PDA

View Full Version : Time To Trade Lee And Loaiza


lowesox
10-23-2003, 01:35 PM
I love Carlos Lee. But I really love a lot of other players on this team and Iím sick of not winning. So I think itís time we start trading players who are at the height of their trade value. Right now, I think Lee and Loaiza both fit that bill. Especially since I read that the Giants arenít going to pick up a 4 million dollar option on Jose Cruz. I think we should trade Lee for a good, young shortstop Ė somebody whoís ready to step in immediately. Then we could sign Cruz (who would make about as much as Lee did last year) and not bring back Valentin. That would give us a good shortstop for the future, payroll flexibility and personally I think Cruz has just as much potential to be a superstar as Lee does.

I would also test the market on Loaiza, because lets face it, thereís no way heíll repeat what he did last season.

voodoochile
10-23-2003, 01:40 PM
Loaiza should still win 15 games next year. I am not sure I want to give away that kind of production.

Everyone on the team should be available for the right price. However, I would rather see the Sox go after some FA's. I don't know if trading the 3rd most productive hitter the Sox have and a guy who seems to be coming into his own unless the guy we get back is as good offensively.

A.T. Money
10-23-2003, 01:46 PM
Please pass the crackpipe here.....

Thanks.

Blueprint1
10-23-2003, 01:47 PM
Thats just a bad idea. NEXT

ThisThreadSucks
10-23-2003, 02:12 PM
Hey Everybody!

fledgedrallycap
10-23-2003, 02:15 PM
:threadsucks

poorme
10-23-2003, 02:23 PM
Depends what you could get for them. No one is untouchable.

thepaulbowski
10-23-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Please pass the crackpipe here.....

Thanks.

Don't bogart all of it!

lowesox
10-23-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
Thats just a bad idea. NEXT

I find it funny that this is such an awful idea, and yet nobody here has written one good reason why.

fledgedrallycap
10-23-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I find it funny that this is such an awful idea, and yet nobody here has written one good reason why.

Because, you simply stated you wanted to trade our mvp and possibly the league's Cy Young winner - there's your reasoning... :gulp:

poorme
10-23-2003, 03:20 PM
I find it frightening to think what this team will look like in 2-3 years if they don't obtain some young talent.

AsInWreck
10-23-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I find it funny that this is such an awful idea, and yet nobody here has written one good reason why.

I'm all for trading Lee for a good SS, but why would a team give up a good SS for Lee? LF is probably the easiest position to fill, there are plenty of LF as good or better than Lee, and there are only a handful of good SS.

Get rid of Loaiza? I don't think so.

SoxxoS
10-23-2003, 03:31 PM
Getting rid of Loaiza is just a rediculous, horrible idea. No offense, though. :smile: Nobody gets rid of pitchers that finish in the top 3 in Cy Young voting (I am presuming) that makes under 5 million a year. Never will happen.

Trading Carlos is a idea I am more open to, although I still don't like it. I know it's blasphemy, but I think trading Maggs might be the better option at this point, as much as I hate to say it. We should get some big time talent in return for Maggs, free up 14 million in payroll, and open up a spot where Jeremy Reed can play. He hasn't done anything to say he can't handle the job in RF and even more so, at the plate. He can hold his own. (He is tearing it up at Team USA, BTW). If we can get a TRUE stud center fielder and a SS for Maggs, I am all for it.

I would LOVE to have Maggs AND a stud CF and SS, but with Reinsy still going strong, that isn't going to happen.

Ol Aches & Pains
10-23-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I love Carlos Lee. But I really love a lot of other players on this team and Iím sick of not winning. So I think itís time we start trading players who are at the height of their trade value. Right now, I think Lee and Loaiza both fit that bill. Especially since I read that the Giants arenít going to pick up a 4 million dollar option on Jose Cruz. I think we should trade Lee for a good, young shortstop Ė somebody whoís ready to step in immediately. Then we could sign Cruz (who would make about as much as Lee did last year) and not bring back Valentin. That would give us a good shortstop for the future, payroll flexibility and personally I think Cruz has just as much potential to be a superstar as Lee does.

I would also test the market on Loaiza, because lets face it, thereís no way heíll repeat what he did last season.

Maybe, if the "good, young shortstop" is A-Rod. A 21 game winner and a 100 RBI outfielder should be worth a pretty damned good shortstop (or two).

Jose Cruz was last seen dropping an easy fly ball to ensure the Giants didn't repeat as the NL pennant winners. If he isn't a superstar by now, and he isn't, it's not gonna happen.

34 Inch Stick
10-23-2003, 03:42 PM
Pass the dobbie on the left hand side!

If you trade Loiza what will you be looking for... DAAT"S ID (as Crackhead Bob would say) a cheap veteran starting pitcher you hope will give you double digit wins and eat up innings. Good enough reason?

But this is what the off season is for. Now to more important issues

So what your saying is that our universe could be just one atom in the tip of a giant's finger?

soxfan26
10-23-2003, 03:51 PM
Your argument for trading E-Lo is a horrible idea. We are stretching the budget to try to fit in Colon right now. Pitching is and should be our #1 priority, if we had some more depth at SP, you could make sense out of shopping one of them around.

Trading Lee obviously needs to be discussed. But "As in Wreck" says, who is going to trade a LF for a SS?

Puff, Puff, Give!

soxtalker
10-23-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I love Carlos Lee. But I really love a lot of other players on this team and Iím sick of not winning. So I think itís time we start trading players who are at the height of their trade value. Right now, I think Lee and Loaiza both fit that bill. Especially since I read that the Giants arenít going to pick up a 4 million dollar option on Jose Cruz. I think we should trade Lee for a good, young shortstop Ė somebody whoís ready to step in immediately. Then we could sign Cruz (who would make about as much as Lee did last year) and not bring back Valentin. That would give us a good shortstop for the future, payroll flexibility and personally I think Cruz has just as much potential to be a superstar as Lee does.

I would also test the market on Loaiza, because lets face it, thereís no way heíll repeat what he did last season.

I'm not so crazy about the Cruz part of this, but I have no problem with shopping C. Lee and Loaiza around. They should both command high value for the same reasons that people on this board are so reluctant to trade them.

TheRockinMT
10-23-2003, 04:18 PM
The only reason you would trade your ACE pitcher, who will win 20 games again next year, not 15 thank you very much, and one of the most talented left fielders in the AL is if your team was in the 2nd division and needing to rebuild. The Sox are in the hunt for a pennant and the only thing you would accomplish by trading Loaiza and Lee is cause the Sox to slide. You can easily pick up the extra pieces needed to round out a pennant contender by free agent signings.

But, that's the great thing about arm chair managing and being a fan-you can think wild & crazy.

MarkEdward
10-23-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I find it funny that this is such an awful idea, and yet nobody here has written one good reason why.

I'm actually not against trading Lee. As I've said before, his perceived value is higher than his actual value. However, it is very difficult to find a "good, young SS," even if Lee is the trade bait. Truth is, there aren't many relatively good, young shortstops ready to play in the majors next year. Bobby Crosby seem like the type of guy you want, but I don't see the A's giving him up.

I really wouldn't want to trade Loaiza. He'll only cost us three million next year, and while I don't think he'll put up 2003 numbers, he should be an above-average starter.

hold2dibber
10-23-2003, 05:02 PM
I think everyone is being too harsh here. The Cardinals are dying for pitching. What if you could trade Loaiza (and maybe Wright or Ginter, if necessary) for Renteria? And then trade Lee for a starter. Would the offensively challenged but pitching rich Dodgers give up Nomo for Lee? Or how about one or two of the good young pitchers on the Padres or the Giants? Or maybe Carlos for

In effect, Lee and Loaiza for Renteria and (for example) Nomo. Then LF is there for Reed, or maybe they re-sign Everett or Daubach or some other relatively cheap FA who can give you 20 HRs and a .800 OPS to patrol left (there are several of them out there).

I'd certainly consider such a series of transaction (with the caveat that I would only do so if Colon re-signs. If he does not, the Sox need to horde pitching and Loaiza would become virtually untouchable).

maurice
10-23-2003, 05:04 PM
I'm willing to trade ANY Sox player, if it would improve the team. Shopping those two players around is fine, but I doubt you could get enough in return to justify a trade, particularly from a salary standpoint.

RedPinStripes
10-23-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Please pass the crackpipe here.....

Thanks.


LOL!

ma-gaga
10-23-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I'm willing to trade ANY Sox player, if it would improve the team. Shopping those two players around is fine, but I doubt you could get enough in return to justify a trade, particularly from a salary standpoint.

Money is a huge part of all trades now. For instance, trying to trade Magglio is going to be a monster decision, but truthfully, I don't think you can get equal value for him unless the Sox agree to pick up Magg's contract. Face it who would you rather have:

Player X : $14MM a year all-league player, signed for ONE year. Lots of risk, little reward.
Player Y: minimum salaried can't miss all-star wannabe rookie stud SS/CF, club property for SIX years. cheap for 3 years. No risk, lots of reward.

Almost every team takes player Y. Maybe not the Yankees, or possibly the Giants/Cubs. EVERY other team will be looking to get younger and cheaper. It's the nature of the league.

Look at what crap the Braves got last year for K.Millwood. He was making $11MM a year, the Phils were doing the Braves a favor by taking that contract, so they only 'paid' (traded) a backup catcher. Is it a fair deal? The Braves made the playoffs and had a payroll of $11MM less than they would have. The Phillies missed the playoffs by a couple of games. So team-wise did the Braves win?

It's a matter of getting the owner comfy with payroll vs wins. BP did a study on $$ per win. The Twins and W.Sox came out virtually even (around $2.1MM per win), amazingly enough, with their payroll being $8MM more than the White Sox, the Twins won the division by 4 games.

or so. I don't check this stuff as often as I should.

:)

MikeKreevich
10-23-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I love Carlos Lee. But I really love a lot of other players on this team and Iím sick of not winning. So I think itís time we start trading players who are at the height of their trade value. Right now, I think Lee and Loaiza both fit that bill. Especially since I read that the Giants arenít going to pick up a 4 million dollar option on Jose Cruz. I think we should trade Lee for a good, young shortstop Ė somebody whoís ready to step in immediately. Then we could sign Cruz (who would make about as much as Lee did last year) and not bring back Valentin. That would give us a good shortstop for the future, payroll flexibility and personally I think Cruz has just as much potential to be a superstar as Lee does.

I would also test the market on Loaiza, because lets face it, thereís no way heíll repeat what he did last season.
Is that the way to treat players who do well? I find it a strange idea.

DirtySouthsider
10-23-2003, 06:35 PM
This thread should end A.S.A.P! Trade Loaiza??? Insane!

RichH55
10-23-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I'm actually not against trading Lee. As I've said before, his perceived value is higher than his actual value. However, it is very difficult to find a "good, young SS," even if Lee is the trade bait. Truth is, there aren't many relatively good, young shortstops ready to play in the majors next year. Bobby Crosby seem like the type of guy you want, but I don't see the A's giving him up.

I really wouldn't want to trade Loaiza. He'll only cost us three million next year, and while I don't think he'll put up 2003 numbers, he should be an above-average starter.

How far is Khalil Greene away?

RichH55
10-23-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
How far is Khalil Greene away?

Responding to my own post..not right

K. Greene, Nady, Jarvis(crap contract) for C. Lee and Konerko?

Doesnt make a ton of sense, and Brian Lawrence is definately the guy I want from SD...but I thought I would put it out there

Maybe turn Nady into Lawrence(If you think Reed is ready) or tweak it in any number of ways?

RichH55
10-23-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Getting rid of Loaiza is just a rediculous, horrible idea. No offense, though. :smile: Nobody gets rid of pitchers that finish in the top 3 in Cy Young voting (I am presuming) that makes under 5 million a year. Never will happen.

Trading Carlos is a idea I am more open to, although I still don't like it. I know it's blasphemy, but I think trading Maggs might be the better option at this point, as much as I hate to say it. We should get some big time talent in return for Maggs, free up 14 million in payroll, and open up a spot where Jeremy Reed can play. He hasn't done anything to say he can't handle the job in RF and even more so, at the plate. He can hold his own. (He is tearing it up at Team USA, BTW). If we can get a TRUE stud center fielder and a SS for Maggs, I am all for it.

I would LOVE to have Maggs AND a stud CF and SS, but with Reinsy still going strong, that isn't going to happen.


I'm not sold on Loaiza repeating his season, but I don't think you have much choice but to hope "for the best"

His trade value will not be enough to net a good return without taking on problems (Be it salary or unmet expectations)

duke of dorwood
10-23-2003, 06:46 PM
Good Idea

I do not trust KW to trade for equal value when it comes to front liners

Daver
10-23-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
How far is Khalil Greene away?

He played in the College World series last season,he is at least two years away,and is not making the adjustment to wood bats as well as was hoped.

cornball
10-23-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Money is a huge part of all trades now. For instance, trying to trade Magglio is going to be a monster decision, but truthfully, I don't think you can get equal value for him unless the Sox agree to pick up Magg's contract. Face it who would you rather have:

Player X : $14MM a year all-league player, signed for ONE year. Lots of risk, little reward.
Player Y: minimum salaried can't miss all-star wannabe rookie stud SS/CF, club property for SIX years. cheap for 3 years. No risk, lots of reward.

Almost every team takes player Y. Maybe not the Yankees, or possibly the Giants/Cubs. EVERY other team will be looking to get younger and cheaper. It's the nature of the league.

Look at what crap the Braves got last year for K.Millwood. He was making $11MM a year, the Phils were doing the Braves a favor by taking that contract, so they only 'paid' (traded) a backup catcher. Is it a fair deal? The Braves made the playoffs and had a payroll of $11MM less than they would have. The Phillies missed the playoffs by a couple of games. So team-wise did the Braves win?

It's a matter of getting the owner comfy with payroll vs wins. BP did a study on $$ per win. The Twins and W.Sox came out virtually even (around $2.1MM per win), amazingly enough, with their payroll being $8MM more than the White Sox, the Twins won the division by 4 games.

or so. I don't check this stuff as often as I should.

:)

That is interesting but how much money does a club generate when they make the playoffs, or the ALCS for example. Those numbers are for the regular season but the Twins continued playing. If it is significant, the investment could be wise if your as close as we are at this time.

RichH55
10-23-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Daver
He played in the College World series last season,he is at least two years away,and is not making the adjustment to wood bats as well as was hoped.

Well then alot of my "optimism" about trading Lee or Mags is gone.....not good times

RichH55
10-23-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Good Idea

I do not trust KW to trade for equal value when it comes to front liners

Getting them or trading them?


He got "front-liners" in Wells and Colon.....and I think Rocky Biddle is by far the best guy we gave up(Osuna is probably the 2nd best at this point)...so not bad there...even if the Front Liners didnt come through

His two worst deals: Ritchie and Clayton (IMO) were not for Front Liners anyway

MarkEdward
10-23-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I think everyone is being too harsh here. The Cardinals are dying for pitching. What if you could trade Loaiza (and maybe Wright or Ginter, if necessary) for Renteria?


I don't think the Cardinals would do this. I understand that the Cards are desperate for pitching, but wouldn't signing a FA pitcher be much easier? Plus, if they trade to fill a big hole (starter), that just creates another big hole (SS). Where's the logic in that?

Originally posted by RichH55


Responding to my own post..not right

K. Greene, Nady, Jarvis(crap contract) for C. Lee and Konerko?

-Doesnt make a ton of sense, and Brian Lawrence is definately the guy I want from SD...but I thought I would put it out there

Maybe turn Nady into Lawrence(If you think Reed is ready) or tweak it in any number of ways?

I'd love that deal, but in no way would the Padres agree. Their outfield is solidified for a few years in Giles, Kotsay, and Nevin. Also, the Padres just took on one big contract (Giles'). I don't think they'd be willing to take on another, especially considering the crapiness of the player in question (Konerko).

-taking a break from a paper on morality.

batmanZoSo
10-23-2003, 09:44 PM
lowesox,

Jose Cruz stinks. And we gotta show Loaiza some appreciation by keeping him another year. He stumbled late, but his last two starts he really came back strong. And don't forget, there were four games he either lost or got a no decision where he should've won. On a better team he would've won 25. If we trade him and he turns out to be the real deal, it'll be devastating. The most important thing is bring BC back. Buehrle should win 18 games at least and Garland will improve. Loaiza won't need to be Cy Young again but he should have no problem winning 14. He'll be a great 3rd or 4th starter depending on how much he regresses or how much Garland improves. But he also may be an ace again, you never know.

lowesox
10-24-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
And we gotta show Loaiza some appreciation by keeping him another year.

Wow, too many replies for me to answer. This, I think was the best point. Loaiza does deserve our appreciation. Actually, so does Lee. I love both of these guys. As a matter of fact, if you were to look back you'd see that I defended Lee to several people on this site who were very hard on him before this season. But the simple truth is, last year's team had big gaping holes and sometimes to take a step forward you have to take a step backwards first.

Loaiza's actually very interesting to me. He got beat up pretty badly on this sight for "choking" late in the year. I defended him then. The truth is, I think he has turned a corner in his career. And I think he'll probably be good again next year. But he'll never come close to how good he was last year. I think at the stage we're at we need to look at players who we can get a good return for. Because if all we do this offseason is make minor tweaks to last years team we might make a minor push, but I personally think we'll need to make some bigger changes if we want to go for the world series. And it's worth noting that KC and Minnie are both young teams. WE're not. I'd rather work towards prolongued success.

So let me put this question out - to those of you who think trading these guys is a dumb move do you think this team is World Series caliber - and if not, what changes would you make?

RichH55
10-24-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't think the Cardinals would do this. I understand that the Cards are desperate for pitching, but wouldn't signing a FA pitcher be much easier? Plus, if they trade to fill a big hole (starter), that just creates another big hole (SS). Where's the logic in that?



I'd love that deal, but in no way would the Padres agree. Their outfield is solidified for a few years in Giles, Kotsay, and Nevin. Also, the Padres just took on one big contract (Giles'). I don't think they'd be willing to take on another, especially considering the crapiness of the player in question (Konerko).

-taking a break from a paper on morality.

Well I agree SD probably wont take the deal....Contracts arent the issue...they are still rumored to be After Jason Kendall, who while a better ballplayer than PK, has an absolutely terrible contract

RichH55
10-24-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by lowesox
Wow, too many replies for me to answer. This, I think was the best point. Loaiza does deserve our appreciation. Actually, so does Lee. I love both of these guys. As a matter of fact, if you were to look back you'd see that I defended Lee to several people on this site who were very hard on him before this season. But the simple truth is, last year's team had big gaping holes and sometimes to take a step forward you have to take a step backwards first.

Loaiza's actually very interesting to me. He got beat up pretty badly on this sight for "choking" late in the year. I defended him then. The truth is, I think he has turned a corner in his career. And I think he'll probably be good again next year. But he'll never come close to how good he was last year. I think at the stage we're at we need to look at players who we can get a good return for. Because if all we do this offseason is make minor tweaks to last years team we might make a minor push, but I personally think we'll need to make some bigger changes if we want to go for the world series. And it's worth noting that KC and Minnie are both young teams. WE're not. I'd rather work towards prolongued success.

So let me put this question out - to those of you who think trading these guys is a dumb move do you think this team is World Series caliber - and if not, what changes would you make?


We are basing contracts purely on "appreciation" now?

Fair enough---> when does the offense run on hugs and kisses get here?

crector
10-24-2003, 03:08 AM
Basic problem here is that KW is one GM who consistently trades Sox strength for other teams's weaknesses. In other words, the other team gets the wheat while we get the chaff.

Also, the Sox currently have only 4 solid SP's in a 5-man rotation, assuming that Bartolo returns for the next 3 years. What is the sense of trading 1/4th of that rotation when it is already insufficient to the cause?

Realist
10-24-2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick


So what your saying is that our universe could be just one atom in the tip of a giant's finger?

... and if the Cubs had made it to the World Series I'd think that that giant was giving himself a prostate exam.

hold2dibber
10-24-2003, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't think the Cardinals would do this. I understand that the Cards are desperate for pitching, but wouldn't signing a FA pitcher be much easier? Plus, if they trade to fill a big hole (starter), that just creates another big hole (SS). Where's the logic in that?

You're probably right - I don't know enough about the Cards' farm system to know whether they have someone who can step in for Renteria - though, of course they could always sign Valentin or Aurilia or someone to play SS. But regardless of the particulars, my point is this: Lee and Loaiza are at peak trade value right now. It is feasible that the Sox could trade them to plug holes in the current roster (i.e., CF, SS) and then replace them with not-to-expensive FAs that are likely (IMHO) to approximate their performances next year. For example, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Brian Anderson and Loaiza have comparable seasons next year (i.e., ERA in the 3.75 range). I'm guessing the Sox could sign Anderson for about the same money Loaiza will make next year (or maybe even a little less). If the Sox could trade Loaiza for a SS (Cabrera? Furcal?) or a CF, then you sure would have to think about it. Same holds true for Lee. KW is going to have to be creative this off season, and I think Lee and Loaiza are two pretty nice chips that may provide him with some options. At the very least, he should be out there
trying to gauge their trade value.

maurice
10-24-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
So let me put this question out - to those of you who think trading these guys is a dumb move do you think this team is World Series caliber - and if not, what changes would you make?

I think you'll find that the individuals most critical of proposed player moves are the least likely to propose realistic alternatives.

MarkEdward
10-24-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Well I agree SD probably wont take the deal....Contracts arent the issue...they are still rumored to be After Jason Kendall, who while a better ballplayer than PK, has an absolutely terrible contract

I wouldn't say that Kendall has an absolutely terrible contract. Sure, it's a pretty expensive, but Kendall is still a very good player. He had a .400 OBP this past season- as a catcher!. At worst, Kendall is a very good hitting catcher with a big contract. At best, Konerko is an average first baseman with a big contract.

SoxxoS
10-24-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
For example, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Brian Anderson and Loaiza have comparable seasons next year (i.e., ERA in the 3.75 range). I'm guessing the Sox could sign Anderson for about the same money Loaiza will make next year (or maybe even a little less)

NO WAY will Loiaza and Anderson have the same numbers next year. Anderson and Loiaza both had career years this past season, and look at their numbers.

I have seen Brian Anderson pitch too much in Arizona to realize he isn't good. Not good at all. At BEST a 4.25 with a 1.40 WHIP and 10 wins next year. Believe me on this one.

Blueprint1
10-24-2003, 02:05 PM
What good young short stop?? and who is going to trade a good young short stop??? There is not a team out there that is going to trade a good young shortstop that is ready to play in the majors. Second of all the player better be very good because Lee was our best player the second half of the season last year. And Loaiza won 20 games. He might not win 20 next year but he could win 12-15 and eat alot of innings. The most important part of this deal you made up in your head is the good young SS part. The fact that you haven't named teams involved in the trade or players involved makes is a pipe dream. I would rather keep for the most part the base of the team together that includes Lee, Maggs, Crede, PK, Colon, MB, Garland, and Loaiza. If we are handed a top line young short stop sure I would love that. The odds are against any team just wanting to hand over young talent for players one year away from free agency. Recent baseball trades seem to involve the dumping of over payed players rather than moving experience for youth. There are always exceptions

lowesox
10-24-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by crector
Basic problem here is that KW is one GM who consistently trades Sox strength for other teams's weaknesses. In other words, the other team gets the wheat while we get the chaff.

Also, the Sox currently have only 4 solid SP's in a 5-man rotation, assuming that Bartolo returns for the next 3 years. What is the sense of trading 1/4th of that rotation when it is already insufficient to the cause?

Let's start giving him a little credit - he's been doing quite a bit better lately. Were you opposed to the Colon deal?

crector
10-25-2003, 12:56 AM
That was just one deal out of numerous deals. Overall, KW's done more harm than good for the cause. Even if Colon returns, we still need a quality 5th starter for the team to win Central next year.

Any word on how Adkins or any of our other minor league pitching prospects are progressing?

RichH55
10-25-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I wouldn't say that Kendall has an absolutely terrible contract. Sure, it's a pretty expensive, but Kendall is still a very good player. He had a .400 OBP this past season- as a catcher!. At worst, Kendall is a very good hitting catcher with a big contract. At best, Konerko is an average first baseman with a big contract.


Catchers don't age very well, and that Kendall deal is bad...despite putting up very very good OBP numbers, still not where he was in 1998-2000 when he got that contract...and those numbers don't figure to improve all that much either

SoxxoS
10-25-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Catchers don't age very well, and that Kendall deal is bad...despite putting up very very good OBP numbers, still not where he was in 1998-2000 when he got that contract...and those numbers don't figure to improve all that much either

I'd rather have Daubach and Kendell than Konerko.

StillMissOzzie
10-25-2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
I'm not sold on Loaiza repeating his season, but I don't think you have much choice but to hope "for the best"

His trade value will not be enough to net a good return without taking on problems (Be it salary or unmet expectations)

I'll take a hit from that doobie, too. TRADE LOUIZA?? ARE YOU NUTS?

1) If they traded him, the Sox would be back looking for someone else just like him - a veteran starter who won't cost much.

2) I agree that nobody is untouchable, but you have to get value in return. Louiza is a great VALUE, too, since he's locked into a $3 million option for 2004, cheap at twice the price even if he sags to 15 wins next year.

KEEP LOUIZA IN 2004!!!

:gulp:
SMO

MarkEdward
10-25-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Catchers don't age very well, and that Kendall deal is bad...despite putting up very very good OBP numbers, still not where he was in 1998-2000 when he got that contract...and those numbers don't figure to improve all that much either

I never really disagreed that it was a bad contract, I just don't think it's "absolutely terrible." And while his slugging has consistently dropped, he continues to maintain an OBP of around .400. Actually, his OBP has been increasing since 2001.

Will Jason Kendall be worth 13 million in 2007 (the year his contract ends)? Probably not. However, there's no reason to think that he won't put up OBPs around .350-.400 for the next few years of his contract.

RichH55
10-25-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I never really disagreed that it was a bad contract, I just don't think it's "absolutely terrible." And while his slugging has consistently dropped, he continues to maintain an OBP of around .400. Actually, his OBP has been increasing since 2001.

Will Jason Kendall be worth 13 million in 2007 (the year his contract ends)? Probably not. However, there's no reason to think that he won't put up OBPs around .350-.400 for the next few years of his contract.


its a long long deal for alot of money.....If he puts up a .370 OBP and his Slugging slips at all(any more)...than he is a sub .800 OPS guy albeit with good OBP numbers...but also a catcher who generally don't start getting better after 30.

Kendall never hit a ton of HR, but last year it seemed like he didn't even hit doubles.....


That Kendall deal is terrible : Too Much, Too Long and the chance of a position change(which will make his numbers look even worse)

RichH55
10-25-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I'll take a hit from that doobie, too. TRADE LOUIZA?? ARE YOU NUTS?

1) If they traded him, the Sox would be back looking for someone else just like him - a veteran starter who won't cost much.

2) I agree that nobody is untouchable, but you have to get value in return. Louiza is a great VALUE, too, since he's locked into a $3 million option for 2004, cheap at twice the price even if he sags to 15 wins next year.

KEEP LOUIZA IN 2004!!!

:gulp:
SMO

Did you even read my post? It states the case and then the bottom line is that the situation isn't one that calls for dealing Loaiza

Its important to read all the words...thanks for coming

harwar
10-25-2003, 01:05 PM
I think you definately keep Loaiza since it looks like Colon will go to the highest bidder.Something has to be done with that lineup of DHs' though.If we could find some sucker to take Konerko off ours hands then maybe you can get Palmero at first and use willie Harris at 2nd.Alomar and Everett have to go as they are too expensive.I hate to think of moving C.Lee or(GOD FORBID) Maggs this year.

lowesox
10-25-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by harwar
I think you definately keep Loaiza since it looks like Colon will go to the highest bidder.Something has to be done with that lineup of DHs' though.If we could find some sucker to take Konerko off ours hands then maybe you can get Palmero at first and use willie Harris at 2nd.Alomar and Everett have to go as they are too expensive.I hate to think of moving C.Lee or(GOD FORBID) Maggs this year.

Trading Konerko is the absolute opposite thing we should be doing. Here's a guy who's value right now is much lower than it should be.

Smart GMs trade players who are their highest trading value for players who are at their lowest. Konerko should be much better next year, then we can evaluate whether or not his contract makes sense to keep around.

One more thing: I've noticed that everybody expects Loaiza to win at least 15 wins next year. Which I agree could very well happen, but has nobody else noticed that Loaiza has had several very unsuccessful seasons? Yes, it may be that he learned a new pitch - but it could also be confidence. Because scouts have always said that he's had a million dollar arm. And with that arm he's continually been a sub-par pitcher.

I'm not saying that he won't be successful next year. But I am saying the odds of him pitching poorly are about as good as him pitching well.

RichH55
10-25-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Trading Konerko is the absolute opposite thing we should be doing. Here's a guy who's value right now is much lower than it should be.

Smart GMs trade players who are their highest trading value for players who are at their lowest. Konerko should be much better next year, then we can evaluate whether or not his contract makes sense to keep around.

One more thing: I've noticed that everybody expects Loaiza to win at least 15 wins next year. Which I agree could very well happen, but has nobody else noticed that Loaiza has had several very unsuccessful seasons? Yes, it may be that he learned a new pitch - but it could also be confidence. Because scouts have always said that he's had a million dollar arm. And with that arm he's continually been a sub-par pitcher.

I'm not saying that he won't be successful next year. But I am saying the odds of him pitching poorly are about as good as him pitching well.

Assume PK has a career year ......860 OPS....He still isn't worth the contract he signed and is a major drain of payroll

You can get players who will put up similar numbers for a fraction of the price...that is why it makes sense to deal PK

Not to mention with PK's 8 million on the books it might force you to make a move elsewhere, and do you really need another year of PK to determine if you would rather have money to keep Mags or see if Pk can up his production

While I agree it is generally a good principle to sell high, and buy low....sometimes you have to cut your losses....PK even best case scenario does not justify his contract and might wind up hurting you in other areas besides simply his up and down production

crector
10-25-2003, 05:40 PM
Why does it seem as if every time a Sox player, such as Loaiza, does really well, there are calls for him to be traded right away?

soxtalker
10-25-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by crector
Why does it seem as if every time a Sox player, such as Loaiza, does really well, there are calls for him to be traded right away?

Well, I don't think that's true. Magg's has been good for a number of years, and it has only been recently that the calls have been made to trade him. And that's mainly because people think he is appealing to other teams, we think that his position could be filled by others, and it would open up some salary room in the budget.

When I look through this thread, there hasn't been a general sentiment that we have to trade Loaiza. It is just that he will command a high price on the trade market and he might have had a career high year that won't be topped. (It is doubtful that he can be expected to do a lot better than he has, and, as others have pointed out, there is always the chance that he'll revert to earlier form.)

Unless you think that the team has no holes, or you think that we can simply buy FA's to fill any holes, you've got to be willing to let the GM make trades. And telling him that he can trade PK doesn't really allow him to fill many holes, as there aren't likely to be many teams willing to take our problems for their gems. You have to be willing to trade some of our good players for theirs. If KW does trade Loaiza or Lee -- and I doubt that he will -- we will need to get a lot of value in return.

soxtalker
10-25-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Assume PK has a career year ......860 OPS....He still isn't worth the contract he signed and is a major drain of payroll

You can get players who will put up similar numbers for a fraction of the price...that is why it makes sense to deal PK

Not to mention with PK's 8 million on the books it might force you to make a move elsewhere, and do you really need another year of PK to determine if you would rather have money to keep Mags or see if Pk can up his production

While I agree it is generally a good principle to sell high, and buy low....sometimes you have to cut your losses....PK even best case scenario does not justify his contract and might wind up hurting you in other areas besides simply his up and down production

I wonder if it might help if we viewed most of that $8M (actually $16M over two years) as a sunk cost. Even if KW can work a trade, he's probably going to either have to ship some cash or take players with equivalent salaries. If we start looking at things that way, what does it do to your analysis (and that of lowesox)? It essentially says that we fix the true value of PK at some lower figure -- say $2M / yr. -- and write off the rest ($6M / yr. in my example). (Of course, KW has to lower his overall budget by the amount of the write down.) Now, how do you analyze what to do with PK?

lowesox
10-25-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
While I agree it is generally a good principle to sell high, and buy low....sometimes you have to cut your losses....PK even best case scenario does not justify his contract and might wind up hurting you in other areas besides simply his up and down production

I think the problem is too many people are thinking about the very recent past. When you look at career statistics, you'll see that a guy like Loaiza has been consistently subpar and a guy like Konerko has made a career of being a consistent dangerous part of every lineup. Konerko is a great player, who is consistent.

Smart money says that Loaiza will not be nearly as good next year and that Konerko will be much better. As a GM that's what you need to think about. And yes, odds are Lee will be even better next year, but that's part of the reason his trade value is so high. (And for the record, I read last year that his value was even higher than Beltran's among Major League GMs. Which tells me he could yield a very nice return.)

gosox41
10-26-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Assume PK has a career year ......860 OPS....He still isn't worth the contract he signed and is a major drain of payroll

You can get players who will put up similar numbers for a fraction of the price...that is why it makes sense to deal PK

Not to mention with PK's 8 million on the books it might force you to make a move elsewhere, and do you really need another year of PK to determine if you would rather have money to keep Mags or see if Pk can up his production

While I agree it is generally a good principle to sell high, and buy low....sometimes you have to cut your losses....PK even best case scenario does not justify his contract and might wind up hurting you in other areas besides simply his up and down production

Well said Trake PK, and bring in Fullmer.

Bob

StillMissOzzie
10-26-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Did you even read my post? It states the case and then the bottom line is that the situation isn't one that calls for dealing Loaiza

Its important to read all the words...thanks for coming

Fair enough, Rich. My bad. In my haste, I grabbed the wrong quote and hit the post key. I think we're on the same side on this. After a longer review, it should have ben one of lowesox or hold2dibber's quotes. I can't see how we improve by trading Louiza, ESPECIALLY while Colon is still up in the air.

:gulp:
SMO

RichH55
10-26-2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by lowesox
I think the problem is too many people are thinking about the very recent past. When you look at career statistics, you'll see that a guy like Loaiza has been consistently subpar and a guy like Konerko has made a career of being a consistent dangerous part of every lineup. Konerko is a great player, who is consistent.

Smart money says that Loaiza will not be nearly as good next year and that Konerko will be much better. As a GM that's what you need to think about. And yes, odds are Lee will be even better next year, but that's part of the reason his trade value is so high. (And for the record, I read last year that his value was even higher than Beltran's among Major League GMs. Which tells me he could yield a very nice return.)


Great, Consistent?

I thought we were talking about PK here? At best he is a .860 OPS guy...He did make an All-Star team, but how did he do the 2nd half that year?

You look at the numbers, for his position, he is average, yet he is paid like a star---> that is a recipe for disaster

Not to mention he might be the slowest man in the majors with hip problems(Not that those EVER seem to be trouble, right?)

Well I have my doubts on Loaiza as well.....That still doesn't mean PK is good

I say this thinking PK will rebound next year...but lets say he puts up a career best .860 OPS and just for the hell of it say he does NOT ground into damn near 30 DP....is that worth not being able to bring in another SP? Or having to Trade Mags or Lee?

I'm willing to be a list of names like Brad Fullmer and Brian Daubach if we had the same number of AB as PK and we put them together Player A,Player B style without the names, the numbers would not be shockingly different....certainly not enough to make us pay an extra 7 million a year for (and some good sound bytes too)


Oh....another note.....We say PK will rebound next year...have a better year.....its not good when you do that by putting the bar so low that you have no choice but to think he will clear it

You mean he's not going to bat near .200 for all but a month and a half of the year? Or Set the Season Record for GIDP???!?!?!?!

Where do I get my World Series Tickets!

jabrch
10-26-2003, 04:49 AM
Trade PK...

I still don't see any MLB teams interested in him for the same 8,000,000 reason we don't want him around - plus an extra 1,000,000 for his trade bump in his contract. 9mm? No team takes on that deal and doesn't stick us with their junk. I think KW had a very good season as a GM - but does anyone have faith that he will be able to pull off a Hundley type deal - unloading a terrible contract for two guys who can start for your team....

Me? I don't think so. I think PK is stuck here.

lowesox
10-26-2003, 06:29 PM
There's something very interesting to me about how in past years several posters have called for trading Carlos Lee when his trade value was very low (similar to Konerko's current value). Now, I'll bet many of those people thing trading Lee is stupid.

Lets face it, the only players White Sox fans are ok with trading are the ones who aren't playing up to their value. Trading Paul Konerko for nothing except to be rid of his salary would be a huge mistake.

The way I look at it is that every organization has a value. The GM's job is to raise that value. If he keeps doing that successfully, the team will eventually win.

RichH55
10-26-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
There's something very interesting to me about how in past years several posters have called for trading Carlos Lee when his trade value was very low (similar to Konerko's current value). Now, I'll bet many of those people thing trading Lee is stupid.

Lets face it, the only players White Sox fans are ok with trading are the ones who aren't playing up to their value. Trading Paul Konerko for nothing except to be rid of his salary would be a huge mistake.

The way I look at it is that every organization has a value. The GM's job is to raise that value. If he keeps doing that successfully, the team will eventually win.


1) Compare Contracts on Lee and Konerko

2) Compare Ages

3) Compare "expected production" and potential

4) Compare conditions of Both Players Hips


See if you can see the difference