nitetrain8601

This one could get ugly and in a hurry tonight.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:13 PM) Freddy is fully aware of the money he lost not going through free agency. I really doubt he'll give the White Sox a break his next contract. Exactly my point. These players are going to keep on getting whatever they can until the market bursts and there is a strike. If I'm Garland, I'm looking over to Burnett and saying, I've accomplished more in my career, why can't I get more money?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) To put the price we'd have to end up paying for Garland in prospective (either signing and extension now or after the season), Ben Sheets and Johan Santana both signed for 4 years and 40 mil before last season. We offered Jon $24 mil over 3 years, and he obviously wasn't happy with that offer. Those guys are both light-years better than Jon, and if that's what it'll take to keep him I'd rather deal him for some cheap young talent and move on. I seriously doubt that Jon is ever going to be worth that kind of money. Buehrle is an entirely different story, and so are Freddy and Jose if they pitch well again this year. I'm more than happy with those 3 leading the rotation and filling it out with Javier and B-Mac, assuming we can work out deals for the first 3 when it is necessary. See post above me Garland's priority is cash right now and I won't knock him for it because I would probably be the same as 90% of the world would be. Let me ask you this, when Freddy becomes a FA, how much do you think he'll receive? Keep in mind, not warrant, receive.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:53 PM) The White Sox have known for quite a while what Garland was in line for in arbitration, and tried to sign him to a under market 3 year contract , still worth approx. $8 million for 2006, which is probably the max he will earn in arbitration. I can't see where keeping him and losing in arbitration would be blowing up the budget, keep in mind the Vazquez trade only added a million or 2 to the payroll for 2006. The good news for me is Texas and the Dodgers both have said KW is asking for too much. I don't want him to settle for some B or C prospects that turn out to be of the ilk of Adkins, Diaz, Harris etc. Garland is a huge chip, depending on whether the Cubs are serious about possibly trading Prior, and Beane being serious about keeping Zito, he has to be the most attractive non free agent pitcher available. KW cannot settle. He has to stick to his guns and get quality or hold onto him and take the draft picks. Damn Skippy!

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:48 PM) Addendum to breaking news, they don't do it this way. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. I think they would. At first they would be losing money, but from all the revenue they will be receiving from attendance alone, they'll end up finishing on the plus side regardless.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) KW probably wants to get some young cheap talent that will help with our budget for not only this year but for the next few. We have a lot of players that are coming into their payday years, and this will get ugly soon unless some cheaper players come in to the fold. Outside of VAfan everyone pretty much agrees on this principle. Now from a competition standpoint who do you want to trade with. Do you want to make the Angels better or the Yankees or the Red Sox you know one of these teams you wish to rip off. No you probably want to target a team that is in the NL so the risk of facing a good pitcher like Garland is limited. So that limits you to the NL. Now who has the prospects or the talent to give up. Some teams dont have what we want, some teams are not a good match. The minute you start to limit your tradling partners is the minute you pretty much limit your return. We make a deal now we can get some young talent. Yes you could bluff the entire baseball group and maybe somehow land the big score at the deadline for a desperate team. However that is too risky, and the "backup plan" of well we will get picks is laughable. People are crapping all over se they havent performed well in their september callup or their rookie season, but they are ready to take chances on completely unknown talent that may require a singing bonus. How is Joe Borchard doing everyone, was he worth our signing bonus or the first round pick. Because that is a possibliity when you go to draft picks. Take more mature proven talent that at least has their feet wet in some levels of the minors. At least most of the lemons have been taken out by this point. Why are draft picks laughable? Yes, Borchard didn't do as well, but at least you pick the guys you want with potential 1st and 2nd round picks from a team. You get to decide what position players you get or pitchers. You could develop them the way you want to develop them. That's not a shabby fallback plan at all. You also have to consider the WBC and the fact that someone's probably going to breakdown in the rotation. That's why I would keepp 6 until the trade deadline. If teams call our bluff, so be it. We still get a couple of good picks. And before anyone goes on further, yes I know we need to shed cash before the season starts, but I don't see that happening.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:22 PM) Is anyone else worried about KW not getting enough value back for Garland? It's not often that he's the one trading away the proven player for prospects, etc. Usually it's the other way around. In terms of what the fans want, I have a feeling that most will be dissapointed. Billingsly and Guzman? 2 of their top 3 prospects we're talking about there. Honestly, people are overvaluing Garland there. I would be content with Brazobahn and Broxton and maybe cash or a lower level prospect.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) What do you do about the budget situation, that has to factor in. Ask for cash in the deal.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:53 PM) Agreed here. I actually liked TO until he decided to just be a complete moron and attack Mcnabb. Add me to that list. What happened to these WR's? Did they actually hire Cedric the Entertainer as their Touchdown Boogey Coordinator? Anyway, I can't wait to see what he does. I love Chad Johnson. I hope they don't suspend him though. It's not like he's flipping off the other team. He's doing it to entertain the fans.

Ruutu is a nice player, but damn, I don't even think him coming back at 100% would help the Hawks right now.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:09 PM) Waiting to the trade deadline only limits your trading partners. Remember last year, no one made big trades, pretty much everyone stood pat. Right now everyone outside of a few teams feel that they are x amount of moves away. The Dodgers have to feel that they are close, if we can get the relievers that are being talked about, you get them. Our bullpen would be good to go for a long time not just this year. The problem last year was that there was still alot of teams in contention for their division/playoff spot. That's why a lack of moves were made. The only exception was Cincy with Ken Griffey Jr. because they were in the middle of selling the team. Again, look at the Villone deal. Look at the Farnsworth deal. Florida and Atlanta overpaid for those guys. Your prospects are usually not worth much to a team in the middle of a season which is why you could ripoff a team completely at the deadline.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 12:33 PM) Two bullpen arms for Jon Garland??? I can believe the rest of the post, but there are no bullpen arms we would get in trade who would equal the value of Jon Garland. Let's just talk about West Coast teams, since that's where everyone assumes he wants to go. Angels: Kelvim Escobar, Scott Shields?? A viable pair from our perspective, but there's no way the Angels would make that trade. They'd want to give us back end of the bullpen guys like Kevin Gregg or maybe Brendan Donnelly. No thanks. Dodgers: You guys have thrown around a lot of names, but do you realize not a single Dodger reliever other than Eric Gagne had an ERA below 3.73? That's Luis Vizcaino's ERA from the AL. So anyone we'd get from them is liable to make our bullpen worse than it was last year. I'd say that's getting great value for an 18-game winner. Giants: Scott Eyre was their best guy, and he's gone. Everyone else would make you miss Vizcaino and Marte. Seattle: Eddie Guardado would provide some value, and Julio Mateo looks decent enough on paper, but do you think Garland wants to play in Seattle, and that they are willing to pay him? San Diego: I don't think they are going to send us Trevor Hoffman. And they can't afford Garland anyway. To trade a front-line starter like Garland for bullpen arms makes no sense whatsoever. I don't believe Kenny Williams is that dumb. Knowing what happened when we were a starter short in 2001-2004, I think he'd rather keep Garland and lose him to FA than accept no value in return. In the long run, the Sox need to replace their outfield. Brian Anderson may or may not make it; same for Jerry Owens and Ryan Sweeney. Podsednik's wheels already look shaky after one year, and without them he's a marginal ballplayer at best. Dye is going to be 32 this year, but isn't likely to match his 2005 production over a full season again. The irony of this, of course, is that the Sox traded their best outfield prospect for Javier Vazquez, and there's no guarantee we'd get someone as good even though we have a better pitcher to offer. The reason is Garland's contract status. Vazquez is Sox property for 3 years. Garland is only a 1-year rental, with no guarantee he'll repeat his 2005 form for a new club with shakier defense and a different catcher calling the game. So from my perspective, the Sox should keep Garland and take the draft picks when he walks. Keeping him gives us the best chance of repeating the division title and facing down the Yankees in the playoffs. And I'd certainly take another shot at winning the World Series over a couple of mediocre bullpen arms. It doesn't matter where Garland wants to play. He's going to play there. I'm sure he would like to play in Seattle simply because the chances of him keeping his current market value or have it go up jumps up greatly since that's a huge pitcher's park. Seattle would want him because they have a frontline starter for at least 1 year and might be able to actually compete for the division next year. I don't know who Seattle would give up though. And I was saying yesterday that we probably and should hang onto Garland til around the trading deadline because that's when you could rip off teams.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:48 AM) We better get two damn good relievers. Cause if I read that right...a major league one, and one on the cusp I think of Brazoban and Broxton and I'd throw up at the idea of that. Its not getting enough. We have something EVERYONE wants and we better not get talent for it. I'm sorry, we gave up Chris Young for Vazquez (there were financial reasons as well) but nothing tells me we shouldn't get a little more for Jon Garland. I don't know. A lot of people are really high on Broxton. That was one of the main guys Boston wanted for Manny when they were dangling him to LA. Lots of Dodger and even Angel fans think he could be a dominant setup man.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:16 AM) This is the best part of the deal. Zambranos agent is.........Borasss. Which means, not only will they lose their golden boy Mark Prior, but when Z is ready for FA, they will lose him too. Boy I love Jim Hendry. The Cubs are actually one of the few teams who deal with Boras.

I expect him to be injured by tommorow.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:11 PM) I think you might be in the minority. Have you seen the market for starting pitching this off-season? Have you seen what quality pitchers are getting? Have you seen what bad pitchers are getting? It's insane. Chalk it up to Burnett's contract, the Sox proving you win championships with pitching and defense, or whatever else you want, but pitching...especially young, cheap, effective pitching...you are going to have to pay for it. Look no further than a trade completed yesterday for Christ's sake. If Adam Eaton and a bullpen arm are worth an organization's number one prospect--HANDS DOWN--an MLB-ready young arm, and another prospect or two, why are you telling me the Sox can't ask, or can't expect an organization's number one prospect in return. If you trade Garland to a West Coast team, his value also increases as he has been known to want to sign on the west coast when he hits free agency. Put it all together. Kenny should expect a number one prospect in return for a guy that has finally put it all together and found himself amongst the best in baseball last year. Garland was a f***ing all-star. I don't care if he is in his walk year. You find a team that will pay for a healthy, effective, cheap #2 starter. Period. I'm just not buying it.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:30 PM) Looks like Kenny's trades haven't been too bad huh? We should pick up Escobar just to trade him again.

QUOTE(rudylaw @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:27 PM) I think 3y 24mil is not a bad offer for Jon. Unfortunately the market is crazy right now and he will get more elsewhere. He has had 1 good year. 3-24 is not bad for a pitcher that has had 1 good year. The way the market is set now, it's a horrible contract, especially for a 27 year old.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:59 PM) This has probably been hashed and rehashed on this thread but these rotoworld quotes let you know a few things. Colletti is aggressive and is trying to put a contender on the field this year, and has money to spend. The dodgers can afford a top tier pitcher like Garland, and could have a 72 hour window to get a long term deal done. He is a better option from a durability standpoint than Millwood, and he provides a better pitcher than Weaver ever was. The fact that they are having Appier throwing in a workout doesnt mean that he will make the team, it just means that they are open to getting pitching in any form or manner for their team. Garland to Dodgers for top tier prospects sounds like a good fit for both teams. Sure does. Get Kenny on the phone!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:49 PM) Yes, what Vazquez did in Montreal is a few years away. He hasn't done s*** since the 1st half of the year with the Yanks (after that he was completely terrible and was very up and down for the Dbacks last year). Vazquez has good stuff, but just cause every guy has good stuff doesn't mean the Sox can just take him in and work there magic, turning them into aces. But who knows, maybe Coop is the 2nd coming of Mazzone. Mazzone is the 2nd coming of Coop is more like it.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:42 PM) You really think KW would be one to trade away from his major league team mid season and make it worse? Unless he gets major league talent back, I highly doubt KW would be willing to do that. That is, unless we aren't in contention, knock on wood. You either make it worse now and probably get inferior talent for him or you make it worse later and get better talent and probably are able to asses your needs more. I'd wait to deal him if at all.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:32 PM) I'd rather have Brazoban, he tired a bit at the end of the year, given a consistent set up role, or spot relief, I think he could be lights out. I agree. He has the stuff, plus he would be the #4 or 5 reliever on the team. He'd be great whenever he came in.

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:27 PM) Garland would be required to sign a deal with LA before the trade would go through. Billingsley, Guzman and Brazoban or no deal. Now you're asking for a king's ransom. I think they would give up any combination of those two players, but not all 3.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:23 PM) There will be a team that starts the season with a below average 5th starter but a decent offense that has playoff hopes at the deadline. All they will need is one more arm for a strong playoff push. They wouldn't trade for Garland now, but they definitely would at the deadline. Like in '98 Houston trading Freddy Garcia and Carlos Guillen for Randy Johnson (look at his stats that year before he was traded). I think you are right about trading him at the deadline being too risky. We don't know which Garland we will get the first half of next season and the only suitors for him at the deadline may be direct competitors in the AL. Well the whole risk thing is another aspect.

BULLs***!