AGon discussion, et. al.

[Jordan4life_2007]

J4L,

It's really difficult to point out guys that we can say with any certainty would have done better, especially considering they really didn't give anyone else a chance. How can I point to someone who did statistically better when they weren't allowed to pitch in the first place? And you and others will argue that the reason they didn't pitch is because the Organization didn't believe they were ready. And that's where this becomes a circular argument and goes on and on and on...

 

I think what KHP and I are trying to say is that Linebrink reached a point in which it was no longer a question whether or not he would be bad. It was pretty much every time from mid-August onward that he was just terrible. At that point, yes, KHP and I are of the opinion that they should have gone with someone else, whether he was judged to be "ready" or not.

 

BUT, this argument has run its course and its pretty clear that we should all just let it go.

 

That being said, I think something else this conversation has spawned is the argument about whether players with large contracts should continue to play, or whether teams should cut their losses.

 

Additionally, I think another great debate that has come out of this is how much the game and industry of baseball has to learn from those that are not members of that industry.

 

I think those are positive debates which we can continue without this spiraling down into a big pile of crap and personal insults.

 

The difference between you and KHP is that you're advocating that they should've given another guy a chance in an attempt to see if a bad situation (Linebrink sucking) could be even partially rectified. I don't have a problem with that. But KHP seems to believe that he knows for an absolute fact that there had to be multiple guys they could've gone to that would've been better. Just like he claims to know for 100% fact that we could've gotten more for Brandon Allen than Tony Pena. That's the s*** that gets on my nerves. But you're right. This subject is pretty tired now. I'm done.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The difference between you and KHP is that you're advocating that they should've given another guy a chance in an attempt to see if a bad situation (Linebrink sucking) could be even partially rectified. I don't have a problem with that. But KHP seems to believe that he knows for an absolute fact that there had to be multiple guys they could've gone to that would've been better. Just like he claims to know for 100% fact that we could've gotten more for Brandon Allen than Tony Pena. That's the s*** that gets on my nerves. But you're right. This subject is pretty tired now. I'm done.

Okay, so where did I say that I believed it was absolute fact that anyone would have been better?

 

I posted the numbers of other players on our team who already *were* better. As far as minor league options, it's no guarantee, but I certainly wouldn't bet money on any one of those players coming up and posting numbers worse than Linebrink's in the second half, and it is in no way inconceivable for any of those guys to perform significantly better. You don't know unless you give those guys a shot. And at least if you go to someone else you're sending a message that you won't settle for that kind of performance.

 

Thanks for bringing up the Pena trade again. I only said that I thought we could have gotten something better for Allen than Pena. You can disagree with that all you want, I don't know. I felt Allen was being underrated, and in general I don't like giving up position prospects for middle relievers. Furthermore I repeated about a thousand times over that I had no problem dealing Allen.

[knightni]

I don't know for sure that Torres, Hudson, Wassermann or Nunez could have been better than Linebrink in August and September, but I'm pretty sure that they couldn't have been much worse.

 

It doesn't take much to pitch better than a 9.16 era and a 2.03 whip.

 

 

 

 

[beck72]

I don't blame Ozzie for trotting Linebrink out there. The sox organization didn't give him any options to work with which is on Kenny and the scouting department. If Linebrink is healthy--he wasn't in 2008--he's a decent bet to turn it around given innings. He threw very well in the 1st half. The sox can't put him on the DL and send him to AAA to "get healthy", i.e., work out the problems that keep him from being effective. Ozzie works with what he's given. And the sox aren't going to release Linebrink last year during his 2nd half struggles and eat the remaining 2 1/2 yrs and $12 mill. he had left. If the sox aren't releasing him, Ozzie needs to try and have him work out his struggles during games, like most teams do. Esp for position players. Some of the names mentioned for targeting at Sox talk like Figgins [.244 avg to start May and basically 0 for the playoffs] and Upton [a .218 avg and .608 OPS on June 1] struggled through stretches only to have their managers keep putting them out there. Position players going through slumps are a little different compared to pitchers in that they can help a team on defense if they aren't hitting. Slumping pitchers look horrible when the can't get guys out--which is the only way they can help a team. But the only way to work out those slumps is by side work and getting innings in games that count.

 

I lay most of the blame on the sox horrible drafts. Only Hudson [7 2/3 IP],Poreda [11 IP] and Clayton Richard [16+ IP] were able to give the sox quality bullpen innings. That is ridiculous. Building a bullpen through trades, free agents and DFA's must be offset by having minor leaguers being able to come in and contribute. The sox haven't had that last option--which is also the most economical--for years. It was telling that last year, the sox only called up Nunez and Hudson Sept. 1. No one else was close to being ready. I don't know if 2010 will be any better. But with a solid starting staff of 1-5 with Hudson in the wings [though he should be in the bullpen as the sox need him there], the sox might go with minor league SP's like Torres, Hynick, Ely, or Shirek as options. Other guys like Omogrosso, Bellamy might be wild cards, who could help.

 

This lack of production from the minor leagues contributed to the sox overpaying for Linebrink in the first place. After the disasterous 2007 bullpen, the sox had to do something drastic--which 4 years and a full NTC for Linebrink was. The sox signed him at the beginning of free agency because of their situation and had to meet his price.

 

I do know if I was Linebrink I'd change my offseason workouts. He's faded in the last 3 yrs in the 2nd half--posting a 7.04 ERA with a BAA of .333. Yet his 1st halfs have been stellar--2.29 ERA with a BAA of .222. IIRC, Linebrink said he might pick up a ball once a week this offseason starting in Dec., now that he's healthy this offseason. He needs to get stronger. The sox should be able to count on Scott for the 1st half at least. Then, if he struggles, the sox might have had enough and be more likely to let him go as they'd only be left with 1 1/2 yrs on his deal.

Edited November 29, 2009 by beck72

[Dick Allen]

Okay, so where did I say that I believed it was absolute fact that anyone would have been better?

 

I posted the numbers of other players on our team who already *were* better. As far as minor league options, it's no guarantee, but I certainly wouldn't bet money on any one of those players coming up and posting numbers worse than Linebrink's in the second half, and it is in no way inconceivable for any of those guys to perform significantly better. You don't know unless you give those guys a shot. And at least if you go to someone else you're sending a message that you won't settle for that kind of performance.

 

Thanks for bringing up the Pena trade again. I only said that I thought we could have gotten something better for Allen than Pena. You can disagree with that all you want, I don't know. I felt Allen was being underrated, and in general I don't like giving up position prospects for middle relievers. Furthermore I repeated about a thousand times over that I had no problem dealing Allen.

As bad as Linebrink was, given his history, he probably was a better bet turning it around than throwing the other guys in there. Another reason could be Linebrink could live with the failure, the younger guys sometimes have it ruin them. Also, substituting a minor leaguer for Linebrink wouldn't have been enough to get the Sox in the playoffs anyway, and if it meant a couple more wins, all it would have done is move them down in the draft and possiby make them eligible to surrender a #1 pick if Hell froze over and they signed a type A FA.

[chisoxt]

I started this whole argument by responding to Ranger's comments on some of the callers who would phone in to his show to b**** about Linebrink. I posted the stats a few pages back, and for the exception of about 5 innings or so from Nunez, everyone on the team was better than Linebrink in the second half. To assume there was no one who would have performed better than Linebrink is a massive assumption considering how bad Linebrink was.

 

I've seen others comment on Linebrink's past success as well as his stuff as reasons to keep going to him over someone else on the farm. I'll respond by again pointing out that 1) Linebrink has had a terrible second half in each of the last 4 seasons, so for past success you really do have to go back pretty far, and 2) Linebrink's "stuff" doesn't mean jack if he can't use it properly. For example, why were Aardsma, MacDougal, Sisco, and Masset sent down in '07? We called up Ehren Wassermann that year, who in comparison has pretty much nothing as far as stuff, and yet Ehren performed extremely well. Ryan Bukvich, who also had much lesser stuff, came up in '07 as well and pitched a hell of a lot better than the other guys he was replacing. DJ Carrasco is yet another example of the "stuff" argument not always panning out. DJ has been one the most important pieces to our bullpen the last two seasons, possibly THE most important piece given the amount of innings he's taken off the arms in the back of the pen, and yet Carrasco will be the guy with the weakest stuff on the entire 2010 pitching staff. Carlos Torres is another one. Torres has pretty much nothing to work with at all, and yet he still was a much better pitcher in the second half than Linebrink was. At least Torres tries to mix it up and work to both sides of the plate rather than the "fastball right down the chute" style Linebrink uses.

 

My whole point was that Ranger's arguments for running Linebrink out there were terrible arguments that can be easily refuted with statistics. The only reason the Sox ran Linebrink out there was because of the vast amount of money owed to him, and possibly, if you want to dig that far, because the Sox wanted him to help Peavy with his transition. Therefore it is a complete dick move for Ranger to laugh at the callers who voiced their displeasure on his show, because the callers were making valid points, and they had valid reasons for their complaints. And as I said before, if you don't want to blame it on the contract over the radio, then at least don't come here and start that s*** again because you're going to get an actual baseball argument in return. Ranger can make some points, and most of the time he does and he is easy to agree with, but he still can be a snob to a lot of his callers for no reason. It's one thing to rip on someone for saying something completely irrational, but you should at least look at the numbers first, because Linebrink really was that bad. Literally *anyone* else in our pen could have done better, and when it comes to what we had on the farm, there were definitely other options, including no-risk candidates like Derek Rodriguez and Fernando Hernandez, who everyone knew would be left unprotected after the season ended anyway.

 

And again, I know Linebrink was out there because of his contract. That's the Sox decision, that's their money, their player, etc. But if you disagree with the Sox decision, you still have every right to b**** about it. Maybe b****ing about it is pointless and gets you nowhere (looking at the CF situation from 2006-09) but there's still a valid argument there.

 

I can understand Rangers point but side withe KHP on this debate. I see a trend in baseball now whereby even the big market teams like the Yankess and Red Sox are turning to their farm system to stock their bull pen corps. The reason the Sox have to stick with expensive rag-armed options like Linebrink, MacDougal etc is because the Sox inexcusably drafted crappy low ceiling pitchers for several years and thus have few alternatives in their system to turn to. (This is why that I am hoping that Kenny does not trade Daniel Hudson this off season. I see Hudson taking over Linebrink's role at mid season.)

[Jordan4life_2007]

I can understand Rangers point but side withe KHP on this debate. I see a trend in baseball now whereby even the big market teams like the Yankess and Red Sox are turning to their farm system to stock their bull pen corps. The reason the Sox have to stick with expensive rag-armed options like Linebrink, MacDougal etc is because the Sox inexcusably drafted crappy low ceiling pitchers for several years and thus have few alternatives in their system to turn to. (This is why that I am hoping that Kenny does not trade Daniel Hudson this off season. I see Hudson taking over Linebrink's role at mid season.)

 

There's a contradiction somewhere in this post. I'll see if you can find it.

[shipps]

There's a contradiction somewhere in this post. I'll see if you can find it.

 

There is a contradiction somewhere in this post. I'll see if I can find it.

[chisoxt]

There's a contradiction somewhere in this post. I'll see if you can find it.

 

OK, I'll bite.

[Jordan4life_2007]

OK, I'll bite.

 

You sided with KHP's opinion that there had to be somebody better that could've been brought up to replace Linebrink. Then right after that you state (and you're right) that terrible draft after terrible draft after terrible draft left us with basically zero legitimate alternatives to turn to in which we could replace Linebrink.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jordan4life

[chisoxt]

You sided with KHP's opinion that there had to be somebody better that could've been brought up to replace Linebrink. Then right after that you state (and you're right) that terrible draft after terrible draft after terrible draft left us with basically zero legitimate alternatives to turn to in which we could replace Linebrink.

 

To clarify, I did not necessarily agree that we had they guys to replace Scott. My point was that if we had an organization good at developing and keeping players the strategy of replacing bullpen guys with younger arms from your own system is a good one, assuming you as an orgaization have the talent to do so. It is not good payroll management to overpay for guys like Linebrink, and Dotel, whereby for 8 million dollars we get 1 whole win over a replacement level player (Source: fangrapghs.com).

 

I guess that as on organization, the Sox are paying dearly for the drafting sins of the past. This just shows that if a team does not spend the $ on the drafting and developmental side, they end up paying throught he nose just to fill roster spots with replacement level players.

[ptatc]

You're picking one sentence out of context and arguing it in a completely different manner in which I did.

 

Never did I say that someone outside of the organization somehow knows the personnel of the White Sox better than those that work for the White Sox.

 

If you think that's what I have been arguing this entire time, you've missed the whole point.

 

No disrespect intended, PTATC, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to a degree. We just happen to disagree from that degree onward.

 

No disrespect taken. Like you said, agree to disagree. I view it one way you view it another.

 

I just think KW and Ozzie want to win and they though there was a viable option that would make them significantly better, they would have done it.

Edited November 29, 2009 by ptatc

[iamshack]

No disrespect taken. Like you said, agree to disagree. I view it one way you view it another.

 

I just think KW and Ozzie want to win and they though there was a viable option that would make them significantly better, they would have done it.

 

I am hoping the same thing, Sir.

 

I just don't confuse either of them for Jesus Christ.

[Jordan4life_2007]

To clarify, I did not necessarily agree that we had they guys to replace Scott. My point was that if we had an organization good at developing and keeping players the strategy of replacing bullpen guys with younger arms from your own system is a good one, assuming you as an orgaization have the talent to do so. It is not good payroll management to overpay for guys like Linebrink, and Dotel, whereby for 8 million dollars we get 1 whole win over a replacement level player (Source: fangrapghs.com).

 

I guess that as on organization, the Sox are paying dearly for the drafting sins of the past. This just shows that if a team does not spend the $ on the drafting and developmental side, they end up paying throught he nose just to fill roster spots with replacement level players.

 

You'll get no rebuttal from me on anything you said right here. The drafts of 2000-2006 were beyond deplorable. We're just recently (2007, 2008 and hopefully 2009) seeing a gradual upswing in the drafting department. If you have a decent yet limited payroll, refuse to ever go after elite free agents (I.E. anybody with Boras as their agent), you better be able to develop your own talent. Otherwise, like you said, we're forced to overpay for guys like Linebrink and Dotel. We're forced to bring Scott Podsednik back from the dead. We're forced to take on multiple reclamation projects every year. That's simply no formula for year in and year out success (as only 2 playoff appearances in the last 9 years has proven).

[Ranger]

Just to make sure we're keeping the record straight here...

 

He had a total of 57 appearances.

 

After his first 38 appearances (through July 31st), Linebrink had a 2.48 ERA.

 

And the Sox were 26-12 in games that he pitched.

 

After appearance #43, on August 15th, he had a 2.98 ERA.

 

Pull the plug and replace him with a minor leaguer yet? Nyet.

 

It was in late August and September when he fell apart (over his final 14 appearances).

 

Yes, he struggled from then on out, but when a veteran pitcher gets through 75% of his performances in a season with a sub-3.00 ERA, and then starts struggling... it's got to be extremely difficult for a manager/GM to think the pitcher can't turn it around the next time out.

 

So when exactly do you pull the plug and say some minor leaguer with zero MLB experience is a better option?

 

 

The issue is deciding when a slump is actually a trend. And I just don't think that in the midst of one half-season, you can determine it is a trend and that a player needs to be replaced with somebody that is a COMPLETE unknown. I know that people seem to think they're absolutely positive that it couldn't have been any worse than Linebrink. I'm just not sure how you could truly think that. I'll give you a scenario that's worse:

 

Linebrink gets benched for Player A who struggles because he isn't quite ready, his confidence is set back and he gets sent back. So they call up Player B who also has pretty decent potential but is also not totally ready to handle it. He gets rocked and gets sent back and replaced with somebody different. There is a worse scenario than letting Linebrink try to iron it out and a revolving door is not a good option.

 

I think ultimately I take exception with the idea that one of us is going to be able to able to devise a better, ground-breaking way of handling a roster. Nothing is ever going to change with how teams give the benfit of the doubt to formerly and recently productive ballplayers as opposed to minor-leaguers with total uncertainty. If the risk-reward of uncertain minor leaguers were better, then more rosters would be filled with those uncertain minor leaguers. Now, top prospects are different than marginal, fringe minor-leaguers.

 

In regard to this, we just aren't going to come with something that hasn't been thought of.

 

I can understand Rangers point but side withe KHP on this debate. I see a trend in baseball now whereby even the big market teams like the Yankess and Red Sox are turning to their farm system to stock their bull pen corps. The reason the Sox have to stick with expensive rag-armed options like Linebrink, MacDougal etc is because the Sox inexcusably drafted crappy low ceiling pitchers for several years and thus have few alternatives in their system to turn to. (This is why that I am hoping that Kenny does not trade Daniel Hudson this off season. I see Hudson taking over Linebrink's role at mid season.)

 

The big market teams try to fill their rosters with "good" minor league talent, not just any old minor league talent. The Sox "overpaid" for Linebrink, because like I said earlier, they had to. There was no better option and there were no minor leaguers ready or good enough to take over. And I just don't see the risk-reward being better with a marginal minor league pitcher (or somebody who simply may not be ready) over the possiblity of a veteran (with a history of recent success) making a turnaround. The reason teams do this is because it's the best way...not because they can't think of anything better.

 

By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever.

[Jordan4life_2007]

By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever.

 

So outside of an injury, is Hudson starting next season at AAA?

[iamshack]

The issue is deciding when a slump is actually a trend. And I just don't think that in the midst of one half-season, you can determine it is a trend and that a player needs to be replaced with somebody that is a COMPLETE unknown. I know that people seem to think they're absolutely positive that it couldn't have been any worse than Linebrink. I'm just not sure how you could truly think that. I'll give you a scenario that's worse:

 

Linebrink gets benched for Player A who struggles because he isn't quite ready, his confidence is set back and he gets sent back. So they call up Player B who also has pretty decent potential but is also not totally ready to handle it. He gets rocked and gets sent back and replaced with somebody different. There is a worse scenario than letting Linebrink try to iron it out and a revolving door is not a good option.

 

I think ultimately I take exception with the idea that one of us is going to be able to able to devise a better, ground-breaking way of handling a roster. Nothing is ever going to change with how teams give the benfit of the doubt to formerly and recently productive ballplayers as opposed to minor-leaguers with total uncertainty. If the risk-reward of uncertain minor leaguers were better, then more rosters would be filled with those uncertain minor leaguers. Now, top prospects are different than marginal, fringe minor-leaguers.

 

In regard to this, we just aren't going to come with something that hasn't been thought of.

 

 

 

The big market teams try to fill their rosters with "good" minor league talent, not just any old minor league talent. The Sox "overpaid" for Linebrink, because like I said earlier, they had to. There was no better option and there were no minor leaguers ready or good enough to take over. And I just don't see the risk-reward being better with a marginal minor league pitcher (or somebody who simply may not be ready) over the possiblity of a veteran (with a history of recent success) making a turnaround. The reason teams do this is because it's the best way...not because they can't think of anything better.

 

By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever.

 

First of all, we've pointed out now that Linebrink has done this for four consecutive second halves in a row. This is not something that just happened in the midst of one half-season.

 

Secondly, if you're talking about marginal, fringe minor leaguers, we shouldn't be concerned about hurting their feelings or damaging their confidence. They exist more than simply for the purpose of filling a minor league roster.

 

Thirdly, what would you have done had Linebrink been injured for the entire second half? Are you not going to bring these guys in because you're afraid they're going to have their confidence devastated and never be able to get out of bed again?

 

Fourthly, no one is suggesting that you or I are going to devise some groundbreaking method in which to handle personnel. The argument was made to you that simply stating that no better solution exists because we would have thought of it already had there been one is bs. New and fresh ideas are occurring in every industry and every profession. Times change, people change, the economics of things change. For you to claim that things should be done now, and always will be done the way they have in the past is a closed-minded, non-imaginative, non-innovative manner in which to view things. I hope we have more open-minded people working in our front office than that.

 

Edit: Jeesh, some really bad spelling in that post...

Edited November 29, 2009 by iamshack

[Ranger]

So outside of an injury, is Hudson starting next season at AAA?

 

I don't think it would be out of the question for him to get some innings in relief, but ultimately he will start.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't think it would be out of the question for him to get some innings in relief, but ultimately he will start.

 

I don't debate that his long-term future is that of a starter. But assuming everybody is healthy (obviously Freddy is the one to worry about the most as far as health goes), there's not going to be a rotation spot open.

[Ranger]

First of all, we've pointed out now that Linebrink has done this for four consecutive second halves in a row. This is not something that just happened in the midst of one half-season.

 

Secondly, if you're talking about marginal, fringe minor leaguers, we shouldn't be concerned about hurting their feelings or damaging their confidence. They exist more than simply for the purpose of filling a minor league roster.

 

Thirdly, what would you have done had Linebrink been injured for the entire second half? Are you not going to bring these guys in because you're afraid they're going to have their confidence devastated and never be able to get out of bed again?

 

Fourthly, no one is suggesting that you or I are going to devise some groundbreaking method in which to handle personnel. The argument was made to you that simply stating that no better solution exists because we would have thought of it already had there been one is bs. New and fresh ideas are occurring in every industry and every profession. Times change, people change, the economics of things change. For you to claim that things should be done now, and always will be done the way they have in the past is a closed-minded, none-imaginative, none-innovative manner in which to view things. I hope we have more open-minded people working in our front office than that.

 

Not true. Linebrink did not have 4 straight bad second halves. One bad month in 2006, one bad month in 2007, injury in 2008, a poor second half in 2009.

 

Also, maybe you missed my earlier post about the reshuffling of the bullpen? I said teams usually only call up a minor leaguers out of emergency due to injury. That is a much different situation than saying, "Hey kid, Scott Linebrink isn't getting it done any longer, we need you to come up here and save our bullpen because he's killing us." That's entirely different than somebody getting called up because of an unexpected injury. Circumstances are different because you are aware that you're only gonna be around for a couple of weeks and will be sent back down at the end of that period, not because of poor performance, but because the regular has healed. In that situation, it's predetermined he's coming up temporarily and there are no hard feelings upon being sent back. The other situation is essentially telling a guy that if he gets sent back down, it's because he failed at his job.

 

Finally, if you would tell us your fresh idea for how to better handle veteran and minor league personnel, I'd love to hear it. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe teams are handling these types of situations the best that they can be handled? That is to say, that the idea of allowing veteran players to make a turnaround versus calling up a minor leaguer because "it can't be any worse" is not the best way to do it.

 

In no way have I said the game doesn't evlove in some ways. That's completely ridiculous for you to suggest that. But I am suggesting that, at some point, there become some established truths within the game that will not change. Some things don't work and never will work and some things done are the best possible options given all facets of the game. Th truth that veteran players provide more certainty is not going to change.

[Ranger]

I don't debate that his long-term future is that of a starter. But assuming everybody is healthy (obviously Freddy is the one to worry about the most as far as health goes), there's not going to be a rotation spot open.

 

 

Right. And he is only going to be 23 when the season starts, so there is probably more development time to be had. We'll see what happens in the spring. But I also wouldn't be shocked if he gets dealt.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Right. And he is only going to be 23 when the season starts, so there is probably more development time to be had. We'll see what happens in the spring. But I also wouldn't be shocked if he gets dealt.

 

Cool. If we do keep him, I'd much rather him begin the season at AAA. Keep us updated if you hear anything.

[Steve9347]

Dayom... this thread is still rolling?

[BaseballNick]

By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever.

 

That's a shame. Hudson could be a very effective option logging some important innings for the Sox next year. Clearly, his future is as a starter, but with no room in the rotation right now, and the Sox looking to be contenders, I think it makes all of the sense in the world to have your 12 best pitchers on the 25 man roster.

 

 

[iamshack]

Not true. Linebrink did not have 4 straight bad second halves. One bad month in 2006, one bad month in 2007, injury in 2008, a poor second half in 2009.

 

Also, maybe you missed my earlier post about the reshuffling of the bullpen? I said teams usually only call up a minor leaguers out of emergency due to injury. That is a much different situation than saying, "Hey kid, Scott Linebrink isn't getting it done any longer, we need you to come up here and save our bullpen because he's killing us." That's entirely different than somebody getting called up because of an unexpected injury. Circumstances are different because you are aware that you're only gonna be around for a couple of weeks and will be sent back down at the end of that period, not because of poor performance, but because the regular has healed. In that situation, it's predetermined he's coming up temporarily and there are no hard feelings upon being sent back. The other situation is essentially telling a guy that if he gets sent back down, it's because he failed at his job.

 

Finally, if you would tell us your fresh idea for how to better handle veteran and minor league personnel, I'd love to hear it. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe teams are handling these types of situations the best that they can be handled? That is to say, that the idea of allowing veteran players to make a turnaround versus calling up a minor leaguer because "it can't be any worse" is not the best way to do it.

 

In no way have I said the game doesn't evlove in some ways. That's completely ridiculous for you to suggest that. But I am suggesting that, at some point, there become some established truths within the game that will not change. Some things don't work and never will work and some things done are the best possible options given all facets of the game. Th truth that veteran players provide more certainty is not going to change.

 

Fine Chris. Linebrink has now failed to perform up to the standards required of him for 4 of the last second halves due to various reasons. A bad outing is acceptable. A bad weekend happens from time to time. Maybe even a bad week, but don't make a habit of them. We're talking bad MONTHS here. There are only 6 in the entire season. Having an entire bad MONTH four consecutive years in a row is unacceptable for a major league reliever, especially one such as he who is supposed to be an elite setup man.

 

The point is, this is in no way surprising at this point. The organization should not have been shocked. Were you shocked when it happened? I wasn't. And by the 10th bad outing in 13 or whatever it was, I was pretty sure what we were going to be getting from the guy.

 

Explain to me the difference between requiring a guy to come up and pitch because a guy is injured and coming up and replacing a guy because that guy sucks. This is the major leagues. This is not the little league, or the tee ball league, or the American Legion league, or your neighborhood softball league. Adult men get paid millions of dollars because their teams depend on them to produce. And when you stop producing, you get benched, sent down, cut, or used in non-pivotal situations. I could care less if Scott's feelings are hurt, or if a AA or AAA pitcher has to come up and fill in as best he can for whatever period of time. If he gets sent down because he failed to do his job, fine. If he gets sent down because they believe Linebrink can return effectively, fine. I'm not going to worry about feelings at this level.

 

This league is about results. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we failed last year.

 

As for how to handle veteran and minor league players, have we not been discussing that for almost this entire thread? I've said over and over and over and over and over again that veteran players should get opportunities at redemption, because their track record affords them that. I have conceded time and time and time again that Ozzie was right to stick with Linebrink up to a point. When it became INCREDIBLY CLEAR that Linebrink was going to be nothing but a big bag of suck, it is time to stop being stupid about it. I said this in my first post on this topic, and I'll repeat it again: It's one thing to try and recover performance from an asset because you have money invested; it's quite another to continue to keep running out a guy that is destined to fail and expecting different results.

 

Not only are you spending the money on the guy in that situation, but you are compounding your error by spending the money on the guy to give you horrendous innings.

 

It's the definition of insanity...