Ranger

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 22, 2010 -> 01:02 PM) This is pure nonsense. Every player has cell phones, Mr. Rongey. Kenny calls our players all the time. Especially the ones based in America. Secondly, we're not talking about a re-negotiation of the entire contract. It's changing the terms of compensation very slightly. It's an addendum being added to the contract that might take 30 minutes maximum to draft. Trust me, it would take no time at all, and it could have been done over the course of the negotiations late last week. Finally, Kenny takes a very aggressive approach with his veterans. He involves them in the direction of the team all the time (just ask DA). He certainly could have approached Jake or Paulie or any number of guys, even at the same time, and given them the low-down. It's really not very unrealistic at all. You're acting as if he would have been asking them to give up their first-born or something. With all due respect, you're simply wrong here. It doesn't matter if players have cellphones, they often times make themselves unreachable. Even for agents. I've worked for an agent. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my backside. You can call the cell phone all you want, but it doens't mean they're going to call you back in a timely manner or that they're going to answer the first 30 times you call. It's different getting ahold of them during the season because you know where they are and know where to find them. It's not like he can gather all the vets in one room and say, "hey guys, now that I have you all here, who wants to change their contract so we can sign Johnny Damon?" You can respond with whatever you like (and I know you will because you're a 'last word' guy), but this is just not a real-world suggestion. The only way it happens is if a player wants to volunteer it. I'm not creating this idea out of thin air, it's based on how real-world baseball stuff works. Having said that, there's really nothing else I can say about it. SO, believe what you want, even if it's wrong.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) What about what scouts say about his decline? I just received my BP yesterday. Here's their little write up on Rios: As surprising as the Jake Peavy trade was, Kenny Williams' claiming Rios in August wins the award for the most shocking transaction of 2009. With Williams hoping the talented outfielder simply needed a change of scenery to get things going again, Rios responded by not even getting his batting average above the Mendoza line, and the club is stuck with him for six more years at a cost of more than $80 million. (I believe they are off $20 million but it may be an option) Rios is young enought to figure things out again, but he most galling aspect of his performance might not be the stat line; it's the gaggle of scouts who see a player who just doesn't give a damn. I don't know if that really is true or not. Not the scouts feelings, I know that is true, but whether he really does give a damn. One other thing I heard on MLB Network about Rios with the White Sox in 2009, in 150+ plate appearances, he only hit 12 balls hard in play. Pecota has him at 34 2B 4 3B 20 homers .274 AVG. 339 OBP I gotta tell you that I would not really question the majority opinion of a collection of MLB scouts when it came to observing talent and tools. However, without having any real interaction with the players and without being in a clubhouse on daily basis -- as scouts usually work for more than just one team -- I don't think they can really know for sure whether a guy cares or not. I'm not sold on that. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 03:05 PM) Jake Peavy just came out and stated that he wanted Johnny Damon on his team because he is a winner. My guess is if Kenny went to Jake and asked him to defer $2-3 million from his salary this year over the next three years, he would have been cool with it. Obviously you can sit here and argue against it because it is unknown. But the guy comes out in the press and says he wanted the player, well, then my guess is he would put his money where his mouth is. This is just simply not a real-world scenario, shack. You have to know this. The ONLY way something like this works is if Peavy or someone else volunteers this. It's not up to a GM to start asking his players who would be willing to talk about a contract re-negotiation so another player can get signed. For starters, who do you ask first? Second, do you have any idea how difficult it is to sometimes get ahold of your own players during an offseason? A lot of times, these guys disappear until it's time to report. And they often don't return phone calls right away (even to their own agents), which leads me to: Third, do you realize how long the renegotiation alone can take? It can take weeks. Does it really sound feasible to get a renogotiation with one player done while negotiating with another player at the same time, knowing that one negotiation depends on the other? Not to mention you'd have to get it all done within a couple of days. I'm sorry, but this just wouldn't happen. It's not realistic.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:36 PM) And we couldn't do this because? Because 1) you don't know that Boras was willing to take anything but a guarantee of a certain amount of cash for this year (which was obviously the case), and 2) they maybe don't want to potentially be on the hook for Damon for another season after his one. He is 36, afterall.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) Honestly, and I am not trying to nitpick here, I just don't find the deferred money to be that big of a deal. We're talking about a pretty sophisticated corporation asking a player to accept terms which are fairly uncharacteristic in this industry. Certainly, the concept of deferred money is not necessarily uncommon, but the idea of a 1 year, seven figure deal involving deferred compensation is fairly uncommon. I think this had more to do with principles than compensation. If it was really about $2 million we needed to defer somehow, I would have hoped that one of our veterans would have been willing to restructure for the sake of winning. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) Really? In the grand scheme of things, I respectfully disagree. This was a matter of principle, not finances. Well, sure. You're in the fortunate position on not having to think that extra $3-4 million on one player is a "big deal" when you aren't the one that's working within the budget on a single season. Yes, it does matter. The deferred money makes a difference within this baseball season on this payroll. Paying nearly double for a single player is a big deal, dude. Unless you can find a way to spread that money out over the next season or so. And you're not serious about one of the veterans restructuring, are you? How many guys do you think would be willing to come forward to volunteer that? And on what planet would a MLB general manager go to one of his vets' agents and say, "hey, we want to re-work your client's deal so we can sign Johnny Damon."? And what agent would say, "yeah, sure, no problem!"? Even if they were to try something liek that, it won't happen for a 36-year old Damon. This isn't Pujols we're talking about.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 02:04 PM) Rios had his best season in 2008, not in terms of home runs or anything, but he stole 32 bases, hit nearly 50 doubles, and played great defense in center field when Vernon Wells got hurt. He was worth nearly 5.6 WAR in 2008, which was good enough for 3rd among all OF behind Beltran and Sizemore. The perception that Rios has been in decline ever since 2007 is flat out wrong. He was actually progressing until last season. Right. Like I said earlier, the "decline" is misleading. It's like saying Pujols was on the decline from 2003 to 2005 because his OBP went from 1.106 to 1.072 to 1.039. Technically, that's a decline. But, obviously, it's really not. Wouldn't a lot of people here like to have Curtis Granderson? Well, he's also been on an OPS "decline" the last 3 seasons (and actually, it's been a much more serious decline than what Rios has had) but I wouldn't consider him to be a player that's getting worse. I'd be glad to have him. Melky Cabrera had a similar 3-year downward trend, but that doesn't mean bigger picture issues. For somebody that just turned 29 three days ago, I consider 2009 to be anomalous, and the 3 years before that are not even a problem for me because they were still good years.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) It's clear we drove the price way up on Detroit. I wouldnt be surprised if we knew what we were doing all along. Not to say we didnt want Damon, but just that we had some desire to mess with Detroit's future budget, knowing they needed a leadoff way too badly right now. Maybe. But I think more that the Sox really did want to sing him and thought they'd have a decent chance of him doing it for a reasonable price...the byproduct is the Tigers paid more than they should have. I think they didn't feel desperate to sign him so were dealing form a position of strength. I mean, the guy signed the day before spring training. It's not like clubs were beating down his door.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 09:13 AM) Ahh, I know what he was trying to say, I just like to give him hell once in a while... I also find it a bit humorous that all the sudden we are considering deferred money in a 1 year contract to fit into some form of customary. It simply is not. It doesn't matter if it's customary or not, that's completely beside the point. The point is that spending around 4.5 on Damon this season is a lot different than spending 8 this season

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 21, 2010 -> 07:59 AM) Hah, Ranger. That extra 6% is the real killer, eh? Shack, the difference is the deferred money. You're more perceptive than that.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) I haven't felt this bad about the team in 10+ yeras. I don't even know that it is rational. Maybe it's just because I feel like this is the Twins best team in awhile. I just don't have a good feeling. Yeah, that's a bit of irrationality. QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 05:13 PM) So the Sox show some interest in two legitimate DH candidates, only to allow both to go to division rivals. When we finish 6 games out of first this season due mainly to being 11th in the AL in runs (or something close to that), I hope the front office brass understands why everybody is pissed. You think Damon would've made up a 6-game deficit? And you think it was the Sox' fault he signed elsewhere? $8 million, dude. For one season. For Johnny Damon. I think 7.5 (with some deferred) is workable, but $8 mil all this year? I don't know about that. He would've helped the lineup, but I think it's debatable just how much it would've helped them. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) Sometimes the guy everyone likes is exactly what a team does not need. Meaning that a team can have too many nice guys? Maybe...if they don't have enough talent. But that definitely doesn't make one individual (who is well-liked by his teammates) a bad clubhouse guy.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 06:29 PM) Rios has been on the decline the past few years, and Quentin has been hurt every year. I would call hoping for both of those to reverse as counting on lucky breaks. Rios' decline really wasn't singificant until last season and I think it's even kind of misleading to say he's been on the decline for that long. The 3 years prior to that were still pretty good years, and for a player, and the first two of those years were comparable. OPS of .865 and .852 (in both seasons, he was still a deserving All Star) really aren't that different and in the .853 season, he missed exactly one game. It wasn't a "down" year. For a player under 30, it's kind of difficult for me to believe that there's some real actual trend that indicates it will continue. If he were 37, it would be a different story. I still have a concern about him (only because of last year, the 3 years prior to that don't really scare me), but I seriously doubt he's going to be anything like he was last year. I'll be totally surprised if he is. QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 20, 2010 -> 06:42 PM) I don't think Dye was a good clubhouse guy the past few seasons. His teammates liked him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 05:44 PM) You jumped into the middle of a debate over whether it's a better idea to use the DH/committee and wait for a player to open up to trade for, or to sign someone. So I was assuming that what you had interjected was in someway related. I'm not sure what you're missing here. I was commenting on your words to someone else: "Again, I find it ironic, then, that you want to trade away the talent that we'd have cheaply for 6 years in the future for a one or two year player we can't afford to re-sign." You're right, it doesn't have anything to do with signing or not-signing Damon. I never said that it did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) Ranger, I think we can make some pretty educated guesses based on where salary has been over the past few years, the number and value of contracts that we'll be holding that year, and typical arbitration values for guys that we have like Quentin and Danks. Of course things are going to change based on deals, but the whole point is that we don't want to have to make deals that make us worse in order to afford his salary, like Detroit is having to do, because that defeats the whole purpose. QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) Maybe they win a couple world series, but I can't see them investing $20 million a year for a good 8 years in one player. It just doesn't seem like a "Sox" kind of deal. But it also wouldn't be a Sox kind of deal to trade their best prospects for a player they didn't think they had a chance of signing beyond his current contract. The thing is that you just can't make an assumption of what they will be able to afford, what they will already have, and what their needs will be for 2012. Hell, they don't even know that for sure. You simply cannot discount the possibility that they would be willing, and able, to acquire him and hang onto him at that time. QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 04:48 PM) And, in all likelihood, he would command more than Teixera, of course, if he keeps up his numbers. And per Ranger, no, prospects aren't sure things. But neither are aging reclamation projects that are as cheap that we are plugging into our holes now. Throughout the years, trading prospects has been a better way to get more reasonable contracts and talent to the white sox. That isn't the case this offseason, when good value could be had without sacrificing our farm which is top heavy with no depth. If we can get Adrian Gonzalez, that's great. Bravo. I really doubt signing Johnny Damon will have any impact on that. I'm not sure what you mean by this, because I don't conisder a hypothetical Gonzalez-for-prospects trade to have anything to do with plugging bench holes with veteran players. The two situations have nothing to do with each other. And, sure, you could acquire Damon and, at some point, pick up Gonzalez but there would be no real reason to have them both. Another deal would have to be made.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 02:19 PM) Again, I find it ironic, then, that you want to trade away the talent that we'd have cheaply for 6 years in the future for a one or two year player we can't afford to re-sign. The white sox attendance depends on winning. If they don't win, people don't showup in sept. or august. We have a 100 mill payroll now. If we waste this season depending on merely bounce back years AND an unbalanced lineup, when we have 2 huge contracts on the books for years to come, it's a stupid move. We are talking about a 1 year deal to make a MUCH more balanced lineup and a MUCH better chance of overcoming injuries and getting to the playoffs with a great pitching staff. Instead you want to roll the dice with a 100 million dollar payroll on numerous gambles in your players you think can produce big, while taking huge gambles that the role players will produce AT ALL. With the lineup as is, we need everything to go right offensively to be middle of the pack. That's abhorrent for a 100 million payroll. How can you possibly have any idea that the Sox wouldn't have the ability to re-sign Gonzalez a year and a half from now? You don't know that because you don't know what the economic climate will be then and you don't know the resources that may become available to them over the next two seasons. "Attendance depends on winning" right? It's likely a player like him would help them win, which would give them more payroll flexibility. The other thing is that a team is willing to trade a good package of its youth for a player like Gonzalez because a. He's young, b ) He's still incredibly cheap for two seasons, c) He's a sure thing (production-wise), and d) The Sox minor leaguers that would hypothetically be involved in the deal are not "sure things". As promising as some of them are, they all may blow when they get here. Such is the nature of prospects.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) This is the same guy who fled Boston, a place where he was treated as a God and then was referred to as Judas, for more money. To suggest he doesn't want the best deal is crazy. It may very well have only been about the cash, but it's not like he left for Baltimore. He went to the New York Yankees. And even though Boston won a pair of titles within a couple of years, the Yankees were still arguably a better team on paper. Plus, it's the Yankees. There are a number of players that would love to be able to put that uniform on some day. Not to mention the fact that it is New York, afterall. You can be famous in Boston, but you can be a star in New York. And if is wife has any say at all in what happens, and she is interested in the lifestyle, don't think for a second should wouldn't love to live in Manhattan for a while on the money he makes. HE probably wouldn't mind either. Again, I don't know any intimate details about what he thinks or what their dynamic is, but there is an appeal to playing for NY outside of the money.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2010 -> 10:29 AM) "it just helps detroit compete with us" pt. 2 He turned out to be right about that, didn't he?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Then his agent wouldn't be Scott Boras. You use Scott Boras as your agent when you want the most money possible, not when you have a list of cities you're not willing to go to. Sort of. Boras gets hired because upcoming players know his name and know they won't have to worry about anything and that he'll take care of it. The thing is, it doesn't have to be just one of those things (money or city preference), it can be both of those and a number of other things that make a player hire an agent. Or it could just be recruiting. Usually, the process is that the agent recruits the guys he wants and they make a sales pitch to the player. It's honestly kind of similar to what college coaches do when they recruit HS players. Then it just comes down to a decision by the player. It's not so much that Damon sought Boras out because he knows Boras will get him more money. QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:13 PM) I agree, especially for a one year deal. Damon's actually the rare player that will generate merchandise sales. Also, it's a pretty sound risk. If the team does well, he'll likely earn whatever money you give him. If we struggle, you know there will be teams out there willing to trade for him. QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) Im so sick of this crap, no player in mlb is going to draw fans solely on their name with the exception of Ichiro because he brings in the Japanese population. The only thing that will bring in fans otherwise is winning. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) Tell that to LA. They went crazy when Manny arrived. First, Damon may help with merchandise, but you have to remember that MLB merchandise revenue is evenly distributed. It won't positively affect the Sox any more than it would any other team. Second, there are most definitely players that will bring people to the park just because of who they are. People will buy a ticket just because guys like Pujols, Griffey (in his prime), Bonds (early 2000s), Ichiro, and Manny (though not as much as the other guys). However, Johnny Damon is not one of those guys. QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 17, 2010 -> 12:52 PM) You don't think Damon jerseys would be a hot seller? Like I said, it really isn't a matter of whether or not he would sell a lot of jerseys. The Sox wouldn't see the benefit anyway. Though he would sell JErseys, it wouldn't be like what someone like Pujols would do.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 05:13 PM) i disagree. Damon goes to LF, Pierre goes to the bench and you DFA Kotsay or Jones. Well, you'd likely still have to pay them, which would completely defeat the purpose of getting rid of them so you can create salary room. If no other team wants to pick them up off waivers, then the Sox would end up being responsible for their contracts. You can't just release a player or outright a guy without having to pay him. Again, unless somebody else wants to pick them up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2010 -> 01:28 PM) Yes, I want him in Minnesota, because I don't want baseball to be the type of sport where a team like Minny can't keep a guy like him. I agree with you. The business of the game is boring when the same 3 teams are the only teams with a real chance to sign the annual top free agents.

Most teams would be in a bit of trouble if their two middle infielders go down at once.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 14, 2010 -> 11:46 PM) I think they'll have the usual homefield advantage, but it won't be anything like the dome. I would suspect we'll win our share of games in the outdoor park. This. They'll probably have an advantage, like most teams do, but I doubt it will be as advantagous as it has been. As far as how the field plays: like I posted in another thread, analysis of the park shows that the dimensions of the two park have few differences from each other. They are fairly similar. What they don't know yet, is how the wind will play.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 04:22 PM) Shouldn't that really be "Good pitchers dictate matchups." Most of the time, in relation to who the hitter is anyway, that is the only variable worth considering. I can think of many times when a team has shuffled a pitching rotation to get the best matchup for a team going into an important series. It happens, but usually toward the end of the season to get a more favorable matchup when games are crucial. Or midseason if there are off days and a team with a weaker rotation wants to skip a 4 or 5. It does happen but it really doesn't happen that often.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) The problem with dealing Floyd is that he's cheap now and he's proven himself. If you deal proven players to hold onto unproven players then that's not a win-now mentality. Yes, the offer would be more enticing to the Padres, but now we've just weakened our greatest strength, so while we might be a bit better going from Floyd + Konerko at 1B + Jones/Kotsay at DH to Hudson + Gonzalez at 1B + Konerko at DH, the amount of talent we'd have to give up to make us that little bit better probably hurts us in the long run. If you take all that talent and offer it to someone else while keeping Floyd, you might not be able to get Gonzalez, but you'd be able to get a damn fine player or two that when added to the picture could make us better than we'd be with Hudson + Gonzalez. IMO, the Padres can have anyone in the organization not named Buehre, Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Beckham, or Quentin. Do you mean both Danks, or just John?

QUOTE (Special K @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 06:04 PM) I realize this is a little off topic Ranger, but any chances the Sox will break down and snag and Damon, because after the Twins acquisition of Hudson, the Sox are looking like second place favorites in my opinion. What do you mean by "break down"? You mean give him whatever he wants just so they can sign him? Doubtful.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 12:50 AM) At this point, if all it would take is Hudson, Flowers, and Danks we might as well do it. We need the shot in the arm, and as much as i dig the idea of both Danks brothers starting for the team at the same time, i'm far more sentimental about a guy who could pop 50 from the left-side. QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 02:14 AM) If all it takes is Hudson, Flowers, and D2, then pull the trigger. I too would love to see the D&D brothers (like the M&M Boys in Minny, and it would allow them to enter to this) but I'd get over it. (Also, Hudson, Flowers and D2 seems very cheap. I'd believe something like Hudson-Flowers-Mitchell-Morel or Hudson-Flowers-Danks-Viciedo would be more likely) No question. As much as I like the prospect of Jordan Danks, he is still just a prospect and may never turn out to be anything. If it were up to me, I'd give up anyone in the system for Gonzalez, because he's young, cheap, and very, very good. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 02:58 AM) If that's "all" it took it would've been done weeks ago. If (big if) the Padres decide to make AGON available, they'll be some MAJOR competition between multiple teams to top what the other is offering. AGON almost certainly won't be dealt between now and opening day. The earliest I can see is mid-season. Hopefully will have multiple prospects either rake or dominate on the mound in order to legitimately strengthen our would be offer. I think there's a lot of truth to this statement, in particular, the first sentence. Although, I think he is pretty close to being available now (if he already is not), because they know they can get the most value in return the more years he has left on the deal. But the Padres aren't under any pressure to do something now.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 6, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) Scott Merkin gets on my god damn nerves. He seriously needs to take the White Sox dildo out his ass. And whoever it was that scouted Viciedo needs to be fired or something. A 1B? Whoopie! This post is over the top in pretty much every way. Mainly because: QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 7, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) They paid Viciedo for his bat. Yes, its more valuable at 3B. But that part was always a crapshoot, and now it appears they are going to play around with his location on the field a bit, because soon it will be decision time. Viciedo wasn't signed for his defense. He was signed for his bat potential because the kid can rake. If he hits at the MLB level like they hope he can, it doesn't matter what position he plays. And I know this got tackled in another thread, but the Sox are under no pressure to make any sort of decision on him. He's under their control for a long time.