A look around the net

by The Wizard on Dec 8, 2007 10:01 PM CST in News Comment 130 comments

Vivaelbirdos takes a look on the Sox:

about a month ago, citing a post at South Side Sox, i noted the similarity between the white sox's position and the cardinals'. SSS is back at it; read this screed and tell me if it doesn't sound familiar. he decries the sox's unwillingness to pay over slot in the amateur draft; their reluctance to offer arbitration to departing free agents; and their refusal to lay out big bucks for big-name free agents. he also complains of inactivity in the international talent market, a complaint that until a few years ago would have applied to the cardinals. . . . taken in isolation these critiques all seem to stand up, but they don't fare so well when placed into the context of the standings. you could levy the same criticisms against three of the last five champions (marlins, white sox, cards). and all but one of last year's four lcs participants (dbacks, rockies, indians) are slotniks in the draft and non-factors in the free-agent market. in the end, it's still about talent evaluation, not about money. spending exorbitantly in the draft and/or free-agent markets can yield an advantage, but it's exaggerated; it's not a prerequisite for being competitive.

What do you think [about this diagnosis]? ***** In other news,

Players on Phil Rogers list of non-tender candidates: Mark Prior, Marlins catcher Miguel Olivo, Mariners first baseman Ben Broussard, Royals outfielder Emil Brown, Mets catcher Johnny Estrada and Nationals reliever Luis Ayala.
BTB doesn't like the Jose Guillen signing. -- ZiPS neither (.269/.335/.438), but ZiPS likes the Chris Sheltons' pickup (.264/.353/.437).
Fuku news: he will decide in a few days "whether to accept a bid from the Padres, Cubs or another American club." And on Tuesday he "will let the Yomiuri Giants know whether he will accept their offer."
Sox have inquired about Luis Vizcaino.
Hot Stove: The Brewers are close to 1-year deal with Eric Gagne. -- Brian Sabean is contemplating Toronto's offer of Alex Rios for Tim Lincecum. Would you pull the trigger? I don't think I would.
UPDATE:
Part 2 of Jim's Podsednik Paradox dissertation.
Fuku is coming to America.
Dayn Perry ranks the Linebrink signing #2.
Are we talking with Yankees about Hideki Matsui? Don't tell me TinTin is getting the BA treatment.
Milton Bradley signed a 1-year deal with the Rangers and not the Padres.

0 recs | Comment 130 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not to speak for Cheat...

But I think his post on the Sox being a mid-market team wasn't decrying their lack of spending, but rather how they spend their money. They have a $100M payroll -- clearly they have some money. But they've tied it all (apparently) up on the major league roster (sometimes in poor ways) rather than spend it on draftees, risking arbitration, and international acquisitions. Aside from paying big bucks to keep their own free agents, they've pretty much acted like a mid-market team (with a poor international presence to boot, which is not true of all mid-market teams).

Some of those failings in resource alocation are particularly galling in that they wouldn't have required much financial outlay -- paying over slot for later round picks and arbitration for Riske are two examples.

So yes, talent evaluation and development are probably the primary dysfunctions of the Sox, but failing to properly allocate resources is another. CLE, AZ, and the Rox have all had the benefit of some very high draft picks. The Sox haven't, and to make up for that they clearly could have used their monetary advantage over those teams better.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 8, 2007 10:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i would imagine

a cardinals fan also would take a distinctly NL-centric view of how to be competitive. if i were in the NL central, i would agree with his points. if i were in the AL central - and competing with the likes of the tigers and the yankees and the red sox and the angels - for playoff spots, i would take another. frankly, spending money in the draft and on foreign talent and on free agents has become a prerequisite for competitiveness in the AL because you're competing with the best possible combination of smart organizations and rich organizations, most notably in the red sox and the tigers. to compete with that if you don't have the money, you're going to have to have some luck. those rich teams, on the other hand, buy their own luck.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

and the thing is, we do spent the money, we spent it in the wrong places though...

by The Wizard on Dec 9, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nate silver

did a study on this sort of thing in august. the money shot:

while the National League retains its parity, it appears as though the rich/poor gap in the AL is only widening.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6536

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 6:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

the money is being spent but not wisely

they gave $19 mil to the brickster but don't want to give an extra $500k in a draft pick

by The Wizard on Dec 9, 2007 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No Great Revelations

Much learning hath made many mad! There have been a few fancy posts the past week enlightening us to the fact that the White Sox are nothing but a mediocre team. What an epiphany!

The White Sox have been, are, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a mediocre team. The 2005 World Series championship team was a mediocre team. It was a once in a lifetime event. The chemistry of the team was unique and produced a flash in the pan that will not likely be repeated for a very long time. On paper the 2006 squad was much stronger, but they didn't even make the playoffs.

Vivaelbirdos is correct in stating it's very simply about talent evaluation. You should pay for talent and unload the rest. The past few months have shown us all that the Sox (White ones) are not adhering to this simple principle.

Why would they trade a talented 2nd baseman (Iguchi) and replace him with a hapless bat (Richar)? Why on earth would we consider getting rid of Crede and replacing him with Inge??? Why trade a decent young pitcher like Garland? Why would they even consider paying $75 million to a CF'er who is going to hit .270?

Another "revelation" from the past week has been that the Tigers organization is a bit better at evaluating talent than we are. Not exactly news.

The main point is to keep it simple. These long winded posts with such insightful revelations are in reality not revealing anything that anyone with a bit of common sense doesn't know already.

by waitonhim on Dec 8, 2007 11:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

LOL

"The White Sox have been, are, and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a mediocre team. The 2005 World Series championship team was a mediocre team. It was a once in a lifetime event. The chemistry of the team was unique and produced a flash in the pan that will not likely be repeated for a very long time. "

Its these kind of posts which continue to amaze me and crack me up. I mean really, do you even pay attention to actual results of mlb the past 7 years or are you just prone to exaggerate for effect?

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Dec 9, 2007 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Last 7 Years

Sox have averaged 84.85 wins with one playoff appearance. They won it all in 2005 thank God I saw it in my lifetime.

But they have been pretty much the definition of mediocre, just barely above average over that span.

by madvillian on Dec 9, 2007 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well I actually was including 2000

So I guess I meant 8. 2007 obviously gives the win totals a hit. Since 2000 the Sox had 2 playoff apperances, 1 ws and finished .500 or better 7 of 8 years. Spin it whatever way you want. Im certainly not turning them into some dynasty or something but how many teams have the same resume?

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Dec 9, 2007 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The answer is

About 8 or 9 depending on a reasonable definition of success. I feel comfortable saying a team that has ranked in the top 3rd of baseball and won the WS has been a good team.

You want predict continued doom moving forward, be my guess but stop trying to paint them as some avg team that just got lucky 1 year.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Dec 9, 2007 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's sort of interesting

to see how people paint the sox' success (or lack thereof) based on mood. most people seemed pretty satisfied in the past that the sox were "competitive" throughout this decade. now they're mediocre. whatever.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I call a Straw Man

First off, saying that the Sox were "competitive" or "mediocre" is like saying a guy is an "ace" -- we can argue back and forth over semantics.

Some people think an average of 84 wins is mediocre, others call it being competitive. Whatever. It is what is is: an average of 3 games over .500 a year.

And Tdogg: I think the Sox have been pretty mediocre (all those mid 80 win seasons) with a few great (2000, 2005) seasons sprinkled in and a few stinkers as well. I'm certainly not going to bitch and moan about winning the World Series and say the Sox got lucky. That season and October was my greatest moment as a fan and helped my father and I get over our differences and become good friends again.

I can't begrudge them anything for those moments. When El Duque struck out the side I was sitting in my car in the rain, having just left the bar to watch the rest of it at home, but I had it on on the radio. My screams of joy must have been heard all throughout the block.

But those are just laurels, and this team going into 2008 still looks like chickenshit. I can bitch and moan about that all I want. It's my right as a ticket and merchandise buying fan.

by madvillian on Dec 9, 2007 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

huh? straw man?

i think you missed the point. the perception of (basically) the same thing changes based upon what has happened most recently. people were more than willing to color the sox' record basically during KW's tenure as a success when things were looking good. now it's mediocre. one more losing season and people will probably call it horsehit. where is the truth?

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 7:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But what is truth?

Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths - is mine the same as yours?

"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 9, 2007 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm glad

you caught the humor. or whatever that was i was attempting with that. how people/fans perceive things is quite interesting. unless we're using a clear standardized measure, what is competitive or mediocre or whatever is pretty fluid. and 84 wins, as noted, is probably in a zone where people wouldn't necessarily agree on what it is. i've found it interesting to observe the change in how the sox are perceived in the last year or so - maybe not so much among the people populating this site, but outside of it. you know, in the real world.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wha?

real... world...?

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 9, 2007 8:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you mean theres other sox fans besides the SSS'ers

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 9, 2007 8:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As it turns out...

they're the ones that Kenny actually caters to.

Who knew?

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 9, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to jump in

It's a little unfair to talk about average wins. If you want to talk about how many actual days during the season you feel joy as a White Sox fan, yes, talk about average wins. But if you want to talk about the White Sox as a competitive team, in this era, I would look at the 10 seasons since Jerry Manual was hired. This ended Terry Bevington's administration, and I believe, brought the WSox towards credibility, and away from Schueler's stubbornness.

In those 10 seasons, the White Sox have really been competitive for 4 seasons, 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2006. These were seasons where there was still a hope in mid-September, let's say.

Yes, the Yankees have been competitive for all 10 of those seasons. The Red Sox haven't. The Mets haven't. The Braves haven't. So we're talking 7 or 8 of 10, as opposed to 4 of 10. The Cubs have 4 of 10. I am too lazy to figure it out, but I would bet that 4 of 10 is no worse than all but 8 teams in the game.

8 teams - Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, Angels, A's, Braves, Cards, and Giants. And the Twins have really been "in it" 4 years of the last 10. I would argue that the Yanks, RSox, Braves and Cards are willing to negotiate, and they have an "aura" that players will give a discount to play there. The Indians, A's and Angels have been smart in their talent finding.

After reading Moneyball, I wonder if Kenny Williams is really that good of a GM, but he's won a WS, and Billy Beane, for all his Eddie Haskell charm, hasn't. ESPN doesn't fawn over Kenny like they do Billy Beane, the guys with the Yanks and RedSox, and whoever the Cards trot out up there. It's as if Kenny's supposed to run out 25 HOFers at the league minimum, win 120 games, and sweep the playoffs every year.

But for all the bellyaching, I think that the White Sox run a "competitive" team ("in it" into the last 2 weeks of the season) on average with the league. Here's a thought for you. We talk about batting average being a bad indicator for hitters, but why are we married to winning percentage as an indicator of a team's long-term performance? The White Sox made the post-season 2 times in the last 10 years, the Tigers, once. What exactly are the Tigers doing right? They've been drafting one of the top 5 athletes 8 of the last 10 years, and took incredible risks on Pudge, Magglio and Carlos Guillen. If any one of those three guys trended the way they were "supposed" to, and they're right where they were.

by JohnGor0 on Dec 9, 2007 10:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Atlanta

I thought the Braves were very competitive in that time span.

by Raf on Dec 10, 2007 1:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees

are the only team to make the playoffs all 10 of the last 10 years. The point was that even the Braves haven't done that.

by JohnGor0 on Dec 10, 2007 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

braves

didnt they not win there division only once in that time span?

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 10, 2007 7:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Since it was an attorney

who told me that "truth is what you can get 12 people to blieve in a courtroom", yes, I found your use of "truth" to be devastatingly funny.

;)

Your point is well taken re: perspective/perception. I would venture to say, though, that most of us would agree that a .500 record is "mediocre". 84 wins would be construed as "slightly above average", in my book, which ain't bad, year in and year out.

"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 10, 2007 8:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm washing my hands of this whole discussion

by hitlesswonder on Dec 9, 2007 9:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good one, Pontius...

"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 10, 2007 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So... all Kenny needs for Xmas

is a chemistry set!

Wish I'd have thought of that.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Dec 9, 2007 10:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh?

Richar is a hapless bat? Says who? We're getting rid of Crede to get Inge? You may be forgetting a guy named Josh Fields in that equation...

This is just nonsense. There are some coherent points in this rant, but not many. The point is clear, but the supporting argument is rather thin. It still boggles my mind when people think it's so easy to simply 'unload the rest.' That other teams are just clamoring for players who no longer produce, aging veterans with declining numbers, etc... Deals are accomplished on both sides and, believe it or not, the other side (that isn't the Sox) may have a bit of baseball acumen, enough to prevent us to 'unload' our unwanted parts on. Take a look around the league: GMs are not trading away prospects for veterans any more. Ain't happening.

by HulkSmash on Dec 9, 2007 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

didn't you read the whole post?

"The main point is to keep it simple. These long winded posts with such insightful revelations are in reality not revealing anything that anyone with a bit of common sense doesn't know already." like how waitonhim is a fool. don't feed the trolls.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True...

Common Sense in 15 words or less. Wisdom to live by.

by HulkSmash on Dec 9, 2007 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyones Favorite Keith Law...

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove07/insider/columns/story?columnist=law_keith&id=3146607
heres a breakdown of the 18 "contenders" and what holes they need to fill. notice the absence of the white sox.

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 10, 2007 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fantasy expert eric karabell

* However, get ready for sleeper Carlos Quentin to finally take off. You have to love players with the combination of plate discipline and power that Quentin has. I don't fault the Diamondbacks for moving him, since they had their starting outfield in place and had to get something in return, but Quentin has a bright future with the White Sox if he maintains his walk and hit by pitch rate. To get hit by 20-25 pitches a year, as this guy has done consistently, isn't such a bad thing. Bat him seventh and leave him alone and we'll see a 25-homer guy with a high on-base percentage who sneaks up on fantasy owners. Well, he won't sneak up on me!

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 10, 2007 8:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

...leave him alone...

There's the trick - will Ozzie leave him alone to develop. History says no.

by Brush Back on Dec 10, 2007 8:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

buster olney

Although at this moment, it's hard to look at the White Sox and really think of them as contenders. Chicago is basically set to field the same team as it did last year, except for the addition of Orlando Cabrera and set-up man Scott Linebrink, and as the team is currently constructed, they almost have to have big years out of youngsters Gavin Floyd and John Danks.

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 10, 2007 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Walker

will move him off the plate so he can extend his arms.

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

by ballyb on Dec 10, 2007 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

>Why would they trade a talented 2nd baseman >(Iguchi) and replace him with a hapless bat >(Richar)?

Iguchi was a free-agent-to-be whom the Sox would not even get a draft pick for is they let him walk. Trading him got the Sox a A-ball reliever, saved some money, and got a bunch of at-bats for them to evaluate Richar. They got Richar beacuse the system has no young middle infielders. Bill James projects Richar to play almost as well as Iguchi next season for a fraction of the cost. He was my favorite Sox player, but it has to be said that Iguchi's defense wasn't great.

>Why on earth would we consider getting rid of >Crede and replacing him with Inge???

The Sox aren't considering that. They're replacing Crede with Fields.

>Why trade a decent young pitcher like Garland?

He was a free-agent-to-be who would ask for more than the Sox were willing to pay. Starting pitching is the only possible area of depth in the organization, so they traded from that "strength" to shore up the middle infield (and area of organizational weakness). And Cabrera should net 2 picks when he leaves instead of one for Garland. And they freed up money to use elsewhere.

>Why would they even consider paying $75 million >to a CF'er who is going to hit .270?

Are you talking about Hunter? Or Rowand? Either way, that appears to be market rate for a CF with a career .800 OPS. The Sox are not alone in such considerations.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 8, 2007 11:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That was...

some straight up ownage.

But enough of that nerdy talk... the White Sox have some serious issues that waitonhim didn't give examples of. Moving Gooch, Garland, and considering signing Hunter/Rowand were pretty darn good moves IMO. Kenny did not overpay for Hunter like the Angels did, and he isn't going to overpay for Rowand or sign him to a 5 year deal.

The problem with the Sox is the lack of any real farm system as a result of personnel choices in drafts (re: our scouts), coaching at the minor league level (a theory of mine), overpaying for relievers, not offering arbitration, and failing to go after the top FA.

That's about it, I think.

"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 9, 2007 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

overpaying for relievers?

i'm gonna have to say one data point doesn't make a trend. i recall last year a lot of prattling about how the sox didn't pay for relievers.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Certainly...

it isn't a big enough trend as the other points I made, but the Linebrink signing can't be ignored. Kenny went far away from his normal signing methods for the bullpen... recall Jenks, Hermanson, Politte, Cotts, Shingo, and our current bullpen (minus Linebrink) etc, etc.

I know our bullpen needed help, but I think the money that was spent on him could've been spent on another FA this year or used more appropriately. We've all discussed this into the ground, but for '08 and beyond, the Linebrink signing looks pretty rough.

I wasn't clamoring to overpay for a reliever last year. Mainly because I knew it wouldn't matter if we had the best bullpen in the bigs. We couldn't score runs for 2 months of the season.

You make a good point Larry, and for '08 and beyond, I hope it's a singular data point and not some trend we're seeing here, or overpaying for relievers like Linebrink -will- become another characteristic of our new mediocrity

"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 9, 2007 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of Riske...

Javier Lopez has pitched pretty well for the Red Sox...

stats

"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 9, 2007 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think

a better use of the linebrink signing is as another example of a problem (at least i would define it as one) the sox have in signing players on the wrong side of 30 to long-term deals.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not Paying Can Cost as Well

My whole point is why would you let Iguchi walk? There is no good reason to let him go. Iguchi was a consistent quality player who gives you the fundamentals. His fielding percentage has been gradually increasing each of the past three seasons so I don't buy the defensive liability line. How much does it cost the Sox by not signing Iguchi?

I was referring to Hunter. Just because they weren't the only saps on the market doesn't make it any better.

by waitonhim on Dec 9, 2007 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Bad Evals Outweight the Good Ones Lately

I had no problem with the Iguchi trade. Richar and Fields were the only reasons to pay attention to the 2nd half of last season, both of these young guys showed enough (Richar with his IsoD and Fields with his Iso) to be given starting roles this season.

It's the myriad poor, no, terribly poor decisions that held the Sox back and will continue to hold them back.

The Sox went into 2007 with a 31 year old LF with a career OPS+ of 86 and a 33 year old CF with a career OPS+ of 95, a guy who had missed over half of the previous four seasons with injuries. So 2/3 of the outfield was wasted on aging suckitude. Factor in that the Sox actually outlayed about 5 million total for these guys and its even worse.

If that isn't poor talent evaluation I don't know what is.

I was a big believer in the moves KW made in 2006/7 to help the bullpen. Those moves didn't help, but such is the nature of small sample size and The Cell's short porches. At least those moves cost peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Another key for any well run business, organization, or institution is keen self-awareness and honest evaluation. The Sox foolishly thought they were going to contend in 2007 (and probably still think that about 2008) and continued to play the veterans even when it became clear that the team was hopelessly bad. I don't exactly think BA is the 2nd coming, but he sure as hell deserved more PA than Erstad last year.

There are more moves that have been made and not made that others have touched on as hopelessly naive and pollyanna.

Oh and to the OP: I don't think any future world series champions are really looking at the Cardinals, White Sox and Marlins as a way to do anything.

by madvillian on Dec 9, 2007 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would disagree with the last sentence

Although I would agree with you that the 2005 playoff run was a fluke, where the WSox just got crazy hot at the right time, I wouldn't say they were lucky, and though I don't think they were a "model" for the 2006 season, they followed the traditional philosophy of being "strong up the middle" (Pierz, Gooch, Uribe, Rowand) had 6 strong starters, multiple closing options, and a balance of speed and power. That wasn't quite the run and shoot, or a no huddle offense.

I would contend that the WSox really only caught lighting in a bottle on Pods and Crede staying healthy for a whole season. And while Garland and Contreras really only put it together for a whole season for the first time, I wouldn't say that was a complete surprize.

by JohnGor0 on Dec 9, 2007 10:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fukudome...

Kosuke Fukudome has decided to turn down the Yomiuri Giants' offer and will sign with an MLB team, the Nikkansports newspaper reported Sunday.
Fukudome had previously indicated the Giants would be the only Japanese team he would consider playing for next season. The Padres and Cubs are the favorites to sign Fukudome, who could make up his mind within the next couple of days.

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 5:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Another article on Fukudome...

Link:

Japanese free-agent Kosuke Fukudome has decided not to move to the Yomiuri Giants and will sign with a major league team instead, the Nikkansports newspaper reported Sunday.

Fukudome had previously indicated the Giants would be the only Japanese team he would consider playing for next season, but has now ruled them out, opening the way for a move to the major leagues. Fukudome has drawn interest from the Chicago Cubs, the San Diego Padres and the Chicago White Sox.

It would be pretty sad to lose Fukudome to the Cubs when we need an outfielder way more than they do (they have Soriano, Pie, Murton already).

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 6:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Expect Cubs to beat out Sox in battle for Fukodome

Sun-Times' Chris De Luca wrote:

Fukudome fever should hit Chicago by Monday. That's when Japanese lefty-hitting outfielder Kosuke Fukudome, who has drawn heavy interest from the Cubs and White Sox, is expected to make himself available to major-league teams.

Fukudome's courting period is expected to last less than a week, and all indications point to the Cubs eclipsing all other bidders -- sorry again, Sox -- to land their primary target of the offseason.

The Cubs essentially have tabled all other major moves until they get a definitive answer from Fukudome. Sources say they are prepared to offer a mega-package similar to the eye-popping deal they presented last offseason to free-agent left fielder Alfonso Soriano, who bagged an eight-year, $136 million contract.

During the winter meetings last week in Nashville, Tenn., the Cubs were operating with an air of confidence that Fukudome would be their key offseason prize.

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sources are full of it

"Sources say they are prepared to offer a mega-package similar to the eye-popping deal they presented last offseason to free-agent left fielder Alfonso Soriano, who bagged an eight-year, $136 million contract."

Similar in what way? 8 years? I doubt it. $100M? no. Whoever wrote this needs to get a dictionary and understand what "similar" means.

And-- does anyone really think Soriano will spend the rest of the term of that contract being with the Cubs?

by ruffster on Dec 9, 2007 9:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Padres just lost out on Milton Bradley...

I really think it is down to the Cubs and Padres for Fukudome's services.

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gagne's contract with the Brewers...

Link:

The Milwaukee Brewers reached a preliminary agreement on a $10 million, one-year contract with free-agent reliever Eric Gagne, giving the team another option at closer after losing Francisco Cordero to free agency.

Gagne's deal, which is subject to him passing a physical, will allow him to earn an additional $1 million in performance bonuses, a person familiar with the negotiations said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the contract has not been finalized.

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 6:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Holy cow....

That is a ridiculous amount of money for a guy that could pitch 40 innings or 3.

"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 9, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

know what is cool?

I knew about this friday night from a friend. The deal, the years and the money.

Go Badgers!

by shaftr on Dec 9, 2007 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good badgers/marquette game

until the last 5 minutes or so....what happened, shaftr?

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call........... the Kenny Zone.

by Air Raid Siren Stan on Dec 9, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes!

Someone to talk about the game with. What happened? Dominic James and our athletes all over the floor happened. MU got into the lane any time they wanted to. Marquette stayed composed -- there was a time in the second half where the Badgers got about five offensive rebounds in a row and seemingly had the ball for about five straight minutes -- while the Badgers (generally) didn't, shooting poorly at the charity stripe and having a couple of real ugly turnovers.

In a tough tough environment, Marquette played their game the whole way through. I haven't said this often in my year-and-a-half at school, but Tom Crean outcoached Bo last night.

Also, Marquette's big-men -- usually the weak spot of the Warriors -- were non-awful last night, especially down the stretch. I also liked Bo's cheap play to foul Dwight Burke before the ball was even in bounds -- how again was that not an intentional foul?

If that game was played at the Bradley Center, Marquette wins by 10-15.

Mainly, though, James was a fucking stud. That's his best performance since victory over Duke from last season.

by CWSKeith on Dec 9, 2007 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine...

So your Warriors, er Golden Eagles, or whatever you are for the moment, won a regular season game at my glorious Kohl Center. Congratulations.

I hope you fare as well in your bowl game.

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 9, 2007 11:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously? A football joke?

That's quite original. Am I supposed to be slighted in any way by that comment?

Enjoy getting your asses handed to you by a superior SEC team.

Also, quick question -- does Bo Ryan's facial expression ever change, or is it always pouty-looking with an eye on the referee (somewhere). Whine whine whine...

And I always find the 'nickname' talk humorous, too, coming from a school whose nickname is a freaking rodent.

by CWSKeith on Dec 9, 2007 11:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, time for the truth

Marquette came in and beat UW this year. The wildly inconsistent James was anything but and Marquette broke the Home Win Streak. Congrats...but here's the thing....

Marquette has such a huge inferiority complex with Wisconsin. This one game is so huge for them and the fans get so amped for it that the blood just starts to boil. The thing is, most Wi fans root for Marquette in every game but that one. Yet I run across tons of Marquette fans that hate Wisconsin. My friend was at the Hockey championship game at the Bradley center and there was a Marquette guy (he was wearing a Marquette jacket) that rooted against Wisconsin because he always roots against the Badgers. I don't know, it's a good rivalry and all, but for UW fans...it doesn't rank that high. I was more excited for the Duke game (which sucked) and I'll be more excited for the in conference games (especially MSU).

Go Badgers!

by shaftr on Dec 9, 2007 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Give me a break

Yeah, it doesn't mean as much to Wisconsin fans -- right. That's a load if I've ever heard it. For the past couple seasons the games have been played at full capacity (for both places) and have been very competitive and entertaining ballgames. If the game didn't mean a lot to Badger fans, they wouldn't've packed the upper deck at the BC like last year.

Continuing with that, the cheapest seat I could find online for Saturday's game was $83 (!) bucks. And that was actually down from the $100+ I'd saw months in advance. For comparisons sake, I could buy a ticket right now for BIG IN-CONFERENCE RIVAL INDIANA (!) -- arguably the best team in the Big 10 -- for right around $30 bucks. Hell, I don't know if there was an empty seat at the Kohl Center on Saturday. But no, you're right, it's a game that just doesn't mean a whole lot to the (superior) Badger fans. They just have bigger fish to fry than an in-state team that's ranked better than them and that will probably finish top 15 in the country, right?

And please don't give me that trash about UW fans rooting for Marquette. Maybe you and your close nit of friends do, but I highly doubt that true for most Badger fans.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

I had no idea this rivalry existed. Why doesn't it get more press, I wonder?

"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 10, 2007 12:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

one point

The Kohl Center is always sold out. Always. I went to the Wofford game this year, sold out. Every game was sold out befor the season started.

As for filling the Bradley Center, that is part of how well Wisconsin travels. For example, when Wi football played UNLV, the majority of the fans were Wisconsin fans. It was such a problem that the next time they played, UNLV made it so that you had to have season tickets to get tickets to that game....and it still ended up selling out with a majority of Wi fans. That is a non-conference football game. So obviously a game 90 minutes away in a large arena is going to sell out as well.

http://unlvrebels.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/090907aab.html

Go Badgers!

by shaftr on Dec 10, 2007 7:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't explain

the chepeast ticket being $80+ dollars while not even half of that for the best team in the Big 10.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

rivalry

I agree with shaftr that the rivalry is mostly one way. I was a student at both schools (UW undergrad, MU grad), and I never really saw anybody in Madison get worked up about playing MU. Especially given that its a non-conference game.

Playing Iowa, Illinois, or Michigan always stoked the fire more. Those were the teams you really wanted to beat.

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 10, 2007 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What rivalry?

There is no rivalry. Aside from being located in the same state, these two schools and their respective cities could not be more different.

One school is the 8th best public national university in the country (t-38th overall) while the other is the 46th best private national university (t-82nd overall). The better school also happens to be the less expensive school, even for out-of-staters.

One school has the Kohl Center and Camp Randall, the other the Bradley Center.

One school has ranked between 16 and 33 in the Director's Cup standings every year since 2000-01, while the other has a high ranking of 113 since then.

One school is in a city consistently ranked as one of the best in the country to live in; the other remains one of the most hypersegregated cities in the country.

UW > Marquette
Madison > Milwaukee

I will say that UW game should not be as big of a deal to Golden Warriors fans now and in the future, since they finally joined a real conference.

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

aw, snap!

take that hilltoppers/golden avalanche/golden warriors/golden eagles/gold. willie wampum's gonna come after you now.

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yaaaawn

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 10, 2007 1:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

use your words, colin

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

y'all know where it's at

i don't need to say it.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 10, 2007 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hell hath no fury like a Left-Coaster

scorned. I had heard attorneys are cold and unimaginative leaders. But you are so....emotional....aren't you, Toonder?

Hit him with your purse!

"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 10, 2007 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ROFL!

Let's just hope that that purse doesn't have rhinestones, cause then things could get messy.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Dec 10, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

PS What's an "out of starter"?

Is that like our LF/CF projected participants?

;)

"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 10, 2007 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no

it's like some old man who can't read without his glasses.

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh Snap!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Dec 10, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well played, larry

Miggy and Willis!

(We'll always have Paris.)

"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 10, 2007 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Notice...

how the Badger fans are the ones bringing up these other things. I haven't made any comparisons about the schools, cities -- I hate Milwaukee, personally -- or anything else -- just the basketball teams.

Thats okay, it's understandable... if Marquette's team were as terrible as Madison's, I'd be looking for any and every potshot available too.

Thanks Toonder -- I'll take this one home. And again -- try and win some games in the Big 10 this year, please. I know that's going to be difficult, but we want this win to look good! Thanks a bunch, arrogant jackass.

We are! Marquette!

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

re

if Marquette's team were as terrible as Madison's, I'd be looking for any and every potshot available too.

zing!!!

by The Wizard on Dec 10, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

keith, keith, keith

if the badgers are so awful and the golden eagles soaring so high, it doesn't make much sense that you'd be busting a nute over the victory.

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 10, 2007 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course it does

It's a rivalry game (it only isn't to those who are completely oblivious). The quality of teams doesn't really matter. I took soooo much pleasure in seeing the stands empty from the Kohl Center to the "We are! Marquette!" chant and shortly thereafter seeing Dominic James put an exclamation point on things, swatting Trevon Hughes' feeble layup attempt into the floor.

Plus, so long as Wisconsin can do okay in the Big 10 (finish third-to-fifth), that's a great resume-boosting win. Had we not won Saturday, our biggest win would've been a victory on a neutral court against Oklahoma State, and they're not very good.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 3:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Where do the pundits have MU finishing

in the Big East?

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 10, 2007 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've seen 3rd-to-5th

with Georgetown and Louisville (generally) ahead of MU and teams like Villanova, Notre Dame and MU battling for three-to-five.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

resume shmesume.

if you guys finish top 4 in the big east, don't be worried about your ncaa resume. absent a first round bow out a strong showing in the conference tourney, you will be sitting pretty.

on a somewhat related note, i just looked at the regional sites and it doesn't look like much of an advantage geographically for a high seed coming from milwaukee.

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 10, 2007 4:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're probably right

I'm just saying -- all things being equal -- a win at the Kohl Center brightens the picture a bit.

I'm sort of geography-stupid (among other 'stupids'), but the closest regional appears to be in either Raleigh, NC, or Washington D.C, so you're definitely correct about that. Kind of a shame, too -- I always figured that either the United Center or the RCA Dome gets the Midwest regional (although I understand the UC hosted the Badgers, among others, last season for a regional). Damn -- how can Washington D.C. be considered 'Midwest'?

Assuming MU gets placed in the Midwest regional, things get easier if they can make it to the Sweet 16, as those games will be played at Ford Field (definitely did not know that Ford Field hosted basketball games). Then again, that's doing waaaay too much projecting at this point.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 5:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was at the UC

for the awful loss to UNLV in the second round. B-rutal. The sites are a joke, with UNC or Duke seemingly always beginning in Raleigh or Greensboro or Charlotte. Speaking of Ford Field, I typically don't like taking a gigantic space and turning into basketball seating. It is not at all like a packed Kohl or Bradley Center with sound reverberating from the rafters. You're probably too young, but you would have enjoyed the noise when Marquette and the Badgers used to tangle in the Fieldhouse.

Once and for all, the leadoff position is how Jenna Jameson decides to spend the first 8 minutes of video time, which has nothing to do with baseball.

by Toonderstrook on Dec 10, 2007 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest

I'm not a huge fan of the BC. It's a little too big, spacious and far away from the court for my liking. I like that it seats ~20K, making it a pretty loud place when they it is packed, but I'd rather have a smaller place that's more 'cozy' (for lack of a better word).

I enjoyed my one trip to the Kohl Center. It was a hockey game last year between Bucky and North Dakota and I had no issues rooting for the Badgers. It was certainly a very enjoyable atmosphere.

As far as Ford Field, yeah, I'd agree that it's much too big a venue for a basketball game, but I'd still make the trip if Marquette was lucky enough to make it there.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now, Keith, as they were saying about

Tom Brady yesterday, if you are mature and used to winning, as Ditka said post-game yesterday, like Johnny U. and Bart Starr - I think you in WI might've heard of Bart - you don't need to engage in name calling. "Let it go" - straight from Da Coach's mouth.

Besides, Toonder isn't an arrogant jackass - I prefer to interpret his response couched in the pain of unfulfilled expectations. No need to bludgeon - the knife has already been inserted. Sublety is occasionally a preferable style of response.

There are others on this site who deserve the moniker "arrogant jackass". One is me. (And add "blind" to it.) I think we can figure out who the other one is.....

"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 10, 2007 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And FWIW

I'm under no false pretense that Marquette is a better educational institution than UW-Madison is, never have been. But when you start taking unwarranted potshots at my school, it becomes a little personal. The level of arrogance and superiority isn't really surprising, that's pretty typical of what I've run into (besides my English teacher of junior-year high school, God bless her).

Even more than that, though, I love the slobs who associate themselves with UW-Madison despite the fact that they wouldn't in a million years have a shot at being accepted to Wisconsin (or Marquette, for that matter). Those people might actually 'take the cake' (both literally and figuratively) over the lawyer-friend who apparently is a little bitter here.

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i heard

guys who go to marquette have small penises. is that true?

and i'd like some cake, please.

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

AJ #2 weighs in!

Wow, this is getting interesting! We need a trade soon - cannibalism is beginning.

"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 10, 2007 2:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

keith's been touchy lately

i think he needs to get laid. let's take up a collection to get him a nice cream city crack ho with her front teeth missing.

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Redundant?

MU student-not-getting-laid-needs-to-find-CW-with-no-teeth, or:

MU student.

#2 is more efficient.

;)

"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 10, 2007 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Abstinence till marriage, fellas!

After all, that'd only be following through on my Marquette education.

(I kid, I kid.)

by CWSKeith on Dec 10, 2007 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm proud

that i started this exchange!

by Air Raid Siren Stan on Dec 10, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Shit-stirrer that you are...

"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 10, 2007 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Michigan really doesn't

pay much attention to Wisconsin.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Dec 10, 2007 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Luis Ayala...

would be a great guy to pick up but why in the hell would the Nationals non-tender him?

by SSH2005 on Dec 9, 2007 6:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I was going to ask about this.

I mostly just post on here for snarky comments and comic relief because I'm still trying to get a handle on numbers and some of the more obscure statistics. With that being said, I think he'd be a solid pick up. It stands to reason his stats might balloon a little coming out of AAAA to the bigs, but could be worth a look.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 9, 2007 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting analysis of Fukodome

link

Dude says why he thinks the Cubs should not sign Fuku to a ridiculous contract:

The Cubs have made it clear that their number one target this offseason is Japanese star Kosuke Fukudome (as detailed here). In theory, he provides much-needed on-base percentage, and quality defense. And maybe even a little pop in his bat, too. The Cubs have all but said they will pay anything to get him - upwards of $14 million over four or five years.

But the more I look at Japanese stats translating into MLB, the more I think Fuk might not even be worth a starting job, let alone $12-14 mill per year.

Look at even the BEST and most successful transition stories into MLB: Ichiro and Hideki Matsui.

Ichiro entered his prime when he came to the US (27), and his numbers have been good. But he lost 40 points in OBP in the transition and 90 points in slugging in the transition. Again, that's while ENTERING his prime in the US.

H. Matsui started in MLB at 29, and promptly lost 40 points in OBP and 100 points in slugging (and that's while being a lefty at Yankee stadium... I could hit it out to right field there...).

And then let's look at the third biggest "star" to come over: Kaz Matsui. Came over at 28, lost 40 points in OBP and 100 points in slugging.

Starting to notice a trend?

So based on those numbers, expecting Fuk NOT to lose 40 points in OBP and 90-100 points in slugging is just not based in reality, especially given he's the oldest of that group to make the transition (and coming off elbow surgery).

Fuk sports a career .397 OBP and a .543 SLG. So based on the evidence, it is unrealistic to expect better than a .350 OBP and a .440 slugging - and that's if he's among THE MOST SUCCESSFUL Japanese transplants.

You're gonna tell me that's a $14 mill player, and one worth devoting your entire offseason to?

I'm not sure it's actually so bad to compare Fuku to past Japanese cross-overs. It's really the only thing we -can- do other than compare him to his counterparts in Japan and we already know he is above them.

"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 9, 2007 11:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

What's wrong with...

a .350 OBP and a .440 slugging? That's probably close to what Torii Hunter or Aaron Rowand will do, give or take (Fukudome has more OBP skills, probably, and a bit less power). If Fukudome can put up that line and play even an average center field, he's worth $14 million easily in today's market.

He probably won't be an All-Star, but you don't need to be an All-Star to make $14 million these days.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 9, 2007 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that post

is a good argument for why some people should not be allowed to share their thoughts with the rest of the world. i'll take fukudome if i'm the cubs.

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

by larry on Dec 9, 2007 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ROFL!

Good point.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Dec 9, 2007 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

indeed

Bears eat beets.

by Nordhagen on Dec 9, 2007 10:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would take it too

"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 9, 2007 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

post updated

added a few links...

by The Wizard on Dec 9, 2007 2:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

such efficiency

Like a well-oiled machine... or the Lion's offense against Dallas today.

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 9, 2007 2:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

LaTroy Hawkins close to signing w/Yankees.

Olney (or Foxsports) reporting 1 year/ 3.75 mil

I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

by Hazymania on Dec 9, 2007 4:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Matsui?

do any of you guys buy into the matsui talks?? i would think maybe they asked about him before they acquired quentin, but what use does he have now? any thoughts on where rowand may end up, i know theres somewhat of a split in here about that situation...

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 9, 2007 6:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think Matsui is a better version

of JD. Maybe he doesn't have the arm JD does (haven't seen him throw) but he has put up very consistent years since coming over and he is in very good shape.

I compare him to JD because of his defense. It's not the best. And neither is JD's at this point. Probably below average. (stats, anyone?)

But I think he is better than JD at the plate. That's my opinion. He does draw a lot of walks.

"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 9, 2007 8:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here is a scary thought

about "going for it" in 08

Outside of the normal stupidity we have seen with signing type A free agents that will kill more and more draft picks, or making sure that everyone is over 30 to play on the team. Who here has thought about the consequences of keeping Uribe and Crede. You realize that both of them automatically will become starters. Do you really think that Ozzie will play Richar and Fields over Uribe and Crede. I would be completely shocked if that happens.

I know there will be a "competition" that will undoubtedly go in the favor of the incumbent. Remember ties go to the older player.

Hawk will have an orgasm over the Profundo-Cabrera-Crede infield. And they have no problem in sending down a young player even if its not a good idea.

What happens with Crede and Uribe over the next few weeks will tell us if the "going for it" is just a smoke screen, or if Kenny is truly delusional and believes that a perfect storm of injuries, bad weather, and voodoo kept the best team down.

by southsideirish71 on Dec 9, 2007 10:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If Fields isn't traded...

he will be playing for the WSox in '08. Though he could go back to AAA, he's got nothing left to prove there, and wherever he goes, he'll be playing everyday.

"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 9, 2007 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fields

to AAA would be probably one of the top 3 dumbest moves KW would ever make. i cant see him doing that.

"We had a guy go into 2nd base as if his wife was turning a double play."

by The Deacon on Dec 10, 2007 7:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

That's why I see the writing on the wall. Crede is gone.

The only way I see it that Crede stays is if Fields plays LF. And with Quentin, Owens, Dye on the club I don't see that happening either.

"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 10, 2007 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's nice

but neither of them will be on the team in april. KW already gave crede's obituary to the press last week and it's pretty obvious what KW thinks of uribe, considering his two trades for middle infielders.

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

White Sox interested in Hideki Matsui?

Link:

It's unclear which team initiated the talks. A Yankee official said the Giants approached them, but there are reports in Japan that the Yankees have shopped Matsui to the Giants and other teams, possibly the Indians and the White Sox.

Is Matsui a realistic everyday option in CF?

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 11:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

It'd help

if we were serious about Fuku - that'd be QUITE an upgrade from last year. Hard to see it happening, though - $. I see him in LF either way, whether we get Fuku or not.

"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 10, 2007 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, we didn't trade for Carlos Quentin...

to be a bench stick. Quentin will be starting in LF.

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no

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

by larry on Dec 10, 2007 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't he a mediocre LF at best?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Dec 10, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

with respect to his defense, that is

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by rhythm on Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure...

I thought he was good defensively with a very good arm?

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Brewers DFA outfielder Kevin Mench...

Brewers designated outfielder Kevin Mench for assignment.
Mench, who was nearly certain to be traded or non-tendered, gets bumped from the roster a couple of days early to make room for Salomon Torres. Since he'll still likely be Brewers property then, he probably will be officially non-tendered on Wednesday.

He would make a very nice bench bat to face lefties.

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 11:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Mench

Yeah not bad. How is his defense?

by Raf on Dec 10, 2007 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Awful...

but he has killed lefties in his career.

Kevin Mench (career stats vs LHP): .305 / .361 / .563 / .924

Mench would make a nice DH/LF'er against lefties.

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He sure would.

I drop everything I'm doing to watch Thome bat against right handed pitchers, but when he's facing a southpaw....

by palehose67 on Dec 10, 2007 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, but...

...he has the tendency to bitch when he doesn't play full-time.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Dec 10, 2007 4:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mench isn't a good enough player...

to continue to bitch about playing time. I don't see him getting a full-time starting gig with any team out there.

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 5:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Makes a lotta sense...

and that's exactly why Kenny won't pick him up.

"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 10, 2007 5:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good platoon partner for Thome...

But being limited to LF makes it difficult to find space for him on the bench. The 2008 Sox bench will be:

Pablo Ozuna
Juan Uribe (or AAAA backup middle infielder).
OF the can play CF
Toby Hall and his one labrum

Really, they should keep Uribe. His ability to backup 3B/SS and 2B is pretty useful.

I can already see that keeping Ozuna is one of those moves that really irks me. It's minor, but just bad roster construction.

That's gonna be a bad bench....

by hitlesswonder on Dec 10, 2007 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup.

If Owens isn't the starting centerfielder, he'll be the fourth outfielder.

Given that the Sox will have twelve pitchers, the bench apparently doesn't have room for someone who can hit.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 10, 2007 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We don't need any hitters, obviously

Can he clog the bases? Yes? Is he Caucasian? Yes? Then we'll find a place for him, dammit.

"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 10, 2007 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Base-clogger?

Is that you, Dusty?

by SSH2005 on Dec 10, 2007 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it a certainty

that we'll have 12 pitchers? I know that's been Ozzie's maddening preference, but do we actually have 12 guys on major league contracts without minor league options that we're stuck with?

At this point I'm thinking the bullpen is: Jenks, Linebrink, Thornton, Logan, Wasserman, and somebody from the MacDougal/Aardsma/Day/Perez/Haeger/whoever group. Am I forgetting somebody?

Mench would be a solid platoon option for Thome and maybe he could be a backup first baseman, since we don't really have one, unless you count Thome or Hall (neither of which I'd want to trot out there).

by Ryno on Dec 10, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ozzie...

will want three lefties in the bullpen. If that means trotting Andy Sisco or Carlos Vasquez out there to get shelled over and over again until Williams finds him someone better, so be it.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Dec 10, 2007 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs