PDA

View Full Version : One Question


oldcomiskey
12-17-2001, 04:20 PM
we were talking the other day about whose more hated---Royce or Jamie Navarro---and I said that Royce has just about exceeded my personal hatred for Navarro?\\

How bout youse guys??

duke of dorwood
12-17-2001, 04:22 PM
Royce-while Navarro was a bum, he did not disrupt an obvious chemistry like the choice has. Do I smell a poll?

oldcomiskey
12-17-2001, 04:25 PM
Navarro was too big a damn clown to disrupt much

RedPinStripes
12-17-2001, 04:49 PM
Navarro by far. Clayton at least contributed in the second half. Navarro did nothing and he's still a jagoff.

RichH55
12-17-2001, 05:55 PM
Well Navarro very well might be the worst pitcher in baseball history over a 3 year stretch, but he sadly wasn't taking a job from anyone valuable, wasn't be playing all that much after a point, and eventually help net us a nice little trade, plus I don't have to worry about him....My vote goes to Royce....so he's got that going for him which is nice

PaleHoseGeorge
12-17-2001, 06:39 PM
Navarro was clearly the more worthless player. My vote is for him. If Navarro hadn't been so worthless in 1997, maybe the White Flag Trade never happens. If Navarro hadn't been so worthless in 1998, maybe Albert Belle carries us to at least a wild-card spot. Navarro was a lousy presence in the clubhouse in 1999, too, so you could make the case he screwed up three seasons for the Sox.

OTOH, Clayton has cost us more. He played a key role in disrupting a clubhouse that won 95 games in 2000. Yes, it was KW who traded for him, and Manuel who insisted on playing him (even as Clayton's batting average dipped below .100), but it was his whining about playing time that finally destroyed whatever "chemistry" the 2000 team once had.

If Clayton is still around in 2002, I reserve the right to change my vote.

Jerry_Manuel
12-17-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If Clayton is still around in 2002, I reserve the right to change my vote.


Jaime brought us Jose and Cal doesn't that count for something?
Better change your vote.

RichH55
12-17-2001, 06:50 PM
There ya go Jerry!

:jaime = :valet = :turkeys

PaleHoseGeorge
12-17-2001, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Jaime brought us Jose and Cal doesn't that count for something? Better change your vote.

John Snyder was part of that trade, too. I think that was the hook that allowed Schueler to reel in the Brewers. They were desperate for starting pitchers, and here were the Sox offering them two of them, both who had some success in the past.

But you're right, the Navarro/Snyder trade is what put us over the top to the 2000 A.L. Central title. There isn't much chance Royce Clayton will ever bring even half as much in trade.

Daver
12-17-2001, 06:52 PM
Can I put in a vote for Terry Beavington and his big red clown shoes?


"Send in the righty"

"UH Terry there is no one warming up"

RichH55
12-17-2001, 06:52 PM
And Another Point


:hitless
I'm still here! I ain't never leaving, and if I do you try and get a starting SS and a decent veteran starting pitcher for me!

Hey Royce is still Here everyone!
:sopranos
We are not amused

Jerry_Manuel
12-17-2001, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
But you're right, the Navarro/Snyder trade is what put us over the top to the 2000 A.L. Central title. There isn't much chance Royce Clayton will ever bring even half as much in trade.

Sadly we'll never know, nobody wants him.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-17-2001, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Sadly we'll never know, nobody wants him.

You know what else? The guy is still owed $4.5 million. As bad as Navarro was, he was making just $500,000 more.

What could we afford if we had $4.5 million more to play with?

RichH55
12-17-2001, 07:01 PM
I don't know about Bevington....with :hitless and :jaime there was that utter and complete contempt as if they had killed my grandmother. Those two make you want to learn German so that when you yell things at them you sound even angrier. Whereas with Terry it was almost an amusing thing, like what is this clown going to do next....Well he can't fight Garner today since he isn't in town...oh he didn't just call for a non-existant pitcher did he? Bravo, Terry, Bravo...no one will ever top that...though Bobby Valentine might try, but then again Bobby Valentine actually knows what the hell hes doing so it doesn't have the same flare to it

RichH55
12-17-2001, 07:03 PM
<<You know what else? The guy is still owed $4.5 million. As bad as Navarro was, he was making just
$500,000 more.

What could we afford if we had $4.5 million more to play with?>>

I broke down the numbers before and 4.5 million is enough to get Schmidt instead of Ritchie(keeping all three pitchers) and add one of the OFs with a glaring hole in his game that we seem to love to collect...cmon Harold Baines could still take a little outfield couldn't he?

Jerry_Manuel
12-17-2001, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
I broke down the numbers before and 4.5 million is enough to get Schmidt instead of Ritchie(keeping all three pitchers) and add one of the OFs with a glaring hole in his game that we seem to love to collect...cmon Harold Baines could still take a little outfield couldn't he?


Rich when you want to quote what another poster said all you have to do is hit the "quote" button on the lower right.

Huisj
12-17-2001, 09:32 PM
Gee, I don't know if I can pick one over another between Navarro and Clayton. Navarro just plain sucked and he also blamed the defence when he pitched bad (uh, Jaime, it's tough to catch home runs, not to mention throw people out on walks) . . . clayton at least had a decent second half last year and played good defence, but I do think his first half definitely contributed to the sox fall in the beginning of the year (and he had the balls to complain about not playing when he was hitting below .100!). I really don't know if one was better than the other at all. i guess i'd maybe go with clayton, just because he's still around causing trouble now when the sox actually have somewhere to go

nut_stock
12-17-2001, 09:58 PM
Navaro was a Cancer. Don't you remember how it was never his own fault that he sucked. It was always the lack of defense behind him. He would say this publicly. Or when he bitched and moaned when the Sox finally put him in the bullpen. Oh and my favorite, right before he was traded he was quoted as saying that he hated playing for the Sox. (After which Schueler stated he would actively look for a trade because he didn't want anyone who didn't want to wear the Sox uniform) That trade was not merely excellent, it was astonishing.

Spiff
12-17-2001, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
That trade was not merely excellent, it was astonishing.

Yeh when you think about it, it really was.

Too bad KW suuuuuuuuuuucks at trades.

Daver
12-17-2001, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Yeh when you think about it, it really was.

Too bad KW suuuuuuuuuuucks at trades.

Glover for Erye?

KempersRS
12-17-2001, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Yeh when you think about it, it really was.

Too bad KW suuuuuuuuuuucks at trades.

Sad, but true. :(:

KempersRS
12-17-2001, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by daver


Glover for Erye?

Berry, Barry?

Spiff
12-17-2001, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by daver


Glover for Erye?

Glover's overrated he's average at best.

Jerry_Manuel
12-17-2001, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00
Yeh when you think about it, it really was.

Too bad KW suuuuuuuuuuucks at trades.

He may get taken in trades sometimes but atleast he goes after the big name players. Last year Wells, this year Erstad. Schu would never do something like that. Just my opinion.

voodoochile
12-17-2001, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Glover's overrated he's average at best.

I disagree. He has good speed on his fastball, has good movement and is still fairly young. Even if he doesn't make the rotation, he is a lock to take on Lowe's role as spot starter and long reliever, and I bet he does it as well of better than Sean would have. He's also younger and cheaper (JR's two favorite qualities in a player)

Daver
12-17-2001, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


He may get taken in trades sometimes but atleast he goes after the big name players. Last year Wells, this year Erstad. Schu would never do something like that. Just my opinion.

Well said JM.

Schu was busy looking for his cigarettes at the meetings when the trade talk came up.

Spiff
12-17-2001, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


I disagree. He has good speed on his fastball, has good movement and is still fairly young. Even if he doesn't make the rotation, he is a lock to take on Lowe's role as spot starter and long reliever, and I bet he does it as well of better than Sean would have. He's also younger and cheaper (JR's two favorite qualities in a player)

True but there's a thousand pitchers like him with a 4.98 era.
It's not like KW got a franchise player for Eyre.

voodoochile
12-17-2001, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


True but there's a thousand pitchers like him with a 4.98 era.
It's not like KW got a franchise player for Eyre.

As much as people were screaming about losing Lowe, I would hope we could at least give credit where credit is due. Glover at times last year looked like a potential #3 starter, or a great long reliever/setup man and it was his first season in the Bigs. We got him for Eyre...

That's like trading a sack of baseballs for Sean Lowe...

Daver
12-17-2001, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


As much as people were screaming about losing Lowe, I would hope we could at least give credit where credit is due. Glover at times last year looked like a potential #3 starter, or a great long reliever/setup man and it was his first season in the Bigs. We got him for Eyre...

That's like trading a sack of baseballs for Sean Lowe...

Disregard all of this,I know nothing about baseball,just ask Bmr.

Kilroy
12-17-2001, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
OTOH, Clayton has cost us more. He played a key role in disrupting a clubhouse that won 95 games in 2000. Yes, it was KW who traded for him, and Manuel who insisted on playing him (even as Clayton's batting average dipped below .100), but it was his whining about playing time that finally destroyed whatever "chemistry" the 2000 team once had.

If Clayton is still around in 2002, I reserve the right to change my vote.

This is very debateable. Clayton cost the Sox more? The 2000 Sox would have hit right over his sub-.100 average. Maybe a few games they woulda scored 6 runs instead of 8 with Clayton in, but then again, maybe a few games they woulda gave up less runs because 36 errors at short cost a few, to be sure.

And as far as chemistry, maybe David Wells and his big fat yap disrupted chemistry. Calling out players and saying they may be faking injuries? Hmm, that might have had a little effect. Pay no attention to the fact that the chemistry changed with each addition to the DL. There's far too many variables to hang it all on one, two or even three players. The usual suspects weren't the only ones sucking last April.

As for Navarro, only one bigger jag-off ever played sports in Chicago and that was Dennis Rodman. But Rodman helped the Bulls win most of the time.

If I had tickets to a game on a day when Navarro was pitching, I seriously considered not going on more occasions than I care to admit. Usually I went anyway and was sorry I did. Navarro sucked ass and blamed his teammates for not giving him enough run support. It was never that he couldn't change speeds on his pitches or that his location made the baseball look like a basketball coming in the zone. It was always someone else's fault.

I remember Clayton spouting off about pt, but unless I missed something, I don't recall him blaming anyone else for his piss-poor play.

In a landslide, Navarro was the bigger jag...

btw: If Clayton hits about .260 all season long from wire to wire, is he still the anti-christ?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-17-2001, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
This is very debateable. Clayton cost the Sox more?....

Get your facts right, K. I voted for Navarro, and gave a lengthy explanation, too.

What's your problem?

Kilroy
12-17-2001, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Get your facts right, K. I voted for Navarro, and gave a lengthy explanation, too.

What's your problem?

I never said you didn't vote for Navarro. I just debated the fact that Clayton has cost the Sox more. Why do you think I have a problem?

bjmarte
12-17-2001, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


In a landslide, Navarro was the bigger jag...

btw: If Clayton hits about .260 all season long from wire to wire, is he still the anti-christ?

I'll give you that Navarro was the bigger jag, but Clayton is still the jag we have to deal with now. He is my first choice for removal from this team, even if he hits .260 all season. Jose was the emotional leader of this club in 2000 and did a solid job at ss inspite of the mostly irrelevant errors. Clayton was not an overall improvement over Jose. Dump Clayton and put Jose back at ss.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
I never said you didn't vote for Navarro. I just debated the fact that Clayton has cost the Sox more. Why do you think I have a problem?

The "anti-christ"? Why don't you point out for me where I stated that opinion--especially after I explicitly stated Navarro was worse.

Indulge me with an answer to this, too. Why is defending Royce Clayton always come down to a question of degree? Nearly all of us agree he sucks, he just doesn't suck as much as some us think he does?

I have never filled out a Sox line up card my entire life. So I'm confused what importance is attached to my view of how much Clayton sucks versus your view of how much Clayton sucks.

Of course I'm the one accused of being sensitive on this subject, but the accusers appear a bit sensitive on the subject themselves, aren't they?

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The "anti-christ"? Why don't you point out for me where I stated that opinion--especially after I explicitly stated Navarro was worse.

Indulge me with an answer to this, too. Why is defending Royce Clayton always come down to a question of degree? Nearly all of us agree he sucks, he just doesn't suck as much as some us think he does?

I have never filled out a Sox line up card my entire life. So I'm confused what importance is attached to my view of how much Clayton sucks versus your view of how much Clayton sucks.

Of course I'm the one accused of being sensitive on this subject, but the accusers appear a bit sensitive on the subject themselves, aren't they?

It has come to this... debating degrees of suckiness...

Man... That... well that sucks...

Looks like another 10 page thread on the degree of Claytons suckiness is going to happen...

:iron
I hate when players suck, just ask Harbaugh

:capone
Youse wants I should take care of dat for you coach?

:sopranos
Hey Al, we got your back

:hitless
I quit

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:18 AM
A few more terrible moves over the past few seasons -

1) Signing Albert Belle. Belle was a clubhouse cancer and showed no loyalty to the team - he had one awful year, one good year, and used a loophole in his contract to get more money from Baltimore. Having him on the team lost us Robin Ventura, too.

2) Rushing Mike Caruso - Scouts rated Mike Caruso the best prospect of the White Flag Trade - better than Foulke, Howry, or Vining. He was a raw kid in 1997 - a 19-year-old A-ball prospect with good speed and great bat control for his age. Fast forward to 1998 - Everyone knows the 1998 White Sox have no chance to do anything of importance. However, rather than give him the one more year in the minors that Caruso needed to work on his fielding and his plate discipline, they handed him the starting shortstop job at the beginning of Spring Training. Even worse, he performs superficially well, hitting .300 in 1998, which hides his obvious flaws and doesn't help him advance at all. Now at 24, he's washed-up. The Sox screwed up Big Time with Caruso.

An underrated good move for the Sox - Tanyon Sturtze for Tony Graffanino. Sturtze turned out to be a decent pitcher for the D-Rays, but not any better than say Garland or Glover or Lowe, so we never missed him. Graff has been great. I didn't like the move at first, but it has paid off quite a bit.

The Clayton-for-Myette trade was actually a good one in terms of value received. Myette sucks, and Clayton is an average-to-above average ballplayer. Here's where KW screwed up, IMO - he should have immediately traded Herbert Perry, to make room for both Valentin and Clayton to play every day, and create an entry path for Crede. I thought that for sure Perry would be gone - his trade value was much, much higher last year at this time than it is now, and the Sox could have done just as well without him. Instead, they kept him around, mainly I think because they liked him as a person, and we ended up with the screwy roster we had opening day. If Clayton ends up producing next season like he did this season, we'll be fine.

I still think the jury's out with Ritchie - he's a better pitcher than say James Baldwin, and to get him away from Pittsburgh I understand that it would take multiple arms - they need live arms, regardless of quality. I guess we'll find out whether it was worth it.

I find it amusing that the same people who rip on Sox management for sitting on their hands then rip on KW for taking risks. For those of you who want big-name Free Agents, either get over it or become Yankee fans, because it ain't happening in the near future. the Sox needed a veteran innings-eater, they got one.

I'm sorry, this is way off-topic. To answer the original question, no question Navarro was a major reason the Sox were terrible in '98 and '99. Royce Clayton was not even one of the reasons the Sox were mediocre in '01.

bjmarte
12-18-2001, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Indulge me with an answer to this, too. Why is defending Royce Clayton always come down to a question of degree? Nearly all of us agree he sucks, he just doesn't suck as much as some us think he does?

Not to insert myself in the middle of an argument, but what the hell. Let me restate my opinion. They both sucked. I don't care who sucked more, Claton is still on the team. Get rid of him first, then I'll come back and talk about who sucked more.

Now that that is out of the way I just want to say that I think everyone on this board is really keen.

:hamms

bjmarte
12-18-2001, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Royce Clayton was not even one of the reasons the Sox were mediocre in '01.

I agree. He was at least three of the reasons.

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:27 AM
I don't think Clayton sucks. I don't think he's great, either. He's an average hitter (slightly above-average for a shortstop) with a good glove.

His only problem is that he's overpaid. And as far as I'm concerned, that's Reinsdorf's problem, not ours. And if you think that Reinsdorf would be out looking for ways to spend an extra four mill if Clayton were gone, I've got a bridge to sell you.

:reinsy

We lost money last year, didn't you read my report?

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 12:28 AM
2) Rushing Mike Caruso - Scouts rated Mike Caruso the best prospect of the White Flag Trade - better than Foulke, Howry, or Vining. He was a raw kid in 1997 - a 19-year-old A-ball prospect with good speed and great bat control for his age. Fast forward to 1998 - Everyone knows the 1998 White Sox have no chance to do anything of importance. However, rather than give him the one more year in the minors that Caruso needed to work on his fielding and his plate discipline, they handed him the starting shortstop job at the beginning of Spring Training. Even worse, he performs superficially well, hitting .300 in 1998, which hides his obvious flaws and doesn't help him advance at all. Now at 24, he's washed-up. The Sox screwed up Big Time with Caruso.

Ummm Caruso was a pothead who didn't do any offseason working out. As IAC put it so well when he was picked up off wavers the first time (before being sent back) "His off season conditioning program consisted of trying to open a jar of peanut butter."

Not defending or ripping on any trades, but lets get the facts straight on Caruso. He was a lazy punk who thought he was great. If he stays in the minors another year, he never makes the bigs, IMO...

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I agree. He was at least three of the reasons.

Cute, but how did Royce Clayton cost the White Sox anything in 2001? Did he injure Frank Thomas and Jim Parque and David Wells and Bill Simas and Kelly Wunsch and Lorenzo Barcelo? Becuase otherwise I fail to see it.

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Ummm Caruso was a pothead who didn't do any offseason working out. As IAC put it so well when he was picked up off wavers the first time (before being sent back) "His off season conditioning program consisted of trying to open a jar of peanut butter."

Not defending or ripping on any trades, but lets get the facts straight on Caruso. He was a lazy punk who thought he was great. If he stays in the minors another year, he never makes the bigs, IMO...

And a big reason that Caruso was such an egotistical lazy jerk is that the Sox mishandled him. Come on, he was not old enough to drink when they handed him the starter's job. The Sox gave him zero incentive to work on his game. Of course it went to his head. Whoever made that decision to make him 1998 opening day shortstop, Bevington or Schueler, had a screw loose.

bjmarte
12-18-2001, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Cute, but how did Royce Clayton cost the White Sox anything in 2001? Did he injure Frank Thomas and Jim Parque and David Wells and Bill Simas and Kelly Wunsch and Lorenzo Barcelo? Becuase otherwise I fail to see it.

I'm not trying to put the entire season on Clayton's shoulders. But his bat, or lack of one, did contribute to the sox sinking almost to the point of no return early in the season. Not to mention the fact that he and his weak bat sucked up a position from one of the people who were key to success in 2000.

:manos

Ok, bad bat first half, taking up spot for better player... Damn that's only two. Anyway, I'll come up with something else later.

If Clayton is so great then how come no one wants him?

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


And a big reason that Caruso was such an egotistical lazy jerk is that the Sox mishandled him. Come on, he was not old enough to drink when they handed him the starter's job. The Sox gave him zero incentive to work on his game. Of course it went to his head. Whoever made that decision to make him 1998 opening day shortstop, Bevington or Schueler, had a screw loose.

I see, it's everybodys fault except Mike's... Okay, if you say so...

Man, if you have a chance to play ball professionally, you should bust your hump, be two steps ahead of the curve. If they tell you to put on 10 pounds of muscle in the off season, you should add 20 and come back to camp in the best shape of your life. If they tell you to put in extra time in the batting cage, spend the next 3 months, coming in early and staying late. Caruso was a lazy putz. defend it how you want to, but the main chunk of the blame HAS to land squarely on his shoulders.

Egotistical lazy jerks aren't made in one off season, and if getting a starting job handed to you in your rookie year causes it to happen, then you (that's the generic you) are a waste of oxygen...

I'd rather have Clayton, at least when we booed him, he tried harder...

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
A few more terrible moves over the past few seasons....

The Clayton-for-Myette trade was actually a good one in terms of value received. Myette sucks, and Clayton is an average-to-above average ballplayer. Here's where KW screwed up, IMO - he should have immediately traded Herbert Perry, to make room for both Valentin and Clayton to play every day, and create an entry path for Crede.... Instead, they kept him around... and we ended up with the screwy roster we had opening day.....

Point of clarification here. You're half-right. KW's failure to make a trade screwed up our opening day roster. He's admitted this fact in print. However, it wasn't Perry he was trying to move, it was Clayton.

In fact, Williams admitted he only acquired Clayton thinking he could move him in another trade before spring training ended. His logic defies all reason, since any team truly interested in acquiring Clayton could have gotten at least as good a deal dealing directly with Texas. This makes the Sox nearly automatic losers for equal-value in any subsequent Clayton trade.

It was reported in all the Chicago newspapers last August. Williams has been shopping Clayton since last December. He simply can't find a buyer. Tough time to find that out, huh?

It's worth mentioning that the season-long climb of Clayton's batting average had reversed itself the weeks before Kenny talked to the press. He dipped below .230 and appeared headed back to the Mendoza line, but suddenly began hitting again, finally finishing just above his career average when the season ended in October.

I'm sorry that my opinions get in the way of the facts sometimes.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I'm not trying to put the entire season on Clayton's shoulders. But his bat, or lack of one, did contribute to the sox sinking almost to the point of no return early in the season. Not to mention the fact that he and his weak bat sucked up a position from one of the people who were key to success in 2000.

Ok, bad bat first half, taking up spot for better player... Damn that's only two. Anyway, I'll come up with something else later.

Whined about playing time when he was sucking it up thus causing Jose to be benched and moved around when he was playing and causing the problems that the team were already experiencing to be magnified.

If Clayton is so great then how come no one wants him?

EXACTLY!!! Whens the last time a team went to trade a guy who was a gold glove candidate SS (not my belief, but the idea was discussed) and nobody wanted him?

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:45 AM
Clayton didn't take away ABs from Jose Valentin in April and May, he took away ABs from Chris Singleton and Herbert Perry. Valentin played almost every day. Singleton losing playing time didn't bother me one bit - in fact, he seems to play better with limited playing time. I think he gets lazy if he has no competition for his job. Perry losing playing time was bad - he is a pretty good hitter. I explained already that I thought the Sox should have traded him last winter, when they could have gotten a good deal for him.

As for his hole in the lineup, I kind of expected that, as did we all. Clayton wasn't picked up for his awesome offensive capability - no one was expecting Arod out there. What killed the Sox in April and May wasn't that Clayton wasn't hitting, it was that Thomas and Ordonez and Durham and Baines weren't hitting.

I think that Ray Durham not hitting had a lot more to do with our offensive struggles last season than did Royce's not hitting, yet Durham seems to get off scot-free. I don't get it.

FarWestChicago
12-18-2001, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I think that Ray Durham not hitting had a lot more to do with our offensive struggles last season than did Royce's not hitting, yet Durham seems to get off scot-free. I don't get it. Czal, are you kidding. The Fire Hydrant is ripped constantly. What board are you reading? :smile:

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Czal, are you kidding. The Fire Hydrant is ripped constantly. What board are you reading? :smile:

I remember seeing Durham ripped during the season, but nothing close to the level of vituperativeness reserved for Clayton. Ray Durham was awful as a leadoff hitter last season. Sure, Clayton was bad, but at least he was hideable in the nine-hole. Durham was at the top of the order to not get on base to not score. It made me sick watching him swing for the fences all the time. His terrible performance leading off last season is what made me not-so-angry at the prospect of losing Singleton and Garland and prospects for Darin Erstad. At least Erstad would take a walk once in a while.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I remember seeing Durham ripped during the season, but nothing close to the level of vituperativeness reserved for Clayton. Ray Durham was awful as a leadoff hitter last season. Sure, Clayton was bad, but at least he was hideable in the nine-hole. Durham was at the top of the order to not get on base to not score. It made me sick watching him swing for the fences all the time. His terrible performance leading off last season is what made me not-so-angry at the prospect of losing Singleton and Garland and prospects for Darin Erstad. At least Erstad would take a walk once in a while.


Yep, here we go. The best defense of Clayton: he sucks, just not as much as some of us think he does.

This is pathetic.

FarWestChicago
12-18-2001, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I remember seeing Durham ripped during the season, but nothing close to the level of vituperativeness reserved for Clayton. Ray Durham was awful as a leadoff hitter last season. Sure, Clayton was bad, but at least he was hideable in the nine-hole. Durham was at the top of the order to not get on base to not score. It made me sick watching him swing for the fences all the time. His terrible performance leading off last season is what made me not-so-angry at the prospect of losing Singleton and Garland and prospects for Darin Erstad. At least Erstad would take a walk once in a while. I rip The Fire Hydrant at least once a day. So do other people. I don't know how you are missing it. I don't know what else to say. Hell, he didn't even get one vote in the favorite player poll.

bjmarte
12-18-2001, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I remember seeing Durham ripped during the season, but nothing close to the level of vituperativeness reserved for Clayton. Ray Durham was awful as a leadoff hitter last season. Sure, Clayton was bad, but at least he was hideable in the nine-hole. Durham was at the top of the order to not get on base to not score. It made me sick watching him swing for the fences all the time. His terrible performance leading off last season is what made me not-so-angry at the prospect of losing Singleton and Garland and prospects for Darin Erstad. At least Erstad would take a walk once in a while.

I may go along with you when you point out other weaknesses on the team. IMO, my very very strong opinion, Clayton has to be the first choice when you talk about taking people off of this team. The guy is a jag and doesn't belong on a team with people like Valentin, Konerko, and Maggs.

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 01:04 AM
No, I said Clayton doesn't suck. He did exactly what he always did. His numbers were pretty much exactly what he put up with the Rangers, and he was decent with the Rangers.

Royce Clayton was probably the 4th-best shortstop in the AL last season, in terms of all-around offensive and defensive production. Admittedly, he would have been fifth if Garciaparra had been healthy, and there's a pretty big gap between him and Miguel Tejada, who was third, but he was better than Alex Gonzalez (who some guys on this board wanted last winter I remember) or Deivi Cruz. Was he a bad fit on the 2001 White Sox? Probably, but that doesn't mean he sucks.

If what you said was true, and Williams picked him up to trade him again, well, then that was pretty stupid. I don't remember reading that, but I don't live in Chicago.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I may go along with you when you point out other weaknesses on the team. IMO, my very very strong opinion, Clayton has to be the first choice when you talk about taking people off of this team. The guy is a jag and doesn't belong on a team with people like Valentin, Konerko, and Maggs.

Well said. If anyone gets run out of town, or traded for next to nothing, it should be Clayton...

FarWestChicago
12-18-2001, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
If what you said was true, and Williams picked him up to trade him again, well, then that was pretty stupid. I don't remember reading that, but I don't live in Chicago. Links were posted here. I read them. Williams really blew it and then he had to play him because of the money involved.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Royce Clayton was probably the 4th-best shortstop in the AL last season, in terms of all-around offensive and defensive production. Admittedly, he would have been fifth if Garciaparra had been healthy, and there's a pretty big gap between him and Miguel Tejada, who was third, but he was better than Alex Gonzalez (who some guys on this board wanted last winter I remember) or Deivi Cruz.

Actually, he was fifth (sixth if Garciaparra is healthy) but one of those guys was being forced to play different positions with the Sox to accomodate Royce's stunning output...

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I may go along with you when you point out other weaknesses on the team. IMO, my very very strong opinion, Clayton has to be the first choice when you talk about taking people off of this team. The guy is a jag and doesn't belong on a team with people like Valentin, Konerko, and Maggs.

I agree that he wouldn't leave a gaping hole if he were to leave Chicago. I never thought he fit well with the team last year. But that doesn't mean he sucks. If he were a free agent, you bet he'd be getting a lot of attention. The only reason he's not tradeable is that no team that needs a shortstop wants to add salary.

bjmarte
12-18-2001, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Actually, he was fifth (sixth if Garciaparra is healthy) but one of those guys was being forced to play different positions with the Sox to accomodate Royce's stunning output...

What more could I possibly add to a masterpiece of a post like that. Goodnight all.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


What more could I possibly add to a masterpiece of a post like that. Goodnight all.

Thanks and I will say good night also...

Good night everybody...

West, we need a Yogi Berra tag... No, I don't have any pictures...

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Actually, he was fifth (sixth if Garciaparra is healthy) but one of those guys was being forced to play different positions with the Sox to accomodate Royce's stunning output...

Okay, there's the thing. Here's where we get to the crux of the issue. The Sox were shoring up the wrong position. And in that, I agree with you. The Sox should have been actively pursuing a centerfielder rather than a shortstop.

Look, I never liked the trade that brought Royce to Chicago. I thought that Royce Clayton, even at his best, wasn't a good fit on the team. I think you all agree with me there. What I disagree with is the premise that Royce Clayton sucks, because he doesn't. He's a decent ballplayer, just a decent ballplayer on the wrong team. And if this was any year other than a year in which all the owners were trying to cut payroll, I think the Sox could move him.

If I was GM, the Sox never would have picked up Clayton. But in his own way, Clayton's a good ballplayer. We should reserve our ire for guys, like Ray Durham, who simply refuse to play the role that is asked of them and try to be someone else.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 01:23 AM
Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, "Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because...

he's the best defender,
he has the best range,
he drives in more runs,
he commits the fewest errors,
he hits with more power,
he gets on base more,
he has the highest batting average,
he has the highest slugging average,
he has the strongest throwing arm
he's a leader in the clubhouse,
he takes a more pitches,
he turns more double-plays,
he makes Ray Durham a better secondbasemen,
he is better at the top of the line up,
he is better at the bottom of the line up,
he is more a basestealing threat,
he is a better baserunner,
he covers the hole best,
he cuts down more runners on relay throws,
he makes the players around him better,
he is better laying down bunts or playing run and hit,
etcetera..."

Instead, those of us who say he shouldn't be the everyday shortstop are accused of calling him "the anti-christ"--even when we didn't.

You want him to be your everyday shortstop? Stand up and be counted!

Back your guy up with reasons, not bull****.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
If I was GM, the Sox never would have picked up Clayton. But in his own way, Clayton's a good ballplayer. We should reserve our ire for guys, like Ray Durham, who simply refuse to play the role that is asked of them and try to be someone else.

Ray has always hit that way, by now I thought it would be accepted. His numbers aren't as bad as people like to make them out to be when compared to other leadoff men and last year was his worst year in a long time. It was also by coincidence a very tough year emotionally and physically for the whole team. Hopefully it will make them stronger.

The fact is we agree. Clayton is on the wrong team. On another team he might be a fine player (hopefully we can trade him to the flubbies and test this theory). On this team, he sucks. That is why he gets so much grief. He doesn't belong here. Who cares how good he would be elsewhere. Here he is superfluous. End of story. You agree, I agree, the whole f'n board agrees (well, maybe not, but that is their problem). Since we agree, and realize that Clayton does NOT belong here, can we also agree that he should be traded, first and foremost, ASAP, for whatever we can get... after all, as you said, he doesn't fit on the Sox...

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, "Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because...

he's the best defender,
he has the best range,
he drives in more runs,
he commits the fewest errors,
he hits with more power,
he gets on base more,
he has the highest batting average,
he has the highest slugging average,
he has the strongest throwing arm
he's a leader in the clubhouse,
he takes a more pitches,
he turns more double-plays,
he makes Ray Durham a better secondbasemen,
he is better at the top of the line up,
he is better at the bottom of the line up,
he is more a basestealing threat,
he is a better baserunner,
he covers the hole best,
he cuts down more runners on relay throws,
he makes the players around him better,
he is better laying down bunts or playing run and hit,
etcetera..."

Instead, those of us who say he shouldn't be the everyday shortstop are accused of calling him "the anti-christ"--even when we didn't.

You want him to be your everyday shortstop? Stand up and be counted!

Back your guy up with reasons, not bull****.

dude i personally dont think royce should be our everyday SS. I just feel he is a better defensive SS than jose. In addition, i think there is too much royce bashing. Hes a well below average starting SS and he always has been. Its not his fault....thats always been my stance.

CLR01
12-18-2001, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


dude i personally dont think royce should be our everyday SS. I just feel he is a better defensive SS than jose. In addition, i think there is too much royce bashing. Hes a well below average starting SS and he always has been. Its not his fault....thats always been my stance.


How is it not his fault he is a below average player?

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



How is it not his fault he is a below average player?

well i could prove that, but thats not how i meant it. I meant he is performing at teh level he has ALWAYS performed. IF you have a problem with that, isnt in the gms fault, who brought him here to play SS??

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



How is it not his fault he is a below average player?

Bmr, allow me...

He has no talent...

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Bmr, allow me...

He has no talent...
i know he doesnt. Did he before we brought him here?

CLR01
12-18-2001, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31

i know he doesnt. Did he before we brought him here?

Well ill agree to that, but how is that not his fault, sure it makes KW a moron for trading for him but it is not his fault he has no talent.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31

i know he doesnt. Did he before we brought him here?

Not to speak of... I was agreeing with you... he never has been a great player, solid defensively, but unspectacular. But that is all irrelevant to the discussion. Does he belong on the team? No, Jose is a better "choice"...

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Not to speak of... I was agreeing with you... he never has been a great player, solid defensively, but unspectacular. But that is all irrelevant to the discussion. Does he belong on the team? No, Jose is a better "choice"...

you think so? well i dont even want to debate that. They both are the wrong choice, if we want to be a champion....

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


you think so? well i dont even want to debate that. They both are the wrong choice, if we want to be a champion....

Possibly, I can't say I agree with that, but I am all for an ARod type of player if one becomes available. Given the "choices" we have, I think Jose is better.

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Possibly, I can't say I agree with that, but I am all for an ARod type of player if one becomes available. Given the "choices" we have, I think Jose is better.

who knows. Well i need to get some sleep. Later....

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
you think so? well i dont even want to debate that. They both are the wrong choice, if we want to be a champion....

Perhaps so. Valentin is no A-rod either. But now we're back to defending Royce based on something besides his own merits--debating the precise amount he sucks.

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Perhaps so. Valentin is no A-rod either. But now we're back to defending Royce based on something besides his own merits--debating the precise amount he sucks.

oh, he is horrible. I think we all know that.....

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, "Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because...

he's the best defender,
he has the best range,
he drives in more runs,
he commits the fewest errors,
he hits with more power,
he gets on base more,
he has the highest batting average,
he has the highest slugging average,
he has the strongest throwing arm
he's a leader in the clubhouse,
he takes a more pitches,
he turns more double-plays,
he makes Ray Durham a better secondbasemen,
he is better at the top of the line up,
he is better at the bottom of the line up,
he is more a basestealing threat,
he is a better baserunner,
he covers the hole best,
he cuts down more runners on relay throws,
he makes the players around him better,
he is better laying down bunts or playing run and hit,
etcetera..."

Instead, those of us who say he shouldn't be the everyday shortstop are accused of calling him "the anti-christ"--even when we didn't.

You want him to be your everyday shortstop? Stand up and be counted!

Back your guy up with reasons, not bull****.

Dude, I never said I want Royce to be our everyday starting shortstop. I want Arod to be our everyday starting shortstop. But since we're living in reality, I will say that Royce is a better shortstop defensively than Jose is. I will even go out on a limb and say, that, when all was said and done, the Sox were all-around better in 2001 with Valentin at third and Royce at short than with Valentin at short and Perry at third.

Valentin has always been error-prone at short, and Perry was significantly slowed by injuries (which was the main reason that Clayton played every day, not Clayton's salary), so with Valentin and Perry on the left side of the infield our defense was unacceptably poor.

The ONLY reason that I thought that having Royce in the lineup was a bad idea is that I thought that Crede should have been given a chance at third, especially as the season unfolded and it was obvious we weren't going anywhere.

If people were just saying that he shouldn't be the White Sox starting shortstop, then I wouldn't have said anything. But people were saying that he sucked and that he was responsible for the White Sox playing poorly in 2001. Neither one of those statements is true. That's why I jumped in.

kermittheefrog
12-18-2001, 02:51 AM
Lots to say!

Royce: We all know he sucks, but like BMR said it's not his fault we all hate him. The guy does a few things well and can play baseball better than all of us but that doesn't make him a starting shortstop. We hate him because management has screwed up with him. He makes too much money and plays too much in context with his meager skills.

4th best shortstop in the AL? Ha! That's one of the funniest things I've heard this week. What about Cristian Guzman? I'd certainly prefer David Eckstein's .285 BA and .355 OBP and the Angels nabbed him on waivers. Was Clayton better than Carlos Guillen and Rey Sanchez? I don't know many people who would say so. Then you get into arguables like Mike Bordick and Omar Vizquel. If Clayton is so great among his peers why doesn't any other team want him?

Ray: Give the guy a break, there were about 5 good leadoff men in baseball last year. Ray was the best of the rest. This homer happy era has created a lack of quality leadoff men. We're actually doing well having Durham. That said I still don't think he should get a contract extension.

Back to the original question this topic posed: Laime was worse. My favorite Laime memory was when a group of fans in left posted a sign for each hit, walk, run and homer allowed by Navarro, strikeout counter style. It was incredibly hilarious. It'd be hard for Royce to top that.

LongDistanceFan
12-18-2001, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Bmr, allow me...

He has no talent... if he didn't have talent, then his second half resurgence was what, a figment of everybody imagination?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
if he didn't have talent, then his second half resurgence was what, a figment of everybody imagination?

You can't argue with the reality of the situation, can you LDF?

Nobody wants him, and KW admits he's been trying to move him for 12 months. That's no figment of imagination, either.

Maybe you want him on your team?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 08:15 AM
"Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, 'Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because... '"


So far, not one person has stepped up.

Not Bmr.
Not czalgosz.
Not LongDistanceFan.

Where's Kilroy, or idseer? Who else am I missing? It's time to stand up and be counted.

(Navarro is still worse, though not quite anti-christ material).

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 08:43 AM
I love the hyperbole here...

I never said that Clayton was "great". I understand that no one said that he was "the anti-christ", either. George, I'm not super excited about Royce Clayton. But he brings as much to the table in terms of skills as, say, Ozzie Guillen once did. I wouldn't be sorry to see him go, I'm just confused as to why he's so hated on this board.

Look at it this way, and then I'll shut up forever about the subject. Let's say that, as some people are suggesting, that KW manages to trade him for a bag of BP baseballs. What then happens if Joe Crede does his best Chris Snopek impersonation? Or if Valentin (knock on wood) gets hurt? Clayton, for all his flaws, is a better option than anyone else currently in the Sox system.

This is why it's not a bad thing to have him on the 2002 White Sox. If Joe Crede spends another season on the bench and Clayton plays every day despite having another April like last year, then I'll be mad at Williams and Manuel, like I was mad at Manuel for not giving Crede a shot last season. But I fail to see how Manuel putting Clayton in the lineup every day makes Clayton the bad guy. That's all I'm saying. If you want to be mad at Williams for trading for him, or Manuel for playing him, that's fine. But to argue that he hurt the Sox more than Navarro did is ludicrous.

Kilroy
12-18-2001, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The "anti-christ"? Why don't you point out for me where I stated that opinion--especially after I explicitly stated Navarro was worse.

Indulge me with an answer to this, too. Why is defending Royce Clayton always come down to a question of degree? Nearly all of us agree he sucks, he just doesn't suck as much as some us think he does?

I have never filled out a Sox line up card my entire life. So I'm confused what importance is attached to my view of how much Clayton sucks versus your view of how much Clayton sucks.

Of course I'm the one accused of being sensitive on this subject, but the accusers appear a bit sensitive on the subject themselves, aren't they?

PHG, I never said you stated that opinion at all. I don't even think I implied it. I used the phrase 'anti-christ' as another way of saying 'the most hated Sox player'. Which no one would argue is anyone other than Clayton. I wasn't saying you think he blows more than I think he blows or anything like that.

All I did was debate your point about chemistry and then state my opinion of Navarro.

LongDistanceFan
12-18-2001, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
"Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, 'Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because... '"


So far, not one person has stepped up.

Not Bmr.
Not czalgosz.
Not LongDistanceFan.

Where's Kilroy, or idseer? Who else am I missing? It's time to stand up and be counted.

(Navarro is still worse, though not quite anti-christ material). hey..... WAIT ONE MINUTE......... i have and never said i was a clayton fan.......... i have fought on many post of getting rid of the slug. do not put me with anybody else...... i was the most vocal on the suspicion of clayton, when in KC, after 9-11, of clayton sitting in the clubhouse during the national anthem........... i don't know how much more i can tell you that i hate him........... ref to the those stats of what is mention.........i am not that much of a stat fiend that i can spout out stats........... but i am not going to defend somebody i don't like..........

what gave you the impression that i liked clayton??????

LongDistanceFan
12-18-2001, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Or if Valentin (knock on wood) gets hurt? that was a cheesy move on your part to wish some one hurt!

Iwritecode
12-18-2001, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Okay, there's the thing. Here's where we get to the crux of the issue. The Sox were shoring up the wrong position. And in that, I agree with you. The Sox should have been actively pursuing a centerfielder rather than a shortstop.

I partially agree here. KW and JR looked at one stat last year. Jose's 36 errors. Yet they also knew what kind of offense he has so they knew they had to keep him in the lineup somehow. <shameless plug> If they would have bothered reading my article (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/Columnists/Iwritecode/ValentinErrors.htm) <shameless plug> then they would have seen that they didn't really need to move him. Especially since the only upgrade at SS available cost $150 millon.

Look, I never liked the trade that brought Royce to Chicago. I thought that Royce Clayton, even at his best, wasn't a good fit on the team. I think you all agree with me there. What I disagree with is the premise that Royce Clayton sucks, because he doesn't. He's a decent ballplayer, just a decent ballplayer on the wrong team. And if this was any year other than a year in which all the owners were trying to cut payroll, I think the Sox could move him.

Clayton only sucks when compared to other SS's. Also, I can't really think of any teams that might actually want him even if they did have the money...

Iwritecode
12-18-2001, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Bmr, allow me...

He has no talent...

C'mon guys, how quickly we forget. Use the proper lingo.

Clayton's problem is LOFT.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 10:44 AM
Okay, guys. Thank you (all of you) for clarification on your positions. Nothing gets this board fired up faster than a discussion of how much Royce Clayton sucks.

:)


Full disclosure: I like him the least of any of the current Sox front-line players. He is not as bad as Jaime Navarro (who was my least-favorite 1997-99) but he is pretty damned bad. Does he deserve to be the everyday shortstop? I can't think of a single good reason, but I'm sure many others here could. Your opinion counts as much as mine.

We rip on a lot of Sox players around here--but we praise even more. It's not like any of us (besides maybe ma-gaga and Vic) are cheering for them to lose. I sarcastically called Ray Durham the "Toy Cannon" just yesterday. If Clayton comes in for more than his share of criticism, perhaps it's because he has more than his share coming?

I'll get off my soapbox. You guys are alright in my book--not that you should give a damn. :cool:

RichH55
12-18-2001, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, "Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because...

he's the best defender,
he has the best range,
he drives in more runs,
he commits the fewest errors,
he hits with more power,
he gets on base more,
he has the highest batting average,
he has the highest slugging average,
he has the strongest throwing arm
he's a leader in the clubhouse,
he takes a more pitches,
he turns more double-plays,
he makes Ray Durham a better secondbasemen,
he is better at the top of the line up,
he is better at the bottom of the line up,
he is more a basestealing threat,
he is a better baserunner,
he covers the hole best,
he cuts down more runners on relay throws,
he makes the players around him better,
he is better laying down bunts or playing run and hit,
etcetera..."

Instead, those of us who say he shouldn't be the everyday shortstop are accused of calling him "the anti-christ"--even when we didn't.

You want him to be your everyday shortstop? Stand up and be counted!

Back your guy up with reasons, not bull****.

Post of the Week Material?

Iwritecode
12-18-2001, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Post of the Week Material?

Nah, POW stuff is usually a snappy one-liner. :smile:

AsInWreck
12-18-2001, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Lots to say!

Royce: We all know he sucks...

4th best shortstop in the AL? Ha! That's one of the funniest things I've heard this week. Wpeople who would say so. Then you get into arguables like ... Omar Vizquel.



Ha! This is laughable,man. Royce could not reach so high as to lick the crust from Omar's spikes.

LongDistanceFan
12-18-2001, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay, guys. Thank you (all of you) for clarification on your positions. Nothing gets this board fired up faster than a discussion of how much Royce Clayton sucks.

:)


Full disclosure: I like him the least of any of the current Sox front-line players. He is not as bad as Jaime Navarro (who was my least-favorite 1997-99) but he is pretty damned bad. Does he deserve to be the everyday shortstop? I can't think of a single good reason, but I'm sure many others here could. Your opinion counts as much as mine.

We rip on a lot of Sox players around here--but we praise even more. It's not like any of us (besides maybe ma-gaga and Vic) are cheering for them to lose. I sarcastically called Ray Durham the "Toy Cannon" just yesterday. If Clayton comes in for more than his share of criticism, perhaps it's because he has more than his share coming?

I'll get off my soapbox. You guys are alright in my book--not that you should give a damn. :cool: which is the worst in book, jaime or royce? hard to say, but we heard and saw all what jaime did, but we haven't from royce. we only heard of rumors, yet are they to be believe?

royce has and shown more talent than jaime at their pos, yet who is the worst for me would be who is the worst influence in the clubhouse or the team............ and based on that, i say its royce based on rumors.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
royce has and shown more talent than jaime at their pos, yet who is the worst for me would be who is the worst influence in the clubhouse or the team............ and based on that, i say its royce based on rumors.

This is an interesting point. Jaime was such an idiot, he often said stupid things directly to the press. (The WSI quotables feature is loaded with some of his choicest pearls). You didn't need to speculate in rumors because Jaime was right there quoted in the sports pages making an *** of himself. There were rumors about trouble in the clubhouse but it wasn't until after he was traded that anybody started talking about it publicly.

Royce is still here, and might be staying, too. As for what is going on inside the Sox clubhouse, I doubt we'll know much of anything for sure until he is long gone.

Kilroy
12-18-2001, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Royce is still here, and might be staying, too. As for what is going on inside the Sox clubhouse, I doubt we'll know much of anything for sure until he is long gone.

Well, that's probably true. Let's just hope the "gone" happens sooner rather than later.

FarmerAndy
12-18-2001, 02:48 PM
I know I'm in the minority of Royce supporters here, but let me ask a hypothetical question here. If Royce goes through the pre-season playing like he did in second half of last season, how can you argue him being our shortstop? Sure he was a big factor in the Sox poor start, but we probably wouldn't have noticed quite as much if Julio Ramirez and Harold Baines weren't stinking it up in the lineup too. On the other side of the coin, he was also a main factor in the Sox coming back to a respectable finish. In the second half, there was nobody I'd rather have at the plate with 2 outs and runners on base. As far as him being a clubhouse cancer, that may be true. He might be a real dick, I've never been in the clubhouse, so I don't know.

As far as what goes on the field, I think the real problem is Ray Durham. People can argue about whether Manos or The Choice is better at short, but neither of them stink as bad as Ray does at second. I don't like him as a lead-off hitter either. If somebody has to go, I'd rather axe Durham. I think Manos would be a fine second baseman. It would also open up third for Crede. I know K.W. isn't gonna trade Ray though, so I'll stop dreamin'.

Kilroy
12-18-2001, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
I know I'm in the minority of Royce supporters here, but let me ask a hypothetical question here. If Royce goes through the pre-season playing like he did in second half of last season, how can you argue him being our shortstop? Sure he was a big factor in the Sox poor start, but we probably wouldn't have noticed quite as much if Julio Ramirez and Harold Baines weren't stinking it up in the lineup too. On the other side of the coin, he was also a main factor in the Sox coming back to a respectable finish. In the second half, there was nobody I'd rather have at the plate with 2 outs and runners on base. As far as him being a clubhouse cancer, that may be true. He might be a real dick, I've never been in the clubhouse, so I don't know.

This is the part where you hear about how Royce doesn't have the range that Valentin does. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I don't know how it's being measured.

Also, Royce didn't turn as many double plays. Now it is true that the Sox turned a lot less DP's in 01 than they did in 00. But turning a DP is dependant on getting the DP ground-ball to do so. Implicating Royce here would be dependant on the percentage of DPs turned out of chances to do so (meaning that a DP grounder was hit but the DP was or was not turned). So I assume that when its said that Royce turns less DPs, someone figured out how many times the pitcher induced the grounder and Royce somehow failed to turn the DP. But I've never seen such a stat posted here or anywhere else.

As far as wanting Royce at the plate in the second half, he was pretty damn good w/ 2 out and RISP, and from Jun 1 on he hit .315. If he's still around come ST, hopefully that Clayton will be the one that we see and not the one from April/May.

voodoochile
12-18-2001, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


This is the part where you hear about how Royce doesn't have the range that Valentin does. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I don't know how it's being measured.

Also, Royce didn't turn as many double plays. Now it is true that the Sox turned a lot less DP's in 01 than they did in 00. But turning a DP is dependant on getting the DP ground-ball to do so. Implicating Royce here would be dependant on the percentage of DPs turned out of chances to do so (meaning that a DP grounder was hit but the DP was or was not turned). So I assume that when its said that Royce turns less DPs, someone figured out how many times the pitcher induced the grounder and Royce somehow failed to turn the DP. But I've never seen such a stat posted here or anywhere else.

As far as wanting Royce at the plate in the second half, he was pretty damn good w/ 2 out and RISP, and from Jun 1 on he hit .315. If he's still around come ST, hopefully that Clayton will be the one that we see and not the one from April/May.

No, it has little to do with range, IMO. It has to do with Valentin's 170 extra points of OPS, period. Jose's best position is SS. He brings more to the team in all aspects of the game (except routine grounders hit directly at him). Clayton for all of his amazing second half offensive stats still can't touch Valentin offensively and that was with Valentin moving around like a pinball for most of the year last year and missing time with a hammy injury. Add in Jose's leadership and clubhouse presence (which is NOT debatable the way Royce's is) and the clear choice to me is Jose. Don't hate Royce. Just want what I view as the all around better player to play on a regular basis at his best position, that's all...

FarmerAndy
12-18-2001, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Jose's best position is SS. He brings more to the team in all aspects of the game (except routine grounders hit directly at him). ..

I'm of the belief that a shortstop making the plays on routine grounders hit directly at him is VERY important.

Jose's best position is shortstop, but that doesn't mean he's the better shortstop. If you look at every great team, they have solid defense as well as offense. Over the past couple of years, I don't think that the Sox have lacked much in the offensive department, but the defense has been for ****. We aren't short of heavy hitters (Frank, Mags, Konerko). I think it's time the Sox put a little focus on defense. Alot of people want to dump Singleton because he's not so hot at the plate (Althought he's batted around the .300 mark for 2 out of his 3 seasons.) Mags is no gold glove outfielder, which is fine. I'm O.K. with dumping Singleton if you trade Carlos Lee in a deal that brings us a decent outfielder. BUT, if we plan on having Lee in left with Mags in right, then I want Singleton to stay right were he's at, 'cause then we at least have one guy in the outfield who can track a fly ball. Same rule in the infield. I'd rather have Royce at SS. I agree that Jose is better in the batting line-up, and his best position is SS. But I think we can allow a couple of .250 hitters in the line-up to insure that we have a little stability in the field.

It seems to me that alot of Sox fans are obsessed with having .300 hitters 1-9 in the line-up, while everybody in the field looks like Roger Dorn. Oh well, at least they're Sox fans.

kermittheefrog
12-18-2001, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
I know I'm in the minority of Royce supporters here, but let me ask a hypothetical question here. If Royce goes through the pre-season playing like he did in second half of last season, how can you argue him being our shortstop? Sure he was a big factor in the Sox poor start, but we probably wouldn't have noticed quite as much if Julio Ramirez and Harold Baines weren't stinking it up in the lineup too. On the other side of the coin, he was also a main factor in the Sox coming back to a respectable finish. In the second half, there was nobody I'd rather have at the plate with 2 outs and runners on base. As far as him being a clubhouse cancer, that may be true. He might be a real dick, I've never been in the clubhouse, so I don't know.

As far as what goes on the field, I think the real problem is Ray Durham. People can argue about whether Manos or The Choice is better at short, but neither of them stink as bad as Ray does at second. I don't like him as a lead-off hitter either. If somebody has to go, I'd rather axe Durham. I think Manos would be a fine second baseman. It would also open up third for Crede. I know K.W. isn't gonna trade Ray though, so I'll stop dreamin'.

Damn Durham gets a hard time. The poor guy is only a victim of being consistent. He is a good not great leadoff mand and a good not great second baseman. He has a good season year in, year out and gets no credit because he's never had a spectaular one.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-18-2001, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


This is the part where you hear about how Royce doesn't have the range that Valentin does. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I don't know how it's being measured.

Also, Royce didn't turn as many double plays. Now it is true that the Sox turned a lot less DP's in 01 than they did in 00. But turning a DP is dependant on getting the DP ground-ball to do so. Implicating Royce here would be dependant on the percentage of DPs turned out of chances to do so (meaning that a DP grounder was hit but the DP was or was not turned). So I assume that when its said that Royce turns less DPs, someone figured out how many times the pitcher induced the grounder and Royce somehow failed to turn the DP. But I've never seen such a stat posted here or anywhere else.

As far as wanting Royce at the plate in the second half, he was pretty damn good w/ 2 out and RISP, and from Jun 1 on he hit .315. If he's still around come ST, hopefully that Clayton will be the one that we see and not the one from April/May.

This is the part where I chime in that for all of Royce's second-half offensive prowess, his biggest defender, Jerry Manuel, never once thought enough of it to bat Clayton higher than eighth in the order. This was on a team that had trouble turning over the line up, another fall-off in performance from the 2000 champion team.

Not that any Clayton defender would take Royce to task for that problem, either.

oldcomiskey
12-18-2001, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, "Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because...

he's the best defender,
he has the best range,
he drives in more runs,
he commits the fewest errors,
he hits with more power,
he gets on base more,
he has the highest batting average,
he has the highest slugging average,
he has the strongest throwing arm
he's a leader in the clubhouse,
he takes a more pitches,
he turns more double-plays,
he makes Ray Durham a better secondbasemen,
he is better at the top of the line up,
he is better at the bottom of the line up,
he is more a basestealing threat,
he is a better baserunner,
he covers the hole best,
he cuts down more runners on relay throws,
he makes the players around him better,
he is better laying down bunts or playing run and hit,
etcetera..."

Instead, those of us who say he shouldn't be the everyday shortstop are accused of calling him "the anti-christ"--even when we didn't.

You want him to be your everyday shortstop? Stand up and be counted!

Back your guy up with reasons, not bull****.

you want reasons--Ill go you one better--Ill give you facts
Jose showed more range in 2000 than Royce had in his whole career--you cant be charged for errors on balls you dont get to
and just how does he make players around him better when hes whining about playing time hitting below .100
the Sox DPs also dropped dramatically in 2001---so thats throws that argument out
Manos is one of the best baserunners ever to play for the Sox--how is it you rated Clayton better
and anybody is drunk if you think that Clayton has more power and is the better hitter
there--you have reasons

RichH55
12-18-2001, 06:31 PM
Well the upshot on Royce simply isnt that high...the question really becomes is he worth more playing to collect that 4.5 million or are the Sox better off without the Royce problem and buying him out....

RichH55
12-18-2001, 06:33 PM
2000 Season
A confrontation with teammate Chad Curtis over clubhouse music turned Royce Clayton's season into a nightmare. Feeling management had not backed him, Clayton turned introverted and lifeless. The same thing, for different reasons, happened in St. Louis. He is talented and intelligent, but he is building a history of not handling negative situations well. On the field, his defense was average, and his offense was dreadful. He bombed in a six-week audition as the leadoff hitter and finished with a .301 on-base percentage, fourth-worst in the American League. He had 14 homers on July 14 and none for the duration.



Pre-Sox days...dear lord, I was negative on Royce before reading this..>Defense was average comment is important too..I got this from ESPN...Whats the line? You make no errors on the ball you don't get too?

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
"Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, 'Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because... '"


So far, not one person has stepped up.

Not Bmr.
Not czalgosz.
Not LongDistanceFan.

Where's Kilroy, or idseer? Who else am I missing? It's time to stand up and be counted.

(Navarro is still worse, though not quite anti-christ material).

lol ummmmmmmmm i dont think you can say i ever said royce was a solid SS. Why would i "step up" ? The guy sucks, he just sucks less than jose, on defense.

RichH55
12-18-2001, 06:43 PM
Another thing regarding Royce was that last year was his career year in terms of fielding...you can't realistically hope for better and probably are looking at worse...in 1999 he made 25 errors...Defense Saint he isnt... Plus thats a 3 club streak of being a locker room cancer...impressive, but not good for the team...He also is seen to be a bit of a slow starter and hitting .900 post all-star break is moot if your team is so far out of it they can't climb back in. And how is Royce handling this? Working harder? Accepting Pay-cuts in hope of making himself look better to management? Nope, it would seem to me that a guy with a tenous grip on a job and who started out so horribly last season would spend some time playing winter ball(I have heard he hasnt, which doesnt surprise me), draw your own conclusions...Also if someone knows definatively whether he is down in Puerto Rico or the like...let me know

:hitless
What do you want from me? I played my best D ever, I have to hit to acceptable standards too? Screw this I'm going home and resting on the paradoxical fact that since I'm too crappy to trade, I have to be paid and played...LOL Life is Good

Bmr31
12-18-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
"Just once I would like to see somebody defend Royce Clayton on his own merits. Let somebody stand up and say, 'Royce Clayton ought to be our everyday shortstop because... '"


So far, not one person has stepped up.

Not Bmr.
Not czalgosz.
Not LongDistanceFan.

Where's Kilroy, or idseer? Who else am I missing? It's time to stand up and be counted.

(Navarro is still worse, though not quite anti-christ material).

I think most "royce backers" take offense to your near pyschotic obsession with demonizing the guy, like hes the anti-christ. Hes a below average SS. GEEZ, get over it dude.

Jerry_Manuel
12-18-2001, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
or are the Sox better off without the Royce problem and buying him out....

*cough*

:reinsy
Hey, your rich? Lend me some money, you know I'm good for it.

czalgosz
12-18-2001, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Damn Durham gets a hard time. The poor guy is only a victim of being consistent. He is a good not great leadoff mand and a good not great second baseman. He has a good season year in, year out and gets no credit because he's never had a spectaular one.

If Ray Durham was our # 6 hitter, or even our # 2 hitter, I'd be very happy with his performance. As a leadoff hitter, Durham makes me ill. An OBP of .337 is simply not good enough. Durham hit 20 homers and 42 doubles and 10 triples, which if he was a # 6 hitter would be great. He has very good power for his size. But every season he bulks up more and tries to hit for power, and he sacrifices plate discipline and baserunning, which is what a leadoff hitter is supposed to do.

If Durham were to hit 20 less doubles and 10 less homers and next season, and instead steal 20 more bases and get 30 more singles and walk 30 more times, I'd be happy.

RichH55
12-18-2001, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


well i could prove that, but thats not how i meant it. I meant he is performing at teh level he has ALWAYS performed. IF you have a problem with that, isnt in the gms fault, who brought him here to play SS??


Just wanted to respond to this. On Royce even if he performs to his "usual" levels it is his fault that he is a below-average starting SS... He has talent, always has, and occasionally he showed it last year. He had his best defensive season ever. Before last year he was averaging something like 23 errors a year over the course of a full season, but he played better than that. He also has shown he can hit occasionally...thats all well and good, but if a guy is going to be below average you want to see him work harder and be a professional about things....neither will be pinned on Royce's resume....He is quite the prima donna for those numbers...thats my final thought tonight

Paulwny
12-18-2001, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


If Durham were to hit 20 less doubles and 10 less homers and next season, and instead steal 20 more bases and get 30 more singles and walk 30 more times, I'd be happy.

Agree, he's no longer the base stealing threat he was in previous years. His head's not in the game.

RichH55
12-18-2001, 08:20 PM
Wow the bitch thread :whiner: LOL But I'll try to defend Ray-Ray a bit...why not, can't tear down everyone. The slugging numbers were nice no doubt, but OBP for lead-off hitters was down league wise....with Ray he needs to get at least .350+ to be justifing his power surge. The Stolen Bases I'm not worried about....Oakland steals like 9 bases a year(hyperbole), but they are still one of the top hitting/run scoring attacks out there....Stolen Bases mean nothing if you don't get at least a 66% success rate....I'd like to get the doubles, sacrifice the stolen bases and boost the OBP(Thats the ultimate aim anyway) :cool:


:rayray
Hey it's a contract year, if I must, I'll try this get onbase thing

Kilroy
12-18-2001, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This is the part where I chime in that for all of Royce's second-half offensive prowess, his biggest defender, Jerry Manuel, never once thought enough of it to bat Clayton higher than eighth in the order. This was on a team that had trouble turning over the line up, another fall-off in performance from the 2000 champion team.

Not that any Clayton defender would take Royce to task for that problem, either.

Hasn't JM taken a lot of heat for doing too much tinkering w/ the line-up last April and May? Never playing the 95 game winning line-up. Never running out the same line up day in and day out.
So when Clayton gets going after completely sucking for two months, JM should have messed with that too? I think once it turned around he just decided don't f*** with it.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-19-2001, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Hasn't JM taken a lot of heat for doing too much tinkering w/ the line-up last April and May? Never playing the 95 game winning line-up. Never running out the same line up day in and day out. So when Clayton gets going after completely sucking for two months, JM should have messed with that too? I think once it turned around he just decided don't f*** with it.

Actually, Manuel took a lot of heat for fielding line ups that never turned over, and he took heat for tinkering with the everyday line up, too. Hell, I'm not sure he used the same two line ups on consecutive days the entire months of April or May.

So, what's your point? That Jerry Manuel is obstinate? We all knew that.

:milk
"Especially me."


:hitless
"I'm the everyday shortstop because..."

DrCrawdad
12-25-2001, 02:38 PM
Navarro is a whinny crybaby. I remember a game Jaime pitched against the Indians, I believe it was 1999. Jaime got beat up. I remember hearing his high pitch whinny voice in the post game complaining about the umps "squeezing him" and him complaining about the lack of offense and poor defense. Yeah Jaime complain about your team mates when you're giving up hit after hit.

I hated Navarro. When Jaime pitched I actually enjoyed seeing him get destroyed.

Credit Schu for getting rid of that cancer. However, Schu should also take a hit for signing Navarro and letting Tapani go.

I didn't like Clayton's hitting first half 2001, but at least he was able to contribute with solid defense. (Who'll forget the relay throw he made to nail Gary Matthews?)

CLR01
12-25-2001, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I didn't like Clayton's hitting first half 2001, but at least he was able to contribute with solid defense. (Who'll forget the relay throw he made to nail Gary Matthews?)


Dont forget he could not have made that throw with out a perfect throw from Singleton.


"I rule! Ichiro who??"

:slowswing

oldcomiskey
12-25-2001, 03:00 PM
so the idiot makes one good play that stands out--How many did Manos make in 00=another thing thathurt about Navarro was we had Clemens in camp as a visitor just days before

DrCrawdad
12-25-2001, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
so the idiot makes one good play that stands out--How many did Manos make in 00=another thing thathurt about Navarro was we had Clemens in camp as a visitor just days before

I hate to defend Royce, but come on Royce is a solid SS. Royce made the routine plays (and that is where Valentine and Caruso goofed often). Sure Valentin turned alot of DP's, but how often was it because he goofed a routine grounder?

I'd rather have had Valentin playing everyday at SS last season. Jose is a clutch hitter and an awesome baserunner. His heart and guts were great in 00 and good in 01. You gotta love the homer Valentin hit at Wrigley. It was great to hear the Cubbie fans crying about Valentin mocking Sammy.

Adding Clayton disturbed the Sox mojo in ways that weren't always Clayton's fault. Place the blame on Kenny. Kenny brought Clayton here when SS was not a major area of concern, at least to me.

RichH55
12-25-2001, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


I hate to defend Royce, but come on Royce is a solid SS. Royce made the routine plays (and that is where Valentine and Caruso goofed often). Sure Valentin turned alot of DP's, but how often was it because he goofed a routine grounder?

I'd rather have had Valentin playing everyday at SS last season. Jose is a clutch hitter and an awesome baserunner. His heart and guts were great in 00 and good in 01. You gotta love the homer Valentin hit at Wrigley. It was great to hear the Cubbie fans crying about Valentin mocking Sammy.

Adding Clayton disturbed the Sox mojo in ways that weren't always Clayton's fault. Place the blame on Kenny. Kenny brought Clayton here when SS was not a major area of concern, at least to me.

Well I agree with most of this...Royce is still the embodiment of everything we hate...We don't see KW out there every day...and Royce isn't helping to get back in good graces...I don't even think he is playing winter ball...at least the guy can try

CLR01
12-25-2001, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


I hate to defend Royce, but come on Royce is a solid SS. Royce made the routine plays (and that is where Valentine and Caruso goofed often). Sure Valentin turned alot of DP's, but how often was it because he goofed a routine grounder?

I'd rather have had Valentin playing everyday at SS last season. Jose is a clutch hitter and an awesome baserunner. His heart and guts were great in 00 and good in 01. You gotta love the homer Valentin hit at Wrigley. It was great to hear the Cubbie fans crying about Valentin mocking Sammy.

Adding Clayton disturbed the Sox mojo in ways that weren't always Clayton's fault. Place the blame on Kenny. Kenny brought Clayton here when SS was not a major area of concern, at least to me.


Valentin goofed less than 22 routine grounders last year. And that is the problem with clayton, he makes the routine plays(most of the time) but thats all he makes. If its not routine he doesnt get there.

doublem23
12-27-2001, 12:15 AM
Navarro or Royce? Hmmm... that's a good question....

I'd have to vote for Navarro (right now) because Royce only looks like an idiot with the help of KW (who traded for him) and Jerry Manuel (who refused to sit his .098-ass)...

Jaime, on the other hand, was a moron for three years, almost all by himself...

oldcomiskey
12-27-2001, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Navarro or Royce? Hmmm... that's a good question....

I'd have to vote for Navarro (right now) because Royce only looks like an idiot with the help of KW (who traded for him) and Jerry Manuel (who refused to sit his .098-ass)...

Jaime, on the other hand, was a moron for three years, almost all by himself...

using that logic Schu was a bigger idiot--I mean who would you rather have--Clemens or Navarro--sure Clemens is an ass too---but at least the man has talent

dugwood31
12-28-2001, 02:12 AM
Navarro was way worse. Royce is what he is: a weak hitting, solid defensive shortstop. He played the best defense at SS for the Sox since pre-injury Ozzie.

As I recall, Navarro never even came close to contributing at that level.

oldcomiskey
12-28-2001, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
Navarro was way worse. Royce is what he is: a weak hitting, solid defensive shortstop. He played the best defense at SS for the Sox since pre-injury Ozzie.

As I recall, Navarro never even came close to contributing at that level.

yeah right---there is one thing you forgot--you cant be charged for an error on balls you dont GO AFTER---

RedPinStripes
12-28-2001, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


yeah right---there is one thing you forgot--you cant be charged for an error on balls you dont GO AFTER---

You can if you boot 2 hoppers and throw balls into the stands like the manos does. Sounds strange, but I'd still rather have Manos there because Clayton just don't fit in.

oldcomiskey
12-28-2001, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


You can if you boot 2 hoppers and throw balls into the stands like the manos does. Sounds strange, but I'd still rather have Manos there because Clayton just don't fit in.

oh please---Manos showed more heart--more soul in ONE series than Clayton did the whole year----and I still say valentin is a BETTER defensive SS because he wasnt---unlike Royce--afraid to make the play

czalgosz
12-28-2001, 02:36 PM
I was at the game where Valentin made four errors in early 2000. None of those were on plays that were difficult to make. Valentin would boot grounders hit right at him. I think we all have selective memory about Valentin's errors. His bat is very good, and he has a strong arm and is good at turning the DP, but he makes a lot of mental mistakes out there in the field. I'm not going to discuss whether Royce deserves the starter's job over Valentin, but...

BTW, here's some pertinent fielding stats -

Valentin's total chances per nine innings played (2000) - 5.35
Clayton's total chances per nine innings played (2001) - 4.63

So, Valentin over the course of an entire game gets to .77 more balls than Clayton does. That's fairly significant, I suppose.

I think you're both right - Clayton doesn't make as many errors, Valentin gets to more balls.

oldcomiskey
12-28-2001, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I was at the game where Valentin made four errors in early 2000. None of those were on plays that were difficult to make. Valentin would boot grounders hit right at him. I think we all have selective memory about Valentin's errors. His bat is very good, and he has a strong arm and is good at turning the DP, but he makes a lot of mental mistakes out there in the field. I'm not going to discuss whether Royce deserves the starter's job over Valentin, but...

BTW, here's some pertinent fielding stats -

Valentin's total chances per nine innings played (2000) - 5.35
Clayton's total chances per nine innings played (2001) - 4.63

So, Valentin over the course of an entire game gets to .77 more balls than Clayton does. That's fairly significant, I suppose.

I think you're both right - Clayton doesn't make as many errors, Valentin gets to more balls.

Its about more than that though---I dare anyone to come here and truthfully say that they would rather watch Clayton play than Valentin... Jose reminds us all that baseball is a GAME--its meant to be fun for players and fans--Clayton on the other hand reminds us all that baseball is a buisness-----I suppose it is KWs fault for being nieve to think that someone else wanted him..That said my vote still goes to Navarro--who was supposed to be a leader due to his veteran status--but just barely. Clayton took playing time away from a Sox hero---maybe you rememer him---name of Herb Perry

bjmarte
12-28-2001, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


Jose reminds us all that baseball is a GAME--its meant to be fun for players and fans--Clayton on the other hand reminds us all that baseball is a buisness

OC, I have not heard anyone else ever get to the meat of the issue quite as eloquently as that. You couldn't be more on the money.

FarmerAndy
12-28-2001, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


. Clayton took playing time away from a Sox hero---maybe you rememer him---name of Herb Perry

Clayton took playing time away from a what? Herbert was one of my favorites, but a Sox hero is a bit of a stretch. In this whole infield argument (which I should mention is alot of fun), I think too many people are letting sentiment get in the way of objective thinking. You can't blame us Royce supporters of that, because we still know he's a dick

czalgosz
12-28-2001, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey


Its about more than that though---I dare anyone to come here and truthfully say that they would rather watch Clayton play than Valentin... Jose reminds us all that baseball is a GAME--its meant to be fun for players and fans--Clayton on the other hand reminds us all that baseball is a buisness-----I suppose it is KWs fault for being nieve to think that someone else wanted him..That said my vote still goes to Navarro--who was supposed to be a leader due to his veteran status--but just barely. Clayton took playing time away from a Sox hero---maybe you rememer him---name of Herb Perry

If Herbert Perry had been 100%, he'd have been playing. He was hurt in April and May, and that prevented him from playing the field. If Clayton hadn't been there, Tony Graffanino would have been playing third (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). After the All-Star break, he stopped hitting, and Clayton started hitting. Perry was a victim of circumstance, you can't blame Clayton for that.

oldcomiskey
12-28-2001, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


If Herbert Perry had been 100%, he'd have been playing. He was hurt in April and May, and that prevented him from playing the field. If Clayton hadn't been there, Tony Graffanino would have been playing third (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). After the All-Star break, he stopped hitting, and Clayton started hitting. Perry was a victim of circumstance, you can't blame Clayton for that.
I will say this---had Clayton not mouthed off and been a TEAM player this thread would be useless

dugwood31
12-29-2001, 12:58 AM
Of course Valentin's total package is better than Clayton's. Very few would disagree with that. But the question is who is more hated between Royce and Jaime, and Royce contributed more than Jaime.

By the way, .77 more chances per game is very significant. I wouldn't have guessed the difference would be that high. So maybe I should retract what I said about the best defense since Ozzie.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
By the way, .77 more chances per game is very significant. I wouldn't have guessed the difference would be that high. So maybe I should retract what I said about the best defense since Ozzie. Well, it's hard for somebody with the range of Buddy Lee to be a great defender. :smile:


:ray

I have the range of a fire hydrant and I hit a lot of homers!

dugwood31
12-29-2001, 02:22 AM
Try as I might, I just can't seem to get mad at Ray. By the way, do you guys remember when Royce got into it with Chad Curtis when he was with Texas? I thought at the time it was Curtis' fault, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
Try as I might, I just can't seem to get mad at Ray.All I have to do is watch players with a fraction of Ray's ability get to ground balls he would just watch and I get mad at Ray. Many people get pissed at his bad habits at the plate, but it's the Fire Hydrant routine that gets me angry. :angry:

idseer
12-29-2001, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
(even as Clayton's batting average dipped below .100


after the 4th game of the season, clayton's avg NEVER dipped below .100.

idseer
12-29-2001, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
but it was his whining about playing time that finally destroyed whatever "chemistry" the 2000 team once had.



i'm curious about something. i keep seeing this sentiment being thrown around and yet i never read or saw, other than in here and espn's board, any mention of there being 'trouble' in the clubhouse or anywhere else because of royce voicing his displeasure over playing time.

would you please direct me to any article or qoutable source where this is stated?

personally i believe royce had ZIPPO to do with destroying any chemistry on this team. i think it's just the haters making stuff up because that's human nature to put someone you hate into as bad a light as posible. but i guess i could have missed something so please, show me where you get the idea a little whinning by a baseball player helps destroy a teams morale.

czalgosz
12-29-2001, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
Of course Valentin's total package is better than Clayton's. Very few would disagree with that. But the question is who is more hated between Royce and Jaime, and Royce contributed more than Jaime.

By the way, .77 more chances per game is very significant. I wouldn't have guessed the difference would be that high. So maybe I should retract what I said about the best defense since Ozzie.

Well, I looked closer, and compared total chances / 9 inn. for Clayton and Valentin since 1999 (over 3 years) -

Valentin - 4.96
Clayton - 4.89

So the difference almost disappears when you look at it over the long haul.

doublem23
12-29-2001, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by idseer
but i guess i could have missed something so please, show me where you get the idea a little whinning by a baseball player helps destroy a teams morale.

WHAT????

Obviously you've never played organized baseball....

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by doublem23

Obviously you've never played organized baseball.... But, he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :smile:

Spiff
12-29-2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


WHAT????

Obviously you've never played organized baseball....

Yeah dont you know how sensitive baseball players are?

Why, Manny Ramirez was four years old before he...er, nevermind.

doublem23
12-29-2001, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by idseer
after the 4th game of the season, clayton's avg NEVER dipped below .100.

Well...

Check it out: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=4800

Though officially Royce never dipped below .100, on May 18, May 23, and May 25 when he finished the day hitting .102, I'd be willing to bet he slipped under .100 during those games. If, for instance, on May 19, when he went 1-for-3 to raise his average to .110, if he didn't get that hit until his 3rd AB, he'd have been under .100 for the season after the first two at-bats..

Of course, I can't prove this (i'll try), but I do remember Clayton being under .100 during May....

Either way, hitting .102 in May isn't much better than hitting .099, anyways...

doublem23
12-29-2001, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
But, he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :smile:

*****!

doublem23
12-29-2001, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Yeah dont you know how sensitive baseball players are?

Why, Manny Ramirez was four years old before he...er, nevermind.

I don't think it's that we're the sensitive type, but baseball (and to a degree football) are more team-oriented sports... Got to have every player in harmony with his teammates...

At least that's the way I view the game...

And I can't see some shortstop hitting around .260 sulking in the dugout refusing to take batting practice helping chemistry.

czalgosz
12-29-2001, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Yeah dont you know how sensitive baseball players are?

Why, Manny Ramirez was four years old before he...er, nevermind.

That was one of the more disturbing revelations I've ever heard about a ballplayer - I've filed that under "thanks, but that's really more than I needed to know..."

czalgosz
12-29-2001, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


I don't think it's that we're the sensitive type, but baseball (and to a degree football) are more team-oriented sports... Got to have every player in harmony with his teammates...

At least that's the way I view the game...

And I can't see some shortstop hitting around .260 sulking in the dugout refusing to take batting practice helping chemistry.

As much as we say it's about money, I think that one of the main reasons the Yankees are so good is that they play as a team. They really display professionalism, both on and off the field. I guess they know they're not getting a better deal elsewhere, so they have no incentive to complain...

doublem23
12-29-2001, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
As much as we say it's about money, I think that one of the main reasons the Yankees are so good is that they play as a team. They really display professionalism, both on and off the field. I guess they know they're not getting a better deal elsewhere, so they have no incentive to complain...

Oh, yeah... Money is a reason, no doubt, but let's face it... Do you really think that Scott Brosius and Paul O'Neill would have been starters on any other championship-caliber teams?

There are only a few positions in which the Yankees clearly have one of the best players in the game there (SS, CF really the only 2 that come to mind). Albeit those are important, but I'm positive that the Yankees are so damned good because they aren't 9 players playing on that field, it's one team.

Of course, when you're owners willing to spend a WHOLE LOT of money on other places (STARTING PITCHING), that doesn't hurt either...

idseer
12-29-2001, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


Well...

Check it out: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?statsId=4800

Though officially Royce never dipped below .100, on May 18, May 23, and May 25 when he finished the day hitting .102, I'd be willing to bet he slipped under .100 during those games. If, for instance, on May 19, when he went 1-for-3 to raise his average to .110, if he didn't get that hit until his 3rd AB, he'd have been under .100 for the season after the first two at-bats..

Of course, I can't prove this (i'll try), but I do remember Clayton being under .100 during May....

Either way, hitting .102 in May isn't much better than hitting .099, anyways...

i think you and george are in fact thinking about ramirez who was at .077 at one point i think.
and no .102 isn't much better than .099, but i was addressing a principle more than a couple percentage points. (and please, forget that 'during a game' crap. that isn't what george meant and we know it).

and even after all these replies i read, i see no one has anything concrete to say about how royce damaged the team chemistry ... just talk about how you all THINK it did. i've yet to hear from any player or management who complained and layed this bs at royce's feet. he's just everyone's bitch in here.

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i've yet to hear from any player or management who complained and layed this bs at royce's feet.

You'll hear it when he's off the team. In sports the "juicy" details of what happened behind the scenes and players thoughts don't come out until after a person leaves the team. Look at Tim Floyd and the Bulls.

czalgosz
12-29-2001, 03:32 PM
'S true... Sox players never said anything bad about Albert Belle or Jaime Navarro while they were on the team. I'm not necessarily saying this is true about Clayton, but it is a fact that ballplayers never badmouth a current teammate in public.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i've yet to hear from any player or management who complained and layed this bs at royce's feet. he's just everyone's bitch in here. Am I the only one who thinks idseer has a Choice rookie card he hopes will be valuable some day? :smile:

Daver
12-29-2001, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
'S true... Sox players never said anything bad about Albert Belle or Jaime Navarro while they were on the team. I'm not necessarily saying this is true about Clayton, but it is a fact that ballplayers never badmouth a current teammate in public.

I'm sure there will be some things said about David Wells this spring.

idseer
12-29-2001, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Am I the only one who thinks idseer has a Choice rookie card he hopes will be valuable some day? :smile:

:) i promise i have no cards past 1983

anyway, you all make a good point about him being a current teammate. i WILL be interested to see if they do have negatives when he's gone.

dugwood31
12-29-2001, 06:36 PM
To me the real chemistry question with Royce and Jose is that Jose had a great season in 2000, was and always has been a total team guy, and he lost his job to Clayton, who has never had a year like Jose did in 2000. The lesson was clear: bust your hump, don't complain and you'll get pushed aside. It was the same thing as putting Josh Paul on the playoff roster instead of MJ. That's the kind of thing that will kill "chemistry" in any workplace.

doublem23
12-29-2001, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by dugwood31
To me the real chemistry question with Royce and Jose is that Jose had a great season in 2000, was and always has been a total team guy, and he lost his job to Clayton, who has never had a year like Jose did in 2000. The lesson was clear: bust your hump, don't complain and you'll get pushed aside. It was the same thing as putting Josh Paul on the playoff roster instead of MJ. That's the kind of thing that will kill "chemistry" in any workplace.

Yeah.. didn't Jose take less money to come back to the Sox and find himself suddenly misplaced by "The Choice?"

And we all wonder why no one wants to come to the Sox!

Daver
12-29-2001, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


Yeah.. didn't Jose take less money to come back to the Sox and find himself suddenly misplaced by "The Choice?"

And we all wonder why no one wants to come to the Sox!

Uh no Doublem,Jose got a three year deal from the Sox at more than his market value,he never even filed for FA.

doublem23
12-29-2001, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by daver


Uh no Doublem,Jose got a three year deal from the Sox at more than his market value,he never even filed for FA.

Oh, really? Well, then, I'll go back to my corner, twiddle my thumbs, and smile non-threateningly....

Daver
12-29-2001, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by doublem23


Oh, really? Well, then, I'll go back to my corner, twiddle my thumbs, and smile non-threateningly....

We're happy for you.

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by daver
Uh no Doublem,Jose got a three year deal from the Sox at more than his market value,he never even filed for FA.

The Orioles offered him more money then the Sox. That's a fact Daver.

Paulwny
12-29-2001, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


The Orioles offered him more money then ths Sox. That's a fact Daver.

You're right JM, Jose was a FA and took less money to stay with the sox.

Daver
12-29-2001, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


You're right JM, Jose was a FA and took less money to stay with the sox.

He never filed for FA.

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
You're right JM, Jose was a FA and took less money to stay with the sox.

I thought so. Also it's a fact that I can't spell.

The Orioles offered him more money then ths Sox. That's a fact Daver.

I meant the Sox.

Paulwny
12-29-2001, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by daver


He never filed for FA.

I remember their was quite a discussion on the old rivals board about Jose leaving because of the money even though he stated he would take less from the sox to stay.
Can you talk with other clubs before you file for FA ?

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by daver
He never filed for FA.

That part seems correct.

Valentin to CF (http://whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news_story.jsp?article_id=cws_20010202_valenti n_news&team_id=cws)

The only negative statistic for Valentin in 2000 was his major-league leading 36 errors at shortstop. When he became a free agent at the end of last season, the White Sox had an important decision to make.

"Jose was a vital part of what happened on and off the field last year," said White Sox General Manager Ken Williams, who made re-signing Valentin his first priority after taking over for Ron Schueler on October 24th. "Jose really helped bring guys together and showed some of the younger players how to go about their daily business. I felt it was priority No. 1 to get him back in the fold."