Chris Young.....

[RockRaines]

I'd agree that they're similar batters, but one plays a strong CF and the other is struggling to stay at third and will probably end up in LF.

 

Also... a to Young for another dinger.

I think Josh will end up being better offensively, and will be an above avg LF'er. With that said, Chris Young could be Mike Cameron 2 in Cf, which says alot.

[29andPoplar]

Young was a top 5 round talent in HS, but he busted his leg his senior year and fell due to concerns about his health.

 

Oh, please. They don't ask for your credentials when you step into the batters' box.

 

And if you want to use the round he was drafted in against him, shouldn't we have traded our 38th rounder back in July for a couple of first rounders?

 

Oh please yourself. I didn't use the round he was drafted in against him, what are you talking about.

 

First of all I'm well aware of why he fell in the draft, you are not the only one who follows the minors and the draft. Second, the point was, their scouting was good enough in this instance to pick a young guy whose stock fell, and let him develop into a prospect they liked and other teams liked. The fact is they picked up an asset and a very good asset with that 16th or whatever round pick. Then, if Phil Rogers is to be believed they decided they'd rather trade Young than Anderson, which was a bad piece of scouting, and they banked on Vazquez to improve in 2006, which was another piece of misguided scouting. Seems like I'm repeating myself. Maybe because you are looking to argue?

[Rowand44]

Maybe they could have made the playoffs if he did anything the first 4 months of the season. He did have the lead in all but 3 of his starts in 2006. We shall see. He was good in the beginning with the Yankees but awful the second half. They couldn't wait to get rid of him. Next year, the slate will be clean and hopefully the team will be better and Vazquez can pitch like he did this season. It appears it will be vital for the team to do anything.

He was really good the first two months of the season as well but he stunk in June and July. I just find it funny that we're trying to blame not making the playoffs last season on Vaz. Sure he should take his share of the blame but almost every pitcher on the staff could as well. The point remains that he was our best pitcher down the stretch in a pennant race while almost every other starter was pitching awful.

[SkokieSox]

If Vazquez had pitched well for the first 6 months of the season, we would have coasted into the playoffs. He had just a terrible knack of blowing games in which the team gave him leads. He was the rally killer. That's not what the argument in this thread should be about though. It was more just some "new" information on the trade that is often discussed on here. And if 32 homers and 27 steals as a CF in your rookie year doesn't mean you're a likely potential superstar, then I guess nothing does. As long as he helps Arizona win one of their next 3 games though, I'll always like Chris Young.

 

Coasted into the playoffs eh? You watched a different team than I did... Even so, no one said Young doesn't have talent, but at the same time we're looking to win now, not just down the line. 32 homers and 27 steals is mighty impressive for a rookie in CF, but that seems to be blinding some folks as if he were an All Star already. A below .300 OBP is subpar and needs improving. Just like Fields...

[Rowand44]

I think Josh will end up being better offensively, and will be an above avg LF'er. With that said, Chris Young could be Mike Cameron 2 in Cf, which says alot.

Young's swing is a lot more compact than Josh's, I personally think Chris has a higher upside offensively than Fields.

[SkokieSox]

Find me one place where I said he was the only bad pitcher? However, he was the one who got the enormous run support and still couldn't get us the victory. For all this talk of how good he was down the stretch, he still went 2-8 post ASB last yr.

 

You inferred it by saying that had he pitched better in the first half the Sox would have "coasted" into the playoffs. Maybe you didn't mean that, but it's certainly understandable why there's confusion then.

[SkokieSox]

There's also that silly little fact of money -- the next five years of Chris Young will cost one year of any of the above three.

 

Pitching isn't cheap, but it's necessary.

[RockRaines]

Young's swing is a lot more compact than Josh's, I personally think Chris has a higher upside offensively than Fields.

Could be, but as of right now, Josh appears to be not only improving faster, but also out producing Young as well.

[Rex Hudler]

I think Josh will end up being better offensively, and will be an above avg LF'er. With that said, Chris Young could be Mike Cameron 2 in Cf, which says alot.

 

Young's swing is a lot more compact than Josh's, I personally think Chris has a higher upside offensively than Fields.

 

I'm a bit confused. Are we actually trying to compare Josh Fields with Chris Young? There is one HUGE difference between the two and that is SPEED. Josh Fields has lead in his shoes compared to Young. Speed is the one thing that potentially separates Young from guys like Adam Dunn (maybe not the best, but the only comparison I could think of off the top of my head).

 

That extra dimension is what could make Young special even without a .300 BA.

 

 

 

[Rowand44]

I'm a bit confused. Are we actually trying to compare Josh Fields with Chris Young? There is one HUGE difference between the two and that is SPEED. Josh Fields has lead in his shoes compared to Young. Speed is the one thing that potentially separates Young from guys like Adam Dunn (maybe not the best, but the only comparison I could think of off the top of my head).

 

That extra dimension is what could make Young special even without a .300 BA.

It's a good comparison offensively for now. I'm not comparing them as players at all but at the plate they've been pretty similar so far(low obp, low ba, high slugging, lots of homers).

Edited October 6, 2007 by Rowand44

[Dick Allen]

Young's swing is a lot more compact than Josh's, I personally think Chris has a higher upside offensively than Fields.

That and he also will steal about 25 more bases a year.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Could be, but as of right now, Josh appears to be not only improving faster, but also out producing Young as well.

Fields hit .240/.308/.496 in the second half.

Young hit .242/.314/.509 in the second half, and has added 2 HR in 3 post-season games.

 

I don't see how you can make either of those claims using those stats.

 

* * * * *

 

What's interesting is that Fields can't hit a fastball, and Young has trouble with the off-speed stuff.

[Dick Allen]

I think there are a lot more GMs who would trade Fields for Young than vice versa.

[Dick Allen]

At least for this series, I'm glad Chris Young is a D-Back.

[Jeremy]

No offense but the defenders of this trade are really grasping for straws in this thread. Calling Phil Rogers an outright liar for no discernible reason? Insinuating that Young, a 24 year old rookie who posted a .358 OBP in the minors, isn't and won't be very valuable because of his OBP this season?

 

I don't think you can credit Kenny with knowing which prospects to trade most of the time because his philosophy has basically been just to trade all of them. Crede and Fields are the only two homegrown players on the big league club that he's kept around.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Oh please yourself. I didn't use the round he was drafted in against him, what are you talking about.

If you asked all the major league teams if they'd trade a 16th round pick for a starting pitcher, they would say they would.

You only simplified his potential and his trade value by referring to him as simply "a 16th round pick." I'd say you used his draft round against him.

[29andPoplar]

You only simplified his potential and his trade value by referring to him as simply "a 16th round pick." I'd say you used his draft round against him.

 

You completely misinterpreted what I said, my point was he was a very good pickup for that round, or any mid to late round. It was a good piece of scouting to pick him up, in no manner whatsoever did I either say or mean to use his draft round against him. Hopefully this clarifies and you will stop interpreting things that aren't there. If you have a question as to what I mean, please ask me, I will gladly answer. The "oh please" stuff, please leave that out. Thanks!

[Carlo Paz]

I caught the very tail end of an interview on SCR today with someone named Jim from the Diamondbacks management team who was pretty emphatic that Chris Young was the main consideration in that deal. He said that Young was the one that they had targeted and they built the deal around that.

[Vance Law]

Eat it Rogers.

 

If Kenny "misevaluated" Young, then so did every other team in baseball since he didn't get drafted till the 16th round. Arizona certainly had it "wrong" if they wanted Anderson over Young. So if you buy Rogers' story, Arizona is just as "dumb" or "bad at evaluating talent" as the Sox, they just got lucky. Every team gets unlucky sometimes. Every team gets lucky sometimes, except the Cubs. Swept.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Vance Law

[Rex Hudler]

I caught the very tail end of an interview on SCR today with someone named Jim from the Diamondbacks management team who was pretty emphatic that Chris Young was the main consideration in that deal. He said that Young was the one that they had targeted and they built the deal around that.

 

What the hell do you expect them to say? If they agree with Rogers, all they of is potentially plant a seed of doubt in their own budding star. There is no way they are going to say "We're glad we got him, but yeah we really wanted somebody else instead."

 

This quote in no way validates or refutes Rogers' article.

 

The bottom line is it doesn't matter which player Arizona preferred.

 

THE TRADE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[Gene Honda Civic]

If Kenny "misevaluated" Young, then so did every other team in baseball since he didn't get drafted till the 16th round. Arizona certainly had it "wrong" if they wanted Young over Anderson. So if you buy Rogers' story, Arizona is just as "dumb" or "bad at evaluating talent" as the Sox, they just got lucky.

Rogers may be full of hot air, but this response if full of crap.

 

I've already addressed Young's draft slot above. Please read the thread.

 

There were dozens of "Don't trade young" posts here during the leadup to the '05 trade deadline. Why? because he was a better prospect than anderson at that time. He wasn't as close to the majors, but he was a better prospect with a much higher ceiling.

 

Arizona wasn't lucky. They knew exactly what they were doing/who they were getting. If we were to believe Rogers, the D'backs called up the White Sox after they traded their starting CFer from their WS team and asked for their projected '06 CFer. Why would they do that? I'll tell you... So that they could "work down" from and ask for the guy they really wanted. Luck wasn't a factor for anyone who followed the minor leagues.

[Carlo Paz]

What the hell do you expect them to say? If they agree with Rogers, all they of is potentially plant a seed of doubt in their own budding star. There is no way they are going to say "We're glad we got him, but yeah we really wanted somebody else instead."

 

Are you saying that someone in a management position would tell a lie? There goes my faith in humanity.

[whitesoxin']

Do all of you actually value a .237 leadoff hitter more than Javier?? Give it a rest already. For how many years prior to 2005 did we b**** and moan about having too many right handed power hitters that only swung for the fences and hit for a low average?

[SoxAce]

Just for the record, many know here from the years that I've personally posted in soxtalk that I was never a fan of Chris Young when he was a prospect so really this info is just moot for me personally. Now if Young goes on to have a HOF career, or is one of the best superstars come 2+ years from now then I will eat crow and admit I was wrong about him. Just throwing my two cents.

[hitlesswonder]

Do all of you actually value a .237 leadoff hitter more than Javier?? Give it a rest already. For how many years prior to 2005 did we b**** and moan about having too many right handed power hitters that only swung for the fences and hit for a low average?

Yes...Vazquez is expensive, old , and has been mediocre more often than good. Young is cheap, young and on the verge of stardom. He is an excellent CF and has elite power and speed -- not just for a rookie, but in all of major league baseball. His minor league track record shows he can get on-base. There's simply no way to defend trading Young for Vazquez. None at all.

 

You can go out and sign a free agent pitcher to put up the same numbers as Vazquez at the same price -- look at Lilly and Meche from last season. You can't go out and sign a player like Young and have him cheaply controlled for 6 years. So which is more valuable?

 

I even like Vazquez a lot. Enough that I sort of hope the Sox don't trade him, even though I know they should. But to focus on Young's one failing while ignoring his excellence in virtually all other aspects of the game as rookie is crazy.