Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) The White Sox attendance was ahead of last years' pace until the rainout wiped out a game. A goose egg with only about 11 dates will hurt the average. I love how you tell me the revenue picture I paint isn't real, yet the only picture you come up with is the one KW and JR give you. They cut the second most in the major leagues this past offseason and JR when crying about the lost sponsorships said it would not affect White Sox payroll. Then he said KW had a 3 year board.....You want to bet it isn't slashed an even larger amount next season? They also had 3 bonus gates last year, all sellouts. So if they planned to break exactly even last year, those bonus gates would cover the Motorola loss wouldn't it, considering they said Motorola would have to let 10 people go if they continued with the sponsorship. According to Forbes, and KW references Forbes when it says their revenue to payroll ratio is the best in baseball, they have made over $70 million in profit the past 3 seasons combined. What did they do with that $70 million? Don't tell me put it in payroll because those figures are taking payroll into account. Of course the White Sox would say Forbes doesn't have any idea what its talking about when they come up with those numbers. The most recent figures now have the team worth $450 million up to 10th in the majors. KW talking about making the games day games because they can't afford the electric bill is trash. I'm not asking him to boost the payroll to $200 million. But when good players are available for bargain prices, don't insult the fanbase and say guys like Owens, and Lillibridge and Wise are as good or better than the players available. Don't tell the fanbase you thought about signing Jon Garland but realized you had the exact same pitcher in Jeff Marquez. It just isn't true. Here's an example: I wanted Juan Cruz bad. He would have cost a first round pick. So what. You save the bonus you have to give to that pick and get an established major leaguer at a bargain price. The bullpen is nails. You don't have to deal with the MacDougals and Egberts and Broadways. A team that charges its fans more than any team other than the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs owes the people paying a little more than that. Just a few things here... First off, there's an ugly-ass Comcast tarp over the Fundamentals deck. Who knows how much they lost there? Secondly, who knows how much the Sox are spending on their farm system, their revamped scouting staff, their baseball academies, promotional items and services, and things like White Sox charities and so forth? Also, if you sign a player for say $10M/year, that doesn't mean you just devote $10M/year to that player and you're done with it. Who knows what other costs there are? Food, transportation, perhaps equipment costs, special favors here and there, etc. could all play a factor. Point is, I don't think any of us, including Forbes, have any business speculating on how much JR is or is not spending. We'd all just be guessing and getting angry for the sake of getting angry. Baseball is private business and thus much is not nor will ever be reported. Also, playoff monies don't just go to the Sox. Every team in baseball gets that. To the baseball items: 1) Jon Garland sucked last year and still signed for several million per season. I am a Garland fan and thought it was very dumb for a team like the Cubs or Mets to give all that money over longer commitments to guys like Oliver Perez and Ryan Dempster when they could have had a bargain in Garland. However, to say that he's $6-7M better than Jeff Marquez is debatable, and even though I'd probably say he is, it still remains to be seen whether or not $6-7M or whatever in Garland is better than having that same amount available at the deadline. Considering all the teams out there looking to cut salary, if we in theory have that amount to spend, I'd rather have the ability to take on a contract. For example, if BA is out for a good period of time, I'd rather stick with Colontreras at the 4/5 and stick Randy Winn out there in place of Pods/Owens/human vomit. 2) Lillibridge has a lot of value as a bench player. Injuries and injuries only have forced him into a larger role, otherwise he'd be a great defensive player with some speed that would allow players to take the day off without the team having to take hits on the defensive side of the baseball. 3) Egbert should in no way be grouped with the crap you've listed him alongside. Egbert has not had the chances those players have had, and when Egbert did hurt us, it was during games we were going to lose anyway. It's not like he came in and blew the whole thing over and over like MacDougal for instance. 4) I love Juan Cruz too and think he'd have been a wonderful addition to this team, and if a sign-and-trade was really possible between us and the D'Backs I'd have given up a couple pretty damn good prospects to pick him up. However, the Sox made the right decision IMO when it came to signing him. I guarantee that whoever it is the Sox draft in the first round will be worth about 500% more trade value wise, and that is EXTREMELY important in an era of Sox baseball that will see many very good players on the trade market simply because of their salaries. The Sox BTW should be about $40M lighter in terms of payroll next year before raises to Jenks, TCQ, Danks, and Floyd so there is definitely the possibility of adding a very good veteran player.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 07:11 PM) We traded Webster, Reed, Chris Young and Rowand...so that BA could be the everyday CFer on a team defending the World Series championship. I don't buy the whole idea that KW thought that BA wasn't ready then. The risk was too high to go into the season with BA if there was any doubt about his ability. What happened is that they had no choice but to try to get more offense in the line-up that season...it was fine when we were 26 games over .500 at the break, but then the starting pitching and Jenks went south at the same time and they had to try to beef up the line-up. If anything, they were TOO patient with BA that year. Wise was moved down in the line-up after two games this season...Anderson had MANY games to prove himself, and it's not like BA was treated too harshly by the fans. I don't remember even when he was hitting 170 or 180 in June that the fans were particularly harsh with him like they were with Wise last week. The reason BA wasn't traded was because he still had some upside, and the return was negligible...so it made more sense to hold onto him and hope things magically would start to click. I'm not talking about BA's overall ST statistics, but about how poorly he played the first 2-3 weeks. We can argue all day long, but it's not like BA really deserved to win the starting job...it was known to all of us that it would likely be a "platoon" with BA and Wise/Owens...so if you want to say he was "demoted" to 4th/5th outfielder, that's fine I guess. KW made Seattle look even more stupid when they dumped Borchard and got back the best LH set-up pitcher in baseball in Thornton. He's not a magician...I have never claimed that. I used to be one of his biggest critics in 2002/2003 (along with Manuel), but I slowly changed my opinion about him...he's between 5-10 of all MLB GM's. You can say he's 12-18 or whatever, but if you look at the likes of Shapiro, Ryan/Smith and Dombrowski, none of them won the World Series this decade. We traded Reed for Freddy, Webster for Everett, Rowand for Thome, and Young for Javy Vazquez. Those were all no-brainers at the time IMO. We got the best player in each deal and each deal gave us a better chance of winning during a window of opportunity. I think all the MLB players acquired played a much bigger role in the decision to trade those players than BA's presence did. Also, the Sox could have looked for a stopgap alternative if they didn't want BA out there in 2006. Walker admitted later that BA wasn't ready, and everyone knew it, but Kenny didn't get an alternative. The Sox wanted BA to fail before they made changes, which apparently he wasn't very receptive to. This had all come after tons of comments that all BA had to do was play D, yet he still was trashed in the papers, and he still was made a scapegoat even though the offense wasn't the problem with the 2006 team, it was the bullpen, which Anderson actually helped by playing CF. Any manager that tries to make up for bad pitching by adding offense and further weakening defense is an idiot. There was definitely a choice in the matter between starting Mackowiak for his bat and starting Anderson for his glove. The Sox had forced themselves to be patient with BA because *they completely failed to develop him into an MLB-ready player.* Yet, they still trashed him in the media. Negligible return? How do we know this? Josh Anderson just brought a halfway decent MR prospect and Anderson was a better prospect due to his power potential. If KW has shown us anything, it is that he is not afraid to flat out dump a bad clubhouse influence. He's not going to care about the return if he deems it necessary. If Kenny felt that BA wasn't worth his or Ozzie's time then he'd have taken a A-baller or two and called it a day. Yes, we all figured Ozzie would platoon BA and Wise/Owens if BA got any time at all. However, it was supposed to have been a fair competition and once again it wasn't. Who cares what BA hit at the very beginning of spring? Why is that a factor? The final cuts were made very late and BA's numbers were there then. If anything, I'd much rather have a guy who is ending the spring on a high note anyway. If anyone made Seattle look stupid it was Cooper, not Kenny. Kenny pulled the trigger and Coop did the actual work. Would you also say that St. Louis made Minnesota look stupid for giving up on Kyle Lohse? I wouldn't. The guy sucked, just like Thornton sucked in Seattle. He needed a fresh start and better advice from a better pitching coach, and he got it.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 07:09 PM) The problem with this analysis is that you don't know for sure that he simply "pouted a couple of times." I don't think that anybody here does. A LOT goes on behind closed doors that nobody here is privy to. A friend of my sister's knew BA when she was at Arizona. And from what I've heard second-hand, he had serious maturity issues back then. So I wasn't terribly surprised that he worked his way into Ozzie's doghouse in 2006. I'm not defending the way that Ozzie and Kenny have handled BA. But it's pretty silly to rush to judgement when there's A LOT that even people who follow the team closely don't know about the situation. Oh, and he still struggles to hit .220. That doesn't help either. I don't think it is rushing judgement at all. Kenny Williams has a strong track record of jettisoning clubhouse cancers. Rick White made a comment to the media, then he was DFA'd the next day I believe. Jon Rauch, who at one time was a far better prospect than BA ever was, was gone because he had dinner with his family instead of hanging out with the team. Granted, Rauch wasn't the same guy he had been, but he was still a nice prospect. Lofton was also sent packing and rumors were that KW tried to find a deal for OC last season at the deadline. I'm sure there are other examples as well. If Brian was as big of a problem as has been reported in the media he'd have been long gone. I'm not saying he didn't have maturity issues that ticked some people off, but the whole thing has been way overblown.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 07:02 PM) Which is the better predictor of MLB regular season success? 1) Actual MLB regular season at-bats, albeit sporadic ones 2) Spring Training success, where hitters are facing pitchers who won't be on the team...or perhaps are more established but experimenting with pitches and/or consciously saving their best in some way. I only ask because it sounds like your argument is that it's #2. Definitely clarify though if that's putting words in your mouth. Obviously the sporadic MLB numbers mean a lot more because they are against Major Leaguers in real game situations, but you also have to look at those numbers in the proper context. Anderson is not the type of player who can sit that long and come up with hits on a consistent basis, so his numbers only would seem to prove that he can hit to that degree off the bench, but they don't prove that he cannot hit in regular playing time. They don't say he would hit better in regular playing time either, but it's hard for me to imagine him actually being worse when given the opportunity to get comfortable in a starting role at this stage of his career. Anderson's ST numbers were important because those numbers were what was supposed to win or lose him the job. Instead, it looks like his numbers were mostly disregarded and the defensive advantage he brings was never a factor.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 05:50 PM) KHP, there's a corollary to your thoughts on JD... There's a lot here... BA was not more of an athlete than a player. Yes, he was toolsy, but he's not some guy who didn't start playing baseball until later in life. BA's attitude supposedly was an issue. So was Orlando Cabrera's attitude. The difference? OC hit well so he kept his job. Brian could have been handled better so that he'd have hit enough to stay. And also, the attitude stuff is WAY overblown here. The guy is making the league minimum and, especially in 2006, would have brought in a decent return at least. KW would have sent his ass packing in a heartbeat if BA's attitude was such a huge problem. I don't know what your point is about trading players out of the organization. The Sox kept BA. Shouldn't that be a positive towards BA then? And I think McCarthy was dealt because he had a wild delivery, an arrow-straight fastball, and a wiry frame, and Danks was in every way a better prospect. The organizational philosophy is retarded when it comes to BA. You can't just make one stupid mission statement and apply it to everyone. You handle prospects on a case-by-case basis. What works for a talented player in college is probably not going to work against Major League pitching. It's one thing if you're talking about a pitcher, i.e. you don't want to just rush in and try to make large changes to a pitcher's delivery, but it is completely different for a hitter. You may not want to tear down his whole swing, but you can get him to make some changes that will allow for him to become a better player as he moves up levels, instead of the same exact player as he moves up levels. Rowand and Crede got everyday playing time. Crede hit better than BA did in the minors and it took him years to develop his bat. No organization is supposed to basically give up on a first round pick because he pouted a couple of times. That is retarded. The way the Sox have handled BA is retarded. See, you're back to resorting to personal attacks on BA from the team or "sources" that were launched through the media. BA is a scapegoat. And once again I'll ask this question since you apparently didn't give it much consideration, if Brian was such a bad influence, why did they not trade him for a prospect? If they didn't like his attitude, or his tendencies to sleep with women, and they didn't like the fact that he got sick (I believe) playing in a South American s***hole and didn't want to go back, then they could have dumped his ass. It's not like he's making too much money to do so. Now you're criticizing Brian's approach at the plate. Okay, fine. What are the minor leagues for? Don't you think the coaches down there should have noticed and attempted to correct all these things before the Sox promoted him to the Bigs? That's yet another indictment of the previous regime. No, BA never at any time looked worse than Owens. BA had nice Springs in 2007, 2008, and 2009 yet broke as a 4th OF all three seasons. You have a selective memory here. If you can find the old ST stats, look them up. I've been riding on the Jerry Owens/Darin Erstad Hate Train for a long time so I know. I wouldn't jump and shout with glee that we've traded guys like Olivo, Morse, and Reed to Freddy Garcia. You're supposed to do those things. You're supposed to try to assemble the best pitching staff possible. Just because they didn't pan out doesn't mean the Sox didn't like them, and it doesn't mean the Sox at the time wouldn't have rather traded other players. People get hung up on this s***, like Kenny Williams is a magician and he waves this magic wand that makes other GM's stupid. Look, Seattle's scouts obviously loved those guys and they thought they were getting a terrific deal. The prospects didn't pan out, but that is no surprise, because prospects often do not pan out. Yet, still to this day, Morse is a MLB bench player, Reed is a MLB 4th OF, and Olivo is a starting C in the big leagues. I'd say overall Seattle's people did a pretty good job identifying talent, but it just didn't turn out the way they'd have liked it to. Any time you make a deal where you give up the best player in the deal you put yourself at great risk of losing.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 05:40 PM) Anderson and Ryan Sweeney went through the same development system. Why is Sweeney having success? He's just flat out more talented with the bat. Far more likely than an organizational conspiracy against Brian - the simple possibility that BA spent a long time being unable to shorten his swing. It seems better to the eye now, but we need results at some point. One of these two guys figured out major league pitching, the other hasnt. Opportunities have been there. Brian even showed more promise than Sweeney with the bat when both were a few yrs younger. But ML pitching stops some guys' careers in their tracks. We call the Sox bad developers of talent, but theyve traded away so much that I dont know how well we can fairly evaluate this. Sweeney's swing came with him. He was ready to hit singles in the Major Leagues well before he started doing it in Oakland. The Sox left him down in the minors to develop power, which he didn't. It is debatable whether the Sweeney of today can be a more talented player than the Brian of today, simply because Sweeney profiles as more of a corner OF but will have a harder time sticking there because of a lack of power. Anderson is a true CF with power, but the average and OBP aren't there. I'd personally put the chances of Anderson becoming a .265/.320/.460 hitter and sticking in CF somewhere higher than the chances of Sweeney hitting for enough power to become a corner OF. Sweeney can play CF, so he will stick around, but I don't think any team is going to look at him as a long-term solution at the position. Both players are definitely 4th OF with Sweeney getting the chance to show he can be more than that through everyday playing. Brian however is never going to do anything if he's coming in as a defensive replacement and getting a few starts here and there in the middle of garbage Sunday lineups. I wouldn't say there's an organizational conspiracy against Brian; I think it's simply organizational stupidity with regards to CF. You can't tell me the Sox didn't have the talent to acquire Josh Anderson who was traded for a right-handed middle reliever with mediocre numbers and without electric stuff and who also most likely won't be ready until next year at the earliest. The Sox would have had no problem bettering Detroit's package without giving up a huge piece of their future yet they passed because they were clearly content with Wise or Owens. It doesn't matter who they have and have not traded. It appears the Sox philosophy on minor league talent, at least during the period where BA was coming up, was let the kids play until they fail. Let them mash, don't worry about fundamentals, and we're not going to change anything until the player stops performing. The problem with that is when you have a highly-talented 1st round pick like BA, he's not going to fail at all until he reaches a level where he can't get by on talent alone. For Brian, that level was the Majors. Now if you can see that the kid cannot catch up to a Major League fastball while in the minor leagues, then you try to fix it. You don't say, "okay, let's call this guy up and make him a starter, and then when he can't hit we'll just go ahead and change his whole swing at the Major League level while the fans are booing and the manager is throwing him under the bus." That doesn't work very well. If you believe Hawk will at least occasionally serve as an organizational mouthpiece, he's even said this. He's gone on about how the Sox are so great because they don't change anything until a player f***s up. Walker has said the same thing in papers, and in reference to BA. Maybe that works with established veterans at the MLB level, and maybe it works with your average prospect in the minors, but it's not going to work for everyone. The Sox f***ed up with Brian, pure and simple. And anyway, what is done is done. BA is who he is. He has the potential to become better through regular playing time, but even if he doesn't, he's still better than what we have right now. It's not rocket surgery.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 05:14 PM) Maybe I just enjoying playing Devil's Advocate...because sometimes players here get picked on too much, while others (see BA) with similar records of non-achievement are hoisted on pedestals as if they are the next Torii Hunter, even though they have shown no signs of this happening at age 26 or 27. Personally, I'm all for bringing up Beckham and putting Ramirez in CF. It's better than putting Beckham or Getz in the outfield (although Beckham isn't the equal of Ramirez defensively, nobody can convince me of this). Shelby and Danks obviously aren't ready yet for CF. Screw this arbitration clock stuff...as Hawk noted, as soon as they signed Longoria to a 7 year extension, he was in Tampa within days. We either bring up Beckham or we make a trade for a legitimate, everyday CF if we really want to win this division. It's just frustrating because if we would have signed Kenny Rogers in 2003 for peanuts or traded for CoCo Crisp this season, you'd have two teams that could have gone a long ways....even capable of winning a World Series. People just like defense, that's all. I think most Sox fans are sick of our play in CF since Rowand left, with the only exception being Anderson, and I think they also recognize that CQ and JD aren't exactly the rangiest of all corner OF combos. I don't think anyone is putting BA on a pedestal. The Sox made a mistake bringing him up through the minors and letting him get by on talent alone, and then not asking him to make any real changes until he was already overmatched in the Majors. Then, the following season, he beats out Erstad but becomes a bench guy and is sent down. The following season he clearly made the team and it was debated whether or not Anderson or CQ should start on opening day, and yet Ozzie went with Alexei in CF and Uribe at 2B unexpectedly. Anderson understandably lost playing time, but he didn't get the everyday gig when Swisher sucked ass. Wise and Griffey did. Then this year he by all means should have won the CF position based on his ST numbers plus his defense, yet once again he's the 4th OF. The Sox f***ed up with Brian at seemingly every step of the way. His failures in 2006 were as much the fault of the Sox player development "philosophies" or lack thereof as they were of Brian himself, and now that he's matured and everything, and he's supposedly a different person altogether and willing to learn and adjust, now he gets shoved to the backburner. It's f***ing ridiculous how they've handled this guy. If there had been better options, fine. But I guarantee that as much as the Sox talk up the Twins and Braves' systems, had BA been drafted by either of those teams he'd have been handled in a much better, much more professional fashion. He wouldn't have been up in 2006, and he would have been forced to change his attitude and make his adjustments in the minors, and by now we'd now what we have, because he'd have either been given a legitimate chance that he was deemed truly ready for or he would have been shipped out and someone else brought in. It's funny how the Sox try to use BA as a scapegoat yet BA, if anything, is the perfect example of a s***ty player development system, a s***ty old regime of coaching in the minor leagues, a lack of direction from the GM, and the density of a manager who supposedly values pitching and defense above all else. As for Beckham, I'd say yes on Beckham only if Buddy Bell says it's a good idea. I like the guy and I see the changes he's presiding over. If Buddy says he's ready, go for it, but if not then don't.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 05:00 PM) Maybe we should bring in Belle, Wil Cordero, Toe Nash and Dukes...why not Barry Bonds while we're at it? You can go back to multiple early off-season threads about this problem, I said that we needed to pick up/trade for Crisp and Blake. I was wrong about needing Blake, Josh at 100% health is a better player, and certainly cheaper. We've debated any number of players here, like Willy Taveras. Here's what I would like to see someone do...tell me what CF that's decent BOTH offensively and defensively and that will give you a 350+ OBP and that wouldn't even cost someone in our Top 8 prospects would you have gotten? Also, keep in mind that it would be better if this player also had at least "decent" character...so we can cross Dukes off that list, if he was actually available for a Danks/Allen/Shelby (doubtful). I don't think we're at that point yet. The first thing is defense. Put an actual CF out there. Then, after you have the defense, go ahead and look at upgrading the offense while maintaining the defense. All we have to do is put Brian out there and deal with the offensive shortcomings until someone better is available for a price we're willing to pay. And who knows, maybe the guy in regular playing time will boost his numbers enough to stick as a #8 hitter. f*** Ozzie Guillen and his braindead strategy of constantly attempting to polish a turd at the expense of the pitching staff.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 13, 2009 -> 04:49 PM) .275 BA .323 OBP .320 SLG .643 OPS That's Jerry Owens career-wise against RHP. I'm not sure how that is so different from BA's averages against RHP over his career. Can we be assured that either Lillibridge (doubtful) or Getz (maybe, he's had a couple of 350 OBP's in the minors) will do significantly better than a .330 OBP? Yes, BA is a better defender, but he's not a leadoff hitter. If Getz/Lillibridge fail at this position, who do you want to use, Alexei Ramirez??? Lead-off hitter is not a position on the field. Centerfield is. This is not a complicated issue Caulfield. You're a very intelligent Sox fan and a very good poster, so please don't (as Hawk would say) out-dumb yourself. If we're going to be forced to put a sucky hitter at the top of our lineup then it doesn't matter how much speed this sucky hitter has because he's already a sucky hitter. Ignore the speed, go with the defense, and let Ozzie put out his dumbass lineups if he's going to do that anyway. I'd like to say also that I ragged on D-Wise as a starter and still wouldn't have wanted him out there every day even if he hadn't gotten injured, but I was very impressed with the balls-out Aaron Rowand OMG catch today. It may have easily saved us the game. I hope he recovers quickly and is back as a 4th OF.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 12, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) cause he still has potential to be a 5th starter/long reliever. That's more than what we can say for a lot of the lower level pitchers. Eh. I'd put Ely, Harrell, Nunez, Omogrosso, Egbert, Poreda, Derek Rodriguez, Link, and Marquez ahead of him for sure. Every one of those guys has a ceiling higher than a 6th starter/garbage man, all are starting in Double A or higher, and all have at least as good of a chance to get to the bigs based on how close they already are. I'd also put Santeliz ahead of him as well because even without much control his arm is going to get him a lot more shots than Broadway is ever going to get, and Santeliz at least has a chance to do something special if he makes a big league club at some point. I'd even consider Cassel and Fernando Hernandez ahead of Broadway simply because they have progressed (with the exception being Hernandez struggling after not being able to do anything with Oakland as a Rule-5) and have not miserably failed like Broadway has. Broadway was taken in the first round in the '05 draft as a fast mover. He signed early, went right to W-S, then the next season (2006) started in Birmingham and made Charlotte at the end of the season. He debuted in the Majors at the end of 2007 after starting out in Charlotte, so he was right on track, but then he failed to stick in the bigs the next season even after a huge bullpen implosion and the lack of a fifth starter. Then Mike MacDougal and DJ Carrasco took his spot this spring, and although we never know what crappy player Ozzie and Kenny will call up next, it would at least appear on the surface that there are several much better options than Lance Broadway and that Broadway has fallen behind at least a couple of them. If you look at that 2005 draft, there were a bunch of HS players who have already begun to make their marks in the bigs or at least are very close to making their debut. This is Broadway's third straight season starting in Charlotte. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Prospect projection isn't just about ceiling - its also about odds. People at lower levels have much higher ceilings, but, most of them will flame out before getting to Broadway's level. Its a balance between those things. I agree with this in general but ceiling should trump odds at least to a degree anyway. Broadway's ceiling is the type of player that is available every year in FA for the league minimum. In fact, I'd much rather sign a reclamation project like Colon every year for $1M + incentives and gamble for the chance of picking up a #3/#4 for next to nothing than give $400K and a roster spot to some guy who I already know is going to blow chunks. I think it's different with a guy like Cassel for instance who is like a possible 5th starter/longman or whatever, because that guy hasn't had his chance to show he can or cannot make it yet. Broadway will be out of options next ST if he's still in the organization and he doesn't have the type of stuff that makes you take him and hope for a miracle. He's a guy that is there to fill innings in case your starters go down and your season is basically over so you don't mind losing games and you don't want to rush a real prospect. Sorry if my Broadway hatred is too thick, but I just don't see how he can still be called a prospect.

I was a pitcher so I'd be a junkballing righty who would do stupid things to try to get an edge like make up new pitch grips in the middle of an AB. I'd end up throwing 50mph looping trash at the backstop, into the dugout, and directly at whoever stood in the on-deck circle. I'd love to play for the Cubs or Twins.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 12, 2009 -> 06:27 AM) Saying Tim Raines Jr is a better player than Jerry Owens is like saying gonorrhea is better than syphilis. Kind of, but I'd say it's more like saying rice cakes are better than rotting bologna sandwiches, or that Sheryl Crow is more attractive than Rosie O'Donnell.

How does Lance Broadway still make these lists?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 12, 2009 -> 07:09 AM) I can't believe I'm defending Jerry Owens in any way but to say Tim Raines Jr. is a much better player is ill-informed. Raines has not played in the major leagues for 5 years and has a career OPS 100 points lower than Owens. He may be a much better AAA player, a level he's probably been at for 7 or 8 years, but unless you live in Charlotte and go to Knights games regularly, who really cares? Neither would help much at the major league level, but Owens would be the better bet. I remember when Raines Jr. was just a kid and Raines Sr. was a White Sox. There was talk that Jr. was going to be a star. He obviously didn't get enough of his dad's genes. They're both minor league lifers and neither would help at all at the Major League level unless they were brought in to pinch run. However, Raines Jr. slugged over .500 the last two years in Triple A and is only 1 year older than Owens, and just as fast. Raines would have been more valuable off the bench in Charlotte than Owens is. Owens shouldn't even be in the organization at this point. .284/.361/.366 was Owens' best AVG/OBP/SLG since the 2005 season in Birmingham and Raines has exceeded all of those numbers the last two years in Triple A except OBP (.346) in 2008. Again, they both suck, but Raines is the better career minor leaguer. He can also play CF. Very, very few position players in all of professional baseball are worse than Jerry Owens. There are probably as many players in the minors right now who are worse than Jerry Owens as there are players in the minors right now who will get serious consideration for the Hall of Fame once their careers are over. Owens has one tool and he doesn't even know how to use it.

A different google search yielded this tidbit: Ht/Wt: 6-foot-10/205 Bats/Throws: Left/Left 60-yard dash: 8.02 sec Vel: 85 mph GPA: 3.0 Draft: 2006 The projectability is extremely high. Has a very breaking ball and easy fastball that comes from a surprisingly repeatable delivery, especially for a 6'10" young pitcher. Stay on him, he will be a high draft commodity in June 2006. His breaking ball is a huge present day asset and makes him extremely tough on left hand hitters. I don't exactly know what a "very breaking ball" is but it sounds like it would be friendly to his teammates. And then this: Lefthander Garrett Johnson moved to Arizona this year when his stepfather became the head of the private Orme School. Johnson led Orme to the state finals in basketball but has more upside in baseball because he packs just 205 pounds on his 6-foot-10 frame. Johnson's fastball sits in the 82-85 mph range, but his size creates plenty of deception for hitters and plenty of interest for scouts. He's fairly athletic but is still figuring baseball out. He's likely a draft-and-follow candidate. I wonder what his velocity is like now 3 years later?

He's a 21-year-old 6'10" lefty we took in the 29th round of the 2006 draft and starting his first year of full season ball in Kanny. He had a 10.7 K/9 in Bristol and a very Brandon Webbish GO/AO of 2.79 last year. Has anyone here seen him pitch, and if so, what is your take on this guy? His size, K rate, GB rate, age, and left-handedness all seem to point to a pretty interesting prospect, so how come we don't hear about him all the time? Dude sounds pretty interesting, and apparently was signed by the same scout that brought us late-rounders Mark Buehrle and Brandon McCarthy.

The Sox also got rid of a much better player in Tim Raines, Jr. to let him hack in Charlotte. I cannot even begin to understand such unbelievable favoritism to such a crappy baseball player. I still have worries that if the Sox finally realize Wise doesn't need to be in CF they'll respond by having him swap places with Owens.

QUOTE (Soxpranos @ Apr 10, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) Prove that he can? So your saying he would make us a 3-0 or 2-1 team? Unlikely! He could have driven in a couple runs in Wednesday's 2-0 loss or Thursday's 2-1 loss. Maybe Brian would have gone hitless just like Wise did but you can't prove he wouldn't have looked better at the dish than Wise who couldn't even get a bunt down. We already know Wise is no better of a hitter than BA is; we already know Wise doesn't have the power BA has; we already know Wise is even poorer at talking walks than BA is; and we already know Wise is not even close to the fielder that BA is. Wise is there because in Ozzie's mind speed = good player. You need to do everything in your power to not defend Dweezy and instead fight the good fight.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 11, 2009 -> 12:06 AM) Even with our team last year, we were pretty bad on the road. Here's a pretty realistic scenario for the next 10 days. 1-1 versus Minn (2-4) 1-2 at DET (3-6) 1-3 at TB (4-9) 1-2 at BALT (5-11) The way things are going now, 6-10 or 5-11 isn't going to surprise me very much at all. Maybe 7-9 if we're being REALLY REALLY optimistic. Luckily, CLE is 0-4 and doing worse than us so far, but DET is really getting some good starting pitching so far, with the exception of arguably their best pitcher, Verlander. How is that realistic at all? It's possible, but far from realistic. Ever since the '05 season I believe we've played Detroit tough. We only sucked against them when they were the worst, or one of the worst, teams in all of baseball. Tampa Bay isn't like a juggernaut or anything; they're very good, but also very beatable. It's not like we're getting the Yanks or BoSox top 2/3 starters thrown at us, although I bet we'd definitely lose the first game in the dome. Baltimore f***ing blows, no reason we can't sweep that one. I don't think we're hitting Liriano, but I could definitely see us going 7-5 over that stretch, winning the series in Detroit and Baltimore plus breaking even in Tampa. I guess I just have no idea whatsoever why you'd pencil us in at 1-2 at Baltimore. BTW, Carlos is hitting the ball with authority now. The back end of our pen and our top 3 starters look good. Our 4-5 starters should be shaky as they continue to work themselves up, but they're at least healthy enough to pitch, and their names aren't Marquez and Richard. Wise in CF and the front of our bullpen are our only problems right now because we can never count on Paulie and Thome early on as it is.

YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!! Next stop: 4th OF.

They should retaliate with hard slides and solid play. I don't want the inside fastball taken away from Johnny Danks today. We need this game because even though the Royals have gotten better they still play in Kansas City, they still wear blue uniforms, and they still have holes all over the place. We need to take this series.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) Although it doesn't list the catchers (Adam Ricks and surprisingly Logan Johnson), this preliminary press release lists most of the players. I'm not sure about Matt Long though, he was in the Barons dugout last night. Not sure about Nate Jones, Ricky Brooks or Joe Persichina either. Dash roster press release Do you know if Logan Johnson is being converted to a catcher full-time or is it like a versatility thing like BearSox mentioned? And wasn't there talk at one point about converting Jorge Castillo to catcher as well? Or was that someone else? Because I see he's listed as a DH for Kanny.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Apr 9, 2009 -> 03:18 AM) Along with Jamie Navarro. Plus Jose Paniagua and Rick White. Also former Sox Brendan Donnelly (wasn't he once in our farm system?) and Bobby Howry could stick in that pen. Oh, and you can't make this list without including the wife beater Brett Meyers. A-Rod should probably be included as well simply because of his ego. Whoever managed this team would go from breaking up a knife fight to telling A-Rod he's pretty and shouldn't cry anymore then back to lecturing Frankie Francisco (another former Sox who should be on this team) on why throwing chairs at people in the crowd is bad for business.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 7, 2009 -> 11:50 PM) 1. Im sure he didn't plan to have kids with several different women, some guys prefer to raw dog it and use the pull and pray method.. Its possible he is just unlucky, but I think its fair to say no one WANTS to have several kids with several women. 2. Plenty of people sleep with multiple women, there is nothing immoral about that at all. Sex is awesome, and if you enjoy it why wouldn't you have sex with lots of people? I have a friend that is in the 100's, none of them have gotten pregnant and hes not a condom man, which brings me back to point #1 that maybe he is just unlucky in that department. 3. Are you saying that a 24 year old sleeping with a 17 year old is immoral? Or is it that she got pregnant? Is that because shes 17? Do you realize that in most places being 17 is legal age of consent? Or are you saying sleeping with someone 7 years younger than you is immoral? If shes 24 and hes 31 is it still immoral? This is the stupidest f***ing thing that I have ever read in my entire life. My God. 1. It doesn't matter whether or not you "plan" to have kids, or STD's, or anything else. When you have unprotected sex with people you hardly know, whatever it is that you get is exactly what you deserve. If you are with a woman and you get her pregnant, you're not "unlucky" you stupid f***, you're irresponsible trash, and you are now confronted with a decision to either kill an undeveloped child, become a dead-beat dad, or suddenly "grow up" which is much easier said than done, especially if you're already human garbage. There's nothing funny about single mothers, child support, and abortion. With your lack of moral understanding I hope you never, ever have relations with a female. 2. There is nothing wrong with having sex, but there is a whole lot wrong with being that irresponsible. Your friend is a filthy scumbag without any morals and has no idea of the value and preciousness of human life. I'm sure he brags all about his "conquests" and so on, everyone knows at least one of those pieces of trash, and I'm sure through all his bragging and gloating he'll never, ever understand that he's nothing more than a lonely weakling who can't control his emotions. Defending the actions of a whore who just can't stop being promiscuous is just like defending the actions of a drunk driver who just can't stop having a few drinks before hitting the road. You're defending someone with no self control who is only seeking self-gratification and who in the process is risking other people's lives. 3. I don't care if she's 15, 16, 17, whatever. By her willingly having sexual intercourse she made an adult decision and therefore must accept adult consequences. I don't care how old she is, she was an adult the moment she made that decision so that's not a factor for me. What is disturbing however is why a 24-year-old man wouldn't be looking for someone closer to his age group, but then again, it all makes sense. He was seeking someone close to his maturity level, but because he wasn't attracted to 4-year-old girls, he did the best he could.

Maybe it's too early for this, but Josh has shown enough in spring and in this first game to warrant a shot in the 2 slot IMO. I think we should put out this lineup: Getz 2B Fields 3B Dye RF* Thome DH Quentin LF Konerko 1B Pierzynski Anderson CF Ramirez SS# *Until Quentin gets back I'd like to move him down just a tad. I'm not at all concerned about him long-term, but this is an entirely new situation for him. Coming off a breakout year, then surgery, and now trying to prove himself as a slugger again, it looks like he's trying to hit for power right now instead of staying on the ball and making solid contact up the middle and the other way, letting the power come as it will. I think he'll get it figured out, but it may take him a bit longer than your average veteran so I'd make the move. It would only be temporary though. #I like Alexei in the 9 spot because we'd be rolling the lineup over with a good hitter with some speed and power.