iamshack

Forget Abreu. It's not happening. The Angels are going to keep him, and/or Figgins. Why would they let these guys go, as they are marching along into the postseason? Not sure if people recall, but the Angels have not exactly been manufacturing big bats in the farm system recently. They've always looked to free agency or the trade market to fill that need, and I can't imagine now that they finally have the offense they need that they are going to just let them all walk away.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:44 PM) My view on Podsednik coming back will be dependent on what other moves Williams makes this off-season. As much as I don't want Podsednik on this team in 2010, if money is spent elsewhere to fix glaring needs, the Sox should be able to get by with Podsednik for another year. I can live with this perspective as well. My feeling is they would like to sign him for another year and get this issue out of the way so they can focus on the bullpen. As much as people want to talk about Bobby Abreu, what happened with him last year will not happen again this year. He's proven he can still drive in runs and is an on-base machine. I would be shocked if he didn't get $9-10 million next year. Matt Holliday is going to make that as well. To drastically improve in the OF we're going to have to make a trade, or have someone in our own system come out of nowhere and have a great year, which would obviously be a huge risk coming into next year, as that approach hasn't exactly worked for us in the past.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:12 PM) Really? How many are there and how often have they switched teams? I think the Cubs have bought into that belief. The Twins and Yankees haven't. I would say Kenny hasn't either. There are a few elite closers, but you can name them on one hand. There are a bunch of other guys that post mid-to-high 3 eras and accumulate saves because that's what happens when you come into the 9th inning with the lead. Outside of the elite few, I would be in favor of trading closers like the A's have done, taking advantage of the ridiculous mystique placed upon them by the rest of baseball. In my opinion, they aren't even utilized correctly by the vast majority of mlb managers. Either that, or mlb managers have caught on but the pay structure is antiquated. In my mind, your "closer" should not come in only in the 9th inning (and sometimes the 8th), but rather in the most critical point of the game - the most high stress situation where the starting pitcher is not involved. Do you not want to use your best pitcher for the most critical juncture of the game? Why save him for the 9th, only to put in someone worse who might blow the chance to even use your best pitcher with the lead in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) If Scott is patient, somebody will lose a guy they want, panic, and offer him two years. I'm just hoping we're not that team. Agreed. One of the failed Figgins suitors will panic and pay Scottie if we don't sign him first...

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) I think that's a pretty generous amount. I was thinking more along the lines of a 1M- one year with an option. Who knows. I gotta tell ya though...he may very well be worth a 3M- 2 year. I saw him a lot in ST this march and he looked pretty damned good then...probably the best I'd seen him since '05. Three years is out of the question no doubt...but 1 with an option wouldn't bother me at all for reasonable money...and I think at this point in his career 1 or 2M a year with an option wouldn't be bad. He's going to be looking at well more than 1 to 2 million. If we offer him 1/$1m with an option year they will laugh and walk into free agency. The fact that they approached him now, unless they are just going through the motions, shows they expect him to get much more than $1-2 million. My guess is it would be difficult to walk away from a 1/$5 million offer though...even though he is going to want 2 or 3 years at that number...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:13 PM) Depends on the dollar amount, anything more than about 3 or 4 million on a short-term deal and I won't like it. I don't mind him being on the team at all though. Hah...I doubt that is how they approached the deal with Podsednik's agent... "Well, we don't mind him being on the team at all. But nothing more than $3 or 4 million..."

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 09:59 PM) If it's a 1 year deal and doesn't preclude us from continuing to look for better options, I'm all for it. If it's a deal longer than 1 year and/or means will won't look for more help at the 2nd COF spot, i'm not all for it. Pretty sure it would fall into that first category...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 02:15 PM) Most likely because proven closers (and consistent bullpen arms in general) have a lot of value and don't exactly grow on trees. In addition, the Rays have a "meh" bullpen and that could use some improvement. Yeah, whatever. Your Flowers idea certainly has merit, though. Dioner Navarro can't hit for crap and will be entering his second year of arbitration. Flowers is pretty much ready for the bigs and it's not much of a stretch at all to think that he could outdo Navarro's career .676 OPS at about 1/5 the cost next year. That said, given A.J.'s age and contract situation (and the Sox's current offensive situation), I don't see Kenny dealing Flowers unless he's really blown away with a great offer. (Ultimately, I don't see Jenks going to TB either.) Yeah, more or less. But as I said before, there are all sort of factors out there that can drive unequal trades (e.g., Rowand/Thome). It'll be interesting to see what happens to both Crawford and Jenks this winter (or next summer). "Proven closers" are overrated, but that's an entirely different argument altogether. I don't even believe 95% of MLB managers use their closers effectively. As for Flowers, agreed, he's not going anywhere unless part of a much bigger deal than Crawford, in my opinion. Finally, the factors you have listed just don't really apply much in this case, in my opinion, of course. That's why I continued to ignore most of them. The Rays don't need to "dump" Crawford in the traditional sense because he still has value, even with the current contract he has. They also don't necessarily need to get players that will make an immediate impact, as they have more talent than they know what to do with over there. The Rays are in, and have been in, a very special situation where they have the talent in the organization to do almost anything they want with their veterans, sans take on a monster contract - finances have always been the only thing holding them back - and they have taken major strides there even. So to me, they can trade him for whatever they deem is the best return, which I highly doubt is a very expensive closer coming off a down year.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) Why do you automatically assume that the motive for dealing Crawford would be a salary dump? They didn't get poorer by winning the pennant last year and dumping Kazmir's salary this summer. And if the Rays want young players, they lose Crawford's draft picks if they deal him. Getting back to your question about Jenks, he would be a two-year rental to strengthen their pen. It's possible that they move Howell (who has about half a season's closer experience) to setup or want him in a left-handed specialist role (like Thornton has been for us). The rest of their bullpen isn't all that impressive (Dan Wheeler, Lance Cormier, Randy Coate) and the former and latter are on the wrong side of 30. Dealing Jenks for Crawford would also save them about $2M next year. Then again, it's also possible that they have supreme confidence in Howell and the rest of those guys and that they have no interest in Jenks. But it would be remiss of Kenny to not pick up the phone and inquire. Yeah, OBVIOUSLY... For Christ's sake, read my posts. Certainly was never assuming Crawford would be a salary dump, however, if they did trade him, they would most likely want to acquire young, cheap players so they could afford to offer contracts to Pena and some of their other young players. Otherwise, I don't know why they would want to deal Crawford in the first place, as he is not overpaid, Upton has looked shaky and inconsistent at the plate, and they can't be sure what Desmond Jennings is going to provide them. I just don't see why you would want to basically swap salaries of an everyday player who is above league average at just about everything he does for someone that might pitch 60 innings for them at a just below league average clip. As for Flowers, sorry, I'm trying to hit your main points here, I can't remember every minor point you've made, as this debate has been all over the place for two days now. You've certainly glossed over many of my minor points as well. All in all, I think Crawford has more value than you do, and that is what it boils down to. Fair enough.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 11:41 AM) I should've bowed out of this conversation when you argued that Crawford-for-Soria is a legitimate trade. You've spent the past couple posts telling me that you've "shot down" or "defeated" my arguments. (The fact that you felt the need to tell me this shows that you clearly haven't.) And when I finally call you on it, you accuse ME of taking veiled shots at YOU. How sad. Making the distinction between a contender and a non-contender's motives in a trade isn't "tweaking" an argument. It's accounting for another factor in a relatively complex decision-making process. I've even given credit to some of your arguments while making this distinction. But apparently you're more interested in attacking my motives than reaching a compromise at this point. WC, if you'd like to change the argument to whether the Rays would accept younger relief arms for Crawford, that is another argument entirely, one which I have resisted getting into, as you know. If you remember, I said earlier that I thought the Rays might want a guy like Thornton instead of Jenks, or to take it even farther, a few young, cheap relief arms. At that point you claimed Crawford would not get that on the trade market. I then attempted to list trades where it has indeed happened. You then got into the motives of the teams involved in those trades, sometimes contradicting your own argument, such as the A's trading for Holliday when he was due to make several million dollars and they were nowhere near having a chance to compete. Then the entire argument got messy with mentions of competing teams, non-competing teams, salary dumping, selling season tickets, etc. For the most part, you simply tried to discredit the trades I mentioned as invalid examples because of the particular scenarios involved in them. Can we just stay on point here? Why would the Rays want Jenks? They do have other veterans that have closed before. Simply because they are in a position to compete doesn't mean they wouldn't want two young relief arms. Nearly every bullpen in the league starts out the season with undefined roles, and gradually evolves as the season progresses. I also mentioned in this thread I thought the Rays would want a catching prospect. Simply because the Rays are in a position to compete doesn't mean they will demand impact MLB players, as that would probably defeat the purpose of trading Crawford in the first place - saving money. I just think the Rays would have a lot more interest in a package of Flowers and some of our other young arms than for Bobby Jenks. I guess that is what it boils down to. You obviously disagree.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 11:26 AM) Guys, simmer down. We're talking hypothetical trades, not life or death. Oh, we know that. There is just a certain level of frustration and feistiness that comes along with typing out a long passage and then feeling like the other person misunderstood it or completely ignored it. I think both of us feel that a bit...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) You continue to be blind to the fact that "value" does not rule all and that "fit" is a major consideration in a trade. You can't evaluate a trade intelligently without considering both factors. I love how you say "let's leave it here" and then devote two more paragraphs to taking my arguments out of context and attacking my motives. Stay classy. I think "fit" takes a lot lesser role in this than you think. I think there are SEVERAL teams that would find a way to "fit" Carl Crawford into their everyday lineup. This goes back to what Jayson Stark said. Carl Crawford would not be a "hard player to move," as he claims Jenks would (even though I disagree with him). As for my level of classiness, WC, if this was the first time I had seen you pull this trick, I would have maybe kept some of my comments to myself, or possibly if it had even been the first time you had pulled it on me. But you're fairly famous in these parts for pulling just this very trick, and engaging in these debates that go on and on and on, because you manage to tweak your argument everytime you realize it's been defeated. I admire your passion, but just because you take veiled shots at me instead of my obvious ones at you certainly does not make you any more classy than me.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:42 AM) You don't "shoot down" anything. Instead, you compare incomparable trade scenarios and ignore my claims that they're invalid. Not that you've read my posts carefully or anything, but my argument has been consistent: Competitive teams tend to not trade All Star-caliber players for young, inexperienced players who are projected to have little immediate impact. In other words, if the Rays are going for it next year, they would be hard-pressed to trade a good defensive left-fielder who puts up a .350 OBP, steals 50-60 bases a year, and hits with some power for a couple of 23-year-old middle relievers. In both cases, the team that dealt Holliday didn't appear to be a contender at that point (the Rockies last November and the A's in late June of this year). The SOLID YOUNG TALENT that you speak of here didn't necessarily have to be immediate-impact talent (Huston Street was obviously able to contribute right away, but was battling injuries for the past two seasons, lost the closer position, and was becoming expensive) . On the other hand, if the Rays are going to deal Crawford this year while trying to contend for a pennant at the same time, my argument is that the Rays are going to want a higher-impact player for 2010, not young guys who will contribute two years down the road. Do you understand the distinction now, or do I have to explain it another four or five times? Did you see how incredibly bad the A's offense was in 2008? Frank was their second-best hitter, and he wasn't coming back. Besides Frank, they had ONE player with an OPS of over .733. Trading for Holliday also allowed them to dump Huston Street, who had already lost the closer spot and whose production and health were falling off the table as he was in early arbitration. The acquisition of Holliday allowed the A's to address a desperate need (power) and allowed them to move a soon-to-be costly player that they don't need anymore (Street). Holliday is also a high-profile slugger, and players like that tend to help sell season ticket packages (remember, he was acquired last November). On the other hand, the Royals don't desperately need a LF. They have a guy named David DeJesus who put up a nifty .781 OPS this year and costs $5.4 million less than Crawford. With Soria currently under a three-year contract at under $3M/year, he obviously has a lot more value than Crawford under his current contract (1 year left at $9M). OBVIOUSLY, the Royals would be incredibly stupid to deal Soria for one year of an expensive player that they don't need when they could likely deal Soria to a team like Philly or Anaheim for a really nice package of prospects that they could use. Apparently you didn't notice that Kazmir got paid $6M this year to put up a 5.92 ERA and 1.54 WHIP in TB. I at least consider what their plan MAY be. You, on the other hand, completely ignore the concept of "fit" and propose incredibly illogical trades like Crawford-for-Soria. And instead, you argue that the non-contending Indians trading Mark DeRosa for a young middle reliever is in some way comparable to the contending Rays trading Crawford. It's unlikely that Perez would have an immediate impact, as he'd likely see minimal use as a middle reliever. And if you're a GM, you sure as hell don't trade a guy a proven talent like Crawford to find out if Perez can close for you. The Cardinals traded for Wainwright THREE YEARS before he became an impact player. K-Rod was signed by the Angels as an amateur FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. Arredondo was signed by the Angels and was in their farm system for FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. And, of course, Kenny acquired Jenks off the scrap heap. Of these four, only Wainwright was dealt for an impact player (J.D. Drew), and that was with the Cards coming off of a 3rd-place finish and not expecting to use Wainwright any time soon (which they didn't). Of these four, only Jenks was an immediate-impact player, and the only reason that he was brought up was because the Sox were desperate for a closer. But there's no way that Kenny would've traded anything of value for Bobby, due to his alcohol problem and surgically-repaired elbow. Kenny got lucky... very lucky. These are all nice stories, but would not be comparable to a contending Rays trading Crawford for a young, unproven arm (or a couple of young, unproven arms). IF the Rays are willing to take half a step back and retool for the long run, I can definitely see them trading Crawford for a package of younger arms who may not help them compete this year. I would agree with you there. BUT if the Rays are trying to win again next year, they would almost certainly want somebody who is at least close in value to Crawford and could contribute immediately. In that scenario, I don't think that the market is as good as you seem to believe. Now that you have argued points that not only have absolutely nothing to do with any argument made in this thread previously, maybe you can review what this entire conversation was about in the first place. Again, it was not about what contending teams do. It was not about what non-contending teams do. It was not about how long it takes a relief pitcher to become major league ready from the time they are brought into an organization. It was, and I have been trying to maintain it to be about what level of value Carl Crawford has on the trade market. I contend he has more value than Bobby Jenks. You claim he does not. Apparently the fact that you think young, talented bullpen arms would be of no interest to them is diverting the conversation, while I think young, talented bullpen arms would be of more interest to them than Bobby Jenks. So there is where you are going off on one course and I onto another. Let's leave it here - I think the Rays, should they desire bullpen help, would much rather have young, talented, cheaper arms than Bobby Jenks. They have enough veteran playoff-tested arms in that bullpen now to "protect" these younger kids if need be, even though I don't believe that to be the case. I have given examples of such arms or other such young talent that has indeed been traded for players of lesser or similar value to Crawford. You have chosen to twist that into why or how the players were acquired, or what the trading teams were thinking or trying to accomplish, when the sole reason those examples were mentioned is to prove that such arms or other young talent can be had on the trade market for players with little time left on their current deals. These are the only points I have chosen to prove, and I feel I have presented my arguments well. Meanwhile, we've been diverted and mislead down all kinds of other paths because of these irrelevant side arguments you've been making, probably because you know you have lost the main arguments.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:23 PM) Just keep in mind what the 33 year old Dave Roberts got after his decent season in Boston that culminated with the huge SB in the World Series. I know it was a different time, different market and different economy but the Giants threw 3 years, $18M at him. Well, this is why I argued for them to sign him back in July to a 1-year extension for $3 million. I doubt he would have turned that down. But most everyone claimed there was no way he was going to hit like that for the rest of the season, let alone next season. I figured it was a small risk to take at that price. Now, it may very well be too late, as I have no doubt that one of the Chone Figgins suitors that loses out will panic, overreact, and offer Podsednik 2/$12. Hopefully that isn't us.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:01 PM) Eaaaaasssssssssy. If we could get him cheaply, I don't see why we wouldn't give him a shot. I couldn't give a s*** if he strikes out a bunch. As long as he walks and has a decent OBP, id be happy. If we could get him cheaply, i would gladly give him a shot in spring training and see how he fares. I think his point is that his walks wouldn't translate to the MLB because pitchers would go right after him knowing he can't hit in the first place. Walk rates are fine and dandy, but if you can't hit, major league pitchers will put you away with superior stuff.

To respond to the previous few posts, without doing it individually, I will just reply to them all here. Of course I realize Podsednik had what is close to a career year for him. But let's not pretend as if the guy has never done anything offensively before. He has had a few solid years in the major leagues. It isn't as if there is anything that tells me he is not capable of replicating the year he had last year (or coming reasonably close to it). And mind you, it isn't necessarily that I am in love with the guy as our leadoff man. I'm just considering the alternatives. I don't see Chone Figgins coming to Chicago, nor do I believe it would be a good idea to sign him to a 4 year deal. I am all for a Carl Crawford trade, but given what it might take to acquire him, and the salary he makes, I am not sure we have the resources. The market for leadoff men appears to be very limited outside of these two. So then I consider Getz. No. I just don't believe in him, given what I've seen from him personally, and from what the numbers show. He can hardly hit righties, let alone lefties. While he is undoubtedly a better baserunner than Podsednik, you have to get on base to steal bases and if he were forced to play everyday, I think his OBP would be less than the .330 it was this year as he was protected by not having to face lefties. As for what kind of contract I would offer Podsednik, I argued since about the ASB that we should try to sign him for a 1 year deal at $3 million or so. I think he would have accepted such a deal at that point. Now that he has completed the year batting over .300, I think his value has increased to the point that the only way to sign him to a 1 year deal is to guarantee him a starting spot and to pay him in excess of $6 million or so. I do not like that idea one bit. A 2 year deal would concern me, unless it was something along the lines of 2/$7, which I highly doubt will be the case. And if that is indeed true, I admit, I would let him walk, take my chances with someone internally this season, and then hope someone else steps forward in 2011 from a previous draft (Danks, Mitchell, someone else). I guess I just sort of realized that after all this arguing to bring back Podsednik, I just realized that he will probably cost more than I am willing to endorse spending. What a waste of time.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) That is an outstanding idea and very good props s.o.a.r. He's basically a Denard Span (and mind you I love me some Span) except better speed, but K's more. I believe Perez was discussed a year or two around here, so this is definitely not the first time he has caught someone's eye. Could be a guy Kenny stumbles onto even if he does indeed look into a Crawford trade.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:16 PM) I'm at the point of admitting that Getz is a better option then Nix (shocking for me, i know, but Nix has to learn to hit for average before i fully invest in him), but i still won't budge on the fact that he's shown little to prove he's a lead-off option, or a long-term everyday player. I just don't see his OPB ever rising up .335, coupled with a complete lack of power this poses a problem And yet these numbers are accepted by many for the very same reasons those in favor of bringing Podsednik back are not - because we have become accustomed to mediocrity or worse - and everyone seems to accept Getz as the answer at 2b. Getz, to me, is a perfect AL utility player. He hits decently against righties, he runs the bases extremely well, and he has a fairly solid glove in the infield. Meanwhile, Podsednik hit .320 against lefties and .297 against righties (with a very acceptable .780 OPS), and he seems to be defacto out of town. We are willing to accept that Getz "may" ultimately post numbers similar to Podsednik's 09' line, instead of contemplating bringing back a guy who just posted that line in reality. I am not Scott Podsednik's biggest fan by any means. And if we were able to replace him with a better player, I am all for that. What I am looking at is reality, including what our limited resources appear to be, and given that Getz almost demands to be a player we platoon, I'm not certain I wouldn't rather target 2b to replace Getz than to target an OF to replace Podsednik.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:54 PM) I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't been trashing Podsednik unproved on here. If someone wants to make a lame ass argument about him being a good defender because he's not making errors or he's getting picked off more than anyone else in the game because he's just being a good aggressive baserunner then I'm going to counter that claim. I'm not taking every opportunity to tear him down - I have maybe 30 posts in PHT over the past 2 months and I know for a fact that the vast majority of them are not Podsednik related - I'm just trying to balance out the excessive praise for my own sanity. I do find it humorous that you mention sabermetrics because I've kept my evaluation of Podsednik very basic on here, pretty much sticking to the eyeball test and some very basic statistics that everyone can understand. I didn't post his EQSBR or even his WAR, I kept it simple in an attempt to make a clear point. Well just as you are trying to balance out the excessive praise for Podsednik by others (which I assume does not mean praise coming from me personally, as I have kept my praise to Podsednik to a minimum), I am trying to balance out the excessive insults towards him (and that does not mean trying to balance out your personal opinion in regards to him). The fact remains that he was a very competent leadoff hitter this season, and despite his poor defense and poor baserunning at times, that simply does not negate all the positives that he brought to the ballclub. No more do his negatives outweigh his positives than Mark Buehrle's negatives outweigh positives (the way he pitched after the perfect game?), or Carlos Quentin's (his numbers this year were horrendous, despite his injury, which is in and of itself a negative trait of his), or AJ Pierzynski's (he drove in 1 more run than our leadoff hitter?), or Jermaine Dye's (he was one of the worst hitters in baseball after the ASB, if not the worst), and on and on. And while I realize some of these players have been widely criticized, that criticism does not begin to approach the level of criticism Scott Podsednik has gotten here. As for sabermetrics, I did not accuse you of presenting sabremetric arguments here in regards to Podsednik. I stated the sabermetric crowd. I highly doubt you will argue it has not been those posters who put the most weight in sabermetrics as those who have come down hardest on Scott Podsednik.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:41 PM) I've seen a lot in Getz to like as a lead-off guy. He can work counts, he can run and steal bases with a high percentage, and his BB rate has been consistently above-average throughout the minor leagues. For his batting average being where it is, his OBP is pretty good number. I have faith in him raising that batting average next year, and if he does that OBP is going to be quite a bit higher. And I really don't want Beckham to concentrate on anything other than driving in runs. Putting him at lead-off will change his approach and could possibly sap some of his aggressiveness. I could see an argument for batting him anywhere between 2, 3 , 5, or 6 in the lineup as it currently stands after FA departures are factored in, but definitely not in the top spot. I don't see the love with Getz, to be honest with you. I am trying to like the guy, especially since he does bring some skills to the table that the White Sox are not particularly loaded with. But the fact is, you do have to hit to be a solid major league player, and I'm not seeing all the potential that many of the rest of you are. First off, he does not hit lefties well. He has a tendency to swing at pitches far too inside, which he then either misses or fouls off. Secondly, he does not exactly tear the cover off the ball against righties. Sure, his speed is nice, and it appears to the eye that he plays solid defense, but for all of you complaining about Scott Podsednik, can we seriously not do better than Chris Getz? I think it's great that he has a nice walk rate, but he isn't exactly Bobby Abreu out there. I guess I'm just not going to forego making other moves because I have Chris Getz as my 2b, let alone slot him in as my defacto leadoff hitter.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) They went into the season with Dewayne Wise as the leadoff man and a backup plan consisting of a rookie who probably projects out to be a pretty good utility man down the road and a 12 year old boy who thinks he's Ryan Howard. Just because it's hard to find a guy who can bat first, put up a .350+ OBP and not kill you in the other facets of the game (this is about the bare minimum one should expect a contending team's leadoff hitter to provide) doesn't mean that such a move is acceptable ('07 was nearly as bad.) Kudos to KW for finding a nice replacement 35 games in, sure he's not good at much but he put up a league average OBP for his spot in the lineup so I'm not openly complaining about his 2009 offensive production but I'm also not going to be content with them bringing him back next year since in the end I believe him to be an overall mediocre baseball player. I'm sure it's tough to find a leadoff guy and I'm sure KW is out there trying to find his man but he's not doing a very good job. What bothers me the most is the hyperbole that people use when talking about Podsednik since apparently they don't know what a truly good leadoff hitter looks like. When he's being talked about as a good option as the leadoff hitter next year because his OBP was very good for a leadoff man - despite being about average for an AL leadoff man in '09 and about 10 points higher than what OCab gave you last year in that role - and at the same time just ignoring the glaring, unacceptable shortcomings in his game or making weakass excuses for them then I'm going to get upset because it offends me as a baseball observer. If it's not possible to find a guy who can play a little defense, competently run the bases and put up an OBP of .350 or higher then go with Beckham for a year (he should provide this and more) and fill the 2 open lineup spots (LF/DH) with competent major leaguers. I agree with you that our plan at the leadoff position has not been spectacular. I also think part of this falls on Ozzie's shoulders, since he sees some value in some of the things most of us do not, which leads to him playing Wise in the first place. Let me ask you this though, would you rather have Scott Podsednik batting leadoff for us with our starting rotation fully addressed, while acquiring guys like Alexei and Quentin over the past two years, or would you rather have had our resources diverted so that we have a better than average leadoff man, and don't have the rotation we have, or guys we have been able to sign by saving money in other places? I know you'll say there is no reason we can't have both, but I'll just counter by saying I think if there had been a way, we would have seen it by now. Finally, while you despise the positive hyperbole bestowed upon Podsednik around here, there are those of us who despise the negative hyperbole bestowed upon him just as much. Here is a guy who many people seem to think is the MVP of the team this season, and yet, he has probably been the subject of as much criticism and negative commentary as anyone on the team. And it isn't as if he is an asshole off the field and makes outrageous statements in the press or something. This is a guy that is seemingly well-liked by his manager, teammates, the fans and the press, and yet, because he has gained some positive notoriety, the sabremetric fans among us have made it their personal mission to take every opportunity possible to tear the guy down. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle, but many here cannot seem to accept that.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) It isn't just about value. It's also about fit, and you've been ignoring this point all day. Your post about trading Crawford for Soria is a perfect example. Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals. IF the Rays decide that they're willing to take a step back in the short-term next year for the long-term then, yes, trading Crawford to a contender for a package of prospects is doable. HOWEVER, I see no evidence that the Rays aren't going to make a playoff run next year. If they are indeed going for it, they won't trade Crawford for prospects. That's what my argument is predicated on: the Rays contending. Again, you fail to account for FIT. The A's dealt Holliday in part because they were out of contention this year. If the Rays are still in contention next year, they're most likely not going to trade Crawford for the type of players that the A's got in return for Holliday. (Using your own "value" argument, Huston Street is nowhere near Holliday.) Not only are you comparing a contenting/non-contending trade scenario again, but you're highly overrating Chris Perez. He's a nice young pitcher and all, but isn't going to be a massive impact guy on a playoff team right now. And again, this trade is in no way applicable to a potential Crawford trade. Do you think that the Rays would give up Crawford for somebody of Perez's caliber? If you say yes, you'd be contradicting your own "value" argument again. I agree that the Rays could get young, cheap, quality arms for Crawford. But there are very few of these guys who would have a huge impact for the Rays immediately. The Rays would only trade for such a package IF they decided to take a half step back next year and retool for the long-term. And that's certainly possible. But, again, I don't see any evidence of that happening right now. I really wish that you would read my posts more carefully. I never claimed that the Rays absolutely NEEDED to trade Crawford this winter. In fact, I suggested (twice) that they might wait until June or July to see where they are in the standings before making a move. If they're playing under .500 in mid-July, they could probably get an excellent package of prospects for Crawford because almost every contender and contender-wannabe would be interested in him. I also agree that Upton has a lot to do with it (and they may deal HIM instead, for all we know). And, yes, I agree that the Rays could probably do better than Jenks. But like I said many, many hours ago, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least approach them with the idea. The thing is that we don't know what their "plan" is, or what the best "fit" for that plan will be. If it's contending, the "fit" for that plan will be a lot different than it would be if they decide to retool. Your posts seem to completely gloss over this very important distinction. Dude, you change what your argument is based on whenever I successfully shoot down your old points. Then it becomes a new argument that you have. You can't decide which Holliday trade you even want to argue. Whether it is the A's, or the Rockies, you have referenced both interchangeably. What YOU keep ignoring is that Holliday brought back SOLID YOUNG TALENT, which you claim Crawford is not worth. Will you please address that? And while you are at it, will you address why the A's acquired Holliday from the Rockies in the first place? Since you are so adept at deciding what a team's plans are, as you have done so well with the Rays, why did a cellar-dwelling young Oakland team which was clearly rebuilding go out and acquire Holliday from the Rockies? Why would they trade away two very good prospect and a struggling closer for 1 year of Holliday ("Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals," is what you stated). Why oh why did the A's do that? How monumentally stupid of them! The Royals or no other organization would do something like that! What did the Rays trade Scott Kazmir for last year, by the way? Why would they accept prospects when they are in the position they are in? For someone who claims to have no idea what the Rays plan is, you sure seem to know exactly what they will be demanding in return for Crawford, should they decide to trade him. You have devoted your entire argument to trying to explain the nuances of trading from what their position is, even though later you admit you don't know what that position is. The reason I continue to ignore these parts of your argument is because they are irrelevant and I was hoping you would pick up on that. We are NOT discussing what value the Rays could get for Crawford under 10,000 different scenarios, which is what you keep trying to do. We are discussing whether they could in fact get more talented or younger and cheaper and talented arms rather than Bobby Jenks. Now I have listed actual examples where trades such as what I originally argued occurred. You have managed to confuse them, argue about the wrong teams, mistake which teams were getting which players, mistake teams dumping salaries or being out of contention, etc. Finally, you keep mentioning that a guy like Chris Perez isn't going to have a big role in the playoffs for a team. How can you say this, considering all the young relief arms we have seen over the years make huge impacts in the playoffs? Bobby Jenks? A young KRod back in 2002? Jose Arrendondo for the Angels last season? Adam Wainright for the Cardinals back in 2006? This happens nearly every year in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that a few young arms could go a long way for the Rays by simply allowing them to move their more veteran arms back into the later innings. I dunno, I'd rather have two very nice young arms to slot into my bullpen who cost very little than one Bobby Jenks, whether I am a contending team or a non-contending team.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 09:30 PM) It's ridculious how bad a rap Dotel gets. Yeah, he walked too many people, but that K rate is nothing to scoff at. I agree. He is certainly bad at times. But he is nowhere near the level of Linebrink...

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 07:33 PM) The thing that bothers me the most is the lowered expectations of the fan base, personally I hold the front office to a higher standard. No one should be content with this guy as their leadoff hitter - especially at age 34 - but years of lowered expectations have people accepting less than they should. You can hold the front office to whatever standard you want. But you deciding to be stubborn about it means what in the end? You and Tony get to spend all your days griping about Podsednik sucking over cold beers? Given that we have one of the most active FO's in baseball, don't you think it is incredibly likely that there just aren't many decent leadoff men available? Don't you think all the very smart people in our FO have thought what you have as well? I guess there is a possibility that acquiring a leadoff man is just Kenny's "blind spot," and he just can't seem to get this one thing right, but given all the trades he has made, all the signing he has attempted to make, I just have a hard time believing that he hasn't realized this team hasn't had a good leadoff hitter for a long time. The organization has taken actions to try and correct the problem (the draft), and undoubtedly will look into signing Mr. Figgins this offseason, but have you ever stopped to think that maybe the cost is just too great? Would you feel better if we had the best leadoff hitter since Ricky Henderson but at the cost of several other positions or areas of need? Despite all the shortcomings Podsednik has, his production versus his pay was probably one of the better deals in baseball this season. We did not lose anything this season because of Scott Podsednik. And once again, despite all the fun you guys like to have with the organization's references to "grinders," at least I could tell at the end of the season that this guy was still giving it everything he had. That's a lot more than I can say for most of the rest of these guys.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 05:54 PM) They were dumping Holliday's salary. All three of those guys are under team control and not terribly expensive. Street has had injury problems over the past two seasons and lost the closer spot in Oakland last year. For some reason, you can't wrap your head around the idea that most contending teams aren't going to trade a borderline-stud player for a prospect or another young, unproven, non-impact player. Mark DeRosa is not on the same level as Carl Crawford (not even close) and the Indians weren't contenders this year. You're making an apples-and-oranges comparison here. Why in the hell would the Royals, who won't be contending for another 2-3 years, want one year of Crawford at $9M? That doesn't make any sense. Unless Crawford signs an extension as a part of that trade, there's no way in hell the Royals do that deal. The Royals will not give up a young, cheap stud like Soria for a one-year rent-a-player and hope that he signs a long-term deal. WC, let's look back to the beginning of this discussion. I am arguing that Crawford has more value than Bobby Jenks. I am arguing that the Rays can acquire a younger, cheaper, or better arm(s) for him. You began by arguing that they could not, then you have morphed your argument into what contending teams will do versus non-contending teams, about when it is the best time to do so, etc. My point is that Crawford has more worth than Bobby Jenks, despite going into a last year of his deal, an option year we assume the Rays will pick up, and that should the Rays decide to, that they can trade him for younger arms under control for much longer, or better arms than Bobby. I'm not sure what you are doing anymore. Whether a team is dumping a guy or not because of how much money he makes doesn't always affect the return they get. It certainly does in some cases, but if a player is talented enough, it just means they are trading a player when they probably shouldn't be. In Holliday's case, they were able to get a very good return for a player with not much time left on his deal. I am arguing the same is the case with Crawford. As for DeRosa, you are the one arguing apples and oranges. The reason I brought up DeRosa was because he was an example of a team getting a very highly rated relief arm for a guy with not much time on his deal remaining. As you have pointed out, which only weakens your argument, is that St. Louis is a contending team that gave up such a relief arm, and also that DeRosa is not a player the caliber of Crawford. The fact that the Indians were able to acquire an arm of Chris Perez's quality for Mark DeRosa goes to prove that young, cheap, quality arms can be had for Crawford. Why you believe the Rays feel the need to trade Crawford is up to you. I honestly have no clue if they are even interested in trading him. From what I read, I thought the reason they dealt Kazmir was for the possibility of being able to hold on to Crawford. And given the play of BJ Upton this year, I'm not certain they can afford to turn the reigns over to Desmond Jennings and expect to win in that division. So maybe they do want to sign him and hold onto him until the deadline and see how Jennings and Upton look. Maybe they don't want to move him at all. We won't know until it happens. But I think Crawford has enough value to acquire arms that fit into their plan much better than Bobby Jenks, which is the reason for all these posts. Not the many different positions you seem to have taken up since this debate started.