wsgdf_2

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 08:55 PM) The difference is you don't go to the press and make your bosses look bad for not hiring the programmer, do you? And yes, I would say "hey Jake, if you really want to win this badly, well, here is where and why we came up short. Now I'm doing the best I can here, but I have some financial constraints I have to adhere to and we couldn't match up because Boras and Damon won't take deferred money." Maybe then he'll respond in a more suitable fashion in the press, or put his money where his mouth is. What's wrong with Peavy saying he wanted him on the team? Hell, AJs been making a public freaking spectacle of wanting him on the team.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) I think if Jake is going to start proclaiming through the press who he wants on his team, than maybe he should be willing to not take up 15-20% of the payroll himself. I'd love it if my company hired a kick ass new programmer to help me get my work done better and faster... but I ain't paying for him. You really want to ask that of the newest guy on the team... the huge acquisition who agreed to waive a no trade clause to come here... the guy who's actually worth his contract to overpay for another guy? No.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:25 PM) It's not about principle. It's about them saying they don't think it makes sense for them to pay Johnny Damon $8 million for one season, and have to pay it all within this year's payroll. DING DING DING!!

Well... the article says 15 teams were there but they only list 14. Under the radar my friends.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Exactly. Putz agent is doing his diligence and I don't think something getting out in the media on the FA front will have much impact on a signing happen. It could put added pressure on a club, but an agent isn't going to just wait and see who calls him, he's also going to talk to plenty of teams and shop an offer around. I think the media jumping in on trades can and often does make it more difficult for a trade to happen. We would have Adrian Gonzalez right NOW if it wasn't for you!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 21, 2009 -> 12:57 AM) Your not being a jerk, Im just some what perplexed as to how your last post explains how Ozzie's statements are relevant to whether or not Vizquel is being signed by the Sox. It seems you are saying that Ozzie is more interesting/newsworthy. I was saying that Ozzie Guillen is not a relevant source of whether or not Vizquel has been signed or is going to be signed. I said the other people would have more information on that subject. This isnt about whats "interesting" or what is "entertaining" this is about cold hard facts. And according to Ozzie Guillen, he is not in the loop, so he doesnt really have any facts on the situation. I guess to each his own. I find this story somewhat newsworthy (not entertaining): Ozzie has talked to Vizquel and KW won't clue Ozzie in to whether or not they will sign him. It lets us know a little about how they are currently operating, and also that KW considers Ozzie a leak (I guess no surprise because he's always talking). Rick Hahn and KW won't tell you anything about negotiations until after the fact, so anything they have to say would be of the "We're always on the lookout for a player of Omar Vizquel's caliber" variety. When they say something factual, it will be "We signed him."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) Well I can name countless people who have more relevant thoughts (KW, Hahn, Reinsdorf, KW's assistant, Hahn's assistant, anyone who is working on the potential contract, Vizquel's agent, Vizquel's agents assistant): IE Those people who are in the loop. Conversely, if the question was about "Where will Vizquel play" or "How will Vizquel be used", Ozzie would be the most relevant source. Just because Ozzie is the manager of the White Sox, does not mean he has relevant information about trades. Ozzie himself admits this: Notice how he says "They aren't telling me anything." If he isnt being told anything, how does he have relevant information? I understand that Ozzie as manager, may be in the loop, but since he explicitly states that he is not, I just dont understand why hes being quoted on this potential deal. Unless the premise of the article is to show that Ozzie isnt being kept in the loop on trades because he leaks things. Call me crazy... but I'd rather hear Ozzie's thoughts about an Omar Vizquel signing before any of the other people you named outside of KW. It doesn't matter if he's in the loop. I mean, the fact that he says he's not is more interesting/newsworthy then anything Rick Hahn could give you about Omar frickin' Vizquel. I could not care less what Omar Vizquel's agent or Rick Hahn has to say about this. I could care less if they even sign Omar Vizquel. This is a minor minor minor minor move. Who seriously wants to hear Rick Hahn's thoughts about it? Not trying to be a jerk... just saying.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) Chisox, Exactly, if Ozzie isnt in the loop why are his comments on this trade relevant? Its just odd to write about the Vizquel deal and use quotes from some one who admits they arent in the loop. Because he's the manager of the White Sox? Not too many people I can think of who might have more relevant thoughts than him... I definitely can count them on one hand.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 07:44 AM) Two statistically inclined publications have put Morel over Viciedo, is that really a huge shock? Actually, BPro has Viciedo one slot over Morel... if you were referring to them.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 10:55 PM) There's no secret that he was the most improved High Schooler comming out, and is still getting better as a baseball player. How good can he get.. remains to be seen. Supposedly.. might have been Laumann's favorite pick in that draft. There was alot of talk in Cali (I believe Jason said it a while back) that he was a steal with his upside/potential. Even if he never makes it.. you make that kind of pick everytime. (same as Nevin Griffith) I just hope we are very patient with him. I believe it was Callis (or someone.. can't remember) that said he's the type of guy that might not break out till 2012. As far as your other question.. I'm not sure which is why I said the list was flawed as I have no idea where KG was taking into account (performance/upside/tools) but if it's more the latter, Trayce's name will and should be up there, but his performance will probably not make him a top 5-10 prospect at this time unless it's just pure potential/projection. Thanks for the info. I remember some of that but hadn't read any reports. I think his placement on the list is not based on pure athleticism and frame but on the questions that remain about how they'll translate.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) Trayce is actually higher (again IF he figures it all out).. which could potentially make you wet. Where have you read that? I don't consider him that low on the list. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised to see him as high as he is. Who do you think he should be in front of?

From the chat: Eliu (Chicago): Jared Mitchell, what's his upside? Kevin Goldstein: Crazy high. Ooohhh... makes me giddy.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:55 PM) I saw this a day or so ago but didn't bother to post it cause it has some serious flaws with the rankings. Now I'm not sure if BP (who I don't mind at all reading actually) was just going by pure potential, or actual overall rankings, but in either case having Jared at #2 but only having Trayce 8th (or 3.0) (who many have said has the bigger upside if he figures it all out) Not to mention Holmberg and the ridiculous Nathan Jones that low? (there are others but just naming a couple examples) C'mon. Now if it's based on just performance (which I'm probably banking it does) than Trayce still might be a bit too high even with the ungodly upside. But.. it's all moot then. It's Kevin Goldstein. He's not a typical Baseball Prospectus guy. He wrote for Baseball America in another life. So... the rankings aren't based purely on performance. He definitely takes performance into account, but with him it seems to be more of a combination of upside(tools) + readiness(performance). He does take age and level into account also. He's always loved Jared Mitchell - thought it was a GREAT pick when the Sox took him, so I'm not surprised he ranks him so high.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) Interesting that Mitchell is our #2 now...I dunno if that is good or bad... Goldstein said he has 'elite' tools in the chat. He also said he could move up to 5 Star with a good showing in the minors this year/

Cowley probably does come here and read. FWIW - when I saw the tweets you guys posted and heard about his Score interview I pretty much figured he was partially reacting to what's been posted about him here for the past couple of years. Frankly, I never really got what all the over the top criticism was about.

I guess while everybody's whining about Joe Cowley, I get to post this! http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9776 Here we go: Four Star Prospects: 1. Dan Hudson RHP 2. Jared Mitchell OF 3. Tyler Flowers C Three Star Prospects: 4. Jordan Danks CF 5. Dayan Viciedo 3B 6. Brent Morel 3B 7. Clevelan Santeliz RHP 8. Trayce Thompson OF Two Star Prospects 9. Santos Rodriguez LHP 10. David Holmberg LHP 11. CJ Retherford 2B Four More: 12. Jhonny Nunez RHP 13. Josh Phegley C 14. John Ely RHP 15. Nathan Jones RHP

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 6, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) Are we now the whitest team in MLB? We traded two white guys for one. So wouldn't we be less white?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 1, 2009 -> 05:06 PM) Much improved, not perfect but better. Hmmm... Gonzalez still has the other one up. Maybe Getz tweaked something? ESPN also: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290901109

Bummer - no Flowers and Pods is in CF: Podsednik cf Beckham 3b Pierzynski c Konerko 1b Dye dh Quentin lf Getz 2b Rios rf Ramirez ss

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 10:39 PM) I just checked Cowley's Twitter and was amazed to see he has only 126 followers. It looks to me like he has 2,137 followers.

Nix 2b Beckham 3b Thome dh Konerko 1b Dye rf Quentin lf Rios cf Ramirez ss Castro c

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 09:58 PM) You can't score a run that way, though. Unless the runner on third breaks for home while the 1B is hiding the ball...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) TCQ is not very good right now. Not true: Going into last night, since Quentin has been back from the DL he's batting .257/.350/.457 for a .807 OPS His last 11 games he's batting .342/.432/.684 for an OPS of 1.116 Wow G&T - beat me and with updated stats... NICE!

I'm not a big fan of the bunt, but I didn't think it was such a bad idea there. Felix has made our righties looked foolish.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Aug 6, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) Assuming a loss today, since the beginning of 2006, the White Sox have a 307-290 record (.514 WPCT) Over the same time frame, in 3 (and 4) games series in which they've won the first 2 (or 3) games, their record going for the sweep is 22-33 (.400 WPCT) Might want to consider changing the f***ing strategy, Ozzie. OK. So I'll guess that 2 game winning streaks are easier than 3 game streaks and 3 game streaks are easier than 4 game streaks. So - what percentage of games overall do they win if they're already on a 2 or 3 game streak regardless of whether the streak started and ended in the same series? Also - what does the rest of the league do after winning the first 2 or 3 games of a series?