WCSox

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) I'm pretty sure they didn't nix trades to the Yankees because of their coaches. Also, I'm pretty sure that more players have accepted trades instead of denied the trades because they were the Yankees. No, they most likely nixed those trades because of Steinbrenner and the culture of poor treatment of employees in the Yankee organization. If an owner/GM will throw a coach under the bus to "send a message," it's only logical that they'll scapegoat a player as well. And Steinbrenner did this all of the time. His treatment of Dave Winfield is a great example, as is the way that he berated his team in the clubhouse after losing the 2001 WS. The only reason that the Yankees were able to win with this culture is that they have more money than God and can buy themselves into the playoffs every year. The allure of playing for the most winning and storied franchise in the history of professional sports also helps. Unfortunately, the Sox don't have those luxuries. If they go down this route, Kenny and JR will end up looking a lot more like Marge Schott than George Steinbrenner. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) Then provide me with a valid reason to fire a hitting coach? The offense is terrible. That seems like a good reason to me and I think most people in baseball would understand why he'd be fired when they looked at our offensive numbers. If the Sox honestly believe that the problem is that the players aren't responding to Walker's instruction (rather than the players just not being that good anymore), then I'm completely on board with replacing Walker. But it has to be for that reason, and not an overly-emotional, immature scapegoating move. Remember when Griffey was gushing to the media over the family-like culture of the Sox organization a few weeks ago? That's a good thing, and that sustained level of class and professionalism will help the franchise over the long run. It would be a shame to piss it away by going the Steinbrenner route.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) I completely understand the point you've been trying to make but you fail to use context. This is baseball. This sort of thing is done every single season by at least a few teams. It's not like we would be doing some unprecedented move that would be the front page of SI, crippling our franchise for a decade. You're completely overreacting about the implications of firing a hitting coach. I disagree, and would add that some people here are wrong in thinking that it's OK to throw coaches under the bus in baseball. If JR and Kenny morph into George Steinbrenner, there will be negative consequences. Remember how Griffey and Maddux both nixed trades to the Yankees? You'll see the same thing when Kenny tries to trade for the next Jim Thome or Jake Peavy. And I want to make clear that I'm not against firing Greg Walker... as long as it's done for the right reason. Scapegoating Walker to "send a message" isn't the right reason.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) He's clearly the better option over Getz Yes, clearly!

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) How true. Can't argue with that. The "Get Better Players" philosophy is pretty obvious, but it's not gonna happen overnight especially at this point in the season. I'm sorry that about all you can do right now is send a message. Everybody isn't going to agree with that. No matter what you're talking about doing not everyone is going to agree with the course of action. So flame away about "sending a message" but for christ's sake something has to happen fast. We'd all like to see this team doing better than struggle to be at .500. You don't fire the hitting coach because the aging sluggers in the middle of the lineup aren't producing. The only "message" that sends is that Kenny and JR will throw their coaching staff under the bus when inferior talent fails to produce. You're going to have difficulty convincing a good hitting coach to accept a job with the Sox when they have that reputation. Doing something for the sake of doing something is an emotional, illogical, and unprofessional approach to running a business.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) not sure what the white sox plan on doing to help the defense next year aside from playing rios every day. Yeah, no kidding. This team has awful fundamentals. I honestly can't see Nix in the 2010 starting lineup at SS or 2B. He's looked average-to-below-average at 2B and was nothing short of a butcher at SS. And it's really unfortunate, because he has a ton of fielding talent, a lot of power at the plate, and is hitting relatively well right now.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) I can't believe people have strong opinions on hitting/pitching coaches. You really really think sending a message will make a frickin difference? We've changed a lot of third base coaches and they are all the same. GET BETTER PLAYERS. I've seen a lot of pitching coaches get a ton out of very average pitchers (Coop, Mazzone, Dave Duncan, etc.), but I haven't seen that correlation when it comes to hitting coaches. If the Sox want more consistent hitting, they need to phase out the dinosaurs in the middle of the lineup.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) I disagree. It's baseball. It's a business. It sucks maybe, but that's the way it works and it happens all the time. That's not how you run a successful business. You don't fire somebody because you're pissed off and want to "send a message." You fire somebody because they're not doing their job. And that very well may be the case with Walker. But you don't give him the axe until you're convinced that he's the problem, and not the players.

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 08:05 PM) This beautifully sums it all up for me. It's all about sending a message. You don't take away a man's job and livelihood to "send a message." If you truly believe that the players are no longer responding to Walker, then you replace him this winter. But you don't take away another human being's job just because you're pissed off and want to shake things up.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) The weather is supposed to be bad in NY. If there are delays, Carrasco might have to get some innings tonight. Good point. Is Torres available, or was he sent back down?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) And look what we have to show for not designating Contreras for assignment. He gets to come right back to the rotation to f*** up another game beyond recognition. Yes, as opposed to all of the studs in our minor league system who've out-pitched Jose this year. Damn that Jose for taking their roster spot!

I'd probably lean towards Carrasco at this point, with Jose in long-relief duty.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 02:39 PM) I think that's been a huge problem lately. Just because people want a certain player or players gone, it does not mean that their contributions in the past are not respected. When someone makes a post about letting so-and-so walk, or trading this guy, it is immediately met with "don't you even care what this guy has given to the team in his tenure here?" posts. Yeah, I'm grateful and I respect the contributions. I respect the hell out of guys like Tony Gwynn and Frank Thomas, but I don't want either on this team. I feel like we should take a lesson from the mafia and begin each post discussing getting rid of a player with the line "With all due respect..." Trading a player, not picking up his option after the season, or letting him walk at the end of a contract is one thing. Permanently benching a player or DFAing him for slumping or not playing up to projections in late August is another.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) Ozzie doesn't usually protect hurt players. If he was hurt, something would have came out by now. Just like it did with Paulie's thumb injury. It could be that Dye's hurt, but hasn't said anything to Ozzie, Herm, or anybody else.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) You know. As much as I hate to say it (because I agree I see it impossible that he gets dealt) but everyone said the exact same thing with Miguel Cabrera. The one fundemental flaw is they do not operate a high payroll. They'll keep him around to open up their stadium and then 1-2 years after he will be out the door. I'm not sure about that. First of all, they stand to make a ton in ticket sales during those first few "honeymoon" years of their new stadium. They've also won two championships in their first 13 years of existence, so it's not like they're so poorly-run that they're doomed to draw Pirates-sized crowds for the duration of Hanley's contract. Secondly, Hanley is a much more skilled player than Cabrera. He doesn't have Cabrera's power, but puts up roughly the same OPS with 30+ stolen bases, 40+ doubles, and solid defense at SS. This is the kind of player that you build a franchise around and he's under a reasonable contract for some time. If I were their GM, I'd be very hard-pressed to move a guy like Hanley.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) It wasnt a comparison of players though. Just the situations. What was brought up is -- paraphrased:"think about 05 before you let him go" JD and Contreras' situations aren't similar either. One has produced recently, the other hasn't. Regarding the 2005 WS MVP quote, there's some truth to that in JD's case. Giving a guy like JD the boot in late August would be nothing more than a juvenile attempt to "punish" him for a month and a half of slumping. That's not how you treat a veteran player who has done a ton for your organization. You move him down in the lineup and/or give him more days off. I completely agree that veterans shouldn't be given free passes for 2005. But you still need to treat them with respect. If Kenny were to DFA somebody like JD or Jose at this point in the season, it would clearly be out of spite (and unnecessary, with the rosters expanding on Tuesday). A move like that is going to reflect negatively on the organization (just as the White Flag Trade and JR's involvement in The Strike impacted the Sox's ability to sign FA's back in the '90s). If the Sox revert to their classless tactics of the '90s, say goodbye to being able to trade for guys like Thome and Peavy again. They'll reject a trade before you can say "no-trade clause."

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 06:06 AM) Shall we keep Contreras in the rotation? He was arguably the 05 staff ace. That's an incredibly silly comparison. Contreras hasn't been consistently good since early 2006. Dye was hitting over .300 with 20 HRs right before the ASB. Dye's already been dropped in the order and has gotten several days off lately. What else do you want them to do? DFA him?

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) I'm glad you touched back on the Jenks thing. I've been for dealing him but we missed our boat. We could've sold high on him. Didnt. Now closers are less valuable in trades, teams are reluctant to deal prospects, Jenks stands to make a lot of money and the teams will have health concerns and now guys like Papelbon are potentially available too. Jenks value will be moderate this offseason. If you can get a Bourn for him, or package up something for a Crawford - please do it. One thing I doubt but that could be appealing is making a package around him for Melky or Cano. With Rivera getting up there - why not? Our bullpen is terrible right now, and will be even worse without Jenks. He's literally one of two reliable pitchers in there. I don't know if he'll be worth the $7M or so that he'll make next season, but getting rid of him would be going in the wrong direction. His numbers this year are far from bad in comparison to his peers... Jenks - 1.24 WHIP Papelbon - 1.30 WHIP K-Rod - 1.29 WHIP Valverde - 1.18 WHIP Fuentes - 1.24 WHIP

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Since 2005 the only guy he really turned around was Thornton. He gets way too much praise IMO. Gavin Floyd says hi.

Releasing him now would be incredibly dumb, especially considering the glaring lack of talent in our bullpen going into this winter. He has decent stuff and has had success in the past. Give Coop the chance to straighten him out.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) So you are agreeing with what I first said; The last part I say "unless the Sox are statistically eliminated", as of now the Sox arent statistically eliminated therefore I am saying he should pitch. I missed that, just as you missed me stating it earlier multiple times... QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) If the Sox are statistically eliminated, I'd limit him to bullpen sessions and would also shut down a couple of other starters. There's no point in fielding your best team after you've been eliminated. Hell, Peavy just took a line drive to his pitching elbow in a rehab start. Why subject highly-paid veterans to more injuries when you're no longer playing for anything? QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) I believe his point is that putting Peavy out on the mound in a live game situation exposes him to potential injury (like getting hit in the pitching arm with a line drive). If a team is mathematically eliminated, you might want to reconsider putting your recently-injured $70 million pitcher in that situation again LOL, coming from the guy who gets paid to argue for a living.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) The probabilities of either happening are pretty low. How many times this year have you seen a pitcher on the Sox get hit with a line drive on the elbow? I've seen a few pitchers get hit in the head with line drives this year. I've also seen two pitchers currently on the Sox roster suffer ankle injuries within the past 12 months. You also don't throw players out there in meaningless games simply because some fans want to see them pitch. That's correct. You limit their playing time in meaningless games to (1) limit their exposure to potential injures and (2) let minor leaguers show what they can do in the bigs. I'm not saying that Peavy shouldn't pitch at all this year. It's just a lot more sensible to limit his starts if the Sox are out of contention.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:20 PM) Wcsox, And Peavy could get hit by a line drive while sitting on the bench and have to have his arm amputated. And the probabilities of those two incidents are very comparable. Good one. How would Peavy "getting work in before taking another long hiatus" help the team next season? Wouldn't giving those innings to Hudson, Torres, and Garcia (who may be slugging it out for the #5 spot next season) benefit the organization a little more? I'm all for a start or two, but there's no point in running him out there every fifth day if the Sox are already eliminated from contention. It sound to me like a lot of Sox fans are just overly-anxious to watch Peavy pitch. I'm excited as well but, geez.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) Taking a line drive off the arm is not an injury where using it is likely going to cause more injury. It is either injured or its not. I believe his point is that putting Peavy out on the mound in a live game situation exposes him to potential injury (like getting hit in the pitching arm with a line drive). If a team is mathematically eliminated, you might want to reconsider putting your recently-injured $70 million pitcher in that situation again.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) The way I see it, one of Thome or Dye was going to be sent packing after this season before the Rios acquisition (maybe both). With the addition of another OF with some power that swings the bat from the right side, in my opinion, Dye became the guy to walk. Since Dye can't play RF anymore, one of those guys was going to be sent packing anyway. This is more about who occupies the DH spot than anything else.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) Last I checked, Dye wasn't the #3 hitter anymore. You win or lose based on your stars. Dye is one of this team's stars, and he's going to get a very, very long leash. And this doesn't just apply to sports. You throw veterans in any profession under the bus "to send a message" and your organization's reputation will suffer. Those who adamantly disagree with this have likely never managed another human being in a work environment before.