Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:48 PM) I'm going to bookmark this post. I can almost guarantee that Guillen will sit Pierre one day and DH Vizquel so he has a leadoff hitter.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) No one is paying either one of those guys that kind of money, especially for a multi-year deal. Agreed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) Ozzie isn't the one negotiating contracts either. Yeah I know, but I wouldn't be shocked if he were speaking on behalf of the front office. It was purely speculation on my half anyways. Regardess, it doesn't matter now since Matsui is signing with the Angels.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Magic 8 Ball says: "All signs point to Jim Thome" I doubt it at this point. I don't think they bring back Thome unless some other options fall through.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) True, but didn't he say that? Guillen did say the Sox won't sign a DH who can't play the field and was talking about Matsui at the time. While I'm certain that Guillen would like a versatile DH, part of me thinks that comment might have been part a negotiating tacitc. Matsui has made it clear that he wants to play the field a couple of days a week. I'm sure most teams see him as a full-time DH as they should. Saying we want a DH who can play the field could give the Sox a slight advantage from the get-go. I'd be willing to tolerate Matsui in LF once or twice a week to start the season if that made the difference in signing him or not. If he couldn't meet those demands, as I would expect, I'd just hope that Guillen would eventually stick him at DH full-time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 11:08 PM) I haven't been able to find what DJ wanted, but apparently we offered him $600k http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2009/...tz-signing.html Wow, talk about a low ball offer. Clearly the Sox weren't interested in bringing him back unless the price was close to their other options like Hudson and Torres.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 07:37 PM) But if you want to win ball games, Ill take the 33 year old career year mop up man over the 33 year old huge injury risk. At least with the mop-up man, you have an idea of what your getting. You can't be serious. Why do you think you know what you're going to get out of Carrasco in 2010. You just referred to him as a "career year" mop up man in the sentence before. He's a journeyman long reliever with below average stuff. Considering the general unpredictability of relievers, I think it's fair to assume some regression and possibly a substantial amount. I'll admit Carrasco had a great season last year. If the Sox had more money, I'd reccomend they keep him too. But if it comes down to him or a possible dominant setup man like Putz it's not even a question. We can replace Carrasco with cheaper in-house options. They may not provide the level of production that Carrasco did in 2009, but they could easily outperform him in 2010. I personally think Hudson will do so if he's chosen for that spot. Additionally, we have no one in our system that's ready to provide the possible numbers Putz can assuming all things go well. Yes there is risk there, but I'll take my chances on the guy with dominant stuff who pitches during the critical innings rather than the soft-tossing journeyman who gets most of his action during garbage innings.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) The bullpen seems to be set. There's no more money to be throwing around on reclamation projects especially when half the teams in baseball are going to be interested as well. Yeah, I don't think Capps will come cheaply. He's definitely a luxury we can't afford. Williams should at least be servicable if used properly.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Everything you said makes sense... but if it was my call, I'd wait until mid-late spring training or so to either cut or move somebody. Somebody strains an arm or elbow in Arizona and we''ll be kicking ourselves for turning what could be a strength into a problem. I just don't see the need for making that decision now. Agree completely. In a perfect world, I'd wait and make sure that Putz has no set backs (as well as any unforeseen injures to other pitchers). I think that would be the right baseball move. If KW does non-tender Carrasco now, that's why it's got to be simply for financial reasons. Not selecting players in the minor-league portion of the Rule 5 draft showed how they are scrapping for every single dollar right now.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) I think its probably likely he will regress, however, some team has got to be willing to give you a bag of balls or something and take a chance on him. If he gets $1.5 in arb, only $300k is guaranteed. That they haven't announced it yet tells me they are either trying to get him signed and using the non tender threat to get his price down, or were never considering non tendering him, or are currently soliciting offers. You'd think the Sox could at least get a low-level prospect for Carrasco, but maybe other GMs feel like more talented pitchers will be non-tendered and refuse to part with anything for him. KW would take any propsect with some potential before releasing him. As for arbritration, who knows how much he'd get. I believe he led all relievers in innings-pitched and put up a very solid ERA while doing so. Throw in Guillen's "team MVP" comment and I think he's got a case for $2 million. Not sure about this non-guaranteed contract thing either. I know it can be done, but it happens so rarely that I'd assume it's not as straight-forward as releasing him and giving him 20% of his salary. Maybe I'm wrong on this.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 02:22 PM) Possibly... I just struggle with the logic that we go out and sign a reliever who just missed an entire season due to injury for $3M... But we have to cut a guy who was one of our most valuable relievers last year because he's going to cost us $1M and we need the money. Maybe KW thinks Carrasco is going to regress this season. His performance last season seemed beyond his capabilities IMO. Having said that, I'd love to have Hudson begin the season in AAA starting with Carrasco as our long-man. However, I'd much rather spend my money on a possible dominant setup man in Putz than a long-man in Carrasco, especially when we have a very capable replacement in Hudson waiting in the wings.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) If it were my money, I'd sign DJ, and make the harder decisions (who stays and who goes in the bullpen) as a result of what we see in spring training. Much smarter IMO to enter spring training dealing from a position of strength in the pen. Especially since we're not dealing with huge numbers salary-wise. I totally think that's the smartest call, but perhaps Reinsdorf won't let KW carry that extra salary till the end of spring training.

This seems pretty straight forward to me. Using Hudson as the long reliever instead of Carrasco could save us $1 to $1.5 million. Considering we still have two holes to fill in our lineup and we're already pressing up against our budget, those savings could be very useful. Additionally, the Sox might think Hudson could out-produce Carrasco next season, which I don't believe is out of the question. He'd also gain some valuable experience, setting him up for a rotation spot in 2011. As for trading Carrasco, I don't think players get non-tendered if they could have been traded for something in return. Do people really think GMs are too lazy to explore all trade possibilities.

QUOTE (League @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 09:21 AM) Seems to me that we're going to be going with a lot of guys who are more 20 HR hitter types. Becks, 'Lexi, Rios, Teahan. Which is great to have sprinkled throughout the lineup, but we need a couple 30 - 35 homerun hitters in the middle. Considering Konerko is getting older and will be a free agent after this season, I would be very hesitant in trading our only power hitter under team control for multiple seasons. I love what Crawford offers when he's on top of his game, but I'm not giving up three years of Quentin unless I know something about his foot that will have a long-term impact on his production. The deal doesn't make sense to me from a Sox perspective.

It's this either-or s*** that's really bothering me. Everything I'm reading in the press keeps hinting at the Sox only having one hole to fill (outfielder) and just using the bench (Jones/Kotsay) as rotating DHs. In fact, Guillen has pretty much implied this. This team definitely needs a legit left-handed power bat for the middle of the lineup, whether this be at DH or in the OF. He doesn't have to be Adrian Gonzalez, but he's got to be someone we can count on. A true leadoff hitter would also be nice but is not necessary. A hitter with an above-average OBP and solid speed would be more than fine. I understand we don't have unlimited funds, but throwing away the DH spot on Jones/Kotsay would beyond stupid. Would any team get less offensive production from the spot than us? I can't think of one off the top of my head.

QUOTE (G&T @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) Well the Rays are entitled to ask...and be denied. If this were true, KW must think power isn't necessary to win at the Cell because we'd have little to none.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 07:06 AM) It would be awful news, I just don't see how it can be true. KW said he wanted the team OBP to be .350. Swapping out Thome for a mix of guys like Jones, Kotsay maybe Nix isn't going to help it. I think they either sign or trade for enough guys that if they have 13 non-pitchers on the roster they have 9 regular-types, Kotsay, Vizquel, Jones, and a catcher. Who knows, maybe they will pencil Flowers in as a DH, and try to get him regular AB. The bench guys are OK if not overly exposed. It was one criticism of how Jones was handled in Texas. Chances are if Kotsay, Vizquel and Jones get 300 or more AB apiece, Soxtalk is going to need an upgrade to handle all the fire Walker stuff that will be posted. Yeah, I really don't think KW is going to settle on Jones/Kotsay/Nix as his DH. I mean, the Sox would be at a huge disadvantage relative to other AL teams by using backups out as their DH. It would defeat the actual purpose of the spot. In fact, it would be one of KW's more mind-blowing decisions.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) Since when did we turn into the Boston Red Sox? We don't have the money or the prospects (well we do, but do you want to trade Beckham or Hudson?) to get one of those guys you listed, let alone 2... Be realistic people. Why wouldn't we have the money/prospects to get one of these guys? I agree acquiring both of them is close to impossible, but it's not far-fetched to think we could get one of them, especially Upton who is coming off a poor season. If the Rays are serious about keeping Crawford long-term, I think they might move Upton sooner rather than later. I also think he might come cheaper than most people think.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 11:42 PM) I think it's just Merkin speculating, trying to pay an adequate amount of respect to both Jones and the signing. Ultimately, I doubt he knows anything more than the rest of us at this point. I agree, it's just that comment about Nix being involved in a rotating DH that got me worried.

Wow, this article makes it sound like the Sox will be rotating the DH spot between bench players. Awful news if that's truly the case. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 05:54 PM) sure was, too much?? Giving the Tigers (a division rival nonetheless) a top-notch starter, an above-average shortstop, our top three prospects, and basically $12 - $15 million to throw around for a replacement for Cabrera would be about as bad as it gets. Why in god's name would you want to pay that steep of a price to take on a $100 million plus financial burden? Would I take him off their hands for minimal talent? Most likely, but I would never give up that much talent for a guy locked into that kind of contract. Might as well wait one year and give Adrian Gonzalez $20 million a year and save all your talent.

Great signing for the bench. He offers a different skill-set the complements Vizquel and Kotsay well. This really might give Lillibridge an edge over Nix if they decide to go five deep with the bench. Also, I'm really interested what KW is planning for that final outfield spot. Hopefully they aren't bringing in another veteran outfielder because they think Jordan Danks has a chance of being ready opening day. That would be a huge disaster. KW still needs to get a legit starting outfielder so that Jones and Kotsay remain on the bench, where they have value.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) Another idea if we could get Adrian for prospects: Konerko ($12M) + Linebrink ($5M in 10, $5.5M in 11) for Affeldt ($4M in 10) + Rowand ($12M in 10-12) + cash in 2012 While having Affeldt as our second lefty in our pen would be nice, I don't think it's worth the offensive downgrade from Konerko to Rowand is worth it. In terms of 2010, I don't really see this trade helping us. If we sign Crisp, I'd much rather have Konerko be our DH, even if he's overpaid. Obviously, our defense would improve with Rowand in the outfield and Quentin as DH, but again, I don't think it's worth the decrease in offensive performance. Also, I know Linebrink has been terrible at times during his first two seasons, but it seems like this trade is just an excuse for getting rid of his contract. I really don't mind letting Konerko's contract expire in 2010. We are going to need the money for the raises Danks, Floyd, Quentin, etc. will be getting. Plus if we acquire Gonzalez, we're obviously going to need a lot of spare cash if we plan on offering an extension. Moreso, I really don't see a benefit to having Rowand, even if it's just for $6.5 million in 2012. We already have a player in Rios whose optimal value is in CF. Additionally, one of our top prospects, Jordan Danks, should be in CF. I don't see the benefit of adding another outfielder whose ideal position is CF. IMO, hope Linebrink has a solid 2010 and move him in the offseason. If you can move Konerko to free up cash for this year, while not taking on any money in the future, then by all means take the deal. However, I doubt it's possible without taking on a bad contract (like Rowand's), which doesn't make sense in the long-run.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) Do you think though that at least Dye wil be offered arb? Am I wrong to think that if he isn't we don't get compensdation from whoever signs him? You're right about the compensation, unless some team signs him before the deadline to offer arbitration. However, that's not going to happen for a player like Dye.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) No because if we offer Dye arbitration he will accept and that is not a prudent allocation of funds for this year. Agree completely. Dye would get more for 2010 through arbitration than through free agency.