CWSOX45 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Whoa Whoa Whoa...hold on now. Why do we HAVE to trade either Paulie or Lee? I have not heard anywhere that the White Sox are looking to cut salary. Come on guys, we need both of these guys. We're already losing Magglio, if anything we should focus on trading Joe Crede. I know most of you don't want to give up on Joe, but everyone is saying he's become uncoachable here in Chicago. Joe is a no go. He's got a ton of potential, but I say we package him and send him elsewhere. Please don't give me that "WHAT HAPPENDS IF HE JUST EXPLODES LIKE ADRIAN BELTRE?!" bulls***. If he does, okay fine. That's a chance I'm willing to take. We need guys that can GET ON BASE. As much as I love Willie Harris and Juan Uribe, these guys just won't cut it. Omar Vizquel is out there, he's cheap. I also would like to see Jerry Hairston on this team. Even though Kenny said his main focus will be another starter, I don't think it would be wise to trade either of these two guys. Rowand, Lee and Konerko need to STAY in Chicago. Thomas isn't getting any younger, and one day he might just hang them up. I want Kenny to do whatever possible to keep these two guys in Chicago, unless of course trading one of these guys gets us a: lead-off man, starting pitcher, AND another quality arm for the pen. Then I give Kenny the green light. CWSOX45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I don't really want to change this sig if that's true. I think it's ok for one to leave but both.......????? I meant that one of the two should be gone. the Sox would have to drastically restructure the team if they traded both, which I don't think they're going to do, esp as Maggs won't be back. They'd have to have all the right pieces fall into place, via trade, FA signings to fill the holes left by the trades of Lee and PK. I'm not against trading both. Yet realistically it probably won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Regardless of numbers [which don't tell the whole story] IMO, PK is a smarter hitter/ baseball player than Lee. Lee is more talented, sure, and could get the Sox better players via a trade. But which guy would you want hitting in a big game, against a tough pitcher? Which guy is more likely to chase a pitch out of the zone? Which player is more likely to watch fights in the stands while the team is losing instead of concentrating on the game and taking a loss to heart? Don't get me wrong, both are good players. Yet I don't think both will be back. And the guy who may be less talented but has better intangibles may stick around it seems to me that alot of people think PK is a situational hitter, i dont see him that way. when PK is up at bat he turns into ADP (automatic double play), you wonder why he has so many solo homers. Somehow has over 30 bombs and not yet 100 rbi's. He cant hit with runners on base, cant situational hit, and is a pull hitter. Im not sure where this imppression is coming from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 PK is a hitter. Lee is a slugger. I think you have it backwards. Lee is a hitter, PK is a slugger. Hence Lee's .300 average and 25 hr and PK's .270 average and 35+ hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 it seems to me that alot of people think PK is a situational hitter, i dont see him that way. when PK is up at bat he turns into ADP (automatic double play), you wonder why he has so many solo homers. Somehow has over 30 bombs and not yet 100 rbi's. He cant hit with runners on base, cant situational hit, and is a pull hitter. Im not sure where this imppression is coming from Solo HR's come from people in front of him not getting on base. Pk is a better situational and thinking hitter than Lee. [it might not be saying much, but I compared the two players] He's cut down on his DP's this year. He's learned to hit to the opposite field this year as well [Walker talked about this fact a few weeks back]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I think you have it backwards. Lee is a hitter, PK is a slugger. Hence Lee's .300 average and 25 hr and PK's .270 average and 35+ hrs. Statistics alone don't tell the whole story. I'm talking about which player has a plan up there, and which one is swinging away. To say Lee's a "thinking man" is like saying the Mona Lisa was hot. Lee is a talent. He's much improved defensively. But IMO, Lee's not the type of all around guy a playoff team can build around, ala Rolen, Pujols, Derek Jeter, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBetsy Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I believe in the obp story, not the small ball story. I think Florida's most important hitters have been Cabrera and Lowell, not Pierre and Castillo (although you do need high-obp types in the top spots). I believe in the OBP story, too...and Pierre and Castillo are extremely valuable to Florida because they do have high OBPs. Pierre .322 AVG. .373 OBP Castillo .292 AVG .374 OBP Those OBPs are better than anyone in the Sox lineup, although Rowand is right there with them. The fundamental misconception is that "small ball" and OBP-type offensive production are mutually exclusive. In reality, there are two questions: How do you get on base? What do you do when you get there? Both questions are different, but #1 is far more important than #2. Vince Coleman was terrific - maybe the best in history - at moving once he was on the bases. But he couldn't steal first base and was thus of questionable value as a player and lead off hitter. [For example, in 1986 he stole 107 bases....but got on base only 199 times with his .301 OBP, so he wound up only scoring 94 runs. Had he a .350 OBP, he would have gotten on base 231 times, saving the Cardinals 32 outs. In 1987, he had about the same number of stolen bases (109), but had an OBP of .363, got on base 230 times and wound up scoring 121 runs - 27 more runs than the year before. He even got caught stealing 8 more times in 1987, but was far more valuable] If you get on base more often, you can play more small ball, which means you score more runs. All other things being equal, teams that get on base more are better teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I believe in the OBP story, too...and Pierre and Castillo are extremely valuable to Florida because they do have high OBPs. Pierre .322 AVG. .373 OBP Castillo .292 AVG .374 OBP Those OBPs are better than anyone in the Sox lineup, although Rowand is right there with them. The fundamental misconception is that "small ball" and OBP-type offensive production are mutually exclusive. In reality, there are two questions: How do you get on base? What do you do when you get there? Both questions are different, but #1 is far more important than #2. Vince Coleman was terrific - maybe the best in history - at moving once he was on the bases. But he couldn't steal first base and was thus of questionable value as a player and lead off hitter. [For example, in 1986 he stole 107 bases....but got on base only 199 times with his .301 OBP, so he wound up only scoring 94 runs. Had he a .350 OBP, he would have gotten on base 231 times, saving the Cardinals 32 outs. In 1987, he had about the same number of stolen bases (109), but had an OBP of .363, got on base 230 times and wound up scoring 121 runs - 27 more runs than the year before. He even got caught stealing 8 more times in 1987, but was far more valuable] If you get on base more often, you can play more small ball, which means you score more runs. All other things being equal, teams that get on base more are better teams. I never said they were mutually exclusive. What the discussion was about was how important bunting is. obp is important no matter what you believe, but bunting is only important for "small ball" philosophies. I was saying, yes, obp is important, but past that I don't agree with small ball. (With a slight qualification; I do think speed is important, but less important than small ballers think, and for different reasons -- stretching base hits more than stealing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 I never said they were mutually exclusive. What the discussion was about was how important bunting is. obp is important no matter what you believe, but bunting is only important for "small ball" philosophies. I was saying, yes, obp is important, but past that I don't agree with small ball. (With a slight qualification; I do think speed is important, but less important than small ballers think, and for different reasons -- stretching base hits more than stealing.) All i know is i wish the sox could play like the marlins or the twins. They play baseball like it is suppose to be played. Fundamentally speaking. 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.