iamshack

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) I do agree with you but couldn't you say that about any power hitter playing at the Cell? Yeah, for the most part. But Cust would be coming from an extreme pitcher's park to a favorable hitter's park. It's not the same as if he were putting up those numbers in Yankee Stadium or Camden Yards or something.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 11:18 AM) Thome's numbers were deflated by playing a month as a pinch hitter in a terrible hitters park. Oh, well I think we all know what Thome can do. I wasn't trying to compare the two. I'd take Thome back before Cust, and I think Thome would play for cheaper anyways. All I'm saying is Cust's numbers would most likely improve if he played here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 11:16 AM) And Thome played a month in LA, and pretty never never played. Well, the point I was making is that Cust's numbers were most likely a bit deflated because of the park he plays half his games in...

Keep in mind guys, he played 81 games in the Coliseum....

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) I highly doubt he would take the league minimum, let alone jump at it. As a fan I would hate the move, I don't think he would be very productive at all. Oh I think he would. He wants to play...he feels like he is blackballed right now...I know he has a lot of pride, but I think he wants back into the game even more. He would probably demand performance incentives, but I think he would take the minimum as a base.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Can an injection really improve your eyesight? Given what really is needed to correct eyesight, that doesn't seem possible. I believe there have been many claims by players that HGH improved their vision...I am not an opthomologist though, so I don't know the specifics...

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) Which PED improves eyesight? I believe Bonds claimed the Cream and the Clear improved his eyesight...

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:50 PM) Well obviously this debate will go nowhere. But, Konerko did not a have a "very good" season (by his standards) in 2007. He had two really good months in the middle sandwiched by a really poor start and a slow finish. I think you'd agree that Scott Shields was a pretty good setup guy at one time. Had a fairly rough August (by his standards) in 2006, had TERRIBLE months (by anyone's standards) in August and September of 2007, but rebounded in 2008 with a nice year. When an ERA will from a 1.98 one month to a 4.90 or worse the following month, there is evidence that relievers fluctuate, not just from year-to-year, but month-to-month as well. Shields was a pretty damn good setup man before the knee injury. Maybe the best in the AL. And he was capable of poor stretches. Fernando had a pretty good yearbut had two months this past season where he was attrocious. Hideki Okajima had months where his ERA was 0.00, 1.64, and 2.08. He also had a 7.36 in September. That's not good. It just simply isn't uncommon for good relievers to have ups and downs throughout the year and this is nothing new. Mr. Rongey, I am certainly not here to dispute the fact that relievers can be extremely inconsistent. My contention is simply that Linebrink has been far more inconsistent than just about any established mlb reliever/setup man over the course of the last 4 years. Honestly, this debate is tired. Let's agree to disagree and move on. No one is enjoying reading this anymore anyways. No hard feelings, Mr. Rongey.

QUOTE (BurlyMan56 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) http://www.dlisted.com/node/35019 Courtesty of www.dlisted.com Apparently, Grady wants opposing baseball fans to make fun of him every at-bat. He took these pictures for his former playmate girlfriend. No, I was not looking for these, I stumbled upon and find it hilarious. Thank me later guys. Hah, I knew some hot woman had talked him into this...of course, he probably broke up with her, so now she is going to sell his pics....sweeeet Edit: I just looked her up. Wow, she is smoking hot...

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 10:05 PM) Really? Have you actually been paying attention to relief pitchers around baseball? Relievers, even really good ones, will have bad months. And sometimes even have them at least once a year. It's kind of the nature of relief pitchers. Again, if you noticed, the Sox gave Linerbink ample time last season to make a turnaround, and it did not happen. And when it did not happen, they appropriately altered his duties. So you'rs basically saying that the Sox should have cut their losses with Konerko in 2008? Because it was the same situation where fans were absolutely certain he was done. Turns out he was not. I'd love to see the list of other elite setup men that have had at least 1 bad month in each of the last several seasons. As for Konerko, no, I wouldn't have cut my losses. PK had 4 consecutive very good seasons in a row prior to 08'. It was also clear he was dealing with injuries all year, most importantly being his jammed thumb. It's fairly obvious that PK is winding down relative to other first basemen throughout the league, but he was nowhere near as horrendous in 08' as Scott Linebrink has been for long stretches over the past several years.

The only thing that bothers me about your argument, Tex, is that it doesn't account for Bonds' right to be paid according to how he fit in amongst his peers in the game. Baseball is a game where you are compensated based on your statistical performance relative to the rest of the players in the league. If other players in the league are cheating, and that impacts your paycheck, how do you account for that? If you read the book on Bonds and his alleged drug use, it begins with a passage about Bonds seeing McGwire and Sosa in the home run chase, knowing full-well that they were cheating, and being ticked off that they were getting all the press and hype when Bonds believed he was the better player. That is when he supposedly decided to start doing PED's - to keep up with the Jones's. How do you address that part of it?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 06:13 PM) No one can replace her....she should have a permanent life size likeness of her in that spot they sit behind home plate. But Mrs. Gonzalez wouldn't be a bad addition. I could use Mrs. Podsednik to cheer me up after that Bears game...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) I dunno shack. He seems pretty proud of himself in those pics. Maybe its one of those intentional/unintentional leaks My guess is he dumped some chick that he sent them to previously...bad move, Grady...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) Hey, I don't wanna sound like gay or nothin', but I think unicorns are kick ass! What on earth? How does he let these pictures get out?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) More reason we need him, to add to the Hot Sox Wives. We need to replace Ms. Podsednik...

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) Adrian Gonzalez has a neatly trimmed goatee.... That should get things back on track. His wife is really hot, too.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) I know the age thing is getting to be a joke after the last couple of signings, but just so we're clear: 5 of the 8 starting position players are under 30 (with one position yet to be filled) and 3 of the 5 starting pitchers are under 30. So what, the bench players are old. Who cares? You can get new bench players every year. I actually think it's brilliant what Kenny is doing. The current market is vastly undervaluing veterans right now, so it's a good place to recoup some of the value we are overpaying on for guys like Konerko, Peavy, and Mark.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) Not true. Linebrink did not have 4 straight bad second halves. One bad month in 2006, one bad month in 2007, injury in 2008, a poor second half in 2009. Also, maybe you missed my earlier post about the reshuffling of the bullpen? I said teams usually only call up a minor leaguers out of emergency due to injury. That is a much different situation than saying, "Hey kid, Scott Linebrink isn't getting it done any longer, we need you to come up here and save our bullpen because he's killing us." That's entirely different than somebody getting called up because of an unexpected injury. Circumstances are different because you are aware that you're only gonna be around for a couple of weeks and will be sent back down at the end of that period, not because of poor performance, but because the regular has healed. In that situation, it's predetermined he's coming up temporarily and there are no hard feelings upon being sent back. The other situation is essentially telling a guy that if he gets sent back down, it's because he failed at his job. Finally, if you would tell us your fresh idea for how to better handle veteran and minor league personnel, I'd love to hear it. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe teams are handling these types of situations the best that they can be handled? That is to say, that the idea of allowing veteran players to make a turnaround versus calling up a minor leaguer because "it can't be any worse" is not the best way to do it. In no way have I said the game doesn't evlove in some ways. That's completely ridiculous for you to suggest that. But I am suggesting that, at some point, there become some established truths within the game that will not change. Some things don't work and never will work and some things done are the best possible options given all facets of the game. Th truth that veteran players provide more certainty is not going to change. Fine Chris. Linebrink has now failed to perform up to the standards required of him for 4 of the last second halves due to various reasons. A bad outing is acceptable. A bad weekend happens from time to time. Maybe even a bad week, but don't make a habit of them. We're talking bad MONTHS here. There are only 6 in the entire season. Having an entire bad MONTH four consecutive years in a row is unacceptable for a major league reliever, especially one such as he who is supposed to be an elite setup man. The point is, this is in no way surprising at this point. The organization should not have been shocked. Were you shocked when it happened? I wasn't. And by the 10th bad outing in 13 or whatever it was, I was pretty sure what we were going to be getting from the guy. Explain to me the difference between requiring a guy to come up and pitch because a guy is injured and coming up and replacing a guy because that guy sucks. This is the major leagues. This is not the little league, or the tee ball league, or the American Legion league, or your neighborhood softball league. Adult men get paid millions of dollars because their teams depend on them to produce. And when you stop producing, you get benched, sent down, cut, or used in non-pivotal situations. I could care less if Scott's feelings are hurt, or if a AA or AAA pitcher has to come up and fill in as best he can for whatever period of time. If he gets sent down because he failed to do his job, fine. If he gets sent down because they believe Linebrink can return effectively, fine. I'm not going to worry about feelings at this level. This league is about results. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we failed last year. As for how to handle veteran and minor league players, have we not been discussing that for almost this entire thread? I've said over and over and over and over and over again that veteran players should get opportunities at redemption, because their track record affords them that. I have conceded time and time and time again that Ozzie was right to stick with Linebrink up to a point. When it became INCREDIBLY CLEAR that Linebrink was going to be nothing but a big bag of suck, it is time to stop being stupid about it. I said this in my first post on this topic, and I'll repeat it again: It's one thing to try and recover performance from an asset because you have money invested; it's quite another to continue to keep running out a guy that is destined to fail and expecting different results. Not only are you spending the money on the guy in that situation, but you are compounding your error by spending the money on the guy to give you horrendous innings. It's the definition of insanity...

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) The issue is deciding when a slump is actually a trend. And I just don't think that in the midst of one half-season, you can determine it is a trend and that a player needs to be replaced with somebody that is a COMPLETE unknown. I know that people seem to think they're absolutely positive that it couldn't have been any worse than Linebrink. I'm just not sure how you could truly think that. I'll give you a scenario that's worse: Linebrink gets benched for Player A who struggles because he isn't quite ready, his confidence is set back and he gets sent back. So they call up Player B who also has pretty decent potential but is also not totally ready to handle it. He gets rocked and gets sent back and replaced with somebody different. There is a worse scenario than letting Linebrink try to iron it out and a revolving door is not a good option. I think ultimately I take exception with the idea that one of us is going to be able to able to devise a better, ground-breaking way of handling a roster. Nothing is ever going to change with how teams give the benfit of the doubt to formerly and recently productive ballplayers as opposed to minor-leaguers with total uncertainty. If the risk-reward of uncertain minor leaguers were better, then more rosters would be filled with those uncertain minor leaguers. Now, top prospects are different than marginal, fringe minor-leaguers. In regard to this, we just aren't going to come with something that hasn't been thought of. The big market teams try to fill their rosters with "good" minor league talent, not just any old minor league talent. The Sox "overpaid" for Linebrink, because like I said earlier, they had to. There was no better option and there were no minor leaguers ready or good enough to take over. And I just don't see the risk-reward being better with a marginal minor league pitcher (or somebody who simply may not be ready) over the possiblity of a veteran (with a history of recent success) making a turnaround. The reason teams do this is because it's the best way...not because they can't think of anything better. By the way, Hudson is not going to be a reliever. First of all, we've pointed out now that Linebrink has done this for four consecutive second halves in a row. This is not something that just happened in the midst of one half-season. Secondly, if you're talking about marginal, fringe minor leaguers, we shouldn't be concerned about hurting their feelings or damaging their confidence. They exist more than simply for the purpose of filling a minor league roster. Thirdly, what would you have done had Linebrink been injured for the entire second half? Are you not going to bring these guys in because you're afraid they're going to have their confidence devastated and never be able to get out of bed again? Fourthly, no one is suggesting that you or I are going to devise some groundbreaking method in which to handle personnel. The argument was made to you that simply stating that no better solution exists because we would have thought of it already had there been one is bs. New and fresh ideas are occurring in every industry and every profession. Times change, people change, the economics of things change. For you to claim that things should be done now, and always will be done the way they have in the past is a closed-minded, non-imaginative, non-innovative manner in which to view things. I hope we have more open-minded people working in our front office than that. Edit: Jeesh, some really bad spelling in that post...

I had no idea he made so much money! Dude makes like $17 million a year or something!

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) No disrespect taken. Like you said, agree to disagree. I view it one way you view it another. I just think KW and Ozzie want to win and they though there was a viable option that would make them significantly better, they would have done it. I am hoping the same thing, Sir. I just don't confuse either of them for Jesus Christ.

J4L, It's really difficult to point out guys that we can say with any certainty would have done better, especially considering they really didn't give anyone else a chance. How can I point to someone who did statistically better when they weren't allowed to pitch in the first place? And you and others will argue that the reason they didn't pitch is because the Organization didn't believe they were ready. And that's where this becomes a circular argument and goes on and on and on... I think what KHP and I are trying to say is that Linebrink reached a point in which it was no longer a question whether or not he would be bad. It was pretty much every time from mid-August onward that he was just terrible. At that point, yes, KHP and I are of the opinion that they should have gone with someone else, whether he was judged to be "ready" or not. BUT, this argument has run its course and its pretty clear that we should all just let it go. That being said, I think something else this conversation has spawned is the argument about whether players with large contracts should continue to play, or whether teams should cut their losses. Additionally, I think another great debate that has come out of this is how much the game and industry of baseball has to learn from those that are not members of that industry. I think those are positive debates which we can continue without this spiraling down into a big pile of crap and personal insults.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 11:15 PM) I would disaagree with this to an extent. People watching a player everyday have a better idea of how this player will perform than someone who doesn't. You can see how he handles individual situation or how he reacts. This may be as important as his stats on determining if he is ready for a promotion. Thus, I would trust the managers and scouts to determine if someone is ready. Are they going to be right everytime, no. But they will have a better idea than people from the outside. I've spent enough time working in the minors to see this process and the hands on evaluation seems to work. Of course you can question it because they aren't always going to be right but I would still trust the people that see them everyday. You're picking one sentence out of context and arguing it in a completely different manner in which I did. Never did I say that someone outside of the organization somehow knows the personnel of the White Sox better than those that work for the White Sox. If you think that's what I have been arguing this entire time, you've missed the whole point. No disrespect intended, PTATC, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to a degree. We just happen to disagree from that degree onward.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 05:48 PM) Ranger, Shack...How 'bout an old fashioned steel caged death match to settle this debate? I'll ref. I'm perfectly happy with leaving the debate about Linebrink where it is. Mr. Rongey sees it one way, I see it another. What I get frustrated about is the notion that because things have been done this way in the past, or are generally done this way currently, that there must exist no better way. I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and so I will admit that things that are generally done a certain way are done so because success has been experienced from doing them that way. I do not expect, nor do I encourage, an atmosphere of chaos, where things are always being changed, merely for the sake of changing them. One should never stop looking for new and better ways to do something, however. One should never stop exploring. And it isn't always easy to try something new, or to take the risk of failure. As Barack likes to say, "if it wasn't hard to do, it would have already been done before." I also get frustrated with the idea that people not involved in the industry are not capable of coming up with any better ideas or thoughts than those within the industry. Look at Belichick's recent decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts a few weeks ago. Belichick had read studies which point out that statistically, a team would fare better by going for it on 4th down in certain situations than those that don't. He went for it on 4th down, as you all know, didn't get it, lost the game, and now the majority of the league is claiming he is an idiot. Coaches, players, tv commentators alike. That doesn't change the fact that the study still claims that a team will have a better chance to win if they go for it on certain 4th down situations. And yet, those same people don't make a big deal out of all the 4th downs he does go for (and makes), or all the other innovative things he does as a coach. Well, that study came from a fan. Not a coach, but some fan, who happens to be really good with numbers. Bill Belichick, widely considered one of the best coaches in the league, is looking for and utilizing ideas that come from outside the industry of football. But we shouldn't consider them? Ozzie shouldn't? Kenny shouldn't?

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) It is where we disagree because I think the potential reward by allowing him more time is greater than what Nunez (for example) could've given them at the time. Not to say at some point Nunez won't be a really good reliever, it's just that allowing Linebrink as much time as possible gave them a better chance at team success than would going with a minor-leaguer that probably isn't ready. It's nto that I think you hate Linebrink, it's that I think you believe it couldn't have gotten any worse with someone else. It could have. I also think they gave it the appropriate amount of time before they decided to use him in earlier innings. Well obviously someone could have been worse. But Linebrink was so bad that someone being worse than he was would not have mattered. A loss still counts as one loss, regardless of whether you lose by 1 run or 5 runs. Linebrink devastated our chances so badly in many games that the chance of someone actually being worse than him was well-worth taking considering that person could also have been better. One more point I would like to make is that "deciding" when a player is ready is an incredibly subjective thing. There have been legions of players that have been proclaimed ready, that went on to show everyone watching that they were not. There have also been legions of players that no one expected much of at all, who went on to show everyone that they indeed were very ready. And it just so happens that the very profile of players we are discussing, often fall into that category. Many of these relievers were failed starters, guys that didn't particularly light it up in the minor leagues in any role, but were given a chance because, well honestly, there was no harm in giving them a chance. Often times it was by organizations that weren't competitive and had nothing to lose other than another game, but that has certainly not always been the case. Organizations that were indeed winning have given guys that they didn't expect much from a chance, and plenty of these players have turned into solid relievers.