PDA

View Full Version : Reed batting .400 for major league career


A. Cavatica
09-22-2004, 08:58 PM
As we enter play today, Jeremy Reed has raised his average with the Mariners to .400 (10-for-25). He has two walks, a double, and a stolen base. He has not struck out yet, but he has grounded into one double play. His OPS is .884 (.444 OBP, .440 SLG).

Yes, I know all about small sample size, and I'm posting this in part to bait all of you who whine every time Reed's name is mentioned. Get used to it. He's going to have a long career. :tongue:

Jjav829
09-22-2004, 09:06 PM
As we enter play today, Jeremy Reed has raised his average with the Mariners to .400 (10-for-25). He has two walks, a double, and a stolen base. He has not struck out yet, but he has grounded into one double play. His OPS is .884 (.444 OBP, .440 SLG).

Yes, I know all about small sample size, and I'm posting this in part to bait all of you who whine every time Reed's name is mentioned. Get used to it. He's going to have a long career. :tongue:
That's nice.

balboner
09-22-2004, 09:16 PM
It's so funny that we traded J. Reed considering that he's exactly the type of player that the Sox have been lacking during this power era of the team. He's a line drive hitter that does all the little things right.

santo=dorf
09-22-2004, 09:18 PM
It's so funny that we traded J. Reed considering that he's exactly the type of player that the Sox have been lacking during this power era of the team. He's a line drive hitter that does all the little things right.
Could Reed have played third for us back in June when the trade was made?:?:

MRKARNO
09-22-2004, 09:39 PM
Could Reed have played third for us back in June when the trade was made?:?:
No but Jamie Burke, Juan Uribe and Jose Valentin all could have.

santo=dorf
09-22-2004, 09:44 PM
No but Jamie Burke, Juan Uribe and Jose Valentin all could have.
Was Burke even on the roster when the move was made? If Juan plays third, that measn Willie has to play second everyday. If Jose plays third, Juan plays short, so Willie would still have to play second everyday. :wired:

A. Cavatica
09-22-2004, 09:46 PM
Could Reed have played third for us back in June when the trade was made?:?:
He could and should have taken over RF when Magglio went down. Instead we were treated to Gload, Borchard, and Perez out there.

I think that plugging him into right field (and, more importantly, the leadoff spot) could've made the difference this year.

Daver
09-22-2004, 09:50 PM
He could and should have taken over RF when Magglio went down. Instead we were treated to Gload, Borchard, and Perez out there.

I think that plugging him into right field (and, more importantly, the leadoff spot) could've made the difference this year.
One rookie leadoff hitter is gonna single handedly make up 12.5 games?

You might want to rethink that.

balke
09-22-2004, 10:00 PM
As we enter play today, Jeremy Reed has raised his average with the Mariners to .400 (10-for-25). He has two walks, a double, and a stolen base. He has not struck out yet, but he has grounded into one double play. His OPS is .884 (.444 OBP, .440 SLG).

Yes, I know all about small sample size, and I'm posting this in part to bait all of you who whine every time Reed's name is mentioned. Get used to it. He's going to have a long career. :tongue:What's his ERA? :whine:

nodiggity59
09-22-2004, 10:01 PM
He's going to have a long career. :tongue:
So will Freddy Garcia.

nodiggity59
09-22-2004, 10:04 PM
He could and should have taken over RF when Magglio went down. Instead we were treated to Gload, Borchard, and Perez out there.

I think that plugging him into right field (and, more importantly, the leadoff spot) could've made the difference this year.
Sure. Jeremy Reed makes up for the absence of Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez.

A. Cavatica
09-22-2004, 10:18 PM
One rookie leadoff hitter is gonna single handedly make up 12.5 games?

You might want to rethink that.
I think a steady leadoff hitter would've made a big difference in terms of run production, night in and night out. And I don't think the team would've quit if they'd seen Reed step in and contribute, instead of LTP striking out three times a night. And finally, I think that handling at least one call-up right, and having him succeed, might've changed the attitudes (and fortunes) of some of those who followed.

Granted, we'd have had to get Seattle to take Borchard, and only KW knows if that could've been done.

Daver
09-22-2004, 10:23 PM
I think a steady leadoff hitter would've made a big difference in terms of run production, night in and night out. And I don't think the team would've quit if they'd seen Reed step in and contribute, instead of LTP striking out three times a night. And finally, I think that handling at least one call-up right, and having him succeed, might've changed the attitudes (and fortunes) of some of those who followed.

Granted, we'd have had to get Seattle to take Borchard, and only KW knows if that could've been done.
One rookie lead-off hitter would have kept this team from quitting on Ozzie?

I think not.

Ozzie lost this team long before Reed could have helped anything.

munchman33
09-22-2004, 10:34 PM
Was Burke even on the roster when the move was made? If Juan plays third, that measn Willie has to play second everyday. If Jose plays third, Juan plays short, so Willie would still have to play second everyday. :wired:
You mean like he will every day next season? :wired:

SoxFan76
09-22-2004, 10:40 PM
As we enter play today, Jeremy Reed has raised his average with the Mariners to .400 (10-for-25). He has two walks, a double, and a stolen base. He has not struck out yet, but he has grounded into one double play. His OPS is .884 (.444 OBP, .440 SLG).

Yes, I know all about small sample size, and I'm posting this in part to bait all of you who whine every time Reed's name is mentioned. Get used to it. He's going to have a long career. :tongue:
And we got Freddy Garcia. I'll take a quality pitcher over an outfielder.

MRKARNO
09-22-2004, 10:42 PM
Sure! Let's continue evaluating a player from 25 at bats! It's really objective.

We dealt from a position from strength and as far as I'm concerned, if Sweeney and/or Anderson turn out then we came out ahead in the whole situation.

A. Cavatica
09-22-2004, 10:45 PM
One rookie lead-off hitter would have kept this team from quitting on Ozzie?

I think not.

Ozzie lost this team long before Reed could have helped anything.
They were still winning when Maggs went down the first time. They kept winning for a while after that. They didn't quit completely until the Hunter incident.

Yeah, Reed probably wouldn't have changed that. :D:

I don't believe any two players -- even Frank and Maggs -- could be the difference between a .580 team and a .480 team. I just think this team used the injuries as an excuse to accept losing. That, and the inability of any of the rookie pitchers to perform, and the failure to fill the holes on the roster at the deadline, and Ozzie and KW showing their immaturity.

So no, of course Reed doesn't singlehandedly replace the production of both Thomas and Ordonez. But he might've replaced enough of Ordonez to change the self-defeating attitude that set in at midseason.

balke
09-22-2004, 10:59 PM
They were still winning when Maggs went down the first time. They kept winning for a while after that. They didn't quit completely until the Hunter incident.

Yeah, Reed probably wouldn't have changed that. :D:

I don't believe any two players -- even Frank and Maggs -- could be the difference between a .580 team and a .480 team. I just think this team used the injuries as an excuse to accept losing. That, and the inability of any of the rookie pitchers to perform, and the failure to fill the holes on the roster at the deadline, and Ozzie and KW showing their immaturity.

So no, of course Reed doesn't singlehandedly replace the production of both Thomas and Ordonez. But he might've replaced enough of Ordonez to change the self-defeating attitude that set in at midseason.
Between the frank and maggs injury, they were 9-5 with 3 seattle games, and 2 shutouts in Cleveland. That's not enough evidence to say they were going to win with a decent hitting RF.

While checking on this, I just remembered the 1-7 stretch just after Maggs went out, ugh.

A. Cavatica
09-22-2004, 11:25 PM
After two at-bats in tonight's game, Reed's up to .444 (double leading off second inning, bunt single leading off fourth inning, two runs scored).

Does he remind you of any player on the current Sox roster?

I thought not.

Jurr
09-22-2004, 11:28 PM
Please don't look at Jeremy Reed's numbers or his web gems since his call up.

Lip Man 1
09-22-2004, 11:32 PM
Let's see... he's playing on a last place team, under no pressure at the end of a season.

And his numbers are supposedly meaningful?

Lip

AddisonStSox
09-22-2004, 11:33 PM
The reason this hurts so much is because Reed epitomizes the type of player this current Sox roster lacks...grinders, high on base guys, and solid contact/singles hitters. However, Freddy looks awfully good in Black pinstripes doesn't he?

Jurr
09-22-2004, 11:34 PM
That's what I keep telling myself. We should've gotten rid of Borchard. They would've taken him. But, good pitching is a WHOLE lot harder to find than a good outfielder.

MRKARNO
09-22-2004, 11:38 PM
What we should have done is trade Crede knowing that we have another long-term option in Fields who is already at High-A and a short term option in Burke, Uribe or Valentin.

AddisonStSox
09-22-2004, 11:43 PM
I thought KW offered Borchard first...that was shot down...than he offered the choice of Reed or Borchard and added Olivo and thats what got the deal done. To get talent, you have to trade it away. If we would have been able to trade Borchard...well, than that saying doesn't apply. He sucks.

kittle42
09-22-2004, 11:43 PM
Yes, I know all about small sample size
Then you shouldn't have bothered posting this.

OurBitchinMinny
09-22-2004, 11:44 PM
Ill take garcia. Reed will probably be pretty good, but hes not gonna be a HOFer. Big deal. This team needs all the pitching it can get

kittle42
09-22-2004, 11:46 PM
After two at-bats in tonight's game, Reed's up to .444 (double leading off second inning, bunt single leading off fourth inning, two runs scored).
At this rate, you're going to have to run through a pair of underwear per Jeremy Reed at-bat.

You Reed-obsessed people need a hobby. You guys have single-handedly made him one of my least favorite players.

A. Cavatica
09-23-2004, 12:07 AM
You Reed-obsessed people need a hobby. You guys have single-handedly made him one of my least favorite players.
If Ron Kittle's your favorite Sox player, I'm not surprised.

DrCrawdad
09-23-2004, 12:56 AM
Hey I hated seeing the Sox overpay for a guy in his free-agency year. But as we beat ourselves up over the loss of Reed there is something from tonight's big Seattle vs. Anaheim game that we're overlooking...Large Bart's stats!

3.2 IP 7 HITS 6 ER 3 BB 4 HR

That line is positively Garland-esque.

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 01:40 AM
That's what I keep telling myself. We should've gotten rid of Borchard. They would've taken him. But, good pitching is a WHOLE lot harder to find than a good outfielder.People for the last time,

SEATTLE DID NOT WANT BORCHARD!!!:angry:

They wanted Crede.

Man Soo Lee
09-23-2004, 02:16 AM
SEATTLE DID NOT WANT BORCHARD!!!:angry: Are you sure (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20040705&content_id=789947&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp)?

"Without a doubt, they wanted Borchard," said Wilder of Seattle's interest in Borchard for Garcia. "We feel like if Joe will be a star, he will be a star in Chicago. He has that type of ability. Perhaps Wilder was just hyping the guy that's still in the organization, but if not...

balke
09-23-2004, 02:37 AM
People for the last time,

SEATTLE DID NOT WANT BORCHARD!!!:angry:

They wanted Crede.
I've yet to see any substantial proof of Seattle wanting Crede. It's all been one poster's hearsay. My same hearsay says they wanted CLee. Borchard wasn't even on the table, shot down before negotiations. None of us really know anyways, it's not like they have a reporter sitting down in the midst of negotiations.

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 02:41 AM
Are you sure (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20040705&content_id=789947&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp)?

Perhaps Wilder was just hyping the guy that's still in the organization, but if not...
First time I've seen that link. Check out this story.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002005623_alnt15.html

One of the prime culprits is third baseman Joe Crede, who was dropped to ninth in the batting order after his average fell to .232 with a .289 on-base percentage. There is reportedly even some sentiment in the organization that the team erred by refusing to include Crede in the Freddy Garcia trade with Seattle, insisting that outfielder Jeremy Reed be in the deal instead

balke
09-23-2004, 02:53 AM
First time I've seen that link. Check out this story.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002005623_alnt15.html
I've been waiting for that for so long. Thanks.

Man Soo Lee
09-23-2004, 03:13 AM
One of the prime culprits is third baseman Joe Crede, who was dropped to ninth in the batting order after his average fell to .232 with a .289 on-base percentage. There is reportedly even some sentiment in the organization that the team erred by refusing to include Crede in the Freddy Garcia trade with Seattle, insisting that outfielder Jeremy Reed be in the deal instead
That doesn't necessarily mean that Seattle never considered Borchard. They might have asked for him, as the Wilder quote states, and been shot down.

jeremyb1
09-23-2004, 03:39 AM
Several thoughts:

1) I would've most likely been crucified for starting this thread.

2) There have been numerous reports that including Borchard or Crede in the deal instead of Reed would've been passable. Failing to include either in a heartbeat instead of Reed is a terrifyingly unintelligent move.

3) It's been months and no one has yet to provide what I view as a strong argument as to why we could've have kept Olivo and Reed and signed Garcia in the offseason. Notions that he was going to scoff at a 9 million per season offer to play for his best friend strike me as ridiculous. The only argument that makes any sense is that prior to the Maggs/Frank injuries he was going to make the difference in getting us to the playoffs. However, 1) most seem to be operating with the benefit of hindsight at this point 2) injuries and completely unexpected slumps (see Houston and Phillie) happen constantly. There was enourmous risk in sacrificing Reed and Olivo for a few months of Garcia any way you cut it.

gosox41
09-23-2004, 09:02 AM
He could and should have taken over RF when Magglio went down. Instead we were treated to Gload, Borchard, and Perez out there.

I think that plugging him into right field (and, more importantly, the leadoff spot) could've made the difference this year.
BUt after Magglio went down, the Sox were able to go with Ozzie and Kenny's dream of carrying 3 catchers. Remember all those games the Sox needed to have 3 catchers on the roster??


Bob

Wealz
09-23-2004, 10:20 AM
3) It's been months and no one has yet to provide what I view as a strong argument as to why we could've have kept Olivo and Reed and signed Garcia in the offseason. Notions that he was going to scoff at a 9 million per season offer to play for his best friend strike me as ridiculous.
With the Yankees in such dire need of pitching, I think Garcia would have gotten more than $27M on the open market. That said, if they didn't waste $12M on Contreras they probably could have gotten Garcia. So are the Sox better with Garcia Contreras and Davis than they would have been with Garcia, Reed and Olivo? I think not.

Flight #24
09-23-2004, 10:27 AM
Several thoughts:

2) There have been numerous reports that including Borchard or Crede in the deal instead of Reed would've been passable. Failing to include either in a heartbeat instead of Reed is a terrifyingly unintelligent move.


Funny, I haven't seen any of these "numerous reports", the only thing I have seen is some quotes from Sox management hyping up Borchard (imagine that, hyping the guy that didn't get traded!). Means nothing. The reports I DID see all said that Seattle wanted Crede and only caved when KW gave them a shot at a minor league OF. In other words, their choice was Reed, NOT Borchard. To say the deal could have been done with Borchard instead is beyond wild speculation.

As for trading Crede instead of Reed, it's 100% faulty logic. At the time, the Sox were fully expecting to have an OF of Maggs-ARow-Lee. So the choice really was "do we keep Jeremy Reed for next year, and lose our starting 3B for this year or do we keep our very successful team together this year and lose Reed for next year, knowing that we have some solid depth a year or 2 behind him?". Easy decision. Those arguing that Uribe or Valentin could have moved over forget that you then would have had Willie's "bat" in the lineup fulltime, not a good prospect for a playoff contending team.

Now if you want to argue that KW should have known or forseen that Maggs was going to go down with a freak, almost never before seen, season and potentially career ending injury and therefore that they'd need a new starting RF, well then I'd have to ask you what tomorrow's lottery results are going to be.

kittle42
09-23-2004, 10:57 AM
If Ron Kittle's your favorite Sox player, I'm not surprised.
I do not understand.

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 11:45 AM
A. Cavatica...

Just FYI the Sox had a losing record 17-19 the first time Maggs was out.

Lip

Hangar18
09-23-2004, 12:34 PM
It's so funny that we traded J. Reed considering that he's exactly the type of player that the Sox have been lacking during this power era of the team. He's a line drive hitter that does all the little things right.
Why do you think I was very Angered ........... and Sad to see him go.
All because we WOULDNT spend the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to get some pitching,
inevitably forcing us to get pitching in Midseason, Ironically COSTING US EVEN MORE in the long run ......... THATS WHY I WAS SO MAD. We lost a player that weve been coveting ........for so long ......... :angry: :angry: :angry:

fquaye149
09-23-2004, 12:54 PM
Why do you think I was very Angered ........... and Sad to see him go.
All because we WOULDNT spend the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to get some pitching,


No. Once again, I would LOVE to see what pitchers we cheaped out on that would have been a good sign.

We've beaten this into the ground.

I can't believe how many great armchair GM's there are on this board. It's amazing that the great baseball minds of the world are here posting showing us their magical power of hindsight.

YES, if we had Reed playing in our minors and no 4th OR 5th starter b/c of lacking garcia, we would have ALREADY CLINCHED the division.

YES, Reed's garbage time heroics prove his greatness.

just think - instead of one of the premiere pitchers in the AL we could have had a poke hitter with MARK KOTSAY ceiling.

GEE WHIZ, I wish you guys were GMs instead of k-double. Just think how great we would be!

oh and where's the whining about Olivo in all this.

I can't believe how bad KW got FLEECED.



[puking guy]

thepaulbowski
09-23-2004, 12:58 PM
What a bunch of :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

A. Cavatica
09-23-2004, 01:00 PM
I do not understand.
Diametrically opposite types of players. Kittle, like Borchard, was a slugger who struck out a ton. Reed hits singles and doubles, walks, and just plays smart ball.

The Sox have over-valued the first type of player and under-valued the second type for as long as I can remember.

Hangar18
09-23-2004, 01:12 PM
Want me to name ONE pitcher ....... who was out there .......
2 yrs in a row .......... We couldve had him ...........
But he was "too expensive". Kenny Rogers

Want one more? He was out there ..........
2 yrs in a row .......... We couldve had him ..........
But he was due Arbitration .......... Matt Clement

Hangar18
09-23-2004, 01:20 PM
[QUOTE=jeremyb1]Several thoughts:

2) There have been numerous reports that including Borchard or Crede in the deal instead of Reed would've been passable. Failing to include either in a heartbeat instead of Reed is a terrifyingly unintelligent move.

QUOTE]

WWJHD? What would Jim Hendry Do? Notice how Jim Hendry TRADES PLAYERS he's ALREADY Tried, and theyve been Busts? (Hee Flop Choi and Bobby Million Dollar Hill come to mind) Hendry NEVER trades
guys with High Ceilings that hes Not Tried Out Yet. Theres where KW and JH differ ............

shagar69
09-23-2004, 01:25 PM
With the Yankees in such dire need of pitching, I think Garcia would have gotten more than $27M on the open market. That said, if they didn't waste $12M on Contreras they probably could have gotten Garcia. So are the Sox better with Garcia Contreras and Davis than they would have been with Garcia, Reed and Olivo? I think not. exactly! the contreras deal was the bad one just because of the finances. IMO we would of had an EXCELLENT chance to sign freddy in the offseason if we hadnt gotten contreras. we would of had the money and freddy would of wanted to come here because of ozzie. then we could of had freddy, reed, and miggy! but all this doesnt matter if borchard, anderson, sweeney, or young turn into stars. even if TWO of those players turn into good everyday MLB players, the trade was worth it.

kittle42
09-23-2004, 02:06 PM
Diametrically opposite types of players. Kittle, like Borchard, was a slugger who struck out a ton. Reed hits singles and doubles, walks, and just plays smart ball.

The Sox have over-valued the first type of player and under-valued the second type for as long as I can remember.
So what, I like Rob Deer, too?

I like Ron Kittle because I got his autograph when I was 6. That has nothing to do with my assessment of Jeremy Reed or any other player.

That being said, I hope Jeremy Reed flops bigger than any flop in history.

jeremyb1
09-23-2004, 02:26 PM
Funny, I haven't seen any of these "numerous reports", the only thing I have seen is some quotes from Sox management hyping up Borchard (imagine that, hyping the guy that didn't get traded!). Means nothing. The reports I DID see all said that Seattle wanted Crede and only caved when KW gave them a shot at a minor league OF. In other words, their choice was Reed, NOT Borchard. To say the deal could have been done with Borchard instead is beyond wild speculation.

Well I'll agree it's somewhat speculative although not that it's "wild speculation". It's hard to tell whether or not Seattle would have even taken Bochard instead because from the information coming out of the Sox organization it sounds like we more or less made Borchard untouchable in the deals.

As for trading Crede instead of Reed, it's 100% faulty logic. At the time, the Sox were fully expecting to have an OF of Maggs-ARow-Lee. So the choice really was "do we keep Jeremy Reed for next year, and lose our starting 3B for this year or do we keep our very successful team together this year and lose Reed for next year, knowing that we have some solid depth a year or 2 behind him?". Easy decision. Those arguing that Uribe or Valentin could have moved over forget that you then would have had Willie's "bat" in the lineup fulltime, not a good prospect for a playoff contending team.

The assertion that we were successful at the time and Crede was a starting position player hence Crede was/is good and contributed to our success is faulty logic. He has a somewhat promising minor league track record but at no point in his career has he showed the potentential Reed has shown. Crede has hit .234/.295/.393 to Willie's .259/.343/.322, I fail to see what we would've lost by having Harris in the lineup over Crede. Just because you're trying to win now doesn't mean you trade B.J. Upton for Eric Karros. Just because Crede MAY have been slightly more valuable than Reed over the duration of the season doesn't mean that he was more important to hang onto than Reed.

Now if you want to argue that KW should have known or forseen that Maggs was going to go down with a freak, almost never before seen, season and potentially career ending injury and therefore that they'd need a new starting RF, well then I'd have to ask you what tomorrow's lottery results are going to be.

If Maggs going down with an unforseeable injury was the only reason I opposed this deal, I wouldn't have been so outspoken against it at the time it was made, no? I argued at the time that there are always enough unknowns to make the Garcia deal extremely risky in that if we faced a rash of injuries or immense slumps we could find ourselves out of the playoffs which was more or less the entire purpose of the deal.

AddisonStSox
09-23-2004, 02:26 PM
That being said, I hope Jeremy Reed flops bigger than any flop in history.http://www.sasesportssigs.com/JeremyReed.jpg "What'd I Ever Do To You?"


Don't hold your breath. He won't be a hall of famer, but he's inline to have a nice career, he hasn't shown anything that would disprove that. But, with that said...WE HAVE FREDDY GARCIA LOCKED UP. Jeez, people forget who we got in return. His name looks a lot better every fifth day than any of the other clowns we were trotting out.

A. Cavatica
09-23-2004, 03:57 PM
The assertion that we were successful at the time and Crede was a starting position player hence Crede was/is good and contributed to our success is faulty logic. He has a somewhat promising minor league track record but at no point in his career has he showed the potentential Reed has shown. Crede has hit .234/.295/.393 to Willie's .259/.343/.322, I fail to see what we would've lost by having Harris in the lineup over Crede. Just because you're trying to win now doesn't mean you trade B.J. Upton for Eric Karros. Just because Crede MAY have been slightly more valuable than Reed over the duration of the season doesn't mean that he was more important to hang onto than Reed.
For the record, Crede did win a Triple Crown in the low minors, at a young age, and nearly won a second a year or two later. He did indeed show a ton of potential, but he had more holes in his game than Reed does.

Also for the record, I liked (and still like) the Garcia trade. I am just angry that our organization couldn't figure out which one to keep, between Borchard and Reed. You just know the signing bonus had to factor in.

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 05:40 PM
WWJHD? What would Jim Hendry Do? Notice how Jim Hendry TRADES PLAYERS he's ALREADY Tried, and theyve been Busts? (Hee Flop Choi and Bobby Million Dollar Hill come to mind) Hendry NEVER trades
guys with High Ceilings that hes Not Tried Out Yet. Theres where KW and JH differ ............
Yeah Hangar, but you're forgetting that Bud Selig is forcing all of the other teams to help out the Cubs. :rolleyes:

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 05:42 PM
For the record, Crede did win a Triple Crown in the low minors, at a young age, and nearly won a second a year or two later. He did indeed show a ton of potential, but he had more holes in his game than Reed does.

Also for the record, I liked (and still like) the Garcia trade. I am just angry that our organization couldn't figure out which one to keep, between Borchard and Reed. You just know the signing bonus had to factor in.
So if you were the GM, would you have given up Crede or Reed? (Notice how Borchard isn't an option, AS IT WAS THE SAME FOR KENNY.)

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 05:46 PM
I fail to see what we would've lost by having Harris in the lineup over Crede. Just because you're trying to win now doesn't mean you trade B.J. Upton for Eric Karros. Just because Crede MAY have been slightly more valuable than Reed over the duration of the season doesn't mean that he was more important to hang onto than Reed.
So whom on our bench, at the time of our trade, could play the infield? What happens if Jose Valentin (who was already on the DL) gets hurt? What if Juan Uribe hits .140 for the month of July? Who do you put in to take his place?

balke
09-23-2004, 05:58 PM
this thread has officially gone NOGAF. This whole convo is moot, we were going to give up something for Garcia regardless. We had no depth to cover the infield. Maggs was supposed to be here. Borchard wasn't on the table. We would've gabbed at the stupidity of giving up Borchard the same way, as we do with Rauch.

We have a pitcher now, deal with it, rejoice.

fquaye149
09-23-2004, 07:49 PM
Want me to name ONE pitcher ....... who was out there .......
2 yrs in a row .......... We couldve had him ...........
But he was "too expensive". Kenny Rogers

Want one more? He was out there ..........
2 yrs in a row .......... We couldve had him ..........
But he was due Arbitration .......... Matt Clement

are you crazy?! kenny rogers declined us twice not because of money. he took less to play for the twins in 2003 because he thought they were a better team and he wasn't going anywhere but the rangers this year.


look, money is good, but it's not the answer to EVERYTHING

bigfoot
09-23-2004, 07:57 PM
.......

look, money is good, but it's not the answer to EVERYTHING
75 Player agents just fainted!

bc2k
09-23-2004, 08:39 PM
The day after the Garcia trade was made, the Tribune stated that the Mariners wanted Olivo and Crede in return but KW refused, reasoning that he can't afford to give up 2 everyday starters. As I read that line waiting for the train, my jaw dropped and I pondered how I was going to get through a work day after hearing such MORONIC news about something of SUCH IMPORTANCE!

SEATTLE WANTED CREDE, NOT REED! I couldn't believe my eyes because as a man outside the organization even I knew how good Reed was and how BAD Crede was. Some on this board may remember how much I hated Crede's play and thought nothing of his future since the early parts of the 2003 season. The fact that KW didn't have to fight to keep Reed, that Seattle WANTED CREDE OVER REED, and the fact that KW chose to keep Cwede over Reed was mind boggling!

The minute I read that news I called the closest Sox fans I knew and stated what a mistake the decision to keep Crede over Reed was. My opinion of this trade was not made in hindsight, though my vision at the time of the trade was 20/20. KW is a ****ing moron.

The irony is that Kenny Williams whined later in the year how if he sees another 2-strike home run swing he'd puke. Well moron, STOP TRADING AWAY THOSE TYPES OF HITTERS! FOOL.

The point jeremyb1 brings up about keeping Olivo--who is a hell of a player himself--Reed, and Cwede and going after Garcia or any Ace starter in the offseason is something I hadn't thought of. A genius thought if I may say so. The fact that this 2004 season has produced NOTHING is proof that this trade shouldn't have happened. I would feel a lot better about winning next year with Olivo, Reed and an Ace free agent acquisition than Garcia and Davis.

balke
09-23-2004, 10:11 PM
Alright, then we'll just say that whoever doesn't like the Garcia trade was Very happy with our Pitching staff in May/June.

We obviously looked horrible as a team, but pitching wasn't our problem. What we really needed was to just ride it out, and wait for the waiver wire to acquire talent. How stupid was Kenny to think he could make this team better by acquiring a pitcher?! jeesh, what a moron! Didn't he see how well Wright came out? I couldn't tell the difference between him and Garcia.

Buerhle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoenwiess
Wright

These were all studs. We HAD a winning rotation, why did Kenny go and mess this up for us by acquiring Freddy Garcia? This Offseason, he'd be better off trading back Garcia for Jeremy Reed and Olivo, because it'll be much tougher to pick up a good catcher or right fielder, than to find starting pitching. :kukoo:

A. Cavatica
09-23-2004, 10:45 PM
Kenny: "I'd like to buy that car, please."

Car dealer: "That car costs $20 grand, but I'll let you have it for ten."

Kenny: "$20 grand will be fine, thanks."

bc2k
09-23-2004, 11:33 PM
Alright, then we'll just say that whoever doesn't like the Garcia trade was Very happy with our Pitching staff in May/June.

We obviously looked horrible as a team, but pitching wasn't our problem. What we really needed was to just ride it out, and wait for the waiver wire to acquire talent. How stupid was Kenny to think he could make this team better by acquiring a pitcher?! jeesh, what a moron! Didn't he see how well Wright came out? I couldn't tell the difference between him and Garcia.

Buerhle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoenwiess
Wright

These were all studs. We HAD a winning rotation, why did Kenny go and mess this up for us by acquiring Freddy Garcia? This Offseason, he'd be better off trading back Garcia for Jeremy Reed and Olivo, because it'll be much tougher to pick up a good catcher or right fielder, than to find starting pitching. :kukoo: Hey guy, not one person complained about improving the pitching staff. You realize that there are two parts of every trade that must be considered when evaluating its end result: What your team gives up, and what it receives in return.

What this means is that you can't count a trade as beneficial just by what your team receives. A team must weigh the talent it receives against the talent it gives up. There is an exception if a team is a World Series contender, where they would be more likely to give up more than what it normally would trade, if what it receives could make them Series favorites.

That exception does not apply to the Sox since they were not Series contenders at any point this season. KW misjudged the talent of Crede v Reed and misjudged the entire 2004 team since he thought he had to mortgage the team's future success--Olivo and Reed--because 2004 was the Sox's only window of winning. That last sentence was based on KW's comment about how he couldn't afford to lose two everyday starters off his team (Olivo and Crede, so he keep Crede and dumped Reed instead). I counter that since the Sox were not Series contenders, they could afford to lose any player save for the young players who could have greatly contributed to a future Sox World Series team (Olivo and Reed).

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 11:43 PM
That exception does not apply to the Sox since they were not Series contenders at any point this season.
:boston

"I went on Sportscenter and said the Chicago White Sox would win the World Series. If I had any credibility, I would've lost it then."

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 11:57 PM
Fquarky (however the hell you spell it) says: "He took less to play for the Twins in 2003 because he thought they were a better team."

Wrong!!!!! Complete unadulterated pap.

Williams offered Rogers one million after Danny 'I Can't Pitch' Wright hurt himself early in spring training 2003. The Twins entered the picture and offered him TWO MILLION after Eric Milton hurt his knee.

Williams wouldn't match it, Rogers signed with the Twins, won 14 games, beat our ass to clinch the title and laughed all the way to the playoffs.

Kenny baby meanwhile saved a million but lost, I don't know, TEN million by not making the playoffs and having a few post season games.

Must be the Sox style of accounting!

Lip

santo=dorf
09-24-2004, 12:00 AM
Lip;

Isn't Rogers represented by Scott Bora$? So we can't fault JR for not signing this guy.

balke
09-24-2004, 02:08 AM
Lip;

Isn't Rogers represented by Scott Bora$? So we can't fault JR for not signing this guy.
Didn't Kenny Rogers have a rib removed just so he can pitch this season? And is he a worthy risk to have on the team?

Also, I recall someone mentioning Rogers hates the sox flat out, and would never play here. Why was that, if anyone knows?

balke
09-24-2004, 02:32 AM
That exception does not apply to the Sox since they were not Series contenders at any point this season.
We traded for this guy before Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez were out for the year. We went into June Losing every 5th game, and were still #1 in our division. We let Koch pitch and held onto 1st! We stood up to every team we faced, only swept once by the Blue Jays (thanks bullpen). All we needed was pitching to win consistantly. How were we not at least playoff contenders, if not WS contenders?

We had 15 games where we scored 10 or more runs before Freddy signed. 15!

A two time triple crown 3rd baseman, with great defensive abilities, is much more valuable than a prospect RF. It's great to be cute and say "look at Crede now, I knew he sucked all along." and maybe you did congratulations. The sox should sign you up for knowing a good or bad swing when you see it. And knowing who's swing is correctable, and who's is not.

Bottom line is, you don't have Reed on you team. You do have an established starting pitcher. You should use your love for prospects, and focus on Alex Escobar. Or become a Seattle fan for having such a brilliant GM. Of course, you would probably berrate him because he was "almost stupid enough to take Crede".

fquaye149
09-24-2004, 04:29 AM
Also, I recall someone mentioning Rogers hates the sox flat out, and would never play here. Why was that, if anyone knows?
i may be wrong about the 2003 offseason, but i have heard this ^ time and time again

gosox41
09-24-2004, 09:11 AM
So what, I like Rob Deer, too?

I like Ron Kittle because I got his autograph when I was 6. That has nothing to do with my assessment of Jeremy Reed or any other player.

That being said, I hope Jeremy Reed flops bigger than any flop in history.
And I wish him well. Way to hold grudges. Who else do you wish ill-will on?


Bob

jeremyb1
09-24-2004, 06:14 PM
So if you were the GM, would you have given up Crede or Reed? (Notice how Borchard isn't an option, AS IT WAS THE SAME FOR KENNY.)

Do you have a link to a quote from KW, Bavasi, or another source in either organization saying that Borchard was not an option and was not discussed? Seems to me it's completely up in the air whether or not Borchard was an option.

jeremyb1
09-24-2004, 06:16 PM
So whom on our bench, at the time of our trade, could play the infield? What happens if Jose Valentin (who was already on the DL) gets hurt? What if Juan Uribe hits .140 for the month of July? Who do you put in to take his place?

Trading Crede fills up a roster spot, sign someone or call up Dransfeldt. I wouldn't trade one of the top prospects in baseball just because it creates a hole for a utility infielder.

jeremyb1
09-24-2004, 06:20 PM
Alright, then we'll just say that whoever doesn't like the Garcia trade was Very happy with our Pitching staff in May/June.

We obviously looked horrible as a team, but pitching wasn't our problem. What we really needed was to just ride it out, and wait for the waiver wire to acquire talent. How stupid was Kenny to think he could make this team better by acquiring a pitcher?! jeesh, what a moron! Didn't he see how well Wright came out? I couldn't tell the difference between him and Garcia.

Buerhle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoenwiess
Wright

These were all studs. We HAD a winning rotation, why did Kenny go and mess this up for us by acquiring Freddy Garcia? This Offseason, he'd be better off trading back Garcia for Jeremy Reed and Olivo, because it'll be much tougher to pick up a good catcher or right fielder, than to find starting pitching. :kukoo:

Because trading Reed, Olivo, and Morse for Garcia is the only possible move the team could have made to alter the pitching staff? Huh?!

We're so blessed to have the opportunity to pay Garcia 9 million dollars a season. I never thought we would be able to get a number two pitcher if we paid him boatloads of money.

santo=dorf
09-24-2004, 07:17 PM
Do you have a link to a quote from KW, Bavasi, or another source in either organization saying that Borchard was not an option and was not discussed? Seems to me it's completely up in the air whether or not Borchard was an option.
From your favorite source, Baseball America.
http://mb9.theinsiders.com/fstanfordfansfrm3.showMessage?topicID=1409.topic&index=10

Baseball America Q & A FullertonBaseballFan (http://mb9.theinsiders.com/bstanfordfans.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fullertonb aseballfan) Q: What should White Sox fans think of Joe Borchard at this point? He's putting up decent numbers in his third stint at Triple-A Charlotte, but with Magglio Ordonez out for an extended period of time, the Sox didn't give Borchard the call. The White Sox obviously believe in Borchard, as they opted to include Jeremy Reed rather than Borchard in the Freddy Garcia trade. Will Borchard ever get his shot playing full-time in the outfield for Chicago or is he the truly the $5.3 million dollar bust that many Sox fans are now labeling him as?

A: Again, don't read too much into who's included or not included in a trade. Another way to look at the Garcia deal is that perhaps the Mariners wouldn't have accepted Borchard in lieu of Reed. After initial hopes that Borchard might be their center fielder of the future, the White Sox have played him in right field this year, and Seattle obviously has Ichiro to man that position.

balke
09-24-2004, 07:32 PM
MLB.com archives 6/11/04 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20040611&content_id=768273&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp



Notice "world series hopes"





"I could put another word in front of no, but FCC regulations won't allow you to air it," said Williams, when asked by a radio reporter about a possible Ordonez trade. "I don't know where that comes from. It's not consistent with what we are trying to do here."

The White Sox and Williams not only are trying to win the American League Central but also reach the World Series for the first time since 1959. Friday's second personnel rumor plays as much into that concept as the entire Ordonez situation.

According to commentary from Harold Reynolds on ESPN's "Baseball Tonight" on Thursday, the White Sox eventually will add Kansas City center fielder Carlos Beltran to their roster. With tampering violations in mind, nobody with the White Sox could talk directly about Beltran.

Williams mentioned there have been talks with Kansas City, as well as most every other team in baseball. Manager Ozzie Guillen pointed out that it's only logical to desire to pick up a player with Beltran's vast talent.

"I wish I was Beltran right now, where everyone wanted me," said Guillen with a smile. "The thing is when you put names in the air, it means everyone wants those players.

"Who doesn't want that kid? He's one of the best in baseball. Will we get him? Well, I don't care right now because he's not here with me."



Where's the Michael Morse watch anyways? According to Walker, he's our biggest mistake to give up. I DEMAND A MORSE WATCH!!!



http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20040627&content_id=782306&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp



"I like Reed a lot," Walker said. "He's going to be a good big league player and play there a long time. Reed will be a high-average hitter and play good defense, and he's real smart in the clubhouse. He's more of a contact hitter than the other guys mentioned. He scuffled this spring, but it was not big deal for us because we weren't planning on him being here this year.

"I'm also a huge Joe Borchard fan. People are starting to get frustrated, but they shouldn't. He's going to play here, too. I like them all and I hate to see any of them go.

"But this kid, Morse, the shortstop, is a dynamite talent," added Walker, who worked with Morse in the Instructional League. "He might be the guy when you look back that everyone says 'Oh, man.' He has jaw-dropping talent and to have that kind of juice at shortstop is something special." Morse, 22, hit .287 with 11 home runs and 38 RBIs for the Barons, while Reed, 23, is hitting .279 with eight home runs and 37 RBIs for Charlotte. It helped the Mariners, and probably hurt Williams, that Bob Fontaine moved from the White Sox to the Mariners in the off-season. The team's former Director of Player Development is very familiar with the South Siders' minor-league system.

balke
09-24-2004, 07:34 PM
Because trading Reed, Olivo, and Morse for Garcia is the only possible move the team could have made to alter the pitching staff? Huh?!

We're so blessed to have the opportunity to pay Garcia 9 million dollars a season. I never thought we would be able to get a number two pitcher if we paid him boatloads of money.
Your better idea for an ace pitcher was what?

shagar69
09-24-2004, 07:51 PM
Your better idea for an ace pitcher was what?
sheets

fquaye149
09-24-2004, 08:36 PM
sheets
lol.

yep. KW is an idiot.

why didn't we get sheet, santana, vazquez, clemens, schmidt, or any number of pitchers that no gm with any amount of money or resources could hvae gotten.

shagar69
09-24-2004, 09:10 PM
lol.

yep. KW is an idiot.

why didn't we get sheet, santana, vazquez, clemens, schmidt, or any number of pitchers that no gm with any amount of money or resources could hvae gotten. IIRC KW offered crede and borchard for sheets and they said no. im sure that we could of revisited that trade in the offseason, adding in a diaz or munoz

bc2k
09-24-2004, 09:34 PM
MLB.com archives 6/11/04 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20040611&content_id=768273&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp



Notice "world series hopes" What was this post supposed to prove? That because the Sox were in first place in the AL Central at the time of the article, that they were World Series contenders? Do you really believe that? bvvp.

The fact is the Sox were at no point this season--even when they were first in the AL Central--serious contenders for the World Series.

And since the Sox were not contenders, KW was wrong in trading away great, young, cheap talent that would have contributed more for the Sox in the future than any Ace pitcher would have in the Sox's 2004 season. It doesn't matter that Garcia is signed for 3 more years because it's going to be harder to win the World Series in those three years without the two players KW traded away in that deal, than if KW had kept Olivo and Reed and signed Garcia or any Ace in the offseason. Like jeremy hinted at, it's easier to find a quality starter for $9 million per than it is to find another Olivo and Reed with the payroll flexibility they bring.

I would rather have cost-efficient talent Olivo and Reed for the next three years because they would be productive in their positions while their salary allows a competent GM to fill other positions with money saved from having quality, young talent.

I'd rather have kept Olivo and Reed and sign two middle-of-the-road pitchers in the offseason for 2005 with the $9 million Garcia is owed. I think the Sox might have been able to get Clement (if he's healthy for '05) and Rusch. Olivo, Reed, Clement and Rusch or just Garcia. Hmmm, 4 quality positions to 1. Please don't split hairs about my two choices of pitchers, feel free to insert any pair of pitchers you would like to have with the $9 million Garcia is eating.

What's ironic is that KW's reasoning for giving up Reed instead of Crede was because he didn't want to give up 2 position players from his '04 roster, resulted in him potentially giving up 2 position players for his '05, '06, '07+ roster! Kenny Williams's own lack of foresight crippled his team in the exact manner that he was so guarded against doing to his present team. Irony!

balke
09-25-2004, 12:53 AM
What was this post supposed to prove? That because the Sox were in first place in the AL Central at the time of the article, that they were World Series contenders? Do you really believe that? bvvp.

The fact is the Sox were at no point this season--even when they were first in the AL Central--serious contenders for the World Series.

And since the Sox were not contenders, KW was wrong in trading away great, young, cheap talent that would have contributed more for the Sox in the future than any Ace pitcher would have in the Sox's 2004 season. It doesn't matter that Garcia is signed for 3 more years because it's going to be harder to win the World Series in those three years without the two players KW traded away in that deal, than if KW had kept Olivo and Reed and signed Garcia or any Ace in the offseason. Like jeremy hinted at, it's easier to find a quality starter for $9 million per than it is to find another Olivo and Reed with the payroll flexibility they bring.

I would rather have cost-efficient talent Olivo and Reed for the next three years because they would be productive in their positions while their salary allows a competent GM to fill other positions with money saved from having quality, young talent.

I'd rather have kept Olivo and Reed and sign two middle-of-the-road pitchers in the offseason for 2005 with the $9 million Garcia is owed. I think the Sox might have been able to get Clement (if he's healthy for '05) and Rusch. Olivo, Reed, Clement and Rusch or just Garcia. Hmmm, 4 quality positions to 1. Please don't split hairs about my two choices of pitchers, feel free to insert any pair of pitchers you would like to have with the $9 million Garcia is eating.

What's ironic is that KW's reasoning for giving up Reed instead of Crede was because he didn't want to give up 2 position players from his '04 roster, resulted in him potentially giving up 2 position players for his '05, '06, '07+ roster! Kenny Williams's own lack of foresight crippled his team in the exact manner that he was so guarded against doing to his present team. Irony!You obviously didn't watch a single white sox game in that time period. If you had, 1 pitcher, one reliever. That's how far away we were.

Maybe you're right though. We should have built this team around Reed Morse and Olivo. They would make a great 1,2,3 on our roster spots. That's how we get into the WS. Every young talent is a lock to maintain and blossom.

:bkoch:
"sigh, yup"

Paulwny
09-25-2004, 12:07 PM
This is what happens when you don't fill holes with fa's at the beginning of the season. Filling holes during the season is accomplished via the trade and you lose players. Fill the holes before the season starts.

A. Cavatica
09-26-2004, 08:59 PM
2-for-4 today with a double and another walk...still at .395.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 09:32 PM
Your better idea for an ace pitcher was what?

Well we've done this a million times but in short I think balance is overrated. I don't think we needed a number one pitcher just because some think Buehrle is a borderline one. I think that if the resources were spent on offense or having a strong back end of the rotation instead of a strong front end, we'd be better off assuming we spend the money more shrewdly.

balke
09-26-2004, 09:53 PM
Well we've done this a million times but in short I think balance is overrated. I don't think we needed a number one pitcher just because some think Buehrle is a borderline one. I think that if the resources were spent on offense or having a strong back end of the rotation instead of a strong front end, we'd be better off assuming we spend the money more shrewdly.
So... we needed MORE offense? :kukoo:

How many "back-end of the rotation" starters do we need?

The ONLY other options we had were Ortiz from the Braves, or Ohka for 2 mil. I in my heart believe Ohka was the way a thrifty Kenny was headed. Unfortunately he injured himself just before we made a move for a pitcher. I don't really know what happened with the ORtiz deal, but I'm glad we got Garcia instead.

Uribe
Clee (in the freakin 2 spot!)
Maggs
Thomas
Konerko
Valentin
Rowand
Crede
Olivo

This was our offense prior to the trade. Are you joking? I'm not laughing. Offense really wasn't on our "to-do" list.

Palehose Pete
09-28-2004, 01:56 PM
This from CBS Sportsline:

"Not much going right in Seattle, but the Freddy Garcia trade is beginning to pay dividends. Outfielder Jeremy Reed, the minor-league player of the year last summer in the White Sox organization and one of the players acquired for Garcia, has 13 hits for his past 26 at-bats after starting 0-for-5. Manager Bob Melvin said, "I think we got a steal with this kid."'

Freddy better pitch his a$$ off for us, that's all I have to say. :angry:

kittle42
09-28-2004, 01:59 PM
Blah, blah, sample size.

Blah, blah, needed a pitcher.

Blah, blah, Baseball Prospectus.

These threads are getting more frequent than KW bashing. Oh wait, they ARE KW bashing.

:rolleyes:

Kogs35
09-28-2004, 02:00 PM
ENOUGH WITH JEREMY FREAKEN REED. HES GONE WHO CARES STOP STARTING THESE STUPID JEREMY REED THREADS:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

DaveIsHere
09-28-2004, 02:06 PM
This belongs in talking baseball, Reed plays for Seattle....remember.....

faneidde
09-28-2004, 02:07 PM
Guys, don't worry about Jeremy Reed. Carl Everett exercised his option for next year. Print those series tickets now.

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 02:07 PM
:threadsucks

There are already two other threads started on him in the "Talking Baseball" forum. He isn't part of the White Sox organization anymore. Please move on.

ChiSoxBobette
09-28-2004, 02:12 PM
This from CBS Sportsline:

"Not much going right in Seattle, but the Freddy Garcia trade is beginning to pay dividends. Outfielder Jeremy Reed, the minor-league player of the year last summer in the White Sox organization and one of the players acquired for Garcia, has 13 hits for his past 26 at-bats after starting 0-for-5. Manager Bob Melvin said, "I think we got a steal with this kid."'

Freddy better pitch his a$$ off for us, that's all I have to say. :angry:
We'll see how much of a steal it was when Garcia wins 21/22 games next year. I'm tired of hearing about some minor leaguer who has'nt even stepped foot in a major league dugout yet being the next coming of Babe Ruth - GO BECOME A SEATTLE MARINER FAN!
:angry: :angry: :angry:

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 02:48 PM
We'll see how much of a steal it was when Garcia wins 21/22 games next year. I'm tired of hearing about some minor leaguer who has'nt even stepped foot in a major league dugout yet being the next coming of Babe Ruth - GO BECOME A SEATTLE MARINER FAN!
:angry: :angry: :angry:

Haha. Because 22 wins would be in line with the career performance of a guy whose ERA is pretty conistently near 4. C'mon guys, at best we acquired a second Buehrle. There's nothing wrong with that but don't hold your breath waiting for Freddy to rank with Schilling or Jason Schmidt.

batmanZoSo
09-28-2004, 02:53 PM
Haha. Because 22 wins would be in line with the career performance of a guy whose ERA is pretty conistently near 4. C'mon guys, at best we acquired a second Buehrle. There's nothing wrong with that but don't hold your breath waiting for Freddy to rank with Schilling or Jason Schmidt.

And now we need a third Buehrle and we'll be in great shape. I'm not worried about losing Reed, he's perfect for Seattle anyway. We don't have any problems developing corner outfielders. In fact Sweeney will probably prove to be the better all around hitter. Anderson's probably a better overall hitter (more power) and can play center.

Hangar18
09-28-2004, 02:56 PM
We don't have any problems developing corner outfielders. In fact Sweeney will probably prove to be the better all around hitter. Anderson's probably a better overall hitter (more power) and can play center.

I hope the SOX braintrust feels that SWEENEY and ANDERSON have higher
ceilings ........... im missing REED already

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 03:03 PM
And now we need a third Buehrle and we'll be in great shape. I'm not worried about losing Reed, he's perfect for Seattle anyway. We don't have any problems developing corner outfielders. In fact Sweeney will probably prove to be the better all around hitter. Anderson's probably a better overall hitter (more power) and can play center.

Well Anderson's shown more power than Reed but so has Borchard. Early returns on Reed in center field are pretty good with him making highlight reel catches on ESPN even if he's ultimately not as good as Anderson defensively.

I'm a fan of Sweeney but the most impressive aspect of his performance thus far is that he didn't completely fail at a highly advanced level for a 19 year old. That's a lot to project stardom at this point.

It's funny because I've never heard this rationale when trading a top prospect prior to this trade. If the DRays traded Upton tomorrow, citing how they felt they had several other good minor league infielders so he was expendable, everyone would think they were completely crazy.

benjamin
09-28-2004, 03:07 PM
I'm tired of hearing about some minor leaguer who has'nt even stepped foot in a major league dugout yet being the next coming of Babe Ruth - GO BECOME A SEATTLE MARINER FAN!
:angry: :angry: :angry:Actually, he has stepped foot in a major league dugout. In fact, he has collected 17 hits in his first 13 games.

That was the whole point of the original post.

shagar69
09-28-2004, 03:12 PM
We'll see how much of a steal it was when Garcia wins 21/22 games next year. I'm tired of hearing about some minor leaguer who has'nt even stepped foot in a major league dugout yet being the next coming of Babe Ruth - GO BECOME A SEATTLE MARINER FAN!
:angry: :angry: :angry:
*****!!! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: 22 wins??!! i didnt realize that freddy was the latin roger clemens or curt schilling. we'd be stupid to expect anything more than 15-18 wins and an ERA of around 3.8

shagar69
09-28-2004, 03:15 PM
And now we need a third Buehrle and we'll be in great shape. I'm not worried about losing Reed, he's perfect for Seattle anyway. We don't have any problems developing corner outfielders. In fact Sweeney will probably prove to be the better all around hitter. Anderson's probably a better overall hitter (more power) and can play center. i dont know why everybody is showing so much love to anderson. IMO, i would rank young ahead of him. he's got 40 40 potential. We don't have any problems developing corner outfielders ever heard of joe borchard?

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 03:16 PM
From your favorite source, Baseball America.
http://mb9.theinsiders.com/fstanfordfansfrm3.showMessage?topicID=1409.topic&index=10

I think you mean Baseball Prospectus when you said "my favorite source" although I have no qualms with BA. First of all, that posts contradicts absolutely nothing I've said in this thread since I've agreed it's speculative although possible that Borchard could've been included and BA is speculating that perhaps Seattle wouldn't have bit.

The quote would seem to reflect poorly on KW in my opinion since they're reasoning that it would make the most sense that KW didn't choose to include Reed over Borchard because he would've been brain dead to do so. We still can't really tell whether or not Borchard was discussed although team sources strongly indicate that whether or not Seattle was willing to swap him for Reed, we weren't willing to deal him which is quite damning. BA simply jumps on board as another source agreeing that choosing not to include Borchard over Reed would be a highly unintelligent move.

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 03:22 PM
So... we needed MORE offense? :kukoo:

How many "back-end of the rotation" starters do we need?

The ONLY other options we had were Ortiz from the Braves, or Ohka for 2 mil. I in my heart believe Ohka was the way a thrifty Kenny was headed. Unfortunately he injured himself just before we made a move for a pitcher. I don't really know what happened with the ORtiz deal, but I'm glad we got Garcia instead.

Uribe
Clee (in the freakin 2 spot!)
Maggs
Thomas
Konerko
Valentin
Rowand
Crede
Olivo

This was our offense prior to the trade. Are you joking? I'm not laughing. Offense really wasn't on our "to-do" list.

You totally missed my point. I never said that offense was a need, I said that it is possible to place too much emphasis on filling "needs" as opposed to adding players which will contribute the most to winning. Balance is overrated. If we had any gaping hole it was the fifth starters spot and we could have filled that and landed someone like Beltran instead of Garcia.

But there's pages and pages of this debate between Flight and I from a few months ago. I don't want to rehash it and repeat all the same points. If you want to find some of the threads in the archives and jump into that discussion I'm fine with that.

balke
09-28-2004, 03:33 PM
There are already two other threads started on him in the "Talking Baseball" forum. He isn't part of the White Sox organization anymore. Please move on.AMEN for christ's sakes, look 2 threads down before starting a new Reed :drool: thread. As I've said before, link a fan page, everything's been said.

This kid could be Barry Bonds next year (no he couldn't, and won't ever) and I still wouldn't care. THis team needs a frickin pitcher, it has one. The new best pitcher on our team, w/o a doubt, Freddy Garcia.

Iwritecode
09-28-2004, 03:37 PM
*****!!! :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: 22 wins??!! i didnt realize that freddy was the latin roger clemens or curt schilling. we'd be stupid to expect anything more than 15-18 wins and an ERA of around 3.8

Guess what? That's 15-18 wins they wouldn't get had they not traded Reed and kept throwing guys like Grilli, Diaz and Cotts out there every five days...

hitlesswonder
09-28-2004, 03:54 PM
From my point of view, I don't think Garcia's future perfomance has any bearing on whether or not the trade was justified. The trade was for this year, and the Sox gave up significant young talent because Garcia was the top starting pitcher avaialable, and they thought he could put them over the top and into the playoffs. It was a gamble and it didn't work out. Arguments can made both for and against the trade, and I'm not going to say it was unreasonable to do it. I just wish it had worked.

I do think Garcia has to pitch better for Sox next year to justify his salary. His numbers since coming over aren't great, and for the amount of money the Sox have locked up in him, they need him to be better. As for Reed, just because he hadn't performed in the majors before this year doesn't mean he wasn't worth something. He did well for an extended period of time in the high minors, which made it likely that he would do well in majors soon. Anyway, I wish him the best of luck. Maybe next year he can lead Seattle to the ALCS where Freddy Garcia can shut him down and pitch the Sox to the World Series. That would be nice.

nodiggity59
09-28-2004, 03:56 PM
In regards to Garcia, Buehrle, and our entire staff, we need to lower our ERA expectations given the nex status of the Cell.

Our park is a bandbox. I can't imagine, if things stay the same, a pitcher having a sub 3.5 ERA in a White Sox uni. Anything under 4 is just fine given how ridiculously easy it is to take one out.

OEO Magglio
09-28-2004, 04:02 PM
This is ridiculous, is jeremy going to be a good player, probably, however he's barley fricken played can we not label him the best player of all time yet? :rolleyes:

thepaulbowski
09-28-2004, 04:04 PM
I hope the SOX braintrust feels that SWEENEY and ANDERSON have higher
ceilings ........... im missing REED already

How can you miss a guy who is doing well in garbage time. You must love Joe Crede because he comes through, now that the pressure is off.

thepaulbowski
09-28-2004, 04:06 PM
:whocares about Jeremy Reed. He doesn't play for the White Sox. This almost as bad as some peoples obsession with talking about the Cubs.

doublem23
09-28-2004, 04:10 PM
We're going to need a "Whiny Crybabies Bitching about Jeremy Reed" forum pretty soon.

soxtalker
09-28-2004, 04:18 PM
From my point of view, I don't think Garcia's future perfomance has any bearing on whether or not the trade was justified. The trade was for this year, and the Sox gave up significant young talent because Garcia was the top starting pitcher avaialable, and they thought he could put them over the top and into the playoffs. It was a gamble and it didn't work out. Arguments can made both for and against the trade, and I'm not going to say it was unreasonable to do it. I just wish it had worked.

I do think Garcia has to pitch better for Sox next year to justify his salary. His numbers since coming over aren't great, and for the amount of money the Sox have locked up in him, they need him to be better. As for Reed, just because he hadn't performed in the majors before this year doesn't mean he wasn't worth something. He did well for an extended period of time in the high minors, which made it likely that he would do well in majors soon. Anyway, I wish him the best of luck. Maybe next year he can lead Seattle to the ALCS where Freddy Garcia can shut him down and pitch the Sox to the World Series. That would be nice.


Well said. I didn't like the trade at the time it was made, because I'm one of the (few) members of WSI that places a high value on prospects. However, I understood the gamble KW was taking for this year. The fact that he signed Garcia beyond this season has been cited many times by those that supported the trade, but we could have probably (not 100% guaranteed, but likely) gone after him in the off season. We paid the high price to get him for this season.

Many WSI members feel that trading away prospects costs us little. Whenever there is a thread discussing a trade, a few messages will point out the lack of success of the minor leaguers that KW has traded away. Now there are cries for Reed threads to be banished to the other forum, because it doesn't impact the Sox. Well, if Reed continues to put up good numbers, he becomes the counter example to this argument.

Mohoney
09-28-2004, 04:30 PM
I think that the thing that bothers most people about giving up Reed is that we could have given up Joe Crede instead.

Crede better live up to the expectations that this front office has placed on him, or else we're in serious trouble. I don't care one iota how good his defense is. He needs to hit, and he needs to hit soon.

This guy was supposed to be Robin Ventura by now.

balke
09-28-2004, 04:33 PM
Well said. I didn't like the trade at the time it was made, because I'm one of the (few) members of WSI that places a high value on prospects. However, I understood the gamble KW was taking for this year. The fact that he signed Garcia beyond this season has been cited many times by those that supported the trade, but we could have probably (not 100% guaranteed, but likely) gone after him in the off season. We paid the high price to get him for this season.

Many WSI members feel that trading away prospects costs us little. Whenever there is a thread discussing a trade, a few messages will point out the lack of success of the minor leaguers that KW has traded away. Now there are cries for Reed threads to be banished to the other forum, because it doesn't impact the Sox. Well, if Reed continues to put up good numbers, he becomes the counter example to this argument.IT's not so bad being "banished" to baseball talks. Reed plays for the Seattle Mariners, people forget that. When was the last time he strapped on a White Sox Uni? That's right, NEVER!

Should Fogg, Sosa, Wells, and Cameron threads be allowed on the White Sox board? Olivo, Koch, Lofton, Jimenez, Clayton? no. emphatic no.

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_430598.jpg
"Seattle baby"

soxtalker
09-28-2004, 08:50 PM
IT's not so bad being "banished" to baseball talks. Reed plays for the Seattle Mariners, people forget that. When was the last time he strapped on a White Sox Uni? That's right, NEVER!

Should Fogg, Sosa, Wells, and Cameron threads be allowed on the White Sox board? Olivo, Koch, Lofton, Jimenez, Clayton? no. emphatic no.

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_430598.jpg
"Seattle baby"

Well, in fact, there have been threads posted about such players from time to time. Look, Reed's play is brought up not because we are trying to discuss the exploits of a young player on another team who happens to be doing well. It is brought up because it bears directly on the personnel strategy -- trading, minor league development, etc. -- of this White Sox team.

Other players that have been traded are often discussed on the main WSI board. Now, most of the time they are simply mentioned as part of a thread. A common retort to someone complaining about KW trading away our prospects is to comment that they haven't panned out -- and names are sometimes mentioned. But, IIRC, there have also been threads that have been started with a discussion of how a particular player that we've traded away is doing poorly -- and, thus, ridiculing those who object to prospects being traded.

Your point is well taken that it isn't so bad to be "banished" to this forum. In fact, it is a very good point that more of us should participate in these other forums.

Flight #24
09-28-2004, 09:37 PM
I think you mean Baseball Prospectus when you said "my favorite source" although I have no qualms with BA. First of all, that posts contradicts absolutely nothing I've said in this thread since I've agreed it's speculative although possible that Borchard could've been included and BA is speculating that perhaps Seattle wouldn't have bit.

The quote would seem to reflect poorly on KW in my opinion since they're reasoning that it would make the most sense that KW didn't choose to include Reed over Borchard because he would've been brain dead to do so. We still can't really tell whether or not Borchard was discussed although team sources strongly indicate that whether or not Seattle was willing to swap him for Reed, we weren't willing to deal him which is quite damning. BA simply jumps on board as another source agreeing that choosing not to include Borchard over Reed would be a highly unintelligent move.
Are you sure that Seattle didnt just ask for Willie Harris & Mike Jackson, but KW countered with Olivo & Reed? Because KW commented on how MJ was going to get some key outs for this team, so he MUST have valued him higher than Reed, about whom no comments were made.

There's as much evidence supporting this theory as there is that Borchard was an option, so I'm going to run with it. Man, that KW is a moron.

DrCrawdad
09-28-2004, 11:13 PM
Reed is 2-2 tonight against Tim Hudson. Not too shabby.

The Sox gave up too much for Freddy.

kittle42
09-28-2004, 11:31 PM
Reed is 2-2 tonight against Tim Hudson. Not too shabby.

The Sox gave up too much for Freddy.
Can we start moving all Reed threads to the Roadhouse and locking them? These are gonna get more insult-laden than the political threads.

DrCrawdad
09-28-2004, 11:38 PM
Can we start moving all Reed threads to the Roadhouse and locking them? These are gonna get more insult-laden than the political threads.

I understand what you're saying but for those who say, "Small sample size." I say, Reed can just flat out hit.

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 11:40 PM
Are you sure that Seattle didnt just ask for Willie Harris & Mike Jackson, but KW countered with Olivo & Reed? Because KW commented on how MJ was going to get some key outs for this team, so he MUST have valued him higher than Reed, about whom no comments were made.

There's as much evidence supporting this theory as there is that Borchard was an option, so I'm going to run with it. Man, that KW is a moron.

Yeah because saying MJ had some value to the team is identical to arguably the third most powerful man in the front office saying Seattle had interest in Borchard. I really do have to stop making these things up.

If you're arguing that our GM and other members of the front office make similar positive comments about every player in the organization, you're not paying much attention. I'm not the only one to perceive that KW has been particularly high on Borchard. He discusses him far more than any other prospect, praises him to no end, makes excuses about Borchard being too hard on himself and injuries, and on and on and on. Borchard is the type of player KW dreams about at night as a two sport athlete with tools galore. He did play a key role in signing him to a 5 million dollar signing bonus!! You won't find the same comments about Reed from KW. But you're right, he was just as willing to deal Borchard as any other prospect.

DrCrawdad
09-28-2004, 11:45 PM
Reed is 2-2 tonight against Tim Hudson. Not too shabby.

The Sox gave up too much for Freddy.

Make that 3-3.

balke
09-28-2004, 11:49 PM
Reed is 2-2 tonight against Tim Hudson. Not too shabby.

The Sox gave up too much for Freddy.
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:QYmw482pZaUJ:www.kryptonitekollectibl es.com/packer-pics/brett-farve-on-letterman.jpg

"I would've double bagged it."

jeremyb1
09-29-2004, 12:21 AM
Guess what? That's 15-18 wins they wouldn't get had they not traded Reed and kept throwing guys like Grilli, Diaz and Cotts out there every five days...

Yeah because a lot of pitchers start 33 games and win zero.

pearso66
09-29-2004, 01:11 AM
Yeah because a lot of pitchers start 33 games and win zero.
apparently you missed how well our 5th starters did this past year, and with Loaiza and probably SS being gone, it didnt look pretty. We now have 4 guys locked in for next year, each one could possibly give us 15-20 wins. Not saying they will, but they all have the talent to do so. We were going for the win this year, is it KW's fault that Maggs and Frank went down? Could he look into the future and see that happening? At the time the deal was made, it was a good deal, now, well the jury is still out. But thats only because it would be nice to have a decent OFer, but its still nice to have a good pitcher.

JRIG
09-29-2004, 09:25 AM
Seattle Loves Jeremy Reed (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/192921_mbok29.html)



It's a measure of Reed's impact that he's been able to force playing time. In his old organization, the White Sox had a couple of veterans just about ready to move on in Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez. Knowing they had Reed, the 2003 Minor League Player of the Year, in reserve was a comfort zone for the Sox.

But to get starter Freddy Garcia, they were willing to let Reed head to the Pacific Northwest.

"This kid could turn out to be a steal for us," Melvin said.

Flight #24
09-29-2004, 03:35 PM
Yeah because saying MJ had some value to the team is identical to arguably the third most powerful man in the front office saying Seattle had interest in Borchard. I really do have to stop making these things up.

If you're arguing that our GM and other members of the front office make similar positive comments about every player in the organization, you're not paying much attention. I'm not the only one to perceive that KW has been particularly high on Borchard. He discusses him far more than any other prospect, praises him to no end, makes excuses about Borchard being too hard on himself and injuries, and on and on and on. Borchard is the type of player KW dreams about at night as a two sport athlete with tools galore. He did play a key role in signing him to a 5 million dollar signing bonus!! You won't find the same comments about Reed from KW. But you're right, he was just as willing to deal Borchard as any other prospect.
Let's see, the biggest signing bonus in Sox history (doled out by his predecessor, not him), the best known and most inquired after (from a media perspective) prospect in the org, and KW talks more about him than any other guy? Makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose you've never heard of a guy trying to maintain a prospect's confidence, especially when that prospect might need it since he's making an adjustment between sports and when that prospect has a lot of visibility and pressure on him (something Reed did not have). If anything, KW should have more of an attachment to Reed, after all - he was the guy in charge when he was drafted, whereas he may have played a role in Borchard's drafting but he was by no means the decisionmaker.

Once again, there is no, repeat no evidence a)that Seattle wanted or would have taken Borchard or b)that KW deemed Borchard more untouchable than Reed. It's true that there's no evidence that he DIDN'T deem him more untouchable than Reed, but that's also true for Mike Jackson, as I already noted. It's virtually impossible to prove something negatively, and it's ludicrous to use absence of negative proof as evidence of positive proof.

Implying or stating (as some have done) that KW valued Borchard over Reed has no basis in fact, and is therefore merely a weak excuse to find something to slam KW over.

jeremyb1
09-29-2004, 04:18 PM
Let's see, the biggest signing bonus in Sox history (doled out by his predecessor, not him), the best known and most inquired after (from a media perspective) prospect in the org, and KW talks more about him than any other guy? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Doled out by his predecessor when KW was head of player development. You don't think KW had massive input in the decision? What's your basis for the statement that the media inquires about Borchard the most often? Reed hit .400 last season and was the team's top prospect. Rauch was formerly minor league player of the year. Anderson and Sweeney are good enough to trade one of the top prospects in baseball. There's no reason for Borchard to be head and shoulders in terms of everyone else in terms of media interst.

I suppose you've never heard of a guy trying to maintain a prospect's confidence, especially when that prospect might need it since he's making an adjustment between sports and when that prospect has a lot of visibility and pressure on him (something Reed did not have). If anything, KW should have more of an attachment to Reed, after all - he was the guy in charge when he was drafted, whereas he may have played a role in Borchard's drafting but he was by no means the decisionmaker.


Yet Williams never seemed to be attatched to Reed. It's difficult for me to go back and find specific words KW used to discuss the two players in interviews over the last few years. Obviously there's no interview where KW claims that Borchard is his favorite or that he favors him over Reed. However, I for one and numerous other posters on this board formed that distinct impression. Reed doesn't seem to fit the organization's prototype for a player since he lacks tools, carries a lot of value in his walks, and doesn't hit for a ton of power. My personal opinion from a large number of interviews I read with Williams was that Borchard genuinely excited him unlike other prospects in the system and that he was more going through the motions talking up Reed. It was widely speculated all over the board that KW would be less likely to trade Borchard prior to the deal be it the bonus, his hype, his tools, whatever.

Once again, there is no, repeat no evidence a)that Seattle wanted or would have taken Borchard or b)that KW deemed Borchard more untouchable than Reed. It's true that there's no evidence that he DIDN'T deem him more untouchable than Reed, but that's also true for Mike Jackson, as I already noted. It's virtually impossible to prove something negatively, and it's ludicrous to use absence of negative proof as evidence of positive proof.

Implying or stating (as some have done) that KW valued Borchard over Reed has no basis in fact, and is therefore merely a weak excuse to find something to slam KW over.

Like I said, I'm forming a judgement based on a myriad of comments directly from KW and others high up in the organization as well as anonymous sources from the organization reported by the likes of Gammons/Nightengale/Rosenthal. At no point have I purported to have factual proof of the claim but it seems highly unlikely that KW would come out to the press and explain exactly how he feels about his players.

The bottom line for me has always been not including Crede because we do know that was an option with a reasonable amount of certainty. It's not really worth an immense amount of time spent arguing about Borchard because we know he could've swapped Crede which would've been no worse a decision than including Borchard. I'm speaking more towards the tendencies of KW as a GM that I've perceived over the years. Those tendencies have led me to specifically believe 1) that he tends to overvalue tools and power and undervalues walks and 2) more specifically that he has been unreasonably dedicated to Borchard even once it became clear the ship was sinking. Since Crede could've been swapped it has little to do with this deal and everything to do with factors that contribute to my overall impression of KW as a GM.

Flight #24
09-29-2004, 04:50 PM
Doled out by his predecessor when KW was head of player development. You don't think KW had massive input in the decision? What's your basis for the statement that the media inquires about Borchard the most often? Reed hit .400 last season and was the team's top prospect. Rauch was formerly minor league player of the year. Anderson and Sweeney are good enough to trade one of the top prospects in baseball. There's no reason for Borchard to be head and shoulders in terms of everyone else in terms of media interst.
It's quite simple, I've seen a number of reports (pre-trade) that discussed Borchard as an option for replacing Maggs after the season, many fewer that discussed Reed except to name him as another potential guy (no detail). I'd agree with you that there's no real reason for that to happen, but it has (and since when does the media have to do things rationally?). Borchard's history with the org has been of a much higher profile, and he's been around longer, so he's better known and more talked about.


Like I said, I'm forming a judgement based on a myriad of comments directly from KW and others high up in the organization as well as anonymous sources from the organization reported by the likes of Gammons/Nightengale/Rosenthal. At no point have I purported to have factual proof of the claim but it seems highly unlikely that KW would come out to the press and explain exactly how he feels about his players.
None of which do any sort of comparison, they only report mostly the same comment or 2 again and again. Your bias shows in your interpretation of the few comments that have been made.

The bottom line for me has always been not including Crede because we do know that was an option with a reasonable amount of certainty. It's not really worth an immense amount of time spent arguing about Borchard because we know he could've swapped Crede which would've been no worse a decision than including Borchard. I'm speaking more towards the tendencies of KW as a GM that I've perceived over the years. Those tendencies have led me to specifically believe 1) that he tends to overvalue tools and power and undervalues walks and 2) more specifically that he has been unreasonably dedicated to Borchard even once it became clear the ship was sinking. Since Crede could've been swapped it has little to do with this deal and everything to do with factors that contribute to my overall impression of KW as a GM.
Again - the Borchard piece seems to be colored by your overall views on KW. "He mis-values players, therefore he valued Borchard higher, here - I have evidence, he talked him up".

As for Crede, the team was much more likely to be a playoff team and a winning playoff team by keeping Crede than by keeping Reed. I am well aware that your view on this situation is that you don't sacrifice potential long term assets for potential short term gains, but that is something that I philosophically disagree with you on. There wasn't room for Reed this year to be a contributor in an OF of Maggs/ARow/Lee. I'd much rather take my chances on being able to pick & platoon 2 out of Crede/Uribe/Harris than having to definitely go with Uribe/Harris everyday.

balke
09-29-2004, 09:05 PM
Seattle Loves Jeremy Reed (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/192921_mbok29.html)So Reed IS on Seattle right? ANd what's this "Garcia" guys record so far? Has he won at all, or is he just slacking off like all of KW's acquisitions. Hold on, let me look it up.


Oh yeah yeah, he's doing fine. 9 wins in a Sox uni. Must be good for them, since they definitely need pitching to win and all. IS Reed HOF bound you think? I think anyone who makes a catch in the field is a HOFer nowadays. I'm going to go cry cause we don't have this Reed guy anymore.:whiner:

shagar69
09-29-2004, 09:33 PM
So Reed IS on Seattle right? ANd what's this "Garcia" guys record so far? Has he won at all, or is he just slacking off like all of KW's acquisitions. Hold on, let me look it up.


Oh yeah yeah, he's doing fine. 9 wins in a Sox uni. Must be good for them, since they definitely need pitching to win and all. IS Reed HOF bound you think? I think anyone who makes a catch in the field is a HOFer nowadays. I'm going to go cry cause we don't have this Reed guy anymore.:whiner:
garcias ERA is like 5 with the sox. he has been pretty disappointing

nodiggity59
09-29-2004, 10:17 PM
garcias ERA is like 5 with the sox. he has been pretty disappointing3.3 road ERA. I REALLY wish people would stop undervaluing our pitchers just b/c they feel like it. Hello? The Cell is a bandbox. It'll raise anybody's ERA.

Flight #24
09-29-2004, 10:36 PM
3.3 road ERA. I REALLY wish people would stop undervaluing our pitchers just b/c they feel like it. Hello? The Cell is a bandbox. It'll raise anybody's ERA.
Don't confuse the situation with facts!!! Anyone knows that we could have found equivalent or better pitchers to trade for and give up a lot less. Just look at what the Mets gave up for Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson.......oh wait.

Well, look at what the Dodgers gave up for Brad Penny.......oh wait.

:?:

Ah screw it: KW got robbed!!!

Wealz
09-30-2004, 12:15 AM
So Reed IS on Seattle right? ANd what's this "Garcia" guys record so far? Has he won at all, or is he just slacking off like all of KW's acquisitions. Hold on, let me look it up.


Oh yeah yeah, he's doing fine. 9 wins in a Sox uni. Must be good for them, since they definitely need pitching to win and all. IS Reed HOF bound you think? I think anyone who makes a catch in the field is a HOFer nowadays. I'm going to go cry cause we don't have this Reed guy anymore.:whiner:
You can't just evaluate Reed and Garcia's performances to decide whether this trade was beneficial. It's really Reed and $26M evaluated against Garcia.

gosox41
09-30-2004, 12:17 AM
So Reed IS on Seattle right? ANd what's this "Garcia" guys record so far? Has he won at all, or is he just slacking off like all of KW's acquisitions. Hold on, let me look it up.


Oh yeah yeah, he's doing fine. 9 wins in a Sox uni. Must be good for them, since they definitely need pitching to win and all. IS Reed HOF bound you think? I think anyone who makes a catch in the field is a HOFer nowadays. I'm going to go cry cause we don't have this Reed guy anymore.:whiner:
I've actually been silent for all these posts, so now I'm going to add my 2 cents in about Reed/Borchard/Garcia"

1.. The fact is the Sox had to make a deal for a pitcher because KW has been unable to develop any young starting pitching for the Sox. I'm not even speaking of an ace, just a guy who can be average. If the SOx had this all season they probably would have given up a lot less for Garcia (though with KW you never know), traded for someone else since they wouldn't have been in dire need of pitching, and they probably would have signed Garcia this offseason.

2. No one brings up the fact that KW made references last offseason of the need for grinders. He even had a quote last week about high OBP guys not being easy to get.

Well isn't Reed a high OBP, grinder that KW was looking for? Maybe the Mariners didn't want Borchard, maybe they did. I don't know. But I do know they wanted Crede instead of Reed.

Is Crede a grinder?




Bob

Man Soo Lee
09-30-2004, 03:07 AM
As for Crede, the team was much more likely to be a playoff team and a winning playoff team by keeping Crede than by keeping Reed. I am well aware that your view on this situation is that you don't sacrifice potential long term assets for potential short term gains, but that is something that I philosophically disagree with you on. There wasn't room for Reed this year to be a contributor in an OF of Maggs/ARow/Lee. I'd much rather take my chances on being able to pick & platoon 2 out of Crede/Uribe/Harris than having to definitely go with Uribe/Harris everyday. It's tough to make a case for Crede based on short term value when he was among the least productive third basemen in the league at the time. I doubt it would have been too difficult to replace him or even upgrade the position for the rest of 2004.

There was also the option of acquiring a 2B that would have allowed Uribe to play 3B.

JRIG
09-30-2004, 09:44 AM
So Reed IS on Seattle right? ANd what's this "Garcia" guys record so far? Has he won at all, or is he just slacking off like all of KW's acquisitions. Hold on, let me look it up.


Oh yeah yeah, he's doing fine. 9 wins in a Sox uni. Must be good for them, since they definitely need pitching to win and all. IS Reed HOF bound you think? I think anyone who makes a catch in the field is a HOFer nowadays. I'm going to go cry cause we don't have this Reed guy anymore.:whiner:
Go ahead and minimize the loss of a 23-year-old rookie under team control for the next six years making the league minimum for the next three, playing good defense, possessing great speed and a great eye at the plate. Not to mention having already hit .400 at a minor league level.

And in his major league career so far, batting .440/.491/.520 with 4BB and 2Ks with a 1.011 OPS. With a hit in 12 of 15 games. And multiple-hit games in 7 out of his last 8 starts.

balke
09-30-2004, 12:00 PM
Go ahead and minimize the loss of a 23-year-old rookie under team control for the next six years making the league minimum for the next three, playing good defense, possessing great speed and a great eye at the plate. Not to mention having already hit .400 at a minor league level.

And in his major league career so far, batting .440/.491/.520 with 4BB and 2Ks with a 1.011 OPS. With a hit in 12 of 15 games. And multiple-hit games in 7 out of his last 8 starts.
Okay. :D:

Feel free to start yet ANOTHER thread about losing Jeremy Reed, like noone knows what has happened. I will sit back and enjoy having Freddy Garcia for the years we are trying to win.

It's hilarious that you people are pretending that you don't believe in small sample size. You talk about the kid like he's going to break Ted Williams record. He's played in 15 games. :drool: wipe your chins.

jeremyb1
09-30-2004, 01:49 PM
Just look at what the Mets gave up for Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson.......oh wait.

Well, look at what the Dodgers gave up for Brad Penny.......oh wait.

:?:

Ah screw it: KW got robbed!!!

Well just because there happens to be one organiztion in baseball stupider than we are doesn't make KW's moves good. If the Dodgers gave up more than we did it wasn't by a lot and they got a legitimate ace not a good number two starter.

shagar69
09-30-2004, 01:55 PM
Don't confuse the situation with facts!!! Anyone knows that we could have found equivalent or better pitchers to trade for and give up a lot less. Just look at what the Mets gave up for Victor Zambrano and Kris Benson.......oh wait.

Well, look at what the Dodgers gave up for Brad Penny.......oh wait.

:?:

Ah screw it: KW got robbed!!!
and last time i checked the dodgers will be in the playoffs and we wont, again

Flight #24
09-30-2004, 02:26 PM
and last time i checked the dodgers will be in the playoffs and we wont, again
Gee - imagine that, a team that didn't lose 2 allstars for over half the season ended up doing better than one that did? What are the odds?

Flight #24
09-30-2004, 02:42 PM
Well just because there happens to be one organiztion in baseball stupider than we are doesn't make KW's moves good. If the Dodgers gave up more than we did it wasn't by a lot and they got a legitimate ace not a good number two starter.
"Legit ace"
2002: 4.66ERA / .813OPS / 1.86 K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL
2003: 4.13ERA / .739OPS / 2.46K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL
2004: 3.15ERA / .684OPS / 2.47 K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL

"Good #2"
2002: 4.39ERA / .729OPS / 2.87 K/BB in a pitchers park in the AL
2003: 4.52ERA / .751OPS / 2.03K/BB in a pitchers park in the AL
2004: 3.95ERA / .696OPS / 2.89 K/BB split between a pitchers and an extreme hitters park in the AL
(FYI - I'm too lazy to calculate WHIP for each year, but they both have a 1.22 WHIP for 2004.)

So to your distinction, I can only say :?:


As for giving up more, LA gave up one of the top relievers in all of baseball, a very good catcher, and a decent OF. Mota equates similarly to Reed given that they both are cheap for a few years yet, and Mota's already dominant whereas Reed hasn't had a chance to be (thereby making the likelihood of his success lower than Guillermo's).

The going rate for quality pitching is a lot more than you think it is. Of course, I'm sure you'll simply say "well then, don't go get quality pitching, get cheaper/worse pitching and compensate in other areas". But we disagree on the ability to win by doing that.

jeremyb1
09-30-2004, 03:22 PM
It's quite simple, I've seen a number of reports (pre-trade) that discussed Borchard as an option for replacing Maggs after the season, many fewer that discussed Reed except to name him as another potential guy (no detail). I'd agree with you that there's no real reason for that to happen, but it has (and since when does the media have to do things rationally?). Borchard's history with the org has been of a much higher profile, and he's been around longer, so he's better known and more talked about.

Well this is totally a "what came first the chicken or the egg question"? That the media is completely and utterly irrational at all times doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. It would certainly make the most sense for the media to spend the most time covering the player for which the organization offers the most soundbytes, and the player the organization seems to believe will play the most prominent role in the team's future plans. It seems pretty logical that the organiztion would play a key role in setting the tone as far as who gets the most coverage.

None of which do any sort of comparison, they only report mostly the same comment or 2 again and again. Your bias shows in your interpretation of the few comments that have been made.

I don't understand why you'd have to make a direct comparision between to objects to show some degree of favoritism. If you ask me how I like the White Sox this afternoon and I say, "The White Sox are great, they have a good, solid organization," and then next week ask me about the Cubs and I respond "I just can't say enough good things about the Cubs. I'm constantly amazed at what a wonderful GM, ballpark, and legacy the team has. They're really the best team in baseball if you ask me." Even though I didn't directly say "Personally I prefer the Cubs over the White Sox," I don't think you'd be incorrect to infer that from my comments.

I don't really think it's fair to suggest that anytime I make a subjective evaluation, it is heavily skewed by bias. I don't see what would prevent me from saying that it's clear from KW's comments Borchard has long been his favorite player in the organization and your bias shows through in your inability to accept that.

Again - the Borchard piece seems to be colored by your overall views on KW. "He mis-values players, therefore he valued Borchard higher, here - I have evidence, he talked him up".

I don't think I've ever denied that to a certain extent. I've conceeded throughout that there's no conclusive evidence here. If I'm going to point to reasons I dislike KW as a GM, this would be about reason 157 because there's no direct facts as there are with the failed Garland-Erstad deal, failing to include Crede in the Garcia deal, the Contreras deal, etc. My argument here is equal parts what I consider to be reasoned analysis of comments coming directly from the organization and the fact that it would make sense to me in light of actions made by the front office the past few seasons. So yeah, for that reason I've never meant to argue that it's difinitive evidence of KW getting caught with his pants down, there are tons of better examples.

As for Crede, the team was much more likely to be a playoff team and a winning playoff team by keeping Crede than by keeping Reed. I am well aware that your view on this situation is that you don't sacrifice potential long term assets for potential short term gains, but that is something that I philosophically disagree with you on. There wasn't room for Reed this year to be a contributor in an OF of Maggs/ARow/Lee. I'd much rather take my chances on being able to pick & platoon 2 out of Crede/Uribe/Harris than having to definitely go with Uribe/Harris everyday.

Well as I've already posted in the thread, at some point it can make sense to sacrifice long term gains for immediate gains but it entirely depends on what the immediate gains are. Crede was 1.5 wins above replacement on the season and at least a third of the season had already expired at the time of the trade. Therefore at most keeping Crede would've gained one win for us over the course of the season at the expense of maybe as many as 50 wins over replacement with Reed over the next six seasons if he performs at an All-Star calliber level. Furthermore, being slightly above replacement level is not that hard. It's entirely possible that we could've have found a player just as good or better than Crede within the organization in the form of a Jamie Burke or switching Uribe to third and cheaply acquiring a utility infielder that hits lefthanded pitching well. I mean assume we trade Crede and are left with a hole at 3B we decide we need to fill via trade. What do you think it would cost to find a comperable replacement? I sure don't think it would cost Jeremy Reed unless we were trying to trade for an All-Star calliber player in which case we would've still been far better off that we are now.

There's a lot of contradiction here in the idea that KW is the ultimate deal maker yet he couldn't trade two starters with weeks left until the trade deadline?

jeremyb1
09-30-2004, 03:40 PM
"Legit ace"
2002: 4.66ERA / .813OPS / 1.86 K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL
2003: 4.13ERA / .739OPS / 2.46K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL
2004: 3.15ERA / .684OPS / 2.47 K/BB in a pitchers park in the NL

"Good #2"
2002: 4.39ERA / .729OPS / 2.87 K/BB in a pitchers park in the AL
2003: 4.52ERA / .751OPS / 2.03K/BB in a pitchers park in the AL
2004: 3.95ERA / .696OPS / 2.89 K/BB split between a pitchers and an extreme hitters park in the AL
(FYI - I'm too lazy to calculate WHIP for each year, but they both have a 1.22 WHIP for 2004.)

So to your distinction, I can only say :?:

Well the key fact that you're leaving out here is that Penny is 26 and Garcia is 28. I realize a lot of people will scoff at that but it makes a huge difference not when looking at this season so much as the past two seasons. Pitchers are generally expected to peak at 26 or 27. That paints a picture of Penny finally reaching his prime this season and Garcia showing promise early in his career and then struggling to find consistency. That Penny posted a 4.6 ERA at 24 is completely different than Garcia posting a 4.5 ERA last season in his prime.

Furthermore, a 3.15 ERA is nearly a run lower than a 3.95 ERA. If you want to talk about bias how about calling the Cell an "extreme hitters park" and failing to use the word extreme when calling Safeco a pitchers park when it's arguably the best pitchers park in baseball. It's also worth mentioning that Penny is elligibile for free agency so the Dodgers acquired his skills for close to three times as long as we acquired Garcia's.

As for giving up more, LA gave up one of the top relievers in all of baseball, a very good catcher, and a decent OF. Mota equates similarly to Reed given that they both are cheap for a few years yet, and Mota's already dominant whereas Reed hasn't had a chance to be (thereby making the likelihood of his success lower than Guillermo's).

The going rate for quality pitching is a lot more than you think it is. Of course, I'm sure you'll simply say "well then, don't go get quality pitching, get cheaper/worse pitching and compensate in other areas". But we disagree on the ability to win by doing that.

Here's the problem with comparing Mota and Reed. Mota is a reliver and only pitches limted innings. In what's undeniably been an unbelievable season and will most likely be his best season, he's been 5.6 wins above replacement. Mark Kotsay who people use to talk down Reed has been 8 wins above replacement this season by playing a weak position CF, playing everyday, and putting up strong numbers. Also consider the fact that Reed is practically free the next three seasons and then Seattle has control of him for three more years. Mota makes considerably more than the minimum, will earn more in arbitration next season, and will be a free agent after one more season I believe. Lo Duca's a good catcher but he's quite possibly the most overrated player in baseball. We traded a pretty good catcher ourselves even if he hasn't performed very well in Seattle so far. Include the fact that the Dodgers also received Choi who their organization values very highly and happens to be a very underrated ballplayer and there's really no comparison between the two deals.

Flight #24
09-30-2004, 04:45 PM
Well the key fact that you're leaving out here is that Penny is 26 and Garcia is 28. I realize a lot of people will scoff at that but it makes a huge difference not when looking at this season so much as the past two seasons. Pitchers are generally expected to peak at 26 or 27. That paints a picture of Penny finally reaching his prime this season and Garcia showing promise early in his career and then struggling to find consistency. That Penny posted a 4.6 ERA at 24 is completely different than Garcia posting a 4.5 ERA last season in his prime.
We've had this discussion before, but Garcia's ear issues correlate pretty well with his past 2 years and the decline in performance, and coincidentally, when fixed, his performance has improved. I also disagree with you when you say it's "completely different" for a 26-yr old and a 28-yr old to post similar stats, especially when they've pitched about the same # of years in the bigs (Freddy has 1 more year than Brad).

Furthermore, a 3.15 ERA is nearly a run lower than a 3.95 ERA. If you want to talk about bias how about calling the Cell an "extreme hitters park" and failing to use the word extreme when calling Safeco a pitchers park when it's arguably the best pitchers park in baseball. It's also worth mentioning that Penny is elligibile for free agency so the Dodgers acquired his skills for close to three times as long as we acquired Garcia's.Actually, I specifically didn't use "extreme pitchers park", because Pro Player, Dodger, & Safeco are all among the best pitchers parks in baseball, whereas USCF is among the best hitters parks. I was calling attention to the outlier there. Safeco is not significantly better to pitch in than the stadia Penney's called home.



Here's the problem with comparing Mota and Reed. Mota is a reliver and only pitches limted innings. In what's undeniably been an unbelievable season and will most likely be his best season, he's been 5.6 wins above replacement. Mark Kotsay who people use to talk down Reed has been 8 wins above replacement this season by playing a weak position CF, playing everyday, and putting up strong numbers. Also consider the fact that Reed is practically free the next three seasons and then Seattle has control of him for three more years. Mota makes considerably more than the minimum, will earn more in arbitration next season, and will be a free agent after one more season I believe. Lo Duca's a good catcher but he's quite possibly the most overrated player in baseball. We traded a pretty good catcher ourselves even if he hasn't performed very well in Seattle so far. Include the fact that the Dodgers also received Choi who their organization values very highly and happens to be a very underrated ballplayer and there's really no comparison between the two deals.
First off, Mota was actually better last year (lower ERA, WHIP, OPS, higher K/BB). So while it's impossible that this is his best season, it's also unlikely that he'll decline significantly after posting 2 such excellent seasons back 2 back. Secondly, since Reed's upside is that of Mark Kotsay, whereas Mota has already proven his value (and can improve on that in a transition to closer), it's nowhere near as disparate as you'd make it out to be. Comparing LoDuca and Olivo is ridiculous. One's a solid catcher who hits well, the other's a developing catcher who hits like crap, but has a lot of potential. LoDuca being overrated doesn't factor into this debate since I'm not claiming that he's an all-star.

Finally, you can underrate Hee Seop Choi all you want, but he still sucks. All that means is that he's not the worst 1B in baseball, he might just be the 2d worst. Ross Gload has put up better #s, albiet in 100 fewer ABs.

About the only piece of your argument that makes sense is the $$$ part. Mota's more expensive than Reed and Penny's a more year away from FA than Freddy. So I'll go along with a conclusion that the Dodgers got a slightly better deal than the Sox, but it's definitely in the samme ballpark, which is what the point of all this was.

jeremyb1
09-30-2004, 05:36 PM
We've had this discussion before, but Garcia's ear issues correlate pretty well with his past 2 years and the decline in performance, and coincidentally, when fixed, his performance has improved. I also disagree with you when you say it's "completely different" for a 26-yr old and a 28-yr old to post similar stats, especially when they've pitched about the same # of years in the bigs (Freddy has 1 more year than Brad).

Yeah I don't sense us making any progress here. It's going to be incredibly hard to convince me to completely set aside Garcia's two most recent seasons, a huge portion of his career, due to an injury he was able to pitch with for two full seasons just because he had a good first half this season. That seems like a huge stretch to me especially in light of Garcia's lesser second half away from Safeco.

The evidence is quite conclusive that age is by far the number one factor in a player's development curve. That's not some "stathead" argument coming solely by BP, it's a long held argument of Baseball America, the scouting authority.

Actually, I specifically didn't use "extreme pitchers park", because Pro Player, Dodger, & Safeco are all among the best pitchers parks in baseball, whereas USCF is among the best hitters parks. I was calling attention to the outlier there. Safeco is not significantly better to pitch in than the stadia Penney's called home.

Safeco is supressing scoring by almost a tenth of a run more than Pro Player. I'd consider that substantial. If the Cell allowed that much less scoring per game it'd drop from 5th to 11th in runs allowed, it'd almost be a neutral park.

First off, Mota was actually better last year (lower ERA, WHIP, OPS, higher K/BB). So while it's impossible that this is his best season, it's also unlikely that he'll decline significantly after posting 2 such excellent seasons back 2 back. Secondly, since Reed's upside is that of Mark Kotsay, whereas Mota has already proven his value (and can improve on that in a transition to closer), it's nowhere near as disparate as you'd make it out to be. Comparing LoDuca and Olivo is ridiculous. One's a solid catcher who hits well, the other's a developing catcher who hits like crap, but has a lot of potential. LoDuca being overrated doesn't factor into this debate since I'm not claiming that he's an all-star.

Well his WARP is higher this season due to park effects, defense, the strength of relief pitching in the league, etc. but it's splitting hairs, we're talking about two great seasons for a reliever. I never said Reed's upside was equal to Kotsay I said that's a player he's been pessimistically compared to by some, there's a huge difference. His upside is more along the lines of Tony Gwynn. I'm just saying it's not at all hard for Reed to be as good as Mota most seasons and we're talking about six seasons not less than one and a half at less money. That's a massive difference in my opinion. I didn't compare Olivo and Lo Duca, I said we also traded a good catcher. I'm not arguing Olivo is as good as Lo Duca.

Finally, you can underrate Hee Seop Choi all you want, but he still sucks. All that means is that he's not the worst 1B in baseball, he might just be the 2d worst. Ross Gload has put up better #s, albiet in 100 fewer ABs.

A little light on the support there flight. Comparing Gload to Choi is going to great lenghts to blur the issue here. Choi is a 25 year old, extremely heralded as a prospect. He's nowhere near his prime. He's taking walks and hitting for power as he did in the minors. Gload is 28, all his value lies in his average, he's never hit .320 in the high minors, he has few at bats, it's really an absurd comparison. If you want to compare Choi other players how about the fact that he has a higher OPS than Shawn Green, Palmeiro, Hatteburg, Hillenbrand, Ken Harvey, and Erstad among other starting 1B. His numbers were far higher when he had more consistent playing time in Florida which should resume next season. Saying Chois sucks and is the second worst player in baseball and then making an obscure confusing comparison doesn't really get it done here. The Dodgers and to a lesser extent the Marlins considered him to be a huge key to the deal.

Flight #24
10-01-2004, 11:08 AM
A little light on the support there flight. Comparing Gload to Choi is going to great lenghts to blur the issue here. Choi is a 25 year old, extremely heralded as a prospect. He's nowhere near his prime. He's taking walks and hitting for power as he did in the minors. Gload is 28, all his value lies in his average, he's never hit .320 in the high minors, he has few at bats, it's really an absurd comparison. If you want to compare Choi other players how about the fact that he has a higher OPS than Shawn Green, Palmeiro, Hatteburg, Hillenbrand, Ken Harvey, and Erstad among other starting 1B. His numbers were far higher when he had more consistent playing time in Florida which should resume next season. Saying Chois sucks and is the second worst player in baseball and then making an obscure confusing comparison doesn't really get it done here. The Dodgers and to a lesser extent the Marlins considered him to be a huge key to the deal.
Yup, Choi is better than washed up former all-stars, journeymen, and once-promising-never-really-put-it-together young players.....that's impressive.

Choi's cheap, and has some promise, but he's not really a good player now, and he hasn't really shown that he's going to be anything more than serviceable. You're right that he's probably not the second worst palyer in baseball, but the fact that people think he's horrible and he's merely below average might technically make him underrated, but it still doesn't make him good. His OBP ranks him 12th among MLB 1Bs. His SLG is 34th. Even discounting his LA time and focusing on his FLA experience (when he was getting regular ABs), he'd still only rank 18th in SLG for MLB 1Bs. He's just not that good.

And as for the Reed-Gwynn comparison, put down the crack pipe. The reports from independent evaluators say Reed's UPSIDE is Mark Kotsay, not his likely production with an upside of a hall of fame hitter. Might as well talk about Joe Borchard's upside being Mark McGwire......

jeremyb1
10-01-2004, 01:45 PM
Yup, Choi is better than washed up former all-stars, journeymen, and once-promising-never-really-put-it-together young players.....that's impressive.

Choi's cheap, and has some promise, but he's not really a good player now, and he hasn't really shown that he's going to be anything more than serviceable. You're right that he's probably not the second worst palyer in baseball, but the fact that people think he's horrible and he's merely below average might technically make him underrated, but it still doesn't make him good. His OBP ranks him 12th among MLB 1Bs. His SLG is 34th. Even discounting his LA time and focusing on his FLA experience (when he was getting regular ABs), he'd still only rank 18th in SLG for MLB 1Bs. He's just not that good.

So we're in agreement that he's a cheap, servicable, major league first basemen at 25 without consistent playing time. Sounds extremely desirable to me. He's 25 and servicable now but he hasn't shown he's going to be anymore than servicable? How about his highly impressive minor league track record and the fact that he's performing solidly right now. Are most major leaguers now peaking at age 25 or something? Somehow I feel that if we had a young position player that was league average at worst, he'd get a little bit more respect.

And as for the Reed-Gwynn comparison, put down the crack pipe. The reports from independent evaluators say Reed's UPSIDE is Mark Kotsay, not his likely production with an upside of a hall of fame hitter. Might as well talk about Joe Borchard's upside being Mark McGwire......

Who? Where? Link? I seem to recall Jim Callis saying in the BA chat transcript of the top 100 prospects that he believed Reed best compared to Kotsay, not that Kotsay was his upside. Those are two completely different things. Statistically, Reed's second best comparison through last season is Gwynn's '83 season. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/REED19810615A.php) Hence, if Gwynn is the second most similar player to Reed up until that point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say he has the same upside as Tony Gwynn. I'm not making this up, I'm not smoking crack, Flight. There are specific reasons and sources for my evaluations of Reed which are decidely lacking in your posts.

Flight #24
10-01-2004, 01:55 PM
So we're in agreement that he's a cheap, servicable, major league first basemen at 25 without consistent playing time. Sounds extremely desirable to me. He's 25 and servicable now but he hasn't shown he's going to be anymore than servicable? How about his highly impressive minor league track record and the fact that he's performing solidly right now. Are most major leaguers now peaking at age 25 or something? Somehow I feel that if we had a young position player that was league average at worst, he'd get a little bit more respect.
What I said is that he hasn't shown that he'll be any more than serviceable. Cheap and serviceable isn't that hard to find. Maybe not that easy during the season, but certainly in the offseason. You can find a guy who's Choi-esque for slightly more than you're paying Hee, but not enough more to make a measurable difference in terms of payroll. Not to mention that I'd call his power #s below league average for his position. A decent OBP-low SLG 1B is not IMO very valuable.



Statistically, Reed's second best comparison through last season is Gwynn's '83 season. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/REED19810615A.php) Hence, if Gwynn is the second most similar player to Reed up until that point, I don't think it's unreasonable to say he has the same upside as Tony Gwynn. I'm not making this up, I'm not smoking crack, Flight. There are specific reasons and sources for my claims which are decidely lacking in your posts.
I refuse to pay BP, so I can't see the link you posted. But, if you really want to extrapolate a similarity to Gwynn's 300AB season in which he hit .309 (his 2d season in the bigs) and say that Reed therefore has any likelihood of matching Tony's 7 seasons over the rest of his career where he hit over 350, be my guest. I think it's wild extrapolation and highly unlikely to happen, but you feel free to cite BP and use that as your "reasoning".

jeremyb1
10-01-2004, 05:49 PM
What I said is that he hasn't shown that he'll be any more than serviceable. Cheap and serviceable isn't that hard to find. Maybe not that easy during the season, but certainly in the offseason. You can find a guy who's Choi-esque for slightly more than you're paying Hee, but not enough more to make a measurable difference in terms of payroll. Not to mention that I'd call his power #s below league average for his position. A decent OBP-low SLG 1B is not IMO very valuable.

Well how does one show that they'll be more than servicable other than by actually being more than servicible? It seems like common sense that most players improve during the course of their career and that most of that improvement occurs when players are Choi's age. He improved from '02 to '03, no? Did he do something there to indicate he was going to improve this season? Not really other than continue to improve and show the skills he demonstrated so well at the minor league level. He improved on his second showing through the league and most importantly because that's generally what baseball players do, improve when they're in their early to mid 20s.

Choi isn't one of a kind by any means but it's not easy to pay a guy close to the minimum to be average or above average at his position. If so most teams would employ Choi and only guys like Pujolz would get huge deals. We finished the season with players that were less than "servicable" at 3B, SS, 2B, and RF. If we could get guys that were better than half the starters at those positions easily and failed to, we made some really huge mistakes.

I refuse to pay BP, so I can't see the link you posted. But, if you really want to extrapolate a similarity to Gwynn's 300AB season in which he hit .309 (his 2d season in the bigs) and say that Reed therefore has any likelihood of matching Tony's 7 seasons over the rest of his career where he hit over 350, be my guest. I think it's wild extrapolation and highly unlikely to happen, but you feel free to cite BP and use that as your "reasoning".

I don't see what your argument here is other than you don't agree for reasons you can't or won't provide. I mean what are we talking about when we discuss "upside"? I'd define it as the best performance it would be reasonable to believe a player might achieve if everything goes right. You're somehow shocked and find it ridiculous for me to assert that if Reed reaches all of his potential and does as well as conceivable he could be comparable to Gwynn? We are talking about a 22 year old player that hit over .400 for the course of an entire season in the minor leagues over two levels. That doesn't happen every season, in fact it hardly ever happens. So I don't find it at all unreasonable to claim it would be possible for a player with an extremely rare accomplishment in the minors could potentially have an extremely rare career. Again, I'm not arguing this is the most likely outcome because that's not what upside is about. It's would could possibly happen.

PECOTA matches a player's last three seasons (in Reed's case two seasons since he was in college in '01) with the most similar points in other players career based on performance but also factors like handedness and height. So the comparison isn't based on 300 at bats but around 900 for each player. I feel like it's basis enough to argue that it's nowhere near impossible for Reed to be that type of player.

Flight #24
10-01-2004, 06:20 PM
I don't see what your argument here is other than you don't agree for reasons you can't or won't provide. I mean what are we talking about when we discuss "upside"? I'd define it as the best performance it would be reasonable to believe a player might achieve if everything goes right. You're somehow shocked and find it ridiculous for me to assert that if Reed reaches all of his potential and does as well as conceivable he could be comparable to Gwynn? We are talking about a 22 year old player that hit over .400 for the course of an entire season in the minor leagues over two levels. That doesn't happen every season, in fact it hardly ever happens. So I don't find it at all unreasonable to claim it would be possible for a player with an extremely rare accomplishment in the minors could potentially have an extremely rare career. Again, I'm not arguing this is the most likely outcome because that's not what upside is about. It's would could possibly happen.

PECOTA matches a player's last three seasons (in Reed's case two seasons since he was in college in '01) with the most similar points in other players career based on performance but also factors like handedness and height. So the comparison isn't based on 300 at bats but around 900 for each player. I feel like it's basis enough to argue that it's nowhere near impossible for Reed to be that type of player.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for Reed to be Gwynn, just highly highly unlikely. Just like it was highly highly unlikely for Joe Crede to be the 2d coming of Mike Schmidt, despite having some sterling minor league statistics, and a good first full year.

jeremyb1
10-01-2004, 06:51 PM
I'm not arguing that it's impossible for Reed to be Gwynn, just highly highly unlikely. Just like it was highly highly unlikely for Joe Crede to be the 2d coming of Mike Schmidt, despite having some sterling minor league statistics, and a good first full year.

Well I obviously don't agree with comparing Crede/Schmidt to Gwynn/Reed because there are a lot more similarities between Reed and Gwynn than the fact that they're both contact hitters that play the same position. But I'll conceed that it's not likely that Reed will become Gwynn, it's his upside, the upper most part of his potential.