scenario

Chris Coste from the Phils is going to be available. He had a nice year offensively in '06. Might be worth looking at.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) FWIW, there have been 3 more computer models that have run projections for the 2007 MLB standings. The highest White Sox record was 74-88 in the models, and they didn't make the playoffs one time out of the 1,000 times the projections were run. That because the programmers are from Cleveland.

It would be interesting to see the same table above with career OBP numbers for all the players, but the names blocked out. My guess? A whole bunch of guys with OBPs in the .340s and hard to tell the difference between most of them.

All the discussion of trading for Rowand and/or Brian going down to AAA etc. etc. is based on the facts that: (1) Last year Brian had a hole in his swing so large you could've driven a truck through it (2) As of 10 days ago he was batting .188 in spring training If Brian continues to hit like he has in the last 10 days and finally proves he can consistently hit major league pitching, he'll be our centerfielder. If not, he won't. Simple as that...

Career fielding stats from ESPN show that Pods is a better fielder than Mackowiak at all outfield positions. Better fielding percentage. Better range factor. Better zone factor. Pods http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stat...ontext=fielding Mackowiak http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stat...ontext=fielding So hate Pods if you want to hate Pods but not because Mack is a better fielder because it's simply not true.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 06:24 PM) It has nothing to do with being good enough. That's what I was trying to get across but apparently I didn't make I didn't make it clear enough. Eduardo could tear the cover off the ball in every game he plays this Spring but there just isn't a spot for him on the roster if Podsednik is healthy, unless of course defense means absolutely nothing. So... our defense would suffer if they kept Perez and moved Mackowiak before the season?? I'm not sure we're talking about the same player then. Mack is a DISASTER in the outfield. Not just center. He gets bad jumps on the ball and he can't judge routes. He's looked as brutal in the corners this spring as he did in center last year. He makes Alphonso Soriano look like a Gold Glover and that's saying something. In the infield? He's not the first backup option at ANY position. Ozuna will be the backup at third. Cintron will be at SS and 2nd. Erstad will be at 1st. So what is Mack's role? A backup for the backups? I like Mac but...

We'll see. I still think they brought him in so we have right-handed power to counteract all the lefties in the Central. Which goes back to the original point of the thread... If he's in? Who's out?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) Well if the season started today, Podsednik would be on the DL so yeah, there would be a spot. Things tend to change over the course of 2 weeks. I think it has something to do with the fact that he's hitting .500 so far and tearing the cover off the ball.

I'm listening to the Sox - Seattle game right now (in the middle of their 8-run 7th inning). Singleton just asked Farmer, "If spring training ended today, would Eduardo Perez make the team?" Farmer's response? "Definitely."

I think Kenny ends up making a move - like trading Mackowiak. I like Mac, but he's redundant as both an infielder and outfielder. Ozuna can play his infield positions. Erstad or Perez can play first. Perez can play corner outfield. Mac's like an extra spare tire. Perez provides more to the team at this point, as right-handed power hitting bench depth. IMO

Regarding Eduardo Perez... Usually teams don't sign a 37 year old to send him to the minors. Plus he smacks lefties around like they owe him money; He has a very good BA against lefties in the Central (which is loaded with lefties); and he would be the only right-handed power on our bench. So... I think he's in. Then it's a numbers game. If Perez is in, who's out?

Who's in? Who's out? Here's what Trib writer Mark Gonzalez thinks... 21 Locks • 4 STARTING PITCHERS: Jose Contreras; Jon Garland; Mark Buehrle; Javier Vazquez; • 4 RELIEF PITCHERS: Bobby Jenks; Matt Thornton; Mike MacDougal; Andrew Sisco; • 2 CATCHERS: A.J. Pierzynski; Toby Hall • 7 INFIELDERS: Tadahito Iguchi; Paul Konerko; Jim Thome; Juan Uribe; Alex Cintron; Joe Crede; Pablo Ozuna • 4 OUTFIELDERS: Jermaine Dye; Darin Erstad; Rob Mackowiak; Scott Podsednik* So... 4 remaining slots. Two be filled by relief pitchers; one by a 5th starter; and one 'other' either a 12th pitcher or another position player. Here are Gonzalez's remaining suggestions: Strong shots • PITCHER: Nick Masset • INFIELDER: Eduardo Perez • OUTFIELDER: Brian Anderson On the fence • PITCHERS: David Aardsma; John Danks; Gavin Floyd; Charlie Haeger; Boone Logan • OUTFIELDER: Ryan Sweeney If we go with an 11 man staff, that brings us to 24 players. Does this mean that EITHER Eduardo Perez or Brian Anderson comes north? Are those two guys competing for a spot?? Gonzalez's Long shots • PITCHERS: Lance Broadway; Gio Gonzalez; Sean Tracey • INFIELDER: Junior Spivey • OUTFIELDERS: Jerry Owens; Luis Terrero *--Could start season on disabled list

QUOTE(Al Lopez @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Murphy on the Score today had someone from BP, and he said that their early projection for the Sox this year was... 72 and 90. Which struck me as a mite pessimistic, but there you have it. They thought our question marks in the outfield, 5th spot in the rotation, Uribe, and our tough division would add up to one hell of a bad year. So.... we won 90 games last year with the same questionable outfield, the same shortstop having a miserable year, and when almost our entire starting pitching staff had career worst years... But we're going to only going to win 72 this year.... because why... because we got rid of Freddy Garcia???

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 27, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) I was 6 years old and WAY into baseball in 1969, so I saw a fair amount of "Primo Santo". He was a very good ballplayer, but probably only the 4th best player on that team. Banks, Williams, and Jenkins were all definitely better. 4th best player on the team in 1969??? Give me a break. I was 11 years old and REALLY into baseball that year. Santo was the star of that team. Look at the stats if you need confirmation of that. Lead the team in homeruns, rbi's, OBP, slugging... he WAS the reason the Cubs made a run in '69 Stats for the '69 Cubs on baseballreference.com - http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969.shtml

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 12:51 AM) I'm just not sure what it is you are trying to get at though. If the order they are in is trying to describe value or quality, then I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much wholeheartedly not only disagree, but suggest it's completely wrong. RJ isn't anywhere near that level anymore, and Tim Wakefield is not one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. I doubt that's what it is though, but I'm just confused. That's also a span of 6 years...pitchers change pretty quickly. A smaller timeframe...say 3-4 years...would be much better to look at, though K/BB, which is really what you're getting at, is only one indicator of success. GO/AO, HR/9, WHIP, OPSa...you kinda need a lot to evaluate, even beyond ERA. Hell, throw QS's and QS% in there too. Javy's got great stuff, and great peripherals, but neither means he's necessarily going to be a good pitcher. It's pretty simple! For the last 5 years, those are pitchers that have pitched 200+ innings per year. They are ranked by strikeouts per nine innings. People can draw their own conclusions about what it says from there. It doesn't say that Tim Wakefield is one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball. It simply says he's a guy who averaged 200 innings per year and did a good job of striking people out compared to other starters. Simple. Bottom line: the pitchers at the top of the list are all good and durable pitchers. Javy is on that list. So anyone who says he's just a mediocre pitcher is either uninformed or WRONG. Simple.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 11, 2006 -> 12:39 AM) Not in this situation. Vazquez is not a winner. He's nothing more than mediocre at best. And your basing that on... what? Got some facts to go with that opinion? See stats in the table above. Don't just pick out wins/losses since we both know that for the majority of his career Javy pitched for crap teams, so the W/L record alone doesn't mean squat.

Here's the new version. It goes from April 2001 to current rather than 2000 to current. Dumps Hideo Nomo and Chan Ho Park as a result. Happier?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2006 -> 11:58 PM) Jose Contreras also has a full no-trade clause for 2007, the first year of his new Contract. Seriously, that's about as weird of a dataset as you could possibly get. First of all, you exclude anyone who hasn't pitched an average of about 160 innings per season, or anyone who made their debut since then. Secondly, you managed to pick a dataset that allowed Vazquez's best years to show up in it but cut out the first years of his career (while capturing the first years for people such as Johan). Hell, any data set that makes Hideo Nomo actually look good...the utility of it is somewhat limited. Weird? Why? It's basically a list of pitchers who have thrown 200 innings for each of the last 5 years. If it will make you happy, I'll adjust the numbers so that will be clearer. Give me a minute and I'll switch it.

One of my favorite databases is baseballmusings.com. Here's an analysis I did there that helped me understand the value GMs see in Vazquez. It's pretty simple. I just did a K/9 search for all mlb pitchers who have pitched over 1000 innings since spring 2000. The results? Here are the top 20. The first set of numbers is strikeouts per nine innings; the second set of numbers is BB/9 (walks per nine innings). Javy's high strikeouts and low walks put him in pretty elite company. # Player Name K9 BB9 1 Randy Johnson 10.76 2.30 2 Pedro Martinez 10.24 2.04 3 Johan Santana 9.47 2.58 4 Curt Schilling 9.16 1.48 5 Jason Schmidt 8.82 3.42 6 Roger Clemens 8.55 2.97 7 Javier Vazquez 8.00 2.21 8 Kelvim Escobar 8.00 3.58 9 Matt Clement 7.90 4.11 10 Hideo Nomo 7.87 4.24 11 Mike Mussina 7.80 1.86 12 Ben Sheets 7.79 1.89 13 Roy Oswalt 7.61 1.97 14 Chan Ho Park 7.42 4.18 15 Randy Wolf 7.31 3.16 16 C.C. Sabathia 7.20 3.30 17 Al Leiter 7.12 3.94 18 Bartolo Colon 7.09 2.95 19 Andy Pettitte 7.06 2.45 20 Chris Carpenter 7.01 2.57 Here's the link below: http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/Com...&MinPA=1000 BTW - Freddy is 28th on this list; Buehrle is 54th; Garland is 58th.

The following link goes to a Forbes article on valuation of major league teams. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Value_1.html The article came out earlier this year and uses 2005 income figures. You can drill down into some interesting information, compare teams, etc. Still, I'd like to have more detail. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More info from the Forbes article... (the numbers below are 2005 numbers) Team Value1 $315 mil (#18) Wins-to-player-cost ratio7 140 1-Yr Value Chg. 20% Ann. Value Chg.2 12% Debt/Value3 11% Revenue $157 mil Operating Income4 $21.7 mil Player Expenses5 $86 mil Gate Receipts6 $51 mil Revenues and operating income are for 2005 season and include baseball's revenue sharing and payroll tax. 1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt). 2Current team value compared with latest transaction price. 3Includes stadium debt. 4Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 5Includes benefits and bonuses. 6Includes club seats. 7Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average. NA: Not applicable.

Sometimes I think I'm one of the only people who wants to keep Vazquez. I think Coops work on his stance fixed the 5th inning problem, and as a result he's going to have a big year for us. And no... I haven't been drinking.

The Sox wouldn't eat a cent if they traded Javy. He's be the #1 or #2 pitcher on alot of other teams. And at $12M per year, he is no longer overpriced.

QUOTE(S720 @ Dec 9, 2006 -> 10:05 PM) What are you guys talking about? Buerhle is our ace. For an ace who keeps on wearing other team's hat, to me is very offended. If he wears the Cubs hat, what would be your opinion then? Do you guys still give him your support? It might not offend you, but to me, it's very offended. Trade his ass to the Cardinals! If we trade Buehrle... that's a HUGE and qualified if... it should only be if it's a good deal for us. Trade him because he's wearing a Cardinals hat... at a Cardinals game? Give me a break.