PDA

View Full Version : Ray Durham or Jon Adkins?


ja1022
09-30-2004, 03:03 PM
Who'd you rather have? As I recall, Durham was a free agent to be when the Sox traded him (along with cash) for Adkins in '02. Although Ray was hurt for a good chunk of last year he's been a productive player for a long time and on his way to 90+ runs scored, 60+ rbi, and .360+/.280+ obp/avg. again this year. For the Sox he was a perennial .285, 100 run guy with average/above average defense. At the 5 million he earned this year, how'd he have looked in the lead off or two hole for the Sox this year?

balke
09-30-2004, 03:05 PM
Wow.

Unregistered
09-30-2004, 03:07 PM
:threadsucks

The question makes no sense. It wasn't one or the other, it was trying to get something for a player we weren't going to re-sign. These hindsight threads are really tiring.

Kilroy
09-30-2004, 03:29 PM
The question makes no sense. It wasn't one or the other, it was trying to get something for a player we weren't going to re-sign. These hindsight threads are really tiring.
That's right. Ray Durham was one of my favorite Sox players, but he's not worth the 7.2 mil. he's getting from the Giants. I hated to see him go, but I would have hated to see the Sox sign him for that kind of money even more.

Nellie_Fox
09-30-2004, 03:35 PM
These hindsight threads are really tiring.I absolutely disagree. There is nothing wrong with going back and looking at a trade a couple of years later to see how it worked out. The value of a trade is extensively discussed at the time it's made, but the real test is how it works out over the long haul.

I liked Durham; he was unpopular with a lot of posters here at the time, particularly for weakness going to his right defensively, IIRC.

Unregistered
09-30-2004, 03:43 PM
I absolutely disagree. There is nothing wrong with going back and looking at a trade a couple of years later to see how it worked out. The value of a trade is extensively discussed at the time it's made, but the real test is how it works out over the long haul.

I liked Durham; he was unpopular with a lot of posters here at the time, particularly for weakness going to his right defensively, IIRC. I was referring to threads like these - ones that criticize trades that were salary dumps or situations in which we were dealing a player we had no intention of signing in hopes to get ANYTHING in return, let alone a somewhat servicable reliever. We traded Durham to a team who used him for 3 months for a pitcher currently on our ML roster.

Not a complete failure, I'd figure.

ja1022
09-30-2004, 04:09 PM
I was referring to threads like these - ones that criticize trades that were salary dumps or situations in which we were dealing a player we had no intention of signing in hopes to get ANYTHING in return, let alone a somewhat servicable reliever. We traded Durham to a team who used him for 3 months for a pitcher currently on our ML roster.

Not a complete failure, I'd figure.
Where did I criticize the trade? I have no problem with the trade under the circumstances, as I said, Durham was a free agent to be. This being a site for baseball discussions regarding the White Sox, I was just wondering, given the Sox instability at second (Uribe, Harris, Graffanino, Alomar), and lack of offensive production there, if re signing Durham may have been a better alternative after all. And your right, hindsight is 20/20. Ain't it great?

jackbrohamer
09-30-2004, 04:26 PM
It's another indictment of Reinsdorf's BS business plan for the Sox: Durham was a popular player who came through the system and -- despite many faults --- played well. The Sox didn't even bother to try to negotiate with him after the season, and in true White Flag fashion dumped him at the trade deadline for whatever they could pick up.

And Durham's started for playoff-caliber teams ever since. While the Sox still have a hole filled partly by Willie Harris who, um, looks like Durham. Except at the plate.

Ol' No. 2
09-30-2004, 04:34 PM
It's another indictment of Reinsdorf's BS business plan for the Sox: Durham was a popular player who came through the system and -- despite many faults --- played well. The Sox didn't even bother to try to negotiate with him after the season, and in true White Flag fashion dumped him at the trade deadline for whatever they could pick up.

And Durham's started for playoff-caliber teams ever since. While the Sox still have a hole filled partly by Willie Harris who, um, looks like Durham. Except at the plate.Not quite. The Sox also saved his $7M salary, which they used the next year to acquire Bartolo Colon. Or would you rather have kept Todd Ritchie? That's why these comparisons never make any sense. You can't just ignore the payroll ramifications. When Colon left, that $7M went to pay other players. If you want Durham back, subtract Carlos Lee, or Paul Konerko or Mark Buehrle or someone else making that amount of money. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a great idea.

Unregistered
09-30-2004, 04:36 PM
Where did I criticize the trade? I have no problem with the trade under the circumstances, as I said, Durham was a free agent to be. This being a site for baseball discussions regarding the White Sox, I was just wondering, given the Sox instability at second (Uribe, Harris, Graffanino, Alomar), and lack of offensive production there, if re signing Durham may have been a better alternative after all. And your right, hindsight is 20/20. Ain't it great?
First off, the word "criticize" doesn't mean you had a problem with it:

Main Entry: crit·i·cize http://mirriamwebster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?critic08.wav=criticize'))
Pronunciation: 'kri-t&-"sIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cized; -ciz·ing
intransitive senses : to act as a critic (http://mirriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=critic)
transitive senses
1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE (http://mirriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evaluate)
2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of
- crit·i·ciz·able http://mirriamwebster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?critic09.wav=criticizable')) /-"sI-z&-b&l/ adjective
- crit·i·ciz·er noun
And second, you asked who we'd rather have, Adkins or Durham. That implies that the trade could have just not been made and we'd still have Durham - completely ignoring the actual reason for the trade, which was that we had no intention of signing him anyway and were just hoping to get ANYTHING for a FA that was already halfway out the door.

JoseCanseco6969
09-30-2004, 05:18 PM
Who'd you rather have? As I recall, Durham was a free agent to be when the Sox traded him (along with cash) for Adkins in '02. Although Ray was hurt for a good chunk of last year he's been a productive player for a long time and on his way to 90+ runs scored, 60+ rbi, and .360+/.280+ obp/avg. again this year. For the Sox he was a perennial .285, 100 run guy with average/above average defense. At the 5 million he earned this year, how'd he have looked in the lead off or two hole for the Sox this year?
I was waiting for one of these moronic "Who would you rather have" idiotic, hindsight, nonsense threads that deal with the Adkins Durham trade. Is Durham still on the A's? Who cares! We have a decent RP in Adkins who might have potential instead of an overpriced, injury prone, bad defense 2B in Durham.
Give me Uribe and his low salary anyday versus "Who gives a damn Durham."

jackbrohamer
10-01-2004, 07:55 AM
Not quite. The Sox also saved his $7M salary, which they used the next year to acquire Bartolo Colon. Or would you rather have kept Todd Ritchie? That's why these comparisons never make any sense. You can't just ignore the payroll ramifications. When Colon left, that $7M went to pay other players. If you want Durham back, subtract Carlos Lee, or Paul Konerko or Mark Buehrle or someone else making that amount of money. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such a great idea.

Actually, it blew a hole in 2B that they have been unable to fill since. Your logic is very similar to Reinsdorf's; we have to skimp at one position to fill another. This approach is what produces nothing more than a .500 winning percentage in the worst division in baseball.

What irks me is that the Sox never even bothered to keep Durham and try to negotiate with him at the end of the season. Like they did with Ventura. And like they will do with Ordonez.

voodoochile
10-01-2004, 08:20 AM
:reinsy
"Jon Adkins and $6M. Why am I the only one who sees the beautiful logic here?"

:KW
"You are so right, Mr. Reinsdorf."

:walnuts
"Personally, I thought it was a great decision."

:reinsy
"Anyone want a first baseman? I could use some more middle relief."

:KW
"Working on it now, sir."

:walnuts
":o:"

Ol' No. 2
10-01-2004, 08:43 AM
Actually, it blew a hole in 2B that they have been unable to fill since. Your logic is very similar to Reinsdorf's; we have to skimp at one position to fill another. This approach is what produces nothing more than a .500 winning percentage in the worst division in baseball.

What irks me is that the Sox never even bothered to keep Durham and try to negotiate with him at the end of the season. Like they did with Ventura. And like they will do with Ordonez.But you can't just completely ignore salary ramifications. While I don't buy for a minute Reinsdorf's assertions that they are just breaking even, neither do I imagine that they can just add $20M to the payroll. You can either live in a fantasy land where you just keep all your favorite players and still go out and sign two or three major free agents in the off-season and you pay for it all with money falling from heaven, or you can face the reality that you have to make choices.

voodoochile
10-01-2004, 09:08 AM
But you can't just completely ignore salary ramifications. While I don't buy for a minute Reinsdorf's assertions that they are just breaking even, neither do I imagine that they can just add $20M to the payroll. You can either live in a fantasy land where you just keep all your favorite players and still go out and sign two or three major free agents in the off-season and you pay for it all with money falling from heaven, or you can face the reality that you have to make choices.Isn't one of those choices to take the financial hit for a year or two to build a team that makes the playoffs on a regular basis and builds attendance and interest to counterbalance the financial loss?

That is the tried and true method of building a winner - create a good product and build sales.

soxtalker
10-01-2004, 09:31 AM
The question makes no sense. It wasn't one or the other, it was trying to get something for a player we weren't going to re-sign. ...

IIRC, keeping Durham wasn't the real issue at the time. Few thought we would resign him, and I don't recall a groundswell of fan opinion advocating that. Now, the possibility that compensation draft picks would be eliminated did have a major impact. Oakland came out looking pretty good in this, as they were able to give up little in the trade, Durham helped in their playoff run, and they got the compensation picks. Oakland may have been in a better position to gamble. Alternately, it was the case of an experienced GM (Beane) having a better feel for negotiations between MLB and players union and realizing that the draft-pick compensation would likely not be eliminated. (Of course, JR should have had a very good feeling on which way this would go.)

Ol' No. 2
10-01-2004, 10:11 AM
Isn't one of those choices to take the financial hit for a year or two to build a team that makes the playoffs on a regular basis and builds attendance and interest to counterbalance the financial loss?

That is the tried and true method of building a winner - create a good product and build sales.That's one way to go and other teams have done it. In fact, the Sox did do that in 2001, when they increased the payroll to about $65M adding David Wells. Then everyone's arms fell off, attendance tanked, and the Sox lost money that year. That's the way the cookie crumbles, but you can't hardly blame them for being gun-shy about that approach again. Another factor working against that is that Reinsdorf isn't the sole owner. He would have to get approval from the other partners.

The other thing is that there's no guarantee that taking a big financial hit will necessarily result in a winner. The "tried and true" approach is actually not to go for broke but to build up gradually. To my mind, the problem isn't that this approach is bad, but that they've executed it badly. They've put too much emphasis on big hitters and not enough on pitching. Judging from the noises I'm hearing from 35th & Shields it seems that maybe they finally "get it".

voodoochile
10-01-2004, 10:16 AM
That's one way to go and other teams have done it. In fact, the Sox did do that in 2001, when they increased the payroll to about $65M adding David Wells. Then everyone's arms fell off, attendance tanked, and the Sox lost money that year. That's the way the cookie crumbles, but you can't hardly blame them for being gun-shy about that approach again. Another factor working against that is that Reinsdorf isn't the sole owner. He would have to get approval from the other partners.

The other thing is that there's no guarantee that taking a big financial hit will necessarily result in a winner. The "tried and true" approach is actually not to go for broke but to build up gradually. To my mind, the problem isn't that this approach is bad, but that they've executed it badly. They've put too much emphasis on big hitters and not enough on pitching. Judging from the noises I'm hearing from 35th & Shields it seems that maybe they finally "get it".
Sure, if you only do it one year, you don't change the trust issue that currently exists between ownership and the fans. You need to do it year in and year out. You need to take the hit, put a quality product on the field and draw attention and fanbase.

One year doesn't do it. You have to consistently prove you want to win and JR hasn't done that.

Ol' No. 2
10-01-2004, 03:13 PM
Sure, if you only do it one year, you don't change the trust issue that currently exists between ownership and the fans. You need to do it year in and year out. You need to take the hit, put a quality product on the field and draw attention and fanbase.

One year doesn't do it. You have to consistently prove you want to win and JR hasn't done that.Not exactly. They were coming off a division championship year, and were looking to not only make it two in a row, but they acquired Wells, if you recall, to have an ace for the playoffs to try to go farther. The plan was to create many years of success. But when the whole thing collapsed in a heap of rotator cuff injuries, it seems they decided to go back to the slow but sure approach.

And I don't accept your assertion that you have to take a big financial hit to try to build up a fan base to build a winning team. The Twins sure haven't done that. There's nothing wrong with the slow but sure approach. What's wrong is that they've done it badly.

soxtalker
10-01-2004, 06:03 PM
Not exactly. They were coming off a division championship year, and were looking to not only make it two in a row, but they acquired Wells, if you recall, to have an ace for the playoffs to try to go farther. The plan was to create many years of success. But when the whole thing collapsed in a heap of rotator cuff injuries, it seems they decided to go back to the slow but sure approach.

And I don't accept your assertion that you have to take a big financial hit to try to build up a fan base to build a winning team. The Twins sure haven't done that. There's nothing wrong with the slow but sure approach. What's wrong is that they've done it badly.

What "slow but sure approach"? Maybe back in Schueler's era, but KW has never taken that approach.

PaulDrake
10-01-2004, 10:46 PM
:threadsucks

The question makes no sense. It wasn't one or the other, it was trying to get something for a player we weren't going to re-sign. These hindsight threads are really tiring. This and other sigs like it are slowly but surely making me avoid the board. It's so juvenile. Like a smarmy little middle school kid farting in the back of the class. If you don't like a post, then give your more enlightened viewpoints. If the thread is so beneath you, then ignore it and go onto other matters. If I never see another "THIS THREAD SUCKS" or THIS THREAD BLOWS" it will still be just fine and dandy with me. You get all kinds on a message board. Why should lords of the board dictate what viewpoints you can or can't hold? As far as the Durham trade goes, he was probably the best second baseman on the team since the great Nellie Fox. The middle infield situation was a mess this year. Durham would have looked nice out there. Now I'll save some of you the time. "THIS POST SUCKS"

voodoochile
10-02-2004, 12:01 AM
Not exactly. They were coming off a division championship year, and were looking to not only make it two in a row, but they acquired Wells, if you recall, to have an ace for the playoffs to try to go farther. The plan was to create many years of success. But when the whole thing collapsed in a heap of rotator cuff injuries, it seems they decided to go back to the slow but sure approach.

And I don't accept your assertion that you have to take a big financial hit to try to build up a fan base to build a winning team. The Twins sure haven't done that. There's nothing wrong with the slow but sure approach. What's wrong is that they've done it badly.]

The Twins are doing it the other way. They invested money in the GM, FM, minor league instructors and scouts. Now they are reaping the rewards. The Sox don't do that. They rush prospects, hire cheap major league managers and in general hope to get lucky.

I agree that there has been a token effort (read: lip service paid) to winning, but Boomer Wells? Come on. At his best, he was another #2. They got lucky with Loaiza. Other than that, it has been hit and miss. Remind me again of how often the Yankees miss, or when they do, it is the only option they had to begin with. No, we will never be the Yankees, but there needs to be a bigger financial commitment from ownership and then the fans will see the results on the field year in and year out. That will drive attendance, interest and in the end revenue...

Mohoney
10-02-2004, 01:29 AM
Isn't one of those choices to take the financial hit for a year or two to build a team that makes the playoffs on a regular basis and builds attendance and interest to counterbalance the financial loss?

That is the tried and true method of building a winner - create a good product and build sales.
I agree with this 100%. It would be like Voodoo, in an effort to raise enough funds to get the best pepperoni on the market, putting sawdust in his crust and buying moldy mozzarella cheese.

Or, Voodoo risks short-term profit margins to create the best pizza possible with NO INGREDIENTS being compromised, builds up a loyal customer base, and secures long-term success.

Which way is he ultimately going to sell the most possible pizzas and rise to the top of his market?

gosox41
10-02-2004, 09:24 AM
I was referring to threads like these - ones that criticize trades that were salary dumps or situations in which we were dealing a player we had no intention of signing in hopes to get ANYTHING in return, let alone a somewhat servicable reliever. We traded Durham to a team who used him for 3 months for a pitcher currently on our ML roster.

Not a complete failure, I'd figure.
So maybe the question should be, why didn't the Sox resign him. We traded Ray in July and after the season decided it was a good idea to give PK an average of $8 mill per year for 3 years. Ray got just over $18 mill over the same time period.

Is it easier to find a one dimensional first baseman or a second baseman who can hit 20 HR's and maintain a .360 OBP? The fact that the Sox could have gotten the rarer player for cheaper says a lot.

Keep in mind I was against this trade from the day it happened (look it up) There is no hindsight there for me. I never thought it was worth it to trade an All Star second baseman for an old minor league pitcher with injury problems. I know the reasons with lack of free agent compensation and all being a possibility, but the trade itself made KW look like a sucker.

Signing PK over Ray at the time made KW look like a bigger sucker. I know Ray has had health issues (which youcan't predict injury) and was accused of being out of shape this year but he managed to put up numbers that mirror his career stats. And let's face it, having Ray in the line up as an everday second baseman is a better option then Uribe, Harris, or Roberto Alomar.


Bob

ja1022
10-02-2004, 10:37 AM
I was waiting for one of these moronic "Who would you rather have" idiotic, hindsight, nonsense threads that deal with the Adkins Durham trade. Is Durham still on the A's? Who cares! We have a decent RP in Adkins who might have potential instead of an overpriced, injury prone, bad defense 2B in Durham.
Give me Uribe and his low salary anyday versus "Who gives a damn Durham."
Lose the condescending attitude bud. So you've been waiting two years for an Adkins/Durham post?? Gosh...you must be pretty smart to have seen it coming for two years now.