PDA

View Full Version : Trib: Cabrera in no rush to discuss new deal...


mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:36 PM
Saw this article today and was rather annoyed/chagrined...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080415-orlando-cabrera-chicago-white-sox,1,7392800.story

Personally, I think the jury is still out on whether Cabrera helps the club. He's played good defense, but I haven't been enjoying watching his swing.

But, either way, if the Sox don't get some value for him or lock him up for another year or two, letting him go 1 season after trading away an 18-game winning, 28-year old starter who makes roughly the same salary may be just about the most wasteful, lop-sided trade I've ever seen (especially given that we have 2 other SS's on the roster...).

I mean, had he been significantly cheaper, and we had used the money on something else (a la 2005), that would have been something. But this?

Sigh...

rdwj
04-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Isn't Garland a free agent too?

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 04:40 PM
Yes he is and he'll probably be wearing Yankee pinstripes unless the Angels pony up a lot of cash.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Isn't Garland a free agent too?

Yeah, this is the last year of a 3-year contract, for $12m.

If it's 1 year for 1 year, I'd rather have a proven starter than a light-hitting SS.

Elephant
04-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Saw this article today and was rather annoyed/chagrined...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080415-orlando-cabrera-chicago-white-sox,1,7392800.story

Personally, I think the jury is still out on whether Cabrera helps the club. He's played good defense, but I haven't been enjoying watching his swing.

But, either way, if the Sox don't get some value for him or lock him up for another year or two, letting him go 1 season after trading away an 18-game winning, 28-year old starter who makes roughly the same salary may be just about the most wasteful, lop-sided trade I've ever seen (especially given that we have 2 other SS's on the roster...).

I mean, had he been significantly cheaper, and we had used the money on something else (a la 2005), that would have been something. But this?

Sigh...

You're forgetting the compensation pick we'd get if we lose him in free agency.

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 04:43 PM
But, either way, if the Sox don't get some value for him or lock him up for another year or two, letting him go 1 season after trading away an 18-game winning, 28-year old starter who makes roughly the same salary may be just about the most wasteful, lop-sided trade I've ever seen (especially given that we have 2 other SS's on the roster...).

I mean, had he been significantly cheaper, and we had used the money on something else (a la 2005), that would have been something. But this?

Sigh...

First of all, step back and take a deep breath. What if Cabrera helps us win a division or a World Series in his only year here? If thats the case, maybe you'd rethink the trade. I mean people were calling the Lee for Pods and Vizcaino trade "the most lopsided trade ever" too. Pods was here what 3 injury filled years and Viz was traded after the WS....I'm still glad we made the trade. What if Garland gets hurt in his next start. What if Garland continues to struggle? There are still waaaaay to many questions to already be bashing the trade. Not to mention, right now our starting staff is looking great even without Garland.

WhiteSox5187
04-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Isn't Garland a free agent too?
He is, but I imagine he wants to stay home in California. But I haven't read anything about him staying or leaving. As for Cabrera, the jury is still out. But if he can put up numbers like he did in Anaheim, I wouldn't mind having him for another year or two.

knocko94
04-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Saw this article today and was rather annoyed/chagrined...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080415-orlando-cabrera-chicago-white-sox,1,7392800.story

Personally, I think the jury is still out on whether Cabrera helps the club. He's played good defense, but I haven't been enjoying watching his swing.

But, either way, if the Sox don't get some value for him or lock him up for another year or two, letting him go 1 season after trading away an 18-game winning, 28-year old starter who makes roughly the same salary may be just about the most wasteful, lop-sided trade I've ever seen (especially given that we have 2 other SS's on the roster...).

I mean, had he been significantly cheaper, and we had used the money on something else (a la 2005), that would have been something. But this?

Sigh...

Hey, I saw this thread this morning. What a coincidence.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=99968

mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:43 PM
You're forgetting the compensation pick we'd get if we lose him in free agency.

Compensation picks are a far cry from replacing starting pitching.

jabrch
04-16-2008, 04:44 PM
Yeah, this is the last year of a 3-year contract, for $12m.

If it's 1 year for 1 year, I'd rather have a proven starter than a light-hitting SS.

So you'd rather us have Garland in the rotation instead of Danks or Floyd (we couldn't unload Jose when we tried) and Uribe back at SS and Ramirez at 2B instead of our current rotation, OC and Uribe moved to 2B?

Really?

I feel like we are much better off with the team as it is currently constructed.

rdwj
04-16-2008, 04:46 PM
Yeah, this is the last year of a 3-year contract, for $12m.

If it's 1 year for 1 year, I'd rather have a proven starter than a light-hitting SS.

So how is 1 for 1 wasteful and lop-sided? Garland has been getting torched this year and our staff seems fairly decent without him. Besides, the great majority of people on this board thought that SS was a pressing need going into the season since you neve know what you're going to get from Uribe - and last year was nothing but bad.

If Garland were under contract for another couple of seasons, I could see your point, but swapping walk year guys is a wash.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:46 PM
Hey, I saw this thread this morning. What a coincidence.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=99968

Whoops, I looked through three pages and didn't see this. It's been a while since I've posted on this board. :redface:

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 04:48 PM
I'd rather have a proven starter than a light-hitting SS.

Cabrera in his career has generally hit around .300 and is a gold glove winning SS.

You make it sound like we traded Cy Young for Mike Caruso.

SoxNation05
04-16-2008, 04:48 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396

Wow, he has two K's this year. It also says he is making 12 mil.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:50 PM
So you'd rather us have Garland in the rotation instead of Danks or Floyd (we couldn't unload Jose when we tried) and Uribe back at SS and Ramirez at 2B instead of our current rotation, OC and Uribe moved to 2B?

Really?

I feel like we are much better off with the team as it is currently constructed.

Yes, really.

I think it's too early to say what Danks and Floyd will do over the span of a season. We haven't seen much of Floyd and Danks did not impress in a full year last year. Whereas Garland has many seasons on his resume.

OTOH, we have mounds of statistical data from Cabrera. And the data tell us he is a light hitting SS on the way down in his career. So even if it's a 1-1 swap, I'd rather take one year from a proven starter than one year from a declining SS.

Now, if we lock up Cabrera for a few years at less than $10m per year, we can benefit from defensive stability and develop starters. But if we lose him and only get a compensation pick, I'd rather have had the year of proven starting pitching, all things considered.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 04:55 PM
First of all, step back and take a deep breath. What if Cabrera helps us win a division or a World Series in his only year here? If thats the case, maybe you'd rethink the trade. I mean people were calling the Lee for Pods and Vizcaino trade "the most lopsided trade ever" too. Pods was here what 3 injury filled years and Viz was traded after the WS....I'm still glad we made the trade. What if Garland gets hurt in his next start. What if Garland continues to struggle? There are still waaaaay to many questions to already be bashing the trade. Not to mention, right now our starting staff is looking great even without Garland.

Of course you are right, if everything works out spectacularly, Cabrera helps us win a WS, and Danks/Floyd perform like Garlandx2, it will look like genius.

It just doesn't seem very likely. Cabrera isn't getting any younger, and as far as starting pitching goes, a bird in the hand (a proven starter in his prime) is worth two in the bush (two youngsters who may be great, but may not be).

Also, the Lee for Pods/Vizcaino trade was trading a big salary for two non-existent ones, which allowed us to sign AJ and Iguchi with the remainder. Garland for Cabrera was much closer to an even swap, dollar-wise. So instead of saving $ and addressing 2 big needs, we filled one need and created another one at the same time, for the same money.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 04:58 PM
OTOH, we have mounds of statistical data from Cabrera. And the data tell us he is a light hitting SS on the way down in his career. So even if it's a 1-1 swap, I'd rather take one year from a proven starter than one year from a declining SS.


Cabrera hit .301 last year and the year before that he hit .282, how exactly is he is on his way down? Are you basing this on the first two weeks of a 6 month season?

Garland is the one who suffered a drop off in victories, and let's not forget that he consistently has posted ERA's in the mid 4.00's with the only exception being in '05.

Danks and Floyd are young and at this point looking good. So relax and enjoy this season.

Boondock Saint
04-16-2008, 05:00 PM
Is it just me, or do a vast majority of threads in the Clubhouse turn into arguments over whether or not BA/Thome/Garland/Gavin/Danks/Cabrera/Rowand/etc. suck?

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:01 PM
Cabrera hit .301 last year and the year before that he hit .282, how exactly is he is on his way down? Are you basing this on the first two weeks of a 6 month season?

Garland is the one who suffered a drop off in victories, and let's not forget that he consistently has posted ERA's in the mid 4.00's with the only exception being in '05.

Danks and Floyd are young and at this point looking good. So relax and enjoy this season.

I'm enjoying the season so far. But relax? Hah! I've been a Sox fan for too long... :D:

doublem23
04-16-2008, 05:01 PM
What if the extra year in the rotation allowed Danks and Floyd to develop into two reliable starting pitchers for the Sox for 2008 and the near future?

I loved Jon, he was a good pitcher, but let's not forget how wildly inconsistent he could be... Look at his last 2 starts, 10 IP/10 ER. Meanwhile, with no Cabrera and the injury to Danny Richar, that would leave the Sox starting Uribe at SS and Ramirez/Ozuna at 2B. :puking:

Maybe not the greatest trade the Sox ever pulled, but most lopsided in history? That's a bit too far.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 05:02 PM
Is it just me, or do a vast majority of threads in the Clubhouse turn into arguments over whether or not BA/Thome/Garland/Gavin/Danks/Cabrera/Rowand/etc. suck?

Pretty much. I am just sick of hearing about how we should've kept Garland. It's not like we got a bag of beans for him. We got a GOLD GLOVE winning SS who can hit for average and get on base.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:02 PM
Compensation picks are a far cry from replacing starting pitching.

Since we're replacing starting pitching either way, I'd rather have the compensation pick than not have it.

GARLAND WAS GOING TO WALK. Please get that through your head and let's continue

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 05:03 PM
I'll take a Gold Glove, .300 hitting SS over a right handed third starter anyday. A great defensive SS can help your team every day, not just once every 5 days. Plus an infield of Cabrera and Uribe is probably worth at least 0.50 on the staff ERA compared to Uribe and Ramierez/Pablo.

The Sox have had an unbelieveable track record of letting stud pitchers go a year before they bottem out. Yes, we've taken on some other duds (Koch for exampe) but we seem to know our pitchers pretty well:

Srotka...didn't pitch again after we traded him
Freddy Garcia.....one win for the Phils....may not pitch again (in fact if Gavin Floyd pans out, this may be one of the most lopsided trades in history)
Colon...one solid year but then injured (including the palyofs that year)
El Duque....mediocre/hurt

Meanwhile we've put our money in Vazquez and Buerhle...seems good to me.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:03 PM
What if the extra year in the rotation allowed Danks and Floyd to develop into two reliable starting pitchers for the Sox for 2008 and the near future?

I loved Jon, he was a good pitcher, but let's not forget how wildly inconsistent he could be... Look at his last 2 starts, 10 IP/10 ER. Meanwhile, with no Cabrera and the injury to Danny Richar, that would leave the Sox starting Uribe at SS and Ramirez/Ozuna at 2B.

Maybe not the greatest trade the Sox ever pulled, but most lopsided in history? That's a bit too far.

That's the big part of the trade, for me--it gave Floyd a chance to pitch.

Without trading Garland, Floyd would not have had a spot in the rotation. Right now it's looking like a very good thing Floyd is pitching. That may not be the case by the end of the year, but by the end of the year you have evaluate: Garland v. Floyd and Cabrera, not Garland v. Cabrera

doublem23
04-16-2008, 05:03 PM
Is it just me, or do a vast majority of threads in the Clubhouse turn into arguments over whether or not BA/Thome/Garland/Gavin/Danks/Cabrera/Rowand/etc. suck?

The Sox are winning, we have to argue about something!

Seriously, it feels good to only have 2-3 hot spots on the team right now, as opposed to some down years, when everyone sucked. :cool:

Frater Perdurabo
04-16-2008, 05:05 PM
So you'd rather us have Garland in the rotation instead of Danks or Floyd (we couldn't unload Jose when we tried) and Uribe back at SS and Ramirez at 2B instead of our current rotation, OC and Uribe moved to 2B?

I feel like we are much better off with the team as it is currently constructed.

I too like the team as it is, too, but to be honest, I think I'd like it even more with Garland in the rotation, Uribe at SS, Iguchi at 2B, Contreras in the pen, and MacDougal in Charlotte.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:05 PM
Is it just me, or do a vast majority of threads in the Clubhouse turn into arguments over whether or not BA/Thome/Garland/Gavin/Danks/Cabrera/Rowand/etc. suck?

I dunno. Frankly, I see two things as being possible on a fan board. Either we all keep the rose colored glasses on and congratulate ourselves for liking the best team ever; or we gripe and moan about same.

As fans, this is pretty much all we can do. We're not a part of the team, we don't cover the team as a part of the media, we don't have inside info.

So I don't see the harm in speculation, whether it is positive or negative. It's what fans do.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:08 PM
I too like the team as it is, too, but to be honest, I think I'd like it even more with Garland in the rotation, Uribe at SS, Iguchi at 2B, Contreras in the pen, and MacDougal in Charlotte.

I don't disagree with this, per se, but I will say it's far from a foregone conclusion that Iguchi would have resigned, and I have my doubts Ozzie would put Jose in the pen.

that being the case, I'd rather have Floyd pitching in terms of helping this team in 2008 and beyond than have his position blocked by a solid inning-eater who will be gone next year

Boondock Saint
04-16-2008, 05:09 PM
The Sox have had an unbelieveable track record of letting stud pitchers go a year before they bottem out. Yes, we've taken on some other duds (Koch for exampe) but we seem to know our pitchers pretty well:

Srotka...didn't pitch again after we traded him
Freddy Garcia.....one win for the Phils....may not pitch again (in fact if Gavin Floyd pans out, this may be one of the most lopsided trades in history)
Colon...one solid year but then injured (including the palyofs that year)
El Duque....mediocre/hurt

Meanwhile we've put or money in Vazquez and Buerhle...seems good to me.

This, I can sink my teeth into. I didn't know we did quite so well in pitching trades in recent history. I guess you could throw Aardsma for Cotts in there as well, but even then, that's pretty much a wash. I'm gonna just have faith in KW when it comes to trading pitching.

Frater Perdurabo
04-16-2008, 05:09 PM
I don't disagree with this, per se, but I will say it's far from a foregone conclusion that Iguchi would have resigned, and I have my doubts Ozzie would put Jose in the pen.

Let's not let reality cloud my perfectly nice deeppink fantasy. :redface:

asindc
04-16-2008, 05:10 PM
I dunno. Frankly, I see two things as being possible on a fan board. Either we all keep the rose colored glasses on and congratulate ourselves for liking the best team ever; or we gripe and moan about same.

As fans, this is pretty much all we can do. We're not a part of the team, we don't cover the team as a part of the media, we don't have inside info.

So I don't see the harm in speculation, whether it is positive or negative. It's what fans do.

How about a middle ground, where we enjoy the success while discussing reasonable ways to improve the team?

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:13 PM
I too like the team as it is, too, but to be honest, I think I'd like it even more with Garland in the rotation, Uribe at SS, Iguchi at 2B, Contreras in the pen, and MacDougal in Charlotte.

I'm with you on this. Dumping Iguchi was just strange. Seems to me he is the equal of Cabrera defensively, and maybe even a bit of an upgrade offensively. So we'd have Iguchi and Uribe up the middle, and Garland and Floyd in the rotation, with Contreras doing something else.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:14 PM
I'm with you on this. Dumping Iguchi was just strange. Seems to me he is the equal of Cabrera defensively, and maybe even a bit of an upgrade offensively. So we'd have Iguchi and Uribe up the middle, and Garland and Floyd in the rotation, with Contreras doing something else.

You seem to be making it a habit to assume that people who do not have to re-sign with us will re-sign with us.

That is probably a bad habit to get into.

Elephant
04-16-2008, 05:15 PM
Compensation picks are a far cry from replacing starting pitching.

Since we're replacing starting pitching either way, I'd rather have the compensation pick than not have it.

GARLAND WAS GOING TO WALK. Please get that through your head and let's continue

Exactly. And let's not act like Garland is extremely difficult to replace. He's like Crede--lots of mediocre years; one good year. "Was that an aberration or did he finally 'come into his own?'"

Either way he's not Don Drysdale. Danks and Floyd have a good chance of being just as effective. It was just time for Garland to go, period. That's baseball. Be thankful we got a good veteran SS and if necessary an extra, and sorely needed, draft pick for him.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:15 PM
How about a middle ground, where we enjoy the success while discussing reasonable ways to improve the team?

Reason?!?! Hah! :gulp:

I'll see your reason and raise you fanaticism.

Seriously though, what do you think would improve the team as it is? What would be the scenarios if:

1. Cabrera walks after this year;
2. we re-sign him.

Steelrod
04-16-2008, 05:17 PM
I dunno. Frankly, I see two things as being possible on a fan board. Either we all keep the rose colored glasses on and congratulate ourselves for liking the best team ever; or we gripe and moan about same.

As fans, this is pretty much all we can do. We're not a part of the team, we don't cover the team as a part of the media, we don't have inside info.

So I don't see the harm in speculation, whether it is positive or negative. It's what fans do.
Media has inside info! I doubt it. That's what makes it "inside info."

asindc
04-16-2008, 05:18 PM
Reason?!?! Hah! :gulp:

I'll see your reason and raise you fanaticism.

Seriously though, what do you think would improve the team as it is? What would be the scenarios if:

1. Cabrera walks after this year;
2. we re-sign him.

Depends on what the Sox offer him and what he accepts or turns down. Count me among the many that saw Garland walking no matter what. He always seemed to have that 'California Dreaming' demeanor about him when he was here, even during the '05 playoffs. I'll be surprised if he signs outside of CA or Arizona.

FedEx227
04-16-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm with you on this. Dumping Iguchi was just strange. Seems to me he is the equal of Cabrera defensively, and maybe even a bit of an upgrade offensively. So we'd have Iguchi and Uribe up the middle, and Garland and Floyd in the rotation, with Contreras doing something else.

I agree a bit with the offensively probably equal, not defensively though Cabrera is far and away better, in my opinion.

I still have no problem with the deal, I think Cabrera, like Swisher brought this team a whole new dynamic, and yeah it came at the cost of losing Garland.

But really ask yourself at the end of the year who is more signable? Garland or Cabrera? Baseball is a business, and this is one of the better BUSINESS moves Kenny has made in awhile, he finally traded a guy when his value was at it's peak and didn't hold onto him too long or just let him fly off with nothing but a Type B compensation pick.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:22 PM
Depends on what the Sox offer him and what he accepts or turns down. Count me among the many that saw Garland walking no matter what. He always seemed to have that 'California Dreaming' demeanor about him when he was here, even during the '05 playoffs. I'll be surprised if he signs outside of CA or Arizona.

In an attempt to be reasonable, I must say that I can see an upside of losing Garland for the future scenario. If Garland is a "guaranteed walk," then it is better to have developed Danks/Floyd for future seasons.

I just would have preferred to get more for what essentially every team is screaming for, proven starting pitching. One old player who makes roughly the same $ is not a ton of value for the hottest commodity in baseball, pitching.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:24 PM
In an attempt to be reasonable, I must say that I can see an upside of losing Garland for the future scenario. If Garland is a "guaranteed walk," then it is better to have developed Danks/Floyd for future seasons.

I just would have preferred to get more for what essentially every team is screaming for, proven starting pitching. One old player who makes roughly the same $ is not a ton of value for the hottest commodity in baseball, pitching.

Garland was a guaranteed walk. He prefers the West Coast to the midwest AND a team out east will almost certainly offer him 15+ per year.

We were not going to re-sign him.

FedEx227
04-16-2008, 05:25 PM
Garland was a guaranteed walk. He prefers the West Coast to the midwest AND a team out east will almost certainly offer him 15+ per year.

We were not going to re-sign him.

Exactly.

This move is a business move.

At the end of the year we have a significantly better chance of signing OC than we would have ever had signing Garland. END OF STORY.

Paulwny
04-16-2008, 05:26 PM
Garland was a guaranteed walk. He prefers the West Coast to the midwest AND a team out east will almost certainly offer him 15+ per year.

We were not going to re-sign him.

He'll also be looking for a long term contract.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:30 PM
Garland was a guaranteed walk. He prefers the West Coast to the midwest AND a team out east will almost certainly offer him 15+ per year.

We were not going to re-sign him.

See, now, to me, this is the kind of thing that a fan couldn't possible know. Do you talk to Garland? Or is this opinion based on the "California dreaming" look he has on his face?

Therefore, I prefer to think of what we got in return. And I just don't think the value matches. A 33-y.o. shortstop with good defense but marginal power who makes $10m does not compensate for a 28-y.o. multiple-18-game winner who makes $12m. Had he made less and we signed another player with the difference, I could see it.

rdwj
04-16-2008, 05:31 PM
He's like Crede--lots of mediocre years; one good year.

Crede has been a brilliant defensive player for the great majority of his time here. He's one of the finest glove men in the game. He may have put up pedestrian offensive numbers for all but one year, but to call him mediocre is ludicrous.

FedEx227
04-16-2008, 05:35 PM
See, now, to me, this is the kind of thing that a fan couldn't possible know. Do you talk to Garland? Or is this opinion based on the "California dreaming" look he has on his face?

Therefore, I prefer to think of what we got in return. And I just don't think the value matches. A 33-y.o. shortstop with good defense but marginal power who makes $10m does not compensate for a 28-y.o. multiple-18-game winner who makes $12m. Had he made less and we signed another player with the difference, I could see it.

No, it's called the track record of the White Sox and most pitchers of his age.

It's really, really, really not that hard to understand. The White Sox don't like signing pitchers long term and very few pitchers of Garland's age and ability level take 2-3 year deals.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:35 PM
See, now, to me, this is the kind of thing that a fan couldn't possible know. Do you talk to Garland? Or is this opinion based on the "California dreaming" look he has on his face?

Can't possibly know? Yeah it's not like anyone interviews Garland and it's not like he has family out west and lives there when the baseball season's over.

Anyway, like I said, even if he's not "california dreaming" :rolleyes: East coast is going to offer him more money. Probably about 3 million per year over 4 years more than we would offer. Even California (LA, LAA, SF) will probably offer him that much. We're not going to offer Garland 15 million/4 and he's not going to turn down 12 million dollars to stay in a place he has no roots in.


Therefore, I prefer to think of what we got in return. And I just don't think the value matches. A 33-y.o. shortstop with good defense but marginal power who makes $10m does not compensate for a 28-y.o. multiple-18-game winner who makes $12m. Had he made less and we signed another player with the difference, I could see it.

The value doesn't really match, I'd agree, except for that MLB considers Cabrera a more valuable player than Garland and so we get a compensatory pick if he walks, unlike with Garland.

Here's the bottom line: SS was an area of need, we had too many pitchers for rotation spots, and Garland was the expendable (and marketable) one.

Move made, team is probably slightly worse off for it in 2008 but will be better for it in 2009 and beyond. I know it seems like 2008 is a year when we're going to compete, but I still wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

I really doubt the 2-3 extra wins Garland would have been worth are going to be the difference in much of anything but drafting order.

In short, get over it :shrug:

Elephant
04-16-2008, 05:36 PM
Crede has been a brilliant defensive player for the great majority of his time here. He's one of the finest glove men in the game. He may have put up pedestrian offensive numbers for all but one year, but to call him mediocre is ludicrous.

Well above average defense + well below average offense sounds "mediocre" to me. Although in his career he's probably in the upper tier of 3B simply because it's rarely an elite group.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:36 PM
Crede has been a brilliant defensive player for the great majority of his time here. He's one of the finest glove men in the game. He may have put up pedestrian offensive numbers for all but one year, but to call him mediocre is ludicrous.

Can you say that without the purple prose?

Crede is a fine defensive 3B, probably among the top 10 in baseball. But do we really have to say he's "brilliant" or a "fine glove man" or talk about how "ludicrous" it is to call his "pedestrian" numbers mediocre?

hi im skot
04-16-2008, 05:37 PM
He always seemed to have that 'California Dreaming' demeanor about him when he was here, even during the '05 playoffs. I'll be surprised if he signs outside of CA or Arizona.

Is that you, Joe Cowley?

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:40 PM
Well above average defense + well below average offense sounds "mediocre" to me. Although in his career he's probably in the upper tier of 3B simply because it's rarely an elite group.

I wouldn't classify his offensive numbers as "well below average." Therefore, Average offense + Above Average defense = slightly above average player. Which, last I checked, is not the definition of mediocre.

Elephant
04-16-2008, 05:42 PM
I wouldn't classify his offensive numbers as "well below average." Therefore, Average offense + Above Average defense = slightly above average player. Which, last I checked, is not the definition of mediocre.

:rolleyes:

Okay, fine. Even if a .305 OBP is average for an offensive position.

Slightly above average players get a lot of cred around here.

rdwj
04-16-2008, 05:43 PM
Can you say that without the purple prose?

Crede is a fine defensive 3B, probably among the top 10 in baseball. But do we really have to say he's "brilliant" or a "fine glove man" or talk about how "ludicrous" it is to call his "pedestrian" numbers mediocre?

Excuse me for using my vocabulary. Is this better?

Crede good - more good than Garland

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 05:44 PM
I'm with you on this. Dumping Iguchi was just strange. Seems to me he is the equal of Cabrera defensively, and maybe even a bit of an upgrade offensively. So we'd have Iguchi and Uribe up the middle, and Garland and Floyd in the rotation, with Contreras doing something else.

Wait, are you saying Iguchi--who was traded because of his limited range at second--is equal to a gold glove SS defensively? Or are you saying that Uribe is equal to Cabrera at SS and Uribe at second is equal to Iguchi?

I would say Cabrera is a lot better than Iguchi defensively and better than Uribe and Uribe at 2nd is better than Iguchi. Frankly, I'd say Cabrera is a better offensive player than Iguchi as well.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:45 PM
I wouldn't classify his offensive numbers as "well below average." Therefore, Average offense + Above Average defense = slightly above average player. Which, last I checked, is not the definition of mediocre.

slightly above average =/= mediocre?

In what universe?

And the fact is, Crede could be described more accurately as "below average offense + above average defense".

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:46 PM
Excuse me for using my vocabulary. Is this better?

Crede good - more good than Garland

:rolleyes:

I'm talking about waxing poetic about a solid defender, not about using vocabulary.

Purple, hyperbolic prose =/= "using your vocabulary". It = "gushing to try to oversell your point"

Let's try this: "though Crede's glove often has hooveresque stature, surely the herculean batsmithery of his young apprentice Josh Fields is enough to overthrow his tired and hobbled master whose toothpickian bat leaves no man thinking nostalgically of the former titans who once periled after opposing pitchers"

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:50 PM
slightly above average =/= mediocre?

In what universe?

And the fact is, Crede could be described more accurately as "below average offense + above average defense".

You have quite an idea of what "average offense" in the MLB is, apparently. I can't find a link on short notice, but I imagine the absolute "average" for all MLB batters is around .250, 12 HR, 50 RBI, 10 SB, .300 OBP. Crede is slightly above that. I will keep looking for the absolute MLB averages for offensive numbers by season and update.

And "slightly above average =/= mediocre" is true in the universe where Webster defines mediocre as: "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance." Mediocre means at the median or below. Not above. Anything above the median is not mediocre.

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 05:51 PM
Joe Crede as an "above average defensive 3B" may be the understatement of the year.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:52 PM
You have quite an idea of what "average offense" in the MLB is, apparently. I can't find a link on short notice, but I imagine "average" is .250, 12 HR, 50 RBI, 10 SB, .300 OBP. Crede is slightly above that. I will keep looking for the absolute MLB averages for offensive numbers by season and update.

And "slightly above average =/= mediocre" is true in the universe where Webster defines mediocre as: "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance"


Crede has a ****ty career OBP and doesn't hit for very much power.

That's not good.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 05:53 PM
Joe Crede as an "above average defensive 3B" may be the understatement of the year.

Not really. He makes great plays and has a great arm, and I love him at 3B, but it's not like he's a flawless 3B. He makes his share of errors, and there are a handful of defensive 3B who are better than he is.

FedEx227
04-16-2008, 05:54 PM
You have quite an idea of what "average offense" in the MLB is, apparently. I can't find a link on short notice, but I imagine "average" is .250, 12 HR, 50 RBI, 10 SB, .300 OBP. Crede is slightly above that. I will keep looking for the absolute MLB averages for offensive numbers by season and update.

And "slightly above average =/= mediocre" is true in the universe where Webster defines mediocre as: "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance." Mediocre means at the median or below. Not above. Anything above the median is not mediocre.

Obviously not an exact science by any means can't find the actual league average just yet I'll keep looking though. But BP uses
Joe Average: 600 PA .260/.330/.420

for their VORP stat.

It's Dankerific
04-16-2008, 05:56 PM
Not really. He makes great plays and has a great arm, and I love him at 3B, but it's not like he's a flawless 3B. He makes his share of errors, and there are a handful of defensive 3B who are better than he is.

BLASPHEMY!!! :angry::angry: BURN HIM!!!!

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 05:56 PM
And "slightly above average =/= mediocre" is true in the universe where Webster defines mediocre as: "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance." Mediocre means at the median or below. Not above. Anything above the median is not mediocre.

We are getting into symantics here but low quality is not "slightly above average" its slightly below average to bad.

"of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance" That's how you would describe a non-injured Crede? Really? He's good for a 270ish average and 25 home runs and at least 80 rbi. Hell, if we could get that from Brian Anderson, it would actually justify all the calls for him to get starter's playing time around here.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 05:58 PM
Crede has a ****ty career OBP and doesn't hit for very much power.

That's not good.

Wait, a seasonal average of .260, 25 HR, 87 RBI, and a .755 OPS = not very much power? In what universe?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4250

FedEx227
04-16-2008, 05:59 PM
Ah good ole FAN GRAPHS... how could I forget.

Joe Crede vs. MLB Average (AVG):
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/227_3B_season_full_0_20080415.png

Joe Crede vs. MLB Average (OBP):
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/227_3B_season_full_1_20080415.png

Joe Crede vs. MLB Average (SLG):
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/227_3B_season_full_2_20080415.png

Not a good sign for the "Above Average" crowd. These pretty much scream that Crede is about league average offensively when you take the sums of avg, obp and slg. What slight edge he has in SLG he gives up with OBP.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 06:00 PM
We are getting into symantics here but low quality is not "slightly above average" its slightly below average to bad.

"of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance" That's how you would describe a non-injured Crede? Really? He's good for a 270ish average and 25 home runs and at least 80 rbi. Hell, if we could get that from Brian Anderson, it would actually justify all the calls for him to get starter's playing time around here.

Dude, we agree. It's Fquaye who is trying to make the case for Crede as mediocre. I am saying, since Crede is slightly above average offensively, he is therefore by definition NOT mediocre.

Elephant
04-16-2008, 06:02 PM
You have quite an idea of what "average offense" in the MLB is, apparently. I can't find a link on short notice, but I imagine the absolute "average" for all MLB batters is around .250, 12 HR, 50 RBI, 10 SB, .300 OBP. Crede is slightly above that. I will keep looking for the absolute MLB averages for offensive numbers by season and update.

And "slightly above average =/= mediocre" is true in the universe where Webster defines mediocre as: "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance." Mediocre means at the median or below. Not above. Anything above the median is not mediocre.

This absolute median formula is fatally flawed since not all positions have the same burden of offensive need. Crede plays an offensive position, therefore his .305 OBP, regardless of the universe, is below average. Frankly, that's bad for a catcher--the least offensive position on the field.

As a matter of fact, I looked it up and the aggregate league OBP in Crede's 9 years is .340. For a corner player his .306 is inexcusable.

Just saying, he's pretty overrated around here. And with all this being said, I don't have a problem with him. He's got a good glove and he has a lot of big hits under his belt. Clutch hits are great, but what about the other 596 at bats?

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 06:04 PM
Not really. He makes great plays and has a great arm, and I love him at 3B, but it's not like he's a flawless 3B. He makes his share of errors, and there are a handful of defensive 3B who are better than he is.

Ok, I'm game....name 5 guys you'd take over him.

3B at the major league level is pretty damn hard to play well. No one is going to be flawless, but there are many who are form it. Crede is easily a top five defensive third baseman which means he is far more than "above average to average."

UofCSoxFan
04-16-2008, 06:05 PM
Dude, we agree. It's Fquaye who is trying to make the case for Crede as mediocre. I am saying, since Crede is slightly above average offensively, he is therefore by definition NOT mediocre.

OK...gotcha.

mweflen
04-16-2008, 06:05 PM
:hijacked:AAAAAANYWAY....

I don't think we got fair value for Garland with Cabrera, at least if he walks after 2008.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 06:10 PM
:hijacked:AAAAAANYWAY....

I don't think we got fair value for Garland with Cabrera, at least if he walks after 2008.

Please stop hitting that dead horse. Garland was not going to stay here so stop assuming that he was.

With that said a Gold Glove SS for a guy who won 10 games last year with an ERA above 4.00 is a great deal.

oeo
04-16-2008, 06:11 PM
Compensation picks are a far cry from replacing starting pitching.

Let's wait and see whether we end up missing Garland. Right now, Danks and Floyd are holding up their end of the bargain.

Cabrera will be fine with the bat...not so sure about his glove; I wonder how he won a Gold Glove last year. But anyways, a lot of people are forgetting that Cabrera was not only brought here to go into the second slot in the lineup, but to change the losing, boring clubhouse culture that we had for the last year and a half (along with Swish...and the aim was the same with Hunter/Rowand).

I've already noticed a couple of times his leadership in the infield, especially when talking to whoever is pitching when they're in a jam. The energy is also there, and the bat will come around, so I think in the end we will all be happy with Orlando.

delben91
04-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Crede - sucks
Cabrera - sucks

Any alternate player in MLB, MiLB, Japan or Indonesia that could be on the team other than Crede and Cabrera - rocks

BA pwns all

santo=dorf
04-16-2008, 06:32 PM
Exactly.

This move is a business move.

At the end of the year we have a significantly better chance of signing OC than we would have ever had signing Garland. END OF STORY.
I don't want either to return for 2009 and beyond. Why not trade Garland for a package of prospects or a player that could fill a hole in which we didn't have an option at the time? :scratch:

Who says we couldn't have held onto Garland to the early half of the season and then trade him at the deadline if he's such a lock to leave?:?:

oeo
04-16-2008, 06:37 PM
Who says we couldn't have held onto Garland to the early half of the season and then trade him at the deadline if he's such a lock to leave?:?:

I'm sure we could have, but we would have been offered even more **** than we were offered for Buehrle last year. No one was willing to trade anything for Buehrle, do you think that was going to change for Garland?

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 06:47 PM
I'm sure we could have, but we would have been offered even more **** than we were offered for Buehrle last year. No one was willing to trade anything for Buehrle, do you think that was going to change for Garland?

Exactly!

I don't get why Garland's value is as high as it is with people on WSI. On top of that he is already gone so it's pointless to lament what we could/should have gotten in any trade involving him.

Don't get me wrong I'm thankful for his contributions in '05 but honestly it was time for him to go. Danks and Floyd are doing just fine thank you.

wassagstdu
04-16-2008, 06:59 PM
Based on what I have seen this year, it looks to me like Cabrera is the second best shortstop on this team.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-16-2008, 07:03 PM
Based on what I have seen this year, it looks to me like Cabrera is the second best shortstop on this team.

That's great that you can make that evaluation after 13 games. I'd like to hear your opinion after the next 149 games.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 07:06 PM
Wait, a seasonal average of .260, 25 HR, 87 RBI, and a .755 OPS = not very much power? In what universe?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4250

Those numbers are misleading. He had 30 HR in 2006. Besides that he's never cracked 22. He had 94 RBI in 2006. Beside that he's never cracked 75. He had a .506 SLG in 2006. Beside that (and 53 games in 2002) he's never cracked .450.

Year in and year out he's a very average hitter with not much power.

Period.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 07:08 PM
Ok, I'm game....name 5 guys you'd take over him.

Ok--I'm game. Cut it out. I'm not doing your work for you. We all know how this ends. I name 5 players who are probably better than Crede, you spend a paragraph telling me they're not.

Thanks but no thanks. If you think Crede's the best 3B in the league, fine. Keep thinking that. Most people wouldn't agree though.


3B at the major league level is pretty damn hard to play well. No one is going to be flawless, but there are many who are form it. Crede is easily a top five defensive third baseman which means he is far more than "above average to average."

So you say.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 07:09 PM
:hijacked:AAAAAANYWAY....

I don't think we got fair value for Garland with Cabrera, at least if he walks after 2008.

What a terrible Hijack. Sorry. Go back to pissing and moaning about trading a player who was guaranteed to walk when the season ended anyway.

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 07:10 PM
Exactly!

I don't get why Garland's value is as high as it is with people on WSI. On top of that he is already gone so it's pointless to lament what we could/should have gotten in any trade involving him.

Don't get me wrong I'm thankful for his contributions in '05 but honestly it was time for him to go. Danks and Floyd are doing just fine thank you.

Bert Blyleven thinks he's the 7th best pitcher in the AL :shrug:

PalehosePlanet
04-16-2008, 07:19 PM
See, now, to me, this is the kind of thing that a fan couldn't possible know. Do you talk to Garland? Or is this opinion based on the "California dreaming" look he has on his face?

Therefore, I prefer to think of what we got in return. And I just don't think the value matches. A 33-y.o. shortstop with good defense but marginal power who makes $10m does not compensate for a 28-y.o. multiple-18-game winner who makes $12m. Had he made less and we signed another player with the difference, I could see it.

The Angels ate 1.5 million of Cabrera's 9 mil per year deal and we signed Linebrink with the difference. Cabrera 7.5 and Linebrink 4.5 = Garland's 12 mil per year.

santo=dorf
04-16-2008, 07:31 PM
The Angels ate 1.5 million of Cabrera's 9 mil per year deal and we signed Linebrink with the difference. Cabrera 7.5 and Linebrink 4.5 = Garland's 12 mil per year.
How do you know it didn't go to Dotel?:rolleyes:

fquaye149
04-16-2008, 08:00 PM
That's not something you, as a fan, can possibly know!

FarWestChicago
04-16-2008, 08:23 PM
We are getting into symantics here...Who said anything about antivirus software?

oeo
04-16-2008, 08:33 PM
That's great that you can make that evaluation after 13 games. I'd like to hear your opinion after the next 149 games.

Cabrera has the weaker arm, worse range, and appears to boot a lot of balls.

Uribe made some half-assed plays, but he mostly smooth as silk. It's tough getting used to Cabrera's "style," because it ain't pretty compared to Uribe.

Not that I want Juan staying around, but he is the better SS. Just another example of how much bull**** the Gold Glove is.

Jjav829
04-16-2008, 09:38 PM
Ok--I'm game. Cut it out. I'm not doing your work for you. We all know how this ends. I name 5 players who are probably better than Crede, you spend a paragraph telling me they're not.

Thanks but no thanks. If you think Crede's the best 3B in the league, fine. Keep thinking that. Most people wouldn't agree though.



So you say.

Fine. I'll do the work.

So, who is definitively better?

Let's go through them. And we're talking about strictly defense here. Offense not considered at all. I'll give each a no or maybe.

Red Sox - Mike Lowell. Very solid. We'll put him in the good defensive 3B category for a moment. Maybe.
Toronto - Scott Rolen (when healthy...probably a bigger IF than Crede now). One of the better ones for years. Slipping a bit due to age and health, but still damn good. Maybe.
Yankees - Alex Rodriguez. Good. Not as good as he was at short, but he's a damn good athlete. Not better than Crede, so No.
Orioles - Melvin Mora. No.
Rays - Don't know enough about Longoria. Scouting reports seem to say solid, though unspectacular. Middle-of-the-road type. No.

Indians - Casey Blake. Below average. No.
Tigers - If it's Inge, he merits some discussion. But Cabrera doesn't. No.
Royals - Alex Gordon - No.
Twins - Mike Lamb. No.

Athletics - Eric Chavez when healthy. But he and Rolen and in the same category. Still, he's very good when out there. Maybe.
Mariners - Adrian Beltre. Among the best. Maybe.
Rangers - Hank Blalock. Solid, so he gets a Maybe.
Angels - Chone Figgins. No.

Braves - Chipper Jones. Obviously known for his offense, but he's not a horrible defender. Still, it's a No.
Mets - David Wright. Good player. Seems to be quite a big of disagreement about him defensively. Some people think he isn't all that good. I think he's above-average, but not in the elite category. No.
Marlins - Jorge Cantu. No.
Nationals - Ryan Zimmerman. Definitely merits consideration. Maybe.
Phillies - Pedro Feliz. Good defensively. Maybe.

Brewers - Bill Hall. No.
Cubs - Aramis Ramirez. No.
Reds - Edwin Encarnacion. No.
Astros - Ty Wigginton/Geoff Blum. No.
Pirates - Whoever the hell they run out there on a daily basis. Jose Buatista. Chris Gomez. Hell, even Doug Mientkiewicz started at 3B the other day. An easy No.
Cardinals - Troy Glaus. Solid, so I'll give him a Maybe.

Padres - Kevin Kouzmanoff. No.
Dodgers - Blake Dewitt, for now. No.
Diamondbacks - Mark Reynolds. No.
Rockies - Garrett Atkins. Worthy of a Maybe.
Giants - Jose Castillo. Ugh. No.

Let's count those up. 20 No, 9 Maybe.

I'd hope you that you would agree that Mora, Longoria, Blake, Inge, Gordon, Lamb, Figgins, Jones, Cantu, Hall, Ramirez, Encarnacion, Wigginton/Blum, Pirates Crap 3B, Kouzmanoff, Dewitt, Reynolds and Castillo are not better than Crede defensively.

So that leaves 9 maybes. Even if we said all 9 were better than Crede, that still leaves him in the top 10, not "probably" in the top 10 like you said earlier. But of those maybes, probably not all 9 are better than Crede. Chavez and Rolen are good when healthy, but injuries have taken a toll on both of their bodies. Arod is a good defensive 3B, but I don't think anyone would say he's an elite defensive player. Blalock, Atkins and Glaus all fall into that solid, but not spectacular range. Beltre is arguably one of the best. Feliz, despite sucking offensively, can field his position very well. And Zimmerman certainly plays the position well.

But let's be honest here. There is no great way to compare all these players. Sure, we can weed out the guys who just simply aren't all that good at their position. But when you look at all the guys who play good defense, there isn't a whole hell of a lot that separates them.

You can certainly question Crede as a hitter, but to infer that he isn't one hell of a defensive player is fairly ludicrous. He can play the position with the best of 'em. And whether we call him the #1 fielding 3B or the #7 fielding 3B really doesn't mean much.

Soxfest
04-17-2008, 12:01 AM
It is fine with me Sox wait I am not that impressed with OC so far and the money and his age who knows!

champagne030
04-17-2008, 08:04 AM
The Angels ate 1.5 million of Cabrera's 9 mil per year deal and we signed Linebrink with the difference. Cabrera 7.5 and Linebrink 4.5 = Garland's 12 mil per year.

Ate $1.5M of his $10M this year. He earns a base of $9M and receives 1/4 of his $4M signing bonus.

wassagstdu
04-17-2008, 01:06 PM
That's great that you can make that evaluation after 13 games. I'd like to hear your opinion after the next 149 games.

You are right of course. I am basing my opinion on what I have seen in 13 games. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours on what you have not seen for the next 149. Maybe Cabrera will prove to be a better shortstop, but so far he has not been. And while I have seen a lot more of Uribe than of Cabrera over the last few years, I will take Uribe (batting 9th) over Cabrera (batting 2nd).

FedEx227
04-17-2008, 01:42 PM
You are right of course. I am basing my opinion on what I have seen in 13 games. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours on what you have not seen for the next 149. Maybe Cabrera will prove to be a better shortstop, but so far he has not been. And while I have seen a lot more of Uribe than of Cabrera over the last few years, I will take Uribe (batting 9th) over Cabrera (batting 2nd).

No, he's also basing it on probably watching Cabrera play in the AL the past few years.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-17-2008, 02:02 PM
You are right of course. I am basing my opinion on what I have seen in 13 games. You, on the other hand, appear to be basing yours on what you have not seen for the next 149.

Just because Cabrera hasn't played for the White Sox before this season, it doesn't mean that I haven't seen him play or know what he is capable of. If given the choice between Uribe and Cabrera, I guarantee you that most MLB GM's would take Cabrera first. Why? let's start with K's last year Uribe had 112 in 513 AB's meanwhile Cabrera had 638 AB's and only struck out 64 times.

Since the 2005 season Cabrera has 69 stolen bases and in that same time frame Uribe has 6.

So it's not about me being able to see 149 games into the future, the numbers and track records speak for themselves.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-17-2008, 02:03 PM
No, he's also basing it on probably watching Cabrera play in the AL the past few years.

You got it! I missed your post before I started mine.

RockJock07
04-17-2008, 02:15 PM
I think Orlando will sign, personally, I'd rather give the money to him rather then to Joe Crede. Orlando and Swisher have been the biggest spark so far, we need to keep them together and he'll play really great defense.

I think Uribe is better off at 2nd and has been bearable, but after seeing OC at SS, I wanna keep him there for the rest of his career or until this 16 year old prospect is ready the sox have.

Plus, age is baseball doesn't really matter that much, this isn't football, I think he's 33 which means he probably has 2-3 good years left in him. As some have said, Kenny has made some bad trades, but he knows when players have nothing left, I trust him to make a good decision, as a fan though, I'd like to OC a white sox for more then just this season.

sox1970
04-17-2008, 02:20 PM
They should wait. Too many things can happen between now and November.
Win the championship and deal with it then.

jabrch
04-17-2008, 02:25 PM
And whether we call him the #1 fielding 3B or the #7 fielding 3B really doesn't mean much.


And to take it a step further, if you bucket them in tiers, Top Tier, Middle Tier and lower tier, regardless of how many people you choose to put in that top tier, Joe is CLEARLY in that top tier. The differentiation between #1, #3, #5 and #7 is probably low, and probably varies from year to year.

russ99
04-17-2008, 02:34 PM
Wow. Did you guys see how Garland pitched last year? I did.

You make it sound like he's a Cy Young candidate and Cabrera's the second coming of Mike Caruso.

Neither is the case.

While Cabrera's had a bit of a slow start at the plate, he excels in his role as a #2 hitter, drawing walks, getting hits and moving Swisher up a base or two. He's got a OBP of .393 so far. His defense is a daily improvement over what we had with Uribe last year.

You guys are so biased against any non-sluggers, it's ridiculous. If we're so concerned with early stats, where's the Thome bashing?

I'd like to see him re-sign, but I'd also like to see how Ramirez can do this season. Maybe a double-play combo of OC and Ramirez is in the cards for this and/or next season.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-17-2008, 03:21 PM
Wow. Did you guys see how Garland pitched last year? I did.

You make it sound like he's a Cy Young candidate and Cabrera's the second coming of Mike Caruso.

Neither is the case.

While Cabrera's had a bit of a slow start at the plate, he excels in his role as a #2 hitter, drawing walks, getting hits and moving Swisher up a base or two. He's got a OBP of .393 so far. His defense is a daily improvement over what we had with Uribe last year.

You guys are so biased against any non-sluggers, it's ridiculous. If we're so concerned with early stats, where's the Thome bashing?

I'd like to see him re-sign, but I'd also like to see how Ramirez can do this season. Maybe a double-play combo of OC and Ramirez is in the cards for this and/or next season.

See post #13 in this thread!

I totally agree with you. Garland had a down year last year and let's face it his 18 wins in 2006 are misleading. Garland benefited from having tons of run support. Not many pitchers win that many games with a 4.51 ERA.

I wish Garland the best but his days here were numbered. In the meantime we got an upgrade at SS, Danks and Floyd are pitching well and the team has been winning.

Cabrera doesn't hit as many homers as Uribe or has a rocket for an arm either, but Cabrera excels at every other aspect of the game. It's hard for some to see it but look at how much different this season feels than last year.

fquaye149
04-17-2008, 05:00 PM
Fine. I'll do the work.

So, who is definitively better?

Let's go through them. And we're talking about strictly defense here. Offense not considered at all. I'll give each a no or maybe.

Red Sox - Mike Lowell. Very solid. We'll put him in the good defensive 3B category for a moment. Maybe.
Toronto - Scott Rolen (when healthy...probably a bigger IF than Crede now). One of the better ones for years. Slipping a bit due to age and health, but still damn good. Maybe.
Yankees - Alex Rodriguez. Good. Not as good as he was at short, but he's a damn good athlete. Not better than Crede, so No.
Orioles - Melvin Mora. No.
Rays - Don't know enough about Longoria. Scouting reports seem to say solid, though unspectacular. Middle-of-the-road type. No.

Indians - Casey Blake. Below average. No.
Tigers - If it's Inge, he merits some discussion. But Cabrera doesn't. No.
Royals - Alex Gordon - No.
Twins - Mike Lamb. No.

Athletics - Eric Chavez when healthy. But he and Rolen and in the same category. Still, he's very good when out there. Maybe.
Mariners - Adrian Beltre. Among the best. Maybe.
Rangers - Hank Blalock. Solid, so he gets a Maybe.
Angels - Chone Figgins. No.

Braves - Chipper Jones. Obviously known for his offense, but he's not a horrible defender. Still, it's a No.
Mets - David Wright. Good player. Seems to be quite a big of disagreement about him defensively. Some people think he isn't all that good. I think he's above-average, but not in the elite category. No.
Marlins - Jorge Cantu. No.
Nationals - Ryan Zimmerman. Definitely merits consideration. Maybe.
Phillies - Pedro Feliz. Good defensively. Maybe.

Brewers - Bill Hall. No.
Cubs - Aramis Ramirez. No.
Reds - Edwin Encarnacion. No.
Astros - Ty Wigginton/Geoff Blum. No.
Pirates - Whoever the hell they run out there on a daily basis. Jose Buatista. Chris Gomez. Hell, even Doug Mientkiewicz started at 3B the other day. An easy No.
Cardinals - Troy Glaus. Solid, so I'll give him a Maybe.

Padres - Kevin Kouzmanoff. No.
Dodgers - Blake Dewitt, for now. No.
Diamondbacks - Mark Reynolds. No.
Rockies - Garrett Atkins. Worthy of a Maybe.
Giants - Jose Castillo. Ugh. No.

Let's count those up. 20 No, 9 Maybe.

I'd hope you that you would agree that Mora, Longoria, Blake, Inge, Gordon, Lamb, Figgins, Jones, Cantu, Hall, Ramirez, Encarnacion, Wigginton/Blum, Pirates Crap 3B, Kouzmanoff, Dewitt, Reynolds and Castillo are not better than Crede defensively.

So that leaves 9 maybes. Even if we said all 9 were better than Crede, that still leaves him in the top 10, not "probably" in the top 10 like you said earlier. But of those maybes, probably not all 9 are better than Crede. Chavez and Rolen are good when healthy, but injuries have taken a toll on both of their bodies. Arod is a good defensive 3B, but I don't think anyone would say he's an elite defensive player. Blalock, Atkins and Glaus all fall into that solid, but not spectacular range. Beltre is arguably one of the best. Feliz, despite sucking offensively, can field his position very well. And Zimmerman certainly plays the position well.

But let's be honest here. There is no great way to compare all these players. Sure, we can weed out the guys who just simply aren't all that good at their position. But when you look at all the guys who play good defense, there isn't a whole hell of a lot that separates them.

You can certainly question Crede as a hitter, but to infer that he isn't one hell of a defensive player is fairly ludicrous. He can play the position with the best of 'em. And whether we call him the #1 fielding 3B or the #7 fielding 3B really doesn't mean much.

I think he's a hell of a defensive player. I also think he makes his share of errors.

For the record I would put Inge in the maybe category. Which means 10 Maybes?

Who knows. I certainly wouldn't say anyone's definitively better than him, but I would say it's not crazy to call him "probably a top 10 player." And I certainly don't think it's understatement of the year to say he's an "above average defensive player."

:shrug:

I like Crede, but I think it's important to be realistic about his skills. He is a plus glove and a minus bat and a big question mark in terms of health.

If you (or anyone else) wants to call him the best 3B in the game, that's cool. I would tend to disagree, but I wouldn't say that's an outrageous statement. However, if I want to say he's a top 10 3B (which is what I've been saying) I don't think that's outrageous either.

I'd probably put him just outside the top 5, behind Rolen, Chavez, Lowell, Beltre and Feliz (not in that order). He could be in the top 5. Or he might be lower. It's hard to say. Is that an outrageous statement? I don't really think so.

fquaye149
04-17-2008, 05:06 PM
You seem to be confused, JJav, and think I'm decrying Crede's skills or trying to say he's a bad player. I'm not. I love Crede, when healthy. But I tend to be biased toward defense. Realistically 3B is probably 50/50 offense/defense position, and Crede, despite being a fun player to watch play the position, isn't a great hitter and certainly makes me nervous with his back surgery

Jjav829
04-17-2008, 06:53 PM
I'd probably put him just outside the top 5, behind Rolen, Chavez, Lowell, Beltre and Feliz (not in that order). He could be in the top 5. Or he might be lower. It's hard to say. Is that an outrageous statement? I don't really think so.

That's fine. Like I said, I don't think there is a huge difference between any of the, say, top 8 or 9 defensive 3B in the game. And it's hard to directly compare any of them. I'd say Beltre, Crede and Feliz are probably the best three defensive 3B in the game, in whatever order.

And FWIW, in terms of errors, Crede isn't much different than any of those other 3B. The only two who have been better in their careers at not committing errors are Lowell and Chavez.

fquaye149
04-17-2008, 06:55 PM
That's fine. Like I said, I don't think there is a huge difference between any of the, say, top 8 or 9 defensive 3B in the game. And it's hard to directly compare any of them. I'd say Beltre, Crede and Feliz are probably the best three defensive 3B in the game, in whatever order.

And FWIW, in terms of errors, Crede isn't much different than any of those other 3B. The only two who have been better in their careers at not committing errors are Lowell and Chavez.

It is, as always, what it is.

Alls anyone is saying here is that objectively speaking, we can probably equal Crede's run production/prevention with Fields, if Fields develops as a hitter and a fielder, and that it might be dangerous to bank big bucks on Crede

a.) if injuries will continue to be a concern
b.) if we have a capable replacement, at least from a run production/run prevention standpoint, in our organization.

Jjav829
04-17-2008, 07:01 PM
It is, as always, what it is.

Alls anyone is saying here is that objectively speaking, we can probably equal Crede's run production/prevention with Fields, if Fields develops as a hitter and a fielder, and that it might be dangerous to bank big bucks on Crede

a.) if injuries will continue to be a concern
b.) if we have a capable replacement, at least from a run production/run prevention standpoint, in our organization.

I don't know where Fields came in. :?:

Like I've said, I'm talking strictly about Crede's ranking defensively. If we bring in offense, it changes the equation. My assertion was only that from a purely defensive standpoint, Crede is easily one of the top 10 fielding 3B in baseball.

That's all. :smile:

fquaye149
04-17-2008, 07:42 PM
I don't know where Fields came in. :?:

Isn't the question being addressed in this thread whether to resign Crede and Cabrera as a continuation of the discussion in the "sox won't discuss extensions until season's over" thread? I wouldn't know. I lose track of thread topics quickly.


Like I've said, I'm talking strictly about Crede's ranking defensively. If we bring in offense, it changes the equation. My assertion was only that from a purely defensive standpoint, Crede is easily one of the top 10 fielding 3B in baseball.

That's all. :smile:

Agreed. Probably. I don't know. I like beer :shrug:

SoxFan64
04-19-2008, 11:28 AM
Also, the Lee for Pods/Vizcaino trade was trading a big salary for two non-existent ones, which allowed us to sign AJ and Iguchi with the remainder. Garland for Cabrera was much closer to an even swap, dollar-wise. So instead of saving $ and addressing 2 big needs, we filled one need and created another one at the same time, for the same money.

Sorry for being late to the conversation. While I would have preferred keeping Garland for many of the reasons mentioned we did save $2m in the difference between Cabrera's salary and Garland's. That $2m allowed us to sign Ramirez.

So if Cabrera is here for one year we still have Alexi.

Tragg
04-19-2008, 11:33 AM
Signing Cabrera will cost money plus 2 high draft choices; his age, game, etc. don't seem overly compelling to be worthy of 2 draft choices, plus, what twice the salary of an already inflated Uribe salary?
That's why we need to grow our own SS.
For $6 million in additional salary (and Jon Garland), we essentially exchanged Iguchi (who had "no value") for Cabrera. Good hitting SS are no bargain.

santo=dorf
04-19-2008, 11:53 AM
Sorry for being late to the conversation. While I would have preferred keeping Garland for many of the reasons mentioned we did save $2m in the difference between Cabrera's salary and Garland's. That $2m allowed us to sign Ramirez.

So if Cabrera is here for one year we still have Alexi.
How do you know it didn't go to Dotel?:rolleyes:
Or how do you know that difference in money didn't go to Uribe's new deal?