Ranger

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. This is not a good example. Every example of a player who has a lot of $ remaining on his contract, but sucks, is not necessarily a good example. You're talking about a guy who has $90 million left on his contract. If he isn't productive in some way the Cubs will be limited in their attempt to put a competitive team on the field. Scott Linebrink has $10.5 million remaining on his contract. Alfonso Soriano was once one of the best overall players in baseball. Scott Linebrink was once one of the better setup men in baseball. This is apples and oranges, not comparable in any way other than that they have both managed to massively suck as of late. Trust me, I'm fully aware of the differences in the two deals, though Linebrink does have a considerable contract for a relief pitcher. Obviously, the contract is different for Soriano and is the greatest factor, but there is track record involved here as well. Soriano can be, and has been, a productive offensive player. It isn't the best example but it to better illustrate what I'm getting at, I should probably say that were Soriano's contract to expire and he were available, he would still get an opportunity somewhere because of his history of success. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a contract, but the philosphy still applies that a player with a track record would get the chance over a minor league player from a team that has the money.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) I like this response a lot better, Mr. Rongey. I agree with you for the most part about Ozzie, KW, and the rest of the organization being competent, extremely intelligent people who run the Organization and our team very well. I am very happy and content with them in the decision-making roles. Additionally you'll find that if you spend more time here, that I am very supportive of both KW and Ozzie and almost always take the position that they are far more competent to understand the complex workings of the industry and the game than I, or any other fan of the team is. I completely understand they have spent their entire lives in this game, and then this industry, and they have experience and knowledge that I could never imagine having without that same career upbringing. That being said, that does not make them infallible. Ozzie makes all sorts of decisions that are incorrect and idiotic, whether that be in-game decisions or personnel decisions. Does that make him an idiot or a bad manager? No. What you're looking at is the entire body of work, including his in-game decisions, his personnel decisions, and how he manages/massages the egos and temperaments of the 26 guys in that clubhouse. I happen to think he does a pretty darn good job of doing that. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of his decisions? I certainly hope not. Does that mean that every decision he has made over the course of his six years of managing this ballclub have been correct? I highly doubt it. Even Ozzie admits that he listens and reads the suggestions of fans on the radio and in his email. He claims he has even made lineup changes at the advice of fans before. Now obviously I understand he is playing with the fans a bit here, but the point he is trying to make is that Ozzie goes by his gut a lot. He makes decisions based on what he feels is right. I can live with that. But it doesn't mean he never should have handled something differently, does it? As for the Bill James thing you mention, I'd like to make one quick point here. The reason that the statistical-oriented guys were accepted into the business first is because they had statistics and studies to point to that could not easily be refuted. They eventually HAD to be accepted. As soon as one team took the chance, and showed positive results, others would follow. And they followed because the stakes are too great not to. What will come next are other ideologies and philosophies. Baseball had reached a level where so many people were doing things "because this is the way it has always been done in the game of baseball," that there were no fresh new ideas. The industry was stale. Now the door has opened to accept new ideologies and new philosophies. The statistical analysis is what opened it up, but now other ideas will follow. Of course he, and they, are not infallible. They will make mistakes, and they do. But there are traditional philosphies that will be put into practice because, well, they work. They have the higher probability of maximum success than anything else that can be tried. I don't think his philosophy of allowing a veteran to make a turnaround will ever be tossed aside. The only way that might happen is if MLB is contracted to half the teams (thus concentrating the product and creating more, better options for every team at every position) or if the pay structure completely changes. And even if the latter happens without the former, I still think things stay the way they are.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) yea,its not that the teams are that dumb. but money simply is a huge factor. soriano was awful last yr and has lots of moments that he is. the cubs wont consider replacing him with a minor leaguer because ur simply not going to sit a guy making that much money This is another good example. The contract is obviously a massive part of it, but there is also a lot of "track record" at play here. As imperfect of a player Soriano is, they KNOW what he's capable of despite a bad year. They know he's capable of a rebound at any time (just as has happened with thousands of veteran players throughout the history of baseball). They know what he can do when he's playing to his ability. They know the only uncertainty lies within whether or not he'll get back to form. Whereas, if they bring up someone else to replace him, there are TWO uncertainties they have to deal with: 1)Will he play to his ability? and 2)If he DOES play to his potential, will it even be better than what Soriano gives us? And until a some future executive is an actual clairvoyant, they will never be able to change that dominant philosophy of the game.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) How would you classify Theo Epstein and Josh Byrnes then Ranger? Epstein went to college, worked for the school paper, got a PR job on an MLB club and worked his way up. Byrnes went to school, got an MLB internship and worked his way up. Neither of these guys are "baseball men", nor are they former players. Would you classify them as fans who got a break? No, I think you're missing the point. What you're talking about is true of half of the executives in the history of the game of baseball. This type of thing is different than what James did because they didn't change anything from the outside. They became the establishment from working their way up from the inside through proper channels. They interned within the game and learned that way. They aren't revolutionary figures, they just happen to be good at their jobs (Epstein is for sure). In keeping with the current discussion here, they still operate the way other GM's operate as far waiting on stuggling veterans before calling up minor leaguers. Unless, of course, they have a minor leaguer like Ellsbury waiting to arrive or unless they're able to make a trade.

Let me add that an "outsider" is not going to change the sport by saying, "here's a new idea: if you want to have a better chance of winning, you should try replacing your well-paid, contractually-bound, historically-productive, yet currently-struggling players with minor league players because it can't hurt." Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is essentially your idea, Shack. A team will never buy into that approach until it is proven that going with the unproven minor leaguer works better than going with a veteran who has a recent, good resume or until the pay structure in baseball changes.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point. My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective. There are your assumptions I have a problem with. Speaking of "wow." I did not say that fans can't have an opinion. But, I don't believe that you and I or anyone else that watches the game have thought of something that people who do this for a living have not already considered. We aren't going to revolutionize baseball and how personnel is handled. I would say that, yes, if a certain way of handling players is how just about every franchise in the game does it, then it likely that it is the best way. And I don't believe that the Sox failed to bench Linebrink and call up a minor leaguer simply because they didn't think of it. They OBVIOUSLY thought of it, but realized there were too many reasons they could/should NOT do that. I'm guessing that you're referring to the likes of Bill James in your assertion the MLB has hired "intelligent people" to help re-think how things are done. But what you're talking about is statistical analysis of players with track records. A different way to crunch numbers. These are really the only sort of "ordinary people" that have found their way into MLB that have any effect on personnel decisions. A statistician may find a new formula that better helps indicate a player's worth, but no amount of statistics is going to be able to predict when a minor league pitcher is ready for the show, ready to handle the pressure and the change of being promoted, and is going to give you better than what you already have on the roster. This sort of knowledge comes from being able to interact with that minor leaguer on a daily basis. At any rate, the intention of the newer statistics is to reduce uncertainty. Only logic would tell you that there is less uncertainty with a healthy, veteran pitcher that has real, recent success at the major league level (despite current struggles) than there is with a completely unproven minor-leaguer that may or may not be ready to pitch at the major league level. You're operating under the assumption that it could not hurt, when yes, it most definitely could. It's almost beside the point anyway, since teams operate this way because patience works and because they have to. Track record wins out for a reason, Shack.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) The problem with Pods was not speed or contact, maybe not even as much defense as in the past. The problem was the fact that he'd do Lonnie Smith impersonations when he got on base. He just showed no awareness when he got on base. The man was picked off or thrown out due to poor jumps, more than anyone that I can remember in the last 5 years. Yeah, that wasn't good. The reality, though, is that you will have a difficult time finding a leadoff hitter that isn't flawed in some way. And you hate that stuff because it seems easily fixable, but as long as he does other things right, you kind of just have to live with those faults. Ultimately, he scored a fairly good amount of runs for a team that was not good at driving them in. More often than not, Podsednik put himself in position to score.

QUOTE (CQMVP @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 11:32 PM) And in a market like Chicago, why should we settle for even an AVERAGE leadoff hitter? We should be targetting ABOVE average players damnit, nevermind all these scrapheap, makeshift guys we're throwing out there. Within reason, who do you want? It would be great to have Figgins, but he will not be worth what he will likely get this offseason. There just aren't many "above average" players that are available or realistic.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:23 PM) Look, I wasn't lobbying for Swisher. That dude was an idiot and as bad a fit for this franchise as I can remember (outside of Albert Belle). I was just making the point that there are still those Sox fans that think OBP trumps speed/OBP for a lead off hitter. I was reminding him that we tried that and it didn't work. The Sox needed speed to setup RISP as much or more than other teams to offset the softball lineup they ran out there the past few years. QUOTE (Disco72 @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) Just because Swisher failed as a high OBP type leadoff hitter doesn't make the idea behind it void. The Sox have struggled to find a league average leadoff hitter the last few years, and clearly a high OBP guy is cheaper than a guy with high OBP + speed + contact. For a guy getting the most ABs on the team, the most important thing is for him to "set the table" by being on base for the big hitters coming next. Speed would be nice, but speed is not > OBP in my opinion for a leadoff guy. I was wrong about the acquisition of Swisher. At the time of the trade, I thought his offensive numbers would improve at the Cell and I thought he would be a nice contributor, but I did not think he would fail to fit within that clubhouse. I think I overestimated him in that regard, but he certainly rubbed a few of the vets the wrong way. Speed helps in that spot and is ideal, but it isn't absolutely crucial. Like you said, OBP is much more important. As long as you have good RISP, and guys just generally good with runners on base. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Above average compared to what? The average line for an AL leadoff man in 2009 was .284/.355/.420/.775 and a 76% SB percentage. I'd say Podesdnik flirted with "above average" last year. In the American League: Top 5 in BA, 6th in OBP, Top 3 in stolen bases (in about 100 fewer AB's than many other regulars), Top 4 in extra base hits. The question about Podsednik is not, "was last year good enough for a leadoff hitter?" Of course it was. Undoubtedly, the Sox would be in pretty good shape if their 2010 leadoff hitter did what Pods did last year. But the real question is, "will he do that again?" That I don't know, and it is the real dilemma.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) Wow. Thanks, for the response, Mr. Rongey. Wow what?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 01:01 AM) You're not addressing any of the points I am making. Instead, you are continuing to try and ram your own down my throat. You're operating under many assumptions here, which I am questioning the validity of. Until you are willing to even consider that your assumptions may be wrong, the debate will go nowhere. It's fine, we'll agree to disagree. What points am I not addressing? I addressed ever single player comparison (like Matthews and MacDougal). And I gave you reasons, not assumptions, as to why they were handled the way they were handled. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you some insight as to why teams do what they do and why they operate the way they do. I think you can concede that I have a pretty good understanding of that. It's why I gave you a more fitting example in Brad Lidge. There is a reason he kept getting chances and kept getting the ball late in games despite his struggles. The Lidge situation is more comparable to Linebrink than anything else you've presented. I respect your passion for the game, but your passion and frustration toward Linebrink has guided you into the "I'm tired of looking at this guy, let's get someone else in there" mindset. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how fans feel and it comes out of frustration. But, there is a reason organizations don't/can't always do it the way fans want it to be done. I'm just trying to show you that. Different players (all things considered: ability, past performance, contract) have to be treated in different ways.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get. First, let me say that Ozzie didn't want people to expect Beckham to save the season. It wasn't that he didn't want him here. You know how fans are, man. "Here comes the Sox top pick, everthing's gonna be great from here on out!" Ozzie was trying to stop that before it started. Second, I don't know that someone else couldn't have pitched better. That's why it's called "uncertainty" and why I used the word "might." Somebody might have come up here and pitched better, but it is also possible he could have come up here and pitched worse. (Before anyone is tempted to be hyperbolic, yes, it COULD have been worse.) Where you are wrong is in your assumption of "certain failure." Linebrink was uncertain but there was also potential reward. They know what he's capable of and they know that he had done it fairly recently. It's not like he had spend the last 4 seasons jumping from team to team, signing deals for the minimum, and hoping for just one more good year. Hell, he hadn't even done that for even 2 years. Like Chisoxfn said, teams will almost always take the uncertainty of the veteran who has had recent success over the uncertainty of the minor leaguer with zero experience. Unless, of course, they are trying to dump payroll. Mike MacDougal is not, and never will be in the same level with Linebrink. The difference is that they were waiting and waiting on MacDougal to reach that potential, which he never did. If anything, the MacDougal example fortifies what I'm saying about patience because they waited longer on him than they ever would on some other unproven comodity, but that was because his stuff was brilliant, he could just never learn control. Linebrink is completely different because he's been one of the better relievers in baseball over the last several years --prior to last year-- and there is the potential reward of that coming back is too good to dismiss. No teammates of MacDougal were ever furious he was let go. You essentially said in another post that you understand scouts and evaluators within the organization know when someone is ready to be here. Is it difficult to realize that there may not have been anyone better that was ready? QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:45 PM) You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there. Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty. Correct. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:52 PM) Oh, so now the guys in charge are infallible? Since the White Sox organization did not do something, all actions they avoided taking were defacto incorrect? Bobby Jenks was released by the Angels in December of 04'. The White Sox claimed him, while many other teams did not. I understand Jenks may have needed a change of scenery, but were all the other teams who did not claim Jenks correct? Because by that logic, if Jenks would have been able to contribute to their bullpens, they would have claimed him, right? I understand that we have coaches and scouts in the minor leagues who tell the parent club who they believe to be ready and who they don't believe to be ready. I'm not suggesting someone should have been brought up to replace a marginal performer though. I'm suggesting someone should have been tried to replace someone who was simply not performing at an acceptable level. Can someone please point out what the harm would have been? What did we have to lose? Someone posting a 12 ERA instead of an 8 ERA in the second half? I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have an awfully difficult time convincing me that there simply were no other options for replacing a guy as bad as Linebrink was. Claiming a player off waivers is not the same as benching a successful veteran for a completely unproven minor-leaguer in the middle of the season. And the act of claiming Jenks does not prove anything about anything. It's a team taking an absolute no-risk chance on a player with a questionable history. It doesn't mena the Sox are smarter than everyone else or that everyone else is stupid for passing on him. Now, there is potential harm in doing what you suggest. One, is that you instantly lose the potential reward of Linebrink again becoming Linebrink, or something like him. You see, fans are sometimes horribly impatient (see Buehrle 2006 and Konerko 2008). And I think it's good that teams are not impatient. If teams operated the way fans would operate with their guts, things would be in terrible disaray. It was very possible that Scott Linerbink would've turned things around. This is how teams operate with veteran players like him. They wait for that reward as long as they can. The other harm in what you want is to call up a kid before he's ready, thus causing a mental setback. Plus, there is nothing good about a revolving bullpen door (see 2007). QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 07:56 AM) We'd all agree Linebrink is not great. But managers never do a nonstop shuffling of the deck chairs in their pen. That's something the fans always want but never gets put into practice. More often than not they just ride it out with the losers theyre stuck with. Also true, which leads to: QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 08:01 AM) Actually, that's what a lot of managers do, a lot of the time. Bullpens rarely stay the exact same 6 or 7 guys and 6 or 7 roles all season. Managers generally shuffle the bullpen around for one of two reasons: 1) Injuries, and 2) Because most bullpens are incomplete" to start the season anyway. Which is to say that a lot of teams go into April with at least one reliever with no experience, little potential etc. Those teams are not shy about replacing guys like that. They're alot more willing to send down a struggling reliever that was in AA the previous year, than they are to bench a veteran like Linebrink.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:09 PM) Well, Adam Russell was available until the end of August. Nunez? Hernandez? Zaleski? Santeliz? Then there were starters down there who could have come up as well in Ely, Shirek, Hudson... Oh well, this is not worth arguing over anymore, but it's definitely something that reasonable minds can disagree about, which is the whole point of this. QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) Torres might have been a better reliever than starter. That was his preferred job. Again, these are all "mights". This guy or that guy "might" be better. But the greater likelihood s that they were not ready to be here. And that is the other operative word: "ready." Given the Linebrink situation (contract, track record, etc.), a team isn't going to call up 2 or 3 different guys to replace him and hope one of them sticks. Unless there is an injury, of course, since it would be an emergency situation. Considering every facet of the Linebrink situation, a team wouldn't have replaced him unless they were able to trade him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand the point you're making, but I think the way Linebrink was performing, there were other legitimate options. There simply has to be other guys in our system that were capable of giving up less than a run per inning. I agree that you have to allow the guy to straighten himself out, and I am a believer in the theory that he needed to straighten himself out if the White Sox were going to really go anywhere, but I just question if the best way to do that was to just keep throwing him out there again and again in situations where he was costing us games we had to have. If there was a better option in AAA or AA that was ready to go, he'd been up here because they would've made a place for him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 02:45 AM) I disagree. There are always options, and when you're talking about a bullpen arm, there are legitimate options. Every team in the major leagues brings up kids from their system to see how they fare in the big leagues, and some of them do actually succeed. I don't see why our situation would be any different. Despite the relative weakness of our farm system, especially in terms of quality arms, we do have guys down there who have the stuff to succeed. Certainly when the guy you'e replacing is giving up a run an inning. Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Ozzie or the organization for trying to get Linebrink straightened-out, as he was slated to be an integral part of our bullpen and was owed quite a bit of money. Nor do I blame the signing. I'm not certain it was Kenny's most brilliant move, but as you commented, it was a signing that was sorely needed at the time. HOWEVER, once it became evident that Linebrink was simply incapable of figuring things out, and that did become evident, you can not tell me that the organization reached a position where there was no other legitimate option available. Given the way Linebrink was pitching in the last few months of last season, an A-ball pitcher would have been an attractive option. I'm not arguing that he should have been released, nor am I arguing that he should have been entirely shutdown and forgotten. They certainly could have sent him down to Charlotte, or limited him entirely to side work or simulated games to try and figure something out. And if that was tried, and if the only solution there was was for him to pitch to real batters, then he should have been doing it in Charlotte. It's one thing to be paying the guy $75k an inning, it's another to pay him $75k for terrible innings. Once it was evident that our season was over, they could have brought him back then and had him work on things. As for my examples that you're making counterarguments about, remember that Andruw Jones had a full year remaining on his contract, basically equalling $21 million with salary and signing bonuses due, and the Dodgers gained approval to re-work his contract and defer the money over the course of 6 years. While it is true that they had other options available to them to replace Jones, they could have easily refused to acquire Manny Ramirez via trade or refused to re-sign Manny for $25 million in 08'. They could have continued to run Jones out there because of the massive salary he was due that year, but instead, they chose to cut their losses and look elsewhere, even getting so creative as to re-work Jones' contract with permission from Jones as well as the MLB Players' Union. Should they have continued to run Jones out there, because he had a track record? Because he had hit 41 home runs just two seasons prior? Instead, they took extraordinary measures to avoid playing Jones anymore, because he was just that terrible. As for Matthews, the Angels did something very similar. They did not have legitimate alternatives. Rather than keep Matthews Jr. in centerfield, where he was solid defensively at least, they went out and replaced him. They signed Torii Hunter for 5/$90 m, basically in order to relegate Matthews to the bench. Even though Matthews still has $23 million left on his deal, they went and re-signed Bobby Abreu at 2/$19 million to continue to relegate Matthews to the bench. So while they may have created other legitimate options for themselves, they did so at increased financial risk, rather than to play Matthews simply because he was due tens of millions and they had no other in-house options. Pierre, the same thing. The Dodgers could have avoided re-signing Manny and simply ran Pierre out there, since he was under contract and there were no other legitimate in-house options. However, the Dodgers took on additional financial risk to avoid simply sticking with their previous poor investment. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you Chris - I see what you're saying - but I don't think this is nearly as black and white of a situation as you'd like us to believe here. You forget that Linebrink's tenure prevents him from just being sent down to Charlotte. He doesn't have to go if he doesn't want to. This whole thing is all about legitimate options. Anaheim went and got another option during the offseason and they didn't stop using Matthews everyday until med-september in 2007 and that was more because of an injured knee, not because of his lack of production. The point is, they didn't just stop playing him mid-season because he wasn't getting it done. He stopped playing because he couldnt' play anymore. This discussion is about benching a player in the middle of the season and just calling up "somebody-anybody" in his place. What you're talking about is offseason improvement. That's entirely different. It's one thing if you have legit, ready-to-play prospects waiting for the call. The Sox didn't have that last year for Linebrink. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading for bullpen help, which is what the Pena move was about. QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 07:37 AM) I didn't read all of your post shack, it was long, but my point, in addition, is yes they could've continued using linebrink. BUt no, they didn't have to use him in the 8th so much. That's the thing, is that they did eventually stop using him late. They were patient with him as long as they could be, then they made him an earlier-inning guy. QUOTE (WCSox @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) This has to be the last year that Linebrink gets the "well, he's done it before, so let's run him out there again" treatment. If he gets hit hard again, I can't see him taking a spot on the 2011 roster. It might be worth it to Kenny (who doesn't normally pick up salary) to eat half of his $5.5M 2011 salary in exchange for a middle-tier minor leaguer. That said, his velocity was there last year and I'm cautiously optimistic that he can find his command again. And for the record, I was on board with Kenny over-paying for Linebrink and Dotel, especially after 2007. And it's not like those two were completely worthless in Chicago. They helped the Sox win a lot of games in the fist half of '08, and ultimately helped the Sox win the division that year. It would be a lot easier to eat a salary like his when there is one year left as opposed to nearly 3. And after the poor pitching has lasted a couple of seasons (as opposed to half or one full season), at his age, it's likely more of a trend than it is a slump. Which would make moving on the only choice..

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 11:41 PM) I've been making this arguement for a couple of years. Managers will give verterans with track recoreds time to work it out because 1) they usually can 2) they are an important part of the team and have proven in the past they can do it. Too much knee jerk reaction and impatience, baseball is a sport of ups and downs, in season and between seasons with proven players you need to let them work it out. Until age or injuries catch up with them. It's entirely possible that age/injuries have caught up with Linebrink, but there is not a single team in the majors that would shove him aside given this situation one year removed from a decent season. Veteran players get second, third, fourth, and fifth chances all the time. And it isn't because teams are stupid. It's because this is how it works in MLB and will always work for teams that are seriously trying ot win something. Things might operate differently for a team like the Pirates that isn't too concerned with what sort of team they field.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 08:24 PM) I think there is a middle ground here. There is something to the idea of realizing you have a lot of money tied-up in a player and thus it is important that such a player produce for you. However, there is also the idea of compounding an error by not only tying up the money in a player, but continuing to play him when it is clear his performance could be bettered by another player. At this point, Linebrink has to be viewed as a sunken cost. While I usually agree with Ozzie when he says things like "We need Linebrink to pitch well if we're going to win ballgames," at some point, when it becomes apparent that it simply isn't going to happen, there is nothing wrong with trying something else. For all the examples that were listed as teams that stuck with struggling players, there are also examples of teams that did not. You don't see Gary Matthews Jr. getting consistent starting time when there exist better options. The same for Juan Pierre. The same for Andruw Jones getting released by the Dodgers. Sometimes, it's just best to move on, despite the fact that you have money tied-up in an asset. The key is knowing when. Nah, the Matthews situation is different because they had a thousand other legit options. And that's the key, they have other LEGIT options. Relative known quantities. Calling up Jhonny Nunez to replace Scott Linebrink is not a known quantity and is as uncertain, if not more than, sticking it out with Linebrink. Same thing with Pierre...they had Kemp, Ethier, and Manny. Those are all obvious better options. Jones' situation was also different because there were 2 months left on his deal (as opposed to 2 1/2 years left on Linebrink's), he was injured an clearly out of shape. Teams are not as willing to extend leniency to guys who are out of shape. Plus, again, the Dodgers had REAL options to replace him. In general, the "examples" of teams that did not stick with players are limited to one of two situations: 1) players that have expendable deals and/or 2) teams that have viable options waiting to take over. Not throw-a-bunch-of-stuff-at-the-wall-see-what-sticks options, but real, actual replacements that are ready to go. This is how all teams do it. Bottom line: there are not many examples of teams that dismiss a well-paid veteran for a complete unknown minor leaguer. I can't think of one, actually. No real team with real intent on trying to compete uses the "anybody has to be better than this guy" philosophy in a situation like this. Now, you can complain that the Sox gave too much to Linebrink in the first place to put themsleves in that situation. However, you'd be getting into a touchy situation there too, as the Sox (following a rough bullpen showing in '07) were in position to absolutely have to overspend to fix a bullpen. Had they NOT done that, the same people complaining about Linebrink's ridiculous contract would be the same people complaining that the Sox were too cheap to try and fix a terrible bullpen. So before you want to slam the Dotel and Linebrink signings, realize that you'd have been furious had they done nothing to try and shore up that unit of the team. And when the team is as weak as they were in the pen, and with nobody waiting in the minors to take over, they're in the unfortunate position of having no leverage in negotiations with free agents or trade partners. Other teams and agents are all aware that the Sox were in dire need of bullpen help and were fully aware that they had no other recourse. If they wanted bullpen help, they were going to pay through the nose for it.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 22, 2009 -> 09:43 PM) My favorite argument of yours is when you say that Linebrink needs to be out there even though he's garbage because the team can't win unless he improves, and he can't improve if he's not playing. It made so much sense to keep letting him blow important games with the Sox when they could have sent him down to work on things in Charlotte and at least tried somebody else. But yeah, I guess it would be pretty hard for anyone like Santeliz, Link, Nunez, Harrell, Hernandez, Rodriguez, etc. to come up and post better numbers than what Linebrink put up in the second half, which in 23.1IP was an ERA of 8.49 with a 2.19 WHIP and a .377/.433/.651/1.084 line against - which is just a hair less in OPS than what Albert Pujols produced against the entire NL last season. Saying that it would be difficult for a rookie to come up and become a major contributor is one thing, but to intimate that we had no one in the system last year who even as a rookie would have been a better bet than Linebrink was at that point is another. Even bringing up a kid who could have put up an ERA of 6 with a WHIP under 2 and an OPSA under 1.000 would have been an improvement, and at least at that point you're giving someone else a shot to show if he can stick or not. You know why Linebrink kept getting run out there just as well as every other Sox fan on this forum does, and it's because of his contract. The Sox weren't going to MacDougalize him with 2+ years and $10.5M+ remaining on his deal. If Scott Linebrink had been a pre-arb player like Boone Logan was, Ozzie would have reamed his ass and sent him down. Um, welcome to Major League Baseball, dude. New to how this works, are you? I never said money wasn't part of it. In fact, I said during the season, it came down to two things: 1) his 2 and a half years remaining on a contract and 2) the reality that they did actually need him to get better. It's not a garbage argument. It happens ALL the time in MLB, where well-paid veteran players (position players and pitchers alike) get numerous opportunties (to the dismay of fans) to straighten themselves out. Especially when they are a year removed from a decent season (Linebrink WAS decent before his injuries in 2008). The reason they do this is because, when it comes to uncertainty, there is LESS of it with a struggling veteran player with a track record than there is with a minor-leaguer that has zero MLB track record. Name me a single team that would've done it your way, and I'll show you a team that will hire you as their GM. Remember how the Red Sox benched David Ortiz when he was hitting .185 at the end of May? Oh no wait, they didn't. That's right. They let him keep playing because of his contract and because of the fact he's David Ortiz and there's a track record. Or remember when the White Sox benched Konerko for the entire second half of 2008 because he was hitting .214 at the end of July? Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't happen either. They kept playing him because of his contract AND the fact t hat he has a track record and what not. And if I recall, he had a nice finish in the last two months and in the postseason. Or remember how the Phillies decided not to use Brad Lidge anymore because he was struggling? No, that's wrong too. They did stick with him and he recorded 3 playoff saves, gave up 1 hit in 4 innings of playoff work, and didn't allow a run until the World Series. Why in the world would Charlie Manuel do that? He must be an idiot. Afterall, he only has one World Championship and two appearances on his resume. I think they call that "sticking with the veteran because you know you may reap the benefits of having patience." It's this strange baseball philosophy that works a lot of the time. And it's a "garbage argument," apparently.

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) I just don't see a playoff contender with this lineup at all this year. The only thing I am looking forward to this year is our starting rotation....I think our starting pitching is potentially the best in the bigs. I know people are going to tell me that Kenny isn't close to being done or that I'm jumping the gun, but I really believe that what you see right now is what your going to have opening day. Let's simply go around the horn and talk about our starters. C-AJP-----Love AJ but cant throw anyone out. 1B-PK-----Solid power numbers every year, but getting older and very overpaid. 2B-GB---Kenny over managed this situation and should have left him at third, he was playing great. Kalapse thinks he's not going to have a sophomore slump so....that's that. SS-Alexei- I love his potential, but I think this guy is a bonehead. He is asleep at the wheel at short. Can't hit a curveball. 3B-Teahen-One word- Mediocrity. OF-Rios-Who knows? OF-Quentin- If he can stay healthy he can carry the offense as we witnessed two years ago....but that's a big if OF-FA signing or trade-----feel free to throw around ideas for this one...no idea what were going to do. Can anyone explain to me how this lineup can possibly win anything past our division? If only Obama put the White Sox as part of the bailout ....... This is just as likely as it is for every team in baseball. Your assumption is that the worst case scenario is only applicable to the Sox.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 02:01 AM) I just wonder why we all assume Crisp will be good defensively. Surgery on both shoulders for a guy already not known for a gun? Ranger's point is well taken IF everybody hits like they are capable we might be OK. Big if, but it's possible the lineup might score some runs. I wish they'd sign Thome and get that taken care of. I'm not sure how I feel about a Thome return (if it were to happen). Not completely opposed to it, but I wouldn't mind seeing them move on, either. I think he will not e one of their first choices. QUOTE (gatnom @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 02:29 AM) While I agree with the bold part above, that's a fairly big leap to make. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Quentin was hampered to the point of ineffectiveness by injuries for the rest of his career. I wouldn't be surprised if Rios and Teahen continued to underperform either, and who knows how Crisp would even rebound from his surgeries. Even if you grant that some guys like AJ, Konerko, and Matsui/Thome won't decline from their previous seasons because you can really question whether anybody in baseball will be as good as they were last season, none of them are getting any younger. Konerko and Thome have already started to decline, and AJ is pretty much due for a regression anyways. If they all produce what is expected of them, they could be anywhere between average and above average depending upon your expectations, but there is just as good of a chance that they all implode than they all succeed. That goes for just about every lineup in baseball (unless, of course, you're New York and you're fielding an All Star team). Like you said, you can say about every player that you aren't sure about repeated production, and that guys are getting older and due for regression, etc. It's not a big leap to say that the Sox lineup can be better than a below average lineup. I didn't say "great." From everything I hear, it sounds like Quentin had made a ton of progress by the end of the year and there is reason to be hopeful he'll be productive again next year.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) You'd hope though just last year our starting CF and leadoffman was DeWayne Wise so anything is possible. DeWayne Wise was not their first choice. That wasn't who they really wanted on opening day. QUOTE (longshot7 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 06:12 PM) .... it's still an average to below-average lineup, nothing more. That's a gross over exaggeration. If all of those guys produce to what is expected of them, that's not a below average lineup. QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 06:53 PM) How many season tickets is this line up going to sell? I wouldn't even be sure that this would win the AL Central... and I KNOW it wouldn't win the World Series. What is there to fear in this line up? CC Sabathia or Josh Beckett would be salivating against this. No lineup would "sell" season tickets for the White Sox. Unless they, somehow, were able to acquire Pujols or Ichiro (moreso someone of Pujols' caliber) during the offseason. Otherwise, they're going to have to win a lot for 2-3 months before people start selling out the park. Such is the nature of baseball on the south side. Also, you don't know it wouldn't win the Series. It may not look overwhelming, but that lineup COULD win it IF the pitching staff (including the pen) does what it should. The "fear" thing is terribly overrated, by the way. Teams were not "afraid" of the Sox 2005 lineup, but they won 99 games in the regular season.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) Supposition entirely. Pods did comeback and did very well for the Sox, but I am supposed to ignore that and count on Crisp coming back from injury? You might actually be arguing against yourself here. Podesdnik was in the same situation when they picked him up last year and became a "sound financial move." Injury-plagued, poor-production, and signed for the minimum...that put him in position to be able to, at the least, exceed expectations. If Crisp does get acquired, it will be afor a small amount and you have to figure he can only be better than what he did last season. By definition, a low-risk move and financially reasonable. That said, this wouldn't be the most exciting move if they made it. I suspect they desire better than that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2009 -> 09:06 PM) I'm pretty sure I've yelled this before. Would never call anybody up. I'm pretty sure I would have rather had a broomstick hit instead of Lillibridge this year though. Especially one of those magic brooms from fantasia. I would think the magic broomstick is capable of quite a bit, wouldn't you?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 22, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) My favorites were after the Cubs loss, people wanting to send Linebrink to AAA, since we apparently had better down there. Or sending Alexei to AAA after the 13 inning Dodger fest...I remember you being peeved but dismissing that idea. I think one of my favorite classics is the following exchange: caller: "Why did Ozzie bring in _______ to pitch in the 8th." me: "OK. Who would you rather have out there?" caller: "Anybody!" me: "Such as?" caller: "It doesn't matter! ANYBODY!" No real better solution, just "somebody else" should have been used. The old anybody-is-better-than-what-we-have/used argument. You can also replace the first line in that exchange with "They need to send ______'s ass down to Charlotte and bring up somebody else." Those two calls are interchangeable. It's the notion that it can't any worse than it is currently. But what they don't understand is that, yes, it most certainly could always be worse.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Nov 21, 2009 -> 09:33 PM) Some people believe the postgame should be purely therapeutic during a loss. I for one prefer when the callers' feet are still held to the fire. At least have a reasoned thought. Problem is people imbibe during the game and then get worked up enough to call in and talk loudly about what players had a particularly bad game. As if the world needed that contribution. Not that I want to bring back Prohibition or anything Yes, some people do believe that. Which would mean that every single viewpoint of every single caller is valid and based on fact. It would essentially mean that the entire postgame would be me punching up the call, the caller somehow blaming Ozzie for an error in the 9th that cost them the game, and then me saying, "that's a great point." Then repeat. I'd break out in hives if I let stupid opinions go unchalleged. And it's easy to tell when an opinion is stupid (like the guy in 2007 who said, all things being equal, i.e. salary, he'd rather have Rowand than Ichiro). I love that Sox fans have passion, but I just want some of them to be a little more level-headed about it. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2009 -> 09:34 PM) The same thing happens here way too often. No Soxtalk is not your personal tampon. Funny, but eww.