WCSox

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 25, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) Lee Smith! (Smith should probably be in the HoF, but I stand 50/50 on that. Yeah, pretty much. I have little doubt that both Hoffman and Rivera are inducted. Even without the rings, Hoffman's 596 career saves and 1.05 WHIP are mind-boggling.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 25, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) I wouldn't necessarily call Mark dominant, but the guy has a Perfect game and a no hitter. On top of that he has been one of the most consistent and reliable pitchers in baseball and at times been one of baseballs best. In fact, when you look at his stats over long periods, the guy has been one of the best in his reign. He'll need to play for a while and stay above average, but he has a shot to make the HOF. That doesn't get a pitcher into Cooperstown. Dominance does. Guys like Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, etc. are the likely next inductees. Mark didn't dominate like those guys. Even some of his younger contemporaries (Santana, Sabathia) are a tier above him.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ May 25, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) agreed, he certainly is a very long shot at ths point but i wouldnt say he has no chance. regardless i think he will be revered by sox fans in the same light as those aforementioned cubs Mark is a lot like David Cone and Andy Pettitte: Excellent career, dominant at times, and a major factor in his team winning a championship. Unfortunately, you really need to dominate at a certain point of your career to get into Cooperstown, and Mark hasn't done that. He's thrown some phenomenal individual games, but not for for long enough to be considered a serious Cy Young candidate. All three of those guys will get into their respective team's Hall Of Fame, and deservedly so. But they were simply not the best of the best of their generation. The only way that Mark has a shot is if he pitches into his 40s and amasses 300 wins. But given that he's already publicly mulled early retirement and that he's more erratic and doesn't throw quite as hard as he did five years ago, I don't see more than 250 wins by age 40.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 25, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) Jermaine Dye is one of the most respected offensive players in Sox history on this board. A lot of us were even willing to overlook his tank job during the 2nd half last season, as well as his poor attitude, and welcome him back this season. Dye, IMO, is the most significant free agent signee in Sox history. Yep, I was a big JD supporter before he began running his mouth this winter.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2010 -> 10:51 PM) My point AGAIN was Sox fans, at least on here, undervalue their own. Somebody respond to my point made in the long summary above from Game One of the WS. Which players on there do you consider great former Sox? There's no love from some of you for guys who gave you a WS ... and in contrast, f***ing Cub fans worship those chokers from '69 who finished about 10 games out after blowing the big lead to the Mets. Jenkins, Banks, Williams, Santo, Kessinger ... oh they are immortal by Flub fans. From some Sox fans on here, all ll I read is b****ing about Rowand, Dye, Garland, Crede, Pods, Uribe, et. all. They were very good players. Deal with it. If Pods hit a walkoff WS homer for the Cubs, he'd be worshiped in this city forever. He's mocked on here for getting picked off a few times last year. My god. You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. What a couple Sox fans on a message board think of Aaron Rowand is not exactly indicative of what all or the average Sox fan believes. Regarding your point about Pods, some people here rip him because he's a below-average baseballl player. Everybody is acutely aware of what he did for us in '05, and I imagine that the vast majority of people here are thankful for that. So I disagree that Pods, Rowand, Everett, etc. were "very good players." They were slightly-above-average-to-mediocre players who happened to play on a team that had lights-out pitching in 2005. And I have no idea why you're comparing Pods to HOF talent like Fergie Jenkins, Ernie Banks, and Ron Santo.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 24, 2010 -> 07:15 PM) Need to keep finding ways to get runners on for Rios. Also, stop bunting in front of him so the opposition can set up the double play with an intentional walk. Ozzie needs to realize PK and Jones have cooled down, and Rios is our biggest threat. Given Q's injury and mental issues, Rios very well may be our #3 hitter of the future. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 24, 2010 -> 07:22 PM) His name is Rios and he dances on the sand!

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 24, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) He was a starter on a World Series team and still better than most of the stiffs on this current team. But hey, he's another guy many buried when until this year's version of Rios he would have been way better than anybody else we've put out there. Carl Everett was a starter on a World Series team as well. What's your point? Rowand was a really solid defensive CF who had a couple nice seasons at the plate. From what I've heard, he was also a good clubhouse guy. But he never figured out how to hit the ball consistently, and hasn't posted a .750 OPS since Sabean stupidly gave him $60M. I like Rowand on a personal level and appreciate what he did for the Sox, but I'm still happy as hell that Kenny traded him for Thome, and then acquired a much more talented and accomplished CF four years later.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) Not to mention if you look at the contract Rowand ended up getting, you have to realize that we would have lost him for nothing. We got Jim Thome for him. The Sox were win-win when it came to Aaron Rowand. Rowand hasn't touched an OPS+ of 100 since getting that $60M deal. Kenny >> Sabean

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) If we can get someone to pay Jenks's salary, deal him. It would make sense for Kenny to hold onto Bobby until late July. He's most likely going to improve at least somewhat by then, and that would increase Kenny's chances of getting an average (vs. a throw-away) prospect in return. That said, I absolutely agree that dealing Bobby is going to overwhelmingly be a salary-dump.

Nice to see Floyd and MB bounce back, and it's encouraging to see Q showing some signs of life.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ May 21, 2010 -> 08:31 PM) What good is salary relief for this organization? While it may seem meager in the context of a $100M payroll, any business with declining revenue would want to save $4M. That doesn't mean deal AJ at all costs or anything, but the financial benefit is definitely there.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 21, 2010 -> 01:53 PM) If we're going to suck anyways, why not just let Lucy and Castro split duties? What do we lose out on? If I'm Kenny, that's exactly what I do. That $4M will help mitigate the financial impact of the lack of butts in the seats later this season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 21, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) I think what WAR fails to take into account, especially in Frank's case, is the benefit he had on the rest of the hitters in our lineup. Undoubtedly SEVERAL hitters in our lineup benefitted tremendously from the damage (and potential damage) Frank did in our lineup. Take Frank out of that lineup, and replace him with a replacement-level player, and many of the other hitters around him probably see a pretty significant drop in their production as well. The entire character of the offense would have been dramatically affected. One thing that some people (not necessarily you) tend to forget about the '93 Sox is that Frank's supporting cast was pretty solid. And many of these guys were highly-productive players on previous teams... Tim Raines - 880 OPS, .401 OBP, 21 SB Robin Ventura - .820 OPS, 22 HR, 27 2B Ellis Burks - .793 OPS, 24 2B Lance Johnson - .311 BA, 35 SB Joey Cora - .351 OBP Not a ton of HR power in that lineup, but when SIX of your starters are posting an OBP of .350 or higher, you're going to score runs.

This is the most frustrating Sox team since the '84 squad. In '07, it was at least understandable that injuries to JT, JD, Crede, and other vets would kill offensive production. And nobody expected Danks, Floyd, and a patchwork bullpen to be anything more than average at best. In '01, Frank was out for the season early on and it was difficult to expect Baldwin and Parque to anchor the middle of the rotation. In '97, they took a massive gamble in Navarro and skimped badly to fill the two other spots in the rotation. So no surprise there. But it's mind-boggling to watch Peavy, Buehrle, and Jenks all suck in the primes of their careers. And it's difficult to understand how (presumably healthy) players like Alexei and AJ can put up a sub-.600 OPS. And the would-be '08 AL MVP is hanging right around the .700 OPS mark. Barf.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 20, 2010 -> 11:55 PM) Because some people, if left in the major leagues without a lifejacket, will drown in a pool of self pity and shot confidence. I don't think Gordon is somebody like that (although he seems just dead in terms of confidence right now), so I can understand leaving him up, but if he was sent down, I wouldn't argue it either. Demoting Beckham to the minors may shatter his confidence more than keeping him in the bigs. At the very least, keeping him in Chicago is a vote of confidence in his ability to rebound. That said, I'm only in favor of this because (1) there's nobody available in-house to replace him and (2) the organization's priority will likely change from winning to development in about a month.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ May 20, 2010 -> 08:53 PM) I actually agree with J4L on this one. There is a reason Hargrove (the Indians manager at the time of course) said that pitchers should not be alone with Frank at the dish. Or why Ted Williams called him one of the best RH hitters he has ever seen during that era. 93' Mo: .297-.390-.525-.915 139 OPS+ BB:79 SO:130 (29 HR 101 RBI) 3.3 WAR 93' Frank: .317-.426-.607-1.033 177 OPS+ BB:112 SO:54 (41 HR 128 RBI) 6.7 WAR Both great hitters like you said. But you can get Mo Vaughn out. Frank was just a freak of nature. In the historical sense, I'd say that Mo was more of a "very good" hitter than a "great" one. And, at the very least, Mo wasn't quite at his prime in '93. I also think that the '93 Sox, having three other hitters with an OPS+ of 110 or higher and five other players with an OBP of .350 or higher, had more than enough of an offensive supporting cast to replace a "great" hitter with a "very good" one and still ride their outstanding pitching to a division title. I don't give much credence to WAR, but the Sox won the AL West by a comfortable 8 games that year, so even this statistical analysis supports my argument.

Since the season will likely be over at this time next month, I wouldn't bother sending him down. Let the kid take his lumps and learn how to make adjustments at the ML-level. Given that the way that he hit early last summer and the maturity that he displayed at age 22, I'm not worried about him at all. He's going to be an All Star-caliber player in a couple of years.

I've said all that I have to say. Have a nice evening.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 20, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) So do I get to cherry-pick 5 comparable starters from the AL at that time that could easily step in and replace what the Sox rotation did to minimize their importance? And no, the SP would not have been able to overcome the massive difference between Frank and Mo Vaughn. They are both black, though. So I guess you can hang on to that. Frank and Mo Vaughn were both elite hitters who won MVPs. Sure, Frank was better, but your assertion that the Sox wouldn't have won the division with Vaughn instead of Frank is silly. We can agree to disagree on that, as your man-love for Frank seems to be getting in the way of your ability to think objectively. And you apparently don't know what a straw man argument is, either.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 20, 2010 -> 05:03 PM) Not really. Yeah, they're different sports (and thank you so much for pointing that out. I didn't realize that). But the point is pretty clear. Take away that one guy and that team suffers quite a bit. 1+1=2. Not that difficult to comprehend. At least it shouldn't be. If you honestly think that Frank had as much impact on the Sox as MJ did on the Bulls, you're sports-illiterate. The term "slight" is subjective, and the Sox still would've won the AL West with Mo Vaughn and an outstanding pitching staff, which was my earlier point (predictably, you missed it). Do you actually think about what I post, or do you have some sort of diarrhea-like keyboard reflex that automatically spouts ad hominem attacks? You don't know what my "points" are because you don't bother to read. I never argued that the '93 pitching staff was more critical to the Sox's success than the '05 pitching staff. I argued that the '93 pitching staff was more important to the Sox's success than '93 Frank. (And I used the comparison of the two pitching staffs to remind your just how good the rotation was in '93, since you were probably four years old at the time.) Reading is fundamental.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 20, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) Frank carried us in the same way Michael Jordan carried the Bulls. Your comparison of the impact of one player in two very unlike sports is dumb, to put it nicely. Since a discussion of "carrying" a team to a second-place finish or a strike is pointless, I'll focus on the '93 season, where they actually won something and played in the ALCS... Mo in '93: .915 OPS Frank in '93: 1.033 OPS You're right, they wouldn't have had a chance! That slight downgrade in production would've made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. The starting pitching in '93 was better and Roberto Hernandez was a better closer than both Hermanson and Jenks... 1993 Wilson Alvarez - 143 ERA+ Alex Fernandez - 135 ERA+ Jack McDowell - 125 ERA+ Jason Bere - 122 ERA+ Roberto Hernandez - 1.09 WHIP 2005 Mark Buehrle - 144 ERA+ Jon Garland - 128 ERA+ Jose Contreras - 125 ERA+ Freddy Garcia - 116 ERA+ Dustin Hermanson - 1.10 WHIP Bobby Jenks - 1.25 WHIP As important a part as Frank was to the '93 AL West Champions, he didn't "carry" the team to the division title. The pitching did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 20, 2010 -> 11:20 AM) Even a team in rebuilding mode has to be able to market itself. "The Kids Can Play 2"?

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 20, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) I don't like the idea of paying Mark and Peavy $30+ million a year while we do this rebuilding... If we're in rebuilding mode, Mark and his $14M salary will be traded before ST of next year.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 20, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) Tell me how long did it take the Rays to compete with the high draft choice model? What, 12 years? Do you want to suck for 12 years? Obviously, the Rays are in a unique position, as they have zero financial flexibility and play in the AL East. And, yeah, if it means that the Sox win another pennant and are still beating up on the Yankees and Red Sox two years later, I'll take 12 years of sucktitude for that level of play. The Tigers sucked for five years (2001-2005), which doesn't constitute "forever" in my book. The Indians sucked throughout most of the '80s, and then went on to dominate the AL Central and win two pennants in the '90s. I'm not advocating that the Sox sell off EVERYBODY and fill out next year's 25-man roster with the cast of Major League. Like you, I think that they have some solid players left (Peavy, Rios, Beckham, Danks) who they could build around in the short-term. But for that to happen, they'd have to take a step back right now. If the Sox still aren't competitive at the beginning of July, I'd try to move most players whose contracts expire before 2012. That includes PK, AJP, MB, and Thornton, and try to get as many AA or ML-ready prospects as I could. I'd also try to sign Danks to a five-year deal. If Danks agrees, I'd deal Floyd for an ML-ready position player. I'd fire the entire coaching staff (except Coop, who would get a big raise). I'd then bring up Hudson, Flowers, and D2 and basically concede 2011. With the money saved, I'd spend heavily in free agency in December of '11 and begin to make another run in 2012. They may not be ready by late that year or 2013, but Rios, Peavy, Beckham, and Danks will still be under contract then. Then again, if Kenny continues his foot-on-the-gas approach for the next couple of years and the Sox continue to mire in mediocrity, they'll eventually have to sell of guys like Peavy and Rios because there won't be enough years left on their deals to justify keeping them around. Unless the farm system has an unexpected boom of productive players at that point, it's likely that the Sox will have to start from scratch going into 2013.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 20, 2010 -> 09:08 AM) Honestly, I'm just not accustomed to having to spell everything out in precise detail in every post and in every statement I make. There are certain assumptions I make when I post here, one of which, is that those who respond understand the obvious. And that obvious is that not any one player is responsible for the success of an entire baseball team. I guess I have to spell everything out in my responses to you, otherwise you will latch on to silly periphery points instead of debating the crux of the statement. I admit, Frank could not pitch for us. In order for the White Sox to win, some very solid pitchers had to take the ball and limit the opposition to a reasonable number of runs. So for your benefit, and yours alone, I will rephrase: I love how you launch veiled personal attacks on those who dare call out your bad arguments. If you want poorly-reasoned arguments backed with poor supporting evidence to go uncontested, posting them on a message board is probably not a good idea. I agree that Frank was a big part of the offense. And so was Robin Ventura, and I'm not sure that they win the AL West without him either. Then again, if the Sox drafted Mo Vaughn instead of Frank, I'm pretty sure that they would've been approximately as good as they were in '93 and '94. Either way, the pitching still overwhelmingly "carried us" in '93 and '94. The recent Rays teams disagree with you. Rebuilding with high draft picks obviously does not guarantee anything, but if your front office is reasonably competent, your chances are pretty good. There are other examples that I can give in recent memory (the '06 Tigers, the mid-'90s Indians), so implying that what Larry Himes did in the mid/late '80s was some sort of freak occurrence is just not true. I'm sorry that fact clashes with your own personal opinion of how Kenny Williams should proceed forward, but it is a viable model that has been successfully implemented numerous times in the past.