FireKennyWilliams.com

[Balta1701]

Cabrera is a .321 OBP guy for his career. If he hits like last season, he's a huge upgrade, if he doesn't, while he may be an upgrade, its really not that big. How can you say Danks should definitely be able to eat Garland's innings? He was so awful the second half, they sat him down. Its really going to tax the bullpen if KW keeps the rotation as its currently configured.

Would you say that having Danks shut down in the 2nd half like last year taxed the bullpen? Because the White Sox's bullpen was one of the least used in baseball. And it has been every one of the last 4 years. No team's starters have thrown more innings than ours the last 4 years, no team's bullpen has thrown fewer innings than ours, entirely because of the way Ozzie uses his pitchers and the presence of this Buehrle dude. Whether the starters are great or suck, Ozzie gives his starters the innings and the remote chance to win games until they totally explode. Especially if we stick a 12 man bullpen out there, there is no reason why anyone would look at the White Sox's stats for the last few years and expect that the bullpen is going to be really taxed. None at all.

[Linnwood]

Enough

 

 

You have got to be s***ting me.

[max power]

You have got to be s***ting me.

+1

 

world series champs?

[Dick Allen]

Would you say that having Danks shut down in the 2nd half like last year taxed the bullpen? Because the White Sox's bullpen was one of the least used in baseball. And it has been every one of the last 4 years. No team's starters have thrown more innings than ours the last 4 years, no team's bullpen has thrown fewer innings than ours, entirely because of the way Ozzie uses his pitchers and the presence of this Buehrle dude. Whether the starters are great or suck, Ozzie gives his starters the innings and the remote chance to win games until they totally explode. Especially if we stick a 12 man bullpen out there, there is no reason why anyone would look at the White Sox's stats for the last few years and expect that the bullpen is going to be really taxed. None at all.

Garland is a 200 inning guy. His replacements haven't shown they can pitch anywhere near that yet. If the bullpen has to pitch an extra 50 or 60 innings they will suck even worse. The bullpen was great in 2005. The big 4 starters pitched a collective 890 innings or so. One of the reasons the bullpen was so effective is because of that.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

Garland is a 200 inning guy. His replacements haven't shown they can pitch anywhere near that yet. If the bullpen has to pitch an extra 50 or 60 innings they will suck even worse. The bullpen was great in 2005. The big 4 starters pitched a collective 890 innings or so. One of the reasons the bullpen was so effective is because of that.

If his replacements can't pitch that, then just watch as Masset, Sisco, Gio, Egbert, or someone from that whole pot gets called up to pitch those innings. In 2004, we had basically what, 3 starters for 1/2 the year, and we were still at the top of the league in innings pitched. That was 1 of those 5th starter disaster years, and we were still up near the top with the innings pitched by our starters. In 2007, Danks only pitched 2/3 of the Year, Contreras got moved to the Bullpen, Garland had a knot in his shoulder, and we were still at the top of the league in starters innings pitched. Ozzie guillen will give his starting pitchers the innings no matter who they are, how well they're performing, or how well the bullpen is performing.

[StrangeSox]

If his replacements can't pitch that, then just watch as Masset, Sisco, Gio, Egbert, or someone from that whole pot gets called up to pitch those innings. In 2004, we had basically what, 3 starters for 1/2 the year, and we were still at the top of the league in innings pitched. That was 1 of those 5th starter disaster years, and we were still up near the top with the innings pitched by our starters. In 2007, Danks only pitched 2/3 of the Year, Contreras got moved to the Bullpen, Garland had a knot in his shoulder, and we were still at the top of the league in starters innings pitched. Ozzie guillen will give his starting pitchers the innings no matter who they are, how well they're performing, or how well the bullpen is performing.

 

Ok, then lets say that Garland would give you 200 quality innings. Can we count on Danks' quality being the same?

[klaus kinski]

Would you say that having Danks shut down in the 2nd half like last year taxed the bullpen? Because the White Sox's bullpen was one of the least used in baseball. And it has been every one of the last 4 years. No team's starters have thrown more innings than ours the last 4 years, no team's bullpen has thrown fewer innings than ours, entirely because of the way Ozzie uses his pitchers and the presence of this Buehrle dude. Whether the starters are great or suck, Ozzie gives his starters the innings and the remote chance to win games until they totally explode. Especially if we stick a 12 man bullpen out there, there is no reason why anyone would look at the White Sox's stats for the last few years and expect that the bullpen is going to be really taxed. None at all.

 

You are right-but both Danks and or Floyd will be on the short leash, like Garland was early in Guillens term. So we will have a long reliever, probably the other of these two, that will need a couple of days between appearances. I see 12 pitchers-even at the start-but the need for good long relief is necessary

 

[Balta1701]

You are right-but both Danks and or Floyd will be on the short leash, like Garland was early in Guillens term. So we will have a long reliever, probably the other of these two, that will need a couple of days between appearances. I see 12 pitchers-even at the start-but the need for good long relief is necessary

Am I missing things, or wasn't the whole idea of Garland's turnaround with Ozzie that Garland wasn't kept on a short leash, where Manuel would pull him at the first sign of trouble, Ozzie supposedly let him work thorugh his problems and actually gain confidence that he could get through a jam. Or at least that's what I kept reading back in 05.

[ptatc]

Am I missing things, or wasn't the whole idea of Garland's turnaround with Ozzie that Garland wasn't kept on a short leash, where Manuel would pull him at the first sign of trouble, Ozzie supposedly let him work thorugh his problems and actually gain confidence that he could get through a jam. Or at least that's what I kept reading back in 05.

 

this is what I believe is one of Ozzie's strengths. He allows his pitcher's to prove or sink themselves. Many times on this board people scream "why is Ozzie putting X in that position, he hasn't proved himself yet." Ozzie allows the player enough rope to either prove themselves or hang themselves. Sisco, Massett and the like last hung themselves. We'll see what happens with Wassermann, Logan (who has proven he can be somewhat effective) and whoever else is in the pen. As far as the starting staff goes, I think Ozzie's patience will benefit Danks and to a greater extent Floyd. Floyd has the stuff, we'll know soon enough if he can prove he belongs in the show.

[Guest]

i hear all of this doom and gloom prophecy. i think it's hogwash! has anyone ever heard of the theory that young players actually progress and get better by the more time they get and by the more experience on the field that they have? I guarantee players like Richar and Quentin are going to attract quite a following next season. Not to mention that a player like Owens may actually surprise some folks. Jerry Owens is a man I like to talk about because while many of us wanted other CF's who have a ton of miles on their legs, Owens is a young man who started from nothing on the Sox and could barely hit the ball out of the IF. What he has grown into is a decent young player who has plus plus speed and can naturally steal the bases like no other player on our roster. During last season he showed more plate discipline with the more time that he had. Owens has great range in CF and I think he will also surprise some folks. i used to think the kid couldn't hit the ball out of the infield but he grew into a player who has shown he can hit some gappers and some shots down the line and with that elite speed of his, his singles easily turn into doubles.

Edited December 16, 2007 by DonnyDevito

[Kalapse]

i hear all of this doom and gloom prophecy. i think it's hogwash! has anyone ever heard of the theory that young players actually progress and get better by the more time they get and by the more experience on the field that they have? I guarantee players like Richar and Quentin are going to attract quite a following next season. Not to mention that a player like Owens may actually surprise some folks. Jerry Owens is a man I like to talk about because while many of us wanted other CF's who are a ton of miles on their legs, Owens is a young man who started from nothing on the Sox and could barely hit the ball out of the OF. What he has grown into is a decent young player who has plus plus speed and can naturally steal the bases like no other player on our roster. During last season he showed more plate discipline with the more time that he had. Owens has great range in CF and I think he will also surprise some folks. i used to think the kid couldn't hit the ball out of the infield but he grew into a player who has shown he can hit some gappers and some shots down the line and with that elite speed of his, his singles easily turn into doubles.

No he didn't.

 

People like to act as if his first call up last year didn't count so I'll just stick to his final 332 PA of the '07 season. Over those final 303 AB he had 7 2B and 2 3B. Pathetic, I know.

 

Out of the 7 doubles only 1 of them was a single that he stretched into a double, 4 were gappers (3 to LF, 1 to RF) and 2 were down the line. As for the 2 3B that he had, 1 was dropped into the left center field gap in Oakland and the other was down the right field line in Seattle.

 

All 9 XBH in 303 ABs proves is that he has a whole lot of trouble getting the ball out of the infield.

[Guest]

No he didn't.

 

So your stance is Jerry Owens has never hit a ball in the gap or down the line?!

[Kalapse]

So your stance is Jerry Owens has never hit a ball in the gap or down the line?!

I added some information to my original post, in case you have yet to see it.

 

My stance is that he had less XBH last year than any other regular leadoff hitter in baseball and the least XBH of any regular OF in the American League. If 8 gappers/doubles down line is proof of something positive to you then I'd like to know what of.

[Guest]

I added some information to my original post, in case you have yet to see it.

 

My stance is that he had less XBH last year than any other regular leadoff hitter in baseball and the least XBH of any regular OF in the American League. If 8 gappers/doubles down line is proof of something positive to you then I'd like to know what of.

 

I guess that's what one receives for attempting to bring positive light regarding the 2008 White Sox. Perhaps, this up and coming season is the one where Chicago finally finishes in last place.

[bmags]

I still think we'll finish ahead of ze twins and royals.

[Kalapse]

I guess that's what one receives for attempting to bring positive light regarding the 2008 White Sox. Perhaps, this up and coming season is the one where Chicago finally finishes in last place.

Being positive is one thing, being wrong is another.

[greg775]

2008 - losing Garland is not a big hit to the rotation.

 

My gosh. How can you say that?

I guess some never thought of Garland as anything but "Judy."

Can any of the Garland haters say they would rather see Jose, Danks or Floyd start

in place of Jon?

It's a big hit to our rotation.

[bmags]

Yeah, i personally think Jon was very underrated on this site. I've had no problems with his performance since the beginning of 2005.

[Guest]

I'm one of those people who never got the point of signing Garland to $12 million a year or whatever absurd amount that he was making. If it wasn't for his prototypcial age or size (6 foot 6), i don't see why people would be high on him. he didn't have plus anything IMO except control yet that was fleeting. He was a big benefitor to Chicago's potent offense in the years he won 18 games. his ERA, WHIP, and strikeout totals have always been barely mediocre. The guy did nothing special but last many innings and if you take away all of those games against inept AL Central teams (at the time) i don't think he would of had as many Wins as he did. The Garland trade is something I was glad to see because pitchers like Danks actually have plus pitches.

[Dick Allen]

I'm one of those people who never got the point of signing Garland to $12 million a year or whatever absurd amount that he was making. If it wasn't for his prototypcial age or size (6 foot 6), i don't see why people would be high on him. he didn't have plus anything IMO except control yet that was fleeting. He was a big benefitor to Chicago's potent offense in the years he won 18 games. his ERA, WHIP, and strikeout totals have always been barely mediocre. The guy did nothing special but last many innings and if you take away all of those games against inept AL Central teams (at the time) i don't think he would of had as many Wins as he did. The Garland trade is something I was glad to see because pitchers like Danks actually have plus pitches.

Garland 208 innings pitched .270 BAA 19 HR

Danks 139 innings pitched .289 BAA 28 HR

Floyd 70 innings pitched .299 BAA 17 HR

 

I understand you think Garland is overpaid at $12 million. I agree with you. But removing him from the rotation and counting on the other 2 mentioned to pick up the slack isn't a move a team "going for it" in 2008 makes. While it makes sense for the Sox to deal Garland, a 33 year old SS who supposedly isn't interested in signing a contract extension, doesn't seem to me to be the play. I don't like Floyd, I think Danks will eventually be decent, and it really wouldn't bother me if they were in the rotation and even wouldn't bother me if Jerry Owens played everyday if the White Sox would just admit they are short and at least attempted a partial rebuild. But since the GM thinks they still are the team to beat, I think putting these guys in these positions isn't going to win you many games.

[max power]

The GM never said that. He said that other teams are going to compete with us(which could very well mean, along with us, not against us primarily).

 

He didn't say "we are the team to beat."

[max power]

Even if he did say "we are the team to beat." It doesn't mean that is what he thinks. You don't know what he thinks.

[santo=dorf]

Even if he did say "we are the team to beat." It doesn't mean that is what he thinks. You don't know what he thinks.

Then he should STFU honestly. No point in pissing off other teams by saying stuff that can easily be interpreted in another manner.

[elrockinMT]

What I saw this off season so far is another trade off of good young players from our system for young players of another organization. Maybe the ones we got are supposed to be a bit more advanced AAA versus A or AA. That has been a KW trend. I don't like the fact we traded Jon Garland, who is a top of the rotation (#1 or #2 starter) but we probably upgraded at SS. I liked Uribe, but plate discipline and focus/intensity on the field were sometimes lacking. I don't and have never believed the rhetoric from Reinsdorf and staff that they are willing to spend to win. But, I think we have a pretty good team for 2008 and just hope we don't get start just giving away or players to fill these so called holes we have in the team make up.

[southsideirish71]

What I saw this off season so far is another trade off of good young players from our system for young players of another organization. Maybe the ones we got are supposed to be a bit more advanced AAA versus A or AA. That has been a KW trend. I don't like the fact we traded Jon Garland, who is a top of the rotation (#1 or #2 starter) but we probably upgraded at SS. I liked Uribe, but plate discipline and focus/intensity on the field were sometimes lacking. I don't and have never believed the rhetoric from Reinsdorf and staff that they are willing to spend to win. But, I think we have a pretty good team for 2008 and just hope we don't get start just giving away or players to fill these so called holes we have in the team make up.

 

Jon Garland is a top of the rotation starter????? You should check his stats, and revist what a top of the rotation starter means.

Edited December 16, 2007 by southsideirish71