michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Dec 24, 2009 -> 01:00 AM) This years Yankees was probably the best team of the decade but at the same time I don't think any team in the last 10 years would have beaten the Sox with the way they pitched in the postseason. I had to look it up too...but interesting balloting that year: 1) Steroids 2) Steroids 3) Vlad 4) Steroids 5) Steroids 6) Konerko So according to my math Konerko finished second in MVP balloting that year.

According to FAngraph...wins above replacement for second basemen: Chase Utley: 5.5 Jayson Nix: 1.3 Juan Uribe: 1.0 Chris Getz: 0.4 Aaron Miles: -1.05 I think that sounds about right. Seems we are perhaps over rating Getz because of his grindiness? Or we figure he's young and getting better? Or we like his 18 stolen bases? At this point he is a defensive liability...-3.6 rating by Fangraphs. Nix is about the same age, a much better hitter and a much better fielder. The biggest question about Nix is...are his batting stats an illusion based on Guillen's platooning? I sure think it makes sense to try Nix for three weeks everyday to see.

Harold Baines was the sleepiest looking player I ever saw. He looked like he was sleeping at the plate...and in RF...and now they have a sleepy looking statue of him. It is such nonsense to suggest Rios isn't trying hard. Do people really think he had an .850 OPS prior to the contract and he loafed his way to an .800 OPS the next year? He goes up to the plate half the time and decides not to try?

How can no one have mentioned Eddie Collins? Arguably the second best second baseman of all time. Nellie Fox wasn't CLOSE to being as good as Eddie Collins. Frank's the greatest player. Then Collins, Appling and Walsh...the guy pitched nearly five HUNDRED innings one year...1800 batters faced...wonder what BAseball prospectus' pitcher abuse points looked like for that season?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 10:39 AM) I'd expect a monkey with the ability to type to not make such mistakes, especially one owned by a genius such as Michelangelo. What does Michelangelo's genius have to do with his monkey? Typically one's genius doesn't pass on to our pets. Ask Frank Thomas's cat...never learned the strike zone.

QUOTE (bighurt4life @ Feb 22, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) I like Allen too but I still don't think he's so good that he counts double. Do I lose all credibility by saying I meant Cook? Shelby? Maybe Allen twice is a better choice.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Feb 21, 2009 -> 11:02 PM) mainly because, I have faith in Williams and his talent evaluation 2007 isn't happening again, this isn't a case of a massively injury-ridden team (at least not yet, crossing fingers) as long as our team stays healthy, I feel we will contend for the division edit: adding another, major, reason why I feel more excited this year. I feel this is the first time in a long while that the front office has taken a strong approach to eliminating the homerun - or - nothing offense that we've seen for so long if these players can perform both offensively and defensively (Owens/BA, Getz/Lillibridge/Nix, Fields/Viciedo), it will bring a better all-around style to the team, rather than the age-old one-dimensional, slow prodding nucleus that we're tired of watching every year I'm with you on this. I'm really fascinated with Kenny Williams and this spring in particular. OK, every once in a while a guy can get lucky on taking another organization's failed top prospect...but Kenny did it with Quentin, Jenks and Floyd in the last few years...guys that when we got them people said, m'heh. And now they are stars. And you think...maybe he was lucky or maybe...I don't know, maybe he sees things the rest of the GM's don't. Then this offseason he acquires Marquez, Betemit, Lillibridge, Van Benschoten and Nix and one has to sit up and wonder. Then KW did the same with international players...Tadahiro Iguchi, Shingo Takatsu and then last year Lexi...and now this year he adds Viciedo...who might be the most intriguing of all. And even the eye rolling over Bartolo Colon...but remember him pulling Estaban Loaiza off the old players scrap heap? Remember El Duque? Contreas? Jermaine Dye. Maybe it's not so crazy. Add into that mix, after the mess of the Sox minor league organization in the past we are presented with maybe the most interesting six pack of sox prospects at one camp...Flowers, Poreda, Allen, Bekham, Danks and Allen. And that's a dozen guys that are interesting. Sure everyone is a "maybe". But for most organizations "maybe's" are just organizational mirages sent to fans to give false hope. I've followed a lot of Sox teams over the last forty years and in so many years the Maybe's would be Getz, Fields and Broadway...and if you thought too hard about them you realized third place wasn't so bad. But Kenny? Maybe Kenny has a gift. If he does...perhaps the next WS isn't so far off.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) Why? I love Bobby, but he's not untouchable. He'd made a comment in jest, and i played the advocate. Why can't we discuss this? The problem with the "really good minor league outfielder" is what a long shot that still is. Here is the list of AA all star outfielders from the 3 AA leagues in 2005. Alex Romero Chris Robertson Daniel Ortmeier Jerry Owens Delmon Young Matt Murton Jeremy Hermidea Tyler Minges TJ Bohn Andre Ethier With perfect foresight only Ethier, I suspect, would you consider trading straight up for Jenks today. But in fact you wouldn't have that perfect foresight and would end up with a one in ten chance of getting a guy that is as good as Jenks and a 90% chance of being pissed off at the lousy trade we made for that AA all star outfielder. Jenks is really good major league starter and is not worth a small chance at a really good major leaguer.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 3, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) Not just last year, LAST DECADE!!! Personally, I just can't see KW trading away a JD to clear the way to sign an Abreu. But I've been surprised before. It doesn't really make sense. As noted, Abreu is going to hit 15-25 homers at USCF, not 30-45. He might have a better OBP, he MIGHT be a better defender...but he has slipped significantly. I suppose we could look at it as saving $3-4 million per season over Dye AND getting a pitcher back to take Vazquez's spot in the rotation. Just seems kind of backwards. Well, really the question is would it be better to buy a pitcher in the market or give up Dye in order to acquire one? I guess in KW's line of thinking, trading talent for younger/affordable starters is almost always better than buying veterans FA pitchers on the open market. You mean the "LAST DECADE" where we won three divisions, finished 2nd 4 times and won a World Series? That is the decade you don't want to repeat? Adam Dunn is a high on base, high power guy that would fit great on the team

QUOTE (TCQ @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 12:03 AM) There is a difference in those whove done it and those who havent. Theres also a difference between those who havent and those who will no longer. It would be a no brainer to make the kind of trade you commented on because with all of the potential that is in that package it is a risk one could live with. Vazquez fell apart under pressure and is extremely erratic. The point that he pitches 200 innings a year is moot due to his performance. Trading Jenks would be a very smart move as well if that was the package we got back because i can almost guarentee that he will not be on that same list in the next few years. He has a bolt in his arm and a declining k rate. People need to stop being so pro jenks just because he is a fan favorite. It is a business, and in this business the save is the most overrated stat. I know its not always easy to find the right guy to close but for every situation that there is a bad closer someone like JJ Putz (Two years ago), George Sherrill(This year), or Chad Cordero (Three years ago) comes out of no where to be spectacular. No one that pitches 60 innings a year should be guarded so heavily if he could yield that kind of return. I understand that this is the board Mantra about Jenks...he's an inch away from falling off the cliff. But a lot of great pitchers that pitched a long time have had arm surgery. Jenks this year had his lowest career ERA and second lowest WHIP. Further there are a ton of one hit wonders as relievers that lose it the next year...there are a handful that are consistent savers. Look at the WS champions the last 15 years and almost everyone had one of those guys that have had 30+ saves for five years in a row or more. Jenks seems to me that kind of a pitcher...perfect temperament for closing games...and he's learned there is no need to strike everyone out...yes he used to strike out twice as many as he does now...but he also walked twice as many. ASk Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Texas, Arizona...the Mets, there are a ton of teams with a lot of talent that don't make it because they have awful closers. We have a jewel in Bobby Jenks and I just hope we don't trade him away for a sack of magic beans...no matter how high the NY media thinks thinks those beans will grow.

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?