sircaffey

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 04:14 PM) Danks also gave up 12 of those in 50 innings in the second half; that's not excusing it, but it's not like it's uncommon to see a young pitcher who is fatigued later in the year get tired and leave the ball up quite a few times, especially guys who don't throw it 95+. Danks also pitched in the AL Central, where two teams averaged 5 runs a game (and two others average just under 4.5), whereas in the NL West only Colorado averaged more than 5 and San Diego, LA, and Arizona all averaged like 4.5 runs or less. And let's not act as if Lowry doesn't give up homers; 21 in 2006 in 160 innings is quite a bit, and he would give up more than that moving from AT&T to USCF. He was better last year, but I've seen no evidence that suggests he will be able to keep it down at 0.7 HR/9 throughout the year next year. If you can make it some sort of 3 way deal where the Sox deal Crede to the Giants, Lowry goes to another NL team, and the Sox pick up some decent prospect or two, then it's a good deal; otherwise, I really don't understand the point, because I'm not sure Lowry would pitch better than either Floyd or Danks, and he wouldn't be happy being relegated to bullpen work. First off, I'm not talking about runs. I'm merely talking about HR. ARZ: 171 HR COL: 171 HR SD: 171 HR LAD: 129 HR CLE: 178 HR DET: 177 HR MIN: 118 HR (2nd to last in MLB) KC: 102 HR (last in MLB) The NL West hit more HR than the AL Central (minus SF and CHW) last season. Lowry gave up 12 HR in 160 IP. Danks gave up 28 in 140 IP. Yeah yeah, Danks faces the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, etc. also. Here are the 5 top teams in MLB in HR for 2007: 1. MIL: 231 HR 2. PHI: 213 HR 3. CIN: 204 HR 4. FLA: 201 HR 5. NYY: 201 HR Again, Lowry gave up 12. Yes Lowry's worst season was 21 HR in 160 IP. In the other 460 IP in his Major League career he gave up a total of 43. He also gave up only 23 HR over 321 minor league innings. Over 200 IP, Danks was on pace for 40 HR given up last season. Yes the AL scores more runs, but they don't hit more HR. Lowry keeps the ball in the ballpark. There's sufficient evidence supporting that. If Danks tired after only 90 IP last season like you suggest (even if 12 did come in the last 50 innings, 16 came in the first 90 which is bad in itself), then he's not ready for a full season at the Major League level, and Lowry would absolutely be an upgrade. Come August and Danks is tiring, we can kiss a playoff run goodbye.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) He's also only thrown 200 innings one time in 3 full seasons at the major league level, and put up a 1.55 WHIP last year; John Danks had a 1.54 WHIP last year and an ERA of 5.50. I have no reason to believe that Lowry would put up an ERA below 5.00 in the Cell, so until I saw it, I won't even think about believing it. Yes, the Sox would be lucky to have him, but I really don't think he does anything for the Sox except take away MLB experience from Danks and Floyd. Danks also gave up 28 HR in 139 IP (16 on the road). Lowry, historically, hasn't given up many HR anywhere he's pitched. Not saying he's better (not saying he's worse either), just pointing out that Danks is no lock to ever be successful if he can't get the ball down more often. Danks' last 3 stops in the minors (AA & AAA in '05/'06) he had WHIPs of 1.54, 1.38, 1.43 compared to his 1.55 WHIP last season. Personally, I'd take Lowry next season over Danks, but I'd prefer to get Danks the experience.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 08:30 PM) Well if you're going to assume that every CS is a run that is not scored, then yeah there might be a case to be made about that. But the fact of the matter is, if a player steals 130 bases vs. 42 times caught, the positive results are going to far outweigh the negative. Plus factor in what I mentioned before, the stretching a single into a double; a double into a triple; 1st to 3rd on a sharp single, etc...and there is no way in hell anyone can suggest he only had a positive impact of 5 runs over the course of the entire season. Rickey getting caught stealing isn't just taking the opportunity of scoring out of his own hands, it adds another out to the inning and takes away another player's opportunity to score a run. Also, I am sure Rickey got caught more than few times trying to stretch an extra base out. Getting thrown out has a much higher negative effect than stealing a base has positive. The stat wasn't that Rickey contributed only 5 runs over the course of the season, it's that his base running did. An average base runner adds 0 runs. Players like Konerko add negative runs. I don't think it's that hard to believe.

No. Although I am excited pretty much just to see Quentin play.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 10:38 PM) By "deal" he means "trade." If Johan wasn't traded by Tuesday night he wouldn't accept a trade at all, that's why the Twins asked all teams for their final offers Tuesday morning and accepted the trade Tuesday afternoon. So I assume if Johan is a man of his word, if this thing falls through he'll be a Twin in '08. Yes, that.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I'm thinking more about the season where he went .314/.419/.516 with 24 homers, 72 rbi, and stole 80 bases while being caught just 10 times.... Yeah, not too bad.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) Hmm...actually, I think they could possibly win the division if we could add Rickey in his prime.... Interesting stathead stat, Baseball Prospectus concluded in their book, Baseball Between the Numbers, that in Ricky's 130 SB season, his base running added a mere 5.1 runs over the course of the entire season (according to EqBR).

One of the panelists on Chicago Tribune Live said that Santana's agent told the Twins if there was no deal by Tuesday night, they would not allow any trade (Santana has a no-trade clause). Also, that Santana demanded to go to a team that has ST in Florida. FWIW... What a s***ty position for the Twins.

Can someone tell me what percent of Jerry's hits last season were infield singles? 83 of his 95 hits were singles which is pathetic already. I'm curious how many of his hits were based almost entirely on his speed.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) No, you're right. I forgot about Swish for a second there. Adding Crisp does absolutely nothing other than solidify our 4th OF position, which probably is a platoon player with Quentin. And at the price the Red Sox will likely command, it's simply not worth it. I would have been in favor of a Crisp acquisition had we not acquired Swish, but now that we have, I think it just makes things more complicated. I don't particularly want Owens out there, let alone another version of him- an older, more expensive version at that- however, we do have the problem of having no leadoff hitter and no true center fielder should Owens not be on the field. Our best option is most likely some OF of Dye/Swisher/Quentin with Owens platooning with Quentin and Swisher, and Swisher moving into the RF/DH/1b position on some of those days Owens plays. As you can see, adding Crisp just complicates this, unless of course, Owens is dealt. And even then, the price for acquiring Crisp as a 4th OF or platoon OF just doesn't make a ton of sense. Perhaps for a competing team at the deadline, but not at the outset. Why does everyone think Crisp would be expensive to get? He's simply just not that good and still owed a lot of money. The Red Sox don't seem that delirious to me that they'd ask for a hell of a lot for their 4th OF.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 01:37 PM) I thought the discussion was Egbert or Broadway, not both. I don't want to just give either of them away, but if adding one of them will get you a proven ML pitcher when the main piece you sending off is a health risk/free agent virtual certainty which is for most part slightly above average at his position, then yes, do it. I'd go only one to the Giants. We need the other one to spin off to the Yankees for Phil Hughes. Too bad we don't have three. We could probably get Buchholz from Boston.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) Unfortunately, selling low may not make much sense, but the other option remains losing him for nothing. Either we're selling low on him because he hasn't proven his back is healthy, we're selling low on him because he's 3 months away from being a FA if we move him a couple months into the season, or we lose him at the end of the year for nothing. Or we keep him, and hinder our brightest young player. It's a trade-off.

Sabean would have to be high on crack while eating shrooms to even contemplate some of these proposed deals. Stupidity isn't enough.

KW did invite past White Sox players to help out in Spring Training. How lovely a Roberto Alomar, Sandy Alomar, and Carl Everett reunion would be.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) Simply because projections like this, or other "pythags" and mundane calculations are meaningless until the games are played. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he will improve over last year, being as young as he was, with more experience under his belt. According to calculations like this, the 2005 Sox were a second or third place team that didn't win the world series. Let's just say "inexperienced". Jerry turns 27 in 19 days. He's quite old for a prospect.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jan 27, 2008 -> 11:13 PM) A lot of us said it when the trade happened, and it still holds true today. If Garland was used to bring in Cabrera as our LEAD OFF hitter, it was a huge waste of resources. I was really under the impression that after the Cabrera deal went down, a "lead off hitter" was going to be acquired. That never materialized. Cabrera is a good ball player, and a welcome addition to SS after the season Uribe had in 2007, but with the amount of holes this team had going into this season, Garland should have been used to acquire a bat that was more needed, or even just kept, because right now I think the biggest weakness on this team is a solid #3 starter... I agree completely. Although, I'd hate to see Cabrera bat 2nd just because he was originally brought in to do so. Right now, he's the best leadoff option we have.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 12:05 AM) It would still be a vast improvement over our 1-2 from 2007. I agree, but that's not saying much. A Cabrera/Swisher 1-2 would be an even bigger improvement, and would be one of the better 1-2 in the league.

Owens/Cabrera 1-2 would be one of the worst 1-2 combos in the majors.

QUOTE(soxfandude @ Jan 27, 2008 -> 05:14 PM) the only way we get cain or lincecum is if we give up danks or floyd along with crede Keep going...

Bobby himself might be "young" (soon-to-be 27), but his body was put through so much crap early in his career, I would not be at all surprised to see him start to steadily lose effectiveness in the next few seasons. Hell, he already lost some off his fastball. That could very well be the start of a downward trend. We might not even want Bobby in a couple years. Better to keep that option open. This could be one of those "peak value" type moments, where we wish we would have unloaded Bobby.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 11:20 PM) I wouldn't put Burnett in the same league as Beckett or Schilling. Also, Cain and Lincecum don't have the track record those two did before switching to the AL, so there's certainly no guarantee they'd be able to make the transition as Beckett or Schilling did. It would be nice to have either of them, though. I just don't think we have what it takes to get them without crippling our team in the process. I was just merely talking stuff wise. Burnett's fastball and curveball are very comparable, but yes Burnett is not in the same league as Beckett or Schilling (was) as far as performance. I too don't think we have what it would take to get either Cain or Lincecum, but it would be quite nice...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) Thank you. Closers are a dime a dozen. There is no way I give a long term deal to Jenks, with the way he has abused that body. Completely agree as well. I don't like both of these ideas for contract extensions to Cabrera and Jenks. I could see Poreda being the next closer for the Sox in a few seasons.

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 07:31 PM) 10 mil a year is too much for him. If it costs $10 mil for Cabrera, I'd rather go after Furcal. Considering Cabrera had a horrible 2nd half, and would be 35 and 36 in the final years of the contract (given a 3 year deal), he could easily be Vizquel part 2. At this point, I'd much rather take the draft picks for Cabrera, and spend a little more on a younger Furcal. EDIT: Although, I guess we would lose a draft pick(s) by signing Furcal, but either way, I'd much rather tie up big bucks into Furcal rather than Cabrera.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) Moving to the AL from the NL most certainly has an effect on your effectiveness. Moving from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park will as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/sports/b...ll/14score.html Have you seen any evidence that shows that switching leagues or moving to a hitters park does not have a negative effect on pitchers? There is also absolutely no guarantee that Cain or Lincecum becomes an ace, or even a solid #2. And if San Franciso was sure they would, I have no idea why they'd trade them. I know overall there's a difference, but guys with premiere stuff have a much easier time transitioning. It's tough to come up with a bunch of examples because there aren't many pitchers with Cain and Lincecum's stuff, but here are some recent examples. Burnett, Beckett, and Schilling before he became an old fart have all made the transition rather smoothly although Beckett did have a rough first season before dominating last season. Mid to high 90's FB, 12-6 CB are dominating no matter who you pitch to. We're talking about Jenks-quality. At 23 years old, they are special. San Fran would be crazy to trade them unless they get a great package. I seriously doubt we'll see the Giants trade either.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 26, 2008 -> 01:14 AM) Do you think Cain or Lincecum could be any better than a solid 3rd starter in the AL Central? I'd think that's the only reason you'd make the trade, since we already have 4th and 5th starters aplenty. How important of a factor is defense at 3B to you? To me, it's one of the least important defensive positions, with LF and 1B. Most stats point to the same conclusion, as well. I think Crede is overrated based on his defense, and that with Cabrera at SS, you won't notice too much of a drop off next year. Also, I can't really remember a game when Fields cost multiple runs, or the win, based on his defense. Can you? Teams already know Fields has trouble catching up to fastballs at times. I'm sure they had extensive scouting reports on him from the moment he came up. He adjusted, otherwise he wouldn't have put up league-average offensive numbers for a third baseman. I just think we're better off for the future, as well as in 2008, with Fields. Just because they pitch in the NL doesn't mean they'll drop significantly if in the AL. I hate that assumption. The assumption with Lowry is justified as his stuff isn't great, but Cain and Lincecum are nasty. They are 2 of the top young arms in all of baseball. It doesn't matter if they pitch in the NL or AL. They are future aces whether in the NL or AL. (I have little doubt Cain will. Lincecum's health is the only concern.)