Dojji

Except they will, because there's no way to avoid it. Hopefully they'll use it as a tiebreaker like they should.

Stat geeks aren't limited to stats alone. No reputable stat geek denies that the human element exists and can be an X factor. They just recognize that that X factor can't be quantified. Meanwhile the traditionalists are the ones that are blocking themselves from whole realms of knowable things as regards the sport they profess to love. No stat geek I ever met has a problem admitting that X factors exist. They just like to know what is knowable. I fail to understand why a desire to know the knowable is such a barrier for some.

No there isn't. Bogaerts was uncomfortable, played uncomfortably, and said he was uncomfortable. So did Betts, if not quite in so many words. The difference is the team stuck with the shift, and Betts had the time to actually get used to the position over time. Bogaerts would have adjusted too. The reason they didn't do the same thing with Bogaerts is because no one with two eyes connected to a working brain actually thought Iglesias was going to wind up being the better of the two shortstops since Iglesias was a high-floor-low-ceiling player, and Bogaerts' tremendous ceiling as a shortstop was obvious even at 20 years old. At the moment of course it's no contest at all. Iglesias is a fringe-average shortstop who lives on inconsistent, flashy defense, and Bogaerts is easily one of the 5 best shortstops in baseball right now. (for the record: As inconsistent and not-all-that-good as Iglesias is, he beats the pants off any other shortstop we'd had at that position for years, with the exception of 2013 Stephen Drew, and if we didn't have Bogaerts, I would have been satisfied with Iglesias' work, since he's young, cost-controlled, and not a liability on either side of the ball. But we did have Bogaerts, and he is and was always going to be the better of the two shortstops) Also we all thought Middlebrooks was the future at 3B at the time anyway, with another top prospect (Cecchini) closing in behind him, so moving a shortstop over to cover a position that looked like it was sorted, wasn't on the itinerary. I refuse to ride management too hard for making decisions that only look bad based on information that was by no means clear at the time, such as the failure of our 3B prospects.

And if the same pitchers had been throwing well, we'd have said they were relaxed and confident and how well their calmness reflected on the management. There is a reason I never read Boston sports media and avoid the likes of the Dan Shaugnessey in particular like the plague. All they really do is react to the effect of what happens and try to pretend that there's an overarching narrative to it, and I can do that all by myself.

The fact that it's an "ego thing" doesn't mean that the limitation can be ignored. Players can't always be expected to put their ego aside. This is competitive sports, not the military. Ego can be central to the confidence some players need to perform well.

THat surprises me. The White Sox aren't that far from contention -- a couple good signings and they're right in it. Basically they just need to improve their lineup a little

I don't think it's ever quite that simple. Personally I suspect Daisuke's decline happened after the deadline in 2007, before he ever played in that WBC. If memory serves, Daisuke went from being a very durable starter to struggling to get through 5 innings starting in that bad spell we had in August of 2007, and he really was never quite the same pitcher after that August that he had been before. Could be injury? Yes it could. Or it could be that the league started to adjust to him at that point. Or maybe that was just when I started to notice the cracks starting to spread, But anyway, no, I'm not fully convinced that the real problems started after 2008 when there were obvious problems by the end of 2007. I remain convinced that Daisuke hid an injury from the team starting at the end of July 2007, and it was concealing that injury that led to the fallout to his career after that point. I distinctly remember Daisuke touching 96 on the radar gun several times in his first few months with the team, and living around 93-94 MPH. I distinctly remember that almost never happening after July 2007 after which he frequently sat 91-92 and with that subtle-but-significant drop in fastball velocity, started to lose confidence in his power stuff and get serious about the whole nibbling thing he would become unfortunately well known for. Now what is possible, is that the problems Daisuke was already concealing went from minor to critical as a result of participating in the WBC instead of focusing on recovery. That's certainly a distinct possibility that matches history as I remember it. But I don't think there's as obvious a year-to-year breakdown, first year completely uninjured and pristine, second year, one foot in the grave.

REplace "entertainers" with "workers" and ask the same question. Congratulations, you're a robber baron. Everyone needs recognition when they do a good job. I don't see why that's difficult to understand in any way.

the third base coach is always going to be one of the more unpopular coaches. The most common nicknames for a third base coach are "Windmill" and "Redlight" depending on whether fans have decided he's way too cautious (costing runs) or way too aggressive (costing outs). No one is perfect enough as a 3B coach to avoid the ire of fans indefinitely.

i would not willingly trade Pomeranz' issues for Hill's issues and even Buchholz may be more durable next year considering how much younger he is than Hill

We already have Moncada. If the whole selling point of Gurriel is that he's big league ready right now that's one thing, if it'd take 12-18 months of minor league time to get him ready... Moncada makes him redundant.

I don't care who to blame for the past. I care what Panda is in the future. I too think he deserves a fair shot to prove that his rehabilitation is genuine. But this is also the LAST chance. If he shows up out of shape again he needs to be released outright on the spot and nevermind the roster math.

Not sure Swihart has the time left to even improve to average defensively. He's got the raw talent, but he should have put it together by now, at least to the point of adequacy. His bat is so far ahead of his glove right now that the best thing for Swihart may very well be to follow the bat and move him off catcher. He's definitely got the athleticism to play a number of positions.

Leon was considered Vazquez Light when he was brought in. His defensive stats and scouting rates also put him among the top defensive catching prospecfts and he was considered a very capable defender. The question with Leon is whether the progress with the bat is at least partially genuine. If the .800 OPS is for real he's an All-Star, but it's almost definitely not for real, the question is where the real level is. If he was complete flash in the pan he's still easily a capable big league backup catcher, albeit one that won't hit for you. He'd be the guy that starts a few games, maybe caddies a finicky starter, and comes in for your stick-first starting catcher in close-and-late situations to minimize mistakes. Guy like that can make himself useful even if the offense just isn't there at all. The real problem for both Vazquez and Leon is that theyre both such similar catchers. If you just sticl both of them on the roster and wait to see which one claims the starting job, what the hell do you do when the answer is "neither?" We thought this was the conundrum we were dealing with last year with Vazquez and Swihart, and the answer was Leon. How long do you keep these two on your roster if neither of them is hitting and neither of them have options and Swihart is right there waiting?

As I understand it you don't have to be called up to lose an option year -- just be on the 40 man roster. Vazquez was added in 2012, leaving 2013, 2014 and 2015 as his option years as in each year he was optioned to the minors following Spring Training -- and explaining why he wasn't sent back down after being called up to replace Swihart. Options and service time are related but I don't believe they're directly connected. Someone can correct me on any of this.

Dear God someone PLEASE change the name of this thread!!!!!

Koji could still be very very useful in a limited role

THIS is why I hate bloody megathreading -- lumping all posts on a topic into one thread regardless of context. Every time I see this thread title rise to the top I say "Oh wait what, again? Is this another surgery or...? Wait, no. No it's just the title we arbitrarily decided to file all Swihart discussion into just so that I get to have a mini heart attack anytime anyone has anything to say on the subject of Blake Swihart."

'm kinda hoping Kelly can step into that role.

GG Mr. Bets, well deserved

I think if Tek moves in any coaching direction, it would be towards being a pitching coach, similar to another former catcher named Dave Duncan

Just sayin'

My position on the Bill James relief ace model vs the closer model is unchanged. If you have zero good relievers it doesn't matter, you're screwed If you have 1 good reliever it doesn't matter, if you use him as a fireman instead of a closer, you're screwed in late innings, if you use him as a closer rather than a fireman, you're screwed in middle innings. If there's any advantage to be had, securing the late innings gives you a slight chance to come back if the middle innings screw you over. If you have more than 1 good reliever, it still doesn't matter, because you have the good arms you need to fill both roles, and if the debate is over which to use where, see prior paragraph only less so. This is obviously an oversimplification since you need multiple good arms to win anything at the big league level, but I think it still makes the point clearly enough. THe whole debate is much ado about nothing. If your talent is good enough, it doesn't matter which reliever you use where within reason, if your talent is not good enough -- same thing.

The other bottom line is that we won the division this year, we're reasonably well set up for the short-to-intermediate future, and it's stupid to try to project anything more than about 3 years out in this sport. It's entirely possible that Anderson Espinosa never makes the majors. It's entirely possible he does, is a fantastic player, and Pomeranz helps us win a ring in the meantime and nobody cares. It's entirely possible that Pomeranz is hurt by next opening day, never pitches again, and certain people whose motivations I comprehend but don't understand get to validate their existence by playing the told-you-so game on an Internet forum. All of these are possibilities but none is more than a possibility. None of these outcomes have happened yet, so posting as if anything is a foregone conclusion is an exercise in self-delusion.

Who still collects baseball cards? Even if someone did -- if the baseball card printers decided to print up a series of GM cards along with the Manager cards they've printed for decades -- yeah, people would collect them. Why not? Ever since the Moneyball era began, if not before, general managers have been front and center of any conversation about a baseball team, and we talk about various GM's and FO's nearly as much as we talk about the players, especially in the offseason. General Managers have been a big part of the "story" of the game for decades now, with well known GM's becoming household names in baseball circles right along with the uniformed stars. They don't steal a lot of spotlight when the players are playing, but they certainly reach the level of exposure where everyone has an opinion about their own team's guy.