Will the rebuilt Twins finish ahead of the goinforitall Sox?

[Gene Honda Civic]

Addition by subtraction...no more pods/cintron...can't get worse than watching Cintron...

Unless it's Gonzalez

[iamshack]

We've got Buehrle/Vazquez/Contreras/Danks/Floyd -- who does that scare? Their offense also scored 200 more runs than ours did last season and they've added a huge offensive addition in Renteria.

 

You're right, though, I'll heed your advice -- everything's peaches on the Southside.

 

Right, that's who we've got, and we are pretty much being discarded as a fourth or fifth place team, while the Tigers are being discussed as one of the best teams in the AL. My point being that the two teams are not all that far apart.

 

Where do I claim "everything's peaches?" I'm not saying that. I'm just saying everything isn't gloom and doom either.

 

There is room for some optimism amongst all the overwhelming negativity.

[CWSGuy406]

Right, that's who we've got, and we are pretty much being discarded as a fourth or fifth place team, while the Tigers are being discussed as one of the best teams in the AL. My point being that the two teams are not all that far apart.

 

But they are far apart. Detroit scored 200 more runs than the Sox did last season. They've added a great bat in Renteria and while Ordonez and Granderson may see some regression, that will be balanced out by massive improvement in LF (just not having Monroe there will do wonders).

[RockRaines]

But they are far apart. Detroit scored 200 more runs than the Sox did last season. They've added a great bat in Renteria and while Ordonez and Granderson may see some regression, that will be balanced out by massive improvement in LF (just not having Monroe there will do wonders).

Great bat? Not in the AL. A better bat than what they had? Sure. Also the Sox are going to put up more runs than they did last season. We arent the favorites in our division, but we sure as s*** arent the worst team, and will outproduce the twins who lost one of their best players and leader of the team. If they get rid of Santana, they will be even worse.

[iamshack]

But they are far apart. Detroit scored 200 more runs than the Sox did last season. They've added a great bat in Renteria and while Ordonez and Granderson may see some regression, that will be balanced out by massive improvement in LF (just not having Monroe there will do wonders).

 

But are they, really? As Carlos Guillen, Magglio Ordonez, Ivan Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Edgar Renteria and Placido Polanco all get a year older?

 

Don't you think our run production in 07' was a bit of an anomaly? Do you really think we are going to be last in runs scored again in 08'? In 06' we scored 46 more runs than the Tigers did. They added Sheffield, Maggs had a career year, and Granderson had an outstanding season. Meanwhile, Dye had a terrible year, Konerko had a down year, Thome was oft-injured, Joe Crede missed almost the entire year, etc. This year, they've added Renteria and us Cabrera.

 

I tend to think the two offenses will be fairly similar when it comes to run production this season.

 

And their starting 5 certainly is not as wonderful as many seem to opine.

[Kalapse]

I was surprised by something I just heard on ESPN news, it was just a lead-in to a Tim Kurkjian piece but the anchor says "the usual big spenders are taken a look at Santana with the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox and Angels are reportedly putting together packages for the 29 year old left hander." I know it means absolutely nothing at all and the Sox really don't make much sense as a possible suitor for Johan (in the same division, lacking a big time pitching prospect, starting pitcher looking for a 6+ year deal) but it was just odd to hear the White Sox mentioned.

[CWSGuy406]

Why won't Renteria be a great bat in the AL? Because he had one bad year for the Red Sox? That ain't faulty logic at all...

 

As far as the Tigers' offensive core being a year older, the same can be said about our offense. Thome probably won't stay healthy for a whole year -- he'll be a force when he is healthy, but he's what, 37? Dye's numbers last season were bad but not awful -- I'd expect him to put up numbers closer to 2005 than 2006 or '07. Konerko had a down year but he's 32 -- he's not going to be a whole lot better than 2007.

 

And there's no comparison between Cabrera and Renteria. The past three years Renteria's OPS+ is about 105, Cabrera's is about 90. Renteria is a much better offensive player.

[Mr. Showtime]

I was surprised by something I just heard on ESPN news, it was just a lead-in to a Tim Kurkjian piece but the anchor says "the usual big spenders are taken a look at Santana with the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox and Angels are reportedly putting together packages for the 29 year old left hander." I know it means absolutely nothing at all and the Sox really don't make much sense as a possible suitor for Johan (in the same division, lacking a big time pitching prospect, starting pitcher looking for a 6+ year deal) but it was just odd to hear the White Sox mentioned.

 

That is odd to hear if it is true. Certainly is a KW big splash type move, but the Sox don't have the chips to play in this poker game. Hell, even if they did, they'd have some major issues with signing him.

[Balta1701]

That is odd to hear if it is true. Certainly is a KW big splash type move, but the Sox don't have the chips to play in this poker game. Hell, even if they did, they'd have some major issues with signing him.

Here's the question. In a FA, if you get in on the bidding to drive the price up, you usually expect to hurt your bidding opponent by making them spend more even if you lose. But in the trade market, if we're in on this...then wouldn't we expect that we'd be helping out the Twins by driving up the baseline of what they could get? I.e. The Yankees offer Hughes and Cabrera, the Twins counter by saying we've offered Gio, DLS, and Fields, and the Yankees have to beat that if they want him?

[Mr. Showtime]

Here's the question. In a FA, if you get in on the bidding to drive the price up, you usually expect to hurt your bidding opponent by making them spend more even if you lose. But in the trade market, if we're in on this...then wouldn't we expect that we'd be helping out the Twins by driving up the baseline of what they could get? I.e. The Yankees offer Hughes and Cabrera, the Twins counter by saying we've offered Gio, DLS, and Fields, and the Yankees have to beat that if they want him?

 

Could be, but I'm not sure Kenny would play those sorts of games. Maybe he has in the past and I'm totally forgetting.

 

Since we don't how if/when they plan on moving Santana, the Sox really cannot afford to have potential trade bait players tied up in a possible Santana deal when other trades are going down.

 

 

[iamshack]

Here's the question. In a FA, if you get in on the bidding to drive the price up, you usually expect to hurt your bidding opponent by making them spend more even if you lose. But in the trade market, if we're in on this...then wouldn't we expect that we'd be helping out the Twins by driving up the baseline of what they could get? I.e. The Yankees offer Hughes and Cabrera, the Twins counter by saying we've offered Gio, DLS, and Fields, and the Yankees have to beat that if they want him?

 

It seems to me like KW would not be doing his job if he didn't at least look into this...

 

Additionally, who knows if we are actually in it at all....these lead-ins are done by interns who don't do their homework all the time...

[iamshack]

Why won't Renteria be a great bat in the AL? Because he had one bad year for the Red Sox? That ain't faulty logic at all...

 

As far as the Tigers' offensive core being a year older, the same can be said about our offense. Thome probably won't stay healthy for a whole year -- he'll be a force when he is healthy, but he's what, 37? Dye's numbers last season were bad but not awful -- I'd expect him to put up numbers closer to 2005 than 2006 or '07. Konerko had a down year but he's 32 -- he's not going to be a whole lot better than 2007.

 

And there's no comparison between Cabrera and Renteria. The past three years Renteria's OPS+ is about 105, Cabrera's is about 90. Renteria is a much better offensive player.

 

I disagree with you, but don't have the energy to argue the whole thing through. But as for Paulie...what about his skill set makes you believe he won't still be a force when he is 37, much like Thome is now?

[NorthSideSox72]

The Sox are in big trouble for the next 5-7 years. We could flip spots with the Royals very soon here.

No one, not even KW, knows who will be on the Sox roster in 5-7 years. For that matter, there is only a small handful of hints at, say, 3 years.

 

Your hyperbole is laughable.

 

[witesoxfan]

Oh, I was thinking maybe Bill Brasky.

 

Really though, I perhaps do it too much; I get pissy pretty quickly, especially when it comes to baseball economics and statistics.

 

However, whenever someone talks negatively about the Sox yet in high regard of the Twins, Tigers, or Indians, and a person then questions their fanhood by saying "But why be on Sox talk? I'm sure there's Twins talk down the dial," I feel I have the right to speak in a negative tone to that response; I'm merely fighting fire with fire.

 

And then when he suggests that Crede and Contreras are good, when Contreras is 47 (or who knows how old) and coming off a year with a 5.50 ERA and Crede is coming off back surgery, I'll get pissy too because said person is lying.

 

I also am not a huge fan of cliches, and suggesting that one franchise is better than the other because of "1 World Series in 3 years" (which is the third shortest time frame you could bring up) while not mentioning how well the organizations are actually run and the positions all 3-4 franchises are put into each and every year gets me too. First of all, the White Sox World Series run, though aided by talent, was full of luck as well; had the Sox not won game 2 of the ALCS, they could have very easily lost that series in Anaheim. Secondly, the organization has put itself in a pretty bad position since about the Vazquez trade (good as he was last year, having Chris Young in CF would solve a lot of problems, and the Sox would be able to put $20+ million more towards the rotation along with having McCarthy in the 4 spot next year); finally, the Indians were a game away from the World Series while Detroit actually made it to the World Series, so that in itself is a great accomplishment; I really don't understand how a World Series title in 2005 suddenly makes the White Sox a superior franchise at this exact moment in time to Cleveland and Detroit because they don't have one.

 

People can be pissed about the people who look negatively upon these people all they want to; they are just as much in the wrong - if not less - as those who are blind homers (you are not, but there are some one here who qualify); so if people are to be critical of people who look upon this franchise negatively, they should be just as critical of those who look upon this franchise positively. The organization is getting better as putting the team in the best possible position to succeed; it's still not there yet.

[RockRaines]

Why is it that the Sox will be in trouble in 5-7 years and nobody else will? We have just as many if not more pitching prospects than the twins do, who knows what will pan out.

[Balta1701]

Why is it that the Sox will be in trouble in 5-7 years and nobody else will? We have just as many if not more pitching prospects than the twins do, who knows what will pan out.

I don't subscribe to that theory, but I'd say it's in no small part based on our recent drafting prowess when compared with the other folks in our division. Other teams grabbing guys like Miller, Porcello, Garza, finding the occasional gem like Zumaya, etc. Right now, if you can't draft, it's difficult to build a team with a long string of success.

[Gregory Pratt]

Why is it that the Sox will be in trouble in 5-7 years and nobody else will? We have just as many if not more pitching prospects than the twins do, who knows what will pan out.

 

Oh come on, Rock. I agree, to an extent, with your first sentence, though I don't see good things for the next year or two, at least. But we have just as many "if not more" pitching prospects than the Twins? Maybe that's true if everyone is a prospect but we hardly have quality pitching prospects. Two? Two. (I won't count Broadway or Floyd or Haeger.)

[CWSGuy406]

I disagree with you, but don't have the energy to argue the whole thing through. But as for Paulie...what about his skill set makes you believe he won't still be a force when he is 37, much like Thome is now?

 

That's dumb as hell. Konerko's best offensive season would be Thome's 9th or 10th best season, making your comparison absolutely brutal. Thome's declining from a HoF quality peak, Konerko will be declining from a pretty-decent player's quality peak. Huge huge difference.

 

If Konerko is our first-baseman when he's 37, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Really though, I perhaps do it too much; I get pissy pretty quickly, especially when it comes to baseball economics and statistics.

 

However, whenever someone talks negatively about the Sox yet in high regard of the Twins, Tigers, or Indians, and a person then questions their fanhood by saying "But why be on Sox talk? I'm sure there's Twins talk down the dial," I feel I have the right to speak in a negative tone to that response; I'm merely fighting fire with fire.

 

And then when he suggests that Crede and Contreras are good, when Contreras is 47 (or who knows how old) and coming off a year with a 5.50 ERA and Crede is coming off back surgery, I'll get pissy too because said person is lying.

 

I also am not a huge fan of cliches, and suggesting that one franchise is better than the other because of "1 World Series in 3 years" (which is the third shortest time frame you could bring up) while not mentioning how well the organizations are actually run and the positions all 3-4 franchises are put into each and every year gets me too. First of all, the White Sox World Series run, though aided by talent, was full of luck as well; had the Sox not won game 2 of the ALCS, they could have very easily lost that series in Anaheim. Secondly, the organization has put itself in a pretty bad position since about the Vazquez trade (good as he was last year, having Chris Young in CF would solve a lot of problems, and the Sox would be able to put $20+ million more towards the rotation along with having McCarthy in the 4 spot next year); finally, the Indians were a game away from the World Series while Detroit actually made it to the World Series, so that in itself is a great accomplishment; I really don't understand how a World Series title in 2005 suddenly makes the White Sox a superior franchise at this exact moment in time to Cleveland and Detroit because they don't have one.

 

People can be pissed about the people who look negatively upon these people all they want to; they are just as much in the wrong - if not less - as those who are blind homers (you are not, but there are some one here who qualify); so if people are to be critical of people who look upon this franchise negatively, they should be just as critical of those who look upon this franchise positively. The organization is getting better as putting the team in the best possible position to succeed; it's still not there yet.

 

Having a bad year does not make a guy a bad player. If we try to predict the future soley by using last years numbers...you're right. The Sox suck. Crede sucks. Dye sucks. Contreas sucks. Danks sucks. Owens sucks. It was you that threw the gauntlet saying the Twins are WAY better than the Sox and that the Sox are in for a long year. Someone else said the Royals were better and Detroit and Cleveland were elite teams. This is done by predicting the future this way: All AL Central prospects will be studs. All Sox prospects will be horrible. All AL players will be equal to last year as will all Sox players. History before 2007 is meaningless.

 

If you want to argue how Crede and Contreas will perform in 2008 after their 2006/7 back injuries...that's fine. But to suggest they were never good? Crede's Avg/OBP/SP each went up from 2004 to 2005 to 2006...so the idea that a (then) 26 year old third baseman might be learning and getting better while playing great defense and now he's worthless because he had a year with a bad back? And Contreas was the Sox ace in the WS year and 9-0 through the first half of 2006...and then hurt his back and was bad for a year. But it's impossible that he will be back? That his August+ Sept 3.75ERA and 3 to 1 strikeout to walk rate are just an illusion?

 

And I just don't get the slam on Gio. The kid led all the minors in strikeouts...at 21...in double A. 3 to 1 walk to strikeout rate. 1.15 WHIP. And I'm forced to be rational and say he'll never be a stud...while listening to people brag about every arm in the Twins minors being future stars?

 

I'm not saying the Sox will be dominant...but in 2006 with roughly the same offense they scored 200 more runs than in 2007. Baseball's a funny game. Sometimes the hot prospects fizzle. Sometimes Ordonez hits .360 and sometimes .290. KW is trying to put together a team to win the WS and its NOT silly to think the core of this team could recapture a bit of the magic. Wishful thinking, sure. But so is EVERY other team.

 

 

[michelangelosmonkey]

That's dumb as hell. Konerko's best offensive season would be Thome's 9th or 10th best season, making your comparison absolutely brutal. Thome's declining from a HoF quality peak, Konerko will be declining from a pretty-decent player's quality peak. Huge huge difference.

 

If Konerko is our first-baseman when he's 37, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

 

'Dumb as hell' is pretty harsh. Konerko is a career .848 OPS guy and he's 31. Torii Hunter's a career .839 hitter is two years older than Konerko and someone just paid HIM $18 million a year to maintain his ability until he's 38. Seeing Konerko being an .800 OPS guy at 37 isn't crazy. Paying Torii Hunter $18 mill...that's crazy.

[Gregory Pratt]

'Dumb as hell' is pretty harsh. Konerko is a career .848 OPS guy and he's 31. Torii Hunter's a career .839 hitter is two years older than Konerko and someone just paid HIM $18 million a year to maintain his ability until he's 38. Seeing Konerko being an .800 OPS guy at 37 isn't crazy. Paying Torii Hunter $18 mill...that's crazy.

 

Konerko has an arthritic hip. He will be lucky to be playing ball when he's thirty seven, let alone putting up an .800 OPS.

 

And Hunter is a career .839 hitter? ::whistle:: That's hot!

 

(Those are my two observations: first is serious. Second is just teasing. )

[michelangelosmonkey]

Konerko has an arthritic hip. He will be lucky to be playing ball when he's thirty seven, let alone putting up an .800 OPS.

 

And Hunter is a career .839 hitter? ::whistle:: That's hot!

 

(Those are my two observations: first is serious. Second is just teasing. )

 

Mostly I'm just coming to Iamshack's defense....it's not dumb as hell...just optimistic. Brett Favre also has a chronic hip condition...avascular necrosis. He's doing ok at 38. As for Hunter...you should see his slugging percent. :-)

[Heads22]

Oh come on, Rock. I agree, to an extent, with your first sentence, though I don't see good things for the next year or two, at least. But we have just as many "if not more" pitching prospects than the Twins? Maybe that's true if everyone is a prospect but we hardly have quality pitching prospects. Two? Two. (I won't count Broadway or Floyd or Haeger.)

 

You're hatin on Eggy again, ain't ya?

[iamshack]

That's dumb as hell. Konerko's best offensive season would be Thome's 9th or 10th best season, making your comparison absolutely brutal. Thome's declining from a HoF quality peak, Konerko will be declining from a pretty-decent player's quality peak. Huge huge difference.

 

If Konerko is our first-baseman when he's 37, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

 

Dumb as hell, eh? Brilliant way to engage me in an intelligent debate. The comparison to Thome was made because of their physical skill-set, not their actual statistical performance.

 

Basically, the manner in which I made the comparison was that they are both slow, power-hitting first basemen/dh types. Thome certainly has had a far more prolific career than Konerko. Thome walks at a far greater rate, and has a career .565 slugging percentage, while Konerko has a career .495 slugging percentage. However, the ability to draw walks has little to do with any physical difference between the two (unless you want to argue that Thome has better eyesight or something). In the past 4 years, Konerko has a slugging percentage of about .528 or so. During that same age range, Thome had a slugging percentage of about .565 or so. That's certainly close enough to make a comparison based upon their actual physical characteristics.

 

Thome has actually increased his slugging percentage as he reached his age 32-37 years. I don't know if Paulie will mirror that trend, but as age catches up with a player, it certainly doesn't tend to decrease his power numbers ( at least not between the ages of 32-37), but rather other things, like speed, agility, susceptibility to injury. Now that last thing is clearly an important factor, which I will address now.

 

There are certainly a lot of doctors at Soxtalk these days. Yes, I have heard of Paulie's arthritic hip condition. Are any of us really knowledgeable enough of Paulie's hip to know how this has begun to affect his swing? His ability to hit for power? Is anyone suggesting Paulie's #'s were actually affected last season by this condition? Is the reason his slugging percentage dropped 60 points from 06' to 07' because of that condition?

 

Perhaps Konerko was a poor example because of his special medical status. And while no one here can say either way how or when this condition will begin affecting him, or if it already has, how it will affect his baseball swing, I do not see anything presently which suggests the condition is negatively affecting his ability to play at the level he was just 1 season ago.

 

The point of my previous post was that the White Sox offense did not struggle so badly last season because everyone suddenly got old. While that may be something to watch in the future, it simply cannot be argued that everyone got bad on the Sox because they turned 31 or 32. Medicine today is far too advanced and players are in far too good of shape to see their careers entering a drastically reduced level of performance at those ages.

 

The offense will bounce back in 08'. It may not reach the level it did in 06', but it certainly will be better than in 07'. The Tigers are older in the field than the White Sox, yet they are considered one of the AL's best teams, while the Sox are considered a fourth or fifth place ballclub.

 

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that because of one crappy season.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

Really though, I perhaps do it too much; I get pissy pretty quickly, especially when it comes to baseball economics and statistics.

 

However, whenever someone talks negatively about the Sox yet in high regard of the Twins, Tigers, or Indians, and a person then questions their fanhood by saying "But why be on Sox talk? I'm sure there's Twins talk down the dial," I feel I have the right to speak in a negative tone to that response; I'm merely fighting fire with fire.

 

And then when he suggests that Crede and Contreras are good, when Contreras is 47 (or who knows how old) and coming off a year with a 5.50 ERA and Crede is coming off back surgery, I'll get pissy too because said person is lying.

 

I also am not a huge fan of cliches, and suggesting that one franchise is better than the other because of "1 World Series in 3 years" (which is the third shortest time frame you could bring up) while not mentioning how well the organizations are actually run and the positions all 3-4 franchises are put into each and every year gets me too. First of all, the White Sox World Series run, though aided by talent, was full of luck as well; had the Sox not won game 2 of the ALCS, they could have very easily lost that series in Anaheim. Secondly, the organization has put itself in a pretty bad position since about the Vazquez trade (good as he was last year, having Chris Young in CF would solve a lot of problems, and the Sox would be able to put $20+ million more towards the rotation along with having McCarthy in the 4 spot next year); finally, the Indians were a game away from the World Series while Detroit actually made it to the World Series, so that in itself is a great accomplishment; I really don't understand how a World Series title in 2005 suddenly makes the White Sox a superior franchise at this exact moment in time to Cleveland and Detroit because they don't have one.

 

People can be pissed about the people who look negatively upon these people all they want to; they are just as much in the wrong - if not less - as those who are blind homers (you are not, but there are some one here who qualify); so if people are to be critical of people who look upon this franchise negatively, they should be just as critical of those who look upon this franchise positively. The organization is getting better as putting the team in the best possible position to succeed; it's still not there yet.

 

The thing I don't understand is the connections people make in their minds about why a player struggles. Of course the vast majority of us are not privy to inside information on what is going on with a player physically or mentally, other than what we read in the press, or what we hear from a source. So we try to connect the dots and come up with answers based upon what it is that we do know. Which is often a medical diagnosis or anecdotal evidence from the game in the past (such as the way age affects players on average as their careers progress). But we simply don't know enough information to say that these speculations are accurate. And we must remember that.

 

Answer me this: If Jose Contreras is 47 or whatever it is you say he is (and I know you are exaggerating), how is it that he was able to dominate the league for a year when he was 45? He was old as hell in mid-05 to mid-06, why did that not preclude him from performing that way then? So logic says if he was able to be old as hell then and dominate, he should be able to be old as hell now and dominate. Now clearly I understand that all humans reach a point at which their bodies deteriorate. That deterioration makes it impossible to perform at a level which is necessary to be an effective professional sports player. But until you see the physical results of that deterioration, you simply cannot say he sucks because he is old.

 

Jose still has a great arm. He still has great stuff. He certainly has the ability to get hitters out at a tremendous rate in major league baseball, IMHO. What else do we know about Jose? He is sort of weak mentally. He gets flustered easily, at least on the baseball field. And what else do we know? His wife left him. His family structure basically collapsed. Now I am not making excuses for him- plenty of ballplayers have played through situations like that- even excelled in them. But I don't think it's fair to ignore something like that either, especially given what we've seen in Jose's history before. I think he can still be a good pitcher in this league. If he did it when he was 2 years ago, he can do it still now. He still has a great arm.

 

As for Crede, the same situation applies. Joe has had a bad back for several years now. This did not simply creep up at the end of 2006 for the first time. He played with the back situation in 05' and 06', and did quite well. I have no doubts that if he has alleviated most of the pain, he can play quite well with it again. Possibly even better. How can anyone say whether he will never return to the player he was at the end of 05' and most of 06' as of this moment?

 

I understand things are not perfect with the White Sox right now. But they aren't absolutely horrific either. And I have no problem with people being critical of the organization here- that's part of why we all come here. But eventually the negativity starts spreading and people begin adopting that attitude without question- to the point where the overall viewpoint of the team and organization is no longer accurate. I feel that is what has happened here. They say perception is reality, and that is the reality here at Soxtalk- that the organization is in a miserable state. Yet that perception exists here, not on the field, which is all that matters.