hitlesswonder

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) Oh, I don't think anyone is disputing Kendrick is going to be a great player. The question is more like would Tony Reagins trade him for a somewhat marginal upgrade (one could argue that there is no upgrade at all) in Konerko over Kotchman just to get Matthews' contract off the books? Konerko would be an upgrade to their DH (Morales? GMJr?). But I still doubt that they'd trade Kendrick.

QUOTE(bighurt4life @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 11:56 PM) Fifth, it would be really interesting to see how they were viewed from within the organization as everyone on the outside looking in saw gio and dls as the undisputed top two in our minors with sweeny not far behind Just my own opinion, but if you piece together stuff posted here by the resident Sox scout and look at the Sox actiosn I think you have some indication: 1) Gio: the Sox probably saw him as the their #1 advanced prospect. But they clearly had concerns about flyball tendencies and were looking to raise his trade value since he spent all of 2007 in BHAM to protect him from that AAA bandbox. 2) DLS: IIRC the Sox scout had DLS topping out as a reliever rather than a starter due to stamina concerns and the violence of his delivery. In the prospect media (e.g, BP) people were valuing him as a likely (or at least possible) starter. 3) Sweeney: His lack of a late season callup clearly indicated organizational displeasure. Whether it was attitude or strictly performance is hard to say. I think the Sox valued DLS (especially) and Gio lower than the "prospect media". Sweeney they may still have liked long-term despite last year's performance, but felt they had to include him to get Swisher.

QUOTE(Markbilliards @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 04:33 AM) Although what he said isn't necessarily in a completely different world than what we've been told by our in home Sox scout, The fact that Kevin Goldstein is basing his opinions off of what he hears and not what he examines with his own eyes and mind makes me think that his opinion is unimportant. The more I hear from Bureau the less I care what places like Baseball America, Project Prospect, ESPN, Etc has to say because in reality how much more information could people like that get that we can't? I think the fact that the scouts that were responsible for that pick have been canned tells you all you need to know. It also tells you that the Sox internal assessment will likely result in Poreda being traded for whatever they can get as soon as possibl (before whatever value he has drops further).

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) Yeah, I have read the same. However, how excited are you really about Swisher and Dye together out there? I'm not thrilled, but I'd rather have Swisher in CF than GMJr because: 1) Swisher is a better offensive player (the Swisher/Konerko pair should outproduce GMJr/Swisher at the plate). 2) Swisher may not be much worse than GMJr in CF. He's above average other than arm in the corners. 3) Even if the Angels paid a third of GMJr's contract (how likely is that?), that's still 4 years and almost $30M for ages 33-37. I really don't like #3. It locks up a roster spot for a player that probably won't be very good those years.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) I have no idea if he can bunt or handle the bat. Can anyone let me know what they think of his fundamentals? Is his defense solid or just flashy? GMJr's defense is a controversial subject. Dewan's fielding bible had him as the worst CF in baseball last season: LINK I don't know if he's that bad, but I do believe his range is limited and it's not going get better given that he's 33 years old. Given that the LAA targeted Hunter, I think you have consider that they at least partly agree with Dewan's assessment. I wouldn't like to see GMJr and Dye together in an OF.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:56 PM) Kinda like Kansas losing in the first round of the tournament. I'm hoping that this year puts to rest the myth that Bruce Weber is a better coach than Bill Self in any aspect on the college game (recruiting, player development, in-game, you name it). Self is an elite coach of an elite program and somehow managed to stay classy when Weber pulled his mock funeral and "I almost beat Self with SIU" junk for absolutely no reason other than insecurity (I presume). I hope Self sends Weber a postcard from the championship game this season, because that's the only way Weber is going to see one again.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 10:51 PM) None of that is a lock and in fact I'd bet against all three of those being reached. Optimism is fine but saying we've added forty homerun guys and a thirty homerun guy is not something I'm willing to do. Seriously...no way. In fact, I'd guess no one on the Sox will hit 40 HRs. And I feel sorry for Fields, because people seem to be expecting him to be one of the elite power hitters in baseball next season. Ugh. In adding Swisher, the Sox now have 2 players who project to be above league average offensively for their position (assuming Swish is in the OF), the defense is lousy, and they 2 starting pitchers. I think that's a 4th place team. It's possible they could be better than that if they get some unexpected offense and 2 of JC/Danks/Floyd end up being avg. starters. But I don't think it's realistic to think the Sox will be contending for anything this season.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 09:58 PM) Do you have any idea at all about the hitting environment that he put those .900 OPS' in? Your statement also makes it sounds like Quentin will be a .900 OPS guy next year. I'd bet a decent amount of change that Quentin isn't a .900 OPS next year. IMO, Sox fans should be happy if : 1)Quentin is healthy 2)He puts up a .750 OPS with a .340 OBP. He's a young guy that has yet to have success in the majors. Just proving he belongs would be a great step.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) Ugh....great trade for the Cubs. Piniella had given up on Cedeno and Marshall, and Gallagher is nothing special. That lineup is nasty. I agree. The Cubs gave up virtually nothing here. Cedeno might become a useful player, but that's a weak haul, IMO.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) Jones and Clement for Konerko would take Anaheim out of the running. SEA wouldn't trade either of Jones or Clement for Konerko let alone both. The Sox might be able to get Wlad Balintien (sp?) and another lesser prospect or something like that....

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) Matthews would actually look rather decent in CF if it weren't for that contract... and I think he'll have a better 2008 than the great Aaron Rowand. GMJr is 33 years old, is a career .750 OPS player who posted a .323 OBP last season. And his defense last season was very bad. It's not a stretch to say he should be playing a corner and not CF at this point. So, assuming Rowand's offense returns to career-worst 2005 land (.736 OPS), he gives you the same offense as GMJr but he's 3 years younger and can still play a decent CF. Rowand's not great, but trading for GMJr would be stupid even if the Angels ate half the deal. He has 4 years and $44M left on his deal. Forget the money even -- why would you want a 33 through 37 year-old MatthewsJr starting for the Sox?

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 07:23 PM) Problem with your argument is that Illinois was not there instead of Missouri. Mizzou not being in the BCS had NOTHING to do with Illinois. The only way Missouri could have gotten in is to be picked instead of Kansas. Well, sure -- if you go according to the current rules. It doesn't matter. It's just too bad it wasn't a better game.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) The USC front 7 is as good as I've EVER seen at the college level, but their secondary was atrocious. Taylor Mays is really just an OLB playing safety, and the rest of their rotation was very mediocre. Receivers were open all night, Illinois should have thrown the ball way more, although admittedly it's hard to because their front 7 gets to the QB so fast. I'd say they have 5 future NFL pro bowlers in their front 7, just ridiculous. And you just can't see me on Joe McKnight being this scary Reggie Bush type with what Vontae did to him, and he was held on check other than the fluke lateral play. The biggest problem yesterday was the Illinois LB's and safties are just too slow to cover a team with lots of fast personnel like USC, which is why I appreciate guys like J Leman and Mitchell and Harrison and Sanders and Steele et al, but they'll be replaced by guys with much better speed and that's a good sign. Basically, the Illinois offense wasn't out of it's league (it's offensive coordinator just was in the 1st half), but the Illinois defense was WAY out of it's league. I agree with most of that -- Illinois needed to throw more, but the passing offense is limited by the personnel (except Benn of course). I'm surprised UI didn't try to have Williams roll to buy time and then throw, but I haven't seen Williams throw very accurately on the run so maybe that's why. It will be interesting to see if the passing game improves next season. As for the UI defense, I was surprised they played as well as they did for 2.5 quarters. I think exhaustion started to set in at that point. The USC tight end and backs would be a tough matchup for almost any team's linebackers.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) On another note, Rashard is gone, but I wish he would stay, not only for the Illini to have a better chance next year, but also for just the reason Kirk Herbstreit said last night...to learn to pick up a blitz better. He got blown-the-f**k-up by Rey Maua...Meahu...whatever his name is. Yeah, but on the 79 yard run and the pass reception along the sideline he showed he's an NFL back. The USC defense is good and fast, with a number of future NFL players and they couldn't shut him down. Mendenhall can work on picking up the blitz at the next level -- he's a first round pick and should take the money now while he can.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:38 AM) I don't really like the argument by the illini fans about if there were no turnovers it would have been a respectable 2 td loss. Turnovers are forced for the most part. You guys said the same thing about the game vs. us. Yeah -- that's the height of arrogance, saying that the Vegas spread was right. I don't think it's delusional to think that Iliinois could have avoided coughing up the ball a couple of times. But, hey I'll give you what you want: Illinois was embarrassed completely. They shouldn't have been anywhere near a BCS bowl. That they were there and not Missouri is a travesty. Missouri would have had an excellent chance of beating USC. Everyone feel better now?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) A team that lost to Stanford is the best team in the country? They are better than ILL, and ILL played poorly, but beating the Illini doesnt make them the best team in the country. I sort of agree. I came into the game thinking USC was the best team in the country. Given the score this will sound ridiculous, but I expected to see a game in which Illinois clearly shouldn't have been on the same field as USC and I didn't see that. USC was a much better team , but I think the ILL turnovers changed the game from a non-descipt two score loss to a blowout. Besides costing UI a good shot at 2 TDs, the TOs just exhausted the defense. My other great insight is that Mendenhall needs to go to the NFL. He torched a defense with a lot of future NFL starters on it, and he did so without almost any threat of a passing game. He's a first round back and should grab those dollars. If UI can develop an actual passing game next season to offset his loss, they should still be a bowl-quality team.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 05:39 PM) Sorry, but until finding out a bunch more about this guy, as well as seeing how much he was signed for, I don't think you can pencil Ramirez into the lineup, let alone the top of it. I would not be surprised in the least for him to spend most of the season in AAA. Not saying it was a bad move, could turn out to be a great one, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. I agree. I think it was a good move, a gamble but worth it in the Sox condition. I really doubt Ramirez is a major leaguer next season. The success rate of Cuban position players hasn't been great (is Betancourt the best one?). But maybe after a year or two in the minors Ramirez might be a useful player. It's like an extra draft pick that the Sox paid overslot on -- and I'm happy with that.

Why is that? Is it an inability to command 3 pitches? Questionable mechanics or injury concerns?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) He turned 26 in September. Supposedly....

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) Oh, and this would be one hell of a test for how well built those rovers are. The rovers have functioned over 12 times longer than their anticipated lifespan at this point. Whoever engineered them deserves a medal. This could be the end for them though -- even if the asteroid doesn't smack down right on top of them, a dust cloud that reduces the amount of light getting to the surface could keep them from recharging after their batteries drain.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Gio or DLS are easy choices for me for Hamilton. If you think he'll stay clean (and I wish him good luck), sure. But there's a reason why the Reds were willing to trade him and why they got Texas's 4th or 5th best prospect for him after posting a .900 OPS. There's clearly a risk involved with Hamilton,

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) this is nothing. you should see the illinois boards. better yet, don't. yeah -- I don't think this thread is that bad at all, at least when graded on a curve.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 04:46 PM) I wonder if 1. we were in on him at all 2. why we didn't sneak in -- I mean, we could beat that package, I'm sure. Yeah, but it would have meant trading Gio or DLS. And they are already earmarked to be traded for Coco Crisp. Well, at least one of them is.... The thing is, the Sox thin system doesn't have anyone like Volquez: someone who has struggled and who's future in the big leagues is dubious, but whose stuff is so good that you can trade him for something valuable. It's not a terribly unfair trade. Both players are talented but carry significant risk. Of course, Hamilton has already excelled in the bigs, so I think Rangers did well here.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) frazier's regression has been damning to this team. you can't have a guy who's supposed to be a major contributor turn into a major liability. it's made weber have to play mccamey more often, which as we've seen has not always been a good thing. i think ideally mccamey would be playing rarely at this point, but you have to play him and let him learn on the fly. I'm actuallly amazed that someone as obviously athletic as Frazier isn't a better basketball player. The sad thing about this team is that -- I think -- if they just had one player that could shoot they could have played a 2 man game with that guy and Pruitt and been a tournament team.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) well, time will tell on that. my point is that there has been one case (one) in five years where weber had a problem keeping recruits. if you can cite others i'm missing, feel free. and yes, i am fairly certain that richmond, bertrand, and paul are going to end up playing for illini. just as i'm confident crandall head will, and fairly confident anthony johnson will. but again, time will tell. i will say that my confidence in those guys coming would diminish considerably if weber was fired. but that isn't going to happen, so it isn't really relevant to discuss. Well, Gordon was the only recruit Weber has had on a par with Richmond and he did have trouble keeping him. It's not like the rest of Weber's recruits were 5 stars everyone wanted. But I wasn't appealing to past history, but rather what I think is an obvious future. I don't see why the 09-10 recruits would be less likely to come to Illinois if Weber were replaced, I think it might actually make the program more appealing. As you say, only time will tell. If I can switch to a more interesting subject --are you surprised at McCamey's play so far? I didn't see him play before now, and I get the impression you did. I don't want this to sound like I'm ripping on him (he's a freshman), but he doesn't seem very quick. Do you think he can be a quality point guard in the Big Ten eventually? I was hoping that Illinois would have a guard that could penetrate finally, but it's possible that that's not all on McCamey -- it seems like the UI motion offense doesn't lend itself to that.