hitlesswonder

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 10:36 PM) Two full years?? In 2008, he hit 47 doubles... 5th in MLB. And his 70 extra-base hits put him in the top 10 in MLB that year. Not a bad year even if it wasn't as good as 2006-7. He had a .337 OBP which is pretty wretched for his current salary level. His slugging was nice --it's true that 2008 was much better than than his awful 2009. I hope he absolutely kicks ass next season, and he is young enough that's it's possible. But I'm worried that there was a reason why he was given away. And I don't see how anyone can be confident that the Sox will turn a hitter around. The bottom-line is that if acquiring Rios means Andruw Jones and Pods starting at OF/DH because of salary constraints, it was a bad, bad move.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:56 PM) weve actually had a good track record with pitchers though... hitters on the other hand. I think that's a big consideration here. Rios obviously had a couple of very good years in TOR. But he hasn't been that player for 2 full years now. I'm not real optimistic that the Sox are going to help him figure out how to recreate 2007. Coop can't fix him...

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) I'm willing t give Kenny some slack because 2 of his biggest off-season moves were already made during the 2009 season: Jake Peavy and Alex Rios. Unfortunately, the Alex Rios move was a bust. He has a .775 career OPS. In 2009 he had a sub .700 OPS. The Sox are paying 10 million a year for a Brian Anderson clone: an awful hitter whose defense is vastly over-rated. Rios contract is why the Sox couldn't get Figgins this off-season. The Alex Rios claim is a disaster.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) All of those prospects for Upton? No. It would take at least Hudson, Flowers and a major league bullpen arm to get Upton. People don't trade talent for trash (usually). If the Sox want to contend in 2010, they have to decimate what's left of their farm system to do it. They don't have money, so they have to use prospects to acquire players. And I think they should do so quickly. If they decide to hang on to a bunch of B prospects and have a major league offense with (for example) Pods at DH and Andruw Jones starting in the OF that's just wasting all the effort that went into building the current pitching staff.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 5, 2009 -> 06:27 PM) 5th best? Is this a joke? Green? Well, light-green maybe. I think UI aganist any of ISU, NW, SIU, Bradley is a toss-up. I don't think you can say UI is certainly better than any of those teams, and the Boise State game (at home!) makes that clear. The Big Ten season is going to brutal for UI.

QUOTE (Felix @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) Get your numbers out of here. We all know that ISU would beat any team in the nation at least 5/10 times, they're just too clutch. Not any team -- just the University of Illinois. But then again, UI is only the fifth best team in the state, so it's not saying much.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 5, 2009 -> 05:31 PM) Hahaha... like pitchers are gonna f*** around with Jayson Nix. Oooh, Nix has pop, better watch out! They'll continue to eat him alive the same way they go after Josh Fields. Why? Because he sucks. I honestly had no major problem with Nix until you started all this. I thought he was a decent bench player and that's it. But now, I'm really beginning to hate that f***ing asshole. Nix won't even be on the Sox next season. If you read Cowley's article, Guillen and Sox management don't like Nix and his K-tastic bat one bit. They have already told Nix that he won't be on the roster unless he magically makes himself into an actual contact hitter. And that's not going to happen. They'll keep Lillibridge up next season before they keep Nix.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 2, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) Just because a thread is about Jayson Nix doesn't mean you always have to bring up Chris Getz in it... Some people have trouble dealing with the fact that the Sox have recognized Getz as a solid ballplayer, contact hitter, and future leadoff man while seeing Nix as a defensively challenged K machine that likely won't be on the major league roster next season.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) Sadly, we are stuck with both nix and getz next season, something i am not exactly looking forward to. The upside is beckham will likely play 150, ramirez 145-150, and getz around 135-140. I don't think being stuck with both is a bad thing. How many teams have a backup IF as good as Nix? I don't think it's that many. He may be bad at SS and I don't know about 3B but but he's good at 2B and his .700 OPS is fine for a backup. Plus he's cheap and cost nothing to acquire. Now, you could argue that both Getz and Nix are adequate backups and the Sox need a starting quality 2B. That's debatable.

Nix had an OPS 46 points higher than Getz this season (.716 versus .670). I think Nix's range is a lot better than Getz's, so while I don't know how much better Nix is at D, I definitely think he is better. Getz had a better batting average, and it's possible that because of contact issues Nix will be much worse than Getz going forward. But last season Nix was the better player. I suppose it's defensible starting Getz over Nix next season based on scouting projections (i.e. that Nix will crash because of the Ks), but I don't see why Nix should have his job in jeopardy for next season. He can sort of play SS and 3B and has some pop and speed; he's a god backup. Dumping him for Lillibridge or Retherford seems crazy.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:19 PM) Why is it amazing to you? Pods has value on this team and has been the leadoff hitter we needed. He is hitting over .300 and has over 20 steasl and hasn't played the whole year with us. We most certainly could do alot worse or pay a lot more money for someone different. I've read that of the 173 times pods has been on base he has been caught stealing 10 times, picked off 9 times, and picked off trying to steal 2 times. He's been a disaster on the bases and in the OF. He has hit really well, but given his age and track record I think it's foolish to expect the same production next season. I fully expect him to be starting either in the OF or DH next season. In fact, I think the plan is to have him DH next season given what Ozzie and KW have said about having a DH that can also play the field. But I'd much rather the Sox filled the open OF and DH slots from elsewhere.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 07:28 AM) I was thinking that last night...Chester Frazier's become the most overrated player in cbball history. Someone lumped his injury into that of Blake Griffin and Ty Lawson's. Frazier's a good defensive player and solid rebounder...but like you said, you would have thought he was a top 5 player in the country with all the attention given to his injury. I think Brock can adequately replace Frazier's defense and rebounding (and Jordan is a decent on-ball defender as well). The thing they lost with Frazier that they can't replace is his ball-handling. I don't know if WKU presses or not, but with Frazier out I would put pressure on Meacham and McCamey and see if the started coughing up the ball.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 09:00 AM) What a surprise, you're usually so upbeat. We'll win the division again, and go further in the playoffs. Because this team is better than 2008 in what way? Vazquez, Orlando Cabrera, Crede pre-injury and Contreras pre-injury we're all pretty good and are being replaced by people that likely will not perform as well. And Owens will likely not be an improvement over 2008 Swisher. Anything can happen in baseball, but I think saying the 2009 Sox are worse than 2008 is rational. And 4th place is more likely than getting to the ALCS.

QUOTE (Allsox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) The Cardinals are still paying some $$ on their new stadium so that's why they've been a little conservative on the payroll the past 3 seasons (Even with a WS title in '06). Once they complete those payments, they might be able to spend some $$ like the Cubs do. Speaking of the Cubs, I think points out how payroll figures for a single season can be somewhat misleading. The Cubs nominally had a lower payroll than the Sox last season (although it was higher if the PHI and CIN money are subtracted from the Sox payroll). But the Cubs have been willing to give out longer-term contracts (witness Soriano) than the Sox. There likely will come a time when those deals become a lot of money for not great performance. The Sox have been unwilling to do that.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 09:36 PM) And don't throw that "rebuilding" crap around. This team has a ridiculously high payroll with few good things to show for it. Hell, our BEST players are making pittance right now. It's mind-boggling. Someone needs to point out a team that's maintained worse than ours now so I can feel a little better. I would say Linebrink and Konerko are the only bad long-term contracts the Sox hold. That's not so bad -- many teams have a lot more. This year is difficult for a few reasons -- the Sox were clearly mandated to lower payroll. They had to shell big money to leave Tucson (was it $5M?) and they have $10M in the starting rotation that is sidelined because Contreras is hurt. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have the minor league talent to cover losing veteran starting pitchers (you can blame KW for that), but financially the team has not been poorly maintained. Look at Texas -- Young's contract alone is a bigger albatross than Konerko and Linebrink combined. Next year should be interesting. Dye, Contreras, Dotel, and Thome all come off the books (is that $38M....something like that?). I'll be interested in seeing if the Sox spend that or if the revenue reductions of this year simply cuts that out of the budget. Anyway, if you want to rip KW for misallocated money you are criticizing the signing of Konerko. Other than that, there's not much low production for $ on the team.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) Marquez was a supplemental 1st round pick who threw like a 1st round pick all through the minors until last year. Not all high draft picks turn out well. Not all low draft picks are scrubs. The other group that Marquez was compared to [Masset, Grilli and Glover] did not perform. IMO, based on potential and performance so far, Marquez is much closer to Danks, et al than Masset, et al. You need to consider the leagues and parks Danks and Marquez were pitching in. Danks came up in some very offensive friendly leagues/parks. I don't know about Marquez before AAA but the IL is not a strong offensive league. It's just my opinion, but Marquez is not even close to the prospect Danks was. Marquez has given up over a hit an inning his entire minor league career with very limited Ks. If you compare their numbers, Egbert looks like a better prospect than Marquez and no one thinks he's going to post a 4.67 ERA over 208 innings like Vazquez (which ranked Vazquez 32 in the AL among qualified pitchers). Right now, I don't see how the Sox will replace Vazquez effectively internally. He did not pitch like a #5 starter last year -- he was significantly better than that.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 21, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) OMG... I don't BELIEVE you're attempting this comparison. Marquez is a power arm. He has a 94-95mph fastball and a 90-93mph power sinker. As pitchers go... Wes Whisler is a great hitter. Period. link here It's an old scouting report, but I don't think his stuff has changed much. His fastball sits in the low 90s. Guys with fastballs that sit at 94 are very rare.

I would guess the signing would be Taveras. It sounds like the Sox would get outbid on D. Cabrera (which is fine), with 11 teams expressing interest. If you take Kenny at his word, they are currently over budget (presumably with Jenks arb raise factored in). Even a minor signing like Taveras at $3M forces Dye or Jenks to be traded. Given that, I'll be very surprised if the Sox make any significant FA signings season given their financial situation.

QUOTE (wsgdf_2 @ Dec 11, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) The obvious question would be "why would a team trade for Dye when they could keep their prospects and sign Abreu?" Dye effectively has a 1 year deal with a team option IIRC. It's unlikely Abreu takes less than 3 year deal. Dye makes a lot more sense to a financially conscious team than Abreu. The question really is, does Abreu make sense for the Sox? He's a butcher in the OF, which is something the Sox *seem* to be trying to get away from. And they would be on the hook to him for 2 years in which Abreu definitely should not be in the field and they already have a DH in waiting with Konerko. If the Sox want to cut costs and get young while trying to compete in 2009, Dye makes more sense for them than Abreu.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 9, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) Flowers and Lillbridge were top prospects for them, although Lillibridge might have been outside the top-10. He was close though. They've still got more. Morton/Reyes + Schafer/Gorkys + possibly another prospect should get Dye. In all honesty, given the way things have gone so far this offseason, I doubt the Sox can pry away Schaefer or Gorkys. I would imagine they could get one of Reyes or Morton with some low-level semi-prospect thrown. If Williams gets more he'll have done a great job.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 9, 2008 -> 12:30 PM) What do they have left that we'd want? Williams actually didn't get any of their top prospects with the last trade. The Braves have 2 good CF prospects in their system in Schaefer (sp?) and Hernandez. You'd have to hope for one of them rather than "major league ready pitching" like Reyes. Ugh.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2008 -> 08:20 AM) So giving people more health care, and less reason to be judicious about the care they seek is going to improve those conditions? One could argue with equal validity that lack of health care and preventive medicine leads to worse long-term health and people getting treated in ERs where costs are much higher than in a clinic. Forcing people to be "judicious" about health care by making treatment too expensive for them is not a solution to me. Other countries have equal or better healthcare compared to the US at less cost, so clearly it is possible to cover a greater percentage of the population without skyrocketing medical costs. Germany in particular has an interesting system, which has strong government involvement but is not state-run. In particular, people with private insurance get preferential. I have no problem with people who have more money getting better healthcare than poor people. What I dislike is people getting no health care (or healthcare at bankrupting cost) due to losing a job or having a "pre-existing condition".

Say what you will about the movie, the central conflict here is that schools are funded by tax dollars in this country and only 12% of the population want an evolution-only curiculum. 55 % want all three of ID, creationism, and evolution taught while 23% want creationism only. Given who is paying for the schools, people of faith can make a strong case that creationism and ID should be taught alongside evolution and if secularists have a problem with that, they can always home school. Or we can do away with public funding of education. It's a hard argument to refute.

I hereby agree

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 05:52 PM) I like this. So, it's not important if a candidate who espouses unity as his central campaign issue reveals himself to be a bigot? I think that's a actually important thing to cover.