PDA

View Full Version : Bad day to be a former Sox pitching prospect?


jabrch
03-09-2010, 11:44 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;_ylt=AhTIlkSlFGMc8ccJlLmN0aW4u7YF?gid=300 308111

Cubs shelled Oakland 10-3.

Gio - 3H and 2 ER in 2 innings.
DLS - 3ER, in 0 IP


ST, of course, means nothing.

ilsox7
03-09-2010, 11:45 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore;_ylt=AhTIlkSlFGMc8ccJlLmN0aW4u7YF?gid=300 308111

Cubs shelled Oakland 10-3.

Gio - 3H and 2 ER in 2 innings.
DLS - 3ER, in 0 IP


ST, of course, means nothing.

And I just finished polishing DLS' Hall of Fame Plaque. Darn.

doublem23
03-10-2010, 03:51 AM
Sweeney and Carter were a combined 0-4, too.

oeo
03-10-2010, 04:01 AM
Sweeney and Carter were a combined 0-4, too.

Sweeney was actually pretty good in the second half last year. .319/.378/.841 with 20 doubles. He just turned 25, too. Looks like he was the one to keep between Young, Anderson, and Sweeney. Unfortunately we kept the worst of the three.

jabrch
03-10-2010, 07:29 AM
Sweeney was actually pretty good in the second half last year. .319/.378/.841 with 20 doubles. He just turned 25, too. Looks like he was the one to keep between Young, Anderson, and Sweeney. Unfortunately we kept the worst of the three.

At least we didn't keep the middle one, and pay him like a top one...

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 07:53 AM
At least we didn't keep the middle one, and pay him like a top one...
We're paying a guy who hit .247/.296/.395 elite money, so I wouldn't bemoan the D'Backs for paying a guy $8m in 2013 whose career line is .235/.307/.438. Plenty of potential there, plenty of time for growth.

Edit: and I like Rios, but the constant ****ting on Young is tired.

spawn
03-10-2010, 08:08 AM
We're paying a guy who hit .247/.296/.395 elite money, so I wouldn't bemoan the D'Backs for paying a guy $8m in 2013 whose career line is .235/.307/.438. Plenty of potential there, plenty of time for growth.

Edit: and I like Rios, but the constant ****ting on Young is tired.


1. Let's be fair about Rios. You used Young's career line and cherry picked Rios' stats from last season. His career line is .281/.330./440 with an OPS of .775.

2. The middle one in the post you quoted is Anderson, not Young.

Tragg
03-10-2010, 08:12 AM
The one we gave up on was Sweeney. Ozzie loved Jerry Owens and vanquished Sweeney. We got Quentin for Carter. Carte has a ton of work to do to make that a bad trade. so does Chris young.

But Dls, Gio and sweeney have already exceeded our return.

The laughing about Chris Young is as really sort of laughing at the BP writers who near unanimously predicted him for rookie of the year for 2007

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 09:27 AM
1. Let's be fair about Rios. You used Young's career line and cherry picked Rios' stats from last season. His career line is .281/.330./440 with an OPS of .775.

2. The middle one in the post you quoted is Anderson, not Young.
I realized both of those things shortly after, though I think it was still a dig at Young (which isn't unprecedented).

And, like I said, I'm fine with Rios, but he could easily fall backward.

goon
03-10-2010, 10:20 AM
And I just finished polishing DLS' Hall of Fame Plaque. Darn.

Greatest Thread Evar (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96416)

oeo
03-10-2010, 01:41 PM
The one we gave up on was Sweeney. Ozzie loved Jerry Owens and vanquished Sweeney. We got Quentin for Carter.

Sweeney was not "vanquished", get your facts right. Pitchers adjusted to him, started pounding him inside, he struggled and was sent back down, like Anderson should have back in 2006. He wasn't ready yet. I don't think they gave up on him either, he was only 23 years old. Kenny had to land his "big fish" after missing out on Hunter, Rowand, and Fukudome and sent Sweeney with our two top pitching prospects away.

oeo
03-10-2010, 01:51 PM
I realized both of those things shortly after, though I think it was still a dig at Young (which isn't unprecedented).

And, like I said, I'm fine with Rios, but he could easily fall backward.

Young has been falling backwards the last couple years. He just doesn't do it for me. He's an extremely poor man's Grady Sizemore and he's going to be 27 in September, the youth excuse is fading quickly if it hasn't already.

Domeshot17
03-10-2010, 01:52 PM
The one we gave up on was Sweeney. Ozzie loved Jerry Owens and vanquished Sweeney. We got Quentin for Carter. Carte has a ton of work to do to make that a bad trade. so does Chris young.

But Dls, Gio and sweeney have already exceeded our return.

The laughing about Chris Young is as really sort of laughing at the BP writers who near unanimously predicted him for rookie of the year for 2007

Pretty Fair Assessment. Carter for Quentin was a good trade for both teams. Carter was the centerpiece for Dan Haren. It worked for the dbacks. Carter is also the top prospect in the A's system and a top 30 prospect in the entire MLB, so oakland landed a stud prospect in return. If Quentin can find a way to stay healthy and produce like 2 years ago and less like last year, it worked for us as well.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 01:53 PM
Young has been falling backwards the last couple years. He just doesn't do it for me. He's an extremely poor man's Grady Sizemore and he's going to be 27 in September, the youth excuse is fading quickly if it hasn't already.
Point is, if I was Josh Byrnes and had to make the same choice, I'd have given him that contract too.

ilsox7
03-10-2010, 01:55 PM
Greatest Thread Evar (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96416)

That thread had it all:

1. Someone claiming that DLS was basically a Hall of Famer, even though he had not pitched above A ball.

2. Someone claiming that the Sox would not play a meaningful game past July of 2008.

3. Someone claiming the Sox draft in 2008 would suck.

Hat trick!

oeo
03-10-2010, 02:02 PM
Pretty Fair Assessment. Carter for Quentin was a good trade for both teams. Carter was the centerpiece for Dan Haren. It worked for the dbacks. Carter is also the top prospect in the A's system and a top 30 prospect in the entire MLB, so oakland landed a stud prospect in return. If Quentin can find a way to stay healthy and produce like 2 years ago and less like last year, it worked for us as well.

If anyone was a centerpiece, it was Carlos Gonzalez. Carter strikes out way too much, I don't think he's going to bite us in the butt whether Quentin is successful or not. Also, he had phenomenal year last year in AA, but the jump in average just screams fluke to me. Is that a hitter's park he was playing in? Maybe it just clicked.

kittle42
03-10-2010, 02:04 PM
That thread had it all:

1. Someone claiming that DLS was basically a Hall of Famer, even though he had not pitched above A ball.

2. Someone claiming that the Sox would not play a meaningful game past July of 2008.

3. Someone claiming the Sox draft in 2008 would suck.

Hat trick!

Agreed that there was a lot of stupid crap in there.

But I think the point that most of us more rational questioners of the move had was that, regardless of how de Los Santos and Gonzalez have turned out, did Williams get fair value for them as they were regarded at the time. The answer to that, IMO, is still no.

oeo
03-10-2010, 02:09 PM
Agreed that there was a lot of stupid crap in there.

But I think the point that most of us more rational questioners of the move had was that, regardless of how de Los Santos and Gonzalez have turned out, did Williams get fair value for them as they were regarded at the time. The answer to that, IMO, is still no.

Absolutely not. That trade is now, essentially, Sweeney, Gio, and DLS for Marquez, Betemit, and Nunez. Oh, we also got a ****ty year from Nick Swisher.

Still, the worst part of the whole Swisher ordeal was just dumping him.

ilsox7
03-10-2010, 02:11 PM
Agreed that there was a lot of stupid crap in there.

But I think the point that most of us more rational questioners of the move had was that, regardless of how de Los Santos and Gonzalez have turned out, did Williams get fair value for them as they were regarded at the time. The answer to that, IMO, is still no.

I agree that you were right. I just enjoyed looking back at that thread. It really proves that the best way to debate things is to be rational and listen to other folks. Instead, there were people (well, a person in that case) who made outlandish claims that were laughed at at the time and were so wrong it's funny to look back on. It's unfortunate that folks make extreme and outlandish claims just to be heard instead of debating things rationally. More rational debate would be good around these parts, IMO.

fram40
03-10-2010, 02:25 PM
The laughing about Chris Young is as really sort of laughing at the BP writers who near unanimously predicted him for rookie of the year for 2007

don't forget that guy on foxsports.com - Dayne Perry. How many times did I have to read about how great Young would be ...

Although Young did hit a homer or two in the 2007 NLDS.

ilsox7
03-10-2010, 02:28 PM
don't forget that guy on foxsports.com - Dayne Perry. How many times did I have to read about how great Young would be ...

Although Young did hit a homer or two in the 2007 NLDS.

Dayne Perry knows very little about baseball. People need to just stop reading his "analysis" and maybe he would go away.

tstrike2000
03-10-2010, 02:37 PM
Dayne Perry knows very little about baseball. People need to just stop reading his "analysis" and maybe he would go away.

Actually, I think knowing very little is how Dayn originally got his job at espn.

DirtySox
03-10-2010, 03:42 PM
Poreda's performance today might fit in this thread, though it's a day late.

1.0 IP 6 H 9 R 8 ER 4 BB 2 SO 1 HR

I hope he gets it together.

soltrain21
03-10-2010, 03:58 PM
Agreed that there was a lot of stupid crap in there.

But I think the point that most of us more rational questioners of the move had was that, regardless of how de Los Santos and Gonzalez have turned out, did Williams get fair value for them as they were regarded at the time. The answer to that, IMO, is still no.

Correct - that trade was very ****ty at the time. We could have gotten a much better player than Nick Swisher for those three. They were, essentially, our top three prospects.

oeo
03-10-2010, 04:00 PM
Correct - that trade was very ****ty at the time. We could have gotten a much better player than Nick Swisher for those three. They were, essentially, our top three prospects.

I don't know that that's true. DLS was the only guy that was highly sought after, even if he was only in A-ball.

The fact that we turned around and traded Swisher a year later for a bucket of balls is what sucked.

goon
03-10-2010, 04:17 PM
I don't know that that's true. DLS was the only guy that was highly sought after, even if he was only in A-ball.

The fact that we turned around and traded Swisher a year later for a bucket of balls is what sucked.

There are two ways too look at it. What we got in return AND if we did have those players right now, would they have an impact on the 2010 White Sox or Sox teams in the future.

It would have been nice, in retrospect, if that trade never would have went through, but you have to think that those players would have been traded for other pieces.

I kind of wish we had Sweeney right now, but he'd probably just be a bench player, he's not going to start over anyone that is in the White Sox outfield anyway. Gonzalez is still only 24, but has been shelled in his opportunities to pitch for the A's, just seems like he is going to be a reliever considering he really only has two pitches. I haven't really kept up with De Los Santos, but he hasn't pitched much after his injury.

It was just a bad trade.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 04:49 PM
There are two ways too look at it. What we got in return AND if we did have those players right now, would they have an impact on the 2010 White Sox or Sox teams in the future.

It would have been nice, in retrospect, if that trade never would have went through, but you have to think that those players would have been traded for other pieces.

I kind of wish we had Sweeney right now, but he'd probably just be a bench player, he's not going to start over anyone that is in the White Sox outfield anyway. Gonzalez is still only 24, but has been shelled in his opportunities to pitch for the A's, just seems like he is going to be a reliever considering he really only has two pitches. I haven't really kept up with De Los Santos, but he hasn't pitched much after his injury.

It was just a bad trade.
Sweeney over Pierre would be automatic.

goon
03-10-2010, 05:15 PM
Sweeney over Pierre would be automatic.

Not really.

DirtySox
03-10-2010, 05:24 PM
Sweeney over Pierre would be automatic.

Without a doubt.

goon
03-10-2010, 05:43 PM
Without a doubt.

So Ryan Sweeney leading off over Juan Pierre, unless someone else leads off for this team but clearly, that's the only option. I would rather have Juan Pierre leading off than Ryan Sweeney and his "awesome" 2009 campaign.

oeo
03-10-2010, 06:26 PM
So Ryan Sweeney leading off over Juan Pierre, unless someone else leads off for this team but clearly, that's the only option. I would rather have Juan Pierre leading off than Ryan Sweeney and his "awesome" 2009 campaign.

No one said it was "awesome" (though he was pretty good in the second half). However, he gets on base, plays very good defense, and has a very strong and accurate arm. I could go for Ryan Sweeney leading off.

slavko
03-10-2010, 06:47 PM
At least we didn't keep the middle one, and pay him like a top one...

1. Let's be fair about Rios. You used Young's career line and cherry picked Rios' stats from last season. His career line is .281/.330./440 with an OPS of .775.

2. The middle one in the post you quoted is Anderson, not Young.

He may have meant middle one skills-wise.

The one we gave up on was Sweeney. Ozzie loved Jerry Owens and vanquished Sweeney. We got Quentin for Carter. Carte has a ton of work to do to make that a bad trade. so does Chris young.

But Dls, Gio and sweeney have already exceeded our return.

The laughing about Chris Young is as really sort of laughing at the BP writers who near unanimously predicted him for rookie of the year for 2007

I remember KW saying of Young "He'll be the first one we traded away that hurts us." To be fair, KW blows a lot of smoke for tactical reasons.

goon
03-10-2010, 06:52 PM
No one said it was "awesome" (though he was pretty good in the second half). However, he gets on base, plays very good defense, and has a very strong and accurate arm. I could go for Ryan Sweeney leading off.

I don't know, I think I would rather have a veteran in that role. Leading off presents a lot of pressure for young players and Sweeney would fit further down the lineup, certainly not at the top. I don't think Sweeney will ever be a lead-off hitter, period. Plus, having two young players right at the top of the order? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

Sweeney's second half was solid, but that was boosted by a September when virtually every team the A's played were either not in playoff contention or had already clinched a spot in the playoffs. Not exactly the best example of what can be expected of him month in and month out.

oeo
03-10-2010, 07:05 PM
I don't know, I think I would rather have a veteran in that role. Leading off presents a lot of pressure for young players and Sweeney would fit further down the lineup, certainly not at the top. I don't think Sweeney will ever be a lead-off hitter, period. Plus, having two young players right at the top of the order? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

A successful lead off hitter gets on base. That's all he needs to do is get on base to be driven in by the big boys. I'm fairly certain Sweeney could do that job.

As for him being young, he's played the last couple seasons in the big leagues. I expect him to break out this year.

Sweeney's second half was solid, but that was boosted by a September when virtually every team the A's played were either not in playoff contention or had already clinched a spot in the playoffs. Not exactly the best example of what can be expected of him month in and month out.

Same **** was said about Gavin Floyd a few years ago. That was BS, and this is BS.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 07:06 PM
Throw leadoff out the window: Ryan Sweeney is a superior player. Period. End of story.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:03 PM
A successful lead off hitter gets on base. That's all he needs to do is get on base to be driven in by the big boys. I'm fairly certain Sweeney could do that job.

As for him being young, he's played the last couple seasons in the big leagues. I expect him to break out this year.



Just like Nick Swisher in the lead off spot, he gets on base, what could go wrong?... I highly doubt it would be a good idea to put Sweeney who played over 130 games for the first time last year in front of Gordon Beckham in his second season after playing only 103 games last year.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:06 PM
Same **** was said about Gavin Floyd a few years ago. That was BS, and this is BS.

You don't believe that playing with no pressure, hitting against pitchers brought up after being in the minors all season and teams that have no shot to make it to the playoffs wouldn't make a difference?

goon
03-10-2010, 08:08 PM
Throw leadoff out the window: Ryan Sweeney is a superior player. Period. End of story.

You're wrong. That's laughable. We'll see what he does in the future, but if you are talking about Ryan Sweeney as of this moment, that is insane.

... And that's the point I'm trying to make. With an outfield of Sweeney, Rios and Quentin, who on leads off on this team?

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 08:12 PM
You're wrong. That's laughable. We'll see what he does in the future, but if you are talking about Ryan Sweeney as of this moment, that is insane.

... And that's the point I'm trying to make. With an outfield of Sweeney, Rios and Quentin, who on leads off on this team?
When constructing a major league baseball team, that question means very little to me. You play the best players. Sweeney is, irrefutably, a better player than Pierre.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:14 PM
When constructing a major league baseball team, that question means very little to me. You play the best players. Sweeney is, irrefutably, a better player than Pierre.

That's just going around the question.

DirtySox
03-10-2010, 08:15 PM
You're wrong. That's laughable. We'll see what he does in the future, but if you are talking about Ryan Sweeney as of this moment, that is insane.

... And that's the point I'm trying to make. With an outfield of Sweeney, Rios and Quentin, who on leads off on this team?

I don't know how anyone can suggest Pierre is a better player than Sweeney. The only edge he has is in swiping bags. Period.

Ah yes. The old leadoff is a position notion. Give me the better player any day of the week.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:18 PM
I don't know how anyone can suggest Pierre is a better player than Sweeney. The only edge he has is in swiping bags. Period.

Ah yes. The old leadoff is a position notion. Give me the better player any day of the week.

There's a difference between being a better player that Juan Pierre and being a "superior" player. At this point in his career Ryan Sweeney is a patient hitter and a great RF, he is in no way superior.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 08:19 PM
That's just going around the question.
Who leads off for this team besides Pierre? Ramirez, Beckham, Rios, Sweeney, etc. That question, again, means little to me. I am more interested in defense than who leads off once.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 08:20 PM
There's a difference between being a better player that Juan Pierre and being a "superior" player. At this point in his career Ryan Sweeney is a patient hitter and a great RF, he is in no way superior.
Literally the first synonym on my thesaurus widget for superior is better.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:21 PM
Ah yes. The old leadoff is a position notion. Give me the better player any day of the week.

Right, but it does matter what is comfortable to a player. Ryan Sweeney hit lead-off last year and wasn't very good at it, I don't see why all of a sudden he's going to settle in there. Even he said he likes to bat toward the bottom of the order.

Unfortunately, this team just doesn't have a good fit for some at the top of the lineup. I'm wouldn't rather have about 20 other guys over Juan Pierre, at least going into this season, but Ryan Sweeney at the top of this order isn't any better.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:23 PM
Literally the first synonym on my thesaurus widget for superior is better.

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you meant "superior" in terms of all MLB, not against Juan Pierre. I agree with that sentiment, to a point.

Because if you mean Ryan Sweeney is a superior player the like of some of baseball's elite, then no, that's not right.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:31 PM
Who leads off for this team besides Pierre? Ramirez, Beckham, Rios, Sweeney, etc. That question, again, means little to me. I am more interested in defense than who leads off once.

I think who your lead off hitter an important piece of a baseball team. We are talking about corner outfield positions, defense isn't a huge issue when discussing LF. I don't think if you talked to any GM in the league they would say, "we don't give a **** about the top of the order, just put somebody in LF who can throw some leather."

Edit: Putting someone like Alexei Ramirez leading off is a disastrous idea, Rios should be in a position to bat runners in and I'd rather see Beckham getting a load of fastballs batting second in the order right in front of our 3/4 hitters.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 08:34 PM
I think who your lead off hitter an important piece of a baseball team. We are talking about corner outfield positions, defense isn't a huge issue when discussing LF. I don't think if you talked to any GM in the league they would say, "we don't give a **** about the top of the order, just put somebody in LF who can throw some leather."
Pierre is not a plus offensively. I think they would, all things considered, take the better player.

goon
03-10-2010, 08:45 PM
Pierre is not a plus offensively. I think they would, all things considered, take the better player.

I don't think Ryan Sweeney is such a good player that you just find a place for him. We aren't talking about a Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Alex Rodriguez, Joe Mauer, Chase Utley or even a player on the next tier down from the class of baseball. On this team he just doesn't fit in anywhere, he's a good player, especially defensively, but I don't see how he fits in this lineup other than batting 7th or 8th.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 08:48 PM
I don't think Ryan Sweeney is such a good player that you just find a place for him. We aren't talking about a Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Alex Rodriguez, Joe Mauer, Chase Utley or even a player on the next tier down from the class of baseball. On this team he just doesn't fit in anywhere, he's a good player, especially defensively, but I don't see how he fits in this lineup other than batting 7th or 8th.
I have no idea why Juan Pierre fits into a baseball team more than Ryan Sweeney. You've yet to answer that question.

goon
03-10-2010, 09:36 PM
I have no idea why Juan Pierre fits into a baseball team more than Ryan Sweeney. You've yet to answer that question.

The only reason Juan Pierre was brought here was to bat lead-off. That's it. I don't think defense in LF is such an issue that I would rather have Ryan Sweeney over him because of that. Or that Carlos Quentin or Andruw Jones will be so bad in RF that it will cost the White Sox any games. It would be another thing if Sweeney was a spectacular offense threat, he isn't.Also, it would be a completely different conversation if Sweeney could bat at the top of the lineup, but he, according to what he says, doesn't feel comfortable in that role.

I don't see how a team's lead off hitter for the majority of the games played in a season shouldn't be an issue especially when compared to what kind of defense you are going to get from the corner OF positions.

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 11:13 PM
The only reason Juan Pierre was brought here was to bat lead-off. That's it. I don't think defense in LF is such an issue that I would rather have Ryan Sweeney over him because of that. Or that Carlos Quentin or Andruw Jones will be so bad in RF that it will cost the White Sox any games. It would be another thing if Sweeney was a spectacular offense threat, he isn't.Also, it would be a completely different conversation if Sweeney could bat at the top of the lineup, but he, according to what he says, doesn't feel comfortable in that role.

I don't see how a team's lead off hitter for the majority of the games played in a season shouldn't be an issue especially when compared to what kind of defense you are going to get from the corner OF positions.
You think lead-off hitter is a thing, I think it's an arbitrary assignment for a guy who is guaranteed to bat first once.

oeo
03-10-2010, 11:22 PM
You don't believe that playing with no pressure, hitting against pitchers brought up after being in the minors all season and teams that have no shot to make it to the playoffs wouldn't make a difference?

He probably faced one or two guys the entire month that were 'in the minors all season.' You're stretching here, and you know it.

And there's always pressure on younger players. You think because it was in September and they were out of the race that the guy wasn't fighting for his life in the major leagues?

doublem23
03-10-2010, 11:23 PM
I kind of wish we had Sweeney right now, but he'd probably just be a bench player, he's not going to start over anyone that is in the White Sox outfield anyway. Gonzalez is still only 24, but has been shelled in his opportunities to pitch for the A's, just seems like he is going to be a reliever considering he really only has two pitches. I haven't really kept up with De Los Santos, but he hasn't pitched much after his injury.

Bump Pierre/Rios/Quentin to DH, drive Andruw Jones to middle of desert and leave him there.

Case closed.

oeo
03-10-2010, 11:24 PM
You think lead-off hitter is a thing, I think it's an arbitrary assignment for a guy who is guaranteed to bat first once.

It doesn't matter when he comes up in the inning. His job is to get on base for the middle of the lineup. He's always guaranteed to hit in front of 2, 3, and 4.

goon
03-10-2010, 11:35 PM
And there's always pressure on younger players. You think because it was in September and they were out of the race that the guy wasn't fighting for his life in the major leagues?

Not in Oakland. Who is going to take his roster spot there?

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 11:36 PM
Not in Oakland. Who is going to take his roster spot there?
Travis Buck, Aaron Cunningham, etc.

goon
03-10-2010, 11:40 PM
You think lead-off hitter is a thing, I think it's an arbitrary assignment for a guy who is guaranteed to bat first once.

You think you can just put players where ever you want and they will perform how you want them too. That's not how it works. If that were the case every reliever with electric stuff could be a closer. That just isn't true. There's a mentality it takes to have success in that role.

goon
03-10-2010, 11:46 PM
Travis Buck, Aaron Cunningham, etc.

Aaron Cunningham isn't ready and Travis Buck, injuries aside, has shown absolutely nothing at the Major League level over the past two season that would cost Sweeney a starting job. Anybody else?

Craig Grebeck
03-10-2010, 11:48 PM
Aaron Cunningham isn't ready and Travis Buck, injuries aside, has shown absolutely nothing at the Major League level over the past two season that would cost Sweeney a starting job. Anybody else?
All readily available on the internet.

goon
03-10-2010, 11:56 PM
All readily available on the internet.

Also known as: no one.

Look out, here comes Eric Patterson.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 12:01 AM
Also known as: no one.

Look out, here comes Eric Patterson.
I'm just saying you're slagging off an organization you know little about.

My original argument still stands, unchallenged and irrefutable: Ryan Sweeney is a better baseball player than Juan Pierre. I want good baseball players, therefore I'll take Sweeney. Is he Choo? No. Seth Smith? Probably not even that good. I guess that just speaks to Pierre's lack of, well, quality.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 12:01 AM
You think you can just put players where ever you want and they will perform how you want them too. That's not how it works. If that were the case every reliever with electric stuff could be a closer. That just isn't true. There's a mentality it takes to have success in that role.
You think it's a role, I think it's not. Fair enough.

cards press box
03-11-2010, 12:06 AM
I don't know how anyone can suggest Pierre is a better player than Sweeney. The only edge he has is in swiping bags. Period.

Ah yes. The old leadoff is a position notion. Give me the better player any day of the week.

In 2009, Pierre's stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pierrju01.shtml) and Sweeney's stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sweenry01.shtml) were fairly comparable but Pierre's numbers were better. In 380 AB's with the Dodgers last year, Pierre hit .308 with a .365 OBP and 30 stolen bases. In 484 at bats with the A's, Sweeney hit .293 with a .348 OBP and 6 stolen bases. Pierre had 16 doubles and 8 triples; Sweeney had 31 doubles and 3 triples Neither player had any home run power of which to speak.

Comparing the two players, Pierre got on-base at a higher frequency and Sweeney had more extra-base power, albeit in 100 more at bats. Pierre, though, had five times as many stolen bases with 100 less at bats. With regular playing time, Pierre could steal from 40 to 50 bases. Compared to Sweeney, Pierre gives the Sox a much greater dimension of speed and that cannot simply be ignored.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 12:09 AM
In 2009, Pierre's stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pierrju01.shtml) and Sweeney's stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sweenry01.shtml) were fairly comparable but Pierre's numbers were better. In 380 AB's with the Dodgers last year, Pierre hit .308 with a .365 OBP and 30 stolen bases. In 484 at bats with the A's, Sweeney hit .293 with a .348 OBP and 6 stolen bases. Pierre had 16 doubles and 8 triples; Sweeney had 31 doubles and 3 triples Neither player had any home run power of which to speak.

Comparing the two players, Pierre got on-base at a higher frequency and Sweeney had more extra-base power, albeit in 100 more at bats. Pierre, though, had five times as many stolen bases with 100 less at bats. With regular playing time, Pierre could steal from 40 to 50 bases. Compared to Sweeney, Pierre gives the Sox a much greater dimension of speed and that cannot simply be ignored.
Sigh, and neither can the following: a smaller sample size of at-bats, a wildly inconsistent 1st vs. 2nd half split, Sweeney's elite defense.

sullythered
03-11-2010, 01:52 AM
Sigh, and neither can the following: a smaller sample size of at-bats, a wildly inconsistent 1st vs. 2nd half split, Sweeney's elite defense.

What? Sweeney's 2 halves were just about as different as Pierre's, and Juan Pierre has been pretty consistent for several years. If you want to talk small sample size, Sweeney's career sample size is minuscule compared to Juan's. Because of Sweeney's defense, I might give him the edge, but it isn't even nearly as much of a blowout as you are implying.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 01:53 AM
What? Sweeney's 2 halves were just about as different as Pierre's, and Juan Pierre has been pretty consistent for several years. If you want to talk small sample size, Sweeney's career sample size is minuscule compared to Juan's. Because of Sweeney's defense, I might give him the edge, but it isn't even nearly as much of a blowout as you are implying.
Pierre has consistently sucked for some time now, that is correct.

sullythered
03-11-2010, 02:07 AM
Pierre has consistently sucked for some time now, that is correct.

He's a .300 hitter with around 40 steals and a not terrible OBP for his entire career, and hasn't shown decline. He doesn't suck, hasn't sucked, and likely will not suck this year. And Ryan Sweeney isn't much better, that is what's correct.

kittle42
03-11-2010, 06:57 AM
He's a .300 hitter with around 40 steals and a not terrible OBP for his entire career, and hasn't shown decline. He doesn't suck, hasn't sucked, and likely will not suck this year. And Ryan Sweeney isn't much better, that is what's correct.

This.

Sorry, Grebeck, you are just tossing around Daver-esque platitudes.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 07:13 AM
This.

Sorry, Grebeck, you are just tossing around Daver-esque platitudes.
Last five seasons: OBP at league average four times, declining SB skills, sub .700 OPS three of those five seasons.

Sorry. Not a fan. Gimme gimme gimme Sweeney.

cards press box
03-11-2010, 07:13 AM
Sigh, and neither can the following: a smaller sample size of at-bats, a wildly inconsistent 1st vs. 2nd half split, Sweeney's elite defense.

Pierre will play LF and will occasionally DH. I don't think his defense will be an issue.

In this off-season, the Sox made a concerted effort to add balance to their offense. To do that, the Sox needed to add some speed and Pierre certainly does that. One may think that the speed and stolen bases are not important. Some prominent managers would agree. Earl Weaver, for example, wanted pitching, defense and three-run homers and thought that the speed game got in the way. On the other hand, Whitey Herzog had great success with an offense built almost exclusively on speed. There is no single correct answer on the value of the running game.

I see merit in the arguments of both Weaver and Herzog. What's more, the very best teams (like the 1975 Big Red Machine) could do everything. The '75 Reds hit for average, hit for power, stole bases -- they did any everything a good offense should do.

Ozzie Guillen has championed the importance of balance and I agree. No one is suggesting that Pierre is a five tool player like Rickey Henderson. But Pierre is a .300 hitter with a good OBP and could steal 40-50 bases. That is not only valuable but it adds to the balance that Guillen wants, correctly in my view.

GoSox2K3
03-11-2010, 07:44 AM
He's a .300 hitter with around 40 steals and a not terrible OBP for his entire career, and hasn't shown decline. He doesn't suck, hasn't sucked, and likely will not suck this year. And Ryan Sweeney isn't much better, that is what's correct.

This.

Sorry, Grebeck, you are just tossing around Daver-esque platitudes.

Pierre will play LF and will occasionally DH. I don't think his defense will be an issue.

In this off-season, the Sox made a concerted effort to add balance to their offense. To do that, the Sox needed to add some speed and Pierre certainly does that. One may think that the speed and stolen bases are not important. Some prominent managers would agree. Earl Weaver, for example, wanted pitching, defense and three-run homers and thought that the speed game got in the way. On the other hand, Whitey Herzog had great success with an offense built almost exclusively on speed. There is no single correct answer on the value of the running game.

I see merit in the arguments of both Weaver and Herzog. What's more, the very best teams (like the 1975 Big Red Machine) could do everything. The '75 Reds hit for average, hit for power, stole bases -- they did any everything a good offense should do.

Ozzie Guillen has championed the importance of balance and I agree. No one is suggesting that Pierre is a five tool player like Rickey Henderson. But Pierre is a .300 hitter with a good OBP and could steal 40-50 bases. That is not only valuable but it adds to the balance that Guillen wants, correctly in my view.

Forget it guys. If you've learned anything from WSI it should be that Grebeck is never wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, discussions about players' value to a team or what we can expect of them in the future are not debateable gray areas. CG is right and everyone else is wrong. If you don't believe it, the cincher should be how he often condescendingly dismisses others' opinions by saying "Sigh" or "Ugh". That proves that his opinion is above yours!

asindc
03-11-2010, 08:32 AM
The only reason Juan Pierre was brought here was to bat lead-off. That's it. I don't think defense in LF is such an issue that I would rather have Ryan Sweeney over him because of that. Or that Carlos Quentin or Andruw Jones will be so bad in RF that it will cost the White Sox any games. It would be another thing if Sweeney was a spectacular offense threat, he isn't.Also, it would be a completely different conversation if Sweeney could bat at the top of the lineup, but he, according to what he says, doesn't feel comfortable in that role.

I don't see how a team's lead off hitter for the majority of the games played in a season shouldn't be an issue especially when compared to what kind of defense you are going to get from the corner OF positions.

You think lead-off hitter is a thing, I think it's an arbitrary assignment for a guy who is guaranteed to bat first once.

It doesn't matter when he comes up in the inning. His job is to get on base for the middle of the lineup. He's always guaranteed to hit in front of 2, 3, and 4.

CG,

You have repeatedly said that designating a certain skill set to the leadoff position is arbitrary because he will likely only leadoff once a game. OEO's point is valid here, though. You want the players who are best at scoring batting in front of your most productive hitters, which is why every single team in MLB organizes its lineup this way. Another factor to consider is that it is not just about leading off any particular game, since a leadoff hitter will lead off in an inning more times than anyone else over the course of the season. That's why Joe Mauer, for example, will never lead off for Minny despite being its most productive hitter.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 08:42 AM
CG,

You have repeatedly said that designating a certain skill set to the leadoff position is arbitrary because he will likely only leadoff once a game. OEO's point is valid here, though. You want the players who are best at scoring batting in front of your most productive hitters, which is why every single team in MLB organizes its lineup this way. Another factor to consider is that it is not just about leading off any particular game, since a leadoff hitter will lead off in an inning more times than anyone else over the course of the season. That's why Joe Mauer, for example, will never lead off for Minny despite being its most productive hitter.
Mea culpa, asindc. What I should have said was that I want OBP guys at the top, but I think a skillset other than the ability to not make outs is overrated at the spot (i.e. what Weaver would call fleas).

seventyseven
03-11-2010, 09:39 AM
Young has been falling backwards the last couple years. He just doesn't do it for me. He's an extremely poor man's Grady Sizemore and he's going to be 27 in September, the youth excuse is fading quickly if it hasn't already.

Chris Young's stats still look eerily similar to Jacque Jones at that age range.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/youngch04.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jonesja05.shtml

In fact, I'd venture that Jones was even better because he hit for average. No thanks.

jabrch
03-11-2010, 09:49 AM
Chris Young's stats still look eerily similar to Jacque Jones at that age range.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/youngch04.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jonesja05.shtml

In fact, I'd venture that Jones was even better because he hit for average. No thanks.

A big difference between the two is that the Twins never rushed to extend him before he proved much. He never made big money and never had anything guaranteed until the Cubs gave him a 3 year deal for bundles of money. The Snakes jumped the gun and gave CY too much money too early based on too little performance.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 10:00 AM
A big difference between the two is that the Twins never rushed to extend him before he proved much. He never made big money and never had anything guaranteed until the Cubs gave him a 3 year deal for bundles of money. The Snakes jumped the gun and gave CY too much money too early based on too little performance.
Is this really a crazy contract?

09:$1.75M, 10:$3.25M, 11:$5M, 12:$7M, 13:$8.5M, 14:$11M club option ($1.5M buyout)

Again, he's going to make $3.25M this season. I think that's well worth it, given his potential. Especially after the way he ripped **** up in September.

Edit: I'm still trying to figure out how on earth you are opposed to buying guys like Longoria and Young or even Beckham out of some years of free agency.

goon
03-11-2010, 10:14 AM
I'm just saying you're slagging off an organization you know little about.

My original argument still stands, unchallenged and irrefutable: Ryan Sweeney is a better baseball player than Juan Pierre. I want good baseball players, therefore I'll take Sweeney. Is he Choo? No. Seth Smith? Probably not even that good. I guess that just speaks to Pierre's lack of, well, quality.

How do you know I know little about them? Because you know little about them? Oakland's MLB-ready talent in the OF is thin, it's easy to look up a depth chart and just start throwing names, but is obviously Ryan Sweeney's competition is minuscule. The guy isn't losing his starting job based on what he's done there.

I never said Juan Pierre was better, you seem to think I did.

goon
03-11-2010, 10:17 AM
Pierre has consistently sucked for some time now, that is correct.

I'm starting to think this is about a little chip on your shoulder about Juan Pierre. He doesn't "suck", no one would agree with you on that. No one in any organization would say that.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 10:24 AM
I'm starting to think this is about a little chip on your shoulder about Juan Pierre. He doesn't "suck", no one would agree with you on that. No one in any organization would say that.
Well, we value different things then. He's not elite defensively, his speed is fading, he doesn't get on base enough (one year above average in the last five--driven largely by a strong first half), doesn't slug for anything, etc. What is it he does well again? Oh, yeah, he's fast. Sweet.

doublem23
03-11-2010, 10:24 AM
I'm starting to think this is about a little chip on your shoulder about Juan Pierre. He doesn't "suck", no one would agree with you on that. No one in any organization would say that.

That explains why the Sox will be his 5th team in 11 years.

I don't know what the qualitative limit to "sucking" is, but Pierre's not very good.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 10:24 AM
How do you know I know little about them? Because you know little about them? Oakland's MLB-ready talent in the OF is thin, it's easy to look up a depth chart and just start throwing names, but is obviously Ryan Sweeney's competition is minuscule. The guy isn't losing his starting job based on what he's done there.

I never said Juan Pierre was better, you seem to think I did.
Well, I guess I'm confused by the notion that someone would actually take an inferior player over a superior one.

SI1020
03-11-2010, 11:57 AM
Pierre doesn't suck, but I'm not the least bit excited about having him on the team. As for the comparison with Sweeney, why wouldn't one choose Sweeney? He's six and a half years younger, solid in the field, and improving at the plate. He'll never hit for power or be an elite outfielder, but he's definitely better than Pierre is and young enough to keep improving. Most of the "prospects" traded away by KW haven't been amounted to much of anything, but this does not appear to be the case with Ryan Sweeney.

jabrch
03-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Pierre's not very good.

We obviously disagree on a lot of things - this is another. I don't see how a career .300 hitter would qualify as "not very good".

Is he a HOFer? Hell no...Is he great? NOPE. But "not very good"? That's a matter of semantics I guess.

In the history of the game, only 194 people have had a higher rate of getting a hit than Juan Pierre. Of active players, only 30. He has 459 SBs. Amongst active players, that puts him #1. Sure he's 30 years old, but last year he still hit .308 (over his career average) and stole 30 bases in only 425 PAs (since he platooned). If he gets his career average in PAs and maintains last year's rate, that translates to 48.5 SBs.

"not very good"? Really? If that's where you rank him, you must be an awful tough grader and have very few people who are not in the "not very good" group.

doublem23
03-11-2010, 02:07 PM
"not very good"? Really? If that's where you rank him, you must be an awful tough grader and have very few people who are not in the "not very good" group.

Yeah, he's just not that good. For all you rag on Adam Dunn for having a "hollow" OBP, you sure seem to be quick to defend Pierre's hollow BA. He's consistently at the top of the league for Outs Made (a great quality for a guy who will get the most AB on the team, BTW), he hits for absolutely no power whatsoever, and his career numbers are lofted by his first few years in the league, but over the last 5 seasons, he's been pretty mediocre, even with his little rebirth last season. Add in that he's a butcher in the field and yes, Juan Pierre is just not that good of a player. Only thing he does well is steal bases and even that has started to fade. He belongs on a Major League roster somewhere, but nobody is coveting him.

jabrch
03-11-2010, 02:14 PM
For all you rag on Adam Dunn for having a "hollow" OBP

Adam Dunn's number of productive PA is not high. The impact of those may be high, but the number of them is not. Pierre will have more productive ABs, but they will be less productive. For all I rag on Dunn, if he cost us the same thing that we paid for Pierre, I'd be thrilled to have him. That's part of the equation that makes them not an apples to apples comparison.



Only thing he does well is steal bases

and get hits...he averages 188 per 162 game season...

He's not great...I wouldn't use the phrase "not very good" to define him, unless you have a different definition than I do.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 02:41 PM
I love when someone rags on a player and the first response is, "well, he's not a HOF, but he's good!"

Pablo_Honey
03-11-2010, 03:24 PM
and get hits...he averages 188 per 162 game season...
...and hits for very very very little power, hardly draws walks and gets caught stealing A LOT. The only thing he can do is hit weak singles and that does not make him a good player.

kittle42
03-11-2010, 05:15 PM
...and hits for very very very little power, hardly draws walks and gets caught stealing A LOT. The only thing he can do is hit weak singles and that does not make him a good player.

This is WSI 2010 - don't you know walks are overrated???

jabrch
03-11-2010, 07:05 PM
This is WSI 2010 - don't you know walks are overrated???

I know you put it in teal, but you know nobody said that...

russ99
03-11-2010, 07:35 PM
Someone explain to me why power or a high OPS has any bearing on how good a leadoff guy is. And can you name any leadoff guys who have power? Are there 2, 3, 5 in the whole league?

A good leadoff guy gets on base and does things when on base. He also works the count and wears down pitchers both at the plate and on the basepaths.

While it's subjective as to what a good OBP is, Pierre rarely strikes out, puts the ball in play, bunts for hits and given 500 ABs is a 50 steal man and scores lots of runs. As far as defense is concerned, he has above average range at LF and while he has a weak arm, that can be minimized by smart use of the cut-off man.

Wanna call that "a player who sucks" go ahead. Ozzie (who's opinion counts) begs to differ.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 07:49 PM
Someone explain to me why power or a high OPS has any bearing on how good a leadoff guy is. And can you name any leadoff guys who have power? Are there 2, 3, 5 in the whole league?

A good leadoff guy gets on base and does things when on base. He also works the count and wears down pitchers both at the plate and on the basepaths.

While it's subjective as to what a good OBP is, Pierre rarely strikes out, puts the ball in play, bunts for hits and given 500 ABs is a 50 steal man and scores lots of runs. As far as defense is concerned, he has above average range at LF and while he has a weak arm, that can be minimized by smart use of the cut-off man.

Wanna call that "a player who sucks" go ahead. Ozzie (who's opinion counts) begs to differ.
...

Pablo_Honey
03-11-2010, 09:11 PM
Someone explain to me why power or a high OPS has any bearing on how good a leadoff guy is. And can you name any leadoff guys who have power? Are there 2, 3, 5 in the whole league?
Off the top of my head: Sizemore, Granderson, Damon, Kinsler, Reyes, Pedroia, Ichiro, Rollins, and Roberts. There are probably a few more but I'm too lazy to look them up. Also, the greatest leadoff hitter in history also hit quite a bit of homeruns himself.

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Off the top of my head: Sizemore, Granderson, Damon, Kinsler, Reyes, Pedroia, Ichiro, Rollins, and Roberts. There are probably a few more but I'm too lazy to look them up. Also, the greatest leadoff hitter in history also hit quite a bit of homeruns himself.
Span had an .807 OPS last year as well. Bartlett led off +50 games for the Rays with a .463 SLG. Scutaro had 12 bombs for the Jays. Et cetera.

asindc
03-11-2010, 10:23 PM
Off the top of my head: Sizemore, Granderson, Damon, Kinsler, Reyes, Pedroia, Ichiro, Rollins, and Roberts. There are probably a few more but I'm too lazy to look them up. Also, the greatest leadoff hitter in history also hit quite a bit of homeruns himself.

Your point is well taken, but Pedroia bats 2nd behind Ellsbury.

Pablo_Honey
03-11-2010, 10:48 PM
Your point is well taken, but Pedroia bats 2nd behind Ellsbury.
Oh yeah, you are right, I totally forgot about Ellsbury. I guess I got it mixed up after seeing Pedroia bat leadoff several times in the past. Thanks for pointing that out.

HomeFish
03-11-2010, 10:56 PM
*waits for somebody to claim that the 2005 White Sox won a championship with a leadoff guy who hit no HRs in the regular season*

Tragg
03-11-2010, 10:57 PM
Sweeney was not "vanquished", get your facts right. Pitchers adjusted to him, started pounding him inside, he struggled and was sent back down, like Anderson should have back in 2006. He wasn't ready yet. I don't think they gave up on him either, he was only 23 years old. Kenny had to land his "big fish" after missing out on Hunter, Rowand, and Fukudome and sent Sweeney with our two top pitching prospects away.
You don't trade your 2 top pitching prospects plus a highly regarded outfielder for Swisher, who could best be considered "above average" but no more.
thus, I conclude that Sweeney was not highly regarded by the Sox. i.e.: Talent mis-evaluation.
There was no real reason to send him down anyway...the season was over, it was the perfect time to play young players all over the place. If he was in the Sox plans, he'd have played.
And at the time he was being sent down, guillen was drooling over jerry owens. (and erstad and later wise)....he just doesn't have a good eye for these outfielders.
I'll stand by my position: Sweeney was mis-evaluated and vanquished.

JohnTucker0814
03-11-2010, 11:03 PM
Off the top of my head: Sizemore, Granderson, Damon, Kinsler, Reyes, Pedroia, Ichiro, Rollins, and Roberts. There are probably a few more but I'm too lazy to look them up. Also, the greatest leadoff hitter in history also hit quite a bit of homeruns himself.

Sizemore is a #3 hitter and now that they don't have a lot in the line-up he'll probably make the transition soon...

Granderson is no longer a lead off hitter...

Damon had power last year in the very hitter friendly Yankee Stadium, more on a average of 10-12 hr per year...

Kinsler... while he led off last year, I've got to think he'll be in the middle of the line-up this year...

Reyes... 7, 19, 12, 16... The 19 was pretty impressive for a lead off hitter, but I don't consider 12 HR to be a power hitter...

Ichiro... 9, 6, 6, 11... while Ichiro has the "ability" to hit HR's that is not part of his game!

Roberts...10, 12, 9, 16... better than 5 HR's but far from a "power" hitter...

Rollins...25,30,11,21... This is a guy I'd consider a power hitter.

Just my $0.02...

voodoochile
03-11-2010, 11:04 PM
*waits for somebody to claim that the 2005 White Sox won a championship with a leadoff guy who hit no HRs in the regular season*

Yeah, but that only works when you've got lights out pitching a balanced but not overly powerful lineup and a hole at the DH position...

Craig Grebeck
03-11-2010, 11:08 PM
Yeah, but that only works when you've got lights out pitching a balanced but not overly powerful lineup and a hole at the DH position...
If you want to pin your hopes on a repeat of 2005 pitching-wise, be my guest. Lots of 81-81 seasons with that formula.

voodoochile
03-11-2010, 11:29 PM
If you want to pin your hopes on a repeat of 2005 pitching-wise, be my guest. Lots of 81-81 seasons with that formula.

Okay... well, I'd rather pin it on pitching than anything else. I believe pitching is about 50% of the game if not more and 80% of pitching is the starting staff.

But I was just taking the comment to it's logical absurd conclusion. I thought Homefish was cracking wise and I wanted to crack wise too...:tongue:

munchman33
03-11-2010, 11:38 PM
Yeah, but that only works when you've got lights out pitching a balanced but not overly powerful lineup and a hole at the DH position...

We had lights out pitching and a lights out pen that year. We also had a guy hit 40 home runs, a leadoff guy steal a ton of bases with a really high OBP, great defense at 2b, 3b, and SS, and a guy who oddly enough only got hits with the game on the line. And that's ignoring how that "hole" at DH provided better numbers than an optimistic projection on this season.

We've got great starting pitching and some of those other things. But certainly not enough of them to ignore the likely .219/.271/.312 line our DH spot will put up.

sullythered
03-11-2010, 11:42 PM
Yeah, but that only works when you've got lights out pitching a balanced but not overly powerful lineup and a hole at the DH position...

That's funny, dude. I'm LOLing all over myself.

areilly
03-11-2010, 11:56 PM
You think lead-off hitter is a thing, I think it's an arbitrary assignment for a guy who is guaranteed to bat first once.

Or, depending on your perspective, a guy who is guaranteed to bat first 162 times.

areilly
03-11-2010, 11:58 PM
Ichiro... 9, 6, 6, 11... while Ichiro has the "ability" to hit HR's that is not part of his game!

It's not part of his game, but that's mostly by choice. Dude's power is legendary, but his team needs him on base, not circling them.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 07:37 AM
That's nonsense. If Ichiro had that kind of power he would use it.

Marqhead
03-12-2010, 07:50 AM
That's nonsense. If Ichiro had that kind of power he would use it.

"Chicks who dig home runs aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out."

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 08:17 AM
"Chicks who dig home runs aren't the ones who appeal to me. I think there's sexiness in infield hits because they require technique. I'd rather impress the chicks with my technique than with my brute strength. Then, every now and then, just to show I can do that, too, I might flirt a little by hitting one out."
I love Ichiro. I love his jokes. I love him enough to trust that he realizes a HR is the single most productive at-bat.

Marqhead
03-12-2010, 08:21 AM
I love Ichiro. I love his jokes. I love him enough to trust that he realizes a HR is the single most productive at-bat.

There are numerous analysts and writers who claim Ichiro could hit 30 HRs a year if he wanted. I will never understand why they believe this to be true. There is nothing wrong with Ichiro's game, but if he could, he would.

asindc
03-12-2010, 08:27 AM
I love Ichiro. I love his jokes. I love him enough to trust that he realizes a HR is the single most productive at-bat.

Agreed. It is the single-most efficient offensive play in baseball. If Ichiro could hit 50 (or 40, or 30), he would.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 08:35 AM
I think they just want to add to his already other-worldly mystique. I guess it's their jobs to promote these players, but that instance is ridiculous.

TheOldRoman
03-12-2010, 08:53 AM
*waits for somebody to claim that the 2005 White Sox won a championship with a leadoff guy who hit no HRs in the regular season*Umm, that wouldn't be so much a "claim" as a fact.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 09:09 AM
Again, it's not as though Pods being power-deficient is a good thing. Why do we willingly pursue players who need to find a hole to get a hit? (Talking more about Pierre here.)

asindc
03-12-2010, 09:17 AM
Again, it's not as though Pods being power-deficient is a good thing. Why do we willingly pursue players who need to find a hole to get a hit? (Talking more about Pierre here.)

Because all the high OBP leadoff hitters with power are already taken and would probably be beyond the Sox' budget even if they were available. That's why I'm excited about the potential for Jared Mitchell. We obviously haven't developed our own very well, so he could solve a few problems if he works out.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 09:23 AM
Because all the high OBP leadoff hitters with power are already taken and would probably be beyond the Sox' budget even if they were available. That's why I'm excited about the potential for Jared Mitchell. We obviously haven't developed our own very well, so he could solve a few problems if he works out.
Wouldn't it be nice?

I guess my qualms are with the targeting of a "leadoff hitter." Just put 9 good players on the field and put them together however works best.

I wonder if KW looked around the league and pursued a guy like Stephen Drew.

guillen4life13
03-12-2010, 10:14 AM
Wouldn't it be nice?

I guess my qualms are with the targeting of a "leadoff hitter." Just put 9 good players on the field and put them together however works best.

I wonder if KW looked around the league and pursued a guy like Stephen Drew.

Why would Stephen Drew be a fit with the Sox considering he's a SS? If he is an upgrade over TCM, the difference is marginal at best.

areilly
03-12-2010, 10:17 AM
That's nonsense. If Ichiro had that kind of power he would use it.

What are you basing this on? By all accounts, the guy was asked to be a hit machine for the M's when he first came over, and in time became single-minded in that pursuit.

thedudeabides
03-12-2010, 10:31 AM
There are numerous analysts and writers who claim Ichiro could hit 30 HRs a year if he wanted. I will never understand why they believe this to be true. There is nothing wrong with Ichiro's game, but if he could, he would.

It's his legendary batting practice displays. He hits tape measure homeruns seemingly at will. It really is something to see. If you ever get a chance, go see it. It's why every time a sportswriter form another town sees him take BP, they go on about how he could win the homerun derby.

Maybe, he could hit for a lot of power, but why would you ask him to change anything about his game?

Especially, if it required him to change his swing.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 10:32 AM
What are you basing this on? By all accounts, the guy was asked to be a hit machine for the M's when he first came over, and in time became single-minded in that pursuit.
Then he's an idiot. If he could smack it out of the ballpark at will and doesn't, he's a complete fool.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 10:33 AM
Why would Stephen Drew be a fit with the Sox considering he's a SS? If he is an upgrade over TCM, the difference is marginal at best.
A much higher ceiling than TCM, for one.

Marqhead
03-12-2010, 10:34 AM
It's his legendary batting practice displays. He hits tape measure homeruns seemingly at will. It really is something to see. If you ever get a chance, go see it. It's why every time a sportswriter form another town sees him take BP, they go on about how he could win the homerun derby.

Maybe, he could hit for a lot of power, but why would you ask him to change anything about his game?

Especially, if it required him to change his swing.

He's a hitting machine and I'm sure he can put on a good BP display, but I think a lot of hitters can do that. I just don't buy it.

Then he's an idiot. If he could smack it out of the ballpark at will and doesn't, he's a complete fool.

Marqhead
03-12-2010, 10:34 AM
A much higher ceiling than TCM, for one.

Absolutely, but what makes you think the Dbacks would be willing to part with a young talent like Drew?

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Absolutely, but what makes you think the Dbacks would be willing to part with a young talent like Drew?
A realization they might not compete for a while, a want for pitching, an unwillingness to pay him. KW could have sniffed around, at least.

voodoochile
03-12-2010, 10:47 AM
A realization they might not compete for a while, a want for pitching, an unwillingness to pay him. KW could have sniffed around, at least.

And for all we know he did... Failure to make a trade doesn't indicate lack of trying...

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 10:50 AM
And for all we know he did... Failure to make a trade doesn't indicate lack of trying...
Didn't mean to imply it was.

thedudeabides
03-12-2010, 10:54 AM
He's a hitting machine and I'm sure he can put on a good BP display, but I think a lot of hitters can do that. I just don't buy it.

I agree, I was just answering your question why so many people think he can hit for power.

His amazing hitting ability is predicated on his swing plane and his incredible balance as a hitter. He does so many things with a bat others just simply can't do. That would have to change if he were to hit for power in games. There would be no reason to do that. But, if you've seen his raw power, you would know why people think he could hit 30-40 homeruns a year. Obviously, Ichiro thinks the rest of his hitting would suffer, otherwise he would.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 10:56 AM
I agree, I was just answering your question why so many people think he can hit for power.

His amazing hitting ability is predicated on his swing plane and his incredible balance as a hitter. He does so many things with a bat others just simply can't do. That would have to change if he were to hit for power in games. There would be no reason to do that. But, if you've seen his raw power, you would know why people think he could hit 30-40 homeruns a year. Obviously, Ichiro thinks the rest of his hitting would suffer, otherwise he would.
Well, like I said, then he's an idiot.

mzh
03-12-2010, 10:57 AM
Then he's an idiot. If he could smack it out of the ballpark at will and doesn't, he's a complete fool.
Your totally missing the fact that there's a difference between "hitting the ball out of the park" at will and being able to hit for power. Yes, I believe Ichiro could hit 30 a year, but if he did he would have to swing for the fences and not just try to make solid contact. It's a choice between hitting .360/10 and .260-.280/35, and he choosed to have 250 hits a year instead of batting .265.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 11:00 AM
Your totally missing the fact that there's a difference between "hitting the ball out of the park" at will and being able to hit for power. Yes, I believe Ichiro could hit 30 a year, but if he did he would have to swing for the fences and not just try to make solid contact. It's a choice between hitting .360/10 and .260-.280/35, and he choosed to have 250 hits a year instead of batting .265.
There's really no evidence to back up your estimation here.

HomeFish
03-12-2010, 11:31 AM
Then he's an idiot. If he could smack it out of the ballpark at will and doesn't, he's a complete fool.

Yeah but that's a dubious assumption.

Pablo_Honey
03-12-2010, 11:52 AM
People who say he can hit 30 homeruns at will are just hyping him up. A hitter with a good mechanical swing and proper fundamentals like Ichiro should be able to hit 30 homeruns if he really really focused on hitting it but his comfort zone is in hitting for contact and there is nothing wrong with that. Afterall, as Yogi Berra once said, baseball is 90% mental, the other half being physical.

It makes no sense for Ichiro to swing for the fences considering he is a tad bit undersized for that. Even in Japan he couldn't crack 30 homeruns and he averaged around 15 homeruns each season. His strongest skillsets are stealing bases (never got caught stealing in Japan) and hitting for very good contact (few strikeouts and high average). His power is simply a by-product of his solid hitting skills.

guillen4life13
03-12-2010, 11:53 AM
A much higher ceiling than TCM, for one.
There's really no evidence to back up your estimation here.

I know Stephen Drew was a highly touted prospect and all. But there was no real book on Alexei before he came here. He's only a year older and has played at a comparable level to Drew. I don't see the real upgrade, especially considering the Sox have control over Ramirez for longer and at a lower price.

Absolutely, but what makes you think the Dbacks would be willing to part with a young talent like Drew?

He's not that young anymore...

jabrch
03-12-2010, 03:57 PM
Dunn or Ichiro...Discuss?

spawn
03-12-2010, 04:11 PM
Only at WSI can a thread go from talking about Gio and DLS and end up discussing Ichiro.

goon
03-12-2010, 04:25 PM
Well, like I said, then he's an idiot.

http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/ichiro.jpg

Hit home runs, STUUUUUUUUPID!

HomeFish
03-12-2010, 06:18 PM
As somebody who grew up at the height of the steroid era, the talk of 30 HRs/yr being incredible is kind of weird.

goon
03-12-2010, 06:58 PM
As somebody who grew up at the height of the steroid era, the talk of 30 HRs/yr being incredible is kind of weird.

You know what would be even more incredible? Ichiro Suzuki visiting WSI to get advice about hitting. Clearly, the guy just hasn't figured it out yet!

sullythered
03-12-2010, 08:16 PM
A much higher ceiling than TCM, for one.

Not really. About the same age, about the same production.

spawn
03-12-2010, 08:19 PM
You know what would be even more incredible? Ichiro Suzuki visiting WSI to get advice about hitting. Clearly, the guy just hasn't figured it out yet!
I never thought I would see a thread that someone would be calling Ichiro an idiot because of how he appoaches his game offensively.

ilsox7
03-12-2010, 08:24 PM
I never thought I would see a thread that someone would be calling Ichiro an idiot because of how he appoaches his game offensively.

It should be obvious that folks at WSI are not only smarter than GMs and managers in MLB, but also future Hall of Famers!

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 08:52 PM
I never thought I would see a thread that someone would be calling Ichiro an idiot because of how he appoaches his game offensively.
Re-read the post, you might understand.

spawn
03-12-2010, 09:14 PM
Re-read the post, you might understand.
No thanks. Once was enough.

PalehosePlanet
03-12-2010, 09:14 PM
I never thought I would see a thread that someone would be calling Ichiro an idiot because of how he appoaches his game offensively.

No one called him an idiot. It was said that if can hit home-runs at will, more or less, but chooses instead not to, then he is an idiot.

spawn
03-12-2010, 09:15 PM
No one called him an idiot. It was said that if can hit home-runs at will, more or less, but chooses instead not to, then he is an idiot.
I know what he said.

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 09:21 PM
I know what he said.
Funny way of showing it.

spawn
03-12-2010, 09:22 PM
Funny way of showing it.
:shrug:

jabrch
03-12-2010, 10:46 PM
No one called him an idiot. It was said that if can hit home-runs at will, more or less, but chooses instead not to, then he is an idiot.

That's still completely ridiculous.

No hitter who gets 200 H, 100 R, steal about 30, hit a handful of HRs and hits in the high .300s every year is going to change his swing to swing for the fences. That could end up making him a significantly worse hitter. 30 HRs wouldn't be worth seeing him lose 50 to 100 pts on his avg.

Ichiro probably could hit more HRs, if he wanted to take his HR swing every time. But it would make him a much less effective hitter in many more PAs than it would improve him. No manager would want it. No coach would instruct it. No player would do it. Nelson Cruz....or Ichiro....

sullythered
03-12-2010, 11:03 PM
That's still completely ridiculous.

No hitter who gets 200 H, 100 R, steal about 30, hit a handful of HRs and hits in the high .300s every year is going to change his swing to swing for the fences. That could end up making him a significantly worse hitter. 30 HRs wouldn't be worth seeing him lose 50 to 100 pts on his avg.

Ichiro probably could hit more HRs, if he wanted to take his HR swing every time. But it would make him a much less effective hitter in many more PAs than it would improve him. No manager would want it. No coach would instruct it. No player would do it. Nelson Cruz....or Ichiro....

Of course this is true. This argument is beyond silly. So if Ichiro could be a .250 hitter with 30 homers, he should choose that over what he is? Silly.

PalehosePlanet
03-12-2010, 11:04 PM
That's still completely ridiculous.

No hitter who gets 200 H, 100 R, steal about 30, hit a handful of HRs and hits in the high .300s every year is going to change his swing to swing for the fences. That could end up making him a significantly worse hitter. 30 HRs wouldn't be worth seeing him lose 50 to 100 pts on his avg.

Ichiro probably could hit more HRs, if he wanted to take his HR swing every time. But it would make him a much less effective hitter in many more PAs than it would improve him. No manager would want it. No coach would instruct it. No player would do it. Nelson Cruz....or Ichiro....

The point is: Ichiro could not hit 40, 50, or 60 homers a year if he wanted to; he's simply not that kind of hitter. Regardless of the prodigious shots he hits during batting practice.

jabrch
03-12-2010, 11:05 PM
Of course this is true. This argument is beyond silly. So if Ichiro could be a .250 hitter with 30 homers, he should choose that over what he is? Silly.

I wonder when getting hits became a bad thing?

spawn
03-12-2010, 11:07 PM
Of course this is true. This argument is beyond silly. So if Ichiro could be a .250 hitter with 30 homers, he should choose that over what he is? Silly.

I wonder when getting hits became a bad thing?
Homeruns are sexy!

Craig Grebeck
03-12-2010, 11:39 PM
Whiffs abound in this thread.

jabrch
03-12-2010, 11:40 PM
Homeruns are sexy!

http://rlv.zcache.com/chicks_dig_the_long_ball_chicago_baseball_tee_tshi rt-p235353567803602332trlf_400.jpg

spawn
03-12-2010, 11:44 PM
Whiffs abound in this thread.
You're absolutely right.