Konerko Speculation

[Dick Allen]

I understand he had a good season this year. With that said, his career .350 OBP would have ALOT of people on here upset if he was our lead off man. Not to mention hes getting into that dreaded 30's range where the speed and sb's start dropping off.

 

I mean how many people on here were using the OPS argument against Jerry Owens? Chone will have a sub .800 OPS next year most likely. His SLG has only topped .400 2 out of 6 years.

Everyone thought Pods was God in 2005 and his OBP was .351. Don't let Owens .340 average in September fool you. He isn't very good.

[daa84]

Then why not use Jerry Owens who is cheaper, younger and already here? He was almost at that OBP from his callup. The big knock about him on this board was his ability to SLG and get extra base hits.

i will say i was a big owens detractor at the time of his callup....i was certainly scared of the fact that he hit .260 with a .328 in AAA in 2006, but he did have a .360 obp in charlotte in 07 and he was impressive for a month or so....still i think if owens pans out to his ceiling (which is unlikely) he becomes the player figgins was pre-2007, and i would be willing to put alot of money on the table that says he never has a year like figgins had in 07...in addition owens doesn't switch hit like figgins does and doesn't have the defensive verstaility....

 

i really think the piece of this that people are overlooking is casey kotchman

Edited October 9, 2007 by daa84

[RockRaines]

Cause he's not a proven player and he still provides a lot, lot, lot, lot less extra base hits than Figgins. Sure he could develop some more power but he could regress a bit too, we dont know. With Figgins we know for the most part what we're getting and he's proven that he can be a good leadoff hitter in this league. At best, Owens next season gets on base at around the same clip as Chone with a lot less power, and that's the best case scenario imo.

Well is it fair to say we've seen Figgins ceiling?

 

Is it really a good idea for us to give up one of our steadiest pitchers and probably our best hitter over the past several years and a good defensive 1B for a player that may have peaked, a reliever who may be in decline and a prospect that hasnt shown the power potential yet to be a great 1B.

 

It just isnt an even deal IMO. As much as I would LIKE those players, its not worth giving up Konerko and Garland even for the financial flexibility.

[Rowand44]

Well is it fair to say we've seen Figgins ceiling?

 

Is it really a good idea for us to give up one of our steadiest pitchers and probably our best hitter over the past several years and a good defensive 1B for a player that may have peaked, a reliever who may be in decline and a prospect that hasnt shown the power potential yet to be a great 1B.

 

It just isnt an even deal IMO. As much as I would LIKE those players, its not worth giving up Konerko and Garland even for the financial flexibility.

I never said I liked the deal. I will say that something like that intrigues me but I'd like one more piece, still I was just arguing Figgins vs. Owens, that's it.

[RockRaines]

I mean, is this really a deal that all of you guys can get excited about? There would have to be additional deals to make this in the Sox favor.

[Dick Allen]

Well is it fair to say we've seen Figgins ceiling?

 

Is it really a good idea for us to give up one of our steadiest pitchers and probably our best hitter over the past several years and a good defensive 1B for a player that may have peaked, a reliever who may be in decline and a prospect that hasnt shown the power potential yet to be a great 1B.

 

It just isnt an even deal IMO. As much as I would LIKE those players, its not worth giving up Konerko and Garland even for the financial flexibility.

The other part of the deal would be what the Sox did with the money it freed up. Sort of like the CLee/Pods deal. CLee was clearly the better player, but it also included AJP and Iguchi. Too bad this is just a figment of Boer's imagination. Its pretty intriguing.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Dick Allen

[RockRaines]

I never said I liked the deal. I will say that something like that intrigues me but I'd like one more piece, still I was just arguing Figgins vs. Owens, that's it.

My bad. There really isnt an argument there at this point anyway.

[RockRaines]

The other part of the deal would be what the Sox did with the money it freed up. Sort of like the CLee/Pods deal. CLee was clearly the better player, but it also included AJP and Iguchi.

So what deal would make this worth it to you? Hunter? Jones? Arod?

[daa84]

Well is it fair to say we've seen Figgins ceiling?

 

Is it really a good idea for us to give up one of our steadiest pitchers and probably our best hitter over the past several years and a good defensive 1B for a player that may have peaked, a reliever who may be in decline and a prospect that hasnt shown the power potential yet to be a great 1B.

 

It just isnt an even deal IMO. As much as I would LIKE those players, its not worth giving up Konerko and Garland even for the financial flexibility.

i also wouldnt underestimate that financial flexability...assuming KW spends it properly....we freed up 10 mil in 05 and got el duque, AJ and iguchi...not to say that i expect 10 mil to go that far again (that was really a good job by KW and a bit of good luck) but we can add another piece or two in addition to the three coming back to help fill the holes of PK and garland

[Rowand44]

I probably saw this post 5+ times in the Lee/Pods trade...

I was definitely one of them but I think this deal is a little different as we'd be trading a sp and not getting one back in return, not to mention that there aren't really any sp's in free agency. Like I said, this deal is intriguing cause I do like all 3 of these players and the money freed up would be fantastic but I think there needs to be another piece added in there.

[daa84]

KW waited too long to attempt to deal buerhle (the market was so low because we waited til the middle of the year when he had only 2 month left that KW just resigned him). If garland is gonna go at the end of hte year (which i think its at least a decent bet that we dont bring him back) i wouldnt mind seeing him leave now. In addition its always better to trade a guy like pauly a year early than a year late

[CWSGuy406]

Gross deal. Shields was failing at the end of the year, Figgins is a super sub player and Kochman hasnt shown enough power potential to replace Konerko.

 

Sure he has -- Konerko's slugging percentage was all of 20 points higher than Kotchman's (their OPS' were identical, with Kotchman's being more valuable do to a higher OBP). One played half his games in a spacious stadium while the other played half of his in a bandbox. One is 24, the other is 31. I think I've said this before... if Stoneman offered Kotchman straight up for Konerko I'd probably take that deal.

 

Also -- when JO puts up an OBP above .340 in a season's worth of at-bats, maybe then we can talk of him as our future leadoff man. The only reason JO put up such good numbers in September because his BAPIP was ridiculously -- and unsustainably -- high. Also... when a great month constitutes a .767 OPS, you're not a very good player.

[WCSox]

While we're on the subject:

 

Chone Figgins, current contract:

3 years, $10.5 million (2006-2008)

 

* 2006: $2.25 million

* 2007: $3.5 million

* 2008: $4.75 million

* Eligible for free agency following 2009 season

 

That's great value for a legitimate leadoff hitter who can steal bases and can play anywhere in the OF or 3B. I'd much rather have Figgins' versatility for less money than over-paying for Rowand or a soon-to-be-declining Torii Hunter. I wouldn't want to give up Konerko, but I'd offer Contreras at a 50% discount plus a mid-level prospect or two.

 

[RockRaines]

I was definitely one of them but I think this deal is a little different as we'd be trading a sp and not getting one back in return, not to mention that there aren't really any sp's in free agency. Like I said, this deal is intriguing cause I do like all 3 of these players and the money freed up would be fantastic but I think there needs to be another piece added in there.

Thats a big x-factor is that there arent any pitchers in free agency that would replace Garland. The best we could hope for is KW signing one of the big bats.

[daa84]

Sure he has -- Konerko's slugging percentage was all of 20 points higher than Kotchman's (their OPS' were identical, with Kotchman's being more valuable do to a higher OBP). One played half his games in a spacious stadium while the other played half of his in a bandbox. One is 24, the other is 31. I think I've said this before... if Stoneman offered Kotchman straight up for Konerko I'd probably take that deal.

 

Also -- when JO puts up an OBP above .340 in a season's worth of at-bats, maybe then we can talk of him as our future leadoff man. The only reason JO put up such good numbers in September because his BAPIP was ridiculously -- and unsustainably -- high. Also... when a great month constitutes a .767 OPS, you're not a very good player.

great post....agreed with this just about 100%, not sure if id do pauly for kotchman straight up, but thats more indicative of the emotional attachment i have for a guy like konerko than the difference in the two as baseball players

[RockRaines]

Sure he has -- Konerko's slugging percentage was all of 20 points higher than Kotchman's (their OPS' were identical, with Kotchman's being more valuable do to a higher OBP). One played half his games in a spacious stadium while the other played half of his in a bandbox. One is 24, the other is 31. I think I've said this before... if Stoneman offered Kotchman straight up for Konerko I'd probably take that deal.

Are you really going to use an off year of Paul's to compare. Even if you did, Paul had 31 hr's and 34 2B. Kotchman had 37 2B and 11 hr. If you really think that makes them almost equal, then thats fine. You are right about the OBP. But I would never trade PK straight up for Kotchman.

 

Konerko SLG

1999 .511

2000 .481

2001 .507

2002 .498

2003 .399

2004 .535

2005 .534

2006 .551

 

 

Edited October 9, 2007 by RockRaines

[Kalapse]

Sure he has -- Konerko's slugging percentage was all of 20 points higher than Kotchman's (their OPS' were identical, with Kotchman's being more valuable do to a higher OBP). One played half his games in a spacious stadium while the other played half of his in a bandbox. One is 24, the other is 31. I think I've said this before... if Stoneman offered Kotchman straight up for Konerko I'd probably take that deal.

 

Also -- when JO puts up an OBP above .340 in a season's worth of at-bats, maybe then we can talk of him as our future leadoff man. The only reason JO put up such good numbers in September because his BAPIP was ridiculously -- and unsustainably -- high. Also... when a great month constitutes a .767 OPS, you're not a very good player.

Then I have a question. If Kotchman has shown enough power potential at the major league level to lead you to believe that he's already an equal/better offensive player than Konerko then why the hell would Stoneman be willing to do a Kotchman + substantial piece for Konerko deal? The reason he'd want Konerko would be to provide power at a position they're currently not getting it from (1B, Kotchman) but if Konerko isn't really an upgrade then why would a deal like this even be talked about? Throw in Stoneman's track record of refusing to trade youth/potential for experience/proven commodities and the discussion of a potential deal should halt immediately.

 

So to put simply, if Kotchman is really as good as you believe he is then why would the Angels even think about making a deal like this?

 

I also agree 100% with the second part of your post, well put.

[CWSGuy406]

Are you really going to use an off year of Paul's to compare.

 

Off year? His OPS was down a little bit, but the dude is 31 -- this is just a guess, but PK doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to age gracefully. Over the next three years, I'd bet that Konerko's OPS is closer to his 2007 numbers than to his 2005-2006 numbers.

 

Even if you did, Paul had 31 hr's and 34 2B. Kotchman had 37 2B and 11 hr. If you really think that makes them almost equal, then thats fine.

 

Slugging percentage takes what you mentioned into account, so I don't see what significance that holds -- maybe that Kotchman's .296 BA was unsustainable?

 

//goes and checks baseball-reference.

 

Yeah -- Kotchman's BAPIP was just over .300. That's reasonable, so it tells me all the singles he was hitting weren't very fluke-y at all.

 

BTW, I think a Kotchman-for-Konerko deal would be done for the money as much as (if not more) than it would be just to get Kotchman (bleh, talk about a choppy sentence). Thirty-six million off the books while, at the same time, becoming a younger club? Sign me up.

[daa84]

Off year? His OPS was down a little bit, but the dude is 31 -- this is just a guess, but PK doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to age gracefully. Over the next three years, I'd bet that Konerko's OPS is closer to his 2007 numbers than to his 2005-2006 numbers.

Slugging percentage takes what you mentioned into account, so I don't see what significance that holds -- maybe that Kotchman's .296 BA was unsustainable?

 

//goes and checks baseball-reference.

 

Yeah -- Kotchman's BAPIP was just over .300. That's reasonable, so it tells me all the singles he was hitting weren't very fluke-y at all.

BTW, I think a Kotchman-for-Konerko deal would be done for the money as much as (if not more) than it would be just to get Kotchman (bleh, talk about a choppy sentence). Thirty-six million off the books while, at the same time, becoming a younger club? Sign me up.

CWSguy, youve nailed this on the head imo....its not that i think kotchman is the superior baseball player, (though in a year or two thats a differnet story) its about the fact that hes not 11 million dollars worse than konerko...... kotchman getting better each year +11 mil per year >konerko gettin worse each year

Edited October 10, 2007 by daa84

[Chombi]

I didn't like this deal at first glance. Kotchman is a good young player that I like and will continue to improve but he, shields and figgins i didnt think were good for us.

 

I think we could get much better results by dealing Garland and Kong seperately, if that is our intentions.

 

I do not want Figgins at all. So if there is a way to stick Adenhart, Kendrick or Wood in this deal then I would say go for it. Personally I would hope the Sox insist on one or two of these guys. Even if Shields gets dropped from the deal, adding an Adenhart can let you move a young prospect of lesser value for a different reliever.

 

So long as this freed up money goes to a good cause (IE Arod or some of the SP available next year).

Edited October 10, 2007 by Chombi and the Fungi

[NorthSideSox72]

Wake me up when this is confirmed by anyone other than B&B.

 

Have to admit though, it does have KW written all over it, freeing up the money. Which could mean its true, or could mean that's why these guys came up with the idea.

 

[CWSGuy406]

So to put simply, if Kotchman is really as good as you believe he is then why would the Angels even think about making a deal like this?

 

Really, it's more hope on my part that anything. Hope that OPS+ isn't one of Stoneman's favorite stats; hope that Konerko's "perceived value" is greater than his actual on-field value. For example, Konerko gets a lot of those intangible tags like clutch (WS Grand Slam!!!! Biggest homer in my lifetime), clubhouse leader, proven veteran, 30/100 guy.

 

It's more of a whim than anything. This rumor is bad because all it does is fuel that hope.

 

And Daa, you got it right -- Konerko may, in fact, be better (right now and over the course of the next three years) -- I wouldn't make that argument but that's besides the point. But there's not a chance in hell Konerko is, over the next three years, $33 million dollars better.

Edited October 10, 2007 by CWSGuy406

[BearSox]

I despise the idea of trading Konerko... However, if a top prospect was thrown into that deal as well, then I think you have to take it.

 

But, I highly doubt Konerko is gonna get traded.

[Chombi]

One thing that I am twisted about is this...Let's say we do this deal. Yes, it makes our team younger and potentially better down the road. If we add some quality FA's, then maybe it makes us better now.

 

If we don't though, I can't see this team being better. I can see them having a better record next season as we all can agree this season seems to have been a fluke, but overall I can't see this team being better.

 

The part that is bothering me through all of this is what was above, as that was more of an outline. It is that our front office seems to have no clue what they are doing. Now, Maybe the value they were getting at the deadline for some of these guys wasn't as good but either way the resigning of Dye just kills me.

 

He of everyone seems he will age the worst. He is back to being injury prone and he plays a demanding position for an old guy.

 

Why would we resign instead of dealing him for prospects, or letting him go for the draft picks?

[RockRaines]

Off year? His OPS was down a little bit, but the dude is 31 -- this is just a guess, but PK doesn't strike me as a guy who's going to age gracefully. Over the next three years, I'd bet that Konerko's OPS is closer to his 2007 numbers than to his 2005-2006 numbers.

Yes an off year

 

Konerko SLG

1999 .511

2000 .481

2001 .507

2002 .498

2003 .399

2004 .535

2005 .534

2006 .551