iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) Because then you lose your big advantage...the fact that it's cheap. You're then on to paying more for Lee + Beltre in 2012 than you are for Konerko + Dunn + Morel in 2012, and if DLee has a good season to the point that you'd want him back, he may well be looking for a 2-3 year deal. You really don't know that he's going to be able to get more than $8 million per year, especially considering the market for veterans over the past several seasons. In fact, I highly doubt that he would get more than $8 million per year in his age 36 season, and if there was an increase, it would probably be very negligible. Additionally, if he did have a season in which he was that marketable, it probably means that the plan works, the team made the playoffs, and you have more revenue available to you. It's also very possible that you could simply sign another player that is undervalued on the marketplace. The Sox have been very good at doing so ini their recent history.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) At least to me, that's why I said that it translates to a rapid rebuilding period. Shack's whole idea there is based on the premise that both Lee and Thome will be 1 year bargains and Beltre will not under-perform. If all of those are true, then yes, for next year, Lee/Thome/Beltre would outperform Dunn/Konerko/Morel. However, as you note here, even if that happens...in 2012, we're still paying Beltre $18 million a season, but we're back to having 2 other holes. Viciedo could possibly be ready to fill a 1b hole there, but the reality is that the team would have itself locked into a long-term contract at 3b while being right back where it was this offseason on the other 2 positions. THat's why I called it another plausible rebuilding process starting next offseason. If Lee has a solid season, I don't know why you couldn't just re-up with him. It not like once you sign a player to a 1-year deal you can't bring him back. The way I see it is this particular roster probably has 1-2 years left as currently constructed to win. We have Danks coming to FA, Jackson with 1 year left on his deal, Peavy with 2 years left and an option for a third, Mark with 1 year left on his deal, Alexei with 2 years left (?), etc, etc. So if I am "all-in" this year and possibly the next, I want to do everything possible to maximize my possible performance, with some acceptable quantity of risk, for the next 1-2 years. In my opinion, with a guy like Thome available and a guy like Lee available for a combination of $11-12 million, two players who have the history of consistent production and will most likely produce at a reasonably high level this season, you take the risk that they can fill your DH and 1b positions, which, by the way, are the easiest in baseball to fill should you need to replace one or both of them in a year or two, in lieu of signing Dunn and Konerko. You then use the remaining money on Adrian Beltre, who throughout his career has been more valuable than Dunn because of his defensive ability. I think the difference in money and years is worth it considering the position scarcity involved and the increase in value Beltre has the potential to provide over Dunn. And just as with Dunn, you can trade him mid-contract if it becomes clear that the organization needs to change direction. I just think it gives us a better chance to win in 2011 and 2012, which is kind of how the stars are aligned here when you consider the whole picture.

I guess I just wasn't all that surprised...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) Interesting factoid: Last week, Joe Flacco set the Baltimore Ravens record for TD's thrown in a playoff game. With 2. I'm shocked to see the great Trent Dilfer doesn't own that record...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) The best argument I can give is that no one has ever done waht he did last year. Again, I'm not arguing that he will put up those same numbers and I'm not arguing that he will be Adam Dunn. I'm saying it's a calculated risk I would take, given his worth ethic, his past history, and the money required to sign him versus Dunn. And he is a HoF player. Doing things that no one has ever done before is what makes them HoF players.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) Given the total money commitments, and the fact that 3b is the one position on the diamond where we're actually kind of deep with youth, I gotta disagree. I think both this year and for the next 2, we're better off with Dunn/Konerko/Morel than we would be with Lee/Thome/Beltre. Lee/Thome/Beltre is sort of the worst of the scenarios that you just outlined. It might work well for one season, but the odds of it continuing to work for 2 are pretty poor given Lee and Thome's health status and ages. Topping that off...to get Beltre, you're committing to him with long-term money, so that whole "mandatory rebuilding" part you're talking about would need to take place but it would happen with a much longer deal on the books. Ok, I'm not certain when I said there was a mandatory rebuilding. Secondly, I explained why I would accept committing long-term to Beltre versus Dunn. Thirdly, in the example of the signing I described, his deal would be one year longer than Dunn's and $22 million over the course of 5 years more than Dunn's. While that certainly is more money, it isn't some backbreaking figure that is going to prevent the team from being able to change organizational directions. Worst case, you're going to be trading Beltre in the middle of the contract just as you would be trading Dunn. Fourth, we don't know that we are deep at third base at all. We have Omar Vizquel who is older than Thome and some young kids who we think can play in the Big Leagues. It's not like we are blocking Mike Schmidt to sign Beltre. Fifth, I dislike this continued theory of "Thome" is old, he can't possibly do this again argument. Show me something, other than the fact that he gets older every year, that points to this huge dropoff in his production, assuming that fact that he is a player who you won't give everyday PA's to. And Derrick Lee is 35, the same age PK will be when the season begins.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Nice. Get your bat ready to fend off the boys. Haha! Yeah, we'll see if your stance on guns changes in about 15 years, Sqwert! Congrats!

Picks for the weekend: Pittsburgh -3 Green Bay +2 New England -8.5 Interestingly, the Bears line has not moved all week...kind of crazy.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:59 PM) Andruw Jones would have been fantastic. He's still on the market and as a RH platoon mate and a great backup outfielder, he would have easily been worth $4 mill which is approximately what it would have cost had they signed him initially that early. Shack's argument doesn't go without merit. There were a lot of ways the Sox could have gone - frankly, bringing in Thome, Jones, and (Derrek) Lee would have been cheaper, less of a commitment, and could yield similar or better results - but I think for the long-term, this was the move they needed to make. If you don't sign Dunn this offseason, he could have easily ended up in Texas for a similar length (and price too), and then come next offseason when the Sox are faced with this situation again, can you really depend on a 41 year old DH to fill that same void? You can surely count on a 32 year old Adam Dunn to produce that. Konerko I'm not as keen on after the honeymoon effect of the signing has worn off, but I think he will be worth the $30.5 mill the Sox are paying him during his time here. The additional $7 mill is a big fat "meh" but it is what it is. I just think considering the age of the roster and the contract situations of some of our pitching staff, should we not win this year or next year, we could reach a point wherein it is most prudent to rebuild and take the route they considered this offseason, but ultimately decided not to take. And at that point, having Adam Dunn around really isn't going to help us. I would, however, have been willing to take the risk in committing to Beltre because I feel adding him, as well as Lee and Thome would have given us a better team on the field for the next two years than the Dunn/Konerko combo will.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 05:49 PM) I think it is. And if you are a history major I don't get your weird sentimentality toward a previous time. You want to know why parties could work more easily in the past? Because they had more ideological similiarities than those in their own party. Democrats were democrats in the south because republicans had governed them against their will after the civil war and this lasted a long time. Republicans were republicans in the NE for the same reasons. Now that is gone and people are democrats because they are more liberal and republicans because they are more conservative. There were no 2 people that could've disagreed more in the US political debate in 1963 than the two i mentioned, and they were in the same party. Well I certainly understand that no time ever trumps the moment, but I suppose I was just under the completely false impression that politicians, by and large, are failing more often to address bigger problems right now than at most times in the past. I understand there has been a civil war, horrible fighting about civil rights, politicians beating one another with blunt objects or challenging one another to duels, etc. But it appears that things have reached a point at which they know better and still don't care to try and fix much of anything, they'd rather spend their time fighting against the other party.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) How will he get anything close to that in terms of playing time. Thome really took off in the 2nd half last year when Morneau went down with that concussion. That opened up a spot for Thome to play everyday. He even said it himself that the ability to go from a bench player in the first half to an everyday player in the second half really helped him fresh and at the top of his game. That wont happen this year unless someone else goes down for the entire 2nd half again. Look at what Thome did last year in the same at-bats when he went from a fill in role to more consistent role. Pre All Star: (145 AB) .255/.377/.552/.929 10HR/39RBI Post All Star: (131 AB) .313/.448/.710/1.158 15HR/30RBI Oh, that terrible .929 OPS! Anything beyond .860 or so I would be very happy with.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) you know what helped get things accomplished? Bizarre party lines created by the civil war. Those are gone. Do you honestly think this is providing any substance to the conversation? I am a history major, and I am aware of events in the past that were just as bad if not worse than they are now. Should we not know better at this point? Given how much more well-educated people are today?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) XM is great in rental cars but that's about it. My mom won a subscription for a year a couple of years ago. I listened to it at work for a while, but it just never really had interesting enough programming. My parents have it and they like the old-time station. Whenever I come back into town I am always excited whenever we are going somewhere so I can listen to it. The MLB and NFL broadcasts are key too, but if you're a really big fan, you're probably not driving around in your car while those games are on. Now if I was a truck driver or something I would definitely have it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Being worried is entirely different than having an enemy to unite people. Being worried about money, etc, creates partisanship. Being worried about the USSR nuking the US off the face of the earth, creates unity. In the first example I can get more money by screwing the other party. In the second example screwing the other party wont get me anywhere. So America has nothing to fear, which creates partisanship. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I am not buying it. To say that unless we fear annihilation is the only way anything is ever going to get accomplished...well, I don't really buy that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Youre talking about partisanship, right? Its hard to be completely partisan when you actually are concerned about your country falling apart. Its easy to be partisan when you fear nothing. Hah, there are not enough things to be worried about right now? Give me a break.

I'm not talking about violence and anger, folks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 05:03 PM) Really, I don't see it ever happening. So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan? Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back? I guess it's time for me to move to Canada...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) It wouldn't be $3M though - it would be $3M plus whatever you paid for the other side of the platoon. Who could you get for similar money for the other side that you think would produce similarly? I'd let Dayan play when Thome didn't.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) that is an assumption I don't believe you can make in the case of the Chicago White Sox. The history between Jerry and Kenny tells me otherwise. I think I can make that assumption this year and last year. I don't think we were just so enamored with Jessie Crain and Will Ohman that we decided we had to have them. Those were additions we could have gone into this year without and not taken too much of a PR hit for. And yet we signed them. Last year we added Manny Ramirez in September and paid him $3.5 million or whatever for 1 month. I think it's pretty clear they are doing everything in their power right now to win.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) Problem is...the party that disarms won't gain in the long-term. The other side will be thrilled, they won't amp down their rhetoric, and the disarmed side will still be facing second amendment solutions to their policy disagreements. There's not going to be anything but muted praise for about a quarter of a day if a party unilaterally and wholeheartedly backed off. The problem continues to be it works. Yeah if I tell everyone Bush is Hitler a few people are going to pick up guns. If I tell everyone that Obama is a Socialist Muslim out to kill grandma after taking away your guns and gay marrying you, a few people are going to pick up guns...but the rest are going to get the message that he's evil and something outside that's taken away his country and you should give money to the good side. It won't work when we reach the tipping point though. Eventually we will reach a point where enough people determine this kind of thing is no longer acceptable. And the party that foresaw that will be there to scoop them up.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) So just sit back and be attacked and called nasty things? I have no doubt there's politicizing on both sides. But I think it's unfair to say it's equally as bad. There was 2 days of backlash against basically one person over this, without any evidence that she was linked in anyway. It started mere minutes after the attack for no other reason than to s*** on her and eventually the Repubs even more. I guess point me to some none-Rush/Beck talking head who is playing a huge victim card or going over the top about this. The majority of it is on one side. I don't think it's fake outrage, I think it's legitimate outrage for being fingered as the cause of this. Yes. For any of this crap to ever end, one party is going to have to end it by refusing to participate in it. They're going to have to risk losing support in the short-term for a chance at a much larger gain in the long term. I have enough confidence in our system of democracy and I think I have enough confidence in the citizens of this country to recognize, at some point, that things cannot continue down this current path.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Oh please. You guys cry foul anytime anyone ever jumps to conclusions based on limited information. People questioned a muslim church with questionable funding sources wanting to build a church close to ground zero. "OMG! you racists! how could you think of something like that!?" But it's perfectly acceptable to blame Palin for posting an image on her website and the jump to the conclusion (before ANYTHING WAS KNOWN about this guys motive) that it's her fault or that she played a part? Like I said, it's an analogy. It's not the definition of a stereotype. And that is also part of the problem. One party's behavior is justified based on the wrong behavior of the other in the past or on another issue. And it just keeps spiraling downward as one manages to just barely one-up the level of deceit in the past instance, and the cycle continues. It's always "You guys" did this, therefore, this evil and deceitful thing we are doing now, is justified. Why can't someone just do what is right and honorable, for the sake of it being so, ever?

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2314060:date=Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:06 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) <!--quotec-->Yeah that helps the discussion. I don't agree with BS here, but he's at least trying to make a salient point and defend it. He said it's human nature. It's not. It is a political map from 9+ months ago, targeting Democrats in vulnerable districts who voted for ObamaCare. That's it. That's all. On the map it says, "Let's take back the 20 together! Join me today" On the page with the map it says: We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare and represent districts that Senator John McCain and I carried during the 2008 election. Three of these House members are retiring…The others are running for re-election, and we’re going to hold them accountable for this disastrous Obamacare vote. We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight. It's not a call to arms. It is all about targeting districts. All politicians use that term. I don't care if the pictures are bulls eyes, targets or cross hairs. To turn around and say that political map, is linked with somebody buying a gun and murdering all these innocent people, is not human nature. To even equate the two is not human nature…it is 100% ludicrous!! It's even worse to place blood on anothers hands without a shred of evidence, but let's be honest here…some people wanted this to be about Palin and the right so bad, it doesn't f***in matter. Just look at how repulsive some of headlines below are. Sick and demented! Deep down in the depths of their black f***in souls, they'd be ok with a few deaths if they could have pinned this on Palin or Beck or Rush or the Tea Party. That's why they're so quick to go there, instead of sorrow. "It was just a matter of time" has been the new battle cry of the left. I saw it on countless, now deleted, tweets, posts and facebook statuses this week. The left just can't wait to lay blame...damn the evidence or consequences. Damn the apologies after proven wrong time and time again. 3 Pittsburgh cops gunned down. - "It was just a matter of time" 13 murdered at immigration center. - "It was just a matter of time" Security guard gunned down at Holocaust museum. - "It was just a matter of time" Democratic headquarters in Denver windows smashed - "It was just a matter of time" Census worker found dead - "It was just a matter of time" Professor guns down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville - "It was just a matter of time" Pilot flys small plane into IRS building - "It was just a matter of time" Firebombing at a democratic congressman’s St. Louis office - "It was just a matter of time" Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot. - "It was just a matter of time" Truly sad! I agree with this 100%. But this is happening on both sides. Just as sickening as the liberals connecting some imaginary dots here that are all a matter of a sad coincidence, the incredulous outrage from the right is just as sickening to me. The right should just refuse to even dignify these attacks with a response, other than to simply point out how ridiculous it is. Instead, they've gone just as far as the left, with their fake outrage, for fear of losing face here. Sad, sick, pathetic.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:09 PM) So you'd prefer a player that has to have his appearances limited? Again, at $3 million per year, with incentives based on PA's, versus $14 million per year, yes. If money were infinite, obviously not. But assuming we would then invest that other $9-11 million in other players, yes.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) +1 But wasn't it improbable that he would have the year he had last year too? I remember when we let Jimmy walk, I posted his numbers year after year after year and said the odds are that if he can avoid injury, he would continue to post similar production for as long as he continues to play. It appears that if you accept he isn't going to play every game, and you therefore limit his PAs, you can greatly decrease the chances for injury. So how many times are we going to continue to say the same thing, and be wrong, but expect things to change?