ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) I don't mind getting him, but I'm not going to overpay for him. Garland + Crede for Blalock, Wilkerson, and Danks or Diamond is overpaying. Wilkerson is not needed and I'm sure Mackowiak could do as good of a job as him given full-time duties and our OF is already filled. Danks and Diamond haven't proven they could be front end pitchers in AA yet, much less the majors. Mackowiak is not a full time center fielder, and outside of one year has been a horrendous hitter. As soon as Mackowiak hits over 20 homers or an OBP over .350 in a horrendous lineup, let me know.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:38 PM) Look at the stats I provided above and it has the stats with an adjusted park factor. That's great, but those numbers are all speculation based on comparing situations where they are. That doesn't mean that they accurately portray what would happen if they actually switched teams. You can't come up with a math equation that can accurately predict how well a guy is going to do in a particular park or situation, otherwise every GM would use it and there'd be no poor FA signings or lopsided trades. You can throw all the stats at me that you want, but nothing will convince me that Crede is a lock to hit over .260 or 25 homers, while I believe that Blalock is pretty close to one unless he moves somewhere with a horrendous park for hitters. We've been teased by streaks of quality performance before. Hell, Crede struggles to beat Blalock's road splits for long stretches. Blalock has far outperformed Crede for two of the last 3 seasons, and this year was still in Blalock's favor. Moving from Arlington to the Cell isn't going to make up all of that ground. Crede may finally cash in on his talent and perform like we all thought he would a while ago, but that's far from a certainty. There's more to determining who's a better player than what park they play in and who they hit in front of, especially when the Cell isn't exactly a pitcher's best friend. Crede has some issues that the Sox are obviously concerned about with his back, Blalock doesn't. Blalock is locked up for quite some time at a reasonable price, Crede isn't. Blalock has actually hit over .265 and hit more than 22 homers in a season. Blalock hits lefty, Crede doesn't. If the exchange is about a draw at the worst, I don't really see the big fuss.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:21 PM) But I'm saying, you put Crede in the 3-4-5 hole like Blalock is and you have the same numbers as Blalock. There is not much of a difference at all. And I'm not say Crede would be a .300 hitter, but I'm saying around .270-.280. And protection does affect a hitter. No, you don't. Crede has to really get hot to get over .260 and about 22 homers. Blalock hit .263 with 25 homers in a down year. Even in Texas hitting in front of Teixeira (I'm not even sure how often that happened to be honest), Crede is not suddenly going to hit .300 or hit 30 homers like Blalock has done. Who hits behind him is not going to have that big an impact unless it's someone like Bonds or Pujols that absolutely scares the s*** out of the opposition. Noboby on the Sox or the Rangers really falls into that category, with the possible exception of a healthy Thome (Teixeira is close, give him another year or two like this last one). In a similar park, Blalock probably is slightly better than Crede. Hell, according to ESPN's park factors, US Cellular was the best HR park in the league this year and was about average in the other categories, and Crede couldn't do much there. Plus the park factors are partially dependent on the team that plays there. Considering that the Rangers have a pretty potent offense and the Sox didn't, that's an issue. I'm fairly sure that Blalock can hit at least .275 at the Cell and up his road average to at least .250 by dropping some games in those unfavorable parks, with little to no effect to his power numbers. The other issue is that that's only part of the deal. Wilkerson is a solid CF that will be pretty productive now that he's out of Washington, and it sounds like we'd get one of their top pitching prospects on top of that. If it were just Crede for Blalock or Crede/Garland for Blalock and one of the two other pieces, I wouldn't be too happy. But frankly since Crede and Blalock is about a draw for us at worst, it comes down to Garland for Wilkerson and a top prospect. I can live with that.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:10 PM) .252AVG, 22HR's, 62RBI's. That's out of the 9 slot with no protection and not really a spot in which you could produce mass RBI's. In the 3-4-5 role like Blalock, I think he would get at least 90 RBI's with 28 HR's and a .270avg with protection. Put Blalock in the 9 hole with no protection, he probably gets around the same or less than Crede. That's fine and dandy, but Blalock wouldn't hit in the 9 hole. In his career he's provided a lot more offensive firepower than Crede, meaning he's generally held in higher esteem, meaning he's probably going to hit higher in the order. More importantly, you spot in the order doesn't really affect your power numbers or batting average that much like it does for runs and RBI. If a guy is a .250 hitter, he isn't suddenly going to hit .300 if you put him in the #3 spot, or hit 10 more homers just because he hits higher in the order. It still takes a certain amount of ability to do those things, something that Joe hasn't shown up to this point. He might finally have his breakout year and hit .280 with 30 homers, but it won't matter whether he's hitting 5th or 7th. The only possible way that the lineup could in any way improve his power or average is if he's hitting ahead of a more dangerous bat like Thome or Konerko and he gets more pitches to hit. That won't happen with either player.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) I suggest you relook at the number of at bats. It's not even close to 12 at bats. 37 at bats since 2003 to be exact. You do realize that Blalock had at least 36 at bats this season in each of the parks in his division this year. 37 at bats in a player's entire career is not exactly a great sample size to conclude that he's going to suck here. You can't even go by 1 full season when making judgements about a player, and that's well over 500 at bats.

The bottom line is that we can reasonably expect Blalock to hit at least .260 with 25 homers, 80 RBI, and very good defense hitting 5th or 6th in our lineup. That's not really the case with Joe. He might break out this year, but who knows what's going to happen with him, especially since his back seems to be a bigger issue than most of us would have thought. Moving from Texas to the Cell doesn't mean that Blalock is going to hit .240. The Cell is still a fairly good hitters park, we just can't expect him to hit over .300 like he does in Texas. It's also possible that getting away from Safeco, Network Associates, and Edison Field helps him out. None of those parks are exactly hitter friendly, and about a quarter of his road games are at those parks.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:28 PM) 2003: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS U.S. Cellular Field 4 14 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 .214 .214 .643 .857 2004: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS U.S. Cellular Field 3 11 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 .182 .308 .273 .580 2005: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS U.S. Cellular Field 3 12 1 5 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 .417 .462 .500 .962 So far, he's had one really good year at the Cell and two piss poor ones. 10 games is really not a good indicator. He'd be a bit of a wildcard at the Cell. I don't think he'd be quite as bad as his road splits, but he also obviously wouldn't be as good as his home splits.

In my book Crede and Blalock is a draw at best, with a slight lean toward Blalock. Both are very good defensively but occasionally struggle at the plate. Blalock has had a much bigger impact at the plate though, albiet some of it could be attributed to the park and the lineup (not entirely however). Crede might break out, but Blalock has produced before. Sometimes I think the splits think is a bit overrated. Okay, he hits better at home than he does away. So do a lot of guys. Mark Teixeira hits a lot better at Texas than at home, would we pass on him too? He probably wouldn't put up his home numbers here, but he wouldn't neccesarily drop to his road numbers, as our place is still a fairly good hitters park (plus he'd rop several games at the horrid Safeco Field and the Coliseum). Blalock is a very good defensive 3B, and he had two very good years before this down season last year. He might not produce like he did the last few years, but I'd still say he easily hits .260 with 25 homers and 80 RBI. Crede might beat that, but we'd also have Blalock under our control a lot longer. Wilkerson would be a very good addition in the deal. Ignore his numbers from last season. The new park in DC hugely favors the pitchers, which explains a lot of the power drop. His batting average isn't stellar, but he could easily put up a .350 on base with 20 homers, maybe more. He's a very solid player who'd definitely be an upgrade at the plate over Rowand, although the defense might be an issue. I'd say it'd be about a push if it's just Blalock and Wilkerson, so it'd depend on the prospect. If we got Danks or Diamond, it'd be a slam dunk trade. I'm not overly thrilled about it right now however, so I'd really have to wait and see.

Lidge is a pipe dream, and this isn't the first time it's been mentioned. It'd probably take a young, cheap, productive OF, something we don't have. Taveras would be interesting, but I'm not a huge fan of having two speed guys with no power at the top of the order. As I said when we were mentioned with Pierre, I just have nightmares of Crede/Uribe/Anderson hitting a double with no or 1 out and Pods and our new #2 having to drive him in. I'd much rather have someone like Crawford or Damon hitting number two: decent power and speed with the ability to drive in a big run. I'd think that the Astros would be much more desperately trying to get someone that can hit. That was obviously their problem last year. They'll still have Pettitte and Oswalt, they seem to like Backe, and Clemens still might be back. The back end of the order is absolutely brutal. I could see why they might want a starter if they could get one with Pettitte and Oswalt being FA's in the coming years, but I wouldn't think that it's a priority.

There's a blurb on ESPN insider that Kenny is trying to get two quality pitching prospects for Garland. It mentioned Baltimore, St. Louis, and the Astros specifically, although I'd think Houston would want a bat more than a starter. Frankly, I like that a lot more than getting an MLB player unless we can somehow get Crawford or Tejada. I'm not too knowledgeable about other teams prospects, but I can certainly think of a lot of pitching desperate teams. I'd like to see us try to snag at least one of the following: -AA or higher SP with some potential -High A or higher SS prospect, preferrably speedy with some plate discipline -AAA or major league reliever with a live arm, preferrably a lefty Please don't make me come up with names or rip the possibilties of acquiring any of these, as this area of knowledge isn't my strong suit. These are merely the wishes of a happy Sox fan hoping to build a dynasty.

Count me as one of the guys that likes Vazquez. He's shown an awful lot more than Contreras had when we acquired him, and he's considerably younger with comparably good stuff. Considering that we traded a guy who won 20 games the previous year for Contreras, I'd say we did a lot better this time. Remember, he hasn't exactly been in the greatest situations the last two years. There's a lot of pressure when you play for the Yankees, and maybe it just got to him in the second half. Arizona was just a brutal place to go, and he was pissed about it to boot. That place is an absolute bandbox, and the D-Backs are a bad team. Put him on our team with some good infield defense and a less homerun friendly park and he should be fine. He really isn't that different than Freddy Garcia. As for Young, let's lay off the 30/30 and 40/40 talk in the majors for a while. The kid has had one year at AA and still has a ways to go, plus he strikes out a ton, and the only time he's hit above .280 was in his second year of rookie ball. The player he's most often compared to is Mike Cameron, who is a solid but not stellar player. For all we know he's the next Corey Patterson, so let's relax until he does something for the D-Backs.

Borchard went #12 overall. That was the highest since Bobby Seay in 1996 was also drafted #12. Alex Fernandez is the only top 10 pick since 1990, when he went #4 overall. There only major differences between Garland and McCarthy are their performances that year. Garland was much better in the minors that year, but got shelled in the majors. McCarthy was having a less than stellar year in the minors and during his first callup, but was very good in his second shot with the club. I'd say his pitching performance toward the end of the year more clearly displayed he was ready than Garland's 6+ ERA in his first year with the Sox.

One thing to consider is this would probably be a widely loved deal if we didn't have such a stocked rotation. Vazquez has struggled a bit of late, but he has phenomenal stuff and can be absolutely devastating at times. I think he's pretty similar to Freddy, only with less middle ground (either really good or pretty bad). It's conceivable that he could be our best starter next year if he gets his s*** together. We gave up very little talent in the deal, the best piece of it being a AA centerfielder. That's pretty good considering the price of pitching nowadays. However, we do have a lot of starters. As I've said, with this deal someone has to be on their way out of town. I can't imagine that we are going to keep B-Mac in the bullpen.

I think the bigger issue is that this deal signals that one of our starters is going somewhere, and it's probably Garland. B-Mac is pretty much untouchable because he is our only cheap starter, and Contreras isn't going to net as much because he's old. Garland (or I supposed Vazquez, but he wasn't that hot a commodity) almost has to be used to acquire a big bat and/or a solid reliever, otherwise this deal makes no sense whatsoever.

Some starting pitcher is going somewhere for some kind of big bat, and/or possibly a sold relief pitcher to replace Vizcaino and Marte. Contreras seems unlikely because he's old, a FA at the end of the year, and he was our best pitcher in the second half. B-Mac is unlikely because he is young and cheap, something we are definitely going to need as Freddy and Mark cash in on the next round of contracts. Vazquez doesn't seem too likely because we just got him, he's the most expensive of the group (depending on $ that the D-Backs eat), and there weren't a whole lot of teams actively trying to acquire him. That leaves Garland as the most likely candidate. He's still going to be fairly affordable after arbitration, he's got 1 year left and the Sox are apparently having trouble resigning him, he's still very young, and there's still a large group out there that thinks this year might have been a fluke. There's got to be another deal in the works to get someone of note, otherwise this deal makes no sense whatsoever.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 12, 2005 -> 03:09 PM) That'd be interesting. I just hope UConn doesn't drop below #2 before, February 4th. UConn is in Bloomington for a non-conference game in the middle of the Big Ten schedule. I wouldn't get too cocky. Marcus Williams will be back long before then, which should make UConn very difficult to beat.

I don't really see why it'd make sense for them to trade him unless they get a young stud pitcher in return. I'd say this thread is a pipe dream. It seems like they're much more likely to deal Huff and/or Gathright anyways, leaving probably Crawford/Baldeli/Young as their starting OF, unless they want to use Gomes while Young develops or Baldeli gets back in game shape. They seem to like him more at DH however. They need pitching a lot more than anything else unless they start moving guys. They obviously don't need any OF's back in the deal (at least not guys that are close to ready like most of our guys, maybe more of the young high-ceiling type), considering all the potential starters they have. 3rd base is also not likely an area of need. Burroughs is the short term answer with a good chance of BJ Upton being the longterm answer. Plus Huff could play there, although he's a bit of a butcher at 3rd. Cantu is a pretty good young player at 2B (who also played 3rd a lot, not sure where they'll keep him), and Lee and Huff can play 1st. That leaves pitching of any kind, catcher, and SS if they trade Lugo as their only major holes. Maybe 1st with Huff leaving is an area of concern, but it probably isn't a priority. Pitching should obviously be their biggest area of concern, and knowing them, they'd probably want cheap, young pitching. We don't fit their needs very well in order to facilitate a trade for Crawford unless Kenny were to give up B-Mac, which is highly unlikely.

I'm sick of people overreacting to a disgruntled player and immediately trying to figure out where he'll go. If every player that ever got pissed with his team got dealt, at a minimum Manny, Ichiro, and Miguel Cabrera would be somewhere else, and that's just from this year. The Cubs probably don't have the kind of talent necessary to acquire Tejada, unless they want to deal Prior or Zambrano. The O's aren't just going to give away an all-star calibur SS. More importantly, the Cubs have not shown the ability in recent history to sign or trade for the big name superstar player that everyone thinks they're going to get. The Cubs just don't have the balls to make the moves that they really should. If they got everyone that people thought they'd get, the Cubs would have an infield of Rolen, Tejada, Renteria at second, Furcal as the utility infielder, Thome at first, Beltran in center, and Pudge behind the plate.

I couldn't watch that Duke game toward the end. God, I'm starting to hate them almost as much as Notre Dame. Couple of things: 1) Texas was in deep s*** the minute Buckman went out. They really only have 4 dependable players to start with (maybe 4 and a half, Paulino is okay), and he's one of them. Texas isn't very deep, they really rely on their top couple of players. 2) Texas doesn't match up very well with Duke, that seemed obvious. Duke doesn't turn it over very much, is a very good outside shooting team, and pretty much all of their guys can finish in transition. Texas needed some more easy baskets in transition, turned it over too much (which lead to a lot of easy baskets), and once they got down big had virtually no chance because they aren't a proficient outside shooting team. That neutralized the advantage they had inside offensively (Aldride and Tucker still combined for 35). 3) Redick shot the lights out. Texas was giving him way too many opportunities. Tucker (or anyone else) just couldn't stay with him on all of those screens. 4) The refs were pretty brutal. They may not have ultimately decided the game, but it would have allowed Texas to stay a little closer if the calls were more even. The Longhorns were consistently getting mugged in the paint and rarely seemed to get the call, while there were some ticky-tack fouls called on the other end. Duke shot twice as many free throws, which gave them some free points. 5) Texas would be very tough to stop if they had a proficient 2 guard that can consistently stick an outside shot. However, they don't, and it appears that it will probably be their downfall at some point.

The US definitely got a tough draw. On raw talent, Italy is one of the top teams in the world, possibly the best in Europe. They never seem to play like it however, and part of that has to do with their team makeup. They are absolutely loaded with offensive weapons, especially at striker. Guilardino is a major force, a real rising star. Toni is similar. They also still have the grizzled veterans like Totti, Del Piero, Vieri, and the oft injured Inzaghi. All of those guys are top level guys, although the latter group is not as good as they once were. Regardless, they can score with the best of them. The other areas of their team are not as strong however. Although their midfield is decent, they don't have anywhere near the talent level of the strikers. They can sometimes have problems getting the ball into good positions for their elite strikers. Their defense is similar. They have some good players, especially Nesta, but they struggle at times, especially since their keeper isn't elite. The US is going to have to try to keep the ball out of their zone, because the Italians can finish with the best of them. The other teams aren't exactly slouches either. The Czechs aren't as talented as Italy (or possibly even the Portugal team that we beat last time), but they have played very well of late. They scored the most goals of any team in the European qualifying. The experts seem to believe that they are a rising power in Europe, and they have some established club team veterans in Baros, Nedved, Rosicky, and Smicer. They will be a very tough matchup. Ghana isn't quite on the same talent level, but they do have one of the more gifted players in the world in Essien, which could make things interesting. The draw could have been worse, however. The teams in our group are not unbeatable. The US would have had a very tough time beatin Brazil, Argentina, or the Netherlands, none of which are in our group, thankfully. However, the US will have to play well to make it out of this group. We are certainly not going to be a favorite to advance to the knockout stage.

I'd give Illinois a B or B+ for the effort last night. Their defense was very good. Georgetown was missing some open shots, but they didn't have a whole lot of those. Illinois was much better defensively in the first half than the second. I didn't see most of the second half (damn snow) but it appears that Green went off. Their offense is still off however. Their shooting percentage was very low, even for Augustine. They were not getting open shots, although Hibbert affected a few of them. They hit their outside shots early and they never really lost the lead. They need to tell Randle that he can't shoot, I don't even watch all the games and I've seen him airball 2 or 3 open 3's. If they want to kick-start their offense they need to start Smith over Randle. With Smith and McBride out on the perimeter, they can make it difficult for teams to concentrate on Augustine and Brown. Their defense might suffer a bit though. As for Georgetown, I kind of wonder what their coach is thinking. Bowman is their second best player, maybe their best, and he only took 6 shots, most of those from outside. That's pretty poor planning, because he isn't the greatest shooter. He averaged over 15 PPG the last two year and this year he's down around 9. I can understand having him float outside a bit if Hibbert is doing some damage, but he didn't do much last night. It's pretty interesting, in their two losses, Hibbert had 6 and 4 points, in their 3 wins he had 20, 23, and 16. That should tell you something. They need to figure out a way to maximize the effectiveness of their guys, because they should not have two losses already with Hibbert, Bowman, Green, and Cook. Those are all solid players that can do some damage, but it seems when one prospers the others don't.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 03:21 PM) Dayum, how the hell did he manage that? Whoops, that's supposed to be a 3. That's not like me.

It's a little easier to fill out the questions related to team competitiveness positively when they win 99 games and the World Series title. I would think that a jump in those rating occurred.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) That's a weak argument. UNC is now a top 25 team and no 25 team should ever be "handled" AT HOME. Especially not UNC who had a 20+ game home win streak. Very rarely will UNC be handled at home. UNC is a team full of freshmen, one legit big guy, and little outside shooting. Please tell me why another ranked team with a senior All-American PG and a senior All-Conference calibur PF shouldn't beat that team. They're ranked (24 at that, which means one loss drops them out again) because they had one good game against Kentucky, a team that is very overrated, and it took 10 3-pointers from a mediocre shooting team to do it. Kentucky is not that good a team, only Rondo and Sparks impress me at all. By the end of the year, UNC might be a team to worry about, but any team with experience and decent athelticism should be able to beat them, especially if their shooting from outside is as poor as it was in that Illinois game.

How the hell did they talk them into giving up Loretta for Mirabelli? I'm assuming that he'll be the starting catcher for San Diego, but I still don't see why you had to give up Loretta. The guy has been a pretty solid hitter with a high on-base percentage for some time now (career .301 BA, .265 OBP), and was an all-star as recently as 2004. That's a great move for Boston. They can slide him right into the #2 hole and move Renteria down in the order where he belongs. The top of the lineup will be even more ridiculous unless Damon and/or Manny are gone. That's two trades where they robbed the other team now.