Ranger

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 1, 2010 -> 03:45 PM) As far as young players under 25 that would get a real long contract, Kenny Williams really hasn't had that opportunity with position players. Ordonez was under Schueler for the first 4 years. Carlos Lee could have been that guy, but he wasn't. Then it's been pile of suck with the likes of Borchard, Fields, and Anderson. Beckham is a special case, and since players like Longoria and Braun are getting locked up early, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the same treatment after this season. He has tried with Quentin, Danks, and Floyd. Floyd was the only one that bit. Can't blame a guy for turning that down, but I also couldn't blame him for taking it either. It's a risk either way, for everybody involved.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 07:24 PM) Rolen deferred $5 million of his 2010 salary with no interest. He did have an existing contract. His payoff was an extension, but he did defer money. Iamshack was suggesting guys like Peavy who supposedly want Damon badly defer a million or two to get it done. I don't know what the payoff for Peavy could be. Maybe later on if the White Sox are absolutely sure of his health, they can guarantee picking up his option or something. But there isn't anybody like that on the Sox (a guy with one year left that there's a consideration of a long term deal after this season). Nobody's contract is coming up, at least not a player they're probably looking to sign long term. Except for maybe AJ, but who knows right now what their plans are for him. I doubt they'd be looking to bring him back for more than one more year if they're looking to bring him back at all. I doubt they're looking to do the same with Konerko, either, unless he'll be a future DH or something.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) Your suggestion has occurred before. I never heard of it, but from cincinatti.com: I’m writing about Scott Rolen for tomorrow’s paper. He’s an interesting guy to talk to. Here’s a little preview: The restructuring of his contract was in the works since the last day of the season. Walt Jocketty approached him and told him that the Reds wanted him here long-term. Rolen got extended for two years — but his 2010 salary was reduced from $11 million to $6 million with other $5 million, deferred with no interest. “You’ve got to be careful talking about money with an organization,” he said. “But they were looking to free up some money to go out and be more competitive, to become a better ballclub. I was certainly more than willing to do that, so pushed some money back. It’s a negotiation. They said, ‘we’ll extend you if you do this.’ It worked well for both of us.” That $5 million allowed the Reds to add to Orlando Cabrera ($2.27 million), Jonny Gomes ($800,000) and Aroldis Chapman ($1 million) to this year’s payroll. Of course he received an extension for his efforts, but if winning is the main thing and you have more money than you'll ever need.................................. Sure, which makes something like this the player's call. But we're also talking about a different situation here. It's one thing to be negotiating a contract for an upcoming season and the team lays out plans to you and tells you that they want you, they want to pay you a little less than what you may be able to get elsewhere, but they want to take that money and sign some other players. They may also tell you specifically what it is they want to do and who else they want to sign. That's one thing, and it's not all that uncommon. It's a completely different thing, however, to ask a player with an already existing contract to restructure. In that case, you're getting into some murky player-relations territory. Like I said before, part of that problem is the decision of who would get approached first. You have to think that if you come to a current player on your roster and tell him what you want to do, his reaction will probably be, "Why are you asking me to do that? Why not anyone else?" I would also imagine that, for future puproses, you don't want to be known as the team that signs its players to long term deals, then comes to them 2 years in to ask to restructure. Part of the benefit of getting a long-term contract is the security of knowing exactly what you'll be paid and for how long.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 26, 2010 -> 08:37 AM) code words are so much more fun though... Any good codewords I'd come up with would get me fined.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 04:57 PM) Ranger you should come up with a secret codeword that all soxtalk fans can use when they call your show after games. Or not. QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 05:07 PM) like, "douchebag"? No. Wait. That's Chris' codeword for Soxtalk fans. Just say you're from Soxtalk when you're on the phone with me. You'll give your name and location, like everyone else does, but then once I have you on, just say you're from the board or give me your soxtalk name. Easy enough. Some of the WSI folks will do that.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 04:08 PM) You dismiss statistics in favor of your eyes. Every time. Eyes tend to tell a great deal of lies. It's a two way street, you just can't be married to things you think you saw. When it comes down to it, you don't get the whole picture just from visuals, nor can you from stats. It's a very, very in depth combination. Anytime anything other than generic statistics are brought up you insist on letting us know that there are flaws, i get it, you have more than stressed it enough. Advanced statistics are intended to help us get a better understanding of the game, not the opposite. Sabremetrics is one never ending pursuit to benefit the game of baseball. There is lots of forward progress, backwards progress, and forward progress again in the sabremetric community, just like any other field. Very little is definitive in this game. You are a traditional baseball fan, through and through. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't keep coming off as what you say is gold, and everything others think is rubbish. I could be wrong and you have no intention to come off that way, but that is how i interrupt it. For what it's worth, i think you are a damn fine poster who adds another much needed dimension to soxtalk. I have noticed when i agree with you (your posts in general, does not mean i replied), i agree wholeheartedly, and when i don't, it's like we are on completely opposite ends of the spectrum. It's nice to have a level head around here, considering that the ratio is probably somewhere in the 20-1 range. The pessimism just for the sake of being pessimistic is extremely old. You know it's sad when this board is dead during a seven game win streak and absolutely hopping on a five game losing streak. People just love to female dog and moan. I appreciate it. It's too bad so many people automatically assume the worst at all times. It's just not a fun way to watch baseball. Good Lord, sometimes the uncertainty of it all is what makes it fun in the first damn place. I appreciate that you are also not an end-of-the-world guy. I don't just rely on my eyes. I rely on both my eyes and statistics. What I'm saying to you is that you can't just only rely on the advanced statistics, especially when there is plenty of room for error in them. The more complicated a formula or algorithm, the more room there is for some mistakes in the conclusions. I appreciate sabermetrics and I think they hav e aplace, but I just don't thinki they should be gospel. They sometimes seem to benefit the fantasy player in getting an understanding of putting a team together for his purposes rather than help people understand how to put an actual team together. WAR, for example is interesting to look at and should be taken as a suggestion, but I'm not sold that it accurately measures a player's worth. As you said, some of these SABR stats are constantly evolving and are being tweaked because of errors. That, alone, tells me they don't always have it right and the formulas are sometimes faulty. I mean, how can you really know for sure that a guy was worth 2.5 wins in a season? That's debatable. Stats like OPS, OBP, SLG, and some of the cummulative stats like HR, hits, XBH are not debatable, on the other hand. They are what they are, and they will not change. (By the way, I think AVG has lately been dismissed by the uber-SABR crowd, and I think that's unfortunate. While it may not mean everything anymore, it certainly means something.) I don't have any contempt for advanced stats, but I do have contempt for the idea that they are the end all.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 06:37 AM) Are you tweeting? What do you think of Ozzie's new plaything? How long before this whole thing blows up in his face and one of his sons inadvertently types something that comes back to bite them after a tough loss or player transaction? C'mon Ranger, I know you can get 11,000 followers in a couple of days if you advertise it on the radio and here! I have an account, but I really haven't posted anything yet. I'm sure I'll do a lot more when the season starts. As for Ozzie, I really don't care if he does it or not. I think they were just a little worried that he would give out a little too much info on it, which it sounds like he won't do. I honestly think he'll continue to give baseball-related stuff to his everyday media, and I think he'll do it out of courtesy. But I guess you never know.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 03:17 AM) Welcome to late night Soxtalk, Ranger! Why am I up?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 01:14 AM) His 2009 was better than his 2004 season by 0.7 wins and he did so in 54 less games. In 2008 and 2009 teams were spending roughly 4.5 million on one win, which means he was more than worth the 2.5 million he received. I do not see room for debate. Also, i was in no way trying to imply what you described as satisfactory. You're assuming WAR isn't flawed, by the way, so yes, there is plenty of room for debate. You can't just be married to the advanced statistics.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 11:46 PM) I'm not quite certain his 2004 season was better. 2004- His slash line was .239/.299/.418. 16.5 K% 0.42 BB/K .180 ISO .309 wOBA 84 wRC+ 83 OPS+ 19.5% O-Swing% 2009- His slash line was .225/.289/.414. 16.8 K% 0.48 BB/K .189 ISO .305 wOBA 86 wRC+ 83 OPS+ 31.5% O-Swing% =============================================================================== Nothing stands out in his batted ball percentages. Though two things do when it comes to his plate discipline, his 12% increase in O-Swing%, and a 7.4% increase in his O-Contact% in 2009 compared to 2004. You likely already know his defensive metrics for the two years in question, which was pretty drastic, considering the significant amount of difference in games played (54 games). Crede WAR was 1.9 in 2009 compared to his 1.2 WAR in 2004. He was worth his contract. To answer your question, i would take a .225 average, with a sub .300 obp, that is of course if their defense is good enough to make them worth 2-2.5 wins annually. Admittedly, the defensive numbers one would have to produce annually with that sort of offensive production would be rather low. If i were running a team not looking to contend, and for the stop gap type, he could possibly be a terrific pick up. Now if i were a team with a good chance to contend, i would only be looking in his direction if his lack of offense could be made up else where in the line-up, and my team was maybe a bit thin defensively. The question really isn't whether he was worth his contract or not, but I think it's debatable whether or not he was worth $2.5 mil last year. You could argue the two seasons were comparable, though the greater point is that we're considering his 2009 to be satisfying, while is 2004 was not. We should put the numbers down for a second and remind ourselves that, not only was his offense not good last year, he barely played more than half of his team's games. That's not satisfactory, which was my point. QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 12:11 AM) Since when did defense become overlooked? I thought that and pitching is what win championships. It hasn't been overlooked. I'm just fairly confident that there would be very few people here that would be pleased with those numbers, even with good defense. They certainly weren't satisfied with Uribe as an offensive player even though he was good defensively.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 09:33 PM) Instead of going off on another tangent about whether or not you think a DH matters, I'm just going to reply to the bold part because that was part of the point of my original post. Who cares? Who actually cares whether or not our DH is good enough to supplant Quentin as the "key" to our offense? I'm not arguing that Johnny Damon would be more important to us than Carlos Quentin. I'm not arguing that any DH would be more important to us than any other part of our offense. I am just tired of seeing people write off the fact that we have people being penciled into positions that they do not belong because it isn't the most important part of our line up. Was Dewayne Wise any less of a hole because he played on the same team as the "key" to our offense? I'm not sure what "tangent" you're referring to as I was speaking directly to the topic at hand. Dewayne Wise hit leadoff, and was dismissed before he was even given a chance to play last year (see opneing day booing). And before he was injured, did actually begin to start playing better. Now, my issue is with those that have completely written off the offense based on the DH alone. The idea that since the Sox do not have a legit DH (at least that we know of) they will have a poor offense. My opinion is that while a DH would help the cause, it will not be the difference between a good offense and a poor one. However, the difference will reside in the heart of the order. You can come back to me in July and declare your victory if I'm wrong, but as Quentin and Rios go, so will go the Sox offense. If they're bad, then the Sox offense will be bad. But if they're good and the DH isn't all that great, the Sox will still probably be a "good enough" offense. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 09:38 PM) To expand on your point, there is a big danger in continually saying position after position will not "make or break" this offense. These things add up; they are often the difference between mediocrity and success. Well, of course. If all of those things combined go wrong, the team won't be good. That goes for every team. What I've been clearly stating, though, is that if the Sox get good years from Quentin and Rios (and Konerko to an extent), it's likely the DH isn't going to make or break them. Just about every winning team has a guy in the lineup that isn't all that good. Very few teams are really strong 1-9. Those teams get contributions from the rest of the lineup, which is what the Sox have to do. I also think that people here are writing off Teahen before he even starts, which I think is a mistake. The problem seems to be that people are automatically assuming the realization of worst possible scenario for every position on the field before the season starts. I think part of what's going on here is that many people are thinking of this whole thing as if Jones, Kotsay, and Vizquel are all going ot be in the lineup at teh same time. They are not. They're essentially making up one spot in the order. If they were all playing together, well then there would probably be a problem. QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 09:49 PM) The comparisons aren't valid. 2006-2008, Uribe's WAR came in at 0.9, -0.1, and .2. Anderson's came in at 0, -.5, and .1. WAR is a nice tool to use, but it isn't of the Bible. Neither is UZR. Uribe played excellent defense, as did Anderson, regardless of what UZR suggests. And their offensive years were comparable to what Crede did last season.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 07:37 PM) I do. Crede's value has always been mainly defensive. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 08:30 PM) If you want one game where Crede made a difference, he did hit a walk off grand slam against Detroit on May 13th. If not for Crede, maybe the Twins lose the division by 1 game. I think they're happy with what they got out of Crede. Well, you can through every single players statistics and find at least a game or two that a big hit of theirs gave the team the win or one good play helped preserve a victory. I just want to make sure I get this right: you would be satisfied with the contributions of an individual Sox player that hit .225 with an OBP below .300 over only 90 games as long as his defense was good? Something about that strikes me as odd considering his 2004 season was statistically better, yet I remember vividly many, many Sox fans trying to run him out of town before the '05 season. Then people should have also been satisfied with Juan Uribe's contributions the last couple of Sox seasons, yet it sure didn't sound like they were. I'm assuming that you were also satisfied with Brian Anderson's 2006?

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) So you are arguing that since nobody else matters on offense that they should just step back and try to fill the rest of the positions as cheaply as possible? This is such a ridiculous argument Ranger, and you know it. I can understand that they did not sign Damon because he was too expensive for them, but to say that the position doesn't matter because of Quentin and Rios is just a ridiculous statement. What if both Quentin and Rios perform as well as they can in addition to good production from your DH? Is that not a better team with a higher chance of not only getting to the playoffs but doing something in them? It's not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is assuming the offense is an automatic failure only because of the DH (or lack thereof). I didn't say it doesn't matter, but I said that position was never going to be responsible for the bulk of the Sox offense. Of course, Damon would've made them better. I think it's arguable as to exactly how much better he would've made them as far as his effect on the number of total wins, but he would've probably been an improvement. The point is that Quentin is one of the big boys (and really, the biggest boy). If he doesn't produce, they're probably going to be in trouble. On the other hand, if he does, and Rios does, and Konerko does, the DH is probably not going to make or break them. The days of the David Ortiz-type monster DHs are about behind us. The major offense is coming from the position players. It's Quentin that has the 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, .950+ OPS potential, not Damon. He's going to be more important than any other individual offensive player. I'm not saying the DH is not important. All of the spots in the lineup are, but there are varying degrees of importance. The truth is that Q will be more important than anyone. If he's having a good year and the other guys I mentioned are relatively productive, I think they'll be able to get by regardless of who is or isn't the DH. Obviously, improvements are improvements, but in the end, how much difference will it actually make? QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) Crede put up 1.9 WAR, thanks to his great defensive value (23.4 UZR/150) So because of the suggestion of UZR, you honestly think he had a good year? I guarantee that if a Sox player puts up those kind of offensive numbers, you would not consider it to be a good season.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:37 PM) The difference is that Jones and Kotsay aren't declining. They've declined, they're shells of the players they once were. Any theory about Thome and Damon declining is conjecture and projection. Their's no daming empirical evidence that points to them being inadequate this year. Meanwhile, we have ample reason and empirical support to the belief that Kotsay and Jones aren't going to cut it. First, let's be honest here and say that nothing is empirical in baseball except for the examination of what has already happened. Anything that we think might happen from this day forward is projection and there is no amount of numbers that will "prove" what a player is going to do in a given season. Any player at any time is liable to have a dropoff in any given season. Just as there is reason to think Jones/Kotsay will not be good enough, there is also plenty of reason to think that Thome will be inadequate. While his numbers have been good enough over the last several seasons, he has been in a steady decline since 2006. And for a a guy that's going to be 40 in August, has such a violent swing and a history of back problems, there is reason to think that at any moment, his back will give out. There is also reason to think, because of the type of player he is, that he won't be nearly as productive as usual if he doesn't play every day, which is how it sounds he'll be used. It's possible, though, that he has a good year. And it's also possible that Jones has a bounceback year.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) Yeah I don't get that either. No matter how much you liked a player for the Sox, I can't see how you root for them on a division rival. Not to be cliche, but isn't the name on the front of the jersey most important? You should never want another player to hurt your team, especially out of spite or so you can be the one to say, "I told you so." That's just stupid. QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 12:23 PM) I'm really getting tired of this justification. An improved DH means an improved team, and that has nothing to do with Carlos Quentin. As I've said before, the DH position is really no longer the best offensive player on the team which has been the trend for the last several years now. The keys of the Sox offense will be Q and Rios, which is something we've been saying since the end of last season. Another hitter would have made the istuation more comfortable from a certainty standpoint, but the DH wouldn't carry this team anyway. Even if they acquired Damon and Quentin and Rios suck, the offense would suck. If they don't, it will probably be good enough. QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) It worked for them last year, didn't it? Crede wasn't a huge factor for them, but they certainly don't regret signing him. Are you serious? Go take a look at his line and tell me if you think you would call that "working out" if a player did that for the Sox. Aside from hitting 15 HRs in 90 games, Crede did not have a good year.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 09:26 PM) Yeah Ranger, that's how it is. My guy was VERY hands-on, that was part of the problem, because sometimes we were at cross-purposes. However, I'd much prefer working with any ahtlete who is personally invested into something in the charitable realm, rather than a player who just puts their name on something out of obligation or because the team requires community involvement. (This was the case with the KC Chiefs, and one of the really outstanding athletes I had a chance to work with there, just briefly, was named Pellom McDaniels--I see now that he has become as Assistant Professor of History at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, not the most likely post-career for an NFL football player!). Unfortunately, it's the journeymen players (who are most often involved in really worthwhile projects) who hang around the league 3-4-5 years but when their time is up, they're really shut out and it's much harder to accomplish anything on their behalf. When I was working for the Augusta GreenJackets, I tried to put together a celebrity home-run hitting contest. I had Garrison Hearst and Bert Emmanuel (he played some college BB at Rice University, and drafted by the Pirates) very interested, but they had to defer because their agents were worried they might get hurt and their NFL contracts could be voided. I remember Bert even took one of my phone calls when he was in the shower, lol. Many of the players were surprisingly accessible, some were deliberately evasive or would commit to do something and then keep changing their mind on a weekly basis. Some of the best athletes are the ones you would think would be the most difficult. It's just like getting a job in sports...everyone assumes the most competition is for a job with an NFL or MLB team, so they try to get minor league jobs or internships. What ends up happening is that the competition is stiffer at that level than for the minor leaguers. I guess I'll always regret turning down the Red Sox (I hated them, and it was "only" an internship with $200 per month stipend) and taking a minor league job instead. But that's life. One of my dorm-mates at the University of Iowa ended up getting a radio job with the Astros (Brett Dolan) andI was really shocked, because I know how much competition there is...you just have to be in the right place at the right time, cliched as that is. This was the strange problem with our guy who wanted to be in on the decisions but didn't feel like getting back to anyone in a timely matter.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) Well, I did graduate from law school, and yet you feel perfectly knowledgeable enough to decide that adding an addendum to a player's contract would take too much time to make this realistically possible, even though I can tell you from experience that it could be drafted in 30 minutes or less. I can also tell you that we all heard and read how quickly the acquisition of Jake Peavy occurred right before the deadline, so apparently things can be done in a prompt fashion when the parties are interested. I can also tell you that most of our American-based players seem to respond to phone calls from their agents and/or GMs when such calls are made (at least this is what I read in the press). It seems to be when a player is home in South America or the Caribbean, where cell service might be substandard or non-existent that these issues of "losing" a player seem to occur most (again, from what I read in the press). Obviously, if you are privy to knowledge that our American-based players do not seem to want to answer their phones, then I cannot challenge you on that. However, I have never heard/read of this being the case before, and in fact, have heard/read of the opposite being the case. Well, why would you hear about that? What point would it be for the GM to come out during the winter and say, "jsut thought you'd like to know, but I can't get ahold of ________." You have heard maybe a couple of examples of Kenny talking to a player during the offseason and you just assume that it is easy for all of them to be reached. Sure, some guys are easy to get ahold of. Other guys are not. Sometimes the easy guys are even hard to reach. And yes, sometimes deals do get done very quickly, but even you should know that's not normal. While you went to law school and understand the drafting of an addendum can be done quickly, that doesn't mean that getting all parties to agree on an addendum would be as quick. Sure, the actual drafting of it may take little time, but that's once the parties have agreed. That's the part that usually takes a while. On a side note, what's interesting to me is how you fought me on this idea that it wasn't a realistic option to ask a player to renegotiate, yet you've since admitted that it would be nearly impossible to do.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 08:53 PM) I used to run an NFL football player's non-profit foundation in 1995 and 1996. We put on a charity basketball game, golf tournament and dinner, so, as the Program Director, I was lucky enough to deal with Coach Landry, Ditka, Schottenheimer, Dan Reeves, Hootie and the Blowfish, Garrison Heart, Rodney Hampton, Robert Porcher, Shannon Sharpe, etc. Well, Deion Sanders was a pain (we had to get first class tickets for his wife, Deion Jr and Deiondra, from Ft. Myers to Augusta, limo service, etc.). The basketball game was the NFL All-Stars against the Dallas Cowboys. And this was Michael Irvin's first public appearance after his drug problems, the event was early 1996, can't remember the exact date. But there must have been 50+ media requests. The one individual I left that experience having a great amount of respect for was Herschel Walker. He volunteered his own time to be the keynote speaker and didn't even accept a free hotel room, if I remember correctly. I think he was still getting paid by the New Jersey Generals at the time, one of the best contracts ever for a professional athlete. But Coach Landry, he had that sort of "gravelly" voice, like Vincent Price from the Thriller video, you just knew instantly who it was as soon as you picked up the phone. Let me give an quick NFL example: I ran a charity event (our agency ran it and it was mostly my event) about 9 years ago for a former Rams and recent Bears lineman (just think pancakes). His charity was one of the two that received the proceeds. And by his charity, I mean his name was on the foundation. For a solid week-and-a-half leading up to the event, we could not get ahold of him (and, yes, he had a perfectly capable cell phone). The girl who ran his charity could never get ahold of him and he would never call her back. And this was his charity. The thing was, it was nothing in particular that kept him from calling back. He just didn't call back. He wasn't busy, he wasn't out of town. He was just unreachable. He was just operating on his own time, which isn't good because he insisted on having the final say on a few different issues. Now, he was an incredibly nice person, he just had a different watch than the rest of us.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 07:47 PM) That is all very relevant and great, Mr. Rongey. But guess what? Posters here don't have to work for the Score or be at the ballpark to hear and know things either. And yet you treat many of their opinions as irrelevant or inaccurate because they don't hold some publicly-known position. How do you know what I know? How do you know who I know? I know current players and ex-players, and I know people who know other celebrities and entertainers, and I happen to know that it is quite simple to get in touch with many of them simply by calling their cellphone. Especially when the call is coming from one of their bosses or someone who completely and utterly controls the fate of their current employment situation. No, I don't treat their opinions that way because they don't have a well-known position, shack, but I know when to defer to somebody that does know whether or not something is true because of their job or connections. I would never questiona an attorney on the process of law, nor would I question a doctor on procedure? I may have an opinion of the way I think something runs, but I don't know that. And if I think something is done one way when it's actually done a completely different way, who am I to be stubborn in my opinion? Especially if my opinion is wrong? Some things are not debatable. Some things are either true or they're not. And just because a lot of people may think one thing is true, does not make it fact. Like I said, if I am guessing, I will tell you that I'm guessing. If I know something to be true, I will tell you that as well. What I presented to you here is fact, and it is not debatable. It is fact that players are often times hard to reach (cell phones or not) It is fact that it is nearly logistically impossible to decide on a player to ask to renegotiate, get ahold of that player, work out the renegotiation with the agent, and then come to terms with the other player you're trying to sign, all within a matter of days. Not only is it almost impossible because of time contraints, but it's also almost impossible because of the awkward nature of approaching that player to ask him to do that. These are humansa and it is a business This is not opinion, it's fact. There is no other way to present it. Debating a player's talent is one thing, but there is not a debate when it comes to whether or not something can actually be proven to be true. It is not opinion that, often times, players are tough for the GM to get a hold of. It is an absolute fact. Players do not operate the way regular people do, and they often operate on their own time. While the GM is technically their boss, they don't fear their boss like the average person fears his/hers because they know they're getting paid regardless. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) I can agree with that. The entire reason I brought up the concept is because Peavy said in the press that he wanted Damon on his team, because he is a winner. I think if Jake is going to start proclaiming through the press who he wants on his team, than maybe he should be willing to not take up 15-20% of the payroll himself. Good Lord. Isn't this what I've been saying? The only way it works is if a player volunteers. The GM is not going to go around asking his players which one wants to volunteer.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 07:38 PM) And by strap it down I am referring to Boner from Growing Pains. I have kidnapped him. Carry on. That situation is not good. I just can't imagine that it will end any other way than him being found dead somewhere, especially if he's battling depression. Sad.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 06:20 PM) Mr. Rongey, no offense intended, but as far as I am aware, you are the pre and post game host for Chicago White Sox games on the Score radio station, correct? Again, no disrespect intended here, but you are not a MLB player. You are not an agent for an MLB player. You are not currently employed by the front offices of any Major League teams. You are not currently employed in any offices of Major League Baseball. In what field would you say that you are employed? It's my job to know this s***. What do you think I do when I am at the park and in the clubhouse for 81 games? Take pictures? And while I don't hear every single thing that happens, when I say something with confidence it's because I know it to be true, not because I'm speculating. When I'm guessing, I'll tell you I'm guessing. I also know some players, scouts, coaches, front office employees (not just in Chicago) very well, and I know and have heard things that I could never mention because the source would be obvious. Like I said, I have also worked in an agency before, I know for a fact (this is not guessing) how difficult it is to get in touch with players sometimes. I know because I've made the calls myself and I watched my superiors make the calls and have seen their frustration. And if a player isn't going to call his agent back right away, who is he going to call? I also know that sometimes it is very difficult for the front office/coaches to get ahold of players during an offseason (and sometimes in-season when a player is away from the team recovering from an injury, for example) because they complain privately about it. I don't have to be employed in a front office or be a Major Leaguer to know this stuff, dude. Relationships matter.

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) honestly, screw him for saying this.....what was the point? He was asked multiple times. He just gave an answer, and he didn't even say Halladay was the guy. QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) I love his aggressivness towards starting pitching. However, I wish he would direct some of that aggressive behaivor towards aqcuirering a lefty power hitter. Although KW did mention "There is something we don't see right now, you can bank on that- there is something thats going to happen that we don't see right now, so try to insulate yourself, because its going to happen" I wonder what he means by this? Is there a trade in the works for that lefty hitter? Was he just talking about a mid-season deal? He looked smirky. . Check out the video and you can decide yourself. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws How do you know he didn't? You didn't even know about Halladay until just now. QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 06:31 PM) Only way you get Halladay without giving up Floyd or Danks is by trading Beckham, and I just don't think they'd have done that. That's not neccessarily true. Especially if another team were to have been involved.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:42 PM) Ok, slow down here, Mr. Rongey. Explain to all of us, enlighten us, if you will, what makes you qualified to know "the facts of the business regarding asking players to restructure"? You're right. I guess I don't do this for a living or anything. My apologies. Carry on.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:17 PM) I'm not sure valuing a player differently than another team does, monetarily, is quite "operating on principle". It's operating on an economic principle (a sound one, in my opinion), but not an intrinsic emotional one. That's just my take on the whole series of events. I don't think this was a "go screw yourself, boras" thing or a "we need rotating DH's at all costs" thing, but an "all things considered, damon's contract is worth $___ to us" thing. It's not about principle. It's about them saying they don't think it makes sense for them to pay Johnny Damon $8 million for one season, and have to pay it all within this year's payroll.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) Mr. Rongey, I am perfectly happy to admit I am a last word whore. But as long as we're being open and honest here, why don't you fess up as well, my friend. We've seen players mention numerous times in the press how Kenny has contacted them. And considering the fact that it has been VERY publicized that Kenny and Jake talk, I don't think Kenny would have had a very difficult time getting him on the phone, especially considering he was due to be in Glendale on Sunday. Regardless, my point wasn't so much that Jake or another veteran SHOULD have volunteered to defer the money from their own contracts, my point was that if this was really about the money, and not about principle, than there were other ways to make this signing occur. And push come to shove, I think some of our veterans, if they were willing to talk to the press about wanting a player on our team for the sake of winning, just might be willing to make some sacrifices if their own to make that a reality. Yes Kenny has called playrs during an offseason, but has he told you how long it's taken to get these players on the phone? Has he told you that? Has he told you that every player he calls answers the phone right away? Or has he told you that sometimes it takes a couple of weeks to get ahold of guys, and not even their agents can find them? And I'd like for you to tell me how -- in the actual professional baseball world -- this would work when you finally did get one of these guys on the phone. I mean, who gets to be the player that you ask to restructure? The first one that calls you back? And do you say, "hey Johnny, just hang tight for a minute, don't sign with the Tigers just yet because we're trying to reshuffle some things over here." Factor in what you know about agents, professional ballplayers (who, by the way, are operating in a completely different world than the rest of us), and the union, and then enlighten us as to how this might actually work and how you think this would get done in a matter of hours. There's really a difference between having to say the last thing just for the sake of making the last comment, and refuting an hypothetical idea that's not based in reality. About the subject, I can say nothing else. I've given you the facts of the business regarding asking players to restructure. Feel free to be confident in your opinion that has no real-world application. You are more than welcome to do that.