Flash Tizzle

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:52 PM) His laughing at Patrick's question "How's Moneyball look now?" was a direct hit at Beane. Chavez's comment along the lines of 'Travis Lee said the same thing to me last night' can't sit well in Oak. Beane can't have the face of the A's laughing at him. He won't last 'til the AS break there Wait, so Chavez critized the foundations of Moneyball? TRADE FOR THIS MAN, NOW!!! Beane disciples must not be very pleased with Chavez insulting their overlord. Right now, minions on Baseball Prospectus and Hardball Times are writing articles criticizing Chavez for insulting their beloved sabermetric system.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 02:23 PM) Doesn't matter. He will not get ten million plus if he is hitting in the .220's with fourty home runs. First, I'm not suggesting he'd hit .220. Probably won't . If Konerko hits .250, which is still low, and drives in 100RBI and 35HR's, he'll have a good sized contract this offseason. But even if he were to hit .220, some team will be willing to pay more than 8 million/yr if his power numbers are present. Nothing should surprise you after the terrible contracts issued last year. With the weak 1B market next offseason, he'll earn his money from some desperate club looking for power production. Him and Durazo are the jewel or the crop.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 02:17 PM) I hate to quote myself, but yes yes yes yes yes No one else worried about his "quantum leap" in OBP? Or how he batted higher against LHP? Sounds like an aberration to me.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 02:07 PM) Is it in the contract by name that Billy Beane has to take care of his dogs? Seriously folks, take a look at that f***ing contract breakdown and tell me a) it's worth the giving him all that money over these next 6 years B) it would only cost Crede and McCarthy. Let's put this thing to rest already..... I disapproved of this trade even before I knew Chavez was guaranteed 78 million over 7 years. Obviously, this development doesn't help sway my opinion. No one can justify the trade now. For this kind of contract, you'd expect consistent production. Definitely not what Chavez is showing now. Serves Beane right for using his computer to predict production over a long period of time. He'll have fun rebuilding with an 11million dollar player at 3B. I hope no one humors trade deals for Chavez and let's Oakland rot with his salary.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 02:01 PM) If konerko keeps hitting nearly as bad as he has this year he won't be getting as much as your thinking. Average won't matter as long as the power numbers (HR/RBI) are there. And they are.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:55 PM) Just a thought, does trading for Chavez make Fields expendable in the near future?? Either they ship him off quickly or shift him to another position once he advances in the minors. How would it feel for Fields knowing there's NO possibility of earning a 3B spot when Chavez will own the position for the next 6 years?

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:45 PM) Chavez has a 6-year, $66 million contract that breaks down like this... 2005: $8 million + $500 K signing bonus 2006: $9 million + $500 K signing bonus 2007: $9 million + $500 K signing bonus 2008: $11 million + $500 K signing bonus 2009: $11 million + $500 K signing bonus 2010: $12 million 2011: $12.5 million team option or $3 million buyout Wow, that goes far beyond what I thought it did. What were people talking about only 30 million remaining on his contract?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:37 PM) His velocity may go up, and the Hr's may then travel farther, the trade makes sense for both teams, now and in the next few years. We cn agree to disagree, but I am so for this trade its ridiculous, and I lOVE BMAC. His HR's may travel farther, but his breaking ball will snap quicker. His fastball won't allow hitters more time to adjust to his offspeed pitch, when it's developed. If I'm McCarthy, I'm exclusively working on my changeup in Charlotte. Three pitches: decent changeup, 94mph fastball, 87 mph curveball = legitimate ace. We can agree to disagree, though. This will probably go on forever.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:28 PM) BUt its not as good as Gload Thomas and Chavez I agree, it's not. To keep it short, I don't believe including our highly touted, highly regarded pitching prospect in a trade for Eric Chavez is necessary. When McCarthy fills out his lanky figure, you can (likely) expect an increase in velocity. Even if he doesn't, his talent is still beneficial to our club. I can understand the concern of awaiting McCarthy to fulfill his potential when Chavez has already obtained his; but in this instance: with the factor of Beane, Chavez' contract, and our payroll, I wouldn't touch Mac.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 01:11 PM) Dye is gone but Anderon or Sweeney is in his place-saving money, signing Spods. Aj may be gone, but 2 years from now im sure something will be in his place, if not, maybe we tie him up in a contact this year through that year. Contreas;s high salary will be gone, and we have several prospect that may be able to take his spot. If not there will be more payroll flexibility with his salary to get a starter to fill in. All you are really losing in our young rotation is El Duque for sure, which KW could fill in with our next great phenom or a free agent with that money. 1B will not be kong cause his money would be tied up in Chavez, so you would have Rogo or Gload playing that position. Would you rather have the money tied up in a young all-star 3B or Kong at 1B with more holes that you can imagine with crede gone, and Dye gone etc. Its easier to pick up a pitcher and a 1B than a pitcher and an all star 3B IMO. I'd rather include Andersen or Sweeney in a Chavez trade than McCarthy. Outfield is the easiest position in baseball to fill. Far as Kong, I want him nowhere near this club next year. I'm not aware of any 1B on the market so I couldn't tell you any alternatives-besides Gload. Don't count on Rogowski being our 1b alternative. It may be easy to pick up a 1B and a pitcher, but it's even easier to pick up a 1B and an outfielder. Andersen over McCarthy is what I'd suggest to Beane. You have this same lineup next year with Gload inplace of Konerko, Thomas DH'ing, and Randa at 3B, I'll bet it doesn't have as many problems scoring runs as this season. McCarthy may not be in the rotation next season, but he'll be a fixture for the following 4 years.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 12:33 PM) So you wouldnt trade for Chavez because of the future possibility of having a cheap 5th starter in 2007???? So you are willing to not make THIS team the best it can be because of the future possibility of needing another pitcher....As for me, I think the time is now, this is the best start I have ever seen, and the best we may ever see. I know KW feels the same way about this that I do, I want the title now!! And even if you dont feel that way, the Chavez trade will pay off for us in the next few years anyway especially with the stockpiling of arms we have in our system. If you are so worried about 2007, that would be two years from now, thats exactly the amount of time it look BMAC to come up through the ranks, who says that Gio or Ray wont as well. As for fixing Crede's swing---uh unless Beane has a magic wand up his ass, nothing is going to work. It's not that plain cut. General Managers can't just create moves contingent on this year and ignore the future. Why exactly do we have a minor league system if all we're doing is using our products as trade bait? I know Quickman would say our system is terrible, and I agree, but you can't continue this trend. If Chavez were hitting on par with career numbers, I might be more inclined to support the addition of McCarthy in this trade scenario. But he's not. And there's no guarantee he'll return to his old form this season, where, as you've pointed out, our team is best suited to contend. McCarthy injurs himself or fails to improve, at worst, he's another bust prospect. Available money is spent on a stop-gap starter. Chavez injurs himself or fails to perform, which we've seen this year is a possibility, we're left with 30 million dollars. This trade isn't just 'McCathy's 2007 potential' vs. 'Chavez' 2005-2009 numbers.' A lot of money is riding on Chavez. It may be my man-love for McCarthy, but I don't approve of trading him. I'd rather trade for Randa and forsake up less of our future. If including McCarthy in a trade is attributed to this "winning now at all costs" attitude, I expect you to remain quit in several seaons when there are two rotation holes and 2 million left to spend. Run up the figures for 2007. Podsednik won't come cheap anymore, Dye will be gone, Thomas might be gone, AJ will either be gone or command a higher salary. I'm sure there are numerous other players due substantial raises as well. If the payroll continues to increase, as it has these last few seasons, we're in good shape. But let's ask ourselves this: why doesn't Minnesota ever trade their well known, highliy touted prospects for "win-now" players? Last summer, couldn't Ryan have said to himself, "I have Morneau here ready to perform, but I'll trade him for Delgado because I want to win now."

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 12:10 PM) If Williams got Chavez for Mac and Crede, it would be his best move ever, hands down. I may insult Beane regularily, but honestly, I'm worried whenever his name is mentioned in trade discussions. If the trade package you mention above is approved, you wonder what Beane notices in Crede's plate approach which may be corrected. Sure, the long-loopy undercut chop is often cited, but why would Beane accept Crede unless there's the distinct possibility of improvement? With all his popups, it won't exactly be paradise in Oakland's large foul grounds. Remember, Boras is his agent as well. Not very attractive if you consider the raise he'll likely receive next season. And McCarthy? That's a huge mistake right there. At this juncture, I wouldn't trade him for anyone short of a legitimate ace. SSI posted earlier a similar concern of mine relating to Duque/Contreras leaving the team in 2007. It would be beneficial to have a cheap starter fill in for a roster spot. Whether he's the savior or not for this organization, even at his current pitching potential, McCarthy will provide us with a dirt-cheap 4th/5th starter. With the numerous starter spots open for 2007, his price will be well appreciated when money is used to fill other positions.

Soxtalk recently passed the 700,000 post mark. Anyone else want to coin the moment with the obligatory SS2k4 jab?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 2, 2005 -> 12:06 AM) So here's the conundrum. The Sox need to compete to fill the ballpark, a terrible season would be Millions in lost revenue, that would show up the following season in the form of a lower payroll, which would result in a team much more likely to finish with a piss poor record, which would gain you multiple years of great draft picks, but... No Fans. You think the attendence is poor now, just wait for back to back to back 90 loss seasons. I was thinking about this very concern before I read your reply. Attendence in the late 90's was very poor with a struggling Sox team. /offtopic No shock the Cubs are one of the few exceptions. Prior and Wood, as well as a favorable September schedule, were the main reasons for the Cubs 2003 playoff push. Once in the postseason, both dominated. These two were selected high in the draft due to the horrid Cub teams which preceeded them. If not for Gonzalez' botched grounder, or Prior becoming unglued for one inning, Cub fans could have credited the terrible seasons for both pitchers. The attendance, as we all know, remains high whether or not the team is contending. As a result, the payroll is high, and any reasonable salaries can be used to pay either Prior or Wood as the Tribune sees fit.

QUOTE(nvxplorer @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 11:36 PM) If the Sox have had problems with minor league talent, it can be attributed to low draft picks after finishing first or second every year but one (I believe) since 1993. I know I'll be ripped for this, but I've always wondered if one bad season; one where we're holding one of the worst records in baseball, would be worth it if it netted our organization a Mark Prior, Ben Sheets, Joe Mauer, or another 'can't miss prospect.' I'm positive Twins fans don't care whether or not their team was terrible in the late 90's, 2000. It brought them a core group of players defending a three time divisional championship. Obviously, holding the best record in baseball far exceeds any notion of selecting a great player in the amateur draft. My question is if you look over our record the last several years, we've lost the division handily. Most notably in 2002. Did it matter to anyone whether or not our club finished over .500, 15 game behind the Twins? And be honest. Moral victories (finishing in second) mean very little, IMO. I'd rather win, let me make that fact clear. And, no, I'm sure Kansas City fans are not happy because of their position in the draft. Looking back in a few years, however, if the next Randy Johnson is drafted by the Royals and they're in contention, their fans won't care too much about these dreadful years.

QUOTE(quickman @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 11:19 PM) I could care less about the cost. I don't beleive highly in our minor league system, I do not watch a game today to think about two years from now. I watch to win this year. Thats all. next year will come . By the way our minor league system sucks. 1 out of twenty will make it. thats it. Trade the others if it means the playoffs. Sorry if you disagree. they are ALL unproven. This is why KW trades them. He knows they won;t make it it big. Aside from McCarthy, whom definetly needs additional velocity on his pitches (or a quality changeup), I'm not confident in any pitching/positional prospect aside from Tracey/Jenks/Andersen. It's disheartening watching Twins plug hole after hole, year after year, when valuable pieces leave. They may be the exception, but we're the team competing with them. So we damn well better step it up and start producing talent. I don't understand how they operate, the Twins, in their drafts. Is their just a pitcher available throwing 95 mph which EVERY team overlooks, yet the Twins seemingly know his potential. And their positional players-- how successful have they been these last few years? Watch when Brian Andersen joins the club in September. He'll probably start on a 1-25 slump, yet he's undeniably our top rated outfielder. We'll be resurrecting the Joe Borchard excuse of "small sample sizes," and "not everyone is successful immediately. (insert name) waited this long..." Meanwhile, a Twins jobber will be up in September batting .500 over 10 games.

QUOTE(nvxplorer @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 10:48 PM) I see it as a big picture move, not a game move. If this were September in the same situation, I highly doubt Ozzie would have used Walker. So, what you're suggesting is the result of tonight's game was less important than deciding whether or not Walker can pitch several months from now? Seriously, just think about this. It's ridiculous. And assuring yourself there's "plenty of baseball left," or the usual "Marathon, Not Sprint" cliche, you're eventually going to find yourself fretting in September/October when individual games hold heightened significance. Wins still count the same, June or October, but Guillen certaintly didn't manage like he knew that.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 1, 2005 -> 10:27 PM) What exactly does it matter to you if Ozzie and Brantley are cool or not? I don't give a s***. This is obviously a circumstance where everything he says is placed under a microscope folloing a horribly managed sereis. What a manager says doesn't bother me unless it involves particular players on the team. Call out everyone in the media if need be. They're not playing the game.

Let's not portray Brantley as innocent here. This exchange, atleast according to the Tribune, is apologetic-- yet still contains a subtle dig at Guillen. Brantley claims he "wasn't trying to kill him," yet "was trying to prove a point." The 'point' being Ozzie terribly mismanaged his bullpen on Monday. Anyways, as I see it, it's not a big deal. If this were Dusty, he'd enlighten the media with a blinding array of "dudes," "man's" and references to this being a societal issue. Brantley's dislike for our club extends beyond Monday's game. Doesn't bother me, and shouldn't effect the club.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ May 31, 2005 -> 01:25 AM) I imagine it would be nearly impossible to acquire that much SP without just destroying your future. Gotta figure they will be firesaling around July 31 Which is why I'm convinced Beane silently hopes this team doesn't pull together a few win streaks and fall within 6-7 games of first place. Ackward position to find yourself in, especially if you're the general manager of a perennial playoff team. Of course you'd expect him to cheer the success of his franchise, but honestly, is it worth the risk trading for necessary pieces (likely offensive players) if the team is on the border between playoff hopefull and outside contention? Would Beane reserve enough faith in his team to turn themselves around in the second half and compete? Houston overcoming a 10 game deficit in the wild-card standings will haunt numerous GM"s these next few years. Every fanbase will now use it as an example for overcoming the odds. "We may be 10 games out of first/wildcard, but Houston did it last year, so we can too!!" Atheletics pull within 3-4 games of first, obviously their team has recovered well from early season injuries and offensive struggles. But does Beane forsake prospects or other valuable commodities for a second half push? He would almost have to. It would be an injustice to fans or his players not to consider it. Battling back from the cellar only to sit idle during the midseaon market would undoubtedly cause uproar. Well, not entirely. His loyal disciples will still take his back regardless of the situation.

Once I noticed 'HARDBALL TIMES' gracing this article's heading, I knew what to expect. "Billy Beane may be a genius...." only confirmed my suspicions. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.

ESPN aired the 9th inning commentary from Brantley/Stone on Sporstcenter. While I dislike Brantley, he mirrored our sentiments of Guillen's questionable managerial moves today. Focus of the highlight was on Buehlre allowing two baserunners to reach, whereas Hermanson continued to warm in the bullpen. He appeared very pissed off glaring onto the field. Many people across the nation, if unaware before, treated themselves to quite the spectacle Ozzie, on occasion, may be. Guillen's "gut decisions" almost cost the team a victory yesterday.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ May 30, 2005 -> 09:08 PM) Why is this happening? Can anyone give me one good reason for why s*** like this has been happening so often lately. I'm generalizing here-- it could be different from what i've observed, but I've noticed the rehasing of old topics is common among members who've been here for awhile, don't post often, and usually browse just as infrequently. Who knows, perhaps they're impatient and unwilling to search for similar threads. Nothing against anyone who may do this. This honestly doesn't bother me. But you were looking for an explanation, and I provide answers for fellow chatroom members.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 30, 2005 -> 07:06 PM) and KC isnt really much worse than the A's hell they might be better until they trade Sweeney... they have had a lot of 1 run losses. How dare you suggest Kansas City may be better than Oakland.A'S HAVE SECURED THEIR FUTURE WITH STUD PITCHING PROSPECTS!!! "I can trade whomever I desire and my disciples will continue to worship me. Our current record is merely the result of bad luck. I've inserted individual career statistics and minor league pitching projections into my computer and it suggested our record will be 85-77. So obviously, we're due to folow this record." /daily Oakland jab completed

THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO THIS CLUB. Now Ozzie will have an excuse to keep OMIT TIMO on the roster.