SkokieSox

Rogowski would be nice...

QUOTE(max power @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 11:13 PM) I don't blame anderson at all. I agree with pretty much everything he said. And then when you continue to read, his own agent says the Sox told discussed it with his agent, and his agent discussed it with him. Sorry, after a season like ours, our officials are focused on more than a struggling minor leaguer that may or may not be healthy enough for winter ball in the first place. As far as getting at bats early in the season, did he earn any? Did he blow everyone away in ST or something? Focus on playing some ball, getting healthy, and proving you're worth a damn before you whine about being talked to like a man. Being sent down was a shot at your ego? Try batting below the Mendoza line for the first half of 06, and see what KW's ego was feeling like. I used to like this kid, and thought he'd be a good player. Maybe he still will be, but his attitude in unjustified to how he's played to date. He needs to stay quiet and carry a big stick. Maybe then he's make some contact...

Sigh... I really thought we'd give it a shot. Oh well, it would have been extremely nice, but only one team can come up with the prize of the FA class.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2007 -> 07:33 PM) If Pablo is back next year, I really don't see why we need a backup 2nd baseman. At least give me someone who can play more than one position. We can't use up every roster spot we have by trying to set up a platoon for every young guy we're trying to develop. If you want to do that, at least give me guys who can back up several IF slots, not a guy who has played 9 games away from 2nd base in his career. I agree, if Pablo is healthy, he'll be a good option to backup Richar or to face lefties. I hope he returns to what he was, because with his energy, he's as good of a bench player around. Very versatile...

QUOTE(chisox72 @ Oct 27, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) He may be worth a shot. It isn't like there is much else out there anyhow. I like Richar, but I don't think he is a shoe in by any means. It may prove to be a good benefit to platoon the two of them depending on the pitcher, and bat both at the end of the lineup.

I'm still happy with the trade...

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) I really think when and if Hahn gets another job, its really going to hurt the White Sox more than you would think an assitant GM leaving would hurt. I would rank Hahn the second brightest individual in the organization, second to JR. Absolutely - I certainly don't want him to go anywhere, but at the same time, it would be a great move for him. I would be happy for him...

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) This is an excellent point. Like: WOW, we REALLY need a first-rate third base coach for all those speedsters on our station-to-station Jurassic baserunning team. At this point the 3B coach should be handing out donuts and coffee to lead-footed Konerko, molasses A.J., creaky Dye, no-speed Thome, don't-slide-or-you'll-be-on-the-DL Erstad... while they wait for, as you say, Uribe to bat them in. And hoo boy: that's a long wait sometimes. QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Oct 11, 2007 -> 04:29 PM) haha 3rd base coach is probably the least important coach for us. Nobody ever gets there and if they do, chances are they're trotting around it anyways. It appears that's about to change, as Ozzie wants the the third base coach to provide more fundamental help with the players, not just rounding third. He wants to take that responsibility from Cora...

Jeff Cox is expected to be named the new third base coach for the White Sox. Cox was as a minor league manager for 13 years before spending the past six years in the majors as a coach with Montreal, Florida and Pittsburgh. He replaces Razor Shines, who was let go Monday. Please delete if already mentioned, I couldn't find anything on it. In any case, does anyone know his style? I'm sure he preaches fundamentals based on what Ozzie said he was looking for.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 09:27 PM) Why not just become a Cubs fan if all you wanted was some rah rah, everything is alright, the sun will come out tomorrow, wait til next year crap? Are you kidding? BS comment...

QUOTE(Shadows @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 10:53 PM) I never said my stance wont change, but Ive got a long standing habit of not assuming were going to make all the right moves to be a contending team.. how much higher can the payroll go? Who are we going to move and are we even going to get good return back? I am not going to assume we will, so I am pretty confident right now seeing the other team in our division and what they already have now in comparison to us to say that we wont be contending next season.. That's the spirit!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) You've seen his swing, right? It has nothing to do with Osvaldo. Do you think that's what KW calls him when he's mad at him?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 08:06 PM) Ooh, you got me. I'm bummed that the Cubs lost. But yes, I like the logo and the laundry. I don't like the history, the owner, the management. I don't think Joe Torre would come here (this is not a prestigious organization), I know we wouldn't give him the money (this is not a particularly generous organization, with its money), and we've already got a manager (who was recently extended). Haha - jk about the Cubs. We differ in opinions, but it's cool, that's what makes the site fun. I for one don't feel we need Torre, nor do I really want him at this juncture.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) Joe Torre deserves better than this franchise and he'd never consider it. My gosh man, you sound like you're bummed the Cubs lost or something. Do you hate the organization, but like the team at least?

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 05:28 PM) I think this is all a flawed mode of thinking though because we forget we're talking about a 72 win team here. Vazquez is only signed for three more seasons and we don't know how good he'll be as his age progresses. If his contributions are to a sub .500 team they won't be particularly valuable. Young on the other hand, not only figures to improve but will also be around for five more seasons meaning that he'd had a much better chance of contributing to a competitive White Sox team. Expensive veterans aren't worth much if your team isn't contending, you want young building blocks like Young instead. Well I guess then there's the real issue at hand. Do you feel we can compete next year or not. If not, than I can see the reasoning for preferring Young to Javy. If you think we can, Javy helps this team more.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) If you can't hit a fastball, you can't survive for long. Next year is key for Josh Fields and I have to see what he does then to know what he is. Right now he has some very obvious flaws and we will have to see what happens before he's as good as Young. I do wish we had both on our team into the future. But I'm not the one who projected Brian Anderson a better keep than Chris Young. I hope he can as well, and think that he will. Both are young, but I think both teams will have to live with the K rates with both players. Believe me, I wish we had Young as well, but I'm very glad we have Javy. If the scenerio that Anderson was asked for, and we switched it to Young is accurate, and I think there's some holes in that story, then you wish Anderson would have been the one to go. However, as said many times, with that team and Rowand gone, Anderson was the logical choice to keep. He was the most ready, and we were coming off a WS. In any case, I still would have traded Young for Javy than not at all. Starting pitching simply has more value, and Vazquez helps continue to make that a strong area for the Sox.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) And money has to be taken into consideration when comparing value. With Young you get a player who's going to be dirt cheap for the next five years to go along with all the money that isn't tied up in a post-ARB player, versus Vazquez who you have for the next two (three?) years at $10 million per. Great you have $30 million and Carlos Silva as you're top FA choice, who will command considerably more than he's worth due to the fact that no one is out there. Money absolutely should be considered, but so do options. There are more outfield options, specifically CF's, than there are legitimate pitching options.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that Josh Fields is > Chris Young, especially when you consider their swings and problems. A guy with issues against fastballs has far less potential than a guy who has issues with offspeed pitches and that's about the long/short of it. It is theoretically possible for both to collapse next year at the plate, but it is far likelier, IMO, that Fields does because people will adapt to him if he hasn't yet learned how to hit an inside fastball. People won't be giving him pitches away that he can slap out of the yard. Young is a much better player because he isn't defensively retarded, has a good swing and runs the bases better. Such a generalization... Fields has the bat speed to catch up to fastballs and to say he's less likely to adapt to that than Young is to learning how to hit a curve ball is completely unfair. It's apples and mangos.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 05:44 AM) Those available CF cost a lot more and don't go 30/30. There's no team in baseball right now that would trade Chris Young for Javier Vazquez. Let's be accurate, he had 27 steals. That's very good for a rookie or anyone, but the 30/30 is quite specific in it's requirements. In any case, I think you're wrong. With some teams pitching woes...

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 06:10 AM) If you want to commit $50 million (that's a floor), sure, you can find a CFer with skills akin to Young. But we're not talking about Young on the open market -- Zona's got him for six years at much less than what it will take to sign a free agent for one year. It's team construction, and this FA market supports needing a CF rather than a starting pitcher, let alone the one with the qualities of Vazquez. No one mentioned Young on the open market, we were talking about value.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 05:17 AM) What? How? How is the next five years of Chris Young better than three years and $30 million locked into an above average but not elite starting pitcher? Above average in pitching simply has a lot of value, especially this upcoming year where there is none available this offseason. It frees the Sox to move Garland for other holes, and to work in some of the younger pitching. Young still needs to develop, especially his OBP. He may improve leaps and bounds next year, or he may regress a little bit. No one knows, but Vazquez gives you stability - 200 innings and 200 K's. That has a lot of value in MLB, more than Young, as there is far more CF available than quality starting pitchers.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 04:44 AM) Yes...Vazquez is expensive, old , and has been mediocre more often than good. Young is cheap, young and on the verge of stardom. He is an excellent CF and has elite power and speed -- not just for a rookie, but in all of major league baseball. His minor league track record shows he can get on-base. There's simply no way to defend trading Young for Vazquez. None at all. You can go out and sign a free agent pitcher to put up the same numbers as Vazquez at the same price -- look at Lilly and Meche from last season. You can't go out and sign a player like Young and have him cheaply controlled for 6 years. So which is more valuable? I even like Vazquez a lot. Enough that I sort of hope the Sox don't trade him, even though I know they should. But to focus on Young's one failing while ignoring his excellence in virtually all other aspects of the game as rookie is crazy. It's amazing that pitching was once valued among our fan base, but now it is all over. Who has more value? Vazquez. Right now, on this team, and with the FA market as it is, I'm glad the Sox have Vazquez over that of Young.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 06:40 PM) There's also that silly little fact of money -- the next five years of Chris Young will cost one year of any of the above three. Pitching isn't cheap, but it's necessary.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 05:43 PM) Find me one place where I said he was the only bad pitcher? However, he was the one who got the enormous run support and still couldn't get us the victory. For all this talk of how good he was down the stretch, he still went 2-8 post ASB last yr. You inferred it by saying that had he pitched better in the first half the Sox would have "coasted" into the playoffs. Maybe you didn't mean that, but it's certainly understandable why there's confusion then.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 05:36 PM) If Vazquez had pitched well for the first 6 months of the season, we would have coasted into the playoffs. He had just a terrible knack of blowing games in which the team gave him leads. He was the rally killer. That's not what the argument in this thread should be about though. It was more just some "new" information on the trade that is often discussed on here. And if 32 homers and 27 steals as a CF in your rookie year doesn't mean you're a likely potential superstar, then I guess nothing does. As long as he helps Arizona win one of their next 3 games though, I'll always like Chris Young. Coasted into the playoffs eh? You watched a different team than I did... Even so, no one said Young doesn't have talent, but at the same time we're looking to win now, not just down the line. 32 homers and 27 steals is mighty impressive for a rookie in CF, but that seems to be blinding some folks as if he were an All Star already. A below .300 OBP is subpar and needs improving. Just like Fields...