iamshack

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) I guess I'd consider putting Fields in left but I'm not a big fan of it because it could stunt his development at third and his bat is much less valuable if you move him to a corner outfield spot. If you non-tender Crede, you probably save $5 million and then you'd only be adding $7 million in salary if Dunn got $12 million a season. Dunn is a disaster defensively. I want no part of him. If you non-tender Crede, you also lose any chance of getting anything for him. Although the way the market is right now, I'm not sure you're going to get a whole lot anyways. You would get draft picks though. As for Fields development at third, I worry about that as well, but you could get him starts there once or twice a week while resting Joe, and it may only be for a few months anyways. As for his bat being less-valuable in LF rather than third, I see your point, but I'd also rather do what's best for the team rather than worry about his positional value this early in his career. Additionally, third base has become a pretty standard position for power in the mlb, so his power there isn't what it might have been 10 years ago.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 03:11 PM) I would think that any money saved this year could theoretically be added to next season's budget. $3.5 million for Dye+$1 million for Iguchi= $4.5 million, almost $1 million more than the entire bullpen makes. What will be interesting to see is how this failed season damages the season ticket base and how that affects the payroll. It could help in that it would basically pay for Joe's salary next season, but I agree with you, it wouldn't be great to dump Dye for zilch in that he was 5th in the mvp voting last season and has shown signs of returning to form recently.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) Gee, I hope that's not true. I can understand wanting a little bit more but totally dumping on the deal? That's a pretty good package right there -- if the Angels added Willits to the deal (removing the two prospects), I'd make that deal in a heartbeat. You get your leadoff man for next season along with payroll flexibility (and Kotchman is no slouch at first, either). Yeah, I agree, if that was the deal, then I would be surprised that we would not explore our options further. We've obviously been tied to Santana in the past, Kotchman would be a fair replacement at first base, and the Angels have some decent lower-level guys in their system. However, Kotchman has had durability concerns, and Konerko is such a hot-button player for us that I think we probably would have asked for something more along the lines of Kotchman/Wood/Adenhart. Ridiculous, yes. But that's probably what it would take for us to move Pauly because of his strong ties to the organization and the resigning of Buehrle.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) There's a reason why I use Rotoworld as an RSS feed and nothing else. Rotoworld is good for breaking news and little else.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 02:57 PM) There was an article in one of the LA newpapers yesterday that said it Texiera or bust. Konerko wasn't available, at least at a price the Angels were willing to pay. I was told by a pretty decent source that the Angels offered Kotchman, Santana, and two low-level prospects for Pauly, and we basically told them to pound sand. I don't think the Angels will beat the Braves offer of Salty/Andrus/Harrison, even if Texas has to throw in a reliever. The offers the Angels are rumored to have made just don't seem to equal what the Braves are willing to offer. The problem is, Jon Daniels will probably take this thing down to the wire, thus leaving the team that loses out very little time to negotiate for Konerko (although their obviously could be contingencies in place I suppose).

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) then why not let dye stay here and pad his stats for free agency? it helps him and it will help us if he walks because we'll get a nice draft pick or two (i assume). That very well may happen if we do not get the player(s) we are looking for. I don't think the $3.5 million is that huge of a factor in whether to trade or keep Jermaine, not so much as the draft picks are. I doubt you will see Dye dealt for nothing as you saw Iguchi.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 02:46 PM) What does this line even mean? The Sox would have been better off just taking the draft picks except they couldn't have gotten any picks for him. That's like Saying the Sox should have traded him to the Mets for Milledge and Pelfrey despite the fact that Minaya would never do that deal. Who wrote this garbage? They were trying to save face for their original mistake of claiming they could have gotten picks for him. They changed the last sentence, but not the rest of their comments, which is pretty stupid, since the rest of their comments were entirely tied to the last sentence, which was where their mistake lied.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 02:18 PM) Where do I say I THINK they would make this deal (or any deals)? I was just speculating on potential combinations of players to get Bucholz. I guess if we offered Buehrle, Jenks, Konerko, Gio, and 3 players to be named later they still would not trade Bucholz, because afterall he is proven to being the next Tom Seaver. Fair enough. Just don't see much of a point in speculating about something that will not happen.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) We have a shortstop who can't hit or run, no catching prospect anywhere near the majors, one of the worst outfields in baseball, very little in the minors in the way of true prospects and people are talking about middle relief? Minnesota won a division title last season with guys like Jason Bartlett, Nick Punto, Luis Castillo, Shannon Stewart, Rondell White, Lew Ford, etc. How do you suppose they won it?

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) CF is actually the least of my concerns. It might be ugly at times but I'd just assume throw Sweeney, Owens, Erstad when he's healthy, or Anderson out there. We might run into trouble but CF isn't a position that requires a great hitter. If someone like Sweeney could hit .260/.325/.370 - wishful thinking perhaps - we'd be in okay shape. For that reason I'd prefer not to focus on players like Byrnes or ARow. I think what we should do is go out there and get two legit corner outfielders. Adam Dunn comes to mind. If JD's market value is diminished greatly by his lackluster season I'd consider him for one of those corner outfield slots. I wouldn't be too excited about it though since we're talking about a 33 year old who's had a lot of health issues over the years and is coming off an iffy season. Pods is not a major league left fielder. Things were able to click just right so that he helped us win games at that position in '05 but I think that was catching lightening in a bottle. Since he hit terribly last season and has battled injuries constantly I don't see any reason to bring him back. I'd much rather just put Fields in left than sign Dunn for $12 million annually. I agree with you about CF...I'm somewhat willing to keep looking at Owens as our possible 08' CF and leadoff man. Then you need to acquire a defensively-solid SS with a bit of speed that can handle the bat and possibly put him in the two hole- Hu has been discussed ad-nauseum and would be a great possibility. Resign Crede and play him at third, hope he stays healthy, and deal him for a catching prospect or pitching. Then you can move Fields back to third. However, you're correct in pointing out we need some power in that OF. That's why making a run at Andruw Jones appeals to me. An OD OF of Jones, Owens (in left), Fields (in right) makes some sense if you resign Crede, with Fields then shifting to third once Crede is dealt and Sweeney replacing Fields in right. Obviously, this would all center on whether Contreras could be moved without eating more than 50% of his salary. You'd get an OD lineup something like this: 1. Owens- LF 2. SS 3. Thome- DH 4. Konerko - 1B 5. Jones- CF 6. Fields - RF 7. Pierzynski- C 8. Crede- 3B 9. Richar- 2B (you could switch Richar to the 2 hole if you were feeling giddy) and becoming this if you could move Joe: 1. Owens- LF 2. SS 3. Thome- DH 4. Konerko- 1B 5. Jones- CF 6. Fields- 3B 7. Pierzynski- C 8. Sweeney- RF (he could possibly hit in the two-hole also?) 9. Richar- 2B It would obviously be difficult to sign Jones, but Kenny obviously likes him alot, and this would allow you to hit Owens in the leadoff spot, give Crede a chance to prove he is healthy and reclaim some value, and give Sweeney a few more months in AAA, all while giving yourself some power in the OF. The $ can work if you can ditch most of Contreras' contract and you deal Garland at midseason or let him walk after 08'.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) Interesting that his name is brought up. KW trades three players, one of which was out first round pick from the previous year for an over the hill, older, Roberto Alomar. KW accepts one A ball 21 year old for a solid second baseman who is in the middle of his prime (age wise.) Tadahito also had better numbers this year with the Sox than Alomar did with the Mets. This trade reminds me a lot of the Durham-Adkins trade except the Sox knew they weren't getting compensation. That's just not a fair comparison. The market is completely different now than it was then. Value was in veteran certainty then, and it's clearly now in cost certainty.

No one is arguing that we didn't ask for one of those players. The point is that the Red Sox would never move one of those players for Dye. Especially not Buccholz.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) We have an aging offense that's 23rd in the majors in runs scored so we have a lot more than just one problem. I think that putting all of our efforts into repairing the pen and then calling it a day would be a catastrophic mistake. I never said put all our efforts into repairing the pen. I simply am not going to fault Kenny for looking at what's available. I'm not arguing that we should deal Jon Garland or Paul Konerko for 3 relief pitchers. And if you have been around this year to read many of my posts in regard to the bullpen, you would notice that I have argued that the volatility of bullpens from year-to-year makes it very difficult to know what you've got in your pen for any period longer than 12 months or so. However, I'm also aware that we do have some talent on this team. Despite what the offense has done this year, we have starting pitching that is good enough to win plenty of games if our bullpen could hold a lead once in a while. I certainly am not stating that we don't have plenty of issues in regards to position players; but I've seen the Twins win division after division with a bunch of ass position players on the field. It simply isn't as key to have the best offense on the field if you have solid starting pitching and a solid bullpen. The other problem is the price for promising position players has reached ridiculous levels. I simply don't think you're going to get these position players unless you unload a guy like Garland or Konerko. You may be able to get a shortstop with some upside for Dye, which is what I would like to trade him, but you certainly won't get a guy that most scouts are sure can step in now and produce at above league-average level. All in all, I have no problem with Kenny looking to solidify the bullpen through trades. I'm certain it is not all he is looking for. Would you rather he just completely ignore the problem? All I know, is what has happened in May and June, and a good chunk of July, can never happen again. Say all you want about plugging 10-12 guys in to take 3-4 spots in our bullpen next season. But this season that theory didn't work. For a 6-week span, it appeared as though they could have held open tryouts and found guys better than the ones they were throwing out there.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) This was responded to better earlier, but this idea about 2-month rentals not getting anything is bogus, considering the Padres just obtained 3 solid (not spectacular) prospects for a 2-month rental MIDDLE relief pitcher. The Iguchi deal on the surface was bogus, but still isn't the same as Dye. Iguchi would not warrant compensation such that Dye would in the term of draft picks, so you are arguing apples v. oranges. And my hypothetical about Ellsbury or Bucholz had the Red Sox getting Dye + 2 prospects (one from Chicago, one from Philly) for Pena and Ellsbury or Bucholz. Certainly, not obscene. If the BoSox don't want to trade either just because they don't fine, but the value isn't that far off for kids who have virtually no major league experience. The Red Sox would not give up Bucholz for Buehrle. What in the WORLD makes you think they would move him for Dye?

The problem is that Boston won't give up either of them, not that they won't give up both.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jul 28, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) lol lol lol or maybe you don't fix a bullpen when your entire organization is bereft of talent. That's another case of exaggeration. Notice how we actually win games when the bullpen pitches well? It's not as though there is no talent on this team whatsoever. We just need a real bullpen, like the other 29 teams in baseball.

If the Cubs want to give me Carlos Marmol and Eric Patterson, they can have him...

Ahh, it's just a case of fans being sentimental about an overall good guy. It stinks to see someone go who we all tended to like. But as others have said, this is the best for us, the best for Tadahito, and the best for Danny Richar. So hopefully it will all work out for the best.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Jul 27, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) Um, whoa. Who the hell is going to be our everyday 2B??? Ken Griffey, JR. Finally, we have found a spot for him to play.

It's pretty clear that there were no good offers out there. The fact that Kenny was the one who made the call to Gillick shows his desperation to ditch Iguchi. If there would have been a competing offer from the Mets, I'm sure Kenny would have used that to his advantage. All we can do is hope that our scouts identified a guy who has the potential to reach our pen sometime next year.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 07:23 PM) This idea, which has been discussed at length before, is percisely why the trade route is necessary to acquire talent. And why Williams just doesn't need a good trade, he needs a Liriano-esque heist. Does anyone realistically believe this team can improve 12+ games over this season with limited upgrades consisting of a tweaked bullpen and Type B Free agents recovering from injury and/or a poor season? Just look at the various ways we've limited ourselves in acquiring talent: International talent has been abysmal; drafts have hardly been successfull; we're not overpaying for anyone in the free-agent market; we're unwilling to deal with a player representative in Scott Boras who typically represents the best players in the league (and amateur draft). Aside from these points, there are two teams in the division who -- at this point -- have a far better outlook over the next several seasons. Even trades consistent with the return of McCarthy or Garcia won't be enough. As perceive, both those trades are the equivalent of taking one step backwards and one and a half step forwards. We're improved, but hardly to the extent you'd expect from a trade involving multiple players. Several of which (Masset and Floyd) have been rather disappointing. We only win the Garcia deal because he's injured; but what does that really mean if Floyd doesn't improve and Gonzalez -- God forbid-- is injured/ineffective. Williams needs to make a trade before August 1st. I don't give a f*** about the value of lesser parts in Dye, Iguchi, or Contreras. He needs to realize how vital to the future of the ballclub a quality trade will be. We absolutely need it. Garland or Vazquez need to go -- it's that simple. If he can't work out a stellar package from either of those two he's an idiot. There will be no mercy from me. And Chisoxfn, according to your quote from yesterday, if Williams doesn't effectively rebuild/retool the White Sox for next season your view of him will change. Well, one of those points are going to be either proven or disapproven in several days. I've seen how people flip flop on this site and felt I should call you out on it beforehand. How many times are you going to post this? As if the more threatening you become, the more there is a chance of this happening...

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) I have some issues with that comparison: 1) Cleveland had a very young and talented club. They could expect many of their players to improve the next season. Considering how many players we have that are in or past their primes, in the aggregate, holding steady is probably the most we can ask for from the players already on the major league roster. I think I would rather have the starting pitching in place than vice versa. 2) We're a good ways away from .500. 3) IIRC, Cleveland's runs scored and allowed suggested they were a lot better than their record last season. We might be able to make a similar argument in light of the bullpen's incredible ineptitude but I don't think it'd be as persuasive. 1) Cleveland had a very talented group of position players. VMart, Hafner, Peralta, and Sizemore are the core of that team. Meanwhile, they are a little shaky with their pitching staff. I don't know that they will make the postseason because of that pitching. And if they can't resign Sabathia, that rotation gets really iffy. 2) We'll end up being fairly close to .500 this season, IMO. 3) Cleveland has underproduced in Pythagorean wins almost as a matter of practice with this current nucleus, and it has everything to do with that offense beating up on crappy bullpens. Pythagorean wins are normally a fairly solid masure of predicting wins and losses the following year, but Cleveland has consistently shown it can be "fooled."

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 06:07 PM) It's not both ways. They are his comments on his direction of the team. I'm sorry they don't fit the agenda of the argument earlier today, but they are the facts stated from his mouth. Well, you quote him because it supports your argument, but then when I point out that what he says and does are two different things, you ask how could I possibly think you believe what he says? If you know he is bs'ing, then don't emphasize what he says to support your argument. Anyways, I don't think there's a chance in hell Konerko gets dealt, but everytime something like this comes up, it forces us to consider the future of this club and what options are in front of us. That is a good thing.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 05:59 PM) I am seriously stunned that anyone on this site would think that I would base my opinions solely on Kenny's words. I can appreciate all the time you spent on that iamshack. But I don't rely on Kenny's words as gospel on anything. He is simply the only one who yaps to the media and it would be inappropriate to name alternate sources of information. Then don't empasize what came out of HIS mouth, Steph. You can't have it both ways!

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 25, 2007 -> 05:36 PM) But that's not what Greg was doing. He made several extremely valid points to the state of this club RIGHT NOW and got s*** for it. Anyone can say well you're wrong IF we change this, that, and the other - which was WC's defense. Well no kidding things MAY be different IF changes are made. So far it does not seem Kenny feels that many changes need to be made - from HIS mouth - and if that's the approach, as it's been sooo many times in the past, Greg is spot on and this team will be horse s*** next year for sure and possibly in '09 as well. I am an extremely optimistic fan, overly if you listen to anyone that knows me in "person", and I can see the point Greg was making. First of all, you know full well that by quoting Kenny on this issue you are taking a position that is overly simplistic if there ever was one. There are so many considerations taken into account before he opens his mouth: a) media response; B) fanbase response; c) the response of clubs he's trying to trade with; and d) the response of the current players on the team. Taking him at his word in regards to statements like that is the equivalent to listening to the campaign promises of politicians. Secondly, you then shift to past history for clues of what might be done. However, as I stated, there is no past history that is analogous to the state of the franchise currently. We are at a crossroads, both on the field and off, and I think Kenny realizes that. To suggest that he won't explore every option possible to make this team the best that it can be on the field this year, and every year thereafter, is ignoring most of what Kenny has tried to do throughout his tenure. Say what you want about past regimes, but one thing you cannot accurately about Kenny is that he doesn't try and win every year. In my opinion, he'll explore every possible option to try and set this team up to win in both 08' and beyond. He certainly may have to be creative in doing so, but he'll do his best. And he's proven he can make it work in the past- getting the team into the position it was after 04' was awfully impressive when considering the state of the team AT THAT TIME. Finally, I think it's ignorant and arrogant to pretend as though the crystal ball is clear right now. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, certainly, but as I stated previously, we've got a pretty good starting pitching staff, and that's half the battle. Plugging in position players correctly and reshaping the bullpen will be the second half of the battle, but one that I think is easier to complete than the starting pitching. And especially after what we've seen the Twins win this division with on the field, I really don't think anything is out of the realm of possibilities, even next year. I'm willing to wait and see what Kenny does in the next 6 days. Then what players like Richar, Sweeney, Gonzalez, Fields and Owens do for the rest of this season. Finally, what FA acquisitions are made this offseason. I just can't see that there is any way that anyone can say this early that the 08' and 09' teams have no way of competing. Things change much too quickly in baseball, and I think that is what the poster GP was arguing with was trying to get across to him.