RME JICO Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Here is the Offseason rankings from Hardball Times. I thought the rankings were pretty funny. Otherwise the assessments are pretty much online with others I have read. I just don't see how some of the other teams got ranked so high based off their written assessments. Best Offseason (Top 10) 1. LA Dodgers 2. NY Yankees 3. Oakland A's 4. Boston Red Sox 5. Chicago White Sox 6. Cleveland Indians 7. NY Mets 8. Toronto Blue Jays 9. Arizona Diamondbacks 10. Minnesota Twins 5. Chicago White Sox The thing I like about the White Sox offseason is that they didn't decide to just play it safe, keep the team that won the World Series the same and hope to catch lightning in a bottle two years in a row. The front office probably realized that while they had a good team last year, they also had some things break right for them without which they might not have even made the playoffs. Rather than relying on those things to happen again, they decided to take some chances and see if they can become an even better team and one that's less reliant on good fortune. Basically, their offseason comes down to hoping for rebound years from Javier Vazquez and Jim Thome, and relying on Brian Anderson to be ready to play center field. Thome was obviously terrible last year, but he had 10 consecutive years before that with production ranging from good to MVP-caliber. He could easily become the best hitter on this team if he's healthy and back in form. To get him, the White Sox gave up Aaron Rowand, Dan Haigwood and Gio Gonzalez (and got some cash back). They were able to give up Rowand (an excellent defensive center fielder) because they think Anderson's ready. Anderson is 24 years old and spent last season hitting .295/.360/.469 in Triple-A before a cup of coffee in Chicago. If he can top the .270/.329/.407 line that Rowand put up and play solid defense, then the White Sox essentially got Thome for a couple of nice left-handed pitching prospects. Vazquez is an even better risk because he showed some signs of bouncing back from his 2004 disaster with the Yankees last year, and they only gave up one prospect (Young) to get him, in addition to decent reliever Vizcaino and continuously injured starter Hernandez. Vazquez gives the White Sox five pitchers who are capable of throwing 200 innings of above average baseball, with Brandon McCarthy waiting in the wings. Other than that, the White Sox gave Paul Konerko $60 million for five years. That's too much, but they almost had to keep him because he was easily the best hitter on a team that wasn't very good offensively. They also gave reasonable three-year deals to Jon Garland ($29 million) and A.J. Pierzynski ($15 million), and traded Damaso Marte for useful utility player Rob Mackowiak. After this offseason, the White Sox could realistically either win the World Series again or not even make the playoffs. Either way, I like the fact that they were aggressive in trying to defend their title. You don't get many chances to win back-to-back championships. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...ings-top-third/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Yankees at #2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 bosox at #4? my ass!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 The Reds at #30 ?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I'm glad they liked the Sox' offseason moves (as did I), but I am beyond tired of hearing this "lightning in a bottle" garbage. These baseball "analysts" just can't accept that maybe sometimes, teams are better (or worse) than their almighty stats tell them they are. Maybe, just maybe, the stats out there today can't tell you everything about a team. And maybe some numbers are more important than they give them credit for. The Sox were in first the entire freakin' season last year, and went 11-1 in the postseason. These "gurus" can stick that bottle up their collective arses, along with the arrogance they can't get past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 It seems like every year they pick the Dogers as having the best offseason or team to beat, and every year there mediocre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Dodgers at #1 is a joke. Yankees at 2 is homerism, and Red Sox that high is downright retarded. Its time for people to wake the f*** up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 And here is his article from last year. 14. Chicago White Sox Trading Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik wasn't real smart because Podsednik's just not as good an offensive player. But Podsednik shouldn't be terrible either. He only had a .313 OBP last year, but it was .379 the year before. I think he'll regain some of the lost ground this season. And while stealing bases isn't tremendously important, Podsednik is very good at it, with an 83 percent success rate in his career. Other than that trade, the White Sox made pretty much only smart or low-risk moves. They gave about $10 million over two years to Jermaine Dye, who's not that good a hitter any more, but will at least give them some power to help offset the loss of Lee. They gave $5.5 million over two years to Dustin Hermanson. Hermanson isn't a great pitcher, but that's not much money for a pitcher who could be above average either as a reliever or a starter. They picked up A.J. Pierzynski for $2.25 million, which is a pretty good deal for a catcher who should be in the top half of the league offensively. They gave two years and $8 million plus incentives to Orlando Hernandez, who should be a solid starter if he's healthy and won't cost them a ton of money if he's not. And they took a two-year, $5-million flier on Japanese import Tadahito Iguchi, who should team with Juan Uribe to give Chicago a pretty solid middle infield. If all of their signings work out, the White Sox will have a shot at winning the division. If none of the signings work out, they'll probably finish fourth, but at least they didn't spend a ton of money doing it and they gave themselves a chance to contend. It wasn't a great offseason by any means, but it wasn't bad either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAFTR Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I'd agree with last year's offseason ranking. Obviously in hindsight it is much higher, but his analysis is right. Low risk moves outside of the Podsednik trade. Just as important as the 05 offseason moves was the development of McCarthy, Garland, Cotts, Politte & Jenks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) And here is his article from last year. 14. Chicago White Sox Trading Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik wasn't real smart because Podsednik's just not as good an offensive player. But Podsednik shouldn't be terrible either. He only had a .313 OBP last year, but it was .379 the year before. I think he'll regain some of the lost ground this season. And while stealing bases isn't tremendously important, Podsednik is very good at it, with an 83 percent success rate in his career. Yeah, stealing bases isn't important at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Lol. WOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I'd agree with last year's offseason ranking. Obviously in hindsight it is much higher, but his analysis is right. Low risk moves outside of the Podsednik trade. Just as important as the 05 offseason moves was the development of McCarthy, Garland, Cotts, Politte & Jenks. The asessment of each move wasn't bad, but there was no way we were going to finish behind the Tigers considering how poor their pitching staff was/is. I didn't even think Cleveland made that much sense given the state of their pitching at the time, but they obviously put together a good year, with virtually every player exceeding expectations (Westbrook was below, Hafner and Martinez were probably about right, although it's debateable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I'll save everyone a little reading and provide you with the executive summary of the Cubs write-up. "The first problem..." "Even worse ..." "...which basically means there's no hope for Cubs fans...." "...isn't what you'd call good..." "...who was terrible last year ..." "...this will almost certainly look like a bad contract." "...a little risky..." "...several injury problems,..." "...he'll certainly exercise if he stinks...." "But that's a lot of ifs that have to go their way." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I'd agree with last year's offseason ranking. Obviously in hindsight it is much higher, but his analysis is right. Low risk moves outside of the Podsednik trade. Just as important as the 05 offseason moves was the development of McCarthy, Garland, Cotts, Politte & Jenks. The Sox were ranked 14th because of the Pods trade only. Most of the critics said it was a terrible move. I also wouldn't call picking up your starting catcher, 2B, RF, 5th Starter, and Closer low risk moves. Those moves totalled around $20 million alone. AJ was a risk because he was a cancer, Dye, Hermie, and El Duque were all injury risks, and Gooch was a complete unknown. Those seem more like bold moves to me. It was not like they were shoring up their bench or middle relief. This year's rating is hilarious too. I don't know if the Sox had the best moves this offseason but they were definitely better than NYY, BOS, and OAK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timoperezrulez Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 What the hell did Boston do to improve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Timoperezrulez @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:13 AM) What the hell did Boston do to improve? You mean besides signing Beckett and Tavarez and acquiring Crisp and Pena? I don't know if I'd rank their offseason at #4, but they did strengthen their rotation significantly with Beckett and their 'pen with Tavarez. The loss of Damon was more than offset by Crisp and Pena. Edited March 21, 2006 by WCSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 stealing bases isn't that important It's not, not in the grand scheme of things. Why can't people just accept that historical data that shows there are plenty of things more important than base stealing for creating runs--like OBP and SLG. It's not being arrogant; it's being reasonable. No stat head is going to tell Scottie Pods to not attempt to steal if he can swipe at an 80% clip, but they are going to ask the leadoff hitter to get on base more, and to throw in some doubles and HR every once and awile--something he doesn't really do well at all. Scottie Pods is an average major league LF in his good seasons, nothing more, nothing less. However, compared to stonehands and lead footed Carlos Lee, he fit into the Sox's idea for better defense, which looks like a smart move in hindsight. I think their analysis of last year's offseason was spot on. And I think their analysis of this off-season is better than 95% of the offseason reviews you will see online or elsewhere. I'm not sure about Boston or the Yankees being ahead of the Sox, so I agree with that. But the Dodgers had a very good offseason, as did the A's, I'd put the Sox 2 and Oakland 2a, but IMO, the Dodgers, from a purely "how many more wins this year" standpoint did the best job, helped by the fact that they had a lot longer to go to get to the playoffs then the Sox and A's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) It's not, not in the grand scheme of things. Why can't people just accept that historical data that shows there are plenty of things more important than base stealing for creating runs--like OBP and SLG. What's the stat for # of hits given up because the pitcher was too worried about the guy on first and served a meatball over the middle of the plate? Just the threat of stealing a base can help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) It's not, not in the grand scheme of things. Why can't people just accept that historical data that shows there are plenty of things more important than base stealing for creating runs--like OBP and SLG. It's not being arrogant; it's being reasonable. No stat head is going to tell Scottie Pods to not attempt to steal if he can swipe at an 80% clip, but they are going to ask the leadoff hitter to get on base more, and to throw in some doubles and HR every once and awile--something he doesn't really do well at all. Scottie Pods is an average major league LF in his good seasons, nothing more, nothing less. However, compared to stonehands and lead footed Carlos Lee, he fit into the Sox's idea for better defense, which looks like a smart move in hindsight. Speed offers a lot more than the stats give it credit for. As iwrotecode pointed out, it has a huge effect on opposing pitchers and catchers, and not in a positive way. It also creates a whole bunch of total bases. it means players advance another base on hits. Stolen bases and speed generaly are undercredited by the historical stats, IMHO. And, speed creates a better defender, all other things being equal. The Sox last year were the best team in baseball for a number of reasons - including home runs, defense, speed, clutch hitting and a spectacular pitching staff. But some of the things that helped them win - speed, defense, smart outs - are often dismissed by the analysts as unimportant. Well, I think that was proven wrong last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) What's the stat for # of hits given up because the pitcher was too worried about the guy on first and served a meatball over the middle of the plate? They did do an analysis of this in late January here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...ngibles-part-1/ and part 2 here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...ngibles-part-2/ Basically the writer concluded that: So, instead of saying that Podsednik adds a little over one run per season due to his "disruptive" powers, we must content ourselves with saying that he very likely adds no more than two runs per season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakes Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:52 PM) Speed offers a lot more than the stats give it credit for. As iwrotecode pointed out, it has a huge effect on opposing pitchers and catchers, and not in a positive way. It also creates a whole bunch of total bases. it means players advance another base on hits. Stolen bases and speed generaly are undercredited by the historical stats, IMHO. And, speed creates a better defender, all other things being equal. The Sox last year were the best team in baseball for a number of reasons - including home runs, defense, speed, clutch hitting and a spectacular pitching staff. But some of the things that helped them win - speed, defense, smart outs - are often dismissed by the analysts as unimportant. Well, I think that was proven wrong last year. well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 RME JICO--you're my hero! I didn't even have to dig through the archives of THT's to prove my point. I thought those articles were very fair, they concluded that speed does make the pitcher a little more loose--to the tune of 2 runs a year--that's rather yawnworthy in my book. Give me two LF'ers, all things being equal, power hitting, contact hitting, arm, and I'll take the faster guy every time. Speed has a place in baseball no doubt. But its place is relatively unimportant compared to the other major American team sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAFTR Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) What's the stat for # of hits given up because the pitcher was too worried about the guy on first and served a meatball over the middle of the plate? Just the threat of stealing a base can help... Don't forget that Chicago also lead the league in CS with 67. That is equal to about 2.5 games of outs given up on the base paths. Edited March 21, 2006 by SHAFTR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 What about the Royals, what were they ranked. They could win 10 more games this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 What was our record with a healthy Scott Podsednik? What was our record when he out or playing with that hernia? I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.