Rowand44 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 02:28 PM) I think the Twins are back to being an underrated team. Starting 5 of Santana-Radke-Silva-Lohse-Liriano, still a very solid pen, and a pretty solid lineup all around. I still think they should have reacquired Koskie, traded Lohse to whomever for some more prospects, and gone with an infield of Morneau-Castillo-Bartlett-Koskie from 1b-3b...but I do not make the decisions for the Twins. They will also get Kubel back from his ACL tear, and his addition is huge...you are looking at Stewart-Hunter-Ford-Kubel in the OF, which is very solid and underrated offensively, especially if Ford can bounce back to anything near his 2004 campaign. The Twins were right in the middle of WC race before Torii went down. You take that into account plus Castillo who is just infinitely better then who they have had there before, insert Liriano/Baker and eventually both plus I expect Morneau to improve significantly and you got the 2nd best team in ALC imo and maybe in the AL. Edited January 19, 2006 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) The Twins were right in the middle of WC race before Torii went down. You take that into account plus Castillo who is just infinitely better then who they have had there before, insert Liriano/Baker and eventually both plus I expect Morneau to improve significantly and you got the 2nd best team in ALC imo and maybe in the AL. I tend to agree. The Twins almost always seem to struggle with a few injuries throughout the season, but they have added depth to their team this year...I'd say roughly 10-11 deep on guys that make atleast adequate fill-ins. I'm not going to suggest they can just lose Hunter or anything like that and still find success, but in all reality, he's about the only guy they can lose that will really hurt them quite a bit, as his defense in CF makes their entire OF defense that much better. But they lose Morneau, and they have Cuddyer who can be a quick fill in...they lose Batista, same thing...Castillo, same thing. They lose Stewart, and they move Castillo to the top of the order and have Kubel/Ford fill in at LF. They also have Baker/Liriano...whoever...in AAA ready and waiting in case injury strikes the rotation too. The Sox are in a similar position, but I would venture to guess one not nearly as favorable depth wise. I obviously take the Sox rotation in a second over Minnesota's, and the infield situations are almost identical, but you look at the OF, and the Sox are not sitting nearly as pretty. The Sox likely have Podsednik in CF with Owens/Borchard/Ozuna/Macko in LF if Anderson goes down, and then those 4 for LF or RF if Pods or Dye goes down...I know I'll take Ford/Kubel over that any day of the week. Add to the fact that Cuddyer too can play a little OF, and I just don't see how the Twins aren't back to being a very solid all-around team. I will make no bet on who I think will be better between Cleveland or Minnesota though...so much can go right or wrong so quickly for both teams that I wouldn't be able to make a decision. Just have to hope the Sox this year can be just as good last year within the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherehaveyougoneharold Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I don't get it. If a "C" is average, how can the vast majority be above average? If there are 30 teams (or whatever) in MLB, then the top 15 need to be your A,B, or C group and the bottom 15 need to get C,D, and F. Right? Its the same way with the NFL draft. Everyone will grade the drafts and 26 of the 32 teams will get a b- or better. Makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 National League National League up, Mets only A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 QUOTE(wherehaveyougoneharold @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) I don't get it. If a "C" is average, how can the vast majority be above average? If there are 30 teams (or whatever) in MLB, then the top 15 need to be your A,B, or C group and the bottom 15 need to get C,D, and F. Right? Its the same way with the NFL draft. Everyone will grade the drafts and 26 of the 32 teams will get a b- or better. Makes no sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> C is average by the writer's own standards. What he thinks is an average move or moves should be a C. You are grading on a curve. I don't agree with that at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 It is wierd how Neyer just wrote how the Twins and Indians got better and the White Sox did not over the off season. Now this article gives the White Sox get an A while the Indians get a C and the Twins get a D. How can that be? Maybe, just maybe, Neyer is a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 05:14 PM) It is wierd how Neyer just wrote how the Twins and Indians got better and the White Sox did not over the off season. Now this article gives the White Sox get an A while the Indians get a C and the Twins get a D. How can that be? Maybe, just maybe, Neyer is a moron. Donovan's SI article is better than Neyer's Twins got better bull. How could you not think the White Sox improved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) It is wierd how Neyer just wrote how the Twins and Indians got better and the White Sox did not over the off season. Now this article gives the White Sox get an A while the Indians get a C and the Twins get a D. How can that be? Maybe, just maybe, Neyer is a moron. Neyer is a Royals fan at heart...Royals slurpers have proven to be bad writers over time(see Posnanski, who was pwn3d many a time by Soxtalk in the 2003 season) Neyer is also going based off last year to judge next year, which is just assinine because last year and this year are apples and oranges. I'm wondering why in the hell he isn't pimping the Marlins more than he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 Sports writers predictions are pretty terrible in general at the beginning of the season. Its funny to go back and look how off they are year after year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(rventura23 @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 01:50 AM) Sports writers predictions are pretty terrible in general at the beginning of the season. Its funny to go back and look how off they are year after year. What's really funny is how much Neyer loved the Sox over the Twins when the Twins were winning...he loved them so much he predicted the Sox would win the division in 05. One month into the season, he was off the Sox bandwagon - after the incredible start the Sox had - because they were not a good sabermetrical team. At some point, you just have to give up the argument and STFU. Given Neyer's previous analysises(what the hell is the plural form of analysis anyways?), I tend to think that he is wrong like 95% of the time. He just seems clueless. I mean, this is the same guy that said the Sox had one of the worst offseasons in the league last year(along with every other writer in the country...good call on that one fellows), yet called Jermaine Dye one of the best value FA signings of the offseason. Atleast when he's right, it turns out well for the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 01:58 AM) What's really funny is how much Neyer loved the Sox over the Twins when the Twins were winning...he loved them so much he predicted the Sox would win the division in 05. One month into the season, he was off the Sox bandwagon - after the incredible start the Sox had - because they were not a good sabermetrical team. At some point, you just have to give up the argument and STFU. Given Neyer's previous analysises(what the hell is the plural form of analysis anyways?), I tend to think that he is wrong like 95% of the time. He just seems clueless. I mean, this is the same guy that said the Sox had one of the worst offseasons in the league last year(along with every other writer in the country...good call on that one fellows), yet called Jermaine Dye one of the best value FA signings of the offseason. Atleast when he's right, it turns out well for the Sox. Good question. a·nal·y·sis n. pl. a·nal·y·ses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 04:13 AM) Good question. a·nal·y·sis n. pl. a·nal·y·ses Makes sense. Atleast I was close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 The Sox did a VERY good job this offseason, bolstering the offense with Thome, gathering another decent starter in Vasquez and acquiring a top-notch bench player in Mackowiak. The only question mark has to be the bullpen, which seems a touch weaker with the deaprture of Vizcaino and Marte. I don't know if anyone can expect Pollitte and Cotts to duplicate their 2005 seasons, Jenks is still somewhat unproven as a closer ( although I have confidence that he'll be just fine ) and Hermanson has to show that his back is stable. The AL Central is NOT the Sox's to claim just by showing up. It's going to be a tough race, but I do believe the Sox will repeat as ( at least ) division champs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 21, 2006 -> 05:13 AM) Good question. a·nal·y·sis n. pl. a·nal·y·ses is the end of that pronounced "sees"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) is the end of that pronounced "sees"? If I remember correctly, they (dictionary-dot-com) had it as 'sez' but I don't recall whether it was a long or short 'e'. I'd venture to guess 'seize' as the correct pronunciation. If you don't want a guess ... look it up yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 QUOTE(wherehaveyougoneharold @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) I don't get it. If a "C" is average, how can the vast majority be above average? If there are 30 teams (or whatever) in MLB, then the top 15 need to be your A,B, or C group and the bottom 15 need to get C,D, and F. Right? Its the same way with the NFL draft. Everyone will grade the drafts and 26 of the 32 teams will get a b- or better. Makes no sense. So your in a class with 30 people.... does that mean only 15 or whatevr can get A's and B's.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) If I remember correctly, they (dictionary-dot-com) had it as 'sez' but I don't recall whether it was a long or short 'e'. I'd venture to guess 'seize' as the correct pronunciation. If you don't want a guess ... look it up yourself. its "seize" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Ah-nahl-eh-sees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 So your in a class with 30 people.... does that mean only 15 or whatevr can get A's and B's.... Yes, MLB baseball offseason "grades" should be based on a curve, as every move is relative in MLB. Any player the Sox sign negatively or posively affects every other team in the league. Classroom grades are an entirely different matter, one in which a "curve" is not necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 No teams failed, that means they graded too easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Apparently since Boston is a special team they get they get their own team breakdown: Red Sox grade breakdown GM and Left Field get an A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) I think Detroit improved themselves but not enough to make a serious run for the division. They still have a long ways to go. Our White Sox are even stronger than last year. Edited January 25, 2006 by whitesox1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Kenny is such a genius. I didn't even realize this, but the Sox off-season got A's from Yahoo.com, Espn.com, Cnnsi.com and Foxsports.com. Way to go, Kenny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:46 AM) Kenny is such a genius. I didn't even realize this, but the Sox off-season got A's from Yahoo.com, Espn.com, Cnnsi.com and Foxsports.com. Way to go, Kenny! I didn't know that, thanks for the info. 2005 was so much fun let's repeat it in 2006!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevHead0881 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Seemed like this belongs in the "Off-season grades" thread. This is from cbsportsline.com: Winners, losers and Royals: You don't want to be a Royal Sox are one of the winners... Chicago White Sox: If Jim Thome stays healthy -- a qualification akin to "if frogs learn to crochet" -- he provides left-handed pop and the best sports paunch this side of John Daly. GM Ken Williams has done an awful lot over the past 18 months to change his rep as the trade-happy Tina Turner to Billy Beane's Ike. And this guy was pretty hard on the Cubs. Almost too hard. Didn't even mention the Pierre pickup, and I wouldn't go as far as to put them in the D-Rays ranks... Chicago Cubs: OBP black hole Jacque Jones isn't worthy of prime real estate at the local landfill, much less in a major-league lineup. This was a poor offensive team last year and GM Jim Hendry did nothing to improve it, plus you know that Dusty Baker will somehow find a way to burn 400 at-bats at the altar of The Execrable Neifi Perez. The 2006 Cubs are about to find out what happens when you remove the "lovable" from "lovable losers." Basically, they're the Devil Rays with fewer prospects and a more vegetative outfield fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.