Ranger

I wouldn't spend a second worrying about anything Keith Law has to say, positive or negative. Rankings are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is how this current group of prospects does when they finally get here. QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 08:48 PM) Well in fairness to Law, he is a stats guy. Floyd was posting 6 K/9, 5 BB/9. That's not a Major League pitcher. Gavin Floyd's turnaround was seemingly unforeseeable by everyone other than Kenny and his scouting team. Which is exactly why you can't only use numbers to evaluate a player. Especially a minor leaguer. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:29 AM) If SD has the same impression about the Sox prospects as Keith Law, there pretty much is zero chance Adrian Gonzalez ever becomes a White Sox. Don't worry about that stuff. Teams do their own scouting and evaluations. They really aren't worried about BA rankings or what Keith Law says.

Sox actually just released this info today. As it says above, they go on sale Feb 12th by phone and online But if you want to go to the box office or a ticket location, they go on sale the next day.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:19 PM) I know 60 is a good review, but I can't believe Danks is only a 60 in fielding. I absolutely loved him in CF when I saw him when he was playing for Texas. Maybe he just had a great weekend, but he was all over the place. QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 11:50 PM) I definitely thought Jordan was a solid defender from what I saw of him. He had to cover a lot of ground at Regions. Having not seen him play much at all, I have to defer to those that have. From everything I've been told, he's a really smooth fielder and effortless. I was told by one guy that he'll make people forget about Anderson's skills, who as we know, is an excellent fielder. Let's hope he can hit a little.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ Jan 31, 2010 -> 01:58 PM) Signing him would easily pay for itself in-terms of television interest, t-shirt and ticket sales... I'll also throw $20 into your pay pal account if you contribute those pants and the free bowl of soup that came with them... I don't think Johnny Damon is that big of a draw that you could guarantee anything.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) But Bob Grim, Chris' boss, is a member of the White Sox FO, right? That's where it gets murky/tricky...the lines get crossed even more with mergers and shareholders in different media conglomerates around the world and country. No, Grim is more like a go-between for me. He would have more control over what Farmer/DJ/Hawk/Stone would do, but he' still not really a boss. Grim works with Brooks Boyer. Let's put it this way, the team has the final say in who the booth announcers are but they ask the station for input. On the other hand, the station asks the Sox for input on who to hire for my job, but the station has the final say in the hire. It's the opposite. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 10:18 AM) Thanks for your thoughtful response. In the end, all White Sox fans are on the same side, we want the team to win and to always be proud of them. Whether we're from Red States or Blue States, we're all dyed in "purple" Sox fans....just kidding. Frustration can get the best of anyone on certain occasions (I remember three games in my lifetime, the one where Denny Hocking ended it with a homer against Foulke, the Carlos Gomez/Jenks game at the HHH in late 2008, the time I woke up in Colombia, South America and really panicked when I saw the ESPN Deportes scoreboard showing the White Sox had blown a huge lead against the Kansas City Royals), but we settle down eventually and get over it and act (hopefully) like adults. It's interesting the comment you made about KW. He went to Stanford, he's ultra-confident (almost too sure of himself, seemingly), and yet there always seems to be that transcendant desire to prove others wrong or "to prove he's smarter than everyone else." Perhaps some of that insecurity and nervousness is masked by that "combative/prickly" facade that he has with fans at events like SoxFest or with the media from time to time. Perhaps part of it grew out of his frustration with the negative portrayal in "Moneyball," the criticism after the Ritchie trade, the Sirotka fallout, the Berry/Barry mistake, he made a number of them in his first view years on the job. Then there was the confrontation with Frank Thomas that didn't sit well with everyone, either. I've gone from being on the fence about KW to being a huge supporter (2005 being the most obvious reason, of course), and I find myself defending about 90% of what he does. FWIW, having a GM with a chip of his shoulder is usually a good thing, it's the current manager that most fans are worried has been resting on his laurels a bit in recent years, the Mike Ditka Syndrome to an extent. With that said, I'm 100% an Ozzie supporter, too. He gave us a championship in our lifetime, and I'm not sure how many other managers could have done the same thing....to keep that team from totally collapsing in September and then making them feel so relaxed that they just cruised through the playoffs and halfway through the 2006 season believing they were the best team in baseball. Kenny might be insecure, and that's fine with me. I'd rather him be more active because of it than be too comfortable. I think he usually does a pretty good job of knowing when to be active and knows what his options are, as far as trades go. Where I think you're wrong is that there is no way Ozzie is happy with the one championship. If that's how he truly felt, he wouldn't get physically sick like he sometimes does when they aren't playing well. I know this much to be true: he takes losing worse than anyone here does. And, really, he should. I think some fans' perception that he's "resting on his laurels" is because he hasn't won another one, so it's an easy thing to think. It's the same as people saying that a certain guy doesn't care when he's not performing. The reality is that almost every time the player does care and is likley torn up about it. Just because we can't see it, it doesn't mean he's not. But also, I think people also overrate the manager's affect on the club. They matter, but that 2005 team won because of those players, not so much because of Ozzie managing. He did a good job, but it wasn't all about him. That team won because they pitched beautifully and because all they did was get clutch hits. Anyway, thanks for what you said. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree at times but I enjoy the debate. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) Already graduated, but i do hope by the time I'm thirty I'll have acquired the knowledge to say "I think they probably know what they are doing, right?" Huh? Again, you've contributed nothing.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) I'll admit to taking the same shot a day or two ago. I know it's not easy to be in the position he's in, he can't be completely candid like Ozzie Guillen, Jimmy Piersall or Harry Caray, etc. In fact, over time, I think he's matured quite a bit from the very first days in terms of engaging with callers and figuring out which ones to dump or not to let go on and on forever with the same points or monopolize their air time without even asking a question. He doesn't get frustrated as easily, I think that's the biggest difference. Of course, when you're the new guy, people will compare you to past hosts, and a lot of Sox fans really liked Dave Wills, and he was also very open/honest sometimes with his frustrations, more like he was "sharing" the pain of fans than trying to rebut their arguments. It's a fine line...definitely. As an employee of the White Sox first and foremost, people will understand anything he says on-line and some will assume or extrapolate it as the "team position" on many issues. He naturally has to be more careful with what he says...and I know he wants to share his unique insights and the level of access he enjoys is obviously better than a Joe Cowley or Mariotti that aren't/weren't respected by the team/players/management. In fact, after Director of Community Relations, he has the job that I once coveted when I was getting my MS in Sports Administration and starting to work with the Augusta GreenJackets. I gave up that dream after only a couple of seasons because I was too impatient AND I thought it would be very difficult to make it into the front office without having been an MLB player or at least having reached the high minors. Now things are changing in that regard, Daniels in Texas, some of the new GM's with the Epstein/MBA/Ivy League backgrounds as well as the SABR GM's like Ricciardi and DiPodesta. Another thing to consider, I'm sure he grew up with Jack Buck and Mike Shannon. Cardinals' fans tend to be more "genteel" and respectful (not necessarily more knowledgeable, but certainly not as confrontational) and I think that's part of the way he approaches his job...he's part of Jerry Reinsdorf's family, there's a tremendous amount of loyalty shown to those who make it into the "inner circle" in White Sox FO and I hope he can continue to progress in his career. caulfield, thank you for the thoughts. There is no question that I should be respectful in how I criticize the team, but that's really not a mandate handed down from somebody above me. It's just common sense. You can criticize management, coaches and players, but you shouldn't be a foaming-mouth idiot when you do it. After all, I have to see those people every day and I have to be accountable for what I say. Mariotti wrote whatever he wanted (and let's be honest here, he wasn't being fair, he was being ridiculous) but in the 4 years I've been doing this job, he was never in the locker room one time. Whatever you're willing to say about people on the air or in print, you better be able to say to their faces. Nothing wrong with being respectful. In fact, it's the right way to do it. I won't apologize for that. There's just a right way to do things and that's how I choose to do it. What you don't know is that perception varies. I've had Kenny say to me on at least two occasions that he thought I "hammered" him in a couple of interviews I did. I was really surprised by that, because I thought I was simply asking fair questions of him. He wasn't angry or anything, he just said it sort of matter-of-factly but with a grin. It was just kind of funny, because I didn't see it that way. It could be because, believe it or not, I think he's a bit nervous in media situations. He's definitely nervous speaking in front of a crowd. I've also had a few players and coaches unhappy with me for things that I've said. It happens at least a few times a year. And sometimes it's for something minor, like Podsednik, who was upset a couple of years back that I suggested he might be good in a bench role. He didn't like that, but it wasn't unfair to say. It also didn't affect us after that. He understood I have a job to do. But, I also wouldn't say I'm in Jerry's "inner circle" either. I don't talk to him all that much, and it's very brief when I do speak to him. I don't even know what the guy thinks of me. He might think I'm terrible for all I know. The ultimate decision of whether I do this job really isn't his, it's up to the station. Wills, by the way, was very good and he's got himself a pretty good job right now. I like him very much. But, believe me, when the Sox lose I'm as upset as anyone else. I mean, I try to forget about it by the time I get home, but I hate it when they play like garbage.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 06:16 AM) Ranger is there any topic where you don't completely defer to management? QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2010 -> 07:57 AM) thanks flaxx but i wasn't talking about soxtalk mgmt. Rather the incessant posting from Rongey criticizing anyone who doesn't think the white sox management is acting in the most rational sane course, and when he gets a chance to, he acts for ESPNs. Do you even know what you're talking about? This doesn't make any sense. Deferring to management? I'm just telling you how it is, brother. Prove me wrong. And, bmags, talk to me when you graduate from college and learn yourself a thing or two. If I knew half the s*** I thought I knew 10 years ago, I would've been an oracle.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:02 PM) I see you didn't read the second sentence. Though I meant to say "and I don't mean the copyright bulls***" so that's my fault for the mishap. And I know what Rooney is saying, though it's happened sooo much over the years here and we are still here. If anything, we should have been removed since 2006 on alot of crap we've done/pulled (not just this subject). But I'll stay out of this one. Just don't want the internet police on my case. (or anyone changing what has made ST what it is) Great post. Great post, why? Because it was completely wrong? The only reason this site hasn't yet had a real issue is because nobody at ESPN.com is aware of it. If they were, I guarantee you that Soxtalk would be contacted. Hey, be defiant if you like, I'm just trying to help y'all out.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 06:18 PM) The legend of the internet attorney tracking down mischievous users posting content is just that, a legend. It has never happened in the past years on this website, and never will. It's no different than someone copying pages from a book, or pasting a copyrighted image. Let's just say it would be known FAR before it reached Soxtalk that ESPN is tracking down those who post their content. You'd see several stories coming up from more well known blogs, message boards where content is posted. Well, I noticed you caved. That's fine. You can still basically summarize everything he says without putting it word for word. Your evidence is that because you've never heard of it then it never happens? No, it is different because websites make money based on web traffic and, for pay-sites, based on subscriptions. What makes you think they wouldn't be interested to know that a number of people are less like to pay for "insider" because those people can just go to Soxtalk and get the postings for free? It's entirely different than copying short excerpts from a book. It's espcially different now because of the ease of accessing the web nowadays. I know of a few websites that have been contacted by other sites demanding copyrighted text be removed and links inserted in their place if they wished to use the content. It does happen. Just because it hasn't happened here to your knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't happen anywhere. WSI, for example, routinely removes copyrighted text because of it. Trust me, if ESPN web staff knew it was happening, the administrators here would get notified.

As for Mr. Law: It's a mistake to lump the wealth of bench players into the mix when you call them "one of the older teams in baseball." They're bench players and all under one year contracts. Who cares if the bench is older if the majority of your starters are in their mid to late 20s? The core of this team is actually pretty young. I rarely take much of what Keith Law says to heart.

I'm not a moderator here, obviously, but I just want to let you know to be careful about re-posting text from another website, especially if it's content you have to pay for. There's a reason they make you pay for it, and it isn't so it can be re-posted somehwere else for free. I see that happen a lot here, and I'm just thinking about the moderators and owner(s) of this site. You probably don't want to create any more headaches for them.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 04:03 PM) The team defense could be fine, but I see it as an issue until they prove they have improved/are actually decent at their position. I just feel that if we are going to have a suspect offense that you need a stalwart defense to go along with your stellar pitching staff. For me, its a wait and see game with the defense. I see plenty of reason to believe the defense will at least be "fine". It should be plenty better than last year, for sure.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) Right, and we lost the division. What if we had a competent leadoff hitter to start the season? And then we get a hitter who hits awful to correct it. I'd rather just pay a few mill tonot have awful production from a generally great offensive spot in the lineup. Aside from Lind and Kubel (both over .900), there weren't any "great" DH's last year, and I think you'd probably define those two guys as "very good" but not great. Four other guys were over .800. Decent, but certainly not great. Last year, the top 6 offensive players in the AL weren't DH's, and only 2 DH's were in the top 20 (in terms of OPS). On the other hand, 3 of the top 5 were first basemen. I just think some people are counting too much on the DH position alone. It's not quite what it used to be. QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) He's not. The comparison was done as a means of total offensive production, this does not include defense or positioning. When you take Thome out of the lineup, you have to put Punto or Young back in. If you want Thome in, you have to take out either Young or Punto because you have to assume that Cuddyer will now be at 3B and Punto will move to the bench. OR if Thome gets regular ABs, Young would go to the bench and Kubel will play LF. Either way, Punto and Young are both bad offensively, you can literally swap one out for the other. Thome is going to be a bench player, according to their early plans. If that's true, you won't get teh same production you're used to from him...which was declining as it is. QUOTE (BFirebird @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:53 PM) To add some perspective: Last year only 5 teams in the AL scored over 800 runs and only the Yankees score over 900. The White Sox were already a bottom 5 offense last year: - 724 runs (12 out of 14) - 246 2B (13 out of 14) - 184 HR (6 out of 14) - .740 OPS (11 out of 14) By comparison, the Twins were a top 5 offense. - 817 runs (4 out of 14) - 271 2B (12 out of 14) - 172 HR (9 out of 14) - .774 OPS (5 out of 14) At first these numbers confused me. How can the Sox have almost 100 less runs than the Twins but have 8 more home runs and only 25 less doubles? The difference is OPS and guys who can score from 2B on a single. The difference in OPS does not stem from HR or even doubles for that matter, it has to do with the Twins ability to get on base more often than the White Sox and what they do when they get on base. (not stealing bases, Sox actually had more SB than the Twins, but being able to score from 2B on a gap single or go from 1st to 3rd and then execute and get the guy in.) The Twins were 4th in OBP and the White Sox were 10th. The Twins also had 100 more walks. The more guys you get on base...the more pressure you put on the opposing pitchers, whether you can steal bases or not. While the current lineup may not solve this problem, I think they are taking steps in correcting it with the more versatile (non-base clogger) players. They may pick up a few more runs with more players that can go 1st to 3rd and more doubles, but they will struggle in the OBP category. As shown in Caulfield's example, Minn has the biggest advantage in this category. I think that they are attempting to correct it...it might just take another half a year or so. Very well done.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) He didnt finish the year as the starter. They acquired rios and never looked back. There is a contingency plan in place at all times with KW. With Colon and Wise last year, it was Peavy and Rios. KW isnt stupid, Im pretty sure he understands what he has and where his deficiencies are, he has his reasons why he isnt acting, we just dont know what they are. You and your logical thinking.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) With Punto (322 OBP/324 SLG) substituted for Thome, it knocks the Twins down to 900 runs scored (a difference of 39 runs per year having Thome over Nick Punto as DH, haha). Factoring in that we can't really expect Konerko to hit his career averages, it knocks the White Sox down to 800 runs scored. Which means we only need to pitch at 0.617 ERA below the Twins. Perhap the most interesting result (not to many) is that Gordon Beckham is the leadoff hitter in every scenario and Juan Pierre's the #9 hitter. Not that we'll ever see that happen. Not 100 a run difference, but with Dye (340/490) instead of Pierre and Thome in the line-up, we're at 862 runs scored. Of course, that's not taking into consideration outfield defense, simply an offensive metric. It is interesting that at least on paper we're losing about 0.4 RPG, plus the Twins are definitely gaining SOMETHING with Thome, maybe not 0.37, but probably 0.2. It's a net shift between the two teams of at least half a run per game, that's pretty huge. Since when was Nick Punto the Twins DH? QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) Either somebody tricked Ozzie Guillen into believing the White Sox are moving to the NL Central and thus don't need a designated hitter, or he's been persuaded it's 2002 all over again. Guillen told reporters on Monday that the White Sox won't bring back slugger Jim Thome(notes) and instead will use a rotation that includes Andruw Jones(notes), Mark Kotsay(notes) and Omar Vizquel(notes). Guillen's rationale? Jones, Kotsay and Vizquel could grab a glove or mitt and play defense. All Thome can do is swing a bat and whatever that might be worth, it won't be worth Thome's or the Sox's time, says Guillen. From the Chicago Sun-Times: "It came down to getting enough at-bats,'' Guillen explained. "I don't want a season where Jim sits three or four days in a row and the media comes up to him and asks, 'You're not playing ...' This thing will become a soap opera." Remember, remember, the 25th of January. Because it might be the day the White Sox gave away first place. Thome turns 40 in August and — even though he finished the '09 season in the National League with the Dodgers — his days on defense are over. So Guillen has a point about roster flexibility. And it's great, I guess, that general manager Ken Williams is giving the manager meaningful input on how the roster is composed in the first place. But someone needed to nudge Ozzie in the ribs to remind him that Thome was the team's best offensive player in 2009. And now, in 2010, the White Sox have just made him fully available to the two other top contenders in their own division. The Twins and Tigers, along with the Rays in the AL East, have been sniffing around Thome — who was going to give his old club the right of first refusal. Foolishly, they have refused his services despite Thome leading the White Sox in on-base and slugging percentage in '09. The White Sox finished with 79 victories because they also finished near the bottom in runs scored in the AL. Getting rid of Thome doesn't improve their biggest weakness. So, the White Sox are counting on career seasons from Mark Teahen(notes) and Alex Rios(notes), and rebound from Carlos Quentin(notes), to make up for Thome's loss. On the off-chance all of that happens, they've still given their opponents a free shot to get better. Didn't Guillen and Williams imagine Thome in Minnesota's lineup instead of someone like Delmon Young(notes) or Brian Buscher(notes) at DH? And did he forget that two seasons ago, the White Sox and Twins needed 163 games to decide the AL Central? Chicago beat the Twins 1-0 on the last day of the regular season thanks in part to a solo home run by ... James Howard Thome. Guillen seems to be worried about managing the nine road interleague games, when DHs become nothing but well-paid pinch hitters. What about the other 95 percent of the time when the White Sox struggle to score runs in AL parks? Thome's replacements don't inspire much confidence. Jones claims to be in his best shape in a decade and he won 10 Gold Gloves in Atlanta. He used to be able to hit, too, so maybe he's come to his senses and again will be valuable. Kotsay played well for the White Sox last year and would seem to be a good bench guy — in the National League. His defensive metrics have gone way south the past two seasons, though. He's never been Thome with the bat, either. His resemblance to actor Stephen Baldwin neither hurts nor helps. Vizquel is a wonder at almost 43 years old, but if Guillen actually ever uses him as a designated hitter, Ozzie needs to be put down. It looks to me like the White Sox could use a power lefty bat in their lineup. Know of any on the market? David Brown, Yahoo Sports At least Ozzie and KW are amusing someone besides SoxTalk with their off-season machinations. Oh, well since David Brown says so...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 04:35 PM) Like any of us know enough to even know if Walker is doing his job well or not...I love the Walker stuff in here... I do too. It's my faaaaavorite.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) True... But it did come off as a little Berra-esque. Eh. I don't know that it did, because it wasn't confusing like "90% of the game is half mental." I thought what I said was pretty straightforward that if they're good it's because the hitters are good. Shack was just trying to be a d***.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 04:02 PM) Who are you, Yogi Berra now? Well, smartass, I'm a guy refuting the idea that this season's offense rests in the hands of Greg Walker. People can't spend an entire offseason saying the hitters in the lineup aren't good enough but then say Walker is responsible if it fails. Can't be both.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) One other random thing I'm thinking; this offense now is officially going to sink or swim based on the skills of 2 people: Walker and Herm. Herm has to keep people healthy this season, good thing is we've got as good of a track record as any team in the big leagues at that. Walker though...when I look at this lineup, I see like 5 people who I'd count as legitimate "This guy needs to successfully work with the hitting coach" guys. Rios and Teahen at the top of that list, Ramirez, Beckham (to avoid the sophomore slump), and Jones. If this team is at the bottom of the league in offense at the end of may, then more than any other season previously, it'll be new hitting coach time. If people stay healthy, this offense will be as good as Walker can make it. If the offense is good, it will be as good as the players are capable of making it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) He's 24 of 27 in save opps vs. the Sox. That video actually wasnt meant to prove any points, just wanted to relive one of the best moments from last season. And Jenks has saved 16 of 17 against the Twins.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) No, I used 10 years of listening and watching to the Twins, almost as many as White Sox games. I could pull out and quote all the individual save/opportunity stats, 7th inning leads blown, 8th inning leads blown, blown saves for the bullpen overall. We just have a difference of opinion. You are "selling" the company line that the White Sox bullpen has enough pieces that COULD BE GOOD, even without Dotel and with JJ Putz's health uncertain (such as Pena and Linebrink), that it makes the margin between Jenks and Nathan at the end of games minimal or negligible. I disagree, respectfully. I think everything flows backwards from the closer and Joe Nathan can make a "meh" bullpen committee look better than it really is and a shaky reliever can turn great set-up guys into... Let's just put it this way, when Joe Morgan made his remarks about the White Sox having one of the great bullpens in 2008, you knew his hyperbole would eventually come back to bite him. Both him and KW. We'll see how determined Jenks is to get his career back on track again in 2010. I'll say this then I'll remove myself from a conversation that's going nowhere: It is most definitely not a "company line" (which is a weak-ass cop-out on your part) to suggest a Putz/Thornton/Jenks back end of a bullpen is a good one. I promise you there are a number of teams that would be pretty damned happy to have that. It's not a matter of "could be good" because there is every reason to believe they will be. If you can't see that the Sox pitching staff in it's entirety is not better than the Twins' staff, I can't help you. The difference in the two closers alone will not be significant enough. Nathan is good, but he's not so much better that it'll make a difference in the overall outcome of the season. The pitching staff is a unit and it's about the unit as a whole. And in your words: "I didn't read many threads where the Twins were threatening to non-tender, waive and/or trade Nathan this past-offseason. I would guess 25-35% of the posters around the Internet were ready to just waive Jenks and use that $7.5 million in other creative ways." This is you, caulfield, using internet postings as evidence of Nathan's dominance over Jenks.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) It's back to the same argument again, the "snap/angry/speak first and think later" tenor of a call-in show or post-game thread versus calm, reasonable, logical thinking about the White Sox. Anyone who has watched Buehrle's career from the very beginning, from the tarp slides to the deer hunting with Crede to the World Series and family stage of his life...they've never undervalued his importance to this team and franchise. On paper, after you get past the won-loss record, quite a few people prefer the "flashiness" and repertoire of a Javy Vazquez or even Gavin Floyd. Strikeouts are more exciting than maximizing pitch counts, keeping the infield defense on its toes and working fast. And yeah, when Buehrle doesn't have it, he does occasionally just get absolutely rocked, but more often than not he battles hit butt off out there. Just like Greg Hibbard used to do. I also think MOST Sox fans have a lot more forgiveness and patience for ANY of the members of that World Series-winning team. No matter how bad things got with Jose Contreras post 2006, those four months in 05-06 were enough for me to forgive anything that happened consequently, including KW's signing him to a contract extension that went 1-2 years too long. The White Sox can't afford to be sentimental very often (it's a business, after all), but when they have acted in that way, it was to keep players like Konerko, Buehrle, Dye, AJ, etc., in the fold. If AJ or Konerko don't perform well this year, I won't be clamoring for them to be traded or waived either, although I'm sure some of the younger fans or those with shorter memories will be quicker to cut them adrift. Maybe you're not understanding. You used message posts as a guage for how much more valuable Joe Nathan is over Bobby Jenks. I'm telling you that it's crazy to do that considering there were many, many posts/calls/emails from people wanting Mark Buehrle sent packing because he was having a bad year and because a significant amount of people thought he was done. It doesn't matter if it was a regular Sox forum or postgame threads, it was still said. And it was said repeatedly. And, of course, those people changed their minds because they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place. Therefore, I would be careful with using a message board as evidence of a player's value.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 01:40 PM) You're a Cardinals fan, you certainly understand why that talk has existed seemingly every year. It was more a matter of if we couldn't keep Mark Buehrle around here long-term, maybe we should try to get something from the Cards' minor league system...the next Lance Johnson, Vince Coleman or Willie McGee would look nice in our line-up if we could get Sherman and Peabody to turn the Way Back Machine 20+ years. Or Terry Pendleton to play 3B. White Sox fans have always loved Buehrle more than any player with the posssible exception of Konerko/Crede/Thomas for some, it's just that they didn't want to become TOO ATTACHED and be heartbroken at some point when/if he bolted for St. Louis. Nobody was too upset when Jon Garland ended up in Southern California as predicted for 5 years, but Buehrle is a different situation entirely. No, caulfield, they were ready to throw him out of town because he was having a bad year. There were numerous people that were so upset with his underperformance that they would say things like, "if he wants to play for the Cardinals then go ****ing play there!" Trust me, it was out of anger, it wasn't out of prudence. People weren't thinking about the draft picks. They were mad because he stunk that year. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) Which means you now have to hit Beckham, Ramirez or Kotsay/Vizquel second, right?? Uribe has been around seemingly forever, but he's only 3 years older than Teahen, 31 (he still is 30 right now) versus 28. Uribe put up an 824 OPS, which is something Teahen has never done. So the argument is that Teahen SHOULD overachieve but Uribe will never repeat his 2004 and 2009 seasons because of what exactly? If anything, you're just guessing...it's not unlike saying Mark Kotsay will be better than Alex Rios/Thome/Dye based on August/September of 2009. Heck, we're basing our hopes for leadoff hitter on an uncharacteristic flash of brilliance from Juan Pierre in LA that looks like it could be an outlier versus his career trends and age. I just hope that JD and Thome don't put up huge numbers for either the Cubs, Twins or Tigers...I can just see the series of Phil Rogers and Cowley articles inundating the papers and Net if that comes to pass. Yeah, I think Beckham will hit 2nd.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) That's the point, Teahen SHOULD be the 8th place hitter, but he WON'T be. Unless you want to jam AJ into that 5th-6th-7th spots, which puts us right back into the same situation of having Quentin (if he's not 100% on the bases), Konerko and AJ needing 3-4 hits in a row to score them. Juan Pierre shouldn't be the leadoff hitter, Alexei Ramirez shouldn't be hitting 2nd, etc. Pierre Ramirez or Rios Beckham Quentin Konerko Teahen or DH or Ramirez/Rios Teahen or DH or Ramirez/Rios Ramirez or Rios or Teahen/DH AJ Realistically, I have no idea where the heck to stick an Andruw Jones or Kotsay in the batting order. They should be 7th-9th, but who knows with Ozzie Guillen. I guess we will be the first AL team to have a DH hitting in the bottom 3rd of the order in 2010. Can we really afford to go from 2nd through 7th in the batting order (assuming Jones is in the line-up) with all right-handers? Then where the heck do you hit AJ? In front of Pierre? If you stick Ramirez or Rios down the very bottom of the order, that's crazy too. If you have Teahen and AJ back-to-back, that's stupid. Chris, what is your batting order at this point? I guess if you think Teahen will hit 8th, it goes like this. Pierre Rios Quentin/Beckham Konerko Beckham/Quentin DH AJ Teahen Ramirez Still too many righties in a row, and you're giving Pierre, Rios, Jones/Kotsay, AJ and Teahen more at-bats than Alexei Ramirez. That's bad. It's also bad to have Rios making megabucks to bat 7th-9th. I think it's a mistake to equate Teahen and Uribe in the hitting department. They aren't the same hitter, and I would be really surprised if Uribe does again what he did last year. That was insane for him. At any rate, I'd see Teahen hitting 7th. Rios I can see anywhere from 5th-6th. AJ might be hitting 5th. But who knows, anyway. There could be 6 forms of that lineup.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 26, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) Someone already brought it up, but I'll reiterate. Juan Uribe was pretty much a Gold Glove shortstop (premium position on the field) who was ALWAYS good for 20+ homers and 70-80 RBI's. It's not a surprise to me that he was rated higher by MLBtraderumors as a more desirable FA than Jermaine Dye because of his versatility. Yes, the Twins have won with the likes of Nick Punto, Doug Mientkiewicz, Rivas, Koskie, Tolbert, Casilla, Lew Ford and Jason Tyner (thank God they don't have Bartlett still). That's the whole point, the White Sox in 2005, the Twins over the last decade....they had superstars or All-Star as part of their core to carry those players. Sure, Juan almost never walked, never hit as well again as he did the first half of 2004, but that guy could do the little things that didn't show up in the box score defensively, he saved a ton of runs with his arm and he and Crede were clearly "clutch" go-to guys to get that run in with a baserunner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. It seemed to me he was like an RBI magnet in those situations. Teahen is a so-so defender at a corner infield spot. And no, Brendan Harris shouldn't be a starter at 3B for the White Sox either...and Morel isn't ready and neither is Viciedo. As far as the Twins' bullpen, they added Rauch and there's a 50/50 chance they'll have Liriano and/or Neshek down there at various points of the season. We subtracted Dotel. Unless Pena, Linebrink or Dolsi do something amazing like Cotts and Politte, we're not close to the 2005 or even 2008 bullpens. Comparing a future Hall of Famer (if Nathan keeps it up for 3-5 more seasons) with Jenks, you're pushing it. I didn't read many threads where the Twins were threatening to non-tender, waive and/or trade Nathan this past-offseason. I would guess 25-35% of the posters around the Internet were ready to just waive Jenks and use that $7.5 million in other creative ways. Now if JJ Putz returns to dominant form, you'll have a strong argument. But that's like saying if Jeff Nelson and Jose Paniagua returned to prior form, they would have made big contributions to the White Sox. Oooops, hyperbole. LOL. If nothing else, watching the Twins' bullpen change from Hawkins/Romero/Guardado to Rincon (yes, steroids helped, lol) to Breslow/Mijares/Reyes, etc., they've always put out a decent pen up there. Although with Crain and Guerrier in recent years, they weren't outright dominant like the 2002-2004 pens were that you KNEW you were done if you went into the 7th inning trailing. Just compare the Twins blown leads from the 7th inning on since Nathan became closer over there...you'll find most of them in 08 and 09, but the bullpen comparisons fall short for the White Sox holding leads compared to the Twins for every season BUT 2005. First, I didn't say Jenks was as good as Nathan. What I said was that the difference between the two, within the context of the entire pitching staff, is not great enough to give the Twins the overall edge. The Sox will win more games based on the overall pitching than the Twins will...probably a lot more I have a difficult time thinking that. You may also want to slow down on the Nathan-to-the-Hall-of-Fame talk. Easy there. I also wouldn't take internet posters' willingness to let Jenks walk as an indication of how good he is. That's absurd. I bet it was at least 50% of the internet posters (I've been reading for a while) that wanted "Buehrle's ass shipped to St. Louis" after his '06 season. The follwoing year they were threatening to never come back if the Sox didn't re-sign him.