Monday Morning

Monday, April 14, 2008, 10:47 am

Yesterday’s Fireworks

Sunday was the third time in franchise history that the White Sox have hit two grand slams in one game, first time ever at home … the other times were 9/4/95 at Texas (Robin Ventura had both) and 5/19/96 at Detroit (Darren Lewis and Robin Ventura).  For a minute I thought I had been at all three, but turns out I was watching that Detroit game from home and Bob Beghtol was with the team.

We’ve won seven of our last nine overall and now are 42-20 against Detroit since 2005 (20-11 in Chicago).  The Sox have back-to-back shutouts for the first time since 9/26-27/07 vs. KC and have not allowed a run in 22.0 IP.

Javier Vazquez is now 4-0 vs. Detroit since 2007.

Paul Konerko’s grand slam in the third inning was the seventh of his career, while Joe Crede connected on the second of the season and sixth of his career.

Guess These Didn’t Count

According to today’s Chicago Tribune, these wins against the Tigers may not be “real.”  We need to wait and see how we play against the A’s …

Leading Off

White Sox leadoff hitters rank third in all of baseball in OBP at .453. (Oakland enters this series at 26th).  Last year, we ranked 27th (and last in the AL) at .321.

Earlier this season, Nick Swisher walked six straight times, becoming the first MLB player to do so since 2003 and the first Sox player since Chet Lemon in 1980.


Earlier this month, we were shocked and surprised (in a good way) when the national baseball writer for the Chicago Tribune selected Javier Vazquez as this year’s American League Cy Young Award winner.

That was a gutsy, outside-the-box selection and surprising because this writer has not liked the Vazquez for Chris Young trade and did not like the extension given to Vazquez last March (something about building the rotation from the back forward).

So despite the preseason props, in yesterday’s newspaper it was back to old form as a mini spread of photos and stories repeated the mantra that the trade for Javier has been a bust.

“But the trade for Vazquez hasn’t been a good one for the Sox, who lost 24-year-old center fielder Chris Young in the deal,” to quote the newspaper.  “The Sox were willing to trade Young because they were loaded with outfield prospects at the time … Young had the highest ceiling of the four, but (Ken) Williams thought he was expendable.

“Ouch.” Please note: That ouch is from the Trib.

This was printed before Javy struck out nine, walked none and allowed only five hits over 7.0 shutout innings to improve to 2-1.

If he does indeed win the Cy Young Award this year as the Tribune predicted, will it still be a bad deal for the Sox? 

So I planned on putting together a stastical argument against yesterday’s story but someone beat me to it and did a much better job …

To read it, click here to read that post (second one down)

They say it much better than I can. 

You can make your own judgments.

But I will point out a few things like … why does every trade have to have a winner and a loser?  Can’t a trade help both teams? 

Chris Young is a very, very good young player with a great future ahead of him … but at this point all of us are speculating as to what that long-term future will become.

Last year, Vazquez topped Young in “Win Shares”, which if you buy into that sabermetric analysis, might be a way to compare players.  Javy topped Young, 19-16.  Young’s amazing defense provided 6.8 of his 16 points. (Javy scored 11 Win Shares in 2006 while Young was in the minors).

Finally, for the record, Javy is getting paid 11.5 M this year, not 12.5 …

You (everyone) are/is free to like or dislike the trade, but at least consider all the evidence …





Scott, the very mention that you made concerning Vazquez’s salary points out my main gripe about printing player and team salaries in the newspaper every year at the start of the season…
For one thing… IT’S NO ONE ELSE”S DAMNED BUSINESS WHAT A PLAYER MAKES!!!… That information should be kept between three groups…the player, his agent and the ball club…
The reason why?… Because speculation or reported amounts are usually WRONG!!!…See above for a perfect example…
For another reason salaries should not be printed…The goofs who sit in the stands who will never make that kind of money in THREE lifetimes don’t need any added inducement to boo when said player makes a faux pas(faux pas, that’s French for f**k up…)…either on the field defensively or at bat offensively…
The senile old man who used to broadcast the games back in the ’70’s and ’80’s(HO-LEE COW!!!)used to derisively(sic)use the salaries as an example when he wanted to rip said player a new one(If you have to ask “a new what?”, I don’t want to talk to you, ever again…)…
The media make too much of money for these players…We don’t know what kind of money these writers make…and we never will, for it’s none of our business…right, boys?
Also, as far as trades made/not made are concerned, same thing…Look at the stink that was raised about not dealing Crede…and look at the comments made now…
As I stated before…revisionist history is fascinating to read…

Scott your right on the money with this one, you can indeed have a trade that helps both teams. Example, El Caballo for Podsednik. Enough said.

Back in town after a trip to Sin City last week. Guys were clicking on all cylinders (wow that doesn’t look right, but the guys at Merriam Webster said it is)…. Exciting to watch, and all we need now is warm weather =) -Dawn

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: