Thad Bosley

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Disagree, the inability to turn the 1-2-3 DP was the turning point in this game. This offense have no "spurtability" though. Good point, but I do think a big, two-out hit by Kotsay back at that point in the game would have made this a somewhat different game.

Kotsay's inability to come through in the 1st inning really did serve to change the complexion of this entire game.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) Thad, good post, but a lot of those other guys have proven their ability in their league, with that team, in their home ballpark. Thanks, Fathom, and yeah, I understand that. But I'm also thinking about a former Cy Young award winner who looked pretty good in his first three starts in the AL last season, and who is still a few heartbeats away from being 30 years old. All of that continues to fuel my long-term optimism about Peavy. Meanwhile, I am VERY concerned about other aspects of our ballclub at the moment! : )

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:09 PM) Please, you seem like an intelligent poster; don't start copying the talking points of the baseball retarded. If we keep playing like this, soon we'll be wondering what happened when it's August and we're 15 games out; you know, the time baseball games begin counting to some people. Heavens to Murgatroid - how'd I ever lead you to that conclusion! : ) No, I was simply reacting to jay-pee-hat-whatever's comment about Peavy not being an ace, based on his admittedly, unimpressive start to the season thus far. But as disappointed I've been with the early results, I was simply trying to point out that it's still a small sample size to assert he's not an "ace". A lot of other guys in his class are also off to a bad start, but I'm willing to bet that they, like Jake, will turn it around and end up being an integral part of whatever success their team ends up having this season. What that success ends up being is still up for debate, but I really don't think that Peavy will be the reason our Sox don't achieve their goals for 2010.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 09:04 PM) Keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter. 'Tis a marathon, not a sprint. I will check back with you in September.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:59 PM) How are all those teams doing? In the third week of April? I don't know. I haven't bothered looking, as it doesn't matter this time of year.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:48 PM) "Aces" who are paid 16 million dollars cannot slump for 4 starts in teh beginning of a season. I'll be sure to let guys like Josh Beckett, John Lackey, Jason Verlander, and Chad Billingsley know of yer acute, small sample size, assessment of things.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) He used to be an Ace. Sure. He isn't anymore. That is really just an asinine conclusion to draw after a mere four starts.

Is Jones really as brittle and injury-prone as everyone seems to be making him out to be? This is guy who, from '97-'07, played in no fewer than 153 games in any one of those seasons. Yes, he's had some injury issues the past two seasons, but clearly the reason for that was because he showed up completely out of shape in both of those years. But now that he's back in fightin' shape, along with still being relatively young, I don't see why he can't be more like the Andruw Jones of 2007 than the one featured the last two years. More like, not exactly like, but more like.

There are anywhere between 500 and 600 at-bats in the designated hitter's spot in the line-up. Maybe anywhere between 75 and 100 of those at-bats go to Quentin and Konerko in an effort to rest them, with your "bench" players then subbing for them in the field. Fine. But then what about the remaining at-bats? Should they go to these bench players, or should they go to the likes of a Jim Thome, a Johny Damon, or anyone else who is not considered a bench player? Seems to me the answer is very obvious, but for some reason, we're choosing to go the bench player route. Mind boggling, really.

I'm 100% with everyone who would love to see Damon come on board and either be the full-time DH or part-time DH/part-time leftfielder, while batting 1st or second in the line-up. But such an arrangement would mean Ozzie would have to walk away from this "flexible DH" idea he's been touting all winter long, the one that got a lot of attention just a week ago when they eventually said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Thome. Unfortunately, I don't think Guillen is willing to do that, and as such, I can't really envision Damon accepting an offer to come play for us if it meant some sort of part-time role. I mean, can you realistically see Ozzie now doing an about-face on his desire to give all of those at-bats to Jones and Kotsay (and even Vizquel!), after everything he just got done stating about DH flexibility during the Thome negotiations? As sad as it is to say, I just can't see him chucking that idea out the window at this point in time. It would make him look rather foolish and indecisive.

I suspect it has to be Nix. I mean, we are in desperate need of a back-up infielder for all of those 11-0 blowouts coming our way, given that we are not going to ask our other so-called back-up infielder to play in those games.

It's hard to believe that the Sox have absolutely no power whatsoever from the left hand side of the plate. None. Nobody in the pool of A.J., Teahen, Kotsay, Pierre, or Vizquel has ever reached the 20 homerun plateau, or even sniffed 90 RBIs. You combine that with the question marks still hanging over the heads of Messrs. Quentin and Rios in terms of what we can expect from the right side of the plate this year, and we could find ourselves squandering a lot of good pitching efforts this year. Kind of scary, if you think about it.

What argument has Ozzie or Kenny made to substantiate leaving a very important and substantial middle-part-of-the-line-up position to the very questionable combo of Jones/Kotsay/VIZQUEL/Nix? I still don't think I've heard that yet. Yes, if we're "rotating" the likes of two or three even league regulars into this mix, you might be able to make a case for this philosophy. But at the moment we seem to be talking about nothing less than a bag of balls who have done nothing but to garner skepticism and concern at the very least, based simply on their performance of the past few years. The only thing I can even remotely get my mind around is that Guillen thinks that Andruw Jones will be the surprise of '10, and he doesn't want to put anything in the way of a platoon in front of him to get in the way of his former Brave comrade to get in the way of that.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:59 PM) its in one of the threads, that the yankees outbid them for johnson, couldnt compete with their offer. Lol - well, if we can't outbid an offer of $5.5 million, then I am really concerned about the future of the franchise. No, while we would have liked him, we were apparently not willing to bid too much over his market value to get him. And that's fine from a business perspective, I guess, but the result is that the Yanks have him, we don't, and we're still stuck with Jones/Kotsay.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:48 PM) the sox didnt sign matsui and johnson bcuz of financial reasons. they would have gotten them if it werent for the money not bcuz ozzie didnt want them. Well, two reactions to that. A.) they both signed for rather cheap contracts, in the 5-6 million dollar range, and B.) if you combine that with Mr. Reinsdorf's assertion that there is still, in fact, some money left to bring in the "right" player, than I think you can easily conclude they could have been had. I don't mean to say that meaning they absolutely could have been had, but it would seem like they could have been had. If that little distinction makes any sense. Meanwhile, on a similar topic, if the only offer Johnny Damon is entertaining at the moment is in the neighborhood of $2-3 million dollars per year, and we aren't there to offer him more to pry him away from the Bronx, then I'd say shame on us. I mean, seriously - Jones and Kotsay. 'Nuff said.

Ok Ozzie, fine. Have it your way. No Thome. No Thome, no Matsui, and no Nick Johnson. All affordable options who, for whatever reason, will not be on the South Side this year. Now, do you realize as a result of not bringing in any of those players your attack now from the left hand side of the plate this year will consist of A.J., Pierre, Teahen, Kotsay, and Vizquel? Are you really ok with that? That's good enough to help lift us from our sub .500, 3rd place finish last year to the promised land? Is that what you are telling us? I remind you, we've lost Jermaine Dye as well. Is Jake Peavy THAT good, and do you for some reason think the AL Central is going to be THAT inferior, that this DH-by-below-average-contributor committee idea is passable? Really? Please explain, because as of this moment I just don't get it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 08:32 PM) Around 1985 he had a pulled stomach muscle and really started hitting the weight room. I thought some of his age-related comments didn't make sense because in a way he was incriminating himself, not that I believe for a second he used steroids. It was well-documented back around 1986 or so, right after "general manager" Hawk Harrelson and Tony LaRussa tried making Fisk a left fielder, that Fisk started hitting the weight room, big time. In fact, there were always many stories about how he would lift weights for an hour or so after each game. And as a result of doing things the 'ol fashioned way by EARNING IT, he did get bigger and stronger, and that ultimately allowed him to counter the wear and tear of catching. To me, he's always been the poster child for going about conditioning the right way. I don't blame him one bit for resenting cheaters like McGuire and the like.

It's almost hard to believe that we are actually even discussing any remote possibility of Omar Vizquel, of all people, DHing. The idea completely flies in the face as to why the DH was instituted in the first place. Why, if Ozzie is willing to let Omar be the DH all in the name of versatility, why not then just go ahead and let the pitchers bat as well. I don't think they would fare much worse than a 43 year-old Vizquel at this point. No, we really need to move off of this silly notion. Finish off this roster by signing Thome and then let's head to Glendale!

For some reason, based on the way the offseason has been playing out to date, I keep thinking that Johnny Damon is Plan A for us at the DH spot, with perhaps Jim Thome representing Plan B. Damon meets the new criteria the Sox have set for the designated hitter, meaning that while he's not great defensively, you can still run him out to the field periodically, which would be consistent with all of this rotating DH business we keep hearing about. He's also a left-handed hitter, which we sort of need to balance the line-up out a bit. And he's a guy who gets on base a lot, which if you'll recall was something both Ozzie and Kenny were clamoring for at the end of last season. I think the absence of any known interest in the likes of Guerrero and Matsui, along with not just signing Thome yet when he's obviously very available, makes me think the Sox are waiting to see how the whole Damon/Yankees thing plays out, and whether his price tag possibly drops into a range we can afford. As for Damon himself, I think a return to the Yankees is still Plan A for him, but with each passing day it seems like he's getting closer and closer to having to turn to a Plan B, or possibly a Plan C. And this is where I just get the sneaky suspicion we might just be hiding in the weeds waiting for a resolution on that situation, and when that happens, perhaps there will be an opportunity for us to swoop in and bring him on board. Don't forget - Kenny did try to acquire Damon once before, meaning he's one of those guys whom Williams covets and eventually gets. And if this scenario doesn't come to fruition, then it's quite simple to turn to Mr. Thome who, for the most part, appears to have no other option but to sit and wait for all of this to get sorted out. Anyway, that is what's been cookin' in my noggin'. Hope it comes true! = D

The idea of a Thome/Jones platoon at DH sort of appeals to me.

No way, no way, no way on Jack Cust. He strikes out way too much, to the tune of almost 33% of the time he's come to the plate over the course of his career. That compares rather dismally to Thome's rate of nearly 25% of the time throughout his career, and that rate is obviously already on the high side. Cust would have to be a guaranteed 40+ home run, 100+ RBI guy to tolerate such an exhorbitant amount of K's, which of course at this point in his career he is not such a guarantee at all. No, we've already added one strikeout machine to the line-up in the form of Mark Teahan. I would certainly hope we don't add another in Cust.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 11:31 PM) Half-priced Mondays, by the way, don't make near the money for the team that they would make on an average night at regular price. Even if they sell considerably fewer tickets on the regular night. Half Price Monday nights seem to draw about 15,000 - 20,000 more fans than what they would have if they didn't offer the half price tickets. And those extra fans obviously don't count the season ticket base, who still pay full price on those evenings. So you still get the full revenue charge from that season ticket base, but even with only the half price of the ticket revenue generated by those extra 15,000 - 20,000 extra fans, you still get the FULL revenue expended by those fans on food, beverages, and all of the extras offered around the ball park. Thus, I'd say they make a hell of a lot more on those half-priced Mondays than they do on an "average night". I mean, heck - why do you think they even have these half-price night offers in the first place!

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 06:17 PM) I think people are for more concerned with Teahen than they should be. I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a decent season. I'll wear it if he doesn't, but I think him having the knowledge that he is the guy at third base and the position is his, will benefit him. And I think his tools are better than people realize. You have to forget that he played in Kansas City, which for a lot of people, means a player isn't, or can't be, very good. A "decent season"? Is that what we're shooting for with this guy - a "decent season"? Crimony. All of this concern being spread around about guys like Rios and Pierre who, at least at some point in their respective careers, have registered above-average performances. Teahen, meanwhile, after five full years in the bigs, has yet to even perform at what would be considered league average. Ok, maybe three years ago in '06 he managed to do so, but that was just one time in five years, and even then he barely did so. And I'm sorry, all of this gobble-de-gook about having to play for a lowly team like the Royals and/or having to play multiple positions in the past and/or having to play in Kaufmann Stadium are just lame excuses. Ever heard of Zach Greinke? He played in KC last year, and last I looked he had a pretty decent year playing under similar conditions. Same can be said for guys like Billy Butler and David Dejesus. No, I find those to be rather weak excuses for his continuous below-average performances during his career to-date. But to be fair, I certainly hope he proves me wrong. I hope he magically breaks out and has the kind of season some of you are suggesting he's capable of having. The more wrong he proves me, the better I will like it, because it will be good for the Sox. But so far, unfortunately, he has done absolutely nothing to create any confidence in me that he won't register yet another season just like he has in the four of the five seasons that he's been in the Major Leagues thus far. And sadly, that won't help the Sox in their fight to return to prominence.

Despite Rios' abysmal showing during his time with the Sox last season, I am still at least ten times more confident that he'll be an overall better-than-average performer at his position than, say, Mark Teahen will at his. He's the guy with the history of being a below-average performer in every aspect of the game, and the guy I feel we should be more concerned about. I know a good portion of this discussion revolves around the size of contracts and all, but from a purely performance standpoint. third base concerns me far more at this point in time than does center field.