sircaffey

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) DET and KC definitely. CLE I think stayed the same, if that. MIN has, in my view, gotten worse, and if they trade Santana then who knows. But yes you have to consider that. I say CLE will be stronger mainly due to Hafner not possibly being as bad as he was last season. They didn't lose anyone, and improved their pen. Hard to say they'll be worse.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) Improvement is there - the potential of the newer players is pretty clearly higher than who they replaced, in my view. But you never know what they will actually do. I never said otherwise. You can't write any of it in pen anyway - its all guesswork. I guess it's all objective anyways. I don't see overall improvement, but that's just my opinion.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) You are using potential to state what could go wrong, and you are right. But then you said the "improvements" are based on potential. Well, which way is it? There is no knowing for sure what this team will do. I agree that its very volatile. And the offseason isn't over yet - I don't think we have the full 25 man roster at this point. But looking at the "potential" of the players at each position and who they replaced, I think its pretty clear the new guys out-potential the old guys in all those cases. Right. I'm just saying potential is not the same as improvement. Just don't right in pen when you list the improvements on this club.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) It COULD be a 100 loss team or a 100 win team - but neither are anywhere near likely. LF looks like it improved quite a bit (Quentin over Pods), CF is a little better (Ramirez/Owens over Erstad or just Ownes), Linebrink adds a big boost to the pen, 2B has a big question mark but should be at least as good as what Iguchi was doing in the first half of 2007, and O-Cab is a farily large upgrade over Uribe at SS. That's 5 positions. Not to mention that Fields and Owens should improve in their second years, and the potential that Ramirez could be more than a platoon guy in CF and 2B. Plus the team still has Uribe and Crede to trade. All that, and one negative (admittedly, a big one) - Jon Garland being replaced by Danks/Floyd. Unless something else is done later this offseason, that's a big downgrade, probably. This team is significantly improved. But as I said, its still no division woinner, because DET and CLE look amazing. Your "improvements" are merely based on potential and not performance. I'm not saying they won't be improvements, but don't react so emphatically when someone thinks they won't be. Quentin could remain injury prone, Richar could continue to hit like he currently is, Fields could experience the proverbial sophomore slump (he doesn't even have a position yet). Not to mention this team's depth is non-existent. Plus, the potential holes in the rotation could negate any improvement to the regular lineup. We've seen what just one hole can do to a team (2001-2004). Double or triple that effect. It could be absolutely crippling.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) So let me get this straight... a 90-loss team that improves at, so far, 4 or 5 slots - and falls back at 1 (JG)... and who had significant injury problems in 2007 at 3B, C, LF and CF... becomes a 100-loss team in 2008? What a joke. This is no division winning team, but Mr. Gonzalez needs to get a clue. Let's be honest here. This team could go either way. There are a whole host of question marks (Quentin, Richar, Owens, Floyd, Danks, the rest of the bullpen). None of them are good bets to be upgrades over what we had last year. They could, but it's just as likely that they won't be. Right now, I see two upgrades at SS and SU, and one large downgrade at SP. I don't find it insane for people to think this could be either a 90 win team or 100 loss team. This team is that volatile to me.

QUOTE(shipps @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Iam being serious.You have to be able to pick up the spin on the ball or the way the ball is hit off the bat.Its hard to teach someone the eye for that. Yet he has the eye to see the spin on a 95 mph fastball, 90 mph splitter, 85 mph slider, and everything else. Let's just say for a second that seeing the spin is even what fielders do, I'm pretty sure Josh has the eye to be able to do that.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) Everyone has extremely short memories, Joe wasnt exactly a gg'er when he first played 3B for the Sox. Fields has the ability to be an all-star caliber player, lets see if he can realize that potential. Yes sir. Josh is probably the best athlete on this team. He has all the tools to become a good player no matter where he ends up.

QUOTE(striker62704 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) I would like to see us trade either Kornerko or Crede, with Fields filling in for whichever gets traded. Kornerko is probably a better trading chip than Crede and frees up more money. Trading Kornerko would leave us with Crede at 3B and Fields at 1B which is better defensively than Fields at 3B and Kornerko at 1B, IMO. You don't want to trade Crede or Kornerko just to get rid of them. Like KW always says, the right matchup has to occur first. You don't want to keep them and stunt your best young player's growth either. The right match-up has to be broadened a lot in a situation like this.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) Aramis Ramirez says hello. Players can, and do, improve defensively. Joe Crede wasn't created with a gold glove on his hand either. He improved. He was never bad defensively, but he took steps up. FWIW, Josh has only been playing baseball full-time for 3 years now. Compared to Joe's 11 (and that's just pro ball). Josh will improve.

Addition by subtraction. I'll take whatever I can get for Crede. The Josh Fields Era has begun.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) It means look at the attendance figures over the years. Sox fans show up when the team wins, and they don't when they are losing. Most teams have some amount of this going on, though with the Sox it seems more extreme. Certainly its the near-opposite of the Cubs, who draw almost the same no matter what garbage they put on the field. I'm asking more because I'm curious to see the numbers, but what are basing that off of? From the numbers, I've got (2001-2007), it appears that it takes an extreme event like the World Series to change the figures. 2001 attendance was putrid after a 95 win 2000 season.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 02:56 PM) Even though some folks here don't see a difference between 70 wins and last place, and 85 or 90 wins and staying in the hunt until near the end... some fans do. So you can bet that having a team like the one he is trying to set up here will draw more crowds than a 5th place team would. Yes, there is of course a lingering effect of 2005. But if the team is awful in 2008, it will lose that effect a lot faster than if its good but not quite good enough (which is what I think is likely). I guess you have a ton more faith in next year's team than I do. You must see them as a 90+ win team if you think they are "not quite good enough." There is no statistical data to back this up, but I would say that 3 seasons of either last place or 4th place finishes coupled with 5-6 years of 2nd place or 1st place finishes would bring in a lot more revenue than a consistent 8-9 years of 3rd place finishes. What you do now effects you greatly in the future. If you rebuild now, what you lose today, you gain tomorrow. (low attendance figures during rebuild, higher figures post-rebuild + major playoff appearance revenue). I guess it all depends on how you view the current make-up of the team. If you think the current team can make the playoffs in the near future then stay the course. If not, I believe you abandon ship.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) I think that you misunderstand the way Sox fandom works from the business perspective of the Sox. If the Sox throw in the towel and spend 2 or 3 years outside of contention (like they were in 2007), their attendance takes a gigantic hit - and so does their revenue. Thus making it difficult it not impossible to compete. The fact that the Sox have had a high end payroll the last few years, after being near league bottom for most of the recent decades, is directly related to having KW as GM. He understands you have to have a team in the hunt most years, or else the team will have no payroll to work with. That's his philosophy, and the attendance and salary figures indicate how successful he has been. If you do a massive rebuild right now, and spend a couple years with KC-like records, after 2007 was already so awful... and the team is screwed for a long time to come. Because of the nature of Sox fans, and because they play in a very tough division, the rebuilding in place that KW is doing is the only way to go that makes any sense. No, I don't misunderstand. The World Series effect is going to wear off soon, and we are going to be right back where we were in KW first 4 seasons (low attendance) unless he catches lightning in a bottle again. This team can not compete with Detroit and Cleveland in the next 5 seasons the way it is set up now, imo. Rebuilding will drop attendance, but so with consistent mediocrity. KW's method does not keep attendance high. Even after 2000 when we led the Majors in wins, we were 26th in attendance in 2001. Even when we "competed" in 2003 we were 21st in attendance. The only reason why attendance has been high the past 2 seasons is because of the World Series effect. Once that is gone, and that's coming shortly, we will be back to pre-2005 figures. In fact, I may argue that now is the best time to rebuild due to the WS effect still having some impact. Playoff appearances is the only thing that can keep the the Sox attendance figures level, imo. KW has managed to make the playoffs once in 7 years. Not very competitive if you ask me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) If by a "pure" rebuilding phase you mean trading away most or all of your established talent above 28 years old and giving up the idea of being a title contender... then you won't see it as long as KW is GM. For good or bad, he just won't ever do that, I don't think. That's my thinking as well which is why I voted for KW to be fired.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) In a way, he is already rebuilding. I mean, look at the rookies who have jumped into significant roles on the team last season and this offseason - Fields, Owens, Richar, Quentin, Ramirez... that's 5 guys who were rookies in 2007 or will be in 2008, that are likely to be on the 25-man roster (and all but Ramirez are likely to start). Then there are Floyd and Danks in the rotation, and a still-young bullpen (aside from Linebrink). This team, since Opening Day 2007, has gotten younger at LF, CF, 2B, 3B, 2 SP's, and most of the bullpen. In a way, but he's still "competing" in a way too. It takes a lot of patience to go through a pure rebuilding stage, something we might be headed for.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 26, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) Well, I agree with most of what you said there...I didn't particularly care for the Dye extension, but if the alternative is one decent prospect, I think you may as well extend them at a decent market rate and then look to move them again sometime later. As for the pitching staff, I really, really don't think that the pitching staff has to win 25 games more for us this season. I think we need improvements from our offense, our bullpen, and our defense as well. Can we make the playoffs this year, I think our chances are worse than they were last season. But I don't think you can judge Kenny simply on whether we make the playoffs this year. If we start out slowly again, I fully expect him to start moving veterans and building towards 09' and 10'. And if he can't get that done, then fine, I'll admit he misinterpreted the landscape and should probably be replaced. Should be interesting to see KW go from ultra-aggressive to ultra-patient or at least try to do so. Does he have the personality for a rebuild? That's a question needing an answer.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) One possible bright light? Did you miss the offseason or something? The team improved and picked up a serious prospect for LF in Quentin... improved at SS with a gold glove defender with a decent OBP in Cabrera... bullpen was improved by adding Linebrink, so that Jenks has a solid setup guy in front of him... and having Ramirez gives the possibility of a future starting CF or 2B (if Richar flops). I understand people are disappointed that KW didn't get his reach guy (M-Cab) or one of the high end CF's out there (Hunter, Rowand). I was too. But so far offseason, the team has improved in LF, CF, SS and the bullpen to varying degrees. Not to mention the addition by subtraction of Erstad, Pods, Myers and Gonzalez. This is a significantly better team than 2007's. Probably not good enough to win this division yet, but, a lot closer than they were. And the really underappreciated story to me, this offseason, is the large number of front office and scouting/development staff moves. Its clear that KW and company are serious about making changes to the way the team develops young talent - something that was sorely needed. Expect the 2008 minor league season, and the draft, to have a very different look than recent years. Going forward, chances are, Crede and Uribe will be traded for prospects of some sort, which can only help the farm system (though probably in a small way). The only place the team got weaker, probably, is one SP spot - and I do agree on that being a potentially big issue. I am hoping that Kenny can add a last minute pitcher to the mix. Hopefully you are right. The draft should be a clear cut way of determining whether this organization really changed it's philosophy or not. We'll need to go over slot to make up for the lost draft picks. I look forward to the draft more than the rest of this offseason personally.

QUOTE(joesaiditstrue @ Dec 26, 2007 -> 08:16 PM) actually (speaking from position players for the moment), the only position youth boston is using right now is Pedroia and perhaps Ellsbury in 08 (are they confident in keeping him in CF all year if they intend on competing for back to back championships? or will they keep crisp just in case?) Pedroia is far from being a lock in terms of a successful career, and so is Ellsbury so we're back to the veterans, and both teams are ~30 years old for team average, so then you just have to evaluate talent on a player to player basis and the redsox are much better hitters than our guys are, it's really that simple When I say the age of the core isn't a problem for the Red Sox I mean that they have impact young talent waiting. Once Big Papi, Manny, Lowell, and company stop producing, Boston will be loaded with a new wave. When Pauly, Thome, Dye, and company stop producing, the Sox will be s*** out of luck. I don't, however, think age is much of a problem for next season which is what I think you are referring to mainly.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 26, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) Until very recently, Boston has not developed crap from within. Name all the players from their Championship teams that they developed from within, please. If we are talking about last season then Ellsbury, Pedroia, Papelbon, Varitek, Youkilis, Delcarmen, Buchholz, Lester straight from the system. Honorable mention to Schilling, Beckett, Lowell, and Crisp as they were gotten through use of the farm system via trade. If we are talking about 2004, what does it matter? At that time their "core" wasn't old either. That time period has no relevance to the current situation. They are stacked now, and now is what we are talking about. Farm systems fluctuate when it comes to producing Major League talent. The Red Sox are up now. Besides, they still had a good system back then. They just chose to acquire Major League ready players with it. Not to mention, the Red Sox don't just hand jobs to the Jerry Owens and Danny Richars of the world. It takes a special kind of prospect to crack the Red Sox lineup.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 26, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) The same thing applies. Look at Boston's "core." Papi, Manny, Lowell, Varitek, Drew. Our players are not too old. I don't think anyone said they were "too old." At least I was merely disagreeing with the statement that the core of this team was not old. And besides, Boston's situation is completely different that the Sox. They actually produce impact talent from within. They have a ton more youthful talent than the Sox and can get away with an aging core. Going forward, the age of our "core" is a huge problem with the way this organization produces talent, and is reluctant to bring in talent from the free agent market. On the other hand, it is not a problem for the Red Sox. Even in this upcoming season, relying so heavily on a core that is on the downside of their careers is somewhat of a problem.

QUOTE(joesaiditstrue @ Dec 26, 2007 -> 06:36 AM) one of the biggest misinformed statements i've heard about the sox is their starters are too old the average age of our starting lineup (ignoring pitching for a minute) 29.7 years old, this includes Fields in LF (Instead of Quentin, who is also young), Crede at 3B, Owens in CF the average age of the Boston Redsox (ignoring pitching) 30.5 years old, this includes Pedroia at 2B, and Ellsbury in CF age has nothing to do with why we're bad. we're bad because we have BAD players. He said "core". Owens, Crede, Richar, Quentin are not core players. Our offense is never going to be built around those guys anytime soon. Dye, Konerko, Thome, and Cabrera are all old and part of the core of the current team.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 01:46 PM) I think Skiles isn't a very good coach (I put a bunch of stuff in the NBA thread about it), and I don't blame Pax for firing him at all, but this team has a lot more issues than this. A lot more work needs to be done if anything will be fixed. Agreed. Skiles' tough "his way or the highway" type style was going to wear on the players at some point or another. For some reason the Bulls always start horribly every season, and I think it's due to Skiles' rough coaching style. I would welcome in a more players' coach for a change. We no longer have a team filled with a bunch of rookies or second year players. We have a somewhat veteran team who knows what the NBA is all about.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 02:50 PM) This is the same KW who put the pieces together to win the world series in 05, which included getting rid of Clee/Maggz. Than the following off-season was able to add a guy like Thome and Vazquez which should have made us better and many thought he was one of the better GM's in the league at the time. Now.... because players didnt perform its the GM's fault? I stand by KW till the end, I think he is still better than a lot of other guys out there. The most baffling part of KW's attack post World Series is the pitching. For a team that won the World Series solely on pitching, we suddenly have one of the poorer pitching staffs in the league. I think KW would be a good GM if he was able to develop talent from within. He can't succeed without available talent to support his ultra-aggressive style. But since the cupboard is bare, and not getting much better, it's time to bring in someone that cultivates young talent.

Mediocre and fired. Time for a new direction.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 05:25 PM) Ok, fair enough, I just disagree. I see Pedro as one of the all time bests, and I feel his pitches were all plus plus and had a ton of natural movement that you just cannot teach. Pedro's control was also ridiculous for a power pitcher. Something Volquez hasn't taken care of yet. Although Pedro did struggle with control early on like Volquez has so you never know, but it's hard to imagine another power pitcher with that much movement on all his pitches being that precise.