bmags

QUOTE (quickman @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 06:22 PM) Funny half the time people on this board ask Rock to check with his source, now people are crapping on it because its not what they want to hear. I toohave personal friends with people in the media, and JimH who you all hate, has some great resources in the media, that said, it has seems that unless you are JR, KW, Johnny damon or Scott Boras everyone is shut down for the moment. Lets not trash Rock. If you don't want to believe his source, then don't. This board has the Ranger on it who is part of the media, close to many team resources, and chances are if KW told him something off the record, he wouldn't go and run with it to some internet board. you don't have to say people when it's one dude.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) Wow, you're gonna hate him even if the DH situation is resolved by Damon? Call me crazy, but I think Kotsay is pretty great to have off the bench. Besides, who else will back up 1b? EDIT: I can see trading him for a proper CI backup, though. One who can play both 3b and 1b. There was nothing hateful about that statement. edit: I don't even know who the hell "him" is in your post

If we sign damon i get rid of kotsay. But I know we won't.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 07:01 AM) I'm not sure what you're missing here. I was commenting on your words to someone else: "Again, I find it ironic, then, that you want to trade away the talent that we'd have cheaply for 6 years in the future for a one or two year player we can't afford to re-sign." You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with signing or not-signing Damon. I never said that it did. Right, which was about how he said we weren't thinking about the budget and wasting a 100 mill. payroll. I was saying keeping these prospects was very cost effective compared to having to plug in veterans. But yes, considering our history and where our budget will likely be in 2 years, and the fact that Adrian Gonzalez will net one of the leadin contracts in the MLB, it's a pretty safe bet.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 12:56 AM) I've never seen a 6-time duplicate post like that before, bmags. That's got to be worth a prize somehow. welcome to brazilian internet, where when it seems you are just waiting thirty goddamn minutes for the page to change, the internet is actually disconnecting and reconnecting and sending the same data over and over again. edit: like right now, i can't edit my above post...pretty tight.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 01:29 AM) The Dodgers have a lot more money than we do and were stupid to pay Pierre what they did. Hence their decision to eat half of his remaining contract. Also remember that Pierre was only on the bench because of Manny. I can't think of many players that would beat out Manny for a spot in LF. Pierre was also outstanding during Manny's suspension (.360 OBP). Yes, and getting Adrian Gonzalez would be the reason in this scenario you are forcing upon me to bench Pierre. It's pretty reasonable Okay, again in this hypothetical, you are adding in Carlos Quentin getting injured. And again, there are worse things than having adrian gonzalez at 1b, PK at DH, and that OF. I don't know how long in this hypothetical you are saying Quentin will be injured for. But in the short term you can live with that defense.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 01:00 AM) Pierre is a .290-.300 hitter who is good for a .330-.350 OBP and steals 30+ bases a year at a 75-80% clip. That's a perfect #9 hitter and relegating him to the bench with a $4.5M salary is an incredibly dumb idea. It's even dumber to rely on him to play RF or CF when Quentin suffers yet another injury. If the Sox were lucky enough to garner both AGon and Damon (which is extremely unlikely to begin with), they'd have to trade Pierre for a cheap RF to make it work. Otherwise, it would make the lineup even more one-dimensional than it already is and downgrades the outfield defense. Yes, it is a very unlikely scenario, that's why I'd bet more on the latter move happening than the former. But for one, paying pierre DOUBLE what we are paying did not stop the dodgers from sitting him. Why? It made their offense better. In this crazy hypothetical situation, you'd be sitting you're current LFer, a (likely) .330 OBP singles hitter but who gets a lot of hits, with someone who may have less average, but gets on base at a higher clip, has vast more power. Pierre is better at defense and steals, no doubt. And, in the case that Quentin gets injured, you have damon in right and pierre in left. Is it as good as Quentin in RF? No, but what team can ideally replace one of it's best players easily? These are easily workable circumstances if you are acquiring a 45 HR, potential 1.000 ops hitter. And again, you are acquiring at the deadline, so this would only be for 1/2 the year. You can rework the team in the offseason and sign as many aging minimum salary guys as will make your heart content. But in no way does sitting pierre for damon hurt us in any way except defense, and I'd imagine the offense makes up for those runs.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 12:42 AM) Not only that, but there's no room for both of them. AGon would likely play 1B, which would move Paulie to DH. If you wanted to maintain a 12-man pitching staff, Jones and Kotsay would have to be DFA'd. Pierre would have to be benched (which is a waste) with Damon taking over in LF. And if Quentin got hurt (again), you wouldn't have a legit RF anymore. The only way that this would be doable would be to carry 11 pitchers on the roster and hope that Jones stayed healthy enough to play RF if something happened to Q. Oh no, we would have to DFA kotsay and Jones? We would have to bench Pierre? We'd have a good DH and amazing 1b? This is like my wet dream.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Feb 19, 2010 -> 12:30 AM) But it also wouldn't be a Sox kind of deal to trade their best prospects for a player they didn't think they had a chance of signing beyond his current contract. The thing is that you just can't make an assumption of what they will be able to afford, what they will already have, and what their needs will be for 2012. Hell, they don't even know that for sure. You simply cannot discount the possibility that they would be willing, and able, to acquire him and hang onto him at that time. I'm not sure what you mean by this, because I don't conisder a hypothetical Gonzalez-for-prospects trade to have anything to do with plugging bench holes with veteran players. The two situations have nothing to do with each other. And, sure, you could acquire Damon and, at some point, pick up Gonzalez but there would be no real reason to have them both. Another deal would have to be made. You jumped into the middle of a debate over whether it's a better idea to use the DH/committee and wait for a player to open up to trade for, or to sign someone. So I was assuming that what you had interjected was in someway related.

Ideally I'd like the tigers/indians/detroit to all have the best teams possible and us to still beat the hell out of them. Royals aren't even realistic.

because the press now applauds him for his renegadeness. The only people that can change rules of institutions are not the people working in the institutions that have the ability to change the rules, but rather those outside, who can get paid thousands of dollars per speaking engagement.

such a weird year for the NBA isn't it? Just feels like waiting for the old guard to shift into what will be the new faces of the NBA for years.

i bet money this gets filibustered

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 10:37 PM) Maybe they win a couple world series, but I can't see them investing $20 million a year for a good 8 years in one player. It just doesn't seem like a "Sox" kind of deal. And, in all likelihood, he would command more than Teixera, of course, if he keeps up his numbers. And per Ranger, no, prospects aren't sure things. But neither are aging reclamation projects that are as cheap that we are plugging into our holes now. Throughout the years, trading prospects has been a better way to get more reasonable contracts and talent to the white sox. That isn't the case this offseason, when good value could be had without sacrificing our farm which is top heavy with no depth. If we can get Adrian Gonzalez, that's great. Bravo. I really doubt signing Johnny Damon will have any impact on that.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 08:05 PM) My argument is that owners and general managers don't look at their team in the same way that you do. You seem to have this notion that spending, spending, and more spending on veteran talent is the answer, despite the fact that that strategy has failed miserably in two of the past three seasons and that the Sox are already teetering on a $100M payroll with dwindling fan interest. Coincidentally, none of this money comes out of your own pocket and your ass isn't the one on the line when high-priced players like Dye, Rios, and Linebrink bomb down the stretch. This isn't a video game. Results matter in this business. If you don't get the correct ones, either your funding gets cut or you get fired. If you want to complain as a fan about the Sox not wanting to pay Damon the $9M or so that it would take to keep him from going to Detroit, that's your prerogative. But in the real world, that's not how things work. Hell, I'm sure that JR and the board would approve Kenny's request to fork over another $15M if he could agree to terms with a high-impact player that would likely add another 10 wins to this team and stimulate gate revenue (via winning) to offset that cost. (Remember, this happened TWICE last summer... and you know what the results were.) But since Kenny apparently doesn't think that Damon is going to turn the Sox into an instant contender, he's not going to continue to put his ass (and his job) on the line for people like you. Again, I find it ironic, then, that you want to trade away the talent that we'd have cheaply for 6 years in the future for a one or two year player we can't afford to re-sign. The white sox attendance depends on winning. If they don't win, people don't showup in sept. or august. We have a 100 mill payroll now. If we waste this season depending on merely bounce back years AND an unbalanced lineup, when we have 2 huge contracts on the books for years to come, it's a stupid move. We are talking about a 1 year deal to make a MUCH more balanced lineup and a MUCH better chance of overcoming injuries and getting to the playoffs with a great pitching staff. Instead you want to roll the dice with a 100 million dollar payroll on numerous gambles in your players you think can produce big, while taking huge gambles that the role players will produce AT ALL. With the lineup as is, we need everything to go right offensively to be middle of the pack. That's abhorrent for a 100 million payroll.

Has anyone ever had that luther vandross burger? Or did everyone whose eaten that already died of heart disease?

I have no idea what you're argument is, WCsox, but if it's that we should fill a DH spot with "floor is their ceiling" s*** DH players just because you were hurt in the past by our underperforming veterans, than I guess we agree to disagree. Signing Damon only helps this team. It's a 1-year contract. Keeping our DH sit. as is only hurts this team. And it wastes our pitching staff.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) Really? You were satisfied with Everett as being the primary DH? You have to remember that at the time I thought it would be for 2 mos. before Thomas would return. I had no idea thomas would then also get injured again. And in 04 thomas was having a damn nice season.

also in 2007 we had Darren Erstadt in CF and leadoff. Ugh god. And then a bunch of injuries you can't foresee, I know. In 2006 we had anderson. I won't fault them for that, it was his time, but the mackowiak/anderson debacle that year really was a big problem. Though the pitching staff falling apart was worse.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 07:58 PM) Would you have called Podsednik and Iguchi competent players before 2005?.... Do you remember how psyched this board and soxdom at large was about Iguchi? And this is one position that was EASILY FILLED. I'd be willing to let go Pierre, an inferior leadoff hitter, if we had a good lineup behind him. But instead we have a bad leadoff hitter to be coupled with a bad DH. That's 2 positions. But yeah leadoff is hard to fill. DH is easier to fill if you consider putting in bench players "filling it". I don't. I consider it a detriment to the team. And this well, let's see if this team fails or succeeds with a really bad offense before we add any players when you already have a 100 mill. payroll and an awesome pitching staff is really, really stupid, when you can just plug that hole with a 1) LH hitter (which is lacking ) 2) High OBP (which is lacking) player. It's a better allocation of resources, spending on a one year deal, instead of hoping that a really good bat is available for our not-so-deep farm system.

yes, I'm poor though.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 07:48 PM) It's true...last year at this time, we were b****ing about Wise being in CF. We all know how that worked out. and then we learned he was going to lead-off

QUOTE (WCSox @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 07:29 PM) I never said that I wouldn't spend that kind of money on Damon (and Kenny and JR apparently haven't, either, as they reportedly offer him $7M). But if Damon wants $8M or $9M, I could see why Kenny would choose to tell him to go away. How many high-OBP guys did we have in 2007 and 2009? Where did that get us? Look at the level of talent that the 2008 team had, and they couldn't do any better than one playoff victory. This team has under-achieved so badly over the past three years that it's not even funny. Who is likely to help this team more down the stretch: Johnny Damon or Carl Crawford? Johnny Damon or Adrian Gonzalez? Wouldn't you package Flowers with a couple of other prospects for Cawford? I sure as hell would. And speaking of rental players, I haven't seen any evidence of the Sox offering Damon anything more than a one-year deal. Damon is, in effect, a rental player as well. The Sox don't have unlimited funds and it's silly to whine and b**** about them not over-paying for a declining DH like Damon or Matsui. Especially when DH is really the only hole on this team. Complaining about Thome is fine... I get that and I agree that he should've been brought back. But the rest of this is just whining. The starting pitching is outstanding, the bullpen is very good, the outfield defense has improved substantially over the past 6 months. Given the contracts they're currently carrying, having a flawless roster is out of the question. Again, what's the downside to waiting and seeing how this team plays before deciding to invest more heavily in it? "How many high-OBP guys did we have in 2007 and 2009" Not many. We had a really bad OBP last year. And as has been pointed out, we had decent #s for men in scoring position, but those opportunities didn't exist. Last year we were 10th out of 14 teams in the AL in OBP. In 2008, our OBP was still pretty low, but we made up for it with more power. This year, we didn't add any more power, and it damn sure doesn't appear that we added more base runners. So, like 2007 and 2009, we are going to start the season with a huge, gaping offensive hole, watch us struggle, get 5 or so games behind and then use our minor league talent to nab a different player to fill this hole. In 2005, we were the most complete team. Though we didn't grab amazing players, each spot was filled with a competent player. In years since, it seems a sure thing to go in with a s***ty spot, and it hurts the team. We do have a high payroll, and if we don't win, it will need to be decreased. What's fascinating is that you want to trade players in the minors that for the first time look to be real MLB potential talent, whom would be cheap for 6 years, for players that would last 1 or 2 years before getting massive raises. I'm not happy about Damon being the last resort, I've b****ed about it all winter. But it is what it is, and a one year stop gap does this team a hell of a lot of good.

k well he's won 1 mvp and damn near won a 2nd.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 07:11 PM) AGon wouldnt be a rental And I guarantee that if A. Gonzalez is available, having johnny damon on our roster is not going to prevent us from getting him.