Lillian

I don't know "Chicago White Sox". That is why I asked.

As I stated; "If a player's character is not important to you, I respect that." My question regards what defense one might offer, for his behavior. There are issues here, which go beyond his being a "dirty player". There is the lack of hustle, and whatever one might call things such as standing at home plate, celebrating a home run, which turns out to bounce off the wall. Please explain to me why these antics do not reflect poor character. This kind of behavior sets a very bad example for teammates, especially younger players. Do we really want Machado to be a role model for guys like Moncada and Jimenez? I can only imagine what negative effect becoming an extraordinarily wealthy man might have on such a person. If we think he's a jerk now, wait til he becomes the highest paid player, in the history of sports. This seems to me, like an equation for disaster.

After Machado's latest antics, it might be appropriate to continue this discussion. Not running out the long fly ball, which ended up bouncing off the wall, for a single and then stepping on Pearce's heel, at first base, have only reinforced this young man's public profile. Does anyone want to defend his actions? My mind is open, but I have to confess that I still don't want this player to be the face of the franchise. If a player's character is not important to you, I respect that. I'm more interested in hearing arguments which might explain Machado's behavior in a way that excuses it. If his antics do not indeed demonstrate some significant character flaws, I'd be interested to hear the rationale.

I'm sorry, but I don't put A. J. in the same category as Machado, character wise. I think that they are completely different kinds of people. As fans, we all have our own preferences. Of course, Yolmer is not in the same class, talent wise, as Machado, so I too would rather have the Star player. However, the choice does not have to be either Yolmer or Machado. I'd just prefer the face of the franchise being someone, whom I wouldn't really dislike, as a person. If one doesn't care, that's fine. It's a matter of personal preference. Perhaps I've rooted for this team, too many years, in which they weren't champions, or even played in the Post Season. After all, I go back to the middle 50's. The thought of disliking the players, in all but a hand full of post season appearances, is not very appealing.

The Manny Machado saga continues and I like this jerk less, every day. I will be disappointed if the Sox even offer him the kind of contract, which has been speculated. This guy seems to have a questionable character: Putting aside the controversial hard slides, in an effort to break up double plays, which after all, used to always be part of baseball, there are plenty of instances where this creep is revealing his character. First, he says he's not the kind of guy who runs hard on ground outs, insisting that he's not the "Johnny Hustle" type, as though to disparage guys who do hustle. He might have done himself a favor by admitting that it's one of his faults and that he hopes to improve that part of his game, in the future. It's as though he is saying; "Hey, I'm great and that's who I am, so take it, or leave it, I'm not going to change". I still have trouble seeing how Renteria would reconcile the team spending a fortune, to bring in a guy who shamelessly proclaims that he does not intend to ever be a guy who runs hard on ground outs, with the team's philosophy of demanding that everyone do precisely that. Then, he kicks Aguilar and doesn't seems to be sorry. He certainly didn't' demonstrate any contrition. He could have simply said; "It was an accident, and I'm just glad that no one was hurt". Instead, he says; "call it what you want". What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Ok, the League called it and slapped him with a fine. And most recently, when the Milwaukee fans booed him, he turns to them and grabs his genitals. Real classy. This guy is a real heel, in the tradition of Pro Wrestling. No thanks, I don't want to have to root for a player like that. I hope the front office will use the franchise's vast financial resources to acquire a little more likable person. You know, it's already inherently difficult to relate to players who make the kind of money they do, playing a game, that most guys would play for nothing, if they just had the chance. Trying to relate to a player, with Machado's attitude, just makes it all that much more difficult. I understand that for some, the only thing that matters is winning. "Who cares what kind of people the players are, as long as they are the champions"? The problem with that approach is that fans have to live with many seasons, in which their favorite team is not the World Champion. How do we deal with those seasons, if the players are not likable people?

That is precisely why I said; "over the next two years". If we are not on the verge of contention, within that time frame, this rebuild will have failed. My point is that I would rather use the financial resources to acquire, or retain, 2 or 3 players, for a shorter period of time, rather than one player, on a 10 year commitment.

Although I prefer Harper to Machado, I continue to lean toward neither. Why not spend the same money for 2 or 3 key players, on shorter deals? A left handed bat, a starting pitcher and an elite closer, all on 3 to 5 year deals, should be obtainable, for the same financial investment, with less risk. Now, who could qualify as candidates, over the next 2 years? I don't know. Please, someone tell me.

I agree, "Turnin' two". A left handed bat is a more important hole to fill, on the Sox core roster, going forward. I'm not worried about 3RD. I still think that Moncada ends up there, and Madrigal takes over at second, which is his best position, when this team is ready to compete. Harper is a much higher on base percentage hitter, as well. Moreover, I've never heard anything negative about Bryce's character.

A. J. played very smart and with tremendous intensity. However, I never thought that he was a dirty player, and I loved him. My perception is that they are no at all the same kind of players, nor do they have the same character, as human beings.

Any player signed for the kind of money that Machado will likely get, should become the face of the franchise. He is not the kind of person, whom I would want to be the face of the White Sox. One of the things that has held and reinforced my allegiance to the Sox, over the years, is that the team has historically fielded a lot of "good" people. Machado does not appear to be a guy who would fit that mold. There have to be better ways to spend that kind of money.

What do you guys think about the play, in the 13TH inning, in which he kicked Aguilar's ankle, at first base? Did it appear to be accidental, or intentional? Machado certainly didn't seem to be very apologetic about it, if it was an accident. Honestly, I haven't followed his career that closely, beyond looking at the stats, but now that he is being showcased, in the playoffs, he does not appear to be the kind of person, whom I find very endearing.

Listen to Machado talk about not being a guy who hustles: "That's just not the kind of player I am". Wow!! All of those ex-player commentators made excuses for him. That's fine. I hope he signs somewhere else. I'm afraid that I'm just too "old school". It's hard enough to accept this entire culture of guys with their multi-million dollar, per year contracts, and their swinging for the fences, without having to listen to such prima donna BS. He is a talented player, but not my kind of player. He's just a little too "cool" and full of himself, for my taste, especially if he is going to cost $350 Million.

There is no question that the taller hitter, with longer arms, or "levers," can generate more power. That is the obvious disadvantage for a shorter hitter.

Absolutely, and he's probably 5' 7" which doesn't bother me either.

So, can we stop citing Vaughn's height of 5' 11" as a negative?

LOL. Yes, but Veeck never let him swing the bat.

I have long suspected that there are a few distinct advantages to being a very small hitter. We have all marveled at Jose Altuve, but usually think of him as being a remarkable hitter, by virtue of his diminutive size. It just may be that his small stature is, in some ways, actually advantageous, rather than a "handicap". The obvious plus is that the strike zone is smaller, thus posing a bigger challenge to pitchers. However there are some other advantages. Here are some of those advantages: The strike zone is SMALLER. That makes it harder for a pitcher to throw strikes. It also gives the hitter the advantage of having to cover a smaller area, when selecting a pitch, at which to swing. A tall hitter, has a bigger area, upon which he must focus, although he only has the same two eyes, that any sized hitter has. A shorter player has the same visual capacity, as a taller one, with less of an area, upon which he must visually focus. Then there is the shorter swing plane. The distance traversed, during the swing is less for a short hitter, with shorter arms. That in turn, can result in a similar consequence, as the oft cited bat speed. While it doesn't produce the same power, it does allow the hitter to catch up to high velocity pitches. Short arms and a shorter bat, should be able to reach the hitting zone, more rapidly, given the same bat speed, simply because the distance traversed is less. Of course, the bigger, stronger man is able to compensate, by generating more bat speed and thus more power. A smaller hitter, using a lighter bat, might be able to generate comparable bat speed and given the shorter distance covered, provide the hitter the advantage of having more time to react to the pitch. I'd love to see an article, on the subject, but a discussion, here on this forum could be just as informative, with some of our astute posters.

Yes, and none of those mentioned struck out fewer times than they hit those home runs. Vaughn had just 18 strike outs, while hitting 23 homers and a .400 AVG. That is quite remarkable, especially as a sophomore. If he repeats, or exceeds that performance, he will likely go #1. I don't care about his size, or the position he plays. That kind of hitter is rare.

I don't pretend to have any evidence, to support the notion. It just seems logical that if a player knows that he is going to be eligible for another contract, he should be more motivated than he would be, if he is playing out the last contract of his career, especially still within his prime. Citing one, or two examples, is not enough data, upon which to draw any generalizations. There are probably anecdotal cases to support either argument.

Including an opt out is not necessarily a disadvantage to the team. It provides one essential component, ie; it maintains an incentive for the player to continue to strive toward ever greater levels of excellence. The lack of such an incentive is my greatest concern about long term contracts, aside from the obvious issue of paying a player. too late in his career. If the opt out does not conflict with the team's window of contention, it can makes sense, because it keeps the player motivated, as he looks forward to a new, even better possible contract.

It isn't a matter of not trying hard enough, when on the field. It is rather a question of maintaining enough motivation to do what is necessary, in regards to training, proper diet and living habits, practice and mental preparation. That is all difficult to sustain for a decade, when you have already been guaranteed $350 million, or more.

That is my greatest fear, with any of these huge long term deals. Give me a team full of guys, in their contract years, any day. That kind of motivation is exactly opposite of the young man, who has already locked up a fortune.

Even without steroids, there is plenty of potential increase in strength, in a 21 year old body. Hit the weights hard, in the off season, especially the lower body and the trunk. Stronger hands and wrist are also incredibly valuable "tools".

This issue of taking called third strikes is a pet peeve of mine, as you know. The pitch just outside the strike zone is so tempting to try to hit the opposite way, especially with the dramatic shifts, so commonly being employed. Add the power of guys like Collins, and Moncada, and it just seems crazy not to swing at those pitches. Being just outside, affords the hitter an opportunity to get his arms fully extended, which produces more power. Taking the pitch the opposite way, also affords the hitter a little extra time to recognize the pitch, in that he is swinging a little later. Taking a close pitch, with 2 strikes, is so foolish. As has been stated many times, that leaves the outcome completely in the hands of the umpire. Moreover, as Konerko so astutely pointed out, umpires are not going to give young hitters the benefit of the doubt, on close calls. Somebody in the organization better be drumming this concept into our young hitters' heads, or management better be looking for new coaches.

Stone often disagrees with Jason and does so in a way that embarrasses him. Perhaps some of Jason's attempted humor is a way for him to try to save face, in such situations. It is those awkward moments, which make me feel the most uncomfortable. I can imagine how Jason feels. Admittedly, some of Benetti's ideas are worthy of criticism, but Stone has a sarcastic way of criticizing them, which can embarrass him. One incident comes to mind; Jason once suggested that they have a triples competition, at the All Star Game, something like the Home Run Derby. Of course, no player would want to expend himself, running out several triples, and so the idea really wasn't feasible. Benetti thought that it would be very entertaining and great fun, for the fans. Stone could have simply said; "Yes, the fans would love it, but I'm not sure that the players would". However, the way Stone rejected it, probably embarrassed Jason.