Pumpkin Escobar

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) Well the Angels paid a very significant price to get Haren. Saunders, despite his struggles this year, is a legitimate big league pitcher who has had a ton of success in the AL and on top of that they gave up 2 very good prospects and other pieces. Saunders is very mediocre at best. He may pitch well in the NL but even his one real good season was more fluke then anything. Sure he is a serviceable big league starter but so is half of the twins staff, doubt they would'e netted Haren and if they did - we'd all s*** a brick. The prospects aren't very good at all. If they are good, thats a shocker as I believe many had Corbin outside of their top 20 prospects. See BA, jon sickels, etc. Skaggs or whatever was a compensation pick but again wasn't in there top tier of prospects. Maybe Zona likes them more then most. Which I understand happens but no one else really buys into them. I think the deal was definitely more of a salary dump while attaining a big league piece now. If Saunders keeps a 4 era for them and doesn't get the 5-7 mill he probably will in arb, then he contributes enough where the discount and performance they are happy with I guess. Can't believe they couldn't net one top prospect for Haren when you consider they gave up the world to get him. I mean, he is locked up for relatively cheap. When they got him they gave up two very similar serviceable arms for haren in Greg Smith and Eveland, both had a coupl edecent years. Then they gave up Brett Anderson and Carlos Gonzalez. Then they gave up our guys in Carter and Cunningham. Nothing in the deal they got remotely resembles any of them on the high side.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 26, 2010 -> 01:08 AM) See Chris Sale. Fact is the Sox currently are trying to fix the farm system stemming from the whole Wilder fiasco.There were teams who passed on him because of signability issues. The Sox capitalized on that by promising the kid he'd get a shot at the majors this year. Now I've seen the Red Sox used as a great example of a team doing it the right way. I've seen no one bring up the fact that the Red Sox are the 2nd richest baseball franchise behind the Yankees. The Sox come in 2nd in a 2 team baseball town. Do the math. The Sox priority is having a team to compete every year under the KW regime. That means a high major league payroll. The reason for that strategy is if the Sox don't put out a winning product there will be no butts in the seats. The fans who clamor for a great minor league system ,no matter their "intelligence " as a fan, are outnumbered by perhaps 5000-1 by actual people who pay to see a winning team. So the minors suffer because of that. We can't overpay for everything which is exactly what the Red Sox do. Our young or semi-young talented players include Danks, Floyd, Quentin, Ramirez ,Thornton (core players), Jenks ,Santos, Viciedo,and Lillibridge have all come by means other than the draft. The first 6 in that group are 2 very good starting pitchers, a near MVP, a SS who is pretty damn good and an All Star reliever and another reliever who made 2 All Star teams and was huge ( no pun intended) in bringing a title to this team. Consider the talent we gave up to get those players .Really not much at all in terms of major league talent. What KW has done to me is quite impressive. I will never underestimate a World Series win or competing nearly every year for a division title for a franchise with a piss poor history. As far as the 2nd bolded part goes, you will drive yourself insane thinking that way. As Caulfield said "hindsight is 20/20". Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round. Every team in the majors passed on him 12/13 times. It's a crap shoot. Sure you can improve your odds by putting more cash into it but "can't miss" prospects miss a lot more often than they succeed. High draft choices help and the Sox just haven't been in a position to draft very high thanks to having one of the most successful franchises in baseball in the last 10 years or so. Maybe the Sox should be the model other teams ( other than the Red Sox and Yankees) look to for building a franchise instead of the other way around. I've already said hindsight is 20/20. I understand that. It's just funny to me that there is no "talent" involved in these teams who make the pick. You're absolutely right for 13 rounds people passed on Pujols, but someone, in that organization, did see him and got the Cards to take him. We rarely see anything pan out from our farm after the relatively easy first few rounds. I say relatively easy because it's not that easy, never is, but when you have 20 publications, networks, and more contributing to whom is needed to be selected or who could be selected, you get an idea of who everyone collectively feels is the better player. Not just your scouts. The Chris Sale example would've had merit had I not watched "the season" last night. I forget who it was that said it - but if you watched the show, then you saw what I did. Which was sure they were high on Sale but they didn't expect him to fall. But I believe the scouting director or whoever it was made the statement after Kenny selected Sale of "a whole year of scouting to end up taking the best overall guy - just how it works sometimes". So as much as I am happy we got Sale - he did fall for a reason, we didn't exactly peg this guy out of what was left - he fell into our laps, and in the words of denny green "if you want to crown him, crown him". He hasn't done anything though and isn't the next coming of randy johnson. He is projected as a middle of the rotation guy and there were a couple of big high school arms who we didn't take that will certainly develop into "ace" tags but we went safe. You're absolutely right things are getting better since the fiasco but they are by no means great. Outside of Sale, the draft was very mediocre. We haven't been active in the international market at all - while everyday I see teams sign 1 or 2 guys. Those guys are the ones who turn into your Elvis Andrus's of the world. Young, freakish talent but needs to put it together. Ends up getting dealt for Tex (albeit he and feliz were more of the throw ins then harrison and salty) but it's those kind of guys who can develop and save your ass in trades. And they're easy to get. You just need to pay for them. No luck of the draft, just find them or hear about who finds them and pay them. Escobar is a nice piece but most things I've seen on him is he has peaked defensively, and is very good, but the bat won't ever pan out to be a major league threat. You're 100% right about the Red Sox. I didn't use them because we won't ever be able to do what they or the yankees do. Which is why it is so important to begin to develop a bigger presence in the grand scheme of things. We can't outbid them for players in FA but we certainly can throw more money around in the draft and spend the extra mil or 2 to net the guys that have huge upside which fall to them. Little things first.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:33 PM) I hear what you're saying. I wonder how many would support this kind of a move from KW and JR, though. If they wrote out a letter to shareholders right now. "Dear Friends, We really don't have any more money to spend. Our big moves for the offseason were made when we acquired Jake and Alex Rios last year. Unfortunately, the team didn't play very well the first two months, our revenues across the board are down or flat, so we don't want to overextend ourselves again like we did last year, with nothing to show for it. After many discussions, we feel the Twins are the team to beat, and they have the luxury of making trades and taking on more salary because they have a much stronger farm system, more quality depth and a larger income stream than we do. So we're going to cross our fingers with Freddy Garcia and Daniel Hudson and hope they can pull us through. That's where we're at. We made a BIG mistake not bringing back Jim Thome while simultaneously thinking Mark Kotsay could repeat his 2009 success offensively. But we don't want to compound the problem now by trading away our future young stars like Gordon Beckham, Dayan Viciedo, Daniel Hudson and Tyler Flowers for a 2 month run at the pennant when doing so will put as at a huge competitive disadvantage moving forward into 2011 and 2012. Yes, we STILL should have gone after the best available bat when we saw that Vladimir Guerrero was on the market for a reasonable price. We messed up and take full responsibility. You're just going to have to trust us now that Jake Peavy will be back at 100% next spring, that Dayan, Tyler, Daniel and Gordon are all future American League All-Stars and that our future is a very bright one, especially if you factor in our injured (but possibly prodigious) talent from the 2009 draft and the addition of Mr. Chris Sale. I believe that Kenny and Ozzie are the right guys to place my confidence in, and I hope you'll agree with me, too, by sending in your 2010 playoff deposits as well as 2011 season ticket renewals. Thanks in advance for your support. JR Unfortunately what you just said is the sad truth. However, I am ok with trading the guys we have on the farm. The sytem is weak as it is, so empty the cupboard. I just want to see them learn to improve it by scouting, drafting, dealing for, and getting much more involved internationally. What's down there now with a few exceptions is pretty much useless to our big league squad so if you can deal them for a prince fielder, you do it. Problem is, everyone knows its dogs*** down there and are using it to try and leverage Beckham. Kenny is making the right play by not giving in because we shouldnt deal GB, shouldn't be asked to, and eventually someone should cave and if they don't, he sees the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed. That is if he is going to be able to do his job well. The elephant being improving the scouting and farm.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 11:00 PM) Yes, but hindsight is always 20/20. It's like saying we should have drafted Porcello and Garza instead of Poreda, McCulloch and Broadway, etc. How many baseball teams in your memory have traded their two most identifiable players while still in their prime years? How can you be so certain the net in terms of prospects would have mitigated the losses in revenue? You're assuming that someone would have taken Konerko's contract three years ago. There was no deal out there like that...the time to have been making this argument was right after the World Series championship, when Konerko was presenting the ball to JR. Goodbye, Paulie? Were you advocating that move in October, 2005? Same thing with Buehrle. You take away all those memories from Sox fans, the no-hitters, everything that he represents to this franchise, it's okay to overpay for that...and you might end up with the players the Twins got from the Mets from Johan Santana, perhaps the best pitcher in baseball, certainly much more "valuable" than Buehrle and yet what do they have to show for that now? JJ Hardy? If you want to continue this line of reasoning, we shouldn't have given Contreras a contract extension (certainly not that length), and we should have traded Crede and Jenks while they still were at close to their prime values. The problem is the same one in the stock market, it's very very difficult to part with an asset that's performing at a high level for prospects that may or may not pan out in the future...not only that, but you destroy the competitiveness of the team, you're no better than the Oakland A's or Florida Marlins, dumping your best players as soon as they get too expensive and alienating your fanbase in the process. Look at a team that's done as you have suggested, the Cleveland Indians. There are other factors here in play, but that team was king of the city until Dolan started to tear it apart in 2001 and 2002....what was their string of consecutive sell-outs at Jacobs Field? What is their attendance now? Sure, we can all talk about Santana's potential, but how many sure things have they acquired over the last half decade that haven't panned out. LaPorta? Josh Barfield? Andy Marte? The list goes on and on. They signed players like Hafner and Peralta to long term deals unwisely and then traded away their best defender, F. Gutierrez, and got what back exactly? For all their manuevering, they got stuck with Kerry Wood (trying to maintain some level of competitiveness) and now might even end up trading Carmona. So no thanks to going that route. Saw the Twins do it with Johan. The Rangers with Arod. Cleveland with CC. It happens every year. And yes - hindsight is 20/20. I agree with you. The thing is, we are a big market team. We spend the big bucks with the best of them minus the yanks, saux, mets. The Yanks and Saux spend money on their famr though. Thats how they land big guys in deals, develop guys like Cano or Hughes. It's not missing on our guy in the draft which is annoying. It's when you do it in spite of the poor scouting or information. Poreda was a pretty good arm but 99% of the baseball world knew Porcello was better. Signability was the concern. I get how thats a tough thing to explain to fans and I'm sure lots would be upset if we selected someone only to go to college. However, it's not a all-in gamble. It was a high school arm with huge upside, if you didnt get him, most HS arms aren't hitting the majors in 1 year so the next year you get that selection back and can draft a more advanced guy in the slot to compensate. But at least try and make the moves that could propel your franchise. Stop making the same dead arm, 1 plus pitch arm, picks. And like I said in my previous post before I got to see yours. I am not anti-paulie or Buehrle. There is just a point where you address your team. Our point was 2006. We won in 2005. We had a "better" team in 2006 by adding Thome. The hitting was off th charts. We took 3rd. Took 3rd with 90 wins. To me, that says sure we can go all in and add some guys to try and win again, which we didn't do. Or we should've looked around, at that time, saw a team like Minnesota boasting the best arm in the game and a kid who came up and blew the doors off people to go along with their young homegrown cornerstone and MVP of 2006. And that Mauer guy. You had Detroit who no one expected to do what they did. You had Cleveland who was young and talented also. Why not take your guys and improve. No one knows what we could've gotten for Paulie, but it sure wouldnt have bothered me if we made a deal as much as it bothers me that every year we enter the season knowing what we have isn't enough to win the world series yet we run it out there and try to make arguments supporting them. Memories? So you'd rather have the No hitters than the World Series memories? Maybe gold if your sport then because the goal here isn't individual achievement. Buehrle is great. I love all he has done but I'm sorry if dealing him would've gotten us a piece that helps us win one or two world seires, multiple divisions, then ya I may value the trade over a perfect game in a season where we barely win 75 games. Just me I guess, thought that was the goal. I did think we should deal Jenks. Obviously you did not. I got into numerous arguemnts over Jenks and his declining stuff, weight issues, and elbow screws, etc. Said we should've dealt him while his value was up because closers are replaceable and his splits were going bad. Now look, years later and most want him out. He is the worst closer in the AL with a minimum of X saves or innings I saw on comcast the other night. His value is minimal to where it was all because we wanted to do what you said above. It is the stock market in many cases. Thats how you need to view it sometimes if you cant do the basic things right. We don't do the basics right so then you kind of need to do the sell high/buy low crap that we do. I did mention the indians. They were the Kings and 90% of that team from the 90's was home grown btw. Sure things didnt pan out as hafner was a flash in the pan, sizemore is never healthy, lee and sabathia are gone. The big difference between them and us about 30 mill a year in payroll spending. I know theyve hit 80 or 90 mil a couple times but mainly they probably average 50-60's. We could easily do what they do get the Santana's, for casey blake mind you, and then still spend 100 mil. We just don't. LaPorta looks pretty solid. Marte is a bust. Barfield was nothing special. Don't forget sizemore, Lee, and brandon phillips came from a firesale move- two of which could've been cornerstones had they prolonged success as a team. All 3 are all-stars.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:42 PM) I know Dick Allen will argue this one (the fact that we have less money than he thinks to spend), but the priority for the White Sox has always been producing a winning or competitive major league team on a year-by-year basis. Because of that, a higher percentage of available resources have gone into the major league team than with other organizations. I could cite Chris Young, Chris Carter, Ryan Sweeney, Frank Francisco, Gio Gonzalez, Brandon Allen, Faustino De Los Santos, Carter, Brandon McCarthy, etc. It's not like our system has been totally bereft of prospects, it's simply that we have prioritized the short term over the long term. If KW doesn't make a move in the next weeks, it will be the first time which this has happened in recent memory. So perhaps this is all a case of premature evaluation, until we see who KW ends up with. If you're a Twins fan, aren't you even MORE upset that they haven't acquired Lee, Haren or Oswalt, because, when healthy, they have a potentially dominant offense, yes? And they have the prospects to make those moves, yet they are holding back. Perhaps they want to keep Ramos in case they decide to make Mauer a 3B or DH to save all the wear and tear on his body. Maybe they look out and see the lack of athleticism at the corners and feel they need to hold onto Hicks and Revere. This has always been the biggest problem...we haven't had the luxury of going with a rebuild like we did in the late 80's and late 90's. Every organization goes through this, except for teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Cardinals, Twins, etc. Heck, look how long it has taken for the Braves to get back to the top of their division after struggling for the last 2-3 seasons. The problem is that there's perhaps no fanbase in baseball that's as "winning percentage" driven as the White Sox. Maybe everyone is right, we should have rebuilt after 2007. Except our division being winnable each season is also a curse. It prevents KW from going into that full rebuilding mode 100%, knowing that if the attendance slides, his resources to work with will correspondingly slide, and then he's left with a self-fulfilling prophecy of taking 3-5 years to turn the organization around completely. I'm not sure he has the patience to do that, he's still too competitive, but you're THEORETICALLY seeing his balancing of 2010 with future needs and I still wouldn't be shocked if he did nothing at all and hoped for a return in performance/health from all those guys like Mitchell, Thompson, Morel, Phegley, etc. There's no doubt that teams like the Astros held onto their stars too long, each year feeling they had one last run in them. The thing is, if you go back to 1990 or 1993 or pretty much any time period over the last 20 years, the White Sox will end up with one of the 3-7 best winning percentages compared to all the other teams in baseball, and the three others will always be the Red Sox, Yankees and Braves. A healthy Carlos Quentin, the Gordon Beckham of most of 2009 and a dangerous Mark Teahen instead of Kotsay takes care of 90% of our problems. Still, we're relying heavily on both Garcia and Hudson down the stretch, just as Minnesota is doing with Duensing/Slowey/Baker. I didn't jump into this thread to pile on the Haren thing from today. Or to fire kenny or ozzie. I was more or less here to say when the seaosn started I was waiting for the disaster that was on paper to perform and get them headed for unemployment. Outside of a few things, we turned it around and can compete. Great. I somewhat applaud both but it's also fools gold. That win streak may get us into the playoffs but we have proven that we aren't a 25-5 type team against the AL. We are smoke and mirrors until we improve. Losing Peavy made it more of an uphill battle but I'm onboard for it if we can improve. Seeing Haren et dealt and hearing the nonstop banter from other teams about us not having the guys to get it done or how our mlb players need to be involved is a bad thing though. Our system is paper thin, vastly unproven and frankly very disappointing as a fan. To say those things don't matter as some have is silly and misinformed. How you draft, sign, develop is extremely important. Someone pointed out the Angels and Dodgers. Fine. Dodgers had a lot of prospects and some failed but the thing is those guys are still young and most of their stars are homegrown. Meaning, cheaper in every sense. Contract wise because theyre under control, they havent cost the team in terms of losing guys to get them, etc. The Angels have owned the 2000's for the most part. They had 3 division titles in their history and have 5 in the last 7 years and a world series? I'd say that farm helped out. So whoever suggested those two needs to reevaluate things. Sure you can win without it as we did. We are living proof. But lets also look at problems we've encountered doing it our way. Trouble landing guys in trades or affording guys in FA comes to mind and thats what our team is built on. Why? Because we deal our chips in mass quantities, don't replace them in full right away, then acquire contracts or players needing bigger contracts. So we hit FA and become unable to add (like this offseason) because our budget is maxed out on guys who are not considered "elite". Anyways, I just sort of jumped in because in 3 years we will be in this situation again, in some fashion, I am sure. We will have either dealt away everything and gotten a guy like Fielder who spurned us in FA and then we failed to draft compensation picks well. Or we'll have Dunn or Fielder locked up but unable to afford something like Danks. Maybe we do something none of us see coming. Maybe it works out perfect for us. Regardless, starts now and by not having done the things we should've been doing all along, like carrying even a half-decent farm, we may miss the boat acquiring someone and still sitting with our thumbs up our rear next season. What I wanted to stress was if we do not change how we do things then this organization will continue to be the winning percentage team as you put it. Full of 84 win seasons and 2nd or 3rd place finishes where we hung in the whole season and didn't improve the right way. No one wants to sit through a 90-100 loss season. I applaud this organization for minimizing that over the last 25 years but sometimes its a necessary evil, especially when we don't draft or develop well. I like how we try to rebuild on the fly with Rios and Peavy but then call it what it is. We are out to be competitive, not bad but certainly not great. If thats the case, just let us know.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 10:04 PM) How many years ago? Those have been 2 nice guys to have around. I mean in my opinion Mark and Paulie have been pretty darn productive. Don't know what we could have gotten years ago that would adequately replace the enjoyment of those two for me. p.s. Glad to see others being involved in aggressive soxtalk rather than myself. I'm still trying to figure out how somebody can tell somebody "f*** you" on here and not get in trouble and I get in trouble for my posts, but that's just me. Although I did agree with the overall sentiment of the f*** you post except for the f*** you part. I also cherish 2005. I'm not knocking what they've done or do. I'm just saying this is a business and sometimes when things need to be done, they just need to be. Dealing one or both of them to help build for the future 3 years ago in my eyes was a smart play. I thought we were entering a period where we were old, had nothing worldy in the pipes coming up, and that those guys be dealt at their peaks was a smart move. Keepign them I felt only would have us finishing a series of 3rd or fourth place finishes and then being left empty handed when their time was up. Thats basically what we'll see. If the goal here is to put together teams that can win the mediocre AL central then bow out to the East or West, fine. If the goal is to win, then sometimes you need to restructure things. In the world of baseball, one of the best ways to do that is by spending and developing. We spend moderately well but we have to because we don't develop. We won't ever be the Yankees but we could and should be the Angels. Who have a deep farm and then spend 100 mil. If we do that - then we wouldn't need to worry about having to sell fan favorites off because theyre the only way we can rebuild. Thats all. Nothing against mark or paulie. I love them both just found it in better judgement to have sold high on them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 09:29 PM) If Mitchell and Thompson were healthy and producing at their expected ability levels, this conversation wouldn't exist. If Jake Peavy was still healthy... Even if Joe Borchard defied the logic of Sox first round busts and became the franchise player. Actually, we had enough depth in the middle infield that we could waive Jason Nix. Let's face it, almost EVERYTHING that could go wrong with our minor league system has happened, and we're still standing. Jordan Danks and Flowers have lost a lot of their shine (especially Jordan Danks), we've lost our two players with perhaps the most future potential as impact players, we've lost our most expensive starting pitcher and "ace" in Peavy, and yet we're still in first place. Viciedo and Hudson have demonstrated their potential and youth at the same time, which is the problem with prospects, they're not finished products. Heck, even Beckham, with the college pedigree in the SEC, numerous awards, accolades and honors, he still fell victim to the dreaded Sophomore Slump. I think we also have to give a lot of credit to KW for the acquisitions of Santos, JJ Putz, Omar Vizquel and Andruw Jones (for the first six weeks, but he's still valuable as the 25th man/PR/PH). The only mistake, and it's the biggest and most obvious one, was staying with Jones and Kotsay for so long. But we were winning games with them (the same argument for leaving Brian Anderson in the line-up in 2006)...so Ozzie didn't want to change things up. Fine, understandable. We're now 4-6 after the All-Star break and we have to look at getting better again (although we should be 6-4 and up 3 games on the Twins STILL). They really have a quandary to decide if Mark Teahen taking at-bats from Kotsay is enough of an upgrade to justify not making a move that will cost them in the future...versus someone like LaRoche or Luke Scott, etc. The problem here is the things you are saying can be applied to anything. What if we just dealt with the fact our system is weak and spent more money in drafts or internationally. Maybe developing a better scouting department for starters. Or drafting guys who normally fall due to their contract size or signability concerns instead of selecting these overly projectable average arms every year. Only time we take risks are for these stupid toolsy outfielders. Apply that sense to some pitchers from time to time and we may end up an ace in the system for a change and not having to deal for them. Something like a guy like Porcello falling past us to the Tigers comes to mind immediately. That ties into another subject which is the whole white sox vs boras nonsense. Anyways, fact is, most of those guys are good in our eyes because they are "our guys". Before Beckham, we didn't have a top 10 pick since Frank. Thats a long time to not get the top-tier talent because if you aren't buying it later in the draft, then you have to do well at scouting and get lucky to land it after that. Which we don't do. If you can't scout well, then you cant draft well. If we don't draft well, who cares who we have trying to develop them. If we don't develop them then why not try to deal them for something. Which is where we sit today. Horrible farm system. We can't apply what ifs. Things need to change down there and then it won't matter who we trade or whats left. It can only help in every aspect for this organization. Financially, talent wise, on the trade fronts, call-ups for injury, etc. Doesnt meant we need to lose 100 games for five straight years. Just need to wake up.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 25, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) Do not confuse the team's success with Ozzie's ability as a manager, especially on-field. The only credit I will give Ozzie for is keeping this team's heads up when we were buried in s***. But even then, the team was kind of due given the talent they had on the pitching staff and the weak schedule. Other than that, he hasn't done much to help. In fact, him not wanting Thome probably put the team in that hole to begin with. So he created a problem, kind of fixed it, and is now trying to ruin this team's chance at winning anything again by saying he doesn't want any help when he clearly needs it. I know it's bad to yell for help or say you want so and so as a manager, but if he really wanted help, he wouldn't be saying anything. Just remember this, you don't get credit for creating problems and patching them up. No arguments there. Fact of the matter is whether he kept our heads up or managed well, he still was doing something positive. We can't have it both ways and say he is a horrible manager for all the things he is doing and then be in first place. Something needs to be working. i think he is still learning what he is doing as a manager, not everyone steps into managing and becomes Gardenhire (who hasn't wont a WS but routinely is praised for his success. Which he deserves). Look at guys like La Russa, Torre, etc. It takes time in many cases. I think Ozzie deserved to be fired in the past but at this point, you need to ask yourself a few questions....What is he doing to lose his job? 1st place squad is hard to reason with. Who else is out there? Is it an improvement? Etc. I don't think anything that we could realistically attain is out there or better. Thanks fathom.

I don't really post much on here but I always check in for news, read threads from my phone to see how people feel, etc. Just trying to get the idea of Sox nation in comparison to my own views of things. In the past, I had posted on here about the sox organization as a whole. I was very adamant that we should've dealt away a majority of our team in 2007. We had come off a 2006 year where we were clearly one of the better teams in baseball but just couldn't get by the Twins and Tigers. At this point, we knew we had a weak farm and we also knew we had aging veteran's who were coming off of big seasons that could've fixed that problem for us. At the time, Cleveland looked like they would be superior shortly. We know and knew the Twins had our number and the Tigers looked to be on the up and up. A perfect time to deal off the vets, develop a farm, and unlike most teams who need to firesale, we had a 100 million dollar payroll we could've stretched back out through free agency putting us possibly in the same or better position in the majors hwile loading up the farm. The next year we watched our lack of bullets not land one of the best young players in baseball in Cabrera. Instead he went to our division, where he dominates, for guys who will not pan out but had that "big prospect" allure which we have majorly lacked for nearly a decade. Sure we've had one or two get way up there in the eyes of scouts but never has their been talk about major depth, both with high end prospects or middle guys. Our high end are considered middle and it hurts us. That reputation kills us in trades and I laugh because I see deals like today with Haren and wonder how the hell we couldn't top that, assuming we wanted to. Anyways, I'm not diving off the bandwagon because I believe we'll have to sell whats left down there to land a big bat but that big bat could get us deep into the season/playoffs. Go to a 3 man come playoffs and maybe, just maybe, make a run. Thats the optomist in me. The reality is that this seasons win streak was the worst thing for this club and our future. We finally were going to do what needed to be done. We could've seen how kenny did in a new environment of trading where he needs to stock things and not empty them. We have some hot bats, expiring contracts, good arms all that could be sold this season. Finally. in many cases, being sold too late to achieve optimal value. I understand loyalty but you do that for the greats, not one of the best players on s***ty teams. If we didn't have loyalty to Frank to let him stick it out full-time, and made the smart organizational move then there shouldn't be anything for buehrle or paulie. Those guys should've been moved years ago. Not saying their time is up, just saying they never were Johan or Pujols where their value hardly would take a hit, so you sometimes need to maximize value and sell high, not low. We didn't, we won't. Kenny is in a catch 22. Ozzie I think does stupid things. I think he is a decent manager but needs to manage according to what a smart gm thinks can win. Not what ozzie thinks his style needs to win because he is simply a baseball and NL purist. AL mindset is severly lacking. You need to do many of the things he preaches to be successful in either league. Difference is that in the AL, you cannot rely on them, you just need to do them well. I wanted both guys fired at the start of the season. I wanted them fired with how bad we were. Kenny for basically not having use to us if Ozzie would be deciding who was needed anyways. I wanted ozzie gone because it appeared to backfire but in all honesty today - I think Ozzie can stay. I by no means think he is a brilliant mind in a baseball sense when compared to others. But I think he knows his s*** enough that he is a decent manager. It could be worse - see jerry manuel. He has this team in first somehow. We all b**** about kotsay and company and then b**** about Ozzie. Well as bad as those guys are, then Ozzie msust be doing something right. Kenny I am not sure on. He may need to be the one who goes as I think he does some great things but some stupid ones. I think he is more concerned with his reputation and feeding that then he is actually about the sox. So that is my spiel. Lengthy but hopefully I contributed something of use and you can comment accordingly.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) why does everyone want upton so bad? hes had one real good yr and thats it. ur going to trade ur farm for a player in hopes that he'll be what u think he can be? I'm sort of on the boat with you there. Upton isn't my favorite but no denying he has tons of talent/tools but hasn't put it together. It's just visions of his 08' end of season/playoffs where you see how much of a threat he could be if he puts it together. That and it doesn't help that his brother is gradually coming into his own. He is one of those guys who will live off of his prospect days/hype until people finally give up on him. Which wont be for a while.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 05:48 PM) That reminded me of the Scott Merkin mailbag where someone said we'd get Upton (or was it Crawford?), Gonzalez, and Halladay this offesason. Hah. I think that is a bit of a pipe dream on those guys. Halladay I think can be acquired, even any of those guys mentioned, but only one of them. For the sake of this discussion, if we were to go for Halladay, he'd undoubtedly take away those pieces we'd need for a guy like Gonzalez or Upton. I think we could acquire a middle-tier hitter (still a big bat in comparison to Pods or Thome though). Those two won't generate excitement and hardly make this team a contender or fill the void we need. I won't throw names out there for hitters but it'd be something off the radar because thats just how Kenny seems to operate, so the AGone, Upton or Crawfords of the world don't fit. So draw up conclusions on hitters via trade cuz we won't have the pieces for a elite hitter, but a big bat should be attainable via trade and free agency.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) I honestly don't think there's a player in baseball that we could acquire that would guarantee sellouts on a nightly basis. Absolutely not. If you look back at what I was saying or meant to say. I said you acquire him and go spend money on a couple of much needed hitters. He physically won't sell us out on his own. His acquisition alone will sell tickets. Not because he is a fan favorite but because him being added onto this team will generate interest. We'll go from middle of the pack to a sure-fire contender which always helps sell extra tickets to those fans who aren't annual season ticket holders, or are unsure of wanting to make the investment. Now adding him and adding a couple hitters(by hitters I mean a legit leadoff man and a big bat. Not Pods and Thome) will do that job of potentially selling us out. It's not really rocket science for these GM's. If you put a legit contender out there, Sox fans or other fans will come. We don't need to spend like the Yankees and we aren't going to have the social event like the Cubs. Our fans understand crap vs good and if you put a club out there sporting what we have now + Halladay and more. It'll get the casual fans interested and the serious fans who dislike our squad interested. And like I said, not pods or thome with Doc, I mean signing or acquiring a guy or two at any cost. It'll deplete the farm, and that isn't something I am fond of, but my point was in the case of Halladay. He is all-in, so you go all-ain. Otherwise, he isn't really worth it unless you acquiring him at a cheap cost and figuring things out from there. My point simply was he is an "all-in" piece for the Sox. If you decide to get him. Screw the payroll and kick it back up to 120-130 mil or whatever it was in 2008 and go for it.

I think Halladay is an "all-in" piece. We know we have a budget. And we all know we heard about how fans didn't turn out for support and yada yada (I think the Dodgers series was the example last season). Fact is, if we put a team out there people are excited about. They'll come, theyll spend money, they'll do the little things that putting together the squad we have isn't accomplishing. I think Halladay is that "all-in" piece because you feel out what the Jays want. If they'll take an offer we are happy with, forget the payroll for a second and pull the trigger. Once you have him in place, you decide if you want to up the payroll an extra 20 mill for the year and go nab a couple hitters while trimming some fat from other places if need be (like Jenks). Or you just go with what our plan is an add pieces accordingly during the season as we find out our weakness and see who becomes available. The point is, you go get Halladay if you can and it makes sense. Make the decision from there. At worst, you'll sell out tickets in a heartbeat. You'll sell the merchandise and you'll get those extra people buzzing about the Sox. You put out a team who with that rotation should easily make the playoffs (minimal offense or not) and should be a threat for a title. As opposed to the limbo people sit in now when they think of this team. If it fails, it fails. Cut loose some guys next season and don't replace them with high pay guys. Halladay would come off the books, Konerko is comin off the books, AJP, etc. Thats 30+ million right there. Don't replace it with much of anything in 2011 if we totally faceplant and do nothing in 2010. If we do well, then obviously there will be money and you do what you can to fix up the team or keep this one. Regardless, he is a smart move for us.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Sep 26, 2009 -> 04:58 AM) Your assessment of "risk" is flawed because it doesn't take into account the other options. Bobby for one year at $7M is a much less risky prospect than a free agent like Valverde or Qualls, who are both on the wrong side of 30 and will command multi-year deals of $15M or more. He's also less risky than Pena or some other inferior in-house solution. The only acceptable in-house solution is Thornton, who carries additional risk because (1) he's never closed over the long-term and (2) moving Thornton to closer leaves a gaping hole in the setup role and takes away the ability to use him as a LOOGY every once in a while. A proven closer who is one year removed from an All Star-caliber season and is under team control from year-to-year is about as least risky as it gets. Let's say that Kenny re-signs Bobby to another one-year deal this winter and he continues to put up mediocre numbers in April and May. Then you deal him for a setup man and move Thornton to the closer role. Bobby's going to bring a lot less in return now with an injured (possibly torn) calf. If you want to get something of value in return, you're going to have to re-sign him to another one-year deal, let him show that he's healthy, and shop him in June. I agree that last winter was the time to deal him, IF that's what you were interested in doing. But this is a baseball team, not the stock market. Trying to win trumps getting maximum returns on assets. Bobby hasn't thrown 100 consistently since 2005. His best years were 2007 and 2008, when he consistently threw 94-97. Obviously, if velocity were everything, guys like Kyle Farnsworth and Bobby Howry would've been perennial All Stars. No, my risk assesment is dead on. Yours is flawed. Those guys may be on the wrong side of 30. Pena shouldn't be closing. There are plenty of other closers out there and ones that you can sign or deal for that don't a body that people predicted would break down and now is. He potentially tore his calf or whatever the story is and he can't throw. You can take a risk-free approach. Only you, for whatever reason, seem to think we need to take other risks. Plenty of teams have closers over 30. Thats not a risk. A guy with health concerns about his elbow and declining stuffi s a red flag and a risk. Age isn't, nor is stupidity. Which is what the case would be if we put Pena at closer. And velocity isn't everything but those guys know how to pitch. Jenks doesn't. Nor has he really proven anything other then he is pretty good some seasons and not so good others. You and Jenks supporters are hilarious. Last season when the debate was being had to sell high, the excuse was, "No he is fine, he just is choosing to not throw hard". Then you got a dose of reality and that he physically cannot do it and the argument has turned into velocity isn't everything. Which is 100% true but for some guys it is. See Billy Koch, Zumaya, guys like that. When you have 2 good pitches, one of them being a high 90's fastball and you now are throwing mid-90's. It's a different pitch. Take into account Jenks has never been a beckon of control on the mound and now you're a shaky pitcher. But hey, lets let him come back and do the same thing or get worse next season and have even less value for him because we should just keep giving him chances. After all, he did well in the past for us. Or better yet. Lets pay him 8-10 mil and have him pitch very well for us again and then give him even more money, maybe a long-term contract so that he can collapse again because he physically isn't the same pitcher. Wake up. We had the debate all season and you're still preaching trying to save yourself here. He wasn't throwing the same, people have noticed, teams have noticed and he ended up having a terrible season. All those predictions of how he'd deteriorate quickly have looked to be coming true but you'd rather keep waiting it out. He is a closer, not our ACE. Closers are a dime a dozen. Do you see enough Sox games out in Oregon? Cuz I feel like you just watched your 05 DVD allseason and didn't see how pathetic Jenks looked. Hitting 94 consistently, giving up longballs, having 15 pitch at bats with bums because he couldn't blow it past them. It was sad. And thats not a personal attack. That is a dead serious question.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) No "love fest" here. But I am perplexed at your irrational hatred of the guy. Dude helped us win a World Series for us and was a dominant closer in 2007 and 2008. Most rational Sox fans would be rooting for a guy like that to return to dominance, not for him to fail and be DFA'd. You know, you're absolutely right. I think it's that I've been hearing about how he has issues for years. Be it the elbow screw, his weight, alcohol, whatever the nonsense was/is that was fed through media outlets to our ears. I think my view of how a closer is slightly overrated and the opportunity we had to sell a gift (because he was a gift from the Angels) for top notch made sense to me. Because I embarked on that road so long ago, I've had to support it for so long that I've grown a distain as I sit and watch the predictions come true. And we don't have Jenks arm records and we aren't Bobby himself to know. What I have to go by is him physically pitching. Him pitching is a shell of his old self. It's scary because of how young he is so you are left with few rational decisions. One being the elbow issue is legit. Two being his health which is directly correlated to his weight. The third being something else and no, him not needing or wanting to throw that hard is complete crap. That is something that all it takes is one time to prove and he hasn't done it. He did a lot of good for us but he also has done things that don't deserve a BUSINESS, like the White Sox are, to RISK him being here any further. You'll see me gradually approach this same RISK theory with Quentin if he continues to be an injury issue that now isn't producing. You all can disagree but when we have another 2009 season next year or the year after because we hung onto these guys and the same reoccuring theme happens, it'll be disappointing because it could've been avoided. Regardless of if they both have career years next year. It's an unnecessary risk. There are other players out there, in this case, other closers, who can perform better then Jenks for cheaper and without the risk. Jenks also still has relative value to get something for him and take advantage of that "gift". And that is the point. I would love to see him return to dominance but it just rarely happens. And if he does, for how long? He dominates for a season and all these "rational" fans and executives pay him money for that season. Then he reverts back to his old self? Horrible idea. Horrible risk. I hope he does return to dominance. With another team after he brought us in pieces that can help us win and our more consistent, less troubling closer does fine in his absence. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) You know, that is actually a good point...the team needs to intervene a bit with Jenks's offseason, get him either training or throwing a bit differently since he's no longer just a kid...but he'd be an excellent candidate for a comeback player next year. He can still fire it up hthere and still has good stuff, but it's less consistent and his control is worse. Those are things that can be fixed. Control is worse, definitely can be fixed. Consistency can be fixed. Less velocity makes you a more hittable pitcher. Whether its a fastball that is at 95 instead of 100 or not getting the same bite on your offspeed stuff. It's just fact. His stuff is getting worse and to make matters worse, he can't control it or throw it consistently as you mentioned. Point what direction you want for the reason behind it but it's sadly the case. QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) Damn...unreal the hatred for Bobby. He's not had a great season by any means but he hasn't been JD or Linebrink bad, not even close. I for one hope he is back next year because that's one helluva tough position to fill. Seems everyone thinks Thornton can just step in and succeed....that's no sure thing, nor is there any sure thing to backfill the LH setup roll. All these "fat tub of lard" and "screw in his arm" crap is ridiculous. The guy was big when he was very successful and he's big now...it has nothing to do with anything. We've also got absolutely zero evidence that his arm has been or will be a problem. He definitely hasn't tanked the same way those guys have. It's different though. Dye, we all can understand breaking down. He is old. We knew his defense was poor and his only chance of coming back was as a DH. He was a FA and there is no doubt his collapse killed us but he isn't a guy in his mid/late 20's about to start raking in huge money over the next few years from our franchise and he isn't the guy who a good portion of this fanbase feel is a huge potential issue. An issue because of his alarming decline in stuff at a young age and potential elbow thing or whatever else he has going for him. Dye deserves more backlash but he is almost and "out of sight. Out of mind" figure because the light at the end of the tunnel is 10 days away and he is most likely gone. Jenks, however, is not and it's kind of worrisome. In Linebrinks case, he is a reliever, much like Jenks but same deal. Older guy. Contract halfway over and lots of us hate Linebrink. I know I wasn't thrill with this signing. He hasn't been brutal but all you needed to do when we signed him was read about how he was a product of San Diego and those last 40 innings or whatever he threw for Milwaukee, he had an ERA around 7 or 8. That was alarming right there. Since he has been here, he has done exactly the same stuff. But you're definitely right. They all deserve more blame.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Sep 26, 2009 -> 01:23 AM) That's because he isn't as good as them. No debating that. I could've elaborated more but im still pretty buzzed from the Hawks game. He isn't as good as the true Aces even if he is ours. And he doesn't remotely command on the market our value of him. Much less the value of those caliber players.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Sep 25, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) I've seen this sentiment a few times in this thread, and not only do I not understand this, but I don't believe it is true. A proven pitcher like Buehrle definitely has value on the trade market, despite his "high" salary. I don't really agree with the sentiment but as todays baseball is with perception (I feel like 90% of it is fantasy world based) that Buehrle isn't respected. He has always been overlooked and will continue to be so for his whole career. Which is why in many circles, he wouldn't command an "Ace" price in a trade. He is our Ace and has proven/earned it. To the rest of the league, he is not in the same breath as a CC, Lince, Halladay, etc. It's a shame because Mark may not possess the overpowering physical tools but he has been pretty damn effective in his career doing things his way. When you put the word trade to him, especially considering his less then stellar 2nd half/season totals, add in his contract and his age. He isn't netting us a blue chip prospect, let alone 3-4, like most of those other "aces" would. Sucks but I think it's the truth.

Buehrle has minimal value around the league. I don't get why but he just doesn't command respect from other front offices or fan bases. We all talk about it and know about it and it's sad but true. I feel like the only teams who would pay a premium for him are us, STL and anyone in the AL central. Maybe Boston too because I remember Francona having a hard on for Buehrle when he pitched in the All-Star game for him. If St. Louis doesn't win the World Series, I think they'd be open to dealing for him but they're depleted and I dont think theyll move us Rasmus. I don't think there are very many surprises for who will be dealt because their are so many media outlets always spectulating and what not that it seems like everyone is available always. Like Prince, Hanley, Halladay...We all know that stuff. If I had to say my surprise Sox player - I'd say Quentin or Rios. Around baseball someone random who I could see moved - Mauer - maybe not in the offseason but if they cant sign him long-term I think they gotta deal him and Boston seems willing to pay huge for him. Tough to turn down a Halladay like offer for him and I'd assume he'd fetch more. Even thats not too surprising though so I'll say either Hamilton or Kinsler down in Texas. They have so much offense that they should swap for some more arms or just one big arm.

Getting guys like Reyes and Hanley are pipe dreams. Reyes, for one, may be one of the more overrated players in baseball. Not that he isn't good - just the amount of love that guys gets every year preseason from espn or fantasy world stuff is ridiculous. The 20/80 expectations and the 150 runs he is going to score from DL. Tools galore, just he has become a guy who may never be able to reach his potential because people make it so outrageous. I know a lot of the names like Hanley, Reyes, Josh Johnson, Adrian Gonzalez and others are available but we no longer have the pieces to make those deals. Unless baseball is suddenly in love Hudson and Flowers as blue chip prospects instead of just very good ones. I'd love to get a big name but I don't see it happening unless Kenny can fleece a team into paying a premium for Konerko, Jenks, or whoever else would be dealt. I'd love to see us just nab some bullpen. Some guys who I saw this year who looked good and can probably be had for cheap... Kiko Calero - he rebounded this year. Tough to know where he goes from here but he looked like the same guy that showed up in Oakland in that Mulder deal. David Robertson - The Admiral? Close though. He looked good for NYY and it's not uncommon business practice to show a little kind gesture for ripping a team in a trade as they did with Swish. A little good faith goes a long way and the Yankees should offer us a nice gesture, especially if Swish plays well into the Series. Mark Lowe - Seattle's got a lot of arms out there and hopefully they keep our buddy David at closer and let this guy go to us. Jason Bulger in Anahiem. Good stuff. Another guy who I saw live and liked. None of those guys are overpowering players or ego's. They go do their jobs and getting a couple of them in our pen could help. I'd love to get Huston Street at the back end of things but who knows if the Rockies still want to move him. Much bigger name and price tag but damn he is good. And somehow he gets away with not pitching off the rubber. Remarkable. Outside of that, we can get into the list of usual suspects offensively but we all know Dunn, Abreu, Crawford, Upton, etc. are people we'd like to see here and won't. I personally love to get a Howie Kendrick on this club. I can see us ending up with like Hideki Matsui at DH next year. Not horrible but he just seems like he'd be all that is available in terms of a cheap, power hitting, left-handed bat. I think KW may remake a chunk of that offense. We shall see.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) He's breaking down. Hopefully we can get someone to overpay for him. Hopefully is right. I mentioned this in a different thread that one of the writers for ESPN I believe saw him maybe getting a package similar to what Sherrill got when he was dealt. Not too promising.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:22 AM) Yeah, it's really "fantastic" when a Sox player is injured. I'm sorry. Injuries are kinda sad. I frankly do not care because "calf" issues are hardly career threatening judging by how this all came about. It's only what a nice chunk of Sox fans have been predicting with this tub of lard. I figured it'd be his arm that did it but no surprise he is injured regardless. Or I don't believe he is hurt and this team is covering up for his horrendous season before he takes anymore of a hit to his trade value. Can we get over this Bobby Jenks love fest already? This guy is done as a "dominant" closer in the mold of what he aspired to be when he was able to gas people and drop a hook. Now he can hardly do either and is nothing more then your average closer, hell, maybe you average bullpen arm at this point.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:54 AM) Washington 51-99 Pittsburgh 56-93 Baltimore 60-91 Cleveland 61-89 Kansas City 63-88 New York (N) 65-87 Arizona 66-86 Toronto 68-83 San Diego 69-83 Houston 70-81 Games back of top 10 Cincinnati 70-81 (tied; better record last year) Oakland 72-79 (2 games back) *Sox 73-79 (2.5 games back) Milwaukee 74-77 (4 games back) Tampa Bay 77-74 (6.5 games back) Minnesota 78-73 (7.5 games back) Cubs 78-72 (8.5 games back) Updated after about 20 games. As you can see, some teams are now playing some good baseball since. Some.. aren't or weren't even on the list earlier. Sox are currently 13th overall as previously but gained a couple games in the standings not to mention it's more of a clusterf*** than before. My buddy and I were talking about this right after Cabrera hit the homer last night. It came up about a week ago and now its on our minds again. Lucky for us - if we win out. It actually helps (realistically we are done though). If we dont then it helps. Most teams can win out and never see the team in front. The good news here is this. The teams within striking distance of us have some things in our favor with their schedule, much like we have a "tougher" schedule remaining. Cinci is playing the pirates, houston, the cards and pittsburg again...so one of those 2 with houston/cinci will have to win a couple games. Cinci has a good shot at passing us - regardless of how bad theyre. Houston - little tougher boat. They are playin Cinci, Philly, NYM...Now I would love to see Cinci somehow beat up on the pirates and steal a couple from the cards and manage to get swept by Houston. Dream world but just saying. Houston can beat Cinci and the Mets though. Milwaukee is behind us or ahead if you're looking at wins. They're playing a brutal stretch that includes 3 playoff teams (Philly, Colorado, STL) so that is not looking good for us. Toronto - They get Baltimore 4 more times, Seattle 4 and Boston. Moderately tough but wouldn't shock me to see them win 6-8 of those games. Oakland has been red hot so them playing the Angels, Seattle, and Texas is a who knows. If they keep it up - they should be able to steal lots of those games especially in Texas and Seattle. Padres are another team playing well this month. Doubt theyll keep it up against the DOdgers, Rockies, Giants but again this late i nthe season is a mystery sometimes. The way I see it is if we keep playing how we are, and these teams play as they have been then we should be a top 10 pick. In all honesty, this team has been a giant disappointment all season so I can see them losing the next two and then winning out when it wouldn't matter anymore. 10-13 is where we will pick I think. Any hire would be sheer luck.

I am sure it was mentioned before but why would any of us want Bradley? Outside of it meant he was dealt for Linebrink in this scenario, the guy isn't worth the money and isn't worth the hassle. He averages like a whole 90 games played a season, puts the blame on anything but himself, and just should have 0 reason to be in a discussion. Especially considering he is still getting 20 mil or whatever the next 2 years. No thanks.

Love either of them. If Upton ever pans out - it'd be worth it. Crawford is already a little pricey but man I wouldn't mind him at the top of our order. Don't think we have the chips unless they want Jenks, as someone mentioned.

Fantastic. Both seriously and sarcastically. For one, I don't need to see him pitch anymore. Sarcastically because all he needed was more of a hit to his already deminished and now inching towards pathetic trade value (for a closer of his $ and achievements of course)