Kenny Hates Prospects

I tried it and got up to 16 before I sat there trying to remember Scott Ruffcorn's name. Once I finally did my computer crashed and the blue screen of death popped up. Literally. Coincidence?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) If the Sox really wanted to move Linebrink, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Taveras is just two years removed from a really good season, and it's fathomable that he could exceed expectations again. Agree, but IMO it would have to be a 2009 Pods-type situation, where someone gets hurt, Taveras steps in, and he keeps his playing time by performing well enough to earn it. After two straight bad years I wouldn't give him a job or anything.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) Linebrink faded in 2008 because of a shoulder injury. He faded in 2009 because of command, but was still throwing in the mid-90's. So, it doesn't appear to be a long-term physical problem, and I have a difficult time believing that a veteran with a highly-successful past has a habitual "mental fatigue" problem. First half: 2009: 32.2 IP, 1.93 ERA, 1.29 WHIP 2008: 38 IP, 2.37 ERA, 0.92 WHIP 2007: 39.1 IP, 2.52 ERA, 1.09 WHIP 2006: 42.2 IP, 2.74 ERA, 0.94 WHIP Second half: 2009: 23.1 IP, 8.49 ERA, 2.19 WHIP 2008: 8.1 IP, 9.72 ERA, 1.80 WHIP 2007: 31 IP, 5.23 ERA, 1.61 WHIP 2006: 33 IP, 4.64 ERA, 1.58 WHIP You have to go back to 2005 to find the last time Linebrink had a good second half. He's had excuses every year, but 4 straight seasons looks like a theme here.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) I agree with this. It would be nice to have Taveras hit 9th and play CF/LF, but not at that price and not at the further weakening of our already-bad bullpen. On the other hand, if Taveras is released, signing him on the cheap might be a decent backup plan. To be clear though, I don't want Taveras at all. The only reason I made the suggestion is because he's the one contract I thought of that might make sense in a Linebrink deal. I just want to see us get out of as much of that contract as we can.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) Unless the Sox think Taveras could start, I don't think I do that deal. The Sox pen was awful last year, but Linebrink is healthy and while he sucked and makes too much, he has been a very good reliever most of his career (as recently as a season ago with the Sox) so I'd be hard pressed to dump him if we weren't getting either good payroll relief or a player that we valued a bit. Bottom line I see more upside in keeping Linebrink than going with Taveras, unless of course Sox brass thinks of Taveras as there leadoff hitter (and honestly, I hope that isn't the case). The problem with Linebrink though is that he really fades in the second half when we need him the most. Honestly, if there was any way in the world that I could get out from Linebrink's 2011 salary without raising payroll in 2010 I'd do it. I agree though that Linebrink has a ton more upside, but how many years in a row has he faded like this? And the thing is, he'll go out there throwing 95 and have bite on his splitter, but he gets everything up. It's like as soon as he loses confidence his entire season is over. It's the mental aspect and the fatigue aspect that make me want him gone more than anything, although I am pretty confident he'll help us in the first half of 2010 because his track record says that is likely.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) Could Andrew Miller be a guy you try to buy? I don't know if the Marlins would be ready but he hasn't exactly lit it up for Florida since going there in the Miggy trade. He's still very young and has a very live arm though so I'm sure it wouldn't be easy to get him, but if the Marlins wanted to buy a closer for some reason (probably completely unrealistic) or if somehow they were just a 3rd team in a Jenks trade, I wouldn't be opposed to a deal centered around Miller and another prospect on the Marlins (with Jenks going to Florida or a 3rd team). Probably a complete video game trade, but what the hell, it is the off-season. That would be great value for Jenks IMO but it's probably unlikely. I've been suggesting Cody Ross due to the salary difference and talent-wise I think that would be closer to Jenks' value after arbitration than Miller. Miller, although I never really liked him, is still a cheap, young power arm from the left side and quite valuable as a result. If I were the Marlins I wouldn't do that deal.

Would anyone else make this deal: Scott Linebrink and a prospect to the Reds for Willy Taveras? I was thinking about ways to unload Linebrink without eating salary and still saving money in the process (i.e. not taking on a roughly equal or larger contract), and this was the only thing I thought of that might make sense for both sides. Why for us: Taveras is only signed for 2010 at $4M. We gain $1M to spend on 2010 while getting out of Linebrink's 2011 contract (most important). Taveras can be a backup CF, basically a Wise replacement and 5th OF. We can take the $1M saved and bring back Kotsay. That would mean that we'd basically be trading Linebrink for our 4th and 5th OF in 2010 while getting out of Linebrink's 2011 commitment. The risk on our end is that Ozzie plays Taveras all the time, but maybe Kenny could pull Ozzie aside and talk to him about that. Why for the Reds: The Reds have to be considering just eating Taveras' 2010 salary as it is and releasing him. For $1M more in 2010, they get a shot at a reliever with Linebrink so they're not just eating salary. The risk is all in the $5.5M owed to Linebrink in 2011, but they've been known to overpay for relievers in the past. The Sox would throw in a prospect (nobody all that great however, maybe Nunez or something) to make the 2011 part less frightening. Thoughts?

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) I'm somewhat dissapointed that M-Cab and Tony Pena weren't invited to this party. Cabrera was on his way, but Freddy was driving and, stoned off his ass, pulled into a Taco Bell drive-thru from which they never returned. Tony Pena was there but you may have missed him as the reservations were under the name Adriano Rosario.

I've seen video of him and he looks like a reliever at this point to me too. That's not to say he can't become a true ace, but it would be very hard to commit the same kind of money that you normally give to veteran All-Stars to a guy that you'll want to send down to the minors for a couple years. If this kind of deal were realistic, I'd offer something like: $5M signing bonus Year 1: $1M pro-rated while in the minors/$2M pro-rated if in the Majors Year 2: $1M pro-rated while in the minors/$2M pro-rated if in the Majors Year 3: $3M team option, $1M buyout Year 4: $5M team option, $1.5M buyout Year 5: $7M team option, $2M buyout Year 6: $10M team option, $3M buyout Year 7+: arbitration eligible if applicable service time is reached, otherwise the player becomes a free agent That way the player is guaranteed at least $7M (mostly up front) and up to $33M, but the team never has to worry about a bad contract that it won't be able to overcome. If anything like that were possible I'd be willing to offer it, but that won't happen. The Yankees or Red Sox will give him a s***load guaranteed because that's how they operate.

QUOTE (scenario @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Until guys hit High-A ball or even AA-ball.... Tools >>>>>>>>>>> Stats So I don't put much stock in rookie league numbers, especially for comparison purposes. What's the old quote? “Some people use statistics like a drunken man uses lamp-posts . . . for support rather than illumination”... or something like that. Stats in the low minors should illuminate potential opportunities and problems... Not be used for more than that. Especially not to support arguments comparing the potential of two rookie-league players. 100% agree with all of this. It's important to remember too that players are working on things. If you see a power pitcher for example who is giving up a lot of hits and walking the world, then that just means he's there because he's working on control. You can't use his numbers for a whole lot other than to, as you say, identify problems and opportunities. You may be able to look at his numbers and see his exceptional wildness and then place a guess on him where you say something like, "I don't think the odds are in his favor" with other elements such as age, secondary stuff, attitude, etc. helping to form your opinion. But, you can at least look at what he has physically and say that, "If he ever gets it together, this guy is going to play in the Majors." There are lots of other players out there however that maybe have great numbers, but when you look at them you say, "If he continues along at this pace, and he hits/pitches well at every level, and if another team has a need and is willing, then maybe he'll get a shot to play in the Majors." I'll take toolsy "athletes" over smart "baseball players" any day of the week when it comes to prospects. For the Major League team that is another story entirely, but when it comes to players of whom few develop into solid or better players and who are mostly there to be used as trade chips, then I look for natural ability above all else.

QUOTE (DGSOXFan14 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:49 AM) dont really know why the onion movie was brought up but yes it did suck and this is the only funny part: That is funny. I don't remember seeing it though because after about a half hour of sitting through that movie, a large booger formed in one of my nostrils, which I then picked and, upon inspection, surprisingly found much more interesting.

Caulfield: :cheers Balta: :cheers Longshot: :cheers League: :cheers I'm glad there are still Mark Buehrle fans on this site. I was getting worried for a moment there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) I was agreeing with your post, until the bolded. The very low walk rate is very meaningful, because as he refines his pitches, he already has the ability to control well, so those refinements will be more effective. And his K rate isn't spectacular by itself, but having it as high a ratio to his BB rate tells me a lot. And the fact that he's not a high K pitcher by nature and still getting near 8 on his K/9, for a control-reliant pitcher, is a good thing. I think it is a very positive sign. His control is very important. I agree with that and also that it will help him as he develops, because it is a HELL of a lot easier to develop a secondary pitch when you can throw it 0-2 as opposed to 2-0. His K rate only is apparent vs. RH and it only tells me he has deception. I don't consider him a non-prospect or anything, just a righty specialist prospect. I've said before in another thread that I like him, so I don't want it to sound that I don't, but I just see a ton of other guys in our system that I'd rank above him. We have two other righty specialist guys in Drew O'Neill and Kyle Bellamy. I'd put him in that group, and I'd rank every player who I see with a ceiling of either middle reliever (vs. both lefties and righties), setup man, closer, everyday position player, or top-4 SP prospect ahead of him.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 12:07 PM) Firstly I disagree strongly with your K/BB comment, the ability to strike out batters and not walk batters is pretty key in my opinion, obviously you still need to look at the K/9 and BB/9 separately because you could have a 5:1 K/BB with only a 5 K/9, but on the whole, K/BB is a very good indicator of pitching ability. One year of H/9 data doesn't show he's hittable, it shows he was hit. Batting averages fluctuate greatly and can be affected by many factors that a pitcher cannot control, namely team defense and luck. His BABIP against was high and his line drive percentage was low, that doesn't add up. I'd be willing to bet significant money that his H/9 will fall next year despite playing at a (presumably) higher level. I would not look at H/9 rates, if you have a high strikeout rate and a low walk rate then, chances are, your stuff is good regardless of the H/9 (age to league relevance permitting). BB/9 and K/9 rates are very important. I see no reason however for dividing strikeout total by walk total and using that number to judge anything. You can see a player's control through BB/9 and you can see how many K's he gets through K/9. Look at his splits. He keeps the ball down and has sink on it, which along with his control accounts for all those groundballs. Vs. RH he hides the ball well and he racks up K's and a low BAA because of it, as right-handed hitters pick up the ball late against him. Against lefties he loses that deception and that .338 BAA vs. LH and 5.8 K/9 is a testament to both that and his overall lack of dominating stuff. Notice how his control is excellent vs. both lefties and righties. That alone should discount overall K/BB ratio because that number is grossly misleading. He's not a K pitcher, he's a control + deception pitcher, and his great numbers come about when he has both control and deception in his favor. Because most hitters Sauer will face are right-handed, his overall numbers look good. But I don't think those gaps between BAA vs. LH and BAA vs. RH and K/9 vs. RH and K/9 vs. LH are going to start closing anytime soon. I really don't get into BABIP and so on because I don't believe in all that stuff. Each player is different, and I've gone through those topics before, so I'm not getting into it now. Some people love those stats and others don't, and nobody is switching sides. Sauer is hittable because he doesn't have what you'd call electric stuff by any means. He has movement, but it's not like he has stuff that can be devastating. I don't know how you can overlook H/9, because the majority of hits recorded are going to be on balls the batter got good wood on, and the higher your H/9 generally means the easier it is for an opposing hitter to square up the ball against you, so therefore H/9 can be a pretty decent indicator of stuff or lack thereof. That isn't to say that there can't be aberrations, but pitchers with control as excellent as Sauer who still give up a lot of hits worry me. And although I don't believe in luck, I do believe in poor defense costing pitchers hits, and bad management/game calling/etc. doing the same, but you can only go so far with that. Having a high H/9 with great control is probably most often going to mean not very good stuff. If you have above-average stuff and you can control it as well as Sauer can then people aren't going to hit you, i.e. Danny Hudson of the 6.5 career minor league H/9 ratio. You can bet that his H/9 will take a step down. Maybe it well. But I'll bet that he's another Ehren Wassermann and not one of our top-30 prospects.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) RIP Capt. If I could grow facial hair very well at all then I'd do one in memoriam...but, it would take me probably 6 months just to get a regular beard. Just find that one stray hair that grows wildly from your chin for no apparent reason and nurse it well. Feed it like it's the Chia Obama. When others are annoyed by it or mistake it for a cobweb and threaten to pluck it out, you can then take the opportunity to remind them of Captain Lou Albano and the legacy he left behind.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 04:48 AM) Yes, quite the conundrum. Buehrle means more to the franchise than any player since Thomas/Ventura/Fisk and certainly more than Konerko. On the other hand, you simply can't pay a #4 guy $14 million...that's where KW got into trouble, sinking so much money into Vazquez, Garland and Contreras the last 2-3 seasons, which impacted our ability to improve the ballclub sufficiently in other areas. As some have argued, winning trumps all arguments, that almost NOBODY cared that Valentin/Lee/Ordonez weren't part of the 2005 championship and Frank Thomas was really kind of an afterthought as well. The risk, as KHP...is that trading Buehrle not only backfires on the talent received end (and a pitcher like Buehrle in his 30's with that contract and wear and tear can't be considered a huge bargain exactly) but also the public relations/marketing front, it will cost the franchise immensely in terms of good will. Also, as noted, Danks, Floyd and Peavy (not to mention Garcia and Hudson) all have question marks surrouding them to different degrees...almost nothing is a certainty, even though arguments have been made we have somewhere between the #1 and #7-8 starting rotation in all of MLB. Buehrle has been the most consistent performer, as close to a "given" as you get in today's game, even though not consistent on a month by month basis. I'm of the opinion that no team will give up in return what losing him would cost the franchise...but I'm not KW, either. Only he and JR can make those judgements. This is a nice take. The only thing I disagree with is the notion that teams can't pay #4 starters $14M. Buehrle is a #3 who might end up pitching out of the #4 spot, which isn't a bad thing it all because it signals a nasty top-3. Depending on a given team's payroll situation, you can definitely pay that to a #3. Look around the league and you find lots of guys that are #3's or #4's who are paid very well. Buehrle is getting just a shade more than Ryan Dempster and less than Derek Lowe for example, and he's younger and better and a safer bet than either of those guys. Oliver Perez got 3/$36M from the Mets last year even during such a s***ty economic climate for free agents in baseball. The problem teams run into is when they give assloads of money to players who aren't good at all or who are easily replaceable. Buehrle is very good and is definitely *not* easily replaceable.

Did anyone ever see that Onion movie? That was like the worst piece of s*** ever made. There was another movie I saw once too, about some space alien guy, and this was I guess made by an editor there or something. That one blew also.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 11:20 AM) Holmberg's a lefty with better secondary stuff, imo. Upchurch made huge regressions this past season and didn't flash that promising of stuff from what I've heard. I'm not writing the kid off and he's got a bright future, but I'd put Holmberg ahead of him. And I'm not putting Torres, Sauer or others ahead of Upchurch on an upside chart (on a sidenote). I lean heavily towards stuff, but Ithink Upchurch, along with Nev, get a little bigger following than they should. Although both are the type of guys I like the Sox to go after (high risk/high reward types). Upchurch was a great pick for when we got him and I do hope it pans out. Santos has a huge arm from the left side and his command is slowly improving. He's got a shot to be a light's out set-up man and Holmberg is a more refined lefty with good secondary stuff and an arm that has been getting stronger. Both passed Upchurch on my prospect scale...thats all I'm saying. This makes sense then. I could definitely see putting Holmberg above Upchurch but I still like both of their chances. Agree on Griffith too. I ranked him really high but that's mainly because our SP depth is mostly all in the lower levels now. I like Rodriguez a lot too, and having failed to sign Morgado we're lucky to have him, even if he's far away. The only issue I took exception with was saying they were both twice the prospects that Upchurch is, which I disagree, but I understand your points now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) Just to add to the whole tools/projectability versus performance argument, are three other scales. One is level - the higher the level of play, the more the balance shifts towards actual performance. Two is age, of course. And three is what you mean by "performance". Sauer's core numbers are pretty good, but what really sticks out is the outstanding K and BB ratios. Even at a low level, those numbers have meaning. The bolded part I agree with most of the time, but it depends upon the case. For example, there's a discussion about Sergio Santos and Justin Cassel in the AFL thread. Even though Sergio Santos is not considered a prospect anymore while Cassel is, and even though Cassel has had good success statistically in his minor league career (albeit not this season) while Santos is a freshly-converted relief pitcher, I still would much rather have Santos in my system than Cassel. There's a point players get to where they just don't have enough to get it done in the Majors but they do in the minors, so for that reason I always put tools and scouting reports above everything else. I also don't see age as a really huge factor when it comes to pitchers. I mean it is a big factor of course, and it's ually one of the first things you look at, but stuff, mechanics, and mound presence are all more important than age IMO. But if you have two very good pitching prospects, and one is 20 in low-A while the other is 20 in AA, obviously the guy in AA is going to be considered a much better prospect. Sauer's K/BB numbers are very, very good overall, but I think that stat is pretty much useless anyway. His overall numbers are definitely good, but his H/9 is high and his K rate is below 8. Control and deception make up that K/BB ratio, but his H/9 shows he's hittable. What happens in the higher levels where he's throwing the ball over the plate to better right-handed hitters? He'll still get that sink on the ball, and he'll still get that deception, and the HR/9 rate should be pretty low for Sauer throughout his minor league career, but he'll give up more line shots as he climbs. I just don't think he is a starting prospect and I don't think his arm is enough to rank him above some of our other relief prospects. The K/BB ratio is great but it isn't sustainable, especially as a starter because lefties have hit him very well.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 10:47 PM) from our minor league system ? any 10 they want period Agreed. Gonzalez would be a player that we could financially afford for the next two years even if we didn't move another contract. He'd drastically improve our offense, and as a 1B/DH, he wouldn't hurt our defense while doing so like a lot of the free agent suggestions on this board would. We're talking about adding two years of production that would be worth $40M+ on the open market for a price of $10.25M total, and on top of it, even if we couldn't get an extension worked out, he's a guaranteed Type A free agent where we would get high draft picks in exchange. Using last year's draft as an example, it would be like trading our farm for 2 years of Gonzalez plus Mitchell and Phegley. And if we win with Gonzalez then the payroll goes up and we can afford to keep our starting rotation intact. IMO dealing the farm for a player like that is a no-brainer if the Padres will agree. If I'm Kenny, as soon as the final out of the World Series is made, I contact the Padres, and assuming they have named a GM by then, I offer that deal. And if the Padres look to be moving towards hiring someone that we don't think will be a great trading partner for us, then if I'm Kenny I work my ass off trying to get Rick Hahn a job as Padres GM. If that works then I try to get Hahn enough power to make the deal for me. That's how bad I want that guy. Major offense + middle-of-the-order lefty bat + cheap contract = perfect target for Kenny Williams. QUOTE (danman31 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 01:10 AM) I wouldn't trade Danks or Floyd for Upton straight up. Why would you? I'm not going to think about this question at all because if I do my brain will explode.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) also love morel and retherford there not great tool type guys we all hear about . but there just ballplayers . For me thats what i want . IMO Morel and Retherford are two of the likeliest position players in our system to have MLB careers.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 11:19 AM) I'll flat out say that Rodriguez and Holmberg are both two times that prospects that Upchurch is. Both have bigger and better arms and a lot more upside. UpChurch has potential but he's so freaking raw and he's not as good as the other two guys mentioned. It is difficult though because Rodriguez has flaws and Holmberg is very very raw. Upchurch happens to be a favorite of a guy or two on the panel though and that can sway things. Overall its a pretty complete list though and the good thing is there is a lot of reasons to argue because the depth of the Sox system is so much better. And I would completely disagree with that. This is a scouting report on Upchurch from the draft: I've seen video of him too and I really like him a lot. IMO there's nothing that says either Santos Rodriguez or Holmberg are much better prospects at this point. I could see calling them better prospects because they're lefties and had better years than Upchurch has, but that's about it. Santos' upside looks like a late inning reliever and both Holmberg and Upchurch are projectable starting prospects with high ceilings. I don't know why anyone would think Holmberg has a big arm but Upchurch does not. Both have two potential plus offerings and can get it into the low-90's. Both have clean deliveries and throw the ball with movement, and both were taken out of high school and have room to fill out a bit and add strength. I'm one of those people who really like Upchurch, yet I still ranked him 20th and considered going even lower because he had such a terrible year. I ranked Santos Rodriguez 29th only because I couldn't find confirmation on his velocity until after the ranking as there were a lot of bad reports out there saying he was a low-90's guy, which I didn't think was the case at all. But I couldn't find the same reports I had read about Santos when we acquired him, so I dropped him lower than he would have been. I also had Holmberg 26th simply because he is raw and his debut wasn't amazing or anything. I could have definitely went a lot higher on Holmberg too, but I wanted to fit some other guys on there that I think deserved it more. But if I had to name 15 prospects in our system that I would most want to keep instead of a top-15 prospect list, both Holmberg and Upchurch would be on it, and several other players that I put above those guys like Shelby, Nunez, Santeliz, etc. would not be on there. So that explains it from my side as an Upchurch fan. I strongly disagree with the people who don't consider Upchurch a good prospect but do consider players like Carlos Torres and Stephen Sauer good prospects because of their numbers, but that doesn't matter because it's just an opinion, and on the whole the FutureSox lists are good because they consider things from all points of view. And players that miss the list or appear too low only do so because they haven't performed better, and ultimately players of any talent level still have to perform well enough to advance levels and open eyes. Once they do they become no-brainer top-10 guys, at least in our system.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 04:17 PM) High 80s fastballs for both Cassel and Long. Wasn't Long supposed to throw harder than that when the Sox drafted him? Yes, but he's also an injury machine.

CJ is going to tear up the AFL. Then he'll be traded for a middle reliever.

What happened to being Kings*** of f*** Mountain?