PDA

View Full Version : 10/30 - Vizquel to Sox Details


nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 01:19 PM
Gammons has an article on ESPN speculating the BoSox may want Vizquel to replace Cabrera, however he does not think they will b/c:

"word is that Vizquel is very close to signing with the White Sox for two years and $8 million to play for fellow Venezuelan shortstop Ozzie Guillen."

Not sure what I think. The 2 years is great but I'm not sure Vizquel is worth $4mil per. Then again, the bottom line is that this improves our terrible middle infield situation from last year. Unless of course Vizquel pulls an Alomar:redneck

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 01:21 PM
Gammons also reports:

"The White Sox have little money, and Ken Williams is starting at shortstop and trying to find a starter and an outfielder"

Ol' No. 2
10-30-2004, 01:23 PM
Gammons has an article on ESPN speculating the BoSox may want Vizquel to replace Cabrera, however he does not thinkt they will b/c:

"word is that Vizquel is very close to signing with the White Sox for two years and $8 million to play for fellow Venezuelan shortstop Ozzie Guillen."

Not sure what I think. The 2 years is great but I'm not sure Vizquel is worth $4mil per. Then again, the bottom line is that this improves our terrible middle infield situation from last year. Unless of course Vizquel pulls an Alomar:redneckThe middle infield was terrible mainly because of Valentin. He's gone in any case. An IF of Crede-Uribe-Harris-Konerko is solid. Vizquel is no longer the Gold Glover, and adding him as a marginal improvement, at best, and certainly not worth $4M/yr. You could do a lot for the Sox BP for that amount of money. I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like Robbie Alomar Redux.

SSN721
10-30-2004, 01:26 PM
Oh my, that sounds terrible, I hope that the numbers are wrong there. I wouldnt mind Vizquel here, but for no more than 2 mil a year, I just dont think he is worth more then that, I agree that that money can go a lot towards shoring up the bullpen. I just hope the money is wrong in that report.

Mickster
10-30-2004, 01:30 PM
$8M for 2 years??? :o:

SoxxoS
10-30-2004, 01:32 PM
I have been a big KW supporter since he was signed. If we sign Vizquel for 4 million per...I am going to become "neutral" on the "Fire KW" thread. If he makes another bonehead move after this one, then I want him gone. And I never thought I would say that.

4 million per year for a aged, weathered ballplayer past his prime. How much is KW paying based on actual skill...NOT just because he is the "grinder" we need. Vizquel has got to be loving this, b/c he is getting overvalued for all the wrong reasons.

Mickster
10-30-2004, 01:34 PM
I have been a big KW supporter since he was signed. If we sign Vizquel for 4 million per...I am going to become "neutral" on the "Fire KW" thread. If he makes another bonehead move after this one, then I want him gone. And I never thought I would say that.

4 million per year for a aged, weathered ballplayer past his prime. How much is KW paying based on actual skill...NOT just because he is the "grinder" we need. Vizquel has got to be loving this, b/c he is getting overvalued for all the wrong reasons.
Agreed. I have generally been a KW defender but this, if correct, is just plain stupid!

munchman33
10-30-2004, 01:37 PM
Vizquel still has pretty good range for an aging shortstop. And he's as fundamentally sound on both offense and defense as anybody in the league. I don't mind this move. At $4 mil per, he is a little pricey. But that's better than $10 per for some of the other shortstops on the market.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 01:38 PM
Vizquel still has pretty good range for an aging shortstop. And he's as fundamentally sound on both offense and defense as anybody in the league. I don't mind this move. At $4 mil per, he is a little pricey. But that's better than $10 per for some of the other shortstops on the market.
See, this is what I agree with. $4mil is probaably overpaying him by about $2mil, but paying Renteria $10mil is overpaying by $4mil, IMO.

Mickster
10-30-2004, 01:40 PM
See, this is what I agree with. $4mil is probaably overpaying him by about $2mil, but paying Renteria $10mil is overpaying by $4mil, IMO.
Problem is, with our current "budget" we can not afford to overpay for anyone. Unfortunately, overpaying might be the only way to get players to play for us.

CubKilla
10-30-2004, 01:53 PM
$4 million per for Vizquel is, at least, better than $5 million per for Valentin.

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 01:54 PM
How is Vizquel just a "marginal" improvement over what we have now?

Vizquel>>>>>>Harris

Do you know what you are gonna get from Willie? Omar is twice the player Willie is at this moment and at $4 million is a fine replacement. For those of you who think $2 million is the right price, well Omar would not be signing for $2 million to play anywhere. He could probably find $5 million if he waited longer. It's not like his options are little. There are a number of teams looking for SS.

Good signing.

Dick Allen
10-30-2004, 02:00 PM
I hate it when the "budget" allows the Sox to only go after players who are 2 years or more past their prime.

LauraJ14
10-30-2004, 02:01 PM
Have we not learned our lesson yet with ex-over the hill Indians, Lofton, both Alomars? Not liking this move at all, what are we trying to be the Cleveland Indians of the late 90's???

SoxxoS
10-30-2004, 02:03 PM
Problem is, with our current "budget" we can not afford to overpay for anyone. Unfortunately, overpaying might be the only way to get players to play for us.
Right...since when is "overpaying" a good and acceptable thing? It's OK because he is LESS overpaid than some SS on the market?

I guess there is no such thing as overpaid, b/c the market determines the value. But Vizquel is definitely OVERVALUED at 4 million per.

munchman33
10-30-2004, 02:07 PM
If someone had to chose between Willie at 2nd or Vizquel at short, I think its obvious they'd take Vizquel at short. That's a huge upgrade. $4M for that is not so bad.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 02:08 PM
One thing to remember is that the SS market this year is incredibly competitive: White Sox, Twins, Boston, Anaheim(?), Texas, Cubs, St. Louis and others are looking at upgraing there.

johnny_mostil
10-30-2004, 02:10 PM
How is Vizquel just a "marginal" improvement over what we have now?

Vizquel>>>>>>Harris

I agree. Vizquel had a good season with Cleveland, and yes, he's old, but he knows what a base on balls is, and he's one of the smarter ballplayers out there. For a major league shortstop, he's an average ballplayer. For a team that is missing #1 and #2 hitter candidates he would be a good signing.

Wall-to-wall low-on-base sluggers is not a way to build an efficient offense. Omar is more of a pest -- a pest who got on base 35.3% of the time.

hitlesswonder
10-30-2004, 02:15 PM
If someone had to chose between Willie at 2nd or Vizquel at short, I think its obvious they'd take Vizquel at short. That's a huge upgrade. $4M for that is not so bad.
I have to disagree with that. For 4 million you could get a decent starting pitcher (or a very good reliever), which would a lot more valuable than the upgrade from Harris to Vizquel. Last season Harris had OBP of .343 and Vizquel .353. Vizquel's OBP for the previous 3 seasons are .323, .341, .321. And I don't think you can count on another year like 2004 were Vizquel exceeds his career offensive numbers at 38 years old. And to me, the defensive upgrade from Uribe-Harris to Vizquel-Uribe isn't that big at all. It is not a huge upgrade.
Would you really rather have Vizquel-Uribe-Grilli rather than Uribe-Harris-(Clement or Lowe or Ortiz)?

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 02:17 PM
Would you really rather have Vizquel-Uribe-Grilli rather than Uribe-Harris-(Clement or Lowe or Ortiz)?
None of those pitchers will be had for $4million.

balke
10-30-2004, 02:20 PM
wow.. we better be getting Pavano from all this "Friend of Ozzie" crap. I don't even like Ozzie, why do We get a whole team of Ozzie and co.?

I'll take a weak inexperienced infield if it means we'll get some arms in the pen. The sox are either pulling the wool over thier own eys with all this "leader at SS" crap, or we fans are just getting jerked around on the cheap, and, so Ozzie can have some more buddies to joke around with. Let's get a strong, LEADER SS. Omar will be ending his career with us...

That's my negative thinking. That's all the whining I've got. At least the sox will have done SOMEthing this offseason I suppose. We needed Jose gone, and will need more depth in the Infield. Costly, but necessary move I suppose.

ondafarm
10-30-2004, 02:24 PM
Gammons has an article on ESPN speculating the BoSox may want Vizquel to replace Cabrera, however he does not think they will b/c:

"word is that Vizquel is very close to signing with the White Sox for two years and $8 million to play for fellow Venezuelan shortstop Ozzie Guillen."

a) do you trust anything Gammons says?

b) Wilson Valdez will be the regular SS for the White Sox in 2005

c) is Vizquel a large upgrade defensively over Valentin?

hitlesswonder
10-30-2004, 02:25 PM
None of those pitchers will be had for $4million.Maybe not, but with Clement's health an issue, Lowe's atrocious regular season, and Ortiz's not very good season I'm not sure how much more they'll make if any. Miguel Batista came off a good season last year and signed with Toronto for around that IIRC.

In any case, well just have to disagree about 0.010 OBP (assuming Vizquel plays as well as last year) being worth 4 million dollars.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 02:30 PM
Maybe not, but with Clement's health an issue, Lowe's atrocious regular season, and Ortiz's not very good season I'm not sure how much more they'll make if any. Miguel Batista came off a good season last year and signed with Toronto for around that IIRC.

In any case, well just have to disagree about 0.10 OBP (assuming Vizquel plays as well as last year) being worth 4 million dollars.
How about the fact that Willie Harris can't bat #1or2 and Omar Vizquel can?

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 02:34 PM
Maybe not, but with Clement's health an issue, Lowe's atrocious regular season, and Ortiz's not very good season I'm not sure how much more they'll make if any. Miguel Batista came off a good season last year and signed with Toronto for around that IIRC.

In any case, well just have to disagree about 0.10 OBP (assuming Vizquel plays as well as last year) being worth 4 million dollars.


You guys can disagree on the OBP all you want, but Omar brings a lot more to the table than Willie. Its not just the OBP. A MI of Uribe/Harris just doesnt cut it.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 02:38 PM
You guys can disagree on the OBP all you want, but Omar brings a lot more to the table than Willie. Its not just the OBP. A MI of Uribe/Harris just doesnt cut it.
Exactly. Willie CANNOT bat at the top of the order.

Also, what if this means Crede goes in a trade?

santo=dorf
10-30-2004, 02:39 PM
Guys, consider the source, and the comment he made about the White Sox not having any money, I think it's obvious that he was talking about the fans and not the organization.

Huisj
10-30-2004, 02:39 PM
Gammons also reports:

"The White Sox have little money, and Ken Williams is starting at shortstop and trying to find a starter and an outfielder"
Well there you have it, they won't be signing Vizquel, because KW is going to play short. That's a great cost saving technique--an unprecedented player-GM.

:reinsy

"And I can come in out of the pen. Now we're really saving money."

hitlesswonder
10-30-2004, 02:49 PM
You guys can disagree on the OBP all you want, but Omar brings a lot more to the table than Willie. Its not just the OBP. A MI of Uribe/Harris just doesnt cut it.
I agree that even at 38 Vizquel is better than Harris. He's just not 4 million dollars a year better. The fact is that the Sox starting pitching, bullpen, and catcher don't cut it either. The Sox could improve the team more by putting the money into those areas.

idseer
10-30-2004, 02:58 PM
so many people were fine with valentin for $5 mil but are having a problem with vizquel at $4? that's ridiculous. viz would be a large upgrade at ss. and not everyone turns into robby alomar. viz is 37 and should have a little life left in him. it's not like he's coming off a bad year. what other proven ss do you think we'd get at that kind of money? problem may be there's too many people still thinking 1980s money.

IF there is any truth to this rumor i would welcome omar to the team.

hitlesswonder
10-30-2004, 03:05 PM
How about the fact that Willie Harris can't bat #1or2 and Omar Vizquel can?
In 2001, 2002, and 2003 Vizquel hit no better than Harris did last season (worse 2 of the years). Why does that mean Harris can't do it and Vizquel can? Harris is a better bet at his age to repeat or improve his performance than Vizquel. I'd like a better 2B, just like you. And Vizquel is a better player. But, the difference isn't worth 4 million dollars, IMO.

Also, Viquel won't bat leadoff (unless it's an emergency), he hates it and I imagine that he would sign with the understanding that he'll hit 2nd. So the Sox still need to find a leadoff hitter anyway.

OEO Magglio
10-30-2004, 03:10 PM
a) do you trust anything Gammons says?

b) Wilson Valdez will be the regular SS for the White Sox in 2005

c) is Vizquel a large upgrade defensively over Valentin?
Man, you really love valdez, but there is no chance that he's the starting shortstop in 05. Signing vizquel isn't all about adding better defense, even though Omar is still a solid shortstop and him and Juan make a pretty darn good infield, this is about signing a top of the order guy that knows how to bunt, knows how to move runners along and knows how to play winning baseball. Vizquel is a perfect player for the sox imo.

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 03:13 PM
Who knows...maybe we will have an IF of Uribe, Vizquel, Harris, and Konerko next season...perhaps Crede has played his final game as a White Sox...The signing of Omar sure does give KW that option...

Wealz
10-30-2004, 03:15 PM
If Vizquel does sign here for the terms Gammons is reporting it should be apparent to everyone that Williams has more money at his disposal than he knows what to do with.

johnny_mostil
10-30-2004, 03:55 PM
In 2001, 2002, and 2003 Vizquel hit no better than Harris did last season (worse 2 of the years).
Yeah, but when he hit better it was a LOT better, and Harris in 2001, 2002 and 2003 was putrid. Consider that Harris was hitting .323 or something like that in May, then resumed his lifetime performance:

Lifetime batting average: .240 in 773 at bats
Lifetime on base percentage: .305
Lifetime extra bases collected: 41 in 773 at bats. With his speed he should have that many doubles a season, but he has, in his career, four homers, three triples, 23 doubles, and 146 singles, for

Liifetime slugging percentage of .296.

Harris is very fast, but last year he stole 19 bases in 157 times on first base, and managed only 15 doubles.

I'm no huge Omar Vizquel fan, but pretending that Vizquel, a slick fielding shortstop with an OPS 100 points higher, isn't as good as Harris is like pretending that Laurence Olivier doesn't match up to Paul Giamatti as an actor.

johnny_mostil
10-30-2004, 04:02 PM
If Vizquel does sign here for the terms Gammons is reporting it should be apparent to everyone that Williams has more money at his disposal than he knows what to do with.
Actually it just shows that Williams really believes in the chemistry/character approach. Vizquel is a different player than Jose, but he is basically a small upgrade at a slightly lower price, and his approach to the game (peskiness) is a better complement to the rest of the lineup. He's also a smart ballplayer, something of which the White Sox have had a perennial shortage.

The biggest thing to be concerned about is that, like Jose, Vizquel can't hit lefties at all -- although at least he doesn't whiff constantly, either.

Now watch him sign elsewhere.

nitetrain8601
10-30-2004, 04:06 PM
Crede will be the starting 3B next year. He was too highly touted not to. And also Beltre had an excellent year after sucking his first two. KW saw that. Crede is going to be given this whole season, whether crazed White Sox fans think it's right that's the move that's going to be made. The infield with this move will be PK/RG - Uribe/Harris - Vizquel - Crede.

I don't like this move because market value is not that for him. He's not better than Harris and Harris has potential to get better while Vizquel has potential only to get worse. Vizquel is a move that could've been made after getting pitching help.

bobj4400
10-30-2004, 04:08 PM
Why do we continue to import aging Cleveland retreads??? Is there some point to this that I am completely missing? Alomar, Alomar, Jr., Lofton, Belle, Vizquel, Colon...that would have been a great team in the late '90's. Oh wait, it already was...

fquaye149
10-30-2004, 05:08 PM
um. can we wait until the deal is made.

i forgot whether gammons is always right on his transaction predictions?

hitlesswonder
10-30-2004, 05:19 PM
I'm no huge Omar Vizquel fan, but pretending that Vizquel, a slick fielding shortstop with an OPS 100 points higher, isn't as good as Harris is like pretending that Laurence Olivier doesn't match up to Paul Giamatti as an actor.Hey, I said Vizquel was better. I just don't think he's worth 4 million a year for 2 years when the Sox have bigger problems than replacing Willie Harris. The fact that Harris wasn't the biggest problem last year is a bad sign to begin with.

You're right that Harris has an apalling lack of power which is why Vizquel's OPS was better. But, to me, power isn't very important in a #2 hitter. The Sox just need someone to get on base, and Vizquel didn't do it much better than Harris last season. Before last year, Vizquel hadn't had a really good season in over 3 years. That's a long time. Maybe he'll be great these next 2 but he's 37 and I doubt he'll outperform his average over the last 3 years. I hope I'm wrong.

Vizquel's not a bad player (even at 37) and Harris isn't good, but the difference between them at the plate based on last season isn't huge. It's not like Olivier versus Giamatti anymore, it's more like Giamatti versus Thomas Hayden Church.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 05:32 PM
Look at it THIS way: if Crede sucks it up the 1st half next year, we can shuffle Uribe to 3rd and Harris can play 2B. Having Vizquel gives us the option of using Crede OR Harris, but not both.

This is a very good thing.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 05:42 PM
Look at it THIS way: if Crede sucks it up the 1st half next year, we can shuffle Uribe to 3rd and Harris can play 2B. Having Vizquel gives us the option of using Crede OR Harris, but not both.

This is a very good thing.
And if Vizquel isn't very good the Sox will be on the hook for 8M.

SEALgep
10-30-2004, 05:47 PM
It's easy to say we shouldn't have to pay $4 million, but many teams are looking to acquire the guy, and for good reason. He isn't going to come for free, and he certainly fills a need. At the same time, it serves as an ideal short term solution until either Uribe or other is ready for the job full time. The fact is, another team would certainly be willing to pay Vizquel $4 million, so if you want him, and we do, then we have to pay the price. It really isn't all that much for a starting SS who can play the small ball we lack, and play some pretty good D.

SEALgep
10-30-2004, 05:48 PM
And if Vizquel isn't very good the Sox will be on the hook for 8M.He's proven throughout his career that he is a good player. Plus you run that risk every time someone signs a contract. This is a worthy risk.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 05:50 PM
It's easy to say we shouldn't have to pay $4 million, but many teams are looking to acquire the guy, and for good reason. He isn't going to come for free, and he certainly fills a need. At the same time, it serves as an ideal short term solution until either Uribe or other is ready for the job full time. The fact is, another team would certainly be willing to pay Vizquel $4 million, so if you want him, and we do, then we have to pay the price. It really isn't all that much for a starting SS who can play the small ball we lack, and play some pretty good D.
But, NO!!! Who cares if anybody else will drive his price up! Vizquel sucks....and stuff!!! Who cares if we'll likely be able to deal him if things don't work out!!! I hate Kenny ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Wealz
10-30-2004, 05:56 PM
He's proven throughout his career that he is a good player. Plus you run that risk every time someone signs a contract. This is a worthy risk.
I don't care what Vizquel has accomplished in his career. The guy will be 38 next year and the list of successful SS's at that age is a really short one.

samram
10-30-2004, 06:00 PM
I don't like this move because market value is not that for him.
Says who? Apparently it is the market value. So many claim the Sox are too cheap to sign free agents, but now suddenly they're going to overpay for Vizquel? Frankly, even if they pay a bit of a premium for Omar to sign quickly which enables them to spend time focused on other needs, I'm all for it.

SEALgep
10-30-2004, 06:07 PM
I don't care what Vizquel has accomplished in his career. The guy will be 38 next year and the list of successful SS's at that age is a really short one. Ignoring his career, and even more so, last year is just being short sighted. There is no reason based on his performances that he shouldn't be on that "short list".

beckett21
10-30-2004, 06:15 PM
so many people were fine with valentin for $5 mil but are having a problem with vizquel at $4? that's ridiculous. viz would be a large upgrade at ss. and not everyone turns into robby alomar. viz is 37 and should have a little life left in him. it's not like he's coming off a bad year. what other proven ss do you think we'd get at that kind of money? problem may be there's too many people still thinking 1980s money.

IF there is any truth to this rumor i would welcome omar to the team.Agreed. This is not Barry Larkin we are talking about here.

He may not be a long term solution, but he is a genuine upgrade over Valentin IMO. And since they are not going to sign a long-term solution i.e. Renteria/Nomar/Cabrera, looks like a good move to me. I want no part of Valentin anymore, nor do I want any part of Cristian Guzman. I'll take my chances with Omar for two years and see who's available then.

As far as Valdez goes, I don't know that given his age he will ever become anything for the Sox, but who better to tutor him than Omar?

Wealz
10-30-2004, 06:25 PM
Ignoring his career, and even more so, last year is just being short sighted. There is no reason based on his performances that he shouldn't be on that "short list".
Vizquel had an okay year last year, nothing special. It wouldn't take a big decline for him to be a liability. If they want to spend $8M on a middle infielder signing Kent to a 1-year deal would be a better option (not that I'd be in favor of that because I believe they have more pressing concerns.) Hell, I'd rather have Valentin than Vizquel at the price of 2 years/$8M.

beckett21
10-30-2004, 06:29 PM
Hell, I'd rather have Valentin than Vizquel at the price of 2 years/$8M.
How much does that amount to per strikeout? Any bonuses or escalators for golden sombreros??

No thanks. I'll pass on the whiffmeister. :smile:

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 06:33 PM
Vizquel had an okay year last year, nothing special. It wouldn't take a big decline for him to be a liability. If they want to spend $8M on a middle infielder signing Kent to a 1-year deal would be a better option (not that I'd be in favor of that because I believe they have more pressing concerns.) Hell, I'd rather have Valentin than Vizquel at the price of 2 years/$8M.

What????? Are you insane?

So you want more of the defensive mishaps(2 of which killed us during our 7 game losing streak that was the begining of the end for our season), the .230 average, the .290 OBP and the 140 K's??

I'll take the good defense, .270-.280 average, .340-.350 OBP, 60 K's, and 15 SB...

But that's just me....

The_Floridian
10-30-2004, 06:34 PM
I like Vizquel, and I like us having him, especially because I can now see the top of our order being Rowand/Vizquel or Vizquel/Rowand.

Omar knows how to get on base, he's one of the best bunters in the league, and can still swipe a fair number of bags.

With Rowand, we have a guy with good speed (17 steals) and power (24 homers) who could lead off (.361 OBP), and then Omar in the #2 hole to get him over, so Lee, Thomas, Konerko and Everett can get 'em in.

I know it's not exactly Pierre and Castillo (or Aparaico and Fox, for that matter), but it seems like a really solid 1-2 punch at the top of the order. You could also switch them around and have Omar leading off and Rowand batting second depending on the pitcher.

I think this is a smart move for the type of baseball Ozzie and KW say they want to see.

And I don't care if he went to high school with Chico Carrasquel, Omar is still one of the best fielding shortstops in the game.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 06:34 PM
How much does that amount to per strikeout? Any bonuses or escalators for golden sombreros??

No thanks. I'll pass on the whiffmeister. :smile:
Vizquel makes a lot of outs too. He doesn't offset that with extra base power either.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 06:35 PM
Vizquel had an okay year last year, nothing special. It wouldn't take a big decline for him to be a liability. If they want to spend $8M on a middle infielder signing Kent to a 1-year deal would be a better option (not that I'd be in favor of that because I believe they have more pressing concerns.) Hell, I'd rather have Valentin than Vizquel at the price of 2 years/$8M.


:kukoo:

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 06:36 PM
Is it just me or did Jose hit .216 last season?

Why arent we resigning him again? Oh yeah....

beckett21
10-30-2004, 06:37 PM
Vizquel makes a lot of outs too. He doesn't offset that with extra base power either.
A strikeout is the most unproductive way possible to make an out, double plays nonwithstanding.

At least move a runner for crying out loud.

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 06:38 PM
I can't believe anyone is arguing on the side of Jose Valentin right now...

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 06:39 PM
Vizquel makes a lot of outs too. He doesn't offset that with extra base power either..215 BA + 140 Strikeouts = Impossible to offset w/ any amount of homers. Christ's sake, Vizquel hit 70 points higher than Valentin last year! That's how much higher Valentin hit than Borchard. I don't see your logic at all.

:anon:

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 06:45 PM
Vizquel makes a lot of outs too. He doesn't offset that with extra base power either.Vizquel hit .291 in 2004. He has a high baseball IQ, something sorely lacking on this team. He can bunt. He is an excellent defensive player. His 19 SB's in 2004 would have led the White Sox. He doesn't have much power, but his 7 homers equalled the total of the great Carl Everett, who also will be pulling in $4 million next year. Maybe he isn't what he was 5-6 years ago, but he's still pretty good. Have Uribe do the same thing he did this year, let Omar tutor him for 2 seasons, and he's the future at SS. If $4 million a year is overpaying for him, at least people shouldn't be calling JR cheap.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 06:47 PM
A strikeout is the most unproductive way possible to make an out, double plays nonwithstanding.

At least move a runner for crying out loud.
It's still an out.

beckett21
10-30-2004, 06:49 PM
It's still an out.
You got me there.

What we need are players that make no outs. Ever.

:?:

Wealz
10-30-2004, 06:50 PM
Vizquel hit .291 in 2004. He has a high baseball IQ, something sorely lacking on this team. He can bunt. He is an excellent defensive player. His 19 SB's in 2004 would have led the White Sox. He doesn't have much power, but his 7 homers equalled the total of the great Carl Everett, who also will be pulling in $4 million next year. Maybe he isn't what he was 5-6 years ago, but he's still pretty good. Have Uribe do the same thing he did this year, let Omar tutor him for 2 seasons, and he's the future at SS. If $4 million a year is overpaying for him, at least people shouldn't be calling JR cheap.
R. Alomar was said to have a high baseball I.Q. and was a superb bunter. He appeared in 0 playoff games for the White Sox.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 06:50 PM
It's still an out.
Okay, I see we've sunk to incoherence at this point. Even if I accept the delsuion that a strikeout is the same as an out, Valentin still hit .216 and Vizquel still hit .290. Come on, let's cut the :bs: .

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 06:52 PM
It's still an out.
But you put no pressure on the defense to make a play. Runners don't advance. Jose Valentin had a horrible year, and showed what really was important to him when he celebrated his 30th homer of the year like he just won the World Series. Making contact at least gives you a chance. Ask Jacques Jones. If he would have pulled a Valentin and whiffed instead of hitting a lazy foul pop up that Jose dropped, he wouldn't have been able to get a game winning hit the next pitch.

The_Floridian
10-30-2004, 06:55 PM
It's still an out.
At first I thought this comment was silly, but now I see that it is actually very Zen...like road signs that say "High Winds May Occur".

Deep.

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 06:55 PM
R. Alomar was said to have a high baseball I.Q. and was a superb bunter. He appeared in 0 playoff games for the White Sox.
Roberto Alomar and Omar Vizquel, last time I checked, are 2 different people. I have never heard Vizquel was disinterested in playing. It has come up countless times with Robby. Also, Robby has had a bad back for a few years. Alomar's drop from 2001 to 2002 to 2003 to 2004 is one of the most dramatic ever. He's a dog.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 06:56 PM
You got me there.

What we need are players that make no outs. Ever.

:?:
IMO, there are very few instances of a productive out. There's nothing sillier than when a hitter gets congratulated for hitting the ball to the right side and advancing a runner from second to third in the second inning.

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 06:57 PM
IMO, there are very few instances of a productive out. There's nothing sillier than when a hitter gets congratulated for hitting the ball to the right side and advancing a runner from second to third in the second inning.
You're right. They should wait until the 7th or 8th for that. The runs scored then count double.

Jjav829
10-30-2004, 06:58 PM
R. Alomar was said to have a high baseball I.Q. and was a superb bunter. He appeared in 0 playoff games for the White Sox.
Okay, so we're starting to boil down your ideal player. He's a player who has appeared in playoff games, has never been known as a good bunter or having a good baseball I.Q. and he mustn't make outs. Anything else?

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 06:58 PM
Jose Valentin had a horrible year, and showed what really was important to him when he celebrated his 30th homer of the year like he just won the World Series.
:D: :D: :D:

The_Floridian
10-30-2004, 06:59 PM
IMO, there are very few instances of a productive out. There's nothing sillier than when a hitter gets congratulated for hitting the ball to the right side and advancing a runner from second to third in the second inning.
Dammit Jerry Manuel...how many times do we have to tell you to quit trolling?

beckett21
10-30-2004, 07:00 PM
IMO, there are very few instances of a productive out. There's nothing sillier than when a hitter gets congratulated for hitting the ball to the right side and advancing a runner from second to third in the second inning.So, since you are into counting outs--who made more *OUTS* last season--Vizquel or Valentin?

Who killed more rallies?

I have no idea, but would be willing to venture an educated guess given their respective batting averages.:dunno:

Wow.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 07:00 PM
Dammit Jerry Manuel...how many times do we have to tell you to quit trolling?
:jerry

"This team is going nowhere without me and Jose!"

Jjav829
10-30-2004, 07:01 PM
IMO, there are very few instances of a productive out. There's nothing sillier than when a hitter gets congratulated for hitting the ball to the right side and advancing a runner from second to third in the second inning.I agree wholeheartedly. I hate that. Usually I scream at the player for doing something so stupid and advise him that next him he is in that situation, he should swing from the heels and hope to hit one out of the park. :rolleyes:

Wealz
10-30-2004, 07:01 PM
Okay, I see we've sunk to incoherence at this point. Even if I accept the delsuion that a strikeout is the same as an out, Valentin still hit .216 and Vizquel still hit .290. Come on, let's cut the :bs: .
What happens if Vizquel's OBP drops to .320-.330? He isn't going to make up for that drop with extra base hits.

The_Floridian
10-30-2004, 07:04 PM
What happens if Vizquel's OBP drops to .320-.330? He isn't going to make up for that drop with extra base hits.
Agreed. He should make up for it in fritters. On the first day of camp, Ozzie should say, "Omar, for every point below .350 your OBP goes, you have to rustle up the boys a big plate of fritters."

I love fritters! Sign Omar!

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 07:05 PM
What happens if Vizquel's OBP drops to .320-.330? He isn't going to make up for that drop with extra base hits.What? This could happen with any player. Uribe, Nomar, Renteria, Cabrera...they've all had their down and injury plagued years. Even if Vizquel has a down year, he'll still be an upgrade over Valentin. Maybe we should sign no one, that way we won't get stuck with any bad contracts.

:knue

"What's wrong with that?"

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 07:05 PM
What happens if Vizquel's OBP drops to .320-.330? He isn't going to make up for that drop with extra base hits.Oh, like Jose made up for his anemic performance in July, August and September, hitting far below .200 combined, by hitting worthless homeruns against KC.

santo=dorf
10-30-2004, 07:05 PM
R. Alomar was said to have a high baseball I.Q. and was a superb bunter. He appeared in 0 playoff games for the White Sox.
and is that his fault? :?:

Jjav829
10-30-2004, 07:05 PM
What happens if Vizquel's OBP drops to .320-.330? He isn't going to make up for that drop with extra base hits.What happens if Valentin's OBP drops (for the 4th year in a row) below .287? Is the occasional home run still going to make you believe he's more than a left handed bat off the bench?

Wealz
10-30-2004, 07:11 PM
Valentin's 2nd half last year was unquestionably horrible. That Vizquel would be an upgrade over that is no reason to throw $8M at him.

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 07:17 PM
R. Alomar was said to have a high baseball I.Q. and was a superb bunter. He appeared in 0 playoff games for the White Sox.
It was apparent when the Sox trade for Robbie the first time, that he was going to have to pick it up a few notches. They incorrectly thought playing with his brother would do that. Trading for him this year was OK by me, because Harris wasn't getting the job done, Uribe had to play SS, because Valentin was hitting like a pitcher, and they didn't have to give up anything of significance other than money to acquire him. It was obvious his first game back this season, and if you can find the old thread, I did state it, he wasn't very interested in playing. Maybe his hand was sore, maybe his back was bothering him, but he didn't want to be there. Vizquel performed at a level much higher than Valentin or Robbie this past season. Its a short term deal, not a lot of money, relatively speaking. It makes so much sense it probably won't happen.

MarkEdward
10-30-2004, 07:19 PM
Omar Vizquel's three most similar batters through age 37 include Dave Conception, Dick Bartell, and Hall of Famer Ozzie Smith. Here's what each player did after their age 37 season:

Conception (similarity score: 916)
38: 311 ABs, .260/.314/.344
39: 279 ABs, .319/.377/.384
40: 197 ABs, .198/.265/.244

Bartell (911)
38: 2 ABs, .000/.000/.000 (He was out of baseball for his age 36 and 37 seasons, though)

Smith (908)
38: 545 ABs, .288/.337/.356
39: 381 ABS, .262/.326/.349
40: 156 ABs, .199/.282/.244
41: 227 ABs, .282/.358/.370

One thing Vizquel has going for him is that historically, athletic players tend to age better than big sluggers.

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 07:19 PM
Valentin's 2nd half last year was unquestionably horrible. That Vizquel would be an upgrade over that is no reason to throw $8M at him.
In Gammons column, he mentioned the Red Sox would like to have him. They would rather give Vizquel $8 million over 2 years than give Cabrerra $30 over 4, and you know they would rather have Cabrerra over Nomar. So you can say the GM of the World Champions disagrees with you.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 07:22 PM
In Gammons column, he mentioned the Red Sox would like to have him. They would rather give Vizquel $8 million over 2 years than give Cabrerra $30 over 4, and you know they would rather have Cabrerra over Nomar. So you can say the GM of the World Champions disagrees with you.
Game, set, match.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 07:26 PM
In Gammons column, he mentioned the Red Sox would like to have him. They would rather give Vizquel $8 million over 2 years than give Cabrerra $30 over 4, and you know they would rather have Cabrerra over Nomar. So you can say the GM of the World Champions disagrees with you.
Signing a 38 year-old SS makes a lot more sense for a team that will contend for a world championship than it does for the 2005 White Sox.

Tragg
10-30-2004, 07:39 PM
We still need a lead-off hitter;
Wait- a 37 year old shortstop with a good, not great, .340 obp will soon be our lead-off hitter.

Well, I never really believed this regime cared much about obp anyway, despite their words to the contrary

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 08:04 PM
We still need a lead-off hitter;
Wait- a 37 year old shortstop with a good, not great, .340 obp will soon be our lead-off hitter.

Well, I never really believed this regime cared much about obp anyway, despite their words to the contrary
Before anybody says we don't have a lead off hitter, Aaron Rowand needs to actually go through a decline this year. If he continues as he did, we already have a lead off hitter.

chisoxmike
10-30-2004, 08:05 PM
The middle infield was terrible mainly because of Valentin. He's gone in any case. An IF of Crede-Uribe-Harris-Konerko is solid. Vizquel is no longer the Gold Glover, and adding him as a marginal improvement, at best, and certainly not worth $4M/yr. You could do a lot for the Sox BP for that amount of money. I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like Robbie Alomar Redux.

I agree. I'm am fine with Crede-Uribe-Harris-Konerko. In a ideal world, Crede would be traded, I'm done with the Joe Crede expierement. But, with it looking like Crede isn't going anywhere anytime soon, that infield w/out Valentin is a upgrade. Use that $4million a year elsewhere, how about a STARTING PITCHER.

Wealz
10-30-2004, 08:07 PM
Before anybody says we don't have a lead off hitter, Aaron Rowand needs to actually go through a decline this year. If he continues as he did, we already have a lead off hitter.
Well, if Rowand hits like he did in 2004, he's a 3-4 hitter.

soxfan26
10-30-2004, 08:23 PM
Well, if Rowand hits like he did in 2004, he's a 3-4 hitter.
Not on this club...

:caballo :walnuts :hurt

"Remember us?"

soxfan26
10-30-2004, 08:31 PM
In Gammons column, he mentioned the Red Sox would like to have him. They would rather give Vizquel $8 million over 2 years than give Cabrerra $30 over 4, and you know they would rather have Cabrerra over Nomar. So you can say the GM of the World Champions disagrees with you.
This quote is from the same Gammons article:

Boston will not go that far with Cabrera, because they believe Hanley Ramirez has a chance to be special, a Florida State free safety athlete with power, speed and electricity, and Ramirez's ETA is 2006.
All this means is that Vizquel is a better fit for the Red Sox not a better option at SS for the White Sox.

batmanZoSo
10-30-2004, 08:36 PM
Finally!

Someone who can bunt.

dickallen15
10-30-2004, 09:01 PM
This quote is from the same Gammons article:


All this means is that Vizquel is a better fit for the Red Sox not a better option at SS for the White Sox.
For the risk and the price, Vizquel is the better option for the White Sox, also. If he's good enough for the defending World Champions, he's probably good enough for a team that's waited 87 years.

WinningUgly!
10-30-2004, 09:24 PM
I can't believe I've read through 95 posts in this thread and haven't come across the typical "why do we always get washed up Indians" comment. I'm sure it's there somewhere, I skimmed through a few pages...probably just missed it. :rolleyes:

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 09:33 PM
Before anybody says we don't have a lead off hitter, Aaron Rowand needs to actually go through a decline this year. If he continues as he did, we already have a lead off hitter.

Rowand is not the proto-typical leadoff hitter. While he gets on base at a good clip, I still think he's an ideal 2 hitter right now.

nodiggity59
10-30-2004, 09:41 PM
Rowand is not the proto-typical leadoff hitter. While he gets on base at a good clip, I still think he's an ideal 2 hitter right now.
Neither is Jason Kendall, but he has managed to in the past. Again, I like him there till he proves me wrong.

California Sox
10-30-2004, 09:54 PM
I can't believe I've read through 95 posts in this thread and haven't come across the typical "why do we always get washed up Indians" comment. I'm sure it's there somewhere, I skimmed through a few pages...probably just missed it. :rolleyes:
It was there. Page 1. Lofton, Belle, both Alomars, now maybe Vizquel. I'm going to start a "Sign Einar Diaz" thread.

MrRoboto83
10-30-2004, 10:41 PM
now we just need to sign Coco Crisp

sircaffey1
10-30-2004, 11:58 PM
Neither is Jason Kendall, but he has managed to in the past. Again, I like him there till he proves me wrong.

Yes thats not the point though. If we had the opportunity to get a decent leadoff hitter, we should take it because for this main point, Rowand is BETTER suited for the 2 hole, where he would have more RBI opportunities. Rowand will hit 20-25 HR a year. If he hits in the 2 spot then those 70 rbis he had last year will turn into 80-90 rbis. Much more productive.

Whitesox029
10-31-2004, 12:02 AM
:tomatoaward

this tag has been crying out to me: "Use me! Use me!"

nodiggity59
10-31-2004, 12:21 AM
Yes thats not the point though. If we had the opportunity to get a decent leadoff hitter, we should take it because for this main point, Rowand is BETTER suited for the 2 hole, where he would have more RBI opportunities. Rowand will hit 20-25 HR a year. If he hits in the 2 spot then those 70 rbis he had last year will turn into 80-90 rbis. Much more productive.
We simply have a disagreement over the needs of the team. Thomas, Lee, Konerko, Everret, Uribe and (gulp) Crede are the ones I look to drive'em in. Of that group, only Rowand can also leadoff. It would be easier to acquire one if we didn't have Everret but thats not the case.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 12:29 AM
Yes thats not the point though. If we had the opportunity to get a decent leadoff hitter, we should take it because for this main point, Rowand is BETTER suited for the 2 hole, where he would have more RBI opportunities. Rowand will hit 20-25 HR a year. If he hits in the 2 spot then those 70 rbis he had last year will turn into 80-90 rbis. Much more productive.
If Vizquel signs, I think he has to hit #2. He won't hit leadoff (apparently he hates to do it, so I imagine he wouldn't go to the Sox if that was the plan). And I'd really rather see Vizquel participating in the Ozzie Guillen lead bunt-a-thon than Rowand. Not just because Vizquel is a much better bunter, but because, as you said, Rowand has some pop (he hit 38 2Bs last year, which led AL CFs) and I'd rather see him hit away than giving up an out in almost any situation.

I agree that the Sox still need to find a leadoff hitter someplace. Kendall would be ideal, but it sounds like there's no way he'll end up on the Sox. So I think the Sox will have to acquire an outfielder to fill that role. That might make Lee a likely candidate to get traded, since he makes the most money.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 12:39 AM
All this means is that Vizquel is a better fit for the Red Sox not a better option at SS for the White Sox.
I agree, that just because Boston thinks Vizquel would fit them doesn't mean it's the best option for the Sox. They're 2 different teams, with different holes to fill. What would improve one the most won't necessarily improve the other the most. Most importantly, Boston has twice the budget the Sox have, which changes things dramatically. It also makes it unfortunate that they're interested in Vizquel.

Ol' No. 2
10-31-2004, 12:51 AM
Jeez, this thread sure got a lot of action in one day.

Going on about how Vizquel is an improvement over Valentin is irrelevant. Valentin's gone. The comparison is Crede-Vizquel-Uribe vs. Crede-Uribe-Harris. You can go on and on about what you think, but the numbers don't lie and the numbers say the difference is tiny. And the trend is not in Vizquel's favor. Harris added 60 pts to his BA and 80 pts to his OPB from 2003 to 2004, and he's likely to continue to improve. Vizquel is clearly declining. And you're putting the only real speed you have on the bench. Lot of good it will do there.

The real question isn't whether Vizquel is an improvement, although I don't think he is. The real question is, "Is this the best use of $4M?" For comparison purposes, Flash Gordon costs about the same. Which would you rather have?

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 01:03 AM
Jeez, this thread sure got a lot of action in one day...The real question is, "Is this the best use of $4M?" For comparison purposes, Flash Gordon costs about the same. Which would you rather have?Great post. I agree that I'd rather the Sox pick up a reliever like Scott Williamson with the money, I think that would be a bigger improvement. Although it would almost be sad if the Sox didn't sign Vizquel now that the board has had multiple threads and over a hundred posts on the subject....

fquaye149
10-31-2004, 01:57 AM
Jeez, this thread sure got a lot of action in one day.

Going on about how Vizquel is an improvement over Valentin is irrelevant. Valentin's gone. The comparison is Crede-Vizquel-Uribe vs. Crede-Uribe-Harris. You can go on and on about what you think, but the numbers don't lie and the numbers say the difference is tiny. And the trend is not in Vizquel's favor. Harris added 60 pts to his BA and 80 pts to his OPB from 2003 to 2004, and he's likely to continue to improve. Vizquel is clearly declining. And you're putting the only real speed you have on the bench. Lot of good it will do there.

The real question isn't whether Vizquel is an improvement, although I don't think he is. The real question is, "Is this the best use of $4M?" For comparison purposes, Flash Gordon costs about the same. Which would you rather have?
what about crede-uribe-harris v. uribe-vizquel-harris?

i think there's enough of an improvement there to justify the deal. meanwhile i think there are a few teams interested in crede.


i know, i know, sox brass are high on j.c. (oh boy i just noticed that! what overt symbolism)...but i'm just throwing this out there.

jabrch
10-31-2004, 01:08 AM
Not on this club...

:caballo :walnuts :hurt

"Remember us?"Why yes I do...
:hurt I'm Hurt - and that isn't me telling you what my nickname is.
:caballo I might be getting traded
:walnuts Which Paulie do you think is showing up in 2005?

:)

jabrch
10-31-2004, 01:48 AM
Great post. I agree that I'd rather the Sox pick up a reliever like Scott Williamson with the money, I think that would be a bigger improvement. Although it would almost be sad if the Sox didn't sign Vizquel now that the board has had multiple threads and over a hundred posts on the subject....
Williamson? Isn't he coming off of a significant injury? I think I'll pass on that one. I personally like Vizquel and all the things he brings to the table in the #2 spot. Rowand, Vizquel, Carlos, Frank, PK make a nice top 5 in the order. You have decent speed, power, fairly high OBPs, good SLG. I have no problem with that. An IF of Crede, Vizquel, Uribe and PK offers solid gloves and decent flexibility (Uribe can move anywhere he needs to if we have injuries or guys needing off days)

Unless Harris is ready to play every day and lead off (I don't buy it) then this move really makes us stronger. I am also not convinced that doing it is limiting us from making other lower cost moves. (bull-pen help)

I'm long past believing we are a legit player for Beltran (he really isn't our #1 need, despite being the #1 FA out there) and I think that the 17mm would be better spent spread across a SP, a IF and a RP. If we can get Viz for 4 and something like Pavano for 8 and still have 5mm left over to spend on a guy or two in the pen, and not lose any of what we currently have, I'd be fairly content with the offseason.

sircaffey1
10-31-2004, 02:03 AM
Jeez, this thread sure got a lot of action in one day.

Going on about how Vizquel is an improvement over Valentin is irrelevant. Valentin's gone. The comparison is Crede-Vizquel-Uribe vs. Crede-Uribe-Harris. You can go on and on about what you think, but the numbers don't lie and the numbers say the difference is tiny. And the trend is not in Vizquel's favor. Harris added 60 pts to his BA and 80 pts to his OPB from 2003 to 2004, and he's likely to continue to improve. Vizquel is clearly declining. And you're putting the only real speed you have on the bench. Lot of good it will do there.


As long as you are going on the numbers...then Vizquel is NOT on the decline. He had his best season in the past 4 years last season. Who's to say the chances of him repeating his season are worse than Harris improving on last season? Can you say? I can't.

Wow...Willie added 60 pts to his average and 80 pts to his OBP...Sounds all nice and sweet, but when you start off at absolutely horrendous I think a lot of players are going to gain some points...What do ya think?

You have NO idea what you will get from Willie next season. Thats the bottomline. IF management is willing to spend money this offseason then this is a good signing. Until we know exactly what they are going to do, we can not make a judgement on this trade.

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 02:13 AM
I hate it when the "budget" allows the Sox to only go after players who are 2 years or more past their prime.
Would be nice if they could develop more of their own, so they don't have to go out and buy players in their prime or ones past it. Having in-house options would make offseason acquisitions and free agency much easier to deal with.

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 02:43 AM
I think the "close to signing for 2 years for $8 million" rumor is a bit premature. Not that it doesn't have any legs, but I just have a hunch it will come in at less than that number. And I guess it depends on how you define "close" as well.

Mohoney
10-31-2004, 04:44 AM
Rowand is not the proto-typical leadoff hitter.
The "prototypical" leadoff hitter has gone the way of the dodo bird.

Is Craig Biggio a prototypical leadoff hitter? Or Johnny Damon? Or Derek Jeter?

No, they were all 20+ home run guys. It's all about the bling-bling.

Rowand can provide that 20+ home run spark and .300 average at the top of the lineup. Plus, he can steal bases if given the chance. In fact, I put the most confidence in him of anybody on our team in stealing a base.

This "small ball" charade is just another excuse not to pay real hitters like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Angels, Dodgers, and Astros do.

MisterB
10-31-2004, 05:39 AM
The "prototypical" leadoff hitter has gone the way of the dodo bird.

Is Craig Biggio a prototypical leadoff hitter? Or Johnny Damon? Or Derek Jeter?

No, they were all 20+ home run guys. It's all about the bling-bling.

Rowand can provide that 20+ home run spark and .300 average at the top of the lineup. Plus, he can steal bases if given the chance. In fact, I put the most confidence in him of anybody on our team in stealing a base.

This "small ball" charade is just another excuse not to pay real hitters like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Angels, Dodgers, and Astros do.
Biggio and Damon average about 15 hr a year, and both just had their best seasons, homer-wise. Jeter has been a #2 hitter more than he's been a leadoff man. This year there were more leadoff men that hit less than 10 hr's than hit 20+.

BTW, leadoff men for some of those teams - Cardinals: Tony Womack, 5 hr; Angels: David Eckstein, 2 hr; Dodgers: Cesar Izturis, 4 hr. Not to mention guys like Ichiro (8), Jason Kendall (3), Juan Pierre (3).

Some of the dodos are apparently still alive...

Flight #24
10-31-2004, 08:04 AM
Jeez, this thread sure got a lot of action in one day.

Going on about how Vizquel is an improvement over Valentin is irrelevant. Valentin's gone. The comparison is Crede-Vizquel-Uribe vs. Crede-Uribe-Harris. You can go on and on about what you think, but the numbers don't lie and the numbers say the difference is tiny. And the trend is not in Vizquel's favor. Harris added 60 pts to his BA and 80 pts to his OPB from 2003 to 2004, and he's likely to continue to improve. Vizquel is clearly declining. And you're putting the only real speed you have on the bench. Lot of good it will do there.

The real question isn't whether Vizquel is an improvement, although I don't think he is. The real question is, "Is this the best use of $4M?" For comparison purposes, Flash Gordon costs about the same. Which would you rather have?
Well, if you were to ask me whether I'd rather have Gordon and start Crede-Uribe-Harris, or have say Terry Mulholland (or equivalent) and start Crede-Vizquel-Uribe or Uribe-Vizquel-Harris, I'd say it's pretty close.

Also, without knowing what, if any deferrals, options, or potential buyouts there are in the rumored 2-yr, $8mil deal it's hard to say whether it's a good use or not. It's also hard without seeing where the market ends up at for other players. If that would buy you a solid starter, I would rather do that (unless we can do both). Otherwise, I think Omar's as good as the alternatives.

It also does a lot to change the chemistry and balance on the O by getting a "grinder", who can still play at a relatively high level. A more stable D, a more balanced O, and a guy who can execute can do a lot to improve a team that's talented offensively but prone to brainfarts.

Jjav829
10-31-2004, 08:57 AM
Well, if you were to ask me whether I'd rather have Gordon and start Crede-Uribe-Harris, or have say Terry Mulholland (or equivalent) and start Crede-Vizquel-Uribe or Uribe-Vizquel-Harris, I'd say it's pretty close.

Also, without knowing what, if any deferrals, options, or potential buyouts there are in the rumored 2-yr, $8mil deal it's hard to say whether it's a good use or not. It's also hard without seeing where the market ends up at for other players. If that would buy you a solid starter, I would rather do that (unless we can do both). Otherwise, I think Omar's as good as the alternatives.

It also does a lot to change the chemistry and balance on the O by getting a "grinder", who can still play at a relatively high level. A more stable D, a more balanced O, and a guy who can execute can do a lot to improve a team that's talented offensively but prone to brainfarts.Mulholland? If that's the best bullpen arm we'd be able to get, I'd rather not have Vizquel then. Mulholland blows. I'd rather have Grilli in the pen. I hope the decision doesn't come down to this. Gordon was one of the best relievers in the league last year. Mulholland wouldn't have been in the top 50. While Gordon is obviously not available, we need to find someone closer to being Tom Gordon than someone closer to being Terry Mulholland. If getting Vizquel is the difference between signing a Steve Kline or Troy Percival and getting Terry Mulholland, then I change my mind on this signing.

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 09:05 AM
It is really difficult to say what Omar's true value is right now. There are several teams looking for a SS and several free agent SS out there. But not all are in the same budget range. If there are 3 or 4 teams that can't afford a Nomar, Renteria or even a Cabrera, that segments the market. The lower end options are Vizquel, Valentin, Clayton, Larkin, etc. There might be a few others that are viable, but this is not a very appealing list. Most would agree that Omar is the cream of this crop. That would in turn mean Omar's services could cost more than originally thought.

What it will boil down to is how well his agent can negotiate. There will be three or four teams that will make (or have already made) overtures and at least two or three, including the Sox that likely will be serious. Which team wants him most? Which has the least reasonable "plan b"? Which team will offer an amount to get Omar to say yes without trying to continue the negotiating process?

That is what will matter and it MAY take $8 million to get him. It is not like the Sox are the only team that is interested in him.

gosox41
10-31-2004, 09:07 AM
The middle infield was terrible mainly because of Valentin. He's gone in any case. An IF of Crede-Uribe-Harris-Konerko is solid. Vizquel is no longer the Gold Glover, and adding him as a marginal improvement, at best, and certainly not worth $4M/yr. You could do a lot for the Sox BP for that amount of money. I hope I'm wrong, but this looks like Robbie Alomar Redux.

Hopefully the salary won't be that high for Vizquel. He's not worth it. If he does get this kind of money, it's the perfect example of over valuing assets and apying too much.


Bob

SEALgep
10-31-2004, 09:56 AM
Hopefully the salary won't be that high for Vizquel. He's not worth it. If he does get this kind of money, it's the perfect example of over valuing assets and apying too much.


BobThat's just it though. He is worth that much based on the White Sox need for a solid defensive SS who can play small ball and hit for a decent average. Also, he'd get that much elsewhere, so market wise, it's not like we're ripping ourselves off. It has been discussed that the need for a SS is large this offseason for teams. By signing Vizquel, we are putting ourselves in a good situation with a worthy SS, and not locking ourselves up for the future. It's risk vs. reward, and this move is certainly worth the risk IMO.

beckett21
10-31-2004, 10:05 AM
Mulholland? If that's the best bullpen arm we'd be able to get, I'd rather not have Vizquel then. Mulholland blows. I'd rather have Grilli in the pen. I hope the decision doesn't come down to this. Gordon was one of the best relievers in the league last year. Mulholland wouldn't have been in the top 50. While Gordon is obviously not available, we need to find someone closer to being Tom Gordon than someone closer to being Terry Mulholland. If getting Vizquel is the difference between signing a Steve Kline or Troy Percival and getting Terry Mulholland, then I change my mind on this signing.
Good point.

Ol' No. 2
10-31-2004, 11:43 AM
Mulholland? If that's the best bullpen arm we'd be able to get, I'd rather not have Vizquel then. Mulholland blows. I'd rather have Grilli in the pen. I hope the decision doesn't come down to this. Gordon was one of the best relievers in the league last year. Mulholland wouldn't have been in the top 50. While Gordon is obviously not available, we need to find someone closer to being Tom Gordon than someone closer to being Terry Mulholland. If getting Vizquel is the difference between signing a Steve Kline or Troy Percival and getting Terry Mulholland, then I change my mind on this signing.But ultimately, it always comes down to money. It has to. Unless you have a limitless budget, then no matter how high it is, signing a player always represents a choice between him and alternatives. Whatever money they're going to pay Vizquel is money that's not available for other needs. And as far as I'm concerned, the other needs are much more pressing. $4M/yr can get you a lot of relief help.

Vizquel has been in steady decline since at least 2001. Depending on which measure you pick, 2004 was his best year since either 2000 or 1999. Even if he repeats it he's at best only marginally better than Uribe/Harris. But what's the chances he can repeat that? Not very good. He's a lot more likely to continue to decline. Uribe and Harris, on the other hand, are young and improving. You can never say for sure, but the odds are pretty good that they're going to continue to improve and Vizquel will continue to decline.

Grinder schminder. Pitching wins, and they don't have enough.

mdep524
10-31-2004, 11:43 AM
Williamson? Isn't he coming off of a significant injury? I think I'll pass on that one. I personally like Vizquel and all the things he brings to the table in the #2 spot. Rowand, Vizquel, Carlos, Frank, PK make a nice top 5 in the order. You have decent speed, power, fairly high OBPs, good SLG. I have no problem with that. An IF of Crede, Vizquel, Uribe and PK offers solid gloves and decent flexibility (Uribe can move anywhere he needs to if we have injuries or guys needing off days)

Unless Harris is ready to play every day and lead off (I don't buy it) then this move really makes us stronger. I am also not convinced that doing it is limiting us from making other lower cost moves. (bull-pen help)

I'm long past believing we are a legit player for Beltran (he really isn't our #1 need, despite being the #1 FA out there) and I think that the 17mm would be better spent spread across a SP, a IF and a RP. If we can get Viz for 4 and something like Pavano for 8 and still have 5mm left over to spend on a guy or two in the pen, and not lose any of what we currently have, I'd be fairly content with the offseason.
You may be on to something here, jab. But I think, even with Vizquel, the Sox would be on top-of-the-order guy away from a really solid line up. Jason Kendall, Jerry Hairston, Chone Figgins, Juan Pierre... a guy like that. Let's say for the sake of argument the Sox trade for Juan Pierre (and the trade involves prospects, not Carlos Lee- a high salary player the Marlins are not likely to pay). That would give us a hypothetical line up of:

Pierre CF
Vizquel SS
Lee LF
Thomas DH
Konerko 1B
Rowand RF
Uribe 2B
Crede 3B
Davis C

If we could sign Mike Matheny away from the Cards, I would insert him in place of Davis. Otherwise, I would definitely be happy with a line up like this. If Frank is hurt, Everett could DH. If Crede fails, Harris could move in th 2B and Uribe could play 3B. Considering Rowand and Uribe's emergence in 2004, that is a pretty good line up.

Ol' No. 2
10-31-2004, 11:58 AM
You may be on to something here, jab. But I think, even with Vizquel, the Sox would be on top-of-the-order guy away from a really solid line up. Jason Kendall, Jerry Hairston, Chone Figgins, Juan Pierre... a guy like that. Let's say for the sake of argument the Sox trade for Juan Pierre (and the trade involves prospects, not Carlos Lee- a high salary player the Marlins are not likely to pay). That would give us a hypothetical line up of:

Pierre CF
Vizquel SS
Lee LF
Thomas DH
Konerko 1B
Rowand RF
Uribe 2B
Crede 3B
Davis C

If we could sign Mike Matheny away from the Cards, I would insert him in place of Davis. Otherwise, I would definitely be happy with a line up like this. If Frank is hurt, Everett could DH. If Crede fails, Harris could move in th 2B and Uribe could play 3B. Considering Rowand and Uribe's emergence in 2004, that is a pretty good line up.Williamson had elbow problems, putting him on the 60-day DL. He was re-activated in Sept. From there on he pitched 7 innings giving up 4 hits and 1 ER. I don't know what kind of shape his elbow is in, but he could probably be had pretty cheap, and might be worth a gamble.

soxfan26
10-31-2004, 12:13 PM
Why yes I do...
:hurt I'm Hurt - and that isn't me telling you what my nickname is.
:caballo I might be getting traded
:walnuts Which Paulie do you think is showing up in 2005?

:)
It still does not make Rowand the best option in the 3 or 4 spot.

jabrch
10-31-2004, 12:18 PM
You may be on to something here, jab. But I think, even with Vizquel, the Sox would be on top-of-the-order guy away from a really solid line up. Jason Kendall, Jerry Hairston, Chone Figgins, Juan Pierre... a guy like that. Let's say for the sake of argument the Sox trade for Juan Pierre (and the trade involves prospects, not Carlos Lee- a high salary player the Marlins are not likely to pay). That would give us a hypothetical line up of:

Pierre CF
Vizquel SS
Lee LF
Thomas DH
Konerko 1B
Rowand RF
Uribe 2B
Crede 3B
Davis C

If we could sign Mike Matheny away from the Cards, I would insert him in place of Davis. Otherwise, I would definitely be happy with a line up like this. If Frank is hurt, Everett could DH. If Crede fails, Harris could move in th 2B and Uribe could play 3B. Considering Rowand and Uribe's emergence in 2004, that is a pretty good line up.

I bashed Rowand my fair share. But he deserves a shot at keeping the leadoff spot. His numbers were...outstanding hitting there. I have no problem with him leading off and Vizquel in the #2 spot.

mdep524
10-31-2004, 12:25 PM
I bashed Rowand my fair share. But he deserves a shot at keeping the leadoff spot. His numbers were...outstanding hitting there. I have no problem with him leading off and Vizquel in the #2 spot.
I don't have a problem with Rowand in the lead off spot, but I think he is better- and the team as a whole is better- if he is in the #6 hole.

jabrch
10-31-2004, 12:27 PM
I don't have a problem with Rowand in the lead off spot, but I think he is better- and the team as a whole is better- if he is in the #6 hole.
OK - fair enough. I'd just rather use limited funds to fill out other clear cut holes than leadoff. I'd want to fill that bullpen and 5th starter. I guess I am resigned to living with Everett and Borchard platooning in RF and DH until Frank is ready.

Tragg
10-31-2004, 12:34 PM
We need a lead-off hitter
We need up the middle defensive help
We need an outfielder
We need 1 or 2 bullpen arms
We need 1 starter
And arguably we need a catcher and centerfielder as well - and we'll know after this year whether we need a 3B

I figure we have maybe 10 mill in free agent money
Blowing 4 mill of that on Vizuel doesn't make sense except that Kenny is figuring, I think, that Vizquel solves the first 2 problems- I think that's wishing on a star because even if V repeats 2003, his OBP is marginal for a lead-off man and his D isn't that great. I guess Kenny figures he can sign Vizquel, sign a $6 mill pitcher and then swing a trade for an outfielder.
That leaves a dubious bullpen and some other holes as well.
I think a trade for any starting outfielder brings risks- if it's Konerko, who plays first? If it involves our OF prospects, I understand a couple will be ML ready relatively soon- maybe it's best to be a little patient (1 year) and fix what we can really fix - get real solutions, so that in 2 years we will have a real ballclub.

Or maybe Kenny has it figured right- $4 mill is relatively cheap to solve 2 problems, while giving him 2 years to effect permanent solutions

jabrch
10-31-2004, 12:55 PM
Viz. is not a leadoff hitter. He doesn't like that spot. He's a #2. If KW gets him, it signals to me that Rowand stays leading off. I still like the move.

Nobody thinks Valdez or Willie Harris are ready to play every day, do they?

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 01:13 PM
I like Rowand a lot, but he's not good at taking walks. His OBP last year was OK because he hit .310. If he hits in the .280 to .290 range next year (which I'd be pretty happy with, and is in line with his career BA), his OBP would be around .330 something. That's not good enough to lead off. I'm sure someone will post that he had a great avg at leadoff last year, but I think guessing that he'll hit around his career avg is a better bet than guessing he'll hit .345 or whatever based on his 150 or so at bats leading off.

The Sox will still need a leadoff man, and I think they'll have to find an outfielder to do it.

Wealz
10-31-2004, 01:29 PM
It still does not make Rowand the best option in the 3 or 4 spot.
If Rowand hits like last year, or close to it, he is their #3 hitter. Not that Guillen would recognize it though . . .

Wealz
10-31-2004, 01:34 PM
That's just it though. He is worth that much based on the White Sox need for a solid defensive SS who can play small ball and hit for a decent average.
Small Ball does not win championships.

sircaffey1
10-31-2004, 01:50 PM
but the odds are pretty good that they're going to continue to improve and Vizquel will continue to decline.

Where was Vizquel's decline? I'm trying to find it, but I can't...He just had his best season in the last 4 years...Maybe you are saying theire WILL be a decline just because of age, but he has not shown it yet. Maybe you would like to argue that last season was a fluke and 2001-2002 is the real Omar Vizquel, but I dont know why you would.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2004, 02:33 PM
Small Ball does not win championships.

Neither do the White Sox.

We need to be able to play some small ball. Sure, some teams can win without doing it, but this team cannot.

Wealz
10-31-2004, 02:41 PM
Neither do the White Sox.

We need to be able to play some small ball. Sure, some teams can win without doing it, but this team cannot.
I think the White Sox should strive to be one of those teams that can win without playing small ball.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 02:42 PM
If Rowand hits like last year, or close to it, he is their #3 hitter. Not that Guillen would recognize it though . . .
That's actually pretty true, although a healthy Frank Thomas would be better choice IMO. With Thomas out, Rowand had the the highest average and sugging pct on the team. Lee was close, so it's not like he was a bad choice at all. But it would be nice for Rowand to be in position to get some more RBI chances if he hits like last year.

Tragg
10-31-2004, 02:50 PM
I think the White Sox should strive to be one of those teams that can win without playing small ball.Then we need better and/or more power hitters, because the Lee/Konerko/maggs/Lee quartet didn't win squat - and we have lost 1/4 of that quartet and Frank will start declining at some point, probably soon. (I should mention valentin- few mourn his leaving, but we do lose 25 homers a year; with Maggs we lose 30 and 100 RBIs; we are now down 55 - replacements cost a ton).

I don't advocate "Small ball" - I advocate a balance. I think we need power- what we have is fine but we need some obp to go along with it to make it a more effective offense.

To have an effective power team, we'd not only have to replace the 55 homers we lost, but add another 30 or so. That will cost, oh, 20-25 million.

Florida won a WS by virtue of being 11/16 in homers; the Angels won one while being 10th out of 14 in homers. All this century

batmanZoSo
10-31-2004, 02:53 PM
I think the White Sox should strive to be one of those teams that can win without playing small ball.

You mean like Boston and NY? I don't think we can afford to put together a lineup like theirs. We're better off gettting a decent leadoff guy like Vizquel who'll save you runs and getting a solid all around catcher who isn't an automatic out and can contribute nicely on offense. Then a frontline starter and at least one, maybe two good relievers you can count on.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2004, 02:54 PM
Then we need better and/or more power hitters, because the Lee/Konerko/maggs/Lee quartet didn't win squat - and we have lost 1/4 of that quartet and Frank will start declining at some point, probably soon.

And power hitters are much more costly than small ball players.

I don't advocate "Small ball" - I advocate a balance. I think we need power- what we have is fine but we need some obp to go along with it to make it a more effective offense.

Yes! Balance! Be careful though, that's a "crazy" proposition that few can even begin to understand.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 02:55 PM
I don't advocate "Small ball" - I advocate a balance. I think we need power- what we have is fine but we need some obp to go along with it to make it a more effective offense.
Again, I have to agree with that. If "small ball" means someone that gets on base at leadoff and #2, then that's great. If it means a bunch of players without much power and without great OBP, but who can bunt all day long then I don't see the point. Who are they going to be bunting over?

Wealz
10-31-2004, 03:00 PM
Then we need better and/or more power hitters, because the Lee/Konerko/maggs/Lee quartet didn't win squat - and we have lost 1/4 of that quartet and Frank will start declining at some point, probably soon. (I should mention valentin- few mourn his leaving, but we do lose 25 homers a year; with Maggs we lose 30 and 100 RBIs; we are now down 55 - replacements cost a ton)

I don't advocate "Small ball" - I advocate a balance. I think we need power- what we have is fine but we need some obp to go along with it to make it a more effective offense.

Florida won a WS by virtue of being 11/16 in homers; the Angels won one while being 10th out of 14 in homers. All this century
The Sox line up had too many easy outs in it. The quickest way to improve is to replace Crede, Davis, Harris, and the RF'er. If they have to do that by downgrading at 1B and LF in order to free up money to fix those areas they should.

Wealz
10-31-2004, 03:05 PM
You mean like Boston and NY? I don't think we can afford to put together a lineup like theirs.
Our front office isn't smart enough to beat the Red Sox.

nodiggity59
10-31-2004, 03:07 PM
Our front office isn't smart enough to beat the Red Sox.
In case you didn't notice, NONE of the front offices were smart enough to beat the Red Sox.

idseer
10-31-2004, 03:13 PM
I like Rowand a lot, but he's not good at taking walks. His OBP last year was OK because he hit .310. If he hits in the .280 to .290 range next year (which I'd be pretty happy with, and is in line with his career BA), his OBP would be around .330 something. That's not good enough to lead off. I'm sure someone will post that he had a great avg at leadoff last year, but I think guessing that he'll hit around his career avg is a better bet than guessing he'll hit .345 or whatever based on his 150 or so at bats leading off.

The Sox will still need a leadoff man, and I think they'll have to find an outfielder to do it.rowand's bb/ab ratio has gotten better for 3 straight years, last year being his best by far. i would tend to think as he gains experience facing major league pitchers he will learn to take more and more walks. so i don't think it's fair to suggest his hitting will go down while his walks stay the same. that's a worst case scenario. i, in fact think both numbers will improve.
i also think he makes a MORE than adequate leadoff hitter for the reasons many have already stated. he get's on base, he's the best basestealer on the team, and he can quickly give you the 1-0 lead with his power.

santo=dorf
10-31-2004, 03:29 PM
As far as our infield goes the SS debate looks like this from an OPS
standpoint


Omar Vizquel .774 away OPS .741 season OPS
Edgar Renteria .705 Away .728 season OPS
Jose Valentin .747 away .760 season OPS
Orlando Cabrera .745 away .689 season OPS

Even disregarding their ability to field the ball Vizquel seems to be a steal here with no one else being significantly worth while at their high price.

Is this a good enough reason to have Vizquel sign with the Sox?:?:

nodiggity59
10-31-2004, 03:30 PM
rowand's bb/ab ratio has gotten better for 3 straight years, last year being his best by far. i would tend to think as he gains experience facing major league pitchers he will learn to take more and more walks. so i don't think it's fair to suggest his hitting will go down while his walks stay the same. that's a worst case scenario. i, in fact think both numbers will improve.
i also think he makes a MORE than adequate leadoff hitter for the reasons many have already stated. he get's on base, he's the best basestealer on the team, and he can quickly give you the 1-0 lead with his power.
Exactly. He reminds me of a possible Biggio. Good average, decent speed, hits for nice power, not awesome walk rate but okay.

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 03:50 PM
Ol No.2
Vizquel has been in steady decline since at least 2001. Depending on which measure you pick, 2004 was his best year since either 2000 or 1999. Even if he repeats it he's at best only marginally better than Uribe/Harris. But what's the chances he can repeat that? Not very good. He's a lot more likely to continue to decline. Uribe and Harris, on the other hand, are young and improving. You can never say for sure, but the odds are pretty good that they're going to continue to improve and Vizquel will continue to decline.I understand your feelings about acquiring Omar. I don't agree with it, but respect it and won't try to change that. But if you are going to make arguments, how about at least making them accurate? Saying Omar has been in steady decline since 2000 is just flat out wrong.
Omar had a down year in 2001. Not sure if he was trying to do much after the departure of Manny or what, but one is entitled to an off year in a long career. He was injured in 2003 and only played 64 games, so you can pretty much throw that year out the window. Please tell me where you see "steady decline".....

Anyone know how to fix this table???

<table width="75%" border="1">
<tr>
<td>Year&nbsp;</td>
<td>Avg&nbsp;</td>
<td>OBP&nbsp;</td>
<td>G&nbsp;</td>
<td>AB&nbsp;</td>
<td>H&nbsp;</td>
<td>2B&nbsp;</td>
<td>3B&nbsp;</td>
<td>HR&nbsp;</td>
<td>RBI&nbsp;</td>
<td>BB&nbsp;</td>
<td>K&nbsp;</td>
<td>SB&nbsp;</td>
<td>Sacs&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2000&nbsp;</td>
<td>.287&nbsp;</td>
<td>.377&nbsp;</td>
<td>156&nbsp;</td>
<td>613&nbsp;</td>
<td>176&nbsp;</td>
<td>27&nbsp;</td>
<td>3&nbsp;</td>
<td>7&nbsp;</td>
<td>66&nbsp;</td>
<td>87&nbsp;</td>
<td>72&nbsp;</td>
<td>22&nbsp;</td>
<td>12&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2002&nbsp;</td>
<td>.275&nbsp;</td>
<td>.341&nbsp;</td>
<td>151&nbsp;</td>
<td>582&nbsp;</td>
<td>168&nbsp;</td>
<td>31&nbsp;</td>
<td>5&nbsp;</td>
<td>14&nbsp;</td>
<td>72&nbsp;</td>
<td>56&nbsp;</td>
<td>64&nbsp;</td>
<td>18&nbsp;</td>
<td>17&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2004&nbsp;</td>
<td>.291&nbsp;</td>
<td>.353&nbsp;</td>
<td>148&nbsp;</td>
<td>567&nbsp;</td>
<td>165&nbsp;</td>
<td>28&nbsp;</td>
<td>3&nbsp;</td>
<td>7&nbsp;</td>
<td>59&nbsp;</td>
<td>57&nbsp;</td>
<td>62&nbsp;</td>
<td>19&nbsp;</td>
<td>26&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 03:52 PM
Anyone know how to post HTML? LOL

Tragg
10-31-2004, 04:13 PM
The Sox line up had too many easy outs in it. The quickest way to improve is to replace Crede, Davis, Harris, and the RF'er. If they have to do that by downgrading at 1B and LF in order to free up money to fix those areas they should.Then we have really one player to drive in runs (maybe 2 if you count Rowand) - there's a risk there as well; and our power, while not elite power, saved us from a series of 70 win seasons imo. I think it could be done over 2 years by trading one of those 2 players.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 04:19 PM
rowand's bb/ab ratio has gotten better for 3 straight years, last year being his best by far. i would tend to think as he gains experience facing major league pitchers he will learn to take more and more walks. so i don't think it's fair to suggest his hitting will go down while his walks stay the same. that's a worst case scenario. i, in fact think both numbers will improve.
i also think he makes a MORE than adequate leadoff hitter for the reasons many have already stated. he get's on base, he's the best basestealer on the team, and he can quickly give you the 1-0 lead with his power.
His BB/PA have been .105, .037, .042, .057. You may be right he'll continue to improve (I hope so). But even if he improves as much as he did last year but hits .280, he'll still have an OBP of around .340 something. That's not terrible, but I think a good leadoff hitter should be around .370 or .380 (like Damon, Stewart, Biggio, or Pierre).

Anyway, I agree Rowand's pretty clearly the best option the Sox have now, I just think they should get a better one. And I think his power would be better used down in the order, with people on base in front of him.

As for the Biggio comparison someone else mentioned, his career OBP is .373 which is significantly better. But he doesn't have near the power Rowand seemingly has (career .435 slugging pct. while Rowand had a .544 pct last season). If Rowand keeps hitting like last season, or close to it, while playing CF he's more valuable than Biggio IMO.

Wealz
10-31-2004, 05:20 PM
Then we have really one player to drive in runs (maybe 2 if you count Rowand) - there's a risk there as well; and our power, while not elite power, saved us from a series of 70 win seasons imo. I think it could be done over 2 years by trading one of those 2 players.
You could do a lot with the savings from Konerko and Lee and the $4M Vizquel money though. You could get Drew and Glaus or Drew, Koskie, and have money left over for a decent reliever or possible 4th or 5th starter.

santo=dorf
10-31-2004, 05:32 PM
You could do a lot with the savings from Konerko and Lee and the $4M Vizquel money though. You could get Drew and Glaus or Drew, Koskie, and have money left over for a decent reliever or possible 4th or 5th starter.Drew is represented by Boras, and is more injury-prone than Vizquel.

Glaus 3B playing days are over, and he is more injury prone than Vizquel. He would essentially become Paul Konerko.

Koskie is an interesting idea, but I think we should give Crede one more year. We can use that money saved by playing Crede to spend on a starting pitcher.

santo=dorf
10-31-2004, 05:36 PM
Small Ball does not win championships.ARE YOU INSANE?

I'm not saying small ball is the best route to win a championship, but the 2003 Marlins won the World Series, and Red Sox would not have won the 2004 World Series if they didn't play small ball off of Mariano Rivera. Once again you have posted an incorrect statement.

nodiggity59
10-31-2004, 05:38 PM
You could do a lot with the savings from Konerko and Lee and the $4M Vizquel money though. You could get Drew and Glaus or Drew, Koskie, and have money left over for a decent reliever or possible 4th or 5th starter.Right, since JD Drew has been a model of consistency and is a no risk multi year investment.

Who knows what you'll get from him? I'd rather take the risk that Viquel ages at a lower price than bet a big investment on the health of JD Drew.

Glaus=Konerko, or at least not enough of an upgrade to warrant a change.

sircaffey1
10-31-2004, 06:02 PM
Both ways are possible to winning a World Series...

The "power" approach takes a lot more money than the "small ball" approach. Oakland, Florida, and Minnesota have all had success with the small ball approach. These are the teams that dont have the money to have the Mannys, Arod's, Jeter's, etc. They have built their teams around solid pitching and the small ball approach to hitting. We have tried to outslug the top teams, but we dont have the capacity to do that so finally management has adjusted to their cheap ways, and have started to turn it around. Pitching and small ball is what should be most successful for this franchise at the moment. That is, until Uncle Jerry increases payroll to 90+ million.

MarkEdward
10-31-2004, 07:54 PM
Both ways are possible to winning a World Series...

The "power" approach takes a lot more money than the "small ball" approach. Oakland, Florida, and Minnesota have all had success with the small ball approach. These are the teams that dont have the money to have the Mannys, Arod's, Jeter's, etc. They have built their teams around solid pitching and the small ball approach to hitting. We have tried to outslug the top teams, but we dont have the capacity to do that so finally management has adjusted to their cheap ways, and have started to turn it around. Pitching and small ball is what should be most successful for this franchise at the moment. That is, until Uncle Jerry increases payroll to 90+ million.
That's only partially true. Sure, the Red Sox had expensive hitters in Jason Varitek, Manny Ramirez, Trot Nixon, and Johnny Damon, but they also acquired cheap, above-average hitters in Mark Bellhorn ($500,000; 107 OPS+), Kevin Millar ($2,900,000; 117 OPS+), Bill Mueller ($2,100,000; 106 OPS+), and David Ortiz ($4,600,000; 145 OPS+). Plus, Boston had a strong (yet cheap) bench. The following players each spent most of the season in Boston and all cost under a million dollars:
Gabe Kapler: 290 ABs, .272/.311/.390
Kevin Youkilis: 208 ABs, .260/.367/.413
Doug Mirabelli: 160 ABs, .281/.368/.525
David McCarty: 151 ABs, .258/.327/.404

can of worms\ Maybe the Sox should try to lure Bill James from Boston, he does have a ring and all. /can of worms

Ol' No. 2
10-31-2004, 07:54 PM
I understand your feelings about acquiring Omar. I don't agree with it, but respect it and won't try to change that. But if you are going to make arguments, how about at least making them accurate? Saying Omar has been in steady decline since 2000 is just flat out wrong.
Omar had a down year in 2001. Not sure if he was trying to do much after the departure of Manny or what, but one is entitled to an off year in a long career. He was injured in 2003 and only played 64 games, so you can pretty much throw that year out the window. Please tell me where you see "steady decline".....
Over his career, he has a .341 OBP. I don't think you could argue the point that his peak years were 1996-2000, when he was consistently above that. Then he declined to well below that for the next 3 years. Last year he picked it up to .353, which is still below the average for his 5 peak years. Anything's possible, but it seems to me the likelihood of repeating that is small. He's clearly declined from his peak years. Down is a lot more likely than up.

idseer
10-31-2004, 08:18 PM
......... Not sure if he was trying to do much after the departure of Manny or what, but one is entitled to an off year in a long career. .............
unless, of course, you're paul konerko.

hitlesswonder
10-31-2004, 10:03 PM
Both ways are possible to winning a World Series...

The "power" approach takes a lot more money than the "small ball" approach. Oakland, Florida, and Minnesota have all had success with the small ball approach.
What exactly does "small ball" mean to you? That's not meant to sound sarcastic or anything, I'm honestly curious. People use that phrase a lot and I'm not sure everyone thinks it means the same thing. Is it sac bunting early in the game (if that's the case, I think the Sox already like to do it -- the led the AL in sac bunts IIRC)? Or playing fast players rather than power threats at as many spots as possible outside of 3-4-5 in the order (which I think was what Guillen said he wanted)? Personally, I think a team built like that playing at USCF is not a good idea, but that's just me.

The 3 teams you name all have very different approaches offensively. Oakland has a slow lineup, in general, and doesn't bunt but (as everyone knows) emphasizes OBP. The Twins generally haven't cared as much about OBP (although Stewart and Ford are both good). I'm not sure about the Marlins, other than they had good speed at 1 & 2. But they had some reasonably big bats outside of that last year (Lowell, Cabrera,Lee,Rodriguez,and Conine I don't think of as small ball players).

The thing they all do have in common is great pitching, and that's been the key to their success. The Sox were 2nd to last in ERA in the AL last season and I don't think a full year of Contreras is going to help much. If the Sox want to emulate playoff teams they should invest in pitching, IMO.

Rex Hudler
10-31-2004, 10:04 PM
Ol No. 2, look at the numbers at this link. Sorry I can't post them directly, but I cannot figure out how the hell to post a table on this board. Look at these numbers objectively and tell me honestly how you come up with "steady decline" for Omar, especially considering 2003 was a year lost to injury. Look beyond your beloved OBP and look at the big picture. Let's see if you can be open- minded here......

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=25718

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 10:38 AM
Ol No. 2, look at the numbers at this link. Sorry I can't post them directly, but I cannot figure out how the hell to post a table on this board. Look at these numbers objectively and tell me honestly how you come up with "steady decline" for Omar, especially considering 2003 was a year lost to injury. Look beyond your beloved OBP and look at the big picture. Let's see if you can be open- minded here...... He was awful in two of the last four years. If you delete those, he doesn't look so bad. So what? I can do the same with any player. Delete his worst statistics and he looks a lot better. And even at that, 2002 and 2004 were still well below his peak years, and not better than what Harris put up last year. Look at all his stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=4306

In his peak years (1996-2000) he was consistently at .350 OBP or above. 1999 was his best year a .397. 2000 wasn't far off at .377. He hasn't come close to those numbers since.

JasonC23
11-01-2004, 02:15 PM
I'm curious as to why (almost) everyone is so sure Vizquel will be a "solid #2 hitter" who "knows how to handle the bat" and is clearly worth $4 mil a year or whatever the Sox want to pay him. I read this whole thread and saw this opinion stated multiple times by multiple people, and it confuses me. Yes, he had a pretty good year with the bat last year, but I'm looking at his stats on ESPN.com, and what I'm seeing is a player that had his career year in 1999 (a while ago), had another good year in 2000, and since then has been completely up and down (with the up not exactly setting the world on fire).

AVG/OBP
2001 .255/.323 = bad
2002 .275/.341 = not bad, but not great, either
2003 .244/.321 = bad
2004 .291/.353 = pretty good

I know the common wisdom is that veterans are preferable to young players because you "know what you're getting"...but, seriously, does anyone know what the Sox would get from Vizquel, really? It looks to me like either his hits fall in for singles, boosting his average and OBP to acceptable levels (2002/2004, although a .341 OBP is not exactly supefyingly awesome--Willie Harris posted a .343 OBP this year and his fan club isn't exploding on this board, is it?), or those hits don't fall in and he's almost worthless at the plate (2001/2003).

Signing Vizquel and counting on him contributing at the plate is a pretty big risk, especially considering his age. Speaking of which, he's also at the age where a player's defensive reputation very likely overstates his actual defensive contributions (for what it's worth, in 2004, Vizquel's RF was 4.31 and his ZR was .840; Uribe's RF was 5.29 and his ZR was .881).

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm trying to figure out what question Vizquel answers for the Sox. As someone else pointed out, in the absolute best case scenario, he's a solid defensive SS who does a credible job as the #2 hitter. The problem is, I don't find him a very good bet to do either of those at anything above a decent level, which isn't enough for $4 million a year. So, to me, the only definition I can find for Vizquel is "stopgap" or "placeholder," with no clear answer as to who's place he's holding or what happens when he's done stopping the gap.

Color me unimpressed if this signing happens.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 03:29 PM
http://www.wrybread.com/gammablablog/images/1-04/1-3/cigar-store-indian.jpgDid I hear someone say they needed a new SS?

hitlesswonder
11-01-2004, 03:53 PM
I'm curious as to why (almost) everyone is so sure Vizquel will be a "solid #2 hitter" who "knows how to handle the bat" and is clearly worth $4 mil a year or whatever the Sox want to pay him.Good post. Reading through the entire thread I think shows the dedication of a true Sox fan. Or a masochistic streak, probably also related to being a Sox fan.:smile:

FWIW, I agree with you, but it appears to be a minority opinion.

Vizquel did lead the AL in sac bunts last season, and if he does play for Guillen next year maybe it would be possible to bet the over on that number and make some money. It would guarantee at least one positive would come out of signing him.

Rex Hudler
11-01-2004, 05:21 PM
He was awful in two of the last four years. If you delete those, he doesn't look so bad. So what? I can do the same with any player. Delete his worst statistics and he looks a lot better. And even at that, 2002 and 2004 were still well below his peak years, and not better than what Harris put up last year. Look at all his stats:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=4306

In his peak years (1996-2000) he was consistently at .350 OBP or above. 1999 was his best year a .397. 2000 wasn't far off at .377. He hasn't come close to those numbers since.
His bad year in 2001 and injury year in 2003 omitted, still don't support your claim of "steady decline". So he isn't as consistent as he once was, but your point is still incorrect. Take the blinders off and be objective. Just admit that either you are wrong, or used the wrong words. Steady decline is not defined by someone having as good a year last year as in his best year.

You're wrong period. I could care less if you are for signing Omar, but at least give a credible argument, will ya?

Rex Hudler
11-01-2004, 05:31 PM
I'm curious as to why (almost) everyone is so sure Vizquel will be a "solid #2 hitter" who "knows how to handle the bat" and is clearly worth $4 mil a year or whatever the Sox want to pay him. I read this whole thread and saw this opinion stated multiple times by multiple people, and it confuses me. Yes, he had a pretty good year with the bat last year, but I'm looking at his stats on ESPN.com, and what I'm seeing is a player that had his career year in 1999 (a while ago), had another good year in 2000, and since then has been completely up and down (with the up not exactly setting the world on fire).

AVG/OBP
2001 .255/.323 = bad
2002 .275/.341 = not bad, but not great, either
2003 .244/.321 = bad
2004 .291/.353 = pretty good

I know the common wisdom is that veterans are preferable to young players because you "know what you're getting"...but, seriously, does anyone know what the Sox would get from Vizquel, really? It looks to me like either his hits fall in for singles, boosting his average and OBP to acceptable levels (2002/2004, although a .341 OBP is not exactly supefyingly awesome--Willie Harris posted a .343 OBP this year and his fan club isn't exploding on this board, is it?), or those hits don't fall in and he's almost worthless at the plate (2001/2003).

Signing Vizquel and counting on him contributing at the plate is a pretty big risk, especially considering his age. Speaking of which, he's also at the age where a player's defensive reputation very likely overstates his actual defensive contributions (for what it's worth, in 2004, Vizquel's RF was 4.31 and his ZR was .840; Uribe's RF was 5.29 and his ZR was .881).

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm trying to figure out what question Vizquel answers for the Sox. As someone else pointed out, in the absolute best case scenario, he's a solid defensive SS who does a credible job as the #2 hitter. The problem is, I don't find him a very good bet to do either of those at anything above a decent level, which isn't enough for $4 million a year. So, to me, the only definition I can find for Vizquel is "stopgap" or "placeholder," with no clear answer as to who's place he's holding or what happens when he's done stopping the gap.

Color me unimpressed if this signing happens.Vizquel "handles the bat well" by leading the league in sacrifices, by being very adept at the hit and run. He doesn't strike out a lot. He walks a decent amount. That pretty much is the definition of "handling the bat well" and what you want out of a two hitter.

You fail to note that in 2002 his "not bad, but not great year" his slugging % jumped 70 points and he hit 14 HR's. Trying to accommodate for the loss of Ramirez and Thome, perhaps? Trying to do too much? Very likely, if you ask me.

It has already been establised that 2003 was a year lost to injury. When predicting 2005 for Paul Konerko are you going to focus more on what he did in 2003 or 2004?

Be unimpressed all you want, but Omar is a very good #2 hitter, who handles himself with class, works hard, is a team first guy and would bring a veteran presence that will help their lineup, and play at the minimum near Gold Glove-level defense. Why is that so bad??

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 05:34 PM
His bad year in 2001 and injury year in 2003 omitted, still don't support your claim of "steady decline". So he isn't as consistent as he once was, but your point is still incorrect. Take the blinders off and be objective. Just admit that either you are wrong, or used the wrong words. Steady decline is not defined by someone having as good a year last year as in his best year.

You're wrong period. I could care less if you are for signing Omar, but at least give a credible argument, will ya?You can believe whatever you want. His four best years were all five or more years ago, and he hasn't come close to those numbers since. That's about as objective as it gets. Maybe he'll post a .390 OBP next year. And maybe I'll have a date with Angelina Jolie this weekend. The likelihood of his reaching even the lofty .353 OBP he posted last year is slim and none.

Rex Hudler
11-01-2004, 05:38 PM
You can believe whatever you want. His four best years were all five or more years ago, and he hasn't come close to those numbers since. That's about as objective as it gets. Maybe he'll post a .390 OBP next year. And maybe I'll have a date with Angelina Jolie this weekend. The likelihood of his reaching even the lofty .353 OBP he posted last year is slim and none.
And his MOST RECENT year was just as good as those best four years.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 05:40 PM
Vizquel "handles the bat well" by leading the league in sacrifices, by being very adept at the hit and run. He doesn't strike out a lot. He walks a decent amount. That pretty much is the definition of "handling the bat well" and what you want out of a two hitter.

You fail to note that in 2002 his "not bad, but not great year" his slugging % jumped 70 points and he hit 14 HR's. Trying to accommodate for the loss of Ramirez and Thome, perhaps? Trying to do too much? Very likely, if you ask me.

It has already been establised that 2003 was a year lost to injury. When predicting 2005 for Paul Konerko are you going to focus more on what he did in 2003 or 2004?

Be unimpressed all you want, but Omar is a very good #2 hitter, who handles himself with class, works hard, is a team first guy and would bring a veteran presence that will help their lineup, and play at the minimum near Gold Glove-level defense. Why is that so bad??Why is everyone so quick to dismiss his 2003 numbers? He got hurt in June, but BEFORE that he was posting a spiffy .332 OBP. His performance in 2003 was not down because of injury. It was down for the same reason his performance in 2001, 2002 and 2004 were down.

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 05:46 PM
And his MOST RECENT year was just as good as those best four years.*** are you talking about?
1996: .362
1997: .347
1998: .358
1999: .397
2000: .377
2001: .323
2002: .341
2003: .321
2004: .353

If .353 is just as good as .397, or .377, or .362, or .358, then Willie Harris is just as good as Vizquel in his prime.

Wealz
11-01-2004, 05:47 PM
And his MOST RECENT year was just as good as those best four years.
Don't discount the fact that he will be 38 next year.

Rex Hudler
11-01-2004, 09:06 PM
*** are you talking about?
1996: .362
1997: .347
1998: .358
1999: .397
2000: .377
2001: .323
2002: .341
2003: .321
2004: .353

If .353 is just as good as .397, or .377, or .362, or .358, then Willie Harris is just as good as Vizquel in his prime.
There you go looking at one stat again, like someone with tunnel vision. If you can't see it, then YOU are the one with blinders on.

Rex Hudler
11-01-2004, 09:11 PM
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss his 2003 numbers? He got hurt in June, but BEFORE that he was posting a spiffy .332 OBP. His performance in 2003 was not down because of injury. It was down for the same reason his performance in 2001, 2002 and 2004 were down.
How often are players numbers down in a season when they get hurt? You ever think that possibly players try to play through an injury?

Are you expecting Paul Konerko to revert back to his 2003 numbers?

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 10:34 AM
From your earlier post:
Look at these numbers objectively and tell me honestly how you come up with "steady decline" for OmarThere you go looking at one stat again, like someone with tunnel vision. If you can't see it, then YOU are the one with blinders on.So far you haven't advanced any objective arguments, but you just dismiss the objective arguments I make. What happened to objective? Or does that apply only to me? Find me an objective measure by which he is NOT declining.

sircaffey1
11-02-2004, 10:44 AM
To me declining means you are progressively getting worse....I dont see that in Vizquel's past 4 seasons. Sure he isnt what he was in his prime and if you want to compare 1999 to last year then he IS declining, but if you want to compare 2001, 2002, and 2003 then he IS NOT declining. Last season was an IMPROVEMENT over the prior 3 years. How is that declining?

Of course he isnt going to revert back to 1999 form, but I dont see the "declining" comment. Last year was an IMPROVEMENT...that means that last season's stats was NOT a "decline" over the prior years stats...maybe you can explain...

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 10:53 AM
To me declining means you are progressively getting worse....I dont see that in Vizquel's past 4 seasons. Sure he isnt what he was in his prime and if you want to compare 1999 to last year then he IS declining, but if you want to compare 2001, 2002, and 2003 then he IS NOT declining. Last season was an IMPROVEMENT over the prior 3 years. How is that declining?He's declining from his peak. If you look at all his stats, it's clear that he was gradually improving in the years up to 1999-2000, which were his peak years, and is now on a downward trend from there. No one said declining must be a regular decrease every year. There will always be year-to-year ups and downs. But the overall trend is clearly downward. The only real relevance is in predicting what he will do next year. Last year was his best year since his peak, and it's a lot more likely his numbers will decline from 2004 than that they will improve.

Hangar18
11-02-2004, 11:04 AM
Problem is, with our current "budget" we can not afford to overpay for anyone.

:reinsy
" ......SHeeesh ......Finally. These people are using the word BUDGET
in their Vocabulary. Knew they'd come around, but I didnt think it would
take 20 years!! "

sircaffey1
11-02-2004, 11:10 AM
He's declining from his peak. If you look at all his stats, it's clear that he was gradually improving in the years up to 1999-2000, which were his peak years, and is now on a downward trend from there. No one said declining must be a regular decrease every year. There will always be year-to-year ups and downs. But the overall trend is clearly downward. The only real relevance is in predicting what he will do next year. Last year was his best year since his peak, and it's a lot more likely his numbers will decline from 2004 than that they will improve.

Ok I guess I have a different interpretation...I dont remember exactly what his number of ABs would in 2002 and 2003(I know 2003 was injury marred), but I think at this stage of Omar's career if he is healthy, he will put up numbers like last year. If we can keep him healthy, I don't see any reason why he can't put up similar numbers as last year. Maybe a move to the launching pad could improve his numbers in itself.

jabrch
11-02-2004, 11:30 AM
:reinsy
" ......SHeeesh ......Finally. These people are using the word BUDGET
in their Vocabulary. Knew they'd come around, but I didnt think it would
take 20 years!! "
Amazing - JR runs a business on a budget...I'm shocked and apallled. It's not like Hangar-World where there are no budgets and you can just go out and sign whomever you want?

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 11:45 AM
Ok I guess I have a different interpretation...I dont remember exactly what his number of ABs would in 2002 and 2003(I know 2003 was injury marred), but I think at this stage of Omar's career if he is healthy, he will put up numbers like last year. If we can keep him healthy, I don't see any reason why he can't put up similar numbers as last year. Maybe a move to the launching pad could improve his numbers in itself.His 2003 numbers are almost entirely from BEFORE his injury in mid-June. And since he's not really a HR hitter, playing in Comiskey really won't help him much. Given that last year was his best in the last four, I have very little confidence he can repeat that. But even at last year's production, he's only slightly better than Willie Harris. The bigger question is: Do we really want to pay him $4M/yr when at best he will be a marginal improvement over Harris, and more likely he will be not as good? Wouldn't you get a lot more bang for the buck spending that money on pitching, where the Sox ranked 11th?

LVSoxFan
11-02-2004, 11:46 AM
I agree. I'm am fine with Crede-Uribe-Harris-Konerko. In a ideal world, Crede would be traded, I'm done with the Joe Crede expierement. But, with it looking like Crede isn't going anywhere anytime soon, that infield w/out Valentin is a upgrade. Use that $4million a year elsewhere, how about a STARTING PITCHER.
I agree; I had no problem with Uribe at short--anything but Valentin!

While this guy's an upgrade over Valentin, the big hole in the lineup is a STARTING PITCHER. Buehrle, Contreras, Garcia... that's three. Then what? Garland? Ugh.

Well, there's always 2006!

sircaffey1
11-02-2004, 12:25 PM
His 2003 numbers are almost entirely from BEFORE his injury in mid-June. And since he's not really a HR hitter, playing in Comiskey really won't help him much. Given that last year was his best in the last four, I have very little confidence he can repeat that. But even at last year's production, he's only slightly better than Willie Harris. The bigger question is: Do we really want to pay him $4M/yr when at best he will be a marginal improvement over Harris, and more likely he will be not as good? Wouldn't you get a lot more bang for the buck spending that money on pitching, where the Sox ranked 11th?

I dont think it is just a "marginal" improvement. I have zero faith in what we will get from Willie. He could easily produce a season much like his second half. I will hold out my judgement on an Omar signing until we know the exact numbers and after we see what ALL management does this offseason...If have a payrol of less than 70 million then spending 4 mil on Omar is a mistake yes, but until I see what management does in total I dont think we would be able to make an intelligent conclusion on an Omar signing.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 01:17 PM
I dont think it is just a "marginal" improvement. I have zero faith in what we will get from Willie. He could easily produce a season much like his second half. I will hold out my judgement on an Omar signing until we know the exact numbers and after we see what ALL management does this offseason...If have a payrol of less than 70 million then spending 4 mil on Omar is a mistake yes, but until I see what management does in total I dont think we would be able to make an intelligent conclusion on an Omar signing.Harris' OBP was .343 last year. Vizquel's was .353. Even if Vizquel repeats his 2004 numbers, that extra .010 in OBP works out to one extra on-base per month. That's pretty marginal in my book. Vizquel is an older player in decline (we can quibble about how fast, but he's certainly not getting better), while Willie is a young player still learning to play. Take a look at Vizquel's numbers for his first three years.

1989: .220 BA, .273 OBP
1990: .247 BA, .295 OBP
1991: .230 BA, .302 OBP

Now look at Willie's numbers:

2002: .233 BA, .270 OBP
2003: .204 BA, .259 OBP
2004: .262 BA, .343 OBP

Harris was a lot better in his third year than Vizquel was in his. And Willie's are mostly part time, while Vizquel was a full time player in 2 of those 3 years. Inconsistency is the rule, not the exception for young players. Willie will be fine.

Rex Hudler
11-02-2004, 01:19 PM
No one said declining must be a regular decrease every year. There will always be year-to-year ups and downs.
Actually, YOU did. You were the one that said he is in "steady decline" and that is EXACTLY what "steady decline" implies. You were too busy blindly defending your point that you failed to see the fact that I even offered you the opportunity to change your verbage and hold onto your point.

Try and break free from that tunnel-vision on occasion. There is a beautiful world out there you seem to be missing.

Rex Hudler
11-02-2004, 01:25 PM
Harris' OBP was .343 last year. Vizquel's was .353. Even if Vizquel repeats his 2004 numbers, that extra .010 in OBP works out to one extra on-base per month. That's pretty marginal in my book. Vizquel is an older player in decline (we can quibble about how fast, but he's certainly not getting better), while Willie is a young player still learning to play. Take a look at Vizquel's numbers for his first three years.

1989: .220 BA, .273 OBP
1990: .247 BA, .295 OBP
1991: .230 BA, .302 OBP

Now look at Willie's numbers:

2002: .233 BA, .270 OBP
2003: .204 BA, .259 OBP
2004: .262 BA, .343 OBP

Harris was a lot better in his third year than Vizquel was in his. And Willie's are mostly part time, while Vizquel was a full time player in 2 of those 3 years. Inconsistency is the rule, not the exception for young players. Willie will be fine.
My last post before I beat my head against a wall. I am not bringing Willie Harris into this because it will bring up a whole other argument with different posters, so don't consider this to have anything to do with what Willie can or cannot do.

You once again are wrapped up in only one stat. That is stupidly myopic and naive. Even the great Billy Beane is smart enough to not evaluate a player purely on OBP. Players contribute to teams in many ways, some which are measured by statistics and some that are not. To simply state your argument based on one stat shows either someone that is so hard-headed and eager to make a point that he refuses to look at things rationally, or just shows you don't know a lot about the game.

Either way, use OBP as an effective tool in evaluating players, but to try and use it as the ONLY tool is ridiculous. Broaden your horizons.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 01:25 PM
Actually, YOU did. You were the one that said he is in "steady decline" and that is EXACTLY what "steady decline" implies. You were too busy blindly defending your point that you failed to see the fact that I even offered you the opportunity to change your verbage and hold onto your point.

Try and break free from that tunnel-vision on occasion. There is a beautiful world out there you seem to be missing.And I misplaced a comma, too, but I snuck that one by you, didn't I? If you want to play word games, find someone else to play with.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 01:27 PM
My last post before I beat my head against a wall. I am not bringing Willie Harris into this because it will bring up a whole other argument with different posters, so don't consider this to have anything to do with what Willie can or cannot do.

You once again are wrapped up in only one stat. That is stupidly myopic and naive. Even the great Billy Beane is smart enough to not evaluate a player purely on OBP. Players contribute to teams in many ways, some which are measured by statistics and some that are not. To simply state your argument based on one stat shows either someone that is so hard-headed and eager to make a point that he refuses to look at things rationally, or just shows you don't know a lot about the game.

Either way, use OBP as an effective tool in evaluating players, but to try and use it as the ONLY tool is ridiculous. Broaden your horizons.OK, I'm calling your bluff. What other tool would you like to use?

Rex Hudler
11-02-2004, 01:31 PM
And I misplaced a comma, too, but I snuck that one by you, didn't I? If you want to play word games, find someone else to play with.
My whole argument with you the past three days has been based on your use of steady decline. I have stated it repeatedly. It is your own damned fault if you are just now figuring it out. Omar's 2004 season was on par with his 2000 season overall. I do see some inconsistencies in the past four years, but there is no "steady decline". Players have off years all the time. They get hurt. But those seasons are not absolutes in predictors of success.

Look at Aaron Rowand, Frank Thomas, Paul Konerko. All three of those guys have different situations, but if you looked only at numbers, there is no way you would have been able to predict what Rowand and Konerko did this year, and what Frank has done in the past. You have to look beyond one simple stat and look into why a player may have had a bad year. Sometimes it is easily explainable and able to be discounted (or weighted less heavily) when predicting future success. Sometimes it is purely a crap shoot.

Rex Hudler
11-02-2004, 01:32 PM
OK, I'm calling your bluff. What other tool would you like to use?
I have already made my case. Look back at what I said his strengths are. Look back at his complete set of stats and compare. If you were paying attention earlier and didn't have your blinders on, you would not have had to ask that question.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 01:41 PM
My whole argument with you the past three days has been based on your use of steady decline. I have stated it repeatedly. It is your own damned fault if you are just now figuring it out. Omar's 2004 season was on par with his 2000 season overall. I do see some inconsistencies in the past four years, but there is no "steady decline". Players have off years all the time. They get hurt. But those seasons are not absolutes in predictors of success.

Look at Aaron Rowand, Frank Thomas, Paul Konerko. All three of those guys have different situations, but if you looked only at numbers, there is no way you would have been able to predict what Rowand and Konerko did this year, and what Frank has done in the past. You have to look beyond one simple stat and look into why a player may have had a bad year. Sometimes it is easily explainable and able to be discounted (or weighted less heavily) when predicting future success. Sometimes it is purely a crap shoot.Please explain to me how Vizquel's 2004 season is "on par" with his 2000 season. Feel free to use actual statistics. I'm all ears.

Rex Hudler
11-02-2004, 03:58 PM
Please explain to me how Vizquel's 2004 season is "on par" with his 2000 season. Feel free to use actual statistics. I'm all ears.
Go back and look at them yourself. I provided you a link.

JKryl
11-05-2004, 04:14 PM
I hope you two guys never find out where each other lives. It could get ugly out there (nothing personal).:rolleyes:

But, thanks for keeping the off season interesting.

Over By There
11-05-2004, 07:58 PM
Bruce Levine was just on MJH... missed the very first part of the discussion so I didn't catch his source, but he was basically saying Vizquel is a done deal, just waiting for it to be "legal" to announce (I believe it's the 12th?). Levine said 2 years, "8 to 10 million."

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument... :smile:

Ol' No. 2
11-05-2004, 09:47 PM
Bruce Levine was just on MJH... missed the very first part of the discussion so I didn't catch his source, but he was basically saying Vizquel is a done deal, just waiting for it to be "legal" to announce (I believe it's the 12th?). Levine said 2 years, "8 to 10 million."

Now back to your regularly scheduled argument... :smile:If they sign him before Dec 7, they give up a draft pick, no?

Tragg
11-06-2004, 12:32 AM
I'm neutral on the trade UNLESS KW figures this solves the lead-off hitter problem