PDA

View Full Version : Trade Valentin, Keep Clayton


jacobp
08-05-2002, 08:53 AM
I know Clayton gets ripped regularly on WSI and Valentin seems to be spared the same level of vilification, but I strongly disagree. The calls to get rid of Clayton and keep Valentin are, I would suggest, dead wrong.

Clayton is at best at 230-250 hitter (currently 248), with little power. Valentin has obviously lost it at the plate. He cannot hit leftys and is hitting around 240 with the same OBP as Clayton, but more power. Clayton's contract is over this year, Valentin has another year left on his.

The key to the analysis is defense. Looking to the future, the question is which one would you want to play SS (3B is no longer an option). Valentin is an absolute disaster at SS, Clayton is "gold glove" caliber. Nearly every championship level team starts with the old adage of "strength up the middle" and the cornerstone of that strength is the SS.

Given that their BAs and OBPs are roughly the same, I would argue that Valenitn's advantage in slugging pct is more than offset by the additional outs he gives the other team and the related additional stress he imposes on our already very frail pitching staff.

With a year left on his contract, there may be some value in Valentin to another team. He is the one to get rid of, keep Clayton and sign him to a multi-year deal as there appears to be absolutely no one of significance in our minor-league system at SS (don't tell me that Jimenez is ready for the majors; he's about as ready as Kevin Bell was, oh so many years ago).

duke of dorwood
08-05-2002, 08:55 AM
I'd dump Clayton and his "attitude" if he was hitting .300

FarmerAndy
08-05-2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by jacobp
I know Clayton gets ripped regularly on WSI and Valentin seems to be spared the same level of vilification, but I strongly disagree. The calls to get rid of Clayton and keep Valentin are, I would suggest, dead wrong.

Clayton is at best at 230-250 hitter (currently 248), with little power. Valentin has obviously lost it at the plate. He cannot hit leftys and is hitting around 240 with the same OBP as Clayton, but more power. Clayton's contract is over this year, Valentin has another year left on his.

The key to the analysis is defense. Looking to the future, the question is which one would you want to play SS (3B is no longer an option). Valentin is an absolute disaster at SS, Clayton is "gold glove" caliber. Nearly every championship level team starts with the old adage of "strength up the middle" and the cornerstone of that strength is the SS.

Given that their BAs and OBPs are roughly the same, I would argue that Valenitn's advantage in slugging pct is more than offset by the additional outs he gives the other team and the related additional stress he imposes on our already very frail pitching staff.

With a year left on his contract, there may be some value in Valentin to another team. He is the one to get rid of, keep Clayton and sign him to a multi-year deal as there appears to be absolutely no one of significance in our minor-league system at SS (don't tell me that Jimenez is ready for the majors; he's about as ready as Kevin Bell was, oh so many years ago).

You're missing the point. Valentin has guts, so when he makes and out or an error it doesn't hurt the team as much.

nut_stock
08-05-2002, 10:33 AM
"It's not what you hit, it's when you hit em"

Tragg
08-05-2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by jacobp


The key to the analysis is defense. Looking to the future, the question is which one would you want to play SS (3B is no longer an option). Valentin is an absolute disaster at SS, Clayton is "gold glove" caliber. Nearly every championship level team starts with the old adage of "strength up the middle" and the cornerstone of that strength is the SS.

Given that their BAs and OBPs are roughly the same, I would argue that Valenitn's advantage in slugging pct is more than offset by the additional outs he gives the other team and the related additional stress he imposes on our already very frail pitching staff.



Clayton "gold glove caliber"? He has marginal range. Sure, he makes no errors - he also lets balls go through as hits that average shortstops, including valentin, would have nabbed. He makes 4.5 million - 4.5 million a year, and we want to take that on on another multi-year basis?
And his offense is abysmal, much worse than his .240 average attests (he refuses to take a walk and is incapable of situational hitting).
he's worth 500k-1 million a year, and although that's about what he'll sign for if he plays after this season, it won't be with the Sox (thank goodness).

FarmerAndy
08-05-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Tragg


He makes 4.5 million - 4.5 million a year, and we want to take that on on another multi-year basis?

he's worth 500k-1 million a year, and although that's about what he'll sign for if he plays after this season, .

In all seriousness, I'm not trying to bust your balls here. How would we be taking on his 4.5 million a year for another multi-year basis if we were to resign him?

If he were to resign, he'd work for a lot cheaper. You said that yourself at the end of your post.

TheBigHurt
08-05-2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy


You're missing the point. Valentin has guts, so when he makes and out or an error it doesn't hurt the team as much.

i agree he has a good attitude and his a much better leader

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-05-2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by jacobp
I know Clayton gets ripped regularly on WSI and Valentin seems to be spared the same level of vilification, but I strongly disagree. The calls to get rid of Clayton and keep Valentin are, I would suggest, dead wrong.

Clayton is at best at 230-250 hitter (currently 248), with little power. Valentin has obviously lost it at the plate. He cannot hit leftys and is hitting around 240 with the same OBP as Clayton, but more power. Clayton's contract is over this year, Valentin has another year left on his.

The key to the analysis is defense. Looking to the future, the question is which one would you want to play SS (3B is no longer an option). Valentin is an absolute disaster at SS, Clayton is "gold glove" caliber. Nearly every championship level team starts with the old adage of "strength up the middle" and the cornerstone of that strength is the SS.

Given that their BAs and OBPs are roughly the same, I would argue that Valenitn's advantage in slugging pct is more than offset by the additional outs he gives the other team and the related additional stress he imposes on our already very frail pitching staff.

With a year left on his contract, there may be some value in Valentin to another team. He is the one to get rid of, keep Clayton and sign him to a multi-year deal as there appears to be absolutely no one of significance in our minor-league system at SS (don't tell me that Jimenez is ready for the majors; he's about as ready as Kevin Bell was, oh so many years ago).

Keep THE CHOICE over Manos? Please tell me you're not serious! K-Layton has no range, no heart, no arm, no bat and no balls. Valentin is the best clutch hitter on the team and makes plays in the field that Roycie couldn't make in his dreams.

Cheryl
08-05-2002, 11:25 AM
I'd get rid of both of them. I like Jose, like his hustle, but not enough to keep him around. I've never liked Royce--he's just not good enough defensively to make up for his batting and his attitude.

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 11:26 AM
Another Monos\Choice thread.............. I've beaten this dead horse before.

NUKE_CLEVELAND
08-05-2002, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Another Monos\Choice thread.............. I've beaten this dead horse before.

Ok then lets talk about Thomas again. :D:

baggio202
08-05-2002, 11:42 AM
joe cowley for the daily southtown said it best

"valentin would run through a wall for his teammates...clayton would blame the wall for being in his way"

that is the best description of those two ive ever read...perfect

get clayton out of here before his ****ty "me first" has a chance to rub off on crede and harris...

FarmerAndy
08-05-2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I'd get rid of both of them.

I agree with you Cheryl, 100%. The problem is, we don't have anybody else ready to play shortstop in the bigs. So we are forced to choose between two unworthy canidates, much like the presidential elections every four years.

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 11:54 AM
When will we get lucky enough to pick up someone like Nomar in the draft and Jery sells so someone will pay him?

baggio202
08-05-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
When will we get lucky enough to pick up someone like Nomar in the draft and Jery sells so someone will pay him?

long after both of us have left this earth :(:

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by baggio202


long after both of us have left this earth :(:

That's what my grandmother though when she was waiting for ws winner for 70 years. She never saw it. I'm guessing i won't

voodoochile
08-05-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


That's what my grandmother though when she was waiting for ws winner for 70 years. She never saw it. I'm guessing i won't

Well, barring a major breakthrough in medical technology that is available only to the filthy rich, JR will pass away long before you or I do. That will mean the team will EVENTUALLY be run by someone else and MAYBE that person will actually care about winning or will at least have the brains and guts to make money by selling the team, not by yelling at the fan base and constantly selling out...

One can hope anyway... sigh...

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Well, barring a major breakthrough in medical technology that is available only to the filthy rich, JR will pass away long before you or I do. That will mean the team will EVENTUALLY be run by someone else and MAYBE that person will actually care about winning or will at least have the brains and guts to make money by selling the team, not by yelling at the fan base and constantly selling out...

One can hope anyway... sigh...

This place will be rockin the day JR sells or passes on. I'll take the chance on someone else :D:

Tragg
08-05-2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy


In all seriousness, I'm not trying to bust your balls here. How would we be taking on his 4.5 million a year for another multi-year basis if we were to resign him?

If he were to resign, he'd work for a lot cheaper. You said that yourself at the end of your post.

ONe would assume so, yes.

My point, which I didn't say too clearly, is that it is doubtful that a player will play for an 80% pay-cut for the same team. Pride, if nothing else, often keeps that from happening. Because i doubt he'd take a 80% paycut with the sox, I'd think that 80% paycut will be taken with another team (if anyone wants him).

Tragg
08-05-2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy


I agree with you Cheryl, 100%. The problem is, we don't have anybody else ready to play shortstop in the bigs. So we are forced to choose between two unworthy canidates, much like the presidential elections every four years.

We can find a clayton clone for under a million. Probably one that can work the bat a little better, too.
I have nothing against valentin. But he, too, is way overpaid and warrants about a 60% paycut.
Conclusion: dump both of them.

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 02:42 PM
This topic deserves an award.


http://www.fathom.org/teemingmillions/deadhorse.gif

voodoochile
08-05-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


ONe would assume so, yes.

My point, which I didn't say too clearly, is that it is doubtful that a player will play for an 80% pay-cut for the same team. Pride, if nothing else, often keeps that from happening. Because i doubt he'd take a 80% paycut with the sox, I'd think that 80% paycut will be taken with another team (if anyone wants him).

According to DaisyJane (a smart Tribe poster from the troll boards) a team cannot cut a players salary by more than 20% with a new contract offer, so the 80% scenario would be impossible. In fact, provided she is correct (and she normally is), the Sox would not be legally allowed to offer The Choice less than $3.6 million next year. That is of course under the current CBA. It also explains why they did not attempt to resign Lofton for the amount the Sox did. They paid him $8 million last year and could not have offered him so little, FYI.

If I am wrong on this subject, please let me know. It sounded strange when she posted it, but she said it had been the rule of law under the CBA for a long, long time...

baggio202
08-05-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Well, barring a major breakthrough in medical technology that is available only to the filthy rich, JR will pass away long before you or I do. That will mean the team will EVENTUALLY be run by someone else and MAYBE that person will actually care about winning or will at least have the brains and guts to make money by selling the team, not by yelling at the fan base and constantly selling out...

One can hope anyway... sigh...

hate to spoil the happy moment as we ponder JR's death but doesnt he have a son that just to a job as a scout or something in the org...brought in to learn the workings of baseball???...so im sure the plan is to pass the franchise onto him and the saying "the apple doesnt fall far from the tree" surely will apply here

Paulwny
08-05-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by baggio202


hate to spoil the happy moment as we ponder JR's death but doesnt he have a son that just to a job as a scout or something in the org...brought in to learn the workings of baseball???...so im sure the plan is to pass the franchise onto him and the saying "the apple doesnt fall far from the tree" surely will apply here


If JR outlives me, I DO hope his son takes control. Misery loves company my white sox brothers and sisters. :cool:

TornLabrum
08-05-2002, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by baggio202


hate to spoil the happy moment as we ponder JR's death but doesnt he have a son that just to a job as a scout or something in the org...brought in to learn the workings of baseball???...so im sure the plan is to pass the franchise onto him and the saying "the apple doesnt fall far from the tree" surely will apply here

You have to remember, Jerry Reinsdorf is only the front man for the ownership group. He owns something like 5-10% of all of the stock in the club. He's the managing partner, not the owner.

:reinsy

"I just act like I own the club."

Paulwny
08-05-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


You have to remember, Jerry Reinsdorf is only the front man for the ownership group. He owns something like 5-10% of all of the stock in the club. He's the managing partner, not the owner.

:reinsy

"I just act like I own the club."

Are any members of this group sox fans?

Tragg
08-05-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


According to DaisyJane (a smart Tribe poster from the troll boards) a team cannot cut a players salary by more than 20% with a new contract offer, so the 80% scenario would be impossible.

I assume you are correct - sounds right. That means he's gone.

LongDistanceFan
08-05-2002, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes



http://www.fathom.org/teemingmillions/deadhorse.gif

do you have a distinct feeling that jacobp is having a nice laugh.

RedPinStripes
08-05-2002, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


do you have a distinct feeling that jacobp is having a nice laugh.

I hope so. :D:

TornLabrum
08-05-2002, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Are any members of this group sox fans?

No.

:reinsy

"We won't rebuild until the owners come out and support the team."

Jerry_Manuel
08-05-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
:reinsy

"We won't rebuild until the owners come out and support the team."

Will you reshuffle the deck as Kenny likes to say?

TornLabrum
08-06-2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Will you reshuffle the deck as Kenny likes to say?

:reinsy

"You go home and get your scanties,
I'll go home and get my panties,
And away we'll go!

Woo-oo-oo!
Off we're gonna shuffe,
Shuffle off to Buffalo!"

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 02:16 AM
I get home from Vegas and at the top of the list of new posts is this? Good lord.

Okay while you are thinking on the right track by pointing out Valentin's horrendous OBP, it's also his worst career OBP. I'd bet on Valentin getting back to his 2000 or 2001 level which makes him much more valuable than Clayton. But you are right, this year he isn't really much more valuable than Clayton. I don't really get why I'm the only one who doesn't think Valentin's defense is horrible.

You Jose D haters are all obsessed with one freaking stat. Valentin has good range and a good arm. I'll take him at short and his errors any day if he hits like he did the last two years and I think if you put him at his natural position and leave him alone he'll do a good job. Remember we won 96 games with this guy at short, if he's on his game he's a good player.

idseer
08-06-2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I get home from Vegas and at the top of the list of new posts is this? Good lord.

Okay while you are thinking on the right track by pointing out Valentin's horrendous OBP, it's also his worst career OBP. I'd bet on Valentin getting back to his 2000 or 2001 level which makes him much more valuable than Clayton. But you are right, this year he isn't really much more valuable than Clayton. I don't really get why I'm the only one who doesn't think Valentin's defense is horrible.

You Jose D haters are all obsessed with one freaking stat. Valentin has good range and a good arm. I'll take him at short and his errors any day if he hits like he did the last two years and I think if you put him at his natural position and leave him alone he'll do a good job. Remember we won 96 games with this guy at short, if he's on his game he's a good player.

ok, i'll bite.
1st, jose isn't going to get better at this stage, he's going to continue to deteriorate. my opinion.
2nd, the reason we won 96 games in '02 has nothing to do with the fact jose was at short. i hate it that people keep bringing this up. the fact is jose has never been good at short. anywhere!
the reason we won 96 games is because just about everyone on the team had career years. how does that have anything to do with jose at short? not to mention the 2nd half of that year we were a .500 ballclub .... with jose at short!
anyone who keeps arguing that jose is even on a par with royce as a fielder has blinders on.
you keep saying royce has no range, right? then, you being such a stats guy, tell me why royce's total chances are always among the best in the league. this year alone there are only 2 ss's who have more chances per inning. royce's cpi are better than tejada's, nomar's, jeter's, etc. if the guy doesn't move more than 2 feet on ground balls, how is this possible? do the sox just have more groundball pitchers than anyone else? i don't think so.
his career numbers speak for themselves on chances. compare him to almost any other ss. but even THIS year he is among the leaders. not to mention 2nd in fielding %!

i try to stay away from this topic, but it's hard. especially when i keep seeing the disinformation flying about.

kermit, try this once. PRETEND ... you like royce. then show him in your best light ... like you do jose. THEN compare the two.

baggio202
08-06-2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by idseer


ok, i'll bite.
1st, jose isn't going to get better at this stage, he's going to continue to deteriorate. my opinion.
2nd, the reason we won 96 games in '02 has nothing to do with the fact jose was at short. i hate it that people keep bringing this up. the fact is jose has never been good at short. anywhere!
the reason we won 96 games is because just about everyone on the team had career years. how does that have anything to do with jose at short? not to mention the 2nd half of that year we were a .500 ballclub .... with jose at short!
anyone who keeps arguing that jose is even on a par with royce as a fielder has blinders on.
you keep saying royce has no range, right? then, you being such a stats guy, tell me why royce's total chances are always among the best in the league. this year alone there are only 2 ss's who have more chances per inning. royce's cpi are better than tejada's, nomar's, jeter's, etc. if the guy doesn't move more than 2 feet on ground balls, how is this possible? do the sox just have more groundball pitchers than anyone else? i don't think so.
his career numbers speak for themselves on chances. compare him to almost any other ss. but even THIS year he is among the leaders. not to mention 2nd in fielding %!

i try to stay away from this topic, but it's hard. especially when i keep seeing the disinformation flying about.

kermit, try this once. PRETEND ... you like royce. then show him in your best light ... like you do jose. THEN compare the two.

actually the sox do have more ground ball pitchers than any team...last time i checked (last week) we were 2nd to last in strike outs behind only tampa...garland , glover ,ritchie (oh god, it pains me to even type his name) and buehrle are all sinker /slider or off spped type pitchers...the only power pitcher in the rotation is wright....and his k's /9ip will probably be a career low for him if he ever reaches his potential....and the bullpen...outside of marte everyone in the pen relies on something other than a fastball as their out pitch...wusch (slurve) , howry (slider - when he was here) , foulke (change) , ginter (slider - but he does have a good fastball - hopefully with more ip he will use it more) , osuna (change) biddle (oh yeah, forgot about him,definately a power pitcher but he has hardly pitched this year)

either through coaching , scouting preference or just plain old bad luck we dont have power pitcher s so more balls put in play means more TC by everyone

idseer
08-06-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by baggio202


actually the sox do have more ground ball pitchers than any team...last time i checked (last week) we were 2nd to last in strike outs behind only tampa...garland , glover ,ritchie (oh god, it pains me to even type his name) and buehrle are all sinker /slider or off spped type pitchers...the only power pitcher in the rotation is wright....and his k's /9ip will probably be a career low for him if he ever reaches his potential....and the bullpen...outside of marte everyone in the pen relies on something other than a fastball as their out pitch...wusch (slurve) , howry (slider - when he was here) , foulke (change) , ginter (slider - but he does have a good fastball - hopefully with more ip he will use it more) , osuna (change) biddle (oh yeah, forgot about him,definately a power pitcher but he has hardly pitched this year)

either through coaching , scouting preference or just plain old bad luck we dont have power pitcher s so more balls put in play means more TC by everyone

well, that can be checked too. i don't have the time right now, but i will see if we indeed have more chances in the infield than anyone else.

baggio202
08-06-2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by idseer


well, that can be checked too. i don't have the time right now, but i will see if we indeed have more chances in the infield than anyone else.

i know garland is amongst the league leaders in gb to fb ratio...he is not up there with derek lowe but who is:)

CubKilla
08-06-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by baggio202


hate to spoil the happy moment as we ponder JR's death but doesnt he have a son that just to a job as a scout or something in the org...brought in to learn the workings of baseball???...so im sure the plan is to pass the franchise onto him and the saying "the apple doesnt fall far from the tree" surely will apply here

That would be his nephew Baggio.

idseer
08-06-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by idseer


well, that can be checked too. i don't have the time right now, but i will see if we indeed have more chances in the infield than anyone else.

ok, this is what i came up with.

i used only qualified players based on espn's system and i only did 1b, 2b, ss, 3b. too many pitchers to mess with.

at first base konerko had the 3rd most total chances out of 8 qualified.

at 2nd, durham had the 4th most tc out of 8 qualified

at short, royce had the 4th most out of 13 qualified

at 3rd, jose had the 2nd most out of 12 qualified.


this shows me that no matter how you look at it royce is right about where you'd expect to be WITH THIS TEAM.
it does appear that the sox DO get more ground balls that average, but it also shows royce gets his expected share.
add in the fact that royce is 2nd in the league in fielding (yeah i know it's not the only stat) and it tells me he's being knocked unfairly for his fielding.

as an aside, jose at 3rd hasn't handled those chances he's gotten very well. he's 8th among the qualified with a .952 %.

i know this doesn't take every factor into account, like all chances by everyone played, but over time, total chances tells whether or not a player is getting to his fair share of balls hit his way. and royce has been very consistant in this throughout his career.

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by idseer



i know this doesn't take every factor into account, like all chances by everyone played, but over time, total chances tells whether or not a player is getting to his fair share of balls hit his way. and royce has been very consistant in this throughout his career.

My point isn't that Royce is a bad fielder it's that Jose is underrated because of one friggin stat column. The guy has good scout-type skills in the field, that should be recognized. Clayton is good but Jose is close to him, maybe as good.

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by idseer

the reason we won 96 games is because just about everyone on the team had career years.

Everyone on the team? Well looking back I think it's pretty obvious Magglio, Konerko, Frank and Lee didn't have career years. Ray Durham's year was in line with his previous production. Chris Singleton had his career year the year before. Jose Valentin didn't have a year out of character. Herb Perry, there is ONE career year. Baldwin had a career year, Eldred had a healthy year which for him was kind of like a career year.

In 2000 we were a well built ballclub. No team wins 96 games with infield defense as poor as the rep Sox fans give Jose and Ray.

idseer
08-06-2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Everyone on the team? Well looking back I think it's pretty obvious Magglio, Konerko, Frank and Lee didn't have career years. Ray Durham's year was in line with his previous production. Chris Singleton had his career year the year before. Jose Valentin didn't have a year out of character. Herb Perry, there is ONE career year. Baldwin had a career year, Eldred had a healthy year which for him was kind of like a career year.

In 2000 we were a well built ballclub. No team wins 96 games with infield defense as poor as the rep Sox fans give Jose and Ray.

ok .... you got me. "everyone on the team' is an exaggeration.
perhaps you can get by that to get my point?

but just for the record:

magglio ... career highs in homeurns, rbi's, and runs
durham ... career highs in rbi's, runs
lee ... career highs in average, homeruns, rbi's, runs
thomas ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs
valentin ... career highs in average, homeruns (at the time), rbi's, runs
perry ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs

eldred ... about comeback pitcher of the year with his best year since 1992
parque ... best year of his life, most wins, best era
baldwin ... most wins, 2nd best era
sirotka ... career highs in wins, best era, most k's

actually i can't believe you argued this point.

add in the fact that most of the damage was done in the first half, where all these guys without a doubt had the best half-years of their lives!

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by idseer


ok .... you got me. "everyone on the team' is an exaggeration.
perhaps you can get by that to get my point?

but just for the record:

magglio ... career highs in homeurns, rbi's, and runs
durham ... career highs in rbi's, runs
lee ... career highs in average, homeruns, rbi's, runs
thomas ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs
valentin ... career highs in average, homeruns (at the time), rbi's, runs
perry ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs

eldred ... about comeback pitcher of the year with his best year since 1992
parque ... best year of his life, most wins, best era
baldwin ... most wins, 2nd best era
sirotka ... career highs in wins, best era, most k's

actually i can't believe you argued this point.

add in the fact that most of the damamge was done in the first half, where all these guys without a doubt had the best half-years of their lives!

Okay for most of the guys you are saying career high in runs and RBIs. Well the biggest reason you'll see that is because it was a winning team and a winning team scores a lot of runs, it's not necessarily a reflection of how they played, just how well the team played. Look at the BA/OBP/SLG for those guys. Those numbers aren't team dependant and they aren't out of line with the seasons grouped around them.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer


ok .... you got me. "everyone on the team' is an exaggeration.
perhaps you can get by that to get my point?

but just for the record:

magglio ... career highs in homeurns, rbi's, and runs
durham ... career highs in rbi's, runs
lee ... career highs in average, homeruns, rbi's, runs
thomas ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs
valentin ... career highs in average, homeruns (at the time), rbi's, runs
perry ... career highs in homeruns, rbi's, runs

eldred ... about comeback pitcher of the year with his best year since 1992
parque ... best year of his life, most wins, best era
baldwin ... most wins, 2nd best era
sirotka ... career highs in wins, best era, most k's

actually i can't believe you argued this point.

add in the fact that most of the damage was done in the first half, where all these guys without a doubt had the best half-years of their lives!

See, Kermit? You just have to stop thinking with your heart and rely on cold hard stats and you can prove anything...

:D:

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Okay for most of the guys you are saying career high in runs and RBIs. Well the biggest reason you'll see that is because it was a winning team and a winning team scores a lot of runs, it's not necessarily a reflection of how they played, just how well the team played. Look at the BA/OBP/SLG for those guys. Those numbers aren't team dependant and they aren't out of line with the seasons grouped around them.

That logic gets pretty circular and I almost can't believe you are actually using it...

Why did the team win so many games? Because they scored so many runs...

Why did they score so many runs? Because they were a winning team...

Which one makes more sense?

idseer
08-06-2002, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Okay for most of the guys you are saying career high in runs and RBIs. Well the biggest reason you'll see that is because it was a winning team and a winning team scores a lot of runs, it's not necessarily a reflection of how they played, just how well the team played. Look at the BA/OBP/SLG for those guys. Those numbers aren't team dependant and they aren't out of line with the seasons grouped around them.

look kermit ... it's all part of the mix. the point was everyone had great years ... altogether ... even if not the single best for individuals.
valentin being at ss had nothing to do with it. granted he was a part of the mix, but obviously even after that year he was booted off short! what does that say?

val will be 34 next year? he's not hitting now and he doesn't have the same excuse he had last year for not hitting. i think between his age and his shaky legs you'll not see him improve next year.

neither jose nor royce can hit ... but at least royce can still field the position. i'd take my chances with royce, unless somehow we can come up with a legitimate ss by spring.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by idseer


look kermit ... it's all part of the mix. the point was everyone had great years ... altogether ... even if not the single best for individuals.
valentin being at ss had nothing to do with it. granted he was a part of the mix, but obviously even after that year he was booted off short! what does that say?

val will be 34 next year? he's not hitting now and he doesn't have the same excuse he had last year for not hitting. i think between his age and his shaky legs you'll not see him improve next year.

neither jose nor royce can hit ... but at least royce can still field the position. i'd take my chances with royce, unless somehow we can come up with a legitimate ss by spring.

If the information I got and disseminated is correct, the Sox would have to pay Royce 3.6 million minimum next year. No way he is worth that much. I'd take the already signed Valentin and take my chances...

idseer
08-06-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


If the information I got and disseminated is correct, the Sox would have to pay Royce 3.6 million minimum next year. No way he is worth that much. I'd take the already signed Valentin and take my chances...

i'f that's correct i completely agree with the first part. has that actually been verified yet .... the 80% rule?


but i'd not put jose back at short. you already have rookies on either side of him. if you're going to throw in the towel for next year i'd rather they brought up hummel and stick him there.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i'f that's correct i completely agree with the first part. has that actually been verified yet .... the 80% rule?


but i'd not put jose back at short. you already have rookies on either side of him. if you're going to throw in the towel for next year i'd rather they brought up hummel and stick him there.

The only evidence I have is from a poster I know and respect (DJ on the ESPN Tribe board). Does anyone know if this is the case? Also, if the new CBA changes the figure, then obviously it would no longer be correct.

Personally, I can't understand it. I could understand if a team was not allowed to offer a contract less than that range, but once the player rejects the contract and files for FA, the original team should be allowed to compete. Think KL would have been happier with $4 million guaranteed from the Tribe than the incentive laden deal he got from the Sox? Don't know if the Tribe would have offered that, but they couldn't even compete under the current rules (provided, of course, that DJ is correct)..

PaleHoseGeorge
08-06-2002, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That logic gets pretty circular and I almost can't believe you are actually using it...

Why did the team win so many games? Because they scored so many runs...

Why did they score so many runs? Because they were a winning team...

Which one makes more sense?

HUH? Since when is your BA, SLG, or OBP determined by your teammates? Is this that new math I've been hearing about?

To the contrary, stats like rbi's, runs scored, and wins are quite obviously determined by what your teammates are doing. It wasn't Froggie using these stats to prop up baseless assertions on this dead horse subject.

Clayton is as good as gone come September. I suggest some of us just start dealing with it.

FarmerAndy
08-06-2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i'f that's correct i completely agree with the first part. has that actually been verified yet .... the 80% rule?


but i'd not put jose back at short. you already have rookies on either side of him. if you're going to throw in the towel for next year i'd rather they brought up hummel and stick him there.

I agree. I'd rather have Clayton at SS, but not at 3.6 million.

I'm not really a huge fan of Royce, I just believed that he would be the best short-term solution. But no short-term solution is worth 3.6 million dollars. Anyway, it's obvious that the Sox don't plan on keeping Choice around.

I doubt they'll be looking to spend money on another SS, and I don't think there are going to be any good F.A. SS's available next year anyway. So we're stuck with Jose, which I guess isn't the end of the world, 'cause we're not going to have a contender anyway. Let Valentin finish out his contract and look to 2004.

Boers and Berstien were talking a couple of weeks ago about how a bad team can either be "fun bad" or just plain bad. I think we all had higher expectations of this year's team, so it really hasn't been fun. It's been miserable. Next year, however, might be a different story. I don't think we will have high expectations for the 2003 Sox, so they might be "fun bad". Think of the possibilities. We can hold up targets in the outfield everytime Todd Ritchie takes the mound. We can hang E's on the left field wall everytime Jose makes an error. They can show videos of all the bad plays made by the Sox on the Jumbo-Tron.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


HUH? Since when is your BA, SLG, or OBP determined by your teammates? Is this that new math I've been hearing about?

To the contrary, stats like rbi's, runs scored, and wins are quite obviously determined by what your teammates are doing. It wasn't Froggie using these stats to prop up baseless assertions on this dead horse subject.

Clayton is as good as gone come September. I suggest some of us just start dealing with it.

Okay, I see the point, and to an extent I agree, but the argument still seems circular. Runs and wins usually go hand in hand (unless you are the Rangers :D: ).

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by idseer


val will be 34 next year? he's not hitting now and he doesn't have the same excuse he had last year for not hitting. i think between his age and his shaky legs you'll not see him improve next year.


What excuse last year for not hitting? Since when does a shortstop or third baseman with an 845 OPS and career highs in homers and slugging percentage have or need an excuse for not hitting? I'm really not sure what Valentin didn't hit. Someone please explain this to me, maybe I'm slow today because I didn't get enough sleep.

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, I see the point, and to an extent I agree, but the argument still seems circular. Runs and wins usually go hand in hand (unless you are the Rangers :D: ).

My point was the team was better as a whole back then so you can't look at team dependant stats (RBIs, runs, wins) you have to look at individual stats (OBP, SLG).

idseer
08-06-2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


What excuse last year for not hitting? Since when does a shortstop or third baseman with an 845 OPS and career highs in homers and slugging percentage have or need an excuse for not hitting? I'm really not sure what Valentin didn't hit. Someone please explain this to me, maybe I'm slow today because I didn't get enough sleep.

true, his homers and ops were actually up.
but ,,, his average was down 15 points, his rbi's down 26, his runs down 33, and frankly ... the homers he did hit, were because he was swinging for the fences all last year, as witnessed by his striking our 8 more times in 130 fewer ab's!

i remember conversations about the reason he was doing more poorly was because of his injuries. all i'm saying is he doesn't have that excuse this year.

idseer
08-06-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


My point was the team was better as a whole back then so you can't look at team dependant stats (RBIs, runs, wins) you have to look at individual stats (OBP, SLG).

i agree.
and mine was that jose being at ss had nothing to do with how much better the team was that year.

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by idseer


true, his homers and ops were actually up.
but ,,, his average was down 15 points, his rbi's down 26, his runs down 33, and frankly ... the homers he did hit, were because he was swinging for the fences all last year, as witnessed by his striking our 8 more times in 130 fewer ab's!

i remember conversations about the reason he was doing more poorly was because of his injuries. all i'm saying is he doesn't have that excuse this year.

Okay you just don't get it do you? It's hard to knock in as many runs or score as many runs when:

A) You get less plate appearances.
B) Your team isn't as good.

The quality of Jose's batting was even better in 2001 than it was in 2000. Do you even understand how RBIs and Runs work? They just don't magically show up on the board, you have to have teammates to drive you in and teammates to be on base for you to drive them in.

doublem23
08-06-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by idseer


i agree
and mine was that jose being at ss had nothing to do with how much better the team was that year.

Granted, this is all speculation, of course, but does anyone think that the 2000 Sox would have been as good if Clayton was the SS instead of Jose?

Where is that article we have around here that analyzes all of Jose's errors, and we learn that in 2000 anyways, Jose's errors only led to 3 losses for sure and possibly, 2 others? But how many countless times did Jose come through in the clutch with the bat?

Of course, my bias towards Jose and against Royce is extremely easy to see, but that's just the way I am and that's the ways I like it!

Jerry_Manuel
08-06-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Granted, this is all speculation, of course, but does anyone think that the 2000 Sox would have been as good if Clayton was the SS instead of Jose?

Where is that article we have around here that analyzes all of Jose's errors, and we learn that in 2000 anyways, Jose's errors only led to 3 losses for sure and possibly, 2 others? But how many countless times did Jose come through in the clutch with the bat?

They still would've won the division in 2000, but the season wouldn't have been as fun.

Like I don't think Royce would've gotten a game winning hit off Rivera.

doublem23
08-06-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


They still would've won the division in 2000, but the season wouldn't have been as fun.

Like I don't think Royce would've gotten a game winning hit off Rivera.

And of course, there's the whole question of the clubhouse chemistry, which I think would have been VASTLY different.

Who knows?

I just can't see a team with Royce Clayton starting at SS winning 95 games.

Jerry_Manuel
08-06-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
And of course, there's the whole question of the clubhouse chemistry, which I think would have been VASTLY different.

Who knows?

I just can't see a team with Royce Clayton starting at SS winning 95 games.

I think the chemistry was really good because they were winning. If you win that brings good chemistry. Meh, it's all moot.

Thomas, Baldwin, and Eldred carried that team in the first half.

Zednem700
08-06-2002, 05:05 PM
OK I'm going to try and explain the rule on cutting player salaries as best as I can. Basically, the claim that teams can only cut a player's salary 20% is not completely correct. That rule only holds for players under the control of a team, players that have not yet made it to their free agency years. Basically a team has complete and total control over a player until he reaches free agency (well arbitration frees players a bit, but lets not get too complicated) So a guy comes up to the majors and is paid the minimum. He has a fantastic year and is given a raise up to $500,000 for the next season. That season he plays like crap is out of shape and shows a lack of hustle. The team wants to keep him, but they want to cut his salary, the most they can cut it is $100,000, %20 of $500,000. This is in place to protect players from abuse by owners. If the player is a free agent and is making $5,000,000 a year in the final year of his contract, the team can offer him ANY amount of money to play with them the next year. There are problems though in terms of when you can sign him and so on, but a free agent can be offered any size pay cut so long as it doesn't take him below the minimum.

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
OK I'm going to try and explain the rule on cutting player salaries as best as I can. Basically, the claim that teams can only cut a player's salary 20% is not completely correct. That rule only holds for players under the control of a team, players that have not yet made it to their free agency years. Basically a team has complete and total control over a player until he reaches free agency (well arbitration frees players a bit, but lets not get too complicated) So a guy comes up to the majors and is paid the minimum. He has a fantastic year and is given a raise up to $500,000 for the next season. That season he plays like crap is out of shape and shows a lack of hustle. The team wants to keep him, but they want to cut his salary, the most they can cut it is $100,000, %20 of $500,000. This is in place to protect players from abuse by owners. If the player is a free agent and is making $5,000,000 a year in the final year of his contract, the team can offer him ANY amount of money to play with them the next year. There are problems though in terms of when you can sign him and so on, but a free agent can be offered any size pay cut so long as it doesn't take him below the minimum.

THats not true, in arbitration the 20% rule always applies. Thats why the Tribe said bye-bye to Lofton. They would have had to pay him 80% of his current contract which was something like 9 million. Even offering him a one year arbitration deal wasn't worth him accepting. So they didn't offer arbitration and the Sox got him on the cheap.

Jerry_Manuel
08-06-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Thats why the Tribe said bye-bye to Lofton.

Not to mention the fact that he's done.

Foulke You
08-06-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


THats not true, in arbitration the 20% rule always applies. Thats why the Tribe said bye-bye to Lofton. They would have had to pay him 80% of his current contract which was something like 9 million. Even offering him a one year arbitration deal wasn't worth him accepting. So they didn't offer arbitration and the Sox got him on the cheap.

Kermit, that is the greatest pic of KW. You should print up posters of that and sell it outside Comiskey. I think you'd clean up.

Zednem700
08-06-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


THats not true, in arbitration the 20% rule always applies. Thats why the Tribe said bye-bye to Lofton. They would have had to pay him 80% of his current contract which was something like 9 million. Even offering him a one year arbitration deal wasn't worth him accepting. So they didn't offer arbitration and the Sox got him on the cheap.

I shoud have been more clear, you can offer any amount to a FREE AGENT. If the Tribe offered Lofton arbitration and he accepted it then he has essentially turned down free agency and locked himself to the team. Since he's locked to the team, the 20% rule is in effect. If they did not offer him arbitration they could have resigned him for any amount since he wasn't forced to only sign with them. The big problem however is the fact that the Indians would not have been able to sign him before something like May which is pretty late in the game. I don't believe this is true of every free agent situation, but I could be wrong. Basically the Sox could offer Clayton $1 million a year, and he could accept it, but he may not be able to accept it before the season has already started. Granted that's pretty ridiculous, but it is an option.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700


I shoud have been more clear, you can offer any amount to a FREE AGENT. If the Tribe offered Lofton arbitration and he accepted it then he has essentially turned down free agency and locked himself to the team. Since he's locked to the team, the 20% rule is in effect. If they did not offer him arbitration they could have resigned him for any amount since he wasn't forced to only sign with them. The big problem however is the fact that the Indians would not have been able to sign him before something like May which is pretty late in the game. I don't believe this is true of every free agent situation, but I could be wrong. Basically the Sox could offer Clayton $1 million a year, and he could accept it, but he may not be able to accept it before the season has already started. Granted that's pretty ridiculous, but it is an option.

If the Sox don't offer Clayton arbitration, aren't they barred from signing him until May 1st?

Daver
08-06-2002, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


If the Sox don't offer Clayton arbitration, aren't they barred from signing him until May 1st?

Yes they are.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by daver


Yes they are.

Okay, so the 80% rule is basically a de facto concept. Offer the 80% through arbitration or watch the player walk away...

Okay, now for the final question. Could the Sox legally offer Clayton a new contract right now for less than 80% of what he currently makes?

Daver
08-06-2002, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, so the 80% rule is basically a de facto concept. Offer the 80% through arbitration or watch the player walk away...

Okay, now for the final question. Could the Sox legally offer Clayton a new contract right now for less than 80% of what he currently makes?

No they cannot,under the CBA they have to offer him arbitration in order to seek a negotiation to retain his services,or wait until after May 1st to do so.

voodoochile
08-06-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by daver


No they cannot,under the CBA they have to offer him arbitration in order to seek a negotiation to retain his services,or wait until after May 1st to do so.

So, offer Clayton $3.6 million a year or he walks...

Later Royce, can't say you'll be missed...

kermittheefrog
08-06-2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You


Kermit, that is the greatest pic of KW. You should print up posters of that and sell it outside Comiskey. I think you'd clean up.

Thanks dude.