Dick Allen

Well I wanted the White Sox to shake up the bullpen a little bit. I have a deep concern that El Duque's absence may really affect Contreras, and I have no doubt that either Garland or Contreras or Vazquez or Garcia will be dealt before spring training to fill the bullpen void on this team and maybe add a prospect or 2. Losing Chris Young is a killer to me. With Vizcaino and Marte gone, if Timo sticks he's going to have to take on the burden of being Soxtalk's main whipping boy.

There's a way around the system. The Yankees did it with Matsui. If he wasn't signed by a certain date, they would have to waive him. Maybe something like that is going on with Contreras because everything I read says he will be a free agent, but he's certainly short in the service department.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) yea, i was thinking the same thing and i'm never wrong. Of course you're never wrong, you're a genius.

I still don't understand why Contreras would be eligible for free agency after next season. He has not had 6 years in the majors.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:07 PM) Nope. You can pick any two players out of a hat and make those kinds of comparisons. The reason I posted this is because if they make the trade, the components will be eerily similar. The Sox will trade a pitcher who won as many or more games the previous year than the one they will receive in return. They will be getting an older, more expensive player, and they will throw in another player who actually may be able to contribute at the major league level.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 01:07 PM) What was the Counts record and ERA before he became game 1 starter of the WS for the White Sox. His ERA was high, but he has a pretty good winning percentage. Vazquez seems to be on a downswing. His second half of 2004 was so awful the Yankees couldn't wait to unload him. 2005 was a little better, but he was pitching in the NL. Vazquez is not .500 for his career. For that you think it is wise to pay him as much as you would be paying Paul Konerko the next 2 seasons while giving up a guy who probably has turned the corner, and a prospect many believe could eventually be the best player on your team? Vazquez is mediocre at best, no matter if he is golfing with Ozzie or not. The $24 million he would have to be paid the next 2 seasons could be spent more wisely IMO.

11-15 4.47 ERA Todd Ritchie 2001 29 years old 11-15 4.42 ERA Javier Vazquez 2005 28 years old Pretty scary huh?

If the Sox have all this money lying around, why not make a run at Johnny Damon? Blow Boras away, show him the cash.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:50 PM) You are right, nothing ensures a repeat. That's why you have to keep a close eye on the "now" and 3 years from now. This is what KW has always tried to do, and he's doing it now as well. But 3 years from now Vazquez if traded for, isn't going to be in a White Sox uniform. Vazquez for Garland nets one extra year, and a ton more money to be paid. I would rather they let Cotts become a starter in 2007 than pay all that money to Vazquez.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:31 PM) IMO he also didn't let things rattle him as much as they use to. If something questionable happened behind him defensively he would totally lose it for an inning or two. This year he didn't do that. However, with his and Jose's contract status I could understand why KW would make this deal Is Contreras a free agent or arb. eligible after next season? Don't you have to have 6 years service time? I know Matsui had a clause in his contract where he had to be put on irrevocable waivers at a certain date if he wasn't re-signed by then.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:18 PM) Anyone have Vazquez stats over the last 2 seasons? I'm afraid he will get bombed at the Cell. He was great the first half of 2004, and then the roof caved in. I'm pretty sure his ERA was well over 6.00 the second half of 2004 with the Yankees.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) If I'm not mistaken, Owens has major question marks defensively. He does. And there are some scouts who think Anderson has question marks defensively especially in CF. KW seems to think otherwise, at least in the case of Anderson.

I would be willing to bet if the Sox got Vazquez for Garland and they got no financial relief from Arizona, you would most likely be looking at Contreras' final year in a Sox uniform.

Garland and Young for Vazquez? The Sox would be willing to pay $16 million or more (considering what is left on Vazquez's deal and what Garland would get in arbitration) just to have a guy who has been mediocre at best the last year and a half signed 1 additional season, and give up one of their top prospects? Why don't they just give Garland a 2 year deal worth $20 million and keep Young? They would still come out $4 million ahead. This whole thing I thought was far-fetched, but Rosenthal has been pretty accurate for a while now, and his scenerio is scaring me.

QUOTE(R.J. @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:34 AM) Just a little quote from this page to put things into perspective. Maybe Gonzales is on it, but Rosenthal has been right on all year.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) What if it ends up being that the Sox trade Contreras instead of Garland? The DBacks have liked Contreras for a long time. I just don't see the logic trading someone for a player they hope become. Its like when the Bulls traded Elton Brand for Chandler. Brand got 20 pts 10 rebounds a night. They were hoping Chandler would be able to do that. Why trade a guy who you know can do it for someone you hope will be able to? On top of that, Vazquez makes more money. It is a ridiculous trade for either of those guys.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:50 AM) It maybe risky. However, the market for pitchers might be lower next offseason and we can possibly acquire a solid started for a decent price. IMO the market was inflated this year due to the lack of them in the actual market. With the increase amount of starters in the free agent market next year I can see the $ dollar coming back to Earth alittle bit. For an example i think we can get a Mulder type pitcher for about 9 mill/ year for 3 years. However, this year it would have to be 12 mill/year for 3 years. I'll take my chances on next years market. That Vazquez money is an aweful lot just for 2 years. The way I figure it is say Garland gets $8 million in arbitration. That is probably high but its still $3.5 million less than you would be paying Vasquez. Not trading for Vazquez then frees up a total of $16 million for 2007 considering Vazquez is scheduled to make $12.5 million in 2007. Unless they see something that would definitely make Vazquez a contender for the Cy Young, the trade would make no sense.

QUOTE(SouthSide2004 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:35 AM) Remember Esteban Loazia for Jose Contreras? It would be a very similar deal. Obviously Kenny thinks they can fix Javier, and his track record so far as a GM has been pretty impressive. The money still makes it a huge risk, IMO, but I trust Kenny's judgement. None other than Jeff Brantley couldn't believe that trade. The idiot couldn't get over how the Yankees fleeced the White Sox.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:16 AM) How much do you think a free agent starter will cost, and how many years will they want? Picking up Vazquez just delays that decision a year, and you would be on the hook for $12.5 million with him. If this speculation is true, they obviously see something with Vazquez they think they can change and make him the stud the Yankees thought they were getting in 2004. I just think he is way too pricey and risky with his performance the last season and a half.

If the Garland offer was 3/$24 million, I would have turned it down also if I were him.

If the White Sox are willing to pay Javier Vazquez $24 million for 2 years, there has to be better options out there for that kind of money.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:48 AM) http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari You can keep him at that outrageous price. What their stance does is basically makes it almost impossible to trade him. They are holding the cards. They wait until March, and either Vazquez recinds his trade request or he becomes a free agent who is going to have to take a pretty significant pay cut, and the D-Backs get him off the books and still have a total of $6 million coming from the Yankees. Maybe the opportunity to land a Garland or Contreras will make them change their minds about picking up at least some of the salary.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:39 AM) This has been covered numerous times in this thread. Vazquez is owed $8.5 million in 2006 and $9.5 million in 2007 because the Yankees are picking up $3 million per year of his contract. That's a total of $18 million over 2 seasons that Vazquez is owed, not $24 million. The Yankees are paying the Diamondbacks $3 million a year to cover it. The Diamondbacks are on record, according to Gammons, as saying they will not move that $3 million a year. In other words, you trade for Vazquez, you would be responsible for the entire contract. The D-Backs are keeping the $3 million a year the Yankees are sending them.

I hope its not a straight up deal. I still think it makes no sense unless Arizona is going to sweeten the pot with cash and prospects. Vazquez is owed $24 million the next 2 seasons.

TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay it. That means, if their position hasn't changed, the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen.