Sox still interested in Willy Taveras

[eickevinmorris]

What study is this? Please show a link or resource to this "research."

 

Doesn't it make sense to you that you want your top four hitters to get more at-bats than your 7-8-9 hitters? That batting in the earlier spots in the order will give them an additional 50-75 opportunities per season, maybe even 100 for a leadoff hitter.

 

Why doesn't Ichiro hit 9th for the Mariners then, if it doesn't matter? Why do managers have a L-R-L run or a R-L-R run to keep opposing managers from sticking with a lefty reliever or specialist for too long late in the games?

 

I'm kind of speechless here. I'm glad you aren't/weren't a manager, we might have had Mark Johnson leading off, followed by Royce Clayton.

 

What next? There should be no such thing as starting pitchers? Every starter should be designed for one inning each game and pitch 6-7 times per week???

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~mbodell/battingOrder2001.html

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...7&ct=result

 

Of course, there is a difference between the optimal lineup and the worst lineup possible, but the difference between lineup a vs. c is minimal.

[caulfield12]

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~mbodell/battingOrder2001.html

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=uxdvwQdXb...7&ct=result

 

Of course, there is a difference between the optimal lineup and the worst lineup possible, but the difference between lineup a vs. c is minimal.

 

But minimal is the difference of 10-15 wins or losses every season...the little things.

 

If you have the wrong batter behind a slow runner, then it takes 2-3 hits to score him instead of just one. That's just one of many reasons why batting order is important. Or if you have a leadoff hitter getting into scoring position via the steal, not every batter in the line-up has an equal ability to bunt, hit to the opposite side to advance him or hit a sacrifice fly.

 

I'm sure research would argue that you could just take ANY reliever in the bullpen and stick him out there in the 9th inning. That any major league pitcher should be able to protect 1-3 run leads at a minimum of 66% of the time. It looks that way on paper, until you see so many pitchers thrust into the closer's role fail miserably. That same pitcher (say Linebrink, Dotel or Thornton), might have the greatest looking statistics in the world, but when you see him out there protecting a one run lead, you know he doesn't have a chance. He's already defeated mentally.

Edited November 30, 2008 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

I don't want this man on the team next year.

 

Once again, WHO do you want, and what are you willing to give up to get him? (And not one of those "five for one" trades with five random second and third tier AA and AAA suspects like Broadway, McCulloch and Logan)

 

Yeah, in a fantasy world, we can trade Dye for Matt Kemp or Jenks for Nate McLouth, but that's not reality by any stretch of the imagination.

[YASNY]

I'm locking this thread until it can be discussed with the admins and mods. There quite a few posts that crossed the bounds of civil discussion. Don't make the mistake of taking it to another thread.

[striker]

I would take him and bat him 8th or 9th. I don't think his OBP is good enough for leadoff but I could see him starting rallies at the bottom of the order.

[Felix]

I would take him and bat him 8th or 9th. I don't think his OBP is good enough for leadoff but I could see him starting rallies at the bottom of the order.

You can say that, but the problem is that if KW were to trade for him, there is almost no way he wouldn't be the leadoff man thanks to Ozzie's love for Taveras's skill set. He would be a fine player (still bad, but at least he'd be getting the least AB on the team and wouldn't be giving outs away at the top of the order with stupid bunt attempts) if he were batting 9th for the entirety of the year, but that just simply isn't going to happen.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Felix

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

KHP , from 2005-2008 Taveras had a .000 BA on 3-0 counts in 19 AB's probably not because he was swinging and making outs on that count but I think its more like he had no batting avg because he never swung at 3-0 pitches . So any statistical analysis probably shouldn't include 3-0 batting average unless its .000 because he was actually 0 for 19 by making contact and making outs on 3-0 pitches which I think is highly unlikely.

[Felix]

KHP , from 2005-2008 Taveras had a .000 BA on 3-0 counts in 19 AB's probably not because he was swinging and making outs on that count but I think its more like he had no batting avg because he never swung at 3-0 pitches . So any statistical analysis probably shouldn't include 3-0 batting average unless its .000 because he was actually 0 for 19 by making contact and making outs on 3-0 pitches which I think is highly unlikely.

It also shouldn't be used because its 19 AB, which is nowhere near a large enough sample size for a real statistical analysis.

 

Oh, and just so the record shows it, when Taveras had the best 'year' (if you call 97 games a year, which is most certainly isn't), he had a .371 BABIP and was ridiculously lucky. Then last year, when his BABIP was back around the league average (.298), he was back to being an abysmal offensive player. Now, this could be because the fans decided to start booing him and throwing batteries at him every time he tried bunting or stealing a base in 2008 as opposed to 2007, but I'd prefer to think of this as a player who was lucky falling back to the norm. Unfortunately, the result was Taveras being one of the worst outfielders in the league with the bat. Again, I stress that there is no way the Sox should be seriously considering him for the leadoff spot. He simply isn't good enough and to give a player of his caliber the most AB on the team would be a tremendous mistake.

[Dick Allen]

Taveras is better than Owens, and if he only cost Broadway, even if he never batted and came in to pinch run and play defense, you would be getting something for nothing. He's certainly not the lead-off man answer, but really how can anyone be opposed to getting him if Broadway was the price? Broadway in Colorado? As Dick Enberg would say, "Oh my!". If his cost were good prospects, then I would say no. KW has traded away a lot of garbage that was thought to be better than it really was recently. After the top tier in the White Sox system, I think just about anybody is worth giving up for the skill set Taveras brings, and I'm no big fan of his.

[greg775]

Give me a similar analysis of Willie Harris. Aren't they the same guy?

Bring back Willie Harris!

[caulfield12]

Ummmm, no...Willie Harris has never shown any type of propensity or consistent capability of stealing bases...ever.

 

A more relevant comparison would be Chone Figgins and Harris. Why does everyone love Figgins and hate Taveras? Because he can play a lot of positions? Well, geez, he can't play any of them very well. He's getting older and losing some of his burst...and yet, some are still willing to trade Paul Konerko for him.

Edited December 1, 2008 by caulfield12

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

KHP , from 2005-2008 Taveras had a .000 BA on 3-0 counts in 19 AB's probably not because he was swinging and making outs on that count but I think its more like he had no batting avg because he never swung at 3-0 pitches . So any statistical analysis probably shouldn't include 3-0 batting average unless its .000 because he was actually 0 for 19 by making contact and making outs on 3-0 pitches which I think is highly unlikely.

You're right, I just caught that. The numbers I was looking at were right, but I read the wrong thing. I took 0 hits at X PA instead of X AB and came up with a .000 batting average instead of a --- batting average like it should have been. Read from the wrong column there.

 

The 2-2, 3-2 count stats are really all that is important, I just put the others in to establish that even in a small sample size he's been pretty consistent at everything in his career except for his BA on 2-2, 3-2 counts which has dropped off significantly. If he keeps doing everything exactly as he has been and then manages to up his performance in those counts, he'll be a .300 hitter again, which will bring his OBP to the .330-.340 range most likely.

[Felix]

Ummmm, no...Willie Harris has never shown any type of propensity or consistent capability of stealing bases...ever.

 

A more relevant comparison would be Chone Figgins and Harris. Why does everyone love Figgins and hate Taveras? Because he can play a lot of positions? Well, geez, he can't play any of them very well. He's getting older and losing some of his burst...and yet, some are still willing to trade Paul Konerko for him.

I dislike both Figgins and Taveras, if it is any consolation to you.

 

This isn't to say that Figgins is as bad as Taveras though, as he's a FAR superior player. Same skill set, but he at least gets on base at good rate (.367 OBP last year, .393 in 2007 and .356 career) as well as showing some sort of slugging (1 XBH per 16 AB compared to Taveras's 1 per 25 AB). I mean, seriously. Taveras averages 24 extra-base hits a year, while Figgins is at 40.

 

Neither are the answer for the leadoff spot, but Figgins would at least be a serviceable leadoff man, while Taveras should never be leading off.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Felix

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Ummmm, no...Willie Harris has never shown any type of propensity or consistent capability of stealing bases...ever.

 

A more relevant comparison would be Chone Figgins and Harris. Why does everyone love Figgins and hate Taveras? Because he can play a lot of positions? Well, geez, he can't play any of them very well. He's getting older and losing some of his burst...and yet, some are still willing to trade Paul Konerko for him.

Willie Harris, 31 next year, is a guy who over the last two years established himself as a good bench player in the Major Leagues. Willy Taveras, 27 next year, did just fine for himself as a starter except for the 2008 season. Why people cannot see the value of a .280-.320 batting average, .330-.360 OBP, 30-60+ steals, and strong defense in CF is beyond me. They like slugging and apparently s***ty contact and care nothing for speed. Whatever.

[Felix]

Willie Harris, 31 next year, is a guy who over the last two years established himself as a good bench player in the Major Leagues. Willy Taveras, 27 next year, did just fine for himself as a starter except for the 2008 season. Why people cannot see the value of a .280-.320 batting average, .330-.360 OBP, 30-60+ steals, and strong defense in CF is beyond me. They like slugging and apparently s***ty contact and care nothing for speed. Whatever.

I don't see how Taveras's 2005 or 2006 seasons were 'just fine' for a starter and leadoff man. The only 'just fine' season he had was in 2007, when he had a .371 BABIP in slightly more than half of a season (meaning he was incredibly lucky).

 

And no, you don't seem to understand the point here. It's not that speed is a bad thing, and it's not that slugging is important. However, when you don't get on base at a high rate and you don't slug the ball at all, you simply aren't being productive. I don't care how fast you are, it doesn't matter if you don't get on base which is the case with Taveras. On-base percentage is one of the most important stats in baseball, and the fact that Taveras doesn't walk is a major blow against him. If he were to show that he can consistently get on-base, he would be a fine option, but this just isn't the case.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Felix

[caulfield12]

The argument is BA during the first half of 2006.

 

We were fine without him hitting...just playing sound defense. Not only that, but Taveras would get into scoring position more often than BA that year, whether he was batting 9th or 1st.

 

It's only when the Twins caught on fire and we were struggling in July/August that BA became a liability and Ozzie decided to go with Mackowiak instead.

[caulfield12]

I dislike both Figgins and Taveras, if it is any consolation to you.

 

This isn't to say that Figgins is as bad as Taveras though, as he's a FAR superior player. Same skill set, but he at least gets on base at good rate (.367 OBP last year, .393 in 2007 and .356 career) as well as showing some sort of slugging (1 XBH per 16 AB compared to Taveras's 1 per 25 AB). I mean, seriously. Taveras averages 24 extra-base hits a year, while Figgins is at 40.

 

Neither are the answer for the leadoff spot, but Figgins would at least be a serviceable leadoff man, while Taveras should never be leading off.

 

But trading Konerko or Fields or Poreda for Figgins is much worse than trading Broadway or Adam Russell for Taveras.

 

The cost is simply too high for Figgins, and he's a horrible defensive player. KW said younger/more athletic/better defense, not worse, older and injury-prone. That's why I doubt he touches Hudson or Roberts either.

Edited December 1, 2008 by caulfield12

[Felix]

But trading Konerko or Fields or Poreda for Figgins is much worse than trading Broadway or Adam Russell.

 

The cost is simply too high for Figgins, and he's a horrible defensive player. KW said younger/more athletic/better defense, not worse, older and injury-prone. That's why I doubt he touches Hudson or Roberts either.

Again, I never advocated a trade for Figgins. The price for him is way too high, and he's incredibly overrated by a number of people. The only plus about Taveras is the likely asking price for him, which doesn't appear to be much of anything. However, acquiring him likely means he'd be leading off for the team, which would reduce the men on base for the middle of the order.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Felix

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I don't see how Taveras's 2005 or 2006 seasons were 'just fine' for a starter and leadoff man. The only 'just fine' season he had was in 2007, when he had a .371 BABIP in slightly more than half of a season (meaning he was incredibly lucky).

 

And no, you don't seem to understand the point here. It's not that speed is a bad thing, and it's not that slugging is important. However, when you don't get on base at a high rate and you don't slug the ball at all, you simply aren't being productive. I don't care how fast you are, it doesn't matter if you don't get on base which is the case with Taveras. On-base percentage is one of the most important stats in baseball, and the fact that Taveras doesn't walk is a major blow against him. If he were to show that he can consistently get on-base, he would be a fine option, but this just isn't the case.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, sorry, but it is. BABIP? The guy gets bunt hits and bats over .500 on his career in them, so obviously he is going to do well in that department when he's putting his bunts down at a higher that normal rate. It is not luck. Luck does not exist in baseball or anywhere in life; odds play themselves out and the recipients of long odds act like mystics as a result. Luck is a retarded concept that should have been out of baseball decades ago, but it is making a return thanks to the statheads who use it as a security blanket and count on it to explain all the s*** they can't explain with their stats like BABIP and whatnot.

 

This is a rant, but one of the worst things Bill James has done to baseball is force people to look at s*** like OPS, BABIP, win shares, all that garbage INSTEAD of looking at the actual situations themselves and getting clear, accurate information about what the player does right and wrong. BABIP is a retarded thing to look at anyway when you are talking about a slap hitter/bunt hitter who uses his speed to get on base much of the time. How hard the ball is hit and where it is hit does not always determine whether or not the player ends up at first base when you're talking about someone like Taveras. He makes his living off of fielders rushing plays and making bad throws, beating the defensive set-ups in the infield, testing the arm and accuracy of pitchers and catchers, etc. BABIP tells you nothing about him. His other totals do if you want to look at them though.

 

Back on topic, how is a guy who gets on base 15 more times per season and hits 15 more doubles, triples, or home runs per season but cannot steal more valuable than someone else who, as soon as he gets on, can take a base, force the defense to make a throw, get inside the pitcher's head, help out his #2 hitter with fastballs, etc.? How is the guy who has a much greater chance of scoring when he does get on end up being less valuable than the guy who can get on at a better rate and get a few more XBH's but can't do jack s*** on the bases to help his team except maybe go first to third on a single? Unless he gets an XBH, it takes at base hit or several walks and probably a sacrifice to bring home the guy who cannot steal even if he reaches first with no outs. The guy who can steal, when he gets on with no one out you only need a SB, maybe two if the situation allows for it (weak catcher's arm/slow delivery from pitcher combo) and then either 1 or two groundouts/flyballs. A guy who can steal allows you to put runs on the board while only making outs, at that makes him far more valuable when you are facing a pitcher that does nothing except get you out.

 

AND, walking is as much a skill as it is an effect of hitter intimidation. Why does Jim Thome walk as much as he does? He does have a good eye, but mostly it is because pitchers do not want to go right after him. Stats do NOT tell you batting eye, they only tell aggressiveness and contact rate, so if you think high walk totals mean a guy has a better eye than someone with lower walk totals, get that idea out of your head because it doesn't work like that. Pitchers react completely different to Thome than they ever will to Taveras - one, because he has little power, and two - most importantly - YOU DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO WALK 30-60 SB HITTERS. Taveras by his contact rate appears to have a pretty good eye, the problem is he could have the best eye in baseball and he's still not going to walk as much as a slugger. Figgins gets on at a better clip than Taveras does, but in both cases batting average is the main thing weighting their OBP. Both guys generally get on at a rate about .050 points higher than their batting averages. Figgins had one great year where he got on at a .393 clip, but he hit .330 then, and the reason the difference in AVG and OBP was .063 is because he make better contact that year. Taveras makes better contact than Figgins does, but it appears Figgins walks a little bit more because Taveras is a more aggressive hitter.

 

Both Taveras and Figgins are more than capable lead-off man. It's just that some fans have these stupidly unrealistic expectations for their lead-off hitter and feel the need to bash good players who don't fit their mold. The problem is that their mold doesn't fit Ozzie's mold, so whether you like it or not, I'm sure we're seriously looking at Taveras.

 

I'm done with the Willy Taveras issue. I'll just copy and paste this response from now on because I keep having to state the same things, yet people still don't understand the potential value of a Taveras type even though they claim to have watched us win the World Series one particular season.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Again, I never advocated a trade for Figgins. The price for him is way too high, and he's incredibly overrated by a number of people. The only plus about Taveras is the likely asking price for him, which doesn't appear to be much of anything. However, acquiring him likely means he'd be leading off for the team, which would reduce the men on base for the middle of the order.

So who do you bat lead-off then, and how does your choice help us?

 

With Taveras he could easily bat 9th as well. The main thing is his known defense in CF combined with his known offensive ability. When you talk about Anderson, who I like BTW, you are talking about his known defense in CF and poor or unknown at best offensive ability. Taveras is a safer bet to help the club score runs than Anderson is, and they both play more than capable CF defense in our park, and in any other park for that matter. For his rumored price, it would be stupid not to pick up Willy.

[eickevinmorris]

This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, sorry, but it is. BABIP? The guy gets bunt hits and bats over .500 on his career in them, so obviously he is going to do well in that department when he's putting his bunts down at a higher that normal rate. It is not luck. Luck does not exist in baseball or anywhere in life; odds play themselves out and the recipients of long odds act like mystics as a result. Luck is a retarded concept that should have been out of baseball decades ago, but it is making a return thanks to the statheads who use it as a security blanket and count on it to explain all the s*** they can't explain with their stats like BABIP and whatnot.

 

This is a rant, but one of the worst things Bill James has done to baseball is force people to look at s*** like OPS, BABIP, win shares, all that garbage INSTEAD of looking at the actual situations themselves and getting clear, accurate information about what the player does right and wrong. BABIP is a retarded thing to look at anyway when you are talking about a slap hitter/bunt hitter who uses his speed to get on base much of the time. How hard the ball is hit and where it is hit does not always determine whether or not the player ends up at first base when you're talking about someone like Taveras. He makes his living off of fielders rushing plays and making bad throws, beating the defensive set-ups in the infield, testing the arm and accuracy of pitchers and catchers, etc. BABIP tells you nothing about him. His other totals do if you want to look at them though.

 

Back on topic, how is a guy who gets on base 15 more times per season and hits 15 more doubles, triples, or home runs per season but cannot steal more valuable than someone else who, as soon as he gets on, can take a base, force the defense to make a throw, get inside the pitcher's head, help out his #2 hitter with fastballs, etc.? How is the guy who has a much greater chance of scoring when he does get on end up being less valuable than the guy who can get on at a better rate and get a few more XBH's but can't do jack s*** on the bases to help his team except maybe go first to third on a single? Unless he gets an XBH, it takes at base hit or several walks and probably a sacrifice to bring home the guy who cannot steal even if he reaches first with no outs. The guy who can steal, when he gets on with no one out you only need a SB, maybe two if the situation allows for it (weak catcher's arm/slow delivery from pitcher combo) and then either 1 or two groundouts/flyballs. A guy who can steal allows you to put runs on the board while only making outs, at that makes him far more valuable when you are facing a pitcher that does nothing except get you out.

 

AND, walking is as much a skill as it is an effect of hitter intimidation. Why does Jim Thome walk as much as he does? He does have a good eye, but mostly it is because pitchers do not want to go right after him. Stats do NOT tell you batting eye, they only tell aggressiveness and contact rate, so if you think high walk totals mean a guy has a better eye than someone with lower walk totals, get that idea out of your head because it doesn't work like that. Pitchers react completely different to Thome than they ever will to Taveras - one, because he has little power, and two - most importantly - YOU DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO WALK 30-60 SB HITTERS. Taveras by his contact rate appears to have a pretty good eye, the problem is he could have the best eye in baseball and he's still not going to walk as much as a slugger. Figgins gets on at a better clip than Taveras does, but in both cases batting average is the main thing weighting their OBP. Both guys generally get on at a rate about .050 points higher than their batting averages. Figgins had one great year where he got on at a .393 clip, but he hit .330 then, and the reason the difference in AVG and OBP was .063 is because he make better contact that year. Taveras makes better contact than Figgins does, but it appears Figgins walks a little bit more because Taveras is a more aggressive hitter.

 

Both Taveras and Figgins are more than capable lead-off man. It's just that some fans have these stupidly unrealistic expectations for their lead-off hitter and feel the need to bash good players who don't fit their mold. The problem is that their mold doesn't fit Ozzie's mold, so whether you like it or not, I'm sure we're seriously looking at Taveras.

 

I'm done with the Willy Taveras issue. I'll just copy and paste this response from now on because I keep having to state the same things, yet people still don't understand the potential value of a Taveras type even though they claim to have watched us win the World Series one particular season.

f***ing awesome man. I needed a laugh.

 

People pitch to Taveras because he's terrible. End of story.

 

Edit: Also, if luck doesn't exist, how do you explain variation in statistics from year to year, or the correlation between abnormal rises in BABIP coupled with fluky career seasons?

Edited December 1, 2008 by KevinM

[Jordan4life_2007]

Question for those that continue to bash Taveras, Figgins or any other REALISTIC option (I'll go out on a limb and assume we won't be adding Grady Sizemore or Jose Reyes) to plug into the leadoff spot: are you content with going into ST with Jerry Owens or maybe even Getz as the guy? Are we going to have 54857457275 posts on how KW should be fired if that's what happens? I mean, you can't have it both ways. Kennyprospects is atleast breakin' down REALISTIC (there's that word again) options and examining the pros and cons.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Jordan4life

[chunk23]

The argument is BA during the first half of 2006.

 

We were fine without him hitting...just playing sound defense. Not only that, but Taveras would get into scoring position more often than BA that year, whether he was batting 9th or 1st.

 

It's only when the Twins caught on fire and we were struggling in July/August that BA became a liability and Ozzie decided to go with Mackowiak instead.

 

Wait, I thought that even when a starter, BA still only got like 4 starts a week? He's a rhythm type player. If he doesn't get consistent ABs he won't hit.

 

Statistically BA was the best defensive center fielder in history in 2006 by some measure or another, I can't remember which one. RF maybe? BP was really high on him for it.

Edited December 1, 2008 by chunk23

[witesoxfan]

AND, walking is as much a skill as it is an effect of hitter intimidation. Why does Jim Thome walk as much as he does? He does have a good eye, but mostly it is because pitchers do not want to go right after him. Stats do NOT tell you batting eye, they only tell aggressiveness and contact rate, so if you think high walk totals mean a guy has a better eye than someone with lower walk totals, get that idea out of your head because it doesn't work like that. Pitchers react completely different to Thome than they ever will to Taveras - one, because he has little power, and two - most importantly - YOU DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO WALK 30-60 SB HITTERS. Taveras by his contact rate appears to have a pretty good eye, the problem is he could have the best eye in baseball and he's still not going to walk as much as a slugger. Figgins gets on at a better clip than Taveras does, but in both cases batting average is the main thing weighting their OBP. Both guys generally get on at a rate about .050 points higher than their batting averages. Figgins had one great year where he got on at a .393 clip, but he hit .330 then, and the reason the difference in AVG and OBP was .063 is because he make better contact that year. Taveras makes better contact than Figgins does, but it appears Figgins walks a little bit more because Taveras is a more aggressive hitter.

 

Can you explain to me with this reasoning why Gregor Blanco drew almost twice as many walks as Ryan Braun?

 

There comes a time when you look at players being "pitched around." There also comes a time when the statistics flat out tell you a story about a player. Willy Taveras is an aggressive hitter whose OBP depends entirely upon his average, and if he doesn't hit for a good average, he won't be a good player. It's as simple as that.

 

If Willy Taveras is the last ditch effort and the Sox trade for him in the middle of January, I'll understand. Willy Taveras should not be the major move for the White Sox this offseason.

 

[bighurt4life]

Question for those that continue to bash Taveras, Figgins or any other REALISTIC option (I'll go out on a limb and assume we won't be adding Grady Sizemore or Jose Reyes) to plug into the leadoff spot: are you content with going into ST with Jerry Owens or maybe even Getz as the guy? Are we going to have 54857457275 posts on how KW should be fired if that's what happens? I mean, you can't have it both ways. Kennyprospects is atleast breakin' down REALISTIC (there's that word again) options and examining the pros and cons.

 

I've been making this argument for 2 days now and I'm over it. Bottom line, we don't have a reliable CF or leadoff hitter right now and unless we sell the farm we're not going to end up with Ellsbury patrolling center this next season. Taveras is an experienced player, plays good D, can hit and steal bases, doesn't make a ton of money, can probably be had for some minor prospects and will hold things down until we see what Danks can do. He fills two needs for us and does so cheaply. You can't have world beaters at every position on the field. Do people really think that a 28 year old Jerry Owens is going to be our man next year? He's got 1/2 season in the majors and is almost 28, doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

 

If Willy Taveras is the last ditch effort and the Sox trade for him in the middle of January, I'll understand. Willy Taveras should not be the major move for the White Sox this offseason.

 

I don't think that he'll be the MAJOR move of the offseason but he does fill a couple of important holes that we currently don't have internal options for (at least not good options)