Dick Allen

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 06:39 PM) The talent given up in that trade was enormous. Adam Jones has a lot of talent. The other 3 are easily attainable for some obscure player you would never miss if KW is interested. In fact, he could have had George Sherrill for nothing but wisely passed. The Orioles lost 93 games in 2007 and lost another 93 when they traded Bedard in 2008 and 98 games in 2009 and 96 in 2010 not that it didn't work out for them because of the injury, but even with this "enormous" haul they received, if Bedard were healthy, and never traded, chances are they would have won more games. The Sox are trying to win in 2011. If they lose 93 or 96 or 98 games, there is going to be a whole lot of payroll slashing because attendance will take a huge nosedive.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 03:48 PM) Erik Bedard for one, what a lopsided trade. Only because of injury. If Danks is going to get hurt, but all means, trade him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) I am not forgetting that. As a matter of a fact that is exactly why he is at his peak value to other clubs right now. Every bit of time that goes by lessens that value, because the team that trades for him will receive less time of Danks. You have to admit that starting pitching is the biggest strength of this team right now. It is also the thing that teams will pay the most to get. Its also dumb to be in win-now mode when you aren't looking for a way to get quality players to fill your biggest holes. If it is the strenth of the team, why do you look to weaken it? I'm not sold on the other parts of the rotation. Danks is at his peak value to the White Sox and that is what should matter most. Buerhle finished the season very average and has been average at best the second half of seasons recenty. Peavy is a question mark. Freddy Garcia may or may not come back and really do you think its a lock he can give you what he gave you in 2010? Floyd has had 2 very similar seasons when he's only been above mediocre for 2 of 6 months and finished hurt. Edwin Jackson seems like he could be pretty good. He also could be pretty bad. The strength of the starting rotation is John Danks. He's the surest thing. Sale was great in shorts spurts. Is he ready for a full time starter role? Its not an obvious yes. Teams trying to win don't trade away their best players. Can you name any teams that traded away their best starter and got better the next season? Pitching and defense is the more boring path to baseball, but it is the winning path. When the Sox won the WS, they lost their best hitter for most of the year and he was a shell of his former self when he did play but really it was home run or bust. He was replaced with a pretty average guy. Frank Thomas and Carl Everett. Everett was replaced by a guy who had a monster year in 2006. In fact the offense was better in 2006 than 2005 but the pitching fell apart and the team wasn't as good. Trading John Danks because he's worth more now than he may be worth in a year or 2 is pretty sad and so Pittsburgh Pirates.

Did you hear what Gammons had to say? Supposedly the Red Sox are going after Crawford, but may bat him down in the order thinking it will appeal to him as he really doesn't feel like stealing 70 bases anymore. Its too much of a beating. The more I read about Crawford, the more I think giving this guy $100 million is going to be regrettable. He's a great player, but will probably fade like Tim Raines. Still very useful, just not worth what he's going to be paid.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) If the choice is that, or a couple of draft picks, I take the CFer on the verge. But you are forgetting the 2 years of Danks's services when he should be coming towards a peek. This is not a guy to trade. How many ace-like pitchers get traded and what comes back is even better? If the White Sox are in a win mode, dealing perhaps their best starting pitcher is dumb.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Oct 17, 2010 -> 12:14 AM) if you trade danks, the idea is to get better, which means to have more wins than the previous year. i don't expect them to trade danks, just to trade him. the haul for a danks should and will be pretty huge if he goes. And you just made my point. Trading Danks, as many posts in this thread suggest as PART of a package for Colby Rasmus, isn't going to make the Sox better. They will be worse. Their payroll may be a few dollars less.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 05:32 PM) There won't be fewer fans in the stands if we trade Danks away. People said the same thing about Buehrle being a possible FA, that people would be sad and folks would stay away from the ballpark. The fact is, the only thing that brings fans to the Cell is a winning baseball team. I don't care how they do it and if trading Danks gets us a huge package of talent and makes us a better ballclub, I am all for it. There won't be fewer fans because they will be missing John Danks. There will be fewer fans because there will be fewer wins. And why do people want to trade him at all. If he stays 2 season and leaves, the Sox will get the draft picks so many people around here covet. He's definitelyh a guy you would offer arb.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) Not sure which Javy trade youre talking about but neither do i see as bad deals, yes tyler flowers slumped this year but Lilli looks to be the utility man of the future, maybe more, Gil Brent Lillibridge? Really? .248 OBP and 36 ks in 98 AB make it seem like he's more of a Culligan man of the future than the utility man of the future.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) You are the one who keeps saying we have no money to spend... Isn't it obvious? When did I say they have no money to spend? I have only stated what has happened, KW is hinting budget. Guess what, you trade Danks, there are going to be fewer fans in the stands. Pitching wins. The Sox have Konerko, Jenks, AJP all off the books. There should be some money available for a decent bat or 2. Destroying your rotation isn't the right move. Its a lot harder to get a pitcher of Danks quality than hitters who can help you win if your staff is decent. If money is the reason everyone wants the Sox to trade Danks, it makes the Jackson move and the Ramirez very questionable. I didn't mind the Jackson move at all, but if the choice is Jackson and whatever you can get for Danks or Danks and Hudson, I take Danks and Hudson. If the Sox have $4 million for Manny Ramirez, money should not be discussed as an issue with this team.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) You must be pretty confident that Danks will sign an extension? Because if he doesn't, there's a good chance won't be here past 2011. I don't understand trading an ace- like young pitcher who you still have control of for 2 years, unless you get something very similar or even better back and it better be pitching. I could understand trading him next offseason when he will have a year left and the Sox came to the conclusion he was going to test the market and didn't like their chances. You still would get an excellent return. Pitching wins. Teams that dump their best pitchers, usually don't do very well in the standings. Trading him now because you are scared he may not re-sign is small market mentality. Let the Pirates think like that. If the object is winning, worry about Danks contract at least another year.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Oct 15, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) Could A Quentin/Rasmus swap possibly work? Maybe if the Sox threw in Pena and Teahen. I'm sure LaRussa wouldn't mind Lillibridge either. He can play a lot of positions.

Cora is the defense guy. The OFers continue to miss cut-off men. The defense wasn't so good until Vizquel played and calmed Ramirez down. I don't see how his leaving would hurt the White Sox. Good luck to him, I'm sure he wants to make out the line up card. Maybe the Sox could bring in Sandberg to be the bench coach just to piss off Cubs fans.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) Dunn created 45 batting runs last year in a pretty neutral park. Quentin created 12.4. The difference in their offensive production is about 3 win shares. That's quite the difference. Dunn had about 110 more plate appearances than Quentin in 2010. If Quentin continued the pace he was on and had 110 more plate appearances, he would have hit another 5 doubles and 5 homers, so he would have wound up with about 5 less doubles and 7 less homers than Dunn while scoring more runs and driving in the same amount, and that was horrible, must get rid of Carlos Quentin. It still would have been 30+ homers and 100+RBI. Using the park factor doesn't really qualify with Dunn. He's also played in bandboxes and put up the same numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Dunn sucks or anything. He's just not worth what he's going to be paid at least to the White Sox. I would much rather pay Quentin $5 million than Dunn the probably $15 million a year he will command.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 05:56 PM) I wouldn't. Not at 15 million a year. Not with all the other financial obligations we have. I agree with you there. But Dunn is and has been one of the premier sluggers in baseball for the last 7 years. Money is a big part of it, especially if its the White Sox and not the Yankees or Boston. Quentin made $3.2 million this year, and a lot of this board hated him. They want him gone. Dunn gives you a little bit more than Quentin did this year. About 10 more homers, about .050 in OBP, he hit about .020 better and about 100 more strikeouts. As much as several here say they would love him, he would be quickly turned on, especially considering the kind of money he's going to make. Thome hit a lot of homers with the Sox, yet people were doing cartwheels when he left. Dunn offensively isn't too much different from what Thome gave you with the Sox his last 3 seasons. Edwin Jackson, pro-rated, had the best numbers of any Sox pitcher, yet people around here are crying about his $8.5 million price tag.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 05:36 PM) I don't get where you're coming from. You're seriously comparing Dunn's resume with Quentin's? You can pretty much pencil in Dunn at .250/40/100/.380/.520/.900 and not think twice about it. CQ has one great year to his credit. It's not close. Pencil it in all you want. We'll see what happens. As I said before Dunn is the better hitter, but its really not by as much as you think. Maybe he will continue to put up the splits you suggest, maybe not. Thome did and was hated, not worth bringing back for $1.5 million. People will be doing cartwheels if the Sox signed Dunn for $15 million a year. IMO, its a collossal waste of money. Their production is pretty similar per 162, even with Quentin only having one big year.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) If you think about it that way, then a .300 hitter isn't much better than a .250 hitter since the difference between them is only 25 hits per 500 ABs. And he'd only get maybe one more hit per week. But obviously, that .300 hitter is a hell of a lot better than the .250 hitter (assuming they do everything else similarly). And as bad as Dunn was in the second half, he still managed a .803 OPS in the second half. His .337 OBP and .466 SLG aren't Adam Dunn good, but they were still pretty good. Plus, with the way Dunn's season went (he had a really high BABIP for a majority of the first half), you really expected his luck to falter sooner or later. His second half swoon had more to do with the law of averages than his inability to hit. And as you said, he did hit his fair share of homers, even with a poor OPS for him. Yes but hits, regardless of what some sab guys will tell you are different from walks. What Dunn gives you is the same amount of hits as Quentin. He just walks 3 times a month more, so really no RBI chance without the bases being loaded. Plus, Dunn doesn't run very well anymore, so those 3 walks a month really doesn't add all that much considering you're talking an extra 100 strikeouts per season.You made it seem like they are nowhere near close. I disagree, and think the difference in salaries would make me think Quentin plus $10 million in other players is a significantly better option.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 01:24 PM) A .034 OBP is the difference between a bad hitter and a mediocre hitter and a mediocre hitter and a good hitter. I can go on and on. Point being, that is a pretty big difference. Plus, you totally forgot to mention slugging percentage, which is at .521 for Dunn in comparison to Quentin's .488. Point being, Quentin may have the potential to be better than Dunn, but he's only shown it once and in spurts. He also has a injury issue and is incredibly inconsistent. Compare that to Dunn, who has been producing at a very good and stable rate for most of the past decade and you really don't have much of a comparison. Adam Dunn consistent? Maybe at the end of the day, but 2010 was the tale of 2 halfs. Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+ 1st Half 88 86 366 320 51 92 26 2 22 59 0 0 40 108 .288 .372 .588 .959 188 2 4 0 2 6 2 .365 114 158 2nd Half 70 67 282 238 34 53 10 0 16 44 0 1 37 91 .223 .337 .466 .803 111 8 5 0 2 4 2 .278 82 122 Nothing too consistent there other than he was consistently great the first half and consistenty awful the second. He gets on base 17 more times per 500 AB, so 3 times more a month. Its really not huge. If Quentin rebounds back to 2008, he's better. If he doesn't he's worse, but really not $10 million a year worse. Plus he hit 30. I don't know how many 285 pounders continue to produce at the same level as they did in their 20's. Some have remained productive, Frank Thomas, but I don't know of many more. Dunn was about as awful the second half of 2010 as any White Sox hitter, although he popped a few homers. There's a lot of red flags with this guy. If the Sox signed him and he was a bust, however, I'm sure it would be a certain coach's fault.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 11:37 PM) Dunn is a much better hitter than Quentin though. And I mean MUCH better. Potential is one thing, ability to perform is another. And first base might be important, but it's not all that valuable. It's one of the easier positions to fill because you can stick just about anyone there and they'll live. Much better? Have you looked at the numbers? Quentin actually has a higher lifetime average and is trailing in OBP by .034. He also strikes out about 100 times less a season. Dunn is a better hitter, but not by much and it wouldn't be surprising if Quentin is the better hitter in the next couple of seasons. Its amazing the fascination this board has with players who perform about the same or worse for other teams. Jim Thome was hated around here. Dunn gets on base less, hits about the same amount of homers, strikes out even more, and actually will play a position horribly which is actually worse than being a DH where the lack of defensive prowess, regardless of what Ozzie thinks, won't hurt you.

Jackson was real good with the Sox this year and pretty mediocre/bad with AZ. Hudson was awesome with AZ and pretty mediocre/bad with the Sox. I would really wait before judging Daniel a perennial all star and first ballot HOFer. He'll probably be good, but there is no reason to think Jackson won't be good. He certainly outperformed Javy Vazquez when Javy was a White Sox and I seem to recall a lot of posters saying Javy's $11 million a year contract was a fair deal and market rate for what he provided. Lets just see how this plays out. I believe Jackson with have a lower ERA than Hudson in 2011. That said, money is a factor. KW is already crying about potential budget restraints. Yes, the same guy who added Jackson and Manny Ramirez is hinting he may not be able to afford the team he wants. Personally, the trade didn't really bother me at the time and still really doesn't, at least performance-wise. Hudson wasn't performing with the Sox like he did in AZ. I'm amazed no one ripped the pitching coach because certainly if it was a hitter we know where all the "blame" would be placed. It just goes to show that different situations produced different results. Its not fantasy baseball. Chances are the Sox are going to need pitchers. Jackson has a ton of talent, more than Hudson. If they can harness it, he can have a Loaisa 2003 year at any time. If you pro-rate his 11 White Sox starts for a full season, he would have been the Sox best starter in 2010. There's really nothing to complain about. He's worth the money, and if he does leave, the Sox will get what everyone around here craves..........draft picks.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) http://www.foxsportsohio.com/10/12/10/Reds...amp;feedID=3717 Fox Sports Ohio is suggesting the Reds might be in some kind of financial pickle with Votto heading to arbitration for the first time. I don't see it being an issue at all for them considering he's the MVP favorite. But for our sake we can hypothesize. They need to upgrade their SP, and with Harang likely going, they will have some cash and an open SP spot. Instead of spending money solely to lock up Votto, perhaps they'd like to spend that cash on Danks and Quentin. They upgrade their one deficient outfield spot and the other dominant starter they sorely needed this postseason. If you are the Reds GM, does this make them better? I think so. DH Tank? I like it if only because it shakes us up a bit in the middle. I love Paulie but maybe we need a new look. Makes us awesome...then we just go sign Cliff Lee for 2 expensive years, lose our pick and call it an offseason. So you're saying they can't afford one arb guy, maybe the Sox can trade them 2 arb guys for his services? The Reds aren't trading Votto this year. Maybe down the road, but that would be franchise killing dealing him to save money.

When the Braves lose this one, it will be 6 consecutive playoff series lost by Bobby Cox.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Oct 10, 2010 -> 02:31 PM) How do you even know that, he hasnt really had a chance to show anything as of yet. I would imagine since he's been healthy and it took 4 INTs for him to get in today, he's definitely not a world beater. This is all on Angelo. The big flaw with Martz' offense is the QB takes a beating. Not having a capable back up is ridiculous.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 10, 2010 -> 12:51 AM) I just don't see how our fear of the Twins could continue after this. The Twins really are the laughingstock of baseball right now. Swept by NY again?? Please. If the White Sox are ever intimidated by these guys again and have the kind of record they had against the Twins this year, then even as an Ozzie/KW apologist I agree heads have to roll. The Twins are a laughingstock because of their postseason flameouts. There's no other way to put it. Too bad Twins. You got owned. Yes you owned us, but this has to be as painful as the Sox's pathetic effort against the Twins this year. Twins fans must be pissed/embarrassed. Or are they blaming the loss of Morneau which really is a copout. The Twins have been playing like this against the Yankees longer than they have been dominating the White Sox. I don't know why this sweep should be anything new or add any more insight. I think the Sox should wear Yankee uniforms when they play Minnesota next year. They'll kill them

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) An expert on the radio said it best, the Twins are built to win the regular season but are not suited for the playoffs while the White Sox were better suited for the playoffs especially this year. The Twins pitchers are good at grinding out regular season games but do not hold up in the playoffs. The way the expert put it, made much more sense to me than how I stated it. So you're saying, or this "expert" is saying, if the Sox made it into the playoffs as a WC and both Minnesota and the Sox somehow survived the ALDS, the Sox would have no trouble handling the Twins in the ALCS because it was the playoffs? Total BS. If a team can win 95 games during the regular season, its capable of winning 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 vs. other playoff teams if they play up to their capabilities. The Twins obviously have a mental block vs. NY. There's always been a lot of talk about how the Sox are built to win and built for the playoffs. It is very curious to me considering its an organization that has won playoffs series only one season the past 93.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Oct 7, 2010 -> 09:29 PM) THIS IS A DIFFERENT TWINS TEAM THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!! Remember how many of you said that? No it's not, same old s***, same old team. Let's remember that the next time we're all over the Twins nuts for being the greatest franchise in the history of sports. They are a much different team than they have been in the past, but they still bow down to the Yankees. The Sox were a lot different this year than they had been in the past, bu they still bow down to the Twins. If they really want to change the results, they need to change their mindsets. When the Twins fall behind the Sox or the Yankees fall behind the Twins, there is no panic, there is no feeling of anything but optimism. I want the Twins to win this postseason because I go AL Central, then AL if the Sox aren't in, but other than that I really don't care if they ever get over their issues with the Yankees and hope they always continue during the regular season. As for the Sox, watch the Twins blow leads every night, lose 11 in a row in the playoffs, before you bow down to everything Twins. The only reason the White Sox aren't in the playoffs and the Twins are is the Sox defeatist attitude towards them.