Thome was signed as a free agent, not traded for. They did so after Howard played one season in class A ball. Not signing the top 1B in the game because of a hot prospect in Single A is something virtually no club does? You don't follow baseball at all, do you? Thome was coming off of a season where he hit .302 with 52 HRs. Passing on him because of a guy coming off of his first year in the minors would be incredibly stupid. As for Howard, that first season, he hit .280. Second year he hit .304, third year combined to hit .291. And the portion of the season in 2005 he played in the minors, he was hitting .371. Lots of other clubs wanted him, he was not at all viewed as a mediocre prospect. They just so happened to have someone better blocking his way. I'm pretty certain you don't really know what you're talking about here, so I'll just bail on the Thome argument. As for mentioniung Frye as the "strawman", you yourself said Diogu was a better player than Frye, and brought him into the discussion. The main clamoring for Diogu to play last season started when Frye started off the season so poorly. There was no primary discussion of Diogu brings this, this, or that. It was primarily Frye sucks, put in Ike. He could be that banger we need. When he's not really that much better of a rebounder than Channing is.
Maybe you missed some things (I'm not sure if you actually signed up in October of 2008, which would explain it, perhaps), but we definitely discussed Ike well before Frye started sucking. We also explicitly discussed why Ike would be a better fit than Frye. Ed O.
It's a good thing that's irrelevant isn't it? Maybe we should dig up how many Blazer fans wanted Adam Morrison over Brandon Roy. And please stop with the hyperbole, "everyone" doesn't like him as a cheap backup in this thread. Come on man, "don't talk out of your ass."
You still haven't explained how a guy who shot over 52% from the floor last year and over 50% from his career "can't make layups". I think you'd rather continue to look ignorant than admit you're wrong. Ed O.
LMAO. Oh my God. Somewhere Sarah Palin's baby is looking at this response and feeling pretty good about himself.
Thome was not the top first baseman in the game or even close. Someone who has never heard of Albert Pujols has really no basis for claiming other people don't follow baseball. (And yes, I know Pujols wasn't a full-time 1B when Thome was signed, but he was phasing into 1B from the OF and it was already known that that was his long-term position.) And yes, considering that free agent dollars are limited, teams don't tend to sign big-ticket free agents at positions where they have a hot prospect, because they can then allocate those dollars for other positions where they do not have major prospects who are likely to fill the role. The minor leagues are not the same quality as the major leagues. Were you unaware of this? Scouts were consistently saying that Howard would not hit for average at the major league level because he had enormous problems with strikeouts. Feel free to bail out. Considering you interjected yourself with no actual points, I'm unsurprised that you'll leave that way too. No, my poor, confused friend. The strawman was not that you mentioned Channing Frye's name. The strawman was claiming that people "are only interested in Diogu because of a 'grass is greener' dynamic." People have made arguments for Diogu based on his on-court production...his solid Rebound Rate, strong scoring efficiency and excellent PER.
Thome (2002) .304, 52 HR, 118 RBI, 1.122 OPS, Pujols (2002) .314, 34 HR, 127 RBI, .955 OPS Thome was better in 2001 and 2002 than Pujols was. Did Pujols have a much better future? Obviously, he was 21 or whatever. But you're right, I never heard of Albert Pujols before. Yes, I am aware that there is a difference between the minor leagues and major leagues. But I saw you say: "'I'm saying that he was undervalued because he didn't hit for average", and I took that to mean, well, that they undervalued him because he didn't hit for average. You know, exactly what you said. Sorry, I was supposed to read your mind. I apologize. Next time I will do my best. As for Ike, those arguments seemed to spring up as Frye began to play poorly, which gives off the appearance of a grass is greener mentality to me. Maybe not to you. That's fine.
Thome's 2002 was not his normal output. His OPS+ (park- and league-adjusted OPS) spiked in 2002. His normal output was equivalent to what Pujols had done his two seasons to that point. The main differentiator was that Pujols was an excellent defender and Thome was a DH who could play 1B (still able to, but fading). There was no question that Pujols was the superior first baseman at the time. Fair enough. I should have said "undervalued due to a perceived weakness in hitting for average." Regardless of your perceptions about when arguments for Diogu sprang up (and you're wrong, since Ed and I have been making the same arguments since Portland acquired Diogu in the Jack deal), your post didn't address any of the actual points made in this thread, yet purported to characterize the mentality "pro-Diogu" side. What you wrote was as useful to discussion as someone saying, "Those who don't want Diogu as backup hate him because they're frightened of statistical analysis, saw Diogu miss a layup once and made up their mind based on that." Entirely false, but a nicely dismissive mischaracterization.
In hindsight, yes, but if Frye had played like, or improved up what he did the year before, it would have been a different story.
Since we acquired him? Where were all the Diogu threads springing up when we acquired him? I don't see one.
We were on a different forum then. http://www.basketballforum.com/port...chad-ford-rush-jack-bayless-diogu-merged.html http://www.basketballforum.com/port...years-draft.html?highlight=jack diogu bayless http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/406074-diogu.html Some examples of Ed and myself considering Diogu interesting then:
