ESPN 1000

[BrandoFan]

We give them a decent prospect....maybe Diaz, maybe Pacheco, maybe Rauch....and they accept.

 

No Rauch.

 

Until I see that he doesn't have the old 92-95mph fastball, sharp curve and solid slider for myself.....no way.

[whitesox61382]

Brando, what are you thinking? There was a report that the Dodgers were close to doing a Perez for Konerko deal straight up. While Pacheco and Wright aren't future stars the Sox can't afford to give up major league ready pitchers, especially if they don't have too.

 

You(and Baggs) need to take another look at Perez's peripherals, because they were far from excellent. If Perez's peripherals last year were excellent(IYO), than half the starters in the majors had excellent peripherals last year. Lets take a look at his peripherals.

 

6.85 K/9 - average, but certainly not excellent(6.27 in 02')

3.07 K/BB - this is the only stat that is excellent(4.08 in 02')

.267 BA - average at best(.226 in 02')

.753 OPS - average at best(.605 in 02')

1.36 HR/9 - below average and very high in a great pitchers park(.85 in 02')

1.28 WHIP - average, but not great(1.01 in 02')

 

I don't know what peripherals that you are looking at, but those are average at best. Furthermore, as you can see there was a significant decrease across the board from 2002 to 2003(excpet for K/9). Whats more disturbing is Perez's numbers away from the best pitchers park in baseball.

 

away 03: 5.59 ERA .297 BA 1.40 HR/9 .836 OPS 1.46 WHIP

 

What is to stop him from putting up numbers similar to his away splits if he moved to a much better hitters park like Comiskey? Not to mention the fact that pitchers generally have an ERA of about .25-.30 higher in the AL compared to the NL. How are you so sure that he is going to return back to his 2002 form?

 

before 2002 199 IP 5.38 ERA

2002 222.1 IP 3.00 ERA

2003 185.1 IP 4.52 ERA

 

He is just as big of a question mark as Konerko, and probably more so considering that Konerko was pretty consistant for 4 straight years. Furthermore, as much as the Sox need another middle of the rotation starter, the Dodgers need a big bat just as much, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have the upper hand because the Sox are more desperate. Remember that the Dodgers had the worst offense in the majors last year, and their only significant addition is Encarnacion. Both teams are equally desperate. Perez is also going to get a nice chunk of change next year at 5M, and is eligible for arbitration next year(will most likely get an increase). Anything more then Konerko for Perez straight up is a bad deal for the Sox. The fact is, based on his away splits, Perez might not be any better then Schoeneweis, so why give up Konerko for something the Sox already have? It would be nice to get rid of Konerko's contract, but that doesn't mean the Sox have to throw in other players.

[SuperSteve]

PK will make 8.5 millions in 2004 and nobody knows if he will be hitting well or will start the year like last year.

 

Frank will make 5 millions and he can hit IMO he will have a great season.

 

PK for Odalis, in a hurry.

Isn't Frank scheduled to make $6 million? That one million seems like alot now-a-days.

[witesoxfan]

Isn't Frank scheduled to make $6 million? That one million seems like alot now-a-days.

Yes he is.

[BrandoFan]

He is just as big of a question mark as Konerko, and probably more so considering that Konerko was pretty consistant for 4 straight years.

 

Even in Konerko's best year, he was never worth nearly 9 Mill a year. Last year he was so awful, he should have paid the SOX money.

 

Furthermore, as much as the Sox need another middle of the rotation starter, the Dodgers need a big bat just as much, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have the upper hand because the Sox are more desperate

.

 

We've been over this. Dodgers DO have an upper hand here. Their payroll is projected to be upward of 120 Mill. They are NOT desperate to pay 14 Mill for Magglio and they sure as hell are not wild about paying Mr. Hip 17 over 2. Please understand this SIMPLEST of concepts and move on.

 

Worst comes the worst, Dodgers will pay 1 Milll to Randel Simon and he will do nothing but hit with RO/RISP (as he's done in the last 3 years, including pennant race and playoffs) for them. No hip problem. No mental issues. Not as big a base-clogger, either.....And they keep Odalis Perez.

 

Remember that the Dodgers had the worst offense in the majors last year, and their only significant addition is Encarnacion

.

 

Considering that, unlike the Sox, they actually have MONEY and TWO stud prospects in Miller and Jackson to dangle in front of teams....they can go ahead and pull an Oriole and improve their line-up in a SECOND.

 

Both teams are equally desperate

.

 

Desperations, like analogies, aren't born equal. Dodgers are mildly desperate to get rid of Perez while we are SUPER desperate (care to take a poll?) to get rid of Kong.

 

Perez is also going to get a nice chunk of change next year at 5M, and is eligible for arbitration next year(will most likely get an increase).

 

Hence the word "risk". Perez was mediocre last year, but I like his poise and I love his stuff. I already admitted he may post a 5.00 ERA, but he may also post 3.00 one. And whatever benefits he drew from pitching at Ravine will be more than erased by the fact that he will be going up against Tiger-Twin-Indian-Royal "powerhouse" line-ups.

 

Anything more then Konerko for Perez straight up is a bad deal for the Sox

.

 

Now you're talking crazy.

 

The fact is, based on his away splits, Perez might not be any better then Schoeneweis

,

 

Forget about splits. He WILL be better than Show. I guarantee you than. Apples and oranges.

 

so why give up Konerko for something the Sox already have? It would be nice to get rid of Konerko's contract, but that doesn't mean the Sox have to throw in other players.

 

Pacheco I always liked, but to the rest of the world he's a 25yo AA'er pitching in a pitcher's park. Even pitcher-challenged Rockies didn't care about him. While Wrong is coming off an injury-plagued season and his 6.00+ ERA in limited innings isn't gonna blow anyone away. Be thankful that we will get to keep Reed-Cotts-Honel-Sweeney.

 

As far as that "rumor" that Dodgers were willing to swap PK and OP straight up......I am sure if you take a stroll through Dodgers' message board, they will give you links to and excerpts from "articles" and "rumors" that had White Sox more than willing to give them Maggs and cash for Perez and Gutierez.

[southsideirish]

Let's get something straight here:

 

--Paul Konerko was arguably THE worst everyday player in MLB last year. 

--He is owed 17 Mill over the next 2 years.

--The Hip

 

We need pitching. Counting on Shownweiss to be your 4th starter is a recipe for disaster.

 

Worst case scenario:  Gload can put up 750 OPS, with good D and solid speed for 300K....Randall Simon will be dirt cheap as well.

Ok, you make some good points. I don't think that Dan Wright will be a nobody. I think he has the stuff. I agree last year he sucked ass, until he was moved to the pen. I think he can actually be really good out of the pen. I have heard the rumor of Konerko's hip. I have never heard this confirmed though. If it is indeed true then I would also give him away for nothing just to rid myself of the salary. Hip injuries can be really bad. If they ever asked for Reed/Cotts/Honel/Sweeney, then the talks end right there. There wouldn't be another word spoken if those names are mentioned. Not for OP!

[CWSGuy406]

Except Frank is NOT a clubhouse cancer and if you were to take a poll among the Sox players, you'd find out as much.  They might want him to take more of a leadership role, but that's totally different.

 

As far as the publicity he generates....hey, as long as they spell the S-O-X right, you know?

 

We lose a HOF'er, god knows how many fans and replace it with an overpaid nobody #4 starterl?

 

The f***?

Thats right, Brando, he isn't a clubhouse cancer. The players love Frank. Frank was singled out by Ozzie the day he was hired. Kenny Williams is making Frank out to be a terrible guy. From many accounts, Frank is working his ass off down south.

 

Say what you want about Frank, he puts up numbers. Consistently, might I add. Our lineup would look pretty weak without Frank, the only guy who will take a walk many a time.

 

I'd be one of many to be very pissed off if this organization traded Frank for Perez, who had an awful year last year.

 

That said, I want this trade to go down, just with different people. Konerko for Ishii/Perez. Straight up, and perhaps we eat *part* of Konerko's salary.

 

I'd also like to add that we need to get another starter before ST comes along. I have zero confidence in our 4th and 5th guys, whoever they might be at the current moment.

[CWSGuy406]

This was my take on the interview with KW also. It was who he didn't name as much as who he did name. No mention was made of Konerko or Thomas not being offered. However, KW has now said there was no offer for Frank and we still haven;t head that Paulie might not be going somewhere. I would still not be in favor of trading Konerko straight up for Perez. I don't care how enthralled people are with the lefty the fact remains he has had one decent year and Konerko is established. I think he is recovered from his foot problems and ready to rock 'n roll in '04. I would be happy to go into the season with the team we have rather than trade someone just for the sake of doing it.

I'd rather have Perez as our fourth starter and a question mark at 1B/DH then having question marks at our fourth and fifth starter spots.

 

No one here can honestly say they're satisfied with Scott Schoenwise (sp?) as our fourth starter. I wouldn't be totally sold on Perez, but he's a much better option then a guy who can't get out righties.

[BrandoFan]

No one here can honestly say they're satisfied with Scott Schoenwise (sp?) as our fourth starter.

 

Hey....if his newly-acquired cutter is any good, he might just beat out Rauch for the 5th spot and post a 4.50 ERA. I'll take it.

[whitesox61382]

"Even in Konerko's best year, he was never worth nearly 9 Mill a year. Last year he was so awful, he should have paid the SOX money."

 

I talk about consistancy, and some how you bring up money. Its hard to hold a conversation with someone who gets off the topic at hand. Konerko might not be worth the money he is being paid, but how is that relivant to the topic of consistancy? Was Perez's numbers last year worth 5M? No. So neither player is producing much bang for their buck, but at least Konerko has shown the consistancy to earn close to 8M/yr. The same can't be said for Perez. One good year doesn't make a player proven, especially when that one good year is surrounded by bad/inconsistant years before and after.

 

"We've been over this. Dodgers DO have an upper hand here. Their payroll is projected to be upward of 120 Mill. They are NOT desperate to pay 14 Mill for Magglio and they sure as hell are not wild about paying Mr. Hip 17 over 2. Please understand this SIMPLEST of concepts and move on."

 

Do you understand some of the thing you post? How does the fact that the Dodger's might(far from proven considering there have been multiple articles stating that the new ownership doesn't have much money to spend) have some payroll flexibility give them the upper hand, especially when you consider that the Sox don't HAVE to get rid of payroll? KW clearly said that he was content with the team they had(that included the payroll), so that negates the so called upper hand that you believe the Dodgers have. If the Dodgers don't give KW/the Sox what they deem fair for Maggs/Konerko/Thomas, than KW will say no and keep what they have. How is that the upper hand? You are really grasping at straws with that arguement.

 

"Worst comes the worst, Dodgers will pay 1 Milll to Randel Simon and he will do nothing but hit with RO/RISP (as he's done in the last 3 years, including pennant race and playoffs) for them. No hip problem. No mental issues. Not as big a base-clogger, either.....And they keep Odalis Perez."

 

Thats fine. Let them do that. You aren't understanding that the Sox don't need to make a deal(for personal or financial reasons). They are simple trying to make a trade that will make both teams better. No team has the upper hand at this point. Both have big weaknesses with the other team have a surplus of the other teams weakness. They are perfect trading partners, but neither team is desperate.

 

"Considering that, unlike the Sox, they actually have MONEY and TWO stud prospects in Miller and Jackson to dangle in front of teams....they can go pull an Oriole and improve their line-up in a SECOND."

 

Then why haven't they made a move? If they have so many options, than they should have easily made a move or 2. There are too many holes in your logic. 1 point that I think you are missing is that the Dodgers don't want to give up either of their too pitching prospects, and thats why this Konerko deal works out perfectly. They have maybe 1 or 2 legit options besides players from the Sox, but they haven't been able to pull off a deal yet, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have every team lining up to do a deal with them.

 

"Desperations, like analogies, aren't born equal. Dodgers are mildly desperate to get rid of Perez while we are SUPER desperate (care to take a poll?) to get rid of Kong."

 

Don't put your words into other peoples mouths. Its not about being desperate to move certain players as much as it is desperation to strength weaknesses(Dodgers- offense and Sox- starting pitching). I am perfectly happy with the Sox keeping Konerko, and have little doubt that he will rebound to some extent. The Sox have a surplus of power hitting corner outfield/1B/DH type players, so they can afford to trade one, especially if they can fill a weakness(starting pitching). The Dodgers have a surplus of starters, so they can afford to trade one to fill their weakness(the worst offense in the majors). Its not about desperation to move specific players.

 

"And whatever benefits he drew from pitching at Ravine will be more than erased by the fact that he will be going up against Tiger-Twin-Indian-Royal line-ups."

 

I disagree. Chevez is by far the best pitchers park in baseball. It is nearly impossible to accurately meassure the affect that it has, but I think you are underestimating its impact with the above statement. Let me start out by pointing out that both the Twins and Royals had above average offenses last year. Let me also point out that the NL West doesn't have a lot of power offenses(Arizona - 10th and San Diego - 14th), so the difference between lineups in the AL Central and NL West isn't that drastic(especially when you consider that one league has the DH and one has the pitcher). Furthermore, you have to take into consideration the league change which usually results in an increase of ERA by .25-.30 on average. The lineup arguement is a poor excuse on your behalf to ignore the drastic affect that Chevez had on Perez's stats.

 

"Pacheco I always liked, but to the rest of the world he's a 25yo AA'er pitching in a pitcher's park. Even pitcher-challenged Rockies didn't care about him. While is coming off an injury-plagued season and his 6.00+ ERA in limited innings isn't gonna blow anyone away."

 

I am not a big fan of Pacheco and don't think he will be a very good pitcher, however, the Sox have a very weak upper minor league system and a questionable pitching staff, so trading one of the few prospects in the upper minors that put together an above average year is a mistake even if Pacheco never makes it. It wasn't that the Rockies didn't care about him as much as it was that he was inconsistant and wasn't considered a top prospect. Many guys like Pacheco(not that highly thought of when traded) have turned into decent major leaguers and bite the team that traded them in the butt.

 

I really think that Wright can excel in the pen. In a small sample size he posted an ERA close to 3.00 when moved to the pen. Once again, with the weakness of the upper minors and a questionable pitching staff the Sox can't afford to trade away one of the few guys that has experience and has had MILD sucess in the majors.

 

Sorry for the length.

[Rex Hudler]

Two things...... first, for clarification, Pacheco will play this season at 25. He did not turn 25 until 2 days before the end of last season. It's not a major issue, just clarifying that you were basically adding a year.

 

Second, let's talk hypothetically..... Let me qualify by saying I am not indicating any preference for or against this possible trade, just bringing up a thought.

 

You wrote:

Perez for Thomas?

 

 

I won't go to a single game in 2004.

 

Let's say the trade happens. Whether other prospects are involved are not significant for this scenario.

 

If Perez comes over to the Sox and goes 16-8 and helps the Sox win the AL Central going 89-73, would you come back for the playoffs? Would you admit the move worked out (regardless of what Frank did in LA) or stick to you guns and no longer be a Sox fan regardless?

 

Don't say "it won't happen" because we are talking hypothetically. The question is, IF this happens, what do you do? Stick to your guns or admit you were wrong and jump on the bandwagon?

[baggio202]

Brando, what are you thinking? There was a report that the Dodgers were close to doing a Perez for Konerko deal straight up. While Pacheco and Wright aren't future stars the Sox can't afford to give up major league ready pitchers, especially if they don't have too.

 

You(and Baggs) need to take another look at Perez's peripherals, because they were far from excellent. If Perez's peripherals last year were excellent(IYO), than half the starters in the majors had excellent peripherals last year. Lets take a look at his peripherals.

 

6.85 K/9 - average, but certainly not excellent(6.27 in 02')

3.07 K/BB - this is the only stat that is excellent(4.08 in 02')

.267 BA - average at best(.226 in 02')

.753 OPS - average at best(.605 in 02')

1.36 HR/9 - below average and very high in a great pitchers park(.85 in 02')

1.28 WHIP - average, but not great(1.01 in 02')

 

I don't know what peripherals that you are looking at, but those are average at best. Furthermore, as you can see there was a significant decrease across the board from 2002 to 2003(excpet for K/9). Whats more disturbing is Perez's numbers away from the best pitchers park in baseball.

 

away 03: 5.59 ERA .297 BA 1.40 HR/9 .836 OPS 1.46 WHIP

 

What is to stop him from putting up numbers similar to his away splits if he moved to a much better hitters park like Comiskey? Not to mention the fact that pitchers generally have an ERA of about .25-.30 higher in the AL compared to the NL. How are you so sure that he is going to return back to his 2002 form?

 

before 2002 199 IP 5.38 ERA

2002 222.1 IP 3.00 ERA

2003 185.1 IP 4.52 ERA

 

He is just as big of a question mark as Konerko, and probably more so considering that Konerko was pretty consistant for 4 straight years. Furthermore, as much as the Sox need another middle of the rotation starter, the Dodgers need a big bat just as much, so don't pretend that the Dodgers have the upper hand because the Sox are more desperate. Remember that the Dodgers had the worst offense in the majors last year, and their only significant addition is Encarnacion. Both teams are equally desperate. Perez is also going to get a nice chunk of change next year at 5M, and is eligible for arbitration next year(will most likely get an increase). Anything more then Konerko for Perez straight up is a bad deal for the Sox. The fact is, based on his away splits, Perez might not be any better then Schoeneweis, so why give up Konerko for something the Sox already have? It would be nice to get rid of Konerko's contract, but that doesn't mean the Sox have to throw in other players.

i averaged his numbers over the past 2 years

 

and 6.85 or round it up to 7 k's per 9 innings pitched is not good for a starter???..thats excellent...how can you say thats just average???...mark buehrle's k/9 ip = 4.66 , bartolo colon's = 6.43

 

1.28 whip is above average for a starting pitcher...mark buehrle's whip last year was 1.35 ..colon's whip last year was 1.19...perez fals right in the middle between buehrle and colon...

 

BBA..dont have the numbers but just looking at hits per ip perez would be better than buehrle but not as good as colon

 

this kid is a quality pitcher...its rumors about his attitude that bothers me...but he is a proven number 3 starter thats left handed and young....konerko is a proven power hitting 1st baseman..both coming off bad years after all star years the previous season..

 

straight up..you have to make this deal because its so much harder to find a lefty starter than it is a power hitting 1st baseman...

[BrandoFan]

Was Perez's numbers last year worth 5M?

 

No, but his 2002 was. That makes him different from Konerko who was NEVER worth 17 over 2 he'll be getting in 2004-2005.

 

840 OPS is around AVERAGE for a 1B, but his defensive range has REALLY taken a hit in the last 2 seasons (dead last in adjusted ZR, quite a few plays scored as doubles down the line were simply the case of Konerko being unable to bend), he is a HORRIBLE baserunner (takes 3 singles to get him home from 1st), leads the world in GIDPs.

 

Then factor in his questionable hip/back AND even more questionable mental make-up (ask Rick Ankiel how things are going-- once you lose it, it's not easy to get it back).....and PK's intristic value gets reduced even further.

 

Another crucial distinction is this: 115 Mil dollared Dodgers can "swallow" underperforming Perez. 60 Mill dollared Sox CANNOT afford another Konerko Meltdown. In 2002 and 2003 ENTIRE SEASONS were derailed because a few Mill were mispent or mis-distributed. Unlike the Dodgers situation, Sox have remarkably little room for error, and I simply do NOT like the odds of Konerko. Point to all the career consistency you want, I have weighted his history and I still do NOT like the odds of Koney having a 900 OPS-type career year in '04.

 

Do you understand some of the thing you post

?

 

Do YOU? OF COURSE KW is gonna say he is not desperate to dump payroll. Duh. Can you imagine the kind of negotiation HOLE it would put him in if he implied otherwise? Dodgers have a lousy GM, true, but the fact remains: he has SO many more options than the Sox it's not even funny. Billy Beane would KILL to have upward of 30 Mill of spendable cash. Kill. And given some ingenuity, they may free up more than that.

 

Meanwhile the Sox are OVER every budget estimate, by a healthy margin (by Sox standards anyway; remember this was the team that refused to spend a single extra penny for Robbie Alomar while embroiled in a pennant race in an All-Star Game year, a historical year ending with a '3'). We have criminal amount of question marks STILL and are basically banking on Koch and Burhle to rebound....or we're dead.

 

Don't ever compare the two teams in terms of financial flexibility and options. You're much, MUCH smarter than that, WS.

 

Then why haven't they made a move?

 

It's TWO months away from Opening Day. Are you kidding me? Who the hell knows what kind of a 10-way blockbuster they are cooking up. Orioles had NO offense 1 day and then.... POOF they got Tejada, Palmeiro AND Lopez for under 25 Mill total, WITHOUT giving up any prospects. Again, there will be (losing) teams who will seriously think about giving the Dodgers their under-paid stars for almost nothing provided they get Miller-Gutierez-type hook-up.

 

Dodgers won't deal their best prospects for overpaid Ordonez, but they might for, say, a fairly underpaid Huff or Giles or Edmonds or....literally a few DOZEN similar options.

 

I am perfectly happy with the Sox keeping Konerko, and have little doubt that he will rebound to some extent.

 

That makes you the world's smallest minority. As previously discussed, even if Konerko rebounds to 800 OPS level, he can't begin to justify his 8.5 Mill a year contract because of reasons I mentioned above. And given how BAD his meltdown was in 2003, I am NOT even sure he will do that. Remember, he finished the season on something like a 3-for-45 slump just when we needed him the most.

 

Perez is in a somewhat different situation. His struggles happened when he was 23-24yo. Learning curve. He was much more of a Garland (but with better stuff and polish) than he was a Konerko. Anyway, that's my personal opinion, going not only on stats but on a pure hunch.

 

The Dodgers have a surplus of starters, so they can afford to trade one to fill their weakness(the worst offense in the majors). Its not about desperation to move specific players.

 

What are you talking about? They lost Brown. Counting on Wilson Alvarez coming anywhere close to 2.45 ERA is setting yourself up for a huge dissapointment. Edwin Jackson is a f***ing rookie. They may actually end up in a worse situation pitching wise than the Sox if they don't get the breaks. No need to make them out to be the Oakland A's of NLW this season.

 

I disagree. Chevez is by far the best pitchers park in baseball. It is nearly impossible to accurately meassure the affect that it has

 

Home-away splits always baffled me. There is no objective justification for them. Dodgers Stadium does NOT have 415-foot gaps nor is it 485 to CF or 375 down the lines. It's foul territory is not what it is in Oakland and wind patterns not as bad as in old Candlestick. Ditto the mound height. Perhaps mentally, the reputation alone makes a difference like a self-fullfilling prophesy, but otherwise? I think splits are somewhat flukey-- kinda like Todd Helton doing poorly away from Coors one year and then proving everyone wrong the next. What changed?

 

ALC offenses? Tigers are absolutely dreadful. Indians are worse than last year and they were really bad. Twins are also worse-- and they were below-average in 2003. Royals were a hair above average in 2003, but remember how much of that had to do with their .305 team BA with RISP which they won't duplicate. I also think either Sweeney or Gonzo will struggle with nagging injuries, so expect the Royals to be above average offensively but nowhere near the powerhouse to be feared.......And when you switch leagues, advantage almost invariably goes to the pitcher, so not only will Perez be pitching in a nototriously bad-hitting division, but also against hitters who've never seen him.......Once you adjust for the minimal park effect (actual stat) difference beween CR and USCF, Perez still should improve on his 2003 stats. Maybe not a 3.00 ERA, but I wouldn't be suprised if he put up something along the lines what Bartolo did in 2003-- only in less innings.

 

 

It wasn't that the Rockies didn't care about him as much as it was that he was inconsistant and wasn't considered a top prospect. Many guys like Pacheco(not that highly thought of when traded) have turned into decent major leaguers and bite the team that traded them in the butt.

 

Common, pitcher-less Rockies gave up on the kid! I mean....once you accept the premise that Konerko's contract SUCKS ASS, that Sox are more or less desperate and that Perez has a big upside......dealing Pacheco (as opposed to Reed, Cotts, Honel, Sweeney, Rauch, Munoz, Borchard, Wing and Anderson) is NOT that outlandish a proposition. Sox NEED to win the division in 2004 SO BAD, it's not even funny.

 

I really think that Wright can excel in the pen. In a small sample size he posted an ERA close to 3.00 when moved to the pen

.

 

I think he will be what Gary Glover was for us in BP in 2002. BUT....given how average he's been in 2001-2002 and how bloody AWFUL he was in 2003.....you of all people should realize that, objectively speaking, as far as the REST of MLB are concerned, he is just a SCRUB-- another Sox bust. Sorry, but if you were to mention Pacheco and Wright on non-Sox message boards as serious trade bait, you'd get LAUGHED at. Potential-shmotential, both 25yo Pacheco and 26yo Wright are busts until proven OTHERWISE.

 

Once again, with the weakness of the upper minors and a questionable pitching staff the Sox can't afford to trade away one of the few guys that has experience and has had MILD sucess in the majors

 

What good are strong AAA teams if your ML squad keeps on losing and losing and losing....fan base continues to deteriorate, detriorate, deteriorate.......I am sorry, but at this point, unless it's Jeremy Reed we're talking about, NOBODY is untouchable......Most of these prospects will be busts anyway.

 

If LA does Konerko-for-Perez straight up, I'll be happy. But I think it will take a prospect or two for us to make the deal. And at this point, knowing how much we need STARTING pitching, I am willing to sacrifize an A-minus prospect who won't even crack 2004 roster. It's a gamble, one contingent on Perez being good.....but it needs to be done IMHO.

 

Sox must win in 2004....or the 2005 roster might consist of Pacheco types EXCLUSIVELY.

 

Sorry for the length.

 

Don't ever apologize for your posts. I may vehemently disagree with you (often), but your thoughts and ideas automatically add credibility and depth to this site, whitesox61382.

[BrandoFan]

If Perez comes over to the Sox and goes 16-8 and helps the Sox win the AL Central going 89-73, would you come back for the playoffs? Would you admit the move worked out (regardless of what Frank did in LA) or stick to you guns and no longer be a Sox fan regardless?

 

n**** hoald up, who said anything about not being a Sox fan anymore?!

 

I said I won't spend a PENNY at USCF and will instead use the extra time/money for other things....but I will still be rooting for the Sox. I simply refuse to reward management's gross INCOMPETENCE and PETTINESS. Foulke trade singlehandedly destroyed 2003 season and continues to haunt us to this day (what could we spend Koch's 6.30 Mill on? Maddux?). Enough is enough.

 

Of course I will admit I was wrong (wait, did you confuse me with someone who has trouble admitting his wrong-ness? Please.) if the above happens......just as I would were a Jeremy Reed-for-Roger Cedeno trade unexpectedly work out in Sox favor. I suppose.

 

Also....it DOES matter what Frank does in LA. Even if Perez has a 3.75 ERA with us but Frank puts up 1000 OPS/130 RBI at CR, we STILL lose the trade.

[whitesox61382]

"and 6.85 or round it up to 7 k's per 9 innings pitched is not good for a starter???..thats excellent...how can you say thats just average???...mark buehrle's k/9 ip = 4.66 , bartolo colon's = 6.43"

 

His K/9 ranked 20th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is slightly above average.

 

"1.28 whip is above average for a starting pitcher...mark buehrle's whip last year was 1.35 ..colon's whip last year was 1.19...perez fals right in the middle between buehrle and colon..."

 

His WHIP ranked 24th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is right around average.

 

"BBA..dont have the numbers but just looking at hits per ip perez would be better than buehrle but not as good as colon"

 

Perez ranked 33rd in BAA out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average?

 

His OPS against also ranked 33rd out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average?

 

His K/BB ranked 10th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. This is the only stat that is excellent.

 

These rankings are a little flawed because most of the pitchers that are qualified are solid starters. For example, if a pitcher is really struggling, than he will probably lose his his starting role and won't have the IP to qualify. His overall numbers aren't bad with all things considered, however, I won't go as far as to call them excellent. Furthermore, I think you need to take into consideration that "roughly" half of his starts are in the best pitchers park in baseball, which skew his numbers to some degree. In all honesty I really don't know what to expect from Perez. If I had to guess, I would say that he would put up similar numbers as last year, if he moved to the AL and a better hitters park. If he stays in LA, than he will probably see an improvement in his numbers(probably a low 4-high 3 ERA). I would do a Perez for Konerko trade in a second, and I would even consider throwing in a marginal position prospect, but anything more is pushing it.

 

"840 OPS is around AVERAGE for a 1B"

 

The .850 OPS that Konerko averaged the past 4 years would rank 3rd among the 12 AL 1B that qualified. I would say that is a little above average.

 

"Another crucial distinction is this: 115 Mil dollared Dodgers can "swallow" underperforming Perez."

 

They could keep an underperforming with their 115M payroll, but unless they add a couple of solid offensive players they will be heading for another .500 season. I really do think that makes them just as desperate as the Dodgers. I would argee that a .500 record with a 115M payroll would be more disappoint, and without an offensive addition thats were they are heading.

 

"OF COURSE KW is gonna say he is not desperate to dump payroll. Duh. Can you imagine the kind of negotiating HOLE it would put him in if he implied otherwise?"

 

Everyone keeps saying that the Sox are over budget, but do we truely know the actual budget? It doesn't appear that KW/JR are trying hard to move payroll, and I am really starting to believe that they could stick with the approxiamately 64M payroll that they currently have.

 

"It's TWO months away from Opening Day."

 

Yes, but history has shown that very few big trades happen in the couple of months before Opening Day. Thats not to say that they have many options or that they won't pull a trade.

 

"Dodgers won't deal their best prospects for overpaid Ordonez, but they might for, say, an fairly underpaid Huff or Giles or Edmonds or....literally a few DOZEN similar options."

 

For Huff maybe, but the other 2 guys have big contracts similar to Ordonez, so I doubt they would give up either for Giles or Edmonds. Besides, I really don't think Giles is going anywhere and Tampa Bay recently said that Huff is staying. I really think you are overexegerating the options that LA have. They might have a few more options then the Sox, but I don't think every team is banging down their down to make a trade with them.

 

"What are you talking about? They lost Brown. Counting on Wilson Alvarez coming anywhere close to 2.45 ERA is setting yourself up for a huge dissapointment. Edwin Jackson is f***ing rook. They may actually end up in a worse situation pitching wise than then the Sox if they don't get the breaks. Don't make them out to be the A's of NLW this season."

 

You are contradicting yourself. You made the arguement that they are DESPERATE to trade Perez. They do have a surplus. Who knows about Alverez? Jackson has to be thrown into the fire at some point. They also have Dreifort coming back to fight for a rotation spot. They do have more depth than most teams. They will still be in good shape even without Perez. Certainly better then the Sox current condition.

 

"Home-away splits always baffled me."

 

I don't read too much into them unless a player plays in a obvious hitter/pitcher park. I also don't read too much into them unless their is a trend. I am simple pointing that there is a red flag with his away splits. I really don't know what it is, but Chevez is almost always rated as the best pitchers park year in and year out. I think the ball just doesn't travel well there.

 

"Tigers are absolutely dreadful."

 

They will be better next year. Not only did they add decent players like IRod, White, Guillen, and Vina, but you can probably expect youngsters like Pena, Monroe, and Munson to get better. They will still be below average, but they will be nowhere as bad as last year.

 

"Indians are worse than last year and they were really bad."

 

How did you come to this conclusion? In all likelyhood they will probably be a little better since a majority of their players were youngsters that will probably get better with experience. They still scored 21 more runs they San Diego.

 

"Twins are also worse-- and they were below-average in 2003."

 

Why will they be worse? They lose Pierzynski, but I think Mauer will do a decent job as a rookie. They also have Stewart for a full season, so thats an improvement. I think they will have a similar offense in 2004. Below average? They did rank 6th in the AL(10th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats slightly above average in my book, and ranks ahead of every NL West except Colorado.

 

"Royals were a hair above average in 2003, but remember how much of that had to so with their .305 team BA with RISP.....I also think either Sweeney or Gonzo will striggle with injuries, so expect the Royals to be above aberage offensively but nowhere near the powerhouse"

 

KC ranked 4th in the AL(7th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats certainly better then slightly above average, and they should be similar at the worst. They also ranked ahead of every in the NL West except Colorado, which was right above them at 6th overall in runs scored(thanks to Coors).

 

I really think you underestimate the Al Central offenses, and as you can see they are very similar to the NL West offenses(probably because of the DH instead of the pitcher), so I really don't think that will have much of a difference. He could have the advantage because no one has seen him, but the numbers show that in general an NL pitchers ERA goes up roughly .25-.30 when they move to the AL. Like I said above, I think he would put up similar numbers to 2003 if he moved to the AL and to a better hitters park.

 

"Most of these prospects will be busts anyway."

 

Your right, but the question is which 1-2 will develop into decent pitchers? The Sox also can't afford to make another trade like the Ritchie trade. Doesn't your purposal look similar to the Ritchie deal? The Sox trading for a pitcher coming off a sub-par season with only one good year, and in return the Sox are trading a struggling youngster in the majors(Wright-KWells?), an older prospect that isn't that highly thought of(Pacheco-Fogg?), and a struggling 1B whos trade value is at an alltime low(you don't sell stocks when they reach an alltime low). Your purposal has Ritchie part 2 written all over it, and the Sox can't afford to make another mistake like that.

[baggio202]

"and 6.85 or round it up to 7 k's per 9 innings pitched is not good for a starter???..thats excellent...how can you say thats just average???...mark buehrle's k/9 ip = 4.66 , bartolo colon's = 6.43"

 

His K/9 ranked 20th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is slightly above average.

 

"1.28 whip is above average for a starting pitcher...mark buehrle's whip last year was 1.35 ..colon's whip last year was 1.19...perez fals right in the middle between buehrle and colon..."

 

His WHIP ranked 24th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. That is right around average.

 

"BBA..dont have the numbers but just looking at hits per ip perez would be better than buehrle but not as good as colon"

 

Perez ranked 33rd in BAA out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average?

 

His OPS against also ranked 33rd out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. Is that average?

 

His K/BB ranked 10th out of the 47 pitchers in the NL that qualified. This is the only stat that is excellent.

 

These rankings are a little flawed because most of the pitchers that are qualified are solid starters. For example, if a pitcher is really struggling, than he will probably lose his his starting role and won't have the IP to qualify. His overall numbers aren't bad with all things considered, however, I won't go as far as to call them excellent. Furthermore, I think you need to take into consideration that "roughly" half of his starts are in the best pitchers park in baseball, which skew his numbers to some degree. In all honesty I really don't know what to expect from Perez. If I had to guess, I would say that he would put up similar numbers as last year, if he moved to the AL and a better hitters park. If he stays in LA, than he will probably see an improvement in his numbers(probably a low 4-high 3 ERA). I would do a Perez for Konerko trade in a second, and I would even consider throwing in a marginal position prospect, but anything more is pushing it.

 

"840 OPS is around AVERAGE for a 1B"

 

The .850 OPS that Konerko averaged the past 4 years would rank 3rd among the 12 AL 1B that qualified. I would say that is a little above average.

 

"Another crucial distinction is this: 115 Mil dollared Dodgers can "swallow" underperforming Perez."

 

They could keep an underperforming with their 115M payroll, but unless they add a couple of solid offensive players they will be heading for another .500 season. I really do think that makes them just as desperate as the Dodgers. I would argee that a .500 record with a 115M payroll would be more disappoint, and without an offensive addition thats were they are heading.

 

"OF COURSE KW is gonna say he is not desperate to dump payroll. Duh. Can you imagine the kind of negotiating HOLE it would put him in if he implied otherwise?"

 

Everyone keeps saying that the Sox are over budget, but do we truely know the actual budget? It doesn't appear that KW/JR are trying hard to move payroll, and I am really starting to believe that they could stick with the approxiamately 64M payroll that they currently have.

 

"It's TWO months away from Opening Day."

 

Yes, but history has shown that very few big trades happen in the couple of months before Opening Day. Thats not to say that they have many options or that they won't pull a trade.

 

"Dodgers won't deal their best prospects for overpaid Ordonez, but they might for, say, an fairly underpaid Huff or Giles or Edmonds or....literally a few DOZEN similar options."

 

For Huff maybe, but the other 2 guys have big contracts similar to Ordonez, so I doubt they would give up either for Giles or Edmonds. Besides, I really don't think Giles is going anywhere and Tampa Bay recently said that Huff is staying. I really think you are overexegerating the options that LA have. They might have a few more options then the Sox, but I don't think every team is banging down their down to make a trade with them.

 

"What are you talking about? They lost Brown. Counting on Wilson Alvarez coming anywhere close to 2.45 ERA is setting yourself up for a huge dissapointment. Edwin Jackson is f***ing rook. They may actually end up in a worse situation pitching wise than then the Sox if they don't get the breaks. Don't make them out to be the A's of NLW this season."

 

You are contradicting yourself. You made the arguement that they are DESPERATE to trade Perez. They do have a surplus. Who knows about Alverez? Jackson has to be thrown into the fire at some point. They also have Dreifort coming back to fight for a rotation spot. They do have more depth than most teams. They will still be in good shape even without Perez. Certainly better then the Sox current condition.

 

"Home-away splits always baffled me."

 

I don't read too much into them unless a player plays in a obvious hitter/pitcher park. I also don't read too much into them unless their is a trend. I am simple pointing that there is a red flag with his away splits. I really don't know what it is, but Chevez is almost always rated as the best pitchers park year in and year out. I think the ball just doesn't travel well there.

 

"Tigers are absolutely dreadful."

 

They will be better next year. Not only did they add decent players like IRod, White, Guillen, and Vina, but you can probably expect youngsters like Pena, Monroe, and Munson to get better. They will still be below average, but they will be nowhere as bad as last year.

 

"Indians are worse than last year and they were really bad."

 

How did you come to this conclusion? In all likelyhood they will probably be a little better since a majority of their players were youngsters that will probably get better with experience. They still scored 21 more runs they San Diego.

 

"Twins are also worse-- and they were below-average in 2003."

 

Why will they be worse? They lose Pierzynski, but I think Mauer will do a decent job as a rookie. They also have Stewart for a full season, so thats an improvement. I think they will have a similar offense in 2004. Below average? They did rank 6th in the AL(10th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats slightly above average in my book, and ranks ahead of every NL West except Colorado.

 

"Royals were a hair above average in 2003, but remember how much of that had to so with their .305 team BA with RISP.....I also think either Sweeney or Gonzo will striggle with injuries, so expect the Royals to be above aberage offensively but nowhere near the powerhouse"

 

KC ranked 4th in the AL(7th in the majors) in runs scored. Thats certainly better then slightly above average, and they should be similar at the worst. They also ranked ahead of every in the NL West except Colorado, which was right above them at 6th overall in runs scored(thanks to Coors).

 

I really think you underestimate the Al Central offenses, and as you can see they are very similar to the NL West offenses(probably because of the DH instead of the pitcher), so I really don't think that will have much of a difference. He could have the advantage because no one has seen him, but the numbers show that in general an NL pitchers ERA goes up roughly .25-.30 when they move to the AL. Like I said above, I think he would put up similar numbers to 2003 if he moved to the AL and to a better hitters park.

 

"Most of these prospects will be busts anyway."

 

Your right, but the question is which 1-2 will develop into decent pitchers? The Sox also can't afford to make another trade like the Ritchie trade. Doesn't your purposal look similar to the Ritchie deal? The Sox trading for a pitcher coming off a sub-par season with only one good year, and in return the Sox are trading a struggling youngster in the majors(Wright-KWells?), an older prospect that isn't that highly thought of(Pacheco-Fogg?), and a struggling 1B whos trade value is at an alltime low(you don't sell stocks when they reach an alltime low). Your purposal has Ritchie part 2 written all over it, and the Sox can't afford to make another mistake like that.

you have one flaw in your arguement...youre only comparing them against the "47 pitchers that qualified"...those were the best 47 starting pitchers in the NL give or take a few......47 comes out to the top 3 starters per team...in that case...yes his numbers are average ( im guessing they are the top 3 starters because they all logging more innings than pitchers 48 -80)

 

there are 16 teams in the NL..5 man starting rotation equals 80 starting pitching spots...expand that "qualified" to include 80 pitchers and you will get a better represention of where perez's numbers fall in relation to the whole league...and they should rank higher than average

[whitesox61382]

I just wanted to add that I think it is too early to give up on Wright and Pacheco. Even when Wright was dominating at AA most scouts thought that his future was as a set-up guy or a closer. These are a couple of extreme examples and aren't the norm, but they do show the posibilities. For example, Hawkins and Gange.

 

Hawkins

95' 6 GS 27 IP 8.67 ERA

96' 6 GS 26.1 IP 8.20 ERA

97' 20 GS 103.1 IP 5.84 ERA

98' 33 GS 190.1 IP 5.25 ERA

99' 33 GS 174. 1 IP 6.66 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were worse then Wright, and the last 2 years he was one of the most dominating right handed relievers in the game.

 

Gagne

99' 5 GS 30 IP 2.10 ERA

00' 19 GS 101.1 IP 5.15 ERA

01' 24 GS 151.2 IP 4.75 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were similar to Wright's numbers in 2002, and now he might be the most dominating relievers baseball has ever seen.

 

These are extreme examples, but it isn't that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a decent reliever. Wright did post a solid 3.24 ERA in 16.2 IP as a reliever last year. I just think it is too early to give up on him. Give him a chance as a reliever and hopefully he can add a fewer MPH to his fastball and use his top breaking ball.

 

I am not that high on Pacheco(I wasn't high on Fogg either) because of his age and suspect numbers before last year. He could be a 1 year wonder like Malone, Ulacia, and Rauch(I hope that I am wrong on all 4). I have only seen Pacheco pitch once and don't have a good opinion on his stuff, however, Rex seems to think highly of his arm. I will get a better idea of his stuff this spring in Tucson. This year could be a make or break year for Pacheco, but I don't want him to make it with some other team like Fogg. I point to a weak upper minor league system and questionable pitching staff as a reason to keep the above 2. Plus we need to learn from our past mistakes(the Ritchie trade).

[baggio202]

I just wanted to add that I think it is too early to give up on Wright and Pacheco. Even when Wright was dominating at AA most scouts thought that his future was as a set-up guy or a closer. These are a couple of extreme examples and aren't the norm, but they do show the posibilities. For example, Hawkins and Gange.

 

Hawkins

95' 6 GS 27 IP 8.67 ERA

96' 6 GS 26.1 IP 8.20 ERA

97' 20 GS 103.1 IP 5.84 ERA

98' 33 GS 190.1 IP 5.25 ERA

99' 33 GS 174. 1 IP 6.66 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were worse then Wright, and the last 2 years he was one of the most dominating right handed relievers in the game.

 

Gagne

99' 5 GS 30 IP 2.10 ERA

00' 19 GS 101.1 IP 5.15 ERA

01' 24 GS 151.2 IP 4.75 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were similar to Wright's numbers in 2002, and now he might be the most dominating relievers baseball has ever seen.

 

These are extreme examples, but it isn't that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a decent reliever. Wright did post a solid 3.24 ERA in 16.2 IP as a reliever last year. I just think it is too early to give up on him. Give him a chance as a reliever and hopefully he can add a fewer MPH to his fastball and use his top breaking ball.

 

I am not that high on Pacheco(I wasn't high on Fogg either) because of his age and suspect numbers before last year. He could be a 1 year wonder like Malone, Ulacia, and Rauch(I hope that I am wrong on all 4). I have only seen Pacheco pitch once and don't have a good opinion on his stuff, however, Rex seems to think highly of his arm. I will get a better idea of his stuff this spring in Tucson. This year could be a make or break year for Pacheco, but I don't want him to make it with some other team like Fogg. I point to a weak upper minor league system and questionable pitching staff as a reason to keep the above 2. Plus we need to learn from our past mistakes(the Ritchie trade).

id like to see the sox groom wright for the closer role...i see alot of similiarities in wright to gagne...i wouldnt give up on wright just yet either

[BrandoFan]

"840 OPS is around AVERAGE for a 1B"

 

Again:

 

1. 810 OPS is an EVERY-DAY MLB average according to ESPN.....and, needless to say, that number is diluted by such "light-hitting" positions such as C, SS, 2B and CF.

 

2. Paulie's 5 year OPS is 815. Where's the excellence?

 

3. People were saying he will rebound after the terrible second half of 2002. Well...compared to his futility in 2003, he was an all-star in that stretch. So when you say he will rebound in 2004, I think you should be worried more about him reaching the 800 plateu than the 850 one.

 

4. His speed. Even for a 1B, he is slow. So begin to lower his value right there because he "costs" you more runs over a full season than even an average 1B. Not by a lot, but still.

 

5. GIDP's. I am sorry, but ignoring the inning-killers is criminal. His already overrated intristic offensive value takes another, much bigger hit because of them.

 

6. Defense. Below average-- absolutely putrid range in the last 2 seasons. For every extra out he makes because of his good arm, he gives back 3 because of his tiny range, lack of quickness and inability to bend. Any semi-hard chopper in the hole or a liner down the line and Konerko will not make the play more often than not. So what if he doesn't get an error? It hurts the team and the pitcher. It further lowers his VALUE as a player.

 

7. 17 Mllion over over 2 years on a team that can barely muster 60 Mill budget. Surely, you must see WHERE exactly this hurts the ball-club........I mean, his 1999-2001 production, while overrated, still made him a bargain because he was better in every facet of the game while making PEANUTS......Sadly, neither is a case any longer.

 

8. Hip. Too much of a persistent rumor to be ignored. Scary if true. Has to further lower Konerko's value at some point.

 

They could keep an underperforming with their 115M payroll, but unless they add a couple of solid offensive players they will be heading for another .500 season. I really do think that makes them just as desperate as the Dodgers. I would argee that a .500 record with a 115M payroll would be more disappoint, and without an offensive addition thats were they are heading.

 

Let's see:

 

--Depending on how smart they are with their existing contracts, Dodgers will have anywhere from 25 to 40+ Mill of SPENDABLE cash in 2004. Sox are arguably OVER budget.

--Dodgers won numerous WS titles. Sox have failed for 86 years.

--Dodgers will draw 3 Mill fans (none of that half-price/freebie BS Sox are notorious for pulling) in 2005 even if they are a .500 team in 2004, wchih means whoever will be their new GM, he will have 100+ Mill to spend in 2005 REGARDLESS. Meanwhile the Sox are in deep f***ing trouble because whatever fanbase we have left, it's getting more and more disillusioned and pissed off. Another 2002-2003-esque failure early this season and you might see something like 1.4 Mill (including freebies/half priced!) attendance and a TINY payroll in 2005.

 

Now YOU tell me who is MORE DESPERATE.......And please don't tell me it has nothing to do with Perez/Konerko because it has EVERYTHING to do with them.

 

 

Everyone keeps saying that the Sox are over budget, but do we truely know the actual budget? It doesn't appear that KW/JR are trying hard to move payroll, and I am really starting to believe that they could stick with the approxiamately 64M payroll that they currently have.

 

The only reason why 64 Mill is 64 Mill is because Sox are STUCK with Konerko and Koch and nobody WANTS them, not even the "desperate" Dodgers, lol.

 

Sox are a stupidly-run team, with terrible PR and player reputation. Bottomline is everything, a brighter future routinely gets sacrifized at the feet of small short-term gain...........Last year, an ASG year, a historic year with 1983-1993 connection, Sox were content with a laughable 51 Mill payroll coming into the season and flatout REFUSED to spend a penny more on Everett-Alomar, preferring to mortage the future with youngsters as currency-- even when it was apparent that Sox fans were beginning to come out as the team started to win in June, additional funds were NOT made available. If decades of cheapness and lack of vision didn't convince you of Sox small-mindedness and bottomline-obcessiveness, THAT right there should have.

 

Based on every estimate and Sox management own admission, 58-60 Mill figure represented a DESIRED CEILING this off-season. That is, until the Sox found themselves in a predicament: Maggs for Nomar fell through and Konerko, Valentin, Koch found NO takers. Oops. So they got stuck with a 64 Mill payroll. This is not generosity on owner's part.

 

With SoxFest pending, KW iwas NOT gonna come out and say "we done f***ed up overestimating the market for our overpaid bums and are currently looking for any and every option to dump salary". Imagine how many fans it will piss off. Imagine how it would severely damage any future negotionation leverage. Of course it's easy to play dumb and secretly hope 64 Mill IS the intended figure. I do it myself. It makes it so much easier to make imaginary 2004 line-ups, doesn't it?

 

But even if that's the case (and I assure you it's not), how does that change the fact that Konerko is grossely overpaid and Sox have so many other needs the 12 Mill saved on PK-OD swap could go a long way toward taking care of?

 

For Huff maybe, but the other 2 guys have big contracts similar to Ordonez, so I doubt they would give up either for Giles or Edmonds. Besides, I really don't think Giles is going anywhere and Tampa Bay recently said that Huff is staying. I really think you are overexegerating the options that LA have. They might have a few more options then the Sox, but I don't think every team is banging down their down to make a trade with them.

 

Dodgers do NOT care about PK and they have resources and prospects to get almost ANY player they choose. I do not know what's holding them up (maybe they're waiting for the White Sox and a few other low-budget losers to get even more desperate, who knows), but how you fail to recognize this is astonishing.

 

Baltimore blinked and got themsleves 3 sluggers for under 25 Mill. They didn't give up Greg Millers or Ed Jacksons, either. The Dodgers don't have as big a FA pool to work with, but so what? If you have the money and prospects to offer other teams.....why would you take on crazy Konerko's 17 Mill and give up your second most talented pitcher one year removed from a break-through campaign? Doesn't make sense.

 

How did you come to this conclusion? In all likelyhood they will probably be a little better since a majority of their players were youngsters that will probably get better with experience. They still scored 21 more runs they San Diego.

 

San Diego actually got better and healthier this offseason and will trot out there Klesko, Nevin, Giles, Nady, Borroughs, Vazquez, etc.... while the Tribe lost half their offense in Burks and Vizquel. Outside of Gerut their youngsters are unimpressive. They were second to last in offense in AL WITH Burks last year. Like Tigers, they BLOW.

 

Odds are Mauer won't touch Pirzinski in his first year. Anaheim and Baltimore will be much better than in 2003. As should the Sox. That may push the Twins down to as low as 8-10th spots. Out of 14 teams. Below average.

 

Again, Royals will definately be above average, but unless both Sweeney and his neck and Gonzo stay healthy for the entire year, KC might not crack the top 5, what with Boston, NY, Toronto, Texas and possibly Anaheim, Sox and Baltimore challenging them. Without that .305 team BA with RISP, they are not as scary-- and they are by far the best hitting team Perez will face in ALC!

 

 

Doesn't your purposal look similar to the Ritchie deal? The Sox trading for a pitcher coming off a sub-par season with only one good year, and in return the Sox are trading a struggling youngster in the majors(Wright-KWells?), an older prospect that isn't that highly thought of(Pacheco-Fogg?), and a struggling 1B whos trade value is at an alltime low(you don't sell stocks when they reach an alltime low). Your purposal has Ritchie part 2 written all over it, and the Sox can't afford to make another mistake like that.

 

That's nonsense:

 

--Pacheco is simply not as talented as Kip, nor is he ML-ready. Fairly expendable.

--Ritchie could only dream of Perez's upside. And his downside turned out to be much worse than Perez's could ever be.

--Finally, we NEED to dump Konerko and free up money in order to BREATHE...whereas Kip was making nothing and we were actually taking ON salary in Ritchie.

 

Anyway...did I hear you say you'd "do Konerko for Perez in a second"? If that's the case, then WTF? How high can you be on Pacheco that it changes the whole situation? You mentioned something about a marginal prospect.....Well, as far as Dodgers are concerned, for most of his career, 25yo Pacheco has been just that. Marginal. They are certainly unwilling to do the deal straight up.

[BrandoFan]

I just wanted to add that I think it is too early to give up on Wright and Pacheco. Even when Wright was dominating at AA most scouts thought that his future was as a set-up guy or a closer. These are a couple of extreme examples and aren't the norm, but they do show the posibilities. For example, Hawkins and Gange.

 

Hawkins

95' 6 GS 27 IP 8.67 ERA

96' 6 GS 26.1 IP 8.20 ERA

97' 20 GS 103.1 IP 5.84 ERA

98' 33 GS 190.1 IP 5.25 ERA

99' 33 GS 174. 1 IP 6.66 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were worse then Wright, and the last 2 years he was one of the most dominating right handed relievers in the game.

 

Gagne

99' 5 GS 30 IP 2.10 ERA

00' 19 GS 101.1 IP 5.15 ERA

01' 24 GS 151.2 IP 4.75 ERA

 

His numbers as a starter were similar to Wright's numbers in 2002, and now he might be the most dominating relievers baseball has ever seen.

 

These are extreme examples, but it isn't that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a decent reliever. Wright did post a solid 3.24 ERA in 16.2 IP as a reliever last year. I just think it is too early to give up on him. Give him a chance as a reliever and hopefully he can add a fewer MPH to his fastball and use his top breaking ball.

 

I am not that high on Pacheco(I wasn't high on Fogg either) because of his age and suspect numbers before last year. He could be a 1 year wonder like Malone, Ulacia, and Rauch(I hope that I am wrong on all 4). I have only seen Pacheco pitch once and don't have a good opinion on his stuff, however, Rex seems to think highly of his arm. I will get a better idea of his stuff this spring in Tucson. This year could be a make or break year for Pacheco, but I don't want him to make it with some other team like Fogg. I point to a weak upper minor league system and questionable pitching staff as a reason to keep the above 2. Plus we need to learn from our past mistakes(the Ritchie trade).

Now we're comparing Wright to Hawkins and Gagne....

 

And you accuse ME of stretching it? Geebus....

 

For every Gagne, there are 50 failed starters-relegated-to-BP-duties-because-their-elbow-is-kinda-f***ed-up that are out of baseball in 3 years. Odds are very much AGAINST Danny.

 

Once you accept that Konerko is a big burden and is highly overrated while Odalis Perez is worth taking a gamble on....letting go of Danny would be the easiest thing in the world.

 

Alas, we don't agree on those two counts, so it's all moot.

[southsider2k5]

Second, let's talk hypothetically.....  Let me qualify by saying I am not indicating any preference for or against this possible trade, just bringing up a thought.

 

You wrote:

 

 

Let's say the trade happens.  Whether other prospects are involved are not significant for this scenario.

 

If Perez comes over to the Sox and goes 16-8 and helps the Sox win the AL Central going 89-73, would you come back for the playoffs?  Would you admit the move worked out (regardless of what Frank did in LA) or stick to you guns and no longer be a Sox fan regardless?

 

Don't say "it won't happen" because we are talking hypothetically.  The question is, IF this happens, what do you do?  Stick to your guns or admit you were wrong and jump on the bandwagon?

I basically wrote the samething, so I will answer also.

 

I have admitted I was wrong before, and I have no problem doing it again. Now that being said, if we get a Miller or Jackson, and a Mota, along with Perez I don't mind the deal, but you don't trade your frachise for a #4 starter.

[Harry Chappas]

While all of your points make great sense this trade is about a team that has a glut of DH/1B power types and another team that has an average pitcher who may really turn it on and be a good #3 or he may be a moody clubhouse cancer. There is risk on both sides. We need pitching as badly as they need hitting. If talks were going on I would throw Lee for Ishii.

[Rex Hudler]

Also....it DOES matter what Frank does in LA. Even if Perez has a 3.75 ERA with us but Frank puts up 1000 OPS/130 RBI at CR, we STILL lose the trade.

 

Brando, I agree with your comments except for the one above. Who the hell casres if we win or lose a trade as long as we win on the field? If the trade helps the Sox do that, what Thomas does in LA would not matter one iota!

 

And just to clarify, none of my scenario was pointed at you or your willingness to admit you were wrong. You just happened to make the comment that you would stop going, so I was playing on that comment, not you personally.

 

All that said, I don't think the trade happens. But it is intruiging to think about nonetheless.

[whitesox61382]

baggio, no offense, but read my post a little more carefully. "These rankings are a little flawed because most of the pitchers that are qualified are solid starters. For example, if a pitcher is really struggling, than he will probably lose his his starting role and won't have the IP to qualify." I clearly stated that the ranking were a little flawed, but it gives you a decent idea of where Perez ranks among quality pitchers. Perez's overall numbers weren't that bad last year. The point that I am trying to make is that they weren't excellent like Baggs and Brando are trying to argue.

 

"1. 810 OPS is an EVERY-DAY MLB average according to ESPN.....and, needless to say, that number is diluted by such "light-hitting" positions such as C, SS, 2B and CF."

 

This is an extremely flawed stat. I understand that it includes on the everyday player, which they don't define(my guess is that it is players that qualified with enough AB's), but like my Perez example it is flawed. I took the actual average OPS in the AL last year and it fell in the .745-.755 range. That is a much more accurate numbers, because it is the average of every player in the AL.

 

You keep pointing out Konerko's flaws and I can't understand why. Thats not the point that I am trying to agrue. I am not going to disagree that Konerko is a streaky player, that I don't know what to expect from him, that he is terrible slow, that his D is average at best, and that he has a big contract that overpays him for his production. I am not a big fan of Konerko and would be more then willing to trade him, especially for a decent starter like Perez. I would also keep him if the Dodgers asking price becomes too high. What I am arguing is that Konerko, Pacheco, and Wright is too much for Perez, who is just as inconsistant as Konerko, who has yet to prove himself, who no one knows what to expect from him, who is overpaid based on his 2003 numbers. Perez for Konerko is a realitively fair deal. Maybe the Sox could throw in a marginal position prospect like Yan, for example, to sweeten the deal, but I don't want to include any major league ready pitchers considering thats the Sox major weakness and the reason that they are trading for Perez in the 1st place.

 

"--Depending on how smart they are with their existing contracts, Dodgers will have anywhere from 25 to 40+ Mill of SPENDABLE cash in 2004."

 

I am sorry, but do you have a link to support this? You keep tossing these numbers out, yet I haven't seen one article that says the Dodgers will spend that kind of money this year. I have read an article that said the new owner wants to make a big splash. I have also read an article that the new owner spent almost all his money to buy the team and won't be spending that much this year. I have yet to see an article that confirms that the Dodgers are certain to spend 25-40M this year, yet you keep throwing it out there. I have a feeling that you are throwing numbers out of your ass. My point was that the Dodgers currently have a payroll close to the 100M mark and a team that will most likely finish .500, so they are desperate to make a move to add a big bat(if they have the money). The Dodgers can't afford to be a .500 team with a payroll around 100M.

 

"Baltimore blinked and got themsleves 3 sluggers for under 25 Mill. They didn't give up Greg Millers or Ed Jacksons, either."

 

Will you quit comparing the O's to the Dodgers? There is absolutely no relavance between the two. The O's went out and bought 3 of the top offensive FA in the game, but there are no more Tejada, Palmerio, or Lopez left on the FA market. The best offensive players still on the market are guys like Simon, Mondesi, and TLee. If the Dodgers want to spend their money are mid-teir offensive FA that won't make much of a difference, than go for it. The difference between the O's and the Dodgers is that the O's had nice options that they could get without giving up top prospects, but the Dodgers don't have that option. If they want a difference maker on offense like Tejada, Palmerio, or Lopez, than they will most likely have to part with one of their top prospects, which they have been reluctant to do. I have talked with Dodger fans, and they said they would rather keep all their prospects and continue to build for the future. With no difference makers on the FA market, and the Dodgers not wanting to give up a top prospect, that leaves them with few options to find a difference maker on offense, which is why they have turned their attention to Konerko. IF the Dodgers have so many option, than why are they talking with the Sox again after the incident earlier this offseason between KW and Evans?

 

"while the Tribe lost half their offense in Burks and Vizquel. Outside of Gerut their youngsters are unimpressive. They were second to last in offense in AL WITH Burks last year. Like Tigers, they BLOW"

 

You need to keep up on the news. Vizquel is still an Indian and is completely healthy. Secondly, please tell me that you realized that Burks had a grand total of 198 AB's last year, and didn't do much anyways .263/6/28 .779 OPS. Losing Burks is a minimal lose to say the least. You forgot to mention Bradley who quitely put together a great season. The Tribe have one of the top minor league systems in baseball, and a majority of their young hitters will get better with time. They will be no worse then last year, and in all likelyhood they will be better.

 

"Odds are Mauer won't touch Pirzinski in his first year. Anaheim and Baltimore will be much better than in 2003. As should the Sox. That may push the Twins down to as low as 8-10th spots. Out of 14 teams. Below average."

 

I love how you have the ability to predict the future. I think it is fair to say that the decrease from Mauer to Pierzynski will be negated by the increase from Stewart over Kielty/Mohr. The Twins will probably have a similar offense, and they always find a way to score more runs then their talent would suggest. The Twins will still have an average offense next year whether you want to admit it or not.

 

"--Pacheco is simply not as talented as Kip, nor is he ML-ready. Fairly expendable."

 

I wasn't comparing Pacheco to KWells, I was comparing him to Fogg. Josh Fogg was a 24 year old pitcher coming off a season in which he posted a 4.81 ERA in AAA(114.2 IP), and wasn't highly thought of. Most scouts thought that he was a middle reliever at best. I think Pacheco and Fogg are very similar in that way. Furthermore, according to Rex, Pacheco has a great arm with much more upside then Fogg. I will repeat that I am not that high on Pacheco, but I don't think you throw in a prospect with a plus arm, coming off a dominating season, and who could possible contribute this year.

 

"--Ritchie could only dream of Perez's upside. And his downside turned out to be much worse than Perez's could ever be."

 

Sure. I remember how all the Sox fans were bragging about Ritchie's mid-90's fastball with his nasty slider when he arrived. I also remember them talking about who the AL Central was filled with weak offenses that Ritchie would dominate. I also remember them talking about how he would dominate because very few of the hitters in the AL had seen him before, and that the pitcher has the advantage when they change leagues. I remember them talking about how Ritchie's sub-par season was merely a fluke and that he would regain his previous years form. Sound fimiliar. I am not necessarily suggesting that Perez is another Ritchie, but pointing out the remarkable similarities between the two. History serves one obvious purpose, and that purpose is to learn from previous mistakes. It seems to me that you are viewing all of Perez's positive attributes and ignoring the negative ones. While I would prefer Perez over Konerko, I am simple pointing out both sides of the arguement. These are things that GM's think about before making a trade. They look at the positives and negatives equally. They review the best and worst case scenerios.

 

"You mentioned something about a marginal prospect.....Well, as far as Dodgers are concerned, for most of his career, 25yo Pacheco has been just that. Marginal. They are certainly unwilling to do the deal straight up."

 

My arguement is that I would rather give up a marginal position player prospects like a Yan instead of a Pacheco AND Wright.

 

"Now we're comparing Wright to Hawkins and Gagne....

 

And you accuse ME of stretching it? Geebus..."

 

I clearly admitted that these were extreme examples, however, they do serve a purpose. Twins fans were basing Hawkins similar to Sox fans are basing Wright. I am sure that the majority of them would have traded Hawkins for a bag of peanuts if offered. How does Hawkins not serve as a relivant example? He put up worse numbers then Wright as a starter, only to develop into a dominating reliever. I am not necessarily suggesting that Wright will have the same luck, but I am showing that it isn't all that uncommon for a struggling starter to develop into a quality reliever. In fact, most of the relievers in the majors were once starters, and a good majority of them were moved to the pen because of their struggles as a starter. My point is that it is too early to give up on Wright. Give him a chance as a reliever and you might be surprised. He has the stuff to be a very good reliever and did well in a small sample size last year. It goes back to my point that the Sox are extremely thin when it comes to pitching, and that they need to keep all the decent arms that they have.

[Steff]

Holy s*** that was a long post..