Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (KevinM @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) If all it took to get Taveras was two pieces of s*** like Broadway or McCulloch, he'd already be gone. Chances are, the Rockies are trying to bend KW over a barrel and make him give up something actually valuable. Please, argue against luck, random variations in BABIP, etc. Argue against luck? That is the crutch of your argument? Luck? Rabbit feet and magic 8-balls? I cannot even fathom how anyone could suggest "luck" as the reason for anything. Odds exist and they play themselves out. Luck is nothing more than a concept invented by idiots and perpetuated by idiots. Taveras gets a high percentage of his hits by putting the ball in play in the infield, either by swinging the bat or bunting, and then by using his speed to beat out a play. If the opposition cannot throw him out in any individual situation then it is not luck. If the pitcher cannot field a bunt properly, or the third baseman positions himself in the wrong spot, or if the SS double clutches, of if Taveras himself happens to lay a perfect bunt right down the line that the third baseman is forced to let roll, then that is not luck. That is the direct result of a play initiated by Taveras. If you want to look at the numbers, here: Here's his batting average split by hit trajectory with number of hits/AB: 2005: .320 on ground balls (79/247), .746 on line drives (44/59), .491 on bunts (28/57), .167 on fly balls (21/126) 2006: .269 on ground balls (61/227), .694 on line drives (43/62), .553 on bunts (21/38), .193 on fly balls (22/114) 2007: .291 on ground balls (41/141), .762 on line drives (32/42), .712 on bunts (37/52), .110 on fly balls (9/82) 2008: .232 on ground balls (43/185), .667 on line drives (46/69), .500 on bunts (22/44), .088 on fly balls (9/102) He got "lucky" exactly zero times. He put the f***in' ball in play and ran. When he hit the f***in' ball in the f***in' air he didn't get f***in' s*** because he has no f***in' power. Obviously. On some occasions, for any number of reasons, he was more successful than in others, but luck had exactly zero to do with it. You can't simulate what goes on in defensive players' minds at the time of a given play, or the condition of the infield at the time of that play, or where they are positioned at the time of that play, etc., so you cannot call any one of these numbers lucky. In fact, the odds say that if Willie puts a bunt down in a non-sacrifice situation, most likely he'll end up on first base. They also say that as long as he doesn't hit the ball in the air he's a good hitter. Since he gets a majority of his hits are because of his legs you cannot put on cloak and a wizard hat and pick up your magic wand and shout, "Luck!" Not unless you're a moron anyway.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 05:00 PM) you can never have enough young pitching. Any deal should revolve around acquiring mlb or near mlb pitching with up the middle players as the secondary piece Agree completely. If the Sox trade Dye, Jenks, and Javy, I'd like them all to go in seperate deals and I'd like to see starting pitching coming back in each deal.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 06:31 PM) If I can't solve the political crisis here in Thailand, at least I can defend Willy Taveras, lol. It makes me feel a little better...I have a flight on December 21st to Manila for Christmas, looks like the odds are about 75% I will make it. Right now, there are approximately 350,000 stranded foreigners, the possibility of heightened violence in the upcoming days, or a military coup like 2006. Almost anything is possible. Ouch. Yeah I read about that. As long as you can focus on the important things in life, all will work itself out. Your countrymen need to forget about that ecomony stuff of whatever it is called, get their priorities straight, and start thinking more about Willy Taveras. X-mas is coming up for g-d sakes.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 09:26 AM) Someone explain to me how Taveras is a better hitter than Anderson....cuz I don't see it. Career MLB numbers: Taveras, 26: 1973 AB; .283/.331/.337; 169-for-205 SB Anderson, 26: 365 AB; .221/.277/.379; 10-for-18 SB Brian has more power potential, Taveras has a better chance of hitting for average and getting on base at a better clip because of it. Taveras' numbers are down because of a career-worst year, but he has proven his abilities through four full seasons. Anderson has proven nothing at the Major League level.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 05:43 PM) Willy Taveras, career minor league OBP=.370, OPS=.731 Chris Getz, career minor league OBP=.361, OPS=.741 Almost identical...but then you have to factor in the fact that Taveras has clear advantages in experience leading off, has better range/arm and WILL steal a lot more bases than Getz, putting him into scoring position more often and "boosting" the lower OPS number (essentially counting on 50-70 singles becoming doubles and triples...of course, counting caught stealing against him) essentially. When I was in HS, I made up a number that took into account OBP and SLG but added in stolen bases - caught stealing and counted GIDP as two outs (penalizing the slow/plodding players). I can't remember my formula anymore, but Taveras would look significantly better than Getz using it. For another comparison, Jerry Owens, career minor league OBP=.359, OPS=.717 Starting the season at age 28, it's possible Owens COULD improve...but will he? Based on what? It's still doubtful to me he or Anderson will ever get the at-bats to prove it. I guess we can use the UCLA WR theory, less experience playing baseball, etc. But eventually, we have to accept his limitations and ceiling. I'm sure KW already has, especially his lack of arm in CF. Does he really want to put Owens in LF and go after a superior CFer who will cost us either tons of money or talent, I doubt it. Even if he turns out to be a disappointment, you're risking very little (a Broadway, McCulloch or Russell who will probably never be a starter at the MLB level) and the reward to improve this aspect of your team is too great to pass up. To me, the more competition you have on your team, with increased depth, the better off you are. We have pretty good options all around the diamond if one of our starters breaks down...much, much better than things looked coming out of 2007. Thank you Caulfield. You've always been there to offer a helping hand to Willy Taveras when he has needed it. I salute Jordan4Life and BigHurt4Life equally as well.

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 04:58 PM) Who would you rather have as a leadoff hitter? A guy with plus speed and a great batting eye who getz on base? Or a guy with ++ speed, strong defense, and a great arm? IMO, Taveras has one problem that makes him ill equipped for the job.... he's not a good hitter. And I'm not terribly excited about making a guy whose claim to fame is good defense our next leadoff hitter. Frankly, I don't see Taveras as being a significant upgrade over Owens. In fact, I think it's likely Owens could turn out to be a better offensive player. I'm not a huge Anderson fan either, but I would put Brian out there in a second instead of Taveras as our starting CF. (I suppose you could guess I'm not much a Taveras fan, eh?) Then bat Taveras 9th and lead Getz off with Alexei hitting second. If Taveras rebounds here - which I think he will and was the point of this thread - then make the switch if Getz struggles. Personally, I don't know why you'd want to throw a rookie in the lead-off slot instead of a veteran but whatever. Just end this damn argument. You guys are debating this like Taveras' 2006 and 2007 seasons never existed and his 2008 year was the norm. The whole point of this thread was to show significant regression in one particular area that suggest a confidence issue of some sort, which if changed would make him an overall more productive player all-around than he was in his best seasons.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 01:48 AM) Can you explain to me with this reasoning why Gregor Blanco drew almost twice as many walks as Ryan Braun? There comes a time when you look at players being "pitched around." There also comes a time when the statistics flat out tell you a story about a player. Willy Taveras is an aggressive hitter whose OBP depends entirely upon his average, and if he doesn't hit for a good average, he won't be a good player. It's as simple as that. If Willy Taveras is the last ditch effort and the Sox trade for him in the middle of January, I'll understand. Willy Taveras should not be the major move for the White Sox this offseason. Braun's K numbers make it look like he's got a giant hole in his swing somewhere and refuses to cut down his swing with two strikes. Blanco is more patient (sees .3 more pitches per AB) and I'm guessing he does a much better job fouling off pitches and staying alive in his AB's. If Braun is constantly chasing pitches outside of the strike zone somewhere then pitchers actually are pitching around him and instead of walking he's striking out. I haven't seen Braun play a lot so I don't know what he does, but if he's anything like Grady Sizemore or Ryan Howard in the way they always seem to chase the fastball up around the chest with two strikes then that would explain a lot. Basically, Braun's K to BB ratio seems to suggest that whatever he is doing, the scouting report on him has been correct for the last two years because he hasn't made adjustments. Blanco is probably just a smarter, more patient hitter who stays in his AB longer via a shorter 2-strike swing. If Braun ever cuts down on his K's enough to close the gap in his K to BB ratio like Blanco has for his last few minor league seasons and then last year, I guarantee Blanco doesn't walk more than Braun does.

QUOTE (Cubano @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) No way! He has been a DH in front of Kendry Morales. He woulod not play ahead of Super Kendry in my team. I know what you are going to think guys but that is OK. This Cuban guy is taking Cubans. Many times I get frustrated with MLB. I still remember Rivera patroling CF for Venezuela in WBC # 1. This guy is not a CF. I guess I want to clarify that I am not in any way defending the Angels for their decisions on who to play. I'd sit GMJ's ass on the bench just as one example. As far as Rivera goes as a player, during his last full season he hit .310/.362/.525 with 23 HR. Then he got injured and the Angels never put him back out there for a full season. If he is healthy he is very capable of having a good year. Obviously I wouldn't expect the same numbers he put up in 2006, mainly because he'll have to adjust to everyday playing again as well as a new ballpark, new teammates, a new hitting backdrop, new management, etc., but if he's healthy - and if his injuries haven't taken away his hitting ability which I wouldn't think they have - I'd expect a pretty productive mid-May and beyond. If you like Kendry and think he's going to be good, then I'd go after him in a Paulie deal if that happens finally this year. He's a high contact guy with pretty good power so he could be undervalued. And I doubt the Angels ever play him anyway. They'll do to him what they regularly do with their better prospects, and that is hold on to them for far too long and then let them go for nothing instead of trading them as assets for other needs when they are blocked.

QUOTE (Felix @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 11:00 PM) Again, I never advocated a trade for Figgins. The price for him is way too high, and he's incredibly overrated by a number of people. The only plus about Taveras is the likely asking price for him, which doesn't appear to be much of anything. However, acquiring him likely means he'd be leading off for the team, which would reduce the men on base for the middle of the order. So who do you bat lead-off then, and how does your choice help us? With Taveras he could easily bat 9th as well. The main thing is his known defense in CF combined with his known offensive ability. When you talk about Anderson, who I like BTW, you are talking about his known defense in CF and poor or unknown at best offensive ability. Taveras is a safer bet to help the club score runs than Anderson is, and they both play more than capable CF defense in our park, and in any other park for that matter. For his rumored price, it would be stupid not to pick up Willy.

QUOTE (Felix @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:51 PM) I don't see how Taveras's 2005 or 2006 seasons were 'just fine' for a starter and leadoff man. The only 'just fine' season he had was in 2007, when he had a .371 BABIP in slightly more than half of a season (meaning he was incredibly lucky). And no, you don't seem to understand the point here. It's not that speed is a bad thing, and it's not that slugging is important. However, when you don't get on base at a high rate and you don't slug the ball at all, you simply aren't being productive. I don't care how fast you are, it doesn't matter if you don't get on base which is the case with Taveras. On-base percentage is one of the most important stats in baseball, and the fact that Taveras doesn't walk is a major blow against him. If he were to show that he can consistently get on-base, he would be a fine option, but this just isn't the case. This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, sorry, but it is. BABIP? The guy gets bunt hits and bats over .500 on his career in them, so obviously he is going to do well in that department when he's putting his bunts down at a higher that normal rate. It is not luck. Luck does not exist in baseball or anywhere in life; odds play themselves out and the recipients of long odds act like mystics as a result. Luck is a retarded concept that should have been out of baseball decades ago, but it is making a return thanks to the statheads who use it as a security blanket and count on it to explain all the s*** they can't explain with their stats like BABIP and whatnot. This is a rant, but one of the worst things Bill James has done to baseball is force people to look at s*** like OPS, BABIP, win shares, all that garbage INSTEAD of looking at the actual situations themselves and getting clear, accurate information about what the player does right and wrong. BABIP is a retarded thing to look at anyway when you are talking about a slap hitter/bunt hitter who uses his speed to get on base much of the time. How hard the ball is hit and where it is hit does not always determine whether or not the player ends up at first base when you're talking about someone like Taveras. He makes his living off of fielders rushing plays and making bad throws, beating the defensive set-ups in the infield, testing the arm and accuracy of pitchers and catchers, etc. BABIP tells you nothing about him. His other totals do if you want to look at them though. Back on topic, how is a guy who gets on base 15 more times per season and hits 15 more doubles, triples, or home runs per season but cannot steal more valuable than someone else who, as soon as he gets on, can take a base, force the defense to make a throw, get inside the pitcher's head, help out his #2 hitter with fastballs, etc.? How is the guy who has a much greater chance of scoring when he does get on end up being less valuable than the guy who can get on at a better rate and get a few more XBH's but can't do jack s*** on the bases to help his team except maybe go first to third on a single? Unless he gets an XBH, it takes at base hit or several walks and probably a sacrifice to bring home the guy who cannot steal even if he reaches first with no outs. The guy who can steal, when he gets on with no one out you only need a SB, maybe two if the situation allows for it (weak catcher's arm/slow delivery from pitcher combo) and then either 1 or two groundouts/flyballs. A guy who can steal allows you to put runs on the board while only making outs, at that makes him far more valuable when you are facing a pitcher that does nothing except get you out. AND, walking is as much a skill as it is an effect of hitter intimidation. Why does Jim Thome walk as much as he does? He does have a good eye, but mostly it is because pitchers do not want to go right after him. Stats do NOT tell you batting eye, they only tell aggressiveness and contact rate, so if you think high walk totals mean a guy has a better eye than someone with lower walk totals, get that idea out of your head because it doesn't work like that. Pitchers react completely different to Thome than they ever will to Taveras - one, because he has little power, and two - most importantly - YOU DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELF TO WALK 30-60 SB HITTERS. Taveras by his contact rate appears to have a pretty good eye, the problem is he could have the best eye in baseball and he's still not going to walk as much as a slugger. Figgins gets on at a better clip than Taveras does, but in both cases batting average is the main thing weighting their OBP. Both guys generally get on at a rate about .050 points higher than their batting averages. Figgins had one great year where he got on at a .393 clip, but he hit .330 then, and the reason the difference in AVG and OBP was .063 is because he make better contact that year. Taveras makes better contact than Figgins does, but it appears Figgins walks a little bit more because Taveras is a more aggressive hitter. Both Taveras and Figgins are more than capable lead-off man. It's just that some fans have these stupidly unrealistic expectations for their lead-off hitter and feel the need to bash good players who don't fit their mold. The problem is that their mold doesn't fit Ozzie's mold, so whether you like it or not, I'm sure we're seriously looking at Taveras. I'm done with the Willy Taveras issue. I'll just copy and paste this response from now on because I keep having to state the same things, yet people still don't understand the potential value of a Taveras type even though they claim to have watched us win the World Series one particular season.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) Ummmm, no...Willie Harris has never shown any type of propensity or consistent capability of stealing bases...ever. A more relevant comparison would be Chone Figgins and Harris. Why does everyone love Figgins and hate Taveras? Because he can play a lot of positions? Well, geez, he can't play any of them very well. He's getting older and losing some of his burst...and yet, some are still willing to trade Paul Konerko for him. Willie Harris, 31 next year, is a guy who over the last two years established himself as a good bench player in the Major Leagues. Willy Taveras, 27 next year, did just fine for himself as a starter except for the 2008 season. Why people cannot see the value of a .280-.320 batting average, .330-.360 OBP, 30-60+ steals, and strong defense in CF is beyond me. They like slugging and apparently s***ty contact and care nothing for speed. Whatever.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 10:11 AM) KHP , from 2005-2008 Taveras had a .000 BA on 3-0 counts in 19 AB's probably not because he was swinging and making outs on that count but I think its more like he had no batting avg because he never swung at 3-0 pitches . So any statistical analysis probably shouldn't include 3-0 batting average unless its .000 because he was actually 0 for 19 by making contact and making outs on 3-0 pitches which I think is highly unlikely. You're right, I just caught that. The numbers I was looking at were right, but I read the wrong thing. I took 0 hits at X PA instead of X AB and came up with a .000 batting average instead of a --- batting average like it should have been. Read from the wrong column there. The 2-2, 3-2 count stats are really all that is important, I just put the others in to establish that even in a small sample size he's been pretty consistent at everything in his career except for his BA on 2-2, 3-2 counts which has dropped off significantly. If he keeps doing everything exactly as he has been and then manages to up his performance in those counts, he'll be a .300 hitter again, which will bring his OBP to the .330-.340 range most likely.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 09:04 PM) Well, Dunn and Ibanez are two possible exceptions...both could play LF for one year, then replace Thome. Viciedo SHOULD be in the picture at LF/RF or 3B by 2010 for sure, if not earlier. Say no to Abreu, by the way. Agree on all counts. Dunn would be my no. 1 target, Ibanez no. 2, Brian Giles no. 3, Juan Rivera no. 4, Griffey no. 5 for a power-hitting corner OF should Dye be traded. It seems like Ibanez is garnering a lot of interest though so he might be the hardest to sign. Both Dunn and Ibanez would cost a first round pick, so if Brian Giles would waive his NTC to come here he'd be my favorite of all the options. If we're able to assume Giles' whole salary (which is below-market but expensive to the cheapass Padres) and pick him up without dealing out Poreda, Beckham, Danks, or Fields then that would be a great deal. Both Rivera and Griffey have a real chance of putting up nice seasons if they are healthy and they get regular playing time.

Rivera is the only player on that list worth giving money to.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 07:55 PM) Kind of interesting....I took Taveras, Owens, Anderson, and Baldelli and compared them. Taveras 8 (power), 98 (speed), 56 (contact), 27 (patience) Owens 9, 95, 71, 50 Anderson 85, 60, 31, 49 Baldelli 76, 80, 36, 9 According to that, Owens would be the best leadoff hitter. Who knows, maybe KW will agree with Baseball Cube. Yeah I wouldn't put any stock in that crap. There's no way Owens is the best contact hitter of the four and his attributes must come as a result of facing minor league competition. Owens is one of the worst players in baseball. He's like a cheaper version of Juan Pierre except he's not as good of a hitter, or as good of a baserunner, he has never done s*** in the Majors, and he has no championship rings.

The attributes are dumb. I liked the site better before when it was just stats. Now it takes longer to load and is built for idiots. Baseball-reference.com >>> ESPN stats pages >>>> all the others for MLB stats For minor league stats the baseball cube works though

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 12:31 AM) Then Danks and Floyd and Quentin and Ramirez are also anomalies. Look at Sandy Koufax...he struggled for a long time and then the lights just came on one day, or Randy Johnson. Everyone knew they had the stuff..it was just a matter of execution and putting it all together. You have to be willing to believe that pitchers don't "progress" as they get older, especially a pitcher who started his major league career with on-the-job training in his teens. Granted, he could end up like Jon Garland and just be a decent or "average" 4/5 starter...but Garland doesn't have nearly the type of stuff that Jackson has. Or how do you explain someone like Matt Thornton's career path? Bobby Jenks? If there weren't "anomalies," and everything was predictable, there would be no need to even play the games...they could all be simulated and predicted with 100% accuracy. Exactly. I have no idea how these people - not talking about the poster but the guy who wrote that junk about how it's unlikely for him to be as clutch - get off on writing that stuff about young, unproven pitchers who are learning at the Major League level. If it is a veteran, fine, then it's okay to look at that stuff and compare his numbers to previous years in his career. As a young player, no way. The guy improved his control, which was his problem, and improved his H/9 and WHIP as a result. Maybe he was "lucky" in that he didn't get hurt more last year pitching with men on, but how can you ignore the fact that his improvement suggests he'll end up in fewer of those situations next year? If his control keeps improving there will be less situations for him to be "lucky." And god do I hate that word in reference to baseball. Like, "oh Nick Swisher was unlucky last year." Bulls***. Nick Swisher was trash last year, I watched his at-bats and he looked lost up there. Jackson wasn't lucky, he is just a guy with an extremely high ceiling who appears to be putting it together, which is exactly why we should look to pick him up if he's available on the cheap.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 30, 2008 -> 12:14 AM) He's never shown this ability before, ever. It's more than likely a statistical anomaly rather than a repeatable skill. He is 24 years old! Of course he hasn't shown that before, duh! He's a kid learning how to pitch. There is no sample size big enough to suggest that it is an anomaly. 2008 was his second full season in the bigs and you can't compare anything to that except his 2008 numbers, which in comparison are an improvement. You can't compare some bad minor league numbers or something and say it is his statistical norm or anything like that.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 11:55 PM) http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php...-jackson-clutch That sums it up fairly well. Not really. It says he did better in clutch situations and that he was uncharacteristically good in those situations, so he'll get worse as time moves on. That doesn't make sense, firstly because like I said before, the kid is 24 and he improved his peripheral stats. The only peripherals he didn't improve upon were HR/9 and K/9, but IMO there is a very good reason for that and it has nothing to do with some clutch stat. IMO, his HR/9 and K/9 rates in 2007 were artificially high. Jackson turned in his first full pro season that year and the league hadn't adjusted to him yet. In 2008 he harnessed his control more, but the opposition probably stopped chasing his slider as much as they had been and decided to just sit on his fastball and make him get over the plate. Instead of reading that crap, just go to baseballreference.com and look at the stats themselves, especially by month. He was better in the 2nd half of '07 than he was in the 1st half of '07; he was better in the 1st half in '08 than he was in the 2nd half of '07, and he was doing better in the 2nd half of '08 than in the 1st half of '08 until September came, and then he hit the wall and had 3 really bad starts that hurt his 2nd half numbers. He has been improving his game gradually and actually seems poised for a breakout. If you look at his gamelog, he had 6 really bad starts where he gave up 6 runs and generally couldn't get out of the 4th inning. There are lots of games where he was walking 3-4 people and still getting away with it based on stuff. He cut his BB rate by a full one walk plus last year, and if he does that again he'll put up an ERA in the 3's. As far as him becoming a better pitcher with men on base, why is that a bad thing? That is a sign of a guy turning a corner and becoming a Major League pitcher.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 11:34 PM) He's going to regress hardcore if he has the same control problems this season. The kid walks way too many guys and doesn't miss a lot of bats. Pass. The problem here is that you're just pulling this out of your ass. What evidence do you have that suggests he'll regress? He has lowered his H/9 and BB/9 rates each season since he got to Tampa, and the guy is 24 freaking years old. 24, and he made his MLB debut as a 19 year old. He's not like some 28 year old AAAA player or anything. His K/9 rate dipped last year, but it looks like that is because he was still having control problems overall, but because of his improvements with his control, he ended up missing in the zone more than he'd done the year before. The guy still can't hit his spots, but he's finding the plate more, and IMO that is why his K/9 took a dip. His stuff didn't regress in any way, and if he continues to improve his control and becomes able to hit his spots more often with his FB, look the f*** out, because that slider is a wicked out pitch that will make him a legit top-end starter. Overall it looks like Jackson was rushed by the Dodgers, who then gave up on him and traded him for scraps basically in Denys Baez. It appears he has turned the corner, and if he has indeed done that, he's a great buy.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 11:27 PM) What is it with people and Edwin Jackson? He's not very good at all. Some people actually see his stuff and the improvements he has made and recognize his potential should he continue to develop as he has been. He's a potential #1/#2 starter who right now is a capable #4/#5. The Rays are only dealing him because they don't want to pay arbitration on the guy when they've got a stacked rotation and bunch of awesome prospects ready to make the jump.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) For the Bob Abreu of five years ago, maybe. The whole point of trading Dye was getting younger/faster/payroll flexibility, not going out and trading for someone "older" who's MORE expensive. This is the type of signing KW will never, ever make IMO. Not now for Abreu....too late. He's not the same player he once was. He's not as fast as he used to be either. I don't think either Danks or Shelby are being looked at as RFers. Viciedo, from everything we've seen and heard, would be a better fit for RF than either of those guys. Danks is a CFer and Shelby doesn't really have a position where he's a "plus" defender, at least as of yet, and maybe ever. If Abreu gets 3 years/$45M or so, that will be the worst contract given out on the FA market this year, unless Burnett and/or Sheets sign for 5 years. Abreu doesn't have the type of power to justify moving him to DH, which is exactly where he is headed.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 10:02 PM) A deal for Javy should also include another young arm [who has thrown 100 + innings in the bigs] who could be the 4th/ 5th starter. I think an OFer could also be had in the deal, who could compete for a spot. Quentin would probably be moved to RF, as the sox would probably want a better athlete for LF and CF. Taveras would probably be in CF. I'd deal for a vet such as Duchscherer who could be a health risk [with his hip], yet has a big upside. Agree, and if we get Bailey out of a Dye deal then I don't think we can plan on him as a starter. Same with Marquez. Say we get Bailey + Freel (to take his salary which it seems the Reds fans want) + low-level upside prospect (kind of like Elvis Andrus in the Tex deal, Engel Beltre in the Gagne to BOS deal, etc.) for Dye. Then we should make sure we get a guy that we feel is ready to be a fixture in the rotation right now as a #4, which is why I really like the Edwin Jackson rumors. After that, I'd like another SP prospect to compete with Bailey and Marquez for a 5th spot, and if neither guy looks good, then maybe we look to sign a veteran innings eater or something, or try out Egbert, or even go with the vaunted fifth starter by committee s*** that got us killed pre-2005 for a half of a season while counting on Contreras to rejoin the rotation. So, let's say we do something like this: Dye to CIN for Bailey, Freel, low-level upside prospect (I think it's probably more realistic than Bailey + Dickerson) Jenks + maybe mid-level prospect/spare part reliever to TB for Edwin Jackson + Jeff Niemann Vazquez to Atlanta for one MLB-ready or very close to MLB-ready prospect PLUS a prospect who isn't that far away, probably one OF and one pitcher, like: JoJo Reyes/Charlie Morton/Gregor Blanco/Jordan Schafer + Cole Rohrbough/Gorkys Hernandez/Jeff Locke Hanson and Heyward should definitely be off the table OR Do a Vazquez deal with the Rangers if possible, and there are some interesting possibilities here. They have lots of pitching and OF prospects, so there's no reason even list them all. The Brewers have some possibilities as well. And maybe even the Nats if they really want to get some veterans. The Mets are probably the worst fit IMO, unless they want to give up Martinez and Niese or something. I doubt Pelfrey was ever on the table because had he been the deal would've been done by now. If we can do all that, then Jackson is our #4, the other guys compete against each other for the 5th spot, and we sign a corner OF. If we don't get a CF ready to play now, we deal for Taveras, sign Kotsay, start Anderson, whatever, anything but Jerry Owens.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 09:44 PM) Who would be your LFer then? Wise? Viciedo? Quentin? Fields? (assuming we move Carlos over to RF is most logical, if Dye were to be traded) Would you then go out and have the confidence to deal Vazquez and go with four youngsters in the rotation? Would you sign a veteran for the 5th spot just in case, or pray that Bailey and Richard/Poreda came through? He's a bad fit for what we're trying to accomplish this year (getting younger, faster, and getting smarter hitters) but I'd go after Adam Dunn. Put him in LF for '09 and then move him to DH in 2010 after the Sox let Thome walk. I think he'll end up getting 4 years from someone, but it seems like he might be one of those more bargain type players in this market since there haven't been rumors about large market teams being interested in him (at least not that I've seen, although I only check MLBTradeRumors for that stuff). I'd want better OF defense in the future of course, but I'd look to make a trade or FA signing for another corner OF after '09 to do that. In a perfect world for me, I'd deal Thome now and sign Dunn to replace him as DH, but that won't happen. No. 1, because of Thome's NTC and inability to play the field, we couldn't deal him anyway. And no. 2, even if we could trade him, why would any team want to give up talent for him to be a DH when they could just sign another DH candidate, like Dunn, Ibanez, Griffey, etc. If a Dunn signing would not work out, I would be interested in signing Juan Rivera for something like 3/$15M guaranteed with performance escalators involved that could make him up to $10 per season. He's a guy who has really been hampered by injuries and lack of playing time in the Angels' crowded OF, but he has the talent to be a fine producer. I think he'd be at least league average as a starter if he's healthy, and with the right deal we'd be able to trade him should we look to upgrade in that spot. Another possibility could be Jeremy Hermida. I think there will be a lot of people here who wouldn't mind taking a shot at him since his ceiling is so high, and he is a buy-low candidate, but the problem there is that he is arbitration eligible, meaning that if he does break out we'll essentially finish developing him just in time for him to bolt via FA. And then there is Griffey too. He's obviously been hurt, but is another low risk/high reward opportunity for us with the right deal. A one year, $6M contract with performance incentives wouldn't kill us in '09 since we're supposedly going to be cutting so much payroll, and the upside there is the deal can't hurt in the long run.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 29, 2008 -> 07:25 PM) So, Jocketty admitted that there have been talks between the Reds and the White Sox and refused to discredit the Dye rumors. We may be in business boys. I hope so. This rumor, if it is serious, at the very least shows how much Dye with his favorable contract is worth in this market. If the Sox are really interested in Bailey then I am too, because I very much trust their judgment on other teams' pitchers.