PDA

View Full Version : Latest Durham rumor


Jerry_Manuel
07-16-2002, 10:11 AM
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/161sd4.htm):

The latest rumor has second baseman Ray Durham, who will be a free agent after this season, being shipped to Oakland in exchange for starting pitcher Cory Lidle, among others.

duke of dorwood
07-16-2002, 10:26 AM
One of Lidle's wins isnt against us, is it?

34 Inch Stick
07-16-2002, 10:27 AM
If there are 4 or 5 teams out there interested in him, I think we need to do better than Lidle. He has had a lot of promise and only half a good year. It's good to hear the market is starting to heat up on him though. That can only mean good things for the Sox.

hold2dibber
07-16-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
If there are 4 or 5 teams out there interested in him, I think we need to do better than Lidle. He has had a lot of promise and only half a good year. It's good to hear the market is starting to heat up on him though. That can only mean good things for the Sox.

Once Nardi gets ahold of him, his potential will be turned into Cy Young-type effectiveness, I'm sure! You know, just like Kip Wells!

duke of dorwood
07-16-2002, 11:04 AM
That may be all we can get for "Rent-A-Ray"

Randar68
07-16-2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
From the SouthTown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/161sd4.htm):



Sox have been trying to get Lidle since about half way through last season. Personally, I would rather have Bradford back. Lidle is worse than Ritchie IMO.

I would rather get some AA or AAA players with some potential to be REAL contributors. Lidle is not an answer to ANY question for a winning team.

hold2dibber
07-16-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Sox have been trying to get Lidle since about half way through last season. Personally, I would rather have Bradford back. Lidle is worse than Ritchie IMO.

I would rather get some AA or AAA players with some potential to be REAL contributors. Lidle is not an answer to ANY question for a winning team.

Well said - KW's failing, in large part, is that he has brought in, at best, mediocre veterans instead of acquiring players who are, or may be, difference makers. Lidle would fit right in with Alomar, Clayton, and Ritchie as guys who are okay (at best), but if the Sox are going to become contenders, they need players who are better than "okay".

StepsInSC
07-16-2002, 01:16 PM
Wasn't Lidle like a 28 year old rookie last year? He's been really crappy this year. There's no way the most they can get for Durham is Lidle. Lidle blows.

Cheryl
07-16-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Wasn't Lidle like a 28 year old rookie last year? He's been really crappy this year. There's no way the most they can get for Durham is Lidle. Lidle blows.

What do you think they're going to get for a rent a player who leads the league in errors?

Paulwny
07-16-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Well said - KW's failing, in large part, is that he has brought in, at best, mediocre veterans instead of acquiring players who are, or may be, difference makers. Lidle would fit right in with Alomar, Clayton, and Ritchie as guys who are okay (at best), but if the Sox are going to become contenders, they need players who are better than "okay".

I'm not defending KW, his trades have sucked,, but let's also put blame on JR who won't spend money on good fa's and has said he'll never again give long term contracts to pitchers.

Paulwny
07-16-2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl


What do you think they're going to get for a rent a player who leads the league in errors?

Cheryl some people still don't understand, I quit beating this drum, you're right a 1/2 yr. rent a player has very little value.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-16-2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I'm not defending KW, his trades have sucked,, but let's also put blame on JR who won't spend money on good fa's and has said he'll never again give long term contracts to pitchers.

...or deal with any player, no matter how good, if his agent is Scott Boras...

...or become such a well-known pariah, even ballplayers who grew up on the South Side refuse to entertain offers to play for the Sox (like Cliff Floyd)...

...or admit a mistake by removing a lousy player from the everyday lineup if that player is making a hefty salary...

...or raise ticket and parking prices, then lower the payroll, and blame his customers for not supporting the team more...

Oh yeah, we're building a first-class organization on the South Side!

:reinsy
"I wish my fans were idiots like the Cubune's. All they need to do is fire the manager every three years for Flubbie fans to keep believing the lies."

soxtalker
07-16-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl


What do you think they're going to get for a rent a player who leads the league in errors?

OK. So, let's say that we can't get a prospect, but Lidle is an option. Bring it down to two choices -- keep Royce or trade for Lidle. Let's look at the downside of making the trade. (The upside, of course, is that Lidle turns out better than he seems.) It seems that it largely comes down to salarly. What is Lidle's current salary, and how many years do we have to pay him?

BuehrleACE56
07-16-2002, 02:15 PM
I want to get the most that we can for Ray. If that means it Lidle, or a bucket load of minor-leaguers I don't care. If you shop around and Lidle is the best u can do, THEN TAKE IT. Don't hold out KW. He's going to be a rent-a-second baseman (who leads the league in errors) and probably wont be around. If you were a contender, what would you give up for a guy like Ray?

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 02:32 PM
I like the idea of trading for Lidle. Looking at his numbers outside of number of hits allowed he's pitching just like he did last year. Hits allowed falls more on the defense that the pitcher, Lidle is probably just having some bad luck this year. I think he is a good bet to turn things around in the second half. He was one of the 30 best starters in baseball last year and he really isn't that far off this year.

I know a lot of people are gonna look at his ERA and disagree so put me on the book right now. I'm a Lidle fan, ready to be scorned and held accountable if I'm wrong about the guy.

steff
07-16-2002, 03:35 PM
Sweet baby Ray isn't going anywhere folks....

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Sweet baby Ray isn't going anywhere folks....

Hey I hope not.

Randar68
07-16-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Hey I hope not.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to replace him with someone more reilable in the field now, would we? Especially considering our lack of #2 hitters.

His value is astounding....

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Yeah, we wouldn't want to replace him with someone more reilable in the field now, would we? Especially considering our lack of #2 hitters.

His value is astounding....

Let's just say I'm not a fan of trading away our team leader in OBP. Unless you think thats a good way to make the team better?

hold2dibber
07-16-2002, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Sweet baby Ray isn't going anywhere folks....

What makes you think so?

Randar68
07-16-2002, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Let's just say I'm not a fan of trading away our team leader in OBP. Unless you think thats a good way to make the team better?

The fact that he is the team leader in OBP tells you enough about why we need to retool.

Add to that, he makes 6+ million a season and will be a free agent in a couple months.

Yes, Let's keep him .

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


The fact that he is the team leader in OBP tells you enough about why we need to retool.

Add to that, he makes 6+ million a season and will be a free agent in a couple months.

Yes, Let's keep him .

Right now Ray is 11th in the AL in OBP. He'd also be the team leader on 6 other AL teams. Including Anaheim, Oakland and Boston who are all better than us. He's a fine hitter at the top of the order and has been for many years now. Unless Tim Hummel gets back on track we don't even have a viable replacement. Blaiming your best players for your problems and then moving them is bad management. Ray should stay.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-16-2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Right now Ray is 11th in the AL in OBP. He'd also be the team leader on 6 other AL teams. Including Anaheim, Oakland and Boston who are all better than us. He's a fine hitter at the top of the order and has been for many years now. Unless Tim Hummel gets back on track we don't even have a viable replacement. Blaiming your best players for your problems and then moving them is bad management. Ray should stay.

I have no doubt this organization will throw out the baby and leave us with the bathwater. I'm not sure if Ray Durham is worth $6 million to the Sox, but I know he's worth it to a team that means to be a contender, and not a pretender.

:KW
"Okay, what's the spelling on that pitcher's name again? J-a-i-m-e?"

:jaime
"Don't laugh. It could have been T-o-d-d."

:ritchie
"Hey now...!"

pudge
07-16-2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Right now Ray is 11th in the AL in OBP. He'd also be the team leader on 6 other AL teams. Including Anaheim, Oakland and Boston who are all better than us. He's a fine hitter at the top of the order and has been for many years now. Unless Tim Hummel gets back on track we don't even have a viable replacement. Blaiming your best players for your problems and then moving them is bad management. Ray should stay.

This just shows why we should get something pretty dang good for him, more than what you'd get for your average rent-a-player... If Torre hadn't chosen 5 All-Star shortstops, Ray should have gone as a 2B.

steff
07-16-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


What makes you think so?

From what I've been told. And, Ray is well liked here by management, the guys, and the fans. The Sox are clearly in need of more positives than negatives at this point.
He's here for another year.

Randar68
07-16-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by pudge


This just shows why we should get something pretty dang good for him, more than what you'd get for your average rent-a-player... If Torre hadn't chosen 5 All-Star shortstops, Ray should have gone as a 2B.

If Ray hadn't made 14 FREAKING errors in half a season at 2nd FREAKING BASE, he might have gone!


SHEEESH! No wonder the Sox management team only tries to get guys who hit, you morons don't even know what defense is!

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


If Ray hadn't made 14 FREAKING errors in half a season at 2nd FREAKING BASE, he might have gone!


SHEEESH! No wonder the Sox management team only tries to get guys who hit, you morons don't even know what defense is!

Defense? I think I've heard of that but I really don't care because Ray is the only second baseman in the AL who can hit other than Soriano. It's pretty much like that every year. Somebody like Bret Boone or Alfonso Soriano has a big year gets a lot of attention for it, but Ray is the same old good, solid, cosistent Ray Durham. Every year you look at Rays numbers and he's the same guy he was the year before, a good hitting second baseman.

P.S. - Before I get any flack from George I'm talking year to year consistency not day-to-day.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-16-2002, 05:47 PM
Why would we base our personnel decisions on what a player has done the last six weeks? The whole team has been sucking, not just Ray.

The book on Durham is that he's a streaky hitter, has limited range to his right but does well on balls hit into the outfield, and delivers solid OBP numbers. As a secondbasemen, he's not readily replacable--least of all for a sad-sack organization like the Sox.

Besides that, our genius GM can be trusted to get NOTHING for him in trade.

Randar68
07-16-2002, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Why would we base our personnel decisions on what a player has done the last six weeks? The whole team has been sucking, not just Ray.

The book on Durham is that he's a streaky hitter, has limited range to his right but does well on balls hit into the outfield, and delivers solid OBP numbers. As a secondbasemen, he's not readily replacable--least of all for a sad-sack organization like the Sox.

Besides that, our genius GM can be trusted to get NOTHING for him in trade.


Does anyone think the Sox can afford players like Ray at 2B when we have 3! suitable replacements and have enormous holes elsewhere.


Looking at talent and ability is one thing. Weighing that against your financial considerations and other positional needs is what separates the good teams from the bad (minus the teams that buy everyone)

Maggliosfan09
07-16-2002, 05:51 PM
randar u should think b4 u talk. 14 errors in what 80 games? that isn't really that bad if you consider how fast and hard some of these guys are hitting it. Playing 2B (like I do) you have to have very good reflexes to catch the ball sometimes. They're hitting a lot faster than they are to me in softball. Try playing 2B and hitting his #s from year 2 year b4 u start talking bout him.

Maggliosfan09
07-16-2002, 05:54 PM
and there isn't really that many guys that play 2B well. Who are you going to put there?

Randar68
07-16-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Maggliosfan09
randar u should think b4 u talk. 14 errors in what 80 games? that isn't really that bad if you consider how fast and hard some of these guys are hitting it. Playing 2B (like I do) you have to have very good reflexes to catch the ball sometimes. They're hitting a lot faster than they are to me in softball. Try playing 2B and hitting his #s from year 2 year b4 u start talking bout him.



*****! Please. Look around the league and tell me who has more errors at 2B in all of baseball.

That's correct, Ray leads them all....


:ray

"Our fearless leader"

Maggliosfan09
07-16-2002, 06:20 PM
whatever Soriano has 12. not like he's that far behind

cornball
07-16-2002, 07:04 PM
This trade possiblity was also mentioned in the Sunday Suntimes....wonder if it has legs...

Huisj
07-16-2002, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I like the idea of trading for Lidle. Looking at his numbers outside of number of hits allowed he's pitching just like he did last year. Hits allowed falls more on the defense that the pitcher, Lidle is probably just having some bad luck this year. I think he is a good bet to turn things around in the second half. He was one of the 30 best starters in baseball last year and he really isn't that far off this year.

I know a lot of people are gonna look at his ERA and disagree so put me on the book right now. I'm a Lidle fan, ready to be scorned and held accountable if I'm wrong about the guy.

Problem is that it's also very possible that Lidle isn't very good and his stuff isn't all that good, and that's why he gives up lots of hits. Usually, it's batting average on balls in play that is looked at as being mostly just luck as to whether it's high or low. However, if a guys overall Opponents' batting average is high, it usually just means he's very hittable. And that means he's not going to consistently get guys out without giving up runs. and that means i don't think he's going to do much good.

saying that an opposing batting average is mostly just luck is almost (not quite the same but sort of) like saying that a position player's batting average is mostly just luck too. and that obviously isn't true, because if it were, why would some people be consistently good and some be consistently bad at hitting?

Randar68
07-16-2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Huisj


Problem is that it's also very possible that Lidle isn't very good and his stuff isn't all that good, and that's why he gives up lots of hits. Usually, it's batting average on balls in play that is looked at as being mostly just luck as to whether it's high or low. However, if a guys overall Opponents' batting average is high, it usually just means he's very hittable. And that means he's not going to consistently get guys out without giving up runs. and that means i don't think he's going to do much good.

saying that an opposing batting average is mostly just luck is almost (not quite the same but sort of) like saying that a position player's batting average is mostly just luck too. and that obviously isn't true, because if it were, why would some people be consistently good and some be consistently bad at hitting?


Man, that's the long way of say, "I don't think he's very good, although he throws strike, people just hit him all the time"

delben91
07-16-2002, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Maggliosfan09
whatever Soriano has 12. not like he's that far behind

Soriano is also much more inexperienced than Ray. At this point in his career, Ray's defense has pretty much plateaued, he's not going to change much in that arena from here on out unless something drastic happens. Also, soriano has a much better talent surrounding him, making his errors less crucial. Plus the yankees know how to pitch and hit, which always helps. Durham's defense is a whole the Sox aren't good enough to cover up. Either he needs to improve his fielding (not likely to happen at this point in his career), be moved to give someone else a chance (might happen) and/or have his supporting cast improved (hopefully will happen)

kermittheefrog
07-16-2002, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Huisj


Problem is that it's also very possible that Lidle isn't very good and his stuff isn't all that good, and that's why he gives up lots of hits. Usually, it's batting average on balls in play that is looked at as being mostly just luck as to whether it's high or low. However, if a guys overall Opponents' batting average is high, it usually just means he's very hittable. And that means he's not going to consistently get guys out without giving up runs. and that means i don't think he's going to do much good.


Lidle's batting average on balls in play is extremely high, it can be expected to go down significantly.

pudge
07-17-2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


If Ray hadn't made 14 FREAKING errors in half a season at 2nd FREAKING BASE, he might have gone!


SHEEESH! No wonder the Sox management team only tries to get guys who hit, you morons don't even know what defense is!

My point was not that Ray is a defensive guru, but that his offensive numbers warrant him being an All-Star at 2B this year. I think the point of Soriano having 12 errors (if that is indeed true) only drives that home.

Randar, is anyone but you not a moron? ;)

LongDistanceFan
07-17-2002, 08:35 AM
lidle is not a player i would want in return for ray, but knowing kw, he would make the trade for him.

randar and PHG, if lidle is the only option, do the sox make the trade?

Dadawg_77
07-17-2002, 09:00 AM
Honestly the Sox might need to keep Ray, if they don't like what they see in Harris at second. Hummel appears to be on the way out with the Sox latest trade.

What is killing this team is not getting people into scoring postion. We are seventh in the AL, behind Tampa Bay. The freakin devil rays have more at bats with runners in scoring postion then we do. The Twins have 90 more at bats with run is scoring postion then we. The Sox have about a .070 lead in ops over the twins with runners in scoring postion. As pointed out is different post, this is what is killing us. The Sox might need to Ray to get in scoring postion. Maybe the Sox should drop Kenny down the lineup, he is killing us more then Frank is, and move Ray to leadoff.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Honestly the Sox might need to keep Ray, if they don't like what they see in Harris at second. Hummel appears to be on the way out with the Sox latest trade.


I think they'll put Harris in center, Hummel at second base.

dougs78
07-17-2002, 10:24 AM
I'm going to have to side with Randar here. While I like Ray and especially the fact that hes been on the southside his whole career, I think he is replaceable. As Randar points out, there are holes in his game. Unless we are the yankees and are intent on maximizing at each individual position (and paying for it) then we need to be very smart about our money. I'm far from an expert on this, but the critical information needs to be somethign along the lines of "bang for your buck".

So imagine there is an overall rating for palyers on a scale of 100. Lets say we think ray can give us an "75" season, which is very good for about 6 million dollars. lets say we can also get a "65" season from someone else for a salary of less than 1 million dollars. This allows us to save over 5 million dollars while only hurting our team "10 points". This is important because then lets say it comes down to choosing between Todd Ritchie who will give us a "35" season for 4 million or a real pitcher who will give us an "80" season for 8 million. So in essence we have bettered the team while spending less money.

Sorry this is so long and probably confusing, but in closing the Sox need to focus more on how to spend their money better to maximize the overall team at all positions, the Yankees are in a situation to maximize the output at every position. And that is why I think it may be in our best interests to let him go and hopefully spend the money on something that is of a more pressing concern. (ie. our replacement level is much lower)

hold2dibber
07-17-2002, 11:23 AM
I generally agree with your analysis, but I pose this question to both you and Randar: if both Ray and Lofton are gone next year (which is nearly a foregone conclusion), who in pete's sake is going to lead off? Without those guys, we have no one with any kind of speed who has as decent OBP. I am assuming, as I think we must for the time being, that Lofton will be replaced by Borchard and Durham will be replaced by Jiminez, Hummel, or Harris. I know that Randar thinks that Hummel may be able to be a high OBP guy at some point in his career, but I would have serious reservations about thrusting him into that role as a rookie (and keep in mind that he may not even win the position). If Ray goes, while a replacement at his position can be found in the minor league system, his offense -- and his particular offensive strengths -- are not so easily replaced. It seems to me that the Sox would need to use the money saved at 2B on a CF or SS that can hit leadoff. But who fits that bill and might be available? Plus, if the Sox can't get much for Ray, maybe they'd be better off holding onto him and offering him arbitration at the end of the season - that way, assuming he walks, the Sox get a decent draft pick, which may be a lot better than whoever KW might get in trade.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I am assuming, as I think we must for the time being, that Lofton will be replaced by Borchard and Durham will be replaced by Jiminez, Hummel, or Harris. It seems to me that the Sox would need to use the money saved at 2B on a CF or SS that can hit leadoff. But who fits that bill and might be available?

I think we'll see Harris in CF. If they can't move Jose, I think he'll show up at 2nd base. Hummel will take over either in 2004, or at the deadline. I think Harris will lead off as well.

Look, the team is going young again and their not going to spend a lot of money. Erstad is a free agent, but I don't think they'll make a run at him.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I think we'll see Harris in CF. If they can't move Jose, I think he'll show up at 2nd base. Hummel will take over either in 2004, or at the deadline. I think Harris will lead off as well.

Look, the team is going young again and their not going to spend a lot of money. Erstad is a free agent, but I don't think they'll make a run at him.

I think centerfield is reserved for LTP. And even though Hummel is sucking it up right now I still like him more than Harris. Although that could change if he doesn't turn it around.

hold2dibber
07-17-2002, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I think we'll see Harris in CF. If they can't move Jose, I think he'll show up at 2nd base. Hummel will take over either in 2004, or at the deadline. I think Harris will lead off as well.

Look, the team is going young again and their not going to spend a lot of money. Erstad is a free agent, but I don't think they'll make a run at him.

If Harris is CF, does that mean Borchard's still at AAA, or that KW traded Carlos Lee?

I think it is a good idea for this team to re-tool and replace some mediocre, high priced veterans with young guys who have potential - but not without also taking some of the money saved and using it to upgrade at a few positions (particularly pitcher). With all that said, having Harris lead off would be a huge mistake, IMHO. I don't see anything in his numbers that suggest to me that he is ready for that role. A lineup of:

Harris CF
Valentin - 2B
Lee - LF
Maggs - RF
PK - 1B
Frank - DH
Crede - 3B
Hummel - SS
Johnson/Paul/Olivo - C

would probably be worse than this year's lineup. But if they could somehow find a SS or CF who could hit lead off, I'd feel pretty good about that lineup.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think centerfield is reserved for LTP. And even though Hummel is sucking it up right now I still like him more than Harris. Although that could change if he doesn't turn it around.

I'd like to see him on the corners. If they can move Lee, they might. I'd like to see Lee at DH with Thomas out the door but that's just me.


Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think it is a good idea for this team to re-tool and replace some mediocre, high priced veterans with young guys who have potential - but not without also taking some of the money saved and using it to upgrade at a few positions (particularly pitcher). With all that said, having Harris lead off would be a huge mistake, IMHO. I don't see anything in his numbers that suggest to me that he is ready for that role. But if they could somehow find a SS or CF who could hit lead off, I'd feel pretty good about that lineup.

They'll take some of that money and lock up Buehrle and Konerko. The rest will be pocketed by the chairman, as he and his crew roll out the 'kids can play' part two.

dougs78
07-17-2002, 12:09 PM
Dibber, you do bring up a good point. I really don't know who will play leadoff. I guess thats another factor that I didn't really address in that situation. It may be that we can't find a replacement for durham that can do even an remotely come close to his production and thus, while we might be able to replace him "on the field", we may not be able to "in the order." So that his relative value to the team would make it impossible to get rid of him.

In that sense I guess I would agree with your last post as well. I still feel far from comfortable at SS even though we have what seems to be many options right now. In a perfect world, I guess we would be able to find a great-fielding/leadoff-hitting SS next year for about 5 million. I don't see that as anywhere near reality however, so who knows.

Its a complicated process, obviously, that I haven't the knowledge or the time to figure out. But I still think (and hope) that those paid to do the job will be able to make these decisions well. In my mind, that would probably entail durham being traded, but it may well be that the sandwich pick is more valuable than he is in a trade.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 01:03 PM
It's possible the "braintrust" is going to look to D'Angelo Jimenez to lead off.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 01:03 PM
As per the question about who leads off:

Ray has proven time and time again, that he is NOT a leadoff hitter. So the question becomes, if Lofton leaves, who leads off.

Sorry, But Ray is not worth what he makes to a team like the Sox. 2B is perhaps the easiest IF position defensively and usually where a weaker player goes. A solid SS/3B combo is worth a lot more in the long run than any 2B not named Alomar or Kent.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

Sorry, But Ray is not worth what he makes to a team like the Sox. 2B is perhaps the easiest IF position defensively and usually where a weaker player goes

Agree, Ray will be in for a rude awakening when he becomes a fa.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Agree, Ray will be in for a rude awakening when he becomes a fa.

Thats ridiculous, finding a second baseman who can hit is like finding a shortstop who can hit. Second base is easily a tougher defensive position than third base. Good evidence of this is that shortstops are often moved to second before they are tried at third to maximize their defensive value. Also when Roberto Alomar joined the Mets Edgardo Alfonzo was moved to third because they consider Alomar the better fielder. Look at Bill James' defensive spectrum, talk to players, second base is tougher if only because at second you have to turn the double play. Players at second on average suffer more injuries than third baseman because they are worn down more. It's ludicrous to say second base is an easier position to play than third unless you are talking about little league.

delben91
07-17-2002, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

It's ludicrous to say second base is an easier position to play than third unless you are talking about little league.

Well, with a few key improvements, the Sox may be good enough to compare them with a little league team. Don't get too far ahead of yourself though kermit :smile:

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Thats ridiculous, finding a second baseman who can hit is like finding a shortstop who can hit. Second base is easily a tougher defensive position than third base. Good evidence of this is that shortstops are often moved to second before they are tried at third to maximize their defensive value. Also when Roberto Alomar joined the Mets Edgardo Alfonzo was moved to third because they consider Alomar the better fielder. Look at Bill James' defensive spectrum, talk to players, second base is tougher if only because at second you have to turn the double play. Players at second on average suffer more injuries than third baseman because they are worn down more. It's ludicrous to say second base is an easier position to play than third unless you are talking about little league.

3rd base is a reflex position and calls for a strong arm while at 2nd base you can knock a ball down and still get the out.
Ray still hasn't learned that balls hit to his right are playable.
Soriano was tried at third by the yankmees when Knoblouch was there, it was a disaster. They sent him back down to learn 2nd base.
I'll grant you turning the dp is difficult but, Soriano in only his second full year at 2nd is equal to Ray, it's not rocket science.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


3rd base is a reflex position and calls for a strong arm while at 2nd base you can knock a ball down and still get the out.
Ray still hasn't learned that balls hit to his right are playable.
Soriano was tried at third by the yankmees when Knoblouch was there, it was a disaster. They sent him back down to learn 2nd base.
I'll grant you turning the dp is difficult but, Soriano in only his second full year at 2nd is equal to Ray, it's not rocket science.

What exactly is your point here?

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 02:09 PM
I think Valentin and Clayton need to go elsewhere, Durham's defense is not why this team is losing, and the 6.5 million they are spending on Ray is going a lot further than whatever the hell they are paying the left side of that infield. I'd be hard pressed to find a better rightt side west of Soriano/Giambi. They need to bring up Crede, and find a shortstop who can play good defense and post a .740-.760 OPS. Perhaps they feel Jimenez is that guy.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
I think Valentin and Clayton need to go elsewhere, Durham's defense is not why this team is losing, and the 6.5 million they are spending on Ray is going a lot further than whatever the hell they are paying the left side of that infield. I'd be hard pressed to find a better rightt side west of Soriano/Giambi. They need to bring up Crede, and find a shortstop who can play good defense and post a .740-.760 OPS. Perhaps they feel Jimenez is that guy.

How ironic, it takes the Cubs fan to come in an talk some sense.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


What exactly is your point here?

That many times, not all times, the 3rd baseman is a better fielder then the 2nd baseman. Isn't that what you questioned me on?

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


That many times, not all times, the 3rd baseman is a better fielder then the 2nd baseman. Isn't that what you questioned me on?

How did you prove that? If what you said is correct then Soriano who had no experience at a position outside of short was called up and tried at third. Since he couldn't immediately pick up third he was sent to the minors to learn second. Don't you think if third was tougher they wouldn't have thrown him to the wolves there? They gave him a shot at the easiest position where they could afford to put him on the field. Then he went to get experience learning second base. Does that not say something to you?

BTW - It might help to know he only played 10 games at third. So he wasn't seriously tried at third, thats just where he had a chance to play.

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 02:22 PM
Having said all that, I don't think Durham can leadoff. And I'm not sure if Jiminez can post a .750 OPS next season. And the likelihood of dumping the contracts of Valentin and Clayton at this point-for something of value-is awfully remote. Carlos Lee is a very valuable commodity, and I think Mr. Osuna is as well.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


How did you prove that? If what you said is correct then Soriano who had no experience at a position outside of short was called up and tried at third. Since he couldn't immediately pick up third he was sent to the minors to learn second. Don't you think if third was tougher they wouldn't have thrown him to the wolves there? They gave him a shot at the easiest position where they could afford to put him on the field. Then he went to get experience learning second base. Does that not say something to you?

The yankmees realised that Soriano doesn't have the quickness to play third so thet sent him back down to learn a less demanding position.
Knoblauch was the perfect example of an infielder who could only play 2nd, at times he'd underhand the ball to first, it looked like little league.
The 2nd baseman usually has the weakest arm in the infield.
I think that the better infielders are on the left side.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


The yankmees realised that Soriano doesn't have the quickness to play third so thet sent him back down to learn a less demanding position.
Knoblauch was the perfect example of an infielder who could only play 2nd, at times he'd underhand the ball to first, it looked like little league.
The 2nd baseman usually has the weakest arm in the infield.
I think that the better infielders are on the left side.

The second baseman often has the weakest arm but it still requires more skill to play second. Check out my note about Soriano. He played 10 games at third, that can't tell you anything about whether or not he can play third or not. He was sent to the minors to learn the next toughest position after short, second base.

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


The yankmees realised that Soriano doesn't have the quickness to play third so thet sent him back down to learn a less demanding position.
Knoblauch was the perfect example of an infielder who could only play 2nd, at times he'd underhand the ball to first, it looked like little league.
The 2nd baseman usually has the weakest arm in the infield.
I think that the better infielders are on the left side.

I think the Yankees realized they had to replace Knoblauch and fast!

2b is more difficult to play than 3b.

Soriano has a very good arm, btw.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal


I think the Yankees realized they had to replace Knoblauch and fast!

2b is more difficult to play than 3b.

Soriano has a very good arm, btw.

I know Soriano has a very good arm, I get to see every damn yankmee game.

I still disagree on the difficulty of the positions.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


The second baseman often has the weakest arm but it still requires more skill to play second. Check out my note about Soriano. He played 10 games at third, that can't tell you anything about whether or not he can play third or not. He was sent to the minors to learn the next toughest position after short, second base.

Disagree, the yankmees wanted him at 3rd at that time and he doesn't have the reflexes. They were able to see this.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Disagree, the yankmees wanted him at 3rd at that time and he doesn't have the reflexes. They were able to see this.

Thats ridiculous. You can't tell anything from 10 games. People even floated the idea of Paul Konerko at third around for several years and many games. If the Yankees wanted Soriano at third he would have gotten more experience there before they gave up on him playing there.

Also how do you explain Ron Gant? He started at second, was bad. Moved to third, was bad. Found a home in the outfield. Were the Braves just stupid and didn't know third is a tougher position than second and were wasting their time?

Randar68
07-17-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Thats ridiculous, finding a second baseman who can hit is like finding a shortstop who can hit. Second base is easily a tougher defensive position than third base. Good evidence of this is that shortstops are often moved to second before they are tried at third to maximize their defensive value.

IMO, 90% of the time SS's are moved to 2B is because they don't hit like a 3rd baseman. For power, average, or both. 2B requirems more mobility, but I would not agree that it is a more dificult position.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Thats ridiculous. You can't tell anything from 10 games position

Argue with Torre and his coaching staff, when Soriano was put at 3rd it was meant to be permanent and it didn't work out.
Right now Soriano is the worst fielder on the yankmees.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Argue with Torre and his coaching staff, when Soriano was put at 3rd it was meant to be permanent and it didn't work out.
Right now Soriano is the worst fielder on the yankmees.

Okay here's some stuff in my corner.

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/colrod103.htm

http://redsoxbaseball.tripod.com/benbadler/10callups.html

Look towards the bottom of both of those pages, they are articles from 2000. One has a comment about Torre considering moving Jeter from short in favor of Soriano. The other just points out the idea that Soriano would get time at third and second instead of his natural position shortstop.

If the Yankees intended to have Soriano at third all along why would Torre consider moving Jeter? Soriano was never intended to play third. There was some consideration of moving him to left but that never materialized because he's move valuable at second.

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 03:03 PM
If Scott Brosius, Clay Bellinger, and whomever else the Yankees had at 3b last season are more agile than Alfonso Soriano, I will eat my hat. To conclude that the Yankees dismissed the notion of Soriano at 3b based upon his lack of suitable reflexes (after 10 games) is patently laughable.

I'd love to see some tangible evidence of this.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


IMO, 90% of the time SS's are moved to 2B is because they don't hit like a 3rd baseman. For power, average, or both. 2B requirems more mobility, but I would not agree that it is a more dificult position.

So third basemen are just offensively and defnsively superior to second basemen? I'm sorry but that's just not the way the world works. The expected offense/defense skill level of each position are inverses. It's hard to find guys who can play major league shortstop so teams live with them not being able to hit. If second base was easier to play than third it would be the bigger offensive position. What you're arguing just doesn't work logically.

Doesn't that make sense? If it was easier to find guys with the ability to play second base wouldn't it be easier to stick a hitter there that isn't a great defender? But we don't see that happen with second. We see it happen at third when guys like Jim Thome and Paul Konerko play there before moving across the diamond to first.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
If Scott Brosius, Clay Bellinger, and whomever else the Yankees had at 3b last season are more agile than Alfonso Soriano, I will eat my hat. To conclude that the Yankees dismissed the notion of Soriano at 3b based upon his lack of suitable reflexes (after 10 games) is patently laughable.

I'd love to see some tangible evidence of this.

Oh yeah. Go logic.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Doesn't that make sense? If it was easier to find guys with the ability to play second base wouldn't it be easier to stick a hitter there that isn't a great defender? But we don't see that happen with second. We see it happen at third when guys like Jim Thome and Paul Konerko play there before moving across the diamond to first.

The point you are missing is this:

To play 2B or SS, you have to be more mobile. You DO have more ground to cover, as well as the double play, which I will admit, is one of the toughest infield plays to make for a 2B. However, on a play-to-play basis, the 3B has the ball hit a MUCH shorter distance, frequently at a much greater speed, and has a FAR more difficult throw to make.

The Fact that 1B and 3B don't have to cover much ground is one of the main reasons you see so many big guys and power hitters in those positions. Their bats warrant them playing, and if they can field the stuff hit within about 10 feet of them, then amen. 2B is most predominantly where SS's who either can't make the throw or don't have enough range are moved to. NOT because it is the second hardest position, but rather they are mobile/agile enough to have played SS (where most of the best athletes are played from age 8 on up). You can't make a comparison by saying, moving Paul Konerko to 3rd might work, while 2B is laughable. There are blatant restrictions placed on the ability to play those positions adequately.

Is this clear enough to see my perspective? Re-iterating that 3B and 1B would never be able to play 2B is a total crock of ***** comparison, and you know this.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


The point you are missing is this:

To play 2B or SS, you have to be more mobile. You DO have more ground to cover, as well as the double play, which I will admit, is one of the toughest infield plays to make for a 2B. However, on a play-to-play basis, the 3B has the ball hit a MUCH shorter distance, frequently at a much greater speed, and has a FAR more difficult throw to make.

The Fact that 1B and 3B don't have to cover much ground is one of the main reasons you see so many big guys and power hitters in those positions. Their bats warrant them playing, and if they can field the stuff hit within about 10 feet of them, then amen. 2B is most predominantly where SS's who either can't make the throw or don't have enough range are moved to. NOT because it is the second hardest position, but rather they are mobile/agile enough to have played SS (where most of the best athletes are played from age 8 on up). You can't make a comparison by saying, moving Paul Konerko to 3rd might work, while 2B is laughable. There are blatant restrictions placed on the ability to play those positions adequately.

Is this clear enough to see my perspective? Re-iterating that 3B and 1B would never be able to play 2B is a total crock of ***** comparison, and you know this.

The fact that is requires a more mobile person and is therefore more demanding makes it the second hardest position dude. Thats the part you're not getting.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
The fact that is requires a more mobile person and is therefore more demanding makes it the second hardest position dude. Thats the part you're not getting.

The part you are not getting is that Durham is not a very good defensive 2B, dude.

Name me the 2B on the last 10 World Series Champions.

Yeah, a bunch of difference makers. What are we trying to build here, a team of fan-favorites or a real contender. Spend your money where it counts. 2B is NOT one of them, especially when you have suitable replacements.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


The part you are not getting is that Durham is not a very good defensive 2B, dude.

Name me the 2B on the last 10 World Series Champions.

Yeah, a bunch of difference makers. What are we trying to build here, a team of fan-favorites or a real contender. Spend your money where it counts. 2B is NOT one of them, especially when you have suitable replacements.

I know Durham isn't a good defensive second baseman but I think his bat makes up for it. And to all who say he can't lead off, he was the leadoff hitter on a 96 win team two years ago. It wasn't a career year or an out of character year for him so I say thats all the proof I need.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Randar68



Name me the 2B on the last 10 World Series Champions.



This list doesn't really back you up. It's got Craig Counsell appearing twice, Mark Lemke once and a 33 year old Mariano Duncan who had to be worse than Ray in the field by then. Go back one more year and there's a 35 year old Willie Randolph.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
And to all who say he can't lead off, he was the leadoff hitter on a 96 win team two years ago. It wasn't a career year or an out of character year for him so I say thats all the proof I need.

He wasn't the sole reason they won 96 games, but yes that is true. Ray isn't coming back next season, so let's move on.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


This list doesn't really back you up. It's got Craig Counsell appearing twice, Mark Lemke once and a 33 year old Mariano Duncan who had to be worse than Ray in the field by then. Go back one more year and there's a 35 year old Willie Randolph.

EXACTLY MY FREAKING POINT!

There are 2 conversation points going here:
1) 2B are not as important to a team's success and defense from that position is most important (with a respectable OBP)
2) Ray is a fire Hydrant making 6 million a year at 2B on a club that has known financial restraints.
3) 2B is not one of the more difficult IF positions.

The above point about 2B is exactly my point(#1, LOL). If we're trying to build a team of over-paid fan favorites, then I guess we should keep Ray. Otherwise, SEE YA RAY!

Randar68
07-17-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


He wasn't the sole reason they won 96 games, but yes that is true. Ray isn't coming back next season, so let's move on.

Not unless he's willing to take a 50% pay cut.

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


If the Yankees intended to have Soriano at third all along why would Torre consider moving Jeter? Soriano was never intended to play third. There was some consideration of moving him to left but that never materialized because he's move valuable at second.

From one of your articles:

The Yankees won’t put Soriano at shortstop when they call him up from Triple A Columbus because they have Jeter manning that position. However, with second baseman Chuck Knoblauch continuing to have defensive struggles at second base, and Scott Brosius batting just .248 at third base, Soriano may find playing time at two other key infield positions in New York.

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


EXACTLY MY FREAKING POINT!

There are 2 conversation points going here:
1) 2B are not as important to a team's success and defense from that position is most important (with a respectable OBP)
2) Ray is a fire Hydrant making 6 million a year at 2B on a club that has known financial restraints.
3) 2B is not one of the more difficult IF positions.

The above point about 2B is exactly my point(#1, LOL). If we're trying to build a team of over-paid fan favorites, then I guess we should keep Ray. Otherwise, SEE YA RAY!

But if Ray is one of our better players, which he is. How does him leaving make us better the last 10 World Series teams be damned?

Randar68
07-17-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


But if Ray is one of our better players, which he is. How does him leaving make us better the last 10 World Series teams be damned?

The 6 plus million in $$$$$ now available to spend elsewhere, such as keeping other, more key players like PK, Maggs, Buehrle, or to get more starting pitching?

Are you familiar with the term "marginal utility" in relation to economics?

Paulwny
07-17-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
If Scott Brosius, Clay Bellinger, and whomever else the Yankees had at 3b last season are more agile than Alfonso Soriano, I will eat my hat. To conclude that the Yankees dismissed the notion of Soriano at 3b based upon his lack of suitable reflexes (after 10 games) is patently laughable.

I'd love to see some tangible evidence of this.

Only what I hear during the yankmee games. Brosius today could field better then Soriano. He can't hit, that's why he retired, and the reason they signed Ventura. A good fielding 3rd baseman who still can hit with power.

I think Brosius was coming off the dl and the announcer said roughly, Soriano was sent to Columbus today where he'll play 2nd base, they don't believe he's suited to be a 3rd baseman.

FarWestChicago
07-17-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
2) Ray is a fire Hydrant making 6 million a year at 2B on a club that has known financial restraints.I'm getting confused here. I thought Kermit was the Frog Man. Only Dogs like Fire Hydrants that much. :smile:

steff
07-17-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


2) Ray is a fire Hydrant making 6 million a year at 2B on a club that has known financial restraints.



"Known financial restraints".... That's interesting since the Sox are not paying any rent (for the last 4 years?), which is how many millions free..? This team is not in any financial troubles. Honestly, I'm guessing the Sox are one of the top 10 richest teams because of the "no fans, no pay" clauses.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
"Known financial restraints".... That's interesting since the Sox are not paying any rent (for the last 4 years?), which is how many millions free..? This team is not in any financial troubles. Honestly, I'm guessing the Sox are one of the top 10 richest teams because of the "no fans, no pay" clauses.

One of us is going by low attendance and other such financial indicators (as well as pretty weak local broadcast agreements), and the other on pure speculation.

If teams out there have financial restraints, I'm pretty confident the Sox are one of them.

In the end, whether we believe we have financial restraints or not, that is the way the team is run. Until we have a new owner, you all had better get over it and take it into consideration when topics like this arise.

whitesoxwilkes
07-17-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Are you familiar with the term "marginal utility" in relation to economics?

right from my freshman year econ notes from U of I:

imagine varying the quantity of one good while spending whatever income we have left on the optimal bundle of everything else.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by steff3603

"Known financial restraints".... That's interesting since the Sox are not paying any rent (for the last 4 years?), which is how many millions free..? This team is not in any financial troubles. Honestly, I'm guessing the Sox are one of the top 10 richest teams because of the "no fans, no pay" clauses.

If the best reason for dumping Ray is to save the Chairman more money, count me out. He's been playing this shell game with us for ten years now--always 2-3 pieces of the puzzle away from holding a championship hand. The taxpayers build him a cost-free, rent-free ballpark with 100 luxury boxes and the guy has done nothing but whine and pass the hat ever since.

Screw Reinsdorf. If you love mediocrity, keep letting him tell us the grass will be greener when the young guys (pronounced "cheap guys") finally mature.

I'm one Sox Fan who isn't falling for his Three Card Monte tricks anymore.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes


right from my freshman year econ notes from U of I:

imagine varying the quantity of one good while spending whatever income we have left on the optimal bundle of everything else.

More generally, it has to do with weighing your (always limited) resources versus your wants. Basically an economic term equivalent to back-for-buck, but applying to any type of resource, not just money.

UofI? Did you have Gottheil? LOL!

steff
07-17-2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


One of us is going by low attendance and other such financial indicators (as well as pretty weak local broadcast agreements), and the other on pure speculation.

If teams out there have financial restraints, I'm pretty confident the Sox are one of them.

In the end, whether we believe we have financial restraints or not, that is the way the team is run. Until we have a new owner, you all had better get over it and take it into consideration when topics like this arise.

Ouch Randar.. that hurt!!

steff
07-17-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


He wasn't the sole reason they won 96 games, but yes that is true. Ray isn't coming back next season, so let's move on.


Jerry... how much you wana lose :D:

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Screw Reinsdorf. If you love mediocrity, keep letting him tell us the grass will be greener when the young guys (pronounced "cheap guys") finally mature.

I'm one Sox Fan who isn't falling for his Three Card Monte tricks anymore.

I don't think anyone believes his poor talk. People have come to accept the fact that he won't spend money.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Jerry... how much you wana lose :D:

They may lose next year, but at least the guys on the field will have some heart.

Randar68
07-17-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I don't think anyone believes his poor talk. People have come to accept the fact that he won't spend money.

Exactly my point. If people want a winner, then only the most frugal of financial decisions will give us that. Paying the human Fire Hydrant 6+ million a year is NOT one of them.

steff
07-17-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


They may lose next year, but at least the guys on the field will have some heart.

Nooooo... This..


Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Ray isn't coming back next season, so let's move on.


Jerry... how much you wana lose


Wana bet if Ray's back next year or not..?

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Wana bet if Ray's back next year or not..?

No I don't. I'm not cocky enough to put my money where my mouth is. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Exactly my point. If people want a winner, then only the most frugal of financial decisions will give us that. Paying the human Fire Hydrant 6+ million a year is NOT one of them.

So Durham is gone. Who plays second base for the Sox? Who bats #2?

Don't tell me how much we save; tell me how the team gets better. So far, I'm not seeing it.

If your point is Reinsdorf is a cheap-skate owner, point taken. Allowing him to dump Durham's salary doesn't begin to address the real problem: our 85 years wandering aimlessly in the wilderness.

whitesoxwilkes
07-17-2002, 04:44 PM
Randar: nope, had Webber for both 101-102 and he has since moved on to greener pastures (teaches at some scrub college in Iowa now)

Stef: I'll take the other side of the bet. what's on the line?

steff
07-17-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by whitesoxwilkes
Randar: nope, had Webber for both 101-102 and he has since moved on to greener pastures (teaches at some scrub college in Iowa now)

Stef: I'll take the other side of the bet. what's on the line?

Ray will be here, you're saying he wont. Whatever you want to lose... :D:

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
So Durham is gone. Who plays second base for the Sox? Who bats #2?

Don't tell me how much we save; tell me how the team gets better. So far, I'm not seeing it.

If your point is Reinsdorf is a cheap-skate owner, point taken. Allowing him to dump Durham's salary doesn't begin to address the real problem: our 85 years wandering aimlessly in the wilderness.

Unless they trade him, it might be Valentin. Rebuilding plan number 36 or 37 now.

whitesoxwilkes
07-17-2002, 04:59 PM
stef, you pick!

Randar68
07-17-2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Unless they trade him, it might be Valentin. Rebuilding plan number 36 or 37 now.

Take your pick of Hummel, Harris or Jimenez. In the long run, I feel Hummel will be the better hitter out of the bunch. Not only that, but he makes the plays. You won't see 5-hole shots of ESPN's bloopers.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Take your pick of Hummel, Harris or Jimenez. In the long run, I feel Hummel will be the better hitter out of the bunch. Not only that, but he makes the plays. You won't see 5-hole shots of ESPN's bloopers.

Would I be wrong in thinking they'll have Jose at 2nd and Jimenez at SS?

Randar68
07-17-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Would I be wrong in thinking they'll have Jose at 2nd and Jimenez at SS?

Well, I don't think either one of them SHOULD play short, but I would really rather have Jose there if they are going to start. At least Jimenez has played some 2B too.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Unless they trade him, it might be Valentin. Rebuilding plan number 36 or 37 now.

See, I'm not buying that Valentin at 2B improves the ballclub. Furthermore, Valentin is no kind of switch hitter like Ray. The Tinkerer has been benching him against lefties even for slots in the bottom-half of the lineup.

I'm tired of rebuilding plans. We've been rebuilding for 85 years, most famously in 1997 when we ditched an entire season so the Chairman could "prove" his doubters wrong in the championship clubhouse three years later. Why isn't Reinsdorf talking loud right now? Maybe because his doubters have been "proven" right in the time since then?

Fish ain't bitin' this time. BUILD a winner; don't give me excuses.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
See, I'm not buying that Valentin at 2B improves the ballclub. Furthermore, Valentin is no kind of switch hitter like Ray. The Tinkerer has been benching him against lefties even for slots in the bottom-half of the lineup.

I'm tired of rebuilding plans. We've been rebuilding for 85 years, most famously in 1997 when we ditched an entire season so the Chairman could "prove" his doubters wrong in the championship clubhouse three years later. Why isn't Reinsdorf talking loud right now? Maybe because his doubters have been "proven" right in the time since then?

Fish ain't bitin' this time. BUILD a winner; don't give me excuses.

I'm not saying Valentin at 2nd or SS is the best thing for the team.

You and I both know they'll keep using the same old excuses they've been using for years now.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
You and I both know they'll keep using the same old excuses they've been using for years now.

Yeah, that's probably what is irritating me the most. You know Reinsdorf isn't going to change his stripes. If getting an entire ballpark built for free wasn't good enough for him, what makes any of us think paying Ray Durham $6 million was a reasonable request?

That bastard just needs to the get hell out. We're going nowhere with him. Absolutely nowhere.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If getting an entire ballpark built for free wasn't good enough for him, what makes any of us think paying Ray Durham $6 million was a reasonable request?

That bastard just needs to the get hell out. We're going nowhere with him. Absolutely nowhere.

A ballpark that he is looking remodel as well. Looking to remodel it with 20 million dollars in public funds.

Somehow I don't think his son will be any different. If and when he does take over this organization. I wonder if David Reinsdorf will build that "first class organization" we've heard so much about.

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 06:05 PM
A few things directed towards some of the posts since my departure:

1). If the Yankees wanted to try out Soriano at 3b in earnest, he would've stayed at Columbus or Norwich and learned the position. I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion that Alfonso Soriano cannot adequately handle 3b after being thrown into the fire at the ML level, and manning the hot corner for 10 games. He has more natural athletic ability in his right hallux toe than Scott Brosius ever had. For God's sake, Ron Coomer has started 10 games at 3b for the Yankees this season, are you going to tell me he's a better fielder than Alfonso Soriano?

2). I don't see how getting rid of Durham solves the problem. Offensively he's amongst the better 2b in baseball. Defensively, while he leads the league in errors at his position, his range factor is 4th (behind Mike Young, Adam Kennedy, and Ricky Gutierrez), and his zone rating is in the top third as well(#8 overall). Moreover he is 3rd in total chances and putouts, and 6th in assists. Those numbers suggest he gets to balls most other 2b cannot get to; also take into account that since the Sox staff is primarily filled with groundball pitchers (Buehrle,Wright, Garland, and Ritchie are all in the top 30 G/F ratio in the AL) he will most likely make more errors than other 2b.

While Durham makes 6.3 million, it seems to me his production is more valuable than Clayton (4.5 million) and Valentin (5 million); Putting Crede at 3b, and Jimenez at SS would seem to me the best decision.



oh, as an aside, I thought MLB used Rawlings baseballs. So the caption on the homepage should be Goodbye Mr. Rawlings. I may be mistaken though!

kermittheefrog
07-17-2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
A few things directed towards some of the posts since my departure:

1). If the Yankees wanted to try out Soriano at 3b in earnest, he would've stayed at Columbus or Norwich and learned the position. I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion that Alfonso Soriano cannot adequately handle 3b after being thrown into the fire at the ML level, and manning the hot corner for 10 games. He has more natural athletic ability in his right hallux toe than Scott Brosius ever had. For God's sake, Ron Coomer has started 10 games at 3b for the Yankees this season, are you going to tell me he's a better fielder than Alfonso Soriano?

2). I don't see how getting rid of Durham solves the problem. Offensively he's amongst the better 2b in baseball. Defensively, while he leads the league in errors at his position, his range factor is 4th (behind Mike Young, Adam Kennedy, and Ricky Gutierrez), and his zone rating is in the top third as well(#8 overall). Moreover he is 3rd in total chances and putouts, and 6th in assists. Those numbers suggest he gets to balls most other 2b cannot get to; also take into account that since the Sox staff is primarily filled with groundball pitchers (Buehrle,Wright, Garland, and Ritchie are all in the top 30 G/F ratio in the AL) he will most likely make more errors than other 2b.

While Durham makes 6.3 million, it seems to me his production is more valuable than Clayton (4.5 million) and Valentin (5 million); Putting Crede at 3b, and Jimenez at SS would seem to me the best decision.



oh, as an aside, I thought MLB used Rawlings baseballs. So the caption on the homepage should be Goodbye Mr. Rawlings. I may be mistaken though!

OOOOOOOOO YEEEEEEEEEAHHH! Vic tearing the house down stathead style, in this thread alone he's brought up both OPS and zone rating.

Jerry_Manuel
07-17-2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
OOOOOOOOO YEEEEEEEEEAHHH! Vic tearing the house down stathead style, in this thread alone he's brought up both OPS and zone rating.

That he did.

Now all he needs to do is start thinking like Jerry Reinsdorf. Then he has something that we can all use.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-17-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
oh, as an aside, I thought MLB used Rawlings baseballs. So the caption on the homepage should be Goodbye Mr. Rawlings. I may be mistaken though!

They do use Rawlings baseballs, smart guy. "Good-bye, Mr. Spaulding!" is a reference to the movie, "The Natural". The radio play-by-play announcer used it as his homerun call. Since then, several of the mental midgets who report sports for ESPN and others have copied it, too.

"Good-bye, Mr. Rawlings!" simply doesn't have the same panache.

:)

Vsahajpal
07-17-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


They do use Rawlings baseballs, smart guy. "Good-bye, Mr. Spaulding!" is a reference to the movie, "The Natural". The radio play-by-play announcer used it as his homerun call. Since then, several of the mental midgets who report sports for ESPN and others have copied it, too.

"Good-bye, Mr. Rawlings!" simply doesn't have the same pinache.

:)

My bad :)