WCSox

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 07:17 PM) Here is the MP3 of the Reds Announcers on the cub fans. cubfans.mp3 "You simply root against them. I've said it all winter, they talk about the team winning the division, and my comment is that they won't win it because at the end of the day, they still are the Chicago Cubs, and they will figure out a way to screw this whole thing up." pwned!

Unless Longoria has some sort of chronic medical condition, I think this was a bad move on his part. He really looks like one of those "can't miss" prospects and from what I understand, his performance in the minors suggested just that. BTW, I wonder how many of the vets call him "Eva." He would be fun to haze in the clubhouse.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) Boers and Bernstein played a clip from the Reds announcers, i believe Marty Brennamen and Jeff Brantley, who absolutely laid into the Cubs fans, calling them something like the most obnoxious fans in baseball, etc... it's pretty funny Heard the clip this morning. They ripped them a new one. I guess stuff like this is bound to happen when your team goes 100 years without winning a championship, the fans don't care anymore, and the people in the stands are way too drunk.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 06:21 AM) I think this was more of a case of beating yourself (3 unearned runs) than just being out-played. Yeah, I agree with that. The errors killed us. And as good as Jenks and Linebrink are, they're not going to be perfect every game. That sucks that we pissed away a golden opportunity to go 10-5, but oh well.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Apr 18, 2008 -> 06:44 AM) According to Joe Cowley; Good move? Uribe's hitting .146 currently. To be fair, Paulie and Thome are hitting in the .170s. But of course, I can understand's Ozzie's lack of patience with Juan. I hope that Ramirez can play D.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 04:35 PM) Could we pawn Contreras off if Fields is in a deal? Not unless KW can sign Crede to a long-term deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) Here's my thinking. If Mid May, Juan is still hitting at Juan Uribe levels...that's about when Richar should be finishing up a rehab stint if he's on schedule. If Danny performs well in the minors with the bat, then by June 1, bring him up and at least treat it as a righty/lefty platoon & see what kind of numbers each of them put up. There's certainly no guarantee Danny will be ready to carry the position yet given that the word to describe his performance at every level in the minors has been "Raw", and although I think we're going to have a good enough offense to put up with a Uribe/Richar platoon at the worst at 2nd base, that gives us 2 months before the deadline to decide whether or not we need to upgrade. Agreed about the potential for a Uribe/Richar platoon, although I'm still not sure that I'd want Roberts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) Of course, if Uribe is faltering with the bat, a much cheaper potential solution is to give Danny a shot when he returns from the DL in a couple weeks. But I digress. I'd be in favor of this, although I'm willing to give Juan until June to get his act together. I'm not convinced that Roberts isn't a lesser Jason Giambi.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 01:45 PM) Yeah, good point....enough even to offset the higher ticket prices and the addition 568,000 tickets they sold than us? I have no idea. Consider also that the Sox probably pull in more revenue from food and beverage sales, as the Cubs lose a lot of business to the local bars. I also imagine that Sox merchandise sales are probably still inflated somewhat from the WS.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) My question, however, is assuming their payrolls were similar last season, how on earth did the White Sox bring in more revenues than the Cubs? They have larger parking lots and, IIRC, more skyboxes.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:41 AM) They also have their 2007 profit at $30 million which would be 4 in baseball behind Washington, Florida, and the Mets. Not bad, considering their payroll last year.

QUOTE (AddisonStSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:25 AM) If I were a GM, I would have a policy: give all former steroid guys one full season off the juice before making any long term decisions on their future impact. Yeah, I don't really want Roberts either. And I wasn't aware that Stoney and McFail are still buddies.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) Well, the point in keeping Fields seems to be the low cost of his production, more so than his production alone. So in any discussion about what to do with Fields and what to do with Crede, I do think the entire point comes down to their monetary costs. At the very least, it comes down to value. Cheap, young players who are clearly very talented and have even a modest track record of success have garnered the Sox a lot in the past. Look at what we got in return for Chris Young, Miguel Olivo, and Jeremy Reed. The Sox are cutting $30 million in guaranteed money between 2009 and 2010. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're missing the point. It's not about the money, it's about production. Veteran players are pretty much guaranteed to produce, barring injury. Prospects are not. The Sox will have plenty of money to spend, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. As much as I'd love the Sox to win with younger palyers, the truth is that the Sox have crap in their farm system right now. They're betting off "getting younger" with guys like Swisher and, say, Chone Figgins (who we might be able to get in a deal for Fields) than a prospect or two who may or may not pan out. Because if that prospect doesn't pan out, the Sox are screwed. And I imagine that this is why Kenny hasn't traded proven ML talent for a high-tier prospect in some time. Regarding dealing Crede for prospects, that's all you're going to get from him at this point. He's a FA next year and whoever signs him will have to deal with Borass. His chronic back problems don't help, either. Despite his superior talent, his value is much lower than Josh Fields', who is still pre-arbitration and, as a hitter, is already at the level Crede was at three years ago. Just about any GM in the league would like to have a low-risk, high-reward guy like Fields on his roster. Fewer of them would want to pay $70 million for Crede and his bad back. That's why you don't settle for a prospect (unless you get overwhelmed with an absolutely unbelievable package) for Fields.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Yeah, that's a good point about prospects, and I normally don't advocate for trading for them, but they have become so important in today's game that I think at some point you have to pay attention to the issue. And this particular prospect, and how well-regarded he is, I would have no problem if he was the centerpiece in a deal for Fields. As for getting younger, I'll explain it this way: As of now, Crede is starting for the big club, and Fields is a "prospective" piece for this club. However, right now, he simply does not have a place. Trading him for someone who does have a place, thereby replacing one of our older core players, would constitute getting younger. I still disagree that trading a cheap, ML-ready, and ML-productive player like Fields for a prospect is a bad idea. Remember how convinced Ron Schueler was that Lorenzo Barcelo and Mike Caruso were going to be studs? Remember how everybody was screaming for KW to trade for Salty last year? He's back in the minors now. Even Crede, who absolutely tore it up in the minors and was projected to be the next Mike Schmidt, was a pretty big disappointment at the plate until about August of 2005. IMO, you deal older players that are in the last years of their contracts (and have little value) for prospects. You don't deal ML-ready and ML-proven power-hitting third basemen who won't hit free agency for the next 4-5 years, as those guys are worth A LOT more. Teams will be willing to trade proven, more expensive talent for Fields. And with all of the aging veterans coming off the books over the next two years, we'll be able to afford them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) See the player I mentioned earlier in this thread, Angel Villalona in the Giants system. If there's one thing I learned from Ron Schueler's approach vs. Kenny Williams', it's don't fall in love with prospects. Proven ML talent is always preferable. QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) Well, we differ tremendously in what we would look for in trade for Josh. I would prefer a deal to continue getting younger, as opposed to a veteran, because I do agree that getting good, cheap players is necessary. But fair enough... I'm not sure how re-signing a 30-year-old Crede and trading Fields qualifies as "getting younger", but keeping Crede around for another 4+ years would be my preference as well, regardless of what happens to Fields.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 03:02 PM) I just don't think it's wise to try and mold Josh into something he's not if there is something you need on the trade market. Well, I agree with that. Then again, "something we need" doesn't include a 3B/1B prospect with no ML experience. If, say, Kenny is able to extend Crede and the Angels want to give us Figgins for Fields, or if the Mariners want to give us Washburn for Fields, Quentin, and Contreras, I'd be helping you pack Josh's bags. Or if KW could somehow pry Mauer away from the Twins (impossible, I know), I'd be too busy creaming in my jeans to help you pack Josh's bags. But I don't see any point in dealing a solid young player like Fields for prospects or a veteran player that doesn't fill our needs (C, SS, SP, a good leadoff hitter).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) I'm not expecting Fields to play GG-caliber defense at any position. I'm the one having trouble believing he can play anything other than 3b, and that at a drastic downgrade from our previous 3b. You are the one advocating Fields at 4 positions. Well, Ozzie seemed pretty confident that he could play LF competently last year... and he wasn't exactly terrible, considering that he hadn't played there in years. And it's not like a player transitioning from 3B to a corner OF position is unheard of. Even if he could ONLY play 3B and 1B, his bat would still have value. Which consists of a whole 111 games. His minor-league OBP was about .360. Crede's OBP sucked initially as well, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats. Adam Dunn would regularly strike out 170-195 times a year. Yet he was pretty valuable to the Reds on the cheap. Seriously, even if Josh puts up a .310 OBP, what's wrong with having a 30+ HR player at a pre-arbitration salary hitting 6th in the lineup? Crede's OBP sucked up until 2006, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats. Money isn't really the issue here, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. I'd be fine with trading Fields for an expensive veteran because an expensive veteran will produce. Fields will also produce (albeit possibly at a slightly lower level), but he'll be doing it on the cheap (allowing for spending elsewhere). Either way, it's guaranteed production. But when you deal Fields for a prospect, you're not guaranteed production at all. Why would you want to trade a guy with proven 25-30 HR power at the ML level who can play 3B for a guy who hasn't really shown anything yet at the ML level? Frankly, I'd rather have a proven veteran C or SS. If Fields is worth so much as a power-hitting 3B, we should be getting veteran talent in return. Seriously, why are you so intent on running Fields out of town? Did he boink your sister or something?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) For someone who is putting all his eggs in one basket (Fields' basket), I find it a bit ironic that you are so hesitant to buy into what Quentin has done in his young career. I feel a lot more comfortable putting eggs in Fields' basket (one that has produced at the plate over most of a season), than Quentin's. Then again, I advocate holding on to both of them, so I'm not really sure what your point is. Fields didn't play any OF positions in the minors, so I'm not sure why you're expecting him to put up Gold Glove-caliber defense when he's thrust into that situation in his first full year in the majors. If Carlos Lee and Chipper Jones can make the transition, I don't see why Fields can't. Yeah, he's really questionable at the plate. Almost Uribe-like. The bottom line is that Fields produced for an extended period of time when called upon. Quentin has not. And like I said, I'd rather hold on to both of them than trade the one that has actually hit well at the ML level. If I'm dealing Fields, it's going to be for proven ML talent. Not Angel Villalona.

QUOTE (ChiSox35 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) Voted no because Frank deserved to end it with the Sox, and I think healthy or not Kenny was set on letting him go. IIRC Jim wasn't exactly the portrait of health before we got him either, and if we went back in time to offseason '05 I would have felt safer about Thomas' health over Thome's. That said, Jim has worked out impeccably for the Sox (production wise we probably haven't missed a beat) and from an attitude standpoint I'll reluctantly agree that we're better off, but only because Thome's among the best you could ask for in a teammate. Acquiring Thome has actually eased the loss of Frank in my mind. Both are towards the end of HOF careers, reached 500 at roughly the same time, and continue to hit the pearl far. We pick up a Sheffield or Teixeira and it would be harder. In summation, sucks that we lost Frank, but Thome's the best consolation prize I could have hoped for. Agreed. And as much as I would've liked Frank to stick around for a few more years, Kenny did the right thing by acquiring a slight younger, left-handed bat who had less significant injury problems. And I'm glad that Frank has done well in Oakland and Toronto.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 06:28 PM) Agreed totally, although you can put Manny Ramirez in that same class IMO. For all of his antics, Manny is just an incredible hitter, and I've just always been a fan of all 3 guys (especially Frank obviously). Manny, Frank, and Junior are just all time greats though and (I don't think) any of them have been enhanced either. Agreed about Manny. I don't care much for him personally, but he's the best of the three IMO.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:09 AM) And this is the right path. If the team stays in contention, Crede stays healthy, and keeps performing at a reasonable rate, there's really nothing lost to this team to give Josh another year in the minors at 3rd base. The team should then make an effort to sign Joe to a reasonable deal this offseason, but shouldn't push it too much given Crede's injury concerns, and should take him back only at a number that works for the team. If Joe walks, then we've got Josh ready to step in, if somehow Joe signs for a reasonable deal, then we can deal or move Josh and be perfectly happy with a reasonably signed Crede. Agreed. If the Sox are still in contention on July 31st and Kenny moved Crede, it would be disastrous. It'd be White Flag II.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) I loved all 4 of the jerseys, and I'm sad to hear the vests got retired. I had no idea. I think the black tops look great and I agree we'll start seeing them less as the weather warms up. There was nothing better than seeing the black alternate unis come out when the team needed to turn a losing streak around. Badass fo' sure. The white pinstripes are my favorite, but I agree that you can't go wrong with the others.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) If that's the case, then I agree in principle. But let's just say I (like you) have a strong feeling about Quentin. Fair enough. The fact that the D-backs parted ways with him so quickly is a red flag, IMO, but I'm really interested to see how he'll do over the course of a full season. So far, I'm impressed.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:36 AM) Your argument seems to be that it's ridiculous to say that a guy who has shown tons of power potential (despite being held back by injuries) could hit 25-30 homers, if for no other reason than he hasn't done it yet, and I replied saying he has the tools, he's shown the ability to use them, and it isn't that ridiculous to think he could do that. I'm not even saying anything controversial. No, it's ridiculous to COUNT ON that. That's basically what Shack did in his post.