Hideaway Lights

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 7, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) Ah, that ol' chestnut. What makes you think Dye will have another good season? What makes you think Konerko would? Or Jenks? Or Iguchi? See, you don't know s***. And either do I. Or anyone else on this board. That's why they play 162 games. Are you telling me you KNEW the 2005 Sox were going to win the World Series in February of 2005? Doubt it seriously. I don't think Dye will have another good season. I don't necessary think Konerko would, although he's usually good for .280/30/100. I also don't think Thome is any younger this year. I think Jenks will actually probably have a better year because he is in shape. I liked the 2004/2005 offseason moves very much, and I thought the team had a strong chance to win the division if Podsednik could have a good year. Now that I know more about this player, I would say the chances of him ever producing another good season 2 years later and a couple of injuries down the road are slim to none. Vazquez has not been able to pitch in the AL. This is not fantasy, this is fact. In two seasons he has been subpar and frankly unacceptable. His best years are probably behind him, and he has been regressing psychologically rather than progressing. What do you see that you like? His stuff? Great. Stuff only goes so far when you are completely retarded. The White Sox needed to improve the starting pitching, the bullpen and needed to address the leadoff hitter. They made their starting pitching worse in the short run on a high risk move by subtracting an innings eater and their best prospect and adding a failed major leaguer and two projects that may pay off by 08 or 09. They made their bullpen better. A+ on that front. They addressed their leadoff hitter by going on the cheap with what turns out to be not only a 0 tool AAAA player, but now an injured 0 tool AAAA player. I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but this offseason SUCKED in my opinion.

What makes people think Javier "Headcase" Vazquez will somehow be able to magically pitch in the AL? What makes people think Podsednik could possibly offer anything but disappointment? Worst offseason in recent memory. I feel worse about this team than about any team since 1999.

QUOTE(rpmahr @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) and who's saying that we are going to suck this year?...seems like weve been doing pretty good even with the years before 2005 If you consider 80-85 wins "good", then yes, we will almost certainly be at least "good" this year. No one's saying they are going to suck. People are saying they might be headed for a third place finish with about a .500 record.

Has anyone else noticed that Jenks sort of resembles the guy they bring in to pitch to Hobbs in final sequence of the Natural

Somebody find me a starting AL left fielder that will rate worse than Pods this year, assuming he is coming off multiple injuries/surgeries, stealing bases at a 60-65% clip, hitting .260 with no power, and playing terrible defense. Exactly what is the f***ing upside? This guy is a mediocre ballplayer who had a couple of good 4 to 5 month streaks in him for him to be able to call it a major league career. Worst re-signing of the offseason by a country mile.

this is a really bizarre thread

wow, I would love to see that post, because I cannot fathom what you thought made us worse by that many games going into 2006.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 18, 2007 -> 06:48 AM) I hope you aren't using being wrong by 22 games to support the arguement that you are right... I predicted we would win 105 games in 2006. We won 90 games. That's a difference of how many games? How many wins did you predict for the 2006 season?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) So losing FG would be a difference of 22 wins in your opinion? Because you projected 105 for 2006 and 83 for 2007 with the only real change being the loss of FG. Who knew a 4.54 ERA would mean so much? Believe it or not, it's possible, just possible, that the entire 2006 season may have changed expectations for some of us regarding certain players potential. I know that's hard to believe, but bear with me on this one.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) If I was you, i would keep exploring that rabbit hole, maybe you can find some truth in the "negativity argument." Crede is improving, is that so hard to believe. Sometimes players actually improve throughout their career. Amazing!!!! Basically any excuse works for you to how we could win less games, and how crappy our team was last year blah blah blah. The bullpen is better than last year. The only change is that we have a new 5th starter. That alone is going to make us a .500 team? Please. We swapped out one of the most dominant big-game pitchers for a minor leaguer, and you act like it's an oil change. Ok. FWIW, I projected 105 wins before the 2006 season. I call it like I see it. We got worse this offseason.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Jenks did have a sophomore slump dude. Just check the numbers. By sophomore slump I mean Takatsu sophomore slump.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) How are those 3 in the same sentence as having career years, and regarding their age? How many games did a bullpen guy like thorton really win for us? He may have possibly offset the crappiness of Cotts and polite. If Buehrle pitches like he normally does, and Garica pitches a little better, PODS doesnt crap the bed, and the Count doesnt get hurt, we make the playoffs. Why is that so hard to believe? Do you really think this team is that bad? There are lots of other teams out there for you to cheer for Ah yes, the "negativity means you should go root for another team" argument. I hadn't heard that one before, really. Crede hit 25 points above his career average. If he hits his career average, we probably win 5 less games. If Thome gets injured for half a year, if Paulie has a down year, if Dye doesn't have a career year, if Jenks has a sophomore slump etc. etc. etc. I think this team got noticably WORSE in the offseason, that's all.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:17 PM) We lost the division by 6 when: Buerhle had his worst year as a pro Garcia was terrible until august (and even then he only had a couple good games) Garland and Contreras didn't get hot until the summer injuries plagued the team: Thome, Dye, Crede, contreras, etc etc missed key games in the late months of the season the front half of the bullpen stunk worse than horse**** our starting pitching was managed poorly. how many games would we have won if ozzie doesn't stick with vazquez through 6? 5 games at least? uribe had a terrible year, well below his averages detroit played over their heads last year (no way rogers is half of what he was last year) we lacked focus and made terrible errors throughout the season which was abnormal for this group and thats all i can think of right now. but i'm sure there are more. How are people always saying we won ninety games despite everything in the universe going wrong, when Thorton, Dye and Thome basically career years given their age and experience?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 02:00 PM) Wow, you couldnt be more off. Every pitcher we had last year had a down year, Mark Buehrle had the worst of his career. There is no where to go but up. Down year compared to what? Did Contreras have a down year compared to his career averages? No, not really, he just came back to earth a bit after an unmatchable 05. Did Garland? No, Garland had the year you would expect given his career averages, not his anomylous 2005, which you will never see again. Garcia and Buehrle did have down years, but Vazquez pitched about where you should expect him to given his stint with the Yankees.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 11:57 AM) Based on peripherals, Vazquez should be in the 4.00-4.25 region. His ERA is always higher than his peripherals suggest it should be, so I project it to be anywhere from 4.50-5.00, with the potential for it to be much lower. I figure whoever the 5th starter is will probably put up an ERA around 5.25 too. I also figure Buehrle puts up an ERA around 3.50, Garland will be around 3.75-4.00, and Contreras will be in the same 3.75-4.00 neighborhood that Garland will be in too, depending upon health. I don't find that too unrealistic, but those expectations are a little bold. Regardless, I see a 4.50 rotation ERA as not only very possible, but quite likely. Based on what peripherals? Vazquez had an ERA of 4.84 and 4.91 in the AL in the two seasons he's pitched there. He's pitching in one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball, and someone thinks he's going to go 4.00-4.25? Weird. 4.50-5.00 is a better estimate, but I think it's way closer to 5.00. Garland will be 3.75-4.00, again, based on what?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) You said "as strong as either 2005 or 2006". Except, they were strong in 2005, and weak in 2006. Garcia had over 1000 innings at that point. Buerhle had 800+. Garland had 800 or so. Hernandez had about 500. In other words, they were experienced pitchers - all five. You are just not correct. You must be incredibly incapable of either reading correctly or understanding elementary logic. Let me break it down for you. 1) all five pitchers had at least 300 total inning pitches at the major league level in 2005 2) the fifth starter will have hardly any experience pitching at the major league level in 2007 maybe you can now see how those clauses are related.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) WTF are you talking about? 300 innings? If you mean 300 total, then much of the staff had that in 2005, if not all. If you meant one season, then no one in baseball has that. If you meant 200, what about Freddy? Or Buerhle? You just are completely wrong on this one. And how are 2005 and 2006 performances, which were night and day, comparable in your eyes? And who is this supposed "disaster" in the fourth slot? when did I ever compare 2005 to 2006 pitching wise? I said that this season wasn't going to be as good as 2005 or 2006 yes, 300 TOTAL innings. As in career. As in that means something. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 17, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Starting pitching is so overrated in the regular season. If you can get 5 guys with an ERA of 4.50 or better - and that's very possible with this group - and it's a good rotation. The Sox bullpen is much, much improved this year. That is one key. The Sox lineup has to be better up and down too...if everyone has an OPS of around .700 or better (obviously the middle has to be higher...hopefully the 2-7 are all above .800, yada yada). If the lineup is up and down more consistent - and I think it will be - then I see no reason this team isn't around an 89-92 win team, with potential to be better than that. What do you project Vazquez's ERA to be, based on his career totals in the American League? What do you project the fifth starter's ERA to be? I project Vazquez at 5.00 and the fifth starter at about 5.00 as well AT BEST. Probably more likely is that they are around 5.25.

People need to stop pretending like just because some people were down on the 05 team that being down on the 07 team is similar. For one thing, we did not have a single starter who had not pitched at least 300 innings of major league ball as a starter going into 2005. Our fifth starter situation more closely resembles 04 than 05. If you think we will be as strong as either 2005 or 2006 at starting pitcher, that is seriously delusional, and starting pitching is the most important component to long term success at the major league level. Our fourth and fifth slots are going to be disaster areas for portions of the year. This is an 83-87 game winner without any more moves being made.

Boras will ask for way too much, and Crede will not be worth it. It's really that simple.

I couldn't be happier to see Crede gone after this season. His ceiling was about what he hit last year, in my opinion, factoring in future back injuries and his career average.

Call me crazy, but I don't think McGwire's numbers are necessarily good enough to get in, roids or no roids. He was a .263 career one-dimensional hitter. The only thing he did well was hit home runs while juiced up and take walks. Dude only has like 1600 TOTAL hits in career. Also, no MVPs. 583 home runs probably won't even be in the top 25 all-time in 2020.

What a self-righteous tool. Sounds like making a statement was more important to him than actually putting his balls on the line and just saying who he thought roided and who he didn't think roided and voting accordingly.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Jan 9, 2007 -> 09:31 AM) Not really. In 2006, most people predicted 95-105 wins and they underperformed to the tune of 90 wins. So now even with a worse rotation (I don't agree that it is significantly worse by losing Garcia only), same line-up and theoretically better bullpen, I think predicting 87-92 wins is on the money. If they overindex, they could get 95-100 wins. If they underperform again, they could get 80-85 wins. The fulcrum number this year is 90 wins and it can swing up or down from there. Last year it was 95 wins and based off your assessment on the team's moves, it seems correct for it to swing down to 90. So in essence, you should agree with the 87-92 range. I predicted 95-105 wins based on a 2005 that was now apparently an 87 win team overacheiving, so maybe that prediction was actually off. There's no way in hell Garland ever has that 2005 year again in my opinion, and there's no way in hell Contreras has that kind of run again. That run was Santana like. Every time he was on the mound I knew he was going to win. The truth is somewhere in the middle. They were probably talent wise a high eighties winning team that way overacheived in 2005, and they were probably a talent wise a low to mid nineties team last year that underachieved. Keep in mind that we got about as much as anyone could hope for from Thome, Dye and Thorton last year. It's not like there weren't people who greatly exceeded expectations despite the disappointments. I'm not sure how anyone could argue this team is better or even as good on paper than the 2006 team for 2007. In my eyes it's at least 5-10 games worse. Now for 2008 and beyond, we will see. But I've been down this road a few times and seen too many Baldwins and Ruffcorns to know that prospects don't mean anything necessarily.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Uh, why stockpile more arms when you already have enough? It doesn't make much sense. because most prospects don't pan out. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) By my count, the Sox have like 8-9 potential 5th starters right now within the organization, and some of those starters have the potential to become pretty damn good pitchers. Why would you kill any chance the team has this season when you wouldn't be able to contend until like 2009 again (because trading Buehrle and Vazquez would do exactly that to you)? First of all, we lose Buehrle after 2007 anyway. The White Sox will not re-sign him. He will want more than 4 years. Reinsdorf has said he does not pay pitchers for more than 4 years. There you have it. Second of all, 8-9 potential fifth starters? How many combined major league wins do these 8-9 potential 5th starters have? We also had 8-9 potential fifth starters in 2004. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) I also think the team is better than most people give it credit for, but I am generally pretty optimistic around this time of year. The offense should be about as good as it was last year, or perhaps a small step back (I see Thome, Dye, and Crede all regressing a little bit, with Podsednik, Pierzynski, Uribe, and Anderson all improving slightly), but it should be more balanced 1-9 this year. Crede definitely regresses. Book it. At least 15 points off of his 2006 average. He was extremely hot for four months last year and then regressed back towards his career average. Dye had about as good as year as you're ever going to get from him, and I think it would be foolish to expect similar numbers from Thome, or for him to remain injury free. I don't see the evidence that either Uribe or Pods necessarily improve. Podsednik has had an up and down career and just because the odd numbered years have been good in the past doesn't mean 2007 will be good as well. I also don't see the evidence that Williams and Guillen are really willing to give Anderson a shot and ride it out if he doesn't hit well. Pierzynski should do better. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) The rotation will be fine, because you need 1 of the aforementioned 8-9 starters to put up an ERA in the 5.00 range, and the 1-4 starters essentially just need to put up a combined ERA in the 4.25 range. Hopefully we'll see them pick it up a little bit. What evidence have you seen that Javier Vazquez can pitch in the American League at less than a 5.00 ERA? What evidence have you seen that any of the fifth starter candidates can pitch at even a 5.00 ERA in the toughest division in baseball? Do you think it's more likely Garland's going to pitch at his career totals for ERA (around 4.45-4.5) or at his anomylous 2005 levels? Do you think it's likely that Contreras can keep it up despite his age and injury history? Why? Certainly I feel Buehrle will rebound because a rebound is more in line with his career totals. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) The bullpen itself seems to just be loaded with talent, but not many results. There are only like 4 guys who have guaranteed jobs (Jenks, Thornton, MacDougal, and Aardsma), but one of Sisco and Logan should make it, and then you're looking at Floyd, Masset, Haeger, Oneli Perez, and several other candiates for the final spot in the bullpen. It's probably going to be Sisco/Masset with Floyd taking the #5 spot, but that's why ST is played. I like the bullpen a lot better than I did last year, and if we have mostly innings eaters in the rotation, the fifth and sixth slots theoretically shouldn't be an issue most of the time. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 8, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Basically, I don't think this team is an 83-87 win team, but rather 87-92 win team with potential to be better. So despite the fact that the rotation got significantly worse, and the lineup is fundamentally the same, and the bullpen may be improved but the jury's still out, you project a similar or higher win total than last year? Bewildering.

I'm prepared to mortgage 07 if it means we have one more quality arm prospect and a shortstop for 08.