ScottyDo

I like the WBC, at least until the Olympics decide to let international baseball happen again. It just needs to be populated entirely by other teams' players

QUOTE (TomSeaverFan @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 09:22 PM) Maybe it'll help him. He hasn't exactly been all that since becoming a member of the White Sox pitching staff. He's been OK. Dude, other than innings pitched last year which were only slightly down due to minor injury, what's not to like? He put up in the ERA+ of over 160 each of the last two years. ERA under 2.5, K/9 over 9. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/crainje01.shtml EDIT: ERA under 2.7 I mean. Under 2.5 last year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 05:24 PM) Why? Clearly, the sum of the move from AJ to Flowers + the move from Morel/Hudson/Youkilis to Keppinger = negative 13 wins, if we're lucky. Nobody will improve, everyone had career years last year. God, Hahn is the worst. Why did he do this to us!? /green

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 04:03 PM) g His range is what separates him from being a good defender to an excellent defender. He doesn't move well laterally. He does go back on balls well. Where he really excels is turning the double play. I know I can't really ask for reliable "proof" here but that's not what I see at all. I think he goes back exceptionally well and laterally very well. A lot of balls I feel like would sneak through most infields because of their trajectory towards 2b, he ends up snagging or at least knocking down.

I dunno, maybe being the best defender at your position is worth more than being a decent defender and slightly above average batter

QUOTE (bhawk99 @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 10:05 PM) Kenny made some questionable deals that didn't pan out and he also made some excellent deals that really improved the team. The point being Kenny had the cahones to do a deal. He was never content with the roster and he was always looking for a way to make the team on the field better. Dumping AJ and adding Keppinger is a wash at best. Will Danks be ready for opening day, who knows? Will Flowers hit his weight or will he continue to be a .205 hitter? Will Dunn not strike out 200 times? Will Tank stop swinging at pitches 6 inches outside the plate? Will Beckham hit like he actually belongs in the big leagues? Will Thornton not lose 10 games again? Will the Sox actually score runners from 3rd with less then 2 outs? I say we have alot of questions to answer to be considered serious contender to the always strong and improved Tigers. If Hahn adds some more talent we will have a fun summer but he has to prove to a lot of us that he is actually serious about winning this year, so far he has not !!! These things are true. Aggressive moves are one way to help the team. But a more prudent approach might also result in success. One approach is not necessarily superior to the other, but it's pretty meatballish to put it in terms of "cajones" instead of acknowledging that there are two different approaches that might have equal likelihood of success. You have to give Hahn more time before you declare him gutless instead of foresightful. More time than even the start of the season.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 05:16 PM) Hey I canonized Kenny a long damn time ago. Kenny has his Reinsdorfian golden parachute retirement prize position now. Sure he's "in the front office" on your computer screen should you take the time to visit whitesox.com but in reality he's on a beach somewhere and the only thing he's scouting is ass. And here I am freezing my balls off getting all worked up over Alejandro DeAza's trade value. Thanks Rick. Yeah, you have internal consistency in loving Kenny Williams, but that's not so true of some of the other Hahn detractors coming out of the woodwork. I also generally defended Kenny but just because I like one guy doesn't mean another guy with a different style (though there must be quite a bit of overlap after working with him for years) is worthless. Even though Kenny's aggressive approach and efficient usage of free agency worked in some ways, he had deficiencies that anyone can note. His approach appears to be different from Hahn's, but that doesn't mean Hahn's is worse. Heck, they might even be nearly identical, we just don't have much information to go off of. It has not yet been ONE FULL OFFSEASON. They should just end the Kentucky Derby right after the horses leave the gates, right? It's already obvious who's the best horse and who's the worst.

It's probably worth noting that the suddenly-canonized Kenny Williams is still in the front office. It is unlikely that Hahn is sitting on his hands without some level of input and agreement from Williams.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 15, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) I get more frustrated with people who expected Rick Hahn to be ultra aggressive and completely transform this team overnight while only adding, at the most, $25 million in payroll. The fact of the matter is Rick Hahn is doing exactly what people have wanted Ken Williams to do for years - slow down, hang on to prospects, build from within, and trade when you are at the point of going over the top. There is no one single move that pushes the White Sox "past" the Tigers at this point in time - no matter what, they're going to have a better team, on paper, going into the year than the White Sox, and that's the simple truth to it. If he brings in Hamilton, it's essentially at +6 WAR at the very best (because I figure he's a 6 WAR player in LF, though he could certainly be better, and moving De Aza from CF to LF kills his value), so even that wouldn't have pushed the Sox over the top. And rather than forcing a trade of Gavin Floyd for what essentially amounts to pennies on the dollar, he can hang on to him and either keep him to add depth and durability to the rotation, or he can deal him midseason (especially if the team struggles like so, so many of you believe it will). For the first time that I can remember, the White Sox have enough talent in the minor leagues that I can look at it and safely believe that they will have atleast 5 steady contributors from that system at the MLB level at some point in time within the next 3-4 years. I look at it and see a guy who has superstar potential in Courtney Hawkins and a couple of different pitchers who have top of the rotation talent. I'm not sure if people wanted Hahn to deal from that and get marginal upgrades at best or shred it Veeck style to sell off for maybe one or two playoff runs, or to sign free agents which cripple the team's long-term financial goals, or to blow up and absolutely forego any sort of chance at competition in the next 3-5 years while cutting attendance by about 20% starting next year. Do any of those make sense? Think from a rational point of view as to what you would have done differently if you were Rick Hahn, and then think about it again and see if it actually would have been the viable and most effecient move both short and long term. This team won 85 games last year. They're adding a guy who has been a 3-4 WAR starting pitcher, adding a full-time 3Bman who should get on base and will put the ball in play, and they brought back their most important free agent (there is no argument here). If everything falls apart, this could certainly be a 72-75 win team. If everything comes together, it could be a 92-95 win team. More than likely, it's in between there at around 82-85 wins again, which probably won't be good enough for the playoffs. Konerko and Floyd are free agents at that point, Dunn will only have 1 year left on his deal (making him move movable), and, unless someone has stepped up elsewhere, the Sox probably will sell quite a few more pieces off. They are in "purgatory" right now, but unlike the NFL and NBA, variance and randomness play a much larger role in the MLB. If they get hot and Detroit suffers an injury, they could very well be penciling themselves into a playoff spot. Baseball is weird like that sometimes. Teams like the 2012 Orioles and the 2005 White Sox happen. This team isn't so far upcreek right now that they have no chance going into the season, unlike the Houston Astros or the Miami Marlins, and in fact, this team has a better chance at reaching the postseason than most. With the way this coaching staff has prepared these players last season, I'm willing to take that chance.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:53 PM) Forbes magazine is a reliable source. Yes. Marty's interpretation of an uncited Forbes article (my apologies if you linked to it earlier in the thread) is not a reliable source, however. I would need to read the resource myself to have any faith in it, but even still my business acumen is not as good as some others' on this board, so I'd rather have their take on your material.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:33 PM) The Sox have very little debt to no debt. I don't know what they would "put the money back in" for (where does it show?). My guess is they take it as a dividend. QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim. Therein lies the disconnect. If someone a little less biased and with a solid understanding of business can analyze your resources (Scott Boras' opinions aside) and determine that they are, in fact, making profit that could not possibly be re-entering the business, then I will concede your point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 06:44 PM) It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend. If they choose to put the money back in, then what are you b****ing about?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) It depends on what your expectations are for this team. I think 77 wins is a reasonable expectation. I posted an article where Scott Boras gave a pretty good argument that team's should be at their historical high for payroll given that revenues are up 200% since 2000 and franchise values have skyrocketed. No reason to believe the Sox couldn't add $25M to their payroll with ease. Sounds trustworthy. He's got nothing at stake there. Incidentally, I saw a commercial by a corn lobby recently. It turns out high fructose corn syrup is totally cool now.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 04:42 AM) Good job! But let me expand on it a bit. C - Field General. At a glance can make sure position players positioned correctly and alert. If not, he can ask for time and chat with the pitcher. Also usually relays defensive play signals to the fielders. 1B - Ability to scoop bad throws out of the dirt is important. Also, a tall, left handed player is preferable. Height make for a bigger target and longer stretch. Lefties apply tags a hair quicker on pickoff attempts. 2B/SS - Well said. 3B - Reflexes are crucial here, defensively. A quick reacting 3B can save several doubles down the line per season. To make my point, I give Brooks Robinson. He made the HOF basically because of his glove. No slouch with bat but was a GREAT 3B. LF - Generally a place to hide your lumbering ox with a good bat, along with 1B. Most good defensive corner OF's seem to end up in RF for some reason, and it goes beyond arm strength. To make the point, Rios is better defensively in RF than Viciedo, but does not have the better arm. CF - Calls for any ball he can get to. He's the general of the outfield. Usually the best all around defensive outfielder of the three starters. RF - See my comments on LF. As someone who never played the game at a level high enough to know the difference, I am far from an expert on the matter. But the explanation I've heard from other people is that most batters are right-handed, and a ball hit to right field by a right hander will have spin on it that causes the ball to slice pretty hard, making it hard to read. A right-hander pulling the ball to left field will cause no such sideways spin so it's easier to play.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 06:19 PM) 1) Chicago media market 2) Unique position of the team having ownership rights of its television provider and having the future ability to take advantage of the explosion in local/regional sports network contracts 3) Cross-marketing with the Bulls 4) Weakness of AL Central for most of its history with a few recent exceptions, but lower payrolls compared to AL East and West 5) Rich and long history of the franchise in Chicago 6) Television ratings are decent despite softer attendance 7) Team still quite profitable in terms of producing overall revenues See, now THOSE are reasons! Marty, take notes.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 06:16 PM) Because the Sox fan base is a subset of a metropolitan area with 8M people in it. That's a ton of people to draw from. Yes, but it's a divided fanbase. Even after winning the title (which seems like a pretty good benchmark for success), the Cubs still outdrew the Sox.

Okay, let's go back a step. Why do you think the Sox fanbase is more of a sleeping giant than some average fanbase?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) You're not going to accomplish it if you don't first build a team that has sustained success.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:44 PM) Doing this from mobile so sorry if some of these are incomplete C- Most unique position. Durability coveted. Sitting behind plate for 120 games takes its toll. Need a strong arm to throw out base stealers as well. Often the most intelligent players because, as they are seeing everything and may be calling what pitches are coming. That's why they make for the best managers later. 1B- Probably least important position. Need fast reactions for line drives. Lots of teams try to hide a defender here or use a player that fails at playing another position. 2B/SS- Need to be right handed. Need to be very quick as they are covering a lot of ground on fast groundballs. Throwing arm for 2B isn't important. It is for SS since they are making a much longer throw to 1B. SS gets a lot more plays than 2B because there are more Right handed hitters. 3B- Does not need to be as athletic as 2B/SS as they aren't covering nearly as much ground playing near the foul line, but they are getting more plays than 1Bmen. Arm is important since you're throwing across the infield. Do need the ability to quickly charge down the line and cover bunts. Look at Miguel Cabrera for someone who has no such ability, and teams do try and take advantage of this. RF- Arm is the most important thing here. Need to prevent a runner coming from first from taking an extra base to third. CF- Usually very athletic and fast. They cover the most ground of anyone in the field. LF- Arm isn't as important since no way are you throwing out anyone at 1B. If you watch baseball, you'll often hear about defense up the middle. This refers to 2B/SS/CF as they are considered the hardest to play and most important. As for your second question, yes, offensive performance expectations are often formed based on defensive positions. Look at it this way, a team is not very likely to have a SS or 2B who can hit a lot of home runs. They are usually smaller, quicker players. But the make up of a good offense still needs the power to come from somewhere. That's why if you play at the corner positions, you are expected to hit for power. Nice synopsis! I'd say that the difference between the defensive requirements of RF and LF is based on distance to 3B, not 1B, though. Neither one is going to throw anyone out at 1B, they're theoretically equidistant from 2B and home plate, but you do need someone capable of gunning a runner out as they try and take 3rd base. From left field, it's pretty easy because you're right next to it, so you don't need someone with a strong arm. From right field, that's a pretty long distance, so you need someone with a strong arm to make runners think twice about taking third base.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) Are you saying longterm? Current ownership is very conservative, small risk/small reward type. I believe the Sox are a sleeping giant that a new owner with fresh ideas and who builds a team that has "sustained success", would put 32-33,000 in the seats every night. Why do you think that? Please be specific with what steps ownership could take to wake the sleeping giant. "Winning" is not specific enough, nor is "sustained success".

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) I say it's time for a new owner then. One that has a better plan for "sustained success" given the constraints of the revenue streams or an owner that has deeper pockets. Deeper pockets has almost nothing to do with it. Revenue drives spending, and perhaps there's some positive feedback, but no owner is willing to operate at a loss for long (unless they're gonna die soon like Ilitch), so there is a very narrow range within which any owner can operate. Reinsdorf's long-term vision I cannot necessarily argue with, as results have been solid but not stellar, but I am not convinced that there is a persistent top-down problem. It's purely a speculative matter either way.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) Right, but Sox fans are so wrapped up in attendance that they blame their fellow fan for not going. Attendance is what it is, no excuse not to win. Not to win or not to spend? Because it's a perfectly good excuse not to spend. You have to operate within tighter budgets if your revenue is low (which is not the same as attendance but is correlated).

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) I'd take their 3B, SS, C, 1B, CF, and LF over what we have at those positons I wouldn't, but even if I felt the same way about these players, calling them "great young stars" is a huge stretch. Also, how many of their pitchers would you take over ours?

Also, care to guess how many Royals pitchers were amongst the top 50 for pitcher WAR?

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) The Royals have done some great things this off season to go along with their great young stars. The Royals had 1 player in the top 50 for batter WAR. That was Alex Gordon, and he will be 29 in a few weeks. The "great young stars" you refer to are all hype until proven otherwise.