almagest

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) If the Sox are in serious contention without Colon then you probably wouldn't want to make significant changes as you say. If the back end of our rotation sucks, then we suck and we're going nowhere in the division. If that is the case, it is much better to go with one of Broadway/Egbert, or even Nick Masset. If we're going to suck, we should at least suck with young players who have some kind of chance to learn at the MLB level and help us in the future. Colon makes absolutely no sense for this team unless we acquire another better, more reliable SP. If we had a reliable #3 starter, like say Jon Garland for instance, we would have a solid group 1-3 with two more veterans penciled in at the bottom and our young pitchers representing depth. It's still Riske to have to rely on two of Colon/Contreras/Danks/Floyd/Egbert/Broadway turning out as solid #4 and #5 starters, especially in our division where there is minimal if any room for error, but it's a lot better than relying on three of those guys doing the job. Agreed. Colon is just as much of a risk as any of our young pitchers (perhaps more so, given his health issues), but doesn't have the future upside that they do. And for those trumpeting our "ability" to find "diamonds in the rough" -- how many of said diamonds had a serious injury to recover from? QUOTE(Adam G @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) How much did Mark Prior get? Colon's been in the league for longer. Prior had 2 good years, and 2 good half-years, throwing over 200 innings once. Colon has had 7 good years, throwing over 200 innings 7 times. Colon's going to get more.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -if KW could dump Uribe for nothing he would. Uribe is here because KW couldn't get a SS quick enough so he re-signed Juan. He's HERE BECAUSE WE CAN"T MOVE HIM. Why would Kenny just up and give Uribe away for nothing, if he just resigned him? That doesn't make any sense, and he'd look pretty stupid. Maybe you can find an example of a team almost immediately trading a starter they just resigned, because I sure can't, and you seem to think it's a fairly common thing. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -If you don't have strong SP you do not win in the American League. As far as making reference to 2005, El Duque and McCarthy gave us a pretty strong 5th starter tandem, quite possibly if not probably better than what we'll get this year from any spots in our rotation 3-5. Your comment about 4 man rotations shows how little you know. This is a different era of baseball. Then why do teams often skip the fifth starter spot, if it's so important? And why do they skip it in the postseason? You might want to read Baseball Between the Numbers (specifically, chapter 2-3), or ask Google why a 4-man rotation could be better than 5. I'll give you a hint -- given proper pitch count monitoring and current sports medicine, spreading the 5th starter's starts between the 4 pitchers in front of him has a very good chance of resulting in better starting pitching overall. Orlando Hernandez was a poor 5th starter for us in 2005. Brandon McCarthy was good, but saw limited action. The stats don't lie. How exactly are you determining that they were good? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -It sounds like you think that the Sox want something of value for Contreras. You think the salary is less of a factor in his being untradable than his age and declining skills. You are again trying to split apart one idea and make it into two seperate things. Let's pretend Jose was a FA after last year. Someone would pick him and start him. David Wells has been around how long now? Someone would take him, declining skills, poor 2007 season, age and all. But no one takes him for $20 million over the next two years. What does that tell you? If some team is going to give Kyle Lohse a contract over $7 mil/year, you bet someone would take a chance on Contreras. But the terms of the trade would be in the other team's favor by far, and that's not good business. If Contreras falters this year again, then we can still probably trade him for nothing (likely having to eat some of his salary) But if he turns in a decent or good year, then he has value again. I'm a firm believer in not selling low on starting pitching if at all possible. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. Difference of opinion. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Kyle Lohse hasn't signed because his agent has been pushing for him to get paid like he's a consistent, workhorse #3 starter. He's not. He's a five on a decent team and a 4 on a mediocre to bad team. He'll get paid, and he'll get paid tons of money. Just watch. Had his demands been more reasonable, say 3 years/$21 million, he would have signed long ago, and that is still waaaay too much for Lohse. Unfortunately, the current market for contracts for starting pitchers disagrees with you. Lohse (and pitchers like him) will likely get 6 or 7 mil a year for 3 years, because that's what teams who need a league-average 5th starter are going to have to pay in the free agent market. You do not determine how much Kyle Lohse, or any free agent, is worth. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes the Yankees and Red Sox think about the consequences but in AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MANNER, i.e. the $55 million Boston spent to TALK to Matsuzaka, all the money the Yanks have pissed away on Wright, Pavano, Igawa, Giambi, etc., the BlowSox RETARDED Julio Lugo signing, and the list goes on and on. Sorry, but that is reckless spending. If you don't think so you're on crack. BTW, check out their ticket prices, parking prices, etc. There comes a point where reckless spending HURTS THE FANS. The Red Sox won the World Series this year (Lugo, Matsuzaka, and all), and were one of the best overall baseball teams I've seen in a long time. Most Boston fans don't care how much tickets are -- they've been sold out for 388 consecutive regular-season games. They may complain about the prices, but they still go to see a competitive team play in a historic stadium. Plus, it's still cheaper to see a Red Sox game than it is to see a Patriots, Celtics, or Bruins game. How is this a bad value for the fans? Also, the Red Sox average cost for two fans to see a game exceeds that of the Yankees by almost 90 dollars ($313.83 to $222.53). And the Yankees have been in the playoffs almost every year since 1996, and have a couple World Series trophies as well. They're also loaded with star players. How is this a bad value for Yankees fans? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Maybe ARod has a better OPS+. Wow, so what? I'll take Josh Fields at the minimum, Konerko at what $12mil, Dye at $11mil, and Linebrink at $4mil over ARod's salary and a bunch of worthless garbage around him. And a mentioned the added revenue a player like ARod would provide in certain areas... If ARod takes up 1/4 of the payroll alone then the team around him will very likely suck, and if that is the case, whatever amount the Sox would gain in say merchandise sales would surely be offset by losses in gate and concession. Sox fans care more about winning than names. KW/JR etc. get a lot of criticism from Sox fans, and I'm one of them, but I think these guys know a lot more about building a team than you think. They could have made a serious play at ARod and may have even possibly gotten him without giving up any talent OR a first round draft pick. Yet, like at least 27 other teams, they took a pass on the best player in baseball. Hmmm, I wonder why? It means hes worth 26 million dollars more a year than Josh Fields, apparently. And there's no maybe about it. A-Rod was so much better than Fields this year it's almost not worth comparing. And I like Josh Fields a lot. And if we're picking players, I'll take Fields, A-Rod, Swisher, and Garland, lose Linebrink and Uribe, and pay more at the Cell to see what would undoubtedly be a better team than what we have now. What evidence points to a team automatically sucking if a hall-of-fame caliber player like A-Rod takes up 20-25% of the payroll? And what evidence points to said team having no talent to surround said player? Also, the Sox were one of the teams involved in the bidding war that drove Rodriguez's price up so high in the first place. Apparently, we were ready to commit 20 million per year to him then. And you don't know what other teams would've gone after A-Rod if he'd entered the free agent market properly, and not danced around with the Yankees. If Sox fans care so much about winning, then I'd imagine that player salaries would be largely immaterial if said players brought them a championship. Just like the fans of almost any team. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes, you are right about one thing: the Tigers did give up a ton of talent for Cabrera, BUT on the flip side of it, they have been a POS team for many, many years and now that their fans have been excited for a couple years they feel the need to go all out, and they have the owner's support. This move will likely hurt them considerably if Cabrera does not extend his contract at a reasonable rate. Besides, the Tigers will have a payroll in the $130 million range. That's a lot more than we have, and also, Miguel is arb eligible. He's not getting paid like Miguel. The Tigers could have had a shot at ARod too for free, but again, they passed. Hmm.... I've seen projections for the Tigers payroll next year to be anywhere between 110 million and 128 million. They play in a smaller market than we do. How come we can't spend the extra 30 million, if they're going to? We don't have a farm system. We need to win now. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Yes the Rangers were bad because poor allocation of funds, i.e. spending huge on a few players and having nothing left for the rest of the team. I'm not going to debate this with you. You are wrong. Players on the 2002 Texas Rangers Joaquin Benoit Francisco Cordero Doug Davis Dennys Reyes Dan Kolb Kenny Rogers Chan Ho Park Ivan Rodriguez Rafael Palmeiro Hank Blalock Travis Hafner Mike Lamb Alex Rodriguez Michael Young Frank Catalanotto Carl Everett Juan Gonzalez Todd Hollandsworth Gabe Kapler Kevin Mench (Mark Teixiera hit the majors in 2003) Yeah, man. Wow. They had no players. No talent at all besides A-Rod and wasted money on Chan Ho Park. None of those young players could have turned out to be any good if they hung on to them, either. Who's wrong? QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -Your last point about Jordan is utter nonsense. Funny, because you admit to it (how basketball with 5 starters on the floor and a couple key bench players is a stupid comparison to baseball with 5 SP, 8 positions in the AL with a DH, a bullpen, and THEN a bench) but then you say it's valid. What? Michael Jordan's salary in the 97/98 Bulls season - $30.14 million The salaries of the rest of the team combined - $33.3675 million Jordan accounted for close to 50% of that team's payroll. No team in baseball has a player making even remotely close to 50% of the team payroll. The differences between the sports are partially, if not wholly, offset by this huge difference in percentages. This makes it a valid comparison. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) -About Santana, it again depends on payroll. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not making this up as I go, you know. How come the only suitors for Johan are two New York teams, the Red Sox, and MAYBE the LA Dodgers? Hmmm..... methinks if other teams thought they could afford to toss something like 7 years/$140 million his way they would have no trouble surrendering a few 'spects to make a deal for the best pitcher in baseball. And yes, that would be a mistake. If we had a serious contender and we could get him for say 4 years/$80 million with a PROMISE to hike the payroll accordingly it would be a good move, but that isn't going to happen. Signing Santana to our current team makes us a serious contender. We'd have the best 1-3 combo of starters in baseball. Santana would make most any team in the NL a division contender. Unfortunately, we do not have (and never had) the king's ransom in prospects the Twins want, and they likely won't trade him in the division anyway. In fact, they're reported to want to trade him to the NL. So that limits the teams that could land him. Of those teams, how many have the prospects to land him? And of those teams, how many want to give up said king's ransom in prospects for a guy they may not be able to resign? As long as he stays healthy, Santana is going to have the majority of the MLB scrambling to sign him. Don't believe me? Watch when he hits free agency. Also -- if you can't remain civil in our discussion, please don't respond to me. Personal attacks do nothing to further your points, and neither do blanket statements such as "you're wrong" without proof to back them up.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Uribe is still on the team because KW didn't pull off the Garland-for-Cabrera swap before the arbitration deadline. That's the only reason. Okay, so it wasn't salary related. As I said. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Contreras is still with the team for the same reason that he went unclaimed when put on waivers last summer. Your comment about not having a chance to compete without a semi-reliable fifth starter makes me wonder if you started watching the Sox in 2005. If you don't have a semi-reliable FIFTH starter you don't have a chance to compete (unless you play in the NL Central). Our 3-5 is not reliable at all. Plenty of teams have reached the postseason and been successful there without a 5th starter. You do realize that baseball has been successfully played in the past with 4 man rotations, correct? And that plenty of teams switch to a 4 or even 3 man rotation in the playoffs? Or that the Sox got rather mediocre performance out of the 5th starter slot for a large portion of 2005? An OPS+ of 77 from our 5th starter wasn't why we won 99 games. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Don't you think KW would rather give Egbert or Broadway a shot in the rotation over Contreras to see what they have? You're not buying his lines to the media are you? Sure Kenny would. But he can't, because Contreras' value is rock bottom, and trading him now makes less sense than keeping him and hoping he has at least one more decent season left. What I was trying to say here, is that while salary may indeed be a factor of why he's unmovable, his performance on the field, as well as his age, are far, far greater factors. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) ^I can't believe you said this in a thread about Kyle Lohse. Uhh, in case you haven't noticed, teams aren't exactly beating down the door for Kyle. He's been forced to lower his demands already, and we're still not hearing of much interest from any teams. Unless you have some information about interested teams that I haven't seen. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) Unless you are a Yankees or BlowSox fan, you have always seen flexibility affect the product. It's the reason we never spend an assload of money on free agents. It's the reason our team doesn't look like the two other teams mentioned. It is impossible to run a successful franchise without it unless you have bottomless pockets. Any fan smart enough to recognize the trend a player is on and the trend he is projected to take will most likely take the salary of said player into appropriate consideration. It's one thing (value = performance in relation to salary) and when you try to break it up into two seperate things (performance independant of salary) you completely miss the point of value. Outside of payroll monsters like the Yanks and BlowSox, you cannot construct a successful franchise without paying attention to the value of each player. Players with good value can help a team in several ways, be it through performance on the field or through trades that strengthen other areas within an organization, whereas poorly valued or overvalued players will hurt a team in at least in one area. The Red Sox and Yankees do not spend money without thinking about the consequences, nor do they have bottomless pockets. I don't know why people seem to think this. They're businesses -- they can't afford to run at a loss year in and year out. They're subject to the same rules as every other team in baseball -- in fact they're probably screwed over more than any other teams, due to the revenue sharing cap. They just happen to exist in good markets, and find ways to remain competitive every year. QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) It's like this: you talk about only concerning yourself with performance on the field. ARod is one of the best players in baseball history, and he's much better than Josh Fields in every aspect of the game. However, Josh Fields makes league minimum while ARod makes $30 million per year or so. You can factor in the possibility of ARod leading to higher attendance, an increase in merchandise sales and other stuff like more lucrative television and radio contracts, but the fact is, given our payroll, ARod would only hamstring our club. We couldn't afford to pay that much to one player without raising the payroll to account for it, and unless the payroll was raised, we would have to take money out of other areas to make up a team. ARod is a legend, but it is very hard for teams with around a $100 million payroll or less to to devote that much money to one player and still run out another 24 players. That's why there were only about three out of thirty teams, and maybe just one really, trying to get him this offseason. In video game land or in the minds of an average fan, ARod would be more valuable to the Sox than Fields, but in reality, Fields is the more valuable player to us. For proof of this, look no further than Texas. How long did the contracts to ARod and Chan Ho Park among others set that organization back? It's exactly this mentality that I find ridiculous. Alex Rodriguez is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Josh Fields has a ceiling of very good, perhaps All-Star level, year in and out. But he'll never be as good as A-Rod. But it's okay that we didn't sign A-Rod (who made $22 mil last year and will make $27 mil this year, btw. Not quite 30.), because Josh Fields makes $400k and is a better bargain and doesn't hamstring us financially. Never mind that adding A-Rod last year (for example) would've raised the production level at third base by a phenomenal amount -- he had an OPS+ 76 points higher than Fields (101 to 177). And I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'd bet that adding a player like A-Rod adds a rather significant amount of revenue to a team... enough to make that salary hurt quite a bit less, I'd imagine. Plus, we would have a fair amount of flexibility with our current roster + prospects (like including Fields in a trade), to assist in obtaining a pitcher or two to help this team even more. Actually, I would argue that the Tigers made a worse move by trading for Miguel Cabrera, than any team that signed A-Rod. They traded away a considerable amount of young talent, and greatly devalued their minor league system, for 2 years of a player they might not even be able to resign. Doesn't this move also reduce flexibility for the Tigers? And it essentially involves no money. Also, the Rangers weren't/aren't bad because of A-Rod. They're bad because they don't have any pitching, and apparently have no idea how to draft or sign good pitchers. Look at it this way -- the Bulls paid Jordan over 30 mil a year for the last two years he was here 10 years ago, in a sport with a salary cap. Would it have been better to maintain "flexibility" instead? Sure, a single player's impact is greater in basketball than in baseball, but it's still a similar enough situation to warrant mention. Or, what about Johan Santana? If he were a free agent, would targeting him and his 20+ million dollar salary be a mistake?

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 12:57 AM) Danks only had 70 innings pitched in AAA. He really wasn't supposed to make the big league club last year. Floyd lost the job and Danks pitched well in spring training. Danks has been promoted quickly and each time he is promoted, he gets rocked. Then he makes adjustments and makes big improvements. Danks Minor League Numbers We have not seen the best from Danks. Still, competition is good and Colon would be a nice pickup if he comes cheaply. A confidence building season in AAA for Danks might not be such a bad deal. Hopefully Floyd steps up. If he doesn't, then he's on mop up duty. By this logic, Danks would be in line for an impressive (or at least improved) second season in MLB, and thus it would be a mistake to send him down.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) This doesn't make sense. You're basically saying that a player's performance in relation to his salary, or his total value, is not very significant, or at least it shouldn't matter much to the fans. You justify this by saying that a bad contract can be absorbed by adding to the payroll or dumping other unnecessary contracts, but that makes no sense either. There are 25 guys on a roster. We'll have somewhere around a $100 million payroll in an age where below-average players get paid like stars and average players get paid like superstars. Value is as important now as it has ever been, if not even more so than in recent years because we're getting back to those scary 2000 type contacts that ruined so many teams. Also, if we could dump Uribe off for nothing, he'd already be gone. There's a reason no one claimed Jose Contreras off waivers last summer. It's not that KW is holding out for a good prospect; it's that no one is going to want to take on a bad contract without us paying part of it or assuming another bad contract in return. You say that as long as the players don't suck on the field, you don't care what they are paid. But I assume you also expect to have a competitive team on the field, and a large part of staying competitive is flexibility. You can't maintain flexibility when you are locked into longterm contracts with s***ty players making a lot of money. Juan Uribe is still on this team because he's been absolutely awful offensively for a few years now, not because he makes 4.5 million dollars a year. The shortstop position has become much more valuable as an offensive position in baseball in the past decade or so. Also, Jose Contreras is still here because we have no chance to compete without a semi-reliable 3rd starter. Contreras will give you innings, whether he's bad or mediocre or good. Also, we really don't have anyone even close to reliable who can take over for him at this point, and Kenny knows you can't try to pass a team off as competitive in a division like ours with three rookie starters (I'm including Danks here, for sake of argument). We're quite honestly better off seeing if he can turn it around even a little, rather than selling him off for nothing. Plus, Contreras HAS been bad. You think other teams haven't noticed this? They're not going to offer us anything anywhere NEAR valuable for him. Likewise, if Contreras was pitching well, you don't think we wouldn't be able to get a nice package for him from some team? How exactly does salary make a big difference here? Whether Contreras was making league minimum or his current salary, no one would want him unless he was good. And sure, staying competitive year in and year out is partially due to flexibility, unless you have a bottomless payroll. I recognize that. How does flexibility affect the product we see on the field, though? It's not hitting home runs or striking people out -- it's strictly a measure of what the Sox can do NEXT year, or perhaps at the trade deadline. I'm far more concerned with the team's current performance, and I'd expect that's how most other fans feel as well. Also, doesn't flexibility also apply to non-monetary values, such as player age, the possibility that said player will get better / stay the same, and the number of years we control said player? I think that in the view of the fans, these variables are far more important than how much a player makes. In the long run, I guess what I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be looking at not signing Torii Hunter (for example) as a good move because the Sox saved $18 million a year. We should look at it as a good move because we don't have to watch a career .793 OPS player regress to that level, then decline further both offensively and defensively for the next 5 years. Likewise, we shouldn't look at obtaining Swisher as a good move because he's much cheaper. We should look at it as a good move because we obtained a player who's entering the prime of his career, is under our control for 4 years, and projects to easily put up an OPS over .850 during this time. Make sense?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 05:31 PM) I think Floyd is a better bet to put up an ERA under 5 than is Danks; Danks was doing a lot of it on smoke and mirrors, what with his 1.48 WHIP in the first half of the year to go with his 4.62 ERA. Both fatigue and the odds caught up to him later in the year, where he put up a WHIP of 1.64, higher but not a ton higher, and an ERA of 7.11, which is huge and was somewhat expected. I like Danks a lot, and think he has a future in this league, but he needs to atleast increase his IP output from the previous two seasons where he has put up 140 innings in each of them. And doing that may end up in Charlotte, seeing as how he has options left. Beyond that, I'd feel much more comfortable with Colon in the rotation than either Floyd or Danks; there's something to be said for experience, regardless of how much s*** we give Ozzie for it (and that was deservedly so, because Darin Erstad is a terrible player). There's no long-term commitment; if he sucks, you can DFA him; if he's good and the team is good, you are in contention; if he's good and you are not, you can trade him at the deadline for a couple decent prospects. There's a lot to be said for a player like Colon, and there's virtually zero downside to bringing him in, so long as his medical and scouting reports checkout. I don't think either Danks or Floyd have anything to prove at AAA. Floyd has already dominated there, and Danks has already pitched at or slightly below a replacement-player level in the majors, at the age of 22. If you sign Colon, unless he puts up numbers approaching what he did with the White Sox the first time (which I really don't think is possible), he's just blocking the growth of one of our young pitchers, who in the long run have a chance to be a better investment than Colon. I'd really rather try to catch lightning-in-a-bottle with younger players, because I think they're a better bet for continued success. Also, again, the Mets were scared away by Colon's medical reports, which should tell you something about his health.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) I'm not sure I understand your post....on one hand, you say you don't think it's any of our concern "as fans" what the White Sox payroll is. Then, just one sentence later, you say you don't want to go to the Cell and pay close to $100 to see crappy players. Don't you think the two are intertwined? At least indirectly? Obviously the White Sox are not spending "my" money on the payroll directly, but I know a few things which lead me to take an interest in what that payroll is. 1) I know they have a finite payroll- and it's probably going to be between $100-110 million. Therefore, spending large chunks of that allotment on players that have never shown the ability to perform at an average or above-average level does concern me. 2) There is at least an indirect correlation between the White Sox payroll and ticket prices, concession prices, merchandise prices, etc., which trickles down to me. And don't get me wrong- I am happy to do my part- but like you, I too don't want my hard-earned money being spent on the likes of overpaid, underperforming players. Therefore, I am concerned with the money the White Sox spend or don't spend on players. My desire to not waste $100 on crappy players has almost nothing to do with how much money they make. It doesn't matter to me if it's Andy Gonzales or Gary Matthews, Jr -- if they're terrible, I don't want to see them. And Lohse is terrible -- whether he costs 1 mil/yr or 10 mil/yr, signing him would be a mistake. Sure, a 10 mil/yr investment on Lohse is a worse deal by far... for the White Sox. It really doesn't affect me either way, because ticket prices sure aren't going to change, and a team has limited room on it's 40 man roster, so even signing Lohse to a reasonable contract might be the only significant move the Sox would be able to make. As for affecting a team's ability to make future transactions while being "hamstrung" by a contract... unless it's a seriously significant amount of money (I'd say approaching 20 mil/yr), that's probably less of a problem than you'd think. Say the Sox sign Lohse for 10/yr, and he blows. His contract impact, while a pain in the rear, can be alleviated through a minor payroll increase, or by trading or not resigning players (Crede or Uribe, for example). Anyway, it's not my job to worry about the team's financial status. That's for their shareholders and accountants to do.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 01:44 PM) You are very hopeful, that's all I have to say about that. So what would be a better solution? And why couldn't we expect Danks to put up an era near 4.5? He was around there until his late season blow-up last year, and he stands a pretty good chance of improving. Floyd is probably a much less safe bet, but I like what I saw from him late in the year, and if he falters I'd think one of Haeger or Egbert or Broadway could put up an ERA in the mid to high 4s. I think they're a better bet to do so than Colon or Freddy, anyway. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) I think I might be the only one who thinks that Uribe will now have a pretty decent season for the Sox. Remember the best year he had with us was when he was a supersub playing for a contract after being dumped by Colorado for Aaron Miles. I think the kick in the teeth of losing his job, plus having to fight for playing time, might make him a little more reseptive to playing a team game again. That's an intriguing thought, and very well may be true. I don't see it happening though. I think what we've been seeing from Uribe is what we're going to get, and even if it's not, I don't want to have to watch a player who needs that much motivation to perform.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) If Uribe is starting at 2B, what the hell was the point of getting Cabrera? Or for that matter, Richar? The whole point of Cabrera was to not have Uribe striking out three times a day while trying to hit an 800 ft homerun. I'm sure the White Sox are trying to get rid of Uribe, but Ozzie realizes that if that's not possible, he'll have to use him somehow -- besides as a super-sub or defensive sub, pushing Richar for the starting job at 2B or working in a possible platoon against LHP (where Uribe has 4 more points in OBP and slugs almost 30 points higher for his career... not much, but it's something.) might make sense. Though one of Uribe's few strengths, his arm, is wasted at 2B. Realistically, I think we have to realize there probably aren't many teams that want to give much, if anything, for Uribe. His offensive numbers are absolutely putrid. His only saving point is his defense, which probably relegates him to a defensive sub role. I doubt any team will give anything of value for a defensive sub. Anyway, back on topic. I say pass on Bartolo Colon. It's obvious he still has lingering medical concerns, otherwise the Mets would've signed him, and I think we're better off giving Danks, Floyd, et. al. a chance instead of spending money on a guy who in a best case scenario will only be a shell of his former self. As I said in the Lohse thread, we already have guys who can post a 4.50-4.75 era, and they have upside at least. Colon is seriously overweight, on the wrong side of 30, and has thrown a ridiculous number of pitches in his career. No thanks.

Jaime Navarro Josh Paul D'Angelo Jimenez Mark Johnson

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) There has been so much complaining about us going with Danks and Floyd that this puts things into perspective. The kids may falter, but then again we could pay a mediocre pitcher a king's ransom and still be no better off. Yep. As I've said in other threads, though, I don't think its any of our concern as fans to care what the White Sox payroll is, or how much they "save" by not signing a player. That being said, if the Sox are going to give a pitcher close to 10 mil/year, it'd better not be someone like Kyle Lohse. I don't want to go to the Cell next year and pay close to $100 to see him consistently give up 4+ runs over 5 innings. I'd rather go see players who at least have the chance to have an upside.

No. Thanks. John Danks' final numbers last year are about equivalent to what you could expect from Kyle Lohse. Do we really want to pay Lohse 7 mil + a year to consistently give what Danks gave last year? At least Danks has an upside, and should probably pitch better than he did last year. Lohse has no where to go but down, especially since he'd be coming back from the NL.

Looks like I was right about the BCS. I missed Gladiators tonight, though. How was it?

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 12:56 AM) I hear there's some sort of football game on. I've a feeling it's going to be another lopsided college bowl game, and I need something else to watch, just in case.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 11:56 PM) well, I think Young will be a decent player, but a lot of people here are proclaiming him to be the next Carlos Beltran or something, and thats bs. I agree about Chris Young completely. Even with his power, and even trying to maximize the number of his ABs given said power, I have no idea why Arizona batted him leadoff with his robust .297 OBP. He's like Alfonso Soriano, but without the high average. I'd think he'd be better off hitting lower in the order, where his power would be more valuable, and low OBP less of a hindrance. Beltran was a bit overrated too (IMHO) because of his performance a couple years ago in the playoffs, though he actually has become a pretty good value, given his .878 2007 OPS, an ~.850 career OPS, and salary of 13.5 million. Torii Hunter put up an .839 OPS in 2007, with a career OPS of .793, and he's getting what? 18 million a year? Even Rowand is getting $12 mil/year now, and he's no where near worth as much as Beltran. QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 6, 2008 -> 06:08 PM) I wouldnt mind seeing the reactions from when Reed was traded. I remember that. I was lurking here at the time -- quite a few doomsday prophecies, I believe. I can't say I didn't feel the same way, though. That was one of the deals that helped me realize how worthless hanging on to prospects can be.

That old blonde guy really annoyed me. I'm glad he almost had a heart attack and lost. I also am amazed at how much they've improved upon the old show, in almost every aspect. And that was no small task, since the original show had the considerable force of nostalgia behind it. So who else will be watching it tomorrow night?

The more I think about this trade, the more I like it. I'm also wondering if perhaps Quentin wasn't meant all along to be a replacement for Sweeney. There isn't much space for Sweeney in our outfield as of now, even if Quentin doesn't do well. I'd imagine Owens would take over in CF, moving Swisher to LF. The thing that worries me a bit, though, is when Dye leaves, or has to move to DH/1B. We don't really have anything to replace him, unless they're actually going to give Brian Anderson another chance. Also, I've seen mention of using free agency to fill a majority of our holes. Financial concerns aside (in reality, we as fans should seldom if ever worry about how much a particular player costs. The White Sox aren't going to lower ticket prices because they saved money by not signing a player.), each worthwhile free agent we sign is going to cost us draft picks anyway, which is what we really need at this point. We have to fill our lower minor leagues with quality prospects, since they're so barren. I don't feel including DLS in this trade hurts us as much as some seem to think, either. Whether we trade him or not, our minor leagues are in dire need of legitimate prospects, and Kenny needed to help keep the team competitive now. I think people forget that the minor leagues are there to help the parent club, whether it's through producing good MLB-caliber players, or helping to acquire good MLB-caliber players through trade. Whether the players we traded end up being stars, or busts, Swisher helps us quite a bit this year, and will likely help us for the next few years as well. In my eyes, that makes it a good trade.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Anyway, I'd like to compare last season, and career numbers for two players - Jack Egbert, and Gio Gonzalez: Egbert 2007 W L ERA G GS CG SH GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO WP BK H9 HR9 BB9 K9 WHIP GB% 12 8 3.06 28 28 0 0 0 0 161.2 138 63 55 3 44 165 6 0 7.68 0.17 2.45 9.19 1.13 -- Egbert Career (4 MiLB seasons) W L ERA G GS CG SH GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO WP BK H9 HR9 BB9 K9 WHIP GB% 35 24 2.93 104 90 4 3 0 -- 529.0 461 215 172 12 179 468 23 -- 7.84 0.20 3.05 7.96 1.21 -- Gio 2007 W L ERA G GS CG SH GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO WP BK H9 HR9 BB9 K9 WHIP GB% 9 7 3.18 27 27 0 0 0 0 150.0 116 57 53 10 57 185 5 2 6.96 0.60 3.42 11.10 1.15 -- Gio Career (4 MiLB seasons) W L ERA G GS CG SH GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO WP BK H9 HR9 BB9 K9 WHIP GB% 31 28 3.49 91 89 0 0 -- 0 492.1 400 215 191 43 206 577 23 -- 7.32 0.79 3.77 10.55 1.23 -- Egbert is two years older, but the stats are pretty close, with an edge to Egbert (IMO) due to the extra innings thrown, starts made, lower HR/9, BB/9, WHIP, and ERA. I guess the point of this comparison is to ask why so many people seem to think Gio was such a "can't miss" prospect with a ceiling of a #3 or #2 starter, when Egbert has anywhere from a slightly worse (considering the difference two years can make development-wise, though considering they both have four years experience, I'm not sure this is the case) to slightly better career line, but is considered a 4th or 5th starter at best. I think we as fans need to stop over-hyping our prospects, and realize we got a guy who can play all outfield positions as well as first base, and easily put up an 850-900 OPS for five years without breaking the bank like we would have for Hunter or Rowand. People also seem to forget we would have lost draft picks in signing either of those players as well, and that Swisher is a much safer bet to produce over the long-term than either Hunter or Rowand. And really, all we lost was a solid pitching prospect with some durability issues (Gio), an A ball pitcher who seems to project best as a short reliever (DLS), and a guy who couldn't hit over .280 in AAA, nor hit more than 13 home runs in a bandbox stadium (Sweeney). For a player with the ability and contract status of Swisher, I'd make that trade anyday.