eickevinmorris Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 06:38 AM) Soooooo, how bout that Quentin for Crawford rumor Bunk, presumably. This team does not need to make lateral moves. I see KW closing in on Putz as a sign that they may move Jenks for an outfielder. Happy day, if true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 06:38 AM) Soooooo, how bout that Quentin for Crawford rumor That's like sooooo 2007, man. Get with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 07:38 AM) Soooooo, how bout that Quentin for Crawford rumor Apparently, you don't need to be a trekkie to make rumors that don't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KevinM @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 05:36 AM) Well post the full rant. Find it and paste it. I'm intrigued. Honestly. Said poster also followed up by listing Carlos' past BABIP data. It's somewhere in the minor league forum. I have to find it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitoMB345 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I'm fine with it. Sell high on Carlos, since there's no guarantee he'll do anything close to 2008 again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (TitoMB345 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 09:51 AM) I'm fine with it. Sell high on Carlos, since there's no guarantee he'll do anything close to 2008 again. That wouldn't exactly be selling high. Plus our #2 HR hitter would be either Rios, Teahen, Alexei, or Beckham. Not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) That wouldn't exactly be selling high. Plus our #2 HR hitter would be either Rios, Teahen, Alexei, or Beckham. Not good. Carl Crawford isn't a good return for a guy who we have no idea can stay healthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) Carl Crawford isn't a good return for a guy who we have no idea can stay healthy? It's not that simple though. Crawford is going to become real expensive real quick, while Carlos will be cheaper and under our control longer and has the higher upside. I don't feel this is a good unless the Sox are almost positive CQ will never be able to stay healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) It's not that simple though. Crawford is going to become real expensive real quick, while Carlos will be cheaper and under our control longer and has the higher upside. I don't feel this is a good unless the Sox are almost positive CQ will never be able to stay healthy. Good post. Also, a deal like this would send the signals that, 1) the lead-off spot is our biggest need, and 2) the success of our offense in 2009 is in some way explicitly linked to the capabilities of our lead-off hitter. I don't know how anyone can go from losing Dye and Thome, plus factoring in possible regression for Paulie, and then say that our biggest need on offense is a lead-off hitter. I mean, I understand that Dye and Thome have regressed and that their 2009 production can be replaced without a whole lot of difficulty, but that's not the issue. The issue is we're trying to improve upon last year's offense which was terrible, which means we should be trying to replace earlier versions of the Dye and Thome who really helped us out, not just the 2009 versions. If we just replace the '09 versions then we're still going to struggle to score runs. And lastly, even if we did for some reason want to move Quentin for a lead-off hitter, why a $10M one on the cusp of free agency who is likely to demand the type of contract that historically we never give out? If we're scared to offer 4/$36M to Figgins then I really doubt we'll be offering 6/$96M to Crawford. The only virtual certainty is Type A comp, and we couldn't reasonably expect contributions from 2 players drafted in June 2011 until at least 2013, if ever. If we had to move Carlos for a somewhat proven lead-off guy, at the very least look at someone like Rajai Davis, Julio Borbon, Michael Bourn, etc. in a package with other players. Or maybe even offer Quentin to the Red Sox for Ellsbury and more. If we absolutely had to trade CQ there are about a billion better ideas than Carl Crawford, and most of them don't even involve lead-off hitters in the first place. I seriously question the source of this rumor and IMO it's even worse than the Halladay one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KevinM @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 02:36 AM) Well post the full rant. Find it and paste it. I'm intrigued. Honestly. Said poster also followed up by listing Carlos' past BABIP data. Comparing current BAPIP with past BAPIP is completely worthless. Anyone with have a brain knows that two years ago his BAPIP was significantly higher. He hit the absolute s*** out of the ball all-season and hard hit balls are more likely to fall than what he did last season (which was not hit the ball very good at all). I think Quentin played a little better than his numbers indicated and clearly we could point a lot of his struggles to the injury, but BAPIP and bad "luck" wasn't the reason Quentin went from being an MVP candidate to nothing special in one season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd_city_saint787 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 hmmmm very interesting I think i like it then sign Matsui and go to war 1. Crawford LF 2. Beckham 2b 3. Rios CF 4. Godzilla DH 5. Kong 1b 6. AJ C 7. Lexi SS 8. Jones RF 9. Teahen 3b that looks pretty good to me, every player minus AJ has the potential to hit 20 homers, you've got some guys in there that could really surprise us in Jones and Teahen, you've got a good D out there esp. if Jones comes in healthy a balanced lineup, good speed at the top....I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eickevinmorris Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) Comparing current BAPIP with past BAPIP is completely worthless. That's some awe-inspiring hyperbole. And if you're going to label something completely worthless and malign it to such a degree, you may want to get its name right. Again, simply comparing Carlos' BABIP data from two separate seasons is insufficient analysis, but including batted ball rates and (at times) contact percentages will give you a rough idea of how unlucky Carlos was. I think his poor season can probably be attributed to injury, as I was just campaigning for BABIP as a useful tool of analysis. Which it absolutely is, and tests have proven this time after time. It should be used with a great deal of caution, and with other things in mind (like contact/batted ball rates/injury/scouting), but it certainly has utility. It's not the end all be all metric, but this argument shouldn't be black and white. Anyone with have a brain knows that two years ago his BAPIP was significantly higher. He hit the absolute s*** out of the ball all-season and hard hit balls are more likely to fall than what he did last season (which was not hit the ball very good at all). I do think we can have a discussion without it devolving into "anyone with have (sic) a brain" sorts of insults. I fancy my brain quite a bit, and I think a player's statistical fluctuation may be attributed to luck from time to time. Do I believe that's the case with Carlos? A layman's/preliminary analysis of his batted ball rates tell me that it may have contributed to his poor performance. I also believe his injury didn't help. I think Quentin played a little better than his numbers indicated and clearly we could point a lot of his struggles to the injury, but BAPIP and bad "luck" wasn't the reason Quentin went from being an MVP candidate to nothing special in one season. Ok. And I believe it may have. This doesn't have to be a black and white, you don't have "have (sic) a brain" argument. We can discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (KevinM @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) That's some awe-inspiring hyperbole. And if you're going to label something completely worthless and malign it to such a degree, you may want to get its name right. Again, simply comparing Carlos' BABIP data from two separate seasons is insufficient analysis, but including batted ball rates and (at times) contact percentages will give you a rough idea of how unlucky Carlos was. I think his poor season can probably be attributed to injury, as I was just campaigning for BABIP as a useful tool of analysis. Which it absolutely is, and tests have proven this time after time. It should be used with a great deal of caution, and with other things in mind (like contact/batted ball rates/injury/scouting), but it certainly has utility. It's not the end all be all metric, but this argument shouldn't be black and white. I do think we can have a discussion without it devolving into "anyone with have (sic) a brain" sorts of insults. I fancy my brain quite a bit, and I think a player's statistical fluctuation may be attributed to luck from time to time. Do I believe that's the case with Carlos? A layman's/preliminary analysis of his batted ball rates tell me that it may have contributed to his poor performance. I also believe his injury didn't help. Ok. And I believe it may have. This doesn't have to be a black and white, you don't have "have (sic) a brain" argument. We can discuss it. I agree with you, BABIP over the years can be useful, but you need to include other stats. The post that is being referenced only talked about Quentins BABIP in the Current Year vs the Prior Year. No where did it take into account line drive percentages, contact percentages, etc. Therefor, I thought it was a pretty poor argument to just say its bad luck because his BABIP changed year over year. That is about as valid of an argument as me throwing out two years worth of batting averages and attributing the change in average to bad luck. I think the stat is very meaningful (despite me mis-typing it) as a tool for analysis, but the true meaning behind the stat comes from the underlying stats (ie, line-drive rate, contact rate, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eickevinmorris Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) I agree with you, BABIP over the years can be useful, but you need to include other stats. The post that is being referenced only talked about Quentins BABIP in the Current Year vs the Prior Year. No where did it take into account line drive percentages, contact percentages, etc. Therefor, I thought it was a pretty poor argument to just say its bad luck because his BABIP changed year over year. That is about as valid of an argument as me throwing out two years worth of batting averages and attributing the change in average to bad luck. I think the stat is very meaningful (despite me mis-typing it) as a tool for analysis, but the true meaning behind the stat comes from the underlying stats (ie, line-drive rate, contact rate, etc). Fair enough. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The $$$ makes a Quentin for Crawford swap pretty difficult. Now, if the Sox add in Jenks, and the Rays add in some young cheap talent, it might start to make some more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) The $$$ makes a Quentin for Crawford swap pretty difficult. Now, if the Sox add in Jenks, and the Rays add in some young cheap talent, it might start to make some more sense. They aren't going to pay Jenks and Soriano. So, I wouldn't count on this one happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 11:17 AM) The $$$ makes a Quentin for Crawford swap pretty difficult. Now, if the Sox add in Jenks, and the Rays add in some young cheap talent, it might start to make some more sense. The acquisition of Rafael Soriano pretty much eliminates the shot of the Jenks heading to Tampa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.