Dick Allen

So he just confirms what everyone already knows and throws his brother under a bus. I'm glad I have a better brother.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) One guy's subjective ranking doesn't matter, I agree. But the overall quality of the system, its instruction and coaching, and its talent saturation at high levels all should matter to any Sox fan. And unfortunately, as we don't all see the players ourselves or have all the knowledge we need to evaluate them, we rely on scouting reports and lists like this. If you take a few different ones, you should get a decent idea of where things stand. Certainly not at all an exact science though. I agree. What I'm saying is it really shouldn't matter if Keith Law thinks you have the 5th best system or the 25th best system. Making what you have useful or getting players who can be useful is more important. The Sox were ranked #1 9 years ago. It didn't mean anything. Its one thing if everyone who looks at it says its real bad, but there is enough variance for there to be some hope.

Who cares about farm system rankings? They don't give you a trophy for being ranked high. Unless your system is so awful, and you are ranked at the bottom, the rest is a crapshoot. Organizations will get ranked higher for having 4 guys who have potential to be great who turn out to be nothing than an organization that has 1 or 2 guys who actually turn out to be good or great players. As someone who has noticed the crap coming from the Sox minor league system for years, it appears to have turned around and at least there is some hope a few of these guys could be pretty good. It doesn't matter to me if they are ranked first or 25th.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) Yeah Im pretty pissed the sox couldn't get Blanco for the 1 year 750K he signed with the Padres for. He is exactly what we needed. I'm pretty disgusted too, especially if Stewart and Miller are really who will be battling for that spot. Blanco signed for less than half what they paid Toby Hall. He hits OK for a back-up, but defensively he's one of the best in the league. If AJP gets hurt, the White Sox are in trouble. Again.

QUOTE (Cerbaho-WG @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 03:22 PM) "A very questionable draft this year after Gordon Beckham won't do much to boost their system." ...Man, Keith Law is an idiot. If Beckham is half as good as they think he is, and everyone else is garbage, it will be one of the White Sox best drafts in since the Himes era.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 11:20 AM) Well Konerko definitely bounced back in the 2nd half of the season at least (and was our best hitter after the ASB), while Swisher after having respectable numbers in mid July went completely downhill. I think the main thing for Paulie is to keep healthy, but he's certainly not the hitter he once was. At least with Swisher you could argue he's not in his 30's yet, so he could be an excellent candidate for a bounce-back season, but I don't think he'll hit above .250 again anytime soon. Even with Konerko's improved second half, his "unlucky" level was higher than Swisher's. Paulie is in his early 30's. He'll be fine in 2009.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 09:18 AM) because a soft line drive is going to fall in quite a bit too. And at some point, what is a soft line drive and what is a hard line drive? Watching Nick Swisher in 2008, he didn't appear any more "unlucky" than any other player. As was pointed out earlier, Konerko, using the same theories, was more "unlucky" than Swisher, still outperformed him, and a lot of people were still calling for Swisher to be Paulie's replacement while he was shown the door. If Swisher is a lock to bounce back, so must be Konerko.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 20, 2009 -> 11:20 AM) After Dahl was cancelled, I was looking for something to fill the void in my podcasts that I listen to a work. I listened to a month or so of B&B, and I couldn't take it anymore. I understand that they don't like "dumb" calls, but like you said, it's their screeners who let them through. McNeil (who I like as a host, but suspect I'd dislike greatly in person) is pompous. Bernstein is pompous squared. When B&B get on a topic, they really beat it to death, and nobody can change their opinions. They were talking about "half time adjustments" a while back, and Terry said he saw Phil Simms interviewed and Simms said that coaches don't make "half time adjustments." With that as the basis of his argument, B&B proceeded to browbeat anyone who said anything about Lovie Smith not making adjustments. If you listen to many ex-athletes, they use the term making adjustments quite often. It doesn't mean that the teams make huge changes in scheme or philosophy mid-game, it means making minor tweaks to the gameplan based on what has happened in the game. To me, that's B&B in a nutshell. If a caller makes a point and misspeaks or overstates something, they pounce and proceed to make the caller look stupid. I don't find that kind of radio entertaining. Yesterday they had a guy call in and say if Tom Brady had been drafted by the Bears or Kurt Warner, they might not be HOFers. (I agree) He was quickly shut up, told if you are good you are good and coaching means nothing. I would think a QB with better receivers and more time to throw generally will be better than one with bad receivers who have to unload the ball quickly. I think he would have been better off saying Rex Grossman might have played in a Pro Bowl or 2 if he was drafted by NE. While they are better spoken than most of their callers, B&B's pompous attitude is curious. I really don't think they know much more than them. I remember Hawk telling Boers he knew nothing about baseball. It was gold.

I think they want the idiot callers phoning in to make them look like they know what they are talking about.

They may need Peavy: The Chicago Sun Times reports that Rich Harden has a small tear in his shoulder joint, calling it "just severe enough that some players might seek surgery but slight enough to be in a range often treated effectively with a strengthening program."

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 18, 2009 -> 12:51 AM) Garland is not terrible. People tend to rate the players they see everyday way lower than ones they never see like f***ing Oliver Perez. I wish we could get Jon back. I realize it aint happening though. Garland is what he is. You're right he's not terrible and the Angels were at least at one time, willing to pay him 8 figures for 2009. What I don't understand is Garland is getting ripped for his 2008 ERA 4.90, WHIP which was poor at 1.51 and his weak K rate 4.1,yet, Jeff Marquez would make a fine #4 starter, ignoring his AAA ERA 4.69, WHIP 1.45 and K rate 3.4. Marquez, a lot here say, is a quality pitcher. They base it all on KW's comments on a conference call after he dumps salary obviously thinking KW would actually say he had a long way to go to be a major league pitcher, and on a 4 year old scouting report. I was never a big Garland lover, but he will basically give you the exact same thing Vazquez does without the strikeouts, and he generally wins a couple more games. He's definitely "worth" $7-8 million a year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 06:01 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,239430.column Latest Phil Rogers column, about fiscal responsibility of the Dodgers and White Sox this offseason. By the way, is the $92-94 million payroll figure taking into account the money the Phillies are supposedly sending for Thome? If not, our "real" payroll is essentially down in the $85-90 million range. Maybe it doesn't include Viciedo's signing bonus, though...which has been equated by KW to Swisher's 2009 contract in terms of a tit-for-tat replacement. Finally, Rogers mentions 3B Javier Castillo (a name I don't think I've seen once) as a sleeper/darkhorse candidate for the position. I'll stick with Eider Torres as my darkhorse, although he's have to beat our either Betemit or Lillibridge. I'm sure the first one won't happen (since KW is our GM), but maybe the second one will and Lillibridge will end up the starting SS in Charlotte, or starting CF (although, from everything you read, he would be most valuable as a trade chip with other organizations at SS). I don't see why the Phillies would be sending money to the Sox to pay Thome after he performed well enough with the Phillies picking up half the tab for a couple years for the option to vest. Its like saying, if he plays really well for you, and/or stays healthy. we will give you more money. I really doubt they are still paying anything. PHILADELPHIA — Pat Gillick understood that by accepting the job as Philadelphia Phillies general manager, he had two major issues to contend with before spring training. On Wednesday, he went a long way toward solving the bigger of the two issues. "It's always difficult to move someone with (Jim Thome's) talent level," Gillick said. But with National League Rookie of the Year Ryan Howard primed to return, Gillick and the Phillies tentatively agreed to trade first baseman Thome to the Chicago White Sox for center fielder Aaron Rowand and a pair of minor league prospects. The Phillies also agreed to pay $22 million of the $46 million owed to Thome. I'm pretty sure the $22 million has already been shelled out.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) Again, tRA eliminates the factors that a pitcher cannot control, so in other words Javy has been screwed over by defense and his home ballpark. This past season for example, Javy is a fly ball pitcher with Quentin, Swish/Griffey and Dye roaming his outfield and we're expecting him to have huge success? His BABIP was .316, the highest it's been over any of the last 6 years, he was set up to fail this year and I think it's unfair to criticise him for that. Or maybe it's public perception that's garbage. Why are other pitchers who outperform Javy with the same defense "worth" significantly less? Garland and Javy had the same defense, pitched in the same park in 2006. Garland had a better ERA, won more games, lost fewer games and your stat says Javy wasn't only worth more than him, but $12 million more. He even gives up more homers than Garland. Walks more than Garland. Apparently the outfielders not being able to jump 75 feet in the air is screwing him as well.Don't you find a flaw with that? No matter what team Javy has pitched with, and he's pitched for 4 of them now, he just keeps getting screwed by his defense. I think your stat basically puts a premium on a strikeout saying all the other stuff the pitcher can't control.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) it was the same injury. Being in good physical shape doesn't really matter in this type of injury. This isn't a joint rpoblem or a cartilage problem where the player has a surgery and it's just a matter of getting range of motion and strength back. for these problems the sronger you are before surgery the quicker you come back. This was a tendon repair where they had to stitch pieces of tendon together and allow them to heal before they could begin stretching or strengthening. It's usually 2-3 months before they even allow stretching which makes the muscle weaker. My best guess is that they used an augmentation device in the tendon and felt that it gave the tendon enough tensile strength to progress earlier and more aggressive. this is a bonus for the Sox and should help solidify the rotation. It was always assumed he would be in the bullpen when he came back. If he came back earlier, do you think starting and throwing more pitches putting more pressure on the tendon could cause a major setback? Its great for Jose to work hard and try to get back sooner, but isn't there a danger even if it feels well now that it is the wrong thing to do? I have been one of Jose's biggest backers on this site, even when he was struggling. I think his rehab shows what kind of player he really is. I'm sure he has more than enough money to live the rest of his life pretty comfortably and he has another $10 million coming. There's really no telling how old he really is, so it would be easy for him to take a very conservate approach to rehab and if he couldn't pitch, he could just collect his paycheck and ride off into the sunset. He wants to earn his money. There is no substitution for pride.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 10:19 AM) tRA is a fairly new metric, I think WAR has been around for a little longer. I can link you to some good sites if you want to learn about them, I would just post the links here but I don't get the feeling that anyone's particularly receptive towards the fact that there may be other ways of evaluating players and so I'd rather not waste my time. Just let me know. Any way to evaluate Javy Vazquez's 3 year stint as a White Sox is worth $85 million, or $28.3 million a year for a guy who 2 out of the 3 years had gave up more runs than league average and was below .500 on a team that was quite a bit above .500, is more than a little flawed.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:45 PM) Vazquez is worth a whole lot more than $11.5m a year, he's really a terrific pitcher, here are his last three seasons by tRA and WAR: 2006: tRA- 3.57 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 6.0 2007: tRA- 3.56 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 5.9 2008: tRA- 3.51 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 5.8 Currently one win on the open market is worth I believe around $4.8m, now don't quote me on that, but I think that is the mark (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), so by that value Vazquez has been worth $28.8m, $28.32m and $27.84m over the last three years respectively. Garland on the other hand, here are his tRA and WAR totals over the last three seasons: 2006: tRA- 4.58 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 3.5 2007: tRA- 5.50 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 1.1 2008: tRA- 5.74 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 0.4 And going by the same value as before he was worth $16.8m, $5.28m and $1.92m over the last three years. Also you mentioned Buehrle so I thought I'd chuck him in here: 2006: tRA- 5.22 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 2 2007: tRA- 4.57 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 3.1 2008: tRA- 4.03 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 4.5 Which would have made him worth $9.6m, $14.88m and $21.6m. Now because WCSox and I were discussing Oliver Perez I'll throw him in too: 2006: tRA- 5.40 (lgtRA- 5.11) WAR- 0.3 (In very limited PT it must be noted) 2007: tRA- 4.19 (lgtRA- 4.99) WAR- 3.6 2008: tRA- 4.98 (lgtRA- 4.87) WAR- 1.7 Making him worth $1.44m, $17.28m and $8.16m over the three years. So over those three years Vazquez was worth $84.94m and he was paid $35.5m (a net underpay of $49.44m), Garland was worth $24m and he was paid $29m (a net overpay of $5m), Buehrle was worth $46.08m and he was paid $31.25m (a net underpay of $14.83m) and finally Oliver Perez was worth a combined $26.88m and was paid $10.725m (net underpay of $16.155m). (Contract values all from Cot's). I was more trying to make the point that if he can't realise the obvious flaws in the ERA and ERA+ statistics then it is going to be difficult to have a discussion with him because, fundamentally, he just doesn't know the game well enough, although reading back I realise it does sound like I'm saying "use my metric or you're an idiot". Amended. It really is. You mention someone doesn't "know the game well enough", and you cite some crazy stats that have a pitcher who was : 11-12 4.84 ERA for a team that won 90 games 15-8 3.74 ERA for a team that lost 90 games 12-16 4.67 ERA for a team that won a division worth almost $30 million a year for those 3 years. In other words, if he was paid what your crazy stats think he should be paid, Javy Vazquez basically should be the highest paid player in baseball history on the basis of a 38-36 record with a 4.40 ERA. You even have his 2006 performance worth more than his 2007 performance. I figure I have a little bit of knowledge when it comes to baseball, and just by looking at stats and the games, I would think Javy was much better in 2007 than he was in 2006. Jon Garland on the other hand was 18-7 4.51 ERA 10-13 4.23 ERA 14-8 4.90 ERA According to your fine stats and "knowledge of the game" Garland's 42-28 record and 4.54 ERA over the same time (during the 3 seasons Garland pitched 11 total fewer innings than Vazquez and gave up 4 more earned runs) those numbers are "worth" $20 million a year less than Vazquez. An average of 3 2/3 innings a year and 1.3 runs a year, is worth $20 million . In fact, pitching on the same team in 2006, Garland's 18-7 4.51 vs. Vazquez 11-12 4.84 is worth $12 million less. LOL. Nice stats. According to you 14-8 4.90 ERA worth 1.92 million if its Jon Garland, 12-16 4.67 ERA worth 27.84 million if you're Javy Vazquez. I don't think there are many that understand that game. Scott Boras has his eye on you. If he ever takes over for Trump on "The Apprentice", you would have to be a favorite.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) Cherry-picking stats? I used tRA, probably the best stat currently available for evaluating a pitchers ability (along with tRA* and tRA+) as well as WAR, you use the awful ERA+ stat, really, if you can't see how flawed that metric is then it's impossible for me to have a discussion with you about pitchers and a pitchers ability. How did Mark Buerhle stack up after 2006? I'm not saying Garland is the equivalent of Buerhle. Garland had a bad second half. He's still a better than average starter. If Javy Vazquez is worth $11.5 million a year, Garland is going to be a bargain for the team he pitches for in 2009.

Pie won't be released. Some team will give up something for him. As far as the criticism the Cubs are getting on here for "giving up" on him, when you are trying to win how long of a rope do you give a guy? If Lillibridge, Getz, Fields, Owens start out hitting .220 in 50 AB, I'm sure many here including me will be calling for a replacement. The one area I may think differently on, is the Cubs should have some room to work with in their division. You'd think they would want to give Pie another shot at least before cutting the cord, unless they are totally convinced he will never hit. Its not like the Reed Johnson/Fukudome platoon currently planned for CF is of all star calibur.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) I don't see JG getting his desired $13M per over multiple years. I think he's under $10M. The buying side of the market is drying up everywhere but NY and Boston, and since he isn't going there, he's going to be very disappointed. There's not a chance. I just wonder what kind of offers he's getting. I would doubt he's even getting $8 million a year offers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:06 PM) I really thought Jon was the Ex-Sox pitcher who was most likely to come back here, until I read about his disconnect from Ozzie. It kind of makes it doubtful if it is true. Ozzie has said he'd love to have him back. I think what's keeping him away is what I read earlier this week. He still wants $13 million a year.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 07:21 AM) The Marlins had only one starter hit over .277 last year-Hanley. If they added Cabrera's bat, he would be an improvement. I'm going by published reports that say the Marlins might be interested. Whether there's truth to it, who knows. But their offense needs help. With the Braves, Phillies and Mets making improvements, the Marlins need to add as well. Where would they play Uggla? 32 homers ,.360 OBP, a fraction of the cost of Cabrera and Cabrera now has the reputation of being a "me" guy and the Marlins probably don't want to surrender their first round pick. I don't see any way this happens. Hanley Ramirez BTW is a brutal SS defensively. Brutal. It would really be something if OC was moved to 2B because of him.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 06:41 AM) I agree. And I suspect that Garland will be looking for a deal closer to 5 years/$50 million. I was reading somewhere Garland is still asking for $13 million a year, although if someone offered a guy with his WHIP $10 million a year for 5 years, if I were his agent, I would tell him to take it.

QUOTE (JDsDirtySox @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) When he is not hurt... Colon is still effective. I really think he joins the rotation at some point... and makes atleast 12 starts. Who knows how long he will last, maybe he won't make it through spring training, but it certainly won't hurt having him around, and I'm sure he costs next to nothing. I hope they get Garcia too, and make Richard a reliever. Maybe they both could shock the world and make it through the entire season, most likely they won't, but its better than signing Mike Meyers or Jeff Nelson.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 06:52 PM) Because sometimes that particular number doesn't mean everything? Have you ever seen him pitch, or are you basing everything on KW's comments when he made the deal?

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 06:45 PM) What happened in 2007 with those two when they were first given an opportunity? We are the defending AL Central champs. We need to be a little competitive and not try to completely rebuild just to see what some kid might have. Not to mention Marquez is the #14 prospect in the White Sox system. Why would anyone be eager to see him pitch every 5th game?