TheHammer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Nitetrain let me guess, you probably defended the Podsednik for CLee trade citing, for one, that Podsednik hit much better two seasons ago than last season. But now that your favorite player is being discussed you only want to look at those 2005 numbers. Can't go back a year or two for Blalock, have to just cite the worst season of his career. Blalock is a stud, all-star caliber player. Crede is just a solid average starter at third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(TheHammer @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) Nitetrain let me guess, you probably defended the Podsednik for CLee trade citing, for one, that Podsednik hit much better two seasons ago than last season. But now that your favorite player is being discussed you only want to look at those 2005 numbers. Can't go back a year or two for Blalock, have to just cite the worst season of his career. Blalock is a stud, all-star caliber player. Crede is just a solid average starter at third. 2 time all star to be exact, by the age of 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:42 PM) Look at the park adjusted stats. They're the same player. Then why not take the younger player with a far greater upside? One of the criticisms of Blalock the last couple of years is he has been swinging for the fences. There are more than a couple scouts who compare him to George Brett when he has his line drive stroke working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(TheHammer @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) Nitetrain let me guess, you probably defended the Podsednik for CLee trade citing, for one, that Podsednik hit much better two seasons ago than last season. But now that your favorite player is being discussed you only want to look at those 2005 numbers. Can't go back a year or two for Blalock, have to just cite the worst season of his career. Blalock is a stud, all-star caliber player. Crede is just a solid average starter at third. If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? I liked the Pods trade simply because it gave us a leadoff hitter not named Aaron Rowand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 06:47 PM) If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? I liked the Pods trade simply because it gave us a leadoff hitter not named Aaron Rowand. Well, there is this thing in baseball called pitching. The Texas Rangers have none. And Soriano was the only guy they were "always willing to give up in trades." Edited December 15, 2005 by SoxFan1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? I liked the Pods trade simply because it gave us a leadoff hitter not named Aaron Rowand. They have traded him the same amount of times the White Sox traded Frank Thomas. Great players get traded and some non-tendered every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:46 PM) Then why not take the younger player with a far greater upside? One of the criticisms of Blalock the last couple of years is he has been swinging for the fences. There are more than a couple scouts who compare him to George Brett when he has his line drive stroke working. I don't mind getting him, but I'm not going to overpay for him. Garland + Crede for Blalock, Wilkerson, and Danks or Diamond is overpaying. Wilkerson is not needed and I'm sure Mackowiak could do as good of a job as him given full-time duties and our OF is already filled. Danks and Diamond haven't proven they could be front end pitchers in AA yet, much less the majors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Well, there is this thing in baseball called pitching. The Texas Rangers have none. And Soriano was the only guy they were "always willing to give up in trades." Yeah because Blalock wasn't supposed to be offered up in that Beckett deal at all. Oh, I remember that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 Wilkerson is a damn good player who's always played in a bad hitter's park. He could easily put up numbers better than Blalock or Crede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:50 PM) Yeah because Blalock wasn't supposed to be offered up in that Beckett deal at all. Oh, I remember that now. Blalock just turned 25 a month ago. Why don't you compare his and Crede's numbers at a comparable age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:51 PM) Wilkerson is a damn good player who's always played in a bad hitter's park. He could easily put up numbers better than Blalock or Crede. If the Sox were able to make this trade, and it probably is just a BS rumor, the offense would be fun to watch. Maybe the most enjoyable White Sox offense of our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:38 PM) Look at the stats I provided above and it has the stats with an adjusted park factor. That's great, but those numbers are all speculation based on comparing situations where they are. That doesn't mean that they accurately portray what would happen if they actually switched teams. You can't come up with a math equation that can accurately predict how well a guy is going to do in a particular park or situation, otherwise every GM would use it and there'd be no poor FA signings or lopsided trades. You can throw all the stats at me that you want, but nothing will convince me that Crede is a lock to hit over .260 or 25 homers, while I believe that Blalock is pretty close to one unless he moves somewhere with a horrendous park for hitters. We've been teased by streaks of quality performance before. Hell, Crede struggles to beat Blalock's road splits for long stretches. Blalock has far outperformed Crede for two of the last 3 seasons, and this year was still in Blalock's favor. Moving from Arlington to the Cell isn't going to make up all of that ground. Crede may finally cash in on his talent and perform like we all thought he would a while ago, but that's far from a certainty. There's more to determining who's a better player than what park they play in and who they hit in front of, especially when the Cell isn't exactly a pitcher's best friend. Crede has some issues that the Sox are obviously concerned about with his back, Blalock doesn't. Blalock is locked up for quite some time at a reasonable price, Crede isn't. Blalock has actually hit over .265 and hit more than 22 homers in a season. Blalock hits lefty, Crede doesn't. If the exchange is about a draw at the worst, I don't really see the big fuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:54 PM) If the Sox were able to make this trade, and it probably is just a BS rumor, the offense would be fun to watch. Maybe the most enjoyable White Sox offense of our lifetimes. Personally, I think this rumor is total BS. I think we would be the team that would have to give up a big time prospect, not the Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? I liked the Pods trade simply because it gave us a leadoff hitter not named Aaron Rowand. A-rod got traded, does that mean he is bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 06:50 PM) Yeah because Blalock wasn't supposed to be offered up in that Beckett deal at all. Oh, I remember that now. Whoopdee frickin doo. 1 deal. Soriano has been mentioned in trades since he was acquired from the Yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHammer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) If he's such a stud player, then why is he one of the guys they are always willing to give up in trades? How many times has he been traded? Yeah they are just always willing to just give him up for nothing, good call on that one. Maybe they are willing to give him up because they lose every year even with all those big bats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 I am in the camp of WIlkerson being vastly overrated. He's nothing to holler about in center, he strikes out too much (you want 360 K's from Thome and Wilkerson alone> Me neither), his speed and power hasn't manifested itself the way it has supposed to and he doesn't hit for a high average at all. He draws walks which is a big reason why internet baseball fans love him but I have no interest in Wilkerson personally. Now if you could get him and move him for something useful from a moneyball team, different story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) I don't mind getting him, but I'm not going to overpay for him. Garland + Crede for Blalock, Wilkerson, and Danks or Diamond is overpaying. Wilkerson is not needed and I'm sure Mackowiak could do as good of a job as him given full-time duties and our OF is already filled. Danks and Diamond haven't proven they could be front end pitchers in AA yet, much less the majors. Mackowiak is not a full time center fielder, and outside of one year has been a horrendous hitter. As soon as Mackowiak hits over 20 homers or an OBP over .350 in a horrendous lineup, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:57 PM) I am in the camp of WIlkerson being vastly overrated. He's nothing to holler about in center, he strikes out too much (you want 360 K's from Thome and Wilkerson alone> Me neither), his speed and power hasn't manifested itself the way it has supposed to and he doesn't hit for a high average at all. He draws walks which is a big reason why internet baseball fans love him but I have no interest in Wilkerson personally. Now if you could get him and move him for something useful from a moneyball team, different story Exactly why I think this rumor is BS. Wilkerson is not a KW type player at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHammer Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:56 PM) A-rod got traded, does that mean he is bad? Nope, no one good has ever been traded. The act of getting traded completely proves that you have little ability. This nitetrain logic is a wonderful thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) A-rod got traded, does that mean he is bad? Luis Castillo was traded this past offseason. That must mean he's a lock for the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:58 PM) Exactly why I think this rumor is BS. Wilkerson is not a KW type player at all. Agreed, I dont think he would be a player we would be after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) Luis Castillo was traded this past offseason. That must mean he's a lock for the HOF. exactly, way to ruin your point of a players reputation being based on whether or not he is traded. Trades happen to all sorts of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) I am in the camp of WIlkerson being vastly overrated. He's nothing to holler about in center, he strikes out too much (you want 360 K's from Thome and Wilkerson alone> Me neither), his speed and power hasn't manifested itself the way it has supposed to and he doesn't hit for a high average at all. He draws walks which is a big reason why internet baseball fans love him but I have no interest in Wilkerson personally. Now if you could get him and move him for something useful from a moneyball team, different story Bingo. Grinder he is not. Overrated player by internet users everywhere he is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:00 PM) Agreed, I dont think he would be a player we would be after. Yes, because K'ing is much better than hitting a SacFly Out or a groundball to advance the runner. Definately KW and Ozzie's type of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts