GreatScott82 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sit him down the rest of the way. See you in 2010 buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) As for Quentin, I heard an interview with KW who basically said Quentin is not injury prone its more just freak things. Well, he was hurt in college. Was hurt with the D-Backs, did get hurt last year, and hurt again this year. They all aren't related at all, which I believe was KW's point, but it seems to me some guys are injury-prone and he seems to be one of them. The thing that concerns me is all the times he is HBP. All it takes is one to knock him out a long time. I really wish he would wear some armour. Obviously, if he can remain healthy for long stretches he's one of the best hitters in baseball. I think the strength and conditioning guys and Herm and his minions have their work cut out for them with Carlos. He's too valuable to have spend too much time off the field. The problem is there is nothing that strength and condition could do to prevent the injuries he had. The torn labrum, the fractured wrist and the plantar fasciitis are not conditioning or weakness related injuries. That is the frustrating part. He is like Jim McMahon was for the Bears the elbow injury, the kidney laceration was nothing you could prevent. I'm sure this is what KW meant. Hard work and off season condition etc. would not have prevented any of CQ's injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) I am too, but no green means i seek clarification. Sorry. It was sarcasm. I just thought it was so obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If this team wanted to trade Dye (while still being in contention).... they could at the very least argue it as a positive in-the-now if you have CQ. You can tell the populace that Pods is hitting well and has to be a corner outfielder. However, with CQ not available...any Dye trade will be seen as 100% Flag as opposed to maybe 60% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABearSoX Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I get the feeling this is going to be like Mike Brown...thanks for a great 3/4s of 2008 Carlos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaTank Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Am I the only one who thinks we should have traded Q last offseason when we could have pulled in a s***load for him? Let's face it, the guys an absolute monster when he's healthy, but he's has never been able to stay healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) The problem is there is nothing that strength and condition could do to prevent the injuries he had. The torn labrum, the fractured wrist and the plantar fasciitis are not conditioning or weakness related injuries. That is the frustrating part. He is like Jim McMahon was for the Bears the elbow injury, the kidney laceration was nothing you could prevent. I'm sure this is what KW meant. Hard work and off season condition etc. would not have prevented any of CQ's injuries. I'm not implying they were. But, due to his propencity for getting injured, they are going to have to be sure he's always stretched, conditioned, etc. because he seems like a guy if even a day or two went by where it was a little lax, he probably would find the DL. At Quentin's age, some guys can get out of bed and play baseball. Others, even if they are in apparently terrific physical condition, which Quentin appears to be, need to go through a long routine to be ready. He seems to be long routine guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (jenks45monster @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) Am I the only one who thinks we should have traded Q last offseason when we could have pulled in a s***load for him? Let's face it, the guys an absolute monster when he's healthy, but he's has never been able to stay healthy. Yeah I think you would be the only one. Maybe Steve Phillips thought that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (jenks45monster @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) Am I the only one who thinks we should have traded Q last offseason when we could have pulled in a s***load for him? Let's face it, the guys an absolute monster when he's healthy, but he's has never been able to stay healthy. Teams that trade their best players usually don't win much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think I'm sold. Carlos Quentin is not a guy you can build your offense around. We need to remember this going forward, especially if we are going to go with the youth movement. I like the guy and his potential is through the roof, but he's a walking injury. He's not our savior and he never will be. He's a nice guy to have for a percentage of the year (which is all you'll ever get out of him), but we are going to need someone like Dye to be the real anchor of the offense each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaTank Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) Teams that trade their best players usually don't win much. Teams whose best player is on the shelf for a huge chunk of the season usually won't win much either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 At his peak I dont know if Carlos wouldve netted a ton. He's never shook the injury thing, and he's a corner guy. I think the best bet with Carlos in the long run is stick with him, and hope he takes a Floyd type deal soon (especially with his injury history i think he will). I think he could come cheap now. Waiting for him to be healthy for a full year is just as likely as waiting for a guy we get in a trade to perform. Also, these are not the same injuries over and over again....are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubano Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 He has a history of injuries. Does not he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Master Buehrle Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 We're stuck with Carlos now, any dreams of big hauls in a trade should be gone... but really.. he IS a guy you build your offense around. Any player is injury prone. You take it easy on him this year and then hope for an awesome combo of Beckham-Ramirez-Quentin in your lineup in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Remember Dye, he was "injury prone". I say shut down Q for the rest of the season and get his foot in the best possible condition it can be for February 2010, whether it be surgery, therapy, ice and heat, new shoes, whatever the hell it takes. Just cause he's had some injuries, you don't give up on his offensive potential. But there really is no need to risk him making it worse this year. Lets face, even if we somehow win the division, we won't go far in the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Remember Dye, he was "injury prone". I say shut down Q for the rest of the season and get his foot in the best possible condition it can be for February 2010, whether it be surgery, therapy, ice and heat, new shoes, whatever the hell it takes. Just cause he's had some injuries, you don't give up on his offensive potential. But there really is no need to risk him making it worse this year. Lets face, even if we somehow win the division, we won't go far in the playoffs. Holy s***, I agree with BearSox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) Shut him down. Even if we win the central with the worst record in the AL, I think out of all the world series participants since the 6 division format, less than 10% of them have the worst record in their respective league, and a lower percentage (only the Cardinals?) have actually won. The odds against are similar to coming back from down 7-1 after the 7th inning. The "plan for next year" crowd really burns my butt in situations like this. If you make the playoffs with a hot team, the won-loss record is virtually immaterial. IN ADDITION to the 2006 Cardinals, who gave the '02 Angels, '03 Marlins or even the '04 BoSox a great chance to win the WS? But each did, as a Wild Card. And that's just this decade. You're dadgum right I want the Sox to do all they can to make the playoffs this year! The meathook reality for Sox fans is that there will be no attendance at the Cell if we're not competitive. Our park is not a tourist attraction. Then, the $40 million + we've got coming off the books with expiring contracts doesn't necessarily get plowed back into payroll, until we start winning again. Kenny's "win-now and every year" mantra is borne more out of pragmatism, than a personal philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:52 AM) Exactly, give the man surgery and offer a lowball long-term extension and see if he signs this time. when was the last time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) The "plan for next year" crowd really burns my butt in situations like this. If you make the playoffs with a hot team, the won-loss record is virtually immaterial. IN ADDITION to the 2006 Cardinals, who gave the '02 Angels, '03 Marlins or even the '04 BoSox a great chance to win the WS? But each did, as a Wild Card. And that's just this decade. You're dadgum right I want the Sox to do all they can to make the playoffs this year! The meathook reality for Sox fans is that there will be no attendance at the Cell if we're not competitive. Our park is not a tourist attraction. Then, the $40 million + we've got coming off the books with expiring contracts doesn't necessarily get plowed back into payroll, until we start winning again. Kenny's "win-now and every year" mantra is borne more out of pragmatism, than a personal philosophy. Did the 02 Angels, 03 Marlins or 04 Bosox, as wild cards, have the worst record in their respective league out of all playoff participants? Would the 09 White Sox be making the playoffs as a wild card? Apples to apples. Division winners entering the playoffs with the worst record in their respective league out of the playoff participants - how many have made/won the world series? Forgetting about wild cards for a moment, and just looking at the teams who participate in the world series with the worst record in their respective league out of the playoff pool: AL World Series participants since 1995: 2008 Tampa Bay Rays, 97 wins, 2nd best record in AL 2007 Boston Red Sox, 96 wins, best record in AL 2006 Detroit Tigers, 95 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Oak had 93 wins as West winner) 2005 White Sox, 99 wins, best record in AL 2004 Boston Red Sox, 98 wins, 2nd best record in AL as wild card 2003 New York Yankees, 101 wins, best record in AL 2002 Anaheim Angels, 99 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Min had 94 wins as Central winner) 2001 New York Yankees, 95 wins, 3rd best record of AL participants (Cle had 91 wins as Central winner) 2000 New York Yankees, 87 wins, worst record of AL participants (won world series) 1999 New York Yankees, 98 wins, best record in AL 1998 New York Yankees, 114 wins, best record in AL 1997 Cleveland Indians, 86 wins, worst record of AL participants (lost world series) 1996 New York Yankees, 92 wins, 2nd best record in AL (!) 1995 Cleveland Indians, 100 wins (strike shortened), best record in AL 6/14 times best record goes to the world series (42.8%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 3/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 2/14 times worst record goes to the world series (14.2%) 1/14 times worst record goes to the world series and wins it (7.1%) NL World Series participants since 1995: 2008 Philadelphia Phillies, 92 wins, 2nd best record in NL 2007 Colorado Rockies, 90 wins, 2nd best record in NL 2006 St. Louis Cardinals, 83 wins, worst record of NL participants (won world series) 2005 Houston Astros, 89 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2004 St. Louis Cardinals, 104 wins, best record in NL 2003 Florida Marlins, 91 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2002 San Francisco Giants, 95 wins, worst record of NL participants (lost world series) 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, 92 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 2000 New York Mets, 94 wins, worst record of NL participants (lost world series) 1999 Atlanta Braves, 103 wins, best record in NL 1998 San Diego Padres, 98 wins, 3rd best record of NL participants 1997 Florida Marlins, 92 wins, 2nd best record in NL 1996 Atlanta Braves, 96 wins, best record in NL 1995 Atlanta Braves, 90 wins (strike shortened), best record in NL 4/14 times best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 4/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times worst record goes to the world series (21.4%) 1/14 times worst record goes to the world series and wins it (7.1%) Before you shout "sample size", there are only four frigging variables here. In the AL, the better league over arguably all of these years but a couple, the distribution is as you'd expect: very top heavy and more relevant, because the AL is still the significantly better league in my opinion. In the NL, the distribution is more random. In both leagues, only 1 out of 14 times in the modern 6 division format has the worst record advanced to the world series and won it. Again, in both leagues, only 1 out of 14 times in the modern 6 division format has the worst record advanced to the world series and won it. The only time it happened in the AL was with the 2000 New York Yankees, and if you honestly think that team was the worst talent-wise... When the team is down 7-1 in a game after the 7th inning, do you have the same mentality that they will win? We are talking similar probabilities here. Risking injury for a longshot like this seems dumb. f*** the 06 cardinals for getting fans of every team talking like this, btw. They are a statistical anomaly by quite a wide margin. Edited June 17, 2009 by Greg Hibbard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Earlier post: Even if we win the central with the worst record in the AL, I think out of all the world series participants since the 6 division format, less than 10% of them have the worst record in their respective league Later post: AL 6/14 times best record goes to the world series (42.8%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 3/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 2/14 times worst record goes to the world series (14.2%) NL 4/14 times best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times 2nd best record goes to the world series (21.4%) 4/14 times 3rd best record goes to the world series (28.5%) 3/14 times worst record goes to the world series (21.4%) Thank you for making my argument for me. Your earlier comment doesn't exactly dovetail with the 14.2% and 21.4% above. This comparison to a 7-1 deficit in the 7th inning is beyond meaningless. Too early to pull the plug. In addition to the 5 WS participants with the worst records, just three years ago in our own division, Minnesota's season completely turned around about this time and they won 96 games. There's still time to see if this thing might come together for the Sox, and still time to shut down Q and/or make trades, if it doesn't. A productive Q is still a decent possibility this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) Thank you for making my argument for me. Your earlier comment doesn't exactly dovetail with the 14.2% and 21.4% above. This comparison to a 7-1 deficit in the 7th inning is beyond meaningless. Too early to pull the plug. In addition to the 5 WS participants with the worst records, just three years ago in our own division, Minnesota's season completely turned around about this time and they won 96 games. There's still time to see if this thing might come together for the Sox, and still time to shut down Q and/or make trades, if it doesn't. A productive Q is still a decent possibility this season. So making the world series, regardless of whether you win it, is this the most important thing to you despite any injury concerns? I personally think the 7.1% is the important number there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I also think that if you think the White Sox have the talent to be anything but the worst division winner at less than 90 games, you are completely delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Also, there's a million ways we could break this down statistically that would be unfavorable to the sox. Teams that were 30-34 or worse after 64 games that won the world series? Teams that even won more than 90 games after being 30-34 after 64 games? Do you see this team going 60-38 down the stretch? Or even 15 over? Why? And measuring things statistical is what we do in baseball, which is why my analogy is completely relevant - because whatever percentage probability we assign to the White Sox can be assigned to an analogous game situation. Whatever longshot pie-in-the-sky hopes you may have - if they don't stack up statistically, why on earth would we make dumb roster decisions because of them? Which stat do you want to go to next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) Which stat do you want to go to next? We disagree. They have a reasonable chance still, IMO. Don't get so worked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hibbard Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jun 17, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) We disagree. They have a reasonable chance still, IMO. Don't get so worked up. Ok, since you singled out my abandon ship post, why is every "reasonable chance" post so statistically nebulous? They have a reasonable chance based on what evidence, according to you? 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.