caulfield12

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) Regarding your first point, I'm not sure what the Sox history of futility drafting middle infielders has to do with whether or not Getz can leadoff. Getz is a good contact hitter with an exceptional batting eye and plus speed. That has been his reputation since college and the reason the Sox thought enough of him to make him a relatively high pick. The only thing that makes him "marginal" is the question of whether he'll hit with enough power to be a starter long term. (Btw, I don't think there is any question that Getz has more power than Taveras, so shouldn't the same 'marginal' argument apply to Willy?) And batting eye... no comparison. Getz consistently walks more than he strikes out. Taveras' career situational stats show that if he gets behind in the count at any point, he is absolute toast. IMO, it seems like you would rather go with a mediocre 'known' leadoff guy than a potentially better but unproven leadoff guy... I'll take Getz. Getz will wear the label (like Miles, like Eckstein, Adam Kennedy, Aviles, McEwing, etc.) of being "scrappy" and a grinder, but he doesn't really have one "plus" tool. (Maybe some will argue he will consistently be a .300+ hitter like Aviles MIGHT be...) Taveras has two and arguably three, his speed, defense and arm from CF. I guess you can still make the same argument for Brian Anderson....that he has 2-3 legit "plus" tools (defense and power), which is probably why KW hasn't given up on him quite yet. Getz is the type of player who will have to prove himself year after year as a starter because scouts and the FO won't quite trust him as an everyday player, because he's going to put up "so-so" or at best average offensive numbers for his position each year. Yet he will always be a better player (like Iguchi) than the sum of all his parts or tools. I just think there's a good reason very few Sox rookies since Guillen/Durham/Cameron/Chris Young have come up and made immediate impacts at the top of the order. It's not easy to do so, and to be a rookie, too. KW would feel that's putting too much pressure on an untested player and he wouldn't be able to relax and just play his game.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I'd put Getz in there because I think he would be a good leadoff hitter. I can't believe we've had two whole threads debating the value of acquiring Willy Taveras. Take away his one good year (out of 4) and he looks like the definition of a marginal 4th outfielder. My guess is that if he was on the team right now, the debate would be about who we could dump him on and whether we could get a half-way decent prospect for him. When was the last time a Sox middle infield prospect came up to the big league team and was able to successfully bat anywhere in the line-up besides the bottom three spots in the order for the first 2-3 years of his career? Ray Durham? (No, I don't think we can count Willie Harris as successful for the purposes of this) Caruso for one year? I just don't see how Getz, who almost everyone projects as a "very marginal" MLB starting 2B, can successfully handle the pressure of batting leadoff in his rookie season...? Maybe those who have watched Getz in our system see something that confounds common wisdom in terms of maturity, poise or make-up...but I'm not seeing how we're better off with Getz leading off than Taveras. Just can't buy that idea.

The problem is that there is VERY LITTLE resemblance between BA's minor and major league numbers. They're basing Ramirez off one year in the big leagues or his Cuban League stats? Fields batting third is ludicrous. Thome getting less at-bats than most members of the team when he consistenly has one of the highest OBP's and OPS's???

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) Someone explain to me how Taveras is a better hitter than Anderson....cuz I don't see it. Someone tell me why/how Brian Anderson would be a BETTER leadoff hitter than Taveras? How we will magically acquire Figgins or Roberts without giving up any "core" players, or sign Orlando Hudson for 4-5 years without blocking Beckham's path to the major leagues? I've seen one poster suggest Chris Getz be our leadoff hitter because where you bat in the line-up isn't statistically significant. Does anyone else have a better solution than Owens or Alexei "Soriano" Ramirez, whose OBP will probably be lower than Taveras'?

Just because Fuentes is asking for $12 million doesn't mean he'll get it. Look at Affeldt's much more reasonable contract. I think he will be quite lucky to get $10 million, but maybe it will be less. Rodriguez will be fortunate to get $45 million and 3 years. It's too big a risk for a closer who has so much wear and tear...everyone remembers what happened to Thigpen after his huge save season.

I'll take Jessica Alba, Alyssa Milano and the new Bond girl, lol. I'm so tired of this "lucky/unlucky" non-sense to say someone sucks or explain why someone who sucks doesn't suck. Ugh. It's not an argument. It's an opinion that was invalidated very clearly earlier in this thread. Taveras puts a lot of balls in play on the infield, and he has about a 50% chance of getting a single whenever he puts a bunt into play. It's not like Konerko/Thome/Dye/AJ/Crede...who have about a 5-10% chance of legging out a base hit on any grounder they pull on the infield. That's not any analysis or depending on your eyes. I'm sure almost nobody watched this guy play more than 5-10 games last year, and yet everyone is acting like they're Larry Himes. SURE, THERE IS A MINIMAL RISK...but IF Taveras doesn't perform, we move him to 9th and try something else....or we simply go with Anderson and Owens. I don't see what the problem is, and why so many are leading a "Spanish Inquisition" against Taveras like he has a cross between ebola, the bubonic plague and SARS? I have yet to see anyone criticizing Taveras come up with a better answer...who it would be, and REALISTICALLY, what we would have to give up. Gee, I feel very confident about a leadoff "committee" comprised of Anderson, Owens, Ramirez and Getz depending on the match-ups. NOT SO MUCH. We are not getting Figgins. We are not signing Hudson for 4-5 years with Beckham possibly arriving this season. We are NOT giving away half our organization for a year or so of Brian Roberts. Let's get back to reality, not a Dr. Who episode.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:58 AM) Regardless, there is no way you give up Jenks for 2 fifth starters. If you are trading Jenks, you need to get better quality in return than some teams throw aways. If TB wants to dump Jackson to avoid paying arb, than you low ball them and offer them minor leaguers, giving up Jenks is overpaying. Obviously TB isnt all that sold on him if there are willing to let him go and not sign him to a long term deal like they have with some of their other young arb eligible players. Not quite so simple. Jackson has the ability to be a 2-3 starter on most MLB teams, even an ace if he puts it all together. Just because he was behind Sonnanstine (who made about $390,000) and Shields doesn't mean he's garbage, far from it. It's just that TB has financial constraints, and they already anticipate having to pay Shields and Garza soon enough, and Kazmir is already starting to make a lot of money. More importantly, they have to move Price into the rotation as well. If you're the Rays, there's a clear reason financially to keep Sonnanstine, even though the risk of Jackson becoming a star somewhere is much greater. Not to mention the fact that KW wouldn't consider someone with limited future upside potential as Sonnanstine, he would only take someone like Jackson or Wade Davis, not McGee (injured?) or Niemann or someone like that. It's all about "ceiling" and not where he is now....Gavin Floyd wasn't even worthy of being a part of Philly's rotation when we picked him up, yet he's now #3 with us. Second, Jenks isn't going to fetch as big a return as everyone thinks with so many other closers on the market and the many "con's" for teams acquiring him. Third, TB is already loaded with pitching prospects, we don't have anything to offer them besides Poreda in that area, or maybe Richard. They already have Howell to do what Richard does, so that's kind of a no-go. I'm not sure what they need that we can give them besides Dye, and Viciedo is too raw and inexperienced for them to put him in RF (not that KW would dream of trading him yet). Beyond that, would they really want Brandon Allen or Shelby. It simply has to be Dye or Jenks or any deal would be off the table.

But a major-league source said Sunday any deal involving right fielder Jermaine Dye and Cincinnati is complicated by financial matters. Dye, who has hit 137 home runs in the last four years, will earn $11.5 million in 2009, with a mutual option for $12 million in 2010 that includes a $1 million buyout. Reds general manager Walt Jocketty confirmed to the Cincinnati Enquirer that he had talked to the Sox about "some players, but nothing is close." The teams appear to be a match because the Reds are looking for a right-handed hitter to go with young left-handed hitters Joey Votto and Jay Bruce, and the Reds have a wealth of talented pitchers, including Homer Bailey, Josh Roenicke and Matt Maloney. mark gonzales, tribune

The White Sox should be one of the more interesting teams this winter, as they appear to be one contending team taking offers on some of their better players, including outfielder Jermaine Dye, closer Bobby Jenks and pitcher Javier Vazquez. Sox GM Ken Williams has historically been the most aggressive GM, and word is that he and manager Ozzie Guillen would like to make the team younger and faster. The Mets are a team that could use all three of those Sox players. However, talks with the South Siders have been slow. While the White Sox presumably have some interest in the Mets' top four prospects -- outfielder Fernandez Martinez and pitchers Jon Niese, Bobby Parnell and Eddie Kunz -- teams that have dealt with the Mets say the team from Queens is clutching tightly to them, leading to speculation they are more likely to fill their needs via free agency. While Jenks and Dye would help any team, the Mets don't appear to covet Vazquez, an innings eater who is drawing interest from other National League clubs. The Reds have shown an interest in Dye, and the report in WCKY in Cincinnati that a deal of hard-throwing pitching prospect Homer Bailey and another prospect for Dye was discussed has not been denied. Bailey's stock has to be down, but the Sox are one team that seems to be able to harness the talents of hard throwers (see Jenks and Matt Thornton). www.cnnsi.com

QUOTE (Felix @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:41 PM) I dislike both Figgins and Taveras, if it is any consolation to you. This isn't to say that Figgins is as bad as Taveras though, as he's a FAR superior player. Same skill set, but he at least gets on base at good rate (.367 OBP last year, .393 in 2007 and .356 career) as well as showing some sort of slugging (1 XBH per 16 AB compared to Taveras's 1 per 25 AB). I mean, seriously. Taveras averages 24 extra-base hits a year, while Figgins is at 40. Neither are the answer for the leadoff spot, but Figgins would at least be a serviceable leadoff man, while Taveras should never be leading off. But trading Konerko or Fields or Poreda for Figgins is much worse than trading Broadway or Adam Russell for Taveras. The cost is simply too high for Figgins, and he's a horrible defensive player. KW said younger/more athletic/better defense, not worse, older and injury-prone. That's why I doubt he touches Hudson or Roberts either.

The argument is BA during the first half of 2006. We were fine without him hitting...just playing sound defense. Not only that, but Taveras would get into scoring position more often than BA that year, whether he was batting 9th or 1st. It's only when the Twins caught on fire and we were struggling in July/August that BA became a liability and Ozzie decided to go with Mackowiak instead.

Cubano, I respect your opinion on quite a few things here. However, Rivera, in that scenario, would be acquired to play LF, with Dye theoretically traded and Quentin shifting over to RF. Not for Rivera to play CF, not sure where that idea came from. If Ibanez and Morales were both available for two year contracts, I think at least 25 of the GM's in baseball would pick him over Morales...extend it out to 3-4-5 years and it would be much closer. Even if Morales is the next John Olerud, he will always be criticized for not being a power hitter, unless he puts up a .330 average with 40+ doubles. Let me ask you in a different way...who would you rather have for the next 5 years? Dayan Viciedo or Kendry Morales?

Renteria is waiting on Furcal and Cabrera dominoes to fall first...probably the NL again. Most likely, LA (they won't pay to bring back Furcal), SF, Minnesota is a possibility here, the Mets, the Cardinals...but probably an NL team. If we signed Renteria, he wouldn't be hitting leadoff...so who would our leadoff hitter be again? Brian Anderson? Owens? Getz? Ramirez? I would rank them in order (assuming KW won't pay for either Ibanez or Dunn)... 1. Rivera 2. Griffey (because he's used to the AL and is already familiar with our clubhouse and Ozzie/KW) 3. Giles

Ummmm, no...Willie Harris has never shown any type of propensity or consistent capability of stealing bases...ever. A more relevant comparison would be Chone Figgins and Harris. Why does everyone love Figgins and hate Taveras? Because he can play a lot of positions? Well, geez, he can't play any of them very well. He's getting older and losing some of his burst...and yet, some are still willing to trade Paul Konerko for him.

Well, Dunn and Ibanez are two possible exceptions...both could play LF for one year, then replace Thome. Viciedo SHOULD be in the picture at LF/RF or 3B by 2010 for sure, if not earlier. Say no to Abreu, by the way.

Milkman, he has made MANY worse moves than that, and has never been close to getting fired. Please save the hyperbole. When Paul Konerko was acquired, the concern throughout baseball was about his "degenerative hip condition," which is why the Dodgers were willing to part with him, as well as the Reds. Hasn't that turned out pretty well for the White Sox? Baldelli might turn out okay, just like Jon Lester did. I know, different medical situations/conditions. Second, any Baldelli signing would be for lower numbers than Uribe would make and would include lots of incentives. Low risk deal, high possible reward.

Kind of interesting....I took Taveras, Owens, Anderson, and Baldelli and compared them. Taveras 8 (power), 98 (speed), 56 (contact), 27 (patience) Owens 9, 95, 71, 50 Anderson 85, 60, 31, 49 Baldelli 76, 80, 36, 9 According to that, Owens would be the best leadoff hitter. Who knows, maybe KW will agree with Baseball Cube.

Well, Anderson/Baldelli, to most Sox message board posters at least, would be superior to Taveras alone...I think. The only problem is BA couldn't hit leadoff, so it would have to be Getz or Ramirez (at this point).

"#00FF00"][/color]

Note to KW...if the Reds can do it, so we can we (of course, Ramirez and Viciedo are both Latin Americans...but we are traditionally talking DR and Venezuela) "The structure is there," he said. "Look at what they've done in Latin America." The Reds invested nearly $5 million in three 16-year-olds, outfielders Juan Duran, Yorman Rodriguez and left-handed pitcher Ismael Guillon. You don't do that unless you're interested in the long-term security of the club. Fans get caught up in the day-to-day transactions on the big-league level. Rightfully so - you're not going to buy tickets to see Duran, Rodriguez and Guillon play in the Dominican. And all three are at least four years from helping the Reds win a game. quote from the article

Cuban, I really don't see us going "bargain" with the possible exception of the 5th starter's spot. I doubt it will be Randy Johnson, FWIW. As far as OF, Baldelli and Edmonds are the only CFers on that list. Is it possible KW goes after either one OVER Anderson and Owens? I'm sure it's at least a 25% chance that he would go after one or the other, especially Baldelli.

UF is still #6 in Sagarin's rankings today, and not really anywhere close to #5 Utah. How sure ARE we that the computers will jump UF up after playing a 13th game? And how sure are we that if they don't, even a #1 ranking from the humans would be enough to keep UF #2 ahead of the Big 12 South runner-up? I would like someone somewhere to run through this with more than just a "Florida and Alabama in a semi-final" bit of "analysis." This is a great point that I'm not sure I would have considered otherwise, and that most people are overlooking in their rush to deem Alabama-Florida the winner-take-all primer for the mythical championship. That's certainly true for Alabama if it finishes 13-0, and I assume it's true for Florida in the human polls if the Gators take the mighty SEC at 12-1. But the computers? That's not so certain. My concerned e-mailer is right: Florida's highest rank in any of the six computer polls is third (Richard Billingsley); after that UF is fouth, sixth, sixth, sixth and seventh, respectively. Compare that with Texas: There is at least three positions difference between the Horns and Gators in every computer poll except Richard Billingsley's. So how much is beating Alabama -- which, again, comes into the game ranked behind Texas and Oklahoma in the computer average -- worth? The humans are all but guaranteed to vote Florida into the championship with a win Saturday, any kind of win. But will it worth enough in the computer polls (I'm thinking at least two positions per computer) to close that very wide gap with Texas? That's a shaky guess. Chaos is not Missouri upsetting Oklahoma; in fact, that's very clean: Texas will play the SEC champion, whoever it is. Chaos is Florida beating Alabama, and still missing out because the computers are set on an OU-Texas rematch. from yahoosports.com

A nice $10 million dollar "golden parachute." Think he'll feel embarassed or ashamed to take any of that money in this economy? Not a chance. But he will forever be remembered as a "paper tiger" and a villain now...not a genius or mastermind.

Mulder, Duchscherer, Pedro Martinez, Colon, Randy Johnson, Freddy Garcia...those are more typical KW "value" moves. http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archi...astros_a_1.html (for JR and KW to read) Finally, look to see if KW makes a play for Daniel Cabrera if the Orioles don't offer him salary arbitration before Dec. 12th.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...&id=3725295 Interesting article...some names we might be taking a look at include: LHP Randy Johnson SS/2B/UTIL Felipe Lopez (Betemit's presence would seem to prevent a move, not to mention Beckham) SS (2B?) Omar Vizquel OF Juan Rivera (someone mentioned him in the last couple of days) OF Rocco Baldelli OF Jim Edmonds