Ranger

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 11:04 PM) Alright since the other guys aren't on from who you quoted I'll speak for me. Yes alot of us already know about UZR's flaws and other aspects (alot of posters bring the Fielding Bible to the equation which is probably the best measure of defense measure out there) and other ares as well (there are some insane symmetric fans on this board), not just UZR. Hell there was a couple of threads a few months back on it before you registered here. I've been on a few boards from the old days way back when, and this is by far the smartest posters I've ever come across. Guys like qwerty, Kalapse, Cheat (when he was here) etc.. are just outstanding posters and not to mention guys like witesoxfn, fathom, iamshack, DickAllen, ptatc, Rowand44, bmags, chw42, lostfan, scenario etc.. etc.. I mean the list goes on and on, on this board. Alot of these guys you'll realize if you haven't already will definitely bring up interesting post, and at times.. can be very stubborn. You just fit the list already ranger, but at times I notice (and I believe a poster brought this up) is at times, when a poster quotes you, and they are right, or bring up an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, you play the "I am always right or there's always a point with me" card (you might not mean to, or might not necessarily think so) and you'll find out that'll get old very quick here. (some posters still do it here) Now me personally, I'm not big on UZR, but I won't completely ignore it as well. I'll just say I've learned alot from some of these guys and alot of people I didn't mention (the "etc.." guys) on this board, and not just in baseball. Should I apologize for always having a point? Why would I post if I didn't have one? If I'm wrong about something, I'll admit I'm wrong. On the other hand, if somebody else is wrong, it's ok for me or anyone else here to tell them such. Also, if somebody has an interesting question/answer/post/whatever, I'll respond. And if they weren't quite following what I was getting at or I didn't explain myself clearly enough the first time, I'll clarify. And as you will read if you go back to my post, I don't think UZR should be ignored. But I also don't think people should be married to it, which seems to be a prevailing thought with people like qwerty (who, I believe, had the intent of being a smartass toward me in his last post...if not, I hope he'll accept my apology) People shouldn't look at a player's UZR and then say, "oh, well he's a terrible defender because of this number." That number can be misleading and it isn't proof of anything. It's really a suggestion and doesn't take everything into account. However, I'm thrilled about the new data that will become more available in the near future when defense can be more accurately measured. That is going to change things. I also think it's absurd that because we have access to SABRmetrics, some of us think they have a better idea of how to put together a team than the people who are paid to put together a team. This isn't fantasy baseball, and a real team doesn't work like that. I think it's great when people have thought their ideas through and try to support them with facts the best they can. It's better than foaming at the mouth. I just think that some people should be aware that numbers aren't everything and that because you're able to cite zone ratings, doesn't mean you have definitive answers. QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 26, 2009 -> 12:46 AM) Regardless of UZR, does anyone really believe our outfield D was even remotely decent last year? I don't think it killed them and, regardless of numbers, I don't think it isn't what led to the unacceptable number of unearned runs. I think what killed them is the booting of routine grounders and DP balls. Times they should've been out of an inning and weren't because the guys on the left side of the infield couldn't handle a two-hopper.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 10:07 PM) Uh.. what? I believe it was Kalapse who had a statistic saying we were, defensively, the worst defensive OF in the entire league or something to that extent. Our defensive OF was a definite problem. And as far as the infield, other than Josh Fields, our infield defense was not nearly as bad as the OF defense. (Getz was serviceable, Alexei besides the ADD, has alot of range and had a good UZR, and Konerko is Konerko) The sox team last year had alot of problems entirely. I will agree that KW has address that well with Pierre in LF (despite the arm) Quentin moving back to his natural position in RF, Rios (defensive stud) in CF, Alexei taking another step at SS and we will see how Teahan and Beckham do in a full year at their positions. Agreed, and your not even counting Wise (despite "the catch") Kotsay (some games) Lillibridge, etc.. we ran out there. Dye is one of the worst defensive RFs in the game. We even had Pods in RF in some games which was pretty embarrassing to watch. No doubt, our defensive OF has greatly improved from last year. We'll see how the defensive IF (mainly Teahan and Beckham) do. QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 10:55 PM) I think our OF defense cost us around 30-35 runs according to UZR. Dye was like a -20, Quentin was a -5, and Pods was like a -2 or 3. Anderson was positive, as was Wise. Kotsay was slightly negative. So yeah, around a -30 UZR in the outfield truly sucks. QUOTE (qwerty @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 11:53 PM) The sox were -25.6... tied with the red sox for third worst in baseball...ahead of the blue jays (-28.8) and twins (-30.6). But remember, the outfield defense wasn't really a problem anyway. Oh, well since the UZR says so, it must be true. Do you guys even know how UZR, RF, and defensive stats of the like are even measured? You realize none of them accurately measure the speed of the ball off the bat (actually they don't even try to) or the defensive positioning prior to the pitch? These statistics should be looked at and considered, but if you're going to use them as your sole proof of a defensive player's worth, you're going to be misguided much of the time. Companies like Stats Inc. are working on a system using cameras and computers (not people watching on monitors) to precisely measure stuff like this. Baseball has been moving forward with collecting data from this software from Sportsvision that does basically the same thing. Eventually it will be used in every ballpark, and after it is perfected and utilized, we'll have a considerably more accurate measure of defensive abilities. For the time being, UZR is flawed and it's a mistake to use it as a bible of some kind. It should be considered but shouldn't be everything. (Oh, and a happy holiday to everyone.)

They may not have been the best in terms of on-paper talent, but they may have been the team that accomplished the most and in the most imp-ressive way.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 11:50 PM) Teahen's known as the best baserunner in all of baseball. He is certainly regarded as a very good baserunnner.

QUOTE (Voros @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) Run expectancy tables suffer from two flaws: 1) They represent the outcome with average players on base, at the plate and due up. Change those players and you change the numbers. That is why, of course, no one argues about pitchers bunting in those situations. 2) Later in games, it starts to diverge with what you're really looking for: win expectancy. For example, with a tie game in the bottom of the ninth, scoring one run is as good as scoring 10 runs, either outcome wins you the game. So multi-run strategies lose their advantages over single run strategies. That said they are a pretty decent starting benchmark for a strategic analysis of what you're doing. More often than not, bunting a guy over with a man on first and no one out is a bad strategy. There are times when it has its benefits, and there's a benefit to doing it every now and then just to keep the other team honest. But if the lead-off hitter reaches base in the first, and the White Sox have their best hitters coming up, it's pretty crazy to suggest the number two guy should bunt. To me I think when guys who can run a bit sacrifice bunt, they should try and bunt for a hit and take the sacrifice if they get thrown out. It not only increases the chances for the guy to reach base, but it puts additional pressure on the opposing defense to make a quick decision and a good throw and that can lead to more throwing errors by them. I agree with that. Which is why I don't take every bit of extended statistical analysis as gospel. SOmetimes people get lost in it. Late game situations are completely different than the entire game as whole. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 07:10 PM) You can make another argument that with our pitching staff set up the way it is, scoring runs in the first inning (like we did in 2005 and then 2006 a lot, holding many one or two run leads throughout the entire game) and getting the first lead of the game, those will both be critically important. (So another interesting question would be to study what's the best way to get someone with 30+ stolen bases home from first base with no outs, based on his stolen bases percentages being around 75-80%....steal....sacrifice or hit away). If you have Beckham batting 3rd and Pierre gets on-base, there SHOULD be numerous runs scored on Beckham doubles without Pierre having to steal 2nd base. That's another reason I prefer to have Ramirez batting second, although it might be Rios, too. If Quentin, Konerko, AJ and Teahen are "jamming" up the basepaths in the middle of the order, things won't be any different than in the past, we'll just have lower OPS/SLG totals compared to Dye and Thome. It would be nice to have CQ running at 100% too, because that makes a big difference in his value as a player, if he's able to go 100% around the basepaths. That's the irony of our line-up, that three of best possibilities for the 1-2 spots (Pierre/Ramirez/Rios) might be better served being at the bottom of the order...but I still think you have to bat Beckham 3rd, Quentin 4th and Konerko 5th and the DH/AJ/Teahen 6th. I don't think it's accurate to align Quentin and Teahen with the speed of PK/Thome/Dye. Those two guys have much better speed than the other 3. Teahen has average speed and CQ is at least average for a power hitter (as long as he's healthy). The trio of the past is REALLY slow.

This is one of the last things to worry about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 12:26 PM) If it isn't meaningful, then his entire point is moot. He's trying to say that .16 is materially less meaningful than .17, which is mathematically absurd in this usage. The author is playing both sides of the fence, and his argument is useless as a result. Either that scale of difference is useful, or it is not. If it is, his second point is moot. If it is not, his first point is moot. Either way, he's off base. I don't think he's off base, and I don't think he was saying that particular difference was meaningful. It seemed to me that all he did was present all of the numbers with the overall determination that productive outs don't matter all that much by the end of a full year. I think the real (and significant) difference to look at is the difference between a runner at second no outs (1.14 expectancy) and runner at second 1 out (.69). That's an interesting number because when you factor in his conclusion that the productive out that moves the runner over compared to a non-productive out where the runner stays put at first is not that much different, the numbers suggest you have a better chance of scoring that runner from first if you can get him to second without giving up an out to do it. Therefore, the intentional productive out is not all that productive according to the numbers here, and the best bet may be to have a normal plate appearance in the runner on first, nobody out situation.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 03:09 AM) It's pretty clear that the White Sox view their market as pretty inelastic...that there is a hardcore, dedicated season ticket base than will keep renewing, almost no matter what the circumstances. It's the 80/20 rule of sports marketing, that 80% of the revenue will be derived from the same 20% of the attendance, namely the season ticket buyers. Of course, in 2006, there was a big jump because of the World Series championship and what looked like an extended run of playoff appearances being set up, but almost all of the positive effects of winning a World Series are exhausted within five years...when things return to normal, which is essentially where we're at with the White Sox franchise. I'm not sure what it is about that marketplace in Chicago, but it is interesting the cost of living is a lot higher in Southern California (in general) and yet White Sox/Cubs ticket prices and parking, concessions, etc., are a higher across the board than costs for Dodgers or Angels games. To me, over the years, it seems like the best promotion has been the fireworks nights in terms of producing strong numbers...of course, those are almost always weekend games, too, which is another factor. Having worked for a minor league baseball team for two years, half-price nights during the week (especially before or after the summer hits and school lets out) and "half-priced beer/Thirsty Thursday/Two For Tuesday" promotions didn't have a significant impact on increasing overall revenues...and the more you discount the core price of a ticket, the more upset your season ticket holders and devalue the worth of a White Sox ticket, making it harder to encourage fans to pay legit prices when they can easily get tickets for free or discount. Now most major league teams don't discount beer...and they are also perhaps more conscious about alienating the fanbase by promoting nights where drunks take over the stadiums and scare the "family crowd" away. Perhaps they could try to discount parking during the week, that's another idea. One of the first things that most fans bring up about Comiskey is the high price of parking, for some reason, that specific issue sticks in the "craw" of lots of fans. The most successful promotions were always the give-away nights, where people paid regular ticket prices but got something "pretty decent" free for themselves or their kids...these kind of nights, which depend upon the sales and marketing department, are what really drive the revenues up for most teams who break even or lose money from Monday through Thursday is the majority of major league markets. Pretty good post, though I don't think they view their die-hard season ticket base as more guaranteed than any other team would view theirs. They still feel heavy pressure to get renewals. When you speak of the Angels and Dodgers, part of the lower cost in ticket prices is the fact that both of those parks have larger cpacities (the Angels can seat 5,000 more, the Dodgers almost 16,000 more). Plus, both of those teams consistently draw 3,000,000 fans per game and have done so for several years. Greater capacity and greater attendance means you can have lower ticket prices. Compared to other teams, Sox ticket prices really aren't outrageous or anything. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 08:13 AM) I'd like to point out this text from the WSJ blog you linked to: Does anyone else see the problem in the assumptions made here? I see three, in fact. For one thing, he's say that a .16 of a run differential is meaningless, but in the SAME PARAGRAPH, says that the difference between 1.14 and .97 (which is .17) IS meaningful. And does the same while comparing .88 and .69 (a .19 difference). He's arguing against himself. Second, he forgets the fact that hits and outs are not of equal frequency in baseball. What he is therefore not factoring in, is that since an out is the 70% likelihood, how it is used should be weighted more heavily than as if it were an A or B comparison between hits and outs. Third, looking at his .88 vs .69 comparison, he doesn't account for the fact that within the actions which take you from .88 to .69, is a certain percentage of both hits and outs (some productive, some not). The resulting .19 difference is assuming the same balance over time. Now, what he doesn't know, and can't know, is, would the difference be the same if, say, the amount of SAC bunts was doubled. Would the gap decrease? You could actually dig further into numbers over time to get a decent correlation on this, probably, and that might be worth something. He didn't say it was meaningful. He just said there was a difference. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 08:37 AM) There's something else lost in the productive outs conversation. The White Sox have traditionally been a three run homer and a cloud of dust type of offense in the last decade, particularly in 2000 and 2006. Ozzie obviously wants to change the mindset of the team, to find players who have the "small ball/fundamental" skills to manufacture runs when the big boppers are all struggling and most of the games are tight because of our #3 in all of MLB starting pitching staff. I think there was something about that 2005 team, despite their average or below average offensive output...not just defensively, but they really seemed to care for each other, pull for each other, Iguchi was one of the quiet, understated examples of that idea. It's hard to see it in the box scores or stats, but they will never measure the contributions of a player like him effectively. When you see the likes of Wise, Owens, Anderson, Lillibridge, Fields, Corky Miller, etc., flailing away and often having no understand of game situations or how to execute properly, it rubs off on the rest of the team...it seems most of the players were "selfish" last year in their approaches. Look at Quentin and Ramirez for example, very rarely did you see them change from at-bat to at-bat in terms of making adjustments. Ramirez was very good at that in 2008, so-so last year. Quentin almost never went to the opposite field...I think Thome might have done it more often that CQ last year. The one thing you can say is that across the board, this team has become more veteran/experienced off the bench and more athletic in the starting line-up and defensively. How that translates to wins and losses will be interesting. I think defensively, we're better at every position (or should be) with the possible exception of 3B and then you know what you're getting with AJ. I think how atrocious our defense was had a tremendously negative impact on the whole team over the course of the year. I can't remember a White Sox team making so many defensive and baserunning errors in my lifetime. I don't agree with you on CQ and Ramirez. It didn't have anything to do with selfishness. Quentin was hurt and upon his return, spent the rest of the season trying to figure it out again. That's not selfish. Ramirez did some things better last year that he didn't do the previous year (like a better OBP and taking more walks, for example). He also got exposed in the early colder months, which is not something that happened to him the previous season. Overall, they were not as good, but it wasn't about being selfish.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 12:22 AM) I hope, for their sake, that they have done studies to recognize the ideal price-point for their tickets, which results in optimum revenue production. Well, yeah. All teams do that.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 11:03 PM) Half Price Monday nights seem to draw about 15,000 - 20,000 more fans than what they would have if they didn't offer the half price tickets. And those extra fans obviously don't count the season ticket base, who still pay full price on those evenings. So you still get the full revenue charge from that season ticket base, but even with only the half price of the ticket revenue generated by those extra 15,000 - 20,000 extra fans, you still get the FULL revenue expended by those fans on food, beverages, and all of the extras offered around the ball park. Thus, I'd say they make a hell of a lot more on those half-priced Mondays than they do on an "average night". I mean, heck - why do you think they even have these half-price night offers in the first place! This is also a misconception. A lot of fans think that whatever they lose on the half-price deal to sell the extra 10,000 or so tickets, they make up in concessions. Actually, they don't and it isn't even close. It's not really my place to go into detail on that subject but you would be shocked at how much more they make on a regular-price night with 25,000 attendance compared to a half-price night with 35,000. The difference is actually staggering. Keep in mind they don't get all of that concession money. Think about it: if they were really making that much more money on half-price night, why wouldn't they do that every night?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:07 PM) True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights. I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend. Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries. I'm aware of Forbes articles on the subject. Forbes is the same publication that determined the Sox spend a higher percentage of their revenue on payroll than any other team in baseball except for the Nationals, who were equal at 79%. Half-priced Mondays, by the way, don't make near the money for the team that they would make on an average night at regular price. Even if they sell considerably fewer tickets on the regular night. Also, there's a misconception that payroll is determined based on the previous year's income. They actually set payroll based on revenue they project for that year. So, the payroll they have for 2010 is based on how much revenue they think they'll generate in 2010 through ticket sakes, sponsorships, etc. Therefore, it's not out of the ordinary to find out they'll be able to spend a bit more, or have to cut back a bit, midway through a season. Things can change throughout the year, and it's always a smart thing to do to leave themselves some flexibility. This is why they will sometimes "find money" midseason. QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) Even though I don't call the Sox tight with money, I think there's a valid argument some make that they refuse to do certain deals out of principle. Boras aside, they wont do what other clubs are doing in overpaying for talent. Is it a distaste for Boras in particular or for what he represents in a larger sense? The whole thing about not signing long term free agent pitchers.... It pains a bit to watch other teams do it and win championships. I think what we'd all like is this great farm system pumping out cheap talent... to cushion the blow for free agent overpays. But obviously it's easier said than done. Overall I agree with you.... the angry Sox fan should focus their argument on how the org spends the money...not claim that they dont spend it. That part is just wrong. Because the Albert Belle signing was such an anomaly for this franchise, it just seems like they're cheap. But that's not doing one's homework. Won't overpay for talent? Isn't that what everyone is complaining they're doing with Rios, Linebrink, potentially Peavy and Putz? I realize Buehrle wasn't a free agent, but they ponied up the money and the years to keep him. Does it matter he wasn't a free agent? I think they're just incredibly smart about not throwing around years on a contract for a pitcher that might blow up halfway through the deal. The Sox aren't in the financial position to be able to overcome the cost of a bad starter's contract. Yeah, it would be nice if they had the luxury of being able to pay Burnett, Sabathia, and then be able to have interest in Carlos Zambrano on top of all of that. But they don't. They have, and do, sign Boras clients when those clients don't have outrageous demands. I just think they refuse to allow Boras to use them in a bidding war for a player when everyone knows that player is going to end up making an absurd amount of money. The only teams that are able to sign a Boras client to a Boras kinda deal, and then be able to pay the other players they need, are the Yankees and Red Sox

A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several years, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 05:35 PM) I do. And really.. I don't like (or see) the comparison of a LF and a RF (as Kearns is a RF, even if they both play the OF) but I stated that as well on the Pierre thread to you with what Ozzie Ball was saying.. In his horrid, injury plagued years, Kearns was still a defensive stud in RF. I think if you take him out of a really bad franchise of losing like Washington and put somewhere that the emphasis of that said team is winning, then I believe he will have a nice bounce back year. Hell even as a minor league option, wouldn't do any harm. And BTW, like I said before, I agree with you on Teahan. I really believe the guy will also have a nice year as he is set in one position, is going to a team who wants to win, and is hitting half his games at a hitter's park. (though he won't be facing Mark Buehrle anymore) If he is still average, hey I was wrong and he is, what he is. QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 06:22 PM) I do. 1. Kearns is better on defense, and I'm all for creating the best defense possible in front of our pitching staff. 2. Kearns has a high career OBP. In contrast, Pierre's best years at OBP were solely created by average. I think it's fair to say the years of Pierre's .330 BA's are over. Kearns inevitably has more power than Pierre, as Mark Buehrle has more power than Juan Pierre. And it's likely Kearns would come on a cheap 1 year deal. But alas, we have a slap hitting girl-arm in LF for another 2 years. Well, I didn't make the LF/Rf comparison. I was responding to the assertion that the Sox would be better off going with Kearns in RF and Quentin in left. I just don't think that's accurate at all. Pierre can play the position and is much better out there than Podsednik. The outfield defense has already improved and it wasn't even really the problem last year anyway (the real defensive issues last year were on the infield). At any rate, I really don't care about Pierre's arm. It really won't make a significant difference over the course of the season. Pierre is here because he can leadoff and there weren't a whole lot of options out there for that spot. PLus, we have a pretty good reason to believe he will be healthy all year. We don't know that about Kearns.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 05:05 PM) I understand you, greed, what you are saying is the benefit of a player like rios (and now beckham) is they give you power production out of a position that is usually void (CF, 2B), but by putting players like pierre in a traditional power position, or high offensive, position like LF, you negate the positives of having found above average production in CF. I understand that, on the other hand, the argument could be made that because you are getting above average production in CF and 2b, you can put less offensively-talented players - which means cheaper - in those positions. I don't like Pierre, and yeah, i agree that we are wasting an opportunity to have a great outfield since, really, the hardest piece was found, on the other hand I'm not sure I totally agree that you wash out the reason for getting an offensive CF if you don't find a powerhouse LF and RF. That seems unreasonable unless you are NY/BOS. That said, I really wish we would've taken a flyer on Kearns. What would have been a better, realistic option for them? I am also not entirely enamored with Pierre but I don't think picking up Austin Kearns and hoping he isn't bad is a better option than Pierre.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Despite Rios' abysmal showing during his time with the Sox last season, I am still at least ten times more confident that he'll be an overall better-than-average performer at his position than, say, Mark Teahen will at his. He's the guy with the history of being a below-average performer in every aspect of the game, and the guy I feel we should be more concerned about. I know a good portion of this discussion revolves around the size of contracts and all, but from a purely performance standpoint. third base concerns me far more at this point in time than does center field. I think people are for more concerned with Teahen than they should be. I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a decent season. I'll wear it if he doesn't, but I think him having the knowledge that he is the guy at third base and the position is his, will benefit him. And I think his tools are better than people realize. You have to forget that he played in Kansas City, which for a lot of people, means a player isn't, or can't be, very good.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I still think the team needs another hitter. And while I like the idea of 9 guys getting just about all of the at-bats with the DH spot rotating from player to player (meaning a group of 2 or 3 players get days off from the field while remaining in the lineup...Podsednik was a HUGE fan of that idea, by the way), if they acquire a guy that is unable to play the field and only DH, that would be better than leaving the team as is.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) And I said then...if that was true, then KW ought to have lost his job, because everyone here knew that it was highly likely the Jays would just let him walk, and a message board shouldn't know more about MLB than a GM. QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) I don't believe the White Sox, based on Williams repeated comments regarding the budget, are the type of team that makes claims on struggling players with long-term deals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Williams has reportedly liked Rios for awhile, and they had Dotel, Thome and Dye coming off the books after the season. They had the room to add payroll in light of who was coming off of it, and along with Peavy, Williams simply acuqired two players that he coveted during the season. Preventing Rios from going to another team is a byproduct of this particular claim. They claimed him because they wanted him and they realized that if he does anything like what he's capable of doing, he'll be a nice addition. QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) I'm not ready to call it a failure either, but there is a strong chance that his contract hurts us over the next several years. It has obviously already hurt us for this year and getting a DH. I understand he's a bit of a risk, but it's not as if he's making $130 million. The White Sox have a pretty good player for 5 years (6 if they like) and it's costing them $60 million. That's really not all that much for a CF and by 2014, it won't be all that much.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) Mr. Rongey, I am actually siding with you on this one, I like the moves, I think I understand them, and I think they'll work out for the best. I was not a fan of signing Matsui or Johnson. That being the case, I think guys like Kalapse, Voros, OzzieBall and Gatnom have made some great points that we overspent on a few of these guys, not necessarily when viewed individually, but when viewed on the whole. The best point, in my opinion, is whether the impact a full-time player like Matsui might be bigger than that of a part-time player like Kotsay or Vizquel, simply because of the number of opportunities. Voros even went so far as to suggest other players (despite the fact that I have never heard of many of them), and he went through and showed cost savings, etc., etc. So because the guy is confident in his point of view, it's fair to be condescending towards him and then suggest what his reaction would have been in some alternative course of events? Now I understand there are people out there that just complain for the sake of complaining. But you asked Voros to bring it, and he did bring it, rather intelligently and respectfully, in my opinion, and you respond by telling him he would not be a good GM and he doesn't understand how the economics work? What makes you more qualified than he is? What makes any of us more qualified than he is, when not one of us have ever even sniffed a GM job? At the end of the day, we're all just a bunch of guys debating the merits of the offseason, and I think he did it as intelligently as anyone in the thread, if not more. Believe me, I'm not saying we all shouldn't set the loudmouths and blowhards straight, and some people are just so far off their rocker that they deserve to be treated a bit more harshly than others, but simply because someone disagrees with my point of view, or your point of view, does not make them wrong. Neither does it mean they would not make a good GM or mean they don't understand. It means they happen to disagree with us on a point which it has been made fairly clear that reasonable minds may disagree about. Well let's go ahead and get to the "bringin' it" you speak of: QUOTE (Voros @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 01:01 AM) Okay here's my theoretical 25 man roster (again I was asked): C - Pierzynski C - Erik Kratz (journeyman minor leaguer with a good glove and decent bat - league min) 1B - Konerko/Nick Johnson 2B - Getz/Nix platoon SS - Ramirez/Beckham 3B - Beckham/Ramirez LF - Quentin CF - Rick Ankiel/Rios (Ankiel at about a WAG of around $3 mil/yr) RF - Rios/Ankiel DH - Nick Johnson/Konerko (Johnson at about $6 mil/yr) IF - Nix/Getz IF - Mike McCoy (the Rockies waived him and the Jays claimed him before the White Sox turn, but you could have gotten him before then, league min) OF - Ryan Langerhans (non-tendered by the Mariners on the 12th and then re-signed a week later. Defensive specialist, league minimum or close to it) SP1 - Peavy SP2 - Danks SP3 - Buerhle SP4 - Floyd SP5 - Garcia/Hudson/Torres RP - Jenks RP - Thornton RP - Linebrink RP - Pena RP - Torres/Garcia (if Hudson's not starting I'd prefer him in AAA) RP - R.J. Swindle (minor league lefty killer currently on an NRI for the Rays, league min) RP - Chris Bootcheck or a guy like him (have a sort of open competition with guys like this in ST and see who looks the best. all league min) And I'm under the current amount spent. So if I see a reliever I really like for under $2 million, I can pounce. There's other guys you could go after like Andruw or Gabe Gross who would be useful additions to the team and wouldn't cost much. Freddy Dolsi wasn't a terrible pickup as he's a groundball specialist and they can be useful out of the pen, though I think he's a little hittable. I think this team is better than the current one and doesn't cost any more. I don't think it's a great team, but then that has a lot to do with a poor minor league system and some questionable existing long term big money contracts. The biggest risks (other than maybe Ankiel) are in spots where a flop doesn't really hurt you too bad and you can change courses pretty quickly. A guy like Swindle, despite his clear weaknesses, he throws strikes and lefties just don't seem to hit him at all and therefore should be more than adequate as a back of the pen platoon specialist. To me, little pickups like that are how you put together a bench: cheap with a little bit of potential should things break your way. First, I'll just start by saying that your real-world scenario already doesn't work when you admit that one of your options couldn't possibly be available to the Sox anyway. I don't understand how you think that signing Nick Johnson and then plugging the rest of the holes with league-minimum salaried players, makes this team better. Rick Ankiel? No. The backups they currently have didn't cost them all that much at all. You're acting like they've spent $20 million on it. The Sox current bench is better than yours and your bullpen is not as good as the one they've got now. . How would you even set that lineup? It's almost like you're just throwing out cheap names to fill spots. I'm sorry, but that team you have listed is just simply not better.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) If they just owed him the $9.7 million or whatever it is for 2010, he's worth the gamble, but considering how they seem to always be up against a wall with their budget and you really can't count on an attendance spike, especially in this economy, $5 years, $60 million is a crazy committment. He obviously has the tools to live up to the contract, and perhaps even make it look like a bargain, but he also seems to be a threat to be a poster boy for people who just deteriorate after they get the money. Sure it's a risk to take on the contract, just as it is a risk to give any player a multi-year deal. There's always a chance that player doesn't live up to the money. But should the economics of the game continue to expand the way they have over the years, his $12.5 million dollar salary in 2014 will be considerably less than he's worth if he maintains any sort of level of play according to his ability. That $12.5 million 5 years from now is still considerably less than the $18 million Hunter gets currently. QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:50 PM) The 2008 attendance was also poor, even though they made the playoffs, because they were mediocre most of the year, and backed into the playoffs. Plus, it just takes a while for people to really start committing to the park, anyway. QUOTE (gatnom @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:48 PM) I'm kind of digging out this post from awhile back Ranger, but I felt like some of your points weren't completely addressed. Not all holes are created equal, Ranger. I don't exactly agree with all of his points, but the holes on the bench are nowhere near as important as the holes in the everyday lineup, especially in the AL. Whether the money from the players they acquired for the bench could have been used to fill a bigger hole such as our DH or LF/RF remains to be seen, but I would rather have a good everyday lineup and an unknown bench than a meh everyday lineup and a good bench. It's not that I even dislike the signings at face value either. If we had already set up a good everyday lineup, I would be happy with these veteran signings for the bench, but as I believe KHP said elsewhere, it seems like the Sox are going about things backwards. I don't think it's a good idea to presume exactly how he would react. Some people would definitely be freaking out over it, but how do you know for sure this poster would be angry with such a scenario? The last four years Juan Pierre has posted an OPS of .703. Mark Kotsay, who just happens to be making $1.5 million, has put up the paltry OPS of .700. Kotsay actually has the superior OPS when you take into account the park factors (84 OPS+ versus 83 for Pierre). I realize OPS isn't an end all be all statistic, but it seems to point out that Pierre making $1.5 million can and probably should happen on the planet we know as Earth. Let's not also forget that these numbers include the couple months that Pierre played way over his head, at least for recent history. The problem is that this team simply was not good last year. These acquisitions like Teahen, Pierre, and the guys we signed for the bench are the kind of acquisition that you make to round out a roster, not play a vital role in its success. I believe in a previous post I made to you I outlined all the various question marks this team has, and we haven't added anything in the form of a certain bat to look to that will make it seem like this team has at least improved going forward. We have lost a lot of production from Thome, first half Dye, and even Podsednik who even though he probably won't repeat his numbers again this year, did put up decent numbers last year. I believe that Kenny knows this as well as we do, and that's why we are hearing (or at least were) that he was looking into acquiring a bat. If we say signed Jim Thome and called it an offseason, the team as constructed could definitely make some noise even deep into the playoffs, but you are putting a lot of hope into the fact that all these underachieving players can turn it around, which some people around here are taking for granted. Mark Kotsay doesn't have the same tools that Juan Pierre does. They don't play the same positions, they wouldn't bat in the same spot in the order, and they don't have the same skillsets. You can argue whether you think Pierre is all that good or not, and that's fair, but he's capable of being an everyday player (Pierre didn't miss a game for 5 straight years) and is capable of being an average leadoff hitter which is much tougher to find than utility IF/OF types. And for a guy who will play every day, the Sox are only paying him $1.5 mil more than they're paying Kotsay for his services next year. These are pretty good acquisitions given the budget contraints. You get the players you can with the money you have. If you blow all of it on one guy, and leaving nothing to fill the rest, that one guy won't make up for what you're missing. Not all holes are created equal, but when you add all those holes together, they become one big cavern. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:57 PM) Agreed on most counts, Gatnom. I think there is room for reasonable minds to disagree here, and therefore, telling someone they don't understand, or that they wouldn't make a good GM, or how they would have reacted had things been done differently is going a bit far. I hope things work out for the best. Maybe Andruw Jones will turn things around and end up being the bat we are all pining for right now. Maybe Pierre and Teahan have a bit of a renaissance and turn into vital everyday players. Maybe none of this matters because our pitching staff will carry the team all year. But as of right now, there is definitely room for debate that a different approach could have been taken to accomplish more than the moves that were made will. And hey, that's why we're all here to do - to debate the offseason moves - so let's keep it up and enjoy ourselves, because the Bears sure do suck. Shack, I use phrases like that for people that are absolutely confident in themselves that they have better answers than the general manager. Sometimes people don't understand and not all ideas are good ones. And if anybody is able to, with any real-world certainty, provide a different plan with real names and real salaries to fill ALL of the holes the team needed to be filled and within the budget, I'd be happy to listen. I'm not arguing these are exciting moves, but given what they have to work with, I think they've done about as well as can be done so far without going over budget.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 04:57 PM) Its possible. The problem is the attendance has been on the downswing and winning while it will help, might not be the answer. The Sox drew more in 2007 than they did winning the divison in 2008 and drew even less in 2009. Of course, they drew more in 2007 than they did in 2005. Part of the problem is the Sox are going to have a lot unattractive home games. Cleveland and KC are dregs. Detroit doesn't interest many. That's 1/3 of your home schedule. The economy is still poor, but playoffs and a nice run in them could get some extra funds in the coffers, although Minnesota should be very strong. They have to beat up on Cleve, KC and Det. The higher attendance in '06 and '07 are season-ticket hangovers from the World Series euphoria. You've kind of touched on what I've said quite a few times here: regardless of how good this team is out of the gate in 2010, it will take a while for people to start really showing up to the park. Remember, they didn't start regularly selling out games in 2005 until the month of August. This is why, when the team sets payroll for the upcoming season, they can't just assume people will show up to cover the amount they've spent. They have to be damn sure people will be there.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) The $82 million doesn't include Peavy. Rios is $60 million, Teahan $14 million Pierre $8 million. As for the zero prospects for Rios, doesn't that say anything? If an organizaton truly thought he is worth $12 million a year wouldn't they have given Toronto something for him? Yeah, it says Toronto wanted to get out of the contract. It says Toronto was no longer able to afford having Wells, Rios, and Halladay's contracts at the same time. They were not in position to be able to afford it. They would've loved to ship Wells, too. Look, Rios underperformed last year and it's possible he doesn't duplicate 2006 again. But even if he doesn't, I think people are overstating how much Rios would be overpaid. Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that. I'm not arguing that Rios is better, because he has not been a better player than Hunter has over his career. I'm merely using Hunter as a reference point for value. What I am arguing is that if Rios performs to even something like what he's capable, he won't be all that overpaid. In fact, he may not be overpaid at all compared to what others will be getting in his position.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) Uhh, Chris Burke being driven in by Jose Vizcaino. Arm strength matters How much is the left fielders arm strength really going to have an effect? Over the course of a season, it's not significant. Catch the ball. That's what matters. QUOTE (Voros @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 01:03 AM) Well money spent on Vizquel on Kotsay to me are wastes. They're no better than guys like Mike McCoy and Ryan Langerhans who are available for league minimum, a handshake and a kind word. I'm not sure Kotsay is even much better than De Aza at this stage of their careers and the Sox already have him. Even if Kotsay and Vizquel are slightly better (extremely doubtful in Kotsay's case), if the two play enough to where "slightly better" has any meaning, the team is in trouble anyway. There's two million saved. Then trading Getz and Fields for a player not any better than Getz but considerably more expensive is another two million gone. Andruw was a decent pickup since he only costs you more than league minimum if he actually does something. Third man out of the bullpen is probably not someone you want to be spending $3 million on, particularly when it means you can't tender a guy who was an effective workhorse out of the pen last year. Putz does have a track record of some success, but he's always had control problems and obviously 2009 wasn't the most encouraging season. I wouldn't have spent that money that way. That's $2.5 million saved. $4 million on Juan Pierre is a considerable overpay in and of itself and Ely wasn't a completely worthless chip either. Pierre is the kind of bench player you spend $1.5 million on, but that wasn't on the table. So that's $3.5 million saved. That's $12 million above league minimum for those slots. Fill guys like McCoy and Langerhans in at two of the slots. The Andruw deal is fine for one of the slots. So far we haven't spent any of that $12 million. $5 million for Nick Johnson or $5.5 if you think the White Sox needed to exceed the Yankees offer. So that's $6.5 million for an outfielder (Marlon Byrd or Rick Ankiel are both good players likely available for less than that) and a middle reliever to fill out the 25 (and a league minimum backup catcher). To me guys like Kotsay and Vizquel and Teahen haven't filled any holes. They aren't any better than options the White Sox already had available to them. Then when it comes to guys like Pierre, you can get a better player for the same kind of money. Finally when it comes to Putz, you're spending a premium to fill a not all that critical position on the team on a guy whose recent history ain't all that great. I don't like any of it. No offense, but you probably wouldn't be a very good GM because I'm not sure you understand the economics here. Basically, you would've preferred they fill 4 or 5 holes with absolute unknowns? I think that would've been a terrible idea, and trust me, you would've been saying, "why didn't they get some proven guys to play here or there?" At least we know the realistic potential for everyone he's acquired. You would've complained if they didn't make a serious move to fortify the pen. You would've complained if they made one huge signing, but then filled the rest of the vacancies with $500,000 players. On what planet would Pierre be getting $1.5 million? Coco Crisp is about to get $5 mil from the A's. Marlon Byrd? Really? Wow. This team had a a few holes to fill, and they've done a good job of that. I'll let League handle the rest...he did a nice job of it. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) The White Sox have had money to spend. Since they have acquired Peavy, they have "spent" $82 million alone on Rios, Teahan and Pierre. I think there is an issue as to how they have spent it. So then you have an issue with Peavy's acquisition? I can udnerstand some reservations about Rios, but Peavy? (Also keep in mind, they had to give up zero prospects for Rios). Teahen and Pierre are inexpensive.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 09:03 PM) Eh.. people still get their shots in with Alex Rios on this board still. Not sayin it's right.. but just sayin... Well, yeah, but people don't have short memories when it comes to sucking. They'll always remember the failures. Excitement over something positive, though, tends to wear off more quickly than does frustration over something negative.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:34 PM) Which is ridiculous, considering how well the guy pitched for us in his 3 starts... You're right, but it's the old recency effect. People are usually greatly affected by events that occur recently. I think some people have had time to let the Peavy excitement wear off.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) Yeah, probably, which is why the overall tone of my post was very positive. However, I think an argument can definitely be made that they should have signed Matsui and Johnson and filled out the remaining spots with some league-minimum type guys. Believe it or not, there are some out there to be had. As I said though, I like the moves that have been made - I think we'll be the most well-rounded we've been since 2005 or 2006 - but there definitely is an argument that can be made that the team could have been improved in more key areas by taking a slightly different approach. Yes, it could have...if they had more money to spend. The issue is not how they've spent, but how much they've been able to spend.