witesoxfan

QUOTE (Jake @ May 15, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) Only 1 of Thornton's 13 inherited runners have scored this season. I still want nothing to do with him in the 9th inning, but regardless of what the numbers say, he is a great reliever.

Frankly, I don't think any fine is going to deter people from drinking and driving. What might do so is either a longer period of time without a license, or losing your license permanently. Personally, I think there should be a difference between, say, a .08 and a .18. I'm sure there are people on here who do drive at a .08 and you might not even realize it. But if you are so bad that you are blowing a .18, you have been drinking for quite a while (that's like minimum of a 12 pack and likely closer to 14-16 beers/drinks), you know you're drunk and what you're doing is wrong. I think if you blow twice over the legal limit, you should lose your license forever. If you blow between .08 (or whatever the limit is in your state) and .16, you should be fined heavily and lose your license for a full year for the first offense, with severity increasing thereafter.

PK needs whatever Viciedo took when he was on the DL. Not sure why the Twins still have Pelfrey. He's so bad. They do this with pitchers for whatever reason. Ramon Ortiz, Sidney Ponson, Jason Marquis, Livan Hernandez...just cut bait and throw Swarzak into the rotation.

Not able to watch the game, blocked at work, but I saw Dunn's homer and now he doubled to the same spot opposite field again. He is rolling right now and this is when he is at his best.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) It was their radio guys. Don't have the t.v. feed with Bremer (assume he's still the guy) and Circle Jerk Bert. And yeah, Blyleven's very objective compared to most home announcers, equally so about the Twins. I can tell you guys don't watch a lot of Twins games

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) I've seen nothing from him that would lead me to believe he has the range to play SS. The one thing holding him back from being an elite second baseman is his range. Oh, if you were saying he'd be a statue at SS, then I agree. I think he's perfectly fine at 2B. Good hands, good speed for 2B, mediocre reaction time, and and the speed and reaction are very important at SS. No, I agree completely, Beckham would be terrible at SS. It'd be like Michael Young playing SS.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) In the unlikely event that enough things came together for the Sox to win a World Series the difference between a 33-34 y.o. Ramirez and his replacement would not impede that. Alexei Ramirez has the 10th highest WAR among shortstops. He has the 6th highest average, and to assume that he's suddenly turned from a .100+ Iso kind of guy to a .080 Iso guy is silly. He will start hitting for a bit more power, he'll continue to field, and he'll continue to be an incredibly valuable player. But, if you are so sure that Ramirez would not hinder it, surely you have a better solution. If you say Sanchez or Beckham, or anybody else in the minors, I'm just going to simply say you're absolutely 100% wrong. And if you're bringing in a free agent, it's going to cost the same anyways, and then you're sacrificing defense on top of it.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:22 PM) Cabrera? He has no offensive ceiling. The rest? Yeah, they'll come down some. But it won't matter if the Sox are 10 or more games out by that time. Cabrera I was iffy on, but I don't even think he can hit .375 all year, but overall, his splits aren't that far off some of his career highs. Put simply, I think his bat will cool off, but the power has yet to appear. s***, he's barely on pace for 30 homers right now

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) Because they've shown no signs of that being at all a likely outcome, let alone a probability. When they go out to LA, sweep the Angels and Scioscia's fired, then I'll be willing to believe things might be changing for the better. And they showed those signs before they started their run last year too, right? When they went 7-14 in the previous 21? Then they beat LA, swept the Cubs at Wrigley, took 2 of 3 from Minnesota, swept Cleveland at home, and then swept Tampa Bay at Tampa. They're starting to hit (Dunn, Viciedo, and Flowers all look way, way better), they're still pitching like crazy, and, hopefully, Ventura's team meeting helps them shape things up defensively.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) Um, I disagree completely. We need to worry about the standing RIGHT NOW. I don't want to be 8+ games out when/if this team "starts to play like they're capable." Detroit is significantly better than they were last year - leading all of baseball in runs scored and third in ERA. They have easily the highest run differential at +62 (only team close is the Cards at +51). Regression will get a lot of these guys though. Do you expect Cabrera, Hunter, Peralta, Tuiasosopo, and Infante to hit like they have all year? At the same time, I don't expect Martinez nor Avila to hit as poorly as they have all year either, and I think Jackson will hit a bit better too. Verlander's a stud, but he's not going to keep his ERA at a crisp 1.93 if he continues with his 1.21 WHIP, and Anibal Sanchez is not a 2.05 ERA pitcher. At the same time, Porcello is not a 6.68 ERA bad pitcher either. All the regression will catch up to them eventually, but I don't think it will change their winning percentage drastically. I think that's a 95 win team, at least. And, yes, crazy as it may be, I still think this Sox team can compete.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) Except they were a LOT closer to the Tigers, and didn't have four teams stacked ahead of them. CLE 22-16 DET 18-20 CHW 17-21 MN 15-23 KCR 12-26 Most importantly, they were RIGHT ABOUT to go on a 14-2/13-1 run that put them well over .500 and in first place (starting on May 29th) for MOST of the remainder of the season. If anybody believes this team's going to put together a similar, 2010/2012 streak, well, they better go to Las Vegas. Why couldn't they? They don't play a good team until May 31st.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) If Chris Sale isn't on their next World Series team then what are we doing here? The goal should be to get back to the World Series. It's a failure otherwise. If they aren't going back within the next 6 years while Sale is here then they may as well trade everyone like Marty is suggesting. I'm saying you have no idea when the Sox will win the next World Series or, without proper trades, when they will even be competitive again. I still think the team can be competitive this year, but I'm apparently one of the few remaining. All I'm saying is that if you trade Ramirez to the Cardinals, you need more than Matt Adams. There is simply not equal value there. Whether it's another hitting prospect or a pitching prospect or whatever it may be.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:19 AM) Again, I will ask the question. Would you trade Ramirez straight up right now for Mike Adams? If the answer is no then that is lunacy. I want the better asset. Young power hitting 1B who is cost controlled for the next 6 years is more valuable to this team than a 32 year old SS with a bad contract who gets on base at a .300 clip. I like Ramirez but lets not be crazy here. Is Alexei Ramirez going to be on the team the next time the Sox win the World Series? Probably not. That's a silly question to ask. Is Chris Sale going to be on the team the next time the Sox win the World Series? Probably not, so let's trade him. Matt Adams has a .858 OPS in his career. He also has only been up to the plate 126 times. He has 8 walks and 30 strikeouts. None of these are popping out to me, and the only thing that does is that he's inflated his numbers due to 35 plate appearances this year. He put up solid numbers in the minors, but nothing that indicates to me that he is going to be even an .850 OPS bat. .298/.373/.503/.876, 20 homers, 50 walks, 85 strikeouts, 23 years old, split between AA and AAA (Int'l League) .300/.357/.566/.923, 32 homers, 40 walks, 90 strikeouts, 22 years old, only done in AA. These are Matt Adams' numbers. The first player then played the next 2 years in the PCL and put up an OPS around .950 with better strikeout and walk numbers...and Soxtalk collectively freaked out because Brandon Allen was going to be the next big thing. He's now in his 5th MLB organization and 6th organization overall (as he spent a small amount of time in Japan too). So would I trade Alexei Ramirez, a guy who is a top 3 defensive shortstop who shows good contact ability, straight up for a 1B prospect who could very easily be a dime a dozen AAAA? No chance in hell. I'd consider dealing Ramirez to the Cardinals at some point in time, but it's going to cost them more than Matt Adams, that's for goddamn sure.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ May 15, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Who cares who plays shortstop. I mean seriously. People talk about 2005. Why not deal Peavy for position player prospects and backfill the rotation through free agency? You aren't going to rebuild this offense with 30 somethings. You're right, Flowers to shortstop! As a fan, I care who plays shortstop. I really don't think there are many logical candidates out there to play SS right now who will be available this offseason who are better than Alexei.

I will just say that I think the Sox are much more likely to trade Rios than they are Ramirez, and that's basically because it is much easier to find outfielders than it is to find shortstops like Ramirez. You might not get your Matt Adams, but there are certainly several other players that the team could acquire for him. Or you can package Rios and Dunn and eat a bad contract or take back nothing in return or whatever.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) I don't care about money, Beckham can't play short. He's a statue at second. I do believe you are one of the few who believes this.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) I still think the SF Giants are a pretty good model...where they were in 2007-2009 seems pretty similar to where we are now...I remember thinking they were a mess, with the Bonds thing coming to a disastrous ending, having Zito on the books for several more years, trading Tim Alderson to Pittsburgh for Freddy Sanchez, etc...they looked very lost...and turned it around very quickly. I don't see why we couldn't pull of the same thing. That is probably the best example. And, not that I'm arguing the point, they developed an innate ability to develop starting pitching (Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, f***ing Vogelsong? I mean some of that isn't even fair) and then fell into the best offensive catcher in the league in Buster Posey too. That can happen to the Sox too, especially with the pitching talent currently on hand, but if you can continue to build towards that without ever tearing the team down completely, you should probably try it. That's basically what I've been advocating.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:52 AM) The Cardinals are such an impressive organization. I have to believe it's not just great drafts, but player development as well. Like the Rays, they have a philosophy of play which they insist their players execute. And would you say the Yankees of '13 qualify as a short term re-build finding success? I know it's only May, but what they've done w/o their "star" talent is very impressive. The Yankees do not qualify. They haven't done any sort of rebuilding - they merely started bringing in other expensive talent and older players into the organization. And, unless you think Kuroda can keep up his 2.31 ERA, Overbay can keep up his .775 OPS, Wells can keep up his .870+ OPS, or Cervelli can keep up his .870 OPS, then no, I don't think they can keep this up either. I think they'll end up around .500, maybe worse. The Red Sox have predictably already started to fall off, and that will continue throughout the year too.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) That's not what you said. You said you can't totally transform your team with a couple of high picks. The Nationals draft Strasburg and Harper in '09 and '10, and now they're one of the elite teams in baseball. They probably win it all if they don't shut Stras down last year. This is true. The have a decent team outside of Harper and Stras, but really, if not for getting two of the most talented amateur prospects of the last 25 years in back to back years, where are the Nats? Personally, I don't think they make the trade for Gio, and they probably have a bunch of talent but a worse overall team than the Sox right now.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) How do you know you're right this time? Can you guarantee we won't lose 33% of the fanbase anyway if we continue to muddle through three more season with 74-78 win teams that have no realistic chance at the playoffs even with additions at the trade deadline? Even as "bad" as the Sox have been in recent years, they still haven't had back to back losing seasons since Manuel's first two years managing. So why on god's green earth do you think they'd "muddle" their way through three 74-78 win seasons right now? In this scenario, you even have them making additions to the club! QUOTE (KPBears @ May 15, 2013 -> 10:28 AM) The problem is the Sox don't have any good position players, except for maybe Rios (sorry Dayan fans, I think the guy's a free-swinging hack). I'm still undecided on Santiago and Quintana. The only really good players the Sox have are Sale (who should be untouchable unless there's the baseball equivalent of the Herschel Walker trade offered) and Peavy. I've mentioned before that I like what the Astros are now doing. Before people criticize that, realize that they are really just starting their rebuild. Their current GM is in his 2nd year. Unfortunately for them, they took a few years screwing around before they finally got direction. But he's committed to a plan, and like the Sox, the Astros have the money to keep good players. Instead of wasting a few years, I'd like to see the Sox commit to a complete rebuild now. The team maybe garbage for a while, but if the Sox can go through four or five bad years (like the late 80's) for 20+ years of consistent winning (like 1990 - 2012), I'll take it. As for the fans going away, guess what, the fans are going away regardless, because the Sox are going to be miserable. But the Sox, through WGN and merchandise sales, have revenue sources beyond attendance. And again, I'm confident that JR will spend when the time's right, as he did prior to the 2005 season adding Dye, AJ, and Iguchi (yes, they weren't elite free agents, but they were a lot bigger deals than Keppinger). OK, you think Viciedo's a "free-swinging hack." His .800+ OPS in his limited plate appearances disagrees with you. And, since he's gotten back, he's been an incredibly different looking hitter. De Aza is a fine position player, probably a 2-3 WAR player. He's good for a .750ish OPS, good average, good speed, a little pop. He already has 7 homers this year. He strikes out a lot, but I can live with that if and when he starts drawing a few walks on top of his solid contact ability. Alexei Ramirez is still one of the best shortstops in the AL, and it really is difficult to name many guys better than him. Even with a .low .700s OPS, he's incredibly valuable. Konerko put up an .857 OPS last year, and he's shown in the past that he can basically flip a switch at any point and turn it on. Dunn put up an .800 OPS last year. Keppinger kills lefties. Gillaspie is showing to be a really, really solid hitter. You are underselling an absolute ton of players by throwing a blanket statement of "they're not good" merely because they have struggled for a month. This pitching staff is incredibly deep and talented, and rebuilding now would be an absolute waste of that, because by the time you'd be "ready" offensively, most of these guys would have become too expensive to keep anymore. Then the cycle starts over. Beyond that, you say you'd take 5 years of losing for 20 years of winning, but as of last year, the White Sox were "winning" as much as they have at any point in the last 20 years. If you want that, then why would you rebuild in the first place? They'll almost certainly end up around 81-85 wins this year anyways. I honestly think if the Sox just stick out this year, make a trade or two if necessary to clear some payroll, and make additions in the offseason, everyone will give up this silly idea of rebuilding. You bring in guys like Morales, Utley, McCann, or Granderson, and suddenly you have power and excitement in the lineup again, and then the fans get excited too. I've admitted that the current Sox team is incredibly boring to watch and there's no real personality, but I can recognize that the team is good enough to win some games.

Oh, and BTW, the Sox are 16-21 with 3 players - Dunn, Keppinger, and Konerko - underachieving badly, another starter - Beckham - on the DL and another starter - Viciedo - who was on the DL already this year. On top of that, 14 of their 21 losses have been by 2 runs or fewer, and 9 of those 21 have been by 1 run. It's going to take about one of those three underachieving bats to get back and heated up, and the Sox will start winning those 1 and 2 run games, and if two of them heat up, they won't be having nearly as many 1 and 2 run games.

In 1992, the Pirates and Royals were 10th and 11th respectively in league payroll, which is the top half of the league, but roughly middle of the pack. Then they lost, and lost, and continually lost, and eventually they lost their fans and market share, which in turn caused them to lose further revenue, and suddenly they were in a neverending spiral. As recently as 2007, the Astros spent $87 million on their payroll. They have new ownership now too, who I'm sure have money, but they still didn't spend and still have absolutely no talent with no end of their rebuild in site. Meanwhile, the Cardinals have gone through phases of losing players either to injury or free agency. That's a team that should have had to rebuild but, because of shrewd trades and free agent signings, they've been able to patch together very good teams over the last 3-5 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing. I would like you to show me one good example of a very short-term rebuild where the team found steady success after tearing it down. The only example that even begins to work is probably the Braves, and they've been one of the best run organizations in all of sports for the last 25 years.

QUOTE (Jake @ May 14, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) .270/.347/.460/.808 - 430 plate appearances - That was the cup of coffee. He hasn't been able to adjust. The two I provided had some time up initially and struggled, and then adjusted. Atleast that's what I tell myself. There's obviously inherent risk, but there are indications that this could work very well for Rizzo.

These are the numbers after the initial cup of coffee in roughly the first full year's worth of plate appearances .271/.347/.483/.831 - 648 plate appearances - .282/.344/.482/.826 - 532 plate appearances -

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ May 14, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) Not sure what team you've been watching but I feel like I've been watching the SAME ONE since then, just replacing Thome with Dunn. I will say this, I should correct myself: they didn't suck last year until the last month or so, that's true. Don't know how that happened, but they were exciting for a while. Other than that though, meh. Me? I'm tired of the "patchwork" and hoping to "sneak in" to the playoffs. I'm willing to sacrifice to play the long game. I would lose a lot of interest in baseball the White Sox if they rebuilt. I'd probably start following the Pirates, Orioles, or Rays a hell of a lot more closely. Not that I wouldn't have my rooting interests first, but I'd have to develop others because I know how s***ty and depressing following the White Sox would be. I'm a Bills fan too - rebuilding for a long time is s***ty and kills your fan base. I also know way more about the Bears and Patriots than I should, but I happen to have developed a habit of watching those two teams whenever I can too. To think that wouldn't happen to the White Sox is silly, and most people would switch allegiances and start following the Cubs. That is the one time when Sox fans should care about the Cubs winning something.