Second Season :: Round 1 :: Day 5 -- Chris Young edition

by The Wizard on Oct 7, 2007 1:22 PM CDT in Game Threads Comment 103 comments

From Phil Rogers Chris Young article:

[Brian] Anderson, then coming off a strong season in Triple A, was whom the Diamondbacks initially wanted when the Sox general manager called to talk about pitcher Javier Vazquez, who had asked for a trade. Williams, told Arizona he was keeping Anderson, a first-round draft pick, and that led the parties to discuss Young, a 16th-round pick in Double A.

Williams knew Young's combination of speed and power made him a diamond in the rough. He didn't expect that he would be an emerging star at age 24.

Lilly didn't think Young could catch up to a high fastball, either. He was wrong, just as Williams was to trade Young.

His minor-league manager, Razor Shines, now the White Sox's third base coach, had said earlier in 2005 that he liked "everything about" Young. But Williams liked him less than he did Anderson, whom he had helped scout personally while he was at the University of Arizona, and he had admired Vazquez for years.

Thanks to Jim's Chris Young post for the pointer. Check out Jim's piece. *****

And something I missed. From Scot Gregor's Sept. 13 article:

The Sox are going to need a new shortstop, and 31-year-old Tomohiro Nioka (Yomiuri Giants) is going to be on the market, as is 32-year-old Hitoki Iwase, a standout relief pitcher.

Thanks to mlbtraderumors.com for the pointer. Both guys will be free-agents (no posting fee). Nioka's K/BB ratio seems similar to that of Juan Uribe. He has a higher OBP, but defensively he's described as "a poor man's Akinori Iwamura." Will he be an improvement over the Torpedo Boat, given the money he will want?. OTOH, Iwase's number look very nice. But if he wants to close (he has 43 saves this year?) things take a different twist. MLBTR also mentions RHP Koji Uehara. Starting pitching doesn't seem a priority [this winter].

0 recs | Comment 103 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

so

did winningugly manage to finish the marathon? or is he lying dead on the corner of 35th and shields?

by larry on Oct 7, 2007 3:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No I think only one person died

and it wasnt him. Though he is likely in the hospital.

Theres alway 2010.

by omnipotent grab on Oct 7, 2007 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

the guy who died was a cop, husband, and a father of three (circa 2003, from a google search).

by larry on Oct 7, 2007 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the good thing is

at his age, he doesn't know if he's in the hospital or dead.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Oct 7, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Funny man!

He lives without a medical tent. Barely. See your diary.

PS We never got to 35th - they cut it 31st or 33rd (I forget) and sent us east. Damn. We actually were probably closer to Wrigley at one point. Blech.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 8, 2007 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

btw, 1st time all year

Pahpi and Manny have gone back to back.

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Oct 7, 2007 4:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Video on Uehara

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zuqAVK0puYA&mode=related&search=

Pretty good fastball -- I'd guesstimate in the low-to-mid-90s. A decent two-seamer with okay movement. Very good splitter/forkball. Average-to-below-average slider.

------------------

I hate to bitch about my fantasy football team, but I have to. The three of them are going to cost me a win this week, as they've managed to accumulate a total of two (!) points between the three of them. Thanks Calvin Johnson, Michael Jenkins and Deion Branch.

-------------------

Hop on the Blackhawk bandwagon while there's still room. My Patrick Kane mancrush makes the Joe Crede mancrushes around here look like nothin'!

by CWSKeith on Oct 7, 2007 4:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Let me just be the latest to call bullshit

on the first [quoted] paragraph of Rogers here.

You all ranked him as the Sox best prospect a month before the trade. I ranked him behind Anderson based on experience, but noted his much higher ceiling. I also wrote thinks like "Don't trade Chris Young" and "He is the one prospect I would be most upset trading." You can find multiple times in the archive when Keith called Young "untouchable."

Everyone knew that Young was the better prospect, and would probably turn into the better player. It was only his high K-rate, which he improved substantially in his first season with Arizona, that was holding him back. Though, you could argue that he wouldn't have made those strides in the Sox organization, given their lack of ability to develop a player with a major league swing.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that Arizona coveted Anderson over Young. They may have asked for Anderson first, but you always open by asking for the moon because it's the stars you really want. Anderson really was untouchable at the time of the trade thanks to Rowand's departure. The Sox needed a CFer, and Anderson inheritted that job when they traded Rowand. By asking for Anderson first, they opened the door for Kenny to [stupidly] offer Young. "Hey, we've got another CFer, who's another year away. Would you like him?"

I never really hammered the Young-for-Vazquez trade because I expected a player of Young's caliber to be coming in return for when the Sox unloaded their "excess" pitching. I expected the Sox got Billingsley and Broxton from the Dodgers or something comparable in return for their non-trade-demanding starter. McCarthy and Garcia are gone, with Contreras and/or Garland soon to follow, and we haven't recouped the level of prospect talent. Sure we've got Gio back, but his ceiling was less than that of Young's back then, and after repeating AA, it remains lower than Young, even if Gio ranks as the org's top prospect.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 7, 2007 4:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Still in progress

If we get Matt Kemp or Lastings Milledge for Garland then we're OK. By the way, it appears that just like Kemp, Milledge is being scapegoated for his team's collaspe. With the FA pitching market very thin (Carlos Silva anyone?!), Glavine declining his option, Pelfrey and Humber not appearing ready and Pedro and El Duque questionable the Mets should be relatively desparate. Plus they have an excess of OF talent.

Do you guys like Kemp or Milledge better? I actually lean towards Milledge. He's younger and he's supposedly a true CF. The caveat is that I've never seen either play CF of course, but based on internet chatter I surmise Milledge is better. After checking and realizing Milledge is only 7 months younger than Kemp and Kemp has an OPS 100 points higher Kemp probably has the edge. At 6-2 230 though you figure Kemp can't stay in CF for long even if he starts there.

by bhoov on Oct 7, 2007 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The trade is a loss...

The Sox would have been stronger in 2006 without Vazquez but with Vizcaino, El Duque, and Young. And now, given the Sox current condition of needing to rebuild Young would be incomparably more valuable.

I like Vazquez -- he actually Ks people, and he's pitched very, very well for a season and 2 months. Plus, everyone labeling Vazquez a choke-artist (including possibly me at one point) makes him easy to root for in my mind.

Anyway, this isn't a debacle anywhere close to releasing David Ortiz or trading the SF/MINN AJP trade. But if KW could have unloaded Anderson instead, it's certainly one more reason for ne to think the Sox need a new GM.

I think the Sox do have a shot a Milledge. And I'm certain the only pitcher they can trade to get that done is Vazquez. As much as I like JV, they need to make that trade if they can.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 7, 2007 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

videos of hitoki iwasa (no. 13) from 2006

I think the date format is year/month/day

more youtube videos (earlier):
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Hitoki+Iwase

by The Wizard on Oct 7, 2007 5:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thoughts on Iwasa

I can't say I'm very impressed. I'll say that I only watched three of the videos (the top two as well as a random one that was on YouTube).

First the positives:

He hits his spots. Very good command and control.
His fastball has some natural Mark Buehrle-like sink to it. I'm not talking Fausto Carmona type sink but the sink that looks like the ball has an arch to it.

Here's what I don't like:

In the three videos I'd guess that I saw anywhere from 15-30 pitches, yet I only saw him throw two pitches -- his fastball and a slider/slurve. He doesn't appear to have that splitter/changeup that many of the Japanese guys tend to have (Saito, Shingo, Okajima, Otsuka).
His fastball topped out at about 144 kilometers which, according to this conversion site, is about 89 MPH. That matches with what my internal radar gun tells me he's throwing.
Neither pitches are really that outstanding. The breaking ball he throws is average, maybe slightly above (only because it looks like he can spot it pretty well, not because of the pitch itself).

Based only on those couple of videos -- which, I'll admit, isn't exactly fair to Iwasa but it's all I have at my disposal -- I wouldn't want him. I don't think he could do anything more than Boone Logan or Matt Thorton. And if we want a lefty reliever with mediocre stuff, I'd rather give Carlos Vasquez or Heath Phillips a shot than give Iwasa $2 million (which I'd say is a fair estimate).

by CWSKeith on Oct 7, 2007 6:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Relievers

Honestly, the Sox have enough in-house options that I consider signing a FA reliever a waste(at least if its more than 2 years at $2M or $3M per). Trading for relievers would even be worse.

In addition to the Sisco/Masset/Aardsma triumvirate of badness, there's Broadway, Egbert, Gio, Haeger, and Phillips assuming Floyd is in the rotation. Assuming that Jenks, Wassermann, and Myers (!?) are locks and that at least one of Logan & Thornton makes it there are only 2 spots left. I'm ignoring Mac and Bukvich because I just don't want to think about them.

Anyway, the pen almost certain to improve next season without outside talent. The Sox just need to to make the right in-house choice. And if Garland or Vazquez is traded for relievers Williams needs to be fired.

by hitlesswonder on Oct 7, 2007 9:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks keith

if you type "144 km in mi" in google you get
144 kilometers = 89.4774517 mi
that's what I do for conversions!

I found another youtube video of uehara from the 2007 japan all star game: 9:10

the gun there keeps showing 113 kmh all inning long, must be broken

I also found a video of iwase from 2005: 2:29

by The Wizard on Oct 8, 2007 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

stroke of genius

to go with clemens over hughes.

by larry on Oct 7, 2007 8:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The TBS crew and in-studio folks

all kick Fox's ass.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 7, 2007 10:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, except for...

Chip Carey. That guy sucks and would fit in perfectly as a Fox announcer.

Other than that, I'd have to say the presentation has been great. They don't show fifteen replays from every possible angle after every pitch, they don't miss pitches, they don't have any stupid ass graphics (I'm looking at you, Scooter) and they generally haven't put up meaningless statistical graphics. I was even impressed that they put up a runs scored/runs allowed (for the season) graphic during the Cubs/D'Backs series.

by CWSKeith on Oct 7, 2007 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The simulcast on CNN in spanish

was still better than FOX's usual broadcasts.

Theres alway 2010.

by omnipotent grab on Oct 8, 2007 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and theres no Joe Buck

Bring Back BA

by marco054 on Oct 8, 2007 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im curious about Youngs potential when hes in

Ozzies doghouse. He doesnt look like a grinder so even with Chris playing for the Sox they might have gone for Erstad after all. Just a thought.

Also, does anyone know if WU is dead?

Theres alway 2010.

by omnipotent grab on Oct 8, 2007 12:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If the situation was...

like '06 - I believe Young would have gotten the same treatment as Anderson. I really don't think Ozzie likes rookies. For 2 years we've heard about players being accountable - yet the only ones that are, are the young players. I guess that's in part because there is no one to put in the vets place since the place is void of talent. Unfortunately for Anderson he injured his wrist at what could have been his greatest opportunity to show if he could play or not. I doubt we'll ever hear of him again on this team. He'll join the ranks of the Sean Tracys.

Also - are the Sox starting to remind anyone else of the Bulls/Krause post Jordon era. Basically were Krause just lost direction with the team so badly it took Paxson 3 years to get back on track. (And he's lucky, he doesn't have to rely on a farm system to get players)

Hmm KW's eventual retirement announcement:

"I take great pride in what we've accomplished here. The staff, players and coaches will always be a bright spot in my heart," (Insert name here) said.

"I'm very confident that we have assembled the key pieces so that the franchise can return to the (insert MLB) elite teams in the very near future."

(Insert name here) said he is not retiring.

"I'm going to take some time off and spend it with my family before making any decision on my future. I will leave my options open."

Reinsdorf said he hoped to have a successor in place within the next month. He praised (Insert name here) for surrounding (Insert manager name here) with talented teammates.

"He brought with him a vision of how to build a champion and he proceeded to create one of the most dominant champions of all time," Reinsdorf said.

Actual Bulls Link

Or perhaps its just me not being able to see or understand KW's plan for the future of this team.

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

KW - crisis of confidence?

Remember the opening ten minutes of Mad Max, where Max plays chicken with the Night Rider? Kenny's got to be shaken up by everything that's happened to this team, his best laid plans have blown up in his face. Young turning into a star on national TV while BA rots can't help matters.

Once Krause lost his confidence he made one bad move after another, we'll see what KW does this winter. This is really a make or break offseason for this franchise. Slicing the Razor's throat isn't a very good start IMO.

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Oct 8, 2007 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't think were there yet

Goose just radioed he's out of the game - the Interceptor is revving its engine

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Toecutter, he knows!

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Oct 8, 2007 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kenny the Boy

..."The chain in those handcuffs is high-tensile steel. It'll take you ten minutes to hack through it with this. Now if you're lucky, you can hack through your ankle in five minutes. Go."...

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

rumors have it

that he was piloting this

show yourself WU!

by The Wizard on Oct 8, 2007 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, wiz, you continue to amaze

Great video. Who were the diots clapping as it went down in flames? That's some serious schadenfreude.

2010 - the waiting is the hardest part.

by winningugly on Oct 9, 2007 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sox targeting Bill Hall?

BP's John Perrotto reports the Sox may try to get Bill Hall and switch him back to SS if they decline the option on Jose Uribe.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6802

by asinwreck on Oct 8, 2007 8:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why -

Doesn't appear to be an upgrade of the position - or am I missing something besides getting rid of the salary

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could be offensive upgrade at a discount

Hall got in Ned Yost's doghouse this year for some reason (after a position switch from SS to OF) but in the two years before that had a decent OBP and good power. He hit 35 HR in 2006 and his bat would play in the cell as he enters his age 28 season. Should the Sox want to go with someone else at SS, he could play outfield.

Since Yost doesn't like him, maybe the Brewers would give him away. He's an option worth exploring.

by asinwreck on Oct 8, 2007 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm gonna go with

ned yost is an idiot for the reason that bill hall was in the doghouse.

HBT had an interesting and quite in-depth (not to mention cleverly titled) piece about how ned yost is an idiot and also a discussion of the bill hall situation. i don't follow the brewers as closely as the guy who wrote the piece does but it certainly coincides with what i think about hall and how this season is an aberration for him. looks like a change of scenery guy to me - and he's got a cheap contract for a SS if he even returns to league average offense.

this obviously wouldn't be the blockbuster deal that many fans are probably looking for but seems like a clear upgrade from uribe and takes care of a need position going forward. and there's an obvious match with the brewers who need starting pitching badly. garland and a C level prospect could well be enough to get it done (assuming another SS needy team like the tigers don't offer up some of their surplus riches for him).

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/yost-infection/

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who is a C prospect that we have?

and where can I see grades on prospects?

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Oct 8, 2007 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

john sickels grades prospects this way

i'm using the term more generically than that, though. i'd call someone like adam russell a C prospect right now.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

here's last year's list from sickels

obviously dated but gives you an idea. egbert, for example, is not a C prospect anymore.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/12/23/061/36883

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd

tend to agree. I'm OK with that deal....very realistic from both ends. I've been harping on getting Lillibridge for Garland, but with the Zeitgeist as it is-----which is now an overreaction in my estimation--- that is, the overvaluation of prospects-- this is likely more what might happen, and, I think, just as well for our Sox.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think you're right

about how the pendulum has now swung towards overvaluing prospects - seems like it takes a king's ransom to get anyone worthwhile. obviously the garland for kemp et al trades would be preferable. obviously get a good prospect if you can. i just don't see it happening.

the sox have money to spend. not ridiculous, take on whatever contract money but money enough that they can take on a bit of a risk. and hall's contract is eminently reasonable - especially when you consider that david eckstein will probably cost more money over the same years. i think he's much better than eckstein (and a much better bet to be productive) so i'd be more than happy to give up one year of garland and a minor piece to prise hall for several years. further, that contract is so reasonable that, assuming he doesn't fall off a cliff (jerry's ominous junior spivey scenario) you can easily deal him later if you don't like his performance or whatever.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't read this article

you posted here, Larry, but I already thought as much about Yost (I think the GM is also a bit dim for his failure to get am arm before the deadline; I'm fairly confident a reliable, veteran starter would've made up that two game defecit between the Brewers and the Cubs. But that's neither here not there...).

I try not to specualte on trades all that much, but a Hall - Garland deal would be great, in my opinion, for the Sox (and the Brewers). It gives the Sox, as you say, clear upgrade at SS, a reliable glove, and a guy you can probably retain with a relatively modest contract. Hall may not have a huge breakout year, may not belt 35 hrs again. But he also won't bat .220 for 9/10 of the season, and won't be such a question mark, mentally and physically.

Plus, Hall's only 28 and hasn't been involved in any bizarre murder cases in the Domican, and that's always a plus.

by HulkSmash on Oct 8, 2007 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hall is already under contract...

through 2010.

2008 - $4.8 Million
2009 - $6.8 Million
2010 - $8.4 Million

Larry and I discussed Hall before. If he bounces back to his 2005-06 levels, that would be great, but I'm worried that he's the next Junior Spivey or Marcus Giles, and if he doesn't bounce back, he's not a very good player.

That said, I had similar concerns last year about Chone Figgins, and he turned out great. If the Sox could get him for Garland (or Garland + an unimportant spare part), I'd be okay with that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can get more for Garland

Hall is the kind of guy we might be able to trade Contrereas for - someone in the doghouse with a sizable contract.

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Oct 8, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah right

no way in hell that deal gets done. their GM is stupid and may want to unload hall. but he ain't that stupid.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take that chance

Look at it this way: the Sox seem to have 3 immediate options: Uribe, Hall, Eckstein. You're right, Jerry, it would be great for Hall to bounce back for the Sox. For me, the exicting thing about him is that he actually has something to bounce back to. KW and Ozzie keep shoving the 'potential' rhetoric regarding Uribe down everyone's throats in spite of his inability to put together a complete, stable season. And Eckstein, Eck's just old, injured and not very good.

I liked what Larry said about Hall in regards of 'going forward.' With the options that are out there, it seems that Hall gives the Sox the best chance to do just that.

by HulkSmash on Oct 8, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally...

I'd give Uribe one more season to try and prove something. It's not like the Sox have anything to lose there. That's the nice thing about being a bad team - you can afford to gamble on guys like Uribe.

They can still bring in Hall, though - he'd be a massive upgrade on Alex Cintron/Andy Gonzalez, and if Uribe is just unbearable, Crede gets hurt again or Richar struggles, he'd be right there to step in.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what's he gonna prove?

seriously, i'm wondering. and even if he does magically become a ballplayer like he did for a half season in 2004 what are we going to do then? sign him to an inflated contract? all we're doing is delaying. what the sox have to lose is opportunity. if the sox have the opportunity to get a player who will be on the next competitive sox team (and hall is signed to a deal that would keep him under control in 2011, so hopefully that would come to fruition) you do it.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I'm not ready...

to give up on Uribe completely.

Nor am I convinced that Hall is necessarily a huge upgrade.

But like I said, if the Brewers are willing to give up Hall for Garland, the Sox can still do it. The bench is terrible, and I'm sure there will be plenty of AB opportunities for Hall.

Heck, if Uribe and Hall both do well enough next year, Hall can take over at third in 2009.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I tend to agree on not a huge upgrade

His age is a positive - but his numbers are NL based + in a very weak division were most of the games are played. OBP is better - but not outstanding, fielding % is less, just looking at the SS percent. This is not a guy I'd give up a 3rd starting pitcher for - unless there is an minor leaguer with some good upside coming along in the deal.

Plus - you stuck with
2008 - $4.8 Million
2009 - $6.8 Million
2010 - $8.4 Million

if he doesn't pan out

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

according to BP, it isn't hitter's numbers

that are inflated/deflated by the league switch, it's the pitchers. not sure how that works exactly, but then again i can't remember exactly where i read it.

clay davenport's chat maybe.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 8, 2007 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

obviously

NL pitchers don't face a DH.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duh - that makes sense

Thanks

by Brush Back on Oct 8, 2007 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

on a related note

it was interesting to see the usually large gap between the NL and AL in terms of offense close quite a bit this year. OPS was .760 v. 756. usually the AL lead by .01 to .015.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

isn't that evidence in favor of

these pitchers are ungood?

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 9, 2007 5:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

which pitchers?

by larry on Oct 9, 2007 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

national league

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 9, 2007 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

why would that be evidence?

i'd say it's more likely evidence that either AL pitchers were better this year and/or AL hitters were worse

by larry on Oct 9, 2007 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i assumed that it was the result of

the NL hitters hitting more and the AL hitters staying the same. I really don't know what the comparative hitting environments have been like the last few years and was sort of just going on the tone in your post.

Peperony and chease

by colintj on Oct 9, 2007 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow.

i need to think more.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 9, 2007 5:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they really wanted to

they could also keep Hall in CF. Anybody know how he played defensively in center? If not, I'll have to send HarveysW an email.

I just want the playoffs to finish so we can get along with 2008. Again, there's so many directions the Sox can go. More than anything I just want to see the ballsy Kenny Williams again. Not ballsy as in trading DLS for Tejada, but ballsy as in trading someone off the major league roster who nobody could've guessed would have been dealt -- I'm looking at you, Konerko. Besides that, it's absolutely necessary to deal one of the starters for a good package -- Garland -- and if you can get someone to take a chance on Contreras, that probably be the best deal Kenny could make over winter.

by CWSKeith on Oct 8, 2007 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be all for...

the Sox dealing Konerko, and Contreras, and Garland, and Vazquez for as much young talent as they can get their hands on. Heck, if they can convince Thome to waive his no-trade, I bet they could get something useful for him.

But the Pierzynski/Dye signings make me think that he'll go the other way.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the thing

I think Kenny could get away with dealing Konerko, Contreras and Garland and still put up a reasonable "we're not rebuilding!" front.

For example, if you traded Konerko, you could go after Adam Dunn and stick him at first. The only problem with Dunn is you'd have two guys in Dunn and Thome who are very similar hitters (or have very similar production), so you'd need a lefty masher off the bench. In trading Garland and Contreras you'd have to find your SS or CFer for 2008 (and perhaps beyond). I'm still holding out hope for a Contreras for Furcal deal, as Furcal is set to make more in 2008 than Contreras, is coming off a mediocre year in his own right and is (more or less) useless to the Dodgers at this point, with Hu knocking on the door.

A Konerko trade intrigues me the most, though. I doubt his value is going to be any higher than it is right now (to be fair, he was probably held more value each of the past two winters). I'm not advising the Sox to dump him for a bag of beans and a broken bat. But if there's a team out there that is willing to give up a/some useful player(s) and is willing to eat most of the salary, why not? Kenny had no qualms in dealing Rowand, he should have the same attitude towards Konerko.

by CWSKeith on Oct 8, 2007 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I

say we have BOTH hALL AND uRIBE FOR INSURANCE----however....we take Uribe back only after declining the option and bringinh him back for less money. We then have more flexibility both in the infield and outfield.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hall's not exciting

but he's an upgrade in a very 2005 way. Uribe is just a huge sinkhole offensively.

CHOO!! CHOO!!

by colintj on Oct 8, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I heard some sports radio chatter

over the last week or so regarding the Sox going after the Cubs' Ronny Cedeno.

The Scrubs kind of messed with his head which I think may have stunted his progress.

Does this guy (still) have potential?

"I give Ozzie an 'A'... This team has never packed it in and I give Ozzie the credit." - Jerry Reinsdorf

by tailgater on Oct 8, 2007 9:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Just a thought...

but does anyone else remember a few years back when Boston and the Yankee$ had empty farm systems?

Does anyone think there's a shot that within 3 years the Sox can stock their system back to a respectable level as Boston and NY have done?

I understand that this takes good planning and sticking with a draft / trade plan, but it has been done in the past. Here's hoping that the Sox front office was paying attention.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Oct 8, 2007 11:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Big difference

Those teams are willing to go well over slot to grab a player who falls due to signability issues.
Those teams are -- or seem -- much more active in the Latin America market.
And you can't leave out the fact that the Yankees payroll doubles ours and the Red Sox are also significantly higher than ours.

by CWSKeith on Oct 8, 2007 12:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course

keith's points regarding money is well taken but i don't think it's essential. here's a link (just the first one to pop up) showing the fluctuation in rankings of farm systems. obviously money and high draft picks help, but neither ensure anything. teams that haven't had either have improved their systems significantly and vice versa.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/26854.html

it starts now. if they make the right moves - even without flashing the cash - they can do it.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure.

they need to invest more in scouting and try to find more overlooked talent in the later rounds.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't CB Young a 16th round pick?

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Oct 8, 2007 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

Boston has had a total 14 picks in the top 100 since the 2005 draft.

The White Sox have had 6. They also figure to have just 2 of the top 100 next year for the 4th straight season thanks to losing their 2nd rounder to the free agent signing of Rowand/Hunter.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Oct 8, 2007 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh.

If the Sox bring in Rowand or Hunter, I'll be pretty pissed. The Sox shouldn't be signing anyone over 30 to longer than a 3-year deal, and both of them will command at least five years.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think

you could get rowand for 3 with an option - he might think he has another payday in the future. but the picks are another very good reason to say forget it to any free agent outfielder who isn't japanese or cuban.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The one big plus for CWS this offseason

The weakest part of this offseason's FA crop is starting pitching, which happens to overlap very nicely with our only organizational strength. KW should be in position to sort through multiple strong offers for Garland to maximize our return. Based on the FA's available, even Contreras looks good to someone who needs a warm body to eat innings.

Bill Hall for Garland is crazy, we can get a lot more than that. He's a sizable salary sitting in the doghouse, you'd be doing MILW a favor by taking him off of their hands. They probably think they're a halfway decent starter away from the division anyway, I'd dump Contreras on them.

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Oct 8, 2007 1:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and someone would be doing us a favor

picking up a one year rental. neither side is in a real great position.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look what MILW gave up for Linebrink

That division is there for the taking, and they know it.

"We've missed a little bit of that grind and edge and we've got to get that back." - Kenny Williams

by ChicagoPete on Oct 8, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, a B prospect

i put hall for 4 years on the same level as that. you may like prospects better. i wouldn't call that "more" however; just different.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

keep in mind

linebrink is a type A; garland, unless he has a spectacular year, will not be. not a good trade for the brewers but they'll be able to replenish some with those picks.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

mlb revenues

from Phil Rogers column:

Executives with Major League Baseball are riding high after arguably the most compelling September in history. How high?

How about take-on-the-NFL high?

"I probably shouldn't say this," one highly placed MLB executive said last week. "There was a time when I wouldn't even think it. But I think we're going to see a time in the future, the near future, when we are going to pass the NFL in producing revenue."

That thought would have seemed preposterous a decade ago. But Commissioner Bud Selig didn't laugh when the possibility was presented during a discussion.

"By any measure you want to look at, our sport is more popular now than it has ever been," Selig said. "The country really is baseball-crazy today, no question."

is bud anywhere close to the truth?
I find that hard to believe...

by The Wizard on Oct 8, 2007 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It wasn't...

that great a September.

It was exciting for fans of a few NL teams, but I don't find the story of "which mediocre NL teams won't make the playoffs?" to be all that compelling.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the numbers show

that it was. you're too refined, jerry. thankfully for bud, the rest of america isn't too good for NL baseball.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't surprise me.

There are a lot of Mets fans out there.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rockies/D-Backs

promsises to be a ratings bonanza.

by HulkSmash on Oct 8, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

*promises

by HulkSmash on Oct 8, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way,

although it was too bad it was the Red Sox who did it, the Angels quick out was exactly what we needed to get the Angels thinking about dealing for Konerko...and in precisely the right fashion....no offense. Yep, here I go again...bring on Kotchman, Aybar and a bullpen arm for Paulie and a good prospect.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 2:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm still confused

about why anyone thinks the angels would do this. paulie may provide slightly more offense but they'd be trading away one of their only left-handed bats and perhaps the best defensive 1B in the league (as an aside, i think the angels may have also seen how important kotchman is on that throw to home by morales yesterday).

keep the players and spend the money on bonds or something.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because

Konerko demands more respect and has demonstrated the ability to hit for power. You could argue that it may be somewhat cosmetic on the Angels part....but sometimes that is what is needed, and, in this case, I think what the Angels need...I believe some kind of gesture like this is imperative for the Angels now....and Kenny needs to seize the moment.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

gestures, eh

that's what we're hoping for here. what you're also hoping for is that stoneman is a dope.

the gesture the angels will make is arte moreno reaching for his wallet and waving a wad of cash at free agents.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stoneman may retire

...and become a consultant to Moreno. So there's a chance the Angels GM might be willing to gamble.

I wish Bill Bavasi was still there. We could trade him Konerko and Crede for the team's five best young players...

by asinwreck on Oct 8, 2007 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's indicated

that he's coming back. i think he would have left after this year only if they won it all again.

stoneman might be willing to be more aggressive if he is just re-upping for one more year - i'm counting on it, actually. but they've got colon's $14MM coming off the books and arte has other cash to burn. i think the aggression will be directed towards free agents (and a rental like, say, a barry bonds) rather than mortgaging the club's future by dumping young players.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it either.

Kotchman is probably as good as Konerko right now, and will only get better, while Konerko's entering the decline phase of his career.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I

disagree with everyone thinking Konerko is in a decline phase. Bullshit. I think there is just as good a chance he'll average what he has averaged over the last four years for the next four as not. My proposal is nowhere near as silly as you suggest.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

based upon what?

i'm not foreclosing the possibility but it's the rare power hitter indeed who is hitting as well at 35 as he did at 29, let alone beats his averages of a four year period during a ballplayer's usual peak. that list of exceptions may well be populated by barry bonds and rafael palmeiro.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You honestly think...

Konerko will be as good over his age-32 through age-35 seasons as he was from his age-28 through age-31 seasons?

I don't think Konerko will fall off the table, but very very few hitters don't have falloffs in offensive production as they get into their mid-30s.

Looking at hitters with similar numbers as Konerko (guys like Kent Hrbek, Ted Kluszewski, Fred McGriff, Moose Skowron), almost all of them had their best years in their late-20s, and then tapered off to merely decent once they got past 30-31 or so.

Weirder things have happened, but I think it's very likely that Konerko's best years are behind him.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's 30, right?

Through age 34, his next four seasons, if healthy, I say he will match or be within statistical significance of his numbers over the last four years. How certain are you that Kotchman will match those numbers over the same time period?

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He'll be 32...

in March.

What makes you think that he'll match those numbers over the next four years? Like I said, almost all players have their best seasons from 27-30. It's very rare that a player doesn't start to decline after that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

take that bet in a second

and he's 32 opening day.

cute caveat with the "if healthy," by the way. that's certainly the rub with older power hitters, isn't it?

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look,

there's risk involved for the Angels, no doubt. But there sure as hell is for the Sox, too. Kotchman is no sure thing. All I'm saying is is BOTH teams ate taking a calculated risk, but I think risk that makes sense based on the relative conditions of both franchises.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Angels...

are taking on more risk, though, because if Konerko sucks, they still have to pay him a ton of money, whereas if Kotchman sucks, the Sox can let him go really easily. He's not even arb-eligible until 2009, I don't think.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

so why not just spend

the same amount of money on a FA and not give up the players? they're diminishing a huge portion of the risk right there. the deal makes little sense unless the angels can't procure some FA offense. there's no indication they can't do that.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The

available free agents aren't people they want. I base that on their previous behavior. I don't think they want to deal with Bonds, for instance. I'm not saying I might not do what you suggest, but I don't think they will.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if the angels weren't working

with basically an unlimited budget, i could see a deal being worked out (maybe not with kotchman but some of their other pieces). but they can win the fight for any free agent they want. if a-rod opts out (probably a 50-50 scenario right now), they'll be the ones who will likely come out the winners. i wouldn't be surprised if hunter or jones ended up there. and bonds is certainly a possibility, as well.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

they operate like they don't have unlimited funds, even though everybody says they do. Don't ask me why that is....but it sure looks that way. If A-rod isn't available, I do believe Konerko will be attractive to them....they have this thing about giving Vlad respect and not just giving a Bonds a contract that is greater than Vlad's....Konerko is what they are looking for.

by dantesox on Oct 8, 2007 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guerrero's making...

$14.5 Million next year. I doubt that Bonds will get that much for a one-year contract.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Oct 8, 2007 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he won't

and i think vlad might like the respect he gets with barry bonds in the lineup.

by larry on Oct 8, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the trade route would be nice but they can buy

Bill Plaschke:

But now Moreno needs to bring in a hired bat to swat them over these first hurdles, and if it can't be purchased, it must be pried loose in a trade.

If he can buy Alex Rodriguez, he needs to buy him. If he can buy Torii Hunter instead, do it.

If he can't buy the thunder, then he needs to order Stoneman to find it elsewhere, even if it means trading some of the club's youngsters, both from the bullpen and the lineup.

by The Wizard on Oct 8, 2007 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hall for Garland

Count me in. Even in his off year Hall posted an OPS 62 points higher than Juan in an off year. Looking at career numbers Hall has a .787 career OPS vs. .722 for Juan. 65 points of OPS is a HUGE upgrade. Also, he fits very well here. He can play the two positions where we have the most need (CF and SS). If we want to give our internal CF options more time to develop (Sweeney, Anderson, Shelby in 2 years) we could play him in CF and keep Juan for a year. Any league differences would be offset by going from a neutral park to a hitter's park. He's locked up for his age 28,29,30 seasons. What's not to like?

Although given his poor year and doghouse status we should be able to get them to throw in a C prospect instead of us. By the way anybody who thinks the Brewers are giving up Hall for Contreras is on crack. I'd still rather have Kemp or Milledge for cost reasons though.

by bhoov on Oct 8, 2007 5:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs