iamshack

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 11:20 PM) Baseball tonight was saying since June 26th or something he leads all of AL baseball in avg and soemthing else... Kid is definitely a beast. Yeah, everything.

Yeah, we should stop calling him that....he clearly does not care for the name.

Wooo! Pods!

Again, where did we hear Alexei should be back tomorrow? I thought it was Wednesday at the earliest?

Or they can pick up the option and then trade him to us...

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) In your scenario, though, the crappiest TV would be Getz, no? That isn't the case, as he'd be the middle TV, as he's definitely not the worst. The s***ty TV would be Fields or whoever. No, Getz is the 37 inch tv, and we are keeping him in the basement. The analogy isn't perfect, but you get the point....

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:36 PM) Everything in this economic market is about "value" Mr. Allen. You wouldn't say who cares about the market value of your house, would you? Every homeowner, and team owner, wants to get the best possible value (buy low, sell high) out of his assets....there's "worth," like Roy Halladay, and then there's what another team is actually willing to part with him to acquire said asset. The Mona Lisa might be "worth" $1-2 billion USD, but only if someone was/is willing to part with their money for Mr. DaVinci's painting. Alexei Ramirez and Gordon Beckham are "worth" more than any position players on our team...along with Carlos Quentin. Gordon Beckham becomes a much more valuable asset playing above-average defense up the middle, hitting 50 doubles, 20 homers with a .300 AVG and 100 RBI's than he does as a corner IF or corner OF. Which is also why Flowers is worth a ton if he can catch and Viciedo if he can play 3B....and Danks/Mitchell if they can leadoff and play CF well. Well said. Dick, let me stick with analogies, as long as we are making them. Say you like to watch tv both in your bedroom, but also in your basement. You watch tv in your basement most of the time, and often watch the games down there with your best friends. You basically just use your bedroom tv to watch tv before you go to sleep at night. You have a decent tv in your basement - a 37 - inch Samsung. You have a crappy 19 - inch Emerson in your bedroom right now. One day, your son, who won the lottery, buys you a new 58 inch Sony with all the bells and whistles. Now, you can put it in your bedroom, and throw your 19 inch tv out, simply because your bedroom is closer to the front door and you don't have to lug the big 58 incher down the stairs. Then you'll have the 58 inch tv in your bedroom, where you don't watch it as much. And you'll keep your 37 inch tv down in the basement, where you watch all the big games with your friends. OR You can take the inconvenience of lugging the new 58 incher down to the basement, but have that baby with all its bells and whistles where everyone can appreciate it and get the most use out of it. You can then, if you make the effort, put the 37 incher that was in your basement up in your bedroom, and throw your old crappy 19 inch tv out. Which would you do? In my mind we are doing the equivalent of putting the 58 inch tv in our bedroom, even though we don't use it as much and keeping the 37 inch tv downstairs, where we watch all the big games. I guess for now it's alright, because it's not easy to move that 37 inch tv to the bedroom, but if we get the chance, we should get around to that.

QUOTE (tommy @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:37 PM) I think this is a move most of us here would like to see. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Jim Thome but he's not getting any younger, and numbers are slowly dropping. And yet he still has the second-highest OPS on the team, second only to JD by 1 point (.884)...

QUOTE (VAfan @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) As I said in my last post in this thread that I started, I have pretty much given up on Fields at this point, since it is obvious the Sox are not going to ever give him enough ABs to find out if he can be better than the player he was in 07. .244/.308/.480/.788 But I want to respond here because I just don't buy the notion that players with "different skillsets" are valuable because of those skillsets UNLESS they also produce at an overall level. To me, the best and most understandable overall stat is runs created per game. (RC27). It measures all of a player's offensive contributions, not just on base and power. So, it gives you what you deserve for stealing a lot of bases and not getting caught, which is probably Getz's best "different skillset." The point is, for that skillset to be of value, the player has to do the rest of the essential things, like making fewer outs per plate appearance, hitting for some power, etc. You can't steal first base. Getz has become a player who, because he is doing those things, is at least not hurting the club offensively. His RC27 rate is 4.84 runs a game, just above Josh Fields 4.72 he posted in 2007, and significantly better than what Fields posted this year. But as I mentioned on the Beckham for ROY thread, that still ranks Getz as about the 12th best offensive 2B in a 14-team AL. He's not so far below these other 2Bs that you would consider him a significant liability. But I also wouldn't consider him to be much of a positive offensive force either. As a rookie, when the alternative could be worse, I'll take it. But unless Getz continues to improve -- it's really a push right now between him and Jayson Nix (4.73 RC/game) -- the Sox ought to continue looking for someone better. And by that I mean that when the Sox have a 3B other than Beckham who hits better that Getz, then they ought to move Beckham again. Of course, that isn't going to happen this season. (On this last note, a lot of guys seem to believe the Sox are best moving Ramirez to CF, with Beckham sliding over to SS when the Sox get a 3B ready -- i.e., Viciedo. Until recently, I wouldn't have supported that, but now I'd have to know more about how it would play out defensively. It would also assume that Getz is maximizing his potential.) VA, I am not disagreeing with anything you wrote there. If you've read my posts in regards to Getz, I think you'll see I am very lukewarm on him. That being said, all one needs to do is compare the very favorable comments Ozzie has made about Getz and Nix after saying nothing much positive at all about Fields since ST. I think Ozzie very much appreciates the different skillset Getz brings, and I think it buys him a longer leash than a guy like Fields might get.

I have a bad feeling about 7 teams are going to be after Dunn this offseason. I don't like the idea of counting on him to replace Thome.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) Who cares about market value? Beckham isn't being and probably never will be moved. If anything, if Beckham's stats make him only an outstanding thirdbaseman rather than the best secondbaseman first ballot HOFer in the game, it will save the Sox money, but that's clearly not the motivation. The motivation is to put the best team on the field. Getz and Beckham are better than Fields and Beckham or Betemit and Beckham. That's why those others are in Charlotte. I give up, Dick.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) I would rather play Nix than Ramirez. Ramirez is just not that good to me. Nix at the bottom of the order has some pop, takes pitches, and can hit and run. Ramirez pulls everything. CANNOT HIT RIGHTIES

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 07:01 PM) I remember in 1997 with Roberto Hernandez, we went through Bill Simas, Matt Karchner, Bobby Howry, Keith Foulke, Tom Gordon, Damaso Marte, Billy Koch, Shingo Takatsu and Dustin Hermanson before we got another good closer in Jenks. In fact, there was a deluge of semi-questionable closers prior to Bobby Thigpen like Bob James, Ron Reed, Dennis Lamp, Salome Barojas, Ed Farmer, Mike Proly, Lerrin LaGrow, Jim Willoughby, and Dave Hamilton. Impressive (in my best Darth Vadar voice)

Is he coming back tomorrow or Wednesday? I thought I had heard Wednesday at the earliest...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) Inside the Padres' financially strapped offices at Petco Park, there was a huge sigh of relief. General manager Kevin Towers had a mandate -- since last November -- to get Peavy off the Padres' books. Still, some people close to that organization believe Williams didn't need to part with so much talent to get Peavy at this point. ''The financial relief alone might have been enough to get it done,'' a Padres insider said. ''Maybe you dress it up with some bodies. But [the Sox] had a lot more leverage. [The Padres] had no other options.'' DeLuca, Sun-Times Sports Balta posted this earlier. I still think it was a good-faith move by Kenny to both Towers and Jake. It's always a good idea to be fair, as you never know when Kenny might need something....dare I say when we are in need of someone to replace Paulie and Adrian Gonzalez is ready to be traded?

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) No it isn't. The argument has never been that, however I'm not surprised you have spun it that way. Peavy isn't a free agent after the year. Isn't after next year either. Jake will be back by Septemeber, it could have been either with the Sox or the Padres. If he comes back strong and healthy, finishies out 2009 strong, his value is still incredibly high on the open market. Your entire argument is based off an assumintion that hasn't even been mentioned any where else. I would not say his value will be "incredibly high." Certainly if he regains form, his value will recover a bit, but his salary is such that many teams will be unable to take it on, leaving some 4-6 teams interested. Even then, his value is still limited due to some injury concerns and the last few years of that contract. I'm not claiming that he won't have some decent value, but I think the fact that Kenny was the only GM to call Kevin Towers on him, in a market where Halladay and Cliff Lee were highly sought-after illustrates there were more concerns out there than simply the fact that he would be sidelined for another month...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) They are using statistical analysis to determine how much a player is worth. Carlos Lee makes $18.5 mill for the next 3 years following this one, in which he is also making $18.5 mill. I imagine they believe his offense is worth $15 mill a year due to the statistics he puts up, and that his numbers are inflated due to the ballpark he plays in, and with that extra $3-3.5 mill or so, they could get a very solid reliever on the free agent market, which will help win them more games if Lee is being paid a relatively good salary. This same argument goes for Peavy and the White Sox; both players could do well, but they won't live up to the stastical performances that their contract would demand. It's a pretty dumb line of thinking and goes against basic economic principles. As has been mentioned, there are times when this article is correct, such as when a team is much older, is tied down to bad contracts for a while, and has absolutely no minor league system. The Sox are in a transitional period, but are not in any 3 of those phases in particular. The problem I see with the article, and Voros mentions this as well, is that the author assumes pitchers such as Richard and Poreda and Russell and Carter cannot be replaced by other low-priced but marginally effective guys like them. As if, when we traded them, we didn't have other candidates in the farm system to step up and duplicate their efforts. Especially the fact that he brought up Russell and Carter, considering how little effect they have had, if any, on the big league club. These guys will be replaced by guys like Hudson, Nunez, Torres, and others, who will have EXACTLY the same value to the big league club as the 4 pitchers we traded have had. Certainly had we traded 17 pitchers of the ilk of Richard and Poreda, this could become a problem. But we traded just a few. And as others have stated, we have several other position players contributing at a very cost-effective level, as well as Danks and Floyd, who are pitching to a level far higher than what they are currently paid. I understand what he is trying to say here, but the argument doesn't hold water, considering he cannot actually point to production lost elsewhere due to the above-market salary Peavy is and will be receiving.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:31 AM) All of this moving Beckham is predicated on having a sound option at third base, which we currently don't. Viciedo won't be a third baseman, most likely, and Brent Morel still has a long way to go. With our finite resources, it makes sense to keep Beckham/Alexei/Getz as our infielders for awhile. Also, Gordon likely will become a very good third baseball, given a year or two full-time at the position, that is worth a lot in its own right. And no one is arguing with the current state of affairs. Only what the potential of the club would be were it to acquire a sound option at third base.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 07:20 AM) My point was people shouldn't be hellbent on moving Beckham, just because fantasy baseball rules make him more valuable as a 2B. He's more valuable to the White Sox as a 3B right now, and may be for quite a long time. They are not fantasy baseball rules. It is market-value. And since the White Sox operate under a finite budget, that absolutely applies to us. Is the goal not to try and optimize our resources?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:20 AM) Beckham's "value" is his value to the White Sox, not his "value" vs. others at certain positions. If the White Sox are better off with Beckham at 3rd, that's where he's most valuable. If its second, the same. As long as he's in the line-up, I'm happy. Again, no one is pining for Getz to be replaced. However, if a player can be acquired which makes this team better, then he should be replaced. Just as any other player on the team. What we are merely pointing out is that Beckham's bat can be huge at 2b due to the mere fact that he can play the position soundly (at least we think). And if that is the case, then it could be possible to acquire a 3b who's production comes at a cheaper rate due to the fact that the league average corner infielder produces more than a middle infielder. Thus, the market generally reflects that. However, if this is not feasible, then by all means, keep Getz where he is.

QUOTE (beautox @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 03:39 AM) This is a very good conversation were having. I agree chris very well could become any of those players you mentioned but the promise of that upside a 770ops 10HR 30SB contact hitter with excellent base stealing technique is quite an asset to have. If you have beckham producing at a 900OPS level at 3B, i think its perfectly acceptable to leave Getz at second for a season or two to see if he can deliver on that upside. In fielding a team of homegrown(cheap) players from our own ranks, it allows us to have a deep bullpen and rotation for the next 4-6 years. Think of all the money we are going to have to spend to spend on top flight international talent and FAs. Good points by everyone. I wouldn't mind keeping Chris at 2nd by any means, especially considering there do not seem to be any options available that are better than Gordon at 3rd. However, if somehow someone solid became available at 3rd at a reasonable price, I just think it's foolish not to move Gordon to the middle infield. However, to me, it makes very little sense to put a guy like Chone Figgins at 3rd just to move Gordon to 2nd.

QUOTE (Voros @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:43 AM) If that were really true, ARod wouldn't have been the one who mas moved. The idea behind Beckham playing a more important defensive position like SS or 2B is that theoretically if Beckham is as good a defender at those positions as he is at 3B, average fielding third basemen tend to be better hitters than average fielding second baseman. In the case specifically of the White Sox, the presence of Viciedo only enhances that point. Getz is a nifty little player, but he's not real young and his upside with the stick looks like maybe .280/.350/.400. If it's that or Josh Fields, Getz looks not too bad. But otherwise you might want to consider trying to upgrade the offense there. The big problem I see is one of timing. Skills not used tend to disintegrate. If Beckham is ultimately not going to play third, it would be a mistake to leave him there much longer past this season. There was a time when Chipper Jones was probably a better defensive shortstop than a defensive third baseman. Obviously that's likely not the case anymore. Welcome to Soxtalk, by the way!

QUOTE (beautox @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 02:38 AM) S - Figgins CF L - Getz 2B R - Beckham 3B R - Quentin LF L - Thome DH R - Dye RF R - Konerko 1B L - AJP C R - Ramirez SS I wouldn't mind them moving AJ in the offseason he could possibly be coming off his third best season ever posting an OPS over 800, i know the rays and brewers are going to be looking for some help at C because their situations are so pronounced. I see the sox signing both Thome and Dye to one year deals with club options for both. Thome to reach 600 in the sox uniform and provide LH power and Dye to produce in the OF till Danks and Mitchell are ready. AJ would be an interesting player to try and move because of his reputation around the league. Personally, I think the return wouldn't be good enough for us to justify the risk of losing him next season. I think it's probably best to let him play out the term of his current contract and hopefully Flowers can take over from there.

Happy Birthday, fellas.

Happy Birthday, GP.