PDA

View Full Version : Crazy idea...Why not KEEP Paul Konerko?


jordan23ventura
11-25-2004, 02:31 AM
Lets face it. The Sox need offense and power, just like everyone else. A lineup of say:
Rowand CF
Lee LF
Thomas DH
Konerko 1B
Everett RF
Uribe SS
Crede 3B
Davis/Burke C
Polanco/Womack 2B

is really not all that bad, and can compete with just about any lineup in the AL. I know everyone says that we need to trade for an ace, but come on! At the expense of what? How about sign a mid-level starter to fill the No. 3 spot and pick up a guy for the bullpen and be done with it? While I'd love to see RJ or one of the big 3 on the South Side, I think you need to have the tools to get the playoffs before you start penciling in the Game 1 starter.

So, why not try to lock up PK for a little less cash over the offseason? He's a great fit in US No Signal and the fans love him. If he seems unwilling and wants to explore free agency, then look at trade possibilities.

Thoughts?

Fredsox
11-25-2004, 06:37 AM
It seems they need starting pitching, a shortstop, and a right fielder more than they need a general power hitter in his walk year. I think he's great, I love his work ethic, but I think the truth is if we are going to land a stud #1 or #2 pitcher Konerko is going to have to be a part of the deal. You can't get without giving.

munchman33
11-25-2004, 08:34 AM
:threadsucks

I'm sorry but production at first base grows on the perverbial tree. This team has too many holes to spend that much money at first base. Bye Paulie, its been fun.

idseer
11-25-2004, 09:27 AM
i agree. keep paul.

misty60481
11-25-2004, 09:44 AM
I agree keep Paulie what if Big Frank is not at full strength until late spring we are going to need all the power we can get. I know they said Paulie only puts up good numbers at the cell but we still play 81 games there. It will be hard to match 40 hrs-117 rbis from just anywhere remember we are losing 30+ hrs from Maggs and 25-30 from Jose, lot of making up to do..

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 09:52 AM
remember we are losing 30+ hrs from Maggs and 25-30 from Jose, lot of making up to do..
Uh, the White Sox got 9 home runs from Ordonez last year, lost half of Frank Thomas' season, and still hit 242 home runs. There will still be plenty of jacks.

MRKARNO
11-25-2004, 10:45 AM
We're going to have a good lineup, with or without Konerko. I dont think our biggest worry is hitting. Our biggest worry however is pitching and if we can trade Konerko at the absolute height of his trade value (one year left and coming off a great year), then that would be great. Check Konerko's home/road stats, he was awful on the road. He seemed to be the biggest beneficiary of the Cell's power boost. We need to make our bullpen a playoff calibur one. It isnt right now. We need 5 major league starters so that Contreras can be our number 5 (Garland is more consistant) instead of Jason Grilli. Any way we go about, we'll have an above average lineup, but will we have five starters we can depend on? Will be have a bullpen that doesnt blow leads? I'm not too confident in these things right now.

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 11:02 AM
We're going to have a good lineup, with or without Konerko. I dont think our biggest worry is hitting. Our biggest worry however is pitching and if we can trade Konerko at the absolute height of his trade value (one year left and coming off a great year), then that would be great.
Everybody's biggest worry is pitching because pitchers are not consistent.

If the roster remained unchanged from where it is now, the pitching projects to improve slightly (at least if you plug in the numbers from all the public-domain "modelling" programs) and the offense to decline "slightly". This makes sense if you assume that Garcia being available for a full season is the key difference in the pitching and that Uribe's 2004 season was at least partly a fluke.

The starting pitching as it is now could be dominant if they add one more good pitcher. We'll never know it because the Cell will add 50 home runs to the pitcher totals and make them look less effective than they are. Fortunately that works both ways.

soxtalker
11-25-2004, 11:12 AM
It is interesting how much difference a season can make. A year or two ago, a popular cry on this board was that Paulie be traded for that proverbial "bag of balls". Well, he had a good full season, and now there is significant sentiment (not clear how many, but significant) that he not be traded.

As far as I'm conerned, the real question is for whom we trade Paulie. I didn't agree with the "bag of balls" alternative a year ago. Now I agree with those who have pointed out that first base is probably one of the few strengths we can afford to deal away. This also seems to be the right time to trade Paulie, as he has come off a good year (i.e., has high perceived value) and will need to be re-signed after this year. But it all depends on the actual deal.

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 11:16 AM
Now I agree with those who have pointed out that first base is probably one of the few strengths we can afford to deal away. This also seems to be the right time to trade Paulie, as he has come off a good year (i.e., has high perceived value) and will need to be re-signed after this year. But it all depends on the actual deal.
Exactly. Also, Konerko is a very similar player to Carlos Lee, and how many righthanded sluggers do you really need in the lineup?

SomebodyToldMe
11-25-2004, 12:09 PM
Thank you. Keep Paulie. I hate all the trade talks with him in it. Paulie's actually beginning to put a face on these White Sox other than Thomas. It's great. He's getting recognition, and the first thing people want to do is get rid of him. I want Paulie on the team next season. I'd rather give up Lee than him. I'm just more of a Paulie fan.

fquaye149
11-25-2004, 01:59 PM
isn't the motto: buy low, sell high.

I bet in 2003 we would have killed to get the value for paulie we'd be getting now.

At the same time I don't think we need to dump him...but if we can unload him for QUALITY TALENT at pitcher, outfield, 3b or middle infield...or catcher...why not?

It's not like we have a shortage of quality hitters who play 1b

jordan23ventura
11-25-2004, 02:04 PM
Thank you. Keep Paulie. I hate all the trade talks with him in it. Paulie's actually beginning to put a face on these White Sox other than Thomas. It's great. He's getting recognition, and the first thing people want to do is get rid of him. I want Paulie on the team next season. I'd rather give up Lee than him. I'm just more of a Paulie fan.
Thank YOU. That's one of the points I was trying to make.

Yeah, his trade value may never be higher, but I'm not sure that I agree with trading a fan favorite and a possible future team cornerstone for ONE year of a top notch starting pitcher when the Sox have WAY TOO MANY holes to fill and will have a tough time getting to the playoffs anyway. Especially since Minnesota will still contend and is still the team to beat, and Detroit who got hot and Cleveland who was right on our tail, are only going to get much better.

jordan23ventura
11-25-2004, 02:11 PM
I'm sorry but production at first base grows on the perverbial tree. This team has too many holes to spend that much money at first base. Bye Paulie, its been fun.It doesn't matter what position your $8mil player is at when he gives you 40+ HR's and 110+ RBI's.

By that same logic, it would be stupid to pay Frank that much money to be the lowly DH, and stupid as well to spend that much money on a productive corner outfielder since we have so many holes.

Guess what: 1B, DH, and corner outfield is typically where the power goes. Yes, there are cheaper players. But we want good ones don't we?

jordan23ventura
11-25-2004, 02:16 PM
Uh, the White Sox got 9 home runs from Ordonez last year, lost half of Frank Thomas' season, and still hit 242 home runs. There will still be plenty of jacks.
Uh, subtract another 71, then forget about those 9 from Maggs, then wait around and see if Everett and Thomas get healthy.

fquaye149
11-25-2004, 02:25 PM
It doesn't matter what position your $8mil player is at when he gives you 40+ HR's and 110+ RBI's.

By that same logic, it would be stupid to pay Frank that much money to be the lowly DH, and stupid as well to spend that much money on a productive corner outfielder since we have so many holes.

Guess what: 1B, DH, and corner outfield is typically where the power goes. Yes, there are cheaper players. But we want good ones don't we?


the point is we have many glaring and less glaring holes glaring holes at catcher and starter. less glaring in right field, middle infield and third base.

no matter how you slice it, one place where we have a surplus of good hitters is the 1b/dh position. ross and Frank could easily fill this role - we don't suffer as much w/o paulie assuming we fill our glaring/less glaring holes by trading him than we do by keeping him and keeping our lineups burke/davis, crede, harris, uribe, borchard and grilli in the rotation

Hangar18
11-25-2004, 02:35 PM
It seems they need starting pitching, a shortstop, and a right fielder more than they need a general power hitter in his walk year. I think he's great, I love his work ethic, but I think the truth is if we are going to land a stud #1 or #2 pitcher Konerko is going to have to be a part of the deal. You can't get without giving.
" ...........if we are going to land a STUD 1 or 2 Pitcher, Konerko is going to
have to be part of the deal." No offense Fredsox, but its this kind of
REIN$DORFIAN LOGIC that has stopped the SOX from getting to the World
Series. Why Dont we stop Making Holes to Fill others, and just SIGN SOME PEOPLE !!! Truth is, we need a Bartolo Colon type Pitcher, and a Power/Hit for Avg outfielder, a 30homer/100 RBI Magglio Ordonez type .....
wait ........ we had those guys didnt we?

Isnt that Funny ......... were going to further WEAKEN ourselves to make up
for Letting COLON and ORDONEZ go. Thats smart baseball isnt it?

jabrch
11-25-2004, 03:21 PM
I'd listen to offers. Last year we would have loved to move him to get the 9mm freed up. Now, I'd still listen - if the right deal was out there. We have whatever - 75ish - mm to spend - lets see the best allocation of those resources. If moving PK gets us a #1/#2 SP, and the baseball folks feel we can still score runs with Gload there, then I guess that's how it will play out. I can live with that. But fortunately now we aren't in a position where we would just be dumping PK. I never liked that idea - even though it would have been the only way to move him before last year.

With a 75ish mm payroll, there will be a hole or two somewhere - I can deal with that. I'd like to minimize them if possible.

Maracucho
11-25-2004, 07:00 PM
isn't the motto: buy low, sell high.

I bet in 2003 we would have killed to get the value for paulie we'd be getting now.

At the same time I don't think we need to dump him...but if we can unload him for QUALITY TALENT at pitcher, outfield, 3b or middle infield...or catcher...why not?

It's not like we have a shortage of quality hitters who play 1b
Exactly!!

Or, we can just wait till the next offseason and once again come up with draft picks and cries that Konerko never cared about the Sox and always wanted to leave and play for some other team

I don't mean that we should trade every impending free agent... but in my book, no player is untouchable because he is a "fan favorite".

If the team wins we will have a team that appeals to the fans, and that's what's important. the fact that he had a career year last year, places his value at an all time high, and if trading him brings in players that fill some other bigger holes I'm all for it.

JB98
11-25-2004, 08:16 PM
:threadsucks

I'm sorry but production at first base grows on the perverbial tree. This team has too many holes to spend that much money at first base. Bye Paulie, its been fun.

No, your post sucks. If production at first base grows on the perverbial tree, name me another American League first baseman who produced what Konerko did last season. I guarantee you won't be able to because there isn't one. Paul was the best first baseman in the league in 2004.

I'm tired of the Friends of Ross Gload telling me that a career minor-leaguer is capable of being our everyday first baseman. It ain't happening.

Further, we're losing Maggs and Valentin in free agency. Thomas and Everett can't be counted on to stay healthy. I don't know why people think we have an abundance of power given those circumstances. No one in the world will ever be able to convince me that we can afford to trade Konerko. If we do, I promise you that people on this board will be whining about a lack of offense by mid-May.

</rant>

JB98
11-25-2004, 08:18 PM
Exactly. Also, Konerko is a very similar player to Carlos Lee, and how many righthanded sluggers do you really need in the lineup?

I'd say three, and I'd like to go to battle with Konerko, Lee and Thomas. What do you think?

JB98
11-25-2004, 08:30 PM
" ...........if we are going to land a STUD 1 or 2 Pitcher, Konerko is going to
have to be part of the deal." No offense Fredsox, but its this kind of
REIN$DORFIAN LOGIC that has stopped the SOX from getting to the World
Series. Why Dont we stop Making Holes to Fill others, and just SIGN SOME PEOPLE !!! Truth is, we need a Bartolo Colon type Pitcher, and a Power/Hit for Avg outfielder, a 30homer/100 RBI Magglio Ordonez type .....
wait ........ we had those guys didnt we?

Isnt that Funny ......... were going to further WEAKEN ourselves to make up
for Letting COLON and ORDONEZ go. Thats smart baseball isnt it?

Amen, Hanger. It's a sad state of affairs when Sox fans are advocating creating a hole at 1B in order to fill a hole in the starting rotation. We don't even consider the prospect of keeping our stud 1B and merely signing a good free agent to fill out the rotation. Instead of trading Paulie for a 41-year-old, why don't we just sign Matt Clement or Derek Lowe? I don't know about you, but I think we could win our fair share of games with a front three of Garcia, Buerhle and either of those two pitchers. And we could keep our lineup intact.

Here's another consideration: We were derailed by injuries last year. Let's say we trade Paulie, and Thomas and Everett go down again next year. Then what the hell do we do? Have Gload bat clean-up? That's a ridiculous proposition. Wouldn't we rather have guys like Gload coming off the bench as role players? If there's any lesson to be learned from 2004, it's that you need depth to win. That means depth at the big-league level and depth in the organization as a whole. We have neither. When that's the case, I don't think you can afford to deal ANY of your top players, let alone a guy who is coming off a 41-homer season.

johnny_mostil
11-25-2004, 08:38 PM
I'd say three, and I'd like to go to battle with Konerko, Lee and Thomas. What do you think?
I'd keep Konerko myself. I'd go get Matt Clement or Odalis Perez, get another bullpen pitcher who can serve as a swingman, and a real catcher. I'd take my chances with Everett in right field. I'd stop the madness of trading even part of the talent base to rent pitchers for one year. Go collect groundball pitchers, let Uribe and Harris and Crede throw people out.

Whitesox029
11-25-2004, 09:52 PM
:threadrules:
Thought I'd balance things a little bit. Why does the vast majority of this site seem to have a vendetta against Paul Konerko? My first WSI thread was one discussing whether Mike Cameron for Paul Konerko was a good deal. Most said it wasn't. Naturally you guys lambasted him last year, and this past spring everyone thought he was a washed up bum because he had one bad year. If you go back to March 2004 threads on the subject, you'll see that I predicted 30 HR and 100 RBI for Paulie in 2004 and the general consensus was that I was insane. He proceeded to hit over 40 HR and had over 120 RBI.

Now go back in history and find the last time a team traded away their best clutch hitter (like it or not it's true now that Maggs is as good as gone) and won a world series the next year.
In a pre-emptive response to those of you who will inevitably question Paul's status as a clutch-hitter:

2004 RISP: .314 avg, .409 OBP

SomebodyToldMe
11-25-2004, 10:30 PM
:threadrules:
Thought I'd balance things a little bit. Why does the vast majority of this site seem to have a vendetta against Paul Konerko? My first WSI thread was one discussing whether Mike Cameron for Paul Konerko was a good deal. Most said it wasn't. Naturally you guys lambasted him last year, and this past spring everyone thought he was a washed up bum because he had one bad year. If you go back to March 2004 threads on the subject, you'll see that I predicted 30 HR and 100 RBI for Paulie in 2004 and the general consensus was that I was insane. He proceeded to hit over 40 HR and had over 120 RBI.

Now go back in history and find the last time a team traded away their best clutch hitter (like it or not it's true now that Maggs is as good as gone) and won a world series the next year.
In a pre-emptive response to those of you who will inevitably question Paul's status as a clutch-hitter:

2004 RISP: .314 avg, .409 OBP
Great post! I just don't understand why everyone's saying "We don't know what Paul we're gonna get next year," when the guy had only one bad year. Paulie should stay here and become the new face of the franchise, in my opinion.

fquaye149
11-25-2004, 10:41 PM
I really don't see that as being the point.

I think, and you have yet to address this, the point is, with all of the holes we have...and the power surplus at the 1b/dh position, it might be worth exploring our options to fill some of our needs

Whitesox029
11-25-2004, 10:48 PM
Let me put it a little more diplomatically.
-Trading talent for talent is not a good idea, because in the end, you have the same amount of talent.
-Doing absolutely nothing is a bad idea, because, again, you have no talent gain.

This leaves two options:
either...
1. Swindle someone
2. Use money to sign players
or
3. Wait until you get lucky (our favored philosophy for the last 87 years).

I'm sorry, but these are the only ways to win a World Series, preferably one of the first two, since the third option is taking its toll on our franchise.

gosox41
11-25-2004, 10:49 PM
No, your post sucks. If production at first base grows on the perverbial tree, name me another American League first baseman who produced what Konerko did last season. I guarantee you won't be able to because there isn't one. Paul was the best first baseman in the league in 2004.



</rant>

1. Ortiz
2. Teixeira
3. Delgado

All 3 of those guys in the AL had equivalent or better numbers then PK. Also remember PK's production is overinflated by playing at the Cell.

In the NL you have:

1. Helton
2. Pujols
3. Thome
4. Casey
5. Wilerson
6. Lee

Now consider one more thing:

PK had 278 AB's at home and 285 on the Road.

He hit .317 wiht 29HR's at home with a whopping 1.079 OPS.

On the road he hit .239 with 12 HR's and a .708 OPS? Playing at the Cell inflated his numbers.



Bob

FightingBillini
11-25-2004, 11:53 PM
1. Ortiz
2. Teixeira
3. Delgado

All 3 of those guys in the AL had equivalent or better numbers then PK. Also remember PK's production is overinflated by playing at the Cell.

In the NL you have:

1. Helton
2. Pujols
3. Thome
4. Casey
5. Wilerson
6. Lee

Now consider one more thing:

PK had 278 AB's at home and 285 on the Road.

He hit .317 wiht 29HR's at home with a whopping 1.079 OPS.

On the road he hit .239 with 12 HR's and a .708 OPS? Playing at the Cell inflated his numbers.



BobCarlos Delgago - .269, 32 homeruns, 99 RBIs. Wrong on that count.
But I agree with you to an extent. Konerko may be a very good player, but he is not a great player. He hits a lot of homers and drives them in, but that can be replaced. I like Paulie, but I wouldnt mind seeing him go while his stock is so high. If we trade him, I hope KW picks up JT Snow. He is a gold glover who has a decent stick. He wont produce what Konerko did behind the plate (he batted .327 this year, but is a career .267 hitter), but his defense will save a lot of errors, and he wont be too pricey.

CWSGuy406
11-26-2004, 12:36 AM
A question for all of the Konerko backers...

How does Paully help us win on the road...? (Which, if we even want to sniff the playoffs, we'll have to play much better on the road...)

jordan23ventura
11-26-2004, 04:35 AM
A question for all of the Konerko backers...

How does Paully help us win on the road...? (Which, if we even want to sniff the playoffs, we'll have to play much better on the road...)
While you do have a point about Paulie's road numbers, I have one question:

Are you comfortable with Rowand, Lee, and Uribe providing the majority of the offense next year? I'm sorry to say it, but that's what happens if Frank and Everett can't recover from injuries or go down early again. (And remember, although I have confidence in all three posting good seasons again, CLee is the only one who has proven himself so far).

Unless, of course you, want to hang your hopes on Willie Harris and Joe Crede having amazing seasons.

While I would love to see it, and once again while I would love to see RJ here, I think it may be too much of a gamble. And this isn't like taking a gamble on Freddy Garcia for Reed, Olivo, and Morse, this is taking a gamble on a solid 4th or 5th starter and PK, who batted in over 13.5% of total Sox runs last year, and accounted for 17% of total HR's hit. That's a big gamble, IMO, especially if there are not enough funds available to replace that production.

jordan23ventura
11-26-2004, 04:48 AM
1. Ortiz
2. Teixeira
3. Delgado

All 3 of those guys in the AL had equivalent or better numbers then PK. Also remember PK's production is overinflated by playing at the Cell.

In the NL you have:

1. Helton
2. Pujols
3. Thome
4. Casey
5. Wilerson
6. Lee

I know you are only trying to say that there are others who are better or comaprable to Paulie, but hey, that's a pretty impressive list isn't it?

One one problem: none are available, except Delgado through FA who looks like he's going to Seattle, and possibly Helton if you trade the farm and want to eat one of the largest salaries in the entire league.

The reason they aren't available? Because they mean too much to their team, which is the case I am making for Paulie. Can this already over question-marked offense survive without him?

Since it looks like KW is intent on "making a splash (quietly)" and trading him anyway, we will have to see.

jordan23ventura
11-26-2004, 05:04 AM
I would imagine that this has been posted in another thread somewhere, but I didn't see it, so forgive me if I am posting this again.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1931282

The D-Backs have looked at other alternatives, in St. Louis, Anaheim and Los Angeles, to name three. The White Sox were the most aggressive early with Paul Konerko (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5908), Jon Garland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396) and minor-league center fielder Brian Anderson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5152), but it is highly unlikely Johnson would go to the South Side of Chicago. I know this comes from an airbag, but Anderson too? ***?

Is Randy Johnson also the cure for AIDS or something?

idseer
11-26-2004, 07:26 AM
A question for all of the Konerko backers...

How does Paully help us win on the road...? (Which, if we even want to sniff the playoffs, we'll have to play much better on the road...) here's an answer for all the konerko haters...

paul hit an equal amount of homers and had MORE rbi's on the road the year before (yes, his off year). in 2002 he hit much better on the road (.318) than at home (.288). he also had about equal power and rbi's home/road and had a higher road ops!

what does this tell us? i'd say it suggests some people around here can't think beyond one year's production and assume the following years will always be the same.
there are hardly ANY players who do exactly the same year after year home and road. surprise! there is always some fluctuation. to say konerko can't hit on the road is short-sighted at best.

so ... what's the next konerko bash? :?:

ps ... a couple of guys mentioned as so much better ... 2003:
ortiz home .315, 62 rbi's
ortiz road .256, 39 rbi's

delgado home .337, 83
delgado road .267, 62

fquaye149
11-26-2004, 07:38 AM
we're not konerko haters...but to act like we'd be giving him up for NOTHING and would only have rowand uribe and thomas (forgetting lee???)....is crazy.

Now, I don't support the konerko/garland/anderson for johnson move but if we were to move paulie for a good hitting shortstop, second baseman etc...i think we could actually improve our offense. and if we could use him to improve our rotation (read: have depth in the 1-5 positions...not upgrade garland) then it wouldn't be quite as important that paulie be in the lineup.

now, in a perfect world we could keep paulie and sign more players, but what about the sox history makes you think that that's a viable option.

idseer
11-26-2004, 07:57 AM
we're not konerko haters...but to act like we'd be giving him up for NOTHING and would only have rowand uribe and thomas (forgetting lee???)....is crazy.

Now, I don't support the konerko/garland/anderson for johnson move but if we were to move paulie for a good hitting shortstop, second baseman etc...i think we could actually improve our offense. and if we could use him to improve our rotation (read: have depth in the 1-5 positions...not upgrade garland) then it wouldn't be quite as important that paulie be in the lineup.

now, in a perfect world we could keep paulie and sign more players, but what about the sox history makes you think that that's a viable option.
i will only agree to the extent no one is untradable.
what bugs me is the CONSTANT 'get rid of paul' thinking that goes on around here. the bs about his home/road production that invariably is brought up.
if all you got is .. we should trade him cause he just had his best year then i'd ask where were the "trade thomas" people after 2000?
i don't understand sox fans who can't wait to dump the guy that just carried them the previous season and has the best career numbers of anyone on the team sans thomas and is still only 28!

gosox41
11-26-2004, 08:28 AM
Carlos Delgago - .269, 32 homeruns, 99 RBIs. Wrong on that count.
But I agree with you to an extent. Konerko may be a very good player, but he is not a great player. He hits a lot of homers and drives them in, but that can be replaced. I like Paulie, but I wouldnt mind seeing him go while his stock is so high. If we trade him, I hope KW picks up JT Snow. He is a gold glover who has a decent stick. He wont produce what Konerko did behind the plate (he batted .327 this year, but is a career .267 hitter), but his defense will save a lot of errors, and he wont be too pricey.
Honestly, I'd still take Delgado over PK (assuming money wasn't an issue).

Delgado had his worst year in his last 7 and still managed an oBP of .372. He is a lefty power hitter who puts up very similar numbers at home and on the road. There's little doubt that playing at the Cell would turn his power numbers up. As for his RBI's, he may have had less then PK, but it's a function of who is getting on base in front of Delgado vs. PK. Delgado had less of a chance to drive in runners then PK.

But we're in agreement that PK should be 'sold high'.



Bob

gosox41
11-26-2004, 08:30 AM
I know you are only trying to say that there are others who are better or comaprable to Paulie, but hey, that's a pretty impressive list isn't it?

One one problem: none are available, except Delgado through FA who looks like he's going to Seattle, and possibly Helton if you trade the farm and want to eat one of the largest salaries in the entire league.

The reason they aren't available? Because they mean too much to their team, which is the case I am making for Paulie. Can this already over question-marked offense survive without him?

Since it looks like KW is intent on "making a splash (quietly)" and trading him anyway, we will have to see.
It is an impressive list to be part of. I just think that if you let some of those players play half their games at the Cell or took PK out of it, the list would no longer include him.



Bob

gosox41
11-26-2004, 08:34 AM
.
if all you got is .. we should trade him cause he just had his best year then i'd ask where were the "trade thomas" people after 2000?
!
There's on difference. Thomas is a much better and more productive hitter in his worst year then PK in his best. Take out 2001 due to injury and 2002 when Thomas spent time still recovering from the biceps injury (and was still very productive) and you're comparing apples to oranges.

PK is no Frank Thomas.



Bob

Hangar18
11-26-2004, 09:09 AM
[QUOTE=jordan23ventura]I know you are only trying to say that there are others who are better or comaprable to Paulie, but hey, that's a pretty impressive list isn't it?

One one problem: none are available, except Delgado through FA who looks like he's going to Seattle, and possibly Helton if you trade the farm and want to eat one of the largest salaries in the entire league.

The reason they aren't available? Because they mean too much to their team, which is the case I am making for Paulie. Can this already over question-marked offense survive without him?

QUOTE]

Excellent POINT! Why are NONE of the other teams with the aforementioned players trying to get "rid" of their 1B? Why are the WHite Sox the ONLY team trying to get rid of a Hitter like this?
Answer. REIN$DORFIAN LOGIC
We are a question marked offense about to add even MORE question marks
to our team. No wonder we havnt been to the World Series since 1917.

johnny_mostil
11-26-2004, 09:23 AM
Why does the vast majority of this site seem to have a vendetta against Paul Konerko?
Simple. White Sox fans tend to focus on what White Sox players can't do, and assume that all other teams actually play airtight defense, hit .862 with runners in scoring position, and score twelve runs a game using nothing but productive outs [notice: no teal]. Culturally, White Sox fans have been conditioned to believe that good baseball players run fast, pitch, and play defense, and that hitting home runs is suspicious and probably indicates extreme selfishness. When the White Sox win 83 games despite losing their top two hitters and multiple busts from the rookie crop, White Sox fans lament that the team "sucks" and that 100 losses are just around the corner. It's not just this year, it's every year. Partly it's culture, and part of it is the insipid, baseless preaching of certain broadcasters (remember what happened when one of them actually ran the team). Because every year we collectively wait for a team that wins 100 games by pitching, speed, and defense (which is virtually impossible in 2004), every year we are either disappointed with the results or, perversely, with the construction of the team.

jabrch
11-26-2004, 09:37 AM
All people are saying is that we should consider the market for him - that's it. If a deal is out there that can better this team (get us a #1 SP or something) then it is something that surely is worth considering. Last year, it was "Trade PK for a bag of used balls - if you could find anyone dumb enough to give up so many valuable balls" but that is no longer the attitude here - since he hit like he can. Now - at what might be his peak value, it isn't outrageous to consider investigating what the market will pay for him - is it?

I mean - if you can downgrade a bit at 1B, and upgrade huge at SP, is it possible that is a net improvement for the club, and one that should be done?

I don't think anyone HATES PK. He happens to be one of our most valuable trade chips right now - and in December/January, you have to consider that as an option.

idseer
11-26-2004, 09:39 AM
There's on difference. Thomas is a much better and more productive hitter in his worst year then PK in his best. Take out 2001 due to injury and 2002 when Thomas spent time still recovering from the biceps injury (and was still very productive) and you're comparing apples to oranges.

PK is no Frank Thomas.



Bob 1998 thomas .265 29hr 109rbi .86ops
2003 konerko .277 41hr 117rbi .894ops

if you are going to miss my point entirely ... at LEAST check to see if your off point remark is accurate.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 09:42 AM
All people are saying is that we should consider the market for him - that's it. If a deal is out there that can better this team (get us a #1 SP or something) then it is something that surely is worth considering. Last year, it was "Trade PK for a bag of used balls - if you could find anyone dumb enough to give up so many valuable balls" but that is no longer the attitude here - since he hit like he can. Now - at what might be his peak value, it isn't outrageous to consider investigating what the market will pay for him - is it?

I mean - if you can downgrade a bit at 1B, and upgrade huge at SP, is it possible that is a net improvement for the club, and one that should be done?

I don't think anyone HATES PK. He happens to be one of our most valuable trade chips right now - and in December/January, you have to consider that as an option.
EXACTLY. If this team had a $90 or $100 million payroll, I wouldn't want to trade Konerko. The ugly facts are the Sox don't have the payroll headroom to invest in the sort of production Paul Konerko will deliver at first base. He's expensive to keep and could bring something of greater value to the Sox if he were traded.

Rational Crazies and Irrational Sensibles can pretty much agree on this one.

idseer
11-26-2004, 09:45 AM
All people are saying is that we should consider the market for him - that's it. If a deal is out there that can better this team (get us a #1 SP or something) then it is something that surely is worth considering. Last year, it was "Trade PK for a bag of used balls - if you could find anyone dumb enough to give up so many valuable balls" but that is no longer the attitude here - since he hit like he can. Now - at what might be his peak value, it isn't outrageous to consider investigating what the market will pay for him - is it?

I mean - if you can downgrade a bit at 1B, and upgrade huge at SP, is it possible that is a net improvement for the club, and one that should be done?

I don't think anyone HATES PK. He happens to be one of our most valuable trade chips right now - and in December/January, you have to consider that as an option.
the problem with your argument is that you're only downgrading 'a little bit'.
do you actually believe gload is just 'a little downgrade'? nonsense!

throw in the fact that a 'huge upgrade at pitcher' would most likely mean a lot more money on top of what paul makes at first.

i see no 'net improvement' if it means dumping paul' paying much more for your huge upgrade at pitcher and then not having enough money left over to keep a lee or resign a buehrle.

why not admit you just want paul gone no matter what else happens to the team?

idseer
11-26-2004, 09:53 AM
EXACTLY. If this team had a $90 or $100 million payroll, I wouldn't want to trade Konerko. The ugly facts are the Sox don't have the payroll headroom to invest in the sort of production Paul Konerko will deliver at first base. He's expensive to keep and could bring something of greater value to the Sox if he were traded.

Rational Crazies and Irrational Sensibles can pretty much agree on this one.
explain to me how we can't afford to keep a pretty sure thing like konerko yet he's worth enough to bring in something of greater value, which in reality would be a question mark.

who becomes our 1st baseman? thomas? he is a very big question mark. gload? he's an even bigger question mark.

konerko looks to ME like a guy still improving. and he's just 28 years old. call us all the names you like ... those who think paul shouldn't be traded have a damn good point.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 10:21 AM
....
who becomes our 1st baseman? thomas? he is a very big question mark. gload? he's an even bigger question mark....
No, I doubt Thomas is a real option at 1B anymore. He's getting old and he is recovering from a broken foot. Perhaps he can play 1B for interleague games played inside N.L. ballparks, but that's about it.

As for other replacements for Konerko, I remember Brian Daubach serving the role quite nicely back in 2003. Jerry Manuel kept running Konerko out there everyday even while the rest of the civilized world could tell Konerko was killing us. Daubach delivered in the limited time he was given. His OPS was better than Konehead's and he did it for less than one-tenth what Mr. Hip Dysplasia cost us.

Daubach was so valuable to the 2003 White Sox, the team released him. He wound up on the 2004 Red Sox.

I dunno... replacing Konerko's production at 1B just doesn't seem like a big deal, and the Sox have already underscored the point with their own actions the past 2 seasons.

gosox41
11-26-2004, 10:24 AM
1998 thomas .265 29hr 109rbi .86ops
2003 konerko .277 41hr 117rbi .894ops

if you are going to miss my point entirely ... at LEAST check to see if your off point remark is accurate.
One year. I missed that one. Big deal. PK playing in a new and improved hitters paradise at the Cell can only best Frank 1 year. Yet in2 004 they're making roughly the same money.

What exactly is your point about PK? That he's a productive first basemen? Okay. He is. Never said he wasn't. Is he in the upper tier in all of baseball? I named 9 guys I'd take over him putting him #10 in the league. Not bad, but not great considering his numbers are over inflated at the Cell.



Bob

Fredsox
11-26-2004, 10:41 AM
explain to me how we can't afford to keep a pretty sure thing like konerko yet he's worth enough to bring in something of greater value, which in reality would be a question mark.

who becomes our 1st baseman? thomas? he is a very big question mark. gload? he's an even bigger question mark.

konerko looks to ME like a guy still improving. and he's just 28 years old. call us all the names you like ... those who think paul shouldn't be traded have a damn good point. I doubt that he will directly "replace" Konerko if he trades him, that would be very tough to do as you point out. On the other hand, I think KW realizes that fact and is willing to deal with it if he has to.

I think that it's clear KW wants to change the focus of the team. While I don't think they will resemble the 1959 team anytime soon, I still think that he values a first class starting rotation and a much tighter defense than we've shown in the past few years. Somebody said we hit 245 HR in 2004 and we had a better than average pitching staff and an average defense. It wasn't enough to get us a division title in a weak division.

I don't know if KW is going to succeed in getting a first class starting rotation, but I believe that he's going to work very hard to get it. It is likely too that he thinks he can give up 40-50 HR per year, improve the defense significantly, and have a better chance at the playoffs than he had the past 2 years.

HITMEN OF 77
11-26-2004, 10:46 AM
[QUOTE=jordan23ventura]So, why not try to lock up PK for a little less cash over the offseason? QUOTE]

Brilliant!! :gulp: and I always get a laugh about people who say productive 1B guys are all over. So, who has better offensive numbers than Konerko in the AL?

fquaye149
11-26-2004, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE=jordan23ventura]So, why not try to lock up PK for a little less cash over the offseason? QUOTE]

Brilliant!! :gulp: and I always get a laugh about people who say productive 1B guys are all over. So, who has better offensive numbers than Konerko in the AL?

you've missed a great thread

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:06 AM
No, I doubt Thomas is a real option at 1B anymore. He's getting old and he is recovering from a broken foot. Perhaps he can play 1B for interleague games played inside N.L. ballparks, but that's about it.

As for other replacements for Konerko, I remember Brian Daubach serving the role quite nicely back in 2003. Jerry Manuel kept running Konerko out there everyday even while the rest of the civilized world could tell Konerko was killing us. Daubach delivered in the limited time he was given. His OPS was better than Konehead's and he did it for less than one-tenth what Mr. Hip Dysplasia cost us.

Daubach was so valuable to the 2003 White Sox, the team released him. He wound up on the 2004 Red Sox.

I dunno... replacing Konerko's production at 1B just doesn't seem like a big deal, and the Sox have already underscored the point with their own actions the past 2 seasons.
daubach promptly hit .227 with 2 homeruns also. i don't think he was such a great player and it seems the boston trip proved it. we want that? i know i don't.

and i don't quite follow what you mean the sox have underscored the point that the sox didn't think 1st was a big deal. they obviously felt paul was better than he was showing last year and kept hoping he'd pull out of it ... which he did too late in the year. i agree brian should maybe have seen more time last year but i never believed he was an answer to first base.
i honestly don't believe they could easily replace paul. if they tried, first base would become the next new hole for the sox to fill.

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:10 AM
.

What exactly is your point about PK?

Bob
my point was you don't trade a player JUST because he had his best year to date using the reasoning that he's worth more now than ever. all the stars would be traded if that were the way to go.

i wasn't comparing paul to thomas.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 11:11 AM
....
and i don't quite follow what you mean the sox have underscored the point that the sox didn't think 1st was a big deal. they obviously felt paul was better than he was showing last year and kept hoping he'd pull out of it ... which he did too late in the year. i agree brian should maybe have seen more time last year but i never believed he was an answer to first base.
i honestly don't believe they could easily replace paul. if they tried, first base would become the next new hole for the sox to fill.
The Sox dumped a firstbasemen with better numbers than Paul Konerko in 2003. The Sox dumped this same player in spite of only giving him 183 AB's in the season he out-performed Konerko. The Sox gave him up.

You think replacing Paul Konerko is tough for the Sox? The Sox don't seem to agree. His replacement is worthless.

Daubach isn't the answer for 2005, but I bet we find a Konerko replacement for less than $10 million -- especially when the Sox think the replacements start with a value of $0.

pearso66
11-26-2004, 11:12 AM
I think this team should keep Pauly. If you want to trade someone at the height of his trade value, I'd dump Rowand. I think he's reached his peak, he has never done anything remotely close to this past year. From waht I heard, he wasnt even that great of a hitter in the minors. He's the guy I would get rid of.

And the talk befoer the season was to get rid of Lee or Paul because we had an abundance of Right handed power hitters, but people fail to remember, this was when we had expected Maggs to resign. But he didnt, we lost our 1 power hitter, and now i say we keep Paul. I for one am not sold on Gload, yet another career minor leaguer having a career year. But thats just my $0.02

Edit: And another point I forgot to mention, to the guy who said Ortiz had a better year than Paul, when referring to 1st basemen, wasnt Ortiz generally a DH, and rarely a 1st baseman? so that leaves 1 that put up comparable numbers in the AL. I say keep him

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:13 AM
I doubt that he will directly "replace" Konerko if he trades him, that would be very tough to do as you point out. On the other hand, I think KW realizes that fact and is willing to deal with it if he has to.

I think that it's clear KW wants to change the focus of the team. While I don't think they will resemble the 1959 team anytime soon, I still think that he values a first class starting rotation and a much tighter defense than we've shown in the past few years. Somebody said we hit 245 HR in 2004 and we had a better than average pitching staff and an average defense. It wasn't enough to get us a division title in a weak division.

I don't know if KW is going to succeed in getting a first class starting rotation, but I believe that he's going to work very hard to get it. It is likely too that he thinks he can give up 40-50 HR per year, improve the defense significantly, and have a better chance at the playoffs than he had the past 2 years.
i understand this thinking. and don't necessarily disagree with it. if they can ACTULLY improve the club somehow by trading paul i am all for it.
my argument here is with all those simply wanting to dump paul because they don't particularly like him. making up silly suggestions he can't hit on the road ... constantly pointing out his off year as if it's his norm. these are dumb reasons to trade a guy.

jabrch
11-26-2004, 11:16 AM
the problem with your argument is that you're only downgrading 'a little bit'.
do you actually believe gload is just 'a little downgrade'? nonsense!

throw in the fact that a 'huge upgrade at pitcher' would most likely mean a lot more money on top of what paul makes at first.

i see no 'net improvement' if it means dumping paul' paying much more for your huge upgrade at pitcher and then not having enough money left over to keep a lee or resign a buehrle.


ID - I really have no idea. I truly have no idea which PK is going to show up next season? Is it the one we saw almost all of last year? How bout the dud who we saw in 2003?? 2002 pre-allstar break? post? You get my drift.... If we knew what to project, even with any remote degree of likelihood, from PK, that would be one thing. But he has no history of consistency that can be looked at. Same holds for Gload. Do I think Gload can do anything remotely close to what Konerko did last year? HIGHLY UNLIKELY... But can he do what PK did in 2003? Yes sir - I think he can. Which half of 2002? So...

You got me with this one though...
why not admit you just want paul gone no matter what else happens to the team?

Where, in anything I have written, have I remotely indicated that I want Konerko gone? All I fricking want to do is see what the market is willing to give us for him. I'd be thrilled to have him stay - if he is worth more to us here than gone. I have never indicated anything else - and I have no idea what that last line I quoted is supposed to mean - that's just....well.....jabberwocky

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:17 AM
The Sox dumped a firstbasemen with better numbers than Paul Konerko in 2003. The Sox dumped this same player in spite of only giving him 183 AB's in the season he out-performed Konerko. The Sox gave him up.

You think replacing Paul Konerko is tough for the Sox? The Sox don't seem to agree. His replacement is worthless.

Daubach isn't the answer for 2005, but I bet we find a Konerko replacement for less than $10 million -- especially when the Sox think the replacements start with a value of $0. i think they 'dumped' him because they felt (correctly) he was on his way out of the game. paul at 27 was still on the rise even with his bad year (also proven correct). all his past had shown that. i think maybe you're stretching things to say the sox must feel 1st base is worthless.

jabrch
11-26-2004, 11:18 AM
explain to me how we can't afford to keep a pretty sure thing like konerko yet he's worth enough to bring in something of greater value, which in reality would be a question mark.

Um - how exactly is he a "pretty sure thing"?

I like PK - but a "pretty sure thing"? That's a stretch, no?

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:25 AM
ID - I really have no idea. I truly have no idea which PK is going to show up next season? Is it the one we saw almost all of last year? How bout the dud who we saw in 2003?? 2002 pre-allstar break? post? You get my drift.... If we knew what to project, even with any remote degree of likelihood, from PK, that would be one thing. But he has no history of consistency that can be looked at. Same holds for Gload. Do I think Gload can do anything remotely close to what Konerko did last year? HIGHLY UNLIKELY... But can he do what PK did in 2003? Yes sir - I think he can. Which half of 2002? So...

You got me with this one though...


Where, in anything I have written, have I remotely indicated that I want Konerko gone? All I fricking want to do is see what the market is willing to give us for him. I'd be thrilled to have him stay - if he is worth more to us here than gone. I have never indicated anything else - and I have no idea what that last line I quoted is supposed to mean - that's just....well.....jabberwocky
are you kidding me? from '99 to '02 he's averaged approx. .295 26hr 95 rbi's. he was MODEL of consistancy! 1 stinking bad year and everyone forgets everything the guy ever did. it's amazing!

as for the second. that's not directly aimed at you. in fact i'm not sure that more than 2 or 3 people have stated they don't like him and want him gone. however, i believe it's intimated based upon all those whose first thought is to trade paul.

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:26 AM
Um - how exactly is he a "pretty sure thing"?

I like PK - but a "pretty sure thing"? That's a stretch, no?
just look at his numbers from '99 on. i'd say he's a pretty sure thing yes!

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 11:27 AM
i think they 'dumped' him because they felt (correctly) he was on his way out of the game. paul at 27 was still on the rise even with his bad year also proven correct). all his past had shown that. i think maybe you're stretching things to say the sox must feel 1st base is worthless.
Konerko on the rise?
:?:

It's nearly 2005 and we're STILL waiting for him to put together a full 6-month season.

Sorry id, but that dog won't hunt.
:cool:

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:29 AM
Konerko on the rise?
:?:

It's nearly 2005 and we're STILL waiting for him to put together a full 6-month season.

Sorry id, but that dog won't hunt.
:cool:
i think he did that pretty well this past season, don't you?

jabrch
11-26-2004, 11:31 AM
just look at his numbers from '99 on. i'd say he's a pretty sure thing yes!

You call that a sure thing?

Every single number of his yo-yos... One year there is power, one year there is average, one year there is nothing....

I like PK - but calling him a sure thing is a reach. He hit .277 this last season...

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:37 AM
You call that a sure thing?

Every single number of his yo-yos... One year there is power, one year there is average, one year there is nothing....

I like PK - but calling him a sure thing is a reach. He hit .277 this last season...
i don't know whose numbers YOU are looking at ... but pauls were:

.299 24 81
.298 21 97
.282 32 99
.304 27 104

where is the yo yo here? show me ANY player who doesn't change LITTLE from year to year.
i'd say, and i bet most everyone here would agree with me, these are damn good consistant numbers!

gosox41
11-26-2004, 11:49 AM
my point was you don't trade a player JUST because he had his best year to date using the reasoning that he's worth more now than ever. all the stars would be traded if that were the way to go.

i wasn't comparing paul to thomas.
So do you think 2004 was the exception for him in having a great year, or should I continue to expect 2004 type (or better) production in the future?

I believe that after being in the league at least 5 eyars, you can expect a set of norms for a player. A player may break out or breakdown for a year or 2, but in general they revert to back to form.

Of course there is an exception to every rule, but I'm speaking generally. Is PK the exception? Is having a 40+HR PK more valuable then having antoher solid pitcher that can win 15 games and pitch 200-220 innings?


Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 11:50 AM
i think he did that pretty well this past season, don't you? Yeah, sure... I've come to expect nothing from my firstbasemen every May... my team has Paul Konerko.

In his defense, the Sox went on a winning rampage once Konerko was elevated to the #3/#4 hole last August. Oh, wait...
:wink:

jabrch
11-26-2004, 11:52 AM
i don't know whose numbers YOU are looking at ... but pauls were:

.299 24 81
.298 21 97
.282 32 99
.304 27 104

where is the yo yo here? show me ANY player who doesn't change LITTLE from year to year.
i'd say, and i bet most everyone here would agree with me, these are damn good consistant numbers!

From 99 on?

How do you leave out the .234 season and the .277 season, when they are the past two years? His Ks have gone up tremendously also (up to 100 Ks per season) Where's the sure thing? I like PK - but at 10mm$, why do you seem so dead set against any discussion about what his greatest value could be to this team?

idseer
11-26-2004, 11:59 AM
From 99 on?

How do you leave out the .234 season and the .277 season, when they are the past two years? His Ks have gone up tremendously also (up to 100 Ks per season) Where's the sure thing? I like PK - but at 10mm$, why do you seem so dead set against any discussion about what his greatest value could be to this team?
you asked where was his consistancy didn't you? i showed you. 1 off year out of 6.

i'd say it's a good bet he'll do at least .280+ 30+ 95+ next year and those are pretty good numbers.

idseer
11-26-2004, 12:00 PM
Yeah, sure... I've come to expect nothing from my firstbasemen every May... my team has Paul Konerko.

In his defense, the Sox went on a winning rampage once Konerko was elevated to the #3/#4 hole last August. Oh, wait...
:wink:
once he was elevated he played his best ball. not his fault if the rest of the team sucked! :rolleyes:

MRKARNO
11-26-2004, 12:27 PM
1 stinking bad year
Konerko's 2003 wasn't just any bad year; it was one of the worst years produced by someone who got as much playing time as he did in recent memory. His July and August (which genuinely good) saved him from a pathetically awful year, but if you look at the other 4 months, they were intolerable. To call him the model of consistancy is misleading as he always finds month or months to slump in. His August this year was not good.

pearso66
11-26-2004, 12:27 PM
So do you think 2004 was the exception for him in having a great year, or should I continue to expect 2004 type (or better) production in the future?

I believe that after being in the league at least 5 eyars, you can expect a set of norms for a player. A player may break out or breakdown for a year or 2, but in general they revert to back to form.

Of course there is an exception to every rule, but I'm speaking generally. Is PK the exception? Is having a 40+HR PK more valuable then having antoher solid pitcher that can win 15 games and pitch 200-220 innings?


Bob

The difference, is your losing konerko, and another 12-15 game winner who gives you 200 innings in garland, for someone who will give you 15 wins and 200 innings? I'd rather keep konerko and Garland, and pick up a 5th starter. To get RJ, which i'm not saying you are saying, but that is what most people want. You are creating 2 holes, and only filling 1 of those holes. and before you ask, to trade, you are losing a 1st baseman and a pitcher, and getting 1 pitcher in return, so that's my logic. We are still 1 pitcher short, and then also a 1st baseman short.

MRKARNO
11-26-2004, 12:33 PM
The difference, is your losing konerko, and another 12-15 game winner who gives you 200 innings in garland, for someone who will give you 15 wins and 200 innings?
While I do agree with the arguement that this would create another hole, the arguement above is extremely flawed. On a .500 team this year, Randy probably would have won 20+ games. He won 16 games on a team that lost 111 games and won only 51! Randy would have no doubt been a 20 game on the White Sox or almost any other team in the majors for that matter. The upgrade from Garland to Randy Johnson in 2004 is comparable to the upgrade between Chan Ho Park and Tim Hudson.

pearso66
11-26-2004, 12:45 PM
While I do agree with the arguement that this would create another hole, the arguement above is extremely flawed. On a .500 team this year, Randy probably would have won 20+ games. He won 16 games on a team that lost 111 games and won only 51! Randy would have no doubt been a 20 game on the White Sox or almost any other team in the majors for that matter. The upgrade from Garland to Randy Johnson in 2004 is comparable to the upgrade between Chan Ho Park and Tim Hudson.

While that sounds all fine and dandy, I don't like to give ap itcher wins based on which team he is on. How would he have performed with a DH instead of a pitcher facing him? Or what if he got into the spot of the rotation where he got no run support. Remember, he is also what, 41? Who's to say he will be 1/2 of what he is this past year, he also has had soem injury problems as of late. While Garland is 25 and konerko is 27. I personally, would rather keep the 2 youngins, instead of hoping that RJ doesn't show is age next year.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 02:18 PM
once he was elevated he played his best ball. not his fault if the rest of the team sucked!
We lost with him for $10 million, so we can lose without him for less than $10 million. Pretty simple concept for most of us to grasp. :rolleyes:

jabrch
11-26-2004, 02:19 PM
Gload and a 9mm pitcher or PK and a 350,000 pitcher... I can't get my arms around any way that I'd take PK and anything we have in out system right now that would be the 350,000 starter....

idseer
11-26-2004, 02:26 PM
We lost with him for $10 million, so we can lose without him for less than $10 million. Pretty simple concept for most of us to grasp. :rolleyes:
i think it was 8 mil. plus we lost with everyone else too... so let's blame em all and dump em all.

gee. that IS simple! :rolleyes:

idseer
11-26-2004, 02:29 PM
Konerko's 2003 wasn't just any bad year; it was one of the worst years produced by someone who got as much playing time as he did in recent memory. His July and August (which genuinely good) saved him from a pathetically awful year, but if you look at the other 4 months, they were intolerable. To call him the model of consistancy is misleading as he always finds month or months to slump in. His August this year was not good.
i disagree. you don't judge a player by picking apart the months you want. you judge by the year they had. and in fact pk hit 18 hr's and had 65 rbi's, hardly one of the worst years produced by someone with his playing time.

you want to judge him by one bad year that's your right.
i'll base my opinion on 5 very good years.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 02:45 PM
i think it was 8 mil. plus we lost with everyone else too... so let's blame em all and dump em all.

gee. that IS simple!
What's 2 million between friends? He's overpaid regardless.

And with a $70 million payroll, this team won't win much more than the 83 games the 2003 team won. They don't award prizes for this sort of mediocrity, so we probably should blame 'em all and dump 'em all.

Let's start with Konerko. We figure to get something worthwhile for him.:rolleyes:

idseer
11-26-2004, 03:05 PM
What's 2 million between friends? He's overpaid regardless.

And with a $70 million payroll, this team won't win much more than the 83 games the 2003 team won. They don't award prizes for this sort of mediocrity, so we probably should blame 'em all and dump 'em all.

Let's start with Konerko. We figure to get something worthwhile for him.:rolleyes:
see, that's where we differ. i agree they aren't going to win anything next year ... or the year after imo. so, don't dump your best talent just to make moves. maybe bmac WILL be pretty good in '07, along with some other talent like tracy. maybe we'll need a konerko in '07. i'm sure hurt will not be worth much if still around.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2004, 03:15 PM
see, that's where we differ. i agree they aren't going to win anything next year ... or the year after imo. so, don't dump your best talent just to make moves. maybe bmac WILL be pretty good in '07, along with some other talent like tracy. maybe we'll need a konerko in '07. i'm sure hurt will not be worth much if still around. Nah. By 2007 we'll be taking Mr. Hip Dysplasia to the vet's office to be put down. Lee can move to 1B and put up numbers as least as good for another five years, long after Mr. Hip Dysplasia has gone on to his great reward.

Burial or cremation, id? That's the only question to answer about Mr. Hip Dysplasia's long-term career.
:cool:

jabrch
11-26-2004, 03:18 PM
see, that's where we differ. i agree they aren't going to win anything next year ... or the year after imo. so, don't dump your best talent just to make moves. maybe bmac WILL be pretty good in '07, along with some other talent like tracy. maybe we'll need a konerko in '07. i'm sure hurt will not be worth much if still around.


2007? Please tell me that was intended to be in teal.

idseer
11-26-2004, 03:26 PM
Nah. By 2007 we'll be taking Mr. Hip Dysplasia to the vet's office to be put down. Lee can move to 1B and put up numbers as least as good for another five years, long after Mr. Hip Dysplasia has gone on to his great reward.

Burial or cremation, id? That's the only question to answer about Mr. Hip Dysplasia's long-term career.
:cool:
:redneck

idseer
11-26-2004, 03:27 PM
2007? Please tell me that was intended to be in teal.
nope! totally serious.

jabrch
11-26-2004, 03:29 PM
nope! totally serious.

I guess I just enjoy the game too much - win or lose... 2007 is not on my radar screen.

fquaye149
11-26-2004, 03:45 PM
i disagree. you don't judge a player by picking apart the months you want. you judge by the year they had. and in fact pk hit 18 hr's and had 65 rbi's, hardly one of the worst years produced by someone with his playing time.

you want to judge him by one bad year that's your right.
i'll base my opinion on 5 very good years.


I don't think anyone's trying to say Paulie is really as BAD as his 2003. of course it exists and it was BAD and you can't ignore it. I think the point most of us are trying to make is that we aren't necessarily sure that he's as GOOD as his 2004...that is you can't expect 40 HR 120 RBI from him...which WOULD make him one of the best.

I think what we can realistically expect from paulie is .270-.300, 25-35 HR 80-100 RBI which aren't BAD numbers at all. However, they're not the kind of numbers that make you say - here is an untouchable first baseman on a team with many weaknesses and 3 good hitters at the 1b positioni

idseer
11-26-2004, 04:07 PM
I don't think anyone's trying to say Paulie is really as BAD as his 2003. of course it exists and it was BAD and you can't ignore it. I think the point most of us are trying to make is that we aren't necessarily sure that he's as GOOD as his 2004...that is you can't expect 40 HR 120 RBI from him...which WOULD make him one of the best.

I think what we can realistically expect from paulie is .270-.300, 25-35 HR 80-100 RBI which aren't BAD numbers at all. However, they're not the kind of numbers that make you say - here is an untouchable first baseman on a team with many weaknesses and 3 good hitters at the 1b positioni again, i don't disagree. paul may NOT be as good as his numbers this year ... but then again, he very well MAY be. i wouldn't predict 40/120 from him again, but i also wouldn't be surprised if he could do it. after all, he's 28 and just coming into his prime. what is so unbelievable about the way he hit this year? i just don't get it.
that being said, i still say you can COUNT on him for a .280 avg, 30 hr's and 100 rbi's.

i would like to add something else here. earlier there was discussion AND a poll about the sox mvp this year. rowand won it going away ... as i figured he might. but the FACT is paul was the only sox player to get al mvp votes this year ... which i also predicted.

let's face it ... sox fans undervalue pk.

JB98
11-26-2004, 07:10 PM
I really don't see that as being the point.

I think, and you have yet to address this, the point is, with all of the holes we have...and the power surplus at the 1b/dh position, it might be worth exploring our options to fill some of our needs

What surplus? Frank is injury-prone and Gload is a career minor-leaguer.

HITMEN OF 77
11-26-2004, 07:45 PM
I think someone should start a Lee vs. Konerko trade thread.

gosox41
11-27-2004, 09:07 AM
The difference, is your losing konerko, and another 12-15 game winner who gives you 200 innings in garland, for someone who will give you 15 wins and 200 innings? I'd rather keep konerko and Garland, and pick up a 5th starter. To get RJ, which i'm not saying you are saying, but that is what most people want. You are creating 2 holes, and only filling 1 of those holes. and before you ask, to trade, you are losing a 1st baseman and a pitcher, and getting 1 pitcher in return, so that's my logic. We are still 1 pitcher short, and then also a 1st baseman short.
I think RJ can be good for more then 15 wins. Also, if I'm not mistaken RJ has $6 mil deferred of his $16 mill 2005 salary. So the Sox would be able to still sign another starting pitcher. A front 3 qith RJ, Buehrle, and Garcia with Contreras and a proven pitcher looks great to me.

Of course if the Sox should happen to get RJ for Garland an PK and don't do anything else, I'd be upset.

If the Sox can't (and probably won't) get RJ, I still think PK has some trade value.


Bob

fquaye149
11-27-2004, 11:48 AM
What surplus? Frank is injury-prone and Gload is a career minor-leaguer.

look at gload's numbers from last year before you spout nonsense

not to say he's guaranteed to do anything...

but i'll take improvement at positions where we are bleeding out all orifices before i hang on to konerko for the sake of holding onto a star.

good teams don't keep stars at the expense of their weaknesses......i hope we can keep paulie...i like him, i really do...even in 2003 i liked him. but honestly, we might need to explore trade options for this to be a better team.


but once again, i'll say NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY to the RJ/ garland-paulie-anderson trade. that is just foolishness IMO

CWSGuy406
11-27-2004, 12:12 PM
the problem with your argument is that you're only downgrading 'a little bit'.
do you actually believe gload is just 'a little downgrade'? nonsense!

throw in the fact that a 'huge upgrade at pitcher' would most likely mean a lot more money on top of what paul makes at first.

i see no 'net improvement' if it means dumping paul' paying much more for your huge upgrade at pitcher and then not having enough money left over to keep a lee or resign a buehrle.

why not admit you just want paul gone no matter what else happens to the team?
Sorry for the late reply.

Gload isn't as bad as some of you guys think. Without having the stats in front of me, he's hit *everywhere* he's been -- minor leagues, major leagues, wherever. Plus, he's just as good -- if not, better -- defensively than Paully.

You guys make it sound like we wouldn't be getting anything in return for Konerko. It's not as if I'm suggesting a trade of Konerko for Hundley. But -- IMHO, we should be able to get a really nice package of players for Konerko -- for example, a prospect, Jorge Julio, and Jerry Hairston from Baltimore.

If you can't get a good package of players for Konerko, or one extremely good player, then no problem -- don't trade Konerko. But geez, some of you are making him out to be the best 1B in the majors. Note: without US Cellular Field, Konerko is a .260 hitter, probably less.

CWSGuy406
11-27-2004, 12:21 PM
again, i don't disagree. paul may NOT be as good as his numbers this year ... but then again, he very well MAY be. i wouldn't predict 40/120 from him again, but i also wouldn't be surprised if he could do it. after all, he's 28 and just coming into his prime. what is so unbelievable about the way he hit this year? i just don't get it.
that being said, i still say you can COUNT on him for a .280 avg, 30 hr's and 100 rbi's.

i would like to add something else here. earlier there was discussion AND a poll about the sox mvp this year. rowand won it going away ... as i figured he might. but the FACT is paul was the only sox player to get al mvp votes this year ... which i also predicted.

let's face it ... sox fans undervalue pk.
LOL! How can you count on Konerko for a .280 AVG when he hasn't done so the past two years?

And, for whomever suggested that Lee is worse than PK... Do I really need to explain how false that is?

jabrch
11-27-2004, 12:34 PM
LOL! How can you count on Konerko for a .280 AVG when he hasn't done so the past two years?

And, for whomever suggested that Lee is worse than PK... Do I really need to explain how false that is?

my sentiments exactly...

MINFAN1
11-27-2004, 12:40 PM
I agree. Pitching, and defense will bring us to where we need to be, and we should not have to go for a 41 year old ace to get there either. Another starter, and a good setup man that we could rely on should help us more then a big expensive superstar free agent. Let`s go with Uribe-Harris, short and second, Crede at third. Both catchers are adequate, and Lee, Rowand left, and center give us good range of defense. Even if we lose Paul K. we have Gload who proved himself a more then adequate first baseman. Right field will be questionable unless Everett becomes more of a physical presense. I just don`t see trading for these expensive free agents that are playing for thier money managers like Scott Boras,instead of the Chicago White Sox. We have the power, and defense here. Pitching is the problem.

idseer
11-27-2004, 01:07 PM
LOL! How can you count on Konerko for a .280 AVG when he hasn't done so the past two years?

simple. he's a lifetime .278 hitter just reaching his prime. remove his anomaly year and he's about a .290 career hitter.
throw in the fact he was put in a different position last year having to be the big rbi man with the loss of both magglio and frank and that took a toll on his avg as witnessed by his higher k total .. (and higher bb, hr, and rbi totals i might add).

laugh all you like but there is EVERY reason to believe he will average at least .280 this coming year.

jabrch
11-27-2004, 01:17 PM
simple. he's a lifetime .278 hitter just reaching his prime. remove his anomaly year and he's about a .290 career hitter.
throw in the fact he was put in a different position last year having to be the big rbi man with the loss of both magglio and frank and that took a toll on his avg as witnessed by his higher k total .. (and higher bb, hr, and rbi totals i might add).

laugh all you like but there is EVERY reason to believe he will average at least .280 this coming year.


And if he does, say hits .280 with say 30 HRs, is he worth 9mm if that 9mm means keeping our rotation as is? (Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli) What's Gload gonna get you? .270? 15-20 HRs? Worst case - right?

If we had 5 good starters, and an offense that didn't produce runs, then I could understand why you'd be so passionate about keeping PK. Frankly, there should be NO people who are as untradable as you seem to be making PK. I'd trade Lee, PK, anyone.... (RK - Yes, I'd even trade Frank if it got me an ACE :D: ) Right about now, the only (major league) guys I wouldn't trade are Garcia and Buehrle. Nobody was so good last year on our 83 win team that they warrant immunity.

pearso66
11-27-2004, 01:25 PM
And if he does, say hits .280 with say 30 HRs, is he worth 9mm if that 9mm means keeping our rotation as is? (Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli) What's Gload gonna get you? .270? 15-20 HRs? Worst case - right?

If we had 5 good starters, and an offense that didn't produce runs, then I could understand why you'd be so passionate about keeping PK. Frankly, there should be NO people who are as untradable as you seem to be making PK. I'd trade Lee, PK, anyone.... (RK - Yes, I'd even trade Frank if it got me an ACE :D: ) Right about now, the only (major league) guys I wouldn't trade are Garcia and Buehrle. Nobody was so good last year on our 83 win team that they warrant immunity.

You say you would make anyone available, and while I agree with that remark, I wouldn't trade Frank, but i doubt you'd get value for him anyway since he is primarily a DH.

The guy I would want KW to at least see what his value is is Aaron Rowand. I think that guy played way over his head last year, and will fade back to earth this year. Everyone is saying get value for PK while you can after a great year, that statement is perfect for Rowand, hopefully someone will think he will keep that up and give us at least a decent starter or low end starter and decent relief or sometihng

jabrch
11-27-2004, 01:40 PM
You say you would make anyone available, and while I agree with that remark, I wouldn't trade Frank, but i doubt you'd get value for him anyway since he is primarily a DH.

The guy I would want KW to at least see what his value is is Aaron Rowand. I think that guy played way over his head last year, and will fade back to earth this year. Everyone is saying get value for PK while you can after a great year, that statement is perfect for Rowand, hopefully someone will think he will keep that up and give us at least a decent starter or low end starter and decent relief or sometihng

Frank also has full no-trade, and is possibly not going to be ready for spring training. I wouldn't be looking to give him away - and I doubt he really is tradeable anyhow. But if someone came calling, I would answer the phone. Trading Rowand would be hard right now. Yes, he may fade - but even if he does, he still is our best/cheapest player. We can't afford to replace him with anyone who is post-arbitration at CF. I'd listen to offers for him, for sure, but in order to trade him now, it would take a lot. I doubt anyone is silly enough to pay whatever that price would be to match the performance that we got from him this year at the price we got it.

I'd like to see Carlos shopped around too. Even though he puts up good numbers, if we could get good value for him and his salary, I'd surely listen.

pearso66
11-27-2004, 02:18 PM
Frank also has full no-trade, and is possibly not going to be ready for spring training. I wouldn't be looking to give him away - and I doubt he really is tradeable anyhow. But if someone came calling, I would answer the phone. Trading Rowand would be hard right now. Yes, he may fade - but even if he does, he still is our best/cheapest player. We can't afford to replace him with anyone who is post-arbitration at CF. I'd listen to offers for him, for sure, but in order to trade him now, it would take a lot. I doubt anyone is silly enough to pay whatever that price would be to match the performance that we got from him this year at the price we got it.

I'd like to see Carlos shopped around too. Even though he puts up good numbers, if we could get good value for him and his salary, I'd surely listen.

I think at his price, and the year he had last year, we could get something pretty good for Rowand. No one is gonna sell the farm for him, nor would we get a stud #1-2 for him, but i think that people will see he is cheap and had a very solid year. Maybe we could throw him at Florida for Pierre, I heard they are shopping him, and they would probably welcome the power side of Rowand

idseer
11-27-2004, 02:20 PM
And if he does, say hits .280 with say 30 HRs, is he worth 9mm if that 9mm means keeping our rotation as is? (Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli) What's Gload gonna get you? .270? 15-20 HRs? Worst case - right?

If we had 5 good starters, and an offense that didn't produce runs, then I could understand why you'd be so passionate about keeping PK. Frankly, there should be NO people who are as untradable as you seem to be making PK. I'd trade Lee, PK, anyone.... (RK - Yes, I'd even trade Frank if it got me an ACE :D: ) Right about now, the only (major league) guys I wouldn't trade are Garcia and Buehrle. Nobody was so good last year on our 83 win team that they warrant immunity.
i have stated all along that no one is untradable. and IF ... you can get at least a number 2 starter and NOT pay a bundle along with it then i'd seriously consider the trade. THEN i would take a chance with gload (who is totally unproven imo).

jabrch
11-27-2004, 02:21 PM
I think at his price, and the year he had last year, we could get something pretty good for Rowand. No one is gonna sell the farm for him, nor would we get a stud #1-2 for him, but i think that people will see he is cheap and had a very solid year. Maybe we could throw him at Florida for Pierre, I heard they are shopping him, and they would probably welcome the power side of Rowand

Would you do that? Pierre costs 4mm I think - and is a FA after 2006. He has a noodle arm, and no power. Why would we give up Rowand for him?

idseer
11-27-2004, 02:21 PM
You say you would make anyone available, and while I agree with that remark, I wouldn't trade Frank, but i doubt you'd get value for him anyway since he is primarily a DH.

The guy I would want KW to at least see what his value is is Aaron Rowand. I think that guy played way over his head last year, and will fade back to earth this year. Everyone is saying get value for PK while you can after a great year, that statement is perfect for Rowand, hopefully someone will think he will keep that up and give us at least a decent starter or low end starter and decent relief or sometihng some of you STILL misread rowand. if you dump him you will regret it for a long long time.

pearso66
11-27-2004, 02:23 PM
Would you do that? Pierre costs 4mm I think - and is a FA after 2006. He has a noodle arm, and no power. Why would we give up Rowand for him?

I really dont think Rowand will be close to the production he put up last year, and Pierre would be a stud at the top of the lineup. I'd probably hesitate to get jsut pierre at first, maybe offer for pierre and a middle reliever or somethign, and if they say no, then yeah, i'd do it. He's the kind of guy we need in the batting order

jabrch
11-27-2004, 05:16 PM
I really dont think Rowand will be close to the production he put up last year, and Pierre would be a stud at the top of the lineup. I'd probably hesitate to get jsut pierre at first, maybe offer for pierre and a middle reliever or somethign, and if they say no, then yeah, i'd do it. He's the kind of guy we need in the batting order

In a vacum, I'd agree. But say Rowand makes 1mm and Pierre makes $4mm - that's a significant difference when looking at our economic reality.

HITMEN OF 77
11-28-2004, 11:19 AM
LOL! How can you count on Konerko for a .280 AVG when he hasn't done so the past two years?

And, for whomever suggested that Lee is worse than PK... Do I really need to explain how false that is?
Since 1999 when Konerko joined the Sox he has batted

1999 -.294
2000 -.298
2001 -.292
2002 -.304
2003 -.234
2004 -.277

He had one 1/2 season blunder in 2003, he's been right near or well above .280 the rest of the time.

CWSGuy406
11-28-2004, 02:02 PM
Since 1999 when Konerko joined the Sox he has batted

1999 -.294
2000 -.298
2001 -.292
2002 -.304
2003 -.234
2004 -.277

He had one 1/2 season blunder in 2003, he's been right near or well above .280 the rest of the time.
And these are the stats of a guy who's going to be making near 10 million next season...

I don't know, I just think that money can be better spent than that, and if it means getting two solid players (a reliever and a 2B/SS, and most likely another solid prospect as well), than I say you should do it. Give yourself some more money to work with, along with getting a couple of solid players in the process...

batmanZoSo
11-28-2004, 02:39 PM
I don't think anyone's trying to say Paulie is really as BAD as his 2003. of course it exists and it was BAD and you can't ignore it. I think the point most of us are trying to make is that we aren't necessarily sure that he's as GOOD as his 2004...that is you can't expect 40 HR 120 RBI from him...which WOULD make him one of the best.

I think what we can realistically expect from paulie is .270-.300, 25-35 HR 80-100 RBI which aren't BAD numbers at all. However, they're not the kind of numbers that make you say - here is an untouchable first baseman on a team with many weaknesses and 3 good hitters at the 1b positioni
I don't think he's a guy we should pay 8 million to. It makes sense to get someone decent and cheaper, batting seventh or so, and then using the rest of the money for pitching.

jordan23ventura
11-28-2004, 05:35 PM
I don't think he's a guy we should pay 8 million to. It makes sense to get someone decent and cheaper, batting seventh or so, and then using the rest of the money for pitching.
My God, how cheap we have all become! Hangar is right every time he goes off about Rein$dorfian Logic.

Player A hits .280 40+ HR and 110+ RBIs but isn't worth $8mil?
Player B, IF he has a great season and doesn't go down with an injury (that's a HUGE if right now) MAY put up similar numbers, but he IS worth $8mil?

Of course, player A is Paulie and Player B is Frank. I don't know if anyone sees the fact that this production will NOT be made up for next year if Paulie is gone.

Go ahead. Fill a team full of Todd Walkers and Odalis Perez's and Russ Ortiz's and Jermaine Dyes. You might have a team just good enough to be swept in the first round of the ALDS. It'll be just like 2000, except without the magic.

CWSGuy406
11-28-2004, 06:44 PM
My God, how cheap we have all become! Hangar is right every time he goes off about Rein$dorfian Logic.

Player A hits .280 40+ HR and 110+ RBIs but isn't worth $8mil?
Player B, IF he has a great season and doesn't go down with an injury (that's a HUGE if right now) MAY put up similar numbers, but he IS worth $8mil?

Of course, player A is Paulie and Player B is Frank. I don't know if anyone sees the fact that this production will NOT be made up for next year if Paulie is gone.

Go ahead. Fill a team full of Todd Walkers and Odalis Perez's and Russ Ortiz's and Jermaine Dyes. You might have a team just good enough to be swept in the first round of the ALDS. It'll be just like 2000, except without the magic.
Oh, come on now. Comparing Konerko to Thomas is absolutely stupid, IMO. When healthy, Thomas easily blows Konerko out of the water...

And no, it's not Riendsdorfian logic. Call it, rather, bang for your buck. Eight million will get us at least a solid reliever, and a solid position player.

JMHO, but Gload + Position Player + Reliever >>> Konerko...

SomebodyToldMe
11-28-2004, 06:49 PM
Just wondering...After Frank had great years, did everyone want him to be traded? Same thing when Maggs was killing? (of course with Maggs, we didn't know he would turn his back on us)

idseer
11-28-2004, 07:35 PM
And these are the stats of a guy who's going to be making near 10 million next season...

I don't know, I just think that money can be better spent than that, and if it means getting two solid players (a reliever and a 2B/SS, and most likely another solid prospect as well), than I say you should do it. Give yourself some more money to work with, along with getting a couple of solid players in the process...
those are not the stats! those are a small part of the stats. how about this?

1999 - .294 - 24 - 81
2000 - .298 - 21 - 97
2001 - .282 - 32 - 99
2002 - .304 - 27 - 104
2003 - .234 - 18 - 65
2004 - .277 - 41 - 117

THOSE are the stats of a guy who's going to be making complete his 3rd year of a contract calling for $24 million next year.

do you seriously think in todays market that is not reasonable?
do i need to make a list of guys who aren't doing nearly as well making more money than paul?
you seem to be out of touch here guy. if paul goes free agent you just watch how many teams line up to give him way more than this. you have no respect for what paul has done here (like many others).

idseer
11-28-2004, 07:40 PM
Just wondering...After Frank had great years, did everyone want him to be traded? Same thing when Maggs was killing? (of course with Maggs, we didn't know he would turn his back on us)
i'll answer that. i called for thomas to be traded after 2000. i saw him going nowhere but down after that year ( tho i didn't know he'd produce as little as he has). i felt a man as big as he is will not age well in this game and the time was right to get a ****load of good talent for him. of course no one agreed with me. (do you remember this voodoo ... over at the espn boards?)
thomas being moved then made a ton of sense to me. turns out i was right.

paul being moved now at age 28 makes NO sense to me (again, unless it's a really great deal).

munchman33
11-28-2004, 08:29 PM
i'll answer that. i called for thomas to be traded after 2000. i saw him going nowhere but down after that year ( tho i didn't know he'd produce as little as he has). i felt a man as big as he is will not age well in this game and the time was right to get a ****load of good talent for him. of course no one agreed with me. (do you remember this voodoo ... over at the espn boards?)
thomas being moved then made a ton of sense to me. turns out i was right.

paul being moved now at age 28 makes NO sense to me (again, unless it's a really great deal).
Frank Thomas is still a better hitter than Paul Konerko. You'd find very few people agreeing with your point of view after Konerko had his first superstar season, after statistically having one of the worst major league seasons with more than 500 at bats the year before (if not the single worst). And don't forget, before Frank was injured, HE, not Paulie, was having the better season.

idseer
11-28-2004, 08:47 PM
Frank Thomas is still a better hitter than Paul Konerko. You'd find very few people agreeing with your point of view after Konerko had his first superstar season, after statistically having one of the worst major league seasons with more than 500 at bats the year before (if not the single worst). And don't forget, before Frank was injured, HE, not Paulie, was having the better season.
you're still confused about my point.

i am NOT comparing paul to frank!

munchman33
11-28-2004, 09:16 PM
you're still confused about my point.

i am NOT comparing paul to frank!My response was more of a comment on how you think you were right to suggest after 2000 that Frank be traded. IMHO, that's ludicrous. We just won the division. Trading our best, most popular player would have been suicide.

Comparing that with the situation now with Paulie just doesn't make sense.

:reinsy
"But on the other hand, think of all the money I would have saved!"

idseer
11-28-2004, 09:52 PM
My response was more of a comment on how you think you were right to suggest after 2000 that Frank be traded. IMHO, that's ludicrous. We just won the division. Trading our best, most popular player would have been suicide.

Comparing that with the situation now with Paulie just doesn't make sense.

:reinsy
"But on the other hand, think of all the money I would have saved!"
suicide? you apparently didn't realize the 2000 team wasn't very good.
plus ... power we had. frank we could have afforded to lose. what we needed was pitching. that was the PERFECT time to unload frank!

santo=dorf
11-28-2004, 10:08 PM
suicide? you apparently didn't realize the 2000 team wasn't very good.
plus ... power we had. frank we could have afforded to lose. what we needed was pitching. that was the PERFECT time to unload frank!First you say you'd take Carlos Lee over Barry Bonds, and now you say the 2000 team "wasn't very good?" :o: :rolleyes:
:dtroll:

Lip Man 1
11-28-2004, 10:38 PM
I think he is referring to the fact that the years have shown the 2000 team was more of a fluke. They had no staying power. I don't think he was talking about the year itself.

I understand where he is coming from. 2000 was a season where things happened that never happened again and that some players particularly the starting pitchers had career years never duplicated again.

Lip

jordan23ventura
11-28-2004, 10:50 PM
Oh, come on now. Comparing Konerko to Thomas is absolutely stupid, IMO. When healthy, Thomas easily blows Konerko out of the water...

And no, it's not Riendsdorfian logic. Call it, rather, bang for your buck. Eight million will get us at least a solid reliever, and a solid position player.

JMHO, but Gload + Position Player + Reliever >>> Konerko...
'When healthy.." Yeah, that was exactly what I was saying. Thomas is a huge question mark next season, and he is the only one who I think honestly has a chance at matching PK's production next year, save for a monster season by CLee.

And yes, it IS Reinsdorfian logic because other GM's would go out and just add a solid reliever and position player without trading away a large portion of the offense.

And as far as Gload + Position Player + Reliever being better than Konerko, please remember that the 5th starter hole and the lack of run support were the biggest problems on the team. The other starters did a fair job overall, good enough to be where the Twins were if there had been any offense. While a solid reliever would be nice, I would also like to point out that the lack of a real 5th starter made the bullpen weaker and less effective. Besides, only the acquistion of a dynamite closer IMO would be worth considering trading Paulie, and we all know that's not going to happen.

The day that KW officially announces the acquistion of Carlos Beltran is the day I will be okay with trading away Paulie and his bat.

jabrch
11-29-2004, 02:02 AM
And yes, it IS Reinsdorfian logic because other GM's would go out and just add a solid reliever and position player without trading away a large portion of the offense.

Yeah...other GMs just go adding to their payroll every time they have a need? The Sox are the only team in baseball with a fixed budget? Come on...

Budget is set at X$. Tell me how you are supposed to just "add a solid reliever and position player"?

jordan23ventura
11-29-2004, 02:42 AM
Yeah...other GMs just go adding to their payroll every time they have a need? The Sox are the only team in baseball with a fixed budget? Come on...

Budget is set at X$. Tell me how you are supposed to just "add a solid reliever and position player"?
My bad. Meant to say "owner" not "GM."

jabrch
11-29-2004, 08:02 AM
My bad. Meant to say "owner" not "GM."

Same holds...what owners go adding players, willy-nilly, and just raise the budget every time the team has a hole? People can insult JR all they want - but he gives KW a budget and tells him to spend to it. How is that different than almost any other owner in baseball except for Steinbrenner?

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 09:15 AM
Same holds...what owners go adding players, willy-nilly, and just raise the budget every time the team has a hole? People can insult JR all they want - but he gives KW a budget and tells him to spend to it. How is that different than almost any other owner in baseball except for Steinbrenner?I may have the exact # off a bit, but IIRC, didn't the huge payroll Red Sox forgo acquiring arguably the best player in the game, the best SS in history, and a guy who's got a shot at breaking the HR mark over about $20mil? I thought that was about the # that Epstein/Henry & Hicks disagreed on.

Sounds suspiciously like a budget to me

And for the record, reports are that Renteria's offer from the Cards is back-loaded with deferrals and that's why he hasn't signed yet. That sounds strangely familiar as well. And that's from a team with great attendance and coming off of a WS appearance.

jabrch
11-29-2004, 10:13 AM
I may have the exact # off a bit, but IIRC, didn't the huge payroll Red Sox forgo acquiring arguably the best player in the game, the best SS in history, and a guy who's got a shot at breaking the HR mark over about $20mil? I thought that was about the # that Epstein/Henry & Hicks disagreed on.

Sounds suspiciously like a budget to me

And for the record, reports are that Renteria's offer from the Cards is back-loaded with deferrals and that's why he hasn't signed yet. That sounds strangely familiar as well. And that's from a team with great attendance and coming off of a WS appearance.
No Flight...can't be... Not possible. Only the Sox are on a budget. And only the Sox offer players offensive backloaded contracts.

I think the A-Rod thing fell apart over 15mm, but 20 might be right. In any case, over the remainder of the contract (7 years left?), it was under 3mm per year that became an issue.

Sometimes I wonder if some people have ever managed a budget before.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2004, 10:18 AM
No Flight...can't be... Not possible. Only the Sox are on a budget. And only the Sox offer players offensive backloaded contracts.

I think the A-Rod thing fell apart over 15mm, but 20 might be right. In any case, over the remainder of the contract (7 years left?), it was under 3mm per year that became an issue.

Sometimes I wonder if some people have ever managed a budget before.Just my perception, but it seemed to me that this deal's collapse had more to do with the Red Sox brass having a snit over the union's position than money. If they really wanted to make the deal, they could have just agreed with the Rangers to split the difference. The gap was a pretty small percentage of the total.

jabrch
11-29-2004, 10:25 AM
Just my perception, but it seemed to me that this deal's collapse had more to do with the Red Sox brass having a snit over the union's position than money. If they really wanted to make the deal, they could have just agreed with the Rangers to split the difference. The gap was a pretty small percentage of the total.
No...Boston asked A-Rod to be allowed to drop the 15/20mm in total value of the deal, so that they could fund the insurance for the contract. When the union said no, Boston said that was their breaking point. If they had unlimited funds, don't you think they'd have just done the deal? And Texas already was paying a ton of money. They had no interest in paying even more of the deal. It came down to Epstein, like nearly every GM, having a budget. And this deal became unmanageable within that budget.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2004, 10:37 AM
No...Boston asked A-Rod to be allowed to drop the 15/20mm in total value of the deal, so that they could fund the insurance for the contract. When the union said no, Boston said that was their breaking point. If they had unlimited funds, don't you think they'd have just done the deal? And Texas already was paying a ton of money. They had no interest in paying even more of the deal. It came down to Epstein, like nearly every GM, having a budget. And this deal became unmanageable within that budget.I didn't say they had unlimited funds. But they had worked on this deal for such a long time, and the total amount of money was so large that it didn't seem to make sense to kill it for what amounted to a relatively small percentage. Especially since the whole thing had become such a public spectacle it was clear there was no way the Rangers could NOT trade Rodriguez. Even though Manny Ramirez had a great year, imagine how much better they would have been with A-Rod at SS and Ordonez in RF?

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 10:48 AM
I didn't say they had unlimited funds. But they had worked on this deal for such a long time, and the total amount of money was so large that it didn't seem to make sense to kill it for what amounted to a relatively small percentage. Especially since the whole thing had become such a public spectacle it was clear there was no way the Rangers could NOT trade Rodriguez. Even though Manny Ramirez had a great year, imagine how much better they would have been with A-Rod at SS and Ordonez in RF?
I don't see Epstein & Henry getting "pissy" at the union and not doing the deal. Lucchino - sure, but not the other 2. I think they'd recognize that if they thought it was a good deal financially, it would be smart to make it and they'd have gone ahead.

IIRC, there were also comments to the fact that the BoSox were willing to extend themselves only so far. Steinbrenner then made his counter-comment after making the deal that the Red Sox were not willing to go to the same lengths he was to do what he could "for the fans".

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 10:50 AM
I didn't say they had unlimited funds. But they had worked on this deal for such a long time, and the total amount of money was so large that it didn't seem to make sense to kill it for what amounted to a relatively small percentage. Especially since the whole thing had become such a public spectacle it was clear there was no way the Rangers could NOT trade Rodriguez. Even though Manny Ramirez had a great year, imagine how much better they would have been with A-Rod at SS and Ordonez in RF? Forget it, No. 2. The point you're making about the insignificant difference in the price of attaining Arod isn't important to jabrch. Jabrch is reaching for a far more ridiculous point. Apparently he feels there is some significance to Boston working on a budget, regardless of how much bigger that budget may be than other MLB teams they compete with. For example, the budget of a certain second banana team in a top-tier market we talk about quite a bit around here. We'll be second banana for a long time to come getting outspent like this...
:wink:

I dunno... maybe somebody once asserted budgets weren't important. I know it wasn't me. However if you follow jabrch's assertion to its logical conclusion, it's clear Boston is willing to spend to win a championship twice as much as Reinsdorf. Isn't that what Boston's Arod budget tells us?

Okay, here comes another teal retort by the King of Sarcasm.
:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-29-2004, 10:54 AM
....
IIRC, there were also comments to the fact that the BoSox were willing to extend themselves only so far. Steinbrenner then made his counter-comment after making the deal that the Red Sox were not willing to go to the same lengths he was to do what he could "for the fans".
It's called predatory behavior and it is generally illegal under the Uniform Commercial Code. Steinbrenner was willing to outspend Boston precisely to keep Arod from going to Steinbrenner's closest competitor.

Of course baseball is a sport not a business and thus not subject to anti-trust laws like the rest of us.

Carry on.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2004, 11:02 AM
I don't see Epstein & Henry getting "pissy" at the union and not doing the deal. Lucchino - sure, but not the other 2. I think they'd recognize that if they thought it was a good deal financially, it would be smart to make it and they'd have gone ahead.

IIRC, there were also comments to the fact that the BoSox were willing to extend themselves only so far. Steinbrenner then made his counter-comment after making the deal that the Red Sox were not willing to go to the same lengths he was to do what he could "for the fans".If you recall, it was Lucchino that went publicly berserk after the union announced its position. I got the impression that had it been left to Epstein and Henry, they might have come to a compromise, but it was Lucchino that stomped on the deal. If you have any intention of working with Upshaw to come up with a deal acceptable to all sides, you don't go public with comments like he made.

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 11:06 AM
If you recall, it was Lucchino that went publicly berserk after the union announced its position. I got the impression that had it been left to Epstein and Henry, they might have come to a compromise, but it was Lucchino that stomped on the deal. If you have any intention of working with Upshaw to come up with a deal acceptable to all sides, you don't go public with comments like he made.That was my point. Epstein & Henry, had they wanted to make a deal, could likely have just worked it out, and the union would have had nothing to say since they would have met the requisite conditions. I don't believe that they would allow it to fall apart over Larry's ego if they wanted it to happen.

Maybe the problem is that they were dealing with Upshaw (head of NFLPA) rather than Fehr/Orza (heads of MLBPA)? That would likely have made a deal difficult, unless they were trying to move him to the Patriots.:)

Lip Man 1
11-29-2004, 11:45 AM
PHG:

You beat me to it talking about budgets. I wonder if the mean 2004 team payroll averages are out yet? I recall that in 2003 for example the mean payroll was 71 or 72 million. Once again the Sox fell below the 'average' MLB team. The gap between the Sox are other 'major market' teams was so big it wasn't even worth discussing.

Until that changes you all can enjoy the 83 wins every season and no playoff spot.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2004, 12:23 PM
PHG:

You beat me to it talking about budgets. I wonder if the mean 2004 team payroll averages are out yet? I recall that in 2003 for example the mean payroll was 71 or 72 million. Once again the Sox fell below the 'average' MLB team. The gap between the Sox are other 'major market' teams was so big it wasn't even worth discussing.

Until that changes you all can enjoy the 83 wins every season and no playoff spot.

Lip2004 Mean MLB payroll: $68.6M
Median MLB payroll: $62.2M
Sox: $65.2M

Sox were below the mean, but still the 14th largest.

And once again, you can ignore the fact that the Sox SHARE the third largest market, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Half of Chicago is less than all of Detroit, Toronto and a lot of other cities. Based on REAL market size (and assuming the Sox had half of the Chicago market), the Sox have a market size below the MLB median.

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2004, 12:26 PM
Maybe the problem is that they were dealing with Upshaw (head of NFLPA) rather than Fehr/Orza (heads of MLBPA)? That would likely have made a deal difficult, unless they were trying to move him to the Patriots.:) Cut me some slack, willya? It's Monday after a long weekend.:(:

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 12:26 PM
2004 Mean MLB payroll: $68.6M
Median MLB payroll: $62.2M
Sox: $65.2M

Sox were below the mean, but still the 14th largest.

And once again, you can ignore the fact that the Sox SHARE the third largest market, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Half of Chicago is less than all of Detroit, Toronto and a lot of other cities. Based on REAL market size (and assuming the Sox had half of the Chicago market), the Sox have a market size below the MLB median.
Nice use of the median, which IMO is a lot better metric since outliers (like the Yankees) skew the mean upwards.

jordan23ventura
12-01-2004, 04:20 PM
Same holds...what owners go adding players, willy-nilly, and just raise the budget every time the team has a hole? People can insult JR all they want - but he gives KW a budget and tells him to spend to it. How is that different than almost any other owner in baseball except for Steinbrenner?
When you have several holes, and you have no one in the minors ready to step up, you have one of three choices:

1. Rebuild. Trade everything proven for hope and prospects.
2. Trade from an area of strength. The whole topic of the thread is that without Maggs and Thomas and Everett coming off injury, offense isn't a strength. I don't care if you think 1B is because a rookie put up some decent numbers. That's not important.
3. Sign the best FA you can with the money you have available. If it means adding to the budget, so be it. If it only takes an extra $8mil or so per year to sign an effective setup man and a decent position player but ownership isn't willing to pony up, then WHY BOTHER CONTENDING??

And BTW, winning teams DO add to the budget when they want to contend. You can praise Billy Beane all you want, but how many times he gotten the A's to the WS with that budget?