ScottyDo

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 05:55 PM) I see, so you want Masset on team because he pitch in games when the Sox are getting blown out, over Wasserman, who you yourself will provide the Sox with more effective innings, and is the better overall pitcher. What you are saying is the Sox need to carry a bad pitcher because if Buehrle gives up 7 in an 1.2 IP, Masset is the only one that can pitch those innings. Basically, your logic is Masset's 3 s***ty innings>>Wasserman's one good inning? Unreal. In the case that our pitcher is knocked out of the game early enough that our bullpen cannot stretch from the early inning to the end of the game, then yes. I propose that the ability to go four innings and save the rest of the bullpen for later in the week is better than the ability to go one scoreless inning and make us use every reliever we have. Long relievers are in your bullpen to mop up and save the rest of the pen for later games that we can actually win or are close. Every team has one. They have one for a reason. Ehren Wasserman is not one. Masset is one. Masset needs to be on the team, I'm sorry. Regardless, you haven't answered the question of what you'd do if our starter got knocked out in the second inning and we had Wasserman instead of Masset. Are you really saying you'd go Buehrle->Wasserman->MacDougal->Thornton->Linebrink->Dotel->Jenks? That's literally what you'd have to do to bridge the second inning and the ninth. That's wholly and entirely reckless, for reasons I shouldn't have to enumerate. So yes, the ability to go four crappy innings, IN THIS CASE given the structure of our bullpen, is more valuable than the ability to go one scoreless inning.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) There really is no way to justify it. It just comes down to Williams not being able admit "his people" were dead wrong about Nick, and now arguably the Sox 2nd best bullpen arm from last year has to wait for Nick to burn out before he can get his chance again. Not that Williams gives 2 s***s about what I think, but I would have more respect for Williams if he showed that he cares about whats best for the team, instead of trying to show everyone he wasn't wrong about Masset. No way to justify it? Let's say tomorrow we have an opening day like last year's where our SP goes 1 1/3 innings and gives up 7...given a bullpen with Wasserman instead of Masset, who do you go with? Do you literally play everyone in the bullpen? Ruin your bullpen for the better part of a week? Yes, based on last year, Wasserman is a better pitcher. Give me one inning and I want him over Masset any time. But he's not capable of long relief. It's just that simple. You wouldn't play Konerko at second base because he's incapable of playing there, so why is everyone arguing that Wasserman be a long guy? If you want to argue the merits of Wasserman over MacDougal, that's fine. Or if you want to be mad that Kenny didn't set us up with a better long reliever, that's also fine. I just don't see how there's any argument over whether or not we need someone who can pitch 3 or 4 innings in our pen. We do. We just do.

If Masset isn't on the roster, we have NO ONE in the bullpen capable of throwing multiple innings. That is not okay no matter how many crazy message board scenarios we come up with to fix that issue using Ehren. Wasserman is better, but Masset is the only right choice. Now does it suck that we don't have a GOOD long reliever? Sure. But Wasserman, who doesn't fit that role, is not a realistic option. I suppose we could have Haeger up again but we already saw how that worked out. Broadway, maybe a little better, but I think it's better if we just leave him a starter and let him get his innings in in AAA. So yeah, no option other than Masset. Sorry.

link doesn't work, but i'd like to read the article. what site?

a billion! no wait, 88. it'll be a fun season, even if we don't make the playoffs

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 5, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) Eckstein is pst his prime. As I recall he won a world series with Anaheim then the Cardinals acquired him and he won a world series there also. Sounds like he was wanted to me. That true with pitchers. Who cares if they win or lose. All that matters if they pitch well. That's the problem with many pitchers today. Who the hell cares if the team wins or loses all that matters is that my stats look good. I need my "quality start" If I pitch 6 innings and give up 3 or fewer runs I did my job. That is the attitude that drove me crazy with Garland, he said this many times. Wins and loses doesn't necessarily tell you how well he pitched but it does tell you if the team won or lost when he pitches. A team doesn't go to the playoffs with a pitcxher with a low ERA or high stirkeout to walk ratio. They go if the team wins regarless of individual stats. See, this is a problem with following sports stats in general. The entire idea of a pitcher's record determining how good he is is a correlation. When Pitcher A pitches, the team wins a certain percent of their games. However, correlations do not imply causality. The pitcher did not necessarily get the win BECAUSE they pitched well. They may have just fallen into a positive correlation. Every year there's a pitcher who sucks royally according to every statistical metric except wins. Just as every year there's a pitcher with a near 1.50 WHIP and a sub-4 ERA. Point is, a pitcher's apparent success by any measurement (whether it be wins, ERA, or K/9) can certainly mean absolutely nothing, depending on what else is going on around them. Wins are just an easy stat to pick on because there are SO many factors instrumental in their creation.

OH MY GOD Ramirez made an out, WHAT A BUM!

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 05:34 PM) Who doesn't have a chance at making this team's pitching staff Guys with options left

there's a game in memphis? i live right by there! sweet!!

QUOTE(Haarold @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Sorry, but Paulie does not stretch for the ball. I never said he didn't hit clutch home runs, I said that these days they are far and few between. Yes he is a good player, I just don't see in him what alot of other people do. People often get caught up on stats hr's rbi's ect.ect when determining a players worth. I look at all aspects of his game and I just don't see how the sun rises and sets with Paulie in so many peoples minds. This organization is kidding itself if they think this team will be able to compete in this division. They are banking on three unproven pitchers to fill out the rotation. Paulie's trade value is high right now and could go along way to fortify our minor league system. The thought of Fields going back to AAA is ridiculous, as is the thought of letting Crede get away. While I agree that Paulie is not above being traded, you will NEVER convince me that his "clutch" home runs are any more infrequent than any other power hitter's on any other team. Hitting too many solo bombs, for any player on any team, is more an indication of the people's ability to get on base in front of them, or how you use them in the lineup (see: Soriano. Silly Lou...). It's not an indication of their "clutchness". Besides, clutch is a silly concept that just distorts statistics based on our ability to remember important hits more than unimportant ones. There are very few players in history with a numerical basis for the qualification, either positively or negatively. Most of them just came up with "important hits" that were totally in line with their career numbers. Just as an example, I could call Paulie clutch because he hit a Grannie in one of the biggest games in franchise history. Agree? No? Good, me neither. Heh, sorry for the rant, I do agree with some of your points and I think that we should trade Paulie if the deal is right. However, I haven't heard of a deal yet that I'd part with Konerko for...were I a GM. And it's a damn good thing I'm not or Shingo Takatsu would still be closing (he was SO FRIGGIN' COOL WHEN HE WAS GOOD!!!)

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Feb 25, 2008 -> 05:17 PM) but his failure to not sprint to first on a first-inning single disappointed Williams. Ouch, that's a pretty gnarly double negative. Yet another blow to the Tribune's credibility. Either that or Williams REALLY hates sprinting.

Seems like a LOOOOT of speculation to me, and probably some context-switching on Konerko but what do I know? Might be an issue, might not, but either way this roster is so different from last year's, I feel like it might just work itself out.

QUOTE(almagest @ Feb 25, 2008 -> 04:33 PM) Searching Google for "Josh Fields' dad" gave me a picture of Ray Liotta. Point to the Fields side. Which Ray Liotta? The goodfella or the former Sox farmhand? But seriously, playing Crede at 3B is not currently an option. He'd only be around one year, we're not trading Fields, and there's nowhere else for Fields to play. He won't play the outfield, he won't play 1B because we wouldn't get the right deal for Konerko, and he won't play DH unless Thome gets injured, and I'm sure nobody's hoping for that. Beyond that, Crede is far from a known commodity so why put any eggs in his basket till he proves himself?

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 01:44 AM) I'll go Buehrle. But, at this point I'm a team cheerer. It's hard to get to liking a guy because of free agency in professional sports. As soon as you buy their jersey, they leave. That's why I'm surprised more people aren't voting Konerko. He's played on our team at a consistently high level for a number of years. I mean, granted, so has Buehrle, but Dye hasn't been here that long and neither has Thome but they seem to get more love.

Konerko, but Buehrle is VERY close behind. Grand Slam in the World Series = Best moment of my sports life. Followed closely by Hester running back the opening kickoff in the Superbowl. Although, Buehrle's no-no is up there as well. But really, I'm surprised Konerko has had such a weak showing in this poll.

Hahahaha! Just for that, I'm voting for him TWICE.

if i immortalize myself on the first page of this thread, i'll be able to see myself 2 months from now when i'm heading to page 66! awesome! but yeah, jenks has earned a free pass for this season, i'd say, considering that was our "only concern" before last season. everything else was solid gold i know, that's untrue, we were pretty antsy about the 5th starter and history actually proved us right on that one. that may be the only time our concerns have turned out to be the correct ones. on a side note, i seem to recall people saying they'd be happy with Danks's progress if he posted an ERA ~5.5. now i dont have the stat book next to me, but if i recall correctly, mission accomplished. yet these same people are declaring Danks dead, which doesn't make sense to me. are their criteria for judging a player's progress flawed or are they just being hypocritical? I dunno, but what I saw last season was plenty of Buehrle-like potential and plenty of room for growth (i.e. suckiness).

The kid can hit some breaking balls. i wonder how he does on fastballs?

okay this mythical "lead-off hitter" that people keep referring to? there are maybe 6 or 7 players like that in the entire baseball realm. what you want is someone with a perfect blend of walk-drawing, pitch-taking, slap hitting, speed, BUT no power. Under the arguments stated here, power would be wasted in the leadoff spot. That's a lot of caveats to put on one spot in the order, and it's a little ridiculous to blast the GM for not landing one of these 6 or 7 guys. If Ichiro Suzukis were everywhere, i'm sure we'd have one. Sadly, he's an anomaly and there are very few players like that. so what move were you suggesting kenny make? coco crisp? going by the last few years, he doesn't fit your criteria. juan pierre? he doesn't either. not enough OBP. the pieces just are not available, nor are they predictable (see: podsednik '05->'06). plenty of good offensive teams make due with leadoff hitters that aren't exactly "ideal" according to the precedents set forth. so i ask you, with what we have, why NOT cabrera or swisher leading off? *EDIT: I should correct myself, the parameters for a leadoff hitter state SOME power, not NO power. that narrows the list of candidates down even more.*

I'm curious as to what "message" Dye sent to ownership with those comments? "You guys have a budget!"? that's not much of a message.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 05:05 PM) A broken leg isn't a torn ACL or something like that...broken legs don't slow you down. not once they stop being broken, anyway

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) Id like to have at least one guy with some power coming off the bench. well, Uribe has SOME decent power. problem is he's streaky and you can't streak from the bench.

BOOO for this move! The white sox are no longer first alphabetically on the list of players! does KW not know what that's worth!?!?

yeah, i kinda do like the position we're in. While I agree that players don't usually suffer much from pressure, I do think there is a slight mental aspect to the position, in that teams who are handed the championship before the season even starts (tigers) often don't do what they're supposed to do. Also, just looking at our team in a vacuum that doesn't include the tigers or indians, our team is fairly decent. We have some dead weight in Crede and Uribe but that's actually okay with me. It's far better than a mad scramble for talent. Talent we have. There are question marks surrounding the back of our rotation, however I've seen flashes of Buehrle in Danks and flashes of an unhittable beast in Floyd when he gets that curveball over. Likely, one of them will not live up to expectations this year, but I consider it fairly likely that one of them will. And this is how I prefer to judge teams. In a vacuum. Are they good or are they not? If not, they won't compete. If they are good, they will, despite who they're theoretically looking up at. I guess we'll find out, but with the additions we've made I'd say we have a 50/50 chance of being a good team. Also, sports pundits are mostly idiots. Most reports I've read still cite our "aging ballclub" as a concern, which is just wholly inaccurate nowadays.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) If you want to keep Utley and Hanram, Id keep Utley as the must player and Hanram as the "may" player. Why? Because if you take Utley as the must player this year you will have a 1st rounder but lose a 5th rounder for Hanley (No way in hell Hanley wont be a first round pick so that is an amazing deal for you). If you take Hanley as the must player this year you will have a 5th rounder but lose a 1st rounder for Utley. I'm not sure I explained the system correctly. I'm gonna lose a pick for everyone I keep, regardless of whether they're the may or musts. So I'd lose the first round pick every time with Utley and the 5th round pick this year for hanley. So if I go with those two, I will definitely lose a first and a fifth this year no matter what. QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 16, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) gotta keep han ram for sure...hes a top 5 pick and you only give up a 5th rounder....i also like kazmir for a 7th rounder, or lincecum...lincecum in that ballpark is gonna be good for quite a few years whereas kazmir has to pitch in the AL east.....where do you pick in the first round?? obviously if you pick #1 you may rather see what else is out there instead of keeping utley I draft #7 (I had horrible luck...stupid head 2 head...) so I'm thinking, if it's possible that Utley could drop to me if I chose not to keep him, I could keep Markakis or Hart instead. Probably Markakis.