sircaffey

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:22 PM) That's a pretty bold/vague statement. I mean, what's your definition of young? Sabathia was 26 last year and won a Cy Young; that's pretty good as far as I'm concerned. And Scott Kazmir is 23 and put up a lower ERA than Verlander too. It wasn't made to be a pinpoint statement, and its not really bold. Point is, he's pretty f***ing good now, and pretty soon will be one of the top SP in the majors. There are maybe 2-3 other SP in the majors that can match his pure stuff

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 10:40 PM) you're right about one thing. if JC shows up, forget about it! let's be real. westbrook and verlander aren't that good. they won't repeat what they did last season. bondy has mental issues often giving up 3 to 4 runs in the 1st inning of every start. the tigers wish they had our pen at this point. zumaya isn't anything special post injury and grilli is just a running joke. i think our pitching is right there with the indians and tigers. especially given linebrink's addition. many aren't expecting much from him but if he shows up with JC, we're in the postseason. i don't think there will be a finer setup-closer duo in the central than linebrink-jenks. Was that really a serious comment? Verlander may be the best young SP in the majors.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 08:55 PM) Does he really believe that this is a championship level team? Sadly, I think yes.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) We're getting into the semantics of what an A prospect is, but no, I don't think Jon Garland would net the Sox an A prospect. I consider an A prospect to be one of the top 20 (or so -- this is admittedly a rather arbitrary number) prospects in all of baseball -- could Garland have netted a Justin Upton, a Phillip Hughes, a Clay Buccholz? I'm sorry, but there's no way Garland could net someone like that. And now we're talking about dealing a player at the deadline. So some team is going to give up six years of an A prospect for two months of Orlando Cabrera? Even if I am underselling Cabrera a bit, there's not a snowball's chance in hell the Sox get an A prospect for two months of The OC. Yeah, pretty much my thoughts.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 07:50 PM) Would Jon Garland have gotten the Sox an A prospect, I think so. Therefor, I think OC does, considering there are many in baseball that believe the Sox got the better of the deal (which would mean his value is > Jon Garland's). Are we talking about at the deadline? That's what I thought was the time frame. I think Cabrera could get a prospect like Gio now, but at the deadline at best we'd get a couple of Sweeneys. Garland would fetch more at the deadline purely due to everyone looking for pitching while there will only be a select few teams looking for a SS.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 07:38 PM) Keith, you are undervaluing Cabrera. He is not an averagish shortstop. As a whole he is an average offensive player, but all the other things he does, including the fact that he does it from shortstop makes him an above average player. I'm not going to say the Sox are going to get a boatload of prospects for him but they shouldn't deal him unless they got an A and B prospect, especially given the fact that if they hold onto him they should (barring some sort of a disaster of a season from OC) get 2 picks for him when he signs elsewhere. Judging by what Swisher got and considering he's under contract for 4 years plus an option at a very low level, there is no way you get an A prospect for Cabrera. Maybe a couple of B prospects, maybe.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) I think the last WSox homegrown pitcher to make/start the ASG was Buehrle. As far as top ten prospects drafted by the Sox...Fernandez? Bere? McDowell? StatManDu, where are you? James Baldwin. Started the 2000 All-Star Game I believe.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) DING DING DING Which is why if we trade somebody now ... it should be Dye not Konerko. And if we have this illusion that we are going to getting something for either ... *see sig And to think if so many people love this trade for the Sox, they are going to be vastly disappointed for the returns of Dye and Konerko.

At what point do you stop trading away pitching and start acquiring some? With prospects being as good as gold recently, where is the pitching going to come from? This team doesn't draft well. This team doesn't develop talent well. This team doesn't commit long-term contracts to SP (Buehrle being the one exception). So if we aren't going to develop it from within and we aren't going to get it from the free agent market, where is it going to come from? I just don't understand the philosophy here. You win the WS almost exclusively on pitching, and suddenly you choose to get rid of almost all of the pitching in this organization. I'm baffled.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) yeah man, i wish we had owens back in the lineup for some nice singles. Infield ones to boot!

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) If you have ever been at work, or perhaps at home, and sat down to take a crap only to find that you sat in somebody else's piss ... well that's the feeling I have right now. The little glimmer of hope we had left, not that it was much, is gone from our farm system. I have to wonder if the White Sox will develop another player during the rest of KW's tenure. Makes you wonder if Fields was just mistakenly left off of KW's big board, and this past season he found out Fields was actually in our system.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) and Santana would really improve our rotation... not. Yes he would. Currently 40% of our rotation is based purely on potential. Santana has more potential than that 40%, and 100% of our minor leagues.

QUOTE(AWhiteSoxinNJ @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) I. Indifferent as well. Good value. Horrible philosophy. Will wait and see if any pitching is acquired. If not, I do not like this trade.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) why would we want santana again? Because our SP is horrendous.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) But if floyd/danks fail, i don't think that it would've been Gio and DLS that we would've gone to this year anyway. Not this year, but next year they would have. Now if Floyd/Danks fail, we have to go to more reclamation projects or fringy prospects.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) That wont be a problem here. This is true.

Can we get some f***ing pitching into this organization please? Remember Nick, lift and pull.

More pitching out. More hitting in. Dandy. Good thing we're getting away from how we won the World Series. Talent wise, this trade is solid. Philosophy wise, it sucks.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) I agree he needs to go if he shows he can't win. Resting on laurels wouldn't qualify after two years when one was a 90 win season. All I'm saying is that a guy who has a winning record and a WS win shouldn't be fired after one 90 loss season. It's up to the individual as to how many poor seasons constitutes a reason to fire a GM. But it's unreasonable to think it should be now. Don't micromanage a person and fire them based on individual moves fire him based on results and so far I don't think KW track record of wins and losses is reason to fire him now. As the saying goes "managers and GMs are hired to be fired." I just don't think there are valid reasons yet. I don't care how the players we traded do for other teams, that just means we drafted well. It's how the Sox do that should determine KWs fate. Don't be afraid to make a trade that will help your team. If you only trade guys that won't do well elsewhere you will never get quality in return. Don't micromanage. Look at the overall results. It all depends on your definition of "win." Sure KW has a winning record as GM, but he has 1 playoff appearance in 7 years. Not good.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) I can't say I've seen him play much so I have no personal opinion of his defense. A quick look at one defensive measure, David Pinto's Probabilistic Model of Range, says he's indeed subpar, but was better than Ryan Braun, G. Atkins, Miguel Cabrera, Josh Fields, Casey Blake, Jose Bautista, Mark Reynolds, and Ty Wiggington. http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/023949.php From what I've seen, not many people think he'll stick at 3B.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) Here's the thing, though. In many cases, this isn't necessarily one of them because there never was a competition, unless you give that player a chance, Anderson or Sweeney, in this case, you never know. Anderson may just need a change of scenery. Or he may be a AAAA player. ALL GMs have to make that choice and they aren't always right, although some a right more often than others. That's what I'm saying. Had Anderson been the right choice, not nearly as many people would be upset over the Vazquez trade.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) The Indians have a good 3B??? According to who? Not even Indians fans believe that. Andy Marte is a bust. He's a lousy fielder who can't hit AAA pitching. He makes Brian Anderson look GREAT. One of the most common discussions on Tribe boards is who they can unload him on now that he's out of options. And that leaves 3B to Casey Blake, who at 34 years old in 2007 had the 3rd best year of his career (.270/.339/.437/.777 with 18 homeruns and 123 strikeouts)? So, do you honestly believe their 3B situation is better than ours?? Please.... We've got two 3Bs. They've got a guy older than Jermaine Dye who was supposed to play 1B for them in '07 but got called into 3B duty because their 'big 3B prospect' sucked his way back to AAA... again. Advantage - Sox. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- btw - What may occur (if Barfield gets his OBP above Uribe's) is Barfield at 2B, Cabrera at SS (his natural position), and Peralta moves over to 3B. That's one of the scenarios that Tribe fans are suggesting because Peralta is not a good SS fielding-wise. They're trying to find a way to keep his bat in the lineup + improve their defense. Who was comparing each team's 3B? I wasn't.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 02:22 AM) I would suggest that one is magnified because of fans' hyper-focus on and overly emotional reaction to anything that doesn't go well for their team. Such fans will generally also sport 20/20 hindsight. If you are suggesting that soxtalk fans, sox fans, and fans in general manage to take in all of the information on players' performances, GMs' trades, draft picks, contracts and free agent signings across the league and put them all into perspective and give thoughtful, rational reactions, I would disagree. Kouzmanoff completely torched the minor leagues all the way through. Put up a better rookie season than Josh Fields last year. And for all intents and purposes, the Indians gave him away for nothing. If that happened to our team, there would be 14 35-page long threads about it. I think it's a little of both. If Anderson would have turned out, not nearly as many people would be upset over the Vazquez trade. Kouzmanoff is also an absolute butcher in the field. A lot of people complain about Fields at 3B, well Kouz is worse. He'll soon be a 1B or DH, something CLE has no need for. Barfield is still a very talented player. I think it was a bad trade due to Cabrera's emergence, but had he not emerged, I think it'd still be a half-way decent trade for Cleveland.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) And the best that Konerko, Thome and Dye will put up is .274 30 HR's and 96 RBIs? If Hafner will improve over his poor last season whose to say that all three or at least two of three who had poor seasons won't improve. If their players can rebound from poor season why can't the Sox players? When did I say they couldn't? All I said was I thought CLE would be stronger due to Hafner getting back on track. That doesn't involve the Sox.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 11:37 PM) Anything that doesn't go well for Richar will be magnified by 50. Anything that Asdrubal does well will be magnified to "prove" how all of the other teams, and particularly our rivals, have all great young players. Their GMs never make moves that turn out bad. Their GMs would never trade Kevin Kouzmanoff for Josh Barfield (who would have to be sent down to the minors). But us suckers get stuck with Javier Vazquez in trading Chris Young. Chris Young would never put up an OPS+ of 89 last year and Kevin Kouzmanoff would never put up a 109. Slightly different situations there considering the Sox now have a black hole in CF and the Indians still have a good 3B. That's why one is magnified and one isn't.