iamshack

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 08:49 AM) Uh, where did he do that? That article was clearly meant to be light-hearted. the only pot shot he took at anyone was at BA. Hah, Sonix....think about the reference....I basically referred to the same thing you did in your post below mine...

Jeesh, Cowley even has to take a shot at poor Barrackus in there...what an ass...

QUOTE (jhonnydanks @ Aug 7, 2009 -> 08:01 AM) Danks was 4-1 with a 3.08 ERA in his 6 starts before yesterday. Angels are a real good hitting team. I wouldn't read too much into his start yesterday. Don't stop, get it, get it

Well, if he does truly need a break, let's do it now, and not at the end of August. Bring up Torres to take his start. Bring up Hudson to take the 5th spot. Now, while we have a lull in the schedule.

I really, really do not want to sign Chone Figgins next year. I cannot stand him. He's like that annoying cousin you have that chews and thinks he's the s***.

QUOTE (rockren @ Aug 6, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) JD thought that was the 3rd Out...damn. JD, how the f*** can you think there are two outs when the entire infield is playing in? Pull your head out of your big ass.

That was a shame....Paulie and Danks made a hell of a play on Aybar's bunt, only to have him tie the play. Then Gordon made a nice play to barehand the deflection off of Danks' leg, only to rush the throw and throw it away...

There are a few fun bars in downtown Tinley where you can pregame, and then there is a pretty fun bar called Intimo at 183rd and Harlem that is fun for after the concerts. Usually a decent number of slutes there and a fun place. The owner is a really cool guy.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 6, 2009 -> 12:28 AM) Well, to be fair, not you or I or anyone else know if Mitchell/Danks will be adequate MLB players at all. And the 10-12 million is pure speculation. I highly doubt he'd be able to get that much. He's 31 and in a down-economy. Look at what Dunn and Abreu had to settle for last year... I think the market will correct itself though. A lot of teams were stuck with many of the inflated contracts that were signed between 2003 - Present and had to make overcorrections last season. I think now that teams realize their stadiums aren't going to be empty, the market will bounce back a bit. I don't know if it will reach the levels it did in the recent past, at least in terms of second tier players (those not superstars), but I think it will bounce back. I don't see a whole lot of Adam Dunn/Bobby Abreu/Orlando Hudson type contracts this offseason. Who knows though.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 6, 2009 -> 12:03 AM) I don't think anyone is saying that Pods for 1 year while waiting on Danks/Mitchell is a BAD option, just that there is a better sense of durability and consistency in Figgins, who many think is a BETTER option. The other variable in this situation is whether the Angels will even let him walk. Everything I read and hear, from some pretty well-informed Angels commentators, is that Scioscia loves him and would be really disappointed if they let him walk.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 11:51 PM) First and foremost, you NEVER know what you're going to get with any player, ever. Period. This line of thinking is senseless. We could go out and sign someone to be a 5th starter and he could end up being Cy Young (Esteban Loaiza) or we could go and get a stud and have him fall flat on his face. There are no guarantees with anything so no matter what happens, we never know what we're going to get. Otherwise, the word consistency never would be used in sports. Second, I never guaranteed that Figgins would do that. You stated: I just don't believe the $ and the years required to sign Figgins being worth it even the best-case scenario. My response was that $8 mil a year for a .300 average and .400 OBP would be a best case scenario, and it'd be pretty damn worth it. If it comes down to it, Pods at 4 million or Figgins at 8 is a no-brainer to me. I'd gladly spend the extra 4 million for a younger, faster player who will give you better D and has a higher probable production than the other option. I apologize for a bit of sloppy posting as I was posting from my phone while enjoying a cigar out on my balcony. Fellas, sometimes I wish some of you could enjoy this view with me I have of the Las Vegas Strip ... As for Figgins, I am not arguing that there is not room here for reasonable minds to disagree. I just think the same applies to signing Podsednik up for another year as well. I'm not the highest person here on Jordan Danks. As I stated earlier in the thread, he has done nothing thus far that the White Sox should be making personnel decisions for next season based on his performance. That being said, between he and Mitchell, and perhaps some other players off the radar that could present themselves as options in 2011, I just don't feel particularly comfortable signing up Chone Figgins considering what his contract demands may be. I guess all I am arguing is, if it were me (and it clearly is not), I would take the gamble and offer Podsednik a 1 year deal for next season and let the chips fall where they may. It certainly is a good point made though, that there is a 3 year window in place where this team could be dangerous, and therefore, every effort possible should be made to fill any holes that are projected to exist.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 11:43 PM) There is absolutely no statistical evidence to suggest that is what we'll get. Figgins has a career .360 OBP and prior to the 100ish games of this season, he has had only 1 season in his career where he has reached base at a .400 clip. Why should we expect a .400 OBP for all 3 years of this hypothetical deal? Edit: I assume you were referring to my "best case scenario" statement. To clarify, no, I do not believe the potential extra .40 in OBP to be worth the extra $22 million or so, no. I would much rather take my chances signing Pods for 1 year and following him up with Danks/Mitchell...

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 11:24 PM) You're telling me that 3 years of .400 OBP from Figgins in the leadoff spot for 8 mil isn't worth it? There is absolutely no statistical evidence to suggest that is what we'll get. Figgins has a career .360 OBP and prior to the 100ish games of this season, he has had only 1 season in his career where he has reached base at a .400 clip. Why should we expect a .400 OBP for all 3 years of this hypothetical deal?

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 10:58 PM) Sorry, but Williams inablitly to find a true, stable lead off hitter during his tenure shouldn't be an excuess for not being able to find one for next season. That just doesn't work for me. What Podsednik has done this year has been incredible. He has been this teams MVP since the time he got here. On top of it, I wouldn't mind bringing Podsednik back next season. HOWEVER, just penciling him into CF and the lead spot next season is an incredibly risky proposition for a team that wants to win next year. Also, you mention this team not being able to find a true hitter for the lead off spot in quite some time. With Contreras, Dotel, and probably one of Thome or Dye off the books, why not spend some extra money on Figgins. I said it earlier he wouldn't be the best investment, and obviously I stand by it, but Kenny has set this team up again to WIN NOW. We have all seen how hard it is to find a lead off hitter, and also how important they can be. Even with his age becoming a factor, I like my chances a lot better with Figgins than I do with Podsednik. Can you list for the number of true, stable leadoff hitters that have changed teams in the last several years? Their just aren't many in the league, and the few that there are, certainly are not moving around often. It is not an "inability" to find one. It is an "inability" to find one at a reasonable cost. I refuse to be one of these people who place blame on the guy for not getting an asset that hardly seems to exist. As for Podsednik, it has become quite clear over the years that I have been here that you are not a fan. I understand that. I gave up attempting to convince you of his value to this team quite a long time ago. And yet, it is difficult to deny what the poster earlier stated. 'When Podsednik is healthy, we win.' Well, I understand there are health risks involved, but for the years and the money, the risk is very small. On the other hand, signing Figgins requires a much longer commitment. While we all want to talk about all the money coming off the books, we just spent 40% of it on Peavy. Combine that with salary escalations and the need to pay guys like Danks and Quentin in the future, and there is not as much money there as appears to be. Considering we have invested high picks and $ in players to fill exactly the position Figgins would fill, it would seem to be foolish to acquire the services of someone who is on the wrong side of thirty and depends on his legs as much as Figgins. Make all the arguments you want about Podsednik, but the reality of the situation is, many of them apply to Figgins as well. I just don't believe the $ and the years required to sign Figgins being worth it even the best-case scenario. Meanwhile, the worst-case scenario with Podsednik doesn't really put us in any worse scenario than we were coming into this season.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 10:37 PM) So am I. If it were up to the other half, most of the 2005 team would still be here, and this would be a 75 win club. Counting on Pods for anything next season would be a mistake. His career has been a huge roller coaster, and if Williams plans on fielding a championship contendor next season, trusting Pods to anchor the lead off spot for the entire 2010 seaon is not a bet I would want to make. When Chone gets brought up, critics seem to jump on his age, and given his presumable contract demands, you will have to lock him up until he is 34-35 years old. I agree that would be a bad investment. With that said, Podsednik will enter the season as 34 year old below average OF with a history of having nagging lower body injuries. Again, not someone I want my team to count on in getting the most AB's over the course of a season. You simply cannot treat this as a situation where "everything else being equal." This is not a debate about who is the better baseball player. This has to do with the team's budget, the team's short and long-term future, etc. And when you take those things into account, I don't see us losing anything by signing Podsednik to a few million dollar deal. Why some here think we are going to be able to bring in easily the answer to all our prayers at the leadoff spot when we haven't been able to do so in the last several years despite not having ANY options, and that we would instead make the critical mistake of "counting" on Podsednik rather than luring in Captain Leadoff himself seems just crazy to me.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) He's 31 now (1/22/78), so assuming we sign him this off-season to a 3 year deal, we have him for 32, 33, and 34. Even at his career averages, he's a .360 OBP player, which is pretty good for a lead-off man. And most guys' plate discipline doesn't decrease as they get older, it increases. I don't think it's out of the realm of reality to get .300/.375 out of him for those 3 years with 30 steals. Yeah, you may be right. I guess I just don't see that as much of a need anymore now with the emergence of some younger, faster players. I'll take the risk of keeping Pods around at a fraction of the cost and hope Jordan Danks or Jared Mitchell can be ready for 2011.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) If we're getting the .300 AVG/.400 OBP Figgins, then yes, I'd want him. Unfortunately, there's no way to know that. He's put up numbers like that in one season before this one, and now this season. For his career, he is a .750 OPS player, and you're talking about signing him for his age 33-35/36 years, so I'm not certain you'll be getting the 35-40 sb's that have been coming along with that. It's not that I don't think he is a solid player. I just think you can plug the gaps from year to year at a fraction of the cost instead of moving Chone around.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) God I hate Cowley. And no offense to Pods, but if it's between those two, I'll take Figgins anyday of the week. You would? So if you could have Podsednik for 1 year and $4 million or Figgins and 3/$27 or 4/$36, would you still go with Figgins?

QUOTE (Karko's Throat Skin @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) See: Cowley Pods or Figgins in 2010? This guy steals ideas for articles off this website all the damn time.

Jordan Danks has not shown enough to start influencing our personnel decisions for next season.

I don't see the risk in bringing him back for 1 year and $3.5 - 4.0 million. If you wait longer, I think there is a chance you have to go to multiple years on the guy do to another team or teams getting involved. Scottie realizes this is probably his last chance to make any real money in this game, and so I don't think there are going to be any huge discounts given out. The guy has to provide for his family. But if we offer him something fair, and stick our necks out a bit for him (offering it now, as opposed to the end of the year), I think he would accept it.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) one sounds french, the other American. I'm going with the American. Actually, one sounds French, one sounds English.... I'll still go with Beckham

Ok, I am going to keep asking until hopefully someone sees something and answers. Do we know when Alexei is going to be back?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 02:02 AM) I haven't seen metrics for Wilson, but a good defensive SS can do wonders for a pitching staff, and Wilson has made quite a few highlight reel plays that have shown incredible range. Seattle's new GM is actually incredibly focused on increasing Seattle's defensive efficiency. Apparently they are attempting to go to school on what the Rays did in 08'.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 11:22 PM) This poses a difficult question. Should people be allowed to choose their own nicknames? It's about his image, not the nickname. I don't think he cares about the nickname, it's the fact that the media keeps asking him what that means in reference to women. My guess is his agent and he have a pretty good idea of how big he is about to get, not only in this town, but nationally. Not a good idea to be called a nickname that implies he is a womanizer.