iamshack

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) I don't want Humber at all. I wan Pelfrey and Milledge. I could even like a deal involving Gomez instead of Milledge, however, I definitely want Pelfrey and NOT Humber. According to Steve Phillips, Minyana offered Milledge for Harden. Beane then countered with Blanton. Minyana turned that down. If he rejected Blanton for Milledge, there is absolutely no way we are getting Pelfrey and Milledge, or Pelfrey and Gomez. It's too bad, but I don't think we're going to see a White Sox/Mets deal...

I tend to think we have to hold on to Buehrle at least until the break, unless of course, Kenny can get 1 or 2 more guys on his board. I don't believe anything suggests Minyana is going to deal Pelfrey or Humber though; if he can get that deal done with the A's and get Blanton for Milledge, he'll ultimately make that deal in my opinion.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) I would love to see the Sox get Lastings and Humber for Buehrle. To be honest with you, I am starting to like this Carlos Gomez kid even more so than Milledge. I'd love a package of Pelfrey/Gomez.

Nothing groundbreaking here, but Levine was just on Carmen and Silvy and said this is absolutely Mark Buehrle's last year with the White Sox, IF he makes it THAT far. Apparently the White Sox made an offer in July, to which Mark declined, and there has been no further negotiations since. He seemed quite certain that no further attempts to extend him would be made, especially in light of Zito's contract.

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) They could spin Anderson to the Marlins for even more pitching. But why complicate things? Anderson isn't exactly at the peak of his value right now (at least I hope not, gulp). We are fairly flush with pitching prospects right now. Seems they would just ask for the prospects from us instead of Brian. QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 11:45 AM) Broadway or Floyd should be all that is given up. Then Rocco, Pods and Anderson can platoon in the outfield. Baldelli has not proven enough to be giving up more than one decent arm. His OBP is only .339 and he has played in 92 of a possible 324 games the last two years. How he is some how garnering the talent that is right ther ewith Crawford is beyond me. Danks should be able to get Crawford straight up or with a decent lower level prospect. If Crawford was that attainable, he'd already be playing for us right now. KW would have dealt Brandon for Crawford if that deal was possible. Additionally, they've reportedly turned down E Santana as well. It would take significantly more than just Danks.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) How close is Pelfrey, I was under the impression the guy was almost ready to make the jump. Probably a half-season or a full season. He's probably about where Danks is.

I don't understand this Baldelli stuff, especially if Anderson is involved. While Baldelli is a solid all-around player, he has his own faults, including the proclivity to get injured, and his proneness to striking out. Given our offense, I would have to be receiving a lot more of a sure thing to consider moving Brian and pitching prospects. Now if you want to discuss Crawford, that is one thing, but Baldelli? I'm not going out of my way to get him at this point. Additionally, why would TB even want Anderson back? Isn't that the entire point of moving an OF? Because they have so many OF'ers?

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) The mets would likely only make such a deal if they had a window to sign Buerhle. No long term deal, no trade. But I think the sox would make such a deal. But the mets probably wouldn't and rightly so. If they wanted to sign Buehrle, I think they would have just signed Zito and avoided having to make a trade.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Dec 29, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) How is the time right? In 2008 we wont have Dye or Buerhle and probably wont have Crede or Garland, and who knows about Iguchi. You really expect us to easily replace these guys and rebound right in 2008? How old are Jim Thome and Jose going to be in 2 years? I think the window closes this year and that it will take at least a couple of years to rebound. The time is right because there is such a ridiculous premium placed upon durable starting pitchers right now. As for your "window," where does this notion come from that once we lose Dye and Thome, and even Crede, we won't be able to acquire other players? The direction KW is going gives the White Sox tremendous financial and roster flexibility, two things extremely important in acquiring players via FA or trade. And Kenny has always shown a willingness to go out and get impact players via trade. Stocking the system with young arms allows us to make any trade we want; it gives us more options than we have had several years.

Well, judging from what went on last year in the MLB, no one is going to convince me that trading Buehrle would ruin our chances in 07'. Buehrle wascrap last year, and we still won 90 games. In several years, that gets you in the playoffs, where the Cardinals, with their s***ty rotation, somehow managed to win the World Series. If he does trade one of our veterans, I want it to be Buehrle. We have Vazquez, Garland, and Contreras under control for 2 more years at a reasonable cost. That gives a solid base to build upon and slide some of the kids in. If you add Pelfrey in a Buehrle deal, you are looking at a future rotation of Denks/Pelfrey/Contreras/Garland/Vazquez in 08', and you could move any of Garland/Vazquez/Contreras in 08' if Gio/Broadway/McCulloch/etc., are ready. Certainly 07' could be alot better with Mark. But no one is going to convince me that this team cannot win without him. People tend to forget that every one of our starters had an ERA above 4.20 last season, yet we still won 90 games.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) So your saying there wouldn't be any significant fan uproar when we let Mark walk with nothing but two draft picks in return? Oh, there would be uproar either way. The average fan will complain about anything and everything, realistic or unrealistic. There would be a share who complained even if we signed him to a lucrative deal, saying we spent too much $ for a soft-tosser. We all know how this town works.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) I will admit that trading Buerhle puts this offseason over a certain line. As of this moment, I feel this team is a little better than at the end of 2006, and WAY better for 2008 and beyond. If we trade Buerhle though, even if we get what I projected, a logical argument could be made that we will take a step back in 2007. White Flag? Uh, no. But our pitching strength is certainly diminished, or at least there is a strong probability it will be diminshed (not a known fact, of course). But even at that, I think if the offer is truly spectacular, it has to be considered. Agreed. And Kenny would at least consider it.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) He wouldn't be the first pitcher to break down completely in his late 20's. Interestingly, one of Mark Buehrle's comp players is Mulder. Luckily, another is Glavine and Jim Kaat.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) I agree. I think MB should net more than B-Mac did, actually. Ideally, a leftfielder who is significantly better than Pods, and 2 high level pitchers as you described them. That would probably make me pull the trigger. Guys, haven't we learned our lesson already? Mark is not going to net more than McCarthy. With these salaries skyrocketing, and Buehrle becoming a FA after next year, he isn't going to get more than a guy who is ml ready with 5 years left before he can become a free agent. It just isn't going to happen.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) No. I would want to get at least the equivalent of what McCarthy netted us...2 solid, ready or nearly ready MLB caliber players/top prospects, and something else thrown in to sweeten the deal. A lefty who should chew up 230 innings should be at the top of the list for a lot of teams. Hell, how much were the A's talking about for Zito last offseason? Well, from what I understand, they wanted Heilman and Milledge.

Well, instead of speculating about what we would get for Mark if we dealt him right now, let's assume it would fall somewhere in between what Freddy and McCarthy netted us. Is that something we are ready to accept?

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 01:06 PM) No it's not. You judge the worth of the two first round draft picks versus the prospects you'd get from a trade partner. If teams are lowballing you and not willing to give up the amount of prospects you deem right, you try your luck in arbitration and then possibly the draft. Oh, I see what you are saying. It was my impression that you were claiming we would offer arbitration in the hopes that he would ultimately accept it. Of course I think it is a given that we would offer arbitration in that sense.

Ahh, thanks for straightening me out there...I failed to recall that. The point is moot. He would not accept arbitration.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) It's fairly obvious that KW is letting the market affect him in such a way where he's going to let probably 3/4ths of Contreras, Garland, Buehrle and Vazquez walk. If KW is going to do this, and I think he will unless the market corrects itself, which it certainly won't do next year, he's going to need time for an in-house replacement to develop. Thus you hope Buehrle accepts arbitration in 08 or you trade him now for prospects. If he's going to be worth $17-$18 million, the trade negotiations start at Humber, Pelfrey and Milledge. What are you talking about? Arbitration? We've already bought out his arbitrartion years. He's got the right to be a FA after 07'.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) I think the best plan of action would be to try and get Mark to accept arbitration in 08 to give time for a replacement in the farm system. What?

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 09:33 AM) Does everyone really think that KW wants those guys competing for the 5th spot this year, or is it just a smoke-screen for a signing? It's almost impossible to guess. All we heard over the past year or so from he and Ozzie is how they never wanted to put in the position we were in in 2004. Now it seems, at least to some extent, that we are. While his change in philosophy may make this a price we have to pay for now, he also could have something else up his sleeve. He can all the confidence in the world in one or more of these kids, but until one of them go out there and do it, it doesn't really matter. It leaves us all to wonder if he realizes that or not...

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) Is it just me or has KW shown in the past that he would rather have a veteran as the 5th pitcher than a rookie struggle? It seems as if he wanted a young guy as the 5 - it would be McCarthy. Whether its Mulder or not, is anyone else expecting us to sign a veteran pitcher? The problem I have with signing Mulder is this: He is not going to be ready until June. So that means you are going to have to have one of the kids start the beginning of the year in the 5th starter spot anyway. So if you sign Mulder, that basically says you are expecting whomever emerges as the 5th guy to fail. And what if he doesn't? What if he pitches well? Than what do you do with Mulder? Bench the kid who was pitching well and developing as a young major league starter? I just don't believe it is much of a sign of confidence in the guys you just brought in if you go ahead and sign Mulder even though he won't be ready for the first half of the season. Were he going to be healthy in April, you could say "Mulder has the 5th spot." But he isn't. And you risk retarding any progress the young kid makes by sitting him down when Mulder comes back.

If I am not mistaken, Mulder only wants a 2 year deal. I think he is fairly confident he can rebound and command a more lucrative deal then.

What else did Hawk say this morning, for those of us who missed it?

Name all these starters for me that the Twins Front Office has developed. I can think of Santana, Radke, and Liriano. And they acquired Liriano by trade and Santana in the Rule 5 draft.