michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE (BearSox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 08:13 PM) If we could get Murphy, Pelfry, and Martinez for Jenks and Vazquez, as well as Edwin Jackson and another piece or two for Dye, as well as one big free agent signing, I'd consider this to be one hell of a successful offseason. You kidding me? We get Reed who hit .400 last year as a 23 year old at AA...#1 outfield prospect in baseball, one of the youngest starting catchers in the majors baseball who once he fills into his body will become Johnny Bench, and a 22 year old SS as a throw in who put up no less than an .872 OPS in AA. All that for Freddy Garcia who's seen his wins, his ERA, his K's and his WHIP get worse for the third consecutive year. What a haul for a pitcher that's seen better days. We need to remember that there is a HUGE difference between those who have done it in the majors and those that might. How many relief pitchers have had 30 saves the last three years in a row? Rivera, Nathan, Krod, Trevor Hoffman and Jenks...don't undervalue how good he's been. And I was frustrated by Vazquez last year too...but 9 years in a row of 200 innings, double digit wins and a career 1.27 WHIP? That's not as easily replaced as some here think.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 25, 2008 -> 11:02 PM) Look at how high the Twins picks were compared to where the Sox/Cards were picking. Really aside from Mauer and Garza (still unproven), you are talking about a pretty mediorce job as well. In fact, given how good the Twins farm system has been, I think this goes to show that its not necessraily the first round that you have to hit but the overall draft. That's exactly right. Or how about another team that Soxtalk seems enamored with...the Indians. Since 1999 they have had 18 first round picks...and not a single one has made an impact...vitually ANY impact in the majors. OR Kansas City who picks in the top ten every year...17 picks since 1999...and Greinke is the top pitcher and not one hitter with a career OPS over .750. The point is not that the Sox are horrible at picking in the first round...the point is the Baseball draft is far more unpredictible than football or basketball...ouside of MAYBE the top 5 picks...its a crap shoot.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 10:52 PM) I'll disagree with Daric Barton but agree completely with the premise that 1st round picks are not the only way to acquire talent. Carlos Quentin was acquired this offseason for a 15th rounder. I also think this year is going to be a funny deadline for the Sox. I see KW making atleast one move, because he doesn't seem to be able to not make atleast one, but I see it as either very slow in terms of moves or the Sox being the busiest team in all of baseball and absolutely no in-between. And you won't hear any of it mentioned to the press until after it's been completed. OK...let's say this on Barton...too early to tell. He's really young...which is in his favor. But he's hand as much of a chance as Brian Anderson and his 08 looks a lot like BA's 06...without BA ++ defense at a key position. If I was KC or Pittsburgh I would try to get guys like Barton or Anderson who showed great promise but failed in their first 300 big league at bats. Sort of like what's happened with Gavin Floyd. Initial failure doesn't necessarily mean AAAA. As for Kenny...he is the most entertaining GM. I suspect your right...when everyone says he won't do anything will be when he packages Konerko, Dotel and OC in a blockbuster with the Dodgers or Diamondbacks.

QUOTE (BlackBetsy @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 06:48 PM) I started at 1999 b/c it was the year where the Sox had a ton of supplemental picks. And Kip Wells netted the Sox Todd Ritchie in probably Kenny Williams' worst deal. The 2004 draft was a real exception out of the last 10 years of the Sox drafting...not a rule by any imagination. Blind squirrels and nuts and all. Cardinals 1st round drafts: 1999 Chance Caple: Nothing 1999 Nick Stocks: Nothing 1999: Chris Duncan: M'eh 2000: Blake Williams: nothing 2000 Shaun Boyd: noothing 2001: Justin Pope 2002: No pick 2003: Daric Barton: junk 2004: Christopher Lambert: nothing 2005: Tyler Herron: nothing 2005 Mark McCormick: nothing 2005 James Green 2006: Christopher Perez (albert Pujols 1999 13th round) There are lots of ways of acquiring talent. To say, "bad drafting in the first round= bad team" is crazy. Its certainly not an ADVANTAGE but neither is it a hopeless obsticle. Having a sharp GM that can trade unproven talent for real talent is one way around the drafting problem. Way too much focus is given on the 1st round of MLB amateur draft.

QUOTE(Al Lopez's Ghost @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) I can come close. Veeck also traded 14 years of Johnny Callison for one year of Gene Freese. Freese hit 17 homers and drove in 79 runs in 1960 while fielding .946 - just a butcher at 3rd. Callison went on to have 1757 hits, 226 homers, career slugging at .441, made the allstar team a couple of times. Yeah...and the SAME YEAR 24 year old catcher, Earl Battey, who went on to have three top ten finishes in the MVP balleting for a couple of OK years from the aging Roy Sievers. People forget how Bill Veeck destroyed a team that was set up for a long playoff run. Actually some interesting parallels between that 1959 team and the 2000 Sox team that won 99 games. One can make a cogent argument that if those teams had just had the patience to stand pat with their talent they would have more than one WS in the last 75 years. Still trades are sexy and most of us fans love it...and love the idea of GM's "going for it" when one gets close.

...unless you want to count trading for a year and a half of George Bells and his last 38 homers in exchange for fifteen years and Sammy Sosa's last 580. I still consider Sammy more as a science experiment than a ball player so I'll take the Stormin Normin trade.

1959 Sox lost the WS to the Dodgers. That off season they traded 24 year old Norm Cash who went on to hit 377 homers...a batting title (.361), a career .850 OPS along with 24 year old catcher, Johnny Romano who had a 7 year stretch with .800 OPS and a couple of all star appearances. In return they got 34 year old Minnie Minoso who was a fan favorite but was done by then...basically they got one mediocre year out of him. You'll be hard pressed to beat that.

First of all not all of us had the chance to actually WATCH Sox games. When I was a kid I used to tune in my little AM radio to try to get Harry Carey on WMAQ...it was usually so full of static it was painful to listen. Then if I missed the game I had to wait until 4pm the next day (afternoon paper only) to read the box scores...and I also pored over the states as a kid...I would get my little calculator out and try to figure out Dick Allen's new batting average afer he went three for four. The internet is a DREAM for fans like me. When I was living in Saudi I could follow every pitch of every game. And by the way...the internet has totally opened up minor league baseball to me. Back in the seventies the only way to follow was to by Baseball America and the stats were generally six weeks old. It was so useless I didn't bother. Now I check the Sox box score...and Charlottes...and Birminghams...and Winston Salems...and Kanapolos...all in real time. How cool is that? If the Sox lose I can console myself in the fact that Chris Carter went three for four and HE'S going to be fun to watch in a sox uniform some day. Of course...they traded their entire minor league system in the off season...but I'm saying...in theory.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 05:06 PM) Your points are well taken, but I do think Carmona is on the ascent, while Javy is on the descent. And I absolutely think Westbrook is better than Contreras. Jose was a "top 5 pitcher" for two half seasons - second part of '05 and first part of '06 - which is different than "a season and a half." The guy never showed anything with the Yanks, and is now a full season and a half from the last time he was effective. He's also pushing 40. Westbrook is coming off a very solid playoffs, if I remember correctly. He is not great, but when the sinker is on, he's very solid. I think the keys to our season are two guys: Vazquez and Danks. If the former continues what he did this year, and the latter takes a step toward the potential we think he has, we'll compete. But I just have absolutely zero faith in Contreras and Floyd. Carmona certainly looks intriguing...I'm just saying its early to mark him down for glory. As for Javy's decent? The guy is only 31. Pitchers are different than hitters...you can track hitters pretty well from early rise, peak in the 27-29 range, with gradual fall off after that. I think it's harder for pitchers to put all the parts together. Javy has had dominating stuff his whole career...last year he put it all together...I think one could be more optimistic about him repeating than Carmona...because Javy's peripheral numbers have been good for much longer. And further defense of Contreas...it's just hard for me to shake the 20-2 record from all star game to all star game with a 1.16 WHIP...I mean one doesn't fluke one's way to 20-2. Then he had a back problem...tried to pitch through the pain and lost his control. It seems reasonable to me that a guy could lose it for a season and a half because of injury and age. And maybe he's done. I'm just saying the scenario that has the Sox winning the WS in 2008 has to involve Contreas becoming a great pitcher again. I think it's harder for the Injuns to make the case for Westbrook putting up a 3.20 ERA with a sub 1.2 WHIP than it is for the Sox with Contreas. OF course its much more likely that Contreas will be horrible than Westbrook...but the winning it all scenario can't involve a "pretty good" guy like Westrbrook having a pretty good season.

QUOTE(FlaCWS @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) I agree that the Tribe may be slightly overrated, but starting pitching is what separates them from us right now. You can't count on injuries, and assuming Sabathia and Carmona are healthy, they are both bona fide #1's. We just have Buehrle. Vazquez is still a big question mark IMO. Westbrook is also much more consistent than Contreras. And, of course, Danks and Floyd are completely unproven. That's the difference between the teams. Why in the world is Carmona a bona fide #1? His minor league stats don't suggest it. His major league stats don't suggest it. He had one great year, last year...but look at his WHIP, K/9, BB/K BB/9...in his GREAT year and they aren't as good as what Javier's 10 year average is. I think JV tends to be dramatically under rated around here. As for Westbrook being "more consistent" than Contreas. Well consistency isn't what we need. For a season and a half Contreras was a top five pitcher in baseball...almost any measure you want to use. Westbrook has been consistently mediocre. For the Sox to make a plausible chase for the penant Contreras is one of those guys that has to pan out. If he's the sore backed sluggish pitcher of the last 18 months...Sox=doomed. If he's the ace of the previous 18 months= Sox have a shot. IF the Sox traded Contreras for Westbrook...it would not improve our chances. Westbrooks just not very good. Then you sluff off Danks and Floyd as untested...which is true...but that is versus Cleveland's other two...Paul Byrd the old, cheater and Cliff Lee who looks done at 30. I'm not ready to concede at all that Clevelands pitching is better. Sabathia is the best of either team...but as was pointed out...with all that weight? And coming off a season where he pitched 250 innings? We'll see.

QUOTE(Chombi @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:06 AM) If you don't like the realism and want to fill up the board with hopes and aspirations that is your right. No logic or factual reasoning to support it is necessary I guess so be my guest. When the season rolls around, I will join you in your cheering and be pumped with you but we will divide following the games until a major change occurs. Whether it's all-in with this team or we fold and cut out losses. Sorry for scaring you. I know you are truly concerned. See here is where the non-stop pessimism on Soxtalk gets to me. People on this board will say great things about Shefield and say Thome is old and injury prone. They will talk about the great young pitching on the Twins and say the Sox young pitchers suck. They will talk about how Hafner will bounce back (or imply it) while Dye has no chance to bounce back. If one points out Contreas's great finish and his #1 status 18 months ago...the board will come crashing in with 'a 57 year old getting lucky against AAA call ups.' One is a wild eyed optimist if one says...Danks 4.5 ERA in his first 80 big league innings at 22 showed me that he might someday be a good pitcher. The preferred board position is his 6.50 ERA final 50 innings is more indicative of the turd he really is. Why is that not wild eyed pessimism? I will agree that the White Sox are not the Yankees. The Yankees can pay for an all star at every position...it must be fun to be a yankee fan. But I'm not. I'm a White Sox fan. We have a limited budget but we KNOW...and I'm sorry for the 2005 reference but to me it's encouraging...that a rag tag bunch of guys CAN win the WS against the most expensive team, or the team with the best farm system or the team that looks best in fantasy leagues. Drink the hemlock if you'd like...but don't tell me that the hemlock is reality. Neither you nor I nor anyone can say that Fields will hit 50 homers or commit 50 errors. No one knows if Gio Gonzalez will come in and be Lirirano for 3 months. It's ridiculous to say its ridiculous. I guess one could put odds on it... 10% chance that Gio = surprise ace. 3% chance that Floyd does. .01% that Heath Phillips does. But strange things happen in baseball ALWAYS. Guys have bad years guys have great years. Don't tell me my belief in this particular core of a team is silly...because while they are that 72 win team of last year, they also are the 90 win team of the year before...and they've added interesting parts. Gold Glove shortstop with a nice bat. 2006 top 25 prospect in all baseball. A relief pitcher that 12 months ago we would have been screaming with joy over. And there's still money to spend. Pass the Kool aid. Go sox.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) If the alternative is him going to the Red Sox, do you really have a choice? Thanks for the link. Nice to read Yankees forums and realize what a rationale group Soxtalk is. A couple of quick quotes that follow the story: KO: "They’re trying to unload this guy (Santana) for a Hughes or a Buchholz, two guys who will outperform him within the next year or two." Hardtruth: "This trade is nuts. Melky is a legitimate All-Star caliber OF for at least the next 10 years." Yankee_Man: "Phil Hughes can become a better player than Santana" I for one would never give up Gio Gonzalez for Roy Oswalt...and to throw in Jerry Owens...a future hall of famer?? The Astros must think us fools if they think we would offer that package.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) That's obnoxious -- I think the Sox 3 young pitchers aren't better than the Twins top 4 young pitchers so that makes me a Twins fan. Whatever. If the Sox had better prospects, I'd "uplift" them more. It's not like I'm the only person that thinks the Sox aren't awash in young talent. And it's not like I said Gio/Danks/Floyd sucked. I think Gio is a very good prospect -- I've probably underestimated him in the past. I said he might be better than Slowey (who was AAA pitcher of the year last season). It's not that I'm ripping the Sox players here, I just think you are really underestimating the Twins pitching. Well I find it a bit obnoxious for you to say I am "completely wrong" thinking the Sox top three pitching prospects might be as good as the Twins top three. What's your evidence. John Sickles had a nice article: http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2005/8/8/17954/23482 He randomly took the year 1993 and looked at the top pitching prospects in baseball as determined by Baseball America. If in 1994 someone said...ok I will give you the top ten pitching prospects in AAA and the top ten pitching prospects in AA you'd think you could write your WS ticket for 1998 onward. But the best of the group turned out to be Steve Trachsel, Aaron Sele, Rick Helling, James Baldwin, and Jason Bere. Evaluation of young pitchers is and will always be a crap shoot. Brandon Webb's minor league stats did not foretell greatness. Santana was 20-20 with nearly a 5 ERA in the minors. Unitl they come up and do it in the majors consistently...they are just prospects. I'm not going to say 'well Gio is clearly an Ace...' because nobody knows. Mabye he'll be a 1, maybe he'll be a 5, maybe he'll be a bust. But I watch his stats, try to extrapolate the future and ROOT for him to be a star. To look at the Twins and say...look at their great pitching. That's just rooting for them to suceed. All I see over there is a starting rotation of 5 Mike Pelfry's. Still I think the Twins stategy is actually a good one for a team with no money...try to accumulate enough young pitchers so that your odds are better to stumble upon a dominant one to build around. But I thought Garza was the best of the bunch and they traded him away. I'd feel hopeless right now if I was a Twins fan...mostly what I hear is Sox hopelessness.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 02:00 AM) Got that one right for sure. For what it's worth, I never said Crede, nor Dye, nor Contreras sucked...I actually like Dye and think he's underappreciated by quite a few. What I did say was that Crede and Contreras were not "really good." Those are your words. Believe it or not, there is middle ground between "suck" and "really good." Imagine that. (this has to do with the disrespectful tone; not only that someone would say that Contreras and Crede are really good, but when that thought is questioned, they immediately move to the other side of the spectrum. I never said they sucked. Read up a little bit and see that I've said that I think Contreras is due for a bounce back year, but I'd still move him if it helps the major league team. Crede I could quite honestly care less about because I think he's gone regardless, whether that's right or wrong) Not to call him out, but I'm quite sure that was Keith, ala CWSGuy. I have no idea what kind of year the Sox are in for; I imagine about 85 wins with the moves I expect the team to make while they have a shot at contention until September 1st. But thanks for accusing me of something I didn't say. Yeah, that's exactly it, there's no reasoning at all behind the thought. First, find where I said they were NEVER good. Then make this argument. In other words, this argument is meaningless, because I would never make such a ridiculous argument, and you are merely putting words in my mouth. Crede had very good years in 2005 (when healthy) and 2006, yet those years go unappreciated by some merely because of OPS. However, he's coming off a back surgery - which will almost assuredly take a step away from his range defensively - and there's no guarantee beyond that that he will stay healthy or even produce to where he did in 2005 at this point. Again, thanks for the over exaggeration. Gio probably is a #2 if absolutely everything goes right, but more likely a #3 starter (ala Jon Garland and Javy Vazquez...but yeah he still sucks). The knocks on him are his height, his injury concerns, and the possibility he will give up home runs (with consideration that he was a 20 year old, he still gave up 24 homers in 154.2 innings in 2006 in AA, which equates to roughly 1.4 homers per 9; he had a 1.46 GO/AO this year, while allowing 14 fewer homers, but the Hoov is a huge pitchers park, so the reduced homers should not come as a surprise, and his performance in AAA will be very indicative of the type of pitcher he is). Gio has pretty crazy good stuff, but his height really does hurt him in this. He's usually listed as 5'11, but people on here have said that they figure him to be about 5'8 or 5'9, which is super short; if he can get it up there, all should be fine and he'll give the Sox 100 good innings this year. The White Sox were, like, hands down the best team in baseball in the first half of 2006. Konerko and Dye were having amazing year, Crede was in the midst of the best year of his career, Thome was having a resurgence, the pitching staff was solid while the Tigers had seemingly gotten quite lucky throughout much of it, and they went into the break 2 games ahead of the Sox. The Sox have been a bad team ever since the ASB of 2006, like way below .500 (105-133, 28 games below .500, a .441 winning percentage). There have been problems with this team for a year and a half, and I still haven't seen them solved yet. One injury. A back injury. He hasn't been the same pitcher since that point in time. Since I like to do it, and since it makes a pretty fair point, I'll throw some numbers and see if they stick: Aug 4, 2005 thru May 4, 2006 (his last start before going down with injury) ERA - 2.08 WHIP - 0.98 IP - 155.2 May 21, 2006 thru present ERA - 5.37 WHIP - 1.48 IP - 340.1 It is virtually impossible to disagree with the vast majority of your second paragraph, especially the first and last sentences, and I do believe that Contreras still has the second best arm in the White Sox rotation, even with the drop in velocity he has seen. He did have a good August and September, putting up a 3.84 ERA, and had a very good 55 inning stretch, but, if you look at WHIP as large factor in ERA, it was a bit of smoke and mirrors (3.11 ERA, 1.40 WHIP...that's nearly impossible to sustain, especially with a K/9 of 6.2 during that stretch). However, the part I disagree with is that Contreras can be the same pitcher he was 2 years ago; I do not believe he can be the same pitcher he was in 2005 and the early part of 2006; his back limits him too much. I still firmly believe he can be an effective pitcher for about 180 innings with a couple DL stints during the course of the season for him which is why it is important that the Sox have options at the minor league level for spot starts; fortunately for the Sox, they do. From what I understand, Broadway looked very good in his spot start, and I am looking for big things from him this year, as I expect him to go from a mediocre starting pitching prospect to the second best high level SP prospect in the White Sox system (behind Gio, ahead of Egbert...DLS is a wildcard, because I imagine he is either going to be called up mid year to be a setup man for the Sox, or he will remain in A+ and AA all year and further develop himself as a starter). So, in that regard, I am actually not worried. I'm merely playing the odds at this point. What I understand is that back problems tend to linger, and that surgery is iffy as hell, and, while surgery makes the pain tolerable, it also makes it generally painful all the time, which would be something Crede would have to adjust to over the course of the year. It is possible he could come back better, but I'm basically saying that I wouldn't count on it, and that I would imagine this back issue will become a recurring theme throughout his career, perhaps forcing him to an early retirement. I would also imagine it takes a step away from his range at 3B, which is his biggest asset. And, to throw some more stats at you, Crede after he got a cortisone shot (I believe during the 2005 season, which brought him to health) and his downfall in 2006 to present. Sept 10, 2005 thru Aug 11, 2006 (incl playoffs) .318/.358/.597/.955 - 491 ABs Aug 12, 2006 thru present .219/.263/.340/.603 - 320 ABs His back was absolutely killing him, and right now, nobody knows how he will recover, but it's not a guarantee he will recover well. If nothing can be brought back in value for him, he should be kept and put at 3B, because the White Sox have made worse risks (like last year when they had Erstad in CF...that is probably the dumbest move KW has ever made), and the downgrade in LF (Jerry f'in Owens?) is much worse than taking a risk on Joe Crede at 3B. If Owens is in LF, I'd imagine the Sox are in a pretty rough spot; if Crede is at 3B and Fields in LF, the Sox have a fair shot at competing, though I imagine they will still end around the 85 win mark. I do think quite highly of Crede; he's been an [under/over]appreciated player over the past 6 years, but he's still been a good player. There's no guarantee he will be good coming off his back surgery, and counting on him to return to even his 2003 form would be a mistake. The organization is in a down state; we are not yet the Giants nor the Orioles, but the potential remains that the Sox could get there. Honestly, if you can look through the bulls*** negativity, you can see quite a few people feel that way. However, the Sox are also not the Pirates, Nationals, or Rangers right now either; they are actually trying to compete. They could strive to be the Marlins, and due to the short-term, that would be great in the long-term. That's never going to happen; I'm not sure I'm happy with that thought, but I have to see what KW has in mind. In my mind, the goal is to become the Red Sox; a team whose minor league system is strong enough that they can implement players into the starting lineup, and those players will be quite good immediately. This will also maintaining the money supply to bring in name players, resign stars, and keep the bandwagon fan interested to the point where they will come regardless of whether you put out a disappointing 82-80 team or a 97-65 team. Basically, when the best does not occur, "we" become agitated. When good does not occur, "we" become upset and angry. When mediocre or worse occurs, "we" come outraged as hell. Sorry if I lumped all the negative thoughts into one jumble in my mind. I have yet to learn the individual posters...I read five hundred postings in a row across the board about how awful we will be and how great everyone else is going to be and I get frustrated. Anyway...I now remember you...you are the reasoned one...that bites. Most of the things I agree with you on. You are not the most wildly negative of the posters. Some of this stuff is semantical quibbles. We basically agree on Gio...my only point is...once in a while a pitcher comes up and is lights out...Guairdo kept the Brewers in the race the second half of last year. Liriano kept the Twins in the race in 06. Suppose Gio comes up in May after FLoyd fails and goes 15-5. It's NOT impossible. It's not probable...I just think its more fun to come up with a scenario how the Sox win. It's really easy to come up with a scenario how they lose. Last years team was bad...their farm system is bad. Therefore they will be bad. I just think people misunderstand teh farm system. You could have 6 last place farm teams...150 bad players and teh equivalent young Santana and Pujols and you have the best farm system in baseball. The Twins got lucky with Santana. The Cards got lucky with Pujols. The Sox haven't gotten lucky since Frank in 1990...that is guys that look good and then come up and are GREAT. I also think people misunderstand the up and down nature of players...obviously you don't...you made excellant points about Dye, Crede and Contreas. You fought with me because I said 'core of really good players'. You say, if I understand...Crede and Contreas can no longer be considered really good because of the injury factor. That's fair enough. I'm just saying there's two outcomes possible on each. Crede is back and healthy and plays great like 06...or his injury leaves him horrible. Contreas is back and healthy and plays great like first half of 06...or he's done. If both are bad...Sox are in for a long season. If both are back...Sox could contend. It is not unreasonable or pie in the sky to think they will both come back, that Dye, Konerko and AJ bounce back to have better seasons. That a bullpen with a bunch of goods arms will not all be bad at once. And that of Richar, Fields, owens, Danks, Floyd, ...3 get better in their second year...with maybe one becoming much better. That team would contend. Peace?

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 11:22 PM) Liriano, Baker, Slowey, Bonser and either Hughes or Bucholz from the Santana trade are no more talented than Danks/Gio/Floyd? It might be possible that Gio is better than Slowey, but other than that I think that statement is completely wrong. If you look at the minor league stats, the Twins pitchers performed better than any of the Sox trio you mention. Completely wrong? Floyd is a year and a half younger than Bonser. Was drafted fourth overall. Had better minor league stats...and not much different in major league. Danks is nearly a year younger than Buchholtz and a full year younger than Slowey. Was drafted higher. 9th overall. Was every bit as touted when he was 20 and 21. And has 139 major league innings to Buchholtz's 22 and Slowey's 66. Hughes looks fantastic...but 21 year old with a 60 day hamstring injury? Scott Baker is now 26 and has yet to wow anyone. Liriano was brilliant...but many say the reason he was brilliant was the reason he ripped his arm up. Perhaps he can come back and perhaps Gavin Floyd can gain confidence on the mound. Not one on the whole list...including Gio, Danks and Floyd...would I be CONFIDENT would be a ten win pitcher next year. You denigrate the Sox prospects and uplift others...so I guess...Go Twins?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:38 PM) Konerko has an arthritic hip. He will be lucky to be playing ball when he's thirty seven, let alone putting up an .800 OPS. And Hunter is a career .839 hitter? ::whistle:: That's hot! (Those are my two observations: first is serious. Second is just teasing. ) Mostly I'm just coming to Iamshack's defense....it's not dumb as hell...just optimistic. Brett Favre also has a chronic hip condition...avascular necrosis. He's doing ok at 38. As for Hunter...you should see his slugging percent. :-)

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:08 PM) Comparing Liriano to Fidrych fails to consider 25 years of medical advancements. So were Josh Beckett and Justin Verlander. Sure, in 10 innings, but he had a 4.65 ERA in AAA, so that seems to cancel that out entirely. And in his first 133 innings, he was terrible to the tun of a 7.24 ERA and some ungodly peripherals. As you shouldn't; they are worse than the Twins options. Yes but the Sox staff actually has real life pitchers who have been quality starters. Buehrle, Vazquez and Contreas. They are looking at installing Danks/Gio/Floyd to fill the #4 and 5 spots. The Twins...if they trade Santana...are counting on guys no more talented than Danks/Gio/Floyd to be 1 through 5. That sure would be scary to me if I was a Twins fan.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) That's dumb as hell. Konerko's best offensive season would be Thome's 9th or 10th best season, making your comparison absolutely brutal. Thome's declining from a HoF quality peak, Konerko will be declining from a pretty-decent player's quality peak. Huge huge difference. If Konerko is our first-baseman when he's 37, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. 'Dumb as hell' is pretty harsh. Konerko is a career .848 OPS guy and he's 31. Torii Hunter's a career .839 hitter is two years older than Konerko and someone just paid HIM $18 million a year to maintain his ability until he's 38. Seeing Konerko being an .800 OPS guy at 37 isn't crazy. Paying Torii Hunter $18 mill...that's crazy.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) Really though, I perhaps do it too much; I get pissy pretty quickly, especially when it comes to baseball economics and statistics. However, whenever someone talks negatively about the Sox yet in high regard of the Twins, Tigers, or Indians, and a person then questions their fanhood by saying "But why be on Sox talk? I'm sure there's Twins talk down the dial," I feel I have the right to speak in a negative tone to that response; I'm merely fighting fire with fire. And then when he suggests that Crede and Contreras are good, when Contreras is 47 (or who knows how old) and coming off a year with a 5.50 ERA and Crede is coming off back surgery, I'll get pissy too because said person is lying. I also am not a huge fan of cliches, and suggesting that one franchise is better than the other because of "1 World Series in 3 years" (which is the third shortest time frame you could bring up) while not mentioning how well the organizations are actually run and the positions all 3-4 franchises are put into each and every year gets me too. First of all, the White Sox World Series run, though aided by talent, was full of luck as well; had the Sox not won game 2 of the ALCS, they could have very easily lost that series in Anaheim. Secondly, the organization has put itself in a pretty bad position since about the Vazquez trade (good as he was last year, having Chris Young in CF would solve a lot of problems, and the Sox would be able to put $20+ million more towards the rotation along with having McCarthy in the 4 spot next year); finally, the Indians were a game away from the World Series while Detroit actually made it to the World Series, so that in itself is a great accomplishment; I really don't understand how a World Series title in 2005 suddenly makes the White Sox a superior franchise at this exact moment in time to Cleveland and Detroit because they don't have one. People can be pissed about the people who look negatively upon these people all they want to; they are just as much in the wrong - if not less - as those who are blind homers (you are not, but there are some one here who qualify); so if people are to be critical of people who look upon this franchise negatively, they should be just as critical of those who look upon this franchise positively. The organization is getting better as putting the team in the best possible position to succeed; it's still not there yet. Having a bad year does not make a guy a bad player. If we try to predict the future soley by using last years numbers...you're right. The Sox suck. Crede sucks. Dye sucks. Contreas sucks. Danks sucks. Owens sucks. It was you that threw the gauntlet saying the Twins are WAY better than the Sox and that the Sox are in for a long year. Someone else said the Royals were better and Detroit and Cleveland were elite teams. This is done by predicting the future this way: All AL Central prospects will be studs. All Sox prospects will be horrible. All AL players will be equal to last year as will all Sox players. History before 2007 is meaningless. If you want to argue how Crede and Contreas will perform in 2008 after their 2006/7 back injuries...that's fine. But to suggest they were never good? Crede's Avg/OBP/SP each went up from 2004 to 2005 to 2006...so the idea that a (then) 26 year old third baseman might be learning and getting better while playing great defense and now he's worthless because he had a year with a bad back? And Contreas was the Sox ace in the WS year and 9-0 through the first half of 2006...and then hurt his back and was bad for a year. But it's impossible that he will be back? That his August+ Sept 3.75ERA and 3 to 1 strikeout to walk rate are just an illusion? And I just don't get the slam on Gio. The kid led all the minors in strikeouts...at 21...in double A. 3 to 1 walk to strikeout rate. 1.15 WHIP. And I'm forced to be rational and say he'll never be a stud...while listening to people brag about every arm in the Twins minors being future stars? I'm not saying the Sox will be dominant...but in 2006 with roughly the same offense they scored 200 more runs than in 2007. Baseball's a funny game. Sometimes the hot prospects fizzle. Sometimes Ordonez hits .360 and sometimes .290. KW is trying to put together a team to win the WS and its NOT silly to think the core of this team could recapture a bit of the magic. Wishful thinking, sure. But so is EVERY other team.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 05:57 PM) You're right, Baker's 4.26 ERA in 140 innings last year was just god awful....GTFO Liriano is NOT hurt, he's recovering from surgery, so I don't knwo how you figure that. It's also funny how you don't mention Slowey at all, seeing as how he was the AAA starting pitcher of the year; imagine that, the Twins having the AAA pitcher of the year. A 4.72 ERA in his first 70 innings of work is also pretty damn impressive. So, as far as I can gather, their rotation next year, assuming a trade of Johan to the Yankees, is Liriano, Hughes, Baker, Slowey, and then one of a number of other pitchers that they will be able to throw in there and be more than adequate as a 5th starter. The Twins have pitching, you know it, and you are merely in denial. Mark Fidyrich isn't hurt either...he's just recovering from surgery. Jon Rauch was minor league pitcher of the year. Sox first round draft pick Lance Broadway was dominating in his September call up. Andd Gavin floyd's last 55 major league innings had a 4 ERA with a 3 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio. I PROMISE I won't brag about how those guys will form the core of some dominating staff. Until they actually do it...they are just prospects.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) You mean the Sox, right? The Sox are nowhere near as good as the Twins are as of today. For that to change, the Sox need to improve substantially in CF and LF -- that means no Jerry Owens in either of those spots. And even if we do improve substantially in both spots -- say the ideal situation of landing Andruw Jones and someone like Luke Scott for LF -- we're still behind Cleveland and Detroit. 2008 White Sox Baseball -- Saddle up for a Long Year, Sox Fans! I don't get the negativism. "nowhere near as good as the Twins"? Based on last year true...but last year where the Sox had a ton of injuries and career worst seasons...sort of 05 in reverse. One can look at our young players like Danks, Gio, Floyd, Fields and Richar and say "garbage. And look at the Twins young players and say stars. But why be on Sox talk? I'm sure there's TWins talk down the dial. I think the Tigers pitching staff looks awful. And they crashed last year in spite of guys like Ordonez having a career year...most of their team is as old or older than the Sox. Even Cleveland..while Paul Byrd and Bettancourt go 20-9 again next year? Sox have a core of really good players...Cabrera, Konerko, Dye, AJ, Thome, Crede, Vazquez, Buehrle, Contreas, Jenks...and a bunch of good looking young players. If they get lucky and Gio comes up and goes 15-5...or Owens maintains a .340 OBP and steals 80? They could be every bit as good as any team in baseball. If I recall properly we are the only AL Central team to win the WS in the last 3 years.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 04:16 PM) The Sox are in big trouble for the next 5-7 years. We could flip spots with the Royals very soon here. Or we could win the WS next year. This idea that collecting a bunch of stud prospects = success is irrational. It is ever bit as likely that Contreas goes 15-7 next year as any of the Twins pitchers, the Devil Rays pitchers or the Yankees prospects. Youth + potential does not = major league performance. Contreas 18 months ago was one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball...had some back troubles and now seems past them. Yet everyone thinks he's useless while Hughes and Chamberlain and Bucholtz and Pelfry and Garza and on and on are all studs. It wouldn't take more than fifteen minutes to come up with a list of 50 names that were equally hyped pitching prospects in the last ten years that turned out to be nothing.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) On the flip side, they are capitalizing on the value of one of their relief pitchers again who is going downhill quickly; Rincon had an ERA north of 5 last year, has seen his WHIP increase in each of the past 3 years, his K rate is going down, he allowed a ton of homers last year, and he's been suspended for PEDs. I also think they are making a great move by acquiring Young too, as he could be a pretty special player, and they can produce all the pitching they really want to. With a core of Morneau, Mauer, Cuddyer, Kubel, and Young, the offense is quite formidable again and the pitching should be just fine, even if they trade Johan. Who is going to pitch for them? Where is this great Twins pitcher producing machine (outside of good relief pitching)? Bonser's not been very good. Nor Baker. Silva will leave in FA. Liriano's hurt. Trading Garza. Their top prospect Swarzak suspended for drugs?? Baseball Prospectus says the White Sox have three pitching prospects better than any Twins pitching prospect. What it MIGHT mean is the Yankees trading their top two or three prospects for Santana. That would be fascinating. Still...hard to replace the best pitcher in baseball...no matter how good the prospects look.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:55 PM) Eduardo Perez. And your comment about us pitching Danny Glover was pretty humorous as well.....it was Gary Glover... I'm just glad I didn't put Danny Mitten....stupid aging process.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) My thinking is that Owens could platoon with Taveras in CF and Fields in LF (Fields could also spell Crede at 3B at times in this scenario)... and that Owens would have a chance of being a full-time starter in '09 (with Fields at 3rd). This, of course, assumes that Owens will turn out to be a major-league caliber hitter. I'm optimistic about his chances, but he's far from a lock at this point. If "September Owens" proves to be an anomaly and "July Owens" proves to be the long-term norm, Taveras would be a cheap three-year Plan B. I really don't care about Taveras' inability to drive the ball, as long as his OBP is respectable. I'd love for Kenny to get Rowand or Jones (assuming a reasonable price, which probably won't happen with the latter), but if it's not in the cards right now, we're fine for next year with Thome/Paulie/Dye/Fields/Cabrera/Crede in the middle of the lineup. (That said, Kenny would need to spend on another couple of bats in '09.) For '08, we need a defensive upgrade in CF/LF and another player who can steal bases proficiently would be a big help. And Taveras would do this cheaply for the next few years. Until he does something significant in the minors, Anderson isn't an option and I don't him to become one any time soon. The only problem, as you mentioned, is what it'll take to get Taveras. And I'm not sure that I have an answer for you. I think it's too bad more teams don't try platooning...the old Earl Weaver strategy. But would the Sox do this? I remember this spring when they had...oh who was that DH/1B, 38 year old...historically killed lefties. And Thome who kills righties. Seemed made to order...and we kept Terrero instead. Besides...as I look it up...Taveras and Owens each had fairly similar awefullness historically against lefties.