Ranger

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) I agree with you. Who cares about the Ritchie trade? It was EIGHT years ago. And it's not like he got absolutely destroyed in the deal. Josh Fogg, Kip Wells, Sean Lowe? That's a huge pile of "eh." Since then, he's aquired Jim Thome, Alexei Ramirez, Jake Peavy, John Danks, and Gavin Floyd...and, really, the only thing he's given up, that's worth anything so far, is Clayton Richard. If you're still "scared" about the Todd Ritchie trade, it's time to re-evaluate. Oh, and Vazquez and Rowand (sort of).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Ahh, the women like the salt and pepper look...just think, they'll call you the "Silver Fox." I'm not ready to be a silverfox. Can't handle it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:03 PM) Never even enters my mind. Ever. It has nothing to do with the present I agree with you. Who cares about the Ritchie trade? It was EIGHT years ago. And it's not like he got absolutely destroyed in the deal. Josh Fogg, Kip Wells, Sean Lowe? That's a huge pile of "eh." Since then, he's aquired Jim Thome, Alexei Ramirez, Jake Peavy, John Danks, and Gavin Floyd...and, really, the only thing he's given up, that's worth anything so far, is Clayton Richard. If you're still "scared" about the Todd Ritchie trade, it's time to re-evaluate.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) Well, you should be happy people tend to have extreme, knee-jerk reactions, Mr. Rongey. This helps pay your paycheck, doesn't it? Can you imagine the state of sports radio if everyone sat back and thought, "hmm, interesting, what do they know that I don't?" I would have less gray hair. And I don't want gray hair. Happy to have hair, I just don't want it to be gray.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 02:14 AM) Well... at least we know at after all these years Chris Rongey does exist ey Chris? As far as I know... QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 07:25 AM) Every team in the central has an excellent chance to win the central, it's just not good. The fact that we are going to try and do it without fixing serious flaws (BP, Power) means I won't hold my breath that we can overtake the absolute force of dominance that is the twins But as for the Garcia trade, you really aren't giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in terms of context. For one, this is a message board and when breaking news happens, it is straight up knee-jerk, as we often don't know the amount of players and info until hours later, when you start to see consensus. That doesn't mean it makes people's opinions stupid at the time, but we're all aware they are pretty flawed in the beginning. But no one is just going to post "We should wait until we have all info!"... First, I wouldn't say the Royals and Indians have an "excellent" chance to win the division next year. The Sox have a better chance than just about any team in the division. You're understating the Sox ability within the Central. Second, what benefit of the doubt does anyone deserve? I completely understand why people were confused about that trade at the time, so then why didn't they just say, "I'm not sure about this. I wonder what they're thinking. I'll guess we'll see how it plays out." Instead of saying, "Kenny Williams doesn't know what he's doing! He should be fired on the spot! This is the dumbest trade I've ever seen!" I mean, what's the purpose of losing your proverbial breath in anger over a trade you don't understand? If you admit you don't know everything about the details of the trade and don't know the full story about the players involved, how can anyone be so damn positive that it is a "horrible trade?" What's wrong with being level-headed and asking, "what do they know that I don't?" And if they do deserve the benefit of the doubt, doesn't the GM deserve the same? Afterall, it's not like he has this history of awful trades. Sure, he has some questionable moves, but he hits more than he misses. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) We can all look back and say that we knew Freddy had arm problems, but I didn't see too many posts in that thread saying anything about arm troubles. It appeared Freddy was losing his fastball that year, but I think most people thought it was more "dead arm" than anything. I don't think the general public was aware of it, but many teams were quietly very concerned about him at the time.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 07:35 PM) In defense of everyone in that thread, not making the playoffs in 2006 was very depressing, and the off-season that followed was borderline suicidal. 2 years removed from a World Series, we got a project pitcher and a AA pitcher, traded away the pitcher we thought was the future (McCarthy) for no sure thing to start (Danks), signed Erstad. Nothing we did that offseason was loading up to win the division again THAT YEAR. Now, the Floyd/Danks trades obviously worked out well, and that brutal year allowed us to get Beckham. BUt with all of this, it's still pretty discouraging to think we are going to be hardpressed to win a crap division with a damn near 100 mill. payroll and the best rotation in baseball. Eh. I'm not sure that excuses it. They won 90 games in 2006...it's not like they had a terrible year. Disappointing, but not terrible. Regardless of the situation of the team, the trade itself was blasted as being a horrible trade when people clearly didn't know anything about what was going on. They didn't know that Floyd struggled because Philly horribly mishandled him. They didn't know that Garcia's arm was about to fall off and that getting anything at all for him was a steal. They terribly overvalued him in that trade market and many people behaved as if they were absolutely positive the Sox were doing the wrong thing. And up until now, they've gotten a better pitcher in John Danks over McCarthy and, unless something changes, they will prove that they knew what they were doing in trading for him. The point is that sometimes we should concede that we don't know nearly half of what we think we know about player value and player potential, and we shouldn't be so confident in some of our opinions when we usually don't know the whole story about certain players. People were calling for the GM to be fired because of that trade alone. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no defense for that. And I don't agree with you at all that the Sox will be hard-pressed to win the Central next year. They will have an excellent chance, and may even be the favorite based on their rotation alone. QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 10:56 PM) I went back and forth with alot of posters over Floyd in a few of those threads. Friends of mine who worked with him daily insisted he could still be a good major league pitcher.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) Silly me, I didn't know Rocco was going to have an incurable ailment. But you did think the Floyd deal was terrible. I saw your posts.

I'm loving this thread. I'm actually wondering where the person who calls himself "Flash Tizzle" is. His post that includes the following is gold: "I knew Williams would f*** up any potential deal for a starting pitcher." If I find any other good ones, I may have to post. Good stuff.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55750 There's some funny s*** in this thread. lol. Oh wow, there is some good stuff in there. I love the guy that said Floyd "has an attitude problem." Like he knew that. It makes you wonder how people still say things like "they shoulda gotten more" or "Kenny's got some 'splainin' to do." I'm curious if there is anyone still posting here that made one of these types of comments and how they feel about it now. I mean it's one thing to have a gut feeling that it's not a good trade, but to be so absolutely certain it is a failure is another thing. You would think people would learn their lessons.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) Personally, I loved the deal. It got an obviously injured Freddy Garcia out of town for a couple young pitchers, what's not to like? QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) The problem with Freddy in '06 wasn't that he was "worthless." The problem was that he had a "tired arm", because of the amount of innings that he pitched in the '05 regular and postseason and the '06 WBC. The guy pitched himself into fatigue, ineffectiveness and eventually, surgery. People were mostly frustrated with his lack of effectiveness in '06, without realizing that he was pitching in pain and possibly pitching injured. Which makes it a miracle they got anything of good value in return. The Sox got the package they did (which actually turned out to be pretty good in the end) because just about every other team was worried something was seriously wrong with him. And, of course, it didn't turn out so wonderfully for Philly, which is why you may see an Iguchi-for-nothing type deal here and there. That's because GM's will sometimes do favors for each other if one GM may have gotten completely screwed by another. GM's really aren't trying to "win" deals as a lot of people think, especially if it's obvious the GM you're dealing with will likely be around for a while. You want there to be open lines of communication in case you ever want to make a future beneficial deal. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) Ahh, I agree with that. I thought your point was that once he was gone, people would miss him. And until the following season started, they DID miss him in the sense that they thought Kenny got taken to the cleaners in the trade. Hopefully, by now, they understand what a terrific trade it turned out to be for the Sox.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 04:53 PM) But did anyone miss him when he was gone? Garcia was not good in 06' until the last several weeks of the season, when all the sudden he turned into Ed Harris from Major League and almost no-hit the Angels in his second to last start...but I don't think many people missed him, especially when he won like 1 game for the Phillies in 07' before going down with an injury. The point was the attitude regarding his departure: he was worthless while he was here, yet when he was traded, those same people thought the Sox should've gotten more for for him in return. It's the overall undervaluing of players while they're here, yet understanding their value after they depart.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) I think Dotel is the kind of reliever we'll only miss once he's gone..but that's me. kind of like people did with Freddy after 2006. During that season, I took countless calls from people that wanted him run out of town. I told them that once he's gone, they'd miss him. Then of course he gets traded for Floyd and, at the time, just about everyone complained that the Sox didn't get enough for him. Of course, they got Gavin Floyd.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) I think that's pretty much what I was saying. He's more polar than most - really good, or really bad, no in between. I agree he's better than a lot of those out there, taking it all into account. I just think that, also, you can tell right away with him if he has it or not. I agree with your latter point to an extent. There are times he'll dominate the first hitter he faces, but will give it up to the following guy. The point I was making is that he gets it done more often than most other relievers do...which is part of the reason he's paid as well as he is and why he's been around so long. Contrary to what a lot of fans seem to think, Dotel is not a bum.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Dotel is an off or on pitcher, even more so than most. 99% of the time, you can tell from batter #1 if he has it or not. I think Dotel was a fairly effective pitcher in his time here, but I think he could have been even more than that if Ozzie had handled him a little better in that regard. I don't think that's true about Dotel. He's on 4 out of 5 times and in those 4, he's really on. It's just that the 5th time is usually explosive. Most relievers are never as good as he is in those 4. You really have to look at relievers around the game. Relief pitchers stink, for the most part.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) The Sox have been pretty consistent about being one of the respectable payroll teams each year. I'm glad they're waiting this offseason out. When Konerko comes off the books then you'll have enough money to address the middle-of-the-order problem in a legitimate free agency way. You can tell when Kenny sets his mind on filling a spot during an offseason. He made plays for Torii and Fukudome before settling on Swisher. This year is a wait-and-see, and part of that will be seeing if they can get by a year with scrap heap guys that could pan out. But with Peavy in place I think they're seeing '10 as a maybe-we'll-contend year...with '11 as an aim-at-contention year. I've had this discussion 200 times about the Sox in terms of payroll, and no matter what, some people will always believe the Sox are holding out. That's fine, but this organization in comparison to the other clubs, does spend a competitive amount. Over the last 5 years, their spending has been in the upper 1/3 (at least) while their attendance is below or barely at MLB average. They spend more than their attendance would dictate. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) I kept being told that all the moves we made last year were for 2010 and if we happened to win the division in 2009 that was supposed to be gravy. Now we're pushing it another year? Just to be clear, I don't think we were told that by the Sox. It was really the media, and those on the message boards and blogs, that kept saying 2009 was not the year, but to look ahead to 2010 and beyond. And when Kenny made the Peavy and Rios moves, the tone was that he believed they were good moves for the present and for the next few years as well. I, too, hope this year doesn't go to waste because I think they have a nice chance here to make a real run with that rotation. As long as the rotation stays healthy, of course.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 07:26 AM) I disagree with this statement that several people, not you in particular Jordan, have made over the last couple of months. Freddy is now 2 seasons removed from surgery and I think by most would be considered just about fully healthy. I realize that he is never going to throw high 90's heat again, but he has shown that he can be very effective as a "junkballer". The pitcher that I am most concerned about is Gavin Floyd and his hip injury. I don't think that it was ever clearly identified as just a one time thing, or explained to be a reoccuring problem. Someone did say at one time I believe that Gavins injury is different from what cut short the career of Brit Burns, but I still wonder if this is something that is going cause future problems for Gavin as well. Gavin did say something about a month or so ago about "feeling fine", but it wouldn't be the first time that someone thought that they were good to go after being off of it for a couple of months only to find out that the problem still existed after they started to be active again. This could also be why Gavin decided to sign his contract last offseason, maybe he felt that his hip could turn into a problem and wanted to protect himself in the case that it did. I'm not a doctor and I am not trying to be pessimistic towards Gavin. I just think that Floyd is more of a concern than Garcia at this point. Actually, of I'll the guys I'm concerned about, Freddy is the last, too. Gavin is a slight concern but I'm acually more worried about the health of Danks. He should be fine, but there is some concern.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) I'd love to see the list of other elite setup men that have had at least 1 bad month in each of the last several seasons. As for Konerko, no, I wouldn't have cut my losses. PK had 4 consecutive very good seasons in a row prior to 08'. It was also clear he was dealing with injuries all year, most importantly being his jammed thumb. It's fairly obvious that PK is winding down relative to other first basemen throughout the league, but he was nowhere near as horrendous in 08' as Scott Linebrink has been for long stretches over the past several years. Well obviously this debate will go nowhere. But, Konerko did not a have a "very good" season (by his standards) in 2007. He had two really good months in the middle sandwiched by a really poor start and a slow finish. I think you'd agree that Scott Shields was a pretty good setup guy at one time. Had a fairly rough August (by his standards) in 2006, had TERRIBLE months (by anyone's standards) in August and September of 2007, but rebounded in 2008 with a nice year. When an ERA will from a 1.98 one month to a 4.90 or worse the following month, there is evidence that relievers fluctuate, not just from year-to-year, but month-to-month as well. Shields was a pretty damn good setup man before the knee injury. Maybe the best in the AL. And he was capable of poor stretches. Fernando had a pretty good yearbut had two months this past season where he was attrocious. Hideki Okajima had months where his ERA was 0.00, 1.64, and 2.08. He also had a 7.36 in September. That's not good. It just simply isn't uncommon for good relievers to have ups and downs throughout the year and this is nothing new.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) Fine Chris. Linebrink has now failed to perform up to the standards required of him for 4 of the last second halves due to various reasons. A bad outing is acceptable. A bad weekend happens from time to time. Maybe even a bad week, but don't make a habit of them. We're talking bad MONTHS here. There are only 6 in the entire season. Having an entire bad MONTH four consecutive years in a row is unacceptable for a major league reliever, especially one such as he who is supposed to be an elite setup man. The point is, this is in no way surprising at this point. The organization should not have been shocked. Were you shocked when it happened? I wasn't. And by the 10th bad outing in 13 or whatever it was, I was pretty sure what we were going to be getting from the guy. Explain to me the difference between requiring a guy to come up and pitch because a guy is injured and coming up and replacing a guy because that guy sucks. This is the major leagues. This is not the little league, or the tee ball league, or the American Legion league, or your neighborhood softball league. Adult men get paid millions of dollars because their teams depend on them to produce. And when you stop producing, you get benched, sent down, cut, or used in non-pivotal situations. I could care less if Scott's feelings are hurt, or if a AA or AAA pitcher has to come up and fill in as best he can for whatever period of time. If he gets sent down because he failed to do his job, fine. If he gets sent down because they believe Linebrink can return effectively, fine. I'm not going to worry about feelings at this level. This league is about results. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we failed last year. As for how to handle veteran and minor league players, have we not been discussing that for almost this entire thread? I've said over and over and over and over and over again that veteran players should get opportunities at redemption, because their track record affords them that. I have conceded time and time and time again that Ozzie was right to stick with Linebrink up to a point. When it became INCREDIBLY CLEAR that Linebrink was going to be nothing but a big bag of suck, it is time to stop being stupid about it. I said this in my first post on this topic, and I'll repeat it again: It's one thing to try and recover performance from an asset because you have money invested; it's quite another to continue to keep running out a guy that is destined to fail and expecting different results. Not only are you spending the money on the guy in that situation, but you are compounding your error by spending the money on the guy to give you horrendous innings. It's the definition of insanity... Really? Have you actually been paying attention to relief pitchers around baseball? Relievers, even really good ones, will have bad months. And sometimes even have them at least once a year. It's kind of the nature of relief pitchers. Again, if you noticed, the Sox gave Linerbink ample time last season to make a turnaround, and it did not happen. And when it did not happen, they appropriately altered his duties. So you'rs basically saying that the Sox should have cut their losses with Konerko in 2008? Because it was the same situation where fans were absolutely certain he was done. Turns out he was not. QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 08:37 PM) What's up with White Sox Weekly? No show recently? Yeah, we were on yesterday. It's been random times during the offseason because we have football on and what not. Usually we're on around noon, give or take an hour.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) He'd fit right in with the youth movement. Seriously, he wouldn't be a bad pick up. Probably would take Dotel's role for less money. I know the age thing is getting to be a joke after the last couple of signings, but just so we're clear: 5 of the 8 starting position players are under 30 (with one position yet to be filled) and 3 of the 5 starting pitchers are under 30. So what, the bench players are old. Who cares? You can get new bench players every year.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) I don't debate that his long-term future is that of a starter. But assuming everybody is healthy (obviously Freddy is the one to worry about the most as far as health goes), there's not going to be a rotation spot open. Right. And he is only going to be 23 when the season starts, so there is probably more development time to be had. We'll see what happens in the spring. But I also wouldn't be shocked if he gets dealt.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) First of all, we've pointed out now that Linebrink has done this for four consecutive second halves in a row. This is not something that just happened in the midst of one half-season. Secondly, if you're talking about marginal, fringe minor leaguers, we shouldn't be concerned about hurting their feelings or damaging their confidence. They exist more than simply for the purpose of filling a minor league roster. Thirdly, what would you have done had Linebrink been injured for the entire second half? Are you not going to bring these guys in because you're afraid they're going to have their confidence devastated and never be able to get out of bed again? Fourthly, no one is suggesting that you or I are going to devise some groundbreaking method in which to handle personnel. The argument was made to you that simply stating that no better solution exists because we would have thought of it already had there been one is bs. New and fresh ideas are occurring in every industry and every profession. Times change, people change, the economics of things change. For you to claim that things should be done now, and always will be done the way they have in the past is a closed-minded, none-imaginative, none-innovative manner in which to view things. I hope we have more open-minded people working in our front office than that. Not true. Linebrink did not have 4 straight bad second halves. One bad month in 2006, one bad month in 2007, injury in 2008, a poor second half in 2009. Also, maybe you missed my earlier post about the reshuffling of the bullpen? I said teams usually only call up a minor leaguers out of emergency due to injury. That is a much different situation than saying, "Hey kid, Scott Linebrink isn't getting it done any longer, we need you to come up here and save our bullpen because he's killing us." That's entirely different than somebody getting called up because of an unexpected injury. Circumstances are different because you are aware that you're only gonna be around for a couple of weeks and will be sent back down at the end of that period, not because of poor performance, but because the regular has healed. In that situation, it's predetermined he's coming up temporarily and there are no hard feelings upon being sent back. The other situation is essentially telling a guy that if he gets sent back down, it's because he failed at his job. Finally, if you would tell us your fresh idea for how to better handle veteran and minor league personnel, I'd love to hear it. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe teams are handling these types of situations the best that they can be handled? That is to say, that the idea of allowing veteran players to make a turnaround versus calling up a minor leaguer because "it can't be any worse" is not the best way to do it. In no way have I said the game doesn't evlove in some ways. That's completely ridiculous for you to suggest that. But I am suggesting that, at some point, there become some established truths within the game that will not change. Some things don't work and never will work and some things done are the best possible options given all facets of the game. Th truth that veteran players provide more certainty is not going to change.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) So outside of an injury, is Hudson starting next season at AAA? I don't think it would be out of the question for him to get some innings in relief, but ultimately he will start.

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) Just to make sure we're keeping the record straight here... He had a total of 57 appearances. After his first 38 appearances (through July 31st), Linebrink had a 2.48 ERA. And the Sox were 26-12 in games that he pitched. After appearance #43, on August 15th, he had a 2.98 ERA. Pull the plug and replace him with a minor leaguer yet? Nyet. It was in late August and September when he fell apart (over his final 14 appearances). Yes, he struggled from then on out, but when a veteran pitcher gets through 75% of his performances in a season with a sub-3.00 ERA, and then starts struggling... it's got to be extremely difficult for a manager/GM to think the pitcher can't turn it around the next time out. So when exactly do you pull the plug and say some minor leaguer with zero MLB experience is a better option? The issue is deciding when a slump is actually a trend. And I just don't think that in the midst of one half-season, you can determine it is a trend and that a player needs to be replaced with somebody that is a COMPLETE unknown. I know that people seem to think they're absolutely positive that it couldn't have been any worse than Linebrink. I'm just not sure how you could truly think that. I'll give you a scenario that's worse: Linebrink gets benched for Player A who struggles because he isn't quite ready, his confidence is set back and he gets sent back. So they call up Player B who also has pretty decent potential but is also not totally ready to handle it. He gets rocked and gets sent back and replaced with somebody different. There is a worse scenario than letting Linebrink try to iron it out and a revolving door is not a good option. I think ultimately I take exception with the idea that one of us is going to be able to able to devise a better, ground-breaking way of handling a roster. Nothing is ever going to change with how teams give the benfit of the doubt to formerly and recently productive ballplayers as opposed to minor-leaguers with total uncertainty. If the risk-reward of uncertain minor leaguers were better, then more rosters would be filled with those uncertain minor leaguers. Now, top prospects are different than marginal, fringe minor-leaguers. In regard to this, we just aren't going to come with something that hasn't been thought of. QUOTE (chisoxt @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 08:27 AM) I can understand Rangers point but side withe KHP on this debate. I see a trend in baseball now whereby even the big market teams like the Yankess and Red Sox are turning to their farm system to stock their bull pen corps. The reason the Sox have to stick with expensive rag-armed options like Linebrink, MacDougal etc is because the Sox inexcusably drafted crappy low ceiling pitchers for several years and thus have few alternatives in their system to turn to. (This is why that I am hoping that Kenny does not trade Daniel Hudson this off season. I see Hudson taking over Linebrink's role at mid season.) The big market teams try to fill their rosters with "good" minor league talent, not just any old minor league talent. The Sox "overpaid" for Linebrink, because like I said earlier, they had to. There was no better option and there were no minor leaguers ready or good enough to take over. And I just don't see the risk-reward being better with a marginal minor league pitcher (or somebody who simply may not be ready) over the possiblity of a veteran (with a history of recent success) making a turnaround. The reason teams do this is because it's the best way...not because they can't think of anything better. By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:26 PM) I agree 100%. Look, I support the signing of Andruw Jones! Doesn't that tell you where I stand here? My issue has never been that veterans should never get a chance to rebound. We'll see what Jones does. He's not a difference-maker, but he's no-risk and potential good reward. It goes along with the belief that a veteran with a track record is a better option than, say, John Shelby. Or even Jordan Danks, though he is, at least, a VERY promising prospect. But he's probably just not ready.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) Please don't mistake my argument for ever stating that Linebrink should not have been given a chance to rebound. I have never said that. In fact, I have mentioned again and again that I agree with the philosophy that the White Sox had a far better chance to win with an effective Scott Linebrink than without one. What I am arguing is things reached a certain point in August where he was giving up huge innings in critical games where the idea should have been abandoned. We can say it is easy to say this looking back on it, but come on, every game he was either giving up runs or barely escaping giving up runs. And he certainly didn't appear to be stranding inherited runners either. At that point, when you have seen this song and dance over and over and over, anything different would have been better. I am not arguing that someone different should have been put into the role for the sake of them being different. I am arguing that the performances Linebrink was compiling could have literally been bettered by anyone different that we allowed to pitch in his stead. It's not an argument of "I just want to see someone different because I hate Scott Linebrink." It's an argument of "This guy was so incredibly bad that the sheer odds suggest we could have blindly chosen another professional ballplayer and he would have performed better." But that is where we disagree, and I am willing to leave it at that. It is where we disagree because I think the potential reward by allowing him more time is greater than what Nunez (for example) could've given them at the time. Not to say at some point Nunez won't be a really good reliever, it's just that allowing Linebrink as much time as possible gave them a better chance at team success than would going with a minor-leaguer that probably isn't ready. It's nto that I think you hate Linebrink, it's that I think you believe it couldn't have gotten any worse with someone else. It could have. I also think they gave it the appropriate amount of time before they decided to use him in earlier innings.