Adrian Gonzalez

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Maybe, maybe not.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...onzalezs-walks/

Pitchers would have respected Gonzalez more than anyone else in that lineup, and yet he still hit 40 HR despite playing in that park. Put him in the Cell between Beckham and Quentin and pitchers are going to have to pitch to him, meaning although his BB total may take a slight dip, his batting average and power numbers should raise, and his OPS in total should actually rise. You don't draw 100 walks on accident.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Basically within the last less-than-a-decade, we've had on average at least 1 absolute marquee guy get traded each year, and then probably an additional really good player or more as well.

 

We were told 2 years ago that Miguel Cabrera moving was a once in a lifetime chance. Then Tex being traded was a once in a lifetime move. Then Captain Cheesburger was. These just aren't once-in-a-lifetime moves any more, not with baseball's current economics. They're opportunities that come along every year or two at the most.

Right, and it's going to happen even more often now because of the current economics of the game. Bigger market teams will grow and smaller market teams will have greater difficulty hanging onto players. Jake Peavy was another of those "once in a lifetime" moves and we made it this year. Alex Rios two seasons ago would have been the same thing, but we picked him up this year too, and for nothing.

[eickevinmorris]

Corner player or not, he's one of the best hitters in baseball. He's easily a $20M+ player on the open market and you're trading a bunch of prospects which in total value do not come close to equaling the $30M+ gain in production we would be getting by having Gonzalez here for about $10M over 2 years. Go ahead and try to dispute that.

Why would I even bother disputing that? Other than his salary, you pulled the rest of the numbers out of your ass. I'm guessing you don't have some sort of Fangraphs-esque method of computing monetary value.

 

 

With the money saved on Gonzalez the Sox would be able to target bargains in free agency. There's a very good chance that some of these prospects you don't want to trade are going to be dealt this offseason anyway for players far less than Adrian Gonzalez. At least with Adrian you deal the farm for a beast and then fill remaining holes off the scrap heap in FA without surrending more prospects.

Perhaps they will be dealt, but I'm not a fan of pooling the entirety of our minor league depth into a corner player just two years from free agency. That's absurd.

 

Speaking of extremely optimistic, you're sucking Tyler Flowers' balls right now by saying he can be the type of hitter Adrian Gonzalez is currently.

I don't think it's impossible to think that Tyler's peak could produce 1-2 .900 OPS seasons. I absolutely believe he can be a .240/.360/.450 player right now. That's extremely valuable behind the plate.

 

Hudson isn't as special as everyone here thinks he is. I like him, but he's not an ace.

Yeah, no one said that he was.

 

Viciedo could turn out to be a very good player, but again it is very tough to ever see him becoming what Gonzalez is now. It is preposterously stupid to consider Viciedo a 3B? Then the Sox must be a preposterously stupid organization then because they haven't said Viciedo will be anything other than a 3B and I doubt they moved Gordon Beckham to accommodate Brent Morel and they certainly didn't do it to accommodate Mark f***ing Teahen.

Yes, yes it is. Show me one scouting report that says otherwise. And my "preposterously stupid" label was applied to the idea that Dayan could be a starter now or even midseason 2010.

 

These players are NOT going to all turn out. You're probably looking at above average player and possible All-Star, one average player, and two busts. And it's highly unlikely that any of these players aside from Hudson do anything significant until at least 2011, when Danks and Quentin become expensive. Your "save the farm" philosophy is a losing one that thankfully Kenny does not adhere to. Farm system depth is important, but farm depth can be built over the span of 1-2 drafts and international signing periods. Building a title contender is a much tougher process. And you seem to be overlooking all the playing time we'd have to give these young guys to prove they're MLB players as well.

1. We don't build anything during international signing periods. We signed Ramirez and Viciedo, the former being an average MLB shortstop and the latter being a lottery ticket at the moment.

2. We're also not very good at building through the draft -- as evidenced by, well, the last ten years.

3. It's not so much a "save the farm" philosophy as much as a "I'm not dealing 7-8 players for a first baseman two years away from free agency."

 

 

The Tony Pena deal is NOTHING like dealing the farm for Gonzalez, not even close. Ditto with the Linebrink deal.

If you're going to reply to my thoughtful posts with a great deal of snark, at least take the time to read what I'm saying, rather than skim the post and piece together an argument I'm clearly not espousing.

 

 

Nick Johnson is an injury prone defensive liability who will almost certainly make more guaranteed money over the next two years than Gonzalez will. Now THAT is a bad deal.

Does he cost the entire farm system? Would he be playing the field? No and no.

LOL at trading the farm for a cheap, pre-arb MIF or CF. Like who? We need offense, and along with the C position those are the weakest offensive positions around. Just because 1B is an "easier position to fill" with garbage like Casey Kotchman and Kevin Millar doesn't mean that bats like Adrian Gonzalez grow on trees. I don't think you realize that Gonzalez playing half his games in the Cell instead of PetCo will give us the best hitter we've had here since Big Frank was in his prime. Check his home/road splits. He would do incredible damage here.

I realize that he will be good, I just don't think he'll be six years of cost-controlled (and six additional team-controlled years) production (what I expect out of Flowers and Hudson) plus the rest of our already depleted and below average farm system.

 

I don't think you realize that having a minor league system comprised of Independent League All-Stars isn't really in the best interest of the White Sox.

Edited November 12, 2009 by KevinM

[eickevinmorris]

Right, and it's going to happen even more often now because of the current economics of the game. Bigger market teams will grow and smaller market teams will have greater difficulty hanging onto players. Jake Peavy was another of those "once in a lifetime" moves and we made it this year. Alex Rios two seasons ago would have been the same thing, but we picked him up this year too, and for nothing.

On what planet would Alex Rios be a once in a lifetime move? Even when he was producing at his personal peak, it's not like .850 OPS outfielders are that hard to come by.

 

Also, the Miguel Cabrera deal is perfect evidence for why a 7-8 for 1 (or 2) deal is not happening. If he didn't command seven to eight good prospects, Adrian Gonzalez certainly will not.

[iamshack]

Basically within the last less-than-a-decade, we've had on average at least 1 absolute marquee guy get traded each year, and then probably an additional really good player or more as well.

 

We were told 2 years ago that Miguel Cabrera moving was a once in a lifetime chance. Then Tex being traded was a once in a lifetime move. Then Captain Cheesburger was. These just aren't once-in-a-lifetime moves any more, not with baseball's current economics. They're opportunities that come along every year or two at the most.

I could not disagree with you more, and as a person with a scientific background, I expect more from you.

 

First of all, the question that was asked was qualified by asking how many times has this occurred (have 7 prospects been traded for 1 player) in the HISTORY of the game. That would be like me asking you "How often has civilized man caused as many ill-effects on the environment as he has during the industrial age in the HISTORY of the earth?" It's not an accurate question, as posed. You're asking about a result that has only come about due to a set of circumstances that have occurred over a very small percentage of the whole history. It couldn't possibly have occurred much in the history of the whole, because those circumstances have not existed for all but a small percentage of the history of the whole.

 

Second of all, the other situations you mention are simply not entirely analogous with this situation. Miguel Cabrera was due to make $11.3 million dollars in 08', in a deal he made with the Marlins to avoid arbitration. He would have made even more in 09', his final year of service time. So you're talking about a guy that probably would have made closer to $27 million over two seasons (still a good deal for MCab), but not nearly as paltry as the $10.25 million AGon will make over the next two seasons.

 

The same thing goes for Teixeira. He agreed to a contract of $12.5 million with Atlanta in 2008, avoiding arbitration, and they paid him approximately $4 million in 07' as they acquired him on the day of the trade deadline. They would have paid him, had they not traded him, approximately $16.5 million for less than 1.5 years of baseball. And Teix was a player everyone knew wanted to play out east - there was no way he was staying in Atlanta, there was no way he was going to re-sign with LA. He was going to the Yankees, to Boston, or worst case, to his hometown Baltimore Orioles. So an extension to keep him was simply not possible.

 

Who is Captain Cheeseburger?

 

 

[eickevinmorris]

I could not disagree with you more, and as a person with a scientific background, I expect more from you.

 

First of all, the question that was asked was qualified by asking how many times has this occurred (have 7 prospects been traded for 1 player) in the HISTORY of the game. That would be like me asking you "How often has civilized man caused as many ill-effects on the environment as he has during the industrial age in the HISTORY of the earth?" It's not an accurate question, as posed. You're asking about a result that has only come about due to a set of circumstances that have occurred over a very small percentage of the whole history. It couldn't possibly have occurred much in the history of the whole, because those circumstances have not existed for all but a small percentage of the history of the whole.

 

Second of all, the other situations you mention are simply not entirely analogous with this situation. Miguel Cabrera was due to make $11.3 million dollars in 08', in a deal he made with the Marlins to avoid arbitration. He would have made even more in 09', his final year of service time. So you're talking about a guy that probably would have made closer to $27 million over two seasons (still a good deal for MCab), but not nearly as paltry as the $10.25 million AGon will make over the next two seasons.

 

The same thing goes for Teixeira. He agreed to a contract of $12.5 million with Atlanta in 2008, avoiding arbitration, and they paid him approximately $4 million in 07' as they acquired him on the day of the trade deadline. They would have paid him, had they not traded him, approximately $16.5 million for less than 1.5 years of baseball. And Teix was a player everyone knew wanted to play out east - there was no way he was staying in Atlanta, there was no way he was going to re-sign with LA. He was going to the Yankees, to Boston, or worst case, to his hometown Baltimore Orioles. So an extension to keep him was simply not possible.

 

Who is Captain Cheeseburger?

It isn't like Gonzalez has one year of service time. He's pretty close to free agency, all things considered. He's not commanding 7-8 guys. And certainly not 7-8 "good" prospects.

 

[iamshack]

On what planet would Alex Rios be a once in a lifetime move? Even when he was producing at his personal peak, it's not like .850 OPS outfielders are that hard to come by.

 

Also, the Miguel Cabrera deal is perfect evidence for why a 7-8 for 1 (or 2) deal is not happening. If he didn't command seven to eight good prospects, Adrian Gonzalez certainly will not.

As referenced in my recent post, Cabrera was going to cost the Tigers more than 2.5 times as much as AGon will cost us. Additionally, the reason the Tigers won the Cabrera sweepstakes is because they took on Dontrelle Willis, whom they have basically paid an additional $15 million thus far, and still owe $12 million to in 2010. So no, that is not anywhere close to a perfect example.

[eickevinmorris]

As referenced in my recent post, Cabrera was going to cost the Tigers more than 2.5 times as much as AGon will cost us. Additionally, the reason the Tigers won the Cabrera sweepstakes is because they took on Dontrelle Willis, whom they have basically paid an additional $15 million thus far, and still owe $12 million to in 2010. So no, that is not anywhere close to a perfect example.

Do you think Adrian Gonzalez will command 7-8 good prospects?

 

I'm not even sure Justin Upton or Joey Votto would command that type of haul.

 

[iamshack]

It isn't like Gonzalez has one year of service time. He's pretty close to free agency, all things considered. He's not commanding 7-8 guys. And certainly not 7-8 "good" prospects.

Well, I actually agree with you. I think it would take 4 or 5 prospects, and I think if we gave up 5, we would get another player back from them. Maybe a Kevin Correia or something. Just my opinion.

[eickevinmorris]

Well, I actually agree with you. I think it would take 4 or 5 prospects, and I think if we gave up 5, we would get another player back from them. Maybe a Kevin Correia or something. Just my opinion.

I think they value Correia quite a bit, actually. Pitcher valuation is definitely fickle these days. 198.0 innings with a 94 ERA+ is definitely worth the $750,000 they gave him.

[iamshack]

I think they value Correia quite a bit, actually. Pitcher valuation is definitely fickle these days. 198.0 innings with a 94 ERA+ is definitely worth the $750,000 they gave him.

Yeah, I think you're probably pretty right on, but I think most guys that pitch in that park are going to put up those kind of numbers. He's definitely a nice innings eater, but one that they could sacrifice if they really liked a package of Hudson, Flowers, Danks2 +. And my guess is Kenny is going to ask them to throw us a few bones so as to avoid the exact same thing you're talking about - people saying why did we trade 5 or 6 guys for 1?

[eickevinmorris]

Well, in order to combat the "what do you propose we do?!" posts I've run across in this thread, here's a guy I would target: Seth Smith. He'd slot very nicely into RF and wouldn't cost a ton in terms of prospects.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Why would I even bother disputing that? Other than his salary, you pulled the rest of the numbers out of your ass. I'm guessing you don't have some sort of Fangraphs-esque method of computing monetary value.

 

Hmm, let's see... compare Miguel Cabrera, Mark Texiera, Matt Holliday and what he will get, Alfonso Soriano, etc. and their contracts vs. production to Adrian Gonzalez. You're baseball retarded if you don't see Gonzalez as a $20M+ player on the open market.

 

Perhaps they will be dealt, but I'm not a fan of pooling the entirety of our minor league depth into a corner player just two years from free agency. That's absurd.

 

Who gives a f*** about any of that if the Sox win a title and fill park for 2 years while upping the payroll for the future? Don't you think winning would help the issues of losing big time sponsorships and season ticket holders just a tad? The problem is you're not considering any of this.

 

I don't think it's impossible to think that Tyler's peak could produce 1-2 .900 OPS seasons. I absolutely believe he can be a .240/.360/.450 player right now. That's extremely valuable behind the plate.

 

Yeah, and such could have been the case with Mark Johnson and Ben Davis, and we had both, and they never amounted to s***. Such could have been the cases with Josh Fields, Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Chris Young, Ryan Sweeney, etc. and the list goes on and on, adn that's just recently. A lot of prospects "could" do a lot of things, and usually they don't.

 

Yes, yes it is. Show me one scouting report that says otherwise. And my "preposterously stupid" label was applied to the idea that Dayan could be a starter now or even midseason 2010.

 

Bulls***, show me where the Sox said that Viciedo can't play 3B. I can find you all kinds of reports that say Phegley and Flowers won't be catchers, and yet the Sox felt they would be and therefore they should be. Kyle Blanks isn't an OF, Chase Headley wasn't supposed to be either, but if an organization likes a bat enough they'll figure out a way to put that guy in the lineup. Matt Gamel is another guy who isn't supposed to be a 3B and look what he came up as.

 

The Sox have stated that they believe Viciedo could be ready by midseason, I think that might have been Buddy Bell. And if the Sox were in the same position as the Padres, then it could be even sooner. If the Sox had a $40M payroll and were looking at 90-100 losses while trying to rebuild, my guess is Viciedo would be the current favorite for 3B on Opening Day 2010.

 

1. We don't build anything during international signing periods. We signed Ramirez and Viciedo, the former being an average MLB shortstop and the latter being a lottery ticket at the moment.

2. We're also not very good at building through the draft -- as evidenced by, well, the last ten years.

3. It's not so much a "save the farm" philosophy as much as a "I'm not dealing 7-8 players for a first baseman two years away from free agency."

 

1. You're ignoring past signings to fit your argument. The Sox aren't a major player in international free agency, but they did sign Ramirez, Viciedo, Fautino De Los Santos, Eduardo Escobar, Miguel Gonzalez, Jose Martinez, and others in recent history. They've given large figures to noted busts like Paulo Orlando, Juan Silverio, and Anderson Gomes as others. You're wrong.

2. We've done a pretty good job out of getting value out of the draft through the trade route. We haven't developed a ton of players but we didn't necessarily have to because our scouts do a great job of identifying young talent in other organizations. You can't piss on the Sox for Brandon McCarthy and then discount the Johnny Danks acquisition for example.

3. I refer you back to the point above about how winning games at the Major League level is actually kind of important. Who gives a f*** how many players we'd have to trade if we still win the deal, and if we still win in the Majors because of it?

 

If you're going to reply to my thoughtful posts with a great deal of snark, at least take the time to read what I'm saying, rather than skim the post and piece together an argument I'm clearly not espousing.

 

You said that Gonzalez would be a bad move, then gave two examples of bad moves that have nothing to do with a Gonzalez situation. In short, your comment wasn't thoughtful at all.

 

Does he cost the entire farm system? Would he be playing the field? No and no.

 

Would his contract preclude the Sox from improving in other areas? Would he be far less beneficial to the Sox as Gonzalez? Is committing lots of guaranteed money to such an injury-prone player a major risk? Yes, yes, and yes.

 

I realize that he will be good, I just don't think he'll be six years of cost-controlled (and six additional team-controlled years) production (what I expect out of Flowers and Hudson) plus the rest of our already depleted and below average farm system.

 

Six years of Hudson - 3 pre-arb - is replaceable on the market or through trade if you do the scouting, even with the salary considered.

 

Six years of Flowers - 3 pre-arb - may be very difficult to replace through the market or via trade, however "may" is the key word here. Unlike Gonzalez, Flowers is no guarantee.

 

Two years of Gonzalez at his salary is practically impossible to replace through the market or via trade because very, very few such players even exist, and nobody is trading a Braun or a Longoria.

 

I don't think you realize that having a minor league system comprised of Independent League All-Stars isn't really in the best interest of the White Sox.

 

And here you go again. If you had been paying attention you could clearly see how much the Sox improved their system in one year with the 2008 draft and international signing period. And for the sake of argument, take Beckham out of the equation. We picked up a lot of talent that year and it was one of our better drafts in a long time. The 2009 draft could have been pretty damn good too had they forked over a little extra cash to get Morgado and Jones, so it's not extremely hard to do. Building a contending ballclub and assembling a starting rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Garcia takes just a liiiiiiittle bit more time and effort.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[iamshack]

Well, in order to combat the "what do you propose we do?!" posts I've run across in this thread, here's a guy I would target: Seth Smith. He'd slot very nicely into RF and wouldn't cost a ton in terms of prospects.

I've heard that same suggestion from my old roommate. If the Rockies were smart though, wouldn't they deal Hawpe instead and play Smith regularly?

[Balta1701]

I could not disagree with you more, and as a person with a scientific background, I expect more from you.

 

First of all, the question that was asked was qualified by asking how many times has this occurred (have 7 prospects been traded for 1 player) in the HISTORY of the game. That would be like me asking you "How often has civilized man caused as many ill-effects on the environment as he has during the industrial age in the HISTORY of the earth?" It's not an accurate question, as posed. You're asking about a result that has only come about due to a set of circumstances that have occurred over a very small percentage of the whole history. It couldn't possibly have occurred much in the history of the whole, because those circumstances have not existed for all but a small percentage of the history of the whole.

 

Second of all, the other situations you mention are simply not entirely analogous with this situation. Miguel Cabrera was due to make $11.3 million dollars in 08', in a deal he made with the Marlins to avoid arbitration. He would have made even more in 09', his final year of service time. So you're talking about a guy that probably would have made closer to $27 million over two seasons (still a good deal for MCab), but not nearly as paltry as the $10.25 million AGon will make over the next two seasons.

 

The same thing goes for Teixeira. He agreed to a contract of $12.5 million with Atlanta in 2008, avoiding arbitration, and they paid him approximately $4 million in 07' as they acquired him on the day of the trade deadline. They would have paid him, had they not traded him, approximately $16.5 million for less than 1.5 years of baseball. And Teix was a player everyone knew wanted to play out east - there was no way he was staying in Atlanta, there was no way he was going to re-sign with LA. He was going to the Yankees, to Boston, or worst case, to his hometown Baltimore Orioles. So an extension to keep him was simply not possible.

 

Who is Captain Cheeseburger?

CC sabathia.

 

In tersm of 7 guys being dealt for one, yeah, i'll grant, that deosn't happen vary often. The point I'm trying to make is not that that large of a trade is uncommon; if it takes 7 guys to get him, we're not getting him. The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't sit here and think that getting Adrian Gonzalez is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get a 40-50 home run guy. Those type of players are moving quite commonly. In the next year or two we'll see another one move in Fielder. Gonzales may have a cost for 2 years that is unusually low, but that's something we'll see more as teams sign guys early like Longoria.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Well, I actually agree with you. I think it would take 4 or 5 prospects, and I think if we gave up 5, we would get another player back from them. Maybe a Kevin Correia or something. Just my opinion.

If it would take 4-5 prospects then terrific, but I'd give them more if we had to. There's no one on our farm that would be a deal-breaker for me on Gonzalez. I'd ask them what they want and let them pick basically. The proven players would be the only ones off limits.

[iamshack]

CC sabathia.

 

In tersm of 7 guys being dealt for one, yeah, i'll grant, that deosn't happen vary often. The point I'm trying to make is not that that large of a trade is uncommon; if it takes 7 guys to get him, we're not getting him. The point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't sit here and think that getting Adrian Gonzalez is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get a 40-50 home run guy. Those type of players are moving quite commonly. In the next year or two we'll see another one move in Fielder. Gonzales may have a cost for 2 years that is unusually low, but that's something we'll see more as teams sign guys early like Longoria.

I don't think anyone has said that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

However, it's difficult to ignore how perfectly he resembles the player the White Sox need right now.

 

I see both points here, and again, KHP and Kevin, outside of the jabs you're taking at one another, some great stuff here. I am really enjoying it. I see what Kevin is saying...the prospects and young players we have right now are better than we've had in quite a while, it would be a shame to give them all away for 1 player. However, I also see what KHP is saying. A great farm system is wonderful and all, but in the end, a farm system is a means to an end. It is a tool one uses to help the big league club win. I don't care if the posters of Soxtalk have to fill our minor league rosters if we are winning titles.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

On what planet would Alex Rios be a once in a lifetime move? Even when he was producing at his personal peak, it's not like .850 OPS outfielders are that hard to come by.

 

Also, the Miguel Cabrera deal is perfect evidence for why a 7-8 for 1 (or 2) deal is not happening. If he didn't command seven to eight good prospects, Adrian Gonzalez certainly will not.

None of these deals are "once in a lifetime" type moves because they happen all the time, that was the point. Two years ago Alex Rios was one of the most talented young CF'ers in the game, and because of his age and potential was seen as a franchise piece and therefore a pipedream. The Lincecum-for-Rios talks that went on showed that much, as did the length of Rios' extension.

[eickevinmorris]

Hmm, let's see... compare Miguel Cabrera, Mark Texiera, Matt Holliday and what he will get, Alfonso Soriano, etc. and their contracts vs. production to Adrian Gonzalez. You're baseball retarded if you don't see Gonzalez as a $20M+ player on the open market.

Still pulled out of your ass, along with the other figure.

 

 

 

 

Who gives a f*** about any of that if the Sox win a title and fill park for 2 years while upping the payroll for the future? Don't you think winning would help the issues of losing big time sponsorships and season ticket holders just a tad? The problem is you're not considering any of this.

And what if Peavy gets hurt and we put Carlos Torres in the rotation? What if (heaven forbid) Danks or Floyd go down and Brandon Hynick has to make eight starts? What if AJ gets hurt and we're starting a replacement level catcher? The problem is you don't care about depth.

 

 

Yeah, and such could have been the case with Mark Johnson and Ben Davis, and we had both, and they never amounted to s***. Such could have been the cases with Josh Fields, Joe Borchard, Brian Anderson, Chris Young, Ryan Sweeney, etc. and the list goes on and on, adn that's just recently. A lot of prospects "could" do a lot of things, and usually they don't.

Ah! One of my favorites! Because player A is a prospect, we must compare him to players B, C, D, E, F, etc. despite the fact that the only things they have in common is that they play baseball. Good argument.

 

Bulls***, show me where the Sox said that Viciedo can't play 3B. I can find you all kinds of reports that say Phegley and Flowers won't be catchers, and yet the Sox felt they would be and therefore they should be. Kyle Blanks isn't an OF, Chase Headley wasn't supposed to be either, but if an organization likes a bat enough they'll figure out a way to put that guy in the lineup. Matt Gamel is another guy who isn't supposed to be a 3B and look what he came up as.

Again, show me one scout who says he can play 3B at the major league level. The Sox will do everything they can to keep him there, but I'm not exactly treating the company line from Bell as gospel. Also, Mat (one T, try to keep up) is a horrendous defensive 3rd baseman. Horrendous.

 

Viciedo at 3rd would continue this organization's sad "f*** defense!" philosophy.

 

The Sox have stated that they believe Viciedo could be ready by midseason, I think that might have been Buddy Bell. And if the Sox were in the same position as the Padres, then it could be even sooner. If the Sox had a $40M payroll and were looking at 90-100 losses while trying to rebuild, my guess is Viciedo would be the current favorite for 3B on Opening Day 2010.

Viciedo isn't anywhere near ready.

 

 

 

1. You're ignoring past signings to fit your argument. The Sox aren't a major player in international free agency, but they did sign Ramirez, Viciedo, Fautino De Los Santos, Eduardo Escobar, Miguel Gonzalez, Jose Martinez, and others in recent history. They've given large figures to noted busts like Paulo Orlando, Juan Silverio, and Anderson Gomes as others. You're wrong.

2. We've done a pretty good job out of getting value out of the draft through the trade route. We haven't developed a ton of players but we didn't necessarily have to because our scouts do a great job of identifying young talent in other organizations. You can't piss on the Sox for Brandon McCarthy and then discount the Johnny Danks acquisition for example.

3. I refer you back to the point above about how winning games at the Major League level is actually kind of important. Who gives a f*** how many players we'd have to trade if we still win the deal, and if we still win in the Majors because of it?

1. Yes, but it takes a long, long time to build a system through international signings. You said one period would get it done. Not happening.

2. Yes. You said 1-2 drafts. Irrelevant to what you originally posited.

3. Depth, depth, depth. Insurance, insurance, insurance.

 

 

You said that Gonzalez would be a bad move, then gave two examples of bad moves that have nothing to do with a Gonzalez situation. In short, your comment wasn't thoughtful at all.

Swing and a miss. This point was specifically about the bullpen, and this organization's propensity for overpaying. Try again.

 

 

 

Would his contract preclude the Sox from improving in other areas? Would he be far less beneficial to the Sox as Gonzalez? Is committing lots of guaranteed money to such an injury-prone player a major risk? Yes, yes, and yes.

Is committing your entire system and depth to one player a bigger risk? Yes.

 

 

Six years of Hudson - 3 pre-arb - is replaceable on the market or through trade if you do the scouting, even with the salary considered.

Bulls***. Pitching doesn't grow on trees.

 

Six years of Flowers - 3 pre-arb - may be very difficult to replace through the market or via trade, however "may" is the key word here. Unlike Gonzalez, Flowers is no guarantee.

Catchers at his level don't come around very often.

 

 

[eickevinmorris]

Two years of Gonzalez at his salary is practically impossible to replace through the market or via trade because very, very few such players even exist, and nobody is trading a Braun or a Longoria.

Correct.

 

I'm not even disputing trading Hudson or Flowers -- it's about 7-8 players! If it's Hudson, Flowers, Danks and one other guy, I would think about it.

 

 

And here you go again. If you had been paying attention you could clearly see how much the Sox improved their system in one year with the 2008 draft and international signing period. And for the sake of argument, take Beckham out of the equation. We picked up a lot of talent that year and it was one of our better drafts in a long time. The 2009 draft could have been pretty damn good too had they forked over a little extra cash to get Morgado and Jones, so it's not extremely hard to do. Building a contending ballclub and assembling a starting rotation of Peavy-Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Garcia takes just a liiiiiiittle bit more time and effort.

And here you go again with the condescension. I usually lurk around these parts, and you're wrong more often than not (as most of us are). Step off the high horse and we can have an actual conversation.

[eickevinmorris]

None of these deals are "once in a lifetime" type moves because they happen all the time, that was the point. Two years ago Alex Rios was one of the most talented young CF'ers in the game, and because of his age and potential was seen as a franchise piece and therefore a pipedream. The Lincecum-for-Rios talks that went on showed that much, as did the length of Rios' extension.

I'd say it's evidence of Sabean's lack of, I don't know, brain cells more than anything else.

[Quin]

My one untouchable prospect is D2, solely for dumping Boras and his brother, and cause he'll be good. If I can throw in Mitchell as a PTBNL, I do it.

 

4-5 prospects is what I offer.

6 if they toss in Poreda.

7-8 prospects if they throw in Bell and Poreda.

[Balta1701]

Still pulled out of your ass, along with the other figure.

Consider this the general warning for everyone from an Admin to "Cool it" on the personal attack stuff in this thread.

 

(Note; not just directed at the post included here. Directed generally.)

[balfanman]

And what if Peavy gets hurt and we put Carlos Torres in the rotation? What if (heaven forbid) Danks or Floyd go down and Brandon Hynick has to make eight starts? What if AJ gets hurt and we're starting a replacement level catcher? The problem is you don't care about depth.

In all honesty you can say the same thing about any deal.

 

In your previous example what if Nick Johnson spend most of the season on the disabled list and we have to replace him with a lesser bat, wind up losing a few 1 or 2 run games, and losing the division by a game or two?

 

What if it takes 2 or 3 seasons before Flowers, Danks, etc. become proficient ballplayers. By that time our outstanding starting rotation will be about gone.

 

The truth is that any way we go has risk involved. Personally, I think that going for it all for the next couple of seasons has less risk than hoping a few of these minor leagers pan out.

Edited November 12, 2009 by balfanman

[iamshack]

Yeah, this is getting nasty guys. It's one thing to argue your points, it's another to insult eachother as your concluding sentence for every paragraph.

 

Again, I love the debate here, but keep it civil. You're both intelligent guys, no need to lower the discussion to include insults.