Would Kenny do it?
A good game to play as we play out the string is speculating about what Kenny Williams will attempt in making the 2008 roster. One tendency we have remarked on before is his ability to pick up players at the low point of their value, as he did with Contreras, Dye, and Thornton. The rumored waiver claim for Tejada would fit that pattern, giving the Sox a marked upgrade at shortstop that would have been unlikely a year ago.

Shortstop is not the only position that needs an upgrade for next season. Even if Dye resigns and Owens manages to earn a starting spot, at least one more outfielder who can actually do something other than make outs will be required to turn the offense around. Erstad is not that man, but a former teammate of his might be. In recent weeks, Tony LaRussa's comments indicate that he has lost patience with Jim Edmonds, and today the Post-Dispatch reports that Edmonds would not veto a trade. Edmonds is increasingly fragile as he enters his late thirties and is in the middle of his worst season (83 OPS+ to date) since arriving in the majors. Yet he has been an above-average offensive contributor as recently as last season, and perhaps St. Louis's price for Edmonds might be a reasonable one for a deal. What the Cardinals might want is open to speculation, given that Walt Jocketty is rumored to be leaving at the end of the year. One of the pitchers might do it, or an outfielder like Brian Anderson...if the team wants salary relief.
Edmonds may not be the most desirable option for the White Sox, but picking him up would fit Williams's behavior, and at least he has shown the ability to hit in the past five years. Getting him would decrease the probability Erstad haunts our nightmares beyond this October, and that alone is reason enough to consider a trade.
SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.
0 recs |
63 comments
Comments
Ugh.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on
Aug 6, 2007 4:08 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Jim Edmonds equals Erstad 2
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 4:11 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
My guess is he wouldn't take much
I'd be shocked if Edmonds wasn't a massive improvement over Erstad. Even Edmonds's injury plagued season this year is better than all but three of Erstad's seasons since he went berserk in 2000 -- and those three top seasons are almost identical to Edmonds's 2007.
by asinwreck on
Aug 6, 2007 4:13 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
larussa/duncan
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 4:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't trade Contreras for Edmonds
- Edmond's is in worse shape. He has been going downhill rapidly for 3 years straight.
- Contract is up after 2008 (I am going to need another CF ='ing more headache.)
- He's a CF an not lead off hitter. Who would lead off?
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 4:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
let's see
- worse shape than contreras? i don't think so. doing a dirty comparison: jose: ERA+ of 69. edmonds: OPS+ 83. both suck. jose does more.
- his contract being up is a good thing. it means we wouldn't have to pay him until 2009 like we would contreras.
- my mom is available to leadoff. this fixation with leadoff hitters is silly. if we dump contreras' salary, we can sign some keed that is real fast to make you happy.
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 4:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agree with Larry
by jeeves on
Aug 6, 2007 5:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Phisically he's in worst shape
As for Contreras if he has any pride left he'll pitch like he has a pair. The last start he had
I saw a lot of movement on all his pitches expect the fastball witch was strait as an arrow. Yeah he's acting like a woman on her period right now but that doesn't mean he still can't pitch. Contrary to popular belief he was still hitting the low to mid nineties with his fastball. I don't know where the notion he lost allot of velocity off his fast ball came from. The problem with him is his head is somewhere else. The fans know it and most of all the hitters know it. He needs to get his head out of his ass.
This kind of shit happened in New York. His people in Cuba couldn't find a big enough inner tube for his family to swim over on and he started to sulk like a bitch. That's why NY shipped him to us. I'm I exaggerate a little? I don't know. Let's just hope he can rebound out of the bullpen and his personal life gets situated.
Trading him to St. Louis for Edmunds who would only play CF since Thome is our DH would not make business sense. If your purpose is to be cheap and save money that fine but you'll be running the organization into the ground at the same time. You'd better have someone ready to step in once Edmunds goes down and once he's ready to leave via FA. Plus keep in mind if that's all you're going to get for Jose then you have to trade Garland too. If both are gone then kiss 2008 goodbye.
Why not ship Jose somewhere for marginal prospects that can help you now or package him with someone else to get Tejada. A more sensible trade would be Contreras for Pat Burrell who the Phillies hate to have.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 6:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
people seem to have a very inflated view
and, yes, trading him makes business sense. i don't know where that comment comes from.
and, yes, sensible people have kissed 2008 goodbye.
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 7:36 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
2008 went out the window
by The Cheat on
Aug 6, 2007 7:40 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
do you think it was possible and that kenny
by colintj on
Aug 6, 2007 8:11 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Kenny failed (but he had help)
Contreras was another cog that should have been gone before everyone was able to realize that the emporer had no clothes. As early as mid-May, I was theorizing that the only way to save next season was to send dye and "another starter" packing with Buehrle being resigned in-season.
You could argue that there wasn't much of a market in May when these two should have been traded, and that it was smarter to hold on to them and get multiple bidders. But both went in the crapper for extended periods; JD looked like he would never be able to play the OF again, and Count has been the worst starter in baseball for about 2 months.
Contreras still wouldn't have brought much in return, but Dye was supposed to be the most coveted hitter on the market.
by The Cheat on
Aug 6, 2007 10:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't imagine, considering the perspective on
by colintj on
Aug 7, 2007 12:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Im having a hard time
by lew on
Aug 7, 2007 12:14 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's been so bad
And youneverknow. Ron Schueler did manage to deal Jamie Navarro and get something back for him. Hope springs eternal.
by asinwreck on
Aug 7, 2007 9:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it is true
It's ludicrous. The one thing the guy hitting first does is get more AB's, so it would stand to reason that you look for someone who can get on base.
The A's have always been willing to follow this logic. Hell they won 103 games in a season where Jeremy friggin Giambi "led off" 39 times. That idiot wouldn't even slide into home...
by spengler on
Aug 6, 2007 6:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ridiculous
I've seen managers flip that order around. Assuming if there is a ground ball a speedster in the #2 hole is more likely to beat out a double play leaving only 1 out. He could then be a menace on the base pad by stealing or throwing the pitcher off guard, which would be beneficial to the #3 hitter. If the #3 hitter unfortunately hits a grounder and the #2 speedster hasn't stolen second then it would again be difficult to double up since the runner would've been moving on contact. That would bring up the #4 hitter. I like the scenario but I don't know of any statistical evidence that states that it works better.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 7:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just because everyone else does it
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 7:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Remember
Or the Tampa bay experiment at the turn of the millenium? Taking Jose Conseco and a whole bunch of roided player thinking they could out-slug everyone.
How about the Baltimore Orioles spending a shit load of money on free agents few years ago?
How did those teams turn out?
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 7:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you like to create strawmen and red herrings
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 7:59 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ridiculous?
'06 A's went to the playoffs: Jason Kendall led off 90 times, OBP of .345, stole 8 bases.
'04 Yanks went to ALCS. Bernie Williams led off 47 times, stole one base, had an OBP of .360.
'03 Cubs won the central, Gruzielanek "led off" 69 times, OBP of .366, 6 SB.
'96 Yanks won the WS. Wade Boggs led off 79 times, OBP of .389. (Boggs never stole more than 3 bases in any of his 18 seasons, winding up with a career total of 24. Prototypical lead off guy.)
The point is that if you can't have Rickey Henderson or Tim Raines or Jose Reyes, then it's more likely to work having a high OBP guy at the top collecting tons of AB's than some low-OBP slap hitter who doesn't get on enough to "create havoc" to begin with.
by spengler on
Aug 6, 2007 7:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Spengler, this is excellent
by winningugly on
Aug 6, 2007 7:57 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why not give it a whirl
Just ask the D-Backs. (sorry, couldn't resist)
by spengler on
Aug 6, 2007 8:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
NO THIS IS THE SOUTHSIDESOXBLOG!
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 8:46 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
DANM I SCREWED UP THE JOKE
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 8:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thing is
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 8:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed but since the lead-off guy only leads off
It's probably unlikely, but you never know, you might find that the lead off guy ends up with more guys on base ahead of him than any other slot...wouldn'w know where to look for something like that.
by spengler on
Aug 6, 2007 8:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ask and ye shall receive
this is a pretty cool app
by colintj on
Aug 6, 2007 8:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah...
Also doesn't make sense to me why Lou keeps batting Soriano leadoff. I don't like it. Let Fontenot or Theriot lead off, and let Soriano hit in the middle.
Imagine a middle lineup of Lee, Ramirez, and Soriano. That's huge. Lou is a few screws loose.
by Shoeless In SC on
Aug 6, 2007 8:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why have Soriano homer with men aboard
/end sarcasm
by jeeves on
Aug 6, 2007 8:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
what was the total run difference when you
by colintj on
Aug 6, 2007 9:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
there have been plenty of analysis
you have to keep in mind that the leadoff man would be guaranteed at least one at bat every game without a man on. and, if you're doing things right and putting your "worst" players at the bottom of the order where they'll be getting the least plate appearances, your #1 guy shouldn't be up all that often with men on base.
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 8:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know, but the #9 hitter is just
Just a thought.
by winningugly on
Aug 7, 2007 11:10 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
one would hope
by larry on
Aug 7, 2007 11:14 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Our #1,2, and 9 are, unfornutately,
by winningugly on
Aug 7, 2007 11:22 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well
- Who batted first the majority of the time? A baseball season is 162 games.
- Who batted #2 when the players you listed lead off? I doubt it was the best slugger on the team.
I find it appalling that Oakland leadoff with Jeremy Giambi 39 times. The guy sucked, and this is after he was digging through trash bins to finish of his brothers syringes. Oakland also has some nerve leading off Jason Kendall. They wonder why his career is just about over. Sometimes teams do thinks and get result; it doesn't mean it's the correct approach. They had really good pitching that's why they won. Now they don't have the pitching and they stink.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 8:24 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah
tell me, do you enjoy making a fool of yourself by talking out of your ass?
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 8:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No I do not
- D. Haren
- J. Blanton
- C. Gaudin
- L. DiNardo
- D. Braden
I stand corrected.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 8:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
your main problem
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 8:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i don't think moneyball is an advisary
by colintj on
Aug 6, 2007 9:04 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 9:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jeromy Giambi?
You advocating batting our best power hitter and OBP hitter in Thome first. This would lead to a lot of intentional walks. Expect allot of double plays over a 162 game season because a pitcher who has a clue will go after the #2 hitter to induce double plays.
I never said OBP isn't important its just that he should have speed and if not speed then hits for a lot of extra base hits. Last I checked the best speedster who are lead-off hitter have high OBP's You can't put your best HR hitter who usually has allot of extra base hits and a high OBP in the lead off position and expect to win. You better have a very good contact hitter at #2 and enough power at the 3 and 4 spot. That's allot of millions people. Only Boston and New York can afford such a lineup. I would like to see team try it, but on paper it seem silly to me. I know Brady Anderson was a lead-off hitter when he hit 50 but he was juiced and Baltimore didn't will a extraordinary amount of games compared to everybody else.
Anaheim's 1-2 combo of
1.Figgins
2.Cabrera
is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You could flip flop them him you want a achieve the same havoc and less momentum killing double plays.
Who's Oakland batting lead-off now? Mark Kotsay? Seems like moneyball died after the juiced era.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 9:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
care to point out where i advocated
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 10:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I said
You are of the opinion that having a player with very high OPS is more important than speed. Well Thome has the best OBP on the team. That's the impression I got. Additionally I started arguing with another blogger about his 1-2 punch of Thome, Fields being a good idea. That's when you agreed with him the OPS more important than speed.
It's kind of hard to know what your thinking when I can't talk to you face to face.
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 10:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if it's hard
by larry on
Aug 7, 2007 9:26 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, my ridiculousness does not
Seems to me the reason it would be the sound of one hand clapping is because we have no one other than Thome who has an above-average (or close to league-leading) OBP. the rest of the kids/vets can be shuffled interchangably. Probably renders the whole "Who's #1?" discussion moot, since it doesn't matter right now.
Richar is the most likely #1, and as you point out in another post, he has only 25 PA's. Tough to get excited about that.
by winningugly on
Aug 7, 2007 11:17 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Funny...
I think what most people are saying is that the Sox shouldn't go out of there way to bring in the typical "leadoff man". Go out and bring in the best players possible who make sense logically and financially and go from there.
As for who I want leading off next season? I wouldn't mind Richar leading off with Andy Gonzalez also leading off (against tougher lefties). Richar seems to "handle the bat" well, but he's also got some pop in his bat. He also seems to have a good batting eye. And Gonzalez isn't afraid to draw a walk. Who hits second? If we got Tejada I'd stick him there. If not? Fields wouldn't be (and hasn't been, this season) a terrible option.
by CWSKeith on
Aug 6, 2007 10:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I've read moneyball
I see a lot of teams following the same old traditional way of thinking and still win as much games and win just as consistently from year to year. What Oakland is very good at is developing scouting and developing prospects. WOW! that's new. I thought teams already knew that one very important.
What Oakland has done over the past few years is very impressive but I'm just as impressed with impressed with the Twins, Marlins, Atlanta, Indians, and Detroit. Are they playing moneyball?
The most important think I got from Moneyball is desire and passion shown bye a prospect is more important than potential. That's why Brian Anderson and Joe Borchard can so easily be written off.
What did you take from the book?
by chisox on
Aug 6, 2007 9:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that OBP is important
by larry on
Aug 6, 2007 9:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
while obp certainly factored
I think the crux had more to do with the exploitation of spots in the market that were undervalued. Since obp was a newish concept- one that the likes of joe morgan could not wrap his mind around- it represented a way of valuing hitters that allowed beane to acquire effectiveness for below-market prices.
As his competitors learned from his success and began to react, beane probed other areas of the market. For a while he looked exclusively at college players. Now he may think that HS pitchers are where it's at.
OBP is old news now in the market sense, although its value as a metric of who should lead off (and in some ways, of who should play, period) has been clearly established.
I mean how many avoided double plays would it take for jerry owens and his sub-300 obp to catch up to giambi at .391? (Besides the fact that the lead runner is rarely the problem in a dp now matter how fast he is, and owens isn't hitting doubles at all)
More than owens can ever hope to manage.
by spengler on
Aug 7, 2007 2:31 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'm not claiming it's an OBP bible
by larry on
Aug 7, 2007 9:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point.
by Shoeless In SC on
Aug 6, 2007 8:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If we needed a DH, Edmonds would make a ton of
Moises Alou would be a similar sort of acquisition. In fact, my guess is that taking old players from the NL to play at 1B and DH can work ad infinitum. Healthy and long term projectable power is hard to find. One or two seasons worth is not so much. Which is exactly what Kenny understood in building the '05 team.
by colintj on
Aug 6, 2007 8:22 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Contreras is 3 or 4 starts away from being a .....
I wouldn't be so quick to close the book on this guy. He still may end up being valuable for the Sox or bringing a nice return - if he can start pitching well again in Sept. or in the spring.
by White Sox Randy on
Aug 7, 2007 9:34 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think so too.
by dantesox on
Aug 7, 2007 12:46 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How...
Answer: 1
by nancyrocks on
Aug 7, 2007 10:38 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
hmmm
by larry on
Aug 7, 2007 10:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good math - could be at least 3 times
So what's your point? The "leadoff" hitter in the first inning has theoretically the same opportunities, plus one (usually) to lead off as does anyone else. Right?
Or are you pulling my leg from my pelvis?
by winningugly on
Aug 8, 2007 10:36 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lol
by Shoeless In SC on
Aug 9, 2007 8:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs


















