White Sox extend Pierzynski, ensure losing 2009 season

by The Cheat on Sep 29, 2007 9:03 PM CDT in White Sox News

As if the news that Mike Myers remains a good bet to make the 2008 club wasn't enough of a sign that the White Sox have every intention of emulating the Baltimore Orioles (in a very bad way), they announced the extension of their slow-footed catcher through his age 33 season.

When Ozzie Guillen was extended a few weeks ago, I feared what it could mean from a player personnel perspective.

I like Ozzie... I don't have a problem with him being given an extension, but I do fear what this extension could mean for the future of the franchise.

Even though the Sox current roster is full of rookies, Ozzie has shown extreme reluctance to go through a rebuilding effort, stating many times before the trade deadline that this team wasn't rebuilding. Looking over the Sox roster and minor leagues, I can't see how they climb from the depths as perhaps the worst team in baseball without some type of youth movement. Perhaps that's just because I lack vision, but I suspect it's more a case of not wanting to become the Baltimore Orioles.

I fully understand that the White Sox have zero in-house options to replace Pierzynski -- That's completely their own fault. They have no need for a rookie hitting .255/.332/.422 from the catcher's spot -- but that's no reason to excuse them from extending yet another player on the wrong side of 30. Like Contreras and Vazquez before him, Pierzynski has one year remaining on his current contract before the new deal even starts. So while it's just a two year extension, it feels like three.

The Pierzynski extension gives the Sox 7 players [Buehrle (30), Vazquez (32), Contreras (37?), Konerko (33), Dye (35), Pierzynski (32), and Thome (option year, 38)] (age in '09 season) who are all signed through at least 2009. Add in the probable off-season acquisitions of Torii Hunter (33 in '09) or Aaron Rowand (31) , and David Ecstein (34) and the White Sox figure to be one of the oldest teams in baseball. Not coincidentally, they also figure to be one of the worst. Perhaps the more valid comparison is the San Francisco Giants without the added benefit of the best hitter in baseball.

The second half of '06 should have been the dead canary in the coal mine. '07 left no doubt that this team was too old, too immobile, and contained far too many one-tool players. It appears the White Sox solution is to simply order more canaries.

* * * * *

Scary projected 2009 roster after the jump

Name '09 Age '09 Salary Mark Buehrle 30 $14.00 Jose Contreras 37 $10.00 Jemaine Dye 35 $11.50 Paul Konerko 33 $12.50 AJ Pierzynski 32 $6.25 Jim Thome 38 $13.00 Javier Vazquez 32 $11.50 ====================================== Avg. Age: 33.9 $78.75M Torii Hunter 33 ~$17.50 Aaron Rowand 32 ~$11.00 David Eckstein 34 ~$6.50 ====================================== ~$17.5-$24M Total 9 players ~$96-103M

Tweet Comment 57 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

re

I fully understand that the White Sox have zero in-house options to replace Pierzynski ... but that's no reason to excuse them from extending yet another player on the wrong side of 30.

and what would you do?

or are you saying 'I'd have done the same but that's no excuse'

PS. I would do what Kenny did, maybe wrongly...

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 5:52 PM CDT reply actions

I would have been moving guys in May

Dye, Contreras, etc... Bringing in a replacement for Pierzynski in the process.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Sep 29, 2007 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions

oh, May

then I probably would have done the same as you

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions

AJ's just under his 40th percentile PECOTA

this year, but there's not much difference between that and his 50th, so I would say PECOTA has a good idea of what he'll be going forward. His 2009 VORP is projected at 3.5 and his 2010 at 3.2. Revise it downward a tad if you want, but that's bad enough as it is. Why would we pay $6m+ for 2 years of that?

What's worse is the presumption that no better options will be available to us at any point after the '08 and '09 seasons. What is the actual likelihood of that? We're not getting better, we're just getting older.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Sep 29, 2007 6:09 PM CDT reply actions

just so you know

those projected numbers are "worth" roughly $6 million a year.

by larry on Sep 29, 2007 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah

we're not overpaying, but there doesn't need to be an urgency to re-sign aging mediocre players who play a position that typically does not age well.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Sep 29, 2007 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions

at this point

it doesn't matter much to me. just another in a line. i simply hope that all this means is that KW wants to get this done so he can focus on other things.

that's really the thing about all these re-signings so far: none of them are awful contracts. they're just not particularly good ideas, either.

by larry on Sep 29, 2007 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions

It's not a great idea

if you are trying to rebuild and keep some flexibility in dealing. We are painted into the proverbial corner.

So 2010 or bust, right? Cheat, hope you keep the site going, though you will have to have the patience of Job. Better double Wiz' pay!

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Sep 29, 2007 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Seriously? That's just a tick above replacement

level with crappy defense. That's 6 mil?

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Sep 29, 2007 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions

check your PECOTA card

MORP for AJ in 2009 and 2010 totals $12.3 million. obviously that will be adjusted some for next year based on his performance this year and how the FA market acts and so on but the sox's valuation doesn't look inaccurate right now. the true and more worrisome problems with the deal have already been thoroughly expounded upon elsewhere.

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions

I just hate that we're limiting ourselves

to such an utter lack of upside and break out potential. We know that until 2011, we're going to have lackluster catching.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 1, 2007 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions

well

we don't "know" that. players do get traded and whatnot. let's be honest, though: most teams have lackluster catching. there simply aren't a lot of good cathers out there right now or ones that have upside or break out potential. in that sense, this isn't an awful move on its face - it just seems to have come a bit too early. KW could have at least explored things this offseason to see if he could pick up someone via trade. i suppose there is something to be said for focusing on a few high priorities during the offseason (and catcher usually isn't a high priority) but it's just another one of those moves this year that makes a fan go "huh?"

of course, there are season ticket holders like this who love the move - and you worry when a team starts pandering to guys like this a bit too much.

link

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Trying to get a mental picture of that guy...

and all I can come up with is Summer's Eve.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Oct 1, 2007 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions

Naw,

it's a guy, but it's a staunch rock-ribbed Bible thumping cornerstone of the U S of A. Once we get every fresh-faced, apple-cheecked, aw-shucks country boy on this team we'll be jest fine.

(Where does that leave Pods, obviously a male whore? Or B. Jenks, or is he OK now that he has seen the light? Or Uribe, who has his attorney on speed dial?)

Wait, come to think of it, we had some pains in the ass in '05 (Truth, Big Frank, etc.) and we won it all. Maybe we need more turbulence. Writers today are ripping Willie Randolph and David Wright for being too laid back and not vocal enough in their leadership. Who's our guy that calls everyone out when necessary (like, in April this year)?

Bring back The Truth and all is forgiven.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions

it's funny

those same writers in new york were ripping on the other team's manager for not yelling and screaming enough when the yanks were losing. torre still doesn't yell or scream, the yankees start to do well anyway so, of course, the writers then apply the same theory to the mets when they lose. flawless.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, if I were a Met fan (or player)

I'd burn down the media outlets who publish that crap. I was getting pissed at the absurdity of the comments. Same feeling today when I was reading Robothal's piece about the Pads' decision to not pitch Peavy yesterday on 3 days rest. Read it and you'll see it is a completely circular argument that keeps chasing its tail, with no real conclusion.

Like most of my posts.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Oct 1, 2007 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions

it's one of those odd things

that is difficult to figure out. the mets finished with the same record as many predicted them to have. if they had a similar losing streak (and the phillies had a similar winning streak) in, say, june instead of to close out the season what would the stories have said? and the mets had transferred one of their early season hot streaks to the end of the year and phillies transferred their poor early play to the end of the year - but the final standings had been exactly the same? is there really anything much to read into the timing of these things? i don't know the answer to that.

as for peavy and rosenthal, i think they were right to take the gamble - it just didn't work out. ken mentions that the d-backs didn't have much incentive against the rox; what large incentive did the brewers have against the padres? hell, the d-backs looked pretty feisty against the rox.

by larry on Oct 1, 2007 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions

But enough negative waves:

Red-hot Purdue beats Irish

Now THERE's a headline I can get behind.

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Sep 29, 2007 9:09 PM CDT reply actions

I can't wait to see Juan Uribe back as well...

at $5 million dollars. His late season hitting surge in garbage time will convince Kenny to bring him back as well.

20 homers and 68 RBI's!!!

...with a .683 OPS.

by SSH2005 on Sep 29, 2007 9:12 PM CDT reply actions

Preaching to the choir, bro

Wait until 2010!

by winningugly on Sep 29, 2007 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions

but we need some clutch hitters

you know, clutch enough to turn #2 into #12...

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Is that a poop reference?

Cause I have no idea what a #12 is!

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Sep 29, 2007 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions

draft picks!

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm with Ozzie on this

and apparently the ONLY one that agrees with him (on this site):
what's better out there? "Stuck" with Uribe is too harsh considering the alternatives. Visquel and Eckstein are jokes, and besides... An adequate lineup should be able to carry him batting 8 or 9.
Beware the cure isnt worse than the disease.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Sep 29, 2007 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions

1 year of uribe sounds attractive

compared to 3+ of eckstein...

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Exactly

my thought. And if nothing else, we get to see another year of Uribe swinging really, really hard. By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that the radio guys now promounce Uribe's name as "uh-ree-bay" instead of "yoor-ee-bay"?

by palehose67 on Sep 30, 2007 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions

no LF in instructional league for josh fields

due to a "tired lower half" and a need to rest his legs says kenny

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 9:45 PM CDT reply actions

What round / pick was Suzuki selected?

Where did the Sox pick that year and who did we pick instead?

Couldn't find it on his baseball ref. page.

I know I'm just asking for disappointment.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Sep 29, 2007 9:52 PM CDT reply actions

2004

2nd round. Sox looking for a catcher, they take Donald Lucy. On the spot several of us were bitching, as Suzuki was quite clearly the better player. Lucy showed nothing at Stanford other than "TOOLZ!" to be drafted there. Suzuki gets drafted by the A's, they get a starting catcher for the next six years, we get (if we're lucky) a below average backup.

by CWSKeith on Sep 29, 2007 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Baseball America

Rated Suzuki as the 48th best draft prospect. Lucy was #171. Just a terrible signability pick.

by Bull Pain on Sep 29, 2007 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Yep

the Sox had "too many" picks that year -- the last year they decided to offer arbitration to departing players -- the only player who wasn't a "value" (read: cheap) pick was Gio, who, not surprisingly, has turned into their best prospect. Even Fields was a cheap pick, because the Sox were able to spread his signing bonus of 5 seasons thanks to him being a 2-sport athlete.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Sep 29, 2007 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions

Searching in the wrong place, apparently

I see that Liotta (is he still playing?), Whisler (5.00 ERA with the Barons), and Lucy (14 AB with the Sox this year, .471 OPS in AAA this year) were selected by the Sox in the 2nd round of the 2004 draft. Obviously the Sox screwed the pooch on that one.

Sox 1st round selections were: Fields, Gio, and Lumsden (traded to KC along with Dan Cortes for MacDougal).

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Sep 29, 2007 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions

2004, 2nd round, 67th pick

53 FrRnd 12 WhiteSox Wesley Whisler P
59 FrRnd 18 WhiteSox Donald Lucy C
69 FrRnd 28 WhiteSox Raymond Liotta P
67 FrRnd 26 Athletics Kurt Suzuki C

others:

45 FrRnd 4 D'Rays Reid Brignac SS
46 FrRnd 5 Brewers Yovani Gallardo P
61 FrRnd 20 Twins Anthony Swarzak P
64 FrRnd 23 Astros Hunter Pence OF
65 FrRnd 24 RedSox Dustin Pedroia SS

link

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Brett Smith, Eric Beattie, Matthew Durkin

The first 3 picks of the 2nd round that year. By the Yankees, Mets and Tigers. We could play the "see how stupid this team is they passed on X" game all day long. That's the nature of the MLB draft.

by bhoov on Sep 29, 2007 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions

Talent-starvation

I get the feeling the Sox are so starved for talent that they are panicing and locking up mediocrity (or worse) performance. Seriously, what's the deal with paying Mike Myers real money to lose ballgames?

by hitlesswonder on Sep 29, 2007 10:09 PM CDT reply actions

reinsdorf has a jersey

signed by every member of the 500 HR club since ted williams in his cell box

can we auction it off and hire some scouts?

by The Wizard on Sep 29, 2007 10:37 PM CDT reply actions

Interesting Williams quote

Maybe I'm reading too much into things...:

"I'll put it to you this way," Williams said during a 35-minute interview with reporters Saturday. "There isn't one player out there who will be available that we will turn away from. If that player can help us, we're going to go down that road to see if the fit is there and the economics match."

If Kenny is firm in his belief about competing next year, there's one player to go after. He won't cost you a draft pick, will be a one year commitment and would make the Sox' 3-4-5-6 part of the order the best in all of baseball. We're already an aging offense, what's another 40 year old gonna hurt, right?

by CWSKeith on Sep 30, 2007 1:52 AM CDT reply actions

I've heard this BS about the FA market before...

and it still always comes down to money. Don't believe Kenny.

by SSH2005 on Sep 30, 2007 7:32 AM CDT up reply actions

i wouldn't want him on the team

but you're right that he's better (much better) than other options if that's the plan. of course, what happens with fields/crede? think of the revolt if he signs and the sox let crede go...

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions

I think he's referring to

Bonds, not ARod

by BustedFlush on Sep 30, 2007 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions

i know

fields is supposedly going to play LF next year, presuming crede returns. if bonds come here, he's playing LF. so where's fields?

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Gotcha

by BustedFlush on Sep 30, 2007 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Meet the new Sox, same as the old Sox

So we're bringing back Uribe (no Eckstein), Crede, AJ's locked up couple more years, JD's locked up, etc etc

This is the team we'll be seeing for the next few years, get used to it. The only major change will be bringing in Rowand or Hunter, and trading either JC or JG for prospects. So payroll will stay where this year is, we'll get older, and our starting pitching will be worse because we'll probably swap out Garland for Floyd. And the bullpen will be another experiment, except we'll have the savvy vet Mike Myers in there.

It's obvious that management thinks that this is all a bad dream, and we'll wake up and it'll be 2005 and champagne again. Very strange, I thought KW would be more realistic about what's out there on the field.

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

by ChicagoPete on Sep 30, 2007 7:20 AM CDT reply actions

Age limit

1b / DH = 36 years old
2b = 25
SS = 33
3b = 32
LF = 33
CF = 23
RF = 33

starters (1 - 4) = 27, 35, 39, 45
closer = 38

The yankees are old, slow, overpaid, and still winning.

Lets see what happens in the off season before writing off the rest of the decade.

by bingodog on Sep 30, 2007 7:40 AM CDT reply actions

Yankees talent >>> White Sox talent

Posada > Pierzynski
Mientkiewicz < Konerko
Cano > Richar
Jeter > Uribe
A-Rod > Crede
Matsui > Fields
Damon & Cabrera > Owens & Erstad
Matsui > Fields
Abreu > Dye
Giambi < Thome

As you can see, we have only two better position players than the Yankees. They have TALENTED older players. We mostly have MEDIOCRE older players.

by SSH2005 on Sep 30, 2007 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions

Yanks vs Sox

Thats weird, because weren't the teams basically the same in 2005? So talent doesn't always equate to championships. Those talented older players have not won squat since 2000.

I don't think the AJ signing is going to ensure anything. Odds are that he will rebound and have a better year offensively. The Sox just need a better bullpen, and to add a high OPS guy in the order.

by RME JICO on Sep 30, 2007 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Terrible AJ move.......

Can't believe they extended the guy......why not make him get in tip-top shape this off-season and WORK for a new contract instead of handing it to him.

Also, the STL Cardinals seem to be a very good match with the Sox. The Cardinals definitely have interest in Garland.....they have a 300 plus AA catch Bryan Anderson....they also have a handful of MI prospects.....how about Anderson, MI prospect and Reyes for Garland and some change? Let Anderson spend 08 in Charlotte and then challenge for the starting catcher job in '09.

I'm losing respect for Kenny and I'll lose all of it if Uribe is brought back as our SS.

by stanchar on Sep 30, 2007 9:53 AM CDT reply actions

September record and 2008

The Sox will finish with either .593 winning percentage in September if they go 16-11
or .555 if they go 15-12 [depending on today's game results Sunday]
This frightens me! Will KW conclude we are so close we do not need any major surgery and we have the horses to win in 2008?
Lest we forget, Uribe has been playing well in September but can we depend on this "Uribe" or the one who flirted with the Mendoza line most of the year?
I pray KW doesn't think we can be Champions next season by bringing back Uribe, Hall, Pods, Cintron, Terrero,Ozuna,Gonzalez, Contreras, MacDougal,Bukvich, Myers, Massett, Sisco, Aardsma.
I can happily live with trading Contreras, Garland and all of the above if KW is able to obtain a reliable .300/.450/.500 center fielder, while we see how Crede returns, Fields/Owens can play left and our pitching is solidified with Danks, Broadway, Floyd or some acquisitions. Have a good offseason KW and everyone.

by Florida Jim on Sep 30, 2007 10:29 AM CDT reply actions

ozzie answers

"Two things in baseball," he said. "Don't believe what you see in spring training or in September.

"If you are in it in September, every game counts. If you are out of it, nothing counts."

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions

i see three MLB games on my TV today

none of which mean anything. nice job, bud.

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 12:05 PM CDT reply actions

nice to see us treating the new signing

with kid gloves.

Today's Lineup

Owens, CF; Fields, 3B; Thome, DH; PK, 1B; Dye, RF; Pods, LF; Uribe, SS; Richar, 2B; Hall, C. Contreras pitching.

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 12:07 PM CDT reply actions

couple more things about AJ

the sox apparently hand out these limited no trades like candy. AJ has one to six undisclosed teams.

and KW is a true believer:

"I believe A.J., to a large degree, still has some untapped talent. And I still believe he can be a .300 hitter like he was before he got here. I also believe he can hit with power and drive in some big runs, and he has done that over the past few years."

link

by larry on Sep 30, 2007 12:19 PM CDT reply actions