Why Crucify the whole team already???

[RockRaines]

Its not worth trying to convince these guys to be positive or to unconditionally love this team. Some people love being miserable and being negative and its the only thing that keeps them interested in baseball and the white sox. They live to criticize and its better than not being able to find cracks in things.

 

Some people love this team, some people love to hate it.

[fathom]

Well, that's no fun. The hot start was never gonna hold up anyways, and the pitching never did it's part in picking the team up when the offense struggled a bit. The full season of subpar pitching hurt the team way more than the periods the offense struggled, particularly since overall the offense did very well.

Anybody else not gonna bother watching this year since we're doomed anyways?

 

Our pitching was pretty damn solid over the first half of the season. It all seemed to go downhill once Buehrle bombed during that Sunday game vs the Cubs. One of the main reasons I got annoyed with Hawk's homerism last year was when he said the team never came together. We had like 5 or 6 hitters during the first half of the season who were absolutely on fire for a consistent period. Not many teams throughout a season can claim that. It's scary to think about how bad Buehrle, Contreras, and Jenks were during the 2nd half of last season. In my opinion, those are the 3 guys on the pitching staff that we need to be above average pitchers in order to push our talent level from 3rd or 4th in the division to 1st or 2nd.

 

Anybody else not gonna bother watching this year since we're doomed anyways?

 

You know I like you Sleepy (tough loss BTW last night), but I get annoyed with these "questions". I don't think anyone is claiming that this team doesn't have a chance to contend.

 

Its not worth trying to convince these guys to be positive or to unconditionally love this team.

 

If you root for the Sox, does it mean you have to support every move they make? When the Sox make a move that us "pessimists" like, we're the first ones on here saying it's a good move, etc.

[RockRaines]

If you root for the Sox, does it mean you have to support every move they make? When the Sox make a move that us "pessimists" like, we're the first ones on here saying it's a good move, etc.

Its easier to take disappointment when you are pessimistic from the start. If thats your thing, thats your thing.

[GoSox05]

You don't have to do a dnce for every move made, but when we sign Darin Erstad some came out and said the season is over. How can you support or not support a move when you dont know the results yet?

 

Everyone thinks there a GM and have any idea how it works. I know I don't so I try and see what happens.

[fathom]

Its easier to take disappointment when you are pessimistic from the start. If thats your thing, thats your thing.

 

If you're trying to say it's easier for someone like me to take a loss, then I'll have to disagree. It's fine though....as much as you probably disagree, in the end, we all still want to see the White Sox win.

[witesoxfan]

6. Why did we devote $11+ million a year starting next season to lock up our worst starter from 2006? It seems to me that Javier Vazquez's contribution (or lack thereof) to our pitching staff would be the easiest to replace from among our young arms. So why not take the $10 million difference between JV's deal and what we'd have to pay a rookie pitcher and use it to keep Jermaine Dye? Then you could have traded Vazquez == now, or in mid-season -- to get some real outfielders to play alongside Dye. (Like Chris Young -- the one outfielder in our system that actually had major league talent.)

 

so 4.99

 

Look at the numbers before you make assertions.

 

And resigning Dye really is not the best idea simply because he'll be 37 or 38 making $16 mill coming off the best two seasons he's had since like 2002. It's simply not worth the risk. He's getting slower and slower in the OF and will soon be relegated to solely DH, and there's nothing to suggest whether he'll keep this up or he'll decline slowly or sharply.

 

And finally, KW resigned Vazquez because that's a great value deal. To get a guy like Vazquez - a league average starter with the potential to be much better - for a shorter period of time and the same amount of money as guys like Gil Meche and AJ Burnett. It's called playing the market, and it's something you obviously don't understand.

[fathom]

You don't have to do a dnce for every move made, but when we sign Darin Erstad some came out and said the season is over. How can you support or not support a move when you dont know the results yet?

 

Everyone thinks there a GM and have any idea how it works. I know I don't so I try and see what happens.

 

Personally, I didn't mind the Erstad trade.....as long as he wasn't handed a starting CF spot. Many of us knew that he was the prototypical grinder, and that it spelled doom for Anderson. I'm not even close to being a member of the BA Fan Club on here, but it's a shame to see what has happened since we traded away Chris Young with regards to our CF position.

[RockRaines]

You don't have to do a dnce for every move made, but when we sign Darin Erstad some came out and said the season is over. How can you support or not support a move when you dont know the results yet?

 

Everyone thinks there a GM and have any idea how it works. I know I don't so I try and see what happens.

Because its the textbook aim low frame of mind, then if the move works out, its that much better. Its alot harder to deal with the disappointment of something failing when you really had your hopes up that it would work out. Alot of this is evident in how jaded some people have become since last season when our hopes were so high, it made the failure that much worse. With the low expectations this year, if we finish in 3rd place it wont hurt as much.

[jphat007]

Because its the textbook aim low frame of mind, then if the move works out, its that much better. Its alot harder to deal with the disappointment of something failing when you really had your hopes up that it would work out. Alot of this is evident in how jaded some people have become since last season when our hopes were so high, it made the failure that much worse. With the low expectations this year, if we finish in 3rd place it wont hurt as much.

 

That's a very, very good point.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You know I like you Sleepy (tough loss BTW last night), but I get annoyed with these "questions". I don't think anyone is claiming that this team doesn't have a chance to contend.

 

Yeah, tough but typical loss.

 

I like ya too, which is why that silly question wasn't directed at you specifically but to the overall negativity of the board. Not saying we should only think happy thoughts and turn into that other website, and I really do luv the debate on here, but having to hear the same negative opinions as if they're fact over and over and over again gets a little annoying too. I'm not all that confident about this year either, but when looking at our team as a whole and at other teams including their own deficiencies and comparing, I do feel that we have a decent shot. Everybody's got question marks. The very good offense is intact (yeah, the guys getting up there in age worry me a bit too), and I do think anderson is getting a fair shot (my opinion). rowand and young would not have been traded if he wasn't going to get a fair shot and they'd give up on him this quickly. Up to him to prove himself. Losing freddy wasn't a huge blow, in my opinion, because that sudden, drastic loss of velocity had always worried me, although I do think we could and should have gotten more, so the pitching is largely intact with talented, young options for the 5th spot. The starters are too talented for at least a couple not to bounce back to make up for any struggles from the young 5th starter. And I like the back end of the bullpen (maybe a tiny bit of worry with how Jenks is looking) and think the young hard-throwers can be productive too.

 

I have my worries and doubts too, but some people have said they don't like our chances at all to make the playoffs...already...in spring training...Still too early to proclaim our season a failure as if it's fact, in my opinion.

 

And not wanting certain players to be successful because you don't like them makes no sense to me because, overall, I want the team to succeed.

[TheBigHurt]

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I kinda hinted this in a previous post, but can't we wait until the season is two months over before we crucify everyone? All I have seen on this board so far is Pods sucks, Erstad sucks, Ozzie sucks, KW is an idiot, the 5th spot in the rotation is a disaster, the bullpen is a mess, Iguchi can't hit unless he is in the two whole, Perez and Anderson are gods (I guess that counts as positive though), etc.

 

Why must we cruscify the whole team before the season started??? For all we know Pods will return to 03/05 form, and Erstad can put up 2000 esque numbers. Stranger things have happened. And what if Iguchi puts up massive power numbers being able to be a free swinger again? And what if John Danks wins ROY or Gavin Floyd becomes lights out? And maybe Nick Masset/David Aardsman/Charlie Haeger/Whoever, become good solid bullpen arms. And I bet there were more question marks about the 05 team then the 07 team.

 

The real point of these thread is to bring some sanity and maybe some optimism to the board. I have no problem with some pessimism, but it is getting ridiculous. You know what, I am not that optimistic right now either, and I am not that positive of a person, but I have faith. Faith that the coaching staff, Ozzie, Kenny, and all of the players will bounce back this year with a great season. Have a new hunger, and shutup all the doubters. Right now the White Sox are considered to be like how they were before 05, a mediocre team, but I for one think this team can be the best team in all of baseball this year, if the ball bounces our way.

 

Keep the faith (that is what this years slogan should have been)

 

Thank you.

[Dick Allen]

Does this mean that Ozzie is in the wrong for worrying about Jenks even though its just spring training and he "always" throws in the low 90s in spring training and struggles?

[Y2HH]

Its not worth trying to convince these guys to be positive or to unconditionally love this team. Some people love being miserable and being negative and its the only thing that keeps them interested in baseball and the white sox. They live to criticize and its better than not being able to find cracks in things.

 

Some people love this team, some people love to hate it.

 

I'm beginning to realize this.

 

I was a semi-regular poster here in 2005 (and before), but took the year off in 2006 due to an expected influx of bandwagon fans, which I dispise. I figured I'd let that influx settle down before returning, so I waited until this year to return. Upon my return, I was suprised that I found a lot of negativity, it was almost black versus white to what I remember. Then again, it's been a while, and after 2005, all I remember of this place was good things...so maybe that's all I'm choosing to remember.

 

I went to almost 30 games in '05, including 1 ALDS, 1 ALCS and 1 WS game, 20 something games in 04, and probably averaged somewhere near 20 games since 1999. In 2006, I went to 6 games. The crowds were nice to see...but in looking at some of the girls that were suddenly there, you could tell they simply exchanged their Cubs jerseys for shiney new Sox jerseys...and that annoyed me more than it made me smile that cute girls were running around.

 

Call me greedy with my hardcore Sox fandom...but they didn't deserve 05. Damn, now I'm contributing to the negativity here...

[fathom]

Baseball is the only sport where I don't mind bandwagon fans, and it's for one reason: payroll.

[Y2HH]

Baseball is the only sport where I don't mind bandwagon fans, and it's for one reason: payroll.

 

It's only a temporary solution to payroll, because when they fall off the bandwagon, then we all lose. I'd prefer to not have them to begin with. We won the WS without them, we can again without them.

 

I'm assuming this bandwagon will eventually fall apart, and then our payroll will get cut from 105M to 70M, which will be more unbearable than never having had such a payroll to begin with.

[VAfan]

Its not worth trying to convince these guys to be positive or to unconditionally love this team. Some people love being miserable and being negative and its the only thing that keeps them interested in baseball and the white sox. They live to criticize and its better than not being able to find cracks in things.

 

Some people love this team, some people love to hate it.

 

C'mon Rock, if that's a criticism that's directed at me, it's not fair. I gave 6 very solid reasons why I'm not optimistic about this team. Am I wrong about any of them?

 

I'll be thrilled if the team plays well. But I don't think the odds of doing so are very good. And let me add a seventh reason why.

 

7. This is not a team that is likely to pull together. Buehrle has one foot out the door. As does Dye. As does Iguchi. Erstad is on a one-year contract. Pods is too. Garland and Contreras are likely both thinking they'll be gone when their contract is up. Crede knows he's not staying. I suppose you could argue that all these guys have an incentive to play well so their next contract with some other team will be better. But that's a totally stat-driven kind of incentive. It's the antithesis of the team-driven play that helped us win the WS in 2005.

 

Ozzie may still preach team play, but when he continues to make horrible strategic decisions (hitting Pods/Erstad/Thome back to back to back comes to mind; keeping Vazquez in game after game after game after the 5th inning to blow leads even against our prime division rivals late in the season is another), I think he's going to lose these guys. They're all going to play for themselves -- why should they give a flying F#@# how the team does? The only guys left with a vested interest in the long term success of the Sox are Paul Konerko and Javier Vazquez. The rest of the current team is going to be gone in 3 years.

[VAfan]

so 4.99

 

Look at the numbers before you make assertions.

 

And resigning Dye really is not the best idea simply because he'll be 37 or 38 making $16 mill coming off the best two seasons he's had since like 2002. It's simply not worth the risk. He's getting slower and slower in the OF and will soon be relegated to solely DH, and there's nothing to suggest whether he'll keep this up or he'll decline slowly or sharply.

 

And finally, KW resigned Vazquez because that's a great value deal. To get a guy like Vazquez - a league average starter with the potential to be much better - for a shorter period of time and the same amount of money as guys like Gil Meche and AJ Burnett. It's called playing the market, and it's something you obviously don't understand.

 

What is with 4.99

 

Let me start with Vazquez because I wrote a couple of posts on that long thread after we re-signed him. What I said was that it was irrelevant whether it was "market rate" on a mediocre pitcher. Who gives a crap whether it's more value than the Royals are going to get out of Gil Meche?? We wouldn't win the AL Central with Gil Meche either.

 

The question is whether Vazquez is likely to give us much better than he did last year -- .500 record with an ERA near 5 -- during the life of his deal. His recent track record, and the way he melted down EVERY DAMN GAME IN THE SIXTH INNING last year -- what was that about?? Have you ever seen another pitcher do that??? -- suggest to me that he's not. He might. But I'd give him about a 30% shot. And unless he's going to start going 17-10 with an ERA in the low 4s, the contract is a waste of money. Because with all the supposedly great young arms KW brought into the system -- Floyd, Danks, Haeger, Masset, Broadway, etc., etc., etc. -- it shouldn't be too hard to get at least a .500 record with an ERA around 5 out of one more of them. But you'd save about $10 million/year by going with the young pitcher instead of Vazquez. (This isn't too hard to see. Just think how Brandon McCarthy would have likely pitched in the 5 hole last year. Don't you think he would have give us BETTER than .500 with an ERA near 5?) And with that extra money you could keep Jermaine Dye, the best player on the team.

 

If Vazquez can replace what Freddie Garcia gave this club, then the contract will have been worth it. If he just gives us what he gave us last year, then it will be an anchor to the team. (And I'm still ticked that we gave up Chris Young to get this mediocrity. Young is the one outfielder we had in our minors that I thought was most likely to turn into an above average major leaguer -- another Mike Cameron.)

 

So let me turn to Dye. The man made major statements in the offseason that he wanted to be back with the Sox and would take less money to stay here. I just don't get why we didn't take him up on it. He's the best player on the team. It wouldn't have taken $16-17 million/year to keep him. It might have taken $13-14, I suppose, but since he's been the best bargain in baseball during his current deal, that would be a fair price. (And he's not declining significantly as a defensive player. Among Pods/Estad/Dye, Dye is clearly the best at his position.) Instead, the message we're sending everyone on the team, through the way we're handling Dye, is that if you want market price now, SAYONARA. We were willing to pay market price in 2006. But come 2007, with new money being thrown around, we've gone back into trying to cheap out. Well, I just don't think it is a smart move to cheap out on the best player, especially when he's not even demanding a market salary. And it's not as if we can afford to lose him from the outfield. WE HAVE NO OUTFIELD PROSPECTS behind him, or at least our management apparently doesn't think we do. If they don't think our prospects are better than terrible players like Scott Podsednik and Darren Erstad, then why should I have have hope for them. (Frankly, I think management is making another wrong choice here. Not only would I re-sign Dye, but I would dump Pods and Erstad and go with Anderson, Sweeney and even Fields right now to see if we really do have anything in these guys. They really can't be any worse than Pods/Erstad.)

[witesoxfan]

What is with 4.99

 

Let me start with Vazquez because I wrote a couple of posts on that long thread after we re-signed him. What I said was that it was irrelevant whether it was "market rate" on a mediocre pitcher. Who gives a crap whether it's more value than the Royals are going to get out of Gil Meche?? We wouldn't win the AL Central with Gil Meche either.

 

The question is whether Vazquez is likely to give us much better than he did last year -- .500 record with an ERA near 5 -- during the life of his deal. His recent track record, and the way he melted down EVERY DAMN GAME IN THE SIXTH INNING last year -- what was that about?? Have you ever seen another pitcher do that??? -- suggest to me that he's not. He might. But I'd give him about a 30% shot. And unless he's going to start going 17-10 with an ERA in the low 4s, the contract is a waste of money. Because with all the supposedly great young arms KW brought into the system -- Floyd, Danks, Haeger, Masset, Broadway, etc., etc., etc. -- it shouldn't be too hard to get at least a .500 record with an ERA around 5 out of one more of them. But you'd save about $10 million/year by going with the young pitcher instead of Vazquez. (This isn't too hard to see. Just think how Brandon McCarthy would have likely pitched in the 5 hole last year. Don't you think he would have give us BETTER than .500 with an ERA near 5?) And with that extra money you could keep Jermaine Dye, the best player on the team.

 

If Vazquez can replace what Freddie Garcia gave this club, then the contract will have been worth it. If he just gives us what he gave us last year, then it will be an anchor to the team. (And I'm still ticked that we gave up Chris Young to get this mediocrity. Young is the one outfielder we had in our minors that I thought was most likely to turn into an above average major leaguer -- another Mike Cameron.)

 

So let me turn to Dye. The man made major statements in the offseason that he wanted to be back with the Sox and would take less money to stay here. I just don't get why we didn't take him up on it. He's the best player on the team. It wouldn't have taken $16-17 million/year to keep him. It might have taken $13-14, I suppose, but since he's been the best bargain in baseball during his current deal, that would be a fair price. (And he's not declining significantly as a defensive player. Among Pods/Estad/Dye, Dye is clearly the best at his position.) Instead, the message we're sending everyone on the team, through the way we're handling Dye, is that if you want market price now, SAYONARA. We were willing to pay market price in 2006. But come 2007, with new money being thrown around, we've gone back into trying to cheap out. Well, I just don't think it is a smart move to cheap out on the best player, especially when he's not even demanding a market salary. And it's not as if we can afford to lose him from the outfield. WE HAVE NO OUTFIELD PROSPECTS behind him, or at least our management apparently doesn't think we do. If they don't think our prospects are better than terrible players like Scott Podsednik and Darren Erstad, then why should I have have hope for them. (Frankly, I think management is making another wrong choice here. Not only would I re-sign Dye, but I would dump Pods and Erstad and go with Anderson, Sweeney and even Fields right now to see if we really do have anything in these guys. They really can't be any worse than Pods/Erstad.)

 

Tony covered the ERA part

 

I then ask you - would you rather have Lance Broadway in the rotation over Javier Vazquez? You can let Vazquez go, but then you are risking that you can build a rotation of the pitchers in your minors. That's just unrealistic. Vazquez is a proven mediocre commodity, has outstanding stuff and durability, and he's been well above league average in the past; Broadway - or any other minor leaguer for that matter - likely doesn't have the stuff nor durability that Vazquez has, and they obviously don't have near the track record.

 

Vazquez's deal is one of the best deals in the league, and I really don't see how anyone can criticize that move as severely as you have. It's easily movable, it's market value with the potential to be more valuable, and it's short. Seriously, that's the biggest thing you can find to b**** about? That seems awfully petty to me.

 

Podsednik and Erstad are playing because they are veterans and are being paid. If the situation arises, the prospect - whomever is called up - needs to be ready to take over and produce to get on Ozzie's good list. And I can almost guarantee that one of the two is gone next year.

 

(and even while I think Ozzie is a complete tool at times, it seems atleast to me that there does actually remain a chance that Erstad will be a 4th OFer this year)

[VAfan]

Tony covered the ERA part

 

I then ask you - would you rather have Lance Broadway in the rotation over Javier Vazquez? You can let Vazquez go, but then you are risking that you can build a rotation of the pitchers in your minors. That's just unrealistic. Vazquez is a proven mediocre commodity, has outstanding stuff and durability, and he's been well above league average in the past; Broadway - or any other minor leaguer for that matter - likely doesn't have the stuff nor durability that Vazquez has, and they obviously don't have near the track record.

 

Vazquez's deal is one of the best deals in the league, and I really don't see how anyone can criticize that move as severely as you have. It's easily movable, it's market value with the potential to be more valuable, and it's short. Seriously, that's the biggest thing you can find to b**** about? That seems awfully petty to me.

 

Podsednik and Erstad are playing because they are veterans and are being paid. If the situation arises, the prospect - whomever is called up - needs to be ready to take over and produce to get on Ozzie's good list. And I can almost guarantee that one of the two is gone next year.

 

(and even while I think Ozzie is a complete tool at times, it seems atleast to me that there does actually remain a chance that Erstad will be a 4th OFer this year)

 

First off, Buehrle was not worse as a starter last year than Vazquez. Maybe almost as bad, but not worse. Buehrle was in the All-Star game for crying out loud. He sucked in the second half, but he started 9-4 with a 3.22 ERA. Vazquez also amazingly got to 9-4, but with an ERA of 5.15. If Ozzie had yanked him after 5 innings every start, he might have been servicable. But at one point last year I catalogued every one of his 6th inning meltdowns and I believe he blew 9 games where he had a lead into the 5th, and I don't think that was at the end of the season!

 

Second, I'm not suggesting we put Lance Broadway into the rotation NOW. We had JV locked up this year and next without giving him a new contract. We could let him play out the entire year and trade him next offseason. Yes, I think that if he doesn't do better than 11-12 with a 4.84 ERA that at least one of the guys we've stockpiled could do as well in 2008 and beyond as Javier Vazquez. Frankly, since we've given up Freddie Garcia and Brandon McCarthy to get back 4 guys, I hope more than one of these guys can do better than Vazquez. And that's not counting any of the guys we already had.

 

Third, Vazquez hasn't been "well above league average" since he played in Montreal, how many years ago? It was 2003. Since then, he's been all hype and not much in the way of performance.

 

Fourth, Vazquez's deals is "one of the best deals in the league" only if he suddenly performs at the level Freddie Garcia gave us while he was here. If he keeps performing at the rate he's been at since leaving Montreal, then it won't help us win anything but will suck money we could have used to fill some of the gaping holes we have in the field. If Vazquez does pitch like Garcia, then we won't want to move him. If he keeps on at his mediocre rate, no one is going to give us anything of real value for him in trade even if they took him off our hands, and they might want us to toss in money to take him. But do you really think KW is going to ever trade the guy, no matter how bad he might be? I don't.

 

Fifth, if you noticed, Javier Vazquez's deal wasn't near the top of my list of reasons why I'm not optimistic -- it was 6th in a list of 6 items -- so don't think for a second that I believe it is the worst thing we've done this offseason. I'm defending my position because you attacked it, that's all. I believe my original posts on JV gave him a 30% shot at becoming a good pitcher again. If he does, then KW will have made a good deal. If not, then it won't be a good deal. It will hurt us.

 

Last, it doesn't help us this year that Pods and Erstad won't be gone until next year, does it? I think our best chance of doing well, frankly, has to be this year. In 2008, we're going to lose Buehrle and Dye for sure, and probably Iguchi. And there's no way we're going to be better after they leave.

 

Hey, even with all this, I think we have a chance to compete this year and even win the division. I just don't give us a very good chance, which is why I'm not optimistic.

[VAfan]

Just thought this pre-season post was quite relevant again. I'm re-posting portions of two of the items I wrote above, with some bracketed edits.

 

********************************************

Put me down in the column of fans that are not very optimistic about the season at this point. [i'm even less optimistic now.]

 

1. We have only 1 legitimate outfielder, Jermaine Dye, and he's likely playing his last season for the Sox. As bad as our outfield looks now, it is likely to look even worse next year.

 

2. Who are we going to play against left handed pitchers? Our AL Central competitors are loaded with quality left handed starters. Last year we had only 3 guys who could even hit lefties -- Dye, Konerko, and Crede. So what did we do in the offseason? Replace our young right handed CF with a lefty who can't hit worth a crap and never walks. So, of course, Ozzie is in love with him and wants to hit him second in the lineup sandwiched between two other lefties that can't hit left handed pitching.

 

3. Where's the starting pitching? In 2005, we won with a pretty bad, though consistent, offense. But that's because we had great starting pitching and a very solid bullpen. Forget about the #5 hole, which is bad enough. I want to know whether our #1-4 guys are going to return to 2005 form or look like the mediocre-bad pitchers they were in 2006 (except Garland). [uPDATE: Starting pitching is the only hope for this team.]

 

4. A bullpen of flamethrowers? Or flame outs? I haven't bought into the notion that our bullpen is going to be fabulous because we have all these power arms now. I like Big Bobby and Thornton and think MacDougal should be fine if he stays healthy. But David Aardsma? Sisco? Just cause they throw hard doesn't mean they're any good. I haven't seen Masset pitch, so no comment. So, the pen could be okay, even good. But I could just as easily see it blowing too many games for us to win the division. [uPDATE: Pen has already blown as many games as we are behind in the standings.]

 

5. Do we have any plan for the future? KW tried to restock the farm system with arms. But last time I checked, you also need 8 position players and a DH. This could be Iguchi's last season with us = do we even have a second baseman in the system? Dye is certainly gone, even though he's promised us a home-town discount = we've had a lot of minor league outfielders, but if Darren Erstad and Scott Podsednik can beat them out, I don't think any of them are major league material. Juan Uribe could likely be induced to stick around, but if he doesn't learn to get on base as well as he hits HRs, he's another hole in our lineup. Thome isn't getting younger. Last season, he really tanked in the second half and became an automatic out against lefty pitchers. We have pitching depth in our system, but almost nothing else. Josh Fields can only play one position, and is going to have a tough time matching Joe Crede's production. [see item #7. Right now everyone is grasping for a plan, and it's painfully obvious that Sox management doesn't have one.]

 

6. Why did we devote $11+ million a year starting next season to lock up our worst starter from 2006? It seems to me that Javier Vazquez's contribution (or lack thereof) to our pitching staff would be the easiest to replace from among our young arms. So why not take the $10 million difference between JV's deal and what we'd have to pay a rookie pitcher and use it to keep Jermaine Dye? Then you could have traded Vazquez == now, or in mid-season -- to get some real outfielders to play alongside Dye. (Like Chris Young -- the one outfielder in our system that actually had major league talent.)

 

I'm not ripping Kenny for the trades he made this offseason. We needed mound depth, and he got some young power arms. But I'm not crazy about the Vazquez extension, and I'm downright disgusted that Darren Erstad and Scott Podsednik are 2/3 of our starting outfield. It's the deals we DIDN'T make that have left gaping holes in our roster.

 

Maybe this team will surprise us. But just wishing it will all turn out won't make it so. At the moment, I'm not optimistic.

 

I'll be thrilled if the team plays well. But I don't think the odds of doing so are very good. And let me add a seventh reason why.

 

7. This is not a team that is likely to pull together. Buehrle has one foot out the door. As does Dye. As does Iguchi. Erstad is on a one-year contract. Pods is too. Garland and Contreras are likely both thinking they'll be gone when their contract is up. Crede knows he's not staying. I suppose you could argue that all these guys have an incentive to play well so their next contract with some other team will be better. But that's a totally stat-driven kind of incentive. It's the antithesis of the team-driven play that helped us win the WS in 2005.

 

Ozzie may still preach team play, but when he continues to make horrible strategic decisions (hitting Pods/Erstad/Thome back to back to back comes to mind; keeping Vazquez in game after game after game after the 5th inning to blow leads even against our prime division rivals late in the season is another), I think he's going to lose these guys. They're all going to play for themselves -- why should they give a flying F#@# how the team does? The only guys left with a vested interest in the long term success of the Sox are Paul Konerko and Javier Vazquez. The rest of the current team is going to be gone in 3 years.

 

***********************

 

Now that we've seen that much of this is turning out to be accurate, what would I recommend the Sox do?

 

1. I would trade Rob Mackowiak and Darren Erstad to anyone who would take them off our hands. In their place, I would let Terrero, Anderson, Sweeney, Fields, and Owens fight it out for LF/CF.

 

2. I would trade MacDougal to anyone who would take his contract off our hands. I would continue filling bullpen voids with young arms we already have in the minors.

 

3. I would trade Javier Vazquez if we could get any position player of value for him. (I don't suppose AZ would give us Chris Young back for him, would they?) I think the demise of the 2006 Sox can be traced in large part to our late trade for Vazquez. Vizcaino would have been very useful in our pen last year, El Duque could have helped keep Contreras on track, and Chris Young would have given us a positional player we desperately need. Plus, McCarthy would have had a chance to prove himself in our rotation.

 

4. If Joe Crede doesn't bounce back offensively before the deadline, I would trade him if someone gave us a positional player of what I would consider equal value. But I wouldn't sell Crede on the cheap. His trade value will probably be higher in the offseason.

 

5. I would listen to offers for Mark Buehrle and Jose Contreras. Sell only if the value is there.

 

6. I would plan on keeping Jermaine Dye and Jon Garland.

 

7. If someone makes an offer for Tadahito, I'd listen. Ditto for AJ.

 

I would rebuild around:

 

- Garland and Danks in the rotation (plus Buerhle if he came at $14 mill/year or less)

- Konerko, Dye, and Thome

- Jenks and Thornton in the pen

 

Everyone else would be gone.

[VAfan]

Just thought this pre-season post was quite relevant again. I'm re-posting portions of two of the items I wrote above, with some bracketed edits.

 

********************************************

Put me down in the column of fans that are not very optimistic about the season at this point. [i'm even less optimistic now.]

 

1. We have only 1 legitimate outfielder, Jermaine Dye, and he's likely playing his last season for the Sox. As bad as our outfield looks now, it is likely to look even worse next year.

 

2. Who are we going to play against left handed pitchers? Our AL Central competitors are loaded with quality left handed starters. Last year we had only 3 guys who could even hit lefties -- Dye, Konerko, and Crede. So what did we do in the offseason? Replace our young right handed CF with a lefty who can't hit worth a crap and never walks. So, of course, Ozzie is in love with him and wants to hit him second in the lineup sandwiched between two other lefties that can't hit left handed pitching.

 

3. Where's the starting pitching? In 2005, we won with a pretty bad, though consistent, offense. But that's because we had great starting pitching and a very solid bullpen. Forget about the #5 hole, which is bad enough. I want to know whether our #1-4 guys are going to return to 2005 form or look like the mediocre-bad pitchers they were in 2006 (except Garland). [uPDATE: Starting pitching is the only hope for this team.]

 

4. A bullpen of flamethrowers? Or flame outs? I haven't bought into the notion that our bullpen is going to be fabulous because we have all these power arms now. I like Big Bobby and Thornton and think MacDougal should be fine if he stays healthy. But David Aardsma? Sisco? Just cause they throw hard doesn't mean they're any good. I haven't seen Masset pitch, so no comment. So, the pen could be okay, even good. But I could just as easily see it blowing too many games for us to win the division. [uPDATE: Pen has already blown as many games as we are behind in the standings.]

 

5. Do we have any plan for the future? KW tried to restock the farm system with arms. But last time I checked, you also need 8 position players and a DH. This could be Iguchi's last season with us = do we even have a second baseman in the system? Dye is certainly gone, even though he's promised us a home-town discount = we've had a lot of minor league outfielders, but if Darren Erstad and Scott Podsednik can beat them out, I don't think any of them are major league material. Juan Uribe could likely be induced to stick around, but if he doesn't learn to get on base as well as he hits HRs, he's another hole in our lineup. Thome isn't getting younger. Last season, he really tanked in the second half and became an automatic out against lefty pitchers. We have pitching depth in our system, but almost nothing else. Josh Fields can only play one position, and is going to have a tough time matching Joe Crede's production. [see item #7. Right now everyone is grasping for a plan, and it's painfully obvious that Sox management doesn't have one.]

 

6. Why did we devote $11+ million a year starting next season to lock up our worst starter from 2006? It seems to me that Javier Vazquez's contribution (or lack thereof) to our pitching staff would be the easiest to replace from among our young arms. So why not take the $10 million difference between JV's deal and what we'd have to pay a rookie pitcher and use it to keep Jermaine Dye? Then you could have traded Vazquez == now, or in mid-season -- to get some real outfielders to play alongside Dye. (Like Chris Young -- the one outfielder in our system that actually had major league talent.)

 

I'm not ripping Kenny for the trades he made this offseason. We needed mound depth, and he got some young power arms. But I'm not crazy about the Vazquez extension, and I'm downright disgusted that Darren Erstad and Scott Podsednik are 2/3 of our starting outfield. It's the deals we DIDN'T make that have left gaping holes in our roster.

 

Maybe this team will surprise us. But just wishing it will all turn out won't make it so. At the moment, I'm not optimistic.

 

I'll be thrilled if the team plays well. But I don't think the odds of doing so are very good. And let me add a seventh reason why.

 

7. This is not a team that is likely to pull together. Buehrle has one foot out the door. As does Dye. As does Iguchi. Erstad is on a one-year contract. Pods is too. Garland and Contreras are likely both thinking they'll be gone when their contract is up. Crede knows he's not staying. I suppose you could argue that all these guys have an incentive to play well so their next contract with some other team will be better. But that's a totally stat-driven kind of incentive. It's the antithesis of the team-driven play that helped us win the WS in 2005.

 

Ozzie may still preach team play, but when he continues to make horrible strategic decisions (hitting Pods/Erstad/Thome back to back to back comes to mind; keeping Vazquez in game after game after game after the 5th inning to blow leads even against our prime division rivals late in the season is another), I think he's going to lose these guys. They're all going to play for themselves -- why should they give a flying F#@# how the team does? The only guys left with a vested interest in the long term success of the Sox are Paul Konerko and Javier Vazquez. The rest of the current team is going to be gone in 3 years.

 

***********************

 

Now that we've seen that much of this is turning out to be accurate, what would I recommend the Sox do?

 

1. I would trade Rob Mackowiak and Darren Erstad to anyone who would take them off our hands. In their place, I would let Terrero, Anderson, Sweeney, Fields, and Owens fight it out for LF/CF.

 

2. I would trade MacDougal to anyone who would take his contract off our hands. I would continue filling bullpen voids with young arms we already have in the minors.

 

3. I would trade Javier Vazquez if we could get any position player of value for him. (I don't suppose AZ would give us Chris Young back for him, would they?) I think the demise of the 2006 Sox can be traced in large part to our late trade for Vazquez. Vizcaino would have been very useful in our pen last year, El Duque could have helped keep Contreras on track, and Chris Young would have given us a positional player we desperately need. Plus, McCarthy would have had a chance to prove himself in our rotation.

 

4. If Joe Crede doesn't bounce back offensively before the deadline, I would trade him if someone gave us a positional player of what I would consider equal value. But I wouldn't sell Crede on the cheap. His trade value will probably be higher in the offseason.

 

5. I would listen to offers for Mark Buehrle and Jose Contreras. Sell only if the value is there.

 

6. I would plan on keeping Jermaine Dye and Jon Garland.

 

7. If someone makes an offer for Tadahito, I'd listen. Ditto for AJ.

 

I would rebuild around:

 

- Garland and Danks in the rotation (plus Buerhle if he came at $14 mill/year or less)

- Konerko, Dye, and Thome

- Jenks and Thornton in the pen

 

Everyone else would be gone.

[BearSox]

Good old memories of when I still had hope....

[Steff]

I have no evidence for Erstad, but have plenty for Pods.

 

1. He is said to be 100%

2. From what I have heard he has been tearing the cover off the ball (yes, it has been in minor league games though)

3. He has ran without any pain

4. The whole organization thinks he will have a great season, possibly his best ever

Also, to all, I have no problem with having doubts and such. Just don't turn your back on this team and jump of the ledge before the season has even started.

 

OK, I hope I get a bit of a pass on this since I was not around when this was posted.... But I was down in AZ for 4 weeks and none of the above was true at that time.

 

 

 

edit: 4 weeks not 7.. don't I wish.

[BearSox]

OK, I hope I get a bit of a pass on this since I was not around when this was posted.... But I was down in AZ for 4 weeks and none of the above was true at that time.

 

 

 

edit: 4 weeks not 7.. don't I wish.

My god, don't remind me...

[Steff]

My god, don't remind me...

 

 

Sorry BearSox. I was just shocked to read that. Is that what was being said up here back then?