hitlesswonder

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) how many times has he had a problem "keeping" recruits? Do you honestly think Richmond, Bertrand, and Paul are going to want to play for what they saw last night when they could go to UNC, UCLA, USC, Memphis, Indiana...or anywhere where the basketball program isn't obviously dying? Whether or not Weber should be fired, he will have a hard time keeping those recruits after this season and next. It won't be pretty.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) Weber has made the program what it is (on the cusp of elite) in the last five years. Self made the program "cusp of the elite".

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 07:05 PM) I actually sort of agree that given everything that has went on, acquiring a SS with 1 year left on his deal was not the right way to use Garland, but at the base of your original post, I believe Williams got a lot of more value for Garland than you give him credit for. You may be right but: I just want to state that I did not say "Garland isn't worth anything" and then turn around and say "Williams didn't get enough" for Garland. I think Williams got a fair return value-wise. If anything, I think Cabrera is better than I gave him credit for being when the trade happened (having looked at the stats more). Williams didn't get what I would have wanted in terms of the types of players, and so I said the trade was bad. My posts today were just disagreeing that JG was a 4th starter and Cabrera was one of the best SS in the big leagues. And that I think Williams should have targeted prospects. I don't think LAA ripped the Sox off or anything. As I said earlier today, Cabrera is a good player. The question is, did Williams get more than I thought he would get back in September for Garland and am I not giving him enough credit for that? And that's part I'd say you are right about. I'd have to look, but did Garland just serve up 12 runs when I made the original post? I think I was more convinced at that time he was hurt, and that getting someone Scot Shields-like would have been a good return (of course Shields blew last season, but that's the type of reliever I was thinking of -- a "lockdown" setup man that would not be a rental). Cabrera is probably more valuable than that. But, I also said Garland could fetch a B & C prospect and I think that's about the value he did fetch. Anyway , my apologies if I was inconsistent.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth. This is where my problem lies with you hitless.... I think there's a distinction between being a good pitcher and having a lot of trade value. Having a single year left on his contract and making $12M is what hurt Garland's trade value. The $12M isn't necessarily him being overpaid, it's just that not all teams have room for that size salary. FWIW, if I ever said Garland was overpaid I was wrong. I should have been clearer: Garland is a valuable pitcher on the mound but his contract reduced his value. I think the Cabrera trade was fair value -- I just would rather have seen the Sox get that package of B + C prospects Sickels suggested. I'm not saying Williams should have gotten more. Just that he should have gotten something different. The only thing that changed between those 2 posts has been my impression of Garland's health. I think he probably is healthy given that he didn't get pulled from the rotation. Maybe it's flaky of me to change my mind about whether he's hurt or not, but that's I think the only inconsistency between the posts. To sum up: Garland = good pitcher with low trade value due to contract (especially in Sept. coming off a shelling) Cabrera= fair return, I would have preferred prospects Jon's health= no more news about shoulder knot = probably healthy? I don't think I was being two-faced. Not that I'm above that....

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) What mess? The White Sox have a couple of holes and a couple of extra players. The White Sox have no more of a mess than the Cubs do and yet they are hit by winning a weak division last year and signing Fukudome. Ridiculous. The Sox are a 90 loss team with the second worst farm system in major league baseball. That's a mess.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:54 PM) Why would they not do that? Considering Julio Lugo got 4/36 last off-season, and that the Sox want to re-sign Cabrera (but he's not interested in that at the moment), I can't see why we wouldn't offer him arbitration unless he got injured such as Maggs did. If he accepts, then you've got your starting SS again for 2009. Why didn't they do it with Riske? There's 2 reasons they may not: 1) Cabrera plays badly or gets hurt (he is 33). 2) The Sox don't want to pay out the money required to sign multiple high draft picks.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) White Sox fans should get off the draft pick compensation as the way to re-build the minors. You wind up having to pay these draft picks over $1 million each and most don't pan out. Its better to trade players of value for young guys already on their way to making it, showing they can be successful, with their bonuses already paid. Not too mention there's a good chance the Sox won't offer Cabrera arbitration and so will fail to get those draft picks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) KW should have made sure Cabrera was open to signing an extension. The fact people consider Garland mediocre on here now is pathetic. I don't care what his numbers say, he is a pitcher that you can put on the mound every 5 days and believe you have a chance to win the game. I don't think the same can be said about our 3/4/5 this coming season. Seriously -- a number 4 starter? The guy is one of the top 30 starting pitchers in the AL in terms of what he does on the mound. His rate stats may be average, but the innings he pitches at those rates are above average. Say what you will about "quality starts", but tying for #7 in the AL last season is a good performance. And Orlando Cabrera is a good player. He's not an "elite" shortstop. He had a very good year last season, but he's a career .320 OBP, .724 OPS player. His projected offensive #s from ZiPS for 2008 are below average for an AL SS. The trade was hardly a steal. And at any rate, as fathom said, trading Garland for OCab and money for Linebrink was a bad use of resources.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) If his master plan was to acquire Cabrera, then he should have used Garland to get more prospects that would interest the Marlins. Obviously, the Marlins wanted a catching prospect in the deal. Nice of KW to have no knowledge of that. I completely agree. Trying to compete in 2008 instead of rebuilding was already a mistake. But putting that aside, Williams hasn't even being able to competently build a team to compete in 2008. The current team is no better than the 2007 team. And now he's on the verge of sending the Sox top 3 prospects for Crisp and pitcher that isn't as good as the 2 the Sox are sending in the deal.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:08 PM) What exactly has KW done wrong this offseason? KW has done 3 deals this offseason; Linebrink, Quentin, and Cabrera. Clearly, if you're referring to screwups, you must think a couple of those are mistakes. Please tell me which ones. Linebrink and Cabrera were mistakes. And his plan based on MCab and Hunter was bad as well -- he completely misjudged the resources it would take to compete for those players.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) We don't need Crisp that badly. I don't know -- the Sox are going for it in 2008 and a .690 OPS in CF could put them over the top.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) Crisp and Bowden for Shelby and two other prospects. Would those other two prospects be Gio and DLS? They would have to be, wouldn't they? There's no other possible deal. If Williams makes that trade he should get canned.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:03 AM) Well if Schilling is a guy who made his whole career the honest way, what doesn't give him the right to be that guy? The only difference between other guys who didn't do it and Schilling is that he actually has the balls to call out Clemens. It's interesting that Schilling didn't have the balls to talk to George Mitchell when he was asked to -- Frank Thomas is the only active MLB player that did. Schilling wants to look like a brave "guardian of the game" now that he sees what the right play is, and I'm sure the media will buy that crap.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:19 PM) Garland may be 5th in AL in QS's since 2005, but he has had more opportunities. You can argue there's something to be said about his reliability and maintaining the health to make all those starts. But he has never ranked higher than 6th in QS% since '05. Health is a big part of what he brings -- his rate states maybe average, but his health and ability to deliver that rate for 200 innings every year is above average. And 6th or 7th for quality starts in the AL is still good. I don't think anyone is saying that he's great. Just that his performance has been better than his reputation.

QUOTE(Chisoxrd5 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:10 PM) While that may be the case, I always hold pitching in higher regard than position players. It's also my opinion that we had a much better shot of resigning JG than we do of resigning Orlando Cabrera. Signing Garland wasn't in the cards. He would want market rate and the Sox won't go there for starting pitching. Resigning Cabrera won't happen either, but that's probably for the best -- offer arbitration and take the picks. I would rather have seen Garland dealt for prospects, but whatever. As to their relative value to the Sox for 2008 it's Garland + Uribe vs. Floyd + Cabrera. I would guess that's a toss-up maybe, but lots of stats guys value position players over pitchers. Plus, the Sox -- for now -- have Gio to step in if Floyd fails.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) Orton looked AWFUL last night and I still think he's awful, but it's hard to judge any skill players on this team when you consider how historically bad this offensive line is. Nobody though can argue his last pass, had a man wide open for a TD and threw the ball 3 yards in the wrong direction, that was inexcuseable. I think Orton is probably an OK backup QB. For the most part, his decisions on when/where to throw were usually good and he can throw short and medium passes pretty well. He just doesn't have the arm to throw deep (e.g. the last play). Playing Orton is fine, but it's not going tell anyone anything -- he's not great so he can't overcome the terrible O-line, no running game, and generally handsless receivers. The question is: is he awful or just mediocre. With that offense, there's no way to tell. But, everyone should realize at this point that Grossman is a better QB.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) I think people have forgotten what a good prospect he once was. He's one of the Sox best first round selections since the Thomas/Ventura/Fernandez/McDowell days. He was great prior to getting injured. Agreed -- Honel wasn't a bad pick, he's just one of the many pitchers whose arms don't hold together long enough for them to get to the majors. Even great scouting organizations aren't able to pick who will get hurt and who won't. No one ever thought Prior wold go through what he has...

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) For the record, I have called Mr. Garland Judy to his face on multiple occasions as he did his pretty little waltz off of the field like he was Randy Johnson with a feminine southern california touch. The guy has nothing special in his stable of pitches. that's the bottomline. he's a mediocre pitcher that NOT A SINGLE BATTER in baseball is afraid to face. atleast Danks is young and learning. He's got tricky pitches that will make the batter think and that's more than Jon can say. besides, it's a MOOT point now. Joe Cowley, is that you? I mean, I get it. Jon is from Cali and Danks is from Texas. We all know who the better pitcher is based on the that alone. Seriously, all those tricky pitches Danks had generated a an age 21 season significantly worse than Garland's age 21 season. The question was how big the dropoff in the rotation would be with Garland gone. What part about 7th in the AL in quality starts did you not get? It's going to be hard to replace that unless Danks or Floyd can pull off a Carmonaesque sophomore year (which is pretty unlikely). Maybe you are right and Garland really is a bag of Chardonnay-swilling suck, but somehow despite that he was one of the top 30 starting pitchers in the AL last season. It is a moot point, but only because the Sox won't contend anyway -- so they might as well pitch the kids. I just hope you aren't too disappointed.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) We don't really equate college or college attended to intelligence, do we? I would hope not -- in my experience there's very little correlation if any at all between college attendance and intelligence. And for anyone saying that Williams not graduating is a sign of stupidity, go tell that to Bill Gates.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) He has good hands for throws over to first, but he has HORRIBLE range. That's exactly what I was referring to. I agree he does have good hands.

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 03:51 PM) I never said that but I would rather watch Danks who has a curveball Judy Garland could only wish for. The stance, however poor it may be, with Chicago's other starting pitchers does not enter the equation when I speak of Jon Garland being nothing special and totally overpaid. We were going to lose him after this season any way, atleast we got a solid SS for him. Garland does nothing better than average. He has nothing in his stable of pitches that would scare any batter. nothing at all... Danks does. That curveball is NASTY! I'd like you to call Jon Garland "Judy" to his face Garland is a good pitcher: 200 innings of league average pitching is actually an above average performance. Last year he was 25th in the AL in ERA. He was #7 in quality starts: tied with Santana and better than Buehrle or Vazquez. Jon didn't have great trade value because he had a single year left and was getting $12M (not that he's overpaid, he's just not cheap). Nothing against Danks, but he will not be the pitcher Garland was last year in 2008. He just won't. Look up Garland's numbers from his age 21 season and compare them to Danks' numbers. If you were logical, Danks would be the one you were calling by a girl's name (and I'd be unimpressed by that as well).

QUOTE(whitesox94 @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 08:08 PM) Sorry, meant to put a slash, no way were getting both You won't even get one of them for Konerko. He had an .841 OPS last season with half his atbats in the Cell. He's 31. He makes $12M a year. How many 1Bs that qualified last year had a better OPS? By my count, 12. And given Konerko's poor defense, baserunning, and contract he's less valuable than a guy like Kotchman ( .840 OPS, great glove, cheap, not hitting in the Cell). Konerko does have trade value to a team that needs a 1B and can handle his salary. But even then there is no way you get Cain or Lincecum.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) Isn't Cowley the same moron that hates Garland for being Californian and refuses to vote for MVPs from Toronto because he hates Canada? Yes, he is that moron.

QUOTE(gbuk @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:40 AM) You really think he kept Jamar on the team just to recruit Richardson? That's pointless. Webster was the one who did all of the recruiting, and if he was ever going to waver it was going to be when Webster left. I understand saying they need to get better players is somewhat classless, however don't you think that's also an indictment on himself too? That's the truth. There's a lot going on in every athletic department, especially in the major sports. I just don't buy the fact that s*** is hitting the fan over there. Weber is a good coach. Not great, but when he has talented players he knows how to use them. He knows how to adjust. A few minutes before you posted this I deleted the post you're quoting. It's late, I'm tired and I decided -- too late -- that I don't know enough facts to competently assess the program. Although they really should have zoned Maryland. Here's my attempt at a sober(ish) rational post: I don't like the way Weber handles criticism. It seems like he doesn't do it well, from the mock funeral to saying his players aren't good. The Jamar Smith incident was bad. Really, it goes beyond UI -- American society treats drunk driving way too lightly. And as for keeping Jamar to recruit Richardson -- I honestly don't know if that was his motivation or not. Boers & Bernstein on WSCR made that claim. Whether they know more than me or you, I have no idea.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 12:34 AM) more importantly, would allow you to spend elsewhere. I've thought in the past that the Sox should move money away from 1B/DH and try to find a cheap AAAA 1B that can post a .800 OPS or above. The problem that's still easier said than done. Who knew Pena and Young would play like that last season? In the end talent evaluation is still crucial. It might even be more crucial than having the right strategy for putting together a team. Enough rambling -- I was posting to say that at this point I don't know what the Sox would spend money on. I'm not sire clearing salary helps all that much. On the other hand, tarding PK now is easier because he isn't 10/5 yet. But I really doubt he gets moved.