PDA

View Full Version : What If We Were To Change Directions Here?


Lillian
11-23-2007, 08:39 AM
Maybe we really "dodged a bullet" by getting outbid on Hunter. Although most astute observers feel that the Angels overpaid for his services, and gave him too many years, at least it seems justifiable for a team like the Angels. At least they're poised to make a serious run at a world Championship.

The Sox, on the other hand, would seem to have too many holes to fill, and far too little money, or young talent, to take a realistic shot at another title. Now that we have failed at a legitimate attempt to throw money at one of those holes, I would like to see the organization step back and reassess their strategy for building a competitive team, but one with more emphasis on the future.

If we were to change direction, and try to go younger, how would you proceed?
We all know that the Sox have very few top prospects, ready to move up to the Major Leagues. We do however have a high draft pick this June, and plenty of potential trading capital in older players, who would fit into other teamsí plans to make a run right away.

My personal preference would be to start by not giving up any of our young arms. We will need all of them, given the odds of success for pitching prospects. Iíd like to start by seeing what young talent we could pry loose from the Angels for Konerko. We have discussed this elsewhere, but just to fill in some names here; letís say that we get back their young left fielder, Willits as our lead off hitter. He is only 26, and has the ability to get on base.
Ervin Santana will just turn 25 next month. He has had some problems but maybe Cooper could help him to realize what seems to be significant potential. If we could get one more youngster from them, we might begin to form the nucleus of young players who could still compete now. Kendry Morales might be an intriguing possibility, or perhaps Casey Kotchman. The Angels donít need them all.

Adding these guys to our young pitchers, Richar, Fields, and even an older Owens, and later Carter, Sweeney, John Shelby, Jose Martinez, the 16 year old Dominican SS, and our # 8 pick in June, could jump start a youth movement for this slow, aging group.

What would you do, if that were the direction in which the organization wanted to go?

Domeshot17
11-23-2007, 08:48 AM
Maybe we really "dodged a bullet" by getting outbid on Hunter. Although most astute observers feel that the Angels overpaid for his services, and gave him too many years, at least it seems justifiable for a team like the Angels. At least they're poised to make a serious run at a world Championship.

The Sox, on the other hand, would seem to have too many holes to fill, and far too little money, or young talent, to take a realistic shot at another title. Now that we have failed at a legitimate attempt to throw money at one of those holes, I would like to see the organization step back and reassess their strategy for building a competitive team, but one with more emphasis on the future.

If we were to change direction, and try to go younger, how would you proceed?
We all know that the Sox have very few top prospects, ready to move up to the Major Leagues. We do however have a high draft pick this June, and plenty of potential trading capital in older players, who would fit into other teamsí plans to make a run right away.

My personal preference would be to start by not giving up any of our young arms. We will need all of them, given the odds of success for pitching prospects. Iíd like to start by seeing what young talent we could pry loose from the Angels for Konerko. We have discussed this elsewhere, but just to fill in some names here; letís say that we get back their young left fielder, Willits as our lead off hitter. He is only 26, and has the ability to get on base.
Ervin Santana will just turn 25 next month. He has had some problems but maybe Cooper could help him to realize what seems to be significant potential. If we could get one more youngster from them, we might begin to form the nucleus of young players who could still compete now. Kendry Morales might be an intriguing possibility, or perhaps Casey Kotchman. The Angels donít need them all.

Adding these guys to our young pitchers, Richar, Fields, and even an older Owens, and later Carter, Sweeney, John Shelby, Jose Martinez, the 16 year old Dominican SS, and our # 8 pick in June, could jump start a youth movement for this slow, aging group.

What would you do, if that were the direction in which the organization wanted to go?

No

If we trade Konerko, then we have to deal Javy-Thome-Crede-Buehrle-Dye and now you are talking about using up Jenks minimuim and then arbitration years in garbage years and trying to resign him when/if these kids develop.

I enjoy winning and in the modern game it is very possible to turn a team around in a year.

palehozenychicty
11-23-2007, 08:52 AM
Personally, I'd rebuild the farm system from the ground up and establish a philosophy of play within that system. They have started doing that with Buddy Bell as the director of the minor league organization. I think that would be the most sage idea, but after signing Buehrle, Dye, and AJ to multi-year deals, you must compete on the major league field. KW isn't done dealing, so we must hold judgement. I like the aggressive moves so far, but I just wish once in awhile that we could get a chunk of good young players on this team. Hopefully the draft will accomplish this, partnering them with Fields, Richar et al.

KyWhiSoxFan
11-23-2007, 08:53 AM
Maybe we really "dodged a bullet" by getting outbid on Hunter. Although most astute observers feel that the Angels overpaid for his services, and gave him too many years, at least it seems justifiable for a team like the Angels. At least they're poised to make a serious run at a world Championship.

The Sox, on the other hand, would seem to have too many holes to fill, and far too little money, or young talent, to take a realistic shot at another title. Now that we have failed at a legitimate attempt to throw money at one of those holes, I would like to see the organization step back and reassess their strategy for building a competitive team, but one with more emphasis on the future.

If we were to change direction, and try to go younger, how would you proceed?
We all know that the Sox have very few top prospects, ready to move up to the Major Leagues. We do however have a high draft pick this June, and plenty of potential trading capital in older players, who would fit into other teamsí plans to make a run right away.

My personal preference would be to start by not giving up any of our young arms. We will need all of them, given the odds of success for pitching prospects. Iíd like to start by seeing what young talent we could pry loose from the Angels for Konerko. We have discussed this elsewhere, but just to fill in some names here; letís say that we get back their young left fielder, Willits as our lead off hitter. He is only 26, and has the ability to get on base.
Ervin Santana will just turn 25 next month. He has had some problems but maybe Cooper could help him to realize what seems to be significant potential. If we could get one more youngster from them, we might begin to form the nucleus of young players who could still compete now. Kendry Morales might be an intriguing possibility, or perhaps Casey Kotchman. The Angels donít need them all.

Adding these guys to our young pitchers, Richar, Fields, and even an older Owens, and later Carter, Sweeney, John Shelby, Jose Martinez, the 16 year old Dominican SS, and our # 8 pick in June, could jump start a youth movement for this slow, aging group.

What would you do, if that were the direction in which the organization wanted to go?

The Sox will never think of rebuilding for 2008 ....

That said, if they were going to go with a youth movement, they would trade Jenks, Konerko, Crede, Thornton, and Contreras. Jenks, in particular, and Konerko would bring multiple top-flight prospects. But then you're looking at 2009 or 2010 as you wait for Gio and others to develop. KW will be trading prospects before he is acquiring them.

Lillian
11-23-2007, 09:01 AM
I understand the obstacles of trying to go young, especially after having committed to some older players by extending contracts. However, I was hoping for some ideas of beginning to make a gradual shift toward youth, while still remaining competitive. I think the proposed Konerko deal would be an example of that.

Rather than debate the merits of going in that direction, could we please discuss some potential moves consistent with that strategy? Perhaps we would be better able to comment upon the merits of that approach, after we had examined some of the moves more carefully.

Frater Perdurabo
11-23-2007, 09:15 AM
I would deal Paulie to the Angels for Willits, Santana and Shields.

I then would invest the payroll savings into taking a flyer on Colon. I might even do the same with Garcia.

Then, Uribe and Contreras could be dealt for prospects.

It's not rebuilding; it's re-loading on the fly.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to sacrifice offense in the 9-hole to get one defensive specialist on the field, in this case in CF, as the Sox now have decent hitting at the other two most important defensive positions - SS and C. So, BA is OK in my book, just for defense. Plus, the defense is fantastic up the middle and at third base. That helps the pitching, too.

Lineup: Willits, Cabrera, Thome, Dye, Fields, Crede, AJ, Richar, BA

Speed at 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. Power at 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Good average/OBP at 1, 2 and 3. 8 and 9 also hit lots of doubles.

Rotation: Buehrle, Vazquez, Santana, Colon, Danks

Pen: Jenks, Shields, Linebrink, Thornton, Wasserman, Logan/MacDougal

EDIT: By clearing the salaries of PK, Uribe and Contreras off the books and replacing them with younger, more inexpensive players, the Sox now have the resources to pursue Santana or another top-flight potential FA pitcher, or upgrade many positions after 2008.

palehozenychicty
11-23-2007, 09:23 AM
I would actually deal JD and Brian Anderson to the Dodgers for Kemp/Laroche. They need power in the outfield and we need young, athletic position players.

Lillian
11-23-2007, 09:51 AM
Now we're talkin'! Thanks

Brian26
11-23-2007, 11:24 AM
Personally, I'd rebuild the farm system from the ground up and establish a philosophy of play within that system. They have started doing that with Buddy Bell as the director of the minor league organization.


I hope they have a chance to do that. Continuing to see trade rumors involving the Angels and Red Sox is a sobbering reality check for Sox fans in terms of young talent coming up. When I look at the Angels and can pick six to eight young guys I'd like to have on our team, that's scary. Between Willits, Santana, Kendrick, Figgins, Kotchman,.... they are loaded.

twinsuck1
11-23-2007, 11:26 AM
I would deal Paulie to the Angels for Willits, Santana and Shields.

I then would invest the payroll savings into taking a flyer on Colon. I might even do the same with Garcia.

Then, Uribe and Contreras could be dealt for prospects.

It's not rebuilding; it's re-loading on the fly.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to sacrifice offense in the 9-hole to get one defensive specialist on the field, in this case in CF, as the Sox now have decent hitting at the other two most important defensive positions - SS and C. So, BA is OK in my book, just for defense. Plus, the defense is fantastic up the middle and at third base. That helps the pitching, too.

Lineup: Willits, Cabrera, Thome, Dye, Fields, Crede, AJ, Richar, BA

Speed at 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. Power at 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Good average/OBP at 1, 2 and 3. 8 and 9 also hit lots of doubles.

Rotation: Buehrle, Vazquez, Santana, Colon, Danks

Pen: Jenks, Shields, Linebrink, Thornton, Wasserman, Logan/MacDougal

EDIT: By clearing the salaries of PK, Uribe and Contreras off the books and replacing them with younger, more inexpensive players, the Sox now have the resources to pursue Santana or another top-flight potential FA pitcher, or upgrade many positions after 2008.

I could live with this appraoch. :smile:

Brian26
11-23-2007, 11:28 AM
I would actually deal JD and Brian Anderson to the Dodgers for Kemp/Laroche. They need power in the outfield and we need young, athletic position players.

I like the idea, but I believe Dye has a no-trade clause written into his new contract.

Sockinchisox
11-23-2007, 11:37 AM
We just traded for a 33 yr old Shortstop who they want to sign to a long-term contract.

We just signed a 31 yr old reliever for 4 years.

They're not going young anytime soon.

And the JD + Anderson for Kemp thing is highway robbery on our end, Colletti didn't even want to give up Kemp for Buehrle.

btrain929
11-23-2007, 02:08 PM
I would deal Paulie to the Angels for Willits, Santana and Shields.

I then would invest the payroll savings into taking a flyer on Colon. I might even do the same with Garcia.

Then, Uribe and Contreras could be dealt for prospects.

It's not rebuilding; it's re-loading on the fly.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm willing to sacrifice offense in the 9-hole to get one defensive specialist on the field, in this case in CF, as the Sox now have decent hitting at the other two most important defensive positions - SS and C. So, BA is OK in my book, just for defense. Plus, the defense is fantastic up the middle and at third base. That helps the pitching, too.

Lineup: Willits, Cabrera, Thome, Dye, Fields, Crede, AJ, Richar, BA

Speed at 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9. Power at 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Good average/OBP at 1, 2 and 3. 8 and 9 also hit lots of doubles.

Rotation: Buehrle, Vazquez, Santana, Colon, Danks

Pen: Jenks, Shields, Linebrink, Thornton, Wasserman, Logan/MacDougal

EDIT: By clearing the salaries of PK, Uribe and Contreras off the books and replacing them with younger, more inexpensive players, the Sox now have the resources to pursue Santana or another top-flight potential FA pitcher, or upgrade many positions after 2008.

If we move Contreras, we will have to send money along with him, so ALL of his money wouldn't be off the books. Plus, guys like Colon will have a lot of suitors, and might not cost much less than a Contreras, anyways. I've been talking about trading Konerko for a while as long as we get the right return. I would absolutely do it if it involved Willits, Kotchman, and Shields/high pitching prospect. I'd really look to see what we got get for Thome as well. If we keep Crede (which I don't think we will) Fields can be the DH. If we can free up that money, that'd be huge as well. If not, Thome (when healthy) is still very dangerous.

soxtalker
11-23-2007, 02:14 PM
If we move Contreras, we will have to send money along with him, so ALL of his money wouldn't be off the books. Plus, guys like Colon will have a lot of suitors, and might not cost much less than a Contreras, anyways. I've been talking about trading Konerko for a while as long as we get the right return. I would absolutely do it if it involved Willits, Kotchman, and Shields/high pitching prospect. I'd really look to see what we got get for Thome as well. If we keep Crede (which I don't think we will) Fields can be the DH. If we can free up that money, that'd be huge as well. If not, Thome (when healthy) is still very dangerous.

I don't understand suggestions of trading Thome. IIRC, he has had a very strong no-trade clause in his contract. He allowed Philadelphia to trade him to Chicago, as he was coming home. But I don't think that he can be very easily traded away.

btrain929
11-23-2007, 02:56 PM
I don't understand suggestions of trading Thome. IIRC, he has had a very strong no-trade clause in his contract. He allowed Philadelphia to trade him to Chicago, as he was coming home. But I don't think that he can be very easily traded away.

If he has a no trade clause, then that's one thing. But every year that passes by, he'll be playing less and less games due to him deteriorating. He might think that after his last year under contract where he makes 13 million, that he'll be able to go out there and land a 3 year 30-40 million dollar contract. If that's the case, then we should look to trade him. If we have talks with him now or in the near future about wanting to keep him on this team until he retires, then hopefully he'll cut back on his asking salary because he should know that in a few years he'll only be worth 6-10ish million a year. If that's the case, then I'd love to see him retire as a White Sox and possibly extend his contract for 2 more years at 16-18 million. If he's still somewhat healthy and productive after 2-3 years, then keep giving him 1-2 yr extensions.

guillen4life13
11-23-2007, 05:18 PM
If he has a no trade clause, then that's one thing. But every year that passes by, he'll be playing less and less games due to him deteriorating. He might think that after his last year under contract where he makes 13 million, that he'll be able to go out there and land a 3 year 30-40 million dollar contract. If that's the case, then we should look to trade him. If we have talks with him now or in the near future about wanting to keep him on this team until he retires, then hopefully he'll cut back on his asking salary because he should know that in a few years he'll only be worth 6-10ish million a year. If that's the case, then I'd love to see him retire as a White Sox and possibly extend his contract for 2 more years at 16-18 million. If he's still somewhat healthy and productive after 2-3 years, then keep giving him 1-2 yr extensions.


Thome might actually want a shot at a WS title. It ain't happening on the south side in 2008 and you can take that one home. He's in a contract year. I don't think either he or Konerko would object to going to the Angels.

That said, if you really think that the Angels will give Santana, Willits and Shields... I think you're a little out of it. The Angels are now probably the front runner for Miggy Cabrera. If they don't get him, then they might turn their attention to PK.

I'd take Willits and Santana but even that would probably be a stretch. I think we could land Figgins for PK outright because Figgins' contract expires after '08, whereas the Angels would have PK through '09. Then move Fields to 1B, put Figgins at 3B.

jabrch
11-23-2007, 05:26 PM
Thome might actually want a shot at a WS title. It ain't happening on the south side in 2008 and you can take that one home.

I can take it home? *** does that mean?

And why would I want to take that non-sense home? I'm still eating leftover turkey sandwiches. My christmas lights aren't up. I haven't dressed my kids, dogs and wife in pink or red for the annual family VDay picture. There's no snow on the ground, flowers aren't starting to bloom.

How the **** are you so damn smart that you know that the Sox don't have "a shot" at a WS? In November of 2004, were you wetting your pants like this?

Posts like this are stupid. There is a 90% of the offseason, and then 100% of the season left to go - to say we have no shot is completely ignorant.

Lukin13
11-23-2007, 06:27 PM
This team SHOULD go young...

One reason is that the Indians and Twins are very solid right now and prolly won't be able to sustain it for much longer without increasing their payroll significantly. Detroit is also dynamite but they are on the cusp of also becoming a top spender along w/ the Sox.

The Sox are big time now, and as everyone has said, the bigboy teams don't rebuild they reload.

To me, there doesn't appear to be an abundance of "right" moves to be made this season. I really hope KW doesn't make desperation plays just to keep the average fan slightly satisfied so they don't cancel their Ozzie plan. If he came out and announced that 90 mil is too much for Torii and 75 is to much for Rowand and that he still believes the market will correct itself (:o:), I would believe him.

JB98
11-23-2007, 06:34 PM
I can take it home? *** does that mean?

And why would I want to take that non-sense home? I'm still eating leftover turkey sandwiches. My christmas lights aren't up. I haven't dressed my kids, dogs and wife in pink or red for the annual family VDay picture. There's no snow on the ground, flowers aren't starting to bloom.

How the **** are you so damn smart that you know that the Sox don't have "a shot" at a WS? In November of 2004, were you wetting your pants like this?

Posts like this are stupid. There is a 90% of the offseason, and then 100% of the season left to go - to say we have no shot is completely ignorant.

In November 2004, KW signed Dustin Hermanson. And WSI erupted in rage:

"THIS IS OUR BIG OFFSEASON MOVE????? *** KENNY!!!!!!"

This thread is asinine. We aren't going young. We aren't trading core veterans. Forget about it.

btrain929
11-23-2007, 06:35 PM
I can take it home? *** does that mean?

And why would I want to take that non-sense home? I'm still eating leftover turkey sandwiches. My christmas lights aren't up. I haven't dressed my kids, dogs and wife in pink or red for the annual family VDay picture. There's no snow on the ground, flowers aren't starting to bloom.

How the **** are you so damn smart that you know that the Sox don't have "a shot" at a WS? In November of 2004, were you wetting your pants like this?

Posts like this are stupid. There is a 90% of the offseason, and then 100% of the season left to go - to say we have no shot is completely ignorant.

Agreed. I figured that out when he said Willits and Ervin Santana is enough of a return for Paul Konerko. :rolleyes:

JB98
11-23-2007, 06:37 PM
Agreed. I figured that out when he said Willits and Ervin Santana is enough of a return for Paul Konerko. :rolleyes:

Inexplicably, a good chunk of WSI is eager to unload Konerko for, well, walnuts. :rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
11-23-2007, 07:09 PM
Inexplicably, a good chunk of WSI is eager to unload Konerko for, well, walnuts. :rolleyes:

The only thing I see that's inexplicable is the devotion to individual players over the uniform.

As I've said before, PK is the most movable asset who would be most easily replaced internally (Fields) or externally, who would fetch the most in return, and who's departure would allow the greatest payroll flexibility to upgrade several positions at once.

What if trading him allowed the Sox to fill holes at leadoff/LF, starting pitcher and bullpen, and make more funds available to sign a CF and more pitching help? Wouldn't that be a net gain? :?:

JB98
11-23-2007, 07:57 PM
The only thing I see that's inexplicable is the devotion to individual players over the uniform.

As I've said before, PK is the most movable asset who would be most easily replaced internally (Fields) or externally, who would fetch the most in return, and who's departure would allow the greatest payroll flexibility to upgrade several positions at once.

What if trading him allowed the Sox to fill holes at leadoff/LF, starting pitcher and bullpen, and make more funds available to sign a CF and more pitching help? Wouldn't that be a net gain? :?:

And you and others continue to propose trading Konerko for mediocre players.

I have no understanding of this fascination with Reggie Willits. Ervin Santana got booted out of the Anaheim rotation last year.

Shields is the only respectable player being talked about here, and he is just a middle reliever. Much like the guy KW just overpaid for.

jabrch
11-23-2007, 08:14 PM
And you and others continue to propose trading Konerko for mediocre players.

I have no understanding of this fascination with Reggie Willits. Ervin Santana got booted out of the Anaheim rotation last year.

Shields is the only respectable player being talked about here, and he is just a middle reliever. Much like the guy KW just overpaid for.

Exactly

I'd trade PK. I'd have looked into trading Buehrle. But it takes a lot more than that sort of package.

JB98
11-23-2007, 08:33 PM
Exactly

I'd trade PK. I'd have looked into trading Buehrle. But it takes a lot more than that sort of package.

I want a top-of-the-rotation pitcher in ANY package for Konerko.

Don't give me spare parts to patch a couple of holes. Reggie Willits is only a modest upgrade from Jerry Owens. Ervin Santana is a lot like Gavin Floyd, only Floyd finished 2007 on a better note than Santana.

These are not upgrades. Go ahead and trade Paulie, folks. Go ahead and trust that both Thome and JD stay healthy to anchor the middle of the order. Go ahead and force Fields to learn a new position. Be my guest.

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 08:54 PM
As I've said before, PK is the most movable asset who would be most easily replaced internally (Fields) or externally, who would fetch the most in return, and who's departure would allow the greatest payroll flexibility to upgrade several positions at once.Frater, the flaw in your theory is who is the moron GM willing to offer more than crap for GIDPK? I don't get it. Why would anybody pay much for a matador at first base who hits for maybe half seasons and constantly shreds his teammates? Yeah, that's the guy I want to build my team around! :thumbsup:

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 08:58 PM
And you and others continue to propose trading Konerko for mediocre players.

I have no understanding of this fascination with Reggie Willits. Ervin Santana got booted out of the Anaheim rotation last year.

Shields is the only respectable player being talked about here, and he is just a middle reliever. Much like the guy KW just overpaid for.

Exactly

I'd trade PK. I'd have looked into trading Buehrle. But it takes a lot more than that sort of package.

I want a top-of-the-rotation pitcher in ANY package for Konerko.

Don't give me spare parts to patch a couple of holes. Reggie Willits is only a modest upgrade from Jerry Owens. Ervin Santana is a lot like Gavin Floyd, only Floyd finished 2007 on a better note than Santana.

These are not upgrades. Go ahead and trade Paulie, folks. Go ahead and trust that both Thome and JD stay healthy to anchor the middle of the order. Go ahead and force Fields to learn a new position. Be my guest.I'm dying here. You guys are basically insane. GIDPK is what he is. And he couldn't possibly be any further from a "top-of-the-rotation pitcher" to anybody not completely whacked on something. :smokin:

ZombieRob
11-23-2007, 09:00 PM
I'm dying here. You guys are basically insane. GIDPK is what he is. And he couldn't possibly be any further from a "top-of-the-rotation pitcher" to anybody not completely whacked on something. :smokin:
Konerko for Baldelli sraight up:redneck

JB98
11-23-2007, 09:04 PM
I'm dying here. You guys are basically insane. GIDPK is what he is. And he couldn't possibly be any further from a "top-of-the-rotation pitcher" to anybody not completely whacked on something. :smokin:

A guy who gives you .275/30/90 in a bad year and .285/35/100 in a good year isn't worth a good starting pitcher in a trade?

You're the one who is smoking something, West.

Frater and others remind me of the talk-show callers. Suggesting a package of three mediocre, bottom-half-of-the-roster players in exchange for a guy who has been to multiple All-Star games.

Except, in this case, we're trying to trade the All-Star, not acquire him. It's patently ridiculous.

Reggie Willits will lead us to our next title.

Lillian
11-23-2007, 09:23 PM
The only thing I see that's inexplicable is the devotion to individual players over the uniform.

As I've said before, PK is the most movable asset who would be most easily replaced internally (Fields) or externally, who would fetch the most in return, and who's departure would allow the greatest payroll flexibility to upgrade several positions at once.

What if trading him allowed the Sox to fill holes at leadoff/LF, starting pitcher and bullpen, and make more funds available to sign a CF and more pitching help? Wouldn't that be a net gain? :?:

EXACTLY!!!! Very well put.

Frater Perdurabo
11-23-2007, 09:30 PM
I want a top-of-the-rotation pitcher in ANY package for Konerko.

I'm dying here. You guys are basically insane. GIDPK is what he is. And he couldn't possibly be any further from a "top-of-the-rotation pitcher" to anybody not completely whacked on something. :smokin:

The fact that I'm somewhere between these two extremes tells me I'm in the right neighborhood. :tongue:

santo=dorf
11-23-2007, 09:34 PM
A guy who gives you .275/30/90 in a bad year and .285/35/100 in a good year isn't worth a good starting pitcher in a trade?

You're the one who is smoking something, West.

Frater and others remind me of the talk-show callers. Suggesting a package of three mediocre, bottom-half-of-the-roster players in exchange for a guy who has been to multiple All-Star games.

Except, in this case, we're trying to trade the All-Star, not acquire him. It's patently ridiculous.

Reggie Willits will lead us to our next title.

The GIDP stuff is really silly too. What do you expect when the guy on front of you get on base 41% of the time?

Check out the 2007 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&sort=GIDPs&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Pujols and Lee followed by Phillips, Zimmerman and Holliday.
2006 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=GIDPs&split=0&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Tejada, Young, Martinez, Konerko, Glaus, Mauer. Man they must all suck.

Of course Konerko could avoid more DP's if started striking out more, but the RKHs would be all over him for acting like Sosa.

Perhaps he should try popping the ball in the air more like Joe Crede, or will that not satisfy the RKHs because it doesn't give the sox a chance to move the runners?

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 09:39 PM
You're the one who is smoking something, West.I don't know how to respond to this. How many GM's would trade a true pitching Ace for a mediocre first baseman who also happens to be the slowest player in perhaps the history of all professional and amateur sports? I would guess none that wanted to have a job in a few months. :D:

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 09:42 PM
The GIDP stuff is really silly too. What do you expect when the guy on front of you get on base 41% of the time?

Check out the 2007 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&sort=GIDPs&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Pujols and Lee followed by Phillips, Zimmerman and Holliday.
2006 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=GIDPs&split=0&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Tejada, Young, Martinez, Konerko, Glaus, Mauer. Man they must all suck.

Of course Konerko could avoid more DP's if started striking out more, but the RKHs would be all over him for acting like Sosa.

Perhaps he should try popping the ball in the air more like Joe Crede, or will that not satisfy the RKHs because it doesn't give the sox a chance to move the runners?:roflmao:

Dorf, you claim you are the greatest genius in the history of the world on a regular basis. Every day you insist every Nobel prize winner ever can't even suck your ass. And now you claim GIDPK is perhaps the greatest player in the history of the sport? I'm really trying not laugh here. :rolling:

santo=dorf
11-23-2007, 09:46 PM
:roflmao:

Dorf, you claim you are the greatest genius in the history of the world on a regular basis. Every day you insist every Nobel prize winner ever can't even suck your ass. And now you claim GIDPK is perhaps the greatest player in the history of the sport. I'm really trying not laugh here. :rolling:
:?:
:prozac

The numbers are there West. Let's see you spin it. Your hate obsession with Konerko is really showing.

FarWestChicago
11-23-2007, 09:51 PM
:?:
The numbers are there West. Let's see you spin it. Your hate obsession with Konerko is really showing.I don't hate Paulie, Dorf. I'm just not silly enough to think an average first baseman is worth Bob Gibson. :redneck

I suspect bearing the weight of your inestimable intelligence sometimes makes the blatantly obvious perhaps a bit obscure to you. :smile:

PalehosePlanet
11-23-2007, 10:22 PM
The GIDP stuff is really silly too. What do you expect when the guy on front of you get on base 41% of the time?

Check out the 2007 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?split=0&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&sort=GIDPs&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&state=0&college=0&country=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Pujols and Lee followed by Phillips, Zimmerman and Holliday.
2006 leaders in GIDP. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?sort=GIDPs&split=0&league=mlb&season=2006&seasonType=2&type=exp&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&minpa=0&hand=a&pos=all)
Tejada, Young, Martinez, Konerko, Glaus, Mauer. Man they must all suck.

Of course Konerko could avoid more DP's if started striking out more, but the RKHs would be all over him for acting like Sosa.

Perhaps he should try popping the ball in the air more like Joe Crede, or will that not satisfy the RKHs because it doesn't give the sox a chance to move the runners?

This is a great post. I've been wanting to post something similar to this, as the ripping on PK because for GIDP's is really annoying. When looking on Baseball-referense.com over the last 7-8 years (I stopped after that) one realizes that when looking at the GIDP stats from year to year one is looking at a list of all-stars and very good players --- sure a Scott hatteberg in 2005 sneaks in every once in a while, but is merely an exception. Therefore, to say that PK sucks because he hits into alot of DP's (BTW: not in AL top 5 in '05 or '07) is completely absurd. In fact, IF ANYTHING, it proves the opposite.

Bottom line: Guys who hit in the middle of the order, with good power and are pull hitters, hit into DP's. You guys seem to think he hits into more than others because you watch him every day.

guillen4life13
11-24-2007, 03:31 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league.

I don't mean to knock Konerko in any way. I think he's a great guy from what I've seen and heard and he has been an incredible player for the White Sox. That said, Fields has the makeup to move to first base. Crede is all but gone by the looks of things. If Konerko and the two years he has left on his contract is enough for the Angels to give up Figgins, then I think that a huge void in our lineup is filled, while what is given up is something we have in surplus (power hitting).

In Dye, Thome, Konerko and Fields/Crede, the Sox would have four masher type hitters. Perhaps it's a difference in team models that I favor. I think three reasonably good power hitters is good enough. The best team I think I ever saw (though they hit their rough patch in the postseason) was the 2001 Mariners.

They had only one player hit over 30 home runs (granted, hindsight says he Boone was juiced, but still). Three people stole 30+ bases (Ichiro, Cammy and McLemore). They were just a high OBP, high speed, fast paced offense.

Oh, and to jabrch: Honestly, I was skeptical going into the 2005 season. A lot of players had career years that year. Garland, Contreras, Podsednik, Cotts, Pollite, etc. Thomas was injured for most of it. I don't think any objective baseball enthusiast could have seen that performance from that team coming. If the Sox win the World Series this year, I would probably be more surprised than I was in 2005 (depending on what moves KW makes in the coming months). So, yes, I overstated when I said "You can take it home," but I still think the odds of the Sox doing it in 2008 are really low. The Tigers and Indians will be really solid teams. The Red Sox and Yankees will have very good teams (and Toronto probably won't be all that far behind). The AL Central is a lot better than it was in 2005 and, seriously, in 2004 the Sox were 4 games above .500 even when Maggs and Thomas were injured for most of the year. In 2007, they were 18 under. It's a much different scenario.

To btrain: Willits is a 26 year old OF capable of leading off, has CF experience, is still cheap for a while and, if 2007 is any indication, is capable of a .390 type OBP. It fills at least one glaring hole in the Sox lineup. Santana, while he had a horrible 2007, is only 24 years old and has had previous success in the majors. He too is a cheap starter with great potential (some of which he has already shown in the majors). Is there a little risk involved? Sure. But the Angels would be risking getting the 2003 or 2007 version of Konerko. Getting Shields on top of it would be awesome but doubtful (hell, I doubt the angels would give Willits and Santana for only Konerko). Trading Konerko is doubtful. I don't dispute this. I just say that by trading him for either Figgins or the pair of Willits and Santana would greatly benefit the team.

Just my two cents. If there's some glaring flaw in my logic, point it out. I don't claim to know everything and I'm interested in what you all have to say and I respect your opinions. I'd simply like to know why this logic is so off...

Grzegorz
11-24-2007, 04:49 AM
In Dye, Thome, Konerko and Fields/Crede, the Sox would have four masher type hitters. Perhaps it's a difference in team models that I favor. I think three reasonably good power hitters is good enough.

You're assuming that three of those four stay relatively healthy next year correct?

FarWestChicago
11-24-2007, 06:50 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league. Yeah, but somebody is supposed to trade us Johan Santana or Jake Peavey for Wheels. :roflmao:

Lillian
11-24-2007, 07:13 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league.

I don't mean to knock Konerko in any way. I think he's a great guy from what I've seen and heard and he has been an incredible player for the White Sox. That said, Fields has the makeup to move to first base. Crede is all but gone by the looks of things. If Konerko and the two years he has left on his contract is enough for the Angels to give up Figgins, then I think that a huge void in our lineup is filled, while what is given up is something we have in surplus (power hitting).

In Dye, Thome, Konerko and Fields/Crede, the Sox would have four masher type hitters. Perhaps it's a difference in team models that I favor. I think three reasonably good power hitters is good enough. The best team I think I ever saw (though they hit their rough patch in the postseason) was the 2001 Mariners.

They had only one player hit over 30 home runs (granted, hindsight says he Boone was juiced, but still). Three people stole 30+ bases (Ichiro, Cammy and McLemore). They were just a high OBP, high speed, fast paced offense.

Oh, and to jabrch: Honestly, I was skeptical going into the 2005 season. A lot of players had career years that year. Garland, Contreras, Podsednik, Cotts, Pollite, etc. Thomas was injured for most of it. I don't think any objective baseball enthusiast could have seen that performance from that team coming. If the Sox win the World Series this year, I would probably be more surprised than I was in 2005 (depending on what moves KW makes in the coming months). So, yes, I overstated when I said "You can take it home," but I still think the odds of the Sox doing it in 2008 are really low. The Tigers and Indians will be really solid teams. The Red Sox and Yankees will have very good teams (and Toronto probably won't be all that far behind). The AL Central is a lot better than it was in 2005 and, seriously, in 2004 the Sox were 4 games above .500 even when Maggs and Thomas were injured for most of the year. In 2007, they were 18 under. It's a much different scenario.

To btrain: Willits is a 26 year old OF capable of leading off, has CF experience, is still cheap for a while and, if 2007 is any indication, is capable of a .390 type OBP. It fills at least one glaring hole in the Sox lineup. Santana, while he had a horrible 2007, is only 24 years old and has had previous success in the majors. He too is a cheap starter with great potential (some of which he has already shown in the majors). Is there a little risk involved? Sure. But the Angels would be risking getting the 2003 or 2007 version of Konerko. Getting Shields on top of it would be awesome but doubtful (hell, I doubt the angels would give Willits and Santana for only Konerko). Trading Konerko is doubtful. I don't dispute this. I just say that by trading him for either Figgins or the pair of Willits and Santana would greatly benefit the team.

Just my two cents. If there's some glaring flaw in my logic, point it out. I don't claim to know everything and I'm interested in what you all have to say and I respect your opinions. I'd simply like to know why this logic is so off...

I just wanted to compliment you on a very well written, convincing, and refreshingly civil post. Of course, you might guess that I also agree with your thinking, but that's beside the point.

Frater Perdurabo
11-24-2007, 07:56 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league.

You are a Rabid PK Hater. Don't you understand that if you Hate the Captain, you must Hate the Sox? He's the captain because he's so great. He's so great because he's the captain!
:rolleyes:

Frater Perdurabo
11-24-2007, 08:08 AM
I just wanted to compliment you on a very well written, convincing, and refreshingly civil post. Of course, you might guess that I also agree with your thinking, but that's beside the point.

I agree, and I agree. :smile:

...Fields has the makeup to move to first base...

...I think three reasonably good power hitters is good enough...

... I just say that by trading him for either Figgins or the pair of Willits and Santana would greatly benefit the team...

Yes! 2001-2004 proved that an unbalanced offense is not effective over the course of a season. It's not that the Sox have too much power; there's no such thing as "too much power." The problem was and is that they don't have enough other kinds of hitters - those with speed to steal bases and/or go from first to third or second to home on a single, those with high OBP, those with high average to get on base and do things to make it more likely that pitchers will throw a meatball to one of the power hitters (adding Cabrera certainly is a great start). So, because they have a surplus of power, they can afford to trade one of their power hitters to acquire what they lack. Because Fields is waiting in the wings, and because I'd like to keep Crede around for his defense, and because of his contract situation, age and relative health, Paulie would bring the most in return. Plus, the bonus is that the $12M/year that the Sox don't have to pay him can be invested into upgrading the rotation, the bullpen and the bench!

Besides, someone else can be the captain (AJ) and someone else can run around the bases with the beer (probably AJ again).

spiffie
11-24-2007, 08:40 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league.

I'd like to see at least one year of 900+ OPS production out of Adrian Gonzalez before I put him in that group. Carlos Guillen is also very suspect as his power numbers, even in their best year are not all that impressive. Even as bad as Konerko is, it is hard to imagine him ever putting a up a year where he hits 5 HR in 334 ABs. Helton is good, but I'm not sure the 868 OPS away from Coors is worth 16.6 million a year, and 19 million when he's 38.

Lillian
11-24-2007, 08:42 AM
I agree, and I agree. :smile:



Yes! 2001-2004 proved that an unbalanced offense is not effective over the course of a season. It's not that the Sox have too much power; there's no such thing as "too much power." The problem was and is that they don't have enough other kinds of hitters - those with speed to steal bases and/or go from first to third or second to home on a single, those with high OBP, those with high average to get on base and do things to make it more likely that pitchers will throw a meatball to one of the power hitters (adding Cabrera certainly is a great start). So, because they have a surplus of power, they can afford to trade one of their power hitters to acquire what they lack. Because Fields is waiting in the wings, and because I'd like to keep Crede around for his defense, and because of his contract situation, age and relative health, Paulie would bring the most in return. Plus, the bonus is that the $12M/year that the Sox don't have to pay him can be invested into upgrading the rotation, the bullpen and the bench!

Besides, someone else can be the captain (AJ) and someone else can run around the bases with the beer (probably AJ again).

I don't want to sound patronizing, or turn this into a "mutual admiration society", but I also think that is a great post as well, and I agree with it. I love Paulie, but he is the one good trading chip that the Sox have, and he is exactly the opposite of what we need. The Angels seem to be the best fit, not only because they covet him, but because they have a surplus of outfielders, as well as two leadoff hitters in Figgins and Willits. They also have a surplus of pitching, though it would seem strange to get back a pitcher, when they just traded with us for another.

btrain929
11-24-2007, 08:51 AM
MLB Starting 1B's at least arguably better/more valuable than Konerko in the major leagues:

Ryan Howard
Lance Berkman
Carlos Delgado
Prince Fielder
Todd Helton
Justin Morneau
Albert Pujols
Mark Teixeira
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Gonzalez

If you are of the opinion that Konerko is better than three of those players listed (I think the arguable players are Delgado, Helton and Guillen due to the combo of age and comparable productivity, though in different areas of the game), then Konerko is the sixth best 1B in the league.

I don't mean to knock Konerko in any way. I think he's a great guy from what I've seen and heard and he has been an incredible player for the White Sox. That said, Fields has the makeup to move to first base. Crede is all but gone by the looks of things. If Konerko and the two years he has left on his contract is enough for the Angels to give up Figgins, then I think that a huge void in our lineup is filled, while what is given up is something we have in surplus (power hitting).

In Dye, Thome, Konerko and Fields/Crede, the Sox would have four masher type hitters. Perhaps it's a difference in team models that I favor. I think three reasonably good power hitters is good enough. The best team I think I ever saw (though they hit their rough patch in the postseason) was the 2001 Mariners.

They had only one player hit over 30 home runs (granted, hindsight says he Boone was juiced, but still). Three people stole 30+ bases (Ichiro, Cammy and McLemore). They were just a high OBP, high speed, fast paced offense.

Oh, and to jabrch: Honestly, I was skeptical going into the 2005 season. A lot of players had career years that year. Garland, Contreras, Podsednik, Cotts, Pollite, etc. Thomas was injured for most of it. I don't think any objective baseball enthusiast could have seen that performance from that team coming. If the Sox win the World Series this year, I would probably be more surprised than I was in 2005 (depending on what moves KW makes in the coming months). So, yes, I overstated when I said "You can take it home," but I still think the odds of the Sox doing it in 2008 are really low. The Tigers and Indians will be really solid teams. The Red Sox and Yankees will have very good teams (and Toronto probably won't be all that far behind). The AL Central is a lot better than it was in 2005 and, seriously, in 2004 the Sox were 4 games above .500 even when Maggs and Thomas were injured for most of the year. In 2007, they were 18 under. It's a much different scenario.

To btrain: Willits is a 26 year old OF capable of leading off, has CF experience, is still cheap for a while and, if 2007 is any indication, is capable of a .390 type OBP. It fills at least one glaring hole in the Sox lineup. Santana, while he had a horrible 2007, is only 24 years old and has had previous success in the majors. He too is a cheap starter with great potential (some of which he has already shown in the majors). Is there a little risk involved? Sure. But the Angels would be risking getting the 2003 or 2007 version of Konerko. Getting Shields on top of it would be awesome but doubtful (hell, I doubt the angels would give Willits and Santana for only Konerko). Trading Konerko is doubtful. I don't dispute this. I just say that by trading him for either Figgins or the pair of Willits and Santana would greatly benefit the team.

Just my two cents. If there's some glaring flaw in my logic, point it out. I don't claim to know everything and I'm interested in what you all have to say and I respect your opinions. I'd simply like to know why this logic is so off...

But all of the 1B's that you say are better or more valuable (Howard, Pujols, Berkman, Fielder, etc) would also be very very hard to obtain in a trade, almost untradeable. So Konerko pretty much becomes the best 1B on the trade market (if we were thinking of moving him). The only knock on Anaheim has been their lack of offensive production and power, which Konerko helps out drastically. Texas got 3 people back for Teixeira, including a STUD catching prospect.....and he was arbitration eligible. Konerko is actually locked in for a few more seasons. For those reasons, I wouldn't settle on just Willits and Santana for Konerko. Santana's stock is way down cuz of last year. Now if they wanna throw him in cuz they have given up on him, then absolutely. But if they still think all high and mighty about him, then it might not be worth it. I personally would go for Kotchman, one of Figgins/Willits and one of Shields/top pitching prospect. Their GM looks like he's gearing towards a World Championship this year. If he thinks this will put him over the top, then I see no reason we can't get 3 quality players for Paulie.

Lillian
11-24-2007, 09:01 AM
But all of the 1B's that you say are better or more valuable (Howard, Pujols, Berkman, Fielder, etc) would also be very very hard to obtain in a trade, almost untradeable. So Konerko pretty much becomes the best 1B on the trade market (if we were thinking of moving him). The only knock on Anaheim has been their lack of offensive production and power, which Konerko helps out drastically. Texas got 3 people back for Teixeira, including a STUD catching prospect.....and he was arbitration eligible. Konerko is actually locked in for a few more seasons. For those reasons, I wouldn't settle on just Willits and Santana for Konerko. Santana's stock is way down cuz of last year. Now if they wanna throw him in cuz they have given up on him, then absolutely. But if they still think all high and mighty about him, then it might not be worth it. I personally would go for Kotchman, one of Figgins/Willits and one of Shields/top pitching prospect. Their GM looks like he's gearing towards a World Championship this year. If he thinks this will put him over the top, then I see no reason we can't get 3 quality players for Paulie.

I agree with you, as well. I know that the Angels have their eyes on Miguel Cabrera, but they don't really need him. They would be better off dealing with the Sox. I think they might be able to use Uribe as protection at SS, as they will now only have two unproven rookies at that position. With their offense, they could afford to have an offensive hole at SS. The Sox could save a lot of money by trading both Konerko and Uribe for Willits, Santana and a reliever. It just makes so much sense to me.

TomBradley72
11-24-2007, 11:46 AM
One of my concerns is that I don't know if the White Sox HAVE a direction right now. Since we have locked up veterans like Thome, Konerko, Dye, Contreras, Buehrle, AJ, etc...you'd think we would would be taking a "win it now" approach...knowing that in a year or two the window on this group will close and using all of the revenue that has been generated by three consecutive years of ~3MM in attendance.

But we're not...with a mediocre farm system, and a roster clogged with underperforming veterans, the FA market is main way to revive the club...but a few extra million for Hunter is too much for us (while we have $4.5MM tied up in Uribe), we trade a veteran starter like Garland so Contreras is our #3 going into 2008...KW deserves the complete off season to see how this unfolds...but there doesn't seem to really be a coherent strategy.

Oldschoolsoxguy
11-24-2007, 03:10 PM
Screw Ervin Santana for chrissssakes...he is crap.
Has the mental makeup of a teenager and pitches
like one.If some of you goofs want a starter back
from the Angels in any potential deal for Paulie,you
ask for ANYONE other than Garland or Santana.Go
ahead and check Santana's numbers away from Anaheim
Stadium the past couple of seasons.They sent this
clown to the friggin' minors last year because he can't
get his **** together.But you would want to deal
Konerko to get him as part of a package.Christ.
Start with Weaver,Escobar,or Saunders as part of
a package and THEN you have a starting point.

guillen4life13
11-24-2007, 10:40 PM
Screw Ervin Santana for chrissssakes...he is crap.
Has the mental makeup of a teenager and pitches
like one.If some of you goofs want a starter back
from the Angels in any potential deal for Paulie,you
ask for ANYONE other than Garland or Santana.Go
ahead and check Santana's numbers away from Anaheim
Stadium the past couple of seasons.They sent this
clown to the friggin' minors last year because he can't
get his **** together.But you would want to deal
Konerko to get him as part of a package.Christ.
Start with Weaver,Escobar,or Saunders as part of
a package and THEN you have a starting point.


So you're saying that a 25 year old starting pitcher (as of opening day 2008) who already has won 16 games in a season (in the AL, no less) and just came off a bad year, and you're already saying he's horse crap? Yet you say Saunders is a better alternative? Saunders is two years older and not even pitched 200 MLB innings yet. Santana had 200+ in 2006 alone. There is a .07 career ERA advantage for Saunders. Escobar is 32 this coming season and has never posted a sub 4 ERA and has only topped 200 innings in a season once in his career. Jered Weaver is 25 this coming year (like Santana), has pitched two years but never topped 170 innings. He comes with a better ERA, but that's about it. If you're going to judge Santana by his 2007 season and totally discount what he's done before, but then present Escobar or Saunders (or even Weaver, who I see as an equal to slightly better pitcher than Santana).

Needless to say, I disagree.

the1tab
11-24-2007, 11:08 PM
I would say that trading Konerko to Anaheim is a mute point if they can trade the same prospects for a 24 yr old Miguel Cabrera.

I would also say that, being that both teams are in the AL, I wouldn't be inclined to add another 30 homer bat to that lineup after they just stole Torii Hunter out from under us.

Point is, why help the rich get richer by essentially highlighting 2008 as a rebuiling year in Chicago by moving Paulie for some kids and hand a trophy to the Angels? We gave them Garland and they took Hunter.

Here's a question for Kenny: if we're going to send talent away for help in the lineup, where in the National League can we get value and instant help?

If I remember correctly, we got Paulie from Cincinatti for Mike Cameron back in the day. Right now, they have Scott Hatteberg at first base, and have openly been willing to listen to offers for Adam Dunn. If we could score Freel, Dunn and a reliever (is Ryan Wagner still in their system?) for Uribe and Paulie... I would be interested. While this would put two big left handed bats in the middle of our lineup, Cincinnati appears willing to make a splash after the Cordero deal.

guillen4life13
11-25-2007, 01:00 AM
I would say that trading Konerko to Anaheim is a mute point if they can trade the same prospects for a 24 yr old Miguel Cabrera.

I would also say that, being that both teams are in the AL, I wouldn't be inclined to add another 30 homer bat to that lineup after they just stole Torii Hunter out from under us.

Point is, why help the rich get richer by essentially highlighting 2008 as a rebuiling year in Chicago by moving Paulie for some kids and hand a trophy to the Angels? We gave them Garland and they took Hunter.

Here's a question for Kenny: if we're going to send talent away for help in the lineup, where in the National League can we get value and instant help?

If I remember correctly, we got Paulie from Cincinatti for Mike Cameron back in the day. Right now, they have Scott Hatteberg at first base, and have openly been willing to listen to offers for Adam Dunn. If we could score Freel, Dunn and a reliever (is Ryan Wagner still in their system?) for Uribe and Paulie... I would be interested. While this would put two big left handed bats in the middle of our lineup, Cincinnati appears willing to make a splash after the Cordero deal.

It's all about priorities. Is the priority to get the best return on the trade at the expense of trading within the AL (to a team the Sox play six times per season), or is it a lowered return on the trade and trading with an NL club? We don't need a Dunn type hitter as much as we need a Figgins/Willits/Freel player and/or SP. I said it before, I'd do Figgins for Paulie straight up any day. Getting on base and ruining pitchers' concentration is what the Sox offense needs. Also, where would Dunn be expected to play?

btrain929
11-25-2007, 01:20 AM
It's all about priorities. Is the priority to get the best return on the trade at the expense of trading within the AL (to a team the Sox play six times per season), or is it a lowered return on the trade and trading with an NL club? We don't need a Dunn type hitter as much as we need a Figgins/Willits/Freel player and/or SP. I said it before, I'd do Figgins for Paulie straight up any day. Getting on base and ruining pitchers' concentration is what the Sox offense needs. Also, where would Dunn be expected to play?

Lord, have mercy on your soul.....

balke
11-25-2007, 01:27 AM
Its fun to play GM, but "I would trade this guy to that team for this guy and that guy" doesn't work in the real world. Other teams have to want your players, and want to give up their players for that player and to agree on money.

Anyways, as it is I'd like to see the Sox compete this season. Last season was kinda flukey (I hope) and these vets need a chance to prove they aren't all that bad all of a sudden.

guillen4life13
11-25-2007, 02:43 AM
But all of the 1B's that you say are better or more valuable (Howard, Pujols, Berkman, Fielder, etc) would also be very very hard to obtain in a trade, almost untradeable. So Konerko pretty much becomes the best 1B on the trade market (if we were thinking of moving him). The only knock on Anaheim has been their lack of offensive production and power, which Konerko helps out drastically. Texas got 3 people back for Teixeira, including a STUD catching prospect.....and he was arbitration eligible. Konerko is actually locked in for a few more seasons. For those reasons, I wouldn't settle on just Willits and Santana for Konerko. Santana's stock is way down cuz of last year. Now if they wanna throw him in cuz they have given up on him, then absolutely. But if they still think all high and mighty about him, then it might not be worth it. I personally would go for Kotchman, one of Figgins/Willits and one of Shields/top pitching prospect. Their GM looks like he's gearing towards a World Championship this year. If he thinks this will put him over the top, then I see no reason we can't get 3 quality players for Paulie.

I agree with most of this except your last sentence in the first quote. So according to you I undervalue Konerko. My reasoning (or end) is: does this move improve the Chicago White Sox? I'm saying that if the Angels' last offer were to just be Figgins, then as long as Kenny signs him long term, I'd be happy with a Figgins for Konerko deal straight up. We trade a hitting commodity that we have in excess for a presumably cheaper, younger, premier leadoff hitter (something the team could desperately use). Since it's quite apparent that Crede will be gone in favor of Fields, the idea is to get Fields into a relatively easy position to learn and be productive for someone who has already reasonable defensive talent. If we have a good SS now (in Cabrera, with whom Figgins already has good experience), Figgins would fit in at 3B and Fields would fit well at 1B. If we can get more than just Figgins or the Santana/Willits combo, then we ought to. If you're going to approach my "any day" quote literally, it was not meant that way.



Lord, have mercy on your soul.....

As a Hindu, you could also use "Lords" for some added comedic effect. :smile:

FarWestChicago
11-25-2007, 06:42 AM
We trade a hitting commodity that we have in excess...I must have missed all the excess hitting the Sox had last year. :dunno:

Frater Perdurabo
11-25-2007, 08:00 AM
I must have missed all the excess hitting the Sox had last year. :dunno:

Therein lies the rub. Paulie had a down year overall by his standards, but he's maddeningly inconsistent. He'll have three great months and three crap months. Even in his best years he's had a six-week stretch. (To be fair, Dye is the same way, although he can't be traded this offseason because he just signed a new contract.)

I'd like to get a fast, high-OBP hitter like Figgins or Willits at the top of the lineup, because even when a such a player is in a slump, there's a good chance he can bunt his way on base, then steal second, and then score from second on a single.

Lillian
11-25-2007, 08:22 AM
Although I didn't intend for this thread to be a debate about Konerko, I appreciate everyone's input, on any aspect of its larger debate.
That said, there is another aspect of Paulie's game that no one has mentioned; that is his total lack of clutch hitting. I can't remember any White Sox player who ever seemed to do so little in the clutch, relative to his overall production. Oh sure, he was great in the 2005 Post Season, but aside from that, how often has he come up big in critical situations? You'd think that in the two years that he hit 40 plus homers that there would have been lots of big moments, like the kind Crede has provided. He is one of those guys who gets an awful lot of his homers, and RBI's when they don't seem to much matter. That coupled with his being very slow, and streaky, make me much less reluctant than some here, to think of using him as trade bait. Frankly, his defense is one of the things about him that would be most missed. He's terrific at "pickin'" those throws in the dirt.

voodoochile
11-25-2007, 08:50 AM
Although I didn't intend for this thread to be a debate about Konerko, I appreciate everyone's input, on any aspect of its larger debate.
That said, there is another aspect of Paulie's game that no one has mentioned; that is his total lack of clutch hitting. I can't remember any White Sox player who ever seemed to do so little in the clutch, relative to his overall production. Oh sure, he was great in the 2005 Post Season, but aside from that, how often has he come up big in critical situations? You'd think that in the two years that he hit 40 plus homers that there would have been lots of big moments, like the kind Crede has provided. He is one of those guys who gets an awful lot of his homers, and RBI's when they don't seem to much matter. That coupled with his being very slow, and streaky, make me much less reluctant than some here, to think of using him as trade bait. Frankly, his defense is one of the things about him that would be most missed. He's terrific at "pickin'" those throws in the dirt.

I was surprised to read this because I always thought PK was a pretty decent clutch hitter, so here's some stats from last year. I don't have career splits available, if someone wants to post them, that would be fine too...

In close and late situations (63 AB): .286/.438/.635/1.073
Scoring Position, 2 outs (54 AB): .259/.420/.463/.883 (20 RBI)
man on 3rd < 2 outs (26 AB): .385/.436/.731/1.167 (27 RBI :o: )

So, he was pretty solid in most clutch situations or even spectacular. Most of the other stats are similar to his yearly numbers, except for bases loaded where he did not perform well.

Here's the link to his splits last year:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=3747

santo=dorf
11-25-2007, 09:00 AM
So you're saying that a 25 year old starting pitcher (as of opening day 2008) who already has won 16 games in a season (in the AL, no less) and just came off a bad year, and you're already saying he's horse crap? Yet you say Saunders is a better alternative? Saunders is two years older and not even pitched 200 MLB innings yet. Santana had 200+ in 2006 alone. There is a .07 career ERA advantage for Saunders. Escobar is 32 this coming season and has never posted a sub 4 ERA and has only topped 200 innings in a season once in his career. Jered Weaver is 25 this coming year (like Santana), has pitched two years but never topped 170 innings. He comes with a better ERA, but that's about it. If you're going to judge Santana by his 2007 season and totally discount what he's done before, but then present Escobar or Saunders (or even Weaver, who I see as an equal to slightly better pitcher than Santana).

Needless to say, I disagree.
Throughout his entire career Ervin Santana has been complete garbage away from the Big A. Go look it up. He is a mental midget and has had some injuries concerns as well.

Lillian
11-25-2007, 09:24 AM
I was surprised to read this because I always thought PK was a pretty decent clutch hitter, so here's some stats from last year. I don't have career splits available, if someone wants to post them, that would be fine too...

In close and late situations (63 AB): .286/.438/.635/1.073
Scoring Position, 2 outs (54 AB): .259/.420/.463/.883 (20 RBI)
man on 3rd < 2 outs (26 AB): .385/.436/.731/1.167 (27 RBI :o: )

So, he was pretty solid in most clutch situations or even spectacular. Most of the other stats are similar to his yearly numbers, except for bases loaded where he did not perform well.

Here's the link to his splits last year:


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=3747

Thank you for the response, and the link. I guess the stats never lie.:rolleyes:
As I said, it just seemed that way to me, which implies that my impression was based entirely on anecdotal information. It has always just struck me that for a big power hitting, run producer, and middle of the order guy, that he has so few 'walk off' homers and RBI's. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

voodoochile
11-25-2007, 09:32 AM
Thank you for the response, and the link. I guess the stats never lie.:rolleyes:
As I said, it just seemed that way to me, which implies that my impression was based entirely on anecdotal information. It has always just struck me that for a big power hitting, run producer, and middle of the order guy, that he has so few 'walk off' homers and RBI's. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

How many times does a guy get the chance to do those things in a season? By definition, walk off homers are very rare. It's why they stick out so much in our minds.

If that's what we are judging clutch on, then it's a pretty high standard.

santo=dorf
11-25-2007, 09:49 AM
Thank you for the response, and the link. I guess the stats never lie.:rolleyes:
As I said, it just seemed that way to me, which implies that my impression was based entirely on anecdotal information. It has always just struck me that for a big power hitting, run producer, and middle of the order guy, that he has so few 'walk off' homers and RBI's. Does it seem that way to anyone else?
Your opinion is not valid and the stats show it. Quit being biased. Maybe you don't watch enough White Sox games and/or Paul Konerko at-bats.

You want to know why big sluggers don't seem to have many walk-off homers? It's because the pitchers are scared to make a mistake and the guys end up walking. How many walk off homers did Bonds hit? I recall flub fans saying the same stuff about Sosa. It's also hard to hit walkoff homers when the team is down by 5+ runs and nobody in thelineup gets on base. See the 2007 White Sox for example.

PalehosePlanet
11-25-2007, 09:58 AM
Thank you for the response, and the link. I guess the stats never lie.:rolleyes:
As I said, it just seemed that way to me, which implies that my impression was based entirely on anecdotal information. It has always just struck me that for a big power hitting, run producer, and middle of the order guy, that he has so few 'walk off' homers and RBI's. Does it seem that way to anyone else?

Also 5 HR's and 15 RBI in the 2005 playoffs sounds VERY clutch to me. FWIW, Steve Stone called him one of the clutchest players in Chicago history.

Lillian
11-25-2007, 10:07 AM
Jeeze, guys, take it easy. I said that it was just my impression, and yes I watch practically every game, including the 30 + games that I attend.
I'm not biased in a negative way, and I actually like him a lot. I stand corrected.