infohawk

MERCY!

What stands out for me is that Tilson appears to have some on-base skills. He has an above average .OBP and can draw some walks. The Sox need more consistent .OBP throughout the line-up for a more consistent offensive attack. Additionally, sounds like he has the potential to play slightly above average defense. Not a bad return for Duke.

This is where I think the Sox need to make a decision. If they are going to upgrade at three positions (catcher, second, and third) to compete by trading away some young players and taking on salary, then protect your investment/sacrifice by acquiring that one additional player you think might significantly enhance the chance to contend. If the front office has concerns that a weakness at one or two positions might jeopardize contention, yet they can't afford to acquire the player(s) to fill the need and get them over the hump, then it's time to begin a rebuild. What I hope they avoid is making enough moves to only get to the 81-87 win range. Maybe some players have remarkable years and the Sox win 90 or more games. But even so, the next year they could revert back to the 81-87 win range again. I'd like the Sox to become a team that consistently wins 90 plus games just by having their players perform at career norm levels. The team doesn't develop that kind of roster, which is why they have in years past been consistently good enough to finish many seasons at second or, at worst, third in the division. The Indians had an extended run in the late 90s, the Twins through the 2000s, the Tigers over the last several years, and the Royals look to be in the midst of one. The Sox are the only team in the AL Central that hasn't had an extended period of dominance within the division. But they put together a lot of 81-87 win teams. Not gonna cut it. I remember the year, perhaps 2003, when the Sox had a particularly bad hole in the 5th starter slot. They lost a ton of games when the 5th starter was on the mound, yet only lost the division to the Twins by a small number of games. Kenny Rogers was available during spring training and the Sox didn't bother to sign him for the 5th starter slot. Instead, I think the Twins picked him up. Rogers would have likely put them over the top for the division that year (if memory serves). Instead, they left themselves short in the rotation and it cost them.

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ Jun 14, 2008 -> 10:01 PM) 5 of 6 losses and now Detroit has awaken. I'm not ready to pronounce Detroit as being back. Sure, they swept us, but they've got some significant pitching issues and the Dodgers aren't exactly world beaters. I would expect that both the Indians and Tigers are going to play well during interleague games. The Sox need to as well!

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:53 AM) More and more, I think Kenny is not bluffing about the OF vacancies and actually believes the bs he says. I think KW is probably being misunderstood when he talks about being comfortable sliding Anderson or Owens into an outfield slot -- presumably center. I don't think he is indicating a willingness to stand-pat. I think that what he is saying is that he wants to acquire another player or two, but that player doesn't need to be a centerfielder. My take is that if KW is going to shell out some money or trade away some talent, he's going to take the best player he can possibly acquire, not necessarily the best centerfielder remaining. For instance, if the Sox really believe they have a legitimate shot at a Miguel Cabrera, KW doesn't want to trade away one or more of his best bargaining chips in a lesser deal. If he's going to part with some talent, he wants it to be for a player that will have the biggest impact. If he were to get a Miguel Cabrera or Miguel Tejada-type player to play third, he may believe that the offensive upgrade allows an Anderson or Owens to play center because the overall team has been improved.

Anyone find it at least a little strange that the signing hasn't become official yet? I thought I read somewhere that the physical was likely to be scheduled for Monday. I know it's only Tuesday, but I guess I thought an announcement would have come by now.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 05:10 PM) I won't argue with you in regards to Kendrick- he's going to be a very, very good player. Willits and Mathis on the other hand....I think you see them as more valuable just because you don't see them much. Do you realize Reggie Willits will be 27 on May 30 next season? He had ZERO home runs in 430 at bats last year. He has a grand total of 14 home runs in nearly 1600 minor league at bats. Certainly, he has a knack for getting on base- no one will argue that, but he projects as nothing more than a journeyman player for the remainder of his career, unless you're seeing something there that I am not. Meanwhile, you dismiss Sweeney who is nearly four years younger than Willits (about 45 months to be exact). While he hasn't shown the progress many of us thought he would after the giant steps he appeared to be making early, Sweeney has shown more power than Willits despite a wrist injury that has been slowing him down. When Willits was Sweeney's age, he was in A ball. Just keep that in mind when comparing the two... And Mathis? He has an OPS barely over .600 in his major league career. While his career minor league numbers are impressive (.793 OPS for a catcher), if he was one of our prospects many would be proclaiming bust and that he wasn't "much of a prospect anymore." As for Fields, you can talk about the k's all you want, the .244 BA, the .788 OPS for a CI, his low walk rate, etc, but anyway you slice it, a .480 SLG in your first year in the big leagues is pretty impressive. Heck, Chris Young's OBP, SLG, and therefore OPS numbers were lower than Fields' and yet we don't ever stop moaning about that deal around here... And Gio...when are the durability questions going to start to subside with this kid? Has he ever been significantly injured yet in his minor league career? And since when does a guy who k's 185 in 150IP with a better than 3:1 k/BB ratio not equal a very solid prospect, especially considering he just turned 22? And why is Nick Adenhart, who is admittedly 11 months younger but whose numbers weren't nearly as dominant a stud prospect (116 k's in 153 IP and less than a 2:1 k/BB ratio)? I just don't understand that. Once again, If the Dodgers and Angels and Yankees and Mets WANT to outbid us for Cabrera or Crawford or Santana or whomever, they absolutely will do so. However, there are no indications that they will do so yet. And simply because a prospect or two of theirs happen to be in their farm systems does not suddenly make them more valuable by default. We've got some pretty decent trading chips ourselves all the sudden. Very well-reasoned, well-thought out post, iamshack.

QUOTE(Lemon_44 @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) I don't , in any way, want Damon. If you can get Abreu for Crede and a prospect, i think the Sox would do that. I agree getting Melky isn't likely in the same deal but you never know. With that move you get the 2 OF's needed. If the Yanks re-sign A-Rod, why would they need Crede? As Hawk would say, "where's he gonna play?"

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 11:47 AM) There is an article in the Sun-Times that I saw on the on-line version where Jay Marioti claims that the Sox are too cheap to engage in a true effort to acquire the high priced FA's such as Torii Hunter plus their efforts are amatueristic at best. He questions the Garland trade and says that Reinsdorf will never really spend the money for impact players regrdless of Kenny's bluster. He also doesn't think the Sox will make a serious effort to get Rowand back and that Aaron will end up with the Dodgers. We will probably trade for Crisp because he is cheaper. The 2005 championship is seen as an anomaly at best and we won't have the guns to win or compete. I know he doesn't much like Ozzie, KW or Reinsdorf, but I also wonder about some moves that have been made. Brings up past efforts/years in my mind and I wonder what others think? If the Sox had signed hunter for $15 million a year, I wouldn't have been surprised to see Mariotti argue that KW and Jerry Reinsdorf had a chance to make a big free agent splash and foolishly threw the money at Torii Hunter. He might have then argued that the Sox weren't really committed to winning and believed that, by bringing in Hunter, they could fool the fanbase into thinking they were serious about competing with the Indians and Tigers despite the remaining problems with the team for which they "weren't going to spend serious money to fix." He then would have praised the Cubs for going on a spending spree for several players after an historically bad season in 2006. He would have talked about how Hendry and ownership somehow gets it (despite years of evidence to the contrary) and Reinsdorf and Williams don't (despite a World Series championship). He would likely have somehow turned the acquisition of Hunter into evidence that the Sox are...surprise, surprise...cheap. Bottom line -- if the Sox won the World Series in 7 games, Mariotti would argue that a failure to sweep shows just how short-sighted Reinsdorf and Williams were. The man is a disingenuous and bitter shock-jock sportswriter. His act was tired about five years ago.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) Crisp has a career .329 OBP. He does not get on base. Plus I don't want to see what Theo would get Kenny to give up for Crisp. In 2007, his .OBP was .330 (about league average). In 2004 it was .344 and in 2005 it was .345. He posted sub-average .OBP in 2002, 2003 and 2006 -- two of those years being his first two in the league. Over his last four years, he has been average once, below average once and above average twice. He's also 27 years old, just when a player is entering the prime of his career. Not to mention that his 2007 salary was only $3.8 million (compared to say, $12-15 million a year). In other words, there is some value with Crisp. I still believe that, if Crisp were acquired, the Sox should then invest money into a leftfielder. Your second point does bear noting!

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 22, 2007 -> 08:54 PM) Is that reputation built on when Chuck LaMarr was the GM though, instead of the Hunsicker/Friedman combo? Because the new regime has pulled off a few trades since they've been in charge. The Mark Hendrickson deal for example. Coco Crisp would not be a poor addition to the club. His only real drawback is that he doesn't have much of an arm for center. Still, his defense is exceptional, he gets on base and he has plenty of speed. He would be a natural lead-off hitter. From a salary standpoint, he would come cheap compared to some of the other options out there. He is actually a somewhat prototypical centerfielder -- speed, reaches base at a good clip and can steal some bases. I wouldn't want him as a corner outfielder, as I would rather have a little bit more power from that position. I would think that if KW acquired Crisp, he could actually use the money that would have gone to Hunter/Rowand to acquire a corner outfielder or fill other needs. Not that I didn't want Hunter or wouldn't be happy with Rowand, but I think Crisp is being overly "devalued" a bit.

I'd love to have a couple more impact players, but I have to say I'm very squeamish about the idea of taking an already somewhat depleted farm system and emptying it out some more. At some point we've got to be able to rely on the minor league affiliates to produce some major league calibur talent. Right now we have some close to major-league-ready pitching talent down there, but I can't really say how good those pitchers really are. In any case, I'd hate to start putting together packages that include two or three of these young pitchers (who may help the club AND be inexpensive) for a player who's already getting expensive. If we're going to make a trade, I'd just assume trying to trade a veteran or two for some high-upside major-league-ready talent. They can be first year players or pre-arb players.

I may be alone, but I thought the most interesting part of the article was this: I didn't realize this trade discussion had already begun prior to the end of the 2005 season. It appears Gregor is hinting that, knowing KW, he's already trying to line things up now that will be consumated later and not just identifying potential targets.

A few thoughts on Floyd. His past outings have frustrated me in that he seems like he wants to pick at the corners and subsequently falls behind the hitters and issues walks -- not good. I didn't get to see the game last night, but was somewhat suprised when I saw that he had struck out five without issuing any walks. The problems were a high pitch count early in the game and the alarming number of hits he gave up. Also, only five of the runs were earned, still high, but it's not too far removed from what you might expect from a bottom of the rotation guy. That said, the pitch count was definitely a problem. I'm less concerned about the 11 hits because most of them were singles if the gamecast analysis (viewed after the game) can be trusted. Sometimes hits are just a function of bad luck for the pitcher -- balls finding holes and whatnot. Doubles and triples -- balls hit into gaps or smoked -- are another matter. Like I said, though, I didn't actually see the game. Look, I think we are going to need to readjust our expectations on Floyd's ceiling. I think that he could become a reliable fourth or fifth starter in time. While once a prospect expected to do far more than that, don't discount the value a decent back-of-the-rotation starter can give a team. All that said, he could need a couple more years to become consistently reliable, even at the back of the rotation.

I'll play along. If the Sox are at or just above .500 by the beginning of August, they have an outside shot at it. This assumes that Cleveland and Detroit hit a ceiling for games over .500 and then both struggle while the Sox are hot in August and September. Looooong shot.

In my opinion, our real saving grace is that the Sox will be clearing some money off the books at the end of the year, even if they don't make any deals. They can then acquire some free agents if need be to fill any holes that remain open after any impending trades. With regard to trades, I would focus on rebuilding the infield by acquiring a young second baseman (which they did in the Cunningham trade although I know virtually nothing about him) and a shortstop. I would be looking for infielders that can handle the bat. For Buehrle, I would ask for a major-league-ready starting pitcher and a top tier infielder. For Dye I would try and find a major-league-ready or close to major-league-ready arm for the bulllpen and a Class A or Class AA position player (preferably an infielder) -- in other words a few years away would be o.k and may actually make it palpable for the other team to include another player. Of course you ask for as much as you think you can get, but I'm just speculating on what they might bring in reality (just guesses guys). Obviously, Mark's value is diminished a bit because he's a "rental." In free agency, I would try and bring in a center fielder and perhaps one more outfielder. Ideally one of them should be able to lead-off in case the Sox decide to cut bait on Scottie. I wouldn't try and bring in a reliable bullpen arm via free agency unless the price was right. Relievers are up-and-down from one year to the next and often overpriced. It's better to try and develop your own or acquire young pitching via trade. Hey, I'm certainly no G.M., just kind of throwing some thoughts out there!

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 08:23 AM) I REALLY don't see the mets giving up Pelfrey in a Contreras deal. If they do I will laugh... I'll take any of their top prospects for him... If there is life to this story, KW had better make it happen fast. I don't think Manaya was in charge then, but this is the same franchise that traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano.

One of the biggest mistakes a front office can make is falling in love with certain players instead of viewing them as commodities. Free agency has destroyed the kind of loyalty that once existed between players and teams. It would make no sense for the Sox to throw a significant percentage of their payroll toward Buehrle while having so many holes to fill throughout the organization, particularly the major league club. What's the point in "rewarding" a player and fan favorite if such an action will make the overall team less competitive? Sure, if the Sox had a stable of young talent ready to contribute, keep Buehrle. Unfortunately they don't, and tying too much money into Mark will likely result in mediocre baseball over the next two or three years. In this market, you typically get maybe 5-7 years out of each good player before you have to reload the position. We've had Mark for about 8 years. He's worth a lot in free agency, he deserves it and the Sox simply cannot afford to give him that much money while there are so many other needs to fill.

Jones certainly has some useful skills, but he is exactly the kind of player this team should run away from. He's a hacker with no plate discipline. We've got a lot of those. If the Sox were a more patient team, a Jones acquisition would make more sense if you want his power, speed and defense. Unfortunately, this team needs guys with a discerning batting eye. That's not Jacque Jones.

If he signs with anyone, it will likely be for a one-year bargain contract because he needs to prove he's healthy.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 4, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) What's wrong with talking about the possibility of a firesale? No different then discussing what moves may occur midseason if we're in contention. I was probably misunderstood. You're right, there's nothing wrong with talking about what might be done in the event of a firesale. I was directing my comments at those fans that seemed resigned to the fact that a firesale was inevitable. Actually, if it comes down to a firesale, KW has certain pieces he could move that might very well bring in a pretty darn good stable of young talent. I know these things can get iffy because you never know how a young player will pan out, but Dye, Crede or one or two of our pitchers could potentially bring something of value in return in multiple trades. I understand the risks, however.

It's hard to believe that a piece like this can be offered up as legitimate analysis. It's almost as if he scribbled it down on a yellow legal pad while sitting on the can. His first major mistake is the oft-repeated myth that the Sox won in 2005 by playing "small-ball." Their offense was very dependent on home runs. Sure they benefited from Podsednik's ability to get on and steal some bases, but their offense has really been predicated on the home run since 2000. The big difference is that in 2005 they either led the league in pitching or were darn close to leading the league in pitching. My gosh, they are one game under .500 after one month and people are talking about firesales. I'm willing to give them another six weeks or so before I jump on the firesale bandwagon. Sheesh!!! QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 4, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) Kudos to Couch -- someone in the media finally called the Sox on the stupid decision of having Podsednik back on this team. Tough to win when you only have one legit OFer on the opening day roster... I do agree that any trades the Sox make should bring in a young leadoff hitter prospect. I like Pods, but he seems to have some pretty chronic issues with pulling groin and abdominal muscles.

I'm just offering my opinion. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with it. I understand how people could see it differently. I'm just saying that, for me, it began and ended with Bobby's performance. More runs would have obviously been nice, but the closer had the ball with nobody on base in the ninth and got hit around.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 10, 2007 -> 11:56 PM) As bad as Ozzie was tonight, there were many others reasons we lost this game. Jenks should be able to get Todd Walker out. I'm not hanging this one on Ozzie. The manager put the closer in the game to start the ninth inning with a one-run lead. That's all you can ask. We can't assume Anderson would have thrown out Bradley at the plate. I'll agree Podsednik should have made that catch, but it should never have come to that. Bobby didn't get it done. End of story. When you're nursing a one-run lead in the ninth and your closer gives up four hits, your going to lose the game. Bobby needs to get his velocity back. It would also do him some good to not always go to his curve with two strikes on the hitter. What makes the curve so good is the specter of that fastball. I can't remember the last time I saw him throw the fastball with two strikes. The hitters know what's coming and have a better chance at hitting it. I'm betting a high fastball would have gotten Walker.

Guys, I'm trying as best I can to laugh this off. This is unbelievable. If Buehrle will be out for any extended length of time, I vote to bring up Haeger because he could probably start and relieve with that knuckleball. We may need him to fulfill both roles at this point. If not Haeger, I suppose Floyd will come up. Hopefully, though, Mark will be fine.