The Jim Thome Saga Ends

[Balta1701]

I hate to keep bringing this up, but accountability does seem to be an issue here. JR did recently say that it is difficult to hold Ozzie accountable if they don't provide him with the team he asks for. Seems like there is a struggle about how closely to follow his vision, and the closer it is followed, the more accountable he will be held.

Then why do you have the GM and coach position separate?

[scenario]

Sadly, this seems like a situation where Ozzie wants to show he's smarter than everyone. I'm fine with that, as long as he's held accountable.

 

The scary part is... that if the oddball one-in-hundred type thing happens and the guys DH'ing don't suck, Ozzie will be absolutely insufferable.

 

Then, we'll have to put up with even more oddball ideas... like “I’d rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.”

Edited January 25, 2010 by scenario

[Ranger]

I hate to keep bringing this up, but accountability does seem to be an issue here. JR did recently say that it is difficult to hold Ozzie accountable if they don't provide him with the team he asks for. Seems like there is a struggle about how closely to follow his vision, and the closer it is followed, the more accountable he will be held.

 

 

I think that is reading too much into it. It's never been an issue of not trusting Ozzie's vision for an ideal team as much as it has been that it's just difficult to build a team exactly the way you want it to be built within a couple of years when you consider pre-existing multi-year contracts, alternatives (or lack of alternatives), and financial constraints. Now that the team is built the way Ozzie likes it, it would be easier to keep it in tact (if it works) than it would be to re-vamp the whole thing again.

 

I don't think that this suddenly means Ozzie will be on Jerry's hotseat because he still has plenty of equity built up with the owner. Ozzie will be more heavily scrutinized by the fans and media for sure, but I doubt he will be in any greater danger of losing his job if things go poorly this year.

[iamshack]

Then why do you have the GM and coach position separate?

Trust me Balta, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm just trying to interpret their statements and actions.

My guess is they would tell you that the GM and manager work on the vision for the team together. The GM then acquires the best players for that vision, while the manager manages them.

[iamshack]

I don't think that this suddenly means Ozzie will be on Jerry's hotseat because he still has plenty of equity built up with the owner. Ozzie will be more heavily scrutinized by the fans and media for sure, but I doubt he will be in any greater danger of losing his job if things go poorly this year.

I think it's more of a way for JR and KW to communicate to the fans that they aren't exactly "on-board" with the notion of bypassing Jim Thome for the "rotating wheel of crap." This allows them to put the focus on Ozzie, and he seems to be enjoying that quite a bit.

 

That being said, I agree with you about Ozzie's status with the Club. I think it would take several poor seasons in a row for him to be ousted.

Edited January 25, 2010 by iamshack

[Ranger]

The scary part is... that if the oddball one-in-hundred type thing happens and the guys DH'ing don't suck, Ozzie will be absolutely insufferable.

 

Then, we'll have to put up with even more oddball ideas.

 

I don't think the odds are that heavily in favor of the DH sucking. I think there is a good chance, but I don't think it's that strong. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the DH isn't necessarily good, but that it's good enough.

 

I also believe it's a mistake to put this much weight on the designated hitter. The Sox will not win, or lose, the division just because of it. While a real, good hitter would make the lineup better, it's going to be up to the lineup as a whole to get it done this year. The DH appears to be a weakness, but it's probably not going to be the one thing that makes or breaks them. That's too much emphasis to place on one guy in the lineup.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

I don't think the odds are that heavily in favor of the DH sucking. I think there is a good chance, but I don't think it's that strong. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the DH isn't necessarily good, but that it's good enough.

 

I also believe it's a mistake to put this much weight on the designated hitter. The Sox will not win, or lose, the division just because of it. While a real, good hitter would make the lineup better, it's going to be up to the lineup as a whole to get it done this year. The DH appears to be a weakness, but it's probably not going to be the one thing that makes or breaks them. That's too much emphasis to place on one guy in the lineup.

 

I actually think it's entirely possible for the DH to win or lose the division. In 2008, if the White Sox had Mark Kotsay DHing instead of Jim Thome, does that team win the division?

 

(and I'm not even talking about game 163 here either. I'm simply talking about whether they'd be in that position in the first place)

 

I think Thome can add as many as 2-3 wins to the team just by himself. That can win or lose a division very easily.

[scenario]

I don't think the odds are that heavily in favor of the DH sucking. I think there is a good chance, but I don't think it's that strong. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the DH isn't necessarily good, but that it's good enough.

 

I also believe it's a mistake to put this much weight on the designated hitter. The Sox will not win, or lose, the division just because of it. While a real, good hitter would make the lineup better, it's going to be up to the lineup as a whole to get it done this year. The DH appears to be a weakness, but it's probably not going to be the one thing that makes or breaks them. That's too much emphasis to place on one guy in the lineup.

 

Good enough for what?

 

Hoping other players step up to compensate for a potential hole in our lineup isn't a strategy that inspires much confidence.

 

There were only 4 DH's in the AL last year with an OPS under .750. Only one of those on a competitive team. And in our division, the teams we're competing against have pretty good DH's. Why put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage right out of the gate? Just seems ridiculous to me.

Edited January 25, 2010 by scenario

[iamshack]

I actually think it's entirely possible for the DH to win or lose the division. In 2008, if the White Sox had Mark Kotsay DHing instead of Jim Thome, does that team win the division?

 

(and I'm not even talking about game 163 here either. I'm simply talking about whether they'd be in that position in the first place)

 

I think Thome can add as many as 2-3 wins to the team just by himself. That can win or lose a division very easily.

I also think you get yourself in trouble when you start talking about "this one position isn't going to make or break us." At some point, something ultimately does make or break you, and I have to admit, adding a competent DH could be the difference between having an above-average offense or an average to below-average offense.

 

And just so Mr. Rongey doesn't misinterpret me here, I do agree with him regarding the lineup needing to step-up as a whole, but should not everything go as we hope, I think a lot of things could fall on that middle of the order again, and acquiring Thome goes a long way towards solidifying it.

[Ranger]

I actually think it's entirely possible for the DH to win or lose the division. In 2008, if the White Sox had Mark Kotsay DHing instead of Jim Thome, does that team win the division?

 

(and I'm not even talking about game 163 here either. I'm simply talking about whether they'd be in that position in the first place)

 

I think Thome can add as many as 2-3 wins to the team just by himself. That can win or lose a division very easily.

 

In all reality, what's the likelihood it all comes down to one game, or even two? I understand it's happened in two straight seasons but, really, that is highly unusual. You can do this "what if?" game with everyone in the lineup. They wouldn't have even been in position to play that 163rd game if Konerko hadn't been non-existent for the first 4 months or if Swisher hadn't underachieved by about 100 OPS points that season. The truth is, they were in that position because of lineup-wide underachievement.

 

It's not that I don't believe one guy can't carry a lineup for a time, because that can happen. Quentin did it two years ago and Thome did it in 2006, for example. But Thome's days of carrying a lineup are probably over.

[Balta1701]

And just so Mr. Rongey doesn't misinterpret me here, I do agree with him regarding the lineup needing to step-up as a whole, but should not everything go as we hope, I think a lot of things could fall on that middle of the order again, and acquiring Thome goes a long way towards solidifying it.

And even if everything goes as we hope...adding JT as the LH counterpoint DH to Jones still makes this team better and harder to beat both in the regular season and in the playoffs.

[gatnom]

I don't think the odds are that heavily in favor of the DH sucking. I think there is a good chance, but I don't think it's that strong. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the DH isn't necessarily good, but that it's good enough.

 

I also believe it's a mistake to put this much weight on the designated hitter. The Sox will not win, or lose, the division just because of it. While a real, good hitter would make the lineup better, it's going to be up to the lineup as a whole to get it done this year. The DH appears to be a weakness, but it's probably not going to be the one thing that makes or breaks them. That's too much emphasis to place on one guy in the lineup.

 

Does it matter if the DH position is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back? I notice that in a lot of your posts you mention how X, Y, and Z didn't or won't "break" the team, but the fact of the matter is that with those issues resolved the team wins more games, period. The question is not whether our current DH platoon could be good enough depending upon certain (in this case favorable) circumstances. Rather, it is a question of whether or not Jim Thome makes this team a better ball club. To me, it seems pretty obvious that he does.

[witesoxfan]

I also think you get yourself in trouble when you start talking about "this one position isn't going to make or break us." At some point, something ultimately does make or break you, and I have to admit, adding a competent DH could be the difference between having an above-average offense or an average to below-average offense.

 

And just so Mr. Rongey doesn't misinterpret me here, I do agree with him regarding the lineup needing to step-up as a whole, but should not everything go as we hope, I think a lot of things could fall on that middle of the order again, and acquiring Thome goes a long way towards solidifying it.

 

Absolutely agree on this, as you and I have pretty much through this entire ordeal. If Rios, Q, Beckham, Ramirez, or whoever don't perform, this team won't do much with or without Thome. Adding Thome makes this offense a much safer bet though and makes a team with a strong right handed pitcher much more approachable with 2-3 guys (Pierzynski, Teahen, and maybe Kotsay) who can hit righties well but with just so-so power, along with a guy in Thome who can hit the absolute s*** out of said pitcher too. If anything, Thome's acquisition makes this team much more flexible, though I guess flexibility doesn't make versatility.

[Kalapse]

According to Jon Heyman via twitter the Yankees are offering Johnny Damon a base salary of "$5M tops" and they "don't seem too optimistic". The $2M figure made no sense, this seems far more realistic.

[fathom]

How about the fact that it's important to get off to a good start based on our previous history of fading down the stretch while the Twins always play strong? We got into a hole last season with the Wise debacle, and even when we made a run, it was too hard to overcome the slow start. I keep hearing people say "we'll just acquire someone during the season if it's not working out". That rarely ever happens in a positive way.

[scenario]

In all reality, what's the likelihood it all comes down to one game, or even two? I understand it's happened in two straight seasons but, really, that is highly unusual. You can do this "what if?" game with everyone in the lineup. They wouldn't have even been in position to play that 163rd game if Konerko hadn't been non-existent for the first 4 months or if Swisher hadn't underachieved by about 100 OPS points that season. The truth is, they were in that position because of lineup-wide underachievement.

 

It's not that I don't believe one guy can't carry a lineup for a time, because that can happen. Quentin did it two years ago and Thome did it in 2006, for example. But Thome's days of carrying a lineup are probably over.

 

Sorry, but I struggle with the argument that it's OK to accept a glaring weakness on the team because 'one player/position probably won't make that much of a difference'."

 

Depending on who Detroit trots out there, we're likely to have THE worst production at DH of any team in the division.

 

Why is that acceptable for a team that says it wants to compete for the division title?

Edited January 25, 2010 by scenario

[Balta1701]

I keep hearing people say "we'll just acquire someone during the season if it's not working out". That rarely ever happens in a positive way.

Even with KW in the GM's slot?

[Ranger]

Good enough for what?

 

Hoping other players step up to compensate for a potential hole in our lineup isn't a strategy that inspires much confidence.

 

There were only 4 DH's in the AL last year with an OPS under .750. Only one of those on a competitive team. And in our division, the teams we're competing against have pretty good DH's. Why put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage right out of the gate? Just seems ridiculous to me.

 

 

I also think you get yourself in trouble when you start talking about "this one position isn't going to make or break us." At some point, something ultimately does make or break you, and I have to admit, adding a competent DH could be the difference between having an above-average offense or an average to below-average offense.

 

And just so Mr. Rongey doesn't misinterpret me here, I do agree with him regarding the lineup needing to step-up as a whole, but should not everything go as we hope, I think a lot of things could fall on that middle of the order again, and acquiring Thome goes a long way towards solidifying it.

 

"Goode enough" means just that: good enough for the team, as a whole, to win.

 

Again, it's all about the lineup in it's entirety. If the Sox don't get production out of Rios, Quentin, or Konerko (who will likely be the true heart of the order, but probably not in that particular sequence), it won't matter who the DH is. A better hitter at the DH spot would add another element for sure, but I won't count on that one piece making the difference. Shack, I don't think you get in trouble when you say that about one position, but it's when you're saying it about multiple positions that will get you into trouble. the Sox are actually in fair shape everywhere else really (provided Rios and Quentin bounce back, of course)

 

The truth is, they will not find an available hitter that will be a game-changer (unless there's a miracle swap for Gonzalez or something).

[fathom]

Even with KW in the GM's slot?

 

Just league wide, midseason trades do not work out that well. There was a huge report on this at the deadline last year showing how little impact midseason trades have had in the postseason. Beltran is one of the only ones to really make a difference.

[Ranger]

Sorry, but I struggle with the argument that it's OK to accept a glaring weakness on the team because 'one player/position probably won't make that much of a difference'."

 

Depending on who Detroit trots out there, we're likely to have THE worst production at DH of any team in the division.

 

Why is that acceptable for a team that says it wants to compete for the division title?

 

 

There really is no use repeating myself, because I thought it was pretty clear. If the lineup as a whole does its job, it is irrelevant if the Sox' DH is weaker than everyone else's.

 

Let me make this even clearer for those that may think I wouldn't like a better hitter there: I would. For the sake of piece-of-mind alone, I would find it more comforting if they had a better option right now. However, I just don't believe that one spot will end up making the difference. It will probably be inconsequential in comparison to the trio I mentioned in my previous post.

[gatnom]

"Goode enough" means just that: good enough for the team, as a whole, to win.

 

Again, it's all about the lineup in it's entirety. If the Sox don't get production out of Rios, Quentin, or Konerko (who will likely be the true heart of the order, but probably not in that particular sequence), it won't matter who the DH is. A better hitter at the DH spot would add another element for sure, but I won't count on that one piece making the difference. Shack, I don't think you get in trouble when you say that about one position, but it's when you're saying it about multiple positions that will get you into trouble. the Sox are actually in fair shape everywhere else really (provided Rios and Quentin bounce back, of course)

 

The truth is, they will not find an available hitter that will be a game-changer (unless there's a miracle swap for Gonzalez or something).

 

Once again, Jim Thome is an improvement to this team, and he would appear to be a cheap one at that. Even if you don't think he is good enough to be a "game changer," he is still a clear improvement over what we have. I don't see how improving even moderately is a bad thing

[southsider2k5]

According to Jon Heyman via twitter the Yankees are offering Johnny Damon a base salary of "$5M tops" and they "don't seem too optimistic". The $2M figure made no sense, this seems far more realistic.

 

That makes a ton more sense.

[fathom]

That makes a ton more sense.

 

You said it well yesterday....no one is really going to choose the White Sox over the Yankees if the money is even close.

[Ranger]

Just league wide, midseason trades do not work out that well. There was a huge report on this at the deadline last year showing how little impact midseason trades have had in the postseason. Beltran is one of the only ones to really make a difference.

 

 

The goal of that midseason trade isn't just to help in the postseason. Primarily, it's intended to strengthen a team looking to maintain (or obtain) an edge for the rest of the regular season so they may make it to the playoffs. What happens after that is no guarantee. It's really good for teams that are in a dogfight for a division/wild card and think they need something to get them to the end.

[scenario]

"Goode enough" means just that: good enough for the team, as a whole, to win.

 

 

Yes... but...

 

The statistical correlation between runs scored and wins is very very clear. And the correlation between OPS and runs scored is very clear.

 

And in the AL, DH is a premier offensive position. So, why should we handicap ourselves by choice?

 

I can buy the argument that we might not have many other choices...

 

But I simply can't buy the idea that intentionally rotating sub-standard offensive players through the DH position is an acceptable idea for a team that wants to compete.

 

I'd be happier if they scrapped the idea and just said "Tyler Flowers will be our DH unless he struggles to hit at the major league level"... and then let the current 'plan' be the backup plan.