whitesox61382

You must be one of the few proud Valentin fans. I am willing to bet that Valentin and Guzman will probably get roughly the same amount of money next year(within 1M either way), so justifying keeping Valentin because of price doesn't hold water. Saying that Valentin is better defensively clearly shows that you are a Valentin fan and are not unbiasly making an accurate judgement. I hate it when people try to justify all the errors that Valentin makes because of his range/arm, but that doesn't apply in this case since Guzman has similar range/arm(probably better as Valentin gets older). When you factor in that Guzman has made 12 of fewer errors the past 3 seasons, than it becomes clear that Valentin is NOT better defensively than Guzman and the difference will only get worse as Valentin gets older. You than run to the oldest trick in the book(intangibles), which has been the BS justification for keeping Valentin's pathetic sub .250 hitting ass past his prime. You can't accurately meassure intangibles, yet according to all the Valentin fans, Valentin has the best leadership/intangibles in the majors(with little or no evidence to support this). What about the intangible of being a division winner 3 years in a row, playoff experience, beating the rival team(Sox) consistantly, and playing an important role in all of these? That is something that can be meassured, and yet you choice to ignore it and assume that Valentin's intangibles far outweigh Guzmans. Valentin has gotten worse every year since he has been in a Sox uniform, and at the age of 35 there is little hope of a turn around. Yet you choice to ignore this. 00 .273 BA .834 OPS 01 .258 BA .845 OPS 02 .249 BA .790 OPS 03 .237 BA .776 OPS 04 .216 BA .760 OPS If you can't understand the trend in the above stats, than you need to take a STATS101 class. You say that Valentin is usually good for a .235 BA with 25 HR and 70 RBI as if it is a good thing. Settling for a .235 BA(with a terrible OBP) since he hits 25 HR is the reason the Sox have underachieved and struggled the past couple of years. If you want another .500 team that hits 200 HR, than tell the Sox management to retain Valentin, but if you want to attempt to improve this team, than you need to substitute more complete players for some of the power hitters(especially power hitters that hit below .250). The one thing that I will agree with you on, is that Guzman is overrated. He refuses to walk, he doesn't use his speed on the BP, doesn't hit for a great average, doesn't have much power, and hasn't shown any improvement. With that said, I would still take Guzman over Valentin(and I do not like Guzman). Guzman might be a decent backup option if the price is right, but I really don't want him as a starter. I am not a big Vizquel fan, but I would rather have Vizquel than Guzman. Whatever the case, as long as Valentin is not wearing a Sox uniform I will be happy.

How can you say that Furcal isn't a huge threat on the base pads? The guy is probably one of the top 10 fastest guys in the league. He has stolen at least 20+ bags in all 5 major league seasons(25+ in every season except 2001 when he only had 324 AB). He has stolen 54 bases in 62 attempts(87%) over the last two years(77% career). He also is among the league leaders in infield hits. If you watch any Braves games, than you will see that his speed causes pitchers problems when he is on the base pads. In conclusion, Furcal IS one of the biggest threats on the base pads. Combine that with a solid BA/OBP, good bunting, good plate disipline, and good power(for a middle infielder) and you have one of the top leadoff hitters in the game. I am a big Uribe fan, but I would definately give him up if it meant acquiring Furcal. Atlanta does have some options if they do trade Furcal. They do have a solid SS prospect by the name of Betemit(once considered a top prospect) who had a solid year at AAA .278/12/59 .794 OPS and solid D. They also have Nick Green, who had a solid rookie year and could get some PT at SS(although his natural position is 2B). They could also look to find a cheap short-term option such as Vizquel. Uribe doesn't have to be a part of a deal for Furcal, but I am sure that the Braves would want him included in a deal. My second choice would be Roberts(Baltimore). I wouldn't mind Hairston, but if I were trading with Baltimore, than I would ask for Roberts and settle for Hairston if they won't budge on Roberts. Roberts is a very good leadoff hitter. He hits for a solid average, draws walks, works the count, handles the bat well(bunting, ect), has great speed, has decent pop(50 doubles this year). He is also cheap(allowing the Sox to spend money on other needs), still has a couple of years before he is a FA, still young(27), very solid defensively. I think Baltimore and the Sox are perfect trade partners since Baltimore has a leadoff hitting 2B and good right handed reliever to start a package, while the Sox have 2 power options that would probably interest Baltimore.

I have been singing Polanco's praises for years now, and always thought that he could be a sleeper that the Sox should pursue, similar to Carlos Guillen last year(I just wish the Sox organization would have listened to me on that one). The first thing that catches my eye is that he hasn't hit below .288 in 5 years(career .295 hitter). He has decent pop, runs well, has a good eye, is solid defensively, and can play multiple positions. He would be a great addition. With that said, my #1 choice is Furcal. He is EXACTLY what the Sox need, and is easily one of the top 5 leadoff hitters in the game. He hits for average(has never hit below .275), he has some pop(has averaged 50 extra base hits the past 3 years), has good plate disipline(averages about 60 BB a year), has great speed(20+ SB every year in the majors 54-62 last 2 years), and he handles the bat well. His defense is solid although he can be error prone(ala Valentin). I think Furcal would be a perfect fit in Chicago. With that said, the question is, will Atlanta trade him? While it is unlikely there is a posibility that they could move him to fix other holes. They do have a good looking SS prospect by the name of Betemit who could replace Furcal. The Sox also have some pieces that might interest the Braves. They Braves might want more offense at 1B or whether they have faith in LaRoche. They could be interested in Konerko. I am sure that Drew will be their top offensive priority, but after the year he had, he could be a little too much for Atlanta. They might settle for a guy like Lee as a replacement. 3/5th the Braves rotation are FA(Wright, Ortiz, and Byrd). I can see the Braves resigning Wright and letting Ortiz walk. Byrd is a question mark depending on the kind of money he wants. With that said, the Braves could be in the market for a cheap starter, especially if they spend big bucks keeping Drew or adding another offensive player. This is why I think the Braves would be interrested in Garland. I think Garland could excel in the NL, in a pitchers park, and working under Mazzone. The Braves have some pieces besides Furcal that could interest the Sox. Smoltz, assuming his option is picked up, to close. LaRoche, if Konerko is traded he could be a cheap option along with Gload. Cruz, the former Cubs pitcher put together a great season(I doubt the Braves move him). Estrada, the AS catcher would be a welcomed addition on the southside(highly unlike the Braves move him). So there are the makings of blockbluster on both sides. In the end, I expect a trade between Baltimore and the Sox. I think it would be a perfect match. With the Sox getting a package centered around Julio and one of their 2B(Hairston/Roberts) for either Lee or Konerko.

Palehosefan, do you actually watch any of the Heat games? Jones has to be the oldest 32 year old in the league. He is no longer an "elite" shooter as you claim. He is a HUGE liability defensively, and might be one of the worst defensive 2 guards in the game. He was no existant in the playoffs once Wade took over the team. With Shaq and Wade running this team, Jones is going to become a nonfactor and will probably get half the touches he did in the past. Lets not forget that the past 4 years he has been the go to guy in Miami, and the simple fact that he is now the 3rd option will cause a significant decrease in his numbers. Mark my words, Jones will average under 15 points a game this season. You overrate the stats because you neglect the fact that the majority of the Heat players will get fewer touches now that Shaq is in town and Wade has taken over this team. Miami is going to be like LA all over(only Shaq/Wade isn't close to Shaq/Kobe) when it comes to complementary players. Shaq has a history of nagging injuries, especially as he has gotten older, so saying that JO'Neal or Wallace are just as likely to get hurt holds no water. Sure you use stats, but they are projected stats that lack common sense, which doesn't make them accurate and a reasonable way to back up your opinions. I could point to the stats put up by complementary players in LA since that will probably be a more accurate projection of what to expect from Miami's complementary players.

I really think people are overrating the Heat. Wade is a very good young player, but he isn't in the same class as Kobe. Shaq has already shown signs of aging, and isn't quite the player he was 4-5 years ago. So the comparison of Wade/Shaq and Kobe/Shaq doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the Heat have absolutely no complementary players. Jones is well past his prime and liability in some cases. Haslem and Butler are bench players on most teams. There bench is one of the worst in the NBA. They are lucky they play in a very weak division. Palehosefan, are you a Heat fan, because you overexegerate almost every Heat player with your projected stats. The Pistons and Pacers are the cream of the East, and either have the talent to win it all.

I could be wrong, but from what I have read, Ozzie has lost faith in Harris to some degree. Furthermore, just because a person is compared to a current player or a manager WANTS him to perform like a current player, doesn't warrant giving him the leadoff spot. IMO, the leadoff spot is the most important spot in the lineup, and a player should EARN that spot and not be given it by default. Vizquel has been very inconsistant over the past 4 years. 01' .323 OBP .657 OPS 02' .341 OBP .759 OPS 03' .321 OBP .657 OPS 04' .353 OBP .743 OPS Which Vizquel is going to show up next year? Even in his best year(out of the last 4), Vizquel has posted an OBP of .353 which is good but not great. He hasn't stolen 20+ bases in 4 years. His defense has slipped some over the past couple of years. Finally, how much faith can you put in a 38 year old? For 2-3M I would take Vizquel, but I hope they look elsewhere first. Yes, losing Maggs really hurts, but you fail to improve any of the positions that are holes, and thats the point I was trying to make. The Sox have holes at C, 2B(sort of), SS, 3B(sort of), and RF, yet you only improve one of those holes(and only marginally).

I hope that isn't the Sox top 6 hitters come opening day. Harris hasn't shown anything to warrant him being the leadoff hitter next year, and if the Sox have an inconsistant/unproven player like Harris leading off, than it could be a long season. Harris should be in 1 of these 2 roles next year. 1) The first infielder off the bench(a speed and defense guy) getting a couple of starts a week. 2) The #9 hitter with the Sox improving other holes and finding a legit leadoff hitter. Personally, I think he fits better in role #1. Rowand in the leadoff spot is also a mistake. I am a huge Rowand fan and held by my belief that this could be a breakout year for him. With that said, I don't think he will be a consistant .300+ hitter(a .280 BA .330 OBP is more realistic next year). He also doesn't draw enough walks. Rowand's best quality is his power, which should be in the middle of the order and not leading off. I still have question marks about Vizquel's age and inconsistancy over the past couple of years. With that said, I could live with him at the top of the order assuming he doesn't cost more than a couple of million. I still believe that there are much better/younger options available. The Sox need to get rid of some of the right handed dominated, one-dimensional, all or nothing hitters in the middle of the lineup. This team needs more athletism, more balance(a few lefty bats), more team speed, more high BA/OBP type players. I really hope that the Sox don't have the middle of the order that you suggest, because it doesn't improve the Sox. It appears that the bottom 3 spots in your lineup are holes, which is not good. The lineup you suggest is worse than the opening day lineup last year, and your top 6 hitters alone will cost the Sox roughly 30M next year. That is a huge chunk of payroll tied up in a small portion of the roster. That means the Sox will have little money to address other needs. This is why the Sox NEED to trade either Lee or Konerko. 1) The Sox should get good return for either of them and address at least 1 or 2 holes. 2) It will probably save the Sox some money and allow them to sign a player or 2 to address other holes. Finally, based on your lineup, Crede would be on the bench. While I am not against Crede not starting, I doubt that Crede is on the bench. If that is the case, than look for him to be traded.

I am not big on Vizquel. The guy is going to be 38 next year, so the question is, how many solid years does he have left? His defense has already began to slide, he hasn't hit above .275 in 3 of the last 4 years, and he hasn't stolen 20+ bases in 4 seasons. If you want to go after a middle infielder like Vizquel, than I would much rather go after Hairston from Baltimore. He is a similar player only a decade younger and probably cheaper.

I would have to disagree with your belief that Koskie is only marginally better than Crede. Lets compare them based on the typical 5 tools. Batting Average Koskie has a clear advantage over Crede at this point. While Koskie had a subpar year from a BA standpoint(his worst) he was still better than Crede, and has a very good career BA of .280. Crede has a career BA of .256 by comparison, and Crede has never been projected to be a high BA guy in the majors. Power They are about even from a power standpoint. Koskie has averaged 32 2B, 20 HR, and .469 SLG the past 4 years. Crede by comparison has averaged 28 2B, 20 HR, and .426 SLG the past 2 years(Crede's SLG is lower because of a lower BA). Plate Disipline Personally, I think SO are an overrated stat, with the exception of a few situations. With that said, Koskie has an advantage in this catagory. He will SO 100+ times, but he does average about 70 BB and results in a career OBP of .373(an area that the Sox desperately need to improve). Crede SO a little less, but refuses to take walks. His career OBP by comparison is .304(or .069 lower than Koskie). Speed Once again, Koskie has an advantage in this catagory. Koskie is actually one of the faster 3B in the league. He was 1 SB short of his 4th straight double digit SB season. Crede is one of the slower 3B in the league and is often a clog on the basepads. Crede also hits into more DP's than Koskie. Defense This catagory is about even, as mentioned earlier in this thread. Both are very solid defensively. Koskie has an advantage in 3 catagories(in areas that the Sox need to desperately improve) and is about equal in 2 catagories. I would say that is better than marginally better. Taking it one step further, if you look at their OPS, they aren't even close. 2004(Koskie .842 versus Crede .717) and career(Koskie .834 versus Crede .736). Koskie's career OPS is almost .100 points higher which is a significant difference. Finally, Koskie is a lefty and would help add balance to the lineup. I would say that Koskie is more than marginally better and IS worth 2-3M more than what Crede will get. Koskie will probably sign for a short-term deal 2-3 years, which should be enough time for Fields to develop or find a better long-term option.

I have already said that I am not a Crede fan, and I believe that the Sox should go a different route at 3rd next year. With that said, I have to disagree with you on a couple of issues. Sure the organization tries to sell Sox prospects to the fans, but when independant sources such as BA, BP, scouts(from other teams), analysis, ect also rate the Sox prospects among the top in baseball, the question is, is the Sox organization just in trying to sell Sox prospects to the fans? Of course they are. They aren't saying that a 38th round pick who is hitting .220 in the minors is going to be the next Bonds. They are selling top prospects that are exceling in the minors. Predicting which prospects develop and which won't isn't an exact science and is very difficult. Besides, all organizations over-hype their own prospects, so holding that against the Sox as if they were alone in doing this is just plain stupid. I don't want to go in depth about financial issues involving JR, but you have to understand that he is a business man and here to make money. Unfortunately, the Sox are in an endless cycle where the Sox fans won't consistantly go to the games unless the Sox management puts some money into the team, and the Sox management won't put money into the team unless they get more fan support to justify taking the risk of putting more money into the team. Both sides have a fair arguement, so I think Sox fans have to take some blame in this case, and not just cry about how cheap JR is. Sox fans don't want to spend $15 of their own money on a ticket, yet they get mad because JR doesn't spend 15M of his own money on this team. It goes both ways when you look at it critically. How do you know that are advanced scouts suck? Can you even name one of the Sox advanced scouts? Yet you "know" that they suck. You appear to be a classic case of a fan who thinks he knows everything about this organization, and if he was in charge this team would have multiple WS rings. You probably have no clue(me either) on all the things that go on within the Sox organization, so please stop pretending that you do. On the outside, I would say that the Sox advanced scouts have done a pretty good job. If you look throughout the majors, than you will see that there are a bunch of former Sox prospects doing well. The Sox track record of developing young talent is comparible to most major league teams. Another KW hater. A guy who points to his 2-3 bad trades and ignores the 8-10 trades that have been extremely beneficial to this organization. No GM is flawless and has every trade work out as they have planned. Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that since KW has to make most of his changes through trade, he has to take more chances than other GM's who have the luxery of "buying" their talent on the FA market. You continue to mention Garland, Crede, and Borchard, but what about Sox prospects who have developed and live up to their potential? Guys like Maggs, Lee, Buehrle, Rowand, ect. Once again you lack to ability to look at things from both perspectives. All organization have overhyped prospects that don't live up to the hype, so why do you pretend that the Sox are the only team with that problem. Until you gain the ability to look at things critically and from both perspectives, it is worthless arguing with you.

Have you seen Beltre's stats before this season? They are almost identical to Crede's stats the past couple of years. I don't think that KW is suggesting that Crede is going to come back next year and put up the kind of numbers that Beltre has this year(only a handful of players have that capability). I think he is simple suggesting that Crede is still young, and he has the talent to have a breakout year(say .280/25/90) next year despite this years troubles. In that case the comparison is very relivant. With that said, I am not a Crede fan, and I would like to see him traded. I think Koskie would be a perfect fit for this team. He isn't flashy, but is a solid/complete player. Here is a comparison of Beltre's 2 seasons before his breakout year(02-03) versus Crede's last 2 seasons(03-04). Beltre (02-03 average) .249/22/77 37 BB 99 SO .297 OBP .425 SLG .722 OPS Crede (03-04 average) .250/20/72 33 BB 78 SO .303 OBP .424 SLG .727 OPS There stats are almost identical, so I ask how ridiculious is the comparison? How many people could honestly say that they could have even come close to predicting the type of year that Beltre has had based on the above stats? The Sox have also been burned in the past by giving up on young players too earlier, and I am sure that if KW trades Crede(like most Sox fans want) and Crede turns into a good player/star, those same fans that wanted Crede out will blast KW for giving up on Crede. KW is in a no win situation unless he keeps Crede and he realizes his potential.

How isn't he all that he is hyped to be? Have you watched any Purdue games this season? This kid has a cannon for an arm, uncanny accuracy, amazing touch, and a poise that you just can't teach. Even if you haven't seen him play on a consistant basis, the numbers don't lie. 17 TD versus 0 INT is simple amazing. Add in a 70%+ completion rate, 1,300+ yards, 38+ points in every game, and a 4-0 record. Not to mention the fact that he hasn't played in 3 quarters(do to big leads) and threw only a couple passes in the 4th quarter today. If you think he is a replica of Brees, than it is clear that you have no idea about football talent. The only thing that Brees and Orton have in common is that they are both accurate. Orton is taller/stronger, has 10x the arm that Brees has, has better touch on his balls(especially the deep balls), and has a poise/leadership advantage(IMO). Apparently I am not the only one that seems the similarities between Orton and Manning according the the SI article(which I haven't read). NFL scouts are drooling to get their hands on this kid. If the team with the #1 pick needs a QB, than Orton will probably be the 1st pick in the draft next year, and will almost certainly be the #1 QB taken in next years draft. I hate Purdue, but I love watching pure passers like Orton throw the ball.

Does Orton remind anyone else of Peyton Manning? I think it is remarkable how similar they are. I don't like Purdue, but I have to admit that Orton is best QB in college football. His mix of arm strength and accuracy make him nearly impossible to defend. The touch he has is remarkable. He actually runs pretty well for a pocket passer. Finally, the way that he audibles and runs the team reminds me of Peyton Manning. He will definately be the 1st QB taken in the 2005 draft and might have the Heisman trophey on his shelf. This game is frustrating to watch. ND is moving the ball, but shotting themselves in the foot.

Pot meet kettle...has it ever occured that you are the one that is clueless, that doesn't know what he is talking about, that doesn't understand what I am talking about? Of course not, because you are one of those hard headed guys who can't admit he is wrong no matter how many people tell him that. Have you noticed that almost no one has agreed or defended your points? Do you think that is coincidence? Yet there have been multiple posters who have supported and defended my points. Is that coincidence, or is it that you are too stupid to realize how dumb you are(or that everyone disagrees with you, but you feel that everyone is clueless and you are right no matter what). My simple points are: 1) 47 AB's is too small of a sample size to make an accurate judgement. 2) Minor league stats can't accurately predict major league sucess or be used to accurately predict major league stats. This idea is supported by the simple fact that over half of the prospects BP, BA, sabermetric, and other sources make major league predictions for never make it to the majors(rules out the use of any type of probability). 3) Proven major league talent is worth more than minor league potential. 4) Quality major league pitchers are worth more than quality major league hitters. 5) I do think Reed will be a solid major league player. This is my last post in this thread because Jackie is getting too worked up.

Jackie, stop while you are behind. You are getting worked up because a majority of the responses in this thread disagree with your opinion and it is reflecting poorly on you. "I don't consider 47 abs "an accurate number to make a judgement on"! What the f***?! I said" While you didn't come out and say that 47 ABs is enough to make an accurate judgement, you do make the assumption that this sample combined with his minor league stats does make it possible to make judgements since he performed well in both cases. Do you deny this(if so, than please refer to your 1st response to me)? I took it one step further and said, not only is 47 AB's to small to make an accurate judgement, but minor league stats aren't a good indicator of major league sucess(stats). The obvious reason is that the majority of prospects never make the majors, so its impossible to come up with an accurate formula to project major league sucess(and accurately project their major league stats based on their minor league numbers). You have tons of career .300+ hitters in the minors that never make the majors or develop into decent major league players, and conversely you have tons of career .260-.270 hitters in the minors that develop into .300 hitters in the majors. The amount of deviation makes it impossible to use minor league stats as an accurate indicator. For some reason you don't understand this simple concept(make because you are more worried about trying to prove me wrong at any expense including ignoring simple facts like about). "So next time, point out to me exactly what f***ing statement of mine you're referring to, and don't just assume you know what I'm talking about." This is another one of your problems. At times I don't think you know what you are talking about. You also don't communicate your points well(maybe because you often backtrack, retract, and contradict previous statements of yours). "That's how statistics is done. (One way or another -- I'm not going to go into Bayesian v Classical statistics until this basic distinction is understood.)" This is another one of your problems. You are a stat geek who attempts to turn a simple concept such as stats, into a Harvard type debate. You are out thinking yourself. Furthermore, Bayesian theory of probability has no relivance to this topic and most of baseball for that matter. Probability can not be accurately used with minor league stats as far as projecting them into major league stats/sucess. For some reason you don't understand this. "Statistically, your statement that "a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right)" is inconsistent with your statement that minor league stats are "almost complete worthless". Look up Bayes law (or Bayes theorem)." See the above paragraph. For every .300 hitter in the minors that makes the majors, there is a couple .250-.260 hitters in the minors that make the majors. With such a large deviation probability can not be accurately used. "Can you "guarantee" that Freddy Garcia will be a particular type of pitcher? No player, minor or major leagues, guarantees anything. Or do you disagree?" This is incorrect to some degree. A player that has hit .300 in the majors 4 seasons in a row is likely to do so the following year(see Maggs when healthy). This is one place where you can use Bayes theory. Sure there are some cases where this doesn't hold true(see Konerko last year), but there isn't as much deviation. With that said, you can't do the same with minor league stats. Why? Because the difference in talent from A ball, AA, and even AAA to the majors is extremely drastic. In the major league example, the talent level remains the constant. This is the simple concept that I am trying to get across. This is why a proven major leaguer is worth more the a prospect with a lot of "potential", and why this is a generally accepted concept among baseball elite, experts, analysist, ect. Nice try with those two articles as well. Like I said, just because they ATTEMPT to accurately predict major league stats based on minor league stats, doesn't make it an accurate indicator. In fact, it proves my point more than it does yours. Look at the names in that 1st article. They attempt to project major league stats for the top propsects in the minors. You will probably not recognize a majority of the names on that list. Why? Because a majority of them either never made the majors or didn't amount to anything in the majors(or come close to their projected major league stats). This clearly proves my point. How can you accurately use minor league stats to project major league stats, when over half of the prospects never make the majors. This fact only makes it impossible to accurately predict major league stats using minor league numbers. Both articles acknowledge this concept in a round about way. You need to read that second article a little more closely. It says and I quote "the goal being to show". In case you didn't understand the quote that you quoted, it suggests that the writter is going to ATTEMPT to show that minor league stats can be used to accurately project major league stats. Attempting to prove something(that can't be proven) doesn't prove that there IS an accurate way to project minor league stats for the majors. Nice try junior. "we didn't need to give him up to get Garcia. In fact, almost every single critic of the trade that I've seen has said the same thing." Do you understand that you have to give up something to get something? Did you think that Seattle would take just garbage for one of the top pitcher in the AL? Quality starting pitching is the hardest thing to find. This is a generally accepted concept. Would you give up a .300/15/75 15 SB corner outfielder for a top of the rotation starter? I would, and so would a majority of the baseball world. Not only that, but Reed is far from a guarantee to post the above stats. Seattle is taking a gamble, and in the best case scenerio(for Seattle) Reed and Garcia would have similar value, yet you complain. "Why bother, every time I make a clear point, it seems to be filtered out. The very next post is going to be, "You're an idiot. Garcia doesn't suck!"" Haha. Have you noticed that you are really the only poster in this thread that has supported your "clear points"? Maybe they aren't as clear as you think. Maybe this is a case of your being too stupid to realize how dumb you are(a saying and not a personal attack).

The point is that his 47 AB's are out of line with both his minor league stats and reason for that matter. The sample size by itself is too small to make an accurate judgement, and more importantly when that stats are at one of the extremes(hitting over .400 or hitting under .100 for example), than they become even more unreliable. Furthermore, no one in their right mind would argue that Reed will be a career .400 hitter or anywhere close to that, so how can you consider that an accurate number to make a judgement on? Can you please provide a link showing an article from a credit source in which they clearly state that minor league stats are a "very good predictor of ML sucess"? Because I subscribe to BA, the sabermetric stuff that James and others are involved in, and other stats oriented baseball sources and I have yet to see them come out and suggest that minor league stats are a very good predictor of ML sucess. There are plenty of articles in which they attempt to predict the stats a minor league player with put up in the majors based on their minor league stats, but they are way off an overwhelming percent of the time, which only further proves my point that minor league stats are not a good predictor of major league sucess, especially similar sucess in comparison to the stats/sucess they had in the minors. Sure you can make the arguement that a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right), but that career .330 hitter isn't guaranteed sucess in the majors, and this is a concept that you aren't simple grasping. Year in and year out I check minor league stats to find career minor leaguers leading the league/among the league leaders in key stats(BA, HR, RBI, ect), yet they never make the majors. Why is that? Simple, minor league stats aren't a good indicator of major league sucess. If you want an example, than look at the Sox minor league system about 5 years ago. It was filled with top prospects putting up good numbers in the minors, and look where the overwhelming majority of those prospects are now(struggling in the majors or haven't even reached the majors). This alone disproves the belief that minor league stats are a good indicator of major league sucess. If you want to judge the trade right now, than the Sox are the clear winners. Garcia performance far outweigh Reed's 50 or so AB's, and Davis has outperformed Olivo(slightly), so if you want to judge the trade to this point, than it is clear that the Sox are the winners. However, the knowledgible fan says that we should wait a couple of years to see if Reed turns into a good major league player(unless you think 50 AB is enough to make that decision), to see if Olivo becomes a solid everyday catcher, to see if Morse can be an everyday player in the majors, and to see if Garcia is a quality starter for the Sox over the next couple of years. This will probably take a couple of years, but only than will we know which side truely won the trade in the long-term.

It really has nothing to do with how a person performs in the 47 AB's as much as it is the fact that it is such a small sample size, which makes it inaccurate. The sample size alone makes your arguement extremely weak to say the least, but when the numbers are skewed(ie a guy hitting above .400) they become even more inaccurate. The point is that the knowlegible fan takes Reed's 47 AB's with a grain of salt and says get back to me in 2 years when we can make an accurate judgement of the kind of MAJOR LEAGUE player Reed is. Are you nieve enough to suggest that Reed is going to be a career .400 hitter because he has done so in his first 47 major league AB's and did so in about 200 AB's at AA? Jackie, Jackie, Jackie...follow the minors for a couple of years and get back to me. The minor leagues aren't completely worthless. It is a place for young players to develop their talents. Stats in the minor leagues are almost complete worthless when it comes to projecting major league talent. Why? Because over 3/4th of the players Reed(for example) played against will never reach the majors. The talent level between AA and the majors is so drastic that it becomes impossible to accurately project stats. The Gibbon's example was simple one example to prove my point. There are litterally thousands of examples of prospects putting up good numbers in the minors and never amounting to anything in the majors or coming close to duplicating those stats. Conversely, some of the biggest major league stars put up rather ordinary minor league numbers(see Maggs for example). Most knowlegible baseball fans understand that minor league stats are not a good indicator of future major league stats.

Jackie Hayes, Zoom is exactly right in his post, and you need to use a little common sense. I don't know one analysis or so-called expert that would agree with you in your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion. If you put money on every youngster that came into the majors and put up solid numbers in their 1st 50 or so AB's, than you would lose a lot of money. Furthermore, an 0-4 night would drop his average by .03. Such a significant change in BA from AB to AB should be a sign that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements. Another example of how a sample size of that quantity can be inaccurate is Uribe. In the first month of the season(61 AB) he hit .393 with a 1.030 OPS. Is that month a big enough sample size to make an accurate judgement? Of course not, since his BA has dropped down to .279 with a .824 OPS. Some question whether an entire year is a large enough sample size for a rookie/youngster. Look at the Fogg example that I gave. He had a good rookie year, but since than he has been a terrible player. Both Uribe and Fogg had solid minor league numbers as well, which is another topic. You need to follow the minor leagues a lot closer if you think minor league stats are a good indication of major league sucess. There are literally thousands and thousands of prospects that consistantly put up good numbers in the minors and never amount to anything in the majors(and sometimes not even make the majors), so basing your opinion on his minor league stats makes a extremely weak arguement on your behalf. A good example is Jay Gibbons of Baltimore. Did you know that he hit over .330 in 1000+ minor league AB's? Yet, he has a career BA of .254 in the majors. Furthermore, if you read any advanced scouting reports or talk/read the opinions of experts on the minor league system, than you will find that they all argue that Reed's minor league stats are better than his talent and aren't a good indicator of what to expect in the majors. I think that Reed will be a solid major league player, but if you are saving a space for him in the HOF, than you could be waiting for the rest of your life because its not going to happen.

Fathom, everyone knew that a move from one of the best pitchers parks(Safeco) to one of the best hitters parks(USCF) would result in a few more HR's and a higher ERA. Garcia is probably not as good as his Safeco ERA, but probably not as bad as his USCF ERA, and that is why you need to take park factor into consideration. According to the park factor stats, no other park has yielded more home runs than USCF, and it also ranks 4th in runs scored per park(behind Coors, Fenway, and Arlington). Its fair to say that USCF has developed into one of the top 5 hitter parks in baseball(and maybe the best). Based on this, you can make an arguement that any pitcher that is added to the Sox will see an increase in HR's and ERA, yet this fact is never mentioned when people complain about Garcia. Personally, I have been impressed with Garcia. His stuff is easily some of the best stuff in the AL. His peripherals have been execelent and suggest that he is better than his ERA would suggest. Finally, the arguement that holds true time and time again is that quality pitchers are harder to find than quality hitters. Furthermore, before you claim that the Sox have traded away 5-6 future HOF, why don't you wait until the players that the Sox traded away have a couple of years in the majors under their belt. I bet you were one of those guys that complained about giving away Fogg a couple years back after his 2002 season. Since that season he has posted a 5.05(03 and 04 combined) ERA, .290 Opp BA, and 105/147 BB/SO ratio in the NL(and a good pitchers park). He is a perfect example of drawing inaccurate conclusions based on small sample sizes. Do you really think the Sox have missed Olivo's .192 BA since being traded? Even more disturbing is his 55 SO in only 156 AB. Olivo has the potential to be a decent everyday catcher and has good raw tools, but he has shown no improvement, can't stay away from breaking balls away, and can't hit lefties. He has a ton of improvement he has to make if he wants to be a solid everyday catcher. Reed has 47 major league AB, and you are calling him the best thing since sliced bread. After the trade, I voiced my opinion and said that I wished they would have traded Borchard instead of Reed, but you have to give something to get something. While I think Reed will be a solid major league player for years to come, but I truely believe that you are making too much out of his first 47 AB. What if he was hitting .200 in his first 47 AB? Would that mean he is a terrible major league player? Of course not, the point is that the sample size is too small to make accurate judgements. Mark my words, Morse will never be a good everyday major league player. The only asset he has is power. Until this year, he has never hit for average, he has poor plate disipline, has below average speed(especially for a middle infielder), and he is a below average defensive player that will probably have to move to 3B because of a lack of range. He is a one dimensional player that will never be a good major leaguer. I thought that the Sox gave up a little too much for Everett(both times). No one could have predicted that Francisco was going to be this good. The guy always had a good arm and did well in A ball, but 2 years in a row he really struggled in AA once he was promoted. We will have to see if this season is a sign of things to come or if he is another Fogg, not to mention the chair throwing incident. The jury is still out on Webster and Rupe since they are still in the minors. It will be another 3-4 years before we truely know how this trade will play out. I have always like Rauch, and I think he has the most potential of all the Sox young pitchers in the upper minors. However, injuries and attitude have held him back and continue to plague him in Montreal. If he can ever get past those two things, than he could be a solid major league pitcher. I am also eager to see how Majewski pitches. He could be another Francisco, but only time will tell. I will stick with my opinion that proven major league talent is worth more than POTENTIAL minor league talent. The proven major leaguer(Garcia, Everett, ect) have already proven themselves at the major league level, while the majority of minor league prospects never amount to anything in the majors, and in the end only major league production matters. KW has been agressive and probably follows a similar opinion. He has put together solid major league rosters, but injuries, inconsistant play, and underachieving have stalled those plans. I will give him one more year to put together a winner.

The question is when does something not become luck? By that I mean, you continually say that IF the Illini did this/IF they wouldn't have done that, THAN they could have/should have won. You continue to say things like this, but what if that is because the Illini aren't that good or that the other team is just better? There were some plays for BOTH teams in which they shot themselves in the foot, however, it is always the losing teams fans that blame the lose on those mistakes. Furthermore, has it ever occured that the other team is responsible for how the Illini play? You say things like, IF the Illini could have made one or two more offensive plays or could have stopped Purdue on a few of those 3rd downs, but why not give Purdue credit instead of making excuses? Purdue didn't play well/Illini played really well, but Purdue was still the better team despite this. The difference is that Purdue has arguable the best QB in the college game, and you can't expect him to make a ton of mistakes. We will see how good Purdue is this weekend when they play the up and coming Irish.

I am a Notre Dame fan, and I hope that they kick the s*** out of Purdue next week. Furthermore, I actually dislike Purdue since 4 of my older siblings went to Indiana, but I am an honest college football fans who calls them how I see them(with the exception of games involving ND). You on the other hand, are CLEARLY drinking the OrangeKrush koolaid and you aren't even smart enough to realize it. Was the the Purdue/Illinois game closer than most expected? Yes. Does Purdue's D have question marks? Yes. Is Purdue the favorite to win the Big 10. Probably not. Are they a top 10 calibur team? Probably not. Are they 20+ points(line) better than Illinois? Maybe/maybe not. Did Illinois play above their heads/Purdue play poorly? Probably. Is Purdue overrated? Probably. Did Purdue hold an advantage in most key stats(yardage, first downs, turnovers, time of poss., never behind on the scoreboard, ect)? Yes. I would like to point your attention towards a similar game(USC vs Stanford). Is Stanford as good as USC? No, but on any given Saturday(or Sunday for that matter) a team with less talent can beat/hang with a better team. It also shows that it is still difficult to go into a decent opponents home and come out with a win. Purdue is simple the better team, and they played well enough to win(despite not playing their best game). Illinois really impressed me with the way that they played this weekend, and they should be a decent middle of the pack Big 10 team, but don't pretend that they are a better team than Purdue or that they DESERVED to win/handed Purdue the game, because you are just lying to yourself. This opinion comes from a fan that has no interest in either team. I am just being honest(you should try it).

This is what we call sore loser syndrome. I hate it when people can't give credit where credit is deserved. You pretend that the Illini should have won the game, which wasn't the case. At no point did the Illini have the lead, they lost the turnover battle (2-0), they were outgained by a 125 yards, and Purdue helped them out with 9 penalties for 84 yards(opposed to 3 for 29 for the Illini). The Illini played over their heads and kept the game close against a very good team, but don't ruin it by being a sore loser because it reflects poorly on you. Purdue was simple the better team, and they BEAT the Illini. A majority of the key plays were good execusion by Purdue as much as they were bad execusion by the Illini, however you neglect to give any credit to Purdue. I am not a Purdue or Illini fan(ND fan), but I get sick and tired of this sore loser stuff.

fathom, actually the lineup cost about 85M(give or take a Mil), which is still a little high, but if JR ever wanted to take a chance, than this would be a perfect lineup. The main point is that the lineup I project costs abou 85M and your projected lineup costs about 80M, but the difference in talent is significant and well worth the extra 5M. Not to nitpick, but the attendance is actually up this year by almost 1,000/per game. In regards to Morris, I think you are completely wrong. You don't understand that Morris is a groundball pitcher, which makes his 33 HR the exception and not the norm. His 1.69 career groundball/flyball ratio is one of the best among active pitchers. Furthermore, he had never given up more than 20 HR in a season before this year. Lets play a little game, which of these numbers sticks out(12,13,16,20,33)? Morris is exactly the kind of pitcher that the Sox need(a groundball pitcher), and because he is having a so-so year, he could be the best bargain on the market.

No offense, but your suggestions aren't that realistic, and they really don't improve the team. - It is highly unlikely that the Braves will give up either Cruz or Capellan, yet alone both in one deal. - I doubt that the D-Backs will give up that much for Crede and Borchard. You have to understand that they have very little trade value at this point, which means you won't get a .300 hitting 3B, a good closer, and a decent lefty for them. - I think the Sox would be much better off signing Koskie instead of Glaus. The talent difference between the 2 isn't significant, but the price is(Koskie being much cheaper). - Your Uribe, Everett, Thomas, and Davis ideas are fine. - The Sox are giving up way too much for Shields. I really like Shields, but he isn't worth that much(2 of the Sox top 10 prospects plus Harris). - Stay away from Fogg. The guy is a junkball pitcher that got lucky his rookie year. There are much better cheap options. Here are my suggestions(posted in previous threads). They are pretty realistic and improve the team drasticly. - Trade Konerko to Atlanta for Furcal - I think that Atlanta might do this deal straight up. Both teams get something they want, and have decent replacements for the player traded. - Trade Garland and Crede to Seattle for Winn and Meche - Seattle is rebuilding and will be looking for cheap, young, potential. Winn is one of the most underrated players in the game, and exactly what the Sox need. Meche and Garland are a wash. Both are struggling young pitchers with good stuff, and a change of scenery might do them good. - Trade Lee to Baltimore for Julio and prospect - Before people complain that this isn't a fair trade, hear me out. For starters, the Sox get the quality righty reliever that they need(the FA is very weak) and a quality prospect. More importantly, they save about 5-6M, which they can use to get a pitcher like Morris. So you can look at it as a Lee for Morris, Julio, and prospect deal. - Sign Morris 6M/yr - I really think he could be a bargain since he is having a so-so year. The guy has never posted an ERA above 3.76 before this season. He has given up a lot of HR's, but I think that is a fluke since he is one of the biggest groundball pitchers in the game(1.69 career groundball/flyball ratio) and has never given up more than 20 HR in a season before this year. I really think he could be the best bargain on the market. - Sign Beltran 14M/yr - This might be a little hard, but the Sox are interested. He is exactly what the Sox need. - Sign Koskie 4M/yr - He is a solid all-around player, and a good bargain. Lineup Furcal SS Winn LF Beltran CF Thomas DH Koskie 3B Rowand RF Gload 1B Uribe 2B Davis C This lineup includes a drastic improvement from a BA, OBP, speed, and defensive perspective without losing much if any power. It also has perfect balance. Rotation Garcia RH Buehrle LH Morris RH Contreras RH Meche RH This rotation is a lot better than the rotation that the Sox started with this year. Meche in the 5th hole is a lot better than the committee that they had the past 2 years. Bullpen Takatsu RH Marte LH Julio RH Politte RH Cotts LH Diaz/Adkins/Grilli RH The bullpen should be much better with Julio and a year under Cotts/Diaz/Adkins/Grilli's belt. Bench Everett OF/DH/1B Harris 2B Burke C Borchard OF Valdez SS A solid bench with Everett as insurance if Thomas gets hurt again or it Gload fails at 1B. Good speed and defense with Harris, Borchard, and Valdez.

I don't like that lineup to be honest with you. The problem with the Sox offense is that it is too one-dimensional. Konerko, Lee, and Thomas are all almost identical players. The Sox need to add players with higher BA, OBP, and speed. I don't like Harris in the leadoff spot. I could MAYBE live with him in the 9th spot, but he hasn't done anything to prove that he would be a decent leadoff hitter. I also don't like the bottom of the order. I do like Gload, but we still don't know what to expect from him in a full season. I really don't want to see both Uribe and Harris starting next year. I can live with 1(Uribe), but not both especially if one of them has to bat at the top of the order. I would love to get rid of Crede. He is another one-dimensional player. You also have to realize that the lineup/rotation you have listed costs about 50M already, and that doesn't include 2 more starters, the bullpen, or the bench. The fact is that the Sox need to make some changes, and I think you will see the Sox be very active this offseason. Don't be surprised if either Lee or Konerko is dealt, as well as underachievers like Garland and Crede.