sircaffey

QUOTE (scenario @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) And we only 'exceeded expectations' in 2 of the 8 seasons? Yes. Perhaps 2003 by a little as well.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 07:51 AM) You apparently didn't read my post about his 8 seasons, and my use of the word "almost"... and I'm the one smoking something? The Sox exceeded expectations in 2001-2004? Seems like only 2 of 8 seasons exceeded expectations.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) Another point...do those salaries count the $8-$10 million in signing bonuses being given out to their top pick? No, the $5-6 million they give out to their top isn't included in that. Peanuts nonetheless.

I think it's unfair to judge a GM by the number of winning seasons he has, especially when you inherit a joke of a franchise. It's not easy to have winning seasons with a $40 million payroll. And before this year, he had payrolls of less than $30,000,000. To still be able to build and improve your club with little to no resources is astounding. To build it up to the point it is right now, is even more impressive. He's done things with $30 mil per year, that the vast majority of GMs in the league haven't done with $100 mil.

Juan seemed like a good guy to me. Motivational problems perhaps.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) You do realize Kerry Wood is still a good pitcher, right? They're not paying the guy a tremendous amount, and they've got enough depth to compensate for any injury problems he might had. I actually think the Indians have had a pretty good offseason. As for the list, i'd say both Friedman and Dombrowski are too high. Friedman's had one winning season, yeah it was the World Series, but i'd like to see more consistancy. Dombrowski's just a complete moron. Friedman has to be there. It's astonishing to see what he's built the Rays into with the restraints he has. That organization was a joke just 10 years ago, and right now, it might be the best run organization in the majors, top to bottom. No one's done a better job of building their club, imo.

While Samardzija is rated a little high, he's a top 100 prospect for sure.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Well, players like Tony Gwynn, John Kruk and David Ortiz have had pretty "decent" careers (to say the least for 2 of them) at least less ideal body weights....same with Manny Ramirez. Kruk? He crapped out at age 34. Cecil Fielder only lasted to age 34 as well. Prince probably won't even last that long as he's much fatter than his father. Longevity isn't a fat man's friend.

I find 37-50 to be very questionable for the most part.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) I have zero concerns about Getz hitting at the major league level, I also feel the same about Lillibridge's defense at the MLB level. I agree. I think you can ink Getz in for a .270/.340/.400 line, minimum.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Were they more effective? They were more effective HR hitters but were they really more effective as overall players? Since the gained the weight and never lost it it's hard to tell. But is the increase in HR more effective than what is lost. In the case of Cabrera. Would he be more effective if he lost the weight and could still play 3B or the OF as opposed to being at 1B? His hitting may change some but is that change enough with the position change? Interesting question. It's just not the same weight. There's good weight gain, lean muscle. And bad weight gain, fat. Sammy gained nearly all lean muscle. There's concern over Miguel because his gain is fat. Sammy probably never played above 10-11% body fat. Miguel is sitting in the 15-17% range. Meaning, he's carrying roughly an additional 15 lbs of fat. It's useless to Miguel for the most part, and negatively effects his mobility. Bigger does not always mean slower. 15 lbs of muscle does not necessarily negatively effect your mobility if your frame can hold it. When Sammy came up, he was so scrawny that his frame could take an additional 15 lbs of muscle without losing much in terms of mobility (he obviously went more than that though).

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) I would care if I was giving them a long term deal. Injury factor increases. It also shows a lack of discipline. If they are hitting people would look the other way. However you can't deny that he would be a more effective player with less weight. Just ask Sosa or Juan Gonzalez who were effective CFer's early in their career and lost their athletcsim later and they weren't even fat. Ask Manny how effective of an outfielder he is. You take that weight off of Sammy or Juan and they are not nearly the same type of hitters. Sammy came up a skinny ~175 lbs. Some players need the added weight to become the best player that they can be. Both of them were much more effective with that weight.

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 09:06 AM) They have plenty of $- Over 90% Season ticket renewal, Ticket prices raised, Baseball TV $ hasnt gone away, on & on. Dont listen to that stuff we hear every year about their poor finances. I really wish they'd shut up, especially since they have a high payroll every year anyway. Yeah all those things are fine and dandy, but stuff like concessions and merchandise sales are going to take substantial hits. Getting people into the stadium is only half the battle. Getting them to spend addition entertainment dollars is going to be the really hard part. That's where the Sox are going to suffer substantially.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) no, the money is there. they just dont want to spend it. big difference lol The money could be there, but right now it doesn't seem like the Sox project the money to be there.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) He throws a ton of high fastballs. Whenever I saw him face a good hitting team, like the Cubs (AL caliber lineup), they knocked his stuff all around the park. Well then you caught him on a few bad days because he dominated in a handful of starts vs offenses that could hack it in the AL including the Cubs.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 24, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) We don't have the money to do this, and Sheets will be in for a rough time if he pitches in the AL. Why? He has quality stuff, great command, and is used to pitching in a good hitter's park. His stuff plays anywhere, against anyone.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69580

I'd take Hanley if his defense was up to snuff, but it's not. He should move to 3B, and at which point I'll take the GG defense and Ted Williams-like numbers from Pujols. I'll win a few World Series titles right off the bat, and worry about the future later.

Betemit, Marquez, and Nunez.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) His defense really isn't that good, for his career his UZR is -1.8 and last season it was +1 which ranked him 13th among CF's with at least 500 innings of play, (Carlos Gomez led all centre fielders at +17). That being said he was still more deserving of the gold glove than Nate McClouth was, McClouth had a UZR of -15.3 last season ranking him dead last among centre fielders, I believe he was also a -30 going by John Dewans +/- system surely making him one of the worst GG winners of all time. As for the second bold point Nick Swisher is a much better player than Young right now, he was just very unlucky last season, his line drive % stayed at a reasonable 19.3% but his BABIP plummeted 55 points and was 50 points lower than league average, that's not just unlucky, that's catastrophically unlucky. Nick's going to bounce back next season (given the appropriate amount of playing time) to post his usual .850 OPS and show Kenny just how bad that trade was. I'd take him back here as our centre fielder in a second. Chris Young's +/- for 2008 was +7 (enhanced +23) good enough for 3rd of all CF. This despite lacking in the arm department where he ranks in the bottom half. He can track 'em down with the best of them. Nick Swisher on the other hand, is Mackowiak-like in CF.

QUOTE (philadelphia sox fan @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) We'll see... thats what they said about Bo Hart and Marcus Giles Haha...Bo Hart? Really? Good move for the O's. Markakis is the future of that franchise. He's a complete player.

QUOTE (bschmaranz @ Jan 19, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) But doesn't his ability to block a deal to most MLB teams kind of hinder the Padres ability to do that? That, and the teams that are going to be able to take on that contract will narrow it even more. The Cubs are one of a few teams able to handle that whole contract. Sure, the Padres could get better talent if they were willing to pick up a lot of the contract, but they're going cheap, and probably don't want to do that. If they can get Vitters, Olsen, and a couple other prospects from the Cubs without having to pick up any salary, I think they'll do it.

Any metric that puts Javy ahead of Johan Santana, should be rethought. Johan had a tRA of 3.75 compared to Javy's 3.51 last season. In fact, Johan had a worse tRA in 2007 as well. I guess the Mets should have spent $200 million on Javy. This "statistic" is garbage.

After a quick search, some pitchers that have been described to have power changes are Hamels, J.Santana, Okajima, J.Francis, R.Ramirez. Lots of words like "drop" and "dive."

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 08:19 PM) In the article that had the link to it, I read where Marquez has a power chageup to both left and right handed hitters. Does anybody know exactly for sure what a power changeup is. I did some searching, and came up blank. The best description that I could find is that a power change doesn't "float" up to the plate ala Tom Glavine. So basically it has a good amount of downward movement.