PDA

View Full Version : Big Ben crashing down to Earth at hyper lightspeed


Nard
09-06-2004, 04:13 PM
6-42 stretch.

I say we throw Burke out there every time. He's been partially responsible for this small revival.

jeremyb1
09-06-2004, 04:24 PM
6-42 stretch.

I say we throw Burke out there every time. He's been partially responsible for this small revival.


So then did KW still fleece Bavasi?

JB98
09-06-2004, 04:26 PM
So then did KW still fleece Bavasi?
Neither Davis nor Olivo can hit. That part of the deal is a wash.

I'm not going to get into this any further than that.

joe47
09-06-2004, 04:34 PM
6-42 stretch.

I say we throw Burke out there every time. He's been partially responsible for this small revival.
As people here know, I am a big fan of Burke. However, it looks like Ben is a part of the Sox future so even if he struggles he should still get some good playing time. I say split the time between Burke and Davis.

Soxzilla
09-06-2004, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE=JB98]Neither Davis nor Olivo can hit. [QUOTE]

Here, have another.

:gulp:

SOXSINCE'70
09-06-2004, 04:45 PM
Perhaps the time to split the catching duties has arrived.Still,even in a 6-42 funk,Davis hits higher than Ron Karkovice could ever dream of hitting.But this is one of several reasons I don't believe in the hype of players who haven't proven they can do this all year.In 2005,Ben Davis is going to have to prove he can play at least 5 games a week and hit .250.

jeremyb1
09-06-2004, 04:48 PM
Neither Davis nor Olivo can hit. That part of the deal is a wash.

I'm not going to get into this any further than that.

What part of .256/.310/.485 compared to .227/.267/.390 don't you understand? An .800 OPS for a catcher is good, quite good in fact. Davis' numbers are not. It's really quite simple.

nodiggity59
09-06-2004, 04:50 PM
Olivo's 2004 stats:

AVG
.256HR
13RBI
40
K BB
63 18

Plus, it was widely known that his game calling was not favored by our pitchers.

Oh, BTW for those of you who say "Davis is worse" I say who cares. We got Freddy Garcia. Our team will have no chance to win w/out good starting pitching. B/c we cant afford to buy these pitchers we have to give up prospects and catcehrs who hit in the .250s. Deal with it. I can't believe the sympathy that kid gets just for being a decent player.

If the Sox end up with a solid starting 5 next year and they dont have Olivo + some prospects, does anybody here doubt this team is better off?

HomeFish
09-06-2004, 05:11 PM
Davis is "falling back to Earth" from .240?

Man, this team has issues.

Soxzilla
09-06-2004, 05:34 PM
I don't think contreras would be nearly as effective if davis weren't out there calling his games, I think they've seemed to form a bond. Hell, davis seems to have formed a bond with everyone of our starting staff.

Except the tough as nails Jon garland...

:jon
"The only bonds I believe in are BAIL bonds. *puffs a virginia slim*"

whtsx1959
09-06-2004, 06:19 PM
crashing down to earth at the speed of paulie's sprint or shingo change up?

JB98
09-06-2004, 06:30 PM
What part of .256/.310/.485 compared to .227/.267/.390 don't you understand? An .800 OPS for a catcher is good, quite good in fact. Davis' numbers are not. It's really quite simple.

I don't care about your statistics. If you really want to get into it, Davis has a higher batting average since the trade than Olivo does. But who cares? Both of these guys are below average offensive players. I don't need numbers to see that.

We still got the better of the deal because we have Garcia. Period. My mind is made up. Don't waste your time trying to change my mind with your mathematically analysis.

Daver
09-06-2004, 06:40 PM
Olivo's 2004 stats:

AVG
.256HR
13RBI
40
K BB
63 18

Plus, it was widely known that his game calling was not favored by our pitchers.


Olivo never called pitches, Sandy Alomar did. None of the Sox catchers outside of Alomar have a clue how to call a game, their lucky to be able to call pitches.

Catchers that can call a game are a dying breed.

fquaye149
09-06-2004, 06:53 PM
So then did KW still fleece Bavasi?
all i know is that if you say "jeremyb1" in an airport you'll be detained.

give me a break. ..a throw in in a great deal for a top notch starting pitcher is coming down to earth, but still playing well above his seattle level and you manage to turn this thread into a dig on kenny?

good grief.

santo=dorf
09-06-2004, 07:11 PM
So then did KW still fleece Bavasi?
How are Jon Rauch and Gary Glover doing these days?

This isn't about KW, its about BIG BEN!!!

soxtalker
09-06-2004, 08:05 PM
Let's give it a bit more time. When he first arrived, people wanted to ship him away for the proverbial "bag of balls." Then he got hot, and he was the answer to our catching woes. Now he goes cold for a couple of weeks, and he's a bust. I know I'm exagerating things, but it seems like we tend to evaluate players in general on a very short time scale.

The same thing can be said about the trade. Let's see how things look this time next year and the following year for all of those involved.

petekat
09-06-2004, 08:33 PM
Burke can't play D. The collision with Torii and dropping the ball later against the Tigres established that. He's a poor man's Wayne Nordhagen, not our future at C.



As people here know, I am a big fan of Burke. However, it looks like Ben is a part of the Sox future so even if he struggles he should still get some good playing time. I say split the time between Burke and Davis.

jabrch
09-07-2004, 07:02 AM
good golly - Ben was a HOFer after 25 ABs and a dog after another 40? Come on - can we just sit back and wait and see? The swap of Olivo for Davis was likely a wash. Olivo is still not looking like he has mady any significant improvents in his game this year. His best asset appears to be that he is cheap. I like him a lot as a person - he has heart, and has some marketable defensive skills. But he has a real hard time against pitchers who keep it down in the zone. Maybe that will change over time.

The key to the deal wasn't Ben Davis. It was being able to acquire a guy we thought was going to be the answer to our 5th starter problem, when we needed it. Let's remember the context of the deal - we were in first place, we had Buehrle, Loaiza, Garland and Shoe, and were struggling to find anyone who could go 5 innings for the 5th spot. Adding Garcia, a strong #2 or a possible Ace, should have given us that - had Shoe not fallen apart and gotten hurt. That's what this deal was all about.

It was a good deal then - because had we not had catastrophic injuries to Frank and Maggs, we might be right in the thick of this thing. Sure, had we known that they'd both get hurt, and we'd be 10 games out in September, we'd have kept Reed - but the team made a good move to be more competitive when we needed it. I applaud that sort of aggressive move. That's exactly what we all wanted back then - a move to get one more starter. Olivo/Davis didn't matter to me much at all.

owensmouth
09-07-2004, 07:54 AM
I don't think contreras would be nearly as effective if davis weren't out there calling his games

One problem with Davis catching Contreras, he sets up differently whenever Jose is throwing the forkball. You can literally look at Davis and know if Contreras is throwing the forkball.

Frater Perdurabo
09-07-2004, 01:38 PM
Another way to look at it is this: If the Davis/Olivo portion of the trade is a wash, then the rest of the deal was Garcia for Reed and Morse. Since the Sox signed Garcia for three years, Garcia for Reed and Morse is an absolute STEAL. Even if Olivo turns out to be a better player than Davis over their respective careers, it's still worth it.

I initially was skeptical of the deal. Now that Garcia has signed for three years AND has proven his ability to pitch and win at the Cell, the ONLY way this deal turns out bad is if Reed and Olivo become perennial All-Stars OR Garcia's career comes to a premature end due to injury. Unlikely in either case (then again, there is Vickery's Law...) :o:

soxtalker
09-07-2004, 03:37 PM
Another way to look at it is this: If the Davis/Olivo portion of the trade is a wash, then the rest of the deal was Garcia for Reed and Morse. Since the Sox signed Garcia for three years, Garcia for Reed and Morse is an absolute STEAL. Even if Olivo turns out to be a better player than Davis over their respective careers, it's still worth it.

I initially was skeptical of the deal. Now that Garcia has signed for three years AND has proven his ability to pitch and win at the Cell, the ONLY way this deal turns out bad is if Reed and Olivo become perennial All-Stars OR Garcia's career comes to a premature end due to injury. Unlikely in either case (then again, there is Vickery's Law...) :o:
This argument has been put forth many times. However, I don't think that the signing of Garcia should have much play in this evaluation. If we had not made the trade, we could -- and probably would -- be talking about going after Garcia in the FA market this winter. Was it easier with him already on the Sox? Probably a bit. Could he have been signed by the Yankees or whomever traded for him instead of the Sox? Possibly, but it is more likely he would have been available after the season. And we could have still used the Ozzie leverage.

The trade was made at the time because we were in the race, and there was pressure to obtain another starter. IIRC, Ozzie made a comment recently which may have indicated that he also was not pleased with Olivo's progress, but it seems hard to believe that KW would have tried to trade Olivo for Davis (without Garcia). We paid a very high price for Garcia for the remainder of the season and the slightly improved chances of signing him long term. If we were in the play-off hunt now, it would seem more worthwhile. But if we had known (not suggesting it was even remotely possible) that we'd be out of it with Thomas and Ordonez going down, I don't see how we make the trade.

But the trade was made. We can evaluate it in one or, more likely, 2-3 years.

OzzieBall2004
09-07-2004, 03:43 PM
While 6 for 42 is pathetic, Im still pleased with the way Davis has performed overall. Also, I like Burke, so I wouldnt mind seeing him in a DH role if crazy carl cant go on certain days. Burke seems to have knack for poking singles just out of the infield. I don't know if he tried something new or what, but lets be realistic, as an everyday major league catcher, his average who likely come back down to earth faster than big bens. Plus Big Ben has power.

hold2dibber
09-07-2004, 04:41 PM
I don't care about your statistics. If you really want to get into it, Davis has a higher batting average since the trade than Olivo does. But who cares? Both of these guys are below average offensive players. I don't need numbers to see that.

We still got the better of the deal because we have Garcia. Period. My mind is made up. Don't waste your time trying to change my mind with your mathematically analysis.
You don't need numbers to see that someone is a below average offensive player? What do you judge it on - panache? style? grace? How utterly ridiculous. Are you saying that you don't think you statistics shed any light on a player's hitting ability? You can't possibly mean that. If you want to make up your mind about Olivo vs. Davis offensively without taking into consideration the actual results, feel free. But don't try to justify it.

Harris=God
09-07-2004, 07:21 PM
i bet it is the haircut

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 12:49 AM
I don't care about your statistics. If you really want to get into it, Davis has a higher batting average since the trade than Olivo does. But who cares? Both of these guys are below average offensive players. I don't need numbers to see that.

We still got the better of the deal because we have Garcia. Period. My mind is made up. Don't waste your time trying to change my mind with your mathematically analysis.

Well if you really want to get down to it, you're dealing with ridiculous sample sizes. If the scientists that create drugs you're sold, the safety of operations and tests doctors use, etc. won't use such flimsy methods, why is it okay to use them to evaluate baseball players? Furthermore, why isolate average and not OBP or SLG, just because it supports your argument? Olivo's performance does not indicate he's a below average offensive catcher. Someone could also tell me that Barry Bonds is not a good hitter and you don't need numbers to prove that, should I believe that too?

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 12:50 AM
all i know is that if you say "jeremyb1" in an airport you'll be detained.

give me a break. ..a throw in in a great deal for a top notch starting pitcher is coming down to earth, but still playing well above his seattle level and you manage to turn this thread into a dig on kenny?

good grief.

That's absolutely not a dig on KW. I think it's pretty clear that it was intended to be a dig on posters on this board that recently started threads talking about how KW "stole" a catcher that had been banished to the minors in Seattle.

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 12:53 AM
How are Jon Rauch and Gary Glover doing these days?

This isn't about KW, its about BIG BEN!!!

Glover won a game for Milwaukee yesterday. Rauch was pulled from a no hitter in his last start with a back strain of some sort. I don't recall claming any pitcher was a future All-Star at any point, especially recently. This is like a ridiculous Billy Beane attack where someone says "Well but Beane made this one deal that didn't work out perfectly so he's a horrible GM." I mean you're not trying to argue that I have been wrong about player evaluations in the past while other posters on this board have always been correct, are you?

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 12:57 AM
The swap of Olivo for Davis was likely a wash. Olivo is still not looking like he has mady any significant improvents in his game this year.

Huh?! Do you think you can find anyone in the national media or the Sox/M's organizations that would consider Davis to be as good as Olivo at the time of the trade let alone now? You said yourself that small sample sizes are unusable in this case so why call the deal a wash whenthere was a consensus that Olivo was a key to the deal and Davis was a throwin?!

Furthermore, Olivo hasn't improved his game in any way? So you'd take the .237/.287/.360 catcher over the .256/.310/.485 catcher?! You're right. He's only improved his ability to hit for average, get on base, and hit for power. He's basically the same player.

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 01:01 AM
Another way to look at it is this: If the Davis/Olivo portion of the trade is a wash, then the rest of the deal was Garcia for Reed and Morse. Since the Sox signed Garcia for three years, Garcia for Reed and Morse is an absolute STEAL. Even if Olivo turns out to be a better player than Davis over their respective careers, it's still worth it.

How can you make that post without commenting on the value of any of the five players involved in the trade? The Davis/Olivo being a wash comment was simply a comment by one poster on this board. Man it'd be nice if every opinion people posted here was true. Our payroll would $120 million next season. You didn't write one thing about why Garcia is good, how he is valuable at his salary, how there's a connection between the trade and his extension, or how to value Reed/Morse. An incomplete post in my opinion.

jeremyb1
09-08-2004, 01:05 AM
The trade was made at the time because we were in the race, and there was pressure to obtain another starter.

Outstanding point. Show me the posts at the time of the trade saying that the deal is important almost entirely because it gives us an improved chance of signing Garcia beyond this season. The rationale was that we needed a starter to boost our playoff chances. How is it that the reasons for acquiring Garcia can be completely different yet the trade is still viewed in an identical light?