Crede

[jackie hayes]

well, if you want to quibble with semantics fine. that wasn't my intent. i think you understand what i mean.

Well...no. I don't know what you mean by his "current pace", unless you mean his current pace. If you mean his career pace, then I don't see why he'd be resigned. Even taking a little off his pace this year -- it's not gonna happen. A career .260/.300/.450 hitter is not going to hit .290/.350/.550. At least, it's damn unlikely.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well...no. I don't know what you mean by his "current pace", unless you mean his current pace. If you mean his career pace, then I don't see why he'd be resigned. Even taking a little off his pace this year -- it's not gonna happen. A career .260/.300/.450 hitter is not going to hit .290/.350/.550. At least, it's damn unlikely.

I don't think you can look at Crede's career averages en masse and get an accurate picture. I think going into this season, there were 2 big questions. One was, is he going to be healthy (and for now, the answer is yes, but that could change). The second question then was, which Joe Crede is the real Joe Crede? 2007 is pointless to even put into your stats analysis for Joe, he played only a short while and was injured.

 

Looking at the rest of his career, you had two versions - the 2003 through early 2005 version, which is a .250/.300/.425 guy - mediocre offensively at best. Then there was his most recent 1.5 seasons, where he was more like a .280/.320/.500 guy - pretty good for a 3B offensively. And since they occurred in that order, I think the question was very much up for debate - did he improve and "figure it out", as many hitters do at some point? Or was late 2005 and 2006 a fluke?

 

That question is still up for debate. But if he has numbers like the latter, then I think the verdict is in - he's matured into that player. In that case, I think looking to re-sign him to a reasonable deal after the season (if you can) is a very good idea - especially with his plus defense. If he walks, fine, Josh is waiting. If his numbers go back to 2003-2004 type numbers, then he gets traded or left to free agency, and that's fine with Fields in the wings.

 

I simply do not think you can look at Joe's career averages in total and project his value. You need to look more closely at the history.

[jackie hayes]

I don't think you can look at Crede's career averages en masse and get an accurate picture. I think going into this season, there were 2 big questions. One was, is he going to be healthy (and for now, the answer is yes, but that could change). The second question then was, which Joe Crede is the real Joe Crede? 2007 is pointless to even put into your stats analysis for Joe, he played only a short while and was injured.

 

Looking at the rest of his career, you had two versions - the 2003 through early 2005 version, which is a .250/.300/.425 guy - mediocre offensively at best. Then there was his most recent 1.5 seasons, where he was more like a .280/.320/.500 guy - pretty good for a 3B offensively. And since they occurred in that order, I think the question was very much up for debate - did he improve and "figure it out", as many hitters do at some point? Or was late 2005 and 2006 a fluke?

 

That question is still up for debate. But if he has numbers like the latter, then I think the verdict is in - he's matured into that player. In that case, I think looking to re-sign him to a reasonable deal after the season (if you can) is a very good idea - especially with his plus defense. If he walks, fine, Josh is waiting. If his numbers go back to 2003-2004 type numbers, then he gets traded or left to free agency, and that's fine with Fields in the wings.

 

I simply do not think you can look at Joe's career averages in total and project his value. You need to look more closely at the history.

Looking at the 'optimist' side of that -- you're plucking out what happens to be the very best stretch of his career, when he was also at his peak productive age, and setting that as a standard for years when he should be on the decline, anyway, and ignoring the injury risk. And the start point in 2005 has to be picked just so -- after a swoon in May but early enough to balance out the wretched August. This sounds more hopeful than anything.

 

Even completely ignoring his previous history, given his age and the injury risk, I don't see how anyone can look at .280/.320/.500 as a reasonable expectation. As a 'best-case' scenario, okay. But no more than that.

[NorthSideSox72]

Looking at the 'optimist' side of that -- you're plucking out what happens to be the very best stretch of his career, when he was also at his peak productive age, and setting that as a standard for years when he should be on the decline, anyway, and ignoring the injury risk. And the start point in 2005 has to be picked just so -- after a swoon in May but early enough to balance out the wretched August. This sounds more hopeful than anything.

 

Even completely ignoring his previous history, given his age and the injury risk, I don't see how anyone can look at .280/.320/.500 as a reasonable expectation. As a 'best-case' scenario, okay. But no more than that.

I don't agree. I think he's done that, and done worse. In between may be his reality, who knows? And I wasn't dismissing the injury risk - I made that a caveat. I also didn't discuss his defense much, which is a huge plus for him.

 

I just don't think you can look at his career averages and say that is where he is at. In a few more years you could.

 

[iamshack]

Carlos Quentin has done crap in 2+ years in the majors and isn't a lock to live up to the expectations. You might want to wait for him to play a full season at a reasonably high level before anointing him as a middle-of-the-lineup replacement for Dye.

 

For someone who is putting all his eggs in one basket (Fields' basket), I find it a bit ironic that you are so hesitant to buy into what Quentin has done in his young career. You're claiming Fields can play four positions when he hasn't even proven he can play one particularly well, and was fairly disastrous in LF last year. Sure, Josh hit his 23 home runs in less than 400 ab's, but certainly has not proven he is going to be anything other than Rob Deere in the majors.

 

The truth is, both Fields and Quentin have much still to prove.

 

And how would you feel, should the Sox trade Fields for a guy that could play first base to replace Paulie after he departs, such as Angel Villalona who I mentioned earlier?

 

[WCSox]

For someone who is putting all his eggs in one basket (Fields' basket), I find it a bit ironic that you are so hesitant to buy into what Quentin has done in his young career.

 

I feel a lot more comfortable putting eggs in Fields' basket (one that has produced at the plate over most of a season), than Quentin's. Then again, I advocate holding on to both of them, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

You're claiming Fields can play four positions when he hasn't even proven he can play one particularly well, and was fairly disastrous in LF last year.

 

Fields didn't play any OF positions in the minors, so I'm not sure why you're expecting him to put up Gold Glove-caliber defense when he's thrust into that situation in his first full year in the majors. If Carlos Lee and Chipper Jones can make the transition, I don't see why Fields can't.

 

Sure, Josh hit his 23 home runs in less than 400 ab's, but certainly has not proven he is going to be anything other than Rob Deere in the majors.

 

Yeah, he's really questionable at the plate. Almost Uribe-like.

 

The truth is, both Fields and Quentin have much still to prove.

 

The bottom line is that Fields produced for an extended period of time when called upon. Quentin has not. And like I said, I'd rather hold on to both of them than trade the one that has actually hit well at the ML level.

 

And how would you feel, should the Sox trade Fields for a guy that could play first base to replace Paulie after he departs, such as Angel Villalona who I mentioned earlier?

 

If I'm dealing Fields, it's going to be for proven ML talent. Not Angel Villalona.

 

[iamshack]

I feel a lot more comfortable putting eggs in Fields' basket (one that has produced at the plate over most of a season), than Quentin's. Then again, I advocate holding on to both of them, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

 

 

Fields didn't play any OF positions in the minors, so I'm not sure why you're expecting him to put up Gold Glove-caliber defense when he's thrust into that situation in his first full year in the majors. If Carlos Lee and Chipper Jones can make the transition, I don't see why Fields can't.

 

 

 

Yeah, he's really questionable at the plate. Almost Uribe-like.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that Fields produced for an extended period of time when called upon. Quentin has not. And like I said, I'd rather hold on to both of them than trade the one that has actually hit well at the ML level.

 

 

 

If I'm dealing Fields, it's going to be for proven ML talent. Not Angel Villalona.

 

I'm not expecting Fields to play GG-caliber defense at any position. I'm the one having trouble believing he can play anything other than 3b, and that at a drastic downgrade from our previous 3b. You are the one advocating Fields at 4 positions.

 

Secondly, your idea of "production" must simply be home runs. Make all the claims about how terrible Juan Uribe is offensively, but Josh has shown an inability to draw a significant number of walks, and an alarming strikeout rate throughout his career. I'm by no means projecting Josh Fields to remain at a level similar to Juan Uribe offensively, but that fact is, as of now, he has not proven he is a complete hitter. I'm not sure why you continue to dismiss that notion when the statistics expressly bare that out.

 

Thirdly, for all the people hesitant about a possible re-signing of Crede, it seems even far more difficult to not only re-sign Crede to an eight-figure a year deal, but to then trade Fields for an expensive veteran. How can you espouse keeping Fields so much because of his low service time, but then advocate trading him for an expensive veteran? What sense does that make?

 

Finally, as for Angel Villalona, look him up. Read the scouting reports on him. You wouldn't be interested in a deal for him and another young piece for Fields, should Crede re-sign here? Why not?

Edited April 16, 2008 by iamshack

[WCSox]

I'm not expecting Fields to play GG-caliber defense at any position. I'm the one having trouble believing he can play anything other than 3b, and that at a drastic downgrade from our previous 3b. You are the one advocating Fields at 4 positions.

 

Well, Ozzie seemed pretty confident that he could play LF competently last year... and he wasn't exactly terrible, considering that he hadn't played there in years. And it's not like a player transitioning from 3B to a corner OF position is unheard of. Even if he could ONLY play 3B and 1B, his bat would still have value.

 

Secondly, your idea of "production" must simply be home runs. Make all the claims about how terrible Juan Uribe is offensively, but Josh has shown an inability to draw a significant number or walks, and an alarming strikeout rate throughout his career.

 

Which consists of a whole 111 games. His minor-league OBP was about .360. Crede's OBP sucked initially as well, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats.

 

I'm by no means projecting Josh Fields to remain at a level similar to Juan Uribe offensively, but that fact is, as of now, he has not proven he is a complete hitter. I'm not sure why you continue to dismiss that notion when the statistics expressly bare that out.

 

Adam Dunn would regularly strike out 170-195 times a year. Yet he was pretty valuable to the Reds on the cheap. Seriously, even if Josh puts up a .310 OBP, what's wrong with having a 30+ HR player at a pre-arbitration salary hitting 6th in the lineup? Crede's OBP sucked up until 2006, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats.

 

Thirdly, for all the people hesitant about a possible re-signing of Crede, it seems even far more difficult to not only re-sign Crede to an eight-figure a year deal, but to then trade Fields for an expensive veteran. How can you espouse keeping Fields so much because of his low service time, but then advocate trading him for an expensive veteran? What sense does that make?

 

Money isn't really the issue here, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. I'd be fine with trading Fields for an expensive veteran because an expensive veteran will produce. Fields will also produce (albeit possibly at a slightly lower level), but he'll be doing it on the cheap (allowing for spending elsewhere). Either way, it's guaranteed production. But when you deal Fields for a prospect, you're not guaranteed production at all.

 

Finally, as for Angel Villalona, look him up. Read the scouting reports on him. You wouldn't be interested in a deal for him and another young piece for Fields, should Crede re-sign here? Why not?

 

Why would you want to trade a guy with proven 25-30 HR power at the ML level who can play 3B for a guy who hasn't really shown anything yet at the ML level? Frankly, I'd rather have a proven veteran C or SS. If Fields is worth so much as a power-hitting 3B, we should be getting veteran talent in return.

 

Seriously, why are you so intent on running Fields out of town? Did he boink your sister or something?

Edited April 16, 2008 by WCSox

[iamshack]

Well, Ozzie seemed pretty confident that he could play LF competently last year... and he wasn't exactly terrible, considering that he hadn't played there in years. And it's not like a player transitioning from 3B to a corner OF position is unheard of. Even if he could ONLY play 3B and 1B, his bat would still have value.

 

 

 

Which consists of a whole 111 games. His minor-league OBP was about .360. Crede's OBP sucked initially as well, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats.

 

 

 

Adam Dunn would regularly strike out 170-195 times a year. Yet he was pretty valuable to the Reds on the cheap. Seriously, even if Josh puts up a .310 OBP, what's wrong with having a 30+ HR player at a pre-arbitration salary hitting 6th in the lineup? Crede's OBP sucked up until 2006, so I'm not sure why you're ripping on Fields with so few ML at-bats.

 

 

 

Money isn't really the issue here, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years. I'd be fine with trading Fields for an expensive veteran because an expensive veteran will produce. Fields will also produce (albeit possibly at a slightly lower level), but he'll be doing it on the cheap (allowing for spending elsewhere). Either way, it's guaranteed production. But when you deal Fields for a prospect, you're not guaranteed production at all.

 

 

 

Why would you want to trade a guy with proven 25-30 HR power at the ML level who can play 3B for a guy who hasn't really shown anything yet at the ML level? Frankly, I'd rather have a proven veteran C or SS. If Fields is worth so much as a power-hitting 3B, we should be getting veteran talent in return.

 

Seriously, why are you so intent on running Fields out of town? Did he boink your sister or something?

 

I think you are misinterpretting my position.

 

I'm not intent on running Fields out of town, nor am I intent on discrediting him as a ballplayer. All I'm trying to point out is that he does have flaws of his own, which in my mind, make him fair game in a trade. And since he happens to play the same position as a veteran we have that I view as a more complete player, I would rather re-sign the veteran if possble, and trade Fields for a player who fits more into our plans.

 

Why are you so intent on keeping Fields here? It isn't as though he is the only pre-arb player in baseball that has shown some promise.

 

In my mind, the only players you should absolutely refuse to move are those players that project to be outstanding all-around players without any real weaknesses (such as David Wright, Evan Longoria, Hanley Ramirez, etc.), or players which are so good at one phase of the game as to be deemed non-expendable (Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, etc.), or young starting pitchers who project to be aces (Felix Hernandez, Johnny Cueto, Phil Hughes, etc.). Josh does not fit into this category. He projects to be a solid power hitter with above average speed and mediocre defense. Certainly a commodity, but by no means some untouchable player.

 

I just don't think it's wise to try and mold Josh into something he's not if there is something you need on the trade market. I don't find him to be that exceptional a player that you try and do that.

[WCSox]

I just don't think it's wise to try and mold Josh into something he's not if there is something you need on the trade market.

 

Well, I agree with that. Then again, "something we need" doesn't include a 3B/1B prospect with no ML experience. If, say, Kenny is able to extend Crede and the Angels want to give us Figgins for Fields, or if the Mariners want to give us Washburn for Fields, Quentin, and Contreras, I'd be helping you pack Josh's bags. Or if KW could somehow pry Mauer away from the Twins (impossible, I know), I'd be too busy creaming in my jeans to help you pack Josh's bags. But I don't see any point in dealing a solid young player like Fields for prospects or a veteran player that doesn't fill our needs (C, SS, SP, a good leadoff hitter).

 

[iamshack]

Well, I agree with that. Then again, "something we need" doesn't include a 3B/1B prospect with no ML experience. If, say, Kenny is able to extend Crede and the Angels want to give us Figgins for Fields, or if the Mariners want to give us Washburn for Fields, Quentin, and Contreras, I'd be helping you pack Josh's bags. Or if KW could somehow pry Mauer away from the Twins (impossible, I know), I'd be too busy creaming in my jeans to help you pack Josh's bags. But I don't see any point in dealing a solid young player like Fields for prospects or a veteran player that doesn't fill our needs (C, SS, SP, a good leadoff hitter).

 

Well, we differ tremendously in what we would look for in trade for Josh. I would prefer a deal to continue getting younger, as opposed to a veteran, because I do agree that getting good, cheap players is necessary. But fair enough...

[witesoxfan]

Secondly, your idea of "production" must simply be home runs. Make all the claims about how terrible Juan Uribe is offensively, but Josh has shown an inability to draw a significant number of walks, and an alarming strikeout rate throughout his career. I'm by no means projecting Josh Fields to remain at a level similar to Juan Uribe offensively, but that fact is, as of now, he has not proven he is a complete hitter. I'm not sure why you continue to dismiss that notion when the statistics expressly bare that out.

 

I won't add much because this is a hot button topic for me. I will state that Josh Fields walked more times last year in roughly 400 PAs then Crede ever has in a full season at the major leagues, and that's with Josh having a monster hole in his swing. He was on pace to walk about 50 or so times, and if he can prove himself as a somewhat capable power threat and/or gets adjusted to major league pitching, I imagine that number will rise to anywhere from 60-80 walks a season.

[iamshack]

I won't add much because this is a hot button topic for me. I will state that Josh Fields walked more times last year in roughly 400 PAs then Crede ever has in a full season at the major leagues, and that's with Josh having a monster hole in his swing. He was on pace to walk about 50 or so times, and if he can prove himself as a somewhat capable power threat and/or gets adjusted to major league pitching, I imagine that number will rise to anywhere from 60-80 walks a season.

 

Wite,

This analysis isn't simply about Josh Fields v. Joe Crede. It's about having a solid all-around player at third already, who may or may not be re-signable, and a player in Josh Fields that certainly has some talent, but in my opinion, is by no means untouchable.

 

If you look at the debate going on in this thread, at least from my perspective, the issue isn't about Fields v. Crede. It's quite obvious they are very different players. But in my judgment, I think Crede is the better fit with this team, under this organizational regime, than Josh Fields. However, that, by no means is meant to convey that Josh should therefore be blocked by Crede or be forced as a square peg into a round hole at another position.

 

Fields is an asset of the organization, and would be to any organization, and therefore, I am merely expressing the opinion that I think it would be in the organization's best interests, if Joe Crede could be re-signed to a reasonable contract (the operative words being "could" and "reasonable"), for Josh to be traded to a team in need of his services at third base in exchange for something that our current team is more in need of. That could be another prospect ready to step in (although at this point I'm not sure there is one available out there at any of our position(s) of need, it could be a young starting pitcher should Danks, Floyd, or Contreras falter, or it could be a prospect(s) with high upside that could step in a bit down the road to replace someone from our veteran core (such as Konerko, Dye, Pierzynski, etc.).

 

See the player I mentioned earlier in this thread, Angel Villalona in the Giants system.

Edited April 17, 2008 by iamshack

[WCSox]

See the player I mentioned earlier in this thread, Angel Villalona in the Giants system.

 

If there's one thing I learned from Ron Schueler's approach vs. Kenny Williams', it's don't fall in love with prospects. Proven ML talent is always preferable.

 

Well, we differ tremendously in what we would look for in trade for Josh. I would prefer a deal to continue getting younger, as opposed to a veteran, because I do agree that getting good, cheap players is necessary. But fair enough...

 

I'm not sure how re-signing a 30-year-old Crede and trading Fields qualifies as "getting younger", but keeping Crede around for another 4+ years would be my preference as well, regardless of what happens to Fields.

Edited April 17, 2008 by WCSox

[iamshack]

If there's one thing I learned from Ron Schueler's approach vs. Kenny Williams', it's don't fall in love with prospects. Proven ML talent is always preferable.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how re-signing a 30-year-old Crede and trading Fields qualifies as "getting younger", but keeping Crede around for another 4+ years would be my preference as well, regardless of what happens to Fields.

 

Yeah, that's a good point about prospects, and I normally don't advocate for trading for them, but they have become so important in today's game that I think at some point you have to pay attention to the issue. And this particular prospect, and how well-regarded he is, I would have no problem if he was the centerpiece in a deal for Fields.

 

As for getting younger, I'll explain it this way: As of now, Crede is starting for the big club, and Fields is a "prospective" piece for this club. However, right now, he simply does not have a place. Trading him for someone who does have a place, thereby replacing one of our older core players, would constitute getting younger.

[Princess Dye]

we have no idea how good josh fields will be. he hasnt played in meaningful games.

[WCSox]

Yeah, that's a good point about prospects, and I normally don't advocate for trading for them, but they have become so important in today's game that I think at some point you have to pay attention to the issue. And this particular prospect, and how well-regarded he is, I would have no problem if he was the centerpiece in a deal for Fields.

 

As for getting younger, I'll explain it this way: As of now, Crede is starting for the big club, and Fields is a "prospective" piece for this club. However, right now, he simply does not have a place. Trading him for someone who does have a place, thereby replacing one of our older core players, would constitute getting younger.

 

I still disagree that trading a cheap, ML-ready, and ML-productive player like Fields for a prospect is a bad idea. Remember how convinced Ron Schueler was that Lorenzo Barcelo and Mike Caruso were going to be studs? Remember how everybody was screaming for KW to trade for Salty last year? He's back in the minors now. Even Crede, who absolutely tore it up in the minors and was projected to be the next Mike Schmidt, was a pretty big disappointment at the plate until about August of 2005.

 

IMO, you deal older players that are in the last years of their contracts (and have little value) for prospects. You don't deal ML-ready and ML-proven power-hitting third basemen who won't hit free agency for the next 4-5 years, as those guys are worth A LOT more. Teams will be willing to trade proven, more expensive talent for Fields. And with all of the aging veterans coming off the books over the next two years, we'll be able to afford them.

Edited April 17, 2008 by WCSox

[iamshack]

I still disagree that trading a cheap, ML-ready, and ML-productive player like Fields for a prospect is a bad idea. Remember how convinced Ron Schueler was that Lorenzo Barcelo and Mike Caruso were going to be studs? Remember how everybody was screaming for KW to trade for Salty last year? He's back in the minors now. Even Crede, who absolutely tore it up in the minors and was projected to be the next Mike Schmidt, was a pretty big disappointment at the plate until about August of 2005.

 

IMO, you deal older players that are in the last years of their contracts (and have little value) for prospects. You don't deal ML-ready and ML-proven power-hitting third basemen who won't hit free agency for the next 4-5 years, as those guys are worth A LOT more. Teams will be willing to trade proven, more expensive talent for Fields. And with all of the aging veterans coming off the books over the next two years, we'll be able to afford them.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understand the irony of your position (or are at least not willing to).

 

If you're advocating that we deal Crede for prospects, you're getting rid of Crede's salary and taking on basically little or nothing in contracts from the prospects you receive back. You then move Fields into Crede's position and you are getting (what you and many believe) is good production while saving money.

 

But if you're advocating re-signing Crede, you're adding money to the payroll in future years.

 

If in addition to that, you advocate trading Fields for a talented veteran, you are once again are adding salary from the point in this year when the trade is made and for as many years as that veteran is under contract for (and longer, if you choose to re-sign him).

 

So not only are you losing out on the cheap player you are so in favor of, but you are trading him for another high-salaried player and putting him on the field with the veteran you re-signed to make him expendable in the first place.

 

It's a double-whammy....and one I'm not even sure is a good idea if one is looking to sustain a competitive ballclub into the future...

[witesoxfan]

Wite,

This analysis isn't simply about Josh Fields v. Joe Crede. It's about having a solid all-around player at third already, who may or may not be re-signable, and a player in Josh Fields that certainly has some talent, but in my opinion, is by no means untouchable.

 

If you look at the debate going on in this thread, at least from my perspective, the issue isn't about Fields v. Crede. It's quite obvious they are very different players. But in my judgment, I think Crede is the better fit with this team, under this organizational regime, than Josh Fields. However, that, by no means is meant to convey that Josh should therefore be blocked by Crede or be forced as a square peg into a round hole at another position.

 

Fields is an asset of the organization, and would be to any organization, and therefore, I am merely expressing the opinion that I think it would be in the organization's best interests, if Joe Crede could be re-signed to a reasonable contract (the operative words being "could" and "reasonable"), for Josh to be traded to a team in need of his services at third base in exchange for something that our current team is more in need of. That could be another prospect ready to step in (although at this point I'm not sure there is one available out there at any of our position(s) of need, it could be a young starting pitcher should Danks, Floyd, or Contreras falter, or it could be a prospect(s) with high upside that could step in a bit down the road to replace someone from our veteran core (such as Konerko, Dye, Pierzynski, etc.).

 

See the player I mentioned earlier in this thread, Angel Villalona in the Giants system.

 

Absolutely. And I think Joe Crede is the better all around player. That doesn't mean 2 years from now Fields couldn't be for any number of reasons. And I don't think it's advisable at all to have a player with previous back problems at 3B long term.

 

I really don't want to get into this discussion though, and merely wanted to point out that Fields does actually have an average to above average eye at the plate.

Edited April 17, 2008 by witesoxfan

[WCSox]

You're missing the point. It's not about the money, it's about production. Veteran players are pretty much guaranteed to produce, barring injury. Prospects are not. The Sox will have plenty of money to spend, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years.

 

As much as I'd love the Sox to win with younger palyers, the truth is that the Sox have crap in their farm system right now. They're betting off "getting younger" with guys like Swisher and, say, Chone Figgins (who we might be able to get in a deal for Fields) than a prospect or two who may or may not pan out. Because if that prospect doesn't pan out, the Sox are screwed. And I imagine that this is why Kenny hasn't traded proven ML talent for a high-tier prospect in some time.

 

Regarding dealing Crede for prospects, that's all you're going to get from him at this point. He's a FA next year and whoever signs him will have to deal with Borass. His chronic back problems don't help, either. Despite his superior talent, his value is much lower than Josh Fields', who is still pre-arbitration and, as a hitter, is already at the level Crede was at three years ago. Just about any GM in the league would like to have a low-risk, high-reward guy like Fields on his roster. Fewer of them would want to pay $70 million for Crede and his bad back. That's why you don't settle for a prospect (unless you get overwhelmed with an absolutely unbelievable package) for Fields.

Edited April 17, 2008 by WCSox

[iamshack]

You're missing the point. It's not about the money, it's about production. Veteran players are pretty much guaranteed to produce, barring injury. Prospects are not. The Sox will have plenty of money to spend, with Thome, Dye, and Contreras coming off the books over the next two years.

 

As much as I'd love the Sox to win with younger palyers, the truth is that the Sox have crap in their farm system right now. They're betting off "getting younger" with guys like Swisher and, say, Chone Figgins (who we might be able to get in a deal for Fields) than a prospect or two who may or may not pan out. Because if that prospect doesn't pan out, the Sox are screwed. And I imagine that this is why Kenny hasn't traded proven ML talent for a high-tier prospect in some time.

 

Regarding dealing Crede for prospects, that's all you're going to get from him at this point. He's a FA next year and whoever signs him will have to deal with Borass. His chronic back problems don't help, either. Despite his superior talent, his value is much lower than Josh Fields', who is still pre-arbitration and, as a hitter, is already at the level Crede was at three years ago. Just about any GM in the league would like to have a low-risk, high-reward guy like Fields on his roster. Fewer of them would want to pay $70 million for Crede and his bad back. That's why you don't settle for a prospect (unless you get overwhelmed with an absolutely unbelievable package) for Fields.

 

 

Well, the point in keeping Fields seems to be the low cost of his production, more so than his production alone. So in any discussion about what to do with Fields and what to do with Crede, I do think the entire point comes down to their monetary costs.

 

And I realize that some big contracts are coming off the books after 09' and 10', but we will also have salaries rising dramatically down the road at a time when any new contracts to Crede and a veteran acquired in a trade for Fields will have to be accounted for, as well as some other key positions to fill. I can buy that a new deal can be afforded for Crede, but not sure I can buy a new deal can be afforded for Crede + a new expensive veteran as well.

[WCSox]

Well, the point in keeping Fields seems to be the low cost of his production, more so than his production alone. So in any discussion about what to do with Fields and what to do with Crede, I do think the entire point comes down to their monetary costs.

 

At the very least, it comes down to value. Cheap, young players who are clearly very talented and have even a modest track record of success have garnered the Sox a lot in the past. Look at what we got in return for Chris Young, Miguel Olivo, and Jeremy Reed.

 

And I realize that some big contracts are coming off the books after 09' and 10', but we will also have salaries rising dramatically down the road at a time when any new contracts to Crede and a veteran acquired in a trade for Fields will have to be accounted for, as well as some other key positions to fill. I can buy that a new deal can be afforded for Crede, but not sure I can buy a new deal can be afforded for Crede + a new expensive veteran as well.

 

The Sox are cutting $30 million in guaranteed money between 2009 and 2010. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[iamshack]

At the very least, it comes down to value. Cheap, young players who are clearly very talented and have even a modest track record of success have garnered the Sox a lot in the past. Look at what we got in return for Chris Young, Miguel Olivo, and Jeremy Reed.

 

 

 

The Sox are cutting $30 million in guaranteed money between 2009 and 2010. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

As to your first paragraph, I'm not sure what your point is...look what Billy Beane got for Mark Mulder- Danny Haren and Daric Barton.

 

And as for your second paragraph, you also realize they may eventually have to pay some of the guys who are making little now though, correct? I know it's a bit far off into the future (perhaps 2011, 2012, 2013, etc...) but these contracts will eventually be overlapping at some point. And this isn't even assuming that any other FA's are being brought in...