iamshack

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) Trust me, I'm fully aware of the differences in the two deals, though Linebrink does have a considerable contract for a relief pitcher. Obviously, the contract is different for Soriano and is the greatest factor, but there is track record involved here as well. Soriano can be, and has been, a productive offensive player. It isn't the best example but it to better illustrate what I'm getting at, I should probably say that were Soriano's contract to expire and he were available, he would still get an opportunity somewhere because of his history of success. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a contract, but the philosphy still applies that a player with a track record would get the chance over a minor league player from a team that has the money. I agree 100%. Look, I support the signing of Andruw Jones! Doesn't that tell you where I stand here? My issue has never been that veterans should never get a chance to rebound.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) Of course he, and they, are not infallible. They will make mistakes, and they do. But there are traditional philosphies that will be put into practice because, well, they work. They have the higher probability of maximum success than anything else that can be tried. I don't think his philosophy of allowing a veteran to make a turnaround will ever be tossed aside. The only way that might happen is if MLB is contracted to half the teams (thus concentrating the product and creating more, better options for every team at every position) or if the pay structure completely changes. And even if the latter happens without the former, I still think things stay the way they are. Please don't mistake my argument for ever stating that Linebrink should not have been given a chance to rebound. I have never said that. In fact, I have mentioned again and again that I agree with the philosophy that the White Sox had a far better chance to win with an effective Scott Linebrink than without one. What I am arguing is things reached a certain point in August where he was giving up huge innings in critical games where the idea should have been abandoned. We can say it is easy to say this looking back on it, but come on, every game he was either giving up runs or barely escaping giving up runs. And he certainly didn't appear to be stranding inherited runners either. At that point, when you have seen this song and dance over and over and over, anything different would have been better. I am not arguing that someone different should have been put into the role for the sake of them being different. I am arguing that the performances Linebrink was compiling could have literally been bettered by anyone different that we allowed to pitch in his stead. It's not an argument of "I just want to see someone different because I hate Scott Linebrink." It's an argument of "This guy was so incredibly bad that the sheer odds suggest we could have blindly chosen another professional ballplayer and he would have performed better." But that is where we disagree, and I am willing to leave it at that.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 04:06 PM) This is another good example. The contract is obviously a massive part of it, but there is also a lot of "track record" at play here. As imperfect of a player Soriano is, they KNOW what he's capable of despite a bad year. They know he's capable of a rebound at any time (just as has happened with thousands of veteran players throughout the history of baseball). They know what he can do when he's playing to his ability. They know the only uncertainty lies within whether or not he'll get back to form. Whereas, if they bring up someone else to replace him, there are TWO uncertainties they have to deal with: 1)Will he play to his ability? and 2)If he DOES play to his potential, will it even be better than what Soriano gives us? And until a some future executive is an actual clairvoyant, they will never be able to change that dominant philosophy of the game. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. This is not a good example. Every example of a player who has a lot of $ remaining on his contract, but sucks, is not necessarily a good example. You're talking about a guy who has $90 million left on his contract. If he isn't productive in some way the Cubs will be limited in their attempt to put a competitive team on the field. Scott Linebrink has $10.5 million remaining on his contract. Alfonso Soriano was once one of the best overall players in baseball. Scott Linebrink was once one of the better setup men in baseball. This is apples and oranges, not comparable in any way other than that they have both managed to massively suck as of late.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) Speaking of "wow." I did not say that fans can't have an opinion. But, I don't believe that you and I or anyone else that watches the game have thought of something that people who do this for a living have not already considered. We aren't going to revolutionize baseball and how personnel is handled. I would say that, yes, if a certain way of handling players is how just about every franchise in the game does it, then it likely that it is the best way. And I don't believe that the Sox failed to bench Linebrink and call up a minor leaguer simply because they didn't think of it. They OBVIOUSLY thought of it, but realized there were too many reasons they could/should NOT do that. I'm guessing that you're referring to the likes of Bill James in your assertion the MLB has hired "intelligent people" to help re-think how things are done. But what you're talking about is statistical analysis of players with track records. A different way to crunch numbers. These are really the only sort of "ordinary people" that have found their way into MLB that have any affect on personnel decisions. A statistician may find a new formula that better helps indicate a player's worth, but no amount of statistics is going to be able to predict when a minor league pitcher is ready for the show, ready to handle the pressure and the change of being promoted, and is going to give you better than what you already have on the roster. This sort of knowledge comes from being able to interact with that minor leaguer on a daily basis. At any rate, the intention of the newer statistics is to reduce uncertainty. Only logic would tell you that there is less uncertainty with a healthy, veteran pitcher that has real, recent success at the major league level (despite current struggles) than there is with a completely unproven minor-leaguer that may or may not be ready to pitch at the major league level. You're operating under the assumption that it could not hurt, when yes, it most definitely could. It's almost beside the point anyway, since teams operate this way because patience works and because they have to. Track record wins out for a reason, Shack. I like this response a lot better, Mr. Rongey. I agree with you for the most part about Ozzie, KW, and the rest of the organization being competent, extremely intelligent people who run the Organization and our team very well. I am very happy and content with them in the decision-making roles. Additionally you'll find that if you spend more time here, that I am very supportive of both KW and Ozzie and almost always take the position that they are far more competent to understand the complex workings of the industry and the game than I, or any other fan of the team is. I completely understand they have spent their entire lives in this game, and then this industry, and they have experience and knowledge that I could never imagine having without that same career upbringing. That being said, that does not make them infallible. Ozzie makes all sorts of decisions that are incorrect and idiotic, whether that be in-game decisions or personnel decisions. Does that make him an idiot or a bad manager? No. What you're looking at is the entire body of work, including his in-game decisions, his personnel decisions, and how he manages/massages the egos and temperaments of the 26 guys in that clubhouse. I happen to think he does a pretty darn good job of doing that. Does that mean I have to agree with every one of his decisions? I certainly hope not. Does that mean that every decision he has made over the course of his six years of managing this ballclub have been correct? I highly doubt it. Even Ozzie admits that he listens and reads the suggestions of fans on the radio and in his email. He claims he has even made lineup changes at the advice of fans before. Now obviously I understand he is playing with the fans a bit here, but the point he is trying to make is that Ozzie goes by his gut a lot. He makes decisions based on what he feels is right. I can live with that. But it doesn't mean he never should have handled something differently, does it? As for the Bill James thing you mention, I'd like to make one quick point here. The reason that the statistical-oriented guys were accepted into the business first is because they had statistics and studies to point to that could not easily be refuted. They eventually HAD to be accepted. As soon as one team took the chance, and showed positive results, others would follow. And they followed because the stakes are too great not to. What will come next are other ideologies and philosophies. Baseball had reached a level where so many people were doing things "because this is the way it has always been done in the game of baseball," that there were no fresh new ideas. The industry was stale. Now the door has opened to accept new ideologies and new philosophies. The statistical analysis is what opened it up, but now other ideas will follow.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) Wow what? I completely accept your explanation of why Ozzie handled Linebrink the way that he did. I've conceded within this debate that I even agreed with the way he handled it up to a point. My issue with your argument is your assumption that 1) the way Ozzie handled the situation was the correct way; 2) that the way Ozzie handled it is the only possible way in which to yield positive results; 3) that the historical common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 4) that the current common practice of baseball somehow required Ozzie to handle the situation in the manner in which he did; 5) that even if the historical common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 6) that even if the present common practice of baseball suggests that Ozzie should have handled the situation in the manner in which he did, that that would somehow dictate that no other method of handling it would have produced positive results; 7) that fans, or mere spectators, are incapable of thoughts or ideas that are better than those employed by the industry of baseball, simply by the fact that those fans are not employed by the industry of baseball; 8) that the game, industry, and business of professional baseball are not rapidly evolving; 9) that intelligent people, mere "fans" by your definition, and not previously having participated in the game of baseball or the industry and business of professional baseball have not recently produced major statistical contributions and/or studies about the way in which the game of baseball has been played or is played, and/or the manner in which the business of baseball has been or is currently operated that are now being utilized by teams within Major League Baseball; 10) that some of those same intelligent people have not recently been hired by Major League Baseball teams to help in the decision-making process regarding strategy in how the game is played, or how the economics of the industry might be approached; 11) that some of those same intelligent people are not now in General Manger, Assistant Manager, or consultant positions within teams of Major League Baseball; 12) that the teams those individuals are employed by have not attempted a manner of operating that was/is considered against the common practice of the industry; 13) that those teams that have attempted a manner of operating that was/is against the common practice of the industry have not realized significant measures of success; 14) that that very success has not been recognized or has not begun to be recognized by other teams within Major League Baseball; 15) that success using operating practices outside the common practice of the industry does not validate those operating practices; 16) that success is not the primary objective. There are your assumptions I have a problem with.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) What points am I not addressing? I addressed ever single player comparison (like Matthews and MacDougal). And I gave you reasons, not assumptions, as to why they were handled the way they were handled. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you some insight as to why teams do what they do and why they operate the way they do. I think you can concede that I have a pretty good understanding of that. It's why I gave you a more fitting example in Brad Lidge. There is a reason he kept getting chances and kept getting the ball late in games despite his struggles. The Lidge situation is more comparable to Linebrink than anything else you've presented. I respect your passion for the game, but your passion and frustration toward Linebrink has guided you into the "I'm tired of looking at this guy, let's get someone else in there" mindset. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how fans feel and it comes out of frustration. But, there is a reason organizations don't/can't always do it the way fans want it to be done. I'm just trying to show you that. Different players (all things considered: ability, past performance, contract) have to be treated in different ways. Wow. Thanks, for the response, Mr. Rongey.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 06:33 PM) I'll take a look at that. I got a Samsung 1080P, Plasma, 50 inches, etc. CNet had it rated as one of the best TV's of the year and all of the feedback I saw on Amazon was exceptional as well. I bought a stand for 40 bucks on Amazon but am debating whether I'm going to go with that mount or the one you mentioned above. The stand I got doesn't tilt but is a low profile stand and given where I'm going to put it at my new place, I want to have it pertrude as little as possible from the wall since the TV will be in a place that people walk by. I already have my plan of running wires and having all of my equipment hidden in a closet a few feet away from the TV. My debate though is ultimately whether the tv will look good without a tilting stand. If it doesn't, than I'm going with the tilting stand and I'll have the TV stick out a bit more (the plasma itself is under 3 inches thick, which is freaking crazy in my mind, even though Samsung also has those LED tv's that are like 1.5 inches thick. Pretty excited to check it out. The other TV I have is still super nice but the best way for the TV to work in my family room at the new place was to go with the plasma because by doing so we were able to use much more of the wall space and put the TV in an excellent spot (where no stand, etc is needed) and it also won't be subject to much glare. My old DLP Samsung will stay in the bedroom (52 inch) and I still love the TV (~3 years old now). I bought an articulating stand - one that can come away from the wall and be turned so as to create different viewing angles in the room - and I love it. But with a 50 inch, you're not going to want it hanging off an arm a foot or more from your wall. Just get a nice, sturdy one with a low-profile or close profile or whatever they call it. With a tv that big, you don't need to be moving it around much. Enjoy it, Jason. Samsungs are great tv's.

You're not addressing any of the points I am making. Instead, you are continuing to try and ram your own down my throat. You're operating under many assumptions here, which I am questioning the validity of. Until you are willing to even consider that your assumptions may be wrong, the debate will go nowhere. It's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

QUOTE (scenario @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) I have a hard time seeing him stick on the major league roster. It'll make a heck of a story if he pulls it off. Too bad he's not left handed. He would have made for an interesting ss as a lefty...

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 05:39 PM) Bought a 50 inch, 1080P, Plasma TV today. Will be mounted in the family room of my new place and should look awesome!!! Nice! What did you get? Jason, not sure if you got a mount yet, but check out the seller digital_design_solutions on ebay. I bought one a few months ago for less than $100 shipped and used it to mount my tv and it is wonderful. Every bit as good as those they sell at Best Buy for $300-500.

Quoting a wise soul, "the grass is always greener..."

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 12:00 AM) Nice dinner for me... too bad I wasn't 100% to really enjoy it or get "stuffed." On the other hand, you'll be thanking yourself when you feel better and can still fit into your jeans...

My dinner was a steak burrito this evening...how festive.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 27, 2009 -> 12:15 AM) The Twins chose Mauer over Prior. They had the #1 overall pick. Good catch. That said, there really was no choice involved. They couldn't sign Prior and knew it.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:38 PM) I honestly see the JR-Kenny-Hahn-Ozzie group being together as long as JR is owner of the team. Then it depends on what happens from there. I think Hahn might be scooped up by someone else within the next year or two.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:45 PM) You may, but usually people who do this for a living trust their scouts and organization to tell them who is ready. Remember ready isn't just numbers. It has to do with confidence and mental toughness. Maybe some players numbers were ready but the organization didn't think the maturity or confidence was there. Right or wrong, if they don't feel the players is ready, they won't go with uncertainty. Believe me, I am the first one to suggest that people who do this sort of thing for a living should have their opinions respected to the utmost degree. That does not mean, however, that they should not be questioned, nor that their decisions are infallible, nor that there is not a different way to do things.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:40 PM) This is usually based on reports from the minor league managers and scouts. Back in 2005 when Shingo failed and hermanson got hurt, KW asked if he needed to go get a closer and the report from the minors was "we've got a guy who can do it." This of course was Jenks. If the organization thought that someone was ready, they would have done it. Oh, so now the guys in charge are infallible? Since the White Sox organization did not do something, all actions they avoided taking were defacto incorrect? Bobby Jenks was released by the Angels in December of 04'. The White Sox claimed him, while many other teams did not. I understand Jenks may have needed a change of scenery, but were all the other teams who did not claim Jenks correct? Because by that logic, if Jenks would have been able to contribute to their bullpens, they would have claimed him, right? I understand that we have coaches and scouts in the minor leagues who tell the parent club who they believe to be ready and who they don't believe to be ready. I'm not suggesting someone should have been brought up to replace a marginal performer though. I'm suggesting someone should have been tried to replace someone who was simply not performing at an acceptable level. Can someone please point out what the harm would have been? What did we have to lose? Someone posting a 12 ERA instead of an 8 ERA in the second half? I'm sorry, but you guys are going to have an awfully difficult time convincing me that there simply were no other options for replacing a guy as bad as Linebrink was.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 11:12 PM) An at-the-time girlfriend of a friend of mine worked in the Sox front office about 10 years ago. She described Reinsdorf as "grandfatherly" and a great boss. And it showed in the way that she put in long hours for a not-whoppingly-huge salary. What the heck were you thinking letting her go?

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) Seriously, Swisher is exactly who he described. Average speed/.370 OBP ...and a horrible lead off hitter for the Sox after April of 2008. There are plenty of other players capable of that. Let's put the Swisher bs to bed.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:50 PM) my supervisor just left. Time has stood still since then. I swear from 6-9 time just zipped by, now it is taking forever to get to 10 Quit your whining. I have to be here til 5:30 AM.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Again, these are all "mights". This guy or that guy "might" be better. But the greater likelihood s that they were not ready to be here. And that is the other operative word: "ready." Given the Linebrink situation (contract, track record, etc.), a team isn't going to call up 2 or 3 different guys to replace him and hope one of them sticks. Unless there is an injury, of course, since it would be an emergency situation. Considering every facet of the Linebrink situation, a team wouldn't have replaced him unless they were able to trade him. I don't understand how you can possibly say this with any certainty. How do you know the first guy wouldn't have pitched well? How do you know that one of them wasn't ready? How would we know how ready Hudson was if they wouldn't have brought him up? I think this comes down to Ozzie's personal preference of wanting guys that have had success before, but Ozzie is not always right. He didn't even want Beckham up, and we know that. I don't think you can say what "a team," meaning any team would have done. There are plenty of teams that have shelved expensive relievers in favor of unproven prospects, including our own, in the case of MacDougal. Even conceding we would have been dealing with uncertainty, uncertainty, in my opinion, definitely becomes better than certain suckitude, which it was clear Linebrink was going to give us. I'll take an uncertainty with a possibility for success over a certain failure every chance I get.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:04 PM) Are you a dealer? Electricity trader.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) If there was a better option in AAA or AA that was ready to go, he'd been up here because they would've made a place for him. Well, Adam Russell was available until the end of August. Nunez? Hernandez? Zaleski? Santeliz? Then there were starters down there who could have come up as well in Ely, Shirek, Hudson... Oh well, this is not worth arguing over anymore, but it's definitely something that reasonable minds can disagree about, which is the whole point of this.

Working tonight, 5:30 pm to 5:30 am pacific time. Off this weekend though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) While we are in a better financial position than many franchises, and we wouldn't be paying him that in 2010, which is going to be most likely the roughest year for sports franchises, as the recession is now a year old, and many of the advertising deals are starting to expire. If I understand correctly, we wouldn't actually have to pony up for Gonzalez until '12. That gives us two years for the economy to recover. Could we acquire a $20,000,000 player in 2010? No. There is a zero chance we could/would do that without moving an equal amount of money in bad contracts out of the door. Agreed. However, if you could acquire MCab for a massive discount in players surrendered because of the economic position the Tigers find themselves in, wouldn't you look into moving other contracts? I'd certainly consider moving Jenks and Konerko, which, if you could do so, would come pretty close to making the MCab addition an even swap financially. I understand the point you're making in that we don't have the payroll to continuously add $20 m players. However, when you have a chance at adding HoF caliber players, for little other than the financial commitment, I think it's got to be something you look closely at. Were we to acquire MCab, we'd have roughly $65 million or so tied up in 4 players (Peavy, MCab, Mark, Rios). But if you could deal Jenks and Konerko, even without very much return, I think you could field a younger team with the remaining $35-40 million if you drafted well and transitioned well from some of your veteran players to younger players in your system. Having Flowers, Hudson, Beckham, Danks, Mitchell, Viciedo and Morel could do a lot towards fielding an athletic, competitive team into the future led by Peavy, MCab, Danksy, Floyd, Q and Alexei. It's definitely interesting to think about, and I definitely respect what you're saying here 2k5.