eickevinmorris

Is it really about being right or wrong? Can we have a conversation? Scott Linebrink is not a starting pitcher. Scott Linebrink is not an everyday player. Scott Linebrink is a set-up man. Comparing his contract to those of everyday position players and starting pitchers makes little sense. So wait: isn't this an argument for Linebrink being overpaid/having a bad contract that he never should have been given? I don't understand what you're going for here. Is this at all necessary? Then why don't we have many in our system? Pointing me to two of the most talented and deepest systems doesn't really endear me to your argument. How many #2/#3 guys in the game showed Hudson's command this season? How many did you see with Huddy's movement on their fastball? Of course -- but I'm arguing that Flowers is developed, and will produce. Well, if you want to have a civil conversation, I'm here.

Well, KHP had to go and get fussy again. For those that said they were enjoying the debate, I'll carry on and address the points KHP brought up. What if everyone is healthy? I'd say we got lucky. Filling the high minors levels with Brad Eldred types won't give us much wiggle room with injuries. It never helps to have marginally talented guys at the minor league level, or fallback options like Torres and Hudson (and to some extent Hynick) is essential to a championship team. It's not impossible that we have an injury free season, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it. Well, yes and no. You should look at a prospect's odds not based on random prospects from the same organization, but prospects with similar skilsets. While Flowers MAY be a player with the dreaded "old player skills" tag, I'd bet on him to be a productive major leaguer. He's neither Fields nor Borchard nor Sweeney nor Young -- just his positioning makes a difference. And, in my opinion, we haven't had a position player with his plate discipline in some time. For me, strike zone understanding is the first thing I look at when evaluating a prospect's progression/potential at the minor league level. I just wanted to see one scouting report that said Viciedo would stick at third base. Sure, Buddy Bell may tell Chris Rongey that Viciedo is staying there, but all scouts say that would be a colossal mistake. I would assume the Padres would also want to avoid putting a butcher at third base. Wait -- I'm wasting my time for having an opinion that is not endorsed by Sox management? I don't understand that at all. I don't agree with this. Farm systems take more time, especially if the Sox intend to follow through with their promise to go after more high-ceiling/high-risk players (similar to Mitchell). Those guys take time, and will not develop for 2-4 years. You've lost me here, but I will say that I believe it's always in their best interest to draft good talent -- something they've been woeful at in the last decade. For me, depth is essential to winning. Talented teams win, but so do deep teams. The difference between marquee talent and replacement level talent is huge, and sometimes the best teams are those that can best plug injury holes without using below replacement level talent. Pena, Tony and Linebrink, Scott. I had/have no issue with signing Dotel. I do have issues with tying up that much payroll in two non-starting arms. Linebrink was given far too long a contract AND a no-trade clause. That's indefensible. We traded a left-handed hitting 1B to get Pena. We could have probably held onto Allen and just throw Nuñez in Pena's role -- would he perform worse? I doubt it. The point is, recently (as in the last 2-3 seasons), we have invested far too much money in the bullpen. We need to draft more arms like Nathan Jones and Kyle Bellamy, and while there will be some Drew O'Neills in there, we've go to keep going after guys like them. Cheap, effective bullpens are essential to winning. That sort of strategy, along with our usual waiver-wire creeping will suit us far better than blowing money in free agency.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 05:22 PM) None of these deals are "once in a lifetime" type moves because they happen all the time, that was the point. Two years ago Alex Rios was one of the most talented young CF'ers in the game, and because of his age and potential was seen as a franchise piece and therefore a pipedream. The Lincecum-for-Rios talks that went on showed that much, as did the length of Rios' extension. I'd say it's evidence of Sabean's lack of, I don't know, brain cells more than anything else.

Correct. I'm not even disputing trading Hudson or Flowers -- it's about 7-8 players! If it's Hudson, Flowers, Danks and one other guy, I would think about it. And here you go again with the condescension. I usually lurk around these parts, and you're wrong more often than not (as most of us are). Step off the high horse and we can have an actual conversation.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 05:02 PM) Hmm, let's see... compare Miguel Cabrera, Mark Texiera, Matt Holliday and what he will get, Alfonso Soriano, etc. and their contracts vs. production to Adrian Gonzalez. You're baseball retarded if you don't see Gonzalez as a $20M+ player on the open market. Still pulled out of your ass, along with the other figure. And what if Peavy gets hurt and we put Carlos Torres in the rotation? What if (heaven forbid) Danks or Floyd go down and Brandon Hynick has to make eight starts? What if AJ gets hurt and we're starting a replacement level catcher? The problem is you don't care about depth. Ah! One of my favorites! Because player A is a prospect, we must compare him to players B, C, D, E, F, etc. despite the fact that the only things they have in common is that they play baseball. Good argument. Again, show me one scout who says he can play 3B at the major league level. The Sox will do everything they can to keep him there, but I'm not exactly treating the company line from Bell as gospel. Also, Mat (one T, try to keep up) is a horrendous defensive 3rd baseman. Horrendous. Viciedo at 3rd would continue this organization's sad "f*** defense!" philosophy. Viciedo isn't anywhere near ready. 1. Yes, but it takes a long, long time to build a system through international signings. You said one period would get it done. Not happening. 2. Yes. You said 1-2 drafts. Irrelevant to what you originally posited. 3. Depth, depth, depth. Insurance, insurance, insurance. Swing and a miss. This point was specifically about the bullpen, and this organization's propensity for overpaying. Try again. Is committing your entire system and depth to one player a bigger risk? Yes. Bulls***. Pitching doesn't grow on trees. Catchers at his level don't come around very often.

Well, in order to combat the "what do you propose we do?!" posts I've run across in this thread, here's a guy I would target: Seth Smith. He'd slot very nicely into RF and wouldn't cost a ton in terms of prospects.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) Well, I actually agree with you. I think it would take 4 or 5 prospects, and I think if we gave up 5, we would get another player back from them. Maybe a Kevin Correia or something. Just my opinion. I think they value Correia quite a bit, actually. Pitcher valuation is definitely fickle these days. 198.0 innings with a 94 ERA+ is definitely worth the $750,000 they gave him.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:40 PM) As referenced in my recent post, Cabrera was going to cost the Tigers more than 2.5 times as much as AGon will cost us. Additionally, the reason the Tigers won the Cabrera sweepstakes is because they took on Dontrelle Willis, whom they have basically paid an additional $15 million thus far, and still owe $12 million to in 2010. So no, that is not anywhere close to a perfect example. Do you think Adrian Gonzalez will command 7-8 good prospects? I'm not even sure Justin Upton or Joey Votto would command that type of haul.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:35 PM) I could not disagree with you more, and as a person with a scientific background, I expect more from you. First of all, the question that was asked was qualified by asking how many times has this occurred (have 7 prospects been traded for 1 player) in the HISTORY of the game. That would be like me asking you "How often has civilized man caused as many ill-effects on the environment as he has during the industrial age in the HISTORY of the earth?" It's not an accurate question, as posed. You're asking about a result that has only come about due to a set of circumstances that have occurred over a very small percentage of the whole history. It couldn't possibly have occurred much in the history of the whole, because those circumstances have not existed for all but a small percentage of the history of the whole. Second of all, the other situations you mention are simply not entirely analogous with this situation. Miguel Cabrera was due to make $11.3 million dollars in 08', in a deal he made with the Marlins to avoid arbitration. He would have made even more in 09', his final year of service time. So you're talking about a guy that probably would have made closer to $27 million over two seasons (still a good deal for MCab), but not nearly as paltry as the $10.25 million AGon will make over the next two seasons. The same thing goes for Teixeira. He agreed to a contract of $12.5 million with Atlanta in 2008, avoiding arbitration, and they paid him approximately $4 million in 07' as they acquired him on the day of the trade deadline. They would have paid him, had they not traded him, approximately $16.5 million for less than 1.5 years of baseball. And Teix was a player everyone knew wanted to play out east - there was no way he was staying in Atlanta, there was no way he was going to re-sign with LA. He was going to the Yankees, to Boston, or worst case, to his hometown Baltimore Orioles. So an extension to keep him was simply not possible. Who is Captain Cheeseburger? It isn't like Gonzalez has one year of service time. He's pretty close to free agency, all things considered. He's not commanding 7-8 guys. And certainly not 7-8 "good" prospects.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) Right, and it's going to happen even more often now because of the current economics of the game. Bigger market teams will grow and smaller market teams will have greater difficulty hanging onto players. Jake Peavy was another of those "once in a lifetime" moves and we made it this year. Alex Rios two seasons ago would have been the same thing, but we picked him up this year too, and for nothing. On what planet would Alex Rios be a once in a lifetime move? Even when he was producing at his personal peak, it's not like .850 OPS outfielders are that hard to come by. Also, the Miguel Cabrera deal is perfect evidence for why a 7-8 for 1 (or 2) deal is not happening. If he didn't command seven to eight good prospects, Adrian Gonzalez certainly will not.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Corner player or not, he's one of the best hitters in baseball. He's easily a $20M+ player on the open market and you're trading a bunch of prospects which in total value do not come close to equaling the $30M+ gain in production we would be getting by having Gonzalez here for about $10M over 2 years. Go ahead and try to dispute that. Why would I even bother disputing that? Other than his salary, you pulled the rest of the numbers out of your ass. I'm guessing you don't have some sort of Fangraphs-esque method of computing monetary value. Perhaps they will be dealt, but I'm not a fan of pooling the entirety of our minor league depth into a corner player just two years from free agency. That's absurd. I don't think it's impossible to think that Tyler's peak could produce 1-2 .900 OPS seasons. I absolutely believe he can be a .240/.360/.450 player right now. That's extremely valuable behind the plate. Yeah, no one said that he was. Yes, yes it is. Show me one scouting report that says otherwise. And my "preposterously stupid" label was applied to the idea that Dayan could be a starter now or even midseason 2010. 1. We don't build anything during international signing periods. We signed Ramirez and Viciedo, the former being an average MLB shortstop and the latter being a lottery ticket at the moment. 2. We're also not very good at building through the draft -- as evidenced by, well, the last ten years. 3. It's not so much a "save the farm" philosophy as much as a "I'm not dealing 7-8 players for a first baseman two years away from free agency." If you're going to reply to my thoughtful posts with a great deal of snark, at least take the time to read what I'm saying, rather than skim the post and piece together an argument I'm clearly not espousing. Does he cost the entire farm system? Would he be playing the field? No and no. I realize that he will be good, I just don't think he'll be six years of cost-controlled (and six additional team-controlled years) production (what I expect out of Flowers and Hudson) plus the rest of our already depleted and below average farm system. I don't think you realize that having a minor league system comprised of Independent League All-Stars isn't really in the best interest of the White Sox.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) Honestly, is that true? I can think of a number of really big time players, even 1b, who get moved a year or two before their contract has wrapped up, from just the past few years. Johan. Tex, twice. Beltran. ARod. Soriano. Captain Cheeseburger. Manny. Miguel Cabrera. If you move down to the next tier, you get even more names, who are either discussed or actually moved. Halladay, Holliday, Bay, Crawford, just from teh past year. These guys move a lot. The problem is they often move towards the Yankees, but that doesn't mean they're not being dealt with some regularity. Well done.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) I for one would gladly do it. I love the 1 World Series that we won. I think that Gonzales is that one player who could possibly put us over the top, combined with this starting staff. I don't want to see us lose a bunch of one run games because we are 1 bat short. I would much rather take a 2 year shot at winning it all as opposed to being in contention for the division most years only to fall short. If we can sign Gonzales to a long term deal then this deal becomes a no brainer in my mind. Again JMHO If you could guarantee me that even 1 out of every 3 of the minor leagers mentioned in this thread were going to be average major leagers then I might reconsider, but that seems unlikely. Fair enough. I enjoyed it too. I just don't want to see this organization sign 7-8 Daryle Ward type players to fill all the holes a hypothetical deal would create.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) But will you say the same thing in 3 years if Flowers, Hudson, etc. all turn out to be average or below-average players? I'd say it's far more likely that Flowers and Hudson are producing at above average levels in three years than average or below average. As for the rest, I don't know. I'm cautiously optimistic about Danks, and pretty pessimistic about Viciedo. I'm just not up for sending away the organization's 7-8 best prospects for a first baseman.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Adrian Gonzalez is well-beyond a good player. He's an absolutely fantastic player. Probably one of the top 10-15 hitters in baseball, when you consider park factors. Add to that the fact that he plays outstanding defense, and is left-handed, and he is our absolute perfect target. Now I tend to agree with you about the 7-8 prospects thing. I think it would probably be more like a 5 for 1 or 2. But honestly, from a historical standpoint, placing a player like Gonzalez on the trading block is a relatively rare occurrence. It just hasn't happened very often. So asking how many 7 to 1 trades have there been in the "history" of baseball is not exactly asking the the question that it sounds like it is asking. I think there are better ways to fill the 1B/DH hole. If we can sign LaRoche/Johnson and keep Flowers, Hudson, etc. -- I'd much rather do that than get Gonzalez.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) A lot of those names in the second tier would be throw-ins anyway, that the Padres could just have. I should have split that up. But still, we could offer them 7-8 good prospects. In terms of upside the list would be shorter, but there are others who maybe aren't really exciting but a team like the Padres could have some interest in. I agree that it is quality over quantity in general, but the Padres have a ton of holes and should be looking for both, a quantity of quality, especially players who should be up in 2010 at some point. So you're alright with shipping off our top 7-8 prospects in exchange for a player who will more than likely test the free agent waters in two years? Aye carumba. Adrian Gonzalez is a good player. Is he worth that? God no. How many 7-8 for 1 (2, again, if you really want to touch Heath Bell) deals have there been in the history of baseball?

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) In terms of overall depth Boston has us beat IMO, but in terms of impact prospects who are ready now I think we may have the edge, and if Boston doesn't want to include Buchholz, then we beat the s*** out of Boston there. Casey Kelly and Tazawa are in there too for them. But again, the Padres should be looking primarily at who is ready now. It also needs to be said that SP is an area of need for Boston more than Gonzalez would be, especially if Bay comes back, and I think they want King Felix a bit more. They may have reservations about dealing a ton of pitching for Adrian when they could deal pitching for a true ace. The Sox can offer something like this: Dan Hudson - slots in as their #2 behind Latos, right now Tyler Flowers - starting catcher, right now Dayan Viciedo - starting 3B, maybe even right now because they'll trade Kouzmanoff, but probably by midseason Jordan Danks - midseason 2010 starting CF, possibly earlier Nathan Jones - possible future closer candidate, would likely be up sometime in 2010 Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena). I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal. Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away. Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

It's ridiculous to dismiss Richard after his 2008 performance.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Dec 21, 2008 -> 07:23 AM) Marquez has been compared to Chein-Ming Wang and Garland. They also have similar numbers in the minors. It's not that crazy to suggest Marquez may have success in the majors based on what he has done in the minors. Wang had success right away in the majors [iIRC, like a 4.04 ERA in 17 starts], after throwing 478 innings in the minors. Marquez has thrown 560 minor league innings. Garland also threw 474 innings before being called up. ERA H/ 9 Hr/9 BB/9 K/9 WHIP Wang 3.37 8.9 0.5 2.0 7.1 1.21 Marquez 3.60 9.5 0.5 3.1 6.4 1.39 Garland 3.55 9.1 0.6 3.2 6.4 1.37 Majors: Wang 3.79 9.1 0.5 2.5 4.0 1.29 Garland 4.47 9.5 1.1 2.9 4.7 1.38 What stands out is Wangs control compared to Marquez, and his drop in K/9 from the minors. Also, Garland's HR rate went up. Trust me, the people making those comparisons are nuts.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) Ripped you? By suggesting that you cherry-picked one year of bad numbers to support your prediction that he would suck in the future, eh?? That's not called ripping... that's called exposing flaws in logic. It is hardly cherry picking to cite his most recent stats at the highest level of the minor leagues. Your logic is flawed.

I have no interest whatsoever in Jon Garland. With his shoulder issues, his season last year, and a continuing decline in his stirkeout ability, he deserves a one year deal around six million. Anything more than that, and we'd be crazy. It's obvious we don't have a great deal of money right now, and Garland at his price would be a detriment.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 08:00 AM) Okay, Cortes/Torres, whatever the hell his name is...if he's rated 50-something in the entire minors by MLB, then somebody out there likes him a lot, not just Sox minor league fanboys and Aaron Miles/Aaron Rowand groupies. It's Cortes. I didn't take issue with his ranking or position on prospect lists, but rather your inability to correctly use his name.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Dec 13, 2008 -> 11:31 AM) Reggie Abercrombie has a lot of potential, I remember him hitting MAMOTH flyballs while playing for the Marlins,... except they ended up being fly-outs. If the Cell is smaller than Dolphin stadium, then those flyouts would've been home runs. Have you ever glanced at his statsheet? He's got no potential whatsoever.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 15, 2008 -> 05:12 AM) I think it's safe to say with Ramirez, Duckworth and Torres all on the outside looking in, they have a lot more depth than the White Sox in their rotation. If Torres=Poreda, they also have Davies/Hochevar for the 4th/5th spots and Ramirez and Duckworth as insurance. We don't have anything approximating that now. Egbert and Van Beschoten? Broadway? It's Cortes.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 12, 2008 -> 09:16 PM) All signs pointed to a contract offer for Bedard if he was going to be able to pitch in the first half of 2009.... Daniel Cabrera Denny Bautista Ty Wigginton (I'm sure the Twins will be in on him) and Reggie Abercrombie (another KW reclamation project?) Jonny Gomes (ditto?) Willy Taveras (see one of about 40 threads here on him) Takashi Saito, Scott Proctor, Yhency Brazoban, Angel Berroa Clay Hensley and Charlie Haeger (ex-Sox) Chris Britton and Justin Christian Tim Redding (ex-Sox) C. Trent Rosecrans e-mails that the Reds will not tender contracts to Matt Belisle or Gary Majewski. (ex-Sox) Chris Capuano (perhaps interesting to KW) Kevin Cash (another possible back-up to AJ?) Chuck James Chris Burke What about Reggie Abercrombie makes you want to sign him, or think that somehow KW would want him to play anywhere but Charlotte?