daa84 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Dec 31, 2011 -> 10:50 PM) So as of now, I'm guessing this is the 2012 lineup? 1. DeAza-LF 2. Ramirez-SS 3. Konerko-1B 4. Dunn-DH 5. Viciedo-RF 6. Rios-CF 7. AJP-C 8. Beckham-2B 9. Morel-3B I agree... And that lineup sucks. I suppose there is potential, especially with an improvement expected from alot of players (Dunn, rios, beckham, morel), but I have doubt about pretty much every player in that lineup outside Pk and alexei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Phil Rogers was already ripping on the idea that the Padres would get rid of a LHP (Hernandez) who actually threw 92-95 MPH with steady/reliable control in today's Tribune. Rightfully...pins the future of the KW regime on the 2012-2013 offensive output of Viciedo, Rios, Dunn and Beckham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 03:50 AM) So as of now, I'm guessing this is the 2012 lineup? 1. DeAza-LF 2. Ramirez-SS 3. Konerko-1B 4. Dunn-DH 5. Viciedo-RF 6. Rios-CF 7. AJP-C 8. Beckham-2B 9. Morel-3B Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunofgold Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Oh no. i forgot. This means more Dunntime in the OF. Lillibridge might be extended to play some backup IF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 •The early word from scouts is that Castro and Hernandez don't have much upside, which indicates that this was a payroll move, tweets ESPN.com's Buster Olney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I am sorry but I don't agree with Balta that this trade had to happen. Shedding salary is one thing, but KW said we would be only trading for major league ready prospects. These two guys aren't it. Maybe Kenny needs a lesson on how to rebuild and remain competitive? I am very dissapointed to say the least. We had a real good player in CQ. He swings a good bat with power. He is a hardnosed player. We basicaly gave him away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) I am sorry but I don't agree with Balta that this trade had to happen. Shedding salary is one thing, but KW said we would be only trading for major league ready prospects. These two guys aren't it. Maybe Kenny needs a lesson on how to rebuild and remain competitive? I am very dissapointed to say the least. We had a real good player in CQ. He swings a good bat with power. He is a hardnosed player. We basicaly gave him away. For Milk: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtySox Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) I am sorry but I don't agree with Balta that this trade had to happen. Shedding salary is one thing, but KW said we would be only trading for major league ready prospects. These two guys aren't it. Maybe Kenny needs a lesson on how to rebuild and remain competitive? I am very dissapointed to say the least. We had a real good player in CQ. He swings a good bat with power. He is a hardnosed player. We basicaly gave him away. Why do people think that teams are willing to give up quality, cheap, and major league ready prospects so easily? These are known as assets, and teams that have them generally would like to keep them unless they are blocked or are being traded for high end established veterans. Carlos Quentin doesn't warrant such a return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) I am sorry but I don't agree with Balta that this trade had to happen. Shedding salary is one thing, but KW said we would be only trading for major league ready prospects. These two guys aren't it. Maybe Kenny needs a lesson on how to rebuild and remain competitive? I am very dissapointed to say the least. We had a real good player in CQ. He swings a good bat with power. He is a hardnosed player. We basicaly gave him away. We did not have a real good player in Carlos Quentin. We had a player who has been an average player over his entire stint with teh White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 We also gave up Jose Valentin, Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee for essentially nothing as well. Pods and Vizcaino...essentially, it's more important what they do with all the money they are saving BY NOT PAYING Quentin, Buehrle, Frasor, Teahen, Edwin Jackson, Santos, Vizquel, Pena, Castro, and potentially Thornton/Ohman, Crain, AJ, and Floyd. Cespedes, whoever it is, this year or next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Cali @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 03:42 AM) The one thing I'll never understand and mind you, I'm an IDIOT when it comes to baseball as a business and finances -- but if the Sox were willing to pay Rios his full salary while "benched" (for that lovely 5 minutes period in 2011) why not just release the guy and pay him? For a team worth hundreds of millions, what's the difference really if you're adding another $450,000 (or so) for a minor leaguer to take Rios spot on the roster? If you're sick of the player and think there's no more production left in him and you're going to have to pay the man anyway who cares? Any dream trade where the Sox get rid of Rios would entail picking up most of his contract anyway Great post. I wait for some of the stat people to answer a nice, simple question like this. Our team would be so much better and maybe even some fans would attend the games this season if this winter we just ate the salaries of Dunn/Rios and make trades assuming they were gonzo. We trade a guy who actually tries like Quentin and ocasionally gets red-hot (Quentin is an exciting bat) and keep Mr. Nonchalant Rios (oh I look forward to him gliding after balls this season), when we could just release him. Anybody who buys a season ticket with Rios penciled in for 140 games has to be in need of counseling. Edited January 1, 2012 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) Great post. I wait for some of the stat people to answer a nice, simple question like this. Our team would be so much better and maybe even some fans would attend the games this season if this winter we just ate the salaries of Dunn/Rios and make trades assuming they were gonzo. We trade a guy who actually tries like Quentin and ocasionally gets red-hot (Quentin is an exciting bat) and keep Mr. Nonchalant Rios (oh I look forward to him gliding after balls this season), when we could just release him. Anybody who buys a season ticket with Rios penciled in for 140 games has to be in need of counseling. Because then we're having to pay $40 million in one lump-sum payment, and there's at least 50/50 odds we'll get a return to respectability out of one or both those guys, and especially Peavy in 2012. Let's say you buy 100 shares of a stock at $80 and the value's all the way down to $20-30. The White Sox believe (and most fans here as well) that those contracts are more likely to return to the $55-75 price range than continuing to decline to $10-15. If Dunn comes anywhere close to as historically as bad a season as 2011, he might walk away...Rios, not so much. At any rate, the only way to get those contracts off the book is packaging them to the mega-rich teams that could absorb that type of hit and would consider it a win if they could bring in Floyd/Crain/Thornton/Ramirez/Danks (2013) as well. The Yankees and Red Sox have shown no willingness to spend that kind of money this offseason. The Rangers and Angels are overextended. That leaves very few teams, with the current state of the Mets and Dodgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 $80 million lump sum, $80 million. He said both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 08:56 PM) $80 million lump sum, $80 million. He said both of them. I know it's been asked before, but how does Kenny still have a GM job? Just the money dealt to Rios/Peavy/Dunn should have the owner wanting to punch him every time he sees his mug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) I know it's been asked before, but how does Kenny still have a GM job? Just the money dealt to Rios/Peavy/Dunn should have the owner wanting to punch him every time he sees his mug. He offered to resign. The Owner decided he was the right person to manage recovery from the debacle of the manager quitting on his team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) I know it's been asked before, but how does Kenny still have a GM job? Just the money dealt to Rios/Peavy/Dunn should have the owner wanting to punch him every time he sees his mug. Because he offered to resign and JR said "You can stay" and he didn't quit and throw a tantrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 09:58 PM) He offered to resign. The Owner decided he was the right person to manage recovery from the debacle of the manager quitting on his team. I forgot about him offering to resign. Jerry should have took him up on the offer. I'd love to have heard the tone of the conversation. I have no proof of this but I consider Kenny more of the stereotypical buttkisser who I'm sure said all the right things to the boss with his puppydog eyes while making big bad devilish Ozzie look so evil. Edited January 1, 2012 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) I forgot about him offering to resign. Jerry should have took him up on the offer. I'd love to have heard the tone of the conversation. I have no proof of this but I consider Kenny more of the stereotypical buttkisser who I'm sure said all the right things to the boss with his puppydog eyes while making big bad devilish Ozzie look so evil. Yeah, it's really hard to make the guy who quit on the team the week beforehand look bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 10:05 PM) Yeah, it's really hard to make the guy who quit on the team the week beforehand look bad. I don't know why some of you guys consider Ozzie a quitter. Ozzie says a lot of things like all ballplayers/baseball people. Just like Kenny lied and said he'd trade for guys ready to contribute now. Lie. At Ozzie's age, name a better candidate to be a manager on a baseball team. His resume was built in Chicago and now other teams get to reap the benefits the next 20 years. Great. And we get Robin Ventura, who should make the game threads very very interesting this year (unless it's full of people assuming we're going to lose most games the next 10 years as we "rebuild") Edited January 1, 2012 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Greg, is it really going to be like this all season long? I hope you give Ventura a fair shake for managing in what one would imagine will be a very trying period of White Sox history. Makes one almost miss the days of arguing about Pierre and Jenks, moreso than the off the field nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I like Ventura, but his hiring represents the losing that is about to come. If Sox were serious about winning, they'd have gone with Francona or somebody like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) I don't know why some of you guys consider Ozzie a quitter. The fact that he actually resigned, or the fact that his defense for his actions this season was that it was more important to show up KW than it was to win ballgames? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) The fact that he actually resigned, or the fact that his defense for his actions this season was that it was more important to show up KW than it was to win ballgames? Are u talking about him not benching Rios and Dunn when Kenny said it was OK to do so? Big deal. Thanks, Ken. We have these huge albatrosses sitting in the dugout, but thanks for giving me the OK to bench their butts. I think I'll pass and play them. Edited January 1, 2012 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 05:22 PM) Are u talking about him not benching Rios and Dunn when Kenny said it was OK to do so? Big deal. Thanks, Ken. We have these huge albatrosses sitting in the dugout, but thanks for giving me the OK to bench their butts. I think I'll pass and play them. Why do you think the bolded is an appropriate response unless you're being spiteful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) Why do you think the bolded is an appropriate response unless you're being spiteful? Cause they are on the team and are on the team FOR A LONG TIME TO COME. Mite as well play them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.