Balta1701

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) So Mariott agrees with 90% of the posters here that the trade sucks, and he's still and idiot Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

How in the world do the Colts find a way to lose to the Texans?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Maybe an proven big league outfielder plus a middle reliever. Just some proven major leaguers. Maybe package Brandon and another guy or 2 for the Rangers' ss Ozzie likes so much. I know, he's untouchable, but maybe not. Maybe we could have had a blockbuster to get Young. Or a blockbuster to get the A-Rod everybody seems to want so much. Hopefully those prospects we got will do well, and maybe Brandon is overrated, but couldn't we have gotten Young from Texas with Brandon and maybe one or two of our top prospects as well as Cintron? I'm clearly not a fan of this deal as it is, but I will say this, I like the deal as it was done quite a bit more than sending multiple people including BMac to Texas and only getting back Young. And I still think an ARod deal would be a bad idea for this team.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Of course I'm serious Tony and instead of wasting time saying that why don't you ask me what's wrong with that post? Or ask a follow up? Tony are you saying you don't see an obvious change in philosophy regarding the Sox wanting to let the high priced pitchers walk? You don't see the Royals trot prospects out there every year and the prospects suck? And that the Yankees go with veterans over prospects every year? Sorry in your world everybody doesn't agree with tony. The Yankees go with veterans over prospects every year? Wang, and soon to be Phillip Hughes would like to raise an issue with you. And secondly, you're comparing the White Sox to the Royals? Well, let me fire this back at you. You don't see the Tigers, Twins, and Indians running their prospects out there and managing to find repeated success? That nice year of Verlander, Zumaya, Bonderman, Maroth, and all those other young guys didn't do anything for you?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 24, 2006 -> 11:03 AM) I'm sorry, I don't see how you can call Texas a real threat to do anything. You're talking about a team that won 80 games last year and probably has a net loss of talent so far this off-season. They lost Gary Matthews Jr., who was a major factor for them last year, Carlos Lee, which is absolutely huge even though they only had him hald the year, and two other regular contributors to the lineup in Mark De Rosa and Rod Barajas. Plus the only real additions they made are B-Mac, Kenny Lofton, and Eric Gagne. How can you really call them a threat when their rotation doesn't have a #1 or #2 starter? How can you say that a rotation of Kevin Millwood, Vincente Padilla, Brandon McCarthy, Robinson Tejada, and Edison Volquez (or whomever else they use) is a playoff-caliber rotation, especially when they no longer have a dominant offense? Their pen will definitely be stronger with Gagne, but that rotation is a huge liability, and their lineup is really only decent and lacks punch after Blalock. I'd really love to hear how they are going to beat the Angels and/or win the wild card with that rotation... Couple other things on Texas though. Yes they lost Matthews Jr., which hurts them. But they also last year got fairly poor years all-around from Teixeira and Young compared to what they are capable of. They also get another year of work from that Jason Botts kid who I like, and Ian Kinsler. I think Texas is in really good shape next year, personally.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 09:21 PM) Weathered lefties with below average stuff who are a year away from hitting a FA market that might make him 15 million per year don't bring what they used to. What were the A's asking for Zito at the Trade Deadline last year, for 1/2 a season? That is all I have to say about that.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 09:13 PM) I share frustrations with Balta because, regardless of his noted failures in the bullpen, Brandon's essentially the pitcher we could least afford to lose. He's the pitcher who embodied Williams' approach of rebuilding a veteran staff with younger, cheaper starters who remain under control for 5+years. This is one particular move I'm not giving Williams any benefit of doubt. The one thing I will add is we could afford to lose Brandon, IF THE PRICE WAS RIGHT. We could afford to leave ourselves with 4 starters, if the price was right. I would be willing to risk this whole season on Charlie Haeger, if the price was right. But sitting here, looking at this deal over and over, I just don't think the price was right. Maybe the throw-in high school guy will prove me wrong at some point, but I just don't think the price was right. QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 09:20 PM) Can't wait for the deadline to roll around when we're 8 games back...Let the minor leaguers start rolling in then. Haven't there been enough teams in the Central make it a race after being 8 games back to show that you don't give up when being 8, or 15 games back at the AS break?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) I'll bet anyone 50 bucks right now that Mark Buehrle will not pitch for the Cardinals in 2007. If Mark ever pitches for St. Louis is will be at the tail end of his career, not during his prime. I could fully believe Mark Buehrle would pitch for St. Louis in 2008. 2007...there would have to be something the White Sox would want for the Cardinals. And I still will not do Wainright + Reyes for Mark Buehrle (let alone the fact we'd need another 40 man spot).

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 09:01 PM) Weren't Garland, Garcia, Buerhle, and Contreras all signed to long term deals rather than letting them hit free agency? "Long term" to me is not 3 years. Long term would be for several more years than that. Signing Buehrle, Vazquez, Garland, and Garcia to long-term deals had 2 of them hitting Free Agency after 2007 and 2 of them after 2008 (and Contreras after 2009). Jerry Reinsdorf does not like signing pitchers to more than 3 year deals, so therefore, he does not like signing pitchers to "long term" deals based on the newly established Gil Meche, AJ Burnett, and soon to be Barry Zito standard of 5-6 years.

QUOTE(soxwon @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 08:59 PM) your one of the few who get it. sorry about that- i meant the other non believers. spread the faith a friend of mine in arizona golfed with paul konerko after the season was over. He said tha PK said Jerry Reinsdorf is VERY upset with Buehrle, wearing the Cardinal cap alot. In other words, Buehrle is a goner, if not before the end of next season, or right afterwards when he becomes a free agent. Sox WILL not sign buehrle. If the White Sox will not resign Buehrle, I would vastly have preferred Buehrle be traded and BMac be kept, or given the circumstances, both be traded. I would rather the White Sox wind up with what Buehrle would get during a trade and save the $10 mil this season, than lose Buehrle for draft picks and spend the money this season. As long as we get something reasonable in return.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) I liked Mac a lot, but I think his ceiling is a No. 3 and he'll most likely get shelled in Texas throwing in that park, then again, who doesn't? I think BMac may actually wind up projecting pretty well to Texas. That changeup buries people down and away, and if he can get the feel of it right, it should be almost impossible to hit into the air. And he developed a very good 2 seamer a year ago, that was very good at barreling inside on people and could turn into a lot of ground balls. His worry is having his change and big 12-6 curve ball hang on him. Both of those can be hit in the air and out of the park, so the thing he needs to focus on is getting those pitches to keep burying themselves low, at the knees and below. He does that and he absolutely dominates, even in Texas, because no one hits him at all

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 08:17 PM) -OK, what did we lose? Garcia and McCarthy are gone, that is a HUGE thing for all of us. And as someone who can’t stand Vazquez I am very sad to see multiple major moves within our rotation not purge us of him, but he is back. Our top 4 are Jose, Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez. Even WITHOUT the deals we have made, the bottom line is those guys would have HAD TO pitch lights out for us next year. NOTHING CHANGES. We still need Count to be solid and healthy, we still need Mark Buehrle to rebound from his disaster 2006, we still need Garland to keep winning 17, 18 a year, and we still need Javy to figure out baseball games are longer than 5 innings. NONE OF THAT CHANGES. Freddy Garcia NOR Brandon McCarthy … NEITHER ONE of those guys were going to be the major reasons we win next year, but the status of our top-end rotation guys. I think here's one of my biggest problems with this whole concept. We traded away a guy with 5 or so years of MLB eligibility before he hits free agency, but we're holding onto 1 guy who has 1 remaining year on his contract in Buehrle. I've been casually pushing the concept of dealing Buehrle since September or so, because Mark has an incredible record of pitching, only 1 year left on his contract, and a world series ring. I just look at this deal and think that Mark Buehrle should have been able to bring us the exact same deal, and that's with Mark being a Free Agent so soon. I just still hate the idea of losing probably 2 of Mark Buehrle, Jermaine Dye, and Tadahito Iguchi for draft picks at the end of next season. Maybe I'll be surprised and we'll resign a couple of them, and if the deal is decent I will applaud, but I really, really dislike the concept of holding onto Buehrle and losing the guy with 5 years before FA rather than the reverse. I can understand holding onto Javy. If we really believe in those numbers he put up in the last 2 months, and beleive he can do that for a full season, then he can make himself a much more valuable trading chip next offseason. He has an enormous amount of room for improvement, when compared to the rest of our starters. But I still don't like the fundamental principle of going into 2007 with Mark Buehrle, Jermaine Dye, and Tadahito Iguchi hitting Free Agency at the end of the year. I really hate the idea of losing Buehrle and Dye for draft picks, no matter how many first round picks we get. It just doesn't help us in 08 at all.

QUOTE(TheOcho @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:53 PM) Is this clown banned yet? Hell, even given the state of the NL, the White Sox should still be better than the Cubs next year unless all 4 starters blow their arms out through, um, with no more details because this is a family site let's say, enjoyment of the offseason. Spending $300+ million in one of the worst offseasons to spend Free Agent money this decade does not a winning team make.

QUOTE(dasox24 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) One of the first things I thought of after this trade was that hopefully we'll be able to redraft Jordan Danks when he's eligible. I think he'll make a fantastic player someday, and baring injury, though, he'll be drafted too high for us. Although, I guess that means we will be able to draft him in 2 years according to those who think this trade means we're gonna finish 4th in the AL Central and completely suck... whatever... This team is still a 90-win team. I truly believe getting rid of Garcia was addition by subtraction, which sometimes has to be done. Also, while losing McCarthy does hurt us this year, it doesn't make much of a difference if the other 4 don't pitch well. Basically, if Contreras, Garland, Beurhle, and Vazquez pitch like they're capable, then whoever our 5th starter is won't matter b/c the other 4 will be so dominant. Though if the other 4 pitch like last year, it won't matter who the 5th starter is b/c we're not gonna be in the playoffs anyway. But here's the counterpoint...what are the odds that ALL 4 of those pitchers will pitch for the entire 2007 season like they are capable of? Every single one of them has the "stuff" that could win 20 games in a season. Garland has won 18 a couple times, Buehrle we all know can murder anyone, and Contreras and Vazquez both have pure talent. But what exactly are the odds that they will be able to do that? I for one thought that McCarthy could be a 15-20 game winner next year, and if he had as good of a year as he was capable of, could be a 5th 20 game winner type person. His replacement, presumably Haeger, is probably at best a 15 game winner, and that's if he has an incredible rookie campaign. I don't think we can count on every single person in our staff other than our 5th starter to have a great 2007 campaign. They do, we get rings either way. But if 1 of them don't, or one of them gets hurt, or more than that, then we could face some real concerns next year.

Man, you make a tough poll, when it's only based on 3 years, 1 of which was a world series year. Ozzie Guillen has thus far not been a good in game manager, and given his stubbornness and seeming lack of desire to learn from his mistakes, I don't know if he ever will improve. But he managed to do enough things right, including giving his guys enough rest, helping turn his starting pitchers into monsters, and motivating his team well enough to blow the snot out of the rest of baseball in 2005. In 2006, we seemed so lackadasical though. I'm so conflicted. I'm going to go with second 25% right now, because I don't have enough data after 3 years. He pulls this team togther this season, makes them look like they want it again, and he skyrockets. They look lazy again, fall flat in the 2nd half again, and lose too many games because of stupid managerial mistakes, then he plummets to the bottom. But that 2005 campaign, and the way that team played, is still carrying him for now to my eyes.

QUOTE(soxwon @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:48 PM) i really think most of you are so wrong. this will be a great deal for us, all the young arms we got are going to produce. just trust me on this, this will be a trade for all to remember and in the long run praise. have faith in KW- all of you . To some extent I do have faith in KW. Last time I had doubts about a deal he made, it was key to winning us a world series. And it was the same sort of deal...he traded a bigger player for lesser players. But that deal also gave us more financial flexibility and pieces that could bring us an immediate benefit for the next year. I just can't see how this deal does that unless Danks is moved for someone else, and I feel McCarthy should have a lot more value than Danks based on his big league performance. This deal could work out damn well, and the point I'm trying to make now is that I still wouldn't be happy with it, because I just think that even right now, BMac has more value than what we got for him. We win 3 world series with Danks, and while I think about it, I'll think we could have won 4 with the extra talent we should have gotten in a deal involving BMac.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:46 PM) Oh, you mean the Joaquin Arias who had a .296 OBP last year in the PCL? That Joaquin Arias? Yes. And I looked at his numbers. He supposedly plays good defense at Shortstop, a position where we need a guy to fill in for Uribe in either 08 or 09 at the latest, and he has the speed that Ozzie wants. His problem as a pure leadoff hitter is his OBP, that I will grant you, he doesn't walk much. But compared to a "nobody" as a throw-in, I would certainly have been more happy with him than with just what we got. For what BMac has shown me, I just want more than 1 possible starter and 1 likely bullpen guy. Even if it's a better-than-Owens gamble, I'd take it. But you can't tell me you're excited about the 3rd part of this deal, even if he is just in his first year out of high school. That 6-16 record, 1.42 WHIP, and 5.41 ERA doesn't excite me very much, compared with someone who could fill an actual need for us.

Just found the guy in Texas's organization I wanted...Joaquin Arias. Spent last year at AAA, shortstop with a good infield arm, decent batting average (.313 at AA, only .263 at AAA, so probably needs another year at AAA), but a ton of speed, 30, 20, and 26 stolen bases at A, AA, and AAA in the last 3 years. In other words, he's my replacement for Uribe if the Sox don't pick up his option after 2007. And it gives Ozzie the speed he loves at a position where he'd love to have speed and a position where we have room to upgrade. Dah well, too late for that.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:31 PM) I'm convinved there were issues between Ozzie and Brandon, and the Brandon issue was the easier one to deal with. That I can understand, but to my eyes, that still doesn't justify the deal. No matter how the future shakes out, a year, two, 5 years from now, I will still look back on this deal and think that we didn't get as much for BMac as we could or should have. In a quote WGN had, audio, from KW, he was saying he wouldn't trade Bmac unless he was totally blown away by the deal. I simply can not in any way understand how this deal could blow him away. And that's my problem. With a kid like BMac, he could and should have been blown away to deal him, even if Ozzie has a problem with him. You just don't dump a kid with 5 years left before arbitration and a big time name. Even if the deal was just with Texas, there should have been another player in it. Something quality. If not that Hurley person, at least someone I might care about as the last guy instead of a throw-in.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) So I got a BMac (traded), Tommie Harris (injured for the year), and Vince Young jersey today. Vince Young is doomed now. W00t, Titans/Bills tomorrow. Yes yes yes, thank you Willie!

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) You're only going to get so much for someone who hasn't started for even half a season, IMO. Then to my eyes, you are simply out of your mind if you trade the guy. I mean, if nothing else, they've talked Soriano, Griffey, maybe Crawford, etc., for BMac. Immediate game/season changing players. If the issue is that no one will give up enough for BMac because he hasn't proven himself in the big leagues due to only starting for a half year, why trade him? That's the classic trading-at-lowest-value problem. Unless KW and Cooper were 100% convinced that BMac would be terrible starting this year, which personally I can barely imagine from what I've seen, then we traded BMac at his lowest possible value for at best equal value.

QUOTE(southsida86 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) I read somewhere that Floyd's fastball was once in the 93-95mph range, topping at 96mph but it had gone down to 91-93 mph topping at 94mph and that he has a 2-seam sinker around 90-92 mph. I wonder if maybe the sox brass saw some problems with his mechanics and they think Coop can work with him and get his fastball and sinker velocity back up. How good is his curve and change right now anyway? Baseball America took a look at Floyd while he was pitching in the Arizona fall league, and they seem to confirm the numbers you're giving. His fastball was coming in low 90's, but his key pitch was always his curveball, which BA said was still rocking, big 12-6 breaking ball that can really murder righties. BA link. It does sound like his fastball velocity has gone down a couple of mph in the last year or two for some reason, which is worrisome, but maybe something that can be overcome, and even if not, if he can get some consistency out of that big curveball, he should still be able to be a good pitcher. I hope.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) I'll reserve judgment. I just can't reserve judgment on this one for one simple reason: I don't feel like we got our money's worth. I just feel like we could, and in fact should have gotten so much more for Brandon McCarthy, and that alone leaves me unhappy. BMac could struggle and Danks and Masset could come out and dominate and the other guy could turn into our Liriano, and I'd still feel disappointed by this deal, because I just think we should have been able to get more for BMac.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 04:55 PM) I heard they actually sold a lot of Aluminum Poles this year. Bout 600.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 23, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Those pitchers wouldn't give the sox the top arms like Danks and Masset. I can not believe that Mark Buehrle, one of the best starting arms in baseball the last 5 years, and a lefty to boot, could not bring a similar return to what we got in this deal. It's certainly not like anyone will say we raked Texas over the coals here with the deal we got.