Ranger

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2009 -> 10:22 AM) If we can upgrade the team, why wouldn't we look around? They should always be looking in all areas, regardless of what they've already got. Unless, well, they have Pujols or something. Really no upgrade over that guy.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 21, 2009 -> 08:18 PM) Honestly, if the caller gets too dumb acting with you, I get uncomfortable and change the station (sorry!). So do I.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Lies. He'd get the front hand. Actually, you seem to be the most reserved guy ever, R. Half of those crazies who call in on your show deserve the back hand, but you're pretty nice to them. You think I'm nice to them? Interesting how different people see things differently. I sometimes get emails (and calls) from people that tell me I don't show enough respect to callers and that I hang up on them too quickly. If anything, I think I give the psychos too much time to talk. I'm just not sure that a person is due automatic respect just because they've called into a radio show, are they?

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 06:44 PM) It's too bad that they couldn't move Ramirez back to 2B for Vizquel. He seems very lazy at short, loses concentration etc. That's the thing Alexei has to do better. He's such a talented player, but his head needs to be in the right spot more often next year. QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 06:44 PM) Seems like certain guys, Steve Stone, yourself think he is an above average thirdbaseman, while the other half thinks he is absolutely awful. I think he will be alright. I haven't heard anyone say he's absolutely awful. Not anyone that works in baseball, anyway. The worst descriptor I've heard for him is "adequate."

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) I agree with you right now. However if Beckham had another full year(2010) at 3rd, I think he would far surpass anything Teahen could do. That may very well be true, but Beckham is more valuable at 2B than he is at 3rd. QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) I don't know... Teahen and Beckham's D% at 3B last year was nearly identical. (.956 Teahen, .952 Beckham.) Seems to be very close for two guys who either had never played 3B before last season or who hadn't played a significant amount at 3B for abou 3 years. I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't get caught up with the fielding percentage because it won't tell you everything. Most importantly, you have to keep in mind that the guy played 5 different positions last year. I can't imagine an everyday player could ever get comfortable at any spot if he's getting moved around the field so much. A full year at third would probably tell you a different story. Comfort has a lot to do with it. Again, I don't think he's a drastic improvement, but I think he's a little better.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) Wow, you believe that Teahen's D is stronger than Beckham's, Ranger? At 3rd base? Yes. I'm not talking Gold Glover or anything, but he's probably better and more comfortable over there than Beckham is. However, Beckham is the superior hitter.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 05:29 PM) I think that Beckham 3B, Vizquel SS, Ramirez 2B would be a better defensive setup than Teahen 3B, Ramirez SS, Beckham 2B. Is Teahen's bat good enough to balance his 3B defense? Actually, Teahen-Vizquel-Ramirez or Teahen-Ramirez-Vizquel would be the best defensive alignment. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) This would have been AWESOME if it was 2003... You probably mean more like late 90's. At any rate, if it were late 90's, he'd be starting. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) Then couldn't we just sign him as a coach? The guy will be 43 next season. I understand that he has been a great defender in his career, but he can't honestly be anywhere near as good as he was. QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) I'm speaking in general terms of course, most players hit their peak between 27-32. Oh, and that is if you believe he ACTUALLY IS 28. What is Vizquel going to teach Alexei an infield coach can't? There are not any huge secretes. I believe the difference is that sometimes tutoring is more effective when it's coming from a peer rather than your superior. When veteran players pull the younger ones aside, they tend to listen. And don't underestimate the benefit of Ramirez being able to take infield every day behind somebody like that. While Cora has the fungo, Vizquel will be standing out there in the field with both middle infielders, taking grounders, practicing DPs with them. Then both he and Beckham will be able to, on occasion, watch Vizquel demonstrate in actual games what he's been teaching them. There is value in that. QUOTE (Paint it Black @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) Okay hes 43 and bad. There are better replacement level shortstops out there than Vizquel. The "teach Alexei things" is just an idiotic argument because you assume that Alexei has room to improve. He's 28 (I said 27 earlier I misspoke) entering the peak of his career. It's pretty silly to say he can improve on defense at that age when really, defense is the first set of skills to deteriorate. He most definitely can improve his defense, even at the age of 28. I also don't think it's true in every case that defense goes first, but when it does, it's usually because of deterioration of speed and range. And at this point, Alexei is in no danger of losing range.

QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 11:22 AM) I think we should start calling Rongey "Ike Turner" Nah. I won't backhand you.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:27 PM) Ranger, why don't you get an avatar? How about the Skanberg PH7 picture? QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) Sounds like a plan for Chris. Hell Brandon McCarthy (and his mother) and Jim Bullard had avatars when they used to post here I believe. Neal Cotts and others too. Never figured out the avatar thing. Too lazy.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 07:19 AM) I would just like to add my "Welcome Ranger" to the chorus. I post on "the other" site too, but the main reason I signed up at WSI was because you posted there Ranger and I found alot of your posts to be honest and insightful. I have always felt that Soxtalk is much more informative overall, with better quality dialogue. I guess now that you're here Ranger this is now kind of like one stop shopping for me! QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) Hey Chris Welcome aboard. Glad you've stopped by and I appreciate your comments. I never thought the story I wrote would end up erupting like it did, but I will not take back what I said and it came from a very good source. I felt that the article I wrote was as honest as possible to the fact that they were prelim discussion. In fact, for those that followed this thread they will vouch for the fact that I kept re-iterating that I was reporting discussions had taken place recently between the three teams with those names being involved. I didn't go anywhere past there and I thought indicated throughout the article that that was the extent of the talks. I wanted Sox fans to know what we had heard and to discuss the possibilities. Basically put, prior to the article there was already a 20 page thread on the matter of Adrian Gonzalez but most of it (with the exception of the radio reports last week) was pure conjecture on Sox fans part. I felt the news we heard from our source put an end to the conjecture and at least linked the teams to discussions. I personally see Gonzalez as a great fit for a club with a budgeted payroll of 115-120M and since the Sox don't fit in that camp I think it would be hard to come up with a Gonzalez deal that makes sense (since you'd lose him in 2 years). I realize Gonzalez contract is cheap, but even if you acquire him you still have significant holes to fill and an extension to try and figure out, plus you know your going to have to eventually pay Quentin and Danks. If the club could move Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink it would be another story but that will be incredibly difficult to do (especially in the case of Linebrink). Well, maybe not difficult to trade them, but to get value back equal to there value with the Sox would be difficult (in the case of Jenks/Paulie). And in regards to Joe Cowley, I have stayed out of it aside from sending my email to him, because his comments were not attacking a rumor, they were attacking myself and other individuals and those comments were completely unprofessional and un-called for. If Joe wanted to find out about SoxNet, he could have shot me a quick email and I would have been happy to inform him of the sites history, the fact that the network of three (Soxtalk/FutureSox/SoxNet) sites gets ~12 million hits per month, has interviewed quite a few major and minor league players over the years, has an owner that turned down a job to go into scouting, has connections to Sox scouts, etc, etc, etc. I realize SoxNet might appear new, but the way he reacted and responded and criticized was completely un-professional and child-like. And I'll take all of the heat that comes with what I wrote and I'll stand by it, just as I've stood bye anything I've written (albeit poorly, as I'm not a columnist, but I am a baseball purist and a person that has a vast understanding of the game of baseball) and I'll continue moving forward in my goal of making this place the best of all fan run sites across the web!!!! And Rongey, once again, you are a class act and I look forward to seeing you around these parts more often!!! Oh I'll be around, but I should let you know that I am also in an open relationship with WSI. She doesn't mind. She better not. And just like over there, I'm sure I'll get into with some of you, sometimes some of you will hate me, somtimes I'll hate some of you, but there will be plenty of love to go around. I hope this team plays well so I don't have to be crabby.

I'd like to think that without the Thome-PK-Dye trio in the middle of the order, the offensive mindset of the guys playing will have to change. To me, having those three guys when they were killing it (2006) was about as good as it could possibly get in the heart of any batting order. The problem is that if even one of those guys begins to disappear (2007, 2008, 2009), the players' mindset doesn't change because they've been used to it a certain way: the rest of the lineup is still waiting on those big boys to get it done, even though one or two of them is struggling. So, essentially, the team will go through stretches where they're waiting on a black hole to drive in their runs. That leads to a LOT of low-scoring games. I know a lot of fans hate the heavy reliance on the HR, but if you can ever have a 3-4-5 and good as those three guys were in '06, you'd be insane not to be happy with that. Now, since it's going to be nearly impossible to duplicate that again, I'm hoping next year's offense is more versatile and 6 guys aren't always waiting on the other 3 to do the heavy-lifting. Teahen was on the show with us this past Saturday (excuse the plug, but here's the link if you want to hear) and I asked him about the approach playing in the Cell and how players are affected subconsciously because of the tendency to be HR-friendly. And he said something telling, I think, that when he was with KC, they viewed the Sox players as waiting for the guys in the middle of the order to hit the HR. I'm wondering if maybe without that "safety net" for the other guys, if the offense as a whole will do a better job of working together to score runs instead of relying on 2 or 3 guys to do all the work. Obviously, I'd rather have 4 badasses in the middle of the order that I know are going to rake every night, but there is more than one way to have a decent offense. And when it comes down to it, presumably with this rotation, the Sox don't have to have a top 5 offense...they just can't afford to have a bottom 5 offense.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) No, I hear what you're saying. And to be honest with you, as NSS mentioned earlier (and now I see Knight has reiterated), we should have made it clearer that Soxnet is part of Soxtalk.com. As you stated, you've been lurking here for some time. My guess is Joe has been here a few times as well. And if he hasn't, well, he probably should start. To most of us, at least from what I have read, this isn't about having the information dismissed by Joe. All sorts of web media have now dismissed the information. More importantly, it was simply his lack of awareness of what goes on here or what the site is. If my job was to cover something as complex as professional baseball, one team in particular, and there were all these people online constantly discussing the issues and arguing the statistics, and hashing out the economics over and over again, you'd better believe it I would be reading this stuff. As you mentioned, you do. You know, I'm not sure if Joe or anyone else in the media lurks here. Personally, I appreciate message boards and a lot of times I find them sometimes entertaining, sometimes helpful. What, I think, some people don't like about message boards is how they can sometimes devolve into groupthink and "best insult" contests. I don't really care for that. I don't care for negativity, but I do love real, actual debate. Negativity is probably the one thing about message boards that can rub me the wrong way. Some of you know that I sometimes get the "company man" tag thrown at me on occasion (often on message boards), but it really isn't true. For those that truly listen to what I say during the shows, I'm not a pessimist, but I'm also really not an optimist. I'm just simply not a negative person. I don't think everything is always going to end up as bad as it could possibly end up, and I don't think that everything that can go wrong always will go wrong. I think sometimes negativity runs rampant on message boards. That's usually because of the passion posters have for their teams. This is true pretty much everywhere. This isn't always true, but sometimes it is. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 10:36 PM) Ranger, I think most reasonable people believe that reliable established news media, whether it be print, radio or television have more credible rumors or stories. The problem I have with this situation was with the unnecessary attacks against people who have nothing but the best intentions in terms of giving Sox fans information. I would like to thank you for taking the time to post on this forum. I love having level-headed discussion about the team and I've been participating over at WSI for a while (sorry, Mike!). I'll be back here as often as I can. I don't doubt that the contributors here have good intentions. Again, I think it's a matter of being careful in how rumors are presented because, as you can see, s***storms can follow.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:03 PM) Nice work Ranger, but I think you are getting your rumors from a completely different spot Anyways, welcome to SOXtalk WOW. Did I really do that? That's awesome. Like I said, you have to be VERY careful with what you write.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:51 PM) This is all very true. However, the issue which occurred here is that someone affiliated with a mainstream media outlet immediately dismissed blog/website in question, characterizing it as something run out of a trekkie's basement, without doing any research as to any credibility it may have had. While that may be true of some blogs/websites out there, one look at this site and one realizes that is simply not the case. There is more intelligent White Sox discourse going around this website than any other medium I am aware of. Disrespecting bloggers and website owners, as well as the many, many fans of the team one is affiliated with is probably not the best course of action to take. Joe could have easily stated that his sources did not indicate there was any truth to the report, and left it at that. Unfortunately, he did not. You are right, he could've done that. But the difficulty in doing that is that there are SO many rumor blogs out there that it is almost impossible to fact check every single one of them every time there is a report of a potential trade. He may have done that if SoxNet were already widely regarded as a credible source for White Sox information. Now, don't take that the wrong way. I'm NOT saying that SoxNet is unreliable. What I'm saying is that the majority of media consumers don't know if it is or not, and most have probably not even heard of the site before. I mean, I do because it's my job to try and know what's out there. But I would argue that most casual fans of the team are not familiar with this site. SoxNet may be right every time, but for all most people know, it could just be another rumor blog. You know what I mean? After a while, SoxNet may develop a reputation that would force mainstream outlets to check into everything the blog reports. At which point, SoxNet would essentially become mainstream.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:28 PM) I think it's irresponsible and even a misrepresentation of the truth to throw something out into the blogosphere with the magical word "source" attached to it, and then fall back under the veil of "these were ordinary preliminary discussions, not separate and apart from anything in the course of a GM's ordinary dealings." Obviously, this information would not have been posted in the manner it was unless it did carry an air of legitimacy to it, regardless of the fact that the odds were still long of it actually occurring. I think the key point here is not that there may have been "preliminary discussions" in regards to the players and teams mentioned, as Chris implied, this phrase has been overused by the baseball media so as to include a range of meanings that could include mentioning a player's name in passing to actual details of a deal being discussed. Rather, the point is that the "source" is claiming that the actual players were discussed with the actual teams mentioned, and some discussions, whether they ever reached a critical or material point, did occur. THAT, is what Soxnet was reporting. Rather than offering a disclaimer that such discussions may have only been preliminary, I think a better approach may have been to simply state that Soxnet is not claiming that any deal is imminent, that the progress of these talks is unknown, and could indeed have ceased, and that Soxnet is not making any claims about any proposed deals, other than simply stating that it believes such discussions have occurred. Unfortunately, as one can tell, a lot of this is about semantics. Perhaps the same exact course of events would have unfolded, irrespective of how Jason presented the information. But the phrase "preliminary discussions" gives the consumer of the information the idea that the two parties are still sitting at the bargaining table, hammering away at some prospective deal, which is why a lot of people took issue with this in the end. That being said, if you're going to run with the word "source," you're going to have to stay in the kitchen when things get hot, and I think Jason has done a very nice job of doing that. I think it's fair how you worded it the first time. Don't feel bad about blabbering...did you see my first post??? But you've hit it precisely, I think. You said that all of this is semantics, and that is true. It really is semantics. But, as a reporter of print or electronic media, in any capacity, semantics matter because what you report will be examined and re-examined 1,000 times. You have to be EXTREMELY careful with how you word things. Especially if you're a writer because you can't make what you've already written disappear. You might be right. Had Jason worded it differently, we still may be having the same discussion. However, had the original report been worked a little differently and somebody decided to criticize Jason for implying something that he isn't trying to imply, all he'd have to say is, "Hey, dude, go read it again because apparently you didn't get it the first time you read it."

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:18 PM) I see the point on both sides. The guys at the papers don't trust the validity of internet guys because they believe that it is too hard for non TV/radio/paper people to verify their sources accurately. On the other hand, internet guys should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. If their sources turn out to be true and news happens that verifies their story, then they should get respect. Some writers just don't want to give that benefit because there are far too many "rumor mill" sites on the internet that are unreliable. Yes, that is part of the problem. There are more unreliable websites than there are reliable ones. Because, really, anybody can start their own blog or site. Whereas, to join an established media outlet, there is usually some sort of vetting process. So at least, there is the perception credebility if there is not actual credibility. Now, mainstream media outlets also have to be careful, because they can fall into the same sort of aura of unreliability if they don't do their jobs right. Just ask the New York Post. Though it could change over the next several years, it currently stands that there is usually more at stake with mainstream outlets in terms of accountability. This may be not be true for some blogs, but for the most part, bloggers do what they do as a hobby. It's usually not their livelihood. There usually isn't huge pressure from sponsors, bosses, editors, program directors, etc. The medium is less rigid and less formal. It may get to the point someday where bloggers dominate the press box. But with that, will come a whole lot more responsibility. Websites/blogs are perfectly capable of breaking stories. And often times they do. I understand, however, how they can often times be dismissed.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) I must agree that it's kind of weird to call something "preliminary discussions" -- when we all figure that each of these trades just kind of starts the same way -- with a conversational phone call. It either goes somewhere or it doesnt. If it's shot down immediately, that too was a preliminary discussion. But 'preliminary' means it's headed somewhere... so it has a little bit of a loaded tone to it. Now, if someone has a problem with SoxNet's wording...that presupposes the person putting out the rumor has any idea of how far along it is. If they have to know that each time, then nothing will ever be put out there. Kind of a double edged sword. Whether to report or not. I think most of us fall on the side of wanting all the rumors that have any validity whatsoever. My life is boring enough .....i come here for news of any liminary, be it pre or post or middle! You know what it is? It's highly similar to the waiver thing. People flip out when they find out so-and-so was placed on waivers, and invariably, a report gets printed/broadcast. It's kind of absurd because almost EVERY player gets placed on waivers at some point.

Let me preface by saying that I have been lurking on this board for a few years (as well as WSI) but have never been able to get a successful registration up until today (something about my domain being unagreeable with the login process. Thanks, Michael, for fixing it.) Anyway, I can't speak for anyone else that covers the Sox, but I can tell you that I have very little problem with anyone trying to break a story. If you have contacts and sources and you have a forum, you have every right to use that forum to your advantage. The advantage that the Trib/Sun Times/The Score/etc. have is that with their reports, there usually comes a bit of inherent credence given to those reports. That has nothing to do with the fact that those reports are printed on real, actual paper or floated through a transmitter. It has everything to do with the fact that they are established institutions and people recognize them, they've heard their names before. With continued diligence, SoxNet may someday be thought of by the masses in the same manner. If that happens, I don't think that's a bad thing. Certainly, SoxNet has already a good following. As some of you know, Joe Cowley is a regular on the Score and on shows that I do. I like Joe and I know he works hard covering the team, and has a pretty good understanding of what's going on with them. I know I said earlier that I can't speak for others, but I think I could understand where some people within the "established" media would take issue with certain blogs. There are plenty of bloggers that toss out rumors like they're brainstorming. Not to say that it doesn't happen in other forms of media because it does, but I have an issue with anyone that does that. I don't care if it's a blog, paper, radio or TV station. Promoting a rumor as if it's "close" to happening is irresponsible and, often times, the rumors that are in circulation are about potential trades that were discussed and already killed 3 days prior to the report. As for this latest rumor, it's not a secret the Sox were/are legitimately interested in Adrain Gonzalez. I mentioned it a time or two over the last couple of years and I know for a fact they tried VERY hard to acquire him 4 years ago and got pretty close, actually. I think what some people disagreed with on the SoxNet report is that it seemed to have a tone of the trade being a real possibility, even though Jason couched it early by using the phrase "preliminary discussions." While I don't doubt that there were discussions, from all indications, the seriousness of those discussions were no greater than what every GM does when they ask every other GM about every other player they'd like to have. In all reality, it could be reported that the Sox have had preliminary discussions with just about every team about every superstar out there. Maybe I'm wrong for reading it that way, and I apologize if I did take it the wrong way, but that's sort of how I felt when I read it initially. I respect that the authors did some work to try and break some news and I encourage them to continue. I don't think it's totally impossible that the Sox are able to work something out for him at some point, but I wouldn't expect it. It would be incredible, though, if they do...as long as they don't have to touch the rotation or the middle infield. -Rongey