witesoxfan

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Nov 27, 2011 -> 11:33 PM) For the Best Hitter at that position. Not the best hitter in the league

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 26, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Pure hitter. Not many around. This organization needs one. Bad. What in the bluef*** is a "pure hitter"? Wasn't Gordon Beckham a "pure hitter"? He sure looked like one coming up. I think Viciedo is a "pure hitter" too. I think of Tony Gwynn as a "pure hitter." I think of Wade Boggs as a "pure hitter." Wasn't Sean Burroughs a pure hitter too? So, uh, stats be damned, dude's a "pure hitter", let's get rid of the other face of the franchise for him and f*** s*** up? Sorry, I need atleast Bailey coming back before I'd even consider any type of swap of Danks and Alonso. Guys with that type of minor league record really, really, really don't impress me. Here's James Loney and Brett Wallace's career AAA numbers as well as their K% Loney - .341/.394/.482/.877, 12.3% Wallace - .306/.367/.484/.851, 19.4% Here's Yonder Alonso .296/.364/.478/.842, 15.9% So, at best, he is in between them (because Wallace did that with 4 different organizations), and at worst (and probably more realistically), he is worse than those two. And isn't James Loney a "pure hitter" too? --- So what is a pure hitter again?

#1) if Jon Garland is his upside, then he better be in the f***ing bullpen #2) if you see a 3.70-4.20 ERA, then you are not looking at Jon Garland #3) you are not wrong in a possible Jon Garland connection #4) Jon Garland's upside was Kevin Brown #5) if Jon Garland is his upside, then he NEEDS to be in the f***ing bullpen

Is there something I'm missing with Alonso that make people think he is a super stud of a player? I've honestly never been a huge fan of his and much of that has to do with his career .837 OPS in the minors. I get that, sometimes, power takes a little bit of time to develop, but that is still not hugely impressive for a guy who people hold in such high regard. Sure, he killed the ball in the majors last year, but he had fewer plate appearances than Viciedo did. He has a lot working for him - good walk and contact rates, decent power - but I'm just not seeing this superstar that everyone else is. I'd compare him to Billy Butler, but Butler did a hell of a lot more with the same things working for him in the minors. He seems like a 1-4 WAR player (depending a lot on his defensive value), which obviously has its value when it's cost controlled, but I'm not sure it's something we should be gushing about. There's surely value there but not unless the Sox are willing to make some incredibly bold steps in the direction of rebuilding.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 02:52 PM) 2.718281828459045 Naturally, you would say something like this

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) I'd love to drop Quentin on Rizzo, literally Dunn would hurt him more.

I caught his bad start against the Twins. I had to cheat to see if it happened the way I recalled and it did. He was cruising through the first 3, allowing only 2 baserunners, 1 hit and 1 walk. He got into trouble because he would start to nibble and would dance around the plate, and when he had to make a pitch, he'd leave it fat over the middle of the plate. The Twins weren't a very good hitting team, but they were a disciplined and fundamentally-offensive club and they look for pitches over the plate to hit. If you have great stuff and high velocity, you can get away with that at times. Not with a 91 MPH fastball. I think Stewart could be a decent 3-4 starter, but from what I saw, did look to be better suited for the pen. He has the advantage of having multiple pitches and, so long as he can improve that stuff when coming out of the bullpen, he could be an extremely valuable reliever, perhaps a higher leverage DJ Carrasco of sorts. There is still quite a bit of value in that. I'd rather have either him in the bullpen instead of Jason Frasor, who seemingly won't net the Sox any sort of meaningful compensation anymore.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) ChiTribRogers Phil Rogers Scott Boras says MLB should award draft picks based on revenue, not wins, and alllow teams to trade picks. That would be crazy fun dynamic. In this scenario, Tampa Bay would end up in the top 5-10 every single year simply because they can't get people to their ballpark, success be damned, for any number of reasons. Also, if owners cared solely about winning opposed to simply making money (which is rarely the case, though those who do own I'm sure would still like to win), this would actually encourage them to NOT spend on their team, their stadium, or in marketing. If you want to keep people from coming to your game, don't advertise whatsoever (beyond any floors that the MLB Marketing Department requires of you), hire the cheapest, worst marketing people possible ("Toronto: ReBuilding, ReTooling, ReEnerJAYizing"), fill your team with absolute nobodies and pre-arbitration players (like the Marlins did a few years back) but, with an assumed salary floor, you'd still see NBA-esque contracts given out to undeserving players to meet those requirements (though the Dodgers pretty much have the market cornered on that right now), and you'd charge $50 to park (Sox are halfway there!). Oh, and it completely destroys any incentive in getting a new stadium because, even though I'm sure the Twins and Marlins could find a way to mess it up, they are going to have fans attending those games pretty regularly still for the next 5 years even though they could very easily have terrible teams. It's fun to think about, but in this case, diverting from the norm simply is not a good idea. KISS. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) JeffPassan Jeff Passan The slots for the Nos. 1-4 picks in the draft are going to be $7.2M, $6.2M, $5.2M and $4.2M. Teams are not, however, required to spend that. JeffPassan Jeff Passan The team picking first, for example, can take a player No. 1 overall for $4M and spread the remaining $3.2M out over other picks. And thus, teams can still find ways to spend overslot later on. If Houston were to find a guy they love, they'll spend the $7.2 mill. If, instead, they find two guys they really like instead of that one stud, they can take one of them #1 and spend said $4 mill and then budget the rest accordingly for the remainder of their top 5 picks. I haven't read the fine print, so I assume there will be slot values for all picks in rounds 1-10 and then it seems the limit is $100,000 from round 10 and beyond with anything over $100k being taxed/accounted for 100% towards their overall ceiling (thus, as I understand, a $120k bonus only costs that actual number, but an additional $20k will be tacked on towards the cap, but maybe they do have to pay that $20k? I'll have to read the fineprint, but I'd hate to be an accountant for an MLB team). I haven't seen anything about penalties for going over those slots though, just the draft cap. Maybe I have missed it, which, with everything that's come out, is entirely possible.

I hate you all and hope you burn in hell.

I can put down 20 pretty easily and I've never been above 165. Nothing but skin and bones and a bit of a belly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Didn't we win the division the next year? No. Bartman happened the next year.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 14, 2011 -> 05:45 PM) This just in, Bill James Handbook projects the following line for De Aza next year... .293/.350/.450. But it's only over 240 PAs. Nevertheless, it's about what I thought he'd be without the inflated BABIP. I'll gladly take that over Pierre any day. Is there any accuracy rating on James' projections? Or Marcel or PECOTA or any of these? From what I have seen, James is generally high, while Marcel is generally a bit more conservative and accurate. My best guess over 600 PAs for De Aza would be along the same lines of James, just with a lower average. ISO trends down some due to fewer XBHs, but something along the lines of .270/.330/.420 doesn't seem out of the question at all, and I would love that out of him.

I could, but I'm really not that angry about it...I was more pissed about being called a terrible fan than anything else (which is absolutely absurd and I am fully expecting an apology (and I am actually serious about that)). A "terrible fan," if such a term exists, is much more descriptive of fairweather fans, who follow when good and completely forget about when bad, though I believe the term itself is very much an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a terrible fan, merely terrible people, and I know of no one like that on this board. More or less, it was a late night, I was drunk, and I was tired of the Buehrle fellating, or if not fellating as my mind may have recalled it, the lack of criticism towards Buehrle. The guy made some pretty significant remarks towards the meaning of money and family, and I imagine about the worst and most hypocritical thing he could do, if he is not a liar, would be to sign a lucrative offer elsewhere. I'm not sure where his family makes their offseason/school year home, but, with the money he has already made, it would seem that he could be able to afford two locations to live, so there probably wouldn't be much in the way of moving - just the "summer" home. Still, since family apparently means so much to him, it would make sense that he signs somewhere close to his offseason home. It wouldn't make sense for him to sign on the east or west coasts. Really, I wouldn't be saddened if Mark Buehrle signed with someone else away from his family for a lucrative offer and he became one of the worst pitchers in baseball. I'm not going to care if he does the former but still pitches like he has for the previous 11 years. Really, at this point, I'm just not going to care. It seems he's fielding all the offers he can, so to me, he's already a hypocrite. If he resigns with the Sox, woo-hoo, super, awesome, hope he pitches well. If he signs with someone else, then he's going to be an afterthought for me. He has been and still is a great pitcher. If he can make a killing on the free agent market, then good for him. I'm not going to boo him from my apparitional seat at USCF when he makes his first start against the White Sox. I won't boo on his 7th. I would cheer. There will always be a nostalgic feeling for Mark Buehrle. That doesn't mean I want him to succeed. That doesn't mean I want him to fail (though I may have alluded to that in previous posts). I just really won't care. --- To Tex, who asked why Mark Buehrle should give the Sox a hometown discount - I touched on it in my previous post, but the fact of the matter is, the White Sox guaranteed him $14 million a year, $56 million total, and further guaranteed that he'd recieve an additional $19 million if they traded him before his 10/5 rights kicked in. This was about 10 calendar months and 3 1/2 baseball months after he'd put up the worst ERA of his career and it looked as though he may be losing it. They put their faith into him and gave him a contract that, at the time, he may or may not have received even on the free agent market. Perhaps he was giving the Sox the hometown discount then...I don't recall the board's reaction nor player value on that market. He generally doesn't owe it to the Sox to give a hometown discount, but the Sox don't need to match any offers either. If he is truly comfortable playing in Chicago, with the White Sox, and he doesn't want to leave, then he won't. And it will almost certainly come at some sort of hometown discount, because I think there will likely be richer offers on the table elsewhere. Like I said elsewhere, I don't believe it when his agent says that he will not give a hometown discount. I think that's all a drive for more money. I think, at the end of the day, if he's back in Chicago, it will be at some sort of "discount." And if not, then good for him. (I still won't care)

QUOTE (sox win @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) Just caught the last minutes of sox talk in Boston, But they brought up an interesting trade: Danks, Sale and Quentin for Ellsbury, Reddick and Ranaudo(currently in the minor's with supposedly huge upside). I have mixed feelings about this trade proposal, but the thought of having Ellsbury is tantalizing. Well, f***, I don't suppose anyone as actually looked at the problems in this trade. First, the White Sox HAVE outfielders. They may not be good outfielders, but they have outfielders. If we are still including Quentin, then they have two big upside bats, one expensive contract with high upside, one talented outfielder, and one jack of all trades outfielder. That's 5 MLB outfielders right there. Jacoby Ellsbury, him, yeah, I get it, he's good. He's not going to be 9.4 WAR good every year, but he's a legitimate 3-5 WAR player, every single year, given health. That's why it's a given here and not on the field. Josh Reddick is an outfielder. Why? Ranaudo was a college pitcher who struggled in his final season in college and did not do well in High-A this year, which is a level he should atleast succeed at, considering all of his factors. I won't rule him out, but, simply, no, no value at this point. In the meantime, the Sox give up their biggest trade chip, their second biggest trade chip, and arguably the most valuable player in the entire organization right now. Um, no You say "Ellsbury, Reddick, Ranaudo for Rios, Danks, Quentin, and Sale," and then we can talk. Until then, that is worse than any of the other hypothetical trades posted on here, which is exactly what it was. If Williams authorized that trade, then he would be canned immediately.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) That's just pathetic and makes you a terrible fan. Considering you are the king of hyperbole, this post is hilariously ironic. I can name countless examples, but I have no need. Ace, as far as I'm aware, still has it in his sig. --- I can go on a giant rant about "how I've been on the internetz longerz then u bro" and "I'm such a hardcore fan that I knew Adam Dunnz was gonnaz turn it aroundz" but no. I'm the terrible fan. I'm the terrible fan. Even though I mentioned at the very bottom of my post that I wanted Mark Buehrle to go to a place where he would be comfortable - even the Cubs. --- Perhaps saying "I want that shoulder to finally pop" was over the top. I don't. But if he signs with one of those 7 teams, I want to see nothing more than 5+ ERAs and being Barry Zito without the Cy Young and the 20 win season to his credit. At that point, I want him to go down as "Mark Buehrle, the hypocrite who ruined his career by leaving Chicago." He is not only a player that is appreciated by White Sox fans, but he is a person appreciated by White Sox fans. They are a group that understand what he said and where his commitments lie. And if he were to back out on those and sign for a big deal with someone like the Red Sox? A player who so epitomizes the South Side of Chicago to go and break their hearts like that? Guess it's fitting they brought back Ventura when they did, eh? --- If Buehrle signed with Detroit, would you hope for his success? "Against everyone except us!" except there is no us, there is a baseball team and their lack of knowledge of you, personally, Steve9347. Sure, you're ticket broker knows who you are, but does Mark Buehrle care? Does Brent Lillibridge care? Does Dylan Axelrod care? Does Brooks Boyer even care? How about Minnesota? Cleveland? Kansas City? Boston? New York? Yomiuri? Miami? Probably not Miami. You're used to stars spurning Chicago for the "bright lights" of Miami now, aren't you? oh, and don't ever call me a terrible fan. You know better than that.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 09:14 AM) I know that bag of money dropped in the Toronto airport raised a lot of eyebrows As did any number of other things. The guy speaks English all of his life, yet when in court, testifying against the allegations of steroid use (in which one person denied it and later tested positive and another plead the 5th and then later acknowledged use of it) can't understand it? Nevermind the fact that, as I recall, verbally committed to taking a urine test only to back out once said urine test was provided to him in a general interview. Sammy is and was guilty as f***. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 09:31 AM) My issue with this is how do you decide who was a steroid user and who wasn't? Did they guy have to be caught by baseball? Or implicated criminally? Or can you just do the eye test? It seems obvious that Sammy was a juicer, but he has never been really implicated in a case. How about a guy like Mike Piazza? People have him listed as a guaranteed Hall of Famer, but IMO he's just as obvious of a roider as the rest of them. There are some allegations out there, but nothing substantial. Why should he get in, because he didn't get caught? That's where coming out for some of these players is going to come in handy. I think Andy Pettitte has a better chance at the Hall of Fame, with much, much, much far inferior numbers to that of Roger Clemens, simply because he said "yeah, I tried it, didn't like it, and moved on." Piazza is a pretty poor example (ROY, probably the greatest hitting catcher of all time, did it his entire career even amidst sexual orientation rumors later on), but I get what you're getting at. At that point, it's subjective to the voters, but I think there is a general feel, amongst those who are actually Hall of Fame worthy, who did and who did not use steroids. The better question is to what level you rank amphetamine use. Illegal now, illegal legally always, but still prevalent as hell for a good long while. I don't think Frank says he's innocent, nor do I think any number of current hall of famers. We can draw lines anywhere we want, but the decision comes to them. Piazza gets in. Sosa won't. Thomas will. Thome will. Griffey will. Bonds will take a while. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) The guy from Wall Street? #WINNING Yes. As if some small perk is going to take some general nobody to a monstrosity of a big shot. I don't think steroids work that way, but I might be wrong.

Places for wite to visit in 2012: #1) Fort Wayne #2) Fort Wayne #3) Fort Wayne #4) Fort Wayne #5) Minneapolis (best friend lives there) #6) Fort Wayne #7) Fort Wayne #8) Chicago (I figure early May is the best time to catch a Sox game while they're still in it!) #9) Fort Wayne #10) Fort Wayne #11) Fort Wayne #12) Fort Wayne #13) Fort Wayne #14) Fort Wayne #15) Fort Wayne #16) Fort Wayne #17) Fort Wayne #18) Pierre. SD #19) Fort Wayne #20) Living room sofa (ASG) Maybe I should move to Fort Wayne just so I can fellate the greatest of them all? --- I did know he would go into coaching. He always seemed to have that voice on the field, and I think he would make just as good a manager as Robin Ventura. Hell, he should be on Ventura's staff if for nothing more than comedic relief and teaching players how to NOT hit from both sides of the plate.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 12, 2011 -> 05:32 AM) Couple of things Most people in this situation have kidnapping insurance. Which both helps them if they are kidnapped, but also makes them targets. So while he may not have been making the coin to pay any ransom directly, he was probably earning enough or the team paid, the premiums. There are beautiful places in Venezuela, and throughout Latin America that no one who has been there would describe as s*** holes. One of my retirement options is to Mexico to an area that has less crime than most small towns in America and far less than any American city. Without trying to Filibuster this... That doesn't mean there aren't terrible, terrible places within Venezuela itself. To keep my point brief: no matter the beauty of some of the country, it's not a place high on my list of places to visit. Nor is Egypt, nor is Thailand, and nor is Israel (or the Middle East itself). There are places (speaking entirely generally) within the US that 99% of Americans have not traveled to that will blow your mind too, and there is a niche for every single person. I am absolutely not comparing. I believe Angel Falls is in Venezuela, and that is the largest waterfall in the entire world. If your thing is waterfalls, then Niagara is only going to do so much. I've been to China and have experienced The Great Wall and the Forbidden City and the Terracotta Warriors, and there is nothing to compare to that either. There is absolutely nothing that compares to that. All I am suggesting is that these places are, to be as non-offensive as possible, not friendly places as of this current moment and that they should be on no one's tourist list without some sort of significant aid along the way. /sorry

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 07:06 AM) Knowing KW, that means he is definitely getting traded You don't know what Williams is doing until he actually comments. This tweet means absolutely nothing. In the last 5 years, I don't think I've ever seen Williams lie to the media. He's extremely vague and selective with his words, but I don't ever recall seeing him lie. If he said "Carlos Quentin will be a member of the 2012 White Sox team," then I'd believe Quentin won't be moved. I won't believe a thing otherwise.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) You trust him? Really? The guy who said Clemens didn't uses steroids and is one guy who would never cheat on his wife? Then its later revealed Clemens gave him hush money. Canseco is a whore. You can have lunch with him for $100. Kind of funny you disagreed with me on this. It's humorously ironic on any number of levels. I trust that the guy heard any number of things, had a good feel as to who was using and who wasn't, but generally think the guy wrote the book and mentioned the names for a reason - that being money. So someone gave him money to STFU about him not using steroids? Does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me in the least. Roger Clemens made $150 mill playing baseball, and that's not including any endorsement or side projects he took part in. Him parting with $10K (based entirely upon his MLB compensation) is roughly the same as a middle-upper class American giving $100-$500, and an upper class American $1,000. Canseco could use every single bit of it. It doesn't particularly surprise me that he mentioned 9 names and George Mitchell mentioned 80 more. One did it for money, one did it for justice. Bottomline, Canseco IS a whore. You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who disagrees with that, even Balta. --- Oh, and without knowing the levels at which Manny took steroids and any other PEDs, it's generally impossible to know what type of player he could have been. I don't know that Sammy Sosa was ever implicated on steroid use, but, unless he came out and admitted he used and when he started, it's impossible to know what type of player he was with and without steroids. Scouting reports suggested he had monstrous power ability and that he was a potential 30/30 threat when he was with the Sox, and he was not with the Sox long [baseball Digest, ca. 1992]. He was damn near a 40/40 player with the Cubs and was a 30/30 player twice with them before '98. At some point, natural talent DOES come into effect. You can be hyperbolic and say "because (said player) used steroids, they are just as likely to be a minor leaguer then they are a potential hall of famer." That seems to be the Bud Fox argument, and I simply can't agree with that. If a player is terrible, steroids make him bad; if he is bad, they make him not bad; if he is not bad, they make him mediocre; if he is mediocre, they make him OK..." Until we have proof otherwise, we can't make a fair assumption, so anybody MAKING assumptions is incredibly and inevitably wrong. The safest bet of all is to say "we do not know how good these players are or were without performance enhancing drugs, and we never will; thus, not only due to ethical reasoning, but general lack of perspective and knowledge, we cannot elect these players into the Hall of Fame, even considering their contributions to the game."

He is apparently still alive. That's good news.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) Mark doesn't owe us a hometown discount. I hope he's back, because he's fun, but I will root for him anywhere. f*** that. He signs with a team in the AL Central, the Yank Sawx (that's two teams), or the Marlins, and I hope that shoulder finally f***ing gives and his fastball only reaches 78. I love Mark Buehrle to death, but those are the 7 teams I do not want him signing with and I will hope for him to fail any time he pitches with those teams. In 2006, he put up a 4.99 ERA. In late July of the following season, the White Sox guaranteed him that he'd be set for life and that he'd have a steady income for the following 4 years, and if he ended up anywhere outside of Chicago before his 10/5 rights kicked in, it'd be an extra mill per year along with another year on top. Mark Buehrle has a title. He was a key member of that title. The f***er should have gotten a win and a save in consecutive games of said World Series (that is not justification for a hometown discount, merely a cool thought). Bottomline is, he SHOULD give the Sox a hometown discount, and I think he WOULD, given the circumstance. Even if his agent says they "are not giving a hometown discount," I do not believe it. That is agent talk for "we want more money." I do believe Konerko's agent said the same last year. If the Sox don't want to play ball, then Buehrle's party will play ball with anybody else. If the Sox offer him 4/$60, I think he takes that over 5/$75 from anybody else. If the Sox offer him 5/$70, I think he takes that over 5/$80. Bottomline, he should go where he is comfortable. I'd s*** bricks if he went to the Cubs (because he's not a "Theo" pitcher and whatever else), but if that's where he was given the best opportunity and wanted to see more of the country on a semi-regular basis, then good for him. I'd prefer to see him go to the Cards in that situation, but they have a bigger obstacle on their plate. --- I still think he ends up back with the Sox. I think it's very similar in value to the deal he signed in 2007, but with a team option with a very expensive buyout, similar to the 4/$60 I posted ($14 mill a year, say $18 option, $4 buyout, making him essentially worth $14 mill to the Sox in '15).

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 12:27 AM) Not buying it as that would make no sense whatsoever. LET'S MAKE A SLOGAN (this one is too easy and perhaps too cliche) Instead of "Under the radar," I'm going with "on the down low"

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) Because 1/2 that rotation has a decent chance at being bad. Which half? Danks Floyd Sa or le Peavy Humber/Stewart/Axelrod? Or is there some combination of those that I'm missing? --- Obviously poking fun. I get the point, and you're right, there is a lot that can go wrong with that rotation. Anybody counting on Chris Sale to be the #3 starter at this point is fooling themselves. The Sox will be LUCKY to get merely the innings pitched of Jaime Garcia during his rookie year...I'm expecting closer to 140-150. They'll be lucky to get the same out of Jake Peavy. And asking Humber, Stewart, and Axelrod to do the same? Jesus. BTW, when I "say" 'Dylan Axelrod,' does it sound like I'm "saying" 'John Ely' to anybody else?

Find it funny that in 33 posts, no one has made mention of that fact that this is a sign that the Sox will be shopping Thornton. You bring in two lefties on MLCs while already having committed 1 of your 3 lefties in the pen to the rotation for the following season, while either overtly or never mentioning the idea that you may be cutting costs the next season. The absolute easiest place to cut costs at this point is the bullpen. You can trade Danks and/or Floyd, but neither save much money for the production received. You can let Buehrle go (which seems like a semi-certainty at this point, though I think Buehrle and his agent will give the Sox one final offer before he puts ink to paper). Or you can trade the only real high-priced bullpen arm and get what value you can, offering him as a guy who can close in a jiffy but is still the best left handed setup guy in the entire game, even though you're only going to get 60-80 innings out of him. I'd be surprised if Matt Thornton is a member of the White Sox in December. I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if Matt Thornton is a member of the White Sox in January.