iamshack

The White Sox seem to have been doing quite well with their revenue streams in recent years. My question, however, is assuming their payrolls were similar last season, how on earth did the White Sox bring in more revenues than the Cubs?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:49 PM) Except for when you do the math. Via the Non-Partisan CBO. I took a medical malpractice class a year ago and found (at least from what my data suggested) that medical malpractice suits have little to do with the costs of healthcare. Instead, it's the wasteful, inefficient practice of the industry that are mostly to blame. The actual percentage of malpractice cases where a person was killed or seriously injured that make a claim is less than 5%. And in states where caps have been enacted haven't seen a reduction in their malpractice insurance. Meanwhile, 98,000 people are killed each year due to medical error. The problem isn't the malpractice cases. The problem is with the healthcare industry.

I think it would have been a lot more fair with a batter swinging at the pitches and missing, and a guy like Jose or Gavin delivering the pitches.....the problem isn't AJ, it's those two...(among others).

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) At the very least, it comes down to value. Cheap, young players who are clearly very talented and have even a modest track record of success have garnered the Sox a lot in the past. Look at what we got in return for Chris Young, Miguel Olivo, and Jeremy Reed. The Sox are cutting $30 million in guaranteed money between 2009 and 2010. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As to your first paragraph, I'm not sure what your point is...look what Billy Beane got for Mark Mulder- Danny Haren and Daric Barton. And as for your second paragraph, you also realize they may eventually have to pay some of the guys who are making little now though, correct? I know it's a bit far off into the future (perhaps 2011, 2012, 2013, etc...) but these contracts will eventually be overlapping at some point. And this isn't even assuming that any other FA's are being brought in...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) They said he was awkward throughout pretty much the whole thing. I don't recall Obama jumping all over Hillary for the Bosnia thing though, at least not with the same venom Hillary uses when she attacks Obama. The media did that for him. He did turn it into a segway for something his campaign was saying earlier though, that she was exaggerating her foreign policy experience (a conclusion I came to months before I ever heard Obama's people say it). Well, that's part of the problem for Obama, or perhaps Clinton, is that Obama doesn't go on the attack with nonsense like this, he only uses it when he absolutely must fight back against her. And so he comes off as being a bit squeamish when this kind of stuff comes up in the debate.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:44 AM) You're missing the point. It's not about the money, it's about production. Veteran players are pretty much guaranteed to produce, barring injury. Prospects are not. The Sox will have plenty of money to spend, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. As much as I'd love the Sox to win with younger palyers, the truth is that the Sox have crap in their farm system right now. They're betting off "getting younger" with guys like Swisher and, say, Chone Figgins (who we might be able to get in a deal for Fields) than a prospect or two who may or may not pan out. Because if that prospect doesn't pan out, the Sox are screwed. And I imagine that this is why Kenny hasn't traded proven ML talent for a high-tier prospect in some time. Regarding dealing Crede for prospects, that's all you're going to get from him at this point. He's a FA next year and whoever signs him will have to deal with Borass. His chronic back problems don't help, either. Despite his superior talent, his value is much lower than Josh Fields', who is still pre-arbitration and, as a hitter, is already at the level Crede was at three years ago. Just about any GM in the league would like to have a low-risk, high-reward guy like Fields on his roster. Fewer of them would want to pay $70 million for Crede and his bad back. That's why you don't settle for a prospect (unless you get overwhelmed with an absolutely unbelievable package) for Fields. Well, the point in keeping Fields seems to be the low cost of his production, more so than his production alone. So in any discussion about what to do with Fields and what to do with Crede, I do think the entire point comes down to their monetary costs. And I realize that some big contracts are coming off the books after 09' and 10', but we will also have salaries rising dramatically down the road at a time when any new contracts to Crede and a veteran acquired in a trade for Fields will have to be accounted for, as well as some other key positions to fill. I can buy that a new deal can be afforded for Crede, but not sure I can buy a new deal can be afforded for Crede + a new expensive veteran as well.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) Well you figure you can disperse that money that you would have spent on Hunter to extensions for Cabrera and Roberts. You also have to take into consideration that Thome will likely retire after this season- so you can use that money on re-signing Crede. Kenny usually finds ways to make something like this work. Well, to be honest with you, there is no vault in the bank of $75 million that was set aside to bring in Torii Hunter. Additionally, we don't know what moves Kenny would have made had he signed Hunter. Would he have been able to go out and sign both Linebrink AND Dotel? We know he wouldn't have acquired Swisher... Would he have had to deal Crede and Uribe to lose the close to $10 million in salaries they are getting? Probably. So in my opinion, the Hunter money is not really available anymore. As for extending Roberts, we've got to worry about extending Joe if we trade Fields to acquire Roberts. Than you've got the issue of what to do with OC as well. I'm not sure it would be possible for next year unless another corresponding move was made to ditch some significant salary.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:28 AM) I still disagree that trading a cheap, ML-ready, and ML-productive player like Fields for a prospect is a bad idea. Remember how convinced Ron Schueler was that Lorenzo Barcelo and Mike Caruso were going to be studs? Remember how everybody was screaming for KW to trade for Salty last year? He's back in the minors now. Even Crede, who absolutely tore it up in the minors and was projected to be the next Mike Schmidt, was a pretty big disappointment at the plate until about August of 2005. IMO, you deal older players that are in the last years of their contracts (and have little value) for prospects. You don't deal ML-ready and ML-proven power-hitting third basemen who won't hit free agency for the next 4-5 years, as those guys are worth A LOT more. Teams will be willing to trade proven, more expensive talent for Fields. And with all of the aging veterans coming off the books over the next two years, we'll be able to afford them. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understand the irony of your position (or are at least not willing to). If you're advocating that we deal Crede for prospects, you're getting rid of Crede's salary and taking on basically little or nothing in contracts from the prospects you receive back. You then move Fields into Crede's position and you are getting (what you and many believe) is good production while saving money. But if you're advocating re-signing Crede, you're adding money to the payroll in future years. If in addition to that, you advocate trading Fields for a talented veteran, you are once again are adding salary from the point in this year when the trade is made and for as many years as that veteran is under contract for (and longer, if you choose to re-sign him). So not only are you losing out on the cheap player you are so in favor of, but you are trading him for another high-salaried player and putting him on the field with the veteran you re-signed to make him expendable in the first place. It's a double-whammy....and one I'm not even sure is a good idea if one is looking to sustain a competitive ballclub into the future...

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) Listening to him on the Score right now. He mentioned that he talked to his buddy MacPhail from Baltamore and he said he stil believes Roberts will be dealt. He said MacPhail is in no hurry to trade his main attraction. However, if the right trade came along before the All-star break he wont hesistate to pull the trigger. He said if the Sox do trade for him it will have to be contingent on the Sox re-signing Crede during the 1st half ot the season. Meaning they can have the luxory of dealing Fields for Roberts. Thats a real stretch. To have Crede re-sign with the Sox before the ASB & to aquire Roberts. Im okay with the team the way it is now, but if we are in desperate mode for a true leadoff hitter come July than im for it! Thanks for passing this along. I'm all in favor of re-signing Crede and trading Fields, but only under the circumstances that we trade him for a pre-arbitration player or prospects. Roberts is making $6.3 million this season and $9 million next season, and will undoubtedly be looking to cash in once he reaches free agency.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Heyman at SI wrote a couple weeks ago that it was Hughes and Joba. That basically Beane decided he was willing to move Haren, but wasn't going to start over on his staff entirely, so unless he got an overwhelming offer he wasn't moving Blanton. Well, that's basically a psychological ploy by Beane to try and raise other teams' initial offers. Because everyone in baseball knows damn well that Beane isn't getting those two guys, or two guys as highly regarded as those two guys for Joe Blanton.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 09:38 AM) Here you go - this is what I was talking about a few posts ago, I knew of it but couldn't find the exact quote. This is what Obama said during the debate when they pressed him on Clinton's sniper white lie. He tried to change the subject... didn't work though. “[T]he fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we’re delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I’m — obviously, I make some as well. “I think what’s important is to make sure that we don’t get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People’s incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we’re seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s. “In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this — these kinds of errors I think is a mistake.” Lost, I thought this was a good quote to read. However, if you saw the debate, you saw how awkwardly it was delivered by Obama. He seemed somewhat embarrassed to engage is picking on Hillary for her Bosnia lie, and instead, chose to go the more civil route. It's humorous how these two can launch attacks at one another from the safety and distance of their campaigns, but then once they get together for a debate, they realize just how ridiculously immature this nonsense all is, and squirm at trying to deliver the same insults while sitting next to one another on live television.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) The going rate for Blanton last offseason was reportedly "Hughes and Chamberlain". Billy Beane tends to like to keep at least one piece of his rotation around so that there's some stability and something of a more veteran presence when he works in kids. See: Zito being kept despite his trade value when Mulder and Hudson were dealt and Blanton, Harden, and Haren moved in. Not to be a jerk, but wasn't it Hughes and Kennedy? Even still, that's far too high a price for us to pay. I think we have to see more from our pitching staff before we evaluate what our needs are. Because as of this moment, we have no drastic need for another starter.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) If there's one thing I learned from Ron Schueler's approach vs. Kenny Williams', it's don't fall in love with prospects. Proven ML talent is always preferable. I'm not sure how re-signing a 30-year-old Crede and trading Fields qualifies as "getting younger", but keeping Crede around for another 4+ years would be my preference as well, regardless of what happens to Fields. Yeah, that's a good point about prospects, and I normally don't advocate for trading for them, but they have become so important in today's game that I think at some point you have to pay attention to the issue. And this particular prospect, and how well-regarded he is, I would have no problem if he was the centerpiece in a deal for Fields. As for getting younger, I'll explain it this way: As of now, Crede is starting for the big club, and Fields is a "prospective" piece for this club. However, right now, he simply does not have a place. Trading him for someone who does have a place, thereby replacing one of our older core players, would constitute getting younger.

Yeah, seems like someone has gotten through to Kenny and Ozzie. I still think speed is nice, but if it comes in the form of Jerry Owens, keep giving me Nick Swisher.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 11:37 PM) Help me with this one. Exactly what about a typical Uribe AB would one consider a good AB. Is it the first pitch popup after 2 guys walked, or is it the swinging as hard as he can and missing the 45 foot dribbler that the pitcher threw out on 2 strikes to see what if. Well, I think we often forget that Ozzie is human, and has to be in the presence of these players every day for 9 months or more. It's a bit difficult to rip on these guys in the media when he knows he's going to be standing next to him at the urinal tomorrow afternoon. If you've ever coached or managed any number of people, you can realize how it might be difficult to be blatantly honest about a person's failures if you know that person will become aware of your comments. Additionally, for what little it's worth, Juan does seem to be seeing more pitches these days, which is what Ozzie claims are "better at bats." Either way, it doesn't matter. The fate of this team has little to do with what Juan Uribe does offensively. It does have a heck of a lot more to do with what he does defensively.

Honestly, I have a hard time blaming ABC for this. Instead, I blame the American public. If voters are going to be concerned about ridiculous nonsense that has no bearing on the issues, than the media is going to exploit that. Either way, another debate on the same issues would have just been reiteration by the candidates of the positions they have articulated so many times previously. But again, it's not the fault of ABC that the citizens of Pennsylvania have chosen to allow their primary to revolve around Bittergate, Wrightgate, Lapelgate, and Snipergate.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:52 PM) Richar probably won't begin a rehab stint for a couple weeks still. He might be able to be ready to go mid-May by the way things have sounded lately, assuming no setbacks and a solid performance when his rehab stint starts. If Uribe's still hitting in the .200 area mid-May, and Richar comes back and resumes raking at AAA and feels good, I don't see how the team could keep Uribe there full time. Have you not witnessed how Ozzie operates?

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 17, 2008 -> 12:00 AM) $10 million a year is too much for a #4 or 5 SP. Yeah, Jose's contract is clearly the one big mistake we've made in terms of "unmovable contracts." However, I'm not ready to give up on him yet. Should he return to the pitcher he was in the beginning of 06', he'd probably be earning his $ (I don't think he will ever return to the guy he was from May of 05' through the WS).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 07:38 PM) I won't add much because this is a hot button topic for me. I will state that Josh Fields walked more times last year in roughly 400 PAs then Crede ever has in a full season at the major leagues, and that's with Josh having a monster hole in his swing. He was on pace to walk about 50 or so times, and if he can prove himself as a somewhat capable power threat and/or gets adjusted to major league pitching, I imagine that number will rise to anywhere from 60-80 walks a season. Wite, This analysis isn't simply about Josh Fields v. Joe Crede. It's about having a solid all-around player at third already, who may or may not be re-signable, and a player in Josh Fields that certainly has some talent, but in my opinion, is by no means untouchable. If you look at the debate going on in this thread, at least from my perspective, the issue isn't about Fields v. Crede. It's quite obvious they are very different players. But in my judgment, I think Crede is the better fit with this team, under this organizational regime, than Josh Fields. However, that, by no means is meant to convey that Josh should therefore be blocked by Crede or be forced as a square peg into a round hole at another position. Fields is an asset of the organization, and would be to any organization, and therefore, I am merely expressing the opinion that I think it would be in the organization's best interests, if Joe Crede could be re-signed to a reasonable contract (the operative words being "could" and "reasonable"), for Josh to be traded to a team in need of his services at third base in exchange for something that our current team is more in need of. That could be another prospect ready to step in (although at this point I'm not sure there is one available out there at any of our position(s) of need, it could be a young starting pitcher should Danks, Floyd, or Contreras falter, or it could be a prospect(s) with high upside that could step in a bit down the road to replace someone from our veteran core (such as Konerko, Dye, Pierzynski, etc.). See the player I mentioned earlier in this thread, Angel Villalona in the Giants system.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 06:07 PM) Well, I agree with that. Then again, "something we need" doesn't include a 3B/1B prospect with no ML experience. If, say, Kenny is able to extend Crede and the Angels want to give us Figgins for Fields, or if the Mariners want to give us Washburn for Fields, Quentin, and Contreras, I'd be helping you pack Josh's bags. Or if KW could somehow pry Mauer away from the Twins (impossible, I know), I'd be too busy creaming in my jeans to help you pack Josh's bags. But I don't see any point in dealing a solid young player like Fields for prospects or a veteran player that doesn't fill our needs (C, SS, SP, a good leadoff hitter). Well, we differ tremendously in what we would look for in trade for Josh. I would prefer a deal to continue getting younger, as opposed to a veteran, because I do agree that getting good, cheap players is necessary. But fair enough...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) Well, Ozzie seemed pretty confident that he could play LF competently last year... and he wasn't exactly terrible, considering that he hadn't played there in years. And it's not like a player transitioning from 3B to a corner OF position is unheard of. Even if he could ONLY play 3B and 1B, his bat would still have value. Which consists of a whole 111 games. His minor-league OBP was about .360. Crede's OBP sucked initially as well, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats. Adam Dunn would regularly strike out 170-195 times a year. Yet he was pretty valuable to the Reds on the cheap. Seriously, even if Josh puts up a .310 OBP, what's wrong with having a 30+ HR player at a pre-arbitration salary hitting 6th in the lineup? Crede's OBP sucked up until 2006, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats. Money isn't really the issue here, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. I'd be fine with trading Fields for an expensive veteran because an expensive veteran will produce. Fields will also produce (albeit possibly at a slightly lower level), but he'll be doing it on the cheap (allowing for spending elsewhere). Either way, it's guaranteed production. But when you deal Fields for a prospect, you're not guaranteed production at all. Why would you want to trade a guy with proven 25-30 HR power at the ML level who can play 3B for a guy who hasn't really shown anything yet at the ML level? Frankly, I'd rather have a proven veteran C or SS. If Fields is worth so much as a power-hitting 3B, we should be getting veteran talent in return. Seriously, why are you so intent on running Fields out of town? Did he boink your sister or something? I think you are misinterpretting my position. I'm not intent on running Fields out of town, nor am I intent on discrediting him as a ballplayer. All I'm trying to point out is that he does have flaws of his own, which in my mind, make him fair game in a trade. And since he happens to play the same position as a veteran we have that I view as a more complete player, I would rather re-sign the veteran if possble, and trade Fields for a player who fits more into our plans. Why are you so intent on keeping Fields here? It isn't as though he is the only pre-arb player in baseball that has shown some promise. In my mind, the only players you should absolutely refuse to move are those players that project to be outstanding all-around players without any real weaknesses (such as David Wright, Evan Longoria, Hanley Ramirez, etc.), or players which are so good at one phase of the game as to be deemed non-expendable (Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, etc.), or young starting pitchers who project to be aces (Felix Hernandez, Johnny Cueto, Phil Hughes, etc.). Josh does not fit into this category. He projects to be a solid power hitter with above average speed and mediocre defense. Certainly a commodity, but by no means some untouchable player. I just don't think it's wise to try and mold Josh into something he's not if there is something you need on the trade market. I don't find him to be that exceptional a player that you try and do that.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) I feel a lot more comfortable putting eggs in Fields' basket (one that has produced at the plate over most of a season), than Quentin's. Then again, I advocate holding on to both of them, so I'm not really sure what your point is. Fields didn't play any OF positions in the minors, so I'm not sure why you're expecting him to put up Gold Glove-caliber defense when he's thrust into that situation in his first full year in the majors. If Carlos Lee and Chipper Jones can make the transition, I don't see why Fields can't. Yeah, he's really questionable at the plate. Almost Uribe-like. The bottom line is that Fields produced for an extended period of time when called upon. Quentin has not. And like I said, I'd rather hold on to both of them than trade the one that has actually hit well at the ML level. If I'm dealing Fields, it's going to be for proven ML talent. Not Angel Villalona. I'm not expecting Fields to play GG-caliber defense at any position. I'm the one having trouble believing he can play anything other than 3b, and that at a drastic downgrade from our previous 3b. You are the one advocating Fields at 4 positions. Secondly, your idea of "production" must simply be home runs. Make all the claims about how terrible Juan Uribe is offensively, but Josh has shown an inability to draw a significant number of walks, and an alarming strikeout rate throughout his career. I'm by no means projecting Josh Fields to remain at a level similar to Juan Uribe offensively, but that fact is, as of now, he has not proven he is a complete hitter. I'm not sure why you continue to dismiss that notion when the statistics expressly bare that out. Thirdly, for all the people hesitant about a possible re-signing of Crede, it seems even far more difficult to not only re-sign Crede to an eight-figure a year deal, but to then trade Fields for an expensive veteran. How can you espouse keeping Fields so much because of his low service time, but then advocate trading him for an expensive veteran? What sense does that make? Finally, as for Angel Villalona, look him up. Read the scouting reports on him. You wouldn't be interested in a deal for him and another young piece for Fields, should Crede re-sign here? Why not?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) Carlos Quentin has done crap in 2+ years in the majors and isn't a lock to live up to the expectations. You might want to wait for him to play a full season at a reasonably high level before anointing him as a middle-of-the-lineup replacement for Dye. For someone who is putting all his eggs in one basket (Fields' basket), I find it a bit ironic that you are so hesitant to buy into what Quentin has done in his young career. You're claiming Fields can play four positions when he hasn't even proven he can play one particularly well, and was fairly disastrous in LF last year. Sure, Josh hit his 23 home runs in less than 400 ab's, but certainly has not proven he is going to be anything other than Rob Deere in the majors. The truth is, both Fields and Quentin have much still to prove. And how would you feel, should the Sox trade Fields for a guy that could play first base to replace Paulie after he departs, such as Angel Villalona who I mentioned earlier?

with Soriano's latest injury, it sure would be nice to see the Sox and Cubs hook up on a deal...

Hmm, now I am afraid to post anything!