Ranger

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 12:48 AM) Theirs is just as good as ours right now. We have the better rotation and bullpen, but they have one hell of an offense. I'd say that our starting pitching is one tier better and our bullpen is one tier better. But their offense is somewhere near the likes of Boston and New York while we'll hover near the middle of the AL. And that may just be good enough to win this division. QUOTE (balfanman @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 07:17 AM) I don't think that the Rays have an "enormous" edge on us defensively. I know that it's wrong to compare our defensive prowess to recent Sox teams because frankly, we haven't been very good. The 2010 Sox may not be the best team in the league defensively, but we are vastly improved in this area and I think that we will end up being above average overall. JMHO. Yeah, I'm not sure it's going to be "enormous" either. There is no reason the sox can't have a good defense. QUOTE (jamesdiego @ Apr 7, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) This thread gives me a boner. And I'm not talking about the mere mention of Kotsay's wife. But if us mortals on a message board can figure this out, than I'm sure there are people getting in Ozzie's ear about this. Rios to 5, and play Jones over Kotsay damn it I'd guarantee you that Ozzie has gone over it 1,000 times more than any of us have. And I would put down money that he would prefer to hit Rios 5th but is somewhat handcuffed by the LRLR thing, which is something ALL managers pay attention to. Like I said before, the Sox biggest issue in this regard is that none of the LHH's are very strong.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) Yes, but no. I would really like somebody like Cust in this lineup, a power lefty bat who can DH and platoon with Jones. Let's all hope that Mark Kotsay sucks enough for KW to pull the trigger somehow. I can't understand ever wanting a Sox player to "suck". If he didn't suck to begin with, there would be no need to replace him in the first place. QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 10:20 AM) Ignore my AGon posts and a serious question. Is Cust the type of bat Walker can maybe tweak to lower the K rate or is he too far gone in his swinging tendancies that he is a lost cause? It takes more than tweaking to turn a high-K hitter into a low-K one. It's probably a lost cause, especially if you want to keep the power.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 07:18 PM) You're going to drive me nuts with this line Ranger. Sorry, friend, but it's the truth and it's a valid argument. It won't make or break them at the end of the year. You can come back in 6 months and prove me wrong should it go the other way, but I'm pretty confident in this. And this idea that we shouldn't "accept mediocrity" is what obviously drives the groaning about it. Fine, nobody likes mediocrity. But we should accept reality and understand that it is nearly impossible to have quality at every single position on a basbeall team. There isn't a single team in the game that is set at every position, including some of the important positions. Not a single one. The reality is that if a team does not have Yankees resources, they have try to be as strong as they can in as many areas as they can, while knowing they can't be great at everything. Obviously, the Twins offense is something to envy, but I promise you they'd love to have the Sox pitching staff from top to bottom. Of course the Sox would have a better chance to win the division and beyond if Mark Kotsay wasn't hitting 5th, but the Twins would also have a better chance at the division if Scott Baker wasn't their opening day starter.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 05:31 PM) The difference of course is that AJ is the C and Kotsay is the DH. I expect far greater production out of the DH. He was a vaulable player when he could play above average CF. He can't do that anymore and he should be a role player. He has no business being a DH. He has no business being a starting player and he has no business batting 5th. That is a completely different argument. Positions on the field are irrelevant in determining positions in the lineup. I seriously think we need to stop overvaluing this DH thing, I do not believe it will make or break them.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 08:22 AM) Eh, I really doubt he was. The only thing a kevlar vest is going to stop is a smaller handgun. A rifle will go through kevlar like butter, so will a lot of larger caliber guns that the type of person (asshat nutbar) willing to assassinate someone in public would probably use. That's probably exactly what they would be worried about. I doubt they'd be so much worried about sniper rifles from the stands as they would be about a nutjob that manages to get close enough.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 02:29 PM) Like it or not, there's logic to breaking up the RH hitters. Beckham, Quentin, Konerko, Rios all in a row, followed by Jones/Kotsay, AJ, Teahen, and Ramirez...if you don't break them up, you're setting yourself up to be hurt in the 8th and 9th innings by LOOGY and ROOGY people. That's not just for the heart of the order too...yes, Quentin and others have splits that say they hit RHP fine...but there's always going to be an occasional RHP, say a side-armer or sommething like that, which you can pull out of a hat to frustrate those guys, and if you don't break them up you're giving away innings. The ideal solution is to get an .800 OPS out of Teahen. If he can do that, he can fit in that 5th spot and not be a hole. Otherwise, I'll live with Kotsay until it's May and hes hitting .220. If he can hit .300 out of that spot, even if he does so with no power, at least he breaks everything up. Reasonable. QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) If Ozzie and Hawk can be blinded by Kotsay mania, I'm sure that some may be blinded by his hot wife or the perception that he used to be a good hitter with a good glove. Your mistake is in assuming that people that can make a case for having him hit 5th is the same as them having some sort of "Kotsay-mania". The argument above is a valid one. You can pretty much guarantee that just about every game, the LRLR matchup is going to matter late in the game unless it's a blowout or some pitcher is throwing a complete game, which doesn't happen much anymore. The real issue is that none of the left-handed hitters on the roster are all that fearsome (although Teahen has the best potential to improve and be that), so it's a pretty good idea to separate them as best as can be done. QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 6, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) You can get that out of A.J. He actually hits for more power than Kotsay too. He really doesn't. They are very, very similar hitters in terms of production.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 11:54 PM) All of them wore Washington Senators jackets? I misread it. Maybe lostfan was trying to say that it's tradition to wear something (cap, jacket, etc.) of the team in whose park they're throwing out the first pitch.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 10:03 PM) How can it a tradition when the team is only like three years old? It was a tradition because every President from Taft to Nixon threw out a first pitch in Washington at some point (while there was a team there). Obviously, they Senators left in the 70s and now the tradition has picked back up with the Nationals.

QUOTE (SockMe @ Apr 5, 2010 -> 11:21 PM) die hard lol didn't he call the old stadium ComiNskey? Why would anybody question this? And, quite honestly, why would anyone care if he is a die hard or if he just likes them a little bit? The fact is that the President of the United States publicly, and repeatedly, says he's a Sox fan and wears Sox gear any chance he gets...even in opposing parks. Just be happy with it because it may never happen again.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 29, 2010 -> 06:54 AM) I agree with you. This is a White Sox fan message board. I really don't think anyone on here really wants anybody to be bad just so they can say I told you so. I'm pretty sure we would all like the Sox to go 173-0 this year. Different opinions spark discussion. If everyone thought the exact same way it would be a pretty boring board. Besides if there is some zero sum game as Ranger suggests, there's also the I told you so the other way. It doesn't really go the other way, because I don't feel that way at all. I think there are plenty of people that always automatically assume the negative and take some sort of pride in being right about something going badly, only to be able to also get to celebrate with everyone else if things go well. My apologies if that's not true for you, but don't think there aren't a lot of people like that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) Then this should never have come up in the first place. I know.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 07:05 PM) Um, I have a feeling that what ozzie could consider a success for kotsay at third would not match up with what reasonable production for batting third would be. If he's batting .280 with horrible power in that position i'm sure ozzie would keep him there. You're sure about that, are you? So, you're saying that if Quentin is hitting close to .300, is getting on base, and has 6 or 7 HRs in April, Ozzie would still bat Kotsay third in your scenario? I really hope you know better than that.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Mar 28, 2010 -> 01:22 PM) It's amazing how quickly we've made the transition from the 2009 "Your Love" White Sox to the 2010 "If Wishes were Horses" White Sox. Maybe if I close my eyes and chant "Ozzie" three times fast we can bat Omar Vizquel leadoff with Kyle McCulloch pitching opening day. Your problem is that you are equating my saying the Kotsay-batting-third reaction is an overreaction to some sort of hyperoptimistic view of the team. I didn't say that, and I said nothing like that. What I said was that there is no need to overreact to what Ozzie said and I gave three good reasons why we shouldn't. If Ozzie does, in fact, decide to bat Kotsay third to start the season (which I kind of doubt), it isn't going to last very long and I don't think it's going to cost them anything. You're acting as if Ozzie is going to put him there, he's going to fail miserabely, but Ozzie is going to keep him there for the entire season anyway. That, I can guarantee you, is NOT going to happen. What I don't have a problem with is if the manager decides to take advantage of the guy that's hot and see if that carries over into the season, if for just a bit. And if it doesn't work, he'll abandon it quickly. Look, I don't think Kotsay will hit like this in the regular season, but there is also no guarantee that he is NOT going to start off hot. The baseball season is a LONG one, and teams try out a lot of things over the course of a year. I will be shocked, absolutely shocked, if Mark Kotsay costs the Sox the division because he was batting third. That's all. But, let me reiterate once again, that I don't think he's going to hit there in the first place.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) Well, I am saying that his numbers MAY transfer directly. I did note that more than likely he will end up being a solid bench bat. What I am saying is, if he's hot, use him until he's not. Let's just hope that Ozzie realizes when he's not hot anymore. Don't use reason around these parts, son.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 11:49 PM) You’re operating under the assumption that his spring training numbers are going to transfer directly into the regular season. This is almost certainly not going to be the case, and if it is it likely won’t last. His career numbers are trending downward, his split stats tend to agree with the theory that this is a terrible idea. If this doesn’t work, we can move him, that’s all well and good. But the implications of this not working are us losing a couple of games that we shouldn’t have lost. That doesn’t sit well with me. Nobody said they were going to transfer directly. But you can't be certain that they won't, at least for a short time. Obviously, the likelihood is that he is not going to hit .420 this year. But, if he happens to carry that over into the season for a couple of weeks, there wouldn't be any harm in him batting 3rd for those couple of weeks. And even if they try to ride the hot hand of a short period, and he does not hit well for that short period, he's probably not going to cost them 2 games. I think you're putting too much weight on it. QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 08:28 AM) While I generally agree with you Mr. Rongey, have we really reached the point where we find it acceptable for Ozzie to try any cockamamie idea he might come up with just because if it ultimately fails, he will be forced to correct it? What is the cost of all the failed experiments in the first place? And does the success rate of said experiences justify the continued experimentation? Is it acceptable for Ozzie to bat Pierre in the clean-up spot because ultimately it will prove ineffective and therefore will eventually be corrected? See above. QUOTE (GREEDY @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 07:41 PM) I am generally a Kotsay supporter (playing RF against RH SP).... BUT How is this possibly acceptable: You cannot bat a 34 year old guy with a career OPS of .750, third in an American League lineup, and expect anything but failure, so why bat him there in the first place? So.... basically you are saying that if your first two points fail to defend Ozzie's case for batting Kotsay third, it really doesn't matter because Ozzie didn't mean what he said? I believe my rational thinking is pretty self explanatory. All I did is give you 3 reasons not to freak the F out about this whole thing. All of them are certainly valid. Again, see above.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) At the end of the day, I think I just wasted 15 minutes of my life with this post because I think Ozzie's just bored of Spring Training and just spewing random BS ideas rather than actually thinking about what he says (though I sometimes think he never thinks about what he says). Somebody else here wrote something along these lines that I think is the most important thought in this entire thread. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to go find it, but: Why is anyone freaking about this? Two things about this are true...just think about it: 1) If Kotsay is batting third, and he fails there, they aren't going to keep him there and he will have a pretty short leash. and 2) If Kotsay is batting third, and he stays there, that means he's hitting really well. In which case, why would anyone complain about a number 3 hitter that's tearing the cover off the ball? But really, the most likely truth is: 3) Kotsay really isn't going to bat third and Ozzie doesn't mean what he's saying. And even if Kotsay does bat third, it will hardly ever happen. At any rate, none of those three are worth getting worked up over.

QUOTE (Ultimate Warrior @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 02:34 AM) You don't think we could have afforded Jack Cust's $2.65 million dollar contract? Russell Branyan was pretty cheap too. Look at Thome. Ozzie said he would love to have him, but would barely be able to find him any at bats, due to his brain dead rotating DH idea. There were plenty of cheaper, MUCH better alternatives to what we have now. KW gave Ozzie exactly what he wanted, and that was talent lacking "grinders" like Omar Vizquel and Mark Kotsay. We could have used the money we spent on them to sign Cust or Branyan, or possibly even matched the Tigers offer to Damon with the extra couple million we would save. Cust and Branyan? Really? Just grabbing at straws there. If we're looking for serious improvement over what the Sox currently have, those two guys are not it. QUOTE (T R U @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 03:26 AM) There was no way they were going to pay Damon as much as the Tigers paid for him.. I also even question how serious they were in bringing Damon in.. And either way, Vizquel and Kotsay are making this roster so if we don't sign them and use that extra money to sign Damon who is going to fill those two spots? Cust is the exact same player as Thome, low BA high OBP and power.. they didn't want Thome anymore, why would they bring in the same type of player? Branyan doesn't solve any problems for us either, so your plan for us is no better than whats going on anyways.. They were very serious. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) I guarantee you, if Jones and Kotsay falter for the first 2 months and we're still in the thick of things you'll see a big lefty bat acquired to take over that role. Keep an eye on Lance Berkman and how he bounces back from knee surgery, that guy makes a ton of sense. I'm not sure about Berkman, but your point is correct. If they don't like it, they will do something about it as long as it isn't ridiculous. QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) I'm seriously tired of all these crazy lineup antics. If our offense blows hard, I'm saying it's Ozzie's fault for batting Mark Kotsay third and DHing Omar Vizquel. Even when that might not be the complete downfall of the offense. Guess you missed that post I made a few back.

QUOTE (Ultimate Warrior @ Mar 25, 2010 -> 01:47 AM) And you probably could find a ton of managers who could win more games with the sox talent that they could have had. Ozzie shaped this team with his BS rotating DH idea. As much as i want the sox to win, i don't see us winning a title with this lineup. We could have had a much better team had we signed somebody like Jack Cust or Nick Johnson, easily. Instead we get a bunch of grindy bench players who Ozzie "loves" that are going to be playing as the DH. No, the lineup is as such because they couldn't find an alternative they liked better at a price that suits them. The understanding here is that they (KW) are willing to go into the season with this lineup, but they would prefer something more concrete. The evidence of that is the push they made for Damon. If they could've signed him, they would have. They didn't let him go to Detroit because Ozzie wants the team as is. They let him go to Detroit because they couldn't sign him.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) To me Ozzie is both irreplacable but also replaceable. Let me explain: There is nobody that could replace Ozzie in terms of fan adoration, publicity and outrageousness. Sadly, the Sox do get a lot of their national media attention, whether for good or bad, because of something contreversial or funny Ozzie said. You will never be able to replace the personality of Ozzie. Managerial-wise, Ozzie isn't a Bobby Cox, Torre, La Russa or Gardenhire in my mind, so in that respect, I think you could find an alternative to Guillen who will roughly win the same amount of games with the Sox talent. But there is something to be said for having Ozzie and the national attention he brings along. I am in the group that says other. I think this year is big, but not monumental. If this year's team, with the losses that Minny and Detroit have incurred since last year, fails to win, I have no problem putting Ozzie on the hot seat for 2011, making that year make or break. I think Gardenhire and Torre are good managers, but I think they're sometimes dramatically overrated by the folks here. Especially Gardy. He's good, don't get me wrong, but that major league club is more a product of the organization from the bottom-up than it is a product of him. The players like him, and that's part of it, but the guy almost never has to worry about who he inserts into the lineup. Even their "bums" are capable of getting it done. And Torre was not considered one of the best managers in the game until he went to New York. He managed for the first time in the late 70's, but didn't have a 90-win season until the Yankees hired him. So, what was the difference? How about some excellent talent. Don't you find it striking that he was a big league manager for all (or parts) of 15 seasons, but wins the World Series in his first year in NY, then goes on to win 3 more there? I mean, would he really do any better with this Sox club? A manager is pretty much at the mercy of his players. I think it's just a matter of the-grass-is-always-greener. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 03:53 PM) If we are talking about non-pitchers with shoulder problems (because I imagine we'd hear about shoulder problems with pitchers), I would guess one of them is Quentin. I would imagine it's uncomfortable to play with, but I also would imagine it's not completely intolerable. Quentin was actually not one of the guys I was talking about. It's not something to worry about, but it's a reason to cut some of these guys a break (and cut Ozzie a break) when they are missing from the lineup. QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 05:42 PM) Good points. I need to start considering your point about days off and how players do apparently hide their injuries. I wonder how many teams do the Sunday lineup thing? Just asking. I don't really know. I know a lot of games last year, in our game threads, somebody would post the lineup and a lot of people automatically assumed a loss, which happened seemingly a lot. I hope this year we go for the jugular if we happen to win the first two games of a three-game series. I think people automatically assumed a loss for just about every lineup they put out there. You don't have to take my word for it, so take a look around baseball at daily lineups. You'll notice for teams that don't have supreme talent (like you-know-who) there are a lot of lineup alterations from day-to-day. This isn't just an Ozzie Guillen thing.

QUOTE (chisoxfan09 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 09:23 PM) ST or not, the Sox have been mired in major offensive suckage the last 2 games. At least Teahen got 1 of the four hits. Sorry the run scored was un-earned and I can't put those nightmare lack of effort/offense 10 shutouts out of my head from last year. Especially to AAA rejects. You should probably learn to seperate the two. Plus, different season, different lineup. QUOTE (11and1 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) As I said elsewhere, I was referring to the extension Teahen received after the trade. Don't see how my comments on Teahen's disappointing spring, nor my response to the assertion that he's a great "minor league" player, in any way "demonizes" him. All I said was I think he's been mediocre as a major league player. Maybe that makes him a mediocre demon....bottom line is he needs to be at least solid for this team to succeed. No one will be happier than me if he lights it up starting April 5th. Not sure if you meant it to sound that way, but this is the old No-Lose Proposition: you get to say you think a guy isn't very good, but you will be happy if he does. That way if he stinks, you get to say " I told ya so," but if he's good, you get to be happy he was good. Now, I think Teahen will be serviceable at the very least and I think the new situation should end up helping him (this is a much different situation than it was for him in KC). I also think it is FAR too early to say they've overpaid for him. He's making less than $4 mil this year and when the contract is in its final year (2 years from now) he'll only be making $5.5 mil. that really isn't much at all. Oh, and he hasn't even played a single regular season game for them yet.

QUOTE (Hawkfan @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) I've heard some news that makes it sound like Ozzie could be out of favor in the organization, which shocked me, so I just thought I would get the overall opinion of soxtalk. He's not going anywhere. And if he does: QUOTE (gatnom @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 12:06 AM) He may be controversial, but I think he's still "their guy." There are really only two ways I see Ozzie leaving this organization: either he randomly becomes completely incompetent (not going to happen) or he leaves on his own free will. That. QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 10:35 PM) More often than not, his bad managerial decisions piss me off. But then when I think about what other managers might do...Ozzie doesn't seem so bad. After all, going from Manual to Guillen is a good switch. In reality, it is not hard to make in game decisions as a manager. Play who's hot, play the splits, and don't be stupid. Its keeping guys loose and working together as a team that matters. Supposedly Guillen does that well, I guess. For some reason, some people have this perception of Ozzie that he makes these extraordinarily ridiculous lineup and bullpen decisions. The problem with that thought is that it just isn't true. Ozzie is, actually, a fairly standard game manager. The managing of the lineups isn't as crazy as people like to think, either. LOTS of managers do the same lineup jumble that Ozzie does (just take a look at some of Leyland's lineups, for example) and he primarily does it when the lineup is struggling or when guys need rest. And I know there are people here that simply cannot grasp the concept of professional ballplayers needing a day of rest here and there, but it's absolutely true. Part of the reason is that a lot of these guys have some health issues that none of you will ever hear about. I can tell you that there are at least two guys that are tremendously important to this team that have nagging shoulder problems. Naturally, they will get days off even when it seems to the fans like they shouldn't. Honestly, I think the issue for Ozzie might be (for some people, anyway) that Ozzie isn't always very good at getting his point across in english, so people automatically think he's a baseball idiot. Which he clearly is not. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) That's because they WERE pitching BP, they were getting reps in working with certain pitches and focusing not on results, but mechanics. And the offense is still warming up. The season may or may not go badly, but you are putting far too much weight on ST results. Basically. Like I said the other day, Peavy was throwing almost nothing but fastballs in his last start.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 01:14 PM) A lot will depend on their record, but my wish is that they have a short leash with Pierre. You can put up with a .334 from Cabrera because he played short. Pierre has got to be '05 Podsednik at the start and the team has to get off to a very good start. That has nothing to do with the lineup. If .330 is acceptable for a leadoff hitter, it doesn't make a bit of difference if the leadoff hitter plays LF or SS.

QUOTE (11and1 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 09:55 PM) I've always seen Teahen as mediocre talent who happened to have great games against the Sox. I never like trades for "Sox-killers", as they tend to keep on killing the Sox by under-performing. I'm not worried about his ST performance--I'm worried that even if he matches his career bests this season he will still be nothing more than OK. Rios has been a major disappointment, but if he can even approach his career stats he will be a huge asset for this club. Teahen doesn't have the same kind of upside. Having said that, we paid too much for both of them... Not if they play to their reasonable capabilities. They will earn their salaries if that's the case. QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:43 PM) Peavy got lit up today, gets me thinking about how nice it would be to have ol' CR/AP back I'm assuming you don't really mean that. By the way, Peavy got 'lit up" because he was throwing fastballs almost exclusively today.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) Finding an adequate OF is a lot easier than finding a front line starter, no matter how good your rotation currently is. If as KW said, the White Sox would have had the best rotation of all time, I think that's more preferrable than Rios in the OF and the current rotation, even though it looks pretty, pretty good, especially if the plan is not to use Rios in CF full time. But they didn't need a starter. They needed a CF. If finding a good CF was so damned easy, they wouldn't have gone 3 years without one. QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 06:12 PM) Seems like no one ever wants to come right out and say the PK contract was a mistake. There are so many ways to spend $ at that position. If it was a less popular player, many would here be saying that deal cost us a second championship. That's because it wasn't a mistake. They paid less-than-market value for a popular, productive player (who, by the way, had a very good first year of that contract). The rightful expectation on the part of the White Sox was that he would have 3 good years of production (until he turned 33) before he began to naturally decline, but would still have fairly productive seasons in the final two years of the deal. That's the way deals work: teams often sign good players to multi-year deals with the knowledge there will be some dropoff by the final years of that contract. That's the price of dealing on the open market for desirable players. What could not have been foreseen is the dramatic decline in '07 and '08. There was no way to see that coming, and it would've been impossible to predict. The flipside is that the organization can say "we don't give out long term contracts, ever." To which fans would complain about that too. That's quite a hell of a leap to suggest signing Konerko cost them a championship. If signing him to that deal was a dumb mistake, then you may as well call the Angels dumb, too.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 02:49 AM) The issue is for Rios was that it's bsaically the 2nd season in a row his OPS has fallen (albeit the 2nd was more dramatic). Can he turn it around? Absolutely, he's hitting in a very good ballpark power wise. I'm one of those who doubt he'll ever reach an OPS above .850 (what he was basically averaging in his prime years in Toronto) again though. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) Rios has been trending down ever since he signed his extension. KW told Garfien he had a pitcher but couldn't agree to an extension. That pitcher supposedly was Roy Halladay. The $60 million Rios eats up probably would have help with the extension part. Maybe not. I'm certainly not going to get too excited by a few spring training AB and determine he's back and better than ever. I still have what many scounts have offered, that he doesn't seem to care since he signed that contract, in the front of my mind. He and Jones will have to perform well when the games count and the pitchers who deserve to be on a MLB mound will be on the mound using their entire aresenal, and although I don't think much of Teahan, its the same way with him. These outs and errors don't mean squat. The games don't count. I think everyone should be reminded Wilson Betemit hit 6 homers and had 18 rbi for the Sox in spring training last year. It doesn't count. To say "trending down" isn't really fair, because it misrepresents his game. Yeah, he trended down, but not in the way you mean it. You say it as if there was something alarming about the difference between his 2006 and 2007 (which you would have to include in your 'trending down' time period), which, really, there wasn't. The two seasons were basically the same, though some of the numbers were slightly -- and I do mean slightly, as in "unnoticeably" -- lower. In 2008 there was some significance, and last year was anomalous. He won't do that again unless he's hurt. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Alex Rios' contract has no merit? I just stated facts. KW said he had a trade for a pitcher that could have made his rotation the best ever. He said they ran into a problem with an extension. These are facts. I said not having to owe $60 million to Rios probably would have helped with the extension. I also said maybe not, because it may not have been the extension. Perhaps Halladay or whoever it was just said no. IIRC, Halladay has a NTC. I also love how you rip me for speculating, then speculate yourself. As for spending, the White Sox have recently spent a lot more money on starting pitching if you break it down $/player than any other position. 2006 the only 2 players on the roster being paid more than the 5 starters were Thome and half of his salary was being paid by Philadelphia, and Konerko who was a post season star for a championship team. Konerko at that stage was owed about the same as Rios is right now. If KW was at least semi- prepared to make a deal with Halladay or whatever pitcher it was that was going to make his rotation the best of all-time in his words, I'm sure he knew it would cost a pretty penny not only prospect-wise, but money-wise as well. Adrian Gonzalez, if the Sox somehow get him, is going to be just as expensive, if not more if they want to extend him. Rios has a lot to live up to. Paying someone $60 million for 5 years is expecting he will perform a lot better than an average player. He needs to be better than the "well he's better than Dewayne Wise" thoughts. I don't see where 25 or so spring training ABs shows he's ready to live up to his end of the deal. I hope he does, but nothing has been answered yet. I'd bet the ranch if he was placed on waivers, he wouldn't be claimed. If he was making $1 million a year, he most certainly would be claimed. His contract has plenty of merit. OK, but then they would be without a center fielder. On a team with an already strong rotation, an outfielder was a more desperate need. QUOTE (Kalapse @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 11:44 AM) Semantics. You see a .670 OPS from a 28 year old $70M, 3 hole hitter as "subpar" while in my world .750 would be subpar. Semantics? Yes. Words matter, friend, and your hyperbole was misleading. There is a difference between "awful" and "subpar". Hitting .150 is "awful". Hitting .250 with a low OBP is ""subpar".