Phil Rogers bash session

[scenario]

Why would you do that? If Konerko (and most other 1st basemen for that matter) could play anywhere else on the field, they most likely would. A 1st baseman is held to a higher offensive standard than other positions because of the high amount of players who can play it adequately.

 

Why? Think about it.

 

If you get rid of one of the top-3 players in your lineup OPS-wise, you have to replace that production... regardless of what position he plays.

 

The fact that there are alot of highly productive 1Bs in MLB doesn't justify getting rid of one of our most productive hitters and creating another hole in our lineup.

 

It's not like we can get rid of Paulie and go get Pujols to replace him. The best 1B's in MLB aren't usually put on the block. Most of the available 1B options have had injury issues or inconsistent histories. I simply don't see any reason to assume we'd be better off making a change.

Edited January 3, 2010 by scenario

[Dick Allen]

If guys who can put up Konerko's numbers are a dime a dozen, how come the Sox current DH is Jones/Kotsay?

[Quin]

If guys who can put up Konerko's numbers are a dime a dozen, how come the Sox current DH is Jones/Kotsay?

 

We only had .83 cents

[MattZakrowski]

If guys who can put up Konerko's numbers are a dime a dozen, how come the Sox current DH is Jones/Kotsay?

 

Because the White Sox have an easy January schedule. If the Sox don't sign a DH, I'll eat my hat.

[jenksycat]

If guys who can put up Konerko's numbers are a dime a dozen, how come the Sox current DH is Jones/Kotsay?

 

They're not a dime a dozen, but they are also certainly not 12 million dollar players either

[Dick Allen]

Because the White Sox have an easy January schedule. If the Sox don't sign a DH, I'll eat my hat.

I should re-phrase it, it seems a lot of people here are satisfied the Sox DH is Jones/Kotsay and wouldn't mind if that's how it turned out.

[fathom]

I should re-phrase it, it seems a lot of people here are satisfied the Sox DH is Jones/Kotsay and wouldn't mind if that's how it turned out.

 

I totally agree, so many justifications I see on here. It's truly inexcusable.

[Ranger]

Some see the glass half empty and some half full. Might as well enjoy your favorite team and not lose sleep over it. You'll live longer . Being overly critical is no way to go through life as you'll have few friends and make those around you miserable.

 

Amen. Everything isn't as terrible, or as great, as it seems to some people. The problem I have is when people automatically assume the worst case scenario will happen for every player.

 

In general I agree with this.....but when tons and tons of fans fail to keep a critical eye, you start getting what has happened to the Cubs. The diehards are still there but there's this mass culture of people who just like their lovable cubbies coming back year in year out. They kept Grace and Dunston way past their viability just b/c they were popular.

 

What the fans support does have an impact on what the team does. Though I think Sox fans in general are smarter than that. And it's not like elrockinMT is supporting a totally finished guy in Konerko. PK is average at his position right now, no more no less.

 

I'm not sure how you can say the Cubs held on to grace for too long because his final yuear with them wasn't all that bad when you consider his entire game including defense. At any rate, that was 10 years ago and Dunston was like 15 years ago. That has nothing to do with the recent...new GM, new front office, new coaching staff.

 

I kind of think this idea that fans blindly follow the Cubs is one of the biggest myths in the city. The notion that their fans are somehow more likely than any other team's fans to stand behind them when they're bad is just entirely inaccurate. You can't confuse attendance with blind loyalty. Their true fans and die-hards (and yes, the Cubs do have some true fans) are no different than Sox fans. Angry, annoyed, and critical. ANd many of them will go to games because they're fans, just like Sox fans do.

 

The one difference is that Wrigley has been selling out, but that has as much to do with the ballpark and the surrounding neighborhood as anything else. Some of it also has to do with expectations, which you have to admit over the last several years have been pretty high for them. There were a few years in this past decade where there was legitimate reason to believe they would actually win the World Series. They've had some pretty good teams lately.

 

Yes, the losing was cute for them at one point, but that attendance wasn't always there. The 70's were a terrible decade for them attendance-wise, and up until the late 90's, they were averaging less than 28,000 per game. If the Cubs are truly terrible, people will not show up. They may have bought tickets early in the year for late season games, but when they're out of the race you will notice a drastic decrease of people actually using those tickets.

 

The "mass culture" of Cubs fans you're talking about is casual fans, and that's how casual fans consume baseball. They like it when they win, but they don't get fired up when they lose. It just so happens the Cubs have more casual fans than the Sox do. I wish the Sox had as many casual fans as they do because that would mean better attendance and higher payroll.

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

The problem is comparing him to other first basemen... because 1Bs tend to be the best hitters on most MLB teams.

 

Instead, compare him to all hitters / position players.

 

I took a look to see where he would fit on most MLB rosters.

 

Bottom line is he'd still be one of the top 3 hitters (OPS-wise) in almost any MLB lineup.

 

No, because he IS a first baseman. It's a matter of opportunity cost. The question is this: Is Konerko worth $12m when we could sign a better first baseman for less?

 

I don't know, he's a bit overpaid for his production but he's still a very good player, offensively and defensively, and he's a proven veteran. That's how it works when you make a career on one team, the longer you're in, the more you get paid. I don't mind his salary as long as he keeps putting up last year's numbers.

[elrockinMT]

Why would you do that? If Konerko (and most other 1st basemen for that matter) could play anywhere else on the field, they most likely would. A 1st baseman is held to a higher offensive standard than other positions because of the high amount of players who can play it adequately.

 

It takes a team to win and not one person.

[elrockinMT]

I should re-phrase it, it seems a lot of people here are satisfied the Sox DH is Jones/Kotsay and wouldn't mind if that's how it turned out.

 

 

Don't count me in that group. However, I won't say at this point that the rotation of players in and out of the DH role as Ozzie mentioned is all bad, but I would like to see one productive and proven player there. I am a believer that all players have roles on the team and messing too much with that might put that player or players in a position of being set up for failure

[elrockinMT]

Im sorry elrockinMT, what we see with you is that you far overvalue our own players to the point of ignoring diminishing results and injuries. This street goes both ways man

 

 

I respect your opinion but disagree with it What I said about stats the same can be applied to people looking at players and saying their are oft injured and thus no longer productive, age is catching up with them and so on and so forth. I don't think PK's stats are bad at all and the leadership he brings to the team most likely can't be measured in a stats book. I think the individual in question, or individuals, can get alot out of the talent they have when you play as a team. You can't find that team spirit or focus in a stat book. Once again you win and lose as a team and not as an individual. Replacing the leadership that we have had shown to us by not only PK, but others past and present is going to be difficult. If you don't like PK, or think he or someone else is going to be an effective offensive force you tell me who you would think would do better and then how are you going to acquire them? We have a solid player here in Konerko and to say he is mediocre is just not what I see in the guy. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.

Edited January 3, 2010 by elrockinMT

[witesoxfan]

I should re-phrase it, it seems a lot of people here are satisfied the Sox DH is Jones/Kotsay and wouldn't mind if that's how it turned out.

 

I think those people need to open their eyes. Jones and Kotsay are bench players. Jones may be a platoon partner, but I'm not going to count on that.

 

Atleast one more hitter needs to be brought in, and Williams is a fool if he doesn't agree.

[Kyyle23]

I respect your opinion but disagree with it What I said about stats the same can be applied to people looking at players and saying their are oft injured and thus no longer productive, age is catching up with them and so on and so forth. I don't think PK's stats are bad at all and the leadership he brings to the team most likely can't be measured in a stats book. I think the individual in question, or individuals, can get alot out of the talent they have when you play as a team. You can't find that team spirit or focus in a stat book. Once again you win and lose as a team and not as an individual. Replacing the leadership that we have had shown to us by not only PK, but others past and present is going to be difficult. If you don't like PK, or think he or someone else is going to be an effective offensive force you tell me who you would think would do better and then how are you going to acquire them? We have a solid player here in Konerko and to say he is mediocre is just not what I see in the guy. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are to yours.

 

 

and nowhere did I say you were not entitled to your opinion, I was actually responding to you criticizing those who you feel undervalue the worth of the players on the team, hence my "street goes both ways" statement.

[Ranger]

No, because he IS a first baseman. It's a matter of opportunity cost. The question is this: Is Konerko worth $12m when we could sign a better first baseman for less?

 

I don't know, he's a bit overpaid for his production but he's still a very good player, offensively and defensively, and he's a proven veteran. That's how it works when you make a career on one team, the longer you're in, the more you get paid. I don't mind his salary as long as he keeps putting up last year's numbers.

 

That's assuming it is actually possible to acquire a firstbaseman that is better but won't cost as much. The market may be different now in that the money isn't flowing quite as freely as it was a few years ago, but first base is, on average, the highest-paid position in baseball. Everything you consider should be done so in the larger picture. That picture is that the Sox basically had to re-sign him when they did (even though moves shouldn't be made because it's what the fans want, you all know fans would have been livid had they not brought him back at the time), and there weren't better, cheaper free-agent available options at the time. What they didn't know is that he would struggle in year 2 and 3 of that contract. They were, as they should, expecting some regression by the final season or two. But, sometimes that's the rub with a multi-year deal. Teams have to expect some regression for players in their early 30s.

 

Within the context of Konerko having been signed to a slightly-less-than-market-value multi-year extension (in the 2006 offseason), how could they have realistically signed a better, cheaper first baseman for this year?

 

[Quin]

Within the context of Konerko having been signed to a slightly-less-than-market-value multi-year extension (in the 2006 offseason), how could they have realistically signed a better, cheaper first baseman for this year?

 

Weren't the Angels and Orioles offering him something like 5yr/$70M?

[southsider2k5]

Weren't the Angels and Orioles offering him something like 5yr/$70M?

 

The Orioles offer was more, but I seem to remember when taxes were included the Anaheim offer was identical to the Sox.

[elrockinMT]

and nowhere did I say you were not entitled to your opinion, I was actually responding to you criticizing those who you feel undervalue the worth of the players on the team, hence my "street goes both ways" statement.

 

 

So we are headed for a head on collision?

[Ranger]

The Orioles offer was more, but I seem to remember when taxes were included the Anaheim offer was identical to the Sox.

 

 

The Orioles offered around $65 mil, the Angels for about what the Sox offered. Not a huge difference for either.

[The Ginger Kid]

He says he hopes Peavy and Rios justify the investment. Guess what? So do we.

[witesoxfan]

That's assuming it is actually possible to acquire a firstbaseman that is better but won't cost as much. The market may be different now in that the money isn't flowing quite as freely as it was a few years ago, but first base is, on average, the highest-paid position in baseball. Everything you consider should be done so in the larger picture. That picture is that the Sox basically had to re-sign him when they did (even though moves shouldn't be made because it's what the fans want, you all know fans would have been livid had they not brought him back at the time), and there weren't better, cheaper free-agent available options at the time. What they didn't know is that he would struggle in year 2 and 3 of that contract. They were, as they should, expecting some regression by the final season or two. But, sometimes that's the rub with a multi-year deal. Teams have to expect some regression for players in their early 30s.

 

Within the context of Konerko having been signed to a slightly-less-than-market-value multi-year extension (in the 2006 offseason), how could they have realistically signed a better, cheaper first baseman for this year?

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Sox shouldn't have resigned Konerko. That was a certainty. It doesn't change the fact that Konerko has been rather underwhelming over the past 2 seasons. He's going to be the 1Bman this year, barring some completely unforeseen move, and he's likely going to put up mediocre numbers for a 1Bman, like he has for the past 3 years. That doesn't change the fact that he's still probably going to be an above average offensive player in general who is going to hit 25-30 homers and put up an OPS in the .825-.850 area.

[NorthSideSox72]

All the guy wrote was that one of his New Year's wishes was that Peavy and Rios justify the White Sox big investment in them. I think we all have that wish.

Thank you.

 

I'm not a big fan of Rogers' baseball articles either, but you have to understand that he isn't writing towards the uber-fans. He is addressing the heart of the fan base, which sometimes feel differently about these players than the superfans on this site do (myself included). To them, they still don't trust Peavy or Rios to do well yet, and they love Paulie, even if the numbers say that PK has been a mediocre 1B in terms of offensive production for a few years now.

 

 

[ptatc]

I had to bump this thread.

 

Here is a quote from an his article today:

 

"It's the same basic injury Robin Ventura suffered in a slide at home plate in the spring of 1997. It proved only a minor setback for Ventura, who would play in the World Series with the 2000 Mets, but he wasn't fast before his injury. Mitchell's value is based, in a large part, around his speed.

 

Ventura fractured and dislocated a joint. This is an injury which involves 3 bones and the joint articulation. Mitchell ruptured a tendon and didn't dislocate a joint.

 

Other than both injuries occurring below the knee they have absolutely nothing in common. They aren't even the same anatomic structures. He obviously did no research on the injuries and just threw it out there because they are both severe injuries around the foot.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

And didn't Robin himself say he was never the same after that injury? I don't think Robin would call that injury a "minor setback." IIRC the injury bothered Robin the rest of his career and he didn't get better until he had a cadaver bone inserted.

[southsider2k5]

I had to bump this thread.

 

Here is a quote from an his article today:

 

"It's the same basic injury Robin Ventura suffered in a slide at home plate in the spring of 1997. It proved only a minor setback for Ventura, who would play in the World Series with the 2000 Mets, but he wasn't fast before his injury. Mitchell's value is based, in a large part, around his speed.

 

Ventura fractured and dislocated a joint. This is an injury which involves 3 bones and the joint articulation. Mitchell ruptured a tendon and didn't dislocate a joint.

 

Other than both injuries occurring below the knee they have absolutely nothing in common. They aren't even the same anatomic structures. He obviously did no research on the injuries and just threw it out there because they are both severe injuries around the foot.

 

Interesting. So the obvious question would be is this a "better" or "worse" than the Ventura injury in terms of recovery potential? Do you think Mitchell will still have the same overall potential after his recovery?