South Side Sox: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

Sox beat sub-.500 team from bad division in lesser of two leagues

When I read that Nick Masset would be getting the start on Sunday, my first thought was "white flag." That thought had two meanings; one, the Cubs famously fly a white flag on the scoreboard to indicate a victory, and two, the white flag is the universal sign for surrender. Needless to say, I didn't have a good feeling about the Sox chances Sunday. In a trend that continued in the gamethread, my gut was wrong. Way wrong.

It seems odd that Masset has been at his best in a White Sox uniform when he's pitching for multiple innings. In the Texas organization, he was a starter with better stuff than his numbers showed. He didn't really begin to flourish until he was moved to the pen late last year. That's when the Sox scouted him, and that's where we got the reports of a high-velocity guy with a good curveball. For the most part, we haven't really seen the guy from those scouting reports. That changed Sunday.

Masset's fastball actually seemed to be faster (93-94 MPH) in his first career start than in his relief efforts this season. Once he got his control worked out in the first inning, he cruised through 5+ innings. His fastball had tons of life to it, and he was expertly locating it at the bottom of the zone. It wasn't until he tired in the 6th that the Cubs hit anything hard.

I'm still not sold on Masset as anything more than a back of the rotation guy, but his performance Sunday puts him in front of the other spot starter options in Gavin Floyd and Charlie Haeger. That outing Sunday was our first real glimpse at why Sox scouts seemed so enamored with Masset.

Just wait until the weather heats up
Yeah right. The thermometer read 47 degrees at game time Sunday at Wrigley Field, and it felt a whole lot colder with the wind coming in off the lake, but the Sox bats briefly woke up with a 7-run outburst with 2-out in the 7th inning. (I'm pretty sure it was the first 5-run inning of the Sox season, but I'm unsure how to easily look that up.) It was the Sox first 10-run output of the season, surely the last of any American League team to reach that mark. It was just the second game of the season that the Sox have won by more than 3 runs.

I don't have much to say on the offensive outburst. Let's see if it lasts. Zambrano was very close to escaping the 7th twice. He was up on Thome 0-2, and might not have had to face him if the home plate ump had eagle eyes on the Uribe "HBP."

The tenuous nature of a lead/(close game) was something of a theme for the weekend. We saw two big 2-out rallies, and 4 bullpen implosions. I'm a little worried about the bullpen which has been highly ineffective the last 10 days or so. Thankfully, the offense finally took some pressure off a group that's had almost no margin for error all season. The Sox need one, preferably both, of those two groups to perform to their potential win with any consistency.

Get off my lawn, you filthy triplets!
The aging process generally occurs so slowly that you don't even notice until the day you're unable to do a simple, mundane task with which you've never previously had trouble. That's exactly what happened to Jermaine Dye this weekend. Dye has always looked slow, in part because he's 6'5" and runs like a cross between a giraffe and a duck, but he's never looked as old and slow as he did this weekend running to pick up balls that he was willing to concede as triples. In a three game span, we saw his transformation from right fielder to DH, or, at best, a left fielder with limited range and a good arm.

After giving up 4 triples this weekend, White Sox pitching has now allowed 12 triples on the season. They're on pace to allow about 50 three-baggers. To give that number some perspective, they allowed 31 triples last season, when Mackowiak was flailing around in CF, and 23 triples in '05 when they had one of the best defenses in baseball. I bring up those stats because, as we saw this weekend, most triples are to right or center field. And as much as some of you think I hate Darin Erstad, I'll concede that he's only misplayed one ball into a triple this season. He's not the reason for the barrage of triples this year.

There's rarely a time, especially in USCF, when the ball leaves the bat and my first thought is "that's a triple." Often called the most exciting play in baseball, triples are fluky because they're almost always an effort/speed issue. And unfortunately for us, it doesn't appear that Jermaine has the speed to limit them anymore.

Rob Mackowiak and Tadahito Iguchi are tied for the team lead in triples with one a piece.

Injury Updates

  • Jim Thome came back off the DL a day early to pinch hit. My initial thought upon seeing his at-bat was that he wasn't feeling 100%. He didn't seem to be letting it fly with his usual zest. He only swung the bat twice, so any long-term judgment is premature, he could have been fooled by the pitches and was just trying to put the bat on the ball. But that's exactly the reason that I thought his bat looked a little slow, Thome never tries to just put the bat on the ball.
  • Joe Crede finally admitted that his back was bothering him. Duh. He had a cortisone shot in his back following the game and will be out for at least the next couple of games. With as unproductive as he's been this season, I'd tell him he's headed to the DL for 15 days and call up Josh Fields, who has been heating up in Charlotte. In the month of May, Fields has batted .292/.398/.514 with a K/BB ratio inching ever closer to 1:1 (19/14 in May). I'll never be a big fan of Fields until he proves he can produce at the big league level, but I think he can put up an Iguchi-like line right now ('07 Iguchi, low average, decent OBP), which is better than anything Crede or his backups (Cintron and Ozuna) have done this season.

0 recs  |  Comment 147 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Thomer
I still don't agree with your opinion, but we're talking a tiny sample size.  Definitely something to keep an eye out for.

As for the bats, Paulie still looked like he was struggling to me, despite the double.  JD seems like he's breaking out and who knows about Thome for now.  If we're only 1/3 on that trio, there's no reason to expect anything but crap on our run scoring.  On the other hand, crap would be an improvement.  AJ and Tad seem to have figured it out, Uribe looks about as good as he's going to, and LF and CF aren't going to get any better.  3B is going to be a question mark from here on out, because we don't know the extent of the injury.  If we can cobble together an effective lineup, I think optimally it would include both Sweeney and Fields.  Of course, I thought that (and I think most here did) coming into the season.

Wild card?  Pods, maybe.  His current line is pretty decent and if he's the recipient of the good luck on this team (somebody has to be, right?) that's an unexpectedly productive spot in the lineup.

by colintj on May 21, 2007 1:05 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Sox committed to bench players...why?
I agree about Fields. I'm pessimistic about him hitting big league pitching (if Dallas MacPherson can't overcome a poor contact rate, I doubt Fields can). But I'd like to see him get a chance to produce. I don't understand why the Sox are so committed to giving at-bats to Mack, Cintron, and Ozuna when someone is injured. You know what the ceiling is on them and only Mack has even the potential to produce a decent OBP. Fields at least is an unknown quantity that is walking at a good clip.

In particular, I don't think playing Ozuna is a good move. His defense is not good, anywhere. And, as a casual fan, I have to say that his approach at the plate seems lousy.  The last time I criticized him he went out and got on base twice, so maybe this will spur him on. But, signing him based on a flukey 2006 batting average was not a good move.    

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 1:10 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

McPhereson is a bad example
Entering this season, he had struck out in 40% of his AAA at-bats, which should have been a huge warning sign. Even worse was the fact that despite his power his walk rate declined at every level. He was a more sexy Thomas Collaro. McPhereson isn't a major leaguer today because of injuries and a gross inability to control the strikezone.

Fields has demonstrated much more ability in the strikezone judgment department. He's actually increased his walk total at every level. He'll be able to stick at the majors in spite of his contact rate (striking out in 39-30% of at-bats) because of his eye

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on May 21, 2007 1:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The 5 elusion
It was the first 5 run inning of the season.  I just went through all the games at whitesox.com that the Sox scored 5 or more runs. Tedious, but I got the result.

by rebstock on May 21, 2007 3:08 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Paul Sullivan
Anyone read the Paul Sullivan piece in today's Tribune?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-070520memories,1,3295452.story?coll=chi-sports top-hed

Shame on Buehrle, but Sullivan is one colossal douchebag.  Why doesn't he stick to writing about the Cubs and their useless organization?  

Why does the Tribune print this crap?  Oh, yeah, that's right, they still own the Cubs.

by thekever on May 21, 2007 8:10 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree, shame on Buehrle.
But it sounds like AJs act is wearing very thin in the Sox clubhouse.

Stay tuned.

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As previously mentioned,
I'm not surprised.  I think Mark coming out, knowing it would show bad form/lack of "circling the wagons", is a statement in and of itself, open to interpretation:
  1.  "I'm sick of AJ and want to to get him out of here or I'm not re-signing."
  2.  "I like Toby Hall and figure he'll be here longer than AJ."
  3.  "AJ's not the leader of this team - we of the silent majority - Paulie/Dye/JC/me - are."
Would not doubt AJ's act is tiring and there are those who would not mind him gone, despite his good handling of the staff and "gamer" tag.

by winningugly on May 21, 2007 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Shame on MB" ?
I think Mark was just being honest in his reply to a question, and I don't read it as dissing AJ in any way.  He said what numerous of us have said:  AJ needs days off.
It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on May 21, 2007 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i don't think MB should apologize for anything
but he did say a heck of a lot more than AJ needs an offday in that piece. AJ needed a dressing down from one of the team's leaders and i don't see anything wrong with what MB said.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

why not?
some guys respond to that kind of public shaming. i'd say MB knows more about it than we do. i can't say i remember him doing anything like this in the past and he's pretty media savvy so i don't think it was some impulsive thing. you can be sure the catcher "platoon" issue was discussed pretty heavily with the pitchers and catchers during the offseason and in spring training; and you can be sure AJ was told by other players - MB most likely - to shut his trap after he complained the first time about playing time.

another thing you can probably take from this interview is support for ozzie. MB's language is obviously far more sedate and thought out but he pretty much said the same thing as ozzie did. this interview will help the whole ozzie aspect of the story peter away.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't like it.
We'll see how it plays out.

Your 2nd thought on the comment in relation to Ozzie is a point well taken.

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We can all go on
about how teammates and coaches and staff shouldn't air clubhouse frictions out to the media, but it happens, so as a part of sports, it's something we all have to accept at some time.

That being understood, MB didn't say anything to disparage AJ; his saying that AJ's comments were a slap in the face to Hall were actually perfect. I mean here's a guy who battled back from injury to return to a team he had yet to play a game for, and this is the welcome he gets? And remember when criticizing MB for his comments, the root of all this is the AJ/North sideshow--what MB said is a product of that.

AJ's an ass. The entire sporting world knows this. We should've all assumed it would only be a matter of time before he decided to once again bite the hands that feeds. What happens from here is AJ's decision.

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Buehrle's been one of the most honest
interviewee's for some time.  I don't think he planned this as a message, but was simply aggravated about what AJ did and said as much.

I doubt its indicative of any larger rift between AJ and the clubhouse.  

by chrome on May 21, 2007 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why Paul Sullivan?
The beat writer for the Cubs has to drop the load of $hit about the White Sox?  Sullivan is an a$$hole, regardless of what the message is.

AJ's "problem", according to Sullivan and #56 is a desire to play.  In the past three weeks, he, Sir Grinds A Lot, and the pitching staff were the only ones who kept the ChiSox afloat.  Can you blame AJ for wanting to stay in the lineup?

by thekever on May 21, 2007 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

no
but you can blame him for telling mike north all about it - after he was already told once to keep his goddamn mouth shut about the issue. and you can also blame him for being unable to see, i don't know, the crystal clear logic behind sitting him against lefties. he's a liability to this team against them and ozzie would be criminal to not sit him against them when he has toby hall. whatever happened to "i'll just do whatever is best for the team?"
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Too bad...
the team didn't trade Crede last July or this past winter, when he still had some value.  Now he's pretty much worthless.

The next step for him is season-ending surgery.  We'll probably get that announcement around the All-Star Break.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 11:24 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

How much value?
I'm not sure how much trade value he really had. It was public knowledge he had a bad back and he had 1 good season at the plate. It's doubtful that LAA would even have given up Chone Figgins straight-up for him.

Sure, it would have been better to trade him for something -- the Sox gambled and lost. But I don't think it was a stupid gamble. Now, re-signing Pods is a differet story.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think
the Sox gambled. They probably could not find a viable trade partner for him, so the only other option was to keep him.

by RME JICO on May 21, 2007 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i'm sure some numbnut GM would have taken him
but, based on what we've seen from crede since last july or so, you'd have to question whether he would have passed a physical. of course, i hear philly doesn't actually do physicals for players that they receive from the sox so that would have been one option. i'm sure crede for rowand would have been quite divisive amongst sox fans.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That seems a little premature
writing him off for the year after complaining of back soreness. Though with his history, it's certainly possible.

Furthermore--and I've said this before with the Freddy trade and when fans grope about why the Sox couldn't get more--it's remiss to think that other teams were unaware of Crede's back issues; that certainly played into any deal KW attempted and drastically decreased his value. Other teams have scouts/player personnel too.

But hey, on the brightside, maybe we'll see some Fields (God willing--if Pablito becomes the regular 3rd baseman...ugh.).

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd love to see...
Fields playing every day at third.

And I think someone would have given up something for Crede this past winter, bad back and all.  It might not have been as much as a lot of fans would have wanted, and we'd see Mark Gonzalez and Jay Mariotti whining about how the Sox didn't get much for him, but the time was ripe to deal him.  Overripe, in fact.  

Ken Williams can't keep holding onto all his aging vets until they're worthless.  The idea is to sell high.  He's shown that he's willing to add pieces to a decent team in an attempt to "win now", but what remains to be seen is if he can read the writing on the wall and re-build before it's too late.

For instance, I think Williams needs to deal Buehrle and Contreras before the trading deadline.  

I'm hoping Dye puts together a good few weeks so the Sox can get something for him, too.  

Probably nobody will want Konerko or Pierzynski right now, but if Thome can stay healthy until July, he could bring back a nice little package.  Does he have a no-trade clause?

The only way this team gets interesting is if they bring in a bunch of young talent and start over.  Otherwise, it's going to be a long, long year, and an even longer slide into perennial mediocrity or worse.  

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The sad fact is...
The Sox don't have much talent to trade -- that's one problem with being a bad team. Thome does have a no-trade. Dye won't get much in return...in fact no Sox position player will. The Sox might be able to turn Buehrle or Garland into a B grade AA level prospect or two but neither of them is a 1998 Randy Johnson that would fetch real talent. You wouldn't even get Lastings Milledge staright up for either of them right now. Contreras has a no trade cluse as well. In my opinion, the only Sox player capable of fetching a decent young MLB-ready position player is Jenks.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if your idea of a good trade
is 1998 randy johnson - considered one of the worst trades in history - you need to ratchet down those expectations some.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't have high expectations...
My point was that a Sox firesale wouldn't bring much in return. I get the feeling a lot of Sox fans think the team could get a big infusion of talent by selling off it's veteran starting pitching. I think the package one could expect back for Buehrle or Graland is on par with what Garcia brought back -- a decent B level AA prospect.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd be happy...
if Contreras and Buehrle each brought back a prospect equivalent to Gio Gonzalez.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't mind...
trading Jenks.  I think he's got a year, maybe two, left in that arm.

And I think the Sox would get something decent for Buehrle and Contreras.  People consistently underrate how valuable even average starting pitching is.  Lots of teams have hitters.  Lots of teams need pitching.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

contreras
would probably bring a nice enough haul - you know, freddy garcia-ish - maybe even more if you get the right team near the deadline.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One thing that would have happened
Phile Rogers would have included Crede's name in his Sunday hit-piece on Kenny Williams:
I wonder what would be happening now if Williams and the front office had had more faith in some they cast aside. Aaron Rowand, Neal Cotts, Geoff Blum, Luis Vizcaino and Freddy Garcia and youngsters like Brandon McCarthy and center fielder Chris Young. Maybe even the high-maintenance man, El Duque.

Ugh. For whatever reason, Rogers just has it in for Williams this season. Cotts? Blum? Vizcaino? It takes talent to take one bad trade (the Vazquez trade) and try to blow that up into an epidemic of poor moves. If Williams can be criticized for this year's team it's that he wasn't active enough -- he should have brought in another major league outfielder and an actual leadoff man.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

of that group
arguably two of them are any good.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.
Cotts and Young.

And I'm still not convinced that the Vazquez trade was a bad one.  If Chris Young turns into a perennial All-Star, then okay, but so far, he hasn't shown that.  A .307 OBP is not impressive.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the vasquez trade isn't a bad one
even if chris young turns into an all-star. bad trades are garland for karchner or brock for broglio or bagwell for andersen. javy has pitched well enough and we dumped el duque's salary and injury prone body. it ain't a good trade but it's far from being a bad one.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's been playing much better lately.
May #'s in 60 at bats:

.317/.333/.500.

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't even read this bedwetter.
Phil Rogers' 'journalism' is the equivalent of an ambulance chasing lawyer. He's a hot and cold, fair weather, myopic fool. I'd love to go back into his archives because I can guarantee that at some point in time he ridiculed nearly all the acquistions of the aforementioned players. What the hell is his column even about? He criticizes--repeatedly this season--the Sox for being old, then suggests they should've kept Politte (who isn't even in the league anymore) and El Duque?

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

There's only 1 player on that list I'd take
and that's Young, but we got a pretty decent return on that, even if Javy is inconsistent.

by colintj on May 21, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Firts Quarter Report Card
LF - too painful to discuss

CF - good d, but he's also your leadoff man with OBP of .300 and OPS of .650 which are just about what you'd expect from him for a full season, blech

RF - maybe his O is finally coming around, but his D has been atrocious

3B - good D and poor O, and now his back is acting up so this position is completely up in the air

SS - good D and below average O, about what's expected

2B - average O, losing his range defensively

1B - has turned into a one-dimensional pull hitter, has always been below average D.

C - average O, can't throw out a runner

Bullpen - showing major cracks now

Starting Pitching - above average, only thing keeping us respectable.

All in all, I'd say very fortunate to be two games over .500, there's major flaws on this team that I can't see them overcoming.

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 12:33 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I'd actually say...
that Erstad is no better than average defensively. I know that Hawk and DJ can't stop raving about his CF defense, but for every ball I've seen him get a good read on, I've seen him lose one in the air and miss getting there in time.  

He's not an embarrassment like Mackowiak, but he's not going to make the whole outfield better like Rowand did.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not an Erstad fan,
but IMO he's an above average fielder.

But we really need a superstar out there because our LFs are marginal at best and Dye has been painful to watch in RF recently.

Error wise, excepting Friday, we seem OK. But range is a completely different story. 4 triples in a 3 game series?

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 12:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Grades
LF: F+ (the plus goes to Sweeney alone)
CF: C-
RF: C+ (salvaged by the past week)
3RD: C-
SS: D+
2B: C
1B: D-
C: C+
Pen: C+
Rotation: A-
Bench: F

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just goes to show
how important pitching (starting in this case) is. Obviously overall, the Sox deserve a C+ since they're 2 over .500.

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Reds claim Pedro Lopez off waivers...
Reds claimed infielder Pedro Lopez off waivers from the White Sox and optioned him to Triple-A Louisville.
At 23, Lopez still has youth on his side. However, it doesn't look like he's ever going to hit. He was at .242/.307/.323 in 161 at-bats for Triple-A Charlotte this season. He's a downgrade from Ray Olmedo as defensive-minded infield insurance.

Link.

by SSH2005 on May 21, 2007 1:37 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Devil Rays looking to trade an outfielder...
Carl Crawford, Rocco Baldelli, or Delmon Young, according to Ken Rosenthal.

Kenny should be looking at all three as we speak.  Get on it, Kenny.

by SSH2005 on May 21, 2007 1:40 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

unfortunately
the cupboard is bare. they'd want danks as the centerpiece and that ain't happening.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They'd want...
Danks + Jenks + someone else (Fields, maybe).

And Baldelli is hurt.  Stay far away from that guy.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was firmly in the "Get Baldelli" camp
this off-season. I though his reasonably healthy '06 was a sign that he had turned the injury corner. That's clearly not the case.

His hamstring is every bit as injury prone as Podsednik's groin or Crede's back, it's not a question of if but when and for how long will he be injured. You can't trade anything of real value for a guy who you know is going to miss large chunks of time.

I'm beyond surprised that the article seems to rule out trading the petulant one. I thought they wanted to get his angriness out of their hair once they could get a good return. His quick start and zero clubhouse incidents has to have upped his value.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on May 21, 2007 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

has he had trouble with the hammy before?
i thought this was a new one for him this season.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Has a history.
Also was 1-40 prior to the injury.  Perhaps he'd fit in too well with our Ethiopian diet of hitting.

by winningugly on May 21, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If that's what the Rays are actually demanding...
...then there's a reason they have no pitching.  You can have whatever demands you want to make, but they're flush in outfield talent and have zero pitching outside of Shields and Kazmir.  Which is fine, but OF isn't nearly the position of need pitching is in the AL.

by colintj on May 21, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

While you're probably right,
the Sox might have a shot at Baldelli, should we be willing to take a gamble on an injured injury-prone guy. If the Ray even entertain the idea Danks for Baldelli in this market, they're nuts.

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They're nuts.
Rumor has it that the Marlins offered Ricky Nolasco for Baldelli, and were flat-out rejected.  They think Baldelli's an All-Star, and won't take anything less than an All-Star package for him.

In any case, Baldelli's currently sitting on the DL.  

To me, he's essentially a poor man's Aaron Rowand.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Does anyone seriously think
that it would take more than John Danks for Rocco Baldelli.

If so, Baldelli will be on Tampa Bay awhile.

by ballyb on May 21, 2007 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem as I see it...
...is that the D-Rays, having always been terrible and with no end in sight, are not great trade partners. They are not in need of one more piece, or in need of a deadline deal. Running that team is like letting a 10 year old play Monopoly.
It takes two to lie; one to lie and one to listen.

by Toonderstrook on May 21, 2007 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly.
They don't plan on winning any time soon, so they don't care what the composition of the team is.  They just sit on all their players and wait for a killer deal to come their way.

And every so often, a GM is dumb enough to do it (Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir).

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

JRE is right...
TB would want Jenks and Danks at a minimum. They have no reason to trade unless they get a clear win. And other teams (e.g. Atlanta) can offer a lot more talent than the Sox can.

I was thinking Baldelli would be a decent pickup this offseason, but he really does have health issues and he has a career .324 OBP. He's cheap and entering his prime, but I don't know that he'd be healthy and/or hit enough to justify trading 2 young  big league pitchers. Don't do it...

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait till the offseason...
I think the Sox best shot to fill an outfield slot for the future is an offseason FA. It's a pipedream, but if the Sox can spend money, I think they should go after Ichiro. I know he's older and would be over priced -- but he has a great glove in CF and I think he can maintain a .360 OBP for a few more years. Plus he'd be a PR boost.

For this season, if the Sox want to trade in a probably futile attempt at a playoff push I think a trade for a currently underperforming LF that has some pop is the best you can hope for (hopefully buying low). Maybe trading junk for Kevin Mench? Or  something better for Garett Atkins?

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm beating this horse as if I can
revive it, but I'd offer a bit more to get Crawford - really.  If (some of) you guys feel Jenksy has a year or two left (and I don't) and Danks is the 2nd coming of Buehrle (maybe) I think it'd be worth filling 2 MAJOR holes in our lineup - leadoff and CF or LF with a speed guy who's young and talented (All-Star).

Pull the trigger, KW, pull it.  They can't lose money forever and stay in business.  If we have talent anywhere it's in SP, so deal from strength.

by winningugly on May 21, 2007 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Crede
I love the guy, but if this problem is going to be chronic, it's time to give Fields a shot. Pablo gives 110% no matter where you put him, but he needs to be used in small doses when needed.
President - Johnny Dickshot Fan Club

by tailgater on May 21, 2007 1:59 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I would trade Danks
for delmon young or crawford but not baldelli. ive never seen an organaztion ask so much for so little

by Jbasic89 on May 21, 2007 2:09 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't give up Danks for either of those guys.
A #3 quality starter is worth more than Young or Crawford to me.

by SSH2005 on May 21, 2007 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree
if someone offer them a pitcher like danks he's totally crazy

by The Wizard on May 21, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

for delmon young?
you and i may not do it. but totally crazy?
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's not crazy.
It'd be crazy for Baldelli, but not for Young.

I wouldn't trade Danks for any of the Rays outfielders, though.  The Sox need him.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

even crazy is strong
if you looked at production alone, such a trade would be a steal. it's everything else - something that's harder to quantify - that gives pause.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes
probably it's danks makeup, he gives up a hit, a homer, the team makes an error but he doesn't come apart...

by The Wizard on May 21, 2007 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Danks
is league average right now, plus he's cheap and left handed.  His value is well above that of an OF of analogous ability because of scarcity.

by colintj on May 21, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

merkin on the 12-man pitching staff
[Scott Merkin]
The 12-man pitching staff will be here to stay and probably will be a White Sox staple as long as Guillen is the manager. He commented recently that he likes the different matchup options presented late in games by the seven relievers. Of course, if some of those relievers don't improve their on-the-field efforts soon, there might be new individuals making up the seven-man bullpen.

by The Wizard on May 21, 2007 2:19 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I see.
Guillen needs extra lefty relievers to give up game-breaking hits to left-handed batters.

I don't get the team's obsession with Boone Logan.  Sisco is incredibly wild, but he at least has good stuff.  Logan is a BP pitcher.

But who else is going to do the job?  Carlos Vasquez is intriguing, but not ready.  Paulino Reynoso isn't any better than Logan.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bret Prinz?
He's the 29 year-old reliever in AAA that has been mentioned in the papers as a callup option. It sounds like Augustin Montero redux to me, but whatever. The problem I think Prinz is right-handed and I don't know how Guillen could get by with just 2 LOOGYs in the pen.

As for Logan versus Sisco, I have to disagree. It's ridiculous because they've both been bad but Logan at 22 has way more control than Sisco at 24. And Logan shifted to his current delivery just in the last couple of years I think. I'm more optimistic about Logan becoming a useful major league pitcher than Sisco (whose WHIP is at 2.0 I think).

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

logan has also cut down on the walks
he's got a future. sisco, not so sure about that.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't get me wrong...
I'm no Sisco fan.  I can just see where he has some potential.  Potential that will probably go unrealised, but potential nonetheless.

Logan just has crappy stuff.  He can fool hitters in the International League, but not in the majors.  He's the very definition of an AAAA reliever.

Neither one belongs on a big-league roster, and wouldn't be if they didn't happen to throw with their left hands.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To early to give up on Logan
His problem is a .300 BAA. His BABIP's for the AAA and the majors are about the same, so the question is just if he can miss more bats in the bigs (11K/9 in AAA and 7K/9 in the bigs). He is just 22. In any case, in all of 17 ABs, lefties have a .590 OPS against him. Given what he did in AAA, I think he can at least be a LOOGY at the big league level. That's a valuable thing.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In his MLB career..
Lefties have an .832 OPS against Logan, righties are at .809.  

Logan can strike out minor-league hitters by getting them to chase those sloppy pitches low and out of the zone.  MLB hitters just spit at those, and he's forced to serve up a cookie, which they hit hard.  He's not a good pitcher, and probably never will be.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Logan vs. LH
I was using the splits from this year, I guess. For his "career" he has a .937 OPS vs. lefties per ESPN (I wonder how much of that is Pronk-induced). The sample sizes are so small that I definitely would give Logan more chances against left hand hitters this season to see if the improvement is real.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i wouldn't hold what he did last year
against him. he was in way, way over his head - travis hafner alone probably accounts for .1 of that OPS.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mark
my words: Sisco is not good, and I don't believe will be, unfortunately. Logan has EXcellent stuff and it appears to me only needs experience and a little success. Where you come off saying he has poor stuff is completely misguided--- he Regularly sits between 92-94 and has a great curve/slurve.

by dantesox on May 21, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I stand by...
my position.

92-94 is mediocre for the majors, and Logan is incapable of consistently throwing that curve (which I don't think is great, merely average) for strikes.  Opposing hitters sit on that mediocre fastball.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

incapable?
he's 22. most 22 year old pitchers are incapable of repeating much of anything. he'll get more consistent with his mechanics and we'll see more of the flashes of good pitching - i.e., morneau in three pitches.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I
agree: Sisco's chances of turning out well pale in comparison to Logan's. I don't like Sisco AT ALL... he needs to be down in AAA in favor of either a veteran pickup to stabilize and balance our bullpen or EVEN a guy like Prinz or Buckvich--- yes, even a Prinz or Buckvich, both of whom I'D HAVE MORE FAITH IN THAN sISCO.

by dantesox on May 21, 2007 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sisco needs to be gone
yesterday - his head is obviously all F'ed up, and he's no help taking up a roster spot.  Let him work it out with the other head case, Floyd.

by winningugly on May 21, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In that case...
it'll just be another hittable pitch.

Again, he relies on hitters to chase those breaking pitches, and good major-league hitters just won't.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

aND
how is that different than any other effective LHR, really?

by dantesox on May 21, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you don't watch much baseball, do you jerry
they do, they do it every day, and they do it often every day.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not Boone Logan's...
they don't.  He's not fooling anyone.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess the
three-pitch strikeouts of Morneau and Teahen in the last couple of weeks had nothing to do with fooling.
It takes two to lie; one to lie and one to listen.

by Toonderstrook on May 21, 2007 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i've seen this hate you have for boone before
and it's totally irrational. i'm not sure what your hang-up on him is but you are completely ass-backwards. he'll be a loogy for a long, long time in this league.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep.
I really think he'll be much more than that, though. I am moderately high on Logan.

by dantesox on May 21, 2007 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

too bad he loves no talent grinders too much to go
for it.  this team is starting to look like a circus, so we might as well go all out.

by colintj on May 21, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if we wait for the
2007 draft to find a replacement for pods, we're in trouble

jerry owens can replace pods...

by The Wizard on May 21, 2007 2:45 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

How can they trade?
Sox aren't going to increase payroll, so they're not going to add a Carl Crawford by trading prospects.  

They can't move any of their highly paid position players like JD, PK, Iguchi or Crede because they're all underachieving right now and won't bring anything in return.  You can't trade AJ because we don't have another catcher.

About the only valuable trading commodity they have is their starting pitching, and if you do that you're gutting the only strength on the team and pretty much assuring a bad season.

I GOT IT!  Someone out there must think they need a grinder to get over the hump, can we get anything for Erstad before he gets injured?

 

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 2:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

you're apparently of the school
that what we could get for a starter - say a jose contreras - wouldn't make up for his loss. i'm not so sure. i feel like we have starters in the minors who could hold their own up here enough that trading for an offensive player could pay off. it would be a risky move but, since i'm already of the belief that the playoffs are likely out of the question, dumping a guy who is old and pricey for a player who is young and cheap and productive doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.
I'd be all for trading any or all of the starters not named Danks, although I think I'd need to be wowed before I trade away Garland.

This team has a notable lack of decent young position players, and trading away some veteran starting pitchers could resolve that.

And I think the Sox could get a lot.  Do you think the Cardinals, for instance, would let the Brewers get Buehrle cheap?  Or the Mets would let the Braves get Contreras for a song?  Most teams could use an extra starting pitcher, so the bidding could escalate rapidly.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I gotta agree with ya Hawk
Even though the season might completely blow up if it doesn't work out, KW isn't afraid to make a risky move.  The only way to make an impact trade is to move a starting pitcher, gulp.  

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If....
If the Sox could get a player like Lastings Milledge for Contreras, I'd agree. But do you really think a Sox starter not named Danks could bring a young position player that could produce in the bigs? I'm all in favor of filling up a OF slot or 2B with a young player if possible.

Which Sox pitcher in minors do you think could handle the bigs right now? I honestly don't see anyone. AAA is filled with pseudo-prospects like Floyd and Phillips and in AA only Gonzalez might have a chance and I think he'd get lit up with his current control. Am I missing someone?

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd put up with...
sub-par production from Floyd/Haeger/Phillips if it meant getting decent prospects back in trade for Contreras and Buehrle.  The Sox aren't going anywhere this season in any case.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tone of post...
Rereading my post, it sounds snarky which is not what I intended. I honestly am curious if you think the Sox could get someone like Milledge and which minor league pitcher you'd promote.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

probably not milledge
especially because of how the mets starters (surprisingly) are doing quite well. i'm not sure we'd get someone of the upside of milledge - i'm thinking more of a player who has been in the majors for a few years who would be the centerpiece of a trade.

as shaftr said, masset has auditioned well for such a role. if you want a minor leaguer, i'd probably go with haeger.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

well
Masset could probably step in and start.
Go Badgers!

by shaftr on May 21, 2007 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's probably irrational exuberance
Based on Masset's 2 extended outings, but I agree. I wouldn't be opposed to the Sox moving a veteran starter and then seeing if Masset can pitch in the bigs.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

unfortunately
he does have one for this year.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

maybe
but would the mets want a starter? their starting pitching looks pretty solid right now - of course anything could change - oh, and they'll also get a certain pretty good pitcher back sometime in the second half.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pedro
estimates to return in July, which means August. He'll pitch a few starts, miss a few more, have a limited pitch count, etc... While he is a great pitcher, his combination of being soft, injury plagued and old shouldn't give the Mets much to depend on. Plus John Maine is starting to look like, well, John Maine. I wouldn't be surprised to see Omar shopping for a starter. But again, as has been pointed out, what do we get in return?

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right now,
I'd say so, provided Jose doesn't spend on significant time on the DL (if he were to, then this conversation would of course be void). Allegedly, they're both the same age, so the difference would be that Pedro is coming off a nearly season long injury; Jose is not. I'm not going to say that Jose is the Ripken of pitchers, but for the here and now--which is what any GM looking at Contreras would be interested in--he's healthy and producing, which is a lot more than Pedro can say. And who knows what to expect from Pedro when he returns.  

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i agree with that
it's just that their pitching has been so good so far - and they've also got pelfrey in reserve, in addition to pedro coming back - that i'm not sure they're buyers. duque is always an injury concern but, with the age of that lineup, i think they're more likely to need a position player.

at any rate, there would be plenty of teams interested in a contreras. the problem is the no trade clause. he's not going to just any team so whomever he is willing to go to would be able to hold us up for him.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's a good point
his clause defifitely gives any suitor the higher ground.

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Adam Dunn
He'd be perfect.  He fill a huge hole in LF, Reds are out of contention, and he's FA after this season so if things don't work out we're not saddled with his contract.

What would it take?

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 3:19 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Insanity by the White Sox
The last thing we need is another slow, lumbering player who strikes out a ton and swings for the fences. The Reds would want something substantial in return, probably pitching. So why give up a good young player for someone we'd most likely have no interest in signing in the offseason?

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's not that slow, 7 SB this year
And even though he strikes out he walks as much as Thome.  God knows we need baserunners.

We've got a huge hole in LF, and with Crede questionable he replaces a big RBI man in the lineup.

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even...
if the Sox could use Dunn (I don't - he's essentially a DH-type, probably one of the worst defensive players in the majors right now), what would the Sox give up for him?  I certainly wouldn't give up Danks or Gio Gonzalez.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and we have such great defenders out there now
at least this guy would hit the ball and get on base.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As bad...
as Mackozuna is, Adam Dunn is worse.

In short, though, the Sox don't need him.  This season's a bust - they shouldn't be trading away young talent to try to turn a 71-win season into a 75-win season.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not sure i buy that
dunn is one of those guys who doesn't necessarily look good in the outfield and, as such, probably gets unfairly graded by people. you'd have to show me some numbers on that assertion.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

71 wins
Comments like this are what keeps me going through a tough day.  Priceless.

by Winning is Fung on May 21, 2007 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fine, then...
if you're optimistic, 81 wins, improving to 85 by trade.  Either way, this team isn't playoff-bound, and they shouldn't be making transactions as if they were.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dunn has a .905 OPS, I could care less...
if he is Ross Gload-esque in LF.  Give me the offense.

by SSH2005 on May 21, 2007 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

His D is average for a LF
His zone rating is middle of the pack:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?seasonType=2&sortOrder=true&split=83&groupI d=9&season=2007&qualified=null&sortColumn=zoneRating

I think it would take Garland to get him.  If it doesn't work, Sox have unloaded JG's salary for next season and it's a wash this season moneywise.  Masset takes his place in the rotation.

With no Crede Sox are DESPERATE for offense.

by ChicagoPete on May 21, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jon Garland...
should not be dealt in a salary dump.  If the Sox traded Jon Garland for a half-season of Adam Dunn, they'd be the laughingstock of the league.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Garland for Dunn?
Gar's still got another year left on his contract...you'd give up a whole season of Garland for 3 months of Adam Dunn?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against trading Garland--in the offseason where we'd be able to get much, much more. Never make trades out of desperation. (Beane 101)

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not for dunn
why would the reds do that?
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm of the opinion
that Dunn is unneccesary, and there really isn't anyone I'd trade for him. The Sox need to get younger, they need to get guys with better on base %, better contact hitters, better D, etc...Dunn just doesn't fit the bill.

(Plus, I still harbor hopes for Buerhle returning in 08)

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hahaha Pete!
Yeah, that'll work. It'd be the best thing Sisco ever did for the Sox.

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

he's one of those three true outcomes hitters
you rightly point out thome; he's a poor man's version. problem of course is that he's another guy who can't hit lefties.

reds would want pitching from us.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jumping the Gun
I would sit tight with my team.

Starters have been really SOLID (not "above average.")  And, my closer has been dependable.

We haven't hit the ball ALL YEAR, we've had a pretty tough schedule and we're 2 games above .500.  Other then the Crosstown Classic (which is a free-for-all every year) we've been winning our latest series'.  

Our bullpen will be fine, there are some good arms there... McD was a guy I always wanted - he'll be fine, and Thor. will be fine.  Masset can pitch out of the pen, proven last year. Sisco is a bum.

2B, RF, Catcher all just came out of slumps and showing signs of life. Hall and Thome are back.

Lots of games left with the Tribe and Los Tigres.  We can beat them both... Minny is garbage with or without Mauer.

We're gonna make a run boyz... keep the faith!

by P-Hose08 on May 21, 2007 3:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Here's the problem
with the dumping of older vets like some of you guys are talking about.

Kenny is in a tough spot.  If he were to do that -- say he traded two-three of the veteran players -- he's pretty much giving up on the season.  While that might be the correct move from a baseball perspective, it could be financially devistating for the Sox.  A majority of the fan-base would see this as white flag number two; columnists all over the city would call for Williams' head on a platter, and I think most of the casual fans would follow right along.  

I'm not saying that Kenny should make decisions based on what the casual fan wants -- far, FAR from it, believe me.  I'm just saying the Sox would be in for a financial hit if Williams totally blew up this team, and I don't think the Sox can really go into a full 'rebuilding' mode.  We'd see less people at the ballpark and, in turn, a lesser payroll -- with everyone in the division having up-and-coming talent, our one advantage over everyone is our money (as of right now) -- and that's never a bad thing to have.

As far as some of the predictions -- come on -- 71 wins?  I understand that the starting pitching is pitching a little bit over their heads right now, but for the 71 wins to actually happen, the SPs would have to fall drastically with the bullpen and offense showing NO improvement.  

I'm not saying the Sox are a playoff team, but for all the bad luck the Sox have fallen on in the early going (pretty much everything going wrong except for the SP), I don't see how anyone can say this team will finish with less than 81 wins.  And with a little luck, who knows -- if the starters keep their collective ERA around 4.00, we should be in for a fun race through September, even if we're the ones doing the chasing all year.

by CWSKeith on May 21, 2007 4:04 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The problem is...
that an 81-win season isn't going to do much to bring in the fans, either.  Then Buehrle walks, Iguchi walks, Dye walks, and then next year Garland walks and Contreras walks, and Williams brings in some mediocre, expensive veterans to try to patch holes and put together another 81 win season, and then someone important gets hurt, and the team gets bad, and the fans stop showing up, and the organization is a mess.

Or you can work towards fielding a decent young team in 2008 that will be fun to watch and might be in contention in 2009, and you have the payroll room to add pieces once the team is in position to contend.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Once again
Upon coming in late to SSS. I am greeted with ridiculous statements and half empty glass predictions. Im sorry I keep looking for all these great AL teams that will keep the Sox to a 71-81 win team???? Or because their talent is so much less than the 71-81 win teams we have had here over the the past 7-10 years.

If you want to make an argument that the Sox need to do more for the overall good of building a fantastic team fine. But please stop this nonsense about how the pitching will fall apart, the hitting won't get better and the defense will suck.

Why don't I see similar rankings and predictions for all the other AL contenders? Because all their grades are so great?

Again the pre seasons rankings were based off the starting pitching totally sucking. It hasnt. But some how the other teams pitching WILL hold up.

I may be a clown in rose colored glasses but IF they remain healthy enough for the main players to get their games in the Sox will be there to the end. Might not have enough to win but enough to compete. And in a major city 4.5 out of first and wildcard with only 1 team ahead of you, you don't start talking about tearing apart a team.

You can and should be able to compete and rebuild at the same time.

by Tdogg on May 21, 2007 5:46 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

And how, exactly...
do you propose competing and rebuilding at the same time, barring a 200 million dollar payroll or a tremendous minor-league system, neither of which the Sox have?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hear you Jerry
But the Sox have had neither for some time and yet have been one of the more successful on field teams the past 7-10 years.

I think another piece is finding undervalued talent which the White Sox seem to do quite well.

by Tdogg on May 21, 2007 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you can and should
but an essential part of that is a good farm system - we don't have that. since we don't, you then have to make astute and often risky moves. one such move would be moving a starter (pretty much the only thing we have to trade), acquiring a need player (pretty much anything on the diamond for us), and plugging in at starter one of the guys we have in the minors/masset. if you do it right, you shouldn't lose much - if anything - over the short-term and be stronger for it over the long-term.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's not a good team...
The Sox have many more significant flaws than Detroit, Cleveland, and Minnesota. I know this will probably just be more glass all-the-way-empty pessimism to you, but here's what I see: Crede's hitting isn't going to improve, Thome's injury is likely chronic, Konerko is channeling 2003, Iguchi's finger injury is likely to linger this season, the Sox have 2 .700 OPS outfielders playing every game. Dye may heat up at the plate, but the offense doesn't have a lot of hope in it. The bullpen is clearly shaky. I'm disappointed in MacDougal -- I thought he would be very good this season and he hasn't been. If you look at the peripheral numbers of Contreras and Garland, their success is not sustainable. And Danks is a very young rookie.

At this point, I do agree the Sox might as well wait till the deadline to sell off players. But trading any of the Sox top prospects for help this season I think would be a mistake.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i agree with your assessment
of other teams, except for the twins. they're a .500 team. they don't have the starting pitching and their offense is probably worse than ours.
Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They do have...
Mauer, Morneau, and Santana, who are better than any three players on the White Sox.  I'd take the Twins bullpen over the Sox bullpen, as well.  

But I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox finished ahead of the Twins this year.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on May 21, 2007 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The rotation is what is going to
plague the Twins. After Santana, you've got Silva (who will find his natural level soon enough) Ortiz (who has found his level), Bonser, then a question mark. Garza before long I'd assume, though he's been roughed up a little in AAA. Even their pen isn't as indestructable as it once was (though I too would take it over the Sox right now).

by southsider80 on May 21, 2007 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's possible
I'm probably biased in that I've seen MN squeeze way more wins out their teams in the past than I would ever have thought possible. They've already started pruning the chaff from their rotation. I expect Baker and Garza to both be excelling in the starting rotation by the ASB. I think they have the pitching. But you are right that they may not have the hitting. Mauer coming back will help, but Kubel hasn't hit as well as I've thought and Hunter can't keep up his current pace. They definitely have some piranha-sized holes in their lineup.

by hitlesswonder on May 21, 2007 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

with the twinkies
you gotta keep in mind service time; they've got some guys other than you mentioned in their organization who could contribute (slowey, for example) but, if they're not going to compete this year (and the twins aren't) why bring them up.

and neither baker or garza will be a liriano - or maybe even a radke. their production this year probably will be league average-ish and the pitch counts they'll be on will tax the bullpen, which is already showing that it isn't quite as good as it was in the past.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 21, 2007 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So what exactly is a good team to you?
I know I am making this simplier than what it really is but I look around the AL and see 4 teams with better records. The Sox havent hit. And I see a LOT of assumptions by you. Based on what? Whatever prediction method you use expects some type of rebound.

The bullpen is clearly shaky lately. But it also has been clearly one of the best metric wise in the AL this season. What we toss that reason aside?

I been hearing the same bullshit about Garland going on 2 years. I heard the same bullshit about Mark until someone finally got it right 5 YEARS later. I kept hearing in 05 about the eventually pitching collaspe and you know what? It didnt.

Sometimes things dont make sense. Sometimes you win 66% of 1 run games.
Health is 1 thing I cant argue. If they dont play they cant produce. But again the Sox have been better at it then most. Maybe time has caught up with them and then again maybe the perception will be "wrong" again.

by Tdogg on May 21, 2007 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Chicago White Sox.
Start posting about the White Sox »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Frank_thomas_small
Do The Right Thing
Georgia1_small
Beckham is not only good, but classy
Deadhorse_small
White Sox Minor League Update: I just want to say one word to you - just one word.... 'prospects'.
Stash1_small
Buerhle might wanna take a drive down Lake Shore Drive next slump

Recent FanPosts

Img_0161_small
This is probably old but whatevs, Twins get new uniforms
Small
Three way deal for Gonzalez?
Belle-thomas_small
Will we all be disappointed this offseason
Aroldis_chapman_small
A letter from a Cuban fan inside Cuba
Dead_horse_4_small
Why the nickname bacon sucks and why you should all stop using it.
Bear_down_small
Ozzie Joining FOX For World Series

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

OPS hearts Dick Allen
Tim Lincecum Hearts WHIP, Tells Greinke To Pound FIP
ESPN - OTL: Field of Schemes?
Top Ten BR sponsorships
Zack Greinke hearts FIP
Beginning Wednesday, street light banners commemorating a series of special events in Chicago are going on the auction block for charity.

Some of the banners were shown off Tuesday, including those featuring Pres. Barack Obama both before and after his election.

A White Sox World Series Championship banner, signed by pitcher Mark Buehrle, is also being sold, as is a Blackhawks playoff banner signed by Denis Savard and Stan Mikita.

The bidding starts at 12 p.m. Wednesday at Daley Center. Money raised goes to help the Chicago Anti-hunger Federation and the Greater Chicago Food Depository.
John Danks is a MLB scout
Yankees' key to financial success
Buehrle wins Gold Glove
Dotel & Dye are Type A Free Agents

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS

South Side Sox on Facebook

Managing Editor

Thecheatsmoking_small The Cheat

Editors

Deadhorse_small larry

Sealab_murphy_small colintj

Scenemissingsss_small thecip

Dog_small homesickalien

Omar_small U-God

Authors

Headerrock_bigger_small shaftr

17258_0003_small The Actual El Guapo