PDA

View Full Version : Hee-Seop Choi claimed off waivers by the Red Sox from the Dodgers



PTBNL
03-24-2006, 06:25 PM
From Rotoworld:
Red Sox claimed first baseman Hee-Seop Choi off waivers from the Dodgers.
It was bound to happen one of these years. Rather than carry Choi initially, the Red Sox will probably option him to Triple-A and wait and see what kind of starts Kevin Youkilis and J.T. Snow get off to. It'll be the same deal as with Roberto Petagine last year, though we hope Terry Francona is a little more open-minded about letting Choi into the lineup. By June or July, maybe the 27-year-old will get a chance to take aim at the Pesky Pole. Since he's making just $750,000, it's a great roll of the dice for the Red Sox. Mar. 24 - 5:02 pm et

BRM
03-24-2006, 06:26 PM
From Rotoworld:
Since he's making just $750,000, it's a great roll of the dice for the Red Sox. Mar. 24 - 5:02 pm et

Would have been a great roll of the dice for the Reds as well.

ochre
03-24-2006, 06:28 PM
Hatteberg is the answer evidently.

BRM
03-24-2006, 06:29 PM
Hatteberg is the answer evidently.

Then I don't want to know the question.

Johnny Footstool
03-24-2006, 06:31 PM
The question is: Who was that guy scrubbing Narron's back in the shower last week?

registerthis
03-24-2006, 06:42 PM
I do wonder what they're thinking sometimes. I really do.

TC81190
03-24-2006, 06:48 PM
:bang:

guttle11
03-24-2006, 06:53 PM
If you complain about not getting Hee-Shop frickin Choi, you just might be a Redsneck.

KronoRed
03-24-2006, 06:55 PM
I do wonder what they're thinking sometimes. I really do.
Old vets will lead us to old times.

BRM
03-24-2006, 06:57 PM
If you complain about not getting Hee-Shop frickin Choi, you just might be a Redsneck.

You're right. He's only younger and better than the current Reds first baseman and he's cheap. What's to like about him?

guttle11
03-24-2006, 07:00 PM
You're right. He's only younger and better than the current Reds first baseman and he's cheap. What's to like about him?

Because:

A) He's not that good

and

B) The season hasn't started yet and already Hatteberg is the new Aurilia. Give it time.

and

C) Shealy, who many like better than Choi could still come available.

savafan
03-24-2006, 07:01 PM
I do wonder what they're thinking sometimes. I really do.

Choi can't play second base, and there aren't any more marginally talented young pitchers on the 40 man roster to DFA?

TC81190
03-24-2006, 07:03 PM
He's not that good

I checked this to see if it was true after I read this. I didn't realize he was so average last year, but if you could get Choi at 2004 form, especially Florida 2004 form, then you just swiped a real commodity for yourself there.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2006, 07:16 PM
Because:

A) He's not that good

and

B) The season hasn't started yet and already Hatteberg is the new Aurilia. Give it time.

and

C) Shealy, who many like better than Choi could still come available.

A) He's only 27 years old

B) He has 30 homerun potential, good OBP skills, and a good glove.

C) Choi could have been had without giving up prospects. Shealy, while I like him better, will cost us prospects.

Another smart move by the Red Sox. Just a great organizationm all around. I wish the Reds could consistently make some smart moves instead of handing over starting jobs to Hatteberg and Womack.

StillFunkyB
03-24-2006, 07:22 PM
How many would like to have Sean Casey back now?

Had you known that Hatteberg would be the 1B, would you have still wanted the trade?

IslandRed
03-24-2006, 07:27 PM
I'm cooler on Choi than I used to be. He's 27 and his walk rate fell off last year, and I'm thinking "nothing special for a first baseman" is his career path now. And he doesn't hit lefties well.

Is he better than Hatteberg? Probably. But Hatty's not going anywhere and I doubt we're going to pick up someone that's just going to replace him in a first-base platoon with Aurilia. When or if Krivsky makes a move involving first base, it will be for a player better than Choi. That's my prediction, anyway.

PTBNL
03-24-2006, 07:28 PM
You have to wonder how he passed through 28 other teams..........
Dodged a bullet, I say! ;)

TC81190
03-24-2006, 07:29 PM
I'm cooler on Choi than I used to be. He's 27 and his walk rate fell off last year, and I'm thinking "nothing special for a first baseman" is his career path now. And he doesn't hit lefties well.

Is he better than Hatteberg? Probably. But Hatty's not going anywhere and I doubt we're going to pick up someone that's just going to replace him in a first-base platoon with Aurilia. When or if Krivsky makes a move involving first base, it will be for a player better than Choi. That's my prediction, anyway.

Exactly.

guttle11
03-24-2006, 07:33 PM
A) He's only 27 years old

B) He has 30 homerun potential, good OBP skills, and a good glove.

C) Choi could have been had without giving up prospects. Shealy, while I like him better, will cost us prospects.

Another smart move by the Red Sox. Just a great organizationm all around. I wish the Reds could consistently make some smart moves instead of handing over starting jobs to Hatteberg and Womack.

I hate the word potential.

2005 G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Choi- 133 320 40 81 15 2 15 42 145 34 80 1 3 .336 .453 .253
Hatt-134 464 52 119 19 0 7 59 159 51 54 0 1 .334 .343 .256


I'll give you the SLG%, but they aren't too much different.

EDIT: Sorry, never learned how to code.

OnBaseMachine
03-24-2006, 07:36 PM
I hate the word potential.

2005 G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Choi- 133 320 40 81 15 2 15 42 145 34 80 1 3 .336 .453 .253
Hatt-134 464 52 119 19 0 7 59 159 51 54 0 1 .334 .343 .256


I'll give you the SLG%, but they aren't too much different.

Choi is much younger and better with the glove. He could hit 25-30 homeruns playing half his games in the GAB.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2006, 07:36 PM
Alright. Krivsky back in the doghouse with me.

KronoRed
03-24-2006, 07:37 PM
1 key, Choi can and probably will do better, Hatteberg can and probably will do worse due to age.

DoogMinAmo
03-24-2006, 08:01 PM
Alright. Krivsky back in the doghouse with me.


Out of curiosity, when was he ever out?

Not that I wouldn't mind spending half of the Arroyo money on Choi to get a defensive upgrade alone, but a lot of teams passed on Choi for the Sox to get him on waivers. Maybe Kriv wasn't the only one to see something there.

Falls City Beer
03-24-2006, 08:08 PM
Out of curiosity, when was he ever out?

Not that I wouldn't mind spending half of the Arroyo money on Choi to get a defensive upgrade alone, but a lot of teams passed on Choi for the Sox to get him on waivers. Maybe Kriv wasn't the only one to see something there.


I really liked the Arroyo for Pena deal. So it was a temporary furlough from the doghouse.

traderumor
03-24-2006, 09:18 PM
Choi's main attractiveness isn't based on his big games against Reds' pitching is it? That is not a matter of distinction for anyone.

Reds Nd2
03-24-2006, 09:24 PM
I do wonder what they're thinking sometimes. I really do.

My question concerns the order for picking up waiver claims. When a player is placed on waivers, every team in the Majors has an opportunity to make a claim over the next three business days, and priority goes to the club with the worst record. Does this order change if a team has made a prior claim? In other words, did the Reds ability to pick rather highly in the waiver process change after they picked up Gossling?

PTBNL
03-24-2006, 09:44 PM
Nope, the pick pecking order stays the same.

Reds Nd2
03-24-2006, 10:04 PM
Nope, the pick pecking order stays the same.

Thanks PTBNL.

I find it quite distressing that the Reds would pass on Choi when Hatteberg seems to be headed for the 1B job.

KronoRed
03-24-2006, 10:44 PM
Thanks PTBNL.

I find it quite distressing that the Reds would pass on Choi when Hatteberg seems to be headed for the 1B job.
Choi is not a 2nd base utility guy.
;)

Nugget
03-25-2006, 02:50 AM
I don't think Choi can be optioned. The Red Sox will either have to option him or put him through waivers to send him down.

Jpup
03-25-2006, 06:28 AM
I don't think Choi can be optioned. The Red Sox will either have to option him or put him through waivers to send him down.

read what you wrote again. i think you meant DFA.:p:

The Reds will probably trade for him now.

redsmetz
03-25-2006, 06:50 AM
From this a.m.'s Boston Globe. Presumably LA needed room on their 40 man roster, so they waived him and Boston had room on their 40 man roster.


Choi does have an option remaining, meaning he can be sent to Triple A Pawtucket without having to pass through waivers. General manager Theo Epstein said that is where Choi will begin the season, ''barring another move." Another way of putting that: Choi will begin the year in the minors, unless J.T. Snow or Kevin Youkilis is dealt.

Jpup
03-25-2006, 07:56 AM
From this a.m.'s Boston Globe. Presumably LA needed room on their 40 man roster, so they waived him and Boston had room on their 40 man roster.

maybe Youklis is on the way to the Reds?

REDREAD
03-25-2006, 09:42 AM
My question concerns the order for picking up waiver claims. When a player is placed on waivers, every team in the Majors has an opportunity to make a claim over the next three business days, and priority goes to the club with the worst record. Does this order change if a team has made a prior claim? In other words, did the Reds ability to pick rather highly in the waiver process change after they picked up Gossling?

No the order stays the same.
Also, since the Red Sox got him, it means all NL teams passed on him. First you go within the league (in this case the NL), then you do the other league.

I'm not too upset out this. When you consider we have Valentin, Dunn, Hattenberg, and Aurillia to man 1b. Sure Choi mightv'e been a little bit better than Hattenberg, but in the grand scheme of things, Choi would've just been another stopgap.

It's interesting that other NL teams that could've used a 1b (Florida, Atlanta) also passed on him. Also, the article says the Red Sox are going to send him to AAA.. It seems that there's general consenous among all teams that Choi has slipped to a AAAA player. Again, that might still make him better than Hattenberg, but the Reds are kind of stuck with Hattenberg.

Big Klu
03-25-2006, 10:29 AM
No the order stays the same.
Also, since the Red Sox got him, it means all NL teams passed on him. First you go within the league (in this case the NL), then you do the other league.

I'm not too upset out this. When you consider we have Valentin, Dunn, Hattenberg, and Aurillia to man 1b. Sure Choi mightv'e been a little bit better than Hattenberg, but in the grand scheme of things, Choi would've just been another stopgap.

It's interesting that other NL teams that could've used a 1b (Florida, Atlanta) also passed on him. Also, the article says the Red Sox are going to send him to AAA.. It seems that there's general consenous among all teams that Choi has slipped to a AAAA player. Again, that might still make him better than Hattenberg, but the Reds are kind of stuck with Hattenberg.

Also, since the Red Sox got him, most of the AL teams passed on him, too.

I agree that Choi would only be a stopgap who is only marginally better than Hatteberg. If the Reds didn't already have Hatteberg, then I might have been more interested in Choi. But he would be somewhat redundant on this club. Since Hatteberg is somewhat of a sunk cost, it wouldn't make sense to pick up a similar player.

Personally, I have high hopes for Rich Aurilia at 1B (at least until a long-term solution is found). Talk about the anti-Casey! There isn't going to be any friendly small-talk going on with baserunners now! And, just maybe, that is what this club needs--to stop being so "nice and friendly". Like Leo Durocher said, "Nice guys finish last!"

blumj
03-25-2006, 10:41 AM
maybe Youklis is on the way to the Reds?
Only if they suddenly have confidence in Mike Lowell. Would you?

SteelSD
03-25-2006, 10:54 AM
I agree that Choi would only be a stopgap who is only marginally better than Hatteberg.

In 2005, Choi produced 47 Runs Created in 363 Plate Appearances. Hatteberg was at 50 RC over 523 Plate Appearances.

Project that out over 500 PA as the LH part of a platoon and you get the following:

Choi- 65 Runs Created
Hatteberg- 48 Runs Created

That's a difference of 17 Runs to the plus side. To put that in perspective, it's the Run value difference existing between a 4.50 ERA pitcher and a 5.25 ERA pitcher over 200 Innings.

In 2005, no First Baseman who grabbed as many as 250 PA was worth fewer Runs than Scott Hatteberg. When you'll be fielding a guy who'll most likely be the worst offensive 1B in the game in 2006, there's every reason in the world to pick up much better performance for free.

REDREAD
03-25-2006, 01:27 PM
In 2005, Choi produced 47 Runs Created in 363 Plate Appearances. Hatteberg was at 50 RC over 523 Plate Appearances.
.

Can you give me a refresh on how "Runs Created" is calculated. I initially thought it was RBI + Runs - HR.. but if you do that, Choi had 67..




In 2005, no First Baseman who grabbed as many as 250 PA was worth fewer Runs than Scott Hatteberg. When you'll be fielding a guy who'll most likely be the worst offensive 1B in the game in 2006, there's every reason in the world to pick up much better performance for free.

However, Choi was not free, he's going to cost 750k, which might be a big deal for the Reds. I agree that it shouldn't be an issue, but it might be, since both the Womack trades and the Arroyo trades sent cash back to us.

I agree that Choi is better.. But in hindsight Wayne obviously had made up his mind to trade an OF and had to grab a 1b quickly. This 1b had to be cheap and not cost trading chips. So I can see why he grabbed Hattenberg, as there was no guarantee Choi would be waived.

I do agree with you that it would've been nice to get Choi, don't get me wrong.. But perhaps Wayne can use that 750k better. You do agree that Choi would just be a stopgap too?.. A better stopgap than Hattenberg, but not exactly a building block for the future.

Cyclone792
03-25-2006, 01:49 PM
Can you give me a refresh on how "Runs Created" is calculated. I initially thought it was RBI + Runs - HR.. but if you do that, Choi had 67..

I would never recommend using Runs+RBI-HR to determine offensive production! :) Runs created, OTOH, is about 97-98 percent accurate for determining actual run production.

A very basic premise of RC - and what has been known for several years to be one of the most accurate indicators of offensive production - is the combination of avoiding outs while acquiring bases. The more often you can avoid outs and/or acquire bases, the more value you have (aka creating baserunners, known as OBP, and advancing runners around the bases, known as total bases or SLG). It does not matter who your teammates are and how valuable they are at what they do. As a hitter, your goal is to acquire as many bases as possible while using up the fewest outs. The hitters who do this better than everyone else are the best hitters in the game.

First basic examples:

Batter A hits a solo home run
Batter B hits a grand slam

With the flawed R+RBI-HR formula, Batter A is credited with one run produced while Batter B is credited with four runs produced, despite the fact that neither batters had any control whatsoever of whether or not there were men on base when they hit the home run. A home run is essentially four bases acquired at the cost of zero outs. In terms of accounting for individual run production, all home runs are mostly equal, and RC accurately shows that.

Second basic example:

Batter A singles
Batter B singles, moving Batter A to second base
Batter C singles, scoring Batter A and moving Batter B to second base
Batter's D, E and F all strike out to end the inning.

In the flawed R+RBI-HR formula, Batter A is credited with a run scored and Batter C is credited with an RBI. Batter B is credited with absolutely nothing. In reality, Batter's A, B and C have mostly equal results of one base acquired at the cost of zero outs. Again, RC accurately shows this while R+RBI-HR fails. (I say mostly equal results because more recent/advanced RC formulas have very minor modifications in the formula that also accounts for situational hitting).

Wiki's page on RC is actually pretty decent in terms of showing the formulas ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

Hope this helps.

Cyclone792
03-25-2006, 01:59 PM
Win shares is another way to look at Hatteberg and Choi.

Scott Hatteberg accumulated one offensive win share every 72.64 plate appearances.
Spread out over 650 plate appearances, or a full season, Hatteberg would have accumulated 8.95 offensive win shares in 2005.
Hee Seop Choi accumulated one offensive win share every 55.76 plate appearances.
Spread out over 650 plate appearances, or a full season, Choi would have accumulated 11.66 offensive win shares in 2005.

Choi's not a world beater or anything at first base, but he'd be a much better solution there in 2006 than Hatteberg. Incidentally, I think Hatteberg would work great in a pinch hitting role off the bench, but unless Krivsky has something else on the brink, it looks as if the Reds are going to make the mistake of giving him far too many starts and plate appearances this season. At the cost of less than a million, IMO, Choi would have been worth it, and the Reds missed out on a golden opportunity to grab him off waivers.

Johnny Footstool
03-25-2006, 10:47 PM
B) The season hasn't started yet and already Hatteberg is the new Aurilia. Give it time.

Hatteberg's last sniff of a decent season was 2002 -- 3 years ago. Plus he's 36 years old. Just how much more time do you propose we give him?