nitetrain8601

QUOTE(Wedge @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) I had the impression that at the time of the trade that Elton Brand really, really wanted to get out of Chicago. I'm glad that he's having success now. It certainly would be nice to have a post player like Brand on this team right now, but when Chandler is healthy, he is pretty good at filling a role as an energy/hustle type player. That's true and a factor no one talks about. Basically he said that he would not re-up with Chicago and his current agent(back then) had a bad relationship with Chicago and was the one who spoke for Brand when he said they probably won't resign.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) Neither do I, but this board is completely enamored with prospects despite the fact that the majority never make it. Someone with some sense. There is hope afterall.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:26 PM) It certainly does make sense, because your getting a very good 3b in return who is signed long term. Why keep a guy for another year when you have a replacement sitting right there. I am certain there is more to the trade such as prospects from texas, which by the way would make this site praise with joy. All you people just love prospects. Focus on why they would trade him. (its boras) nothing else. Not about splits or anything. I don't care much for prospects, but if that's the only way to even out the deal.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) He very well may be because Stoneman has shown a reluctance for moving prospects that you don't see from Big market teams by and large. I do however think you could get someone near that ilk for Garland. I mentioned Wood because the Angels are a natural fit since he'd want to resign there and some of the Angels prospects (Mathis, Kotchman, Morales) play positions we won't trade for. I don't know as much about Hendrick or Aybar but I'm sure our scouting staff knows a bit about them True. I mean Garland would net you something really good from the Angels. I just think Wood is their guy.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:20 PM) Just saw this on ESPN News http://www.metsblog.com/TheHotStoveReport That's way overpaying for Blalock.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:08 PM) Funny about all these stats, whether its this year or next year Crede will be gone unless he gets another agent. Stats mean nothing, Boras is the issue right now. I am sorry many don't get it. When you get older men have this thing about keeping there word and lying. Boras lied to JR or at least that is what JR thinks. Thats all that matters. Crede will be gone within two years if not sooner. Well that's certainly an issue. But it makes no sense in trading Crede this year unless something great comes along. This deal isn't.

QUOTE(WSFAN35 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:03 PM) IMO this is not overpaying. Players like Blalock don't come available for trade too often. He will be a cornerstone of the franchise and provide our offense with another potent weapon. Face it, Crede's a class guy and a great defender, but he's not Blalock. We're not going to be able to keep Garland beyond this year, and it's best we ship him now rather than wait until midseason and either get stuck with him or get less in return. We need a fourth outfielder, Wilkerson is a much better option than the likes of Borchard. Getting Danks would not only give us a prospect with awesome stuff, but give us leverage in signing his brother after the college season is over. Macowiak is a better option as a 4th OF than Wilkerson. Also, I rather deal Garland to the Mets for a prospect like Aaron Heilman.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:00 PM) Agreed, I dont think he would be a player we would be after. Yes, because K'ing is much better than hitting a SacFly Out or a groundball to advance the runner. Definately KW and Ozzie's type of player.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) I am in the camp of WIlkerson being vastly overrated. He's nothing to holler about in center, he strikes out too much (you want 360 K's from Thome and Wilkerson alone> Me neither), his speed and power hasn't manifested itself the way it has supposed to and he doesn't hit for a high average at all. He draws walks which is a big reason why internet baseball fans love him but I have no interest in Wilkerson personally. Now if you could get him and move him for something useful from a moneyball team, different story Bingo. Grinder he is not. Overrated player by internet users everywhere he is though.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) A-rod got traded, does that mean he is bad? Luis Castillo was traded this past offseason. That must mean he's a lock for the HOF.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Well, there is this thing in baseball called pitching. The Texas Rangers have none. And Soriano was the only guy they were "always willing to give up in trades." Yeah because Blalock wasn't supposed to be offered up in that Beckett deal at all. Oh, I remember that now.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:46 PM) Then why not take the younger player with a far greater upside? One of the criticisms of Blalock the last couple of years is he has been swinging for the fences. There are more than a couple scouts who compare him to George Brett when he has his line drive stroke working. I don't mind getting him, but I'm not going to overpay for him. Garland + Crede for Blalock, Wilkerson, and Danks or Diamond is overpaying. Wilkerson is not needed and I'm sure Mackowiak could do as good of a job as him given full-time duties and our OF is already filled. Danks and Diamond haven't proven they could be front end pitchers in AA yet, much less the majors.

QUOTE(TheHammer @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) Nitetrain let me guess, you probably defended the Podsednik for CLee trade citing, for one, that Podsednik hit much better two seasons ago than last season. But now that your favorite player is being discussed you only want to look at those 2005 numbers. Can't go back a year or two for Blalock, have to just cite the worst season of his career. Blalock is a stud, all-star caliber player. Crede is just a solid average starter at third. If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? I liked the Pods trade simply because it gave us a leadoff hitter not named Aaron Rowand.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:39 PM) How about these simpler stats? Crede's career stats: .255 AVG, .303 OBP, .439 SLG, .743 OPS Blalock's career stats: .274 AVG, .338 OBP, .471 SLG, .809 OPS Keep in mind that both players have played in hitter's parks for their entire careers. Look at the park adjusted stats. They're the same player.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:36 PM) No, you don't. Crede has to really get hot to get over .260 and about 22 homers. Blalock hit .263 with 25 homers in a down year. Even in Texas hitting in front of Teixeira (I'm not even sure how often that happened to be honest), Crede is not suddenly going to hit .300 or hit 30 homers like Blalock has done. Who hits behind him is not going to have that big an impact unless it's someone like Bonds or Pujols that absolutely scares the s*** out of the opposition. Noboby on the Sox or the Rangers really falls into that category, with the possible exception of a healthy Thome (Teixeira is close, give him another year or two like this last one). In a similar park, Blalock probably is slightly better than Crede. Hell, according to ESPN's park factors, US Cellular was the best HR park in the league this year and was about average in the other categories, and Crede couldn't do much there. Plus the park factors are partially dependent on the team that plays there. Considering that the Rangers have a pretty potent offense and the Sox didn't, that's an issue. I'm fairly sure that Blalock can hit at least .275 at the Cell and up his road average to at least .250 by dropping some games in those unfavorable parks, with little to no effect to his power numbers. The other issue is that that's only part of the deal. Wilkerson is a solid CF that will be pretty productive now that he's out of Washington, and it sounds like we'd get one of their top pitching prospects on top of that. If it were just Crede for Blalock or Crede/Garland for Blalock and one of the two other pieces, I wouldn't be too happy. But frankly since Crede and Blalock is about a draw for us at worst, it comes down to Garland for Wilkerson and a top prospect. I can live with that. Look at the stats I provided above and it has the stats with an adjusted park factor.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:27 PM) Since you're going to be such a smartass, don't expect arguments. It's obvious you can't argue. All you bring up is total stats. Joe Crede: Year Ag Tm Lg PA Outs RC RC/27 OWP BA *lgBA OBP *lgOBP SLG *lgSLG OPS *lgOPS*OPS+ psOPS SB% 2005 27 CHW AL 471 337 57 4.57 | .252 .272| .303 .335| .454 .431| .756 .766| 96 50% Hank Blalock: 2005 24 TEX AL 705 497 88 4.78 | .263 .273| .318 .336| .431 .433| .749 .769| 94 100% I guess no one wants to argue these stats because it makes Crede as good as Blalock which is what I've been saying all along. Here's the glossary just in case people want to play dumb.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:24 PM) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6411/s...dir1_.oMaaFCLcF Batting 1st: 2 AB Batting 2nd: 1 AB Batting 5th: 5 AB Batting 6th: 11 AB Batting 7th: 58 AB Batting 8th: 253 AB Batting 9th: 102 AB Uribe mostly batted 9th if you recall. Sorry, he had the protection of Juan Uribe and Aaron Rowand/Aj Pierzynski. That's hell of protection.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) Yeah you are right, Cleveland and Detroit have better staffs for sure. Why the hell did the Angels even make it to the ALCS anyway, they suck!!! Since you're going to be such a smartass, don't expect arguments. It's obvious you can't argue. All you bring up is total stats. Joe Crede: Year Ag Tm Lg PA Outs RC RC/27 OWP BA *lgBA OBP *lgOBP SLG *lgSLG OPS *lgOPS*OPS+ psOPS SB% 2005 27 CHW AL 471 337 57 4.57 | .252 .272| .303 .335| .454 .431| .756 .766| 96 50% Hank Blalock: 2005 24 TEX AL 705 497 88 4.78 | .263 .273| .318 .336| .431 .433| .749 .769| 94 100%

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:20 PM) And you'd be pretty wrong. And do you know where I can find how many at bats he's had in the 9 hole and 8 hole?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:19 PM) That's fine and dandy, but Blalock wouldn't hit in the 9 hole. In his career he's provided a lot more offensive firepower than Crede, meaning he's generally held in higher esteem, meaning he's probably going to hit higher in the order. More importantly, you spot in the order doesn't really affect your power numbers or batting average that much like it does for runs and RBI. If a guy is a .250 hitter, he isn't suddenly going to hit .300 if you put him in the #3 spot, or hit 10 more homers just because he hits higher in the order. It still takes a certain amount of ability to do those things, something that Joe hasn't shown up to this point. He might finally have his breakout year and hit .280 with 30 homers, but it won't matter whether he's hitting 5th or 7th. The only possible way that the lineup could in any way improve his power or average is if he's hitting ahead of a more dangerous bat like Thome or Konerko and he gets more pitches to hit. That won't happen with either player. But I'm saying, you put Crede in the 3-4-5 hole like Blalock is and you have the same numbers as Blalock. There is not much of a difference at all. And I'm not say Crede would be a .300 hitter, but I'm saying around .270-.280. And protection does affect a hitter.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:15 PM) The majority of crede's at-bats were in the eight hole, not nine. Protection is overated... if you are a good hitter you will hit no matter what. Btw, crede's defense was only worse than chavez's this year ( i do not care what the plain defensive statistics show). I'm pretty sure Crede was the 9 hole hitter until the last month or so of the season.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:15 PM) Also figure that Blalock is going going to have to face 1 good SP staff in Minny, Cleveland is okay, but then he gets to feast on the Royals and Tigers... THe WEst has great staffs in every team execpt the Rangers..And I can't see him hitting against his own pitchers. Cleveland has a pretty good staff. The Tigers have 2 good pitchers. Royals have like 1. Seattle doesn't have a great staff. Oakland does, but Harden was injured for more than half the year. The Angels had Colon and that's it.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) You do know there is a reason he doesnt hit in the heart of the order. Because he is not that good, and not that consistent of a hitter. You cant just say, well, Royce Clayton may hit 200 at the bottom of the order, but if you put him at the 3rd spot he will hit 285. its just not that way. And Blalock is not that good or consistant of a hitter. You could have Kevin Mench in Blalock's spot in the order and you wouldn't miss a beat if you were Texas. Blalock could hit at home and he could hit in the 1st half of a season, that's it.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:09 PM) Wow, I guess those 37 at bats is a pretty good split. Usually we determine a players worth by about 10 games. Come on dude. Yes, every team gets an all-star, whats your point? Are you saying the he didnt deserve it? Or he was the only player on the team who went? Please say that, please/ Dude, I showed you numbers, I showed you expert rankings, I showed you defensive rankings, I showed you opinions. You still wont budge. Anybody out there who watched and knows baseball, knows that Crede is not as good a player as Blalock. Even if his home splits are better, so what? That is still part of who he is as a player. Crede sucks at home, does that mean we should just take into account that he is only the player that he is at home? You cant ignore certain parts of a person's game and compare them, our pitchers all have different home/away splits, does that mean that they arent as good as a player? No. Crede is not as good as Blalock, offensively OR defensively. And he is sure as hell more healthy and better at his age than Crede was. He has a higher ceiling and has already shown his ability. Dude, you don't have to say dude, so much. Okay dude? I'm not a surfer trying to hang 10. I showed you the numbers and you chose to ignore them. Again, I'm not saying Crede is a much better player than Blalock, I would rate them in the same bracket of 3B. I see no point in trading a 3B for another one when it's not an upgrade. If you even leave them in the same spots in the order, what you get from Crede on the road is equal to what you would get from Blalock at home assuming he would be able to hit at our home. You're just trading away more HR's and RBI's in one park for RBI's & HR's on the road.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) The bottom line is that we can reasonably expect Blalock to hit at least .260 with 25 homers, 80 RBI, and very good defense hitting 5th or 6th in our lineup. That's not really the case with Joe. He might break out this year, but who knows what's going to happen with him, especially since his back seems to be a bigger issue than most of us would have thought. Moving from Texas to the Cell doesn't mean that Blalock is going to hit .240. The Cell is still a fairly good hitters park, we just can't expect him to hit over .300 like he does in Texas. It's also possible that getting away from Safeco, Network Associates, and Edison Field helps him out. None of those parks are exactly hitter friendly, and about a quarter of his road games are at those parks. .252AVG, 22HR's, 62RBI's. That's out of the 9 slot with no protection and not really a spot in which you could produce mass RBI's. In the 3-4-5 role like Blalock, I think he would get at least 90 RBI's with 28 HR's and a .270avg with protection. Put Blalock in the 9 hole with no protection, he probably gets around the same or less than Crede.