PDA

View Full Version : Projecting Prospects


jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 01:42 AM
Personally, I'm really dissapointed by a number of the comments regarding the projection of prospects as it pertains to Jeremy Reed. If you listen to the fans of this deal there's something like a fifty fifty chance that Reed will pan out and we have no way of telling what will happen so we might as well bail on him because there's a good chance he'll become a total bust. I find this to be utterly ridiculous.

There is a definite proven relationship between performance in the upper levels of the minor leagues and performance in the major leagues when age is taken in to consideration. If it's such a crapshoot I'd love for posters to point out to me a few position players to performed as Reed did in AA or AAA at 22 that were huge busts. Invoking Scott Ruffcorn is atrocious logic. There is a world of difference between young pitchers (where injuries are a huge factor) and position players. Studies have shown no aspect of minor league performance is a huge predictor of future success for pitchers whereas the opposite is true for position players. Ruffcorn and Reed are apples and oranges because 1) pitchers vs. position players and 2) it is hard for most fans to cut through the local hype and discern the difference in quality between the two. Who ever named Ruffcorn a number one, let alone a top 15 prospect?!?!

I'd love this deal too if I thought Reed was as dime a dozen but all minor league prospects are not created equal if you know what to look for. Reed turned in a stellar performance at a young age and had good place discipline. The last prospect we had on par with him was a guy named Frank Thomas. I dare anyone else to name a better one in the interim.

doublem23
06-28-2004, 01:46 AM
From what I have read is that no one is saying Reed is a shot in the dark type player, we're just saying, at best, he won't be contributing on the big league level regularly until at least next year and maybe not until '06. We don't want to wait for that production, especially when a horse like Garcia is available now.

When you haven't won a World Series since 1917, rebuilding for five years from now can get tiresome.

MRKARNO
06-28-2004, 01:47 AM
Jeremy Reed:Frank Thomas::

A. Barry Bonds: Babe Ruth
B. Mark Kotsay: Tony Gwynn
C. Darko Milicic: Shaquille O'Neal

Take your pick

bartmanisgod
06-28-2004, 01:49 AM
Personally, I'm really dissapointed by a number of the comments regarding the projection of prospects as it pertains to Jeremy Reed. If you listen to the fans of this deal there's something like a fifty fifty chance that Reed will pan out and we have no way of telling what will happen so we might as well bail on him because there's a good chance he'll become a total bust. I find this to be utterly ridiculous.

There is a definite proven relationship between performance in the upper levels of the minor leagues and performance in the major leagues when age is taken in to consideration. If it's such a crapshoot I'd love for posters to point out to me a few position players to performed as Reed did in AA or AAA at 22 that were huge busts. Invoking Scott Ruffcorn is atrocious logic. There is a world of difference between young pitchers (where injuries are a huge factor) and position players. Studies have shown no aspect of minor league performance is a huge predictor of future success for pitchers whereas the opposite is true for position players. Ruffcorn and Reed are apples and oranges because 1) pitchers vs. position players and 2) it is hard for most fans to cut through the local hype and discern the difference in quality between the two. Who ever named Ruffcorn a number one, let alone a top 15 prospect?!?!

I'd love this deal too if I thought Reed was as dime a dozen but all minor league prospects are not created equal if you know what to look for. Reed turned in a stellar performance at a young age and had good place discipline. The last prospect we had on par with him was a guy named Frank Thomas. I dare anyone else to name a better one in the interim.
What is with the obsession over prospects! That is all they are...nothing more nothing less... Understandable there could be some great talent there, but who is to say it could ever develop into anything... Personally I think Jon Garland has electric stuff but he could just as easily amount to squat!

And besides who here has honestly seen this Reed kid play! I'm not talking one or two games I'm talking on a consistant basis. I understand his numbers are solid and he is a great player, but quit acting like we just gave away the next Hank Aaron!

MRKARNO
06-28-2004, 01:51 AM
We have, not one, not two, but three other outfield prospects in our system who are supposedly part of our future. All are pretty darn good. I think that Reed could be the next Rusty Greer or the next Mark Kotsay. Could he turn into a HOFer? Yes, it's possible, but it's also 100 Times more likely that he wont. It's a lot more likely that he faces a career ending injury than he makes the hall of fame. Plus I dont think that Reed is going to turn into all he possibly could anyways at Safeco field. He'll probably never really develop a ton of power there.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 01:52 AM
Jeremy Reed:Frank Thomas::

A. Barry Bonds: Babe Ruth
B. Mark Kotsay: Tony Gwynn
C. Darko Milicic: Shaquille O'Neal

Take your pick

Or

D. The best since: As good as.

Let's debate my actual comments and not your interpretations of them, ok?

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 01:56 AM
What is with the obsession over prospects! That is all they are...nothing more nothing less... Understandable there could be some great talent there, but who is to say it could ever develop into anything... Personally I think Jon Garland has electric stuff but he could just as easily amount to squat!

And besides who here has honestly seen this Reed kid play! I'm not talking one or two games I'm talking on a consistant basis. I understand his numbers are solid and he is a great player, but quit acting like we just gave away the next Hank Aaron!

Well that's the point of my post. When you're at AAA it's already devleoped into something. People perceive this huge gap between AAA and the majors as though a .350 hitter in AAA is a .200 hitter in the majors incapable of contributing and we have to see whether he can develop into a good major league player. When you're at AAA you're quite close. If you're there at 23 it's rarely a question of whether you'll be a major league regular it's a question of how good of one you'll be.

Your comments about Hank Aaron intrigue me. I'm curious, how good would Reed have to be for this trade to be a mistake? Because in my opinion since we're only getting 15 starts from Garcia and possibly the playoffs he doesn't even have to be an All-Star let alone one of the greatest players ever. If he's simply a very good player along with Olivo who's already an above average catcher then the fact that we'd have the two for a total of ten years and pay them peanuts for four of those makes this an atrocious deal.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 01:58 AM
We have, not one, not two, but three other outfield prospects in our system who are supposedly part of our future. All are pretty darn good. I think that Reed could be the next Rusty Greer or the next Mark Kotsay. Could he turn into a HOFer? Yes, it's possible, but it's also 100 Times more likely that he wont. It's a lot more likely that he faces a career ending injury than he makes the hall of fame. Plus I dont think that Reed is going to turn into all he possibly could anyways at Safeco field. He'll probably never really develop a ton of power there.

Well based on his performance thus far guys like Gwynn are a lot higher on his list of comparables than guys like Kotsay. I agree it's far from a sure thing that he'll be an incredible player but I'm pretty confident he'll be well above average.

doublem23
06-28-2004, 02:00 AM
It also depends on whether or not the Sox can fill those holes. If Maggs resigns, Borchard pans out (man, I remember when he was the best power-hitting prospect since Mark McGwire) and one of the other big OF prospects does well and KW gets a catcher to fill Miguel's hole then, no I think this trade was good.

As long as we can ride Garcia to the post-season I'll be happy because anyone who has watched baseball for the last decade knows that the MLB play-offs are more of who can get hot at the right time rather than letting the best team always advance. If that were the case, Anaheim would never have beaten the Yankees in 2001 and the A's would have at least won 1 series in the last few years. All you got to do is get to October. After that, it's pretty much a crapshoot.

bartmanisgod
06-28-2004, 02:04 AM
Your comments about Hank Aaron intrigue me. I'm curious, how good would Reed have to be for this trade to be a mistake? Because in my opinion since we're only getting 15 starts from Garcia and possibly the playoffs he doesn't even have to be an All-Star let alone one of the greatest players ever. If he's simply a very good player along with Olivo who's already an above average catcher then the fact that we'd have the two for a total of ten years and pay them peanuts for four of those makes this an atrocious deal.
Even if it meant winning the pennant or the World Series???


Either way you look at it hindsight will be 20/20... if we went to the world series or if we fall short...if we sign him or if we let him go...

My point is why not be excited about the possibility for this to be a special season on the southside?:?: Isn't that worth something? Isn't that what we all dream of when we go to sleep at night? To watch our beloved sox jumping up and down in the last game of the World Series?I don't know about you but just the taste of that excitement gives me goosebumps!

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:04 AM
If Maggs resigns, Borchard pans out (man, I remember when he was the best power-hitting prospect since Mark McGwire)

I like Borchard alright but did he ever do anything to earn that tag? Even if he did that was coming out of college and clearly the minors are a lot more important and he hasn't done a ton to justify that label.

MRKARNO
06-28-2004, 02:05 AM
Well based on his performance thus far guys like Gwynn are a lot higher on his list of comparables than guys like Kotsay. I agree it's far from a sure thing that he'll be an incredible player but I'm pretty confident he'll be well above average.
And guys like Terry Francona are even higher. For every one Tony Gwynn on that list of comparables you have your Francona, Jerry Turner, Rowland Office and James Dion as well. All First ballot hall of famers.

doublem23
06-28-2004, 02:05 AM
I like Borchard alright but did he ever do anything to earn that tag? Even if he did that was coming out of college and clearly the minors are a lot more important and he hasn't done a ton to justify that label.
Maybe I'm not the all-powerful great Tagmaster, but I do recall Borchard being called so.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:07 AM
Even if it meant winning the pennant or the World Series???

Either way you look at it hindsight will be 20/20... if we went to the world series or if we fall short...if we sign him or if we let him go...

My point is why not be excited about the possibility for this to be a special season on the southside?:?: Isn't that worth something?

Did everyone really think we were having a special season up until this point? One move especially for a guy that will only pitch every five days shouldn't be the difference between a solid team and likely world series or penant champs. I can tell you that advancing to the second round of the playoffs instead of the first isn't worth our future to me. If we advance to or win the world series we can start talking but I just can't fathom how this trade makes the difference. I didn't hear much talk about World Series contention yesterday and it ussually takes more than one player to make that difference unless the guy you're talking about is named Bonds.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:08 AM
Maybe I'm not the all-powerful great Tagmaster, but I do recall Borchard being called so.

Well I know it was said by Schaffer right after he drafted Borchard but of course he's going to talk up the guy after drafting him especially when he requires a 5 million dollar signing bonus. The huge question is was it ever really waranted and did it mean all that much when he'd yet to play a single pro game. Certainly five minor league seasons tell us a lot more than three brief college seasons, no?

MRKARNO
06-28-2004, 02:09 AM
. I didn't hear much talk about World Series contention yesterday and it ussually takes more than one player to make that difference unless the guy you're talking about is named Bonds.
You didnt hear much about it because the Sox had been slumping, but look back to after the Angels/Rangers homestand. There was a lot of optimism then.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:11 AM
You didnt hear much about it because the Sox had been slumping, but look back to after the Angels/Rangers homestand. There was a lot of optimism then.

Really? I just don't recall that. Most posters were still talking about how we were going to battle the Twins all season and not getting as far as the playoffs. Any road to the World Series has to go through the Red Sox and Yankees the best two teams I can think of in the last 8 or 10 years.

OurBitchinMinny
06-28-2004, 02:13 AM
Keep in mind that reed is hitting under .300 at Charlotte and did not look too great in spring training. I know he has been battling injuries, but maybe they will plague him all his career. Reed, to me, projected to be an erstad type player. Which is good. Erstad was a hell of a player for a period, but there is no way reed was untouchable. The sox are stacked w/ outfield talent. My big concern is catcher. Yeah Burke has been hot, but he is a career minor leaguer. Alomar is old and Ben Davis has ability, but he has flat out sucked for a while now. But I commend williams for trying to make something happen

MRKARNO
06-28-2004, 02:18 AM
Really? I just don't recall that. Most posters were still talking about how we were going to battle the Twins all season and not getting as far as the playoffs. Any road to the World Series has to go through the Red Sox and Yankees the best two teams I can think of in the last 8 or 10 years. I've had enough of uselessly arguing with you tonight. Nothing is going to make you like this deal, so I'm not going to try and sit here at 1:20 am trying to tell you that you should.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:22 AM
I've had enough of uselessly arguing with you tonight. Nothing is going to make you like this deal, so I'm not going to try and sit here at 1:20 am trying to tell you that you should.

OK. I'll go back in the archives and look for the posts where people were arguing we were one pitcher away from being World Series favorites.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:24 AM
Keep in mind that reed is hitting under .300 at Charlotte and did not look too great in spring training. I know he has been battling injuries, but maybe they will plague him all his career. Reed, to me, projected to be an erstad type player. Which is good. Erstad was a hell of a player for a period, but there is no way reed was untouchable. The sox are stacked w/ outfield talent. My big concern is catcher. Yeah Burke has been hot, but he is a career minor leaguer. Alomar is old and Ben Davis has ability, but he has flat out sucked for a while now. But I commend williams for trying to make something happen

First of all as far as Erstad goes I think that's a really bad comparison. Erstad is reknowned for his awful plate discipline whereas with Reed talking walks is a huge stregth. Furthermore Erstad is more toolsy and is a great CF whereas Reed was probably corner bound.

You're certainly correct that Reeds performance this season had been a dissapointment but he did some good things such as post a solid OBP. The bottom line is that I'd never want to place too much emphasis on 200 PA coming off an injury from a guy that's otherwise been healthy.

DrCrawdad
06-28-2004, 08:09 AM
First of all as far as Erstad goes I think that's a really bad comparison. Erstad is reknowned for his awful plate discipline whereas with Reed talking walks is a huge stregth. Furthermore Erstad is more toolsy and is a great CF whereas Reed was probably corner bound.

You're certainly correct that Reeds performance this season had been a dissapointment but he did some good things such as post a solid OBP. The bottom line is that I'd never want to place too much emphasis on 200 PA coming off an injury from a guy that's otherwise been healthy.

I think when Kenny makes deals he must say, "Hey, is there anyone else you'd
like too?"

Is Garcia signed or is this potentially a rental player? I love getting Garcia but they paid dearly for him. Seems to me that the Sox should have given two players - Reed, Morse or Olivo, Morse. I'm sure Kenny explored that but it seems to me that Kenny overpays for these deals.

hold2dibber
06-28-2004, 08:51 AM
I think when Kenny makes deals he must say, "Hey, is there anyone else you'd
like too?"

Is Garcia signed or is this potentially a rental player? I love getting Garcia but they paid dearly for him. Seems to me that the Sox should have given two players - Reed, Morse or Olivo, Morse. I'm sure Kenny explored that but it seems to me that Kenny overpays for these deals.
According to today's Trib, Bavasi was pushing hard for Crede and Olivo, but KW wouldn't do that (thank goodness).

I think Garcia will make this team a lot better this year. But I think we'll really regret trading Reed and Olivo a few years from now.

A. Cavatica
06-28-2004, 09:15 AM
jeremyb1, I agree 100%.

Most of the rest of you: Reed is not only ready to play in the majors, he has a chance at being very good this season for Seattle. When Magglio got hurt, the Sox kept Reed in Charlotte because they didn't want to risk him coming up, having a tough adjustment period, and hurting his trade value -- even though he was the most likely candidate to actually replace Magglio's production. (That's a sad statement about the Sox decision-making, but I've ranted about it elsewhere.)

Reed moved up in our system pretty quickly, and he always adjusted just as quickly. He didn't hit his first "slump" in batting average until he got to AAA, and even then he contributed strongly with walks, extra-base hits, sacrifices, defense, etc. He's not an all-or-nothing prospect like Borchard, who would attract no interest at all if he didn't have power.

jabrch
06-28-2004, 09:31 AM
Funny - all this commotion about a kid who is hitting .275 without much power in AAA?


We just got another #2/#3 SP - something we desperately needed in order to win now. What we gave up was someone who wasn't going to be here for at least one more year - and then he'd be a rookie here - who knows how long it would take him to learn to hit MLB pitching - he hasn't picked up on AAA yet.

We still have Borchard, who has hit as good or better than Reed this season, in AAA, Spidale in AA and Anderson and Sweeney down in A waiting a few years. It is easy to replace OFs down the road if you need to. Right now, we NEEDED a SP. Garcia is that man. I am thrilled with this trade - but not surprised to see the same old crybabies out here bitching about it.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2004, 02:08 PM
Three comments if I may:

Jeremy says, "There is a definite proven relationship between performance in the upper levels of the minor leagues and performance in the major leagues when age is taken in to consideration."

You mean like all those 'outstanding' Sox pitchers from the minor league system?

Dr. Crawdad makes the comment about Williams always overpaying for talent. My thought is that this is what happens when you get caught in a vice and badly need help because the club is always short a guy or two, usually in pitching. I've always thought the time to fill those areas is in the off season when the demand perhaps isn't as great. The Sox however don't seem to share that philosophy. They'll trade for a guy in the off season when they need two or three guys.

Finally all I can say to the prospect believers is : 1917.

Lip

pudge
06-28-2004, 02:14 PM
jeremy, I'm with you on this one - people are not understanding how special Reed is - he's not Jeff Abbott, he's not Scott Ruffcorn, he's not Joe Borchard... As a matter of fact, the last Sox prospect to do as well as Reed has done was someone named Magglio Ordonez.

All I'm saying is, if we don't resign Garcia, we got hosed.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:34 PM
Funny - all this commotion about a kid who is hitting .275 without much power in AAA?

We still have Borchard, who has hit as good or better than Reed this season

Man I'd love to trade with you if you were an opposing GM. I could convince you of anything based on 80 games. Mark Buehrle for Jake Westbrook? Sure, Westbrook has a far better ERA this season.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:40 PM
Jeremy says, "There is a definite proven relationship between performance in the upper levels of the minor leagues and performance in the major leagues when age is taken in to consideration."

You mean like all those 'outstanding' Sox pitchers from the minor league system?

C'mon Lip. From the exact same post:

There is a world of difference between young pitchers (where injuries are a huge factor) and position players. Studies have shown no aspect of minor league performance is a huge predictor of future success for pitchers whereas the opposite is true for position players. Ruffcorn and Reed are apples and oranges

Did you even get past the first sentence?

Finally all I can say to the prospect believers is : 1917.

But that's meaningless unless this move got us any closer to a World Series. Should a team 15 games out of first at the deadline trade all it's best young players for rent a players to try and run the table and win the series this season? I think anyone in their right mind would agree if that team had any chance of winning a series it would be in the future with the talent they just traded away so in fact they drastically decreased their chances of winning a World Series anytime soon. The 1917 comments mean absolutely nothing. They mean we want to win a World Series soon and should try to do so not that this move has that effect.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 02:42 PM
jeremy, I'm with you on this one - people are not understanding how special Reed is - he's not Jeff Abbott, he's not Scott Ruffcorn, he's not Joe Borchard... As a matter of fact, the last Sox prospect to do as well as Reed has done was someone named Magglio Ordonez.

Yep. If ever player touted as a top prospect in the organization at one time was exactly equal then there'd by no point to evaluating prospects because they're all basically equal. As far as Maggs goes, he didn't even perform all that well until he reached AAA and even then he still didn't have good plate discipline until a few years after he reached the majors. I really think the last prospect we had as good as Reed was named Frank Thomas.

Randar68
06-28-2004, 02:44 PM
Man I'd love to trade with you if you were an opposing GM. I could convince you of anything based on 80 games. Mark Buehrle for Jake Westbrook? Sure, Westbrook has a far better ERA this season.
Jeremy, I agree with you on this one. The Sox significantly overpayed here. Reed plus Olivo is basically your 2 top prospects. Reed has something nobody else seems to have in this organization, and that's an idea of the strike zone.

I've avoided posting, because, basically, this deal has me very conflicted. In addition, the "Sky could not be more blue" crowd is so high in the sky, that anything I say is going to be overblown and misconstrued by these people.

Lip, in classic fashion, you should stick to writing the opinions of other people because yours are too tainted, biased, and frankly, uninformed, to be of any value.

Unless the Sox make a very serious post-season run and resign Garcia, this is a trade that could haunt us for some time.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 02:48 PM
Reed moved up in our system pretty quickly, and he always adjusted just as quickly. He didn't hit his first "slump" in batting average until he got to AAA, and even then he contributed strongly with walks, extra-base hits, sacrifices, defense, etc. He's not an all-or-nothing prospect like Borchard, who would attract no interest at all if he didn't have power.
I'm not here to knock Reed, but the key question is: is his relative decline in production a sign that he's having trouble adjusting to AAA (and what does that mean for a jump to MLB?) or a sign that he's having trouble getting over an injury (and how likely is it to recur or impact him long term?)?

Bottom line: There are still a lot of questions about Reed, he's by no means a can't miss, guaranteed stud at the major league level. He's had 1 great season (03), 1 good one (02), and 1 mediocre one (04, so far). He's also had his average in the .270s for a while now (so either the injury lingers, or he's not adjusting and improving as the season wears on).

That's why while not a throw-in, it's far from being the once in a lifetime prospect you make him out to be. And as for the Frank Thomas comparison, the HUGE difference is that Frank had the same or better stats with a ton more power. The Maggs comparison might be better, but nowhere have I heard Reed projected as a decent power hitter, whereas Maggs was always projected in that way. Not really good comparisons there.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 03:21 PM
I'm not here to knock Reed, but the key question is: is his relative decline in production a sign that he's having trouble adjusting to AAA (and what does that mean for a jump to MLB?) or a sign that he's having trouble getting over an injury (and how likely is it to recur or impact him long term?)?

Personally I don't believe that prospects (at least one's of Reeds ilk) ever simply top out at a certain level and fail to adjust. You can't hit .400 at AA and then never muster the ability to hit in the .300s in AAA in your career. If the player struggles it's because he's slumping, simply having initial struggles with adjustments, or something else like an injury is bothering him.

Bottom line: There are still a lot of questions about Reed, he's by no means a can't miss, guaranteed stud at the major league level. He's had 1 great season (03), 1 good one (02), and 1 mediocre one (04, so far).

I disagree. He had half a very good season in '02, a better than great season in '03, and half a mediocre season in '04. He had just as many plate appearances last season as in '02 and '04 combined so you can't treat them as three equal seasons.

He's also had his average in the .270s for a while now (so either the injury lingers, or he's not adjusting and improving as the season wears on).

Or he's just slumping. Players do slump. Carlos did earlier this season as did Paully and people thought they'd never recover while they went on tears and boosted their numbers quite a bit in a couple weeks.

That's why while not a throw-in, it's far from being the once in a lifetime prospect you make him out to be. And as for the Frank Thomas comparison, the HUGE difference is that Frank had the same or better stats with a ton more power. The Maggs comparison might be better, but nowhere have I heard Reed projected as a decent power hitter, whereas Maggs was always projected in that way. Not really good comparisons there.

People continue to misunderstand me here. I'm not saying Reed is a similar prospect to Thomas or that Reed is as good a prospect as Thomas was, just that we haven't had a better prospect since Frank Thomas so Reed's value is a rare commodity for our organizations and most organizations for that matter.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 03:23 PM
Jeremy, I agree with you on this one. The Sox significantly overpayed here. Reed plus Olivo is basically your 2 top prospects. Reed has something nobody else seems to have in this organization, and that's an idea of the strike zone.

Yep. I don't know the last guy that walked 80 times in consecutive seasons for us in the minors which Reed is on pace to do. Nice to have you in my corner for once Randar. I wish it was under more fortunate circumstances.

freshdill
06-28-2004, 03:47 PM
Well, we won't know this year what kind of major league player he turns out to be this year because, despite assurances from somebody earlier in this thread, the Mariners have already said they don't expect Reed in the major leagues until sometime next year. Of course, that's a powerful, powerful, Seattle offense, so you wouldn't expect somebody who some others in this thread have already annointed as the next Magglio to be able to make an impact this year.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 03:48 PM
Personally I don't believe that prospects (at least one's of Reeds ilk) ever simply top out at a certain level and fail to adjust. You can't hit .400 at AA and then never muster the ability to hit in the .300s in AAA in your career. If the player struggles it's because he's slumping, simply having initial struggles with adjustments, or something else like an injury is bothering him.Without having any specific examples, I believe there are numerous cases of guys who hit well in the minors but were unable to adjust. The analogy would be a high school player who can dominate because his talent level is that much greater than everyone else. When he moves up, and natural selection means the disparity between his talent and the group isn't so great, his #s decline. It happens all the time. Case in point: Borchard. IIRC, a few years ago he had a very good AA season, but hadn't made the transition to performing in AAA until this year.

Now if you're going to say "Yeah, but Jeremy's that much more talented", that's hard to argue with because there's no reasoning to attack.


I disagree. He had half a very good season in '02, a better than great season in '03, and half a mediocre season in '04. He had just as many plate appearances last season as in '02 and '04 combined so you can't treat them as three equal seasons.
That's fine, but it's still 1 excellent season, half a very good one, and half a pretty mediocre one. The fact that the mediocre one is at a higher level of competition means something as well. All I'm saying is that the jury is still out and he's not a dominant, can't-miss prospect-for-the-ages.



Or he's just slumping. Players do slump. Carlos did earlier this season as did Paully and people thought they'd never recover while they went on tears and boosted their numbers quite a bit in a couple weeks.
True. The question is: how much is slump and how much is something with longer term implications? I believe his average hasn't really been climbing, which would indicate that he's not pulling out of it. The longer it lasts, the less likely it's a slump. It's still early, but it's part of the question mark that does exist on Reed.


People continue to misunderstand me here. I'm not saying Reed is a similar prospect to Thomas or that Reed is as good a prospect as Thomas was, just that we haven't had a better prospect since Frank Thomas so Reed's value is a rare commodity for our organizations and most organizations for that matter. That's just an evaluation of the org, not really any reason to keep a player longer or shorter. If our prospects have sucked, we should still deal the top guy if its' the right deal. Based on the question marks around both Reed and Olivo, but their promise versus the proven ability of Garcia(but his potential loss after the season), IMO that makes it a fair deal.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 04:01 PM
Without having any specific examples, I believe there are numerous cases of guys who hit well in the minors but were unable to adjust. The analogy would be a high school player who can dominate because his talent level is that much greater than everyone else. When he moves up, and natural selection means the disparity between his talent and the group isn't so great, his #s decline. It happens all the time. Case in point: Borchard. IIRC, a few years ago he had a very good AA season, but hadn't made the transition to performing in AAA until this year.

Well Borchard would prove my argument because in the long term he apparently has adjusted indicating that either it simply took some time to adjust or more likely he was simply facing struggles (a slump) that would've occured regardless of the level or he was injured (which a lot of people here seem to believe). Sorry but without any examples to support your example it's really just pure speculation.

That's fine, but it's still 1 excellent season, half a very good one, and half a pretty mediocre one. The fact that the mediocre one is at a higher level of competition means something as well. All I'm saying is that the jury is still out and he's not a dominant, can't-miss prospect-for-the-ages.

I disagree because the sample size isn't there. You can't infer about a player's performance at AAA based on 250 at bats. If you want to incorporate it into the overall picture of Reed's prospect status that's fine with me but you can't isolate those at bats and then give them special weight because of the level because when you isolate 250 at bats you have a very small sample size.

The question is: how much is slump and how much is something with longer term implications? I believe his average hasn't really been climbing, which would indicate that he's not pulling out of it. The longer it lasts, the less likely it's a slump. It's still early, but it's part of the question mark that does exist on Reed.

Exactly it's still early. The default, the benefit of the doubt has to fall where we have the most information and that suggests that this season is the abberation. Furthermore, Reed was batting .300 with a .400 plus OBP not all that long ago so we're not really looking at 250 mediocre at bats here we're looking at 100 terrible ones which means the sample size is actually even smaller than you're assuming.


That's just an evaluation of the org, not really any reason to keep a player longer or shorter. If our prospects have sucked, we should still deal the top guy if its' the right deal.

I don't think it's an indictment of the organization. We've had a good farm system in recent years. We were in the top five organizations for a few years around '00. Most organizations don't have players of Thomas' calliber come around often so the fact that Reed is the best since him just means that he's not once in a lifetime like Frank he's once in a decade perhaps.

CWSGuy406
06-28-2004, 04:11 PM
Jeremy - in your opinion, are the White Sox of 2004, a better team right now than they were on Saturday?

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 04:13 PM
Jeremy - in your opinion, are we a better team, the White Sox of 2004, a better team right now than they were on Saturday?

Yes. I just don't think a couple wins this season is worth 8 in two seasons.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 04:14 PM
Well Borchard would prove my argument because in the long term he apparently has adjusted indicating that either it simply took some time to adjust or more likely he was simply facing struggles (a slump) that would've occured regardless of the level or he was injured (which a lot of people here seem to believe). Sorry but without any examples to support your example it's really just pure speculation.OK, but I certainly would rather have Garcia now than wait possibly 2-3 years for Reed to get out of his "slump" ala Borchard!


Exactly it's still early. The default, the benefit of the doubt has to fall where we have the most information and that suggests that this season is the abberation. Furthermore, Reed was batting .300 with a .400 plus OBP not all that long ago so we're not really looking at 250 mediocre at bats here we're looking at 100 terrible ones which means the sample size is actually even smaller than you're assuming.Not sure about that, as I recall he's been hitting around .270 for a couple of months now. But I don't have access to a game log or monthly splits for AAA players.


I don't think it's an indictment of the organization. We've had a good farm system in recent years. We were in the top five organizations for a few years around '00. Most organizations don't have players of Thomas' calliber come around often so the fact that Reed is the best since him just means that he's not once in a lifetime like Frank he's once in a decade perhaps. That rating was based on guys like Borchard, Rauch (although injury hit him), Crede, Rowand, etc. Guys who haven't exactly set the world on fire. Which is why to me, virtually any prospect is discounted pretty highly relative to an established major leaguer. Because even the best prospects often don't pan out. It's not a true crapshoot, but it is common. Ruben Rivera, Mark Kotsay, Ricky Ledee, Marlon Byrd, Sean Burroughs, a ton of guys either don't pan out or take a while to do so. I'm willing to take the chance that Reed is an all-star caliber player in 4 years if it gives me a significantly greater chance to win now.

Randar68
06-28-2004, 04:15 PM
OK, but I certainly would rather have Garcia now than wait possibly 2-3 years for Reed to get out of his "slump" ala Borchard!
I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. This is "Dumbest Post of the Month" material.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 04:30 PM
OK, but I certainly would rather have Garcia now than wait possibly 2-3 years for Reed to get out of his "slump" ala Borchard!

There you go. If it happened to another Sox prospect irregardless of the similarities then it will happen to this prospect.

Not sure about that, as I recall he's been hitting around .270 for a couple of months now. But I don't have access to a game log or monthly splits for AAA players.

Me neither but I know that after a slow start Reed boosted his average to .335 and the season is only 3 months old so I don't see how he could've been hitting .270 for two straight months. In fact I'm quite positive he was over .280 until two or three weeks ago.

That rating was based on guys like Borchard, Rauch (although injury hit him), Crede, Rowand, etc. Guys who haven't exactly set the world on fire. Which is why to me, virtually any prospect is discounted pretty highly relative to an established major leaguer. Because even the best prospects often don't pan out. It's not a true crapshoot, but it is common. Ruben Rivera, Mark Kotsay, Ricky Ledee, Marlon Byrd, Sean Burroughs, a ton of guys either don't pan out or take a while to do so. I'm willing to take the chance that Reed is an all-star caliber player in 4 years if it gives me a significantly greater chance to win now.

Well first of all, Mark Kotsay is really good and Burroughs is really good and will likely be incredible really soon. Ruben Rivera and Ricky Ledee are the types of players KW and Baseball America value due to their tools whereas Reed actually had stellar performance valued by the likes of BP and Theo Epstein. The point of citing our highly touted system was to point out that as you said we got merely good results from guys like Rowand, Carlos, and Crede (even better from Maggs) because they were merely good prospects while Reed is an outstanding prospect.

I disagree first of all that Garcia presents a significantly better chance to win now if the winning is the playoffs. Again, even if we keep Garcia he's at best an All-Star at 8 million per season, Reed would be infinately more valuable as an All Star position player that makes a fraction of the salary. We could keep Reed and sign a player of Garcia's calliber in free agency.

I guess in the end it depends on how you feel about the playoffs. Even if we were to make it out of the first round I don't feel like I'd be really satisfied at the end of the season. I couldn't pack it up and say "That was really great I'll be happy if we're not very good the next few seasons because we made a run for it and we had a shot." I want to simply maximize our chances of making the playoffs as often as possible and then see what happens in the playoffs.

daveeym
06-28-2004, 04:33 PM
This has such a larger impact on the staff than 15 games that Garcia is going to pitch. It adds depth to your staff, saves your pens arms, strengthens the pen if they drop schoe or Rausch into the pen, boosts the offense since they now don't feel the need to put up 18 on the 5th starters day.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 04:44 PM
There you go. If it happened to another Sox prospect irregardless of the similarities then it will happen to this prospect.
Hmm, I thought it was obvious that that was tongue in cheek, but apparently not.

The point I was trying to make is that you dont' know if or when he'll get out of his slump and back to his "traditional" numbers.



Me neither but I know that after a slow start Reed boosted his average to .335 and the season is only 3 months old so I don't see how he could've been hitting .270 for two straight months. In fact I'm quite positive he was over .280 until two or three weeks ago.
It's hard to impossible to argue this. I've been checking Reed's stats randomly over the past few months, and I can't recall him hitting more than .280 at any time. I also recall someone saying very early on that he was struggling.

Randar - I know you're hanging around out there. You have any data or recollection of how Reed's done as the season's worn on?



Well first of all, Mark Kotsay is really good and Burroughs is really good and will likely be incredible really soon. Ruben Rivera and Ricky Ledee are the types of players KW and Baseball America value due to their tools whereas Reed actually had stellar performance valued by the likes of BP and Theo Epstein. The point of citing our highly touted system was to point out that as you said we got merely good results from guys like Rowand, Carlos, and Crede (even better from Maggs) because they were merely good prospects while Reed is an outstanding prospect.
My point was that despite having a highly touted system, we haven't gotten anything close to good results of late. I'm a fan of Crede, and I'm coming around on Rowand, but IMO they're both still a year or so away from being consistent, above average ML players. So even if Jeremy Reed becomes an all-star (which is questionable), it's highly likely that that time is at least 4 years away.

Mark Kotsay's on his 3d team, has posted an OPS high of .811 (career average = .756, this year = .751). He's a nice player, but if that's what Reed projects to (and that's what I've seen him projected as in reviews of this trade), it's nothing that I'd be holding onto as the "future of the franchise".

I disagree first of all that Garcia presents a significantly better chance to win now if the winning is the playoffs. Again, even if we keep Garcia he's at best an All-Star at 8 million per season, Reed would be infinately more valuable as an All Star position player that makes a fraction of the salary. We could keep Reed and sign a player of Garcia's calliber in free agency.

I guess in the end it depends on how you feel about the playoffs. Even if we were to make it out of the first round I don't feel like I'd be really satisfied at the end of the season. I couldn't pack it up and say "That was really great I'll be happy if we're not very good the next few seasons because we made a run for it and we had a shot." I want to simply maximize our chances of making the playoffs as often as possible and then see what happens in the playoffs.
IMO, Garcia gives us not only a great shot to make the playoffs, but to get to the WS. Are we the definitive favorites? No, but I think we have as good a shot as anyone given our offense and pitching. Unlike you, I'm not that excited about holding onto guys who probably wont' make significant contributions for a year or 2 and sacrificing the playoffs and a potential deep run for that. Given the environment the Sox are in, building on the buzz and enthusiasm they're generating now with a playoff run will give us better resources to go make other moves. That's better for the organization than not making the playoffs ("Another Sox disappointment, management wouldn't do what was necessary.....again") and seeing attendance & revenues drop.

freshdill
06-28-2004, 04:44 PM
Well first of all, Mark Kotsay is really good
Excuse me?

Mark Kotsay has played six full seasons in the major leagues. He has not hit over .300 in any of them. He has not hit more than 17 home runs in any of them. He has not driven in more than 68 runs in any of them. He has not walked more than 59 times in any of them. He has not stolen more than 19 bases in any of them.

His two best years were 2000 with the Marlins: .298-12-57-19SB
and 2002 with the Padres: .292-17-61-11SB.
His career OPS is .756.

He's hitting .301 up to this point this year, but his HR (4) and SB (5) are very mediocre. If that's what we can expect from Reed, I think I'll sleep well knowing we got Freddy Garcia for him.

rdivaldi
06-28-2004, 04:59 PM
Reed was hitting .275 at the time of the trade boys. Let's also not forget that Charlotte is a hitters' paradise, I've been extremely underwhelmed by Mr. Reed this year.

jabrch
06-28-2004, 05:00 PM
Reed was hitting .275 at the time of the trade boys. Let's also not forget that Charlotte is a hitters' paradise, I've been extremely underwhelmed by Mr. Reed this year.

AND Olivo's performance YTD has been less than stellar also.

It may hurt us down the road. But it may be enough to take us all the way to the ALCS this year. That's a gamble that I am willing to take. Good teams make that kind of move.

rdivaldi
06-28-2004, 05:03 PM
AND Olivo's performance YTD has been less than stellar also.

It may hurt us down the road. But it may be enough to take us all the way to the ALCS this year. That's a gamble that I am willing to take. Good teams make that kind of move.
Olivo's OPS was above .800 as of yesterday, so I don't think you can say that Miggy wasn't anything but solid for us.

But yeah, I want the Sox to win the World Series before I'm old and gray so F it, I'm tired of hearing about the future.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 05:10 PM
Excuse me?

Mark Kotsay has played six full seasons in the major leagues. He has not hit over .300 in any of them. He has not hit more than 17 home runs in any of them. He has not driven in more than 68 runs in any of them. He has not walked more than 59 times in any of them. He has not stolen more than 19 bases in any of them.

His two best years were 2000 with the Marlins: .298-12-57-19SB
and 2002 with the Padres: .292-17-61-11SB.
His career OPS is .756.

He's hitting .301 up to this point this year, but his HR (4) and SB (5) are very mediocre. If that's what we can expect from Reed, I think I'll sleep well knowing we got Freddy Garcia for him.

Gotta love those counting stats.

Kotsay had posted an .800 or better OPS for three consecutive seasons before he injured his back last season. For a centerfielder, that's quite good (5-6 wins above replacement for all of those seasons).

jabrch
06-28-2004, 05:15 PM
Olivo's OPS was above .800 as of yesterday, so I don't think you can say that Miggy wasn't anything but solid for us.

But yeah, I want the Sox to win the World Series before I'm old and gray so F it, I'm tired of hearing about the future.
a .270 avg and a .316 obp just doesn't qualify as enough for me to turn down a shot at Freddy Garcia.

iwannago
06-28-2004, 05:15 PM
IMO when the smoke clears on this trade in about 2006, it will rank as one of the top ten worst trades in Chicago sports history.

jabrch
06-28-2004, 05:17 PM
Olivo's OPS was above .800 as of yesterday, so I don't think you can say that Miggy wasn't anything but solid for us.

But yeah, I want the Sox to win the World Series before I'm old and gray so F it, I'm tired of hearing about the future.
BTW - OPS is a mathematically flawed stat. You can not take two decimal converted percentages and add them together to get a legitimate statistic. Give me average or OBP any time. Give me SLG to evaluate a guy who you count on to drive in runs. but OPS is highly questionable - specifically for a guy like Olivo who never has hit in a run producing spot in the order.

pudge
06-28-2004, 05:20 PM
Unless the Sox make a very serious post-season run and resign Garcia, this is a trade that could haunt us for some time.
I can't believe I'm in the Randar/jeremy camp, but they are dead on. Resigning Garcia is now crucial.

Dadawg_77
06-28-2004, 05:21 PM
BTW - OPS is a mathematically flawed stat. You can not take two decimal converted percentages and add them together to get a legitimate statistic. Give me average or OBP any time. Give me SLG to evaluate a guy who you count on to drive in runs. but OPS is highly questionable - specifically for a guy like Olivo who never has hit in a run producing spot in the order.
It is a made up stat, but easy to do and easy to read. If you run some regression on it to runs scored there is a high level of correlation, higher then avg, obp, and slg.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 05:22 PM
Gotta love those counting stats.

Kotsay had posted an .800 or better OPS for three consecutive seasons before he injured his back last season. For a centerfielder, that's quite good (5-6 wins above replacement for all of those seasons).
<ahem> we'll forgive your rounding the .790OPS in 2000 to ".800 or better"

And not sure about what you mean "prior to hurting his back". In no month of 2003 did he post an OPS greater than .800. His highest months were Aug/Sep when he went .798 & .783 (I'm not counting that 1.000 OPS in those 4 March ABs).

When was this back injury? And whats' the reason behind his current .751 OPS?

Kotsay's a nice player, but I'll take Garcia and a playoff spot over a few years of Mark Kotsay.

mendozaln
06-28-2004, 05:28 PM
BTW - OPS is a mathematically flawed stat. You can not take two decimal converted percentages and add them together to get a legitimate statistic. Give me average or OBP any time. Give me SLG to evaluate a guy who you count on to drive in runs. but OPS is highly questionable - specifically for a guy like Olivo who never has hit in a run producing spot in the order.
What does "mathematically flawed" mean? I admit, I'm not involved in the Great Baseball Stats Debate, but I use statistical theory a LOT in my job. You seem to be saying that using it is based on bad mathematical reasoning, but OBP and SLG are just numbers, and there's no dominant model here, so you can do whatever you want with them, add 'em, take the geometric mean, whatever, have at it.

I think you mean that OPS is not intrinsically meaningful, which is true. And personally I like to see them separately, too. But there's no mathematical error involved in using OPS.

rdivaldi
06-28-2004, 05:34 PM
a .270 avg and a .316 obp just doesn't qualify as enough for me to turn down a shot at Freddy Garcia.
Me neither...

MisterB
06-28-2004, 05:50 PM
What does "mathematically flawed" mean? I admit, I'm not involved in the Great Baseball Stats Debate, but I use statistical theory a LOT in my job. You seem to be saying that using it is based on bad mathematical reasoning, but OBP and SLG are just numbers, and there's no dominant model here, so you can do whatever you want with them, add 'em, take the geometric mean, whatever, have at it.

I think you mean that OPS is not intrinsically meaningful, which is true. And personally I like to see them separately, too. But there's no mathematical error involved in using OPS.
I think he means that it simply adds two statistics that are figured off of different bases: OBP is a straight percentage (either on base or not, max of 100%), whereas SLG is a weighted average (different hits worth different values, then averaged against AB, max of 4.000).

Randar68
06-28-2004, 05:56 PM
Me neither...
Nevermind the fact that we gave up one of the best young catchers in the game IN ADDITION.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 05:56 PM
<ahem> we'll forgive your rounding the .790OPS in 2000 to ".800 or better"

And not sure about what you mean "prior to hurting his back". In no month of 2003 did he post an OPS greater than .800. His highest months were Aug/Sep when he went .798 & .783 (I'm not counting that 1.000 OPS in those 4 March ABs).

When was this back injury? And whats' the reason behind his current .751 OPS?

Kotsay's a nice player, but I'll take Garcia and a playoff spot over a few years of Mark Kotsay.

It wasn't a rounding error. It was an addition error, I was on a page without OPS and added wrong. The point remains the same. His .751 OPS is in half a season and he's hit the cover off the ball in June after a slow start so I'm willing to bet it'll be 4 out of 5 seasons. When I said prior to hurting his back I meant the three seasons prior to last season when he was injured.

Honestly, a playoff spot out of the weakest division in baseball means next to nothing to me unless we make it out of the first round and I expected us to make the playoffs before the deal so the bottom line could be identical. Personally though, I believe Reed projects quite differently from Kotsay. Somewhere along the line (maybe with Jim Callis) people started comparing Reed to Kotsay but their numbers are quite dissimilar so I don't understand the point.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 06:02 PM
It wasn't a rounding error. It was an addition error, I was on a page without OPS and added wrong. The point remains the same. His .751 OPS is in half a season and he's hit the cover off the ball in June after a slow start so I'm willing to bet it'll be 4 out of 5 seasons. When I said prior to hurting his back I meant the three seasons prior to last season when he was injured.

Honestly, a playoff spot out of the weakest division in baseball means next to nothing to me unless we make it out of the first round and I expected us to make the playoffs before the deal so the bottom line could be identical. Personally though, I believe Reed projects quite differently from Kotsay. Somewhere along the line (maybe with Jim Callis) people started comparing Reed to Kotsay but their numbers are quite dissimilar so I don't understand the point.I am curious - when did he hurt his back? Because he didn't start out hitting all that well last year.

And for what it's worth....Crede's hitting the cover off of the ball in june too! :)

mendozaln
06-28-2004, 06:02 PM
I think he means that it simply adds two statistics that are figured off of different bases: OBP is a straight percentage (either on base or not, max of 100%), whereas SLG is a weighted average (different hits worth different values, then averaged against AB, max of 4.000).
I know what it is, and the "different bases" is what I meant by "not intrinsically meaningful". But it's not "mathematically" wrong to add an ordinary average to a weighted average. If (as many claim) OBP and SLG have the same effect in a linear regression, AND a linear regression is the proper model for baseball "performance" (however that's measured in a particular study), then adding the two is exactly the right thing to do (it's "efficient"). Personally, I'm willing to be convinced, but I doubt that just adding the 2 numbers is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, I think it's unfair to make the claim that a statistic is scientifically/mathematically unsound just because it's not intuitive. Intuition has nothing to do with being right.

Man Soo Lee
06-28-2004, 06:06 PM
I disagree because the sample size isn't there. You can't infer about a player's performance at AAA based on 250 at bats. If you want to incorporate it into the overall picture of Reed's prospect status that's fine with me but you can't isolate those at bats and then give them special weight because of the level because when you isolate 250 at bats you have a very small sample size.
Isn't Reed's once-a-decade prospect status based on 250 at bats last year in AA?

Furthermore, Reed was batting .300 with a .400 plus OBP not all that long ago so we're not really looking at 250 mediocre at bats here we're looking at 100 terrible ones which means the sample size is actually even smaller than you're assuming.
According to BA, Reed hit .325 in April and .254 since.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 06:10 PM
I am curious - when did he hurt his back? Because he didn't start out hitting all that well last year.

And for what it's worth....Crede's hitting the cover off of the ball in june too! :)

I don't know when he hurt his back but it cut his season short making the sample size pretty small and back injuries are often nagging so it certainly affected his season one way or another. Crede's never posted an OPS above .734 in a full season. I guess we'll see what happens at the ends of the season but as I've now said several times in light of a small sample size defer to the large body of evidence which is favorable for Kotsay and not nearly as favorable for Crede. Kotsay's hot streak would continue a trend whereas Crede's would create a new trend which is different altogether.

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 06:13 PM
I don't know when he hurt his back but it cut his season short making the sample size pretty small and back injuries are often nagging so it certainly affected his season one way or another. Crede's never posted an OPS above .734 in a full season. I guess we'll see what happens at the ends of the season but as I've now said several times in light of a small sample size defer to the large body of evidence which is favorable for Kotsay and not nearly as favorable for Crede. Kotsay's hot streak would continue a trend whereas Crede's would create a new trend which is different altogether.
ESPN has him playing the whole year, doesn't appear that he had a season cut short. He got like 480 ABs. So apparently he palyed through it.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 06:13 PM
Isn't Reed's once-a-decade prospect status based on 250 at bats last year in AA?

Oops. That's already in this thread or the like this trade thread in about three or four posts between Flight and I. You should check out my arguments about why that's an absurd statement.


According to BA, Reed hit .325 in April and .254 since.

Yeah that doesn't really mean anything though. He could've hit .335 through April and the first two weeks of May and then hit .230 after that.

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 06:14 PM
ESPN has him playing the whole year, doesn't appear that he had a season cut short. He got like 480 ABs. So apparently he palyed through it.

128 games is all.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=5846

jabrch
06-28-2004, 06:15 PM
What does "mathematically flawed" mean? I admit, I'm not involved in the Great Baseball Stats Debate, but I use statistical theory a LOT in my job. You seem to be saying that using it is based on bad mathematical reasoning, but OBP and SLG are just numbers, and there's no dominant model here, so you can do whatever you want with them, add 'em, take the geometric mean, whatever, have at it.

I think you mean that OPS is not intrinsically meaningful, which is true. And personally I like to see them separately, too. But there's no mathematical error involved in using OPS.
ok - I stand corrected.

DrCrawdad
06-28-2004, 07:25 PM
Three comments if I may:

Jeremy says, "There is a definite proven relationship between performance in the upper levels of the minor leagues and performance in the major leagues when age is taken in to consideration."

You mean like all those 'outstanding' Sox pitchers from the minor league system?

Dr. Crawdad makes the comment about Williams always overpaying for talent. My thought is that this is what happens when you get caught in a vice and badly need help because the club is always short a guy or two, usually in pitching. I've always thought the time to fill those areas is in the off season when the demand perhaps isn't as great. The Sox however don't seem to share that philosophy. They'll trade for a guy in the off season when they need two or three guys.

Finally all I can say to the prospect believers is : 1917.

Lip

I stand by my opinion of the trade.

I hope he makes an impact in what will be 14-18 starts for the Sox this season.

The Sox had better sign Garcia to a contract extension.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2004, 10:11 PM
If the Sox wind up unloading Rauch to the Braves as rumored, Jeremy may have a heart attack! All of his favorite prospects gone, like dust in the wind.


Lip

jeremyb1
06-28-2004, 10:26 PM
If the Sox wind up unloading Rauch to the Braves as rumored, Jeremy may have a heart attack! All of his favorite prospects gone, like dust in the wind.


Lip

But Lip will be happy because he knows that if we don't win the World Series this season and we lack prospects to build around in the future Reinsdorf will just bring in talent through free agency pushing the payroll over 100 million, right?

A. Cavatica
06-28-2004, 11:01 PM
Nobody (well, nobody except taylorstsox) is saying it was a bad idea to get Garcia. I love that we filled our biggest hole, and I love the way we did it: by acquiring a starter better than our other starters, pushing everyone down a notch and easing the load on the bullpen. I will love it even more if we can sign Garcia to an extension.

Regarding Reed & Olivo: we're saying (we being jeremyb1, randar, & others) that Sox management appears to have undervalued them. We get mad when people hide behind a position like "all prospects are hype, let's win now" because all prospects are not Scott Ruffcorn.

Remember LaMarr Hoyt as a rookie? Ron Kittle? Greg Walker? Ozzie? Scott Radinsky? Black Jack? Frank? Roberto Hernandez? Jason Bere? Magglio? See, prospects occasionally turn into real major league ballplayers. You can look it up.

Speaking for myself now, I would rather have made Carlos Lee or Magglio the centerpiece of a trade. Neither one is going to get any better, and their inexpensive years are behind them. We might not have gotten Garcia, but we ought to have been able to get someone pretty good.

voodoochile
06-28-2004, 11:13 PM
BTW - OPS is a mathematically flawed stat. You can not take two decimal converted percentages and add them together to get a legitimate statistic. Give me average or OBP any time. Give me SLG to evaluate a guy who you count on to drive in runs. but OPS is highly questionable - specifically for a guy like Olivo who never has hit in a run producing spot in the order.
Won't go that far. You will have to look at a list of lead leaders in OPS over the past 3 years to determine if it tells you anything. It may not be able to prove anything specific, but guys who have seasons with OPS over .950 are generally all-stars. Over 1.1 is MVP material and anything over 1.2 is simply out of this world.

It isn't a stat that correlates directly to one particular thing, but the list of players who have career OPS over 1.0 is something like 20 people long in the history of the game. All of them are in the HOF and in contention for best ever at their given position.

Statisitcally, OPS does hold water, even if it doesn't translate well to everyday numbers.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2004, 11:15 PM
Jeremy says: "But Lip will be happy because he knows that if we don't win the World Series this season and we lack prospects to build around in the future Reinsdorf will just bring in talent through free agency pushing the payroll over 100 million, right?"

Uncle Jerry will be 70 next year, I don't think he'll be running the Sox for much longer. Who knows, they may actually get an owner like Mark Cuban to whom a 100 million dollar payroll is what he gives to charity in a year's time. if not, at least the next owner might be more inclinded to an 80 or 90 million dollar gig, more then enough to win with.

Besides Jeremy you and I know Rauch is not the answer. He's starting to get old for a prospect don't you think?

Lip

Flight #24
06-28-2004, 11:17 PM
Nobody (well, nobody except taylorstsox) is saying it was a bad idea to get Garcia. I love that we filled our biggest hole, and I love the way we did it: by acquiring a starter better than our other starters, pushing everyone down a notch and easing the load on the bullpen. I will love it even more if we can sign Garcia to an extension.

Regarding Reed & Olivo: we're saying (we being jeremyb1, randar, & others) that Sox management appears to have undervalued them. We get mad when people hide behind a position like "all prospects are hype, let's win now" because all prospects are not Scott Ruffcorn.

Remember LaMarr Hoyt as a rookie? Ron Kittle? Greg Walker? Ozzie? Scott Radinsky? Black Jack? Frank? Roberto Hernandez? Jason Bere? Magglio? See, prospects occasionally turn into real major league ballplayers. You can look it up.

Speaking for myself now, I would rather have made Carlos Lee or Magglio the centerpiece of a trade. Neither one is going to get any better, and their inexpensive years are behind them. We might not have gotten Garcia, but we ought to have been able to get someone pretty good.
It's VERY hard to trade Maggs/Lee and get a package that improves you for this year. Olivo/Reed for Garcia does that. Yes, there's a potential loss in the future, but you have to give something to get something.....unless you trade with the Pirates. (And that's not in teal!)

voodoochile
06-28-2004, 11:17 PM
Nevermind the fact that we gave up one of the best young catchers in the game IN ADDITION.
He's a platoon player at best given his inability to hit RHP at this stage of the game. When you get to the playoffs and you are facing the best RHP in the game, you cannot afford a blackhole at any lineup slot.

I like Olivo, I think he has solid potential, but he hasn't exactly overwhelmed me this year after his hot start. Even so, the Sox needed pitching way more than they need MO.

Plenty of time to go after more seasoned guys or maybe Walker can get inside Davis head a bit and convince him to get serious. Now that he's off the west coast, maybe he will improve. Probably not, but even so, there is time to acquire a catcher.

voodoochile
06-28-2004, 11:19 PM
I don't know when he hurt his back but it cut his season short making the sample size pretty small and back injuries are often nagging so it certainly affected his season one way or another. Crede's never posted an OPS above .734 in a full season. I guess we'll see what happens at the ends of the season but as I've now said several times in light of a small sample size defer to the large body of evidence which is favorable for Kotsay and not nearly as favorable for Crede. Kotsay's hot streak would continue a trend whereas Crede's would create a new trend which is different altogether.
So are wrist injuries. Hitters with bad wrists can be iffy propositions.

Randar68
06-28-2004, 11:20 PM
Plenty of time to go after more seasoned guys or maybe Walker can get inside Davis head a bit and convince him to get serious. Now that he's off the west coast, maybe he will improve.
I'm all about optimism for the players we got, but everyone is so happy to dump on the guys that played their hearts out for the silver and black, and that comment about Walker sounds a lot like the Marlins Troll saying their pitching coach was going to turn Koch around, LOL!

voodoochile
06-28-2004, 11:22 PM
I'm all about optimism for the players we got, but everyone is so happy to dump on the guys that played their hearts out for the silver and black, and that comment about Walker sounds a lot like the Marlins Troll saying their pitching coach was going to turn Koch around, LOL!
Yeah, I should have put it in deep pink...

Still he was a great prospect at one point in time. hmmmm.... sounds familiar...:D:

Randar68
06-28-2004, 11:26 PM
So are wrist injuries. Hitters with bad wrists can be iffy propositions.
Who are you talking about, Reed? No serious injury, but if you've ever had a badly jammed finger, wrist, bruised heel, etc, you'll certainly understand how that can bother someone for the rest of the season, but the long-term repercussions are essentially nil.

voodoochile
06-28-2004, 11:29 PM
Who are you talking about, Reed? No serious injury, but if you've ever had a badly jammed finger, wrist, bruised heel, etc, you'll certainly understand how that can bother someone for the rest of the season, but the long-term repercussions are essentially nil.
Thanks for clarifying. I had heard the wrist injury story going around here and was responding to it.