CWSGuy406 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 I'm not calling them busts, yet. I do not believe I mentioned Borchard at all. Rauch is looking less and less likely. As I said sarcastically before, when you were 11 they drafted Rauch and he was a can't miss prospect, a certain Cy Young winner. Injuries, maturity, etc. so far as kept him from realizing his potential. See, injuries are another way prospects do not turn out. Look over the Sox drafts over the past 15 years and see how many 1-2-3 rounders are playing for the Sox. Alright, but that doesn't mean you stay away from prospects all together. I mean, just because a couple of guys didn't turn out to be what they should, doesn't mean you stay away from it. That would be like saying, "Joe Borchard hasn't lived up to our expectations, so let's never take an outfielder in the first round ever again." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Oh - Ok well than we're talking about something totally different. I would too, trade Borchard for a proven player. But some people are making it seem like all prospects will never come true just because we've had a couple of bad apples, or busts, come through our system. I'd trade our prospects, as long as we're getting guys who are worth it. Like, IMO, one of the few players I'd trade Reed for is Sheets. Why? Because he is going to be here beyond this season, plus, he is really coming into his own and becoming an ace. I probably wouldn't trade Borchard for some of these three month rent-a-players. And even if a guy like Borchard goes to a nother team and does well if we were to trade him, hopefully we can make some trades where we give up prospects who don't turn out to be graet in the MLB, and get good proven players back. Then Even if Borchard becomes very good for another team, we can still be happy we have a high success rate of trading away guys who are not going to turn out and get good players in return that actually will help our MLB team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 But some people are making it seem like all prospects will never come true just because we've had a couple of bad apples, or busts, come through our system. Look at it from a purely numbers perspective. We just drafted close to 50 players, may sign 35-40 by the time it is over. This year, ike most years, we've called up and kept on the 25 man roster only 2 players. There never is enough room for more than a couple making the grade. For that reason alone, prospects are a dime a dozen. This isn't disparaging our drafting or our players, that's just the math. An outstanding draft class for a team would be 4 players advancing to their 40 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 And even if a guy like Borchard goes to a nother team and does well if we were to trade him, hopefully we can make some trades where we give up prospects who don't turn out to be graet in the MLB, and get good proven players back. Then Even if Borchard becomes very good for another team, we can still be happy we have a high success rate of trading away guys who are not going to turn out and get good players in return that actually will help our MLB team. Correct. Yeah - I wouldn't mind trading Borchard, and if he did well, I wouldn't be real happy about it, but as long as what we got performed well too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Alright, but that doesn't mean you stay away from prospects all together. I mean, just because a couple of guys didn't turn out to be what they should, doesn't mean you stay away from it. That would be like saying, "Joe Borchard hasn't lived up to our expectations, so let's never take an outfielder in the first round ever again." If we, or another team, had enough space in our budget for it, it would be very interesting to see a team that traded away its highly regarded prospects for good, proven MLB players. Sure, there may be no superstar prospects in your minor league system, but you may get the Maggs and Buehrle type players who aren't as highly regarded, and become really good in the Majors. The major thing that would hold a team back, though, would be having enough budget space to deal away low salary players, and take on the salaries of superstars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Alright, but that doesn't mean you stay away from prospects all together. I mean, just because a couple of guys didn't turn out to be what they should, doesn't mean you stay away from it. That would be like saying, "Joe Borchard hasn't lived up to our expectations, so let's never take an outfielder in the first round ever again." No, prospects are great chips at the poker table. You dream of a Dontrell Willis coming out of nowhere. I really hoped Rauch would have been it. I've been pulling for him since I met him. Damn, he's the second biggest human I've ever met, behind Keith Van Horn. If you try and build a team from the ground up, it doesn't work. That is why hanging onto your top two or three players is key. We will never have a laten 1990s Braves rotation because JR has all but refused pitchers more than a 4 year contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 No, prospects are great chips at the poker table. You dream of a Dontrell Willis coming out of nowhere. I really hoped Rauch would have been it. I've been pulling for him since I met him. Damn, he's the second biggest human I've ever met, behind Keith Van Horn. If you try and build a team from the ground up, it doesn't work. That is why hanging onto your top two or three players is key. We will never have a laten 1990s Braves rotation because JR has all but refused pitchers more than a 4 year contract. "If you try and build a team from the ground up, it doesn't work." - That is one of the most false statements I've ever seen. How did the Marlins win last year? How did the Angels win a couple years ago? As for the Braves - the pitchers, primarily were home grown. Except for Maddux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 "If you try and build a team from the ground up, it doesn't work." - That is one of the most false statements I've ever seen. How did the Marlins win last year? How did the Angels win a couple years ago? As for the Braves - the pitchers, primarily were home grown. Except for Maddux. OK, I should say it rarely works. Why else would we be desperate for a 5th starter? That was our deepest position. Checking the Braves roster back then. not many position players were Braves draft picks. JR has almost always refused 5 year deals for pitchers, I do not see us developing a pitching dynasty. I think if Mark had a great 1st half last year, he would have been looking for bigger dollars and possibly have left at the end of his previous contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 OK, I should say it rarely works. Why else would we be desperate for a 5th starter? That was our deepest position. Checking the Braves roster back then. not many position players were Braves draft picks. JR has almost always refused 5 year deals for pitchers, I do not see us developing a pitching dynasty. I think if Mark had a great 1st half last year, he would have been looking for bigger dollars and possibly have left at the end of his previous contract. You don't NEED to extend pitchers to five year deals. Didn't the Rangers give Chan Ho a five year contract? Well, now it's biting them in the ass... Hell, even Kerry Wood's latest extension has him tied up for three more years, not five... Three year deals are fine, and if we can get one more young pitcher. Garcia, Sheets, Sabathia, or someone from the farm like Diaz, Cotts, or Munoz, we will have a pretty solid core of Buerhle-Garland- ______. Add guys like Loaiza and Schoenewies around them, and we will be alright for many years to come. Like I said, you have to lock up your pitching first and foremost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 You don't NEED to extend pitchers to five year deals. Didn't the Rangers give Chan Ho a five year contract? Well, now it's biting them in the ass... Hell, even Kerry Wood's latest extension has him tied up for three more years, not five... Three year deals are fine, and if we can get one more young pitcher. Garcia, Sheets, Sabathia, or someone from the farm like Diaz, Cotts, or Munoz, we will have a pretty solid core of Buerhle-Garland- ______. Add guys like Loaiza and Schoenewies around them, and we will be alright for many years to come. Like I said, you have to lock up your pitching first and foremost. You are saying two things Lock up your pitchers first and to short term contracts. Why would a pitcher sign a 3 year deal here when other teams will offer 5? I'm not saying it is the right thing to do, but if you want to compete for pitchers, that's the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 You are saying two things Lock up your pitchers first and to short term contracts. Why would a pitcher sign a 3 year deal here when other teams will offer 5? I'm not saying it is the right thing to do, but if you want to compete for pitchers, that's the market. Who's going to offer five? Even the Cubs didn't give five to Kerry Wood. You can lock up your pitchers. Hand out three year deals, and in the second year of the deal, look to extend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 NCORGBL sez Ahhh.... big "D" the "stockholder" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Ahhh.... big "D" the "stockholder" Do tell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Do tell! I should have that info from Kris any day now... but Finny (who's word is gospel as far as I'm concerned) said... "someone's eyes are brown.." And thanks to you for pushing the issue. It's been enlightening to say the least.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Brando I was thinking about this post Corporations can borrow money, corporations can borrow money from individuals. Individuals can set the terms of the loan. The repayment can be defered for a very long time or even forgiven. That is not illegal, nor would it land anyone in jail. Selling shares is one way for a corporation to raise capitol, but not the only way. How does ncorgbl think some teams, for example, fund their own stadiums? This doesn't pass the common sense test. Am I missing something? Added later: I called a buddy of mine who works for a bank in their Corporate Loan Office. Corporations give loans all the time, it use to be a popular executive perk, now it has fallen somewhat out of favor as a perk. Legally one corporation can loan money to another. There are some restriction to protect both corporations shareholders investment, but it isn't illegal and in fact somewhat common. An example he gave was GM will loan suppliers money to fund expansion and upgrades to facilities. He mentioned they call it their "Too big to fail" plane for key suppliers. So in theory the Bulls could loan the Sox money, but seriously, why would they? On the borrowing side, corporations borrow money all the time and from a variety of places. Depending on the size of the corporation, and remember some corporations may have only one shareholder and less than 5,000 in sales to Exxon in size, they borrow from US sources, off shore sources, venture capital sources, and private individuals, sometimes called angels. The terms vary all over the place. As long as the corporation that receives the loan isn't being defrauded, or accepting unreasonable terms, it is ok and perfectly legal. If a shareholder or soxtalk really wished to loan the Sox say $5,000,000 this year and have the interest and principle deferd until 2020 or longer, there is no hardship to the Sox corporation, in fact it is a benefit, so the shareholders have no complaints. Since this would be in theory, a loan to meet payroll, there really would be no legal issue. Now, having debunked the great Ncorgbl, I do agree why should a shareholder be asked to personally give money to the organization when banks would be lined up to offer a loan with a major sports franchise as collateral? ncorgbl has claimed to be a successful businessman and an investor in the Sox, I wonder why he didn't know that? To expand on this point, the Seligs have lent the Brewers money before, so it can be done, FWIW.l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I should have that info from Kris any day now... but Finny (who's word is gospel as far as I'm concerned) said... "someone's eyes are brown.." And thanks to you for pushing the issue. It's been enlightening to say the least.. EXTREMELY interesting. Wow. I'd really like to know who has met this individual, if only to determine if someone who states things with such an authoritative stance is really "in the know". It doesn't mean anything personally, but I've long disliked games of smoke and mirrors. Sorta like, be who you are, be straight up about it, and leave the mysteries to Agatha Cristie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 EXTREMELY interesting. Wow. I'd really like to know who has met this individual, if only to determine if someone who states things with such an authoritative stance is really "in the know". It doesn't mean anything personally, but I've long disliked games of smoke and mirrors. Sorta like, be who you are, be straight up about it, and leave the mysteries to Agatha Cristie! If I am tracking with you, it would be a sad day to debunk the guy. He seems to be so wrapped up in this on line persona, he made implode. I would hate to see someone swallow a barrel because he was exposed. Obviously he has low self esteem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 If I am tracking with you, it would be a sad day to debunk the guy. He seems to be so wrapped up in this on line persona, he made implode. I would hate to see someone swallow a barrel because he was exposed. Obviously he has low self esteem. No actually, it would not be a sad day. If he is who he claims to be, fine and dandy. His information is good and I for one appreciate the info, if it's on the up and up. If he's not who he claims to be and there is some kind of smoke and mirror game going on, too bad. IF (big if) someone is not telling the 100% truth, that's their problem and no sympathies from me. By the way Tex and absolutely no offense to you, but I thought you calling quickman an asshole in this thread was off base, big time. I know him, he is not an asshole. He has strong opinions like we all do. He did not know Nuke was in the armed forces, and anyone who knows quickman knows he would NEVER bash the armed forces. His comment to you about season tickets was in jest and he did his best to make it "right" with you. Nuke called him a dumbass and in reality, Nuke should've just said "in my opinion, that was a dumbass statement". That's much better than taking a personal shot by calling someone a dumbass. Nuke thought he was justified ... well, he did it the wrong way IMO. Criticize the behavior, i.e. "IMO, that was a dumbass statement" vs. generalizing the person is a dumbass. If he knew I was defending him here, he would be pissed about it, but I don't care about that. He doesn't want to post here any more and that's too bad because he brings good info here and good perspective. He also doesn't want to argue with people who label him as a dumbass and an asshole, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with his statements. Again, no offense Tex, but I had to get that sentiment out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 No actually, it would not be a sad day. If he is who he claims to be, fine and dandy. His information is good and I for one appreciate the info, if it's on the up and up. If he's not who he claims to be and there is some kind of smoke and mirror game going on, too bad. IF (big if) someone is not telling the 100% truth, that's their problem and no sympathies from me. By the way Tex and absolutely no offense to you, but I thought you calling quickman an asshole in this thread was off base, big time. I know him, he is not an asshole. He has strong opinions like we all do. He did not know Nuke was in the armed forces, and anyone who knows quickman knows he would NEVER bash the armed forces. His comment to you about season tickets was in jest and he did his best to make it "right" with you. Nuke called him a dumbass and in reality, Nuke should've just said "in my opinion, that was a dumbass statement". That's much better than taking a personal shot by calling someone a dumbass. Nuke thought he was justified ... well, he did it the wrong way IMO. Criticize the behavior, i.e. "IMO, that was a dumbass statement" vs. generalizing the person is a dumbass. If he knew I was defending him here, he would be pissed about it, but I don't care about that. He doesn't want to post here any more and that's too bad because he brings good info here and good perspective. He also doesn't want to argue with people who label him as a dumbass and an asshole, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with his statements. Again, no offense Tex, but I had to get that sentiment out. I agree with your comment, mine were out of line. quickman and I shared a couple pms and I hope he as accepted my apology. he did not want to post it publically, so I will not go into details here. Next matter not quickman: Some of his analysis and predictions are so far off base and wrong I'm surprised that anyone still believes him. I do agree with much of his opinion on the Sox. He is obviously a good baseball fan. But a successful businessperson who doesn't understand corporate loans?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I agree with your comment, mine were out of line. quickman and I shared a couple pms and I hope he as accepted my apology. he did not want to post it publically, so I will not go into details here. Some of his analysis and predictions are so far off base and wrong I'm surprised that anyone still believes him. I do agree with much of his opinion on the Sox. He is obviously a good baseball fan. But a successful businessperson who doesn't understand corporate loans?! Very cool on your part, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 corg is just misunderstood golden god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 corg is just misunderstood golden god corg would love the fact we're talking about him. He will show it to his mom, and she'll pat him on his head, and tell him good boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 When I said measure it in terms of wins I meant how much does Maggs play over the course of 162 game season factor into winning ball games? That's pretty cut & dry if you ask me. There are several ways to measure this: Sagarin's RPG rating: factors total offensive production including sacrifices Close & late: Innings 1-4: The last two might be the strongest measure of what a player means to a team because they have the biggest impact on winning. It goes w/out saying that the SOX attendance is more about winning ball games then signing stars. It likewise goes w/out saying that Kenny Williams excels at finding good players at low prices. Colon was not the difference maker in 2004. Gordon was. If they had signed Gordon the SOX might be running away with it. But Gordon's DL history made it a risky investment. Shingo has proven to be a great investment. Maggs most important stats: 2004, Inn 1-6: #6 on SOX (914 ops) 2004, Cl&Late: #4 on SOX (804 ops) 2003, Inn 1-6: #3 on SOX (908 ops) 2003, Cl&Late: #1 on SOX (1096 ops) 2002, Inn 1-6: #1 on SOX (943 ops) 2002, Cl&Late: #4 on SOX (842 ops) 2001, Inn 1-6: #3 on SOX (937 ops) 2001, Cl&Late: #6 on SOX (782 ops) 2000, Inn 1-6: #4 on SOX (912 ops) 2000, Cl&Late: #3 on SOX (856 ops) You may think those numbers are worthy of 75/5 but I don't. More importantly I could care less if other teams are paying that kind of $ for that kind of production. I'll take my chances with Kenny Williams finding replaceable talent. There isn't one position player with the exception of ShamME-roid Sosa that has left the SOX and proven to be worth more than what they were willing to pay. If anything those numbers prove that Maggs was in decline in 2004. Maybe it was knee related & maybe it wasn't. What are the odds of an over-acheiver coming back & performing at a level better than he did before the surgery? Because that's the real question to ask when considering 75/5 for Maggs. His past & current production was never worth 15 mil/yr so why should any of us think his furure production will be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Juggs, I'm trying to follow your point. Are you saying he's not worth the money because of team rank, or because of the over all numbers? Would a player who was #1 on the team be worth 5/75? Would a guy with higher numbers be worth 5/75? Or, based on the current salary cap is no one worth 5/75? When you compare salaries, how do you decide what a valid average is? For example, if we used E-Lo as a basis for pitching last season, I'll bet every pitcher in baseball was overpaid, if we used Koch last season, every pitcher in baseball was underpaid. Would you change your mind of the Sox payroll was $75 million? $100 million? If KW could put together a line up of players who were all playing better then their contracts, would that be a championship team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 corg would love the fact we're talking about him. He will show it to his mom, and she'll pat him on his head, and tell him good boy. Don't be jellas, there's plenty of Corg glory for us all to bask in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.