Dick Allen

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) It's all in his wording I suppose. When he mentioned Vizquel leading off and playing DH he qualified the statement with something along the lines of "if we don't have a leadoff man or true DH'. If Kenny fills these holes -- I don't really think Kenny cares what Ozzie wants when he's working on potential acquisitions -- Ozzie will have no reason to threaten us with these terrifying scenarios. Supposedly they have interest in Pierre.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 07:29 PM) I still believe that I wish we didn't bring Kotsay back, as there's no doubt he'll get too many at bats next season. I hope he had too many beers, but I read an Ozzie quote where he said Vizquel may even DH AND lead off occassionally. 1995 called and said "Good idea".

Jones hasn't had an .800 OPS against LHP in any of the past 3 seasons. He's been with 3 different teams and hasn't hit higher than .222 during those years. If there was a decent probability he would return to his 2006 form, Scott Boras could have probably secured more for him than $500k. In fact one of the criticisms Ron Washington received last year was exposing Jones too much. Lighting in a bottle, .900 OPS vs. LHP, it may happen, but is highly unlikeley.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) I think Ozzie needs to get over this 'I want my DH to be able to play the field' crap. I mean players for the most part that are DH's are DH's for a reason. I don't care if my DH can't play the field. I want my DH to mash. Especially if they are going to make the DH guys like Kotsay and Jones rotating. You aren't going to win short a bat in the AL.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 01:58 PM) The Chicago White Sox are not the kind of organization that runs garbage players out as everyday starters in Center Field, sorry Andrew. You may have missed the list of CFs the Sox have been running out there recently.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 10:46 AM) If the Sox could get the equivalent of a Santos Rodriguez/Nathan Jones type player for Jenks - someone who is talented but is still a ways away and doesn't take up a roster spot, and who basically meets or exceeds the value of a 2nd round pick - and then put that Jenks money towards another veteran on a 2-year deal with possibly an option for a third, then I would do that. I wouldn't ask for anything more than that for Jenks because I agree with you, he's not going to be worth a really great prospect or anything like that. But I think Jenks does definitely have *some* value if for no other reason than the fact that he'll make in arb what would be his market value or less, and he's only a 1-year commitment versus the other closers on the market who will all want at least 2 years guaranteed. I do kind of disagree about the breaking down part though since IIRC his main issues were with his non-pitching shoulder and kidney stones. Jenks was still going out there on many occasions and flashing very high-level stuff even though he didn't always get the job done in the way he was expected to. He has back issues and the calf popped at the end of the year.

Good for him he wants to start. Bad for the White Sox if he does.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 12:36 AM) Forget Al Harrington, the Bulls should go after Anthony Randolph. If he could get out of Golden State, and Nellie's doghouse, he's a potential all-star. But back to the Bulls, the problems are all on offense, and if you only score 90PPG, you're not going to win many games of basketball. Whoever thought they wouldn't miss Ben Gordon's shooting was way off, but as has been pointed out, this isn't a contender with him either. They probably are better taking their lumps and getting a lottery pick. The Bulls better hope Wade or LeBron come to Chicago or they will be stuck being a team that really isn't good enough for a long time. Rose can be great, but even adding a Bosh isn't going to make them a team that would have much of a chance against the top teams in the NBA in a 7 game series. If they don't land one of the top FA, they will be exactly what you don't want an NBA team to be. Good enough to where guys like James Johnson are the top guys on the board when you draft, but not good enough to ever really go on a serious playoff run. If the Bulls didn't beat the odds and win the lottery a couple of years ago, just think how bad their present and future would be.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 6, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) I think that all depends though. I mean, Jenks should get $7-8M this year in arb, which means that if he's at least pretty good in 2010 then he'll be looking for at least $10M in arb going into 2011, his last arbitration year. If the Sox could deal Jenks for prospects and dump his salary, and then sign Soriano/Valverde for 2/$18 or something (the same amount or less), then that could work out a lot better. Because of how we finished, if we signed Soriano/Valverde we only give up a 2nd rounder, and we should be able to recoup that value in a Jenks deal, and possibly get a little more. At least that way we get some cost certainty, and depending on what is out there, we may even be able to improve in 2010 as well. That might sound redundant, but because of Jenks' arb situation we're basically shelling out $7-8M for him this year and hoping he's good, and then if he is, we still may have some serious reservations about tendering him a contract in 2011, meaning we could lose him for nothing. Unloading him now, getting a little something back, and then picking up another 2-year option wouldn't be a bad thing at all IMO. It wouldn't but it takes two to tango. Why would another team give up something useful for Jenks and pick up Jenks' money especially after he came off a mediocre at best season and finished the season hurt? The rumor is Jenks is getting into better shape, but we have all heard that before. He was at an autograph signing a couple of weeks ago, and judging by some photos I saw, looked as round as ever. I think the Sox would trade him if they could get something for him, but chances are, they won't. If that is the case, its best for the Sox to offer him arb, and if he shows up at Spring Training heavy and throwing 91 and looking like he won't be earning his $7 million, just cut him. It seems harsh, especially since he probably has earned more chances than others, but money comes into play. Guys that break down in their 20s who really don't do anything about it, don't suddenly stop breaking down. It will be interesting to see how Jenks proceeds this winter.

From the Tribune, Ozzie's take on the leadoff spot: Manager Ozzie Guillen is fully aware that there are four months left until the White Sox's 2010 regular season opener against Cleveland, so he was careful about any thought of selecting rookie sensation Gordon Beckham as his leadoff hitter. "A lot of people are saying that," Guillen said Saturday night at the Fairmont Hotel, where he was participating in the Easter Seals of Metropolitan Chicago (ESMC) Holiday Gala. "He's the one in the lineup I have right now. Is he ideal? That's the only (one) have. "But I really like to have someone else out there. Bekcham is a very, very good RBI man. And I don't want to take the bat away from him, and hoepfully we find someone to take his spot." Guillen is aware that general manager Ken Williams is searching for a leadoff batter. "We tried to find one," Guillen said. "It's not easy. We tried looking for one, the one out there is very expensive, and the one is not there, we have to make big trades. If they don't find a legit guy there are a lot worse scenerios than having perhaps your best hitter bat the most times. I would imagine the one that was out there was Figgins.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) I still don't see where this philosophy makes any sense. You want to invest the biggest dollars in the bullpen, which should be at least decent next year as is, and then go to the scrap heap for both OF and DH? Pods wants a multi-year deal, you want to take that risk? Bullpens are dicey propositions always, and the very few truly consistently solid arms are very costly for a guy who pitches 3 innings a week. I'd rather invest in the two positions that play every day, and where we can have a better read on future success. I wouldn't want to give a reliever a 4 year contract, but spending $3-4 million on a one or two year contract doesn't seem like it should hamper other areas.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) I think there is a danger in going with Williams. First, despite that he did reasonably well last year, his career history says he's unlikely to do it again. Second, the Sox basically have no lefties in the system who are major league ready or close to it. I think what KW will do, and should do, is pick up one or two Williams-like guys off the scrap heap, knowing that one of the three will likely show something in ST, and the other two can be in Charlotte in case the guy in Chicago screws up. I am not against Williams per se, but, I'd like to see the Sox find something cheap in a LF reliever to add to the pool. I hope not. He tried that in 2007. I do agree about Williams.

I remember all the anger that came out of this board when Jim Thome was the Sox DH. Then I read about all the suggestions for his replacement and LMAO. Someday you will come to the conclusion Jim Thome was a fine DH, and the guy that succeeded him, if KW takes advice from this board, was a huge downgrade.

QUOTE (T R U @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) ESPN pisses me off so much when they say Tiger Woods is the best athlete in the world.. Competitive eaters are the greatest athletes in the world.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 07:10 PM) I might be wrong...but I'm not sure how well-supported a early 90's to mid 2000's run (like the Braves had) would be supported in terms of attendance. The Braves only had one World Series title, and Braves fans really became bored with those teams falling short or not being built with all the components to win it all...maybe that's expecting too much, perhaps. It did take at least 8-10 years before the attendance really started to fall off, and I think a large part of that was due to the corporatization of the Braves, Ted Turner leaving day-to-day oversight and the fact that the really exciting teams and playoff appearances with that team happened in the early 90's through the mid to late 90's, then fans sort of lost interest and stopped coming in record numbers, and maybe the appeal of the new stadium (it's "okay") also started to wear off, too. Of course, any Sox fan would love to have that type of home-grown dynasty (Glavine, Smoltz by trade, Avery and then acquiring Maddux). My question would be how long White Sox fans would "pack the park" and pay rising prices if the White Sox continually flamed out in the first round of the playoffs, like more consistent franchises such as the Twins (and previously) the A's have done? Would there be diminishing returns with attendance until the White Sox won another World Series again? I think the closest example we can aim for is that of the Angels' sustained success, their fight under Moreno pull up almost even with the Dodgers in that market, consistent playoff appearances, that's setting the bar about as high as you can. If the White Sox ever went on a run like the Braves did, attendance wouldn't be an issue. White Sox fans will never get bored with winning.

Considering how guys like Teahan supposedly will be much improved if he just plays one position and how some guys who haven't DHd much struggle when they DH, I'm starting to wonder if it really is a good idea to be rotating that position very much. At least have one guy DH at least half the time. As for JD vs. Vlad, one big difference is Vlad will DH extensively, JD has already stated he is very much opposed. I also have always wondered if a guy is a good friend of Ozzie, and there are still several active players that fall into this category, does it make no difference to KW, or is it a plus, you probably are guaranteed he won't have a problem with the manager, or could it be a minus, even if it isn't true, he might be perceived to get special treatment and it could divide a clubhouse if things go wrong. I would imagine it probably makes no difference other than Ozzie may have some special insight.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) 78+17= 105? No. 78 departed. With Jones, Vizquel and Teahan 17 are coming back.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) Are you guys worried about our team speed heading into next year? Ranger? Others? Yes or no. We'll have to see the other moves. Right now, without Thome and Dye, that's 2 base cloggers gone. However, the Sox had 113 SB last year, and assuming Lillibridge and Nix are both in AAA or elsewhere, 78 of those SB have departed with 17 coming back. So while the team speed might be a little better, I think the baserunners need to be schooled a lot better. Of course you will have Rios for an entire year and if he can get on base he can get you a steal. It doesn't appear the home runs are going to be like they were in the heyday, so moving runners and stealing bases will be important. I know some don't think strikeouts are a big deal, but the Sox are going to have to cut those down and use their outs to get something done.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) Why should we expect to hand over a role to someone and for them to take less money? If there is a lot of bidding going on wouldn't they take the most money? Maybe there is something about Japanese baseball I don't know-well there are alot of things actually-but money is the lure to signing any free agent IMO. Well, Dotel made $6.5 million last year. Boston declined the $6 million option on this guy this year. Maybe its a rather large assumption, but I don't think he gets $6 million, let alone $6.5 million, which would make him cheaper than Dotel.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) Cubs also interested. Would be a nice pick up, perhaps the Sox could offer him the closer's spot as incentive to take less money. http://www.npbtracker.com/2009/11/free-age...ishi-kobayashi/ He'd fit right in with the youth movement. Seriously, he wouldn't be a bad pick up. Probably would take Dotel's role for less money.

QUOTE (T R U @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:40 PM) There is a difference between those sports and golf.. You cant really get your friends together and play 11 on 11 full pad football.. how many times as anyone played 9 on 9 baseball with friends all out, as in the pitcher is throwing hard someone is callin balls and strikes etc.. You can literally go play golf exactly like tiger woods does, the only difference is you arent good.. and good in terms of being on the PGA tour.. Im not trying to bash golf, i just dont think its a sport nor do i think they are athletes especially when people in their 60's or older can play.. There's a little more intensity at a professional golf tournament than there is when 4 hacks get together and the most important thing is the location of the beer cart. I went to college and am friends with a pro golfer who has won one PGA event but has mostly struggled during his career. (Although he has about $2 million in earnings). I've played golf with him. If you ever saw him playing with me and some buddies vs. how he plays on tour, there is absolutely no comparison.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 07:20 PM) Why would they need Jenks to be setup/closer guy when they have Bard, who easily has the ability to excel in either role, for over 6 million dollars less? Not to mention there's no concerns about Bard's weight/conditioning. That's the other thing, Ozzie and KW did themselves no favors calling out Jenks if they plan to trade him. It seems to me they are getting their arbitration ammo in order. Last spring I was shocked when a reporter asked Ozzie about Jenks' weight, he just said he didn't care what he weighed anymore. Maybe they were giving him one shot at doing things his way, and all things considered, he probably had his worst year with the White Sox.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:39 PM) Okay, so where did I say that I believed it was absolute fact that anyone would have been better? I posted the numbers of other players on our team who already *were* better. As far as minor league options, it's no guarantee, but I certainly wouldn't bet money on any one of those players coming up and posting numbers worse than Linebrink's in the second half, and it is in no way inconceivable for any of those guys to perform significantly better. You don't know unless you give those guys a shot. And at least if you go to someone else you're sending a message that you won't settle for that kind of performance. Thanks for bringing up the Pena trade again. I only said that I thought we could have gotten something better for Allen than Pena. You can disagree with that all you want, I don't know. I felt Allen was being underrated, and in general I don't like giving up position prospects for middle relievers. Furthermore I repeated about a thousand times over that I had no problem dealing Allen. As bad as Linebrink was, given his history, he probably was a better bet turning it around than throwing the other guys in there. Another reason could be Linebrink could live with the failure, the younger guys sometimes have it ruin them. Also, substituting a minor leaguer for Linebrink wouldn't have been enough to get the Sox in the playoffs anyway, and if it meant a couple more wins, all it would have done is move them down in the draft and possiby make them eligible to surrender a #1 pick if Hell froze over and they signed a type A FA.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) I'm done with this argument, as there seems no point in going back and forth, but it bears mentioning-- technically it wasn't against the rules to do steroids for much of baseball's history. You talk about the sliding scale of wrongness - i equate roiding with stealing signs and speeding, not that bad in the scheme of things. You equate it wth manslaughter and the like. That's fine, but I'm not the one who cheered for these guys ten years ago and now wants their records removed. At least I've been consistent. Bring the steroids back as far as I'm concerned. All I care is wins, by any means necessary. But we can agree to disagree as it's clear we're not going to convince each other. The way the players were acquiring and using steroids was against the law. Maybe they had no verbage in MLB' s "rule book", just like I'm sure there is nothing about many other crimes in the "rule book." It doesn't mean technically it wasn't against the rules.

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Whoa there.... Bard has a cannon for an arm, but so did Ricky Vaughn... who Bard, so far in his career, seems to be emulating. 6.0 BB/9 in the minors?? 4.0 BB/9 this year for Boston? That ain't going to cut it in the majors. Bobby had similar numbers in the past and found he had to 'dial it down' to get his walks down... which is critical for a reliever if he wants to survive in MLB. Don't be surprised if Bard figures out he has to do the same. So can Bard be a very good pitcher? Sure. Could he be successful as a major league closer with his current control issues? Doubtful. So, is he better than Jenks right now? Absolutely not. He's probably not better than Jenks right now, although their ERAs were pretty much the same, but he may be by April and he'll be about $6.5 million cheaper for the 2010 season. I do know KW loves this guy but so does Theo. I don't think the Red Sox would make this offer even though Alexei is very cheap for his position and production. For KW it would be a no brainer. Bard doesn't have to close. They can use Thornton to close, and with the financial savings, sign Hudson or Polanco, add a DH and you could seriously talk about the WS again. Its too nice for the Sox. It could never happen.