Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 21, 2009 -> 09:55 PM) One never goes more than 2 innings. Richard seems to be throwing harder than Poreda. There is no way Poreda would have had an outing like Richard tonight. 92.5 with no command and weak secondary pitches get you what Poreda got, a plane ticket to AAA. Sure. That explains why Poreda was doing well in the pen until Ozzie's brainfart, and also why we held on to Jimmy Gobble so long. Poreda hasn't been throwing as hard as he was in the minors and none of us know the reasons behind that. His slider isn't enough to survive as a starter in the big leagues but to make it out like he wouldn't have been successful in relief is another matter entirely.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Jul 21, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) nothing, I think KW is invested in our young and upcoming minor league system. I think Kenny is invested on trading virtually every single prospect we have in our system for players he has long coveted, especially those who have at one time had success in the AFL. Once a prospect gets here however, Kenny will say that he was protecting said player and wouldn't have moved him unless he had gotten a significant package in return.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Jul 21, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) I figure that Baltimore and Atlanta wanted to see Josh Fields, thats why he was starting last night. That's the first thing I thought about reading that. Baltimore has been trying to trade Felix Pie and supposedly was in discussions for Fields. I do NOT want Felix Pie over BA, but if it means no more D-Wise, bring him ON!!! If ATL is talking with us it could be about a lot of things. ATL traded for Dotel once before, plus they have CF's better than Wise who aren't going to play (Gregor Blanco is a fit for us) and they also have a need for a 2B. I bet they're scouting relievers though.

QUOTE (Jeremy @ Jul 20, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) The idea that people have no right to be upset about this move because Brian Anderson is involved is ludicrous. Seems to me that people are just disappointed or frustrated with Anderson and therefore think he must be punished. I don't know how else you can justify continuing to give at bats to a career minor leaguer who can't play defense and has hit .211/.252/.373 in his career and .196/.243/.320 this season with horrible arguments that involve arbitrarily tossing out the months where Anderson was successful or insisting that there's some good reason for this and we just aren't aware of it. C'mon, playing Wise no matter how poorly he performs is incredibly stupid and harmful to the team and it's been going on ever since midway through last season. Defending the unreasonable favoritism they've shown him is bad form. Well said. Wise is only slightly more useful than syphilis.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 20, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) Yes, he does. He drives it into the ground, right to the fielder, often right into home plate and immediately to the catcher. Is this another one of Dweezy's cRaAaZzy bunting adventures you're reminiscing about?

*RABBLE!* *RABBLE!* *RABBLE!* YAY Q! BOOO WISE! God damn it I thought we were done with this s***. The Sox finally serve us a cupcake and it's got spit all over it.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) I really think the Phillies are going to crack and offer Drabek. If that happens expect to see him in a Phillies uniform soon. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ml?eref=writers Coming off a WS win you can't hardly blame them for going for it. I just hope it gets done soon if he really is going to Philly. And the NL has to be the Jays preference anyway.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) Established, back of the bullpen power arms can be much harder to find then a DH prospect with a nice stroke. Before the door is shut on Pena, lets see what the Sox coaching staff can do with him. I agree, but I still hate the trade.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 04:04 PM) As a hitter you only control your hitting. A fielder slipping is lucky for the hitter because he had no control over it. We might as well stop this because your stance is so far from mine it's actually hilarious to me. So the hitter wasn't skilled when he saw the pitch, made contact, and put it in play to force the defense? Did luck make him hustle down to first? Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) 1) I used Kendrick not from defensive positional value, but as a distinctive contact hitter, whereas Swisher had a patience and drive approach. They both have two distinctive approaches at the plate, thus allowing us to compare and contrast the value of each apporach. 2) Where? CF? RF? LF? 1b? 3) One can get on base via a walk, HBP or a hit. Getting on base puts you in the position to score, making yourself an asset to the team. 4) Batting Average takes two things into account. Hits per AB, ultimately it doesn't allow for anything outside of those two categories and is thus less valuable then the overarching OBP and OPS categories 5) No. Swisher's OBP matters in that he is getting on base. Whether he gets driven in (runs) had no bearing in this debate 6) Swisher averages 25 hr's and 88's RBI that's more than adequate for a guy who can play RF, CF, LF and 1b. 1) A contact hitter on the level of Kendrick would have to be pretty special to stick in an OF corner or at 1B. Kendrick's style fits 2B just fine, and he has the ability to either lead or rank top-5 in terms of 2B in several major offensive categories. Swisher OTOH will never lead corner OF/1B/DH's in anything sans maybe strikeouts. 2) Swisher is average in his natural positions. In CF he's a lot better offensively, but that doesn't matter much because he's not a CF and never belonged there in the first place. 3) Am I saying OBP isn't important? You said batting average has little bearing on how many runs a team scores. When your hits are allowing you to score runs, or when your hits are driving someone in, then your batting average counts towards run production. Getting on base without a hit only matters when you are driven in or when you happen to pick up an RBI because of a bases loaded situation. 4) Why does batting average have to mean anything other than hits per AB to be important? I'm not understanding where you're going with this. OBP and OPS are better??? I talked about the problems with viewing OBP as being more important than average in another post, so I'm not going back to that topic again. OPS is the most abused stat of all and only has meaning when you're talking about or comparing players who are expected to both 1) get on base, and 2) hit for power. Comparing corner OF's is a fine use for OPS because generally players at those spots are expected to get on and slug. However, a slick defensive SS for example who hits for very little power but has a high average and uses speed, and is a typical 1/2/9 hitter, should NEVER be compared with an average or below-average corner OF who has a higher OPS. People do that stuff all the time, completely misrepresenting the usefulness statistic. Batting average OTOH always has its uses. 5) So wait, you're telling me that OBP is more important than batting average. You say batting average has little bearing on runs scored. Then you say Swisher's OBP is always important regardless of whether he scores after getting on base? How biased is that? One stat (batting average) only means something sometimes, but OBP is important all the time? No matter what, if you don't score and if you don't at least do something positive in an AB then your AB doesn't help your team. My point was that because Swisher is generally a bottom-of-the-order hitter on most teams in baseball, he's not going to score as frequently when he does get on as those batting higher than him. Ex. Swisher getting on at a .360 clip in the 7 spot is not as helpful as a lead-off hitter getting on at a .360 clip to start the game. And beyond that, it also matters what you do with your OBP. Swisher gets on and he's probably just going to stand there until someone else advances him, and it's not like he's scoring from first on a double, and it's not like he's going to break up a ton of double plays either. OBP is a lot more important to a player who has the speed to either steal a bag, or increase his chances of scoring, or help stay out of double plays. What I'm saying here is you just can't look at OBP as being equally important for everyone. Also, Mike Jacobs got on at a .299 clip last year, but he hit 32 HR and drove in 93 runs, and his SLG% weighted his OPS to .813. He scored 67 runs. Swisher this year is getting on at .359 clip, and slugging .461 for an OPS of .820. Swisher has driven in 47 and scored 43 times, and keep in mind that he's doing this in the Yankees' lineup in the Yankees' new park while Jacobs did it with the Marlins in their big stadium and in a far weaker lineup. Who do you think was more valuable to their team? Swisher because his OBP helped him score some runs at the bottom of the lineup, or Jacobs who didn't get on much at all but actually made use of his AB's by swinging at the baseball and driving in runs instead of just standing there with his thumb up his ass with two strikes? 6) Swisher is adequate if you mean about league average production overall. If you mean to say he's an average or mediocre player, then you're right. If you mean to say those numbers mean he's better than that, then that's not the case.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) I'd love to see this argument. Maybe not the last two, but over the last 8 I believe, nobody but Santana has been better.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) Roy Halladay has been arguably the best pitcher in baseball for the past couple years. With that said I do not want him as it would cost too much. Giving up Lexi and Danks and/or Jenks and a some of our best minor leaguers? I don't think so. Besides like others I'm sure have mentioned he's getting a little old with a ton of mileage on his arm and he's good for like a DL stint each year it seems. Halladay is a different breed. Some pitchers are fine with regularly working deep into games and pitching lots of innings in a season. Most pitchers are not, but Halladay is not your average pitcher.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) Are you really proposing trading 6 players for Halladay? One who is a major league closer worth probably 3 solid prospects. You're essentially trading 8 players for a year and a half of Halladay. Why are you so hell bent on gutting the system to acquire Halladay? My proposal probably wouldn't be enough anyway, Richard = no big loss. Future lefty setup man and we have Poreda and Thornton already. Halladay replaces his spot in the rotation. Jenks = loss to current team, but will be getting very expensive starting next year Viciedo = likely 1.5 years away at least 3 prospects = I don't care, as long as they're not Flowers or Danks. I have no issues trading pitching prospects for a proven ace I'd much, much, much rather give up Bobby Jenks in a deal instead of Tyler Flowers. I want to keep D2 also so we have a better chance of extending D1. But again, that's probably not enough. If the Sox could get Brignac (or Wood/Aybar from the Angels, or some other SS from another team) for Jenks in a deal then that lets us keep Alexei. We'd still probably have to add Flowers or at least D2 in addition to other pieces, but if they want that I say no. And BTW, I'm not "hell bent" on gutting the farm. You don't acquire someone like Halladay without gutting the farm, and my proposal would attempt to keep a couple major pieces intact.

Good news for Greene, he deserved it.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) It's simple with Swisher. Some teams value OBP more than batting average. We traded him to one of those teams, but unfortunately got nothing in return. The lack of depth the trade gave us really hurt us earlier in the year, and who's to say it's not hurting us in trying to make trades now (by having more to offer Blue Jays, etc.). Agree with some teams valuing OBP over batting average. The rest is debatable. With Swisher here, and with CQ getting hurt, we're not picking up Pods who has been great. Is Pods more valuable to this team than Swisher? I think so, because we needed a guy like Pods and not a guy like Swisher. As for the Jays, I can't see how they'd want to add future salary commitments in any case. I highly doubt they'd want Swisher when they have Overbay already owed money through 2010 plus Wells, Rios, Lind, and Snider all having to play.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) Batting average has little bearing on how many runs a team scores. Runs win ball games. Batting average fails to take into account the number of walks and the number of homeruns a player gets. So, if Swish hits 250, but walks over a 100 times and hits 25-30 homeruns, he is a much better player then say, Howie Kendrick who might hit .300, but with two homeruns, and walk very little. 1) Howie Kendrick is a 2B and will save runs that Swisher won't because he is involved in more plays and plays a tougher position 2) Nick Swisher is an average at best player at a position where you want your best hitters 3) Basehits score runs if men are on base 4) Batting average doesn't need to take any other stat into account other than batting average - it's not hard to look at several different stats each in the appropriate context 5) Swisher's OBP only matters if others are driving him in, and for most teams, where he'd hit in the lineup is not in front of the sluggers, but behind them 6) Swisher's home runs are great, but he doesn't hit enough of them to overshadow the rest of his faults; he shouldn't be compared to players like Kendrick, he should be compared to 1B, DH, LF, and RF'ers

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) I didn't say Swisher was a good hitter or that I would do the original trade over again. It's just that the Sox have lost nothing and none of them are big prospects anymore. I just think Swisher has some value as a hitter. His numbers with the Sox were well below his career numbers. Luck doesn't exist in baseball? Really? You wrote a long post about Swisher not being good and then say luck doesn't exist in baseball? Everything you post is so definitive like you are always right, and you know what you are talking about, but to say luck doesn't exist is embarrassingly ignorant. Luck may be overstated, but c'mon. Batting average ranges more than most stats. Hitters generally make similar amounts of contact (ie avoiding Ks, and don't bring this back to Swisher, I don't care). That's where the consistency comes into play. I agree that he has some value as a hitter. I think he's average and agree that with the Sox he was below his career numbers, but I also believe his numbers with the Sox are a lot more indicative of his skills than the numbers he put up in his career year in Oakland. No, there's no such thing as luck, period. It doesn't exist. The odds play themselves out as in everywhere in life, and baseball especially is an extremely complicated game where hundreds of variables are always present. For example, getting a basehit because the 3B coming in to field a grounder slips on wet grass is NOT luck. The hitter isn't lucky or unlucky that it rained. Everyone plays under the same conditions. That's just one example, but it stands for everything. In a 600+ PA season, when you where all the offensive stats came from - facing hundreds of different pitchers in varying periods of success and failure, and facing hundreds of different defensive players, and tons of different defensive arrangements, and doing it in a bunch of different ballparks under all kinds of weather conditions - when you consider all that, each individual event that became part of a stat is unique enough an unlikely enough to be explained away as "luck." So luck doesn't exist in baseball, because saying it does completely ignores how complex the game is. Batting average does vary, as do practically all stats, but there's almost always a range. Great hitters might range from .290-.320+, and very good hitters maybe .280-.300+, and for dogs*** hitters like Swisher maybe .220-.260 or whatever. Home runs vary a ton as well, but usually the elite ones are always 30-45 or so, but nobody would discount home runs in any way because of the wide variance.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) Really, average is the worst stat for hitting and is based on luck? LOL. I'd say it's one of the better ones and now underrated. Actually, I'd say AVG, OBP, and SLG (SLG depending on what type of hitter) go hand in hand. A low average and decent OBP is no better than a high average and a similar OBP. And really, how much does it vary? Well, a better way to phrase that is, does it vary more or less or the same amount as OBP does? It's about the same as a player's average directly correlates with the the OBP. Besides a tendency to walk and decent power, what is there to like about Swisher? He plays a decent 1B and corner OF, fine. He's a switch hitter, cool. But his approach at bat is atrocious (he stands up there looking for a walk and not swinging until he's got two strikes on him), he K's a lot, doesn't provide a much run production (outside of 1 year, he usually only drives in around 70 runs), and had a s***ty attitude when he got benched for sucking. I'm sorry, but good riddance. I never understood the purpose of trading for him in the first place. I'll take the potential of Sweeney, Gio, and DLS and the money saved over the mediocrity of Swisher anyday. Agree 100%. Swisher is an average player IMO, no better than that. In hindsight I'd still deal Sweeney, Gio, and DLS, but for someone a lot better than Swisher. I agree though that I'd rather have the Swisher package than either Swisher or the package we got from the Yankees.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 01:32 PM) He doesn't get overhyped. He is a solid ballplayer. Average is the worst stat for hitting. It's based a lot on luck and varies from year to year. Regardless of the trade, it really bothers me that you think Swisher sucks because you don't like the things that he is actually good at. Wow, people are still trying to defend Swisher with the luck argument again. Luck isn't the reason he's prone to wild hot-cold streaks and doesn't make a lot of good contact. Hitters who make a lot of good, hard contact *or* make a lot of contact, have excellent bat control, and know how to use their speed generally hit for higher averages. The idea that players rely on the amount of luck that stat-lovers assume is basically an attack on the idea that hitting is a refined skill. Good hitters aren't "lucky." Nick Swisher is not a good hitter, and his poor batting average doesn't mean he has poor luck. His swing blows and he becomes passive deep in the count. And I agree with BearSox 100% that batting average is the most underrated stat in baseball these days. Why is OBP such a skill and batting average is not? Much if not most of the time when pitchers are throwing out of the zone because they are either, 1) pitching around a hitter, 2) trying to get a hitter to chase, 3) worried about a baserunner, 4) tired and losing control, or 5) having trouble getting a breaking ball over. So that's all on the pitcher, and the only control the hitter has in those situations is whether to swing or not, which basically accounts to BOTH pitch recognition and aggressiveness - and stats don't say s*** about aggressiveness or passivity. Swisher is often passive and if you've watched Sox games when Swisher was here there is no f***ing way you can tell me that standing there and taking a pitch because you can't see the damn baseball, and then walking as a result, is some kind of skill. You also can't tell me that standing there in an RBI situation as a guy who is expected to be a run producer and then looking for a walk is also some kind of skill. The only skills involved in OBP are pitch recognition and the ability to make enough contact on tough pitches to keep the AB alive - and OBP doesn't tell enough about either. Batting average however not only tells you whether a player saw a pitch and hit it, but whether he also was successful. It's not like every hit is some little blooper, and even for those kinds of hits, it still takes skill to speed up or slow down your bat and make contact after you've been tricked by a pitch, and it takes skill also to make enough contact on a tough pitch to drop in a hit somewhere. Frank Thomas did that s*** all the time and he was probably the most skilled hitter in Sox history. And isn't it funny how the best hitters always seem to hit the most bloopers? That's because they are skilled. Luck doesn't exist and belief in it is for those who also believe in Santa Claus, but if it did exist, the closest example of luck in baseball would be something like hitting a towering pop-up in a dome and having it drop in for a double because the ball hit a catwalk.

I like the idea that has been mentioned before on this board where the Sox work in another team in a Jenks deal. But still, dealing for Halladay now could definitely hurt us. With Allen gone, Flowers is our only 1B in the system IMO. Even though he's a catcher, he could be moved there, and with Phegley in the system and Flowers in Charlotte already that might end up happening. Dealing Flowers would then leave us with nothing after Paulie. Dealing Hudson and any pitching prospects is no problem for me because we're talking about Halladay. But that's not going to be enough either, and I don't like the idea of parting with Alexei, Floyd, Danks, or D2 (for reasons related to D1). What about: Sox trade: Bobby Jenks + cash to TB, Viciedo, Richard, any 3 eligible MiLB players except D2 or Flowers Sox get: Roy Halladay Rays trade: Reid Brignac, prospect(s) Rays get: Bobby Jenks, cash from Sox in '09 Jays trade: Roy Halladay Jays get: Reid Brignac + Rays prospect(s), Viciedo, Richard, 3 more Sox prospects That's probably not enough unless we include Flowers, but I wouldn't do that unless we got a 1B prospect back. If Kenny doesn't make the Allen deal and Flowers is added, and if the TB part is realistic, that would be very competitive package IMO.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) If the Pirates are going to continue to make idiotic moves like the Aramis Ramirez trade to their division rival, then that franchise won't continue to exist much longer. It's one thing to trade away McLouth/Bay or to give up on Van Benschoten, it's quite another to jettison your younger pitching core. If you gut that franchise any further, the fans might never come back in significant numbers to support a team in Pittsburgh ... in a region like CLE/DET that has been so adversely affected by the economic downturn. The Pirates have a whole different regime in place since the Ramirez and Lofton deal. I really like the McLouth deal for them, as well as the Morgan deal, and I think they got some good value for Bay when they traded him. The low-balling of Wilson and Sanchez is good for them too. They should dump both of those guys if they can, especially Sanchez so they don't have to pay him next season. They could realistically sign a couple reclamation/down year players over the offseason to much better deals and hope to then trade those players at the deadline. Orlando Cabrera for example might be available for half of what Sanchez makes next year if he option vests, and if he rebounds he'll be worth something nice this time next year. If I were them I'd also take offers on some of their young pitchers, but I wouldn't deal them just to deal them. If someone is going to give me a guy with ace potential who is pretty close or a studly position player who is pretty close, as well as a couple other pieces, I'd definitely deal a guy like Maholm no sweat. The FA market is going to be very kind to them over the coming seasons so they might as well accumulate as much minor league talent as they can and then supplement that talent with cheap veterans until they have a young core in place that is capable of making a run at the top of the division. The only guy I'd have as an untouchable on the Pirates is McCutcheon.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) Trust me, If I make a club about how much I didn’t like this trade, you’re welcome to join it. I was in that club the moment I heard about it.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) It depends on how Hudson's stuff rates out. If the scouts are clocking him in the low 90s, he's probably outside the top 50. If he's in the mid 90s, he could crack the top 50. The rankings are very much stuff dependent. Agree. Hopefully he makes the top-100 but you never know. There are always very good prospects left off, not just on the Sox side but all around baseball. I think the better question top-50-wise is does Danks make it? I have to think at least Flowers does. Viciedo will probably miss the top-100 this year, but maybe Mitchell cracks it, or at least gets an HM. Hudson isn't someone I'd bet on unless scouts really like he secondary stuff.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 19, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) Yep, PCL definitely some inflation going on there. Shave 100 points off each number and he's still hitting .291/.381/.770. It's 23 AB so a small sample size, but it's not just inflation. The kid has lots of talent and I still don't like that trade.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 17, 2009 -> 04:34 PM) I wouldn't offer Poreda, Richard, Flowers and Viciedo for Halladay. But i would do that deal for Haren. And if I was Arizona's GM it would be something to seriously consider. . In fact that is something i could see KW doing. With all of this attention on the Halladay sweepstakes, I could see him going under the radar and swiping a guy like Haren. Throw in Hudson and another SP prospect or a guy like Nathan Jones and maybe we could get Haren. I wouldn't pay that price though. I think that unless we can get an ace for well below his normal trade value we're best off waiting for the offseason to see what teams are looking to dump what players. Assuming he checks out medically, I'd much rather acquire Webb for half that cost or less.