michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Luck had nothing to do with it. They identified the top unprotected player in all of baseball, and convinced the Marlins to pass him over for the "second best" unprotected player baseball and some cash. They kept him on the roster for the year despite his ineffectiveness because they saw the long-term potential, and would lose him back to the Astros if they had taken him off the 25-man roster. First of all, it wasn't a deadline deal. Second, it wasn't luck again. Liriano was another high powered lefty in the low minors who had been injured enough for Sabean to let him escape. Nathan was a good young pitcher who already had success in the majors. With his stuff, Sabean was an idiot for thinking he had reached his potential. Bonser, the other arm in the deal, was considered the prize of the deal by most. The Twins new exactly what they were getting in both of those deals; tons of potential. Alot of things had to go right for those players to reach that potential, but it's f***ing naive to call them lucky because they were able to identify (and acquire) some of the highest-ceilinged talent in baseball. So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) That's actually not THAT inconceivable. They're likely to lose Santana and could lose Hunter and/or Nathan as well. Those are some pretty key pieces. There are A LOT of wildcards though. They'll still have Morneau and Mauer for a while, that's a good start, and they always seem to find enough scrappy guys to make the offense work around them. As for the pitching, Garza looks like a keeper, Slowey has some ability, and then of course there's Liriano. You can have a franchise core a lot worse than that, though there are some "ifs" on the pitching side. Then of course there are the Sox, who look like they need some additions to get back to where they were the last two years. I could see it, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. 2008 would be the key, the Sox would have to close that gap while they still have Santana. Plus they have a MUCH better track record of finding replacements within their system than the Sox do. I'm not sure where all the Twins love comes from. ...like they are this genius organization. From 1994 to 2001...eight year period...they draftred in the top ten 7 times, including a number one overall and twice number two overall. They were a BAD team for most of a decade. Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA. And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal. And all this high drafting and two real lucky trades has gotten them what? They've won one 5-game playoff series in the last 15 years. And how about them RELEASING David Ortiz so they wouldn't have to pay him arbitration money work out for them? Morneau and Mauer are good players...but when Santana leaves??? Convince me that Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker and Liriano are going to be better major league pitchers than Gio, Danks, De los Santos and Floyd? I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) Lets make one thing clear...in that draft there were only a handful of pitchers that would have even came close to demanding that type of bonus. I'm not saying you take Matt Ginter, who never would have asekd for anything close to 5 mill and take him. However, if a guy is head and shoulders better than everyone else than you better freaking take him. Fine...we'll use your rules. But there is no such thing as the consensus best pitcher...so let's call it the top four pitchers selected in each draft as the one's MOST likely to be great pitchers. Here's your list from 1996-2002. That's 7 years, 28 pitchers and they are: Mark Prior, Dewon Brazelton, Gavin Floyd, Josh Karp, Bryan Bullington, Chris Gruler, Adam Loewen, Clint Everts, Mark Mulder, Jeff Austin, Ryan Mills, JM Gold, Matt Anderson, Jason Grilli, Geoff Goetz, Dan Reichert, Kris Benson, Braden Looper, Billy Koch, John Patterson, Josh Becket, Josh Girdley, Kyle Snyder, Robert Bradley, Adam Johnson, Mike Stodolka, Justin Wayne, Matt Harrington. Every one of those guys was a Porcello...and Mulder, Beckett...and a whole lot of nothing. Two for 28. That's a careless way to spend $5 mill.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) Here is another list... Eggs Broccoli Cajun seasoning Butter Pepsi Chicken livers Broccoli = your post. Not worth eating. You sir debate like a Cubs fan.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 07:03 PM) Not to mention that $5M is a huge red herring considering Borchard set the bonus record at the time at $5M, which is still well above average for a first round pick 7 years later. Oh and nevermind that the 2000 draft is now considered one of the worst all-time. Heck, just look at the 2005 first round. 6 of the top 7 position players selected are already in the show. Jay Bruce is waiting in the wings. It's already more productive than the 2000 first round and it's barely two years later.... QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) A 4.6 era will get you more than 5 mill a year on the fa market right now. Man that has completely missed the point. People are talking about how we should be thrilled to pay some 1st round pick $5 mill because of his potential. I say...here's the 2000 draft and the 16 first round pitchers and COMBINED their worth maybe $5 mill. That means in this draft you have a 1/16th chance of landing a guy worth $5 mill. As for me "picking" 2000 because it was a terrible draft. You CANNOT use a draft from two years ago and say Joba is GOING to be great...because it's still maybe. Let's use 1999...and don't make me keep picking these out: 1: Josh Hamilton 2: Josh Becket 6: Josh Girdley 7 Kyle Snyder 8 Robert Bradley 9: Barry Zito 10 Ben Sheets 12: Brett Myers 13 Mike Paradis 14 Ty Howington 15 Jason Strumm 16 Jason Jennings 18 Richard Stahl 22: Matt Ginter 24: Kurt Ainsworth 25 Bob MacDougal 26 Ben Christensen 27: David Walling 28 GErik Baxter 29: Omar Ortiz 30: Chance Caple That's 21 pitchers. Zito's 111-74. Ben Sheets 71-73. Beckett 72-50. Jason Jennings 60-64. Which of these guys is better than Buehrle? MLB drafting ESPECIALLY of pitchers is a wild longshot. Not worth $5 mill that Detroit is giving Porcella...Porcello=Josh Hamilton.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) Boof Bonser is a bust? HE's 26, 12-16 lifetime with an ERA of 4.6. Not much of a return on your $5 million from seven years before. Adam Wainwright 13-10. And that's if you get to hand pick your pick from the best pitchers of that draft. I'm not saying drafting is pointless. I'm saying: Jake Peavy 15th round Roy Oswald 23rd round Mark Buehrle 38th round Santana, Zambrano--not in draft Brandon Webb--8th round Brad Penny--5th round. I'm not saying 1st round is worthless...I'm saying it's hardly a guarantee that these guys will be any good. Go look at what they said about those guys in 2007. Same what they are saying about Porcella...nobody knows...so we shouldn't be slamming the Sox because they were SMART not to pay $5 million for this crap shoot.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 09:39 PM) As do people speculating that this franchise has been fistf***ed because we passed over Porcello. The thing everyone here forgets is the baseball draft is NOT the NFL or NBA draft. First round picks are overrated. I chose the 2000 draft because it was a round number and it was long enough ago that people couldn't use words like "best potential in all the minor leagues". If you were drafed seven years ago you are either a stud pitcher or a bust...here goes: Pitchers: 2nd pick overall Adam Johnson Twins 4th Mike Stodolka KC 5th Justin Wayne, Expos 7th: Matt Harringon Rockies 8th Mat Wheatland Tigers 9th Mark Philips Padres 10 Joe Torres Angels. 14 Beau Hale Orioles 16 Billy Traber Mets 17 Ben Diggins Dodgers 19 Sean Burnett Pirates 20 Chris Bootcheck Angels 21 John Bonser Giants 22 Phil Dmatrait Red Sox 24 Blake Williams Cardinals 29 Adam Wainwright Braves. There you go...16 FIRST ROUND pitchers. We give each of them $5 million dollars...buy up the damn 2000 draft...corner the market on A1 pitching prospects. And what do we have for that? A bunch of nobodies. Here's Jon Sickles bragging about these great young pitchers back when they were drafted: http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft00/s/2000/0605/569167.html. $10 million a year for a 12-12 innings eater is WAY better than $5 million spent on Mr. Porcella. Maybe Porcella will be great or maybe he will be Mike Stodolka.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Jeter gets his clutch reputation because he has had more opportunities to come through in the clutch than almost any other player in the history of the game. It isn't the percentage that he is successful that he gets his clutch moniker from, unfortunately. It's because the number of times he has been successful, a result of him having had so many chances, resonates in the minds of people. He's not that clutch. He's just had more chances to be remembered. Yeah I think that was mostly my point. If you are a great hitter you are a great hitter in the first inning and the fifth inning and the seventh inning. The stupid stats guys will say "in the eighth inning of games on the west coast against left handed power pitchers he's only a career .111 hitter" then you find out that means he's 1 for 9. Which is meaningless because it's two few data points in a game where 200 data points doesn't mean a lot. The casual fan will say, he's clutch because "I remember a game I went to in 2003 and he hit a homer in the 9th with two outs". But we the proud, the elite, the soxtalk gang should know better. Thome is not a good hitter, he is a GREAT hitter. Our biggest problem with him is keeping him healthy

QUOTE(SoxPride56 @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:25 AM) When did I say he NEVER gets on base? I just agreed with the guy that said him not doing well in the clutch is getting old. I think there's limited evidence that someone is really "clutch". Jeter for his career has a .317 batting average, and .463 Slg. With runners in scoring position he's .312 and .436. Yet if we listen to the media he's the greatest clutch guy of all time. Thome is .281/.563 career, and .279/.543 career with runners in scoring position. You look at one year and it's just small sample size confusion. Dimaggio was a .325 career BA/.579 slg hitter but a .271ba/.422slg hitter in the World Series. Does that mean you'd bench him for Juan URibe who has a .286 playoff batting average with a .422 playoff slugging percent. Or maybe, you know, you'd keep Joe D in the game figuring it was just a case of small sample size. (and yes...I'd bat the long dead Dimaggio over Uribe).

QUOTE(Allsox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) Yuck, I'd rather sign back Jermaine for 2 yrs than be stuck with Abreu for 3 or 4. You're right about Abreu, ee doesn't steal bases, doesn't hit for power anymore and is a below avg RF. At least Jermaine can still hit 30 HRs, play avg defense in RF and is 2 yrs younger. We all know KW will go after the passion and the fire (Rowand) but I wonder about SS, LF and the bullpen. Yuck? OK BA had as bad a first half as Dye did. But in the 24 games since the All Star game he has a .615 slugging percent and an OPS over 1.000. Dye's actually a few months older than Abreau. As for his bad defense? He's a two time gold glover. What makes you say he's bad? And no steals? He'd be leading the Sox with his 15 stolen bases.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) Agree 100%. Though like 72 I question BA specifically. We aren't winning swinging for the fences. Only a year late in figuring that one out, IMO. Why no love for BA? Career .409 OBP. Some power and speed. OK, he's 33, but he's kinda like Rickey Henderson or Tim Raines (in an era without stolen bases). And both of those guys played well late into their 30's. He really seems more what the Sox need than Andrew Jones or Adam Dunn...and less risky than Rowand.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) I really wish the Sox would get moving on developing the area around the ballpark a little more quickly. To be consistently successful, the organization has to continue to find more stable revenue sources than their notoriously fickle fans. Even that I'm not sure is exactly true. In their first 84 years of existance the Sox outdrew the Cubs in 43 years, the Cubs outdrew in 41 years. But when the Trib bought the Cubs in 1978...it was over. The number one paper and the number one TV channel now owned the Cubs so from 1984-2005 the Cubs outdrew the Sox 19-2. When the Trib and WGN are broken away from the Cubs this year...maybe the city shifts back to the Cubs. It's an interesting time to be a Sox fan (outside of, you know, the record).

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 09:08 AM) Oh, I'm sure it's true that he said those things. Talk is cheap, like Mark's contract. I don't think the White Sox ARE cheap. They're payroll is in excess of $100 million....top five last year...maybe top ten this year. So why would it be impossible for them to go out and spend $15 mill on a couple of players? They save $3 mill from Iguchi. $3 Mill for Mack. $2 mill for Cintron. $2 mill for Pods. $6 mill for Dye. Not to mention the $10 from Freddie. They use that money to sign Bobby Abreau at $10 per and Scott Linebrook at $6 per? According to Forbes the Sox annual revenue is $173 mill per year...the most in the division...$3 more than Detroit, $15 more than Cleveland and $40 and $50 more than Minn/KC. In spite of all the second-team nonsense...the Sox have money, they spend it and there's no reason to think they won't spend more. With the Trib likely to sell the Cubs this year the hearts, minds and wallets of the countries 3rd largest market is really up for play. Reinsdorf is smart enough of a business man to recognize that he could increase profits if he spends more money.

QUOTE(Whitewashed in '05 @ Aug 2, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) That's right! We weren't good, we were dominant. Every team has breaks, that season we took advantage of them. And as a forty year Sox fan let me remind you all about this one aspect about Kenny. He is a FUN GM. His trading is crazy fun. Every hot stove league swirls with Kenny speculation. And every season he makes lots of interesting moves. So not only do we get a WS, and a team almost always competitive. But we also get the excitement of the 'maybe". I'll even say this...I LIKED what he did with the bullpen. OK...it didn't work and it dragged the team down. But it was all fun speculation. Mac, Aardsma, Masset, Sisco, Logan...all were guys with great minor league track records for striking guys out. Power arms and we had the pitching coach to teach them how to win. Furthermore...all we had to do was to get two of those five to come through...add them to Thorton and Jenks and we'd have the best bullpen in baseball. So, ok, reality came and all five sucked...and dragged Thorton and Jenks into the swamp with them. But man...in April I was getting ready to order my playoff tickets. And that, after all, is Kenny's job. He'd assembled a starting pitching staff that seemed top 10 in baseball. He had a defense that seemed to be top 10 in baseball. He had an offense that, based on last year, was a top 5 in baseball. And now he had a relief staff that could also be top ten. That the offense crapped out. The relief staff was bottom two, that the defense would decline...well it's been a funny year. But we are lying to ourselves if we say we expected the wheels to fall off this year.

QUOTE(LukeGofannon @ Jul 31, 2007 -> 05:08 PM) Polanco is nice, Guillen, Ordonez, Sheffield are the only others that are signifigant parts of the Tigers. Grilli blows and Durbin has been lucky. Rodriguez is on pace for like 8-9 walks. The whole year. Ordonez is 5th, Granderson 8th, Sheffield 16th, Guillen 31st (thats in VORP). I'm not sure how Sheffield is "their star hitter". Gas Can has a 4.67 ERA so he's not the relief ace. Also, Miller, Bondo, Verlander are all more important pitchers than Rogers. Their 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, RF, C and DH are over 30. Half of their pitchers are over 30. Their young core is Granderson, Verlander, Zuma and Zuma. My point is everyone is up in arms over the old Sox. Crede, Uribe, Richar, Fields, Buehrle, Garland, Jenks, Danks all under 30. Its not hopeless.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 08:26 PM) Ask yourself this -- if the Sox have talent, why aren't they winning? Answer is, even with the potential of our players, there are other teams within the division with better teams. Oh, another is this supposed talent really isn't very talented. It's that simple. It's difficult to say, "oh, this worked in 2005," when you're discounting the strength of the American League central; particularly the Tigers. What makes me believe the same formula that worked in 2005 will miraculously reinvent itself in 2008, despite the fact this team has become progressively worse since the championship? Yourself, among others, have to provide a room-full of "ifs" to argue for a winning season in 2008. I offered like three ifs. Sometimes a 90 win team wins 80 games...sometimes it wins 100. That is the wonderful randomness of baseball. Konerko is a career .850 OPS guy. Remeber 2003 when he hit 18 homers with a .230 batting average? Then in 2006 he hit .313 with 35 homers. Same guy...no injuries...or Buehrle who has a career batting average against him of .268...same ballpark, same guy...in 2001 his batting average against was .230. Last year it was .305..it's all part of the great randomness of baseball. Accumulate talent then hope that you get the ups at the same time. The tigers are a good old team with Palonco, Guillen, Ordonez, Sheffield, Inge, Casey, Rodriquez, Jones, and Rogers all over 30. Their relief ace, star hitter and key pitcher all basically forty. Gilli, Robertson, Durbin are all 30. Detroit isn't a dynasty...they are a veteran team with the old guys pulling together with a couple of young talented pitchers.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 08:16 PM) Too many 'what ifs'. But back to your point, yes....a good leadoff hitter is paramount. And yes, we have some talent, but too much of that talent is one dimensional and it's not like Cleveland, Minnesota, and Detroit don't have this. In fact, Detroit and Minnesota both have pitching that is BETTER than the White Sox. In 2005 no one had better pitching than the White Sox, especially when it counted. So if your scenario that sees John Danks become the next Ron Guidry, Javier wins the Cy Young, and Gio becomes the next Steve Carlton play out then yes...we don't need a lot from our hitting...just a couple rabbits and 2 or 3 boppers to hit the occasional 3-run homer. Trouble is, our pitching LIKELY won't come to that, and we'll still have a horrible hitting shortstop who has the added talent of not being able to steal bases, and an outfield that is one of the worst I have ever seen. EVER. I think we ran an OF of Andy Gonzalez, Rob Mackowiak and Jerry Owens onto the field for one game a couple weeks ago. I don't know if Ozzie was laughing or crying when he made out that lineup card. Point is, I don't think in this division with the multiple teams we have to compete against ...all very difficult, it a smart thing to continue to run out geezers, injury-riddled players, guys who can't run a lick playing this station to station baseball against teams not only talented, but YOUNG and talented. As players like Grady Sizemore, Matt Garza, Andrew Miller, Joe Mauer continue to get better and better with more experience our guys just get older and older. The writing was clearly on the wall last year when even the Royals played better ball after the ASB and currently stand .5 games from pushing the Sox into last place. I am at peace with a rebuilding movement. The 2005 team was built with a bunch of deals where we sent prospects for established players. Deals Kenny made to get in Jose, Freddy, Garland (maybe before KW), Uribe, Pods, AJP...the acquistiion of Jenks, Hermy, Pollite, and Iguchi...Kenny nailed it, hit a homer, bringing in a bunch of solid guys to help win it all. Now, I'd like to see him go the other way, bring in serious future talent for our aging, but somewhat productive veterans. Wait a minute...I'VE got too many what if's? While this board is ready to trade Bobby Jenks for some minor leaguers? Listen EVERY scenario for every team involves what if's. You think the Red Sox this year weren't saying, "If Schilling stays healthy, and Dice-K can really pitch and Beckett returns to form..." of how about Cleveland who last year had a season about like the Sox year this year. You think Cleveland fans were saying...time to tear this baby down and trade key players having down years for other teams prospects? It is just not so that Detroit has better pitching than the White Sox. If you were drafting pitchers from these two teams it would be something like Verlander, Buehrle, Vaz, Garland, Bonderman, Danks, Durbin, Robertson. I'd certainly take JEnks over Todd Jones. And if you think the White Sox hitters are old...take a look at Detroits roster. And by the way...the Sox didn't have Guidry, Carlton or Cy Young in 2005. They had five #2 quality pitchers...who gave you quality starts into the 7th inning every day...then Cotts and Politte were nearly perfect in the 7th and 8th. And then Hermanson and later Jenks to close it out. This year you had Count lose his stuff and every quality relief arm KW brought in has blown up. This year, in spite of Cleveland and Detroit...if Count was the Count of the first half of last year...and we had two of 6 relief pitchers that were reliabe...we'd be battling for the WS.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 08:00 PM) Sadly, this isn't realistic. This team has been built with aging, injury prone players. Don't think for a second we didn't expect Thome, Erstad, and Pods not to spend some time on the DL. Toss in Joe Crede's back issues and the advancing age of J.Dye and his knee issues and it's no wonder we struggled. If we return the same crew next year, history says they will spend time on the DL. And when one of these guys goes down or the bullpen flames, we bring up players from our AAA who simply don't look like they belong in the majors. Josh Fields has shown the most promise and while Jerry Owens has a few skills I can't see him as a cornerstone CF for a serious championship ballclub. Remember how awful the offense was in 2005? Scratch and claw for every run. In that year we had Cotts and Polite pitch lights out in middle relief. Good starting pitching, good middle relief and a good closer...with just enough offense to win. That formula can work in 2008 or 09. Remember the Contreas of 17 wins in a row? What if that is Vaz next year? What if Danks is 20% better next year. What if Gio is rookie of the year. A team needs a bit of luck to win...and a some talent. Sox HAVE talent...it just didn't work this year. We'll get them next year (while we sit back and polish our WS trophy)

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) So, if the Braves couldn't get Tex, and offered us Salty, Andrus, and Harrison for Jenks, you wouldn't make that trade? I'd rather have traded Konerko for that package. I think good hitting guys who are past thirty and aren't great fielders are easier to find than lights out 26 year old closer. I love Salty though

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 07:51 PM) Wow, we have a young affordable closer who is leading the AL in saves on one of the worst teams. That is something you dont trade, bar none. We have a young affordable closer who is leading the Al in saves on a team that won the WS 18 months ago. The team is NOT that bad. If they had any offense or any relief pitching in the first half we would be close right now. And next year? Buehrle-Garland-Vaz-Danks-and a rejuvenated Contreas (12 months ago at this time we were talking about the Count as one of the top five pitchers in baseball). We do NOT have to dismantle. Just fix long relief, lead off man and avoid injuries.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) the metal in bobby's elbow would seem to indicate that he could get hurt Perhaps there is evidence out there that surgically repaired body parts are more likely to fail again than god given body parts. I'm just not aware of that study.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 06:08 PM) Not even close. Young may never hit above .250 in the bigs Batting Average? What is this the 1950's? Chris Young had a .377 on base percentage as a 21 year old in a pitchers park in Birmingham. His strikeouts went down in every minor league season and his walks per inning went up. So he has a good sense of the strike zone. He may not hit .300 any season. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be a .375 OBP guy with 50 steals and 40 homers and play good center field. But...yeah...maybe bad batting average.

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 07:15 PM) 1. he's injury prone (screw in elbow, weight issues) 2. he's going to be cheap while we suck and expensive when we start winning 3. if you're trying to equate bobby jenks' value to that of pujols, you're off your rocker 3) I'm sorry but you are going to have to remind me where I said that Jenks=Pujols. What I said was Jenks = a prospect that looks so can't miss like Pujols did. But EVEN THEN...prospects miss. People talk about prospects like they are Xbox players. "well we just trade Jenks for these two studs prospects." As if those guys will just step in and become all stars. Here's Baseball Notebooks list of top hitting prospects December 2004. Delmon Young, Casey Kotchman, Brandon Moss, Jason Kubel, Ian Kinsler, BJ Upton, Wes Bankston. Justin Morneau, Jose Lopez and Ryan Garko. THat's top ten...the so called untouchables. So after the Sox terrible 2004...they should have just retooled by trading Buehrle for Jose Lopez and Wes Brankston...and people here would have rejoiced. Beware the sure thing for the hot prospect. 2) where is your evidence we are going to suck in 2008? 1) Where is the evidence he's injury prone? Since he's been in the majors he hasn't missed a beat. And weight issues? Yeah fatness has kept David Wells from enjoying a long career.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 04:25 PM) Uh ya, Chris Young is talented but not THAT talented. He's 23 and on pace for 30 homers, 30 doubles, 25 of 28 stolen bases...and a history of getting better as he figures out the league he's in? With plus defense? OK not Pujolos. But in three years he sure could be a top ten player in baseball.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Jul 30, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) Jason Donald + another prospect? http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/st...&pid=453228 Why in the world would we trade Jenks for prospects? I'm kinda feeling like Jenks=Lee Smith. That reliable closer for the next ten years. He's on his third year of doing this job so successfully. Seems like a true relief ace is one of the hardest pieces to find...we have him, he's young and cheap. Sure he can look shaky at times...but I think his save percentage is great considering his young. Unless we can trade him for an Albert Pujols prospect...you don't trade (and by the way...who would trade an AP type prospect...accept, you know, us...go look at Chris Young play CF in 2008...sniff, sniff).