WCSox

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 08:14 AM) I can't imagine the Angels would give up Santana and something else for Garcia. Santana's numbers are just as good if not better than Freddy's and he's a lot younger and cheaper, and will be cheaper for a few seasons. I think Deluca is full of it. Anaheim would be incredibly stupid to do this straight-up. But if we threw in BA and another prospect, they might be interested. Alternatively, Freddy and maybe a prospect might snag us Figgins. I wouldn't mind him in LF, or even CF.

QUOTE(3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) I'll reserve opinion on the deal to wait for the grand scheme of things in the spring, but man do i haaaatteeee crosstown trades. I was a pretty big fan of the Garland/Karchner deal.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:09 AM) What I find troubling is that we give up on a young guy after one bad season. I guess KW thinks the league figured him out and he won't/can't return to 2005 form. I tend to disagree and believe that Cotts will really be solid out of the pen again very soon. It wasn't just one bad season. Cotts was even worse in '04. But I agree that KW may have prematurely pulled the plug on Cotts. Only time will tell.

Sounds like KW just gave up on Cotts and wanted to deal him now before his value might have possibly fallen further.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) First of all, I seriously disagree on the idea that a guy whipping it up there at 98 from the left hand side will regress next year. I just don't see Thornton doing that at all. Secondly, look what the Red Sox gave up for Javy Lopez. No, not the catcher. People will give up a ton for lefty relief pitching, even if it is off a down year. Why not? Thornton was out of options and worth Joe Borchard when he arrived in Tucson in March. He couldn't break out of the minor leagues until age 27. And when he finally got his break, he responded with a below-average and poor seasons in Seattle. He was bad for most of his career, so why is he a lock to pitch well again in '07? The Sox have three lefty relievers. One of them wasn't very good in his rookie year and the other two have had very inconsistent careers. In other words, this part of the bullpen is a huge question mark. It seems to me that trading any of them away isn't a good option at this point.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) But...that also adds in the cost of whatever you could get for Neal on the trade market. In his three full seasons in the majors, Cotts has had one stellar season and two pretty bad ones. Given that, I don't see him being worth a significant amount on the trade market, even if he is a LHP. Since '05 showed us that he can pitch well, I'd rather give him another year. Given that Logan was bad last year and that Thornton has a long track record of failure, I think that the Sox need to keep their options open right now. JMO.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) Looking at our other options, and knowing Neal can pitch, keep him. +1 Given Logan's lack of experience and his not-exactly-stellar numbers last season, you keep Neal around until his cost exceeds his performance.

Nice. They may have to move him to LF at some point, but much of his decline at the plate this year was the product of injuries.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 05:40 AM) Well that's it. There is something going on with Anderson in the clubhouse that we haven't been told yet. Either #1, he's lazy, or #2, he's a complete jackass and pissed off his whole team, or #3 a (the D-angelo Jimenez as I like to call it) combination of both I mean think about it, the Sox were willing to put a guy out there all of the time who self-admitedly could not play CF over Brian. I have no doubts something extra is going on there... That might also explain why Ozzie was generally supportive of him through the media when he was struggling early on and then did a complete 180 down the stretch (when BA was performing a lot better at the plate). At the very least, Anderson's quotes in the papers suggest that he's not very mature. Weren't some of the other players a bit peeved at him when he allegedly acted like kind of a showboat after they won the WS?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) People already had the chance to drop their tickets though. You had the option to withdraw the money from your account from the playoff tickets deposit (from 2006) and cancel your season tickets, but in general people didn't do that. The renewal rate on season tickets is somewhere between 90 and 97 percent depending on which rep you talk to, so so far that theory has proven to be inaccurate. I didn't relize that the renewal rates were that high. If they're retaining that many season-ticket holders, then I agree that they'll continue to spend for at least this year, even if it's only a moderate increase.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) i think thats too much....id say 110 is about right I don't see why they would increase it at all, especially if they're going to trade away Freddy's $10 million salary. Many of the season-ticket holders from this season were people who begrudgingly bought the packages so they could purchase playoff tickets last season. I expect that the majority of those people will not renew. If they're going to draw less at the gate this season, Reinsdorf & Co. might be less willing to spend $100 million plus on salary.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 28, 2006 -> 05:47 PM) LOL. I resorted to ad hominem only because you resorted a hasty generalization first by making the typical "stat-heads don't watch the games" comment. I have little tolerance for people who are ignorant to make those types of false assumptions, and if I came off as a little 'over the top', or if you didn't mean it the way I took it as, then I apologize. OK, then we're cool. No problem with that. People are allowed to play "scout" and give their opinion. And if I think that I may have better analysis skills than them because, say, I've been watching baseball longer than most of them have been alive (despite watching fewer Tigers games), you'll have to forgive me for putting higher stock in my own opinion. I'm not saying that they're wrong, per se. I'm just reporting what I see. Yes, but even if you take out the five pitcher errors, there were still three by position players and, by my count, three additional defensive miscues that lead to runs (Granderson falling on his ass [i don't care if the grass was wet, you can't do that in a tight game], Monroe playing too shallow then misreading Eckstein's fly ball, Guillen bobbling Eckstein's routine grounder). Also consider that teams tend not to slump defensively in the way that, say, the Tigers' hitters (except for Casey) or the '04 WS Cards hitters (except for Walker) did. Good overall team defense is typicaly very reliable. We're not talking about A-Rod or Chuck Knoblauch losing it in a pressure situation, while the rest of the team plays their normal solid defense. We're talking about the left side of their infield committing four miscues, their CF and LF biting it twice in critical situations, and four different pitchers throwing the ball away. If a team commits EIGHT errors in a WS and botches three other plays that lead to runs, they're most likely not a Top 5 defensive team. Pudge - Gold Glover. Not as good as he was 5 or 10 years ago, but still awesome. Casey - Below average would be putting it nicely. Polanco - Above average Guillen - Average to below average. Not that great in either facet of the game, IMO. Considering that the SS position is more important defensively than 2B, I'd characterize their middle infield as "average" overall. Inge - Good. Not elite, but arguably in the Top 5. Monroe - Below average. Horrible at reading fly balls. Granderson - Average. Dude has all of the skills to get an elite CF, but gets terrible reads on balls. IIRC, he single-handedly lost tight a game against the Sox back in late August when he misplayed a deep fly ball. Maggs - Below average. No range after the knee surgery, has less zip on his throws than he did in his prime, and has always been average with his reads. So, what I see there is a good infield who are dragged down to the "above average" level by pitchers who can't field the ball and a below-average outfield. Overall, I think that they're a mediocre defensive squad. That's what my biased and unscientific analysis of 15 random games during the regular season suggested and that's what the Tigers showed in the WS. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 28, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Let me fix that for you: "I don't know what the hell your stats mean, and I don't care to actually learn and find out. By saying 'Anyone who knows anyone about baseball', I'm talking about other people like me who are ignorant to the stats as well." I know what your stats mean and agree that they have some value, but I'm also intelligent enough to know that they don't tell the entire story and that there's no substitute for watching the game. The "middle infield" is average, half of which consists of Carlos Guillen. You know, the guy who misplayed Eckstein's routine ground ball last night, allowing him to reach and eventually score? You're not reading my posts very carefully. I never said that they weren't. In fact, I said that Inge was pretty good. Why don't you try reading my posts next time. Typical condesceding comment from a teenage know-it-all. I realize that you're incredibly immature and have no idea how to debate an issue like an adult, so here's a little tip: ad hominem attacks don't help prove your point. No doubt that Sabermetrics are useful and informative, but there's no substitute for sitting down and watching the games. That's why baseball teams paty scouts tons of money to do just that. Or did you forget about that? ... and who are completely unbiased. Good one! Granted, I only watched about 15 Tigers game this season and most of them were against good teams (White/Red Sox, Yankees, etc.). Perhaps my analysis is biased in that regard. Then again, they proved my point in the WS by playing even worse (much worse) defense than I had seen during the regular season. If the Tigers really are as strong of a defensive team as you've suggested, they most likely wouldn't have committed EIGHT errors in a five-game series (not to mention several misplays that weren't recorded as errors). Or perhaps they only play solid defense against the Royals and Devil Rays, but fold in big games like Drew Bledsoe facing a blitz. Either way, they're not an elite defensive club. I really can't argue with somebody who is absolutely convinced that he knows everything and uses ad hominem attacks to suport his arguments. Grow up.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 11:40 PM) Oh, right. No hard evidence, just your eyes. Right.... Anyone who knows anything about baseball will tell you that you can't gauge defensive prowess by only looking at stats. You have to actually watch the games. From the 15 or so Tigers games that I watched on the Extra Innings package this summer, I concluded that the Tigers are a below-average defensive team. Their outfielders get bad reads on balls, their middle infield is average at best, and Inge does surprisingly little with his very good range. And when the pressure was on in the WS, they corroborated my analysis by playing the worst defense I've ever seen from a league champion. LOL, when will you stat-heads ever learn? Inge is good, but certainly not in the same category as Crede or Rolen. He's not an elite defensive 3B. Funny, I consider those who don't watch baseball games to be the "ignorant" ones. Watching baseball games is the best way to measure team defense, whether or not you believe it. Fixed

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 10:22 PM) Winning game 5 at all costs doesn't really get you anywhere in the long run, that's kind of like using your closer in the 7th inning. Winning Game 5 at all costs puts you in the best possible position to stay alive in the series... and that's the most important thing at that point. I wouldn't have pitched Rogers on three days rest or anything, but since it was his spot in the rotation, I would've given him the nod. Agreed that Verlander pitched pretty well. But I wouldn't have started him last night. JMO. QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 10:41 PM) Leyland should've pitched Rogers tonight. Worse, for him to say the reason he's not is because of the heat he would catch from Cardinal fans says a lot about the character (or lack thereof) of Kenny Rogers. Kenny Rogers is a hot-headed douche. All the talent in the world, but nothing between the ears. No wonder he's never won anything.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) Okay, you don't like the defensive stats. What's your basis for calling Detroit a bad defensive team, besides the fact that they've had a bad couple of games? Oh, that's right, nothing. No, my basis is watching them during the regular season. They weren't good defensively then and they've been looking horrible recently. No argument about Pudge, although I don't consider Polanco and Guillen anything special. Granderson isn't very good, even in regular-sized outfields. LOL. Are you joking? Igne is NOT one of the top defensive third basemen in the league. I've watched them botch plays during the regular season that a team like the Sox or Twins would've made. And, um, they've looked pretty freaking bad over the past week, no? Right, because errors correlate well with a player's range or his ability to read fly balls. Oh, wait, because there aren't any stats to evaluate those attributes, I can't make that argument. Because, you know, stats are everything! What a ridiculous argument.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) Yes, their inability to play solid defense, which ranked at a terrible second in all of baseball in Defensive Efficiency... Right, because stats can be effectively used to gauge defensive prowess. Good one.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Oct 27, 2006 -> 12:57 PM) I never got the whole point of that logic. You gotta win all three game anyways, who cares what order your starters go in? Does it really matter if they lose game 5 or game 6? I suppose in this case it'd be big to get the series back to Detroit, but that's somewhat unrelated. (1) Tonight is a must-win situation for them. They can't think about Game 6 or Game 7 at this point. They have to put their best lineup on the field tonight and win. (2) Rogers is their ace and it's his turn in the rotation to start anyway. (3) Rogers' home/road splits are essentially the same in terms of WHIP (1.25 vs. 1.26). (4) Rogers on the mound tonight takes the pressure of pitching on the road off of the rest of the younger staff. (5) Verlander was awful in Game 1 and was throwing about 4-5 mph slower than usual (most likely a "dead arm"). Why not give him another two days to rest it? I have a lot of respect for Leyland as a manager but unless he knows something that he's not sharing with the rest of us, I think that his decision to pitch Verlander tonight is bone-headed.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 11:01 PM) Marlins over Yankees? DBacks over Yankees? Marlins over Indians? Reds over A's? Dodgers over A's? Twins over Cardinals? It's not like the Tigers dominated the whole year and looked completely unbeatable. They went 19-31 in their last 50 and pretty much lucked into a playoff birth thanks in large part to the Sox not being worth a damn in the 2nd half either. This is not an upset IMO. This is two good teams playing each other with regular season records completely thrown out the window. I strongly disagree with that. The Cardinals were freaking 83-79 in the regular season. That's not the record of a playoff-caliber team. The underdogs that you cited above all did a hell of a lot better than 83-79. Consider also that the Cards' #2 starter and their closer are lost for the season due to injuries, Marquis went down the toilet this year, Rolen is hurt (again), and Edmonds has been battling injuries and Father Time all season. My God, they're relying on Jeff Freaking Weaver and Anthony Reyes (who?) to anchor the bottom half of their playoff rotation! This is the very DEFINITION of an upset. On paper, these guys aren't very good at all. But they're absolutely playing their tails off right now. I'll say this about the Tigers: Watching them earlier this year, it was apparent to me that they had all of the tools to win, but that their inability to play solid defense was going to hurt them at some point. And if Leyland doesn't start Rogers tonight, he's making a big mistake.

That's awesome. I thought that they'd have trouble hitting 2.8 million. I'm sure that there will be a drop-off next season. But since they'll definitely be competitive again, the place will be rockin' once again.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Sep 23, 2006 -> 01:08 PM) Yeah, because Ryan Sweeney has accomplished so much in the major leagues. Luis Gonzalez is older than dirt and his big numbers mysteriously vanished right around the time that MLB started testing for steroids. No thanks.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) Good post. I can't support them like that because I don't live there. But they're my baseball team, win or lose. Some people in here sound like Bahston Bandwagon fans. Same here. And I'm fed up with the "get rid of Ozzie... and Jose... and Buehrle" threads. How about giving these guys another chance next season? In case some of you've forgotten, they delivered us a championship less than a year ago. :oldrolleyes

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 09:08 PM) This really is an epic choke job. Not really. This team has had inconsistent pitching all season and hasn't even been the best team in their division. It's not like a trip to the playoffs was theirs for the taking.

It ain't over yet but, either way, I'm proud of these guys. At the very least, the Sox will be in good shape in '07.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) He said he was sorry for the reaction. Didn't apoligize for the use, or tone, of the quote. Nor should he. The remarks were taken out of context by fundamentalist Muslims (and the demagogues that keep them poor and ignorant) who are simply looking for a fight.