WCSox

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) The 2005 World Series MVP. His performance in the WS was good, but far from spectacular. I'm not sure that a solo shot off Clemens in Game 1 and a single that drove in the winning run in Game 4 is that much more memorable than a portly rookie being immortalized by Ozzie's joking call to the pen, blowing away Jeff Bagwell with 100 mph heat, and a couple of saves. And then you have JD's MVP-caliber 2006 vs. Jenks' record-setting 2007, which is almost a wash as well. Both were good-but-not-great last year and both are mediocre this year. I don't know, it's really close. I'll cop out and say that I'll remember both fondly.

The Sox already have four really good starters, and will be paying about $40 million for them next year. They need to allocate their money elsewhere.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Hard to know what KW's master plans will be, but I'd really love to see Getz get a shot at it next year. If everyone is actually hitting the way they should, Getz could fit in that #1 slot and then be followed up by Ramirez, Beckham, or even Rios. Put the Boppers (Q, Konerko, Thome or whoever else we bring in for DH) in the middle, and if you can fill your RF slot with something useful then you can maybe just click through that lineup with speed and a ton of doubles surrounding a powerful 3-4-5 spot. I'd be fine with that, especially with the financial constraints that will likely be in play this winter. I also wouldn't mind Kenny offering Pods a one-year deal to be a utility outfielder/pinch runner/insurance policy for the leadoff spot. Not sure if Pods would want to a diminished role, but his speed and OBP strengthen the bench.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) If it wasn't for that terrible slump he was in during May his OBP on the season would be over .350. It's .357 in the 2nd half. Which is kind of what you expect for a legit rookie...they might take their lumps, but if they're good they work through it. If Getz hangs around a .350 OBP all season, that would be a fantastic in-house solution for us. He has everything else you'd want in a leadoff hitter. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) Grady Sizemore and Curtis Granderson could be RBI machines too. They're hitting leadoff because they get on base, hit for power, and steal bases. Beckham gets on base and hits for power, but doesn't steal bases. That's a negative for a leadoff hitter. The makeup of the rest of the team is also important factor in determining who leads off. Granderson and Sizemore have had a lot of power behind them over the past few years. The Sox are probably not going to be a high-OPS team next year. Unless JT re-joins the Sox this winter, Beckham will probably be #2 on the team in OPS (behind Quentin) in 2010. If this were the 2006 Sox, I'd be fine with Beckham leading off. But unless Kenny goes on an unlikely power-hitting spending spree this winter, the Sox are going to need Beckham's RBI power lower in the lineup. Beckham could very well hit 3rd next year, out of necessity. Getz from the #9 spot would make sense if his OBP doesn't go over .320 or .330, but you're still taking that RBI opportunity away from Beckham in the first inning if he leads off. You're also not going to get high a OBP out of your #8 hitter. I'd rather go with somebody like Pods leading off, Getz hitting 9th, and Beckham being able to drive in both of them from the two-hole. I just don't see Getz hitting anywhere other than the top or bottom of the lineup. His lack of power and base-stealing proficiency maximizes his value in those two spots. Ideally, Getz will post a .350+ OBP, lead off, and I'll never have to watch Pods in LF again.

I agree that Beckham would be a bad choice to lead off. It would be a waste to have #8 and #9 hitters in front of a guy who drives in a ton of runs. Beckham should hit 2nd or 3rd. I disagree with Getz in the two-hole. A mediocre OBP guy who bunts all of the time would be overly predictable and ineffective, and he doesn't have the OPS to hit in the two-hole. If he brought up his OBP to .350 or so, he'd be a solid leadoff hitter. Especially considering his raw SB numbers and very low CS percentage.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 10, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) He should be shut down if his back is bothering him. One of the TV announcers this weekend (on TBS, IIRC) pointed this out. I have no idea how much of a problem his back has been, but if this indeed has been a contributing factor, maybe he needs a week off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 05:02 PM) If we carry a 7 man bullpen like we have most of this season I believe...he doesn't exactly have to replace Carrasco, just give you another option. If we have room for him, I don't have a problem with him on the roster. That said, I see him doing much more than mop-up duty or possibly an occasional spot-start/injury replacement.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 09:23 AM) If I read you right, are you saying that you see upcoming FA signings being very minimal? I don't see the Sox spending over $90-95 million next year, and they're already committed to $67 million. That doesn't include the one-year contracts they'll have to shell out to arbitration-eligible Quentin, Danks, and Jenks or what they'll have to spend to replace Thome, JD, and Pods and fill out the rest of the 25-man roster. I agree with Balta that Thome or another left-handed DH will be signed for somewhere in the $5M range, and bringing back Pods might be an option. But outside of that, I don't see a whole lot of discretionary funding remaining.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) He's got that tight little curve and slider he throws with next to nothing on his fastball and he finds the middle of the plate far too often. He doesn't just need control, he needs basically impeccable control, and probably an over-anxious offense like the Cubs were. DJ Carrasco has much better stuff IMO and I wouldn't want DJ starting. I wouldn't call Torres a finesse guy like Carrasco though, I'd call Torres a balls guy who goes out there and makes the opposition swing the bat. Unfortunately, Major League hitters aren't going to miss him too much. I agree with this to an extent. I like Torres' aggressiveness, but in the two starts of his that I've seen him pitch this year, he was constantly missing his spots. That doesn't necessarily sentence him to being a career minor-leaguer, but he's probably not going to make it into the rotation with Garcia and Hudson as options, and I don't see him displacing Carrasco in long relief.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) So, if we're reupping Jenks, then I cut Dotel loose and put that $4M towards adding a position player FA. That's pretty much the crux of it. If money grew on trees (like it apparently does in the Bronx), re-upping Dotel might not be a bad move. But the reality is that we already have $67 million committed to next year (not including options and arbitration) and even re-signing Jenks to a one-year deal might be stretching the budget. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Kenny needs to deal Jenks this winter to round out the rest of the 25-man roster.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 01:39 PM) What's Freddy's contract situation? IIRC, a $1M option for next year with another $1M in incentives.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) I'm done with you, WC. You cherry picked - I called you on it. Deal with it. No, I provided evidence that a strong bullpen is more important than a dominant 5th starter on a team with four other dominant starters. The Cubs don't have four other dominant starters right now.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 01:17 PM) Wow, I guess this one example proves that you're right and I'm wrong. I'll go away with my tail between my legs now. I'd point out that 5th starter Randy Wells is the main reason that the Cubs aren't 20 games below 500, but then I'd be severely cherry picking, wouldn't I? You'd be incredibly remiss and borderline-disingenuous to omit the fact that Wells has the highest ERA+ and second-lowest WHIP in the rotation and, therefore, really isn't a #5 right now. Unless, of course, your argument hinges on the assumption that Peavy and Buehrle will have Zambrano- and Dempster-like down years in 2010. Your attempt at demonstrating your intellectual superiority leaves much to be desired.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) Linebrink, we may not have confidence in him, but he's going to be there. Pena, we might not have confidence in him but he's going to be there, and if he develops then suddenly our pen looks really good. If we carry 12 pitchers (With our 5 starters, there's no guarantee we'll do that), then there's room for either Hudson or Nunez to pitch their way in there. But again, with our starters, you could probably get by with an 11 man pen if either Linebrink or Pena can step up. I agree that there's a lot of potential. I'm not sold on Pena being consistently good, but Linebrink has done it before and can do it again as long as he's healthy. I'm not counting on either of them, but this bullpen certainly has the raw talent to swing from below-average to pretty good.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) The thing is, when you have 4 guys at least that are really good starting pitchers, that is going to eat into the innings that the pen will be needed for, which makes it less important to spend tons of money on. Exactly. And this is what allows Hudson to be that cheap in-house solution for the bullpen for 2010.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) If you're starting with Jenks and Thornton, that's not a bad set of building blocks. We can assume Linebrink and Carrasco are going to be there as well. That leaves the 2nd lefty and at least 1 RHP, if not 2 spots. Assuming that Kenny's financially able to keep Jenks, of course. I like Carrasco for long relief, but don't have much faith in Linebrink (or Pena, for that matter). I'd rather fill the 7th inning role with Hudson or somebody who has pitched effectively in the majors previously than an unknown from our farm system. I might be tempted to gamble a bit on the second lefty.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) Yes, and their performance on that day is far more likely to determine a win or a loss. Yes, just like El Duque and his 88 ERA+ and 1.46 WHIP were more crucial to the 2005 Sox's success than Cliff Politte and Neal Cotts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) The fact that a few hard throwing, fairly no-name guys didn't work out in 2007 doesn't mean that a different batch of no-name guys, maybe hard throwing maybe not, won't work out 3 years later. It could well depend more on who the actual guys are and whether or not they fit the mold of what we try to do with pitchers that we bring in. Is that a gamble that you want to make when you've just invested in Jake Peavy and have what is arguably the best rotation in the majors? If I'm Kenny, I look to protect my investment and make an effort to field a solid bullpen. That doesn't necessarily exclude guys in our farm system, but you certainly don't want as many unknowns in the bullpen next year as Kenny had in 2007.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Torres, Nunez, Hernandez, Link, Egbert have 24 major league innings combined between them. What gives anyone the right to just write them off immediately? I'm not writing them off, but until they show some actual evidence that they can get major league hitters out, they don't deserve a spot on the 25-man roster in April. Why in the heck would you stock a bullpen with a bunch of unknowns? Don't you remember 2007? At least Hudson has dominated enough in the minors to suggest that he can get the job done at the highest level. And he's getting the chance to actually show that now.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 11:21 AM) I disagree. The starter will pitch 2-3 times as many innings as the long reliever. Any objective analysis will tell you that's more important to the team's well being. A 7th or 8th inning reliever will appear in an average of three games per week, while a starter will appear only once. A bad starter affects a team every fifth day. A bad bullpen affects it every day. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 11:22 AM) And all three of those players that you named, are currently failing catastrophically in their roles. Not really the best example you could have given me. In fact, this is more of a testament to the overvaluation of most bullpen arms. It interest me how you’ve just written off half of our system in one sentence, especially, given that some of these guys have just as much experience, and just as good a chance at succeeding in a bullpen role as Dan Hudson does. In fact, you know what separates Hudson from all those players (perhaps, barring Egbert?) Hudson has a pretty clear future in a rotation No, what separates Hudson from those other pitchers is that he was the talent to dominate at the major league level. Pitchers who can't get major league hitters out have no place in a major league bullpen. Given that Kenny just dealt Poreda and Richard, there's a lot less pitching talent in our farm system than you seem to believe.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 10:18 AM) Yes, performance. This month, in ST, and wherever else they can evaluate him. This doesn't preclude bringing Freddy back at $1M, but no way do you GUARANTEE Freddy the 5th starter job. I never said that Freddy should be "guaranteed" the starting job. But he should definitely be the front-runner, as he's actually an experienced starter who is currently pitching well in that role. At the very least, Freddy is great insurance. That's just not true, especially on this team. The Sox are much better off with a question mark like Freddy or Torres at the #5 spot and a stronger bullpen. Not to mention that Hudson himself is a question mark with no major league experience as a starter and an arm not yet conditioned for a full 200-inning season as a starter. Pitching staffs need balance. Otherwise, guys like Rivera, Nathan, and K-Rod would never pitch in the bullpen. Hell, look at the 2005 Sox. They didn't have an effective #5 for the majority of the season. Yet, I'll argue that they don't win a WS without strong contributions from Cotts and Politte.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Sep 8, 2009 -> 08:12 AM) I'd imagine Jhonny Nunez is definitely going to be on our roster most likely come 2010. But then again, guys like Adam Russell haven't done the job in the past either. It all depends how KW uses the money. If Kenny has money left over to sign Dotel to a one-year deal, I'd rather he allocate those funds towards giving Jenks (who can still pitch effectively) arbitration. If there's money left over, he's going to have to hit the FA market.

Why would we want Dotel back, at even half of his current price? He'll be 36 in November and has a 1.53 WHIP this year. We can get below-average pitching from our farm system at a fraction of his salary.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 7, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) These are some of the realistic in-system options to take spots in the pen next year. Torres, Hynick, F Hernandez, Line, Nunez, and Egbert. We can also assume that KW will make some waves in the free agent market as well. All of these arms have enough promise to make a one or two inning impact from Hudson somewhat negligible. His true impact comes from being stretched out to 5-plus innings. Also, add Garcia as a long-reliever to this pen, and we see a similar positive impact. These are AAA-quality pitchers. As 2007 showed, you can't stock a bullpen with minor league yahoos who can't get major league hitters out and expect positive results. People need to get rid of the notion that middle relief and setup roles aren't important. There's a reason that guys like Linebrink, Scot Shields, and J.J. Putz got big contracts in recent years.

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 7, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) I'm not going to directly respond to some of these posts, but it's an awful idea of putting Hudson in the bullpen next year. Garcia has been a nice surprise, but if your option for a 5th starter is a 34 year old on the downside of his career or a 23 year old rookie that has the possibility of being an ace, I'll take the rookie every time. No, an awful idea is condensing all of your pitching talent into your starting rotation, and relying on guys like Linebrink, Pena, and Williams to hold leads. A pitching staff without balance is going to lose a lot of games in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings. If the Sox had a bullpen like they did going into last season, I'd be a lot more receptive towards giving Hudson a shot in the rotation. But the Sox are absolutely desperate for a cheap, dominant middle reliever. Even if Hudson out-pitches Freddy in March, I'd still prefer to put Hudson in the pen. I don't see the logic in that conclusion. One could easily argue that the Sox brought up Hudson because (1) the bullpen currently sucks and (2) they want to use him in the bullpen next year. If Hudson is ready to take over the #5 spot, why isn't he preparing for that role by starting now?