michelangelosmonkey

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.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) Than what happened to those ARod-led Texas Ranger squads? What James says though probably has never been more accurate than it is now. And when you hear KW talk about a "market correction," he isn't talking about the money being paid to the top-tier players. He's talking about the money being paid for absolute mediocrity. Carlos Silva wanting 4/$40. Kyle Lohse wanting 3/$21. I wonder what the difference is in average salary between pre-arbitration eligible players and players who have fulfilled their major league service time. It has to be absolutely astronomical. Now that being the case, is there actually any doubt that it would be better to play kids making the minimum with a few top-tier players mixed-in as opposed to spending $5-10 million per player? The difference in skill level between pre-arbitration eligible players and average major league players is nowhere near the difference in salary. And this is why pre-arb "prospects" are so amazingly valuable on the trade market currently. But then again....once that inefficiency becomes saturated....it's time to jump on the other side of the pendulum...which is what KW can do right now to get someone like an MCab or Crawford. Have our prospects ever been more valuable than now? I agree with the idea of getting MCab....however, we have to probably realize that if by some chance the Marlins were to accept our offer, it would probably be sooner rather than later. They're going to wait out the Angels and Dodgers as long as possible before accepting our offer. As far as the contract, I was hoping something more along the lines of Manny's contract (10/$200m), but I understand your point. In fairness to A-rod...these were the five starters in his last season: John Thomsom Colby Lewis Ismael Valdez Joaquin Benoit Tony Mounce Sheesh. remember the year the White Sox were trying Danny Glover and Dan Wright as 5th starters and they were horrible? They could have been the ACE on that Texas staff. One does have to make a credible effort on putting a team behind the star. And your point about the middle talent guys is perfect. And actually why we should take solace in what Kenny is doing. Having a team that consists of a bunch of stars and a bunch of rookies seems the right financial model. Sprinkling Owens, Richar, Fields, Floyd, Danks with room to grow while counting on stars like Buehrle, Vazquez, Thome, Konerko and hopefully Cabrera is a sensible path for a mid to high financial team like the Sox. I think you can win with guys like Garland and Rowand and Crede...but you don't win because of them. They don't carry the team...they make the team a little better. IF you gamble on young guys...every once in a while they burst onto the scene as stars...like Cabrera, like Pujols, like Liriano...and they can carry you. I laugh at people that say Gio can't be an ace...or Fields Each year there are the top 50 prospects and maybe one or two actually burst onto the scene. I think it's partly luck...and it's been a lot of years since the Sox got that lucky. Add Cabrera to the mix, get lucky with Danks...this thing is not hopeless...but it is if we chase after Willie Taveras.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:58 PM) I see these types of posts often, but I guess I can't totally disagree, but that tells where we're going to be the next many years if we aren't going to dish anything out for good players. Bill James used to preach that it was better to spend a ton on a superstar and surround him with C players than spend an equal amount on a bunch of B players. I always thought it was crazy to spend $15 million on 33 year old Torii Hunter when he was never more than about a B player (.800 OPS guy) and was likely on the down side of his career. Same with Rowand. Same with Andruw Jones. I would bow to KW if he had the guts to trade for Miguel Cabrera...you get a 24 year old who looks like a 1.000 OPS guy and then give him a 10 year $250 million contract. You build around him as the Sox did with Frank in the '90's. And if it costs Sweeney, Gio, Broadway and Carter? So be it. All this talk about Melky and Rowand and Coco Crisp seems like roster filling rather than shooting to win. And frankly...KW has shown more of that gambling nature than the names above suggest. Trading for David Wells, Thome, Garcia, Vazquez...trading top prospects like Chris Young, Jeremy Reed, Gio, McCarthy...that's the swing for the fences Kenny that makes the Sox so much fun to follow.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 12:20 PM) If Brian Anderson was going to be our CF next year, we might as well have let Dye and Buehrle walk for draft picks. I've been one of his biggest backers the last few years, and even I'll say that this team can not even consider penciling him in to CF next April. If he (or Sweeney) came out and set the world on fire in ST and in AAA for a month, and there's an opening in the OF, then maybe you'd consider bringing them up, but that's a desperation move, and it only really works if there's an injury or if our opening day OF is Fields, Owens, Dye (because Fields can be moved to 3rd base if we decide to create an opening) I don't see why Anderson is such a bad option. I'm sick thinking of KW trading ANYTHING for Willy Taveras or Coco Crisp. These guys are mostly useless offensive players that play some defense. Willy Taveras got 1100 at bats at roughly a .666 OPS. In 2006, at 24, Brian Anderson got 360 at bats with a .650 OPS and played near gold glove center field...and now we have to throw him in the garbage because he'll never hit? It does SEEM as if Ozzie and KW have written him off...but to set our sights on Taveras with his career .338 OBP as our leadoff man? Or Coco Crisp with his career .329 OBP? What is Timo Perez not available? Juan Pierre? If our options are home-grown horrible or trade for horrible...might as well give our guys a shot.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) Brian Doyle was the s***, though. Maybe if we bundled Dimaggio and Musial together we could work out a trade for Doyle...it would totally help our playoff chances.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) That money is negligible in comparison to their contracts so, again, I don't see what your point is. The Yankees weren't paying A-Rod to GET to the post-season. When they traded for him, they had more than enough offensive talent to win their division, or at least the Wild Card, without him. He was supposed to be the guy who put them over the top once they got there. Uh, no I don't. You're heavily weighing numbers from several years ago from a completely different team where his role and the expectations around him were not the same. He's been average-to-bad over the past few years. Speaking of "playing on the biggest stage", look at what Manny has done since going to Boston (easily the second biggest stage and not far behind NY) in the post-season. Talk about pressure... those guys hadn't won crap since 1918 when he got there. That was probably a HIGHER-stress environment than NY. Compare what Manny has done for the Red Sox in the playoffs to what A-Rod has done for the Yankees and it's not even close. Do you think that anybody in Boston would trade Manny's post-season numbers for A-Rod's regular-season MVPs? Neither do I. I never said that he was. I simply said that he has a history of having difficulty playing under pressure. That's not the same as somebody who NEVER plays well under pressure. That's true. I'm sure that everyone here remembers how freaking bad Vlad was in the '05 ALCS. He was clearly pressing, swinging at all kinds of crap outside of the strike zone. Sox pitching wasn't giving him anything to hit. But it's not like Vlad had a ton of protection in that lineup. Meanwhile, A-Rod's '04-'06 Yankees offenses were some of the best collections of offensive talent EVER, and it's not like he wasn't getting pitches to hit. What's A-Rod's excuse? Geez, Andy Pettite could've hit better than him in '05 and '06. Look, I'm not saying that A-Rod is a choke or that he's going to be a mediocre-to-bad player in the post-season from here on out. But he hasn't done crap in the playoffs since the '04 ALDS and hasn't been consistently good there since 2000 in Seattle. And this is supposedly the best player of his generation and perhaps the best player EVER? Uh, I don't think so. A-Rod's awesome for sure, but you can't reasonably ask for $300 million and the "Best Player Ever" title with some of the recent post-season performances he's had. From a hitting perspective, I'll take Manny over him in a second. Stupid old Joe Dimaggio was a .271 career hitter in the post season with an OPS of .750. Stan Musial about the same. I sure wouldn't want THOSE guys on the Sox (being dead and all).

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Reinsdorf is intelligent enough to know that signing a marquee player won't "win over" Chicago baseball fans. It didn't happen with Albert Belle, who appeared to be headed to the HOF back when the Sox signed him. The only way to "win over" fans from the Cubs, and the only way for the Cubs to increase their fan base, is to WIN. And since the Cubs can't win, and the Sox have very recently, it's not like the Sox have their back against the wall in terms of fan support. The only way that JR and his board would ever sign A-Rod would be if A-Rod/Boras agreed to several "out" clauses in the contract (salary ranking, diminished skills, etc.) so that he could dump the remaining $200+ million on some other owner if the A-Rod experiment went awry. And since dedicating 1/3 of one's payroll to one player doesn't work in baseball, I seriously doubt that A-Rod would be in Chicago for more than a few years. And, most importantly, paying A-Rod an obscene amount of money wouldn't help the Sox win. And I really think that the number of A-Rod jerseys being sold is somewhat exaggerated. While A-Rod may be a "star", he's not exactly embraced by fans in the same way that Jordan was. A-Rod is basically seen as a great regular-season player who doesn't get it done in the playoffs and who has a somewhat contrived personality. He's not perceived as a winner and he's not going to be the Derek Jeter of Chicago. It didn't happen with Albert Belle because he came across as SUCH a jerk. Then he got hurt and they soon cut bait on him. I wouldn't so quickly denigrate the idea of winning the city. A-Rod keeps the Sox competitive during the years when the Trib is selling the Cubs...this is a unique time when WGN no longer will have a vested interest in picking Cubs over Sox. You look back at attendence history and Chicago has not historically been a Cubs town. It became a Cubs town when the #1 TV station and #1 Newspaper owned them. If the Sox can leverage WS + signing AROD plus a couple more play off runs? Don't discount the little kids in the suburbs growing up as Sox fans. That's a LOT of customers 20 years down the road.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) The problem with that from a business standpoint, is that you aren't getting the meat of the return on investment within 3 years. The most money that Arod will produce for your team will come in years 5+ when he's approaching multiple records. From a pure baseball production standpoint, a 3 year deal makes the most sense, but to JR that's probably not the case. It has probably crossed JR's mind that he brought the greatest basketball player to ever live to Chicago, and now he has the chance to bring in and keep probably the greatest baseball player to ever live to Chicago. Reinsdorf would be a god in this city. Whether it all makes sense to us is a different story, but there are issues past the bottom line on a signing like this one. I'm definitely not saying it will happen, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. I think people forget that just a little over 10 years ago Reinsdorf...after complaining loudly for years about baseball salaries...made Albert Belle the highest paid player in baseball. People's jaws dropped at the time. But we need to remember that Reinsdorf is a smart businessman. The quest for Arod would be in an attempt to win the city of Chicago. This is a battle fought over decades...last off season the Cubs spent $300 million to get themselves a 3 and out in the playoffs...and who would bet on them for next year. If Reinsdorf spends $300 million on Arod and Rowand...trades Garland for prospects?? The city would be ABUZZ. When the Cubs get sold...WGN comes with hat and wallet in hand to pay for Sox TV. Young suburban baseball fans start wearing AROD jersies. It's really a great plan. To win Chicago it could be argued that Arod is more valuable to the Sox than any team in baseball.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 11:05 PM) Here's my brand of "logic and reason": With the top pick you can take whoever you want, no limitations at all. With the #9 pick you can take anyone you want except the 8 players who were drafted before your turn to choose. So with the top pick you have unlimited flexibility but with any pick after that you're limited in your choices more and more. IMO having greater flexibility in the selection of talent is an outstanding card to hold. Being handcuffed is not fun. And my friend you fight a good fight...outside of the exasperation. The flaw in your reasoning though is...assuming your #1 choice is the best choice. So they bring out the dessert tray after dinner and show you the piece of cake, the piece of pie and the ice cream. One of them is great the other two are crap. Not even the waiter knows which one is going to be great...even if you bribe him. Even if the agent for the Cake is Scott Boras. Chosing first, second or third doesn't affect your odds of getting the good dessert. It makes you FEEL like you are in control. But it doesn't really improve your odds. Hell the great dessert might just be the fruitcake being picked in the 17th round. So just stop worrying about how good the dessert is going to be and have enjoy the dinner rolls. (By the way...it was the pie).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:50 PM) I figured it out. You're an instant gratification sort of guy, if you're not getting the payoff RIGHT NOW you don't want it at all. I bet if I offered you a choice: 1.) you get 20 bucks right now or 2.) I'll give you $120 in June of next year you'd take the 20 now. Since the draft is 8 months away and any draft pick would take at least 2 years to develop in the minors you just don't want to think about it, you'd rather have the payoff of a win during a few meaningless games over the stretch run of a terrible baseball season even though a few losses RIGHT NOW could pay off 3 years from now. And when I talk about the boring aspect of these debates I'm mainly bothered by the constant listing of past draft picks, it gets old. We've all seen the names and we don't f***ing care. Just because you throw the names Bullington, Bush, Smoltz and Buehrle out there ever 30 minutes doesn't mean anyone's opinion is going to change. Just so I understand...it's evidence that bothers you? Facts are boring?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) It never fails. A new day, a new game thread, exact same arguments, exact same points being made on both sides and exact same people standing on each side of the issue. Dear god this is getting old and oh so boring. Logic and reason always standing by ready to do battle against voodoo and witchcraft.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) Yep, since talk show hosts are always the smartest people. Once again, who would you rather have the chance to draft, Cole Hamels or Royce Ring? I'll agree on the idiocy of sports talk guys...but come on...you just can't play that Cole Hamels vs Royce Ring game. In 2002 draft Bryan Bullington, Christopher Gruler, Adam Lowen, and Clint Everts went before Prince Fielder. Every single draft you can do great retrospectively. But with those 1500 names sitting on your board? NO ONE KNOWS.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:55 PM) Couldn't the first several options happen whether or not the White Sox win? And I don't believe psychological positives matter much. At this point in the season, they're probably dead and looking forward to the offseason. Next season is completely different. If Williams undergoes major roster changes, they'll be new life injected into the club regardless of how 2007 concludes. Here's a concept you fail to understand -- considering our draft history, the Whtie Sox need EVERY benefit possible within the draft. You suggest there's no evidence you're likely to hit gold with a #1 pick, yet, when I browse through our recent draft history it doesn't seem we hit gold with anything. Why not cheer for the possibility of selecting high, and perhaps, receiving our Ken Griffey Junior, BJ Uption, Joe Mauer, Alex Rodriguez? There's going to be quite the lull between our first and second round pick. We don't exactly have the compensation round to fall back upon. I'm not opposed to the White Sox leading every game 6-0 going into the eight inning and then have Mike Meyers give up 7 runs and they lose. But sadly...if Gavin and Garland and Contreas pitch well...Fields and Richar and Owens look good...Sox will probably win enough games to keep from having #1 overall pick. As for me and my lack of understanding...as I have said...there IS evidence that top ten picks are more likely to be great players than later first round picks. The White Sox haven't picked in the top ten in 17 years. But even in the top 10 the odds are small. It's not a failure of any particular organization...it's just random. The Sox need to improve in all areas of player development. 1 pick is not that important...or so says Albert Pujols 13th round, Jim Thome 13th Round, Jake Peavey 15th round, John Smoltz--undrafted. So why not just cheer to win? Go Sox Go.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) No, those certain posters still wont budge from their stance winning meaningless September games (the previos season) was better than losing for the purpose of gaining draft position. We'll have to wait until those drafted ahead are producing in the majors for anyone to acknowledge their mistakes. And even then, I'm sure they'll just shrug their shoulders and say something such as "it is what it is." Here's one prevailing question the 'winning' crowd has yet to answer -- what's the most beneficial part of winning out the remainder of the season? Name me ONE legitimate benefit. I could give you one benefit to losing out the remainder of the year -- having the opportunity to draft a HOF calibur player at #1. Yes, that player may still be available wherever we select; but they'd also be there at #1. As I see it, there's much more substance to our argument than the constrasting view held by Greg and the Gang. Atleast we're facing Santana on Friday. Although would it shock anyone if the White Sox mounted their highest offensive output, post-changeup era, against him? * Increasing Contreas Trade value. * Increasing Garland trade value * Gavin floyd getting confidence * Positive results from Richar, Fields, Owens and young relief pitchers. * Psychological positives. * Not having to read headlines all off season like "From first to worst in two seasons", "From World Series to worst overall in two seasons." From Penthouse to outhouse". All seem WAY better than the SLIM advantage #1 overall pick brings. Since 1965 there are THREE #1 overalls with OPS above .900. Why is this complicated? There are 1500 amateur players taken...with #1 you have a choice of the top 1500. With #4 you have a choice of the top 1496. Virtually zero evidence you are more likely to hit gold with #1 over #2 or #3 or #4. There is some evidence of top 10...but within top ten?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th. You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity. I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not. Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:06 AM) This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft. I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984. Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare. My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats. Phil Nevin was a good player. But you are taking near the top of all the #1's. And they bipassed Derek Jeter. Erstad, Jeff King, Bj Surhoff, Shawn Dunston, Bill Almon....all reached your 3,000 at bats and none of them was anything but 'servicable'. I think the goal in drafting is to acquire a star. A top 50 player in baseball...I just googled "top 50 players in baseball" and the first thing was a Sporting News article from 2003. Now granted this is open to bias in who those players are...but the list isn't bad, and its not MY bias. Anyway I figured any year should be roughly the same...so here is how those 50 top players in baseball entered the game: Undrafted: 13...this is the great unfairness in baseball vs football. Smart organizations can get players like Ichiro, Vlad Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, Carlo Delgado...without effecting draft...and for the most part without paying a ton. This is one area the White Sox need to get better...and it appears they are trying hard. Draft round 10-50: 6 players. That's 12% wild luck. draft round 3-9: 7 players. draft round 2: 4 players draft round 1: 20. Actually this is more like football than I thought. 40% of the best players come from the first round. If you want a star you need to get him in the first round. And to break that down: pick 1: 2 pick 2: 2 pick 4: 2 Pick 5: 1 pick 6: 3 Top ten: 13 And fully 26% of all stars come from the top ten picks. But 1 over 2? 2 over 4? Brief conclusion...and again, one year, one list...but it seems sound. Drafting in the first round: important. Top ten pick: important. But inside the top ten...not much difference. So Go Sox Go. Loved Garland pitching well last night.