Kenny says he has a plan

Paul DePoDesta

by Zonis on Jan 6, 2008 2:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah,

thanks!

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It will be Interesting

TO see what Kenny does with Konerko. If, as speculated, he manages to flip him for Santana, Kendrick and some, then he managed an outstanding 'plan'.

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 6, 2008 2:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

there is a small problem if this is kenny's plan

and the problem with this is that it assumes the angels are downright stupid!

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Angels ARE downright stupid

$90 million dollars to Torii Hunter.
$55 million dollars to Sarge Jr after one good year.

Thewizardsofoz, the thing is, they ARE downright stupid.

by dgribben357 on Jan 6, 2008 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who is stupid?

The LAA have money to burn -- signing GMJr and Hunter is nothing to them. It's much better for them to use money to fill holes than prospects.

Williams has no minor league system outside of his three top prospects, but he's burned those this winter instead using money wisely (cough...cough..Cameron and not Linebrink) to fill holes.

I doubt LAA is dumb enough to trade Kendrick. I'm not all sure Williams isn't dumb enough to trade Konerko for GMJr and a reliever.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 6, 2008 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, let's assume they're stupid sometimes then

I think a sane GM wouldn't want to depend on whether the Angels do something stupid

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

stupid with money

is way different from stupid with prospects.

by larry on Jan 6, 2008 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree totally with you larry

just for conversation's sake

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 7:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

just for conversation's sake

my assumption was made just for conversation's sake

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously it would be a lot to pay for Konerko, but I believe the Angels would be better off with him. That said, I'm by no means suggesting they are getting the best deal, just that the team would be improved, in my opinion with Konerko.

Although, do they actually even need him???

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball

by bheikoop on Jan 6, 2008 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It may be plan F but it's better than A through E

Swisher may be plan F but he's a better (and younger) baseball player that Hunter and Rowand, and more proven than Fukodome. It would be funny if Kenny's being frustrated by other, dumber GMs forced him into a plan that made more sense. It's happened before, remember Omar Vizquel? Williams goes out and gets a player who is an even bet to post a 900+ OPS for a few years and he gets ripped for trading an outfield bust, a A-ball first year professional rookie, and a pitcher who repeated AA ball? WTFO?

The big critique-of-critiques I have is the wailing over Fautino. The guy is 21 and has pitched less than a full season in A and A+ ball and he's anointed the system's #1 prospect? We don't even know if his UCL can survive professional pitching... and neither does Beane.

by dgribben357 on Jan 6, 2008 2:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

very good points

but contemplate this too:

if you had a choice whom to use to fill the future pitching slots, who would you go with: masset, floyd, sisco, broadway, egbert or gio and fautino?

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's the point though,

that such a question is too tough to answer right now, given the lack of experience DLS has. Look at your own inquiry, Wiz. You mention Floyd: a few years ago, Floyd was a top pick and projected ace. Look at him now.

by HulkSmash on Jan 6, 2008 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, pitching prospects flame out sometimes

and sometimes they don't

but by having trade away our pitching prospects, we don't have the possibility of the 2nd successful scenario happening for our team

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Contemplations

The chances that Fautino won't pitch in the majors, ever, due to injury, are not trivial. He's a pure power pitcher who was borderline old for his level, and he hasn't shown his arm can handle any kind of mileage (like all young pitchers he's one pitch away from going to Birmingham for all the wrong reasons). Say what you want, but the five guys you listed they still have are mostly past the critical injury risk, and all of them could be useful one way or another. In other words, TANSTAAPP.

And ponder this: Swisher's a borderline star player, gives the Sox what they desperately needed, and is signed for practically forever (through 2012) and may make as much as $50M under what it would cost to sign such a player in free agency. (There hasn't been a player with his hitting ability in the farm system since Frank Thomas.)

$50M goes a long way toward buying and retaining ballplayers. Remember, the goal of a farm system is to provide cheap players. That's what Swisher is. Six of one, half dozen of the other...

And, finally, virtually every White Sox prospect that Williams has been willing to part with has been a severe disappointment. That's a seven year track record. People cried when he traded Wells, Fogg, Rauch, Olivo, Reed, Gonzalez the first time, even Dan Haigwood. Of all the farmhands the Sox have dispatched, so far the only one that's left us with a twinge of regret is Chris Young, and even he has some obvious flaws as a hitter (low OBP)... at some point don't we have to stop and give the guy the credit that maybe, just maybe, he actually knows more about the future of minor league players than we do?

by dgribben357 on Jan 6, 2008 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dg357:

I don't recall you posting before this, but I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from more posts. You make way too much sense to be here in the land of Kenny-bashing.
Christ, you'd think Fautino's name was Jesus.

Btw, I can hear old Hawk now:
"Damn,Fiesty! Never thought I'd see such hustle from a guy named Swisher".

It should be called Bill Veeck Park!

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2008 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Chiburb makes an excellent point, dg357.

Let me be the first to call you "delusional" because you made a rational, postive point. What were possibly thinking?

by palehose67 on Jan 6, 2008 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

I guess I need six doses of Mariotti.

by dgribben357 on Jan 6, 2008 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I must be on the wrong site.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

While I recognize that the very

purpose of sites like SSS is provide the chance to offer opinions on our team, its players, trades, etc. (and that's why I love SSS), I chuckle when some write as though they seem to know more about the Sox farm system simpy because they have access to various statistics and have read Moneyball. Indeed, maybe -- just maybe -- the White Sox organization knows of these same statistics and a whole lot more. That's not to say that they can't (and haven't) made mistakes, but the absolute certainty with which some write is hilarious. I too remember when we gave up thoe future Hall of Famers, Olivo and Reed. How did we ever survive?

by palehose67 on Jan 6, 2008 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, swisher is a fine player

I just don't like trading our top 2 pitching prospects and I'm pissed at kenny's suggestion that the pitching talent he acquired last year will fill our future pitching needs

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2008 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wiz I think you take this too much

To the extreme. There are many futures. One is 1-2 years, which I am convinced we are in reasonably good shape. The other 3-5 years - why get bent out of shape on 1 possible starter and 1 possible reliever for that scenario? They didnt walk away for free and many things can happen in that span.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

tdog

you're way too optimistic for this site, as mentioned before. everyone has assumed we'll suck this year, next year, and the year after. most everyone is looking 3-4 years down the line.

DLS came out of nowhere, why cant that happen again? Why cant we draft another guy or two in that 3 or 4 year span that can become studs? hell, we drafted Gio, who everyone is crying about.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 8:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also

small sample size and the KC Royals, but broadway showed us a flash that he can compete at this level last year. he definitely doesnt have the upside of Gio or DLS, but I'd definitely be elated if he can turn into a 3/4 starter.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

TDogg, you've been speaking

my language as of late. I don't know what foresight some folks on this site can accurately rely on that gives a sense of 3 years down the road. A lot can happen. Drafts, trades, etc... Sign me up for the 2008 optimistic bandwagon.

by HulkSmash on Jan 7, 2008 9:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm curious what optimistic means

might as well start hearing peoples' win/place predictions.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopeful

by HulkSmash on Jan 7, 2008 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lar

i dont think it as that people feel this is a first place ball team, i just think people are getting excited to see what this team can potentially do. it just gets old to some to see the same people ragging on the same points of how KW sucks and the team sucks for trading prospects, and the prospects suck, and this guy sucks, and we need this because if we dont get this we'll suck. by no means do i think this is a 1st place team, but can they finish first? sure, will they, i doubt it. but am i excited to see what younger players like Fields, Quentin, Richar, Floyd, Danks and to see what swisher can do in a hitters park.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 9:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

right

so what is it that people think this team can potentially do? i'm as interested as anyone in seeing the younger players play. i'm simply curious what optimistic means.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 9:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

probably

best case scenario for optimism would be to compete for a division title. Dont have any idea how many wins its gonna take to win this division though. any thoughts on that?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

95

Give or take a few.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i remember thinking

that about 90-92 would win it last year because i thought the sox, tigers, twins and indians would all be competitive and around the same amount of wins. sox let me down on that assumption.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that too

but over the length of a 162 game season, the cream rises to the top, so to speak. The small differences all play out and divide the teams more thoroughly, especially in small divisions as the league is currently composed. The fewer the teams, the greater the average difference in wins between them...I think.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but

everyone has their own def. of optimism too.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

right

which is why i'm curious. since i know i'm at least a partial - if not considered - target of this line of posts, i'm curious how people are defining this. hulk mentioned 84 wins below. i don't think that's far away from where many on this board - even those considered "pessimists" or whatever - would put it. the difference in viewpoint between the two "camps" - if we may be so crude as to do away with the gray and group posters as such - is not over 2008. it's over what happens beyond that and what the direction of the team is. i read the "well, we don't know what will happen in the future, no one is a soothsayer, so let's worry about it when we get there." i guess that's fine - it's probably KW's position and the sox PR mouthpiece reifert said exactly that on his blog. the problem with that is we've seen other teams go down that path and seen to where it leads most. that's where the concern for this franchise lies.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really don't think our proclamations

about this whole thing are as well grounded as they ought to be. We don't even have a good idea of the chance DLS and Gio have of making it. One thing I noticed looking back at the old prospect lists is how rapidly they turn over. That's in part due to KW's love of trading them, but they frequently enough bomb out that to get overly attached doesn't make sense.

I don't know where you ended up on the matter, but I voted a tentative Yay on the Swisher deal. That quote from Beane about how you have to blow it up BEFORE it becomes obvious that you have to was really to the point. After 2006, who was suggesting to trade assets? I'm not sure if I have a point, but I think we really need to be wary of our condemnations. There's so little we know for sure.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i've been wary

you can note that while i disapprove of this course of action, unlike some other posters, i haven't called for the firing of anyone. this is going to have to play out for me some.

as for who, JRE is on record, i believe, for trading assets at the 2006 trade deadline and certainly after the 2006 season. he may be a lot of things but he is consistent.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think i recall that

i'd like to go back and check his reasoning. just because he did it doesn't mean he was talking team age or something like that.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he was talking team age

among other considerations (crede injury history and the second half collapse, for two).

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

prescient of him

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was pushing...

for the Sox to start trading assets around the trading deadline in 2006. I thought, baseball-wise, that that was the best thing to do - maximize Crede and Dye's trade value. I also thought the Sox should deal Buehrle at that point, as I didn't think he'd be around past 2007, so what do I know?

I also understand that someone like Billy Beane has a lot more freedom of movement than Kenny Williams does. While a complete re-build makes sense for both the A's and for the White Sox from a purely competitive standpoint, the White Sox have to worry a lot more about PR - they have a larger fan base that they have to worry about losing, a much larger and tougher media presence, and a much larger potential revenue base with which to absorb salary. I do get that a total tear-down, Marlins-style, probably wouldn't fly in Chicago.

I actually liked how Williams handled the 2006-07 offseason - he added young talent without really adding payroll or sacrificing much of the future. I'm not so happy with how this offseason is going.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also:

since the trade basically hinges on DLS' contributions, what do you think the odds are on his success (defined however you like)?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he'll be at least a very good reliever

assuming he doesn't get hurt. percentage-wise? i'd call it 75%. i'd put the same percentage on gio being a #3 - i think he's past the injury concerns, though others may vary on the 'when' for that. obviously the upside potential for DLS is higher and we won't know exactly where that lands until he's major league ready like gio is basically right now.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what makes you say he's past injury concerns?

his workload to date has been minimal.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Injury Nexus

His attrition rate is 20% which for pitchers that young in the majors is basically going to be synonymous with injury. To be that young and in the majors, you're selecting for highly talented players. On top of that, there's got to be a greater chance than 5% that he doesn't become a major league reliever.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's a one size fits all stat

you asked what my opinion was, based upon what i know. to speak directly to that study, i would expect players who are rushed to the majors, like many of those included in that study were, to be more injury prone. there's more going on there than just "he's 22 so this particular player's chance of injury is 20%."

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah i made an error there

if he isn't a major leaguer, then he isn't part of the sample, so transference of the property to minor leaguers is iffy at best. that really didn't tell me what i wanted it to be telling me.

so how did you come up with your figure then?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

numbers from the air

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so we really don't have much idea

at all about DLS' chances? how are we supposed to evaluate this trade then? you can make tentative conclusions at best.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i was kidding

of course you can only make tentative conclusions. as has been pointed out already, no one is a soothsayer. you know the odds to a decent degree, you try to divine what a teams intentions are, and so on. and you come up with something. there is basically no definite conclusion, largely because there are unknowns but also because different people will draw different inferences from the same set of data/facts. that's what you're seeing play out here between the so-called pessimists and optimists.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wow

Gio Gonzalez and Ryan Sweeney join Jon Rauch, Joe Borchard and Jeremy Reed on the list of former first-round draft prospects the White Sox have traded in the Ken Williams era. Williams has traded 28 minor-leaguers ranked in the franchise's top 30 by Baseball America during his eight years as general manager.

from the trib.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And he's basically yet to be burned

Even if Chris Young turns out to be a long term solution in center for the Dbacks, it's still a pretty easily justified trade.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

todd ritchie

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

some people will argue that kip wells and fogg werent anything special, but KW still loses that trade because ritchie did more damage to us than wells or fogg did to the pirates.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

they would have been something special

for a team that lacked a decent backend to their starting rotation. both wells and fogg were/are consistently good enough to shore up a rotation.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wells had 2 good years for the Pirates

Before he got hurt. He had 3.28 ERA in 2003. If he's on the Sox that season, even adjusting for league/park, I think the Sox would have won the division.

More generally, I don't like the argument that "everyone else KW traded has sucked so these guys will too". The stats and scouting reports on Gio & DLS are a much better basis to argue from than the fact that Reed and Olivo never became as good as many (including me) thought they would.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

I wonder if you're actually right here. Making the deductive (they sucked, so these will) argument means you're basically arguing that Kenny's scouting and analysis are better than the scouting reports and the stats that we have access to. Doesn't that make sense?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if you dont want to buy

into the "those guys sucked, so these will too" philosophy, can you really then buy into the "beane always gets good players in return" trade theory?? arent they sort of the same thing?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't say I buy into

"Beane always gets good players" At least I don't think I did.

I'll agree that Beane has often made good trades for prospects and most of the prospects Williams has traded have failed to one degree or another. Certainly, that gives you some information -- it's likely the KW or the Sox internal scouting did a good job.

But I think when analyzing a trade, it's much better to use the information directly related to the players in the trade rather than rely on Williams' (or Beane's) history in other trades.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hrm.

"But I think when analyzing a trade, it's much better to use the information directly related to the players in the trade rather than rely on Williams' (or Beane's) history in other trades."

Why?

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems like it.

And they have all the problems associated with making arguments from deduction, which means we should probably call them rules of thumb. Though getting beat by Schuerholz is nothing to be embarrassed by.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Only to a degree

I agree that in Williams has access to better scouting on his players than we do. But I still think assuming this trade is good because others were is too simplistic. It's fine to say Williams has generally done a good job trading prospects and may have done so again. But it's another to say "No one besides Young has ever been any good, these guys probably won't be good either". That's going way overboard I think, and dismisses a lot of the data available as meaningless.

What other prospects has KW traded that were on the level of Gio & DLS? Reed, Rauch, and Young come to mind...I don't know if there were any others that had either excelled at AA or were so beloved by scouts as DLS. Rauch obviously had the labrum problems -- it's actually amazing he's been an effective big league reliever. Young is good. Reed has never been an effective hitter in the majors.

If you look at the stats and scouting reports about Gio & DLS, it seems pretty likely they'll contribute in the majors. It's certainly possible that Swisher will be as valuable or more valuable. But I think it's unlikely that this is as clear a win for the Sox as the Garcia trade turned out to be.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay I'm with you there

Past history should be a factor, at least, when we talk about the likelihood of this trade being a success. It sounds like you'll weight this factor less heavily than I will. I would like to go over a more thorough history of the important prospects KW has traded, though.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

which

draws an interesting debate, which has been talked about on here. Did he again, trade prospects that were more hype than anything, or is this the trade where he finally gets caught and traded future stars. kind of crazy.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i like to look at the flip side of that

billy beane has been very good at trading his "stars" for prospects who pan out. the only one he's missed on (correct me if i'm wrong) is the hudson deal - and he was going up against another very good GM in that trade who rarely missed in trades.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, the hudson trade was bad for him

i thought he got ripped in the jeff weaver deal by surrending carlos pena and bonderman, but i researched it more and he flipped weaver for ted lilly and some minor leaguers. Lilly was pretty good for oakland, and bonderman has been only good for half of years, usually flaking out in the 2nd.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but then

flipped lilly for kielty, who didnt really work out.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was afraid of this

I dont think anyone (even KW) is saying f**k the future, I am only worried about 08. I just think that there is a difference between all or the majority of your decisions being based on the future alone. The reality is some of your non baseball related things can also adversely effect your future also. (Like no one buying tickets to your games.)

The future is important. I certainly dont mean to imply it isnt. My issue comes when I see statements that tend to perfectly quantify the impact of trading a Gio and DLS, some going so far as to say the White Sox will be stuck in limbo for years to come. In my humble opinion that ignores other potential factors (among them history)

The other part is, some of the recent moves are exactly for the future. Hopefully they will play out as ones that allow the team to remain competitive and "retool" at the same time.

I just think there are more than 1 way to skin a cat.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. I don't see a disregard for the future.

If fact, Swisher's contract will be a great asset in the future. Can you imagine what he would be worth in four years (assuming that he has continued to play like he has in the past) compared to what we'll actually be paying him? I also like to think that from a business standpoint the Sox are attempting to build a fan base off of 2005 that will hopefully be with them far into the future. Another 72 win team could severely hurt those efforts, especially compared to a Cubs team that will probably have some success this year in Class AAAA ball (the NL). I think many --especially season ticket holders -- gave the Sox a pass for last year's lousy season. Two in a row would be different. Ultimately I don't expect this 2008 team to make the playoffs, but I expect them to be in the mix for a while and keep the season interesting. That's important to me, and it's even more important to my two kids (future fans), who seem to lose some interest when the team has no chance of competing.

by palehose67 on Jan 7, 2008 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now Now

You won't put my foot to the fire on that one yet. :-) I still want to wait till I see the complete roster. However I will say I am still very much in love with the Tigers right now. I have to admit the Tigers, Boston and Angels combo is just sick.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm in between things right now...

but I, like TDogg, need to see the whole roster. Optimism for me means that things aren't as bad as some are painting them to be-- I'll explain more later.

Right now, I'd say 84 wins is possible.

by HulkSmash on Jan 7, 2008 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

predictions

are too difficult for me to even come up with. so many things can happen to every team, that its amazing that some of these projections even come close. Injuries to starting pitching and bullpen arms are just one thing that you cant factor in to a projection with confidence, but they can play such a huge role on a teams overall success.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't try to sway people on this board.

Trading prospects to these guys is considered Armageddon! They love these young players that do alright in the minors and proclaim them can't miss. Gio is a fly ball guy that needs a huge outfield to be successful that is why he was deemed expendable the first time. DLS is a very nice young pitcher that will probably be the best out of the three traded (obviously). Sweeney showed us what he had to offer... he can't catch up to major league fast balls. We got a young player in return who is just going into his prime and draws alot of walks. We now have a lineup where damn near everyone gets on base. The only problem I see defensively is losing Crede's defense at 3rd. I think Fields may make up for that with his bat this year but who knows. Other than that I like the fact that Danks is a lefty... and Floyd showed us that he can shut down Detroit's lineup. 1st place AL Central and Kenny can shut you guys up already!

Toonderstrook's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67492521

by Soulja Boy on Jan 6, 2008 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i love that the comment below yours

is a post by one of the site's proprietors thoughtfully engaging the poster.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 6, 2008 10:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't try to sway people on this board.

Trading prospects to these guys is considered Armageddon! They love these young players that do alright in the minors and proclaim them can't miss. Gio is a fly ball guy that needs a huge outfield to be successful that is why he was deemed expendable the first time. DLS is a very nice young pitcher that will probably be the best out of the three traded (obviously). Sweeney showed us what he had to offer... he can't catch up to major league fast balls. We got a young player in return who is just going into his prime and draws alot of walks. We now have a lineup where damn near everyone gets on base. The only problem I see defensively is losing Crede's defense at 3rd. I think Fields may make up for that with his bat this year but who knows. Other than that I like the fact that Danks is a lefty... and Floyd showed us that he can shut down Detroit's lineup. 1st place AL Central and Kenny can shut you guys up already!

Toonderstrook's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67492521

by Soulja Boy on Jan 6, 2008 9:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kenny's Plan?

Maybe next year's free agent class? haha

Found a cool list for it, anyways...

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/09-free-agents/

by ET90210 on Jan 6, 2008 5:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Gee... I wonder how you found it.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Jan 6, 2008 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dick.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 6, 2008 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A minor league system that produces

The key is that your system produces young players of value, either use them yourself or, as KW has done, trade them for major league talent.

It's only when you slide in to the Cubdom of never producing young valuable minor league talent that things get ugly.

And no matter how bad our minor league system has been, and, ironically, how "can't miss" the minor league players we do trade are, the fact is, as pointed out by many is KW has done a pretty good job of getting value back.

Swisher, at 27 years old, with his bargain contract, and good metrics (Despite the fact that he walks so much/has such a good OBP that he'll be "clogging up the bases")is a value for value trade (from our minor league)

Good going KW

Canada's finest

by MarkD on Jan 6, 2008 7:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think the Sox-Angels are up to something.....

but I think the Angels would like to see Crede healthy in the spring and then get him with Konerko.

Crede
Konerko

Willits
Santana
2 prospects

by stanchar on Jan 6, 2008 9:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

But Willits can't play center

Maybe, but I don't like that return.

by dgribben357 on Jan 7, 2008 6:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

broadway

Wasnt' acquired last year. He was a first round draft pick a few years ago.

by dugwood on Jan 6, 2008 10:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

seriously

is this aaron rowand part II?
''At first, it was tough to swallow,'' he said. ''I felt like it was a dream. But I'm coming to the best city in sports. I'm a huge Chicago Bears fan. Plus, I'm coming to a great organization that wants to win and that wants me. Just about now the news is setting in, and I'm getting really excited about it.''

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 7:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Rogers now a numbers guy, a sabermetrician.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080105philrogerskenwilliamswhitesox,1,6623145.column?coll=ch i_sports_mezz

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Jan 7, 2008 8:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

RE: numbers

his simple arithmetic skills are in top form.

by onlysoxfaninboston on Jan 7, 2008 8:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that's like saying

a guy who just ate a bowl of baked beans is now a chemist.

by ruffster on Jan 7, 2008 9:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I read that article yesterday morning

and felt that my brain had fallen out of my head. That may be his dumbest column to date.

by HulkSmash on Jan 7, 2008 9:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It was amazing..

...that he actually wrote a half page story on this.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought the same thing re: idiocy

of the article. I don't know how it feels to have my brain fall out of my head. (Insert punchline.)

Also, all you UM folks - Purdue rules the hardwood, boys!

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Jan 7, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that quote from eric chavez, though, is great

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hahahah royals fans dont think much of the sox.

http://www.royalsreview.com/story/2008/1/7/03121/42254#commenttop

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 11:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think...

the White Sox are still a bit better than the Royals.

That might not be true in a couple of years, though.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed about this year

i still think we're better, royals lineup is not all that scary especially since sweeney, the forever sox killer, is cripple and may not even be on the team.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm as pessimistic as anyone about the Sox

But I think viewing Buehrle and Vazquez as "inning eaters" is a little too dismissive. I think with Swisher the Sox probably finish in front of KC, although I think the talent level between the 2 teams is close.

Anyway, it's one thing for me to disparage the Sox; it's another for some yahoos from KC to do it.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also

what grounds does someone have to assume kyle davies and jorge delarosa as upgrades over danks and floyd? from what i see, davies is awful and de la rosa has worse numbers than danks, with a pretty bad K/BB ratio.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not by VORP they aren't

but that guy ain't counting.

His little smile pissed me off.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That was actually

Humor at its best. I dont think I have even seen Vasquez dismissed or forgotton so much. I think someone even implied Swisher was a buster.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

i dont think anyone even mentioned vazquez, and its a pretty big omission when you take out a guy with 15 wins a sub 4.00 era and 200 K's.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

for all those who wondered

"if these PED allegation aren't true, why don't these guys file a lawsuit?" well, clemens just up and done it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3184646&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080107/mlb_clemens.pdf

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Mistake by Clemens

Unless Clemens is 100% clean of everything - which is highly unlikely, I think he may have made a huge mistake in doing this. He basically opened himself up for questioning on everything and by lying he will be perjuring himself.

By doing this, he also has set himself up to having to go in front of Congress next week during the hearings. By not going, will only make him look worse now.

Schilling got his wish, I guess. Clemens never backs down to anyone - even Piazza! He might have dug himself a deeper hole here.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

have to prove up perjury

seems like this is a he said, he said case. not going to get someone on perjury for that. the case is a PR move; even if he loses the case, which seems likely because, again, it's he said, he said, clemens doesn't really lose much.

of course, if there's smoking gun documentation of clemens receiving or taking PEDs, he's fucked. assuming clemens is right that there isn't any such thing (he should know, though may be too bull-headed to let this go and is going ahead anyway), he'll be in no worse position.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True, but

...Mitchell spent $20 mil. plus on the report and Clemens is basically showcased in it. So, one would assume Mitchell didn't put all of his findings in the report, or at least a good majority on Clemens, based solely on heresay and what the Trainer said.

One would think that there was some actual evidence that was accumulated.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wouldnt

they have documented the other sources or evidence then in the mitchell report had they had any? what would be the purpose of omitting evidence if you spent $20 mil on the report? is there some type of legal issue im overlooking?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

You would think they would have....hmmmm.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you see the "show" last night

on "60 Minutes"? Man, if he were playing poker he'd have lost his shirt. A more insincere person I've not seen. The Mafia guy profiled on a segment immediately preceding Clemens looked more credible - and he was admitting to killing 20 people.

Eff Clemens. "You would've thought from all I've done for baseball I'd have gotten the benefit of the doubt." Pompous a*@!

"I can't give you a dollar if I don't have 50 cents. Decisions are made awfully easy for you."

by winningugly on Jan 7, 2008 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if he didn't put all his findings in there

which i doubt, one would think that he would have excluded the lesser evidence, not the better evidence. lawyers like documents a hell of a lot better than testimony.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

does anyone

know what floyd's era was last year just as a starter?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 11:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Floyd...

had a 5.02 ERA as a starter, 6.39 as a reliever.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

eh

not too bad. small sample size however.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Konerko to the Angels

What are all the possibilites of a Konerko deal?

Konerko for Figgins & Santana
Konerko for Willits, Santana & a middle releiver
Konerko & Crede for Kendrick, Santana & a middle reliever

or

4. All of these deals are ridiculous.

by BoKnows on Jan 7, 2008 12:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous

I don't see the Angels trading for Konerko when Kotchman had such a productive year last year. Konerko could be a DH candidate for them, but then again they have G. Anderson filling that void. I could see the Angels wanting to get rid of GM Jr. in a trade - but that would be idiotic for the Sox unless the Angels eat part of that salary.

No way the Angels trade Kendrick - they wouldn't to the Marlins and that is a reason why Miggy was dealt to the Tigers.

I could see them trying to trade Santana (maybe) and GM Jr. The rest of the scenarios are ridiculous.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I could see...

either Gary Matthews Jr. + cash or Gary Matthews Jr. + Santana, and the Sox might have to throw in a lesser prospect to get Santana.

I don't think Konerko's worth a whole lot more than Matthews. Although I don't want to see Sarge Jr. in a Sox uniform at all.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I gotta disagree with you there

I'm far from a Konerko fanboy, but he's worth more than GMJr. Konerko is a solid 1B who is probably slightly overpaid for his production, but would certainly still get at least the same contract that he has if he were a free agent.

I don't think Matthews is very good. I don't think he has the glove for CF or the bat for a corner position. His contract is abysmal; even if LAA were to pay a third of it, it would still be bad. He's like Rowand without the decent defense plus being 3 years older. GMJr + cash + Santana seems more reasonable (although I still wouldn't do that), but the inclusion of GMJr should mean the Sox don't have to include a prospect to get Santana.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

matthews is 1.5 years older

makes roughly the same amount of money (like the angels care anyway), probably is an equally poor defender at this point, and is a significantly worse offensive player. i'd say PK is worth a decent amount more than GM.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what is league average OPS for each position?

interesting analysis at HBT.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-burdens-of-being-average/

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How did the playoffs go last year??

The Angels need someone really solid batting behind Vlad. As if the 2005 playoffs didn't bear it out, last year's did. If the Angels want a shot at winning the WS in 2008 then they need better proven production, and more power, from their corner infielders.

Now assuming that Figgins stays at 3rd (too valuable at the top of the line up and too crowded of an outfield situation), then it falls to 1st base to be filled by a prototypical and reliable power hitter.

Kotchman ain't that.

Look at his numbers for the past 3 years and considering 3rd base isn't going to be a power bat and tell me that if you are the Angels GM you are going to go all in with Kotchman in 2008.

I remember in 2006 when Konerko passed on the Angels and all the Angel bloggers were touting that Kotchman was going to outpeform Konerko in 2006. Didn't happen in 2006, Kotchman tanked it, and didn't happen in 2007 (no power).

If I'm the Angels GM and I want to cut down the risk of corner infielders not being able to protect Vlad, I'm going with Konerko by far..

Canada's finest

by MarkD on Jan 7, 2008 12:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Eqa disagrees with your analysis of 2007

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kotchman vs. Konerko

Kotchman OPS last year was .839 and Konerko's was .841. Kotchman had mono the first month of the season and spring training.

Kotchman is making approx $400k/year and is 24, Konerko is making $12+mil/year and is 31.

Kotchman is a lefty, Konerko is a righty.

I like Kotchman a lot...Konerko is declining.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kotchman is better

Better D, cheaper, younger, better OBP skills IMO.

But that doesn't mean that the LAA aren't interested in Konerko. They still have the DH position to fill and Konerko would be far better than someone like GMJr there. And it's possible that LAA managemnet just has a thing for Konerko.

I think it's unlikely anything happens, but I find it eminently believable that LAA would consider adding Konerko while trying to dumnp GMJr's contract.

by hitlesswonder on Jan 7, 2008 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we went over this already

But for the next 2 years at least Im taking Konerko. Kotchman is cheaper and better defensively I'll give you that.

Obviously the argument includes more factors.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 12:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'll give you one year

two or more is a real stretch. one will be entering their peak phase; the other will be well into their past peak phase. i don't think PK's power is going to hold up that well.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

I expect a legit decline. But I don't see him as a fall off the face of the earth slugger.

And as I asked below is Kotch suppose to develop power? I honestly don't know.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if you expect a legit decline

then you should probably expect a legit incline from kotchman. kotchman, depending upon how you measure things, arguably slightly outperformed PK or - at the very least - was in a dead heat. now, that was a poor year for PK. i think he'll rebound as much or more than kotchman will improve. but the expected trajectory of their respective careers looks like it will cross paths in 2009.

he should develop more power, though the signals on that are somewhat mixed. i don't think he'll ever be the power hitter PK is/was. but that doesn't really matter for purposes of this comparison.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we are far off

I think our differences lie more with Kotchman. I see a kid who was protected last year without much power.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

protected?

i'm not sure i follow.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Platooned

PA vs RP 424
PA vs LP 84

I realize his avg was fine vs the left handers but thats it. He had a ridiculous .333 BABIP against them and hit 0 Hrs. In fact in his very young career he doesnt have any HRs off a lefty.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that may have to do more

with the AL west not having many lefties than a platoon. i'd want more info but from a quick look at his gamelog i don't see a trend towards him being rested because the team is facing lefties.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

May be something to that

A quick glance at some of the other players shows a similar trend. Protected is what I lifted from the fantasy analysis.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jeez...

Kotchman is only 25, and he hit 37 doubles last year. The ONLY knock against him is that he maybe hasn't hit as many homers as some might want.

Do you know whose career Kotchman's most resembles at this point in time? David Ortiz's.

When David Ortiz was 24, he put up a .282/.364/.446 line with only ten homers in 130 games. That looks awfully similar to what Kotchman did in 2007.

That's not to say that Kotchman will turn into another David Ortiz, but it does show you that Kotchman would hardly be the first player in history to develop power in his mid-twenties.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree Jerry

I dont profess to be a Kotchman expert. That is why I asked. I see in the minors he really didnt either but he was an OBP machine. Ortiz had plenty of power in the minors and was f*cked up by the parent club.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if...

he never starts hitting lots of homers and turns into Mark Grace or Wally Joyner, Kotchman would still be a very valuable piece. Grace and Joyner were good hitters.

I'm sure the Angels could find a use for Konerko, but Kotchman is a lot more valuable at this point in time.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

I think at this point I have spent way more time talking about one Casey Kotchman than I really care to. I don't believe a deal is happening anyway.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny.

I told you two months ago that this trade makes some sense and that the Angels would have interest in Konerko....though MUCH LESS so now after their stupid signing of Hunter, unless money is COMPLETELY insignificant to them.

by dantesox on Jan 7, 2008 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think it makes sense

and i don't think the angels are really interested.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and I think

you're right.

by palehose67 on Jan 7, 2008 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

From

a purely baseball standpoint and without considering human and/or psychological factors, I MORE OR LESS agree with you. I just think that the Angels believe there is something intangible, however, about adding Konerko to that lineup...I just do....of course I have no certainty of this, as you've pointed out before and will again, but to eliminate that kind of conjecture would take a lot of the fun out of doing what we all do here.

by dantesox on Jan 7, 2008 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I

should add it may have made sense from a purely baseball standpoint pre-Hunter, although that could certainly be debated, too.

by dantesox on Jan 7, 2008 3:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

DH

Isn't Anderson going to be their DH?

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 12:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

its a DH/OF platoon of GMJr, Anderson, and Vlads.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kotchman

And if you are going to compare the 2 use everything. Geez the guy's isolated power .172 and .063 is Mark Gracish. Is he expected to develop more power?

I expect Konerko's OPS back closer to .900 this year.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

his power doesn't make much difference

if he puts up an OBP like he has and is expected to. OBP > SLG.

and, what a total shock, Tdogg going with the optimistic projection for konerko. i'm flabbergasted.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here we go again.

I am not as optimistic for others. Konerko was more as I posted earlier, about looking at his overall numbers and noting how unlucky he was last year. I full expect we are done with the 06 Paulie.

But his lineup is overall improved around him and his OBP was down also because of that luck.

You think a OPS of .880 or .890 would shock you?

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jan 7, 2008 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

.880 or .890...

is just about as well as he's ever done.

I think a reasonable estimation is that he has a couple more .350/.500 seasons left in him. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but he's not a superlative hitter.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree about OBP to a large measure

i question the power decline, though. there has been a clear decline in his hr per flyball (22% in 2004 and decline by 2% each year to 16% in 2007). he's also hitting more groundballs.

would i be shocked? no. but i don't call it likely. .860 is my guess.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Willits and Figgins

How do the Angels get Willits some at bats? This kid had a .391 OBP and 27 SB's last year. With Figgins leading off and playing 3B, and the outfield set with GM Jr., Hunter, Vlad & Anderson...how do you get enough at bats for Willits - there isn't anywhere to stick him.

I would think Figgins and GM Jr. would be available for the right price.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would be thrilled with this deal:

Konerko and Crede for Santana, Shields and Figgins.

I think that's doable for the Angels. They really need a 3B and a big bat. They can spare all 3 of those guys.

Is this deal so bad for LA ?

by White Sox Randy on Jan 7, 2008 1:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I would be thrilled too, but -

From the Angels stand point, what do they do with Konerko/Kotchman/Anderson/Willits, then?

I think they want to get rid of one of their outfielders and that would most notably be GM Jr. They then could put Willits in LF and put Paulie at 1b with Kotchman platooning with Anderson as DH or put Kotchman at 1B and Paulie at DH with Anderson off the bench.

I really hope Kenny isn't snookered into somehow taking GM Jr. if a trade with the Angels works out....please no.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why do they need a third baseman?

They guy they had there last year did a pretty good job. In fact, I don't know if Crede is an upgrade over Figgins.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Only if healthy

Crede provides more power than Figgins and they have two legit guys to leadoff in Kendrick or Willits.

Figgins isn't too good defensively either.

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That "if healthy"...

is a HUGE codicil. I wouldn't make Joe Crede my starting third baseman unless I had a very good backup. Why would the Angels trade away the guy who would be backing Crede up?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

because they have izturis?

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm.

That seems like a risk. What if Erick Aybar turns out to be a bust?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

brandon wood?

this isn't a team which has a particular lack of infield options.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point.

I guess what I keep coming back to is that Figgins has a lot more trade value than Joe Crede does right now. I could see the Angels taking a flier on Crede as a throw-in, but he doesn't really add a whole lot of value to a trade package.

I would be happy with Santana/Shields for Konerko/Crede.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

why?

that doesnt help the team at all. we lose konerko and replace him with JO? santana goes to AAA to work as a reliever and we get scot shields, a 32 year old reliever?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

The Sox don't have Nick Swisher playing center any more (a position he's really not suited for), they move a bunch of salary, help in the short term (Shields) and possibly in the long run as well.

But I like Ervin Santana probably more than most people here do.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

defensively

is JO that much better than Swisher?

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think so.

Owens is average. Swisher is awful.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if thats the case

then i can see your point. we're gonna need some stellar defense behind our SP.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, and...

with Dye in right, the Sox need at least an average centerfielder.

Between Fields, Konerko, Pierzynski, and Dye, the Sox defense is going to be below-average as it is. I don't think they can afford to have Swisher in center.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dye and fields

are a whole different story, ugh.....

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

when i think of dye and fields

i think of the bad news bears in the beginning with them running around kicking the ball.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

probably the same arm

for those of you who care about that - i believe it was quantified at HBT today, in fact. but owens is a better fielder, largely due to his speed. heck, you could probably expect some general improvement because he would know the sox pitching staff better and have more experience overall in the position. like JRE said, average is a decent place to peg him and he may even be a decent better than that.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

if you do something like that, there's still the possibility of signing cameron...

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Another good point.

If they bring in Cameron for a two-year deal, I'd be happy with that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I swear

to god your phenomenol consistency in minimizing Sox assets ASTOUNDS me. You consistently mildly to moderately undervalue our assets. You'd be a great candidate for psychological testing, and I don't mean that maliciously or sarcastically. You know your baseball like nobody's business, too.

by dantesox on Jan 7, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can you elaborate?

Whom am I undervaluing and why?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Konerko.

Not terribly, but noticeably. I'm sorry I can't pinpoint other specific examples, but I do know I've accused you of this in the past. Take with a grain of salt. I do like your and benefit from your posts.

by dantesox on Jan 7, 2008 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't think...

Konerko's worth all that much. He's a good but not great hitter, he's not that young, he doesn't have much defensive value, and his contract isn't much if at all below market value.

He's a solid player, but to be frank, there isn't a whole lot of demand for his services. 1B/DH types who can hit acceptably but can't field are a dime a dozen.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it

was me he was referring to.

I agree with you about Crede right now. Who knows where he stands healthwise right now? A trade of Crede will (or at least shouldn't) happen until after he shows something in spring training. Otherwise his value is at an all time low right now.

A trade with the Angels that would include Crede and Konerko would probably be done during spring training - Konerko is 10 and 5 on May 1.

But, why would the Sox trade Konerko in spring training - you would think that would have some negative PR between the players right before the season starts and could taint the season - he is the team captain and a very vocal lockeroom presence.

My thinking is Konerko could go, but that will happen before spring training. In my opinion you cannot trade Crede before spring training....so my conclusion is Konerko and Crede will not be traded in the same trade.

Make sense? I rambled a bit...

by BobbySouthSide on Jan 7, 2008 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

depends

on what their expectations of aybar is. I dont imagine them seeing him as a top of the order type.

12/12/07- We'll miss you Andy Gonzalez

by The Deacon on Jan 7, 2008 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see

where cough syrup has anything to do with this.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Jan 7, 2008 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

implying you don't know what codicil is?

not sure that amounts to a joke. unless it's on you.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Some of us don't

have the vocabulary you do, Larry. I guess the joke's on me.

"All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us."

by ballyb on Jan 7, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nope, on me

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rember, Figgins is a FA after this year like Crede

Also, Shields has thrown a TON of innings the last 4 years and he may be breaking down and Santana had a road ERA above 8 last year so the Sox are getting some risks too.

And, Figgins is pretty bad at third. I would love him to play CF and 2B for the Sox while also breaking in and using Owens and Richar more selectively. Shields probably solidifies the pen and Santana is a big ? He could be nothing.

I think the Angels know that Crede should be fine and they may wait to see it. I think this deal would really help both teams. The Angels have a lot of guys that look good but haven't put together solid full seasons- Kendrick,Kotchman,Quinlan,Morales,Wood,Izturis,Aybar etc. Konerko and Crede changes that for them.

by White Sox Randy on Jan 7, 2008 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why should anyone...

know that Crede should be fine? Has he even taken BP since his surgery?

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 7, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'd bet he has

but no one would know - probably not even the sox - because boras keeps a tight lid on this stuff. but, based upon when he had the surgery and the reports that he hasn't had any setbacks, he should be taking BP.

by larry on Jan 7, 2008 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs