Thad Bosley

I wonder how many Royals' fans are out there saying to themselves "Glad Teahen's yer problem now!".

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 4, 2010 -> 08:49 PM) Maybe so, but I love the Hawkeroo....there is something about having someone up there that you feel is going through the same s*** as you...a lot more people are going to miss him when he's gone...and then he will become legendary. Couldn't agree more. My angst = Hawk's angst

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 4, 2010 -> 07:47 PM) Teahen looks so stiff to me. He also looks like a guy who would rather be in a million places other than USCF right now. I can think of a million places other than USCF that I'd like him to be as well. This is one lousy player we have on our hands right now.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 4, 2010 -> 07:37 PM) Not really. The black uniform tops pretty sharp. Seconded

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 3, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) This is true. How much better of a ballplayer is Mark Teahen than a guy like Geoff Blum? Is he 3 times the player? Blum has never made more than $1.5 million in a season. The White Sox inexplicably guaranteed Teahen $15 million. Well, I'm willing to extend such a discussion to say 'how much better of a ballplayer is Mark Teahen than a guy like....Jayson Nix'? Seriously! What does Teahen do that Nix can't do? He's not better defensively than Nix is at third. As bad as we might think Nix is at third, hey - is Teahen really better? I haven't seen any evidence that would convince me that he is. Teahen's defensive stats at third base to date in his career have been rather abysmal. Meanwhile, offsensively, I would submit to you that over a 150+ games season (the number of seasons that Teahen has had the priviledge of playing with the Royals over the past five years), I think Nix would hit more than 20 homers and 70 RBIs in those seasons, while stealing upwards of 20-25 bases. Teahen has yet to meet those accomplishments. Yes, Nix would still strike out way more than we'd like, but I think his production would still be more productive than anything Teahen has accomplished over his past five years. I remind you: Teahen has yet to eclipse 20+ homers and/or 70+ RBIs in a season in his five full seasons in the big leagues. I think this is an issue where I'm only suggesting that Jayson Nix is a better player than the guy we've apparently we've handed third base over to for the next three years.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ May 3, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) And why bring in Thornton in a game we winning 5-0, this would be a time for Putz. And I'm with you on this one - that does NOT make sense to me.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ May 3, 2010 -> 09:11 PM) Why would Ozzie bring Peavy out for the 8th, can he not just let him leave a start feeling good about himself? Ozzie is letting him leave the game to the sound of a standing ovation. That makes sense to me.

It really makes me ill to see Kotsay's name in the 5 hole as the DH, knowing full well that those at-bats should be going to Jim Thome. Sigh.......

QUOTE (fathom @ May 2, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) Phenomenal post...Teahen would be better being a utility guy off the bench for a team like the Yankees. Bingo! I think that is ultimate answer with Teahen - utility guy off the bench, and not just necessarily for the Yankees. I don't think he should be a starter at the Major League level, period. He is below average offensively and defensively and has proven so pretty much throughout his entire career. The one quality he does bring to the table, though, is versatility. And the last time I checked, versatility was an attribute considered to be quite valuable for someone coming off of the bench. In Teahen's case, you can theoretically run him out to five positions on the playing field. And even though he isn't particularly good defensively at any one of those positions, in short stints that kind of versatility could come in quite handy for a manager over a long season. Additionally, as is the case with so many good bench players out there, they seem to hit better in limited action vs. having their weaknesses exposed as a full-time player. So to me, Teahen would be acceptable as a super sub, but as a regular player, I just don't think he cuts it - ESPECIALLY in a line-up that also frequently features the names Pierre, Vizquel, and Kotsay along with Teahen's.

This man has a body of work from which to judge. He's played five full seasons in the big leagues, and as far as I can tell, he's performed at below-average in nearly every facet of his game. He came to us with a reputation as being a poor defender, as evidenced by the fact that the Royals bounced him around from position to position trying to find one that he might at least be passable at. They failed in that endeavor. And in his five seasons, he's yet to eclipse either 20 home runs or 70 RBIs, hardly an impressive fact when talking about a corner infielder. What he has been able to do, though, is strike out at an alarming rate over the years. So based on all of that, his performance thus far has not been a surprise to me in the least, but sadly, what I expected. And what's even sadder is the fact we're tied into this guy for the next three years. Oy!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:38 PM) You watch some of these infielders and it really makes me appreciate Ozzie and Ventura defensively. They were throwing to the Big Hurt. They make throws like that, they are errors. Lol - and at the moment, it makes me appreciate our current first basemen, at least on the defensive side of things. Those low throws are starting to become a little alarming with their frequency.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Disagree, the inability to turn the 1-2-3 DP was the turning point in this game. This offense have no "spurtability" though. Good point, but I do think a big, two-out hit by Kotsay back at that point in the game would have made this a somewhat different game.

Kotsay's inability to come through in the 1st inning really did serve to change the complexion of this entire game.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) Thad, good post, but a lot of those other guys have proven their ability in their league, with that team, in their home ballpark. Thanks, Fathom, and yeah, I understand that. But I'm also thinking about a former Cy Young award winner who looked pretty good in his first three starts in the AL last season, and who is still a few heartbeats away from being 30 years old. All of that continues to fuel my long-term optimism about Peavy. Meanwhile, I am VERY concerned about other aspects of our ballclub at the moment! : )

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:09 PM) Please, you seem like an intelligent poster; don't start copying the talking points of the baseball retarded. If we keep playing like this, soon we'll be wondering what happened when it's August and we're 15 games out; you know, the time baseball games begin counting to some people. Heavens to Murgatroid - how'd I ever lead you to that conclusion! : ) No, I was simply reacting to jay-pee-hat-whatever's comment about Peavy not being an ace, based on his admittedly, unimpressive start to the season thus far. But as disappointed I've been with the early results, I was simply trying to point out that it's still a small sample size to assert he's not an "ace". A lot of other guys in his class are also off to a bad start, but I'm willing to bet that they, like Jake, will turn it around and end up being an integral part of whatever success their team ends up having this season. What that success ends up being is still up for debate, but I really don't think that Peavy will be the reason our Sox don't achieve their goals for 2010.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:04 PM) Keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter. 'Tis a marathon, not a sprint. I will check back with you in September.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:59 PM) How are all those teams doing? In the third week of April? I don't know. I haven't bothered looking, as it doesn't matter this time of year.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:48 PM) "Aces" who are paid 16 million dollars cannot slump for 4 starts in teh beginning of a season. I'll be sure to let guys like Josh Beckett, John Lackey, Jason Verlander, and Chad Billingsley know of yer acute, small sample size, assessment of things.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) He used to be an Ace. Sure. He isn't anymore. That is really just an asinine conclusion to draw after a mere four starts.

Is Jones really as brittle and injury-prone as everyone seems to be making him out to be? This is guy who, from '97-'07, played in no fewer than 153 games in any one of those seasons. Yes, he's had some injury issues the past two seasons, but clearly the reason for that was because he showed up completely out of shape in both of those years. But now that he's back in fightin' shape, along with still being relatively young, I don't see why he can't be more like the Andruw Jones of 2007 than the one featured the last two years. More like, not exactly like, but more like.

There are anywhere between 500 and 600 at-bats in the designated hitter's spot in the line-up. Maybe anywhere between 75 and 100 of those at-bats go to Quentin and Konerko in an effort to rest them, with your "bench" players then subbing for them in the field. Fine. But then what about the remaining at-bats? Should they go to these bench players, or should they go to the likes of a Jim Thome, a Johny Damon, or anyone else who is not considered a bench player? Seems to me the answer is very obvious, but for some reason, we're choosing to go the bench player route. Mind boggling, really.

I'm 100% with everyone who would love to see Damon come on board and either be the full-time DH or part-time DH/part-time leftfielder, while batting 1st or second in the line-up. But such an arrangement would mean Ozzie would have to walk away from this "flexible DH" idea he's been touting all winter long, the one that got a lot of attention just a week ago when they eventually said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Thome. Unfortunately, I don't think Guillen is willing to do that, and as such, I can't really envision Damon accepting an offer to come play for us if it meant some sort of part-time role. I mean, can you realistically see Ozzie now doing an about-face on his desire to give all of those at-bats to Jones and Kotsay (and even Vizquel!), after everything he just got done stating about DH flexibility during the Thome negotiations? As sad as it is to say, I just can't see him chucking that idea out the window at this point in time. It would make him look rather foolish and indecisive.

I suspect it has to be Nix. I mean, we are in desperate need of a back-up infielder for all of those 11-0 blowouts coming our way, given that we are not going to ask our other so-called back-up infielder to play in those games.

It's hard to believe that the Sox have absolutely no power whatsoever from the left hand side of the plate. None. Nobody in the pool of A.J., Teahen, Kotsay, Pierre, or Vizquel has ever reached the 20 homerun plateau, or even sniffed 90 RBIs. You combine that with the question marks still hanging over the heads of Messrs. Quentin and Rios in terms of what we can expect from the right side of the plate this year, and we could find ourselves squandering a lot of good pitching efforts this year. Kind of scary, if you think about it.

What argument has Ozzie or Kenny made to substantiate leaving a very important and substantial middle-part-of-the-line-up position to the very questionable combo of Jones/Kotsay/VIZQUEL/Nix? I still don't think I've heard that yet. Yes, if we're "rotating" the likes of two or three even league regulars into this mix, you might be able to make a case for this philosophy. But at the moment we seem to be talking about nothing less than a bag of balls who have done nothing but to garner skepticism and concern at the very least, based simply on their performance of the past few years. The only thing I can even remotely get my mind around is that Guillen thinks that Andruw Jones will be the surprise of '10, and he doesn't want to put anything in the way of a platoon in front of him to get in the way of his former Brave comrade to get in the way of that.