iamshack

QUOTE (Rooftop Shots @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 06:36 PM) On a nice hop............."Took a good ol Bolingbrook bounce there" Don't know how that one got started! Hawk plays a course out in Bolingbrook almost every day when we are home...

I know Bobby and Threets struggled a bit there, but man, we have some wicked arms in our pen...

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 07:11 PM) Sex Ram Now that's a name I have not heard in a long, long time...

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 07:09 PM) Wishes do come true. Alexei is one badass motherf***er.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 07:07 PM) We looked overmatched against a lot of teams a month ago. I think it's just about safe to say this team was grossly underachieving and has turned it around. Now that's something we should all be able to agree about. All the sudden we've got some flexibility that I didn't necessarily count on. The next 3+ weeks are going to be very interesting around here.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 05:52 PM) I just generally don't think that trading Danks to acquire Fielder is really in the best interest of the team. Danks is the best starter the Sox have. You would have to be 100% sure that Hudson is ready to step in and put up atleast a 4.00 ERA if you're even going to consider making that trade, and I don't know that you can say that, considering his control isn't superb and that lefties are hitting him pretty hard still (when they make contact, that is). He's a good prospect, but I think he should be eased into the rotation, rather than thrust into it in the middle of a pennant race with the expectation of him being the club's #4 starter and the media looking at it as him replacing John Danks. I also say I think it's fiscally unfathomable because I don't see any way the Brewers can justify dealing Fielder and getting only Danks and a prospect not named Hudson, Flowers, or Viciedo. The best case for the Sox, in that instance, would be Danks and Viciedo, since it does help cut out some of that $7 million that would be added (it'd only be $5.75 mill, wee!), and the Sox could still use Flowers at C, which I think would be the hardest position to fill cheaply. Even considering that, the Sox would have between $9-14 mill to fill a hole at DH, the 5th spot, the bench, and the bullpen, and that just doesn't seem reasonable. In regards to LaRoche, I would say that each passing day lowers his value. Williams would basically be playing a waiting game and hoping that no one acquires him and that the Sox stay in the race if he were to acquire him. The DBacks may be asking for one of the top 3 now, but if the Sox wait a while, the DBacks may cave and give into a package of "good prospect and so-so prospect" for him. Acquiring Uribe would simply be for the marginal improvement he would provide over Beckham. If he maintained his .773 OPS, that'd honestly be fantastic, but the Sox would be acquiring him for depth purposes and because they figure the .700 OPS he would put up would be an improvement over what Beckham/Lillibridge would put up for the rest of the season. I also agree with the Johnson stuff. Even as mediocre as he is defensively, the fact that he's cost controlled and a great bat would increase his value a ton. He's a good player, but he's going to cost quite a bit. --- Williams is definitely making calls about players, but I imagine he's also a bit in wait and see mode. He's in a bit of a catch 22...if he makes a move now to get said player(s) for an extra month, he's going to have to pay a premium (because he's going to be paying for 17% more playing time from whatever player he would acquire right now for the rest of the season), but if he waits until the price drops, the Sox may be 3-4 games out, playing slightly above .500 ball, while the Tigers and Twins either get hot or make a move to improve their ballclubs. I wouldn't want to be in his position right now. Wite, what would you rather do though, spend all this money on a competitive team that simply does not have the tools to actually win anything, or spend a bit more and field a team that actually can win something? I think Kenny and Jerry have always taken the latter approach. Now you will probably disagree that we can win anything without Johnny Danks, and while that may be true if Hudson were to flop, I think the chances of Hudson pitching fairly well and us winning by adding a big bat are better than keeping Danksy in the rotation and simply not having enough punch in the lineup to win enough games. I certainly could be mistaken, and this is why I am hesitant to agree that we need to do something NOW like many others are demanding. I would like to see more how the character of this teams shakes out now that our SP is performing, but the simple fact is that we have a hole at DH and the AL is loaded with great lineups. So it seems to me that an upgrade, and preferably, a big upgrade, is going to be necessary. And it is because I agree with almost everything that you are saying about next year and the immediate future that it came down to trading Danks or Floyd for me. We can't afford to trade the few prospects we have. Which means we have to use some other assets to acquire a valuable bat, and to be honest, that is probably either Floyd, Danks, or Beckham. I chose Danks because of his reluctance to sign an extension, basically. What it comes down to is I believe the difference in our offense between Fielder and Kotsay would be far greater than the dropoff between Danks and Hudson, which would improve us overall and possibly put us over the top, while not killing us for the immediate future or the long term. And if need be, if it doesn't work out, I am sure Fielder could be dealt midseason next year to add cheap pieces for the remainder of 2011 and beyond.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) He was on the Score today and said that his source is "directly involved in the situation" with Wade negotiations. Seemed like the Bulls truly believed that he was going to sign and they couldn't get the commitment. Say what you want, but no one has any information on this nationally or locally. He was pretty defensive about that source notice he hasn't had much inside info since. Perhaps things were closer than they seemed, but it seemed like the use of the word "imminent" was a bit of a LEAP, especially considering he said both Wade and Bosh.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 05:22 PM) As has been mentioned several times, the Sox have roughly $80 million committed to 13 players already for next year's roster, and that includes holes at C, 1B, DH, and one of the rotation spots. As of now, the Sox have cheap, if somewhat unattractive replacements for all 3 of those positions at this point in time for Opening Day of next year at the very least, and quite possibly the next 6 years if Flowers, Viciedo (who is part of that guaranteed $80 million), and Hudson perform well. They'll need to add some bullpen pieces (as Pena, Santos, Linebrink, and Thornton are about the only guarantees in the pen next season), they'll need a bench, and they'll need to find ways to replace others. It's not totally inconceivable that the Sox could go with some combination of Viciedo, Morel, and Teahen at 1B, 3B, and DH, but it's not very likely either. It's also relatively difficult to find cheap production at catcher, and the Sox could very easily have that with Flowers. It's a bit easier at 1B and the 5th spot in the rotation, but both can be hit or miss, and thus, Viciedo and Hudson have great value to the Sox as well. Trading, say, Danks for Fielder, adds about $7 million to that number (Danks at about $5.5 mill for next year, Fielder at $12.5 mill), so you'd be looking at $87 mill between 13 players. Since Hudson is replacing Danks in your scenario, there is still a hole at the back of the rotation. There's still a hole at C (since it's extremely likely that Flowers would have to be included in a deal for Fielder), a hole at DH, and holes in both the bullpen and bench that would have to be dealt with somehow, and the team would optimistically have $13 mill to replace all of those holes. That's fiscally unfathomable, and the Sox would either go into next year with a roster half All-Stars and half AAA fodder, or they'd have to trade some big contracts (such as Prince, Rios, Buehrle, or Peavy) to be able to fill the holes. Beyond that, adding smaller pieces, such as LaRoche, Johnson, or Uribe, wouldn't require Hudson, Flowers, or Viciedo to facilitate a trade. Well, maybe Johnson, since he'd still be relatively cost controlled, but definitely not LaRoche or Uribe. If Arizona is currently in "collect any and all talent" mode, as opposed to hole filling mode (which they should be in with how messy that organization is right now), Morel plus a lower level prospect should be able to get him. I'd also say it'd be possible for the Sox to get Uribe through a combination of semi-talented advanced prospects or talented raw prospects, and the Sox do have those - probably Jordan Danks at the very most, and I think you could get him for a combination of mediocre prospects, like Retherford and Torres...basically guys who could be serviceable players. I'm probably wrong in the actual values of what it would take, but you shouldn't have to give up any of the big 3 to make 2 minor additions. At the end of the season, both LaRoche and Uribe are free agents, so you still only have $80 mill committed. It's a similar concept to what the Sox did in 2003 when they added Alomar and Everett...adding Uribe would probably only be a marginal upgrade at 2B, and LaRoche would be a monumental upgrade at DH. All that said, I'm also not sure that you want to make a move. This team is generally hit or miss, but they've played well recently, Kotsay has hit relatively well recently (.261/.356/.432/.788 in his last 101 PAs, .298/.385/.474/.858 in his last 65, and .316/.395/.500/.895 in his last 43) and determining how he'll hit for the rest of the year is difficult. Beckham is obviously uber talented, and if he can return to any resemblance of what he did last year, his "addition" makes a world of difference too. All I'm really trying to say in this entirely clusterf*** of a post is that I'm not about to go and trade John Danks for Prince Fielder because I don't know if Fielder puts the White Sox over the top, and constructing a competitive baseball team for 2011 becomes a hell of a lot harder if you trade for him, regardless of what happens with Fielder and the 2010 White Sox. Well my scenario does not include trading Flowers, as I clearly stated Danks and a prospect not named Hudson, Flowers, or Viciedo. Secondly, this is the only way to get a true impact bat without both impairing the long-term health of the franchise, IMO. Yes, it's $7 million. I don't think $7 million is going to make fielding a competitive team next season "fiscally unfathomable." Thirdly, I don't agree that we are going to be able to acquire LaRoche without trading one of Hudson/Flowers/Viciedo. Fourth, I don't think acquiring Juan Uribe is going to guarantee us much of anything at this point. Fifth, I think Kelly Johnson is going to be more difficult to acquire than you think. But hey, it's all just speculation at this point.

Wow.

I'm sure Jason Goff has some decent sources, but the dude told us that Wade and Bosh to the Bulls was imminent on Saturday. I'm not believing another thing he says.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) I've long said we should have dealt him when he was still hitting in the .260s. He did the same s*** last year in Texas as well. Or if KW gets a damn bat, he would look good on the bench as at least he'll give you a power option/OPS. He was hitting in the .260s on like May 4th. No one was going to trade for Andruw Jones on May 4th, especially, as you pointed out so well, that he did this exact same thing last year.

Happy Birthday! Enjoy your day!

I'm sure if we watched as many Twins games and Tigers games as we do White Sox games, we would think their managers are idiotic too. I think Gardenhire is probably the most technically and strategically sound, while Ozzie is probably the most fun to play for. Leyland is just an old cigarette-smoking curmudgeon.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 02:26 PM) I've said previously that the Brewers wouldn't do that either because if they're trading Prince, they'd be going into a rebuilding phase, but that's not quite true. They'd hang onto Danks for this year, and then halfway through next year, and if they weren't in it, they'd unload him for prospects (or if some team were dumb enough, another player who is similarly as good as Danks with an extra year of service time). But I've also said what you said above, and trading Danks would be absurd. Trading Floyd is more reasonable, but even that's absurd. At this point in time, the Sox are better off making a smaller acquisition, such as someone like Adam LaRoche or, if the club feels that giving Beckham some time in AAA would be good and don't want to entrust Lillis*** or Vizquel as the full-time 2Bman, someone like Kelly Johnson or even the return of Juan Uribe if the Giants remain out of the race in the West. Why? Based on what? We have very few assets if our objective is to win playoff series'. Our only assets are long-term, and if you move those you very well may doom this franchise going forward over the course of the next 2-3 years. The only path I see is gambling on Hudson to replace on of your current valuable assets (Danks or Floyd) and adding a much needed BIG bat to improve the overall strength of this team. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think we have a chance to win with this current offense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 08:25 AM) There's a difference between getting special treatment and not being able to be told no. To get to the top, the Bulls had to tell Jordan no. The other example is firing his favorite coach...Doug Collins, and replacing him with that crazy NY Knick zen guy with the mustache. I can't think of a time when the Cavs have openly told Lebron no. He's picked trades, he's picked players, he's picked coaches, he's picked the offense, he's picked the defense. Do you remember Rodney McCray? The Bulls didn't always tell Michael no...

QUOTE (G&T @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 08:21 AM) Did that start before or after he won a championship? Jordan was a goof in his first few years...if you look, you can find him in pictures wearing mink coats and gold chains to the Stadium. When I was in the locker room was the year they won 70 games, so they were all veterans then. It was a f***ing circus. So I understand the distinction you are making. But Michael was just as young and dumb as some of these other guys...luckily, he listened to people who cared about him and got his s*** in order, at least enough so that the press ignored most of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 08:17 AM) And look what happened when we listened to the GM. We did deals like Charles Oakley traded for Bill Cartwright, clearing room for this 2nd year kid wearing these crazy glasses. And I think he even had a twin. You can't win a championship with a guy wearing those goggles like that Grant kid. Oh I agree...I'm just pointing out that Michael often expected special treatment because of who he was, especially when he was young.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 07:02 AM) Hopefully so. But is any big name player ever going to want to deal with lebron's entourage controlling the locker room? I doubt it and maybe that's why Wade isn't making any effort to play with him. I was in the Bulls locker room during the glory days, and I can tell you, there were all kinds of characters in there. I think Jordan was one of the guys who started some of this stuff, to be honest with you. As for him not demanding trades and asking for players, why do you think Jerry Krause and Michael clashed so often?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 05:19 AM) I do think one aspect of this is correct. We'd have to trade either Danks or Floyd, possibly Santos and one or two key pieces (Hudson/Viciedo/Flowers) to get it done. I'm still not convinced it's worth it...but this also seems with the pitching stars aligned to be the year we might have the best chance to win it all, compared to say 2011/2012/2013. It has really got to be gut-wrenching for the entire front office, like taking on Rios/Peavy and then having nothing to show for it....well, until this year. The other obvious problem is that the strength of this team, the pitching, is no longer a strength if u take one of those starters out and insert Hudson AND Garcia into the back end. I'm not sure how you can say that without really knowing what you'd get from Hudson. I'd say the chances that Hudson would be as effective as Danks or Floyd right now are somewhat remote, but my guess is he would not be demonstrably worse. A rotation of Peavy/Floyd/Buehrle/Hudson/Garcia would still be potentially one of the stronger rotations in baseball, and adding Fielder to the DH slot to replace Kotsay/Jones would arguably make the team much stronger overall. If Kenny traded Danks and prospect(s) not named Hudson/Flowers/Viciedo for Fielder today, I could live with such a deal.

Operation Dinner Out?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 10:07 PM) It's not Neyer, it's Jim of SoxMachine. Oh you're right...for some reason they posted it in Neyer's "Sweet Spot" Column..

I know this issue has been brought up a few times in recent game threads, so I thought I would post the article on a slow 4th of July... ESPN

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 09:44 PM) He's more than a plus defender. Try the best defensive shortstop in baseball. His UZR of +8.6 is 4.2 runs higher than the next guy, which is Yunel Escobar. He's saying offensively.

Fathom, that was double or nothing buddy!

huge out