CyAcosta41

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 03:20 AM) Good column by Rogers. Kenny thought he was playing winter ball year ... or did he? Rogers points out most think the Sox got fleeced. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,4406560.column You're kidding, right? Good column? Yeah, sure. The Cubune's Phil Rogers ... the guy with superficial baseball knowledge and little in the way of actual sources ... who forever throws possible deals against a wall (most, like Kaplan, with a decided pro-Cubs angle) hoping that just one of them will stick. The guy is a horrible baseball writer and this was a horrible comment. So what -- the generally very articulate Kenny Williams made a speech boo-boo? Yeah, boo hoo. Rogers thinks that is worthy of a column implying that KW didn't know anything about this particular trade target? You mean the same target that was obviously discussed at length with new Sox (and former Jays) front office guy Marco Paddy? Give me a break. I'm no Williams defender, but there are many supposed professional "journalists" in this town who exhibit zero professionalism by showing no neutrality and balance when they discuss a guy (KW) who they clearly dislike on a personal/professional level. As for the Sox getting fleeced, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one. Sure, it's risky to deal a guy who has shown some success in the bigs for a guy who hasn't pitched an inning over AA on a one-for-one deal. I think this is rarely a risk worth taking because you can GENERALLY find someone to give you a bit more. But talent evaluation is equal parts science and art. Molina might be the real deal; Santos might have seen his best days already. Supposed can't miss prospects miss all the time. And guys like Buehrle materialize from the late rounds, defying the skeptics because their performance transcends their tools. KW has gotten fleeced in the past. Many times. It comes with the territory. And he's also fleeced others by picking up Danks, Floyd, Thornton, Quentin, and making sure that HE was the guy who Santos would try the "pitching thing" when he put away his dreams of being a position player. I'm not worried that the all-knowing and ever-so-neutral Phil Rogers can find people who think that Kenny got fleeced on this one. Time will tell.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 08:44 PM) The one thing we're doing is building up depth in the most important area for any organization, young/quality starting pitching. See, that's exactly my problem with what we're doing. We're not building up any real depth, at least not as much depth as we could be building up. Given our resources (lack of money and farm), we don't have the luxury of 1:1 trades of current major league talent (however flawed) for prospects. It's obviously a judgment call and market feel, but with some patience, a shrinking closer market might have landed us two "Molina-types" (or a Molina type, plus a hugely toolsy prospect). Someone might overpay (as we regularly seem to do). Wait it out a bit and find them. I sure hope that we wait it out a bit before dealing either or both Danks or Floyd. Solid (but not spectacular) starting pitchers of the workhorse variety have never been more valuable. Love Mark Buehrle to death (my favorite Sox pitcher since Gary Peters!), but the market for both he and a somewhat pedestrian CJ Wilson makes it very clear that someone -- someone of the "it just takes ONE" variety -- will overpay to bring in a quality major league starter who will start 30+ games with fairly predictable results (whether controlled for one year or two). I respect your analysis of KW's previous acquisitions and wasn't at all implying that he doesn't target some quality and oft-times undervalued quality players. He does. But part of that is that he's just a very active trader. Like Kenny Williams the hitter, Kenny Williams the GM swings hard (and often) just in case he hits it. Sometimes he does and it can be spectacular. But he misses a lot too. I just don't think our resources give us that luxury.

To be concise and hopefully clear ... I have no problem with Molina the prospect per se -- who knows, Williams/Paddy might be spot-on about the kid and a strong 2/3 major league starter will always trump a reliever like Santos (which is also why the Sox must see what they have in Chris Sale, the STARTER). Instead, what I have a problem with is a PROCESS where KW (seemingly) puts on his blinders and goes after his guy without doing the due diligence of seeing what else might be out there. If we thought the Sox were particularly astute in talent evaluation plus talent cultivation, then I suppose targeting a "chosen one" (while always risky) might be alright. But, I can't imagine anyone really believes the Sox are upper echelon in either talent evaluation or cultivation. That being the case, instead of one target for each of Santos, Quentin, Danks, Floyd, Thornton, and maybe Ramirez, how about creating an auction mentality and wind-up with 10, 12, 15 prospects or current young big leaguers for those six. Yes, we need impact players, but we desperately need depth as well.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 07:16 PM) Yeah, Kenny would rather just target guys on his list and acquire them with the pieces he has. I don't really have an issue with either approach, honestly. Except that the "find/make your market" approach and KW's "go balls-out after your target" approach aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both. Many of us believe that KW stares down his intended target worse than a high school quarterback. He always (eventually) gets his man, right? If we see this, most of his peers certainly do too. Kenny is clearly not the patient sort -- he shows his hand and the adversary will generally set the price. I have a major issue with this approach for many reasons, principally that it's so hit-or-miss dependent on the scouting behind the target. We've had great successes with the likes of Thornton, Floyd, and Danks (although the great Nick Massett was supposedly the number one target of that deal); we've had horrible failures with Swisher, Marquez, Flowers, Teahen, and many others. At best, KW and group have proven to be middle-of-the-pack talent evaluators and targeting basically one "must have" per deal is incredibly risky. But the biggest issue I have with it is simple opportunity cost. Great, have your discussions about your target, put that info in your hip-pocket, and then like any reasonable person doing due diligence, get a sense of the overall market. You may find out that something a heck of a lot better than your target exists once you start looking around. Maybe you get an even better "target." Or, maybe you get a similar target, plus a few more players/prospects allowing for a better chance of striking gold every now and then. And when the targeted team senses that you're shopping around, then maybe you have the ability to start extracting target plus X from a team that previously thought they had you by the short ones ... every time. Gee, wouldn't that be a nice change once in a while? In fairness, I don't KNOW for a fact that this is the way KW and the Sox operate. I truly hope they don't. But, it sure seems like this is at least somewhat accurate. It certainly is what a heck of a lot of baseball execs believe (at least as relayed through admittedly sometimes unreliable writers). Not aware? Sheesh. Something like THIS should never happen. And per Peter Gammons, the Red Sox might have been interested in Santos as well. A team with a limited warchest and a desert-like farm simply MUST maximize value with each and every transaction. The Yank-Mes and Sawks can cover their mistakes with wads of green, but we don't have the resources to do that. We have to be smarter. And we certainly can't be dumber.

Ex-Sox Santo(s) Elected to HOF In my opinion, some of the responses around here substantially overvalue Sergio and non-Mo closers generally. Sergio was a great story and a pretty good reliever too. I have a suspicion the league has figured him out a bit and his best days might be behind him, but only time will tell. So, I have no problem trading "high." But Kenny! Trading HIGH means ... umm ... trading ... HIGH. Ever hear of leverage??? Count me in with those who believe a more skilled GM might have received more for a young, low-mileage, cost-controlled reliever, with at times dominant stuff, who has had pretty darned good success already in the bigs than a non-stuff prospect with just a handful of games at AA. Most. Prospects. Don't. Make. It. More often than not, when a known big leaguer is traded for prospects, they are traded for MULTIPLE prospects (unless the prospects are virtual "can't miss" prospects or ones with ungodly tools -- by all accounts, while a good prospect, Molina is neither). Sure seems that WE generally have to trade multiple prospects when we trade for current major leaguers. Yes, I'm not in on the meetings and I don't know for sure, but doesn't it always APPEAR that KW just takes the first interesting offer and NEVER creates any sort of auction mentality when he makes his trades? Gammons suggested teams like the Red Sox and Orioles would have had great interest in Sergio. Rather than forever being stealth-Kenny and loving to surprise people with under-the-radar deals, how about notifying a lot of teams -- including some with strong rivalries -- that player X is available for the high bidder and pump-up-the-bidding? Seems other teams do this all the time and we NEVER, EVER do it. I've always loved Kenny's go-for-it mentality, but, increasingly, I just don't think he's very good at the skill-set required of a trade-making GM.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 02:28 PM) Danks is not as movable as many think. No team us give up a top prospect for one season of control. I hear what you're saying and agree partially -- one season of control definitely limits you're return. In some ways, while Danks might be the better overall pitcher (and a lefty who might be destined to keep pitching forever), this factor might make Floyd the slightly more valuable pitching chip. Still, I think there are plenty of wealthy contenders who will pay REAL value for an established and quality lefty, even if you have one season of control. In my opinion, some continually overstate the value of "prospects." By definition, they ARE prospects -- they haven't done it at the M.L. level and statistics tell you that most never will. It's the truly rare prospect that's any kind of certainty and there is a long history of Yankee prospects who have been far overhyped and who have amounted to one year wonders or one year nothings. My point is only that Danks, Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton -- each in their own way -- have known and recognized value. Sure, they each bring baggage. There isn't a player that doesn't have this. But absent an Adam Dunn situation of a player with almost unheard of year-to-year consistency doing a total free-fall, you know what you're getting when you trade for any of these four (CQ's health being the biggest x-factor). That's what make them valuable to other teams -- they trade for them to fill a hole. If they want that certainty, they better be trading certainty of a different sort, or at least prospects with significant upside (and not non-prospect suspects like Marquez and Nunez).

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) The Yankees like Danks, tweets SI's Jon Heyman, but they're unwilling to meet Chicago's request of top prospects Manny Banuelos and Jesus Montero. In fact, Heyman says the Yankees wouldn't trade either for Danks Great. It's a free country. Then, no deal Yank-mes! If the Yanks are "unwilling" to trade talent for talent, then plug Banuelos or some of the usual retreads into the rotation THIS season. Go explain that to your fans, Cashman. The Sox should (FINALLY) be unwilling to trade valuable chips for other team's junk. It's only when you walk from the junk that other GMs will start understanding they need to offer actual value to get a deal done. I REALLY hope that this is the year KW finally understands that when you have some leverage you actually use it. The free agent SP market is so thin that someone will step-up for quality, affordable, young pitchers like Danks and/or Floyd. This entire process should be about finding that someone. I haven't been in the war-room, but far too often it sure seems that KW has telegraphed his punches and has jumped at first offers because he just had to get something done (e.g., BOTH Swisher trades -- in-coming and out-going). Kenny! You're holding some cards with Danks, Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton. Play your cards! Don't get played.

Congratulations Jim Thome. By all accounts, as classy of a gentleman as the great game of baseball has ever seen. I'm so glad that we were fortunate enough to have him in White Sox for a few years (and continue to be so puzzled by the Bizarro World "tug-of-war" antics that drove him to the dreaded Twinkies). Nice that #599 and #600 helped the idle Sox move 1/2 game closer to the Tigers. And surprised that no one has mentioned it yet about #600 ... lookie, lookie, a L.H. slugger going yard (even just MAKING CONTACT) against a L.H. pitcher. Who would have thunk that was even possible?

I wasn't saying that we should have traded Thome AWAY. Sorry if my language was confusing. I was saying the opposite -- once upon a time we already had Baines and Thomas and just slid them over to the DH-Only slot when circumstances made it necessary to do so; more recently, we traded FOR Thome when Kenny deemed he could get what he considered to be a stud DH-Only force at a reasonable price (players traded away; net cost of paying Thome going forward). When either of these situations occur, that's when DH-Only might be in the game plan. And it could occur soon -- perhaps a trade deadline deal nets a Berkman, Dunn, or similar; perhaps something still to come makes Konerko or Quentin a DH-Only option going forward. But today, given that we don't have THAT GUY and further given that THAT GUY is evidently current price prohibitive, that's why we're seeing this more creative way of using the DH-slot as a flexible way to maximize overall roster performance of who we actually have (not who we might prefer to have).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 4, 2010 -> 07:23 AM) Whether Kotsay, Jones and Vizquel actually DH 100% or not, and they will obviously play the field, the bottom line is a bench-quality player will be in the line-up daily. It blows my mind White Sox fans are so opposed to guys who pretty much strickly DH and prefer older players who can't play every day anymore in the line up every day. This is a team that has employed 3 of the greatest DH only-type players in the history of the game. If a bench-quality player IS in the line-up daily that might be more of an indictment of the quality of your starters, right? Perhaps you have starters who simply need the "blow" more than comparable starters on other teams (Konerko and Pierre come to mind), or others who give the appearance of being injury prone (hello Carlos Quentin, although I'm not yet sold that he's actually injury prone -- he just might have been unlucky for a bit). In any event, if you look through rosters throughout the majors, bench players do in fact play. They can't amass the PA's they do simply pinch-hitting every now and then. So, they're obviously starting a block of games over the course of the long MLB season. Given this reality, it just appears to me that done in this fashion, you maximize health and performance for starters and bench alike. Of course, where the Sox lose me with all of this is if Ozzie still manages to trot out the "Sunday Funnies." As unacceptable as that was in the past, it would be inexcusable now. As for some of the mega-stars we've employed in the past as DH-only players, you're right, we have. But, we've either had these offensive players on the roster already before they turned into DH-only types (Harold, Hurt), or we've traded or signed them within a context of being able to reasonably trade or sign them (Thome). We don't have that guy right now. We apparently can't get him either (at least for what Kenny and the Sox think is reasonable). I'm in no way advocating the apparent 2010 approach as being somehow better than penciling in that offensive stud of a DH every game. You do that in a minute if you have that guy, figuring out a different approach to rest the remainder of your roster. But again, we don't have that guy. And I don't believe that present-day Thome is that guy (nor is JD that guy, and Dye gives no reason to think that he wants to be that guy). All these interesting and varied branches of this discussion aside, the only point I wanted to make with my original post was that we weren't simply penciling three substantially below league average for DH players into the DH slot, we evidently plan on using the flexibility afforded by the DH position as a way to maximize our roster as-is, not our roster as we hope it would be (or as it very well might become, if a trade-deadline deal nets a Berkman or a Dunn). Won't this prove fascinating if we have a really good year and if our aggregate DH numbers (every PA by someone slotting in at DH over the course of the 162) are strong? By the way #15, thank you for having shared info from your inside sources over the years -- this information has always added a lot of color and context whenever we've been in player movement mode.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 10:42 PM) It's still the same thing. When you add it all up at the end of the year (assuming our roster stays healthy and we don't acquire or call up another bat) you're still going to be giving ABs that would normally go to a DH to Mark Kotsay and Andruw Jones. . . . Kotsay and Jones appear to be the least likely of them all to produce the way an AL club needs it's DH to produce. This is where I differ. I don't believe it's the same thing at all. In the past, if you wanted to rest a regular like CQ, PK, or JD, the only way to get him that rest was by sitting him. Why? Because you had the prototype "DH is all I can do" type monopolizing the AB's coming out of the DH slot. So, as a consequence, two things happened, both of them bad: (1) there was a pronounced tendency to not rest these guys because of the fear of the steep drop-off when you did (resulting in tired fading players in the dog days of the season); and (2) when reality set in and it was recognized that you had to rest these guys, I think this is when we started seeing the beginnings of that dreaded "Sunday lineup" (the mindset seeming to be: let's rest the lot of them ... sure, we're likely to lose today ... but live to fight another day). That was then (the old approach), this is now. In theory, now you can "rest" CQ, PK, Pierre, and even AJ (easier still if Retherford could become the 3rd string catcher/utility guy) without losing his bat altogether. Simply give each of these guys a day here or there at DH, or if they're really dragging a day off entirely followed by a block of days at DH. All AB's over the course of the season are not the same. If you implement "rest" intelligently (and to major league hitters, DH-ing for a few games is most definitely "rest"), you can have a more sensible way of giving a player say 600-700 plate appearances than another way of giving him the same number of plate appearances. I think that's all this new theory is really about -- using flexibility to maximize the chances of overall lineup maximum performance. Let's be smarter about the 600 AB's for our most important guys; let's keep our bench uniformly sharp so we maximize their talents and have them ready as can be for the stretch and post-season; let's not give away games by the Sunday lineup. I recognize that many of us might not like the talent level of our bench (I happen to think it's league average at worst, but with a chance of being significantly better -- can you hear me Andruw Jones?); lots of us might think that Ozzie might not have the managerial abilities or discipline to implement this new philosophy. I also believe Sox fans as a whole are traditionally very aware of the limitations of our players (starters and bench), but don't spend nearly as much time analyzing the rosters of other elite teams (and you'll find true "dog" players on every team's bench -- far inferior, in my mind, to the much better than we usually have bench now). But, that aside, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is their plan. In the end, we arguably give some of our aging or injury-starters the best chance to put up strong numbers. Yes, when we pull them out of a defensive position and into the DH slot we're going to give AB's to players like Jones and Kotsay. But that was going to happen anyway. At least now, on those games we have a better DH in Quentin, Konerko, and occasionally Pierre, then we would have had for 2010-model Jim Thome. If we go with this approach all year, I think the overall numbers produced by the six or seven headed monster slotting in as our DH will be very strong. And that doesn't even factor in the benefit provided by sliding these guys over to DH now and then, giving them the chance for real, intelligent, and meaningful rest, and staying out of this Sunday lineup mentality. I'm repeating myself and am not trying to convince anybody that this will work. Reasonable minds can differ. Like Rongey, I think we're likely a better offensive team than most people think. Sure, we need guys like Rios and Q to return to form. I don't think this is a real leap of faith. But, I think we're better than people think even with realistic projections for a guy like Andruw Jones. And if Jones somehow channels the ghosts of Oscar Gamble, Eric Soderholm, and Ellis Burks, then we'll have something special offensively to pair with what SHOULD BE (I remember a year like 1984 too vividly to be too confident of pitching projections) a truly special pitching staff. I'm pumped for this year. I have no problem rooting for this team, this configuration, these guys. Go Sox.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 3, 2010 -> 01:51 PM) It's a well thought out post but the point still remains, if CQ is dh'ing than Andruw Jones is still in the lineup. If Konerko is dh'in than Mark Kotsay is still in the lineup. And as far as letting some of the regulars get some rest, well that's what having a bench is for. Vizquel, Kotsay and Jones are fine bench players and I'm fine with them relieving a starter every now and than but having one of them in the lineup everyday is just unacceptable. And it's because I think that Jones, Kotsay, and Vizquel are indeed fine bench players (Nix too, for that matter) that I really like this plan. I want CQ's and PK's bat in the lineup 155+ games this season, but I don't want them on the field that often. This way, we rest CQ, PK, and AJ principally, but also Gordon, Alexei, and Teahen occasionally. Doing this maximizes their individual capabilities, and therefore the team's. Your bench players of the world are always going to get 150-250 AB's. They're on the team, they're the best we have (it's a different debate as to whether we SHOULD have better), and, frankly, I like having all of them on our bench for what they're capable of doing for us. Sure, they're a downgrade from our starters. I would hope so. No team in baseball -- Yankmes and Red Sawx included, have bench players as good as the starters. In fact, checking the rosters of those two "money is no object teams," they've had their share of dog bench players over the years. But, it's just that -- our bench are not dog players. Last year we had Betemit and Lillibridge and Anderson and Fields. Wow. Yuck. I'm thrilled about the upgrade, including adding a hopefully more experienced and wiser version of Nix to the mix. I see your point, but I think I disagree as a matter of degree. I see no problem whatsoever in having one of them in the lineup every day. Used based on match-ups, streaks, and for resting strategy, this maximizes the performance of the bench players and the starters alike. In theory, it keeps everyone "in the game" and ready to perform down the stretch and hopefully far into the playoffs. You use the term "unacceptable." What I believe is truly unacceptable is keeping a bench ready and "in the game" via trotting out that putrid Sunday lineup. If this new approach does nothing other than prevent THAT, then I'm a happy camper this year. Thanks to everyone for the kind words about my post, but I wasn't interested in entrances, I was simply interested in correcting an oft-repeated misconception about this year's planned DH use. In any case, if this team goes anywhere this year (and I for one am optimistic because I LOVE the pitching staff), I'm certain we get a LH power stick added to the mix pre post-season deadline which changes EVERYTHING down the stretch (in terms of rotations) and, depending on who it turns out to be (thinking of the possibility of guys like Berkman or Dunn), changes a lot about our future too. Enjoy 2010 fellow Sox fans!

Hello. Long-time Sox fanatic -- just over 50 years old, Chicago native, actually a fanatic about all things baseball, but of course reserve the true love for my favorite two teams, the White Sox and anybody who happens to be playing the Schlubbies. I've followed Soxtalk for many years, but have always preferred to read and be entertained, rather than posting myself. From talking to my friends and family, there are a lot of zealous Sox fans with a similar mindset. And kudos to Soxtalk, because almost all of these similarly inclined lurkers seem to greatly prefer Soxtalk to the competition. So, what brings me out of lurking? I suppose I'm increasingly bothered by many avid fans, and the media, mischaracterizing what the 2010 DH slot is all about. This mischaracterization or misunderstanding has been around since the very day the flexible DH approach became news. Some of the problem might have something to do with the continuing adventures with Ozzie-speak. We've all seen how some baseball subtleties sometime get lost in translating Ozzie-speak into everyday English. Without further windup, here's the gist of my issue -- I would be as worried about the 2010 DH Slot as anybody, IF I actually thought that DH at-bats for 2010 were going to be substantially divided just between Jones, Kotsay, and our new #11. We seem to be hearing so many Sox fans saying just this, including very intelligent fans who follow the Sox and baseball closely. The media regularly addresses this same supposed concern. Just today, in David Haugh's column advancing the position that the Sox should keep Beckham and not include him in any A-Gonzalez trade (couldn't agree with this more), Haugh lists other keys to 2010 success, including: "And the spotty DH trio of Mark Kotsay-Andruw Jones-Omar Vizquel has to justify Guillen's odd faith." DH trio? Nonsense. I'm not sure whether people just enjoy a good straw-man argument, or whether they just don't want to take a moment to consider the full picture before reacting. Never once have I heard Guillen, Williams, or anyone within the White Sox organization say that this "trio" is your 2010 DH by committee. In fact, all of the DH discussion, in tandem with the more general discussion of roster flexibility, fluidity, interchangeability (call it what you will), has said exactly the opposite -- that a large number of Sox players will see significant time at DH in the 2010 season, as players rotate through that position AND in the field. I fully expect that the trio of Jones, Kotsay, and Vizquel will see time at DH. Absolutely. However, and everyone can make their own guess, I'd imagine that we'll see Quentin as DH in somewhere between 25-30 games, Pierre for 25-30, Konerko for 15-20, AJ for 15-20, and Beckham, Ramirez, and Teahen for 5-10 each. So, do the math and for somewhere between 80-100 games, someone other than the "dreaded" Jones, Kotsay, Vizquel trio will man the DH slot. Yes, the remaining 60-80 games will feature one of the three as the DH, but not to open a different can o' worms, each of these players do bring certain talents to the table and using them periodically in this way also allows them to perform better when they are filling-in for a resting starter, pinch-hitting, or whatever. And this latter point is what this whole flexibility idea is all about. I'm pretty certain we get the best overall performance and stats out of players like Quentin, Pierre, Konerko, and AJ if we get them off the field from time-to-time and "rest" them by a couple of days R&R in the DH role. Granted, managing this will be a bit of a logistical headache, but I think the theory is sound. In fact, I like the theory a lot for this mix of players. I think the Sox are much better off maximizing the performance level of players like Quentin, Pierre, Konerko, and AJ (insuring the occasionally needed rest, minimizing injury risk, optimizing the skill set of each for when they are on the field), rather than plugging in plodders like the current-day versions of Thome and Dye (and I love both of these guys -- just not for THIS team). Would I rather we have Adrian Gonzalez or Adam Dunn as the needed LH power bat and thereby slide Konerko or Dunn to more or less full-time DH? Of course. But in a world of limited resources, we don't have these guys (at least not now), so our plan needs to be maximizing what we do have. And in that regard, having a 7-10 player DH rotation (including some darned fine offensive ballplayers in that mix for a majority of the games) is a decent enough plan. I understand how some might greatly prefer the one stud DH. We don't have that guy now, nor do I think we get him by trade without giving up more than I'd personally be willing to give up. But for all of those upset with the flexible DH alternative, it might ease your concerns a bit if you analyze it for what it is, rather than for what it isn't (and it isn't DH limited to the trio of Jones, Kotsay, and Vizquel).