I don't think the contract will be that bad because Paulie won't be on the books after this season or if they trade him b4 then, I would really like to see Chavez on the Sox.

 

Great point.

Just say NO to chavez.

Yearly OPS:

1999: .760

2000: .850

2001: .878

2002: .860

2003: .864

2004: .898

2005: .593

 

His season high for BA is .288, yet he will make 10+ million a year for the next 3 years and the GM has to take special care of his dogs. :rolly

 

I do not want to give up Bmac or Gio anyways.

I also said that I wouldn't mind starting Gload at 1st base next season if we traded for Chavez and kept Frank for one more year.

I dont think there is any chance that Frank is going to be on the sox next year

Yes.  We would let Paul Konerko walk away barring a WS apprearence giving us a ton of new payroll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, Konerko's salary would just be replaced by Chavez's salary so we wouldn't be freeing up any money.

 

"bored"

 

GET VINNY FREAKING CASTILLA INSTEAD DAMN IT

 

If we get Chavez, we will have to trade Fields to some one. By getting Vinny, we create a short term solution for this year and also next year and then we let Fields take over

 

Why spend so much money on Chavez and give up BMac?

 

I would rather have Vinny, trade Crede to the Nats in the process (they will prefer a younger 3B anyways....they have to build for the future) and get Fields ready for the pipeline.

 

Crede is anyways gone as soon as Borass gets a chance to screw JR.

 

 

You know what I ahve been seeing you say this for months, and I thought I was sick of hearing it, but Damn it its beginning to sync in with me. i think i am with you on this. GET VINNY f***ING CASTILLA.

Just say NO to chavez.

Yearly OPS:

1999: .760

2000: .850

2001: .878

2002: .860

2003: .864

2004: .898

2005: .593

 

His season high for BA is .288, yet he will make 10+ million a year for the next 3 years and the GM has to take special care of his dogs.  :rolly

 

I do not want to give up Bmac or Gio anyways.

Well...we would basically be replacing Paulie in the order for Chavez so.....

 

1999: .862

2000: .844

2001: .856

2002: .857

2003: .704

2004: .894

2005: .798

 

Looks to be very close, but Chavez has a better OBP, doesnt clog the bases as much , high BA, and better fielding. Sounds like an upgrade to me.

His season high for BA is .288, yet he will make 10+ million a year for the next 3 years...

 

Well, Pauly is currently making 8 million a year and his career BA is .278. I dont see how this is so bad, theoretically you are trading one powerful bat for another(if Konerko is allowed to walk), PLUS you have a very good defensive third basemen in the deal.

 

My only question in the deal is who goes to the A's. Beane is historically good at getting something for nothing.

Well...we would basically be replacing Paulie in the order for Chavez so.....

 

Looks to be very close, but Chavez has a better OBP, doesnt clog the bases as much , high BA, and better fielding.  Sounds like an upgrade to me.

 

Let's not forget about the other side of that coin...we'd also be replacing Crede with Gload in the order.

damn Rock, you read my mind

If the A's dont eat any of Chavez's salary, than I think at this point you do not trade for him. I think the White Sox could shop a very similar offer around and get a much cheaper player who is doing better this year (Blalock, Hillenbrand, etc).

 

I am a huge Chavez fan, but $10mil a year is just to much for the Sox to invest unless they are going to raise the payroll next year considerably.

 

SB

Let's not forget about the other side of that coin...we'd also be replacing Crede with Gload in the order.

So would getting a huge upgrad offensively and defensively at 3B be better than a downgrade offensively at first, but staying the same if not improving defensively.

Let's not forget about the other side of that coin...we'd also be replacing Crede with Gload in the order.

 

this is a bad thing?

Let's not forget about the other side of that coin...we'd also be replacing Crede with Gload in the order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, we would be replacing 2 righty bats with 2 lefty bats in the lineup.

If the A's dont eat any of Chavez's salary, than I think at this point you do not trade for him. I think the White Sox could shop a very similar offer around and get a much cheaper player who is doing better this year (Blalock, Hillenbrand, etc).

 

I am a huge Chavez fan, but $10mil a year is just to much for the Sox to invest unless they are going to raise the payroll next year considerably.

 

SB

re-signing Kong and Crede in arbitration would cost just as much.

Gload would do better then crede if he played on a regular basis

Edited June 1, 200520 yr by ScottPodRulez22

Gload would do better then crede if he played on a regular basis

Having Chavez take Kong's spot in the order, and Gload taking Crede's with both being upgrades defensively sounds like a good deal to me.

re-signing Kong and Crede in arbitration would cost just as much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. And the team would get better offensively, defensively, and we would add a bit more speed. Konerko and Crede are base-cloggers.

re-signing Kong and Crede in arbitration would cost just as much.

 

Ha, re-signing Crede. Thats a laugher. Bora$$ probably has a 250 page packet of information about how great Crede is, ready to submit to the first sucker GM in line.

this is a bad thing?

 

I sure didn't think it was a bad thing...might lose something in the power numbers, but should gain a fair amount in average/OBP, and improve our defense at 1st as well.

Here is the scouting report on Chavez, this sounds like a player that would fit into what we are trying to accomplish on this team.

 

Hitting

As natural a hitter as one will find, Chavez has good reactions and ever-improving strike-zone judgment, as his quantum leap in on-base percentage in 2004 reflects. He hits to all fields. In a season of statistical quirks for Oakland, Chavez hit 49 points higher against southpaws than righthanders last summer, but slugged 30 points higher versus righties. Over his career, Chavez has been a better performer with runners aboard or in scoring position, and a .340 hitter with the bases loaded.

 

Baserunning & Defense

Chavez has excellent speed and is a smart baserunner. He can steal a base and easily move from first to third when circumstances permit. Defensively, Chavez can pick the hot corner with the best of them. Watching him on a short hop, or turning a 360, zeroing in on first base and gunning a throw to retire a runner can be nothing short of breath-taking.

Edited June 1, 200520 yr by RockRaines

Yep.  And the team would get better offensively, defensively, and we would add a bit more speed.  Konerko and Crede are base-cloggers.

Quick get on the bat phone and call KW and ask him what he's waiting on hehe

You don't not acquire a guy because you have a 1st round draft pick in AA that plays the same position you'd be acquiring.  Especially when that hitter has really struggled this entire season. 

 

I'd deal Fields, Tracey, and Sweeney for Chavez and if they wanted one more I'd do that.  Of course it would probably be more like Fields, Sweeney, and Bmac or something alon those lines.  That or they'd want Anderson.  I'd rather deal Sweeney as opposed to Anderson, but I'd deal either.  However they can't get Anderson and Bmac in the same package, imo. 

 

Bottomline, the Sox have a ton of prospects they could deal and definatley have the pieces to make this type of trade and than go from there.  It would likely indicate that this is Paulies final season or at least one of Paulie/Thomas would be gone. 

 

This move makes a ton of sense, imo.

Yes it makes sense, but the Nats still wouldn't make a deal with us....

I sure didn't think it was a bad thing...might lose something in the power numbers, but should gain a fair amount in average/OBP, and improve our defense at 1st as well.

 

Im just asking because you were saying it was the other side of the coin. I thought you were saying "and this is the bad part of the deal...."

 

just a misinterpretation