Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) How old is he? He certainly comes off as a 15 year old. He looks like he hasn't hit puberty yet.

I want Ozzie around as manager but I'm getting to the point where I'd rather see him gone if we're going to have to listen to Oney drama all year. I wish someone would go after that kid legally for slander. He's not getting the message. BTW if Bobby has/had drinking issues this last year or so... well, what do you expect? 162 games plus preseason plus potentially the playoffs makes for a very long season with a lot of time away from home and family. Drinking and marital problems are as much a part of baseball as anything else. Hopefully Bobby gets all that sorted out. Oney OTOH needs to seriously STFU and go away. His dad isn't the one who needs to be defended. His dad isn't the little b****. Oney said what he said because he's a little c*** rag who just proved he'll squeal on anyone at any time. Get this piece of s*** away from the White Sox for the love of god. And make sure he never meets another player again. Also Ozzie, in general, does a very good job managing a bullpen IMO. In fact, his managing of a pitching staff as a whole is probably his best quality as a manager. Jenks was a terrible pitcher last year and his stats from last year are deceptively good. You can't fall behind in the count and toss meatballs over after you've just walked a guy. Ozzie actually should have been harder on Bobby than he was. Ozzie gave Bobby every opportunity and then some to keep his job. He had a long leash here because he helped us win a WS and had some great seasons here, even temporarily tied a big record. But elsewhere, like in Boston, he hasn't accomplished jack, and he'll find his leash a whole lot shorter if/when he f***s it up. I wish Bobby well though, just not against us.

QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 12:37 AM) I seem to remember an article talking about Ehren Wasserman, and they talked about him as a ROOGIE, and how Ozzie basically used him exclusively against RHB in 2007. EDIT: The numbers support this idea. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8070/s...p;type=Pitching And the RH/LH splits with Williams weren't exaggerated by any means. Threets faced a ton more RHB's, but was also much more effective against them. Ozzie might not be so oblivious. I don't care what the stats say, don't even have to look at them. I watched Ozzie manage that guy and Ozzie used him against strings of lefties as well as situations like LR. Ozzie left him in there to get killed. And it doesn't matter how many times Ozzie used him correctly either, because doing what he did with Ehren showed his complete incapability to properly manage a player like that. Ehren never had the stuff to fly open to lefties like that and still get them out within the strikezone. The only thing he even had to get righties with was deception and control, and when you remove the deception and make the control a hindrance because of lack of break you get a pitching machine. I think Ozzie's goal with some of his use of Wassermann was to tell the org that he wanted relievers with the ability to pitch to both sides of the plate, because his relievers were going to be used that way. And that's fine, but kind of contradictory for a manager who plays matchups as much as Ozzie does.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) The 2000 Royals? Look at that starting pitching. The '99 Indians offense would struggle to go .500 with Jeff Suppan as their 'ace.' Thing is I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said. Of course we're all going to have to see it to believe it. I just don't agree with the premise that "We've heard this before." Because quite frankly they've never had talent like this before. And it's not just about developing talent. I've never longed for a starting lineup and rotation of homegrown players. That's just not realistic. It's a combination of being able to infuse your own roster with young/impact talent and being able to go out and acquire other proven talent that you may need. The Rangers got to the World Series because they were able to develop enough talent internally to land Cliff Lee. Who cares what happens with Smoak (though I'm sure they'd love to have him back now that Lee is gone). That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything. You're straight up BSing when you say they've never had talent like that before. Check that paragraph above the one I'm writing now. You are overrating the holy s*** out of their prospects if you're going to look at some of the players who have gone through that organization during all that losing and say a few unproven prospects that they have now are going to be better. They will likely produce some guys who were supposed to be good, others will get hurt or bust out, others will come from nowhere and end up overachievers, others will end up decent bench pieces. Mark Teahen is garbage and he was there future. Alex Gordon isn't anything and he was there future. Prospects who haven't proven anything haven't proven anything. Just because one prospect didn't make it doesn't mean another one won't either, but you can't assume a high success rate when there is none. I do agree with you on the last part though. The only way the Royals will ever do jack s*** in their division is if they identify core pieces and then make deals for proven MLB players to complement what they have. Until they show the desire to spend in FA and move their great prospects they're going to suck. And the good or great players that they do produce are going to come through a losing environment and end up shipped off for very little in return. Nothing about Dayton Moore however tells me he is capable of building a solid cast of MLB regulars to support a strong core on a budget. He makes some of the dumbest moves you see in the entire division, year after year. Assuming Dayton Moore can do anything at all for that franchise is an assumption more or less based on nothing IMO. Lots of guys come out of great systems and still can't do s*** with what they inherit. The Fields+Getz for Teahen move is the last KC move I can remember that I actually liked for the Royals.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:50 PM) You have to understand, Dayton Moore is the GM and he's been spending his whole time on the draft. You will see several of these guys pop up within 1-2 years with maybe 2 of them in 3 years. I'm not afraid of the Royals presently, but Moore has done a hell of a job obtaining prospects. Okay, so because Dayton Moore is at the helm the Royals prospects will turn out? Dayton Moore has done some very stupid things in his time as GM. I actually hate the Greinke deal from a Royals standpoint BTW and love it for Milwaukee. He f***s up a lot.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) My question remains the same: when have the Royals recently had a collection (5+) of what were thought to be premium prospects that sparked talk of a big turn around in the near future? Unless my memory is just shady, which is possibly considering I'm an alcoholic, I don't remember. The chances are Royals fans will look back and say "wow, look at all those busts and underachievers." But even if they turn out, here's one good example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/2000.shtml That's the 2000 Kansas City Royals with a 26-year-old Mike Sweeney, a 26-year-old Jermaine Dye, a 26-year-old Johnny Damon, a 23-year-old Carlos Beltran, and other nice complimentary parts. They went 77-85 that year, which were the most wins that team saw since 1993, and was the winningest Royals team until those 2003 juggernauts won 83 games. Prospects ain't s*** most of the time. That's the truth. And even when they develop it guarantees nothing. Look at all the prospects the Braves have dealt over recent years and look at where they've been. Look at all the prospects the Royals have kept over the years and look where they've been. Since the 1989 season where the Royals won 92 games, they've only won over 80 games thrice, with 84 wins being their best, and in only 10 out of 21 seasons since have they won 70 or more games.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) If the Royals are really going to consider winning, they'll need to sign/trade for a few veteran pieces. I can count on one hand the number of teams in the last decade that really succeeded based on the successes of players who have been in the league It's my opinion that die-hard baseball fans are somewhat over-enamored with youth. It's important, but youth is mostly valuable because it is presumed to lead into maturity. You want guys who are good at 25 so they'll be great at 27-30. Great post and I agree with everything here. People salivate over young players to the point where it's really disgusting. Most of these guys turn out to be nothing but a waste of resources. It's so easy to say you can plug in a promising young prospect and in a year or two end up with a very good MLB player, but the truth is, you have to sit there and watch that player struggle as he learns, and most of the time you end up with someone who is just average or worse. And it's not worth downgrading at a position for 1-2 years just to end up with someone you don't want and who now you're unable to trade for a decent player. QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) They always have money available, they just historically don't spend it. My point is that while they're in decent position, they're not really even close to there until a lot of other things pan out, including a shift in philosophy regarding free agency. Having a buttload of young talent is a great thing, but it's not even close to the only thing that makes a contender. If the Royals want to contend they need to put their young players on the field, and as soon as they find out whether or not Moustakas and other top prospects like that can play - give it no more than 2 seasons tops - they need to start dealing the farm for cheap, good MLB players to supplement their pre-arb core. They need to do this right away, spend the money, spend the talent. Make a couple FA signings. In the mean time they need to continue trying out high-upside relievers and so forth, because they always bring good prospects when they look like closers or potential closers, and they need to trade Soria and keep stocking the farm. That way when it's time to move they can move fast. The one silver lining in the Royals situation is the fact that the AL Central is generally winnable, and with salary room available they should be able to put themselves on the map once they get their core down. But if they try to wait for everyone to develop they'll continue to suck forever.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Or Sergio Santos, we go with the more traditional RH closer...and keep Thornton/Sale as our own two-headed version of Joel Zumaya that can be used in high leverage situations anytime between the 6th and 8th. That's kind of an odd statement. Zumaya???? Matt Thornton is our version of Matt Thornton. Zumaya is closer to Mike MacDougal and Andy Sisco than Matt Thornton.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:44 AM) ...Wood...big...Wood...touching...Wood.... By examining your post a little closer you can see where the writer is coming from.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:16 AM) Hawk will give praise to Twins when it is due (Mauer) and sometimes when it is not (Gomez), but he's not the problem. I feel like he wants to beat the Twins more than our players do, which is troubling. When Delmon hit AJ in the face, the person most upset was Hawk (rawlings in his earhole). The team just put their heads down and shook their heads when it happened, then we beaned Young weeks later in a meaningless game after the Twins had all but eliminated us. So much this. If you take 2005 out of the picture and look at the Sox since the 3-division format began they historically tuck tail and run when under fire. 2003 was a great team, tucked and folded. 2006, tucked and folded. Could have won something in 2009 and 2010, tucked and folded. 2008 they made the playoffs winning 3 games against 3 teams in thrilling fashion - but prior toi that they lost 5 in a row (3 straight to the Twins) and were 6-13 over their last 19. The Sox just don't show the heart the Twins do.

What about this--- Sox trade: Danks Viciedo Mitchell Sox get: Garza Holland Beltre Texas trades: Holland Beltre Texas gets: Danks TB trades: Garza TB gets: Mitchell Viciedo For TB Mitchell + Viciedo is great value for Garza. Holland + Beltre is a lot for Texas, but fair value IMO because Danks is worth a ton, and with Danks being a hometown guy and Texas having money they'd probably give up a little more knowing they've got a good chance of extending him. For the Sox, Danks to Garza is a downgrade, but not a HUGE one, and this is made up by swapping Mitchell for Beltre, who IMO is a better prospect. Viciedo for Holland straight up is a nice, fair deal that makes Mark replaceable. By doing this deal the Sox save a very small amount of money - but this would enable a Buehrle to the Yankees for salary relief deal to take place, if the Yankees would agree to that. From there the salary relief could be used a number of ways, but my favorite might be trying to get either Beltran or KRod from the Mets by offering a prospect or two and taking on salary for Teahen and/or Pierre.

I don't want to trade a Danks or Floyd to the AL unless it's Texas and we get back Holland in the deal. The Angels will be the team to beat IMO unless Texas makes a couple big upgrades so trading Danks/Floyd there doesn't necessarily put them over the top like it would with the Yankees. I really don't want to trade either of those guys actually, but I'd take offers just in case someone made a stupid-good offer to Kenny that, combined with another move or two, made us a lot better in 2011 and going forward. I especially abhor the idea of trading a SP as a means to affording a reliever - because with our starters you can look at them and say "He should be pretty good this year, maybe he's actually better than that" while with relievers you generally look at them and say "Please God don't make me regret this acquisition."

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) Maybe I'm the idiot here, but is Philly really going to have to pick up THAT much on Blanton's deal? I'm thinking they can probably pick up anywhere from $3-5 mill (effectively making it a 2/$12-14 deal). Blanton is still about a league average pitcher and he will work well in the middle to back of pretty much any rotation in the majors. All they have to do is take back a small bad contract like a Teahen IMO. If they want something pretty good they'll have to eat a lot more, but I imagine at this point salary relief is a lot more important to them than the prospects.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:28 AM) I agree. That's why I said I would never discount the financial advantage they have. But to find that much talent in a relative short amount of time isn't just about spending money. Will agree to disagree. As I get older, I just don't see things in a vacuum nearly as much (not saying that is the case with you). I notice with some on this board that there's always something. Phillies? Twins? Red Sox? Doesn't matter. Just don't give them credit no matter what. The Red Sox are the s***. I don't care what anybody says. I think the Red Sox are taking advantage of every avenue they can in order to win the most baseball games and world championships as possible. I'd do the same thing if I could, even though I believe it's still wrong, because I want to win the same way. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to applaud them for finding out that they can build a great farm and a great MLB team that way. They're supposed to be able to do that, and if they couldn't, they'd have to be idiots.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:24 AM) Seriously its too easy and a cop out to just say "well they have so much money". As you said if you look up and down their roster most everything has been bought and paid for by their farm system. There have been some washes {hanley for beckett}. But the way the red sox have been able to previously manipulate the draft in the past by signing/trading for all those type A rentals and then offering ARB and letting them walk for first, sandwich and second round picks is really a testament to their scouting and player development. They offer arb in stupid situations too. They offered arb to Varitek after he came off a dogs*** year because they could. Other than the Yankees, no other team in baseball would have done that. Varitek declined, realized no one would pay him like a star when he wasn't, and then came back on a far better deal. But that was a stupid decision that just kind of worked out. The Red Sox abuse every system they can find and they're lauded for it. WTF would the Minnesota Twins have been able to do with that kind of free reign to do whatever they wanted?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) That's the easy response. But they spend on the draft and have become a player development machine. Look at their current core, guys all in their 20's that came up through their system: Pedroia, Youk, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon and Bard. You're talking all-star to MVP caliber right there. When your system can produce that much then yes, it's A LOT easier to flex your financial muscle. And then have enough to land a bonafide superstar (Gonzalez) and still have valuable pieces in the system? I won't discount the financial advantages they have. But it's certainly not as simple as "well, they can spend x amount of dollars." Yes it is. On that list Pedroia was the real find. You want to talk about scouting on a budget you need to look at Atlanta.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Sure makes it a lot easier with a payroll that size. And while getting nothing but pats on the backs for abusing the draft and splurging internationally. Boston gets way too much credit for what they do. Any idiot with a subscription to perfectgame.org could build a top-end farm system if given enough money. Any idiot with the prospects could understand the value of Adrian Gonzalez. Aside from that, Boston finds their diamonds in the rough and they do their scouting. Great, so does every other team in baseball. And if they didn't they'd have no excuse for paying their front office personnel wages over $12/hour.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 09:00 AM) Slightly OT...does anyone other than me sit here, read something like this about Lee, and think "how the Hell did the guy who could barely stay in the league in 2007 turn into a student of the game overnight"? There was an interview with him during the WS I think? where this topic kind of came up in a round-about way, and IIRC it had something to do with a sick or possibly disabled child of his changing his outlook in life. Since he's always had a lot of raw talent (was a key piece in the Bartolo to Montreal deal) this makes a lot of sense to me, since so much of his game in mental.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) But isn't the main objective to perform well enough to give his team a chance to win the game? I realize that number of wins is a flawed stat for a pitcher, but no matter how he does it, Buehrle usually finds a way to at least keep his team in the game. Again, I'm not stating that Lee isn't a better pitcher than Buehrle, especially at this point. All I'm saying is that he isn't so far behind that they cannot be in the same conversation. In fact, many have already stated that Lee isn't worth the contract that he's getting, I'll go so far as to state that over the next 5 years I would not be surprised to see that Buehrle is a more effective pitcher than Lee. Buehrle can definitely out-pitch Lee. Anyone who is capable of throwing a no-no and then backing it up with a perfecto is capable of out-pitching anyone. The thing is though, on any given day, Lee probably has a 70-80% chance of out-pitching MB. In the event we'd catch Lee in a little bit of a down turn and catch his offense also in a bit of a down turn, and we OTOH are hot as an offense with momentum on our side and Buehrle is hot too, then we could very well win that game. Lee's human and baseball is very hard to predict. But again, the odds just massively favor Lee. Over 5 years I'd have to disagree. This version of Cliff Lee is capable of losing velocity on his FB and still being very good, if not elite. As the saying goes, there are pitchers and there are throwers. Lee is a pitcher. He is a student of the game through and through. He has enough in his repertoire and he understands hitters well enough to adjust quite a bit. Buehrle is the same in every way, except his velocity is already down and can't go much lower than it already is without him becoming a pitching machine. I don't think that will happen to Mark BTW, but just comparing the two, Lee is at a much higher elevation, and if he falls - even quite a bit - he can still land at an elevation that is above the realm of most starters in baseball.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Dec 14, 2010 -> 08:17 AM) I don't think that Buehrle would accept a trade to the Yankees either, but I do have to disagree on the bolded statement. I don't know how you define "caliber", and for the record I don't know how I would define it either, but I think that Buehrle is at least in the same ballpark as Lee as a pitcher. Lee may have better stuff, I'm not real sure about that as I haven't watched Lee all that much, Buehrle has a much longer tract record, and both are a little risky for various reasons already discussed. At the moment it is very possible that Lee is a better overall pitcher, just not head and shoulders above Buehrle in my opinion. I look at it this way; If the White Sox (Buehrle starting} were playing Lees' team (Lee starting}, I would give the Sox a very good chance of winning with Buehrle outpitching Lee that day. If they played a 100 times, I would give the Sox a very good chance at winning at least 50 of them. Buehrle and Lee are similar in the way they attack hitters and the way they like to change speeds, and they way the easily deliver the ball to home plate. That's pretty much it though. If you haven't seen much of post-surgery Lee then it goes like this: he spots his fastball the way a jungle warrior spots a blow dart; he changes speeds on EVERYTHING just like CC and the quality of his stuff is so good that he can turn each pitch into several different pitches - i.e. Buehrle can't do much with his fastball when he's topping out at 86-87, but Lee can get it up there around 94 and work down. Lee is just amazing. Hitters who face him several times per game still have lots of trouble squaring it up later in the game, in fact, most of the time opposing hitters just seem to get into a "funk" trying to battle him and by their last AB may be in worse shape than they were in their first AB. MB OTOH slows down as the game goes on and hitters become more comfortable. Lee is actually more of a workhorse lately too. He's just a completely different pitcher in all respects from where he was in his earlier Cleveland days. Both he and CC are. They became truly elite together.

Ranger, You're too good of a Sox fan to waste your posting time here defending Cowley. It'll never work. You should argue in the other threads, about baseball. You don't seem to post enough.

Donny Lucy is one of the more likable guys on the farm. He seems like the type of dude who may never make it as a player but might carve out a career for himself as a coach or manager. It was nice seeing him have the success he did for us last year given all the s*** he's battled through. Good luck to the guy in Charlotte.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 02:51 PM) [/b] AMEN!!!! You knew that I would agree with you on Pierre. But then who would lead off? If we get a legit RF who can hit a bit then I don't even care. Believe me, I LOVE prototypical lead-off men, I really really do. But Pierre is NOT that. Of course in the real world the Sox would move Carlos if the choice were him or Pierre because that's the type of s*** they do.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 13, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) GMAB. Rasmus was rated the #3 prospect by BA going into 2009. He was a 3.5 WAR at the ripe old age of 23. All you have to do is watch him play and you can see the insane talent that is there. If the Cardinals called up and asked for Buehrle and said will give you Rasmus KW would have to enter the witness protection program due to every GM in the game being kermit the frog green with envy. Don't compare Jordan f***ing Danks to Colby Rasmus. The Sox could eat every penny of Buehrle's contract and that deal would still be retarded. The value of productive CF is extremely high. Rios at $12M is a bargain. Rasmus at next to nothing is so far beyond that it's not even funny. Rasmus will produce the way a $15M CF on the open market will be expected to produce, and he'll do it at a wage so low that his presence will pay for the filling of several other positions each year of his contract. It's not talent-for-talent in a vacuum.

From a real simple and imperfect fan scouting perspective, CQ on defense is 1) not very baseball-smart, 2) gets bad reads a lot, 3) has very little closing or makeup speed, 4) can be aggressive in the field and will go all out on a play at times, 5) has a strong arm that can be accurate when he's throwing to the proper base. An arm alone is not enough to play RF. However, in a small park especially, playing LF gives the Sox at least the benefit of cutting down guys looking to take the extra base/score on somewhat shallow sac flies, so the huge loss in range is partly offset if nothing else. Ideally, since Ozzie rests his guys a lot, CQ would play LF normally but *always* DH when PK or Dunn get the day off. That would help minimize the damage he does defensively. Of course, anyone who DH's Omar Vizquel is liable to do really stupid things with Carlos. As long as Carlos is just being good, not even great, by working to minimize his OF time and keeping him in LF when he is out there, the bat will compensate for the loss of D IMO. The key is dumping Pierre or making him 4th OF while picking up a legit RF. Pierre shouldn't even be on this team IMO. He's a leftover from one of Kenny's worst offseasons ever.