iamshack

I am liking what I am seeing out of Beckham, even though he hasn't exactly been blistering the ball lately. He's getting on base and his confidence is rising, which is very important for him.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:55 PM) I thought I said in an earlier post that I didn't think his value was too diminished for other teams right now. For the Sox, I absolutely cannot see how they can afford him. Oh ok, I missed that. Sorry. Honestly, I think it's time to move him...this is the price we're ultimately going to pay for trading for Jake and bringing in Rios...and so be it. I think we can still get some nice pieces for him, especially if we move him at the deadline to NYY or Boston.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:50 PM) The years. Before this bust, he was looking like a 7/110 or more pitcher. This bust? Put down the whiskey, Balta.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:50 PM) With regards to being happy that we didn't give Danks ace money? I fully expected the Sox to lose tonight, as Ogando's a tough match-up for a righty heavy team. Have you seen his numbers against righties this season? Let's not overreact here...he definitely has had a bit of a down year, but he's a 26 year old lefty with 46 wins under his belt and a career ERA around 4 pitching in a bandbox...to say that his value is seriously compromised based on his W-L record this year or a few rough outings seems to be a bit ridiculous to me.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:46 PM) I think he still has some value, but he has been a huge disappointment this season. I'm just relieved we didn't give him some 4 year, 68 mil extension or anything like that. You guys are really busting out the pessimism tonight!

QUOTE (oldsox @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:43 PM) Anyone remember why Cincy let Hamilton go? Can't remember the details. Pretty sure they were just trying to sell high on him...he went from a complete bust to a very good player, but I don't think they trusted that his success would last.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2011 -> 08:05 PM) The problem is he was brought in to help us from the left side, but any righty with good stuff just overpowers him it seems. When he struggled against Garland, it was a horrible sign IMO. Absolutely. If there is anyone he should hit, it's Garland. That being said, I don't think it's an issue of him losing bat speed because of age or anything. I think he's just fighting some mechanical adjustments and is most certainly pressing mentally. He'll figure it all out...the question is will it be in time?

QUOTE (fathom @ May 23, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) Dunn has got to start contributing against these tough righties Or anyone, for that matter.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Ah, OK. Straw man is usually the right way to go As is Monday morning quarterback, revisionist history, and scathing, uninformed criticism in complete anonymity without any possibility of accountability.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 23, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) Yeah but this a large forum of baseball fans. Are we not allowed to have banter about the makeup of the team, personnel decisions, lineups, and in-game decisions? That's part of being a sports fan. Why are you so insulted by it? The point at which I became insulted was when I realized there was a thread in here where posters were asked whether they would have done a better job than Ozzie and Kenny, and by saying they would have, that therefore established it somehow as factual that a majority of Soxtalk posters would have indeed done better than Ozzie and Kenny.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 04:08 PM) No, he just wants everyone to qualify each post by saying "I know I don't have all of the inside information and the job is probably harder than I'm making it out to be, but..." You know, as both Russ and I have already done in this thread. Not at all, just pointing out that if you were in charge the White Sox would have $125 million payroll and Charlotte's roster, since you cut everyone on our team in the name of change.

He obviously thinks Brent has no chance to hit Ogando and doesn't want to risk putting him in a funk after he seems to be figuring things out a bit.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) Very true, which is why having that experience of working in the organization for a number of years would expose one before being in that position of power. It's just like saying taht you feel you would do better than a current CEO, VP, etc, if you have had the same number of years of experience and resources as them, you may feel that your judgements, personality, skills would have been better. Should you desire to qualify the statement like that, fine. Problem is, you're the only guy that did. Secondly, no one here has ever been a GM or manager of a major league baseball team. None of us really know what it entails. That doesn't mean none of us could be successful. But it means all of us are really just using uninformed speculation to guess.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:56 PM) Your first sentence is already wrong. I believe I've said twice in this thread that Viciedo should be starting instead of Pierre, and that Lillibridge should get more starts revolving around the field. You've already cut Lilli, so he can't start revolving around the field.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) Not trying to be arrogant, but I do believe that if I had the same amount of years in a baseball organization, and was in the GM position that I could have more success than KW. I believe his weaknesses have really hurt his strengths and kept him back from really being a good GM. Again, this is if I had the experience of being in a baseball organization and knowing the resources and environment that being in his position offers. Russ, I have little doubt that you would approach things from an analytical and educated perspective. I also think you would be on the job for a few weeks and realize there is a lot more to it than you or I possibly imagined.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) I get the jab, but what other "points" should I be making? I explain that this player is the worst in baseball and how he brings nothing positive to the team, and suggest that we replace him with another player because he brings this, this, and this to the team. Why is it, since my points are contrary to yours, do you act like I'm not even making points? EDIT: And you're talking about arrogance. The point is you are claiming Lillibridge should be starting instead of Pierre when in reality, if you were the one making the decisions, Lillibridge would no longer be on the roster. As for you mentioning arrogance, notice I am not sitting here criticizing the roster or the way the club is run. Very, very rarely do I call Ozzie into question. That's not because I think he is above criticism. That's because I don't have all the information he has and therefore I choose not to do so. What I am arguing is that this is just a little more difficult than you or many, many others around here seem to want to admit. I readily admit I do not have all the answers, nor do I think I could just step in and suddenly use logic to make all the correct decisions.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) Just because KW had made those moves to acquire these players doesn't mean a fan would have. The only one out of those that i would have considered is Rios, and even then his contract would probably have been way to much for me to decide on taking. Again, I'm not saying you would have, or all fans would have. The point is these decisions involve a little more than "he sucks" and we should cut him. But that's the type of analysis that often goes on in here because there is no accountability and it's not based in reality. Then I've got this guy posting in Tex's thread that he would have done a better job than Ozzie and Kenny. Give me a break.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) Or, you don't sign players like Teahen to an extension like the Sox did. Some contracts are going to turn bad, that's baseball, but what moves do you make to recover from those moves. Russ, that's not the argument. Notice I am not addressing you in this thread because you actually make real points, instead of just claiming we need to replace this person and that person every other day because "he sucks."

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) The problem with Pierre is two-fold. First, even if you look at his history, his offensive contributions aren't that good, unless you love SB's. He has no power and doesn't walk that much. Add in the fact that we have a potential difference maker waiting in AAA, and it appears we are forgoing production because we need the prototypical leadoff hitter. So even using his historical numbers, we're not optimizing our offense by playing Pierre everday. Second, and more importantly, you can't just look at historical numbers. You have to scout the player and see where he is physically and mechanically to project for the future. That's where the real problem comes into play. Pierre looks like he has lost a step and his SB numbers support that. If that's the case, and it's not due to injury, then waiting for him to perform at prior levels is stupid. He just wouldn't be the same player. No matter how many singles Pierre hits in a week won't change these points. IMO, Viciedo is the better option right now and should be playing. Unfortunately, philosophical and/or financial reasons are preventing what is an obvious decision to maximize production. This isn't about Pierre. This is about fans making short-sighted decisions because there are no consequences and then saying they were right. Do you people not remember when you were a teenager and you knew everything? And now as you get older and understand what your parents were actually going through, you started to realize how incredibly arrogant you were to think you knew better than them?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:38 PM) What? You're cutting Teahan. You've probably cut Pierre as well. For all I know, you might have cut Rios last season. So now you're on the hook for what $6, 8, 15 million of player salaries (total) for players no longer on your roster?All because you were certain changes needed to be made.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) We still have to hear about it from people critiquing. Yes, there are obviously no ramifications in the sense of losing employment because it's not actually our job. In regards to Milledge and Lillibridge, I wanted Milledge to stick around due to his experience with playing CF. I also said that I would rather have the two of them while getting rid of Teahen. So now you are going to start building your annual payroll with players that are now the property of other ballclubs. See how that works out for you.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) How so? I see people reminded daily with things like "Oh you were so right about the ____ trade." I also see posters mock and criticize other posters just as much as they do to Ozzie or KW. Because there are no ramifications to you being completely and utterly wrong, other than the random ribbing you might receive on soxtalk. Honestly, what was your position on Lillibridge prior to the last month or so? Did you want him DFA'd last year? Would you have chosen Milledge over Brent? Would you have given him a roster spot this year?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) Pfft, are you kidding? We're reminded daily on Soxtalk about our mistakes. And we certainly don't get away without accountability. This is one of the most laughable things I have ever read.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 23, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) Although I can agree with you on some points here, I will say that sometimes fans can make smarter decisions than the coaches/managers/GMs. Just like how a team of engineers may not always make the smartest decision, because they may be too connected to one thing and become too stubborn to change, or sometimes it takes an outside perspective to have a better look at what's going on. It tends to be less emotional, less personal for fans to bench a player, or want them to be DFA'ed, etc. Then you always have the traditionalists vs. the sabers, and many managers haven't changed like many fans have, thus there is a rift in views in the value of some players. First of all, when the answer is oftentimes a multiple choice answer, yes, some percentage of the fans sometimes guess right while those within the organization sometimes guess wrong. Secondly, while there is some merit to your point of people sometimes being too close to the forest to see the trees, it is also ridiculous for fans, whether it be on the radio talk show, or on a message board, to claim as if all these decisions are so easy and black and white. Much of the time, the fan doesn't have anywhere near enough information to make the best decision. Additionally, the manager and GM and owner's body of work is all something tangible and factual. These moves and decisions did occur under so and so. While the fan is free to criticize with impunity, entirely free from accountability because his decisions are not saved in time for all to remember. You want to argue that Lillibridge should be starting instead of Pierre? How many of us even wanted Lillibridge on this team this year? How many of us wanted him DFA'd in the past two years? Would he even be here for that option to exist were things up to most of the fans who are so clearly so fit to be in a position of decision-making authority? No. Hell no. Were it up to the fans, Lillibridge would be playing in another uniform right now. I just want some recognition from people that the jobs Ozzie and Kenny have are incredibly complex and it is very, very easy to be critical of them. Meanwhile, fans, and even writers for the most part, are able to criticize and second guess every day, with no fear of being held accountable or being flat-out wrong tomorrow. The notion that many of us around here would do better than Kenny and Ozzie is so far-fetched and filled with lunacy that it should not even be debated.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 23, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) I think you have to stick with Dunn still for a while. I mean, there is no other powerful LH bat. But Pierre should be sitting a lot at this point in favor of Lillibridge or Viciedo. I wouldn't even be angry if they started sitting Beckham a lot or even sent him to the minors for a while. You have to play the hot hands while you have them, especially in our position. And now they're talking about moving Humber to the bullpen while he's our hottest hand. They're making decisions on faulty logic, money concerns, and Ozzie's flawed belief in the stereotypical leadoff hitter. Pierre has hit .400 over his last 6 games. Are you sure it's time to sit him now? He's a career .300 hitter. Maybe we should trust 6400 at bats of data here? Lillibridge's results have tailed off as a White Sox whenever we have increased his playing time. Is it best to trust his career .208 average or go off of 44 at bats he's had thus far this year? We have 2.5 years invested in Gordon Beckham already, he's playing outstanding defense, and we have no real in-house replacement, perhaps other than the previously mentioned Lillibridge. Is Gordon's bat in the 8 or 9 hole really costing our offense right now? Would it be best in the long run to send him back down to Charlotte even though he claims to be feeling much more confident recently? Do you really think Ozzie and Kenny, who've spent twenty-plus years of their lives in baseball are basing all their decisions on faulty logic, while you and I, random Moe's who've never played or coached above high school ball, can clearly see the errors of their ways and determine the real and true logic necessary to turn this mess around?