PDA

View Full Version : Go With Joe


Carolina Kenny
03-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Don't you know?
You've go to Go With Joe.

Come on everybody. Let's start the rally cry.

Don't you know?
You've got to go with Joe.















G

Craig Grebeck
03-15-2008, 02:46 PM
no

oeo
03-15-2008, 02:52 PM
http://www.tastebuddy.ca/assets/images/burgerking-bkjoecoffee.jpg?

WhiteSox5187
03-15-2008, 02:59 PM
On a serious note, this is tricky for me as a fan because I do love Crede but that is only sentimental...when I look at this at a strictly baseball analysis I think Fields is ready to replace Joe, but I also think that Joe can still produce and we can get some more for him. So my answer is to wait and see if Joe can't produce more and if we can't get something more for him. Then we go to Josh.

Carolina Kenny
03-15-2008, 02:59 PM
http://www.tastebuddy.ca/assets/images/burgerking-bkjoecoffee.jpg?la

Drink a cup from Joe.
Please don't tell him no.

He's worked so hard to come his back.
His heart is silver and his hat is black.

Don't you know its true.
He's worth more to me than you.
Trade him to the coast
no you dontz.

Garland_IS_God
03-15-2008, 03:15 PM
I say trade Paulie while his stock is high. Keep Crede at third and move Fields to first.

Craig Grebeck
03-15-2008, 03:20 PM
I say trade Paulie while his stock is high. Keep Crede at third and move Fields to first.
...and watch our offense suffer! Brilliant! Crede walks after this season and we have Fields shift back to 3rd (with a full year away from the position) and find ourselves without a 1B. Yay!

champagne030
03-15-2008, 03:25 PM
...and watch our offense suffer! Brilliant! Crede walks after this season and we have Fields shift back to 3rd (with a full year away from the position) and find ourselves without a 1B. Yay!

Or trade Crede for a bag of balls and watch Fields look like Ryan Braun in the field.

itsnotrequired
03-15-2008, 04:19 PM
Joe Crede is the white David Allen Grier.

santo=dorf
03-15-2008, 05:13 PM
I say trade Paulie while his stock is high. Keep Crede at third and move Fields to first.
So massively downgrade the offense and have a gaping hole in 2009. Awesome!!!

How exactly is Konerko's stock high right now?

spiffie
03-15-2008, 05:19 PM
I never throught I would pine for the poetic stylings of Da Reverand until now.

turners56
03-15-2008, 07:20 PM
Crede looked pretty good in today's game, had a double and a nice play on D.

getonbckthr
03-15-2008, 07:30 PM
Or trade Crede for a bag of balls and watch Fields look like Ryan Braun in the field.
Does this include Braun's bat?

LoveYourSuit
03-15-2008, 07:45 PM
I just want to wake up tomorrow to find out Crede has been traded just so we stop listening to dumb creative ways to get both him and Fields on the field at the same time.

Daver
03-15-2008, 08:06 PM
I just want to wake up tomorrow to find out Crede has been traded just so we stop listening to dumb creative ways to get both him and Fields on the field at the same time.

I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

turners56
03-15-2008, 08:15 PM
I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

I wonder if it's worth it at 12-15 million a year for the next 4-5 years after next year though. You know Scoty is brewing some ridiculous deal up already.

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2008, 12:50 AM
I wonder if it's worth it at 12-15 million a year for the next 4-5 years after next year though. You know Scoty is brewing some ridiculous deal up already.
He undoubtedly is...the whole Roberts rumor has got me thinking that maybe it's best to part with Fields and stick it out with Crede. Truth be told I'm much more nervous about Crede's health than anything else. He looked awfully slow out there today and a third baseman with a chronically bad back is not a good thing to have...Fields is just as big a question mark too though. Everyone takes it for granted that he'll be able to produce well at the major league level, but his numbers are just like Kittle's.

oeo
03-16-2008, 01:10 AM
I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

You're that attached to Joe Crede?

We have Fields on the cheap for years...if Crede has a big year, he'll get a bunch of money he doesn't really deserve. I'd rather spend that money on a CC Sabathia.

Unless we suddenly start popping out position prospects, trading Fields would be stupid. You can't spend money at every position on the field unless you're the Yankees.

DeadMoney
03-16-2008, 01:16 AM
I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

Count me in as rather seeing Crede stay than Fields. I just don't like Fields defensively at 3B, in LF, or anywhere. I'd trade the defense for offense any day of the week, but my problem lies with the risk the Sox would be taking in keeping Joe around (and trading Fields).

IF they could find a way to keep both happy (with Fields in AAA :D:), I'm up for that! With Crede's potential free agency looming (and everyone knows the story there), I just don't like trading Fields. I really wish they'd get this resolved instead of platooning both for the next 2 weeks. That just seems like a bad idea to have those guys questioning their role so close to the season. Figure it out and move on - it's about time to get things straightened out.

oeo
03-16-2008, 01:22 AM
IF they could find a way to keep both happy (with Fields in AAA :D:), I'm up for that! With Crede's potential free agency looming (and everyone knows the story there), I just don't like trading Fields. I really wish they'd get this resolved instead of platooning both for the next 2 weeks. That just seems like a bad idea to have those guys questioning their role so close to the season. Figure it out and move on - it's about time to get things straightened out.

They don't really have a choice. Trading Fields would be one of the dumbest things this organization could do right now. It's unfortunate (for the Crede Cult) that the two play the same position, but Joe has to be the odd man out. This team can't afford to trade away good, young (and cheap) talent when they don't exactly have a lot of it.

So they have to wait it out, and hope Joe eventually shows something with the bat (the double was good today...let's keep it going). Fields probably will start the year in AAA, but he will be up with the big league squad by the deadline. If Joe is playing like crap, you trade him for the bag of balls; and if he's playing well (along with the team), hopefully you can get some help for the pennant race.

These two will never fit on the same team. Swisher is likely our future 1B, and our outfield looks set for quite a few years, as well. Crede has to go.

DeadMoney
03-16-2008, 01:23 AM
We have Fields on the cheap for years...if Crede has a big year, he'll get a bunch of money he doesn't really deserve. I'd rather spend that money on a CC Sabathia.

Unless we suddenly start popping out position prospects, trading Fields would be stupid. You can't spend money at every position on the field unless you're the Yankees.

That's absolutely true.

It's just hard to watch Fields struggle in the field, when the Sox have a Gold Glover that they can turn to. Watching both play 3B the past two days, Crede is just SO FAR ahead of Fields in defensive ability. It's not close, and as far as I'm concerned, it will probably never be close.

The money thing presents a problem BEYOND this year though (it's not a problem for THIS season). And, as far as this year, we're not going to get a SP (that's ready to play today) for either guy. I think with the way our offense looks as of now (Crede OR Fields included), we could have either out there and be fine for 2008. So I don't think I'm opposed to having Fields in AAA for 2008, because of what Crede gives us defensively at 3B.

oeo
03-16-2008, 01:33 AM
That's absolutely true.

It's just hard to watch Fields struggle in the field, when the Sox have a Gold Glover that they can turn to. Watching both play 3B the past two days, Crede is just SO FAR ahead of Fields in defensive ability. It's not close, and as far as I'm concerned, it will probably never be close.

I want good defense at third as much as the next guy, but I also want a competitive team. Crede would be wasted money, sorry to say it. Just not worth the contract he'll be after if he has a good year. That money should go towards weaknesses.

And Fields is still improving. He won't be Joe's caliber, but I disagree with Daver's assessment that this is him. There was an article on whitesox.com a couple of weeks ago that mentioned that he's never gone through extensive defensive training until he reached the majors. And in fact, in college, it was just about keeping the ball in front of him.

The money thing presents a problem BEYOND this year though (it's not a problem for THIS season). And, as far as this year, we're not going to get a SP (that's ready to play today) for either guy. I think with the way our offense looks as of now (Crede OR Fields included), we could have either out there and be fine for 2008. So I don't think I'm opposed to having Fields in AAA for 2008, because of what Crede gives us defensively at 3B.

We're never going to get anything for Crede unless we deal him. What a waste that would be to just let him walk when we might get something worthwhile to help us...especially when we have Fields right there.

DeadMoney
03-16-2008, 01:45 AM
We're never going to get anything for Crede unless we deal him. What a waste that would be to just let him walk when we might get something worthwhile to help us...especially when we have Fields right there.

I may be dreaming along with KW and Ozzie, but I believe that this team has a chance to compete in '08 and that's what I'm worried about right now. Getting value for Crede, not getting value for Crede; that's not my concern right now. If the team is struggling at the break and Crede is fine, then by all means deal him for SOMETHING. But, right now, I think that Crede can put up similar numbers to what he did in '06 (with a few less HR's and RBI's). If he does that, and we are contending, then I'm not for trading him.

Letting Crede walk at the end of the season is the worst case scenario, but IMO that will ONLY happen if the Sox are contending. I don't think many people here would be too opposed to letting Crede go (with no return except for a draft pick) if the Sox went to the playoffs and had a shot at winning a WS.

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2008, 05:36 AM
You're that attached to Joe Crede?

We have Fields on the cheap for years...if Crede has a big year, he'll get a bunch of money he doesn't really deserve. I'd rather spend that money on a CC Sabathia.

Unless we suddenly start popping out position prospects, trading Fields would be stupid. You can't spend money at every position on the field unless you're the Yankees.
I know this question is directed to me, but for me I think I'd rather have Crede at third if that means we have Roberts leading off and starting second...but if we take the Roberts rumor out of this completely then I think it makes more sense to keep Fields, of course.

I'm not so worried about this team's offensive output in terms of sheer power, I am worried about our ability to manufacture runs and defense (and pitching) Crede helps address those defensive concerns and Roberts helps our ability to manufacture runs where as Fields doesn't really help any of those concerns. I'm not trying to knock Fields here either, I think he'll be a good offensive player who can hit 30+ HRs, but we have Jim Thome, Paul Konerko, Jermaine Dye and Nick Swisher, four guys who are capable of hitting 30+ HRs. We don't have a clear leadoff hitter (Fields can't fill that role), we have pitchers who put the ball in play an awful lot so we need really good defense (and Fields is shakey in that area) if we were to trade Josh for Roberts then we'd have a clear leadoff hitter and a really solid infield defensively (Paulie, Roberts, Cabrera and Crede), and that would help our pitchers an awful lot. If we're truly looking to win now (and in '09) I think adding Roberts and the expense of Fields makes a lot of sense.

Optipessimism
03-16-2008, 08:57 AM
I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

I disagree. Any team that wants to could get Brandon Inge for nothing right now, and there wasn't exactly a bidding war for Pedro Feliz.

I don't think it's a very smart move to block Fields for Crede considering Crede is going to hit FA next year anyway. Even if the Sox wanted Crede to be their third baseman in the future I think it makes more sense to dump Crede off now, let Josh rack up 30+ bombs in a full season this year, then deal Josh next offseason for higher value and make a push at Joe in FA since we'd have to sign him at '09 market value anyway. If Crede goes elsewhere make a deal for Inge who should still be available next year given his contract.

chaerulez
03-16-2008, 09:40 AM
You're that attached to Joe Crede?

We have Fields on the cheap for years...if Crede has a big year, he'll get a bunch of money he doesn't really deserve. I'd rather spend that money on a CC Sabathia.

Unless we suddenly start popping out position prospects, trading Fields would be stupid. You can't spend money at every position on the field unless you're the Yankees.

I like your idea of using the money for a front line starter instead, but something tells me we're not going to outbid other teams to get CC on the Sox.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 10:04 AM
Or trade Crede for a bag of balls and watch Fields look like Ryan Braun in the field.

excessive hyperbole is fun

Get rid of Crede. Thanks for the memories, Joe

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 10:06 AM
I would rather find that they traded Fields. Gold Glove caliber third baseman are a rare commodity.

gold glove "caliber" injury prone relatively light hitting 3B?

3B is not a pure defensive position. Nor is it a pure offensive position.

At some point you have to say the kid we've got locked up for years who has the potential to hit 40 HR with a .350 OBP somewhere down the line should play, despite his below-average defense instead of the oft-injured, walk-year, Boras-managed, 800 OPS tops but Solid-Glove-Despite-Questions-About-His-Range-Coming-Off-Back-Surgery-Which-Haven't-Been-Assuaged-By-His-Substandard-Spring-Training-Play guy

I guess I'm just not a fan of those SGDQAHRCOBSWHBABYSSTP guys

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 10:10 AM
You're that attached to Joe Crede?

We have Fields on the cheap for years...if Crede has a big year, he'll get a bunch of money he doesn't really deserve. I'd rather spend that money on a CC Sabathia.

Unless we suddenly start popping out position prospects, trading Fields would be stupid. You can't spend money at every position on the field unless you're the Yankees.


I guess I'll beat the rest of them to the punch and say that CC Sabathia is fat and wears his uniform disrespectfully therefore he sucks

itsnotrequired
03-16-2008, 10:12 AM
I guess I'll beat the rest of them to the punch and say that CC Sabathia is fat and wears his uniform disrespectfully therefore he sucks

Johnny Unitas, now there's a haircut you can set your watch to...

oeo
03-16-2008, 11:31 AM
I know this question is directed to me, but for me I think I'd rather have Crede at third if that means we have Roberts leading off and starting second...but if we take the Roberts rumor out of this completely then I think it makes more sense to keep Fields, of course.

No, it was directed at Daver.

Regardless, this comment makes no sense. You're basing your decision off of some speculation by Phil Rogers? It wasn't even a rumor.

Trade for Roberts and then deal Fields? Damn, I'm glad you're not Kenny Williams...I'd probably explode.

I like your idea of using the money for a front line starter instead, but something tells me we're not going to outbid other teams to get CC on the Sox.

The Sox have their idea of how much a guy is worth, and none of us know it. They put a ceiling on Hunter and Rowand this offseason, and they were not going to overpay. We have no idea what that ceiling would be on CC Sabathia.

And wasting money on Crede takes away any chance we did have to sign Sabathia.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 11:42 AM
I can't see the Sox signing CC to more than a 3 year deal and I can't see CC signing anything less than a 4 year deal so that's that, as far as I see it

DeadMoney
03-16-2008, 11:45 AM
And wasting money on Crede takes away any chance we did have to sign Sabathia.

I'm ALL for trying to get Sabathia, but let's be realistic now ... this is the White Sox we're talking about. Any chance we had of getting him is erased with teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, etc. in the league. I can say for sure that those teams would outbid our best deal with their initial deal.

oeo
03-16-2008, 11:45 AM
I can't see the Sox signing CC to more than a 3 year deal and I can't see CC signing anything less than a 4 year deal so that's that, as far as I see it

They just signed a reliever to a 4-year deal.

Times have changed.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 11:47 AM
They just signed a reliever to a 4-year deal.

Times have changed.

Even though that reliever contract is HUGE, relatively speaking, it's not the same as committing more than 17 per for 4+ years

oeo
03-16-2008, 11:50 AM
I'm ALL for trying to get Sabathia, but let's be realistic now ... this is the White Sox we're talking about. Any chance we had of getting him is erased with teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, etc. in the league. I can say for sure that those teams would outbid our best deal with their initial deal.

Please. The Mets will not be in the running (they just signed this guy named Johan), and neither will the Flubs (they also just signed a pitcher to a massive contract...they will also be going under new ownership), Hank Steinbrenner is a ****ing moron so who knows what the Yankees will do, and we'll see how cocky the Red Sox are next year.

I am being realistic...this team will have money to spend next year. Again, signing Crede takes at least half of a potential Sabathia contract away.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 11:53 AM
Please. The Mets will not be in the running (they just signed this guy named Johan), and neither will the Flubs (they also just signed a pitcher to a massive contract...they will also be going under new ownership), Hank Steinbrenner is a ****ing moron so who knows what the Yankees will do, and we'll see how cocky the Red Sox are next year.

I am being realistic...this team will have money to spend next year. Again, signing Crede takes at least half of a potential Sabathia contract away.

While I'm not really a "JR/Kenny is cheap" guy, I do think it's pretty likely the Sox will make a "lip-service" play at CC next year, offering him something like 18 per/3 only to see him go for a 17/7 or 18/6

oeo
03-16-2008, 11:55 AM
Even though that reliever contract is HUGE, relatively speaking, it's not the same as committing more than 17 per for 4+ years

You're not getting my point. I wasn't comparing a potential Sabathia contract to Linebrink's.

The Sox were completely wrong about a 'market correction,' but they still ended up paying the market price. The market has changed, so that in turn has changed Sox philosophy.

This team has a realistic shot to win a World Series with a front-of-the-line starter...you don't think Kenny will be as aggressive next offseason? With Thome, Crede, Cabrera, and Uribe off the books, this team will have money to spend.

This isn't directed at you, fquaye, but why do people think that paying $10+ million to Crede is not out of character for the Sox; yet paying $18 million for Sabathia is?

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 11:58 AM
You're not getting my point. I wasn't comparing a potential Sabathia contract to Linebrink's.

The Sox were completely wrong about a 'market correction,' but they still ended up paying the market price. The market has changed, so that in turn has changed Sox philosophy.

I still have yet to see them willing to commit big money over long-term for a starting pitcher...so your hypothetical is no more valid than mine, and mine at least has history and causality to support it

I'm not talking about an unwillingness to pony up dollars. I'm talking about an unwillingness to commit to more than 3 years


This team has a realistic shot to win a World Series with a front-of-the-line starter...you don't think Kenny will be as aggressive next offseason? With Thome, Crede, Cabrera, and Uribe off the books, this team will have money to spend.Kenny has never stopped being aggressive, but that doesn't mean we were able/willing to give Colon, Rogers, Clement, Schmidt, etc. the deals what would bring them here

oeo
03-16-2008, 12:10 PM
I still have yet to see them willing to commit big money over long-term for a starting pitcher...so your hypothetical is no more valid than mine, and mine at least has history and causality to support it

I'm not talking about an unwillingness to pony up dollars. I'm talking about an unwillingness to commit to more than 3 years

Then they're never going to sign another pitcher.

I just can't see them doing that. In the past, they could put that ceiling at 3 years because guys were not getting these wild 6 or 7 year contracts. You have to change as the game changes. The Sox actually started doing that this offseason.

Kenny has never stopped being aggressive, but that doesn't mean we were able/willing to give Colon, Rogers, Clement, Schmidt, etc. the deals what would bring them here

I trust the Sox ability to judge worth. They don't just throw money around. Every last one of those contracts was a bad deal. The Sox will put a ceiling on Sabathia's worth (including his health, ability, and the available money), and if it goes beyond that, they won't sign him. Their days of offering just 3-year contracts are over, though.

And if Sabathia doesn't happen, I'd still much rather spend that money on a weakness (3B is a strength). There are still other good SP that will be out there, or even a Orlando Hudson or Mark Ellis at second.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Then they're never going to sign another pitcher.

I just can't see them doing that. In the past, they could put that ceiling at 3 years because guys were not getting these wild 6 or 7 year contracts. You have to change as the game changes. The Sox actually started doing that this offseason.

It's possible that they never sign another major free agent pitcher. Trade and extend seems to be Kenny's MO for acquiring pitching talent.


I trust the Sox ability to judge worth. They don't just throw money around. Every last one of those contracts was a bad deal. The Sox will put a ceiling on Sabathia's worth (including his health, ability, and the available money), and if it goes beyond that, they won't sign him. Their days of offering just 3-year contracts are over, though.

I trust their ability to judge worth. If they decline to sign Sabathia to 4+ years, which I find likely, that will be a smart move IMO since in 4 years Sabathia is likely to have tailed off significantly due to injury concerns and poor conditioning.

As for your last sentence, you're basing that off your own speculation about the market's demands and nothing more. What about Kenny's habits of trading and extending (for 3 years, nb) and JR's stated reluctance to commit long term money to pitchers leads you to make such a bold (and almost certainly wrong) statement?


And if Sabathia doesn't happen, I'd still much rather spend that money on a weakness (3B is a strength). There are still other good SP that will be out there, or even a Orlando Hudson or Mark Ellis at second.


Agreed. I want Crede gone as well, not just for the money, but also to give Fields a chance to help us with his bat....but I just simply do not see any possible way we sign Sabathia

champagne030
03-16-2008, 01:09 PM
excessive hyperbole is fun

Get rid of Crede. Thanks for the memories, Joe

It is to you. Maybe Fields can replace Thome next season.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 01:22 PM
It is to you. Maybe Fields can replace Thome next season.

By no stretch of the imagination is Fields anywhere near as bad with the glove as Braun, who is probably the worst defensive 3B in baseball

Sockinchisox
03-16-2008, 01:45 PM
By no stretch of the imagination is Fields anywhere near as bad with the glove as Braun, who was probably the worst defensive 3B in baseball

Fixed it.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 01:57 PM
Fixed it.

touche

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm still not sure why everyone here is convinced that Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt, the kid had a very good year, yes. But so did Ron Kittle and when you look at their numbers they are strikingly similiar. So if you could have traded Ron Kittle after '83 for say, Ozzie Smith, would you have done it? If we want to WIN IN 2008 then we need a leadoff guy and strong defense a hell of a lot more than a guy who could hit 30 HRs with a .230 BA and .300 OBP who struggles defensively. Right now Fields is like Jose Valentine.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 02:16 PM
I'm still not sure why everyone here is convinced that Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt,

I doubt anyone would claim they think that about Fields


the kid had a very good year, yes. But so did Ron Kittle and when you look at their numbers they are strikingly similiar.They are two different players and had two different rookie years, as Kittle was 25 before he broke, they played different positions, they played in different decades, and they were different sorts of prospects. However, if Kittle had stayed healthy his #'s would be better than Crede's, so...um...:shrug:

So if you could have traded Ron Kittle after '83 for say, Ozzie Smith, would you have done it?What does that have to do with anything? Wait. Don't answer that.

If we want to WIN IN 2008 then we need a leadoff guy and strong defense a hell of a lot more than a guy who could hit 30 HRs with a .230 BA and .300 OBP who struggles defensively.And we CERTAINLY need those things a lot more than we need a guy who's coming off back surgery, who could very well play, like 80-120 games with limited range and poor offensive production....This is beside the point though because the question isn't "would you rather have Fields or a leadoff guy," it's "would you rather have Fields, or Crede in a walk year coming off a serious injury and not giving us any indication in spring training that he can still play stellar defense"


Right now Fields is like Jose Valentine.This is underbaked for a number of reasons.

1.) Fields hits lefties well, unlike Valentin
2.) Fields is 24. Valentin's numbers when he was 24 looked nothing like Fields's
3.) Valentin was a much better SS than Fields could ever dream of being

WhiteSox5187
03-16-2008, 02:31 PM
I doubt anyone would claim they think that about Fields

They are two different players and had two different rookie years, as Kittle was 25 before he broke, they played different positions, they played in different decades, and they were different sorts of prospects. However, if Kittle had stayed healthy his #'s would be better than Crede's, so...um...:shrug:
What does that have to do with anything? Wait. Don't answer that.
And we CERTAINLY need those things a lot more than we need a guy who's coming off back surgery, who could very well play, like 80-120 games with limited range and poor offensive production....This is beside the point though because the question isn't "would you rather have Fields or a leadoff guy," it's "would you rather have Fields, or Crede in a walk year coming off a serious injury and not giving us any indication in spring training that he can still play stellar defense"

This is underbaked for a number of reasons.

1.) Fields hits lefties well, unlike Valentin
2.) Fields is 24. Valentin's numbers when he was 24 looked nothing like Fields's
3.) Valentin was a much better SS than Fields could ever dream of being
I think the problem here is that we're looking at this from different prespectives, I'm advocating trading Fields only for Roberts and I'd rather see a trade worked out where we didn't have to trade Fields.

If we were to remove Roberts from this equation, then I'd rather see Fields at third for the long term, let me clarify that. However, I would not be opposed to holding on to Crede a bit longer (say until the deadline) in order to see what he's truly worth, either a guy who can help us in the stretch run or a prospect or bite the bullet and trade him for junk.

But with Roberts, if the deal ultimately hinges upon Fields being dealt I'd very reluctantly deal Fields for Roberts (and not just straight up, the Orioles would have to give over some prospects) and that is because of the reasons I listed above.

Fields to me looks the sort of guy who can hit 30+ HRs with a .230 BA and a ton of Ks and right now we have four guys who can hit 30+ HRs with better BA and fewer Ks...since I think it's clear the Sox are looking to win now and in '09, Fields is hence some what more expendable. I'm not saying we go out and trade him for nothing, but Roberts can really shore up this team offensively and defensively and greatly improve our chances for winning in '08.

TDog
03-16-2008, 02:33 PM
... 3B is not a pure defensive position. Nor is it a pure offensive position. ...

Third base is a defensive position. Where a third baseman hits in the lineup is dictated by his offensive attributes, as well as the offensive skills of his teammates.

There was a time when baseball people believed you could hide a weak defensive heavy hitter at third base because a thirdbaseman only got an average of about 2.5 chances a game. In those days, bad thirdbasemen made good, but not great, thirdbasemen look great, and Ron Santo ended up winning gold gloves.

But the more your team relies on pitching, the more important a thirdbaseman's defense is. I think the 1983 White Sox were a better team with Aurelio Rodriguez in the lineup, not because his first name contained all five vowells, but because of the defense he brought to the position despite his .200 batting average.

If you don't plan to win, you can put Jorge Orta out there. He was anointed the starting third baseman for the dismal 1976 season, but we could see on opening day that he didn't belong there. He ended up leading the team in RBI but it took less than 50 games for Paul Richards to hide him in left field instead.

I think the Sox will have a better season in 2008 if they get better defense at third base.

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 02:43 PM
Third base is not a defensive position. Ever hear of being "strong up the middle?" CF, SS, 2B, and C. Those are the primary defensive positions. Why do you think hacks like Glaus and Tony Bautista played third? "Power at the corners?" There's another term.

As it was touched on earlier, the Tigers are looking to dump Inge, there wasn't much demand for Pedro Feliz, Adrian Beltre could probably be had for little, same with Eric Chavez, and Scott Rolen was traded this offseason too.

Tragg
03-16-2008, 02:46 PM
I'm still not sure why everyone here is convinced that Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt, the kid had a very good year, yes. But so did Ron Kittle and when you look at their numbers they are strikingly similiar. So if you could have traded Ron Kittle after '83 for say, Ozzie Smith, would you have done it? If we want to WIN IN 2008 then we need a leadoff guy and strong defense a hell of a lot more than a guy who could hit 30 HRs with a .230 BA and .300 OBP who struggles defensively. Right now Fields is like Jose Valentine.
These comparisons???? It assume that Roberts is a hall of fame player and that Fields turns into Kittle.
Brian Roberts is not Mike Schmidt and he is not Ozzie Smith. Those 2 are hall of fame ballplayers; Roberts is not.

The only comparison between Fields and Kittle is that they both hit a bunch of homers early. We certainly don't know where Fields goes from here, but to assume the worst makes it a stilted discussion.

But if this year is all that matters, Kittle was key to 1983's ballclub.

TDog
03-16-2008, 03:05 PM
Third base is not a defensive position. ...

Every position but DH is a defensive position. Better teams have good or better thirdbasemen. Many people believe the 1970 World Series was won by the defense of Brooks Robinson, even though he wasn't shading hitters up the middle. He didn't win the World Series MVP on the strength of his bat.

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 03:08 PM
So why did the World Champion Red Sox play David Ortiz at first in Colorado instead of their gold glove first baseman, Kevin Youkilis?

Daver
03-16-2008, 03:12 PM
So why did the World Champion Red Sox play David Ortiz at first in Colorado instead of their gold glove first baseman, Kevin Youkilis?

Who cares?

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 03:18 PM
Who cares?
Since he used a single world series event to make his argument, I used one (and the most recent as times have changed) to counter his.

Daver
03-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Since he used a single world series event to make his argument, I used one (and the most recent as times have changed) to counter his.


You are comparing first baseman, not third baseman, that is comparing grapes to coconuts.

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 04:42 PM
Every position but DH is a defensive position.
First baseman apparently is a defensive position. That's why I mentioned Ortiz

Surely you don't agree with TDog that every position is a defensive position. Right?

TDog
03-16-2008, 04:43 PM
Since he used a single world series event to make his argument, I used one (and the most recent as times have changed) to counter his.


Brooks Robinson also was named the AL MVP in 1964.

Times have changed. The idea that you need power at the corners is antiquated, especially in the AL, where the offensive replacement for the pitcher is likely a weak defender.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe Josh Fields will hit much over .250 in his first full season, while striking out a lot. An Aurelio Rodriguez-type third baseman would help the team much more on defense and wouldn't hurt the team so much more on offense.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 04:52 PM
Third base is a defensive position. Where a third baseman hits in the lineup is dictated by his offensive attributes, as well as the offensive skills of his teammates.

There was a time when baseball people believed you could hide a weak defensive heavy hitter at third base because a thirdbaseman only got an average of about 2.5 chances a game. In those days, bad thirdbasemen made good, but not great, thirdbasemen look great, and Ron Santo ended up winning gold gloves.


Sounds like you're describing a position that's neither a pure offensive nor a pure defensive position.

A player who can't play defense can't be hidden there just because he can hit, nor should a player who can't hit play there just b/c he can play defense.

That's all.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 04:54 PM
Every position but DH is a defensive position. Better teams have good or better thirdbasemen. Many people believe the 1970 World Series was won by the defense of Brooks Robinson, even though he wasn't shading hitters up the middle. He didn't win the World Series MVP on the strength of his bat.

What an asinine thing to say. Clearly it's true, but it distorts the argument.

There are pure defensive positions on the field: SS, CF, C

THere are purely offensive positions: 1B, LF

And then there are positions where it's hard to say what's more important--defense or offense: RF, 3B

And then there's that position where defense is important but not vital but no one can hit anyway so it's pretty much a worthless position: 2B

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 04:57 PM
Brooks Robinson also was named the AL MVP in 1964.

Times have changed. The idea that you need power at the corners is antiquated, especially in the AL, where the offensive replacement for the pitcher is likely a weak defender.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe Josh Fields will hit much over .250 in his first full season, while striking out a lot. An Aurelio Rodriguez-type third baseman would help the team much more on defense and wouldn't hurt the team so much more on offense.

Times have changed,so you are using Brooks Robinson as an example of how 3B defense is paramount.

Wow.

And for the record: Joe Crede is no Brooks Robinson, nor is it even certain he can physically

a.) play the level of borderline GG defense he did before surgery
b.) play 100 ****ing games

It's not like we're trying to decide between a great hitter who plays abysmal 3B and a great defensive 3B

We're trying to decide between a promising young hitter who is still learning 3B and showing signs he may soon be a decent 3B and a veteran coming off back surgery who has shown extremely limited range at 3B in ST games and is a huge durability risk

champagne030
03-16-2008, 05:17 PM
By no stretch of the imagination is Fields anywhere near as bad with the glove as Braun, who is probably the worst defensive 3B in baseball

You don't watch enough baseball.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 05:58 PM
You don't watch enough baseball.

That's a laugh. Keep talking though.

guillen4life13
03-16-2008, 07:41 PM
Here's how I see things turning out. Crede is gonna be traded, and I just see that as a foregone conclusion, regardless of how I feel about him, but as good as he looks defensively, Fields' offensive ceiling is just so much higher. The value for money with Fields is that much better over the next few years, and Crede is gonna get a fat paycheck if he has a good year this year. That's why, if he isn't traded now, he'll be traded at the deadline with a high value. Fields could be a 3 if he learns just a little more patience at the plate. I hope he can get better in the field though.

I'm in Miami during this time of year (just saw a Grapefruit Mets/Marlins game) and don't get WGN so I haven't seen Crede or Fields play this spring, but I've read about it here and newspapers online--and box scores obviously.

So, for 2008, you can have Fields rotate between DH (against LHP's) and 3B (against some LHP's, with Crede coming in for the late innings as a defensive replacement). He could be a valuable pinch hitter also. Give him a lot of defensive drills. This way Crede is still playing a large amount of games, Fields would get at least 300 AB's. If it makes sense at the deadline to trade Crede (meaning, both are doing really well--but if Fields isn't doing so great, send him to AAA), then do it. Fields steps in as the 3B. Then after the year is up, Thome walks, and Konerko moves to DH to let Swisher take it over. Then the outfield can solidify itself with Dye in left, Anderson in center and Quentin in right. If Cabrera walks, Alexei Ramirez takes SS with Richar or Bourgeois at 2B. Use the money you've saved with Thome, Cabrera and Crede gone and go make a big pitching FA splash since I see it as unlikely that the rotation in its current form will have great success. Buehrle is really the only guy you can truly count on. If Vazquez pitches like he did in 2006, he's a 5th or 4th in the rotation pitcher on a good team. Danks is still very young and we should still keep him even if he goes through some more growing pains. Floyd, IMO if he totally tanks this year should be cut loose. Of course, then there's Jose, who I have some faith in but we can never be sure until he's sure.

If the Sox prove me wrong, then you have all this freed up money to spend on an upgrade at any position, and next year's free agent class could be pretty nice.

Of course, so much can change in the next nine months.

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 07:43 PM
It looks like Braun's defense at third is translating just fine to the OF.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080303/capt.5b37772400f8455f9f5a4a77c7d1474e.brewers_brau n_baseball_azmg201.jpg

TDog
03-16-2008, 07:51 PM
Times have changed,so you are using Brooks Robinson as an example of how 3B defense is paramount.

Wow.

And for the record: Joe Crede is no Brooks Robinson, nor is it even certain he can physically

a.) play the level of borderline GG defense he did before surgery
b.) play 100 ****ing games

It's not like we're trying to decide between a great hitter who plays abysmal 3B and a great defensive 3B

We're trying to decide between a promising young hitter who is still learning 3B and showing signs he may soon be a decent 3B and a veteran coming off back surgery who has shown extremely limited range at 3B in ST games and is a huge durability risk

If Joe Crede is traded this spring it won't be because having Josh Fields at third base will help the Sox win more games.

Picking a baseball lineup always involves trade-offs. Except for the DH, the players who hit also have to field. Historically, because the skills required to be a good third baseman don't involve running speed, some powerful hitters where put at third. That's more true at first, and for that reason, firstbasemen often are nothing more than targets for throws.

But every position is a defensive position because the ball is hit and thrown everywhere. The batting order and the roles the hitters have in the lineup has nothing to do with the positions they play. If you have a hitter you want to get into the lineup, you have to find a place for him to play, and if you have a fielder you want on defense, you have to find him a spot in the order. Baseball is about holding the other teams to fewer runs as much as outscoring the other team.

Even first base is important. If the White Sox in Game 3 of the 2000 ALDS had been playing Konerko instead of Thomas, they would have had a better chance of winning. Piniela said he designed the bases-loaded squeeze that ended the Sox season to go toward first because he knew Thomas couldn't have thrown out the runner at the plate. And that's how it worked out. The only run the Sox got that day was driven in by Baines, the DH who put Thomas in the field and Konerko on the bench.

You have to decide whether what you give up on the field or at the plate is worth what gain otherwise. Overlooking for the sake of the argument that I don't believe Fields is on the verge of having a better offensive year than Crede, I do believe that the defense lost with the loss of Crede would be a constant lament on this board.

turners56
03-16-2008, 07:59 PM
And for the record: Joe Crede is no Brooks Robinson

Don't tell that to Tim McCarver, I still remember McCarver's incredible commentary during Game one of the 2005 WS. After Crede made those two diving stops to stop the Astros from scoring, McCarver goes

"Brooks Robinson? What are we watching here tonight?"

Even though that was one of the many dumb comments McCarver has made over the years, whenever I hear it, it still makes me shiver.

fquaye149
03-16-2008, 08:12 PM
If Joe Crede is traded this spring it won't be because having Josh Fields at third base will help the Sox win more games.


If Crede was 100% healthy I'd say you're right. But the Sox have a better chance to win games with a developing Fields than a huge injury/diminished skills risk in Crede.

Daver
03-16-2008, 08:33 PM
If Crede was 100% healthy I'd say you're right. But the Sox have a better chance to win games with a developing Fields than a huge injury/diminished skills risk in Crede.

You have proof his skills are diminished?

KRS1
03-16-2008, 09:25 PM
You have proof his skills are diminished?

Yeah, he is only hitting .091 this spring. I mean, he has only missed nearly an entire year, so him being slow to get back up to speed obviously means he has lost it.

batmanZoSo
03-16-2008, 09:28 PM
Crede's never been much of a hitter.

Now he has suspect long term health and we have a budding home run champ in Fields.

Thanks for 2005 but happy trails I say.

TDog
03-16-2008, 09:51 PM
... and we have a budding home run champ in Fields. ....

In all honesty, I laughed harder when I heard people describing Olivo as a future Hall of Famer in response to his trade from the White Sox.

santo=dorf
03-16-2008, 09:53 PM
Yeah, he is only hitting .091 this spring. I mean, he has only missed nearly an entire year, so him being slow to get back up to speed obviously means he has lost it.
Fquaye didn't say he "lost it," he said his skills are diminished. From the rest of your post it sounds like it supports fquaye's claim. You could also mention the Tom Verducci article that quotes SCOUTS saying he defense doesn't even look like an average third baseman's, let alone Brooks Robinson's.

KRS1
03-16-2008, 10:09 PM
Fquaye didn't say he "lost it," he said his skills are diminished. From the rest of your post it sounds like it supports fquaye's claim. You could also mention the Tom Verducci article that quotes SCOUTS saying he defense doesn't even look like an average third baseman's, let alone Brooks Robinson's.

In the rest of my post, I was showing how funny it is to judge a player who missed an entire year of baseball as diminished based on the first few weeks after his return. Prior to his back having a complete collapse last year, his skills at the dish were going up and he was finally starting to click for two seasons in a row. I am not ready to judge him either way after the surgery, but I will not call him a player who's skills are diminished based on a couple weeks of swinging the bat in ST.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 05:56 AM
You have proof his skills are diminished?

I said diminished skills risk

My proof that he's a diminished skills risk?
http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070611&content_id=2020046&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

I guess that doesn't prove he HAD back surgery, but I didn't feel like finding the article that said he did :shrug:

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 05:58 AM
In all honesty, I laughed harder when I heard people describing Olivo as a future Hall of Famer in response to his trade from the White Sox.

Fields hit 23 HR in his rookie year, age 24. Olivo showed potential for speed and great defense.

Furthermore, saying someone with great power could be a budding HR champ is not that wild a statement to make.

Saying a lousy catcher who hasn't done anything at the MLB level is a future hall of famer is a wild statement to make

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 06:00 AM
In the rest of my post, I was showing how funny it is to judge a player who missed an entire year of baseball as diminished based on the first few weeks after his return. Prior to his back having a complete collapse last year, his skills at the dish were going up and he was finally starting to click for two seasons in a row. I am not ready to judge him either way after the surgery, but I will not call him a player who's skills are diminished based on a couple weeks of swinging the bat in ST.

I'm not judging him. I'm saying that given that he had back surgery in the offseason and given that he's played poorly thus far, it's a bad idea for us to EXPECT him to return to form defensively.

Will he ever have the quickness or range of motion again? Who knows. Given that's really all that can recommend him over Fields, I'd rather go with the player who's with us beyond this year and who we can more realistically expect to be healthy

chaerulez
03-17-2008, 10:08 AM
That's a laugh. Keep talking though.

I think he's referring to the fact that Braun was moved to the outfield.

Regardless, say if Crede is healthy and can play GG defense this year. We still have to pay him a ton of money to stay. We can have Fields on the cheap for a few more years. I think having a guy that makes less than a million who is capable of a 35 HR season is a very good thing. Yes, his defense isn't good, but he is still learning the position.

Edit: And Joe Crede is one of my favorite players on the team, in a perfect world I wouldn't want to see him go. However, I think him being traded is the best thing for the team.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 10:59 AM
If Crede was healthy I'd say play him. If Crede was healthy and not in a walk year I'd say slam dunk no question play him.


Since Crede has major health and production questions AND is in a walk year, please don't play him

TDog
03-17-2008, 12:07 PM
Fields hit 23 HR in his rookie year, age 24. Olivo showed potential for speed and great defense.

Furthermore, saying someone with great power could be a budding HR champ is not that wild a statement to make.

Saying a lousy catcher who hasn't done anything at the MLB level is a future hall of famer is a wild statement to make

WSI consensus didn't consider Miguel Olivo a lousy catcher until he left the White Sox. That he was traded surprisedand shocked a lot of people because consensus was quite the contrary.

Calling someone who hits only 23 home runs in a partial season at the age of 24 a budding home run champ strikes me as funny because, like the Olivo statement, it ignores what it is to be a home run champ. I would have said such a thing about Frank Thomas, but I would have been wrong because Frank Thomas never led the American League in home runs.

Technically, Frank Thomas remains the all-time White Sox home run leader, home run champ, if you will. But I didn't look at it that way and I don't think Josh Fields has a Frank Thomas career ahead of him anyway.

I didn't regard Fields statement as funny as the Olivo statement or as funny as Paul Richards calling Kevin Bell a future Hall of Famer after he tripled in his first game in 1976. I just thought the statement demonstrated the sort of insightful analysis that in this forum screams for teal.

Fields could lead the league in strikeouts, but with Curtis Granderson leading off for the Tigers, it will take a lot of strikeouts to lead the American League.

fquaye149
03-17-2008, 02:06 PM
WSI consensus didn't consider Miguel Olivo a lousy catcher until he left the White Sox. That he was traded surprisedand shocked a lot of people because consensus was quite the contrary.

Lousy catcher? No one said he was lousy. He was always regarded by anyone who know their ass from elbow as what he was: a light-hitting catcher with the potential to improve, good speed especially for a catcher, a solid arm, and a decent glove, but not capable of calling his own game.

Most people were upset to see him go because most people liked him while he was on the team. Unfortunately too few people had the proper perspective to understand that he would never be as valuable a catcher as Freddy was a pitcher


Calling someone who hits only 23 home runs in a partial season at the age of 24 a budding home run champ strikes me as funny because, like the Olivo statement, it ignores what it is to be a home run champ. I would have said such a thing about Frank Thomas, but I would have been wrong because Frank Thomas never led the American League in home runs.

All it means to be a home run champ is to lead the ****ing league in home runs. A kid who hits 23 HR in limited AB at the age of 24 is someone who could very conceivably lead the league in HR someday.


Technically, Frank Thomas remains the all-time White Sox home run leader, home run champ, if you will. But I didn't look at it that way and I don't think Josh Fields has a Frank Thomas career ahead of him anyway.

"Home Run Champ" can refer to one of four things:

1.) the all-time MLB leader in HR (at this point, Bonds or Aaron depending on how you feel about asterisks)
2.) the single-season MLB record holder for HR (Bonds or McGwire or Maris or whoever the **** you want to count)
3.) the all-time White Sox HR leader (Hurt)
4.) someone who leads the league in HR at least once in their career.

20 guesses which one Zoso was referring to.

TDog
03-17-2008, 05:55 PM
...
All it means to be a home run champ is to lead the ****ing league in home runs. A kid who hits 23 HR in limited AB at the age of 24 is someone who could very conceivably lead the league in HR someday.

...

"Home Run Champ" can refer to one of four things:

1.) the all-time MLB leader in HR (at this point, Bonds or Aaron depending on how you feel about asterisks)
2.) the single-season MLB record holder for HR (Bonds or McGwire or Maris or whoever the **** you want to count)
3.) the all-time White Sox HR leader (Hurt)
4.) someone who leads the league in HR at least once in their career.

20 guesses which one Zoso was referring to.

I would find your argument more rational if it didn't trigger the language filter. Still, given the four possible definitions definitions of "home run champ," which I pretty much implied anyway, I believe Fields is a longshot to meet any of the criteria. (Unless you want to exclude maybe five guys who hit more home runs because you believe they cheated. I would consider that laughable, too.)

Ron Kittle hit 35 home runs in his rookie season at the age of 25 after hitting 50 home runs the previous season in the Pacific Coast League. He was third in the league in home runs, but he never came closer to leading the American League.

Ted Williams hit 31 home runs at the age of 20 and went on to win two triple crowns, but he also hit 44 doubles, 11 triples and more than a hit a game. He finished with an average of .327. But he had almost three hits for ever strikeout. Fields averaged more than a strikeout a game while averaging less than a hit a game.

A player who comes up striking out as much as Fields does while hitting as many home runs is more likely to have a rougher time in his sophomore season because he will have to adjust to the way pitchers figure him out. How he adjusts could reduce his power numbers. I've seen it before.

As I have said, I hope I'm wrong about Fields, but I don't see him being the offensive star many around here do.

Daver
03-17-2008, 06:03 PM
Regardless, say if Crede is healthy and can play GG defense this year. We still have to pay him a ton of money to stay. We can have Fields on the cheap for a few more years. I think having a guy that makes less than a million who is capable of a 35 HR season is a very good thing. Yes, his defense isn't good, but he is still learning the position.


There is no salary cap in baseball.

oeo
03-17-2008, 06:07 PM
There is no salary cap in baseball.

Yes, but (obviously) every team still has a ceiling on how much they can spend. Let me know where the extra money is going to come from.

Daver
03-17-2008, 06:13 PM
Yes, but (obviously) every team still has a ceiling on how much they can spend. Let me know where the extra money is going to come from.

I'm neither the owner or the GM, and neither are you.

oeo
03-17-2008, 06:19 PM
I'm neither the owner or the GM, and neither are you.

Isn't what you're doing, playing GM? Saying you'd rather trade Fields...

I guess it stops there, though. :?:

Daver
03-17-2008, 06:26 PM
Isn't what you're doing, playing GM? Saying you'd rather trade Fields...

I guess it stops there, though. :?:

No, I am saying as a fan, I would rather see Fields traded. I'm not a GM and I don't play one on TV, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

oeo
03-17-2008, 06:33 PM
No, I am saying as a fan, I would rather see Fields traded. I'm not a GM and I don't play one on TV, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

So I guess you can't factor money into your opinion? That's not being very realistic then.

Daver
03-17-2008, 06:41 PM
So I guess you can't factor money into your opinion? That's not being very realistic then.

There is no salary cap in baseball.

btrain929
03-17-2008, 10:01 PM
Don't you know?
You've go to Go With Joe.

Come on everybody. Let's start the rally cry.

Don't you know?
You've got to go with Joe.















G

I'm not reading all the pages of this thread, simply because I can't believe so many posts have been made starting from this one. All I wanna say is........."who the **** are you and how bored were you when you made this thread?"

:rolleyes:

drewcifer
03-17-2008, 11:09 PM
My wife and I just got back from AZ this week - Our yearly trip to Spring Training to see our Sox and get a break from cold.

Having said - Joe sucks. He looks terrible.

Alexei was interesting; so was Swish. More than interesting. We saw lots of Eldred, Bourgeouis... Even Ozuna.

But Joe looked horrible. Really, really bad.

BadBobbyJenks
03-18-2008, 12:44 AM
There is no salary cap in baseball.

There is a self imposed salary cap.

TDog
03-18-2008, 01:59 AM
There is a self imposed salary cap.

There is an inference of a self-imposed salary cap.

fquaye149
03-18-2008, 08:06 AM
There is an inference of a self-imposed salary cap.

It's not inferential reasoning. It's deductive reasoning.

Watch:

JR/Kenny says "We're not willing to pay player so-and-so X amount of dollars or give him X amount of years"

JR/Kenny make cash a consideration in trades, adjusting personnel decisions to make sure we get cash in, say, the Thome trade

Payroll stays right around the same mark, give or take 5 million, just about every year.

It's not an inference to say there's a self-imposed payroll given that logic, it's a deduction

ChiSoxGirl
03-18-2008, 08:49 PM
My wife and I just got back from AZ this week - Our yearly trip to Spring Training to see our Sox and get a break from cold.

Having said - Joe sucks. He looks terrible.

Alexei was interesting; so was Swish. More than interesting. We saw lots of Eldred, Bourgeouis... Even Ozuna.

But Joe looked horrible. Really, really bad.

During today's broadcast, Chris Rongey said Crede's bating .091 on the spring! :o:

I'm seeing the Sox on Monday in Peoria and hopefully Joe will be in the lineup because I'd like to see him play... and hopefully he'll get a hit or two!

ChiTownTrojan
03-19-2008, 12:17 AM
FWIW, Mark Gonzalez thinks that Crede will be our starting 3B.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080318-joe-crede-chicago-white-sox,1,3542378.story

Among his points:
- Crede usually starts slow in spring training, although he's started especially slow this time
- The trade market for Crede is pretty non-existent right now
- Crede looks healthy
- Fields will probably start the season in Charlotte

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 07:50 AM
That's too bad :(

Carolina Kenny
03-19-2008, 07:52 AM
FWIW, Mark Gonzalez thinks that Crede will be our starting 3B.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080318-joe-crede-chicago-white-sox,1,3542378.story

Among his points:
- Crede usually starts slow in spring training, although he's started especially slow this time
- The trade market for Crede is pretty non-existent right now
- Crede looks healthy
- Fields will probably start the season in Charlotte

Ozzie and Kenny know that Joe gives the Sox the best chance winning right now. Fields needs to improve on his fielding. One would think he is a good enough athlete to do so.

Yes we can look forward to more pop ups to second base from Joe, but he does have a knack for clutch hits, and his defense is outstanding. I am not worried about a slow spring for Joe. He will be rounding in to shape pretty soon.

Gammons Peter
03-19-2008, 08:11 AM
Fields needs to improve on his fielding.

and I would like to see him learn how to make more contact. A lot of people here are in a big hurry to see him strike out 200 times.

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 09:01 AM
and I would like to see him learn how to make more contact. A lot of people here are in a big hurry to see him strike out 200 times.

:rolleyes: If that 200 k's is on the way to 30+ HR and a ~.350 OBP, who cares? No one wants to see him K 200x per se, but who cares if his outs are weak groundouts and flyouts or strikeouts?

Carolina Kenny
03-19-2008, 09:21 AM
and I would like to see him learn how to make more contact. A lot of people here are in a big hurry to see him strike out 200 times.

I have not understood all the Josh Fields love. Sure he shows some power but rookie power does not always translate into a long solid career. Take the case of Bob Hamelin. ROY with 24HR in 312 AB. The rest of his career was a bust.

Josh strikes out at a alarming rate. Right now he is essentialy a one dimensional player. I can't see what is so wrong about letting him spend some time refining his game in AAA. (or trading him to Colorado).

Carolina Kenny
03-19-2008, 09:27 AM
:rolleyes: If that 200 k's is on the way to 30+ HR and a ~.350 OBP, who cares? No one wants to see him K 200x per se, but who cares if his outs are weak groundouts and flyouts or strikeouts?

You must also have been a big fan of Jose Hernandez. (he wasn't on alot of pennant winners)

spiffie
03-19-2008, 09:36 AM
I have not understood all the Josh Fields love. Sure he shows some power but rookie power does not always translate into a long solid career. Take the case of Bob Hamelin. ROY with 24HR in 312 AB. The rest of his career was a bust.

Josh strikes out at a alarming rate. Right now he is essentialy a one dimensional player. I can't see what is so wrong about letting him spend some time refining his game in AAA. (or trading him to Colorado).
Had there been an athleticsinteractive.com back in March of 1969 I can only imagine Carolina Kenny (or perhaps Carolina Kenny Sr.) would have made a post like...

I have not understood all the Reggie Jackson love. Sure he shows some power but rookie power does not always translate into a long solid career. Take the case of Curt Blafery. ROY with 22HR in 462 AB back in 1965. The rest of his career was a bust.

Reggie strikes out at a alarming rate. Right now he is essentialy a one dimensional player. I can't see what is so wrong about letting him spend some time refining his game in AAA. (or trading him to Minnesota).

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 09:45 AM
You must also have been a big fan of Jose Hernandez. (he wasn't on alot of pennant winners)

I'm a big fan of Jim Thome and Adam Dunn and pretty much everyone who will hit 40+ HR this year...all of whom will likely strike out 100+ times, often as much as 150+ times.

Josh Fields, in his rookie year (i.e. probably his learning curve year) stuck out 125 or so times in 350 or so at bats.

That's hardly Jose Hernandez territory. Jose H ernandez, furthermore, never hit more than 25 HR in 550 AB

hi im skot
03-19-2008, 09:51 AM
Josh Fields for president (and starting third baseman of the Chicago White Sox).

Carolina Kenny
03-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Had there been an athleticsinteractive.com back in March of 1969 I can only imagine Carolina Kenny (or perhaps Carolina Kenny Sr.) would have made a post like...

I have seen Reggie Jackson, and Josh Fields is no Reggie Jackson.

Josh Fields is like the 2nd string quarterback on the Bears. Beloved by all until he gets on the field.

esbrechtel
03-19-2008, 12:08 PM
I have seen Reggie Jackson, and Josh Fields is no Reggie Jackson.

Josh Fields is like the 2nd string quarterback on the Bears. Beloved by all until he gets on the field.
hahaha so true...

spiffie
03-19-2008, 12:15 PM
I have seen Reggie Jackson, and Josh Fields is no Reggie Jackson.

Josh Fields is like the 2nd string quarterback on the Bears. Beloved by all until he gets on the field.
I have seen Bob Hamelin, and Josh Fields is no Bob Hamelin. See, I can pretend to be Lloyd Bentsen too!

The last part would make more sense if we hadn't all seen almost a whole year of Josh at 3B. We know what we have, and most of us are happy with it. Some people though put more value on a couple great weeks in 2005 than the rest of a guy's career. BRING BACK WILLIE HARRIS!

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 12:15 PM
I have seen Reggie Jackson, and Josh Fields is no Reggie Jackson.

Josh Fields is like the 2nd string quarterback on the Bears. Beloved by all until he gets on the field.

hahaha so true...

HAHAHAHAH TOTALLY

except that Fields played a substantial amount last year as a starter and those ACTUAL REGULAR SEASON GAMES are what people are basing their optimism about Fields on.

HAHAHAH BUT ASIDES FROM THAT HE'S TOTALLY LIKE A BACKUP BEARS QB! LOOK AT ALL US STUPID FANS! FIELDS STRIKES OUT A LOT AND HE WILL NEVER BE BETTER THAN HIS 2007 NUMBERS!

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2008, 01:11 PM
:rolleyes: If that 200 k's is on the way to 30+ HR and a ~.350 OBP, who cares? No one wants to see him K 200x per se, but who cares if his outs are weak groundouts and flyouts or strikeouts?
Jesus, Fields OBP is barely .300 much less .350. With Fields 30+ HRs and 100+ RBIs are very much a possibility, but 200 K's are just as much a possibility.

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 01:15 PM
Jesus, Fields OBP is barely .300 much less .350. With Fields 30+ HRs and 100+ RBIs are very much a possibility, but 200 K's are just as much a possibility.

It's not possible a player at age 25 could increase his OBP?

Go figure. Bummer.

spiffie
03-19-2008, 01:17 PM
Sometimes I think Sox fans would rather have a guy who hits 270, never walks, never strikes out, and hits only singles between 2B and SS than any other player. Their dream line is 270/270/270. As long as all those other outs are glorious pop-ups or well hit ground balls right to an infielder, all else is forgiven.

It's Dankerific
03-19-2008, 01:38 PM
All the Josh Lovers (tm) also forget about the almost inevitable sophomore slump. You know, that time when the league has all the offseason to know you'll be playing and time to see you strike out a ton. so given that a) many players are capable of coming into the league one year decently and then fizzling and b) there is a good percentage of players that end up good, they still struggle mightily in their 2nd season.

So, if we're "playing to win", Josh best serves the team learning to play defense and cutting down is K's in AAA while a known defensive guru plays 3rd for the year.


"You can't teach power, if you show me someone who can hit the longball, i'll teach him to play baseball."

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 01:55 PM
All the Josh Lovers (tm) also forget about the almost inevitable sophomore slump. You know, that time when the league has all the offseason to know you'll be playing and time to see you strike out a ton. so given that a) many players are capable of coming into the league one year decently and then fizzling and b) there is a good percentage of players that end up good, they still struggle mightily in their 2nd season.

So, if we're "playing to win", Josh best serves the team learning to play defense and cutting down is K's in AAA while a known defensive guru plays 3rd for the year.


"You can't teach power, if you show me someone who can hit the longball, i'll teach him to play baseball."

The almost inevitable sophomore slump? :?:

hi im skot
03-19-2008, 01:56 PM
All the Josh Lovers (tm) also forget about the almost inevitable sophomore slump. You know, that time when the league has all the offseason to know you'll be playing and time to see you strike out a ton. so given that a) many players are capable of coming into the league one year decently and then fizzling and b) there is a good percentage of players that end up good, they still struggle mightily in their 2nd season.

So, if we're "playing to win", Josh best serves the team learning to play defense and cutting down is K's in AAA while a known defensive guru plays 3rd for the year.


"You can't teach power, if you show me someone who can hit the longball, i'll teach him to play baseball."

Josh Fields is ready to party...in the big leagues.

Oh...

:tealtutor:

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 01:59 PM
"A known defensive guru"

You can't make this stuff up.

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2008, 02:06 PM
It's not possible a player at age 25 could increase his OBP?

Go figure. Bummer.
Well according to this board BA can't improve his average, Joe Crede obviously can't return to his form from back surgery because he's hitting .091 in ST, but since Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt he can clearly turn it around but those other guys can't.:rolleyes:

hi im skot
03-19-2008, 02:20 PM
Well according to this board BA can't improve his average, Joe Crede obviously can't return to his form from back surgery because he's hitting .091 in ST, but since Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt he can clearly turn it around but those other guys can't.:rolleyes:

This really doesn't answer the question. Plus, it's tough to compare Anderson to Fields; Fields has actually had some, you know, success in the big leagues.

And when did anyone compare Fields to Schmidt? I mean, ****, Fields doesn't have the facial hair...

rdivaldi
03-19-2008, 02:30 PM
Isn't it time for the "he strikes out too much" argument to go away? Striking out 100+ times is a part of 21st century baseball guys. Look at some of these numbers from some of the best players in baseball:

Ryan Howard - 199 Ks
Adam Dunn - 165
Jack Cust - 164
Grady Sizemore - 155
BJ Upton - 154
Carlos Pena - 142
Curtis Granderson - 141
Brad Hawpe - 137
Jim Thome - 134
Nick Swisher - 131
Alfonso Soriano - 130
Miguel Cabrera - 127
Matt Holiday - 126
Lance Berkman - 125
Jason Varitek - 122
Prince Fielder - 121
Patt Burrell - 120
Alex Rodriguez - 120
Aaron Rowand - 119
David Wright - 115
Travis Hafner - 115
Derek Lee - 114
Ryan Braun - 112
Mark Teixeira - 112
Carl Crawford - 112
Carlos Beltran - 111
Kevin Youkilis - 105
David Ortiz - 103
Paul Konerko - 102
Torii Hunter - 101
Derek Jeter - 100

rdivaldi
03-19-2008, 02:33 PM
And when did anyone compare Fields to Schmidt? I mean, ****, Fields doesn't have the facial hair...

Fields did better in his first full season at about the same exact age.

:rolleyes: (at myself)

Vestigio
03-19-2008, 02:38 PM
I'm becoming more annoyed by the anti-Fields posters sentiment that Fields is a HOFer. I have not once seen "Fields" and "Hall of fame" in the same sentence, other than those who continue to mock those who want Fields to start.

I, like many others here, feel like its time to move on. Crede wont be with us much longer, so it should be time to get younger. As for the people who knock Fields D, this maybe just me, but when Crede first came up with the club, his defense was nothing spectacular. After years of service with the big league, his D progressed. Why can't we expect something similar to that with Fields? Now I'm not saying he will be the same calibur fielder as Crede 5 years down the road, but Fields should show some progression in the field.

hi im skot
03-19-2008, 02:40 PM
Fields did better in his first full season at about the same exact age.

:rolleyes: (at myself)

Are you sure? This must be some sort of oversight!

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 03:33 PM
Well according to this board BA can't improve his average, Joe Crede obviously can't return to his form from back surgery because he's hitting .091 in ST, but since Josh Fields is the second coming of Mike Schmidt he can clearly turn it around but those other guys can't.:rolleyes:

Good grief. You want me to break this down for you?

a.) BA can easily improve his average. I've been saying that day in and day out.

b.) Injured 29 year olds coming off serious back surgery after a history of back problems are GENERALLY less likely to improve than 24 year olds rookies who showed excellent power potential

c.) Fields doesn't need to "turn it around". He's a rookie. He needs to develop as most rookies with talent do.

Oh but keep saying "Mike Schmidt" as if ANYONE but you and some other Pro-Crede/Anti-Fields people have ever made that comparison:rolleyes:

Logic is a fun thing to use when having a rational discussion, isn't it? Give it a shot sometime

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 03:34 PM
"A known defensive guru"

You can't make this stuff up.

I keep laughing about the time some dude in this thread called Crede "A known defensive guru".

It's not that Crede wasn't (and maybe still is) great with the glove...it's just..

"A Known Defensive Guru"

I wonder if they'll put that on his tombstone in 60 or so years

Elephant
03-19-2008, 03:36 PM
I keep laughing about the time some dude in this thread called Crede "A known defensive guru".

It's not that Crede wasn't (and maybe still is) great with the glove...it's just..

"A Known Defensive Guru"

I wonder if they'll put that on his tombstone in 60 or so years

His tombstone should say "A Known Jag and Laffabout."

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2008, 03:42 PM
For what it's worth Fields just got pulled after getting drilled in the elbow. I'm not sure what pitch he got hit with, but I got hit there and if you're not wearing padding it can take a couple of days to recover from that. But he seemed fine on base, I'm sure it was just a precaution.

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 03:45 PM
For what it's worth Fields just got pulled after getting drilled in the elbow. I'm not sure what pitch he got hit with, but I got hit there and if you're not wearing padding it can take a couple of days to recover from that. But he seemed fine on base, I'm sure it was just a precaution.

thanks for the inside scoop

It's Dankerific
03-19-2008, 04:12 PM
I keep laughing about the time some dude in this thread called Crede "A known defensive guru".

It's not that Crede wasn't (and maybe still is) great with the glove...it's just..

"A Known Defensive Guru"

I wonder if they'll put that on his tombstone in 60 or so years


I was just tired of when people post about Joe's Gold Glove defense, some wise-acre needs to post "he never won a GG". So, that statement, is true and not easily mocked with logical fallacies.

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 04:15 PM
I was just tired of when people post about Joe's Gold Glove defense, some wise-acre needs to post "he never won a GG". So, that statement, is true and not easily mocked with logical fallacies.

You might want to look up the word guru in the dictionary...

It's Dankerific
03-19-2008, 04:34 PM
You might want to look up the word guru in the dictionary...

from the dictionary :
an influential teacher or popular expert

He's definitely a popular expert on 3rd base defense and Josh would do himself better to be influenced by his teachings.

Maybe he needs to write a book or hold a conference though..

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 04:40 PM
from the dictionary :
an influential teacher or popular expert

He's definitely a popular expert on 3rd base defense and Josh would do himself better to be influenced by his teachings.



Sure, dude

HebrewHammer
03-19-2008, 07:34 PM
Let's review the events of the past twelve hours.

Juan Uribe, shows up to camp in reasonable shape, hits well and has little experienced competition at second base. Juan gets cut.

Joe Crede, shows up with obvious rust from off season back surgery. He shows nothing at the plate or the defense that made him a fan favorite. He also faces actual competition from a younger, better player. He'll be starting opening day.

I'm not defending Juan, but who really deserved to get placed on waivers? Juan should've faked a stomachache. He'd probably still be with the team.

A. Cavatica
03-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Let's review the events of the past twelve hours.

Juan Uribe, shows up to camp in reasonable shape, hits well and has little experienced competition at second base. Juan gets cut.

Joe Crede, shows up with obvious rust from off season back surgery. He shows nothing at the plate or the defense that made him a fan favorite. He also faces actual competition from a younger, better player. He'll be starting opening day.

I'm not defending Juan, but who really deserved to get placed on waivers? Juan should've faked a stomachache. He'd probably still be with the team.

Uribe deserved to be cut LAST SEASON. This is overdue.

SoxandtheCityTee
03-19-2008, 07:57 PM
thanks for the inside scoop

So now people can't post contemporaneously about what happens in a day game which is televised, but during which many WSI-ers are at work, without drawing a sarcastic response? :?:

I guess the game threads are in trouble.

fquaye149
03-19-2008, 08:01 PM
So now people can't post contemporaneously about what happens in a day game which is televised, but during which many WSI-ers are at work, without drawing a sarcastic response? :?:

I guess the game threads are in trouble.

For what it's worth Fields just got pulled after getting drilled in the elbow. I'm not sure what pitch he got hit with, but I got hit there and if you're not wearing padding it can take a couple of days to recover from that. But he seemed fine on base, I'm sure it was just a precaution.

I was referring to the bolded section.

#1swisher
03-20-2008, 02:10 PM
Joe Crede, shows up with obvious rust from off season back surgery. He shows nothing at the plate or the defense that made him a fan favorite. He also faces actual competition from a younger, better player. He'll be starting opening day.

please refresh my memory. Crede didn't want back surgery. when/who made this decision? maybe this is why Crede is still here and starting opening day.:D:

soltrain21
03-20-2008, 02:15 PM
Joe Crede, shows up with obvious rust from off season back surgery. He shows nothing at the plate or the defense that made him a fan favorite. He also faces actual competition from a younger, better player. He'll be starting opening day.

please refresh my memory. Crede didn't want back surgery. when/who made this decision? maybe this is why Crede is still here and starting opening day.:D:

I didn't want lung surgery and I got it once. Who cares about whether or not he wanted surgery? Who the hell EVER wants surgery?

rdivaldi
03-20-2008, 02:26 PM
Who the hell EVER wants surgery?

If you're in enough pain, I think most would opt for the surgery.

EndemicSox
03-20-2008, 02:40 PM
The two appear to be pretty similar players, low OBP, solid power, etc...

If Fields is a true butcher in the field, and I haven't seen him enough to make that call, then I would like Crede to man the hot corner this season. If the Sox think Fields can hack it at the MLB level at the 3B position, I still think the Sox best move is to hope Crede gets hot to start the year, and pawn him off. If they lose him in FA, oh well, he isn't a "special" player by any means...

fquaye149
03-20-2008, 03:35 PM
The two appear to be pretty similar players, low OBP, solid power, etc...

If Fields is a true butcher in the field, and I haven't seen him enough to make that call, then I would like Crede to man the hot corner this season. If the Sox think Fields can hack it at the MLB level at the 3B position, I still think the Sox best move is to hope Crede gets hot to start the year, and pawn him off. If they lose him in FA, oh well, he isn't a "special" player by any means...

Do Crede and Fields have similar power? most people would say not even close...

Carolina Kenny
03-20-2008, 05:36 PM
Do Crede and Fields have similar power? most people would say not even close...

Fields has a greater power.

fquaye149
03-20-2008, 06:11 PM
much

HebrewHammer
03-20-2008, 08:03 PM
Joe Crede, shows up with obvious rust from off season back surgery. He shows nothing at the plate or the defense that made him a fan favorite. He also faces actual competition from a younger, better player. He'll be starting opening day.

please refresh my memory. Crede didn't want back surgery. when/who made this decision? maybe this is why Crede is still here and starting opening day.:D:

What difference does it make who made the decision? The possibility that Joe had surgery against his will is the worst excuse ever for a starting job. I'd rather have KW admit that he flipped a coin and Joe won, than allow a player to be starting based on surgeries. If starting jobs were handed out according to surgery, Rocco Baldelli wouldn't be considering retirement.

champagne030
03-20-2008, 09:33 PM
Do Crede and Fields have similar power? most people would say not even close...

And most people would say Fields cannot field a routine grounder. :scratch: He giveth and then he taketh away and it's obvious that a healthy (which he appears to be) Crede will help the Sox chances in 2008 more than Fields. Playing for '09+? Why not let Fields tear up AAA until we can trade Crede or dump him for what he's going for now? There's no harm in letting Fields be a safety net for 3 months. :shrug:

fquaye149
03-20-2008, 11:02 PM
And most people would say Fields cannot field a routine grounder.

Most people, then, would be making Mariotti-esque exaggerations