Insider Rumor Mill

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Stark is saying Jenks would be "hard to move." In fact, he stated he would be the most difficult player to move on the Sox roster. What that implies is exactly what KHP is saying - that Kenny would either have to assume some of his salary in any trade, or to non-tender him. That is what is generally meant in baseball by saying "hard to move." I don't believe that will be the case here. I agree with KHP that Jenks would in reality be easy to move. If Kenny called up every GM in baseball the day after the World Series, and told them all "Bobby Jenks is available," I am certain he would get several offers which included decent prospects and did not ask that the White Sox pick up any of his salary. Kenny could then trade him that day if he wanted to. "Hard to move" is when you are calling every GM there is and trying to sell them on your player. You are making concessions, like throwing in half or more of his salary. You are throwing in another player that team likes as well to make it worth their while. THAT, in my mind, is "hard to move." And that is not the case with Bobby Jenks (at least I don't think it is).

 

So I don't think KHP is agreeing when he thinks he is disagreeing. I think he is pointing out a subtlety in phrases here that somewhat drastically differs from what Jayson Stark is saying.

Thank you, iamshack. iamindebted.

[iamshack]

They were dumping Holliday's salary. All three of those guys are under team control and not terribly expensive. Street has had injury problems over the past two seasons and lost the closer spot in Oakland last year.

 

 

 

For some reason, you can't wrap your head around the idea that most contending teams aren't going to trade a borderline-stud player for a prospect or another young, unproven, non-impact player. Mark DeRosa is not on the same level as Carl Crawford (not even close) and the Indians weren't contenders this year. You're making an apples-and-oranges comparison here.

 

 

 

Why in the hell would the Royals, who won't be contending for another 2-3 years, want one year of Crawford at $9M? That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

Unless Crawford signs an extension as a part of that trade, there's no way in hell the Royals do that deal. The Royals will not give up a young, cheap stud like Soria for a one-year rent-a-player and hope that he signs a long-term deal.

WC, let's look back to the beginning of this discussion. I am arguing that Crawford has more value than Bobby Jenks. I am arguing that the Rays can acquire a younger, cheaper, or better arm(s) for him. You began by arguing that they could not, then you have morphed your argument into what contending teams will do versus non-contending teams, about when it is the best time to do so, etc. My point is that Crawford has more worth than Bobby Jenks, despite going into a last year of his deal, an option year we assume the Rays will pick up, and that should the Rays decide to, that they can trade him for younger arms under control for much longer, or better arms than Bobby. I'm not sure what you are doing anymore.

 

Whether a team is dumping a guy or not because of how much money he makes doesn't always affect the return they get. It certainly does in some cases, but if a player is talented enough, it just means they are trading a player when they probably shouldn't be. In Holliday's case, they were able to get a very good return for a player with not much time left on his deal. I am arguing the same is the case with Crawford.

 

As for DeRosa, you are the one arguing apples and oranges. The reason I brought up DeRosa was because he was an example of a team getting a very highly rated relief arm for a guy with not much time on his deal remaining. As you have pointed out, which only weakens your argument, is that St. Louis is a contending team that gave up such a relief arm, and also that DeRosa is not a player the caliber of Crawford. The fact that the Indians were able to acquire an arm of Chris Perez's quality for Mark DeRosa goes to prove that young, cheap, quality arms can be had for Crawford.

 

Why you believe the Rays feel the need to trade Crawford is up to you. I honestly have no clue if they are even interested in trading him. From what I read, I thought the reason they dealt Kazmir was for the possibility of being able to hold on to Crawford. And given the play of BJ Upton this year, I'm not certain they can afford to turn the reigns over to Desmond Jennings and expect to win in that division. So maybe they do want to sign him and hold onto him until the deadline and see how Jennings and Upton look. Maybe they don't want to move him at all. We won't know until it happens. But I think Crawford has enough value to acquire arms that fit into their plan much better than Bobby Jenks, which is the reason for all these posts. Not the many different positions you seem to have taken up since this debate started.

[WCSox]

WC, let's look back to the beginning of this discussion. I am arguing that Crawford has more value than Bobby Jenks. I am arguing that the Rays can acquire a younger, cheaper, or better arm(s) for him. You began by arguing that they could not, then you have morphed your argument into what contending teams will do versus non-contending teams, about when it is the best time to do so, etc. My point is that Crawford has more worth than Bobby Jenks, despite going into a last year of his deal, an option year we assume the Rays will pick up, and that should the Rays decide to, that they can trade him for younger arms under control for much longer, or better arms than Bobby. I'm not sure what you are doing anymore.

 

It isn't just about value. It's also about fit, and you've been ignoring this point all day. Your post about trading Crawford for Soria is a perfect example. Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals.

 

IF the Rays decide that they're willing to take a step back in the short-term next year for the long-term then, yes, trading Crawford to a contender for a package of prospects is doable. HOWEVER, I see no evidence that the Rays aren't going to make a playoff run next year. If they are indeed going for it, they won't trade Crawford for prospects, or any young pitcher who won't help them substantially (at least as much as Crawford) down the stretch. That's what my argument is predicated on: the Rays contending.

 

Whether a team is dumping a guy or not because of how much money he makes doesn't always affect the return they get. It certainly does in some cases, but if a player is talented enough, it just means they are trading a player when they probably shouldn't be. In Holliday's case, they were able to get a very good return for a player with not much time left on his deal. I am arguing the same is the case with Crawford.

 

Again, you fail to account for FIT. The A's dealt Holliday in part because they were out of contention this year. If the Rays are still in contention next year, they're most likely not going to trade Crawford for the type of players that the A's got in return for Holliday. (Using your own "value" argument, Huston Street is nowhere near Holliday.)

 

As for DeRosa, you are the one arguing apples and oranges. The reason I brought up DeRosa was because he was an example of a team getting a very highly rated relief arm for a guy with not much time on his deal remaining. As you have pointed out, which only weakens your argument, is that St. Louis is a contending team that gave up such a relief arm, and also that DeRosa is not a player the caliber of Crawford. The fact that the Indians were able to acquire an arm of Chris Perez's quality for Mark DeRosa goes to prove that young, cheap, quality arms can be had for Crawford.

 

Not only are you comparing a contenting/non-contending trade scenario again, but you're highly overrating Chris Perez. He's a nice young pitcher and all, but isn't going to be a massive impact guy on a playoff team right now. And again, this trade is in no way applicable to a potential Crawford trade. Do you think that the Rays would give up Crawford for somebody of Perez's caliber? If you say yes, you'd be contradicting your own "value" argument again.

 

I agree that the Rays could get young, cheap, quality arms for Crawford. But there are very few of these guys who would have a huge impact for the Rays immediately. The Rays would only trade for such a package IF they decided to take a half step back next year and retool for the long-term. And that's certainly possible. But, again, I don't see any evidence of that happening right now.

 

Why you believe the Rays feel the need to trade Crawford is up to you. I honestly have no clue if they are even interested in trading him. From what I read, I thought the reason they dealt Kazmir was for the possibility of being able to hold on to Crawford. And given the play of BJ Upton this year, I'm not certain they can afford to turn the reigns over to Desmond Jennings and expect to win in that division. So maybe they do want to sign him and hold onto him until the deadline and see how Jennings and Upton look. Maybe they don't want to move him at all. We won't know until it happens.

 

I really wish that you would read my posts more carefully. I never claimed that the Rays absolutely NEEDED to trade Crawford this winter. In fact, I suggested (twice) that they might wait until June or July to see where they are in the standings before making a move. If they're playing under .500 in mid-July, they could probably get an excellent package of prospects for Crawford because almost every contender and contender-wannabe would be interested in him. I also agree that Upton has a lot to do with it (and they may deal HIM instead, for all we know).

 

And, yes, I agree that the Rays could probably do better than Jenks. But like I said many, many hours ago, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least approach them with the idea.

 

But I think Crawford has enough value to acquire arms that fit into their plan much better than Bobby Jenks

 

The thing is that because we don't know what their "plan" is, we can't determine what the best "fit" for that plan would be. If it's contending, the "fit" for that plan will be a lot different than it would be if they decide to retool. Your posts seem to completely gloss over this very important distinction.

 

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[southsider2k5]

This is by far the best post in this thread. I love how it got no responses because it insulted the masses. I'm with you on this one dude.

This pitching staff is too special to not spend 100 Million. If we overspend and field the correct team, the attendence spike when we start 35-10 will surely pay for these players.

And it starts with Bobby in the back.

 

More like people have gotten bored talking to him about it because he just mumbles garbage and then when challenged doesn't back it up.

[southsider2k5]

Stark is saying Jenks would be "hard to move." In fact, he stated he would be the most difficult player to move on the Sox roster. What that implies is exactly what KHP is saying - that Kenny would either have to assume some of his salary in any trade, or to non-tender him. That is what is generally meant in baseball by saying "hard to move." I don't believe that will be the case here. I agree with KHP that Jenks would in reality be easy to move. If Kenny called up every GM in baseball the day after the World Series, and told them all "Bobby Jenks is available," I am certain he would get several offers which included decent prospects and did not ask that the White Sox pick up any of his salary. Kenny could then trade him that day if he wanted to. "Hard to move" is when you are calling every GM there is and trying to sell them on your player. You are making concessions, like throwing in half or more of his salary. You are throwing in another player that team likes as well to make it worth their while. THAT, in my mind, is "hard to move." And that is not the case with Bobby Jenks (at least I don't think it is).

 

So I don't think KHP is agreeing when he thinks he is disagreeing. I think he is pointing out a subtlety in phrases here that somewhat drastically differs from what Jayson Stark is saying.

 

Truly. Milton Bradley is hard to move.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Even if it was possible, I abhor the idea of Jenks for Crawford because we add to the payroll while spending a ton of money to upgrade Getz at the lead-off spot - and I don't care who does or does not see Getz leading off, Getz is the one player we have right now who is not a FA that best profiles for the lead-off spot.

 

Crawford IMO is not an impact-type bat. He's a fast guy that hits for high average and can steal bases. His OBP is all predicated on his batting average because his BB rate is not very good. We're not the Yankees and we cannot afford to put that much money into that kind of player. I'd rather sign Figgins than give so much money and talent for Crawford, and I'm really not keen on signing Figgins. In fact, Coco Crisp will probably be non-tendered. If we could sign Coco for about $3-4M and put him in CF then he could lead-off. And no, Coco isn't the player Crawford is, but we would save about $6-7M, plus we'd keep all that talent that we would have to give up for Crawford, and that's huge because Crawford will cost a lot. Basically, if the Rays paid all of Crawford's salary I'd have trouble giving up Hudson and Danks for him. In fact, I wouldn't even make that deal because I believe Hudson as a setup guy in 2010 is more valuable to this current Sox team than Crawford would be leading off and playing CF. Add another $10M of disappearing payroll flexibility to the equation and there's not a chance I even think about making that deal. Crawford IMO would cost at least the package I mentioned.

 

We need to cut, cut, cut payroll and try to get as much value out of Jenks as we can in the process, be it MiLB or MLB talent - but the first priority should be cutting payroll. Doing that will open us up to a lot of other possibilities that currently are not available. I'd be interested also in seeing if the Mets would take Paulie. I wouldn't ask a lot from them either. The Mets are supposedly looking to acquire power (with 1B being one of those positions as they don't want Murphy there) and they don't want to deal much from the farm to get it, rather they'd prefer to take on a contract. Plus ownership has said Minaya will get in payroll whatever he needs. If we could unload both Paulie and Jenks for prospects and/or league minimum MLB players, that will give us $19-20M extra to work with on top of whatever small amount the Sox would have left to spend. The Sox could then look to the trade and free agent markets with more optimism.

[iamshack]

It isn't just about value. It's also about fit, and you've been ignoring this point all day. Your post about trading Crawford for Soria is a perfect example. Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals.

 

IF the Rays decide that they're willing to take a step back in the short-term next year for the long-term then, yes, trading Crawford to a contender for a package of prospects is doable. HOWEVER, I see no evidence that the Rays aren't going to make a playoff run next year. If they are indeed going for it, they won't trade Crawford for prospects. That's what my argument is predicated on: the Rays contending.

 

 

 

Again, you fail to account for FIT. The A's dealt Holliday in part because they were out of contention this year. If the Rays are still in contention next year, they're most likely not going to trade Crawford for the type of players that the A's got in return for Holliday. (Using your own "value" argument, Huston Street is nowhere near Holliday.)

 

 

 

Not only are you comparing a contenting/non-contending trade scenario again, but you're highly overrating Chris Perez. He's a nice young pitcher and all, but isn't going to be a massive impact guy on a playoff team right now. And again, this trade is in no way applicable to a potential Crawford trade. Do you think that the Rays would give up Crawford for somebody of Perez's caliber? If you say yes, you'd be contradicting your own "value" argument again.

 

I agree that the Rays could get young, cheap, quality arms for Crawford. But there are very few of these guys who would have a huge impact for the Rays immediately. The Rays would only trade for such a package IF they decided to take a half step back next year and retool for the long-term. And that's certainly possible. But, again, I don't see any evidence of that happening right now.

 

 

 

I really wish that you would read my posts more carefully. I never claimed that the Rays absolutely NEEDED to trade Crawford this winter. In fact, I suggested (twice) that they might wait until June or July to see where they are in the standings before making a move. If they're playing under .500 in mid-July, they could probably get an excellent package of prospects for Crawford because almost every contender and contender-wannabe would be interested in him. I also agree that Upton has a lot to do with it (and they may deal HIM instead, for all we know).

 

And, yes, I agree that the Rays could probably do better than Jenks. But like I said many, many hours ago, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least approach them with the idea.

 

 

 

The thing is that we don't know what their "plan" is, or what the best "fit" for that plan will be. If it's contending, the "fit" for that plan will be a lot different than it would be if they decide to retool. Your posts seem to completely gloss over this very important distinction.

 

Dude, you change what your argument is based on whenever I successfully shoot down your old points. Then it becomes a new argument that you have. You can't decide which Holliday trade you even want to argue. Whether it is the A's, or the Rockies, you have referenced both interchangeably. What YOU keep ignoring is that Holliday brought back SOLID YOUNG TALENT, which you claim Crawford is not worth. Will you please address that? And while you are at it, will you address why the A's acquired Holliday from the Rockies in the first place? Since you are so adept at deciding what a team's plans are, as you have done so well with the Rays, why did a cellar-dwelling young Oakland team which was clearly rebuilding go out and acquire Holliday from the Rockies? Why would they trade away two very good prospect and a struggling closer for 1 year of Holliday ("Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals," is what you stated). Why oh why did the A's do that? How monumentally stupid of them! The Royals or no other organization would do something like that!

 

What did the Rays trade Scott Kazmir for last year, by the way? Why would they accept prospects when they are in the position they are in? For someone who claims to have no idea what the Rays plan is, you sure seem to know exactly what they will be demanding in return for Crawford, should they decide to trade him. You have devoted your entire argument to trying to explain the nuances of trading from what their position is, even though later you admit you don't know what that position is. The reason I continue to ignore these parts of your argument is because they are irrelevant and I was hoping you would pick up on that. We are NOT discussing what value the Rays could get for Crawford under 10,000 different scenarios, which is what you keep trying to do. We are discussing whether they could in fact get more talented or younger and cheaper and talented arms rather than Bobby Jenks.

 

Now I have listed actual examples where trades such as what I originally argued occurred. You have managed to confuse them, argue about the wrong teams, mistake which teams were getting which players, mistake teams dumping salaries or being out of contention, etc.

 

Finally, you keep mentioning that a guy like Chris Perez isn't going to have a big role in the playoffs for a team. How can you say this, considering all the young relief arms we have seen over the years make huge impacts in the playoffs? Bobby Jenks? A young KRod back in 2002? Jose Arrendondo for the Angels last season? Adam Wainright for the Cardinals back in 2006? This happens nearly every year in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that a few young arms could go a long way for the Rays by simply allowing them to move their more veteran arms back into the later innings. I dunno, I'd rather have two very nice young arms to slot into my bullpen who cost very little than one Bobby Jenks, whether I am a contending team or a non-contending team.

 

 

[SoxAce]

Dude, you change what your argument is based on whenever I successfully shoot down your old points. Then it becomes a new argument that you have.

 

You have managed to confuse them, argue

 

I see you haven't gotten the constant M.O. yet.

 

[Quin]

Marquez a good arm? he's in the gutter value-wise right now and is at the very most a throw-in for filler. Torres has maybe some marginal value, same with Nunez, but none of those three are worth much. And, even though I'm as big a fan or Wassermann as there is on this board, Ehren isn't even on the 40. He's got near-zero value in trade. So basically, you are trading Flowers straight up for Crawford, and that won't get it done.

 

If you are right though, and Flowers + shrapnel would do it, then I'd be all for it.

 

After reading Marquez's stats, I'll agree with you. I think Torres and Nunez might be able to be thrown in, and the reason for throwing in Ehren was he did have some brief success in the majors, so the Rays may take a look at him.

[son of a rude]

A move i could really see and would like would be for kenny to trade for fernando perez.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/F...ndo-Perez.shtml

 

The rays are packed with outfielders, so i don't see why they wouldnt trade him (unless they want him as a backup OF). He was injured all last year, so maybe we could net him without giving up too much. As you can see, he has been great at drawing walks and putting up a high OBP throughout the minors. He is extremely fast and has great range in the outfield. He steals bases and is a switch hitter.

 

I have been wanting kenny to trade for him since last season. I would love if kenny could get him in a trade and give him a shot during spring training.

[SoxAce]

A move i could really see and would like would be for kenny to trade for fernando perez.

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/F...ndo-Perez.shtml

 

The rays are packed with outfielders, so i don't see why they wouldnt trade him (unless they want him as a backup OF). He was injured all last year, so maybe we could net him without giving up too much. As you can see, he has been great at drawing walks and putting up a high OBP throughout the minors. He is extremely fast and has great range in the outfield. He steals bases and is a switch hitter.

 

I have been wanting kenny to trade for him since last season. I would love if kenny could get him in a trade and give him a shot during spring training.

 

That is an outstanding idea and very good props s.o.a.r. He's basically a Denard Span (and mind you I love me some Span) except better speed, but K's more.

[iamshack]

That is an outstanding idea and very good props s.o.a.r. He's basically a Denard Span (and mind you I love me some Span) except better speed, but K's more.

I believe Perez was discussed a year or two around here, so this is definitely not the first time he has caught someone's eye. Could be a guy Kenny stumbles onto even if he does indeed look into a Crawford trade.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

That is an outstanding idea and very good props s.o.a.r. He's basically a Denard Span (and mind you I love me some Span) except better speed, but K's more.

More like twice as much. I'd rather shoot myself in the head than acquire the most overrated Ray prospect to ever put on a uniform. Where's that power? Where's the contact? How could anyone expect a prospect who K's at a rate like that to post a similar walk rate in the Majors? MLB pitchers aren't going to mess around with him, they're going to take him out ASAP.

 

Every year we hear about Fernando Perez. Name any organization and you'll find a better OF lead-off prospect than this guy. He'll be 27 next year and he's still going to be starting in AAA if he isn't traded. I'd rather revive the Reggie Willits trade speculation than this guy. I f***ing hate this guy because every offseason there are threads about him because at one point BA loved him. The problem is he blows. In his minor league career he is averaging almost a strikeout per game. That s*** doesn't fly in the Majors, especially when you don't have earth-shattering power.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I believe Perez was discussed a year or two around here, so this is definitely not the first time he has caught someone's eye. Could be a guy Kenny stumbles onto even if he does indeed look into a Crawford trade.

If Kenny stumbles across Fernando Perez then Kenny needs a few other bits of assistance because the man is blind.

 

If we got Fernando Perez this board would HATE him. Dewayne Wise is a better hitter for God sakes. Ozzie would play him all the time and we'd have to sit there and watch him go 0-4 with 3 strikeouts just because he has speed. And every base he'd steal would be two more games played in Ozzie's mind.

 

We're in a very good spot right now with Kotsay. Finally we have a "grinder" type that it is OKAY for Ozzie to fall in love with because he's actually a good baseball player. Don't tempt fate. Fernando Perez would be the worst thing to happen to this city since the great Chicago fire where everything burned and bodies were floating around in the river.

[son of a rude]

Eaaaaasssssssssy. If we could get him cheaply, I don't see why we wouldn't give him a shot. I couldn't give a s*** if he strikes out a bunch. As long as he walks and has a decent OBP, id be happy. If we could get him cheaply, i would gladly give him a shot in spring training and see how he fares.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Eaaaaasssssssssy. If we could get him cheaply, I don't see why we wouldn't give him a shot. I couldn't give a s*** if he strikes out a bunch. As long as he walks and has a decent OBP, id be happy. If we could get him cheaply, i would gladly give him a shot in spring training and see how he fares.

Why would veteran Major League pitchers throw the ball outside of the strikezone to a guy who can't hit the baseball when it's over the plate? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not like Perez some huge power that pitchers need to be wary of. If his contact rate is that poor then his BB rate will not hold up against Major League pitching.

[iamshack]

Eaaaaasssssssssy. If we could get him cheaply, I don't see why we wouldn't give him a shot. I couldn't give a s*** if he strikes out a bunch. As long as he walks and has a decent OBP, id be happy. If we could get him cheaply, i would gladly give him a shot in spring training and see how he fares.

I think his point is that his walks wouldn't translate to the MLB because pitchers would go right after him knowing he can't hit in the first place.

Walk rates are fine and dandy, but if you can't hit, major league pitchers will put you away with superior stuff.

[ThunderBolt]

Speaking of Dewayne Wise it's about that time that kid gets an extension. isn't it? What are we thinking here people, seven years? Or is that too conservative?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Thunderbolt

[greg775]

Wise actually isn't a bad reserve. He's fast and isn't a bad fielder.

 

[ThunderBolt]

Wise actually isn't a bad reserve. He's fast and isn't a bad fielder.

He's also going to be 32 and a terrible hitter, whom Ozzie plays to the point of madness.

[SoxAce]

Why would veteran Major League pitchers throw the ball outside of the strikezone to a guy who can't hit the baseball when it's over the plate? That doesn't make any sense, and it's not like Perez some huge power that pitchers need to be wary of. If his contact rate is that poor then his BB rate will not hold up against Major League pitching.

 

Your acting like he's been Brian Anderson comming up. In limited at bats he's posted a .261/.346/.420/.766 line. It's not like he's been terrible in his brief stint in the bigs. Hell just last year in Durham in the freaking IL, he put up a .288/.361/.393/.754 line. Obviously the Rays have taken it slow with him and he's been blocked doesn't help. It's one thing to actually see if the guy has sucked so far, but don't bash him, cause your hate for a guy is blinding. Getting him for cheap and taking a look at him is not the end of the world. Sure I'd prefer to say f*** it and get Desmond Jennings or as far as players Crawford or Upton, but that doesn't look as promising. Now with that said, I have not seen Perez in the minors or even in college/high school to really see him and if you have, that's different and this is all moot.

Edited October 9, 2009 by SoxAce

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Your acting like he's been Brian Anderson comming up. In limited at bats he's posted a .261/.346/.420/.766 line. It's not like he's been terrible in his brief stint in the bigs. Hell just last year in Durham in the freaking IL, he put up a .288/.361/.393/.754 line. Obviously the Rays have taken it slow with him and he's been blocked doesn't help. It's one thing to actually see if the guy has sucked so far, but don't bash him, cause your hate for a guy is blinding. Getting him for cheap and taking a look at him is not the end of the world. Sure I'd prefer to say f*** it and get Desmond Jennings or as far as players Crawford or Upton, but that doesn't look as promising. Now with that said, I have not seen Perez in the minors or even in college/high school to really see him and if you have, that's different and this is all moot.

Fernando Perez in AAA at 25 put up a .288/.361/.393 line while averaging 1 K per every 3.71 PA. Brian Anderson at AAA at the age of 23 put up a .295/.360/.469 line while averaging 1 K per every 4.36 PA. Brian hit for better average, got on at about the exact same rate, showed a lot more power, and did so while making a lot more contract. Granted, Brian's K rate was bad, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Perez's K rate.

 

Don't even think about comparing Jennings, Crawford, or Upton to trash like Fernando Perez because it's not like Perez is just a few steps away from being that kind of player. Perez isn't even a prospect in my book. You just can't K like that and hit for such s***ty power at such an old age and still be considered a prospect. Perez is still living off his BA slurping. BA has done that before where they stupidly fall in love with a s***ty player that never makes it. Perez is one of those guys.

 

Perez is 26, David Cook is 27. I wouldn't trade Cook straight up for him, and Cook isn't even considered a prospect. That's how much Perez sucks. If you want to talk about impressive minor league seasons, that same 2008 where Perez impressed you in AAA, David Cook, across AA and AAA, hit .284/.410/.493 while walking 93(!) times against 112 K's in 536 PA. Cook slaughtered those numbers. The reason for the Perez love is his speed, that's it, and speed isn't valuable when you can't hit a baseball. If you think Brian Anderson was bad then Perez is even worse. And also, Perez had pins put into this wrist this year. If he K's 156 times in 579 PA against freaking International League pitching while healthy, then what is he going to do against MLB pitching with a bad wrist?

 

Perez : good prospects :: dog s*** : ice cream. He's horrifically horrible and I never, ever, ever want to see another Fernando Perez trade idea on this board again. EVER! Do you all hear me?!?!?!

Edited October 9, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[SoxAce]

Fernando Martinez in AAA at 25 put up a .288/.361/.393 line while averaging 1 K per every 3.71 PA. Brian Anderson at AAA at the age of 23 put up a .295/.360/.469 line while averaging 1 K per every 4.36 PA. Brian hit for better average, got on at about the exact same rate, showed a lot more power, and did so while making a lot more contract. Granted, Brian's K rate was bad, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Perez's K rate.

 

Don't even think about comparing Jennings, Crawford, or Upton to trash like Fernando Perez because it's not like Perez is just a few steps away from being that kind of player. Perez isn't even a prospect in my book. You just can't K like that and hit for such s***ty power at such an old age and still be considered a prospect. Perez is still living off his BA slurping. BA has done that before where they stupidly fall in love with a s***ty player that never makes it. Perez is one of those guys.

 

OT: Ok, I'm going to say this because I HATE (and you know who you are) when posters always do this. If someone replies to something and says one player in one sentence and another player in another sentence without putting those players in the same sentence that does not mean they are comparing them. I'm tired of people always doing that and it makes them look like idiots, not to mention bringing the quality of the board down. Not trying to single you out KHP, but it's just ridiculous to always see that crap then the poster having to defend themselves for a stupid reason saying "did I compare them" like if he put the numbers (or similarities in the player) trying to make a point.

 

Now, calm down, take a deep breath and grab a cookie/beer/whatever bro. It's not this serious to get this bent out of shape for a guy you obviously don't like. It was a suggestion by a poster to at least take a flyer on him and see what he can do. If he sucks, then hey, KW and company can say bye bye in ST. And I LOVE how you compared him to two of the better spects in baseball at the time in BA and F-Mart, not to mention Perez having a completely different style of hitting than both BA and F-Mart, not to mention more Fernando had only 170 abs in AAA. Same with Cook. Ya he rakes in AA.. so? In AAA, in limit abs (and he hasn't been givin a full chance) he hasn't done anything. Again.. outstanding and well thought-out comparison. Like I said I've never seen Perez in the college level, high school, or even the minors. Hell I saw BA in college and comming up and anyone can tell you how his swing was, he wasn't going to make it. I saw F-Mart in the futures game and a couple games when he played in AAA. Liked him a bit even with the lack of power, but he has a long swing and was terribly overhyped. s***, I woulda taken you more seriously if you compared him to Jerry freaking Owens than those two guys if you were really trying to bust your ass and make a point since they are more similar as players. If you hate him, fine as far as I see... you do, and that's fair, but like I said, don't be too blinded by the hate from the result. That's all I'm saying.

Edited October 9, 2009 by SoxAce

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

OT: Ok, I'm going to say this because I HATE (and you know who you are) when posters always do this. If someone replies to something and says one player in one sentence and another player in another sentence without putting those players in the same sentence that does not mean they are comparing them. I'm tired of people always doing that and it makes them look like idiots, not to mention bringing the quality of the board down. Not trying to single you out KHP, but it's just ridiculous to always see that crap then the poster having to defend themselves for a stupid reason saying "did I compare them" like if he put the numbers (or similarities in the player) trying to make a point.

 

Sorry, SoxAce. The topic of Fernando Perez fuels me into a rage. I felt you were implying that Perez was some kind of consolation prize for failing to land a name like those others.

 

Now, calm down, take a deep breath and grab a cookie/beer/whatever bro. It's not this serious to get this bent out of shape for a guy you obviously don't like. It was a suggestion by a poster to at least take a flyer on him and see what he can do. If he sucks, then hey, KW and company can say bye bye in ST. And I LOVE how you compared him to two of the better spects in baseball at the time in BA and F-Mart, not to mention Perez having a completely different style of hitting than both BA and F-Mart, not to mention more Fernando had only 170 abs in AAA. Same with Cook. Ya he rakes in AA.. so? In AAA, in limit abs (and he hasn't been givin a full chance) he hasn't done anything. Again.. outstanding and well thought-out comparison. Like I said I've never seen Perez in the college level, high school, or even the minors. Hell I saw BA in college and comming up and anyone can tell you how his swing was, he wasn't going to make it. I saw F-Mart in the futures game and a couple games when he played in AAA. Liked him a bit even with the lack of power, but he has a long swing and was terribly overhyped. If you hate him, fine as far as I see... you do, and that's fair, but like I said, don't be too blinded by the hate from the result. That's all I'm saying.

I never compared Perez to Fernando Martinez, and you're the one that brought up Brian Anderson when you said something to the effect of, Perez isn't like BA or anything. And Perez isn't, because Anderson was a better prospect. If the name Fernando Martinez appears anywhere in my post it is only because you guys had me in such a rage that I couldn't help it.

 

Why isn't Cook a good comparison? Cook strikes out less, walks more, hits for power, and still isn't considered a prospect. Perez walks less, strikes out more, doesn't hit for power, and yet Perez is still a prospect because he is fast.

 

Remember what a huge prospect Joey Gathright was? Dynamic speed is an amazing tool, but it's only valuable if your other skills at the plate allow you to use it. Perez doesn't hit the ball enough to work counts in the Major Leagues against Major League pitching. When you're in the IL facing the Jack Egbert, Carlos Torres, Justin Cassell, Heath Phillips, etc. type of pitchers that appear in every single organization every single year, it is a lot easier to fight off pitches you can't hit and draw walks. Those guys do not have the stuff to pitch in the Majors, and most of the guys who do have the arms for it can't control anything which is why they're in AAA and not playing in the Majors, and that's why players like Fernando Perez are capable of hitting for high average and taking walks.

 

Dynamic speed, again, might be amazing, but it leads people to waaaay overranking prospects that shouldn't be ranked anywhere. Jerry Owens was a better hitter than Perez, look what happened. Scouts think "oh, maybe one day if this guy learns how to hit a breaking ball he'll become a stud!" The problem is he's 26 and he still can't do it.

 

There are five reasons why the name Fernando Perez infuriates me:

1) He sucks.

2) Every single offseason someone goes online, does a search, comes upon the name Fernando Perez, reads about his speed, and then starts a new trade idea thread. It gets old.

3) The idea that walks translate to the Majors by themselves is absurd. You need contact or power with that, preferably both. If you can't make contact, you have very little power, AND you're game is based on speed, MLB veteran pitchers have **zero** reason to give you even one ounce of respect.

4) The idea that by itself, speed = good player/prospect is usually wrong. Sox fans have seen this first hand during the Ozzie years.

5) I will admit that as a defensive replacement and pinch runner ONLY, Fernando Perez can help a Major League club. HOWEVER, we are talking about an Ozzie-run ballclub here. Fernando Perez on the Sox means Fernando Perez playing all the damn time.

 

I hope you understand.

 

**Edit: I just checked my last post and where it says "Fernando Martinez" it should say Fernando Perez. Those are Fernando Perez's numbers, not Fernando Martinez's numbers. I will go back and edit that.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[SoxAce]

Haha, I feel you man. Your a good poster, so no hard feelings. Though just looking at Owens numbers to Perez and saying he's a better hitter.. I wouldn't say that.. not at all, but it's all moot though cause of the hate. And it's always nice to know how I (or anyone) can rile you up now. Just bring the name Fernando Perez in a discussion or post, and KHP will let you have it.

Edited October 9, 2009 by SoxAce