VAfan

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:24 AM) VA, I hope you are writing another sweet novel that makes no sense. What part, exactly, makes no sense? 1. Re-signing Jose Contreras for another 2-3 years beyond 2006? I don't think his 3-year $36 million ask is that far out of line given what Millwood, Burnett, and Washburn got, but I also think the Sox will end up getting him for less. Do you think that would be a bad deal? (Remember, it wouldn't be on this year's payroll.) 2. Starting the season with Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, and Vazquez in the rotation? 3. Trying to get Vazquez to regain some of the form and results he showed in Montreal, thereby increasing his value exponentially? 4. Easing Brandon McCarthy into the majors by having him start the season in the bullpen? KW has said McCarthy needs to fill out his frame, and I'll bet he believes McCarthy is a risk to get hurt until he does. 5. Assessing our needs through the middle of the year before we consider trading one of our top-5 starters? Where's the flaw?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 03:20 AM) and why is that??? Historically, it is rather unusual for there to be no deals at the deadline, don't you think? Plus, if KW is willing to deal a 200+-inning pitcher with 2-1/2 years to go on his contract, don't you think he'll have several offers to choose from? What was being offered last year was AJ Burnett as a rental, Mike Lowell as a salary dump, and the guys from Tampa Bay, whose GM never trades with anyone anyway. SF wasn't dealing - they were just waiting for BB to return. The Yankees couldn't deal because they have no prospects and no one wants their overpaid baggage (even so, Shawn Chacon was one of the best July deals that was made). Etc. There were unusual circumstances that added up to no major moves.

QUOTE(forrestg @ Dec 30, 2005 -> 02:44 AM) I like your thinking. the value of everybody goes up at trade deadline. Last year so much that hardly any trades were made I wouldn't bet on there being another year of no trade-deadline deals.

Does anyone doubt that when all the negotiating is over, that Jose Contreras will sign an extension with the Sox? After all the love he has felt here, and his rapport with Ozzie and Coop, I think there is no doubt that Jose will want to be back. I think as long as Jose's demands don't get ridiculous, that KW will find a way to make a deal. So where will that leave the Sox? With 6 strong starting pitchers, the envy of baseball. And, unless someone comes to the Sox with an offer KW can't refuse, I think that is where the Sox will be opening day. McCarthy will be in the bullpen and Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, and Vazquez will be in the rotation. It makes a lot of sense. For example, what if Mark Buehrle's foot twinge last spring had been real, knocking him out for weeks? Freak injuries can happen, and having an extra starter ready to plug in can go from a luxury to a necessity whenever they do. Given how badly the Sox performed from 2001-2004 without a reliable 5th man, I think KW fully appreciates the value of starting depth. But this is not necessarily the same place the Sox should be mid-season. By then, they will have a much better assessment of the AL race, how Brandon McCarthy continues to perform against major league hitting, and the health of the team. They should also know whether Brian Anderson is overmatched in CF, whether Jim Thome is fully recovered and back to his old self, whether Joe Crede's back is holding up, etc. In other words, KW will have an even better sense of the club's mid-season needs. (Let's hope we don't have any.) But the biggest thing the Sox may know is how good Javier Vazquez really is. Is he the Vazquez who showed great promise in Montreal? Or the mediocre innings eater he was for the Diamondbacks last year. Under Coop's tutelage, it is highly unlikely he'll be any worse than he was in 2005, with his 4.32 ERA and 35-HR's surrendered, and more likely he'll be better. Yet better for Vazquez may still make him the weakest starter on our team, capable of being replaced by Brandon McCarthy mid-season. And at that point, still basically bound to any team that trades for him for 2-1/2 more years, Vazquez could be a huge trading chit. In fact, if he's shown a return to Montreal form, he'd have much more trade value mid-season than he does now. His value would also be enhanced because he could be a difference-maker for a contender in need of pitching (which every contender except the Sox will probably need). For example, depending on where the Phillies are, why not Bobby Abreu (and some cash to soften his contract) for a refurbished Vazquez at that point? Or perhaps some other player to give us an offensive boost? Or even a contender's best prospects? Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if KW isn't thinking very much along these lines. Of course, it depends on Jose inking an extension. But it would surprise me a great deal if he doesn't do that.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:12 PM) What everyone else is doing right now, besides you, is stepping back and realizing that Jon Garland probably doesnt see himself staying with the White Sox past his arbitration years because of a multitude(hawkism!) of reasons, among them being A) the White Sox are not going to be in a position to pay him what he will command in the open market, B ) He is a SoCal native, C) He has been jerked around by the White Sox organization in the past, D) he probably doesnt care for the media perception of him in this town, etc. al. In other words, it probably isnt in the cards. Now the White Sox have to make a business decision and attempt to fortify positions for the future because they have extra pitching right now. This team is damn good, and trading Jon away isnt going to change the face of the team. Okay. Here's what you said again. Are you suggesting this doesn't say that Garland isn't going to re-sign with us?

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) You better get ready to eat a lot of crow if he sucks next year. I'll happily eat crow next year if he sucks, if everyone who ripped me about Garland and said he should be traded and/or was never going to sign here again steps up and eats the crow RIGHT NOW.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) you act like our reasoning wasnt sound. KW issued an ultimatum and Garland responded before Contreras did. It doesnt change the fact that you are overly sentimental about players and engage into extended whinefests when you think one of your guys is going to get traded. and you still dont understand that noone here wanted Garland traded. Most of the people realized the situation the Sox were in and saw Garland as the moveable commodity because he had already turned down a contract and supposedly the contract talks were over. I never said I didnt want him, but I certainly could recognize what his value was and why the Sox would move him, something you still cannot grasp obviously. But thanks for the 20/20 flashback. Nice try, but no cigar. As I said multiple times, turning down a first contract offer was meaningless. Paul Konerko turned down our first contract offer. Until arbitration, I believed the Sox would continue negotiating with Garland, and either he'd accept a deal the Sox could live with or he wouldn't. That's exactly what happened, isn't it? A lot of guys on this board ripped me repeatedly and said I didn't have a clue. That Garland wanted to play on the West Coast. That he would never resign here. That he'd been jerked around by managment, etc. You want me to repeat your post below AGAIN??? As for the sentimentality claim, it's totally bogus. I'm for putting the best team on the field. I defend players who perform. Do you have any argument that Joe Crede, AJ Pierzynski, and Jon Garland didn't perform well for us last year??? Without those 3 guys, we don't have a WS title. But, if someone becomes available who is better than any of them, I'm not going to argue for keeping them.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 07:03 AM) We are going to laugh at threads like this after seeing how good Brian Anderson is. What is your objective evidence that Brian Anderson is going to be good? Certainly not his September stats: 34 ABs, 12 Ks, no BBs. AAA? AA? This guy could become a decent player, but I haven't seen anything exceptional in his minor league career that would lead me to believe that he's going to make us forget Aaron Rowand anytime soon. (And Rowand is hardly an offensive star.) What am I missing? Show me the evidence please.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:12 PM) There is such a thing as reading too far in to what others are saying, and I have to say that this is a classic example of that, VAfan. Who said that Jon Garland is at the zenith of his career? Who said that this is as good as he is ever going to be? You keep confusing "We can trade Jon Garland for MAX value right now" with "Jon Garland isnt going to get any better, therefore we must trade him.". Noone said Garland sucks, Noone said Garland isnt going to get any better. What everyone else is doing right now, besides you, is stepping back and realizing that Jon Garland probably doesnt see himself staying with the White Sox past his arbitration years because of a multitude(hawkism!) of reasons, among them being A) the White Sox are not going to be in a position to pay him what he will command in the open market, B ) He is a SoCal native, C) He has been jerked around by the White Sox organization in the past, D) he probably doesnt care for the media perception of him in this town, etc. al. In other words, it probably isnt in the cards. Now the White Sox have to make a business decision and attempt to fortify positions for the future because they have extra pitching right now. This team is damn good, and trading Jon away isnt going to change the face of the team. This isnt to say that something will not be done. KW could be posturing and something could be worked out. But this isnt a likely scenario. While i will be sorry to see Garland go, I will certainly understand his reasoning. You are far too sentimental about holding on to players. Well, who turned out to be right about Garland????? I'm not sentimental at all. If Javier Vazquez were a better pitcher than Garland, I'd be thrilled to have him take Jon's slot in the rotation. Fact is, he isn't close right now, unless Cooper can work a miracle with him. ******************* So, that's two out of three. I don't expect Crede to sign, nor to I expect the Sox to extend him a deal. When I first wrote this I thought Crede was three years from FA. In fact, he's four years away, with 3 years of arbitration ahead. If I were KW, I would try to sign him for those three years and buy myself some cost certainty. But with Crede's back, I can understand not taking the risk. Even so, watch Crede turn in a great year in 2006.

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland???? With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 25, 2005 -> 11:09 AM) And the part that really bugs me about this deal (right now I'm prob 45-55 on it), was that we could of possibly traded Brian Anderson instead of Chris Young, but we chose Anderson because he's supposedly ready now. I would agree with this. Comparing Young to Anderson at the same stops is rather depressing when you realize we kept Anderson. And since this post is supposed to be about Borchard, my question is how great a difference is there defensively between Anderson and Borchard? Because Borchard is probably a better hitter than Anderson at this point. (And what does THAT say about Anderson?) (I hope I'm wrong.)

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:25 PM) Yes the point of SoxTalk is to discuss but when you choose to leave out a large part of reality, and bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads, multiple people tend to get annoyed with what you discuss. I suspect that's what's happening in your case. You don't bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads???? As for the Sox budget, it has been a moving target in the offseason, hasn't it? And don't we always hear in the middle of the season that KW has flexibility to make deadline deals? Until KW recants his statement that he's willing to go to spring training with 6 starters, or the Sox actually trade Jon Garland, I think it is totally fair game to suggest that he might be kept this year to make another run at a World Title.

Just so the record is clear, if Garland is going to be traded, fine. My points have always been: 1. Don't undervalue him. The guy was our second best starter last year, and is only going to get better, ie., put up similar years to 2005 in the future. 2. Don't just dump him. Given his real value, to trade him without getting impact players (or several potential impact players) in return would not be a good deal for the Sox. 3. Keeping him for a single year may give us our best possible chance at repeating as WS Champs. After all, we've learned the hard way what happens when we are a starter short during the season. Better to have 6 than 4 (when an injury causes someone to go down). I trust Kenny Williams agrees with all three of these points. Thus, I expect we'll either keep him or get great value in return.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:04 PM) Look at Broxton's periphs. The guy was fresh into AA and he's possibly the best closer prospect in the minors right now. As far as Brazoban goes, teams would love to have him. He hit a funk when he lost his closers role, but he has had success at the major league level. The problem was he got rushed into the closers spot. And in Elbert we are getting a guy that would be our top pitching prospect along with Broadway. I'll take your word for it, as you've obviously studdied minor league guys a whole lot more than I have. Broxton appears to have been a wild man, however, in his short stint in the majors. Obviously, if Kenny Williams is going to trade Garland he's going to try to get the best value available. I'm remain doubtful, however, that two bullpen arms could possibly amount to equal value. (Your trade idea was two bullpen arms plus the equivalent of Gio Gonzalez, where Elbert might in fact be the biggest value in the deal. That's very different from what Jim H posted.)

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Once again, you don't get it. Please connect the dots: Garland is in line for a huge arbitration award. The White Sox are apparantly over budget already. Conclusion: It doesn't matter what your preferences are. Try looking at reality. Why are you assuming mediocre bullpen arms? You are not a scout. If you will (for once) look at the whole, realistic picture, you would not be throwing around names like Guardado and Trevor Hoffman. They make big money. Same with Brian Giles by the way. Again, they are apparantly over budget, they would not have made the Vazquez trade if Garland had signed an extension. It takes more analysis than just looking at the other team's major league roster and drawing a short sighted conclusion. Williams just said the other day that he favors starting out young pitchers in the bullpen and ultimately grooming them to be a starter if it suits the team and the player. Do you not think they could find a younger pitcher or two who would fit and contribute nicely in a 2006/2007 bullpen role, with an eye toward developing them as a starter for years beyond? I fail to see why you don't come to grips with reality on this. It has nothing to do with what you want. It has everything to do with what the White Sox need and want to do. Otherwise, you are needlessly arguing and belaboring ideas with no basis in reality. I thought the point of Sox Talk was to discuss what we believe the Sox should do. Of course the field shifts every time the Sox do something, or we receive more information. Based on your post, I analyzed whether getting two bullpen arms was fair value for the Sox for trading Jon Garland. I offered more analysis in that regard than anyone posting on this thread with the possible exception of Chisoxfn. (No I don't think the Mariners are giving us Eddie Guardado or the Padres Trevor Hoffman. That was my point.) As for reality, I seem to recall several quotes from Kenny Williams recently that he was happy to go to spring training with 6 starters. So, budget or not, until the Sox trade Jon Garland or he becomes a free agent, keeping him is certainly a distinct possibility and as much grounded in reality as anything you have written to the contrary.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:43 PM) Ok lets presume Kenny wants two relievers in a deal: Elbert or another prospect from the Dodgers, Broxton, and Brazoban. Brazoban is a major leaguer reliever that started to really struggle late last year, however he did notch 22 saves and has a power arm. Broxton is a converted reliever who was called up late last season and has a power arm and a good slider. Elbert is an A ball rookie thats on par with Gio Gonzalez. Not a bad looking deal cause the Sox can slide Brazoban and Broxton into the back of there pen and let the two develop. Plus you have a shot at letting Tracey compete. Would this not be a fair enough deal? I can't seem to copy their stat lines over from ESPN, but Brazoban's ERA was 5.33 over 72 innings with 6 blown saves, 32 walks, and a WHIP of 1.40. Broxton's line was worse: 13 innings, 5.93 ERA, 12 walks, 1.83 WHIP, 1 blown save. Luis Vizcaino, by comparison, pitched 70 innings, posted a 3.73 ERA, walked 29 guys with a WHIP of 1.47, and blew only 3 saves. So other than the fact that you think these guys arms are great, it looks like Vizcaino performed quite a bit better than both last year. Sure, Brazoban and Broxton are both quite a bit younger than Vizcaino, but that may or may translate into performance next year or beyond. I'd rather have a 6-deep dominant rotation than to be worried all year that we're screwed if any of our starters go down. Especially with 3 of them putting in extra innings in the World Baseball Classic. (Remember Buehrle's foot injury at the end of spring training last year? Luckily, it wasn't anything.)

Two bullpen arms for Jon Garland??? I can believe the rest of the post, but there are no bullpen arms we would get in trade who would equal the value of Jon Garland. Let's just talk about West Coast teams, since that's where everyone assumes he wants to go. Angels: Kelvim Escobar, Scott Shields?? A viable pair from our perspective, but there's no way the Angels would make that trade. They'd want to give us back end of the bullpen guys like Kevin Gregg or maybe Brendan Donnelly. No thanks. Dodgers: You guys have thrown around a lot of names, but do you realize not a single Dodger reliever other than Eric Gagne had an ERA below 3.73? That's Luis Vizcaino's ERA from the AL. So anyone we'd get from them is liable to make our bullpen worse than it was last year. I'd say that's getting great value for an 18-game winner. Giants: Scott Eyre was their best guy, and he's gone. Everyone else would make you miss Vizcaino and Marte. Seattle: Eddie Guardado would provide some value, and Julio Mateo looks decent enough on paper, but do you think Garland wants to play in Seattle, and that they are willing to pay him? San Diego: I don't think they are going to send us Trevor Hoffman. And they can't afford Garland anyway. To trade a front-line starter like Garland for bullpen arms makes no sense whatsoever. I don't believe Kenny Williams is that dumb. Knowing what happened when we were a starter short in 2001-2004, I think he'd rather keep Garland and lose him to FA than accept no value in return. In the long run, the Sox need to replace their outfield. Brian Anderson may or may not make it; same for Jerry Owens and Ryan Sweeney. Podsednik's wheels already look shaky after one year, and without them he's a marginal ballplayer at best. Dye is going to be 32 this year, but isn't likely to match his 2005 production over a full season again. The irony of this, of course, is that the Sox traded their best outfield prospect for Javier Vazquez, and there's no guarantee we'd get someone as good even though we have a better pitcher to offer. The reason is Garland's contract status. Vazquez is Sox property for 3 years. Garland is only a 1-year rental, with no guarantee he'll repeat his 2005 form for a new club with shakier defense and a different catcher calling the game. So from my perspective, the Sox should keep Garland and take the draft picks when he walks. Keeping him gives us the best chance of repeating the division title and facing down the Yankees in the playoffs. And I'd certainly take another shot at winning the World Series over a couple of mediocre bullpen arms.

Bradford's righty/lefty splits were pretty bad last year. I think the Sox would be better off stocking the back end of their pen with guys who can pitch an entire inning instead of a batter or two. Otherwise Cotts and Politte will never get a day's rest.

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) Well VA we will see who is right. I have no written proof. I will emphatically state that Garland will sign with a team on the west coast specifically california within two years. (He may not have a choice this year) I guess we will have to wait. I am willing to do so. I am a very patient man. I will also state his time with us is extremely limited despite the fact you like him. I do believe his trade value is more when dealing with a west coast team, because I do believe he has made it known he would rather play on the west coast. If he gets traded to the Dodgers padres or angels, he will sign longer term.I am sure KW doesn't give a s*** if you like him or anyone else. I would suspect they do not want to jump way over garcia or Buerhle's salaries too much or else they get themselves in a 2007 jam. I am certain KW is thinking ahead. Now as far as Crede, he may not be traded THIS YEAR but he will not be in the Sox plans in 2008 because of Boras. So if you have a taker now then trade him. Reason is because you will be in the same jam you are with Garland today. Teams will back off because of boras. That said, there may not be a match this year. So we will probably keep the overrated 240 hitter THIS YEAR. I have answered your questions I believe, and now I am done on this thread. I am certain you will bring up the same argument when you start another thread. So, in other words, I post a statement from AJ Pierzynski, and you respond with .... nothing? I'm not predicting anything. I've made the point, backed up completely by numbers, that Garland was our second best pitcher last year. And I've refuted the point that, at 26, he's somehow reached the zenith of his career in 2005 and will never be more valuable than he is now. I would not be surprised if he were traded, but I certainly hope the Sox don't just push him out the door by making a lowball offer and then claiming they couldn't sign him. If he won't take a market 3-year deal, then I'm ready to move on. But I have no illusions that Javier Vazquez will be an improvement over Jon Garland for the next two years of Vazquez's contract. As for Crede, who doesn't know about Scott Boras? But it is ridiculous to just throw up your hands and say - that's it. If he's got Boras as his agent, he's automatically gone. What if Mark Buehrle signed Scott Boras as his agent. Would you put him on the block tomorrow? I'll take this bet - that Joe Crede is an "overrated .240 hitter." I would wager that Crede won't hit as low as .240 in any year for the next 5. I would also wager, unless his back forces him on the DL, that his 22 HRs from 2005 will be his new floor. I don't know what you were watching in the postseason, but Joe Crede was right there with Paul Konerko and Jermaine Dye (in the WS) as our most dangerous hitter. His 2B drove in the winning run in game 2 against the Angels. He hit the HR to tie game 5 against the Angels, and drove in the winning run in that game too. Against Houston, he hit the go-ahead HR that won game 1 (not to mention at least 2 game-saving stops at 3B). Plus, he started the 5-run rally against a cruising Roy Oswalt with a HR in game 3. That's 4 out of our 11 wins where Crede was perhaps the key offensive player in our lineup. Pretty good for an "overrated .240 hitter." All Boras's clients want is money. The Sox can either choose to pay up or let the guy go elsewhere. I think Joe Crede finally figured out his hitting problems last year, and we'll now see a guy who may slump a little when he's not hot, but won't fall off the deep end like he did for two months of last year. So, this is the last point at which Crede will be available for a bargain price. I think the Sox should take advantage of their opporutnity.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:53 PM) Why don't we try to trade Garland and Crede to the Padres for Brian Giles? I know you guys love to try to ridicule me, but from a baseball perspective only, a straight trade of Garland for Giles would actually be a good deal for the Sox. Giles, in a horrible home park, was the 12th or 13th best offensive player in baseball last year (slightly better than Paul Konerko), and would likely do at least as well with the Cell as his home park (more than making up for any age or league-related decline). Indeed, if he hit as well in the Cell as he hit on the NL road last year, he would be a huge addition to the offense. (Giles created 116 runs; Rowand created 76 runs. That 40-run difference is greater than the 19-run differential between Garland and Vazquez.) The deal is not going to happen, obviously, but it would be a fair trade from a value perspective (leaving aside the fact that Giles was a FA but now probably has veto rights over a trade).

QUOTE(quickman @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:46 PM) Haven't all these issues been discussed till we puke in other threads? It appears people don't read or jsut like to start new threads. Point #1- garland does not want to resign here. He likes california thats where he will go. it really doens't matter what KW wants or if the sox give him 10 million. He will become a free agent. Point #2 - Crede will not sign long term if his agent is boras. May not happen this year but he will be gone unless he changes agents. Why is this so hard for people to understand? My post was started November 24th. AJ said in today's Trib that he's spoken with Garland and Garland told him he would like to come back. Post the link please from someone who has spoken with Garland that he wants to go back to the West Coast. As for Crede, I think the best way to deal with Boras is to lock in his client early before he becomes a star. I think that window for the Sox is this offseason. By the end of next year, after Crede has a much better year in 2006, I would agree with you that he's likely unsignable. Crede has 3+ years of full time service, but I can't tell from some Google searches whether he'd be a free agent in 2008 or not until 2009. Who knows?

Why don't all you board policemen just address the subject? Pierzynski today said he's spoken with Garland who told him he'd like to be back with the Sox. That's won't get Jon signed, but it refutes the notion that he can't be brought back. Here's the quote: "Garland is due to make a good raise and good for Gar," Pierzynski said during a conference call. "He deserves it for what he's been through. I saw him last week and he wants to stay. Here's the link. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines Have any of you personally talked with Jon to find out his opinion?

Remember, folks, that Paul Konerko's agent said the Sox' first offer was subpar. Stop freaking out. It is just negotiating. Who can blame Jose for trying to get his worth from the Sox? After all, at his age, this next contract will likely be his last remaining big payday, and he's still catching up to other big leaguers after spending most of his pitching career in Cuba. I think at the end of the day, Jose will sign because he loves Ozzie and Coop and feels at home in Chicago. The Sox are just going to have to pay him a fair salary in today's market to make it so.

I thought AJ was the best FA signing of last year's offseason. There's no way the Sox would have won without him leading that pitching staff. And his role in building team unity was as important as his on-the-field contributions. Welcome back, AJ. Glad you are on our side!

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 09:33 PM) im sorry but i wouldnt offer crede a 3/15 just yet. I must say, I should know precisely where Crede is in the arbitration/FA cycle. I'm sure he's not a FA next year, but I assume he would be in 2 years, correct?? That being the case, if Crede eliminates his terrible months, he's going to crack 30 HRs, with an OPS in the mid-.800s. At that point, Boras is going to start demanding $8-10 million/season, and he'd certainly get it the last year of arbitration and the first year of free agency. So a 3/15 deal seems pretty reasonable for the Sox to me. Remember, we can always insure the contract in case Crede's back puts him on the DL.