Chris Young.....

[greg775]

He homered again tonight.

He'd look good patrolling the outfield for us oh, the next 15 years.

Bad move, Kenny.

[SkokieSox]

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.

 

It's amazing that pitching was once valued among our fan base, but now it is all over. Who has more value? Vazquez. Right now, on this team, and with the FA market as it is, I'm glad the Sox have Vazquez over that of Young.

[CWSGuy406]

Who has more value? Vazquez.

 

What? How? How is the next five years of Chris Young better than three years and $30 million locked into an above average but not elite starting pitcher?

[SkokieSox]

What? How? How is the next five years of Chris Young better than three years and $30 million locked into an above average but not elite starting pitcher?

 

Above average in pitching simply has a lot of value, especially this upcoming year where there is none available this offseason. It frees the Sox to move Garland for other holes, and to work in some of the younger pitching. Young still needs to develop, especially his OBP. He may improve leaps and bounds next year, or he may regress a little bit. No one knows, but Vazquez gives you stability - 200 innings and 200 K's. That has a lot of value in MLB, more than Young, as there is far more CF available than quality starting pitchers.

[hitlesswonder]

Above average in pitching simply has a lot of value, especially this upcoming year where there is none available this offseason. It frees the Sox to move Garland for other holes, and to work in some of the younger pitching. Young still needs to develop, especially his OBP. He may improve leaps and bounds next year, or he may regress a little bit. No one knows, but Vazquez gives you stability - 200 innings and 200 K's. That has a lot of value in MLB, more than Young, as there is far more CF available than quality starting pitchers.

 

Those available CF cost a lot more and don't go 30/30.

 

There's no team in baseball right now that would trade Chris Young for Javier Vazquez.

[CWSGuy406]

as there is far more CF available than quality starting pitchers.

 

If you want to commit $50 million (that's a floor), sure, you can find a CFer with skills akin to Young. But we're not talking about Young on the open market -- Zona's got him for six years at much less than what it will take to sign a free agent for one year.

[SoxAce]

There's no team in baseball right now that would trade Chris Young for Javier Vazquez.

 

Can I call bulls*** now or just reserve judgement? I've seen bold statements before but this is hella bold. Not saying I agree or disagree for the record but you nor I don't know what goes on in a GM's head evaluating players and believe me there is a mixed opinion on that matter.

[Chisoxfn]

Can I call bulls*** now or just reserve judgement? I've seen bold statements before but this is hella bold. Not saying I agree or disagree for the record but you nor I don't know what goes on in a GM's head evaluating players and believe me there is a mixed opinion on that matter.

I don't know if I buy that theory either. I think a team in the right situation would make that move. If the team had numerous young players and felt good about its lineup I could easily see it giving up a good young pitcher for a guy who was easily one of the better pitchers in the AL last year (put him on a better team and he'd have gotten cy young votes no doubt).

[RockRaines]

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.

So because Josh wasn't in post season play you are penalizing him? why dont you check out the stats before you make such bold assumptions. Fields is the superior offensive player so far.

 

178 games .237 .295 .467 .763 32 hr 68 rbi 85 runs 29 2B

100 games .244 .308 .480 .788 23 hr 67 RBI 54 runs 17 2B

 

 

Go ahead and calculate what Josh would do in the full season that Young had. Then compare players.

 

Young is a good player, but as of now, he isnt what fields is

[kapkomet]

Again, if Phil Rogers is the definitive authority. Phil is a nice guy and he has the gift many Texans have, he knows how to spin a good yarn.

Hey. . .

 

I know whatcha mean. . .

 

[Dick Allen]

So because Josh wasn't in post season play you are penalizing him? why dont you check out the stats before you make such bold assumptions. Fields is the superior offensive player so far.

 

178 games .237 .295 .467 .763 32 hr 68 rbi 85 runs 29 2B

100 games .244 .308 .480 .788 23 hr 67 RBI 54 runs 17 2B

Go ahead and calculate what Josh would do in the full season that Young had. Then compare players.

 

Young is a good player, but as of now, he isnt what fields is

Pretty conveniently you have left off base running. I would think the extra 25 or so steals plus the gold glove like defense would more than make up for the .025 OPS deficit in your comparison. I don't think RBI really come into play considering Young is a leadoff hitter who bats after the pitcher in the NL. While Young strikes out a ton, too much for a leadoff guy, Fields also blows him away in that category, plus Young plays a fantastic CF. Plus Young is about a year younger than Fields. He's 3 months younger than Richar, and we hear how great these guys are going to be that they are just raw. Young is as raw or more raw than either of them and he almost put up a 30/30 season. His future is pretty bright.

 

Young and Fields were actually teammates in Birmingham in 2005

Fields .252 16 HR .341 OBP .409 SLG .750 OPS

Young.277 26 HR .377 OBP .545 SLG .922 OPS

 

I'm 100% certain if Josh Byrnes called up KW and offered Young for Fields, KW would accept it quickly before Byrnes was able to change his mind.

 

But enough with all that. I think everyone would agree Young is better than Anderson, which is what this thread is about.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Dick Allen

[Gregory Pratt]

I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that Josh Fields is > Chris Young, especially when you consider their swings and problems. A guy with issues against fastballs has far less potential than a guy who has issues with offspeed pitches and that's about the long/short of it. It is theoretically possible for both to collapse next year at the plate, but it is far likelier, IMO, that Fields does because people will adapt to him if he hasn't yet learned how to hit an inside fastball. People won't be giving him pitches away that he can slap out of the yard.

 

Young is a much better player because he isn't defensively retarded, has a good swing and runs the bases better.

[SkokieSox]

If you want to commit $50 million (that's a floor), sure, you can find a CFer with skills akin to Young. But we're not talking about Young on the open market -- Zona's got him for six years at much less than what it will take to sign a free agent for one year.

 

It's team construction, and this FA market supports needing a CF rather than a starting pitcher, let alone the one with the qualities of Vazquez. No one mentioned Young on the open market, we were talking about value.

[SkokieSox]

Those available CF cost a lot more and don't go 30/30.

 

There's no team in baseball right now that would trade Chris Young for Javier Vazquez.

 

Let's be accurate, he had 27 steals. That's very good for a rookie or anyone, but the 30/30 is quite specific in it's requirements. In any case, I think you're wrong. With some teams pitching woes...

[SkokieSox]

I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that Josh Fields is > Chris Young, especially when you consider their swings and problems. A guy with issues against fastballs has far less potential than a guy who has issues with offspeed pitches and that's about the long/short of it. It is theoretically possible for both to collapse next year at the plate, but it is far likelier, IMO, that Fields does because people will adapt to him if he hasn't yet learned how to hit an inside fastball. People won't be giving him pitches away that he can slap out of the yard.

 

Young is a much better player because he isn't defensively retarded, has a good swing and runs the bases better.

 

Such a generalization... Fields has the bat speed to catch up to fastballs and to say he's less likely to adapt to that than Young is to learning how to hit a curve ball is completely unfair. It's apples and mangos.

[CWSGuy406]

No one mentioned Young on the open market, we were talking about value.

 

And money has to be taken into consideration when comparing value. With Young you get a player who's going to be dirt cheap for the next five years to go along with all the money that isn't tied up in a post-ARB player, versus Vazquez who you have for the next two (three?) years at $10 million per.

[SkokieSox]

And money has to be taken into consideration when comparing value. With Young you get a player who's going to be dirt cheap for the next five years to go along with all the money that isn't tied up in a post-ARB player, versus Vazquez who you have for the next two (three?) years at $10 million per.

 

Great you have $30 million and Carlos Silva as you're top FA choice, who will command considerably more than he's worth due to the fact that no one is out there. Money absolutely should be considered, but so do options. There are more outfield options, specifically CF's, than there are legitimate pitching options.

[Gregory Pratt]

Such a generalization... Fields has the bat speed to catch up to fastballs and to say he's less likely to adapt to that than Young is to learning how to hit a curve ball is completely unfair. It's apples and mangos.

 

If you can't hit a fastball, you can't survive for long. Next year is key for Josh Fields and I have to see what he does then to know what he is. Right now he has some very obvious flaws and we will have to see what happens before he's as good as Young.

 

I do wish we had both on our team into the future. But I'm not the one who projected Brian Anderson a better keep than Chris Young.

[Gene Honda Civic]

So because Josh wasn't in post season play you are penalizing him? why dont you check out the stats before you make such bold assumptions. Fields is the superior offensive player so far.

 

178 games .237 .295 .467 .763 32 hr 68 rbi 85 runs 29 2B

100 games .244 .308 .480 .788 23 hr 67 RBI 54 runs 17 2B

Go ahead and calculate what Josh would do in the full season that Young had. Then compare players.

"what Fields would do in the full season that Young had"

 

You do realize, that Fields was only able to hit 10 HR in 200 at-bats in Charlotte this season right? Why should I believe that you can extrapolate his late season numbers when he couldn't even put those HR numbers up in April and May against AAA pitching?

 

Young is a good player, but as of now, he isnt what fields is

Wow. You've got your players reversed. They've hit essentially the same this year.

 

But when you look at what they bring to the table, It's not even close. Fields has plus power, possibly plus batting eye. Young has plus power and possibly a plus batting eye, to go along with plus defense at an up the middle position, plus speed, and plus baserunning.

[Jeremy]

And money has to be taken into consideration when comparing value. With Young you get a player who's going to be dirt cheap for the next five years to go along with all the money that isn't tied up in a post-ARB player, versus Vazquez who you have for the next two (three?) years at $10 million per.

 

The math in this thread isn't really accurate. If we sign a CF for ~$10 million a season then that means we'd have that money plus the $11 million a season we're playing Vazquez to fill Vazquez's spot in the rotation if need be.

 

If we stick with Owens then I think that Chris and Gio, Egbert, Paul Byrd, Randy Wolf, Lohse, or another similar FA. The best option would probably be to go with Gio or Egbert because we'd suddenly have over $20 million to enter the ARod derby with.

 

I think this is all a flawed mode of thinking though because we forget we're talking about a 72 win team here. Vazquez is only signed for three more seasons and we don't know how good he'll be as his age progresses. If his contributions are to a sub .500 team they won't be particularly valuable. Young on the other hand, not only figures to improve but will also be around for five more seasons meaning that he'd had a much better chance of contributing to a competitive White Sox team. Expensive veterans aren't worth much if your team isn't contending, you want young building blocks like Young instead.

[SkokieSox]

If you can't hit a fastball, you can't survive for long. Next year is key for Josh Fields and I have to see what he does then to know what he is. Right now he has some very obvious flaws and we will have to see what happens before he's as good as Young.

 

I do wish we had both on our team into the future. But I'm not the one who projected Brian Anderson a better keep than Chris Young.

I hope he can as well, and think that he will. Both are young, but I think both teams will have to live with the K rates with both players. Believe me, I wish we had Young as well, but I'm very glad we have Javy. If the scenerio that Anderson was asked for, and we switched it to Young is accurate, and I think there's some holes in that story, then you wish Anderson would have been the one to go. However, as said many times, with that team and Rowand gone, Anderson was the logical choice to keep. He was the most ready, and we were coming off a WS. In any case, I still would have traded Young for Javy than not at all. Starting pitching simply has more value, and Vazquez helps continue to make that a strong area for the Sox.

[SkokieSox]

I think this is all a flawed mode of thinking though because we forget we're talking about a 72 win team here. Vazquez is only signed for three more seasons and we don't know how good he'll be as his age progresses. If his contributions are to a sub .500 team they won't be particularly valuable. Young on the other hand, not only figures to improve but will also be around for five more seasons meaning that he'd had a much better chance of contributing to a competitive White Sox team. Expensive veterans aren't worth much if your team isn't contending, you want young building blocks like Young instead.

 

Well I guess then there's the real issue at hand. Do you feel we can compete next year or not. If not, than I can see the reasoning for preferring Young to Javy. If you think we can, Javy helps this team more.

[southsider2k5]

The irony is that Arizona had Anderson rated above Young as well.

 

Anderson, then coming off a strong season in Triple A, was whom the Diamondbacks initially wanted when the Sox general manager called to talk about pitcher Javier Vazquez, who had asked for a trade. Williams, told Arizona he was keeping Anderson, a first-round draft pick, and that led the parties to discuss Young, a 16th-round pick in Double A.

 

Arizona got lucky. Heck who knows, maybe Anderson away from his arch nemesis Ozzie Guillen develops like everyone thought he could.

[Gregory Pratt]

The irony is that Arizona had Anderson rated above Young as well.

Arizona got lucky. Heck who knows, maybe Anderson away from his arch nemesis Ozzie Guillen develops like everyone thought he could.

 

You've seen his swing, right? It has nothing to do with Osvaldo.

[SkokieSox]

You've seen his swing, right? It has nothing to do with Osvaldo.

 

Do you think that's what KW calls him when he's mad at him?