Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) Freddy Garcia? And Jose Contreras the same year, plus he tried for Carlos Delgado but Delgado invoked his NTC. Contreras wasn't as significant as Peavy and Rios in terms of cash allowed, but he did have 2+ years remaining on his contract when we got him. The Yankees did eat salary though.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) I see a steady rise in the BB rate, but it looks as though it took a pretty huge leap this past year. He went from increasing about 12-15% per year to a 65% increase or so (off the top of my head) last year. That's quite a big leap and part of the reason, outside of common sense, that I agree with Cameron regarding him being pitched around. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying his slugging % won't increase in the Cell, because I do. I just think it will occur primarily because of park factors rather than him having better hitters in the lineup. Additionally, he may get a jump in BA as some balls that were caught in Petco might go as home runs in US Cellular. My guess if he came here is that he would probably hit 45-48 home runs a year and post a line somewhere close to this: .305/.375/.640, which would obviously be pretty awesome. Look at the leap his BB rate took between 2007-08 though, very similar to the leap this year. If he's being pitched around more, then how come his SLG% took another huge leap in tandem with his BB rate? He hit 4 more HR in 19 fewer PA in 2009 than he did in 2008. I would probably predict a line of around .290/.390/.620, because I see his home numbers increasing as hitters really enjoy the backdrop here (Hunter even said as much when he was close to signing with us) and I see his road numbers decreasing due to an unfamiliarity with new ballparks in his first year in the AL. I think playing half his games in the Cell his home/road splits are going to be a lot closer. The power will increase in the Cell, but we're talking about a guy whose regular thing is parking an outside fastball about 380 feet into the left field bleachers, so his power is going to play anywhere.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) All of those players you listed minus Buehrle are in their primes, Floyd is locked up, Peavy will be here for years, so only Danks/Quentin your talking about a raise with Konerko, A.J., etc.. all comming off the books in 2010. I do agree that we shouldn't do anything stupid as well, so we won't see any 7-1 deals anytime soon, but I understand that Adrian will be part of our core for at least 2 years. But i also don't feel we have a specific window. KW has done a wonderful job at not only keeping us competitive now, but for a very long time with youth guys now and up and comming (Beckham, Flowers, etc..) and as KHP eluted to, who knows how anything will be 3-4 years from now. KW has the chips for the deck that's for sure. I'd say we have a decent percentage of landing Adrian, not great and not bad. Now I will leave it the way it is, as now it's going from good stuff in here, to beating the dead horse. The 7-for-1 thing was just me being giddy, and I agree it probably doesn't work like that, at least not unless we get Heath Bell or someone else in the deal. The primary focus would be on Hudson, Flowers, Viciedo, and D2 regardless since those are our best trade-eligible pieces. I pretty much agree with the other stuff you're saying. And I'd love to get Votto too, however I still think they'll be dealing Alonso. Just my opinion though and the Reds may definitely see that differently. If they think Alonso can and will do more or less what Votto is doing now then it makes sense to keep Alonso instead and get the extra couple of pre-arb years.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) KHP, I agree with a lot of that, but don't confuse stacking a number of good hitters in a row throughout a lineup with protection theory. Certainly the better your hitters are, the more professional, dangerous hitters you stack up on one another, the more runs your team will score, for all and more of the reasons you listed. However, the studies show that a dominant hitter puts up similar individual numbers regardless of whether he has good hitters in front of or behind him in the lineup or not. That's not to say AGon won't drive in more runs because he has more men on base in front of him, or score more runs because he has better hitters behind him to knock him in. But the studies are showing that a hitter such as Manny Ramirez or AGon are not necessarily hitting more home runs or XBH because pitchers have to come after them more. From what I have read, the relationship is not a linear one. My guess is there may be some correlation, but it is difficult to recognize over that sample size because the odds of hitters increasing their slugging percentage aren't all that great based on seeing one better pitch to hit per AB. They still have to put that ball in play, they still have to hit it where someone isn't, etc. Most elite hitters get an XBH around 1/20 at bats, from what I understand. So if you do the math, that isn't necessarily coming out to a ton more XBH a year because you are still dealing having to put those pitches in play and hitting them where someone isn't. My very uneducated guess would be that it may come out to some 4-5 additional XBH per year. As for your other points regarding the position of the franchise in 2 years, I think you're spot on. A LOT will change between now and two years from now. Whether we sign AGon or not. KW has proven that. I understand what you mean then and you could be right with regards to the protection argument. I'll give you that point, and I'll drop my argument against it. However, going back to the original argument that IIRC sprouted this argument, like I said in another post, you don't draw 119 walks on accident. His BB vs. K numbers since becoming a full time starter, along with age, BB rate, K rate, and SLG%: Age 24 52 BB, 113 K, 12.13 PA/BB, 5.58 PA/K, .500 SLG Age 25 65 BB, 140 K, 11.08 PA/BB, 5.14 PA/K, .502 SLG Age 26 74 BB, 142 K, 8.32 PA/BB, 4.93 PA/K, .510 SLG Age 27 119 BB, 109 K, 5.72 PA/BB, 6.25 PA/K, .551 SLG The K rates trended slightly upward along with his power until this year, then improved significantly just as his power improved significantly. I take that as a sign of development and the sign of a break out year, not a career one. His BB rate has done nothing but dramatically improve each year, which is definitely another sign or development. The jump in BB rate he made this year was very similar to the jump in BB rate he made the previous year, which seems to point towards his 2009 season as not being an aberration, only a break out. If Adrian in the Cell is only going to increase his XBH total slightly - which I completely disagree with still, but I'm dropping the protection argument - than his BB rate is only going to dip slightly as well. He has become an extremely disciplined hitter and the numbers back that up because he has improved so much year to year. I agree his OPS will go up, and I still know the general point you're making, but still, compare these numbers again: 2009 Home: .244/.413/.446/.859 2009 Road: .306/.402/.643/1.045 Career Home: .260/.355/.441/.795 Career Road: .300/.370/.565/.935 Now look at his L/R splits: 2009 vs. LHP: .234/.339/.431/.770 2009 vs. RHP: .305/.448/.629/1.077 Career vs. LHP: .244/.316/.428/.724 Career vs. RHP: .298/.383/.543/.926 If we were talking about a hitter playing in Texas, the you swapped the road and home numbers, then I would be extremely worried. However, PetCo is hell, and aside from the dimensions, perhaps there are other matters, like the hitting backdrop for one, or the approach he takes while hitting there. But the dropoff is enormous going from road to home, and it seems pretty abnormal in general to see that kind of thing from a player. Adrian Gonzalez in PetCo is almost like Adrian Gonzalez vs. LHP. Put him in the Cell and I bet everything goes up except possibly the walk rate, and I agree with you and SoxAce that the BB will most likely take a dip.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) Hey rockies gm youre a good team but your pen sucks ive got just the guy for you Scott Linebrink will help that problem and ill even give you our new guy Mark Teahan for a guy your not even playing, Garret Atkins...(very doubtful but possible, maybe even throw em Stanziel or link as well) If I were Kenny Williams, and you could pull that off, I'd hire you to replace me and resign.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) May I suggest hotels.com for the 2 of you? I deal my drugs out of the Red Roof Inn. I just ask for the room with the most bullet holes in the door so I get a good rate as it is, but thanks for looking out.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) Once again KHP, we see eye to eye on this issue. Thank you for stating it so eloquently! You're very welcome. I'm glad someone here has my back.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) Good post KHP, but check out that article Qwerty posted about Adrian's walks. It points out that simply because he'll see more strikes hitting in a better lineup doesn't necessarily mean he'll hit more of those strikes for XBH. I think there is probably some truth to that - lineup protection seems to be a very mythological idea... Where I do think AGon will make up for the fewer walks is, as you mention, because of the park factors. I think more of those doubles he hit in Petco will be home runs in US Cellular, which will drive up his slugging percentage, and therefore, increase his OPS in that regard, even if his OBP is falling because he is being pitched around fewer times. As for the position scarcity argument, I couldn't agree with you more. At some point, an elite hitter is an elite hitter no matter where he plays on the diamond. Considering the fact that we have finite resources, and only 9 slots on the lineup card, with other skills needed to win baseball games (solid defensive players), I think Adrian, especially at his salary, is amongst the most valuable players right now in the game. I started reading that article and I guess I'll go back and give it a chance. I really disagree with idea of protection being a myth. The better hitters before and after you, the tougher it is on the opposing pitcher. The better the hitters are in front of you, the likelier it is for someone to be on base. Going after a big RBI guy with a man on base is very different than attacking him with no one on. Also, if the previous hitter - let's say Beckham - gets into a battle and sees a lot of pitches, and if he forces the pitcher to use just about everything he has, then a smart hitter on deck is going to be watching this, and he is going to go up to the plate with a better idea of what to look to for. From the standpoint of the pitcher, it's a ton easier to work around a tough hitter and then risk making a mistake to a weaker hitter than it is to make good pitches to 3 hitters in a row because you have to. If the pitcher finds it hard to get into a rhythm and he drives up his pitch count in the process, the odds of the bullpen entering the game sooner increase, which is generally going to help your chances of scoring runs, especially if you can get into a bullpen early during the first game of a series. I'm one of those people who believe that the stress of an inning mentally is harder on a pitcher than just throwing pitches in general, and the more stress you put on him, the likelier it is for him to make a mistake. A 3-4-5 of Beckham-Gonzalez-Quentin IMO would add a ton of stress to opposing pitchers. Obviously there will be some guys who are very good pitchers and are just "on," and they'll be able to work through this without much difficulty, but more often than not, it is going to be a pain in the ass for opposing pitchers to work through that kind middle of the order. For a recent example here, I don't think it's much of a coincidence that Dye, Thome, Paulie, and Crede all had excellent years for themselves in 2006 while hitting in a row. They all had very good years on their own, but they also benefited from each other. And I'll say this too: just look at our starting rotation. We have 5 guys that on any given day can go 7 innings and pretty much shut down a lineup. As it stands right now we are were lacking in offense and I believe that even if we don't make any major improvements in that area, we'll still be able to scrape across enough runs to win quite a few close ballgames. If we add a bat like Gonzalez we are going to really going to boost our run differential, and there are going to be more games where we'll be up with big leads, and our starters will take us deep, and because of the leads we'll be able to rely on the front of our bullpen (Carrasco) to finish out games. You can never really count on a bullpen, especially one-inning relievers, but having 5 starters each capable of working 200+IP as well as a potent offense could do wonders to improve our bullpen simply by taking stress off of our weakest back-end relievers by going to them less frequently in tight situations. If I didn't believe Adrian Gonzalez would make us a World Series contender for 2010 and 2011 then I wouldn't suggest trading the farm for him since it is likely we would lose him to free agency in 2012 and only pick up draft picks. But I just find it so surprising that so many people are so concerned about the 2012 team that they'd pass up a chance like this, if it really is there. If we get Adrian and we make major runs for the next two years than EVERYTHING is going to change. You can't just sit here and imagine that things two years from now would be similar to the way they are now, only worse because we won't have any good young players anymore. Two years represents 2 more years of development for the remaining prospects we would keep, plus two years worth of drafts and international signing periods, plus two years of better attendance and a more attractive atmosphere to potential advertisers which leads to more money to play around with, plus two years or additional roster moves by the front office. Two years from now we may have another Floyd/Danks/Quentin/Alexei type that is cheap, young, productive, under team control, and who is **not even in our organization right now.** Go back 2 years from now to 2007 and very few if any of us here would have thought we'd be in such good position as we are in currently, given how s***ty that 2007 team was. I just don't understand how dealing the farm now for a player of Gonzalez's caliber somehow dooms us in the future. That's a very bleak attitude and IMO it is completely unnecessary given the strides our organization has made in general since the 2003 offseason compared to prior periods.

It depends on how everything shakes out by then, but if Thome is still around in January, and we still need a DH, and if we have less than $5M to spend, I'd rather it be him than whatever else would be left on the board.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 01:47 AM) Ya I know what your saying here as well, but let's not pretend Adrian has done this alot. He put up a .950 OPS just this past year, on a s***ty SD team, with no help in that lineup. He'll be comming to a superior AL league, he won't get pitched around as much and he probably won't walk nearly as much. I would still take his career numbers on this team, but he's not Albert Pujols or even a young freak like Miguel Cabrera was (check that... still is) when he was traded to the AL putting up the godly numbers he did with the Marlins even with Hanley on that team. Not counting his rookie year, his first year in the AL he put up a .292/.349/.537/.887 which was a "bad" season for him playing 1B. Adrian will no doubt have to adjust, though his power is very real. You can find more solid 1B, DH, 3B etc.. in a FA market or a trade then you can 2B, SS, CF, barring Bora$ in our instance to solidify your overall lineup. You would see a Joey Votto for example in a trade rumor long before you'd see a Troy Tulowitski contracts aside. If we have a damn good 2B/SS and a damn good CF, I'll definitely take a solid/serviceable 3B/1B especially if your overall pitching is right. I'm just glad Adrian has a good glove which always helps especially to put Konerko at DH or trade bait. Gonzalez has been improving. He's not the same player now that he was in his first couple of years in San Diego. This is a former #1 pick in the draft and now he has become what he was supposed to become. If you look at his home/road splits, he's really not all that great in PetCo at all. His road numbers however are fantastic. You make a point when you say that in another park, with protection, he is not going to be pitched around as much. Good! You don't want the opposition to pitch around your best hitters, you want them to get the chance to drive the ball. The walks will dip, but the average and slugging is going to shoot up, and his OPS as a result is going to be higher in a place like the Cell. IMO he's a 1.000 OPS player in the Cell between Beckham and a healthy Quentin. He would also be the best left-handed pure power hitter in the American League. Also, Adrian I believe led all of baseball in opposite field home runs. Around 3/4 of this home runs IIRC are to center and left, with the majority going out to left. That's just amazing. Put him in the Cell and he could easily hit 50 IMO. He's become one of the best power hitters in basball, and at his age, with his talent and pedigree, there is no reason to view his upward-trending numbers with any suspicion. He's a legit monster. He's not Albert Pujols, but he's lightyears above the majority of the competition. The offense by position argument I almost always agree with and that's why I'm a fan of Beckham moving to 2B. However, when you start talking about the most elite power hitters in the game, especially left-handed ones, position no longer matters. You're not going to get that kind of production very often from any position. Plus, Adrian has some pretty damn good range to both his left and right for a 1B, along with soft hands and strong reactions. We're not talking about some lumbering 1B here. Adrian is a pretty serious athlete. Also, isn't cost efficiency a main factor in the offense by position argument? Because if you get strong offense from typical defensive positions, it allows you to go cheaper on traditional power positions? Adrian Gonzalez at $10.25M over 2 years is about as cost efficient as you can possibly get, and I would argue that putting a bat like that, at such a price, at any position on the diamond, still allows you to go cheap in other areas, and still allows tremendous flexibility.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:50 PM) Edit: I take that back...their numbers are fairly comparable. They put up comparable numbers with Teixeira in a hitter's park and AGon in a pitcher's park. Gonzalez's numbers have been trending upwards, including his power, and he has played half his games in PetCo. Teixiera has benefitted from Texas all those years and the New Yankee Stadium this year. Gonzalez has become more of a slugger IMO while Tex is more of a pure hitter. Edit: Tex seems to be the hitter now that he'll be for the next 5-7 years. Gonzalez OTOH has become like a massive mold that somehow keeps growing and swallowing things. He could end up crushing entire cities by 2013. Actually, Adrian Gonzalez kind of reminds of a combination of the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man and the psychoreactive slime in the Ghostbusters movies.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:50 PM) Yeah, that is another comparable...but I just don't feel like Teixeira had as high a ceiling as AGon has. To put it bluntly, Teixeira was putting up lower numbers in a hitter's paradise than AGon put up last year in a pitcher's park. Agree. AGon is a different kind of monster, and the idea that because he plays 1B he should not be valued as one of the most valuable players in baseball - which is exactly what he is - is absurd. Two years of Gonzalez costs $10.25M. That's less than Konerko makes next year and less than Linebrink makes over the next two. John Danks will probably make more than that in total through arb, same with Quentin. Gonzalez would be one of the cheapest regulars on our team and he'd be putting up MVP numbers, and yet he's supposed to have more diminished value because of this 1B nonsense.

Aren't 27-year-old, left-handed, gold glove-winning, MVP candidates pretty hard to come by? There's not a precedent in very recent history for what Gonzalez would bring. You can however look at what Mark Texiera brought back with 1.5 years left and while making more money, and while also not being the power hitter Gonzalez is. Texeira, along with Ron Mahay, brought back Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Neftail Feliz, Elvis Andrus, Matt Harrison, and Beau Jones in a massive 2-for-5 deal.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:19 PM) This is exactly the point I'm making. So to ask how many of these 7-1 trades have their been in the history of the game is to actually ask, how many have there been in the last 10 years. That's all I'm saying. Even still, you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy who has proven what AGon has proven in the major leagues to be on the block at his relative cost in terms of dollars. The MCab trade is actually not even close, as I have mentioned previously. Look, I think I'm the one that started the 7-for-1 talk. That doesn't really matter to me. There's not player on the farm I'd hold back if we were going to get Adrian Gonzalez for 2 years at about $10M combined in return. If we could do 4-5 players, even better. Whatever players that the Padres thought were our 6th and 7th best players probably aren't so awesome that it would be worth going nuts over if we're getting that kind of return. The two best recent examples IMO would be the Haren deal (2 years remaining IIRC and cheap) and the Bedard deal (2 years remaining and cheap). The Haren deal was 6-for-2 and the Bedard deal was 5-for-1.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) Then again I wonder why the Padres would give up someone like that. Because apparently the new owner still has a big mess to clean up. I believe they still have big payments due for the ballpark, plus issues with fans not showing up, and there may be lingering issues from the divorce the previous owner went through which forced the sale of the team. Ownership has given the $40M payroll figure for the future, so it makes the most sense to acquire as many prospects as possible and try to build a contender by 2012, which is probably the soonest they'll be able to compete. Gonzalez is a FA after 2011, and clearly he doesn't fit given what he'd bring in cash on the open market. It makes sense to trade him now because they'll be able to get more, plus they'll be able to let the players they get back develop alongside the current new core they already have in place.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) Since it wasn't brought up, I would say much of the huge blockbuster trades that seem to happen atleast once or twice a year are because of increased salaries. Impending free agents who are going to be tough to resign have less value to teams that 3-4 prospects, whereas just 10 years ago the Astros sent Carlos Guillen, Freddy Garcia and John Halama for half of a season of Randy Johnson simply to be a rent a pitcher. Sabathia was the exact same scenario, but I seem to remember the only real big prospect that the Brewers gave up was LaPorta, and they didn't really have anywhere to play him anyways. The best two comparisons I could probably make off the top of my head in regards to value for Gonzalez would be Cabrera from Florida to Detroit and Griffey from Seattle to Cincinnati. Griffey had in fact just come off winning an MVP and putting up a .960 OPS as a CFer, and the two previous years he hit 56 homers in each. I don't know how they were rated, but I know that Cameron was a good prospect and Brett Tomko was a good prospect at one point in time too. I don't know about Jake Meyer (who was originally drafted by the Sox) or Antonio Perez, but they couldn't have been bad. I seem to remember Griffey sort of forcing the trade to Cinci, so that example may not work perfectly. Either way, I think the cost of players has a huge effect on why more players have been dealt recently. IMO the Haren deal is the best comparison because it was recent and involved a star player on a dirt-cheap contract with multiple years remaining going by himself from a rebuilding small market team to a contending one. The Griffey deal, you're right, was pretty much forced by Griffey, so Seattle lost a lot of leverage there. The Padres still have leverage now because they have until midseason 2011 to trade him if they really felt like waiting that long. The Miguel Cabrera deal is close, but there was also the Dontrelle Willis factor, who the Sox (at least) didn't want in the deal. The Marlins wanted to unload that contract as a condition of the deal, but the Padres won't be in any such situation.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) I thought I read somewhere that it would be at 215. The rumor is a catchweight, but IIRC Alexander has fought as a HW outside of the UFC so maybe they could do it somewhere between that and 230. I don't think it matters a whole lot though because Zuffa just wants to sell this fight. It is kind of strange that they would put this on for free, especially during the TUF Finale where they have to keep everything secret until the finalists are announced. One would think this would be a fight they'd want to push pretty hard. Given Kimbo's drawing power it would be interesting to see how much a fight like this could boost a weak PPV.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Still pulled out of your ass, along with the other figure. Yeah, I pulled those salaries out of my ass. Right. It's not like the particulars of those deals have been published or anything. There's something called research, you should do it. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) 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. And what if everyone is healthy? And what if one player gets hurt and we can make a move to replace that player? Stop with the what ifs. Your argument has deteriorated but yet you keep on. This is why I'm putting you on ignore from now on. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) 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. Yes, we should look at the odds of prospects reaching their potential. That typically leads to what is called an informed decision. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) 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. Well Buddy Bell knows a s***load more than you about the Sox plans, so stop asking me for these things, go ask him. And who gives a f***? We're talking about him playing for the Padres. What the f*** do you care? QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Viciedo isn't anywhere near ready. Your opinion, not the Sox opinion. When the Sox come out and say Viciedo is a lost cause at 3B then you can run your mouth. Until then, you're wasting your time. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) 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. 1. No, I said draft AND international signing period. 1-2 good signings interationally in tandem with a strong draft does wonders to resupply the farm. 2. Jesus, use your head please. The point was that the Sox ***DO NOT NEED TO DRAFT A BUNCH OF FUTURE MAJOR LEAGUERS IF THEY TRADE THEM FOR PROVEN PIECES****** because they would still be getting value out of the draft. 3. I talk about the importance of winning and you respond with depth and insurance comments. Starting players are more important than back-ups. You build a team around starters and you hope you don't need to go out and find replacements, but if that happens, you do it. You don't sacrifice your chances at a proven impact player because you're worried about what would happen if everything went wrong. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Swing and a miss. This point was specifically about the bullpen, and this organization's propensity for overpaying. Try again. This organization does not have a propensity for overpaying for bullpen arms. Dotel and Linebrink signed during the same general period where guys like Jaime Walker and Scott Schoenweis got paid out the ass to be specialists. Their deals were either market value - i.e. someone else would have offered that - or slightly above, but not grossly above. And those deals were signed during one abnormal offseason. Go look over Sox bullpens for the last decade and then take a look at how we acquired these players and their contracts. The Sox rely heavily an arb, pre-arb, and cheap reclamation types more than anything else. So you're wrong again. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Is committing your entire system and depth to one player a bigger risk? Yes. No it's not a bigger risk than giving out a bad contract. Look at the game of baseball for once, you don't seem to do it often. What teams are in the most trouble, those with weak farm systems or those with tons of dollars invested in bad contracts? Why don't you follow the draft and look at how much money these players sign for. Scott Linebrink makes about $6.5M more over two years than he should, and in terms of bad contracts, Linebrink isn't even a pimple on the ass of Vernon Wells or Barry Zito or Alfonso Soriano. It is ****ENTIRELY COMMON****** for an organization to spend less money combined over 50 rounds of one year's Rule-4 draft than what Linebrink is being overpaid by during a two-year span. The difference between a middle-of-the-pack farm system and a bottom-feeding farm system can easily be less than $5M worth of investments. Start paying attention, please. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Bulls***. Pitching doesn't grow on trees. Ignorance again from you. No surprise. Familiarize youself with Baltimore's farm system, then realize that is only one team. Then move on to Tampa Bay. Then move on, and on, and on, and you'll realize that pitching prospects with ceilings of a #2-#3 are quite prevalent. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:28 PM) Catchers at his level don't come around very often. Start looking at prospects of other teams. Keith Law is a fan and still ranks him 4th. Highly-touted catching prospects are always around, they just usually don't develop. Again, I had you on ignore before and I'm doing it again. Respond if you like, I'm done talking with you.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) I don't think anyone has said that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. However, it's difficult to ignore how perfectly he resembles the player the White Sox need right now. I see both points here, and again, KHP and Kevin, outside of the jabs you're taking at one another, some great stuff here. I am really enjoying it. I see what Kevin is saying...the prospects and young players we have right now are better than we've had in quite a while, it would be a shame to give them all away for 1 player. However, I also see what KHP is saying. A great farm system is wonderful and all, but in the end, a farm system is a means to an end. It is a tool one uses to help the big league club win. I don't care if the posters of Soxtalk have to fill our minor league rosters if we are winning titles. But see I would disagree with this though. They all have their faults, just as has been the case in the past. The Sox seem to have gotten a lot better when it comes to scouting amateurs, but they're still going to be hit-and-miss because it's not an exact science and the players have to stay healthy, develop, adjust, and perform under pressure on the biggest stage. I thought Josh Fields was definitely going to hit up here after watching him in 2007, and yet he turned into a throw-in for Mark Teahen. But that doesn't mean Josh wasn't a good prospect or that we were dumb for drafting. In hindsight we should have attempted to trade him for a huge piece, which Kenny did try to do in the failed Miguel Cabrera trade, but the Tigers swooped in and offered two players who were even more "special" at the time, although so far neither Maybin nor Miller have become what the Fish expected them to be. Viciedo has his weight issues and the Sox are trying him out on a new diet plan, but he's my favorite. Jordan Danks is always going to rack up K's and his power is in large part due to his legs, but he's no elite offensive force in CF. Danny Hudson is my 2nd favorite here and I would bet on him as a #3 in the AL, but he doesn't have the stuff Danks or Floyd has, and we've got Peavy and Buehrle right here and now, and a very capable #5 in Freddy. Huddy right now I actually view as a pretty lights-out setup man, because that's what I think he'll be in 2010 if he's still here. And Flowers didn't exactly look like a Major League hitter when he was up here and I think he's going to have issues adjusting to MLB pitching, and the Bill James projection or whatever is very optimistic for Flowers as a rookie in 2010. Plus, there's no way he can be counted on until at least 2011, and he's going to have to earn the trust of a veteran SP staff even before he starts worrying about his bat. None of these guys are sure-fire bets, and when a team like the Padres makes a bat like Gonzalez available - which is something that almost NEVER happens with a large or even mid-market team - then we should view it as a blessing from the baseball gods and do whatever we can to trade unproven players for him.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:29 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:44 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. If it would take 4-5 prospects then terrific, but I'd give them more if we had to. There's no one on our farm that would be a deal-breaker for me on Gonzalez. I'd ask them what they want and let them pick basically. The proven players would be the only ones off limits.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. 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. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. Who gives a f*** about any of that if the Sox win a title and fill park for 2 years while upping the payroll for the future? Don't you think winning would help the issues of losing big time sponsorships and season ticket holders just a tad? The problem is you're not considering any of this. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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, and such could have been the case with Mark Johnson and Ben Davis, and we had both, and they never amounted to s***. Such could have been the cases with Josh Fields, Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Chris Young, Ryan Sweeney, etc. and the list goes on and on, adn that's just recently. A lot of prospects "could" do a lot of things, and usually they don't. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. Bulls***, show me where the Sox said that Viciedo can't play 3B. I can find you all kinds of reports that say Phegley and Flowers won't be catchers, and yet the Sox felt they would be and therefore they should be. Kyle Blanks isn't an OF, Chase Headley wasn't supposed to be either, but if an organization likes a bat enough they'll figure out a way to put that guy in the lineup. Matt Gamel is another guy who isn't supposed to be a 3B and look what he came up as. The Sox have stated that they believe Viciedo could be ready by midseason, I think that might have been Buddy Bell. And if the Sox were in the same position as the Padres, then it could be even sooner. If the Sox had a $40M payroll and were looking at 90-100 losses while trying to rebuild, my guess is Viciedo would be the current favorite for 3B on Opening Day 2010. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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." 1. You're ignoring past signings to fit your argument. The Sox aren't a major player in international free agency, but they did sign Ramirez, Viciedo, Fautino De Los Santos, Eduardo Escobar, Miguel Gonzalez, Jose Martinez, and others in recent history. They've given large figures to noted busts like Paulo Orlando, Juan Silverio, and Anderson Gomes as others. You're wrong. 2. We've done a pretty good job out of getting value out of the draft through the trade route. We haven't developed a ton of players but we didn't necessarily have to because our scouts do a great job of identifying young talent in other organizations. You can't piss on the Sox for Brandon McCarthy and then discount the Johnny Danks acquisition for example. 3. I refer you back to the point above about how winning games at the Major League level is actually kind of important. Who gives a f*** how many players we'd have to trade if we still win the deal, and if we still win in the Majors because of it? QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. You said that Gonzalez would be a bad move, then gave two examples of bad moves that have nothing to do with a Gonzalez situation. In short, your comment wasn't thoughtful at all. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) Does he cost the entire farm system? Would he be playing the field? No and no. Would his contract preclude the Sox from improving in other areas? Would he be far less beneficial to the Sox as Gonzalez? Is committing lots of guaranteed money to such an injury-prone player a major risk? Yes, yes, and yes. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. Six years of Hudson - 3 pre-arb - is replaceable on the market or through trade if you do the scouting, even with the salary considered. Six years of Flowers - 3 pre-arb - may be very difficult to replace through the market or via trade, however "may" is the key word here. Unlike Gonzalez, Flowers is no guarantee. Two years of Gonzalez at his salary is practically impossible to replace through the market or via trade because very, very few such players even exist, and nobody is trading a Braun or a Longoria. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) 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. And here you go again. If you had been paying attention you could clearly see how much the Sox improved their system in one year with the 2008 draft and international signing period. And for the sake of argument, take Beckham out of the equation. We picked up a lot of talent that year and it was one of our better drafts in a long time. The 2009 draft could have been pretty damn good too had they forked over a little extra cash to get Morgado and Jones, so it's not extremely hard to do. Building a contending ballclub and assembling a starting rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Garcia takes just a liiiiiiittle bit more time and effort.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) Basically within the last less-than-a-decade, we've had on average at least 1 absolute marquee guy get traded each year, and then probably an additional really good player or more as well. We were told 2 years ago that Miguel Cabrera moving was a once in a lifetime chance. Then Tex being traded was a once in a lifetime move. Then Captain Cheesburger was. These just aren't once-in-a-lifetime moves any more, not with baseball's current economics. They're opportunities that come along every year or two at the most. 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.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:55 PM) Maybe, maybe not. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...onzalezs-walks/ Pitchers would have respected Gonzalez more than anyone else in that lineup, and yet he still hit 40 HR despite playing in that park. Put him in the Cell between Beckham and Quentin and pitchers are going to have to pitch to him, meaning although his BB total may take a slight dip, his batting average and power numbers should raise, and his OPS in total should actually rise. You don't draw 100 walks on accident.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) 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). 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. With the money saved on Gonzalez the Sox would be able to target bargains in free agency. There's a very good chance that some of these prospects you don't want to trade are going to be dealt this offseason anyway for players far less than Adrian Gonzalez. At least with Adrian you deal the farm for a beast and then fill remaining holes off the scrap heap in FA without surrending more prospects. Speaking of extremely optimistic, you're sucking Tyler Flowers' balls right now by saying he can be the type of hitter Adrian Gonzalez is currently. Hudson isn't as special as everyone here thinks he is. I like him, but he's not an ace. Viciedo could turn out to be a very good player, but again it is very tough to ever see him becoming what Gonzalez is now. It is preposterously stupid to consider Viciedo a 3B? Then the Sox must be a preposterously stupid organization then because they haven't said Viciedo will be anything other than a 3B and I doubt they moved Gordon Beckham to accommodate Brent Morel and they certainly didn't do it to accommodate Mark f***ing Teahen. These players are NOT going to all turn out. You're probably looking at above average player and possible All-Star, one average player, and two busts. And it's highly unlikely that any of these players aside from Hudson do anything significant until at least 2011, when Danks and Quentin become expensive. Your "save the farm" philosophy is a losing one that thankfully Kenny does not adhere to. Farm system depth is important, but farm depth can be built over the span of 1-2 drafts and international signing periods. Building a title contender is a much tougher process. And you seem to be overlooking all the playing time we'd have to give these young guys to prove they're MLB players as well. The Tony Pena deal is NOTHING like dealing the farm for Gonzalez, not even close. Ditto with the Linebrink deal. QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) 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. Nick Johnson is an injury prone defensive liability who will almost certainly make more guaranteed money over the next two years than Gonzalez will. Now THAT is a bad deal. LOL at trading the farm for a cheap, pre-arb MIF or CF. Like who? We need offense, and along with the C position those are the weakest offensive positions around. Just because 1B is an "easier position to fill" with garbage like Casey Kotchman and Kevin Millar doesn't mean that bats like Adrian Gonzalez grow on trees. I don't think you realize that Gonzalez playing half his games in the Cell instead of PetCo will give us the best hitter we've had here since Big Frank was in his prime. Check his home/road splits. He would do incredible damage here.