Ranger

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) Like a certain afternoon radio show on the Score..."You will never win a WS with Juan Uribe as your starting SS!!!" Yikes. Glad that wasn't me. It's just on overreaching statement to make. I know I said this earlier, but I do think it's possible for one player to carry a lineup for a short period of time, but it's difficult to do for a full season. I also think one player can break lineup if that player was expected to carry the load. For example, if for whatever reason, Pujols just falls apart (unlikely), St. Louis would be in trouble. But if the guy hits 8th in the lineup and plays good D, you most definitely can win with him because he is more dependant on the rest of the lineup then they are on him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 12:55 AM) The Twins usually have X Factors because they can't afford more consistency. This occurs because of their payroll constraints. As for the trades, you're missing the point. I am not stating that these players cannot be successful. Merely that they are relative unknowns, which caused them to become available in the first place. To use your examples, Thornton, Loaiza, and Contreras ALL had flaws. Certainly they experienced success here, but could you really count on them having the success they had? Probably not. They were X Factors that panned out. Do not confuse my argument to claim that these players will not succeed. I am only arguing that you can not predict with any certainty that they will. Which is why acquiring a player with Thome's body of work would only serve as insurance should we not get what we are hoping for from players like Rios, Quentin, Teahan and Pierre. Again, you could do this for every team in baseball and find potential flaws for multiple players to make them X-factors. There is every reason to think the players mentioned will give seasons up to their normal capabilities. I don't consider them X-factors. You may, but I don't. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 12:58 AM) We've got too many issues, starting with a corner infielder in Teahen that if ALL the stars are aligned can give you a 775-825 OPS, but he can also give you 675-725. Let's be charitable and say Brendan Harris is equal to Mark. Ramirez and Hardy are pretty even, all things considered. Huge advantage to Beckham, our one clear positional advantage (barring a sophomore slump) over the Twins' line-up. Then you have Morneau huge over Konerko, Mauer huge over AJ, Young with a slight advantage over Pierre, Span a clear advantage over Rios of 08-09 and Cuddyer being pretty even with Quentin (yes, the upside of CQ is AL MVP, and coming off the 08 season this wouldn't be a toss-up). Huge advantage to Kubel over Jones/Kotsay. In other words, if Pierre/Teahen/Quentin/Rios/Jones/Kotsay perform at +25 to +50 over career norm stat levels, we'll trail the Twins by about 50-100 runs scored. That's assuming we can count on Becks, Ramirez, AJ and Konerko to do what we expect. I would say a full 5/9ths of our everyday line-up is questionable, whereas the Twins have holes only at 2B and 3B. The White Sox have the advantage in starting pitching, but the Twins have a lot more depth. Essentially, we have one replacement for Garcia (or anyone else going down) in Hudson (some will count Torres and Hynick, good luck with those guys over 10-15 starts). The Twins have 3-4 of their "system" guys that always seem to throw strikes and get the job done somehow. And this is based on the assumption that Liriano and Neshek, perhaps their two most effective pitchers in recent years, DO NOTHING. The Twins, overall, have a deeper bullpen and also a stronger closer, although Nathan has been shaky the last two years, it's not close to the level of concern surrounding Jenks. And reports are that Putz is still a big question mark. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 01:13 AM) Mark Teahen is a complementary, bench player on most playoff teams. Maybe he could start for the Twins, but there aren't many upper division teams that would be giving him the starting job without any competition in Spring Training. Same thing with Juan Pierre, how many teams that are legit playoff contenders would go with him as their leadoff hitter? Even if he was playing for those teams, it would be as the 8th (NL) or 9th place hitter. As mentioned before, Jones and Kotsay wouldn't be part of a DH platoon for all but the 3-5 worst teams in the majors either...not even taking into consideration our home ballpark. Yes, the Rangers have a launching pad, but they also (have) had a stronger overall offense and there wasn't as much pressure on Jones to perform as there will be in Chicago in April and May. Then you have the Rios enigma...I'm really curious how many other GM's would have taken on that reclamation project at those numbers? Anyone besides KW? We could have put Rick Ankiel out in CF for 1/5th of the cost on a one-year contract, signed Vladimir Guerrero/N. Johnson/Matsui/Damon as our DH and had money left over to solidify the bullpen in the form of someone comparable to Dotel but with more of a history than Pena. Ankiel/Damon/Dotel (etc.) or Alex Rios??? That questionable decision is probably the biggest single factor preventing us from spending money right now on a legit DH. forcing us to do things on the cheap again (see Wise/Anderson/Owens 2009). There's one other factor here, too. Mitchell and Jordan Danks BOTH profile as better CFers than corner outfielders, the presence of Alex Rios in CF theoretically blocks both of those guys. On your last point, Rios can always shift to a corner if necessary. He's done it before. But onto the bolded statements. I think you consider the Twins a potential playoff team, correct? You then equate Brendan Harris to Mark Teahen (and I agree, that's being generous, but not to the guy you think), yet you say Teahen couldn't start on most playoff teams. There is nothing worse than "playoff teams can't have _____ as a starter" arguments. It's baseball, yes they can. People used to say the same thing about Juan Uribe. You can look at just about every playoff team every year (except the Yankees, because their worst infielder was Robinson Cano) and you can find a starter that you might consider a bum. It's just a poor argument. IT can happen and it does happen. I disagree on the Twins bullpen, because the Sox have a pretty solid 3 on the back end. And while Nathan is a very good closer, I don't think that he's so much better than Jenks that it makes that much of a difference. The overall pitching (from top to bottom) for the Sox was far better than what the Twins put out there last year, and on paper, it hasn't changed in the Twins favor this offseason.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 12:23 AM) We do not share the financial constraints the Twins do. That is a tremendous part of why they operate the way they do. As for my point, it illustrates the fact that these players were, for the most part, relatively undesirable to their former teams, allowing them to be acquired fairly cheaply. Why were they in this position previously? Because they all have faults. Inconsistency. Attitude. Injury. They are X Factors. What does Twins payroll have to do with this? And, no, some of those trades are also made because of needs. AZ had an abundance of outfielders and didn't need Quentin, The Royals didn't need another 3B/RF any longer. You're making it sound as if trades never happen in which one team gets the better end. I suppose Matt Thornton is only as valuable as Joe Borchard. Or John Danks is worth as much as Brandon McCarthy. Or Jose Contreras was only worth as much as Esteban Loaiza. It may be true that GMs typically try to make deals work out evenly for both teams, but it doesn't always work out that way.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 12:08 AM) I'm not arguing about the Twins here. I think you can argue just about anything, Mr. Rongey, but that doesn't make it so. I think the fact that we acquired Quentin, Rios, Teahan and Pierre for Chris Carter, Chris Getz, Josh Fields, John Ely and Jon Link pretty much illustrates exactly what they are... That really doesn't illustrate or prove anything about the players the Sox have in exchange. Nor does it prove that they will not be productive. The Twins matter in this because it proves the point that you can make any player into an "X-factor" and because it shows that the Sox are not operating in a vacuum. Their success also depends on their competition.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 11:52 PM) I know Jones had some solid numbers against RH last year, but his career numbers show that he favors hitting against LHP (.859) rather than RHP (.815). Kotsay has historically hit RHP (.758) better than LHP (.726). Kotsay should only play when he relieves Konerko. I think it would be acceptable for him to start more than 20 games a year. This, assuming PK plays at least 140.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 10:46 PM) I don't think you were explicit at all. I think you basically said they are not X-Factors because you simply did not believe them to be X-Factors, which, sorry, is just not an acceptable answer. Q and Rios are certainly X-Factors. Beckham is a second year player entering his first full season. I think he has all the talent in the world, but he certainly does not have a long enough resume to be able to say with any certainty what kind of numbers he will produce. Teahan, I think is fair to argue will improve over some of his previous seasons' in KC, but again, there just is not enough consistency to expect anything other than .780 - .800 OPS at best. Pierre, I can agree with you that he will probably post something in the .730-760 OPS range? I mean all of these players have big question marks! That is the reason many are here, with the exception of Beckham, who is entering his first full season! These guys are the definition of X-Factor! You can twist any player to be an X-factor. You could also say almost all of the Twins rotation is an X-factor. So are Michael Cuddyer and Denard Span and JJ Hardy and Brendan Harris. If you consider the Twins to be the team to be worried about this year, then they have their own potential issues as well. Nothing I said is the equivalent to "just because". I told you exactly why I think Teahen will do what he'll do, I think it's self-explanatory why I think Beckham will perform close to what he did last year (because he's certainly good enough to do it and nothing about him indicates "fluke"), or maybe even a little better, and I think it's perfectly clear what to expect from Pierre (he is what he is). There are no surprises there. Regarding your original "X-factor" comment, Quentin and Rios to me are the only ones I'm worried about because they're the ones I've always expected to be the keys to this offensive season. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 11:16 PM) In the perfect world, he should be, but not if Jones is a starter on this team. Common sense means putting the best fielder out there, which is Jones, which of course Ozzie won't do. But Jones isn't gonna start everyday.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 10:23 PM) " I haven't felt this bad about a team pre-season starting since before 2000. Our offense is going to be THAT bad" The Sox went 95-67, won the AL Central and had a a VERY productive offense in 2000,...LMAO. Who said that? That team scored almost 1000 runs.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 09:25 PM) Seriously? You don't consider them to be X-Factors because why? Because you just don't? Yet you are going to raise doubts about the guy with the career .961 OPS over 19 seasons? I understand he is declining, but his walk rate has held steady and is SLG will still be in the .450 range if that continues to decline as it has. So you're going to trust Rios/Beckham/Quentin/Teahan/Pierre but we don't really have a need for the guy who will most likely put up the .825-.850 OPS? I thought I was explicit with why I didn't consider certain players X-factors. And I think it doesn't need to be explained why I think Quentin and Rios are. Yes, I feel like we have a pretty good idea what we'll get from Beckham, Teahen, and Pierre and it's not "just because". Do I need to tell you why I think that of Beckham? Or Pierre? And I told you what I thought of Teahen, except I left out the part that he's leaving a huge park for a smaller one, which should help his OPS. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 09:51 PM) Rongey - I remember listening to you defend Dwayne Wise at the beginning of last year. After watching him struggle during the first couple weeks of the season, you kept telling us listeners that we had to give him more time. You said he may not amount to anything, but it was too early to come to any conclusions. Why in god's name did we have to give him more time? Anyone with half a brain knew he sucked in the minors and would continue to suck in the pros. This is no different than the rotating DH bulls***. Why wait to be dissapointed when we can use the last four years right now to predict poor production from Kotsay and Jones out of the DH spot. I really hope I'm wrong and they make me look like an asshole, but the evidence is strongly against them being productive. Regardless, this "versatility" idea for the DH spot is completely stupid without a ninth quality batter, and as of today, neither Kotsay or Jones counts as one. Apparently you weren't listening to what I was saying. But this guy was: QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 10:17 PM) Rongey was only saying don't BOOO Wise like a bunch of Neanderthals at the beginning of last year. To be more specific, I was saying that booing him 3 ABs into the ****ing season was pretty ridiculous.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:53 PM) Ok, so it's fair to say that the offense will go the way of Quentin and Rios, but also ok to argue that what we get out of the DH position won't make or break anything for us? I agree Quentin and Rios are huge X-Factors for us, but we have like 5 X-Factors. So why the hell do you bypass a chance to put a near-certain productive middle of the order bat in your lineup? Even citing a decline due to his age, he still projects to be better than at least 6 or 7 of the other hitters in this lineup. Probably because Quentin and Rios two guys, not one, and they didn't contribute anything like what they should have last year. There is expected production from those two guys that the Sox didn't get in 2009. I don't consider there to be 5 X-factors because I think there is every reason to think Teahen will have a decent year now that he should have some comfort and won't be getting jerked around (some guys respond to that comfort, by the way) and that Pierre will continue be what he's been. I don't consider Ramirez or Beckham to be X-factors either. Nor AJ. The only real doubts I have are with Quentin and Rios who would've been expected to bring in the production from the middle of the order along with PK. Those are your big boys right there. This is nothing new. This has been the case since December. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:54 PM) This part right here is the money part. I completely agree with this thought process. Although, it would certainly help to have another bat protecting said Rios and CQ. It might make their season good to great, and that means a lot in this division. I don't believe that one hitter would turn this from "good" to "great" unless that hitter was Pujols or something. QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:55 PM) Yea, admittedly a bit much, I'll own that. But to be fair, how many meatballs use wOBA in their angry rants? You've got me there.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:43 PM) the best case scenario would be if Flowers lights it up in the Spring and forces KW's hand. Flowers needs to catch everyday if they want him to be a catcher. His potential as a catcher is way too valuable to just make him a DH without even giving him a legit shot behind the plate. I'll be shocked if he doesn't start in AAA. QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:44 PM) Fire Ozzie Guillen! I get it, he had a tremendous team handed to him in 2005, and good teams handed to him in 2006 and 2008, but he's a terrible manager. In his time with the White Sox, he has started and led off Dwayne Wise, benched Nick Swisher for old Ken Griffey Jr. and placed Scott Linebrink and Mike MacDougal in too many high leverage situations to count. Now he has decided that old Andruw Jones and MARK EFFING KOTSAY would make a better DH than Jim 'led the White Sox in OPS/EQA/wOBA' Thome. I have to partially blame KW for that last one, but KW has been a good, sometimes great GM, who is for whatever reason listening to his stupid ass, giving him the inferior team he claims to want. You want an NL style team? Go to the effing National League! You know what team is a national league style team? The Pirates. Go manage them. We play in US Cellular Field! You have to hit home runs to win at US Cellular Field! I mean seriously, give me something real and quantifiable that Guillen does well, because I'm tired of this bs off-season. Meatballs!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:24 PM) The Twins are a good team. They have the best lineup in the Central and adding Thome would only strengthen that. They have a ton of capable starting pitchers, and I'm sure that 4 of Blackburn, Slowey, Baker, Duensing, Pavano, Perkins, Liriano, Swarzak, Manship, and any other young starters they have in the minors can put up good seasons (which would mean they just need one decent starter out of the others). Their bullpen is likely to be very good again as well, as they have Rauch returning to go along with Nathan, Guerrier, Mijares, and seeing Crain put up a good season wouldn't surprise me either, and the Sox got really lucky the Twins gave up on Breslow as quickly as they did last year. It's not the East, you're correct there, but I think the Sox are only the 2nd most talented team in the division. I'm not writing them off, but I'm not pleased with how this offseason went. Yes, the Twins have capable starters, but I wouldn't say they're nearly as good as the front 4 the Sox will send out there. The Sox should also have a good bullpen, especially combined with a really strong rotation. They have the two most talented players in the division in Morneau and Mauer, but the Sox have some pretty good talent too. As I have said 1000 times, I have concerns about the DH. But when people bring up Kotsay/Jones/Vizquel/Nix, it's almost as if they're thinking all four of those guys will be in the lineup together at the same time. This is one spot out of 9 we're talking about. And while I share the same concerns on that one spot in the lineup, I think we're drastically overstating the impact it's going to have. They would probably be better with a sure bat in that spot, but it is not going to mean everything. I will say this now, and you can tell me I'm wrong if it doesn't work out, but I think this lineup will do a much better job than people realize. And I say that because I think Quentin and Rios get back to where they need to be. This offense will live and die by what those two contribute. I believe that when we look back on the season in September, if it is an offensive failure (or success), it will be mainly because of those two guys or because of what Konerko does or doesn't do. It won't be because of who the DH isn't. If I'm wrong about that, I'll wear it.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 08:14 PM) Rongey, who would Jones or Kotsay seriously start for right now? They are bench players, 4th OF's. Jones hasn't been a good starter since 2006 and 2007 since being a starter at all. Kotsay hasn't been a starter since 2006 while putting up 4th OF type numbers. Jones has at least been good in the past but it's been 4 years since he a was good. Are we counting on him to be good again just because he is supposed to be in good shape? If he was in such great shape and ready to be good again, wouldn't another team have been clamoring for him or Kotsay this offseason? Dave Matthews Band Jeff, you're making hyperbolic, blanket statements about those two players. You said neither of them could start on any other team in baseball, which implies that only the Sox would have given them starting jobs (which by the way, they don't have anyway). Kotsay could maybe start in teh outfield for a number of NL teams (ATL, Giants, Astros, COL maybe, Padres maybe). I just don't think you can say with absolute certainty that he could not start anywhere else. Same for Jones. But it doesn't matter anyway, because NEITHER OF THEM ARE STARTING HERE. I can't stand hyperbole, negative or positive.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 07:24 PM) If he really wants Ozzieball, fine, but for gods sake, go get a bat that is a legitimate MLB starter with OBP skills. Go get Orlando Hudson, get Felipe Lopez and have them DH. Put them at #2 in the lineup, don't waste Beckham in the 2 hole. These guys can at least do the little things, bunt, run the bases and play defense giving all the IF's a break. They are real MLB starters, Kotsay and Jones couldn't start for any other MLB team, yet we count on them this season? Why? That's really not true. QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 07:27 PM) i rather have the rotation than just thome. and u act like its 100% that hed be good and healthy this yr. u dont know. im not going to be like others and say were going to lose the division bcuz were not going to have jim thome. i wouldnt put it all on ozzie about the whole dh thing, they were going to get johnson,of course it was a money issue, not oz. Like I said before, this would have been my only concern with bringing Thome back. He's not going to get any better, his bat isn't going to get any quicker, and there is a really good chance that he has a pretty significant decline this year or that he's back on the DL. However, I really think people (callers, emailers, etc.) really didn't appreciate his contributions. I had friends texting me during 2008 telling me that he was "done". He had been productive even when it appeared he struggled. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 07:34 PM) Thank you Pony Express. I found this really funny.

I really think you guys are forgetting the competition this year. This is not a good division. This is not the East. If it were, the Sox might be in trouble. QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) Yes, but Longoria, Pena, Upton and Crawford are better than nearly anything that the Sox are throwing out there this season. I don't disagree. But with their weighted schedule, they played nearly a quarter of their games against the pitching staffs of the Red Sox and Yankees. The Sox will have 1/3 of their games against the Royals, Indians and Twins who didn't pitch particularly well last year and I doubt much will change there (though I don't suspect the Twins will pitch as poorly as they did last year if Liriano rebounds and makes the rotation). QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Having a better DH also slightly decreases the damage done if someone like Quentin, Rios, or Beckham struggles this season. True. By the way, Thome is not coming back. Just heard.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) Yes... but... The statistical correlation between runs scored and wins is very very clear. And the correlation between OPS and runs scored is very clear. And in the AL, DH is a premier offensive position. So, why should we handicap ourselves by choice? I can buy the argument that we might not have many other choices... But I simply can't buy the idea that intentionally rotating sub-standard offensive players through the DH position is an acceptable idea for a team that wants to compete. I'd be happier if they scrapped the idea and just said "Tyler Flowers will be our DH unless he struggles to hit at the major league level"... and then let the current 'plan' be the backup plan. You will get no argument from me that it is not ideal. I agree with that. I'm simply saying that the fate of this lineup does not necessarily hinge on the DH, especially if the big boys do their job. The Rays scored the 5th most runs in the league last year (7th overall) and Pat Burrell had an OPS of around .680 as their full-time DH. It's not ideal, but it doesn't mean it won't be good enough...especially in the Central.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:36 PM) You said it well yesterday....no one is really going to choose the White Sox over the Yankees if the money is even close. Probably true. There are a number of reasons starting with, well, they're the Yankees. And I would think most players would feel honored to play for them at some point. Then of course, there's the obvious...

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:27 PM) Just league wide, midseason trades do not work out that well. There was a huge report on this at the deadline last year showing how little impact midseason trades have had in the postseason. Beltran is one of the only ones to really make a difference. The goal of that midseason trade isn't just to help in the postseason. Primarily, it's intended to strengthen a team looking to maintain (or obtain) an edge for the rest of the regular season so they may make it to the playoffs. What happens after that is no guarantee. It's really good for teams that are in a dogfight for a division/wild card and think they need something to get them to the end.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:25 PM) Sorry, but I struggle with the argument that it's OK to accept a glaring weakness on the team because 'one player/position probably won't make that much of a difference'." Depending on who Detroit trots out there, we're likely to have THE worst production at DH of any team in the division. Why is that acceptable for a team that says it wants to compete for the division title? There really is no use repeating myself, because I thought it was pretty clear. If the lineup as a whole does its job, it is irrelevant if the Sox' DH is weaker than everyone else's. Let me make this even clearer for those that may think I wouldn't like a better hitter there: I would. For the sake of piece-of-mind alone, I would find it more comforting if they had a better option right now. However, I just don't believe that one spot will end up making the difference. It will probably be inconsequential in comparison to the trio I mentioned in my previous post.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:08 PM) Good enough for what? Hoping other players step up to compensate for a potential hole in our lineup isn't a strategy that inspires much confidence. There were only 4 DH's in the AL last year with an OPS under .750. Only one of those on a competitive team. And in our division, the teams we're competing against have pretty good DH's. Why put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage right out of the gate? Just seems ridiculous to me. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) I also think you get yourself in trouble when you start talking about "this one position isn't going to make or break us." At some point, something ultimately does make or break you, and I have to admit, adding a competent DH could be the difference between having an above-average offense or an average to below-average offense. And just so Mr. Rongey doesn't misinterpret me here, I do agree with him regarding the lineup needing to step-up as a whole, but should not everything go as we hope, I think a lot of things could fall on that middle of the order again, and acquiring Thome goes a long way towards solidifying it. "Goode enough" means just that: good enough for the team, as a whole, to win. Again, it's all about the lineup in it's entirety. If the Sox don't get production out of Rios, Quentin, or Konerko (who will likely be the true heart of the order, but probably not in that particular sequence), it won't matter who the DH is. A better hitter at the DH spot would add another element for sure, but I won't count on that one piece making the difference. Shack, I don't think you get in trouble when you say that about one position, but it's when you're saying it about multiple positions that will get you into trouble. the Sox are actually in fair shape everywhere else really (provided Rios and Quentin bounce back, of course) The truth is, they will not find an available hitter that will be a game-changer (unless there's a miracle swap for Gonzalez or something).

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 04:02 PM) I actually think it's entirely possible for the DH to win or lose the division. In 2008, if the White Sox had Mark Kotsay DHing instead of Jim Thome, does that team win the division? (and I'm not even talking about game 163 here either. I'm simply talking about whether they'd be in that position in the first place) I think Thome can add as many as 2-3 wins to the team just by himself. That can win or lose a division very easily. In all reality, what's the likelihood it all comes down to one game, or even two? I understand it's happened in two straight seasons but, really, that is highly unusual. You can do this "what if?" game with everyone in the lineup. They wouldn't have even been in position to play that 163rd game if Konerko hadn't been non-existent for the first 4 months or if Swisher hadn't underachieved by about 100 OPS points that season. The truth is, they were in that position because of lineup-wide underachievement. It's not that I don't believe one guy can't carry a lineup for a time, because that can happen. Quentin did it two years ago and Thome did it in 2006, for example. But Thome's days of carrying a lineup are probably over.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) The scary part is... that if the oddball one-in-hundred type thing happens and the guys DH'ing don't suck, Ozzie will be absolutely insufferable. Then, we'll have to put up with even more oddball ideas. I don't think the odds are that heavily in favor of the DH sucking. I think there is a good chance, but I don't think it's that strong. I also think there's a pretty good chance that the DH isn't necessarily good, but that it's good enough. I also believe it's a mistake to put this much weight on the designated hitter. The Sox will not win, or lose, the division just because of it. While a real, good hitter would make the lineup better, it's going to be up to the lineup as a whole to get it done this year. The DH appears to be a weakness, but it's probably not going to be the one thing that makes or breaks them. That's too much emphasis to place on one guy in the lineup.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 03:40 PM) I hate to keep bringing this up, but accountability does seem to be an issue here. JR did recently say that it is difficult to hold Ozzie accountable if they don't provide him with the team he asks for. Seems like there is a struggle about how closely to follow his vision, and the closer it is followed, the more accountable he will be held. I think that is reading too much into it. It's never been an issue of not trusting Ozzie's vision for an ideal team as much as it has been that it's just difficult to build a team exactly the way you want it to be built within a couple of years when you consider pre-existing multi-year contracts, alternatives (or lack of alternatives), and financial constraints. Now that the team is built the way Ozzie likes it, it would be easier to keep it in tact (if it works) than it would be to re-vamp the whole thing again. I don't think that this suddenly means Ozzie will be on Jerry's hotseat because he still has plenty of equity built up with the owner. Ozzie will be more heavily scrutinized by the fans and media for sure, but I doubt he will be in any greater danger of losing his job if things go poorly this year.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) True, when april 2nd rolls around i'll first be reminded of how awful pierre is before being reminded 4 abs later how atrocious our DH rotation is. And I think its absolutely silly to go into the season knowing you have a gigantic hole at DH just so you know you have some resources to fill it later. I think you might just be one of those kids that thinks everything is always terrible. 23 is a little too young to already hate everything, isn't it? Everything is not either "great" or "terrible"...there is such a thing as a middle ground. And there is also such a thing as not having to have everything be ideal in order for the whole to be successful. That said, I disagree with "gigantic" but that spot in the order is currently not a strength and is a concern. However, maintaining some midseason payroll flexibility is actually kind of smart. Teams rarely exhaust themselves financially before a season begins, unless they're presented with a can't-miss opportunity during the offseason.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 01:07 AM) Well remember to keep that in mind when putting fans that contact you through your show, and fans whose opinions you read here in the same group. There usually is quite a distinction. I don't know shack, some of the opinions there are similar to those here. I don't read game threads on the message baords because thsoe are exactly the same as postgame calls. Same tone, same overreaction, very few level-heads. The difference is, in a thread like this, people have usually had time to think about something before they get all foamy-mouthed. QUOTE (hitlesswonder @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 01:10 AM) Jones and Kotsay have already had those drop-offs. If Thome is indeed cheap, it's not much of a gamble to spend $2M to see if he can hit righties at an .850 OPS clip instead of Kotsay's .738 OPS clip over the last 3 years. Games lost before midseason are still games lost. I don't see why they would want to make winning the division more difficult by handicapping themselves with a bad DH for half a season when it appears they can significantly upgrade pretty cheaply. I'm fine with Thome not being back, but if replacing him is a goal, replace him with someone that can hit and get on-base. I agree that I'd like a better option or somebody that maybe doesn't have the same OPS but it is more useful in other ways and less likely to hurt himself. Thome did a good job last year of staying healthy, given his history and his age. However, that age is very much working against him and as the years go on, the more and more likely it is he'll spend significant time on the DL. The one problem with going into a season with "everything you need" is that if you don't have unlimited resources, you won't have enough room to maneuver when you discover the needs you didn't know you had. Take for example the '06 team: they went into that season in pretty good shape, had a maxed-out payroll, and were the clear favorites in the division. It was unforeseeable that Cotts and Politte were not only going to nothave years like they did the previous year but that they were going to have absolutely terrible years. It became clear they needed bullpen help when it looked like they were set prior to the season. If you are not the Yankees, flexibility is a good thing when you need to be able to react to the holes you didn't know you were going to have because of injury or sudden, unexpected drop-off. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2010 -> 06:37 AM) You know the DH situation is bad when it makes me forget how poor our leadoff hitter is. It's not that bad. You forget how poor the leadoff situation was because it's not happening now.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 10:41 PM) I'm guessing at midseason last year no one was expecting: Kenny and Ozzie to be stupid enough to go into the next season with Kotsay/A. Jones as our DH when we knew going into this offseason that this would be a great buyers market for DHs. And I'm guessing what piqued our interest about thome now is not the fact that he said he would return, but rather we are really going into the season with probably a .750 ops from our DH. That's inexcusable, and who is on the market that is LH and cheap? Thome. And I don't think fans give a damn what was obvious when they parted ways, their plan instead of thome is god awful and embarrassing. This situation is a mess but easily fixable with 2 million. I can tell you it is not going to be fun to say "I told you so" when the platoon DH is a miserable failure that leaves us 5 games behind the twins at the allstar break. QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 10:56 PM) Just because some people have a perception that Jim Thome sucks and wants him gone doesn't mean he actually does suck and should be off the team. Not everybody has the patience or the know how to evaluate a player's true value to a team, especially since this season is a completely different circumstance than 2008 or even 2009. Besides, back in 2008, Thome's power on this team wasn't as valuable as it would be now or even last season. This team is lacking a left handed slugger to hit home runs and provide good OBP, the team we have now would have problems hitting 150 home runs and the average starter's OBP might be in the .325 range. In a ballpark where the home run is king, you have to be able to hit your fair share to win. I wouldn't call the DH market a "great" one because there really haven't been that many good DH's available at a cheap price. Like I've said a number of times, I think this upcoming season would be a lot more comfortable for me if I had a better feeling about that spot in the order. What they have proposed at the moment isn't terribly exciting. It's not that it can't work, because I think that it can, it's just that it doesn't seem ideal. However, I've been an advocate of parting ways with Thome for a long time and I never really thought they'd come back with him or Dye. I always thought they'd keep 1 of the Dye/Thome/PK trio...2 of them at the most, but I thought even that would be unlikely. The problem with Thome, even though he's still been productive, is that he is not getting any younger and his bat speed isn't getting any faster. At any moment, he's liable to have a significant drop-off. That's what worries me about him. If what they have is, indeed, what they will start the season with, they'll find out by the middle of May whether or not it's going to work. And since they are right at their budget, with maybe a little breathing room, I have no problem with them being flexible enough to make a trade and take on some salary midseason. I like the idea of that flexibility being there in case some other need arises after the season starts (due to injury or poor performance or something of that nature). I'm aware that seasons can be lost in April, but I can't see that being the case in this division. Regardless of their DH, they should be able to remain competitive until they can make whatever midseason adjustments they need to make. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 24, 2010 -> 10:58 PM) bmags has just touched on this, but I don't think a whole lot of people anticipated in midsummer of last year that Thome could be resigned for $2 million either. Then again, Mr. Rongey, no offense intended, but the vast majority of people that contact you via your show are reacting in an emotional, illogical, and/or inebriated manner. You don't say?