caulfield12

Wow, for once Mauer didn't get the call. C'mon, big two out hit, Casper the Friendly Ghost is hitting .379 now. Crain extended to 40 pitches....gets the charitable call on the inside strike with the full count.

71-2 when leading after 7 69-1 when leading after 8 Despite having one more blown saves than the White Sox, the Twins have lost just a few times in those situations. We've lost what, at least 6-7 games in the second half alone when we've had the lead late???

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 10:36 PM) It was just amazing to me the freak numbers that man was putting up with no protection, lots of injuries, and that team as bad as they've been not to mention the respect he gets with his IBB. He was near triple crown status just a week ago. (I thought he was going to catch Josh in average, only Bautista and his freak year in homers is what Miggy probably would not catch) I would say now it's still Hamiltons to lose, but now Konerko is more of an MVP candidate/runner up than Cabrera. Just watch, Cano, Bautista, Hamilton and Cabrera will all finish ahead of Konerko somehow.

Well, that would have been a walk-off homer at the HHH. and Valencia was a 19th round draft pick, of course.

Don't throw this kid Valencia a FB. 8/11 this series, hitting .341 and the Tigers have a guy out there with an 8.84 ERA against him. And he's supposed to have big-time power in batting practice but it hasn't showed up yet in game situations.

What's funny is the Tigers and Sox will have identical 5-10 records against MINN this season. There's your division, right there. But losing 8/9 at that park, the Tigers and White Sox both are feeling the Piranha Jinx up there...and this includes the 2006/09 Twins chasing down the Tigers from seemingly insurmountable division leads.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 10:27 PM) Typical Twins-like game for us as sox fans. They either get the lead, somehow the other team ties it, then they win it in the 9th/extras or the other team is leading, and the Twins come back late to win it. Not holding my breath on the Tigers winning this one, but I'll stay optimistic. Hey, maybe they are paying us back when we beat them to force a game 163 against the Twins last season. Miggy was my MVP a week ago (sorry Josh, he was beating you in every statistical category minus average, teams be damned). Now, he is quickly costing himself that award in my eyes at least. Not to mention the fact that Cabrera mysteriously disappeared due to "biceps tendonitis" and yet Hamilton's playing with two cortisone shots in his knee in the last 30 days. Who do you think the voters will pick, especially with how the last week went down for the Tigers and Cabrera in 2009? And the Rangers are in first, the Tigers are the definition of underachieving.

That's four botched double play balls by the Twins tonight. Amazing. Just horrible play between Hardy and Casilla.

Pretty amazing to hit a ball oppo right down the RF line over that 23 foot wall. Not easy to do. Where did this come from? C'mon Tigers, at least take the lead and make it interesting.

Casper Wells' first career homer. The Twins have given the Tigers about 5 "unearned/sloppy" runs this series, but Verlander/Rhymes messed up that double play and I almost gave up. Then almost gave up again. This will really really suck if the Tigers don't win after coming back to tie it twice. It was bad enough that Baker was knocked out with a sore elbow, Verlander was pitching with a 2-0 lead. Cabrera has sucked A-S this series....had the bases loaded with no outs in the first and struck out and they only scored one. And I think there's a rule that the Twins automatically score when they lead off the 7th/8th/9th with a walk or single. 4 homers for the Tigers tonight on a night the ball shouldn't be carrying...even with the Twins playing sloppy baseball, they're still not far off from three one-run victories, despite everything.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) So why would you trade a young, cheap, left handed pitcher under control for 2 more seasons for prospects? Why wouldnt you trade an overpaid, older left handed pitcher who can net us some players and free up cash for signings? If you are rebuilding you dont trade cheap young good pitching, if you are contending you dont trade young cheap good pitching. Its just making a move to make a move, the Sox are a MUCH better team with Danks on it. Even if you give him Jon Lester-type money he is still a bargain. 5 years/30 million is a steal for a pitcher of his caliber. They should be focusing on giving him that offer instead of dealing him because you think you can. Out of all the rotation he is by far the last guy I trade. I trade Peavy, Buehrle, and Floyd in that order before I unload Danks. If I told you that you could get Mark Buehrle at age 25 for the next 5 years at a total cost of 30 million, you take it. Thats what we could have with Danks IMO. Did everyone just go blind after a few rough starts by Danks? He is STILL the best guy in the rotation after those hiccups (save for the short time Jackson has been here). He's been our Ace all season. Why would Danks take that money now, when he only has to wait two years to become a FA? If you could go back in time 2 years and offer Danks that deal again...but that's not realistic. He can easily make $15 million the next two seasons just from going to arbitration or year-by-year (like Crede and Jenks), so he would be only receiving $15 million for his first four years of free agency? No way. Danks is going to get a HUGE payday from someone. That eventual number will be closer to $150 million than $15 million.

I don't see how Danks can go from Lester/Sabathia to netting us something so insignificant... Or how Buehrle being traded is going to get us anything back in return but a team possibly willing to take on his salary commitment and maybe a fringe prospect of the Felix Diaz/Jon Adkins/Nick Masset/Sean Tracey variety.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) Just trade Danks and Quentin to the Mets for Jason Bay + cash. You're joking, right? It better be Bay and Beltran and a cash subsidy to help pay for them, lol.

Logic would also suggest the Tigers win more than 1/9 at Minnesota. That's hard for even the White Sox to pull off against the Twins.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 12:48 AM) So could Anthony Carter. (who will pitch in the AFL) Not quite ready to pencil him yet either. Santos Rodriguez? Wouldn't that be something if we had four lefties in our system who threw 95 plus in Sale, Thornton, Rodriguez and Threets. Even Danks can get it up there at 93 and occasionally 94. Unfortunately, Threets won't be throwing in the mid 90's again until 2012 or 2013.

Any idea of us signing Crawford is a non-starter... I doubt KW's ready to pull the plug on Pena yet, I think he gets one more year unless Infante really comes on quickly. This is especially true if Sale's going to be in the minors, we don't even know for sure if we'll have Putz back, and it's not clear that overpaying him based on the first four months of 2010 would be a wise idea. Trading Danks and Quentin can get us talent back, but it still doesn't directly deal with the salary "elephant" that is Peavy/Buehrle. I also think the situation with AJ is going to be similar to the one they dealt with Thome...hard to believe AJ would accept a significant salary decrease. You're either going to have to pay him what he's making this year (or close to it) as the starter again or he's gone and you have to make do with Castro/Flowers or find a low-risk/high reward sign like John Buck/Miguel Olivo on the FA market.

Pythagorean Standings Minnesota should be 78-55, the White Sox project at 75-58. Gardenhire has "undermanaged/underperformed" his team by 1 game, Ozzie by 2. Sounds about right. Neither manager has been horrible, but I wouldn't say either has been great. Once again, Ozzie does deserve credit for holding things together in June...to the point where we still follow every inning and every pitch, it didn't seem possible then.

Greg, FWIW, even though this is the Manny Ramirez thread....you might have a point. There's a new paradigm shift, where the unemployment rate and frozen/stagnant wages and workers being asked to work 50% harder for the same salary or underemployed isn't being given equal importance with GDP growth...something like 60% of Americans would now be in serious trouble if they lost their primary source of income for 3 months or longer. OTOH, the "general" economy is basically in a malaise, there was growth until we hit the 3rd quarter but now that the home buyer credits are expiring and credit is tighter, especially for small business loans, things are looking bleak to many Americans. If you work for a bank or are in the Top 10-15% of Americans in terms of income, you're doing just fine, and haven't been greatly affected. Still persisting is the general feeling that this generation will be worse off than their parents, that many won't have enough money to retire or that Social Security won't exist in its current form or they'll have to work longer or move in with relatives...that neither the stock market nor housing is a safe or automatic slam dunk for future earnings, people are really just trying to pay down their debts and cut down on spending, but that obviously is going to slow down the economy, because you can't both save and spend simultaneously, and the rich of the US can't sustain the entire economy, either. Some have argued that we should have just allowed the housing market to completely fail...not rescuing any homeowners, but the problem is that the banks are still not willing to take those losses onto their balance books, so the housing market is basically paralyzed with those holding money waiting for it to fall further and getting a bit greedy before they buy depreciating properties and those whose houses are worth less than the loan values wondering how long it makes sense to hold out when they've seen so many of their friends and neighbors simply walk away. Back to Ramirez. This is the only way I can think to put it...let's say your army wins a major battle, you'd say that you can't question the general/President/manager because no matter what happened in the battle, you won, right? The problem is that in winning the battle, maybe you lost half your troops or committed atrocities against a civilian population to the point where even though you win every single battle, you lose the war, which would be like finishing in 2nd place. Robert E. Lee won almost every single battle he fought in the Civil War, and yet his troops were so weakened with attrition and losses over time that he was finally forced to "go for broke" at Gettysburg with Pickett's Charge and that was ostensibly the end of the war. Or to make a bigger example...the US developed the atomic bomb and won World War II. We won, right? But let's say 100 years from now, the world is destroyed by a nuclear war, maybe we didn't really win after all. Yes, you could argue someone else more dangerous (like the Nazis) might have developed the nuclear bomb first or it would have been developed eventually, but I'm not sure all the scientists involved with the project would feel like they "WON" a great victory those first 8 days in August, 1945. Or let's say you play a football player too long in a blistering hot August game where your team wins but the kid ends up having a heart attack the next week on the practice field...I don't think you can automatically say when you win, you're right. Many times we have lost games that Ozzie has managed well, we just lost because the other team had better players or executed. To look at every win or loss in black and white is counter-intuitive. Yes, managers can win and lose games, but it's overstated after each game to say Ozzie won the game or lost the game or he was right/wrong based on the final result.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Sep 2, 2010 -> 12:05 AM) Mark makes an absurd amount of money considering what he brings to the table. I love him as much as the next guy but if you had a comparable SP, let's say Ted Lilly to compare him with, I am sure that guy isn't making $14 mil. His biggest asset is his ability to eat up innings and be consistant but you can get that from alot of other guys in baseball and for a cheaper salary. I just don't think too many GM's see Buehrle as being worth it. Ted Lilly is making $13 million this season! I think your last sentence, you've answered the question...it would be very difficult to trade Buehrle, it would be a public relations nightmare if he was pitching in the AL and not for the Cardinals and it's one of those things where you don't realize how much you miss a player until he's gone, especially in the clubhouse. Yes, you can find cheaper pitchers. If you look at the Top 40 MLB ERA leaders, you'll find the names Gio Gonzalez, Jon Garland and Clayton Richard.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/p...nded/order/true What's strange is that we have 14 blown saves out of 48 SO. Minnesota has 14/45, so our successful save conversion rate is actually higher. Maybe it just seems that when Minnesota blows a game, they usually win it at least half the time. We have the games against Minnesota, Seattle, the Tigers, the Royals...it seems we've had at least one blown save per series after the ASB.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 11:45 PM) So if Danks is more valuable overall, why are we trading him? Danks+ a player, perhaps Konerko's new paycheck is worth more than what we would get back in a trade. On the logic side, we should be able to use the money saved from Buehrle's contract to improve our CLUB, if KW makes the right moves. The problem with letting Buehrle or Konerko go is that it's also going to adversely affect your season ticket sales going into 2010...so we might save the money from Mark's contract, but end up actually doing more harm than good to incoming revenues. Sure, if we ended up leading the ALCD in April and May next year, we could theoretically make some of it back over the course of the season like our July-July stretch has done for us the last couple of months, but it's a big gamble no matter what KW does. All we can do is go by past history. KW has approached the starters in the past and parted company with the one who wouldn't sign a long-term contract...there's no reason to think he wouldn't do the same thing again with Danks. Danks has a lot of value to the White Sox, obviously...but he has incredible value because of the cost controls over the next two seasons to other clubs as well. Maybe I'm underestimating the Buehrle market, he has run off an impressive string of quality starts in the last 3 months, but what clubs out there are going to take his contract and give us equal talent? It's going to be more of a salary relief move...and maybe it's possible for just one season, but I'm not convinced the cost savings won't be undermined by public relations damage from dealing Mark. It's the classic Catch 22, your head says to try to trade Mark and your heart says to keep him and Konerko. Of course, that's how we ended up signing Jose Contreras to a bad contract, so we have to be careful...every possible move (including standing pat) is fraught with risk.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 08:19 PM) How do you magically get a team to trade more or equal amount of talent for MB over Danks? Therein lies the dilemma...we're not going to get anything substantial of value in return for Buehrle, and it's going to be difficult to replace those innings. The biggest risks would be trading either Danks, Floyd or Thornton (if Sale's to stay in the pen), but those are the players who can bring equal talent back. We're obviously not going to trade Beckham or Ramirez, Rios' contract is at best "fair" but certainly not a bargain and everyone in baseball knows all the issues associated with Carlos Quentin. After Danks/Floyd/Thornton, you'd have to look at trading either Viciedo or Mitchell, and I don't see that happening either. The idea of trading Jackson isn't logical to me, because where in baseball are we going to find someone who is an ace for $8 million?

I think we have a new fastest player in baseball. Darren Ford with the SF Giants.

It just seems they get every possible call to go their way...Santiago seemed like he was safe and would have been at 2nd with a chance to be the winning run, and he was deemed out. Especially playing at home, anything to do with Joe Mauer, it's like the umpires anticipate them being the better team and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's now 8 losses in 9 tries for the Tigers there. And Scherzer pitched like an absolute ace, throwing 97-98 in the 9th inning. Plus the Tigers made some mental errors, running into a DP they shouldn't have.

Brandon Allen hit a go-ahead Grand Slam and has made some nifty plays in LF today for AZ. Chris Young with another HR and his OPS is higher than Quentin's. 5-2 D-Backs now, the Padres are starting to hear the footsteps, not unlike the 2005 White Sox...they have a season-defining homestand versus Colorado and SF coming up. Aaron Cunningham also hitting fairly well, albeit without much power...hard to put up huge numbers at PetCo even if you're A-Gon.