PDA

View Full Version : SuperPoll: Thomas+Rowand vs. Thome+Anderson/Erstad


PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 03:31 PM
YOU'RE THE SOX GENERAL MANAGER!

On October 31, 2005 the Sox gave Carl Everett his release. 25 days later the Sox traded everyday CF Aaron Rowand to Philadelphia for DH Jim Thome, effectively ending the Sox career of Frank Thomas, too. The Sox never replaced Rowand in center field choosing instead to promote Brian Anderson (2006) and later sign free agent Darin Erstad (2007).

With 20/20 hindsight, do YOU make the move to trade Rowand (and a minor leaguer) for Thome, thus losing Thomas and gaining Anderson/Erstad in the everyday line up?

Enquiring minds want to know.
:cool:

areilly
11-17-2007, 03:46 PM
Sure I'll keep Rowand and Frank, then I'll also not pull the El Duque/Vazquez deal, and trade Cotts and Politte that same winter.


:rolleyes:

oeo
11-17-2007, 03:47 PM
What's the point of this? Who wouldn't take Rowand over a hole in CF?

Where's the 'This poll sucks' option?

soxinem1
11-17-2007, 03:56 PM
I'd take Chris Singleton's 1999 season in CF anytime.

While I voted for Rowand/Thomas, I personally do not like making such calls after the fact, especially if I knew that Guillen wouldn't even give BA the opportunity to fully land the CF spot.

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 03:58 PM
YOU'RE THE SOX GENERAL MANAGER!

On October 31, 2005 the Sox gave Carl Everett his release. 25 days later the Sox traded everyday CF Aaron Rowand to Philadelphia for DH Jim Thome, effectively ending the Sox career of Frank Thomas, too. The Sox never replaced Rowand in center field choosing instead to promote Brian Anderson (2006) and later sign free agent Darin Erstad (2007).

With 20/20 hindsight, do YOU make the move to trade Rowand (and a minor leaguer) for Thome, thus losing Thomas and gaining Anderson/Erstad in the everyday line up?

Enquiring minds want to know.
:cool:


This thread rules.

Here's what I would do:

Keep Rowand and Thomas

Replace Cotts and Politte

Trade Contreras for some top prospects (I heard there was a SS out in colorado named Troy something or other)

Sign Flash Gordon

A. Cavatica
11-17-2007, 04:03 PM
With hindsight, you keep Thomas and Rowand -- but at the time it was the right deal to make. That's how I voted, make the deal.

thomas35forever
11-17-2007, 04:06 PM
Keep Frank because he's my favorite player ever.

Keep Rowand because...well...you know.

MUsoxfan
11-17-2007, 04:06 PM
I still make the Rowand/Thome trade and hope that a prospect even sort of pans out.

Frater Perdurabo
11-17-2007, 04:07 PM
Since you asked what I would do if I was the GM, and since I have the benefit of hindsight...

I do a third option. I do the Rowand/Thome deal but offer Thomas arbitration with the intent of offering him a new deal, knowing full well that he won't be ready to play until late May and accepting the risk that he might not be able to come back at all.

I let Anderson start in CF every single day strictly for his defense, live with his sub-par hitting in the 9-hole, and hope that with regular play (i.e. not getting benched every third day) he figures things out at the plate, doesn't develop a bad attitude, and becomes productive in 2007.

Once both Thome and Thomas are healthy, I platoon them at DH, just like Everett and Thomas were platooned when Thomas was healthy in 2005.

If that's too much money, I take the PR hit and let Paulie go to the Angels, and after making the Mackowiak-Marte trade, have Mackowiak play 1B, with Thome picking up some starts at 1B to get both him and Thomas in the lineup.

In fact, if you look at my posts from that time, you'll see that I advocated much of this. Like many others, I coveted Mackowiak for his versatility and his left-handed bat (although I preferred making a run at Brian Giles, who ended up re-signing with San Diego, and I advocated moving Dye to first). Like some others, I wanted the Sox to hang onto Frank. Like few others, I was OK if the Sox let Paulie leave.

So here's my hindsight lineup for 2006 and 2007:
LF Pods
2B Iguchi
DH Thome/Frank
RF Dye
C AJ
3B Crede
SS Uribe
1B Mackowiak
CF Anderson

Keep in mind that Thome/Frank is not a straight platoon, as Thome would get a few starts at 1B to get both of them in the lineup, and when that wasn't the case, one of them ALWAYS would be available to pinch hit.

:tongue:

Want even more hindsight? I sign Furcal and trade Uribe for bullpen help.

Lineup: Pods, Furcal, Thome/Thomas, Dye, AJ, Crede, Mackowiak, Iguchi, Anderson.

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 04:10 PM
We agree: cut Paulie:D:

Frater Perdurabo
11-17-2007, 04:11 PM
We agree: cut Paulie:D:

Sometimes it takes some serious brass balls to be an armchair hindsight GM. :tongue:

CLR01
11-17-2007, 04:12 PM
YOU'RE THE SOX GENERAL MANAGER!

On October 31, 2005 the Sox gave Carl Everett his release. 25 days later the Sox traded everyday CF Aaron Rowand to Philadelphia for DH Jim Thome, effectively ending the Sox career of Frank Thomas, too. The Sox never replaced Rowand in center field choosing instead to promote Brian Anderson (2006) and later sign free agent Darin Erstad (2007).

With 20/20 hindsight, do YOU make the move to trade Rowand (and a minor leaguer) for Thome, thus losing Thomas and gaining Anderson/Erstad in the everyday line up?

Enquiring minds want to know.
:cool:

I would have traded Rowand's ass to Japan and I never would have signed Erstad. But I guess in this game I don't really get to pretend I am the GM now do I?

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 04:13 PM
I would go find all the rookies that were successful this year and offer established position players for them along with prospies....since this is 2 years ago, teams would be more likely to give them up for sure things.

Think of what we could have gotten for Uribe, Cotts, and Politte plus cash after 2005. Think we could have gotten Tulowitski?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 05:15 PM
I would have traded Rowand's ass to Japan and I never would have signed Erstad. But I guess in this game I don't really get to pretend I am the GM now do I?

Interesting. Who in Japan are you trading with? And if I can be so bold I'm guessing you fire Ozzie for not appreciating the budding superstar Brian Anderson is and bring back the kid for a second season in center field in 2007, too?

You can pretend to be whoever you want to be. But good luck defending it.

:wink:

areilly
11-17-2007, 05:29 PM
I'd take Chris Singleton's 1999 season in CF anytime.

This thread rules.

Here's what I would do:

Keep Rowand and Thomas

Replace Cotts and Politte

Trade Contreras for some top prospects (I heard there was a SS out in colorado named Troy something or other)

Sign Flash Gordon

I would go find all the rookies that were successful this year and offer established position players for them along with prospies....since this is 2 years ago, teams would be more likely to give them up for sure things.


Man, the 2006 Sox are gonna be awesome.

SS- Freddy Sanchez
2B - Iguchi
DH - Thomas
1B- Konerko
RF - Dye
LF - Carl Crawford
CF - Rowand
3B - Crede
C - AJP

Domeshot17
11-17-2007, 05:29 PM
I do the trade again. Rowand doesnt make an all star team or win a gold glove in the AL. Konerko doesn't resign if we don't get Thome, and unlike some here, Im all for keeping our best hitter. I loved big frank, growing up he was my favorite player, but how can you go into 2006 with him as a question mark. Its pretty much even anyway. Frank carried oakland in the 2nd half, but Thome carried us in the first. Thome and Rowand weren't Buehrle Cotts Politte Jenks etc. giving up homers and getting shelled.

I mean lets be real, we keep Frank, you think he works half as hard as he did in oakland to prove us wrong? Not a chance, Frank was fat and happy here. Leaving was the best thing for all parties.

The only thing I would have done different is told Kenny to keep his damn mouth shut in the media about Frank because Frank Thomas has done more for the city and for Sox Fans then Kenny Williams.

CLR01
11-17-2007, 05:39 PM
Interesting. Who in Japan are you trading with? And if I can be so bold I'm guessing you fire Ozzie for not appreciating the budding superstar Brian Anderson is and bring back the kid for a second season in center field in 2007, too?

You can pretend to be whoever you want to be. But good luck defending it.

:wink:

Whoever could find me a teppanyaki chef willing to relocate and work cheap. :dunno:

Yes, I probably would have brought Anderson back for the '07 season and given him until the all-star break to sink or swim. I also would have fired my poker playing hitting instructor and found someone willing to break the kids swing down and correct it rather than just "let his natural ability get him through it". I wouldn't have fired Ozzie, he would have probably quit when I told him Satan is the man in CF whether he liked it or not. Worst case scenario is the Sox miss the playoffs the next two years and Sox fans still love me for '05. I guess it could be worse. http://whitesoxinteractive.com/chisox716/shrug.gif

DumpJerry
11-17-2007, 05:46 PM
I'll also not pull the El Duque/Vazquez deal,
Huh? have you compared the records? Have you compared their health? Have you compared their dates of birth?

hi im skot
11-17-2007, 05:49 PM
I'd take Chris Singleton's 1999 season in CF anytime.

While I voted for Rowand/Thomas, I personally do not like making such calls after the fact, especially if I knew that Guillen wouldn't even give BA the opportunity to fully land the CF spot.

What do you call 2006, then?

areilly
11-17-2007, 06:10 PM
Huh? have you compared the records? Have you compared their health? Have you compared their dates of birth?

Yes, but thanks to the miracle of this patented HindSight technology, I know that this team is going to need a pitcher who shines in the postseason. In MY 2006, El Duque doesn't get hurt; those were all products of unfortunate circumstances brought on by his presence on the D-Backs/Mets payrolls. In my 2006 SoxLand, he'd be fine because Herm is awesome and Coop would totally fix him. Also, Duque's presence would stabilize Contreras because they're friends.

And Buehrle would have a better 2006 too, because Duque can pass on his old-timey baseball wisdom on how to not get lit up in the early innings. And Frank Thomas would hit 100 home runs minimum, because having a manager and general manager who didn't like him all that much would totally NOT affect his play because now I'm the GM and Frank is awesome! Yay!

Best of all, still-a-Sox-prospect Chris Young would also get called up later in the year and be awesome too, allowing my JD/Crawford/Rowand outfield to rest where needed and be fresh for the World Series which this awesome 2006 team would, naturally, win.

Daver
11-17-2007, 06:28 PM
What do you call 2006, then?

Ozzie Guillen playing mind games and sending a message to Kenny that he doesn't want to play an unproven young player. Naming someone the starting and then sitting him the second day of the season speaks volumes on what Ozzie thought of BA.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-17-2007, 06:50 PM
I say we don't trade Rowand.

And we don't trade Bucky Dent, Luis Aparicio, Mike Cameron, Brian Downing, or any guys like them.

oeo
11-17-2007, 06:56 PM
Ozzie Guillen playing mind games and sending a message to Kenny that he doesn't want to play an unproven young player. Naming someone the starting and then sitting him the second day of the season speaks volumes on what Ozzie thought of BA.

Iguchi also wasn't in the lineup...I guess Ozzie hated him, as well. Oh, then on the third game, Crede didn't play. Well, crap, I guess Ozzie has issues with him too.

I can go on and on...the fourth game: Pods, Dye, and AJ didn't start. As a matter of fact, out of the first 10 games, the only two guys that started every game were Thome and Konerko. Anderson started 8 out of those 10 games.

Ozzie sits his starters all the time...

Taliesinrk
11-17-2007, 07:18 PM
Huh? have you compared the records? Have you compared their health? Have you compared their dates of birth?

Have you compared Chris Young vs. one-ankled Darin Erstad/ Jerry Owens?

EDIT: I just noticed that this had already been mentioned the thread after...

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 07:40 PM
Iguchi also wasn't in the lineup...I guess Ozzie hated him, as well. Oh, then on the third game, Crede didn't play. Well, crap, I guess Ozzie has issues with him too.

I can go on and on...the fourth game: Pods, Dye, and AJ didn't start. As a matter of fact, out of the first 10 games, the only two guys that started every game were Thome and Konerko. Anderson started 8 out of those 10 games.

Ozzie sits his starters all the time...

And once again you overlook the difference between how a veteran should be treated vs. a player with like 20 career MLB at bats

fquaye149
11-17-2007, 07:41 PM
Have you compared Chris Young vs. one-ankled Darin Erstad/ Jerry Owens?

Yup. Chris Young put up some pretty underwhelming #'s despite his late 2007 surge...

Zisk77
11-17-2007, 08:28 PM
I would have traded palehosegeorge and anybody else who makes polls for a deep dish pizza and a case of tom tom hot tamales. :tongue:

Thome25
11-17-2007, 09:27 PM
I took my screen name because I'm a HUGE Thome fan but, the trade for Thome opened up a hole in CF that we still haven't filled. And it seems Thome and Thomas' production have been a wash.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 09:27 PM
I think it's perfectly reasonable to note that the primary reason for trading Rowand was simply to upgrade at DH. But with 20/20 hindsight we now know Thomas wasn't a bad player these past 2 years and Thome's incremental production isn't nearly worth the loss of Rowand -- a ballplayer the Sox STILL haven't replaced.

While others here seem determined to start yet another fight over Brian Anderson, the truth is he NEVER gets even 200 major league at-bats in '06 if Rowand is still around. Instead he sits most of the 2006 season in the minors along with his more accomplished understudy, Chris Young.

And as for the notion that Sox Fans are pollyannas for supporting KW, I think most of us with 20/20 hindsight realize it was a BIG MISTAKE trading for Thome... and KW's irrational rant about Thomas looms even larger now that we see what KW getting rid of Thomas has truly cost the Sox these past two seasons. KW is a goat in my book for making this trade and history backs me up.

I would rather love KW for not making this deal than love Brian Anderson for failing to make KW look like a genius.
:dunno:

Frater Perdurabo
11-17-2007, 09:29 PM
And as for the notion that Sox Fans are pollyannas for supporting KW, I think most of us with 20/20 hindsight realize it was a BIG MISTAKE trading for Thome... and KW's irrational rant about Thomas looms even larger now that we see what KW getting rid of Thomas has truly cost the Sox these past two seasons. KW is a goat in my book for making this trade and history backs me up.

I would rather love KW for not making this deal than love Brian Anderson for failing to make KW look like a genius.
:dunno:

You didn't respond to my hindsight/foresight, George. :tongue:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 09:41 PM
You didn't respond to my hindsight/foresight, George.
:tongue:

Trade away the sainted keeper of the world championship baseball, the man with the Eastern-bloc sounding name, hero to every slow-footed balding dude with a bad body living between Zion and Michigan City?

You would trade Paul Konerko???

Me, too.
:wink:

Palehose13
11-17-2007, 10:05 PM
And as for the notion that Sox Fans are pollyannas for supporting KW, I think most of us with 20/20 hindsight realize it was a BIG MISTAKE trading for Thome... and KW's irrational rant about Thomas looms even larger now that we see what KW getting rid of Thomas has truly cost the Sox these past two seasons. KW is a goat in my book for making this trade and history backs me up.

I would rather love KW for not making this deal than love Brian Anderson for failing to make KW look like a genius.
:dunno:

I supported the deal at the time even though Rowand was (is) one of my favorite players. However, I do agree with you George that in hindsight it was bad move. Regardless of the AL vs. NL argument, Rowand is still a solid player. Thomas and Thome is pretty much a wash, except that Frank probably would have come cheaper and it would have been most excellent to have had him hit it 500th HR in a Sox uniform.

AJ Hellraiser
11-17-2007, 10:28 PM
There should have been a third option... something like hindsight is 20/20...

Clearly, now most would prefer the first one... Heck, even I do considering Frank Thomas is my favorite player ever and has gone on to put up good numbers each of the last 2 seasons...

However, at the time.... KW can't be faulted for doing what he did.... He traded an average CF for one of the best left-handed power hitters in the game to fill a void and give the SOX the best chance to win again in 2006...

Meanwhile, Frank was coming off serious leg injuries and aging as well.. he was unreliable...

Any GM out there would have made that trade, and if you wouldn't have then you don't know baseball very well...

PaleHoseGeorge
11-17-2007, 11:34 PM
...

However, at the time.... KW can't be faulted for doing what he did.... He traded an average CF for one of the best left-handed power hitters in the game to fill a void and give the SOX the best chance to win again in 2006...

Meanwhile, Frank was coming off serious leg injuries and aging as well.. he was unreliable...

I agree with the pragmatic notion that hindsight is always 20/20, but I still fault KW because the premise behind this trade was most-definitely flawed even two years ago when Kenny made it.

Yes, getting a left-handed power hitter was a nice pick up, but trading away a centerfielder for equal value on a designated hitter was tragically flawed logic. You can always get another designated hitter, and KW seems to confirm this notion by releasing Carl Everett almost as soon as the ticker tape parade confetti was swept up. However getting another centerfielder isn't nearly so easy and KW is still trying to find a replacement two full years after trading Rowand.

It's also flawed to think Thome represented a significant upgrade over Thomas. Again, we're talking about designated hitters here. Even if Frank Thomas got injured, a suitable DH to replace him can be found quite easily because virtually any aging hitter (from either league) is qualified to serve as a substitute. Jose Canseco and Carl Everett are two obvious examples. Meanwhile you've saved yourself the difficult job of finding another centerfielder, a position far fewer players are qualified to play.


Any GM out there would have made that trade, and if you wouldn't have then you don't know baseball very well...

Any GM who doesn't understand the value of a centerfielder over the value of a designated hitter would make that trade, and I agree any such GM doesn't know baseball very well.

oeo
11-17-2007, 11:35 PM
And once again you overlook the difference between how a veteran should be treated vs. a player with like 20 career MLB at bats

So Brian should be playing all 162 games?

So he got a couple days off, big ****ing deal. You're just grasping at bull****. He was the starter at the beginning of the season. I keep hearing how the time was split with Mackowiak all year long, so I finally checked to see for sure how much he played...now I'm hearing that he should never get a day off. And if Ozzie never gave him a day off, there'd be the 'he's too fatigued' excuse.

Anderson wasn't doing his job, that's why he started losing playing time as the season went on. He stunk...it's that simple. You guys can keep coming up with your conspiracy theories, though; I will continue to laugh at them.

Taliesinrk
11-17-2007, 11:41 PM
So Brian should be playing all 162 games?

So he got a couple days off, big ****ing deal. You're just grasping at bull****. Anderson wasn't doing his job, that's why he started losing playing time as the season went on. He stunk...it's that simple. You guys can keep coming up with your conspiracy theories.

ah hell.. here we go again. all i'm going to say is that that's an inaccurate portrayal of history. please review the 2006 season again.

oeo
11-17-2007, 11:51 PM
ah hell.. here we go again. all i'm going to say is that that's an inaccurate portrayal of history. please review the 2006 season again.

He had a nice 5 or 6 weeks there where he wasn't worthless, after Ozzie 'benched him.' Then the 'benching' apparently hurt him more in September than it did in July or August.

AJ Hellraiser
11-18-2007, 01:06 AM
I agree with the pragmatic notion that hindsight is always 20/20, but I still fault KW because the premise behind this trade was most-definitely flawed even two years ago when Kenny made it.

Yes, getting a left-handed power hitter was a nice pick up, but trading away a centerfielder for equal value on a designated hitter was tragically flawed logic. You can always get another designated hitter, and KW seems to confirm this notion by releasing Carl Everett almost as soon as the ticker tape parade confetti was swept up. However getting another centerfielder isn't nearly so easy and KW is still trying to find a replacement two full years after trading Rowand.

It's also flawed to think Thome represented a significant upgrade over Thomas. Again, we're talking about designated hitters here. Even if Frank Thomas got injured, a suitable DH to replace him can be found quite easily because virtually any aging hitter (from either league) is qualified to serve as a substitute. Jose Canseco and Carl Everett are two obvious examples. Meanwhile you've saved yourself the difficult job of finding another centerfielder, a position far fewer players are qualified to play.



Any GM who doesn't understand the value of a centerfielder over the value of a designated hitter would make that trade, and I agree any such GM doesn't know baseball very well.

The trade can't be looked at by positions swaped... it was more the offensive side... Rowand, at the time, was a very average centerfielder a the plate... Thome was a difference maker....it was a win in that regard...

Now, where KW did screw up was his evaluation of talent in a) thinking Brian Anderson was ready to take the job and make a seamless transition from Rowand and/OR b) also dealing Chris Young in the same offseason...

So, a better poll question might include that trade because I gurantee if we had Young in CF right now not a single person on this board is complaining about the Rowand/Thome trade right now...

Domeshot17
11-18-2007, 01:51 AM
People just love to *****

We have this debate every 4 months, The only difference is the post count of the people who start the thread.

The bottom line is if we don't deal for Thome, Konerko walks, and it becomes Thome-Konerko or Rowand Thomas.

THE OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION OF OUR 7-8 HITTER IS NOT WHAT KILLED US IN 2006, IT WAS ALL PITCHING. IF YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THIS AND STILL THINK WE DID NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS BECAUSE AARON FREAKING ROWAND WASN'T HERE AND NOT BECAUSE BUEHRLE AND CONTRERAS AND THE ENTIRE PEN SUCKED YOU HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS THEN LOSING THIS DEBATE.

Who would you rather be going into 2008 with

Thome-Konerko and the possibility of either Rowand or Hunter in CF, or Rowand and Thomas?

Get over it, everything is clearer in hindsight.

Grzegorz
11-18-2007, 06:40 AM
I'd trade Rowand for Thome and let Anderson/Erstad play CF.

Frater Perdurabo
11-18-2007, 07:57 AM
THE OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION OF OUR 7-8 HITTER IS NOT WHAT KILLED US IN 2006, IT WAS ALL PITCHING. IF YOU FAIL TO REALIZE THIS AND STILL THINK WE DID NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS BECAUSE AARON FREAKING ROWAND WASN'T HERE AND NOT BECAUSE BUEHRLE AND CONTRERAS AND THE ENTIRE PEN SUCKED YOU HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS THEN LOSING THIS DEBATE.

This deserves to be repeated - and re-emphasized.

wassagstdu
11-18-2007, 08:25 AM
Next time through Rowand might hurt his back, Thome win a triple crown and Erstad be comeback player of the year. It was the right deal at the time.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 08:54 AM
People just love to *****

We have this debate every 4 months, The only difference is the post count of the people who start the thread.


Actually the point of the poll is to illustrate that the "problem" the Sox had at DH was no problem at all... and certainly far, far smaller than the problem we have now which is no centerfielder... thanks 100 percent to the trade we're discussing in this thread.

But thanks for sharing your little *****. I'm sure everyone would appreciate another thread about pitching and defense. Get started on one, okay?

:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 09:01 AM
The trade can't be looked at by positions swaped... it was more the offensive side... Rowand, at the time, was a very average centerfielder a the plate... Thome was a difference maker....it was a win in that regard...

Now, where KW did screw up was his evaluation of talent in a) thinking Brian Anderson was ready to take the job and make a seamless transition from Rowand and/OR b) also dealing Chris Young in the same offseason...

So, a better poll question might include that trade because I gurantee if we had Young in CF right now not a single person on this board is complaining about the Rowand/Thome trade right now...

No doubt Thome can hit the ball a ton more than Rowand, and certainly the Sox "won" the trade strictly from the offensive production side. The problem with all this is that SOMEBODY has to play centerfield and hit, too, because baseball doesn't let you designate a hitter to take Brian Anderson's cuts at the plate.

And Chris Young struck out 141 times so I GUARANTEE there would be plenty of wails around here if he was doing it in a Sox uniform.

Centerfielders are worth more than designated hitters precisely because there are so few players qualified to play the everyday position and thus get a turn at the dish everyday, too.

You can't separate the offensive aspect from the position aspect. KW tried to ignore it and that's why we have the problem we have today.

That's the point of this thread.
:cool:

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 09:25 AM
So Brian should be playing all 162 games?
no, but he should at least get the first 3 or 4 games of the season :rolleyes:


So he got a couple days off, big ****ing deal. You're just grasping at bull****.
me and daver both huh? I'm quite comfortable with the company I keep in this argument....since Daver knows more than just about everyone on this site about baseball

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 09:27 AM
Actually the point of the poll is to illustrate that the "problem" the Sox had at DH was no problem at all... and certainly far, far smaller than the problem we have now which is no centerfielder... thanks 100 percent to the trade we're discussing in this thread.

But thanks for sharing your little *****. I'm sure everyone would appreciate another thread about pitching and defense. Get started on one, okay?

:cool:

George--let's be realistic--did anyone on earth expect Frank to have the year he had in 2006?

I sure as hell didn't, and I love Frank more than any other White Sox there ever was. Frankly (no pun intended) I was glad Kenny let go my favorite player of all time, just because I thought it would make the Sox a better team. It turned out that against all odds, Frank had a great year and I couldn't be happier for him...but without the 20/20 vision of hindsight, it would have been a real risky move to bank on Frank in 2006

A. Cavatica
11-18-2007, 09:29 AM
Thome was acquired more because the Sox needed a left-handed power bat than because they needed to upgrade at DH. The first problem was that the new CF wasn't ready, and Ozzie wasn't willing to let him work through it in the big leagues, even though he was better than Rowand defensively.

The second problem was that there was no backup plan for CF. Chris Young was the backup plan, but KW used him to acquire Vazquez (and unload El Duque's salary).

It all comes down to the talent evalution of Brian Anderson.

Remember when the Sox parted ways with Robin Ventura? They had a hot-hitting 3B in the minors, Carlos Lee, and another guy behind him, Joe Crede. They didn't like Lee's defense, so they moved him to left field, creating a hole at third that Crede wasn't ready to fill. This led to Valentin at third.

Fortunately, Crede eventually turned into a pretty good ballplayer. Anderson still might; he'll probably do it in another uniform, though.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 10:17 AM
George--let's be realistic--did anyone on earth expect Frank to have the year he had in 2006?

I sure as hell didn't,

If I told you Frank Thomas would stay healthy for six months straight you STILL wouldn't expect him to put up 2006 numbers? Now I'm the one who finds that hard to believe...

Frank got injured two years in a row, but his production was as solid as ever when he was healthy. Why wouldn't you expect it?

And the injury concerns are quite frankly bogus because we're talking about a DESIGNATED HITTER, not a defensive specialist. Frank was injured most of 2005 and a ballplayer as marginal as Carl Everett provided more than enough for the Sox to win 99 games. A year later and he's not even in the majors!
:o:

The real issue here is KW's attitude towards Thomas. He was willing to trade a valuable centerfielder to get him off the team -- and that tirade he launched into the following spring SPEAKS VOLUMES about the spirit in which he made this boneheaded move.

To hell with Kenny Williams and the demented viewpoint he held (and still holds?) to weaken the Sox. If championships aren't what he's about, then I reserve the right to call him a dope. No smart GM leaves himself without a centerfielder simply to upgrade at DH, especially when no such DH problem even exists!
:cool:

INSox56
11-18-2007, 10:22 AM
Sure I'll keep Rowand and Frank, then I'll also not pull the El Duque/Vazquez deal, and trade Cotts and Politte that same winter.


:rolleyes:Not to mention trade Dye before last season started after his near MVP year

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 10:36 AM
If I told you Frank Thomas would stay healthy for six months straight you STILL wouldn't expect him to put up 2006 numbers? Now I'm the one who finds that hard to believe...
The bolded is what I was surprised by, not the rest. I believe in Frank's ability to hit. I was not, after 2005, convinced of his ability to stay healthy...and like you said, it was the second year in a row he'd been injured...

he seemed like a bad bet. I'm as happy as anyone he was successful in Oakland, but the fact is, I would have been very very very nervous about banking 2006 on him.

With hindsight, of course you keep Frank...but in the words of Chevy Chase's character in Dirty Work "hindsight is 20/20 my friend"

Edit: I will also second your emotions about Kenny's treatment of Frank. I like Kenny a lot as a GM but the way he's treated Frank has been despicable

spiffie
11-18-2007, 10:40 AM
I agree with the pragmatic notion that hindsight is always 20/20, but I still fault KW because the premise behind this trade was most-definitely flawed even two years ago when Kenny made it.

Yes, getting a left-handed power hitter was a nice pick up, but trading away a centerfielder for equal value on a designated hitter was tragically flawed logic. You can always get another designated hitter, and KW seems to confirm this notion by releasing Carl Everett almost as soon as the ticker tape parade confetti was swept up. However getting another centerfielder isn't nearly so easy and KW is still trying to find a replacement two full years after trading Rowand.

It's also flawed to think Thome represented a significant upgrade over Thomas. Again, we're talking about designated hitters here. Even if Frank Thomas got injured, a suitable DH to replace him can be found quite easily because virtually any aging hitter (from either league) is qualified to serve as a substitute. Jose Canseco and Carl Everett are two obvious examples. Meanwhile you've saved yourself the difficult job of finding another centerfielder, a position far fewer players are qualified to play.



Any GM who doesn't understand the value of a centerfielder over the value of a designated hitter would make that trade, and I agree any such GM doesn't know baseball very well.
One thing that might have weighed in the equation was that the Sox had not yet resigned Konerko, so Thome also provided 1B insurance in case Konerko had not returned.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 10:51 AM
he [Thomas] seemed like a bad bet. I'm as happy as anyone he was successful in Oakland, but the fact is, I would have been very very very nervous about banking 2006 on him.

Fair enough. So let me ask you this in reply.

Were you even the least bit "nervous" that Kenny Williams could find a back up DH at least as capable as Carl Everett to play for Frank Thomas in the event his primary DH got hurt?

I wouldn't be nervous about this problem at all. It's a DH. 29 different teams would beat a path to Kenny's door offering their odds and ends because nothing but an aging hitter is required to fill the role. And of course the free agent market is filled with these sorts of hitters, too.

I guarantee KW can find a ballplayer at least as good as Carl Everett to relieve your nervousness over Frank.

:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 11:00 AM
One thing that might have weighed in the equation was that the Sox had not yet resigned Konerko, so Thome also provided 1B insurance in case Konerko had not returned.

I agree. However it was a losing bet, wasn't it? Thome was already here and thus Konerko came back knowing he was blocking Thome from becoming anything but a DH. Konerko is getting older (and slower), too. You think DH isn't a role he ultimately needs to extend his own playing career, too?

See, you can spin this one either way. We'll never know whether trading Thome helped or hurt re-sign Konerko. One thing is very certain: it cost us an everyday centerfielder and the position is still vacant 2 years later.

Konerko needed to at least pretend he wanted the maximum salary offer but he's not much of a riverboat gambler. Giving Reinsdorf the championship ball at the victory rally pretty much tipped his hand.

:wink:

spiffie
11-18-2007, 11:05 AM
I agree. However it was a losing bet, wasn't it? Thome was already here and thus Konerko came back knowing he was blocking Thome from becoming anything but a DH. Konerko is getting older (and slower), too. You think DH isn't a role he ultimately needs to extend his own playing career, too?

See, you can spin this one either way. We'll never know whether trading Thome helped or hurt re-sign Konerko. One thing is very certain: it cost us an everyday centerfielder and the position is still vacant 2 years later.

Konerko needed to at least pretend he wanted the maximum salary offer but he's not much of a riverboat gambler. Giving Reinsdorf the championship ball at the victory rally pretty much tipped his hand.

:wink:
Preaching to the choir. With hindsight (and seeing 400 PA's from Brian Anderson) I voted for the Thomas/Rowand option. I do wonder though if getting rid of Thomas wasn't a helpful piece for resigning Konerko, as it seemed from the media reports that they never got along very well. Was Paulie more amenable to taking a small discount for a team not only with Jim Thome, but without Frank Thomas? We'll never know, but it seems like it might have had some impact. I think he comes back either way though.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 11:14 AM
Preaching to the choir. With hindsight (and seeing 400 PA's from Brian Anderson) I voted for the Thomas/Rowand option. I do wonder though if getting rid of Thomas wasn't a helpful piece for resigning Konerko, as it seemed from the media reports that they never got along very well. Was Paulie more amenable to taking a small discount for a team not only with Jim Thome, but without Frank Thomas? We'll never know, but it seems like it might have had some impact. I think he comes back either way though.

Konerko is a pretty good politician. He'll make management some day.
:wink:

I find it very plausible that Konerko never liked Thomas, but I find it hard to believe Konerko would ever say or do anything to deliberately tear up another ballplayer. Hell, he even once said Royce Clayton was the best shortstop he ever played with!
:roflmao:

I have little doubt it will be many years before we ever know for sure what Konerko ever thought about Thomas. I think they both enjoy wearing their championship rings they earned together so the hatchet will likely remain buried.

TornLabrum
11-18-2007, 11:27 AM
I just looked back at my reaction to the trade right after it happened. I should have gone with my gut.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3047 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/../rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3047)

areilly
11-18-2007, 11:38 AM
Frank got injured two years in a row, but his production was as solid as ever when he was healthy. Why wouldn't you expect it?

How could you expect anything from Frank at that point other than him being almost 38 years old, getting slower by the minute, and having a contentious relationship with the front office, the manager, several teammates (past and present) and, at times, the fans themselves?

Since when is management not allowed to look out for quality of work environment and co-workers getting along? Production is nice, and clinging to the hope that the greatest hitter in franchise history will return to a form he hasn't shown for several years is pretty optimistic, but gambling so much (beyond money) on such a one-dimensional position is flat-out stupid, especially when you really can't stand the guy at all.

Scenario A: Frank's still kind of a jerk, but hits well. We'll call that a wash.
Scenario B: Frank's still kind of a jerk, but gets hurt. Once again the greatest hitter in franchise history is nothing more than another name on the disabled list and you're wondering, again, just as you do every year when the greatest hitter in franchise history gets hurt, what Carl Everett is up to these days.

And guess what? As pointed out before, Sox pitching sucked royally that year so this whole discussion, thread, poll and idea are moot. Frank is gone and honestly, if the trade hadn't happened Rowand would probably walk after this year anyway. The Sox still don't make the 2006 playoffs, they still get considerably worse in 2007, and 2008 and 2009 still look nothing better than bleak.


NEXT TOPIC

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 11:43 AM
Fair enough. So let me ask you this in reply.

Were you even the least bit "nervous" that Kenny Williams could find a back up DH at least as capable as Carl Everett to play for Frank Thomas in the event his primary DH got hurt?

I wouldn't be nervous about this problem at all. It's a DH. 29 different teams would beat a path to Kenny's door offering their odds and ends because nothing but an aging hitter is required to fill the role. And of course the free agent market is filled with these sorts of hitters, too.

I guarantee KW can find a ballplayer at least as good as Carl Everett to relieve your nervousness over Frank.

:cool:

The thing was that Kenny was trying to improve the batting order in 2006. He thought that BA was ready to take over, and he had shown signs of that in late 2005, so you're whole "leaving a hole in CF" is a little overstated in terms of a "going into 2006" standpoint.

Fact is, having to rely on Carl as a DH was a BAD thing in 2005. We got lightning out of our bullpen, something that did not happen in 2006, so with an injured Frank and Carl as our starting DH, we would have likely been sub-.500 in 2006. Now, we know now that Frank was healthy in 2006, but we didn't want to be in teh 2005 position we were with an injured Frank, and Thome seemed a better bet. Just because both bets paid off doesn't meant the odds weren't much longer for one of them. That's why Beane was able to sign Frank so much cheaper than we were able to get Thome--it reflected how much longer the odds were for Frank to stay healthy than Thome...inevitably they both paid off the same (similar numbers) but Beane put a lot less on the table to get that same payout--and the odds were much more likely he would crap out.

Looking back, knowing what we know about EVERYTHING do we keep Frank and Rowand? Absolutely. And we probably would have made the playoffs too (although to be fair--Rowand got injured pretty early into 2006...so knowing that...do we still keep him? who knows)....but it's not like that's something Kenny should have assumed at the time... that

a.) Frank would be healthy all of 2006, more or less
b.) that Anderson would be as monumental bust as he was in 2006 (Whether you blame Ozzie, BA, or both for that outcome is immaterial)

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 11:44 AM
How could you expect anything from Frank at that point other than him being almost 38 years old, getting slower by the minute, and having a contentious relationship with the front office, the manager, several teammates (past and present) and, at times, the fans themselves?

Since when is management not allowed to look out for quality of work environment and co-workers getting along? Production is nice, and clinging to the hope that the greatest hitter in franchise history will return to a form he hasn't shown for several years is pretty optimistic, but gambling so much (beyond money) on such a one-dimensional position is flat-out stupid, especially when you really can't stand the guy at all.

Scenario A: Frank's still kind of a jerk, but hits well. We'll call that a wash.
Scenario B: Frank's still kind of a jerk, but gets hurt. Once again the greatest hitter in franchise history is nothing more than another name on the disabled list and you're wondering, again, just as you do every year when the greatest hitter in franchise history gets hurt, what Carl Everett is up to these days.

And guess what? As pointed out before, Sox pitching sucked royally that year so this whole discussion, thread, poll and idea are moot. Frank is gone and honestly, if the trade hadn't happened Rowand would probably walk after this year anyway. The Sox still don't make the 2006 playoffs, they still get considerably worse in 2007, and 2008 and 2009 still look nothing better than bleak.


NEXT TOPIC

The only jerk in the Kenny-Frank dynamic is Kenny Williams, who has been nothing but a bitter vindictive ******* to the greatest player any Sox GM has ever had the pleasure of rostering his team with

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 11:45 AM
Konerko is a pretty good politician. He'll make management some day.
:wink:

I find it very plausible that Konerko never liked Thomas, but I find it hard to believe Konerko would ever say or do anything to deliberately tear up another ballplayer. Hell, he even once said Royce Clayton was the best shortstop he ever played with!
:roflmao:

I have little doubt it will be many years before we ever know for sure what Konerko ever thought about Thomas. I think they both enjoy wearing their championship rings they earned together so the hatchet will likely remain buried.

I'll take even an injured Thomas over GIDPaul "Sell Out My Teammates" Konerko any day of the week

Domeshot17
11-18-2007, 12:58 PM
Actually the point of the poll is to illustrate that the "problem" the Sox had at DH was no problem at all... and certainly far, far smaller than the problem we have now which is no centerfielder... thanks 100 percent to the trade we're discussing in this thread.


:cool:

Thats fair enough, but my point was we are still beating a dead horse.

But consider we also be looking for a 1b AND a DH and not just a CF. Offensively its even bigger because we are talking about looking at losing 2/3 the heart of the order for 1 downgrade and 1 7-8 hitter.


Konerko was pleased that Thome, swapped for center fielder Aaron Rowand (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6742), will be in the Chicago lineup.

"This was the greatest move the White Sox could make to bring me back," Konerko said. "I don't have many heroes, but he's one of them. He's one of the guys I've looked up to since I've been in the big leagues."

Now the White Sox project to have a strong middle of the order, with the right-handed Konerko batting cleanup ahead of the left-handed-swinging Thome. Also a first baseman, Thome is coming off an injury-filled shortened season with the Phillies and figures to be the designated hitter.

Konerko said he was looking ahead when he made his decision, not behind.
"It the end it was not because we won the World Series last year, but because we can win one this year," Konerko said.


If we lose him who is at first in 2006? There was no one else on the market. Especially who can produce at the clip Konerko does.

Even the Thomas for Thome arguement is a little moot because we NEEDED a left handed hitter but lets say they are pretty even.

That alone doesn't put us in the playoffs because Thome carried this team in the first half when Frank was finding his timing. You could argue without Thome we would have been dead by the all star break.

I will say it again, Rowands .262 12 47 wouldn't have done a hell of a lot for us. Lets say he gets his last 100 at bats in 2006, and finishes 260 15 60.

Mac+ Anderson in 2006 gives us 13 homers and 56 RBI. You lost a lot of D with Mac and made up a lot of D with Anderson. THE ONLY THING Rowand brought those 2 didn't was he X Factor of being a Club House guy.

Here is why in 2006 we lost

Buehrle 12-13 4.99 era
Javy 11-12 4.84 era
The bullpen had 22 losses
Jose Contreras in the 2nd half 4-9 with an era hovering 5.

If Buehrle just goes .500 at 12-12, Javy goes .500 at 11-11 and the bullpen only loses 17 games and not 22, we win 97 games and the division. Even more if you count the games where a guy like Freddy or Garland left down 1 or 2 runs and the pen made it a 4-5 run game and no come back possible.

You check my posts, I don't give Kenny a free pass. I started a thread saying I think this year should be his make or break year and if we finish with a poor record he should get the Axe. But the Thome for Rowand deal at the time made too much sense.

You had a top prospect who looked mlb ready blocked in your system
you needed a left hand hitting dh
your current best dh option had not been healthy in years
your best hitter is walking if you dont pick up a real bat to protect him with

It didn't all work out, but we won 90 games, Rowand can't make that 97, only the pitching could.

Now, we can go into 2008 with either Thomas-Rowand or Konerko-Thome-Rowand/Hunter, pick is obvious to me

35th&Shields
11-18-2007, 02:42 PM
With hindsight, you keep Thomas and Rowand -- but at the time it was the right deal to make. That's how I voted, make the deal.

I agree. It was the right deal at the time. But looking back I wish it wasn't made, even if Thome is one of the true good guys in sports and represents the Sox well.

chisoxmike
11-18-2007, 03:39 PM
I would do the Rowand/Thome deal again. And again.

I'd just get better bullpen arms.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 04:55 PM
I would do the Rowand/Thome deal again. And again.

Okay. Can you share with the rest of us your reasons why? Presumably you wouldn't repeat the trade two more times because it worked out so well the first time.

:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 05:05 PM
Thats fair enough, but my point was we are still beating a dead horse.

This is news to me because I'm not aware of ONE SINGLE THREAD that discusses any of the points discussed here with two years worth of perspective.
:o:

1.) The supposed need to upgrade designated hitter DEBUNKED now that Frank Thomas really did put up two years worth of numbers nearly as good as Thome's.

2.) The supposed need to protect the Sox from a Thomas injury DEBUNKED now that he really did stay healthy (and produce) for two straight years.

3.) The supposed need to trade Aaron Rowand DEBUNKED now that the marginal value of gaining Jim Thome can be fully assessed.

4.) The supposed plan to backfill center field DEBUNKED two-times over now that both Brian Anderson and Darin Erstad have both been revealed as abject failures to fill the role.

I'll give you credit. At least you're thinking about it, so kudos to you! Some of the posters here are putting their head in the sand pretending the problem doesn't exist or (worse) that the problem can be solved.

Kenny has a bad attitude, it's not changing, and it's hurting the Sox.

RKMeibalane
11-18-2007, 05:10 PM
Konerko is a pretty good politician. He'll make management some day.
:wink:

I find it very plausible that Konerko never liked Thomas, but I find it hard to believe Konerko would ever say or do anything to deliberately tear up another ballplayer. Hell, he even once said Royce Clayton was the best shortstop he ever played with!
:roflmao:

I have little doubt it will be many years before we ever know for sure what Konerko ever thought about Thomas. I think they both enjoy wearing their championship rings they earned together so the hatchet will likely remain buried.

I don't mean to hijack your post, George, but I want to touch on something that's always amused me about Konerko's comments regarding Royce Clayton.

Konerko says that Royce Clayton is "the best shortstop [he] ever played with." Someone should remind Konerko that he spend part of 1998 with the Reds, and was teammates with Barry Larkin during that time. If Konerko honestly thinks that The Choice is a better shortstop than Larkin, an All-Star regular and former MVP, then he's out of his ****ing mind.

chisoxmike
11-18-2007, 05:15 PM
Okay. Can you share with the rest of us your reasons why? Presumably you wouldn't repeat the trade two more times because it worked out so well the first time.

:cool:

The trade wasn't the problem with the 2006 team. It was the bullpen and underachieving starting pitching.

It's easy to go back and say "well this or that should have never happend."

Yeah, I would trade Rowand for Thome. I would also tell Ozzie to put Anderson out there every ****ing day and let Anderson grow.

Anderson wasn't the problem in 2006. His black hole of a bat didn't blow games for us in the late innings like the pitching staff did.

And also, no offense, what's the point of this thread? We're debating a trade that happend two years ago that affected a team last year, not this year's team. I dont really get this. :dunno:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 05:19 PM
The trade wasn't the problem with the 2006 team. It was the bullpen and underachieving starting pitching.

Surely you're not suggesting that DOWNGRADING the offense was a prerequisite for KW to upgrade the bullpen and starting pitching staff?

I would give Kenny at least enough credit to manage more than one thing in a single off-season. Losing his everyday centerfielder was not necessary to anything you've written above.
:cool:

chisoxmike
11-18-2007, 05:22 PM
But they thought they had a everyday CF in Anderson. It didn't work out. Who's to blame? Who cares? It's over. Let's worry about 2008 now.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 05:38 PM
This is news to me because I'm not aware of ONE SINGLE THREAD that discusses any of the points discussed here with two years worth of perspective.
:o:

1.) The supposed need to upgrade designated hitter DEBUNKED now that Frank Thomas really did put up two years worth of numbers nearly as good as Thome's.

2.) The supposed need to protect the Sox from a Thomas injury DEBUNKED now that he really did stay healthy (and produce) for two straight years.

3.) The supposed need to trade Aaron Rowand DEBUNKED now that the marginal value of gaining Jim Thome can be fully assessed.

4.) The supposed plan to backfill center field DEBUNKED two-times over now that both Brian Anderson and Darin Erstad have both been revealed as abject failures to fill the role.

I'll give you credit. At least you're thinking about it, so kudos to you! Some of the posters here are putting their head in the sand pretending the problem doesn't exist or (worse) that the problem can be solved.

Kenny has a bad attitude, it's not changing, and it's hurting the Sox.

But that's the thing--yes, we know now that Thomas would come out and play like 120 games in 2006. Very few people thought that would be the case in 2005.

And frankly, Frank missing those early season games would have been very bad news for us, as the only reason we were really even in the hunt early in 2006 was because Thome put us on his back and carried us for the first 2 months of 2006.

champagne030
11-18-2007, 05:39 PM
I don't mean to hijack your post, George, but I want to touch on something that's always amused me about Konerko's comments regarding Royce Clayton.

Konerko says that Royce Clayton is "the best shortstop [he] ever played with." Someone should remind Konerko that he spend part of 1998 with the Reds, and was teammates with Barry Larkin during that time. If Konerko honestly thinks that The Choice is a better shortstop than Larkin, an All-Star regular and former MVP, then he's out of his ****ing mind.

Royce Clayton couldn't carry Barry's jock at the plate, but the best defensive shortstop Walnuts has played with in the 'show' is the Choice....not even a debate.

RKMeibalane
11-18-2007, 05:45 PM
Royce Clayton couldn't carry Barry's jock at the plate, but the best defensive shortstop Walnuts has played with in the 'show' is the Choice....not even a debate.

Are you sure? Larkin was a three-time Gold Glove winner, and *GASP* had a higher fielding percentage than Clayton. Granted, the GG award has become a joke, but Larkin was the man who managed to take the award away from Ozzie Smith, after more than a decade-and-a-half, and was widely known as one of the best defensive shortstop of his time. Paul Konerko is the only person I've ever heard use the words "Royce Clayton" and "best" in the same sentence.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 05:45 PM
Royce Clayton couldn't carry Barry's jock at the plate, but the best defensive shortstop Walnuts has played with in the 'show' is the Choice....not even a debate.

Yeah. Fire hydrants are very effective defensive SS's.

Larkin's better defensively than Royce, as is Uribe. Hell, I might even give Valentin the nod over Royce--at least Valentin tried to go get balls he might have to make a tough play on.

Refusing to go after balls in the hole for fear it would hurt his fielding pct? What a wonderful shortstop that nozzle was....:rolleyes:

But you're right--no one was better than Royce at balls hit right at him!

champagne030
11-18-2007, 05:52 PM
Yeah. Fire hydrants are very effective defensive SS's.

Larkin's better defensively than Royce, as is Uribe. Hell, I might even give Valentin the nod over Royce--at least Valentin tried to go get balls he might have to make a tough play on.

Refusing to go after balls in the hole for fear it would hurt his fielding pct? What a wonderful shortstop that nozzle was....:rolleyes:

But you're right--no one was better than Royce at balls hit right at him!

You might have been able to make an arguement for Uribe two years ago, but the Valentin :rolleyes::rolleyes: statement makes me think that you don't have a dish in Arkansas.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 05:55 PM
You might have been able to make an arguement for Uribe two years ago, but the Valentin :rolleyes::rolleyes: statement makes me think that you don't have a dish in Arkansas.

Think again.

Royce Clayton was a statue at SS. He was a selfish self-aggrandizing player who valued his Fielding PCT over getting outs for his pitcher.

He had a much more accurate arm than Manos, but he had much weaker range and a much weaker arm.

What do you suppose you'd rather have in a SS: good range and a strong arm, or awful terrible embarrassingly bad range and an accurate arm?

I know what I'd choose.

Oh and Manos could hit a little bit too :wink:

Daver
11-18-2007, 05:57 PM
Why are we having the Manos/Choice argument again?

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 05:59 PM
Why are we having the Manos/Choice argument again?

I shouldn't have brought Manos into it. Uribe and Larkin should be sufficient examples to show why Paulie's a teammate-selling-out-jackass

champagne030
11-18-2007, 06:03 PM
Are you sure? Larkin was a three-time Gold Glove winner, and *GASP* had a higher fielding percentage than Clayton. Granted, the GG award has become a joke, but Larkin was the man who managed to take the award away from Ozzie Smith, after more than a decade-and-a-half, and was widely known as one of the best defensive shortstop of his time. Paul Konerko is the only person I've ever heard use the words "Royce Clayton" and "best" in the same sentence.

Royce was a complete piece of **** as a member of a team and couldn't hit a lick. My statement that Larkin couldn't carry his jock is over the top. They were actually similar players defensively. They both knew which way to lean/shade and actually understood where it was more likely a ball was going to be hit based on the pitch. The difference, IMO, was that the 'Choice' was better at the routine. I'm honestly sorry for the hyperbole statement.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:03 PM
But they thought they had a everyday CF in Anderson. It didn't work out. Who's to blame? Who cares? It's over. Let's worry about 2008 now.

I am worrying about 2008. I'm worrying about a GM who makes boneheaded trades for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with improving the team and everything to do with settling old scores for unfathomable reasons to anyone but Kenny Williams himself.

That tirade he launched into during 2006 spring training is a real smoking gun now that we have two years worth of empirical data to wonder what on Earth was going through Kenny's head to trade a needed centerfielder for an unneeded designated hitter.

The point of this thread is to make you think. I'm guessing it's working because you still haven't explained why it is you would repeat this same boneheaded trade 3-times over.
:cool:

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:04 PM
Royce was a complete piece of **** as a member of a team and couldn't hit a lick. My statement that Larkin couldn't carry his jock is over the top. They were actually similar players defensively. They both knew which way to lean/shade and actually understood where it was more likely a ball was going to be hit based on the pitch. The difference, IMO, was that the 'Choice' was better at the routine. I'm honestly sorry for the hyperbole statement.

Also, Larkin had a semblance of range...so, you know...

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:05 PM
I am worrying about 2008. I'm worrying about a GM who makes boneheaded trades for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with improving the team and everything to do with settling old scores for unfathomable reasons to anyone but Kenny Williams himself.

That tirade he launched into during 2006 spring training is a real smoking gun now that we have two years worth of empirical data to wonder what on Earth was going through Kenny's head to trade a needed centerfielder for an unneeded designated hitter.

The point of this thread is to make you think. I'm guessing it's working because you still haven't explained why it is you would repeat this same boneheaded trade 3-times over.
:cool:

Kenny does hate Frank. That much is true...but he still kept him around for a long time after he became GM. I think the Thome trade had more to do with the fear that most of us on this board shared that Thomas wouldn't be able to play at all in 06 (or ever again). Thank God that was wrong, but that doesn't mean we should have expected this outcome...

gobears1987
11-18-2007, 06:06 PM
Sure I'll keep Rowand and Frank, then I'll also not pull the El Duque/Vazquez deal, and trade Cotts and Politte that same winter.


:rolleyes:The El Duque for Vaz deal was good. I just wish KW would've taken the original offer and sent BA to Ari and kept Young, but of course hindsight is 20/20 and most of us would've kept BA over Young before the 06 season.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:07 PM
Uribe and Larkin should be sufficient examples to show why Paulie's a teammate-selling-out-jackass

Konerko is a politician. He was unstoppable during the playoffs and he won the city its first world championship in 88 years. If he ever organized Sox Fans into doorbell button pushers, he could beat Daley for mayor.

I wouldn't put too much stock into anything Konerko says. I doubt many of his teammates do either.

gobears1987
11-18-2007, 06:07 PM
I'd take Chris Singleton's 1999 season in CF anytime.

While I voted for Rowand/Thomas, I personally do not like making such calls after the fact, especially if I knew that Guillen wouldn't even give BA the opportunity to fully land the CF spot.:rolleyes: Here we go again with the Ozzie haters who obsess over BA's great skills and work attitude.

gobears1987
11-18-2007, 06:09 PM
I still make the Rowand/Thome trade and hope that a prospect even sort of pans out.Rowand and Thome wouldn't have had the CF issues if Kenny traded BA instead of Young, but as I said earlier, most of us would've rather had BA over Young until we saw BA suck.

chisoxmike
11-18-2007, 06:10 PM
I am worrying about 2008. I'm worrying about a GM who makes boneheaded trades for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with improving the team and everything to do with settling old scores for unfathomable reasons to anyone but Kenny Williams himself.

That tirade he launched into during 2006 spring training is a real smoking gun now that we have two years worth of empirical data to wonder what on Earth was going through Kenny's head to trade a needed centerfielder for an unneeded designated hitter.

The point of this thread is to make you think. I'm guessing it's working because you still haven't explained why it is you would repeat this same boneheaded trade 3-times over.
:cool:

But it wasn't a boneheaded trade at the time. Like I said, its over. Move on. When the trade happened, people thought Thomas was done and Anderson was ready to play everyday. Yeah, Kenny was wrong. He's been wrong many times before and he will be wrong in the future.

I don't think he's that great of a GM either. He's had one great shining moment. He can't live off that anymore. I'm just as skeptical about his moves and plans as you are.

RKMeibalane
11-18-2007, 06:13 PM
Kenny does hate Frank. That much is true...but he still kept him around for a long time after he became GM.

I think Frank remaining in Chicago had more to do with Reinsdorf than it did KW. In 2002, Frank was hours away from signing a huge deal with Baltimore, and JR stepped in at the last minute and worked out a contract with Arn Tellem. Williams was on a tropical vacation at the time, and when someone from Reinsdorf's office told him of the Thomas' signing, he threw one of his infamous tantrums, screaming, "This is bull****! I'll trade his fat ass by the 'Break!"

Eventually, Reinsdorf had to meet with Williams to calm him down, but KW was not at all happy about Frank returning for 2003, and beyond.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:13 PM
1.) The supposed need to upgrade designated hitter DEBUNKED now that Frank Thomas really did put up two years worth of numbers nearly as good as Thome's.But that's the thing--yes, we know now that Thomas would come out and play like 120 games in 2006. Very few people thought that would be the case in 2005.

I think we covered this already, didn't we? I've already noted that the problem of a hurt Frank Thomas is no real problem at all because designated hitters are easy to find and I've used the example of Carl Everett as the basis for my point. I trust KW could find a back up DH at least as good as Everett, a guy who really did play DH for the Sox in 2005 when they won 99 games but is now so over the hill he isn't even in the majors.

Now, trying to find an everyday centerfielder? THAT'S A PROBLEM worth getting "very, very, very nervous over." Again, we covered this.

:wink:

Daver
11-18-2007, 06:20 PM
I am worrying about 2008. I'm worrying about a GM who makes boneheaded trades for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with improving the team and everything to do with settling old scores for unfathomable reasons to anyone but Kenny Williams himself.

That tirade he launched into during 2006 spring training is a real smoking gun now that we have two years worth of empirical data to wonder what on Earth was going through Kenny's head to trade a needed centerfielder for an unneeded designated hitter.

The point of this thread is to make you think. I'm guessing it's working because you still haven't explained why it is you would repeat this same boneheaded trade 3-times over.
:cool:

Kenny did address a need in the Thome trade, he replaced a right handed DH with a left handed DH, so that the lineup did not have three RH power hitters in a row.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:21 PM
I think we covered this already, didn't we? I've already noted that the problem of a hurt Frank Thomas is no real problem at all because designated hitters are easy to find and I've used the example of Carl Everett as the basis for my point. I trust KW could find a back up DH at least as good as Everett, a guy who really did play DH for the Sox in 2005 when they won 99 games but is now so over the hill he isn't even in the majors.

Now, trying to find an everyday centerfielder? THAT'S A PROBLEM worth getting "very, very, very nervous over." Again, we covered this.

:wink:

You never addressed my rebuttal of it though. Here's a second chance:

The thing was that Kenny was trying to improve the batting order in 2006. He thought that BA was ready to take over, and he had shown signs of that in late 2005, so you're whole "leaving a hole in CF" is a little overstated in terms of a "going into 2006" standpoint.

Fact is, having to rely on Carl as a DH was a BAD thing in 2005. We got lightning out of our bullpen, something that did not happen in 2006, so with an injured Frank and Carl as our starting DH, we would have likely been sub-.500 in 2006. Now, we know now that Frank was healthy in 2006, but we didn't want to be in teh 2005 position we were with an injured Frank, and Thome seemed a better bet. Just because both bets paid off doesn't meant the odds weren't much longer for one of them. That's why Beane was able to sign Frank so much cheaper than we were able to get Thome--it reflected how much longer the odds were for Frank to stay healthy than Thome...inevitably they both paid off the same (similar numbers) but Beane put a lot less on the table to get that same payout--and the odds were much more likely he would crap out.

Looking back, knowing what we know about EVERYTHING do we keep Frank and Rowand? Absolutely. And we probably would have made the playoffs too (although to be fair--Rowand got injured pretty early into 2006...so knowing that...do we still keep him? who knows)....but it's not like that's something Kenny should have assumed at the time... that

a.) Frank would be healthy all of 2006, more or less
b.) that Anderson would be as monumental bust as he was in 2006 (Whether you blame Ozzie, BA, or both for that outcome is immaterial)

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:21 PM
But it wasn't a boneheaded trade at the time.

Trading an everyday centerfielder to solve a problem at designated hitter is most-definitely a boneheaded trade, especially when the problem at DH doesn't even exist.

It was a boneheaded move in 2005 as much as it would be to do the same in 2007. And the ugly truth is that the last 2 years worth of history backs me up.

:(:

Brian26
11-18-2007, 06:23 PM
Why are we having the Manos/Choice argument again?

LOL. It's a flashback to 2001. At least it's nostalgic.

Frater Perdurabo
11-18-2007, 06:26 PM
Trading an everyday centerfielder to solve a problem at designated hitter is most-definitely a boneheaded trade, especially when the problem at DH doesn't even exist.

I don't necessarily disagree. It's similar to the argument I made about trading a center fielder for a first baseman in 1998. :wink:

Brian26
11-18-2007, 06:28 PM
Trading an everyday centerfielder to solve a problem at designated hitter is most-definitely a boneheaded trade, especially when the problem at DH doesn't even exist.


Just my two cents on this:

I think you're evaluating this trade with 20/20 hindsight, which is a bit unfair considering everything else Kenny touched in the 2005 calendar year seemed to turn to gold. Brian Anderson, after the 2005 season, looked like an emerging superstar after taking King Felix deep twice in one game and single-handidly stopping a huge Sox skid. Frank Thomas was absolutely a question mark at DH (missed half of 2004 and all but a month of 2005). I have no problem with the trade. After the 2005 season, the only position the Sox had an excess at was CF, while DH was their glaring weakness. I would have liked to have seen Everett kept on merely for his bat off the bench and leadership in the clubhouse. There is no blame to be cast on KW for this one, and trying to do so is a bit lame.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:30 PM
Just my two cents on this:

I think you're evaluating this trade with 20/20 hindsight, which is a bit unfair considering everything else Kenny touched in the 2005 calendar year seemed to turn to gold. Brian Anderson, after the 2005 season, looked like an emerging superstar after taking King Felix deep twice in one game and single-handidly stopping a huge Sox skid. Frank Thomas was absolutely a question mark at DH (missed half of 2004 and all but a month of 2005). I have no problem with the trade. After the 2005 season, the only position the Sox had an excess at was CF, while DH was their glaring weakness. I would have liked to have seen Everett kept on merely for his bat off the bench and leadership in the clubhouse. There is no blame to be cast on KW for this one, and trying to do so is a bit lame.

pretty much exactly my thoughts

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:31 PM
LOL. It's a flashback to 2001. At least it's nostalgic.

not much else from 2001 to be nostalgic about

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:34 PM
You never addressed my rebuttal of it though. Here's a second chance:The thing was that Kenny was trying to improve the batting order in 2006. He thought that BA was ready to take over, and he had shown signs of that in late 2005, so you're whole "leaving a hole in CF" is a little overstated in terms of a "going into 2006" standpoint.

Fact is, having to rely on Carl as a DH was a BAD thing in 2005. We got lightning out of our bullpen, something that did not happen in 2006, so with an injured Frank and Carl as our starting DH, we would have likely been sub-.500 in 2006. Now, we know now that Frank was healthy in 2006, but we didn't want to be in teh 2005 position we were with an injured Frank, and Thome seemed a better bet.

I'm guessing this is the crux of what you wanted me to reply to?

I agree that nobody can predict the future and I agree that upgrading the back up DH to a ballplayer better than Carl Everett was a smart move.

I also agree you have to make a "bet" on how things will work out based on the odds. But that's where you and I part company. It's never a smart bet to cover your ass for a perceived problem at DH when the price you're paying is the very real problem of not having an everyday centerfielder.

I KNOW Kenny was making this lousy "bet" because he did nothing but hand Brian Anderson the everyday CF job in 2006 and followed up that losing "bet" with yet another losing "bet" hoping Darin Erstad could fill the role in 2007.

My point is this was all avoidable if only KW recognized the plain obvious truth that finding an everyday centerfielder is far more difficult than finding an everyday designated hitter.

Hell, if KW was really so worried about Frank's health, how many other DH's could he have acquired without ever having to trade anything remotely so valuable as Aaron Rowand? Plenty.

There are plenty of ballplayers qualified to DH because basically anyone who can hit major league pitching is a candidate for the job... which is why Brian Anderson's name would never make the short list.
:wink:

Daver
11-18-2007, 06:35 PM
Trading an everyday centerfielder to solve a problem at designated hitter is most-definitely a boneheaded trade, especially when the problem at DH doesn't even exist.

It was a boneheaded move in 2005 as much as it would be to do the same in 2007. And the ugly truth is that the last 2 years worth of history backs me up.

:(:

He didn't trade a center fielder, he traded a left fielder that was playing center.

Brian26
11-18-2007, 06:35 PM
not much else from 2001 to be nostalgic about

Kip Wells went 10-11 with a 4.79 ERA :D:

RKMeibalane
11-18-2007, 06:38 PM
not much else from 2001 to be nostalgic about

True, except for Carlos' walk-off against the Cubs.

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 06:40 PM
I'm guessing this is the crux of what you wanted me to reply to?

I agree that nobody can predict the future and I agree that upgrading the back up DH to a ballplayer better than Carl Everett was a smart move.

I also agree you have to make a "bet" on how things will work out based on the odds. But that's where you and I part company. It's never a smart bet to cover your ass for a perceived problem at DH when the price you're paying is the very real problem of not having an everyday centerfielder.

I KNOW Kenny was making this lousy "bet" because he did nothing but hand Brian Anderson the everyday CF job in 2006 and followed up that losing "bet" with yet another losing "bet" hoping Darin Erstad could fill the role in 2007.

My point is this was all avoidable if only KW recognized the plain obvious truth that finding an everyday centerfielder is far more difficult than finding an everyday designated hitter.

Hell, if KW was really so worried about Frank's health, how many other DH's could he have acquired without ever having to trade anything remotely so valuable as Aaron Rowand? Plenty.

There are plenty of ballplayers qualified to DH because basically anyone who can hit major league pitching is a candidate for the job... which is why Brian Anderson's name would never make the short list.
:wink:

Ok, sure...it's easier to replace a DH than a CF, but at the same time, for that very reason, it's important to let a potentially very good CF play for his position.

It didn't work out, but Anderson had all the tools to succeed at the MLB level...when you combine that fact with the fact that we had a chance to fix a problem at DH (where, though it's easy to find a guy who can give you .260 with 20 HR, which is solid...it's very difficult to find a guy who can give you .290 with 45 HR which is great), then you take that chance.

The gamble was this:

Which was more likely?

a.) Thome have a 40 HR season and Anderson give us great defense and a .250 average

b.) Thomas stay healthy for the majority of 2006 and Rowand give us a full season of Rowand-like season

Obviously B is a better scenario, since with Thomas healthy all 2006 he will put up 40 HR, and Rowand will put up better than a .250 average if healthy.

But guess what? Although the latter part of a.) didn't happen, neither did the latter part of b.

If we use hindsight, we see that Rowand missed a big chunk of 2006. So without Frank in the first two months to carry us the way Thome did in April and May, and without Rowand in the middle of the season, I don't think we're a .500 team.

And that's even with the benefit of hindsight.

Now, we're probably going to get Rowand back this offseason if we want him, and Thome's poised to be a lot more productive in 08 than Frank will be, most likely, simply due to age.

So frankly, even with hindsight, we're better off now than we would be if we had stood pat, since with hindsight it seems like we wouldn't have made the playoffs in 06 anyway

:shrug:

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 06:51 PM
....
If we use hindsight, we see that Rowand missed a big chunk of 2006. So without Frank in the first two months to carry us the way Thome did in April and May, and without Rowand in the middle of the season, I don't think we're a .500 team.

And that's even with the benefit of hindsight....

So frankly, even with hindsight, we're better off now than we would be if we had stood pat, since with hindsight it seems like we wouldn't have made the playoffs in 06 anyway.

Should we write-off both 2006 and 2007 waiting for the big payoff that (hopefully) will materialize in 2008 as you suggest? Sure, why not! I'm optimistic for the future, too.

The problem I have with this notion is that it wasn't necessary to write-off either 2006 or 2007. Even if we suppose Rowand gets hurt for part of 2006 we still have other ballplayers (even Brian Anderson) to cover needs in center field. And certainly you would agree that utilizing Anderson for part of the season would be an infinitely wiser move than rolling the dice on him producing across an entire 6-month season. Yet it was KW who took this exact big risk.
:o:

I just wish we had an everyday centerfielder. Maybe the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow is labeled "New Sox Torii Hunter"?

fquaye149
11-18-2007, 07:01 PM
Should we write-off both 2006 and 2007 waiting for the big payoff that (hopefully) will materialize in 2008 as you suggest? Sure, why not! I'm optimistic for the future, too.

No, we SHOULDN'T...but hindsight says we have to....Thomas and Rowand wouldn't have saved 2006, and they sure as sugar wouldn't have saved 07


The problem I have with this notion is that it wasn't necessary to write-off either 2006 or 2007. Even if we suppose Rowand gets hurt for part of 2006 we still have other ballplayers (even Brian Anderson) to cover needs in center field. And certainly you would agree that utilizing Anderson for part of the season would be an infinitely wiser move than rolling the dice on him producing across an entire 6-month season. Yet it was KW who took this exact big risk.

sure, but here, even hindsight gets muddied--what if Rowand stayed here and DIDN'T get hurt, but played poorly due to better pitching in the ALC? Or what if he got even worse hurt than he did in Philly? Or what if BA sacked up and showed the discipline and determination Ozzie obviously thought he was lacking? What if what if what if--but what we do know is that looking at the timetables in 2006 of Frank and Rowand's injuries, it's unlikely they would have saved our season...


I just wish we had an everyday centerfielder. Maybe the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow is labeled "New Sox Torii Hunter"?



I guarantee we get a CF this offseason. Even if we have to trade for Coco Crisp, I'll be happy, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Rowand come here

PaleHoseGeorge
11-18-2007, 07:03 PM
I don't necessarily disagree. It's similar to the argument I made about trading a center fielder for a first baseman in 1998.
:wink:

A very good point. Having suffered watching the likes of Chris Singleton, Kenny Lofton, and Carl Everett attempt to play the position everyday, there were very few Sox Fans (before 2005) who wouldn't have wanted back centerfielder Mike Cameron over what Ron Schueler got for him in firstbasemen Paul Konerko.

Domeshot17
11-18-2007, 07:13 PM
Should we write-off both 2006 and 2007 waiting for the big payoff that (hopefully) will materialize in 2008 as you suggest? Sure, why not! I'm optimistic for the future, too.

The problem I have with this notion is that it wasn't necessary to write-off either 2006 or 2007. Even if we suppose Rowand gets hurt for part of 2006 we still have other ballplayers (even Brian Anderson) to cover needs in center field. And certainly you would agree that utilizing Anderson for part of the season would be an infinitely wiser move than rolling the dice on him producing across an entire 6-month season. Yet it was KW who took this exact big risk.
:o:

I just wish we had an everyday centerfielder. Maybe the pot of gold at the end of this rainbow is labeled "New Sox Torii Hunter"?



I guess my question is why are we fighing over something that hasn't cost us ball games?

(1) If we have determined the reason we didn't win 6 more games in 2006 and make the playoffs was pitching, why does it matter who our DH was? I could see if Rowand had a big 2006, but he didn't, and our guys pretty much met his crappy production

(2) Would you not make the deal and keep Thomas over Konerko? Now you are talking about having to fill the hole at 1b in a market when there was nothing (hence Konerko being the biggest 'prize' on that market with 1b). Konerko has made it clear that the Thome deal made it easy for him to resign.

(3) Since this deal didnt win or lose us games in 2006, do you think it would have made an impact on 2007? Thome had a much better 2007 then Frank, but Aaron had a big year in a bad NL in a contract year. He helps in 2007, but not enough to make the playoffs, especially if we are talking 2 years without Konerko.

(4) If you go into 2008 with Thome-Konerko and either Hunter or Rowand in CF, does it make it right?

I mean I am VERY critical of Kenny Williams. I have blamed most of 2007 on him because he didnt do a thing to prevent a 7 8 9 1 2 of Uribe Gonzalez Richar Owens Fields with Terrero and Cintron the fill ins in that order. He relied too much on crappy kids like Aardsma in our bullpen and fell in love with the sound of the catchers glove popping from a 96 mph fastball forgetting its not how it sounds but where its located. He also has struck out 2 years in a row in free agency and fails to land the big fish in FA. He falls in love with his lightning in the bottle players and would rather sign guys like Dye and Erstad and hope they rebound then really push for a big front line FA.

This is why I have said 2008 is his hot seat year. 2006 he built a freaking fantastic team. Anderson was livable as a 9th hitter because of his D in center and it just did not work out. Crede got hurt down the stretch, good relievers went bad, and our 2 best pitchers went 9-18 in 2nd half. You can't hold all of that on Kenny. 2007 everything went wrong, but a lot of that was Kenny being a fool. 2008 he has to get us on track

areilly
11-19-2007, 01:49 AM
I also agree you have to make a "bet" on how things will work out based on the odds. But that's where you and I part company. It's never a smart bet to cover your ass for a perceived problem at DH when the price you're paying is the very real problem of not having an everyday centerfielder.

I KNOW Kenny was making this lousy "bet" because he did nothing but hand Brian Anderson the everyday CF job in 2006 and followed up that losing "bet" with yet another losing "bet" hoping Darin Erstad could fill the role in 2007.

My point is this was all avoidable if only KW recognized the plain obvious truth that finding an everyday centerfielder is far more difficult than finding an everyday designated hitter.

See, I just don't get where this whole argument is going. Lots of people can hit baseballs at a professional level blah blah blah BLAH BLAHB BLAH. Is the point that KW is stupid? KW is foolish? Rowand > BA? Thomas > Thome? Rowand > Thome? You're ignoring a lot of things in this argument, not the least of which are:

1) Sox hitting had nothing - and I mean NOTHING - to do with not making the playoffs in 2006.
2) The DH role was filled quite nicely in 2006. Would the Sox have had a shot in 2007 had they gone ahead with just Thomas/Rowand? Would Politte/Cotts have so quickly gone from the best to the worst bullpen combo in the AL? Would Frank's presence keep Contreras from ****ting his pants nearly every single time out from June 2006 onwards?
3) So the Sox have a solid CF going into 2007. Then what? Is Ryan Bukvich suddenly great? Boone Logan? Mike Myers? Dewon Day? Okay, maybe the Sox don't have Grindy McGrinderstad on the roster but if the guy only played 87 games it's hard to say he made a difference.
4) No matter who's playing CF, MB, Javy and Contreras all still suck in 2006, except maybe that ONE game against the Cubs. One. ONE. So the Sox finish 5 out instead of 6 out. Wow. Awesome. Good thing we kept Frank and Aaron.
5) What of BA? What of Chris Young? What of every prospect? Who are the Sox suddenly trading and not trading, now that the future is so drastically shifted? And how do those moves work out, since we're all so blessed with fictional hindsight?
6) Was 2005 suddenly no longer a fluke year for Jon Garland?
7) How about Dustin Hermanson?
8) With this logjam at CF, what do the Sox do with Young/Anderson/Owens? And how do those hypothetical deals allegedly work out?
9) Brandon McCarthy, anyone?
10) How can you possibly give a **** about how Frank Thomas might help this team finish third in 2008 when, any way you dice it, the Sox still finish 3rd in 2006 and 4th in 2007?
11) How much does Rowand, assuming he stuck with the Sox, command for an extension the same year JD and MB are due up? Do the Sox pay it? Is at as much as he is now as a free agent? There's know way to tell. You just can't know. So they put up $10mil instead of $12mil. Who, o who, o who is available to also plug the holes at SS, leadoff, LF, and most of the bullpen? The back end of the rotation? Long relief? Or could it be that $2mil isn't really going to solve all that?

Repeat: you just can't know. Neither can I.

Look, we're all upset about what happened in 2006, 2007, and most likely 2008. But other than being a #35 man-love revival, I don't see the point of any of this. Some moves work, some don't. Some players perform, others don't. That's baseball. You can live with it, or you can wipe away the tears with the tattered just-like-the-pros-wear jersey of some guy you hardly know. I know where I stand. This one particular move, in the long run, was a wash. Some others worked, while some others didn't. I'm as critical of KW as anyone else but this is just a lame argument gone on too long. If you're looking to expose him as a bad GM there are plenty of other ways to do so.

WikdChiSoxFan
11-19-2007, 11:30 AM
I'm come to believe that Kenny made the Thome deal because it was a good deal. I think he lost the mentality of putting together a team that has incredible chemistry and attitude. Certainly, prior to 2005 he was just looking for a piece here and a piece there, but trying to put pieces that fit together. Keeping in mind, the performance of the starting pitching almost nullifies the results of this deal. And there's no way anyone can know how players will perform this year or the next. I was never a fan of the deal, but on paper I could see how it would make incredible sense. I think the deal was too much about business.

Just my thoughts. I hope Kenny can rebound and get us some nice additions in the off season.

Domeshot17
11-19-2007, 11:47 AM
I'm come to believe that Kenny made the Thome deal because it was a good deal. I think he lost the mentality of putting together a team that has incredible chemistry and attitude. Certainly, prior to 2005 he was just looking for a piece here and a piece there, but trying to put pieces that fit together. Keeping in mind, the performance of the starting pitching almost nullifies the results of this deal. And there's no way anyone can know how players will perform this year or the next. I was never a fan of the deal, but on paper I could see how it would make incredible sense. I think the deal was too much about business.

Just my thoughts. I hope Kenny can rebound and get us some nice additions in the off season.

I call BS on this. I know Rowand was loved in the club house, but so is Thome. The way these guys talk about big jim and the way the celebrated number 500 with him, you can tell he is one of the most popular guys in the clubhouse.

The Dude
11-19-2007, 05:05 PM
What's the point of this? Who wouldn't take Rowand over a hole in CF?

Where's the 'This poll sucks' option?

It was the right trade at the time and I still have no problem with it. Hell, we might end up with Rowand this year with Thome still here as well. Thome has played his ass off for us and Frank was just a big question mark.

Sorry PHG, I have to side with oeo's option.

palehosepub
11-19-2007, 09:14 PM
It was the right trade at the time and I still have no problem with it. Hell, we might end up with Rowand this year with Thome still here as well. Thome has played his ass off for us and Frank was just a big question mark.

Sorry PHG, I have to side with oeo's option.


Id trade Brian Anderson.
Id trade Cotts and Politte
Id trade Contreras
Id trad Pods
Id also trade for Matt Holliday, Freddy Sanchez, Liriano, Mike Lowell and any other players who have been great the last two years

Daver
11-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Id trade Brian Anderson.
Id trade Cotts and Politte
Id trade Contreras
Id trad Pods
Id also trade for Matt Holliday, Freddy Sanchez, Liriano, Mike Lowell and any other players who have been great the last two years

Can I trade you for someone that can actually use punctuation?


Probably not.

fquaye149
11-19-2007, 09:35 PM
Can I trade you for someone that can actually use punctuation?


Probably not.

Pwned

TornLabrum
11-19-2007, 10:29 PM
Id trade Brian Anderson.
Id trade Cotts and Politte
Id trade Contreras
Id trad Pods
Id also trade for Matt Holliday, Freddy Sanchez, Liriano, Mike Lowell and any other players who have been great the last two years

If Id did that what did Ego and Superego do?

Jerome
11-19-2007, 11:58 PM
the non-erstad option

PaleHoseGeorge
11-20-2007, 08:22 PM
S
Look, we're all upset about what happened in 2006, 2007, and most likely 2008. But other than being a #35 man-love revival, I don't see the point of any of this. Some moves work, some don't. Some players perform, others don't. That's baseball. You can live with it, or you can wipe away the tears with the tattered just-like-the-pros-wear jersey of some guy you hardly know. I know where I stand. This one particular move, in the long run, was a wash. Some others worked, while some others didn't. I'm as critical of KW as anyone else but this is just a lame argument gone on too long. If you're looking to expose him as a bad GM there are plenty of other ways to do so.

So not only are you okay with KW creating a full-time hole in CF for what is now 2 years and counting, but even with 20/20 hindsight you're just fine with him doing it over and over again.

When it comes to being smart enough not to repeat mistakes, let's hope Kenny Williams is a faster study than some of the more obstinate posters in this thread who still don't get it.

You don't trade position players for DH's unless you have a better plan than giving the job to the likes of Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad.
:cool:

Daver
11-20-2007, 08:25 PM
So not only are you okay with KW creating a full-time hole in CF for what is now 2 years and counting, but even with 20/20 hindsight you're just fine with him doing it over and over again.

When it comes to being smart enough not to repeat mistakes, let's hope Kenny Williams is a faster study than some of the more obstinate posters in this thread who still don't get it.

You don't trade position players for DH's unless you have a better plan than giving the job to the likes of Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad.
:cool:Center field was a hole before Kenny took over, he filled it with a left fielder.

fquaye149
11-20-2007, 08:43 PM
It's true--defensively speaking, Anderson has been the only real centerfielder to play center field for the Sox in qutie a while.

Offensively speaking...well...clearly he didn't produce...

I guess I just miss Mike Cameron

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 06:38 PM
Where were we in this thread? Oh yes, several people making a feeble attempt to suggest Aaron Rowand was no better an everyday centerfielder* than either Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad.
* Everyday centerfielder = the guy you trust to give roughly 11% of all the at-bats the Sox will have during the season and cover the third most-important defensive position in the game.
Torii Hunter to the Angels and KW's 2-year hole remains a gaping one... but we have a DH.

Stupid...

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 06:54 PM
Where were we in this thread? Oh yes, several people making a feeble attempt to suggest Aaron Rowand was no better an everyday centerfielder* than either Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad. * Everyday centerfielder = the guy you trust to give roughly 11% of all the at-bats the Sox will have during the season and cover the third most-important defensive position in the game.
Torii Hunter to the Angels and KW's 2-year hole remains a gaping one... but we have a DH.

Stupid...

seems like you're putting words in people's mouths

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 07:12 PM
seems like you're putting words in people's mouths

Sure, so instead let me put words in my own mouth.

I'm laughing at anyone who thinks Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad were ever reasonable substitutes for Aaron Rowand as everyday centerfielder, including the cuts at the plate the job requires, roughly one-ninth of the total all Sox hitters will be given in the season.

No everyday Sox centerfielder but we have a DH. KW should be trusted to be smart enough not to repeat this mistake now armed with 20/20 hindsight. However what can you say for all the others who would do it again anyway?
:wink:

eastchicagosoxfan
11-22-2007, 07:43 PM
Sure, so instead let me put words in my own mouth.

I'm laughing at anyone who thinks Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad were ever reasonable substitutes for Aaron Rowand as everyday centerfielder, including the cuts at the plate the job requires, roughly one-ninth of the total all Sox hitters will be given in the season.

No everyday Sox centerfielder but we have a DH. KW should be trusted to be smart enough not to repeat this mistake now armed with 20/20 hindsight. However what can you say for all the others who would do it again anyway?
:wink:
I understand your arguement. I think KW made the deal because he was following convential wisdom. He believed the team needed a left handed bat, and got one. He believed he had a guy ready to take the reins in CF, and that the offense from Thome would cover any shortcoming on Anderson's part. KW was wrong. If Anderson had worked out, there's no hand-wringing about Hunter. It's the perils of the business. Will KW be able to sign Jones or Rowand, who knows? I like PHG's logic, and KW better try really hard to fill the void.

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 09:02 PM
Sure, so instead let me put words in my own mouth.

I'm laughing at anyone who thinks Brian Anderson or Darin Erstad were ever reasonable substitutes for Aaron Rowand as everyday centerfielder, including the cuts at the plate the job requires, roughly one-ninth of the total all Sox hitters will be given in the season.

No everyday Sox centerfielder but we have a DH. KW should be trusted to be smart enough not to repeat this mistake now armed with 20/20 hindsight. However what can you say for all the others who would do it again anyway?
:wink:

Then let me put words in my own mouth:

In 2005's offseason I thought the following was a better situation:

Thome+Konerko+Anderson

vs.

Everett+Konerko+Rowand

I expected Frank to miss a considerable part of the season, and I figured Anderson would hit around .250 and his defense would make up for the lack of offensive production b/t him and Rowand. I also thought the improvement Thome offered over Everett was substantial enough to make up for Rowand being > Anderson as well.

I didn't expect Frank to play even half of 2006, if ever again.

I was wrong, but I hardly think I was idiotic to expect that to be the case.

If you want to laugh at me and Kenny, go ahead, I guess

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 09:08 PM
If you want to laugh at me and Kenny, go ahead, I guess

Actually I'm laughing at people who would trade an everyday centerfielder for a designated hitter... not just once but multiple times over. Haven't I made that clear?

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 09:11 PM
Actually I'm laughing at people who would trade an everyday centerfielder for a designated hitter... not just once but multiple times over. Haven't I made that clear?

I guess if you want to oversimplify the situation, then it is clear, yeah.

But it kind of sounds like the people who think the garland deal was dumb because "now we have 2 ss's! omg!"

it's really not as simple as all that

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 09:14 PM
it's really not as simple as all that

It's only complicated for people who don't understand it. Last I check it was nearly a third of the voters above.

You want an everyday DH and you'll willingly trade an everyday centerfielder? Some people even admit they would do it again. And I'm not even putting words in their mouth...
:o:

Stupid is as stupid does.

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 09:20 PM
It's only complicated for people who don't understand it. Last I check it was nearly a third of the voters above.

You want an everyday DH and you'll willingly trade an everyday centerfielder?
Some people even admit they would do it again. And I'm not even putting words in their mouth...
:o:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Even if we assume that's all it boils down to,

Look at Rowand's 2006 #'s. What is that the difference in? 2 games?

And it's not like Rowand would have solved our 2008 CF problem--last I checked, he's a FA.

Please stop trying to make this so clear cut when it's clearly not.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 09:22 PM
Please stop trying to make this so clear cut when it's clearly not.

Go ahead and make it complicated for me. We're only 100+ posts into this thread. I can't wait to find out what argument you still have left to state that hasn't already been debunked several times over.

:cool:

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 09:27 PM
Go ahead and make it complicated for me. We're only 100+ posts into this thread. I can't wait to find out what argument you still have left to state that hasn't already been debunked several times over.

:cool:

You mean debunked in your own mind?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 09:46 PM
You mean debunked in your own mind?

Debunked for anyone willing to read and using what God gave them between their ears.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong, but be brave enough to explain why. So far I only see you running away...

fquaye149
11-22-2007, 09:56 PM
Debunked for anyone willing to read and using what God gave them between their ears.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong, but be brave enough to explain why. So far I only see you running away...

I've done it a number of times. I respect your opinions a great deal, but let's not resort to name calling here.

Frankly, if you really wish to respond to why this deal was a little more complicated than "CF for a DH", here are some things you might address

1.) We had our top OF prospect ready to take over CF, a position he played naturally, for a LF playing out of position in CF (Rowand) who gave us average to below-average defense.

2.) Even though Anderson failed in 06 miserably, his numbers weren't so horrendously worse than Rowand that having Rowand in 06 would have meant the difference b/t making the playoffs and not making the playoffs, especially when you consider that Rowand would have given us inferior defense.

3.) There was much reason to believe that Frank Thomas might never play another game, and that even if he did play again, that he wouldn't be ready by June.

4.) The latter turned out to be true.

5.) Although we had won in 05 with Everett at DH backing up an injured Frank, there was much reason to think our pitching couldn't repeat their 05 performance, and that even if they did, with Cleveland and Detroit looking to improve vastly in 06, that even that might not be enough without a comparable offense.

All of this is stuff we could have known in 05 going into the 06 season. Here are some things we can say about this deal going into the 08 season

1.) Anderson was a disaster. However, Rowand wouldn't have likely got us into the playoffs in 06, as he missed a lot of games, and he only hit .260 with like 12 HR....Anderson hit .220 with 8 HR, which is significantly worse, but not 6 games worse, especially since Anderson played much better defense

2.) Rowand had a great 07, sure, but that certainly wouldn't have meant the difference between the playoffs in 07

3.) The difference between Frank and Thome in 2006 was negligible, although Thome had his best #'s in the early part of the season, when Frank was hurt. Had we been stuck with Frank/Everett at DH, we would have likely been completely out of the race come July/August

4.) Thome was much better than Frank in 2007

5.) Although it's possible Rowand would have given us a hometown discount this offseason had we kept him, it's nothing we can assume. Therefore, losing Rowand for 2006 and 2007 (two seasons which he wouldn't have meant the diff. b/t playoffs and no playoffs in) doesn't really hurt us AT ALL going int 2008, expect for the fact that if he WERE on the team and we didn't sign him we would have gotten a compensatory pick.


Ok? You want to respond to that instead of just "politely" insinuating I'm incapable of using my brain?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 10:48 PM
This post is like a time machine where we have to dial back to the ancient history of less than 1 week ago. (I knew you wouldn't come up with anything new.) We've covered every bit of this material already...

1.) We had our top OF prospect ready to take over CF, a position he played naturally, for a LF playing out of position in CF (Rowand) who gave us average to below-average defense.

All evidence to the contrary? The "out of position" left fielder who played 157 games in CENTER FIELD for a 99-win team and made the all-star team playing the position last year, too?

2.) Even though Anderson failed in 06 miserably, his numbers weren't so horrendously worse than Rowand that having Rowand in 06 would have meant the difference b/t making the playoffs and not making the playoffs, especially when you consider that Rowand would have given us inferior defense.

Rowand average's 508 at-bats across 7 seasons but Brian Anderson and Darin Erstad's production is to be trusted more? O-kay...

3.) There was much reason to believe that Frank Thomas might never play another game, and that even if he did play again, that he wouldn't be ready by June.

Funny, I remember Frank hitting a dinger his first at-bat back at Sox Park that spring. It was May. You want to take another swing at that one?
:wink:
4.) The latter turned out to be true.
You're suffering from bad turkey or something. He hit a dinger off Garland May 22 his first trip back to Chicago.
:?:
5.) Although we had won in 05 with Everett at DH backing up an injured Frank, there was much reason to think our pitching couldn't repeat their 05 performance, and that even if they did, with Cleveland and Detroit looking to improve vastly in 06, that even that might not be enough without a comparable offense.

Upgrading the back up DH to somebody better than Everett was infinitely easier than upgrading to somebody better than Rowand in everyday CF -- or haven't you been paying attention the last 2 years, or even yesterday when Torii signed with Anaheim?

1.) Anderson was a disaster. However, Rowand wouldn't have likely got us into the playoffs in 06, as he missed a lot of games, and he only hit .260 with like 12 HR....Anderson hit .220 with 8 HR, which is significantly worse, but not 6 games worse, especially since Anderson played much better defense
By your logic Anderson should have been playing ahead of Rowand in 2005 and 2007, too. If you honestly think he is that good, say so.

2.) Rowand had a great 07, sure, but that certainly wouldn't have meant the difference between the playoffs in 07

If upgrading our everyday centerfield position to the likes of Brian Anderson and Darin Erstad is your idea of a difference maker, I tremble at the thought of hearing what you think would hurt the Sox.
:o:

3.) The difference between Frank and Thome in 2006 was negligible, although Thome had his best #'s in the early part of the season, when Frank was hurt. Had we been stuck with Frank/Everett at DH, we would have likely been completely out of the race come July/August

Everett was gone barely after the championship ticker tape was swept up, or did you miss this point from the very first post (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1723977&postcount=1) of this thread?
:wink:

Upgrading that position was a moot point. I give KW enough credit for finding practically anyone better than Everett, but you don't? Strange...

4.) Thome was much better than Frank in 2007
And every ninth at-bat there was a gaping hole caused 100 percent by losing our everyday centerfielder, the price of getting Thome. That's the concept behind the poll, and the purpose of this thread. Try and keep up.


5.) Although it's possible Rowand would have given us a hometown discount this offseason had we kept him, it's nothing we can assume. Therefore, losing Rowand for 2006 and 2007 (two seasons which he wouldn't have meant the diff. b/t playoffs and no playoffs in) doesn't really hurt us AT ALL going int 2008, expect for the fact that if he WERE on the team and we didn't sign him we would have gotten a compensatory pick.

Short of suffering from acute memory loss, I can't understand why you would serve me so many softball points to answer. Perhaps you feel a casual reader might be fooled into thinking you've made a point simply by writing so much?

I didn't mean to suggest you lacked intelligence for complicating the matter, and my apologies if it was interpreted that way. Unfortunately I believe you did yourself a far greater disservice writing what you have above.

:cool:

Domeshot17
11-22-2007, 10:52 PM
Im still waiting for answers to my questions from days ago, or were those 'debunked' already.

Rowand is an average hitting CF who plays average defense. Thome is a future Hall of Famer, if you wouldnt trade average for Hall of Fame good for you.

What if it was Pujols, he would have to DH since we have PK, would you trade Rowand for Pujols?

You can over simplify this all you want, but its stupid. If we were talking an elite center fielder fine, lets talk. We are talking about Aaron freaking Rowand, that trade did not cost us the playoffs in 2006 or 2007.

Unless Rowand stops our starting pitching and bullpen from imploding in 2006, he makes zero difference, believe what you want, but he wasn't on the mound, our pitching blew it that year, not out hitting.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2007, 11:01 PM
Im still waiting for answers to my questions from days ago, or were those 'debunked' already.

Rowand is an average hitting CF who plays average defense. Thome is a future Hall of Famer, if you wouldnt trade average for Hall of Fame good for you.

Sorry. I thought it was too obvious a point to answer. The day Jim Thome picks up a glove and plays centerfield is the day you'll have made a point about what the Sox lost when roughly 11 percent of the team's at-bats were trusted to Brian Anderson and Darin Erstad.

What if it was Pujols, he would have to DH since we have PK, would you trade Rowand for Pujols?

I didn't realize the Cardinals were offering Pujols for Rowand.
:wink:

You can over simplify this all you want, but its stupid. If we were talking an elite center fielder fine, lets talk. We are talking about Aaron freaking Rowand, that trade did not cost us the playoffs in 2006 or 2007.

Unless Rowand stops our starting pitching and bullpen from imploding in 2006, he makes zero difference, believe what you want, but he wasn't on the mound, our pitching blew it that year, not out hitting.

The Sox don't need an elite DH half as much as I need a decent CF -- which is precisely what Jim Thome cost us and the problem we're discussing here. We've covered this... and I agree it's stupid that this point still is denied by so many people.

Domeshot17
11-22-2007, 11:17 PM
I am not saying Kenny hasn't failed to fill the CF hole

But you so hellbent on proving Kenny is an idiot you fail to think about things logically

Without Thome there is no Konerko, so reguardless of the 1/9 of our at bats our 9 hitter got (which is actually more like 1/14th of the at bats because the 9 hitters gets so much less ABs then the top of the order guys plus the games role players play). So now you arent replacing 11% of the at bats (or in reality 7% of the at bats) you are placing closer to 23%, and in the part of the order needed to produce runs, the 3-4 slots.

When we brought Thome over he had a 2 fold purpose. He would DH if we brought back Konerko, or play 1st if he went elsewhere. We can argue if Frank was healthy or not (which is about as much of an arguement as if Freddy Garcia pitches a full season with us) but at the time it was a huge question mark. Not just Kenny, but Sox doctors and trainers were very concerned about Franks foot.

Ive said it in other posts, Im not a full Kenny Backer, Ive started threads saying this is put up or shut up time for him. I also think he acted like an uprofessional goon taking that war of words with Frank into the media. But I stand by the idea that you have an easier time replacing your 9 hitter then you do your 3 and 4. I would rather lose 12 homers and 60 rbis then 36 and 110.

Either way this is not what cost us the playoffs. Buehrle-Contreras-Pods-Cotts-Politte before his release, Hermanson hurt, Mccarthy unable to be a reliever those are what cost us the playoffs.

2007 was a disaster at way more positions then CF, and Kenny should be on the hotseat for it now.

santo=dorf
11-22-2007, 11:42 PM
It's funny how the consensus at WSI was Aaron Rowand wasn't good enough to be an everyday OF, and he (and some still feel this way) isn't a good defensive CF.
Here are the White Sox AL rank in stats for the DH position in 2005 (yes, it includes Timo's DH stats)
BA: 12th
OBP: 13th
SLG: 4th
OPS: 8th

The Sox's DH weren't too impressive, but they still won the World Series. A situation presented itself as the Phillies, who aren't of benefit with a DH, had a first baseman blocking the development of a promised young player who was built for first.

Let's analyze this from two different scenarios:
Scenario 1: Trade isn't made, Konerko doesn't re-sign. No way do I accept this. I'd like to see who the Sox would've signed to replace Konerko's 2006 line of .313/.381/.551

Scenario 2: Trade isn't made, Konerko signs. Frank Thomas production in 2006 and 06 and 07 combined isn't as close as people are trying to make it seem.
Thomas' combined two years: .274/.382/.511/.893 65 HRs and 209 RBIs
Thome's Combined two years: .282/.417/.581/.999 (decimals raise it) 77 HRs and 204 RBIs. That 106 point difference in OPS is huge, not "marginal."

Take a look at the rank in stats for the DH in 2006:
BA: 4th (+8)
OBP: 2nd (+9)
SLG: 3rd (+1)
OPS: 3rd (+5)

They upgraded in every area, and in the most important category they went from the second worst to the second best!

It was a difficult situation for the Sox to offer Thomas arbitration because he was making $8 million in 2005, he was a huge injury risk with his ankle, and he became pretty one dimensional. His batting average was .219 and he could only hit home runs at home (.254 BA, 9 HR.) After the 2006 failure,

Ozzie and some Sox fans felt that we hit too many home runs and the Sox were living and dying by the home run. I don't see how Thomas would've changed any of that in 2006 (he only had 11 doubles.)
There's also no guarantee that after 2006 the Sox would've sign Thomas. If Frank were on the Sox in 2006, people would've been grilling him for his slow start in April (his OBP was the same as Anderson's .290) and his huge September would've meant nothing as the Sox would've been even further out of the race. The A's were fortunate to be in the AL West and the Sox were unfortunate to play in the same division as the Twins and Tigers. Is it any coincidence that Dye, Crede and to an extent, Konerko had career years when Thome was added to the lineup?

The next part of this is the CF situation. Since we're doing this from the GM's perspective, we can't assume Guillen would play Brian and Mack the way he did. The Sox could've fix the situation or played it differently without having to pull back the trade to keep Rowand. The Erstad signing sucked from the beginning and there were a few of us who recognized it from the beginning (and we were incorrectly labeled as "Haters") and this situation is different because KW should've known Brian would not get a chance over this washed up "grinder" who he's had a crush on for some time.

If we only had Thome for 2006 and 2007 it wouldn't be such a great trade. I think a more mature manager would've handled the CF situation in 2006 better which would've led to another playoff berth likely preventing this discussion from happening (or if our pitching staff pitched closer to their career norms.)

I'll gladly accept Thome as our DH for $8 million a year for the next 3-4 years (I recall reading an article where there was a handshake agreement to kick in cash if Thome's 2009 option was picked up.)

It would've been great to see Thomas hit 500 with the Sox, and retire playing with only one team, but with the situation the Sox were in, and the opportunity presenting itself (Thome was blocking Howard) I'd do the trade again.

The Dude
11-23-2007, 12:53 AM
Go ahead and make it complicated for me. We're only 100+ posts into this thread. I can't wait to find out what argument you still have left to state that hasn't already been debunked several times over.

:cool:

Not sure if that was mentioned because I don't feel like reading this entire thread but....

Question PHG. Who was the team leader in the following categories for the 2007 season:

1.) Batting average
2.) Runs Scored
3.) Home Runs
4.) Runs Batted In
5.) Slugging percentage
6.) On base percentage
7.) OPS
8.) Walks

:dunno:

Frater Perdurabo
11-23-2007, 07:26 AM
Other posters have empircally proven that Thome has produced more than Frank, so it's clear that the traded did upgrade the DH position, which last time I checked got the same approximate 1/9th of the Sox plate appearances. So I will focus on the offensive differential in CF.

In 2006, Brian Anderson had 405 total plate appearances, 365 ABs, 82 hits, 46 runs, 23 doubles, a triple, 8 homers, 30 walks, 33 RBI, 90 Ks, 4 steals and 7 caught stealing. Anderson lost ABs because, according to Ozzie, it was Ozzie's plan all along to give Mackowiak starts in CF.

In 2006, Aaron Rowand had 445 total plate appearances, 405 ABs, 106 hits, 59 runs, 24 doubles, 3 triples, 12 homers, 18 walks, 47 RBI, 76 Ks, 10 steals and 4 caught stealing. Rowand lost ABs because he got hurt running into a wall.

So far, none of these facts are in dispute. Now, let's average out their 2006 stats over 550 ABs.

BA would project to 110 hits, 62 runs, 31 doubles, a triple, 11 homers, 40 walks, 45 RBI, 121 Ks, 6 steals and 10 caught stealing.

Rowand would project to 130 hits, 73 runs, 30 doubles, 4 triples, 15 homers, 22 walks, 58 RBI, 94 Ks, 12 steals and 5 caught stealings.

So, over a projected full 2006 season, Rowand would have 20 more hits, 11 more runs, 1 more double, 3 more triples, 4 more homers, 18 fewer walks, 13 more RBI, 27 fewer Ks, 6 more steals and 5 fewer caught stealings.

Does anyone honestly think that difference between Anderson and Rowand at the plate is what cost the Sox a shot at the playoffs in 2006?

fquaye149
11-23-2007, 09:31 AM
Short of suffering from acute memory loss, I can't understand why you would serve me so many softball points to answer. Perhaps you feel a casual reader might be fooled into thinking you've made a point simply by writing so much?

I didn't mean to suggest you lacked intelligence for complicating the matter, and my apologies if it was interpreted that way. Unfortunately I believe you did yourself a far greater disservice writing what you have above.

:cool:

And of course, despite your patronizing attitude, you have yet to address the most important points I raised, which were:


5.) Although it's possible Rowand would have given us a hometown discount this offseason had we kept him, it's nothing we can assume. Therefore, losing Rowand for 2006 and 2007 (two seasons which he wouldn't have meant the diff. b/t playoffs and no playoffs in) doesn't really hurt us AT ALL going int 2008, expect for the fact that if he WERE on the team and we didn't sign him we would have gotten a compensatory pick

1.) Anderson was a disaster. However, Rowand wouldn't have likely got us into the playoffs in 06, as he missed a lot of games, and he only hit .260 with like 12 HR....Anderson hit .220 with 8 HR, which is significantly worse, but not 6 games worse, especially since Anderson played much better defense

2.) Rowand had a great 07, sure, but that certainly wouldn't have meant the difference between the playoffs in 07

For the latter two, you chose to ignore the issue completely, deciding instead to put in my mouth the idea that Anderson was better than Rowand. Clearly I don't believe that, at least not offensively.

Fact of the matter is my claim is that Rowand, despite having a better stick than Anderson, does not get us to the playoffs in 06 or 07 since his #'s aren't worth 6 more wins in 06 and certainly aren't worth like 25 win in 07.

Furthermore, Rowand's a free agent now, so since we wouldn't have made the playoffs WITH him and we wouldn't have any significantly better chance of retaining him for 08, we really lost absolutely nothing by trading him except maybe a second place finish in 2006

Frater Perdurabo
11-23-2007, 09:59 AM
Moreover, the ultimate and only useful test of a GM is whether or not his team wins a World Series.

KW won a World Series. Most other GMs have not. Since after the 2000 season, when KW took over the job, six GMs have passed that test, and only one has passed it twice. Only one passes the test each year. Everyone else fails.

Every GM makes good and bad decisions, and every GM makes deals that may have looked good at the time, but turn out rotten.

Offensive production from the CF position had very little to do with the Sox winning it all in 2005. Likewise, lack of offensive production from CF had very little to do with the Sox failing to make the playoffs in 2006 and 2007. In both cases it was pitching that made the difference.

Dwelling on the CF position and how we evaluate how KW filled the job is interesting at first, but ultimately just a stick to browbeat and insult others. Now it's just...

:deadhorse:

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 10:25 AM
Royce Clayton couldn't carry Barry's jock at the plate, but the best defensive shortstop Walnuts has played with in the 'show' is the Choice....not even a debate.LMAO!! You're a FOB, a Choice lover. That sure explains a lot! :roflmao: