Peavy to Boston, Avisail Garcia + 3 low lv specs to Sox

[Jerksticks]

De Aza has been a better "lead-off hitter" each of the past 2 years than Podsednik was in '05. I know we all love to glorify players from the '05 team, and Podsednik certainly had his role, but his offense isn't the reason that team won the World Series.

 

Pods in '05: .290/.351/.349 88 wRC+

De Aza this year: .270/.328/.437 105 wRC+

 

I get your point about overall production, but Pods rocked a .360 OBP, stole bases and scored runs. That passes the eye test a whole lot better than 320ish OBP. Pods had a way better team behind him. I'd love to see how the following lineup would do:

 

Eaton CF

De Aza LF

Power Mashing Run Producing RH hitter (should be tank but he's an asshole)

 

 

[ptatc]

De Aza has been a better "lead-off hitter" each of the past 2 years than Podsednik was in '05. I know we all love to glorify players from the '05 team, and Podsednik certainly had his role, but his offense isn't the reason that team won the World Series.

 

Pods in '05: .290/.351/.349 88 wRC+

De Aza this year: .270/.328/.437 105 wRC+

I would disagree. The primary job of the leadoff hitter IMHO is getting on base and scoring runs. Podsednik has a 20 point lead in OBP and so far leads runs scored 80 -55. Not saying Pods was great but he did his job as well if not better than DeAza.

[justBLAZE]

per MLBTrade Rumors:

 

Nationals might be looking at Peavy due to Detwiler performance/health issues.

[DirtySox]

per MLBTrade Rumors:

 

Nationals might be looking at Peavy due to Detwiler performance/health issues.

 

Cole, Giolito, and Karns are fine prospects, but other than Brian Goodwin the positional prospects in Washington are lacking at the moment. Still interesting though.

[Paulstar]

Cole, Giolito, and Karns are fine prospects, but other than Brian Goodwin the positional prospects in Washington are lacking at the moment. Still interesting though.

Brian Goodwin is someone the Sox tried to get via the draft out of high school a couple years ago, so I would assume he would be a top target in any trade involving the Nats

[DirtySox]

Brian Goodwin is someone the Sox tried to get via the draft out of high school a couple years ago, so I would assume he would be a top target in any trade involving the Nats

 

Yep. I'm just not the biggest Goodwin fan.

[maxjusttyped]

I would disagree. The primary job of the leadoff hitter IMHO is getting on base and scoring runs. Podsednik has a 20 point lead in OBP and so far leads runs scored 80 -55. Not saying Pods was great but he did his job as well if not better than DeAza.

The primary job of a lead-off hitter, like all hitters, is to be productive. OBP is very important in a lead-off man, but slugging has to be part of the equation too. It's also worth mentioning the run environment in '05 was higher than it is now. Podsednik's OBP was 20 points above league average, whereas De Aza's is 13 points above league average this season. Though Podsednik certainly contributed more value on the bases, I don't think that's enough to make up for De Aza's 90 point advantage in slugging.

[Paulstar]

De Aza has been a better "lead-off hitter" each of the past 2 years than Podsednik was in '05. I know we all love to glorify players from the '05 team, and Podsednik certainly had his role, but his offense isn't the reason that team won the World Series.

 

Pods in '05: .290/.351/.349 88 wRC+

De Aza this year: .270/.328/.437 105 wRC+

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you who the better leadoff hitter is/was (I actually lied earlier, Scotty Pods from 09 was probably the best leadoff hitter this team has had since Ray Durham), but purely from a White Sox standpoint, if history is any indication, De Aza is not an ideal leadoff hitter the organization looks for. For several years now, the White Sox have wanted Scotty Pods/Juan Pierre type players who make good contact, hit around .300, and have great speed. De Aza, while the best the Sox could do over the past two years, was never the ideal leadoff hitter Kenny wanted, at least I think so.

[maxjusttyped]

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you who the better leadoff hitter is/was (I actually lied earlier, Scotty Pods from 09 was probably the best leadoff hitter this team has had since Ray Durham), but purely from a White Sox standpoint, if history is any indication, De Aza is not an ideal leadoff hitter the organization looks for. For several years now, the White Sox have wanted Scotty Pods/Juan Pierre type players who make good contact, hit around .300, and have great speed. De Aza, while the best the Sox could do over the past two years, was never the ideal leadoff hitter Kenny wanted, at least I think so.

I think it's possible we start seeing a different type of White Sox team + lead-off hitter with Hahn in charge. Though that may be wishful thinking on my part, his reputation as a sabr friendly GM makes me think we've seen the end of Juan Pierre type lead-off hitters.

[ptatc]

The primary job of a lead-off hitter, like all hitters, is to be productive. OBP is very important in a lead-off man, but slugging has to be part of the equation too. It's also worth mentioning the run environment in '05 was higher than it is now. Podsednik's OBP was 20 points above league average, whereas De Aza's is 13 points above league average this season. Though Podsednik certainly contributed more value on the bases, I don't think that's enough to make up for De Aza's 90 point advantage in slugging.

It's all about run production. How many runs scored and RBIs are produced. It's tough to be good at both OBP and Slugging without the PEDs. Everything else is really just playing with numbers. I think that overall they are comparable but DeAza is not that much better if at all.

[maxjusttyped]

It's all about run production. How many runs scored and RBIs are produced. It's tough to be good at both OBP and Slugging without the PEDs. Everything else is really just playing with numbers. I think that overall they are comparable but DeAza is not that much better if at all.

Though I don't agree at all with this statment, if you truly believe it, then De Aza should be your choice. He's on pace to finish the season with 97 runs, whereas Podsednik only scored 80 in 2005.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/28728/alejandro-de-aza

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/4...scott-podsednik

[Jerksticks]

It's all about run production. How many runs scored and RBIs are produced. It's tough to be good at both OBP and Slugging without the PEDs. Everything else is really just playing with numbers. I think that overall they are comparable but DeAza is not that much better if at all.

Plus during De Aza's recent hot streak he's looked really really good. Pods was getting on base at .360-.370 clip most of '05; that's what most of our eyes remember. I'd bet De Aza has been around there as of late and it's fun to watch.

[ptatc]

Though I don't agree at all with this statment, if you truly believe it, then De Aza should be your choice. He's on pace to finish the season with 97 runs, whereas Podsednik only scored 80 in 2005.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/28728/alejandro-de-aza

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/4...scott-podsednik

This is true, if he makes it the full season. I do believe it because winning is the only thing that matters and to do that you need to score more runs than the other team. Everything else is fun discussion but irrelevant.

[Balta1701]

De Aza has been a better "lead-off hitter" each of the past 2 years than Podsednik was in '05. I know we all love to glorify players from the '05 team, and Podsednik certainly had his role, but his offense isn't the reason that team won the World Series.

 

Pods in '05: .290/.351/.349 88 wRC+

De Aza this year: .270/.328/.437 105 wRC+

I note that Pods's numbers were probably impacted by being hurt for August and much less effective stealing bases in September because of the injury.

[maxjusttyped]

This is true, if he makes it the full season. I do believe it because winning is the only thing that matters and to do that you need to score more runs than the other team. Everything else is fun discussion but irrelevant.

That's fine when you're talking about team performance. Wins are the only thing that matters. But when you're evaluating individual players, it's best to evaluate those players on things they can actually control. Whether or not Paul Konerko happened to get a base hit when De Aza or Pods was standing on 2b isn't an indication of how they performed. They already did their job by getting on base, whether or not they come around to score is largely dependent on the hitters behind them.

[TaylorStSox]

Pods was a real good example of why pure numbers can be misleading. I'd like to see a stat of his obp in his first and second AB and how many bases he stole off those AB's in the first 80 games of the year. He was constantly on base in the beginning of games, put true pressure on pitchers, stole bases and gave our pitchers an early lead. He impacted the games like crazy.

 

*edit*

We scored the first run in something like 50 of the first 55 games. He set the tone for the new look Sox. Other players bought in and they carried that momentum throughout the year. Obviously the consistency if the pitching staff was needed, but Pods was a tone setting, impact player that year. Numbers won't tell you that.

Edited July 21, 2013 by TaylorStSox

[ptatc]

That's fine when you're talking about team performance. Wins are the only thing that matters. But when you're evaluating individual players, it's best to evaluate those players on things they can actually control. Whether or not Paul Konerko happened to get a base hit when De Aza or Pods was standing on 2b isn't an indication of how they performed. They already did their job by getting on base, whether or not they come around to score is largely dependent on the hitters behind them.

This is true if you are concerned about the individual player. I'm not. The only thing that matters is winning the game. It's fun to discuss the individual player but not directly relevant to the team. The stats were invented for arbitration to get the players more money to say that they were good regardless of the team winning.

P ersonally I enjoy watching the games and players. But in the end the only thing that matters for stats is wins and loses.

[TaylorStSox]

Honorable mention to Carl Everett for having a lot "big hits" early in the year and providing some power when it was sorely missing. #semidrunknostalgia

[GGajewski18]

Pirates have lost 3 in a row now, Pirates now only 2 games up on the Reds for 2nd in that division. Texas have lost 2 straight. And the Red Sox are only 1.5 on Rays and 4 up on O's. Things are going to get interesting and one of these teams is going to get desperate.

[maxjusttyped]

Pods was a real good example of why pure numbers can be misleading. I'd like to see a stat of his obp in his first and second AB and how many bases he stole off those AB's in the first 80 games of the year. He was constantly on base in the beginning of games, put true pressure on pitchers, stole bases and gave our pitchers an early lead. He impacted the games like crazy.

 

*edit*

We scored the first run in something like 50 of the first 55 games. He set the tone for the new look Sox. Other players bought in and they carried that momentum throughout the year. Obviously the consistency if the pitching staff was needed, but Pods was a tone setting, impact player that year. Numbers won't tell you that.

That's actually not true. The numbers aren't misleading. Most of what you just said is quantifiable. Pods was an offensive force leading off games, hitting .333/.419/.417 as the 1st batter of the game. He also stole 57 SB's in those situations. Sometimes what you see (or in this case, remember seeing) is actually supported by the numbers.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/...5&t=b#leado

This is true if you are concerned about the individual player. I'm not. The only thing that matters is winning the game. It's fun to discuss the individual player but not directly relevant to the team. The stats were invented for arbitration to get the players more money to say that they were good regardless of the team winning.

P ersonally I enjoy watching the games and players. But in the end the only thing that matters for stats is wins and loses.

The only thing that matters for teams is winning games. This conversation started with us discussing two individual players. Alejandro De Aza and Scott Podsednik. If the answer to every "Which Sox player is better?" question was "the guy from the '05 team" then the 25 greatest Sox players of our lifetime were on that roster. I'm pretty sure we all know that isn't true. If you put Babe Ruth in his prime on the Astros, they're still going to be a bad team. There's only so much one player can do. That's why baseball is one of the ultimate team games.

 

Also, sabermetrics weren't invented so players could make more $ in arbitration. From what I've heard, that's still a fairly archaic process. The arbiters that settle arbitration cases (usually) aren't baseball fans, and neither side has time to explain why WAR, wRC+, etc are valuable tools to evaluate players. It's still the same old IP, Wins, RBI's, etc that are getting players paid. Sabermetrics were invented so we could improve the player analysis side of baseball. Which is exactly what's happened. There's a reason every team in baseball (with the exception of the Phillies) has a statistical analysis department, and at this point, most teams (including the Sox) have a GM with a statistical or economics background.

[hi8is]

Well, The Great Peavy Sweepstakes has indeed begun.

So far potential suitors seem to be who...

 

- Nationals

- Cardnals

- Yankees

- Diamondbacks

- Rangers

- O's

- Blue Jays

- Red Sox

 

Despite reports - my money is on St. Louis or Arizona.

( Oddly enough... the same two teams who are denying any interest - LOL )

 

[beck72]

Well, The Great Peavy Sweepstakes has indeed begun.

So far potential suitors seem to be who...

 

- Nationals

- Cardnals

- Yankees

- Diamondbacks

- Rangers

- O's

- Blue Jays

- Red Sox

 

Despite reports - my money is on St. Louis or Arizona.

( Oddly enough... the same two teams who are denying any interest - LOL )

It makes sense that not every team wants their interest publicized, hoping the price in terms of prospects doesn't get crazy high. The greater number of teams, the more desperate some will be to overpay. It'll be interesting to see what scouts are still around today, or for Jakes next start.

[Lemon_44]

Worst case scenario us the Sox keep Peavy and that's not such a bad thing. In fact, I'd be just fine with it. Getting rid of Rios and Dunn will help the Sox out more than anything. Having a rotation of Sale, Peavy, Danks, Quintana, and Johnson/Santiago is not bad to build around.

[oldsox]

Worst case scenario us the Sox keep Peavy and that's not such a bad thing. In fact, I'd be just fine with it. Getting rid of Rios and Dunn will help the Sox out more than anything. Having a rotation of Sale, Peavy, Danks, Quintana, and Johnson/Santiago is not bad to build around.

Keeping Rios in his contract year might not hurt as much as some people think. He will still have trade value in 7/2014.

[GreatScott82]

Keeping Rios in his contract year might not hurt as much as some people think. He will still have trade value in 7/2014.

You may be right. However, Rios has a history of having some down years. 2009 , 2011 etc.. The time to sell rios is now. We cant afford to take that chance. His value is peaking.