Dogfood22

QUOTE(Chombi @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) All those things stated, it's not safe for us to wait and play for him in FA. Although we should have some money free, it's more JR's business moto and ego. You get him now and rebuild that farm. I have faith in the new group we have in place to scout and what not. You deal whatever it takes to get him now, if you can't, so be it. Totally agree. If he's out there you go get him. Simple as that. While the Angels are whining about giving up too much we should be finalizing a deal.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 09:40 PM) Well you make some interesting points. I have to say that trading Fields would be big in addition to Jenks and Kong. He made a name for himself last year and a lot of people are looking forward to see what he can do more than anyone else. I love Fields too. He was the main reason I watched the Sox second half this year. There would be many who would be upset over Fields' departure, but I think the joy of penciling in Cabrera in the #3 slot of our lineup would kinda numb that some.

Crede to the Brewers for Claudio Vargas or Dave Bush might make some sense. Not that we would need either of those guys, but if Kenny is going to make a big push for Cabrera then it could make sense to add some cheap depth at the back of the rotation.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 08:14 PM) Yes, I am. I understand all that. My problems arise when you start trading what I think is too many/an unprecedented amount, of the people here who are good players, who can easily remain a part of the plan, in addition to those who are not in KW's plans. Maybe sox fans on this board will be upset with too much inactivity. The average fan who watches every few games is going to be upset when you get rid of some of those big names they've come to love. Additionally, some of those people are club house leaders and the backbone of this team. Throw a bunch of guys who don't know each other together and you might lose something in the clubhouse. And I'm sure you could say, the average fan will come around if they win. They might not win. I agree with you on some of this, but the only real big names I'm suggesting dealing are Konerko and Jenks, and that's only because I'd like to see us get Miguel Cabrera. Miguel can become quite a big name in Chicago though, so it's not like dealing for the sake of dealing. Cabrera is a premier hitter and a likely future HOFer. He'd be the best baseball player in Chicago, hands down. We should do whatever we can to get him. In order to afford Miguel though we'd have to trade Paulie. Besides, Cabrera would be best suited for 1B or DH now anyway. On Jenks, I'm one of those people that think you can take a good set-up man and inflate his value as a closer. If you don't need to put Jenks in a deal to get Cabrera, then I'd still rather deal a lower-ceiling SP for a very good set-up man and put him in the closer's spot. Then take Jenks and trade him for a young studly position player who has more of an impact on the game. I think that's just what GM's should do. Closers are valuable definitely, but they are way overrated. Having a closer like Jenks is a luxury, which we saw last year. While Hawk and co. will always tell you otherwise and will always talk about how screwed we'd be without Jenks, I look at it in a different way. I think getting to the 9th inning with a lead is more important than saving a lead in the 9th. So, I think it would be smart to deal him while his value is at its highest point. As for the other players, there's no one that I'm recommending trading who isn't already on the block. Everything else is just to fill needs. The state of the clubhouse is an issue as always which is probably why we didn't pick up Lastings Milledge or Elijah Dukes when we could have gotten them for next to nothing. As long as we're targeting players who don't threaten to kill people then I think the clubhouse should be fine. If it isn't, then that is Ozzie's problem and the Sox would have to deal with him directly. Ozzie's chief responsibility is to keep his club focused and playing hard. Even though most of the moves came through FA since the state of the market was totally different, we had a very similar offseason to what I'm proposing before '05. We got rid of popular names, brought in veteran bullpen help, strengthened our OF defense, added a leadoff man, and signed a veteran SP on a bargain deal. Now I'm obviously not saying that we'd win a championship if we made some of the moves I suggested, or made some similar ones, I'm just saying that we'd have a much better club. You figure, in '05 we had 2 new starting OF (Pods & Dye), 2 new catchers (AJ & Widger), 2 new SP (McCarthy & El Duque), 3 new bullpen arms (Jenks, Hermanson, and Viz), a new starting 2B and DP combo with Iguchi, and a couple new bench guys (Pablo & Blum who was added at the deadline). That was a lot of movement but yet the clubhouse came together better than ever. Even if we trade Paulie and Jenks, we still have Thome, Dye, and AJ as leaders in the field, Linebrink as a veteran leader in the pen, and Buehrle, Vazquez, and Contreras in the rotation.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 07:44 PM) What does it matter? I wanted to know how plausible and reasonable your scenario was. I asked. That's all that matters. Instead, I got a lengthy reply about a whole bunch of other ticky tacky bulls*** I don't care about, and it continues . . . until right now. I think the scenario would be quite plausible if KW liked those players. I hope he does something similar, but only for the players he is targeting. Where I suggested signing Jose Guillen, Kenny wanted Carlos Quentin. That's fine. What's he going to do with CF since he won't go with Anderson or Sweeney and Owens isn't a CF? I suggested taking on a bad contract and dumping a couple of our own in the process. Maybe he'll do that or maybe he'll trade for someone else or maybe he'll sign a FA. We still need at least one more veteran arm in the pen capable of LR and MR. I suggested two since our #4 and #5 starters are going to have issues eating innings. How is Kenny going to do that? I suggested Torres because he could be had for very little since he's 35 IIRC and Cruz because he's younger and has a better arm. Maybe Kenny wants a couple of other guys, I dunno. I don't care how he gets them, just that he does it. You seem hung up on this idea that X amount of trades = PS2 offseason. That is not necessarily the case. We'll make a lot of moves in general but I doubt we'll be very active on the FA market this year since we missed on Hunter. Most of our activity will come in trades. We have a lot of expendable players; some are out of options and most are MLB-ready. Many of them are not in our plans whatsoever. I don't know how you can not understand this. You can believe me or not, but I guarantee you that there is no way Sox fans will be optimistic about next season unless there is a ton of movement one way or the other.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) He'd still have to make double the amount of trades. This all started with me asking if its ever been done before, and you STILL haven't answered that. I don't know the record for most trades by a single team in one offseason, nor does the f*** I don't give about it fly. You should look it up if you really want to know. Besides, the Sox could make four hundred ninety seven thousand six hundred forty-two trades if they really wanted to just f*** around, but that isn't the point. I mean, what does it matter anyway? Is KW using a calling card? Is he standing there at a payphone? Does he have to condense his offseason into a small number of trades because he is out of quarters? Do payphones still exist? Why does it matter how many times he has to use the phone? Or maybe if he makes too many trades the commissioners office will start to stick the Sox with Office Depot receipts? I don't think that's important. QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) You didn't. I didn't say you did. I said half of the pitching staff. Half our pitching staff sucks. You think our GM would look bad by dumping half of our sucky pitching staff? Even if he did look bad and all the other GM's got together, got wasted, and T-Ped Kenny's house for giving up on Andy Sisco and Nick Masset, would it matter if our team was better? QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) You look at it in a strange light. Yes, I think a GM would be looked at pretty strangely if he did something: 1. Completely without precedent(as far as I know). 2. That second guessed his previous strategy. 1. I don't think the Marlins looked bad over the '05-'06 offseason because they made 9 trades. They looked bad because they sold off every single productive player they had except for two (Willis and Cabrera) and decided not to bring in any help whatsoever. 2. GM's are wrong sometimes you know. His strategy was to go with a ton of unproven talent in the bullpen and fill the lineup with low-OBP grinders. That did not work and KW will tell you that himself. He has openly acknowledged the failure of his plan and has already begun moving in the total opposite direction with the Linebrink signing. You don't know what you're talking about. Just admit it. QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) This is getting tiresome. You said he would be looked at as laughing stock if he lost 90 games and expected to contend without trading away dead weight. So what the hell are you saying? Obviously he isn't going to hold onto the entire team but he isn't going to trade half of them away, either. You think half of this team is dead weight apparently? He just doesn't have to make as many moves as you think and if he did, people would wonder why the hell he did it, especially the more common fan, and other GMs. You are just trading to trade at some point and it might even hurt the team. First, I'm saying what you just quoted me on. If you didn't know what I was saying as you typed what I was saying, you should have stopped typing and then considered what it was that you were typing. Cuz maybe that was what I was saying. Secondly, we've already dumped Erstad, Pods, Bukvich, Cintron, Garland, and probably some others that I've blocked from my memory. Phillips just got DFA'd. There is going to be a whole lot of turnover this year. The number of players moved is not important. The quality of the players remaining however is. Why do you keep focusing on this? What does it matter?

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) Ok so two major trades. That still leaves 6 more. Why is it so hard for you to admit your scenario is highly unlikely? Its not that the trades are bad, its that I can't get over how many of them there are. Like I said, you are trading away half or more of your starting staff. GMs don't do that to my knowledge, unless its a fire sale, which doesn't fit, as we are trying to win now. The GM becomes a laughing stock because he completely second guesses his previous plan. It makes a lot of sense. Kenny is highly respected from what I gather, so what you think makes him a laughing stock among people who actually matter in the business(not you) is wrong, I'm afraid. I never said it would happen, I was only showing that some creativity here by our GM could actually make our team better. In fact, based on the Quentin acquistion and the Konerko rumors, with Miguel Cabrera available, Kenny might do something very similar to what I've noted. It won't necessarily be the same players, but it could be another of the endless possibilities that involve a whole lot of activity. When did I say anything about trading half of our starting staff? I said we should make a low risk/high reward signing and then go with our best internal options (Gio/Floyd/Egbert) for the fifth slot. I don't think it hurts to trade Danks because with Buehrle signed, the Sox are going to have to make a decision between Danks and Gio because I doubt they are going to go with three lefties in their rotation. And Broadway is tradeable because we have better in-house candidates and we aren't rebuilding. Again, you make another nonsensical comment. A GM becomes a laughing stock for admitting he was wrong and fixing his own mistakes? That's absurd. Maybe he should take the Dave Littlefield path and keep looking to make bad moves. Look, Sisco, Aardsma, and Masset among others did not work out. Do you want him to hang on to these guys and wait for them to develop just so our GM can selfishly say "Oh gee! I was right!" Or, do you want him to cut his losses, sell low, and improve the team? I never said Kenny was a laughing stock. You said he would be if he traded off a bunch of his crappy players just because they are pitchers. That didn't make any sense, and I told you so. I did say he would be a laughing stock though if he hung on to all his crap and just made a couple of high-priced signings on players unproven or coming off of career years.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) I asked a question, albeit a snide one, so I contributed to my knowledge and maybe someone else was wondering the same thing. How touchy. There is one major difference between your scenario and the 5(well two actually). All 5 trades were pretty minor in comparison to yours. Yours trade everyday players(mostly). The second thing is there was only 5 of them. I said 8. So has anyone ever made 8 trades involving 4.5/9(.5 because of the pitchers) of their everyday players? My guess is still that they would be the laughing stock of baseball for completely reversing their position on their team. All the trades over the '06-'07 offseason were minor? The Freddy and McCarthy trades were big trades around baseball. The proposed Garland and Crede trades, which were both nixed by KW, would have been major trades as well. Secondly, the major thing I proposed was dealing for Miguel Cabrera. It doesn't make sense not to because he's far and away the best hitter available. The only way we could afford to land an offensive talent like him is through trade and later an extension. If he hits FA we'll get outbid. The ONLY reason a future HOF talent like him is available is because the team he plays for has the cheapest ownership of all 30 teams in baseball. Instead of talking about signing Aaron Rowand who is going to want $12 million plus, let's pick Miguel up and see if we can extend him for $20. The Konerko trade that would follow is obvious. There's no way around it. If the Sox landed Cabrera then Konerko would be gone. You have to trade a big contract to take on a big salary, and no one wants Contreras + Uribe, and we'd be stupid to deal Vazquez in the same year the Twins are looking to deal Santana, the A's are looking to deal Haren, and the O's are trying to trade Bedard. There won't be any prospects out there to make it worthwhile. So, the only guy left to trade is Paulie. The Angels or Dodgers make the most sense for us, but given the fact that the Angels have young veterans we need who can contribute right away to a contender as well as prospects, the Angels make the most sense. Aside from those two deals, which are actually logical, we'd be making one more big trade for Jon Rauch. After that, we'd be picking up two middle relievers who will be in their thirties next year, assuming a bad contract as part of a salary dump, salary dumping Pablo, and dealing for a journeyman defensive SS that we probably wouldn't even have to surrender a player for since he might not make the Dodgers' bench out of ST. Your last comment makes no sense at all. An active GM becomes a laughing stock for improving his team? Huh? So what if we trade a bunch of relievers who won't make our roster out of ST anyway. We still would have Adam Russell who alone, despite his struggles in Birmingham, has already surpassed most of what we have on the 40-man roster. And it's not like we couldn't sign a couple journeymen relievers to minor league contracts to fill out Charlotte's bullpen. You say "everyday players," but I've only proposed dealing two of them: Konerko and Fields+Crede, which counts as one really because they won't both be on our team next year. Pitchers are not everyday players because they don't play every day. You know what really makes a GM a laughing stock around baseball? Coming off of a 90-loss season expecting to contend with a bunch of dead weight on your roster. That and handing out bad contracts to guys off career years or giving out big money to unproven Japanese players. Why would someone rather spend more money on Rowand or Fukudome when he could get Jose Guillen at a discount? Because the steroids thing? At least he has injury problems as an excuse. He's not Palmeiro or Sosa or Bonds, so take advantage of the price cut because he'd be a $14 million plus player without it. Kenny's plan so far looks like it sucks, and the best part of it is the one that failed. If we had given $15 mil/year to Hunter we'd already be worse off.

QUOTE(palehose23 @ Dec 2, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) While not very possible, I like a person with a plan and actually puts it to paper (in this case monitor). You really have a lot of time on your hands and you use it wisely- thinking of ways to make the Sox better. I hope you are Kenny Williams just posting this to see what we think and then actually put some of these plans in action. Thank you. But no, I'm not Kenny Williams. If I was I'd do this s***. I wouldn't offer a weak package for Miguel Cabrera when the Angels are throwing their hands up in the air over giving up an overrated pitching prospect like Nick Adenhart and a guy with a ton of talent but a ten cent brain (Santana). I'd shoot in, blow the Marlins away by including Jenks, and then steal one of the top 3 best hitters in baseball out from under their noses. Then, I'd get a good young veteran reliever, put him in the closer role and have him rack up saves. Then, I'd probably deal him after he's had a year or two of success for twice his value. Kenny's smartest FA signing to date was JD after the '04 season. He got him at a bargain price and put him in a home run hitter's park to increase his production. I'd totally do that with Jose Guillen. If he's healthy and playing half his games in the Cell, especially with some serious protection in the lineup, I don't think its out of the question that he repeats, if not improves upon, his .290/.353/.460 line last year with the Mariners. I doubt Kenny makes many good moves though. I see Crede being traded for a reliever, Owens starting somewhere in the OF, at least two of Danks/Floyd/Gio in the rotation, and that's about it. I hope to God he doesn't sign Rowand, but I don't think it's "out of the question" that he does.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 2, 2007 -> 07:36 PM) Has any GM ever even thought of making 8 trades in a single offseason? God I hope not. At some point you are trading talent for talent just because the grass is greener. Your comments contribute nothing, but I will respond to them anyway. As far as making a lot of deal in an offseason, we made 5 last year... Garcia for Gio and Floyd McCarthy and a rookie level prospect for Danks, Masset, and Rasner Stewart for Lujan Cotts for Aardsma and Vasquez Gload for Sisco And we turned down at least 2 more that we should have made... Garland for Hirsch, Taveras, and Buccholz Crede for Figgins + So yeah, it can be done. And really, if Kenny doesn't want to rebuild he's going to have to make a lot of moves. On our 40-man roster, we have 2 third baseman when we only need one. In our pen, if we go with 6 arms, then Thornton, Jenks, Wassermann, Linebrink, and Logan already pretty much have 5 spots locked up. This leaves 10 pitchers (MacDougal, Phillips, Masset, Russell, Vasquez, Aardsma, Day, MacDougal, Oneli Perez, and Sisco) fighting for one spot. If we got to a seven man bullpen that is 2 spots for those guys to fight for. And this of course is under the assumption that KW doesn't trade a position player for another reliever or sign another one off the FA market. Then, as far as starters, we have 7 guys (Danks, Gio, Egbert, Broadway, Masset, Phillips, and Haeger) for 2 jobs. Some of the starting candidates, if they lose out on a starting job, may join the bullpen competition as well. Out of all of those players mentioned, most are ready but do not have a shot with us at all. There are other teams though that may take a flyer on some of these guys because of their arms, so we should deal off as many as we can if we can get something that is going to help us. The Sox are in a situation where, if they want to have a good offseason, they will have to sell low on a ton of players. Kenny should do that because if he is serious about contending he will have to. I don't think any single trade proposal I've made is ridiculous at all. If we can pull off one huge deal for a guy like Cabrera, sign a low risk/high reward pitcher like Colon on a one year deal, and take advantage of what will be one of very few FA bargains in Jose Guillen, then everything else would fall into place. Yet, some of Kenny's thinking really doesn't make any sense to me at all. He's targeting expensive CF's and willing to overpay for them instead of reaching out for bargains at positions of greater need. And no, offensive production out of CF is NOT as important as offense out of the OF corners or the starting staff. Also, as far as your comments about the "grass is greener" elsewhere, you are right. The grass on the South Side is all f***in' brown and s***. It's dead. We need one of two things here from KW: either he has to sell off most of his veterans to rebuild a new core (which he is not going to do) or he has to have a very productive offseason which means giving up on a ton of players with potential who do not have a real shot at making our club.

My awesome plan: 1. Trade Jenks, Fields, Anderson and Danks to the Marlins for Miguel Cabrera. That should get it done. Let the Marlins move Jenks then for whatever pieces they need. Maybe to DET for Maybin and a prospect? That would suck for us but it would be great for them. We'd be adding what, $10 million or so? 2. Turn around and trade Paulie and Crede to the Angels for Brandon Wood, Chone Figgins, and a mid-tier prospect. We'd subtract about $14 million or so here. 3. Sign Jose Guillen to play RF and move JD to left. We'd probably add about $10-11 million here. 4. Sign Bartolo Colon. We'd add about $8-9 million here probably. So far we've added about $14 million or so to payroll, which is less than what we would've given Hunter. 5. Trade Uribe, Hall, and Sweeney to the Giants for Randy Winn and cash. Winn has a bad contract (owed $8 million in '08 and $8.25 million in '09) so lets get a couple million off of '09. They can have some more bad contracts, but ours are for only a year. Uribe and Hall can be backups for them. We add $1.75 million to the payroll here. 6. Trade Broadway + MacDougal to the Nats for Jon Rauch. He's arbitration eligible, so we'd probably come out about even here. 7. Trade McCulloch plus two of the following: Getz/Lucy/Valido/Sisco/Aardsma/Day/Haeger/Phillips/Masset to the D'backs for Juan Cruz. This is overpaying but it's not like overpaying with great players. Then, after the D'backs pick their two, offer two of the remaining to the Pirates for Soloman Torres. Cruz is arb eligible and should get a bit over $2mil I'd think. We'd add $3.2 million for Torres, so that's about $5.2 million more added to the payroll. 8. Trade virutally nothing to the Dodgers for SS Wilson Valdez. 9. Trade Pablo Ozuna to whoever for whatever. He has speed which is nice, but Owens has better speed and is more versatile in the OF. So, see ya Pablo and subtract a million from the payroll. 10. Sign Mike Lamb for about $2 million/year. Lineup: S 2B Figgins R SS O. Cabrera R 1B M. Cabrera L DH Thome R RF Guillen R LF Dye L C Pierzynski R 3B Wood S CF Winn Rotation: L Buehrle R Vazquez R Contreras R Colon Floyd/Egbert/Gio competition Bullpen: CL: Rauch RSU: Linebrink LSU: Thornton RSP: Wassermann LSP: Logan MR/LR: Torres MR/LR: Cruz Bench: 4th OF/backup CF: Owens Backup catcher: Donny Lucy/Cole Armstrong/invite competition (really, offense from a backup C is NOT that important) Backup SS/2B: Valdez Backup 1B/3B and primary pinch hitter: Mike Lamb So, under my totally awesome plan, we add about $22 million to the payroll. We were offering Hunter $15, so basically think of it as Hunter's money plus $7 mil more. We get a lot more speed, OBP, we don't have any grinders, we ACTUALLY have veteran guys in the pen (Cruz and Torres) who can pitch in multiple roles without s***ting their pants, we have a deeper rotation, better defense, and we'd be relying on no more than 3 rookies (one possible SP, a 3B hitting 8th in the order, and a backup catcher). We downgrade at closer but pick up one of the best hitters in the game. We downgrade at 3B from Crede but we get a legitimate stud prospect to play there. Everywhere else we upgrade, and in some places, we vastly upgrade. ...had to edit this.

^ I see. That makes sense then.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) That statement's not going to fly. Why is that? Actually let me clarify this. I don't mean Josh is going to play until he's about 40, hit 500+ HR's and be a HOF candidate. What I mean is that considering how raw Josh was when we got him and how quickly he has adjusted and improved, I can see him cutting down his K's and walking a lot more, as well as raising his BA. When you add in his speed on the basepaths and his ability to play 3B, I think that means that Josh has the potential to be better in the future than Thome is now. I wasn't talking about career length here. Nobody can speculate on that.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 07:06 PM) I'm like you -- Minnesota's future is much more appealing than ours. More than enough pieces for Smith to trade for offensive help. But that's just the thing. They won't make any significant moves except for dumping the players that they "can't afford." They'll always have their prospects and they'll always have their Kyle Lohse's because of it. While our future may look dim right now, at least we have an aggressive GM willing to pick up veterans and an owner willing to approach a $100millon payroll. At least we know that whenever we do get close again we'll put forth an actual effort instead of pulling some Twins-like s*** and coming off of a 95-win season with Sidney Ponson as the big FA splash. Let the Twins run out their good-enough-to-get-there-and-go-home-early teams all they want. At least Kenny Williams isn't ashamed to let his nuts swing.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 05:43 PM) quick list.... Gio DLS Carter Sweeney Poreda Egbert Broadway McCulloch Shelby Miranda Haeger Martinez Hernandez Getz Perez Cassell/Harrell Just wondering, but why would you put Sweeney ahead of Egbert? Hell, why even put him over Broadway? Neither look like world-beaters, but right now Broadway looks like he's a better bet to make it as a fifth starter than Sweeney is to make it as a RF. I guess you can justify it if you are looking at Sweeney as strictly a CF though. He could have the bat to fit there.

I don't think it is inconceivable. Fields + Danks can land a star, but there is no reason to do it. We need to be doing the opposite, i.e trading some of our veterans for prospects with potential like Fields has. The idea for Crawford is not very smart though. Don't forget Josh's terrible start in Triple A this year as well as all the learning he's had to do at the MLB level between getting moved around from 3B and LF. Combined, this year Josh still has hit 32 HR's and walked 72 times with 64 XBH in total. In 2005 he hit 16HR and walked 55 times with 43 XBH in total. In 2006 he hit 20HR and walked 59 times with 58 XBH in total. So, he's been improving in those areas steadily. His strikeout numbers are way too high still (a mind-boggling 178 combined this year), but he's going to learn to lay off that high fastball in time. Once he does that I think he's going to walk a lot more and hit for better average because of it. IMO, he's still going to be about a 120 K per year guy though, but he's also going to walk over 100 times per year. I don't think Josh is going to K as much as Thome, but basically Josh has better-than-Jim Thome-like offensive potential from 3B. And he's a rookie. And he's capable of stealing 20+ bags per year. How could anyone consider trading him for Carl Crawford? Why in the crazy-ass f*** would anyone do that? Josh is a future cleanup hitter. Carl is not. If we're talking about trading Josh as the centerpiece in a deal for Miguel Cabrera then that is another story, but I still wouldn't do that deal either because once Miguel hits FA he'll be a $20million/year man, and we know the Sox wouldn't pay that.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Sep 24, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) Agreed. Good Eats is the best cooking show ever IMO. Fun and informative. What about that guy with like 400 grills in his back yard? He's the second most awesome TV personality out there. Can't think of the name of the show, but he kind of looks like JD's brother or something and he listens to jazz. That guy rules!

QUOTE(beck72 @ Sep 22, 2007 -> 06:47 AM) HBP is a big factor for a leadoff guy like Reed Johnson, who might be available this offseason--probably for a reasonable price. http://torontosun.com/Sports/Baseball/2007...517163-sun.html The sox have few internal options for a #1 or a #2 hitter-both huge sox needs. Free agency looks weak. It's going to take a few trades to get the necessary peices. I know he'll be a bit of risk following his surgery--much like Crede. The sox could acquire Johnson, saying they'll play him in CF, and have Fields in LF and Joe in 3b during spring. Joe proves he's healthy to other teams, then move him. I give Fields credit for moving to LF, and not having a drop off at the plate. Yet his long term future is probably at 3b for the sox as soon as 2009. This whole situation is exactly why I want the Sox to just move forward without Crede. I love Joe, but the uncertainty of his situation is too much when the future is already very uncertain for the Sox. If the Sox get whatever they can for Joe, start Owens in LF and have him leadoff, start Fields at 3B, and either start Anderson/Sweeney or someone else in CF, we'll have a much better idea of our situation in 2009. Especially if we can find a way to deal both Contreras and Garland so that we can work in two of Floyd/Gio/Egbert/Broadway in the rotation. That way when 2009 comes around we'll know what we do or do not have in LF, CF, 3B, 2B, and 3 rotation spots including Danks. Plus we'll have better ideas in the bullpen and if we can pick up a good looking young SS we'll have a better idea there too. I think the worst thing the Sox can do in 2008 is exactly what they are planning to do. If they don't commit to at least one year of relative rebuilding they are going to f*** themselves in 2009, which will f*** them over in 2010, and who knows how long that can carry on. We don't need to trade everyone on the team; let's just please find out what we have first and go from there.

I think a good stat to come up with would be similar to what you first said. Just TB+HBP+BB / PA. Find out how many bases a player takes per PA and leave it at that. SB's are a huge help, especially for for leadoff men, but it is hard to make up any stat regarding the usefulness of a SB. For example, let's say the leadoff man gets on base with no outs, steals 2B on a pitch out, and then the #2 hitter gets a shot at advancing him or scoring him with a 1-0 advantage. Contrast that to the same situation except the leadoff guy steals 2B but only after leaving the hitter at the plate with a two strike count. This immediately lowers the chance of the hitter getting a base hit and it also takes away an opportunity to bunt in order to advance the runner to 3B. Also, you'd have to factor in situations where a SB occurs during a failed hit and run which results in a K of the hitter. While the SB is still productive, especially with less than 2 outs because it eliminates a GIDP possibility, it doesn't mean as much because an out was recorded in the process. And then you have those situations where a guy will steal say a base with two outs in the inning. Again, the SB is helpful, but it still is reliant upon a basehit and thus can not be truly quantified at all. The only way you can judge the value of a SB w/ 2 outs would be if you gave the SB the same value as the hitter at the plate's BA with RSIP, because that average would most closely represent the chance of that baserunner scoring. Plus there are other factors that would have to be considered for a truer stat, like the arm strength and accuracy of the opposing defense, what base the baserunner is on (2B or 3B), and size of the ballpark. You're never going to come up with a stat to truly explain the value of speed + power + contribution to an offense, so the best you can hope to do is find a relatively simple, sensical formula. You were much closer to that in the opening post than you are in the last one.

NorthSideSox: This is the best post I've ever seen here at SoxTalk. Great job! (I meant the first post in the thread)

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 09:05 PM) If the rationale is they are acting small market because they don't take Boras clients, well, that is the age old argument. The last three they took off the top of my head were Jeff Weaver, Bobby Hill, and Bobby Seay. One pretty good pitcher although not great, and two marginal major leaguers. Nothing special. To me it is very important you get your guys signed and playing right away. You have to constantly influx talent, you really need to sign your first 10 or so picks. Many here say "go over slot, go over slot", I hope I never see them complain about ticket prices or beer prices. Every team operates on a budget, some teams generate more revenue like the Red Sox, Cubs, Yankees. The anamoly appears to be the Tigers and I for one will be curious how long they continue to take the approach they did this year. I admire them but I wonder if their approach will change when inevitably some of these big bonus guys crash and burn, it happens to every team. I agree with most of this so I'll just quote what I'll comment on. I was making reference to Boras clients and Boras demands. To me, an organization that acts like a large market franchise in the draft takes the best available player every time. It recognizes that these players are going to want lots of money and maybe even spots on the 40-man, but it doesn't snub it's nose at what appears to be premium talent just because. IIRC, wasn't Weaver like a 3rd or 4th rounder? And wasn't Hill taken even later? I believe Seay was a first rounder. Actually, I just checked and Weaver and Hill were both second rounders. The Sox will take chances like this later yet they really don't like going over slot. This is another thing that seperates us from the others. I think we do a pretty good job in the later rounds though. Our last "untouchable" yet traded prospects were Young and McCarthy, both taken very late, and our best offensive prospect Carter was a 15th rounder. Obviously teams operate on a budget. But, just look at this year for example. Supposedly the Sox were going to spend more money after dealing Freddy. Did that happen? No, so they decided to go into the season with some financial flexibility. That's fine. But then when June came around and it was clear to anyone with eyes that the Sox weren't going to make the playoffs, did they use that money in the draft? Nope. And aside from that, look at some of these people on our roster right now that we are paying. We have some good players but none of them sans Buehrle, Vasquez, maybe AJ, and Dye (if you consider the $7mil he's on now and not his $11mil/year extension) are putting up numbers that justify their pay. Jenks and Fields are playing well above their pay, but that's about it. Everyone else is either a disappointment, a development, or a flat out waste of money. If drafting a Boras client every now and then means sacrificing an Alex Cintron, Rob Mackowiak, or Darin Erstad every now and then I say go right ahead. On the Tigers, you have to like what they are doing. At best they have some great players that will be making very little their first few years while keeping the Tigers in contention, and at worst they have some toolsy prospects to trade if something doesn't work out. There are a lot of great Tigers fans out there and I think that as long as they win they will have the revenue to continue what they are doing. Also I hope you are right about this new "safety net" meaning bigger risks with greater potential rewards in the first round, but I'll believe it when I see it.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 18, 2007 -> 12:41 AM) Not meant to pile on, but Jose Contreras was worth it. I'll take a World Series and he was instrumental. Watching some of the 2005 highlight things on youtube reminds me how great that Series title was. We may not see another WS title in our lifetimes and we don't get it w/out Jose probably. So I'd say he was worth the money. At the time it would have been nice to offer Jose something like $6mil/year plus performance incentives over a two year deal, but you just can't do that stuff anymore. Not saying that the Sox were wrong for signing Jose, I'm just saying that the current state of the market forces teams who want to contend to hand out contracts that have a good chance of backfiring. Because of that I think it makes the draft more important, not only because it can provide quality players to step in for the league minimum, but it gives the club the chance to deal prospects and win derbys for impact-level arbitration eligible players.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 17, 2007 -> 07:06 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Borchard How'd that work out? It didn't, but that's not really the point. You're liable to get burned no matter what you do, but I'd much rather see the Sox spend a lot on a first rounder with major superstar potential like Borchard had than spend an assload of cash on another Jamie Navarro, Jose Contreras, etc. If Borchard had worked out I don't think people would have complained. And really, did that $5 whatever million really set the Sox back? Is that the reason we didn't win a WS until 2005? No matter where we pick next year we're not going to have to pay more than $8million to our pick. That'll be somewhere close the amount that one year of Kyle Lohse is worth in this market. Hmmm, prospect with superstar potential or someone like Kyle Lohse? Gee, that's hard... The Sox are supposedly a large market organization, and their payroll reflects that, yet they still operate like a small market franchise in the draft. That is not good. Especially for an organization such as ours with a GM such as ours who is more likely to trade prospects for proven players and thus is less likely to get screwed when a certain draft pick fails to develop into a good major league player.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Sep 16, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) Here's a list of the most recent #1 overall draft picks. 1994 Paul Wilson New York Mets Pitcher (OUT OF BASEBALL) 1995 Darin Erstad Anaheim Angels Outfielder (2-Time All Star) 1996 Kris Benson Pittsburgh Pirates Pitcher (0-Time All Star) 1997 Matt Anderson Detroit Tigers Pitcher (OUT OF BASEBALL) 1998 Pat Burrell Philadelphia Phillies Third baseman (0-Time All Star) 1999 Josh Hamilton Tampa Bay Devil Rays Outfielder (0-Time All Star) 2000 Adrián González Florida Marlins First baseman (0-Time All Star) 2001 Joe Mauer Minnesota Twins Catcher (1-Time All Star) 2002 Bryan Bullington Pittsburgh Pirates Pitcher (Minimal, Poor Big League Experience) 2003 Delmon Young Tampa Bay Devil Rays Outfielder (0-Time All Star, Good Prospect/Player_ 2004 Matt Bush San Diego Padres Shortstop (Injured, No big League experience) 2005 Justin Upton Arizona Diamondbacks Shortstop (Hitting .239, too early to tell) 2006 Luke Hochevar Kansas City Royals Pitcher (Minimal Big League Experience) 2007 David Price Tampa Bay Devil Rays Pitcher (No big league experience) so of the last 13, #1 overall draft picks, we have a total of 3 All Star Games, 2 of which came from Erstad. I'm too tired and lazy to do the work, but I'd guess that there is a better performance by those picked at #2 or later than at #1. That's some weird-ass logic you use. First of all, Scott Podsednik was an All-Star. Are you somehow trying to say that Pods is better than Adrian Gonzalez because he went to an AS game? Also, you're counting players here who haven't had the time to prove themselves at the MLB level. You can't discount someone like Justin Upton just because he doesn't meet your dumb criteria. And wooooah, Mauer only made one All-Star appearance? How many players out there have made more than one AS appearance yet can't even come close to sniffing Mauer's jock? As long as Mauer stays healthy enough to have a long career, he's getting into the HOF. He's just a fantastic hitter. The only thing your list proves is that prospects in baseball aren't anywhere near as much of a sure thing as they are in other sports. You could pick any round in the draft and you'll find players who didn't make it. But so what? You let your scouts do the work and you take the best player you can. If it works out, great, if not too bad. Still, having better draft position means you have more players to choose from, meaning it is more likely that you get the player you want, meaning that puts you in a better position for success.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Sep 16, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) most of the garbage you pointed out above is for guys who weren't #1 picks overall. So your post is pretty worthless. Longoria was #3, Niemann was #4, Upton was #2. Anyone need a reminder about Josh Hamilton??? 1st round picks are important. Whether you pick #1, #4 or $6 isn't as big of a deal as you think it is. Especially since the Sox would never consider drafting a Boras represented player, as I'm sure most of the Top Picks will be. His post is worthless? What is yours then? First, your point about Boras is worthless. The Sox haven't picked top 5 since 1990 when they took Alex Fernandez 4th overall. There's a difference between picking at the top of the round and picking midway through or near the bottom. The Boras factor is altogether different when you are talking about picking at the top of the draft; I'm sure Uncle Jerry understands that the 2008 draft will be an entirely different situation than previous years. He might say "don't spend don't spend a ton of money on your 25th pick" for example, but I definitely could see the Sox going over slot to sign a Boras client this early in the round because they will f***ing have to if they want to act like even a remotely serious organization. I have faith that they will do that; if not then it's time to picket the Cell. Secondly, the difference between say #4 or #5 overall and #1 overall is huge if the player you had your sights on gets taken. If not and you get who you want then it doesn't matter. And what about Hamilton? He's kicking ass with the Reds right now. I doubt that any of the scouts at his high school games saw him smoke crack, and I don't think he would have been drafted #1 overall if beforehand he had offered to sell a stolen TV to someone in the D-Rays organization for like $13. s*** happens you know, but it wasn't a bad pick. It just didn't work out for the Rays, but they could have kept him if they wanted to.