Baseball Tonight

[Gregory Pratt]

Trade what?  We traded two of our top pitching prospects just to get Thome.  We don't have anywhere near the same depth in the minors this year.  Unless you're talking about trading a guy like Contreras.

 

Yes, we very well could trade Contreras. But I'm nowhere near as concerned about Thome as so many others, since I take the position that Rob Mack could take over for him reasonably well, all things considered, and that the world wouldn't collapse.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Yes, we very well could trade Contreras. But I'm nowhere near as concerned about Thome as so many others, since I take the position that Rob Mack could take over for him reasonably well, all things considered, and that the world wouldn't collapse.

 

I'm not concerned with him, either. I have total faith and trust in Kenny and his people. They wouldn't even consider the trade if they didn't think he was 100% healthy. However, if something unfortunate were to happen, we'd be in deep dog s***. Mack is not an everyday player. And starting him everyday would considerably weaken the bench. Our best and only real trade chip would be Contreras. And quite honestly, I'm totally against trading a guy that could legitimately win the Cy-Young.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Jordan4life_2006

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm not concerned with him,  either.  I have total faith and trust in Kenny and his people.  They wouldn't even consider the trade if they didn't think he was 100% healthy.  However,  if something unfortunate were to happen,  we'd be in deep dog s***.  Mack is not an everyday player.  And starting him everyday would considerably weaken the bench.  Our best and only real trade chip would be Contreras.  And quite honestly,  I'm totally against trading a guy that could possibly win the CY-Young.

 

I don't think we should trade possible Cy Young candidates willy nilly anymore than you do, but he's excellent trade bait, especially after last season. We could give up Garland, who I think is our weakest starter (except for possibly Vazquez) or we could trade Javy. There are a variety of possibilities.

 

And, Mack might not be an everyday player, but playing the DH wouldn't be that bad for him. At other times, Gload or...heh, Borchard could spell him at DH so he could rest.

 

But even if Thome were injured and all we did was make Mack into our DH, I don't think the winds would shift in Chicago.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't think we should trade possible Cy Young candidates willy nilly anymore than you do, but he's excellent trade bait, especially after last season. We could give up Garland, who I think is our weakest starter (except for possibly Vazquez) or we could trade Javy. There are a variety of possibilities.

 

And, Mack might not be an everyday player, but playing the DH wouldn't be that bad for him. At other times, Gload or...heh, Borchard could spell him at DH so he could rest.

 

But even if Thome were injured and all we did was make Mack into our DH, I don't think the winds would shift in Chicago. 

 

Garland and Vazquez are both young and locked up for the next 3 years. No way Kenny would consider trading either one of them. It would be Contreras. And I agree that Mack would be a decent replacement in the short term. But he's not even close to being a suitable long term solution. Let's just hope that Jim is healthy, smashes 40-45 bombs and knocks in 110 runs. That would make this conversation moot.

[Gregory Pratt]

Garland and Vazquez are both young and locked up for the next 3 years.  No way Kenny would consider trading either one of them.  It would be Contreras.  And I agree that Mack would be a decent replacement in the short term.  But he's not even close to being a suitable long term solution.  Let's just hope that Jim is healthy,  smashes 40-45 bombs and knocks in 110 runs.  That would make this conversation moot.

 

Indeed, that would make this conversation moot and I join you in hoping that he's healthy and knocks the s*** out of US Cellular Park's Guests. However, I assure you that Mack would perform admirably if Jim Thome ever decided to take his wife's car and have sex in a garage with an underage girl but forget to turn the vehicle off and subsequently die.

[CWSGuy406]

Nobody's guaranteed anything, of course, but the White Sox are in good shape this year. If Thome doesn't produce, he can be replaced by Mac, who of course isn't as good as a healthy, younger Thome but he wouldn't be the death of our team.

 

I feel good about our team, and I don't think Cleveland's as strong as people make them out to be.

 

Are you freaking kidding? Mackowiak would be a worse DH than Everett was for us last year.

 

Look. I know everybody loves Mackowiak because he's a local kid a good story, but there's a reason he's a bench player. A .258/.328/.414 will NOT get it done, for any extended period of time.

[SSH2005]

If Thome gets hurt, I guess the options would be...

 

* Joe Borchard

* Ross Gload

* Bucky Jacobsen

* trade for a bat (Carl Everett?)

 

I'm assuming that both Borchard and Gload make the roster though.

Edited March 6, 2006 by SSH2005

[Gregory Pratt]

Are you freaking kidding?  Mackowiak would be a worse DH than Everett was for us last year.

 

Look.  I know everybody loves Mackowiak because he's a local kid a good story, but there's a reason he's a bench player.  A .258/.328/.414 will NOT get it done, for any extended period of time.

 

There's always Gload and the possibility of a trade. Mackowiak isn't perfect, as I've said, but he could get it done if the worst were to occur. My point has always been that Mackowiak's decent enough as to not cripple us if Thome died of carbon monoxide poisoning during a romantic rendezvous with an underage girl.

 

Besides that, we could make a trade. Which brings us to,

 

If Thome gets hurt, I guess the options would be...

 

*  Joe Borchard

*  Ross Gload

*  Bucky Jacobsen

*  trade for a bat (Carl Everett?)

 

I'm assuming that both Borchard and Gload make the roster though.

 

I'm sure we could pick up Everett. But Thome's going to be fine.

[witesoxfan]

But even if Thome were injured and all we did was make Mack into our DH, I don't think the winds would shift in Chicago. 

 

In Chicago? No

 

In the AL Central? You bet your ass they would

[Gregory Pratt]

In Chicago? No

 

In the AL Central?  You bet your ass they would

 

No, I don't bet my ass that they would. The winds wouldn't shift in the AL Central. We're a solid team without Thome. Oh, to have him and have him healthy is divine, but losing him isn't the worst that could happen.

[WCSox]

The Sox matched up much better with the Angels, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. 

 

I wouldn't say that. Just about anybody matches up well against Yankees pitching and I'm sure that the Sox would've hit them VERY hard in the ALCS. On the other hand, Anaheim's (or LA's or wherever they claim residence now) pitching was rock-solid last season. If Colon hadn't gone down, the Sox very well may have not made it to the WS.

[Balta1701]

I wouldn't say that.  Just about anybody matches up well against Yankees pitching and I'm sure that the Sox would've hit them VERY hard in the ALCS.  On the other hand, Anaheim's (or LA's or wherever they claim residence now) pitching was rock-solid last season.  If Colon hadn't gone down, the Sox very well may have not made it to the WS.

Colon couldn't have won them 3 more games. And the Sox lost Ervin Santana's start in place of Colon, IIRC.

[WCSox]

Colon couldn't have won them 3 more games.  And the Sox lost Ervin Santana's start in place of Colon, IIRC.

 

The Sox lost to Byrd in Game 1. And they were damn lucky to escape with a "W" in Game 2. A healthy Colon could've pitched two additional games in that series.

[witesoxfan]

I wouldn't say that.  Just about anybody matches up well against Yankees pitching and I'm sure that the Sox would've hit them VERY hard in the ALCS.  On the other hand, Anaheim's (or LA's or wherever they claim residence now) pitching was rock-solid last season.  If Colon hadn't gone down, the Sox very well may have not made it to the WS.

 

I don't believe the second sentence at all. Had you said Red Sox, then I would agree.

 

RJ was running out of gas towards the end, and that was fairly apparent, but that doesn't stop him from being able to be dominant like he has shown in the past. Mussina has been in the same boat as Johnson over the past couple years, but he too can be, at the very least, a very solid pitcher for a team and will win games. Chacon had been throwing the hell out of the ball as well, and threw a very good game in the most important game of the series at that point for New York in game 4. This is not mentioning Small, who had been very solid all year for the Yanks, as well as the Gordon-Rivera punch at the end of the pen.

 

Had the Sox taken their pitching staff lightly, they would have lost.

 

I looked at the matchups prior to the ALCS, both with the Yanks and the Angels - it was quite apparent to me that the Sox had a deeper and better rotation and bullpen than Anaheim, and the offenses were pretty much equal. The Sox rotation and pen were in even better shape against the Yanks, but their offense is explosive enough that they can put up 5 runs at any given time and not look back. With Garcia and Buehrle, two pitchers prone to giving up the longball, I thought that looked a little unfavorable. Garland too has a tendency to give up the long ball from time to time, and so you could have been playing with fire had the Yanks advanced.

 

I didn't like the Yankees matchup at all going in, and I personally am happy that the Sox did not have to face New York.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 06:52 PM)

Colon couldn't have won them 3 more games.  And the Sox lost Ervin Santana's start in place of Colon, IIRC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sox lost to Paul Pyrd.

[WCSox]

I don't believe the second sentence at all.  Had you said Red Sox, then I would agree.

 

RJ was running out of gas towards the end, and that was fairly apparent, but that doesn't stop him from being able to be dominant like he has shown in the past.  Mussina has been in the same boat as Johnson over the past couple years, but he too can be, at the very least, a very solid pitcher for a team and will win games.  Chacon had been throwing the hell out of the ball as well, and threw a very good game in the most important game of the series at that point for New York in game 4.  This is not mentioning Small, who had been very solid all year for the Yanks, as well as the Gordon-Rivera punch at the end of the pen. 

 

Had the Sox taken their pitching staff lightly, they would have lost.

 

I looked at the matchups prior to the ALCS, both with the Yanks and the Angels - it was quite apparent to me that the Sox had a deeper and better rotation and bullpen than Anaheim, and the offenses were pretty much equal.  The Sox rotation and pen were in even better shape against the Yanks, but their offense is explosive enough that they can put up 5 runs at any given time and not look back.  With Garcia and Buehrle, two pitchers prone to giving up the longball, I thought that looked a little unfavorable.  Garland too has a tendency to give up the long ball from time to time, and so you could have been playing with fire had the Yanks advanced. 

 

I didn't like the Yankees matchup at all going in, and I personally am happy that the Sox did not have to face New York.

 

Johnson and Mussina combined for three miserable performances in the ALDS, which pretty much sealed NY's fate. Even solid performances by their younger pitchers (Ming, Small, Chacon) would've had minimal impact, given that Torre would've gone with his veterans first. Unless Gordon could've pitched three innings of mop-up duty per night (along with an inning from Rivera), Yankees pitching wouldn't have stood a chance against the Sox, who were offensively-superior to the slumping Angels squad that tatooed Johnson and Mussina. I respect what the Yankees can do at the plate, but I seriously doubt that they would've done a significant amount of damage against Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, etc. And even if they did some damage, Randy, Moose, or one of their sub-par middle-relievers would've coughed up the lead.

 

I also disagree that the Sox had more depth in their 'pen than Anaheim. IMO, Anaheim's squad of Shields, Donnelly, Escobar, Peralta, and K-Rod was superior to our 'pen of Cotts, Politte, El Duque, Marte, an injured an ineffective Hermanson, and an inexperienced Jenks. Hell, we didn't even have an established closer going into the playoffs! The difference, of course, was that our bullpen played better when it counted. I truly believe that the two best teams in the league played in the ALCS, with the Angels perhaps being the favorites because they'd pretty much owned us for the past three or four years. One could argue that with a healthy Colon, they may have even beat us. But, again, the Sox played better when it counted. I respect what the Yankees have done in the playoffs in recent years, but pitching is what matters in the postseason. Nobody with the '05 Yankees rotation and bullpen was going to win a pennant.

 

I agree that the Sox had the deeper rotation than Anaheim, though. Even with Colon, I still liked our starters over theirs.

Edited March 7, 2006 by WCSox