WCSox

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 06:20 PM) That, or the Sox did not want him as much as we think we did. I can't imagine that Kenny was expecting Freddy to post a repeat of the first half of 2010. Freddy's done some great things for this team, but it's time to move on.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 31, 2011 -> 07:47 PM) Conveniently forgetting what, exactly? That he might have had a week or two there where he was hitting ok before he went down with his injury? Whatever. Truth is up until then he was hitting as he's pretty much hit his previous five, full years in the league, when he's featured a routine no-power/no-speed/high-strikeout offensive performance. Outside of his admittedly nice performance way back in 2006, I don't see how you can't conclude that this guy doesn't "suck" bad offensively, especially if you fairly compare him to his peers around the league at the "high-ops positions" at which he plays. This piling-on is getting so stupid... He has a career OPS+ of 97, with some gap power and a reasonable .330 career OBP. That isn't indicative of "suck." It's indicative of "average."

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 09:03 PM) I thought he was just starting to get comfortable and his hitting was picking up when he got hurt. This is true, and a lot of people are conveniently forgetting it. That said, I tend to agree with those who don't think that he's going to hit .275 with 20 HRs (even if he got the at-bats, which he probably won't). He doesn't suck nearly as badly offensively as some people here want to believe, but he's still not good enough to play a high-OPS position on a major league team. Any chance that Kenny shops Teahen and offers to eat half of his salary? Or does he want to keep him around in case Morel doesn't pan out immediately?

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 10:54 PM) I'd give him 2 yrs/$16M. I doubt he really is playing for the money anyway. QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 22, 2011 -> 05:01 AM) 2/$18 or so would be fine by me. Yeah, two years for under $20M sounds acceptable. I'd love to keep him around for as long as he wants to stay, but not at his current salary.

QUOTE (GREEDY @ Jan 22, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) Dude is a DH on a team with three already under contract. f***ing trade him. Why would you trade somebody who is young, cheap, and can hit? Unless you can get something insane like Rasmus in return. Going forward, I'll take Viciedo at one of the corner outfield positions over Quentin or Pierre.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) Danks is going to test the FA market. You can take that to the bank. Pretty much. My feeling is that Kenny's recent spending spree has a two-year window for success. If the Sox don't go deep in the playoffs this year and are struggling in July of next year (Danks' last year under team control), he and others will be dealt and the rebuilding process will begin.

The Cardinals are basically the Yankees of the Midwest: Second in WS championships, second in HOF players, and an extremely dedicated fan base. (But unlike Yankees fans, Cards fans are extremely hospitable and polite.) They could suck for a few years and you'd still see the massive sea of red making its way from the parking lot to the turnstile. That said, I don't see them using that as an excuse to let Pujols walk. They're very aware of their place in baseball history and Pujols is basically the 21st Century incarnation of Stan Musial.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 08:34 PM) Well my point is that if they trade him at the deadline, they can get a good collection of young players, and then make a bid to sign him in the offseason still. But if they attempt to sign him in the offseason and lose him, they just get the 2 draft picks. Handful of prospects + resign Albert Pujols or 2 draft picks OR resign Albert Pujols I'd take the first option, but again, this is if they aren't leading the divison/wild card, or are like 3-4 games back. Otherwise, I'd sacrifice a few months of Pujols to protect yourself incase he doesn't resign. And my point is that trading Pujols in the middle of the season will likely piss him off and make him not want to re-sign with the Cardinals. Especially if the stories about him being on the touchy side are true. So, yeah, you could probably get some good prospects by dealing Pujols. But you *only* do that when you've given up on re-signing him.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 07:25 PM) Isn't that what "setting a deadline" does? He gave them a deadline of ST to get a deal done, or else he is testing the free agent market. My mistake, didn't read the Tweet. That said, if they deal Pujols at the deadline, their chances of beating out those other teams is significantly lower. The only way that dealing Pujols at the deadline makes sense for the Cards is if they've already decided to part ways with him. And since he's essentially the second coming of Stan Musial, I'm not sure that they want to go down that road.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 06:49 PM) If the Cards were smart, they would definitely shop Pujols at the deadline. They would probably get more back than they would for the 2 draft picks, and especially if Cincinnati and Milwaukee are ahead of them in the divison. They also risk alienating him by doing that. Unless Pujols has indicated that he wants to test the FA market, they should try to work something out before the season begins.

QUOTE (StatManDu @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) On Opening Day 2000, I remember Ray Durham making a phenomenal diving catch with his back to the plate. I was at that game, and remember it like it was last week. Frank homered in the bottom of that inning, after coming off those two down seasons, and got a standing O. That first inning really set the tone for the 2000 season.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Vizquel deserves it. Great defense, pretty good hitter-he'll have over 2800 hits and 400 stolen bases. Played for winning teams. His career is very much like Luis Aparicio, and I'm sure nobody thought he was one of the top five offensive players during his career. If Ozzie Smith is in, Omar deserves to be there as well. He was a (slightly) better hitter and just as good defensively.

QUOTE (BamaDoc @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) I think Frank is a sure fire HOF, but I was wondering what his first ballot chances were. Edgar Martinez received 32.9% of the votes after 36% his first year. I think penalized because he was primarily a DH. A career line of .312/.418/.515 with 7 allstar 5 silver slugger, 2 batting titles is not bad. Frank was .301/.419/.555 with 2 MVP four other top 5 and 3 more top ten, 1 batting title and 500+ homers, 5 all star, 4 silver slugger. I am in no way saying EM is equal to Thomas, I am only tossing this out to get opinions on how primary DH are seen by the voters. Maybe Franks .300,20+ hr, 100 runs walks rbis for seven first years trumps all and gets him in on first ballot? I don't think that Edgar Martinez is a good barometer for Frank's first-year HOF vote percentage. Frank was much more dominant in his prime (two MVPs) and hit with a lot more power. 'Gar's 309 career HRs over 18 years aren't going to get him into the HOF, especially when he didn't have a Tony Gwynn-like batting average or do anything defensively. It's amazing that he was able to hit the ball so well with his eye disorder, and everything that I've heard about his suggests that he's a great guy. But I'm not even sure that he makes the Hall.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) And Bagwell not getting in pretty much confirms that there's no way Frank is getting in on the first ballot. I know he's got the 500 HRs. But they'll definitely use the fact he was a DH for most of those against him. Bagwell was arguably not as dominant as Frank was in his prime. Frank has more MVPs, more finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, and a batting title. Not to mention that he played longer and has better overall numbers as well. I think there's a good chance that Frank does get in on the first ballot.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) I bet Joe Morgan would take Joe Morgan, too. Right after he found something to complain about. Can't stand him in the booth.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) And Alomar was a shoo-in, as he's probably (and in my opinion, definitely) the greatest 2B of all time. I'd take Joe Morgan. But, yeah, Alomar is right up there with him. Probably the best 2B of our generation.

Even if Peavy appears to be medically "ready" by ST, I seriously doubt that we'll see him in a regular-season game until at least May. The lack of precedent of his injury and the amount of money the Sox have invested in him will force them to handle him very carefully.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 30, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) This is true except if the info came from the time from when he was employed by the sox, then they are still somewhat responsible. This would fall under the "organization does not share the same views as our employees and thus he was dismissed from the organiztion". Which by the way shows alot about what kind of idiot this kids is. The organization is pretty loyal to the employees. Agreed

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 30, 2010 -> 01:29 PM) It's not an issue of someone wanting to punish Oney for his actions. It's an issue of Oney having access to information based solely on his father's position with the Organization, and then having that information spewed all over Twitter. And in the real world, especially the part of it where huge dollars are at stake, if you can't maintain the integrity of your organization or the potential for its success is jeopardized, whether you are directly responsible or not, you get fired. It gets determined that you can no longer be entrusted to lead. The world is not fair. Game over. Secondly, I've seen you argue that the ruling on Cam Newton is bogus, because now players can just claim they knew nothing and their parents did all the negotiating. Well this is the inverse. Now we'll just have Ozzie's kid do all the talking and he can claim he is not responsible for any of it. Just like Balta claimed early on in this discussion. It's all bs. Ozzie is responsible for that clubhouse. To claim it is not within his scope or that he is not responsible because his child is an adult is oversimplifying the issue drastically and burying your head in the sand because you support Ozzie Guillen. Completely agree. Oney's family relationship to Ozzie isn't the issue. Ozzie giving Oney access to players and the clubhouse is. If Ozzie had hired Oney as a gofer and Oney pulled this crap, Ozzie would still be responsible for it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) I still think, if I were in that locker room, I'd be much more angry about Jenks opening his mouth than about the fire-back. I'd be angry about both. But the problem isn't the occasional disgruntled former player who mouths off. Every organization deals with that. With the Sox, these situations uniquely blow up into massive f***fests because Ozzie and/or his obnoxious kids are apparently incapable of keeping their mouths shut and acting like adults. And as long as they're in the fold, 35th and Shields will continue to resemble a bad soap opera. That may make for good reality TV, but it doesn't make it an attractive place to work.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) Really folks, let's be honest...when do we ever actually expect this to happen? This season we've already won a couple of FA bidding wars and in the past we've had our GM's and managers ripping departing players repeatedly. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't find a completely dysfunctional GM/Manager relationship and a punk kid Tweeting dirty laundry to get back at players who dare to disrespect daddy to be selling points for committing to an organization. I'm not saying that this will make or break a FA's decision, but you're kidding yourself if you think that it's a complete non-factor. Big-name players have avoided the Yankees in the past because of Steinbrenner and the NY media circus. This isn't that much different.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 02:10 PM) Ultimately, this s*** has to stop. This annoys me more than makes me angry. What other managers' son has ever caused as much friction as Oney has the last couple years? Lame. I wouldn't mind another manager in place of Ozzie. But not because his son is retarded. If Ozzie's son is going to leak the organization's behind-the-doors business via Twitter and Ozzie does nothing to stop it, I'd say that's grounds to fire Ozzie. Aside from the gross lack of class on Oney's part, it makes the organization look unprofessional/out-of-control, and could negatively impact their ability to sign free agents down the road.

Ozzie might be a good baseball mind, but he hasn't looked like much of a parent over the past year.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) I just don't see any way that we could be bad enough for Kenny to throw in the towel....something dreadfully wrong would have to happen. I guess I could forsee a scenario by which Kenny gets someone he really likes that is close, and another very, very good player. But otherwise, given the commitment we've made in dollars this season, I just don't see the team being in a position where trading a player like Danks for salary relief and to go younger would happen. That simply isn't the direction we are going in anymore. That depends on how economically viable the current team salary is beyond this year. If the Sox look like a .500 team in late July and gate revenue is mediocre, can they afford to be "all in" in 2012, or will they have to cut back at some point in the near future? If they need to dump salary, it'll be rebuilding time (or, at the very least, heavy "retooling" time) because they don't have a ton of ultra-cheap, high-tier prospects to develop at this point. In that scenario, Danks is the first guy that you deal. That said, with the salary commitments this off-season, my guess is that Kenny's window probably extends through 2012. FWIW, I thought for sure that they were going to cut back this year, and they did just the opposite. Shows what I know.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 18, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) I'm not going to say that yet. The numbers could be lying here but i"m not convinced either way. What is interesting is that the Chisox supposedly had a decent defense last year right? I don't think there's any question that Jenks was a MUCH better pitcher in 2007 than he was in 2010 (with weaker defense back then, to boot).