Buehrlesque

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Probably nothing too suprising here but this is what I am told the lineup would look like if opening day were today: Pierre - LF Beckham - 2b Quentin - RF Konerko - 1b Rios - CF AJ - C Jones - DH Teahan - 3b Ramirez - SS I like it, especially the part about Rios hitting 5th. PK and AJP should not hit back to back.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 13, 2010 -> 06:52 PM) Well I'd say his chances of clearing waivers have reduced quite a bit now that ESPN is pimpin' him. ^Haha, first thing I thought of as well!

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Mar 13, 2010 -> 10:27 AM) I wouldn't realign anything. I would tweak the AL West & NL Central though. Why does the NL Central have 6 teams, while the AL West only has 4? Here is what i would do: NL Central: Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds NL West: Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Rockies, Padres, Giants NL East: Braves, Marlins, Mets, Phillies, Nationals AL Central: White Sox, Tigers, Royals, Indians, Twins AL West: ASTROS, Rangers, A's, Angels, Mariners AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Orioles, Blue Jays New Playoff format: 1. Shorten Spring Training. 2. Begin the season March 15th 3. Regular season would end September 20th. 4. Wild Card would play 2nd Wild Card team in a 3 game series to move into the divisional round. This means 5 teams in each league would make the playoffs. Here would be the setup: AL Central, AL West, & AL East Champions would make the playoffs. The 2 other teams would have best records of the 'non' division winners in each league. Wildcard round: September 22-25th. Best of 3 series while the other teams get a rest. Winner of series would play the AL Division champion with the best record. In summary: The Astros move to the AL West. EVERY division would have 5 teams, while 10 teams in the MLB would make the playoffs. The season would begin earlier, Spring training would be shorter, and the World Series would ended in October, not November! Thoughts? I like it! Mainly because it's similar to my plan, with the Wildcard round and all. Moving the Astros to the AL west would balance the divisions, but then there would be an odd number of teams in each league, meaning you would either a.) be forced to have an interleague game somewhere in MLB every day or b.) one team from each league would be off every day. Are you OK with interleague being year-round?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) Many pitchers honestly feel that spring training isn't long enough to get their arms stretched out. True. And then some, like Mark Buehrle, do everything they can to avoid throwing a lot of innings in the spring to preserve their arm for the season.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 03:38 PM) I think someone here with good sources said the sox wanted to sign Nick Johnson, but Ozzie didn't want him as well. (before the Pierre deal) Really? I hadn't heard that before. Very interesting.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 11, 2010 -> 01:54 AM) I really don't like the two bolded parts. 1) Shortening ST doesn't help anyone. It just makes the players have to work harder when they're there, and it gives them less time to work on things while also providing less time for the players on roster bubbles to prove themselves. The players would just have to get ready earlier. Besides, cold weather cities are just going to have more problems if the season starts earlier. What MLB needs to do is find a way to make ST more lucrative for all clubs in baseball. Perhaps a couple prospect showcase games, maybe some All-Star break type festivities, something like that. MLB needs to get more people to ST. 2) Shortening the season is a terrible idea. Baseball is supposed to have 162 games per season and shortening it just makes records harder to achieve. I don't see any reason why there would need to be fewer games. Realignment and stuff is all way, way down the list of priorites anyway, or at least it should be. The biggest problems in MLB right now have to deal with the arbitration process, the comp pick process, the Rule-4 draft, the lack of ability to trade draft picks, the fact that MLB just looks the other way when teams completely ignore slot recommendations, the problems in foreign baseball academies, the Japanese posting process, etc. The international signing system is probably the most scrutinized of all, but it also might be the most fair system of all because at least all teams have an equal shot at a player if they can afford him. But even this system is bad because dealings are shady, undeserving players get big money, etc. and it's also begging to be exploited by American players in the future. I also think there needs to be a draft lottery so that way teams like the Nationals and Pirates don't automatically benefit from tanking all the time. But there are a ton of issues that need to be addressed before realignment is considered. And really, there's no perfectly fair system. A salary cap would be bad for baseball, and you can't make small-market teams put all their money into on-field talent just to chase .500 when what they really need is superstar prospects down on the farm. There will always be teams like the Rays, A's, Twins, etc. that have to find ways to compete with other higher payroll teams (although Target Field is going to help the Twins for a bit). Maybe an idea would be for MLB to redistribute revenue sharing money in a way where, for example, 20-30% of funds from the top-10 teams in the league go toward subsidizing farm system costs for the bottom-10 teams in the league, and maybe this would help an organization turn over a bit quicker and at the same time help out with the idea of parity. But then there's the issue of s***ty management just pissing away money and teams still not ending up profitable. I imagine as long as baseball is around these issues will be around. KHP, I see your points, but I would wager that if you asked the players, they'd honestly tell you spring training is too long right now. It was designed, back in the day, to get players into physical shape after winters away from baseball working at different jobs. Now most of the players come into spring training in good shape. And when I say shorten spring training by a week, I mean have it start a week later, not end a week earlier, so it wouldn't effect the start of the regular season. I do like your "Prospect Showcase Game"/ASG-type festivities idea. The regular season- baseball isn't "supposed" to have 162 games, it's an arbitrary number now. The formula worked in 1961, when 18 games times 9 league opponents = 162. But with the expansion, it doesn't matter anymore. A big reason why players use PEDs is just to make it through the season because it's so long and grueling. Amphetamines, especially. Getting through September and October is tough. Again, I bet if you asked the players they wouldn't mind cutting a few games off the end of the season. Additionally, it would make room for more playoff baseball, which I value highly, without the season running into November. As for making records harder to achieve, I couldn't care less. Every era of baseball is different. Roger Maris set the homerun record in 162 games, while Babe Ruth only had 154. (and when Ruth played, a ball that bounced over the fence was considered a homerun- its now a GR double.) The most wins in a season is 116- set by the 1906 Cubs in only 152 games. It's fun to compare eras, but you will never have a perfect match due to the different rules, PEDs, league talent levels, etc. I have no problem saying Babe Ruth is the single season homerun king in the pre-1960 era, Roger Maris is the kind of the 162-game era, and Barry Bonds is the king among steroid users. (Bonds' accomplishment is cheaper historically, obviously, but still significant compared to other steroid users of his era.) I fully admit the owners would fight all that shortening, because it would affect their bottom line. That's why I'd propose a revenue-dictated cut back in players salaries. That still might not work, but wouldn't it be nice to have a MLB competitive decision be dictated by COMPETITIVE BASEBALL for once and not purely money? -By the way, I agree with a bunch of your other points: a salary cap is a terrible idea, and the many draft/international players issues are a top priority.

That floating realignment of Bud's is just a terrible idea. Here's what I would do: Keep all divisions exactly the way they are. Shorten spring training by one week. Shorten the season to 150 games, cutting mostly interleague play. Include one "Double-Header Saturday" in June, July and August across MLB. 3 division winners in AL and NL all make playoffs, as always. Top 2 Wildcard teams in each League play a one game playoff to determine who wins the Wildcard. Eliminate the "you can't play a team from your own division in the 1st round" rule. (How stupid is that one?) Extend first round (LDS) to Best-of-7. I don't like the Wildcard because it puts you on completely equal footing with division winners, who deserve a greater advantage/reward for winning their division. You played 150+ games darn it, winning the division is a big deal! In my plan, you couldn't "clinch" the Wildcard. You want to "clinch" something and get an automatic playoff berth? Then win your division! Everybody loves single elimination Game 163s, so why not institute them every year? That would make the Wildcard race more interesting down the stretch, make the playoffs more reachable for small budget teams, and by forcing the 2 Wildcard teams to use their best starting pitcher in the Play In Game, give the division winners a deserved advantage in the LDS. With players staying in shape year round, there's no reason for spring training to be as long as it is. It's just the owners trying to milk as many profits out of spring as possible. The regular season could be cut by two weeks also, to avoid November baseball. For competitive reasons, no playoff series should ever be less than a Best-of-7. Heck, I'd at least take at token look at the Best-of-9 World Series of ol'. The bottom line is there's nothing better than playoff baseball, and, after playing a long season, division winners deserve a longer victory lap. Plus the better team would win more often. Also, you could schedule a day game or two in the World Series, which fans have been clamoring for. With the 2-4 weeks you'd be saving with the regular/pre-season shortenings, you would have some room to play with. (Neutral site World Series? I'm skeptical, but open minded. Maybe 1 or 2 games in each team's park, then the final deciding games Superbowl style. I wouldn't implement that one right now however.) Now, with the shorter season the players would have to accept a modest payscale decrease. I think they would sign off on it, realizing they're still raking in the cash and now have three extra weeks away from work (as long as the owners don't turn it into a cash grab). Revenue changes would have to be carefully scrutinized to keep the balance. All that is somewhat far fetched, but it keeps the integrity of the game while integrating some new and old ideas and greatly improving competitive standards. Thoughts, anyone?

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) This is the same guy who fled Boston, a place where he was treated as a God and then was referred to as Judas, for more money. To suggest he doesn't want the best deal is crazy. Yeah, that never sat well with me. It made him look like a huge phony. You could say there were other issues at play but come on, that's one of the most heated rivalries in sports. He was loved in Boston, and fled for more money. I have little doubt he'll do the same thing this time. (The only difference is that NYY and BOS were equally competitive, whereas in this case the Sox are probably considered more competitive than DET, at least for '10. That would certainly be a tiebreaker, at the least)

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 01:31 AM) I still wouldn't mind acquiring him, but if we do I hope we dump Pierre. That's almost certainly not gonna happen.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 10:17 AM) See, with situations like A-Rod or Teixeira, I find it hard to put all that on an agent. No one forced the buying team to pay that much. They wanted to do it, could do it, and did it. The big spenders in the league bid on these guys. One team won out. If there's a problem with the system, you change the system. You dont sit there and just expect all the agents to change their way of doing business. Plus, Teixeira was getting competing offers from BOS, no? You're right, it's being manipulative and somewhat deceitful, but agents like Boras are just working with the system they have. My proposal would be this: make all contract offers from all teams PUBLIC. How is it fair that agents have all the information (and mis-information) while the other side is left guessing in the dark? If all the offers were public (only official offers obviously, not rumors or negotiations, etc.), then free agency would truly be a free market. I'm guessing some people would complain that might get a little close to collusion, but it's more fair than the system in place now, where the agent has all the information and the teams have a tiny percentage.

IMO, this whole ballpark thing is being greatly exaggerated. Could Lew Ford and Luis Rivas and Jason Tyner win the division playing in Target Field? No. But what all these overly-simplistic looks for 2010 fail to recognize is the Twins have an actually good baseball team now, with players who are good at hitting. This Twins team is not as ballpark-dependent as the teams from 4 or 5 years ago. The park looks pretty nice too, from photos I've seen. The one advantage for the Sox is that they (hopefully) won't have the ridiculous mental block, defeatist attitude and self-fulfilling prophesy of losing at Target Field like they did in the dome. Hopefully that will translate into more wins there, or at least more games where the Sox can score after the 4th inning.

Back on to Damon for a second. Did you guys see the latest reason why, according to Boras, he should sign with the Tigers? Because he likes octopus. Man, this guy is looking more and more ridiculous and desperate by the day.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 10:44 PM) He might be an asshole but he let's talk about what he brings to the table. He is way better option than Kotsay or Jones, you put him in DH or LF (we don't want both Pierre and Damon on the field at the same time), interchange him with Pierre, that's your decent 1 - 2 combo. Pierre LF/DH Damon LF/DH Beckham 2B Quentin RF Konerko 1B Rios CF AJP C Teahen 3B Ramirez SS I really like that line up. Too bad Ozzie is such a slave to R/L balance that we would probably never use that, even if the Sox did sign Damon (which itself I think is a long shot.)

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) He didnt finish the year as the starter. They acquired rios and never looked back. There is a contingency plan in place at all times with KW. With Colon and Wise last year, it was Peavy and Rios. KW isnt stupid, Im pretty sure he understands what he has and where his deficiencies are, he has his reasons why he isnt acting, we just dont know what they are. Yeah, I'm sure KW has some kind of midseason contingency plan also, possibly involving Adrian Gonzalez or Adam Dunn. But, short of a blockbuster move like that, wouldn't it be nice to see him address the issue now and give this team some continuity before it even becomes a problem at all?

QUOTE (BFirebird @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) To add some perspective: Last year only 5 teams in the AL scored over 800 runs and only the Yankees score over 900. The White Sox were already a bottom 5 offense last year: - 724 runs (12 out of 14) - 246 2B (13 out of 14) - 184 HR (6 out of 14) - .740 OPS (11 out of 14) By comparison, the Twins were a top 5 offense. - 817 runs (4 out of 14) - 271 2B (12 out of 14) - 172 HR (9 out of 14) - .774 OPS (5 out of 14) At first these numbers confused me. How can the Sox have almost 100 less runs than the Twins but have 8 more home runs and only 25 less doubles? The difference is OPS and guys who can score from 2B on a single. The difference in OPS does not stem from HR or even doubles for that matter, it has to do with the Twins ability to get on base more often than the White Sox and what they do when they get on base. (not stealing bases, Sox actually had more SB than the Twins, but being able to score from 2B on a gap single or go from 1st to 3rd and then execute and get the guy in.) The Twins were 4th in OBP and the White Sox were 10th. The Twins also had 100 more walks. The more guys you get on base...the more pressure you put on the opposing pitchers, whether you can steal bases or not. While the current lineup may not solve this problem, I think they are taking steps in correcting it with the more versatile (non-base clogger) players. They may pick up a few more runs with more players that can go 1st to 3rd and more doubles, but they will struggle in the OBP category. As shown in Caulfield's example, Minn has the biggest advantage in this category. I think that they are attempting to correct it...it might just take another half a year or so. Great post, and I agree it is wise to get away from the base clogger mentality. I mean, for a while you had Thome, Konerko, Dye, Pierzysnki and a hobbled Quentin all hitting in a row. Has there EVER been a slower 5-some in the history of baseball? I agree the Sox are more likely to score from second on a single (or in general take the extra base on a hit) now, which is important. BUT... they've done NOTHING to address OBP. They tried, once, before the '08 season when they brought in Swisher and Quentin. Swisher bombed, Quentin was great but battled injuries. So this offseason it's Ozzie's way: players with stubbornly low OBP: Pierre, Kotsay and Jones.

$10 million guaranteed for Ben Sheets. Wow. Basically, it means the A's will pay $4 or 5 million for half a season, then ship him off for prospects in July. Is there really any other way this could go down? Matt Holliday v.2. (Orlando Cabrera too.) Is it worth it to pay $4 or $5 million to get a few prospects? Considering draft hassles, signing bonuses and bust rates, maybe Beane thinks it is. ...of course all of that is dependent on Sheets keeping it together for the first half of the season.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 12:43 AM) I wouldn't call the DH market a "great" one because there really haven't been that many good DH's available at a cheap price. Like I've said a number of times, I think this upcoming season would be a lot more comfortable for me if I had a better feeling about that spot in the order. What they have proposed at the moment isn't terribly exciting. It's not that it can't work, because I think that it can, it's just that it doesn't seem ideal. However, I've been an advocate of parting ways with Thome for a long time and I never really thought they'd come back with him or Dye. I always thought they'd keep 1 of the Dye/Thome/PK trio...2 of them at the most, but I thought even that would be unlikely. The problem with Thome, even though he's still been productive, is that he is not getting any younger and his bat speed isn't getting any faster. At any moment, he's liable to have a significant drop-off. That's what worries me about him. If what they have is, indeed, what they will start the season with, they'll find out by the middle of May whether or not it's going to work. And since they are right at their budget, with maybe a little breathing room, I have no problem with them being flexible enough to make a trade and take on some salary midseason. I like the idea of that flexibility being there in case some other need arises after the season starts (due to injury or poor performance or something of that nature). I'm aware that seasons can be lost in April, but I can't see that being the case in this division. Regardless of their DH, they should be able to remain competitive until they can make whatever midseason adjustments they need to make. Thome, nearing age 40, is not ideal, no doubt. I really truly though KW was going to make some kind of move for a DH this winter- Nick Johnson, Brad Hawpe (my personal pick), Adrian Gonzalez, Hideki Matsui, etc. (Obviously, some of those were more likely than others). The point was, I thought KW would improve the DH position from Thome to "Player X." He didn't, and now Thome is the improvement, compared to what the Sox have now. He's still worth 100+ more points of OPS than Mark Kotsay. For the low price he's asking, I don't see why you wouldn't want to upgrade the LH half of your DH platoon. As for the wait-and-see and we'll upgrade at midseason approach, I wouldn't be surprised if KW was keeping the position uncommitted so he can take a run at Adrian Gonzalez or Adam Dunn or someone big like that in July.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) I get the feeling that even if we did match it, he would have gone to NY anyway. Why would someone chose the Sox over the Yankees right now? You might still be right, but the Trib article said the interest in Johnson was "mutual", FWIW.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) The Sun-Times backpage that said " Stop Believin' " with Thome, Dye, and Konerko standing at the top of the dug out is the most disappointing one I ever saw. I remember that headline and photo. Even when they started to struggle, and first lost the division lead, then the Wildcard lead, I believed in that '06 team right up until the very last second. I'm still surprised they never recovered. Without adding a solid bat to the line up, this '10 team doesn't have the same expectation at the '06 group. They might well win the division, but they won't be a prohibitive favorite. The lack of expectations could all be for the best though- Sox teams don't seem to perform well when they're burdened with high expectations. They're three most recent playoff runs- '00, '05 and '08, came as relative underdogs from obscurity. Their big expectations seasons- '03 and '06 most notably, maybe parts of '04 and '09 also, ended in meltdowns. Under the radar!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 07:32 PM) Personally, I think it's sad that many now accept the company line that we should always have to wait until mid-year to make season-saving adjustments. ... Just once, I'd like to see KW trying to put together a team chemistry that can coalesce immediately in April instead of tinkering constantly and risking what happened last year, when we had all the talent in the world at mid-season but zero team chemistry. The roster has been in flux ever since 2006. You can't expect to keep dumping and adding around the core without having some affect on the overall team identity and "togetherness." Good stuff there caulfield, I agree.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 9, 2010 -> 04:25 PM) It's not outrageous, but there's no solid reason to believe it will happen. Dye 2009: .250/.340/.453 (.793 OPS), 19 2B, 27 HR, 81 RBIs Thome 2009: .249/.366/.481 (.847 OPS), 15 2B, 23 HR, 77 RBIs From their '09 lines, I agree Thome had the better overall season. But what do you project them to do in '10? Dye is about 4 years younger and, if he limited himself to DH, capable of putting up similar or better stats than a 39-year-old Thome, who profiles more like a platoon player these days. Dye had a disastrous second half last year that he is likely to improve on. With Thome, what you see is what you get, minus some expected decline for age. Also, Thome and his balky back are more likely to get injured even limited to DH, while Dye (mostly leg problems) might see an upturn in his health if he avoided the field. We've seen in the past that even minor injuries have a major affect on Dye's hitting.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Jan 9, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) TCQ is in harm's way every time he steps into the batter's box. I agree. This is why I don't entirely buy the Quentin-as-DH to keep healthy. He has just about as much of a chance of getting injured at the plate (HBP in the wrist/hand, etc., running to first base) than he does in RF.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 09:41 PM) Did Jim Thome kill your dog or something? I don't think its outrageous to think Jermaine Dye will outproduce Jim Thome next year, if given similar roles. I don't think Dye would settle for a similar role, however- he'll probably want more money, years or defensive positions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) Who do we seriously have left that would be of significant interest in our upper levels? I feel like right now we're back to "Wait until midseason where a couple guys have really started to shine" territory on everyone except Huddy. Yeah, unfortunately that's what I was thinking too. Is Carlos Torres of any value? He did win a MiLBY! Anyway, unless the Rockies are OK with getting low level talent from Kanny or WS, it would probably take some position player prospects to get Hawpe.

With Cust off the market (thank goodness), and Vlad seemingly out of the Sox price range, might KW try to pry Brad Hawpe away from the Rockies? His D is brutal, and he had a lousy second half last year, but he's better than the rest of the cheap, retread FAs out there right now. What else is left anyway? Thome, Damon (probably too expensive), Huff, Delgado, Ankiel, Blaylock...(I don't see Branyon happening here). Outside of a few that will want more money than the Sox will spend, all the options that are left are pretty similar. Maybe KW is just going to wait and see who's left in March and bring the cheapest guy in.