hitlesswonder

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) Ah, so you are carpet bombing and basically saying because most prospects dont make it, then Jack wont. Really stuck your neck out there. Odds are Gio, Kershaw,etc etc will get ripped up at the major league level as well right? Because its the ODDS. It actually amazes me that nobody with a pedestrian fastball succeeds in the majors. I mean, if you dont light it up, dont even try right? Forget the fact that he throws a sinker. Because nobody who throws a sinker doesnt throw it HARD. Never mind the 3 HR's he gave up in 160+ innings. Forget about the fact that BP's PECOTA cards lists Webb and Wang as the most comparable pitchers to Jack. All I care about is rankings by BA, and that HARD fastball that he lacks. I will continue to ignore his stellar numbers and his great improvement over this last season. I will only pay attention to BA prospect rankings as the bible as far as baseball players go. You asked why I thought Egbert would get hit in bigs and I told you. For the second time -- I never said Jack won't make it, I said it's unlikely he will. Kershaw and Gio are less likely to get ripped up, as they have better stuff. Is that really controversial or difficult to grasp? Egbert had a great year, was in a pitcher's park, a little old for his league, and features stuff that BA thinks is not worth mentioning. BA may print some idiotic things, but I'm guessing they've had people see Egbert pitch more than you or I. So I guess you're right -- it's simply insane to think that Egbert isn't the next Brandon Webb.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) Thus, I really doubt you would have resigned Frank; nobody counted on Frank to do anything in 2006, not even Oakland who signed him. That's why they gave him $500,000 guaranteed and not $5 million. Plus the Sox couldn't have signed him for $500,00. They would have had to pick up his option which was substantial -- at least much as they paid Thome. I wish that Thomas had somehow stayed with the Sox, but it's simply wrong to say they could have kept Thomas for less money.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) Great move. Good baseball guy. Or, one more sign the Sox are becoming the Royals with $100M payroll.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) ? Says who? Some guy who started a website? Egbert has been successful, he is a sinkerball pitcher which tend to be undervalued, and hasnt shown signs of being overmatched at all. I wonder why you automatically think he will get "ripped up." odds are he will get ripped up. That's true of all but the highest echelon pitching prospects. It's especially true of a guy with a pedestrian fastball whom BA thinks is really, really not a prospect. They could be wrong, but honestly is it likely Egbert going to better than say, someone like Mike Wood? The answer is no, and it's not like Mike Wood is lighting up the majors.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) I told people a month ago that the people in charge of scouting for Baseball America hate Egbert, as they think his stuff is nowhere near MLB caliber. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but I just thought you'd like to know what their reason is. I think this look at Egbert and Horne is informative as well. Egbert is a very fringe prospect. Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs. He just happens to be the Sox 3rd best prospect and so looks good in comparison to the rest of the system. That's not to say the Sox shouldn't give him a shot in the bullpen if he pitches well in spring training next season -- there's always a chance he can beat the odds.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 11:21 AM) Joe Torre deserves better than this franchise and he'd never consider it. I agree. Torre has always struck me as classy. The current management of the Sox organization has not. Plus, I don't see why Toree would subject himself to managing a second-division team.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 12:25 AM) Above average in pitching simply has a lot of value, especially this upcoming year where there is none available this offseason. It frees the Sox to move Garland for other holes, and to work in some of the younger pitching. Young still needs to develop, especially his OBP. He may improve leaps and bounds next year, or he may regress a little bit. No one knows, but Vazquez gives you stability - 200 innings and 200 K's. That has a lot of value in MLB, more than Young, as there is far more CF available than quality starting pitchers. Those available CF cost a lot more and don't go 30/30. There's no team in baseball right now that would trade Chris Young for Javier Vazquez.

QUOTE(whitesoxin' @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 11:07 PM) Do all of you actually value a .237 leadoff hitter more than Javier?? Give it a rest already. For how many years prior to 2005 did we b**** and moan about having too many right handed power hitters that only swung for the fences and hit for a low average? Yes...Vazquez is expensive, old , and has been mediocre more often than good. Young is cheap, young and on the verge of stardom. He is an excellent CF and has elite power and speed -- not just for a rookie, but in all of major league baseball. His minor league track record shows he can get on-base. There's simply no way to defend trading Young for Vazquez. None at all. You can go out and sign a free agent pitcher to put up the same numbers as Vazquez at the same price -- look at Lilly and Meche from last season. You can't go out and sign a player like Young and have him cheaply controlled for 6 years. So which is more valuable? I even like Vazquez a lot. Enough that I sort of hope the Sox don't trade him, even though I know they should. But to focus on Young's one failing while ignoring his excellence in virtually all other aspects of the game as rookie is crazy.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) Maybe they could have made the playoffs if he did anything the first 4 months of the season. He did have the lead in all but 3 of his starts in 2006. We shall see. He was good in the beginning with the Yankees but awful the second half. They couldn't wait to get rid of him. Next year, the slate will be clean and hopefully the team will be better and Vazquez can pitch like he did this season. It appears it will be vital for the team to do anything. And maybe they could have made they playoffs if Buehrle had pitched at replacement level in the 2nd half of 2006. I'm not even saying that Vazquez is good -- certainly he's overpaid based on his results of the last 4 years.What I am saying is that Vazquez pitched well in games that were important to a team in the playoff race -- he didn't fold under pressure the last 2 months of 2006. That's just a fact. So it's not like he only pitches well when there's nothing to pitch for. Honestly, I like Vazquez and the fact that he can actually K people. But the Sox would probably be wise to trade him this offseason coming off of a good year in a weak FA market while his salary doesn't seem like a burden to potential trade partners.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 12:43 PM) However, he was the one who got the enormous run support and still couldn't get us the victory. For all this talk of how good he was down the stretch, he still went 2-8 post ASB last yr. The offense tanked last half of 2006 -- and you know that. And you also know that W-L is a crappy measure of how good a pitcher is. Maybe Vazquez does fold under pressure -- I don't know. I do know he did pitch very well down the stretch when the Sox still could have made the playoffs in 2006.

QUOTE(knightni @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) I'm just saying that Vazquez has a history of performing better when there are no expectations on him. That's all. In August and September of 2006, in 77 innings Vazquez was: ERA = 3.86 K per 9 = 10 BB per 9 = 2.7 HR per 9 = 1 K/BB = 3.74 As late as Sept. 14th last season the Sox were only 2 games out of the wild card, and they were within a half game most of August. I don't know whether or not Vazquez is a "choke artist" but the fact is he pitched very well in a playoff race last season.

I should probably add -- if Rogers doesn't know for sure AZ would have taken Anderson, he's done a tremendous disservice to Williams and bad job as a journalist. And if that's the case, I'd like to amend my previous comment to be that Williams should only probably be fired....

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Oct 6, 2007 -> 10:23 AM) Javier is doing well today, but doing so on a losing team. I suspect his "success" would be much different if the heat of the spotlight/pennant race were on. Vazquez pitched very well down the stretch last year in August and Sept. when the Sox were in the race (just a game or 2 out of the wild card). I've posted the numbers before.... That said, can anyone seriously think at this point that Williams shouldn't be fired? I like Vazquez -- I think he's a good pitcher. But he's worth nowhere near as much as Chris Young. And if the Sox simply hadn't made the trade, they would have been a stronger team in 2006 and perhaps made the playoffs. The Sox have arguably the worst minor league system , and the vaunted change in philosophy of putting Laumann in charge doesn't inspire confidence at all -- his drafts were marginally better than the others. The man gave up Chris Young when he didn't have to. The only prospect in the system with bat speed to hit a major league fastball. The next stupid move: trading Garland for relievers or signing Eckstein really should be the final straw.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 5, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) It's really amazing, isn't it? It's going to be scary going on rotoworld every morning during the offseason looking at the possible deals were involved with. I can already picture it now: Garland and DLS for Tejada. The reality will be worse -- Garland for 2 relievers (one proven!) and Eckstein at short for 3 years at $7Mper.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 11:58 PM) We don't use teal here. We use green. But it isn't always necessary. That said, I don't know if he was kidding or not. He shouldn't be kidding. If KW believes what he says, then the Sox will not return to playoff contention under his leadership. He's espousing the SF Giants and Oriole organizational philosophy of signing aging players to deals that tie up the payroll and ignoring the minor league system. The Giants were famous for signing crappy free agents just so they didn't have to pay the signing cost of a first round pick. I guess declining arbitration on Riske was sign this was coming. I'm tired of hearing how this a championship core -- by that logic the Sox should bring back Timo Perez. Williams this season has repeatedly overpaid for aging mediocrity (Dye, AJ....) and is going to give a few million dollars to the likes of Ozuna and Mike Myers. That adds up -- to more than the cost of signing a decent draft choice. I miss the GM who was willing to trade Aaron Rowand. All of a sudden, when the team sucks, KW decides to become conservative.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 08:19 PM) You keep Uribe if you can upgrade the offensive player in CF and 2b. I agree. The options FA and in-house options for SS are weak and bad. If the Sox could rip up Uribe's option year and pay him $2M or $3M for next season, that'd be OK if the OF is filled with bats that project to .800+ OPS and someone like Loretta is brought in to backup/replace Richar & Crede should either suck. Bringning back Uribe isn't a good move, but it's a better move than giving Eckstein $21M for 3 years

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 10:00 PM) Get over yourself, the team looked promising. Maybe not locks to win the division, but certainly not as horrid as it turned out. Besides, it's not as if Erstad was a virtual lock, the rooks were in position to win a spot if they could have performed. Also, Pods was an every year type player, producing well in those opposite years. His past trend told he would have performed this year if he could have stayed healthy. Unfortunately he couldn't. Holy Moses. A team with 2 sub .700 OPS bats in the OF is obviously in trouble unless they have greatness everywhere else. Erstad got outperformed by Anderson in spring training, was given the starting position and proceeded to have the kind of year most people thought he would. And Pods being an "every-other year" player? What magic makes a guy play only every other year? Pods past trend over the last season and a half coming into 2007 said he'd be a .330 OBP player with no power, weak defense, and lots of caught stealings. Or he'd be hurt. It's not like it's a shock POds & Erstad got hurt. They do it all the time. Counting on them with a craptastic minor league system was a bad idea.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 09:34 PM) Nothing has gone right for us this season. I'm just going to expect the scenario of HOU/WASH losing, us winning, and thus having the 10th pick. It'd only be appropriate. Atleast we can count on a Tim Lincecum type falling to our position, right? Why not? Williams is obviously using "Brian Sabean's Guide to General Managing", getting a Lincecum like prospect would only be fitting. This blows...Mike Myers, Pods, Uribe, all on the fast track to return next season. The Sox crying poor in press about signing draft picks (after they are willing to throw at Myers). Ridiculous. I think I'm ready for a change in management -- bringing back the 2007 team but with an aging overpaid CF and Owens or Pods in LF will tell me for sure that's true...

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) Why is Williams talking on the postgame conference as if they're reconsidering Podsednik for next season? Because I'm sure they are. Gotta have a speedy leadoff man. Ozzie already said Fields is not assured of being in Chicago next season. I'm getting the feeling that the Sox won't see a change for the positive until a new general manager is in place.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 09:06 PM) It's a fitting way to end this crappyass season. I just knew it was to good to be true, getting to draft an elite talent. Now we get to hope that one of the elite talent falls and that we are willing to be the big spenders to draft them. Lucky us. A Jordan Danks overdraft here we come.....

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) You mean a guy like Kemp? his career .303/.337/.487 seems pretty Torii-like. And the guy hit 340/400/535 above A ball. Did I mention he turned 23 only a couple of days ago? I don't get the esteem that Hunter is held in around here. He's certainly good, but Kemp is likely a better offensive player next season. Hunter is going to hit around .275 with a .330 OBP and an .800 OPS -- like he has for the last 4 years. He has good power for a CF and some speed. His glove is still above average IMO, but nowhere near what it once was. And the kicker is that he's gonna make at least $15M a year. His production is simply not worth that. Replacing Hunter with Kemp would be an upgrade for the Twins -- the production would be similar and the Twins then have $12M to sign a non-Batista-like DH/3B.

Here's a link about the ice age prediction.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:19 AM) A speech from Inhofe? So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) picked Canada citing almost exclusively the lower costs to Toyota due to Canada's national health care system. If we can finally get rid of unions that artificially drive up wages, the U.S. can be competitive without a national health care system.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Almost every team in baseball would love to have a guy like Garland in the rotation and any team looking to improve the pen will have to consider Garland as he'll be one of the 3-4 very best pitchers on the market. Hell, Contreras could possibly one of the 5 best pitchers on the market (the market this year is freaking horrible...there are zero worthy FA starters and aside from Blanton I can't think of many starters better than Garland or even Contreras for that matter). Therefor if you want a starter, you'll have to come to CHicago and Kenny should have all kinds of leverage. Garland costs $12M, and the team trading for him gets 1 year of league average pitching and a draft pick or 2. And with the price of FAs, young talent is much more valuable than it use o be. Garland can net the Sox a B prospect + maybe a C prospect or 2. He's not going to bring back a young player that has had some success in the majors or anything like that. He can probably get what the Sox got for Garcia or maybe a little less: a B prospect (Gio) and a project with little probability of paying off (Floyd). It doesn't matter if the FA market isn't great (and Silva could be a better pickup than Garland -- he'll make less next season). It matters what people are willing to trade.