SkokieSox

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 11:02 PM) We could afford him....If we traded Countreras and Konerko. What if we unload Konerko for either a CF'er or a SS? Maybe even some prospects, he has alot of value. Would the team improve with AROD+a young SS or CF'er? I think it might. I think they can afford it without trading PK.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) Thats fine, but you have to look at from the view of Alex, not the White Sox. Why would Rodriguez want to come to the White Sox? Alex has been slammed repeatedly in the media for not being a winner, and not being able to take the pressures of high intensity situations. How would the image of A-Rod look if he left NY, and signed with a last place team? The fans, and more importantly, the media, would never let him live it down. On top of it, if NY were to win the series this year, why would Rodriguez leave? He would be loved in NY, and I have to believe at that point George would pay just about anything to keep him around. With the ego A-Rod seems to have(not a bad thing) I just can't see him ducking out of NY to sign with a last place team. The Chicago media would let him live it down, and that's not a small market. Who cares what the NY media paints him as? He'd be an instant star player in Chicago, and even though you claimed he'd be knocked for it, it be great to play with less pressure and have more fun. That doesn't translate to losing, you can just play more relaxed. The Cell is a perfect place for him to hit his 4,326 homerun in. A last place team, but still a team that can contend with some moves, one he could be a real huge part of. Can't discount from a players view that the Sox still won a WS in recent memory. Despite Ozzie's comments about AROD a year or two ago, he's still a manager players like playing for. I think he too would like his environment. Also, I don't think the Chicago media will tail his every move and take pictures of him taking other women out. And last but not least, the Yanks have been quite clear that if he opts out that he is done with them. Keep in mind, if he were to opt out, Texas would no longer owe the portion they agreed to pay to the Yanks.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 08:15 PM) I wouldn't even say Santana. For most teams, $30M is at least a third of their payroll if not more. For this team, probably just under a third. Having one player be 30%+ of your payroll is inviting disaster - like putting your retirement funds in a single, volatile stock. So unless you have a $200M payroll, I don't think ANY player is worth $30M. It's all relative - a player costing $30 million in salary can bring in let's say $50 million in revenue from shirts and what not... Michael Jordan was well worth the $30 million he got one year, and that was way back when. I'm sure he blew out $50 million in returned revenue.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 09:49 PM) If you want to show a little something, then why not just pick up Ozzie's team option for 2009 right now? Being committed for 2 more seasons isn't enough? I really don't see the problem with extending Ozzie. It's been obvious for a while that he would be with the team for the foreseeable future.

We need a large agency to market AROD effectively next year!

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 07:32 PM) John Sickels rated Garland's trade value as a B prospect and maybe a C grade guy or two. Garland's value was a lot higher when his ERA was under 4 and he wasn't complaining about his shoulder -- that was the time to trade him. At this point, the Sox would be lucky to pick up a solid major league reliever for him. I'd rather take a B grade position prospect over a reliever any day, but the point is that he has little value. Garland will be a $12M rental next year and he's pitching poorly and is likely injured. You can't get much for that. No way, he's a much better option than practically the entire FA pool.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 02:30 PM) Getting Fuentes as the main part of a trade for Garland would be just about the dumbest thing imaginable. His velocity has already started to decline, we don't need another lefty reliever, and he'd be a FA after 2008. Like I've been saying, I'm nervous KW will severely overpay for relievers. I would be very disappointed, especially with what KW has tried to receive for Garland already. I have to think that this is the hope of several teams and media out there, and is the reason for the speculation. In no shape or form has KW lead me to believe he would take such a low ball offer for Garland. Not to mention the FA market place for starting pitching. KW is in a good spot with Garland, and should be able to receive a favorable package.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 04:00 AM) When will anyone ever come in here with logic? You keep questioning my demeanor and my "opinions" instead of looking at the real picture, the reason I'm doing all this debating: OZZIE. Not a SINGLE person has come in here with a solid argument or a statement that argues that the moves I mentioned Ozzie making are bad moves, simply attack me in ways that are irrelevant. Until someone can come in here and prove this wrong, just please stop. PLEASE try some logic and stop posting inept, redundant posts. I'm talking about Ozzie, and you all agree talking about me and have not provided a single solid argument. Wow, this feels like a board full of Cubs fans. Agree to disagree? You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't make you any less inept. Normally I do not encourage attacking a man's sense of reason on this board, but you either have trouble reading or understanding what you've read. All anyone has done is given you reasons, yet you choose to call these reasons "inept" and further challenge it by saying it doesn't count because your thoughts are facts. That won't get you far in life... So call anyone you want as inept, stupid, whatever, but the reality is you are just being ignorant. But hey ignorance is bliss, so I'm cool with it if you are.

I got to say - Hunter would be great to have, but I'm intimdated to offering a 6 yr $90 mill contract as predicted that would run him through the age of 39...

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 04:35 AM) I keep explaining WHY it's fact, and all anyone does is simply say it's not. No reasoning whatsoever. Must I reference all the bad moves I've mentioned throughout this topic again and again? Yes, it is FACT that most of the examples I gave were BAD MOVES. At this point, I could care less about other people's denial and ignorance. Like I've said, some opinions are NOT always valid, and some opinions ARE fact. # a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case" # a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts" # an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell" # a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" Here, maybe this will help...

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 03:13 AM) Yes. And like fathom mentioned Hall, how could anyone say that wasn't Ozzie's fault? Hall is not a first-baseman and shouldn't have to dive for balls constantly. Not saying one game necessarily makes this happen, but look what DID happen. it just made no sense. Steff mentioned, "sure, people can deny if they want to." Sure they can deny something that's true, but it's flat out stupid. Opinions aren't always valid. Sometimes they are simply inept and frankly, wrong. Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad. That's fact, not opinion. You wanna used the term "generalize?" People seem to use the word "opinion" too loosely. Is it an opinion that putting Toby at 1st wasn't a smart move? Is it an opinion that shifting for a .198 batter and then keeping it on when he tries to bunt isn't a smart move? No, that's fact. All you need is a little baseball knowledge to realize it. And surely many people here MUST have far more baseball knowledge than myself, but lately people in this topic make me actually question that. I think you need to freshen up on your baseball knowledge... In any case, its been explained, but you're obviously either not picking it up or not willing to. Just for good measure I'll say it a final time: Hall was not a first baseman, but was being penciled in to spell PK during this season. Therefore playing him there in ST is appropriate. It gives flexibility and insurance, but also would have allowed Hall more at bats which was what was promised to him when he signed. Remember, he could have started for lesser teams. But I can see how ignoring that would be convenient if you hated Ozzie and wanted to grasp onto anything to ensure that stays true for yourself.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:53 PM) Talking about Erstad. Erstad was being penciled in to the outfield, but depending on the situation out there, that could have been fine. However, I don't believe they wanted to shift him back and forth as an outfield starter, only to replace his spot with someone else.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:48 PM) Considering Ozzie's reluctance to ever have no back-up catcher left on the bench during a game, I highly doubt Hall would have gotten a lot of playing time at first base with AJP catching. That's what the plan was, and regardless of how many times it would actually happen, with Gload traded you needed an insuarnce policy there.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 10:48 PM) And that plan seemed pretty dumb when there is a gold glove firstbaseman on the roster. Does it? Gold glover translates to super human with no need of rest? Wow PK is better than I thought...

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) Absolutely, he ruined our back-up catcher in the spring training (I can't wait to debate this for the 500th time this year). Go ahead and debate... The plan was to give at bats for Hall at first base on occassion to rest PK. Was he supposed to learn during the regular season?

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 04:52 AM) Here's the question I have then....when is it the manager's fault? At what point is it the manager's fault for not getting the most out of his players? We had a year and a half of great baseball, and that's been followed by a year and a half of terrible baseball. 2008 better be a make-or-break year for KW, Ozzie, etc. (which is why I think an Ozzie extension is beyond stupid). Did Ozzie continuously run this team out of innings? Did he put his players in position to get hurt? Did he continuously mishandle the pitching staff? No - when the teams performance is hindered by strategy, and not injuries and poor execution, then I think its fair to blame Ozzie.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 11:25 PM) Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach. Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that. Now we're getting somewhere - this is an overlooked observation. Nossek, although I believe his departure was due to health concerns (if I'm remembering correctly), would be an excellent candidate. Man could that guy smell out a steal attempt! I'm fairly young, but I'm yet to witness someone better. McKeon, another potential solide move, who Ozzie could work well with. Both are probably long shots, but I like the line of thinking. Ozzie is not the issue by himself, and he does have the ability to run a championship club. Its a situation like any other manager in baseball - he's in need of a solid supporting cast. I like Cora at third again, replacement bench coach, Shines at first, Walk batting coach, Coop pitching, Ozzie at the helm, and Baines retiring.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 10:46 PM) anyone but Ozzie. Duh. Very insightful - we're a lock for it all now.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:41 AM) LOL. If you don't think Ozzie is an atrocious manager, then you are a pot calling the kettle black and it's YOU who need to watch games. I have watched nearly every game this season, and the last 2 seasons. I don't recall every detail of every one, but you don't need to remember every little detail to know that Ozzie is a brutal in-game manager, and the less magically the team works together and gets wins, it becomes more and more obvious. I can think of a few very poorly managed games in the last couple weeks alone. I don't hate him or anything, but Ozzie supporters have a tendency of being really delusional, and this coming from a more casual fan that doesn't obsess over statistics and constant analysis. Anyone with a brain can see that Ozzie can't manage his way out of a bag. I'm in no way saying he's the sole reason the Sox failed this season and last, (when you need to go to the pen and the only good thing in it is Jenks and maybe Wausserman/Logan, it's not easy), but he's a big contribution to the failure. I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who feels Ozzie is a good manager is "delusional" or "needs a brain". I simply disagree with your assessment, and whether you feel Ozzie is a problem, be prepared to see him here a long time...

QUOTE(forrestg @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 10:48 PM) I can solve this dilemna.. Put Pods and Erstadt on the 60 day Dl.. Who would know if they are hurt or not. One or both will end up on the dl before the season's end. Bring up Bourgeous to play 3rd. If we are in need of another outfielder see if Colarro can hack it in the bigs.. RIght now the sox aren't in contention for anything but the worst record which will grant them the first pick.. They might waste that pick when they trade that number 1 pick for a later pick that they might be able to sign cheaply. Can't trade the pick, but you could always pick someone safe as the Sox have done in recent history. The Sox appear to start being more aggressive as far as the player is concerned, high risk / high ceiling, but with a top pick coming, its nice because they may get lucky enough to pick a player with significantly lower risk / still high ceiling. I've heard some names around, but anyone have a current top 5?

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 06:09 PM) I think you need glasses. I think you need to watch some games.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 07:13 AM) but it's still clear he's an atrocious manager, a nutcase I don't think that's clear at all

To most peoples dismay, I hope its true.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 10:12 PM) Wow, now that makes Thome a bit more interesting to me. Agreed, under 10 mill isn't unreasonable for 09, barring a major injury between now and then. Even with his DL stints, its a good gamble. Especially when considering that if he were to go down, you could move Dye in that slot and promote someone like Sweeney. Thinking pretty far ahead though...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 09:13 PM) Well, with Pods...it is actually not out of the realm of possibilities that some other team could be interested in trading something for him next year to pick him up, esp. if he could have a few good games. There are enough teams who could use a backup OF/pinch runner for that to at least not be out of the realm of possibilities. Gonzalez I'd say is probably getting playing time because we don't really have any other options for a 3rd baseman other than Fields. I would bet we see Gonzalez on the bench next year. As long as he isn't deemed a starter, I really have no problem with that, he's versatile.