Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 12:46 AM) Well, this is why I argued for them to sign him back in July to a 1-year extension for $3 million. I doubt he would have turned that down. But most everyone claimed there was no way he was going to hit like that for the rest of the season, let alone next season. I figured it was a small risk to take at that price. Now, it may very well be too late, as I have no doubt that one of the Chone Figgins suitors that loses out will panic, overreact, and offer Podsednik 2/$12. Hopefully that isn't us. That really would be panicking. Unfortunately for Scotty, the Cubs are all out of money. It's too bad because an OF of Soriano-Podsednik-Fukudome would be hilarious, especially after eating Bradley's entire contract just to keep him from disturbing that winning attitude that so permeates the Cubbie clubhouse.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:33 AM) I find it humorous that soxtalk (knightni) sponsored linebrink's baseball reference page. Ew. Wow, that's bad. I guess it's smart for growing the site though. You look at his second half numbers, they make you feel like screaming, and whaddayaknow, here's a link to SoxTalk where you can join a thread that has others already b****ing about it.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 02:24 AM) Haha, I feel you man. Your a good poster, so no hard feelings. Though just looking at Owens numbers to Perez and saying he's a better hitter.. I wouldn't say that.. not at all, but it's all moot though cause of the hate. And it's always nice to know how I (or anyone) can rile you up now. Just bring the name Fernando Perez in a discussion or post, and KHP will let you have it. Owens had that year where he hit like .330 or something in Birmingham after the Sox got him, and his K rate wasn't as high. But I agree overall that Owens blows and you could make an argument about a lot of guys being better hitters than them. And maybe Perez is one of those. Owens does suck pretty hard. Yeah, I like you too SoxAce, so please don't do that to me. Fernando Perez puts me in a bad mood. For me, seeing a Fernando Perez trade idea is like getting cut off in traffic and having to slam on my brakes, and then after my honking and yelling, the guy turns off at the next exit with his middle finger hanging out the window and pointing at me.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:58 AM) OT: Ok, I'm going to say this because I HATE (and you know who you are) when posters always do this. If someone replies to something and says one player in one sentence and another player in another sentence without putting those players in the same sentence that does not mean they are comparing them. I'm tired of people always doing that and it makes them look like idiots, not to mention bringing the quality of the board down. Not trying to single you out KHP, but it's just ridiculous to always see that crap then the poster having to defend themselves for a stupid reason saying "did I compare them" like if he put the numbers (or similarities in the player) trying to make a point. Sorry, SoxAce. The topic of Fernando Perez fuels me into a rage. I felt you were implying that Perez was some kind of consolation prize for failing to land a name like those others. QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:58 AM) Now, calm down, take a deep breath and grab a cookie/beer/whatever bro. It's not this serious to get this bent out of shape for a guy you obviously don't like. It was a suggestion by a poster to at least take a flyer on him and see what he can do. If he sucks, then hey, KW and company can say bye bye in ST. And I LOVE how you compared him to two of the better spects in baseball at the time in BA and F-Mart, not to mention Perez having a completely different style of hitting than both BA and F-Mart, not to mention more Fernando had only 170 abs in AAA. Same with Cook. Ya he rakes in AA.. so? In AAA, in limit abs (and he hasn't been givin a full chance) he hasn't done anything. Again.. outstanding and well thought-out comparison. Like I said I've never seen Perez in the college level, high school, or even the minors. Hell I saw BA in college and comming up and anyone can tell you how his swing was, he wasn't going to make it. I saw F-Mart in the futures game and a couple games when he played in AAA. Liked him a bit even with the lack of power, but he has a long swing and was terribly overhyped. If you hate him, fine as far as I see... you do, and that's fair, but like I said, don't be too blinded by the hate from the result. That's all I'm saying. I never compared Perez to Fernando Martinez, and you're the one that brought up Brian Anderson when you said something to the effect of, Perez isn't like BA or anything. And Perez isn't, because Anderson was a better prospect. If the name Fernando Martinez appears anywhere in my post it is only because you guys had me in such a rage that I couldn't help it. Why isn't Cook a good comparison? Cook strikes out less, walks more, hits for power, and still isn't considered a prospect. Perez walks less, strikes out more, doesn't hit for power, and yet Perez is still a prospect because he is fast. Remember what a huge prospect Joey Gathright was? Dynamic speed is an amazing tool, but it's only valuable if your other skills at the plate allow you to use it. Perez doesn't hit the ball enough to work counts in the Major Leagues against Major League pitching. When you're in the IL facing the Jack Egbert, Carlos Torres, Justin Cassell, Heath Phillips, etc. type of pitchers that appear in every single organization every single year, it is a lot easier to fight off pitches you can't hit and draw walks. Those guys do not have the stuff to pitch in the Majors, and most of the guys who do have the arms for it can't control anything which is why they're in AAA and not playing in the Majors, and that's why players like Fernando Perez are capable of hitting for high average and taking walks. Dynamic speed, again, might be amazing, but it leads people to waaaay overranking prospects that shouldn't be ranked anywhere. Jerry Owens was a better hitter than Perez, look what happened. Scouts think "oh, maybe one day if this guy learns how to hit a breaking ball he'll become a stud!" The problem is he's 26 and he still can't do it. There are five reasons why the name Fernando Perez infuriates me: 1) He sucks. 2) Every single offseason someone goes online, does a search, comes upon the name Fernando Perez, reads about his speed, and then starts a new trade idea thread. It gets old. 3) The idea that walks translate to the Majors by themselves is absurd. You need contact or power with that, preferably both. If you can't make contact, you have very little power, AND you're game is based on speed, MLB veteran pitchers have **zero** reason to give you even one ounce of respect. 4) The idea that by itself, speed = good player/prospect is usually wrong. Sox fans have seen this first hand during the Ozzie years. 5) I will admit that as a defensive replacement and pinch runner ONLY, Fernando Perez can help a Major League club. HOWEVER, we are talking about an Ozzie-run ballclub here. Fernando Perez on the Sox means Fernando Perez playing all the damn time. I hope you understand. **Edit: I just checked my last post and where it says "Fernando Martinez" it should say Fernando Perez. Those are Fernando Perez's numbers, not Fernando Martinez's numbers. I will go back and edit that.

That's a big money fight for those guys, and it makes sense too. Rematch of a (somewhat) controversial fight, each guy coming back after losses to top-4 P4P fighters, great fight. I wonder what Tito's going to be like with his back all healed now. Forrest is a much better fighter now and IMO the current Forrest would beat the Tito he fought the first time pretty easily, but a healthy Tito vs. the current Forrest is very interesting match-up. I think I'll take Forrest via decision.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:22 PM) Wow. There are a whole of big names behind Hudson. Are we looking at the second Brandon McCarthy? Maybe. Brandon's curve and change made a lot of people salivate, but that fastball was batting practice speed and straight as an arrow. Meanwhile Hudson doesn't have quite the offspeed stuff that Brandon had, but I've liked what I've seen out of his change, and Hudson's fastball is a far, far better pitch than Brandon's was. I'd call both Hudson's FB and change plus pitches and his slider and curve have potential. Hudson has a much better shot of making it than Brandon did, and also Hudson's delivery looks a lot cleaner. I know you mean to compare the two in terms of their sudden rises to top pitching prospect status, but really Hudson doesn't have the stuff of a lot of those guys he's ranked above so I'm not sure if scouts would think quite as highly of him as the Project Prospect guys do. He's got a ton of value though because watching him pitch it's hard not to see him having great success either in the middle of a rotation or at the back of a bullpen. He's a f***ing warrior, man.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 12:46 AM) Your acting like he's been Brian Anderson comming up. In limited at bats he's posted a .261/.346/.420/.766 line. It's not like he's been terrible in his brief stint in the bigs. Hell just last year in Durham in the freaking IL, he put up a .288/.361/.393/.754 line. Obviously the Rays have taken it slow with him and he's been blocked doesn't help. It's one thing to actually see if the guy has sucked so far, but don't bash him, cause your hate for a guy is blinding. Getting him for cheap and taking a look at him is not the end of the world. Sure I'd prefer to say f*** it and get Desmond Jennings or as far as players Crawford or Upton, but that doesn't look as promising. Now with that said, I have not seen Perez in the minors or even in college/high school to really see him and if you have, that's different and this is all moot. Fernando Perez in AAA at 25 put up a .288/.361/.393 line while averaging 1 K per every 3.71 PA. Brian Anderson at AAA at the age of 23 put up a .295/.360/.469 line while averaging 1 K per every 4.36 PA. Brian hit for better average, got on at about the exact same rate, showed a lot more power, and did so while making a lot more contract. Granted, Brian's K rate was bad, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Perez's K rate. Don't even think about comparing Jennings, Crawford, or Upton to trash like Fernando Perez because it's not like Perez is just a few steps away from being that kind of player. Perez isn't even a prospect in my book. You just can't K like that and hit for such s***ty power at such an old age and still be considered a prospect. Perez is still living off his BA slurping. BA has done that before where they stupidly fall in love with a s***ty player that never makes it. Perez is one of those guys. Perez is 26, David Cook is 27. I wouldn't trade Cook straight up for him, and Cook isn't even considered a prospect. That's how much Perez sucks. If you want to talk about impressive minor league seasons, that same 2008 where Perez impressed you in AAA, David Cook, across AA and AAA, hit .284/.410/.493 while walking 93(!) times against 112 K's in 536 PA. Cook slaughtered those numbers. The reason for the Perez love is his speed, that's it, and speed isn't valuable when you can't hit a baseball. If you think Brian Anderson was bad then Perez is even worse. And also, Perez had pins put into this wrist this year. If he K's 156 times in 579 PA against freaking International League pitching while healthy, then what is he going to do against MLB pitching with a bad wrist? Perez : good prospects :: dog s*** : ice cream. He's horrifically horrible and I never, ever, ever want to see another Fernando Perez trade idea on this board again. EVER! Do you all hear me?!?!?!

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 12:01 AM) Eaaaaasssssssssy. If we could get him cheaply, I don't see why we wouldn't give him a shot. I couldn't give a s*** if he strikes out a bunch. As long as he walks and has a decent OBP, id be happy. If we could get him cheaply, i would gladly give him a shot in spring training and see how he fares. Why would veteran Major League pitchers throw the ball outside of the strikezone to a guy who can't hit the baseball when it's over the plate? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not like Perez some huge power that pitchers need to be wary of. If his contact rate is that poor then his BB rate will not hold up against Major League pitching.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:27 PM) I believe Perez was discussed a year or two around here, so this is definitely not the first time he has caught someone's eye. Could be a guy Kenny stumbles onto even if he does indeed look into a Crawford trade. If Kenny stumbles across Fernando Perez then Kenny needs a few other bits of assistance because the man is blind. If we got Fernando Perez this board would HATE him. Dewayne Wise is a better hitter for God sakes. Ozzie would play him all the time and we'd have to sit there and watch him go 0-4 with 3 strikeouts just because he has speed. And every base he'd steal would be two more games played in Ozzie's mind. We're in a very good spot right now with Kotsay. Finally we have a "grinder" type that it is OKAY for Ozzie to fall in love with because he's actually a good baseball player. Don't tempt fate. Fernando Perez would be the worst thing to happen to this city since the great Chicago fire where everything burned and bodies were floating around in the river.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:18 PM) That is an outstanding idea and very good props s.o.a.r. He's basically a Denard Span (and mind you I love me some Span) except better speed, but K's more. More like twice as much. I'd rather shoot myself in the head than acquire the most overrated Ray prospect to ever put on a uniform. Where's that power? Where's the contact? How could anyone expect a prospect who K's at a rate like that to post a similar walk rate in the Majors? MLB pitchers aren't going to mess around with him, they're going to take him out ASAP. Every year we hear about Fernando Perez. Name any organization and you'll find a better OF lead-off prospect than this guy. He'll be 27 next year and he's still going to be starting in AAA if he isn't traded. I'd rather revive the Reggie Willits trade speculation than this guy. I f***ing hate this guy because every offseason there are threads about him because at one point BA loved him. The problem is he blows. In his minor league career he is averaging almost a strikeout per game. That s*** doesn't fly in the Majors, especially when you don't have earth-shattering power.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:25 PM) And yet these numbers are accepted by many for the very same reasons those in favor of bringing Podsednik back are not - because we have become accustomed to mediocrity or worse - and everyone seems to accept Getz as the answer at 2b. Getz, to me, is a perfect AL utility player. He hits decently against righties, he runs the bases extremely well, and he has a fairly solid glove in the infield. Meanwhile, Podsednik hit .320 against lefties and .297 against righties (with a very acceptable .780 OPS), and he seems to be defacto out of town. We are willing to accept that Getz "may" ultimately post numbers similar to Podsednik's 09' line, instead of contemplating bringing back a guy who just posted that line in reality. I am not Scott Podsednik's biggest fan by any means. And if we were able to replace him with a better player, I am all for that. What I am looking at is reality, including what our limited resources appear to be, and given that Getz almost demands to be a player we platoon, I'm not certain I wouldn't rather target 2b to replace Getz than to target an OF to replace Podsednik. Pods isn't going to play LF because CQ is there and the Sox are not moving CQ to RF. They just aren't going to. Nothing has come out saying they're planning to do that. Pods could play LF if CQ becomes the DH however, but again I've seen no indications that the Sox are planning on doing that. Pods can't play RF at all. So the questions are these: Is Pods' bat at DH more valuable than a power hitter's bat at DH? I'd say no. Is Pods' presence at lead-off so much more valuable than Getz at lead-off that it negates the huge defensive gap between Rios and Pods in CF? I'd say no here too. Because of his inability to play any defensive position well, bringing Pods back forces us to make major concessions either on offense or defense. And as a 4th OF, I still like Kotsay better because Kotsay can play RF and 1B.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:48 PM) I don't see the love with Getz, to be honest with you. I am trying to like the guy, especially since he does bring some skills to the table that the White Sox are not particularly loaded with. But the fact is, you do have to hit to be a solid major league player, and I'm not seeing all the potential that many of the rest of you are. First off, he does not hit lefties well. He has a tendency to swing at pitches far too inside, which he then either misses or fouls off. Secondly, he does not exactly tear the cover off the ball against righties. Sure, his speed is nice, and it appears to the eye that he plays solid defense, but for all of you complaining about Scott Podsednik, can we seriously not do better than Chris Getz? I think it's great that he has a nice walk rate, but he isn't exactly Bobby Abreu out there. I guess I'm just not going to forego making other moves because I have Chris Getz as my 2b, let alone slot him in as my defacto leadoff hitter. We could definitely do better than Getz as a lead-off man. The issue I've been going on about on the board is that it doesn't make sense to use so much of our limited payroll to make an improvement over Getz. Getz is very capable of being a solid if unspectacular lead-off man. IMO, the main areas on this team that we need to see improvement in is our OF defense and production from the middle of the order. A healthy CQ will help the offense a ton, but Dye will be gone, Thome is gone, and Konerko isn't exactly a #4 hitter anymore. Rather than spend talent and money on someone to be better than Getz we should look for a big, scary power hitter and an above-average defensive RF.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:16 PM) Like I said before, I am not afraid of Matt in the ninth, I am afraid who takes over the 6th, 7th, and 8th. Closer: Thornton 8th inning: Linebrink usually has a very good first half before blowing up. Hudson will be a stud for a setup man if he's still here and none of the starting 5 get hurt. When Linebrink falls apart again (sometime in July), Hudson can step in and take over. 7th inning: We need Kenny to pick up a good veteran lefty here. In the first half Hudson can take this from the right side assuming Linebrink starts off well again. In the second we'll need someone else to step up. And that man is??? 6th inning: Lefty specialist (Williams again?) and Pena can handle righty specialist duties. 5th inning and earlier: Carrasco. Also, Carrasco will probably appear in the 6th a lot, since the depth of our starting staff is going to mean a hell of a lot less IP for him than he had this year with the 4th and 5th rotation spots constantly up in the air. Assuming we still have Hudson, the biggest addition we'd need to make is a solid veteran lefty reliever to help handle the 7th inning duties. Another righty would be nice, but we do have quite a few in-house options as well. I'd love to *not* count on Linebrink having another good first half, but because of his salary we'll pretty much have to.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) He and Wite are right though about Beckham being our best solution for the mean time though. Sure ideally you'd like to see him bat 2nd or 3rd, but if it's only for one season, it won't kill him to do so. Unless Getz really shows something in ST and possibly during the early/middle of the season, (especially from comming back from a hernia/back surgery) then you can make the change, but there's no doubt as of right now Beckham is our best leadoff solution. I do believe Getz will be fine though given his history. I've seen a lot in Getz to like as a lead-off guy. He can work counts, he can run and steal bases with a high percentage, and his BB rate has been consistently above-average throughout the minor leagues. For his batting average being where it is, his OBP is pretty good number. I have faith in him raising that batting average next year, and if he does that OBP is going to be quite a bit higher. And I really don't want Beckham to concentrate on anything other than driving in runs. Putting him at lead-off will change his approach and could possibly sap some of his aggressiveness. I could see an argument for batting him anywhere between 2, 3 , 5, or 6 in the lineup as it currently stands after FA departures are factored in, but definitely not in the top spot.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) I actually edited my post just as you posted this.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:20 PM) If it's not possible to find a guy who can play a little defense, competently run the bases and put up an OBP of .350 or higher then go with Beckham for a year (he should provide this and more) and fill the 2 open lineup spots (LF/DH) with competent major leaguers. Beckham has too much RBI potential to bat lead-off IMO. The lead-off hitter should be Getz unless we get someone who profiles better there.

Even if it was possible, I abhor the idea of Jenks for Crawford because we add to the payroll while spending a ton of money to upgrade Getz at the lead-off spot - and I don't care who does or does not see Getz leading off, Getz is the one player we have right now who is not a FA that best profiles for the lead-off spot. Crawford IMO is not an impact-type bat. He's a fast guy that hits for high average and can steal bases. His OBP is all predicated on his batting average because his BB rate is not very good. We're not the Yankees and we cannot afford to put that much money into that kind of player. I'd rather sign Figgins than give so much money and talent for Crawford, and I'm really not keen on signing Figgins. In fact, Coco Crisp will probably be non-tendered. If we could sign Coco for about $3-4M and put him in CF then he could lead-off. And no, Coco isn't the player Crawford is, but we would save about $6-7M, plus we'd keep all that talent that we would have to give up for Crawford, and that's huge because Crawford will cost a lot. Basically, if the Rays paid all of Crawford's salary I'd have trouble giving up Hudson and Danks for him. In fact, I wouldn't even make that deal because I believe Hudson as a setup guy in 2010 is more valuable to this current Sox team than Crawford would be leading off and playing CF. Add another $10M of disappearing payroll flexibility to the equation and there's not a chance I even think about making that deal. Crawford IMO would cost at least the package I mentioned. We need to cut, cut, cut payroll and try to get as much value out of Jenks as we can in the process, be it MiLB or MLB talent - but the first priority should be cutting payroll. Doing that will open us up to a lot of other possibilities that currently are not available. I'd be interested also in seeing if the Mets would take Paulie. I wouldn't ask a lot from them either. The Mets are supposedly looking to acquire power (with 1B being one of those positions as they don't want Murphy there) and they don't want to deal much from the farm to get it, rather they'd prefer to take on a contract. Plus ownership has said Minaya will get in payroll whatever he needs. If we could unload both Paulie and Jenks for prospects and/or league minimum MLB players, that will give us $19-20M extra to work with on top of whatever small amount the Sox would have left to spend. The Sox could then look to the trade and free agent markets with more optimism.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) What other 10 players would you throw in that deal? All of them.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 06:42 PM) I wouldn't trade him at all. But, if he was to be traded, what would be a good return? As part of a deal for Adrian Gonzalez.

I don't agree with him being so high, but after so many years of Sox prospects being way too low on prospect lists, I'll take it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) I have no idea. Teams can deal with bad hitting when they have good pitching. It is much harder to deal with holes in your starting pitching with good hitting. We have seen that on and off for pretty much the entire 21st century with the Sox. When our pitching is good, we win. It is that simple. +1 We just got an awesome rotation. Why do people even think about messing with it? I mean I could understand it if people started salivating over the far-fetched idea of trading Floyd in a deal for Haren, but subtracting from the starting staff without adding anything better? That kind of defeats the whole purpose. IMO, we need to think in terms of complimenting our strength, and more than anything right now that means we need OF defense.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Let's be honest here. We wouldn't consider dealing Gordon Beckham, right? I think the Brewers feel pretty much the same way if not more so about Gamel. The Brewers probably like Gamel a lot, but I don't think they see him as their Beckham. Beckham is like... well, he's just a much, much better player.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Stark is saying Jenks would be "hard to move." In fact, he stated he would be the most difficult player to move on the Sox roster. What that implies is exactly what KHP is saying - that Kenny would either have to assume some of his salary in any trade, or to non-tender him. That is what is generally meant in baseball by saying "hard to move." I don't believe that will be the case here. I agree with KHP that Jenks would in reality be easy to move. If Kenny called up every GM in baseball the day after the World Series, and told them all "Bobby Jenks is available," I am certain he would get several offers which included decent prospects and did not ask that the White Sox pick up any of his salary. Kenny could then trade him that day if he wanted to. "Hard to move" is when you are calling every GM there is and trying to sell them on your player. You are making concessions, like throwing in half or more of his salary. You are throwing in another player that team likes as well to make it worth their while. THAT, in my mind, is "hard to move." And that is not the case with Bobby Jenks (at least I don't think it is). So I don't think KHP is agreeing when he thinks he is disagreeing. I think he is pointing out a subtlety in phrases here that somewhat drastically differs from what Jayson Stark is saying. Thank you, iamshack. iamindebted.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:11 AM) Its not difficult to understand. Its just weird that you are agreeing with the author, but you think you are disagreeing. He says he's hard to move, you say he's easy to move but hard to get good value for. Those are the same damn thing. I give up. Stark is saying Jenks is hard to move AND a non-tender candidate, which essentially means he believes Jenks has no value at his arb-level salary. I am disagreeing with ALL of that. Jenks will not be hard to move for value, and he is not a non-tender candidate. Non-tender candidates are players whose salaries pay them more than their expected production is worth. That is why they are non-tendered in the first place. You don't non-tender a $7M player when you know that player can immediately hit the open market and receive *more guaranteed money* than what you're deliberating offering him in the first place. If Jenks hits the open market, he easily gets one year guaranteed plus an option for a second, at the bare minimum, and the total sum is almost definitely going to be higher than what he'd get from the Sox in arb.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) Just as long as it's not for prospects. You still have to replace the set up guy. The worst scenario for that is Pena. It depends on who has interest first. It might be the case that the teams offering the most are offering prospects, so we take that offer. Prospects can always be converted into productive MLB pieces because each year in every division there is at least one small-market club in the middle of a rebuilding project.