PDA

View Full Version : Yankees Trade Possibility


hold2dibber
10-28-2003, 08:00 AM
From the Soriano rumors to the tidbit in the Southtown about the Sox targetting Nick Johnson, to the fact that the Yankees can take on payroll and have needs at positions where the Sox could use payroll relief, there seems to be reason that the Sox and Yankees are or will be talking trade.

I'm curious to know if people think the following trade would be (a) feasible; and (b) a good idea from the Sox' perspective.

Sox trade:

Maggs
PK
Koch
Prospect (Cotts?)

for

Soriano
Nick Johnson
Jeff Weaver

The Yankees would be adding 3 "name" players - although 2 are coming off of down years. But they need a right fielder and they need bullpen help. They'd be able to dump Weaver, who clearly cannot get it done in NY. And while they'd be adding a lot of salary this year, they'd actually be saving money next year (when Maggs and Koch come off the books). On the other hand, they'd be giving up two young, talented players who are cheap and under their control for several more years.

The Sox would free up (net) about $17 million in payroll for '04, would get 2 very good, young, and relatively cheap players, but would lose their best hitter and would be saddled with Weaver's $9 million contract in '05.

Tom in Boston
10-28-2003, 08:55 AM
I can't cheer for Nick Johnson, not as long as my Yankee-fan girlfriend keeps telling me how much she enjoys going to games to stare at his butt, as well as Shane Spencer's :)

SoxOnTop
10-28-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Tom in Boston
I can't cheer for Nick Johnson, not as long as my Yankee-fan girlfriend keeps telling me how much she enjoys going to games to stare at his butt, as well as Shane Spencer's :)

At least he won't be in Boston as much as a Sox player....

MisterB
10-28-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Jeff Weaver

That kills the deal right there. Weaver's agent is Scott Boras, which means he will NEVER play for the Sox as long as JR runs the show. Period.

hold2dibber
10-28-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
That kills the deal right there. Weaver's agent is Scott Boras, which means he will NEVER play for the Sox as long as JR runs the show. Period.

Are you suggesting that Weaver has veto rights in his contract and would exercise them to bar a trade to the Sox because Boras is his agent? Or are you suggesting that the Sox would never trade for someone who is already under contract simply because that player is a Boras client? If it is the former, I'd disagree because my guess is that Weaver wants the hell out of New York and would be comfortable returning to the AL Central. If it is the later, I don't buy it either - I agree that signing a free agent that is a Boras client is unlikely under JR's reign, but I don't see why they wouldn't trade for a guy already under contract, with 2 years left on the deal, just because the agent is Boras. Why would that matter under such circumstances?

thepaulbowski
10-28-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
That kills the deal right there. Weaver's agent is Scott Boras, which means he will NEVER play for the Sox as long as JR runs the show. Period.

I don't believe Weaver has a no trade clause & he's not 5/10 guy. So he (and his agent) wouldn't really have a say in the matter.

MisterB
10-28-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Are you suggesting that Weaver has veto rights in his contract and would exercise them to bar a trade to the Sox because Boras is his agent? Or are you suggesting that the Sox would never trade for someone who is already under contract simply because that player is a Boras client? If it is the former, I'd disagree because my guess is that Weaver wants the hell out of New York and would be comfortable returning to the AL Central. If it is the later, I don't buy it either - I agree that signing a free agent that is a Boras client is unlikely under JR's reign, but I don't see why they wouldn't trade for a guy already under contract, with 2 years left on the deal, just because the agent is Boras. Why would that matter under such circumstances?

Weaver can't refuse the trade, but it's no coincidence that the Sox haven't had a Boras client on their roster for several years now, and won't even consider drafting college/HS players that are Boras-represented. JR has made it a personal issue with Boras (although Boras could care less, there are plenty of other teams that will sign his clients). Jerry seems to have no problem cutting off his nose to spite his face.

StepsInSC
10-28-2003, 10:06 AM
I just cant see the Yankees taking on The DP Daddy and Crotch. Maybe I give George too much credit.

TDog
10-28-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
That kills the deal right there. Weaver's agent is Scott Boras, which means he will NEVER play for the Sox as long as JR runs the show. Period.

There was a time when good Sox fans would have conceded a lot of talent to pick up Weaver. Now his agent should be happy that anyone wants to pay him.

Randar68
10-28-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
That kills the deal right there. Weaver's agent is Scott Boras, which means he will NEVER play for the Sox as long as JR runs the show. Period.

Sorry, he doesn't have ANY choice until he's a FA again. Too bad for him.

I'd do that deal in a country second. Weaver would have to pitch his arse off with only one or 2 years left on his contract to re-establish himself for his next contract. Johnson and Soriano are light-years better than the current options at their positions, and you're dumping PK and Koch's salary on maybe the only team that can afford it.

Randar68
10-28-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
Weaver can't refuse the trade, but it's no coincidence that the Sox haven't had a Boras client on their roster for several years now, and won't even consider drafting college/HS players that are Boras-represented. JR has made it a personal issue with Boras (although Boras could care less, there are plenty of other teams that will sign his clients). Jerry seems to have no problem cutting off his nose to spite his face.

That has started to change, especially with draft-eligible players. Many players are not using him because of his bad reputation of manipulating the system/teams and won't risk it on a player never even seeing one pitch of pro ball.

Many of his clients have been consistently sliding 1 round or more the past 2 drafts simply because of representation, and teams don't want that head-ache with non-franchise types of players.

xil357
10-28-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Sorry, he doesn't have ANY choice until he's a FA again. Too bad for him.

I'd do that deal in a country second. Weaver would have to pitch his arse off with only one or 2 years left on his contract to re-establish himself for his next contract. Johnson and Soriano are light-years better than the current options at their positions, and you're dumping PK and Koch's salary on maybe the only team that can afford it.

Me too. This proposed deal, which should be in deeppink because it is a pipe dream, would open up so much payroll it's not even funny. This would free up money to chase Raul Ibanez or Mike Cameron in CF, and allow Reed/Borchard to patrol right. They also could sign a top-flight free agent starting pitcher to replace Colon. The Sox also could sign a pretty good SS for a re-vamped infield with Frank full time at 1B.

If they could not get Johnson in that deal, they could sign Robin Ventura to DH, spell Frank at 1B twice per week and mentor Crede. This would allow more ABs for Reed and Borchard to find out what they can do.

Imagine this lineup:
CF Cameron
LF Lee
1B Frank
2B Soriano
DH Johnson (or Ventura?)
3B Crede
RF Reed/Borchard
C Olivo
SS free agent signee of your choice

The lineup would be productive, fast, balanced and pretty cheap. The outfield defense would be great and that would help the pitching staff.

The rotation would be among the best in the league:
Free agent ace (Pettitte perhaps?)
Buherle
Loaiza
Weaver
Garland

They can assemble a bullpen around Marte and Wunsch, and perhaps Rauch and others.

This also gives them flexibilty to add a bat in RF at the All Star Break in the event that both Reed and Borchard flop. They also could add bullpen help if needed.

I do the deal even if they can't get Johnson in that trade: Maggs, Koch and Konerko for Soriano and Weaver straight up. I'd even throw in a prospect if I'm KW to get the deal done. The payroll would be within the Sox self-imposed constraints. Talk about rel-loading! This fantasy deal is too good to be true!

MHOUSE
10-28-2003, 12:32 PM
So you're basically giving away Maggs just to rid us of Konerko's and Koch's contracts?

This is why we need to think about what we're doing before signing guys to extensions based on one season or past seasons with another club.

But anyways you're giving up Maggs to get a quality first baseman (which we could cover with a Pauly/Daubach platoon or with Frank), a crappy second baseman (I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano), and a starter/long reliever who sucks?

I'd rather eat the money than lose Maggs for that.

southpaw40
10-28-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
So you're basically giving away Maggs just to rid us of Konerko's and Koch's contracts?
I'd rather eat the money than lose Maggs for that.

A voice of reason! I can't believe all the Sox fans who are so anxious to get rid of one of the best players in the game today! So he hit into a lot of double plays in 2003, so what? I don't think that was the reason we didn't make the playoffs. As a matter of fact, I would say that if each of our other players had played to the overall level that Maggs did, we would be world champs right now!
A lot of scenarios have been discussed using a lot of different players. If we can trade Maggs for player "a", then maybe we can make player "a" into a centerfielder,,,,,if we trade Maggs for player "b", then maybe player "b" will become a 20 game winner, blah, blah, blah......
Maybe it can happen that way, and maybe not. But with Maggs you have a sure 300 hitter, 100 RBIs, 30 HRs, and a more than adequate defensive outfielder. That's the type of player you build around, not trade away.
Now,,if everyone is concerned about his salary and thinks that he will not re-sign with the Sox at today's market, then maybe I can understand those feelings. But as a fan of the game and the Sox in particular, I am only interested in seeing the best White Sox team on the field come opening day 2004. And in my opinion, that team should include Maggs.

xil357
10-28-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
So you're basically giving away Maggs just to rid us of Konerko's and Koch's contracts?

This is why we need to think about what we're doing before signing guys to extensions based on one season or past seasons with another club.

But anyways you're giving up Maggs to get a quality first baseman (which we could cover with a Pauly/Daubach platoon or with Frank), a crappy second baseman (I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano), and a starter/long reliever who sucks?

I'd rather eat the money than lose Maggs for that.

Soriano's production is very close to Maggs, at a cheaper price and a younger and faster body that can play a more important defensive position. Soriano nearly is a 40-40 player. Even if you have to move him to the OF or DH to hide his glove I still do the deal and re-sign Robbie Alomar.

Say the Sox keep Maggs but can't meet his payroll demands during the 2004 offseason. Then what happens? They offer arbitration and they get two first round picks when he signs with the Yankees (or Cubs?) anyway. Is there any guarantee that those picks turn into players who can match Soriano's numbers? Is there a guarantee that one of them will be the next Mark Prior? I don't think so.

I love Maggs and I want to see him stay on the team until he retires. I also want $100 Billion to buy the Sox and up the payroll to $200 million to buy a championship. But as long as the Sox are unwilling to cut into their profits to increase payroll we have to be realistic.

I agree that they erred in trading for Koch and in giving Paulie the extension. They erred in trading Cameron for Konerko years ago. You don't trade a CF for a 1B when you already have a HOF 1B in Frank.

If the Yankees would be willing to do the deal I would jump on it, pronto. Ridding themselves of these albatross contracts gives the Sox flexibility to sign an ace starting pitcher, bullpen help, a very good CF and a good defensive SS.

jabrch
10-28-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
From the Soriano rumors to the tidbit in the Southtown about the Sox targetting Nick Johnson, to the fact that the Yankees can take on payroll and have needs at positions where the Sox could use payroll relief, there seems to be reason that the Sox and Yankees are or will be talking trade.

I'm curious to know if people think the following trade would be (a) feasible; and (b) a good idea from the Sox' perspective.

Sox trade:

Maggs
PK
Koch
Prospect (Cotts?)

for

Soriano
Nick Johnson
Jeff Weaver

The Yankees would be adding 3 "name" players - although 2 are coming off of down years. But they need a right fielder and they need bullpen help. They'd be able to dump Weaver, who clearly cannot get it done in NY. And while they'd be adding a lot of salary this year, they'd actually be saving money next year (when Maggs and Koch come off the books). On the other hand, they'd be giving up two young, talented players who are cheap and under their control for several more years.

The Sox would free up (net) about $17 million in payroll for '04, would get 2 very good, young, and relatively cheap players, but would lose their best hitter and would be saddled with Weaver's $9 million contract in '05.


IN A HEARTBEAT, I'd do that deal. Move Soriano to CF. Play Reed/Borchard in RF or resign Evertt. Use the remaining money to go after either a SS (Matsui prefereably over Tejada) to resign Thomas, and to get Luis Castillo to play 2B.

I don't see the Yanks doing that. Just doesn't make sense.

xil357
10-28-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
But as a fan of the game and the Sox in particular, I am only interested in seeing the best White Sox team on the field come opening day 2004. And in my opinion, that team should include Maggs.

In a perfect world the Sox keep Maggs and add a CF, SS and dominant starting pitching. In a perfect world Frank hits .400 with 50 homers and Konerko earns a Gold Glove batting .350 with 40 homers and 180 RBI at shortstop. But with the Sox' self-imposed payroll restrictions, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

I hope and wish that the 2004 Sox includes Maggs and a World Series victory. But with gaping holes in CF, SS and the starting rotation, it is not very likely.

batmanZoSo
10-28-2003, 01:33 PM
We should consider a trade of some kind for Jeff Weaver and maybe we'll get lucky. He was a pretty solid starter once. Almost a great one.

I'm thinking the Yankees will be desperate to get rid of him and pick up most of his 04 salary. Nice dream if nothing else. I'm not banking on him being great next year but he's the poster boy for someone that needs a change of scenery...he's just not cut out to play in New York.

hold2dibber
10-28-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano

That is perhaps the most absurd thing I've ever seen written on this board.

Randar68
10-28-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
So you're basically giving away Maggs just to rid us of Konerko's and Koch's contracts?

This is why we need to think about what we're doing before signing guys to extensions based on one season or past seasons with another club.

But anyways you're giving up Maggs to get a quality first baseman (which we could cover with a Pauly/Daubach platoon or with Frank), a crappy second baseman (I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano), and a starter/long reliever who sucks?

I'd rather eat the money than lose Maggs for that.

GIVING AWAY!?!?!?!??? *****! Lay down your crack pipe if you'd take anyone in the AL over Soriano at 2B. Absolute insanity, let alone to insinuate Miles being a better option!!! *****!!! You obviously know absolutely nothing about baseball outside of the walls of US Cellular field. Sorry for the insult, but that is the most completely ignorant and stupid thing I have ever read on this board, and that is REALLY saying something.

Johnson is a .420+ OBP machine, that can hit 30 HR's!!! Let me put it this way: Nic Johnson is a better all-around hitter than Magglio Ordonez, he's younger, makes a fraction of what Maggs makes, and he's left-handed!

GIVING AWAY Magglio??? Good Lord. The Yankees would be absolute idiots to make this trade instead of just signing Vlad and dumping Weaver.

2 years ago, people on this very board were thinking, in order to get Jeff Weaver, we'd have to give up Rauch, Lee, etc, etc... Good GRAVY! They'd get him for their dumped salary in this deal.


I don't think this deal would EVER go down, but to try to say any facet of this deal doesn't turn out like absolute Gold, Diamonds and Pearls is looking through White Sox tinted glasses (heck, more like just plain blind)...

Randar68
10-28-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Maybe it can happen that way, and maybe not. But with Maggs you have a sure 300 hitter, 100 RBIs, 30 HRs, and a more than adequate defensive outfielder. That's the type of player you build around, not trade away.


Put the bong down. You just described Soriano, you blathering fool! You'd get that out of your second baseman! You'd get a competent first baseman with a .400+ (in a terrible year) OBP and 30+ HR power from the left side to play 1B/DH platoon with Frank. Add to that someone most thought was a #2 pitcher at WORST just 2 years ago in Detroit.

Yeah. I wouldn't trade a RF'er who makes 14 million in the last year of his contract for that.... HELLOOOOOO!!!! McFLYYYYY!!!!

Dadawg_77
10-28-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Put the bong down. You just described Soriano, you blathering fool! You'd get that out of your second baseman! You'd get a competent first baseman with a .400+ (in a terrible year) OBP and 30+ HR power from the left side to play 1B/DH platoon with Frank. Add to that someone most thought was a #2 pitcher at WORST just 2 years ago in Detroit.

Yeah. I wouldn't trade a RF'er who makes 14 million in the last year of his contract for that.... HELLOOOOOO!!!! McFLYYYYY!!!!

I agree with every thing by why platoon Frank other then who gets to play first that night.


Southpaw, yeah Mags is one of the best players in the game today, but you would be getting another one of those elite players (Not to mention at a harder postion to fill with an elite guy) and a guy who can become better then both. Plus nice fourth starter.

Paulwny
10-28-2003, 02:19 PM
I don't see NY trading Soriano for Maggs. There are 2 free agent rf's Vlad and Scheffield. Scheffield has some close tie to someone in the yank front office. Why trade for Maggs and lose a player.
They also won't trade Soriano until they have a replacement at 2nd base. Even if they find a 2nd basemanthey made decide to use Soriano in rf or cf and skip the fa's.
If they find a 2nbaseman for Soriano then they will look at offers. There biggest need appears to be pitching, both starters and pen. Ny would want a lefty to replace Wells, Burhle. If you also want Johnson then it'll be Mark B and Marte, a lefty reliever.
The yanks don't need Maggs and what the hell would they do with Konerko.

Randar68
10-28-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I agree with every thing by why platoon Frank other then who gets to play first that night.


Southpaw, yeah Mags is one of the best players in the game today, but you would be getting another one of those elite players (Not to mention at a harder postion to fill with an elite guy) and a guy who can become better then both. Plus nice fourth starter.

I meant to have Nic Johnson and Frank both at DH or 1B. Give Frank a couple games at first a week to keep him into it and keep him sharp defensively in case he is needed more regularly. They guy not at 1st would be DH'ing under that scenario...

Randar68
10-28-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I don't see NY trading Soriano for Maggs. There are 2 free agent rf's Vlad and Scheffield. Scheffield has some close tie to someone in the yank front office. Why trade for Maggs and lose a player.
They also won't trade Soriano until they have a replacement at 2nd base. Even if they find a 2nd basemanthey made decide to use Soriano in rf or cf and skip the fa's.
If they find a 2nbaseman for Soriano then they will look at offers. There biggest need appears to be pitching, both starters and pen. Ny would want a lefty to replace Wells, Burhle. If you also want Johnson then it'll be Mark B and Marte, a lefty reliever.
The yanks don't need Maggs and what the hell would they do with Konerko.

This whole thread should be in deep pink, but it was all in the hypothetical. I agree it makes little sense for the Yanks except they'd be taking on some Koch/Konerko money for the dumping of Weaver's $$$$.

TheRockinMT
10-28-2003, 03:03 PM
Why would you give up so much in the way of talent? I don't even think that Soriano for Maggs even up is a good trade for the Sox and to add more to the mix for Johnson and choke Weaver doesn't make sense to me. But I guess that's what the off season is all about ... dreaming about opening day. Right?

Dadawg_77
10-28-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by TheRockinMT
Why would you give up so much in the way of talent? I don't even think that Soriano for Maggs even up is a good trade for the Sox and to add more to the mix for Johnson and choke Weaver doesn't make sense to me. But I guess that's what the off season is all about ... dreaming about opening day. Right?

Johnson is a stud and cheap. Weaver is a lot better then any current option the Sox have for a fifth starter. If you can get the Yankees to pick up some of that 9 million it would be butter.
Soriano has the talent to be just as good of a hitter as Mags is, but at a postion which is tougher to fill then corner outfield. If Reed or Borchard (or anyone else) have a solid season in RF, then you lose very little by giving up Mags.

Randar68
10-28-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by TheRockinMT
Why would you give up so much in the way of talent? I don't even think that Soriano for Maggs even up is a good trade for the Sox and to add more to the mix for Johnson and choke Weaver doesn't make sense to me. But I guess that's what the off season is all about ... dreaming about opening day. Right?

HUH!?!?!?

Is Soriano as good offensively as Maggs??? No. But he adds a lot of speed and athleticism to a line-up sorely lacking of those qualities. He makes a ton less money, isn't a HUGE a drop in production, and you are dumping high-salary NOTHINGS in Koch and Konerko (~15 million for 2004 alone) in return for a .420 OBP and almost .900 OPS 1st baseman who makes little to nothing. Weaver was top of the rotation and considered just short of an Ace when Detroit traded him and he rotted in the bullpen in NY. Who knows if he'd regain form, but to dump Konerko/Koch and get that much offensive talent and a potential #2 or #3 starter in return for 2 base-cloggers DP-machines????

I don't know, I guess after watching the last 3 years of requiring 3 or 4 hits to get a run in many cases, I must be the only person who sees the value/need of speed and OBP in the White Sox lineup...

Randar68
10-28-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Johnson is a stud and cheap. Weaver is a lot better then any current option the Sox have for a fifth starter. If you can get the Yankees to pick up some of that 9 million it would be butter.
Soriano has the talent to be just as good of a hitter as Mags is, but at a postion which is tougher to fill then corner outfield. If Reed or Borchard (or anyone else) have a solid season in RF, then you lose very little by giving up Mags.

For arguement's sake, here are the 2003 salaries of the players in question, with their 2004 salaraies in parenthesis if I recall them correctly...

Koch $4,250,000 (6.5 million next year
Konerko $6,250,000 (16 million over next 2 years, IIRC)
Maggs $9,000,000 (14 million last year of deal)

Soriano $800,000 (arbitration eligible IIRC)
Johnson $364,100 (not yet arbitration eligible)
Weaver $4,150,000 (15.5 million over next 2 years)

The money is completely one-sided. Again, I don't know why the Yankees would do this, but I'd throw in 2-3 prospects or some $$$$ to get it done. This trade would make the Sox instant favorites in the Central if not the AL, especially if they were able to sign a top pitcher too.

hitters in your order:
Thomas
Lee
Soriano
Johnson
Crede
Olivo
Reed/Borchard/FA/Rowand

I'd probably keep Soriano at 2B, but you could argue to move him to CF and resign Valentin/Alomar for the infield. Rich Aurillia is a FA as well, so he might be an option if they can dump some salary...

Chisoxfn
10-28-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
So you're basically giving away Maggs just to rid us of Konerko's and Koch's contracts?

This is why we need to think about what we're doing before signing guys to extensions based on one season or past seasons with another club.

But anyways you're giving up Maggs to get a quality first baseman (which we could cover with a Pauly/Daubach platoon or with Frank), a crappy second baseman (I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano), and a starter/long reliever who sucks?

I'd rather eat the money than lose Maggs for that.

Wow, Soriano is a stud. I can't possibly see that as giving a guy away and yes this would give the Sox a ton of money to let them sign Colon or give half that to another good pitcher and Weaver is your fifth.

Done in a heartbeat just like I'd do a Konerko/Maggs for Johnson/Soriano deal.

pappy
10-28-2003, 05:56 PM
Soriano for maggs?.........ur what hurts!!!

hold2dibber
10-28-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Soriano $800,000 (arbitration eligible IIRC)

Soriano had 9 ABs in '99 and 50 in '00 before becoming a regular in '01. Does that make him arbitration eligible this winter or next (I thought next)?

Paulwny
10-28-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Soriano had 9 ABs in '99 and 50 in '00 before becoming a regular in '01. Does that make him arbitration eligible this winter or next (I thought next)?

I heard or read that it was next year.

mikef1331
10-28-2003, 06:42 PM
All of this conversation about trading Maggs to the Yanks for Soriano is, as Kramer would say "Kookie Talk"

[COLOR=deeppink] The only scenario in which Maggs would be traded, that would be smart ,would be a Maggs and Konerko trade to Seattle for Ichiro... and as everyone knows that will never happen.

So keep dreaming

mikef1331
10-28-2003, 06:47 PM
hmm.... that text in the last post should have been in pink... oh well

dougs78
10-28-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I'd take Miles, Alomar, Graffy, etc over Suckiano


This statement has absolutely no basis in objective reality.

voodoochile
10-28-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by mikef1331
hmm.... that text in the last post should have been in pink... oh well

If you don't do complete the tag set, you don't get the out effect.


Nice out tag, voodoo. :D: Quote my post to compare it to yours...

[color=deeppink]no out tag means no pink

mikef1331
10-28-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
If you don't do complete the tag set, you don't get the out effect.


Nice out tag, voodoo. :D: Quote my post to compare it to yours...

[color=deeppink]no out tag means no pink

Thank's, I'l remember that next time. I'm new here so i"m still getting used to the system.

batmanZoSo
10-28-2003, 08:40 PM
I think Soriano will be better than Maggs down the road. The guy matched Ordonez's career best home run total of 38, in his second year and drove in 91 to Maggs' 99, whilst batting out of the leadoff spot (?). And keep in mind this was a relatively disappointing year for Soriano.

It could come as early as next year that he matches or surpasses Maggs as a hitter...you never know with a freak talent like Soriano. If and when that happens and you include base running, it's almost no-contest. Defensively, Magglio will always be the superior, though. Hopefully if we get Soriano he'll improve somewhat to where he's not a liability and just average.

Right now, yes, Magglio is a more polished hitter. The difference is strikeouts. But I say Soriano isn't too far behind because Magglio in all fairness isn't a superstar hitter. He's great, but he's not in the top tier of sluggers like Ramirez, Bonds etc. I still don't think he's as good as Frank, now that he's made another comeback. Magglio has never carried a .400 on-base percentage or a 1.000 ops. I would bet a large sum that Soriano will, and not just once. He's an amazing hitter, considering how little and skinny he is.

But don't get me wrong, this is just my personal objective analysis. I'm not in favor of trading Magglio, I love the guy. He may not be Ramirez like I said, but in consistency he's up there with anyone. But we could do a lot worse than Soriano. It would pain me to see Maggs go, but what are you gonna do? Can't buy the team yourself...

MisterB
10-28-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Magglio has never carried a .400 on-base percentage or a 1.000 ops. I would bet a large sum that Soriano will, and not just once.

The only way Soriano carries a .400 OBP is if he hits .360.

JRIG
10-28-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
The only way Soriano carries a .400 OBP is if he hits .360.

...and gets hit by a pitch about 25 times.

JDP
10-28-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
But with Maggs you have a sure 300 hitter, 100 RBIs, 30 HRs, and a more than adequate defensive outfielder.

Ah ok, a sure .300 hitter, 100 RBIs and 30 HRs you say? I'll nitpick and point out he was at .317-29-99. =}

The reason why so many are "eager to get rid of Maggs" is that is $14 million price tag he has for 2004 and the fact that he is gone after 2004. Why not get something for him now? I've seen many scenarios passed around from board to board (Maggs/Konerko/Koch for Soriano/Weaver/Johnson or Maggs for Soriano/prospects). Why is it bad to trade Magglio? The Sox can barely afford him in 2004 and most certainly not after that, so why wouldn't you trade your best trade material for something that will be as offensively equal, fill some holes on the roster and most importantly, be a cheaper option?

batmanZoSo
10-28-2003, 11:00 PM
Anobody know what Soriano makes?????

I say if we can get Soriano, do it, and trade Lee as well before he puts in another stinko year and his value hits the cellar. That's shaving 20 million at least from our payroll. We can keep cheap Alomar and still be able to retain Everett and even go after a Millwood.

We'll have to live with Rowand (even though it'll kill some of you) for a year at most until the great Reed is ready. Here's to hoping he's ready already. Then ideally, Everett will move out after 2004 and Borchard will be primed to anchor right field for the next decade (let us pray). If not, there'll be a vacant QB position on Lake Shore Drive....no, I don't like Grossman.

But hey...Soriano, Reed, Borchard. It could be worse...

Looking ahead is fun sometimes.

Gumshoe
10-29-2003, 12:20 AM
Frank Thomas for Nick Johnson STRAIGHT UP. Left handed solid 1B and clear out that BS in the Clubhouse. then do what we have to do.

Gshoe

southpaw40
10-29-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Put the bong down. You just described Soriano, you blathering fool! You'd get that out of your second baseman! You'd get a competent first baseman with a .400+ (in a terrible year) OBP and 30+ HR power from the left side to play 1B/DH platoon with Frank. Add to that someone most thought was a #2 pitcher at WORST just 2 years ago in Detroit.

Yeah. I wouldn't trade a RF'er who makes 14 million in the last year of his contract for that.... HELLOOOOOO!!!! McFLYYYYY!!!!

Now that the cold gray dawn of another day has come (and hopefully you've sobered up), you will realize that people other than yourself have opinions. And they shouldn't be insulted for expressing them.
Now, about Maggs and Soriano: I said Maggs was a more than adequate defensive outfielder, and I don't think that Soriano can be so described. As a matter of fact, I don't think he can be described as an adequate defensive second baseman (relax, just my opinion!) Johnson is an exciting young player, but in describing him as "a competent first baseman,,,,,,,,,,,,and 30 HR power.........." describes what might happen if he plays regularly, which he hasn't done yet in his major league career. Heck, we have a player on the roster right now that has been an all-star first baseman! But I guess it's impossible to consider Konerko as being able to bounce back to that level,,,,only Weaver can come back to what he USED to be!
Right?

Randar68
10-29-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Now that the cold gray dawn of another day has come (and hopefully you've sobered up), you will realize that people other than yourself have opinions. And they shouldn't be insulted for expressing them.


I'm not insulting them for expressing them, I'm insulting them because they were completely stupid.


Now, about Maggs and Soriano: I said Maggs was a more than adequate defensive outfielder, and I don't think that Soriano can be so described. As a matter of fact, I don't think he can be described as an adequate defensive second baseman (relax, just my opinion!) Johnson is an exciting young player, but in describing him as "a competent first baseman,,,,,,,,,,,,and 30 HR power.........." describes what might happen if he plays regularly, which he hasn't done yet in his major league career. Heck, we have a player on the roster right now that has been an all-star first baseman! But I guess it's impossible to consider Konerko as being able to bounce back to that level,,,,only Weaver can come back to what he USED to be!
Right?

Soriano is better than Miles or any other internal option we have. He's still inconsistent, yes. I'd trade a little of that for his offensive production in a heartbeat.

Johnson is 25 and will be entering his 3rd real year in the majors next year. He's improved dramatically each year...

Weaver put together 2 or 3 really good years, before being maimed by the Yankees and their 8 other starting pitchers log-jam. Konerko, on the other hand, has NEVER put together a single complete season. He's had 1 great HALF season in his career and more terrible ones than good ones. He's going to be paid 16 million or so over the next 2 years, as opposed to Johnson and Soriano, who neither are arbitration eligible for at least a couple more years, IIRC, and Weaver, who, IF he could return to form, is a #2 or #3 pitcher!

Konerko will NEVER have as much value to a team as a good #2 starter will. Konerko isn't consistent, he's slow as hell, he doesn't walk enough, and he is not a gold glove quality defensive firstbaseman.

I have no problem debating intelligent arguements and thoughts, but for any person to insinuate they think Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano is truly out-of-this-world-moronic.

voodoochile
10-29-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm not insulting them for expressing them, I'm insulting them because they were completely stupid.

...I have no problem debating intelligent arguements and thoughts, but for any person to insinuate they think Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano is truly out-of-this-world-moronic.


How about just dropping the insults all together? I mentioned this before. We go back to the old boards, Randar. Can you try to find a way to say, "That's a bad idea", without calling someone a moron, idiot, dumbass, etc?

It adds absolutely NOTHING to the conversation...

MHOUSE
10-29-2003, 12:03 PM
Ok Soriano had a great rookie year. This season and this postseason the league clearly caught up to him. We need guys to hit for average, get on base, and play defense. We don't need a leadoff man swinging for the fences and he sucks at second base. He's not worth Magglio Ordonez. The Yanks are going to sign Vlad anyways.

southpaw40
10-29-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm not insulting them for expressing them, I'm insulting them because they were completely stupid.

And who besides you to make that determination. Sounds to me like your position is "whoever has an opinion that differs with mine is stupid". Must be nice to be so secure in your beliefs! Or maybe the wrong person is being labeled stupid.

Soriano is better than Miles or any other internal option we have. He's still inconsistent, yes. I'd trade a little of that for his offensive production in a heartbeat.

I have not and will not debate whether Soriano is a better second base option than what we currently have. My point is, IN MY OPINION, Magglio Ordonez is a better option as a baseball player for the Chicago White Sox than Soriano. It's been pointed out in this thread that Soriano would be a premier player on our team. I won't argue that point either, but IN MY OPINION, you have to be more of a rounded OVERALL player to be considered premier, and IN MY OPINION, he is lacking defensively.

Johnson is 25 and will be entering his 3rd real year in the majors next year. He's improved dramatically each year...

Again, I won't argue with you on this point, but if a player expects to stay in the major leagues, he should improve every year. I will dismiss your use of the word "dramatically" as your attempt to sway me (or anyone who reads your post) to your viewpoint. The fact is, he is a second string first baseman on his own team. (I know, here's where you pull out your "money" argument, but if you'll refer to my original post, I defer to all talk about money, I simply come here to talk about the merits of baseball and baseball players, not the economy of the game).

Weaver put together 2 or 3 really good years, before being maimed by the Yankees and their 8 other starting pitchers log-jam. Konerko, on the other hand, has NEVER put together a single complete season. He's had 1 great HALF season in his career and more terrible ones than good ones. He's going to be paid 16 million or so over the next 2 years, as opposed to Johnson and Soriano, who neither are arbitration eligible for at least a couple more years, IIRC, and Weaver, who, IF he could return to form, is a #2 or #3 pitcher!

Again, your OPINION and mine differs on this subject. How can you objectively say that Weaver will (can) become what he once was, and summarily dismiss that possibility for Konerko?

Konerko will NEVER have as much value to a team as a good #2 starter will. Konerko isn't consistent, he's slow as hell, he doesn't walk enough, and he is not a gold glove quality defensive firstbaseman.

But what he IS is a former All-Star player, who in my OPINION has the capability to become one again!

I have no problem debating intelligent arguements and thoughts, but for any person to insinuate they think Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano is truly out-of-this-world-moronic.

Have no idea what you're talking about here. I never have and never will insinuate that Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano. I am not responding to you for anyone but myself. I have seen the posts to which you are referring, and I also disagree with them. But they are the OPINION of the person who posted them, and I for one will not proclaim myself worthy of calling them stupid for it.

Dadawg_77
10-29-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Ok Soriano had a great rookie year. This season and this postseason the league clearly caught up to him. We need guys to hit for average, get on base, and play defense. We don't need a leadoff man swinging for the fences and he sucks at second base. He's not worth Magglio Ordonez. The Yanks are going to sign Vlad anyways.

Soriano isn't a leadoff man, Torre for some reason loves to misuse him there. He would be a good at 3-5 in a linup, to much of his power is wasted by being the leadoff guy.

Dadawg_77
10-29-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Have no idea what you're talking about here. I never have and never will insinuate that Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano. I am not responding to you for anyone but myself. I have seen the posts to which you are referring, and I also disagree with them. But they are the OPINION of the person who posted them, and I for one will not proclaim myself worthy of calling them stupid for it.

It my opinion is one of more tired responses in todays world. Just because you think something doesn't make it so, thus people's opinions are wrong all the time. Now I am not saying people are stupid for having bad opinions just they may be ignorant of all the fact out there. And any one who think Aaron AAAA Miles is better then Soriano is ignorant of basic baseball.

Nick Johnson is better first baseman then Konerko. The one major concern I have with Nick is his wrist which could hurt his durability and power stroke. He hit a HR every 23 at bats which comes to 22 homers with 500 at bats. His OBP last year was .422 and he sees on avg 4.28 pitches per plate appearance.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Have no idea what you're talking about here. I never have and never will insinuate that Aaron Miles is a better option than Soriano. I am not responding to you for anyone but myself. I have seen the posts to which you are referring, and I also disagree with them. But they are the OPINION of the person who posted them, and I for one will not proclaim myself worthy of calling them stupid for it.

Konerko was an All-star based solely on the outstanding firs-half of the season. That is the only above-average half of a season (for a 1st baseman) that Konerko has ever had.

Please, find another way to justify his 16 million dollar wasted contract for the next 2 seasons.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Ok Soriano had a great rookie year. This season and this postseason the league clearly caught up to him. We need guys to hit for average, get on base, and play defense. We don't need a leadoff man swinging for the fences and he sucks at second base.


OK. Since voodoo has asked, I'll refrain from insulting you in the way in which you deserve. How about this, Soriano's stats this year:

.290-38-91 out of the leadoff spot with a .863 OPS. PLEASE GOD! PLEASE LET THE REST OF THE LEAGUE CATCH UP TO PAUL KONERKO!

southpaw40
10-29-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Konerko was an All-star based solely on the outstanding firs-half of the season. That is the only above-average half of a season (for a 1st baseman) that Konerko has ever had.

Please, find another way to justify his 16 million dollar wasted contract for the next 2 seasons.

If this has finally come down to a discussion about money, then I cannot participate. As I've stated before, I don't debate the economics of the game, only the abilities of those who play.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
If this has finally come down to a discussion about money, then I cannot participate. As I've stated before, I don't debate the economics of the game, only the abilities of those who play.

Or lack of abilities. Konerko is overpaid if he made 5 million a year. The fact that he is owed 16 million over the next 2 years, and has gone into 1/2 season or longer slumps in each of the last 3 seasons makes him more than expendable. He is a burden to this team.

moochpuppy
10-29-2003, 02:13 PM
Konerko is nothing more than a Doug Mientkiewicz with a little more power and a lot less defense.

cornball
10-29-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Ok Soriano had a great rookie year. This season and this postseason the league clearly caught up to him. We need guys to hit for average, get on base, and play defense. We don't need a leadoff man swinging for the fences and he sucks at second base. He's not worth Magglio Ordonez. The Yanks are going to sign Vlad anyways.


If that is the case, why are we going to possibly resign Valentin and pay millions to do it.

The Yankees are not going to trade pieces that benefit them, when they can get any FA they desire. The players in many cases also want to be in NY because they have a great chance to get a ring.

maurice
10-29-2003, 02:26 PM
Nobody "caught up to" Soriano. This is like the twisted inverse of the folks who used to claim that Konerko was getting better every year.

Soriano's 2003 stats are comparable to his 2002 stats. Heck, his second-half 2003 stats are comparable to his first-half 2003 stats. His major dip in performance was towards the MIDDLE of 2003. There's no downward slope here. Given his age, he'll probably get even better.

southpaw40
10-29-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Or lack of abilities. Konerko is overpaid if he made 5 million a year. The fact that he is owed 16 million over the next 2 years, and has gone into 1/2 season or longer slumps in each of the last 3 seasons makes him more than expendable. He is a burden to this team.

This could go on forever. The fact that you are so quick with your responses which include references to money proves that you are certainly more capable as the GM than me!

The ONLY point I'm trying to make is that for anyone who is trying to evaluate the value AS A PLAYER of Konerko compared to Johnson shouldn't do so based solely on the record of Johnson to date. It wouldn't be fair to either player.

maurice
10-29-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
for anyone who is trying to evaluate the value AS A PLAYER of Konerko compared to Johnson shouldn't do so based solely on the record of Johnson to date. It wouldn't be fair to either player.

:?:

What else should we look at? Both players were highly rated prospects. Konerko has been a big disappointment, particularly from a power standpoint. As a result, all three teams he played for have tried to dump him. Johnson is delivering the goods. They both have some health concerns. Konerko is older, overpaid, can't bat left-handed, worse defensively, and unlikely to improve beyond his mediocre career numbers. The inverse is true of Johnson.

southpaw40
10-29-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by maurice
:?:

What else should we look at? Both players were highly rated prospects. Konerko has been a big disappointment, particularly from a power standpoint. As a result, all three teams he played for have tried to dump him. Johnson is delivering the goods. They both have some health concerns. Konerko is older, overpaid, can't bat left-handed, worse defensively, and unlikely to improve beyond his mediocre career numbers. The inverse is true of Johnson.

Johnson has not played an entire season in the major leagues yet. Yes, he was with the Yankees all year (I think), but he only had 324 AB. Eventually they will be judged based on their records, and rightfully so. But for now, I don't think Johnson has enough of a track record to say he is or isn't the real deal. I will certainly agree that so far, so good!

Chisoxfn
10-29-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Or lack of abilities. Konerko is overpaid if he made 5 million a year. The fact that he is owed 16 million over the next 2 years, and has gone into 1/2 season or longer slumps in each of the last 3 seasons makes him more than expendable. He is a burden to this team.


Thats the horrible flaw in Konerko's contract. When they signed him last year, he should of got 5 mill per. I said it the day they signed him that they were fools for giving him the kind of money he got and I'm a HUGE PK fan.

Nick Johnson is a step up compared to Konerko. Konerko can be good, but Johnson can be great. First off, Johnson is a lefty, which is always a plus for two reasons. One, the Sox need more lefties and two, their aren't near as many good lefty pitchers in the majors then their are righties so more often then not your gonna have the advantage.

The biggest difference I see between Johnson and Konerko is that Johnson has an unbelievable eye and will have a very HIGH OBP his entire career. Johnson and KOnerko have similar power and I'd say each can hit around 30, but I wouldn't expect anymore then that and I'd be happy with 25.

Johnson will probably be a better avg hitter (He has a very pretty stroke) and at this point i firmly believe Johnson is already the better player.

When it comes to comparing Maggs to Soriano, Maggs is better at one thing and thats patience at the plate. Maggs isn't tremendous when it comes to discipline but he's good and Soriano isn't. Other then that Soriano is superior in terms of raw power, speed and I'd say potential. I like Maggs a lot and maybe it would be a bit different if Soriano made 12 mill a year, but in this case you'd be saving 13 mill going to Soriano. People may not want to think about the economics of the game, but fact is, economics is probably the most important part of the game.

If you have shoddy contracts left and right and don't have an owner like the Boss, then you won't compete and will never compete.

If a Maggs/Konerko for Soriano/Johnson deal was possible then I'd be willing to throw in Rowand, Rauch or whoever else would be needed. I don't think I'd throw in Honel or Cotts but if the Yanks demanded Borchard to get it done, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

The Sox would be a better team and while losing a bit in the minor league department they would still have Reed and their better arms and would have an extra 20 million. CHA CHING!!!!!

hold2dibber
10-29-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Johnson has not played an entire season in the major leagues yet. Yes, he was with the Yankees all year (I think), but he only had 324 AB. Eventually they will be judged based on their records, and rightfully so. But for now, I don't think Johnson has enough of a track record to say he is or isn't the real deal. I will certainly agree that so far, so good!

Johnson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=6401) has nearly 800 MLB ABs under his belt, but you're right, he hasn't been a full time player yet for an entire season. He looks like he's the real deal, but I don't think anyone can say for sure yet whether that is the case.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Johnson has not played an entire season in the major leagues yet. Yes, he was with the Yankees all year (I think), but he only had 324 AB. Eventually they will be judged based on their records, and rightfully so. But for now, I don't think Johnson has enough of a track record to say he is or isn't the real deal. I will certainly agree that so far, so good!

OK, 2003 stats. Here we go, for comparison:

Pauly 2002: 630 TPA's, 44 BB's, 72 K, 4 HBP, 28 GIDP, 3.76 Pitches/PA
Pauly 2003: 495 TPA's, 43 BB's, 50 K, 9 HBP, 17 GIDP, 3.76 Pitches/PA

Johnson 2002: 441 TPA, 48 BB's, 98 K, 12 HBP, 11 GIDP, 4.11 Pitches/PA
Johnson 2003: 406 TPA, 70 BB's, 57 K, 8 HBP, 9 GIDP, 4.28 Pitches/PA


Over the past 2 years, let's look at #BB + HBP per Plate Appearance

Konerko: (44+4+43+9) / (630+495) = 100 / 1125 = .08888
Johnson: (48+12+70+8) / (441+406) = 138 / 847 = .16293

What this means, is that Johnson, over the first 2 full seasons of his MLB career, get's on base in a means other than a hit, twice as often as Konerko did in his peak years at the ages of 26 and 27!

To even spend this much time pointing out the obvious superiority of Johnson vs. Konerko is silly.


Let's also take a quick look at 162 game averages.

Konerko over 5 equivalent seasons: .279-26-95 with .340 OBP and .812 OPS.
Johnson over 1.53 equivalent seasons: .256-20-74 with a .376 OBP and .800 OPS.

Johnson has improved every year and will continue that. Konerko is topped out and not as good now as Johnson already is, and it's not even close. This team already has plenty of no-walk strike-out hitters. They need guys to work counts and get on base. Johnson does that better than anyone on this team now, including Thomas.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Chisoxfn


Well said, and money is a big part of the equation whether or not you chose to admit/acknowledge it.

emaholic
10-29-2003, 05:29 PM
No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by emaholic
No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No.

Good to see you've decided. Now would you like to tell us what in the heck you were referring to?

MisterB
10-29-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Good to see you've decided. Now would you like to tell us what in the heck you were referring to?

I believe she's trying to sing 'Nobody But Me', a top ten hit for the Human Beinz in 1967. :D:




(Note: Edited for gender correctness.)

emaholic
10-29-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Good to see you've decided. Now would you like to tell us what in the heck you were referring to?

For the past week or so I've been reading posts about trading Maggs to the Yankees to get Soriano and whoever else. I'm amazed by how many people would actually like to see this trade. Maggs is one of the best players on the team. I just can't see Maggs on any other team but the Sox. He needs to stay here. He just does. I'm just sick of seeing all these trade talks. Very disturbing.

emaholic
10-29-2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
I believe he's trying to sing 'Nobody But Me', a top ten hit for the Human Beinz in 1967. :D:

I'm a she. Thank you very much.

Randar68
10-29-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by emaholic
For the past week or so I've been reading posts about trading Maggs to the Yankees to get Soriano and whoever else. I'm amazed by how many people would actually like to see this trade. Maggs is one of the best players on the team. I just can't see Maggs on any other team but the Sox. He needs to stay here. He just does. I'm just sick of seeing all these trade talks. Very disturbing.


That is thinking with your heart. That's fine, but that's all it is. It's not necessarily reasonable and it most certainly doesn't mean it's the bestthing to help this team win a World Series, which is my wish. Is your wish to see a bunch of fan favorites or a World Series on the South Side?

Otherwise, bring back Ozzie, Robin, Wilson Alvarez, Roberto Hernandez... yadda yadda yadda.

Maggs is one of my favorite players on this team, but do you really think he'd turn down more money elsewhere because he liked you as a fan?

I want to win, plain and simple. This trade is really so preposterous the Yankees would laugh you out of NY if you even suggested in. It is lop-sided towards the Sox in every facet. We're really only dealing in hypotheticals here, but like I said, thinking about what's best for the team's chances are not necessarily the same as thinking about your favorite player or what's best for you as a fan of some players more than others.

emaholic
10-29-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That is thinking with your heart. That's fine, but that's all it is. It's not necessarily reasonable and it most certainly doesn't mean it's the bestthing to help this team win a World Series, which is my wish. Is your wish to see a bunch of fan favorites or a World Series on the South Side?

Otherwise, bring back Ozzie, Robin, Wilson Alvarez, Roberto Hernandez... yadda yadda yadda.

Maggs is one of my favorite players on this team, but do you really think he'd turn down more money elsewhere because he liked you as a fan?

I want to win, plain and simple. This trade is really so preposterous the Yankees would laugh you out of NY if you even suggested in. It is lop-sided towards the Sox in every facet. We're really only dealing in hypotheticals here, but like I said, thinking about what's best for the team's chances are not necessarily the same as thinking about your favorite player or what's best for you as a fan of some players more than others.

I've always told myself to not get so attached to players, but Maggs, he's a great guy AND a great player. I just really don't see how we could give him up. GAH, xjdgnzdfhjsrktjdrstjkdtykdyuldkfjdreh. Forget about it.

JDP
10-29-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by emaholic
For the past week or so I've been reading posts about trading Maggs to the Yankees to get Soriano and whoever else. I'm amazed by how many people would actually like to see this trade. Maggs is one of the best players on the team. I just can't see Maggs on any other team but the Sox. He needs to stay here. He just does. I'm just sick of seeing all these trade talks. Very disturbing.

They only thing disturbing regarding Magglio is if he isn't moved this offseason and talent such as Soriano or whomever in combination deals is sent/received.

Did Magglio rise to "stardom" while playing for the Sox? yes
Is he a fan favorite and an identifiable face? yes
Does he make $14 million in 2004? yes
Will he be affordable after 2004 or on the Sox? no

One shouldn't be "sick of trade talks" or be "disturbed" because of such discussions. Magglio will not be affordable or on this team after 2004. The only thing that would be sickening would not be getting anything in return for him and just letting him walk.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
OK, 2003 stats. Here we go, for comparison:

Pauly 2002: 630 TPA's, 44 BB's, 72 K, 4 HBP, 28 GIDP, 3.76 Pitches/PA
Pauly 2003: 495 TPA's, 43 BB's, 50 K, 9 HBP, 17 GIDP, 3.76 Pitches/PA

Johnson 2002: 441 TPA, 48 BB's, 98 K, 12 HBP, 11 GIDP, 4.11 Pitches/PA
Johnson 2003: 406 TPA, 70 BB's, 57 K, 8 HBP, 9 GIDP, 4.28 Pitches/PA


Over the past 2 years, let's look at #BB + HBP per Plate Appearance

Konerko: (44+4+43+9) / (630+495) = 100 / 1125 = .08888
Johnson: (48+12+70+8) / (441+406) = 138 / 847 = .16293

What this means, is that Johnson, over the first 2 full seasons of his MLB career, get's on base in a means other than a hit, twice as often as Konerko did in his peak years at the ages of 26 and 27!

To even spend this much time pointing out the obvious superiority of Johnson vs. Konerko is silly.


Let's also take a quick look at 162 game averages.

Konerko over 5 equivalent seasons: .279-26-95 with .340 OBP and .812 OPS.
Johnson over 1.53 equivalent seasons: .256-20-74 with a .376 OBP and .800 OPS.

Johnson has improved every year and will continue that. Konerko is topped out and not as good now as Johnson already is, and it's not even close. This team already has plenty of no-walk strike-out hitters. They need guys to work counts and get on base. Johnson does that better than anyone on this team now, including Thomas.

Let's look at more meaningful statistics (we all know we can prove any point we want using statistics!)

At the end of 2003, NJ has had 769 total AB, PK at the same (or very similar) point in his career had 737 total AB. I say very similar because this is as close as I could match the total number of plate appearances and still have verifieable information.
Here are the results:

NJ PK
Runs: 122 92
Hits: 197 199
2B 36 35
3B 0 4
HR 31 31
RBI 113 110
TB 326 335
BB 125 62
SO 170 110
SB 6 1
These numbers were the result of PK having only 32 fewer AB.
These statistics do not in any way prove that NJ is a better player AT THIS STAGE OF HIS CAREER than PK was at the same stage.
And with his far superior defense, NJ only had had 8 errors to PKs 4. PK played for three different teams during this time, and did not play in a stadium which offers the same advantage to a right hander that Yankee stadium offers a left hander.
In the future, NJ may very well prove the better player, but I just don't think there is enough evidence of that yet.

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Let's look at more meaningful statistics (we all know we can prove any point we want using statistics!)

At the end of 2003, NJ has had 769 total AB, PK at the same (or very similar) point in his career had 737 total AB. I say very similar because this is as close as I could match the total number of plate appearances and still have verifieable information.
Here are the results:

NJ PK
Runs: 122 92
Hits: 197 199
2B 36 35
3B 0 4
HR 31 31
RBI 113 110
TB 326 335
BB 125 62
SO 170 110
SB 6 1
These numbers were the result of PK having only 32 fewer AB.
These statistics do not in any way prove that NJ is a better player AT THIS STAGE OF HIS CAREER than PK was at the same stage.
And with his far superior defense, NJ only had had 8 errors to PKs 4. PK played for three different teams during this time, and did not play in a stadium which offers the same advantage to a right hander that Yankee stadium offers a left hander.
In the future, NJ may very well prove the better player, but I just don't think there is enough evidence of that yet.

Yes, those numbers do prove Johnson is better, IMO. The extra 60 times Johnson reached base translated into him scoring 30 extra runs and runs are what offense is all about...

Paulwny
10-30-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, those numbers do prove Johnson is better, IMO. The extra 60 times Johnson reached base translated into him scoring 30 extra runs and runs are what offense is all about...

Not really, Quite often Johnson batted 2nd in the order. It's easier to score when the meat of the line up follows.

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Not really, Quite often Johnson batted 2nd in the order. It's easier to score when the meat of the line up follows.

Yes, really. If Paulie could reach base like Johnson, maybe he would be batting second too. We can go around like this all day... :D:

Paulwny
10-30-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, really. If Paulie could reach base like Johnson, maybe he would be batting second too. We can go around like this all day... :D:

I don't want into the Johnson/ Konerko debate. I feel runs scored is just a number, it's too dependant on other factors. Where you bat in the line up is a huge factor.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, really. If Paulie could reach base like Johnson, maybe he would be batting second too. We can go around like this all day... :D:

:D: Yes, we could go around like this all day........PK's 60 fewer strikeouots and 14 point higher batting average should count for something! :D:

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
:D: Yes, we could go around like this all day........PK's 60 fewer strikeouots and 14 point higher batting average should count for something! :D:

K's are overrated. It's just another out. GO, PO, FO, SO all mean the same thing.

PK's BA didn't translate into any meaningful numbers.

Runs and RBI are the name of the game. You guys are downplaying Johnson's runs scored because of where he batted, but he also has 3 more RBI and PK has always batted in RBI producing slots AND has a higher BA.

Paulwny
10-30-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You guys

I guess you're icluding me as one of "you guys". Actually I think Johnson is better then Konerko, has great plate knowledge at an early age , however, I still think runs scored is just a number. I'm out of this discussion. :smile:

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
K's are overrated. It's just another out. GO, PO, FO, SO all mean the same thing.

PK's BA didn't translate into any meaningful numbers.

Runs and RBI are the name of the game. You guys are downplaying Johnson's runs scored because of where he batted, but he also has 3 more RBI and PK has always batted in RBI producing slots AND has a higher BA.

:D: I could get to be an "ELDER" (whatever that is) from this just this thread alone! :D:
Let's further manipulate these statistics to say that if PK's teammates had been in scoring position while he was batting 14 points higher than NJ, he would have had more RBI....and some of those PO could have resulted in more RBI if runners were in scoring position!
Let's further say that due to his higher batting average, PK could have scored more runs if his teammates had played team baseball more like the Yankees!

voodoochile
10-30-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
:D: I could get to be an "ELDER" (whatever that is) from this just this thread alone! :D:
Let's further manipulate these statistics to say that if PK's teammates had been in scoring position while he was batting 14 points higher than NJ, he would have had more RBI....and some of those PO could have resulted in more RBI if runners were in scoring position!
Let's further say that due to his higher batting average, PK could have scored more runs if his teammates had played team baseball more like the Yankees!

Johnson's OBP dwarfs Konerko's, so your higher BA=more runs is a bad argument, IMO.

maurice
10-30-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
BB 125 62


While the other stats essentially are comparable, this one really stands out. Johnson walked TWICE as many times as PK. That's a ridiculous discrepancy which puts Johnson over the top.

Also keep in mind that Johnson appears to be improving while PK's performance over the last 1.5 seasons has been atrocious.

Dadawg_77
10-30-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Let's further say that due to his higher batting average, PK could have scored more runs if his teammates had played team baseball more like the Yankees!

BA is only part of the equation here. BA+WA+HBPA = OBP. OBP = how often you get on base, which you need to do to score. So a player who gets on base 40% of the time has a better chance to score then a player who gets on base 35% of the time. This is independent of place in the lineup. While it could give a player who gets on base 34% a better chance to score then a player who gets on 35%, position in the lineup loses its effectiveness the greater the delta between OBP%

Randar, I am not sure I would go as far as saying Johnson is better at working the count then Frank. But even be consider in the sentence as Frank means you are one of the best in history of the game.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by maurice
While the other stats essentially are comparable, this one really stands out. Johnson walked TWICE as many times as PK. That's a ridiculous discrepancy which puts Johnson over the top.

Also keep in mind that Johnson appears to be improving while PK's performance over the last 1.5 seasons has been atrocious.

Let's remember, this comparison is for the first 740-770 AB in the major leagues for both players, not any statistics past that point.
Using this criteria (which would be 125 BB for NJ and 62BB for PK), I have calculated the OBP. The OBP formula which I used does not include HBP and SF totals, which I could not find. (I doubt that these figures will alter the OBP very much, but I guess I could be wrong on that)

NJ OBP 36.0
PK OBP 32.7
Based on this analysis, if each player had 500 AB during the season, NJ would have been on base a whopping 17 more times than PK via a hit or BB. Further analysis reveals that NJ scored 2.63 times he reached base via a hit or BB. At that rate he would have scored 6.46 more runs in this season.

Is that worth the time we all (particularly myself, but I have enjoyed everyone's response) have invested in this thread?
Of course not. But in my mind it has reinforced my belief that at similar times in each career, neither player was better than the other.

Dadawg_77
10-30-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Let's remember, this comparison is for the first 740-770 AB in the major leagues for both players, not any statistics past that point.
Using this criteria (which would be 125 BB for NJ and 62BB for PK), I have calculated the OBP. The OBP formula which I used does not include HBP and SF totals, which I could not find. (I doubt that these figures will alter the OBP very much, but I guess I could be wrong on that)

NJ OBP 36.0
PK OBP 32.7
Based on this analysis, if each player had 500 AB during the season, NJ would have been on base a whopping 17 more times than PK via a hit or BB. Further analysis reveals that NJ scored 2.63 times he reached base via a hit or BB. At that rate he would have scored 6.46 more runs in this season.

Is that worth the time we all (particularly myself, but I have enjoyed everyone's response) have invested in this thread?
Of course not. But in my mind it has reinforced my belief that at similar times in each career, neither player was better than the other.

6 runs is a game. Plus you can not project OBP using AB, you need to PA.

Click those links sometime after Nov 1st and 2003 stats should be up. But they have every stat you can think of, well not pitch by pitch stats.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/konerpa01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsni01.shtml

maurice
10-30-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Let's remember, this comparison is for the first 740-770 AB in the major leagues for both players, not any statistics past that point.

Surely you're not suggesting that Johnson suddenly will stop walking at a much higher rate than Konerko. Also, the most recent figures work against Konerko, who has sucked for 1.5 years.

Originally posted by southpaw40
Based on this analysis, if each player had 500 AB during the season, NJ would have been on base a whopping 17 more times than PK via a hit or BB. . . . But in my mind it has reinforced my belief that at similar times in each career, neither player was better than the other.

:?:

That's like saying that, all other things being equal, a .250 hitter is the same as a .284 hitter (only 17 more hits over 500 ABs).

Johnson is a better hitter, younger, exponentially cheaper, left-handed, and thus more valuable than Konerko. IMHO, it's really not even close, particularly when you figure in that Konerko grounds into double plays about 40% more often than Johnson.

Randar68
10-30-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
:D: Yes, we could go around like this all day........PK's 60 fewer strikeouots and 14 point higher batting average should count for something! :D:

Nick Johnson's numbers this year, really only his second year in the majors, are a HUGE improvement over the first season. His average and OBP were 50+ points higher and his K:BB rate improved drastically.

Konerko isn't going to improve much over what you have seen the past 3 years, while Nick Johnson has shown absolutely no signs of topping off his potential.


Let's further manipulate these statistics to say that if PK's teammates had been in scoring position while he was batting 14 points higher than NJ, he would have had more RBI....and some of those PO could have resulted in more RBI if runners were in scoring position!
Let's further say that due to his higher batting average, PK could have scored more runs if his teammates had played team baseball more like the Yankees!

First, this isn't "stats," this is conjecture... "what if's"

Second, this is where your argument goes completely down the tubes. Maybe PK would have had more RBI's if he hadn't hit into a dozen or more DP's with men in scoring position.

On top of that, Konerko has been hitting behind Frank and Maggs, who have OBP's in the .380+ range EVERY year! He's up with guys on base all the time!!!!

For fair comparison, I will compare this year's numbers for Johnson to Konerko's 3 years average (because of PK's terrible 2003)

Johnson: 406 TPA's
None on: 174 AB's, .253 avg, .393 OBP, .836 OPS
Runners On: 150 AB's, .320 avg, .455 OBP, .962 OPS!!!!!
RISP: 84 AB's, .274 avg, .441 OBP, .846 OPS

Out of 406 TPA's, he had nobody on ~53% of the time, and RISP about 27% of the time. ***

Konerko: 1775 TPA's
None on: 857 AB's, .279 avg, .340 OBP, .835 OPS
Runners On: 739 AB's, .273 avg, .340 OBP, .789 OPS
RISP: 452 AB's, .268 avg, .339 OBP, .784 OPS

Out of 1775 TPA's, he had nobody on ~53% of the time, and RISP about 29% of the time. ***

*** Used TPA's, not AB's for these numbers.

These are pure facts and stats. I don't know how you can debate it. Konerko has more RBI opportunities than Johnson does, produces CONSIDERABLY less given that, and does not get on base.

I think it is fair to use this past season as a baseline for expected production out of Johnson and we already know what we are going to get of Konerko over a whole season. If anything, Johnson's power and avg will improve over time given the current trends he has shown. His OBP won't likely increase much more as it is already at All-Star levels.

This is a serious no-brainer. I've already spent too much time rpesenting the cold-hard-stats and facts of the case. If you still chose to pawn them off as statistical voodoo, fine, but I'm not going to waste more time with something I've clearly proven repeatedly in this thread.

Konerko

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
6 runs is a game. Plus you can not project OBP using AB, you need to PA.

Click those links sometime after Nov 1st and 2003 stats should be up. But they have every stat you can think of, well not pitch by pitch stats.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/konerpa01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsni01.shtml

Dadawg, you're right about the calculations. I did say that I couldn't come up with the exact figure due to my inability to find HBP or SF info. Do you think these factors would have changed the OBP significantly? I will defer to your opinion on this subject.
Your point about the six runs is also valid. My only intent was to show the miniscule difference, statistically .

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 02:06 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maurice
[B]Surely you're not suggesting that Johnson suddenly will stop walking at a much higher rate than Konerko. Also, the most recent figures work against Konerko, who has sucked for 1.5 years.

Maurice, I'm not suggesting anything about the future. I'm just trying to see how each one of these two players compared to each other at the same time in their respective career.

Dadawg_77
10-30-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Dadawg, you're right about the calculations. I did say that I couldn't come up with the exact figure due to my inability to find HBP or SF info. Do you think these factors would have changed the OBP significantly? I will defer to your opinion on this subject.
Your point about the six runs is also valid. My only intent was to show the miniscule difference, statistically .

I'll will wait till after I see some park, league adjusted stats for 2003. They are due out next week.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Nick Johnson's numbers this year, really only his second year in the majors, are a HUGE improvement over the first season. His average and OBP were 50+ points higher and his K:BB rate improved drastically.

Konerko isn't going to improve much over what you have seen the past 3 years, while Nick Johnson has shown absolutely no signs of topping off his potential.




First, this isn't "stats," this is conjecture... "what if's"

Second, this is where your argument goes completely down the tubes. Maybe PK would have had more RBI's if he hadn't hit into a dozen or more DP's with men in scoring position.

On top of that, Konerko has been hitting behind Frank and Maggs, who have OBP's in the .380+ range EVERY year! He's up with guys on base all the time!!!!

For fair comparison, I will compare this year's numbers for Johnson to Konerko's 3 years average (because of PK's terrible 2003)

Johnson: 406 TPA's
None on: 174 AB's, .253 avg, .393 OBP, .836 OPS
Runners On: 150 AB's, .320 avg, .455 OBP, .962 OPS!!!!!
RISP: 84 AB's, .274 avg, .441 OBP, .846 OPS

Out of 406 TPA's, he had nobody on ~53% of the time, and RISP about 27% of the time. ***

Konerko: 1775 TPA's
None on: 857 AB's, .279 avg, .340 OBP, .835 OPS
Runners On: 739 AB's, .273 avg, .340 OBP, .789 OPS
RISP: 452 AB's, .268 avg, .339 OBP, .784 OPS

Out of 1775 TPA's, he had nobody on ~53% of the time, and RISP about 29% of the time. ***

*** Used TPA's, not AB's for these numbers.

These are pure facts and stats. I don't know how you can debate it. Konerko has more RBI opportunities than Johnson does, produces CONSIDERABLY less given that, and does not get on base.

I think it is fair to use this past season as a baseline for expected production out of Johnson and we already know what we are going to get of Konerko over a whole season. If anything, Johnson's power and avg will improve over time given the current trends he has shown. His OBP won't likely increase much more as it is already at All-Star levels.

This is a serious no-brainer. I've already spent too much time rpesenting the cold-hard-stats and facts of the case. If you still chose to pawn them off as statistical voodoo, fine, but I'm not going to waste more time with something I've clearly proven repeatedly in this thread.

Konerko

1.)Agreed about Johnson's improvement in his second year. Have you checked PK performance in his second year?
2.)You have to be the only human alive who knows what's GOING TO HAPPEN in the upcoming season compared to the past three.
3.)Once you understand that I am comparing the two based on statistics that existed at COMPARABLE TIMES IN THEIR CAREERS, you will stop talking about last season! To use Johnson's statistics from last season, you would have to go back to PK comparable service time. At that point in time, it would be pjossible to make the same argument for PK that you're making for NJ right now!
UNDERTSTAND? I'm not trying to debate who is the better player right now, based on last season!
You've presented cold hard facts which suit your argument, just like anyone else who uses statistics for arguments sake.
This is the no-brainer: You've proven nothing!

Dadawg_77
10-30-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
1.)Agreed about Johnson's improvement in his second year. Have you checked PK performance in his second year?
2.)You have to be the only human alive who knows what's GOING TO HAPPEN in the upcoming season compared to the past three.
3.)Once you understand that I am comparing the two based on statistics that existed at COMPARABLE TIMES IN THEIR CAREERS, you will stop talking about last season! To use Johnson's statistics from last season, you would have to go back to PK comparable service time. At that point in time, it would be pjossible to make the same argument for PK that you're making for NJ right now!
UNDERTSTAND? I'm not trying to debate who is the better player right now, based on last season!
You've presented cold hard facts which suit your argument, just like anyone else who uses statistics for arguments sake.
This is the no-brainer: You've proven nothing!

lol...While no but Ms Cleo can say exactly what will happen, you can say within 95% confidence range Johnson will be better player the Konerko as long as Johnson doesn't get hurt. The question I have is, why aren't you questioning who is the better player right now? Secondly the stats you are using are the results not the causation of the results. In those Johnson is better then Konerko.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
lol...While no but Ms Cleo can say exactly what will happen, you can say within 95% confidence range Johnson will be better player the Konerko as long as Johnson doesn't get hurt. The question I have is, why aren't you questioning who is the better player right now? Secondly the stats you are using are the results not the causation of the results. In those Johnson is better then Konerko.

Dadawg, I have consistently in this thread tried to compare the careers of NJ and PK at similar points in their major league experience. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Actually, if you were to ask me who I would prefer at 1b for the Sox next year, I would probably say NJ. And I have probably felt that way all along.
What disturbs me about having to say this is the fact that I feel I am betraying a player who is now wearing the uniform of my SOX! And he has been (there's that phrase again) a solid contributor.
I'm sorry, I can't answer your question about the stats being the results or the causation, because I really don't understand it. In my mind the results are caused by the stats. (not trying to be a wise guy here)

Randar68
10-30-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
2.)You have to be the only human alive who knows what's GOING TO HAPPEN in the upcoming season compared to the past three.

I simply said I thought it was a fair estimation of his future performance. Continued improvements had absolutely zero to do with the statistical argument. Konerko has never done anything to suggest he could excel for an entire season. He's never in great shape, and simply hasn't shown the desire, IMO, to improve as he ages.

Originally posted by southpaw40
3.)Once you understand that I am comparing the two based on statistics that existed at COMPARABLE TIMES IN THEIR CAREERS, you will stop talking about last season! To use Johnson's statistics from last season, you would have to go back to PK comparable service time. At that point in time, it would be pjossible to make the same argument for PK that you're making for NJ right now!

This is the most invalid statistical argument I've seen in quite some time. Compare them at which points? People have different backgrounds, mature at different ages, have played varying numbers of Minor league or college games before playing in the majors. The list of factors that are completely random and immeasurable 100% invalidates looking at someone's 2nd season compared to someone else's without at least acknowledging those factors.

Originally posted by southpaw40
UNDERTSTAND? I'm not trying to debate who is the better player right now, based on last season!
You've presented cold hard facts which suit your argument, just like anyone else who uses statistics for arguments sake.
This is the no-brainer: You've proven nothing!

So, you're arguing that, while Johnson is the better player now, and makes 7.5 million less a year, a player with 4 more years of experience and 2 years older is going to improve and over-take Nick Johnson in terms of ability?

Really, now, what are you trying to argue, then???

If anyone can twist statistics to suit their argument, let's see you do it with real, valid, and recognizeable statistics. I've done it over and over and you've taken invalid snippets. The assertion that anything can be proven with statistics is a cop-out.

I challenge ANYONE to support an argument, with viable, and accurate statistics, that Konerko is a better player than Johnson.

In my opinion, it can't be done. Trends, historical evidence, current performance and past performance all indicate that Johnson is the better player. It's not even CLOSE!

You're running yourself in a circle without getting anywhere with your arguments.

Randar68
10-30-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
Dadawg, I have consistently in this thread tried to compare the careers of NJ and PK at similar points in their major league experience. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Actually, if you were to ask me who I would prefer at 1b for the Sox next year, I would probably say NJ. And I have probably felt that way all along.
What disturbs me about having to say this is the fact that I feel I am betraying a player who is now wearing the uniform of my SOX! And he has been (there's that phrase again) a solid contributor.
I'm sorry, I can't answer your question about the stats being the results or the causation, because I really don't understand it. In my mind the results are caused by the stats. (not trying to be a wise guy here)

For the very last time:

At age 25 and in their second full seasons, please compare them and prove to me. Use some real statistics, maybe. Try real hard, maybe use this new think called "google" or ESPN" or another source, and actually use some real numbers.

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


This is the most invalid statistical argument I've seen in quite some time. Compare them at which points? People have different backgrounds, mature at different ages, have played varying numbers of Minor league or college games before playing in the majors. The list of factors that are completely random and immeasurable 100% invalidates looking at someone's 2nd season compared to someone else's without at least acknowledging those factors.

Do you think before you answer? I've very clearly said, time and time again, that the statistics that I have used existed for EACH player at the same point in their major league career. Let me explain what I mean by that; it's very simple, it's measured by the total AB they have had since their initial major league experience. It's not hard to find this information. They are not completely random and immeasurable, they exist in the real world. Not sure about yours.

So, you're arguing that, while Johnson is the better player now, and makes 7.5 million less a year, a player with 4 more years of experience and 2 years older is going to improve and over-take Nick Johnson in terms of ability?
Please show me where I have mentioned 7.5 million dollars (or any other money figure). Please show me where I have argued that Johnson is the best player now. Please show me where I have mentioned ANYTHING about the FUTURE of either of these players. And please show me where I have ARGUED any of these points!


Really, now, what are you trying to argue, then???

Please understand the difference between an argument and an OPINION.
And please understand that your opinion isn't the only one in existence.

If anyone can twist statistics to suit their argument, let's see you do it with real, valid, and recognizeable statistics. I've done it over and over and you've taken invalid snippets. The assertion that anything can be proven with statistics is a cop-out.

You have shown me NOTHING which compares the two players at the same point in thier career. Show me what is invalid about my statistical representations of these two players AT THE SAME POINT IN THEIR MAJOR LEAGUE EXPERIENCE.

I challenge ANYONE to support an argument, with viable, and accurate statistics, that Konerko is a better player than Johnson.

I have not and will not debate the value of each player going forward. For the ONE MILLIONTH time, the comparisons are based on comparable major league service time.

In my opinion, it can't be done. Trends, historical evidence, current performance and past performance all indicate that Johnson is the better player. It's not even CLOSE!

Surprise, I respect your opinion!

You're running yourself in a circle without getting anywhere with your arguments. [/B]
What I'm doing is beyond your comprehension, so please don't attempt to explain me to me

southpaw40
10-30-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
For the very last time:

At age 25 and in their second full seasons, please compare them and prove to me. Use some real statistics, maybe. Try real hard, maybe use this new think called "google" or ESPN" or another source, and actually use some real numbers.

This is probably the most absurd of all the absurd things you have said to me in this thread. How do you suppose I analyzed their careers without looking at their second full season? Oh, I see what you're saying, you're trying to trick me with this statement! I'll bet they both weren't 25 during their second full season! Which as we all know will make any statistical analysis invalid.
The only thing I HAVE to try real hard to do is abide by the Code of Conduct of this board when it comes to you. You have proven yourself to be a most discourteous, self-serving jerk.
I don't say this in response to your factual posts regarding this thread, they are obviously your opinion and you are entitled to them, but when someone calls me the names you did, I tend to get a bit distressed. I can only say I wish we had been face to face.
So post all you wish, I finished with you.
JERK

Randar68
10-30-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
What I'm doing is beyond your comprehension, so please don't attempt to explain me to me

Weren't you the one complaining about insults earlier?

*****. You obviously have no clue how to analyze statistics, because you haven't used one iota of them to actually support your arguement in any reasonable method...

Randar68
10-30-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
This is probably the most absurd of all the absurd things you have said to me in this thread. How do you suppose I analyzed their careers without looking at their second full season? Oh, I see what you're saying, you're trying to trick me with this statement! I'll bet they both weren't 25 during their second full season! Which as we all know will make any statistical analysis invalid.
The only thing I HAVE to try real hard to do is abide by the Code of Conduct of this board when it comes to you. You have proved yourself to be a most discourteous, self-serving jerk.
I don't say this in response to your factual posts regarding this thread, they are obviously your opinion and you are entitled to them, but when someone calls me the names you did, I tend to get a bit distressed. I can only say I wish we had been face to face.
So post all you wish, I finished with you.
JERK

I've been civil with you, despite the fact that your argument has no basis in fact or reality. And I'm the jerk? Sorry I unequivocally proved you to be wrong in every one of your assertions. I guess I'm a jerk for making an argument and actually supporting it in fact and debating it, even allowing you to say anything you can to defend your position and support your case.

You failed miserably in any attempt to actually debate this topic.

I'm a jerk for a lot of things, but if you think this debate was one of them, you've got a lot to learn.

Randar68
10-30-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
I'll bet they both weren't 25 during their second full season!

Those were 2 different request, which, as you say, "must be beyond your level of comprehension" to deduce.

I was trying to have you actually post some statistics of their 2nd seasons and seasons at ages 25 (separate comparisons). Hell, I was trying to help you make/prove your point. I was giving you help in trying to make your analysis. There I go being a jerk again.



Originally posted by southpaw40
The only thing I HAVE to try real hard to do is abide by the Code of Conduct of this board when it comes to you. You have proven yourself to be a most discourteous, self-serving jerk.
I don't say this in response to your factual posts regarding this thread, they are obviously your opinion and you are entitled to them, but when someone calls me the names you did, I tend to get a bit distressed. I can only say I wish we had been face to face.


You don't wish you were face-to-face with me, I assure you. And I am so glad you can infer so much about my personality and traits from a few words on a message board.

I've conducted myself in a reasonable manner in this debate. I gave you your rope, and you continuously hung yourself with it. I guess it's my fault. What a jerk I am.

Randar68
10-30-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by southpaw40
I'll bet they both weren't 25 during their second full season! Which as we all know will make any statistical analysis invalid.

Since you can't seem to "comprehend" the original request, for the sake of completeness and civility, I'll do the leg work for you:

2nd "full" season in the majors:

2003 Nick Johnson: 406 TPA's, .284 avg, .422 OBP, .894 OPS, 70 BB's, 57 K's, 4.28 Pitches/PA, 8 HBP and 4 total sacrifices
1999 Paul Konerko: 564 TPA's, .294 avg, .352 OBP, .863 OPS (Note: Career best OPS), 45 BB's, 68 K's, 3.94 Pitches/PA (also career best), 2 HBP and 4 total sacrifices


Age 25 comparison:
2003 Nick Johnson: 406 TPA's, .284 avg, .422 OBP, .894 OPS, 70 BB's, 57 K's, 4.28 Pitches/PA, 8 HBP and 4 total sacrifices
2001 Paul Konerko: 650 TPA's, .282 avg, .349 OBP, .856 OPS, 54 BB's, 89 K's, 3.64 Pitches/PA, 9 HBP and 5 total sacrifices



By the numbers, no matter how you chose to measure "same stage of career", Johnson is the better player.

PLEASE, actually debate this if you feel strongly, but if you're going to throw a hissy fit when proved wrong, just grow up.

southpaw40
10-31-2003, 09:52 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randar68
[B]Since you can't seem to "comprehend" the original request, for the sake of completeness and civility, I'll do the leg work for you:

2nd "full" season in the majors:

2003 Nick Johnson: 406 TPA's, .284 avg, .422 OBP, .894 OPS, 70 BB's, 57 K's, 4.28 Pitches/PA, 8 HBP and 4 total sacrifices
1999 Paul Konerko: 564 TPA's, .294 avg, .352 OBP, .863 OPS (Note: Career best OPS), 45 BB's, 68 K's, 3.94 Pitches/PA (also career best), 2 HBP and 4 total sacrifices


Age 25 comparison:
2003 Nick Johnson: 406 TPA's, .284 avg, .422 OBP, .894 OPS, 70 BB's, 57 K's, 4.28 Pitches/PA, 8 HBP and 4 total sacrifices
2001 Paul Konerko: 650 TPA's, .282 avg, .349 OBP, .856 OPS, 54 BB's, 89 K's, 3.64 Pitches/PA, 9 HBP and 5 total sacrifices

You continue to amaze me by your twisted sense of accomplishment. You have not at any point in your posts proven me wrong in any stretch of anyone's (but your own) imagination.
There has never been any intent on my part to be RIGHT. Simply a DISCUSSION of the two players. The point I have CONTINUALLY been discussing is a comparison of the two after they had the same number of AB at the major league level. I have not said anything about age or any specific year of major league service. If you feel you need to distort the intent of the discussion to prove your self-worth, so be it.
I had intended to end my participation in this thread with my last post. Your responses, in which you have grandiously pointed out the content of your analysis are ridiculous. Pretty writing and formats, but they have NOTHING to do with the intent (my intent) to participate in this discussion.
Now, this message board has been a very civil place to visit and post. I have found it a fine place to visit to obtain information and other opinions on the White Sox. HOWEVER, let me assure you (I promise you this is not playground talk), had we been talking face to face, and you addressed me in the manner you did in Post # 21 of this thread, you would have had a MOST unpleasant experience. And please TRUST ME on this one.
I hope to continue to post on this board, and I make a promise to NEVER have the disrespect for my fellow posters that you seem to have a need to display.
Have a nice day.

Randar68
10-31-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randar68
[B]Now, this message board has been a very civil place to visit and post. I have found it a fine place to visit to obtain information and other opinions on the White Sox. HOWEVER, let me assure you (I promise you this is not playground talk), had we been talking face to face, and you addressed me in the manner you did in Post # 21 of this thread, you would have had a MOST unpleasant experience. And please TRUST ME on this one.
I hope to continue to post on this board, and I make a promise to NEVER have the disrespect for my fellow posters that you seem to have a need to display.


*****. How old are you? I'd guess 50 or 60 years old since, in your profile, you say you remember the 1959 Series...

People on this board know me or know enough about me, as a 25 year-old, to know that you are wishing for something you don't want to happen. You're going to physically threaten someone who's made every attempt with your idiotic posts to be civil, and try to get to the heart of what you are trying to debate/discuss. You have back-tracked time-after-time, stating the stats prove you right, then backing down to this "Relative merits of the 2 players" bull-spit. If you can't handle post #21, you have no business being on a message board. That is cake and ice cream compared to what is frequently said on this board by many other than myself.

I can't believe that a person of your age would act so infantile. "Wanna meet behind the bike racks at 3:00?" *****. I'm 6'3" and 210 pounds and lift almost daily. I learned to box from a former Golden Gloves boxer. TRUST ME, you wouldn't threaten me in person.

This is an internet message board. If you're going to take things personal when people prove you have no knowledge of baseball, you're in the wrong place. Debate/discuss/argue, whatever, but if you're going to post time and again about nothing but silly drivel and aren't willing to discuss real merits of the issue (salaries, real statistical performance, real talent/ability), then you have nothing to add.

This is my last post in this thread, I assure you. If you wish to physically threaten me again in some sort of 60-year old geriatric chest-thumping manner. Have at it. I'm comfortable/confident in who I am and some grumpy old senile man on a message board isn't going to change that.

southpaw40
10-31-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
*****. How old are you? I'd guess 50 or 60 years old since, in your profile, you say you remember the 1959 Series...

People on this board know me or know enough about me, as a 25 year-old, to know that you are wishing for something you don't want to happen. You're going to physically threaten someone who's made every attempt with your idiotic posts to be civil, and try to get to the heart of what you are trying to debate/discuss. You have back-tracked time-after-time, stating the stats prove you right, then backing down to this "Relative merits of the 2 players" bull-spit. If you can't handle post #21, you have no business being on a message board. That is cake and ice cream compared to what is frequently said on this board by many other than myself.

I can't believe that a person of your age would act so infantile. "Wanna meet behind the bike racks at 3:00?" *****. I'm 6'3" and 210 pounds and lift almost daily. I learned to box from a former Golden Gloves boxer. TRUST ME, you wouldn't threaten me in person.

This is an internet message board. If you're going to take things personal when people prove you have no knowledge of baseball, you're in the wrong place. Debate/discuss/argue, whatever, but if you're going to post time and again about nothing but silly drivel and aren't willing to discuss real merits of the issue (salaries, real statistical performance, real talent/ability), then you have nothing to add.

This is my last post in this thread, I assure you. If you wish to physically threaten me again in some sort of 60-year old geriatric chest-thumping manner. Have at it. I'm comfortable/confident in who I am and some grumpy old senile man on a message board isn't going to change that.

Heh, and you accuse me of a hissy fit! Typical of you to assume something you know nothing about! There has been no THREAT made to you at all, only a PROMISE of consequences if I'm addressed face to face in the manner in which you did in that post, by anyone. I do not accept the fact that people have to be treated in that manner, even if this is an internet message board.
Get over yourself, and realize that other people have opinions. Oh, and by the way, just because you say so, doesn't in any way, shape or form, mean that you've proven anything. There's nothing to be proven, as far as I'm concerned, in this thread. Only discussion.
And another by the way, this won't be your last post, trust me on this too!
Have a nice day

maurice
10-31-2003, 01:48 PM
I don't know who'd win a physical contest (though I have a pretty good guess), but Randar, et al. definitely won the argument. A contrary conclusion would require one to believe that walks are irrelevant.