Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) IF the price is $6-$7 million, then the Giants will claim him if he gets that far. Why are you so certain of this? Have you read something in the news implying the Giants have significant cash to burn?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 06:22 PM) Yes, but it only takes one... True, but I don't see the usual suspects (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.) making a claim on Manny.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) If it's only $6-7 million owed to him, then I don't see why someone wouldn't claim him. That's a lot of money to most teams. Hell, that's like 7% percent of our payroll. IMO, very few teams would even consider claiming a player worth that amount and even less would claim Manny.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 06:02 PM) The deadline really meant nothing because nobody was going to claim him. I don't see how his price would go up. The Sox offered $1 million in salary relief and nothing else. I doubt they would go much higher if they would go higher at all. Before the trading deadline, there were other impact bats available like Dunn, Berkman, etc. There are not going to be a lot of possible impact players that clear through waivers (at least ones without mulityear commitments). The market is radically different now than it was in July. Honestly, who is a more attractive bat that you expect to clear waivers? If Manny is indeed the top option now, then his value will be higher than it was before the deadline. Also, the offer the Sox made ($1 million and no prospects) was a complete joke. They wanted to see how desperate the Dodgers were to move him and clearly they got their answer. I don't think it's crazy to think that the Sox would add an extra $2 million and some low A ball prospect to if they really want to get Manny.

Any possibility that the Dodgers added salary at the deadline with the intention of trading Manny in August? IMO, Manny is one of the few potential impact bats that should pass through waivers. Seems like his value would only increase in August with guys like Dunn being restricted to a single trading partner. I'm not suggesting the Dodgers would get a ton for him, but I don't think it's far-fetched for them to get $3 million and a prospect in return for him at this point, which clearly they couldn't get in July. Maybe that was their plan all along?

What do people think about Stefan Gartrell? He's got a .920 OPS against lefties this season. I know he's a bit old for a prosepct, but does anyone think he could be a cheap reserve OF for us next season? Has anyone seen him play and could comment on his defense?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) I believe you are correct. Thanks! QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 3, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Yes, although I don't think we'd carry 3 lefties in the pen. I'm not suggesting carrying 3 lefties in the pen for the playoffs, rather pointing out keeping Threets on the DL for the rest of the month gives the team all of September to decide who the better option is for the postseason. Otherwise, you got to make the call by the end of the month.

If Threets is somehow able to stay on the DL until rosters expand in September (I know that's a long time and unlikely), he and Sale would both be eligible for the playoff roster correct?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 2, 2010 -> 11:14 AM) Just because Coop likes him doesnt mean we didnt overpay for him. Jackson has been bad this year, there is no denying that, and with the price tag he has you dont give up the only SP prospect that you have that can make an impact on your big league club this year (we have other pitchers, but no one else is close to Hudson's level). Even if Jackson succeeds, we're stuck with a $54 million starting rotation with no clear favorites to replace one of those expensive starters. I would like Jackson if we kept Hudson, because then we still ahve the flexibility to trade a starter in the offseason while having Hudson be the cheap yet potentially good 5th starter. We have Sale who might be able to jump into the rotation at some point next year and should at least be ready by the start of 2012. Buerhle and Jackson will be free agents at this point, so the $54 million commitment is only for a year. However, I see KW trying to sign Danks and possibly Jackson (depending on performance/eagerness to test the market) to extensions this offseason. Having Jackson might be good leverage to get Danks to finally agree to a long-term deal. If not, we need to look into trading Danks soon. He'll be at his highest value during the offseason and up until the 2011 trading deadline. We should be able to get quite a haul for him, including a near major league ready starting pitcher with tons of upside. Hopefully it doesn't come to moving Danks, but that might be how you get some salary relief in the offseason.

I still think something happens in the last couple minutes. Hopefully KW has a couple offers on the table and he's just waiting for someone to blink.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 12:23 PM) I love Viciedo. But think of the Postseason...you want Viciedo up there against some of these elite pitchers, or Manny Ramirez? Ramirez hands down. Anyone who says otherwise is blinded by the steroids issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 11:55 AM) Frankly, I don't want a juicer on my team. That said...he's not going to play the rest of the season without at least 1 more DL trip and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. There's a legit chance he comes back out, runs the bases any day, and then misses the rest of the season because of it. You honestly think that no one on our current roster has taken steroids in the past? Come on, a good chunk of the league has probably used and you'll never actually know. You just going to hate the guys that get caught?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) Let's note 1 thing...Manny's had a total of 220 PA's this season. Mark Kotsay has 253. Mark Kotsay has played a lot more than Manny Ramirez. So you'd rather have Kotsay as our DH over Manny?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) From the sounds of it, this isn't really true. What do you mean?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) Austin Kearns was just unusually pulled for a pinch runner. Something to keep an eye on. Someone in the game thread just said he was traded to the Yankees.

Please do not trade Viciedo KW!!

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) Yankees got Astros to send money back and won't be sending any good prospects. Berkman could have been had for NOTHING. Kenny better be working on something BIG. Olney: Heard this: The Astros are picking up a lot of the money owed to Lance Berkman in their agreement with the Yankees, and the NYY#trades Yankees won't be giving up any major prospects. That's really too bad...I would have loved Berkman on the cheap. Like you said, we just got to hope KW is working on something big. I just hope he can find a way to get us a nice bat without giving up Viciedo.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Did Cowley just say that Ozzie once wrote up a lineup with Pierre hitting 4th? I wouldn't be suprised at all. I believe Ozzie said something along the lines that if he was GM he'd have Pierre batting 4th (implying his lineup would be a bunch of scrappy/slappy hitters).

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 04:38 PM) Balta pretty much summed it up. Even if you do trade him, then you still need to sign a 5th starter. And who's to say that Freddy won't sign a cheap deal with us next year? We all know how close he is with Ozzie and how much he enjoys playing here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 04:32 PM) Then we've got a choice if somehow we dump Jackson's contract. Either we go and find Bartolo Colon and see if he'll sign for another $500k next offseason, or we take Jackson's $8 million and spend it on another overpaid FA pitcher somewhere. Unless we've got a method to catch Freddy Garcia-like lightning in a bottle next year, or we're totally insane and we're going to dump Sale into the fryer immediately next year, we're going to need another starting pitcher if we somehow became the 4th team to give up on Jackson in 2 years, and we're absolutely not going to get an MLB-ready minor league arm for him. I think that's quite the stretch considering he hasn't thrown a single pitch for us. Let's give him a chance to pitch before we declare that his value will significantly decline between now and the offseason.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 03:41 PM) So what happens when the Sox cant afford to keep some combination of AJ, Paulie, Putz, Jenks, etc because they are paying a mediocre-bad starter in EJax? Then all of a sudden they have holes they cant fill, and were back to middling. First off, I think it's difficult to speculate exactly what our payroll will be next year. We can use this year's payroll as a rough estimate, but a lot of factors could change the actual figure. If KW is trading away a cheap, controllable player in Hudson, it might be a reasonable indication that the financial situation next season may not be as bleak as some people think. As for your comment about Jackson, why can't we just deal him in the offseason if we're desperate for salary relief? There's no way that he was worth Hudson/Holmberg now but will be worth nothing once the season ends. We'll get something of value back for him. Personally, I think this trade helps us this year (to what extent I don't know), but I'll admit it's an extremely risky move. Giving away the cost certainty that Hudson provides could easily hurt us in the long-run and possibly as early as next season. If KW holds on to Jackson, then he better go ahead a get a DH as well, because he'd be betting a playoff run this season.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) @TBrownYahoo - Source: White Sox hope to acquire Dunn without trading Jackson, but Nats desire Jackson. Well that would imply a Viciedo + Santos and/or prospect(s). I just don't see how the Nationals would trade us Dunn without getting Viciedo or Hudson as the centerpiece.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 01:20 PM) This trade suggests two things: (1) The Sox weren't nearly as high on Hudson as they'd led us to believe (or believe that his mechanics make him injury-prone). (2) Kenny subscribes to the school of thought that making a deal at the deadline (even if it doesn't really help the team much) has a positive psychological impact on the team. (I imagine that the Griffey trade of two years ago would fall into this category as well.) I think the trade really suggests the Sox believe Sale will be ready much sooner than most expect.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) There is no benefit. If you lose the game today because you had to throw Lucas Harrel out there, then Jackson's value to this team the rest of the way decreases even more. Jackson projects to be a guy who can give you 1.5 wins from here on out, nothing awesome. No offense to you in particular, but I find it pretty absurd people throw projections around like they are guaranteed to happen. We are talking about a guy getting to traded to a new team in a new league that plays in a different park with different defenders and has a different pitching coach. There are so many variables at play here that projections are meaningless at this time IMO. I have no doubt that giving up Hudson and Holmberg is an overpay, but that's what happens when you acquire starting pitching at the deadline. I don't see how anyone could think this move makes us worse THIS SEASON. At worst, he should be slightly better than Hudson this year simply because he can eat innings. Furthermore, the guy has the skillset to be dominant postseason starter. I'm not saying he will, but if he can get hot by the end of the year, this team is much more dangerous playoff team with him as our #4 starter than Garcia or Hudson.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 30, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) Yep, if it's just Hudson and another prospect for Jackson, and then nothing else happens...that would be just a horrible deal. I agree completely. The only way you make this trade is if you decide to go all in this year and believe Jackson can really booster your playoff rotation. That means getting a legit DH as well (someone like Berkman would do). Trading away cheap, controllable players is extremely risky given how terrible our minor league system is and how our financials look for 2011. However, I could see KW looking at the potential upside of a deep playoff run (additional revenue / better attendance in 2011) and deciding to roll the dice.