PDA

View Full Version : Eric Byrnes?


1917
01-10-2005, 11:52 AM
ESPN Insider have the White Sox as one oif 2 teams Rumored to be interested in Eric Byrnes. Now DO NOT hold that much to this, because they will print anything they hear in the bars, but what would we do with him? He is too good of a talent to have on the bench....he's not an All Star, but if you get him, you got to play him. He is a real grinder and hustler.

Flight #24
01-10-2005, 11:55 AM
ESPN Insider have the White Sox as one oif 2 teams Rumored to be interested in Eric Byrnes. Now DO NOT hold that much to this, because they will print anything they hear in the bars, but what would we do with him? He is too good of a talent to have on the bench....he's not an All Star, but if you get him, you got to play him. He is a real grinder and hustler.
I'd love him as a 4th OF and potential starter in the event of injury/poor play. Much better than Timo for my money (and he's cheaper too, no?). The only problem I see is that since he's young, decent, & cheap, the A's will want something solid in return for him, and I wouldn't be willing to part with much for a reserve/part-time player.

Palehose13
01-10-2005, 11:55 AM
ESPN Insider have the White Sox as one oif 2 teams Rumored to be interested in Eric Byrnes. Now DO NOT hold that much to this, because they will print anything they hear in the bars, but what would we do with him? He is too good of a talent to have on the bench....he's not an All Star, but if you get him, you got to play him. He is a real grinder and hustler.
Why would Billy Beane give him up and where would he play?

jabrch
01-10-2005, 12:03 PM
I don't see how this meets a need of ours. Our OF is fine with Dye, Podsednik and Rowand. As far as DH, Everett is fine until Frank gets back. I don't see where Byrnes would fit in. There are other teams that could use an OF more than us.

soltrain21
01-10-2005, 12:14 PM
Very weird for us to be interested in him, but I have always been a fan of his hustle.


If this happens, does that mean Carl would be on his way out? I wouldn't mind seeing this move happen, and then trading Jurrasic Carl for a super utility player.

jabrch
01-10-2005, 12:17 PM
Very weird for us to be interested in him, but I have always been a fan of his hustle.


If this happens, does that mean Carl would be on his way out? I wouldn't mind seeing this move happen, and then trading Jurrasic Carl for a super utility player.
Carl makes 4mm this year. I don't see that contract as tradeable.

Flight #24
01-10-2005, 12:21 PM
Carl makes 4mm this year. I don't see that contract as tradeable.Dunno, if he gets off to a decent start, he's on a 1-yr deal, switch hitter, fiery veteran, and if he can put up 2003-type #s, I'd bet there'd be teams interested in him. But only as an injury replacement or for cheap in ST. At the trade deadline, you might get some prospects, but not a ton.

It would take a hot ST performance, and in that case, they might not really WANT to move him.

Tekijawa
01-10-2005, 12:24 PM
Dunno, if he gets off to a decent start, he's on a 1-yr deal, switch hitter, fiery veteran, and if he can put up 2003-type #s, I'd bet there'd be teams interested in him. But only as an injury replacement or for cheap in ST. At the trade deadline, you might get some prospects, but not a ton.
That Kind of discribes US right now... I wonder if Kenny could trade him to ourselves for a couple prospects?

soltrain21
01-10-2005, 12:26 PM
Frank's health also plays a big part in whether we would move Carl or not.

Gload could handle the DH role for a limited time, but if Frank is going to be out for a long while we should keep Carl around.

Foulke You
01-10-2005, 12:34 PM
Frank's health also plays a big part in whether we would move Carl or not.

Gload could handle the DH role for a limited time, but if Frank is going to be out for a long while we should keep Carl around.
I agree 100%. You don't move Everett until you know for sure that Frank is going to be ok. If Frank has a slow recovery or gets hurt early on again, we are going to need Everett to be the full time DH.

DiGiSyKo
01-10-2005, 12:34 PM
here's a linky from contracosta times... http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/sports/baseball/mlb/oakland_athletics/10608451.htm?1c

the very last sentence states, "The Chicago White Sox also have inquired about Byrnes."

jabrch
01-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Who is Oakland's OF? Kotsay, Byrnes, Swisher and Thomas? I don't know how they can be confident that they have 3 decent OFs if they move Byrnes. Unless they are just throwing this year alltogether - in which case it is time to dump Dotel and Zito also...

Tekijawa
01-10-2005, 12:47 PM
Unless they are just throwing this year alltogether - in which case it is time to dump Dotel and Zito also...
Konerko and Garland anyone?

SoxFan48
01-10-2005, 12:51 PM
Which one is better? Brynes is getting better and Podsednik is falling back towards his career mediocrity. Brynes had an OPS of .814 and Pods .677.

Actually, as a former resident of Phoenix, I am hearing that Brynes will probably end up with the Diamondbacks.

jabrch
01-10-2005, 12:58 PM
Which one is better? Brynes is getting better and Podsednik is falling back towards his career mediocrity. Brynes had an OPS of .814 and Pods .677.


Well, first off, I don't know how you can conclude that Pods is falling back - he's only had two seasons. I don't see how you can conclude any trend, forward or backward from that.

Second, OPS is not the way you shoud want to measure Podsednik. It's like counting Frank's SBs. It's kinda misleading. Byrnes has not had a season as good as the 2003 season that Podsednik had. He doesn't hit righties particularly well as compared to lefties. My personal opinion is that Byrnes is best as a platoon OF, hitting against mostly lefties only. Podsednik, since he looks to be able to hit righties (75% of the SPs at least?) he is a better every day player.

I just don't see why we'd consider Byrnes and automatic upgrade over the guy we just got - and he surely doesn't fill a hole.

JB98
01-10-2005, 01:01 PM
I agree 100%. You don't move Everett until you know for sure that Frank is going to be ok. If Frank has a slow recovery or gets hurt early on again, we are going to need Everett to be the full time DH.
I don't think we can ever be certain that Frank is going to be OK at this point. He's had two major injuries in the last four years. Even if he does come back healthy, we need to keep Everett around as an insurance policy in case Frank gets hurt again. We absolutely cannot afford to trade any more middle-of-the-order hitters. Now that Lee, Ordonez and Valentin are gone, we've lost a ton of production in a short amount of time. When you look at Frank, Everett and Dye, we need at least two of those three players to stay healthy and have big run-production years if we hope to make the playoffs.

Palehose13
01-10-2005, 01:07 PM
Are some of us trigger happy? Seems like some want to make a move for the sake of making a move. I think the 2005 White Sox OF looks pretty good. I'd like to keep it that way. However, if Byrnes can play middle infield... :wink:

Joel Perez
01-10-2005, 01:37 PM
IMO, I think he would be more of an upgrade than Carl Everett, but where would we play him?

Rowand - LF
Podsednik - CF
Dye - RF
Everett - DH (until The Tank comes back! :gulp: )

Unless Rowand is traded, and I don't see that happening, or Everett, *sigh* no Eric Byrnes on the South Side. However, he would look dang good in a Sox uni.

HomeFish
01-10-2005, 01:41 PM
I can't believe anyone is actually considering trading Carl Everett.

Do you people want to score more than one run a game? Apparently not.

JUribe1989
01-10-2005, 04:36 PM
I can't believe anyone is actually considering trading Carl Everett.

Do you people want to score more than one run a game? Apparently not.
2004

Everett: 35 RBI, 7 homers
Byrnes: 73 RBI, 20 homers

Since when does Carl drive in all of our runs?

1917
01-10-2005, 04:42 PM
2004

Everett: 35 RBI, 7 homers
Byrnes: 73 RBI, 20 homers

Since when does Carl drive in all of our runs?
Last year is not a fair year to compare Carls power #'s to Byrnes. We all know what Carl is capable of when healthy

jabrch
01-10-2005, 04:56 PM
2004

Everett: 35 RBI, 7 homers
Byrnes: 73 RBI, 20 homers

Since when does Carl drive in all of our runs?
Compare last year Frank .271, 18 HRs, 49 RBI to Byrnes and he's inferior also. That's a terrible way to compare ballplayers.

Uribe=MVP
01-10-2005, 06:18 PM
I don't care what anyone says, if the price is right I couldn't pass up adding Eric Byrnes to my team, and I don't think Kenny Williams could either. (My team being the fictional team in my head that will never materialize...)
If all they want is a mid-level pitching prospect or someone from a position of excess for us, then why the hell not. The reason this is pointless to consider is because Billy Beane will want some Moneyball-player, 3B, C, or OF with great OPS and BB to K ratio, so it ain't going to happen.

Ol' No. 2
01-10-2005, 06:24 PM
I don't care what anyone says, if the price is right I couldn't pass up adding Eric Byrnes to my team, and I don't think Kenny Williams could either. (My team being the fictional team in my head that will never materialize...)
If all they want is a mid-level pitching prospect or someone from a position of excess for us, then why the hell not. The reason this is pointless to consider is because Billy Beane will want some Moneyball-player, 3B, C, or OF with great OPS and BB to K ratio, so it ain't going to happen.Does the fictional team in your head have a 25 man roster? Who gets cut to make room?

Uribe=MVP
01-10-2005, 06:32 PM
Presumably a trade would involve someone on the 40 man roster. If not, then it won't matter because the A's wouldn't accept the deal.

Jjav829
01-10-2005, 06:35 PM
I like Byrnes, but do we really need him? He's pretty comparable to Aaron Rowand. I believe he is arbitration eligible, so he'll get a good raise. He'd be our 4th outfielder and making quite a bit. It just doesn't really make sense. I'd rather use that money to sign Iguchi or hold on to it for in-season upgrades.

zach074
01-10-2005, 06:42 PM
We don't need another outfielder. I could also see KW doing some stupid trade and ruining the so far great offseason.

konerko1413
01-10-2005, 07:06 PM
could this mean a departure of borchard from the whit sox system?, just a thaught

SoxFan48
01-10-2005, 11:50 PM
Yes, I am going to measure by OPS because it is the single valid measure of a major league baseball player's worth.

Podsednik does more than a two year record. His stats in the minors argue that as 2004 was his true measure of his value as a baseball player and 2003 was a fluke year. Yes, the SBs are impressive, but how important is the SB? If you have read Bill James' Baseball Abstracts you understand the OBP, SLG and Isolated Power are all far more important contributions to the scoring of runs than the SB.

Statisically speaking, Podsednik is at end, not the beginning of his major league career. The Sox will be lucky to get one good year out of him.

johnny_mostil
01-11-2005, 12:21 AM
Yes, I am going to measure by OPS because it is the single valid measure of a major league baseball player's worth.

Podsednik does more than a two year record. His stats in the minors argue
No, it's not, because it counts SLG points as being equal to OBP points, which they are not. The "studies" ranking it all cheated by using "linear curve fitting".

There are several better measures, but they are harder to figure out.

Nevertheless, reducing a ballplayer or a person to one number is hopeless.

gosox41
01-11-2005, 08:49 AM
Last year is not a fair year to compare Carls power #'s to Byrnes. We all know what Carl is capable of when healthy
And not 25 lbs overweight.

But at least it's a free agent year for Carl so maybe he'll get his fat butt in shape for the season.


Bob

jabrch
01-11-2005, 09:23 AM
Yes, I am going to measure by OPS because it is the single valid measure of a major league baseball player's worth.
Well - then that ends any sort of reasonable discussions I guess.

There is no SINGLE VALID MEAUSRE OF A PLAYER'S WORTH. You measure a player based on what you ask him to do. You ask a leadoff hitter to do very different things than a #4 hitter, so measuring them with the same single number is - well - shortsighted.

If you have read Bill James' Baseball Abstracts you understand the OBP, SLG and Isolated Power are all far more important contributions to the scoring of runs than the SB.
I have read James' stuff - but I think James persepctive is myopic as well.