AGon discussion, et. al.

[Dick Allen]

With our park and our defense, Floyd is a little less valuable here than he might be somewhere else.

 

With our park, we can stretch our dollars more when we go out and get cheap free agent power guys that do actually matter.

 

 

 

I guess I just see it as....with our current situation we badly need a guy who will get people out with the bat on their shoulder. Obviously no one is going to argue with me on that being a good thing, but I guess you're all arguing with me on how necessary that is for our team specifically to have a championship hope.

 

If you put the Doc/Peavy staff out there, all you would need to go right is the team HR total going back up...which i think is doable with 5-8M somehow freed up for a cheap power guy. I only say this because I think there's no way we get a high OBP team together for next year....... but in 05 we had a great staff and a steady group of power guys...and it was just enough.

I'm not exactly Floyd's biggest fan, but he's a heck of a lot better at home than on the road.

 

Split W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB

Home 6 3 .667 2.47 13 13 0 0 0 0 91.0 70 30 25 8 23 3 89 1 0 366 1.022 8.8 3.87

Away 5 8 .385 5.47 17 17 0 1 0 0 102.0 108 63 62 13 36 1 74 1 0 431 1.412 6.5 2.06

 

The ballpark factor is no factor. The guy was a HOFer at home and a AAA pitcher on the road in 2009. If the White Sox have the kind of money they would need to upgrade to Halladay from Floyd, not only in 2009 but moving forward, they would be better off using that money fixing the bullpen and other holes.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Ranger]

Let me preface by saying that I have been lurking on this board for a few years (as well as WSI) but have never been able to get a successful registration up until today (something about my domain being unagreeable with the login process. Thanks, Michael, for fixing it.)

 

Anyway, I can't speak for anyone else that covers the Sox, but I can tell you that I have very little problem with anyone trying to break a story. If you have contacts and sources and you have a forum, you have every right to use that forum to your advantage.

 

The advantage that the Trib/Sun Times/The Score/etc. have is that with their reports, there usually comes a bit of inherent credence given to those reports. That has nothing to do with the fact that those reports are printed on real, actual paper or floated through a transmitter. It has everything to do with the fact that they are established institutions and people recognize them, they've heard their names before.

 

With continued diligence, SoxNet may someday be thought of by the masses in the same manner. If that happens, I don't think that's a bad thing. Certainly, SoxNet has already a good following.

 

As some of you know, Joe Cowley is a regular on the Score and on shows that I do. I like Joe and I know he works hard covering the team, and has a pretty good understanding of what's going on with them.

 

I know I said earlier that I can't speak for others, but I think I could understand where some people within the "established" media would take issue with certain blogs. There are plenty of bloggers that toss out rumors like they're brainstorming. Not to say that it doesn't happen in other forms of media because it does, but I have an issue with anyone that does that. I don't care if it's a blog, paper, radio or TV station. Promoting a rumor as if it's "close" to happening is irresponsible and, often times, the rumors that are in circulation are about potential trades that were discussed and already killed 3 days prior to the report.

 

As for this latest rumor, it's not a secret the Sox were/are legitimately interested in Adrain Gonzalez. I mentioned it a time or two over the last couple of years and I know for a fact they tried VERY hard to acquire him 4 years ago and got pretty close, actually. I think what some people disagreed with on the SoxNet report is that it seemed to have a tone of the trade being a real possibility, even though Jason couched it early by using the phrase "preliminary discussions." While I don't doubt that there were discussions, from all indications, the seriousness of those discussions were no greater than what every GM does when they ask every other GM about every other player they'd like to have. In all reality, it could be reported that the Sox have had preliminary discussions with just about every team about every superstar out there.

 

Maybe I'm wrong for reading it that way, and I apologize if I did take it the wrong way, but that's sort of how I felt when I read it initially. I respect that the authors did some work to try and break some news and I encourage them to continue.

 

I don't think it's totally impossible that the Sox are able to work something out for him at some point, but I wouldn't expect it. It would be incredible, though, if they do...as long as they don't have to touch the rotation or the middle infield.

 

-Rongey

[sircaffey]

If the Padres don't currently have an "If you offer this level of deal you've got him" asking price, then they need a new GM again. That asking price can be ridiculously high, but it should have existed the day they hired their new GM. For example, if the Sox offered Beckham and Hudson or something like that...they'd be out of their minds not to accept it that second.

 

I disagree. They would not be crazy not to jump at an offer like Beckham and Hudson. This trade is going to determine the Padres' next decade. It should not be made in haste. There will be at least 5 serious suitors for Gonzalez. The Padres' GM would be a fool not to pursue all avenues before committing to anything.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me preface by saying that I have been lurking on this board for a few years (as well as WSI) but have never been able to get a successful registration up until today (something about my domain being unagreeable with the login process. Thanks, Michael, for fixing it.)

 

Anyway, I can't speak for anyone else that covers the Sox, but I can tell you that I have very little problem with anyone trying to break a story. If you have contacts and sources and you have a forum, you have every right to use that forum to your advantage.

 

The advantage that the Trib/Sun Times/The Score/etc. have is that with their reports, there usually comes a bit of inherent credence given to those reports. That has nothing to do with the fact that those reports are printed on real, actual paper or floated through a transmitter. It has everything to do with the fact that they are established institutions and people recognize them, they've heard their names before.

 

With continued diligence, SoxNet may someday be thought of by the masses in the same manner. If that happens, I don't think that's a bad thing. Certainly, SoxNet has already a good following.

 

As some of you know, Joe Cowley is a regular on the Score and on shows that I do. I like Joe and I know he works hard covering the team, and has a pretty good understanding of what's going on with them.

 

I know I said earlier that I can't speak for others, but I think I could understand where some people within the "established" media would take issue with certain blogs. There are plenty of bloggers that toss out rumors like they're brainstorming. Not to say that it doesn't happen in other forms of media because it does, but I have an issue with anyone that does that. I don't care if it's a blog, paper, radio or TV station. Promoting a rumor as if it's "close" to happening is irresponsible and, often times, the rumors that are in circulation are about potential trades that were discussed and already killed 3 days prior to the report.

 

As for this latest rumor, it's not a secret the Sox were/are legitimately interested in Adrain Gonzalez. I mentioned it a time or two over the last couple of years and I know for a fact they tried VERY hard to acquire him 4 years ago and got pretty close, actually. I think what some people disagreed with on the SoxNet report is that it seemed to have a tone of the trade being a real possibility, even though Jason couched it early by using the phrase "preliminary discussions." While I don't doubt that there were discussions, from all indications, the seriousness of those discussions were no greater than what every GM does when they ask every other GM about every other player they'd like to have. In all reality, it could be reported that the Sox have had preliminary discussions with just about every team about every superstar out there.

 

Maybe I'm wrong for reading it that way, and I apologize if I did take it the wrong way, but that's sort of how I felt when I read it initially. I respect that the authors did some work to try and break some news and I encourage them to continue.

 

I don't think it's totally impossible that the Sox are able to work something out for him at some point, but I wouldn't expect it. It would be incredible, though, if they do...as long as they don't have to touch the rotation or the middle infield.

 

-Rongey

Thanks for your contribution, and welcome to the board, Chris!

 

I tend to disagree on the tone of the article hinting at the trade being anything more than how it was stated - preliminary discussions. The attempt was made to make sure it was properly couched that way. Others may take that and leap to other conclusions.

 

But otherwise, I think your post here is spot on. Keep up the good work!

[RockRaines]

Thanks for your contribution, and welcome to the board, Chris!

 

I tend to disagree on the tone of the article hinting at the trade being anything more than how it was stated - preliminary discussions. The attempt was made to make sure it was properly couched that way. Others may take that and leap to other conclusions.

 

But otherwise, I think your post here is spot on. Keep up the good work!

I wanted to add that you have done a great job of expanding your knowledge of both the sport and the Sox since you took that job Chris, not everyone has that dedication. I know when you were first hired that your buddies used to joke about it quite a bit, but I think you've more than proven yourself the last few years.

 

And Cowley is still an unprofessional douchenozzle, but I know you probably cant put that out in the open.

Edited November 19, 2009 by RockRaines

[ThunderBolt]

Floyd is the #4 starting pitcher.

I suspect he's #3. I'd put Buehrle at two and Ozzie doesn't slot back to back LHP's.

Peavy

Buehrle

Floyd

Danks

Garcia.

[Princess Dye]

I must agree that it's kind of weird to call something "preliminary discussions" -- when we all figure that each of these trades just kind of starts the same way -- with a conversational phone call. It either goes somewhere or it doesnt.

 

If it's shot down immediately, that too was a preliminary discussion. But 'preliminary' means it's headed somewhere... so it has a little bit of a loaded tone to it.

 

Now, if someone has a problem with SoxNet's wording...that presupposes the person putting out the rumor has any idea of how far along it is. If they have to know that each time, then nothing will ever be put out there.

 

Kind of a double edged sword. Whether to report or not. I think most of us fall on the side of wanting all the rumors that have any validity whatsoever.

 

My life is boring enough .....i come here for news of any liminary, be it pre or post or middle!

[RockRaines]

I suspect he's #3. I'd put Buehrle at two and Ozzie doesn't slot back to back LHP's.

Peavy

Buehrle

Floyd

Danks

Garcia.

That rotation is so f***ing filthy, its hilarious we are debating the difference between our #3 and #4 guys when they are both pretty awesome. Seeing Peavy's name at the top of that list still amazes me.

[Rowand44]

I suspect he's #3. I'd put Buehrle at two and Ozzie doesn't slot back to back LHP's.

Peavy

Buehrle

Floyd

Danks

Garcia.

I think Wite just means he's our 4th best pitcher. Anyways, to start the season it'll probably be: Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Garcia in that order anyways.

[knightni]

I see the point on both sides. The guys at the papers don't trust the validity of internet guys because they believe that it is too hard for non TV/radio/paper people to verify their sources accurately. On the other hand, internet guys should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. If their sources turn out to be true and news happens that verifies their story, then they should get respect. Some writers just don't want to give that benefit because there are far too many "rumor mill" sites on the internet that are unreliable.

[Ranger]

I must agree that it's kind of weird to call something "preliminary discussions" -- when we all figure that each of these trades just kind of starts the same way -- with a conversational phone call. It either goes somewhere or it doesnt.

 

If it's shot down immediately, that too was a preliminary discussion. But 'preliminary' means it's headed somewhere... so it has a little bit of a loaded tone to it.

 

Now, if someone has a problem with SoxNet's wording...that presupposes the person putting out the rumor has any idea of how far along it is. If they have to know that each time, then nothing will ever be put out there.

 

Kind of a double edged sword. Whether to report or not. I think most of us fall on the side of wanting all the rumors that have any validity whatsoever.

 

My life is boring enough .....i come here for news of any liminary, be it pre or post or middle!

 

You know what it is? It's highly similar to the waiver thing. People flip out when they find out so-and-so was placed on waivers, and invariably, a report gets printed/broadcast. It's kind of absurd because almost EVERY player gets placed on waivers at some point.

 

[Melissa1334]

That rotation is so f***ing filthy, its hilarious we are debating the difference between our #3 and #4 guys when they are both pretty awesome. Seeing Peavy's name at the top of that list still amazes me.

me too. i never would have thought, two, three years ago,winning the cy young, being one of the top 3 pitchers in the game,that hed ever wind up being on the sox

[iamshack]

I think it's irresponsible and even a misrepresentation of the truth to throw something out into the blogosphere with the magical word "source" attached to it, and then fall back under the veil of "these were ordinary preliminary discussions, not separate and apart from anything in the course of a GM's ordinary dealings." Obviously, this information would not have been posted in the manner it was unless it did carry an air of legitimacy to it, regardless of the fact that the odds were still long of it actually occurring.

 

I think the key point here is not that there may have been "preliminary discussions" in regards to the players and teams mentioned, as Chris implied, this phrase has been overused by the baseball media so as to include a range of meanings that could include mentioning a player's name in passing to actual details of a deal being discussed. Rather, the point is that the "source" is claiming that the actual players were discussed with the actual teams mentioned, and some discussions, whether they ever reached a critical or material point, did occur.

 

THAT, is what Soxnet was reporting. Rather than offering a disclaimer that such discussions may have only been preliminary, I think a better approach may have been to simply state that Soxnet is not claiming that any deal is imminent, that the progress of these talks is unknown, and could indeed have ceased, and that Soxnet is not making any claims about any proposed deals, other than simply stating that it believes such discussions have occurred.

 

Unfortunately, as one can tell, a lot of this is about semantics. Perhaps the same exact course of events would have unfolded, irrespective of how Jason presented the information. But the phrase "preliminary discussions" gives the consumer of the information the idea that the two parties are still sitting at the bargaining table, hammering away at some prospective deal, which is why a lot of people took issue with this in the end.

 

That being said, if you're going to run with the word "source," you're going to have to stay in the kitchen when things get hot, and I think Jason has done a very nice job of doing that.

Edited November 19, 2009 by iamshack

[witesoxfan]

I think Wite just means he's our 4th best pitcher. Anyways, to start the season it'll probably be: Buehrle, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Garcia in that order anyways.

 

Precisely, and that's not a knock against Floyd, because Floyd is damn fine pitcher himself.

[iamshack]

I guess I should've just put it this way, there is a lot of bs rhetoric in my previous post:

 

The information would have been better represented as "A source has indicated that such discussions have occurred," rather than as "these talks are in preliminary stages."

 

Sorry for anyone who wasted 3 minutes of their life reading that previous post.

 

[Ranger]

I see the point on both sides. The guys at the papers don't trust the validity of internet guys because they believe that it is too hard for non TV/radio/paper people to verify their sources accurately. On the other hand, internet guys should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. If their sources turn out to be true and news happens that verifies their story, then they should get respect. Some writers just don't want to give that benefit because there are far too many "rumor mill" sites on the internet that are unreliable.

 

 

Yes, that is part of the problem. There are more unreliable websites than there are reliable ones. Because, really, anybody can start their own blog or site. Whereas, to join an established media outlet, there is usually some sort of vetting process. So at least, there is the perception credebility if there is not actual credibility. Now, mainstream media outlets also have to be careful, because they can fall into the same sort of aura of unreliability if they don't do their jobs right. Just ask the New York Post.

 

Though it could change over the next several years, it currently stands that there is usually more at stake with mainstream outlets in terms of accountability. This may be not be true for some blogs, but for the most part, bloggers do what they do as a hobby. It's usually not their livelihood. There usually isn't huge pressure from sponsors, bosses, editors, program directors, etc. The medium is less rigid and less formal.

 

It may get to the point someday where bloggers dominate the press box. But with that, will come a whole lot more responsibility.

 

Websites/blogs are perfectly capable of breaking stories. And often times they do. I understand, however, how they can often times be dismissed.

[iamshack]

Yes, that is part of the problem. There are more unreliable websites than there are reliable ones. Because, really, anybody can start their own blog or site. Whereas, to join an established media outlet, there is usually some sort of vetting process. So at least, there is the perception credebility if there is not actual credibility. Now, mainstream media outlets also have to be careful, because they can fall into the same sort of aura of unreliability if they don't do their jobs right. Just ask the New York Post.

 

Though it could change over the next several years, it currently stands that there is usually more at stake with mainstream outlets in terms of accountability. This may be not be true for some blogs, but for the most part, bloggers do what they do as a hobby. It's usually not their livelihood. There usually isn't huge pressure from sponsors, bosses, editors, program directors, etc. The medium is less rigid and less formal.

 

It may get to the point someday where bloggers dominate the press box. But with that, will come a whole lot more responsibility.

 

Websites/blogs are perfectly capable of breaking stories. And often times they do. I understand, however, how they can often times be dismissed.

 

This is all very true. However, the issue which occurred here is that someone affiliated with a mainstream media outlet immediately dismissed blog/website in question, characterizing it as something run out of a trekkie's basement, without doing any research as to any credibility it may have had.

 

While that may be true of some blogs/websites out there, one look at this site and one realizes that is simply not the case. There is more intelligent White Sox discourse going around this website than any other medium I am aware of.

 

Disrespecting bloggers and website owners, as well as the many, many fans of the team one is affiliated with is probably not the best course of action to take.

 

Joe could have easily stated that his sources did not indicate there was any truth to the report, and left it at that. Unfortunately, he did not.

 

[Ranger]

I think it's irresponsible and even a misrepresentation of the truth to throw something out into the blogosphere with the magical word "source" attached to it, and then fall back under the veil of "these were ordinary preliminary discussions, not separate and apart from anything in the course of a GM's ordinary dealings." Obviously, this information would not have been posted in the manner it was unless it did carry an air of legitimacy to it, regardless of the fact that the odds were still long of it actually occurring.

 

I think the key point here is not that there may have been "preliminary discussions" in regards to the players and teams mentioned, as Chris implied, this phrase has been overused by the baseball media so as to include a range of meanings that could include mentioning a player's name in passing to actual details of a deal being discussed. Rather, the point is that the "source" is claiming that the actual players were discussed with the actual teams mentioned, and some discussions, whether they ever reached a critical or material point, did occur.

 

THAT, is what Soxnet was reporting. Rather than offering a disclaimer that such discussions may have only been preliminary, I think a better approach may have been to simply state that Soxnet is not claiming that any deal is imminent, that the progress of these talks is unknown, and could indeed have ceased, and that Soxnet is not making any claims about any proposed deals, other than simply stating that it believes such discussions have occurred.

 

Unfortunately, as one can tell, a lot of this is about semantics. Perhaps the same exact course of events would have unfolded, irrespective of how Jason presented the information. But the phrase "preliminary discussions" gives the consumer of the information the idea that the two parties are still sitting at the bargaining table, hammering away at some prospective deal, which is why a lot of people took issue with this in the end.

 

That being said, if you're going to run with the word "source," you're going to have to stay in the kitchen when things get hot, and I think Jason has done a very nice job of doing that.

 

 

 

I think it's fair how you worded it the first time. Don't feel bad about blabbering...did you see my first post???

 

But you've hit it precisely, I think. You said that all of this is semantics, and that is true. It really is semantics. But, as a reporter of print or electronic media, in any capacity, semantics matter because what you report will be examined and re-examined 1,000 times. You have to be EXTREMELY careful with how you word things. Especially if you're a writer because you can't make what you've already written disappear.

 

You might be right. Had Jason worded it differently, we still may be having the same discussion. However, had the original report been worked a little differently and somebody decided to criticize Jason for implying something that he isn't trying to imply, all he'd have to say is, "Hey, dude, go read it again because apparently you didn't get it the first time you read it."

 

[Ranger]

This is all very true. However, the issue which occurred here is that someone affiliated with a mainstream media outlet immediately dismissed blog/website in question, characterizing it as something run out of a trekkie's basement, without doing any research as to any credibility it may have had.

 

While that may be true of some blogs/websites out there, one look at this site and one realizes that is simply not the case. There is more intelligent White Sox discourse going around this website than any other medium I am aware of.

 

Disrespecting bloggers and website owners, as well as the many, many fans of the team one is affiliated with is probably not the best course of action to take.

 

Joe could have easily stated that his sources did not indicate there was any truth to the report, and left it at that. Unfortunately, he did not.

 

 

You are right, he could've done that. But the difficulty in doing that is that there are SO many rumor blogs out there that it is almost impossible to fact check every single one of them every time there is a report of a potential trade. He may have done that if SoxNet were already widely regarded as a credible source for White Sox information.

 

Now, don't take that the wrong way. I'm NOT saying that SoxNet is unreliable. What I'm saying is that the majority of media consumers don't know if it is or not, and most have probably not even heard of the site before. I mean, I do because it's my job to try and know what's out there. But I would argue that most casual fans of the team are not familiar with this site. SoxNet may be right every time, but for all most people know, it could just be another rumor blog. You know what I mean?

 

After a while, SoxNet may develop a reputation that would force mainstream outlets to check into everything the blog reports. At which point, SoxNet would essentially become mainstream.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Ranger

[Quin]

I wanted to add that you have done a great job of expanding your knowledge of both the sport and the Sox since you took that job Chris, not everyone has that dedication. I know when you were first hired that your buddies used to joke about it quite a bit, but I think you've more than proven yourself the last few years.

 

And Cowley is still an unprofessional douchenozzle, but I know you probably cant put that out in the open.

 

I gotta agree with this, since Rongey is far and away my favorite Sox media personality. Always keeps me listening to the score post-game.

[southsider2k5]

You are right, he could've done that. But the difficulty in doing that is that there are SO many rumor blogs out there that it is almost impossible to fact check every single one of them every time there is a report of a potential trade. He may have done that if SoxNet were already widely regarded as a credible source for White Sox information.

 

Now, don't take that the wrong way. I'm NOT saying that SexNet is unreliable. What I'm saying is that the majority of media consumers don't know if it is or not, and most have probably not even heard of the site before. I mean, I do because it's my job to try and know what's out there. But I would argue that most casual fans of the team are not familiar with this site. SoxNet may be right every time, but for all most people know, it could just be another rumor blog. You know what I mean?

 

After a while, SoxNet may develop a reputation that would force mainstream outlets to check into everything the blog reports. At which point, SoxNet would essentially become mainstream.

 

Nice work Ranger, but I think you are getting your rumors from a completely different spot

 

Anyways, welcome to SOXtalk

[southsider2k5]

I wanted to add that you have done a great job of expanding your knowledge of both the sport and the Sox since you took that job Chris, not everyone has that dedication. I know when you were first hired that your buddies used to joke about it quite a bit, but I think you've more than proven yourself the last few years.

 

And Cowley is still an unprofessional douchenozzle, but I know you probably cant put that out in the open.

 

I will say I was a HUGE (and still am) Dave Wills fan, so it took me about a year to warm up. But now I really feel that Chris is as much of the radio cast as DJ and Farmio.

[Ranger]

Nice work Ranger, but I think you are getting your rumors from a completely different spot

 

Anyways, welcome to SOXtalk

 

 

WOW. Did I really do that? That's awesome.

 

Like I said, you have to be VERY careful with what you write.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Ranger

[knightni]

Just for general reference purposes if there are any lurkers...

 

Soxtalk/FutureSox/Soxnet doesn't make up stories or post anything that hasn't been verified by an outside source.

 

I've been posting here for almost 6 years and on the staff here for nearly 4 and outside of a poster bringing in speculation on occasion, this site has been very cautious about what is posted when it comes to "breaking news."

[Pants Rowland]

I will say I was a HUGE (and still am) Dave Wills fan, so it took me about a year to warm up. But now I really feel that Chris is as much of the radio cast as DJ and Farmio.

 

I still don't think of Farmer as part of the radio cast, especially handling PBP. Oh how I miss John Rooney.