ptatc

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) People keep giving you a hard time, but it's really disappointing how much Rios' contract could be hampering our chances at signing other valuable pieces. I agree with you that Matsui would have been a pefect fit, and 6.5 million isn't a lot. i don't think it's the money. It's more the preference for the West Coast. I would think KW could go 6.5 mil.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Please ignore this post. It has lots of hyperbole and frustration. LOL. Vlads? Thome? Try Mark Kotsay. And the worst Sox offense of all time. Ugh. I really wanted Matsui bad. But hey, we have Alex Rios at 10 mil a year. If he signs there,it's because of his preference for the West Coast. They want him as strictly a DH (maybe they'll bend a little) and he said he wants to play the outfield. But he also has said if not the Yankees he would like the west Coast.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 13, 2009 -> 05:26 AM) KW has made the most trades involving prospects by a pretty good margin since he's been GM. And not a single one of them has become an even above average major leaguer. You're right about the Yankees (although guys like Cano, Chamberlain and Hughes have come through their system). But the Braves have been a prospect factory for over two decades. Just off the top of my head guys like Adam Wainwright, Neftali Feliz, Joey Devine and Elvis Andrus were drafted/signed then traded. That's top flight major league talent. Not to mention guys like Tommie Hanson and Jason Heyward. If I'm a GM and I'm lookin' to trade for prospects, one of the teams I'd target would be the Braves. Not the White Sox. But props to Kenny. He obviously knows when to get rid of these guys. You would just think after a while GM's would catch on. This is because KW understands that prospects, no matter how good they look in the minors are still suspects. You don't know how they'll do. So if he can get a major league player with a proven rack record for them, he will. These don't always work out either (Swisher). But you have a better chance on getting a good return on a player with major league record.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 03:18 AM) Everything I see from reports suggests Carrasco being gone, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Sure Hudson could do the job, but then you are eating up an entire arbitration year of a guy who could easily be the 5th starter of a still stellar rotation in 2011, and losing a rather vital cog of a bullpen because of $2 mill. I actually think a lot of this is due to Matsui, personally. And we won't know his whereabouts until January. My final guess is that Carlos Torres plays the role of Carrasco next year with actual potential to move to middle relief and set up (which Carrasco does not have), Williams is trying to trade him right now for really anything he can get, and that Hudson remains in the minors. it may just be that they don't think he can replicate his numbers from last year. They may not want to lose a guy with an arm like Santos and they will try him in the mop up role with Cooper working with him at the major league level.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) It's interesting how many guys we have that have something to prove next year. Putz is coming off surgery on his throwing arm. Yikes. But the Sox have medical experts and must know what they are doing. As fans we can only hope for the best but wouldn't we be expecting a lot to see him pitch before June after surgery?? He's another very tall pitcher. Has he had control problems? GO SOX! From my understanding he should be ready to throw by spring training if not sooner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) His prognosis when he had the surgery was something like 8-12 weeks (see post earlier in this thread). If he's not ready to pitch right now then this signing shouldn't have been made. This is the type of surgery where you can predict a good outcome. The clean up of the osteophytes and other loose bodies is relatively safe as surgeries go. My only concern is getting the range of motion back to normal depending on how long the oseopytes have been impeding his motion. However, Herm and his staff should have no trouble staying on top of it and getting him back. By all accounts he isn't a lazy guy who wouldn't do the work.

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) Matsui WANTS to play the outfield and will go to a team that gives him that chance (if one does). I saw where Oakland could be a sleeper for him. We know how Beane values defense. Oakland would let him play shortstop if he agreed to what they could pay him.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) The Tribune is reporting that he'll be heatlhy by spring training. Still, shoulder injuries can really impact your career. They effect your swing and can easily be re-injured. Hopefully he's done all of the necessary strength and conditioning training. Ptac, what type of concerns would there be for re-injury and is this a type of injury that someone can fully recover from (baseball wise) or will it always hinder him to an extent? From what I've read and people I've talked to, both surgeries were basically clean ups with a little tightening. Nothing really major. He should fully recover. And it shouldn't really alter his swing. He didn't have the structural damage such as TCQ and others.

QUOTE (Sec101Row1 @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 06:47 PM) Mets statement last season: Putz has been shut down indefinitely and will not return this year after an MRI on Tuesday found that he has some new fraying and a slightly torn ulnar collateral ligament in his right elbow. Putz had surgery on the elbow in June to remove a bone spur and fragments of bone and was slated to make his first rehab appearance Tuesday for Class-A Brooklyn. But he was scratched from that appearance after complaining of soreness in his right forearm, the team said in a statement. Not uncommon to have forearm tightness after this type of surgery. When the UCL loosens the medial forearm muscles need to work a little more to help stabilize the elbow. As the UCL heals and tightens the forearm won't be an issue.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) Good post. That's what I was saying. There's nothing wrong with throwing out ideas in the middle of winter. None of us really know what Kenny is thinking about doing... he'll proabably pull off some deal that none of us have even thought of and will have all of us going WTF WAS THAT??? Maybe all of this is a smokescreen to divert the media away from another deal. The media is focused on Halladay so talk to Toronto about it while you seal another deal else where. that does sound like KW.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) Crawford for Quentin on the surface would be the worst move Kenny has ever made. The only way the Sox should consider moving Carlos is if they think he's going to be hurt for the rest of his career, and if that's the case, please deal him for somebody cheap with superstar potential who will be expected to be part of our future for the next 4-6 years, not some fast guy who is almost certainly going to be asking for $15M+ per next offseason. And if you can't get that, at least go with the best package of prospects you can find. Quentin for Crawford is just so dumb on so many levels. I mean, we can't even afford that contract for one. when you factor in the injury history of TCQ it's not as lopsided. The D'backs didn't trade him because they didn't think he had talent. They looked at his injury history and though he may be the type of player who is so intense that he might be an injury waiting to happen. So, far they might be right. So, I agree with the part about the Sox concern for injuries and might deal him for a good player like you suggest

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=At_f...o&type=lgns You wonder how many of those players actually need the medicine. The use of TUEs is common even at the olympic level. Eventually, as more TUEs are granted, there will be a pattern if certain physicians abuse the right and they'll get caught. Usually physicians that have that low of medical ethics get caught with other things as well. But it will take time to weed them out.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Dec 5, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) Only my own guess here, but if JD and JT are planning on going to Indy for the Winter Meetings they had better hurry as they are on the wrong side of Illinois. Maybe it's that cheap liquor in Canton? I believe Thome owns a hunting ranch in the area and both are avid hunters. They could have shot a couple of deer then go to the meetings.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) Really? Who doesn't like - scratch that - who doesn't LOVE AJ??? I can't believe this. AJ is the f***ing man. I hope this was meant as green.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:00 AM) IIRC this is Harrell's last option year so they'll have to call him up at some point anyway. Ely should start in AAA. Shirek will begin in Birmingham but should be expected to get to Charlotte at some point next year, if not by midseason. And of course Torres, Hynick, and Marquez are on the 40-man as well, although who knows about Marquez's health. Carrasco's workload should be diminished with all our SP and he can spot start. The point is, we have enough #7 starters as it is, and if we reeeeeeeeeeeally needed another one, I wouldn't expect a GM who is known for both making the clubhouse a priority as well as requesting input from his veterans and his manager, to acquire a player that neither his manager nor his veterans can stand. Rumor = bulls***. He did take a chance on AJ. AJ is one that most people still can't stand in the clubhouse but busts his tail on the field. however, I don't think Padilla has the upside to help the club like AJ so I don't see it happening either.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 06:19 PM) But you did think the Floyd deal was terrible. I saw your posts. I went back and forth with alot of posters over Floyd in a few of those threads. Friends of mine who worked with him daily insisted he could still be a good major league pitcher.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) We need to replace Ms. Podsednik... No one can replace her....she should have a permanent life size likeness of her in that spot they sit behind home plate. But Mrs. Gonzalez wouldn't be a bad addition.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 10:49 PM) You're picking one sentence out of context and arguing it in a completely different manner in which I did. Never did I say that someone outside of the organization somehow knows the personnel of the White Sox better than those that work for the White Sox. If you think that's what I have been arguing this entire time, you've missed the whole point. No disrespect intended, PTATC, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to a degree. We just happen to disagree from that degree onward. No disrespect taken. Like you said, agree to disagree. I view it one way you view it another. I just think KW and Ozzie want to win and they though there was a viable option that would make them significantly better, they would have done it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) I'm perfectly happy with leaving the debate about Linebrink where it is. Mr. Rongey sees it one way, I see it another. What I get frustrated about is the notion that because things have been done this way in the past, or are generally done this way currently, that there must exist no better way. I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and so I will admit that things that are generally done a certain way are done so because success has been experienced from doing them that way. I do not expect, nor do I encourage, an atmosphere of chaos, where things are always being changed, merely for the sake of changing them. One should never stop looking for new and better ways to do something, however. One should never stop exploring. And it isn't always easy to try something new, or to take the risk of failure. As Barack likes to say, "if it wasn't hard to do, it would have already been done before." I also get frustrated with the idea that people not involved in the industry are not capable of coming up with any better ideas or thoughts than those within the industry. Look at Belichick's recent decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts a few weeks ago. Belichick had read studies which point out that statistically, a team would fare better by going for it on 4th down in certain situations than those that don't. He went for it on 4th down, as you all know, didn't get it, lost the game, and now the majority of the league is claiming he is an idiot. Coaches, players, tv commentators alike. That doesn't change the fact that the study still claims that a team will have a better chance to win if they go for it on certain 4th down situations. And yet, those same people don't make a big deal out of all the 4th downs he does go for (and makes), or all the other innovative things he does as a coach. Well, that study came from a fan. Not a coach, but some fan, who happens to be really good with numbers. Bill Belichick, widely considered one of the best coaches in the league, is looking for and utilizing ideas that come from outside the industry of football. But we shouldn't consider them? Ozzie shouldn't? Kenny shouldn't? I would disaagree with this to an extent. People watching a player everyday have a better idea of how this player will perform than someone who doesn't. You can see how he handles individual situation or how he reacts. This may be as important as his stats on determining if he is ready for a promotion. Thus, I would trust the managers and scouts to determine if someone is ready. Are they going to be right everytime, no. But they will have a better idea than people from the outside. I've spent enough time working in the minors to see this process and the hands on evaluation seems to work. Of course you can question it because they aren't always going to be right but I would still trust the people that see them everyday.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:55 PM) Believe me, I am the first one to suggest that people who do this sort of thing for a living should have their opinions respected to the utmost degree. That does not mean, however, that they should not be questioned, nor that their decisions are infallible, nor that there is not a different way to do things. I agree they should be questioned. After all we all know that scouting is an inexact profession. My point was that I'm sure the that nobody was brough up to take the place of a struggling player, in this case Linebrink, is that the organization didn't think anyone was ready. One thing I think most of us agree on is that KW and Ozzie want to win and if they thought someone else could do a better job they would have sent the lowest guy in the bullpen down and brought up the better player. Linebrink wouldn't have been sent down just had a lesser role.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get. You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there. Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get. This is usually based on reports from the minor league managers and scouts. Back in 2005 when Shingo failed and hermanson got hurt, KW asked if he needed to go get a closer and the report from the minors was "we've got a guy who can do it." This of course was Jenks. If the organization thought that someone was ready, they would have done it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 06:20 PM) Subjective? That doesnt make any sense at all. How do you make a team appear to be playing with passion? The team either performs or it does not. There is nothing Ozzie can do to make his players do anything while on the field, he puts them in position to succeed and once the first pitch is thrown it is up to them to perform up to their abilities. I know most people on this board don't believe it but there is more to baseball than just reading numbers. It is the most difficult sport to make the playoffs. Thus GMs and owners look to see if the team continues to play in the face of adversity and slumps. Baseball more than any other sport has ups and downs with playing everyday and over a 6 month period. How the player react is a big part of evaluation as to if they aren't playing well now but have the potantial to improve later. I realize many people take out the fact that these are people with emotions and mental aspects (after all 90% of the game is half mental). You can't just judge everything by the performance at this very second and need to have a larger picture of what is going on.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Um, welcome to Major League Baseball, dude. New to how this works, are you? I never said money wasn't part of it. In fact, I said during the season, it came down to two things: 1) his 2 and a half years remaining on a contract and 2) the reality that they did actually need him to get better. It's not a garbage argument. It happens ALL the time in MLB, where well-paid veteran players (position players and pitchers alike) get numerous opportunties (to the dismay of fans) to straighten themselves out. Especially when they are a year removed from a decent season (Linebrink WAS decent before his injuries in 2008). The reason they do this is because, when it comes to uncertainty, there is LESS of it with a struggling veteran player with a track record than there is with a minor-leaguer that has zero MLB track record. Name me a single team that would've done it your way, and I'll show you a team that will hire you as their GM. Remember how the Red Sox benched David Ortiz when he was hitting .185 at the end of May? Oh no wait, they didn't. That's right. They let him keep playing because of his contract and because of the fact he's David Ortiz and there's a track record. Or remember when the White Sox benched Konerko for the entire second half of 2008 because he was hitting .214 at the end of July? Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't happen either. They kept playing him because of his contract AND the fact t hat he has a track record and what not. And if I recall, he had a nice finish in the last two months and in the postseason. Or remember how the Phillies decided not to use Brad Lidge anymore because he was struggling? No, that's wrong too. They did stick with him and he recorded 3 playoff saves, gave up 1 hit in 4 innings of playoff work, and didn't allow a run until the World Series. Why in the world would Charlie Manuel do that? He must be an idiot. Afterall, he only has one World Championship and two appearances on his resume. I think they call that "sticking with the veteran because you know you may reap the benefits of having patience." It's this strange baseball philosophy that works a lot of the time. And it's a "garbage argument," apparently. I've been making this arguement for a couple of years. Managers will give verterans with track recoreds time to work it out because 1) they usually can 2) they are an important part of the team and have proven in the past they can do it. Too much knee jerk reaction and impatience, baseball is a sport of ups and downs, in season and between seasons with proven players you need to let them work it out. Until age or injuries catch up with them.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Jim Rice was... - A 8 time All Star - A 2 time Silver Slugger Winner - A MVP Winner (1978) - Finished in the Top 5 for MVP, 6 times - Led his team to 2 World Series - In the 1990 World Series he hit .333 - Played in the Field - Career Avg .293 30HR 113RBI - Got into the HOF on his 15th and Final Try. Harold Baines was... - A 6 time All Star. - A 1 time Silver Slugger Winner. - Never Won a MVP. - Never Finished in the Top 5 for MVP. - Led his team to 1 World Series - In the 1986 World Series he hit .143 - Rarely played in the Field - Career Avg .283 22HR 93RBI When Baines played the field he was a very good bordering on outstanding right fielder. He was 10X the outfielder that Rice was. Just because Rice stood out there and played barely adequate OF is nothing to put on the resume. Baines was a great player to watch and a very good hitter. I don't think he belongs in the HOF but neither should Rice be there. Both were very good hitters but not deserving of the HOF.