RockRaines

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Sure he has -- Konerko's slugging percentage was all of 20 points higher than Kotchman's (their OPS' were identical, with Kotchman's being more valuable do to a higher OBP). One played half his games in a spacious stadium while the other played half of his in a bandbox. One is 24, the other is 31. I think I've said this before... if Stoneman offered Kotchman straight up for Konerko I'd probably take that deal. Are you really going to use an off year of Paul's to compare. Even if you did, Paul had 31 hr's and 34 2B. Kotchman had 37 2B and 11 hr. If you really think that makes them almost equal, then thats fine. You are right about the OBP. But I would never trade PK straight up for Kotchman. Konerko SLG 1999 .511 2000 .481 2001 .507 2002 .498 2003 .399 2004 .535 2005 .534 2006 .551

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) I was definitely one of them but I think this deal is a little different as we'd be trading a sp and not getting one back in return, not to mention that there aren't really any sp's in free agency. Like I said, this deal is intriguing cause I do like all 3 of these players and the money freed up would be fantastic but I think there needs to be another piece added in there. Thats a big x-factor is that there arent any pitchers in free agency that would replace Garland. The best we could hope for is KW signing one of the big bats.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) The other part of the deal would be what the Sox did with the money it freed up. Sort of like the CLee/Pods deal. CLee was clearly the better player, but it also included AJP and Iguchi. So what deal would make this worth it to you? Hunter? Jones? Arod?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) I never said I liked the deal. I will say that something like that intrigues me but I'd like one more piece, still I was just arguing Figgins vs. Owens, that's it. My bad. There really isnt an argument there at this point anyway.

I mean, is this really a deal that all of you guys can get excited about? There would have to be additional deals to make this in the Sox favor.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) Cause he's not a proven player and he still provides a lot, lot, lot, lot less extra base hits than Figgins. Sure he could develop some more power but he could regress a bit too, we dont know. With Figgins we know for the most part what we're getting and he's proven that he can be a good leadoff hitter in this league. At best, Owens next season gets on base at around the same clip as Chone with a lot less power, and that's the best case scenario imo. Well is it fair to say we've seen Figgins ceiling? Is it really a good idea for us to give up one of our steadiest pitchers and probably our best hitter over the past several years and a good defensive 1B for a player that may have peaked, a reliever who may be in decline and a prospect that hasnt shown the power potential yet to be a great 1B. It just isnt an even deal IMO. As much as I would LIKE those players, its not worth giving up Konerko and Garland even for the financial flexibility.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) Actually, I don't think a .350 obp for a guy like Figgins would dissapoint anyone. Then why not use Jerry Owens who is cheaper, younger and already here? He was almost at that OBP from his callup. The big knock about him on this board was his ability to SLG and get extra base hits.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) My guess is that Boston signs him, and puts Papleboner in the rotation. He doesnt want to pitch in the rotation. I think they leave him where he is.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) I think it's a bad deal also, but you're really underestimating Figgins if you call him a super sub after the season he just had. And maybe underestimating Kotchman in the future, on that we don't know yet. I understand he had a good season this year. With that said, his career .350 OBP would have ALOT of people on here upset if he was our lead off man. Not to mention hes getting into that dreaded 30's range where the speed and sb's start dropping off. I mean how many people on here were using the OPS argument against Jerry Owens? Chone will have a sub .800 OPS next year most likely. His SLG has only topped .400 2 out of 6 years.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Webb throws in the mid low-to-mid 90's... As did 2000-2003 Lowe. Wang can touch 95. But you know, don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. wow, then why didnt I rank them in my top prospects list. *grabs Doc Brown and heads back to the 90's*

QUOTE(Al Lopez's Ghost @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) I was listening to Boers & Bernstein at 4:30 today, and Boers said that this deal is being discussed by the Angels and Sox: Konerko and Garland for Figgins, Kochman and Shields. FWIW. Gross deal. Shields was failing at the end of the year, Figgins is a super sub player and Kochman hasnt shown enough power potential to replace Konerko.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) And, really -- congratulations on spotting Webb, Lowe, and Wang in the minors and knowing they would make it when BA didn't. You should put out your own newsletter. I was too busy criticizing their pedestrian fastballs to put them high on my list.

Derek Lowe never made it into Baseball America’s Top 50. Fausto Carmona never cracked BA’s Top 75. And Brandon Webb and Chien-Ming Wang were never rated as Top 100 prospects by Baseball America. But I will remember whenever someone asks me about a prospect, i will always say they wont make it, because the ODDS are with me.

Sweet. Ozzie also always spoke very highly of Bell

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 7, 2007 -> 08:21 AM) I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that Josh Fields is > Chris Young, especially when you consider their swings and problems. A guy with issues against fastballs has far less potential than a guy who has issues with offspeed pitches and that's about the long/short of it. It is theoretically possible for both to collapse next year at the plate, but it is far likelier, IMO, that Fields does because people will adapt to him if he hasn't yet learned how to hit an inside fastball. People won't be giving him pitches away that he can slap out of the yard. Young is a much better player because he isn't defensively retarded, has a good swing and runs the bases better. Since when is it easier to hit a breaking pitch than a fastball? And yes, offensively Josh Fields is better right now. I guess if you throw out their actual performances and statistics this season, then maybe you can make a point. Fortunately performances are documented in a very standardized way, and outside of Sb's josh was better at the plate with less time to adjust, with a little more than half of the games than Young played in. I understand that the grass is always greener to everyone on here especially in regards to Chris (Babe Ruth) Young, but the numbers dont lie.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) odds are he will get ripped up. That's true of all but the highest echelon pitching prospects. It's especially true of a guy with a pedestrian fastball whom BA thinks is really, really not a prospect. They could be wrong, but honestly is it likely Egbert going to better than say, someone like Mike Wood? The answer is no, and it's not like Mike Wood is lighting up the majors. Ah, so you are carpet bombing and basically saying because most prospects dont make it, then Jack wont. Really stuck your neck out there. Odds are Gio, Kershaw,etc etc will get ripped up at the major league level as well right? Because its the ODDS. It actually amazes me that nobody with a pedestrian fastball succeeds in the majors. I mean, if you dont light it up, dont even try right? Forget the fact that he throws a sinker. Because nobody who throws a sinker doesnt throw it HARD. Never mind the 3 HR's he gave up in 160+ innings. Forget about the fact that BP's PECOTA cards lists Webb and Wang as the most comparable pitchers to Jack. All I care about is rankings by BA, and that HARD fastball that he lacks. I will continue to ignore his stellar numbers and his great improvement over this last season. I will only pay attention to BA prospect rankings as the bible as far as baseball players go.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) Sure, because Rex had so many completed deep balls in the first 3 games. Oh wait, he only had two completions over 25 yards. Oh. I thought we were all making claims and assumptions not based on facts.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2007 -> 09:23 PM) Rex would have underthrown it and had it picked. Yes, but many of the deep balls that Griese was off on, Rex would have been more accurate.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) Odds are he would get ripped up good in the bigs. ? Says who? Some guy who started a website? Egbert has been successful, he is a sinkerball pitcher which tend to be undervalued, and hasnt shown signs of being overmatched at all. I wonder why you automatically think he will get "ripped up."

Wow. How in the hell could you leave Egbert off that list?

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Oct 9, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Except Favre at 38 hasn't even played as bad as Romo did in that game. Romo had more int's in that game than Favre has all year. I meant they knob him as much as they do Brett.

I wonder where Rivera will go, he is still very effective.

HAHAHAHAHA. Its amazing the uproar in the other thread about KW trading Chris Young, but people think its a great idea to deal Josh Fields? Ridiculous.

Bench coach for Ozzie?

I like how the guy had 5 picks and a lost fumble and yet during one of the last drives the announcers kept saying, this is what QBing is all about. Really? I didnt know playing horrible was what it was all about? Romo is the new Brett Favre for the announcers.