PDA

View Full Version : DH idea: Vladimir Guerrero


seventyseven
11-09-2009, 09:18 AM
If he's healthy enough to swing the bat 4-5 times a day, I think he'd be a good fit. Doesn't strike out much, and can play RF if needed.

Hard to believe that just 3 years ago, he was all-world.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/guerrvl01.shtml

russ99
11-09-2009, 10:10 AM
If he's healthy enough to swing the bat 4-5 times a day, I think he'd be a good fit. Doesn't strike out much, and can play RF if needed.

Hard to believe that just 3 years ago, he was all-world.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/guerrvl01.shtml

Would he be signable for under $10M? Even if the payoll is "stretchable" this offseason I doubt Kenny would add another salary above that.

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 10:17 AM
I would rather try and trade for Adam Dunn. Vlad is an expensive version of Dye at this point in his career. 794 OPS last year, on pace for less than 80 rbis. Dunn can play 1st and the corners if need be, is a lefty in the middle (Which we need) and in our park is a viable 40 home run 110 rbi slugger.

Honestly I don't think there is a more perfect marriage than us and Dunn. The only question is how willing is Washington to move him and for what price?

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 10:18 AM
I would rather try and trade for Adam Dunn. Vlad is an expensive version of Dye at this point in his career. 794 OPS last year, on pace for less than 80 rbis. Dunn can play 1st and the corners if need be, is a lefty in the middle (Which we need) and in our park is a viable 40 home run 110 rbi slugger.

Honestly I don't think there is a more perfect marriage than us and Dunn. The only question is how willing is Washington to move him and for what price?

I agree that would be best, but he's also making $12M next year. I wonder if the Nats bringing in Scheuler helps or hurts us.

seventyseven
11-09-2009, 10:42 AM
Would he be signable for under $10M? Even if the payoll is "stretchable" this offseason I doubt Kenny would add another salary above that.

That's a really good question -- I don't know. I'm hoping an incentives-laden deal (based on plate appearances) for about $8M would get it done.

palehozenychicty
11-09-2009, 10:56 AM
I would rather try and trade for Adam Dunn. Vlad is an expensive version of Dye at this point in his career. 794 OPS last year, on pace for less than 80 rbis. Dunn can play 1st and the corners if need be, is a lefty in the middle (Which we need) and in our park is a viable 40 home run 110 rbi slugger.

Honestly I don't think there is a more perfect marriage than us and Dunn. The only question is how willing is Washington to move him and for what price?


That's the million dollar question.

aryzner
11-09-2009, 11:00 AM
I would love it if the Sox acquired Adam Dunn.

veeter
11-09-2009, 11:04 AM
The Sox might set a record for striking out next year.

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 11:19 AM
The Sox might set a record for striking out next year.

Who cares? Strikeouts are overrated. We struck out very little this year. One of the lowest in the MLB. We also slugged less than the pirates.

Tragg
11-09-2009, 11:22 AM
I think they want a lefty as DH.
And absolutely no Vlad for RF.

Red Barchetta
11-09-2009, 11:25 AM
Who cares? Strikeouts are overrated. We struck out very little this year. One of the lowest in the MLB. We also slugged less than the pirates.

I agree. I would rather see a strikeout than Konerko grounding into another double play. Those are brutal to watch.

sox1970
11-09-2009, 11:30 AM
I agree. I would rather see a strikeout than Konerko grounding into another double play. Those are brutal to watch.

Look at the GDP column. You'll see it hasn't been that bad the last five years.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/konerpa01.shtml

khan
11-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Who cares? Strikeouts are overrated. We struck out very little this year. One of the lowest in the MLB. We also slugged less than the pirates.

This is why this offense sucked this past season. And this is why this team wasn't in a playoff series this year.

Regardless of whether or not the 'roids era is over, or if baseball is an offensive or defensive game, the SOX did not slug as much as the good teams that were in the playoffs. Be it Guerrero, Thome, Dye, or WHOEVER, this team NEEDS slugging in THIS park, and in THIS league.

MisterB
11-09-2009, 11:54 AM
We also slugged less than the pirates.

2009 Pirates - .389 SLG
2009 White Sox - .411 SLG

khan
11-09-2009, 11:58 AM
2009 Pirates - .389 SLG
2009 White Sox - .411 SLG

If memory serves, excluding their pitchers, I recall the pirates' slugging to be higher than the SOX's this season.

But, in either case, a .411 SLG is poor in the AL, and insufficient to push this team into the playoffs.

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 12:02 PM
2009 Pirates - .389 SLG
2009 White Sox - .411 SLG

We must have overtaken them late, I know as of the final few weeks they were ahead of us. Either way the point is true, We struck out as little as anyone, and we sucked offensively. We need slugging, even if it means more strikeouts.

Lip Man 1
11-09-2009, 12:05 PM
Dome, what the White Sox need are good players who can perform. Period.

Lip

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 12:23 PM
Dome, what the White Sox need are good players who can perform. Period.

Lip

I agree and Disagree. Teams without players that can drive in runs don't win. The only viable 100 rbi man we have on our team right now is Quentin and hes a crapshoot at best to stay healthy. Konerko is on the backend of his career, Beckham looks great but no one is even considering he could be like plenty of other guys and suffer a sophomore slump. Rios is a solid player if he gets back to the norm, but the norm has never been 100 RBIs. Between Beckham Rios and Teahan the White Sox should be fine in doubles. However, They still need someone who is going to drive in 100 runs.

What did every playoff team have in common this year?

Red Sox: Bay 119 RBI Ortiz 99 RBI Youk 94 RBI
Yankees: Texeria 122 RBI Arod 100 RBI Matsui 90 RBI
Angels: Morales 108 RBI Abreu 103 RBI Hunter 90 RBI
Twins: Kubel 103 RBI Morneau 100 Mauer 96 Cuddyer 94

White Sox: Konerko 88 Dye 81 Thome 74

You can say maybe Thome gets to 100 if he stays with the sox full time, 25 RBI in 1.5 months is certainly possible.

That said, Its pretty easy to see the problem here. It wasn't lack too many Ks or Speed or Stolen bases. It was the inability to DRIVE RUNS IN. To compete in the AL you need to have atleast 1 guy who drives in 100, probably another who drives in 100, and a 3rd who drives in 90. Your top 3 hitters need to account for 290+ RBIs.

Jpgr91
11-09-2009, 12:35 PM
I agree and Disagree. Teams without players that can drive in runs don't win. The only viable 100 rbi man we have on our team right now is Quentin and hes a crapshoot at best to stay healthy. Konerko is on the backend of his career, Beckham looks great but no one is even considering he could be like plenty of other guys and suffer a sophomore slump. Rios is a solid player if he gets back to the norm, but the norm has never been 100 RBIs. Between Beckham Rios and Teahan the White Sox should be fine in doubles. However, They still need someone who is going to drive in 100 runs.

What did every playoff team have in common this year?

Red Sox: Bay 119 RBI Ortiz 99 RBI Youk 94 RBI
Yankees: Texeria 122 RBI Arod 100 RBI Matsui 90 RBI
Angels: Morales 108 RBI Abreu 103 RBI Hunter 90 RBI
Twins: Kubel 103 RBI Morneau 100 Mauer 96 Cuddyer 94

White Sox: Konerko 88 Dye 81 Thome 74

You can say maybe Thome gets to 100 if he stays with the sox full time, 25 RBI in 1.5 months is certainly possible.

That said, Its pretty easy to see the problem here. It wasn't lack too many Ks or Speed or Stolen bases. It was the inability to DRIVE RUNS IN. To compete in the AL you need to have atleast 1 guy who drives in 100, probably another who drives in 100, and a 3rd who drives in 90. Your top 3 hitters need to account for 290+ RBIs.

Really? 2005 Sox had 1 player drive in 100 runs. PK drove in exactly 100 that year. RBI is the most overrated stat in baseball.

tm1119
11-09-2009, 12:56 PM
Really? 2005 Sox had 1 player drive in 100 runs. PK drove in exactly 100 that year. RBI is the most overrated stat in baseball.

I agree with this. RBI's are purely circumstantial. Im sure if you look at all of those teams they had good OBP guys in front of them that were on base. Doesn't matter if you have the best sluggers in the league hitting 3-4-5 if there is no one on base for them to drive in. I agree that an Adam Dunn type hitting in the middle of the lineup would help a lot, but this team has lacked good OBP guys at the top of the lineup or a while now. And as a result this is why we have been a solo hr/2 run hr team for a whole now as well.

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Really? 2005 Sox had 1 player drive in 100 runs. PK drove in exactly 100 that year. RBI is the most overrated stat in baseball.

Kind of a False Statement

Yes, Konerko was the only 100 RBI man, but the DH spot was a middle of the order staple that drove in 100 rbis. It was just split because of Franks Injury. but Konerko (100 RBI) Combined DH (113 RBI) Dye (86 RBI) Those 3 giving 299 RBIs falls into the 290+ category.

RBI may be an over rated stat when comparing HITTERS, but when you look at them as a team dynamic they are a great reflection. The RBI out of the middle of the order on a winning team needs to be 290+. If you can get 290 rbis out of the middle, again, your chance of making the playoffs is huge.

Domeshot17
11-09-2009, 01:01 PM
I agree with this. RBI's are purely circumstantial. Im sure if you look at all of those teams they had good OBP guys in front of them that were on base. Doesn't matter if you have the best sluggers in the league hitting 3-4-5 if there is no one on base for them to drive in. I agree that an Adam Dunn type hitting in the middle of the lineup would help a lot, but this team has lacked good OBP guys at the top of the lineup or a while now. And as a result this is why we have been a solo hr/2 run hr team for a whole now as well.

Again, I am speaking of RBI as reflection of the team. I don't care whos fault it is, if your 3-4-5 can't knock in 290 runs, it is poor for the TEAM. I understand when looking at say, an MVP race, it isn't a fair measurement tool, but when measuring team play, I like it.

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 01:04 PM
Kind of a False Statement

Yes, Konerko was the only 100 RBI man, but the DH spot was a middle of the order staple that drove in 100 rbis. It was just split because of Franks Injury. but Konerko (100 RBI) Combined DH (113 RBI) Dye (86 RBI) Those 3 giving 299 RBIs falls into the 290+ category.

RBI may be an over rated stat when comparing HITTERS, but when you look at them as a team dynamic they are a great reflection. The RBI out of the middle of the order on a winning team needs to be 290+. If you can get 290 rbis out of the middle, again, your chance of making the playoffs is huge.

Aren't the 2005 Sox a bit of an aberration also? How many other WS champions in the past decade have scored 741 runs or less the year they won it?

Edit: The answer is none. you have to go back to 1997 to find the Marlins who scored 740 then the Braves who scored 645 in 1995.

GAsoxfan
11-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Again, I am speaking of RBI as reflection of the team. I don't care whos fault it is, if your 3-4-5 can't knock in 290 runs, it is poor for the TEAM. I understand when looking at say, an MVP race, it isn't a fair measurement tool, but when measuring team play, I like it.

It's not a fair measurement at any level, team or player. Of course team's that drive in more runs will win, because it means they scored more runs.

Since RBI are a completely dependent statistic, just saying "The Sox need guys who have higher RBI totals." isn't really a solution. It's like treating a symptom of an illness, but not the cause of the illness. If you want to talk about non-dependent stats like OBP or BA w/ RISP then you can make a case.

For example, both Konerko and Dye had better BA with runners on than Ortiz, but Ortiz ended up with more RBI because he got more chances.

tm1119
11-09-2009, 01:24 PM
Again, I am speaking of RBI as reflection of the team. I don't care whos fault it is, if your 3-4-5 can't knock in 290 runs, it is poor for the TEAM. I understand when looking at say, an MVP race, it isn't a fair measurement tool, but when measuring team play, I like it.

Yeah but you cant say that its our 3-4-5 fault if no one is on base for them to drive in. Konerko, Quentin, and Thome(just saying if he comes back) should be able to drive in at least 290 runs on a good team. But if you look at the stats we ranked 20th in the MLB last season with a .329 team OBP. That simply isnt going to cut it if we expect to be a good team. And coincidentally the top 6 teams in team OBP last season all made the playoffs. I really believe that Beckham, Konerko, Quentin, Thome, and Rios are more than enough power. We just need a few guys to get on base for them to drive in.

khan
11-09-2009, 01:26 PM
It's not a fair measurement at any level, team or player. Of course team's that drive in more runs will win, because it means they scored more runs.

Since RBI are a completely dependent statistic, just saying "The Sox need guys who have higher RBI totals." isn't really a solution. It's like treating a symptom of an illness, but not the cause of the illness. If you want to talk about non-dependent stats like OBP or BA w/ RISP then you can make a case.

For example, both Konerko and Dye had better BA with runners on than Ortiz, but Ortiz ended up with more RBI because he got more chances.

I can agree to this. I think the more telling stat is the lack of a >.500 SLG hitter, and the lack of a >.850 OPS hitter in 2009 for the SOX.

The 2009 Yankees had 5 >.500 sluggers, plus one SLIGHTLY <.500. The Yankees had 8 >.850 OPS hitters.

The 2009 Phillies 4 >.500 sluggers, and 4 >.850 OPS hitters.

The 2009 Red Sawx had 3 >.500 sluggers, and 3 >.850 OPS hitters.

The 2009 Twins had 4 >.500 sluggers, and 4 >.850 OPS hitters. [Aren't these the guys who are supposed to be "grindy" and "speedy" and "great slap-hitters who defend well?"]

Jpgr91
11-09-2009, 01:46 PM
Kind of a False Statement

Yes, Konerko was the only 100 RBI man, but the DH spot was a middle of the order staple that drove in 100 rbis. It was just split because of Franks Injury. but Konerko (100 RBI) Combined DH (113 RBI) Dye (86 RBI) Those 3 giving 299 RBIs falls into the 290+ category.

RBI may be an over rated stat when comparing HITTERS, but when you look at them as a team dynamic they are a great reflection. The RBI out of the middle of the order on a winning team needs to be 290+. If you can get 290 rbis out of the middle, again, your chance of making the playoffs is huge.

Didn't JD and PK spend some time at 1b that year, if so wouldn't some of those RBI be double counted? I think team OPS is a better indicator of an offensive dynamic than team RBI.

If Rios and Beckham perform as they should, the Sox have already made huge improvements over last year by improving what has traditionally been two weak offensive positions. Even though both players will not sniff 100 RBI, the offensive boost they may provide is critical to the 2010 success of this team.

Jpgr91
11-09-2009, 01:51 PM
Aren't the 2005 Sox a bit of an aberration also? How many other WS champions in the past decade have scored 741 runs or less the year they won it?

Edit: The answer is none. you have to go back to 1997 to find the Marlins who scored 740 then the Braves who scored 645 in 1995.

I think that speaks to how much luck is involved in baseball.

khan
11-09-2009, 01:57 PM
I think team OPS is a better indicator of an offensive dynamic than team RBI.

Sure. 4 out of the top 5 teams in OPS made it to the playoffs in the AL last year: Yankees, Sawx, LAAAAA, and the Twins. The other, the Rays, might have made the playoffs if they were in any other division but the East.

The SOX, by comparison, @ a team OPS of .740 were WELL below the AL team average of .764. I'd say that team OPS is VERY important.

If Rios and Beckham perform as they should, this Sox have already made huge improvements over last year by improving what has traditionally been two weak offensive positions. Even though both players will not sniff 100 RBI, the offensive boost they may provide is critical to the 2010 success of this team.
Do we really know how Rios and Beckham "should" perform? Do we have enough of a body of work on Beckham? And do we know if Rios' freefall in offensive production since 2006 is an aberration, or truly indicative of what kind of play he is now?

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 02:05 PM
I think that speaks to how much luck is involved in baseball.

I think that is silly. I don't think there's anything lucky about RBI's either unless you are one of those people who claim that every single contact made by every single player is the same and it's only luck that causes a ball to be fair, foul, hit, out, single, HR, etc.


Do we really know how Rios and Beckham "should" perform? Do we have enough of a body of work on Beckham? And do we know if Rios' freefall in offensive production since 2006 is an aberration, or truly indicative of what kind of play he is now?

He's had one truly bad season since the beginning of 2006 and that was last year. Calling it a freefall is a bit extreme...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5880

khan
11-09-2009, 02:11 PM
He's had one truly bad season since the beginning of 2006 and that was last year. Calling it a freefall is a bit extreme...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5880

His OPS since 2006:

2006: .865
2007: .852
2008: .789
2009: .691 [combined between Toronto and here.]

What would you call his career trend then? A glorious ascent into legendary status? [Do I need teal for that?]

I maintain that his career trend is free fallin' to the tune of a -20% change [in OPS] from 2006 to 2009 in a time in his career when his production SHOULD be climbing. [EDIT] Recall that he's 28 now, so we should NOT expect this sort of drop at THIS time of his career.

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 02:18 PM
His OPS since 2006:

2006: .865
2007: .852
2008: .789
2009: .691 [combined between Toronto and here.]

What would you call his career trend then? A glorious ascent into legendary status? [Do I need teal for that?]

I maintain that his career trend is free fallin' to the tune of a -20% change from 2006 to 2009 in a time in his career when his production SHOULD be climbing. [EDIT] Recall that he's 28 now, so we should expect this sort of drop at THIS time of his career.

Maybe it's just semantics, but free fall strikes me as something that is crashing and burning. I think the first three years are merely aberations based on regular fluctuations from a mature player. His 2008 OPS was still close to 100 points higher than his 2005 OPS and I don't see the difference between 2006 and 2007 as being at all statistically relevant.

Last year was a bad year, if he repeats it, then it's a problem. However, if he comes close to his 2008 numbers, he's fine.

It just struck me as an odd choice of words I guess.

Edit: and players don't really start declining until about 33 so this is NOT the time I would expect him to be hitting the end of his productive years.

khan
11-09-2009, 02:22 PM
Maybe it's just semantics, but free fall strikes me as something that is crashing and burning. I think the first three years are merely aberations based on regular fluctuations from a mature player. His 2008 OPS was still close to 100 points higher than his 2005 OPS and I don't see the difference between 2006 and 2007 as being at all statistically relevant.

Last year was a bad year, if he repeats it, then it's a problem. However, if he comes close to his 2008 numbers, he's fine.

It just struck me as an odd choice of words I guess.

Edit: and players don't really start declining until about 33 so this is NOT the time I would expect him to be hitting the end of his productive years.

Fair enough. I would also expect a player's OPS to be somewhat higher when he's 28 than when he was 24 or 25. To me, this is a disturbing trend, both for Rios himself and for his team. He's GOT to turn this around for this team to have a chance in '10. But the trend is not his [nor our] friend, of late.

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 02:45 PM
Fair enough. I would also expect a player's OPS to be somewhat higher when he's 28 than when he was 24 or 25. To me, this is a disturbing trend, both for Rios himself and for his team. He's GOT to turn this around for this team to have a chance in '10. But the trend is not his [nor our] friend, of late.

I agree. He needs to be the player we thought we were getting or he's a 4th OF at best.

Jpgr91
11-09-2009, 02:46 PM
Sure. 4 out of the top 5 teams in OPS made it to the playoffs in the AL last year: Yankees, Sawx, LAAAAA, and the Twins. The other, the Rays, might have made the playoffs if they were in any other division but the East.

The SOX, by comparison, @ a team OPS of .740 were WELL below the AL team average of .764. I'd say that team OPS is VERY important.


Do we really know how Rios and Beckham "should" perform? Do we have enough of a body of work on Beckham? And do we know if Rios' freefall in offensive production since 2006 is an aberration, or truly indicative of what kind of play he is now?

We do not know how Beckham should perform, but I think it is reasonable to expect someone that adjusted to MLB as quick as he did will see a bump in his statistics.

I think that is silly. I don't think there's anything lucky about RBI's either unless you are one of those people who claim that every single contact made by every single player is the same and it's only luck that causes a ball to be fair, foul, hit, out, single, HR, etc.



He's had one truly bad season since the beginning of 2006 and that was last year. Calling it a freefall is a bit extreme...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5880

I am speaking more about luck involved in making and winning in the playoffs. The Sox were a 5 game swing from not making the playoffs in 2005, considering the 2005 Sox record in one run games I think it is reasonable to say that there was a ceratain amount of luck involved.

voodoochile
11-09-2009, 02:52 PM
We do not know how Beckham should perform, but I think it is reasonable to expect someone that adjusted to MLB as quick as he did will see a bump in his statistics.



I am speaking more about luck involved in making and winning in the playoffs. The Sox were a 5 game swing from not making the playoffs in 2005, considering the 2005 Sox record in one run games I think it is reasonable to say that there was a ceratain amount of luck involved.

Well that and a team with good timely hitting, solid defense and spectacular pitching the combination of which tends to lead to a lot of wins in close games.

veeter
11-09-2009, 03:10 PM
Who cares? Strikeouts are overrated. We struck out very little this year. One of the lowest in the MLB. We also slugged less than the pirates.I hate strikeouts. But with the pitching staff, the Sox should be able to win in many different ways. Dunn would be o.k. Bullpen should be Kenny's priority.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 01:07 PM
FWIW, the B&B blog mentions that there is a new rumor that says Guerrero could be headed to the Sox in an OF/DH role. I can't find anywhere else on the web that mentions this. I assume there will be more after today's show.

Here's a link (http://www.670-thescore.com/blog/2009/11/11/bradley-saga-ending-soon/) to the blog

PaleHoser
11-11-2009, 03:49 PM
I'd pass on Vlad Guerrero because he's been a non-factor in the post season more often than not. I'm sure someone here knows his average with RISP during the post season, but I'm sure it's not pretty.

Take away his first and last playoff series, and he has 3 RBI's in 73 AB's. I don't want him in the middle of my lineup come crunch time.

PennStater98r
11-11-2009, 05:54 PM
Look at the GDP column. You'll see it hasn't been that bad the last five years.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/konerpa01.shtml

How were our pop-ups to the infield with guys in scoring postion...

soxinem1
11-11-2009, 06:02 PM
I agree. He needs to be the player we thought we were getting or he's a 4th OF at best.

If Rios turns out being a 4th OF, KW will take a major hit and this guy will officially become a worse aquisition than Jaime Navarro.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 06:13 PM
If Rios turns out being a 4th OF, KW will take a major hit and this guy will officially become a worse aquisition than Jaime Navarro.

No way does Rios turn into a 4th outfielder unless voodoo is in fact a real practice and JP Ricciardi happens to contain a doll of Rios and is jabbing it with pins as we speak. His averages just point against that. Alex will bounce back next year.

At worst he'll hit around .250 with around 15 HR's and 60-70 RBI which, although not worth the contract he's being paid, are not numbers contingent with a "4th OF". His defense, alone, makes him an asset to this team. Alex Rios at worst is the player we all hoped Brian Anderson would be. Great defense and whatever comes offensively is bonus.