witesoxfan

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) He's good. Like Frank Thomas good. QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) I hope that the Blue Jays don't deal Halliday to the red sawks or the yanks. That just wouldn't be right. Trade him to an NL team! I do. If the Red Sox trade for Halladay - or Hanley for that matter - it takes them completely out of the Adrian Gonzalez sweepstakes, unless Theo Epstein goes insane.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) That seems to be a good question. So I will add my own questions, if it was OK, why did guys hide it? Why didn't one, just one, come out and say, hey this isn't banned so I'm using steroids? They all hid it. Many hid it from their teammates. That tells me a lot about whether the drug users thought they were doing something wrong or not. A person's answer to that will determined whether they think someone should be held accountable for their drug use. Not every amphetamine is illegal. I wouldn't be surprised if there are amphetamines in some energy drinks that average people are unaware that they are drinking. In fact, if I'm remembering the terminology correctly, there were always two pots of coffee in the clubhouse - the regular coffee pot and the "greeny" pot, which had an amphetamine in it. Personally, I would be surprised if there was an actual clean player before UA'ing went into place, and I imagine that the the banishment of amphetamines has had something do with the decrease in offensive potency over the past few years, perhaps even more than other PED use, including steroids and HGH. QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) That's still opinion and hearsay. There is no concrete proof. Uh, Andro? Check page 3, #4 on the illegal steroids on this list I don't care if he bought it at GNC or where he bought it, it's illegal by MLB standards now, he retired before UA testing went into place, and he was never subject to any of the testing. McGwire is dirty as f***. QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 28, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) Steroids don't always bulk you up. A lot of guys who have been busted are not that large. Alex Sanchez, and Pablo Ozuna as two examples. Giambi is still pretty large, as are Clemens and ARod - yet they have not officially "juiced" in years. Not every steroid bulks you up. Our household pro-steroid friend TRU (or whatever his name is now a days) can fill you in on that, or you can just research it. The huge point of steroids is that it increases recovery time, allowing players to play through injuries much better than they did before, and the fact that some can bulk you up and make you stronger only helps that. And that old fashioned "it doesn't make your eyes adjust any better" - well, no, I imagine it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it may be able to make your hips quicker or wrists faster, and, as a general principle in baseball, if you hit for power for any type of consistency, pitchers pitch around you. Jim Thome has a great eye, but if pitchers went after him more, he'd hit .240 with 50 homers and he'd only walk 40-50 times. The reason pitchers pitch around guys is because they don't want to get beat badly, and they'd much rather give 1st than home. Not always is this the case, but essentially, power = walks. BTW, Giambi also went out for an extended period of time, Clemens never started pitching in his latter years till June at the earliest, and Bonds missed an entire year. The fact that ARod was going to be the "clean" player that broke the "dirty" Bonds record probably played into the minds of the PR and marketing department of MLB headquarters, and when everything else broke out, they backed off. I have my theories as to the rest, but I'll leave it at that.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 11:55 PM) The spectrums in which tex and longshot both stand are pretty damn scary. Wow. Tend to get the best and worst of both realms, no?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) Jenks: preferably dealt, non-tendered at worst. The "worst" would be either Jenks doing something or something happening to Jenks that would make the Sox non0tendering him. Jenks is going to be on the Sox or someone else next year. Don't be crazy. QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 29, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) I actually think it's brilliant what Kenny is doing. The current market is vastly undervaluing veterans right now, so it's a good place to recoup some of the value we are overpaying on for guys like Konerko, Peavy, and Mark. Ken Williams is beating Billy Beane at his own game. Moneyball is all about getting undervalued players and plugging them into the system. There's a reason he traded Mulder and Hudson, let Giambi, Tejada, and Zito go to free agency, and signed Chavez to a fantastic deal (problems arose), and it had nothing do with them performing poorly, and all about them becoming way overvalued by the market, and he continues to do it to this day. Williams is doing the exact same in signing these veteran players to contracts actually below what would normally be their market value. He did the exact same thing before *gasp* 2005. Iguchi, Hernandez, Pierzynski, and Dye were all signed below what their market value would have been the following season. Hermanson was a different story, but his first half put the Sox into position to do what they did. Moneyball.

I know we never saw the slider, but couldn't Dewon Day get it into mid 90s? I seem to recall him hitting 95 or 96 a couple times. He didn't last long because his fastball was flat and his "plus-plus slider" was non-existant.

Atleast the Sunday lineups will be a hell of a lot more fun. Honestly, the first thing I thought of when I heard about this signing was Jermaine Dye signing with the White Sox for the first time. Dye was 2 years younger, but went through a similar transgression - .792, .514, .793 from 2002-2004, and then he came back with an .846 OPS for the Sox and was very solid beyond that. Jones has put up .724, .505, and .786 over the previous 3 seasons. I'm not going to predict an .850 OPS over 550 plate appearances, just noticing the similarities. I really, really like this signing. I just wish there was a team option for next season.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 07:48 PM) Griffey was not a better pure hitter than Frank Thomas. HR hitter? Sure but that's about it. Barry Bonds was the best hitter of the '90's. Absolutely. I haven't looked at the metrics, but Griffey very well may have been the best player of the 90s, because he played some pretty sick ass defense.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) If the "elite" tier comprises the top 20%, Jenks is roughly in the 60th percentile or bottom of the 2nd tier. That's average-to-slightly-above-average, depending on where the breakdowns occur in the hierarchy. Instead of only looking at raw performance, closers also need to be evaluated contractually. Trading for Soria or signing Valverde to a multi-year deal might put the Sox in a better position to compete in the short-term, but it's going to cost Kenny a heck of a lot more than the $6-7M that will be needed to keep Bobby in a Sox uni for one more year. I'll bet that the Omar Minaya would rather have Bobby's contract than K-Rod's right now. I've always suggested that Jenks' highest value is to the White Sox. I've just said he doesn't have a ton of value to anyone else.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) I think Jenks is in the top 7 in baseball, and at times can be the best. All baseball players are streaky, this year Bobby had a bad year in terms of his overall performance. If I had to rank closers in terms of trade value: 1. Soria 2. Bell 3. Papelbon 4. Street 5. Broxton 6. Nathan 7. Bell 8. Jenks 9. Capps 10. Bailey By ability: 1. Rivera 2. Soria 3. Papelbon 4. Nathan 5. Street 6. Broxton 7. Hoffman 8. Jenks 9. Bell 10. Capps How about by what the statistics say? And Matt Capps really doesn't belong in the discussion right now, considering the piss poor season he had and that injuries very well may have had something to do with it. He had three great seasons prior to that, so it's very possible he can bounce back, but I wouldn't rank him anywhere near a top 10 in value right now. I would say the guys with the most value right now are those on the free agent market. Mike Gonzalez, Rafael Soriano, Jose Valverde, and even Kevin Gregg, Fernando Rodney, and you can throw Octavio Dotel out there too. If I am a team looking for a closer, I'm much rather going to try and sign one of those guys, give up no players, and pray for the best. You just won't see closers with real good value this offseason. Beyond that, Jenks having 2 years of arbitration left and those two years going to be expensive years (very likely in the $16-17 mill range), it takes away from his value even more. I don't think Jenks is going to have much value, and I don't think this is the offseason to deal him. I would say deal him next midseason if the team is out of the race (which I do not envision happening) or come next offseason.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) Has there been any scuttlebutt recently about Damon juicing? Seems strange that he had the best year of his career at 35. He's had similar years to the one he just had in his career. 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2006. He also had a .915 OPS and 17 homers at home this season. It seems that Damon is just a good hitter, and the new Yankee Stadium helped that matter even more.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:29 AM) I'm not saying that Gary Matthews would be an ideal outfielder, or the best choice for this team. It might be one of a very few ways that you can dump Konerkos' contract however and you sure could do alot worse. Actually, the one team in this that makes a bit of sense for Matthews Jr would be San Diego. Not that he's suddenly going to start hitting by going to one of the best pitchers parks in the game, but they have to field some type of team. It would probably involve the Sox sending Konerko for a prospect and Matthews, and then the Sox sending a package of prospects, including the one they just received, along with Matthews and some cash for Gonzalez. Again, he has no real value, but the Padres aren't going to be competing in the next 2 years anyways, and if he rediscovers some type of form and allows the Padres to get a prospect for him or just straight up eats at bats that would have gone to an underdeveloped prospect, which could stunt the growth of said prospect, then it helps the Padres.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) 3.75 ERA, 1.36 WHIP with the Sox Definitely could have given up a few less baserunners, but you can do way way worse for a middle reliever. The Cubs just got a few prospects from Zona for Heilman who was worse than Pena Apparently both prospects were pretty bad though, so the Cubs sold low on Heilman.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) If Jenks is as good or better than 60% of the closers in baseball, how does that make him "close to a 3rd tier" closer? I understand your overall point, but "3rd tier" doesn't exactly imply slightly better than average. If 20% of closers in baseball are elite (1st tier), wouldn't that put Jenks right at the end of the 2nd tier? I agree that the Sox are probably better off signing Jenks to another one-year deal and having the freedom to use Thornton in the 7th or 8th. But if the Sox are able to include Jenks in a deal for Upton, I do that deal and look for a setup man elsewhere. I'm looking at it in regards to a 5 tier system, and 2nd or 3rd tier would put him right in the middle of the pack. That's mainly what I was referring to.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) Your "ratings" are ridiculous. No GM in baseball is gonna choose all of those guys listed above over of Bobby Jenks when they need a save. I don't believe you have even bothered to look at numbers once, and you are debating merely on the premises of instances and stats that are generally team dependent. Thus far, you've mentioned -the Rays need a closer because they blew 4 (it was actually 3, and one of them was in the 7th inning) straight saves -Jenks averages 35 saves a season, which has just as much to do with team performance than Jenks himself -he once retired a lot of guys in a row Joakim Soria only had one more save than Bobby Jenks last year, yet was far more dominant and a far better closer.

I still believe people are using selective memory in thinking of Tony Pena's "failure" with the White Sox. They have had better relievers before, but he was actually pretty solid for the Sox.

Frank Thomas was the second best hitter in the 1990s and the best right handed hitter of the 1990s. The fact that he testified in Congress during the steroid discussion and was the only active player who was never accused nor caught using steroids to help in coming up with the Mitchell Report. As funny as this will sound, Frank Thomas's character, along with his on the field accomplishments of course, is what is going to get him into the Hall of Fame, and it should be on the first ballot.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) Wow, this an awful idea. Paul Konerko, while overpaid for his position, is still a valuable offensive player. Even if we were to land Gonzalez, we need some hitters in the lineup who can drive in runs behind him. Unless you are moving Konerko for financial savings so you can sign such a player, you might as well just hold on to him for one more season. Taking on an even worse contract for one of the worst everyday players in baseball is crazy. Even if you are desperate for outfield defense in LF/RF, I'm sure you find just as good of an option who will cost you practically nothing. Hell, Jordan Danks would give you the defense and most likely a better bat (even as a rookie). I don't think you understand how bad Gary Matthews is. I agree that taking on Matthews would be a mistake, but I seriously doubt that Jordan Danks would be a better offensive player next year than Matthews would. The only reason I would rather have Danks over Matthews on the Sox next year is because Danks will cost more than $10 million less than Matthews.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 07:21 PM) That Todd Helton contract is quite the albatross, holy cow He keeps producing though and by the time he's done, he should probably be in the Hall, even if his career home and away splits are crazy (1.100 OPS at home, .885 on the road)

I don't follow the NBA like at all, but I was bored and looking through some pics, and Chris Paul literally looks like a coach on the sideline when he's in a suit. It seems like most injured players just put the suit on and hang out, whereas he literally looks like he could be an assistant coach on that team.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 10:13 PM) Wheeler was given a chance and so was Howell. The Rays blew 4 saves in a row to the Tigers at the end of last season. 4 blown saves in a week. Comparing Jenks, who is an elite MLB closer to the Committee of Fail the Rays sported last season is a joke. Of course the Rays want Jenks. Kenny is gonna have to eat some dosh if he moves him and you bet he would to aquire Upton. Joe Nathan Mariano Rivera Jonathan Papelbon Jonathan Broxton Heath Bell Francisco Cordero Francisco Rodriguez Trevor Hoffman Joakim Soria Jose Valverde Andrew Bailey Rafael Soriano I would rate all of those closers as being better than Bobby Jenks. That is 12 closers, or 40% of closers in baseball. I generally look at 10%, but since it is such a narrow field, I will say that the 20% of closers in baseball are elite. That leaves Jenks right around a 2nd or 3rd tier closer, and probably much closer to 3rd tier than 2nd tier. There were also pitchers, such as Ryan Franklin, Brian Wilson, and Huston Street, who have had a semi-sketchy history as a closer or reliever, but had better seasons than Jenks did this past season. Bobby Jenks is not an elite closer. Further, this is a great free agent market for closers, and the baseball economy is still catching up (it is usually a year or two delayed because there are still several inflated contracts from the 2006-07 and 2007-08 offseasons), and Jenks value takes an even bigger hit. Jenks has value, but he doesn't have a ton of it to the Rays, who I have proven have relievers who are just as good statistically, even if you cite one example where they blew 3 saves in a row (even if one of those "blown saves" happened in the 7th inning, which further proves the need to come up with separate statistics for holds and saves, and consequently, blown holds and blown saves), and they won't have a ton of interest in him. If they do, they are misplacing their value, and if the Sox can take advantage of it, then more power to them. Beyond even that, if the Sox trade Jenks, they are putting themselves back in a hole no matter what. Thornton is more than capable of closing, but Ozzie generally doesn't use his closer in anything but save situations, and making Thornton strictly a 9th inning pitcher takes away from his value in the 7th and 8th innings and a power lefty arm. If the Sox still have Richard or Poreda, I would strongly suggest it, but at this point, I struggle to see that situation working itself out well.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 09:47 PM) "they have both Wheeler and Howell, who are more than capable of closing games down for them." Wrong. Wheeler and Howell were HORRIBLE as were everybody else that tried to close for the Rays last season. Lack of a true closer cost them probably 15 wins last year. The Rays need a closer badly and Jenks is the answer. I'm certain Kenny has strategies to move Bobby + parts to TB for Upton. He's gonna overhaul the defense as much a possible in the next few months and he should. The Sox didn't take on $100M+ on Rios/Peavy contracts to watch another season thrown away by idiot defense and retarded baserunning. Wheeler was never given a chance to close, seeing as how he had 2 saves all year and only had 4 blown saves (which is still a BS statistic because you can blow a save in the 7th). Howell had 8 blown saves, but I'm not going to bother putting in the time and effort into figuring out which were in the 7th and 8th and which were in the 9th. I just know that they aren't going to put much value into a closer who put up a worse numbers than both Howell and Wheeler did last year, dealt with injuries last year, is out of shape, and is going to cost them around $7 mill. And I guarantee lack of a "true closer" didn't cost them "15 games". I would say a regressions in both the starting pitching staff and the offense cost them more games than anything else. They had Longoria for a full season, and Zobrist came out of nowhere, but they also had Burrell who was awful, Upton's OPS fell about 100 points, Navarro's OPS dropped almost 200 points. Further, the Sox have increased their defense already. Rios is an improvement on defense from Podsednik, Wise, or Dye, regardless of where he plays, and the Sox brought in Vizquel to be a defensive backup. Further, De Aza will likely provide very solid defense in LF late in games if Ozzie chooses to do that, and Kotsay will probably be able to handle himself in the corners.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 08:09 PM) http://www.sporcle.com/games/knightni/MLB_Expansion

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) I still think the full takeaway from this report was: 1. KW knows he needs a bigger bat 2. KW is interested in Gonzalez 3. KW would be willing to pay a high price for Gonzalez, but 4. The price for Gonzalez is currently high enough that KW doesn't want to meet it unless he can free up some space somewhere else to make up for what he'd have to lose in terms of prospects. agree, and it justifies the report

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 08:27 PM) Yeah, and if you put Trent Dilfer on a dominant team, he wins a Super Bowl. Last year, the Broncos had a pretty dominant team aside from the defense, and he went 8-8. Last year, the Bears had an average offense with a bad defense (not as bad as Denver's, but still bad) and they won 9 games. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with one of the best defenses in the history of the game. That's beyond dominant. And the Broncos didn't have anything close to a dominant team last year. Their Pyth W-L was 6-10. They scored 370 points, which was 16th (middle of the pack) in the NFL. They allowed 448 points, which was 30th (or 3rd worst) in the NFL. They didn't have anything close to a dominant team. Dominant teams don't go 8-8, and never flirt with 8-8. Dominant teams go 10-6 in a bad season. I believe you also just described the 49ers from the 80s, the 49ers from the 90s, the Cowboys from the 90s, the Packers from the 90s, the Bills from the 90s, etc. The Bears don't have an above average defense, they don't have one great wide receiver (unless you think really highly of Devin Hester), and this year, they haven't had anything close to a consistent or respectable running game. The Bears are an awful team. Jesus Christ was the son of God, and he could only turn water into wine - you can't expect Jay Cutler to turn s*** into a trophy.