29andPoplar

Some teams, players actually, have clauses in their contracts which allow them to skip "x" number of these types of obligations. There may also be the common sense factor, i.e. if a guy is getting treatment before the game or whatever, he may be excused. There could be all sorts of reasons, but I do know not all the guys are there signing for every Kid's Day.

This is a damned important last six weeks. They have all kinds of starter candidates and need to get a sense of who they can rely on for 2008. It is possible those decisions have already been made. Then again, you have question marks after Buehrle, Vazquez, and Garland. With those three you basically know what you'll get, factoring in some inevitable ups and downs. Then you have guys like Contreras, Danks, Floyd, Masset, Sisco, Broadway, even Haegar, and possibly guys like McCullough, Egbert, Gonzalez and maybe a few more. The last three you don't really worry about for 2008 as they likely aren't ready yet. As for Contreras, Danks, Floyd, Masset, Sisco they have to do the best they can to figure out if these guys will contribute and be consistent in 2008. How they do that is a big question. But I hope they're not relying on Tucson to answer pitching questions. It is notoriously easy to misjudge pitching in that environment.

It is true, certain players are sometimes excused for various reasons. Two different times I went with a neighborhood group and heard the parents and kids expressing their disappointment that certain guys weren't signing. I seem to recall it was the starting pitcher and a bullpen guy or two. I'm not into autographs so I can't recall specifically, but I do know certain guys weren't signing those two times.

I heard it differently, and read it differently in today's paper. Cooper called down to Jenks and asked him if he wanted an inning, Jenks said yes. Cooper mentioned it to Ozzie and according to Cooper, Ozzie looked at him kind of funny. Cooper then said for Ozzie to call down and ask Jenks himself. Guillen then called down to Jenks and asked if Jenks was sure he wanted to come in, noting to Jenks the intensity level wouldn't be there (non save situation). Jenks assured Guillen it wouldn't be a problem, he wanted to pitch an inning. Guillen then made the decision to bring Jenks in. (key sentence) This is no different than what happens all across baseball on any given day. Pitching coach indicates a guy is wanting to pitch an inning, manager wants to double check directly with the pitcher, pitcher gives the right answer, manager makes the decision. Bottom line, if Guillen didn't want Jenks pitching yesterday, he wouldn't have had Jenks come in the game.

That Great Falls team must be fun to watch, here is the box http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/st...ox&did=milb One in the 8th to tie, one in the 9th to win it 2-1. The starter, Moreno, with a heck of an effort.

Again, my strong sense with this situation is yes, they clearly tried to trade him. But he was pitching poorly and any kind of offer they got wasn't satisfactory. It is not as if they're launching a utility player here. This guy is a relatively proven starting pitcher and teams don't just give them away. Especially the White Sox. Look at everything they've been saying and doing. They put him in the pen to help him get straightened out and give him a breather. This guy is an asset and despite the message boards insisting it's necessary to eat salary and give this guy away, it won't happen. By the way I am posting these remarks based on what I believe mgmt. will do. That is based on what they have done in the past. For one, they collect pitching, they don't give it away. Two, they don't eat contracts, generally they insist other teams eat parts of contracts (Vazquez/Thome). Third, they have great admiration and respect for Contreras, this guy works extremely hard and cares a great deal. They absolutely have a choice, and the choice they're making for right now is to get this guy back on track so he can be an asset next year - either for a trade or in the White Sox starting rotation.

I'm trying to remember the last time the White Sox traded a guy and paid a significant part of his contract.

Actually I underestimate nothing. I have been around the team quite a bit in spring and see how much effort he and the coaches put into the players, the relationships, the teamwork and camaraderie. A lot of this ego, temper, and supposed favoritism is complete crap, a product of the media and message boards. A fan puts a spin on something and suddenly it's gospel. He is far from perfect, far from it. He makes mistakes but his heart is in the right place, and that place is wanting this team to win.

Yes, I understand about losing some payroll and you may very well be right. The question is, though, how do you do it? How do you dump him? Not sure any team would assume the contract outright. If the Sox designate Contreras for assignment (which they won't), they are still responsible. The only way they get out from under the contract is to trade him, even for nothing, with the other team picking up his contract. There are no buyout clauses in his contract as I understand it. The best course of action, and the one the White Sox will take, is to get Contreras as useful as possible so he is an asset in some shape or form in 2008. Last night was a step in the right direction. Contreras isn't finished in my opinion. The Sox may have to give him breathers over the course of the next two years. That isn't unheard of. Skip a start here and there, count on him for hopefully 25 quality starts and the team is getting at least some value for the $10M. Unless I'm missing something, not sure how the White Sox can just walk away from the 2 yrs. / $20 Million and be under no further obligation.

How exactly do they do that?

You couldn't be more incorrect, but that's been hashed out enough as well.

I have talked to Barry Rozner many times over the years. Here is the deal, Rozner loves hockey, in fact he plays rat hockey quite a bit out in the western suburbs. For a long time he bashed former Hawk GM Mike Smith ... much of which was deserved but much of which went beyond professional into personal. I happened to talk to Mike Smith about this and Smith indicated he'd asked Rozner, several times, to come down to the United Center so they could talk and work things out. Rozner always refused, according to Smith. A year or so later I ran into Rozner at an event and asked about Smith, and Smith's statement that Rozner refused a chance at a sit-down. Rozner's response was basically, "why do I need to sit down with that a-hole, I'm a columnist, I can write what I want" etc. etc. I sensed a personal grudge of some sort but left it alone. If anyone had been reading Rozner at that time, Rozner was on the Dale Tallon bandwagon. Talked about how Dale had been pinballed around the organization, was doing a great job scouting, and how Mike Smith "wronged" Dale. People will recall that Tallon was the player personnel guy for 3-4 years, moved over to broadcasting again, and then when Smith got launched, he got the Asst. GM position under Pulford. Here is why Rozner doesn't like Tallon, it's simple ... one of Rozner's bestest buddies from the west suburban hockey "clique" is Billy Gardiner. Gardiner was the Blackhawks color guy and got squeezed out when Tallon got put back into the broadcast booth. As a side note, the Wirtz's have more loyalty to Tallon than to Billy Gardiner. Gardiner played for the Blackhawks in the 80's. Mike Keenan didn't like Gardiner (as a player, in the late 80's) and Pulford traded him for a bag of pucks to appease Keenan. Well Gardiner bounced around to a couple of teams (Vancouver and Hartford as I recall, not certain) and ended up playing in Europe. Pulford brought him back in the early 90's (going from memory here) because he wanted to do Gardiner a favor: Gardiner had played in about 375 or 380 games, and 400 NHL games is a magic number, players get a lump sum pension settlement at age 55 if they play in 400 NHL games. It is no small sum ... $250K. Gardiner didn't reach the 400 mark. He ended up about 15 short (386 NHL games, again, from memory) and he played most of his last year in the minors. Soon afterwards, he began popping up on the Blackhawks postgame radio and TV ... Pulford liked him, wanted to do him a favor, etc. etc. Back to Tallon now. When Tallon got shoved out of the Player Personnel role by Smith and back to the broadcast booth, Gardiner was unhappy that Tallon didn't show the proper level of sympathy (according to Gardiner) about squeezing Gardiner out of a job. Smith had problems with Gardiner all along. Gardiner was the color guy with Foley on TV. Gardiner and Foley liked to have a few drinks on road trips, they both knew a lot of hockey types, and they'd tell tales out of school about Smith behind his back. Smith was (still is) a bit "personality challenged". He is not a warm guy, in fact he tends to rub people the wrong way but he has a good heart. Anyways, Gardiner and Smith didn't get along. Smith wanted his own guy as Player Personnel Director (Nick Beverly, from Toronto), and suggested to the Wirtz's that Tallon simply move back to the broadcast booth. And that's what happened. Anyways, Gardiner went running to Rozner about how Tallon didn't show any sympathy to Gardiner for getting ousted. Gardiner, from what I've heard, never did mention to Rozner that Pulford and Peter Wirtz told him to stop yapping in taverns on road trips, i.e. stop knifing Smith in the back. Rozner, being Gardiner's buddy, painted a soap opera-esque portrait of how "nice guy Billy Gardiner" was being wronged by the big bad Blackhawk organization, and what a crummy guy Dale Tallon is. Ever since then, Rozner has loved taking shots at Tallon. At the same encounter, I mentioned to Rozner how Gardiner was done a favor by the Blackhawk organization ... they gave him a job because he didn't hit the 400 game mark. I asked Rozner if he realized that whole situation, he kind of stammered and said "well they didn't treat him right by squeezing him out of the broadcast booth". Rozner knows hockey pretty well but he is the typical media guy who can't hide his personal grudges very well.

CWS, I will answer this and then bow out, yes, I tend to agree that Owens is not much good if not using (or allowed to use) his speed. But then again I'm a bit biased because I don't think Jerry will ever be a key piece for a White Sox team that contends for a championship. But anyways I guess my main point was Guillen took the conservative route and showed faith in his proven veteran players to get the job done (get a base hit to drive in the tying run). One could certainly argue he did not show faith in Owens' ability to steal a key base. The flip side to that, of course, is he showed faith in a young player - Josh Fields - to get down a key bunt at a critical time. I understood why he made the bunt call. Thought it was conservative, but understood the rationale. We have to remember too, that if Owens swipes 2nd base, that changes Cleveland's strategy. The whole inning could've been played out differently and there is no guarantee Thome hits a deep fly ball. Anyways ...

Well I will respectfully bow out of this discussion because it seems like there's some personal history here and I don't want to be in the middle. Have a great afternoon and Saturday evening gents.

One of the biggest reasons this team is 10 games out is because the players haven't executed. The #3 and #4 hitters come up (and subsequently the #5 hitter) and none can get a base hit. I don't recall the second game, but if I read the papers correctly ... wasn't the bunt attempt popped up and then Owens got the green light to steal? A bunt is almost always called for the first pitch though, so that aspect of it is, to me, immaterial.

Guillen explained the move to the press. He said V. Martinez has been throwing better and Owens isn't a sure thing to steal. Further he said he wanted a safer way to get Owens into scoring position and a bunt was it. Finally he said he wanted a guy in scoring position with his best hitters coming up to drive the guy in. Doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Conservative, yes, but not far fetched.

Poreda is on a pitch count at Great Falls, the pitching coach Curt Hasler wants to keep him under 70 pitches per outing. Supposedly his best fastball last night was 96.

Good thread here. They picked him up for a reason but miscalculated greatly on his ability to contribute to a big league bullpen. Even when the Royals had him, their long term plan was to convert him to a starter. They carried him for a year as a Rule 5, by necessity he was in the bullpen and ended up being surprisingly effective for such an inexperienced guy. So they left him in the bullpen for the next year and he fell apart. The league has a knack for adjusting to young players and Sisco didn't have the experience to readjust. Sisco has a really good strong arm but needs experience, confidence, and innings. I don't think the White Sox will give up on him, especially with these very good recent starts in Charlotte. Obviously you can't keep everyone, and the White Sox do have some desireable young pitching. But they are very encouraged with his progress as a starter.

Hey Spence, does Bourgeois bat from the left or right side? The Knights roster and milb.com list him as a right handed hitter, the picture you posted shows otherwise.

A good section for this site would be Frequently Asked Questions or Frequently Stated Misconceptions. Not criticizing anyone here but a lot of these same questions come up on message boards. Rules, front office stuff, and so on. How do waivers work, how do options work, who actually employs the broadcasters, things like that.

Correct. It seems like on internet message boards, there's been an overabundance of "email Brooks Boyer" on anything concerning the White Sox. Boyer is not in charge of broadcasting. The internet is a wealth of information and it baffles me why people can't look stuff up before posting "email Brooks Boyer". On the main White Sox site, click on Roster, then click on Front Office. Scroll down and there it is for everyone, a section on Broadcasting and Business Development. The guy in charge is Bob Grim (and he has been the one in charge, for years and years). Bob is the Sr. Director of Business Development and Broadcasting. Bob is the guy to contact (no I don't have his email address) but I suspect he knows all about the Steve Stone love, Singleton's contract expiring, fans varying degrees of unhappiness with Harrelson/DJ/Farmer/Singleton and so on. But if people want to weigh in with their opinion, he is the guy to contact with the White Sox. For Comcast, WGN, and 670 AM, they all have a sr. management contact too.

Yes, absolutely. The only team in fuller panic mode might be a few NL West teams and the Brewers.

Exactly - the arbitration year being affordable is a key point and increases Podsednik's value. Nothing saying the Cubs couldn't sign him to a one year deal for 2008 and flip him in spring training for another asset. This is exactly why Williams should hold out for more than just the proverbial bag of balls.

The only way the Cubs can get Murton off the 40 man (which they won't do) is to: 1. place him on waivers 2. Murton clears waivers 3. the Cubs decide to outright him to the minor leagues It is the same scenario in which the White Sox outrighted Casey Rogowski off the 40 man roster earlier this year. The Sox put him on waivers, no team claimed him, and the Sox outrighted his contract to Charlotte.

Interesting conversation here. Had Westbrook still been in there in the 9th, if I were Guillen I send Owens. Reason being, they only had two hits off the guy and Westbrook was inducing a ton of ground balls. If Owens was successful stealing, even if Guillen orders a bunt to get him to 3rd with one out, with Westbrook out there dealing, getting a sac fly is very iffy. With Borowski in there, actually I do what Guillen did. Get the guy into scoring position via bunt, don't risk him getting thrown out on a steal attempt. Show faith in Thome and Konerko to drive the guy in from 2nd. That's just me though. I'm sure it can be argued either way, on both sides. The one thing we do know is Thome nor Konerko nor Pierzynski could get a big base hit. What new for the '07 White Sox?