Tigers Sign Damon - 1 yr, 8 mil; NTC

[NorthSideSox72]

The Sox have improved, no doubt:

 

Offensively (small improvement overall):

--Teahen replaces Getz (significant improvement)

--Pierre replaces Pods (probably break even, but less health risk)

--Quentin, if healthy, replaces Dye (if he's healthy, probably TCQ out-hits Dye in 2010)

--Kotsay/Jones replaces Thome (NOT an improvement, at all, in fact a serious downgrade)

--Rios replaces Rios-sub-200 (you cannot tell me he's likely to be that bad again)

--Beckham replaces Beckham/Fields (obvious upgrade)

 

Defensively (noticeable improvement):

--Teahen replaces Fields/Beckham-as-rookie (probably a small improvement overall, big one over Fields)

--Beckham replaces Getz (slight improvement)

--Rios replaces Pods/Rios (I know, looks weird, but that's what it is - and an improvement)

--Pierre replaces TCQ (probably break even - TCQ has a better arm, but Pierre is otherwise the better fielder)

--TCQ replaces Dye (big improvement)

 

Pitching (major improvement):

--Peavy/MB/Floyd/Danks/Garcia > 2009's rotation (big improvement)

--Putz replaces Linebrink/Dotel as setup (probably a big improvement, assuming Putz is truly ready to go)

--Linebrink replaces a middle reliever (hard to say)

--Williams or Threets replaces Williams (probably break even, but who knows?)

--Then there are the last pieces, which are always the last pieces, and are unpredictable

 

Bench (call it break even, but maybe better):

--Vizquel at MI is a big improvement defensively, Backup C is the same, Kotsay is the same, then ???? for last spot

 

Those are the changes the Sox have made. The team is better overall. They improved in a lot of areas as listed above, but did fall back a lot at DH.

 

Here is the real reason I think the extreme pessimists are off their rocker about the Sox: trends. Look at the guys who are staying: AJP and Konerko are the only hitters who look to me like they are likely to regress. On the other hand, you have Rios, TCQ, Ramirez are all guys who look likely to improve in 2010 based on sub-normal performances in 2009. Beckham is a guy who seems on the verge of improving, and playing the whole year. So that's, on balance, an offense likely to improve.

 

And as for pitchers... the only pitcher who seemed to be significantly better than his norm last year was Thornton. Everyone else was around, or below, what you'd expect them to do. So again, there seems a strong likelihood that the staff overall will improve even with the people who are holdovers.

 

This shows me a picture of a team that is likely to be 5 to 10 games better next year than last, assuming static competition. Looking at the ALC, the Twins look maybe a little better, though not a TON better - and I still think the change of stadium will screw them up a bit. But the other three teams look pretty bad to me.

 

I see the Twins and Sox being in close competition this year, but in the high 80's in wins, most likely.

 

Flame away.

[gatnom]

Please tell us how a .365 OBP is OBP-challenged and a .308 AVG is struggling to get on base.

 

Over the last 5 years Juan Pierre has an OBP of .334 and a .289 BA.

 

4. The dome actually didn't help the Twins last year. Most teams put up better ERA's at home than on the road. The Twins had virtually the same ERA on the road and at home. The Twins starting rotation had one of the best ERA's in the league on the road and one of the worst ERA's in in the league at home. It's entirely possible that moving out of the dome could therefore bring benefits to the Twins rotation rather than harm.

 

I'd like to quote this for emphasis. The opposing team will play on the very same field the Twins will. Will the cold weather affect the Twins? Definitely. Will the cold weather affect their opponents as well? Definitely.

[macsandz]

You're asking us to pick which was the worst problem, the defense with the 2nd most errors in the AL or the offense with the 3rd fewest runs scored in the AL.

 

The only realistic choice there is death.

 

Low runs can be managed with good pitching. Giving the opposition runs with terrible defense just murders a season.

[Kalapse]

Please tell us how a .365 OBP is OBP-challenged and a .308 AVG is struggling to get on base.

Well, it's at which you're more inclined to believe:

 

4 years, 2600 PA and a .286/.329 AVG/OBP . . or . . .

 

1 year, 425 PA and a .308/.365 AVG/OBP (not to mention the .273/.326/.337/.663 line he put up after May 31st which falls right in line with his performance each year dating back to 2005)

 

The Sox bought Pierre at his absolute highest value. If anyone out there truly believed Pierre is ~.365 OBP hitter the Dodgers wouldn't be on the hook for 57% of his salary and have a couple mediocre prospects to show for him.

[Balta1701]

Offensively (small improvement overall):

--Teahen replaces Getz (significant improvement)

--Pierre replaces Pods (probably break even, but less health risk)

--Quentin, if healthy, replaces Dye (if he's healthy, probably TCQ out-hits Dye in 2010)

--Kotsay/Jones replaces Thome (NOT an improvement, at all, in fact a serious downgrade)

Hopefully you can also add normal Rios replaces Sucky Rios plus Wise plus Anderson plus Pods plus whoever else we threw out there in CF last year.

[macsandz]

Over the last 5 years Juan Pierre has an OBP of .334 and a .289 BA.

 

The context the poster was working in was based on last season's results.

 

I'd like to quote this for emphasis. The opposing team will play on the very same field the Twins will. Will the cold weather affect the Twins? Definitely. Will the cold weather affect their opponents as well? Definitely.

 

Yeah, the point if all of this is that the playing field is finally even. The Twins have just lost the greatest home field advantage in baseball. The Twins played .541 baseball in the Metrodome since 1982 and .441 baseball elsewhere, a 27 percent greater home/road split than the major league average in those years.

[ThunderBolt]

Hopefully you can also add normal Rios replaces Sucky Rios plus Wise plus Anderson plus Pods plus whoever else we threw out there in CF last year.

That's a hell of a lot of hope to have. We have no guarantees on this team. No one to unequivocally count on, on the offensive end but A.J. That's a problem. I hope that Beckham will take off this year, i hope Rios will produce and Q will stay healthy. All i know is that it would inspire me with a lot more confidence to have an offensive force in between the maybes.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Thunderbolt

[ScottyDo]

Well, it's at which you're more inclined to believe:

 

4 years, 2600 PA and a .286/.329 AVG/OBP . . or . . .

 

1 year, 425 PA and a .308/.365 AVG/OBP (not to mention the .273/.326/.337/.663 line he put up after May 31st which falls right in line with his performance each year dating back to 2005)

 

The Sox bought Pierre at his absolute highest value. If anyone out there truly believed Pierre is ~.365 OBP hitter the Dodgers wouldn't be on the hook for 57% of his salary and have a couple mediocre prospects to show for him.

That doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't his highest value be when he signed the contract the Dodgers are on the hook for? By definition, the Sox got him at 43% of his highest value...

 

EDIT: Or are you saying we got him at his absolute best value (i.e. most "worth it")?

Edited February 9, 2010 by ScottyDo

[35thstreetswarm]

That's a hell of a lot of hope to have. We have no guarantees on this team. No one to unequivocally count on, on the offensive end but A.J. That's a problem. I hope that Beckham will take off this year, i hope Rios will produce and Q will stay healthy. All i know is that it would inspire me with a lot more confidence to have an offensive force in between the maybes.

 

I don't think it requires that much hope to suggest that Rios will become "normal" Rios again - it actually seems the most likely outcome. I really have a hard time thinking of 27-28 year old two time all-stars who have just suddenly become terrible for no apparent reason (i.e. without injury or steroids being clear factors).

 

As to the original "replacement" analysis, don't forget that we also have a full season of Beckham, whereas last year we had a couple months of the disastrous Josh Fields experiment to start out the year.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a hell of a lot of hope to have. We have no guarantees on this team. No one to unequivocally count on, on the offensive end but A.J. That's a problem. I hope that Beckham will take off this year, i hope Rios will produce and Q will stay healthy. All i know is that it would inspire me with a lot more confidence to have an offensive force in between the maybes.

This argument again? The one that applies to every single team in baseball?

 

You cannot argue how good or bad a team is saying there are no guarantees, when that applies to all teams. Just the same way you cannot argue any team is guaranteed good. Its about likelihoods. See my earlier post. Show me, down the line, how the likely scenarios show this team to be worse for 2010 than they were in 2009. Because as far as I can see, there are a lot more likely positive changes than likely negative ones.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Hopefully you can also add normal Rios replaces Sucky Rios plus Wise plus Anderson plus Pods plus whoever else we threw out there in CF last year.

 

 

I don't think it requires that much hope to suggest that Rios will become "normal" Rios again - it actually seems the most likely outcome. I really have a hard time thinking of 27-28 year old two time all-stars who have just suddenly become terrible for no apparent reason (i.e. without injury or steroids being clear factors).

 

As to the original "replacement" analysis, don't forget that we also have a full season of Beckham, whereas last year we had a couple months of the disastrous Josh Fields experiment to start out the year.

 

I edited my long-winded analysis to reflect these two things.

 

[ThunderBolt]

This argument again? The one that applies to every single team in baseball?

 

You cannot argue how good or bad a team is saying there are no guarantees, when that applies to all teams. Just the same way you cannot argue any team is guaranteed good. Its about likelihoods. See my earlier post. Show me, down the line, how the likely scenarios show this team to be worse for 2010 than they were in 2009. Because as far as I can see, there are a lot more likely positive changes than likely negative ones.

The fact is that their are players on baseball teams that are almost guaranteed to put up their numbers, year in and year out, Thome wa a guy like that, AJ is a guy like that, superstars like Pujols and A-Rods are like that. It's simple their are some players you can project out on paper that barring injury or devastating decline they will put up numbers consistent to their career averages. The White Sox have exactly one such player (AJ), two if you'd prefer to make the case for Paulie. The fact is that everyone else is a question mark, baseball is full of them. I'll concede that every damn team has these kinds of problems. But not every team would willingly couple these problems with a flimsy excuse for a DH.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Thunderbolt

[shakes]

The fact is that their are players on baseball teams that are almost guaranteed to put up their numbers, year in and year out, Thome wa a guy like that, AJ is a guy like that, superstars like Pujols and A-Rods are like that. It's simple their are some players you can project out on paper that barring injury or devastating decline they will put up numbers consistent to their career averages. The White Sox have exactly one such player (AJ), two if you'd prefer to make the case for Paulie. The fact is that everyone else is a question mark, baseball is full of them. I'll concede that every damn team has these kinds of problems. But not every team would willingly couple these problems with a flimsy excuse for a DH.

 

You don't seem to be able to see past this Thome or DH thing. Thome is exactly the type of guy who is falling off from injuries and decline, due to age. Of all the areas of Sox management to trust, I trust their training staff. It was made clear when Jim was traded last year, Thome wouldn't be back, because they didn't think he could do it anymore. I don't know why people were surprised when he wasn't brought back.

 

I thought it was obvious by the second half last year that Dye and Thome were sliding fast and hard. Not to mention, every other GM seems to agree with that assesment. It was time to move on. People act like their production can't be replaced.

 

The Sox currently have a poor replacement for the DH spot, unless they are really planning on using it to improve the defense and keep guys like Q and Konerko fresh. Keep in mind the easiest 'position' to improve would be the DH. You can't say that about past weaknesses of this team, when we were dying for a CF or SP.

[witesoxfan]

Unfortunately, I can also argue against this, although this will be why they play the games. There are a number of issues one can bring up that are decent arguments for why the Twins rotation this year will be better than last year.

 

1. Injury. They lost Slowey after 90 innings last year. He's expected to be ready for ST.

 

I think Slowey's a better pitcher than he showed last year, but he has to prove he's healthy, he still has his control, and he still has his velocity. His stuff was never that great, but his pinpoint control is huge to his game. If he doesn't have that, I think you can expect an ERA in the 4.50+ range again.

 

2. Duensing, who was their best pitcher overall in the innings he pitched, was a mid-season callup last year and will be there for a full season this year. He put up their best ERA in their rotation, 3.64, but only got 84 innings.

 

Duensing's numbers in AAA - 57 games, 56 starts, 330.2 IP, 4.00 ERA (4.60 RA/9), 1.32 WHIP, 2.3 BB/9, 5.6 K/9, 2.5 K/BB, 0.8 HR/9. Looking at his peripherals from last season - 1.37 WHIP, 0.8 HR/9, 3.3 BB/9, 5.7 K/9 - I would say it's a near impossibility for him to repeat his 3.64 ERA from last season. Give the league a second time around on him, and he'll be back in the bullpen or AAA in no time.

 

3. Pavano will be there for a full year, if he stays healthy. This isn't like adding a Cy Young winner, but if he simply repeats his last season, that adds depth to their rotation that it didn't have to start last year.

 

I understand that depth is nice, but if he puts up an ERA of 5 again, I won't have any problems with it.

 

4. The dome actually didn't help the Twins last year. Most teams put up better ERA's at home than on the road. The Twins had virtually the same ERA on the road and at home. The Twins starting rotation had one of the best ERA's in the league on the road and one of the worst ERA's in in the league at home. It's entirely possible that moving out of the dome could therefore bring benefits to the Twins rotation rather than harm.

 

It all depends on how they cut the grass too. I seem to remember hearing that they want to cut it really short so it plays much faster than normal grass, very similar to the Metrodome. If that's the case, they better play good defense.

 

 

[caulfield12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5945/g...3NxNn6RaACFCLcF

 

Carl Pavano averaged a pretty "decent" 6 1/3 IP every time out with the Twins.

 

His ERA was a very solid 2.82 if you take out one really bad start....and this is over a span of 11-12 starts, is it just a blip on the radar, we'll see.

 

7 QS/12 total starts

 

Even his "non-quality" starts were 5 2/3-4, 6-4 and 7-5 (IP/ER)...with their offense, he at least gave them a chance to win those games.

 

In other words, he gave his team a very good chance to win 10/12 games, and even the one where he went 4 innings with 5 ER didn't put his team in an impossible hole to dig out of...he also went head-to-head with Verlander and wiped him out, in a year when Verlander was one of the five best AL pitchers and at one time looked like a Cy Young candidate.

 

There's a reason the typically penurious Twins gave him $7 million and are verging on having almost the same payroll as the White Sox...and if they know one thing, it's pitching and how to get the most of it.

 

Think of all those guys like LaTroy Hawkins, JC Romero, Rincon, Guerrier, Reyes, Breslow, Mijares, Neshek, etc., that came out of seemingly nowhere to become reliable members of the bullpen. We've had a few, like Politte, Cotts and Thornton, but not nearly as many or as consistently as the Twins.

Edited February 10, 2010 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

That's because they're comparing average high (daytime) temperatures... not average low (nighttime) temperatures. The low is consistently lower in Minneapolis. And when they play night games outside, that's what they're going to be dealing with.

 

For example... this week the high temperature in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis is projected to be pretty similar... all in the mid-20's.

 

The lows? Much different.

The low in Milwaukee tonight... 18.

The low in Chicago tonight... 20

The low in Minneapolis tonight... 3.

 

So... no, the facts are not lies. But this is a great example of how facts (like using data on average temperatures) can be misleading.

The low temperature on Feb 8 isn't relevant. Minneapolis does have colder winters, but games aren't played then.

 

Here are the average low temps

city apr may june july aug sep oct

Min 36 48 58 63 61 51 39

Cle 38 48 58 62 61 54 44

Mil 37 47 57 63 63 54 43

Chi 40 51 61 66 65 57 45

 

Add in Minnesota will only play 3 home night games in April and won't start their home schedule until April 12, the chances are they won't even have the lowest gametime average temperatures in their division.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

The low temperature on Feb 8 isn't relevant. Minneapolis does have colder winters, but games aren't played then.

 

Here are the average low temps

city apr may june july aug sep oct

Min 36 48 58 63 61 51 39

Cle 38 48 58 62 61 54 44

Mil 37 47 57 63 63 54 43

Chi 40 51 61 66 65 57 45

 

Add in Minnesota will only play 3 home night games in April and won't start their home schedule until April 12, the chances are they won't even have the lowest gametime average temperatures in their division.

36 is cold! All I know is I think playing in the cold temps does have some sort of cumulative/carry over effect with teams. I hope that affects Minnesota just as it has the White Sox and Indians in previous years.

 

Where is Qwerty when I need him?

[ThunderBolt]

Can we move past the weather? I think it's been played out at this point and It's going to be a factor for both teams anyway.

[joeynach]

The Twins have enough power to play outdoors.

 

But I will be VERY interested to see how they play outside in April.

 

There won't be a colder ballpark in MLB in the first month of the season.

 

Home field advantage comes somewhat from park dimensions, crowd noise, and field familiarity. However, there is something to be said about comfort factor. Thats part of the cubs home field advantage, their opponents are places in a small, cramped, inferior environment in terms of player comfort and convenience. Its the same reason the eagles painted their visitors locker room Pink, to make the opposing teams feel uncomfortable and out of their normal environment. So yes the twins will have to adjust to their new park and field nuances, but they will still have the same home field advantage as other teams in terms of making their opponents uncomfortable.

[scenario]

The low temperature on Feb 8 isn't relevant. Minneapolis does have colder winters, but games aren't played then.

 

Here are the average low temps

city apr may june july aug sep oct

Min 36 48 58 63 61 51 39

Cle 38 48 58 62 61 54 44

Mil 37 47 57 63 63 54 43

Chi 40 51 61 66 65 57 45

 

Add in Minnesota will only play 3 home night games in April and won't start their home schedule until April 12, the chances are they won't even have the lowest gametime average temperatures in their division.

 

And you said you didn't want to argue.

 

Working pretty damn hard to prove me wrong for a guy who isn't arguing.

 

 

[macsandz]

This argument again? The one that applies to every single team in baseball?

 

You cannot argue how good or bad a team is saying there are no guarantees, when that applies to all teams. Just the same way you cannot argue any team is guaranteed good. Its about likelihoods. See my earlier post. Show me, down the line, how the likely scenarios show this team to be worse for 2010 than they were in 2009. Because as far as I can see, there are a lot more likely positive changes than likely negative ones.

 

Great posts in this thread. Nicely done.

[macsandz]

You don't seem to be able to see past this Thome or DH thing. Thome is exactly the type of guy who is falling off from injuries and decline, due to age. Of all the areas of Sox management to trust, I trust their training staff. It was made clear when Jim was traded last year, Thome wouldn't be back, because they didn't think he could do it anymore. I don't know why people were surprised when he wasn't brought back.

 

I thought it was obvious by the second half last year that Dye and Thome were sliding fast and hard. Not to mention, every other GM seems to agree with that assesment. It was time to move on. People act like their production can't be replaced.

 

The Sox currently have a poor replacement for the DH spot, unless they are really planning on using it to improve the defense and keep guys like Q and Konerko fresh. Keep in mind the easiest 'position' to improve would be the DH. You can't say that about past weaknesses of this team, when we were dying for a CF or SP.

 

 

My Lord. Finally somebody that gets it.

[gosox41]

As it stands, the Twins are the best team in the division. At least, on paper and through projections. Damon would help us close the gap, maybe even push us over the top.

 

 

I think the gap is narrower then people think. One thing many aren't taking into consideration is how the Twins new ballpark plays. The gap between the Twins home and road record will likely narrow as the Twins are moving outdoors. Whether they took advantage and cheat at the Metrodome, I don't know. And while the Twins have great hitters, it's a lot harder for hitters to find a groove when they are playing home stands in April/May in 40 degree weather with changing wind conditions and not relying on the same 70 degrees every game.

 

Maybe I'm overanalyzing the move to a ballpark, but just having less of a 10th man effect in the fans should make a difference.

 

 

Bob

[Dick Allen]

And you said you didn't want to argue.

 

Working pretty damn hard to prove me wrong for a guy who isn't arguing.

Again you're the one arguing. A post like what you made shows that. I'm just stating facts, besides even if it was 30 below it would be that way for both teams.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

You don't seem to be able to see past this Thome or DH thing. Thome is exactly the type of guy who is falling off from injuries and decline, due to age. Of all the areas of Sox management to trust, I trust their training staff. It was made clear when Jim was traded last year, Thome wouldn't be back, because they didn't think he could do it anymore. I don't know why people were surprised when he wasn't brought back.

 

I thought it was obvious by the second half last year that Dye and Thome were sliding fast and hard. Not to mention, every other GM seems to agree with that assesment. It was time to move on. People act like their production can't be replaced.

 

The Sox currently have a poor replacement for the DH spot, unless they are really planning on using it to improve the defense and keep guys like Q and Konerko fresh. Keep in mind the easiest 'position' to improve would be the DH. You can't say that about past weaknesses of this team, when we were dying for a CF or SP.

Umm, what? When was this made clear? I seem to remember it being very possible all along that Thome could be brought back?

 

Secondly, you're basing the fact that Jim Thome, a DH who admits he can no longer play the field, signed a contract in January as proof that every other GM agrees with the assessment that Thome can no longer produce? I'm sorry, but given the fact that Johnny Damon is still unsigned makes that deduction seem a bit loose to me. There are all sorts of factors at play here, and if you base your conclusion all on the fact that Thome signed late and cheap, you're clearly ignoring those other factors, considering there are other productive players still on the market.