elrockinMT

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 09:33 AM) Rogers thinks the sox should be in re-building mode like the A's. He may be right, but with that mindset you'll never be objective about trading top prospects. But, if we are in a rebuilding phase you don't trade your top prospects you keep them and trade off high priced veterans to bring in more young talent. I am not advocating this and I am willing to give the Swisher trade a chance, but Rogers has a very valid argument. I think we have given up way too much young talent especially pitchers. No one player is going to bring this team to dominance and we may have weakened one area to improve on another.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:36 PM) Harry just droped it, nothing else, but rumor of a big deal involving Paulie... I wonder how these things start? Williams was just recently quoted as saying Konerko wasn't going anywhere.

I am willing to give this move the benefit of the doubt. Swisher has shown some real strong power numbers and OBP. But, does anyone esle think we are gutting our farm system by sending so many young promising players especially pitchers away in trades?

Nick Swisher stats from Baseball reference I remember in 2006 Swisher worshipped the Big Hurt. Maybe we can get the Hurt back? Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 2004 23 OAK AL 20 60 11 15 4 0 2 8 0 0 8 11 .250 .352 .417 101 25 0 1 0 2 2 2005 24 OAK AL 131 462 66 109 32 1 21 74 0 1 55 110 .236 .322 .446 101 206 0 1 3 4 9 RoY-6 2006 25 OAK AL 157 556 106 141 24 2 35 95 1 2 97 152 .254 .372 .493 125 274 2 6 7 11 13 2007 26 OAK AL 150 539 84 141 36 1 22 78 3 2 100 131 .262 .381 .455 127 245 1 9 12 10 13 +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 4 Seasons 458 1617 267 406 96 4 80 255 4 5 260 404 .251 .361 .464 118 750 3 17 22 27 37 +--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+ 162 Game Avg 572 94 144 34 1 28 90 1 2 92 143 .251 .361 .464 118 265 1 6 8 10 13 Career High 157 556 106 141 36 2 35 95 3 2 100 152 .262 .381 .493 127 274 2 9 12 11 13

Swisher can be a great addition, but once again our top young talent gets dealt away. I would have liked to have seen one of those 2 pitchers stay

QUOTE(Elgin Slim @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:21 AM) Wasn't Anderson having wrist problems after he went down to AAA? I know he had surgery in June or something. Could that possibly be the reason why he only hit .255 in Charlotte? He had wrist problems after we drafted him and he was sent to rookie ball at Great Falls. The wrist was a college injury. It still may be a problem.

I see that Kenny Lofton is still out there too.

The idea is to improve yourself and not break even. What do we really gain from adding a Taveras or a Crisp? My guess is we end up dumping one of our good players the Sox won't try and sign and pick up someone elses castoff. Crisp loses his starting spot to a rookie and we seem to be falling all over ourselves to pick him up!? Taveras is not much better, but we need to make a splash and make it seem we are really doing something to improve on a 4th place finish.

The more I think about this spin on things from KW the more I think we didn't have any money at all to sign players to improve this team and we must have been going to write one of those rubber checks to Torii Hunter.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 04:23 AM) Well in all my years of playing baseball I never heard one coach or player discuss spin as part of the fielding skill set. I have heard a few complain on a ball that got away, that it knuckled, or spun away. But never heard that they attacked a ball based on the spin, especially at the corners. They usually use to base their attack pattern based on the height of the bounce, and the speed of the ball going through the infield. If it was crushed, it was a reaction. But I have never heard anyone say, that when the ball came off the bat that the ball was spinning counterclockwise and it would skid at a 5 degree angle and get a kick off the lip base on that. Here is a clue, all balls that are hit on the ground spin. All of them. Its the bounce and how the ball skids through the grass is how they attack the ball. Now knowing if the grass is cut or long, how the lines play(will a ball stay fair or foul) thats part of the scouting report. Where to position the player is called by the coaching staff. No argument here on most of what you say. I feel very strongly both ways about this argument.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 02:11 AM) Maybe, but that was Crede's decision to make. If I was in his shoes, I'd do what I thought was best for me. Back surgery is nothing to take for granted. Exactly. Folks need to be concerned about life and the quality of that life after baseball.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) So hitting a moving 95 mph fastball from 60 feet 6 inches is something you learn, but catching a ground ball 90 feet away is pure instinct. Wow I learn something new everyday. It doesn't seem to compute. Reaction, location of pitches, the type of pitch, the field, who is bating, etc, all come into play for a fielder. I think spin might actually be in there somewhere

You should all just give up and agree that Joe Crede is the man at 3B!!!

The idea of signing Joe Crede to play 3B and moving Fields is intriguing. I don't know what the real analysis was from the temporary move last year of Fields to LF. He wasn't more than adequate or even a bit below, but nothing that really stood out one way of the other. I was expecting AFL or Winter League ball, but it didn't come about. Fields at 1B and trading Konerko is a possibility, but I'd rather keep Konerko in a Sox uniform. I do know one thing and that's that you can't expect Fields too excel at a new position without some experience and instruction. He is not a plus 3B man yet either so I think moving him to another position is a doable thing and we can expect to see improvement with time. You wouldn't need that at 3B with Joe Crede there. 3B is a critical position and if we are going to make a run at competing for that trophy we need our A plus game

I always liked Miguel Olivo also. He is far better defensively than Hall and adequate with the lumber. Plus he isn't coming back from shoulder surgery. Hall was a flop last year

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 06:10 PM) Call Joe up and tell him to suspend logic for a bit. Tell him that coming off of his back surgery he shouldn't take a contract for max years or max money he should immediately sign a deal in his least favorable(coming off back surgery) negotiation stance. Tell him to fire his agent, and take a sweetheart home deal because he likes the sox. If he does that, he is a white sox player. But in reality one picks Boras because one wants financial stability for his family because as Joe Crede has found out, scary injuries can threaten ones career. If I was a MLB player, I would call Boras in a second. The guy gets you max money, and max years. Joe Crede didnt pick Boras's name out of a hat. I am NOT going to call Joe Crede and tell him anything. Boras apparently does a good job for his clients and that's why they hire him. The Sox don't want/like to or simply refuse to deal with Boras. Too bad for the Sox because they might lose out on some good players. I have really forgot why there is such a strong dislike for Boras in the Sox org.

I would like to sign Joe Crede to along term extension

Erstad to the Astros is reported on MLB.COM also. Goodbye and luck be with you Grinderstad.

Owens may improve. He was getting better as the end of the season was rolling around. But, does he take enough pitches to get some more walks? Where is Ricky Henderson when we need him?

When Pods is healthy he is productive. The problem the last two years and part of 2005 was to keep him healthy. But, I have no problem with him coming back if the team knows he can produce and the price is right.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 08:34 PM) Vazquez has massively increased his value. Paulie's remains steady. If anything, Buehrle value (or value to us) has increased as a result of the contract he signed. Garland is gone, but it's not as though "he vanished like a fart in the wind." We have Cabrera here now, who can be dealt as well. And Contreras was a huge question LAST offseason. How are you forgetting that minor detail after his 06' second half? I don't think trading Vazquez would be wise. The Sox spun the Garland trade by saying they thought Garland had platued (sp?) in 2005 and 2006 with 18 wins and was not going to get any better-maybe go down? Vazquez though is improving every year and you have to wonder if he might not be the #1 starter at some point.

Why trade for someone we just acquired for a front line starting pitcher? Uribe may go, but I'd rather see him stay as a super IF sub. Maybe the fact he was bounced from the starting job will give him some incentive to improve with the bat and lose weight? If this team had no desire to sign Cabrera long term than we would have been better off keeping Garland.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) The argument generally is that not only did we get Pods and Viz (3.73 ERA in 70 innings), but the money saved on Carlos, let us get A.J. and Iguchi. Carlos Lee for Pods, AJ, Iguchi, and Viz. Remember the team's payroll was in the 70 millions, so Lee's contract represented a sizeable chunk. I do understand the point people, that follow that line of thinking, make and I think it is valid, but I still think we give up on our own way to often becasue they won't pay them to stay.

I hope that 2005 wasn't a fluke year. But, to say that trading Carlos Lee was the reason we won because we got Pods most certainly can be argued. I think Pods most certainly contributed a lot, but maybe Lee would have too. It was a lot of fun to win in 2005, but what makes me believe all we are getting is hyperbole is that fact our execs keep telling us they will bring in the top tier players, but we never do. Then they turn around and tell us there is just so much financially they can do with the money the team has. If we can't compete or won't compete on the free agent marker just say so. I can handle that and I think most Sox fans can too. To look at the sitaution realisatically I will say that most likely one player won't win it as it takes a team effort. 25 solid players, whether they make major league minimum or $10M each, is what wins games and pennants. We seem to have a tenndency of front office to puff out their chests becasue they think they are going to reel in the big one only to see the big fish slip away to someone else. Notice I used the fishing analogy so come visit Big Sky Country and fish for the big trout. B)

This of season leaves me convinced that the Sox are a cheap organization and Reinsdorf makes it appear he will spends money to assemble, or keep together a winning ballclub. He sucks up too much to Selig and seesm to worship the Yankmees ownership. The Sox deevlop players in their own organization only to turn around and let them go rather than sign them when they are the point to start making money. We have develped some real special players only to see them go by bye. Not to mention the fact our ownereship boycots certain agents.