White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:02 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg83 View Post
Do you pay attention to what the market is for starting pitching? Did you see Ryan Dempster rejected a 2 year, $25 million offer? Ryan "35 y.o., 5.09 ERA in Texas" Dempster.

I'd say those (pitchers) will all be bargains compared to the commitment it takes to get Sanchez. Especially to pitch in KC, who would likely have to overpay. I'll take two SPs in Guthrie and Shields for what you'll have to pay Sanchez.

And they need a "win now" attitude because the "wait for the future" BS has been going on since 1994.

KC used to be a baseball town. This is the most excited I've heard people around here since 2003.

I want them to win baseball games this season, not best farm system.
The only thing I think they accomplished is to maybe improve to be an 80-win team.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 1-2.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:05 PM
JB98's Avatar
JB98 JB98 is online now
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
Posts: 27,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
As doub and others have pointed out most prospects, even the highly regarded ones, don't work out. I still like to have a decent farm system if for no other reason than it can help you great some proven players in return for your young talent. I think this is a good move by KC, and with the blockbuster three team trade involving the Indians, who appeared to help themselves too, where does that leave our team?
Still the second-best team on paper in the AL Central behind Detroit.

The Sox still have better pitching from top to bottom than both Kansas City and Cleveland. Better lineup, too, IMO.
__________________
JB's attendance record:
2004: 14-5; 2005: 16-8; 2006: 19-10; 2007: 8-12; 2008: 15-7; 2009: 6-13; 2010: 12-11; 2011: 9-8; 2012: 11-7; 2013: 8-9; 2014: 7-9; Total: 125-99.
Next game: April 2015

R
ead my new baseball blog: http://thebaseballkid98.blogspot.com/

Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:51 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB98 View Post
Still the second-best team on paper in the AL Central behind Detroit.

The Sox still have better pitching from top to bottom than both Kansas City and Cleveland. Better lineup, too, IMO.
I agree and I don't think it's close.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-12-2012, 09:57 PM
johnnyg83 johnnyg83 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: KC
Posts: 2,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
I agree and I don't think it's close.
I don't. Starting pitching definitely an edge to the sox, bullpen definitely an edge to the royals.

Holland, Herrera, Collins and crow are studs. I like Nate jones and crain, Thornton is a year older, Addison reed didn't prove much to me last year. I love veal's line but he doesn't have the history that he royals do.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-12-2012, 11:23 PM
Hendu Hendu is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Old Town
Posts: 3,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
The only thing I think they accomplished is to maybe improve to be an 80-win team.
Agreed. I like the move only if it's just the opening salvo to a couple other trades/signings. Hopefully that's the case. If not...what does this trade really do for them when Shields leaves in a couple years?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:22 AM
johnnyg83 johnnyg83 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: KC
Posts: 2,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendu View Post
Agreed. I like the move only if it's just the opening salvo to a couple other trades/signings. Hopefully that's the case. If not...what does this trade really do for them when Shields leaves in a couple years?
What positions on the Sox would you rather have a WhiteSox instead of Royal?

1b: Hosmer v. Konerko = Konerko
2b: Beckham v. Giovetllla= Beckham maybe
ss: escobar v. ramirex = escobar
3b = moustakas v. keppinger = moustakas
lf = vicideo v. gordon = gordon
cf = de aza v. cain = cain
rf = rios v. frenchy = rios
dh = butler v. dunn = butler
c = perez v. flowers = MEGA perez

That's six of nine I'd rather have royals. And giving the benefit to Beckham. And Hosmer certainly has a brighter future than Konerko.

Shields v. Sale = Sale
Guthrie v. Peavy = Peavy
Floyd v. Santana = Floyd
Davis v. Quintana = push
Danks v. Chen = Danks (maybe)


Hocevar vs. Santiago = Santiago
Herrera vs. Veal = Herrera
Crain vs. Crow = Crow
Thornton vs.Collins = Collins
Reed vs. Holland = Holland

Then they have Paulino, Duffy, Lamb, Mendozea

Hochevar .. worth a laugh
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-13-2012, 01:12 AM
CoopaLoop CoopaLoop is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Des Plaines
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I


How are they less frightening now? Was Myers expected to carry them next season? Was 300-400 innings-ish of the Royals 4th and 5th starter merry go round last year so much more intimidating that the 220 IP Shields will give you and whatever Davis will, as well?
Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Dude, give me a break. Did you just start paying attention to baseball like 10 minutes ago? Get some perspective. Here's the top 5 position player prospects, according to BA, from a 5-year window from 2001-2005.


2001
  • Josh Hamilton (#1)
  • Corey Patterson (#2)
  • Sean Burroughs (#6)
  • Ichiro (#9)
  • Nick Johnson (#10)
2002
  • Hank Blalock (#3)
  • Sean Burroughs (#4)
  • Carlos Pena (#5)
  • Joe Mauer (#7)
  • Wilson Betemit (#8)
2003
  • Mark Teixeira (#1)
  • Rocco Baldelli (#2)
  • Jose Reyes (#3)
  • Joe Mauer (#4)
  • Brandon Phillips (#7)
2004
  • Joe Mauer (#1)
  • BJ Upton (#2)
  • Delmon Young (#3)
  • Rickie Weeks (#5)
  • Alex Rios (#6)
2005
  • Joe Mauer (#1)
  • Delmon Young (#3)
  • Ian Stewart (#4)
  • Joel Guzman (#5)
  • Casey Kotchman (#6)
By my count, that's 20 names...

Guys who lived up to their potential and became one of the best players in the world: Hamilton, Ichiro, Mauer, Teixeira, Reyes... I'll be generous and give you Baldelli, too, as who knows what his career could have been. So that's 6.

Guys who became solid MLB players but did/have not lived up to their hype: Johnson, Pena, Phillips, Upton, Young, Rios, Weeks... 7.

Guys who are absolute busts: Patterson, Burroughs, Blalock, Betemit, Stewart, Kotchman... That's 6 more.

Guy who busted so bad I don't even know who he is and I had to check Wikipedia to make sure he wasn't killed in a car accident or something... Joel Guzman... That's the last 1.

So we're talking, even with the absolute highest rated MiLB prospects, it would appear the superstar to complete and utter bust rate is still less than 1:1.
She's list is a better comparison than yours and even yours has very few "busts" on it.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:07 AM
johnnyg83 johnnyg83 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: KC
Posts: 2,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopaLoop View Post
Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.



She's list is a better comparison than yours and even yours has very few "busts" on it.
Because they were deep in prospects and light on starting pitching. Trade from a strength to fill a weakness. And Montgomery has fallen from grace like a meteor here, he needed a change of scenery and a GPS to find the plate. He's not a top prospect here after the past two years.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:13 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,088
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoopaLoop View Post
Because Shields is under control for two seasons and isn't turning that franchise around. He is a solid number two pitcher and that's it. Myers is already an upgrade over Frenchy which is a huge need by the way. So you gave up three out of your four best prospects for a good pitcher and a bullpen arm. Congrats. If you are the Reds, I get it, if you are the Royals I have no idea what you are doing.



She's list is a better comparison than yours and even yours has very few "busts" on it.
Of course she's list is better for your argument; whenever you get to artificially select a smaller amount of names it almost always works out in your own favor. I've just showed you 5 years of the absolute best prospects in baseball. 20 names. 7 of them are busts. That's a 35% failure rate, AGAIN, of the very best prospects in baseball.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:31 AM
shes shes is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg83 View Post
Only way? HYPER-BOLIC (clap, clap, clap,clap, clap)
It's not hyperbole at all unless you think a 72-win team can miraculously turn things around by simply adding James Shields and a couple #5 starters. For them to contend, they need everything to go their way. They don't have anywhere near the talent of a team like Detroit. It's not exaggeration, just the facts.

You say they couldn't afford a guy like Sanchez, but they absolutely could have if they hadn't thrown money away on Guthrie and Santana. And you of course glossed over the other thing I said, that they could have kept Myers and traded lesser prospects for a guy like Gavin Floyd -- you're telling me that wouldn't have been a MUCH better decision had they done that?

There are so many other viable things KC could've done other than trading the MiLB POTY to get better this year. That's all I'm trying to say.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:47 AM
johnnyg83 johnnyg83 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: KC
Posts: 2,853
Default

Fair enough.

I'd rather have Shields than Sanchez. I'd rather have Shields than Floyd.

And they didn't need one SP, they needed four.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:49 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shes View Post
It's not hyperbole at all unless you think a 72-win team can miraculously turn things around by simply adding James Shields and a couple #5 starters. For them to contend, they need everything to go their way. They don't have anywhere near the talent of a team like Detroit. It's not exaggeration, just the facts.

You say they couldn't afford a guy like Sanchez, but they absolutely could have if they hadn't thrown money away on Guthrie and Santana. And you of course glossed over the other thing I said, that they could have kept Myers and traded lesser prospects for a guy like Gavin Floyd -- you're telling me that wouldn't have been a MUCH better decision had they done that?

There are so many other viable things KC could've done other than trading the MiLB POTY to get better this year. That's all I'm trying to say.
Prospects are never a sure thing. You know what probably is a sure thing, however? That paying Jeff Francoeur $7 million to play RF is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:55 AM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg83 View Post
Fair enough.

I'd rather have Shields than Sanchez. I'd rather have Shields than Floyd.

And they didn't need one SP, they needed four.
You have to look at it, however, as Shields vs Sanchez (Floyd, whomever) and Myers. I'd rather overpay Sanchez at SP and have Myers making the minimum in RF than trade for Shields and have Francoeur in RF for $7 million (and some cheaper free agent SP, or Montgomery or Odorizzi in the long-term) and Ervin Santana in the rotation for $13 million.

Basically, I think a bunch of bad contracts given out in past years and in this offseason forced Dayton Moore's hand into making a move that, while it might pay off to have a team approaching .500 in 2013, is a spectacularly bad decision for the long term for Kansas City. By 2015, they might have Davis in the rotation or pen still; but Shields could get a bigger contract elsewhere; while Myers is just getting arbitration for the first time Tampa after a couple solid years in RF; Francoeur could be out of the sport altogether; while Odorizzi and Montgomery might be having some success for the Rays (and as Doub and others have pointed out, perhaps less Montgomery there and more Odorizzi).
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:28 PM
JB98's Avatar
JB98 JB98 is online now
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
Posts: 27,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg83 View Post
What positions on the Sox would you rather have a WhiteSox instead of Royal?

1b: Hosmer v. Konerko = Konerko
2b: Beckham v. Giovetllla= Beckham maybe
ss: escobar v. ramirex = escobar
3b = moustakas v. keppinger = moustakas
lf = vicideo v. gordon = gordon
cf = de aza v. cain = cain
rf = rios v. frenchy = rios
dh = butler v. dunn = butler
c = perez v. flowers = MEGA perez

That's six of nine I'd rather have royals. And giving the benefit to Beckham. And Hosmer certainly has a brighter future than Konerko.
What?

The Royals have all these awesome hitters, yet they were still 12th in the league in runs scored, while the Sox were fourth.

Unlike a lot of people here, I do like the Shields trade for KC. But I don't think the Royals have as good a lineup as the Sox. No way. I'd be willing to bet you the Sox score more runs than KC again this year.

Obviously, the Royals are younger and therefore have more future upside. But this isn't about the future. It's about right now.

And, BTW, Giavotella had one home run and 15 RBIs in 53 games last year. For all of Beckham's faults, he's clearly the more accomplished player. Ramirez was more productive than Escobar was last year, even in a down season, and Keppinger hit about 80 points higher than Moustakas and had a higher OPS as well.

P.S., De Aza is a better player than Cain too.

There has to be some reason the Sox scored so many more runs than the Royals, and it's not because KC is better than them at six of nine positions.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:36 PM
shes shes is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg83 View Post

And they didn't need one SP, they needed four.
Well on that we can agree, and looking at their roster they have maybe two starters that should be starting playoff games. That's only okay if you've got a murderer's row on offense. They've unfortunately got something closer to the opposite.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.