PDA

View Full Version : Konerko/Cameron trade


Vsahajpal
01-10-2002, 09:41 PM
I may be jaded by hindsight, but why was this trade made? Were Paul and Mike the only players involved? Was Konerko supposed to replace Ventura at 3b? This team would be better with Cammy, no?

doublem23
01-10-2002, 09:44 PM
Yeah, it was only Cameron-Konerko...

I dunno, at the time, it really wasn't anything special. Neither Cameron or Konerko were fulfilling their minor league promise...

Hindsight is 20/20, and maybe, the Sox would be better with Cameron, but it's not like I'm complaining about Walnuts.

Daver
01-10-2002, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
I may be jaded by hindsight, but why was this trade made? Were Paul and Mike the only players involved? Was Konerko supposed to replace Ventura at 3b? This team would be better with Cammy, no?

At the time that the trade was made Chris Singleton had just put in a pretty good rookie year,and the Sox had Jeff Abbott and Brian Simmons waiting in the wings,while Cameron got some spot play and proved to be a good defensive player,was never the most at the plate.Hindsight being 20/20 I still think the Sox got the best side of that deal,Konerko has improved every year,and the end is not yet in sight.Cameron had to go through two teams before he found a place and started to flourish.

But then again what the hell do I know?

duke of dorwood
01-10-2002, 10:10 PM
That was a great trade for us.

:walnuts

And Justice For All

PaleHoseGeorge
01-10-2002, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by daver
At the time that the trade was made Chris Singleton had just put in a pretty good rookie year,and the Sox had Jeff Abbott and Brian Simmons waiting in the wings, while Cameron got some spot play and proved to be a good defensive player,was never the most at the plate.Hindsight being 20/20 I still think the Sox got the best side of that deal,Konerko has improved every year,and the end is not yet in sight.Cameron had to go through two teams before he found a place and started to flourish.

Actually, the Sox got damned lucky with Singleton. They traded Cameron after 1998 because he showed no plate discipline. They had expected Brian Simmons to be the opening centerfielder in 1999, but he got hurt. Singleton was a minor leaguer who came out of nowhere to get the job and had a decent rookie season, too. He had no track record for success in the big leagues; that's why the Yankees got rid of him.

There is no doubt the Sox could use a centerfielder today, and Lord knows we now have a preponderance of 1B/DH/corner outfielders, too. Cameron was an all-star and the everyday centerfielder on a team that won 116 games.

Unless things change dramatically in the next 1-2 years, we lost that trade.

Daver
01-10-2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Actually, the Sox got damned lucky with Singleton. They traded Cameron after 1998 because he showed no plate discipline. They had expected Brian Simmons to be the opening centerfielder in 1999, but he got hurt. Singleton was a minor leaguer who came out of nowhere to get the job and had a decent rookie season, too. He had no track record for success in the big leagues; that's why the Yankees got rid of him.

There is no doubt the Sox could use a centerfielder today, and Lord knows we now have a preponderance of 1B/DH/corner outfielders, too. Cameron was an all-star and the everyday centerfielder on a team that won 116 games.

Unless things change dramatically in the next 1-2 years, we lost that trade.

I will disagree with that PHG,Konerko has yet to put up his best numbers,and Cameron at the time of the trade,was a good defensive CF'er,but showed nothing at the the plate.When the trade was made it made perfect sense,and I don't remember any cries of anguish when it happened,hindsight is 20/20,but over their careers I think Paul will put up better numbers.

But then again what the hell do I know?

doublem23
01-10-2002, 11:19 PM
The only way I see the Sox losing this deal is because of circumstances, not the players involved. We have too many 1B/DH types, and we are thin on CFs. Straight up, I'd take Konerko, but because of the circumstances the Sox face, the Sox don't look like big winners...

Kilroy
01-11-2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by daver
...I don't remember any cries of anguish when it happened, hindsight is 20/20,but over their careers I think Paul will put up better numbers.

Well, I for one, said at the time that I thought we gave up on Cameron too soon. But I have not been unhappy to have PK on the Sox. I'd love to have both of them, but of course, we don't get PK without dealing Cameron.

I agree that Konerko hasn't done what he seems as tho he should be able to do. Here's hopin he has that breakout year this year and runs off 4-5 all-star type years in a row.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-11-2002, 08:33 AM
Neither Cameron or Konerko were living up to their expectations in 1998. Schueler and Bowden got together to exchange problem children--no big deal. As it turns out, Cameron has made more progress than Konerko (Come on people, how many trips to the all-star game has Konehead made?).

Comparing firstbasemen with centerfielders is futile, but clearly the Sox today need a guy like Cameron a lot more than they do Konerko. Did Schueler "lose" this deal? Not necessarily, but only because both players are still relatively young. If both players continue on their present paths, the Sox were clearly hurt by the trade.

Sorry.

:slowswing :gun :rowand
"Where's the love?"

MattSharp
01-11-2002, 09:23 AM
Am I the only one confused about all this? Yes Cameron was an All-Star but Compare numbers:

Konerko
R: 92
H: 164
2B: 35
HR: 32
RBI: 99
BB: 54
K: 89
SB: 1
OBP: .349
SLG: .507
OPS: .856
AVG: .282


Cameron
R: 99
H: 144
2B: 30
HR: 25
RBI: 110
BB: 69
K: 155
SB: 34
OBP: .353
SLG: .480
OPS: .833
AVG: .267

Cameron only beat Konerko in R, RBI, B, and SB. As a leadoff hitter and CF I would hope he would have more SB than Konerko. But look at it like this. Konerko is like 4 years younger than Cameron who just turned 29. Cameron has played in 200 more games, but has about 3 times as many Ks. Cameron's career average is .252, Konerko's is .282. Cameron has pretty much played 5 full seasons. Konerko has played 3. Konerko only has 6 less HRs. He only has 27 less doubles. 48 less RBI. You are telling me that in two more seasons Konerko's numbers won't be better than Camerons are now?

There is no doubt in my mind that we STILL won this trade!

Ask yourself this too. Look at all of the good first baseman in the AL last year: Giambi, Sweeney, Thome, Delgado, Palmeiro, TMartinez.

Then look at the guys that play CF. There are lot of good hitting 1B. How many good hitting CFs were there? And wasn't this guy voted in anyway? That doesn't mean a thing either.

Take all of this into consideration.

Vsahajpal
01-11-2002, 09:25 AM
Cameron had to go through two teams before he found a place and started to flourish. (Daver)

That may be the case, but Konerko was a Dodger before becoming a Red, and eventually finding a home in Chicago. I am in PHG's corner, but hopefully Borchard makes it a moot point as soon as possible.

Vsahajpal
01-11-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by MattSharp
Am I the only one confused about all this? Yes Cameron was an All-Star but Compare numbers:

Konerko
R: 92
H: 164
2B: 35
HR: 32
RBI: 99
BB: 54
K: 89
SB: 1
OBP: .349
SLG: .507
OPS: .856
AVG: .282


Cameron
R: 99
H: 144
2B: 30
HR: 25
RBI: 110
BB: 69
K: 155
SB: 34
OBP: .353
SLG: .480
OPS: .833
AVG: .267

Cameron only beat Konerko in R, RBI, B, and SB. As a leadoff hitter and CF I would hope he would have more SB than Konerko. But look at it like this. Konerko is like 4 years younger than Cameron who just turned 29. Cameron has played in 200 more games, but has about 3 times as many Ks. Cameron's career average is .252, Konerko's is .282. Cameron has pretty much played 5 full seasons. Konerko has played 3. Konerko only has 6 less HRs. He only has 27 less doubles. 48 less RBI. You are telling me that in two more seasons Konerko's numbers won't be better than Camerons are now?

There is no doubt in my mind that we STILL won this trade!

Ask yourself this too. Look at all of the good first baseman in the AL last year: Giambi, Sweeney, Thome, Delgado, Palmeiro, TMartinez.

Then look at the guys that play CF. There are lot of good hitting 1B. How many good hitting CFs were there? And wasn't this guy voted in anyway? That doesn't mean a thing either.

Take all of this into consideration.

Actually, Ichiro was the M's leadoff hitter, and I think you're making my point. There aren't many CF's with his bat (as you mentioned), and he won a gold glove this season as well. It's a lot easier to find a 1b/DH type, than a gold glove centerfielder with 30/30 potential.

MattSharp
01-11-2002, 10:03 AM
Good call on Ichiro. Well wherever he hit, he wasn't that great. I agree there are a lot of 1B/DH types out there, but you are saying you would rather have Cameron than Konerko?

Maybe I misunderstood. I guess based on their position you can't compare them, but straight up as hitters, I don't think that there is any question Konerko is better.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-11-2002, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by MattSharp
Good call on Ichiro. Well wherever he hit, he wasn't that great. I agree there are a lot of 1B/DH types out there, but you are saying you would rather have Cameron than Konerko?

Maybe I misunderstood. I guess based on their position you can't compare them, but straight up as hitters, I don't think that there is any question Konerko is better.

Exactly. Konerko is definitely the better hitter over Cameron. However, the more relevant question is, who is more valuable at his position? Konerko must compete with top-flight firstbasemen like Giambi and Martinez. He's not in their class (though we hope someday he might). Meanwhile Cameron is already recognized as one of the finest centerfielders in the league. He is young, too, so there is reason to expect him to get better.

It's hard to compare firstbasemen with centerfielders. However, there is no doubt the Sox are in more desperate need of an everyday centerfielder today, than they were in 1998 when they traded Cameron.

MattSharp
01-11-2002, 11:42 AM
Yea, but would you rather have Cameron over Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Whoever if it means having someone as bad as Cameron playing first base too? I mean I would take one Konerko and one Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Rowand

over two Camerons.

Plus where would you bat Cameron? I mean 2nd? Jose is a better No. 2 man than Cameron? And I think Rowand or Singleton can be just as good as a fielder.

Huisj
01-11-2002, 12:49 PM
at the time of this trade, greg norton/wil cordero had been the first baseman the year before, and cameron had just hit like .210 or something ridiculous. Since Ventura was leaving, Norton was assumed to be moving to third, and cordero was gone. The sox needed a first baseman more than they needed a center fielder.

I think both sides did well in this deal i guess--cameron helped cin get griffy, and konerko is an important part of the sox.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-11-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by MattSharp
Yea, but would you rather have Cameron over Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Whoever if it means having someone as bad as Cameron playing first base too? I mean I would take one Konerko and one Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Rowand

over two Camerons.

Plus where would you bat Cameron? I mean 2nd? Jose is a better No. 2 man than Cameron? And I think Rowand or Singleton can be just as good as a fielder.

If having "two Camerons" meant I had an all-star at both CF and 1B, I absolutely would take that option over what we have right now. That's a no-brainer.

The trade benefited both teams for different reasons. However, there can't be any argument that we are now weak in CF and overloaded at 1B. The Cameron/Konerko trade was a major factor contributing to this.

As for where to bat Cameron, he's clearly an upgrade over our current #7 hitter, Mr. Singleton. We could expect the team to turn over the line up at least once a week with Cameron there--something the 2001 team hardly ever did. It's certainly an upgrade over the three near-automatic outs at the bottom of our line up that the Sox apparently plan to use entering camp this spring.

Look, I'm not attacking Konerko. He's good for what he does. I'm stating the obvious--we're overloaded up with 1B/DH/corner OFer players, but thread-bare for CFers. Cameron is already recognized as one of the best in the league. Borchard might be a CFer, but he's historically been a RFer. Either way, he's not with the parent team yet.

That leaves us with CF options...
:slowswing :gun :rowand

and a #7-#9 line up of...
:slowswing :hitless :sandy

I'm sorry. That's just butt-ugly.

Mathew
01-11-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Exactly. Konerko is definitely the better hitter over Cameron. However, the more relevant question is, who is more valuable at his position? Konerko must compete with top-flight firstbasemen like Giambi and Martinez. He's not in their class (though we hope someday he might). Meanwhile Cameron is already recognized as one of the finest centerfielders in the league. He is young, too, so there is reason to expect him to get better.

It's hard to compare firstbasemen with centerfielders. However, there is no doubt the Sox are in more desperate need of an everyday centerfielder today, than they were in 1998 when they traded Cameron.

If Tino is 1st flight than Konerko is God. Hey! We could play Leifer at 1st with 160Ks and Cameron in Cf with 150Ks, at least nobody would notice Durham swinging for the fences!

jklm
01-11-2002, 03:39 PM
Apart from the fact that he is a gold glove CF, one thing that makes Cameron valuable is his combination of power and ability to walk (and high OBP). Please enlighten me, except Frank Thomas, have the Sox produced another home grown patient hitter recently?

MattSharp
01-11-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


If having "two Camerons" meant I had an all-star at both CF and 1B, I absolutely would take that option over what we have right now. That's a no-brainer.

No, I am saying would you rather have two guys that hit like Cameron, but one who can play CF like he does, or a decent fielder in CF (Singleton/Rowand/Simmons) and a guy who hits like Konerko?

I guess my problem is I am such a fan of this trade and such a fan of Konerko that I am stubborn....

AsInWreck
01-11-2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by MattSharp
Yea, but would you rather have Cameron over Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Whoever if it means having someone as bad as Cameron playing first base too? I mean I would take one Konerko and one Singleton/Simmons/Borchard/Rowand

over two Camerons.

Plus where would you bat Cameron? I mean 2nd? Jose is a better No. 2 man than Cameron? And I think Rowand or Singleton can be just as good as a fielder.

I for one would rather have cameron, and i like konerko/cameron is the best cf in the game, defensively, maybe andruw jones is as good or little better, and he is also multi-tooled offensively, i'd bat him 6 or 7 in lineup/ I can't say it was bad trade though, konerko's pretty good.
You may need some sort of prescription if you think singleton or rowand can be as good defensively as cameron/neither has near the arm or
ability to cover ground, though they both are decent if you ask me.

Huisj
01-11-2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by jklm
Please enlighten me, except Frank Thomas, have the Sox produced another home grown patient hitter recently?

Well, Ordonez is a fairly patient hitter, OBP was over .380 last year, had 70 walks. that's not bad. It's not Frank Thomas numbers, but you gotta understand that Thomas' walk numbers have really been incredible over the years. Cameron walked 69 times last year for a .353 OBP. Konerko walked 54 times for a .349 OBP. .353 and .349 are basically the same. I don't know what all my point is in this post . . . just throwing out some numbers to munch on I guess. '

Here's one more . . . Durham walked 64 times, but his hitting sucked kind of so he only had a .337 OBP.

Jerry_Manuel
01-11-2002, 04:57 PM
I think it's tough to say we lost or will lose this trade. We have no idea how much better or worse Cameron would be if he was still on the Sox.

Tragg
01-11-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Actually, the Sox got damned lucky with Singleton. They traded Cameron after 1998 because he showed no plate discipline.

The irony is that today Singleton has zero plate discipline while Cameron walks a lot.

And plate discipline, or lack thereof, didn't dissuade us from getting clayton.

Tragg
01-11-2002, 10:51 PM
At this point, I'd definitely take cameron over konerko. By shifting lee to first and rowand/borchard in left, we'd have better defense AND better hitting.

That's hindsight. No telling what would have happened without the trade. Perhaps both players would have wallowed in mediocrity as they were doing before the change of scenery.

kermittheefrog
01-12-2002, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
at the time of this trade, greg norton/wil cordero had been the first baseman the year before, and cameron had just hit like .210 or something ridiculous. Since Ventura was leaving, Norton was assumed to be moving to third, and cordero was gone. The sox needed a first baseman more than they needed a center fielder.

I think both sides did well in this deal i guess--cameron helped cin get griffy, and konerko is an important part of the sox.

Part of a GM's job is to realize that's it's easier to acquire a first baseman who hits like Konerko than a center fielder who hits like Cameron plus Cameron is Gold Glove quality. So that arguement doesn't take Shue off the hook for this one.

czalgosz
01-12-2002, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Part of a GM's job is to realize that's it's easier to acquire a first baseman who hits like Konerko than a center fielder who hits like Cameron plus Cameron is Gold Glove quality. So that arguement doesn't take Shue off the hook for this one.

Well, I think the thinking was that Konerko would turn out to be a third baseman, and if that happened it would have been a great trade for the Sox.

As has been pointed out in this thread, it wasn't obvious that Cameron would turn out to be a decent hitter. At the time, I don't recall a lot of people being all upset that Cameron was gone. The Sox needed corner infielders at both sides of the diamond back then, and the Reds were interested in Cameron.

This isn't a trade that I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

mrwag
01-12-2002, 09:04 AM
2 things that Cameron brings to the game that Paulie doesn't

1 - Strength up the middle
2 - Speed

I love Paulie to death and am glad he's with us (and hope he doesn't go anywhere), but put hitting aside and look at our team's lack of speed. It's cost us a few games.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-12-2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
I love Paulie to death and am glad he's with us (and hope he doesn't go anywhere), but put hitting aside and look at our team's lack of speed. It's cost us a few games.

If we could get our lead-off man's head out of the clouds (or some other place a lot darker), our speed problems wouldn't be quite so bad.

:ray
"I'm the toy cannon."

:ohno
"NOT!"

:garypettis
"They hired me to improve our basestealing and baserunning."

:KW
"And he still works here. Need more proof I haven't a clue?"

kermittheefrog
01-12-2002, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, I think the thinking was that Konerko would turn out to be a third baseman, and if that happened it would have been a great trade for the Sox.

As has been pointed out in this thread, it wasn't obvious that Cameron would turn out to be a decent hitter. At the time, I don't recall a lot of people being all upset that Cameron was gone. The Sox needed corner infielders at both sides of the diamond back then, and the Reds were interested in Cameron.

This isn't a trade that I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

This idea that Cameron hadn't shown any potential at the majors at the tiem is complete bull. In his rookie season he hit .255/.356/.433 with 23 SB, 14 HR, 55 BB in just 379 ABs. He looked like he could become a very good player, like he has. People say he didn't look like much because he completely bombed the next season but Konerko completely bombed too only that was his only major league season.

If the Sox thought he could play third they were idiots. One reason the Dodgers traded Konerko is beacuse they liked Karros at first (who knows why) and Konerko couldn't play anywhere else. Third and left were the other two options and no one on the planet thought he could actually play there. Could you imagine Konerko as an outfielder? lol

FarWestChicago
01-12-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Could you imagine Konerko as an outfielder? lol There would be a LOT of in the park home runs. :smile:

czalgosz
01-12-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


This idea that Cameron hadn't shown any potential at the majors at the tiem is complete bull. In his rookie season he hit .255/.356/.433 with 23 SB, 14 HR, 55 BB in just 379 ABs. He looked like he could become a very good player, like he has. People say he didn't look like much because he completely bombed the next season but Konerko completely bombed too only that was his only major league season.

If the Sox thought he could play third they were idiots. One reason the Dodgers traded Konerko is beacuse they liked Karros at first (who knows why) and Konerko couldn't play anywhere else. Third and left were the other two options and no one on the planet thought he could actually play there. Could you imagine Konerko as an outfielder? lol

No argument with Cameron, I always kind of liked him on the team.

You know, I've noticed something about rookies. Tell me if I'm wrong on this one, Kermit...

1) When a hitter has a good rookie year despite drawing few walks, his numbers tend to drop off dramatically the following year. (ex: Mike Caruso, Chris Singleton)

2) When a rookie hitter has a great rookie year AND draws walks, he tends to stick around among the elites. (ex: Frank Thomas)

Using this model, I am predicting that Albert Pujols is the real deal, and Ichiro will have a significant dropoff in production, as will Alfonso Soriano.

I'm kind of using anecdotal evidence for this; am I full of it?

czalgosz
01-12-2002, 08:55 PM
Oh, and on Cameron - I'm not saying that I thought he was a bust, I think the Sox thought he was a bust. They thought that they were trading our disappointment to Cincinnati for their disapointment.

Konerko's gotten better every year since he's joined the club. He'll be 26 in March; he's entering the prime of his career. Barring injury, he'll be really special. Yes, trading Cameron opened a hole; but I'll take it.

doublem23
01-12-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Using this model, I am predicting that Albert Pujols is the real deal, and Ichiro will have a significant dropoff in production, as will Alfonso Soriano.

I'm kind of using anecdotal evidence for this; am I full of it?

Well, I think it will be hard for Ichiro to have another season like 2001 now that pitchers have seen him, but I don't think he'll fall off like Caruso did... He was in the Japanese Leagues, which (I think) is a lot better of a test of skills than AA or AAA...

Or who knows? Maybe I'm the one who's full of it.

Huisj
01-12-2002, 10:41 PM
I think there's definitely merit to the idea that guys who draw walks are more likely to be successful. Lots of the sabermetric type people have said this sort of thing over and over recently. It just shows a better sense of the strikezone, and often means people don't chase bad pitches a lot. Sometimes, a guy like Ichiro (or maybe I'll call him Suzuki, I'm sick of this first name crap he demands) comes along and has incredible bat control. His production will probably not always be super consistent, but even if he does drop off some, he'll still be a .300 hitter, and a fairly useful player anyway.

oldcomiskey
01-13-2002, 12:11 AM
I thought Cincy took a shot at caruso

WinningUgly!
01-13-2002, 12:42 AM
My reaction at the time the trade was made..."Did we just lose another Sosa?" Mike Cameron had such a huge upside at the time (and still does) that I hated to see him go. He was still very "raw" then, much like Sosa was when we traded him. I was big time against the deal when it happened. We knew MC was something special in CF, streaky(at best) at the plate & could flat out fly. Konerko was a guy that the Dodgers & Reds moved around from 1st to 3rd to OF, who didn't show much defensively, was slower than mollasses & didn't bring much to the plate other than potential.

If Konerko was dealt to Seattle for Mike Cameron right now, I'm not sure that I'd like the deal. I'd feel much better having MC in CF over Singleton/Rowand/whoever, but the thought of Liefer as our everyday 1st baseman is scary. Don't even start with the Carlos Lee to 1st talk, I'd feel better watching Frank Thomas fielding the position, maybe even Harold Baines !

kermittheefrog
01-13-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


No argument with Cameron, I always kind of liked him on the team.

You know, I've noticed something about rookies. Tell me if I'm wrong on this one, Kermit...

1) When a hitter has a good rookie year despite drawing few walks, his numbers tend to drop off dramatically the following year. (ex: Mike Caruso, Chris Singleton)

2) When a rookie hitter has a great rookie year AND draws walks, he tends to stick around among the elites. (ex: Frank Thomas)

Using this model, I am predicting that Albert Pujols is the real deal, and Ichiro will have a significant dropoff in production, as will Alfonso Soriano.

I'm kind of using anecdotal evidence for this; am I full of it?

Walks help, A LOT, but it really depends on the player. Because Pujols has the entire package including walks he's got a great chance to be an elite player for a long time. I don't think Soriano or Ichiro are in as bad shape as Caruso but they aren't in as good shape as Pujols.

If you recall Caruso didn't do a damn thing right other than hit .300. He was a noodle armed bad defender, bad baserunner, had no power and no work ethic. Soriano is a good defender, has good pop for a middle infielder and stole 40+ bases with a good percentage. With those kind of skills he'll probably play for a while without the plate discipline and if he ever does learn to walk he'll be a star.

Ichiro is kind of the same deal, he's got enough things going for him that he shoudl remain a strong player but his future isn't as bright as Pujols because he doesn't walk. I think Thomas and Caruso are extremes but overall players who walk a lot early in their careers are way ahead of the guys who don't.

RichH55
01-15-2002, 12:02 AM
Plate Discipline is just part of the puzzle...IIRC Vlad Guerrero never has been a walk a game guy and ill take him in thr heart of any order im putting out there....though walks are always nice, eh? Anyone know if Jerome Walton walked at a good pace in his rookie year? I have no idea, but it would be a good piece of evidence for either side of the debate

kermittheefrog
01-15-2002, 12:55 AM
Walton had a crap walk rate. It's really rare to see a guy who walks a lot fall off the face of the Earth but guys who don't tend to be a 50/50 bet, maybe worse.

Nellie Comiskey
01-16-2002, 10:00 PM
I got to see every game Cameron played in Birmingham(his real break-out years) and everyone knew this guy would be a stud. His great year(1996) he was in the running for the minor league player of the year. At the time this deal made no sense, however Konerko has done pretty good with the Sox. Obviously Cameron has had great success...hopefully we won't look at this trade in a couple of years with the same reaction to hearing the Sosa and Patterson for Jorge Bell deal

Iwritecode
01-17-2002, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Plate Discipline is just part of the puzzle...IIRC Vlad Guerrero never has been a walk a game guy and ill take him in thr heart of any order im putting out there....though walks are always nice, eh? Anyone know if Jerome Walton walked at a good pace in his rookie year? I have no idea, but it would be a good piece of evidence for either side of the debate

One thing about walks, especially in Frank's case is not so much plate discipline but the fact that a lot of pitchers don't really want to pitch to him. They end up unintentionally/intentionally walking him for fear of serving one up.

kermittheefrog
01-17-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


One thing about walks, especially in Frank's case is not so much plate discipline but the fact that a lot of pitchers don't really want to pitch to him. They end up unintentionally/intentionally walking him for fear of serving one up.

You still have to have a certain amount of patience to take those walks. You know Julio Ramirez can't just watch 4 pitches go by without taking a hack.

Iwritecode
01-17-2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
You still have to have a certain amount of patience to take those walks. You know Julio Ramirez can't just watch 4 pitches go by without taking a hack.

Very true. :cool:

Kilroy
01-17-2002, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
One thing about walks, especially in Frank's case is not so much plate discipline but the fact that a lot of pitchers don't really want to pitch to him. They end up unintentionally/intentionally walking him for fear of serving one up.

I don't necessarily buy that about Frank. It's his discipline at the plate that gets him walks because he's just not going to hit the pitcher's pitch unless he has to. He's always been known as a hitter who knows the strike zone and who could tell the speed of a pitch w/in 1 to 2 mph. Also, there's not too many players at the ML level that won't make a pitcher pay for coming in the strike zone too often.

guillen4life13
01-17-2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


The irony is that today Singleton has zero plate discipline while Cameron walks a lot.

And plate discipline, or lack thereof, didn't dissuade us from getting clayton.


If you'll remember, Cameron had quite a strike out streak last year. what was it again?

Singleton didn't have 400 AB's, so you can't really judge an OBP by that, but consider this... Singleton in 2/3 years has either hit or come close to hitting .300. Cammy's never hit over .267. Singleton may not be as powerful as Cammy, but he doesn't strike out nearly as much.

Another plus for Singleton is the fact that he's lefty.
Why doesn't anyone want to keep singleton at least for the 2002 season until Borchard makes a move? He's a reliable defensive player, and hits you for average. He's fast also, might I add, although Cammy is faster. Cammy's one of the fastest in the league though, if not the fastest.

I think the Sox should keep Singleton, and after this coming season, sign and trade him for prospects or some good pitching, etc.

If he could correct that backstep he takes when he jumps to steal, he's a 40 steal guy. He has 20 HR potential, as we saw in 1999, when he hit 17. If he can get back to that form, he may become an all-star himself.

But then again, What the hell do I know?

RichH55
01-17-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13



If you'll remember, Cameron had quite a strike out streak last year. what was it again?

Singleton didn't have 400 AB's, so you can't really judge an OBP by that, but consider this... Singleton in 2/3 years has either hit or come close to hitting .300. Cammy's never hit over .267. Singleton may not be as powerful as Cammy, but he doesn't strike out nearly as much.

Another plus for Singleton is the fact that he's lefty.
Why doesn't anyone want to keep singleton at least for the 2002 season until Borchard makes a move? He's a reliable defensive player, and hits you for average. He's fast also, might I add, although Cammy is faster. Cammy's one of the fastest in the league though, if not the fastest.

I think the Sox should keep Singleton, and after this coming season, sign and trade him for prospects or some good pitching, etc.

If he could correct that backstep he takes when he jumps to steal, he's a 40 steal guy. He has 20 HR potential, as we saw in 1999, when he hit 17. If he can get back to that form, he may become an all-star himself.

But then again, What the hell do I know?


Singleton has proven he can hit .300, but a very hollow .300 since he refuses to get on base enough or put up decent slugging numbers with numbers with that average...He is defiantely from the Rey Sanchez/Mike Caruso school of .300 hitting....He has speed, but he isn't that great a base runner, since baserunning is very much about instincts, which he doesn't seem to be big on. And if he doensn't have enough at-bats to judge OBP, how can you defend him using his average? Wouldn't his lack of at-bats throw that stat out as well? I also doubt the trade market is much on Singleton, but i don't want to trade him for the sake of trading him....The reason i'm not a big Singleton guy is becasue I think Rowand is the better option and although i like chris as the 4th OF, i don't think he does and the ballclub could deal without a guy whining about playing time

Daver
01-17-2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


But then again, What the hell do I know?

You've been warned.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-17-2002, 08:29 PM
Hey, don't forget now we've got Brian Simmons, too.

Woo hoo! We're stacked in centerfield!!!!

:gulp:


But seriously folks, we're a lot better in CF than we are behind the plate.

:sandy :MJ :versatile
"We're just happy to be drawing a big league check!"

RichH55
01-17-2002, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Hey, don't forget now we've got Brian Simmons, too.

Woo hoo! We're stacked in centerfield!!!!

:gulp:


But seriously folks, we're a lot better in CF than we are behind the plate.

:sandy :MJ :versatile
"We're just happy to be drawing a big league check!"


Seriously Catching is brutal here and when my friends and I discuss Sox vs Cubs when we come to catcher we all sort of bow our heads in shame....not a catcher worth a damn in the whole city of Chicago!

kermittheefrog
01-17-2002, 09:38 PM
I can't believe there are still so many Singleton defenders! If you hit .300 with no pop and you never walk it doesn't mean much. as for the catchers, *ick* it's pretty ugly. If we could just get a decent starter Johnson would make a perfect backup, lefty, good defense, can take a walk.

czalgosz
01-18-2002, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I can't believe there are still so many Singleton defenders! If you hit .300 with no pop and you never walk it doesn't mean much. as for the catchers, *ick* it's pretty ugly. If we could just get a decent starter Johnson would make a perfect backup, lefty, good defense, can take a walk.

I always liked Mark Johnson in exactly that role. I still believe that Josh Paul getting brought up rather than Johnson played some small part in why the pitching staff was so awful in April, even setting aside the injuries.

As for a good starting catcher, pickings are thin all over the majors. The few that are out there are all locked down in long-term contracts. I think the Sox are just going to have to accept that they'll have an offensive hole at catcher for the foreseeable future.

kermittheefrog
01-18-2002, 02:10 AM
The Sox should take a flyer on Ramon Castro according to Bill James' Major League Equivelencies he'd his .281/.327/.483 over a full season if someone gave him a shot. Castro could be nabbed cheaply since the Marlins are down on him, work him out in spring, give him a shot. If he works out he could be the fulltime man with Johnson starting to rest him and play against tough righthanded pitching.

RichH55
01-18-2002, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
The Sox should take a flyer on Ramon Castro according to Bill James' Major League Equivelencies he'd his .281/.327/.483 over a full season if someone gave him a shot. Castro could be nabbed cheaply since the Marlins are down on him, work him out in spring, give him a shot. If he works out he could be the fulltime man with Johnson starting to rest him and play against tough righthanded pitching.


Thank You Rob Neyer! :) Though I'd be up for that deal of course, how far away is Olivia from getting his shot? I hear he has a cannon for an arm, so how much worse could he be than the current crop?

RichH55
01-18-2002, 07:55 AM
Man I've been looking over some of the posters and reading birthday announcements and there is alot of youngsters out here.....Glad to see the Sox are hooking them young! The comparisons to cigarette companies and the Sox get better everyday...hook them while they're young and supporting either can be hazardous to your health over time

Paulwny
01-18-2002, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I always liked Mark Johnson in exactly that role. I still believe that Josh Paul getting brought up rather than Johnson played some small part in why the pitching staff was so awful in April, even setting aside the injuries.



During a yankmee broadcast in 2000, Jim Kaat (ex-ml pitcher), commented that M. Johnson has at an early age the ability to take pitches off the corners and make them look like strikes.
No statistics for this ability.

RichH55
01-18-2002, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny


During a yankmee broadcast in 2000, Jim Kaat (ex-ml pitcher), commented that M. Johnson has at an early age the ability to take pitches off the corners and make them look like strikes.
No statistics for this ability.

Charlie O'brien reincarnate? I still don't like Johnson as my starting catcher, he has a place on a major league roster just not as the starting catcher for a contender

Paulwny
01-18-2002, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by RichH55


Charlie O'brien reincarnate? I still don't like Johnson as my starting catcher, he has a place on a major league roster just not as the starting catcher for a contender

Neither do I but, I'll take him over J. Paul who hurt us both on off. and def.

FarWestChicago
01-18-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Neither do I but, I'll take him over J. Paul who hurt us both on off. and def. :versatile

It's a good thing I'm great running the bases!

Paulwny
01-18-2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
:versatile

It's a good thing I'm great running the bases!

He keeps running until he's out.

guillen4life13
01-18-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by daver


You've been warned.

ok i'll stop. i just think it makes sense, because, really, i may consider myself a die hard in relation to other kids at school, but compared to you guys, i don't know much, so i thought it made a bit of sense for me to use it, because sometimes what i say can be the biggest load of b.s. ever.

I have been warned now, and i'll stop using your saying.

Daver
01-18-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


ok i'll stop. i just think it makes sense, because, really, i may consider myself a die hard in relation to other kids at school, but compared to you guys, i don't know much, so i thought it made a bit of sense for me to use it, because sometimes what i say can be the biggest load of b.s. ever.

I have been warned now, and i'll stop using your saying.

I think perhaps I should have used the official sarcasm color for that,it is an ongoing joke around here that you were probably not aware of.The first time I used it everyone jumped on it so I felt the need to it,and now most people just acknowledge it as my saying,to the point that I have seen insert Daver's copyrighted saying here written in posts.I was not trying to single you out.

guillen4life13
01-18-2002, 11:17 PM
I know dude. I've suspected that of you before, as you'll remember, and at that time, because I was really new (still am relatively new), I thought you were singling me out. No worries. I've pretty much seen from other examples, and what happened earlier with us that this is routine, and isn't personal.

as i gain more authority in these message boards, i'm gonna dish it too, hehe.

bjmarte
01-18-2002, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I know dude. I've suspected that of you before, as you'll remember, and at that time, because I was really new (still am relatively new), I thought you were singling me out. No worries. I've pretty much seen from other examples, and what happened earlier with us that this is routine, and isn't personal.

as i gain more authority in these message boards, i'm gonna dish it too, hehe.

Dishing it out is the fun part.

I dig the sig. I don't know why but it took me a second :smile:

Daver
01-18-2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I know dude. I've suspected that of you before, as you'll remember, and at that time, because I was really new (still am relatively new), I thought you were singling me out. No worries. I've pretty much seen from other examples, and what happened earlier with us that this is routine, and isn't personal.

as i gain more authority in these message boards, i'm gonna dish it too, hehe.

Allrighty then.

Who,in the name of all that is holy,is Kenny?

CLR01
01-19-2002, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by daver


Allrighty then.

Who,in the name of all that is holy,is Kenny?


South park. the kid that always dies.

Daver
01-19-2002, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



South park. the kid that always dies.

That tells me nothing at all.

CLR01
01-19-2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by daver


That tells me nothing at all.


http://a1482.g.akamai.net/7/1482/2597/0002/www.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/4a.gif



http://southparkstudios.com/

WinningUgly!
01-19-2002, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by daver


That tells me nothing at all.

Kenny gets killed a different way in every show. I think you'd enjoy quite a bit of it Daver.

Daver
01-19-2002, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


Kenny gets killed a different way in every show. I think you'd enjoy quite a bit of it Daver.

I guess I should make an effort to watch TV to keep up with this board,but I rarely watch anything but hunting and fishing shows.

guillen4life13
01-20-2002, 06:54 PM
Quite frankly, I don't watch much TV myself. I've seen South Park probably only 3 or 4 times. I think it's funny as hell, although it gets old after a while.