3-4-5 starters. An optimist would see that Count's split finger looked like it used to, Floyd showed some talent at the end of last year, and that Danks should be better in his second season. I really don't know if any of that is true, but I like to be optimistic heading into a season. Then again, after living through those terrible 80s teams, I like having a competitive team to root for!

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 10:46 AM) Great post. -Fields is cheaper and better than Crede both now and in the future, yet Crede is starting. -Phillips is cheaper and better than Hall both now and probably in the short-term future at least, yet Hall is the back-up. -Ramirez is cheaper and better than Uribe both now and in the future, yet Uribe is starting. -Quentin is just as cheap as Owens and is better both now and in the future, yet Owens is ahead of him on the depth chart. -Anderson is just as cheap as Owens and is better both now and in the future, yet Owens is ahead of him on the depth chart. -Richar is cheaper and better than Uribe both now and in the future, but because of his injury he cannot make the team. That's fine. But... -Bourgeois is also cheaper than Uribe, he also gives better AB's than Uribe, and while his defense is a drop-off from Juan, his speed and versatility off the bench make him more of a long-term benefit than Uribe. I'm not going to re-start the Crede vs Fields debate, but Ramirez and Bourgeois have never played a single AB in the majors, so we actually do not know that they are better than the guys you claim they are better than. Phillips is nearly 31-year old catcher with a career OPS of .635 over four seasons with the Royals. Hall has a .673 career OPS over a nine year career where he has been good enough to be a starter. If he's healthy, you might call him and Phillips equivalent players, but you can't say Phillips is clearly better. Quentin (.742 career OPS) is going to get a chance (it appears) to show he's healthy and productive with Owens injured. Anderson (career .632 OPS) will also get that chance (by the way, Owens career OPS of .639 is slightly better than Andersons). For the record, I'm with the group that hopes that Anderson and Quentin prove themselves to be very good major league players and Owens can be the speed guy off the bench. There are so many definitive statements being made these last few days about who is better than whom that it is starting to make my head spin. I'd rather see who performs when the opening bell rings. EDIT: Princess, you beat me to some of this...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 10:33 AM) I guess I'm the only one who thinks it was a pretty good offseason, when you look at the end result. The 3/31 roster will be a huge improvement over last year's team. That's what I wanted, that's what we got. Sure, it would have been better to trade Crede for a good prospect - but that is beyond the team's control. Uribe at 2B is less than ideal, but, Richar and Ramirez are right behind him if he fails. And the OF is pretty well loaded with talent now, though one hopes that Quentin and Anderson can play well enough to keep Owens in a backup role of some sort. My only major concerns are Contreras, Danks and Floyd in that order of concern, and having Toby Hall as the backup C. The other stuff - who starts at 2B, how CF will shake out, who they choose for the 7th bullpen spot - are relatively minor concerns. I agree that the Sox had a pretty good offseason. Frankly, I think all the Sox have more talent at positions than they need, which is a good thing after some of the players that got on the field last year. If Crede fails, Fields comes up. If Uribe fails, Ramirez or Richar comes in. As for too much outfield talent, raise your hand if you thought Brian Anderson AND Jerry Owens would have very good Springs like they did. Either or both could still fail in the majors, so we don't really know if the Sox really have too many OFers. However, already Owens is injured, but the Sox don't have to worry about playing Luis Terrero out there because we have legitimate players to play the OF in the case of injury, unlike last year. Finally, about "forcing" Swish into CF...he played there last year for OAK, so I this isn't a Mackowiak situation. I haven't seen a single person that watched ST games say he looked bad out there. Top to bottom, this is a much improved lineup over what was out there most of last season.

I would hope there would be more than just clicking on the link as the article implies for someone to get 'raided.' If it led you to a website and you had to "click here to enter," then I would think that would demonstrate sufficient evidence of intent to view illegal material. For something as vile as child pornography, there won't be much complaining, but could this set a precedent for other activities?