PDA

View Full Version : Dye to the Angels now?


cws05champ
01-12-2009, 07:35 PM
Another day, another rumor on JD. Now going to the Angels, and as you can imagine the speculation is for Figgins.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1373878,whitesox-figgins-011209.article

chisox123
01-12-2009, 07:35 PM
Hoe Cowley is saying that the Angels might want Dye because they lost Teixeira. I think it would be a good trade, how about you?


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1373878,whitesox-figgins-011209.article

JermaineDye05
01-12-2009, 07:36 PM
I can't see it happening, the Angels want a kings ransom.

GregO23
01-12-2009, 07:36 PM
I would honestly think we would get more than just Figgins for Dye

DumpJerry
01-12-2009, 07:36 PM
Throw in Vlad and that takes care of the Angels' surplus of outfielders.

chisox123
01-12-2009, 07:42 PM
Hoe Cowley is saying that the Angels might want Dye because they lost Teixeira. I think it would be a good trade, how about you?


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1373878,whitesox-figgins-011209.article


Sorry it's Joe Cowley

Rdy2PlayBall
01-12-2009, 07:44 PM
I'd rather just keep Dye. I think Fields will be good at 3rd and we need to keep Dye's bat in the line up... If we can get Figgins without giving up someone like Dye, go for it... but I just don't like the trade idea. :(:

Huisj
01-12-2009, 07:45 PM
The Angels have Hunter, Guerrero, Matthews, Rivera, Willets to distribute between 4 lineup spots. What the heck would they do with Dye?

SoxGirl4Life
01-12-2009, 07:49 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28450386@N03/3119684905/

WhiteSox1989
01-12-2009, 07:54 PM
Wouldn't this open up another spot for us to fill?

To be honest, IF the Sox do get Figgins, it wouldn't exactly make me any more confident in the '09 team.

dwalteroo
01-12-2009, 07:56 PM
The Angels have Hunter, Guerrero, Matthews, Rivera, Willets to distribute between 4 lineup spots. What the heck would they do with Dye?

Dye is a better hitter than all of them, sans Guerrero. And I agree with the other post, I think we'd get more for Dye than just Figgins.

JermaineDye05
01-12-2009, 07:59 PM
Wouldn't this open up another sport for us to fill?

To be honest, IF the Sox do get Figgins, it wouldn't exactly make me any more confident in the '09 team.

I dunno, I think the sox are set with baseball :redneck

BadBobbyJenks
01-12-2009, 08:09 PM
Wouldn't this open up another spot for us to fill?

To be honest, IF the Sox do get Figgins, it wouldn't exactly make me any more confident in the '09 team.

I'd imagine Chone would play left or Center and Quentin would move to right.

dickallen15
01-12-2009, 08:11 PM
If it meant the Sox would sign Abreu, I'd make the trade.

turners56
01-12-2009, 08:13 PM
Sorry it's Joe Cowley

Hahaha Hoe Cowley.

WhiteSox1989
01-12-2009, 08:14 PM
I dunno, I think the sox are set with baseball :redneck
I noticed that and fixed it, but you beat me to it!

DaveFeelsRight
01-12-2009, 08:15 PM
If it meant the Sox would sign Abreu, I'd make the trade.or dunn. who knows these days. my ideal situation would be trade dye from figgins, plug him in center, and then sign abreu or dunn. that just leaves problems at third and the rotation.

but hey, what do i know?

JermaineDye05
01-12-2009, 08:16 PM
I noticed that and fixed it, but you beat me to it!

http://images.zap2it.com/20070703/tonyshalhoub_monk07_240.jpg

"It's a gift...and a curse."

WhiteSox5187
01-12-2009, 08:16 PM
Wouldn't this open up another spot for us to fill?

To be honest, IF the Sox do get Figgins, it wouldn't exactly make me any more confident in the '09 team.
Well, it doesn't address our biggest issue which is still pitching, but it solves who our leadoff hitter is and I feel more confident with Figgins defensive ability than Fields at third. Unfortunately I fear that getting Figgins might mean the resumption of the Fields in left experiement.

tm1119
01-12-2009, 08:19 PM
If we are going to trade Dye why not for some young guys? Our team - Dye and + Figgins will probably be worse off in 2009. I'd much rather get some sort of package of guys like Adenhart, Wood, Aybar, Kendrick, Morales, etc.

munchman33
01-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Dye for Figgins and Willts makes some sense.

A. Cavatica
01-12-2009, 08:56 PM
If we trade Dye, we'd better get back a mid-rotation starter.

cards press box
01-12-2009, 08:58 PM
If it meant the Sox would sign Abreu, I'd make the trade.

That's the key right there. If the Sox deal Dye for Figgins (and maybe a prospect) and sign Abreu, then this makes a lot of sense. Figgins would end up somewhere, likely 3B, CF or 2B. Abreu would likely play LF with Quentin moving over to his natural position in RF.

The Sox would have more speed and righty/lefty balance in their lineup. These two moves make baseball and financial sense.

Lillian
01-12-2009, 09:02 PM
If all, or even any of these rumors involving Dye for lesser players are true, the only explanation that I can think of is that the Sox do indeed plan on signing Abreu. If they can sign him for the same money and number of years that they have committed to Dye, it just replaces a slower, right handed power hitter with a better OBP left handed hitter, who won´t clog up the bases quite as badly as most of our lineup.
Then whoever comes back in the trade is a plus.
Otherwise, these rumors make no sense. Dye is better, and more valuable, given the contract, than Young, Figgins, Homer Bailey, or anyone else mentioned in any of these one for one trade rumors.

WhiteSoxOnly
01-12-2009, 09:02 PM
Dye for Figgins and Willts makes some sense.

I'd rather have one of those guys and Adenhart or Weaver
as the other player...no chance of it happening though.

soxfanreggie
01-12-2009, 09:23 PM
My thoughts on Dye still remain on that we should trade him if we can get a good value in return that will better help the team this year or in the future. If we don't have a realistic chance at competing and can get something good in return, I wouldn't mind trading some vets for guys that will help our future.

Right now, we would have to get Figgins to agree to a contract with us because getting him in return when we would have Dye through 2010 if we wanted.

Willits would have some potential though if that was the deal.

munchman33
01-12-2009, 09:34 PM
I'd rather have one of those guys and Adenhart or Weaver
as the other player...no chance of it happening though.

Well of course. But Dye for Figgins and Willits is a balanced trade, and we free up some money to sign another outfielder, like Abreu (who'd probably take something in the $6-8 million range on a one year deal right now). Imagine the lineup.

3B Figgins
CF Willits/Owens
LF Quentin
DH Thome
1B Konerko
RF Abreu
SS Ramirez
C AJ
2B Getz/Lillibridge

And it allows for competition this spring. Like if Viciedo or Fields have a great spring, play Figgins at 2B. If Getz or Lillibridge also do well, play Figgins in center.

Whatever happens, that lineup would score a ton of runs.

Lundind1
01-12-2009, 09:57 PM
I just don't buy anything involving the Angels anymore. Every year it is Konerko and nothing. I just refuse to listen unless it is a done deal.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 10:16 PM
Wouldn't this open up another spot for us to fill?

To be honest, IF the Sox do get Figgins, it wouldn't exactly make me any more confident in the '09 team.

Yes, his name is Bobby Abreu.

3B Figgins
LF Abreu
1B Konerko
RF Quentin
DH Thome
SS Ramirez
C Pierzynski
2B Getz
CF Owens/Anderson

Add another SP and you have yourself a division champ.

munchman33
01-12-2009, 10:22 PM
Add another SP and you have yourself a division champ.

At least. That lineup would be among the best in baseball.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 10:34 PM
At least. That lineup would be among the best in baseball.

Ah, that Getz-CF platoon is a black hole at the bottom which keeps it from being an elite lineup like you have in Boston or New York-A. Now, if you add an Orlando Hudson to this equation and he stays healthy, 850-900 runs this season is a very attainable goal.

soxfanreggie
01-12-2009, 10:38 PM
If you have Figgins to lead off, couldn't you put BA in the line-up if he does better than Anderson. BA out there would give us solid D in the CF spot.

guillensdisciple
01-12-2009, 10:45 PM
I would love this trade if we received Abreau afterwards but that won't happen, unless Kenny was lying about the financial situation of the White Sox.

whitesox901
01-12-2009, 10:56 PM
That would be a good IMO, we could put Chone out in CF, and keep Josh @ 3B, Put Owens/Anderson platoon at Left, and bat Owens second behind Chone when he plays, just IMO.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 10:58 PM
That would be a good IMO, we could put Chone out in CF, and keep Josh @ 3B, Put Owens/Anderson platoon at Left, and bat Owens second behind Chone when he plays, just IMO.

Dude, Josh Fields is terrible, if we're going to have someone in the lineup that can't hit for ****, it may as well be BA for his defense.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Dude, Josh Fields is terrible, if we're going to have someone in the lineup that can't hit for ****, it may as well be BA for his defense.

Now Anderson == Fields offensively? :scratch:

There's a new one.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 11:15 PM
Now Anderson == Fields offensively? :scratch:

There's a new one.

I'm not going to waste me time trying to figure out whether Anderson or Fields is ****tier. They both suck, in their own special way.

tm1119
01-12-2009, 11:15 PM
Now Anderson == Fields offensively? :scratch:

There's a new one.
__________________________________________

What? Anderson and his .225 average, little to no power, and marginal speed isnt good enough for you? Dont forget that he is better than Willie Mays ever was in CF too.

munchman33
01-12-2009, 11:16 PM
Ah, that Getz-CF platoon is a black hole at the bottom which keeps it from being an elite lineup like you have in Boston or New York-A. Now, if you add an Orlando Hudson to this equation and he stays healthy, 850-900 runs this season is a very attainable goal.

I think Getz is going to hit above .300 this year.

That's right. I said it.

doublem23
01-12-2009, 11:18 PM
I think Getz is going to hit above .300 this year.

That's right. I said it.

I want whatever you're drinking.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:19 PM
I'm not going to waste me time trying to figure out whether Anderson or Fields is ****tier. They both suck, in their own special way.

No, please enlighten me. Fields has shown the ability to hit for a better average, for more power, and even do it with more patience at the major league level. Sorry the guy was hurt in 2008. Funny how quickly opinions have changed because of that.

Anderson has been up here for ~2 full years (yeah, yeah, yeah...he hasn't started for most of it; he's still seen big league pitching) and still shows the same crap at the plate. Fields has shown real potential at the big league level in a few months.

Madscout
01-12-2009, 11:20 PM
I want whatever you're drinking.
Can I have some too?

doublem23
01-12-2009, 11:22 PM
No, please enlighten me. Fields has shown the ability to hit for a better average, for more power, and even do it with more patience. Sorry the guy was hurt in 2008. Funny how quickly opinions have changed because of that.

His lone offensive weapon, power, is completely marginalized by the fact that's the one thing this team doesn't need. His OBP, even in his breakout year was .308 and he struck out 125 times in 100 games. Add that he's the most brutal defensive third baseman imagined by man, and no, I'm not going to break a sweat trying to get Fields some PT.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:23 PM
His lone offensive weapon, power, is completely marginalized by the fact that's the one thing this team doesn't need. His OBP, even in his breakout year was .308 and he struck out 125 times in 100 games.

That was his rookie year, not his breakout year.

Add that he's the most brutal defensive third baseman imagined by man, and no, I'm not going to break a sweat trying to get Fields some PT.

:roflmao: Please stop now.

munchman33
01-12-2009, 11:24 PM
Can I have some too?

I want whatever you're drinking.

Josh Fields will hit 40 homers in split duty at 3B with Viciedo, who will hit 30 of his own.

oeo
01-12-2009, 11:24 PM
I think Getz is going to hit above .300 this year.

That's right. I said it.

I'd be ecstatic with .280, but I think .265 is more realistic. Definitely not a black hole, I don't know where that opinion is coming from...the guy is a patient, contact hitter.

jabrch
01-12-2009, 11:54 PM
His lone offensive weapon, power, is completely marginalized by the fact that's the one thing this team doesn't need. His OBP, even in his breakout year was .308 and he struck out 125 times in 100 games. Add that he's the most brutal defensive third baseman imagined by man, and no, I'm not going to break a sweat trying to get Fields some PT.

You wouldn't try to get a guy in who hit .248/.308/.480 in his first season in MLB some PT? You have concluded he can get no better? You have concluded he can't help us in 2009?

I'll admit you very well may be right. But are 100% sure, without a doubt, that there is no way you can be wrong?

guillen4life13
01-13-2009, 12:07 AM
You wouldn't try to get a guy in who hit .248/.348/.480 in his first season in MLB some PT? You have concluded he can get no better? You have concluded he can't help us in 2009?

I'll admit you very well may be right. But are 100% sure, without a doubt, that there is no way you can be wrong?

Is that a typo or am I missing something?

jabrch
01-13-2009, 12:08 AM
Is that a typo or am I missing something?


Typo - should be .308...

oeo
01-13-2009, 12:10 AM
You wouldn't try to get a guy in who hit .248/.348/.480 in his first season in MLB some PT? You have concluded he can get no better? You have concluded he can't help us in 2009?

I'll admit you very well may be right. But are 100% sure, without a doubt, that there is no way you can be wrong?

.244/.308/.480.

In his final month, however, he hit .259/.368/.568. Strikeouts were down, and walks were up. Oh, I forgot, he had a bad year with a bum knee...he's toast.

JermaineDye05
01-13-2009, 12:13 AM
.244/.308/.480.

In his final month, however, he hit .259/.368/.568. Strikeouts were down, and walks were up. Oh, I forgot, he had a bad year with a bum knee...he's toast.

I think people also forget that he hit 23 HR's and drove in 67 in 373 at-bats.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 12:15 AM
I'll admit you very well may be right. But are 100% sure, without a doubt, that there is no way you can be wrong?

I'm sure there's a way I could be wrong, but I truly think this team is 2-3 moves away from being a serious contender for the World Series, so I'd do that instead of wasting time trying to screw Josh Fields' head on straight.

I think people also forget that he hit 23 HR's and drove in 67 in 373 at-bats.

Did you miss the part where I said his power, the lone dimension of his offense, is completely marginalized by the lineup the Sox have already built, and the fact that we play in a very HR-friendly park? I know he can rake, I just don't think he brings enough other skills to the table that make him valuable to our needs. We don't need more sluggers, we need guys that can get on base. And play defense.

oeo
01-13-2009, 12:18 AM
I'm sure there's a way I could be wrong, but I truly think this team is 2-3 moves away from being a serious contender for the World Series, so I'd do that instead of wasting time trying to screw Josh Fields' head on straight.

Screw his head on straight? :?:

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 12:19 AM
I'm sure there's a way I could be wrong, but I truly think this team is 2-3 moves away from being a serious contender for the World Series, so I'd do that instead of wasting time trying to screw Josh Fields' head on straight.



Did you miss the part where I said his power, the lone dimension of his offense, is completely marginalized by the lineup the Sox have already built, and the fact that we play in a very HR-friendly park? I know he can rake, I just don't think he brings enough other skills to the table that make him valuable to our needs. We don't need more sluggers, we need guys that can get on base. And play defense.
Or guys that can do all three! Although that'd be asking too much.

OBP>Defense>Slugging

jabrch
01-13-2009, 12:20 AM
I'm sure there's a way I could be wrong, but I truly think this team is 2-3 moves away from being a serious contender for the World Series, so I'd do that instead of wasting time trying to screw Josh Fields' head on straight.

If those moves were there, and within the realm of plausibility, do you think KW wouldn't have made them? What 2-3 moves are you talking about? And why do we need to "screw his head on straight" if he can hit? He's shown he CAN. The question is can he improve?

And I think that this team, as is, can contend to win the division. I don't see any way it becomes a favorite to win a WS, but once it makes the playoffs, it has a shot.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 12:21 AM
If those moves were there, and within the realm of plausibility, do you think KW wouldn't have made them? What 2-3 moves are you talking about?
1. CF
2. 3B
3. SP
4. SP

Why hasn't he made them? I'd say he's either stubborn, broke, or believes he's put together a good ballclub. I just disagree with the idea.

oeo
01-13-2009, 12:21 AM
I know he can rake, I just don't think he brings enough other skills to the table that make him valuable to our needs.

Well somebody has backtracked quite a bit from their Anderson comparisons.

1. CF
2. 3B
3. SP
4. SP

Why hasn't he made them? I'd say he's either stubborn, broke, or believes he's put together a good ballclub. I just disagree with the idea.

I hope those are not in order.

It's Dankerific
01-13-2009, 12:22 AM
If those moves were there, and within the realm of plausibility, do you think KW wouldn't have made them? What 2-3 moves are you talking about? And why do we need to "screw his head on straight" if he can hit? He's shown he CAN. The question is can he improve?

By that line of logic, If the moves are there, KW always, 100% of the time, makes them. Thats awesome.

:bandance::bandance::bandance:

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 12:24 AM
I hope those are not in order.
No, no, no, no, no.

SP
SP
3B
CF

If anything, we could just sign Orlando Cabrera, move Ramirez to 3B and play Anderson in CF. One more starting pitcher and we could contend.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 12:25 AM
And I think that this team, as is, can contend to win the division. I don't see any way it becomes a favorite to win a WS, but once it makes the playoffs, it has a shot.
I have no reason to believe in this team. If everything goes right, we might go .500. Three starters, all of which pitch to contact to some degree, and a terrible defense. The other two starters are, well, swingmen at best. We're in for a long reason if Kenny believes this.

JermaineDye05
01-13-2009, 12:31 AM
Did you miss the part where I said his power, the lone dimension of his offense, is completely marginalized by the lineup the Sox have already built, and the fact that we play in a very HR-friendly park? I know he can rake, I just don't think he brings enough other skills to the table that make him valuable to our needs. We don't need more sluggers, we need guys that can get on base. And play defense.

I wasn't referring to you, just a large majority. A lot of people feel that Fields is worthless because of the way he performed this past season, he's still got value. He won't be a blackhole in the lineup like some fans feel he will be.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 12:36 AM
If those moves were there, and within the realm of plausibility, do you think KW wouldn't have made them? What 2-3 moves are you talking about? And why do we need to "screw his head on straight" if he can hit? He's shown he CAN. The question is can he improve?



4th Starter
Lead-off Hitter
Related to #2, at least one of the following: CF, 2B, or 3B (in that order of need)

Well, we've already talked about the White Sox's payroll constraints, which puts a damper on some plans. I'm not sure what KW is waiting for, but in a recent interview I read, he mentioned that he didn't think last year's team was really all together until he signed Dotel and that didn't happen until January 22, 2008 or something, so there's still time. There are a lot of free agents out there looking for work and plenty of teams that are looking to move some guys. Other than that, I don't know, maybe he and I have conflicting views on some guys? Maybe some teams aren't interested in making a trade yet? I'm not saying that I think this is the path KW will take, it's just what I would do if I were running the Sox. That lineup I posted earlier in this thread, based on just a few moves I think makes moves the Sox from a mid-to-upper 80s win team (what they are now, at best) to a mid-to-upper 90's win team.

3B Chone Figgins
2B Orlando Hudson
LF Bobby Abreu
1B Paul Konerko
RF Carlos Quentin
DH Jim Thome
SS Alexei Ramirez
C AJ Pierzynski
CF Owens/Anderson platoon

Rotation: Mark Buehrle, Gavin Floyd, John Danks, (Insert Veteran SP), 1 of the kids

Bingo bango. 95-100 wins. Division championship. Legitimate World Series contender.

Even if the Dye to LAA rumors that spawned this thread turn out to be total nothing (as they very likely will), you can still put together a solid lineup with Fields at 3B, at the bottom of the order if you bring in Hudson to play 2B. Scratch Abreu, throw Dye back in, reshake the lineup for the L/R setup, and maybe try and find a center fielder that can play in the field and get a hit on occasion.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 12:43 AM
Well somebody has backtracked quite a bit from their Anderson comparisons.

I don't believe I ever said BA was a good a hitter as Fields (at least Fields can do something), but I do believe if we had a guy who could play 3B and CF, we're better off with Anderson in CF than Fields at third. The ability to crank homers doesn't correlate to being able to hit well.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 12:49 AM
4th Starter
Lead-off Hitter
Related to #2, at least one of the following: CF, 2B, or 3B (in that order of need)
Well, we've already talked about the White Sox's payroll constraints, which puts a damper on some plans. I'm not sure what KW is waiting for, but in a recent interview I read, he mentioned that he didn't think last year's team was really all together until he signed Dotel and that didn't happen until January 22, 2008 or something, so there's still time. There are a lot of free agents out there looking for work and plenty of teams that are looking to move some guys. Other than that, I don't know, maybe he and I have conflicting views on some guys? Maybe some teams aren't interested in making a trade yet? I'm not saying that I think this is the path KW will take, it's just what I would do if I were running the Sox. That lineup I posted earlier in this thread, based on just a few moves I think makes moves the Sox from a mid-to-upper 80s win team (what they are now, at best) to a mid-to-upper 90's win team.

3B Chone Figgins
2B Orlando Hudson
LF Bobby Abreu
1B Paul Konerko
RF Carlos Quentin
DH Jim Thome
SS Alexei Ramirez
C AJ Pierzynski
CF Owens/Anderson platoon

Rotation: Mark Buehrle, Gavin Floyd, John Danks, (Insert Veteran SP), 1 of the kids

Bingo bango. 95-100 wins. Division championship. Legitimate World Series contender.

Even if the Dye to LAA rumors that spawned this thread turn out to be total nothing (as they very likely will), you can still put together a solid lineup with Fields at 3B, at the bottom of the order if you bring in Hudson to play 2B. Scratch Abreu, throw Dye back in, reshake the lineup for the L/R setup, and maybe try and find a center fielder that can play in the field and get a hit on occasion.

I don't see how you get a veteran SP, Hudson, Figgins and Abreu and add them into this team and stay anywhere close to a budget. Unless the market decays for the FA even more than it has, I just don't see it.

I don't see that team being a lock to win 95 games either. Hudson is overrated. His history of injuries is consistent. His performance is decent - but not great. And if he wants a long term and still expects big $, I don't buy it.

I also wouldn't give up JD for Figgins - not ever. But that's a different story.

Dubs - I'm all for a move or 3 - I just don't A) see how you fit those into a budget and B) particularly like those solutions - certainly not with two of them being old/injury prone and demanding of likely a 3 year deal at 10mm+ per.

voodoochile
01-13-2009, 12:50 AM
I don't believe I ever said BA was a good a hitter as Fields (at least Fields can do something), but I do believe if we had a guy who could play 3B and CF, we're better off with Anderson in CF than Fields at third. The ability to crank homers doesn't correlate to being able to hit well.

For me, I'd rather do it the other way. With BA, I figure we know what we've got because he's been with the club a lot more than Fields. I'd like to give Fields two years to hit his way onto or off of the roster. At least with Fields you've got the chance for something dramatic to happen and finding a guy who could hit 5th for the next decade wouldn't altogether suck...

Daver
01-13-2009, 12:51 AM
I wasn't referring to you, just a large majority. A lot of people feel that Fields is worthless because of the way he performed this past season, he's still got value. He won't be a blackhole in the lineup like some fans feel he will be.

His ability to hit .250 won't intefere with his ability to field third base face first.

Yes I know, defense is over rated.

WhiteSox5187
01-13-2009, 01:00 AM
I have no reason to believe in this team. If everything goes right, we might go .500. Three starters, all of which pitch to contact to some degree, and a terrible defense. The other two starters are, well, swingmen at best. We're in for a long reason if Kenny believes this.
Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but...I agree with you.

Although I will add one caveat, I have no reason to believe in this team as it is constructed now. I don't think this is a total loss either, some minor tweaking and we might be in good shape.

Konerko05
01-13-2009, 01:19 AM
For me, I'd rather do it the other way. With BA, I figure we know what we've got because he's been with the club a lot more than Fields. I'd like to give Fields two years to hit his way onto or off of the roster. At least with Fields you've got the chance for something dramatic to happen and finding a guy who could hit 5th for the next decade wouldn't altogether suck...

If the option of Figgins starting over Fields or Anderson is present, I would start Anderson with no question.

The current 2009 White Sox starting lineup is absolutely horrendous defensively. Anderson has already proven he can play above average at a defensive position. Fields has proven he can hit homeruns.

As much as everyone is drooling over Fields' rookie season, he only hit .020 points higher than Anderson. Fields is awful defensively. Sox starters will have low strikeout totals next season. They need players who can field their position.

If the only thing people are worried about is homeruns, I think Anderson will hit 15+ over a full season.

oeo
01-13-2009, 01:23 AM
I don't believe I ever said BA was a good a hitter as Fields (at least Fields can do something), but I do believe if we had a guy who could play 3B and CF, we're better off with Anderson in CF than Fields at third. The ability to crank homers doesn't correlate to being able to hit well.

As I've already shown, Fields did more than 'crank homers' in September of 2007, the final month of his rookie year. .259/.368/.568 is good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't want something close to that. Sorry if you think that was a fluke. You were probably one of the people that thought Gavin's September was a fluke, too.

Maybe he won't slug .570, but can that average improve? Certainly. The OBP? Sure. Let's also not forget that Fields is pretty fleet of foot, too.

oeo
01-13-2009, 01:27 AM
As much as everyone is drooling over Fields' rookie season, he only hit .020 points higher than Anderson. Fields is awful defensively. Sox starters will have low strikeout totals next season. They need players who can field their position.No one is drooling over it. It's the potential that's there that I like.

And Ozzie, one of Fields' greatest defensive critics, said he put in the time last year and was looking better defensively. It's too bad he got hurt, but give the kid a chance. He's below average defensively, he's not atrocious. And damn, it's possible he's gotten better.

If the only thing people are worried about is homeruns, I think Anderson will hit 15+ over a full season.Oh please. No one said that. What are we supposed to do with Fields? Trade him for a bag of balls? The guy has shown the potential to be a pretty good power hitter, and we're just going to let him go for nothing? Who will be the first ones complaining when Josh is hitting those 35 homeruns elsewhere?

The homeruns are not what I care about. I care about losing a good talent for virtually nothing. If he doesn't fancy you, let him play and get his stock up again so we can actually get something of value. I'm not ready to just let him go for nothing because Konerko, Dye, and Thome fit the same mold.

Also, isn't one of our goals to get younger? So you bring in Figgins, who's another over 30 guy, who's one big tool has been in a decline over the past few seasons. And he's not a great defender at third base, either.

Konerko05
01-13-2009, 01:53 AM
No one is drooling over it. It's the potential that's there that I like.

And Ozzie, one of Fields' greatest defensive critics, said he put in the time last year and was looking better defensively. It's too bad he got hurt, but give the kid a chance. He's below average defensively, he's not atrocious. And damn, it's possible he's gotten better.

Oh please. No one said that. What are we supposed to do with Fields? Trade him for a bag of balls? The guy has shown the potential to be a pretty good power hitter, and we're just going to let him go for nothing? Who will be the first ones complaining when Josh is hitting those 35 homeruns elsewhere?

The homeruns are not what I care about. I care about losing a good talent for virtually nothing. If he doesn't fancy you, let him play and get his stock up again so we can actually get something of value. I'm not ready to just let him go for nothing because Konerko, Dye, and Thome fit the same mold.

Also, isn't one of our goals to get younger? So you bring in Figgins, who's another over 30 guy, who's one big tool has been in a decline over the past few seasons. And he's not a great defender at third base, either.

I am not pushing for the Figgins trade. I only said if the option was to play Figgins at 3B or OF, I would chose 3B.

I am not saying Fields is horrible, and I want to dump him. I just believe Anderson in CF would help the Sox a lot more than Fields at 3B in 2009.

WhiteSox5187
01-13-2009, 02:15 AM
As I've already shown, Fields did more than 'crank homers' in September of 2007, the final month of his rookie year. .259/.368/.568 is good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't want something close to that. Sorry if you think that was a fluke. You were probably one of the people that thought Gavin's September was a fluke, too.

Maybe he won't slug .570, but can that average improve? Certainly. The OBP? Sure. Let's also not forget that Fields is pretty fleet of foot, too.
I'm wary of trusting stats put up in September. Owens had a great September, so shall we assume he is the solution to our leadoff problems?

jabrch
01-13-2009, 02:30 AM
I'm wary of trusting stats put up in September. Owens had a great September, so shall we assume he is the solution to our leadoff problems?


No - but you shouldn't completely discount the possibility.

CWSpalehoseCWS
01-13-2009, 03:31 AM
I'm wary of trusting stats put up in September. Owens had a great September, so shall we assume he is the solution to our leadoff problems?

He isn't the worst thing that could happen to us at leadoff.

PeoriaSoxFan
01-13-2009, 06:54 AM
A seemingly lopsided trade of Lee for Pods worked well in 05. With that said, I doubt there is anything to this, like the dozen of other rumors that have been invented.

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 08:15 AM
I think people also forget that he hit 23 HR's and drove in 67 in 373 at-bats.

I think people forget he was hitting .228 with an OBP under .300 on September 14 until he picked it up during the battle for last place with the KC Royals in 2007. It was garbage time.

oeo
01-13-2009, 08:36 AM
I think people forget he was hitting .228 with an OBP under .300 on September 14 until he picked it up during the battle for last place with the KC Royals in 2007. It was garbage time.

I think people forget that he had an AWFUL August which skewed his stats.

BTW, this is the same exact lame excuse people used last year about Gavin. I thought we were over this 'garbage time' bull ****. There's no such thing.

I'm wary of trusting stats put up in September. Owens had a great September, so shall we assume he is the solution to our leadoff problems?

You can't argue with his stats. Owens could have been, and likely was, very lucky (3 total XBH). Fields, OTOH, was raking.

esbrechtel
01-13-2009, 08:47 AM
I agree if shipping Dye leads to signing Bobby then I am all for it!

Rocky Soprano
01-13-2009, 09:02 AM
He isn't the worst thing that could happen to us at leadoff.

How is he not just about the worst thing? The guy is HORRIBLE!
He's fast, yet doesn't posses the skill to steal a base. He can't bat or even bunt.

What makes him a good option as leadoff?

oeo
01-13-2009, 09:04 AM
He's fast, yet doesn't posses the skill to steal a base.

Well that's wrong. He relies on his speed too much to steal a base, but he can steal them.

Rocky Soprano
01-13-2009, 09:10 AM
Well that's wrong. He relies on his speed too much to steal a base, but he can steal them.

You still have to be able to get on 1st before you can steal one. :D:

oeo
01-13-2009, 09:20 AM
You still have to be able to get on 1st before you can steal one. :D:

Very true. And only one man on this team knows how to steal first base. :redneck

doublem23
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
As I've already shown, Fields did more than 'crank homers' in September of 2007, the final month of his rookie year. .259/.368/.568 is good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't want something close to that. Sorry if you think that was a fluke. You were probably one of the people that thought Gavin's September was a fluke, too.

Maybe he won't slug .570, but can that average improve? Certainly. The OBP? Sure. Let's also not forget that Fields is pretty fleet of foot, too.

No, I believed in Gavin and John last year. My general rule of thumb... Our prospects aren't worth a damn (our scouting and development have been teeeerrible for at least 10-15 years), but guys that spent the majority of their formative years away from the Sox are worth a 2nd look.

spawn
01-13-2009, 09:49 AM
No one is drooling over it. It's the potential that's there that I like.

And Ozzie, one of Fields' greatest defensive critics, said he put in the time last year and was looking better defensively. It's too bad he got hurt, but give the kid a chance. He's below average defensively, he's not atrocious. And damn, it's possible he's gotten better.

I was one of the people that wasn't upset that Fields was sent down in favor of Crede, and I don't regret it one bit. I wanted to see what Crede had left. For this season, I want to see what Fields has. IMO, it's his time.

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 10:09 AM
I think people forget that he had an AWFUL August which skewed his stats.

BTW, this is the same exact lame excuse people used last year about Gavin. I thought we were over this 'garbage time' bull ****. There's no such thing.



You can't argue with his stats. Owens could have been, and likely was, very lucky (3 total XBH). Fields, OTOH, was raking.

So Owens was lucky, but Fields was "raking". OK. If you can't argue with stats, how do you defend Josh Fields' career .233 batting average with 150 strikeouts in 425 AB?

oeo
01-13-2009, 10:10 AM
No, I believed in Gavin and John last year. My general rule of thumb... Our prospects aren't worth a damn (our scouting and development have been teeeerrible for at least 10-15 years), but guys that spent the majority of their formative years away from the Sox are worth a 2nd look.

Why even have a farm system then? If they're not worth a damn, and they don't deserve the shot to prove themselves, then what's the point?

So Owens was lucky, but Fields was "raking". OK. If you can't argue with stats, how do you defend Josh Fields' career .233 batting average with 150 strikeouts in 425 AB?

Owens had 3 XBH, which is normal for him. His little weak swing gets him a lot of lucky bases. If he was hitting the ball with any authority, with his speed, he should have had more than just singles.

Fields, OTOH, had more than half of his hits go for extra bases. He also showed more patience, and didn't appear to be trying to hit the living daylights out of the ball like he did in August where he not only had his most homer happy month, he also walked only 5 times and struck out 43. What does that tell me? That Fields isn't just purely homeruns, because when he is, he's at his worst. The homeruns will come if he's patient and takes what's given to him.

BTW, I said you can't argue with his stats in September of 2007, not stats in general. They were very good.

doublem23
01-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Why even have a farm system then? If they're not worth a damn, and they don't deserve the shot to prove themselves, then what's the point?

/head slap

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 10:19 AM
Why even have a farm system then? If they're not worth a damn, and they don't deserve the shot to prove themselves, then what's the point?



Owens had 3 XBH, which is normal for him. His little weak swing gets him a lot of lucky bases. If he was hitting the ball with any authority, with his speed, he should have had more than just singles.

Fields, OTOH, had more than half of his hits go for extra bases. He also showed more patience, and didn't appear to be trying to hit the living daylights out of the ball like he did in August where he not only had his most homer happy month, he also walked only 5 times and struck out 43. What does that tell me? That Fields isn't just purely homeruns, because when he is, he's at his worst. The homeruns will come if he's patient and takes what's given to him.

BTW, I said you can't argue with his stats in September of 2007, not stats in general. They were very good.

So you can't argue with one month's worth of stats, but you can blow off a career's worth. OK. You make no sense.

oeo
01-13-2009, 10:23 AM
/head slap

Sorry, that rule of thumb sucks. Why not give Fields a look? It's not like we're talking Joe Borchard here. Fields showed some real potential in the small time that he was here.

oeo
01-13-2009, 10:26 AM
So you can't argue with one month's worth of stats, but you can blow off a career's worth. OK. You make no sense.

A whole career's worth? :lol:

*****, I didn't know Fields has a 10 year career which you can make these judgments off of. You want me to explain his strikeouts in his "career?" How about learning on the job, rookie year. Sorry he didn't come up as Evan Longoria.

Here's what I'm saying (again): Fields' stats were very good in September of 2007. You can't argue with that. You said it was in 'garbage time,' and I think that's a load of crap. There's no such thing as 'garbage time.'

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 10:31 AM
A whole career's worth? :lol:

*****, I didn't know Fields has a 10 year career which you can make these judgments off of. You want me to explain his strikeouts in his "career?" How about learning on the job, rookie year. Sorry he didn't come up as Evan Longoria.

Here's what I'm saying (again): Fields' stats were very good in September of 2007. You can't argue with that. You said it was in 'garbage time,' and I think that's a load of crap. There's no such thing as 'garbage time.'

I'm basing it off 425 AB. You are basing it off September 2007 when the White Sox and a lot of their opponents were playing out the string. A month where Josh was "raking at a 5 for 32 clip to start out, and finished 16-49. So really, you are basing it on 2 weeks. 2 weeks of meaningless games.

LoveYourSuit
01-13-2009, 10:37 AM
I make the move straight up for Figgins only if and only if we sign Abreu.

I guess Figgins would be the starting CF at that point.

oeo
01-13-2009, 10:38 AM
I'm basing it off 425 AB. You are basing it off September 2007 when the White Sox and a lot of their opponents were playing out the string. A month where Josh was "raking at a 5 for 32 clip to start out, and finished 16-49. So really, you are basing it on 2 weeks. 2 weeks of meaningless games.

Yes, I'm basing it on the fact that it's possible someone can improve. You're basing it off of the few months prior of his rookie year. Yeah, those 425 AB's tell you so much.

It wouldn't be a bad argument if you had more than his rookie year to argue.

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 10:46 AM
Yes, I'm basing it on the fact that it's possible someone can improve. You're basing it off of the few months prior of his rookie year. Yeah, those 425 AB's tell you so much.

It wouldn't be a bad argument if you had more than his rookie year to argue.

I also have his disaster of 2008, but you'll argue he was hurt. I never knew a knee injury makes you swing and miss even more. I also wonder if he was so injured, why KW called him up when Crede went down. If Josh is the future star he makes him out to be why mess with his psyche and his body when supposedly he is so hurt he can't perform? Why not get him healed? You are basing everything off of 2 weeks at the end of September playing for a team that lost 90 games 2 years ago. I like my position a little better.

Marqhead
01-13-2009, 10:52 AM
I make the move straight up for Figgins only if and only if we sign Abreu.

I guess Figgins would be the starting CF at that point.

I'm in this boat.

soltrain21
01-13-2009, 10:58 AM
How good of a defensive fielder is Chone? I don't expect a Gold Glove out there, but is he better than what we've been marching out there defensively? Would we play him at third and try to move Fields for an outfield prospect? That way you let Anderson play center and hit 9th? That is the boat I am in.

However, I guess we'd have to sign Abreu.

NLaloosh
01-13-2009, 11:00 AM
This is going to be the greatest deal Kenny ever made. Look at all the talent the Sox will get back for trading Dye - Homer Bailey, Michael Young, Andy Sonnanstine, Chone Figgins and whoever the Braves and Mets are going to send over.

esbrechtel
01-13-2009, 11:14 AM
nice....

spawn
01-13-2009, 11:16 AM
This is going to be the greatest deal Kenny ever made. Look at all the talent the Sox will get back for trading Dye - Homer Bailey, Michael Young, Andy Sonnanstine, Chone Figgins and whoever the Braves and Mets are going to send over.
:rolling:

MushMouth
01-13-2009, 11:17 AM
How good of a defensive fielder is Chone? I don't expect a Gold Glove out there, but is he better than what we've been marching out there defensively? Would we play him at third and try to move Fields for an outfield prospect? That way you let Anderson play center and hit 9th? That is the boat I am in.

However, I guess we'd have to sign Abreu.

He's way better than Carlos if he moves to left, and a big upgrade over Owens or Wise in Center. Anderson is probably a better CF, but it's not a HUGE gap.

Lets not even talk about Fields D at 3rd :)

DSpivack
01-13-2009, 11:33 AM
This is going to be the greatest deal Kenny ever made. Look at all the talent the Sox will get back for trading Dye - Homer Bailey, Michael Young, Andy Sonnanstine, Chone Figgins and whoever the Braves and Mets are going to send over.

I think you're on to something here. Don't just trade Dye, trade timeshares of him to other teams. Reds get him for a month, Rangers for another, etc.

khan
01-13-2009, 11:33 AM
You want me to explain his strikeouts in his "career?" How about learning on the job, rookie year.
How about his gargantuan strikeout totals all the way through his minor league career? Sorry, but Josh Fields sucks, and is a strikeout or an error waiting to happen. His minor league numbers portend a craptacular career, when you compare them to merely above average hitters among 3rd basemen.

Sorry he didn't come up as Evan Longoria.
I'd settle for a Herbert Perry-like career for The Strikeout King.

Here's what I'm saying (again): Fields' stats were very good in September of 2007.
:bandance::bandance:WHOO-HOOOO!!!!!!!! YEAH!!! 1 MONTH OF RAKIN'!!! YEAH!!! TONS OF POWER AND TONS OF Ks!!!!!!!! SCREW DEFENSE!!!!!!:bandance::bandance:

You said it was in 'garbage time,' and I think that's a load of crap. There's no such thing as 'garbage time.'
You're wrong. And as we've been discussing this, I think somewhere Josh Fields just booted the ball or struckout again.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 11:34 AM
He's way better than Carlos if he moves to left, and a big upgrade over Owens or Wise in Center. Anderson is

Really? I don't see Figgins as any better a LF than Carlos. And he isn't a great CF - but it doesn't take that to be better than JO/DW. It's hard to evaluate defense without really seeing a guy play, so I am basing this off of limited exposure to Figgins. But everything I have seen of him points to a mediocre defender at a lot of different positions, not a + guy anywhere.


I can't wait for the season to start. The mindless idle speculation is just over the top.

oeo
01-13-2009, 11:38 AM
How about his gargantuan strikeout totals all the way through his minor league career? Sorry, but Josh Fields sucks, and is a strikeout or an error waiting to happen. His minor league numbers portend a craptacular career, when you compare them to merely above average hitters among 3rd basemen.

Strikeouts are a byproduct of today's power hitter. When he's hitting 35 homeruns and driving in 100 guys, who cares?

You're wrong. And as we've been discussing this, I think somewhere Josh Fields just booted the ball or struckout again.I'm wrong about what? No one has given me anything to believe that his career is toast. He had an okay rookie year in which his final month he was a more patient hitter and the results showed, and we haven't seen him since then. :shrug:

This is typical of WSI. He has people excited about his future after 2007 (probably overexcited), then he hurts his knee, has a bad year, and all of a sudden he sucks.

oeo
01-13-2009, 11:44 AM
I also have his disaster of 2008, but you'll argue he was hurt.

He had surgery, he was hurt. All 32 AB's with a bad knee is really helping your case.

If you're now going to bring minor league numbers in...the guy has proven he can hit in AAA. If the drop in numbers there are not enough evidence to tell you how much his knee effected him, I don't know what to tell you.

I never knew a knee injury makes you swing and miss even more.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read here.

I also wonder if he was so injured, why KW called him up when Crede went down. If Josh is the future star he makes him out to be why mess with his psyche and his body when supposedly he is so hurt he can't perform? Why not get him healed? You are basing everything off of 2 weeks at the end of September playing for a team that lost 90 games 2 years ago. I like my position a little better.I don't know. There are a number of things that could have happened. Maybe Fields insisted he was alright. Maybe they didn't realize how serious his injury was until he reached Chicago.

This is irrelevant, anyway. It's now known that Fields' injury was serious enough for surgery, and it effected his swing. Why he was called up shouldn't matter.

khan
01-13-2009, 11:48 AM
Strikeouts are a byproduct of today's power hitter.
Look at his minor league numbers. Typically, you'll see that most hitters are worse at the big league level than they were in the minors. IF [and this is a big IF in my mind] The Strikeout King hits 35 HR, he'll also approach [EDIT] 200Ks or more. I also say "IF" because his craptacular defense and abject lack of anything else to offer the baseball world may preclude him from getting enough plate appearances to hit 35 HR.

I'm wrong about what? No one has given me anything to believe that his career is toast.
Again: Look at Josh Fields' minor league numbers. Then look at Crede's. Or Ventura's. Or just about any other above average 3rd baseman's numbers in the minor leagues. Then get back to us.

YEARS of minor league data have more predictive power than one measly month in garbage time. Particularly for players with as little major league time as The Strikeout King.

This is typical of WSI. He has people excited about his future after 2007 (probably overexcited), then he hurts his knee, has a bad year, and all of a sudden he sucks.
I didn't know that a hitter's knee affected his strike zone judgement, his eyes, or his [in]ability to hit the breaking ball. Do you care to explain how an injury in the knees can affect the eyes?

Thanks!

hi im skot
01-13-2009, 11:53 AM
Wait...Josh Fields' nickname is "the Strikeout King" and not Josh "Fields of Gold"?

Chris Berman is bummed.

khan
01-13-2009, 11:54 AM
Wait...Josh Fields' nickname is "the Strikeout King" and not Josh "Fields of Gold"?

Chris Berman is bummed.

Chris Berman, and all the other clowns from ESPN can go get bent, after they helped to get Jim Rice into the HOF.

But as far as Josh Fields goes, IMO, he's more likely to break a season strikeout record than he is to do anything else of note in MLB.

oeo
01-13-2009, 11:58 AM
Look at his minor league numbers. Typically, you'll see that most hitters are worse at the big league level than they were in the minors. IF [and this is a big IF in my mind] The Strikeout King hits 35 HR, he'll also approach [EDIT] 200Ks or more.

Thanks for the Minor League to Major League Stat Translation update.

If he drives in 100 runs, I really don't care if he's striking out 250 times.

YEARS of minor league data have more predictive power than one measly month in garbage time. Particularly for players with as little major league time as The Strikeout King.I never tried to claim that Josh Fields is a good ballplayer because of one good month. I'm trying to prove that he showed improvement. I don't know what to expect, maybe he is trash, but we certainly don't have enough evidence right now to say he is. Here's what I want: to give Josh Fields a chance to show his worth. If he's trash, we move on. If he reaches his potential, move him across the infield, move him in a trade, whatever. I don't want to give the guy away right now. And for all the people that bitch about Kenny's returns in trades, I don't see why the majority of you would want to just give him away either.

I didn't know that a hitter's knee affected his strike zone judgement, his eyes, or his [in]ability to hit the breaking ball. Do you care to explain how an injury in the knees can affect the eyes?

Thanks!What the hell are you talking about? A slower bat meant more swings and misses. I didn't think this was so hard to understand.

And Josh's biggest problem has been too long of a swing to catch up to the fastball. When he's shortened up, he's been pretty good.

Sargeant79
01-13-2009, 12:04 PM
This is going to be the greatest deal Kenny ever made. Look at all the talent the Sox will get back for trading Dye - Homer Bailey, Michael Young, Andy Sonnanstine, Chone Figgins and whoever the Braves are going to send over.

We should go after Javier Vazquez...We need starting pitching!

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 12:09 PM
He had surgery, he was hurt. All 32 AB's with a bad knee is really helping your case.

If you're now going to bring minor league numbers in...the guy has proven he can hit in AAA. If the drop in numbers there are not enough evidence to tell you how much his knee effected him, I don't know what to tell you.



This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read here.

I don't know. There are a number of things that could have happened. Maybe Fields insisted he was alright. Maybe they didn't realize how serious his injury was until he reached Chicago.

This is irrelevant, anyway. It's now known that Fields' injury was serious enough for surgery, and it effected his swing. Why he was called up shouldn't matter.

The surgery was relatively minor. He also walked 2 times less in 75 more plate appearances in AAA than he did in 2007. Looks like the patience you said he developed the last 2 weeks of meaningless games in Sept. 2007 didn't stick. Maybe it was more painful to take a pitch than flail away. I doubt it.

oeo
01-13-2009, 12:12 PM
The surgery was relatively minor.

It was surgery, and by all reports, it effected him.

He also walked 2 times less in 75 more plate appearances in AAA than he did in 2007. Looks like the patience you said he developed the last 2 weeks of meaningless games in Sept. 2007 didn't stick. Maybe it was more painful to take a pitch than flail away. I doubt it.

Actually, the patience that he was developing the entire 2007 season. His walks were up in AAA in his second go around. I don't know what happened to him, but I highly doubt that he took a couple steps backward after taking a couple steps forward the year before.

khan
01-13-2009, 12:13 PM
Thanks for the Minor League to Major League Stat Translation update.
You're welcome. Now, if you've looked at the minor league numbers of Crede vs. Fields, you'll see how this movie ends for Fields. Do yourself a favor, and look at Fields' craptacular minor league numbers.

If he drives in 100 runs, I really don't care if he's striking out 250 times.
And this is exactly what's wrong with this team.

I never tried to claim that Josh Fields is a good ballplayer because of one good month.
Well, that's a start. Now, go look at the minor league numbers. I too used to be a big Josh Fields fan. Then I saw what he actually did, and I amended my ways. I believe you will as well, once you see how bad Fields is, when compared to other above-average offensive 3rd basemen. I won't bother to have you look at his craptacular defense that hasn't improved one iota, just The Cavalcade of Ks that Josh Fields has brought into the universe.

If he's trash, we move on.
Thank you for agreeing with me. We should have moved on a year ago.

What the hell are you talking about? A slower bat meant more swings and misses. I didn't think this was so hard to understand.
I'm still trying to understand how an injury in the knees affects a hitter's eyes.

And Josh's biggest problem has been too long of a swing to catch up to the fastball. When he's shortened up, he's been pretty good.
For his FORTNIGHT OF GLORY in 2007? That FORTNIGHT which will inevitably give Josh Fields the entry into Cooperstown?

dickallen15
01-13-2009, 12:16 PM
It was surgery, and by all reports, it effected him.



Actually, the patience that he was developing the entire 2007 season. His walks were up in AAA in his second go around. I don't know what happened to him, but I highly doubt that he took a couple steps backward after taking a couple steps forward the year before.

I thought stats don't lie? Wouldn't his stats suggest he took a step backward?

hi im skot
01-13-2009, 12:20 PM
I too used to be a big Josh Fields fan.

And then Josh Fields went all "Final Fight" on khan's car.

g-_gpw9ho7Y

oeo
01-13-2009, 12:21 PM
You're welcome. Now, if you've looked at the minor league numbers of Crede vs. Fields, you'll see how this movie ends for Fields. Do yourself a favor, and look at Fields' craptacular minor league numbers.

Well, that's a start. Now, go look at the minor league numbers. I too used to be a big Josh Fields fan. Then I saw what he actually did, and I amended my ways. I believe you will as well, once you see how bad Fields is, when compared to other above-average offensive 3rd basemen. I won't bother to have you look at his craptacular defense that hasn't improved one iota, just The Cavalcade of Ks that Josh Fields has brought into the universe.Seriously, enough with the go check the minor league numbers. I've seen them, I know them. Stop treating me like I'm a ****ing moron. I have no idea who you even are, and the respect level is at about -15.

Also, you have no idea where his defense is now in respect to 2007. Don't give me that crap.

Thank you for agreeing with me. We should have moved on a year ago.

I'm still trying to understand how an injury in the knees affects a hitter's eyes.

For his FORTNIGHT OF GLORY in 2007? That FORTNIGHT which will inevitably give Josh Fields the entry into Cooperstown?I quit. You obviously either can't read, or are too lazy to read. And this sarcasm bull**** is coming from thin air. No one said he was a great player or headed to Cooperstown.

russ99
01-13-2009, 12:24 PM
Seriously, enough with the go check the minor league numbers. I've seen them, I know them. Stop treating me like I'm a ****ing moron. I have no idea who you even are, and the respect level is at about -15.

Also, you have no idea where his defense is now in respect to 2007. Don't give me that crap.

I quit. You obviously either can't read, or are too lazy to read. And this sarcasm bull**** is coming from thin air. No one said he was a great player or headed to Cooperstown.

I've always said Fields is more valuable as a trade chip to other teams than he is on the Sox, especially now with Viciedo in the fold.

Anytime a kid comes up and hits with that much power in limited at-bats, he'll be in demand regardless of his other minor league numbers, since a few months in the majors vs. MLB pitching shows a lot more than any dreamed-up minor league equivalencies.

I'm all for Figgins at 3B, 2B or the outfield, but not for Dye. What about Konerko??

Lip Man 1
01-13-2009, 12:40 PM
Russ:

This could be a very good deal for the Sox IF and this is important, they can find someone to put in the outfield to replace Dye. I say that in a comparative sense, just be in the area of his production.

Could that be Abrau? Someone else??

No question Figgins would solve the black hole for leadoff and he'd bring speed and "small ball" ability that both Ozzie and Kenny have talked about a lot the past few years. Kenny earlier this off season in fact.

Lip

khan
01-13-2009, 12:48 PM
Seriously, enough with the go check the minor league numbers. I've seen them, I know them.
Good. Because his minor league numbers, when compared to other 3rd basemen, tell us a lot MORE about Josh Fields than 1 month in MLB. Especially when that 1 month occurred 2 years ago. [EDIT] Again: A player's body of work at the minor league level is more predictive of the future than 1 lucky/good month. This is the same [to me] as a player's body of work at the big league level is more predictive of his future than 1 lucky/good year in a contract drive.

Stop treating me like I'm a ****ing moron.
Look: You were the one who brought up the 1 miracle month. And my level of respect for you is higher than you have shown to me. [As seen in your later 'graphs here]

Also, you have no idea where his defense is now in respect to 2007. Don't give me that crap.
Would you care to wager on this? I'd be STUNNED if Josh "I'm-only-here-because-the-GM-wants-to-live-his-baseball-dreams-vicariously-through-other-former-football-playing-stiffs" Fields is average at defense at 3rd base. Sure: He FINALLY sought out the additional tutoring and coaching from the SOX coaching staff. I'm happy that he finally deigned it necessary for him to put in additional work Why did it take him so long to do so?

What about his looooong, slow, strikeout-generating swing? Has he BOTHERED to work with Walker on it? I haven't heard anything to that effect.

I quit. You obviously either can't read, or are too lazy to read. And this sarcasm bull**** is coming from thin air. No one said he was a great player or headed to Cooperstown.
And YOU'RE suggesting that I've been less than respectful in this thread? Good luck with that, buddy.

hi im skot
01-13-2009, 12:53 PM
Good. Because his minor league numbers, when compared to other 3rd basemen, tell us a lot MORE about Josh Fields than 1 month in MLB. Especially when that 1 month occurred 2 years ago. [EDIT] Again: A player's body of work at the minor league level is more predictive of the future than 1 lucky/good month. This is the same [to me] as a player's body of work at the big league level is more predictive of his future than 1 lucky/good year in a contract drive.


Look: You were the one who brought up the 1 miracle month. And my level of respect for you is higher than you have shown to me. [As seen in your later 'graphs here]


Would you care to wager on this? I'd be STUNNED if Josh "I'm-only-here-because-the-GM-wants-to-live-his-baseball-dreams-vicariously-through-other-former-football-playing-stiffs" Fields is average at defense at 3rd base. Sure: He FINALLY sought out the additional tutoring and coaching from the SOX coaching staff. I'm happy that he finally deigned it necessary for him to put in additional work Why did it take him so long to do so?

What about his looooong, slow, strikeout-generating swing? Has he BOTHERED to work with Walker on it? I haven't heard anything to that effect.


And YOU'RE suggesting that I've been less than respectful in this thread? Good luck with that, buddy.

This whole post is beyond ridiculous, but the one "miracle month"?

C'mon...

voodoochile
01-13-2009, 12:56 PM
And YOU'RE suggesting that I've been less than respectful in this thread? Good luck with that, buddy.

Well you both could tone it down a bit, it might even upgrade the quality of conversation...

Personally, of all the "unknowns" on the Sox roster this Spring, for me, Fields deserves the longest look based on need and what he's shown in the past when allowed to play ever day on the major league level.

If his bat can live up to some of the hype and past production, no reason he has to stay at 3rd long term. He could move to first or even DH in one year.

He has the potential to hit as high as 4th, but more likely 5th because of his power. He will probably always be a high strikeout guy, but with time that might come down to a more reasonable level. At least he counters the high strikeouts with a good amount of power.

Barring a trade he's the opening day 3B unless Ozzie has lost his mind. With a trade, I'd prefer the Sox sign a starting pitcher with any saved money.

khan
01-13-2009, 12:59 PM
This whole post is beyond ridiculous, but the one "miracle month"?

C'mon...


Cut/Paste from post #69 in this thread:

...As I've already shown, Fields did more than 'crank homers' in September of 2007, the final month of his rookie year. .259/.368/.568 is good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't want something close to that. Sorry if you think that was a fluke.

Take it up with him if you don't like it, but don't do so too vigorously, or oeo will take it personally.

JohnTucker0814
01-13-2009, 01:01 PM
:popcorn:

pretty entertaining!

I don't really want Figgins... he becomes a free agent next year (??) and I don't want to trade someone for 1 good year of a possibly injured player.

I feel comfortable with Nix, Getz or Lillibridge playing 2B and leading off.

What I'd rather see from Anaheim is the likes of someone at the top of the prospects list... Wood, Bourjos, Conger, Trumbo, Walden

munchman33
01-13-2009, 01:25 PM
:popcorn:

pretty entertaining!

I don't really want Figgins... he becomes a free agent next year (??) and I don't want to trade someone for 1 good year of a possibly injured player.

I feel comfortable with Nix, Getz or Lillibridge playing 2B and leading off.

What I'd rather see from Anaheim is the likes of someone at the top of the prospects list... Wood, Bourjos, Conger, Trumbo, Walden


Injury prone is exactly what Angels fans are calling Dye.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 01:48 PM
Dye is a better hitter than all of them, sans Guerrero. And I agree with the other post, I think we'd get more for Dye than just Figgins.

If they throw in Reggie Willits, I'd listen.

soltrain21
01-13-2009, 01:56 PM
If they throw in Reggie Willits, I'd listen.

Hello overasking.

EMachine10
01-13-2009, 02:02 PM
If they throw in Reggie Willits, I'd listen.
Eh, I think he's more of a flash in the pan. I think he was hurt last year, but he was still pretty brutal. He had one good year, but I think we have guys like that. Lillibridge and Nix haven't proven it in the majors yet, but they're similar players to Willits, albeit at a different position. In my opinion, he wouldn't be a huge upgrade over what we have in CF now.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 02:13 PM
Hello overasking.
Huh? When did Reggie Willits turn into a good player? Willits would be a throw-in of all throw-ins.

I agree with oeo's assertion that garbage time doesn't exist. Unfortunately, Josh can't play LF, otherwise he'd be part of a nice four man rotation between LF-RF-DH.

Against righties:
Quentin
Dye
Thome

Lefties:
Fields
Quentin
Dye (DH)

But, as I said, he blows in the outfield.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 02:38 PM
Hello overasking.

They have no plans to make him an everyday player. He can run, draws walks, and plays a good CF.

EMachine10
01-13-2009, 02:39 PM
They have no plans to make him an everyday player. He can run, draws walks, and plays a good CF.
They have no plans for him for a reason, and it's not only because they have too many outfielders.

soxinem1
01-13-2009, 02:40 PM
Huh? When did Reggie Willits turn into a good player? Willits would be a throw-in of all throw-ins.

I agree with oeo's assertion that garbage time doesn't exist. Unfortunately, Josh can't play LF, otherwise he'd be part of a nice four man rotation between LF-RF-DH.

Against righties:
Quentin
Dye
Thome

Lefties:
Fields
Quentin
Dye (DH)

But, as I said, he blows in the outfield.

I'd switch these two, and your rotation works. Dye may not be the OF he once was, but him in RF and Fields DH'ing is better than Fields in LF and Quentin being bounced around while JD DH's.

NLaloosh
01-13-2009, 02:46 PM
I would just like to remind everyone that Figgins is good for only about 20 extra base hits a season.

So, if he's my thirdbaseman or leftfielder then the defense better be stellar, the OBP atleast .380 and the steals atleast 50.

By the way, in 2 of the last 3 seasons he batted .267 and .276. Also, he gets caught stealing about 15 times a year.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 02:47 PM
I'd switch these two, and your rotation works. Dye may not be the OF he once was, but him in RF and Fields DH'ing is better than Fields in LF and Quentin being bounced around while JD DH's.
Of course. But, the idea was if Fields could play the OF it'd be perfect. But, he can't.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 03:12 PM
If they throw in Reggie Willits, I'd listen.


Wilitis is of very little value. He's 27 years old, and is a .259/.311/.351 hitter in his 400 ABs. I'd rather see us give ABs to BA or JO. Willitis is of no more value than Wise.

I'd want a legitimate prospect if I was giving up Dye for Figgins - not a guy who has proven he has no place playing every day.

Craig Grebeck
01-13-2009, 03:14 PM
Wilitis is of very little value. He's 27 years old, and is a .259/.311/.351 hitter in his 400 ABs. I'd rather see us give ABs to BA or JO. Willitis is of no more value than Wise.

I'd want a legitimate prospect if I was giving up Dye for Figgins - not a guy who has proven he has no place playing every day.
Well, I think Willits sucks, but you are out of your mind jabrch if you'd rather play JO over Willits. Seriously.

EMachine10
01-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Well, I think Willits sucks, but you are out of your mind jabrch if you'd rather play JO over Willits. Seriously.
I don't like either, but they're close to a wash in my opinion. I guess I'd give a shot to Owens too, just to see a success story from our system.

jabrch
01-13-2009, 04:19 PM
I don't like either, but they're close to a wash in my opinion. I guess I'd give a shot to Owens too, just to see a success story from our system.

Owens beats Wilitis in valuable skills, 1 to 0. It's a small margin, but there is absolutely no way you deal Dye to get Figgins and Wiliits with the intention of playing Wilitis every day. No way.

If you are dealing with LAA, they have prospects I'd be interested in. Just not this guy.

munchman33
01-13-2009, 04:45 PM
Owens beats Wilitis in valuable skills, 1 to 0. It's a small margin, but there is absolutely no way you deal Dye to get Figgins and Wiliits with the intention of playing Wilitis every day. No way.

If you are dealing with LAA, they have prospects I'd be interested in. Just not this guy.

Getting Figgins and Willits is pushing it as it is. We aren't getting a prospect of consequence without sending someone like Poreda along.

EMachine10
01-13-2009, 05:03 PM
Getting Figgins and Willits is pushing it as it is. We aren't getting a prospect of consequence without sending someone like Poreda along.
Throwing Willits on the table is not going to tip any scales.

Tragg
01-13-2009, 05:45 PM
Getting Figgins and Willits is pushing it as it is. We aren't getting a prospect of consequence without sending someone like Poreda along.
If Willits is in the same stratosphere as Jerry Owens, he isn't a prospect of any consequence. (can he field the position? that would put him in a different sphere).
Dye> Figgins; so if we have to send Poreda to get Willits, that means that Willits is > than Poreda. But then people compare Willits to Jerry Owens?

Inconsistent.

munchman33
01-13-2009, 05:55 PM
Throwing Willits on the table is not going to tip any scales.

If Willits is in the same stratosphere as Jerry Owens, he isn't a prospect of any consequence. (can he field the position? that would put him in a different sphere).
Dye> Figgins; so if we have to send Poreda to get Willits, that means that Willits is > than Poreda. But then people compare Willits to Jerry Owens?

Inconsistent.

You can say Dye>Figgins until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean it's true.

They're both stars who do certain things really well. They've both had injury trouble. They're both in the last year of their contracts (Dye's option is a mutual opt out, and he's likely to turn it down).

Even if Dye gets a slight edge in value (which is highly debatable), any edge is offset in contract difference. If the trade is for those guys, the best you can hope for extra is a throw in like Willits (who has value to a team like ours).

Also Tragg you misunderstood me. I wasn't calling Willits a prospect of consequence. I was saying we wouldn't be getting one without giving up one on top of it.

JB98
01-13-2009, 06:00 PM
If Willits is in the same stratosphere as Jerry Owens, he isn't a prospect of any consequence. (can he field the position? that would put him in a different sphere).
Dye> Figgins; so if we have to send Poreda to get Willits, that means that Willits is > than Poreda. But then people compare Willits to Jerry Owens?

Inconsistent.

Much like Jerry Owens, Willits is too old to be considered a prospect. Both those two players are garbage, IMO.

Frankly, I'm baffled by the Willits love on this board. I wouldn't trade Brian Anderson for Reggie Willits, let alone Jermaine Dye.

If Dye goes, I'd better see a starting pitcher coming back this way. IMO, you don't trade an impact bat like JD's unless you are getting pitching in return, especially considering that the starting rotation is the Sox greatest area of need.

DaveFeelsRight
01-13-2009, 06:08 PM
how is willits garbage? am i failing to see something here? he had a very good year in 07, and played about half a season in 08.

thedudeabides
01-13-2009, 06:11 PM
Willits probably would be a throw in player. The Angels have a crowded outfield and Willits will be 28 this year.

I would take him as a throw in, as I would much rather see him playing than Owens.

He only had 100 at bats last year and was banged up, but I forgot if you have a down year do to injuries your washed up on this site.

I don't know how people can say Owens is equal or better. Willits is a better defensive outfielder, has shown better plate discipline at all levels, has a better SB%, and is a switch hitter. When given a chance in 2007 he put up some solid numbers.

He's not my first choice for CF, but I like him better than the current options.

Konerko05
01-13-2009, 06:16 PM
If the Sox traded Dye for Figgins and signed Abreu, the lineup actually looks pretty good. Also, maybe acquiring Figgins would make Ozzie stop forcing Owens into the lineup because of his desperate need for a "leadoff hitter."

1. Figgins - S
2. Getz - L
3. Quentin - R
4. Abreu - L
5. Konerko - R
6. Thome - L
7. Ramirez - R
8. Pierzynski - L
9. Anderson - R

That's a very nice balanced lineup with some power and speed.

They would still need another pitcher to round out the rotation, but I don't see how Kenny couldn't put another 10mil in the team to make them instant legitimate contenders.

kittle42
01-13-2009, 06:20 PM
but I don't see how Kenny couldn't put another 10mil in the team to make them instant legitimate contenders.

Budget constraints, of course.

JB98
01-13-2009, 06:25 PM
how is willits garbage? am i failing to see something here? he had a very good year in 07, and played about half a season in 08.

No, he had a good three months in 2007. He didn't do so well the second time through the league.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=willire03&year=2007

He went downhill in the second half, so much so that the Angels decided they couldn't count on him for 2008.

Tragg
01-13-2009, 07:31 PM
If Dye goes, I'd better see a starting pitcher coming back this way. IMO, you don't trade an impact bat like JD's unless you are getting pitching in return, especially considering that the starting rotation is the Sox greatest area of need.
After some consternation, I'd have been okay with Bailey, although adding another prospect of some decency would have been better.

soxwon
01-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Throwing Willits on the table is not going to tip any scales.


what cha' talkin bout WILLITS

guillensdisciple
01-13-2009, 07:43 PM
I thought we were talking about Dye for Figgins, haven't we discussed all this already?

Daver
01-13-2009, 07:44 PM
You people have been reduced to bickering over which terrible baseball player is more worthless than another?

Spring training can't start soon enough, you're making fools of yourselves.

thomas35forever
01-13-2009, 07:54 PM
Willits is good at stealing bases and nothing else. We need something a little more out of a player we're trying to improve our team with.

I would love Dye for Figgins straight up though. It's about time we got some real versatility on this team.

Marqhead
01-13-2009, 07:54 PM
You people have been reduced to bickering over which terrible baseball player is more worthless than another?

Spring training can't start soon enough, you're making fools of yourselves.

Hear, Hear! :gulp:

turners56
01-13-2009, 08:25 PM
Willits is good at stealing bases and nothing else. We need something a little more out of a player we're trying to improve our team with.

I would love Dye for Figgins straight up though. It's about time we got some real versatility on this team.

Willits can also get on base very well. Something Jerry Owens doesn't do.

Brian26
01-13-2009, 09:24 PM
Spring training can't start soon enough, you're making fools of yourselves.

I say shut the whole damn thing down until March 1.

Jurr
01-13-2009, 10:04 PM
I say shut the whole damn thing down until March 1.
It may have gotten that brutal around here.

ihatethecubs
01-14-2009, 05:46 AM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=506856

Nope.

gogosox16
01-14-2009, 07:35 AM
Cowley at his finest on that rumor

jabrch
01-14-2009, 08:27 AM
Cowley at his finest on that rumor

I can't stand Cowley.

spawn
01-14-2009, 08:41 AM
I still can't believe people actually believed Cowley. The Angels have more than enough outfielders, and trading for Dye just doesn't make any sense IMO.

wsgdf
01-14-2009, 09:45 AM
No, he had a good three months in 2007. He didn't do so well the second time through the league.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=willire03&year=2007

He went downhill in the second half, so much so that the Angels decided they couldn't count on him for 2008.

I agree.

I don't think he'll ever have an OBP like that again. There is absolutely NO reason to throw him anything but a strike... add is inability to hit doubles, triples or homers to his blazing speed and a pitcher should be shot for walking him.

oeo
01-14-2009, 10:44 AM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=506856

Nope.

I don't think Figgins is who Kenny would be after, anyway. Look at the other rumored deals involving Dye: Dye for Jackson, Dye for Bailey. He wants a young pitcher in return, not a declining fast man.

2906
01-14-2009, 11:52 AM
I don't think Figgins is who Kenny would be after, anyway. Look at the other rumored deals involving Dye: Dye for Jackson, Dye for Bailey. He wants a young pitcher in return, not a declining fast man.

That's right, and Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated stated a few days ago the White Sox want top pitching prospects for Dye, not necessarily major league ready prospects either.

So yeah, I would agree, young pitching would seem to be more KW's m.o.