Balta1701

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) Trading a PROVEN NBA 4 for a HS kid that COULD be a really good 5 will never make sense to me. Ever. Vlade Divac for a draft pick that turned into Kobe Bryant.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:58 AM) Mariotti loves this trade... not a good sign. Maybe we're so good now that he doesn't feel like he can afford to doubt us any more without being either laughed at or fired?

QUOTE(Greg Hibbard @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 10:27 AM) I'm asking you to play along with me and peer into the Crystal ball. Would you take Garland or the prospects if you knew you had a pretty good shot at another title with him? If I were convinced that we didn't have a shot at the title without Garland, I'd say keep him and make the run for it. However, we currently have 6 starting pitchers. 5 of them won 10+ games last year, and the 6th may be the best of all of them. If you can still hold onto 5 really good starting pitchers, and still make an LCS run, and at the same time bolster your team in the near-term by trading Garland, I'd say do it. I think we can make a run without him now that we have 5 other pitchers. And I think that a trade may very well help us make that run.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:32 AM) Cardinals could be an interesting team. They have lost a pitcher, and not been able to replace him. What kind of prospects do they have? They gave up a couple of their best people in the Mulder deal, I know that much.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:43 PM) I can agree with all of that. For the most part, we're on the same page. But the payroll is the difference. Obviously, the White Sox can't afford to trade all their prospects because they don't have the salary. But if they keep winning, that would no longer be an issue. Cotts, Jenks, Buehrle, Garland, McCarthy, Anderson, and Crede were all brought up by the Sox in some way. The Yankee's have Cano and that's it I believe. They also have the advtange in payroll which pretty much nullifies their need for a minor league system. Yes, it is not imperative to a team to have great prospects but it sure doesn't hurt. But see, that's the real amazing thing about what KW has been doing with these deals...he's not only been getting good players in return, but he's been going around the league and pulling in some of the cash to pay people that we normally couldn't. Payroll in the long term is still a concern, but KW has to be thinking that payroll will continue to grow with attendence as long as we keep winning, so if we win in the short term, that will produce larger growth spurts in payroll in the future, which may allow us to fill in these gaps in our minor leagues that we've been creating. On top of that, KW has been trading minor leaguers from positions where we're strong. The only reason we might have needed Gio, for example, is if both Garland and Contreras walked. The only reason we might need Young is if Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, Dye, and Podsednik couldn't cut it over the next few years. That's 5 outfielders for 3 spots. We have 6 starters right now, all of whom can eat innings, and even if we lose 1 of them...we weren't going to have room for Gio. At the worst right now it looks like it'll be at least 2 years before we need to fill in another actual hole in our starting 5. So KW is trading the "extra" people who won't be playing with us in the next few years to both fill in holes and grab cash from other people. Now that strikes me as a brilliant way to run a mid-market franchise.

I was really enjoying the fact that Steve Phillips said on SC that we may have one of the best rotations in history.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:16 PM) .962 FP at 3B for Blalock for his career while it is .964 for Crede. I think we all know that fielding percentage simply doesn't tell you enough about fielding to measure a player's true contribution for almost any player.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:59 AM) Garland is essentially a one year rental, unless he's traded to some team where he'll sign an extension, or at the least be very willing to consider one. That has the Dodgers written all over it. They could possibly trade for Garland and work out a contract. If the White Sox are able to pull off a Garland/Uribe deal for Miguel Tejada, KW should be executive of the year 2006 in advance. Meaning, Garland's value is as a one year starter as it stands right now. Just look what Beane got for Mulder is all I have to say about that.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:08 PM) As you may well know, most countries dont have a dollar bill. Typically, the smallest denomination is $5. So, it makes me wonder if the US will slowly get us off the $1 bill and onto the $! coin. The U.S. has been trying to do that for years (sacajawea dollars, susan b anthony dollars, etc.) Simply because it's a lot cheaper to produce the coin than it is to produce the bill. Thus far though, they just haven't caught on no matter how hard the government has tried.

Jon Garland is an incredible pitcher. I don't want to dump him. Given infinite salary...He'd be the #2 guy I would resign to a contract extension, right behind MB. However, if Jon Garland cannot be kept, right now through a trade he can obtain us some incredibly valuable pieces - think about what Beane got for Hudson and Mulder. If we lose him as a Free Agent, we will get draft picks. However, right now, if we find a trading partner, he can get us potentially top-tier, All-star talent. Compared with losing Garland for draft picks, that is a much better option. If we could resign Garland at a fair price right now...do it. If he'll sign for what Burnett got, Hell I'd do that too. But I think he would expect more, given his performance last year, and I doubt he'd resign now without wanting to first test the FA market to see what he could get, a-la Konerko. We took a big risk in potentially losing Konerko for draft picks. We can't take that risk with every one of these guys. We have to get something for them.

According to several sources, Johnny Damon received a phone call from Joe Torre yesterday. No terms or offers yet, but it is rumored that the Boss may get involved in this one. The Dodgers have also spoken with Damon. Otherwise, it's also being reported that the Yankees have in fact made an offer on Nomar to be their 1b next year.

I am so bloody sick of people suggesting we need more outfielders. WE HAVE TOO MANY OUTFIELDERS ALREADY! That's why Young and Rowand were tradeable.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:28 AM) Chris Young was most definately in the future plans. As of yesterday he was on pace to be our starting CF in '07. Now it'll just have to be Anderson. Let's hope he's up to the challenge.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:00 AM) I don't know if this has been posted, but it looks like the D-Backs will pay $8 million: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...s-vazquez_x.htm That is excellent news. That may very well mean that we can resign either Contreras or Garland with ease now, and thus have 5 guaranteed starters for 2 years (and hopefully more, if KW does what he should and caves in to every single demand by Cy Buehrle)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:41 AM) Borchard was not the 5th pick overall. The Sox haven't had a top ten pick since ... who? Thomas? Fernandez? Borchard would have been a top-5 pick but he fell because other teams didn't want to pay his signing bonus.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:10 AM) From espn BA chat (outside of here) Deege (Champaign): Aaron, who do you see starting in center for the White Sox next season between Jerry Owens and Brian Anderson? SportsNation Aaron Fitt: I'm as big a Jerry Owens fan as you'll find, and his year at Birmingham in 2005 was very encouraging, particularly after he skipped a level. But that job will belong to Anderson next year -- at least until Chris Young takes it away in 2007 or '08. Chris Young is a legitimate stud in waiting -- he's got all the tools and tremendous makeup to boot. Owens probably profiles as a solid fourth OF. Owens is potentially the best of those 3, I agree. Which is why this deal went down. It probably doesn't go down without the best guy we have. The thing I keep coming back to is this...Anderson, Owens, Sweeney, Young. That's 4 outfielders. We can only keep 3, especially if Konerko and Thome bogart the DH slot. 1 of them had to go. Is this organziation still extremely high on Sweeney? I've heard some people mention Ordonez's name when discussing his development.

I'm not sure I care as much about McCarthy's "Development" as I do about the fact that I think he can win a ton of games for us next year.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:40 AM) So what you're saying. Balta, is everything being equal, just hand the Cy Young award to Mr. BMAC next year if he's going to be the best on our staff? Let me put it this way...based on what I saw from him in 2005, there's no reason why he can't earn it if he stays healthy. When I watched him pitch at the end of the year, he was the best pitcher on our staff including Contreras. The only guy who I saw be any more dominant than BM in those games was MB in those couple 1 hour 50 minute games earlier in the season. I think he can win the Cy Young award based solely on what i saw last year, if he can stay consistent, yes. Will he? Well, let's just say I hope so. I think he will win one with us, or he'll finish up 2nd to Mark. He is that good. Even if he has some difficult games next year...the one thing I do want is to make sure he is in the starting rotation, so he gets enough innings to keep working things out.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:36 AM) Agree on that. Those are contradictory. I realize that. I suppose this means Garland--could it be someone else?--is heading out, making room for McCarthy. I'm just sitting here worried about organizational depth, the bullpen, and moving what appears to be the center-fielder of the future. I'm done on the matter, I've said my piece. Finals to study for. I understand where you're coming for, and I will say this...if BMac were to be traded, I would respond exactly as you are responding now, (unless we got Pujols). I've also worried for a little while about the fact that it really looks like we had 4 promising outfielders coming up. Young, Anderson, Owens, Sweeney. One of those 4 was probably going to have to go. Right now, Young's value is probably as high as it's going to be in the minor leagues. KW turned him into Cash to allow us to keep running at the big leagues. Is he a hard one to give up? Yeah. Very hard. But hopefully KW and Cooper know what they're doing with Vazquez. If they could find the Vazquez who pitched against us to start 2004....ouch. Garland or Contreras have to be heading out, whichever one won't resign. It just doesn't make sense to me to keep someone as good as BMac sitting out in the bullpen where he'll only pitch 60 innings at the most.

You know, just off the top of my head...the Angels are in need of another starting pitcher, they have a ton of nearly-ready MLB quality prospects/players and a very solid bullpen, they'd have the money to resign Jon if they wanted to, and they're in SoCal. The Dodgers are in the same boat, they're just not as good. I wonder if KW would deal with the team we beat in the ALCS.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:30 AM) -You completely f***-up McCarthy's situation. That kid was absolutely ready for that fifth-starter's role this year and I can say that without a shaddow of a doubt. What the hell is going to happen there? Are you telling me you are going to stick Brandon in the bullpen for 2006, waiting for an injury? -It appears Jon Garland, a guy who would probably leave after this season, whom CAN BE REPLACED IN 2006 FREE AGENCT, is on his way out along with Chris Young, the Golden Boy and CF of the future. These 2 points are directly contradictory. If Jon Garland is on his way out, it doesn't screw up McCarthy in any way, shape, or form. Rather, it may in fact improve things for BMac, because Garland can still be turned into something valuable. I will say this though...and once again...if Brandon McCarthy is not in the starting rotation in April, I cannot be held responsible for my actions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:26 AM) Garland is another bad example... He worked out of the pen too. Its hard to say Neal struggled as a starter with as few starts as he had. Give the kid a real chance before calling him a failed starter. The Sox have talked in the past about starting kids out in the pen to give them good match ups to build their confidence and pitches. This should come as no surprise. If Brandon McCarthy has problems with confidence, he just needs to go watch those games against Boston and Texas again. Several times over.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:25 AM) And he only has 1 that he throws great. His fastball is too straight and there's not enough power behind it. His changeup stinks, but it's a way to keep hitters off-balance. He'll work nicely the first time he faces teams, but the 2nd time around, it'll be alot harder. Now if he were to develop a cutter or a slider, then he would be much better off. Let's not forget the games he was rocked or the games in which he should've gotten rocked(Detroit last year) He was not rocked in those games because he was missing a pitch, he was rocked in those games because he was throwing only fastball/curveball. With just those 2 pitches, BMac is beatable. But that changeup is the pitch that makes everything else work. It's like Santana from the right hand side. It just makes people look like idiots. No one has been able to pick it up at all, and combined with the curve ball it just dominates people. When he wasn't throwing that pitch, he was getting beat. Late in the year he started throwing it more, and suddenly no one could hit him. I like the idea of him getting another pitch, just to throw a few times per game, just to keep people even more honest. And most people still think he'll add a few MPH to his fastball as his frame fills out.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:21 AM) McCarthy already has three pitches. He doesn't need to develop anymore. And here's the idea about McCarthy in the bullpen--it won't be because management doesn't believe he's "fully ready," but rather, because of the possibility of injury many here are alluding to. How the hell could you conclude he's not ready after the manner in which he ended the season? You give your kidney McCarthy isn't the best starter next year, and I'll give my kidney if Garland is even pitching in a White Sox uniform. McCarthy was supposedly working on another pitch this offseason (I believe it was a 2 seamer?) according to reports here a few months ago.

I just read back several pages and I think it was pretty obvious that people didn't know how much money AZ was sending along in this deal, so here's my best guess: The fact that the Commish's office has to approve means that at least $1 million is exchanging hands. At least that's some sort of bracket.