PDA

View Full Version : Where are the armchair GMs, KW bashers, Reedlovers, Rauchies, and the Olivoaholics?


Pages : [1] 2

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:18 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

:bandance::dtroll: :bandance::dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance:

GO SOX GO!

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 12:23 AM
Don't worry. Dawg is very creative. He'll come up with something. And don't count out Jeremy or Bob. They have Lance Armstrong level KW bashing endurance. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 12:29 AM
Olivo hasn't done crap yet
That couldn't be further from the truth.

Which is not to say that Garcia trade wasn't a good one - without it we don't make the postseason I am afraid.....But believe me, both Olivo and Reed will be very good ML players 2 years from now - if Jeremy's wrist is ever 100% anyway.

Rauch, Francisco, Majewski I couldn't give one crap about, though.

Soxzilla
07-23-2004, 12:31 AM
Olivo and Reed will be very good ML players 2 years from now .
There are a few key words in this statement.

KW, me, and the white sox community wants to win now.:supernana:

hold2dibber
07-23-2004, 12:34 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

:bandance::dtroll: :bandance::dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance:

GO SOX GO!
Well, I'm not sure how we'll view those trades in a few years, but I do feel strongly that without them, this year would be hopeless.

Randar68
07-23-2004, 12:41 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

GO SOX GO!
I think you could probably make a good case for the moves KW's made without putting those players down, several of whom will be excellent MLB regulars for a long time. We want to win now and KW was willing to mortgage some of the future, and I have no problem with that, but there are more admirable ways tot make your point.

soxtalker
07-23-2004, 12:45 AM
Olivo hasn't done crap yet

Nothing? Olivo, who, I believe, spent his first couple of weeks with the M's on the disabled list due to kidney stones, keyed a ninth-inning rally a few days ago with a home run.

Garcia appears to be a nice pick up -- if we make the play offs this year. I don't understand all the claims that signing him makes a big difference, as we would have probably had the opportunity to do so at the end of the season. I hope that things work out with him; his last few starts certainly indicate that they will. However, he cost us a lot -- Olivo could have been our starting catcher for quite a few years.

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 12:49 AM
There are a few key words in this statement.

KW, me, and the white sox community wants to win now.:supernana:And that's fine.



But, Reed's ailing wrist aside, let's not pretend we gave up a couple of scrubs here, ok?

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:51 AM
Olivo - despite all the love - is only hitting .276 on the season. His obp is .328 and his slg is .515. BFD.


I think he has a lot of potential. Some day, he might be an everyday player and help a team. But he isn't 10% of the player that Garcia is. Sorry.

I'm not trying to bash the players we moved. It sounds like it - but I am not - really. Someday, they may all be good - who knows? But the deals KW made were great deals. They put our team in a position to win it all, now. I'd gladly take one World Series appearance at the expense of not having Reed/Olivo/Ruach/Francisco/etc.

My point was to give credit to KW for a kickass job so far - and to keep my fingers crossed for the last big deal of the year that I hope he pulls off.

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 12:51 AM
I think you could probably make a good case for the moves KW's made without putting those players down, several of whom will be excellent MLB regulars for a long time. We want to win now and KW was willing to mortgage some of the future, and I have no problem with that, but there are more admirable ways tot make your point.Yeah, but look who he's dealing with. It's about a thousand posts to one. You are correct, but look at the context.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:52 AM
And that's fine.



But, Reed's ailing wrist aside, let's not pretend we gave up a couple of scrubs here, ok?
Not a couple of scrubs, but two guys that wouldn't have done nearly as much for us to win it this year as having a guy like Garcia. Remember what our 5th staters used to be like before we got Garcia? We actually can go out there and win any game we play now - without having to pray for some miracle out of a player who has been beat around most of his other outings.

JB98
07-23-2004, 12:54 AM
Nothing? Olivo, who, I believe, spent his first couple of weeks with the M's on the disabled list due to kidney stones, keyed a ninth-inning rally a few days ago with a home run.

Garcia appears to be a nice pick up -- if we make the play offs this year. I don't understand all the claims that signing him makes a big difference, as we would have probably had the opportunity to do so at the end of the season. I hope that things work out with him; his last few starts certainly indicate that they will. However, he cost us a lot -- Olivo could have been our starting catcher for quite a few years.
Miguel had three passed balls in his first six games with Seattle. He has never been able to hit an offspeed pitch, and I'm not sure that he ever will. Don't get me wrong, he has his good points: Strong arm, pop in his bat, good team player. I'd just rather have Garcia, who has a proven track record and is still a reasonably young pitcher. Freddy has been tremendous in his last two starts.

We gave up absolutely nothing for Everett, as far as I'm concerned. Crazy Carl will provide this team with a lot of big hits down the stretch.

Soxzilla
07-23-2004, 12:55 AM
And that's fine.



But, Reed's ailing wrist aside, let's not pretend we gave up a couple of scrubs here, ok?
I agree. But in my humble opinion, I think that kw has done a great job. And signing garcia to 3 years is a fantastic thing. Not only does he want to win it all NOW, he wants to have a chance to win for the next few years too!

As a chicago fan, I'm personally tired of the 'rebuilding' phases we have had to deal with all of our sports teams over the past few years...

Aidan
07-23-2004, 12:56 AM
Garcia appears to be a nice pick up -- if we make the play offs this year. I don't understand all the claims that signing him makes a big difference, as we would have probably had the opportunity to do so at the end of the season. I hope that things work out with him; his last few starts certainly indicate that they will. However, he cost us a lot -- Olivo could have been our starting catcher for quite a few years.How would signing Garcia after the season is over help us for THIS SEASON??? We need him now, not just next year. :rolleyes:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:56 AM
I think you could probably make a good case for the moves KW's made without putting those players down, several of whom will be excellent MLB regulars for a long time. We want to win now and KW was willing to mortgage some of the future, and I have no problem with that, but there are more admirable ways tot make your point.
Randar, if my form of lyricism is not to your likings, I apologize. :) Well, ok, I dont - but pretend for a second that I do. My point still stands. This team is worlds better today than it was a month ago - and that is despite losing Frank and possibly Magglio. That says something about the job KW did, when nobody that he gave up is even close to a sure thing to do anything. Not a single one of them was in the top 10 prospects at their position. A catcher that doesn't call games and can't hit the low ball, a OF who many experts say is the second coming of Mark Kotsay. A guy we have picked up and dumped several times already from Rule 5 or from trades. A guy we beat the snot out of two nights in a row at Texas. I'm happy as a lark with KWs work.

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 12:58 AM
Not a couple of scrubs, but two guys that wouldn't have done nearly as much for us to win it this year as having a guy like Garcia. Remember what our 5th staters used to be like before we got Garcia? We actually can go out there and win any game we play now - without having to pray for some miracle out of a player who has been beat around most of his other outings.For the last time....Nobody is denying that our need for a front-line pitcher (both in terms of actual production and 'buzz'-creating) was just too great not to pull off this deal......

But saying that we won't miss Olivo and (a healthy) Reed is just not right - unless one has no eye for talent, that is. We'll start missing them as early as next year.

Of course having an ace pitcher is everybit as important, but I wish M's would have taken Becker and Valenzula instead. :bandance: :redneck

doublem23
07-23-2004, 01:00 AM
Can't we ever have one of those "win now" vs. "win later" threads that doesn't erupt into a fight?

gobears1987
07-23-2004, 01:00 AM
you didn't mention KW's best move, trading Billy Cock

valposoxfan
07-23-2004, 01:01 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

:bandance::dtroll: :bandance::dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance:

GO SOX GO!
And we still haven't pulled away from the Twins and sit in second place as we speak with the LOADS of talent we hold over the Twins, missing golden opportunities in Oakland...let's still see how things go after the next 19 games...

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 01:03 AM
Can't we ever have one of those "win now" vs. "win later" threads that doesn't erupt into a fight?With the FOBB's around. I guess that would be a simple no. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Aidan
07-23-2004, 01:04 AM
Losing Rauch, Majewski, Francisco, or Morse won't even hurt at all in my opinion. If Reed becomes the next Mark Kotsay, big deal? We still have Brian Anderson and Ryan Sweeney in the minors who are pretty much the same type of player. I don't think Olivo will ever be better than a .275 hitter. He simply swings at bad pitches too often and doesn't know how to draw a walk. He will be a great defensive catcher with his arm though.

The fact is that people who criticize the Garcia or Everett trade must not want to win now. They also don't realize that you have to give up talent to get an ace like Garcia. This isn't MVP Baseball 2004 where you can trade a bunch of scrubs for an ace pitcher.

doublem23
07-23-2004, 01:08 AM
I don't think Olivo will ever be better than a .275 hitter. He simply swings at bad pitches too often and doesn't know how to draw a walk. He will be a great defensive catcher with his arm though.'

There aren't many .275-hitting catchers flying around out there, especially with his kind of arm. He's had a bad defensive year so far, but come on. I like Freddy Garcia, but Olivo is already a hell of a player. I'm not sure about Reed or any other prospects we've dealt; I've never seen them play and they could pan out or not, but Olivo was a steap price. Pitching is more important the catchers; but not by much. Sometimes you have to give up talent to get some.

If Randy Johnson doesn't get dealt, then the Sox picked up the best pitcher on the market; and signed him for 3 more years. When was the last time that happened?

jabrch
07-23-2004, 01:08 AM
The fact is that people who criticize the Garcia or Everett trade must not want to win now. They also don't realize that you have to give up talent to get an ace like Garcia. This isn't MVP Baseball 2004 where you can trade a bunch of scrubs for an ace pitcher.

Post of the Week!

bmac5001
07-23-2004, 01:15 AM
most of you seem to say that these minor leagers and first or second year players are going to be quality guys in the majors in a few years like it's already happened or is definite. now i'm not saying they won't probably be great a few years down the road, probably being the key word here. anything could happen between know and the time these guys are supposed to be good though, keep that in mind. Personally i'd rather see the likes of Reed, Olivo, and others to have as little success as possible so i can look back on some of these moves and say "well, at least we didn't give up to much".

Anyway, i frankly think Kenny has done a great job the past year and a half. although i won't make excuses for some of his past actions, because he has made some mistakes, but, hey, nobody's perfect. this calls for a random giant dancing banana:
:supernana:

Aidan
07-23-2004, 01:15 AM
Another thing... a solid rotation is way more important than a good hitting catcher if we want to get to the playoffs and actually compete. Did anyone have hopes of doing this with Rauch or Diaz as our 5th starter? I sure didn't. We are shaky enough right now with the hit or miss efforts of Loaiza, Garland, and Schoeneweis. Why do you think the cliche is, "you can never have enough pitching"? It isn't, "you have to have a hitting catcher to win".

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 01:25 AM
He has never been able to hit an offspeed pitch, and I'm not sure that he ever will

Trust me, the man of his physical ability and intensity not only will master the art of hitting breaking pitches, he'll do a few other things as well. Thankfully, he doesn't have to take instruction from Greg Pull-Me Walker no mo'.

Hell, he's got 381 OBP and 684 Sluggin while with the M's so far -- and with less than 500 career atbats, he is not even close to fullfilling his offensive potential -- or defensive one, for that matter.

Reed is a future 400 OBP, 500 Slug (gap power), 20 sb, very good defense in LF player.

Both Olivo and Reed will be cheap for a while, so the money saved could always be used to buy whatever FA pitcher.


What I am saying is....I wish there was some way to get Garcia without giving up anything.:) :gulp:

JB98
07-23-2004, 01:26 AM
Olivo won't hit .275 until he can handle a breaking ball, especially from RHP.

Bill Melton recently compared Olivo's hitting to Karkovice.:o:

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 01:28 AM
Olivo won't hit .275 until he can handle a breaking ball, especially from RHP.


Yeah, and Raphael Palmeiro will never hit for power.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 01:29 AM
Trust me, the man of his physical ability and intensity not only will master the art of hitting breaking pitches, he'll do a few other things as well. Thankfully, he doesn't to take instruction from Greg Pull-Me Walker.

Hell, he's got 381 OBP and 684 Sluggin while with the M's so far -- and with less than 500 career atbats, he is not even close to fullfilling his offensive potential -- or defensive one, for that matter.

Reed is a future 400 OBP, 500 Slug (gap power), 20 sb, very good defense in LF player. :) :gulp:

Both Olivo and Reed will be cheap for a while, so the money saved could always be used to buy whatever FA pitcher.


What I am saying is....I wish there was some way to get Garcia without giving up anything.Some players never learn to hit a breaking ball (i.e. Jose Hernandez).

Who else could we have traded to Seattle to get Garcia? Jon Rauch?

pudge
07-23-2004, 01:30 AM
Hmm, it's real easy to start this thread after we win consecutive shutouts, uh?

Having said that, we're all fully aware what KW is about, I don't mind having an aggressive GM, I just wonder sometimes if he has a tendency to give up too much. When we're dancing in October, I won't give a rats ass about Olivo, but until that happens, I get to watch Olivo in Seattle on a regular basis, and he has sparked some nice rallies for the M's with clutch hits and his speed. And with the utter blackhole we have at catcher, I really wish we didn't lose him.

Rauch, I could care less about.

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 01:37 AM
Some players never learn to hit a breaking ball (i.e. Jose Hernandez).Miguel will not be one of those players. Too driven, too gifted.

Similarly, he hasn't been utilizing RF in a while playing for the Sox, but his effortless HR off Pettite was just a brief flash of the all-field line-drive power potential that could be realized with proper guidance and about another 500+ atbats worth of ML experience. Seattle is beginning to see him progress already, but IMO you'll see the real Miguel in 2005 and beyond, and not this year.


Who else could we have traded to Seattle to get Garcia? Jon Rauch?
I wish....No really, I want to have Freddy AND Jeremy/Miguel on this team. :bandance:

mcfish
07-23-2004, 01:46 AM
For the last time....Nobody is denying that our need for a front-line pitcher (both in terms of actual production and 'buzz'-creating) was just too great not to pull off this deal......
Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are people who think that the trade was a poor one, and those people happen to like to post. A lot. There has been a very vocal minority badmouthing the trade since it happened. This thread has a ton of people wishing we didn't trade Olivo, and it doesn't even include posts from the most vocal dissenters yet. There are people with "Reed watch" and "Olivo watch" as their sig to remind us all that they're with Seattle now I guess. Others just have Miggy's picture set up like a memorial for someone who died tragically. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, but the point is, there are people saying "that our need for a front-line pitcher was not just too great not to pull off this deal."

pearso66
07-23-2004, 01:52 AM
I think this trade was much needed. Our pitching has improved greatly, and he has been very consistant. And to those who say we could have had him in the off season, it would have been a bidding war, or Seattle might have resigned him. We traded for him, and had first dibs. Olivo and Reed might become good players, read MIGHT. Garcia is a good player right now. I'll go as far as to say he's a great player. I'll do that trade every time. And we did get him before the deadline. He could possibly give us 5-6 extra wins since we got him so early. Great trade.

Yomarei
07-23-2004, 02:00 AM
Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are people who think that the trade was a poor one, and those people happen to like to post. A lot. There has been a very vocal minority badmouthing the trade since it happened. This thread has a ton of people wishing we didn't trade Olivo, and it doesn't even include posts from the most vocal dissenters yet. There are people with "Reed watch" and "Olivo watch" as their sig to remind us all that they're with Seattle now I guess. Others just have Miggy's picture set up like a memorial for someone who died tragically. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, but the point is, there are people saying "that our need for a front-line pitcher was not just too great not to pull off this deal."
Ah, I see. Yikes.

I hope you understand that the "nobody" part was just a figure of speech.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 02:05 AM
Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are people who think that the trade was a poor one, and those people happen to like to post. A lot. There has been a very vocal minority badmouthing the trade since it happened. This thread has a ton of people wishing we didn't trade Olivo, and it doesn't even include posts from the most vocal dissenters yet. There are people with "Reed watch" and "Olivo watch" as their sig to remind us all that they're with Seattle now I guess. Others just have Miggy's picture set up like a memorial for someone who died tragically. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, but the point is, there are people saying "that our need for a front-line pitcher was not just too great not to pull off this deal."Great point. Maybe these people should start putting a "Garcia watch" in their sigs instead...

"Garcia watch"
4 Wins
1 Loss
3.15 ERA
38 SO
8 BB

pearso66
07-23-2004, 02:10 AM
Great point. Maybe these people should start putting a "Garcia watch" in their sigs instead...


"Garcia watch"
4 Wins
1 Loss
3.15 ERA
38 SO
8 BB
Good call Aiden, I will now have it in my sig

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:15 AM
Coming soon, the Jabrch thread where I find out what fun trends I can find from a three to four week period (or in the case of Everett, three games) and determine how worthwhile these trends are.

My point of view is pretty clear and I'm not going to change it based on a couple weeks. I made the same determination when Juan Uribe was hitting .350 after two months and you know what? It's looking pretty good right now. I think the M's who made the Seattle deal could tell you they weren't expecting dividends at this point so I'm not sure why anyone else should.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 02:16 AM
Good call Aiden, I will now have it in my sigNice! :redface:

I doubt anyone will have the "Reed watch" though...

"Reed watch" (Tacoma Rainiers)
17 Games
65 At Bats
.262 AVG
1 HR
9 RBI
Jeremy Reed Watch
.262 with 3 2B, 2 3B, a HR, and 8 BBs with Tacoma I stand corrected. It's nice that you mention Reed's 8 BBs but leave out his 6 strikeouts.
Coming soon, the Jabrch thread where I find out what fun trends I can find from a three to four week period (or in the case of Everett, three games) and determine how worthwhile these trends are.

My point of view is pretty clear and I'm not going to change it based on a couple weeks. I made the same determination when Juan Uribe was hitting .350 after two months and you know what? It's looking pretty good right now. I think the M's who made the Seattle deal could tell you they weren't expecting dividends at this point so I'm not sure why anyone else should.Yes, you are the baseball god of statistics. I wonder why the White Sox haven't hired you as a scout. :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering, would you rather still have Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo instead of a better chance of winning the division with Garcia THIS season?

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 02:20 AM
My point of view is pretty clear and I'm not going to change it based on a couple weeks. I made the same determination when Juan Uribe was hitting .350 after two months and you know what? It's looking pretty good right now. So are you saying you hope Garcia and Carl fail with the Sox so you can say "I told you so"? Be honest. You wouldn't be the first stathead to place his ego far above the success of the Sox. But you could be the first one to be honest about it.

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:30 AM
So are you saying you hope Garcia and Carl fail with the Sox so you can say "I told you so"? Be honest. You wouldn't be the first stathead to place his ego far above the success of the Sox. But you could be the first one to be honest about it.

Absolutely not. I don't understand why you'd take that from my comments. I think Garcia and Everett can play extremely well for our club this season and we might still regret the deal(s) later. With the Everett deal we didn't give up any future All-Stars so it's pretty unlikely but with the Garcia deal I'm on the record as arguing since day one that the extension is irrelevant outside of the first round draft pick we would've lost next season. If we don't win the World Series, assuming either Olvio or Reed make valuable contributions in the future we will not have gained much from the deal.

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 02:32 AM
Absolutely not. I don't understand why you'd take that from my comments.You seem to be happy that Uribe has cooled off. One would think any Sox fan would be disappointed.

Rudy Law
07-23-2004, 02:32 AM
Nothing? Olivo, who, I believe, spent his first couple of weeks with the M's on the disabled list due to kidney stones, keyed a ninth-inning rally a few days ago with a home run.

Garcia appears to be a nice pick up -- if we make the play offs this year. I don't understand all the claims that signing him makes a big difference, as we would have probably had the opportunity to do so at the end of the season. I hope that things work out with him; his last few starts certainly indicate that they will. However, he cost us a lot -- Olivo could have been our starting catcher for quite a few years.

I don't think there is anyway we would have been able to sign him..the Yankees would have thrown a bunch of money at him that we wouldn't have been able to match. Not to mention we would not have a chance in this race without Garcia.....Miguel Olivo while a great player, was not a difference maker on this team....He is not the difference between a WS team and not...Garcia can be......I am sure you will feel pretty confident if we make the playoffs and the 1st 2 pitchers we have going are Garcia and Buehrle.....You can have your catcher of the future.....I will the take the ace of the present...

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:34 AM
It's nice that you mention Reed's 8 BBs but leave out his 6 strikeouts.
Yes, you are the baseball god of statistics. I wonder why the White Sox haven't hired you as a scout. :rolleyes:

Well first of all I find strikeouts to be of very little importance unless you're a pitcher. Secondly, there are about 3 or 4 players in the majors right now that have more walks than strikeouts. I find it hilarious that you chose to draw as much attention as possible to Reed's stellar plate discipline to somehow prove your point that he's not a good hitter. I do appreciate you insulting me and talking down to me just because I disagree with you and do not share the majority opinion though.

I'm just wondering, would you rather still have Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo instead of a better chance of winning the division with Garcia THIS season

Yes. Is there a reason that a better chance of winning the division this season is more valuable than a better chance of winning the division in two seasons even if the margin by which our chances are increased is larger in the future?

Aidan
07-23-2004, 02:37 AM
Absolutely not. I don't understand why you'd take that from my comments. I think Garcia and Everett can play extremely well for our club this season and we might still regret the deal(s) later. With the Everett deal we didn't give up any future All-Stars so it's pretty unlikely but with the Garcia deal I'm on the record as arguing since day one that the extension is irrelevant outside of the first round draft pick we would've lost next season. If we don't win the World Series, assuming either Olvio or Reed make valuable contributions in the future we will not have gained much from the deal.This is an asinine comment. Just because a team makes a trade to try to win it all, does not mean it's a bad trade if the team fails to win the World Series. We could have a $185 million dollar team and still not win the World Series (i.e. last year's Yankees). Not winning the World Series does not make a key trade instantly bad. There could be other reasons than Freddy Garcia if we never win anything this year. Especially when Freddy Garcia has the ability to win us 20 games a season for the next 3 years.

Rudy Law
07-23-2004, 02:37 AM
Absolutely not. I don't understand why you'd take that from my comments. I think Garcia and Everett can play extremely well for our club this season and we might still regret the deal(s) later. With the Everett deal we didn't give up any future All-Stars so it's pretty unlikely but with the Garcia deal I'm on the record as arguing since day one that the extension is irrelevant outside of the first round draft pick we would've lost next season. If we don't win the World Series, assuming either Olvio or Reed make valuable contributions in the future we will not have gained much from the deal.

Screw the future...We have been talking about the future since 1959.....This is the best chance the Sox have had in a long time.....The AL is wide open...The Yankees while good do not have the pitching.......Its all there for the Sox.

If we make the playoffs...Who knows what could happen!!

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:39 AM
I don't think there is anyway we would have been able to sign him..the Yankees would have thrown a bunch of money at him that we wouldn't have been able to match.

I think it's extremely inaccurate to suggest that the Yankees offer players money completely out of line with market value just because they're the Yankees. There are few players on their club that earn tons more than what the market was offering at that point in time. They don't bid 12 million a season when the next highest offer is nine. More importantly, if Garcia and his agent are fixated on securing the best paying deal possible and baseball fans on a message board can anticipate that the Yankees will offer him an absorbitant amount amount of money then Garcia and his agent could clearly come to the same conclusion. Why not hold out until the offseason and see how much the Yanks offer?

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:40 AM
Screw the future...We have been talking about the future since 1959.....This is the best chance the Sox have had in a long time.....The AL is wide open...The Yankees while good do not have the pitching.......Its all there for the Sox.

If we make the playoffs...Who knows what could happen!!

Do you really believe that? the Yankees certainly have a better team ERA than we do. I think that most everyone will consider us the fourth best team to make the playoffs in the AL but this is the best chance we're going to have? If that's the case we're in a lot of trouble.

jeremyb1
07-23-2004, 02:43 AM
This is an asinine comment. Just because a team makes a trade to try to win it all, does not mean it's a bad trade if the team fails to win the World Series. We could have a $185 million dollar team and still not win the World Series (i.e. last year's Yankees). Not winning the World Series does not make a key trade instantly bad. There could be other reasons than Freddy Garcia if we never win anything this year.

But that's what we're hedging our bet on, no? Just as KW and he'll tell you "1917" and nothing else. If the goal we're striving for is to win this season and the goal of winning is the World Series we need to win it this season. If we don't win the World Series, it's an undisputable fact that we have failed to reach our goal at the expense of decreasing our chances of reaching said goal in the future. Unless the goal is something less than a championship, I don't see how I could be mistaken.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 02:51 AM
But that's what we're hedging our bet on, no? Just as KW and he'll tell you "1917" and nothing else. If the goal we're striving for is to win this season and the goal of winning is the World Series we need to win it this season. If we don't win the World Series, it's an undisputable fact that we have failed to reach our goal at the expense of decreasing our chances of reaching said goal in the future. Unless the goal is something less than a championship, I don't see how I could be mistaken.Freddy Garcia COULD STILL be more important to our future than Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Reed. He has the ability to win us 20 games a season for the next 3 years. An ace pitcher is more important than a good hitting catcher and a Kotsay-type outfielder, no matter what you say. If we had waited until Freddy was a free agent his value could have skyrocketed by then with the lack of ace quality free agents. The Yankees probably would have given him $12 million a season and we would have no chance of signing him.

Rudy Law
07-23-2004, 03:10 AM
Do you really believe that? the Yankees certainly have a better team ERA than we do. I think that most everyone will consider us the fourth best team to make the playoffs in the AL but this is the best chance we're going to have? If that's the case we're in a lot of trouble.

So you don't think that unlike 2000 the Sox have the pitching that can take them far in the playoffs.....You don't think that pitching this team is in a better position then in 2000.....I would say yes.......So based on that I think that this is the best chance the Sox have had since 1993....which might have been different if BlackJack wasn't tipping his pitches.....Oitching wins in the postseason..

Rudy Law
07-23-2004, 03:13 AM
I think it's extremely inaccurate to suggest that the Yankees offer players money completely out of line with market value just because they're the Yankees. There are few players on their club that earn tons more than what the market was offering at that point in time. They don't bid 12 million a season when the next highest offer is nine. More importantly, if Garcia and his agent are fixated on securing the best paying deal possible and baseball fans on a message board can anticipate that the Yankees will offer him an absorbitant amount amount of money then Garcia and his agent could clearly come to the same conclusion. Why not hold out until the offseason and see how much the Yanks offer?
So you don't think the Yankees whos staff is older would not have thrown 10 11 million dollars at this guy?......So you think we should have not done anything this year?...We should have just looked to the future again?...Tell me what would you have done?....We don't have a chance without Garcia.......Plus the yankees wouldn't have been the only player..You know the RedSox would have been in there trying to out bid the Yankees...Some fans just have to be negative........

owensmouth
07-23-2004, 04:41 AM
With neither Frank or Maggs for the rest of the season. is it gonna matter whether we have Freddie or Miguel?

idseer
07-23-2004, 07:15 AM
what is up with these "where are they" posts? is that supposed to be clever?

the people, including myself, who were not for some of these trades are right here. have been, and will be!
maybe every time a trade goes south i should make a "where are those who liked this trade" post?
these "in your face' posts are really childish.

the fact is some of these trades may look fine at this point and some may not look too hot in a month or a year or 3 years from now. (yes i get the concept of going for it all this year).

instead of trying to put down your fellow sox fans, why not just be happy the sox are in contention this year instead of where MOST of us thought they'd be?

JRIG
07-23-2004, 07:19 AM
what is up with these "where are they" posts? is that supposed to be clever?

the people, including myself, who were not for some of these trades are right here. have been, and will be!
maybe every time a trade goes south i should make a "where are those who liked this trade" post?
these "in your face' posts are really childish.

the fact is some of these trades may look fine at this point and some may not look too hot in a month or a year or 3 years from now. (yes i get the concept of going for it all this year).

instead of trying to put down your fellow sox fans, why not just be happy the sox are in contention this year instead of where MOST of us thought they'd be?
I have to agree. This is always my first thought as well. It's not like you or me or Dawg or jb or Bob have run away and hid. We're right here.

By the way. Where are all the people who thought Juan Uribe would hit .350 all year? :)

Aidan
07-23-2004, 07:51 AM
instead of trying to put down your fellow sox fans, why not just be happy the sox are in contention this year instead of where MOST of us thought they'd be?Agreed. And instead of people ripping on Kenny Williams and who he has traded, why not be happy that the guys we got (Garcia and Everett) are performing extremely well for us so far? Support the entire White Sox organization -- GM, manager, and team. They all play a role in the White Sox success and therefore, our enjoyment.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:02 AM
Ah, but this is where you are wrong. There are people who think that the trade was a poor one, and those people happen to like to post. A lot. There has been a very vocal minority badmouthing the trade since it happened. This thread has a ton of people wishing we didn't trade Olivo, and it doesn't even include posts from the most vocal dissenters yet. There are people with "Reed watch" and "Olivo watch" as their sig to remind us all that they're with Seattle now I guess. Others just have Miggy's picture set up like a memorial for someone who died tragically. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, but the point is, there are people saying "that our need for a front-line pitcher was not just too great not to pull off this deal."

You said it far more elegantly than I did - but that was exactly my point. And the same holds true for Everett. Someday, Rauch may be a stud. But we needed a DH/OF/LH bat. And we got the best one available. We needed a fronmt of the rotation starter - and got the best one available. You have to give up quality to get quality - and we did give up quality. I am being somewhat sarcastic - the guys we gave up aren't a pile of junk. But you very rarely trade a pile of junk for a SP with a 3.15 ERA or a switch hitting OF with power.

bigdommer
07-23-2004, 08:05 AM
Nothing? Olivo, who, I believe, spent his first couple of weeks with the M's on the disabled list due to kidney stones, keyed a ninth-inning rally a few days ago with a home run.

Garcia appears to be a nice pick up -- if we make the play offs this year. I don't understand all the claims that signing him makes a big difference, as we would have probably had the opportunity to do so at the end of the season. I hope that things work out with him; his last few starts certainly indicate that they will. However, he cost us a lot -- Olivo could have been our starting catcher for quite a few years.
Key words: "at the end of the season." By trading for him now, we got exclusive negotiating rights. At the end of the season, we would have been competing against the Yankee$, Red $ox, and the rest of the big spenders. I am guessing he would have cost 2 or 3 mill extra per year, and I am sure the Yank$ would have thrown an extra year on to scare us off.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:07 AM
If we don't win the World Series, assuming either Olvio or Reed make valuable contributions in the future we will not have gained much from the deal.
You are such a hypocrit. Now the benchmark of success is "WINNING" the world series. Tell me how successful god himself is in Oakland? Count the rings his teams have? Count the rings they will get with Jeremy Reed Senior (Mark Kotsay), the worst starting 1B of any playoff calibre team (Hatteberg), etc. etc. You are a flaming hyopcrit. Nice to see you show your colors on this one.

When we talk about Beane - you measure in terms of wins. But KW must win a world series or he's a failure.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:09 AM
Yes. Is there a reason that a better chance of winning the division this season is more valuable than a better chance of winning the division in two seasons even if the margin by which our chances are increased is larger in the future?
and you can prove that we would have had a better chance 2 years from now, by a larger margin, how exactly? HYPOCRIT

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:12 AM
I think it's extremely inaccurate to suggest that the Yankees offer players money completely out of line with market value just because they're the Yankees. There are few players on their club that earn tons more than what the market was offering at that point in time. They don't bid 12 million a season when the next highest offer is nine. More importantly, if Garcia and his agent are fixated on securing the best paying deal possible and baseball fans on a message board can anticipate that the Yankees will offer him an absorbitant amount amount of money then Garcia and his agent could clearly come to the same conclusion. Why not hold out until the offseason and see how much the Yanks offer?
That's not the point - geeez you twist absolutley everything to meet your mental model - don't you? The point is that only the Yanks can afford a 20mm 3B, a 15mm SS, a 20mm 1B, 10mm C, 40mm in the OF, 50mm in the rotation and 35mm on the bench. They pay top dollar of market value, but have no limitations to where they will do it.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:14 AM
Do you really believe that? the Yankees certainly have a better team ERA than we do. I think that most everyone will consider us the fourth best team to make the playoffs in the AL but this is the best chance we're going to have? If that's the case we're in a lot of trouble.
Team ERA? You kill me dude. Being a stathead - couldn't you think of a better way of evaluating team pitching staffs than ERA? I mean - tell me you think having 81 games at USCF is the same as 81 games at Yankee Stadium. Please tell me that. When it's convenient for you, you can slip things like this in - when its not, you can get high and mighty about some deriviative statistic.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 08:18 AM
I don't see how I could be mistaken.
And that's exactly the problem Jeremy. You read moneyball. You read BP. You read Neyer - whatever. And you don't think it is at all possible that you can be mistaken about anything. And you aren't ashamed to come out here every day and tell us. That's what everyone here loves about you.

fquaye149
07-23-2004, 08:21 AM
And that's exactly the problem Jeremy. You read moneyball. You read BP. You read Neyer - whatever. And you don't think it is at all possible that you can be mistaken about anything. And you aren't ashamed to come out here every day and tell us. That's what everyone here loves about you.
that isn't even close to teal!!!!!

gosox41
07-23-2004, 08:30 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

:bandance::dtroll: :bandance::dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance:

GO SOX GO!
Good to see.

Where do I order my World Series tickets? I didn't realize a month made up a whole season.


Bob

gosox41
07-23-2004, 08:31 AM
Don't worry. Dawg is very creative. He'll come up with something. And don't count out Jeremy or Bob. They have Lance Armstrong level KW bashing endurance. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
I'm right here. I'll also take more then a month to judge a trade.

Also, show me when I bashed Garcia or KW on the Garcia trade.




Bob

gosox41
07-23-2004, 08:33 AM
You are such a hypocrit. Now the benchmark of success is "WINNING" the world series. Tell me how successful god himself is in Oakland? Count the rings his teams have? Count the rings they will get with Jeremy Reed Senior (Mark Kotsay), the worst starting 1B of any playoff calibre team (Hatteberg), etc. etc. You are a flaming hyopcrit. Nice to see you show your colors on this one.

When we talk about Beane - you measure in terms of wins. But KW must win a world series or he's a failure.
People like to incorrectly lump me in the FOBB group. He is better then KW though I don't think he's a god. I measure KW and Beane on two things: Wins and Playoff Appearances. Guess who has more?


Bob

FarWestChicago
07-23-2004, 10:00 AM
Uribe would hit .350 all year? :)Yet another stathead who would rather be right than see the Sox do well. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

Aidan
07-23-2004, 10:18 AM
You are such a hypocrit. Now the benchmark of success is "WINNING" the world series. Tell me how successful god himself is in Oakland? Count the rings his teams have? Count the rings they will get with Jeremy Reed Senior (Mark Kotsay), the worst starting 1B of any playoff calibre team (Hatteberg), etc. etc. You are a flaming hyopcrit. Nice to see you show your colors on this one.

When we talk about Beane - you measure in terms of wins. But KW must win a world series or he's a failure.Great point. With jeremyb1 it's apparently okay for the A's to just win every season, even though they have never ended up winning the World Series. But with the White Sox, they have to win the World Series THIS YEAR for the trade to not be a complete failure. With this manner of thought, there's no way Billy Beane's trades can actually fail and it's very easy for Kenny Williams' trades to fail. That's very hypocritical.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 10:20 AM
I think you could probably make a good case for the moves KW's made without putting those players down, several of whom will be excellent MLB regulars for a long time. We want to win now and KW was willing to mortgage some of the future, and I have no problem with that, but there are more admirable ways tot make your point.
You are giving Jabrch and FWC way to much credit. For all the talk of not starting a fight, they love to poke sticks to start ones. Anyone remember the Uribe thread? The point was not that people are happy that Uribe failed, but that looking at it, one could predict Uribe failure and the Sox should act accordingly. Thus when he got tons of at bats after he started to cool down, it hurt the team. But when you point out who they were wrong and we were right, they criticize you for rooting for a players failure rather then being wrong. It only proves they don't get the message which was being said.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:22 AM
Everett is crushing the ball.

Garcia is an ACE

Reed is hitting .262 in TACOMA

Rauch can't make the Expos

We shelled Frank Francisco

Olivo hasn't done crap yet

We shut out Cleveland back to back days

The pen has been great

:bandance::dtroll: :bandance::dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance: :dtroll: :bandance:

GO SOX GO! we havent made the playoffs yet and arent even in first place!

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:23 AM
Great point. With jeremyb1 it's apparently okay for the A's to just win every season, even though they have never ended up winning the World Series. But with the White Sox, they have to win the World Series THIS YEAR for the trade to not be a complete failure. That's very hypocritical. we have to go far in the playoffs because of what we game up. beane has never given up that much in any trade.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 10:28 AM
we have to go far in the playoffs because of what we game up. beane has never given up that much in any trade.Wait a second. Did we not actually get Miguel Olivo for Chad Bradford. Olivo is one of the guys that many of the FOBB said should have been untradeable along with Jeremy Reed. Chad Bradford turned out to be a good reliever but Olivo is supposed to be an awesome catcher and much more valuable than Bradford. Yet, BILLY BEANE HIMSELF TRADED THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO TO US!!! That just destroys your argument.

JRIG
07-23-2004, 10:29 AM
Yet another stathead who would rather be right than see the Sox do well. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif
Of course not. I just wish our GM would have identified that Uribe and Harris would be a problem area for us this season and looked for an upgrade or depth. I would love to be proved wrong if it meant a championship.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:30 AM
Wait a second. Did we not actually get Miguel Olivo for Chad Bradford. Olivo is one of the guys that many of the FOBB said should have been untradeable along with Jeremy Reed. Chad Bradford turned out to be a good reliever but Olivo is supposed to be an awesome catcher and much more valuable than Bradford. Yet, BILLY BEANE HIMSELF TRADED THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO TO US!!! That just destroys your argument. well actually i was more upset with us losing reed

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 10:30 AM
Wait a second. Did we not actually get Miguel Olivo for Chad Bradford. Olivo is one of the guys that many of the FOBB said should have been untradeable along with Jeremy Reed. Chad Bradford turned out to be a good reliever but Olivo is supposed to be an awesome catcher and much more valuable than Bradford. Yet, BILLY BEANE HIMSELF TRADED THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO TO US!!! That just destroys your argument.
LOL, see this is what is called reading comprehension. Most of the people, who are referred to as FOBB, really regret the lost of Reed more so then Olivo. But you probally just wanted to make a cheap point without reading the total arguments, so thats fine.

bobj4400
07-23-2004, 10:30 AM
Don't worry. Dawg is very creative. He'll come up with something. And don't count out Jeremy or Bob. They have Lance Armstrong level KW bashing endurance. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Me? I luuuuv KW!

Aidan
07-23-2004, 10:35 AM
LOL, see this is what is called reading comprehension. Most of the people, who are referred to as FOBB, really regret the lost of Reed more so then Olivo. But you probally just wanted to make a cheap point without reading the total arguments, so thats fine.My point made perfect sense. I see FOBB whine about the loss of Olivo as much as Reed so don't BS me. By the way, Billy Beane was such a genious that he traded away THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO for Chad Bradford. Last time I checked, Bradford hasn't exactly been stellar this season...

Chad Bradford (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=136268)
4.71 ERA
4 Wins
4 Losses
1 Save
2 Blown Saves

Does this mean Billy Beane is a bad GM because he made a bad trade? You guys make him out to be infallible. Put down Moneyball; you don't need to read it for the 24th time. Billy Beane is not God. He does make mistakes.

Also, does anyone else realize that Billy Beane traded the much younger Michael Barrett (27) for the older Damian Miller (34)? While both have been equally great offensively, Barrett is much younger and would be the better catcher to have. Barrett also makes only half ($1.55 million) of what Miller makes ($3 million). It seems to me that Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane. :o:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:41 AM
My point made perfect sense. I see FOBB whine about the loss of Olivo as much as Reed so don't BS me. By the way, Billy Beane was such a genious that he traded away THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO for Chad Bradford. Last time I checked, Bradford hasn't exactly been stellar this season...

Chad Bradford (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=136268)
4.71 ERA
4 Wins
4 Losses
1 Save
2 Blown Saves

Does this mean Billy Beane is a bad GM because he made a bad trade? You guys make him out to be infallible. Put down Moneyball; you don't need to read it for the 24th time. Billy Beane is not God. He does make mistakes.

. well its not like olivo was that great right now! we were upset because olivo has so much potential, not because he was that good right now! in fact, strictly talking about right now, bradford and olivo are pretty equal.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 10:45 AM
One cautionary note on Garica, while this maybe long term improvement for the better, Garica is striking out 9.96 batter per nine and 4.75 strike out per walk, in Sea, he was 6.90 and 2.56 which is more in line with his career numbers. Also Garica's Batting Average on Ball hit into Play has fallen form .290 in Sea to .262 with the Sox. League average is around .300 and Sox pitchers are at .294. So I wouldn't expect the BABIP to stay as low going forward. So the question with Freddy is, can he keep it up?

Note: If Garica was putting up the K numbers in Sea, as much as I like Reed, I would have been disappointed in the trade as I was when it happen. I think most of the others who didn't like the trade would agree.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 10:46 AM
Garcia is an ace, add him with Buehrle for the next 3 years and all the sudden the future looks pretty bright, that's why people who think the sox threw in the towel for the future are completely off. Everett is about as good of a clutch hitter as you'll find in this league. He's not going to hit for superstar numbers but if you need a hiter he'll get that hit. KW has done an absolute great job and and people who think he's done a bad job just seem to have something personal against him.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 10:47 AM
My point made perfect sense. I see FOBB whine about the loss of Olivo as much as Reed so don't BS me. By the way, Billy Beane was such a genious that he traded away THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO for Chad Bradford. Last time I checked, Bradford hasn't exactly been stellar this season...

Chad Bradford (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=136268)
4.71 ERA
4 Wins
4 Losses
1 Save
2 Blown Saves

Does this mean Billy Beane is a bad GM because he made a bad trade? You guys make him out to be infallible. Put down Moneyball; you don't need to read it for the 24th time. Billy Beane is not God. He does make mistakes.

Also, does anyone else realize that Billy Beane traded the much younger Michael Barrett for the older Damian Miller? While both have great offensively, Barrett is much younger and would be the better catcher to have. Barrett also make half ($1.55 million) of what Miller makes ($3 million).
JFC!!. If you could comprehend what you are reading you might be dangerous. You are grouping together people who dislike the trade for many reasons. That is why your arguement is illogical and make no sense.

Secondly, the reason we didn't like trading Bradford was the vaule he would have brought the team the past couple of years while Olivo was in the minors bring none to little for the major league team.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:48 AM
and lets not get carried away and say that garcia is an ace right now. he is 4-1 since joining the sox, but his ERA is in the high 3's. and i wanna see how he does at home. oakland has a very big ballpark

Aidan
07-23-2004, 10:52 AM
One cautionary note on Garica, while this maybe long term improvement for the better, Garica is striking out 9.96 batter per nine and 4.75 strike out per walk, in Sea, he was 6.90 and 2.56 which is more in line with his career numbers. Also Garica's Batting Average on Ball hit into Play has fallen form .290 in Sea to .262 with the Sox. League average is around .300 and Sox pitchers are at .294. So I wouldn't expect the BABIP to stay as low going forward. So the question with Freddy is, can he keep it up?

Note: If Garica was putting up the K numbers in Sea, as much as I like Reed, I would have been disappointed in the trade as I was when it happen. I think most of the others who didn't like the trade would agree.Since you are so up on stats, does Reed hitting well over .300 last season, then hitting .273 this season in Charlotte, and now hitting only .262 in Tacoma mean that he will only get worse? I guess your favorite prospect is on the decline. :rolleyes:
and lets not get carried away and say that garcia is an ace right now. he is 4-1 since joining the sox, but his ERA is in the high 3's. and i wanna see how he does at home. oakland has a very big ballparkHis ERA is 3.18 on the season and only 3.15 with the White Sox...
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=150119

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:54 AM
Since you are so up on stats, does Reed hitting well over .300 last season, then hitting .273 this season in Charlotte, and now hitting only .262 in Tacoma mean that he will only get worse? I guess your favorite prospect is on the decline. :rolleyes: your giving his stats in tacoma as part of your reasoning!!??? how many ABS does he have? 50?!!

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 10:55 AM
and lets not get carried away and say that garcia is an ace right now. he is 4-1 since joining the sox, but his ERA is in the high 3's. and i wanna see how he does at home. oakland has a very big ballparkUm, since when is 3.15 in the high 3's? Oaklands ball park isn't big at all, it has a lot of foul territory but in no way is it a big park. Also what he did to cleveland is remarkable shutting that offense down especially when they just came off another shutout. What Buehrle and Freddy did to the Indians is unheard of, I don't know what you want freddy to do but so far he's been an absolute stud.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 10:57 AM
your giving his stats in tacoma as part of your reasoning!!??? how many ABS does he have? 50?!!I'm being sarcastic. I'm trying to show these FOBB that stats don't always mean EVERYTHING. If stats were everything, then Reed could be considered to be on the decline.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 10:59 AM
Um, since when is 3.15 in the high 3's? Oaklands ball park isn't big at all, it has a lot of foul territory but in no way is it a big park. Also what he did to cleveland is remarkable shutting that offense down especially when they just came off another shutout. What Buehrle and Freddy did to the Indians is unheard of, I don't know what you want freddy to do but so far he's been an absolute stud. oakland is a pitchers park. its ERA for games there is only 4.21, which is pretty good. and yes, he did a great job yesterday, but i wanna see more of that

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:03 AM
I'm being sarcastic. I'm trying to show these FOBB that stats don't always mean EVERYTHING. If stats were everything, then Reed could be considered to be on the decline.
LOL, you still can't comprehend what you are reading. The point was Garica is preforming beyond what he has done in his career in the short term. Thus one needs to ask can he keep up his current performance. So since Reed is preforming below what he has done in past over the short term, one needs to ask is Reed in slump and will he continually perform this bad or will he rebound? So thanks for proving my point.

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 11:04 AM
Secondly, the reason we didn't like trading Bradford was the vaule he would have brought the team the past couple of years while Olivo was in the minors bring none to little for the major league team.
As opposed to the value Reed would have brought the team this year and possibly next to the major league team from Charlotte compared to the value Garcia's bringing.....
:?:

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:05 AM
Secondly, the reason we didn't like trading Bradford was the vaule he would have brought the team the past couple of years while Olivo was in the minors bring none to little for the major league team.As opposed to the value Reed would have brought the team this year and possibly next to the major league team from Charlotte compared to the value Garcia's bringing.....
:?:HAHAHA!!! OWNED!!! :supernana:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:05 AM
we have to go far in the playoffs because of what we game up. beane has never given up that much in any trade.

And at the same time, he has never acquired anyone as good as Garcia.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:06 AM
As opposed to the value Reed would have brought the team this year and possibly next to the major league team from Charlotte compared to the value Garcia's bringing.....
:?:
Well I view Reed as a much better hitter then Olivo. Also I think Garica will regress back to career line then what he is doing now. So for the benefit of Garica now, I believed could have been obtained at a lot lower cost then it was.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:07 AM
HAHAHA!!! OWNED!!! :supernana:
For someone who is 24, you come off at a 14.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:08 AM
And at the same time, he has never acquired anyone as good as Garcia. he didnt have to trade for anyone as good as garcia because he is a GREAT drafter. (see barry zito, tim hudson, mark mulder)

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:10 AM
well its not like olivo was that great right now! we were upset because olivo has so much potential, not because he was that good right now! in fact, strictly talking about right now, bradford and olivo are pretty equal.
No they aren't. Bradford is a RP with an ERA near 5.00. That's Mike Jacksonish. I'd take Olivo 1,000,000 times over Bradford.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:11 AM
And at the same time, he has never acquired anyone as good as Garcia.
Foulke, Dye...

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:11 AM
he didnt have to trade for anyone as good as garcia because he is a GREAT drafter. (see barry zito, tim hudson, mark mulder)
All guys drafted before he fired his scouts and took control of the drafting himself. Add Tejada, Chavez and Giambi to that list also. You'd have to agree it is too early to evaluate him as a drafter - since his first class has yet to become close to maturity.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:11 AM
For someone who is 24, you come off at a 14.For someone who doesn't even post their age, you come off as someone who can't admit when they have been beaten in a debate. In case you have forgotten, here it is again...
Secondly, the reason we didn't like trading Bradford was the vaule he would have brought the team the past couple of years while Olivo was in the minors bring none to little for the major league team.As opposed to the value Reed would have brought the team this year and possibly next to the major league team from Charlotte compared to the value Garcia's bringing.....
:?:HAHAHA!!! OWNED!!! :supernana:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:12 AM
No they aren't. Bradford is a RP with an ERA near 5.00. That's Mike Jacksonish. I'd take Olivo 1,000,000 times over Bradford. well i would too. but i am just talking about at this moment, forget about the future. check out olivo's careers numbers: .248 AVG, .214 AVG vs. RHP, .300 OBP, .413 SLG. not that impressive

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:13 AM
All guys drafted before he fired his scouts and took control of the drafting himself. Add Tejada, Chavez and Giambi to that list also. You'd have to agree it is too early to evaluate him as a drafter - since his first class has yet to become close to maturity.
Not exactly, he overruled his scouts several times while drafting, Zito being one of those times.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:13 AM
Secondly, the reason we didn't like trading Bradford was the vaule he would have brought the team the past couple of years while Olivo was in the minors bring none to little for the major league team.Now doesn't this contradict all other points you kenny bashers have made? You guys get mad at him for giving up prospects but when he acquires a very good prospect who is much more valuable then a middle reliever all of the sudden that's a bad trade too.:?:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:13 AM
All guys drafted before he fired his scouts and took control of the drafting himself. Add Tejada, Chavez and Giambi to that list also. You'd have to agree it is too early to evaluate him as a drafter - since his first class has yet to become close to maturity. ok, how bout harden then? he's pretty damn good.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:14 AM
For someone who doesn't even post their age, you come off as someone who can't admit when they have been beaten in a debate. In case you forgot, here it is again...
HAHAHA!!! OWNED!!! :supernana:

LOL, well wouldn't expect any else from you, since you seem not to be able to comprehend what you read.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:14 AM
Now doesn't this contradict all other points you kenny bashers have made? You guys get mad at him for giving up prospects but when he acquires a very good prospect who is much more valuable then a middle reliever all of the sudden that's a bad trade too.:?: miguel olivo is not a prospect anymore. he is a full time major league player

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:15 AM
and lets not get carried away and say that garcia is an ace right now. he is 4-1 since joining the sox, but his ERA is in the high 3's. and i wanna see how he does at home. oakland has a very big ballpark
How is 3.15 in the high 3s? He pitched @ Minn, USCF vs Anaheim, USCF vs Seattle, @ Oakland and @ Cleveland. The only soft matchup there was home vs Seattle. If Oakland is such a big ballpark, why are people never arguing that is the reason why Hudson/Zito/Mulder are good? That's an excuse.

Garcia has a 3.15 ERA with the Sox and a 3.18 on the season. List off the pitchers doing better than him. He's an ACE.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:15 AM
and i havent even mentioned that he has traded 5 guys just for carl everett!

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:15 AM
LOL, well wouldn't expect any else from you, since you seem not to be able to comprehend what you read.Whatever you say Mr. No Age... :rolleyes: You lost the debate to Flight #24. It's over. Give it up.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:17 AM
and i havent even mentioned that he has traded 5 guys just for carl everett!
How many of them are producing?

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:17 AM
How is 3.15 in the high 3s? He pitched @ Minn, USCF vs Anaheim, USCF vs Seattle, @ Oakland and @ Cleveland. The only soft matchup there was home vs Seattle. If Oakland is such a big ballpark, why are people never arguing that is the reason why Hudson/Zito/Mulder are good? That's an excuse.

Garcia has a 3.15 ERA with the Sox and a 3.18 on the season. List off the pitchers doing better than him. He's an ACE. all right, i was wrong about the ERA, but still the sample size is just too small. like i said earlier, i wanna see more of his games at home. he didnt do that great against anaheim, and he did good against seattle, which is a horrible offensive team.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 11:18 AM
Here are some interesting F Garcia Stats:

Of all AL Pitchers who have thrown 100 innings or more this season:

ERA:
1. Hudson 2.98
2. Schilling 3.04
3. Garcia 3.18
4. Mulder 3.21

WHIP:
1. J. Santana 1.03
2. Schilling 1.12
3. Garcia 1.15

Opponent OBP:
1. J. Santana .271
2. Schilling .280
3. Garcia .288

Strikeouts:
1. J. Santana 155
2. P. Martinez 127
3. C. Schilling 125
4. Garcia 120

Those are some pretty good names with which Garcia is associated. But, you guys are right. He's not an ace. He's a #3 at best. Sheesh.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:18 AM
miguel olivo is not a prospect anymore. he is a full time major league playerSure, but he's still very much prospect because he's not fully developed and if he's going to be this allstar some people think he's going to be well he better develop much more. But when KW acquired him he was still a minor leaguer.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:18 AM
How many of them are producing? well francisco is already at the major league level. i know that we beat him up and that his ERA is in the mid 4's, but still thats pretty damn good for a guys who is only 24 and throws 98!

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:19 AM
How many of them are producing?You know voodoo, texas has fransisco he throws hard so his era in the mid 4's means nothing.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:19 AM
Now doesn't this contradict all other points you kenny bashers have made? You guys get mad at him for giving up prospects but when he acquires a very good prospect who is much more valuable then a middle reliever all of the sudden that's a bad trade too.:?:
First off, all prospects are not created equal. A .275/.320/.460 catcher isn't as valuable as .300/.400/.490 type of hitter, which is what I expect Reed to become. Thus I would expect more value added form Reed then Olivo. I would disagree with your statement that Olivo has been more valuable over the past three years then Bradford.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:19 AM
Here are some interesting F Garcia Stats:

Of all Pitchers who have thrown 100 innings or more this season:

ERA:
1. Hudson 2.98
2. Schilling 3.04
3. Garcia 3.18
4. Mulder 3.21

WHIP:
1. J. Santana 1.03
2. Schilling 1.12
3. Garcia 1.15

Opponent OBP:
1. J. Santana .271
2. Schilling .280
3. Garcia .288

Strikeouts:
1. J. Santana 155
2. P. Martinez 127
3. C. Schilling 125
4. Garcia 120

Those are some pretty good names with which Garcia is associated. But, you guys are right. He's not an ace. He's a #3 at best. Sheesh. he has been doing good, but how many games as he pitched at the cell, the coors of the AL? i just wanna see more of him at home

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:20 AM
Well I view Reed as a much better hitter then Olivo. Also I think Garica will regress back to career line then what he is doing now. So for the benefit of Garica now, I believed could have been obtained at a lot lower cost then it was.What the hell, are you a GM or something? Do you just assume that Garcia should have been available at a cheaper price? Did you ever think that maybe what Kenny Williams gave up, he had to?

Oh yeah, contradict this...

Does anyone else realize that Billy Beane traded the much younger catcher Michael Barrett (27 years old) for the older catcher Damian Miller (34 years old)? While both have been equally great offensively, Barrett is much younger and would be the better catcher to have. Barrett also makes only half ($1.55 million) of what Miller makes ($3 million). It seems to me that Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane. Has the great Billy Beane finally made a bad trade? :o:

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:21 AM
Here are some interesting F Garcia Stats:

Of all AL Pitchers who have thrown 100 innings or more this season:

ERA:
1. Hudson 2.98
2. Schilling 3.04
3. Garcia 3.18
4. Mulder 3.21

WHIP:
1. J. Santana 1.03
2. Schilling 1.12
3. Garcia 1.15

Opponent OBP:
1. J. Santana .271
2. Schilling .280
3. Garcia .288

Strikeouts:
1. J. Santana 155
2. P. Martinez 127
3. C. Schilling 125
4. Garcia 120

Those are some pretty good names with which Garcia is associated. But, you guys are right. He's not an ace. He's a #3 at best. Sheesh.
Yes those are good number but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not they will last.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:21 AM
You know voodoo, texas has fransisco he throws hard so his era in the mid 4's means nothing.
LOL! Great answer...

What would he be doing for the Sox this season? Mop up duty?

So KW traded one guy who currently is in the majors for the bat the team so desperately needed both of the last two years.

:whatever:

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:21 AM
well francisco is already at the major league level. i know that we beat him up and that his ERA is in the mid 4's, but still thats pretty damn good for a guys who is only 24 and throws 98!I'm glad he throws 98, talk to me when he gets his era under 4.

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 11:22 AM
well francisco is already at the major league level. i know that we beat him up and that his ERA is in the mid 4's, but still thats pretty damn good for a guys who is only 24 and throws 98!<daverspeak>This is why the radar gun should be banished from baseball</daverspeak>

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:22 AM
What the hell, are you a GM or something? Do you just assume that Garcia should have been available at a cheaper price? Did you ever think that maybe what Kenny Williams gave up, he had to?

Contradict this...

Does anyone else realize that Billy Beane traded the much younger Michael Barrett (27 years old) for the older Damian Miller (34 years old)? While both have been equally great offensively, Barrett is much younger and would be the better catcher to have. Barrett also makes only half ($1.55 million) of what Miller makes ($3 million). It seems to me that Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane. :o: how many times has hendry made the playoffs with that "great" rotation of his?

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:22 AM
Wait a second. Did we not actually get Miguel Olivo for Chad Bradford. Olivo is one of the guys that many of the FOBB said should have been untradeable along with Jeremy Reed. Chad Bradford turned out to be a good reliever but Olivo is supposed to be an awesome catcher and much more valuable than Bradford. Yet, BILLY BEANE HIMSELF TRADED THE GREAT MIGUEL OLIVO TO US!!! That just destroys your argument.
I think the point was we gave up a lot in Olivo + Reed + Morse. The sum may be greater then the parts. Olivo is not a great overall catcher. But we did give up 3 possible everyday players.


Bob

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:22 AM
Yes those are good number but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not they will last.I'm pretty sure there is a better chance of those numbers lasting then reed becoming a star.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 11:22 AM
Yes those are good number but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not they will last.
Yeah, but we're sure Olivo will improve and Reed will be an all-star. Come on. :bs:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:23 AM
Foulke, Dye...
Not CLOSE to as good. Foulke had lost his job as a closer for being ineffective. Dye is a career .274/.335/.466 OF, who he got in a classic KC salary dump.

The fact that you would argue that those guys are as good as Garcia doesn't surprise me - after all - how could Beane not be right. But, as West said, it makes me wonder if you are a Sox fan first, or a Beane fan.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:23 AM
I think the point was we gave up a lot in Olivo + Reed + Morse. The sum may be greater then the parts. Olivo is not a great overall catcher. But we did give up 3 possible everyday players.
Bob exactly. three possible everyday starters, no less one that is a C and one that is a SS, very hard positions to fill

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:24 AM
Not CLOSE to as good. Foulke had lost his job as a closer for being ineffective. Dye is a career .274/.335/.466 OF, who he got in a classic KC salary dump.

The fact that you would argue that those guys are as good as Garcia doesn't surprise me - after all - how could Beane not be right. But, as West said, it makes me wonder if you are a Sox fan first, or a Beane fan. how is dye not as good as garcia? he is leading the A's in HR and RBIS!

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:24 AM
And at the same time, he has never acquired anyone as good as Garcia.
Which says a lot about Beanes ability to draft and devlop players. They haven't had the need to give up a ton of talent to get a Garcia type player because they have great pitching.



Bob

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:25 AM
how many times has hendry made the playoffs with that "great" rotation of his?What the hell does that have to do with it. Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane in the Miller for Barrett trade. There's no denying it.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:25 AM
What the hell does that have to do with it. Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane in the Miller for Barrett trade. There's no denying it. ok fine, but its not like that has hurt beane

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:26 AM
ok, how bout harden then? he's pretty damn good.
That's 1 - a SP with an 4.00 ERA and a 1.36 WHIP in what was already called a pitchers park. In USCF - this guy's numbers are no better than Garland or Schoenweiss.

Heck, look at KW, in comparison. The best guy you name that Beane has is Harden - We just traded away Ted Williams Jr. in Reed. And he got Olivo...and someone mentioned the 5 guys we traded for Everett....

GMAB

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 11:26 AM
LOL, you still can't comprehend what you are reading. The point was Garica is preforming beyond what he has done in his career in the short term. Thus one needs to ask can he keep up his current performance. So since Reed is preforming below what he has done in past over the short term, one needs to ask is Reed in slump and will he continually perform this bad or will he rebound? So thanks for proving my point.
Reed's minor league stats:

2002 (A) - .319avg / .377OBP / .448SLG in 210ABs
2003 (A) - .333avg / .431OBP / .477SLG in 222 ABs
2003 (AA) - .409avg / .472OBP / .591SLG in 242ABs
2004 (AAA-Sox) - .275avg / .359OBP / .420SLG in 276ABs
2004 (AAA - Ms) - .262avg / .338OBP / .426SLG in 61ABs

He's already got more ABs this year than in the incredible AA stint last year, and he doesn't seem to be "coming around". So we've got a pretty good 2002 year, a great 2003 year including an incredible half-season in AA, and a very mediocre half season in 2004. To me, it's as likely that Reed maintains his current level as he goes back to his AA stats. There are many guys who simply can't maintain their level of performance as they move up in minor league ball.

That's not to say that Jeremy's not a good player and may not be a very good ML player. The point is that at this time, it's still a crapshoot as to whether he ends up as a mediocre hitter, a decent hitter, or a very good hitter. And it's not even a given that he'll be ready by ST next year given his struggles adjusting to AAA so far.

A struggling but talented young C and a minor league OF who currently seems to be 1-2 years away and whose ceiling is as a good but not great player. That seems about right for a #1 or at worst, excellent #2 pitcher that can help a veteran team win now.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:26 AM
What the hell, are you a GM or something? Do you just assume that Garcia should have been available at a cheaper price? Did you ever think that maybe what Kenny Williams gave up, he had to?

Contradict this...

Does anyone else realize that Billy Beane traded the much younger Michael Barrett (27 years old) for the older Damian Miller (34 years old)? While both have been equally great offensively, Barrett is much younger and would be the better catcher to have. Barrett also makes only half ($1.55 million) of what Miller makes ($3 million). It seems to me that Jim Hendry robbed Billy Beane. :o:
Well last year Barrett, 27 past prospect time, put up a whopping .208/.280/.398 line. While Miller didn't do much better he is known be one of the better catchers behind the plate. When the main focus of your time is your pitching staff, that is something to consider.

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 11:27 AM
I thought the Mark Kotsay comparisons were way off at first, now I am coming around...

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Now doesn't this contradict all other points you kenny bashers have made? You guys get mad at him for giving up prospects but when he acquires a very good prospect who is much more valuable then a middle reliever all of the sudden that's a bad trade too.:?:
It all depends on timing. For a team trying to win here and now, it's dumb to give up a good reliever for a prospect. For a team rebuilding it makes perfect sense.

Funny how the Sox didn't think much of Bradford except to make him a Sept. call up but they added him to the playoff roster. After 2000 everyone thought this team had a good chance to win for the next 3-4 years. Being that pitching wins it's dumb to give up a good reliever for a prospect for a team trying to win now.


Why don't people get that? When analyzing a trade you have to look at more then the players involved. You have to look at the situation the team is in anf other circumstances.


Bob

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Well last year Barrett, 27 past prospect time, put up a whopping .208/.280/.398 line. While Miller didn't do much better he is known be one of the better catchers behind the plate. When the main focus of your time is your pitching staff, that is something to consider. true. miller caught both RJ and schilling when the Dbacks won the WS. he has a crapload of experience

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:27 AM
ok fine, but its not like that has hurt beaneYes it does. Miller is 34 and Barrett is only 27. Barrett could be the A's catcher for years to come. Barrett is also only making $1.55 million, while Miller is making $3 million. The extra money Beane is paying Miller could have been spent elsewhere.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:28 AM
Reed's minor league stats:

2002 (A) - .319avg / .377OBP / .448SLG in 210ABs
2003 (A) - .333avg / .431OBP / .477SLG in 222 ABs
2003 (AA) - .409avg / .472OBP / .591SLG in 242ABs
2004 (AAA-Sox) - .275avg / .359OBP / .420SLG in 276ABs
2004 (AAA - Ms) - .262avg / .338OBP / .426SLG in 61ABs

He's already got more ABs this year than in the incredible AA stint last year, and he doesn't seem to be "coming around". So we've got a pretty good 2002 year, a great 2003 year including an incredible half-season in AA, and a very mediocre half season in 2004. To me, it's as likely that Reed maintains his current level as he goes back to his AA stats. There are many guys who simply can't maintain their level of performance as they move up in minor league ball.

That's not to say that Jeremy's not a good player and may not be a very good ML player. The point is that at this time, it's still a crapshoot as to whether he ends up as a mediocre hitter, a decent hitter, or a very good hitter. And it's not even a given that he'll be ready by ST next year given his struggles adjusting to AAA so far.

A struggling but talented young C and a minor league OF who currently seems to be 1-2 years away and whose ceiling is as a good but not great player. That seems about right for a #1 or at worst, excellent #2 pitcher that can help a veteran team win now.
He also has the wrist injury.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:28 AM
how is dye not as good as garcia? he is leading the A's in HR and RBIS!You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think Dye is as good as Garcia. I'll take Garcia who is an ace over a guy who wouldn't even crack the sox starting outfield right now.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:28 AM
and i havent even mentioned that he has traded 5 guys just for carl everett!
Revisionist history - lovely. What 5 guys did we just trade for Everett. We traded Rauch and Majewski. Tell me which one of those guys we miss, right now. You want to talk about last year? Tell me which one of them we miss? We bitchslapped Frank Francisco in his two outings against us. He doesn't look like much to me. 97 and straight as an arrow - we dumped someone just like that to Florida, IIRC.

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:28 AM
how many times has hendry made the playoffs with that "great" rotation of his?
One more time then KW.


Bob

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:29 AM
That's 1 - a SP with an 4.00 ERA and a 1.36 WHIP in what was already called a pitchers park. In USCF - this guy's numbers are no better than Garland or Schoenweiss.

Heck, look at KW, in comparison. The best guy you name that Beane has is Harden - We just traded away Ted Williams Jr. in Reed. And he got Olivo...and someone mentioned the 5 guys we traded for Everett....

GMAB crosby is a pretty damn good player.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:29 AM
I'm pretty sure there is a better chance of those numbers lasting then reed becoming a star.
Why would you say that?

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:29 AM
One more time then KW.


Bob i wasnt comparing him to KW. i was talking about him and beane

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:30 AM
It all depends on timing. For a team trying to win (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=73,28012355,whitesoxinteractive .com,1) here and now, it's dumb to give up a good reliever for a prospect. For a team rebuilding it makes perfect sense.

Funny how the Sox didn't think much of Bradford except to make him a Sept. call up but they added him to the playoff (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=119,28012355,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,1) roster. After 2000 everyone thought this team had a good chance to win for the next 3-4 years. Being that pitching wins it's dumb to give up a good reliever for a prospect for a team trying to win now.


Why don't people get that? When analyzing a trade you have to look at more then the players involved. You have to look at the situation the team is in anf other circumstances.


BobOnce again this contradicts everything you kenny bashers have been saying. We're trying to win now, so how is giving up prospects for proven players bad?

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:30 AM
well francisco is already at the major league level. i know that we beat him up and that his ERA is in the mid 4's, but still thats pretty damn good for a guys who is only 24 and throws 98!
Sounds toolsy to me? Let me get this straight - he is good cuz he is young, and throws 98? Despite a high ERA for a RP? What are you talking about? If we had him in the pen, getting shelled like that, you'd be going ape****.

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 11:30 AM
He also has the wrist injury.
If it's serious he should be on the shelf.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Revisionist history - lovely. What 5 guys did we just trade for Everett. We traded Rauch and Majewski. Tell me which one of those guys we miss, right now. You want to talk about last year? Tell me which one of them we miss? We bitchslapped Frank Francisco in his two outings against us. He doesn't look like much to me. 97 and straight as an arrow - we dumped someone just like that to Florida, IIRC. we couldnt have used rauch this year? what the hell are we gonna do if one of our SP's goes down, which is a good possibility if you look at the innings they have pitched. who is gonna start? diaz? grilli? rauch was the best SP besides our 5 starters

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Well last year Barrett, 27 past prospect time, put up a whopping .208/.280/.398 line. While Miller didn't do much better he is known be one of the better catchers behind the plate. When the main focus of your time is your pitching staff, that is something to consider.Who are you kidding? The Cubs are currently ranked 2nd in team pitching (3.77 ERA) and Barrett catches for every pitcher on the Cubs staff but Maddux. Obviously, he's doing just as good of a job calling games as Miller, if not better. Stop making excuses for every one of Beane's bad trades. He makes good trades but he has also made bad ones. Now you're just scrambling for responses.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Sounds toolsy to me? Let me get this straight - he is good cuz he is young, and throws 98? Despite a high ERA for a RP? What are you talking about? If we had him in the pen, getting shelled like that, you'd be going ape****.He throws hard and that's all that matters.:rolleyes:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:32 AM
Sounds toolsy to me? Let me get this straight - he is good cuz he is young, and throws 98? Despite a high ERA for a RP? What are you talking about? If we had him in the pen, getting shelled like that, you'd be going ape****. well he is certainly a hell of a lot better than jackson, and probably politte too!

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:32 AM
Yeah, but we're sure Olivo will improve and Reed will be an all-star. Come on. :bs:
Hey, I have shown what Freddy is doing with the Sox is above and beyond what he was doing earlier this year with Seattle and his career in total. That usually points to regression to mean will occur, like it has with E Lo this year. Every player has their talent level, mean line, and their short term performance can be above or below it but over the course of time their performance will move in line with their talent line.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 11:33 AM
Why would you say that?
Why would you feel that Garcia's proven ML stats over the last 4-5 years v. Reed's never stepping foot in a ML batter's box has Reed as a better probability to succede at the ML level??? Am I missing something???

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:33 AM
You've got to be kidding me. You honestly think Dye is as good as Garcia. I'll take Garcia who is an ace over a guy who wouldn't even crack the sox starting outfield right now. you didnt understand what i meant. i mean that dye is as valuble to the As as garcia is to the sox. dye might be even more valuble

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:34 AM
I think the point was we gave up a lot in Olivo + Reed + Morse. The sum may be greater then the parts. Olivo is not a great overall catcher. But we did give up 3 possible everyday players.


Bob

Morse is not even possibly an every day player. He was being moved from SS to 1B cuz he can't field the position. He had no future as an everyday player.

So we gave up a .270 hitting catcher and a slappy OF who is hitting .270 in Charlotte/Tacoma. That got us an ACE. I don't get it. I'd do it every single time. You can always get Mark Kotsay in FA, cheaply, but you can't always get Freddy Garcia.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:35 AM
we couldnt have used rauch this year? what the hell are we gonna do if one of our SP's goes down, which is a good possibility if you look at the innings they have pitched. who is gonna start? diaz? grilli? rauch was the best SP besides our 5 startersI would say Diaz is better then Rauch. Either way what would you like kenny to do, wait and try to guess an injury of the starting staff or go out and get a player to replace an already injured player.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:35 AM
Morse is not even possibly an every day player. He was being moved from SS to 1B cuz he can't field the position. He had no future as an everyday player.

So we gave up a .270 hitting catcher and a slappy OF who is hitting .270 in Charlotte/Tacoma. That got us an ACE. I don't get it. I'd do it every single time. You can always get Mark Kotsay in FA, cheaply, but you can't always get Freddy Garcia. well if he was gonna move to 1b, that is even better for us! our system is weak as hell at the corner IF positions, especially 1b

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:36 AM
I would say Diaz is better then Rauch. Either way what would you like kenny to do, wait and try to guess an injury of the starting staff or go out and get a player to replace an already injured player. or he could have just signed everett!

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:36 AM
Once again this contradicts everything you kenny bashers have been saying. We're trying to win now, so how is giving up prospects for proven players bad?
I never said it was. I just said he gave up a lot for Garcia. KW goes about one part of his job very well, he identifies needs (most that he hasn't been able to fill since he's been GM) and he puts a lot of effort in to filling them. But that doesn't mean that when you want to trade for a player you need to give up a ton to get him. How many teams were interested in Everett? How many other OFer's are there around baseball that were available to the Sox? You need to way variables such as these when making a trade.


I was a little concerned about Everett when the trade was made, but if you look at the post it was because he's been injured all year. KW says he's 100% healthy. He should (or better) know. We did give up a lot for Everett in Rauch. And you can bet I'll be PO'd at KW if one of Everett's earlier injuries from this season flare up. But of course KW isn't going to come out in the papers and say he traded for Everett and he's probably injured, is he?


Bob

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:36 AM
Why would you feel that Garcia's proven ML stats over the last 4-5 years v. Reed's never stepping foot in a ML batter's box has Reed as a better probability to succede at the ML level??? Am I missing something???HAHA! Good point. Cheers. :gulp:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:37 AM
how is dye not as good as garcia? he is leading the A's in HR and RBIS!
An OF making 10+mm hitting .284/.341/.501 who strikes out 25% of his ABs? How is he not as good as a pitcher with a 3.15 ERA and a 1.15 WHIP? NOT EVEN CLOSE to as good.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:37 AM
Not CLOSE to as good. Foulke had lost his job as a closer for being ineffective. Dye is a career .274/.335/.466 OF, who he got in a classic KC salary dump.

The fact that you would argue that those guys are as good as Garcia doesn't surprise me - after all - how could Beane not be right. But, as West said, it makes me wonder if you are a Sox fan first, or a Beane fan.
Dye career's number are down because of his leg injury which happen after the trade. Something like that is a thing a GM can't possibly predict so lets take that out of the equation. The two season before the trade Dye slg was 500+ which is pretty damn good. He struggled with KC in 2001 but turn it on for the A's after the trade .366/.547.

Foulke is a top five relief pitcher in the game right now. The only reason he lost his job is incompetence form Sox management who thought Billy Koch was better.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:37 AM
or he could have just signed everett!Can you explain to me how he would do that? Did you want kenny to offer him arbitration so that he'd make around 8 or 9 million this year?

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:38 AM
Can you explain to me how he would do that? Did you want kenny to offer him arbitration so that he'd make around 8 or 9 million this year?
HE could have matched Montreal's offer. Or he could have signed him to an extension during the season like he did with Garcia.


Bob

Paulwny
07-23-2004, 11:38 AM
I think it's extremely inaccurate to suggest that the Yankees offer players money completely out of line with market value just because they're the Yankees. There are few players on their club that earn tons more than what the market was offering at that point in time. They don't bid 12 million a season when the next highest offer is nine. More importantly, if Garcia and his agent are fixated on securing the best paying deal possible and baseball fans on a message board can anticipate that the Yankees will offer him an absorbitant amount amount of money then Garcia and his agent could clearly come to the same conclusion. Why not hold out until the offseason and see how much the Yanks offer?
I have to disagree here. At times the yankmees may offer comprable money but they'll extend the length of the contract beyond what most other teams are willing to offer.
No other team would offer Contreras ~ $10 mil / yr and to seal the deal add a no trade clause. Who in their right mind gives a player with no mlb experience a no trade clause.
If KW had done this, after the season Contreras had last yr; we'd have nailed KW to a cross.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:39 AM
Why would you feel that Garcia's proven ML stats over the last 4-5 years v. Reed's never stepping foot in a ML batter's box has Reed as a better probability to succede at the ML level??? Am I missing something???
Because Garcia was a pr oven average starter the past four or five years. Reed, to me, could become a special player.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:39 AM
Can you explain to me how he would do that? Did you want kenny to offer him arbitration so that he'd make around 8 or 9 million this year?i dont think that it was that much. and he could have done it by not having guys like botch who are making 7 mil! :angry: :angry: :angry:

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:39 AM
or he could have just signed everett!Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. KW would have had to pay Everett 80% of his last year's contract due to arbitration. We would have owed Carl $7.2 million for this year. Montreal signed him to a much cheaper contract. Now we have him for almost nothing since Montreal sent us $800,000 and Carl has a $4.5 million option for next season.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:40 AM
HE could have matched Montreal's offer. Or he could have signed him to an extension during the season like he did with Garcia.


BobNo he couldn't match Montreals offer. I guess he could have offered him an extension but his first goal was to sign bartolo which would have meant cutting salary and they figured their outfield was set for this year.

ma_deuce
07-23-2004, 11:40 AM
we couldnt have used rauch this year? what the hell are we gonna do if one of our SP's goes down, which is a good possibility if you look at the innings they have pitched. who is gonna start? diaz? grilli? rauch was the best SP besides our 5 startersYou know, I love Jon Rauch. I was at his first game at Sox Park a few years back and he really impressed me. And it is because I like him so much, that I am glad he is gone. This organization used Jon like a yo-yo, and IMO contributed to his lack of development. Hopefully, the Expos will give him the time on the mound he needs to make a name for himself.

To get something good, you have to give something good. Reed and Olivo have a lot of potential and will set the Ms up in the years to come as they rebuild. Garcia is filling the Ace void for the Sox and we were able to sign him quickly (something Seattle could not have done). Everyone gets what they need.

I want Olivo, Reed, and Rauch in my organization. I need Carl and Garcia to get to the playoffs. Its as simple as that. And so far, the Sox have come out on top for it. KW, who took all the blame for Koch and Wells, deserves the credit.

Deuce

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:40 AM
well he is certainly a hell of a lot better than jackson, and probably politte too!Probably? Starting to reach are we? Come on... My grandmother is better than Jackson and she has been dead lo these 20 years+.

So KW traded a guy who gets the stunning accolade "He's better than Voodoo's dead grandmother" for an AS bat that the Sox desperately need.

Obviously he got owned... :dunno:

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:42 AM
Probably? Starting to reach are we? Come on... My grandmother is better than Jackson and she has been dead lo these 20 years+.

So KW traded a guy who gets the stunning accolade "He's better than Voodoo's dead grandmother" for an AS bat that the Sox desperately need.

Obviously he got owned... :dunno::rolling:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:42 AM
Because Garcia was a pr oven average starter the past four or five years. Reed, to me, could become a special player. garcias career ERA: 3.87, pretty damn average

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:42 AM
or he could have just signed everett!
He tried. In fact the offer was better than the one Everett got from Montreal. Everett declined. The Sox declined to offer arbitration (would have had to offer Everett, $7M minimum) and then couldn't negotiate with him until 5/1.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:43 AM
crosby is a pretty damn good player.
He may be - someday - right now he is hitting .268/.329/.470 - and also striking out 25% of his ABs. Color me unimpressed as of yet. So Beane had 10 picks in the first round/supp round, and so far the best he has is Crosby? Let's give that Draft another year, out of fairness to Beane, and evaluate it as a whole. Right now it looks particularly unimpressive, but that's unfair. He already sent Teahen packing to get Dotel (who sucked in Houston and sucks now in a pitchers park like Oakland). What's next? He gonna trade his fat catcher with titties? Sorry - I have yet to see his great drafting provide any fruit.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:44 AM
Probably? Starting to reach are we? Come on... My grandmother is better than Jackson and she has been dead lo these 20 years+.

So KW traded a guy who gets the stunning accolade "He's better than Voodoo's dead grandmother" for an AS bat that the Sox desperately need.

Obviously he got owned... :dunno: im just saying that we could have gotten carl for less, not that we shouldnt have gotten him. honestly, who the hell else in the majors wanted him? maybe one other team?

gosox41
07-23-2004, 11:45 AM
[QUOTE=OEO Magglio]No he couldn't match Montreals offer. I guess he could have offered him an extension but his first goal was to sign bartolo which would have meant cutting salary and they figured

My bad. But what would all the KW defenders have been saying if Colon were here right now and Magglio weer gone (no reason to think he'd suffer his knee injury with another team)???

KW's first goal was Colon. Luck pervailed and he didn't get him. THankfully. If you go back and read my posts when the Sox made their offer know I mentioned how it was too much for him. Obviously KW didn't think so, and luckily Moreno didn't either.

But if Colon were here right now, fans here would be up in arms about this team.



Bob

Mickster
07-23-2004, 11:45 AM
Hey, I have shown what Freddy is doing with the Sox is above and beyond what he was doing earlier this year with Seattle and his career in total. That usually points to regression to mean will occur, like it has with E Lo this year. Every player has their talent level, mean line, and their short term performance can be above or below it but over the course of time their performance will move in line with their talent line.
First off, what Freddy is doing with the Sox is EXACTLY what he's been doing earlier in the year with Seattle.

Secondly, Freddy is only 28. According to you, the numbers that Freddy put up establishes his "talent lever, mean line". So he apparently can not improve? He can not be getting better? Could this be the start of Freddy Garcia for the next several years?

Look at the first 6-7 years of Curt Schilling and tell me what his talent lever, mean line" was. Did he improve? Not all pitchers are of the Roger Clemens variety who pitch incredibly from the start of their careers til the end.

Yet somehow, Jeremy Reed, who has never stepped foot in a major league batters box, is the second coming? Pleeeeeeease. :nuts:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:46 AM
He may be - someday - right now he is hitting .268/.329/.470 - and also striking out 25% of his ABs. Color me unimpressed as of yet. So Beane had 10 picks in the first round/supp round, and so far the best he has is Crosby? Let's give that Draft another year, out of fairness to Beane, and evaluate it as a whole. Right now it looks particularly unimpressive, but that's unfair. He already sent Teahen packing to get Dotel (who sucked in Houston and sucks now in a pitchers park like Oakland). What's next? He gonna trade his fat catcher with titties? Sorry - I have yet to see his great drafting provide any fruit. .329 OBP is pretty damn good for a rookie SS! not to mention that he plays pretty damn good defense

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:46 AM
we couldnt have used rauch this year? what the hell are we gonna do if one of our SP's goes down, which is a good possibility if you look at the innings they have pitched. who is gonna start? diaz? grilli? rauch was the best SP besides our 5 starters

Which one of them is any worse than Rauch has been with us? Remember when Rauch was part of the parade of 5th starters? If Rauch was any good - we may not have necesarily needed to go out and get Garcia to begin with. Rauch had a 6.+ ERA and a 2+ WHIP this year for us. Nobody - NOBODY - was expecting him to produce in the rotation. I recall no postings saying that Rauch was good enough to be in this rotation - NONE. Everyone was begging KW to get a starter so we didn't have to worry about it anymore. Now your gripe is that we don't have Rauch as our 6th starter? What kind of sense does that make?

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:46 AM
Well last year Barrett, 27 past prospect time, put up a whopping .208/.280/.398 line. While Miller didn't do much better he is known be one of the better catchers behind the plate. When the main focus of your time is your pitching staff, that is something to consider.Who are you kidding? The Cubs are currently ranked 2nd in team pitching (3.77 ERA) and Barrett catches for every pitcher on the Cubs staff but Maddux. Obviously, he's doing just as good of a job calling games as Miller, if not better. Stop making excuses for every one of Beane's bad trades. He makes good trades but he has also made bad ones. Now you're just scrambling for responses.Dadawg_77, I'm still waiting for a response on this.

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 11:47 AM
garcias career ERA: 3.87, pretty damn average
1st off, you should know better ERA isn't the stat you should use to evaluate a pitcher.
2nd, 3.87 in the AL, even at Safeco, is a lot better than average. What is the average ERA for AL pitchers? 4.75 (I am guessing)?

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:47 AM
im just saying that we could have gotten carl (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=502,28012355,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,0) for less, not that we shouldnt have gotten him. honestly, who the hell else in the majors wanted him? maybe one other team?You know what I could care less how many other teams wanted him. Kenny gave up basically nothing for him. If you haven't noticed yet carl is the best clutch hitter we have and was last year also, the guy is a good player. I'll take the very good hitter over a guy who could have maybe helped us if a starting pitcher got injured.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:47 AM
well he is certainly a hell of a lot better than jackson, and probably politte too!

Absolutely Not

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:47 AM
im just saying that we could have gotten carl for less, not that we shouldnt have gotten him. honestly, who the hell else in the majors wanted him? maybe one other team?
Less than what exactly? If the pieces traded aren't that good to begin with and aren't going to help the team any time soon, who cares what got traded?

I mean, come on... It's to the point where you are ripping KW for trading 5 scrubs instead of only 4 scrubs for an AS caliber hitter. That's just plain silly...:?:

Mickster
07-23-2004, 11:48 AM
im just saying that we could have gotten carl for less, not that we shouldnt have gotten him. honestly, who the hell else in the majors wanted him? maybe one other team?
You're right. Everybody was salivating over Juan Gonzalez.... :dunno:

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:48 AM
Dadawg_77, I'm still waiting for a response on this.
Keep waiting, I figure it is useless to point out ERA probally has a lot more to do with quality of pitcher throwing the ball then the guy receiving the pitches.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:48 AM
Which one of them is any worse than Rauch has been with us? Remember when Rauch was part of the parade of 5th starters? If Rauch was any good - we may not have necesarily needed to go out and get Garcia to begin with. Rauch had a 6.+ ERA and a 2+ WHIP this year for us. Nobody - NOBODY - was expecting him to produce in the rotation. I recall no postings saying that Rauch was good enough to be in this rotation - NONE. Everyone was begging KW to get a starter so we didn't have to worry about it anymore. Now your gripe is that we don't have Rauch as our 6th starter? What kind of sense does that make? im not saying that we shouldnt have gotten garcia because rauch was good, im saying that we should have game MTL somebody else, not rauch.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:49 AM
You know what I could care less how many other teams wanted him. Kenny gave up basically nothing for him. If you haven't noticed yet carl is the best clutch hitter we have and was last year also, the guy is a good player. I'll take the very good hitter over a guy who could have maybe helped us if a starting pitcher got injured. again you have to look at the sample size! how many AB's does carl have for us? 20?

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:50 AM
well if he was gonna move to 1b, that is even better for us! our system is weak as hell at the corner IF positions, especially 1b
huh? Can you go out and find a cheap, serviceable, 1B somewhere? Can you draft them, easily and cheaply, that are college SRs and near ready?

Don't tell me Morse is the reason this was a bad deal. That's nuts. You are reaching at straws now.

Randar/Daver, can you shine some light on the Morse issue please?

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:50 AM
garcias career ERA: 3.87, pretty damn average
Adjust for park and his ERA+ is 113.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:50 AM
1st off, you should know better ERA isn't the stat you should use to evaluate a pitcher.
2nd, 3.87 in the AL, even at Safeco, is a lot better than average. What is the average ERA for AL pitchers? 4.75 (I am guessing)? but garcia is supposed to be an "ace". thats a pretty weak ERA for an ace who pitches his home games at safeco

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:50 AM
or he could have just signed everett!
HE TURNED DOWN OUR OFFER. HE ENDED UP TAKING LESS MONEY FROM MONTREAL. WHAT THE HECK SHOULD KW HAVE DONE?

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:51 AM
im not saying that we shouldnt have gotten garcia because rauch was good, im saying that we should have game MTL somebody else, not rauch.
Rauch was gone the minute he left that game early. It's that simple. KW said as much, but managed to back off, get a decent performance and then turn him into something useful for both this year and next.

Until Rauch actually starts pitching like his hype, he is just another tradeable commodity.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 11:51 AM
huh? Can you go out and find a cheap, serviceable, 1B somewhere? Can you draft them, easily and cheaply, that are college SRs and near ready?

Don't tell me Morse is the reason this was a bad deal. That's nuts. You are reaching at straws now.

Randar/Daver, can you shine some light on the Morse issue please? im just arguing the fact that we trade three possible starters, two at a position that is weak in the system

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 11:51 AM
but garcia is supposed to be an "ace". thats a pretty weak ERA for an ace who pitches his home games at safeco
He is pitching like an ace for the Sox, so until he doesn't, you have no argument.

Aidan
07-23-2004, 11:52 AM
Keep waiting, I figure it is useless to point out ERA probally has a lot more to do with quality of pitcher throwing the ball then the guy receiving the pitches.HAHA!!! So now you're trying to say that the Cubs pitching staff is THAT MUCH better than the A's? Do you forget that the A's have Mulder, Hudson, Zito, Redman, and Harden??? You are definately scrambling. Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? The Miller for Barrett trade was MOST DEFINATELY a bad one by Billy Beane. The trade was bad financially and bad for the future. There's no denying it; you are wrong.

Damn, you really will defend Billy Beane to the death. It's sad.

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:52 AM
again you have to look at the sample size! how many AB's does carl (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=502,28012355,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,0) have for us? 20?I'm talking about this year and last year, when we went up against the twins last year carl was the only guy who produced and once again this year he's already proven what type of clutch hitter he is. So you don't like carl because he has a small sample size of at bats this year, yet you wanted to keep rauch who had a small sample size in the major leagues while proving absolutely nothing?

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:53 AM
Dye career's number are down because of his leg injury which happen after the trade. Something like that is a thing a GM can't possibly predict so lets take that out of the equation. The two season before the trade Dye slg was 500+ which is pretty damn good. He struggled with KC in 2001 but turn it on for the A's after the trade .366/.547.

Foulke is a top five relief pitcher in the game right now. The only reason he lost his job is incompetence form Sox management who thought Billy Koch was better.
Bullcrud. Dye was hitting .272 when he was traded. He was a .282 career hitter when he was traded. Big stinking deal. Are you trying to tell me you think Dye is a more valuable, or better player than Garcia?

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:54 AM
im just arguing the fact that we trade three possible starters, two at a position that is weak in the systemThat's great 3 POSSIBLE starters. I'll take the ace starting pitcher who is locked up for 3 more years.

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 11:54 AM
and i havent even mentioned that he has traded 5 guys just for carl everett!Ah yes, the "Fab 5"...

Frank Francisco - he of the 98mph heat, but the ERA in the mid 4s and the BAA that outside of a sterling 12IP in June, has hovered between the high 200s to the mid 300s with a WHIP ranging betwen the high 1s to the mid 2s.

Anthony Webster - who in his 4th year is still in A ball is hitting .267 with a .340 OBP

Josh Rupe - in his 3d year, pitching very well in A ball. Still a ways away form the bigs

Gary Majewski - career minor leaguer who's been back and forth between teams for a while and wasn't worth keeping in Rule5 by the Blue Jays when they took him from the Sox

Jon Rauch - hasn't had a great opportunity, but hasn't done much since the injury. Even in his "good" start (the win), he was hit pretty hard and needed a couple of awesome defensive plays to keep from giving up 5 runs.

Carl Everett was a force for this team last year, and a big piece of why we stayed in the race. So far this year (small sample size), he's been incredible and been a big piece of our offense coming around the past few games. And we got him for a bunch of guys who despite having spent a few years in the minors already are still at very low levels and in some cases not doing all that well. The exceptions are Rauch & Francisco, and neither's a guy that's very impressive (despite having some "tools" in Francisco's case).

If you trade a bunch of guys who are unlikely to do anything (and if they do, it'll be 3 or more years out) for something that helps the major league team - that's a good trade. There are few high quality prospects, those you guard and deal inoy for real difference makers. The rest - if you can give up quantity for quality, that's good.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:55 AM
im just arguing the fact that we trade three possible starters, two at a position that is weak in the system
The key word in that sentence is "possible".

Then you left off the part about how soon those possible players will possibly be ready. How soon the Sox will need a person at those possible positions and what are the odds that they possibly actually develop into "definite starters".

Just possibly that's what minor leaguers are for...:rolleyes:

idseer
07-23-2004, 11:55 AM
You know, I love Jon Rauch. I was at his first game at Sox Park a few years back and he really impressed me. And it is because I like him so much, that I am glad he is gone. This organization used Jon like a yo-yo, and IMO contributed to his lack of development. Hopefully, the Expos will give him the time on the mound he needs to make a name for himself.

To get something good, you have to give something good. Reed and Olivo have a lot of potential and will set the Ms up in the years to come as they rebuild. Garcia is filling the Ace void for the Sox and we were able to sign him quickly (something Seattle could not have done). Everyone gets what they need.

I want Olivo, Reed, and Rauch in my organization. I need Carl and Garcia to get to the playoffs. Its as simple as that. And so far, the Sox have come out on top for it. KW, who took all the blame for Koch and Wells, deserves the credit.

Deuce

what he said!

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 11:56 AM
The key word in that sentence is "possible". Beat you to it voodoo.:D:

ma_deuce
07-23-2004, 11:57 AM
Hot and Spicy Thread Soup

Ingredients: Add two

:tomatoaward :tomatoaward and lots of :gascan

set at 234883264892634 degrees and stir frequently.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 11:57 AM
Beat you to it voodoo.:D:

That's unpossible...:bandance:

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 11:57 AM
or he could have just signed everett!
Not unless he wanted to pay him $9mil. Our options after '03 were to offer Carl arbitration - in which case he could only get a small paycut from thie $9mil 2003 salary, or to be unable to sign him until May (or so). So unless Carl was going to wait around for May just to be with the Sox at a reduced salary, it wasn't an option.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 11:58 AM
First off, what Freddy is doing with the Sox is EXACTLY what he's been doing earlier in the year with Seattle.

Secondly, Freddy is only 28. According to you, the numbers that Freddy put up establishes his "talent lever, mean line". So he apparently can not improve? He can not be getting better? Could this be the start of Freddy Garcia for the next several years?

Look at the first 6-7 years of Curt Schilling and tell me what his talent lever, mean line" was. Did he improve? Not all pitchers are of the Roger Clemens variety who pitch incredibly from the start of their careers til the end.

Yet somehow, Jeremy Reed, who has never stepped foot in a major league batters box, is the second coming? Pleeeeeeease. :nuts:

First off you are wrong, Freddy is pitching lights out here compared to what he was doing Seattle. His K/9 shot up by three and K/bb went up two. That is no where close to being exactly like he did in Seattle. Could this uptick be a great Freddy improve yes, but could this be a fluke also, yes. That is the question I posed.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 11:59 AM
im not saying that we shouldnt have gotten garcia because rauch was good, im saying that we should have game MTL somebody else, not rauch.
like what? teams don't want our crap. In fact, the fact that Montreal took Majewski, given his transaction history, is shocking to me. What do you think we should have given up - that Montreal would be willing to take?

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:00 PM
Bullcrud. Dye was hitting .272 when he was traded. He was a .282 career hitter when he was traded. Big stinking deal. Are you trying to tell me you think Dye is a more valuable, or better player than Garcia?
At the time he was traded to Oaklan as valuable to more valuable. I really don't base much on average, but his OPB was middle of the road and his slugging was pretty strong.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:00 PM
again you have to look at the sample size! how many AB's does carl have for us? 20?
Then you look at sample size too. Tell me how good of a MLB hitter Reed is - or how good a pitcher Rauch is.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:00 PM
First off you are wrong, Freddy is pitching lights out here compared to what he was doing Seattle. His K/9 shot up by three and K/bb went up two. That is no where close to being exactly like he did in Seattle. Could this uptick be a great Freddy improve yes, but could this be a fluke also, yes. That is the question I posed.
Could the great Olivo and Reed be FLUKES??????? Could it be that Reed never amounts to anything in the major leagues????? YES or NO?

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 12:01 PM
First off you are wrong, Freddy is pitching lights out here compared to what he was doing Seattle. His K/9 shot up by three and K/bb went up two. That is no where close to being exactly like he did in Seattle. Could this uptick be a great Freddy improve yes, but could this be a fluke also, yes. That is the question I posed.
Both are possibile...

Maybe the change of scenery and working with Cooper and Ozzie has fired him up. Maybe pitching for a playoff team has him going. Maybe the off season balance surgery helped him and he is in the process of living up to they hype he generated 4 years ago.

Anything's possible...

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:02 PM
im just arguing the fact that we trade three possible starters, two at a position that is weak in the system
Well you are wrong. Daver/Randar - Was Morse even close to being a starter on the mlb club - EVER?

OEO Magglio
07-23-2004, 12:03 PM
Both are possibile...

Maybe the change of scenery and working with Cooper and Ozzie has fired him up. Maybe pitching for a playoff (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=119,28012355,whitesoxinteractiv e.com,0) team has him going. Maybe the off season balance surgery helped him and he is in the process of living up to they hype he generated 4 years ago.

Anything's possible...Yes and coop said right after his first start that he's going to have freddy use his fastball more to get ahead in the count to set up all his other pitches, hence the better k/bb.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:05 PM
His K/9 shot up by three and K/bb went up two.
His opp avg is the same. His WHIP is nearly the same. His ERA is nearly the same. I don't care about peripheral stats. Look at the direct stats. How he gets the outs means far less to me than if he gets them. You don't get points for style here.

HebrewHammer
07-23-2004, 12:05 PM
I'd just like to thank everyone who has been posting in this thread, watching you guys argue is at least a 93 on the Unintentional Comedy Scale.

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:06 PM
At the time he was traded to Oaklan as valuable to more valuable. I really don't base much on average, but his OPB was middle of the road and his slugging was pretty strong.
No - those numbers were mediocre too. I'm not going back to calculate them - but they were proportionately the same to his career numbers.

Dye vs Garcia? This is stupid. Why not just go be an Oakland fan? You seem like youd be much happier that way.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 12:07 PM
I'd just like to thank everyone who has been posting in this thread, watching you guys argue is at least a 93 on the Unintentional Comedy Scale.
Nothing unintentional about my humor, HH...:D:

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:08 PM
Both are possibile...

Maybe the change of scenery and working with Cooper and Ozzie has fired him up. Maybe pitching for a playoff team has him going. Maybe the off season balance surgery helped him and he is in the process of living up to they hype he generated 4 years ago.

Anything's possible...
Yes it is possible, that is why I said it was a cautionary note, something to think about before jumping on Freddy as an Ace. I think it is more probable that Freddy regress this or next year back to his career norms, just jumps like those aren't sustained most of the time. Till he does what he is doing now for the long term, he hasn't earned that recognition. What Freddy is doing now is exactly what E Lo did last year. E Lo's strike out rates jumped and he pitched his head off last year. This year his strike rates has regressed to his previous form and so has the rest of his pitching.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:08 PM
:worship: http://www.thelavinagency.com/images/bios/beanebilly.jpg

Aidan
07-23-2004, 12:08 PM
Just to wrap this thread up... Even THE GREAT BILLY BEANE can make bad trades...

2 examples:

Miguel Olivo FOR Chad Bradford
Michael Barrett FOR Damian Miller

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:09 PM
His opp avg is the same. His WHIP is nearly the same. His ERA is nearly the same. I don't care about peripheral stats. Look at the direct stats. How he gets the outs means far less to me than if he gets them. You don't get points for style here.
Peripheral stats drive everything else, whith out those everything else has no context to judge anything by.

voodoochile
07-23-2004, 12:10 PM
Yes it is possible, that is why I said it was a cautionary note, something to think about before jumping on Freddy as an Ace. I think it is more probable that Freddy regress this or next year back to his career norms, just jumps like those aren't sustained most of the time. Till he does what he is doing now for the long term, he hasn't earned that recognition. What Freddy is doing now is exactly what E Lo did last year. E Lo's strike out rates jumped and he pitched his head off last year. This year his strike rates has regressed to his previous form and so has the rest of his pitching.
Actually, I think it far MORE probable that he will improve over these next few seasons. He is entering his prime. He has corrected a physical ailment that seemed to be holding him back. He has stability in his contract. He is in a new environment where he won't be booed for failing to live up to early hype and he is working with close friends.

I think it more likely he starts to pitch up to his early career potential, but I am not basing it all on his numbers alone.

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 12:11 PM
im just arguing the fact that we trade three possible starters, two at a position that is weak in the system
1) As others have said - "possible" is the word. Garcia's not a possible, he's a definite. Given the success rates of minor league players, to call Morse a "possible" starter is way beyond exaggeration.

2) Morse is an excellent hitting prospect....for an SS. For a 1B, he's not that special. So since he can't play SS (per Daver and other reports), it's ridiculous to say he's an excellent hitting prospect. It's like saying that we could have the bestt hitting CF in the game....just put Frank there!!

3) By the time Reed would be contributing or Olivo would be a decent hitter, we'd be a very different team - no Maggs, probably no Frank or Konerko or Valentin. So unless we find a way to replace those guys we're looking at a team with a significantly reduced chance of winning anything. Instead of that, we have a much better chance of winning something, and arguably a better chance of having the increased resources to replace or resign those guys when contracts are up. That makes the team better than it would be with Reed/Miggy. Morse is even farther out from contributing.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:12 PM
Actually, I think it far MORE probable that he will improve over these next few seasons. He is entering his prime. He has corrected a physical ailment that seemed to be holding him back. He has stability in his contract. He is in a new environment where he won't be booed for failing to live up to early hype and he is working with close friends.

I think it more likely he starts to pitch up to his early career potential, but I am not basing it all on his numbers alone.
Voodoo, you are wrong. It is MORE probable that Reed will be the next Ted Williams!

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 12:13 PM
Yes and coop said right after his first start that he's going to have freddy use his fastball more to get ahead in the count to set up all his other pitches, hence the better k/bb.
Not to mention that he can challenge hitters a lot more here than in Seattle. Giving up an HR there lkely meant a loss, here it does not. So he can be more aggressive and while giving more HRs, also get a lot more Ks and outs in general.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:15 PM
His opp avg is the same. His WHIP is nearly the same. His ERA is nearly the same. I don't care about peripheral stats. Look at the direct stats. How he gets the outs means far less to me than if he gets them. You don't get points for style here.
Well once again you are wrong. Looking it up at ESPN.com is too hard, I guess.

Opp OBP in Sea, .294, with the Sox .264. This can be directly attributed to his BABIP going down for .290's to the .260's. His slugging has gone up from .357 to .375. That was expected as he left Safco for the Cell, that difference can be seen in ISO power given up, (SLG - AVG, takes out slugging from reaching first base) .111 from .063.

Win1ForMe
07-23-2004, 12:15 PM
Yes it is possible, that is why I said it was a cautionary note, something to think about before jumping on Freddy as an Ace. I think it is more probable that Freddy regress this or next year back to his career norms, just jumps like those aren't sustained most of the time. Till he does what he is doing now for the long term, he hasn't earned that recognition. What Freddy is doing now is exactly what E Lo did last year. E Lo's strike out rates jumped and he pitched his head off last year. This year his strike rates has regressed to his previous form and so has the rest of his pitching.
ELo's performance last year was MUCH better than any of his previous seasons. Garcia's 2004 isn't even his best year (2001: 18-5, 3.05 ERA). Besides, Freddy's worst season is better than any season Loaiza put together prior to last year. Bad comparison.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 12:15 PM
like what? teams don't want our crap. In fact, the fact that Montreal took Majewski, given his transaction history, is shocking to me. What do you think we should have given up - that Montreal would be willing to take? how bout a guy like josh stewart or heath phillips? guys that dont even pitch that well in AAA, but are still young

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:15 PM
Peripheral stats drive everything else, whith out those everything else has no context to judge anything by.

But there are so many indirect and peripheral stats that go into creating a number that you can not accurately select one or two of them and use them to draw a credible conclusion. Telling me his K/9 or K/BB ratio is X or Y means nothing to me - if he opponent average stays the same and his ERA and WHIP stay the same. He's not getting hit+walking more. He's not giving up more runs. Who cares if he gets his outs via more Ks, or more grounders or more popups? You can't conclude that the 2 ratios you posted mean more than core stats like ERA/WHIP/opp avg. All you can do is hypothesize.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:16 PM
Actually, I think it far MORE probable that he will improve over these next few seasons. He is entering his prime. He has corrected a physical ailment that seemed to be holding him back. He has stability in his contract. He is in a new environment where he won't be booed for failing to live up to early hype and he is working with close friends.

I think it more likely he starts to pitch up to his early career potential, but I am not basing it all on his numbers alone.
We shall see, won't we.

fan_since_64
07-23-2004, 12:18 PM
72 will always be a magic number for Sox ... :smile:

habibharu
07-23-2004, 12:18 PM
I'm talking about this year and last year, when we went up against the twins last year carl was the only guy who produced and once again this year he's already proven what type of clutch hitter he is. So you don't like carl because he has a small sample size of at bats this year, yet you wanted to keep rauch who had a small sample size in the major leagues while proving absolutely nothing? yes, and where were we last year in October? sitting at home, even though the GREAT carl everett was getting clutch hits against the twins

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:18 PM
Well once again you are wrong. Looking it up at ESPN.com is too hard, I guess.

Opp OBP in Sea, .294, with the Sox .264. This can be directly attributed to his BABIP going down for .290's to the .260's. His slugging has gone up from .357 to .375. That was expected as he left Safco for the Cell, that difference can be seen in ISO power given up, (SLG - AVG, takes out slugging from reaching first base) .111 from .063.

But - as you very well know - and you absolutely must agree with me - your sample size is too small. Sorry. Try Again.

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:18 PM
We shall see, won't we.
Yeah, we will. But in the meantime, KW is a jag! :kukoo:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:19 PM
how bout a guy like josh stewart or heath phillips? guys that dont even pitch that well in AAA, but are still young
Call up Minaya - see if he'd take BOTH of them instead of Rauch. I guarantee you the answer is no.

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:19 PM
Not to mention that he can challenge hitters a lot more here than in Seattle. Giving up an HR there lkely meant a loss, here it does not. So he can be more aggressive and while giving more HRs, also get a lot more Ks and outs in general.
Well it is pretty hard to get more outs unless you pitch more innings, which he isn't doing.

But the fact what about the fact SAFECO allows less homers the Cell. Couldn't one say you have more space to challenge hitters in SAFECO then in the Cell?

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:19 PM
72 will always be a magic number for Sox ... :smile:
***??? :?:

jabrch
07-23-2004, 12:19 PM
yes, and where were we last year in October? sitting at home, even though the GREAT carl everett was getting clutch hits against the twins
And this was Everett's fault?

Aidan
07-23-2004, 12:19 PM
http://img49.exs.cx/img49/3334/Beane.jpg

"Hey Dadawg, my number is 510-555-3289. Give me a call sometime!"

habibharu
07-23-2004, 12:20 PM
Call up Minaya - see if he'd take BOTH of them instead of Rauch. I guarantee you the answer is no. why not? they dont make any money, are both around 24, 25, im not sure, and are still a pretty decent return for a guy who was hitting .252 with 2 hrs

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:21 PM
But - as you very well know - and you absolutely must agree with me - your sample size is too small. Sorry. Try Again.
LOL. Wait you stat something as fact, and then when proven wrong, you try to weasel out of it. A classic :dtroll: maneuver. I wasn't analyzing any of those stats, which is where sample size comes into play, but merely pointing you you were wrong.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 12:21 PM
And this was Everett's fault? no but youre saying that KW's acquistion of carl last year was very big

SoxxoS
07-23-2004, 12:21 PM
:ozzie

"Freddie, he my bes friend in beisbol. He is pitching goo, he da ace of da staff. He pitch better here than Seattle because he my bes friend."

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:22 PM
Yeah, we will. But in the meantime, KW is a jag! :kukoo:
Ever since he brought in Royce Clayton he has been.

Flight #24
07-23-2004, 12:22 PM
Yes it is possible, that is why I said it was a cautionary note, something to think about before jumping on Freddy as an Ace. I think it is more probable that Freddy regress this or next year back to his career norms, just jumps like those aren't sustained most of the time. Till he does what he is doing now for the long term, he hasn't earned that recognition. What Freddy is doing now is exactly what E Lo did last year. E Lo's strike out rates jumped and he pitched his head off last year. This year his strike rates has regressed to his previous form and so has the rest of his pitching.
The question is this: What is his career norm that he could regress to? Is it the average over his career? Or do you factor in that the past 2 years he's pitched with an inner-ear problem that was surgically corrected this offseason(coinciding with a decline in his performance)?

His first 3 years all showed significant improvement - ERA declined from 4.07 to 3.91 to 3.05. WHIP from 1.47 to 1.42 to 1.13, K/BB increased from 1.89 to 1.23 to 2.36. His combined 2004 stats of 3.18 ERA / 1.16 WHIP / 3 K/BB look like they'd be in line for a pitcher who started his career with the #s cited above, especially when you factor in that he's learned some things about how to pitch over the past 2 years despite having decreased stats.

IMO - it's more likely that Freddy can sustain his current level of performance or at worst experience a slight decline (which woudl still leave him with excellent #s) than it is that Reed or Olivo become a stud hitter at the major league level.

habibharu
07-23-2004, 12:23 PM
Ever since he brought in Royce Clayton he has been. dont forget about, quite possibly, the worst trade in sox history, koch for foulke!

Mickster
07-23-2004, 12:24 PM
:ozzie

"Freddie, he my bes friend in beisbol. He is pitching goo, he da ace of da staff. He pitch better here than Seattle because he my bes friend."Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Should be:

:ozzie
"Lemme tell ju what. Freddie, he my bes friend in beisbol. He is pitching goo, he da ace of da staff. He pitch better here than Seattle because he my bes friend."

Dadawg_77
07-23-2004, 12:24 PM
***??? :?:
Remember a certain Catcher? not sure where the 72 came into play but I think every one should have gotten that reference.