iamshack

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 11:33 AM) You forget that Linebrink's tenure prevents him from just being sent down to Charlotte. He doesn't have to go if he doesn't want to. This whole thing is all about legitimate options. Anaheim went and got another option during the offseason and they didn't stop using Matthews everyday until med-september in 2007 and that was more because of an injured knee, not because of his lack of production. The point is, they didn't just stop playing him mid-season because he wasn't getting it done. He stopped playing because he couldnt' play anymore. This discussion is about benching a player in the middle of the season and just calling up "somebody-anybody" in his place. What you're talking about is offseason improvement. That's entirely different. It's one thing if you have legit, ready-to-play prospects waiting for the call. The Sox didn't have that last year for Linebrink. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading for bullpen help, which is what the Pena move was about. That's the thing, is that they did eventually stop using him late. They were patient with him as long as they could be, then they made him an earlier-inning guy. It would be a lot easier to eat a salary like his when there is one year left as opposed to nearly 3. And after the poor pitching has lasted a couple of seasons (as opposed to half or one full season), at his age, it's likely more of a trend than it is a slump. Which would make moving on the only choice.. Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand the point you're making, but I think the way Linebrink was performing, there were other legitimate options. There simply has to be other guys in our system that were capable of giving up less than a run per inning. I agree that you have to allow the guy to straighten himself out, and I am a believer in the theory that he needed to straighten himself out if the White Sox were going to really go anywhere, but I just question if the best way to do that was to just keep throwing him out there again and again in situations where he was costing us games we had to have.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) I trust Herm who is one of the best in the buisness, not to mention he can DH unless Ozzie pulls a Toby Hall on him and makes him play 1B in spring training.. I would still love him though. But hey.. we both love Quentin right? Part of my unfair dislike for Johnson is his incredibly unathletic looking body and his huge head. He looks like your couch-surfing neighbor or something. Obviously this is no reason not to sign him though.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 09:11 PM) Uh.. so? I'd be ECSTATIC if we picked up the OBP machine in Nick Johnson. Until he got injured in the third game and was out until August.

I think the key here is that Kenny loves his job. Can anyone honestly imagine Kenny being able to keep his nose out of Hahn's business if Kenny was President and Hahn was GM? I think KW will always want to be the man making to moves, reshaping the roster every year, trying to add that final piece at the deadline, etc (this is where DA comes in and says "Prior to this year, he really hasn't added anyone impactful..."). I'm just not sure there is anything Kenny would rather be doing, so I can't really envision him moving on unless he was given the reigns to the Yankees or Red Sox or something... I will say this though...if Kenny ever does go on to GM another franchise, I am going to be really hard-pressed not to be a big fan of that team...

They could always leak interest to the press to guage what kind of reaction they would get. But honestly, given the time off this guy has had, wouldn't it just be easier to sign Jimmy? I can't see Bonds outperforming Thome by much at this stage in his career and his life, and Jimmy comes with good will instead of all this media controversy.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) I said the small things are things we are all already doing -- like cutting down needless waste. Here is my issue with the current renewable energy sources we've thought up. At the current time they're expensive in the short run and they're still expensive in the long run...and it's not yet been proven they aren't, simply because it's the nature of infant tech. All of these renewable techs are in their infancy and they'll all need to be replaced in a few short years for being inefficient and wasteful. I liken it to AT&T's crappy network, it was implemented a long time ago with infant cellular technologies, and now there infrastructures full of outdated towers and older technologies and they're lagging behind everyone else who waited and implemented more mature, better thought out ideas...so now AT&T is spending billions MORE on top of the billions they already spent to REINSTALL the same infrastructure in order to catch up with modern technology. And it became no cheaper, as a matter of fact, it wound up costing them even more because they jumped the gun and bought into the hype and installed crappy gear just to get it done. Implementing these infant renewable energy technologies will lead us down the same path. Solar panels of today will do 5% of what they will do just a few years from now, so then we get to tear down everything we built and rebuild it, because the stuff we built before was sub par crap and we hurried to install it all because of the hysteria/panic, we then hand these costs down to the consumer, and end up with billions of unintended costs simply because we didn't stop and think...we created a crappy infrastructure off of a knee jerk reaction. I get it, we need to do something -- but waiting a few years and doing it right the first time won't make much of a difference is all I'm saying. Just racing to get some crappy idea implemented only to have to go back and redo it all isn't the answer. Great posts in this thread; I couldn't agree with you more. We need more studies so we can do things the right way, instead of just doing something for the sake of doing something. We've seen this in almost every step of the way so far in our lame attempts to become more green - we actually make things worse at times trying to make things better because we have so little knowledge of what we are actually doing. Spend the money now to learn how to do things right, instead of wasting massive amounts of money to do very little good.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 02:13 AM) Nah, the Matthews situation is different because they had a thousand other legit options. And that's the key, they have other LEGIT options. Relative known quantities. Calling up Jhonny Nunez to replace Scott Linebrink is not a known quantity and is as uncertain, if not more than, sticking it out with Linebrink. Same thing with Pierre...they had Kemp, Ethier, and Manny. Those are all obvious better options. Jones' situation was also different because there were 2 months left on his deal (as opposed to 2 1/2 years left on Linebrink's), he was injured an clearly out of shape. Teams are not as willing to extend leniency to guys who are out of shape. Plus, again, the Dodgers had REAL options to replace him. In general, the "examples" of teams that did not stick with players are limited to one of two situations: 1) players that have expendable deals and/or 2) teams that have viable options waiting to take over. Not throw-a-bunch-of-stuff-at-the-wall-see-what-sticks options, but real, actual replacements that are ready to go. This is how all teams do it. Bottom line: there are not many examples of teams that dismiss a well-paid veteran for a complete unknown minor leaguer. I can't think of one, actually. No real team with real intent on trying to compete uses the "anybody has to be better than this guy" philosophy in a situation like this. Now, you can complain that the Sox gave too much to Linebrink in the first place to put themsleves in that situation. However, you'd be getting into a touchy situation there too, as the Sox (following a rough bullpen showing in '07) were in position to absolutely have to overspend to fix a bullpen. Had they NOT done that, the same people complaining about Linebrink's ridiculous contract would be the same people complaining that the Sox were too cheap to try and fix a terrible bullpen. So before you want to slam the Dotel and Linebrink signings, realize that you'd have been furious had they done nothing to try and shore up that unit of the team. And when the team is as weak as they were in the pen, and with nobody waiting in the minors to take over, they're in the unfortunate position of having no leverage in negotiations with free agents or trade partners. Other teams and agents are all aware that the Sox were in dire need of bullpen help and were fully aware that they had no other recourse. If they wanted bullpen help, they were going to pay through the nose for it. I disagree. There are always options, and when you're talking about a bullpen arm, there are legitimate options. Every team in the major leagues brings up kids from their system to see how they fare in the big leagues, and some of them do actually succeed. I don't see why our situation would be any different. Despite the relative weakness of our farm system, especially in terms of quality arms, we do have guys down there who have the stuff to succeed. Certainly when the guy you'e replacing is giving up a run an inning. Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Ozzie or the organization for trying to get Linebrink straightened-out, as he was slated to be an integral part of our bullpen and was owed quite a bit of money. Nor do I blame the signing. I'm not certain it was Kenny's most brilliant move, but as you commented, it was a signing that was sorely needed at the time. HOWEVER, once it became evident that Linebrink was simply incapable of figuring things out, and that did become evident, you can not tell me that the organization reached a position where there was no other legitimate option available. Given the way Linebrink was pitching in the last few months of last season, an A-ball pitcher would have been an attractive option. I'm not arguing that he should have been released, nor am I arguing that he should have been entirely shutdown and forgotten. They certainly could have sent him down to Charlotte, or limited him entirely to side work or simulated games to try and figure something out. And if that was tried, and if the only solution there was was for him to pitch to real batters, then he should have been doing it in Charlotte. It's one thing to be paying the guy $75k an inning, it's another to pay him $75k for terrible innings. Once it was evident that our season was over, they could have brought him back then and had him work on things. As for my examples that you're making counterarguments about, remember that Andruw Jones had a full year remaining on his contract, basically equalling $21 million with salary and signing bonuses due, and the Dodgers gained approval to re-work his contract and defer the money over the course of 6 years. While it is true that they had other options available to them to replace Jones, they could have easily refused to acquire Manny Ramirez via trade or refused to re-sign Manny for $25 million in 08'. They could have continued to run Jones out there because of the massive salary he was due that year, but instead, they chose to cut their losses and look elsewhere, even getting so creative as to re-work Jones' contract with permission from Jones as well as the MLB Players' Union. Should they have continued to run Jones out there, because he had a track record? Because he had hit 41 home runs just two seasons prior? Instead, they took extraordinary measures to avoid playing Jones anymore, because he was just that terrible. As for Matthews, the Angels did something very similar. They did not have legitimate alternatives. Rather than keep Matthews Jr. in centerfield, where he was solid defensively at least, they went out and replaced him. They signed Torii Hunter for 5/$90 m, basically in order to relegate Matthews to the bench. Even though Matthews still has $23 million left on his deal, they went and re-signed Bobby Abreu at 2/$19 million to continue to relegate Matthews to the bench. So while they may have created other legitimate options for themselves, they did so at increased financial risk, rather than to play Matthews simply because he was due tens of millions and they had no other in-house options. Pierre, the same thing. The Dodgers could have avoided re-signing Manny and simply ran Pierre out there, since he was under contract and there were no other legitimate in-house options. However, the Dodgers took on additional financial risk to avoid simply sticking with their previous poor investment. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you Chris - I see what you're saying - but I don't think this is nearly as black and white of a situation as you'd like us to believe here.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) Wow, this article makes it sound like the Sox will be rotating the DH spot between bench players. Awful news if that's truly the case. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws I think it's just Merkin speculating, trying to pay an adequate amount of respect to both Jones and the signing. Ultimately, I doubt he knows anything more than the rest of us at this point.

It was mentioned in another thread. Going to move this to the DC.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:15 PM) I wholeheartedly agree that he needs to prove it in the minors before he comes up, but it worries me that he would be proving it in Charlotte. It seems like good numbers in Charlotte never seem to translate in Chicago. Unless your name is Gordon Beckham, that is. Well, the strike zone down in Charlotte should be pretty similar to that in Chicago. So I'd just tell him that until he gets his walk rate down to something reasonable, he's never going to smell Chicago.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Here is it for the lazy posters. http://www.southsidesox.com/2009/11/23/117...peavy#storyjump Hey Cowley. Even Jake Peavy said it. Man, that dude seems creepy. His handle is "servant2LordBeckham." Umm, ok.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:07 PM) I know, but everyone has been starting him. Some great relievers over the years were just horrid starters and found their niche as relievers. If it has been tried and he failed at that too, well that makes things a bit different. Looks like the DBacks tried to bring him out of the pen last year to similar results. Obviously, the sample size is small (5 games, 11 IP), but from that small sample size, it was the same old song and dance...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:01 PM) has there been any attempt to convert him to a reliever yet? The guy has an electric arm, maybe he just needs to utilize it differently. I am not opposed to seeing if he can be long relief or maybe even set-up if he can get his stuff together. The problem is people have been saying this for 3 years now. At some point, you just have to realize that he is what he is (incredibly inconsistent and frustrating). I wouldn't be opposed to a minor league signing, but I'd have to see consistent, lasting improvement before I would even consider bringing him to the big league club. Leo Mazzone had a shot at this kid and got nowhere, and I'm sure Jim Palmer has spent time with him. I just don't know how long you keep banging your head against the wall with a guy like this...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:51 PM) Wow we have basically acquired the Indians lineup when that team was in its prime. Manny is next...

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) very nice day here. Crisp and cool. Weather was similar here as well, 61 and sunny was the high...

In July, he did manage to post an .965 OPS, so he is capable at least of putting it together over short stretches. Hopefully, we see something in him that we can tinker with a bit and hopefully bring out the better performances a bit more often.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:00 PM) Generally speaking, what you are paying for is consistent production without much risk. If you can afford it, that is nice. But most teams cannot, so they look for the less expensive and hope they come through, and some will. Don't you think that is a bit of an understatement? "consistent production without much risk?" I'm thinking more like HOF caliber numbers year in and year out...

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) he used to be a real good basketball player right? maybe he should consider that instead lol He actually used to be a ss, if I'm not mistaken...

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) I think the big thing for Andruw is to get into better than Bartolo shape.... Honestly, I recall fairly well Andruw getting into phenomenal shape for the 2007 season, at the instruction of Boras, only to fall off huge in almost every offensive category. I'm not sure his conditioning is the cause of his decline...

I think there is a middle ground here. There is something to the idea of realizing you have a lot of money tied-up in a player and thus it is important that such a player produce for you. However, there is also the idea of compounding an error by not only tying up the money in a player, but continuing to play him when it is clear his performance could be bettered by another player. At this point, Linebrink has to be viewed as a sunken cost. While I usually agree with Ozzie when he says things like "We need Linebrink to pitch well if we're going to win ballgames," at some point, when it becomes apparent that it simply isn't going to happen, there is nothing wrong with trying something else. For all the examples that were listed as teams that stuck with struggling players, there are also examples of teams that did not. You don't see Gary Matthews Jr. getting consistent starting time when there exist better options. The same for Juan Pierre. The same for Andruw Jones getting released by the Dodgers. Sometimes, it's just best to move on, despite the fact that you have money tied-up in an asset. The key is knowing when.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) "Daniel Cabrera is in search of a 40-man roster spot on some team this winter." - MLB Trade Rumors KW has always been in love with this guy. I like the odds of him being brought in to compete with freddy and be a guy from the pen who is a backup starter along with hudson. just a guess. 2 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Not anymore. Please, we just said goodbye to Jose...don't bring in his less-talented and equally as frustrating long-lost cousin...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 08:31 PM) Frankly, yeah. Unless we have a ton of young guys coming up to take over 6-7 positions, giving AGon $20 million means that we'll have bargain basement guys filling other positions. And he wouldn't be the only one around then getting expensive: Quentin, Danks, $10 million already for Rios, Floyd, Beckham would be hitting arbitration. You could do it if you had a lot of young guys coming up...but you'd have just traded away all your young guys for Gonzalez! So basically, you're going for everything in the next 2 years, and you're expecing that you're going to have to blow it up once AGon hits FA unless you nail a draft or two I absolutely know what you're saying here. And you make a lot of good points. But some points that KHP has made a lot recently, and that I tried to make 2-3 years ago is that the rest of the roster is not static. Higher salaried players can be traded for lower salaried players that you project well. Veterans can be traded for prospects. Certainly you would have to make adjustments to allow for such a large percentage of salary coming from one player. But I don't think you should call a contract a bad one simply because it is a high dollar amount. Kenny (with the help of our scouts) has been extremely good (and perhaps lucky) at switching out more expensive players for talented low-salaried players throughout the years, and I have no doubt he would again rise to the challenge. You'd probably be looking at dealing one of Danks or Floyd, letting Flowers take over for AJ, dealing Jenks, etc.,. But if you are getting the production out of the players you are paying, then you definitely can have success.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) In this economy? I think you are underestimating the seriousness facing ownership groups this season. I think you are overestimating the same. If we were to acquire AGon, we'd have to give him the same type of extension were we to keep him around. Would you be viewing that extension the same way?

I really don't think the contract is anything to shy away from. MCab will most likely outperform what he is slated to make every year, barring some sort of injury problems or some sort of catastrophic event that somehow derails his career. While it is hard to conceive a huge package of players coming back to Detroit in return for taking on the contract, it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that they could receive a package of young talent in excess of what the Padres received for Jake Peavy. Anyone who wanted us to acquire MCab from the Marlins (and briefly we were seeing published reports that we had acquired him) should have expected him to demand this type of extension. I'm not really sure why the contract is looked at so negatively here. Certainly it is a lot of money, but from what I understand, it's still not an annual figure he won't outperform by posting his current career averages. If we were to acquire AGon, I imagine any extension he might demand will probably use the MCab deal as a primer by his agent.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 01:26 AM) And we're ready to go. How is Troy Glaus a "type a" FA? Ok, either this has been edited, or I was hallucinating. Either is a perfectly good possibility.