6 to 'Zona

by The Wizard on Aug 29, 2007 12:24 PM CDT in White Sox News

Mark Gonzales gives us the Sox AFL plans:

Pitchers Dewon Day, Jack Egbert, Fernando Hernandez and Adam Russell were named to the Desert Dogs' roster. Catcher Donny Lucy and infielder Chris Getz also were selected. The Sox are expected add an outfielder by the start of the AFL season on Oct. 9.

*****

The Seattle PI reports that the Mariners are close to giving Jose Guillen an extension:

The Mariners and outfielder Jose Guillen are close to completing a contract extension. The deal, apparently for three years, would replace the one-year mutual option that would have kept Guillen in Seattle for the 2008 season.

Wlad Balentien should be available? *****

In other Sox blogs,

Jim puts his accounting glasses on and helps Kenny save $20 million from next year's payroll.
Jeeves takes a look at Danny Richar.

Tweet Comment 50 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Balentien

Anyone have a grasp on what sort of deal the Mariners would be looking at for Balentien?

-Jeeves Life in the Cell, a Sweet Home Sports site

by jeeves on Aug 29, 2007 12:50 PM CDT reply actions

Garland, it was generally proposed

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Aug 29, 2007 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Kenny should have signed Jose Guillen...

in the offseason instead of Erstad and Podthetic. Guillen only received around $5 million, a million more than what Erstad and Podthetic are earning. I remember quite a few posters here wanting Jose Guillen for LF.

by SSH2005 on Aug 29, 2007 12:55 PM CDT reply actions

Guillen

IIRC, he was coming off of Tommy John. It was a pretty good deal for the Mariners but I could understand the hesitation to top their offer.

by CWSKeith on Aug 29, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions

I even remember you wanting Jose Guillen...

to play LF over Podthetic.

by SSH2005 on Aug 29, 2007 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I wanted Guillen too

But not really for this season, and not at the salary he commanded from the M's. I saw him as a good risk for the second half of '07, but more as a replacement for Dye next year. I wanted to sign him to a $10M deal, 2M in '07, 8M in '08.

Obviously, in hindsight, that wasn't going to happen. But it was a sound plan that would have worked out better than the current one, even at the added cost the M's payed.

Juan Rivera is the next name I'd be looking to add to a similar deal. Though I'm unsure of his FA status next season. I think he's probably got another year of arbitration.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Aug 29, 2007 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

In other MLB news...

"Dodgers claim Loaiza off waivers from A's"

The Dodgers have added another starting pitcher to their rotation, claiming right-hander Esteban Loaiza on waivers from the A's.

The teams did not complete a trade for Loaiza; the A's simply allowed the Dodgers to assume the rest of Loaiza's contract -- less than $1 million this season, plus Loaiza's entire $7 million salary for 2008.

Pretty good deal for the Dodgers to add a starter cheaply.

by SSH2005 on Aug 29, 2007 12:57 PM CDT reply actions

interesting move

i was busy yesterday but i find this a rather surprising development on two fronts: one, that the A's decided to cut him, especially considering the price of pitching and ability to get something for him in trade and two, that loiza lasted to the dodgers. $7 million is cheap and teams are going to be paying the same or more for similar or worse pitchers this offseason - and committing to longer deals.

Jerry Owens: he's a g*ddamn lead off hitter

by larry on Aug 30, 2007 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions

Well...

he's 35 years old and he's been hurt most of the year. I'd guess that team have serious concerns about his health going forward.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Aug 30, 2007 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions

still

an $8 million commitment? the cardinals basically paid $11.5 million for the same potential production with mark mulder. [yes, i know mulder is a better pitcher but i think it's comparable, all things considered.]

and that still doesn't explain why the As just let him go for just $20K.

Jerry Owens: he's a g*ddamn lead off hitter

by larry on Aug 30, 2007 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't know...

for sure, of course, but I'd guess that ownership told Beane to cut payroll by any means necessary. Beane probably felt that in order to get something of value in trade for Loaiza, he'd have to send money along with him, and ownership probably nixed that idea.

But that's just speculation on my part.

And I think most people acknowledge that the Cardinals made a huge mistake w/r/t Mulder, and didn't want to repeat that mistake.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Aug 30, 2007 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions

This sucks

So much for working out a Furcal/Contreras deal with LA this winter.

"I thought we were just playing bad, but, no, we're horseshit." - Oswaldo Guillen, Sr.

by ChicagoPete on Aug 30, 2007 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions

i suppose

but you could have waived him in the winter, too - and, obviously, your ability to trade is much higher because the other side wouldn't have to get someone through waivers going the other way. just seems sort of puzzling to give away decent starting pitching.

the dodgers are certainly stocking up for the stretch run, though.

Jerry Owens: he's a g*ddamn lead off hitter

by larry on Aug 30, 2007 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions

''the day I consider VORP...

... is the day I get out of the business

is this pete's evil twin brother?

by The Wizard on Aug 29, 2007 2:34 PM CDT reply actions

I forgot 'lost'

I hope pete doesn't have a twin brother!

by The Wizard on Aug 29, 2007 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions

VORP

Didn't Captain Kirk battle that mother-f***er like 40 years ago?

"I give Ozzie an 'A'... This team has never packed it in and I give Ozzie the credit." - Jerry Reinsdorf

by tailgater on Aug 29, 2007 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh no

"Dammit, give me VORP Zero Kennie!"
"She can't take it Ozzie! The GrindoMeter's already at 11!"

But seriously, I always love speed.

by ChicagoPete on Aug 29, 2007 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions

It's funny because I actually e-mailed Heyman

I read his column and saw that he basically ranked his Cy Young candidates by wins. So I sent a note saying he relies entirely too much on wins considering that it is a stat almost equally dependent on how a pitcher's offense is doing. I also mentioned that if he's considering Reyes he HAS to, at the minimum, consider Hanley who has better stats than Reyes in nearly every category save for steals and one other category I can't recall off the top of my head, I think triples. Of course I cited VORP first, but I said if that doesn't suit you here's the other stats and listed off all the traditional stats.

He actually e-mailed me back, which I was shocked, but he fired back that "I put entirely too little emphasis on wins. Give me a guy with 20 wins anyday." He goes on to close by saying the game is more than "a buncha stats"

-Jeeves Life in the Cell, a Sweet Home Sports site

by jeeves on Aug 29, 2007 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions

That's funny.

I don't even pay attention at all to pitcher wins. They do tell you a little something about a pitcher (you do have to be pretty good to win 20 games in a season, regardless of the circumstances), but there are so many stats that tell you much more about a pitcher's success.

And the game is more than a bunch of stats, but stats tell you what happened in the game. And wins are a stat, too.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Aug 29, 2007 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions

I was really tempted to reply

with a bunch of snide comments, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort, because no matter how much evidence I provide, he's too set in his (incorrect) ways. Instead I'll mock him mercilessly behind his back.

-Jeeves Life in the Cell, a Sweet Home Sports site

by jeeves on Aug 29, 2007 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Super duper funny.

The standard line, at least that I've heard from Bloe Morgan, is that to get the win you have to be tough and keep your team in tight ballgames, and that's why wins are so important.

Um, well, if a guy has an ERA of 2, for instance, wouldn't that by definition mark him as a pitcher who keeps his team in damn near every game in which he appears? And even ERA is team defense (positioning, etc.) and ballpark dependent.

What a joke. If I'm a GM or a fan, I'll take the guy who goes 10-20 with a 3.00 ERA over a guy who goes 20-10 with a 4.50 ERA every day.

Half of my life, spent doing time for some other fucker's crime. The other half found me stumbling around, drunk on burgundy wine.

by Toonderstrook on Aug 29, 2007 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions

But

the guy who goes 20-10 with a 4.50 ERA is a bulldog that "pitches to the score" and "knows how to win".
Isn't he?

by hitlesswonder on Aug 29, 2007 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions

haha

as is the guy that is staked to a 10-0 lead and gives up only 9 runs.

-Jeeves Life in the Cell, a Sweet Home Sports site

by jeeves on Aug 29, 2007 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions

This is why I love Verducci

I get the feeling that the stats geeks would prefer not to play the games at all, just crank it through the computer, prove their point that Team A is best, and crown them champs, and then let the blogosphere and Internet argue it out, maybe use it for 10 or 12 more Top 10 lists. Maybe if y'all would put down the Bill James and actually watch a bleeping game you'd have a bleeping clue ... [The Diamondbacks and Mariners] play together, play smart, never give up an out, have exceptional closers, and win most of the games that they have a chance to win. It ain't rocket science; it's as old as when the only stats were wins, losses, batting average and ERA.
-- Jon DeMent, St. Cloud, Minn.

Here's the way I look at it: It's not an either/or proposition. Stats can enhance your understanding and passion for the game; and your understanding and passion of the game should keep the stats in their proper context. What I find really interesting is when stats challenge some time-honored baseball "traditions" or conventions. But I still think one of the best things about baseball is -- despite the wealth of information we have about past performance -- its unpredictability. No matter how much we know about baseball, that will always be true.

Doesn't go all out with saber-ish stats, but he does utilize them and in context

-Jeeves Life in the Cell, a Sweet Home Sports site

by jeeves on Aug 29, 2007 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions

-- Jon DeMent, St. Cloud, Minn.

Is DeMent really the guy's name? Perfect.

"I thought we were just playing bad, but, no, we're horseshit." - Oswaldo Guillen, Sr.

by ChicagoPete on Aug 29, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree with Sox Machine's

salary dumps. They all gotta go.

Pods, Erstad, Contreras (#1 priority), Crede, Cintron, McDougal, Hall, Uribe... make them all go away. Blow it up.

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

by Shoeless In SC on Aug 29, 2007 3:35 PM CDT reply actions

Contreras cant get paid if hes dead right?

Lets just plant an exploding cigar in his humidor, problem solved. Unless hes celebrating another loss, or Castro dies again.

The leadoff position is the hardest to fill.

by omnipotent grab on Aug 29, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions

On that list....

3 guys are less easy to replace than the others:
MacDougal, Uribe, Hall. I don' see how Uribe can be brought back a $6M -- that's just too much. But the Sox will need to make sure they can trade for a new SS or sign Eckstein. If Uribe would agree to a 2 year deal at $3M a year that might be OK. Hopefully he'd be a utility player in 2009. Anyway clearly something has to be done there.

I'd keep MacDougal rather than let him go for nothing. He still might turn it around and has at least as good a chnce to do so as any vet the Sox sign. He doesn't make much so I think he's worth the gamble.

If Hall's shoulder weren't falling off, I'd be in favor of keeping him as well. There's no backup in the Sox system. And that cost is sunk. Would eating the contract and bringing up Wiki be worth it? I don't know.....

by hitlesswonder on Aug 29, 2007 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Get the chain saw out, please

I'm glad the season's got another month to go, five more weeks if this should remove all doubt.

If Ozzie's finally starting to look at this team objectively instead of just being his usual jokemeister self, then KW shouldn't be far behind. But who knows, the Dye extension and the Pods maneuver leads me to believe that he thinks this season is just a bad dream.

"I thought we were just playing bad, but, no, we're horseshit." - Oswaldo Guillen, Sr.

by ChicagoPete on Aug 29, 2007 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Mac

is owed around $2 million next year. That's quite a bit.

"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 29, 2007 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Not really...

Look at what Baez (sp?) got from Baltimore and Speier from LAA. Linebrink, who may be falling apart, will get way more than that. Mac's career numbers are not bad. He may be done, who knows. But $2M isn't too much to gamble that he isn't. Look at the package Linebrink got -- if Mac has a good first half next season he would be flippable for an actual prospect. And it's not like Mac is blocking anyone.

by hitlesswonder on Aug 29, 2007 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Off-topic: Nardi Contreras sighting

Newsday blames former Sox pitching coach and current NYY minor league instructor Nardi for creating the "Joba rules" which will prevent the Yankees from reaching the postseason. That's right, a payroll over $200M and their postseason hopes rest on pitching Joba's arm off down the stretch. Sheesh.

by hitlesswonder on Aug 29, 2007 6:08 PM CDT reply actions

speaking of stas

I flunked general math freshman year of high school. I was terrible with numbers and had no interest in getting better. Of course the USAF made me an accountant, and then I spent 20 or so years in the trading pits... Go figure.
All of that is to explain why, against all odds, Bill James changed my life. Sound dramatic? My wife and daughters would be the first to tell you that they know they're #1 on the charts, but only #2 in my heart (though the music of Shawn Phillips sometimes creeps up there too). In other words, nothing is greater than my love for baseball, especially after reading my first Baseball Abstract in 1980. I didn't/couldn't follow the math but I could certainly understand his points about what was and wasn't important in baseball. His gift was the equivalent of a "sports Viagra" that has grown bigger and stronger since then, and lasted 27 years now. Should I call a doctor?
Anyway, remind me to someday tell the story of sitting next to James on a plane in the middle of the first Stock Market Baseball season, with me pulling out reams of stats from my briefcase and discussing philosophy of trading, market psychology, and especially market manipulation as it applied to his and STATS game. Almost as much fun as my two hour lunch with Bill Veeck.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Aug 29, 2007 6:42 PM CDT reply actions

Ah yes, the Baseball Abstract

You met Bill James, very cool - tell us more! I read my first one in '87, and I was stunned. Baseball became an entirely different game after reading that book. For one thing, before that I thought Hawk knew what he was talking about.

"I thought we were just playing bad, but, no, we're horseshit." - Oswaldo Guillen, Sr.

by ChicagoPete on Aug 29, 2007 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Wow, disclosure from the heart,

sincere, and genuine. How feminine.

;)

I'd love to hear about your 2 hours with the Veeckmeister. Man, that HAS to be the apex of your existence. It would be for me. (Hell, I'd settle for Mike Veeck.)

Your '08 White Sox management: A bunch of jag bags

by winningugly on Aug 29, 2007 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions