The Fields Era ~ Developing a young talent

[Balta1701]

I say we let fields hit in the minors for this season. Then sign crede long term, trade dye and bring in the crede 3b and fields and quentin corner outfielders era.

Here's the problem with any OF scheme involving Josh Fields...we're right back in the "too many OF's" boat again. Right now, I count 5 guys on this team that seem like they deserve playing time at an OF slot. Dye, Swisher, Quentin, Anderson, Owens (read whatever you want in to the order).

 

The reality is...we have more guys in the OF than we can play there already. If we try to move Josh to an OF spot, we're blocking him even worse than he's blocked at 3rd base; we're literally counting on 3 guys to get hurt before he gets a shot.

 

Overall, I think a 30-40 home run 3rd basemen is generally more useful and harder to find, especially cheap, than a 30-40 HR corner OF. Case in point, the White Sox, who have one of those guys playing LF, CF, RF, and 3rd base in the minors. If Josh's defense can improve, even slightly, then that makes him more valuable there, and most importantly, gives him a place to play where we have no one else.

 

The way I keep looking at this lineup...within 1 year, it's entirely possible we could have Fields at 3rd base, Alexei at SS, Richar at 2nd, Konerko/Thome/Dye at 1b/DH, Quentin, Anderson, Owens, and Swisher in the OF. That fills 7 positions in the field, every spot except catcher, with a guy who is 28 or younger, the most expensive of which is Nick Swisher, many of whom are still on the pre-arb pay scale. With a little bit of successful development...any complaint about this team's age or organizational depth will totally vanish, and the team will have about $30 million more available in salary. That's an enviable position to be in.

[knightni]

Now the Score has polls asking what to do with FIELDS.

 

Madness.

[RockRaines]

Balta, that is an amazing post. With the extra money we fill holes too. This is why we arent dealing players just to deal, there has to be a game plan moving forward with young talent and also payroll flexibility.

[Texsox]

Balta, that is an amazing post. With the extra money we fill holes too. This is why we arent dealing players just to deal, there has to be a game plan moving forward with young talent and also payroll flexibility.

Presumably, any hole would be a starter ahead of one of these guys, he quoted the entire starting lineup. So where would you upgrade with that 30 mil?

[Kalapse]

Here's the problem with any OF scheme involving Josh Fields...we're right back in the "too many OF's" boat again. Right now, I count 5 guys on this team that seem like they deserve playing time at an OF slot. Dye, Swisher, Quentin, Anderson, Owens (read whatever you want in to the order).

 

The reality is...we have more guys in the OF than we can play there already. If we try to move Josh to an OF spot, we're blocking him even worse than he's blocked at 3rd base; we're literally counting on 3 guys to get hurt before he gets a shot.

 

Overall, I think a 30-40 home run 3rd basemen is generally more useful and harder to find, especially cheap, than a 30-40 HR corner OF. Case in point, the White Sox, who have one of those guys playing LF, CF, RF, and 3rd base in the minors. If Josh's defense can improve, even slightly, then that makes him more valuable there, and most importantly, gives him a place to play where we have no one else.

 

The way I keep looking at this lineup...within 1 year, it's entirely possible we could have Fields at 3rd base, Alexei at SS, Richar at 2nd, Konerko/Thome/Dye at 1b/DH, Quentin, Anderson, Owens, and Swisher in the OF. That fills 7 positions in the field, every spot except catcher, with a guy who is 28 or younger, the most expensive of which is Nick Swisher, many of whom are still on the pre-arb pay scale. With a little bit of successful development...any complaint about this team's age or organizational depth will totally vanish, and the team will have about $30 million more available in salary. That's an enviable position to be in.

If Fields spends only 1 month or less in the majors this season his service number will remain under 1, meaning starting in 2009 he'll still be 6 years away from free agency (2015). Insanity.

[witesoxfan]

I say we let fields hit in the minors for this season. Then sign crede long term, trade dye and bring in the crede 3b and fields and quentin corner outfielders era.

 

So now we're going to move a guy who hits 35-40 homers a year for Joe Crede?

 

I'm not going to make this into a debate, so this is the last I'll say on it in this thread, but I think that's a terrible idea.

[Balta1701]

Presumably, any hole would be a starter ahead of one of these guys, he quoted the entire starting lineup. So where would you upgrade with that 30 mil?

Pay Bobby Jenks. If Gavin Floyd, Jose Contreras, or John Danks fail to perform this season, spend that money on the starting rotation. If another bullpen arm blows up, spend it on the bullpen. Spend a chunk of it going over slot on the draft. Or Hell, if one guy does fail at some spot, then there's more than enough money available to replace that guy.

 

We have more young guys right now than we know what do to with. The best option is to try to do what the Angels usually do...as people get over the hump and hit FA, let them walk, and move the young guys in.

[WCSox]

So now we're going to move a guy who hits 35-40 homers a year for Joe Crede?

 

I'm not going to make this into a debate, so this is the last I'll say on it in this thread, but I think that's a terrible idea.

 

All things being equal, I'd take a 20-30 HR 3B with Gold Glove-caliber defense in his prime over an slugging RF in his mid-30's. That said, things are not equal, as Dye will only be owed about $20 million after this season. It'd cost about $60-$75 million or so in guaranteed money to sign Crede.

 

[witesoxfan]

All things being equal, I'd take a 20-30 HR 3B with Gold Glove-caliber defense in his prime over an slugging RF in his mid-30's. That said, things are not equal, as Dye will only be owed about $20 million after this season. It'd cost about $60-$75 million or so in guaranteed money to sign Crede.

 

Well, 2 things. First, I lied, since I'm further contributing. Second, that's entirely what I was getting at too, and why I don't think it's a good idea in the least.

 

Generally, if you resign players, make sure it's someone you'll build around or that it won't cost a fortune.

[Texsox]

So now we're going to move a guy who hits 35-40 homers a year for Joe Crede?

 

I'm not going to make this into a debate, so this is the last I'll say on it in this thread, but I think that's a terrible idea.

 

I agree.

[Texsox]

Generally, if you resign players, make sure it's someone you'll build around or that it won't cost a fortune.

 

We're getting far from the developing Fields thread, but generally any player you want to build around, that you are resigning, will not be cheap. I'm thinking it's guys like Buerhle, Thomas in his prime, etc. Basically their second contract is the expensive one.

[iamshack]

See, I think it's foolish to look at Fields as the guy you've got to keep simply because of the salary differences.

 

I consider myself a fairly sophisticated baseball fan, so I understand the notion of keeping your pre-arb players and letting go of your older arb-eligible or FA-eligible players.

 

But I think it's also important to have a mix of youth and veterans on a club, for leadership as well as experience reasons. You guys are talking about losing Cabrera, Uribe, and Crede after this year, and then Thome and Dye the year after that, and moving in Ramirez, Richar, Fields, Anderson, etc to replace them. While that's nice for the payroll, and in theory, I don't think we want to go too young. I'm in favor of keeping guys that are still near their primes and solid fits for the team.

 

I really think there are a lot of factors in play here that we are not accounting for that are very important for a baseball team.

 

I hinted at this in the other thread last night but there are going to be some big contracts coming off the books in 2010, which would mean any re-signing of Crede might only be a money crunch for 09'. That fact, to me, makes exploring the possibility of re-signing him an absolute necessity.

 

Simply because Fields is pre-arb eligible and therefore subject to very low salaries does not mean he can't be moved for another pre-arb player that actually fulfills a need for this team.

Edited April 8, 2008 by iamshack

[RockRaines]

Presumably, any hole would be a starter ahead of one of these guys, he quoted the entire starting lineup. So where would you upgrade with that 30 mil?

Pitching.

[WCSox]

You guys are talking about losing Cabrera, Uribe, and Crede after this year, and then Thome and Dye the year after that

 

I think that they buy out Thome's option next year.

 

Simply because Fields is pre-arb eligible and therefore subject to very low salaries does not mean he can't be moved for another pre-arb player that actually fulfills a need for this team.

 

Fields can play 3B and both corner OF positions, and can hit the crap out of the ball. I agree with what you're saying overall, but I don't deal Fields unless somebody can offer a pre-arb guy with a lot more upside. Unless the Nats want to give us Lastings Milledge or something, I don't see Fields being dealt in a lateral move.

 

[elrockinMT]

My biggest concern with Fields is his strikeouts. 125 k's in 373 AB's with only 35 BB's. Crede or Ventura never came close to that ratio. I have no problem letting him get more AB's in AAA.

 

Now the problem will arise if Crede shows no signs of back problems all year and continues to produce. Do you even attempt to re-sign Crede or do the Sox automatically give the job to Josh next season? If you sign Crede, does Josh become a trading chip or do you look at him maybe at 1B?

 

Sign Crede and learn Fields the 1B position. That has been my posiiton. We are trading away our own talent and signing other peoples at what most of the time turns out to be the same amount of money. I just can't fathom our ownership saying Booras is such a problem for the Sox that we don't negotiate contarcts with him.

[Texsox]

Pitching.

ironic we just traded some pitching.

[iamshack]

Fields can play 3B and both corner OF positions, and can hit the crap out of the ball. I agree with what you're saying overall, but I don't deal Fields unless somebody can offer a pre-arb guy with a lot more upside. Unless the Nats want to give us Lastings Milledge or something, I don't see Fields being dealt in a lateral move.

 

Fields hasn't proven he can play anything other than 3b.

 

I wouldn't trade Fields for Milledge.

 

But I would absolutely consider moving Fields for something else of need and re-signing Crede.

[Texsox]

We are getting dangerously close to another Fields v. Crede thread, and we really do not need one.

 

/Back to Fields developing

 

At a minimum, he's a September call up. I think he needs a couple stretches with the club this year, and is probably chomping at the bit to get that chance. Not certain how he gets it, without an injury or trade.

[iamshack]

We are getting dangerously close to another Fields v. Crede thread, and we really do not need one.

 

/Back to Fields developing

 

At a minimum, he's a September call up. I think he needs a couple stretches with the club this year, and is probably chomping at the bit to get that chance. Not certain how he gets it, without an injury or trade.

 

I really don't see how the two are separable. Fields' development is absolutely connected to Joe Crede, whether we want to admit it or not.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Fields could benefit from being down in Charlotte right now, so it's just a matter of how he handles being there. If he truly believes what he said earlier, than he will return to Chicago or another major league team as a better player.

[WCSox]

Fields hasn't proven he can play anything other than 3b.

 

Just about anybody athletic enough and with a strong enough arm to play 3B can play LF or RF. Certainly, Fields would be as competent defensively in LF as Pods or Carlos Lee. But he would need time to adjust to a corner OF position.

 

I wouldn't trade Fields for Milledge.

 

But I would absolutely consider moving Fields for something else of need and re-signing Crede.

 

Crede and Fields are the only two people in the Sox organization who are ready to start at 3B in the majors. If you deal the latter for something else of need, you'd darn well better get a good 3B in return or be able to pay what Boras demands for his client.

 

Fields should be an every-day player by next year. And it doesn't matter to me whether it's 3B or elsewhere. He brings a lot to the table and I don't want to see him in no-man's-land like Anderson.

 

[Balta1701]

But I think it's also important to have a mix of youth and veterans on a club, for leadership as well as experience reasons. You guys are talking about losing Cabrera, Uribe, and Crede after this year, and then Thome and Dye the year after that, and moving in Ramirez, Richar, Fields, Anderson, etc to replace them. While that's nice for the payroll, and in theory, I don't think we want to go too young. I'm in favor of keeping guys that are still near their primes and solid fits for the team.

The thing you're missing on that thinking is that you're trying to make the jump from having guys like Uribe, Crede, Cabrera...All of them are hitting the end of their "Prime years" or even moving beyond them in the next year or two. If the thinking is that a player's athletic peak is from the ages of 25-29, and then barring chemical enhancement, they begin to decline from there...Uribe hits 30 next year, Joe Crede tursn 30 in a couple weeks, Cabrera is 33. By the time they finish whatever your next contract with them is (except for maybe Uribe at this rate) they will not be anywhere near their primes, and Cabrera's already past it.

[Chet Lemon]

I believe that Fields' development will be expediated by getting regular playing time behind and against MLB pitching. Seeing AAA pitching provides him an opportunity to "develop," but it is not the same as playing with the big club. I'm resigned to the fact that barring a trade/ or injury, AAA is where he will remain.

[RockRaines]

ironic we just traded some pitching.

Who? Garland? We won that trade. Gio and DLS, we clearly got the best of that for this team. 30 million and a pitcher like Sabathia on the market=better.

Edited April 9, 2008 by RockRaines

[Dick Allen]

See, I think it's foolish to look at Fields as the guy you've got to keep simply because of the salary differences.

 

I consider myself a fairly sophisticated baseball fan, so I understand the notion of keeping your pre-arb players and letting go of your older arb-eligible or FA-eligible players.

 

But I think it's also important to have a mix of youth and veterans on a club, for leadership as well as experience reasons. You guys are talking about losing Cabrera, Uribe, and Crede after this year, and then Thome and Dye the year after that, and moving in Ramirez, Richar, Fields, Anderson, etc to replace them. While that's nice for the payroll, and in theory, I don't think we want to go too young. I'm in favor of keeping guys that are still near their primes and solid fits for the team.

 

I really think there are a lot of factors in play here that we are not accounting for that are very important for a baseball team.

 

I hinted at this in the other thread last night but there are going to be some big contracts coming off the books in 2010, which would mean any re-signing of Crede might only be a money crunch for 09'. That fact, to me, makes exploring the possibility of re-signing him an absolute necessity.

 

Simply because Fields is pre-arb eligible and therefore subject to very low salaries does not mean he can't be moved for another pre-arb player that actually fulfills a need for this team.

While KW probably idealistically sees BA, Fields, Ramirez and Richar taking over for the veterans and really not missing a beat and giving him some payroll to play with, I'm sure he knows the reality is that probably 2 or 3 of these guys won't develop as hoped. Whether they just can't get over the hump or get hurt, s*** happens. Just think of what KW's board for 2008 looked like 3 years ago. Probably nothing like today's roster.KW only has to look into the mirror when he thinks of guys having some success in the major leagues, showing a lot of promise to perhaps become stars, only to crap out shortly thereafter.

[iamshack]

The thing you're missing on that thinking is that you're trying to make the jump from having guys like Uribe, Crede, Cabrera...All of them are hitting the end of their "Prime years" or even moving beyond them in the next year or two. If the thinking is that a player's athletic peak is from the ages of 25-29, and then barring chemical enhancement, they begin to decline from there...Uribe hits 30 next year, Joe Crede tursn 30 in a couple weeks, Cabrera is 33. By the time they finish whatever your next contract with them is (except for maybe Uribe at this rate) they will not be anywhere near their primes, and Cabrera's already past it.

 

No, I understand what you're saying. And I am certainly in favor of transitioning to some of the younger kids. But not ALL of the younger kids. I guess that is the point I am trying to make. You need some veterans. And those with playoff experience are pretty invaluable if you're trying to field a "win-now" team.

 

And I don't agree with your "prime years." I'm a little older with that I think...probably more like 27-34, obviously depending upon position. I think Joe has quite a few very high-quality years ahead of him if he can escape the back injury issues....I'd say probably 4-5.