Jack Parkman

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 21, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) If we're intent on competing next season, and the team performs similarily to 2007, there can't possibly be any other option but for Williams to rebuild. At its worst, next year should be a definining moment in the direction of this franchise. Williams will have to do quite a bit of spinning over the offseason to assure fans next season's team has an opportunity to compete. If the 2008 team fails to improve, what excuse could he possibly have to give hope for 2009? Even injuries won't be enough, in my mind. The problem here, if such a scenario were to unfold, is we're hoping upon hope those with value (such as Vazquez, Konerko, Jenks) still have it. And Williams is capable of obtaining legitimate talent in a trade. This upcoming offseason he'll need to receive a lot in my mind for foolishly holding onto Garland leading up to the trade deadline. I 100% agree that not trading Garland at the deadline was an enormous error by Ken Williams. We could have received twice as much for him then than we will this offseason. I have no clue what is going on in KW's mind that makes him think that a few FA signings and minor trades will help this team reach the playoffs in 2008. That thinking is delusional, IMO. This team needs to be broken up now, and a firesale looking for prospects similar to what the Marlins received in the 05-06 offseason is necessary NOW. Jenks can stay, though, unless someone offers a king's ransom in return. But Javy, Garland, Konerko, Contreras(for whatever), and possibly Thome need to go this offseason. Dye can go at the trade deadline next season(if that's possible), and Mark can go in the offseason between 08-09. Everyone must go for the best package, and the only reason to keep them is if we are lowballed. The organizational philosophy about the draft needs to change as well. They must go after the best available talent at the spot that they are picking. Not dealing with Scott Boras puts an organization at a disadvantage because a large percentage of the best talent in each draft is represented by him. Go above slot a few times, for pete's sake! If the team is not headed in the right direction by the allstar break in 2009, then KW needs to be canned. He can take Ozzie with him.

IMO this isn't even a question because the answer is flat out no. The bigger question is can this team compete in 2011? You may call me pessimistic, but I don't think that the Sox are going to sniff .500 until 2010 at the earliest. This team is in disarray. Our best hitters are on the wrong side of 30 and there is absolutely nothing on the farm as of right now(Richar and Fields don't count because they'll be with the big club next year) After Garland is traded this offseason, we have Buehrle, Javy, Jenks and a bunch of ?s in our pitching staff. As much as I like Mark Buehrle and want him pitching for the Sox, it would have been in his best interest with regards to winning to sign elsewhere. By the time the Sox are close to competing again, his contract will be up. This organization doesn't need a few pieces here or there to compete next year, it needs a complete overhaul from the bottom up. It all starts with infusing talent into our farm system. BTW, I'm all for trading anybody on the 25 man roster besides Fields and Danks(yes, that means Mark too. He's my favorite player on the team, but I'm a Sox fan first.) within the next 2 years to rebuild the franchise. If anybody within the organization thinks they won't cut it in the majors within the next year, trade them too, but only for young talent. The first things I'd do is trade Garland and Konerko for major league ready guys and dump Contreras for a bag of balls and even pay 1/4 of his contract if need be. I'd also consider trading Jenks if you can get a king's ransom in return. I'll still watch the team and go to a few games over this time. I realize that this team is going to be bad for the next 3 seasons. What bothers me though, is that upper management doesn't.

Contreras is impressing me with the fastball today. 92-94 on the comcast guns. and 92-95 on gameday. I never thought he'd get it up there again. He might have trade value after this outing. Maybe the Contreras-Furcal swap would work.

If the season ended now: 1. Devil Rays 2. Astros 3. Orioles 4. Sox 5. Royals

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 09:38 PM) I'll compare Danks to Gio....I don't think either are anything more than a #5 starter in the majors. If that's what you believe, then I'd take it that you'd condone KW trading each of them away this offseason to fill holes at other positions or to upgrade from them to someone else. What did you think of McCarthy then? AAAA? Bullpen?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 09:41 PM) It's not like they've been playing great baseball. They're still losing at a rapid clip. WHat do you mean it doesn't make sense? Have you ever played a sport? These guys are getting paid. You go out and do your job and play hard or you should be banned from the game for life. People that want the No. 1 draft pick so badly baffle me. It's not like the Sox will sign that pick anyway. Build through free agency, and Japanese players and trade for a reliever this offseason. In the meantime, just win baby. I don't care whether they get the #1 pick or not, but when you suck, you suck. Have you ever seen a team play .400 ball from April-August and then play .800 ball in September? I bet there are cases, but is it common? After thinking about this further, the White Sox may be an exeption to this due to the talent on the team. on the subject of tanking, I think that all drafts in sports should be set up similar to the NBA and NHL, but since the NFL and MLB have only 12 and 8 teams make the playoffs respectively, then the 10 worst teams should enter a lottery where each team has a 10% chance of getting the top pick. each pick goes to the ping pong ball that was pulled out. This way there is no reason to tank. If the talent on your team is that bad, then your team should have a shot at the top pick anyway. The NHL has a minor league system and they have a lotto, so why shouldn't major league baseball?

It seems as if the Sox are going to play themselves out of a top 5 pick. I don't endorse tanking, but how can you suck so badly during the bulk of the season, and then turn it on when it doesn't matter anymore? It just doesn't make sense.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:43 PM) Jennings was coming of a much better season than Garland will be and was significantly cheaper. And that was abad deal for Houston, which I'm sure GMs have noticed. Garland won't get anything close to what Jennings brought. Thank you.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 10:07 PM) Well, I agree with that. That being said, Lillibridge is a B prospect and I think Garland could bring back a player like that (I don't think ATL can add the payroll, though). Balentien from Seattle would also be a fair return. To be fair to Garland, he pitches a lot of innings and he gives a team a bunch of quality starts (18 this season...something like that). His ERA is right about par with that of #3 starters on good teams (per the Hardball Times) when you factor in park effects. $12M is a bunch of money, but the team trading for him gets a 28 year-old pitcher for 1 year. You can't get a comparable performer as a FA without a risky long-term commitment. And Garland should give you draft picks as a free agent. So the trade would really be Garland + picks. The thing that really drops his value IMO is complaining about shoulder pain and that coinciding with poor performances. If he keeps it together throughout Sept. I think a B and 2 C prospects should be attainable. And that's fine. Just don't trade for relievers.... I don't think that Garland can bring back more than one B prospect. If we could trade him for a B prospect, a reliever with good stuff who hasn't put it all together yet and a failed top prospect then I think that would be a good haul, but that is probably the absolute best Kenny could do and highly unlikely. I think that if Garland is actually traded that the return would be a C prospect, a failed top prospect, the reliever that I mentioned and maybe a player in low A ball with high upside.

QUOTE(Dogfood22 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) Is Garland a power pitcher who lost a bunch of velocity on his fastball? Don't think that's a good comparison and I don't think there is any truth anything that you say. Everyone but Burls and Konerko is worth a bag of balls? LMAO. You have no idea what you're talking about. Look at the FA market. The best pitcher is probably Schilling and the most interesting guys are reclamation projects like Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, and Jennings. Players like Kyle Lohse will get paid out the ass. If Garland were to be a FA over this offseason he'd be the top FA pitcher available by a wide margin. Even after Garland had admitted having problems with his shoulder and he was starting to head south a bit, Atlanta still offered I believe Renteria and Kyle Davies for him. So what makes you think he isn't worth anything? Oh and your comment about acquiring a couple of almost non-prospects for him shows you have no idea what you're talking about at all. The Mackowiak trade was a salary dump of a bench player while the Iguchi trade was a friendly gesture to common trading partner Pat Gillick and a reason to get Danny Richar playing time at 2B. Iguchi didn't bring anything because he is a FA after this season and wasn't worth any draft picks. Sox fans may overrate Jon some, but looking around the league and seeing what kind of contracts other pitchers are getting it is easy to see that Jon could still be a good haul for us in the offseason if the Sox scouting department does their job. Someone else mentioned the Freddy for Floyd and Gio trade last year; I think Jon can do better than that. Probably two B prospects and a project in the upcoming market. Maybe even more from a desperate GM like what the Astros gave up for one year of Jennings over the offseason. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 08:57 PM) Surely you can't be serious... I am serious. Garland has had 2 good half seasons, and one excellent half season in his career. The rest of his career he's been league average or worse. He had a 3.15 ERA at the all star break and now he has a 4.59 ERA this year. I may be wrong but in 2005 his 2nd half ERA was close to 5.00. In 2006 he was our best pitcher in the 2nd half, but in the first half his ERA was close to 6.00. Garland is a pitcher who puts the ball in play and barely strikes anyone out. He can't put together one consistent season. With prospects the new gold and bullpens a crapshoot would I give up a couple of B prospects or a consistent reliever for this guy who is making $12M and only has 1 year on his contract if I was another GM? The answer is no. And would you give up anything of value for Thome(owed 13M, old, injury prone), Crede(coming off back surgery, agent is Boras, one year from FA), Dye(aging, slowing down defensively but still has a good bat),Pods, Erstad(no tools) anyone of the bullpen besides Bobby(and by the way I forgot about him and Javy when I was naming guys that aren't worth a bag of balls) Uribe(lowest OBP in the majors), or Contreras(aging, declining stuff) if they were on another team and KW could aquire them? The board argues all the time about whether or not Owens sucks, and we aren't trading Fields, Danks, or Richar, so they don't count. So anyone we want to move isn't worth anything but a bag of balls, and the only players remotely close to bringing anything of value are Garland and Dye, and even they won't bring much. I always look at trade value as if I were the fan of another team. If you were a Dodger fan, would you give up someone like Hu and Billingsley/Broxton for Garland? If you were a Braves fan would you give up Escobar or Lilibridge + some other prospects for Garland? Why doesn't anyone look at it that way but me? Realistically the only players with trade value are our young guys(Danks, Fields, Richar) or Buehrle, Javy, Jenks, and Konerko, and we don't want to move them. So yeah, I do think that Garland and Dye would bring minimal return( A combination of 2/3 the following C prospect/B prospect/a reliever with good stuff but bad results/a failed first round pick) and the rest of the roster would bring back a bag of balls.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 06:56 PM) Are you kidding me....relievers for Jon Garland. If Kenny does that he should be absolutely f***ing fired. RELIEVERS....your talking about RELIEVERS...NO NO NO. If you bring up some of there stud prospects..yes yes yes...but relievers...NO. Sorry Jason, but Garland has worse trade value right now and going into this offseason than Freddy Garcia did last offseason, and probably identical to Buehrle's before this season. with him making $12M on a 1 year deal, I'd be surprised if we could get more than a reliever coming off a down year, or a couple of prospects like we got in the Iguchi/Mackowiak trades. I think it is best to hang on to him and hope he has a first half like he did this season so we may be able to get something of value for him at the deadline next season. I have no clue what Kenny is doing for this team because in all honesty this is a 5 year rebuilding project. The only guys on our team who have trade value are Buehrle and Konerko. Everyone else is worth a bag of balls to other GMs.

Guys, We aren't getting the first pick. Tampa Bay's remaining series are with Boston, the Yankees, Seattle, the Angels, and Toronto. Meanwhile after this series we have 7 with Kansas City, and 3 with Minny, the Angels, Cleveland and Detoilet. I'll give us 5-10 wins and I'll give Tampa Bay 3-7. That leaves us with 65-70 wins and Tampa Bay with 61-65. We also have to contend with the NL teams who are right about even with us in the L column. When all is said and done there is a possibility we may be picking outside of the top 10.

Gavin's problem with allowing HRs is that he throws his sinker between the belt and letters of the hitter. He'd pitch a lot better if he kept it down. He hasn't pitched that awful today, he's been decent. Granted, it is against one of the only teams that are as bad as us.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) depends. If we get only garbage offered for him, we'd be best served to keep him. And because of the way he has pitched down the stretch, that is exactly what will happen. Garland will be on the south side next year. If he pitches well in the first half then he will be gone at the trading deadline. In fact, I think that it was a mistake not to trade him on July 31. His value will never be higher than it was then.

Engineering Physics I General Chemistry II Organic Chemistry I

Initially, I liked Floyd and thought that a change of scenery would do him wonders. After his first two starts at the major league level with the Sox, I was starting to be convinced otherwise. After the Yankees relief appearance, I was thinking that I looked like an idiot for ever thinking that this guy could do anything in the majors. I am glad to see Gavin do well today. I guess he just needed a little support from the front office/coaching staff. I think that Ozzie is going to treat him in a starting role like he did Garland. Gavin may suprise people.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) Catfish Yaz Sam McDowell Frank Howard Rocky Calavito Luis Tiant Hawk I think 7 is correct. What about Brooks Robinson and Don Drysdale? He mentions those guys pretty often too. Well, not so much Brooks since Joe's been hurt.

QUOTE(SoxPride56 @ Aug 4, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) When did we call up Carlos? Beat me to the punch.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) Disagree there. It's not even being upset about losing Chris Young, I just thought the move was very unnecessary at the time. I just thought if anyone was going to go into the rotation, it should've been BMac. I just thought that move was really Yankee-esque and unneccessary. It'd be cool if someone ended up finding the original threads from this trade. Yeah, but if we didn't trade for Javy, then we could not have gotten Gio back OR Danks and Masset. We'd most likely be stuck with McCarthy and No Garcia. You have to weigh the overall options here. Imagine how bad we'd be if we only had Garland, Buehrle, and McCarthy and question marks in in the rotation. We'd be forced to put Broadway and Egbert there.

I've decided to keep my 360 after all. I just couldn't take the >50% loss I'd have to if I sold it. I'm looking forward to Madden and TW 08 this month now.

Who kidnapped Jon Garland and replaced him with Jaime Navarro? Garland is going down the same path that Buehrle did last year after his shellacking. Leave it to the bad pitching virus to infect our best pitchers during the second half of the year before their walk year, so that even if we wanted to, we can't trade them. If Garland continues down this path then we'll end up with the same situation we had with Buehrle this year next year.

If I find out that Jon f***ing Daniels got someone like Bowden, Bard, Buchholz, etc. for Gagne I'm going to be seriously pissed off and call for Kenny's head immediately. If Daniels can get that type of guy for Gagne, then there is no reason why Kenny can't get the same guy for Dye.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 12:33 PM) Just read some red sawx board where a guy wrote that ESPN insider just said.. Manny for Dye-Garland. Most posts following think it's BS and so do I. If KW made that trade he should be fired on the spot. Why would you trade a 27 year old starting pitcher who is very good AND your starting RF for a 35 year old outfielder who is a liablility on defense AND is owed $40 Million over the next 2 years? That is the stupidest, most asinine trade I have heard of.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 01:44 PM) Then look at Hansen's stats before you go talking about how you don't like people's numbers. He's not that good, especially since he's a reliever. Masterson keeps the ball on the ground, doesn't walk people, and strikes enough people out to be effective. He's a much better prospect than Craig Hansen right now. I'll take your word for it then. I've heard that Hansen has a mid 90s fastball and a wicked slider, and that he was a starting prospect. I have no clue what Masterson's stuff is like but if it is anything close to Hansen's then I guess it's ok. Like I said in my post, I don't know what Masterson's stuff is like, so I was just going off his stats. I do know what Hansen's stuff is like, so I can ignore his stats a bit more.

Deal done pending physical per ESPN.