PDA

View Full Version : Reed's Catch


hold2dibber
09-25-2004, 01:29 AM
Did anyone see the catch Jeremy Reed made for the Mariners against the Rangers tonight? Egads. That might have been the catch of the year. I've a feeling that feller is going to be one hell of a ball player. Sigh.

batmanZoSo
09-25-2004, 01:43 AM
Did anyone see the catch Jeremy Reed made for the Mariners against the Rangers tonight? Egads. That might have been the catch of the year. I've a feeling that feller is going to be one hell of a ball player. Sigh.

Please, no more mentioning Jeremy Reed....

santo=dorf
09-25-2004, 02:26 AM
:whocares

:threadsucks

I know I have no authority, but this doesn't belong in the Sox clubhouse.

OEO Magglio
09-25-2004, 03:04 AM
Did anyone see the catch Jeremy Reed made for the Mariners against the Rangers tonight? Egads. That might have been the catch of the year. I've a feeling that feller is going to be one hell of a ball player. Sigh.
Why isn't this in talking baseball??

soxtalker
09-25-2004, 07:46 AM
Why isn't this in talking baseball??

If I look at the description of the "Talking Baseball" forum, it is for non-Sox matters. If you view comments about Jeremy Reed as having nothing to do with the Sox, then putting it there makes sense. However, Reed is very much a part of the Sox story this season. The Garcia trade is done, but there is still some debate as to whether that was a wise move. Granted, that discussion is fading, though, if Reed takes off, it will resurface. There is also an active thread about "Can't Miss Kids" and the lack thereof coming from the Sox system. Jeremy Reed might actually be one of those kids that does come through -- even if he is on another team.

I don't look at "Talking Baseball" nearly as much as this forum, so I'm glad it's here.

SSN721
09-25-2004, 08:40 AM
:whocares

:threadsucks

I know I have no authority, but this doesn't belong in the Sox clubhouse.

I agree, with all three thoughts in this post. Does one catch make a season? THis guy has had maybe 35 ABs? Can we stop making out ballots for the hall of fame everytime he make s a good play. I did not see the catch yet myself, I just hardly think one catch is something you can judge a career by. I am sure most decent players Have made one spectacular play over the course of their career if you bother to look at all the footage of every game they play. Just dont know what the huge deal is here. We got a great pitcher which we are in dire need of out of this, I will take that over an outfielder anyday.

Kuzman
09-25-2004, 10:35 AM
that was one hell of a catch. wow

jeremyb1
09-25-2004, 02:39 PM
Does one catch make a season? THis guy has had maybe 35 ABs? Can we stop making out ballots for the hall of fame everytime he make s a good play. I did not see the catch yet myself, I just hardly think one catch is something you can judge a career by.

I absolutely agree but I don't think that argument gels with the numerous, ridiculous arguments made about how it didn't really matter that we were dealing Reed because he'd never player in the minors. Well now he has and while it's not a significant sample he's certainly showing promise. The guy has two and a half minor league seasons and it appears he's about to play his
September callup into a starting job for the Mariner's next season so it's important to note that he's not somehow regressing and falling flat on his face as some seem to think he would just because he's a minor leaguer.

balke
09-25-2004, 03:24 PM
I absolutely agree but I don't think that argument gels with the numerous, ridiculous arguments made about how it didn't really matter that we were dealing Reed because he'd never player in the minors. Well now he has and while it's not a significant sample he's certainly showing promise. The guy has two and a half minor league seasons and it appears he's about to play his
September callup into a starting job for the Mariner's next season so it's important to note that he's not somehow regressing and falling flat on his face as some seem to think he would just because he's a minor leaguer.

Did anybody really say this? Or are you misinterpreting people's posts? From what I read in the 100 Jeremy Reed is gone.....
:chickenlittle
....threads is, "good luck to him, we needed a pitcher". Sometimes when you make a trade, you give up talent to get talent... that's how all sports work.

fusillirob1983
09-25-2004, 03:59 PM
I personally don't care how Jeremy Reed does at this point, unless he somehow will be playing for the Sox in the future. The trade is done and we can't ask Doc Brown to take us back to June in his time machine to tell Kenny Williams that Reed would make a great catch at the end of the season. Also, Brian Simmons (remember him?) had a couple great catches a few years back during the little time that he spent with the Sox in the majors.

SoxFan76
09-25-2004, 04:29 PM
He was merely stating how great of a catch it was. I don't know why everybody has to get their panties in a bunch. It's a freaking baseball site. You think he could mention a great catch that happened. I know there has been too many threads calling Jeremy Reed the next Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Mickey Mantle--combined, but this was not one of em.

santo=dorf
09-25-2004, 04:40 PM
He was merely stating how great of a catch it was. I don't know why everybody has to get their panties in a bunch. It's a freaking baseball site. You think he could mention a great catch that happened. I know there has been too many threads calling Jeremy Reed the next Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Mickey Mantle--combined, but this was not one of em.
This was originally posted in the Sox Clubhouse.

Hey did anyone see that great catch by Sosa the other day? WHY OH WHY DID WE EVER GET RID OF HIM?

Hangar18
09-26-2004, 07:10 PM
Ive never seen Jeremy Reed, didnt know what He looked like, didnt watch an at bat, didnt know anything about him, except that I heard Scouts gushing about the guy, and saying what a TALENT he was, and giving the SOX kudos for finding the guy, and how he may FINALLY solve the LEADOFF/CF question the SOX had. Well, Because of the FOOLISH payroll constraints the SOX imposed on themselves, it prevented them from SOLVING their pitching questions, which in turn FORCED Them to solve them at a time when, they would HAVE TO PAY DEARLY for a pitcher, and it cost us, ARGUABLY, our BEST PROSPECT at the moment, a certain JEremy Reed. Im sick and disgusted at hearing of all the good things hes done, and hes only been in the MLB a few weeks ..................... Not that i wish ill on the guy, but I wish he fell on his face, I just have the feeling hes going to be SOMETHING SPECIAL.
And the only reason hes not on our team, because we didnt want to PAY FOR A PITCHER. What a slap in our faces ...............

munchman33
09-26-2004, 07:45 PM
Ive never seen Jeremy Reed, didnt know what He looked like, didnt watch an at bat, didnt know anything about him, except that I heard Scouts gushing about the guy, and saying what a TALENT he was, and giving the SOX kudos for finding the guy, and how he may FINALLY solve the LEADOFF/CF question the SOX had. Well, Because of the FOOLISH payroll constraints the SOX imposed on themselves, it prevented them from SOLVING their pitching questions, which in turn FORCED Them to solve them at a time when, they would HAVE TO PAY DEARLY for a pitcher, and it cost us, ARGUABLY, our BEST PROSPECT at the moment, a certain JEremy Reed. Im sick and disgusted at hearing of all the good things hes done, and hes only been in the MLB a few weeks ..................... Not that i wish ill on the guy, but I wish he fell on his face, I just have the feeling hes going to be SOMETHING SPECIAL.
And the only reason hes not on our team, because we didnt want to PAY FOR A PITCHER. What a slap in our faces ...............1. We have a major league centerfielder, who's arguably our best player (granted, we didn't know this then).

2. At the time, our system also had two other very promising centerfield prospects in Brian Anderson and Ryan Sweeney.

3. When he was traded, Reed was struggling in AAA.

4. At the time, the sox were still considering Joe Borchard as an emergency option in CF (pre-Maggs injury).

5. At the time of the trade, the emergence of Juan Uribe caused Ozzie to use Willie Harris, then hitting over .300, in centerfield.

edit:

Forgot to mention:

6. Freddy Garcia, who Kenny knew he wanted in the offseason and was going to get regardless, was not available before the season.

7. The trade was not neccessitated by the lack of a fifth starter. While we were lacking one, the trade was made because of the injury to Scott Shoenweiss. Otherwise, this deal might not include Reed.

jeremyb1
09-26-2004, 08:10 PM
Did anybody really say this? Or are you misinterpreting people's posts?

Check the archives. In the poll over 85% of posters approved of the trade and my interpretation was that the majority believed the deal was a positive because we traded prospects for a proven player not because of which prospects we traded and a reasoned analysis about their future.

balke
09-26-2004, 10:15 PM
1. We have a major league centerfielder, who's arguably our best player (granted, we didn't know this then).

2. At the time, our system also had two other very promising centerfield prospects in Brian Anderson and Ryan Sweeney.

3. When he was traded, Reed was struggling in AAA.

4. At the time, the sox were still considering Joe Borchard as an emergency option in CF (pre-Maggs injury).

5. At the time of the trade, the emergence of Juan Uribe caused Ozzie to use Willie Harris, then hitting over .300, in centerfield.

edit:

Forgot to mention:

6. Freddy Garcia, who Kenny knew he wanted in the offseason and was going to get regardless, was not available before the season.

7. The trade was not neccessitated by the lack of a fifth starter. While we were lacking one, the trade was made because of the injury to Scott Shoenweiss. Otherwise, this deal might not include Reed.
Munchman Owns all. Can we put this thing to bed now? Link us a Jeremy Reed fan page or something. 20 threads is just too many.

RichFitztightly
09-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Could somebody at least describe the catch? I haven't been able to see it.

Foulke You
09-27-2004, 03:54 PM
Bottom line was we need pitching a lot more than we need another outfielder. We traded from a strength to fill a glaring weakness. If Freddy wins us 15-17 games next year, we won't be looking at every Jeremy Reed highlight with envy, we'll be happy with what we got in the deal which I think everyone will.

Randar68
09-27-2004, 04:04 PM
2. At the time, our system also had two other very promising centerfield prospects in Brian Anderson and Ryan Sweeney.

Ryan Sweeney is not a CF prospect. He's a RF'er. You may be thinking of Chris Young.

doublem23
09-27-2004, 04:36 PM
Sammy Sosa made a ridiculous catch last week in Pittsburgh, too. He must be the greatest right fielder in baseball history, I guess.

munchman33
09-27-2004, 08:25 PM
Ryan Sweeney is not a CF prospect. He's a RF'er. You may be thinking of Chris Young.
You're correct, my bad. :o:

Flight #24
09-27-2004, 11:45 PM
Check the archives. In the poll over 85% of posters approved of the trade and my interpretation was that the majority believed the deal was a positive because we traded prospects for a proven player not because of which prospects we traded and a reasoned analysis about their future.
Most thought 1)Garcia was more valuable, and 2)Reed's translation to a ML all-star was a lot less certain than the "Reed-o-philes", and less certain than Garcia's future performance. They also recognized that for the team at the time, Garcia = much better shot at the playoffs, while Reed did not.

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 04:54 AM
Most thought 1)Garcia was more valuable, and 2)Reed's translation to a ML all-star was a lot less certain than the "Reed-o-philes", and less certain than Garcia's future performance. They also recognized that for the team at the time, Garcia = much better shot at the playoffs, while Reed did not.

Where's the support for that claim Flight? I understand you felt that way but that doesn't mean most others shared your opinion. I recall numerous posts talking about how we'd traded unproven minor leaguers who quite possibly would never to see a day in the majors simply due to their status as prospects.

Furthermore, the label "Reed-o-philes" is completely absurd. We're talking about the organizaiton's number one prospect. If you weren't a fan of Reed, I'm not sure how huge a fan you could've been of the club. Furthermore, objective evidence such as Baseball Prospectus rating Reed the number two prospect in all of baseball last offseason behind Mauer firmly establish the fact that he was regarded very highly nationally. The label alone implies fans overating Reed when objective facts exist to coroborate viewing Reed as an extremely valuable commodity.

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 11:59 AM
Furthermore, the label "Reed-o-philes" is completely absurd. We're talking about the organizaiton's number one prospect. If you weren't a fan of Reed, I'm not sure how huge a fan you could've been of the club. Furthermore, objective evidence such as Baseball Prospectus rating Reed the number two prospect in all of baseball last offseason behind Mauer firmly establish the fact that he was regarded very highly nationally. The label alone implies fans overating Reed when objective facts exist to coroborate viewing Reed as an extremely valuable commodity.
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:
How many years was Borchard considered our top prospect? Wasn't Crede once our top prospect? Scott Ruffcorn?

I don't know about you Jeremy, but when we took 2 out of 3 from the Cubs and knowing that our next 3 game series would be on the road in Minnesota, I thought this team had a good chance to get into the playoffs. When we got Freddy Garcia, I thought our odds got even better and we went on to sweep the Twins. At that point, I don't think anyone but the "Reed-o-philes" were thinking about Jeremy Reed. Get over it already.

balke
09-28-2004, 12:32 PM
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:
How many years was Borchard considered our top prospect? Wasn't Crede once our top prospect? Scott Ruffcorn?

I don't know about you Jeremy, but when we took 2 out of 3 from the Cubs and knowing that our next 3 game series would be on the road in Minnesota, I thought this team had a good chance to get into the playoffs. When we got Freddy Garcia, I thought our odds got even better and we went on to sweep the Twins. At that point, I don't think anyone but the "Reed-o-philes" were thinking about Jeremy Reed. Get over it already.He already answered this one Santo What we really needed was more Offense, and a backend pitcher. Good lord. I'm sorry to see talent go, but not when it helps the team. It's like b****ing about the price of bottled water, when the other choice is water in the toilet... or something like that (not good with analogies today) Sure the water COULD be clean, and CHEAP, but let's not take our chances? .......no that doesn't work.

whatever, We were in a tight spot, and needed a pitcher, move on.

kittle42
09-28-2004, 01:01 PM
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:
How many years was Borchard considered our top prospect? Wasn't Crede once our top prospect? Scott Ruffcorn?

Get over it already.
POTW.

nodiggity59
09-28-2004, 01:17 PM
I hate Jeremy Reed. This was not always the case, as I greatly looked forward to seeing him in a White Sox uni. That being said, I was and am in favor of the Garcia deal. When reed was dealt, I wished him luck and sent him on his way.

Now, I hate him b/c the Reed-o-philes will not stop blindly criticizing the deal in order to satisfy their larger anti KW agenda.

I will type the following section all in caps because it is the last time I will enter into this argument:

NO AMOUNT OF SUCCESS REED HAS CAN CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS DEAL WAS GOOD B/C IT IMPROVED OUR TEAM THIS YEAR AND IN THE FUTURE IN OUR GREATEST AREA OF NEED. HECK, THE BRAVES TRADED AWAY JASON SCHIMDT FOR 2 YEARS OF NEAGLE. WE GET AT LEAST 3.5 YEARS OF FREDDY. KW TOOK A CHANCE AT WINNING THIS YEAR AND IMPROVED THE TEAM IN THE LONG TERM. A MOMENTUS DEAL. IF REED BECOMES A HOF IT WON'T MAKE THE DEAL BAD B/C THERE'S NO WAY TO PREDICT THAT. FREDDY HAS JUST OF GOOD OF A CHANCE TO RATTLE OFF 10 GREAT YEARS.

Flight #24
09-28-2004, 01:36 PM
Where's the support for that claim Flight? I understand you felt that way but that doesn't mean most others shared your opinion. I recall numerous posts talking about how we'd traded unproven minor leaguers who quite possibly would never to see a day in the majors simply due to their status as prospects.

Furthermore, the label "Reed-o-philes" is completely absurd. We're talking about the organizaiton's number one prospect. If you weren't a fan of Reed, I'm not sure how huge a fan you could've been of the club. Furthermore, objective evidence such as Baseball Prospectus rating Reed the number two prospect in all of baseball last offseason behind Mauer firmly establish the fact that he was regarded very highly nationally. The label alone implies fans overating Reed when objective facts exist to coroborate viewing Reed as an extremely valuable commodity.
My impression was that while there were some in the "any prospect is worth nothing" camp, the majority understood that we gave something to get something, but that what we got was of equal overall value, and in terms of team need, actually of greater value than what we gave up. The "prospects are worth nothing" gang may have been more vocal (although usually less rational), but just as how the FOBB get tarred by the habibharu's of the WSI world, the pro-Garcia faction may be a bit colored by those who want only all-star veterans on the team.

As far as the "Reed-o-phile" label, I'm not using it to bucket anyone who thought Reed was valuable (especially since I admit that he was), but those who were convinced that he was virtually guaranteed to be an all-star or near all-star caliber player. He was valuable, but he was no Albert Pujols/Frank Thomas/Mark Prior type of prospect, whose success at the ML level was virtually a certainty.

Flight #24
09-28-2004, 01:38 PM
whatever, We were in a tight spot, and needed a pitcher, move on.
Add to that that whereas Garcia would contribute significantly to a playoff run, Reed would contribute mightily to one of his own....in AAA since he'd never see the bigs behind Lee/ARow/Maggs.

Unless of course you want to argue the conspiracy theory that KW knew Maggs was done for the year from the instant he ran into Willie Harris.....

RichFitztightly
09-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Could somebody at least describe the catch? I haven't been able to see it.
Please? Anybody? Beuller?

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 03:29 PM
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:
How many years was Borchard considered our top prospect? Wasn't Crede once our top prospect? Scott Ruffcorn?

Which is why I've continually insisted on evaluating players on more objective national sources. I've probably had fifty posts insisting that the mere fact that Reed was the team's top prospect completely obscures how good of a prospect he actually was and that there's no comparison between his ability and Ruffcorn's, Borchard's, etc.

My point here was not about Reed's ability it was about fans' approach towards the team. Reed was the best prospect we had in a long time, any fan should've been sad to see him go, like or dislike the deal just as I was happy to see Garcia on the roster even though I ultimately did not like the trade.

Furthermore, why am I a whiner? Do you just want me to stop posting about the trade? It's unacceptable for me to voice my opinion when others broach the subject first? This isn't pertinent to this message board?

I don't know about you Jeremy, but when we took 2 out of 3 from the Cubs and knowing that our next 3 game series would be on the road in Minnesota, I thought this team had a good chance to get into the playoffs. When we got Freddy Garcia, I thought our odds got even better and we went on to sweep the Twins. At that point, I don't think anyone but the "Reed-o-philes" were thinking about Jeremy Reed. Get over it already.

I don't understand what that means. Fans should only ever care about the team's chances in the current season and not the future? If Selig announces tomorrow we're moving to Florida in '06, I should still only care about whether we make the playoffs in '05?

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 03:35 PM
My impression was that while there were some in the "any prospect is worth nothing" camp, the majority understood that we gave something to get something, but that what we got was of equal overall value, and in terms of team need, actually of greater value than what we gave up. The "prospects are worth nothing" gang may have been more vocal (although usually less rational), but just as how the FOBB get tarred by the habibharu's of the WSI world, the pro-Garcia faction may be a bit colored by those who want only all-star veterans on the team.

As far as the "Reed-o-phile" label, I'm not using it to bucket anyone who thought Reed was valuable (especially since I admit that he was), but those who were convinced that he was virtually guaranteed to be an all-star or near all-star caliber player. He was valuable, but he was no Albert Pujols/Frank Thomas/Mark Prior type of prospect, whose success at the ML level was virtually a certainty.

I actually felt that perhaps the "prospects are worth nothing" camp were less vocal. I perceived that there were a lot of people who just don't really follow
the team's prospects, didn't really grasp the ability to differentiate between the calliber of prospects, and therefore weren't too concerned with what we gave up. They wouldn't necessarily come out and say prospects are worth nothing but would think "Eh, it's more or less a crapshoot anyways. Look at Ruffcorn" without carefully considering the facts in this particular situation.

As far as Reed, he wasn't on the Thomas/Prior/Upton this season/Mauer level but very few guys are. Reed was as close as you can get without being one of those guys. Reed was a better prospect that Pujolz who never played above A ball in the minors and wasn't on a ton of people's radars when he took the game by storm in his rookie season.

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 04:04 PM
Do you just want me to stop posting about the trade?
YES! You along with others. And clean up that signature while you are at it young man! :D:
I don't understand what that means. Fans should only ever care about the team's chances in the current season and not the future? If Selig announces tomorrow we're moving to Florida in '06, I should still only care about whether we make the playoffs in '05?Jeremy, my team hasn't won a World Series in 87 years. I want to win ASAP. Take a look at our pitching staff in May, we were near the top of the league except for our fifth starter. We were in first place, but we needed another pitcher. Our number 4 went down in June and we STILL needed a starter! If you had a better idea of acquiring a pitcher at the time, I would like to hear it. Brian Cahman said up to 15 teams (15!!) were interested in Garcia. We made the best offer and we won the contest.

Don't compare going to the playoffs to relocating the franchise. We aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 05:32 PM
YES![size=2]I want to win ASAP. Take a look at our pitching staff in May, we were near the top of the league except for our fifth starter. We were in first place, but we needed another pitcher. Our number 4 went down in June and we STILL needed a starter! If you had a better idea of acquiring a pitcher at the time, I would like to hear it. Brian Cahman said up to 15 teams (15!!) were interested in Garcia. We made the best offer and we won the contest.

Don't compare going to the playoffs to relocating the franchise. We aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Well this has been discussed to death also, but I see no reason to assume Garcia was going to give us a high chance of winning the World Series. No team is anywhere close to have a high probability even if you make the playoffs! It's entirely possible that a young core including Reed and Olivo would give us a better chance of winning the World Series in the near future.

shagar69
09-28-2004, 05:34 PM
Well this has been discussed to death also, but I see no reason to assume Garcia was going to give us a high chance of winning the World Series. No team is anywhere close to have a high probability even if you make the playoffs! It's entirely possible that a young core including Reed and Olivo would give us a better chance of winning the World Series in the near future.very possible given the way that freddy has been pitching with us: ERA close to 5

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 05:51 PM
:threadblows:

jeremyb1
09-28-2004, 06:04 PM
:threadblows:

Haha. Always great for when you run out of arguments, eh?

santo=dorf
09-28-2004, 09:17 PM
Haha. Always great for when you run out of arguments, eh?:troll
I made my points and I'm sick of hearing about Reed.

Seattle didn't want Borchard, they wanted Crede. We couldn't give up two of our everyday starters while we are in the middle of a divisonal race. Having Jose play SS, Willie at 2B, and Uribe at 3B everyday would kill us epescially against lefties. We would also have noone on the bench that could fill these spots. You came up with the great idea of calling up Kelly Dransfelt to take over the duties of Juan Uribe. This team had one of the best 1-4 pitching staffs in the majors in May, but we still had a gaping hole at our #5 spot, and then our #4 went down. WE HAD TO GET A STARTER WHEN SCHOENEWEIS WENT DOWN! KW immediately got Freedy Garcia. He told the Mariners to do the deal at that time otherwise he would get Russ Ortiz instead. Since we couldn't give up Crede, and we were competing against the Yankees, Red Sox and 13 other teams (according to Brian Cashman) to get Freddy Garcia. He made the best offer and we won the prize. Of course it is much easier to llok back at the trade now and say, "We could've used Reed and just signed Freddy in the offseason." There's no reason to rub the **** into some of the faces of the people whom defended the trade by keeping track of all his stats, or starting a thread everytime he catches a flyball. I along with many others wanted to win THIS YEAR! We'll wait and see how many WS Olivo and Reed bring to the Mariners. I'm willing to bet they'll bring the same amount that the Sox have won in the past 87 years.

Get over it already. :whiner: :dtroll:
:threadsucks

jeremyb1
09-29-2004, 12:04 AM
Oops. Double post.

jeremyb1
09-29-2004, 12:05 AM
I made my points and I'm sick of hearing about Reed.

Then maybe you should stop posting in this thread and reading threads in the talking baseball section with the name "Reed" in the subject header. There's no reason to keep making obnoxious posts with "whiner", "troll", and "this thread sucks" in them because you don't have anything to say. What's name calling adding to the conversation? It's petty and childish. I just don't see the point.


Seattle didn't want Borchard, they wanted Crede.

Which we've determined is fact because...you say so? Or because KW would be stupid to trade Reed instead of Borchard and KW isn't stupid so Borchard wasn't included? Looks like we're looking at either a complete lack of evidence or circular logic. Either way you're not offering any conclusive evidence or any evidence here for that matter.

We couldn't give up two of our everyday starters while we are in the middle of a divisonal race. Having Jose play SS, Willie at 2B, and Uribe at 3B everyday would kill us epescially against lefties. We would also have noone on the bench that could fill these spots. You came up with the great idea of calling up Kelly Dransfelt to take over the duties of Juan Uribe.

You're honestly sitting here and telling me you'd rather trade the best position prospect the team has had for 10 years than try to replace a .230 hitting 3B with mediocre power and no abilities to draw a walk, let Dransfeldt batt 150 times, or deal with the impossible task of adding a utility infielder. We could add Everett and Alomar but there's no way we could've found a capable utility infielder. Huh?!

This team had one of the best 1-4 pitching staffs in the majors in May, but we still had a gaping hole at our #5 spot, and then our #4 went down. WE HAD TO GET A STARTER WHEN SCHOENEWEIS WENT DOWN!

And it had to be a number one starter, and it had to be Freddy Garcia, and we had to trade Reed and Olivo our two best young position players? That's a bit of a jump in my opinion.

KW immediately got Freedy Garcia. He told the Mariners to do the deal at that time otherwise he would get Russ Ortiz instead. Since we couldn't give up Crede, and we were competing against the Yankees, Red Sox and 13 other teams (according to Brian Cashman) to get Freddy Garcia. He made the best offer and we won the prize.

Cashman, who was the second highest bidder offering Navarro and a bunch of middling prospects. The second best offer was a catcher that's not as good or advanced as Olivo and several prospects who most likely weren't even as good as Morse. If there were 11 other teams bidding they weren't offering anything of value to get blown out of the water by that weak Yankees offer.

Of course it is much easier to llok back at the trade now and say, "We could've used Reed and just signed Freddy in the offseason."

Well it was easy for me immediately after the trade when I made the identical argument.

There's no reason to rub the **** into some of the faces of the people whom defended the trade by keeping track of all his stats, or starting a thread everytime he catches a flyball.

Like it doesn't go both ways? Jabrch started a thread every week for a while screaming about Olivo's struggles with the M's, how well Garcia was pitching for us, etc. I don't recall a single post questioning the legitimacy of those threads. At least these threads haven't been insulting like the threads critisizing "stead heads" and "FOBB". Furthermore, they've been in the talking baseball forum. What is the purpose of this forum if it's not used to discuss players and teams other than the Sox?

I along with many others wanted to win THIS YEAR! We'll wait and see how many WS Olivo and Reed bring to the Mariners. I'm willing to bet they'll bring the same amount that the Sox have won in the past 87 years.

I wanted to win this season to but there's not a trade you can make to do so. Nothing guarantees you wins and if you're unwilling to conceed that at some point the long term success of the organization is more important than moves that will give you a marginal chance of improving in the current season, I can't understand where you're coming from. I mean here it is. It happened. We made the moves to win the World Series this season and we didn't which will be the result 9 out of 10 times you take a "win now" approach. What do we do now? Do you have confidence in this team's ability to win next seasons and in the next three seasons? I do not.

santo=dorf
09-29-2004, 12:33 AM
Then maybe you should stop posting in this thread and reading threads in the talking baseball section with the name "Reed" in the subject header. There's no reason to keep making obnoxious posts with "whiner", "troll", and "this thread sucks" in them because you don't have anything to say. What's name calling adding to the conversation? It's petty and childish. I just don't see the point.Jeremy, this thread was originally in the Sox clubhouse. You were trolling with your "Haha. Always great for when you run out of arguments, eh?" comment.

Which we've determined is fact because...you say so? Or because KW would be stupid to trade Reed instead of Borchard and KW isn't stupid so Borchard wasn't included? Looks like we're looking at either a complete lack of evidence or circular logic. Either way you're not offering any conclusive evidence or any evidence here for that matter..No. I searched the internet for articles about the trade from a national perspective and from Seattle's perspective. All I saw from the Seattle perspective was that the Mariners were asking for Crede. From BA, I saw that the writer was also thinking that the Mariners weren't interested in a corner outfielder like Joe Borchard.


You're honestly sitting here and telling me you'd rather trade the best position prospect the team has had for 10 years than try to replace a .230 hitting 3B with mediocre power and no abilities to draw a walk, let Dransfeldt batt 150 times, or deal with the impossible task of adding a utility infielder. We could add Everett and Alomar but there's no way we could've found a capable utility infielder. Huh?!.Give me some names of guys we could've traded for, and whom we would've given up. I'd trade 10 more top prospects for 10 established players in the middle of a pennant chase any year. I have no faith in our minor league system.

And it had to be a number one starter, and it had to be Freddy Garcia, and we had to trade Reed and Olivo our two best young position players? That's a bit of a jump in my opinion.Well, I'm sick of settling for less and I'm gald that we have an former all-star pitcher that has finished 9th and 3rd place for the CY Young as part of our rotation.


Cashman, who was the second highest bidder offering Navarro and a bunch of middling prospects. The second best offer was a catcher that's not as good or advanced as Olivo and several prospects who most likely weren't even as good as Morse. If there were 11 other teams bidding they weren't offering anything of value to get blown out of the water by that weak Yankees offer.I read from a Seattle newspaper that the Mets could have had Freddy Garcia if they were willing to trade David Wright. The Mariners weren't going to re-sign Freddy after this year, and their season was going nowhere. It's not like we were their only trade option.

Like it doesn't go both ways? Jabrch started a thread every week for a while screaming about Olivo's struggles with the M's, how well Garcia was pitching for us, etc. I don't recall a single post questioning the legitimacy of those threads. At least these threads haven't been insulting like the threads critisizing "stead heads" and "FOBB". Furthermore, they've been in the talking baseball forum. What is the purpose of this forum if it's not used to discuss players and teams other than the Sox? .IIRC, jabrch started a thread that called out all of the KW bashers, and used Reed's struggles in Tacoma, and Olivo sturggles in Seattle to show that KW was not ripped off in the trade. There were threads that were started in the Sox clubhouse about Miguel's kidney stones, and how he was cheering for the Sox to win the division, but were moved to the "talking baseball" forum.

I wanted to win this season to but there's not a trade you can make to do so. Nothing guarantees you wins and if you're unwilling to conceed that at some point the long term success of the organization is more important than moves that will give you a marginal chance of improving in the current season, I can't understand where you're coming from. I mean here it is. It happened. We made the moves to win the World Series this season and we didn't which will be the result 9 out of 10 times you take a "win now" approach. What do we do now? Do you have confidence in this team's ability to win next seasons and in the next three seasons? I do not.Trading for Freddy Garcia gave us a much better chance at winning this year. The team that is playing right now is not the same team that was winning and leading the division back in May and June. I still think we can compete over the next 3 years by building our team around pitching, not hitting. I see us trading either Lee or Konerko and using that money to sign a quality free agent pitcher. How many games do you think a rotation of:

Mark Buehrle
Freddy Garcia
Odalis Perez/Russ Ortiz
Jose Contreras
Jon Garland

can win?

jeremyb1
09-29-2004, 01:31 AM
Jeremy, this thread was originally in the Sox clubhouse. You were trolling with your "Haha. Always great for when you run out of arguments, eh?" comment.

A mistake made by Dibber who's never been known as a "KW Basher" around these parts. Regardless, the thread remained there for next to no time. It's been in this thread for several pages. It's really that upsetting to you that the thread was in the Sox forum for a few hours before it was relocated? Reed threads are supposed to be in this forum and have consistently been placed in this forum by mods. I don't understand why it's so painfully hard for you to avoid them. We're talking about a heavily debated trade from just a few months ago. People want to talk about it, if they can't talk about it in this forum the board's not serving it's purpose.

With my comments, I was just responding to your "this thread blows" post. It was pointless and added nothing to the conversation. There's just no reason for it. If it were up to me I'd get rid of "this thread blows" and "this thread sucks". If you don't like a thread ignore it. If you have a problem with the arguments contained within explain how they're faulty.

No. I searched the internet for articles about the trade from a national perspective and from Seattle's perspective. All I saw from the Seattle perspective was that the Mariners were asking for Crede. From BA, I saw that the writer was also thinking that the Mariners weren't interested in a corner outfielder like Joe Borchard.

We already talked about the BA link. Sheehan purports to have no knowledge of the talks so it doesn't shed any light. You've changed not discovering any evidence that Borchard could have been included to a definitive statement that Seattle would not have done the deal with Borchard which is not accurate.

Give me some names of guys we could've traded for, and whom we would've given up. I'd trade 10 more top prospects for 10 established players in the middle of a pennant chase any year. I have no faith in our minor league system.

Well the argument I've seen advanced nearly every time is that Diaz/Munoz/Cotts/Rauch were killing us in the five spot and we needed to do something or that was going to drag us down. My first suggestion would've been to give one of them a reasonable shot at holding down the job instead of one or two starts. But...if what we needed was simply to remove those players from the equation there are certainly number five starters that can be had without trading your top prospects. Someone like Halama or Lidle in the five spot would've given us a chance to win and would've cost next to nothing.

I feel like your comments about minor leaguers hurt your credibility quite a bit. We've obviously developed Thomas, Crede (who you would've refused to put in the deal), Olivo, Garland, Buehrle, Cotts, Adkins, Ordonez, and Lee. Furthermore, you seem like you're refusing to distinguish between minor leaguers of various ability. If you don't trust our system then why are we even debating this? In your opinion any trade of minor leaguers for a proven player is a good deal no matter what.

I read from a Seattle newspaper that the Mets could have had Freddy Garcia if they were willing to trade David Wright. The Mariners weren't going to re-sign Freddy after this year, and their season was going nowhere. It's not like we were their only trade option.

Hehe. But the Met's WOULDN'T give up Wright. You're correct we weren't their only option but if you believe Cashman and Bavasi no other team's offer was in the same ballpark as ours.

IIRC, jabrch started a thread that called out all of the KW bashers, and used Reed's struggles in Tacoma, and Olivo sturggles in Seattle to show that KW was not ripped off in the trade. There were threads that were started in the Sox clubhouse about Miguel's kidney stones, and how he was cheering for the Sox to win the division, but were moved to the "talking baseball" forum.

Ok. That seems to gel with my argument.

Trading for Freddy Garcia gave us a much better chance at winning this year. The team that is playing right now is not the same team that was winning and leading the division back in May and June.

It may have given us a much better chance but by no means did it give us anywhere near a good chance at winning the World Series because such a thing does not exist in one season.

I still think we can compete over the next 3 years by building our team around pitching, not hitting. I see us trading either Lee or Konerko and using that money to sign a quality free agent pitcher. How many games do you think a rotation of:

Mark Buehrle
Freddy Garcia
Odalis Perez/Russ Ortiz
Jose Contreras
Jon Garland

can win?

Haha. Well I'm waiting to see Perez/Ortiz and I feel like taking one of the team's top run producers out of the mix (in addition to Maggs) may cause some offensive struggles. Right now we're built around pitching except we haven't pitched that well with our revamped rotation in the second half and we don't have any money to spend without losing one of our best players. That doesn't seem like a good situation for improvement in my opinion.

Kogs35
09-29-2004, 01:41 AM
any 1 sees reeds catch tonight? oh wait it was an error!!!!! bwahahahahahahahaha

kittle42
09-29-2004, 10:45 AM
the Met's WOULDN'T give up Wright.
C'mon, jeremy - disappointing. :smile:

kittle42
09-29-2004, 10:46 AM
any 1 sees reeds catch tonight? oh wait it was an error!!!!! bwahahahahahahahaha
If he was playing for the Sox, there would be a whole thread on how he is a hack in the outfield right now.

Kogs35
09-29-2004, 11:20 AM
If he was playing for the Sox, there would be a whole thread on how he is a hack in the outfield right now.
thats right so who gives a flying fox about jeremy reed anymore.

santo=dorf
09-29-2004, 04:31 PM
....
Jeremy, I've searched for trade analysis from Seattle's perspective on the Freddy Garcia trade. I've seen many more reports saying Crede was the one that Seattle wanted instead of Reed. I also saw a report from the U.S.S Mariner in which the writer insists that Reed was wanted by Seattle from the beginning. I could understand why it make some sense for Borchard to be traded to Seattle, but if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you rather have Reed? Why didn't Seattle want Jackson or Jon Rauch? They could've used some pitching.

It figures your ideal replacement starter would be crappy Jon Rauch, some other young minor leaguer, or a couple of mediocre pitchers whom used to play for Beane. Lidle was traded for three players after the non-waiver trade deadline. What do you think his price would've been back in the middle of June? I don't know how good these minor league players are that Philly traded, but judging from the reactions of KW trading 3 minor leaguers for an all-star and cash, and another 3 for a future HOFamer and cash, I could only imagine that the board would crash with "KW bashers" ripping him for trading three minor leaguers for a career .500 pitcher.

In regards to the guys you listed from our farm system, I haven't thought much of our farm system since I started paying attention to it in 2001. I didn't start looking at the Sox's minor league stats until local boy, Kris Honel, was drafted by the Sox. So when I talk about not being able to develop players whom can make an impact when they are called up, I'm only referring to recent history. Cotts and Adkins haven't been that great this year, and they are products of the A's farm system. Garland and Olivo weren't;t drafted by us, but spent considerable time in our minor leagues, but they have turned out OK. I've been very disappointed with Crede because he hasn't lived up to the hype, but I would rather keep him on our team at the time of the Garcia trade because,a.) we didn't have much depth at our infield, and b.) Crede has put up monster 2nd half numbers in his previous two years in the majors.