Ranger

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:41 PM) Post more often. I agree with a lot of what you have just said. Given the rotation that we have this team could have been turned into a potential 90 win ballclub with a couple of choice offensive signings, but instead, Kenny has spent a decent chunk of change, as you put it, and in return we have a selection of fairly mediocre players. They seem to be expecting some sort of resurgent year from Teahen, and perhaps that happens, but when he hasn't shown that ability for two straight years now you should really look at his potential resurgence as a bonus, not a necessary requirement in order for this to be a good offensive team. The DH spot is still a big issue. I can't believe that Ozzie said he's satisfied with this rotating DH monstrosity, but if he really did then he should have been fired on the spot. We all knew he was insane, but to have somebody that clueless in charge of your ballclub is really an embarrassment. Nick Johnson plus a Randy Winn type would have been doable and would have put us in a much better position than we're currently in. Totally disagree. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They sign two players like that for the same money and are still left with holes to fill. As it stands now, I think they still have a hole. And that's after they've made those other acquisitions. And "fired on the spot"? Come on, man. You want him to tell the press he thinks his team isn't good enough? That's just absurd.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:34 PM) Great article, Balta. The Sox are spending $8M on Juan Pierre for 2 years. Even if Gardner cost a good prospect, that move would still have represented a savings of $7.2M. Kenny didn't even unload Linebrink in the deal, which would have made the deal defensible assuming the Dodgers ate the remaining salary. The Sox got hosed and the Dodgers made out like bandits, clearing $8M of a bad deal off the books, which is more than enough to fill the 4th OF spot with a capable veteran and still have lots left over to address other needs, and in making this deal the Dodgers *also* picked up a couple potentially useful players in Link and especially Ely. This offseason is the worst offseason Kenny has had since the early years of his GM career. I'm so glad we've now got $15.25M in 2011 committed to Linebrink, Pierre, and Teahen. Boy, that's soooo much better than only having $5.5M committed to Linebrink. It's an absolute waste of money, especially in this market. If I knew the Sox were going to trade for Mark Teahen and give him 3 years guaranteed I'd have never argued against giving Figgins 4. BTW it's also funny how Kenny is emphasizing defense and then not following through. Our LF has no arm, our RF is for some reason extremely overrated on this board for his defense when if you watch him he actually sucks, and our new 3B is probably average at best. It's not like we got worlds better over what we already had, and the major improvements we'll see on D this year will have more to do with a full year of Rios in CF and Alexei being in his sophomore year as a SS. If the Sox offense tanks this year like it should be expected to, then someone needs to get fired. A lot of hyperbole, dude. Worst offseason? Come on, man. On a limited budget, he's done pretty well. The defense, as a whole, is better than it was to start last year. Pierre is a good fielder, who cares about his arm? Teahen is fine defensively, not a gold glover, but he'll be just fine. Quentin will be better than Dye, and I think you're underrating his defense. Just a lot of negative hyperbole. And if you think there was a team out there just dying to take the Linebrink contract, and give the Sox good players in return, you're out of your mind.

QUOTE (Mattchoo @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:29 PM) Maybe I've just bought into what the white sox are selling us this offseason, but I love how they've spent their limited money. Did you really want to go into the season again with a bench of Lillibridge, Betemit, Fields, Miller, and Nix? First off that bench is (was) absolutely horrible. Second, and more importantly, we have a manager that constantly will swap out starters to give them a rest at least once a week. We all know how much fun those lazy summer Sunday lineups are. The Sunday lineup thing is kind of a myth. They were as bad on Fridays as they were on Sundays. And naturally, like any other team, lineups are usually different on day games after night games. Watch other teams...they do the same thing.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) Agreed. We need to sign some guys who will sell tickets and generate some buzz. I guess Jerry was right; our big free agents were Peavy and Rios. We're just landing role guys to surround those big acquisitions. The tone would be different if Peavy had been acquired during the offseason. There would be a lot more buzz, I think. But since it happened in the middle of a season that turned out poorly, some of the excitement has worn off.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) The win column sells tickets for the Sox. Correct. I just hope if they start winning at the onset of the season, it doesn't take 4 months to start filling the park. The better they do with attendance, the more flexibility they'll have at the deadline if they need some help.

QUOTE (Voros @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) Well I'm not really worried about the way they're splitting up the money they're getting from the two deals (time value of money is important but not that important). Money saved this year by that method is money spent next year, so if Johnson's deal was two years at $11.5 the White Sox would be paying significantly more for Pierre and Teahen still. IIRC it's two years and around $13 million total for the two after the cash back is factored in. My point is simply that the White Sox have spent money this offseason in a way that probably could have been spent a little more wisely. A million here and there on Kotsay and Vizquel, a few million on Teahen and four million on Pierre and you're now starting to talk about a fairly decent chunk of change on a group of players that aren't much of an upgrade from the Ryan Shealys that float about the league this time of year at league min. Throw in $3 million on a player like Putz with a good track record but recent concerns and it's actually quite a bit of money that's been spent. Any one of those moves in and of itself really isn't anything to worry about. But in total it seems like there were better ways to spend that money. Could the White Sox still win the division? Sure. But considering what else is going on in this division and the amount of money they're spending, the White Sox should be clear favorites in this division and they certainly aren't that right now. What were better ways to spend the money? What you're doing is trying to compare the signing of one big free agent to signing 4 players for the same amount of money. Sure, they could have done that, but that would still leave them with holes. So then what would you do about those vacancies? For roughly $12 million for next season, they've acquired a leadoff hitter/leftfielder, a thirdbaseman, two decent veteran bench players, and a pretty good reliever (if he remains healthy, which isn't a stretch, he'll be good). I'm not sure how you can say they could've spent the money any more wisely as they've filled 5 holes with a small amount of cash. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 08:05 PM) Absolutely. While no one player has really broken the bank, the combined total they have spent could have probably been spent on a more high-profile FA. And while I like the depth we now have, it is definitely debatable whether those bench or platoon players are really going to offer us more than some of the league-minimum type players floating around would have. Personally, I'm good with the moves. We have a fairly veteran club, and I think if we can get things moving in the right direction from the start, we might see something pretty special this year. Now I'm not floating the chemistry bs, I'm just saying that if we can get off on a winning track, I think there is a good chance the vets could settle into their roles while the younger players carry the team a bit on the offensive side of the ball. I really think this is going to be a fun team. The players they've picked up will collectively perform better than league-minimum talent level. You would've been severely unhappy with the types of players they could've signed for the minimum.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 11:17 PM) Ozzie just wants a team of guys that were just like him when he played. Good defense, decent speed, mediocre bat with no power. There... I said it. And you would be wrong. QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Well, with a glaring power bat missing I would think Ozzie has learned for one that a line up is a balance of strengths and weaknesses. I was not advocating we dithc the swing for the fences lineup but a good left handed bat is a perfect balance to everything else we have. But what you said was that he shouldn't "publicly" say that. My question to you is why not? What does it matter what he says? What he says and what they want can be two different things. I'm sure he'd much rather have another hitter in that lineup, but he's not going to go into the season saying, "well this isn't quite what we wanted but we'll see what happens." He's going to say publicly that he believes in what he has.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) I didn't necessarily say he could, but I have a lot more confidence in his conditioning over Freddy's. Hudson 2009 : 166 IP Garcia 2007-2009 : 173.1 IP That's because he was injured. It wasn't a matter of conditioning. QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) That wasn't really a dead arm period so much as it was scouting reports catching up to him and his pitches being underdeveloped/ineffective. No, there most definitely was an arm issue with him.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 07:03 AM) But i think he would be a good pick up and probably cheaper then what matsui got . i for one did not want matsui i mean hitting in that lineup no pressure even in the series i think the angels will regret that signing . but i think Hank would be good for us . we are picking up other Rangers vizqeul jones so why not . but for the sox he is on the wrong side of 30 so i think Ozzie KW might not like him . so far i really don't like our lineup i can't explain it its like we have nobody that fits in the right order . i mean after pierre is beckham really best place to hit is 2nd and if not him who ? and if CQ hits 3rd who will clean up ? i have seen AJ Konerko but neither is really a clean up hitter and if we did put konerko 4th who bats 5th again AJ TEAHEN ? and most lineups i see here have our DH batting last DH AT 9 OMG . WE NEED ANOTHER BAT KW . QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 18, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) We're already wasting enough roster spots on old and busted players, we don't have room for Blalock. While I agree another hitter would make me more comfortable to start the season, I think some people are going overboard on the "Sox are old" thing. Five of the 8 starting position players are under 30. Three of the 5 starting pitchers are under 30. Nobody, except for Vizquel, is older than 34. The Sox are not old. Who cares if the bench is old? They're on short contracts and are easily replaceable.

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:43 PM) Yeah, now that I think about it KW does not really need to tell Ozzie to STFU. He brought up Bacon against Ozzie's wishes and bingo look what happened. But for Ozzie to publicly say he like our offense is not good. Why? Why is it a bad thing for him to publicly say he likes the players he has? What possible harm can that cause? I can't think of one real, good reason he shouldn't say that. Once again, I think this is a case of people unnecessarily freaking out over something Ozzie says. I'm certain they both would like to have another hitter at this point, but it doesn't mean they'll find one. And I think the last thing you should want is for them to go into the season and say publicly, "this team we have is ok, but we wish we could've gotten another hitter." Not exactly the best way to set the tone of confidence in your club to start the year. It looks to me like they're just setting this up in case it doesn't happen. And I think they should at least say they believe in their team.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:55 PM) It's smart maneuvering, but it's borderline unethical given the current economic situation. By offering arbitration to a player in this economic climate, you make him somewhat undesirable as a FA because the team that signs him has to surrender an unprotected draft choice. This is fine and all, if you are trying to work within the spirit of the rules and keep the player for the betterment of your team. However, if you're doing it just because you know the player will eventually be signed and you'll receive a draft pick as compensation, all the while not wanting that player's services for your own team, well, that's a bit shady. I'm a gambling man, and so I like the move, but it's really sort of exploiting a weakness in the current system and economic conditions that was not meant to be exploited. That's what agents are for. And, besides, when the Sox offered him arbitration, the economic landscape really hadn't taken hold at that point in the offseason. It wasn't known just how difficult it would be for some players to get jobs or to make the kind of money they would've made in prior years. People may have known it would be rough, but I'm not sure they knew just how rough. What the Sox did is not unethical. It's part of the game and if your team didn't try to take advantage of the system as it is, you probably wouldn't be happy about it. And it isn't as if there was no risk to the Sox. Cabrera would've been well within his rights to say, "fine, I'll take the deal." Again, his agent should've advised him of that.

But in terms of business, I think that's kind of a smart move on the Sox part. You tell a guy (Cabrera) you're offering arb but have every intention of letting the younger player take over the postion the follwoing year. You're being truthful to the player and at the same time, enticing him to decline arbitration which means you get picks. All the while knowing you will never have Cabrera play for you ever again anyway. That's just smart maneuvering.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) Edited for accuracy. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) I think you mean Magglio Ordonez, right? Of course. I responded to the previous post and was even thinking of Mags awful curly hair and the constant staring-directly-into-the-sun face while I was typing. Therefore, my apologies to b-rye because I was thinking about Mags when he was talking about Orlando.

QUOTE (b-Rye @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 09:38 PM) I don't think so... when's the last time the sox went out and got a free agent to come here that wasn't looking to 'rebuild his image' because of injury or attitude/performance problem. (Putz, Jones, Vizquel, Pods, Garcia, Colon, Dye, AJP, (alexei, iguchi, viceiedo were from out of country) Also overpay: (Dotel, Linebrink)... I think this organization has a bad rep around the MLB because of Ozzie and KW. Ozzie because he's an ass and will slam his players publicly and bench them when they don't perform. (Swisher situation, Crede, Cabrera, Magglio) and KW because of the lack of commitment on long term deals (which is a good thing) and things like the Cabrerea situation where he offered arb but told him he would sit on the bench. Therefore Cabrera lost millions in free agency and a decent contract so KW could get a draft pick.. No. Players aren't afraid to come here because of those two. In fact, you ever notice the only players that have anything bad to say about either of those two are players that weren't very good when they were here? If you believe players don't want to play here because of Ozzie and KW, you also have to believe they don't want to play in a city where you can get booed on opening day for going 0 for 4. And you're going to complain about benching players when they don't perform? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Um, isn't sticking with underperfomring players something that most fans b**** about? Cabrera was totally different because the guy had some mysterious degenerative knee condition and was going to Austria to have it looked at, and he wouldn't let the Sox examine him for themsleves. Screw that, I wouldn't have wanted to pay him either. That's a lot of money to throw around. The real answer is more along the lines of the following: QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) Also, keep in mind the Sox don't get in bidding wars and the last time they almost landed a big FA (Hunter) the Angels swooped in at the last moment. QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 05:33 AM) The same people who are slamming the Sox for signing Scott Linebrink are complaining that no free agents want to come here. In order to get FA's to come here, the sox have to overpay, just like other teams do. That means offering more money and more years than the next team,despite what the players true "value" is. That usually doesn't turn out very well, as many teams are saddled with huge contracts that they cannot get rid of. The Cubs are the perfect case in point.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 06:24 PM) Shack... read the baseball fever thread... well take a look everything in this post. As for the SB discussion, they really don't mean all that much to me. Certainly, they don't hurt and it's just another element of an offense. It's just one way to help you win, but it probably doesn't have THAT great of an effect (unless, of course, your entire team can steal bases) in this era of baseball. There seems to be this underlying feeling that the game will continue to move away from being HR-dominated. I don't know how much further away it will get, though. Sox had the 6th most stolen bases in the league last year, and well, you know the outcome. Granted, Boston, Tampa, Texas and LA all had more than the Sox and were all pretty good teams. The Yankees stole just 2 fewer bases than the Sox did. The indication is that you still have to have guys in the middle of the order that can hit the ball and drive in runs. Regardless of how good your leadoff hitter is, he means nothing if the heart of the order doesn't hit. That said, the "havoc" created by a leadoff hitter is really in the amount of extra pitches he likely sees in getting on base and in the fact that he'll force the pitcher to throw from the stretch. Many starters are more comfortable from the windup. Really, the desire for teams to have a prototypical-type leadoff hitter comes from the reality that it's nearly impossible to assemble a team of mashers 1 through 9. As much as fans clamor for more speed and more stolen bases, the truth is a lineup would be dominating if it was constructed of nine 20+ HR guys(with a few hitting 30 or 40). Since you can't really do that, you try to at least get some speed at the top of the order that can do something different, like get on base and steal them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) The other problem with overstating the importance of a leadoff hitter, is that it narrows your field of potential players. I'd rather find the 9 best guys available, and then make the lineup from there, than specifically seek out a leadoff hitter and limit the pool of players I can choose from. Its simple math. The bigger pool of players I have to choose from, to make each position better, the more successful I'd be as a GM. Find the best players within your budgetary and resource constraints, then let your manager make the lineup card. Which is pretty much how every team (with few exceptions) has to do it. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) I agree with the general point you are making - one slightly below-average player is not going to determine the fate of our season, regardless of whether he sees the most PA's on the team or not. However, I think people are getting frustrated because they sense that we continue to add below-average player after below-average player. Sure, you can have below-average players if you have above-average players to pick up the slack (which I think you alluded to). The problem is, we don't exactly have many above-average players in the lineup right now to do so. Eventually, as you decrease incrementally (I guess it would be decrementally), it begins to add up to a poor offense. I think that is what has some posters here a bit concerned. I don't know if I agree with that. And I think sometimes it's difficult to define what we mean by "average" in that I think people mean "bad" when they call someone "average." I think they do have better-than-average players in the offense. Or maybe it's better just to call them "good". Quentin, Rios, AJ, and Beckham are pretty good offensive players if they perform to their normal capabilities. The others, I think, are good enough. I think they have a good enough offense to put together a good team year overall, considering the pitching. I know people freak out about the leadoff situation, but there just aren't that many good ones out there anyway.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:21 AM) First and foremost you look for on base percentage from your leadoff hitter, then pitches per plate appearance, and lastly, average. There is a very distinct and direct correlation to on base percentage and runs scored. Nothing is being overstated by the fans, and especially not organizations. Countless studies have been done on the subject, so many in fact, that i don't think there is even a need to post them. Just read a couple of pages back and you'll see that I'm fully aware of what defines a leadoff hitter. The overstatement that is often made is that a team can't win with so-and-so as a leadoff hitter. Having a good productive hitter at the top of the order can and does certainly help, but it is often not the difference between a winner or a loser. It comes down to the whole, not the sum of the parts. Some people seem to think the leadoff hitter is everything (based on the feedback I get)...that simply isn't true. (That being said, I think about 70% of those I've heard from have a favorable opinion of the Pierre pickup.) Now, you can't afford to have an abyss at the top. Like I said earlier, if he hits .200 and has a .300 OBP, that could be a killer. But if he's mediocre as a leadoff hitter, that's absolutely good enough to have a winning lineup. Of course, the rest of the lineup has to do its job, as well. The leadoff hitter is no more important than someone, say, in the middle of the order. For example, Fangraphs examined that very topic and determined that replacing a leadoff hitter with the 5th hitter in the order with a wOBA 20 points better amounted to about one team run for the season. That is, one team run in the extra 70 ABs a leadoff hitter gets over a guy that bats 5th and is more productive. Of course, those numbers are still dependent on the rest of the order and you can debate that assertion, too. But whether or not you believe that number to be accurate, I think the underlying point is solid: the leadoff hitter isn't everything

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 01:03 AM) Because, like the many players some pine for in the leadoff spot, De Aza is not good. You can't just look at how they hit as a "leadoff hitter". Are they league average for the position they play? Pierre is well below average at LF and CF. That doesn't necessarily dramatically affect the outcome of the season as just about every single team that's ever won the World Series has had a couple of players below league-average for their positions. The question is: does that player contribute in some way and are there other areas of the team strong enough to pick up whatever slack is left? I mean, you don't put a real team together like you'd assemble a fantasy team. There is a philosophy that fans (and sometimes organizations) make too much of the leadoff hitter. And that people who use the "he gets the most ABs on the team" argument are overstating the importance of that position. Statistically speaking, some numbers suggest that the extra plate appearances by the leadoff hitter are worth very little over the course of the season. It just doesn't make much sense to put too much stock in one spot in the lineup like some people seem to be doing when they discuss Pierre. Look, he's far from the ideal and he doesn't excite me, but I think he can contribute enough to help the lineup overall.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:15 PM) If the leadoff position isn't important then why not just put Alejandro De Aza out there for the minimum? They could very well win or lose because of Pierre, the number of times your guys get on at the top is directly proportionate to the number of runs a lineup produces. If all else is equal you will score more runs with a high OBP hitter at the top than you will with a low OBP hitter, more runs means more wins if the pitching and defense are equal and since the only variable in this scenario is your leadoff man all else is in fact equal. Just because a team at a time won a world series without a great leadoff man (and Podsednik wasn't great but he was definitely good in '05) doesn't mean that spot in the order won't matter for this team. Did I say it wasn't important? Maybe you should re-read and re-process what I've written. I said it isn't as important as some people seem to think it is. It's a fact that a leadoff hitter is not going to necessarily win or lose a season for you. That's what I said. It's important, as is any spot in the lineup. Having a good leadoff hitter doesn't guarantee a championship (Seattle may have the best one in the game, as he's certainly one of the best overall players in the game) just as having a below-average one doesn't guarantee a poor season. Of course, if you put a guy at the top that hits .200 and has an OBP of .300, that will hurt the offense. But if he's around .300/.340, he'll be just fine. OBP is one of the 2 most important things for someone in his position (if not the single most important), and if he performs at a league-average level in that category (.340 is league average), he'll be good enough. It's important, but it's hardly everything.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:20 PM) That could be hard as I could see either one being injured/benched for extended periods of time. Pierre never gets hurt...what makes you think he will suddenly start? QUOTE (monomach @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) But he's not a good leadoff man. Neither was 05 Pods. We didn't win in 05 because of Pods. We won because we pitched well and hit a lot of home runs. So, then you'll concede the leadoff position won't make or break them anyway, so it's useless getting worked up about it one way or the other? Podsednik had a really nice year last year...the Sox had less than 80 wins. Pierre's been on winning teams, the Sox can win with him, too. They won't win, or lose, because of him. It helps to have a good one, but it isn't totally essential.

QUOTE (Mattchoo @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) Adrian Gonzalez!!!! Please no Adam Dunn. Love the HRs, but I can't stand strikeouts. Is his K rate higher than Thome???? Who cares about strikeouts if he's hitting close to 40 bombs with 100 RBI and an OBP of nearly .400? OPS of .900. If you wouldn't want that, you'd be nuts.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) Ooh, notice the sexual innuendo... Just kidding. As for the the party, I am a bit disappointed in you Mr. Rongey, but can't say I blame you, either. They can most definitely attend. Perverts.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 01:19 AM) Im sure you wouldnt decline the Sox Pride though They can definitely come.

QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) Regarding the rotation, for the last time to clear things up. I like it, HOWEVER, I want to see Peavy actually stay healthy, ditto Garcia. I am not as high on Floyd and Hudson as most. A Buehrle disappeared after the perfect game. Just sayin'. You're not really saying much of anything, really. We should put an end to the "Buehrle disappeared" myth now, I think. He had 2 to 3 poor starts after his streak of perfect innings. The rest of the way, he had 6 quality starts out of 10, and 2 of the other 4 were winnable starts. His ERA in September was 3.57 after having a tough August. He did not disappear after the perfect game and the facts support this. Peavy will be fine. There is simply no good reason not to be excited about him. Hudson isn't in the rotation. And Garcia is a 5th starter (better than El Duque). Floyd? What about his last two years don't you like? All that good pitchin'? It appears you're simply a pessimist, and you can't ever make a pessimist view reality in a normal way.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) I just don't see that much different in the 2 and you're getting rid of a fan favorite, meaning casual fans. Podesdnik wasn't drawing people to the ballpark. I like him, but he isn't Pujols. QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 11:29 AM) Nevermind the fact they still hit 200 homeruns. Oh and had the best staff and pen this organization has ever had. All of which 2010 will not likely have. Slow down. You're saying that the 2010 rotation won't be as good as 5 years ago? Really? Peavy-Buehrle-Danks-Floyd-Garcia doesn't seem pretty strong to you? It's currently one of the best rotations in the AL. Regarding the trade, I see it as a decent move. Isn't stellar, but it isn't bad either. If he can do anything like what he did las tyear, or even a little less, he'll be a good pickup. As for the PLTBNL, you can stop worrying (if you were in the first place). The guys they're giving up aren't anyone you should miss. Wish I could tell you more, but I can't at the moment.