PDA

View Full Version : who would you want as a leadoff hitter


oldcomiskey
11-06-2008, 08:49 PM
and realistic speaking who would you be willing to give up to get him. I wouldnt mind seeing Figgens or someone like that but the Angels wont part with him for just anybody. If only Brian Anderson could hit

Eddo144
11-06-2008, 09:37 PM
Why is there this idea that we need a "leadoff hitter". That's not a position.

If I were a manager, I would throw out all preconceived notions of a "leadoff hitter" or a "cleanup hitter", and construct my lineup in the following manner.

1. Figure out who my four best hitters are (examples: 2008 White Sox - Quentin, Dye, Thome, Ramirez).
2. Place those four hitters in the first four spots of the lineup in order to maximize their plate appearances.
3. Now, order them in a more traditional manner in the top four spots (high OBP first, high power fourth, etc.). Examples: 2008 White Sox: (1) Quentin, (2) Ramirez, (3) Dye, (4) Thome.

So, if we're getting a new "leadoff hitter", I'd say we should bring someone in who is a better hitter than Alexei (or maybe Thome, if you consider Alexei a better hitter right now).

Ultimately, the Sox should be bringing in good players to fill the defensive positions, then worrying about the lineup. The needs right now are CF, 3B, and 2B. Targeting only players at those positions who are "leadoff hitters" will only limit the number of good CF, 3B, or 2B the Sox can acquire.

Is Figgins a better hitter than Alexei? Probably. He gets on base a lot more, but hits for less power. I'd take Figgins, then I'd hit him 1st, Quetin 2nd, Dye 3rd, Thome 4th, and bump Alexei down to 5th.

MHOUSE
11-06-2008, 10:02 PM
Not Willy Taveras.

Lip Man 1
11-06-2008, 10:55 PM
Eddo:

With all due respect I'm glad (as Daver would say) that you are not running the Sox.

Maximize plate appearances....hmmmm....over the course of 162 games you won't get that much difference in at bats.

But to have Quentin hit second say, negates almost completely his potential to hit three run home runs that some on this site think is the be all and end all to baseball for example.

Like it or not speed, speed, SPEED is the off season mantra. That's not me stating it as fact but using Kenny's own words. And he runs this team. He (and Ozzie) appear to be sick and tired of slow footed, station to station baseball.

The Sox need two guys in the lineup, three would be better, who can EACH steal 20-30 bases, handle a bat, advance runners, hit the other way and so forth.

They are hard to get but they are out there if the Sox are willing to pay the price. Hudson, Figgins, Roberts just to name three. (And you don't need to trade anybody to get Hudson...)

Ramirez needs to be at the bottom of the order, 7th or 8th in my opinion. He has some running ability and some power. I want him to be able to turn the lineup over, get on base, drive in a few runs. He is not however a 100-110 RBI guy. Those are the guys who hit 3rd, 4th, 5th in an American League lineup.

We'll see how things play out.

Lip

EuroSox35
11-06-2008, 11:01 PM
Brian Roberts Why is there this idea that we need a "leadoff hitter". That's not a position.

If I were a manager, I would throw out all preconceived notions of a "leadoff hitter" or a "cleanup hitter", and construct my lineup in the following manner.

1. Figure out who my four best hitters are (examples: 2008 White Sox - Quentin, Dye, Thome, Ramirez).
2. Place those four hitters in the first four spots of the lineup in order to maximize their plate appearances.
3. Now, order them in a more traditional manner in the top four spots (high OBP first, high power fourth, etc.). Examples: 2008 White Sox: (1) Quentin, (2) Ramirez, (3) Dye, (4) Thome.

So, if we're getting a new "leadoff hitter", I'd say we should bring someone in who is a better hitter than Alexei (or maybe Thome, if you consider Alexei a better hitter right now).

Ultimately, the Sox should be bringing in good players to fill the defensive positions, then worrying about the lineup. The needs right now are CF, 3B, and 2B. Targeting only players at those positions who are "leadoff hitters" will only limit the number of good CF, 3B, or 2B the Sox can acquire.

Is Figgins a better hitter than Alexei? Probably. He gets on base a lot more, but hits for less power. I'd take Figgins, then I'd hit him 1st, Quetin 2nd, Dye 3rd, Thome 4th, and bump Alexei down to 5th.

:rolling:

btrain929
11-06-2008, 11:01 PM
Eddo:

With all due respect I'm glad (as Daver would say) that you are not running the Sox.

Maximize plate appearances....hmmmm....over the course of 162 games you won't get that much difference in at bats.

But to have Quentin hit second say, negates almost completely his potential to hit three run home runs that some on this site think is the be all and end all to baseball for example.

Like it or not speed, speed, SPEED is the off season mantra. That's not me stating it as fact but using Kenny's own words. And he runs this team. He (and Ozzie) appear to be sick and tired of slow footed, station to station baseball.

The Sox need two guys in the lineup, three would be better, who can EACH steal 20-30 bases, handle a bat, advance runners, hit the other way and so forth.

They are hard to get but they are out there if the Sox are willing to pay the price. Hudson, Figgins, Roberts just to name three. (And you don't need to trade anybody to get Roberts...)

Ramirez needs to be at the bottom of the order, 7th or 8th in my opinion. He has some running ability and some power. I want him to be able to turn the lineup over, get on base, drive in a few runs. He is not however a 100-110 RBI guy. Those are the guys who hit 3rd, 4th, 5th in an American League lineup.

We'll see how things play out.

Lip

Bold 1: Hudson won't steal 20-30 bases, but I know what you mean by saying he would help our team get quicker at the top of the order.
Bold 2: Huh???

Eddo144
11-06-2008, 11:35 PM
Eddo:

With all due respect I'm glad (as Daver would say) that you are not running the Sox.

Maximize plate appearances....hmmmm....over the course of 162 games you won't get that much difference in at bats.
Quick-and-dirty: Orlando Cabrera, hitting at the top of the lineup all year, had 71 more at bats than anyone else on the 2008 White Sox. Granted, that's not plate appearances (no quick reference I could find for that), but wouldn't you want 71 extra at bats for your best hitter?

But to have Quentin hit second say, negates almost completely his potential to hit three run home runs that some on this site think is the be all and end all to baseball for example.
I agree; however, currently, anyone we have to hit first and second will get on base about as much as the guys we're hitting eighth and ninth. In that case, I'll take the extra at bats for Carlos.

Like it or not speed, speed, SPEED is the off season mantra. That's not me stating it as fact but using Kenny's own words. And he runs this team. He (and Ozzie) appear to be sick and tired of slow footed, station to station baseball.

The Sox need two guys in the lineup, three would be better, who can EACH steal 20-30 bases, handle a bat, advance runners, hit the other way and so forth.

They are hard to get but they are out there if the Sox are willing to pay the price. Hudson, Figgins, Roberts just to name three. (And you don't need to trade anybody to get Roberts...)
I love speed, as long as it's not in the form of guys like Pierre and Taveras, who aren't on base enough to utilize their speed. I've already advocated Figgins (which, apparently, you love to ignore). Roberts is an even better choice, but will probably cost more. Hudson will suffice, as well, though I'd prefer Figgins or Roberts.

Ramirez needs to be at the bottom of the order, 7th or 8th in my opinion. He has some running ability and some power. I want him to be able to turn the lineup over, get on base, drive in a few runs. He is not however a 100-110 RBI guy. Those are the guys who hit 3rd, 4th, 5th in an American League lineup.
He can be a 100-110 RBI at any spot in the lineup, as long as the guys in front of him are on base enough.

A good example of this can be seen with this year's Twins team. Justin Morneau is considered an big RBI guy, and Joe Mauer is not.

Morneau had 129 RBI this year. Mauer had 85.

However, Morneau had 558 runners on base when he came to bat this year. That's the most any hitter has had in 12 years. Of those 558 runners, Morneau drove in 18.9% of them. Mauer drove in 18.7% of all runners on base for his at bats. If Joe Mauer had, well, Joe Mauer hitting in front of him (or an equivalent hitter, obviously), he would have had as many RBI as Morneau.

JorgeFabregas
11-06-2008, 11:44 PM
Quick-and-dirty: Orlando Cabrera, hitting at the top of the lineup all year, had 71 more at bats than anyone else on the 2008 White Sox. Granted, that's not plate appearances (no quick reference I could find for that), but wouldn't you want 71 extra at bats for your best hitter?

85 more PA than the next-highest, Dye, though partially because he played in 7 more games.

Rockabilly
11-07-2008, 12:02 AM
Nate Mclouth would be a great pick up for the Sox.. The Pirates have him on the trade market..

gr8mexico
11-07-2008, 12:16 AM
I think the only player we can get to leadoff is Coco Crisp. It shouldn't
take that much to get him and he wont cost to much. Second the Sox should get Garrett Atkins he would be hitting @ USCF a way better hitting park then Coors and he should do well. Then the Sox could trade Paul Konerko to the DBacks for prospects to open up some money.
2009 Lineup with Salary
1.CF Coco Crisp $5.75MIL
2.2B Mark Grudzielanek $5MIL
3.LF Carlos Quentin $1MIL
4.DH Jim Thome $13MIL
5.RF Jermaine Dye $11.5MIL
6.SS TCM $1.1MIL
7.3B Garrett Atkins $5MIL
8.C A.J $6.25MIL
9.1B Nick Swisher $5.3MIL
Total Salary around $53.9MIL
A huge savings from the 2008 Lineup

EuroSox35
11-07-2008, 12:21 AM
Quick-and-dirty: Orlando Cabrera, hitting at the top of the lineup all year, had 71 more at bats than anyone else on the 2008 White Sox. Granted, that's not plate appearances (no quick reference I could find for that), but wouldn't you want 71 extra at bats for your best hitter?

Quentin played in about 30 less games then Cabrera, with some conservative estimate of ABs during that time you're probably around that same number. I'm open to new ideas, but come on, there's a reason we've defined leadoff hitters for all these years. Wouldn't you rather have your best HR hitter hitting with guys on then leading off or following 8/9 guys? I don't know the stats that you alluded to when responding to Lip's post, but at the start of the year you're really going to bank on no one being able to get on base as much as a Uribe? Then I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable making the switch later in the year. Like in Sept, I'm sure Cabrera's OBP was highest on the team. Also I remember Alexei struggling. Do you adjust it monthly? Also I like the idea of guys getting used to their batting order position, what they'll see, their approach, etc and think that all helps with timely hitting

whitesox901
11-07-2008, 12:22 AM
I think the only player we can get to leadoff is Coco Crisp. It shouldn't
take that much to get him and he wont cost to much. Second the Sox should get Garrett Atkins he would be hitting @ USCF a way better hitting park then Coors and he should do well. Then the Sox could trade Paul Konerko to the DBacks for prospects to open up some money.
2009 Lineup with Salary
1.CF Coco Crisp $5.75MIL
2.2B Mark Grudzielanek $5MIL
3.LF Carlos Quentin $1MIL
4.DH Jim Thome $13MIL
5.RF Jermaine Dye $11.5MIL
6.SS TCM $1.1MIL
7.3B Garrett Atkins $5MIL
8.C A.J $6.25MIL
9.1B Nick Swisher $5.3MIL
Total Salary around $53.9MIL
A huge savings from the 2008 Lineup

Not bad, but im really not interesting in Crisp, but then agian thats why I dont GM

gr8mexico
11-07-2008, 12:28 AM
Not bad, but im really not interesting in Crisp, but then agian thats why I dont GM
I think he could do a better Job then Orlando did this year in the leadoff spot and he wont cost to much. Chone Figgins and Brian Roberts are going to cost to much and the Sox should really be looking at upgrading the pitching staff. I think people also should really look into Garrett Atkins numbers . Last year was a down year for him but the kid can hit.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-07-2008, 01:54 AM
Quick-and-dirty: Orlando Cabrera, hitting at the top of the lineup all year, had 71 more at bats than anyone else on the 2008 White Sox. Granted, that's not plate appearances (no quick reference I could find for that), but wouldn't you want 71 extra at bats for your best hitter?

The Sox didn't lead off Frank Thomas in the 90's for a reason.

guillensdisciple
11-07-2008, 02:12 AM
The Sox didn't lead off Frank Thomas in the 90's for a reason.

Game. Set. Match.

You can't finish this part of the thread any better.

BRAVO!

oeo
11-07-2008, 02:57 AM
Not bad, but im really not interesting in Crisp, but then agian thats why I dont GM

Theo Epstein continues to overvalue Crisp anyway.

Eddo144
11-07-2008, 07:44 AM
The Sox didn't lead off Frank Thomas in the 90's for a reason.
No, he hit third. They still had him in the top four, that's all I'm saying.

I'm NOT saying Quentin at leadoff is the ideal solution. However, an earlier poster suggested hitting Crisp and Grudz first and second. Why give two average-ish hitters the most plate appearances when you have much better hitters on your team.

The mid-90s Sox had Tim Raines, one of the best players ever, hitting leadoff.

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 08:11 AM
Nate Mclouth would be a great pick up for the Sox.. The Pirates have him on the trade market..
And yet, there's been almost no evidence of this. Keep posting it though.

I don't want McLouth; the last thing we need is another corner OF. He's been the worst fielding CF in baseball for a while now.

pythons007
11-07-2008, 08:12 AM
No, he hit third. They still had him in the top four, that's all I'm saying.

I'm NOT saying Quentin at leadoff is the ideal solution. However, an earlier poster suggested hitting Crisp and Grudz first and second. Why give two average-ish hitters the most plate appearances when you have much better hitters on your team.

The mid-90s Sox had Tim Raines, one of the best players ever, hitting leadoff.

Where do you come up with your baseball strategies? I mean from your posts you should just pack it up and quit. TCM hitting lead off? Quentin hitting 2nd?

We need a LEADOFF HITTER, BOTTOM LINE! We need to take a page out of the Rays playbook and have guys that can reak havok on the basebaths. Guys that can get on base regularly and steal some bases! Allowing our 3,4,5 hitters to see more fastballs!

As far as a two hole hitter we need someone that can make contact and hit to the opposite side and bunt! Do you remember anything from the 2005 season? Pods got on, stole second Iguchi hit it to the right side and then someone drove him in!

Thome25
11-07-2008, 08:20 AM
Rafael Furcal

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 08:34 AM
As far as a two hole hitter we need someone that can make contact and hit to the opposite side and bunt! Do you remember anything from the 2005 season? Pods got on, stole second Iguchi hit it to the right side and then someone drove him in!
This isn't the NL. There's no reason to ever bunt unless one run wins the game.

Rockabilly
11-07-2008, 08:41 AM
And yet, there's been almost no evidence of this. Keep posting it though.

I don't want McLouth; the last thing we need is another corner OF. He's been the worst fielding CF in baseball for a while now.


The Pirates aren't to sure that they can afford him. So there has been talk to see what they can get for him on the trade market..

Thats funny that you call him one of the worst CF.. Since he just won a gold glove the other day..

Craig Grebeck
11-07-2008, 08:46 AM
The Pirates aren't to sure that they can afford him. So there has been talk to see what they can get for him on the trade market..

Thats funny that you call him one of the worst CF.. Since he just won a gold glove the other day..
Gold gloves are worthless, and the Fielding Bible just rated him the worst defensive CF of the last few years.

gr8mexico
11-07-2008, 08:54 AM
No, he hit third. They still had him in the top four, that's all I'm saying.

I'm NOT saying Quentin at leadoff is the ideal solution. However, an earlier poster suggested hitting Crisp and Grudz first and second. Why give two average-ish hitters the most plate appearances when you have much better hitters on your team.

The mid-90s Sox had Tim Raines, one of the best players ever, hitting leadoff.
You are better off having Coco leading off then Quentin. Who is going knock Quentin in? How many HR is he going to have with no man on base.
Coco is a lifetime .280 hitter and Grudz is a lifetime .290 hitter and both make contact. This is the best option with out having to over pay for guys like Brian Roberts and Chone Figgins that strikesout 100 times a year.

Eddo144
11-07-2008, 09:23 AM
Where do you come up with your baseball strategies? I mean from your posts you should just pack it up and quit. TCM hitting lead off? Quentin hitting 2nd?

We need a LEADOFF HITTER, BOTTOM LINE! We need to take a page out of the Rays playbook and have guys that can reak havok on the basebaths. Guys that can get on base regularly and steal some bases! Allowing our 3,4,5 hitters to see more fastballs!

As far as a two hole hitter we need someone that can make contact and hit to the opposite side and bunt! Do you remember anything from the 2005 season? Pods got on, stole second Iguchi hit it to the right side and then someone drove him in!
Wow, in the same post where you advocate emulating the Rays, you also praise hitting to the opposite side and bunting. Who was the Rays two-hole hitter this year? Oh yeah, BJ Upton. A power-hitting outfielder who draws a lot of walks. Who had three sacrifice bunts all year.

What's hilarious is I got my idea from the Rays. Who are their four best hitters (when Crawford was hurt)? Iwamura, Upton, Pena, and Longoria. Instead of hitting Upton fifth because he "drives in runs" or some other bull****, they hit him second to increase his at bats. But I'm sure they'd have been better off with scrappy Jason Bartlett hitting before Pena.

Also, I think Ramirez is one of the worst leadoff hitters on the team (I had him 2nd). He doesn't get on base enough.

How's this for a better strategy? Instead of hitting your four best hitters 1-4 (since everyone hates that apparently), just don't hit any below average hitters 1-4. No Cabreras. No Pierzynskis. No Grudz. Maybe Crisp (he's borderline).

Eddo144
11-07-2008, 09:23 AM
You are better off having Coco leading off then Quentin. Who is going knock Quentin in? How many HR is he going to have with no man on base.
Coco is a lifetime .280 hitter and Grudz is a lifetime .290 hitter and both make contact. This is the best option with out having to over pay for guys like Brian Roberts and Chone Figgins that strikesout 100 times a year.
Then hit Crisp 8th and Grudz 9th. They'll still be up right before Quentin, and the same guys will follow him. Given the choice, why would you start the game with Crisp instead of Quentin?

NLaloosh
11-07-2008, 09:44 AM
Did anyone here see the 2005 season?

chisox616
11-07-2008, 09:51 AM
Then hit Crisp 8th and Grudz 9th. They'll still be up right before Quentin, and the same guys will follow him. Given the choice, why would you start the game with Crisp instead of Quentin?

So Quentin can homer them in. I really don't understand the logic, here. This is fundamental baseball stuff.

Eddo144
11-07-2008, 09:57 AM
Did anyone here see the 2005 season?
Yeah, that worked because that year, Podsednik (good OBP) and Iguchi (good all-around) were two of our best hitters, along with Dye and Konerko.

Remember 2006? When Ozzie wanted to drop Iguchi so he could be an RBI-guy, and elevate Uribe to 2nd? How did that work out?

Eddo144
11-07-2008, 10:02 AM
So Quentin can homer them in. I really don't understand the logic, here. This is fundamental baseball stuff.
There's no winning this one with you. You'd rather give poor hitters like Crisp and Grudz more at bats.

Ideally, yeah, you'd like to hit Quetin third. But in that ideal scenario, you need good hitters in the first and second spots. Crisp, maybe, but Grudz, no. Don't try to force poor hitters into prime lineup spots just because they have a single skill (speed or good bat control) when many skills (speed, bat control, good eye, power) are needed to be a good offensive player.

guillen4life13
11-07-2008, 10:49 AM
Eddo has posted some of the more comical stuff I've read on these forums in this thread.

Leadoff hitters serve three purposes--all of which are important and interlinked:
1) Get on base. You've already detailed this, and this is the one situation where we agree.
2) Distract pitchers. This is why Figgins, Pods, Henderson, Lofton, etc are/were such valuable players.
3) Run fast (take at least two bases on any hits to the outfield, etc.).

Now, let's reference the 2008 White Sox at the beginning of the season, which started with a top 4 of Swisher, Cabrera, Konerko, Thome. This would have followed your theory of having the 4 best offensive players at the top 4 lineup slots (this is before Quentin established himself). What did it yield?

There is a reason big power and RBI hitters are put in the middle of the lineup. Their hits mean more. It also helps create a balanced lineup where going into an inning, you don't necessarily have a black hole because your 6-8 or 7-9 hitters are due up.

Let me reference the 1996 Baltimore Orioles. Brady Anderson led off for that team and hit a whopping 50 home runs. Now, for any other player, 50 home runs would mean that they're hitting in (probably) the 3rd spot in the lineup. He had a .396 OBP and a .637 SLG. As a leadoff hitter, these incredible numbers only yielded 110 RBI. For a guy who its 50 home runs, that RBI total is extremely low. He also scored only 117 runs (which, while impressive, is quite low considering all of the other circumstances), 50 of which he drove in himself. I make the case that, had Brady Anderson hit 3rd in that lineup with Roberto Alomar leading off, he would have been much more valuable to the team. The only reason Anderson led off that season was because his past performance merited that slot.

Power in the 1 and 2 slots of a lineup is not that important. Getting on base or moving runners over is.

I could give more case studies but I think the one above is as telling as it gets.

Lip Man 1
11-07-2008, 11:27 AM
Btrain:

It was a typo on my part. I understand he's under contract. I was referring to Hudson.

My mistake!

Lip

pythons007
11-07-2008, 11:40 AM
Wow, in the same post where you advocate emulating the Rays, you also praise hitting to the opposite side and bunting. Who was the Rays two-hole hitter this year? Oh yeah, BJ Upton. A power-hitting outfielder who draws a lot of walks. Who had three sacrifice bunts all year.

What's hilarious is I got my idea from the Rays. Who are their four best hitters (when Crawford was hurt)? Iwamura, Upton, Pena, and Longoria. Instead of hitting Upton fifth because he "drives in runs" or some other bull****, they hit him second to increase his at bats. But I'm sure they'd have been better off with scrappy Jason Bartlett hitting before Pena.

Also, I think Ramirez is one of the worst leadoff hitters on the team (I had him 2nd). He doesn't get on base enough.

How's this for a better strategy? Instead of hitting your four best hitters 1-4 (since everyone hates that apparently), just don't hit any below average hitters 1-4. No Cabreras. No Pierzynskis. No Grudz. Maybe Crisp (he's borderline).

Man, a power hitting OF!? 9 homers? 9? Are you serious? I think he was their 2 hitter because he got on base and stole bases!

Where do you come up with batting your best four hitters 1-4? Just because they are your four best hitters doesn't mean they can hit in certain spots! There was an article or something on ESPN showing that not everyone is comfortable in certain spots in the lineup. (Examples are Soriano and Hanley Ramirez). Some hitters don't take pitches, they are free swingers so you don't want that at the top of the lineup.

Look at the Yankees. Their 4 best hitters are Jeter, Abreu, A-Rod, and Matsui. Do they hit 1-4? NO! Jeter 2 Abreu 3, ARod 4 and Matsui 7th! You need balance throughout the lineup, not just at the top.

khan
11-07-2008, 12:00 PM
I think the only player we can get to leadoff is Coco Crisp. It shouldn't
take that much to get him and he wont cost to much.
OK, I'm with you. Now, exactly WHAT do you propose that KW give to the sawx to get him?

Second the Sox should get Garrett Atkins he would be hitting @ USCF a way better hitting park then Coors and he should do well.
Sounds great! Now, let's go back to the same question: Exactly WHAT do you propose that KW give to the rox to get him?

Then the Sox could trade Paul Konerko to the DBacks for prospects to open up some money.
OK. Since the dbacks have traded away quite a few prospects to get Haren, exactly WHO from the dbacks would you want the SOX to get? Moreover, what would the dbacks REALISTICALLY offer for Konerko?

I don't necessarily critique your suggestions as being poor ones. But I DO question their feasibility. I don't think the SOX have enough to get BOTH Atkins AND Crisp. But since you proposed these moves, I'd like to hear your ideas as to how they would come to pass.

Madscout
11-07-2008, 12:38 PM
I think we have to look young on this one. Figgins can't be had without an arm and a leg. Past wishes are now a pipe dream in Suzuki and Crawford, not to mention that Suzuki wouldn't help us for long, same with Crawford. Pick the farm systems for something good and go with it.

soxfanreggie
11-09-2008, 02:25 AM
Roberts and/or Figgins. I know both couldn't lead off, but those two are tops on my non-pitcher wish list.

Chrisaway
11-09-2008, 02:33 AM
Rickey Henderson

BV2005
11-09-2008, 02:47 AM
Why not bring back Pods. He wont be very expensive, and I think he was healthy most of last year.

4 points
11-09-2008, 05:18 AM
I dunno, Is Lou Brock available?:scratch:

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 09:15 AM
Why not bring back Pods. He wont be very expensive, and I think he was healthy most of last year.
:?:

turners56
11-09-2008, 11:53 AM
Nate Mclouth would be a great pick up for the Sox.. The Pirates have him on the trade market..

Personally, I'm not sold on him. But he's probably a better option than both Taveras and Crisp.

Tragg
11-09-2008, 01:35 PM
Quick-and-dirty: Orlando Cabrera, hitting at the top of the lineup all year, had 71 more at bats than anyone else on the 2008 White Sox. Granted, that's not plate appearances (no quick reference I could find for that), but wouldn't you want 71 extra at bats for your best hitter? No. I want the player most adept at getting on base getting the most ABs. Then, the "best hitter" can drive him in.



As far as a two hole hitter we need someone that can make contact and hit to the opposite side and bunt! Do you remember anything from the 2005 season? Pods got on, stole second Iguchi hit it to the right side and then someone drove him in! Slapping that ball to the right side was the 2007 strategy that resulted in baseball's most impotent offense. In 2005, Iguchi had a .340 OBP and hit 15+ homers.
The last thing we need to do is intentionally make outs in front of Quentin and and Thome. We should be trying to load people on base in front of them.

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 03:26 PM
Josh Anderson from the Braves

Josh Anderson plays CF, hits for average, and can steal a lot of bases (based on his minors stats and limited time in the majors). The Braves are the front runners for Peavy but could use another SP even if they land him. I would trade Vazquez for J. Anderson and have him bat leadoff.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 03:39 PM
Josh Anderson from the Braves

Josh Anderson plays CF, hits for average, and can steal a lot of bases (based on his minors stats and limited time in the majors). The Braves are the front runners for Peavy but could use another SP even if they land him. I would trade Vazquez for J. Anderson and have him bat leadoff.
:?:

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 04:01 PM
:?:

I understand the name Josh Anderson has never been brought up on any thread. He is an upgrade over Swish's defense and Anderson's bat. A trade for Vazquez would also bring in a few prospects as well as free up some money.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 04:03 PM
:?:
Josh Anderson of
1 year (2008)


re-signed 2/29/08
acquired in trade (from Houston) 11/16/07
1 year/$0.38M (2007), re-signed 2/07
1 year/$0.327M (2006), re-signed 2/06
contract purchased 11/05
drafted 2003 (4-119)
ML service: 0.030


Cheep contract. Should be worth scouting, but isn't a sure thing. He hit for a good average in 40 games, but that .338 obp that comes with his .294 ba concerns me.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 04:49 PM
Josh Anderson of
1 year (2008)


re-signed 2/29/08
acquired in trade (from Houston) 11/16/07
1 year/$0.38M (2007), re-signed 2/07
1 year/$0.327M (2006), re-signed 2/06
contract purchased 11/05
drafted 2003 (4-119)
ML service: 0.030


Cheep contract. Should be worth scouting, but isn't a sure thing. He hit for a good average in 40 games, but that .338 obp that comes with his .294 ba concerns me.
Yeah, I'm aware of who he is. He's a fifth outfielder in the NL. I'm confused as to why anyone would suggest such a horrid trade.

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 05:06 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of who he is. He's a fifth outfielder in the NL. I'm confused as to why anyone would suggest such a horrid trade.

Horrid trade?

He has done more than BA (someone a lot of people here are hoping gets a shot in CF) could in limited time.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Horrid trade?

He has done more than BA (someone a lot of people here are hoping gets a shot in CF) could in limited time.
So you're okay giving up a fourth starter for Josh Anderson? Are you aware of how he ended up on the Braves?

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 06:20 PM
So you're okay giving up a fourth starter for Josh Anderson? Are you aware of how he ended up on the Braves?

Traded for Oscar Villarreal (who was coming off an average season in 2007 after a good 2006 season... i understand he had a bad season for the astros this year but the trade was made based off previous seasons)

..and yes I would trade a #4 pitcher if it means I can free up $11.5 mil to put towards a #2 pitcher (Sheets if he passes a physical) at the same time I pick up a CF who has potential to bat leadoff (2 of the Sox biggest needs).

Madscout
11-09-2008, 06:35 PM
Traded for Oscar Villarreal (who was coming off an average season in 2007 after a good 2006 season... i understand he had a bad season for the astros this year but the trade was made based off previous seasons)

..and yes I would trade a #4 pitcher if it means I can free up $11.5 mil to put towards a #2 pitcher (Sheets if he passes a physical) at the same time I pick up a CF who has potential to bat leadoff (2 of the Sox biggest needs).
Keep dreaming and thinking that that would work exactly how you plan. The Braves value pitching, but good pitching in their system with reasonable contracts. Vasquez doesn't fit that.

Not to mention that you might not get Sheets.

Not to mention, that the guy you want to get is not tested in our system.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 07:10 PM
Traded for Oscar Villarreal (who was coming off an average season in 2007 after a good 2006 season... i understand he had a bad season for the astros this year but the trade was made based off previous seasons)

..and yes I would trade a #4 pitcher if it means I can free up $11.5 mil to put towards a #2 pitcher (Sheets if he passes a physical) at the same time I pick up a CF who has potential to bat leadoff (2 of the Sox biggest needs).
If you want Josh Anderson that bad, you can probably get him for Mike MacDougal.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 07:13 PM
If you want Josh Anderson that bad, you can probably get him for Mike MacDougal.
You know, if the Braves would go for it...

He can't be worse than Jerry Owens. Who knows...

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 07:16 PM
You know, if the Braves would go for it...

He can't be worse than Jerry Owens. Who knows...
It's pointless. We should go after good players.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 07:22 PM
It's pointless. We should go after good players.
The guy's played 60 games. How do you know he isn't a good player?

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 07:25 PM
The guy's played 60 games. How do you know he isn't a good player?
There's a reason he's played sixty games. He's got a tremendously mediocre minor league line of: .294/.344/.378/.722 with a K/BB ratio of 438/180. We've got plenty of decidedly mediocre players to throw in CF, no need for another one.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 07:29 PM
There's a reason he's played sixty games. He's got a tremendously mediocre minor league line of: .294/.344/.378/.722 with a K/BB ratio of 438/180. We've got plenty of decidedly mediocre players to throw in CF, no need for another one.
Hence the low OBP concidering his average and almost a strikeout a game last year. Point taken.

But if they are stupid enough to take Mac, we dump some money on them and get rid of a player that isn't worth **** to us.

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 09:10 PM
It's pointless. We should go after good players.

And your suggestion for CF?

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 09:22 PM
And your suggestion for CF?
What does it matter who I want? Ideally, I'd sign Furcal and move Ramirez to CF, with Getz at 2B.

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 09:32 PM
What does it matter who I want? Ideally, I'd sign Furcal and move Ramirez to CF, with Getz at 2B.

Thought the point of this was to share ideas. Sorry I threw out an idea no one has shared yet. I was just tired of hearing Konerko for Figgins. I only asked what you thought because you seem like a knowledgeable person.

Craig Grebeck
11-09-2008, 09:36 PM
Thought the point of this was to share ideas. Sorry I threw out an idea no one has shared yet. I was just tired of hearing Konerko for Figgins. I only asked what you thought because you seem like a knowledgeable person.
Sorry for the hostility. Running low on coffee and I should be finishing my historiography paper! Carry on :D:

SoxFan88
11-09-2008, 09:38 PM
Sorry for the hostility. Running low on coffee and I should be finishing my historiography paper! Carry on :D:

LOL no prob... I should be studying for a psych test.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 09:50 PM
What does it matter who I want? Ideally, I'd sign Furcal and move Ramirez to CF, with Getz at 2B.
That's ideal for you? Ramirez looked scary bad in CF last year, and we simply don't know with Getz (though I agree with you that we need someone like him starting to show our mL's that you can actually make our big leauge club).

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 11:18 PM
I don't think "showing the minor leaguers" should have a thing to do with policy.

They don't care where they make the major leagues...be it with the Sox or with someone else via a trade...they just want in the show.

I think some (including Kenny) are overestimating the "loyalty" factor for want of a better word.

As for me, my view remains the same... give me a proven major league guy who has a track record any day of the week and twice on Sunday over a "maybe" which is all any minor league player is, regardless of what round they were drafted in, until they show something against the highest level of play in the world.

Lip

voodoochile
11-09-2008, 11:23 PM
What does it matter who I want? Ideally, I'd sign Furcal and move Ramirez to CF, with Getz at 2B.

Ramirez is a unique infield defensive talent. You don't mess with him at all. 2B or SS are where he belongs. You build an IF defense around Ramirez and leave him there for the next 15 years.

Craig Grebeck
11-10-2008, 08:02 AM
Ramirez is a unique infield defensive talent. You don't mess with him at all. 2B or SS are where he belongs. You build an IF defense around Ramirez and leave him there for the next 15 years.
I disagree. He didn't look very good at 2B, save the occasional circus play.

hellview
11-10-2008, 08:45 AM
Ramirez is a unique infield defensive talent. You don't mess with him at all. 2B or SS are where he belongs. You build an IF defense around Ramirez and leave him there for the next 15 years.

He looked average at best at 2b, which makes me wonder why the team wants to move him to a more demanding defensive position.

Come for the booze, stay for the trainwreak.

voodoochile
11-10-2008, 09:47 AM
I disagree. He didn't look very good at 2B, save the occasional circus play.

He looked average at best at 2b, which makes me wonder why the team wants to move him to a more demanding defensive position.

Come for the booze, stay for the trainwreak.

Wow... his first serious time in the majors he exhibits an amazing arm, fantastic reflexes, a great glove and the ability to think outside the box while playing his second best IF position and you folks get riled because his footwork wasn't perfect and he sometimes lined up incorrectly. That's just silly.

Either way, it won't matter, you folks won't get your wish. AR is going to be the starting SS next year and rightfully so...

hellview
11-10-2008, 09:49 AM
Wow... his first serious time in the majors he exhibits an amazing arm, fantastic reflexes, a great glove and the ability to think outside the box while playing his second best IF position and you folks get riled because his footwork wasn't perfect and he sometimes lined up incorrectly. That's just silly.

Either way, it won't matter, you folks won't get your wish. AR is going to be the starting SS next year and rightfully so...

What the hell does that mean?

Craig Grebeck
11-10-2008, 09:51 AM
Wow... his first serious time in the majors he exhibits an amazing arm, fantastic reflexes, a great glove and the ability to think outside the box while playing his second best IF position and you folks get riled because his footwork wasn't perfect and he sometimes lined up incorrectly. That's just silly.

Either way, it won't matter, you folks won't get your wish. AR is going to be the starting SS next year and rightfully so...
I understand it was his first time in MLB. He showed some good instincts and reflexes, I just think his glovework is overrated. Agree to disagree.

voodoochile
11-10-2008, 09:56 AM
What the hell does that mean?

You have to admit he came up with some creative solutions to difficult if not near-impossible defensive situations. His ability to use the glove flip (for example) saved the Sox numerous outs...

It's called instincts (as CG stated in the post after yours). AR has them. Add in his lightning quick reflexes and above average arm and I'd rather leave him where he not only feels comfortable but where he will have the greater impact on team defense.

Kilroy
11-10-2008, 10:46 AM
Like it or not speed, speed, SPEED is the off season mantra. That's not me stating it as fact but using Kenny's own words. And he runs this team. He (and Ozzie) appear to be sick and tired of slow footed, station to station baseball.


Please God, I hope this is true. I am so tired of watching runners get on who can't steal only to be left standing where they were by guys following them who couldn't get down a bunt or get them moved along. I'm tired of seeing NO running game from the Sox.

khan
11-10-2008, 11:19 AM
What does it matter who I want? Ideally, I'd sign Furcal and move Ramirez to CF, with Getz at 2B.

I'd love to have Furcal on the team, too. But since he's coming off a contract that approximated $15M/year, I don't think the SOX can get him, unless KW can offload ~$10M to $15M in salaries this off season.

oldcomiskey
11-10-2008, 05:12 PM
First of all, JR aint gonna pony up that kind of money per anum for anybody and I dont blame him.

CarolinaSoxFan
11-10-2008, 09:14 PM
Rather than someone like Crisp or Taveras for CF and leadoff, I'd like to see a trade with Tampa that returned Fernando Perez. I regularly go to Duham Bulls games, and he was the everyday CF in Durham last season. He covers a lot of ground with his speed, hit .288, .361 OBP and 43 SB. This guy is very fast, only 25 years old, and Tampa has a surplus of talented outfielders. Compared with guys like Tavaras, Crisp, Pierre, Fernando Perez has a lot more upside.

Craig Grebeck
11-10-2008, 09:35 PM
Rather than someone like Crisp or Taveras for CF and leadoff, I'd like to see a trade with Tampa that returned Fernando Perez. I regularly go to Duham Bulls games, and he was the everyday CF in Durham last season. He covers a lot of ground with his speed, hit .288, .361 OBP and 43 SB. This guy is very fast, only 25 years old, and Tampa has a surplus of talented outfielders. Compared with guys like Tavaras, Crisp, Pierre, Fernando Perez has a lot more upside.
He strikes out a ton and has very little upside. 4th-5th OF at best.

PalehosePlanet
11-10-2008, 11:41 PM
Ideally I'd like Furcal as our lead-off hitter.

As a fall back option though, I wouldn't mind Felipe Lopez. He can play anywhere in the infield and isn't bad in LF in a pinch. His OBP is not great but it's decent, he can steal bases, is a switch hitter and he has some pop. He wouldn't cost us a ton of money either and at the very worst, if he failed at lead-off, he can be a very capable utility man.

Also he's only 28 so his speed shouldn't be abandoning him anytime soon.

btrain929
11-10-2008, 11:46 PM
Ideally I'd like Furcal as our lead-off hitter.

As a fall back option though, I wouldn't mind Felipe Lopez. He can play anywhere in the infield and isn't bad in LF in a pinch. His OBP is not great but it's decent, he can steal bases, is a switch hitter and he has some pop. He wouldn't cost us a ton of money either and at the very worst, if he failed at lead-off, he can be a very capable utility man.

Also he's only 28 so his speed shouldn't be abandoning him anytime soon.

I think I read somewhere that Lopez' agent is Boras....

PalehosePlanet
11-11-2008, 01:10 AM
I think I read somewhere that Lopez' agent is Boras....

Yep, just looked it up and you're right. It's too bad, he would have been a good fit. Not to mention that we would not have lost any picks in signing him.

Oh well...