AGon discussion, et. al.

[SoxFan562004]

We could compete in a trade like this and trade a number of prospects, but at what point do you think we have stripped the system enough? Of course with PK going to LAA they will have to kick in at least one or two and us a couple don't you think? Not sure this is really a doable trade though

I imagine Flowers and Hudson leading a trade would be intriguing to many teams for many players, if something like that happens you have to rely on your scouts and system to replenish. If I'm KW, I "overpay" for Adrian

[Princess Dye]

We could compete in a trade like this and trade a number of prospects, but at what point do you think we have stripped the system enough?

 

It comes down to this concern versus the concern of whether or not Flowers/Hudson are each at the last possible point of being a high-end mysterious entity. Flowers will be 24 this coming season.

[Ranger]

My favorite argument of yours is when you say that Linebrink needs to be out there even though he's garbage because the team can't win unless he improves, and he can't improve if he's not playing. It made so much sense to keep letting him blow important games with the Sox when they could have sent him down to work on things in Charlotte and at least tried somebody else.

 

But yeah, I guess it would be pretty hard for anyone like Santeliz, Link, Nunez, Harrell, Hernandez, Rodriguez, etc. to come up and post better numbers than what Linebrink put up in the second half, which in 23.1IP was an ERA of 8.49 with a 2.19 WHIP and a .377/.433/.651/1.084 line against - which is just a hair less in OPS than what Albert Pujols produced against the entire NL last season.

 

Saying that it would be difficult for a rookie to come up and become a major contributor is one thing, but to intimate that we had no one in the system last year who even as a rookie would have been a better bet than Linebrink was at that point is another. Even bringing up a kid who could have put up an ERA of 6 with a WHIP under 2 and an OPSA under 1.000 would have been an improvement, and at least at that point you're giving someone else a shot to show if he can stick or not. You know why Linebrink kept getting run out there just as well as every other Sox fan on this forum does, and it's because of his contract. The Sox weren't going to MacDougalize him with 2+ years and $10.5M+ remaining on his deal. If Scott Linebrink had been a pre-arb player like Boone Logan was, Ozzie would have reamed his ass and sent him down.

 

 

Um, welcome to Major League Baseball, dude. New to how this works, are you? I never said money wasn't part of it. In fact, I said during the season, it came down to two things: 1) his 2 and a half years remaining on a contract and 2) the reality that they did actually need him to get better. It's not a garbage argument. It happens ALL the time in MLB, where well-paid veteran players (position players and pitchers alike) get numerous opportunties (to the dismay of fans) to straighten themselves out. Especially when they are a year removed from a decent season (Linebrink WAS decent before his injuries in 2008). The reason they do this is because, when it comes to uncertainty, there is LESS of it with a struggling veteran player with a track record than there is with a minor-leaguer that has zero MLB track record.

 

Name me a single team that would've done it your way, and I'll show you a team that will hire you as their GM. Remember how the Red Sox benched David Ortiz when he was hitting .185 at the end of May? Oh no wait, they didn't. That's right. They let him keep playing because of his contract and because of the fact he's David Ortiz and there's a track record. Or remember when the White Sox benched Konerko for the entire second half of 2008 because he was hitting .214 at the end of July? Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't happen either. They kept playing him because of his contract AND the fact t hat he has a track record and what not. And if I recall, he had a nice finish in the last two months and in the postseason. Or remember how the Phillies decided not to use Brad Lidge anymore because he was struggling? No, that's wrong too. They did stick with him and he recorded 3 playoff saves, gave up 1 hit in 4 innings of playoff work, and didn't allow a run until the World Series. Why in the world would Charlie Manuel do that? He must be an idiot. Afterall, he only has one World Championship and two appearances on his resume. I think they call that "sticking with the veteran because you know you may reap the benefits of having patience." It's this strange baseball philosophy that works a lot of the time. And it's a "garbage argument," apparently.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Ranger

[iamshack]

I think there is a middle ground here.

 

There is something to the idea of realizing you have a lot of money tied-up in a player and thus it is important that such a player produce for you. However, there is also the idea of compounding an error by not only tying up the money in a player, but continuing to play him when it is clear his performance could be bettered by another player.

 

At this point, Linebrink has to be viewed as a sunken cost. While I usually agree with Ozzie when he says things like "We need Linebrink to pitch well if we're going to win ballgames," at some point, when it becomes apparent that it simply isn't going to happen, there is nothing wrong with trying something else.

 

For all the examples that were listed as teams that stuck with struggling players, there are also examples of teams that did not. You don't see Gary Matthews Jr. getting consistent starting time when there exist better options. The same for Juan Pierre. The same for Andruw Jones getting released by the Dodgers.

 

Sometimes, it's just best to move on, despite the fact that you have money tied-up in an asset. The key is knowing when.

[iamshack]

Here is it for the lazy posters.

 

http://www.southsidesox.com/2009/11/23/117...peavy#storyjump

 

Hey Cowley. Even Jake Peavy said it.

Man, that dude seems creepy. His handle is "servant2LordBeckham."

 

Umm, ok.

[ptatc]

Um, welcome to Major League Baseball, dude. New to how this works, are you? I never said money wasn't part of it. In fact, I said during the season, it came down to two things: 1) his 2 and a half years remaining on a contract and 2) the reality that they did actually need him to get better. It's not a garbage argument. It happens ALL the time in MLB, where well-paid veteran players (position players and pitchers alike) get numerous opportunties (to the dismay of fans) to straighten themselves out. Especially when they are a year removed from a decent season (Linebrink WAS decent before his injuries in 2008). The reason they do this is because, when it comes to uncertainty, there is LESS of it with a struggling veteran player with a track record than there is with a minor-leaguer that has zero MLB track record.

 

Name me a single team that would've done it your way, and I'll show you a team that will hire you as their GM. Remember how the Red Sox benched David Ortiz when he was hitting .185 at the end of May? Oh no wait, they didn't. That's right. They let him keep playing because of his contract and because of the fact he's David Ortiz and there's a track record. Or remember when the White Sox benched Konerko for the entire second half of 2008 because he was hitting .214 at the end of July? Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't happen either. They kept playing him because of his contract AND the fact t hat he has a track record and what not. And if I recall, he had a nice finish in the last two months and in the postseason. Or remember how the Phillies decided not to use Brad Lidge anymore because he was struggling? No, that's wrong too. They did stick with him and he recorded 3 playoff saves, gave up 1 hit in 4 innings of playoff work, and didn't allow a run until the World Series. Why in the world would Charlie Manuel do that? He must be an idiot. Afterall, he only has one World Championship and two appearances on his resume. I think they call that "sticking with the veteran because you know you may reap the benefits of having patience." It's this strange baseball philosophy that works a lot of the time. And it's a "garbage argument," apparently.

 

I've been making this arguement for a couple of years. Managers will give verterans with track recoreds time to work it out because 1) they usually can 2) they are an important part of the team and have proven in the past they can do it.

 

Too much knee jerk reaction and impatience, baseball is a sport of ups and downs, in season and between seasons with proven players you need to let them work it out. Until age or injuries catch up with them.

[Ranger]

I think there is a middle ground here.

 

There is something to the idea of realizing you have a lot of money tied-up in a player and thus it is important that such a player produce for you. However, there is also the idea of compounding an error by not only tying up the money in a player, but continuing to play him when it is clear his performance could be bettered by another player.

 

At this point, Linebrink has to be viewed as a sunken cost. While I usually agree with Ozzie when he says things like "We need Linebrink to pitch well if we're going to win ballgames," at some point, when it becomes apparent that it simply isn't going to happen, there is nothing wrong with trying something else.

 

For all the examples that were listed as teams that stuck with struggling players, there are also examples of teams that did not. You don't see Gary Matthews Jr. getting consistent starting time when there exist better options. The same for Juan Pierre. The same for Andruw Jones getting released by the Dodgers.

 

Sometimes, it's just best to move on, despite the fact that you have money tied-up in an asset. The key is knowing when.

 

 

Nah, the Matthews situation is different because they had a thousand other legit options. And that's the key, they have other LEGIT options. Relative known quantities. Calling up Jhonny Nunez to replace Scott Linebrink is not a known quantity and is as uncertain, if not more than, sticking it out with Linebrink. Same thing with Pierre...they had Kemp, Ethier, and Manny. Those are all obvious better options. Jones' situation was also different because there were 2 months left on his deal (as opposed to 2 1/2 years left on Linebrink's), he was injured an clearly out of shape. Teams are not as willing to extend leniency to guys who are out of shape. Plus, again, the Dodgers had REAL options to replace him.

 

In general, the "examples" of teams that did not stick with players are limited to one of two situations: 1) players that have expendable deals and/or 2) teams that have viable options waiting to take over. Not throw-a-bunch-of-stuff-at-the-wall-see-what-sticks options, but real, actual replacements that are ready to go. This is how all teams do it. Bottom line: there are not many examples of teams that dismiss a well-paid veteran for a complete unknown minor leaguer. I can't think of one, actually. No real team with real intent on trying to compete uses the "anybody has to be better than this guy" philosophy in a situation like this.

 

Now, you can complain that the Sox gave too much to Linebrink in the first place to put themsleves in that situation. However, you'd be getting into a touchy situation there too, as the Sox (following a rough bullpen showing in '07) were in position to absolutely have to overspend to fix a bullpen. Had they NOT done that, the same people complaining about Linebrink's ridiculous contract would be the same people complaining that the Sox were too cheap to try and fix a terrible bullpen. So before you want to slam the Dotel and Linebrink signings, realize that you'd have been furious had they done nothing to try and shore up that unit of the team. And when the team is as weak as they were in the pen, and with nobody waiting in the minors to take over, they're in the unfortunate position of having no leverage in negotiations with free agents or trade partners. Other teams and agents are all aware that the Sox were in dire need of bullpen help and were fully aware that they had no other recourse. If they wanted bullpen help, they were going to pay through the nose for it.

 

 

[Ranger]

I've been making this arguement for a couple of years. Managers will give verterans with track recoreds time to work it out because 1) they usually can 2) they are an important part of the team and have proven in the past they can do it.

 

Too much knee jerk reaction and impatience, baseball is a sport of ups and downs, in season and between seasons with proven players you need to let them work it out. Until age or injuries catch up with them.

 

 

It's entirely possible that age/injuries have caught up with Linebrink, but there is not a single team in the majors that would shove him aside given this situation one year removed from a decent season. Veteran players get second, third, fourth, and fifth chances all the time. And it isn't because teams are stupid. It's because this is how it works in MLB and will always work for teams that are seriously trying ot win something. Things might operate differently for a team like the Pirates that isn't too concerned with what sort of team they field.

[iamshack]

Nah, the Matthews situation is different because they had a thousand other legit options. And that's the key, they have other LEGIT options. Relative known quantities. Calling up Jhonny Nunez to replace Scott Linebrink is not a known quantity and is as uncertain, if not more than, sticking it out with Linebrink. Same thing with Pierre...they had Kemp, Ethier, and Manny. Those are all obvious better options. Jones' situation was also different because there were 2 months left on his deal (as opposed to 2 1/2 years left on Linebrink's), he was injured an clearly out of shape. Teams are not as willing to extend leniency to guys who are out of shape. Plus, again, the Dodgers had REAL options to replace him.

 

In general, the "examples" of teams that did not stick with players are limited to one of two situations: 1) players that have expendable deals and/or 2) teams that have viable options waiting to take over. Not throw-a-bunch-of-stuff-at-the-wall-see-what-sticks options, but real, actual replacements that are ready to go. This is how all teams do it. Bottom line: there are not many examples of teams that dismiss a well-paid veteran for a complete unknown minor leaguer. I can't think of one, actually. No real team with real intent on trying to compete uses the "anybody has to be better than this guy" philosophy in a situation like this.

 

Now, you can complain that the Sox gave too much to Linebrink in the first place to put themsleves in that situation. However, you'd be getting into a touchy situation there too, as the Sox (following a rough bullpen showing in '07) were in position to absolutely have to overspend to fix a bullpen. Had they NOT done that, the same people complaining about Linebrink's ridiculous contract would be the same people complaining that the Sox were too cheap to try and fix a terrible bullpen. So before you want to slam the Dotel and Linebrink signings, realize that you'd have been furious had they done nothing to try and shore up that unit of the team. And when the team is as weak as they were in the pen, and with nobody waiting in the minors to take over, they're in the unfortunate position of having no leverage in negotiations with free agents or trade partners. Other teams and agents are all aware that the Sox were in dire need of bullpen help and were fully aware that they had no other recourse. If they wanted bullpen help, they were going to pay through the nose for it.

 

I disagree. There are always options, and when you're talking about a bullpen arm, there are legitimate options. Every team in the major leagues brings up kids from their system to see how they fare in the big leagues, and some of them do actually succeed. I don't see why our situation would be any different. Despite the relative weakness of our farm system, especially in terms of quality arms, we do have guys down there who have the stuff to succeed. Certainly when the guy you'e replacing is giving up a run an inning.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Ozzie or the organization for trying to get Linebrink straightened-out, as he was slated to be an integral part of our bullpen and was owed quite a bit of money. Nor do I blame the signing. I'm not certain it was Kenny's most brilliant move, but as you commented, it was a signing that was sorely needed at the time. HOWEVER, once it became evident that Linebrink was simply incapable of figuring things out, and that did become evident, you can not tell me that the organization reached a position where there was no other legitimate option available. Given the way Linebrink was pitching in the last few months of last season, an A-ball pitcher would have been an attractive option.

 

I'm not arguing that he should have been released, nor am I arguing that he should have been entirely shutdown and forgotten. They certainly could have sent him down to Charlotte, or limited him entirely to side work or simulated games to try and figure something out. And if that was tried, and if the only solution there was was for him to pitch to real batters, then he should have been doing it in Charlotte. It's one thing to be paying the guy $75k an inning, it's another to pay him $75k for terrible innings.

 

Once it was evident that our season was over, they could have brought him back then and had him work on things.

 

As for my examples that you're making counterarguments about, remember that Andruw Jones had a full year remaining on his contract, basically equalling $21 million with salary and signing bonuses due, and the Dodgers gained approval to re-work his contract and defer the money over the course of 6 years. While it is true that they had other options available to them to replace Jones, they could have easily refused to acquire Manny Ramirez via trade or refused to re-sign Manny for $25 million in 08'. They could have continued to run Jones out there because of the massive salary he was due that year, but instead, they chose to cut their losses and look elsewhere, even getting so creative as to re-work Jones' contract with permission from Jones as well as the MLB Players' Union.

 

Should they have continued to run Jones out there, because he had a track record? Because he had hit 41 home runs just two seasons prior?

 

Instead, they took extraordinary measures to avoid playing Jones anymore, because he was just that terrible.

 

As for Matthews, the Angels did something very similar. They did not have legitimate alternatives. Rather than keep Matthews Jr. in centerfield, where he was solid defensively at least, they went out and replaced him. They signed Torii Hunter for 5/$90 m, basically in order to relegate Matthews to the bench. Even though Matthews still has $23 million left on his deal, they went and re-signed Bobby Abreu at 2/$19 million to continue to relegate Matthews to the bench. So while they may have created other legitimate options for themselves, they did so at increased financial risk, rather than to play Matthews simply because he was due tens of millions and they had no other in-house options.

 

Pierre, the same thing. The Dodgers could have avoided re-signing Manny and simply ran Pierre out there, since he was under contract and there were no other legitimate in-house options. However, the Dodgers took on additional financial risk to avoid simply sticking with their previous poor investment.

 

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you Chris - I see what you're saying - but I don't think this is nearly as black and white of a situation as you'd like us to believe here.

Edited November 26, 2009 by iamshack

[bmags]

I didn't read all of your post shack, it was long, but my point, in addition, is yes they could've continued using linebrink. BUt no, they didn't have to use him in the 8th so much.

[Dick Allen]

Linebrink has been very good at times in each of his two seasons with the Sox. He's also been about as bad as a pitcher can be in each of his two seasons with the White Sox. The thing is, if he's bad, the Sox, at least in 2009 weren't going anywhere anyway. They might as well have thrown him out there to see if he could get the feel on his breaking pitch and maybe gain some confidence. People like to use the risk/reward a lot. Well the risk was Linebrink got lit up, the Sox lose and they don't make the playoffs, which, if they just sat him down, the don't make the playoffs anyway. The reward was he finds himself and is lights out again.There was really only one choice.

 

If I were the GM, I definitely would trade Linebrink if someone wanted to eat his entire contract, but if a team wanted to give back an undesirable contact back, just basically swap headaches, I wouldn't do it. I like Linebrink's chances of a bounce back a lot more than most.

[WCSox]

This has to be the last year that Linebrink gets the "well, he's done it before, so let's run him out there again" treatment. If he gets hit hard again, I can't see him taking a spot on the 2011 roster. It might be worth it to Kenny (who doesn't normally pick up salary) to eat half of his $5.5M 2011 salary in exchange for a middle-tier minor leaguer. That said, his velocity was there last year and I'm cautiously optimistic that he can find his command again.

 

And for the record, I was on board with Kenny over-paying for Linebrink and Dotel, especially after 2007. And it's not like those two were completely worthless in Chicago. They helped the Sox win a lot of games in the fist half of '08, and ultimately helped the Sox win the division that year.

Edited November 26, 2009 by WCSox

[Ranger]

I disagree. There are always options, and when you're talking about a bullpen arm, there are legitimate options. Every team in the major leagues brings up kids from their system to see how they fare in the big leagues, and some of them do actually succeed. I don't see why our situation would be any different. Despite the relative weakness of our farm system, especially in terms of quality arms, we do have guys down there who have the stuff to succeed. Certainly when the guy you'e replacing is giving up a run an inning.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Ozzie or the organization for trying to get Linebrink straightened-out, as he was slated to be an integral part of our bullpen and was owed quite a bit of money. Nor do I blame the signing. I'm not certain it was Kenny's most brilliant move, but as you commented, it was a signing that was sorely needed at the time. HOWEVER, once it became evident that Linebrink was simply incapable of figuring things out, and that did become evident, you can not tell me that the organization reached a position where there was no other legitimate option available. Given the way Linebrink was pitching in the last few months of last season, an A-ball pitcher would have been an attractive option.

 

I'm not arguing that he should have been released, nor am I arguing that he should have been entirely shutdown and forgotten. They certainly could have sent him down to Charlotte, or limited him entirely to side work or simulated games to try and figure something out. And if that was tried, and if the only solution there was was for him to pitch to real batters, then he should have been doing it in Charlotte. It's one thing to be paying the guy $75k an inning, it's another to pay him $75k for terrible innings.

 

Once it was evident that our season was over, they could have brought him back then and had him work on things.

 

As for my examples that you're making counterarguments about, remember that Andruw Jones had a full year remaining on his contract, basically equalling $21 million with salary and signing bonuses due, and the Dodgers gained approval to re-work his contract and defer the money over the course of 6 years. While it is true that they had other options available to them to replace Jones, they could have easily refused to acquire Manny Ramirez via trade or refused to re-sign Manny for $25 million in 08'. They could have continued to run Jones out there because of the massive salary he was due that year, but instead, they chose to cut their losses and look elsewhere, even getting so creative as to re-work Jones' contract with permission from Jones as well as the MLB Players' Union.

 

Should they have continued to run Jones out there, because he had a track record? Because he had hit 41 home runs just two seasons prior?

 

Instead, they took extraordinary measures to avoid playing Jones anymore, because he was just that terrible.

 

As for Matthews, the Angels did something very similar. They did not have legitimate alternatives. Rather than keep Matthews Jr. in centerfield, where he was solid defensively at least, they went out and replaced him. They signed Torii Hunter for 5/$90 m, basically in order to relegate Matthews to the bench. Even though Matthews still has $23 million left on his deal, they went and re-signed Bobby Abreu at 2/$19 million to continue to relegate Matthews to the bench. So while they may have created other legitimate options for themselves, they did so at increased financial risk, rather than to play Matthews simply because he was due tens of millions and they had no other in-house options.

 

Pierre, the same thing. The Dodgers could have avoided re-signing Manny and simply ran Pierre out there, since he was under contract and there were no other legitimate in-house options. However, the Dodgers took on additional financial risk to avoid simply sticking with their previous poor investment.

 

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you Chris - I see what you're saying - but I don't think this is nearly as black and white of a situation as you'd like us to believe here.

 

You forget that Linebrink's tenure prevents him from just being sent down to Charlotte. He doesn't have to go if he doesn't want to.

 

This whole thing is all about legitimate options. Anaheim went and got another option during the offseason and they didn't stop using Matthews everyday until med-september in 2007 and that was more because of an injured knee, not because of his lack of production. The point is, they didn't just stop playing him mid-season because he wasn't getting it done. He stopped playing because he couldnt' play anymore.

 

This discussion is about benching a player in the middle of the season and just calling up "somebody-anybody" in his place. What you're talking about is offseason improvement. That's entirely different. It's one thing if you have legit, ready-to-play prospects waiting for the call. The Sox didn't have that last year for Linebrink. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading for bullpen help, which is what the Pena move was about.

 

 

I didn't read all of your post shack, it was long, but my point, in addition, is yes they could've continued using linebrink. BUt no, they didn't have to use him in the 8th so much.

 

That's the thing, is that they did eventually stop using him late. They were patient with him as long as they could be, then they made him an earlier-inning guy.

 

This has to be the last year that Linebrink gets the "well, he's done it before, so let's run him out there again" treatment. If he gets hit hard again, I can't see him taking a spot on the 2011 roster. It might be worth it to Kenny (who doesn't normally pick up salary) to eat half of his $5.5M 2011 salary in exchange for a middle-tier minor leaguer. That said, his velocity was there last year and I'm cautiously optimistic that he can find his command again.

 

And for the record, I was on board with Kenny over-paying for Linebrink and Dotel, especially after 2007. And it's not like those two were completely worthless in Chicago. They helped the Sox win a lot of games in the fist half of '08, and ultimately helped the Sox win the division that year.

 

 

It would be a lot easier to eat a salary like his when there is one year left as opposed to nearly 3. And after the poor pitching has lasted a couple of seasons (as opposed to half or one full season), at his age, it's likely more of a trend than it is a slump. Which would make moving on the only choice..

[SockMe]

so can we put this rumor to sleep yet?

[iamshack]

You forget that Linebrink's tenure prevents him from just being sent down to Charlotte. He doesn't have to go if he doesn't want to.

 

This whole thing is all about legitimate options. Anaheim went and got another option during the offseason and they didn't stop using Matthews everyday until med-september in 2007 and that was more because of an injured knee, not because of his lack of production. The point is, they didn't just stop playing him mid-season because he wasn't getting it done. He stopped playing because he couldnt' play anymore.

 

This discussion is about benching a player in the middle of the season and just calling up "somebody-anybody" in his place. What you're talking about is offseason improvement. That's entirely different. It's one thing if you have legit, ready-to-play prospects waiting for the call. The Sox didn't have that last year for Linebrink. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading for bullpen help, which is what the Pena move was about.

 

 

 

 

That's the thing, is that they did eventually stop using him late. They were patient with him as long as they could be, then they made him an earlier-inning guy.

 

 

 

 

It would be a lot easier to eat a salary like his when there is one year left as opposed to nearly 3. And after the poor pitching has lasted a couple of seasons (as opposed to half or one full season), at his age, it's likely more of a trend than it is a slump. Which would make moving on the only choice..

 

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand the point you're making, but I think the way Linebrink was performing, there were other legitimate options. There simply has to be other guys in our system that were capable of giving up less than a run per inning. I agree that you have to allow the guy to straighten himself out, and I am a believer in the theory that he needed to straighten himself out if the White Sox were going to really go anywhere, but I just question if the best way to do that was to just keep throwing him out there again and again in situations where he was costing us games we had to have.

 

 

[Ranger]

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand the point you're making, but I think the way Linebrink was performing, there were other legitimate options. There simply has to be other guys in our system that were capable of giving up less than a run per inning. I agree that you have to allow the guy to straighten himself out, and I am a believer in the theory that he needed to straighten himself out if the White Sox were going to really go anywhere, but I just question if the best way to do that was to just keep throwing him out there again and again in situations where he was costing us games we had to have.

 

 

If there was a better option in AAA or AA that was ready to go, he'd been up here because they would've made a place for him.

[iamshack]

If there was a better option in AAA or AA that was ready to go, he'd been up here because they would've made a place for him.

Well, Adam Russell was available until the end of August. Nunez? Hernandez? Zaleski? Santeliz?

 

Then there were starters down there who could have come up as well in Ely, Shirek, Hudson...

 

Oh well, this is not worth arguing over anymore, but it's definitely something that reasonable minds can disagree about, which is the whole point of this.

[knightni]

Torres might have been a better reliever than starter.

 

That was his preferred job.

[Ranger]

Well, Adam Russell was available until the end of August. Nunez? Hernandez? Zaleski? Santeliz?

 

Then there were starters down there who could have come up as well in Ely, Shirek, Hudson...

 

Oh well, this is not worth arguing over anymore, but it's definitely something that reasonable minds can disagree about, which is the whole point of this.

 

 

Torres might have been a better reliever than starter.

 

That was his preferred job.

 

 

Again, these are all "mights". This guy or that guy "might" be better. But the greater likelihood s that they were not ready to be here. And that is the other operative word: "ready." Given the Linebrink situation (contract, track record, etc.), a team isn't going to call up 2 or 3 different guys to replace him and hope one of them sticks. Unless there is an injury, of course, since it would be an emergency situation. Considering every facet of the Linebrink situation, a team wouldn't have replaced him unless they were able to trade him.

[iamshack]

Again, these are all "mights". This guy or that guy "might" be better. But the greater likelihood s that they were not ready to be here. And that is the other operative word: "ready." Given the Linebrink situation (contract, track record, etc.), a team isn't going to call up 2 or 3 different guys to replace him and hope one of them sticks. Unless there is an injury, of course, since it would be an emergency situation. Considering every facet of the Linebrink situation, a team wouldn't have replaced him unless they were able to trade him.

 

I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty.

How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up?

 

I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that.

 

I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal.

 

Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us.

 

I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get.

[ptatc]

I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty.

How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up?

 

I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that.

 

I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal.

 

Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us.

 

I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get.

 

This is usually based on reports from the minor league managers and scouts.

 

Back in 2005 when Shingo failed and hermanson got hurt, KW asked if he needed to go get a closer and the report from the minors was "we've got a guy who can do it." This of course was Jenks.

 

If the organization thought that someone was ready, they would have done it.

Edited November 27, 2009 by ptatc

[ptatc]

I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty.

How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up?

 

I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that.

 

I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal.

 

Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us.

 

I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get.

 

You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there.

 

Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty.

[iamshack]

This is usually based on reports from the minor league managers and scouts.

 

Back in 2005 when Shingo failed and hermanson got hurt, KW asked if he needed to go get a closer and the report from the minors was "we've got a guy who can do it." This of course was Jenks.

 

If the organization thought that someone was ready, they would have done it.

 

Oh, so now the guys in charge are infallible?

 

Since the White Sox organization did not do something, all actions they avoided taking were defacto incorrect?

 

Bobby Jenks was released by the Angels in December of 04'. The White Sox claimed him, while many other teams did not. I understand Jenks may have needed a change of scenery, but were all the other teams who did not claim Jenks correct? Because by that logic, if Jenks would have been able to contribute to their bullpens, they would have claimed him, right?

 

I understand that we have coaches and scouts in the minor leagues who tell the parent club who they believe to be ready and who they don't believe to be ready. I'm not suggesting someone should have been brought up to replace a marginal performer though. I'm suggesting someone should have been tried to replace someone who was simply not performing at an acceptable level.

 

Can someone please point out what the harm would have been? What did we have to lose? Someone posting a 12 ERA instead of an 8 ERA in the second half?

 

I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have an awfully difficult time convincing me that there simply were no other options for replacing a guy as bad as Linebrink was.

Edited November 27, 2009 by iamshack

[iamshack]

You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there.

 

Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty.

Believe me, I am the first one to suggest that people who do this sort of thing for a living should have their opinions respected to the utmost degree. That does not mean, however, that they should not be questioned, nor that their decisions are infallible, nor that there is not a different way to do things.

Edited November 27, 2009 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

so can we put this rumor to sleep yet?

No, the whole point of the story was that it was just initial discussions. That means it was never exactly likely, but it also meant that if it DID happen, it would likely take a while before it did.