SkokieSox

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...

QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) The team collapsed after the All Star Break in 2006, there wasn't that much pressure after then. When were Javy's best months? Or you can look at it that he was clutch in picking up the slack to a slumping team that just couldn't provide the extra support.

QUOTE(quickman @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) I actaully believe chris young is another soriano. Its his rookie year and he will learn alot, but he reminds me of soriano. Most likely he will move down in the order as he progresses. Outside of his OBP, I think the message in this thread is we gave away a stud and we kept garbage, and thats why our system and management clearly needs help. They are in over their heads. I don't believe this is a sky is falling event, and as someone mentioned before, Anderson was the most major league ready when we traded Rowand. It was still a team that should have been competing (just coming off the WS), and you play you're #1 pick CF if he is the most ready. Obviously his bat is overmatched in the ML. Young shows promise, and of course I would like him in CF, but the fact is under the scenerio we were at during the time of the trade, it made more sense to keep Anderson. The fact that he didn't pan out sucks, but it happens. Borchard didn't either, but you gamble and move on. Basically the 05 team was a gamble, and that time we hit. In any case, it seems that our scouting and new emphasis of taking higher risk / higher ceiling players has improved, and we'll hopefully see the results upcoming.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 04:13 AM) It's not about trading for Vazquez....it's the critical error KW made in giving up Young instead of Anderson. Now we're in a position where we're going to have to spend a lot of money on overrated center fielders this offseason. Ya but the CF we go after probably will get on base and won't K at the rate of our big three. Do we really want a power hitter in CF that barely gets on base? His OBP was under .300, and granted 30 plus homeruns looks sexy, but I'm not looking for an all or nothing hitter in that spot. Especially if he were our leadoff man...

It appears Razor was released due to Ozzie wanting a third base coach who is better suited to coaching fundamentals and base running. Sounds fine to me... What's Rickey Henderson doing these days?

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) Man Soo Lee was the man, bring him back. Pretty sure he retired and went back to Korea. Anyone?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Oct 4, 2007 -> 10:20 PM) I am not a big fan of cutting ties with Terrero, I thought he would be a good 4th or 5th OF... maybe this still gives hope for Brian Anderson? Nah, odds are Erstad will be back. We can try and deny it all we want, but we all know deep down Erstad will be back. As a fourth outfielder and backup 1B, why not?

Tadahito Iguchi-2B- Phillies Oct. 3 - 9:45 am et Second baseman Tadahito Iguchi, who can become a free agent if the Phillies don't elect to re-sign him 15 days after the World Series, is open to returning to the White Sox. "You never know what's going to happen," Iguchi said through translator David Yamamoto. "That's a very hard question. I have good feelings there. Chicago is always in my heart. My family is still there. I wouldn't rule [the Sox] out." Source: Chicago Tribune Related: White Sox If nothing else, it speaks to the fact that players do in fact want to play for the Sox. I've liked Gooch ever since we brought him over, but I don't think he fits anymore, unless he is the #2 hitter and we somehow dig up a legitmate leadoff hitter.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 1, 2007 -> 08:22 PM) The problem I think is the fact that he's hardly ever 100% anymore; with such a violent swing, it's hard for him to stay 100% all year long. I don't think it's violent, just very hard. His form looks good, and he goes the other often enough, looking like he stays in control. He's just got ole country power, and at his age and back history, it may tighten up on him once in a while. However, even with the time missed, he's produced the last two years.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 11:49 PM) Haha, I'm trying. Nobody seems to want to make me a sig; I even provided the pic I want to use. Everyone hates me. My goodness, you've certainly inspired someone to get on the ball to make you one. Lol - no one hates you, but man, that's just gross.