iamshack

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 07:32 PM) Sinkerballers as starters = sexy sinkerballers as relievers = no bueno Obviously this will prove nothing since if he pitches well everyone will dismiss it because of the opponent, but I really think he has a better chance to succeed in this scenario.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 07:30 PM) Alexei's gonna be on Web Gems tonight. Wearing his gold medal during the game?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) You wanted the Sox to trade Viciedo. Why did they sign him in the first place? I don't think Dunn and Rios performances will match their salaries moving forward, just like you don't think or at least didn't think Viciedo was a good as advertised and wanted to max his trade value. I believe there is a good chance the Sox will be "stuck" with Dunn and Rios in the future, and will not waver with if someone will take their money, let them have them. Mine isn't so much trade value. Its being obligated to pay tens of millions of dollars to guys that aren't going to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Right now, they are earning their checks, but they haven't the majority of their Whtie Sox careers. Yeah, I still would trade Viciedo...but I want to do it because I think we can capitalize on some potential value that will not materialize down the road. I'd be hoping to increase our talent pool, not decrease it. You're essentially saying let's decrease our talent pool for the sake of the future, based entirely on finances. Now if you have a game plan for replacing these guys for less money, and you think it can be carried-out, then yes, I'd be entirely open to that. But from what I understand, you're espousing that we trade these guys for the sake of dumping salary, and not looking to replace them with much externally.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) There are a lot of dollars owed to Dunn, that and the memory of 2011. Maybe you considered his contract a steal, I would say the majority would have thought at the very least a slight overpay. We know how bad he can be. Again, if I was convinced he would hit like he's hit this year for the rest of the season and the next 2, he wouldn't be touchable except for an overpay. I don't think that. Its my opinion. At this point, no one knows what he will do the next few years...the huge number of K's is definitely something you might point to...but considering his body of work, you'd have to say last year was an aberration more than an indicator, IMHO.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:07 AM) I'm saying you get rid of them when you can, except for maybe Peavy. There's nothing to say they have a bad second half and become immovable again, if they even are moveable now. Yeah, I get that...and I'm saying what the hell did you sign them for in the first place? In essence, what you're saying is the chances of them winning the World Series this year (or in the next 2-3 years even) are not great enough to warrant taking the financial risk and setting us back even further in the future. I disagree for two reasons: 1) I think any time you have a chance to win the division, you have a chance to get hot in the Postseason and win it all, and winning it all, is the main goal, after all; and 2) even if you do manage to unload these contracts, the future is not so bright even with that money off the books to make me say the risk of going for it while you have a chance is unwarranted. You simply cannot predict with any certainty the failure or success of any MLB franchise. Look at the 2010 SF Giants...I don't think anyone saw that coming...look at this year's Dodgers...last year the long-term outlook on them was fairly grim...now it is as rosy as any MLB team.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) Wow, totally missed that one. On second thought, I think it was the Giants vs. 49ers. It was...2008 NFC Championship, I believe.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) If I was convinced Dunn would stay at his current level or previous level before he came to the Sox, I would agree with you. I am not convinced. He's doing great, but I said it months ago, if any of these guys plays well enough someone will take all their money, you have to move them. And then what the hell do you do? Go sign someone else instead? We've got a really nice collection of young players and veterans right now...but the farm system is still fairly barren as far as we can tell...if you jettison these vets now, there is no telling you'll be able to replace them in time to win before the young players we have now either become prohibitively expensive, making it difficult to add any talent to the team, become prohibitively expensive and walk off into the sunset, or suffer injury or a regression in production. This is why rebuilding is so f***ing hard. When you have a chance to win, you take it. That's what the entire purpose of playing was, last I checked.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) You undo it because moving forward you have to be crazy to expect them to continue their resurgences. See Wells, Vernon. He bounced back somewhat, enough for another team to bite, and unloaded him on the Angels who will release him soon and eat a ton of money. It frees up a huge chunk of payroll for a re-do. If someone told you back in February, in June or July teams would take these guys and eat all of their money, if you're the Sox, you're doing cartwheels. We already had the Alex Rios tease in the first half of 2010. Peavy would be the guy I would be most reluctant to part with as his obligation is about to end. If someone told me back in February that the three of them would have this level of production, I think the Sox would be doing bigger cartwheels. The Sox, as an organization, want to win. They do not want to do a rebuild. If you trade any one of them, you may as well trade all of them. The whole point of acquiring them was to win the division and advance in the postseason. It hasn't worked out that way yet, and you've had to pay them all along the way...now it is working out, so we are going to trade them? To be honest, I know the vast majority of the fans do not like Alex Rios, but what we do know is that since this new coaching staff has come in, he has played well and displayed a hard work ethic and a positive attitude. Who's to say that he regresses again? Dunn, I'm willing to give him a mulligan for last year. Peavy will most likely be gone next year. At the very least, you hold on to these guys til the offseason and then trade them then (see Wells, Vernon) after you've given it a shot this year.

Old Style tastes like piss!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) The Killing sucked. How convenient all that s*** gets wrapped up in the last 2 weeks. It's not plausible in the slightest that Jaime would kill a girl who overheard people talking about cutting a back room deal to get someone elected. 99.9% chance she has no idea who those people are or who they're talking about or what the significance of the deal they were making would be (even i'm not sure what the big deal is). Also, Rosie hits her head on a floor joist and blood is everywhere. How was that not visible to Linden when she found the ID card the first time she saw it? And why didn't they go after Aimes? He's an accessory. He was right there and lied to the police. Dumb. The worst part was Duck Phillips telling Linden and Holder they did "a real good job." WHAT THE f***? Linden was SUSPENDED half way through and continued to do illegal s***, but good job! Oh, and convenient that the writers created a whole government conspiracy that ended up playing zero part in this whole thing. This show was crap. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing..."But she heard EVERYTHING!" Well, she's like a 17 year old girl...like she has a f***ing clue what you guys are even talking about. The entire scene with Jamie's grandpa was to try and expose what a deviant asshole he was this entire time...let me ask you this...if you were Jamie...and Richmond was going to quit the race after being shot but you being investigated for this murder would probably also stop completely, why the hell would you try and get Richmond to get back into the race? You know damn well that will increase the heat on you again from the police in a huge way... I thought they cleaned it up at the end and made it reasonably decent, but yeah, it was pretty sloppy, for damn sure.

What on earth are you guys talking about? Rios, Dunn, and Peavy are all finally producing how we expected them to when we acquired them. If not for that purpose, why did we acquire them? Did we not acquire them to win? Are we not winning now? So we finally reach the intended goal, and you want to undue the acquisitions...and for what purpose? If not to win, what the hell is the goal here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 08:24 AM) It is amazing how much better the White Sox baseball IQ got when Robin walked in the door. They quit overthrowing bases, missing cutoff men, etc. And that's in large part because he did such a poor job of managing the personalities and creating a circus-like atmosphere that it actually served as a distraction for the players...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 06:25 AM) In the Tribune a few months ago, there was some kid from the west suburbs, who just started long snapping in 6th-7th grade because no one else was any good at it. Kept doing it in high school, & got a full scholarship from Notre Dame. Just to be a long snapper. Yep, think about Patrick Mannelly (sp?)...dude had like a 20 year career as a long snapper.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) Unless we could off-load a bad contract on them (Hey meet Alex Rios!) there is no way this gets done. Woah, woah...what? You still want to deal Rios? WTF is the point of making the move if we're going to subtract one of our best players?

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 11:16 PM) That would be Morel. Notice where I said I don't want a black hole offensively?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 09:19 PM) We're all literally playing the guessing game right now, which is a silly game to play when we're talking about using a pitcher in a game who had a 2.7 FIP coming into today. I'll say it again, we're not dealing with broken down Bobby Jenks. We're dealing with one of the best young bullpen arms in all of baseball. We'll have to agree to disagree...I don't care who you are bringing in. I just don't. This is what happens when you try to get too cute. It comes back to bite you in the ass. You're about to score with a hot chick, but you decide you want to nail her friend too...then you end up pissing them both off and now you're not nailing anyone.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 10:02 PM) I have seen where Chris Johnson from Houston could be had. He's been a good, solid but by no means any kind of star at 3B and would be an upgrade over what we have. I can't see him having a super high price tage except for the fact that every GM has to know the Sox are desperate for 3B and will try to make them overpay. Thing is, at least from my perspective, I think we want to lean towards the defensive side of things...I really don't think we need a big bat there, just someone who isn't a black hole at the plate and makes all the plays.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 09:55 PM) He was perfect in save situations, many of which were one run leads. And he is an extremely good pitcher from a sabermetric perspective. You'll have to ask Robin that, but there is no way that bringing in Reed was a bad decision. Call it what you want, but you can't get on Ventura for bringing in his best reliever and this is coming from a guy who has dogged him over bullpen usage the past few weeks. I really think you can...again, every time you bring in a new pitcher, doesn't matter HOW good he is, there is always a chance he doesn't have his great stuff that day. So when you have a guy that obviously DOES have his great stuff, and certainly isn't tired, you just don't pull him, barring some incredible advantage you can give yourself from a matchup perspective or something. That wasn't the case here. Quintana was cruising along. Jones has been pretty darn good this year as well...should we have brought him in to pitch the 8th?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 08:18 PM) You are right, he isn't worth that much. I think he was worth negotiating with though, and I don't think Danks was. Danks should have been moved. Can't really say what should have been done at this point...have to wait and see how it plays out over the next several years. Obviously,to this point, what you are saying is correct.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 08:03 PM) Those of you b****ing about pulling Quintana need to stop, seriously. We're not dealing with 2010 Bobby Jenks as the closer, we're dealing with Addison f***ing Reed, the guy who had been perfect in save situations. The Dodgers got a few lucky hits off him, it's not like he got pounded. s*** happens. There's no guarantee Quintana pitches a scoreless 9th. In all 8 save chances? For a saber guy, it surprises me you would pull out the "perfect" adjective. Tell me this...why not at least give the kid one batter?

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 07:38 PM) Fair point. I couldn't tell from Ross's explanation which it was, so I thought I'd specifically lay out what I meant. I'm not sure either...I'm just guessing as to what Kap means...

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 08:29 PM) There's a disconnect here. If management explicitly promise a raise or more compensation/benefits, etc., in return for some performance, then they DO owe him that. Now, whether the worker should legitimately expect that promise to be fulfilled is something different (and in a practical sense, more important), but that doesn't change whether it's owed. I think he's alluding more to vague oral promises than anything explicit...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 07:19 PM) On the other hand, Quintana's looking like almost a carbon copy, but with even better stuff. Business-like, composed/poised, fearless, one of the rare Sox pitchers who likes to come inside and challenge hitters, lots of movement on his pitches, numerous swings and misses.... His composure on the mound is what excites me most about him.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 06:59 PM) Judging by this thread it was a simple decision. It was anything but that. It was simple. If a guy is averaging less than 10 pitches an inning and is throwing a shutout, you allow him to continue pitching. I don't care if he is 23, 45, 17, whatever.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 05:54 PM) I had no problem with taking him out. That doesn't make it any less of the wrong move.