PDA

View Full Version : ESPN1000- Cubs after Crawford, Looking to trade Monroe


Foulke You
11-13-2007, 10:22 AM
In two separate tidbits on ESPN 1000 this morning, the sportcenter update had a Bruce Levine report that the Cubs "definitely" want to move Craig Monroe before next season and that they were also trying to get Carl Crawford. There was no other information and this is Bruce Levineline so take it with a grain of salt. Have at it!

hi im skot
11-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Hasn't it already been said that pretty much every team in baseball is interested in Crawford?

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Monroe is extremely close to being dealt to the Twins for a PTBNL.

What's with all these Sox killers being dealt back to the Central? ha.

The Cubs can go after Crawford all they want, it's whether they'd be willing to meet Tampa's insane price on their players. They'd probably want a package centered around Rich Hill and Pie.

spiffie
11-13-2007, 10:58 AM
Monroe is extremely close to being dealt to the Twins for a PTBNL.

What's with all these Sox killers being dealt back to the Central? ha.

The Cubs can go after Crawford all they want, it's whether they'd be willing to meet Tampa's insane price on their players. They'd probably want a package centered around Rich Hill and Pie.
I would assume they could do it without Hill. If they put together something like Pie, Samarzdjia, Veal, and another young player they might be in the game. Though they might have been better able to last year, before Pie had some rocky time in the majors. Nothing kills a prospect's value like seeing him not play great at the MLB level.

Domeshot17
11-13-2007, 11:02 AM
I would assume they could do it without Hill. If they put together something like Pie, Samarzdjia, Veal, and another young player they might be in the game. Though they might have been better able to last year, before Pie had some rocky time in the majors. Nothing kills a prospect's value like seeing him not play great at the MLB level.

I thought Samarzdjia's stock was falling quickly after a bad 2007 campaign.

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 11:05 AM
I thought Samarzdjia's stock was falling quickly after a bad 2007 campaign.

He was an odd case, I think he was terrible in A ball, but they promoted him to AA and he did quite well.

pierzynski07
11-13-2007, 11:08 AM
Bruce Levineline

:?: I never understood that nickname.

spiffie
11-13-2007, 11:09 AM
He was an odd case, I think he was terrible in A ball, but they promoted him to AA and he did quite well.
He had a 3.41 ERA at AA.

I was surprised looking at his numbers, as I thought he was a power pitcher, but even at AA where he did well he was doing only 5.24 K/9.

rdivaldi
11-13-2007, 11:10 AM
:?: I never understood that nickname.

It's a reference to Bruce's Flubbie love. The name of the Flub fan rag is called "Vine Line".

pierzynski07
11-13-2007, 11:14 AM
It's a reference to Bruce's Flubbie love. The name of the Flub fan rag is called "Vine Line".

Ah....... got it. Although I still don't see why that fact means we should take his reports with a grain of salt, at least more so than all the other "reporters."

rdivaldi
11-13-2007, 11:17 AM
Ah....... got it. Although I still don't see why that fact means we should take his reports with a grain of salt, at least more so than all the other "reporters."

Bruce takes a lot of long shots in his updates hoping to scoop his competition and tends to be a bit more belligerent about it. I've heard some nasty tirades from him in the past...

Tragg
11-13-2007, 11:36 AM
Didn't he scoop everyone on that Jock Jones blockbuster?

What are y'all's thoughts on Pie? I think he may be decent.

cws05champ
11-13-2007, 11:37 AM
Bruce takes a lot of long shots in his updates hoping to scoop his competition and tends to be a bit more belligerent about it. I've heard some nasty tirades from him in the past...

This is the same A-Hole that minutes after Buehrle tossed his no hitter was asking him about his contract situation. Just say NO to Levine!!

rocky biddle
11-13-2007, 12:04 PM
It's a reference to Bruce's Flubbie love. The name of the Flub fan rag is called "Vine Line".

Doesn't he actually write for the Vine Line? I thought that was the root of the nickname. I could be wrong though, it happens quite often.

The Immigrant
11-13-2007, 12:35 PM
Doesn't he actually write for the Vine Line? I thought that was the root of the nickname. I could be wrong though, it happens quite often.

Yes, he is a regular columnist for the Vine Line.

pierzynski07
11-13-2007, 12:58 PM
Thanks again.

Also, looks like the Monroe trade is official (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/index.jsp).

Oblong
11-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Craig Monroe in that garbage dump spells trouble for other AL Central teams. He's now on the dark side and will get to know the secret jedi tricks that make up the magic of the Metrodome.

Fantasy players should pick him up when the Twins host the Tigers. Bad things will happen and Monroe will be responsible. It'll be his initiation.

D. TODD
11-13-2007, 01:12 PM
Cubs seem to be making room for Fukidome (spelling?), they are supposedly courting Kaz Matsui as well, maybe to help Fukdome adjust.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 01:56 PM
Cubs seem to be making room for Fukidome (spelling?), they are supposedly courting Kaz Matsui as well, maybe to help Fukdome adjust.

I think getting Infante takes them out of the running for Kaz.

soxinem1
11-13-2007, 02:09 PM
I think getting Infante takes them out of the running for Kaz.

Why? He's a back up.

if anything, the cubs should be looking for a SS, as Theriot is better and more durable at 2B, so with Kaz, they will have THREE guys who can start at 2B.

We'll give them Uribe for Soriano and $100 million!!

Craig Grebeck
11-13-2007, 02:15 PM
They have Derosa at 2B and he is eons better than Theriot.

chisoxfanatic
11-13-2007, 02:21 PM
Thanks again.

Also, looks like the Monroe trade is official (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/index.jsp).
Great, the infamous PTBNL! It's probably gonna be nothing more than a minor leaguer, although it would be great to not have to face a Cuddyer anymore.

soxwon
11-13-2007, 04:36 PM
Espn is reporting- Carl Crawford coming to the Cubs for prospects.
They better be top notch prospects too.
Ill be pissed if they get him.

soxwon
11-13-2007, 04:37 PM
oops sorry just saw a thread In WHATS THE SCORE!!!

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 04:39 PM
Wait, your saying it's a done deal?

Rocky Soprano
11-13-2007, 04:39 PM
oops sorry just saw a thread In WHATS THE SCORE!!!

Are they saying its a rumor or are they saying its a done deal.
From you post you are making it seem like they said its done.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 04:42 PM
Damn. Soriano, Crawford, and Pie in that outfield covers a ton of ground. Not to mention they'll have the best top of the order in baseball with Soriano and Crawford 1-2.

oeo
11-13-2007, 04:46 PM
Damn. Soriano, Crawford, and Pie in that outfield covers a ton of ground. Not to mention they'll have the best top of the order in baseball with Soriano and Crawford 1-2.

Not to mention D-Lee.

Me thinks soxwon was jumping the gun, though.

hi im skot
11-13-2007, 04:48 PM
Not to mention D-Lee.

Me thinks soxwon was jumping the gun, though.

Yeah, I haven't heard anything yet...

munchman33
11-13-2007, 04:49 PM
Not to mention D-Lee.

Me thinks soxwon was jumping the gun, though.

I hope so. While I know the Cubs winning their division was no big deal, that kind of team would compete for a championship easily.

Rocky Soprano
11-13-2007, 04:50 PM
I hope so. While I know the Cubs winning their division was no big deal, that kind of team would compete for a championship easily.

These are the Cubs we are talking about Munchie.
They would find a way to lose. :redneck

veeter
11-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Damn. Soriano, Crawford, and Pie in that outfield covers a ton of ground. Not to mention they'll have the best top of the order in baseball with Soriano and Crawford 1-2.But who plays right? They'll be very fast. If this is true, Hendry has managed to put three players that are very similar, in three different positions. It'll all go wrong around July.

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Apparently, Tampa Bay radio stations are reporting the deal is close and that the Cubs would get Crawford for Hill, Cedeno, and Marmol.

oeo
11-13-2007, 04:52 PM
I hope so. While I know the Cubs winning their division was no big deal, that kind of team would compete for a championship easily.

Would it, though? I'd imagine they would have to give up Rich Hill in order to reel in Crawford. Much like we would have to give up Danks.

An already weak rotation, further weakened isn't going to do any good.

oeo
11-13-2007, 04:52 PM
Apparently, Tampa Bay radio stations are reporting the deal is close and that the Cubs would get Crawford for Hill, Cedeno, and Marmol.

That's it?!

Kenny, jump in there, pronto.

veeter
11-13-2007, 04:52 PM
I hope so. While I know the Cubs winning their division was no big deal, that kind of team would compete for a championship easily.And if they give up Hill in the deal, now they have a hole in the rotation. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

FedEx227
11-13-2007, 04:53 PM
That's it?!

Kenny, jump in there, pronto.

If that's the deal, and it's made I might be done with White Sox baseball.

oeo
11-13-2007, 04:56 PM
If that's the deal, and it's made I might be done with White Sox baseball.

It's bull****. Those were the three guys that the MLBTR guy mentioned (that's it, just mentioned them...not even as a complete deal) as possible bargaining chips. It's going to take more than that to get Crawford, but if the D'Rays are feeling dumb today, Kenny should get in on that.

veeter
11-13-2007, 04:56 PM
If that's the deal, and it's made I might be done with White Sox baseball.Carlos Marmol would be a HUGE loss. That guy is unbelieveable. I think the Rays would be getting the better deal.

DickAllen72
11-13-2007, 04:57 PM
That's it?!

Kenny, jump in there, pronto.
Who do the Sox have to offer that would beat that?

getonbckthr
11-13-2007, 04:58 PM
Apparently, Tampa Bay radio stations are reporting the deal is close and that the Cubs would get Crawford for Hill, Cedeno, and Marmol.
If thats the ****ing deal why the hell cant we get in there with:
Gio, Broadway, Sweeney and whoever else?

FedEx227
11-13-2007, 04:58 PM
Carlos Marmol would be a HUGE loss. That guy is unbelieveable. I think the Rays would be getting the better deal.

Oh no doubt, I would just be upset that the White Sox who need a leadoff hitter and a CF/LF would let a team on the other side of town give away a good reliever, an okay starter and a "meh" infielder.

But yeah, I'd imagine that's complete bs.

oeo
11-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Carlos Marmol would be a HUGE loss. That guy is unbelieveable. I think the Rays would be getting the better deal.

Yeah, he ****ing kicked ass in the postseason. :roflmao:

getonbckthr
11-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Who do the Sox have to offer that would beat that?
Cedeno= A career minor leaguer
Hill = Gio or Danks
Marmol = really good
I'm sure there is something we can come up with to beat that.

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:00 PM
Who do the Sox have to offer that would beat that?

Just a list of guys that could be in the deal:
-Danks
-Gio
-DLS
-Broadway
-Egbert
-Getz
-Sweeney

DickAllen72
11-13-2007, 05:01 PM
Cedeno= A career minor leaguer
Hill = Gio or Danks
Marmol = really good
I'm sure there is something we can come up with to beat that.
Danks, Jenks and since we have no good IF prospects probably another pitcher, maybe Gio or Broadway. Would you do that? I wouldn't.

SBSoxFan
11-13-2007, 05:01 PM
I think getting Infante takes them out of the running for Kaz.

According to my sports page this morning, Hendry was told by Cubs' management that money is no object again this offseason.

veeter
11-13-2007, 05:02 PM
Although we don't no if any of this is true, it would appear the sticking point is giving up young MAJOR league talent. Prospects probably wouldn't cut it.

FedEx227
11-13-2007, 05:02 PM
According to my sports page this morning, Hendry was told by Cubs' management that money is no object again this offseason.

And backloaded contracts aplenty because hey, it won't be our money!

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:03 PM
Danks, Jenks and since we have no good IF prospects probably another pitcher, maybe Gio or Broadway. Would you do that? I wouldn't.

I was waiting for someone to find the equivalent of Marmol as Jenks. :rolleyes:

Please...come talk to me when Marmol actually pitches more than a half of season.

We don't have an equivalent to Marmol, it would have to be a different position or a combination of players. Jenks >>> Marmol, though, at this point.

And I wouldn't even see Danks as an equivalent to Hill. Hill is four years older, and just made his first full season last year.

Foulke You
11-13-2007, 05:05 PM
Cedeno= A career minor leaguer
Hill = Gio or Danks
Marmol = really good
I'm sure there is something we can come up with to beat that.
Marmol was easily the MVP of the Cubs bullpen last year. They would be losing their #3 starter, their main setup man/future closer, and a SS prospect. This is a considerable amount of players to lose in my opinion.

DickAllen72
11-13-2007, 05:05 PM
I was waiting for someone to find the equivalent of Marmol as Jenks. :rolleyes:

Please...come talk to me when Marmol actually pitches more than a half of season.

We don't have an equivalent to Marmol, it would have to be a different position or a combination of players. Jenks >>> Marmol, though, at this point.
Oh, I totally agree that Jenks >>>Marmol. But Marmol>>>than any other Sox reliever and apparently that's what the Rays are looking for. Plus, I'm sure they'd rather deal Crawford to the NL.

veeter
11-13-2007, 05:05 PM
According to my sports page this morning, Hendry was told by Cubs' management that money is no object again this offseason.Man I despise Hendry. What a mope. He's been given the keys to the kingdom (blank check book) and everyone says he's so great. I truly believe anyone on this board could do what he does. "Say Ted, get all your offers together, then give me a call. I give you more years and way more money than anyone else. How does that sound?" What a joke.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:06 PM
Cedeno= A career minor leaguer
Hill = Gio or Danks
Marmol = really good
I'm sure there is something we can come up with to beat that.

Hill = Gio or Danks? Not based on production. Hill would probably equal Gio and Danks in this trade. If we're lucky.
Marmol? The only thing we have to equal him is Jenks.
While we have a million career minor leaguers to equal Cedeno, Tampa is looking for a cheap, defensive minded shortstop with a little pop to help their pitching. We definately don't have anything like that. And they certainly don't grow on trees.

So really, you're looking at Gio, Danks, Jenks, and trading for another piece to complete the deal (probably costing us Broadway and Sweeney, if not more).

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:07 PM
Marmol was easily the MVP of the Cubs bullpen last year. They would be losing their #3 starter, their main setup man/future closer, and a SS prospect. This is a considerable amount of players to lose in my opinion.

They would be losing a lot, but the D'Rays wouldn't be gaining much. Rich Hill would not find as much success in the AL and Ronny Cedeno is a UTIL player. So they're getting two marginal players and a stud reliever for a superstar in the making?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:08 PM
I was waiting for someone to find the equivalent of Marmol as Jenks. :rolleyes:


I'd trade Jenks for Marmol straight up in a heartbeat. Not that I think Marmol is better. They're both extremely effective relievers. But Marmol has significantly less service time, and is thus more valueable to a team with a budget.

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:10 PM
I'd trade Jenks for Marmol straight up in a heartbeat. Not that I think Marmol is better. They're both extremely effective relievers. But Marmol has significantly less service time, and is thus more valueable to a team with a budget.

Less service time, which means, still a big question mark.

Remember when Jenks was saving postseason games, and closed out a World Series clincher as a rookie? Carlos Marmol was busy getting lit up when put into a similar situation.

I know people think he could be a good closer, but maybe he's not right for it...after all, he couldn't handle postseason pressure in the middle innings.

getonbckthr
11-13-2007, 05:12 PM
There are a million Ronny Cedeno's running around. As far as Marmol he was a great relief pitcher last year. However as we know all to well relief pitchers are year to year. Whoever said Rich Hill = Danks and Gio is insane. Danks is the exact same pitcher as Hill, to a goddamn 'T'.

KRS1
11-13-2007, 05:12 PM
Hill = Gio or Danks? Not based on production. Hill would probably equal Gio and Danks in this trade. If we're lucky.
Marmol? The only thing we have to equal him is Jenks.
While we have a million career minor leaguers to equal Cedeno, Tampa is looking for a cheap, defensive minded shortstop with a little pop to help their pitching. We definately don't have anything like that. And they certainly don't grow on trees.

So really, you're looking at Gio, Danks, Jenks, and trading for another piece to complete the deal (probably costing us Broadway and Sweeney, if not more).

Yeah, except Danks and Gio are five years younger than Hill. Hill=Danks AND Gio, *****.

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:13 PM
There are a million Ronny Cedeno's running around. As far as Marmol he was a great relief pitcher last year. However as we know all to well relief pitchers are year to year. Whoever said Rich Hill = Danks and Gio is insane. Danks is the exact same pitcher as Hill, to a goddamn 'T'.

Except that Danks will only be 23 next year, and Hill is pushing 30.

getonbckthr
11-13-2007, 05:13 PM
I'd trade Jenks for Marmol straight up in a heartbeat. Not that I think Marmol is better. They're both extremely effective relievers. But Marmol has significantly less service time, and is thus more valueable to a team with a budget.
You would trade a young, proven dominant closer for a very good relief pitcher? What are you on dude?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:14 PM
Less service time, which means, still a big question mark.

Remember when Jenks was saving postseason games, and closed out a World Series clincher as a rookie? Carlos Marmol was busy getting lit up when put into a similar situation.

I know people think he could be a good closer, but maybe he's not right for it...after all, he couldn't handle postseason pressure in the middle innings.

Didn't Jenks blow a save in game two of the world series? Didn't Mariano Rivera blow a game seven world series save once?

Plenty of good relievers blow saves in the playoffs. Marmol was clutch all season long for the Cubs. I'm not gonna sour from one bad post-season outing. I doubt any team would either. The kid is the real deal.

The Dude
11-13-2007, 05:15 PM
If that's the deal, and it's made I might be done with White Sox baseball.

Don't let the door kick you in the.....:rolleyes:

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 05:16 PM
People on the TB board are saying it's not happening now so w/e.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:16 PM
You would trade a young, proven dominant closer for a very good relief pitcher? What are you on dude?

Service time.

Well, when you put it like that, you make me sound like an idiot. :redface:

Okay, Tampa will value Marmol significantly higher than Jenks, because of service time. They need cheap players for long periods of time in order to contend. If I were Tampa, and I had Jenks, I'd trade Jenks for Marmol.

I'd prefer Jenks to Marmol on the White Sox.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:18 PM
People on the TB board are saying it's not happening now so w/e.

That's a good sign.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:19 PM
People on the TB board are saying it's not happening now so w/e.

Wait, TB has enough fans for a board? Where can I find it?

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:21 PM
Didn't Jenks blow a save in game two of the world series? Didn't Mariano Rivera blow a game seven world series save once?

Plenty of good relievers blow saves in the playoffs. Marmol was clutch all season long for the Cubs. I'm not gonna sour from one bad post-season outing. I doubt any team would either. The kid is the real deal.

It wasn't just one. He was put into two games, threw 3 innings and gave up 3 runs. And I'm in no way saying that's indicative of what his career will be like, but you never know. Some guys just can't handle that kind of pressure, and until Marmol proves he can, I wouldn't walk around saying he's going to be some complete beast.

Look, Bobby Jenks is only a year and a half older than Marmol. Jenks has 87 saves, Marmol has 1. What's my point? Maybe Marmol will be a good closer some day, but Jenks already is. You don't trade a proven commodity for potential 'straight up.' Thank god you're not Kenny Williams.

Foulke You
11-13-2007, 05:22 PM
Rich Hill would not find as much success in the AL and Ronny Cedeno is a UTIL player.
Yeah, I agree. I think AL East lineups like the Red Sox, Jays, or Yanks would chew up Rich Hill and that is the division he'd be playing in if he goes to the Rays of Sunshine. Marmol looked like the real deal last year though. He had nasty stuff. The only thing that could hurt Marmol is that Pinella used him an awful lot last year. There could be some fatigue in that arm. He already looked a little gassed by mid September.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:26 PM
It wasn't just one. He was put into two games, threw 3 innings and gave up 3 runs.

Look, Bobby Jenks is only a year and a half older than Marmol. Jenks has 87 saves, Marmol has 1. What's my point? Maybe Marmol will be a good closer some day, but Jenks already is. You don't trade a proven commodity for potential 'straight up.' Thank god you're not Kenny Williams.

Marmol has produced though. He's been lights out for an entire season. A little more actually. And I'm not talking about age. I'm talking about service time. Which is really important to small market clubs. Marmol has shown he's a very good reliever, and he's cheap for a while. Jenks, while probably the most underrated closer in the game, is in for a big pay increase when arbitration comes along next offseason.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:29 PM
Yeah, I agree. I think AL East lineups like the Red Sox, Jays, or Yanks would chew up Rich Hill and that is the division he'd be playing in if he goes to the Rays of Sunshine. Marmol looked like the real deal last year though. He had nasty stuff. The only thing that could hurt Marmol is that Pinella used him an awful lot last year. There could be some fatigue in that arm. He already looked a little gassed by mid September.

I don't know...those lineups are all good fastball hitting lineups. Hill is more of a breaking ball guy. He might survive out there. Breaking ball pitchers tend to fair better against those guys.

JermaineDye05
11-13-2007, 05:31 PM
If Crawford goes to the Cubs (I don't think he will), I will be so upset. He's the one player I've wanted Kenny to get every offseason.

oeo
11-13-2007, 05:31 PM
Marmol has produced though. He's been lights out for an entire season. A little more actually.

A little more than a year? No...he was called up in the middle of May this past year. Other than that, in 2006 he was getting lit up as a SP.

And I'm not talking about age. I'm talking about service time. Which is really important to small market clubs. Marmol has shown he's a very good reliever, and he's cheap for a while. Jenks, while probably the most underrated closer in the game, is in for a big pay increase when arbitration comes along next offseason.The Devil Rays still wouldn't make that deal. They would ask for more than Marmol, because Jenks is proven. Marmol is not proven yet, I really don't understand how you can say he is. He had one good season; it's not uncommon for a reliever to have a great year. Hell, we had Cotts and Politte do it in the same year...where are they again?

southsideirish71
11-13-2007, 05:34 PM
I love it how posters automatically are willing to trade Bobby for a guy who just pitched his first season. Oh the same player that is so good, the cubs didnt use him as their closer and desided to go with Ryan Dempster instead of him. Bobby has a ring, he has saved 40 games back to back years including one on a 90 loss dog. He tied a major league record for consecutive innings without a baserunner. Yeah lets dump that for the other kid, that makes sense. Bobby faces a mucher harder american league lineup, walks less. 35 walks in 69 innings for Mr Marmol. Do you know what a panic attack we would have as a group, if a reliever walked that many batters in the 9th inning. Bobby walked only 13. Yet Mr. flavor of the month is the one you would rather have. I would rather give the ball to Bobby at the end of the game because he has the stones to finish the game out.

Carlos Marmol WHIP 1.09 35 walks in 69 innings, 3 of them intentional, 3 gophers balls given up. .170 BAA ERA 1.43

Bobby Jenks WHIP .92 13 Walks in 65 innings. 4 of them intentional only 2 gopher balls given up. .189 BAA ERA 2.77, Bobby tied the record for consecutive outs.

Domeshot17
11-13-2007, 05:38 PM
While I wouldn't trade Jenks for Marmol, you guys really sound foolish.

If Marmol was a Brave and not a Cub would he suck? Would we be ripping him? That kid is going to be a fantastic reliever, he has an electric arm and his pitches really move around a lot. Jenks is better now, but it wouldn't shock me if in 2 years Marmol was an all star closer too.

JermaineDye05
11-13-2007, 05:45 PM
While I wouldn't trade Jenks for Marmol, you guys really sound foolish.

If Marmol was a Brave and not a Cub would he suck? Would we be ripping him? That kid is going to be a fantastic reliever, he has an electric arm and his pitches really move around a lot. Jenks is better now, but it wouldn't shock me if in 2 years Marmol was an all star closer too.

I wouldn't doubt that. Although, I think in the end Bobby will be better, simply because I believe he has more pitches then Marmol. All I know of from Marmol is his electric fastball and that nasty slider (He probably has more pitches that I don't know about). Bobby however has the fastball that now appears to stay around 94-96, every once in a while hitting 97, along with the knee buckler curve, plus an occasional cutter and slider. I heard last spring training he was working on a change up but don't remember ever seeing it, maybe he scrapped the idea or perhaps he's waiting for just the right time to show it. Also I think Bobby's mechanics are a lot better.

soxwon
11-13-2007, 05:46 PM
I was waiting for someone to find the equivalent of Marmol as Jenks. :rolleyes:

Please...come talk to me when Marmol actually pitches more than a half of season.

We don't have an equivalent to Marmol, it would have to be a different position or a combination of players. Jenks >>> Marmol, though, at this point.

And I wouldn't even see Danks as an equivalent to Hill. Hill is four years older, and just made his first full season last year.

You guys are nuts!!!
Jenks 87 saves in 2.25 seasons
easily in top 3 relievers in MLB.
How many saves has Marmol got?
Not even close, wake up.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 05:49 PM
You guys are nuts!!!
Jenks 87 saves in 2.25 seasons
easily in top 3 relievers in MLB.
How many saves has Marmol got?
Not even close, wake up.

I think you're missing the argument. We're talking about value, not how good someone is. Those are two different things entirely, because value is based on need, cost, and effectiveness. Not just effectiveness. While Jenks is without a doubt better than Marmol, I would argue that Marmol has more "value" to a team like the Rays.

jabrch
11-13-2007, 05:53 PM
Rumor is they are trading Rich Hill in this deal. For the Cubs, that would be a bad idea. Their rotation would get very weak and very expensive, very quickly. They'd still not have a RF either. Typical Hendry - stockpile 2 LFs and a CF and give up a SP who just had a very successful first MLB season.

There's a reason this franchise is so historically bad.

soxwon
11-13-2007, 05:54 PM
I think you're missing the argument. We're talking about value, not how good someone is. Those are two different things entirely, because value is based on need, cost, and effectiveness. Not just effectiveness. While Jenks is without a doubt better than Marmol, I would argue that Marmol has more "value" to a team like the Rays.


ok but not buying it!!!
Jenks is proven, thats more VALUE than Marmol.
Marmol in Tampa would get shelled, Jenks not.

soxwon
11-13-2007, 05:55 PM
Rumor is they are trading Rich Hill in this deal. For the Cubs, that would be a bad idea. Their rotation would get very weak and very expensive, very quickly. They'd still not have a RF either. Typical Hendry - stockpile 2 LFs and a CF and give up a SP who just had a very successful first MLB season.

There's a reason this franchise is so historically bad.

Hey they're gonna get the ***'U"DUMMY!!!

Flight #24
11-13-2007, 05:56 PM
Rumor is they are trading Rich Hill in this deal. For the Cubs, that would be a bad idea. Their rotation would get very weak and very expensive, very quickly. They'd still not have a RF either. Typical Hendry - stockpile 2 LFs and a CF and give up a SP who just had a very successful first MLB season.

There's a reason this franchise is so historically bad.

There's also a lot of talk (or there was at least) about the Chubs going after Hiroki Kuroda. So if they were willing to spend, they could make the argument that to "buy" a Crawford in FA would be either impossible or $15M (Hunter). But if they can get one by opening a hole at SP and then fill that hole by spending $10M or so (my wild guesstimate), that could be an effective strategy......assuming you can bump payroll $10M.

Of course that still leaves the hole in the 'pen and/or reliance on Balsa.

JermaineDye05
11-13-2007, 05:58 PM
For the people that want to trade Jenks for Marmol, I would say no. Simply because he does really well against our division rivals, I think Morneau is 1-11 against Bobby with 5 k's. Granderson is like 0-8 with 7 k's. He has a 2.57 ERA against the Twins a 1.44 ERA against the Tigers.

jabrch
11-13-2007, 06:00 PM
You would trade a young, proven dominant closer for a very good relief pitcher? What are you on dude?

He was willing to trade Garland for .262/.306/.419 also.

Fortunately Kenny looks at things very differently and he values proven execution over lower cost.

jabrch
11-13-2007, 06:04 PM
There's also a lot of talk (or there was at least) about the Chubs going after Hiroki Kuroda.

Who may be Matsuzaka - but he may be Igawa. Who knows?


So if they were willing to spend, they could make the argument that to "buy" a Crawford in FA would be either impossible or $15M (Hunter).

That's true

But if they can get one by opening a hole at SP and then fill that hole by spending $10M or so (my wild guesstimate), that could be an effective strategy

10mm won't get you anything more than Jason Marquis - who they aren't thrilled with anyhow. It may not even get you Carlos Freaking Silva.

......assuming you can bump payroll $10M.

Which I am not even sure they can do given their ownership situation anyhow - but if they are, I can't see how they wouldn't be better off using the money they just saved on Jones, coupled with the 10mm and go get Hunter/Rowand/etc. and keeping Hill and Marmol.

Of course that still leaves the hole in the 'pen and/or reliance on Balsa.

And we know the likely results of both of those options.

weareud
11-13-2007, 06:08 PM
He was willing to trade Garland for .262/.306/.419 also.

Fortunately Kenny looks at things very differently and he values proven execution over lower cost.

:rolleyes:

Fix your sig too

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 06:10 PM
Damn. Soriano, Crawford, and Pie in that outfield covers a ton of ground. Not to mention they'll have the best .330 OBP at the top of the order in baseball with Soriano and Crawford 1-2.
You forgot something.

How good would Carl Crawford be if fantasy baseball didn't exist?

Lip Man 1
11-13-2007, 06:12 PM
For better or worse the Cubs seem to be pretty active again this off season.

Lip

oeo
11-13-2007, 06:14 PM
I think you're missing the argument. We're talking about value, not how good someone is. Those are two different things entirely, because value is based on need, cost, and effectiveness. Not just effectiveness. While Jenks is without a doubt better than Marmol, I would argue that Marmol has more "value" to a team like the Rays.

I agree that they would try to acquire a Marmol before a Jenks. But you said the D'Rays would trade Jenks for Marmol, and that's just complete bull****. Regardless of the money, you don't trade a proven commodity like Jenks, for someone that is still unproven in Marmol. Small market teams will squeeze out as much talent as they can for a proven commodity...they don't just give it away for one guy that has some talent, and the potential to be good; they get two or three guys with talent.

Look at the Twins, A's, Marlins, etc. for examples of this. How do you think the A's consistently have a great rotation? Or the Marlins consistently have young studs? Or the Twins have Nathan, Bonser, and Liriano?

ZombieRob
11-13-2007, 06:14 PM
For better or worse the Cubs seem to be pretty active again this off season.

Lip
Isn't usually Kenny active around early december?

oeo
11-13-2007, 06:16 PM
For better or worse the Cubs seem to be pretty active again this off season.

Lip

Because they're rumored in a blockbuster deal? The Sox haven't had any rumors? :?:

They've traded for a crappy UTIL man, and traded a bad outfielder for a PTBNL. Since when is that a lot?

And I'm not really sure where this is coming from. The Sox had very active offseasons after the '04 and '05 seasons. And the '07 offseason has barely begun.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 06:39 PM
I agree that they would try to acquire a Marmol before a Jenks. But you said the D'Rays would trade Jenks for Marmol, and that's just complete bull****. Regardless of the money, you don't trade a proven commodity like Jenks, for someone that is still unproven in Marmol. Small market teams will squeeze out as much talent as they can for a proven commodity...they don't just give it away for one guy that has some talent, and the potential to be good; they get two or three guys with talent.


You're right, I just said it wrong. I didn't mean they would trade him straight up for Marmol. Only that Marmol had more value to them, and they would trade Bobby for a package that included Marmol in an instant.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 06:40 PM
You forgot something.

How good would Carl Crawford be if fantasy baseball didn't exist?

Better than any of our outfielders.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 06:47 PM
Better than any of our outfielders.

Right now Dye is better, but long term Crawford certainly has the edge.

oeo
11-13-2007, 06:49 PM
Right now Dye is better, but long term Crawford certainly has the edge.

It depends, as you can't really compare the two, but I'd say Crawford brings more to the table. 15-20 HRs, 50+ SBs, .300+ average...I'd take him over Dye right now, and probably two years ago, too.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 06:55 PM
Right now Dye is better.

I very much disagree with that statement.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 06:55 PM
Crawford's top home run total is 18, and last year it was 11. He also needs to learn how to take a walk. Juan Uribe has more career walks in fewer plate appearances. :o:

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 06:56 PM
It depends, as you can't really compare the two, but I'd say Crawford brings more to the table. 15-20 HRs, 50+ SBs, .300+ average...I'd take him over Dye right now, and probably two years ago, too.

Dye brings 10-20 more homeruns, 10 more doubles, +.050 slugging, and more walks and a higher OBP. Plus he plays a more premium defensive position. It's close, but I would go with Dye for now.

However, when you factor in 33 vs. 26 Crawford wins in a landslide.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 06:56 PM
I very much disagree with that statement.

How so?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:03 PM
How so?

Crawford does so much more for you. He steals tons of bases. He consistantly hits for good average. And he has great range in the outfield.

Dye is very slow at his age and has had a lot of injury trouble that has hindered his offense production. And if Dye isn't hitting, he isn't doing much else to help you.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:10 PM
Crawford's top home run total is 18, and last year it was 11. He also needs to learn how to take a walk. Juan Uribe has more career walks in fewer plate appearances. :o:

Not every player needs to be a Billy Beane special to be a superstar.

Crawford steals a ton of bases. He gets a lot of extra base hits because of his speed. He gets into a lot of pitchers minds because of his speed. And, most importantly, he scores a lot of runs because of his speed. A player like Carl Crawford at the top of the lineup could make all the difference to a team like ours.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 07:15 PM
Not every player needs to be a Billy Beane special to be a superstar.

Crawford steals a ton of bases. He gets a lot of extra base hits because of his speed. He gets into a lot of pitchers minds because of his speed. And, most importantly, he scores a lot of runs because of his speed. A player like Carl Crawford at the top of the lineup could make all the difference to a team like ours.

And for all his speed, he still hits less extra base hits than Dye. Power trumps speed.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:23 PM
And for all his speed, he still hits less extra base hits than Dye. Power trumps speed.

For all that power, Carl Crawford sure did have more total bases and runs scored than Jermaine did last year. See, that's what speed does for you. And that's why our offense was so horrendous last year.

And for those who don't think Crawford gets on base enough, I should point out that the last two years, his OBP is above .350. Which is adequate for a leadoff guy with decent speed. Carl has probably top 3 in baseball speed.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 07:33 PM
For all that power, Carl Crawford sure did have more total bases and runs scored than Jermaine did last year. See, that's what speed does for you. And that's why our offense was so horrendous last year.

And for those who don't think Crawford gets on base enough, I should point out that the last two years, his OBP is above .350. Which is adequate for a leadoff guy with decent speed. Carl has probably top 3 in baseball speed.

You do realize that runs are in large part due to the other players in the lineup? And we had the worst offense in the AL? And crawford mostly batted 2nd and 3rd with Pena and his 1.0+ OPS?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:38 PM
You do realize that runs are in large part due to the other players in the lineup? And we had the worst offense in the AL? And crawford mostly batted 2nd and 3rd with Pena and his 1.0+ OPS?

Crawford had more total bases because his speed makes them. And Pena's 1.0+ OPS probably had something to do with Crawford running all over the place in front of him.

That we had the worst offense in the AL is kind of my point. Power does not trump speed. We have more power than almost any team in the AL. And we are dead last in runs. Because speed trumps power. And I'll take Crawford's package of skills any day of the week over Dye's.

Daver
11-13-2007, 07:45 PM
If you can steal bases effectively, you don't need to hit for power to be an asset, hell you don't have to hit at all if you are good at getting HBP. A base stealing threat also changes the pitcher and catcher's approach to the next hitter if he is on base, you can't put a value on that.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 07:45 PM
Not every player needs to be a Billy Beane special to be a superstar.

Crawford steals a ton of bases. He gets a lot of extra base hits because of his speed. He gets into a lot of pitchers minds because of his speed. And, most importantly, he scores a lot of runs because of his speed. A player like Carl Crawford at the top of the lineup could make all the difference to a team like ours.
No, Rickey Henderson stole a "ton" of bases. The game is different these days. Is Carl's league leading 50 SB's that much of a difference maker than Owens' 32? I'd gladly take Dye's 30 home runs over Crawford's 50 stolen bases considering Carl is only getting on base at the league average rate, and he makes a ton of outs. (468 in 2004, and 480 in 2005.)

How distracted will our number 2 hitter be with Carl on base? Less, even, or more than the pitcher and/or catcher? Don't most pitchers just concede second base to the guy? Why is Carl's home run total important if he's steal so many bases? How come teams give out huge deals to sluggers and not base stealers?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:47 PM
No, Rickey Hernderson stole a "ton" of bases. The game is different these days. Is Carl's league leading 50 SB's that much of a difference maker than Owens' 32? I'd gladly take Dye's 30 home runs over Crawford's 50 stolen bases considering Carl is only getting on base at the league average rate, and he makes a ton of outs. (468 in 2004, and 480 in 2005.)

How distracted will our number 2 hitter be with Carl on base? Less, even, or more than the pitcher and/or catcher? Don't most pitchers just concede second base to the guy?

See Daver's post, I'm pretty much gonna respond with the same thing.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 07:49 PM
See Daver's post, I'm pretty much gonna respond with the same thing.
I saw it and added more. Specifically:
---How distracted will our number 2 hitter be with Carl on base? Less, even, or more than the pitcher and/or catcher?
---Don't most pitchers just concede second base to the guy?
---Why is Carl's home run total important if he steals so many bases?

getonbckthr
11-13-2007, 07:52 PM
If you can steal bases effectively, you don't need to hit for power to be an asset, hell you don't have to hit at all if you are good at getting HBP. A base stealing threat also changes the pitcher and catcher's approach to the next hitter if he is on base, you can't put a value on that.
I think Scott Podsednik has proven your point true. 05 he was healthy and stealing bases causing hell for pitchers we were successful. Last year he played what 40 games, didnt have much of an impact on the bases and we sucked.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 07:55 PM
I saw it and added more. Specifically:
---How distracted will our number 2 hitter be with Carl on base? Less, even, or more than the pitcher and/or catcher?
---Don't most pitchers just concede second base to the guy?
---Why is Carl's home run total important if he steals so many bases?

1. It didn't bother Iguchi in 2005.
2. Then okay, every base hit and walk by Crawford is essentially a double. Hurray!
3. It isn't. He isn't that kind of player.

Let me put it this way. If Carl Crawford is at the top of our lineup, with Thome and Paulie down there, he's going to score about 120 runs. Which is about 50 more or so runs than whatever other lead-off candadite would could have acquired would do.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 08:01 PM
1. It didn't bother Iguchi in 2005.
2. Then okay, every base hit and walk by Crawford is essentially a double. Hurray!
3. It isn't. He isn't that kind of player.

Let me put it this way. If Carl Crawford is at the top of our lineup, with Thome and Paulie down there, he's going to score about 120 runs. Which is about 50 more or so runs than whatever other lead-off candadite would could have acquired would do.
1. That's not a clear answer, and Tadahito (so far) is not our #2 hitter for 2008.
2. Those types of "doubles" don't drive in runs, and 50 extra bases isn't that difficult for another OF to get, especially an OF who gets the hype that Carl does.
3. So why do people keep mentioning it? Oh right, because it's a big fantasy impact.

I also got a kick out of your comment about how much Crawford affect Pena's home run total considering 29 of Pena's 46 homer were solo shots. :rolleyes:

Just how many times did Crawford score on Pena's other 17 homers? I know there a site for it, I just don't want to go through all the game logs.

Daver
11-13-2007, 08:01 PM
I saw it and added more. Specifically:
---How distracted will our number 2 hitter be with Carl on base? Less, even, or more than the pitcher and/or catcher?
---Don't most pitchers just concede second base to the guy?
---Why is Carl's home run total important if he steals so many bases?

No.

If a pitcher is gonna concede the base, every walk becomes a home run.

The mere threat of power keeps pitchers honest about just laying one right down the middle on a 2-2 count.

champagne030
11-13-2007, 08:08 PM
For all that power, Carl Crawford sure did have more total bases and runs scored than Jermaine did last year. See, that's what speed does for you. And that's why our offense was so horrendous last year.

And for those who don't think Crawford gets on base enough, I should point out that the last two years, his OBP is above .350. Which is adequate for a leadoff guy with decent speed. Carl has probably top 3 in baseball speed.

You can't use **** like that you need to trash players like Phillips and Crawford who put up good years, covering 600 AB's and bank the season on players in LF and 2B who put up .267/.324/.312 and .230/.289/.406 because they hit during September. :rolleyes:

munchman33
11-13-2007, 08:16 PM
I also got a kick out of your comment about how much Crawford affect Pena's home run total considering 29 of Pena's 46 homer were solo shots. :rolleyes:

Just how many times did Crawford score on Pena's other 17 homers? I know there a site for it, I just don't want to go through all the game logs.

While Pena did have 29 homers with the bases empty, he was a way different hitter with runners on.

no one on .272/.393/.653
runners on .293/.430/.640

Pena also picked up 74 rbis with runners on. So while he hit 29 solo shots, he certainly got way more than his share of hits with runners on.

What does that tell us? That having runners on in front of him made him a better overall player. He stopped being a one-dimensional slugger.

Hmmmmm......I wonder which teams needs that kind of effect on their sluggers?

munchman33
11-13-2007, 08:20 PM
1. That's not a clear answer, and Tadahito (so far) is not our #2 hitter for 2008.
2. Those types of "doubles" don't drive in runs, and 50 extra bases isn't that difficult for another OF to get, especially an OF who gets the hype that Carl does.
3. So why do people keep mentioning it? Oh right, because it's a big fantasy impact.



1. Just saying that it didn't for us the last time we had a player like that.
2. If you need your leadoff guy to drive in runs, you've got problems.
3. Lots of people are idiots. If I had Crawford on my team, he'd be hitting for the gaps or on the ground.

Lip Man 1
11-13-2007, 08:36 PM
OEO:

I think you are inferring more to my statement then was intended. I'm not comparing the Sox to the Cubs. Just that it looks from all indications right now, that the Cubs are going to have another aggressive off season. That doesn't mean they'll make eight trades or bring in 10 players or spend another 100 million dollars, just that my impression is that they are going to try very hard to do what they think they need to do to improve off an 85 win season. They do seem to be in the mix for a lot of things right now.

But since you brought it up I will say this. When you go 72-90 and have needs at four or five areas, you better not be of the mind set that you think you can afford to bring back basically the same team, since in general terms, "they can't possibly be as bad as they were in 2007." Oh yes they can and the Sox can't afford the ramifications if it happens again. They can't afford it from a market share, from advertising opportunities, from fans in the seats and from media coverage.

Changes need to be made, I'd argue major changes but the market may dictate not as many as I'd prefer. Still they need to upgrade at least at two or three areas of the team where they have needs.

Lip

spiffie
11-13-2007, 08:37 PM
While Pena did have 29 homers with the bases empty, he was a way different hitter with runners on.

no one on .272/.393/.653
runners on .293/.430/.640

Pena also picked up 74 rbis with runners on. So while he hit 29 solo shots, he certainly got way more than his share of hits with runners on.

What does that tell us? That having runners on in front of him made him a better overall player. He stopped being a one-dimensional slugger.

Hmmmmm......I wonder which teams needs that kind of effect on their sluggers?
Problem is that almost every player in baseball's numbers get better with men on base, no matter how fast or slow they are.

For the entire AL in 2007:
bases empty: 263/326/416
men on base: 280/352/432

oeo
11-13-2007, 08:39 PM
OEO:

I think you are inferring more to my statement then was intended. I'm not comparing the Sox to the Cubs. Just that it looks from all indications right now, that the Cubs are going to have another aggressive off season. That doesn't mean they'll make eight trades or bring in 10 players or spend another 100 million dollars, just that my impression is that they are going to try very hard to do what they think they need to do to improve off an 85 win season. They do seem to be in the mix for a lot of things right now.

Alright, my mistake.

But since you brought it up I will say this. When you go 72-90 and have needs at four or five areas, you better not be of the mind set that you think you can afford to bring back basically the same team, since in general terms, "they can't possibly be as bad as they were in 2007." Oh yes they can and the Sox can't afford the ramifications if it happens again. They can't afford it from a market share, from advertising opportunities, from fans in the seats and from media coverage.

Changes need to be made, I'd argue major changes but the market may dictate not as many as I'd prefer. Still they need to upgrade at least at two or three areas of the team where they have needs.

Lip

And to this I repeat my statement that the offseason has barely begun.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 08:42 PM
Problem is that almost every player in baseball's numbers get better with men on base, no matter how fast or slow they are.

For the entire AL in 2007:
bases empty: 263/326/416
men on base: 280/352/432

Oh, no doubt. He was pointing to all of Pena's solo shots saying that having runners on didn't really affect him that much. I argued that Pena took a completely different plate approach because of it. He actually slugged less. And became a complete hitter instead of a one dimensional slugger.

Our guys are like that too. Without RISP, they swing for the fences. We need guys that get on and get in scoring position. There are few better than Crawford when it comes to that.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 08:44 PM
Alright, my mistake.



And to this I repeat my statement that the offseason has barely begun.

And we seem to be a day late on every player we could have used so far. Renterria went to the Tigers, and we couldn't swing that deal for Qualls because of another team. Instead, we commit to Juan Uribe.

Hurray.

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 08:51 PM
Last I checked Torii Hunter, Aaron Rowand, Scott Linebrink, Octavio Dotel, Kosuke Fukodome (sp?) and that other FA Japanese pitcher were all still on the market.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 08:59 PM
While Pena did have 29 homers with the bases empty, he was a way different hitter with runners on.

no one on .272/.393/.653
runners on .293/.430/.640

Pena also picked up 74 rbis with runners on. So while he hit 29 solo shots, he certainly got way more than his share of hits with runners on.

What does that tell us? That having runners on in front of him made him a better overall player. He stopped being a one-dimensional slugger.

Hmmmmm......I wonder which teams needs that kind of effect on their sluggers?

Wait a minute. Pena got RBIs with men on base? That can't be right.

oeo
11-13-2007, 09:00 PM
And we seem to be a day late on every player we could have used so far. Renterria went to the Tigers, and we couldn't swing that deal for Qualls because of another team. Instead, we commit to Juan Uribe.

Hurray.

The Tigers grabbed Renteria right after the World Series. And how do you know the Astros were even willing to deal Qualls?

Domeshot17
11-13-2007, 09:03 PM
Last I checked Torii Hunter, Aaron Rowand, Scott Linebrink, Octavio Dotel, Kosuke Fukodome (sp?) and that other FA Japanese pitcher were all still on the market.

And we have the money to sign 1 of them, 2 if we pawn off Contreras or Move Garland.

Now count into the fact Kenny does not build through FA and does not build by replenishing a team with minor league players, he builds through trades. Im not saying he isn't trying, or he has done anything wrong, but we needed a SS upgrade, we watched the tigers get one. We needed a set up guy, we whiffed on one and watched a good pitcher go to Philly.

Kenny said the plan would be seen soon, Im praying it does not involve being unable to swallow your pride and admit the team you built is a disaster. Kenny loves Uribe, year in and year out we hear him get backed and he talks about how wonderful of a player he is, Ozzie loves him, you think we really were getting a SS upgrade?

I just have this feeling we sign Hunter and don't get much else done. We bring in some guys who throw 97 without a 2nd or 3rd pitch and not much control to be in the pen again, and maybe they turn into jenks, and maybe they turn in aardsma.

There are a million questions, and it seems like the answer all lies with the first move, kind of like a domino effect, once one falls they all start too. Its only day 1, but another offseason like last year and we are looking at last place.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 09:05 PM
Oh, no doubt. He was pointing to all of Pena's solo shots saying that having runners on didn't really affect him that much. I argued that Pena took a completely different plate approach because of it. He actually slugged less. And became a complete hitter instead of a one dimensional slugger.

Our guys are like that too. Without RISP, they swing for the fences. We need guys that get on and get in scoring position. There are few better than Crawford when it comes to that.

Actually there were 41 players in the AL alone that got on better base better than Crawford.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 09:05 PM
Wait a minute. Pena got RBIs with men on base? That can't be right.

Read the rest of the explanation. Pena stopped being one dimensional with runners on base. I'd like to see our hitters respond that way, which is a big reason why I want Crawford here.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 09:08 PM
Actually there were 41 players in the AL alone that got on better base better than Crawford.

And how many of those guys are leadoff candadites? Jim Thome had a better OBP. So did Dye.

Leadoff guys need to be able to move. OBP is important, but if you're on base and clogging the bases, that's not necessarily good. It kills rallies, because it cause a lot of double plays and requires more hits to drive guys in.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 09:09 PM
Read the rest of the explanation. Pena stopped being one dimensional with runners on base. I'd like to see our hitters respond that way, which is a big reason why I want Crawford here.

You want all our hitter to be as good as Pena was last year? Me too. Crawford won't magically make it happen.

My point in this thread is not that Crawford isn't a good player or that he wouldn't help the Sox. I just argue that Dye (and I guess I should add the qualifier, when healthy) is a better player than Crawford.

mjmcend
11-13-2007, 09:11 PM
And how many of those guys are leadoff candadites? Jim Thome had a better OBP. So did Dye.

Leadoff guys need to be able to move. OBP is important, but if you're on base and clogging the bases, that's not necessarily good. It kills rallies, because it cause a lot of double plays and requires more hits to drive guys in.

If Crawford was on base more then more of Pena's homeruns would not have been solo shots. His speed isn't a major factor there. His inability to take a walk is.

Sockinchisox
11-13-2007, 09:19 PM
And we have the money to sign 1 of them, 2 if we pawn off Contreras or Move Garland.

Now count into the fact Kenny does not build through FA and does not build by replenishing a team with minor league players, he builds through trades. Im not saying he isn't trying, or he has done anything wrong, but we needed a SS upgrade, we watched the tigers get one. We needed a set up guy, we whiffed on one and watched a good pitcher go to Philly.

Kenny said the plan would be seen soon, Im praying it does not involve being unable to swallow your pride and admit the team you built is a disaster. Kenny loves Uribe, year in and year out we hear him get backed and he talks about how wonderful of a player he is, Ozzie loves him, you think we really were getting a SS upgrade?

I just have this feeling we sign Hunter and don't get much else done. We bring in some guys who throw 97 without a 2nd or 3rd pitch and not much control to be in the pen again, and maybe they turn into jenks, and maybe they turn in aardsma.

There are a million questions, and it seems like the answer all lies with the first move, kind of like a domino effect, once one falls they all start too. Its only day 1, but another offseason like last year and we are looking at last place.

I agree, but I don't think (or hope) Kenny is dumb enough to go get hard throwers with no control again and hope Cooper fixes them.

And I knew Uribe was going to be our 2008 SS the last week of the season when Kenny said "Juan Uribe is not our problem".

The guy I was responding to said that all of our options were already gone and I was just naming lots of players that are still available.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 09:40 PM
If Crawford was on base more then more of Pena's homeruns would not have been solo shots. His speed isn't a major factor there. His inability to take a walk is.

As I mentioned earlier, over the last two years, he's gotten on base more than 35% of the time. That's pretty dang good, it's way better than anything we have, and he's exactly the type of player to get the most out of those times on base.

munchman33
11-13-2007, 09:45 PM
You want all our hitter to be as good as Pena was last year? Me too. Crawford won't magically make it happen.

My point in this thread is not that Crawford isn't a good player or that he wouldn't help the Sox. I just argue that Dye (and I guess I should add the qualifier, when healthy) is a better player than Crawford.

Dye's health and age are major reasons Crawford is better. Not only because younger players will be productive longer. Or that Dye's offense last year was none to good. But because Dye can't run anymore. He's about as slow as Thome is. That's horrifically slow. Yeah, he can drive in runs. But when he gets on base, he clogs the bases. Not to mention, he's become a defensive liability at his position.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 09:51 PM
While Pena did have 29 homers with the bases empty, he was a way different hitter with runners on.

no one on .272/.393/.653
runners on .293/.430/.640

Pena also picked up 74 rbis with runners on. So while he hit 29 solo shots, he certainly got way more than his share of hits with runners on.

What does that tell us? That having runners on in front of him made him a better overall player. He stopped being a one-dimensional slugger.

Hmmmmm......I wonder which teams needs that kind of effect on their sluggers?
20 points difference in OPS makes him "way different?"
74 RBI's with runners on? No. He had 92 RBI's (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6621/situational;_ylt=ArF3CaP5H3sTcXpmTFO5JDuFCLcF)with runners on because 121-29 = 92. :rolleyes:

http://www.pointsincase.com/nathan/uploaded_images/mccarver-744739.jpg
"Guys with high RBI totals tend to have high RBI totals with runners on base as well."

RBI's are no way to evalutate a player's hitting ability.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 09:55 PM
If Crawford was on base more then more of Pena's homeruns would not have been solo shots. His speed isn't a major factor there. His inability to take a walk is.
Thank you. :thumbsup:

spiffie
11-13-2007, 10:17 PM
Oh, no doubt. He was pointing to all of Pena's solo shots saying that having runners on didn't really affect him that much. I argued that Pena took a completely different plate approach because of it. He actually slugged less. And became a complete hitter instead of a one dimensional slugger.

Our guys are like that too. Without RISP, they swing for the fences. We need guys that get on and get in scoring position. There are few better than Crawford when it comes to that.
White Sox 2007:
bases empty: 240/302/394
men on base: 256/339/420
with RISP: 243/335/390

I guess they swing away when there's a man on first...

DrCrawdad
11-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Bruce takes a lot of long shots in his updates hoping to scoop his competition and tends to be a bit more belligerent about it. I've heard some nasty tirades from him in the past...

I have not listened much to AM1000 much since the Sox left that station (which BTW I love 'cos AM1000's signal is awful out here in the western 'burbs at night) so as a result I have not heard much from LeVineLine. Can't say I miss that arrogant pud nor his breathless reports on the Cubbies.

Oblong
11-13-2007, 10:40 PM
Pena hit .326/.406/.653 with a runner on first. With a runner on second it was .190/.521/.286. So that tells me he may have benefited from the first baseman holding the runner. As well as getting walked a lot with 1B open.

What was interesting was leading off an inning he hit .292/.405/.717 with 13 homers.

But one season of data for a player is really not enough to talk about his mental characteristics or ability to "step it up" when needed.

santo=dorf
11-13-2007, 10:48 PM
Pena hit .326/.406/.653 with a runner on first. With a runner on second it was .190/.521/.286. So that tells me he may have benefited from the first baseman holding the runner. As well as getting walked a lot with 1B open.

What was interesting was leading off an inning he hit .292/.405/.717 with 13 homers.

But one season of data for a player is really not enough to talk about his mental characteristics or ability to "step it up" when needed.
That's an incrdible stat.
So when the runner's on first, Carlos crushed the ball.
When the runner was on second (premusably after he stole it) Carlos couldn't get a hit, and the pitchers were scared to face him.

So how does stealing second benefit the batter?

Foulke You
11-14-2007, 12:29 AM
I love it how posters automatically are willing to trade Bobby for a guy who just pitched his first season. Oh the same player that is so good, the cubs didnt use him as their closer and desided to go with Ryan Dempster instead of him. Bobby has a ring, he has saved 40 games back to back years including one on a 90 loss dog. He tied a major league record for consecutive innings without a baserunner. Yeah lets dump that for the other kid, that makes sense. Bobby faces a mucher harder american league lineup, walks less. 35 walks in 69 innings for Mr Marmol. Do you know what a panic attack we would have as a group, if a reliever walked that many batters in the 9th inning. Bobby walked only 13. Yet Mr. flavor of the month is the one you would rather have. I would rather give the ball to Bobby at the end of the game because he has the stones to finish the game out.

Carlos Marmol WHIP 1.09 35 walks in 69 innings, 3 of them intentional, 3 gophers balls given up. .170 BAA ERA 1.43

Bobby Jenks WHIP .92 13 Walks in 65 innings. 4 of them intentional only 2 gopher balls given up. .189 BAA ERA 2.77, Bobby tied the record for consecutive outs.
Excellent points. Marmol had himself a very good season in '07 and was arguably the Cubs bullpen MVP. However, it was one season and we all know how relievers can look great for one year and the next year things go kablooey. In 2005, Neal Cotts had what I consider to be a similar year to what Marmol had last year. A microscopic E.R.A., a young pitcher appearing to come into his own, a converted starter, etc. We all know what happened to Cotts after that one great year. I'm not saying that this will happen to Marmol but Jenks is a proven top closer for 2 and a half years now and has a ring. Marmol has had one good season in a bad division. Let's hold off comparisons until the kid has a few more seasons under his belt.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 12:31 AM
That's an incrdible stat.
So when the runner's on first, Carlos crushed the ball.
When the runner was on second (premusably after he stole it) Carlos couldn't get a hit, and the pitchers were scared to face him.

So how does stealing second benefit the batter?

Because the guy on first is a stolen base threat. So pitchers are pitching from the stretch. That stat doesn't surprise me at all.

Domeshot17
11-14-2007, 12:36 AM
Because the guy on first is a stolen base threat. So pitchers are pitching from the stretch. That stat doesn't surprise me at all.

It has nothing to do with the stretch

It has to do with lineup protection. TB has good hitters but not much power threat. When a runner moves to 2nd and first is open, they can pitch around him, he sees more junk, when the runner is on first he sees fastballs

munchman33
11-14-2007, 12:42 AM
It has nothing to do with the stretch

It has to do with lineup protection. TB has good hitters but not much power threat. When a runner moves to 2nd and first is open, they can pitch around him, he sees more junk, when the runner is on first he sees fastballs

No, I'm talking about his line with a runner on first. The opposing pitcher is definately pitching from the stretch.

But yes, when the runner is on second what you say makes sense too.

In answer to Santo's question, think about our lineup.

Say Crawford steals second with Thome at the plate. If the pitchers pitches around Thome, he'll take the walk. So we'd see Paulie up with first and second. That's the effect Crawford has.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 12:54 AM
Dye's health and age are major reasons Crawford is better. Not only because younger players will be productive longer. Or that Dye's offense last year was none to good. But because Dye can't run anymore. He's about as slow as Thome is. That's horrifically slow. Yeah, he can drive in runs. But when he gets on base, he clogs the bases. Not to mention, he's become a defensive liability at his position.

Like I said from the beginning, going forward I would rather have Crawford because of age and health. However, Dye has been a better player than Crawford when he has been healthy. Even last year with Dye's slow start, he still had a year about as productive as Crawford. Even by your favorite worthless stat, runs, he only scored 25 less runs in 76 less ABs. And this is hitting lower in the order, and in the ALs worst offense.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 02:31 AM
Like I said from the beginning, going forward I would rather have Crawford because of age and health. However, Dye has been a better player than Crawford when he has been healthy. Even last year with Dye's slow start, he still had a year about as productive as Crawford. Even by your favorite worthless stat, runs, he only scored 25 less runs in 76 less ABs. And this is hitting lower in the order, and in the ALs worst offense.

Well, lets put it this way. Ask all 30 general managers who they'd rather have next year. One year contract. Same amount of money for both guys. Do any of them take Dye? Zero chance.

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 10:44 AM
Well, lets put it this way. Ask all 30 general managers who they'd rather have next year. One year contract. Same amount of money for both guys. Do any of them take Dye? Zero chance.

Depends on team's needs. I can think of the Mets, Red Sox, Cubs (if they were smart), Indians, Astros, Pirates, Phillies, and Mariners based on their need in right field alone.

Gammons Peter
11-14-2007, 10:52 AM
Depends on team's needs. I can think of the Mets, Red Sox, Cubs (if they were smart), Indians, Astros, Pirates, Phillies, and Mariners based on their need in right field alone.

You have no idea what you're talking about,
Crawford plays better D than Dye at ANY OF position

mjmcend
11-14-2007, 11:01 AM
You have no idea what you're talking about,
Crawford plays better D than Dye at ANY OF position

I wouldn't want to see Crawford in right. And those teams except the Red Sox are in a greater need of power than speed/ lead off hitter.

Sockinchisox
11-14-2007, 12:34 PM
As if there was really any doubt.

from rotoworld:

The Rays say there's nothing to the rumors that have Carl Crawford going to the Cubs or being involved in a three-team deal with the Yankees and Brewers.
Talks with the Cubs had reportedly involved Rich Hill and Eric Patterson. The Rays would want a very good young pitcher in a deal for Crawford. Unlike with the Marlins and Miguel Cabrera, there are no financial issues in play here.
Source: Bradenton Herald (http://www.bradenton.com/breakingsports/story/200836.html)
Related: Cubs (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_relatednews.aspx?sport=MLB&majteam=CHC), Brewers (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_relatednews.aspx?sport=MLB&majteam=MLW), Yankees (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_relatednews.aspx?sport=MLB&majteam=NYY)

thedudeabides
11-14-2007, 12:39 PM
I am more impressed with triples than home runs, but it's amazing the number of triples that don't lead to any runs when they're hit with the bases empty. There also are players that hit what should be triples but end up as doubles because of base runners. Often the team doesn't wave a runner in on a close play with less than two outs.

Where people hit in the order depends on what a team has to work with. A leadoff hitter is a hitter who leads off. If Crawford played for the White Sox, he would probably lead off because he would have the skills on the team best suited for leading off. The number two hitter would have part-time responsibilities of moving the runner for the power hitters, assuming the team still has power hitters.

Saying Crawford isn't a lead off man is like saying Granderson isn't a lead off man because he strikes out so much. Granderson struck out more than 140 times in 2007, which was an improvement because he struck out more than 170 times in 2006.

If Crawford is in the White Sox lineup, he definitely would have more triples as a leadoff man than as someone who hit deeper in the lineup. If he batted second or third and came up with no one on base, there wouldn't be a runner to slow him down, but if you're looking for two-out thunder from your best hitters, triples with no one on base aren't much better than doubles.

I agree with him being able to lead off with the White Sox. I'm sick of everyone saying he can't lead off. He said a couple of years ago he wasn't feeling comfortable leading off. He may change his tune in a lineup with some protection, and a couple of more years in the league. His numbers last year were better across the board than Pods leading off in 2005, except strikeouts. I just think if the Sox were going to acquire him, it would be to lead off. He's much better than any other option that is currently on the roster.

I don't think it's going to matter, because I don't see him playing for the Sox any time soon.

JermaineDye05
11-14-2007, 06:47 PM
I thought this thread was about the Cubs supposedly trading for Crawford..I guess I was wrong.

munchman33
11-14-2007, 06:48 PM
I thought this thread was about the Cubs supposedly trading for Crawford..I guess I was wrong.

It's turned into a debate about whether Crawford's style of baseball is valueable.

JermaineDye05
11-14-2007, 07:11 PM
It's turned into a debate about whether Crawford's style of baseball is valueable.

ah well then I have a comment to that...Yes.

Frater Perdurabo
11-15-2007, 06:05 AM
He's not a lead off hitter.

That's because the Rays' manager doesn't write his name into the leadoff spot.

If Crawford was on the Sox, he would be leading off because his skill set matches the job more than any other player currently on the Sox roster.

russ99
11-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Not sure if you guys are in on this, but some of the trade suggestions Cub fans are making for Crawford on our favorite rumor site are absolutely hilarious.

The usual assumption by most Cub fans that Hendry can trade a bag of balls for an All-star is in full effect... :D:

EndemicSox
11-15-2007, 01:07 PM
The Flubs need to take this offer while it's on the table. Crawford's OBP has been rising for a while now and he is only 26. Rich Hill was hit very hard by most teams with a pulse, and while Marmol is simply a stud, his throwing motion will probably contribute to a significant injury down the road.

mjmcend
11-15-2007, 01:10 PM
The Flubs need to take this offer while it's on the table. Crawford's OBP has been rising for a while now and he is only 26. Rich Hill was hit very hard by most teams with a pulse, and while Marmol is simply a stud, his throwing motion will probably contribute to a significant injury down the road.

Everything I have read states that it is not on the table. The Cubs machine is making up bull**** again.

Nellie_Fox
11-15-2007, 03:50 PM
The homer/triple hijack has been split into its own thread. Feel free to discuss the actual topic of this thread here.