PDA

View Full Version : Who would you rather have?


nsolo
06-24-2007, 06:16 PM
O.k., I'm asking this question with the benefit of hindsight, but reflecting on players who've been traded or released, who would you rather have on the current Sox team?

1. Frank Thomas (he's still productive, and we got nothing for him).

2. Maggs (same as above).

3. Thome or Rowand

4. Carlos Lee or Pods

5. Ross Gload for Sisco

Yes, we won it all in 2005, and I wouldn't want to erase that memory, but are the above moves/decisions indicative of larger problems.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2007, 06:20 PM
O.k., I'm asking this question with the benefit of hindsight, but reflecting on players who've been traded or released, who would you rather have on the current Sox team?

1. Frank Thomas (he's still productive, and we got nothing for him).

2. Maggs (same as above).

1. By not signing Thomas, the Sox were able to get Thome.

2. By not signing Maggs, the Sox were able to get Dye, Pierzynski, Iguchi, etc. (when you factor Lee in as well).

nsolo
06-24-2007, 06:33 PM
1. By not signing Thomas, the Sox were able to get Thome.

2. By not signing Maggs, the Sox were able to get Dye, Pierzynski, Iguchi, etc. (when you factor Lee in as well).

Was 2005 the end of the contract between Thomas and the Sox? Did they have to pay him off before releasing him, or was their business relationship at a legal end? If it was a clean break without monetary payout, it seems to me that they gave away what proved to be continued productive talent without gain. To say that his departure opened up money for the signing of other players seems weak when considering what Oakland signed him for.

Did the same thing happen with Maggs? Did he leave without a payday? If so, the same applies.

MarySwiss
06-24-2007, 06:39 PM
5. Ross Gload for Sisco

Yes, we won it all in 2005, and I wouldn't want to erase that memory, but are the above moves/decisions indicative of larger problems.

This is the only one that I'd reconsider. At least, to this point.

Daver
06-24-2007, 06:47 PM
Was 2005 the end of the contract between Thomas and the Sox? Did they have to pay him off before releasing him, or was their business relationship at a legal end? If it was a clean break without monetary payout, it seems to me that they gave away what proved to be continued productive talent without gain. To say that his departure opened up money for the signing of other players seems weak when considering what Oakland signed him for.

Did the same thing happen with Maggs? Did he leave without a payday? If so, the same applies.

They were not offered arbitration, which is a monetary gain for the team, because if the player accepts arbitration you are signing him to a one year contract at basically what they made the previous year.

eriqjaffe
06-24-2007, 06:48 PM
Was 2005 the end of the contract between Thomas and the Sox? Did they have to pay him off before releasing him, or was their business relationship at a legal end? If it was a clean break without monetary payout, it seems to me that they gave away what proved to be continued productive talent without gain. To say that his departure opened up money for the signing of other players seems weak when considering what Oakland signed him for.

Did the same thing happen with Maggs? Did he leave without a payday? If so, the same applies.Thomas the Sox had a mutual option for 2006 - Thomas exercised his, but the Sox declined theirs. Had the Sox opted to keep Thomas, they would have been on the hook for something like $11 million for a guy who had been limited to 105 at-bats (but, oh, what a 105 at-bats they were) in 2005, with no real guarantees that he'd be able to play and stay healthy in '06.

Maggs was a bit different - he was a free agent, and had turned down a dadgum sizeable contract after his knee injury. After a whole mess involving him going to Vienna (without informing the Sox) for an experimental "shock wave" treatment and then his not releasing medical records to the Sox, the Sox opted to not offer him arbitration. By doing that, the Sox waived the right to negotiate with him as a free agent until May 1 of 2005, and it also cost them a compensatory draft pick (Maggs would've been a Type A free agent, so it would have been a first round pick), but also eliminated the risk of Maggs accepting arbitration and raking in probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million dollars - all at a time when there was so little doubt that he'd ever be able to play again that the Tigers were the only team to offer him a contract - and even that had a clause that would have voided the contract if Maggs spent a certain amount of time on the DL due to his knee. The fact that he wound up spending pretty much the entire first half on the DL with a "hernia" problem raised a few eyebrows, but now it looks like the Tigers' gamble paid off.

In short, the Sox had solid, defensable reasons for what they did. It helped them win a championship in 2005, but has come back to haunt them since then.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2007, 06:51 PM
Was 2005 the end of the contract between Thomas and the Sox? Did they have to pay him off before releasing him, or was their business relationship at a legal end? If it was a clean break without monetary payout, it seems to me that they gave away what proved to be continued productive talent without gain. To say that his departure opened up money for the signing of other players seems weak when considering what Oakland signed him for.

Did the same thing happen with Maggs? Did he leave without a payday? If so, the same applies.

But there was no way of knowing that Thomas would play as well as he did. Still, the guy that replaced him in 2006 had a higher AVE, OBP, SLG, hit more HR, more doubles, more hits total, scored more runs, more walks, more total bases, etc. You may have heard of him, Jim Thome.

Maggs was demanding something like $14 million a season and he wouldn't let the Sox doctors take a look at his repaired knee. What, they should have taken him on faith? They didn't sign him and went out and got guys like Dye and Pierzynski and the rest is history. Maggs had a pretty crappy 2005 season to boot.

Are you simply asking who would we rather have on the team right now, Player A or Player B? Without any hindsight, then yes, I would rather have Maggs .381 AVE instead of Dye's .230 AVE. Thome and Thomas is essentially a wash. In 26 more games, Thomas only has 2 more HRs and 5 more RBIs when compared to Thome.

soxtalker
06-24-2007, 06:55 PM
They were not offered arbitration, which is a monetary gain for the team, because if the player accepts arbitration you are signing him to a one year contract at basically what they made the previous year.

Yes. And in the cases of both Frank and Maggs, those contract costs would have come with significant risk. IIRC, Oakland was able to mitigate that risk by signing Frank to a much lower guaranteed (and total) salary. Detroit bit the bullet and took the risk. That looks good now, but it looked like a very risky move at the time.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2007, 06:57 PM
Detroit bit the bullet and took the risk. That looks good now, but it looked like a very risky move at the time.

And it almost looked like it had blown up in their face: Maggs only played 82 games in 2005.

jshanahanjr
06-24-2007, 07:01 PM
Hopefully the Sox learn from Frank & Maggs and not write of Crede.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2007, 07:03 PM
Hopefully the Sox learn from Frank & Maggs and not write of Crede.

:rolleyes:

Brian26
06-24-2007, 07:05 PM
who would you rather have on the current Sox team?

1. Frank Thomas (he's still productive, and we got nothing for him).

2. Maggs (same as above).

3. Thome or Rowand

4. Carlos Lee or Pods

5. Ross Gload for Sisco

One other fact to look at, although everyone else has eloquently tackled this question before me already, is the truth that, quite frankly, the Sox would not be able to afford Mags, Thome, CLee and Thome on the same team right now. I'm not sure they could afford both Mags and CLee together. So, points 1 thru 4 aren't necessarily stand-alone questions. These are all functions of one another.

oeo
06-24-2007, 07:07 PM
O.k., I'm asking this question with the benefit of hindsight, but reflecting on players who've been traded or released, who would you rather have on the current Sox team?

1. Frank Thomas (he's still productive, and we got nothing for him).

2. Maggs (same as above).

3. Thome or Rowand

4. Carlos Lee or Pods

5. Ross Gload for Sisco

Yes, we won it all in 2005, and I wouldn't want to erase that memory, but are the above moves/decisions indicative of larger problems.

1. No...we needed the left-handed power and Frank did not show signs of being healthy for this long.

2. Won a World Series with that money not spent, so no.

3. Thome

4. Pods

5. Who cares? Neither are impact guys; Gload wasn't going to save the season.

eriqjaffe
06-24-2007, 07:19 PM
Hopefully the Sox learn from Frank & Maggs and not write of Crede.The Sox control Crede for one more year. They can opt to non-tender him which would make him a free agent a year early - the Giants did that with Pierzynski, but the Sox are in control of his contract situation through 2008.

Assuming the Sox are going nowhere fast, I'd slate Crede in as the opening day third baseman next year and Fields in left - this, of course, means that Podsednik would either be moved to center or just be gone entirely. If Crede has a good year, great - at the very least, it will rebuild his trade value. If he's not, then the Sox can just let him go to free agency after the season and Fields can step in at third.

nsolo
06-24-2007, 07:24 PM
Are you simply asking who would we rather have on the team right now, Player A or Player B? Without any hindsight, then yes, I would rather have Maggs .381 AVE instead of Dye's .230 AVE. Thome and Thomas is essentially a wash. In 26 more games, Thomas only has 2 more HRs and 5 more RBIs when compared to Thome.

I was asking in the present tense. Also, I was hoping to create discussion on how management handles established players, when making business decisions. In the case of Thomas and Maggs, its my singular opinion that the organization clearly went against its self projected image of "family". Both Thomas and Maggs had valid medical concerns, but the image of family and the realization of past contribution through performance went out the window when money became involved.

Yes, baseball is a business blended with with athletic output, but I always had a suspicion that the Sox have a strong definition of "family" that is mostly defined by quantitative monetary factors than qualitative factors. Adding any player/management disagreement into the equation only hastens a players need to pack his bags

I also disagree with it being a wash between Thome and Thomas. With runners on base, I'd take the ball control of Thomas over Thome any day.

itsnotrequired
06-24-2007, 07:30 PM
I also disagree with it being a wash between Thome and Thomas. With runners on base, I'd take the ball control of Thomas over Thome any day.

2007 AVE with RISP:
Thome: .290
Thomas: .182

2006 AVE with RISP:
Thome: .336
Thomas: .288

:dunno:

CLR01
06-24-2007, 07:31 PM
Rowand. The Sox would have 6 or 11 world series rings by now if they would have kept him.

Daver
06-24-2007, 07:33 PM
Rowand. The Sox would have 6 or 11 world series rings by now if they would have kept him.

They would have won a Grey cup too.

MySoxAreClean
06-24-2007, 08:16 PM
Chuck Norris!