Marty34

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) By this logic, the Sox must find a platoon partner for Adam Dunn, too. I don't see why you are so hung up on Viciedo. The Sox (or just about every other team for that matter) cannot afford to ensure that they get maximum production out of every position. Platoon Viciedo/Dunn and get a LF'er. I'm "hung up on" Viciedo because finding a platoon for him is the most cost effective way to improve the offense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) Putting him on the bench isn't going to help him develop either. Reality is that the Sox are a team that is going to have some guys who are not finished products in the line up. We don't have the resources, nor the fan base, to put up that kind of payroll. Why is developing Viciedo more important than giving the team the best chance possible to compete for a postseason spot?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Your posts are the most predictable posts. What should the White Sox do Marty? Try to contend or rebuild? Or would you just like to stay out of it so you can moan either way? And why are you taking what Viciedo did his first full year against RHP as what he will do forever. Granted he was 19, but look what Trout did against RHP in 2011. Then check out 2012. Quit turning on the messenger. I can't make Viciedo hit RH'ers.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) based on what? That is the opinion of Jake. (When Danks is healthy.)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) Who exactly, and how do they fit in the payroll? Don't know who is available and don't know their payroll situation, but if they think they can contend Viciedo can't get regular AB's v. RH'ers.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) lol! You've gotta be kidding me. lol John Danks is a good to great pitcher.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:24 AM) They also don't have the payroll to have certain things at each position on the field. Are they planning on contending or rebuilding? If they are planning on contending finding a platoon partner for Viciedo is a must.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) Developing players means you have to play them and take the pain that learning curves bring. It is what makes them better. Robin Ventura sucked offensively his first year. Viciedo had a better overall offensive season than Magglio Ordonez had his first full year. Just remember, you are one guy that wants the Sox to totally rebuild, yet you can't take any growing pains without constantly complaining about it. You often turn it to be about the messenger as if you're above the fray. Anyway, the Sox don't have the talent level to contend and rebuild at the same time. Missing the playoffs again because of Viciedo not being able to produce against right-handers isn't worth the time spent to develop him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) What about playing some other guys who weren't hitting when the team collapsed in September? The only way Viciedo is going to start hitting RHP is to play against RHP. He was bad, but he did hit 16 homers with his .221 average. Since he hardly walks, if he hits .221 is OBP isn't going to be very good. I don't understand why Viciedo needs to be platooned if he's a LF but it is OK to develop him offensively if he's in RF. The Sox got some production in RF in 2012, and as much as you think Viciedo is trash, he did OK defensively and hit 25 homers. Are the Sox contenders or rebuilders? If they are contenders I want the plan to be Viciedo sitting against RH'ers next year. If they are rebuilding move him to RF and see if he can handle it while you wait for his bat.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) The problem there is that he's a worse third baseman than outfielder. He did okay in the OF last year, and I don't think anyone's going to argue that he can't hit right-handed pitching well at all. However, his troubles against RH pitching was not one of the main reasons the Sox lost the division. The overall collapse of the offense was probably the biggest factor, followed by pitching. It you wanted to break it down to individual performances, Viciedo was pretty low on the list. That being said, we've got to see an improvement in his ability to hit RH pitching, and he's got to develop some more patience. Moving him to 3rd base isn't going to improve his bat. Playing Viciedo against right-handers the second-half of the season was the biggest problem (and easiest to correct) with the offense last year. I don't think it's a good idea to put a 24 y.o. who has not proven he can hit in LF. He should be put in RF until it becomes clear that he can't handle the position defensively and his bat develops in order to get max value out of him.

Question is, how long do you wait for Viciedo to become Carlos Lee? One of the reasons the Sox lost the division was because they kept playing him against right-handers the second half. I think it makes sense to move him to the most difficult defensive position he has the best chance at handling long-term since we're going to have to wait on his bat.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) More patience than one full season at the big league level and 23 years old. Yes.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) Viciedo at 21 - .840 OPS, 106 PAs, MLB; .801 OPS, 363 PAs, minors Viciedo at 22 - .641 OPS, 113 PAs, MLB; .856 OPS, 505 PAs, minors Viciedo at 23 - .744 OPS, 543 PAs, MLB Beltre at 21 - . 835 OPS, 575 PAs, MLB; 1.489 OPS, 19 PAs, minors Beltre at 22 - .720 OPS, 515 PAs, MLB Beltre at 23 - .729 OPS, 635 PAs, MLB Also at 23 - Viciedo vs LHP - 1.033, 133 PAs Viciedo vs RHP - .650 OPS, 410 PAs Beltre vs LHP - .749 OPS, 112 PAs Beltre vs RHP - .713 OPS, 403 PAs They've also had similar K and BB numbers too. Just saying, it's not worth freaking out about. If Viciedo were a third baseman he would be afforded more patience.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Eye test and advanced stats say otherwise. His bat is the problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) So answer the question then. How many games would you be willing to sacrifice to see if that theory holds up? Fielding isn't his problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) So are you willing to potentially waste a couple of months on a "maybe"? How many games are you willing to lose trying to figure out something, when we already know where he can play? Because LF'ers are easier to find than RF'ERS? Using your logic Viciedo should be a platoon player because we are going to lose a lot of games if he faces RH'ers regularly.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:45 AM) I think conversely if someone said "I think Danks will be an even better pitcher next season" they would be equally jumped on. Depends on who said it.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) Mark Buehrle, RA Dickey, Justin Verlander are all good choices. But they are all probables. No guarantees for any of them. You can't say without any doubt whatsoever that any pitcher will pitch 190 innings in '13. Hence my point that Marty has no point, just bluster. You're not willing to say Justin Verlander will throw 190 innings, but you think Danks will be fine after surgery (no?) though you won't say he'll throw 190 innings either.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) People argue with the message and the messenger every day on this site. You routinely post things that go against what your so called Soxtalk Group Think agrees upon, and then get into this little discussion like we are having right now about "why me?". You know why, we both do. You like to argue. So argue, and stop acting surprised when people argue back. Not a why me at all. I wasn't even arguing. Is it so out of the realm of possibility, that Danks does not come back as good as before, to warrant being jumped on? I don't think so.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Which way do you want it Marty, you yourself said that you dont agree with Soxtalk conventional wisdom and group think. Why are you surprised when people argue with you So it's the messenger not the message. I thought the message board guidelines frowned upon that sort of thing.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) Saying Danks will not throw 190 innings is not the same as saying he wont come back as good as a pitcher as he was before. 190 innings would be quite an accomplishment from Danks coming off shoulder surgery, I certainly dont foresee him hitting that many innings this season. That doesnt mean I think he will be terrible, but I think 190 innings will be stretching it. You got "jumped on" because you consistently say the worst things will happen with White Sox players. At least it was personal and not content related. Sheesh.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 01:49 AM) Name me one pitcher that you can abolutely guarantee will pitch 190 innings in 2013. You can't, therefore you have no point. Danks will be fine, but no one on Soxtalk will say he'll throw 190 innings. Why did I get jumped on for saying I don't think he'll come back from the surgery as good of a pitcher as he was before?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:58 PM) Note that by putting the number at 190 innings, you're putting all the onus on us to assume absolutely nothing bad happens. He can't be hit by a line drive, he can't pull an abdominal muscle. Danks didn't pitch 190 innings in 2011...because he pulled an abdominal muscle and hit the 15 day DL for a stretch. So you're making a very weak prediction while asking us to say "Yes, absolutely" to something we wouldn't be confident about for anyone. There's literally no one in our rotation who I would say "Yes, I guarantee they will throw 190 innings". Not a single one. All that means is, you've given us an incredible standard to meet, and you're judging us based on the fact that we won't meet it. Here's one for you. Will you guarantee me that Danks will throw less than 80 innings? That's an equally fair test. Thanks for making my point, B.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) Which is exactly what you admitted to doing. No. No one on this site has guaranteed me that Danks will throw 190 innings next year, but I'm getting jumped on for the opinion that he won't come back as good a pitcher as he was before the surgery.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) So "Soxtalk Group Think" was meant to be a complement? Did you not accuse me of trolling before that?