iamshack

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 12:19 AM) So you two think it is likely? I'm here to tell you that it isn't. It's not completely impossible, but it's also not likely. It would take some good fortune to make that happen. Let's hope good fortune is coming to the south side. If it does, I'll be the first to throw a party. I'm going to hold you to that... Party at Ranger's place!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) According to Gonzalez, they were several hundred thousand apart with Carrasco, so I'm thinking unless Teahan improves on his mediocre offensive numbers and his bottom 5 in baseball UZR rating at 3B, his $5.5 million hit in 2012 can easily come into play, as will his salary next year. People are already b****ing about the $5 million Linebrink is making. In fact, it may be more money than the Sox spend on the starting SS and 2B combined the next 3 years. Well I was unaware we had another Alexei or Gordo waiting around to play 3b. How did I manage to miss that?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) ? $14 million was committed to Mark Teahan, and why would Garrett Atkins be a worse choice than Kelly Johnson or Brett Gardner? $14 million for a starting player over 3 years. If that's going to handicap us for the near future, we're in big trouble. As for Atkins, I never mentioned he would be better or worse than Johnson. I didn't mean to comment on your Atkins idea at all, actually.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) As long as the theme is "Return to 2006 or 2007" the Sox should sign Garrett Atkins, have him play 3rd and have the waste of $14 million play RF. I have seen quite a few posts reflecting this sort of attitude around here over the past few weeks. While we would all love for the White Sox to be major players for the marque free agents, the fact remains that we have a majority of our payroll tied up in the pitching staff, and Konerko and Rios. We all knew going into this offseason that the only way to add impact players would be through trades, not FA signings. Apparently, we are not quite matching up, as of today, with those teams looking to shed payroll or rebuild by trading those high-impact players. That leaves 1 of 2 options: sign some guys off the scrap heap and hope we get lucky with a few of them, or stand pat and go with what we have. Knowing the reaction we would have if we stood pat, it appears to me that the White Sox are taking the better of the two options and at least trying to get lucky with a few down on their luck players. And that's fine with me. This offseason does not seem so different to me than the offseason leading into 05', and neither does the reaction amongst Sox fans seen much different. That's not to say the results will be the same, just that sometimes adding spare parts can go a long way towards building a well-rounded team. I completely understand the desire to complain with each new non-impact player we take interest in, but we should also not be shocked either. I get the feeling around here that people are expecting a Matt Holliday signing or something... Finally, these moves do nothing to damage our future, which is perhaps the most important thing. If they don't work out, it's not money committed long-term and allows us to go in a different direction in 2011-2013.

KJ actually has a bit of power...I think he's easily capable of 20-25 home runs in the Cell. He's also very capable of hitting .280-.300 if he actually is allowed to settle in somewhere. He's not that unlike Teahan in that he's veen bounced around a bit and has played in a pitcher's park his entire career. Depending on the payday required $3-4m (I have no idea as I am chatting up the old folks at the nursing home right now and visiting my grandmother), I'd be all in favor of adding him to our OF. If we're not going to trade for a big bat in the OF, we're going to have to accept an addition like this. Is he a possible platoon option with Jones?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 06:38 AM) Soooooo, how bout that Quentin for Crawford rumor That's like sooooo 2007, man. Get with it.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 07:37 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2052802:date=Dec 3, 2009 -> 07:23 PM:name=iamshack)-->QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 07:23 PM) <!--quotec-->Do people honestly believe that Jenks pitched in a significant amount of high-leverage situations more than Matt Thornton did last year? gmLI is the average leverage index when a pitcher enters the game. Their 2009 numbers: Jenks: 1.58 gmLI (17th highest in baseball) Thornton: 1.57 (19th highest in baseball, 3rd highest for a non-closer, Mark Lowe and Jeremy Affeldt were just ahead of him) Dotel: 1.10 Linebrink: 0.98 Carrasco: 0.63 (3rd lowest in baseball) Ok, so this shows that they entered virtually the same number of high-leverage situations last season. And yet, if this pattern continued, with Thornton as our setup man, and Jenks as our closer, there is no doubt Jenks would be paid more on the open market, especially if he compiled an era similar to Thornton's, until of course, that first team paid Thornton to be their "closer."

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) Tell the players that. They think it's a big deal to have to close out the game and that it's an entirely different kind of pressure to pitch in the 9th with a small lead. I know that's the SABRmetrics idea to use your best reliever in the most critical moment of the game (which could happen in the 6th, not the 9th). I think there is some merit to that, but pretty much everyone you'll ever talk to about pitching in the 9th vs in another inning says it is a totally different animal. And since that philsophy is statistically-based, it really doesn't take into account the fact that some guys pitch better when they start the inning as opposed to coming in with 2 runners on and 1 out. Mentally, some pitchers respond better in knowing their role will be the 9th, others like to come in and put out fires in whatever inning they're needed. Obviously it's more difficult to come in with runners on as opposed to starting the inning. You have less room for error when you are inheriting runners. Additionally, I can understand how knowing your role ahead of time would be easier to handle mentally than having no idea when you might be called upon. I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence stating that pitchers in the bullpen rest easier when they all have defined roles. As for the 9th inning being "special," I can understand that. I think a big part of it is something that has been built up since the "saves" concept was created (wasn't it Bruce Sutter who was the first real "closer"?). Since then, this task has been recognized by the league financially as well, as closers are rewarded with money on par with the better starters in the game. That being the case, however, does not mean it is actually true. Creating some sort of mental construct does not necessarily make something reality, although, I suppose if one perceives something enough as a certain way, they may convince themselves it is indeed reality. I think that is sort of what this has become. Do people honestly believe that Jenks pitched in a significant amount of high-leverage situations more than Matt Thornton did last year?

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 06:55 PM) I don't think it has so much to do with having an "out pitch" as much as it does with being able to handle being the guy that lost the game in the 9th. First, you have to be able to avoid doing that in the first place, but if you do blow it, you have to be able to forget about it as soon as you leave the park. If you can't, you can't be a closer. Yeah, I can agree with that. I just think the entire "closer" mentality in baseball is a bunch of bologna. I understand there are psychological effects of blowing the game in the final frame, but honestly, blowing it in any late inning has pretty much the same effect. Managers should use their best relievers in the most critical situations, not save them until the final inning. The guy that is good enough to extricate himself from sticky situations is the guy I want, not just the guy who can handle recording the final 3 outs of the game. The 9th inning is really no different than any others, in terms of the task at hand, and yet, it has been built-up to be this huge myth, as if you are required to record 5 outs in that inning or something.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 06:19 PM) Rios being in the OF anywhere is going to be a big upgrade over what we had most of last year. I don't know much about Pagan in CF, but I have to guess that Pagan and Rios, is better than Dye and Wise (or whichever CF). I guess the point I am trying to make (or the question I am asking), is that it appears that the impact Rios would make defensively in center field is larger than any offfensive player I can see us acquiring to play CF for his bat in Rios' stead (unless of course we traded for BJ Upton or something).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) After the Nick Swisher experience I am guessing the Sox don't want to have another hitter ruined by trying to fit them into a square hole at the leadoff spot. But is the leadoff spot more important than the defensive upgrade of Rios in CF over whomever you sign to be your leadoff hitter (especially considering who is available)?

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 04:59 PM) The Sox don't have a leadoff hitter right now. Unless you want Alejandro De Aza to do it. What I'm asking you is why a leadoff hitter is more important than the upgrade of Rios playing center field over that leadoff hitter (whomever it was).

Doesn't it seem like Rios playing center should be a higher priority than acquiring a leadoff hitter? I think we should acquire a RF or LF more so than a leadoff hitter.

Why do we appear to be so against the idea of playing Rios in CF?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) Then I'm a f***ing idiot. I thought this was a recent video. Probably not a smart thing to go back into Cuba now, eh?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) I tend to notice about once a week that a song I used to have in my iTunes library is no longer there. I'm not deleting them, and they don't even seem to be on my computer anymore. Anyone have any clue as to why this might happen? I'm not sure if the songs are deleted at random, or if a bunch are deleted at once and it takes me a while to notice specific ones are missing. damn, you caught me...

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) You're right, but I guess I just see next offseason as the one where we really make our splash. If the Sox really are strapped, then I'd rather get really good on one side of the ball (pitching). I would only bring back Pods or Thome on a 1-year...and I choose them specifically because I'd assume they'd give a hometown discount. If the Sox have more to spend, then definitely scratch all that. But bullpen is more chaotic to predict,yes...but sometimes because of that fact.... you can get a free agent that has an impact for relatively cheap. I do remember our recently posted list of failed FA relievers, so I'm aware of the dangers that treads on....but it could be a lot better than paying for a Willy Taveras the multiyear $ he got. Basically if we are spending 5M I'd prefer one of our Pods/Thome and the rest on a proven reliever, as opposed to all of it to Vlad and nothing to the pen. Who knows though. Why do you keep insisting that next year is going to be the year we're going to make our splash?

QUOTE (Buehrlesque @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) Got this from Rotoworld: Link Various sources are reporting that Placido Polanco and the Phillies have agreed to a three-year, $18 million contract with a mutual option for 2013. Polanco was not offered salary arbitration by the cash-strapped Tigers, allowing the Phillies to sign the Type A free agent without surrendering their first-round pick. That strikes me as a lot of money for a guy exiting his prime.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 11:09 AM) Yeah, but he spent most of his minor league career behind the plate. My assumption is (could be wrong) that Fox was moved because the Cubs had a catching logjam anyway, and due to injuries to Johnson and Bradley, needed another OF. He didn't become a OF/1B until 2007. But I also can't find any scouting reports on his defense at C - they may have moved him because of that. If anyone knows about that, I'd be curious to hear it. Bottom line though, he's a very weak option at DH, but may possibly be a backup C option. Doesn't it seem like a huge mistake for them to move him from such a valuable position though rather than trade him? I guess I could understand it more if the Cubs were an AL team, but given that Fox would have to play the field or pinch hit for them, it seems like he would have tremendously more value as a trade piece as opposed to trying to force him to a different postion which his skillset does not support. My guess is that it is their opinion he does not have the skills to be a major league catcher.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) I would have liked DeRosa a lot better than Teahen. It'll be interesting to see how DeRosa plays this season coming off his wrist surgery.

Was Fox just a brutally incompetent defensive catcher, or did they switch him because of Soto?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 08:53 AM) Not really. Certainly, anyone who posts on a board like this will be opinionated. But not everyone is going to jump off a cliff on first word of a trade, while knowing next to nothing about the players involved. As for the second bolded, if conversation is driven by hyperbole, that isn't really conversation, its just yelling for the sake of yelling. Utterly pointless. As for your first comment, I'm generalizing. Next time I'll use the phrase "the vast majority." There is a minority that does not immediately praise or condemn a trade, including myself. As for your second comment, again generalizing a bit, but apparently you don't listen to White Sox or Bears post game shows...

QUOTE (earthshiner @ Dec 3, 2009 -> 02:19 AM) I'm for it. The guy has huge power potential. I think the cubs made big mistake last year not finding him more ABs. He is a terrible defensive player but can at least play multi positions. Also would give us a legit emergency catcher if ever needed. Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're a tremendous slouch...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 06:49 PM) You've just asked a question that manager have pondered over for years The key is critical innings. Whomever pitches your most critical innings or outs is your most valuable pitcher. As far as I am concerned, Thornton pitches more critical innings than Jenks.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) Thornton would be a crappy closer, he lacks a true out pitch and fastballs can be hit. He should stay as our set up man and best LHP in the pen. Why does his stuff matter when it comes to being a setup man vs. being a closer?