WCSox

I like Rowand and all, but the overly-gratuitous nostalgia needs to stop.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 10:18 AM) Rios hit 24 in Toronto which is not only plays its home games in a pitchers friendly ballpark, youre also playing a ton of games in the AL East. Playing in the cell and feasting on some AL central pitching I think he could easily hit 25 maybe even closer to 30. Rios hasn't even averaged 20 HRs/season throughout his career. How did playing at the Cell help his power numbers this past summer? I agree with this. IMO, it's more of a matter of whether Jones will have enough plate appearances. He's probably not going to be a starting outfielder, he'll have additional competition if Kenny signs a DH, and his health has been problematic recently. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) Here’s how Bill James has us pegged for homeruns next year. Note: I don’t think Nix will be on the 25 man nor will Jones be a starter, and James tends to over predict. Not an exact assessment, but an assessment just the same. James has us landing around 188 homeruns. AJ-14, Konerko-29, Beckham-21, Teahen-13, Ramirez-18, Q-30, Rios-16, Pierre-1, Jones-22(adjusted for playing time)- Bench: Nix-8, Kotsay-3, Flowers-12, Visquel-1 This seems a lot more reasonable to me, although I'm still not convinced that Jones will have enough plate appearances to hit 20+ HRs.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) Teahen has hit 18 before, and Rios has hit 24. I wouldn't put money on them hitting 20 and 25, but in our ballpark I wouldn't rule it out either. There's a big difference between ruling out numbers and projecting realistic numbers. Rios' production has slid over the past couple of years and he was downright awful in Chicago last summer. I'm just hoping that he can bounce back to his career average OPS next year, much less return to his '07 numbers. And as somebody has already stated, Quentin is far from a safe bet to stay healthy long enough to hit 30 dingers. This offense has a chance to be decent next year, but projecting 200 HRs isn't very realistic.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) I can't believe people still want to see Thome back on the Sox. Yeah, his .847 OPS last year really sucked. I have no problem bringing him back for $5M or so next year. QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:45 AM) this could be the end of the offseason for kw and if it is id like to see 1. Pierre LF 2. Becks 2b 25HR 3. Rios CF 25HR 4. CQ RF/DH 30HR 5. Kong 1B 30HR 6. AJP C 10HR 7. Jones RF/DH 25HR 8. Teahan 3B 20HR 9. Ramirez SS 20HR get 15 homers from the bench and you got your 200 homers to go along with a pretty good staff You have some very overly-optimistic projections there.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) Ely and Link http://twitter.com/jonmorosi/status/6702106304 That works for me. Pierre is a very marginal leadoff hitter, but he's a decent two-year stopgap for a team that's on a budget and hasn't had a legit leadoff guy since 2005. I'll take him over Pods in a New York minute. If Kenny can bring Thome back for one more year on the cheap, I'll be pleased with this off-season.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Brad Lidge is guaranteed $24.5M over the next 2 season and Bobby Jenks only $7.5M-$8M. Not to mention that Jenks' arbitration-eligible status and the fact that he didn't completely suck this season makes him more valuable on the trade market. I'll take Jenks and Linebrink over Lidge and cash any day.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) If Putz shows he's healthy and performing, Jenks shows he's healthy enough to be dealt, and someone stands out from the crowd and puts themselves in the middle relief or setup discussion (and that's excluding Pena, who is already going to be counted on heavily to perform out of the bullpen), then it's a possibility. It's really not possible before the season starting. This ^^^ QUOTE (BaseballNick @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:59 AM) If the Sox had money, I'd be in favor of keeping Jenks. Since payroll is said to be maxed out and with holes at a corner OF spot and at DH, the money is going to have to come from somewhere. If they can afford to keep Bobby and sign a leadoff hitter as well as a DH, I'd be in favor of that. Who wouldn't want the stongest bullpen possible? I just don't think it's likely given the state of the team right now. The bullpen was bad this year and was as big a hole as the middle of the lineup. It would be a bad idea to pay out the nose for a stud rotation and to not back them up with a halfway decent bullpen. What's the point of paying Peavy and Buehrle a combined $30+ million, only to have Linebrink and Pena blow leads twice a week? I'd expect Kenny to sign a DH (maybe Thome or Matsui) and that's about it. If they bring in a leadoff hitter, it's going to be a cheap, low-impact guy like Coco Crisp. I agree. If both he and Jenks are healthy and productive at the break, Bobby is most likely dealt with Putz moving into the closer role. But Bobby's not going anywhere until Putz demonstrates that he can still get hitters out.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 07:45 AM) Perhaps, but it's no indication that the White Sox are going to look to move Jenks because they signed with Putz. If it is about being the closer, it would be him being a candidate to take over for saves during the middle of the season due to injury/ineffectiveness of Jenks. Kenny would be insane to move Jenks right now and rely on a guy that's been injured and ineffective for the past two seasons. That said, if Putz bounces back, I could definitely see Jenks dangled at the deadline.

I would've liked to see the Sox tender Carrasco, but this is a 32-year-old with a career 104 ERA+ and 1.47 WHIP. I don't see a reason to give a guy like that $2M+ when you have a rock-solid rotation of Peavy, Buehrle, Floyd, Danks, and Garcia, along with Hudson if you need him. The Sox need a shut-down 7th/8th inning reliever a lot more than an over-priced mop-up guy.

QUOTE (BaseballNick @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) It makes sense if Daniel Hudson is the long reliever. I'm not sure that this is a smart long-term move for the Sox. If Hudson is going to be a starter in 2011, he's not going to get enough innings as a long reliever to condition his arm for the rotation.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) i'm not as high on this deal for the tigers as most here are...while grandersons game has taken a step or two back, and they may have sold high on Edwin Jackson, those guys are both proven above average major leaguers....Edwin Jackson is only 9 months older than Schrezer and is more proven in a better league and better divisions I agree. This may end up working out for the Tigers, but I wouldn't be jumping up and down with joy right now if I were a fan.

Even if Kenny can get him cheap, you have to worry about his ability to stay healthy. As an addition, he'd be great, but I wouldn't want to trade Jenks and roll the dice on Putz.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) There isn't a human being walking the face of the earth that would put Ed Walsh over Frank Thomas among White Sox all-time greats I never claimed that one was superior to the other, just that there isn't a massive chasm in proficiency between the two. Given their level of play in comparison to their peers, I find it difficult to rank one over the other. It would be helpful if you'd use something other than emotionally-based platitudes to support your statements in this thread. Frank is certainly one of the greatest hitters of his generation, but nobody's going to put him in the same category as guys like Bonds, Maddux, Rivera, etc. He's a first-ballot HOFer, but clearly not the "best of the best" of his generation. Claiming that a player like that is far and away better than a HOF starting pitcher with a lower career ERA than Cy Young makes little sense. Was Walsh not one of the greatest pitchers of his generation? If he was, Frank doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above him. It's as simple as that. For somebody who claims to be a baseball historian, your lack of perspective and outright dismissal of a "dude from over a century ago" is puzzling.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Dec 8, 2009 -> 07:12 AM) Frank Thomas was great, and I mean GREAT hitter. But Frank was just a hitter. He wasn't much of a baseball player as far as an all around game. Defensively he went from bad to incapable. He couldn't run and he couldn't throw. But the man could certainly hit. I still feel cheated we never got what his final numbers would have been in a full '94 season. I agree. Definitely one of the best bats of his generation, but nobody's going to confuse him with Barry Bonds or Ricky Henderson.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) Whatever, dude. Frank is by far and away the best player in franchise history. I'm not about to get into some heated debate over a guy who had a microscopic era in a league in which the league leader in HR's hit a whopping 7. Yeah, who cares that he's a Hall of Famer and has the lowest all-time ERA in baseball. Frank's obviously much, much better because you say so.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) Again, he was great for that time. And lol@you would like to see a pitcher today win 40 games or throw 400 innings. I'd like to see Ed Walsh in today's game attempting to keep his ERA below 10. So, do you think that Frank would've had a career .300 average and 500 career HRs in Walsh's era? How are you so convinced that Frank was miles better than Shoeless Joe Jackson? Still LOL at your dismissal of Walsh. Yeah, I'm sure that he'd suck in today's game, as evidenced by his performance among his peers in the early 1900s. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 02:53 PM) So is he one of the top 10 pitchers ever? Context is very important when you want to throw out names of guys that played, like, 100 years ago. Is Frank one of the top 10 hitters ever? Better than Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Bonds, Mays, Musial, Williams, Wagner, Cobb, Gwynn, etc.? He's *probably* the best hitter in Sox history, but he very well may not sniff the Top 10 of all time. This appears to be your way of automatically dismissing players simply because they played a long time ago. I could throw that same qualifier on Frank, who had the luxury of playing in a live ball era, complete with small ballparks, lighter bats, lower pitching mounds, diluted pitching talent, and diets/workout regimens that maximized athletic ability. I don't see much evidence that Frank was that much better than his peers than Walsh was among his.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) You can not equate essentially 19th century statistics to a 21st century game. I could spend an hour talking about how different things are, and how much different things would be. Thus, one cannot objectively claim that Frank is the greatest Sox player ever and that nobody else is even close.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 08:41 AM) And you can tell his ghost I said hi right back. It's still not close. Walsh was great for his time. Frank was great for ANY time. Some of you need to realize that good baseball players existed prior to 1980 and that not every superstar in today's game is superior to the superstars of your father's or grandfather's era. You can opine all you want about Frank being better than Walsh, but to objectively claim that "it's not even close" is just silly. Walsh is in the Hall of Fame for good reason: He's the all-time leader in ERA (1.82), he had a 40-win season in 1908, and he had five 350+ IP seasons (including two of over 400 IP). That's a remarkable career, even for the dead-ball era. I'd love to see one of today's pitchers win 40 games or try to throw 400 innings in a single season.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 03:14 AM) You had me until this last line. Everybody has their opinion. But when you break it down, Frank is the best player in franchise history. And it's not even close. Ed Walsh says hi.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Upton does have a huge ceiling but it's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation with him. If we acquire him and he goes off like he's supposed to, then in arbitration he's going to rake us over the coals. If he's cheap in arb then it's because he didn't do jack, and if he's moderately priced in arb then he really didn't give us the lift we needed. There's also the chance that Upton will never return to his 2007 numbers and some of the flashes that he showed in 2008. If I'm going to give up top prospects, it's going to be for a proven commodity like Gonzalez.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) I agree with this. We need some significant offensive upgrades to be a serious contender and not let the excellent starting pitching go to waste. I think Hudson's value is at his highest point and now is a great time to deal him. It would be great to keep Hudson's cheap salary for the next three years (and manageable contracts for the next three years), but you definitely deal him rather than Danks or Floyd for an impact offensive player like Gonzalez. As much upside as Hudson has, he's not a proven MLB commodity. Danks and Floyd are.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer? If Thornton moves to closer, I'm wondering if opposing hitters begin to focus more on him and eventually begin to hit him. It's really tough to argue with his performance over the past couple of years, but one has to wonder how much of that is due to him having a lower profile than Jenks. I don't know of many closers who get by almost entirely on 96 mph fastballs. Those that I've seen in the past (Farnsworth, Karchner, Howry) never really excelled in that role. If Kenny ends up dealing Jenks, I'd almost rather that he go with a cheap in-house closing option. Thornton has become so good in that versatile setup/occasional LOOGY role that I'd rather not mess with success and hope that Thornton can succeed without a good secondary pitch.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 10:35 PM) Danks is decent: Career: 31-33 - 4.06 ERA - .258 AVG - 1.33 WHIP That is 3rd or 4th starter material on an average MLB staff. In a hitter's park in the AL, that's #2 or #3 at worst material. His WHIP over the past two seasons was 1.28 and 1.23. His ERA+ was 123 and 138, respectively. That would make him a solid #2 on most teams. Throw in the fact that Danks is young, relatively cheap, and under team control, he's worth a ton right now.

QUOTE (Big Daddy Kool @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) •GM Kenny Williams is not shopping closer Bobby Jenks and has not had any offseason trade talks about him. Given Bobby's struggles last year, his calf injury, and the Sox being unhappy with his conditioning, Jenks' value has to be pretty low right now. It's very possible that Kenny might want to wait until June or July, in hopes that Bobby rebounds. If the Sox aren't competitive at the deadline, a more successful 2010 Bobby would likely net the Sox some decent prospects.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) No track record doesn't mean wrong. Those guys defended their source over and over. Guys like Cowley attacked them because a couple part-time bloggers broke a story that he didn't. Was the identity of that source ever revealed? If not, MLBTR looks a little silly ripping a source that they don't know anything about. QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) Ugh, to me Danks is untouchable. I wouldn't say untouchable, but I wouldn't deal him for two years of Gonzalez.