KW to be on AM 1000 at 9:40

[CWSGuy406]

Soxace, you'll have to forgive me. I'm extremely distracted, and in no way did I mean we'd lose "ten points" literally.

 

I actually don't know why the hell I put "ten" down in the first place. I wanted to say ten+ homers and a bunch of points in SLG%, but -- I got distracted by the Mets/Dodgers play that just went down, plus the text message I just got from my brother.

[SoxAce]

Soxace, you'll have to forgive me. I'm extremely distracted, and in no way did I mean we'd lose "ten points" literally.

 

I actually don't know why the hell I put "ten" down in the first place. I wanted to say ten+ homers and a bunch of points in SLG%, but -- I got distracted by the Mets/Dodgers play that just went down, plus the text message I just got from my brother.

 

Ah... gotcha.

[NorthSideSox72]

Figgins over Uribe? The decline in defense would be enormous, and although there'd be an upgrade in OBP, we're also losing ten homers and ten points.

 

It's a lateral move, at best, and more likely, a big mistake.

In a vacuum, that is somewhat true - Uribe to Figgins is a gain offensively and a loss defensively. But by having our SS be our leadoff hitter, look at what that does to left field... you replace Pods. You could put Crawford out there in the uber-ideal scenario, or heck even Gload. So now, looking at those two moves together and what they get you, you go from Uribe and Pods in the lineup to Figgins and someone with much better offense and similar or better defense in LF.

[CWSGuy406]

In a vacuum, that is somewhat true - Uribe to Figgins is a gain offensively and a loss defensively. But by having our SS be our leadoff hitter, look at what that does to left field... you replace Pods. You could put Crawford out there in the uber-ideal scenario, or heck even Gload. So now, looking at those two moves together and what they get you, you go from Uribe and Pods in the lineup to Figgins and someone with much better offense and similar or better defense in LF.

 

But you can't look at SS defense and put it on a pedistal with LF defense. You're talking about two opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

I'd venture to guess that the difference between Uribe's and Figgins' defense at short is upwards of 10-15 runs.

 

Then again, I'm not that much of a fan of Figgins, period. He's another player in the mold of Podsednik, a no power slap hitter who is better suited towards the bench.

[Balta1701]

I respect your opinion and all. But IMO, that rotation is good for another 3rd place finish in the AL Central. We need to improve our lineup, not inject several unproven younger players hoping that they can carry us.

Jeremy Bonderman, Mike Maroth, Justin Verlander, Zach Miner, Andrew Miller, Francisco Liriano, Matt Garza, and Boof Bonser say hi.

 

Then again, I'm not that much of a fan of Figgins, period. He's another player in the mold of Podsednik, a no power slap hitter who is better suited towards the bench.

Figgins does have a little bit of power...5, 8, and 9 home runs in the last 3 years respectively.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Figgins is a bad defender at 3B, a brutal defender at SS(17 starts in 3+ years), passable at 2B, good at CF, and figures to be excellent in LF (he hasn't gotten much PT there). He's a more useful player than Pods, but he really should only be used in the OF.

[Balta1701]

Figgins is a bad defender at 3B, a brutal defender at SS(17 starts in 3+ years), passable at 2B, good at CF, and figures to be excellent in LF (he hasn't gotten much PT there). He's a more useful player than Pods, but he really should only be used in the OF.

Do you have anything other than playing time to back up him being brutal at SS? Because playing time just can't really be used as a good argument when the Angels have had good starting players at those positions. THe 4 errors he's made at SS in 18 games are a better argument, but it's also worth wondering what he'd do if he were locked in to that position and not just playing it sparingly.

[GoodAsGould]

I respect your opinion and all. But IMO, that rotation is good for another 3rd place finish in the AL Central. We need to improve our lineup, not inject several unproven younger players hoping that they can carry us.

 

I know it doesnt seem to scary but I think its better than most people will give credit for. Whenevr used as a starter B-Mac has really been awesome after that first stint. Im sure he will be more than a good enough SP for us. Ervin Santana is also really good and really under-rated, with a majorleague offense actually giving him support that might help as well.

 

 

I know Danks/Carillo would prob struggle but most team's 5th starters struggle so thats nothing 2 bad. Also I think the Vazquez we saw the 2nd half is the real Vazquez we will see next season and Garland is back to back 18 game winner.

 

 

Also the top of that lineup is better and I think will score a bunch of runs. But to each his own =)

[Gene Honda Civic]

Do you have anything other than playing time to back up him being brutal at SS? Because playing time just can't really be used as a good argument when the Angels have had good starting players at those positions. THe 4 errors he's made at SS in 18 games are a better argument, but it's also worth wondering what he'd do if he were locked in to that position and not just playing it sparingly.

Have you seen him play 3B? He sucks there. I would rather have Fields at 3B. If you can't play 3B, what makes you think he can play SS?

[NorthSideSox72]

But you can't look at SS defense and put it on a pedistal with LF defense. You're talking about two opposite sides of the spectrum.

 

I'd venture to guess that the difference between Uribe's and Figgins' defense at short is upwards of 10-15 runs.

 

Then again, I'm not that much of a fan of Figgins, period. He's another player in the mold of Podsednik, a no power slap hitter who is better suited towards the bench.

 

 

Figgins is a bad defender at 3B, a brutal defender at SS(17 starts in 3+ years), passable at 2B, good at CF, and figures to be excellent in LF (he hasn't gotten much PT there). He's a more useful player than Pods, but he really should only be used in the OF.

 

I don't think anyone KNOWS how Figgins would do at SS. I am just asking how he might do. You both think he'll be pretty brutal, and you might be right. But with the athleticism and the arm and the hands he has shown, he certainly has some of the right skills for shortstop.

 

Is he that bad at 3B defensively? See, I thought he was OK over there. If he's that brutal at third, then I agree, he might be pretty awful at shortstop.

 

What would be really great is Figgins in LF and Furcal at SS. But I don't suppose that is realistic. I'd be ecstatic with one or the other, though.

[CWSGuy406]

Figgins does have a little bit of power...5, 8, and 9 home runs in the last 3 years respectively.

 

Career SLG% under .400.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Is he that bad at 3B defensively? See, I thought he was OK over there. If he's that brutal at third, then I agree, he might be pretty awful at shortstop.

He's not brutal, but average-to-below-average at 3B. And how many average-to-below-average 3B do you know who successfully made the switch to the most demanding infield position outside of catcher?

 

Just ask Jason, who sees Figgings 100 games a year, where he would rather play Figgins, that's all you need to know.

 

He doesn't have the hands of an infielder. The angels know this, and his infield starts have gone down in each of his three full seasons with the Halos as a result. (105, 85, 39) Meanwhile, he also has gotten much better in the outfield. I would say that he's a plus defensive CFer right now. He could probably be one of the best defensive LFers in the game with Crawford and Crisp if he played an entire season there.

[Dick Allen]

The fact of the matter is if Figgins was considered a guy who could play a great SS, he would have been playing there by now.

[DBAHO]

Why in god sakes would we make that trade. Garland is hands down better than Santana and while I love the offensive potential of Kendrick, right now he doens't even come close to holding Crede's jock strap. That would be bloody awful.

I wouldn't say that Garland is hands down better than Santana especially when Santana has more scope for improvement with his numbers in the future seasons than Garland does I would have thought. They both have pretty similar numbers this season as well (although Jon was much better in the 2nd half of this season compared to Ervin).

 

I basically threw that idea out because I got wowed by thought of having a future IF consisting of Kendrick, Wood and Fields for the next 5-10 years.

[Kalapse]

The fact of the matter is if Figgins was considered a guy who could play a great SS, he would have been playing there by now.

Well the Angels do have one of the best defensive SS in the game starting for the right now, even if Figgins was excellent defensively at short he wouldn't be starting over Orlando Cabrera.

[Dick Allen]

Well the Angels do have one of the best defensive SS in the game starting for the right now, even if Figgins was excellent defensively at short he wouldn't be starting over Orlando Cabrera.

The Angels spent a lot of cash bringing Cabrera to Anaheim. If they thought Figgins could play short, they would have spent that money on something else. I know Uribe is usually frustrating to watch hit. But he was 8th or 9th in RBI by a SS in MLB this year, and only 2 or 3 SS hit more homers. I would take my chances with him defensively over most. The last 2 plays he made in the WS last year were incredible. Omar Vizquel couldn't have thrown Palmiero out, his arm isn't strong enough. For my money, unless the Sox were to bring in Tejada or ARod to play SS, or TB insisted on Uribe as a part of a package for Crawford, and the Sox were going to sign Gonzalez, the Sox are much better off leaving Uribe at SS. Experimenting with someone as a SS is only going to make your pitching staff worse. We saw this season, White Sox pitchers need all the help they can get. They also have a hard time pitching over defensive miscues.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Have you seen him play 3B? He sucks there. I would rather have Fields at 3B. If you can't play 3B, what makes you think he can play SS?

 

Alex Rodriguez saids "hi"

[Chisoxfn]

Alex Rodriguez saids "hi"

One difference, he was a gold glove SS who moved to 3rd base, not the other way around so to speak. That said I don't think Figgins is near as bad as some of you say in the infield defensively. However, we have Joe Crede and Juan Uribe at 3rd and SS and there isn't any other infield that is better at those two spots defensively.

 

Figgins needs to be given an everday position. He's not that great in CF, but I think thats simply because of a lack of experience. I really think he could be an above avg CF and a stellar left fielder and I do think he'd be an exceptional fit.

 

Was talking to a couple big time Angel fans and it seems like they are thinking he'll get dealt. Doesn't mean he will, but its always interested to hear when fans say a guy could get moved because if fans are willing to move them than mgmt may be willing to move them as well.

[ptatc]

The Angels spent a lot of cash bringing Cabrera to Anaheim. If they thought Figgins could play short, they would have spent that money on something else. I know Uribe is usually frustrating to watch hit. But he was 8th or 9th in RBI by a SS in MLB this year, and only 2 or 3 SS hit more homers. I would take my chances with him defensively over most. The last 2 plays he made in the WS last year were incredible. Omar Vizquel couldn't have thrown Palmiero out, his arm isn't strong enough. For my money, unless the Sox were to bring in Tejada or ARod to play SS, or TB insisted on Uribe as a part of a package for Crawford, and the Sox were going to sign Gonzalez, the Sox are much better off leaving Uribe at SS. Experimenting with someone as a SS is only going to make your pitching staff worse. We saw this season, White Sox pitchers need all the help they can get. They also have a hard time pitching over defensive miscues.

 

Amen. The voice of reason.