29andPoplar

Here's one to ponder: Lew Ford got outrighted off the Twins 40 man roster. Not sure if he chose to become a FA.

This move may have been planned a year ago. Who knows. Cox was unavailable, tied up with the Pirates. Razor Shines only got a one year contract. Seems plausible they have had their eye on Cox for a while. Hopefully he is a good addition.

The quote was, cheaper than any alternative and then the 12 yr. old girl part. I assume GP was being facetious about the 12 yr. old girl statement because I've seen his posts here and he's much smarter than to believe that. As for the cheaper than any alternative, no, that is not true. As someone above alluded to, Owens was a cheaper alternative and Erstad was a cheaper alternative and Anderson in effect was a cheaper alternative too. Any of the three could have started in LF over Podsednik. From piecing everything together, it is somewhat as you say. Podsednik was in my opinion clearly a 2nd or maybe 3rd choice. They could have just cut the cord with him even after not getting far with Pierre or Dave Roberts or whoever else. In hindsight they should have cut the cord. However they took a calculated risk and thought he could stay reasonably healthy. He didn't obviously but it's not as if Podsednik doesn't work hard to get in shape. In fact many say he works too hard. But it didn't work out and was a bad decision. They could have gone totally cheap and stated the job is Owens' coming into spring. They didn't do that.

A perfect example of what the White Sox guy said.

I've asked a number of people a number of times if they read the White Sox message boards. The answer I've consistently heard is no. Now it's possible they may be lying and I'm sure someone will add a post correcting me or saying just the opposite, that so and so reads it as does so and so. But thinking they'll read this board, feel shame, and do a better job? Highly doubtful. They don't come here to gather ideas for personnel or development moves, that's for sure. I did have a very high ranking White Sox guy tell me "they're message boards, and message boards have a lot of misconceptions, bad assumptions, and misinformation". Quote. They are one heck of a lot more upset about 2007 than anyone here.

As far as I can tell, this is a brand new position (for 2008 anyways). I don't see anyone in the 2007 media guide with the same title as Bell will have. Nate Oliver, the organization's bunting and baserunning coach, was let go. I expect more additions/changes over the next few months.

Here's what he had to say about Egbert in the chat. "Egbert was in the mix for the list based on his performance, but he has a modest ceiling, as a No. 5 starter or middle reliever, and some kinks in his arm action. Like Chris Mason, he attacks hitters and has no fear, so he made the most out of his stuff this summer and made a very good impression in the league."

I asked a question about Egbert, let's see if it gets answered. The chat is moving slowly, I guess the guy doing it cut his finger last night and can't type that fast anyways. Just for kicks, here are his comments on two guys the White Sox drafted at one point but did not sign, Van Pope and Donald Veal. Not surprised to see Van Pope omitted from the list, but I was wondering how much of his trouble was caused by pressing due to playing in front of family and friends and how much was just lack of talent. Is there still hope for Van? Thanks for the chat! A: Alan Matthews: He really had a bad year, and while his family was not brought up during conversations with folks in Mississippi, it didn't help matters when he started to struggle. He's got to improve his approach. One scout quipped that Pope has the Andy Roddick approach, because he's so dead-red pull, it's as if he's trying to hit everything on the chalk. He has some raw power and a big arm, but the bat has a ways to go. Q: Ben from Leland Grove asks: Is Veal still considered one of Chicago's top arms? What are your opinions on him? A: Alan Matthews: I am in the minority here in the BA offices, but I like Veal, and considered him for the list despite the fact that he continues to have bouts where he has no feel for the strike zone. He doesn't repeat his delivery and he seems to have a hard time with the mental approach to pitching--when things go bad, they can really unravel on him. But he has a huge arm, has been up to 95 mph this season from the left side, and there are some ingredients there to work with. There were times when Dontrelle Willis looked like a trainwreck in the minors, and the Cubs let him go before he established himself in the big leagues. Veal won't likely slide out of their grasp until they're convinced he can't master his mechanics.

Here is what Baseball America had to say about Gio Gonzalez: More than one scout referred to Gonzalez as the league's pitcher closest to the majors after Parra graduated to Milwaukee. For the third straight summer, he pitched at least 130 innings, and his 185 strikeouts were a career high and tops in the minors. Gonzalez has a polished three-pitch repertoire that's highlighted by one of the minors' best breaking balls. He has great feel for and confidence in his two-plane curveball, which changes hitters' eye level and grades as a plus-plus pitch. He adds and subtracts from his fastball, which ranges from 86-92 mph and has occasional run and sink. He also has feel for a changeup, which provides him with a legitimate third weapon. He has solid-average command, though he has a tendency to fall off the mound to the third-base side, causing him to miss his spots. "I can remember one outing where he had our hitters talking to themselves," Sauveur said. "He's got big league stuff."

I applaud his post actually. He is making just as strong a statement from the other end of the spectrum, he is stating he knows Shines personally and is defending him, nothing wrong with that, unless I'm missing something?

Agree with you on this. Even if NYY pull the improbable and go all the way, I think Torre will walk away on his own terms. He is 67, his family has been pestering him, and looking at it objectively he doesn't have anything to prove at this point.

It's good you have an open mind, but also bear in mind it's not just about one team in the division making the "right" moves, let's say for the sake of discussion the White Sox. All teams make moves, and every team in the Central will make moves. The complexion of each team will change. Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, KC will all look differently. Some will make more changes than others. The key factor is this, some moves for these teams will work out, some won't. It is way to soon to simply look at the White Sox, basically in a vacuum, and predict they will struggle. I certainly agree it's possible, even very possible. It's also possible the other teams will make some moves that won't work out which will negatively impact their results. Which is why I like to look at things at the end of spring and not much before.

Maybe you're right but I have this long standing habit of seeing what the White Sox do in the winter and up through spring training, and what the other teams in the division do during the same time frame before making such pronouncements. How anyone can say they will or won't contend, pretending or assuming they know what moves can or cannot be made, is beyond me. No one here knows what budget flexibility they have, who might be intereseted in White Sox players around the league, and all sorts of other factors. I would espouse a wait and see what happens mindset. But that's just me.

You completely misinterpreted what I said, my point was he was a very good pickup for that round, or any mid to late round. It was a good piece of scouting to pick him up, in no manner whatsoever did I either say or mean to use his draft round against him. Hopefully this clarifies and you will stop interpreting things that aren't there. If you have a question as to what I mean, please ask me, I will gladly answer. The "oh please" stuff, please leave that out. Thanks!

Oh please yourself. I didn't use the round he was drafted in against him, what are you talking about. First of all I'm well aware of why he fell in the draft, you are not the only one who follows the minors and the draft. Second, the point was, their scouting was good enough in this instance to pick a young guy whose stock fell, and let him develop into a prospect they liked and other teams liked. The fact is they picked up an asset and a very good asset with that 16th or whatever round pick. Then, if Phil Rogers is to be believed they decided they'd rather trade Young than Anderson, which was a bad piece of scouting, and they banked on Vazquez to improve in 2006, which was another piece of misguided scouting. Seems like I'm repeating myself. Maybe because you are looking to argue?

OK, well there is always another side. Here it is. First of all we don't know if Phil Rogers is correct in his statements or not. I do agree if Arizona wanted Anderson, it was a bad error by the Sox. Emphasis on IF. Secondly, coming off a World Series year, Williams and company knew the pitchers were taxed. Turns out they were right, the pitchers were indeed taxed. So, bring in an arm that can throw 200 innings and be a pretty good pitcher. Turns out Vazquez had a particularly bad year, and he did not improve as Williams expected him to (key issue). So, no matter how you slice it there was some incorrect scouting. But if you think about it, there was some good scouting that took place to get Chris Young in the 16th round and be able to trade him for a starting pitcher. If you asked all the major league teams if they'd trade a 16th round pick for a starting pitcher, they would say they would. (I understand they gave up others as well) I will also state I am not enamored with Brian Anderson and am surprised (annoyed?) they have been keeping him in the organization. There are many here who think Anderson was "wronged" but in my opinion the people who were wronged were the White Sox fans when Anderson wasn't traded at least a year ago. We deserve better and hopefully we will get it.

Also very informative, great comments chisoxfn. I would guess another player who has a bitter taste of Guillen would be Arnie Munoz. Guillen is like Razor Shines in one way, they will both be hard on young players to hopefully make them better. Doesn't mean there isn't a better way, maybe a softer approach works with some guys. And as you know I'm sure, there are always players who will dislike a coach or manager, and sometimes that dislike is warranted. The only thing I knew for sure about Sean Tracey was this, the pitching people were always always always after him to throw strikes and not be afraid of contact and trust his stuff, and work hard to keep his mechanics in check. Sean is 27 now. I figured if he had the "right stuff" so to speak, he would have made it in Baltimore, a place with pitching woes and a highly respected pitching coach. That didn't happen. Also I appreciate your honesty in stating you may be biased, but from reading this post and others I would say you are not biased at all. It seems like you try to look at all sides and express that in your posts, which I always enjoy reading by the way.

Very informative, it sounds like you either work for or with the Birmingham club, thank you for your comments. My impression of Shines although much more limited than your experiences, is he is a strong willed guy and I would agree I see a bit of a tough exterior, kind of like many leaders in todays sports world have a tough exterior. I would also agree with you that it's very possible Razor and Ozzie are different types of people. When I see Guillen's explanation on the White Sox site, it makes sense to me and I accept it at face value. They want a different skillset from the 3B coach and that's ok, it happens a lot around the major leagues. From the 3-4 interviews I heard with him, he sounded very family oriented and some religious values sort of came out. Thanks again for your insight, as I said it was very informative.

My opinion is never law either so we agree on that. I too will call out stuff very directly if I strongly feel something is off base, otherwise I would just as soon leave it alone like lots of stuff in game threads. Anyways I guess we also agree on impressions of one another and it's fine by me and hopefully it's fine by you too.

Not a bad idea fathom!

As well you should. Me too!

Well that's great, Tucson is a wonderful place, so is/was Sarasota. Funny about your last sentence, I have the exact same impression of you.

When it's posted in wink-wink nudge-nudge halfspeak, it can be misinterpreted ... very easily ... and that can prove to be more hurtful. I am pretty upfront as to how I'm connected, actually I'm not, I spend a lot of time at spring training, know some people in the neighborhood who have connects and am willing to ask questions of Sox personnel and always get what I deem is a pretty straight answer.

The only reason I question things is because I am fortunate to be able to spend time around the team almost every spring. That doesnt make me an authority, but when I see something posted here that in my opinion is a bit, shall we say cockeyed, I will ask questions for clarity's sake. It is not necessarily that I'm doubting anyone, although there are those I do doubt but that's neither here nor there.

Again, if Phil Rogers is the definitive authority. Phil is a nice guy and he has the gift many Texans have, he knows how to spin a good yarn.