Desperately Seeking a Shortstop

by The Wizard on Dec 17, 2007 1:22 PM CST in Quotes

From Phil Rogers' 'Give a 3-year extension to Orlando Cabrera' column:

The White Sox have two shortstops coming, but both are a long way off. Virginia Commonwealth's Sergio Miranda was a steal in the 2007 draft but ought to get at least two more years to develop as a hitter. Then there's manchild Juan Silverio, who signed with the Sox last summer as a 16-year-old. He's got an intriguing package of talent but probably wouldn't be ready for the big leagues before at least 2011 or '12, when a long-term extension for Cabrera would be ending.
...
With them [Cunningham and Carter] out of the picture, outfielder Jose Martinez and Silverio, the manchild shortstop, become the two position-player kids to watch. Martinez flashed his skills in the Appalachian League last summer after playing in the Venezuelan Summer League as a 17-year-old in 2006. He's a five-tool talent with a lot to learn. Silverio received a $600,000 bonus to sign last summer, the most the White Sox have ever given an international player. He's got a quick bat, strong arm and a ton of game but could wind up as a third baseman, not a shortstop. In trying to restrock a weak position, the White Sox signed two other teenage shortstops from the Dominican. Alexander Adame and Daurys Merecedes will probably play in the Dominican Summer League next year.

***** In other news,

Jim closes the Pods book. Merkin isn't sold on Gavin and wants more pitching.
BBTF on Lamb/Everett. BTW, Jim Edmonds asked to be traded himself due to concerns about his playing time in 2008. The Marlins have their eye on Dallas McPherson.
Sheehan: The Same Things. Preface by Tango.

Tweet Comment 110 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

we all know this is coming

once KW announced they were going to extend him, there's pretty much no going back. while signing a SS is something that needs to be done because, as pointed out, we can't provide one internally. however, doing this would destroy the one thing that makes the trade for cabrera palatable: compensation, likely at A level. and, as we've seen this offseason, you can apparently grab a decent SS for cheap and on short deals. going with cabrera long-term is a bad idea. anything more than a two year extension is a worse idea.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/owensje01.shtm

by larry on Dec 17, 2007 1:26 PM CST reply actions

Totally agreed.

AFAIK, the White Sox only have two players under contract beyond 2010 - Mark Buehrle and Scott Linebrink. That gives them a lot of flexibility going forward. Giving out more extensions to over-30 players just limits that flexibility while doing little to improve the short-term prospects of the team.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 17, 2007 1:39 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

Cabrera didn't seem real keen on the idea of an extension. I'm kind of doubtful he signs one.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 17, 2007 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

Wow...I RTFA'd

Phil suggests 4 year and $50M for Orlando Cabrera. Ugh.

Other suggestions he had that weren't as bad:

Trading Cabrera for prospects (which = "white flag" = KW won't do it).
Trading Cabrera for Crisp and Lugo. If it were just Crisp, that might be OK. Lugo's contract is the one the Sox shouldn't sign OCab to...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 17, 2007 2:14 PM CST up reply actions

that pick could really fortify

that year's draft, since I don't think we'll get a protected pick after 2008.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 17, 2007 4:35 PM CST up reply actions

Felipe Lopez on the trading block?

After he called Felipe Lopez the Nationals' starting second baseman in a projected lineup last week, the Washington Post's Barry Svrluga was told by a club official he should have gone with Ronnie Belliard instead.
It's doubtful that the Nationals tendered Lopez last week with the intention of using him as a $4 million bench player. They could still trade him, but if he stays, he'll likely start at second base. The Nationals could label it a competition just to motivate him.

Source: Washington Post

by SSH2005 on Dec 17, 2007 1:45 PM CST reply actions

Don't we have a $4 million

bench player?

by palehose67 on Dec 17, 2007 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

But $4-4.5MM is a bargain!

Just ask anyone.

Great move - not that a SS has to cover a lot of area or anything, and 33 year olds get to be 34 year olds pretty quick.

Sigh. One positive - he can't get any worse than last year, even at age 36, unless his arms fall off.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 17, 2007 2:06 PM CST up reply actions

I don't have a press release,

but this just in:

Felipe Lopez's arm fell off. White Sox still interested.

A one-armed SS? How Chicago tough is that?

by HulkSmash on Dec 17, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

Actually, speed doesn't correlate at

all with good shortstop defense. Well, to some extent, anyway

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 17, 2007 4:31 PM CST up reply actions

Quickess and speed are different

in my book. And 34-36 year olds don't get quicker, nor do their reflexes improve, unless artificially enhanced. I imagine.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 17, 2007 4:56 PM CST up reply actions

You're making a judgment

about the word "speed" not the measure itself, I think. The primary measures are stolen bases and triples, baseball plays rather than a timed score. I bet your notion of quickness is to some significant degree correlated with an ability to perform such plays.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 17, 2007 10:02 PM CST up reply actions

Stolen bases and triples

are not the kind of speed I'm talking about. His range will get more limited, his arm will get slightly weaker, etc. Can you compare hitting/running stats and extrapolate into a defense metric? I bet it doesn't translate (but I might be wrong).

I would think someone's "quickness" decreasing might not afect a 3rd or 1st baseman as much (reflex plays) rather than a SS, where range is more important. Again, I have nothing to back this up other than (my own) physical experience.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 10:43 AM CST up reply actions

That's what the article did

It showed that the faster you are, in general, the better defender you are, but it didn't hold up for short stops.

But I think in general what the article suggests is that there is a lot of non-physical talent that shortstop requires.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 18, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

I agree

self-serving though it may be (I was a shortstop in the Larry Bowa/Looie Aparicio mode)....

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 12:58 PM CST up reply actions

hey alright

me too. those were the days.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 18, 2007 4:36 PM CST up reply actions

Braves bring back former catcher Javy Lopez...

"Braves signed catcher Javy Lopez to a minor league contract and invited him to spring training."

Also, the Dodgers signed catcher and admitted HGH user Gary Bennett, who had been with the Cardinals, to a one-year, $850,000 contract.

by SSH2005 on Dec 17, 2007 3:55 PM CST reply actions

you know what would be cool

not throwing money at players in their mid 30s. Mr ROFL would appreciate it if the White Sox decided to develop young players.

MrROFL.com

by shaftr on Dec 17, 2007 5:00 PM CST reply actions

Why can't we just play the market, Phil?

The market isn't that much different than it used to be. Jack Cust was just hanging around, as was Carlos Pena. Adam Everett was non-tendered and Wayne Krivsky still thinks of Adam Dunn as a problem rather than an asset. The Milledge-Church/Schneider trade: dumb. The only thing that's really changed is hesitance to do something, lest it be stupid. And I think that's got itself out of the way. The high end market emptied out quickly and at great cost. Anyone who got burned learned that spending too little and waiting too long are bad things.

Instead, they should have expected it. Obvious value gets disproportionately compensated. In fact, the one thing we did expect (a CF signing) is the one thing that's yet to happen.

Normally, I think Kenny has proven himself well aware of this. He finds "damaged goods" which have far fewer interested buyers. That's exactly what Orlando Cabrera and Scott Linebrink aren't and one of the confusing things about this offseason. I think Kenny felt like he had to go name brand to keep the fans around and ended up making sacrifices in this effort.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 17, 2007 5:03 PM CST reply actions

Quentin is a usual KWilliams aquisition

by Jbasic89 on Dec 17, 2007 5:14 PM CST up reply actions

The two big SS that got traded this offseason...

were traded because their were obvious moves.

The Braves traded Edgar Renteria because Yunel Escobar is a stud and he's dirt cheap. Obviously, as much as I wanted Escobar, the Braves weren't going to trade him. He is too valuable.

The Angels traded Orlando Cabrera because they have two guys who can cheaply replace him at SS in Maicer Izturis and Erick Aybar.

I would hope Kenny would have made the same moves if he was in the same situation and had either Renteria or Cabrera to begin with.

But if Kenny traded for Cabrera, signed Linebrink, and fails to acquire a good CF'er like Mike Cameron or Josh Hamilton, this offseason is a colossal failure. Why get Cabrera and Linebrink, only to stick sorry ass Jerry Owens in CF? It would make absolutely no sense.

by SSH2005 on Dec 17, 2007 5:53 PM CST up reply actions

I think...

a lot of people are reading way too much into the Linebrink signing.

I don't like the signing one bit, but I don't see how it forces the White Sox into any particular plan. It's annoying, but it's not an onerous contract by any means.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 17, 2007 6:00 PM CST up reply actions

They lose a pick, too...

It's just a bad signing.

And, while it's not huge money, it's enough to be troublesome in the future. If the Sox needed an extra $5M to sign someone (e.g. offering $15M a year instead of $10M), it does handcuff them that way...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 17, 2007 6:06 PM CST up reply actions

It is a bad signing...

but it doesn't commit the Sox to any particular course of action.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 17, 2007 6:15 PM CST up reply actions

SSS

I can't believe it... your on the SoB bandwagon with josh hamilton!

Sox Man since October 2005

by Soulja Boy on Dec 18, 2007 4:36 PM CST up reply actions

Astros make offer to Mark Prior...

"Astros sign Cassel with eyes on Prior
Wade makes offer to former Cubs righty; Benson also in mix"

by SSH2005 on Dec 17, 2007 5:55 PM CST reply actions

Anna?

Houston may be an interesting place this summer...

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 17, 2007 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

Cedric???

hehe

Sox Man since October 2005

by Soulja Boy on Dec 18, 2007 4:42 PM CST up reply actions

Orioles' Brian Roberts admits to steroids use...

"Orioles second baseman acknowledges single use of steroids in 2003"

Breaking his silence on the inclusion of his name in the Mitchell Report, Baltimore Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts admitted that he used steroids once in 2003.

In an interview in Tuesday's editions of The (Baltimore) Sun, Roberts acknowledged that he used steroids "once" in 2003. However, he said he hadn't used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs since.

In a statement he issued to The (Baltimore) Sun, Roberts said that after the single injection he immediately realized that it was not what he "stood for" or anything he wanted to continue doing. He said he's sorry he did it and said he regrets making what he says was a "terrible decision."

Roberts was named in the Mitchell Report because former Orioles teammate Larry Bigbie told investigators Roberts had told him he used steroids "once or twice" in 2003.

At least it will look somewhat bad if the Cubs acquire him. ; (

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 7:54 AM CST reply actions

Original source...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-te.sp.roberts18dec18,0,163568.story

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 8:02 AM CST up reply actions

whats cool about that statement

is that roberts didnt try to sugar coat it like all of these other guys who are admitting to using PED's ONLY to help them recover from injuries. Bravo brian, bravo!!

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 18, 2007 8:04 AM CST up reply actions

i should add

that if i were roberts, i would still be ticked to be on that list regardless, b/c it was based on he said/she said and no other documentation.

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 8:24 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah,

but apparently it was true.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 18, 2007 9:21 AM CST up reply actions

well..

What I take away from his statement is:

-- He got ratted out, so it would be hard to flatly deny, and guys seem to be looking ok in the public's eye by admitting it. So he fessed up to the "single injection," which is confession to a "lesser" crime than the rest of those cheaters.

-- The statement that he didn't do it again because its "not what he stood for" sounds a lot like a guy who will admit to smoking weed but didnt inhale.

Maybe what he said is exactly true, but on the surface it sounds like a guy spinning a story to escape public disgust. And whether he did roids or not, he's got the kind of statistical profile that people scrutinize.

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM CST up reply actions

notice

how everyone admits to their use but conveniently stopped experimenting before it became against baseball rules. maybe - maybe - the guys who were using steroids were scared away. but the HGH is bullshit.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

im not sayin

that hes being completely truthful, or that i believe him 100%, but im glad at least he didnt taket he "HGH cop-out" that seems to be going around. by the way, did anyone see fernando vina's interview on espn??? he was stumbling and screwin up his words, way worse than usual. he took the HGH cop-out road, but i think hes guilty as hell.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 18, 2007 10:53 AM CST up reply actions

they're all guilty

or at least the vast, vast majority of them. at this point, there's no reason to think that the guys that were the sources were lying. the consequences of that would have been far greater than any advantage they would have gained by saying fernando vina or something acquired drugs from them. of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that most of these guys should be punished because the evidence is relatively flimsy and a law student could probably obliterate them in court or arbitration. the stain, however, should remain.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 11:02 AM CST up reply actions

Right

All these players indicated in the report are going to come clean and say either they used it once or twice to overcome an injury and never used it again, or they used it once for performance and didn't like it or felt bad about it and never did it again.

Yeah. Right.

Like they are going to come out and say "Yeah, I juiced. I juiced every offseason. For 4 straight seasons. That's why I'm so buff and my numbers are better."

These guys have to keep up some form of credibility and likability else general managers and owners may not want to hire them in fear of bringing on an open cheater. It causes bad fan reactions and team support.

I see why they are all admitting to the use in the same way. Doesn't change my opinion of them at all though. Still a cheater.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 18, 2007 11:16 AM CST up reply actions

I agree

I mean, I don't buy all these "I used it once" excuses. In fact, would there be any benefit to steroids one time? Don't you need to have a consistent use of it along with a workout plan to reap the benefit?

I don't know, I think MLB is starting to aknowledge that era and is trying to move on, I think it would be best if the players did the same. It's like the Cocaine era in MLB, players were addicted and a lot of them admitted it, cleaned up and moved on to HOF caliber careers (Molitor & Raines), these players should do the same.

MrROFL.com

by shaftr on Dec 18, 2007 11:27 AM CST up reply actions

just saw that my first reply /post

To deacon's comment didn't post, didn't press the 'post' button.

Anyway, totally, that's some corny ass bullshit with the 'I used it once' excuse. I mean, do you need to use it once to figure out its not what you fucking stand for. That said, its preferable to have less flimsy data, in the case of Roberts, for him to be included on the list regardless of whether he admits to use or not.

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 1:38 PM CST up reply actions

From MLB TradeRumors.com

Needs and Luxuries: Chicago White Sox

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/12/needs-and-luxur.html

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 18, 2007 8:31 AM CST reply actions

CF options...

Ryan Freel is not an everyday CF'er and I would rather have Mike Cameron than Kenny Lofton because Cameron can still play CF.

David DeJesus would be nice but I'm not giving up any top pitching prospects for him because he isn't THAT great.

Reggie Willits and Rajai Davis? We may as well stick with Owens/Anderson/Sweeney.

Kenny really made his job harder by missing out on Hunter, Jones, Fukudome, and Rowand.

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 8:49 AM CST up reply actions

I just want to say

that we have a "Frofton Monster" in center.

"Stay with me here...taking Lofton's '07 vs. righties and Freel's '06 vs. lefties and creating one hybrid Frofton Monster, you get a .311/.394/.444 hitter. Even better, Freel can help out at second base when righties are on the hill. And Sox fans will love his style! He can't be that hard to pry away/buy low from the Reds, can he? I admit this idea didn't give much consideration to CF defense, but hey, I'm just spitballing here."

by palehose67 on Dec 18, 2007 10:13 AM CST up reply actions

Freel

If the Sox could get Freel from the Redd, it would make up for a lot of BS kenny has done so far this offseason.

You could platoon him with BA or JO in Center and if Richar starts of badly, you can plug him into 2b. He also can leadoff. Not sure what the Reds would want in return though...

Why are the Sox not a player for Brian Roberts?? I hear the Cubs...but not the Sox. He could fill our probably hole at 2B and be a good leadoff batter.

by BobbySouthSide on Dec 18, 2007 10:58 AM CST up reply actions

Freel is okay...

but if Kenny has to trade good prospect(s) for a CF'er, I would rather he go for a young guy just like the Quentin trade. Freel is already 32 years old and while he may put up a high OBP, his slugging is pathetic. We may as well stick with Owens then.

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 11:08 AM CST up reply actions

They're not a player for Brian Roberts...

because the White Sox already have enough expensive, over-30 players.

The White Sox aren't going anywhere in 2008 - they might as well play the cheap guys and see what they've got.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 18, 2007 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

now this is a farm system

five 5-star prospects. if you include guys who are under 25, you'd probably rate 9 of them as 5-star. i'm sure we can all guess which organization it is.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7002

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 11:05 AM CST reply actions

If they keep it up...

some day Tampa Bay will actually field a club with more than 70 wins!

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 18, 2007 11:20 AM CST up reply actions

next year

they're the 3rd best team in the division now and should (finally) place there and be a .500 or better team. and if they get some break-out seasons from some of their guys, they'd easily be playing meaningful baseball deep into the season.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

This is why I don't understand why you want to...

rebuild so bad. If the Devil Rays are hoping for 70 wins and have a much better farm system than us, what hope do the White Sox have in rebuilding?

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 11:26 AM CST up reply actions

he was joking

the rays aren't hoping for 70 wins. the rays are, probably, a .500 team on paper. with a hell of a lot of upside. i would not be surprised at all if they were in the mix for the wild card next year.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 11:30 AM CST up reply actions

right

for the last few years, the rays' two big flaws were a lack of starting pitching and an awful bullpen. they have made major strides in both of these areas and will be better than the orioles for sure, and will probably give the jays a run for their money.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 18, 2007 11:35 AM CST up reply actions

They should be but I wouldn't bet on it...

they never seem to do much with their young talent every year.

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 11:38 AM CST up reply actions

i don't blame

players who are under 25 and with little major league experience for not playing like superstars. they haven't had a collection of talent like this before - too much replacement level or below, especially on the pitching side. and that defense. that's all changing. and their offense is maturing. scary team over the next few years.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

hell of a group of young players

If only they'd made a few smart FA signings over the past few years, it wouldn't have taken so long to get competitive....

Then again, they probably feel like its pissing in the wind in the AL East.

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 18, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

Jenks for ????

I know the Sox won't do it, but I absolutely would see what they would give up for Jenks. I know the signed Percival, but still they's have to think about it. Jenks is cheap, and under control for several years -- he's a fit for team with a weak pen, lots of prospects, and a tight budget.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 18, 2007 12:15 PM CST up reply actions

i don't

see them making any more moves this offseason. if they're in the mix next year, though, they may be willing to part with someone (especially for someone who is cheap and under control for multiple years) for bullpen help. i'd love to get one of their, like, five CF prospects - though you'd need to send more than jenks to get that done.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 12:23 PM CST up reply actions

agree and disagree

Yeah, I think that they are done in the bullpen with Percival. At least for now.

I think you might be selling Jenks trade value short. I don't know if their GM falls into the "anyone can close" camp or not. If not, you have to look at what Cordero signed for...a FA closer is probably not in the cards for the Rays. I think there's a very good chance Jenks can bring back an A prospect. I'm usually pretty pessimistic about Sox players trade value, but Jenks performance last year and his contract make him pretty desirable, if you think you need a "proven" closer.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 18, 2007 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

If Jenks has another great year

then he would be worth selling for prospects. Selling him now would be foolish, piss off fans and the vets, as management is "trying" to win in '08.

In '09 though, trade his ass quick.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 18, 2007 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

"in the mix for the wild card next year"

Craziest thing I've ever seen from your keyboard.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 18, 2007 11:36 AM CST reply actions

To Larry.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 18, 2007 11:37 AM CST up reply actions

Not negatively. Just suprisingly.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 18, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

we'll see how surprising it is in seven months

always take projections with a grain of salt, but if you buy the projections for the top three in their rotation, their closer, and their set-up man, i'm not seeing how it would controversial to say the rays have a good chance to be in the mix next year for the wild card. they've gone a long way towards solving a lot of their issues and, with some luck, they could have a nice 2008. they're certainly far more dangerous in the ensuing years considering they'll be able to fill out the back end of that rotation, which will still very likely be a big problem next year.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 12:21 PM CST up reply actions

Is Joe next??????

A-Rod Drops Boras, Signs With Oseary

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/12/a-rod-drops-bor.html

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Dec 18, 2007 11:38 AM CST reply actions

I can hear Boras saying...

"who needs you now, A-Rod? I just got the commission on your last contract anyway" (as he rifles through a stack of cash...)

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 18, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

I want to be filthy rich

And have a million or so dollars converted into pennies so I can dive into them and swim around a la the old duck in Duck Tales.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 18, 2007 12:13 PM CST up reply actions

hmmm

http://bp2.blogger.com/_FOReoGbaPec/R10KWL7fXcI/AAAAAAAAAGE/AFSoP56-Shc/s1600-h/fminus-dive.jpg

www.fratdaddy.blogspot.com

by Raf on Dec 18, 2007 1:41 PM CST up reply actions

Mariners in serious talks with Carlos Silva...

Ken Rosenthal wrote:

Carlos Silva, perhaps the top starting pitcher remaining on the free-agent market, does not figure to be available much longer.

The Mariners are in serious negotiations with Silva on a contract that would be worth at least $44 million over four years, according to major-league sources.

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 12:28 PM CST reply actions

glad to see

this obvious fit is finally being consummated.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 12:29 PM CST up reply actions

I kinda like this signing

Though M's fans are a little irate... he's only 28 and posted better than league average ERA the past 4 years in the AL central. Moving to the AL West will really help him out. The M's were close to the playoffs last year and this should help their rotation.

$11 mill per ain't bad.

"God knows I gave my best in baseball at all times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

by Shoeless In SC on Dec 18, 2007 12:48 PM CST up reply actions

Where else are they getting a pitcher?

I wouldn't be irate about the signing. Silva's disastrous 2006 makes him look worse than he is. He's not that bad. And 4/44 is reasonable deal in this market. And they didn't have to trade Jones or Clement. If there was someone out there that they could have grabbed by trading only Wlad, then maybe it was a bad signing. But I don't think so.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 18, 2007 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

For those who (like me)

have never quite cottoned to Roger Clemens, this is a great piece:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7577358

Phony.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 1:29 PM CST reply actions

Couldn't happen top a nicer guy

I recall a couple of years back seeing a national sports segment on King Rocket. He was visited at his home and the very first stop on the visit was Rocket's gigantic trophy case, so he could show us all just how damn good he was.

I was thinking, "Dude, put it down in the rec room for crying out loud. Not in your frickin' living room!"

I can only hope he now receives the "Barry" treatment.

"Each one of my (off-season acquisition)targets has that edge to them, that go-getter attitude. We need it. We will embrace it." - Kenny Williams (11/28/07)

by tailgater on Dec 18, 2007 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

"Top" - make that "to"

"Each one of my (off-season acquisition)targets has that edge to them, that go-getter attitude. We need it. We will embrace it." - Kenny Williams (11/28/07)

by tailgater on Dec 18, 2007 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

unfortunately, he hasn't so far

i never was one to put a whole lot of credence into the whole racial thing with bonds. but hearing all these reporters - especially with HOF votes - coming out and saying they'll still vote for clemens seems a bit incongruous. you've pretty much got the same evidence against both now. you've pretty much got the same amount of usage, in terms of years, alleged against both. i'm having a hard time figuring out why roger is getting special treatment. i'll note that mcgwire, who is white, also has received the bonds treatment (and there are other differences as well between their situations) so i won't chalk anything soley up to race - there's rarely one factor in anything. but i'm beginning to wonder now.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 1:47 PM CST up reply actions

This is where the situation gets tricky

with the 'Bonds' treatment being viewed as the standard for steroids offenders. I agree with you Larry, but a lot of questions remain to be answered. Maybe most of these players should be held up to the 'Barry' standard. But what of the players the Mitchell Report left out? I hope people aren't naive enough to believe that all--even most--the players who abused steroids have been outed (then, as Larry pointed out, there's the question of reliable evidence). What about the owners and GMs and everyone else who turned the other cheek and let this all go on. If batboys were in the know, then everyone was in the know on this.

This is one of the reasons I don't like this Mitchell Report. It gives the semblence of closure or perhaps progress, but I don't see this problem any further along then before the report. Some reputations were decimated with dubious evidence. Where does that leave baseball?

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 2:07 PM CST up reply actions

The guys named in the report

are the ones stupid enough to WRITE A PERSONAL CHECK or have receipts from the guy selling them the goods.

I would imagine there is a plethora of those wise enough to pay cash and will never be caught.

Until they can test everyone properly, I don't blame any of them for continuing to look for an edge. It could mean your career if some mediocre guy can take a "substance" and suddenly be good enough to take your spot.

So, IMHO, they (players, management and the union) have created the monster, so now they can figure out how to fix it.

"Each one of my (off-season acquisition)targets has that edge to them, that go-getter attitude. We need it. We will embrace it." - Kenny Williams (11/28/07)

by tailgater on Dec 18, 2007 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

If you look at the report, TG,

there are very few players who have evidence mounted against them that is as significant as cancelled checks.

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

I think

Barry is considered a "douche" by baseball fans (outside SF, although some inside too), his team mates and the media, so more people are rejoicing in his misery.

While Rocket is also obviously a egomaniacal douche, until now, he was a "fan favorite" nationally, or at least well-respected by non-fans.

I just hope he is now measured with the same yardstick (asteriks in the record books? HOF in danger?) so Barry CAN'T play the race card.

"Each one of my (off-season acquisition)targets has that edge to them, that go-getter attitude. We need it. We will embrace it." - Kenny Williams (11/28/07)

by tailgater on Dec 18, 2007 2:10 PM CST up reply actions

to clarify

neither barry nor anyone associated with him has ever, in my recollection, "played the race card." but if he did, i wouldn't fault him. it's quite dubious in a country like ours to deny that race doesn't play a factor - often a significant one - in how minorities are perceived.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:23 PM CST up reply actions

it was hard enough to get people

to come around on allen iverson.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 18, 2007 3:11 PM CST up reply actions

I think it's a little more complicated

First, there is a predominant "bias" toward Clemens, and it's the old East Coast one. Too many EC writers remember Rocket as a rookie, Rocket striking out 20, Rocket making Dan Duquette eat his words with his Blue jays MVP, Rocket as a Yankee. And too many hero worship moments. Everyone (on the East coast) wanted to be Roger, and few wanted to be Barry.

Second, it's tough admitting you've been wrong (though no one on this blog has THAT frailty), kid of a "cognitive dissonance" thing, so of course few are rushing to say, "Yes, everything I've written over 20 years has been trashed, and I've been hosed. What a douchebag I am." So I'd think it'll take awhile for folks to come around to thinking that Clemens' disingenuousness is worse than Bonds' churlishness.

Anyway, both can kiss my keister, no matter how many records they have. Theyu look to be less than stellar human beings, regardless of their pre/post drug use.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

so barry CAN'T play the race card

i'm not buying drinks on the board (like tubesox), but clemens will not be held to the same standards as bonds. i'll eat my words otherwise (hopefully, to be honest).

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 2:24 PM CST up reply actions

what does tom verducci say?

i know you did not mention him, but he comes first to mind. i'd give tom credit if he is forward to his readers and say that he will not vote for clemens, considering the treatment he's given bonds.

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 2:12 PM CST up reply actions

verducci

seems to be withholding his explicit judgment for now - probably prudent. he something wrote in a recent column, though, that indicated he didn't think clemens (along with bonds and mcgwire) would get in the HOF unless something changes.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

probably prudent

haha, yeah, i would too if i were him, b/c i would have to eat my fucking words, to be more blunt. he was always hyping clemens work ethic...not like barry didn't work hard either...

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

i was referring

more to not leaping to conclusions in the immediate aftermath of the report's release. i think some of these voters who have been asked how they would vote and said they'd vote for clemens will change their mind once they weigh things and see/hear the reaction from clemens and to him. this isn't a decision - or a column - that should be hastily made.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

The day after the report was released,

every Trib sports writer was circled around Clemens with pitchforks and torches. Pretty fast judgement on an important issue (I think 5 of 6 voted nay on Clemens for the hall).

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions

good for them

unfortunately, that's what people usually want. snap judgments. flavor of the month opinions. screeds. smear jobs. the ethics, not to mention the opinions, of these guys are seriously lacking. i don't know how many times i've caught these guys misquoting. if they were in another department at the trib, they'd be out on their ears. but in sports "journalism" you don't have to hold yourself to much of a standard.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

You said it

Absolutely. That's part and parcel of sports writers: one, they have no memory. They praise one day, then tear apart the next. And, they have very little journalistic integrity in terms of attributing quotes or getting their facts straight, yet for whatever reason are held to a very low standard. You'd think, in the case of Clemens, they'd put in at least a modicum of research before they took the piss out of a 20 year career. Nope. They took a trainer's word for what it was and blast the rocket to criminality.

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 2:49 PM CST up reply actions

Just to add on...

If memory serves, there was only 1 Trib writer who said something along the lines of (regarding Clemens): "I'm not sure, I'll have to wait and see what comes out from this point on and make a decision when I have a ballot in front of me."

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

here's the article

seems to be a bit more nuanced than you made it out to be.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-071213mitchell-hof,0,5525716.story

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:57 PM CST up reply actions

Somewhat...

Keep in mind, I said, if 'memory recalls.' --Although by MItchell terms, that's enough for evidence ; ) But when you have someone saying how 'delighted' they'd be to exclude Clemens, that isn't very nuanced.

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 3:00 PM CST up reply actions

But, there weren't

pitchforks. That's a result of an overactive memory.

by HulkSmash on Dec 18, 2007 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

i agree (larry)...

especially with your last point. but i think the similar approach should be adopted with barry too when his time has come for voting.

personally, i think steroids/hgh use should not prevent anyone from entering the hall. sure the stats are a product of any ugly era, and i'm not making excuses. the color barrier and treatment of players like property (pre-free agency) are far uglier marks imo.

but re: peds, the best i hope for is that the owners, players, and the union to move on and agree to adopt stringent testing from an independent body that doesn't sacrifice the civil liberties of the players being tested.

by onlysoxfaninboston on Dec 18, 2007 2:39 PM CST reply actions

well

i think people have had enought time to digest bonds by now. and let's keep in mind that bonds has actually tested positive, as well. it's a thorny issue and one that does not lend itself to particularly clear answers or demarcations.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 2:45 PM CST up reply actions

It's interesting that you

bring up the postitive test, because I'm not so sure how many people/fans recognize that fact (or allegation, as I'm sure Mr. Bonds' defense team will say). That test -- ironically probably from the BALCO lab -- is going to receive some pretty close legal scrutiny, and it will be interesting to see from a legal perspective how it stands up (chain of custody, etc. -- all those things to which lawyers actually pay attention). Perjury can be very difficult to prove, and because of that, the cases can be quite interesting. Oh, and Barry is a d***, but race is at least a small factor in how he is portrayed in the media.

by palehose67 on Dec 18, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions

no

i'm talking about the failed test he had for amphetamines in 2006. apparently people don't recognize or know about that fact. i think it would be fine if people/voters wanted to draw the line at those who used substances after they were banned by MLB. to me, that failed test illustrates hubris on bonds' part. set aside the illegality of what he allegedly did. or his alleged perjury regarding those actions. it wasn't against the rules in baseball. but then bonds (and every other player) is given the opportunity to be clean and, to at least some degree, not be concerned that other players are cheating (since, of course, we all know that everyone stopped taking steroids and HGH in 2002 and 2003). instead, bonds decided to keep on "cheating." i would buy that argue, so long as someone was consistent on it.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 3:50 PM CST up reply actions

Aren't amphetamines illegal?

White crosses? Black beauties? Greenies? What kind of amphetamines did he take?

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 3:52 PM CST up reply actions

sure

who knows what he took. he supposedly tried to throw his teammate mark sweeney under the bus on this one, to boot.

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 3:56 PM CST up reply actions

Roger speaks!

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life," Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."

Oh, yeah, that sounds just like Clemens' own words to me. What a sincere and forthright guy.

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 4:19 PM CST up reply actions

Sorry. I thought

you were talkign about the steroids test (which from a legal perspective if far more interesting). Do most people know about the amphetamines test? I thought so, but perhaps in reality people have generally tuned out the specifics of Bonds because they have already reached their own conclusions. Hubris and Bonds? Are you sure?

by palehose67 on Dec 18, 2007 4:20 PM CST up reply actions

those massive quotation marks have to go

by larry on Dec 18, 2007 3:29 PM CST reply actions

I concur... pretty lame.

by SSH2005 on Dec 18, 2007 3:40 PM CST up reply actions

garish, really

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 18, 2007 4:31 PM CST up reply actions

a bit distracting

can you do anything cheat?

by The Wizard on Dec 18, 2007 6:58 PM CST up reply actions

Cheat? Who dat?

The guy that promised to rededicate himself to this site?

Where he at? He gone! Wiz, you da new Cheat!

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Dec 18, 2007 7:37 PM CST up reply actions

Soul-ja! Soul-ja! Soul-ja!

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

by Toonderstrook on Dec 19, 2007 11:07 AM CST up reply actions

SSH!!!

Mets signed RHP Matt Wise, who had been with the Brewers, to a one-year contract.
The Brewers liked Guillermo Mota better, so they traded for him last month and then non-tendered Wise last week. Our guess is that Wise is the more effective pitcher next season, and the Mets are probably getting him for less than half the $3.2 million Mota was due to make. He'll work in middle relief.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Dec 18, 2007 3:33 PM CST reply actions