Kalapse

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) He hit a solid .240 with no power in Charlotte this season. Don't disrespect. He truly is one of the worst players in the major leagues, and not batting 8th or 9th when he has to play is troubling. I'm still convinced that Gustavo Molina for his 18 career at bats was the worst hitter in the history of baseball and luckily we'll never see him in the majors again. Andy Gonzalez is right there with him though and is possibly the worst in baseball right now. Danks is on his way out of the rotation.

Ugh, the one thing Danks can not afford to do is get behind in the count and start walking guys. You really get the feeling Ozzie is starting to tire of Danks and his poor control.

I f***ing hate Andy Gonzalez. The fact that he's starting and batting second is a complete f***ing joke, he should be in AA.

I think I'm on the side of not re-signing him. I just don't see how Mark Buehrle is any different from some of the other starters who were given 5+ year deals over the years. What kind of injury problems did Mike Hampton, a 27 year old who was considered by many in the game to be the most athletic pitcher in baseball, have before the 2001 season? None. I just don't see how Mark's case is any different from someone like Hampton's. I also don't buy that it would only take 5 guaranteed years to keep him around. He could get 6+ on the open market, easy I don't see why he wouldn't ask for that sort of deal from the Sox.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) Daniels is nearly done. Not sure if he'll make much longer in Texas. His baseball background is incredibly thin. The Danks and Chris Young deals, along with giving up Cordero (and way too much for Lee when the Rangers were dead in the water) to the Brewers, signing Gagne...he's in far over his head. Ricciardi has had VERY mixed results in TOR and should be fired, but will fire his Rambo-esque manager first, DiPodesta was bad in LA and Epstein...well, it's hard to see how good Theo or Cashman would be unless you put them in the position of Dayton Moore in KC or down in Tampa Bay. Hicks just gave Daniels a 1 year extension through 2009 like last week.

Oh and the 5 year $65M contract he gave to Chan Ho Park (A BORAS CLIENT) in 2002. Yet another 5 year contract I forgot about.

Tom Hicks is a complete dips***, he'll never stop signing Boras clients because he's in love with overpriced talent. Just last year he gave Kevin Millwood (a Boras Client) a 5 year, $60M contract. HEY! Another 5 year contract that appears to have been a bad idea!

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 05:30 PM) Wouldn't Boras be involved in negotiating Danks' contract during the arbitration-elibible years? That's what I was referring to. If not, my mistake. Eh, that's usually not much of a problem. They were able to sign Crede to two 1 year contracts during his first two ARB eligible seasons with no problem. Usually Boras doesn't even get involved in the 1 year ARB eligible contracts, he just lets an associate work those out. Scott boras really only gets involved with big time draft picks and big time free agents. He has far too many clients to be worrying about a couple arb eligible players.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 04:50 PM) The guy would inspire more confidence if his statements made sense. Just because other teams are willing to deal with Boras doesn't mean they avoid non-Boras players. The only ones who get "pushed down" are Boras clients. They may go lower than talent would dictate, but others can only go higher. It's funny because the exact opposite of what he said is true. If the White Sox as well as other teams ahead of them in the draft refuse to deal with Boras clients then the Boras players will drop from where they were supposed to go and players the Sox may have been interested in who are not Boras clients will end up being selected earlier in the draft than they probably should be often times before it is time for the Sox to pick. So in other words he's already perpetuating falsehoods as fact. QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 05:11 PM) I'm not so sure we will deal with him. Crede was gonna be gone after 2008 because he is a Boras client. So I take it if Danks pitches unbelievable for the next 3 years, then Boras is gonna want a big payday for him also. To me the whole, we won't deal with Boras is a bunch of crap. After 3 years Danks will be eligible for ARBITRATION meaning Boras will still have to wait another 3 years to get Danks his big payday. So in other words, this shouldn't become a problem until 2013, assuming Danks is still with the team at that time and the planet isn't run by giant, cyborg ants or some s***.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) You know that's different, though. We dealt for Danks and don't have to deal with Boras for three years. It's not the same as giving a first round pick a big fat bonus. I understand that. It was merely meant as an ironic aside.

And yet the biggest impact player acquired this past offseason is a Boras client.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 04:18 PM) I'm gonna go with the over/under on "don't trade Mark threads" before the weekend at 85. I think you have to take the over since we're currently sitting at about 70 right now.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 04:10 PM) Interesting. I guess they are just blaming him for being in the situation. I know I've been out many a times around 3 AM (usually heading back home or having grub at a Denny's type of place). That said if I have drank I always have a sober driver (and sometimes it is me that is the sober driver). I consider myself a responsible person even though I have a lot of late weekeend nights but I don't have the past that Tank has. Still I find it funny people lament someone for being out at 3 when I'm sure at that age they did it too (not taking his prior factors into consideration). Except you can't do that. The only reason people are pissed that he was out that late, speeding and possibly drunk is because of the trouble he had been in previously. If this were his first offense I doubt many would be all that upset.

What is the difference between Mark Buehrle and Mike Hampton circa 2000? I'll post some numbers and more analysis later but for now what's keeping Buehrle's pending 5+ year contract from being just as bad as Hampton's?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) Off the top of my head I can name the following guys on the bad side of the ledger: Darren Driefort Bartolo Colon (to whom we offered something like 4/50) Perdo Martinez Jason Schmidt Jeret Wright 3-years Carl Pavano 3-years AJ Burnett Sindey Ponson (wasn't that a 4-year deal that the O's were able to void after a year?) Kevin Brown Chan Ho Park Pedro Martinez (who boston wouldn't give a 4th year, and has been toast since last season) Mike Mussina's second NY contract Not a starting pitcher but BJ Ryan was also given a 5 year contract and is going to miss the entire second season of the deal. Mike Hampton was given an 8 year $121M deal by the Rockies in 2001, he's made a grand total of 12 starts since the beginning of the 2005 season and is expected to miss all of 2007 just as he did in 2006.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Not sure about Crisp, either. I'd love to him him in CF, but isn't he only a couple years away from free agency? He's signed for 2 more years for a guaranteed $11M. He's incredibly overpaid considering his mediocre production. His defense isn't really what you want in CF either.

I've said it before and what the hell, I'll say it again. I would not trade Mark Buehrle straight up for Robinson Cano.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) i just don't get how so many people think the Sox are going to trade 5-6 regular starters? Baseball should investigate because we will be almost trying to lose every single game the rest of the year. Well, this is an old, expensive roster that needs to be completely torn apart. The main question is, how many guys currently on the 25 man roster do you want to see back next season? Most everyone on the team is playing like s*** right now and they're pretty much all over 30, how many of those guys would you want to bring back for another season? Active Roster Pitchers DOB 54 David Aardsma 12/27/81 - BAD? 56 Mark Buehrle 03/23/79 - FREE AGENT 63 Ryan Bukvich 05/13/78 - BAD 52 Jose Contreras 12/06/71 - VERY OLD/BAD 50 John Danks 04/15/85 20 Jon Garland 09/27/79 45 Bobby Jenks 03/14/81 57 Boone Logan 08/13/84 47 Mike MacDougal 03/05/77 - BAD? 46 Nick Masset 05/17/82 - BAD? 37 Matt Thornton 09/15/76 - BAD? 33 Javier Vazquez 07/25/76 Catchers DOB 44 Toby Hall 10/21/75 12 A.J. Pierzynski 12/30/76 Infielders DOB 8 Alex Cintron 12/17/78 - EXPENSIVE/BAD 27 Josh Fields 12/14/82 15 Tadahito Iguchi 12/04/74 - FREE AGENT 14 Paul Konerko 03/05/76 5 Juan Uribe 03/22/79 - $5M TO/BAD? Outfielders DOB 23 Jermaine Dye 01/28/74 - FREE AGENT 26 Andy Gonzalez 12/15/81 - f***ING HORRIBLE 10 Rob Mackowiak 06/20/76 - $3.25M BENCH PLAYER? 22 Scott Podsednik 03/18/76 - INJURED/BAD 30 Luis Terrero 05/18/80 Designated Hitters DOB 25 Jim Thome 08/27/70

Good. f*** him.

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) Here are a few that have worked out: Roy Oswalt Roy Halladay (He signed a 3 year extension before '06 season to give him 5 years from that signing) Maybe if Mark changed his name to Roy! How can you say these have worked out when Halladay signed that extension a year and a half ago? He hasn't even made a single start under the extension? Oswalt signed his deal before the '07 season started, so it's "worked out" for a grand total of 17 starts now. You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that, you need to find examples that are 4-5 years into the deal in order for it to serve as some sort of precedent.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) slg and obp are probably rounded down....ie his obp is probably .3024 and his slg is probably .3652.....when you add em you get .6676 which rounds to .668 I figured that was the case but you never see it done that way.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) .213 BA, .302 OBP, .365 SLG, .668 OPS He's been terrible. Your numbers don't add up.

A few thoughts: 1.) Bobby Jenks probably has the most trade value of any player currently on the 25 man roster. The last closer I can think of who was traded at the deadline was Ugueth Urbina in 2003. He was 29, a 3 month rental and struggling mightily. The Rangers were able to coax the #31 prospect in baseball (Adrian Gonzalez) away from the Marlins at the beginning of July in exchange for Ugy. Now what if you put a 26 year old, hard throwing closer who is currently pitching well and still a year away from arbitration on the block? What do you fetch in return then? 2.) The Sox could hold the balance of power in both leagues with Buehrle and Jenks on the block. A team looking for a closer who's locked up for another 4 years and a top flight SP who is possibly a rental could sell the farm in a blockbuster deal to acquire both and make a push. You could end up playing 10 teams off each other for Jenks. 3.) Bobby seems to have an excellent reputation around baseball, considered by most to be a very good and reliable closer despite the fact that he has yet to pitch more than half a season of consistently good baseball. 4.) The guy is still like 50 pounds overweight, has been losing velocity since July of last season and has an arm that's being held together by a couple screws. I honestly don't think he'll make it to free agency before suffering a catastrophic injury or just becoming completely ineffective. 5.) If the Sox are going to truly rebuild, as in trade off most of the older, more expensive players for young unproven talent then chances are they're not going to be even close to competing over the next 2-4 years. Meaning a closer of Jenks' caliber really isn't needed and becomes a luxury at that point. And considering the kind of talent Detroit, Cleveland and even Minnesota are going to have on their major league rosters in the coming seasons I'm not sure an all out rebuilding phase would be all that bad of an idea.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) I am not sure that we do this straight up for one minor leaguer. But if it is an A level prospect and a C level prospect or player to be named later, I still might do cartwheels. I'd do Contreras straight up for B level prospect and to be honest, I think that's what we should expect in return.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 12:31 PM) Mid-level? No way. I think you're overstating what someone would give up for Erstad. I think he's understating how badly KW will want Erstad back for next season.