South Side Sox: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Fedor vs Rogers Results and Live Coverage

Would Kenny do it?

A good game to play as we play out the string is speculating about what Kenny Williams will attempt in making the 2008 roster.  One tendency we have remarked on before is his ability to pick up players at the low point of their value, as he did with Contreras, Dye, and Thornton.  The rumored waiver claim for Tejada would fit that pattern, giving the Sox a marked upgrade at shortstop that would have been unlikely a year ago.

Star-divide

Shortstop is not the only position that needs an upgrade for next season.  Even if Dye resigns and Owens manages to earn a starting spot, at least one more outfielder who can actually do something other than make outs will be required to turn the offense around.  Erstad is not that man, but a former teammate of his might be.  In recent weeks, Tony LaRussa's comments indicate that he has lost patience with Jim Edmonds, and today the Post-Dispatch reports that Edmonds would not veto a trade.  Edmonds is increasingly fragile as he enters his late thirties and is in the middle of his worst season (83 OPS+ to date) since arriving in the majors.  Yet he has been an above-average offensive contributor as recently as last season, and perhaps St. Louis's price for Edmonds might be a reasonable one for a deal.  What the Cardinals might want is open to speculation, given that Walt Jocketty is rumored to be leaving at the end of the year.  One of the pitchers might do it, or an outfielder like Brian Anderson...if the team wants salary relief.  

Edmonds may not be the most desirable option for the White Sox, but picking him up would fit Williams's behavior, and at least he has shown the ability to hit in the past five years.  Getting him would decrease the probability Erstad haunts our nightmares beyond this October, and that alone is reason enough to consider a trade.

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs  |  Comment 63 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Ugh.
Edmonds is owed about $4 Million for the rest of this year and  $8 Million for 2008.  The only way the Sox should even consider trading for Edmonds is if (1) they don't have to give up anything for him and (2) the Cardinals pick up about 3/4 of what's left on his contract.  Even then, he might just be Darin Erstad redux at this point in his career.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Aug 6, 2007 4:08 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Jim Edmonds equals Erstad 2
He come wrapped in duck tape.  I thought this was a youth movement?
I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 4:11 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

My guess is he wouldn't take much
The market for such a player -- especially an outfielder -- isn't strong.  My guess is the Cardinals would either take an albatross for an albatross (like Contreras) or a part the Sox have already decided wasn't part of the team's future (like Brian Anderson).  My guess is it wouldn't take much at all.

I'd be shocked if Edmonds wasn't a massive improvement over Erstad.  Even Edmonds's injury plagued season this year is better than all but three of Erstad's seasons since he went berserk in 2000 -- and those three top seasons are almost identical to Edmonds's 2007.

by asinwreck on Aug 6, 2007 4:13 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

larussa/duncan
do seem to enjoy taking on scrap heap projects. contreras could fit the bill. not sure i'd want edmonds, though.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't trade Contreras for Edmonds
Why?
  1. Edmond's is in worse shape.  He has been going downhill rapidly for 3 years straight.
  2. Contract is up after 2008 (I am going to need another CF ='ing more headache.)
  3. He's a CF an not lead off hitter.  Who would lead off?
I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

let's see
  1. worse shape than contreras? i don't think so. doing a dirty comparison: jose: ERA+ of 69. edmonds: OPS+ 83. both suck. jose does more.
  2. his contract being up is a good thing. it means we wouldn't have to pay him until 2009 like we would contreras.
  3. my mom is available to leadoff. this fixation with leadoff hitters is silly. if we dump contreras' salary, we can sign some keed that is real fast to make you happy.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

agree with Larry
It's trading a problem for a problem, but at least the Edmond's is on the hook for less time

by jeeves on Aug 6, 2007 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Phisically he's in worst shape
That's all I was saying.  You'll be lucky to get 300 AB out of him next year.  

As for Contreras if he has any pride left he'll pitch like he has a pair.  The last start he had
I saw a lot of movement on all his pitches expect the fastball witch was strait as an arrow.  Yeah he's acting like a woman on her period right now but that doesn't mean he still can't pitch.  Contrary to popular belief he was still hitting the low to mid nineties with his fastball.  I don't know where the notion he lost allot of velocity off his fast ball came from.  The problem with him is his head is somewhere else.  The fans know it and most of all the hitters know it.  He needs to get his head out of his ass.  
This kind of shit happened in New York.  His people in Cuba couldn't find a big enough inner tube for his family to swim over on and he started to sulk like a bitch.  That's why NY shipped him to us. I'm I exaggerate a little?  I don't know.  Let's just hope he can rebound out of the bullpen and his personal life gets situated.  

Trading him to St. Louis for Edmunds who would only play CF since Thome is our DH would not make business sense.  If your purpose is to be cheap and save money that fine but you'll be running the organization into the ground at the same time.  You'd better have someone ready to step in once Edmunds goes down and once he's ready to leave via FA.  Plus keep in mind if that's all you're going to get for Jose then you have to trade Garland too.  If both are gone then kiss 2008 goodbye.

Why not ship Jose somewhere for marginal prospects that can help you now or package him with someone else to get Tejada.  A more sensible trade would be Contreras for Pat Burrell who the Phillies hate to have.  

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

people seem to have a very inflated view
of contreras' value. the issue is going to be salary. he's owed way too much money. if anyone wanted him as is, he would have been claimed when he was placed on waivers - and you know he was placed on waivers already. we're not going to get shit for contreras. we either send a ridiculous amount of cash with him or we take on someone else's salary problem.

and, yes, trading him makes business sense. i don't know where that comment comes from.

and, yes, sensible people have kissed 2008 goodbye.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

2008 went out the window
when we brought in ZERO mutli-talented young players at the trade deadline.
AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Aug 6, 2007 7:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

do you think it was possible and that kenny
failed or that our Implodo-Half killed that possibility?

by colintj on Aug 6, 2007 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Kenny failed (but he had help)
JD needed to be dealt in May, even though he was hitting like crap.

Contreras was another cog that should have been gone before everyone was able to realize that the emporer had no clothes. As early as mid-May, I was theorizing that the only way to save next season was to send dye and "another starter" packing with Buehrle being resigned in-season.

You could argue that there wasn't much of a market in May when these two should have been traded, and that it was smarter to hold on to them and get multiple bidders. But both went in the crapper for extended periods; JD looked like he would never be able to play the OF again, and Count has been the worst starter in baseball for about 2 months.

Contreras still wouldn't have brought much in return, but Dye was supposed to be the most coveted hitter on the market.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Aug 6, 2007 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I can't imagine, considering the perspective on
prospects right now of the conservative GMs, that anyone other than someone like Schuerholz could make something of this over-valuation of prospects.  Since there were so few partner possibilities, he had his choice and he chose Teixeira.  No one else made any moves that suggested they were by-passing Kenny's price and getting something they considered a near-equivalent.

by colintj on Aug 7, 2007 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Im having a hard time
picturing a situation where the sox don't benefit from conteras leaving

by lew on Aug 7, 2007 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He's been so bad
that if I had control of the roster, I would DL him, maybe for the rest of the season.  See if rest and recuperation would help at all, then (if he showed any sign of life next season) deal him to the first interested buyer.

And youneverknow.  Ron Schueler did manage to deal Jamie Navarro and get something back for him.  Hope springs eternal.

by asinwreck on Aug 7, 2007 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

it is true
it seems many of us have bought into Ozzie's fixation with traditional roles such as the "lead-off" hitter.  According to Ozzie, such a player should be fast, gritty, willing to dive headlong into first base, and must have a commensurately pathetic inability to hit the ball out of the infield. Ie Ozzie himself, only with speed.

It's ludicrous.  The one thing the guy hitting first does is get more AB's, so it would stand to reason that you look for someone who can get on base.

The A's have always been willing to follow this logic.  Hell they won 103 games in a season where Jeremy friggin Giambi "led off" 39 times.  That idiot wouldn't even slide into home...

by spengler on Aug 6, 2007 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ridiculous
Ever other team won the world series and a lot of games with the prototypical lead-off hitter.  Oakland won because they had ungodly pitching a the time.  Remember Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Having a slow runner who has high OBP will most likely induce more double plays if the #2 hitter is also slow.  A speedy contact hitter followed by a contact hitter with more pop is a way better order to play with.  

I've seen managers flip that order around.  Assuming if there is a ground ball a speedster in the #2 hole is more likely to beat out a double play leaving only 1 out.  He could then be a menace on the base pad by stealing or throwing the pitcher off guard, which would be beneficial to the #3 hitter.  If the #3 hitter unfortunately hits a grounder and the #2 speedster hasn't stolen second then it would again be difficult to double up since the runner would've been moving on contact.  That would bring up the #4 hitter.  I like the scenario but I don't know of any statistical evidence that states that it works better.

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

just because everyone else does it
or has done it, doesn't mean it's the best way to do things. if we had you running teams, we'd still have pitchers throwing 300+ innings. in this era of high-powered offense, the needs to manufacture runs via the stolen base/speed is diminished. the number one tool a leadoff hitter should have is OBP skills. everything else is secondary.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Remember
The Rockies of the mid nineties?

Or the Tampa bay experiment at the turn of the millenium?  Taking Jose Conseco and a whole bunch of roided player thinking they could out-slug everyone.

How about the Baltimore Orioles spending a shit load of money on free agents few years ago?

How did those teams turn out?

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you like to create strawmen and red herrings
i'm not talking about "out-slugging" anyone.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ridiculous?
Because I don't have time to do a ton of research:

'06 A's went to the playoffs: Jason Kendall led off 90 times, OBP of .345, stole 8 bases.

'04 Yanks went to ALCS. Bernie Williams led off 47 times, stole one base, had an OBP of .360.

'03 Cubs won the central, Gruzielanek "led off" 69 times, OBP of .366, 6 SB.

'96 Yanks won the WS.  Wade Boggs led off 79 times, OBP of .389.  (Boggs never stole more than 3 bases in any of his 18 seasons, winding up with a career total of 24.  Prototypical lead off guy.)

The point is that if you can't have Rickey Henderson or Tim Raines or Jose Reyes, then it's more likely to work having a high OBP guy at the top collecting tons of AB's than some low-OBP slap hitter who doesn't get on enough to "create havoc" to begin with.

by spengler on Aug 6, 2007 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Spengler, this is excellent
Now this may be extreme, but why not put Thome at leadoff on occasion?  He is an OBP machine and we can PR Owens or Pods if we need that speed in a crucial late-inning situation.  (I'm trying to be serious.)
Can anybody here play this game?

by winningugly on Aug 6, 2007 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why not give it a whirl
There's nothing like a lead-off HR to set the pace in any case.  

Just ask the D-Backs.  (sorry, couldn't resist)

by spengler on Aug 6, 2007 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

NO THIS IS THE SOUTHSIDESOXBLOG!
I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

DANM I SCREWED UP THE JOKE
I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

thing is
thome is also a slugging machine. you want him batting when guys are on base. that usually means the third spot is ideal for him.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed but since the lead-off guy only leads off
once, it would be interesting to see a statistical analysis that compiled the most likely batting orders per each successive inning.

It's probably unlikely, but you never know, you might find that the lead off guy ends up with more guys on base ahead of him than any other slot...wouldn'w know where to look for something like that.

by spengler on Aug 6, 2007 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah...
I've used that before... it's neat.

Also doesn't make sense to me why Lou keeps batting Soriano leadoff. I don't like it. Let Fontenot or Theriot lead off, and let Soriano hit in the middle.

Imagine a middle lineup of Lee, Ramirez, and Soriano. That's huge. Lou is a few screws loose.

"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 Aug 6, 2007 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why have Soriano homer with men aboard
when he can spark the team with a lead-off homer or manufacture a run by stealing bases?

/end sarcasm

by jeeves on Aug 6, 2007 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

there have been plenty of analysis
of batting orders. most find that it really doesn't matter all that much. theoretically, if you put some higher OBP guys in the #1 and #2 spot (because they make more plate appearances in a game) you should have more opportunities with people on base at #3.

you have to keep in mind that the leadoff man would be guaranteed at least one at bat every game without a man on. and, if you're doing things right and putting your "worst" players at the bottom of the order where they'll be getting the least plate appearances, your #1 guy shouldn't be up all that often with men on base.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know, but the #9 hitter is just
as likely to get on base as the 1 and 2 hitters for him, and he leads off once a game, really.  Plus, he's more likely to get more AB's.  (Didn't Barry Bonds ever lead off, or some other slugger, at the end of a recent season in order to get more AB's?)

Just a thought.

Can anybody here play this game?

by winningugly on Aug 7, 2007 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

one would hope
that the #9 hitter isn't just as likely to get on as your #1 or #2. if he was, he shouldn't be in the #9 spot and, hence, seeing fewer PAs.

by larry on Aug 7, 2007 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Our #1,2, and 9 are, unfornutately,
interchangeable, right?  Almost?
Can anybody here play this game?

by winningugly on Aug 7, 2007 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well
  1. Who batted first the majority of the time?  A baseball season is 162 games.
  2. Who batted #2 when the players you listed lead off?  I doubt it was the best slugger on the team.
As I stated above I have seen managers use a prototypical #2 in the leadoff spot.  Bernie, Gruzielanek and Boggs fit this mold, Boggs especially because he was a doubles machine. I would never say Boggs wasn't an awesome leadoff hitter but what if a guy like Carl Crawford hit #1 and then Boggs followed him or visa versa.  I am debating the fact that some people in this thread stated that Thome leading off followed by Fields is a good idea.  I thought you where endorsing that notion.   I don't think Jason Giambi batted after Bernie I bet it was Jeter or some other guy with some speed.  Plus on a team like NY I could see how Bernie could end up at the #1 spot since 1-9 on that team all seem to have power.

I find it appalling that Oakland leadoff with Jeremy Giambi 39 times.  The guy sucked, and this is after he was digging through trash bins to finish of his brothers syringes.  Oakland also has some nerve leading off Jason Kendall.  They wonder why his career is just about over.  Sometimes teams do thinks and get result; it doesn't mean it's the correct approach.  They had really good pitching that's why they won.  Now they don't have the pitching and they stink.

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah
the As clearly have no pitching. they're only second in the AL with a 3.82 ERA.

tell me, do you enjoy making a fool of yourself by talking out of your ass?

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No I do not
I was unaware that a rotation of
  1. D. Haren
  2. J. Blanton
  3. C. Gaudin
  4. L. DiNardo
  5. D. Braden
was getting the job done.

I stand corrected.

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

your main problem
is you don't have the facts behind you. your enthusiasm is admirable but you don't understand the reasoning behind what the rest of us are saying. i'm not sure you understand fully what the argument you're making is, either. i suggest reading moneyball; remember, it's always essential to know what your adversary is thinking.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i don't think moneyball is an advisary
it's just he's talking before he's ready to.

by colintj on Aug 6, 2007 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

well
for example, he seems to think that batting jeremy giambi leadoff - when he had an OBP of .391 - is "appalling." i'd say the sound reasoning behind that would be described by moneyball.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jeromy Giambi?
Who batter 2nd after Giambi?  I doubt it was Chavez.  
You advocating batting our best power hitter and OBP  hitter in Thome first.  This would lead to a lot of intentional walks.  Expect allot of double plays over a 162 game season because a pitcher who has a clue will go after the #2 hitter to induce double plays.

I never said OBP isn't important its just that he should have speed and if not speed then hits for a lot of extra base hits.  Last I checked the best speedster who are lead-off hitter have high OBP's You can't put your best HR hitter who usually has allot of extra base hits and a high OBP in the lead off position and expect to win.  You better have a very good contact hitter at #2 and enough power at the 3 and 4 spot.  That's allot of millions people.  Only Boston and New York can afford such a lineup. I would like to see team try it, but on paper it seem silly to me.  I know Brady Anderson was a lead-off hitter when he hit 50 but he was juiced and Baltimore didn't will a extraordinary amount of games compared to everybody else.

Anaheim's 1-2 combo of
1.Figgins
2.Cabrera
is the perfect example of what I'm talking about.   You could flip flop them him you want a achieve the same havoc and less momentum killing double plays.

Who's Oakland batting lead-off now?  Mark Kotsay?  Seems like moneyball died after the juiced era.

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

^Fix
You could flip flop them if you want and achieve the same havoc and less momentum killing double plays.
I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

care to point out where i advocated
batting jim thome first? perhaps you could read this diary and find out exactly where i think he should be batted. seriously. quit it with this strawman, "i'll make up whatever argument i want you to make so i can argue against it." it's facile. it's immature. and it's annoying.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I said
"You advocating batting our best power hitter and OBP  hitter in Thome first"

You are of the opinion that having a player with very high OPS is more important than speed.  Well Thome has the best OBP on the team.  That's the impression I got.  Additionally I started arguing with another blogger about his 1-2 punch of Thome, Fields being a good idea.  That's when you agreed with him the OPS more important than speed.
It's kind of hard to know what your thinking when I can't  talk to you face to face.

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if it's hard
don't assume. ask. it's pretty simple. like most people, i don't want words put in my mouth. especially patently ridiculous ones.

by larry on Aug 7, 2007 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, my ridiculousness does not
have a "patent" or even a "patent pending" on it, lar.  Just brainstorming, you know?

Seems to me the reason it would be the sound of one hand clapping is because we have no one other than Thome who has an above-average (or close to league-leading) OBP.  the rest of the kids/vets can be shuffled interchangably.  Probably renders the whole "Who's #1?" discussion moot, since it doesn't matter right now.

Richar is the most likely #1, and as you point out in another post, he has only 25 PA's.  Tough to get excited about that.

Can anybody here play this game?

by winningugly on Aug 7, 2007 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Funny...
that you bring up Anahiem -- their offense for about the past four seasons has been very average.  

I think what most people are saying is that the Sox shouldn't go out of there way to bring in the typical "leadoff man".  Go out and bring in the best players possible who make sense logically and financially and go from there.

As for who I want leading off next season?  I wouldn't mind Richar leading off with Andy Gonzalez also leading off (against tougher lefties).  Richar seems to "handle the bat" well, but he's also got some pop in his bat.  He also seems to have a good batting eye.  And Gonzalez isn't afraid to draw a walk.  Who hits second?  If we got Tejada I'd stick him there.  If not?  Fields wouldn't be (and hasn't been, this season) a terrible option.

by CWSKeith on Aug 6, 2007 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've read moneyball
It's one of my favorite book, but I don't think it is as groundbreaking as some people think it is.  

I see a lot of teams following the same old traditional way of thinking and still win as much games and win just as consistently from year to year.  What Oakland is very good at is developing scouting and developing prospects. WOW! that's new. I thought teams already knew that one very important.
What Oakland has done over the past few years is very impressive but I'm just as impressed with impressed with the Twins, Marlins, Atlanta, Indians, and Detroit.  Are they playing moneyball?

The most important think I got from Moneyball is desire and passion shown bye a prospect is more important than potential.  That's why Brian Anderson and Joe Borchard can so easily be written off.
What did you take from the book?  

I'm a disgruntled Whitesox fan and I can't spell

by chisox on Aug 6, 2007 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that OBP is important
certainly a hell of a lot more important than stealing bases.

by larry on Aug 6, 2007 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

while obp certainly factored
Heavily in moneyball, I don't think the book should be read as an obp-bible.

I think the crux had more to do with the exploitation of spots in the market that were undervalued. Since obp was a newish concept- one that the likes of joe morgan could not wrap his mind around- it represented a way of valuing hitters that allowed beane to acquire effectiveness for below-market prices.

As his competitors learned from his success and began to react, beane probed other areas of the market. For a while he looked exclusively at college players. Now he may think that HS pitchers are where it's at.

OBP is old news now in the market sense, although its value as a metric of who should lead off (and in some ways, of who should play, period) has been clearly established.

I mean how many avoided double plays would it take for jerry owens and his sub-300 obp to catch up to giambi at .391? (Besides the fact that the lead runner is rarely the problem in a dp now matter how fast he is, and owens isn't hitting doubles at all)

More than owens can ever hope to manage.

by spengler on Aug 7, 2007 2:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i'm not claiming it's an OBP bible
i think the book goes into a pretty good explanation for why jeremy giambi leads off.

by larry on Aug 7, 2007 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point.
"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 Aug 6, 2007 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If we needed a DH, Edmonds would make a ton of
sense, but it looks like playing the field might be too much for him at the moment.  I wouldn't mind taking a flier if he doesn't cost too much and sticking him in left.  Like Thome, it's a low-risk high reward move for 2008 as long as the price is right.  He should not have anything to do with CF or RF and the Sox should give him plate appearance incentives to make the point: slow the hell down and swing.

Moises Alou would be a similar sort of acquisition.  In fact, my guess is that taking old players from the NL to play at 1B and DH can work ad infinitum.  Healthy and long term projectable power is hard to find.  One or two seasons worth is not so much.  Which is exactly what Kenny understood in building the '05 team.

by colintj on Aug 6, 2007 8:22 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Contreras is 3 or 4 starts away from being a .....
steal. You can say what you want to about him now but if he rattled off 3 or 4 good starts in a row....almost every team would want him then.

I wouldn't be so quick to close the book on this guy. He still may end up being valuable for the Sox or bringing a nice return - if he can start pitching well again in Sept. or in the spring.

by White Sox Randy on Aug 7, 2007 9:34 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I think so too.
We have to hold on to him and hope that happens.....you and I are probably the only two people in the world that believe he can still be an effective starter....albeit a too expensive one...I don't think he'll ever again be a 10 mil starter.....and that's why we have to keep him and hope for the best.

by dantesox on Aug 7, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How...
How many times does a leadoff hitter leadoff in a game?

Answer: 1

by nancyrocks on Aug 7, 2007 10:38 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

hmmm
not sure that's true. i distincly recall jerry owens leading off at least twice tonight.

by larry on Aug 7, 2007 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good math - could be at least 3 times
in a perfect game.  So what?  The #4 and #7 hitters would also be leading off 3 times in a perfect game.

So what's your point?  The "leadoff" hitter in the first inning has theoretically the same opportunities, plus one (usually) to lead off as does anyone else.  Right?

Or are you pulling my leg from my pelvis?

Can anybody here play this game?

by winningugly on Aug 8, 2007 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol
"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 Aug 9, 2007 8:44 AM 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

Dead_horse_4_small
Why the nickname bacon sucks and why you should all stop using it.

Recent FanPosts

Bear_down_small
Ozzie Joining FOX For World Series
Abide_small
Dear SSS, aka the ball busters who claim to be my biggest fans...
Throwingmotion_small
I Gotta Get Drunk (with da Cheat) And I Sure Do Regret It.
Deadhorse_small
White Sox Minor League Update: Round Up the Usual Suspects
Abide_small
OC gets FIAL at being BO
Omar_small
SSS Time Machine Tournament West Division Series Game 4
Omar_small
SSS Time Machine Tournament Central Division Series Game 4
Abide_small
Closing Time, Revisited SemiSonic Style
10083hb_small
Turning in the Grades

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

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

Recommended FanShots

Jim's Off-Season Sox Schedule...
The second episode of "The Offseason" from Oral Sox Podcast.

Recent FanShots

Sox acquire Mark Teahen?
Nationals hire Ron Schueler as special adviser to GM
Denver Post beat writers told to stop making game predictions
A Minor Legend: Path of the Pros: Aaron Rowand
OT: Joe Posnanski: Miller Lite eHarmony
Damon to White Sox?
Beckham and Thome Text About Deer Hunting
Bring him back!

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS

Follow SouthSideSox

Sssfacebook_button2_medium
Twitter3gif_medium


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