Ranger

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:43 AM) I'm going to hold you to that... Party at Ranger's place! Oh no. None of you buttholes will be invited...

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:19 PM) ranger said its unlikely lol QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) Ranger Shmanger. Since when does KW let Cowley know whats going on? He was pissed Cowley leaked the Putz situation- im guessing his next big move will be even more closer to the vest.. Anything is possible Melissa! So you two think it is likely? I'm here to tell you that it isn't. It's not completely impossible, but it's also not likely. It would take some good fortune to make that happen. Let's hope good fortune is coming to the south side. If it does, I'll be the first to throw a party.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 06:20 PM) Not on this board. If you had a good year, next year you will regress to your mean and suck. If you had a bad year there is no way you can play like you did in previous years because you've lost it (even if you're younger than 30) and you suck. Nice. I remember when Thome and Konerko were "done" two years ago. I guess I just see things differently. I don't always assume the worst case scenario will play out, just as I don't always assume the best case will, either. I just wish some people would stop counting on every one of their players to play to the lowest of their abilities every season while never accounting for the likelihood that someone else will have a better-than-normal year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:50 PM) One advantage the Sox have over teams in other divisions is the weakness of the AL Central. If they could roll in the division they would be able to set their playoff rotation, one thing they weren't able to do in 2008 and many overlook. Next year, they are going to take away some of the off days. You aren't going to be able to ge by with a 3 man rotation. That's why it's good they have 4 they can seriously depend on, and have a gamer in Freddy if they need him out of the pen. QUOTE (docsox24 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:54 PM) What makes them worse: - AJ had a significantly better season than normal last year - PK also likely will regress some - The leadoff man will be worse than Pods was - There is a glaring hole in the middle of the order. I will have to disagree on Linebrink at this point of his career. All that leads to is a slghtly better team in 2010 but not a scary playoff team. -AJ had a good year, but it wasn't stellar. What makes you think he can't have another good year? He doesn't have a lot of bad years anyway. -Konerko might regress some, but I'm not sure it will be as significant as you seem to think. -How do you know that now? -If CQ and Rios hit like they're supposed to, there's still a "glaring hole"? Offseason is 2 months from being over. They don't need a scary playoff team. Again, there are a LOT of scary playoff teams that get bounced early. QUOTE (docsox24 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:56 PM) Except that the sox are part of that weakness. I don't see them rolling with this sad offense This isn't a sad offense (considering it is not yet complete anyway). This is capable of, at least, being a mediocre offense which is all they'll need

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) This is what I've been saying all along. 88 wins and first round exit, here we come! Knowing that most playoff games are low-scoring as it is, I'm not sure how you can automatically assume a first round exit. If healthy, the Sox pitching alone is good enough to take them a good distance in the postseason. They may not be as good as the Yankees on paper(if they had to play NY in the first round), but they'd be more than a move or two away from being as good as New York anyway. Nobody is as talented as the Yankees, so you can say, "first round exit, here we come!" for every team that may have to face them in the first round. It doesn't just apply to the Sox. I feel like there should be a greater undertstanding around here that getting to the playoffs is the most important thing to do. Regardless of how they do it. Because everything that happens up until then is entirely irrelevant. Too many "best teams on paper" have an early exit from the playoffs for that phenomenon to be considered insignificant. If the Sox get there, they have a good chance. Especially if they have strong pitching. QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:22 PM) It'd be a small miracle if that offense made the playoffs. That is totally inaccurate. In order for the White Sox making the playoffs to be considered a "miracle", you're saying that the division is equivalent to the East? You think the Twins and Tigers/Indians are as good as the Yankees and Red Sox? Hyperbole.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Why would this be sarcastic? It appears we've blown our payroll room on bench players and reclamation projects. Kenny has been more under the influence than under the radar at this point. I really hope this changes because this is the most disappointing offseason I've ever experienced, given what the expectations should be knowing our starting rotation. The deals for Vizquel, Jones, and Putz are not preventing them from making any big moves. If they are unable to make a big move, it isn't because they've signed 3 guys for less than $6 million total. QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) Then that is a very mediocre offseason. One really good and one really bad. Especially considering how bad we need offense. Well which acquisition makes this "really bad"? Rios? I think it's much too early to say that as he's really only had one bad year. And I think talented ballplayers are allowed to have a bad year here and there. Of course, it's a gamble because of his salary but that doesn't make it a "really bad" acquisition...especially when you consider KW gave up no players to do it. He's strengthened the bench and it's mid-December.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:37 AM) Jim sported an .864 OPS with the Sox in 2009. That was 4th among all qualified DH's . His wOBA and ISO were .374 and .243 respectively (yes, I'm really starting to warm up to sexy Sabermetrics). And people act like it'd be an insult to have this guy back? Other than Matsui, and he's more than likely going to command more than we have to spend, who else out there is a realistic upgrade over what JT provided for us last year? We have to be the only team in the history of baseball that has this ridiculous obsession with rotating DH's or having a DH that can play the field. I see nothing wrong with them ideally wanting someone that can do both. Worked out nicely for the Twins who had Jason Kubel play 60 games in the outfield last year. I believe that's the kind of situation they're hoping for and I think it would be great if they could do that. Just because they desire it doesn't mean they'll be able to pull it off, but there's nothing ridiculous about wanting it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) Now Cowley is saying the Sox are thinking Juan Pierre. If he throws out all the names and one comes to the Sox he will be the guy that knew all along. Isn't it likely that the Sox are seriously looking at both of these options? What's the harm in reporting that?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Very odd. There has to be more to the story. How do you go from what your manager called you most valuable pitcher because of his versatility to non-tendered over a few hundred thousand? QUOTE (b-Rye @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) This dont make any sense, he was the best guy out of the pen last year.. another KW move I don't like.. and to be honest I don't think he's made a good move since the Peavy trade. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 05:19 PM) I am still shocked. Of all of the things I thought I knew about 2010, DJ was in the top part of the list. I was kind of hoping they could keep him around, too. My guess is with the strength of the rotation, a reliever like him isn't nearly as valuable as he was last year when they had Colon and Contreras at the end of the rotation.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) Now explain to me why that is at all relevant. Why the number of errors an outfielder is charged with means anything. It's high time we stop using fielding percentage as a measure of a player's defensive worth, especially an outfielder. The numbers say he's been a very good defender in his short time in the majors but that has nothing to do with FLD%. QUOTE (chunk23 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) I would say FLD should pretty much be put to pasture for every position. As you said, it's not an error if you don't get to the ball. What if you have absolutely insane range, but can't always come up with the ball as a result? Lots of errors, but still make more plays than the average guy at that position. Errors are significant when combined with other statistics...it isn't a completely, absolutely meaningless stat. If a fielder has below average range but makes few errors, that means something. It means he won't screw up most of the plays that he's supposed to make but he's also not going to do well out of zone. If he has poor range and makes a lot of errors, that also means something. It means he's an absolutely a lousy fielder. QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 07:43 PM) let's face it nobody on here can say with certainty if he's the anwer or not. You can't draw any conclusions on his limited time.But, the fact is, he's better than anything we currently have in the leadoff role, which is nothing. Personally, i would like to see what he could do in the leadoff spot for an entire year. That's pretty much how I feel.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 10:45 PM) Ok so say Rios puts up a .750 OPS for the next 5 seasons. Would you rather pay a guy $12M a season to put up those kind of offensive numbers in CF or in RF? Because if he does that in RF, he'll argubly be one of the most overpaid players in baseball relative to his position with his output. At least in CF, that kind of offense is a little more acceptable. That's why if the Sox traded for Gardner and had him starting at CF, the Sox could have one of the worst offensive outfields in baseball I'd hate to say it for 2010. Not if Quentin and Rios do their jobs. This season is going to depend largely on those two guys anyway. QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 01:18 AM) Obviously signing Teahen for 3 years is gonna block Brent Morel and any other 3B. Viciedo should move to 1B now. He would replace Brandon Allen as the system's slugging 1B of the future. BTW, why does 670 podcast 4 hours of Brian-The-Whipping Boy and not a full White Sox Weekly show...?! It should be, and I think it is. You just have to go to weekend shows and it should be there. I think. They might do it in one-hour segments

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 07:59 PM) With the Teahen deal and Viciedo in the wings. Yeah, i think i would. You know, I really wouldn't fall in love with Brent Morel just yet. Promising player, yes. And I'm curious to see how he turns out, but I would trade him in a second for a guy that's ready to play now. Besides, I don't think the Sox could be able to make a Gardner-for-Morel straight up. QUOTE (Wanne @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) I still don't think Viciedo is gonna be a viable option at 3B. He'll be a LF I think via the Carlos Lee mode... They haven't completely given up on Viciedo at 3B just yet, but he won't play there ultimately. It wouldn't take all that long to convert him to LF/RF/1B, which is why they're going to totally exhaust the 3B option first. Harder to find a good power-hitting 3B than it is those other positions. But it doesn't look like they're going to wait all that long.

Let me also add that I would not be in favor of sending Danks or Floyd along with top prospects in a Halladay deal. Unless there is something injury-wise with which they have long-term concerns over those two, or unless a reasonable extension would be assumed along with a trade(though nothing about Roy Halladay's upcoming free agency indicates "reasonable"). If it were ONLY prospects, I'd be all for it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 01:33 AM) From the White Sox Facebook: I dislike that package for Halladay in every way. It's giving up far to much talent for a one year rental which would gut the top level of the farm and prevent Kenny from acquiring a big time bat, so no matter how great a rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Halladay-Floyd/Danks-Garcia is, we'd have a very questionable offense. I know you've been pounding home this point throughout this thread, but in a hypothetical rotation like that (especially, in an even less likely reality of a Peavy-Halladay-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks rotation), the Sox wouldn't need to score that much at all. And, as I've said before, with good pitching the Sox really only need a mediocre offense to win. Mediocre is certainly possible as long as Rios and Quentin offer real contributions next year. But if those two are bad, it will probably be a tough year.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 05:46 PM) Honestly, i'm also in the Danks isn't ready camp. I just have issues with an organizational outlook that's comfortable with having placeholders fill some major positions. I think Jones can be lightning in a bottle, i just hope like hell we explore every possible alternative before we reach that point. I think it's wrong to assume they don't explore every possible option.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Dec 5, 2009 -> 07:42 PM) Unless there is a movie quote that I am missing, that is a bit much, don't you think? EDIT: Super Troopers, eh? Never seen it. You should. It's a lot better than I thought it would be.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 5, 2009 -> 06:24 PM) Yeah but Padilla's shenanigans are cruel and tragic, which makes them not really shenanigans at all. I will pistol whip the next person that says "Shenanigans."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 02:45 PM) Unless they planned on dumping AJ, there is no way you hire a guy that you know is going to be in a fight with one of your main guys, probably on the first day. Things tend to change when you become teammates with a guy you once disliked. This isn't going to happen, but I'm just saying it wouldn't be entirely out of the question that they asked about him or that he was discussed. Remember, a LOT of players get discussed during this time, even ones you've never thought of.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 11:07 PM) So they blow off the Adrian Gonzalez stuff, but expect us to believe the guy who has been throwing at our players for years, to the extent that we banned to AAA a player who wouldn't retaliate back, and yet we are after him? What f***ing idiots. I wouldn't unequivocally say there is no way they'd express any interest in him at all. I agree that it's not likely there is great interest, but it doesn't mean there wasn't some discussion about it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 07:01 PM) Yeah, I can agree with that. I just think the entire "closer" mentality in baseball is a bunch of bologna. I understand there are psychological effects of blowing the game in the final frame, but honestly, blowing it in any late inning has pretty much the same effect. Managers should use their best relievers in the most critical situations, not save them until the final inning. The guy that is good enough to extricate himself from sticky situations is the guy I want, not just the guy who can handle recording the final 3 outs of the game. The 9th inning is really no different than any others, in terms of the task at hand, and yet, it has been built-up to be this huge myth, as if you are required to record 5 outs in that inning or something. Tell the players that. They think it's a big deal to have to close out the game and that it's an entirely different kind of pressure to pitch in the 9th with a small lead. I know that's the SABRmetrics idea to use your best reliever in the most critical moment of the game (which could happen in the 6th, not the 9th). I think there is some merit to that, but pretty much everyone you'll ever talk to about pitching in the 9th vs in another inning says it is a totally different animal. And since that philsophy is statistically-based, it really doesn't take into account the fact that some guys pitch better when they start the inning as opposed to coming in with 2 runners on and 1 out. Mentally, some pitchers respond better in knowing their role will be the 9th, others like to come in and put out fires in whatever inning they're needed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 05:19 PM) Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer? I don't think it has so much to do with having an "out pitch" as much as it does with being able to handle being the guy that lost the game in the 9th. First, you have to be able to avoid doing that in the first place, but if you do blow it, you have to be able to forget about it as soon as you leave the park. If you can't, you can't be a closer.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) We should just always draft the way we did in 08. You mean hope the Reds pass on somebody like Beckham? In all honesty, though, Alonso may turn out to be a pretty good player, too. QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) Suck the year before so we get a high pick? Sounds like a bad idea. Though being competitive at the MLB level makes it tougher to draft as well, the Sox had a poor draft philosophy up until a few years ago. They seem to be more willing to take the high-risk picks and have put the right people in the right places to oversee the process. Hopefully, the trend will continue. (By the way, I know you weren't serious.)

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) I'm in brazil. Internet sucks. Luckily I've made a habit of saving before I hit submit. How fun and active sports talk would be if we all just deferred to management! I'm not saying people were right, I'm saying looking at trade threads and saying "look at how stupid people are! Williams is always right!" isn't fair to the context of what is happening. Look at the time lapse, when people are commenting it is in the first hour as details are still being hashed out. None of us are 'on the record', we are having a conversation, and are talking it out as the details emerge. The latter 100 pages of a thread are never as extreme as the first thirty. Yes, they are knee jerk reactions, but these are from pretty knowledgeable fans who are caught in the moment, and in this instance - the offseason- after weeks of talking out possibilities, when action happens you get the "what the hell" moments. And through the course of the thread as stats and reports are brought in, money is dished out, you see pretty reasonable explanations. If the news broke at 10 am, and we had a radio show at 6 pm, you really wouldn't be hearing the outrageous claims in question. Message boards are just a mass conversation, and when breaking news happens it can be chaos. And it's pretty ridiculous to hold that against people right now. I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand "caught in the moment." The details were known at the time of the very first posts. And it was immediate that people decided KW should be fired or that he didn't know what he was doing. I simply don't understand that if you admit you don't know all of the details and don't know much about the players, how you could be so ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that the trade was terrible. It doesn't make sense. I don't see how being rational is hard to do. Maybe it's just how I think and I should realize not everybody looks at things the same way I look at things. If I'm surprised by a trade, it's not my first reaction to flip out. I usually immediately step back and think, "what is possibly the thought process behind this?" I'm not saying all of his deals are good ones, but I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making trades.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) John Danks, Hudson, Flowers, Morel for Gonzalez? I'd do it. I may be willing to do that if it were Jordan Danks.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:14 PM)