AGon discussion, et. al.

[balfanman]

I would just like to add my "Welcome Ranger" to the chorus. I post on "the other" site too, but the main reason I signed up at WSI was because you posted there Ranger and I found alot of your posts to be honest and insightful. I have always felt that Soxtalk is much more informative overall, with better quality dialogue. I guess now that you're here Ranger this is now kind of like one stop shopping for me!

[southsider2k5]

You know, I'm not sure if Joe or anyone else in the media lurks here. Personally, I appreciate message boards and a lot of times I find them sometimes entertaining, sometimes helpful. What, I think, some people don't like about message boards is how they can sometimes devolve into groupthink and "best insult" contests. I don't really care for that. I don't care for negativity, but I do love real, actual debate.

 

Negativity is probably the one thing about message boards that can rub me the wrong way. Some of you know that I sometimes get the "company man" tag thrown at me on occasion (often on message boards), but it really isn't true. For those that truly listen to what I say during the shows, I'm not a pessimist, but I'm also really not an optimist. I'm just simply not a negative person. I don't think everything is always going to end up as bad as it could possibly end up, and I don't think that everything that can go wrong always will go wrong. I think sometimes negativity runs rampant on message boards. That's usually because of the passion posters have for their teams. This is true pretty much everywhere.

 

This isn't always true, but sometimes it is.

 

 

 

 

 

I love having level-headed discussion about the team and I've been participating over at WSI for a while (sorry, Mike!). I'll be back here as often as I can. I don't doubt that the contributors here have good intentions. Again, I think it's a matter of being careful in how rumors are presented because, as you can see, s***storms can follow.

 

Its all good. In general the competition is pretty much dead between the two sites, at least at the administrative level. I think we both recognize that we do our thing and they do their thing. As a matter of a fact it has gotten to the point where we play softball against each other during the summer before a Sox game. This past season was our third year of doing so. There are a lot of good people over there, even if we don't agree with our visions for message boards.

[Princess Dye]

Great post bmags. Reporters/newspapers are concerned with the scoop.

 

Here we want to learn more about our team's thought process. Even if this sounded hard to accomplish, we were at least glad to know the kind of player they want and the potential method of acquiring.

 

Reporters need to do enough to inform, we need to have enough to be able to carry on day long conversation.

[Chisoxfn]

You know, I'm not sure if Joe or anyone else in the media lurks here. Personally, I appreciate message boards and a lot of times I find them sometimes entertaining, sometimes helpful. What, I think, some people don't like about message boards is how they can sometimes devolve into groupthink and "best insult" contests. I don't really care for that. I don't care for negativity, but I do love real, actual debate.

 

Negativity is probably the one thing about message boards that can rub me the wrong way. Some of you know that I sometimes get the "company man" tag thrown at me on occasion (often on message boards), but it really isn't true. For those that truly listen to what I say during the shows, I'm not a pessimist, but I'm also really not an optimist. I'm just simply not a negative person. I don't think everything is always going to end up as bad as it could possibly end up, and I don't think that everything that can go wrong always will go wrong. I think sometimes negativity runs rampant on message boards. That's usually because of the passion posters have for their teams. This is true pretty much everywhere.

 

This isn't always true, but sometimes it is.

 

 

 

 

 

I love having level-headed discussion about the team and I've been participating over at WSI for a while (sorry, Mike!). I'll be back here as often as I can. I don't doubt that the contributors here have good intentions. Again, I think it's a matter of being careful in how rumors are presented because, as you can see, s***storms can follow.

Hey Chris

 

Welcome aboard. Glad you've stopped by and I appreciate your comments. I never thought the story I wrote would end up erupting like it did, but I will not take back what I said and it came from a very good source. I felt that the article I wrote was as honest as possible to the fact that they were prelim discussion. In fact, for those that followed this thread they will vouch for the fact that I kept re-iterating that I was reporting discussions had taken place recently between the three teams with those names being involved.

 

I didn't go anywhere past there and I thought indicated throughout the article that that was the extent of the talks. I wanted Sox fans to know what we had heard and to discuss the possibilities. Basically put, prior to the article there was already a 20 page thread on the matter of Adrian Gonzalez but most of it (with the exception of the radio reports last week) was pure conjecture on Sox fans part.

 

I felt the news we heard from our source put an end to the conjecture and at least linked the teams to discussions. I personally see Gonzalez as a great fit for a club with a budgeted payroll of 115-120M and since the Sox don't fit in that camp I think it would be hard to come up with a Gonzalez deal that makes sense (since you'd lose him in 2 years). I realize Gonzalez contract is cheap, but even if you acquire him you still have significant holes to fill and an extension to try and figure out, plus you know your going to have to eventually pay Quentin and Danks.

 

If the club could move Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink it would be another story but that will be incredibly difficult to do (especially in the case of Linebrink). Well, maybe not difficult to trade them, but to get value back equal to there value with the Sox would be difficult (in the case of Jenks/Paulie).

 

And in regards to Joe Cowley, I have stayed out of it aside from sending my email to him, because his comments were not attacking a rumor, they were attacking myself and other individuals and those comments were completely unprofessional and un-called for.

 

If Joe wanted to find out about SoxNet, he could have shot me a quick email and I would have been happy to inform him of the sites history, the fact that the network of three (Soxtalk/FutureSox/SoxNet) sites gets ~12 million hits per month, has interviewed quite a few major and minor league players over the years, has an owner that turned down a job to go into scouting, has connections to Sox scouts, etc, etc, etc.

 

I realize SoxNet might appear new, but the way he reacted and responded and criticized was completely un-professional and child-like. And I'll take all of the heat that comes with what I wrote and I'll stand by it, just as I've stood bye anything I've written (albeit poorly, as I'm not a columnist, but I am a baseball purist and a person that has a vast understanding of the game of baseball) and I'll continue moving forward in my goal of making this place the best of all fan run sites across the web!!!!

 

And Rongey, once again, you are a class act and I look forward to seeing you around these parts more often!!!

[southsider2k5]

For those relatively new to the site, this is one of the gems that started right here on Soxtalk, and while it wasn't proven true early on, it sure came back around later on in the case of Clemens.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...10304/index.htm

[Chisoxfn]

Exactly.

 

Obviously a trade for A-Gon isn't going to go down in the next day or two. But it is something that has been speculated on as an option, ever since the season had finished, because of the circumstances with San Diego's payroll, the Sox's need to improve their 1B/DH situation, and the two teams having dealt with each other only a couple of months ago with the Peavy deal, albeit there's a new GM in Hoyer there now.

 

As for the Soxnet / Cowley situation, Cowley's entitled to his view but obviously many people around here and myself feel that he was overly harsh in doing so to say the least, but hey that's the nature of the business.

 

Soxnet isn't mainstream, we hope one day that it becomes popular enough that it does so. And after making the post about the Gonzalez rumor, traffic on the site spiked significantly, so it has generated the site some publicity and extra viewing traffic which is great for the site. And obviously, every rumor that a message board or a blog posts is not always going to be correct. But the guys decided to post what they had heard from their sources, and for them to be dealt with by some members of the media (while some others have risen above that), has just been classless and really quite sad in the end.

I want to just speak out and say we've held to ourselves many rumors over the years. This was one we felt worthy of talking about. It came from a good source, had details as to a few of the names that would be going (saying the Sox called about Adrian Gonzalez is one thing, its another to hear that three teams talked and bounced the idea of a 3 team trade off of each other). Again, we also re-iterated it would never happen.

 

I'm willing to take whatever heat comes about from making a comment and I'll take heat in the future when I report what I heard on. It happens to anyone, blogger or media member, but I'd like to believe our sites and our long-term reputation is very well respected amongst Sox fans privy to whats going on in the web world.

 

You'll never find a better source for Sox minor league news than on our network. And you'll never find a place that more often than not is ahead of the curve on Sox news (whether its getting the juice out of a rumor right when it happens, to us reporting something with our own sources, etc, etc).

 

We might not talk to the org as often as others, but for anyone to say we don't have sources, I'd like people to go back and look at just one many real interesting days we've had. A day when the Sox were handling Brandon McCarthy. The radio was saying one thing, I was saying another. People outside of Soxtalk doubted us, little did they know I was 10000000% sure that my info was better than theirs because of who my info was coming from.

[Ranger]

I would just like to add my "Welcome Ranger" to the chorus. I post on "the other" site too, but the main reason I signed up at WSI was because you posted there Ranger and I found alot of your posts to be honest and insightful. I have always felt that Soxtalk is much more informative overall, with better quality dialogue. I guess now that you're here Ranger this is now kind of like one stop shopping for me!

 

 

Hey Chris

 

Welcome aboard. Glad you've stopped by and I appreciate your comments. I never thought the story I wrote would end up erupting like it did, but I will not take back what I said and it came from a very good source. I felt that the article I wrote was as honest as possible to the fact that they were prelim discussion. In fact, for those that followed this thread they will vouch for the fact that I kept re-iterating that I was reporting discussions had taken place recently between the three teams with those names being involved.

 

I didn't go anywhere past there and I thought indicated throughout the article that that was the extent of the talks. I wanted Sox fans to know what we had heard and to discuss the possibilities. Basically put, prior to the article there was already a 20 page thread on the matter of Adrian Gonzalez but most of it (with the exception of the radio reports last week) was pure conjecture on Sox fans part.

 

I felt the news we heard from our source put an end to the conjecture and at least linked the teams to discussions. I personally see Gonzalez as a great fit for a club with a budgeted payroll of 115-120M and since the Sox don't fit in that camp I think it would be hard to come up with a Gonzalez deal that makes sense (since you'd lose him in 2 years). I realize Gonzalez contract is cheap, but even if you acquire him you still have significant holes to fill and an extension to try and figure out, plus you know your going to have to eventually pay Quentin and Danks.

 

If the club could move Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink it would be another story but that will be incredibly difficult to do (especially in the case of Linebrink). Well, maybe not difficult to trade them, but to get value back equal to there value with the Sox would be difficult (in the case of Jenks/Paulie).

 

And in regards to Joe Cowley, I have stayed out of it aside from sending my email to him, because his comments were not attacking a rumor, they were attacking myself and other individuals and those comments were completely unprofessional and un-called for.

 

If Joe wanted to find out about SoxNet, he could have shot me a quick email and I would have been happy to inform him of the sites history, the fact that the network of three (Soxtalk/FutureSox/SoxNet) sites gets ~12 million hits per month, has interviewed quite a few major and minor league players over the years, has an owner that turned down a job to go into scouting, has connections to Sox scouts, etc, etc, etc.

 

I realize SoxNet might appear new, but the way he reacted and responded and criticized was completely un-professional and child-like. And I'll take all of the heat that comes with what I wrote and I'll stand by it, just as I've stood bye anything I've written (albeit poorly, as I'm not a columnist, but I am a baseball purist and a person that has a vast understanding of the game of baseball) and I'll continue moving forward in my goal of making this place the best of all fan run sites across the web!!!!

 

And Rongey, once again, you are a class act and I look forward to seeing you around these parts more often!!!

 

 

Oh I'll be around, but I should let you know that I am also in an open relationship with WSI. She doesn't mind. She better not.

 

And just like over there, I'm sure I'll get into with some of you, sometimes some of you will hate me, somtimes I'll hate some of you, but there will be plenty of love to go around. I hope this team plays well so I don't have to be crabby.

[Chisoxfn]

Oh I'll be around, but I should let you know that I am also in an open relationship with WSI. She doesn't mind. She better not.

 

And just like over there, I'm sure I'll get into with some of you, sometimes some of you will hate me, somtimes I'll hate some of you, but there will be plenty of love to go around. I hope this team plays well so I don't have to be crabby.

They will. It is easy to look at the holes the club has, but hard to ignore the fact that this club has a promising young nucleus, a tremendous starting rotation (which includes an ace), and almost zero players coming off of career years.

 

Yes there are holes, but Kenny will do what he can to fix those holes and this club is going to be a whole heck of a lot better in 2010.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I felt the news we heard from our source put an end to the conjecture and at least linked the teams to discussions. I personally see Gonzalez as a great fit for a club with a budgeted payroll of 115-120M and since the Sox don't fit in that camp I think it would be hard to come up with a Gonzalez deal that makes sense (since you'd lose him in 2 years). I realize Gonzalez contract is cheap, but even if you acquire him you still have significant holes to fill and an extension to try and figure out, plus you know your going to have to eventually pay Quentin and Danks.

Two years is a long time. If we win a World Series in one of those years then everything else is secondary, and BTW according to Cot's Baseball Contracts, the Sox bumped up payroll by $27M after winning in 2005. So IF we were to win it all, or even make a major run where we made the Series, it's not impossible that the Sox could look for some kind of extension. As for raises to arb-eligible players, that all depends on what happens this offseason as far as possible extensions, and the Sox do get help when Konerko's deal expires. Adrian just makes it easier to pay our arb-eligible players because he only makes $5.5M in 2011.

 

I also disagree with having too many other holes to fill. If we deal for Gonzalez then our big lefty bat need has been met, plus we improve defensively as well. Konerko becomes a DH, so that hole is filled, unless we deal Konerko which would be even better because we'd save money and could target a cheaper DH. The only holes left if we got Adrian is a RF and another bullpen lefty, but having Rios and Williams eases the difficulty of those moves. Williams could potentially work as a lefty specialist with the Sox bringing in other options to compete with him in ST, and with Rios capable of playing a strong RF, we could also target a CF on the cheap (Coco Crisp?). Adrian fills our most glaring need and if we can get that then the other pieces can fall into place a bit easier.

 

If the club could move Jenks, Konerko, Linebrink it would be another story but that will be incredibly difficult to do (especially in the case of Linebrink). Well, maybe not difficult to trade them, but to get value back equal to there value with the Sox would be difficult (in the case of Jenks/Paulie).

I still think the Sox would dump both Paulie and Linebrink for nothing if they could ditch those salaries. Since the Sox typically do not eat cash I'd say both of those guys will be incredibly difficult to move unless another bad contract is taken on in the process.

[simba43]

well if we can't afford a guy like Adrian Gonzales giving him a extension if we did trade for him then i guess the Twins have a bigger budget then we do because it will take at least 140mil over 7 years to keep Mauer in minnesota . yes even with the hometown discount . I agree with KHP above that we could do this and i believe our budget in 2011 2012 would be at least 115 to 120mil range i mean are we always going to be at 95mil dollar payroll ? If so we will struggle in a few years as the Tigers will have a ton of money coming off the books especially a lot of dead money . So if we are not going to get a player like AGON and pay him and really compete with the teams like Yankees Red Sox Angels and the Phillies then we should just be like the Royals or Pirates and just field a AAA team . Also i think many here are relying to much on our starting rotation there is about a 40 percent chance that with our lineup as it sits right now that we will win this division . Right now the Twins lineup is much better then ours and there pitching isn't that bad especially if Slowey comes back healthy . I mean accept for Peavy there rotation of say baker slowey duesang blackburn perkins is very comparable to danks floyd buehrle garcia . Also they play better defense then we do so that makes there pitching staff stronger . I believe our pitching is a little better then there's but there lineup is better then ours at this point especially 1-7.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I don't know how accurate this is because I don't know if they're counting cash received back in trades, but Cot's has our payroll numbers for the last few seasons as:

 

2009: $ 96,068,500

2008: $121,189,332

2007: $108,671,833

2006: $102,750,667

 

So we have been up over the $100M mark before, and if we do some serious winning over the next couple of years I could see it going up to those amounts again if not higher. We could still end up around $95-100M in 2010, and while some of our players will be getting nice raises, we'll also be shedding some significant salary over the next couple of years.

 

Adrian at least offers high production at a minimal salary for the next two years, and after that, who knows? Maybe we try to extend him, maybe we don't. You never know who is going to do what in the postseason, but Adrian is a bat that would definitely help get us there for the next two years, and once we get in, our rotation is going to be very tough to beat.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

For those relatively new to the site, this is one of the gems that started right here on Soxtalk, and while it wasn't proven true early on, it sure came back around later on in the case of Clemens.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...10304/index.htm

Since Clemens was later busted for steroids it made me wonder if the earlier story that originated here on Soxtalk was part of a cover up by MLB since it was all denied at that time.

[bschmaranz]

I'm sure I'll get into with some of you, sometimes some of you will hate me, somtimes I'll hate some of you, but there will be plenty of love to go around. I hope this team plays well so I don't have to be crabby.

 

I think we should start calling Rongey "Ike Turner"

[Ranger]

I think we should start calling Rongey "Ike Turner"

 

Nah. I won't backhand you.

[knightni]

Nah. I won't backhand you.

 

 

Lies. He'd get the front hand.

 

 

Actually, you seem to be the most reserved guy ever, R.

 

Half of those crazies who call in on your show deserve the back hand, but you're pretty nice to them.

[Ranger]

Lies. He'd get the front hand.

 

 

Actually, you seem to be the most reserved guy ever, R.

 

Half of those crazies who call in on your show deserve the back hand, but you're pretty nice to them.

 

 

You think I'm nice to them? Interesting how different people see things differently. I sometimes get emails (and calls) from people that tell me I don't show enough respect to callers and that I hang up on them too quickly. If anything, I think I give the psychos too much time to talk. I'm just not sure that a person is due automatic respect just because they've called into a radio show, are they?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Ranger

[knightni]

I remember the old days the Score with North and Jiggets where they'd hang up on anyone just because they disagreed with them and think that they were hilarious doing it.

 

It seems now though, that the phone guys let the crazies through on purpose for show entertainment purposes, i.e. B & B.

 

Honestly, if the caller gets too dumb acting with you, I get uncomfortable and change the station (sorry!).

[Ranger]

Honestly, if the caller gets too dumb acting with you, I get uncomfortable and change the station (sorry!).

 

 

So do I.

[Princess Dye]

Some people believe the postgame should be purely therapeutic during a loss. I for one prefer when the callers' feet are still held to the fire. At least have a reasoned thought.

 

Problem is people imbibe during the game and then get worked up enough to call in and talk loudly about what players had a particularly bad game. As if the world needed that contribution.

 

Not that I want to bring back Prohibition or anything

Edited November 22, 2009 by Princess Dye

[southsider2k5]

Some people believe the postgame should be purely therapeutic during a loss. I for one prefer when the callers' feet are still held to the fire. At least have a reasoned thought.

 

Problem is people imbibe during the game and then get worked up enough to call in and talk loudly about what players had a particularly bad game. As if the world needed that contribution.

 

The same thing happens here way too often. No Soxtalk is not your personal tampon.

[Ranger]

Some people believe the postgame should be purely therapeutic during a loss. I for one prefer when the callers' feet are still held to the fire. At least have a reasoned thought.

 

Problem is people imbibe during the game and then get worked up enough to call in and talk loudly about what players had a particularly bad game. As if the world needed that contribution.

 

Not that I want to bring back Prohibition or anything

 

Yes, some people do believe that. Which would mean that every single viewpoint of every single caller is valid and based on fact. It would essentially mean that the entire postgame would be me punching up the call, the caller somehow blaming Ozzie for an error in the 9th that cost them the game, and then me saying, "that's a great point." Then repeat.

 

I'd break out in hives if I let stupid opinions go unchalleged. And it's easy to tell when an opinion is stupid (like the guy in 2007 who said, all things being equal, i.e. salary, he'd rather have Rowand than Ichiro). I love that Sox fans have passion, but I just want some of them to be a little more level-headed about it.

 

 

The same thing happens here way too often. No Soxtalk is not your personal tampon.

 

 

Funny, but eww.

[Quin]

I'd break out in hives if I let stupid opinions go unchalleged. And it's easy to tell when an opinion is stupid (like the guy in 2007 who said, all things being equal, i.e. salary, he'd rather have Rowand than Ichiro). I love that Sox fans have passion, but I just want some of them to be a little more level-headed about it.

 

My favorites were after the Cubs loss, people wanting to send Linebrink to AAA, since we apparently had better down there.

 

Or sending Alexei to AAA after the 13 inning Dodger fest...I remember you being peeved but dismissing that idea.

[Ranger]

My favorites were after the Cubs loss, people wanting to send Linebrink to AAA, since we apparently had better down there.

 

Or sending Alexei to AAA after the 13 inning Dodger fest...I remember you being peeved but dismissing that idea.

 

 

I think one of my favorite classics is the following exchange:

 

caller: "Why did Ozzie bring in _______ to pitch in the 8th."

me: "OK. Who would you rather have out there?"

caller: "Anybody!"

me: "Such as?"

caller: "It doesn't matter! ANYBODY!"

 

No real better solution, just "somebody else" should have been used. The old anybody-is-better-than-what-we-have/used argument. You can also replace the first line in that exchange with "They need to send ______'s ass down to Charlotte and bring up somebody else." Those two calls are interchangeable. It's the notion that it can't any worse than it is currently. But what they don't understand is that, yes, it most certainly could always be worse.

[Kyyle23]

I think one of my favorite classics is the following exchange:

caller: "Why did Ozzie bring in _______ to pitch in the 8th."

me: "OK. Who would you rather have out there?"

caller: "Anybody!"

me: "Such as?"

caller: "It doesn't matter! ANYBODY!"

 

No real better solution, just "somebody else" should have been used. The old anybody-is-better-than-what-we-have/used argument. You can also replace the first line in that exchange with "They need to send ______'s ass down to Charlotte and bring up somebody else." Those two calls are interchangeable. It's the notion that it can't any worse than it is currently. But what they don't understand is that, yes, it most certainly could always be worse.

 

 

haha, I have heard this exchange many times with you.

[southsider2k5]

I think one of my favorite classics is the following exchange:

 

caller: "Why did Ozzie bring in _______ to pitch in the 8th."

me: "OK. Who would you rather have out there?"

caller: "Anybody!"

me: "Such as?"

caller: "It doesn't matter! ANYBODY!"

 

No real better solution, just "somebody else" should have been used. The old anybody-is-better-than-what-we-have/used argument. You can also replace the first line in that exchange with "They need to send ______'s ass down to Charlotte and bring up somebody else." Those two calls are interchangeable. It's the notion that it can't any worse than it is currently. But what they don't understand is that, yes, it most certainly could always be worse.

 

Thank you.

 

This post needs to be bookmarked and bumped, often.

 

And this is coming from someone who hates it when that happens.