NorthSideSox72 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) I think it will be quite hard for Ned Colletti to justify giving Julio Lugo a 5 year / 40M deal (which is what he wants, and may get) when he's put up splits of .219/.278/.267 for the Dodgers (albeit it is a very small sample size). If he could spin off Furcal for say Garland though, then there's some justification right there. Or they could let Nomar go, and have Lugo rotate at 1B/2B with Loney and Kent. I was thinking more Garcia/Vazquez than Garland, but you make a good point. Seems to me LAD has a log jam of talented infielders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurt Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 02:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ricky Henderson. Isn't he still playing in the minor leagues somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 09:10 AM) Well, to cut through your sarcasm... yes. After all, they traded for Lugo. And he is probably 6M cheaper than Furcal. So like I said, if they still see in Lugo what they did when they traded for him, then this deal is a good one for both sides. The Dodgers want to win next year, and they will want starting pitching - which we can give them. If you want to disagree with my idea, that's fine. No need for the sneering. "After all, they traded for Lugo." Okay... And, after all, they signed Furcal, and he had a good year. What they saw in Lugo, I believe, was a good utility player for the stretch run. (Oops.) They apparently didn't see an everyday shortstop, since he's hardly ever played there since the trade. They apparently don't even see him as an everyday player, since he's started on the bench for 25/57 games (if my count is right -- not just behind Kent, but behind Betemit at third, and Betemit's cheap next year). Nor has there been anything to the effect that the Dodgers are looking to move Furcal, or sign Lugo. So to me this sounds like another 'Wouldn't it be great if...' trade scenarios. Also, I'll use whatever tone I want in my posts. But do know that I am deeply grateful for your advice on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 05:45 AM) I've heard rumors of the Red Sox being interested in Rocco Baldelli for CF for a few years now. That is an interesting name. Everyone assumes that Crawford will be the first OF moved from the D-Rays, but I was thinking about Baldelli instead. Baldelli would net the D-Rays a nice return, plus he would be a very good fit for the Sox. Hits for average, has pop, has good speed, is solid defensively(can play any of the outfield positions), hits lefties well, is young, and will be realitively cheap. The one thing that I don't like about Baldelli is his plate disipline, but I hope that it will improve a little as he gets older. In order to get Crawford, the Sox would have to probably give up McCarthy and another good prospect, but they might not need McCarthy to land Baldelli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(whitesox61382 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) That is an interesting name. Everyone assumes that Crawford will be the first OF moved from the D-Rays, but I was thinking about Baldelli instead. Baldelli would net the D-Rays a nice return, plus he would be a very good fit for the Sox. Hits for average, has pop, has good speed, is solid defensively(can play any of the outfield positions), hits lefties well, is young, and will be realitively cheap. The one thing that I don't like about Baldelli is his plate disipline, but I hope that it will improve a little as he gets older. In order to get Crawford, the Sox would have to probably give up McCarthy and another good prospect, but they might not need McCarthy to land Baldelli. Thats what you dont like about Baldelli? How about the fact that he hasnt been healthy in a few years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfan Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Best choice? Alfonso Soriano. Speed, power, much better as a lead off hitter than down in the order, and doesn't cost any prospects. Probably too pricey, however. Second best choice: Carl Crawford. Didn't lead off well this year, and doesn't hit lefties that well, but he's signed long term, has speed to burn, and is still on upside of career. I'd be willing to send Vazquez and Fields, but not McCarthy. Probably won't be good enough to get him. Third best choice: Gary Matthews, Jr. Maybe he had his career year. Maybe he finally learned to hit -- kind of like Joe Crede. Even if he slides backwards a bit, he's a TON better than just about all of the names posted on this thread. As a free agent, he'll cost us no prospects. Best guy who got away: Bobby Abreu. This guy was the spark the Yankees needed at the trade deadline, and is the main reason they are likely going to waltz to another WS title. We would have done better if: Ozzie had used Iguchi to hit lead off and used Ross Gload to hit second and play LF. But this is not a solution for next season. Please, NOT: Juan Pierre (Willie Harris is just as good as Pierre), Dave Roberts, Coco Crisp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(VAfan @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) Please, NOT: Juan Pierre (Willie Harris is just as good as Pierre), Dave Roberts, Coco Crisp. The one thing I will say about Coco Crisp is that the "Win now" mentality in Boston which permeates every year has caused them to do some stupid things in the past. The whole Mirabelli matter this year, for example. If they're disappointed in Crisp...they may not be as willing to wait on him to improve as they should be, and they may be more willing to do something stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 07:26 PM) Thats what you dont like about Baldelli? How about the fact that he hasnt been healthy in a few years? Of course you have to consider the fact that he missed the 05 season, and his all out playing style(similar to Rowand) might make him prone to injury, but that doesn't mean you should ignore/disregard the present. The present is a healthy Baldelli, showing no ill effects of missing the 05 season, and with a track record of putting up good numbers when healthy. One major injury doesn't necassarily make a guy injury-prone. If nothing else, his trade value might be lower than what it should be because he missed the 05 season. Plus the fact that he is only twenty-five has to make you believe that his best years are ahead of him. I am not saying that he is the best option or my top option, but he is a name to keep an eye on and is a better option than most of the names being tossed around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(whitesox61382 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Of course you have to consider the fact that he missed the 05 season, and his all out playing style(similar to Rowand) might make him prone to injury, but that doesn't mean you should ignore/disregard the present. The present is a healthy Baldelli, showing no ill effects of missing the 05 season, and with a track record of putting up good numbers when healthy. One major injury doesn't necassarily make a guy injury-prone. If nothing else, his trade value might be lower than what it should be because he missed the 05 season. Plus the fact that he is only twenty-five has to make you believe that his best years are ahead of him. I am not saying that he is the best option or my top option, but he is a name to keep an eye on and is a better option than most of the names being tossed around. And half of this year as well. Oh and the guy has had a whopping 44 games batting lead off. Edited October 2, 2006 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) And half of this year as well. Oh and the guy has had a whopping 44 games batting lead off. I honestly don't care about how many total games he has played leading off. The only 2 questions are: does he have the tools of a leadoff hitter (check) and can he stay healthy? Just because a guy has hit in the 1 spot 44 games doesn't mean he can't spend the next 500 games in that spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I like Baldelli as much as you Balta, but from what I've seen, he would be much better suited as a #2 hitter. I also don't like the fact he's injury proned. Not only 05, but he missed time in 04 or 03 IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Brian Roberts and move him to LF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) I like Baldelli as much as you Balta, but from what I've seen, he would be much better suited as a #2 hitter. I also don't like the fact he's injury proned. Not only 05, but he missed time in 04 or 03 IIRC. I'm not convinced I like him yet. The injury part always worries me. But I don't have access to significant amounts of medical data on these guys...I'll leave that to KW to research if he thinks its worth it. I thought Jermaine Dye was a big risk when he was signed because of the injury history. If KW could be convinced that he could stay healthy...he could be an ideal buy because others would be scared off by the injury history and the D-Rays might not want to get caught holding him in a crowded outfield. But a lot depends on that injury history. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) Brian Roberts and move him to LF. Does his supplier come with the deal, or would that cost us Fields as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:15 PM) I'm not convinced I like him yet. The injury part always worries me. But I don't have access to significant amounts of medical data on these guys...I'll leave that to KW to research if he thinks its worth it. I thought Jermaine Dye was a big risk when he was signed because of the injury history. If KW could be convinced that he could stay healthy...he could be an ideal buy because others would be scared off by the injury history and the D-Rays might not want to get caught holding him in a crowded outfield. But a lot depends on that injury history. Does his supplier come with the deal, or would that cost us Fields as well? Alright I'll bite, did he get busted for Roids or something or is this just speculation based on the power he had a year ago. Remember, until now I've been away from almost all sports news for about 2 weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 05:40 PM) Alright I'll bite, did he get busted for Roids or something or is this just speculation based on the power he had a year ago. Remember, until now I've been away from almost all sports news for about 2 weeks. Roberts was supposedly named in the Grimsley affidavit as "having used anabolic steroids" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Roberts was supposedly named in the Grimsley affidavit as "having used anabolic steroids" Here's the LAT Link where they discuss the original document that they somehow got their hands on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 06:23 PM) Chone Figgins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) word. why get someone like Figgins or Pierre to lead off when we already have Pods? give him a few months to rest, I bet he comes back strong in 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 QUOTE(AirScott @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 06:24 PM) word. why get someone like Figgins or Pierre to lead off when we already have Pods? give him a few months to rest, I bet he comes back strong in 2007. Thing is we did, last year. He hasn't been the same since his groin injury last year prior to the ASG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Everyone please note: In 2006, Chone Figgins was basically Scott Podsednik with a couple more home runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That funky motion Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Did'nt Pods have some kind of surgery last year in the off season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(That funky motion @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 07:55 PM) Did'nt Pods have some kind of surgery last year in the off season? Yes, he had his testicles removed (marriage) Edited October 3, 2006 by ptatc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Here's the thing that I think people on here fail to realize: as much as guys like Pierre and Figgins suck, they play the game the way Ozzie wants players to. Both of them can steal, bunt, etc. The sad thing is that I've almost convinced myself that Pierre would be a good addition to this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 07:11 PM) Here's the thing that I think people on here fail to realize: as much as guys like Pierre and Figgins suck, they play the game the way Ozzie wants players to. Both of them can steal, bunt, etc. The sad thing is that I've almost convinced myself that Pierre would be a good addition to this team. I would have absolutely no problem with Pierre or Figgins because both do the little things Ozzie wants. I realize they don't have that sexy OBP but they will put pressure on the team and do the things our manager wants. Bottom line is we have Ozzie so we have to give him parts he wants and well quite frankly not having a running version of Pods at the top of the order this year really hurt this team (maybe not a ton statistically, although Pods obviously sucked every which way) but I think it more so hurt the entire team in a sense by not having that spark plug at the top that could get himself into scoring position or just get on with a bunt when a pitcher is dominating (steal 2nd) and come in on a single or something. We'll see a new leadoff hitter next year, one with tons of speed and the ability to steal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 If it's Pierre or Figgins, Ozzie wins, and our offense, the team, and thus the fanbase all lose. I don't give a damn how fast these guys are or if they can bunt, neither of them can produce runs, neither can throw, and neither can get on base. That is BAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.