An early Christmas gift for the columnists

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 1:21 AM CST in News Comment 59 comments

"Scouting the player, not scouting the stats," Kenny Williams said after reporters questioned the acquisition of 3 more minor league arms. That's about as concise a summary of the trade as one could offer.

The White Sox swapped one young major leaguer with an excellent minor league resume to go along with his good major league resume for two prospects whose stats have yet to catch up to their stuff. There were two low level players involved in the deal as well, and the Scouts vs. Stats theme held just as well there. The Sox gave up a completely unknown Venezuelan who has great stats, but has never played a professional game on US soil and has less than 200 ABs on his resume, for a young pitcher with a good frame and, I'm assuming, good stuff.

He's a 2005 7th rounder who was young for his league and wasn't totally overwhelmed by the competition. I haven't even looked for a scouting report on him, but from that info alone I'd compare him to Daniel Cortes, who I called one of our best minor league arms back in July.

* * * * *

Kenny Williams and company left no doubt. They feel that John Danks is, or maybe more accurately, will be, a better pitcher than Brandon McCarthy. Williams wouldn't answer the question directly, but the move itself combined with his own statements leave no other explanation.

"I have an answer to that question but should keep that to myself just out of respect for players that played for you," Williams said. "I think Brandon McCarthy is going to go down to Texas and be everything they feel he will be."

We've debated McCarthy's future in the past here, with the general consensus being that he should be an above average pitcher in the very near future, but probably will never develop into what could be considered an ace. The more I've seen from him, the more I like the comparison to another righty with great control, a bit of a gopher-ball problem, and reputation for having a tough first innings (a pitcher who would theoretically struggle in relief as McCarthy did in '06); the recently retired, Brad Radke. Good, not great, but a very useful player to have around. I think the Sox have the same view of McCarthy.

That the Sox traded such a useful, young, pre-arb player for Danks and Masset should tell you what they think about the ceiling of the targeted players. You can spout off plenty of numbers to make this trade look bad -- some have already tried -- but in the end it comes down whether you trust Kenny Williams and his scouts. What other choice do you have?

* * * * *

Now that I've got those rather large caveats out of the way...

In a fictional world where I'm the GM of the White Sox with free reign over all player personnel decisions, I would never -- NEVER -- have traded Brandon McCarthy for the package the Sox received.

I understood the need to jettison the soon-to-be free agent Garcia. I was all for trading him back in June. I was for trading Jon Garland when he didn't appear to be a good bet to re-sign with the Sox last off-season. I whined about the purging of pitchers, specifically lefties, from our minor league system in the last year. I fully understand what Kenny is trying to accomplish, and would have made moves very similar to his in my attempt to build the best possible club for both the present and the future.

The present and the future. That might have been my 5 word summary for Brandon McCarthy at this time last week. That's why I never would have traded McCarthy. The Sox didn't just trade a member of the '07 team, but one who figured to be integral to then next 5 White Sox clubs, all while making less than the four members of the current rotation until his second or third year of arbitration in 2010 or 2011.

Earlier this off-season, we saw the names Danks and Masset connected with the Sox, but with Garland or Vazquez headed in the other direction. If those reports are to be believed, Williams was not "bowled over" by the Rangers offer. He actually upped his offer by including McCarthy instead of one of the veterans. McCarthy's 5 years before free agency at an estimated $25-35M has to be more valuable than 2 years of Veteran at $22-25M, right?

I'm not privy to the behind the scenes discussions that take place in a trade like this, but if Jon Daniels came to me asking about Garland or Vazquez, he would have had to make a substantial addition to his proposal to get to McCarthy. It doesn't feel like that's what happened.

* * * * *

Another reason to be against the trade; Scott Boras is John Danks' agent. That means Danks is all but guaranteed to be gone in 6 years. In a couple of years, McCarthy, assuming he turns out to be what we all think he'll be, would probably sign a long term deal to buy out his arbitration years as well as a year or two of free agency. With Boras pulling the strings on Danks, there is virtually zero chance of him re-upping with the Sox beyond his initial 6-year commitment. I know that seems like a long time in the future, but since this move is about the future, it deserves to be brought up.

* * * * *

Ugh, rereading this entry it sounds like I really hate the trade. I don't. I never would have pulled the trigger, but I'm still taking a wait and see approach. I love the amount of potential the Sox have acquired in a very short period of time, but we know some of these guys aren't going to cut it. Heck, I'm not even sure that these guys are sticking around. You never know with KW.

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

absence

I was pretty sick the 22nd-24th. My mom, a nurse, called it "noro-virus," which has apparently been going around. Add on family functions for the last 36 hours and you've got my disappearance explained.

Not all of us are as invincible as Robothal.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 1:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

hope everything's fine cheat

eat mom's chicken soup!

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME
THE PEORIA POUNDER

by The Wizard on Dec 26, 2006 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

Will Carroll is reporting that a big trade is possibly about to go down, involving 3 "BIG" names.

I have to believe the Sox are one of the teams talking.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=118&PHPSESSID=4dfb412f0e8b94984558988c15480487

by madvillian on Dec 26, 2006 1:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I read that

but I can't see the Sox moving a "big" name

Who would that be? Everyone who could be considered "big" is integral to the '07 season. The only seemingly expendable player is Crede, and we all know how I feel about Fields.

It'll probably never pan out, and we'll never know.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 1:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Update

Carrol at least names some names and drops some hints.

While I can't give specifics on the deal, there are still at least six teams involved in some discussions centering on Atlanta. The Braves are in full dump mode, trying to get something for Andruw Jones, trying to find Jones' replacement on the cheap, and working more on the bullpen. Leo Mazzone isn't there to build a bullpen out of dreck anymore. So how does this all work together? Why trade a young player like Andy LaRoche if they're trying to control the payroll? Why deal Jones right now rather than at the deadline? The team is determined to find a solid bullpen and think they can do it with a series of deals that include LaRoche, Mike Gonzalez, Andruw Jones, and several CF candidates that I'm told include Rocco Baldelli, Curtis Granderson, and Nick Markakis. The deals appear to also have some other big names like Tim Hudson, Mark Teixeira, and Dontrelle Willis on the periphery. The three team deal that seemed close over the weekend doesn't seem so close now as the complexity has increased.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Matches

My best bets for major name trades would be Crede and Buerhle, but these teams would appear to be suitable and up for making deals with us because of need for one or the other, plus they have proven to be involved in deals and they are not in mine or Kenny's opinion as a threat:

Atlanta (A. Jones, but why would we go one year?)
St. Louis (Wainwright, but what else)

or my best bets if involved

Florida (very possible, quit thinking Tampa people) (D-Train, longshot is Cabrera)
Baltimore (Tejada)

- i think any trades with Tornto won't happen after the Boomer fiasco

by tubesox on Dec 26, 2006 3:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

STL

is not trading Wainwright--period.

by stanchar on Dec 26, 2006 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say the possible trade partners would be:

Big Deals
Seattle - Ichiro (SEA needs to drop some payroll to sign Zito)
Toronto - Rios
Baltimore - Tejada (just like every other year)
Florida - D-Train and his DUI
Tampa - Baldelli or Crawford
New York - A-Rod (for Crede?)
Atlanta - Jones
Texas - Young (for Uribe+, continuation of other deal)

Other Deals
Anaheim - Santana/Figgins
NY Mets - Pelfrey/Milledge/Heilman
Boston - Crisp

by RME JICO on Dec 26, 2006 7:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Moneyball

Danks at minimum would flee after 2012. Not to be morbid, but we should not assume as a given that Jerry Reinsdorf will own the team then. We also should not assume that a productive McCarthy would not make Boras his agent anyway.

That aside, Williams's gamble is fascinating. At a time when the market is exploding, he is hoarding cheap, projectable assets for the next half decade. This is a strategy that no one else is pursuing this year and strikes me as a strategy to exploit how the market is shaping up for the rest of the decade. If, if these pitchers develop, not only will the rotation be in good shape, but these assets will be even more attractive chits to other organizations. It is entirely possible (not probable, but quite possible) that we will look back 5-10 years from now on December 2006 as the month the White Sox built a dynasty.

That the Sox are in this position despite mediocre drafting and amateur player procurement is a testament to Williams's abilities. My biggest problem with Williams is not anything he has traded away (or for) as much as it was replacing Doug Laumann as scouting director as Laumann's drafts seemed deeper than Shaffer's do. The draft has simply not been a strength the past half decade, surprising considering Williams's background in player development. I still would like to see greater fruits from international scouting, but (as Larry said in another thread) Paisano might be the beginnings of a productive Venezualan program. I hope it does, but right now the trades made this month strike me as a more likely way to strengthen the club for the future than any other path available to the organization. Whether it works or not, it is a fascinating way to build a team. Michael Lewis should write a book about Williams.

by asinwreck on Dec 26, 2006 8:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Great post

without the gnashing of teeth - wonderful, clear perspective. Except that Reinsdorf is going to live a long time and will have difficulty ever letting go of his baby.

One caveat about the "positioning for the next half-decade". I am not naive enough to think that this is not, first and foremost, a business. I do believe he is making fantastic business decisions that will continue to keep the Sox in the black. But are we forfeiting 2007 unnecessarily? I'd still like to see immediate help and not positioning for 2010, since (like the Bears) we are flawed at present and yet (perhaps) almost good enough to win it all. (Unlike the Bears, we are in the MOST competitive division in the game.) This is my only beef.

One positive of the B-mac trade - at least he was not another part of the 2005 playoff roster!

by winningugly on Dec 26, 2006 9:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitching prospects

I'm unimpressed by KWs acquisitions. From what I've seen, he has yet to acquire any prospect above a B in Sickels book (Danks might be a B+). And a lot of the arms are young relievers (Aardsma, Sisco, Masset). It's not like any of these guys projects to be an "ace" and most project to be much less.

Also, given the attrition rate of pitchers, a significant number of these guys arms are going to turn to dust. It's a very risky investment.

We'll see what happens...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Young relievers

Isn't that one of the things that blew up in the Sox face last season?

From Politte to Hermy to Cotts to even B-Mac, until the emergence of Thornton and the trade for Mikey Mac, the bullpen was very, very shaky.

With that many strong arms making their way back to the bullpen and minors, at least KW has a few more options than trading for a mediocre guy like Riske.

Fleece the Pig, Flog the Pony

by james@lifeinthecell on Dec 26, 2006 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sox Scouting vs. Stats

Ok, let me get this straight.

Sox have targeted all these supposed hot young arms because their scouts say they're studs. Great. They need to stockpile these arms because their minor leagues are devoid of major league talent.

I'm assuming these are the same scouts who've been advising KW on their draft selections for the past five years. Draft selections heavily weighted toward pitching. Draft selections that look like crap to be honest. Lance Broadway is our best prospect?

So based on these expert scouting reports targeting these can't miss prospects on OTHER team's rosters, we're supposed to sit meekly and watch KW tear up our major league roster? "Shut up and trust my judgement".

Based on past performance, I'd much rather see the Sox trading their major leaguers for other major leaguers with PROVEN performance. To dump our proven performers for other team's prospects based purely on the gut feel of our minor league scouts seems a fools errand. The same scouts who have failed to develop any kind of decent Latin American network, I might add.

All this smells of a thinly disguised payroll dump. 2005 is looking more and more like a fluke. They still haven't addressed glaring holes in LF & CF, and now they're running out of trading chips. When this team falls short again in '07 because of a lack of major league talent they'll use it as an excuse to completely tear up the team.

by ChicagoPete on Dec 26, 2006 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Totally disagree

"I'm assuming these are the same scouts who've been advising KW on their draft selections for the past five years. Draft selections heavily weighted toward pitching. Draft selections that look like crap to be honest. Lance Broadway is our best prospect?"

Lance Broadway is nowhere near the best pitching prospect selected since the 6/02 draft. You've got Gio Gonzalez, Daniel Haigwood
and Ray Liotta. Now, the Sox have traded a lot of prospects, but they did draft them.

"All this smells of a thinly disguised payroll dump."

I guess I don't see how trading a league minimum player is a salary dump--especially when there is a non-negligible chance that his spot in the rotation is going to be taken by a higher-paid player. This was done because the Sox didn't particularly like McCarthy, and Williams has always had a thing for Danks.

by BridgeportJoe on Dec 26, 2006 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Haigwood and Liotta

Would both be ranked behind Broadway in any list of Sox draftees. The truth is the Sox drafting hasn't been very good over the last 5 years. It's made more problematic by the Sox lack of Latin American scouting and development.

I'm not saying the Sox are the worst drafting team in baseball or anything like that, but I think it's clear they haven't done well.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Payroll Dump

Not dumping payroll? Let's see if they sign Buehrle. By the looks of it I highly doubt it now.

We couldn't have gotten Soriano last July for McCarthy straight up? We couldn't package him for Baldelli or Crawford this winter? Rios?

by ChicagoPete on Dec 26, 2006 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

"Not dumping payroll? Let's see if they sign Buehrle. By the looks of it I highly doubt it now."

If you're comfortable calling the acquisition of a number of high ceiling prospects in the anticipation that a couple of them will work out well enough so that you don't have to resign an above average pitcher for $15M/yr over 5 years "dumping payroll," then fine. I think that's silly and renders the phrase "dumping payroll" meaningless, because any moves designed to field a cost efficient team years in the future would be "dumping payroll" under your nonsensical view. Including drafting anybody (because they might work out and save you from resigning a more expensive guy).

"We couldn't have gotten Soriano last July for McCarthy straight up?"

No, and why would the Sox want to trade a promising young starter for 3 months of a good offensive player? That would have been an idiotic trade. Especially since the Sox needed pitching. (Now, if you wanted to talk McCarthy for Schmidt or a rent-a-pitcher, that's a good discussion to have.)

"We couldn't package him for Baldelli or Crawford this winter? Rios?"

This point is a little better. Maybe the Sox could have, and maybe it would be smarter for them to take this approach (essentially a "hope the pitching rebounds, play to win in 2007, and worry about 2008 next offseason" approach). Williams is taking a different tack. He sees the market for mediocre and better starting pitching, and he's trying to acquire a large number of high upside arms in the hope that 1/3 of them will pan out. I'm not sure it is the best strategy, but we'll see.

by BridgeportJoe on Dec 26, 2006 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

MB is going to be a cardinal

wouldn't you want to play for your hometown team? there will be 5-6 teams - us included - who will offer him a contract that are basically identical. assuming he has a MB-esque season, we know exactly where the market for him will be: just below zito. that could play to our advantage some in that, next season, we can just put the offer on the table, leave it there, and hope he signs. but if he becomes a FA, i don't see how he could resist going home considering the cards will have the money. it seems prudent to plan for the eventuality of him leaving.

as for soriano, i can't believe you'd think mccarthy for a rental is better than what we got - no matter how much you dislike the danks trade.

as for baldelli et al, i don't think KW is done this offseason. if you think BMac should have been flipped for an outfielder, i'd say wait on your criticism until spring training. if that spot hasn't been addressed by then, you've got a reason to complain. right now, not so much.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree about Buehrle...

At least they should be able to offer arbitration and get some picks (assuming he's not traded).

I also agree that the Sox are likely to acquire an OF. I just hope that OF replaces Pods and not Anderson, although I have feeling thatBA will be the one on the way out...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Guillen Didn't Like McCarthy

Personally I feel that McCarthy was overrated but the Sox could have received more than they did for him. That is not a contradiction! He really should have been traded last July when his overrated value was much higher. The Sox blew a unique opportunity to win back-to-back championships in a lackluster 2006 season. A big part of that failure was the failure to make a worthy deal last July to pick up a team that was clearly struggling.

You are correct in stating that the Sox didn't like McCarthy. In particular Ozzie Guillen did not like McCarthy. I believe he is the reason why McCarthy is no longer with the team not so much Williams. Guillen had opportunities to slide him in the rotation throughout the season and chose not to do it. Simply put, the manager that kept the hapless Cora in the 3rd base box all season purposefully chose not to pitch McCarthy. Heck, they didn't even keep him on the playoff roster in 2005.

by waitonhim on Dec 26, 2006 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This had nothing to do with Ozzie

Ozzie loves Freddy, but he's not with the team. Why? because he didn't have the stuff of the guys we traded for

If Ozzie wanted BMac traded, wouldn't he have wanted a grizzled veteran in return?

This is all KW and Co. feeling wary about McCarthy's upside combined with their lofty view of Danks' upside as a starter and Masset's as a closer/set-up man.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

why would he have been on the 05 playoff roster?

i would have thought by now people would have realized that 1) el duque was a heck of a lot better than him in a playoff scenario and 2) BMac obviously isn't that great coming out of the bullpen. it was stupid to even argue in '05 that he should have been on it. with hindsight, it's galactically silly to even cite it.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is worse:

Stupid or galactically silly? I think stupid is worse, since (ala Howie Mandel/Carrot Top) you can be galactically silly and still get laid and make money AND be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

by winningugly on Dec 26, 2006 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I always thought the argument was him

over Damaso Marte, not El Duque. I've got to say that I still cling to the galactically silly idea that if McCarthy were in the pen, we wouldn't have needed El Duque's rabbit magic in the first place.

Not necessarily because McCarthy would have been out there, but because Ozzie wouldn't have been able to send a pitcher as mentally damaged as Marte was at that point.

by chrome on Dec 26, 2006 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i believe that particular speculation

came from dumbass columnists who don't know much about baseball. the last two spots were a "competition" between mccarthy and hernandez and gload and blum. marte was always going to be on the roster. heck, if they did decide to add both mccarthy and hernandez, vizcaino would have been the one left off, not marte.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's not necessarily the same scouts

and there's a big difference between looking at a guy coming out of high school/college and a guy who has played in the minors for a few seasons. as i'm sure we all know, it's easier to figure out if the guy who has been in the minors for a few years is going to make it than an 18 year old.

i think you're also mistaking three different philosophies on acquiring talent. white sox drafts recently have focused on "safe" pitchers - not necessarily high ceiling guy but guys who are pretty likely to make an impact on the major league roster. for whatever you think of that philosophy, i think it's been rather successful. the other philosophy is the one where we acquire lots of live arms for our bullpen. jenks and thornton have worked out so i'm inclined to say it's been successful to that degree.

i don't think danks "fits" into either of these philosophies, though it's connected to the first. danks is a high ceiling guy; what KW did was flip one of our "safe" guys into a higher ceiling guy (with one of those live arms for our bullpen, to boot) to fill a hole in our system.

by the way, it's pretty silly to indict our scouts for a lack of latin american presence. scouts don't develop networks; organizations do. i'm also pretty certain that most of our scouts don't want to relocate to venezuela from tulsa, concord, bakersfield, etc. something tells me most of those guys wouldn't quite fit in down there.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Latin America

If you insist upon splitting hairs, let me clarify. The indictment of Sox scouting is shorthand for an indictment of the organization's total strategy for procurement of young talent. The dearth of top talent Latin players in their system in this day and age is inexcusable.

So to fix the minor league system the Sox have to cannibalize their major league roster? This reminds me of Krause unloading Brand to get Curry & Chandler, "Huge upside on these kids, what you see from Brand is the best you'll ever get".

by ChicagoPete on Dec 26, 2006 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

we trade one guy who is projected to play every fifth day and we're cannibalizing our roster? cannibals don't usually nibble on a finger and then leave the rest. as near as i can tell, over the last two seasons, we have now replaced two everyday players our of ten and two starting pitchers. these must be some mighty friendly cannibals.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cannibals!

Getting rid of Garcia & McCarthy is nibbling your pinkie? Dropping two solid starters off the major league roster, and receiving in return flawed prospects whom Don "The Miracle Worker" Cooper will magically fix = cannibalism.

by ChicagoPete on Dec 26, 2006 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i suppose it's how you count

but, if we kept both, one of those guys was going to be in the bullpen or minors - and i don't count changes to either of those as being important. even if we count your way, cannibalizing is way too hysterically hyperbolic for me. we got rid of two "starters" out of 15. whoop de doo. in this day and age, that's restraint by management. and last i checked, we still have a 1-4 that's one of the best in baseball. not exactly the bare bones one would expect to be left by cannibals.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

15 Starters?

By that reckoning I'd qualify as a starter.

I've been trying to stay positive this offseason, but the direction KW is going is really starting to bug me. I could see trading Garcia, but this BMac move is killing me. What's he going to do next, totally shift gears and start trading all these prospects for major leaguers before ST?

Let me ask you this - do you think we have a better chance to win in 2007 with this roster than we did with last year's? We're going into the season with a huge question mark for 20% of our starts.

I want to win the WS again in '07, dammit! And it looks like chances are diminishing, not improving, with each move.

by ChicagoPete on Dec 27, 2006 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pistol Pete, gotta chill a bit

It's a LONG winter, and not too many folks predicted our WS title (I think we were picked 3rd or 4th in our division by most talking heads). It's almost New Year's - have a belt or two, for next year is rife with possibilities.

At least, that's what Cub fans have been saying for 100 years, and it seems to work well for them...

by winningugly on Dec 27, 2006 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

15 starters

should have been 14 - damn DH always fucks me up. 8 position players, 1 DH, 5 starting pitchers. i'm sorry, i don't see you making that list.

"this roster"? by which you mean the one we presently have. there's more than three months until the season begins. you're making a rather large leap in logic that we're going into the season with "this roster." patience, grasshopper. all will be revealed.

by larry on Dec 27, 2006 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Take a look at the KW's resume

on guys he's picked up as "prospects" or young, but failed players elsewhere...

That list includes.

3 good years of Damaso Marte for the French warrior
One of the best defensive shortstops in baseball for a AAAA player
Matt Thornton
Jose Contreras
Neal Cotts
Miguel Olivo

When KW and Company have access to a player against known major or minor league competition, they've been very adept at finding value.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My take on the trade

Honestly, I think this was made for one reason--the Sox didn't think they could fix McCarthy. It's been observed ad nauseum that he's a solid 1 or great 2 (it's funny, I was thinking Bradke this morning) when he is getting his changeup over--and taterrific when he's not. Combine that with the vague rumors that he's "uncoachable," and I think the Sox came to the conclusion that he was never going to be able to reliably get the change over for any extended stretch.

Now, I'm not sure that I like the haul they got in return--I would have liked to see 2-3 prospect arms (this is why I think the Garcia deal was a good one--multiple potential starters).

by BridgeportJoe on Dec 26, 2006 9:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Perry knows our weakness

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6305486

I'm impressed that he is one of the only mainstream sports "journalists" who realizes Brian Anderson's improvement.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on Dec 26, 2006 9:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Usually

I think Perry is over-rated in sabermetrics circles and produces middling writing largely by standing on the shoulders of others, but he was dead on with this piece.

Brian Anderson isn't a problem. He's a good defensive CF that will probably put up around a 260/310/400 line, which stinks, but is OK as long as he keeps playing good defense at a difficult position.

Podsednik sucks. By ever statistical measure in the book he's terrible. I'm not sure why Perry didn't rip the Sox for resigning the guy, as there are literally hundreds of minor leaguers laying around that could do just as good of job in LF for pennies on the dollar.

If he's the starting LF heading into 2007 I think you have to question KW's ability to recognize where the team is weakest. Anyone with half a clue knows that upgrading LF would be the easiest way to make this team better in 2007.

by madvillian on Dec 26, 2006 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The biggest hole on this team right now......

is SS. Yes, I realize the OF needs some fine-tuning, no question about that.

I also realize Uribe is an outstanding defensive player....but I am willing to sacrifice a little bit of defense to rid ourselves of a guy with a .257 OBP in close to 500 Abs. This is atrocious.....sure, the 21HR, 71RBI is nice from a SS, but not on a team already full of boppers.

by stanchar on Dec 26, 2006 10:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Uribe

I'll take 20 HR and plus defense from a shortstop any day of the week. I don't care what his OBP is.

The big hole is LF. You can't have a guy out there who is mediocre getting on base, runs into a ton of outs, and plays below average defense--at any position. Much less at a position where there is probably 50 available .270/.340/.450 guys out there.

by BridgeportJoe on Dec 26, 2006 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well Said

We've been over this a million times, but SS isn't a glaring weakness. Uribe isn't a great player, he's barely even a good player -- but he's a useful player.

He's cheap, plays great defense, and one of these years he might just put up a 260/300/520 line.

LF is such a greater problem, especially when put in the context that it's such an easy position to fill. SS is hard, LF is easy.

by madvillian on Dec 26, 2006 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you...

LF and leadoff are the biggest holes. I'd rank CF as a need ahead of SS as well, although if LF is changed then I'd be OK with Anderson being back in CF.

Also, where are you going to get an uupgrade on Uribe? Good SSs are hard to find...

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

CF

The problems with CF aren't really with CF--they're with LF. Put another way, a .250/.300/.400 CFer (which is what Anderson was after 6/1 last year, and what he'll probably be this year) with plus-plus defense is perfectly acceptable. Unless your LFer has zero power, mediocre OBP skills, and gives you subpar defense. Then you start to run into offensive problems that aren't compensated for by the defense.

by BridgeportJoe on Dec 26, 2006 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely agree

that LF/CF are a much higher priority than SS (unless Juan goes to jail and does not pass "Go", and we do not get $200).

I don't think the bullpen blew up last year because we had a bunch of prospects - in reality we had no reason to believe it would implode (or why would Cliffy've been signed to a nice new contract. et. al?). Our guys last year had at least the previous season from which to judge - this year we may have more arms to throw up against the wall but they look less proven than last year (a fine distinction, I grant you).

Dayn (Dayn?) Perry is a douchebag, and I'd bet he has lifted part of his Pods/BA assessment from this site. (Yeah, sue me for libel, Dayn.) He's writing about the Sox because we are the only other team dealing, not signing FA's, so he knows the SSS activity level and will get readership. (Columnists are generally knuckleheads, right? Perry's all of a sudden Billy Beane?)

There, I feel better.

by winningugly on Dec 26, 2006 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Weak hitting veterans

I agree with BPJoe, the Sox in effect setting aside at least one spot in the batting order for a rookie/sophomore fielder is absolutely necessary. Same for one spot for a "good fielding" veteran (Uribe?). When you then add in another batting spot for another below average hitter (Pods) you see some of the lineup problems we had in 2006.

Therefore, to fix it KW needs to either upgrade at SS or LF. Givin that league average LF is easier to fill than SS and given Uribe's bigger upside as in the field (despite his being, apparently, at least a semi-thug), the natural choice brings us back to LF not rookie/sophomore in CF.

Also, Cardinals, already thin on pitching, have little reason to trade pitching for pitching to get Buerle if they believe that if they just wait a year they can sign him as a FA.

Canada's finest

by MarkD on Dec 26, 2006 12:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Reggie Reggie Reggie

Send LHP Boone Logan and possibly LHP Heath Phillips to the Angels for OF Reggie Willits. Both Logan and Phillips put up put up impressive campaigns at AAA, but as it stands now both look to be shut out of the BP and rotation respectively. Seeing how KW and Ozzie want a nasty(95+ with good secondary power pitches) bull pen; Logan doesn't fit into that. Both Gio and Danks have higher ceilings and better raw "stuff" as starters than Heath so that takes him down the depth chart quite a bit.

Willits isn't a top 20 prospect with the Angels and hes a little old to wear the prospect tag(25). He has never repeated a level and has an good glove in CF, i would imagine he would be even better in LF. Last year he led all of MILB in OBP(.448) and when he was brought up to the major league level he showed it wasn't a fluke(11BB/10SO), he can also steal bases(31SB/15CS) @ AAA, he has the speed its now a matter of technique. Lastly hes a switch hitter, and i think there might be a bit of rivalry between him and Fields (University of Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State University)

The reason a trade like this could work for both the white sox and angels is because both KW and Stoneman have shown this offseason they aren't afraid to make a baseball trade(McCarthy for Danks & Kevin Gregg for Chris Resop). The angels have their lead off hitter in Figgins and LF and CF are pretty packed. An organizational weakness at the moment for them is LHP, they just traded Donnelly for AAAA Phil Seibel.

by beautox on Dec 26, 2006 3:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

minor quibble

From the reports that I've read, Matthews will lead off, with Figgins hitting at the bottom of the lineup once again.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

only

furthers the point he might be available, but thanks for the correction.

With Juan Rivera having just recently broken his leg and question marks with regards to Matthews repeating his career year; do you think there might still be intrest on the angels behalf in Crede? and if so what do you think we could aquire if we sent him to LA and Fields stepped into the line up?

I know cheat doesn't like Josh's bat but ZIPS projected this line for him

.262/.336/.445 18HR 50BB 127SO 13SB 5CS

by beautox on Dec 26, 2006 3:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

They just added a low-OBP slugger

Angels sign Hillenbrand.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 26, 2006 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

3B, 1B, or DH?

Where does the manager-killer play?

by winningugly on Dec 26, 2006 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

THE HISTORY OF KENNY WILLIAMS TRADES

OK I DID MY REASECH AND THIS IS WHAT I CAME UP WITH. I'D SAY KENNY WILLIAMS HAS A VERY IMPRESSIVE RESUME WITH REGARDS TO TRADES. Nothing really jumps out and says "He really f-ed up". #2 comes close but that's about it. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, in regards to his latest maneuver.

Acquired pitchers David Wells and Matt DeWitt from the Toronto Blue Jays for pitchers Mike Sirotka, Kevin Beirne and Mike Williams and outfielder Brian Simmons
Todd Ritchie: Acquired RHP Todd Ritchie and C Lee Evans from the Pittsburgh Pirates for RHP Sean Lowe, RHP Kip Wells and RHP Josh Fogg.
Acquired 3B D''Angelo Jimenez from San Diego for catcher Humberto Quintero and outfielder Alex Fernandez
Traded 2B Ray Durham to Oakland for RHP Jon Adkins
Traded OF Kenny Lofton to San Francisco for RHP Felix Diaz and LHP Ryan Meaux.
Traded RHP Bobby Howry to Boston in exchange for RHP Franklin Francisco and LHP Byeong An.
Acquired closer Billy Koch, Neal Cotts and outfielder Daylan Holt from Oakland in exchange for pitcher Keith Foulke, catcher Mark Johnson, minor league pitcher Joe Valentine and cash considerations.
Acquired pitcher Bartolo Colon and infielder Jorge Nunoz from Montreal in exchange for pitchers Rocky Biddle and Orlando Hernandez, outfielder Jeff Liefer and cash considerations
Acquired minor league right-handed pitcher Scott Dunn from Cincinnati in exchange for infielder D'Angelo Jimenez
Carl Everett: Acquired outfielder Carl Everett from Texas in exchange for two or three minor leaguers
Acquired second baseman Roberto Alomar and cash considerations from the New York Mets in exchange for minor league pitchers Edwin Almonte and Royce Ring and infielder Andrew Salvo.
Acquired right-handed pitcher Scott Sullivan and cash considerations from the Cincinnati Reds in exchange for a player to be named later.
Acquired infielder Juan Uribe from the Colorado Rockies in exchange for infielder Aaron Miles
Acquired OF Timo Perez from the New York Mets in exchange for RHP Matt Ginter
Acquired RHP Freddy Garcia, C Ben Davis and cash considerations from Seattle in exchange for C Miguel Olivo, minor league OF Jeremy Reed and minor league INF Michael Morse
Traded RHP Billy Koch and cash considerations to the Florida Marlins for minor league SS Wilson Valdez
Acquired RHP Jose Contreras and cash considerations from the New York Yankees for RHP Esteban Loaiza
Acquired OF Carl Everett and cash considerations from Montreal in exchange for minor league RHP Jon Rauch and RHP Gary Majewski
Acquired 2B Roberto Alomar from the Diamondbacks for cash and a player to be named
Claimed RHP Bobby Jenks off waivers from the Angels and designated RHP Eduardo Villacis for assignment
Acquired OF Scott Podsednik, RHP Luis Vizcaino and a player to be named from Milwaukee in exchange for OF Carlos Lee
Signed OF Jermaine Dye to a two-year contract with a club option for 2007
Acquired minor league OF Jerry Owens from Washington in exchange for OF Alex Escobar
Acquired INF Geoff Blum from the San Diego Padres in exchange for LHP Ryan Meaux
Acquired 1B Jim Thome and cash considerations from the Phillies for CF Aaron Rowand, LHP Dan Haigwood and a Minor League player to be named later
Acquired RHP Javier Vazquez and cash considerations from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for RHP Orlando Hernandez, RHP Luis Vizcaino and OF Chris Young
Acquired INF Rob Mackowiak from the Pittsburgh Pirates in exchange for LHP Damaso Marte
Acquired LHP Matt Thornton from the Seattle Mariners in exchange for OF Joe Borchard
Acquired INF Alex Cintron from the Arizona Diamondbacks in exchange for RHP Jeff Bajenaru
Acquired RHP David Riske from the Boston Red Sox in exchange for LHP Javier Lopez
Acquired RHP Mike MacDougal from the Kansas City Royals in exchange for nonroster LHP Tyler Lumsden and nonroster RHP Daniel Cortes
Acquired C Sandy Alomar Jr. from the Dodgers in exchange for RHP B.J. LaMura
Acquired RHP David Aardsma and LHP Carlos Vasquez from the Chicago Cubs in exchange for LHP Neal Cotts
Acquired LHP John Danks, RHP Nick Masset and RHP Jacob Rasner from the Rangers in exchange for RHP Brandon McCarthy and OF David Paisano
Acquired RHP Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez from Philadelphia in exchange for RHP Freddy Garcia
Acquired LHP Andrew Sisco from Kansas City for 1B/OF Ross Gload

by chisox on Dec 26, 2006 7:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

to help complete it

everett the first time acquired for frank francisco, josh rupe, and anthony webster.

alomar the second time was brad murray.

good work.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

just for fun

fransisco was the guy who threw a chair at a fan back in '04 (IIRC). probably good we got rid of him.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 8:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

One definite f-up

No. 4.

It was bad enough that Kenny sent Ray Durham -- who'd been hitting .299/.390/.446 -- to an organization that cherished OBP above all else for Jon Adkins...

...but he also sent Oakland cash to sweeten the deal!

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Dec 26, 2006 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well

there is a context to each trade. durham was going to be a FA and we had jimenez/willie harris waiting in the wings. obviously neither of those panned out but, at the time, it would have been pretty stupid not to have traded him for something. we were just going to let him go in free agency.

by larry on Dec 26, 2006 8:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't there talk about draft picks

being eliminated as compensation? If I remember correctly there was and that lessened Durham's value (Adkins was better than nothing...).

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 11:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No lie, bwana

And to say #2 was a "maybe" is soft-pedaling it a bit..

Onwe issue: Can we ever say good-bye to anyone for very long? Robbie Alomar, Carl Everett, Sandy Alomar, Gio Gonzalez. Has anyone been more ambivalent about giving up players than Kenny?

by winningugly on Dec 26, 2006 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I say #2 maybe

I don't believe either Fogg or Wells would have had the success they had in the AL that they had in the NL

by chisox on Dec 26, 2006 10:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No, it was pretty bad...

It's the one trade that I think was a real screwup. Having Wells on the staff in 2002 or especially 2003 could have meant a division title. He posted 3.59 and 3.28 ERAs in those years. Even adding a full run to his ERAs would have been light years better than the performance the Sox got out of the end of their rotation.

But that really is the only trade that I think turned out terribly for Williams...and he clearly won quite a few of the others.

by hitlesswonder on Dec 26, 2006 11:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs