Old Socks Challenge

[Rex Hudler]

Jim/Old Socks/Hex Rudler:

 

It is obvious you dislike some of the trades KW has made in the past couple of years regarding the prospects he gave up. On some accounts, I agree with you.

 

My question/challenge to you is:

 

When is it okay to trade a prospect for a Major League player? Can you give us an example of a trade that you feel would be worth it despite giving up some talent? No Josh Shaffer for Randy Johnson's here....... I want something that is realistic and fair, given the talent of the players and the financial landscape of today.

 

The ball is in your court. In your mind, what is acceptable and what is not in terms of trading a prospect or group of them??

 

I am looking forward to your input.

 

Rex

[Chisoxfn]

Me too, this is a cool idea for a thread Rex

[MnSoxFan]

Yep, easy to look in hindsight too. I mean 2 years ago if we had added Honel into a trade it might look like a good one today. Or Borchard for a pitcher a couple years ago when his stock was real high.

 

Rupe may make it yet, but Webster looks like he was expendable. Francisco may be one we hated to part with, who would have thought that last year. Not I.

 

I still say 75% of the time, trading a prospect is the way to go. Look at Cubs, bet they wish they had moved Kelton, even Guzman when his stock was sky high.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm with you MN. I can't go back on what I said at the time of the trade. I never wanted to give up Rupe, but didn't have a problem with Webster or Francisco. Looks like I was wrong on Francisco, but I can't blame KW or anyone else, cause to me he didn't look like a guy you would really regret losing.

[Old Socks]

Rex:

 

If you don't mind, I'll probably answer in 2-3 posts, because your question(s) deserve a spontaneous response, and then tomarrow I'll reply with some thought behind it.

 

I have gone on record to opposing three of Kenny's trades. 1)Ring/Alomar; 2) Rupe, Webster, Francisco/Everett; and 3) Olivo, Reed/Garcia. No need to discuss the Kip Wells fiasco.

 

If we are going to trade a previous year's first rounder, (Ring), either give him a chance to fail, and he didn't, or you better be damn sure you are going to get somebody who can help you win a bunch of games that you otherwise would have lost. Robbie was washed up, pure and simple; I said so then, and I say so now. It was sooooo obvious. So I guess my first rule of thumb is not to trade last years first rounder for a washed up veteran, even if his salary is picked up. I know that there were a couple of dozen pitching prospects throughout the minors better than Ring, but he still had potential to reach the bigs in 1-2 yrs. Harris at the the time was playing better than Alomar. The trade was stupid. It would not have been made if not for the fact the Mets picked up his salary for 2003.

 

Re: the first Everett trade, I objected to the poor negotiating skills of KW as much as anything. Texas just kept asking for more and got it. Now, Carl hit well for us in 73 games in 2003. I had no idea how bad he was defensively, but KW should have. Carl hit as well as anyone could reasonably expect, and it still didn't do anything for us. One of my answers is NOT to give someone a choice of six of our top prospects. Make a decision, and we either say yea or nay. So much of that trading decision was caused by the fact that we did not have to pay Carl's salary for 2003. I say, don't be swayed by that type of financial consideration. Just because he was free doesn't make it a good trade. They told us who to put in the pot, and KW bent over and complied. All three of those prospects had a great chance to make it to the bigs, barring serious injury. Too much. I think Texas would have done the deal for one of those guys. If not, then walk away.

 

I hated the Garcia trade when it came down. Obviously, my criticism has softened after we signed him for three yrs, but there was no reason to believe that would happen when the trade came down. Reed was untouchable in late 2003, and he didn't do anything to change that in 2004. Don't trade a potential superstar who is less that a year away from the bigs for a pitcher who barely had a .500 record. Blue chips don't come along very often, so keep them. I would not have given Reed for anyone on the Seattle 25 man roster. Hands off Reed, Anderson, Sweeeney, and maybe McCarthy.

 

Summary: Don't give up too much talent just because someone picks up a salary for three months. Don't give up your best prospect when EVERYONE raves about him. You yourself raved about Reed when he was in B'ham. "He knows how to play the game." You said it. The kid just hits, and fields, and runs, and seemed to have a great attitude, and I can't believe we could not have made the trade without him. If not, okay, we keep Reed. If he is untouchable he is untouchable. When Kenny traded Webster, he said we had Reed in the wings. When he traded Reed, he said we have Anderson in the wings. You know he has considered trading Anderson and probably Sweeney, too.

 

Why do I feel lthis way? Go back in history and see who wins these battles. Usually the team getting the top propect prevails. The Braves ripped off the Tigers for a one yr pitcher when they got Smoltz. Houston ripped off Boston for Bagwell for Anderson. The Sox ripped off Texas when we got Sosa and Alvarez for Baines. We ripped off the Cubs when we got Garland for Karchner. I'll think of a few others by tomarrow.

 

I don't believe in giving up your very top prospects for a band aid. When do I like a trade like that. I would say when you give up players who have been given 2-3 opportunities and just haven't knocked the door down. Like Rauch and Majewski. If they make it, then so what? There will be some trades in the next 8 days, and in every case some team will give up way too much for a veteran who has as much uncertainty as the top prospect.

 

More to follow, and thanks for asking, Rex.

 

Jim

[danman31]

Let's just say I strongly disagree. I like the fact that you backed up your statements, but Royce Ring? C'mon. He is currently a middle reliever in AA who has 0 saves on the season between AA and AAA. The Texas trade is still up in the air. By prospect status it would appear we overpaid, but Webster isn't getting it done and he was supposedly the best of the bunch. Everett did very well with us in 2003 and if we only give up an average middle reliever for him (Francisco) than it was a good trade. Speaking of which, am I the only one not impressed with his 4.56 ERA and 1.52 WHIP?

[LDF]

great post ole socks. i agree with most of what you wrote.

 

i am not against trading prospects for players, actually i was flamed for mentioning some trades that should have gone down last yr. i said last yr that mags should have been traded when sd and/or sfo was rumored to have been interested.

 

i am not against kw for trading and that is one thing that i somewhat like of him, his guts to keep trading. however, kw imo, has been overpaying for players. i did not like the evertt trade last yr, which i mention it at the time.

 

i am somewhat not happy with what we gave up for freddy this yr. i know, the argument is going to be is we have to give up something to get something, but the price may have been too high. (however i am happy with the pitching success freddy been having) but we still gave up too much. i always seem to think that kw was taken. some sports mag's even suggested that kw overpaid, like ba, cbsports, etc...

 

here is an example, would you rather had randy johnson for olvio, reed etc... i think arz would like those players b/c of the catching..... for me i would have like it better. so the point of this example is this, it is all subjective on what your opinion of the player kw got and what we gave up. all i hope for is that kw knows what he is doing and not screwing up the sox.

 

 

as for making a trade that would be a logical one at this time, i can't b/c there is not much i would want to trade and not touch, what i consider untouchable prospects.

[Guest JimH]

On the Everett trade, the White Sox were the team that made up the list of six guys, Texas was told to pick three. There were rumors Texas wanted Reed on the list, the Sox said no. So it's not as if Texas kept asking for more and more and the White Sox complied ... that to me is revisionist history.

 

I think it's fairer to say that Robbie Alomar is nowhere near the player he used to be. If he were completely washed up, Arizona wouldn't have signed him and although his playing time has been limited this year, he's hitting above .280 at last glance.

 

Giving up Reed was very tough for me. Had the Sox done a better job or had better luck with their young pitchers, a deal like that might not have to be made.

I fault the inability of the organization to develop young pitchers into productive major league starters. Whether that's just bad luck, well ok, but bottom line the results have not been there.

 

As for letting Ring prove himself before trading him, I disagree with that. You draft a guy and watch him perform, and other team's scouts watch him perform. Your scouting people make a value judgement on the guy's ceiling after seeing him play in pro ball. Other team's scouts make that same value judgement. If your GM/scouting staff feel you're getting equal or better value back in a trade, you make the deal because they feel it improves the club. Ring's value was higher last July than it is now. It's the GM's and Scouting Directors responsibility to get the highest possible return, whether it's with your organization or via trade.

 

Look at all the World Series winners the past decade, they made lots of prospects for veterans trades. Is it only worth it if you win the World Series, or is it worth it to try? How many fans and media barbequed Ron Schueler in 2000 when he refused to give up any prospects for a proven arm or two? And he knew all of those guys were hurting (Eldred, Baldwin, Parque, even Sirotka). All those prospects he held onto for dear life have basically done nothing. I think of guys like Rauch, Purvis, Stumm, Ginter, Barcelo, and the list goes on and on. Now I'm not saying that 2000 team would've won the World Series but if there was ever a chance to augment the team, that was it. We were in control of the division by late July.

 

What this comes down to is feeding the pipeline via proper scouting and drafting, by letting selected free agents go so you can get high comp picks. Look at what they did this winter ... they let Gordon go, got draft picks and then signed Shingo for nothing. Colon chose the Angels thankfully, and we got high picks for him.

 

They need to do a better job in Latin America, for one. If you have a full and productive pipeline, a lot of this discussion is moot.

[Hatchetman]

I don't believe you can survive by consistently dealing prospects for vets over the long haul. It's just the sheer number of guys we've given up over the past few years....

[Guest JimH]

I don't believe you can survive by consistently dealing prospects for vets over the long haul. It's just the sheer number of guys we've given up over the past few years....

Fair point. Let me ask you, and let's go back say 5 years ... how many of those prospects have turned out to be productive major leaguers?

[Rex Hudler]

Let's just say I strongly disagree. I like the fact that you backed up your statements, but Royce Ring? C'mon. He is currently a middle reliever in AA who has 0 saves on the season between AA and AAA. The Texas trade is still up in the air. By prospect status it would appear we overpaid, but Webster isn't getting it done and he was supposedly the best of the bunch. Everett did very well with us in 2003 and if we only give up an average middle reliever for him (Francisco) than it was a good trade. Speaking of which, am I the only one not impressed with his 4.56 ERA and 1.52 WHIP?

My point is not to argue the validity of the trades, but only to offer accuracy.....

 

You can't look at what Ring is doing now. You don't have that luxury when the trade was made. Ring was the previous year's first rounder and was pitching very well. That was his point.......

 

Webster is now hurt, but he was having a very solid season. Saying he is "not getting it done" is inaccurate.

 

Francisco made the jump from Class A last year to the big leagues this year. I dont care what his stats are right now. He is someone we would love to have back in our system.

[whitesox61382]

Rex:

 

If you don't mind, I'll probably answer in 2-3 posts, because your question(s) deserve a spontaneous response, and then tomarrow I'll reply with some thought behind it.

 

I have gone on record to opposing three of Kenny's trades.  1)Ring/Alomar; 2) Rupe, Webster, Francisco/Everett; and 3) Olivo, Reed/Garcia.  No need to discuss the Kip Wells fiasco.

 

If we are going to trade a previous year's first rounder, (Ring), either give him a chance to fail, and he didn't, or you better be damn sure you are going to get somebody who can help you win a bunch of games that you otherwise would have lost.  Robbie was washed up, pure and simple;  I said so then, and I say so now.  It was sooooo obvious.  So I guess my first rule of thumb is not to trade last years first rounder for a washed up veteran, even if his salary is picked up.  I know that there were a couple of dozen pitching prospects throughout the minors better than Ring, but he still had potential to reach the bigs in 1-2 yrs.  Harris at the the time was playing better than Alomar.  The trade was stupid.  It would not have been made if not for the fact the Mets picked up his salary for 2003.

 

Re: the first Everett trade, I objected to the poor negotiating skills of KW as much as anything.  Texas just kept asking for more and got it.  Now, Carl hit well for us in 73 games in 2003.  I had no idea how bad he was defensively, but KW should have.  Carl hit as well as anyone could reasonably expect, and it still didn't do anything for us.  One of my answers is NOT to give someone a choice of six of our top prospects.  Make a decision, and we either say yea or nay.  So much of that trading decision was caused by the fact that we did not have to pay Carl's salary for 2003.  I say, don't be swayed by that type of financial consideration.  Just because he was free doesn't make it a good trade.  They told us who to put in the pot, and KW bent over and complied.  All three of those prospects had a great chance to make it to the bigs, barring serious injury.  Too much.  I think Texas would have done the deal for one of those guys.  If not, then walk away.

 

I hated the Garcia trade when it came down.  Obviously, my criticism has softened after we signed him for three yrs, but there was no reason to believe that would happen when the trade came down.  Reed was untouchable in late 2003, and he didn't do anything to change that in 2004.  Don't trade a potential superstar who is less that a year away from the bigs for a pitcher who barely had a .500 record.  Blue chips don't come along very often, so keep them.  I would not have given Reed for anyone on the Seattle 25 man roster.  Hands off Reed, Anderson, Sweeeney, and maybe McCarthy.

 

Summary:  Don't give up too much talent just because someone picks up a salary for three months.  Don't give up your best prospect when EVERYONE raves about him.  You yourself raved about Reed when he was in B'ham.  "He knows how to play the game."  You said it.  The kid just hits, and fields, and runs, and seemed to have a great attitude, and I can't believe we could not have made the trade without him.  If not, okay, we keep Reed.  If he is untouchable he is untouchable.  When Kenny traded Webster, he said we had Reed in the wings.  When he traded Reed, he said we have Anderson in the wings.  You know he has considered trading Anderson and probably Sweeney, too.

 

Why do I feel lthis way?  Go back in history and see who wins these battles.  Usually the team getting the top propect prevails.  The Braves ripped off the Tigers for a one yr pitcher when they got Smoltz.  Houston ripped off Boston for Bagwell for Anderson. The Sox ripped off Texas when we got Sosa and Alvarez for Baines.  We ripped off the Cubs when we got Garland for Karchner.  I'll think of a few others by tomarrow.

 

I don't believe in giving up your very top prospects for a band aid.  When do I like a trade like that.  I would say when you give up players who have been given 2-3 opportunities and just haven't knocked the door down.  Like Rauch and Majewski.  If they make it, then so what?  There will be some trades in the next 8 days, and in every case some team will give up way too much for a veteran who has as much uncertainty as the top prospect.

 

More to follow, and thanks for asking, Rex.

 

Jim

There are a couple of flaws in your logic Old Socks.

 

1) You are missing a key figure in the Alomar and Everett(part 1) trades. You mentioned that the Sox got them for free(from a salary standpoint), and because of that, the Sox had to give up much more in the way of talent. In other words, KW hand was forced, by some degree, to give up a lot of young talent in order to acquire both Alomar and Everett. If JR would have been willing to pay the remaining 1/3rd of both players contracts, than the Mets would have probably only gotten the two scrubs(Almonte and the other guy), and the Rangers would have probably only gotten 1 of the 3(Webster, Francisco, and Rupe) along with a lower prospect. So whos fault is it? Answer...JR for being cheap and FORCING KW to give up more talent than he should have. You need to understand that money is worth almost as much as talent, and when a team is dumping a salary the percentage that is picked up by the other team determines what the team doing the salary dump gets in return.

 

2) You are ignoring the large sample of historical data that completely disagrees with your opinion on deadline deals. Watch ESPN.com over the next week, because they usually put out an article about previous deadline deals involving prospects, and the overwhelming conclusion that they draw is the majority of prospects involved in these traded amount to nothing. You mentioned a few trades in which a prospect turned into a good player, but you ignore the hundreds of trades involving prospects that amount to nothing. You are complete wrong when you say that the team getting prospects usually win the trade. It is like an iceberg, you only see the top(the prospects that turn into good player), which is only a small portion. What you don't see is the fact that the iceberg under the water is significantly larger(the prospects that you never hear about because they amount to nothing). So you are arguing against years of historical data that clearly show that the overwhelming majority of prospects dealt in deadline deals amount to nothing. The point is that you should wait until(if) they make the majors before you claim that the Sox gave up the second coming of Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. I don't care is Webster hits .400 with 50 HR's in the minors, or if Rupe throws 10 perfect games in a row in the minors, the only thing that matters is major league production, and at this point they have done absolutely nothing.

 

3) Calling Reed a future superstar gives me the impression that you have never seen him play. The chances that Reed becomes a superstar in the majors is slim to none. Even the scouts that think Reed will hit his upside don't think he will be a superstar, unless you think Mark Kotsay is a superstar? Reed is a player with limited natural talent, which means he has limited upside potential. You can't be fooled by the .400 BA he put up in AA in 200 some AB's. The .280-.290 average he has been hooving around in AAA is much more indicative of what to expect from Reed in the majors. He has limited power potential. Sure he could be the next Palmero(singles hitter in minors and HR hitter in majors), but that is slim to none. The only way that I see him increasing his power output is by subtracting BA or plate disipline(probably both). Otherwise he will probably be a 15 HR guy in his prime(give or take). His speed is drasticly overrated. People look at his high SB total and think that he has great speed, but that is far from the truth. What people don't see is the fact that he gets caught stealing a lot. I hold the believe that if you aren't sucessful in at least 70% of your SB attempts, than you are doing the team more harm than good, and Reed is an example of a guy below that 70% mark. One of the funniest things I read was when Starks(on ESPN) compared Reed's defense in CF to Mike Cameron(another clear case of someone who has never seen Reed play). The fact is that most scouts think Reed is a liability in CF(was a 1B in college) with average range and a below average arm. They feel that his best position will be LF. He does have good plate disipline and should be a high OBP guy, but he is far from a future superstar. To think otherwise is a clear case of overrating Sox prospects(past or present).

 

4) Garcia is a much better pitcher than you give him credit for. You can not judge a pitcher by his wins and loses(we have had this arguement a thousand times). If you think that the Sox could just give the M's peanuts for a front of the rotation starter in the prime of his career, than you have no understand of how baseball trades work. It doesn't take a pro scout to realize that Garcia has the goods. In fact, I think an arguement can be made that he is one of the top 5 pitchers in the AL from a stuff perspective. I love the fact that the Sox finally have a dominating pitcher on their staff. A legit front of the rotation starter. An interesting comparison that I found was between Garcia and Schmidt. If you compare their stats(Garcia up to this point and Schmidt before the past year and half), than you will notice that their stats are almost identical(Garcia being 28 and Schmidt being 29 at the time). I am not suggesting that it is a guarantee that Garcia will becoming a dominating ace like Schmidt, but it is very possible.

 

These are 4 flaws in your logic that you need to consider.

[MnSoxFan]

I am as big a prospect follower as any. I agree with a lot of Old Socks info. I agree KW has to get tougher in negotiations, maybe he is learning that.

 

What I absolutely do not agree with is his statement that most of the time it turns out bad. In BA or somewhere I read (and agree with from my 40+ years as a true baseball fanatic) that a very large number of these prospects never pan out. I mean a very high number. It is easy to pick out 5-10 trades where it did, but I would guess 80-90% of the time, the team getting the major leaguer for a prospect gets the better of the deal.

 

I wish he had told Texas they could only choose 2 instead of 3. It is funny that Franky is the one I figured would never haunt us, may or may not yet.

 

But as an almost 50 year old fan, I am glad KW has the gumption to try and get this team to a World Series, I have not seen one yet, I was only 3 when we went the last time.

[Chisoxfn]

Oldsocks...good post.

 

I am semi with you on the Alomar trade. I was never a huge fan of the deal because Willie was playing very good at the time. However, a lot of other people backed it and Hawk is always talking about what Robbie did to help the club.

 

I'm not around the club so I don't know, but his numbers, were shearly mediocre with the Sox. As far as Everett, he came here, motivated the horses and did what he did. It wasn't his fault he had a lame duck for a manager and well the team just didn't produce (not only Manuel's fault).

 

The only reason I didn't hate the Alomar deal is because I had very little faith in Royce Ring.

 

In regards to the Freddy Garcia deal, I give up a potentially good young bat and a solid catcher any day of the week for a very good 27 year old pitcher that is now signed to a 3 year deal, who has the upside to break out.

 

Also, I know you mentioned Randy Johnson or one person did in this post. But argument A is at the time he wasn't on the block and argument B is who knows whether Sox ownership was willing to open up the purse strings for Randy, whose contract is quite risky soley because he is up their in age.

 

One other thing, I think its wrong to blame KW for giving up another guy or two because the Sox were getting a ton of money sent their way for Everett. Kenny can't sit their and do nothing. He was going to do what he could to make the team better, with a top 3 of Colon, Elo, and Buehrle at the time, you had to do what you could to get that team into the playoffs because those three guys on the mound could of carried this team to the World Series.

 

If he sat their and did nothing, the team would of walloped, the fans would of cried, and attendance would of went down. Instead they went out and tried, they failed, but they tried. This year they are doing it again and now you really start hearing Sox fans acting as if Randy Johnson is a possibility. Think 3 or 4 years ago, we would of never even imagined something like that possible. Now its not going to happen, frankly, the Sox don't have the chips without giving up some things I don't think I'd give up and even then I don't know if the deal could go down.

 

Dan, I think Francisco could be a big loss because he is doing decent at the major league level. You can also see he has a hell of an arm. Now I don't know if his velocity jumped since leaving the Sox system, but I do know he was always said to be a semi power pitcher, but no one in the org ever thought that highly of him, at least I never read or heard anything along those lines.

 

In a sense, I guess KW earns a little credit for getting him for Bobby Howry (didn't they get him and An from the BoSox for him???). In hindsight, that is one guy I don't give up. Last year I said no worries in giving up him, wasn't too worried about Webster, although I admitted potential, and freaking hated losing Rupe...still do.

[Guest JimH]

Rex, good points.

 

Accuracy, though, is also these two things ...

 

First, very few of the prospects the White Sox traded have amounted to anything.

 

Second, on Royce Ring, credit has to be given to the GM and scouting staff for agreeing to include him in that deal w/ the Mets. They obviously felt he wasn't going to be an immediate ML contributor, nor an impact contributor. It's called "selling high". Calculated risk to be sure, a guy's stock can go even higher. It can also go lower, and that's where scouting projections come in.

 

I'm failing to see how a trade can be called stupid (Almoar) as Fainter did when the prospects traded haven't done squat in the major leagues. He suggests Harris could've done as well as Alomar, or better last year. And that the only way a 1st round pick should be traded is if we get a guy who makes the difference in winning a bunch of games.

 

Both criteria are highly subjective, that's fine. It's also very subjective to say trading prospects is bad - in retrospect - because the Sox didn't win the division last year (re: Alomar). That's as unfair as looking what Ring is doing now.

[Guest JimH]

Jason, Frankie Francisco is 25, born 1979.

[Chisoxfn]

Ok, that makes it a little less of a loss for me. For some reason I swore reading Phil Rogers piece earlier in the year about Francisco thinking he said he was 20 or 21.

 

Now that had to of been the reason I didn't give a crap about giving him up. Just like I wouldn't care if the Sox gave up An. Older guys in A ball have very little chance of suceeding.

 

My bad on messing up the age.

[Gene Honda Civic]

You're all a bunch of know-nothing asshats.

 

Sorry, there was far too much actual quality posting going on in this thread. --

 

-----------

 

Seriously though, Old Socks, I respect your views much more now, than when you were just doing the one line passive/aggressive thing... You have some valid points, and I agree with some, though not all, of them.

 

This discussion is a perfect illustration why this board rules... Lost of quality posts, and serious discussion. No need to resort to namecalling or flaming....

 

I now retrun you to your regullarly scheduled thread.

[Rex Hudler]

Rex, good points.

 

Accuracy, though, is also these two things ...

 

First, very few of the prospects the White Sox traded have amounted to anything.

 

Second, on Royce Ring, credit has to be given to the GM and scouting staff for agreeing to include him in that deal w/ the Mets.  They obviously felt he wasn't going to be an immediate ML contributor, nor an impact contributor.  It's called "selling high".  Calculated risk to be sure, a guy's stock can go even higher.  It can also go lower, and that's where scouting projections come in.

 

I'm failing to see how a trade can be called stupid (Almoar) as Fainter did when the prospects traded haven't done squat in the major leagues.  He suggests Harris could've done as well as Alomar, or better last year.  And that the only way a 1st round pick should be traded is if we get a guy who makes the difference in winning a bunch of games.

 

Both criteria are highly subjective, that's fine.  It's also very subjective to say trading prospects is bad - in retrospect - because the Sox didn't win the division last year (re: Alomar).  That's as unfair as looking what Ring is doing now.

Jim, allow me to add to and argue with you on a few points....

 

Let's argue first.......

 

You can't look at the results of the prospects the Sox have traded and make the assumption that the Sox did the right thing each time because none of them have made an impact in the big leagues for that team or another one. There is more to it than that.

 

Minor League depth is important, even if the players don't make it to the Majors. Having depth in your farm system gives you better teams and better players overall. It is in a clubs best interest to win at the Minor League level when possible because it teaches a winning philosophy to its farmhands. Minor League teams, including the Sox keep charts on situational hitting and rate players accordingly. A player may be penalized someone (a fine, extra work, etc.) if he is not performing at a level the org sets for certain situations. Teaching the players how to play the game the right way and how to win, is as important as teaching a handful of players how to hit lots of HR's and steal bases.

 

When you have better players overall, it helps those few true prospects you have develop. It is easier to develop a complete player in a situation where he has other good players around him. When he learns that helping the team win will also help him move up, because he will be doing the right things.

 

I am not saying that good players never come from really crappy Minor League teams, but looking at the big picture, it helps an organization to develop true prospects just by having good players around them, even if those players never make the big leagues.

 

Now, let's agree a bit, but allow me to expand in a different direction.......

 

I will agree with you on the Royce Ring deal for two reasons. One, I saw Royce pitch a lot and after watching a "closer" consistently throw 86 mph, I knew he was overrated. He knew how to pitch, so I felt like he still had a chance to be a setup guy (and he may still), but he reminded me of Randy Myers with about 8 mph less on his fastball.

 

Personally, I liked trading for Alomar last year. The reason is, because no matter how much importance is put on stats in the baseball world, there is more to a winning team than numbers. Alomar had been there before. He was joining his brother, which made it reasonable to assume that he would be coming in with a good attitude, and as far as I know, he did.

 

Robby Alomar does all the little things on a baseball field to help a team win games. He understand defensive positioning. He makes other infielders around him better. I really think that Jose made significant strides at SS, while and after playing with Robby. Robby knows how to bunt. He can hit and run. He can steal a base on you even though his speed has waned. Robby in the past, used to practice bunting FOUL down the 3B line. He wanted to be able to lay down a bunt that went just foul down the line occasionally so that he would draw the 3B in closer, giving him a better opportunity to hit. Some guys show bunt to do that. Robby used to practice actually bunting the ball foul, to keep 3B around the league honest.

 

Not being in the Sox clubhouse, I can only speak in generalities, but a guy like that can make everyone around him better, even when he is not performing at a level he used to. There are certain players and characteristics that statistics cannot measure and that fans rarely see, but they help teams win. I felt that Robby, despite his spotty history, could be that kind of player with the Sox after reuniting with his brother and leaving the depths of last place and NY with the Mets.

 

That is why, I liked getting Robby. I felt the Sox needed that last year. I never expected the stats from the Robbby Alomar of the Blue Jays WS days.

 

Sorry for the long post........

[Old Socks]

Rex, Robbie might have made some of the Sox better at first, but Jose? I don't think so. He probably helped Harris as much as anyone. But the guy did not hustle. He hit a lot of weak grounders and jogged to first, and he just could not hit any more. The reason we made the trade was not because Ring threw only 86 mph, it's because he was free. It was a bad trade from the beginning. Harris was a better player than Robbie in July, 2003. So he sits, Robbie jogs, and Ring goes away. It's a hat trick. But he was free. And pullease don't lay that brother stuff on me. If that is our criteria for trading, ............

[Rowand44]

Rex, Robbie might have made some of the Sox better at first, but Jose?  I don't think so.  He probably helped Harris as much as anyone.  But the guy did not hustle.  He hit a lot of weak grounders and jogged to first, and he just could not hit any more.  The reason we made the trade was not because Ring threw only 86 mph, it's because he was free.  It was a bad trade from the beginning.  Harris was a better player than Robbie in July, 2003. So he sits, Robbie jogs, and Ring goes away.  It's a hat trick.  But he was free.  And pullease don't lay that brother stuff on me.  If that is our criteria for trading, ............

Yes, he had a huge affect on Jose's defense. Robbie was way better then willie at the time to play 2nd base, willie at that time still wasn't able to hit. I don't know what intrigues you so much about Ring but I'm pretty sure he hasn't done anything yet and hasn't even been in the majors yet. I think you should wait to love Royce so much until he does anything in the major leagues, if he ever does.

[knightni]

This may sound silly, but I believe that the one prospect that the Sox have traded over the last two seasons that will come back to bite them the most is John Rauch.

 

 

I don't know why really... I just have that feeling.

[Old Socks]

I am not intrigued by Ring. The Mets were ready to waive Robbie, so why give up a guy who had some potential to make it, even if it is as a set up reliever. The majors are full of lefties who throw in the mid to high 80's and who, according to my pal Rex, "know how to pitch." Saying he knows how to pitch is not much of an indictment.

[Rowand44]

I am not intrigued by Ring.  The Mets were ready to waive Robbie, so why give up a guy who had some potential to make it, even if it is as a set up reliever.  The majors are full of lefties who throw in the mid to high 80's and who, according to my pal Rex, "know how to pitch."  Saying he knows how to pitch is not much of an indictment.

Where did you hear that the mets were ready to waive robbie? The sox gave up nothing to get robbie and he was a big upgrade last year.

[Old Socks]

In my original post, the rambling one, I mentioned a few significant prospect for veteran trades. One big one that I forgot is when Seattle traded Johnson to Houston for Freddy Garcia, Guillen (the shortstop now with Detroit), and Halama. Now, I know Randy helped get Houston to the playoffs where they were quickly dispatched by the Braves, but my goodness they gave up a lot. Those guys would have made Houston a much better team for the next five years.

 

Regarding comments about Reed not having superstar material, he had those skills a year ago. I don't think they went away, even though he was hitting in the .270's at Charlotte. And why do you guys always compare him to Kotsay? His name is Jeremy Reed. I wouldn't trade Reed for ten Kotsays. I bet Seattle lwouldn't either.

 

My problem is the negotiating position. Seattle wanted to trade Garcia, and they have every right to get the most out for as they can. I just don't like it when it is at our expense. All we have to do is start off by saying "Reed, Anderson, Sweeney, (and possibly McCarthy) are off the table." End of story. The trade still could have been made. Who was going to make a better offer?

 

And if Kenny offered Texas the choice of six players, then shame on him. I repeat, that deal was done because he was free, in terms of 2003 salary. Just like Robbie. Carl performed very well offensively, and we still came in second to Minny. I am not second guessing Kenny when I say that was a bad trade, because I vented immediately after the trade was made, ad nauseum.