SuperSteve Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Konerko, Lee, 3 prospect AND $6 million is a LOT to trade even if its for Hudson and Byrnes. I'm assuming Damian Miller is a free agent as well, but they may want to bring him back as a cheaper option than to take on Kendall's contract, even if the Pirates pay a portion of it. I agree. I want no part in this deal. I figured we'd be getting Byrnes, Hudson, and Kendall in this. Wow, I think I'll stay away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 This is the potential offense and rotation after making the deal Byrnes - .280 25 70 .800 .350 25 Vizquel - ditto Thomas - ditto Everett - ditto Rowand - ditto Gload - he could be anywhere from .270 15 60 to .300 25 90...I picked middle ground and said .285 20 75 .800 Uribe - ditto Crede - ditto Davis - ditto Basically...what this trade does to the offense is takes out a little power...as you can tell, for the large part, the offense remains the same. Guys move up and down and that is probably the main thing that affects the offense...in getting rid of Lee, you have no true cleanup guy, so Everett has to come in and do that job for you. It's messy, but it gets the job done. The rotation is that part I liked the most Hudson - 18-8 3.50 Buehrle - 16-10 4.00 Garcia - 16-10 4.00 Contreras - 13-13 4.75 Garland - 13-13 4.75 Notice that both Garland and Contreras numbers are not the same as above...and the rotation is still better. That's why trading that much for Hudson means so much...we go from having a solid, yet still not great rotation to having a great, top 3 in the majors rotation, and a 1-2-3 that can handle anyone's. In trading Konerko, Lee, 3 prospects(probably would be Munoz, Diaz, and a guy like Spidale at the very most) and $10 mill to Oakland, the Sox almost put themselves over the top, because they do still have $5 mill or so to spend elsewhere(like on Percival or Urbina), or they could go out and trade for Guillen and have Everett come off the bench as a very good 1B/OF type guy...or they could do both I suppose. That is why I make this trade...I do feel it almost puts us over the top. Losing Konerko and Lee hurts the Sox offense a little bit, but what they get in return is worth it. I understand what you are saying about the offense, but you are relying on two guys who are either/both a) getting up there in age, and b] injury prone as the heart of your order. if either Everett or Thomas go down, we are in BIG trouble. And as much as I like ARow, i don't think he's a 5 hole hitter. 2 or 6 is about it. If we could get Hudson and Byrnes for either Kong or CLee and some prospects, then I'd do it. But, we need to keep someone relatively young in the heart of the order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Somebody correct me if I am wrong but you can only give a team $1,000,000 in a trade. You can agree to pay part of a contract given up (i.e. the yanks can not just give the Royals $10M for Mike Sweeney.) In the nicest manner possible. I hope the offseason fictious trades are not all this bad. Giving Lee/Konerkoand $10M or whatever it is, is just plain silly. Now back to lurking in silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Somebody correct me if I am wrong but you can only give a team $1,000,000 in a trade. You can agree to pay part of a contract given up (i.e. the yanks can not just give the Royals $10M for Mike Sweeney.) In the nicest manner possible. I hope the offseason fictious trades are not all this bad. Giving Lee/Konerkoand $10M or whatever it is, is just plain silly. Now back to lurking in silence. *Cough Aaron Boone Cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Somebody correct me if I am wrong but you can only give a team $1,000,000 in a trade. You can agree to pay part of a contract given up (i.e. the yanks can not just give the Royals $10M for Mike Sweeney.) In the nicest manner possible. I hope the offseason fictious trades are not all this bad. Giving Lee/Konerkoand $10M or whatever it is, is just plain silly. Now back to lurking in silence. It can be more than that, but then it has be approved by Bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 I don't want to start a fight, but this is one of the worst trade ideas I have ever seen, and that includes the whitesox.com message boards. Suppose the rumors are true about moving Konerko for Hudson. For your deal, we would essentially be giving up Carlos Lee, 3 prospects, and 10 million dollars, for Eric f***ing Byrnes?!?!?! I'm pretty sure that if either Paulie or Carlos Lee are traded this offseason, we won't be paying for much of their contracts, let alone $5 million. Konerko for Hudson would not get it done. Oakland could probably get Posada for Hudson, along with having most of his salary paid, and perhaps even more from New York. I proposed this assuming that Konerko for Hudson would not get it done. If Konerko for Hudson would be able to get it done, then a couple of things would be true. Oakland would be killing themselves financially(taking on around $2.5 more mill for a guy who's numbers clearly indicate that his numbers are swayed severely because of the ball park he plays in), and he would not be getting much value for one of the best young starters in the league. Youkilis straight up for Tim Hudson makes much more sense then Konerko for Hudson, because atleast Youkilis is much cheaper and is younger then Konerko. The reason I have basically said that I don't think Boston has enough to get it done is because I don't think they have nearly enough MLB talent on their team to trade to Oakland to satisfy enough of Billy Beane's needs Also...the way I break it down, I have it as Lee and the prospects for Hudson, and either Konerko for Kendall for Byrnes, or Konerko for Byrnes(and then Konerko would be traded for Kendall). I think the player has to actually be on the team at some given time for a team to take on part of his contract, so I would assume the former would be the case rather then the latter(because in the second one, Kendall is never on the White Sox, therefore, they cannot take on any of his contract). I mentioned Hudson for Konerko in the sub-title simply for clarifications sake. The initial rumor was Konerko for Hudson, and as I mentioned before, that would, in all likelyhood, not get the job done. If it would get the job done, then by god capitalize on Beane being an absolute douchebag while you can, and trade Konerko straight up for Hudson and don't even worry about the rest of it. What I am wondering is how crazy New York really is...are they crazy enough that they'd look at maybe trading Posada, Brown(and/or Vazquez, Gordon, among others), 3-4 prospects, plus the contracts of everyone involved for Hudson? If they are that crazy, you either have to out-crazy them, or you have to give in. Personally, I do think they are crazy enough to trade Posada and Brown along with multiple prospects and the contracts of everyone for Hudson...that's how bad their rotation situation was this year...but I don't think they'd do it right away. And quite honestly, I'm not sure Oakland takes our trade over New York's. I don't think you can f*** around with this...you have to out-crazy them before they can out-crazy you. New York all but had a trade lined up with Seattle to get Garcia, but KW snuck in there with an offer Seattle couldn't refuse...he did probably the craziest thing anyone ever expected and threw Olivo into the deal to sweeten it up. New York, Seattle, and quite frankly everyone was stunned by the move, and New York could not counter it, and we ended up with Garcia. That's the basic idea behind this trade...you start out by dangling Konerko and a prospect for Hudson, then Boston comes in and dangles Youk plus 3 prospects, then New York comes in and dangles Posada plus his contract along with 2 prospects...you gotta come over the top of Posada plus then...and you get into a bidding war. By doing my proposal, you avoid the bidding war completely, and keep everyone else away(though that's just the best case scenario). I may be underestimating Konerko and Lee's value...but I am not overestimating Hudson's value by any means. There is nothing written down that Beane has to trade Hudson...what their ownership and what the assumption is around baseball is that any part of the big 3 will be traded...that means we are not only up against whoever has interest in Hudson(mainly New York and Boston probably), but we are also up against Toronto and NYM(who both want Zito pretty badly), plus others who would like Mulder too. We could, realistically, be in a bidding war with up to 10 teams. That does mean that we have to have a better offer on the table for Hudson then any team does for any of them. That will take a lot. Do I think I'm overpaying, no I dont. I KNOW I'm overpaying in the deal...we are definately giving up the most in the deal...therefore, we probably have the most to lose. We also have the most to gain in the deal too...this deal gets done, we get to the postseason, we are one of the favorites to win it all, I don't care who we are facing. I hope I've explained myself well enough. HSC's biggest fan...you are correct. That's what I was implying in what I said. I should have made myself more clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goober Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 sorry, but that is one f***in' stupid trade for the sox. konerko+3 prospects+6mil>>hudson, lee>>>byrnes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 sorry, but that is one f***in' stupid trade for the sox. konerko+3 prospects+6mil>>hudson, lee>>>byrnes Exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 I still think everyone underestimate's Hudson's value and what he would do for the team, but whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I still think everyone underestimate's Hudson's value and what he would do for the team, but whatever. Is Hudson's pitching much greater than the combined offense of CLee and Konerko, the potential of 3 prospects, and $10 million??? Why not trade Lee, Garland, and a prospect for Randy Johnson? That's actually cheaper than the senario you posted above, and we won't be giving up so much of our offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagar69 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 sorry, but that is one f***in' stupid trade for the sox. konerko+3 prospects+6mil>>hudson, lee>>>byrnes yeah, giving out money to other teams wouldnt be bad for us at all since we draw 35,000+ a game and have a payroll of over 100 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 Is Hudson's pitching much greater than the combined offense of CLee and Konerko, the potential of 3 prospects, and $10 million??? Why not trade Lee, Garland, and a prospect for Randy Johnson? That's actually cheaper than the senario you posted above, and we won't be giving up so much of our offense. It's not a matter of whether Hudson's pitching is better then Lee, Konerko, prospects(and as I have pointed out, there are good odds that these prospects become decent major leaguers some day, nothing more...I'd hardly say that Munoz and Diaz will become very good MLBers some day...not saying they won't be solid, just saying they won't make or break a team), plus $10 mill(which is paid over 3 years, not all this year). It is a matter of whether Hudson's pitching, plus Byrnes's offense, plus Gload's offense is better then the s*** we get from the 5th starter now(or who we would sign, whichever) plus Lee's plus Konerko's. I think it is. Another thing that is worth noting is that the move still frees up around $5 mill for this year, which would probably be spent on a reliever, such as Percival. I would make that trade for RJ. But trading for RJ restricts us a ton financially, no matter the move we make(unless we, again, overpay and have someone take on Konerko, and then we are losing even more offensively, because we still need to find another OFer). RJ also has to accept any trade before he can be moved, and odds are pretty good he would not accept a trade to Chicago, though I can't say that with 100% certainty. He's due to make $16.5 mill or so next year, almost exactly $10 mill more then Hudson. Hudson's also much younger and has a future in front of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 yeah, giving out money to other teams wouldnt be bad for us at all since we draw 35,000+ a game and have a payroll of over 100 mil. You remember what the Florida Marlins did prior to the 2003 season, right? They traded Charles Johnson, Preston Wilson, Pablo Ozuna and Vic Darensbourg to Colorado for Juan Pierre and Mike Hampton. They then shipped Hampton to Atlanta for Tim Spooneybarger, who has pitched in 33 games for Florida in 2 years. In making that deal, they took on $30 mill TOTAL of Hampton's contract($9 mill for 03, $10 mill for 04, and $11 mill for 05...after that, they are off the hooks). You look at that trade, and think about how bad of a trade that was...but you also think about it and how it got Florida a very good leadoff hitter in Juan Pierre, and it got rid of 2 very ugly contracts in CJ and Wilson. They made the move and saved money. Basically...they traded their starting catcher, their starting CFer, a mediocre IFer, and a mediocre reliever for a young leadoff hitter and a reliever who has pitched 33 games for them in 2 years AND had to give up $30 mill. Crazy thing about it was that they ended up winning the World Series, even with that. That was actually more or less due to the fact that they had a very solid core of players to begin with and they just needed something to spark it, and their strong minor league system helped a little too(Willis and Cabrera...yeah). When you compare my trade to that trade, $10 mill over 3 years is tame. We are getting a very solid OFer in Byrnes and one of the best SPs in the league in Hudson, and while Lee and Konerko are both quite solid players(unlike CJ and Wilson, who were being overpaid severely), their replacements are not bad by any stretch of the imaginination, though they are not nearly as good as Konerko and Lee are either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I stick to my thinking. Carlos Lee is a very valuable commodity, Paul Konerko is a valuable commodity and 10 mill in cash is a valuable commodity. Their is absolutely no way I make this deal. Plus now the Sox have an outfield with Everett in RF, but the problem is we have absolutely zero DH until Thomas comes back, which probably won't be at the start of the season. Konerko and Munoz or Konerko and Diaz (maybe include a guy like Spidale or Rogo) could probably or at least possibly get your Hudson. Why would I possibly give up Carlos Lee and 2 to 3 prospects, plus cash for Eric Byrnes???? That would be nuts, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 I stick to my thinking. Carlos Lee is a very valuable commodity, Paul Konerko is a valuable commodity and 10 mill in cash is a valuable commodity. Their is absolutely no way I make this deal. Plus now the Sox have an outfield with Everett in RF, but the problem is we have absolutely zero DH until Thomas comes back, which probably won't be at the start of the season. Konerko and Munoz or Konerko and Diaz (maybe include a guy like Spidale or Rogo) could probably or at least possibly get your Hudson. Why would I possibly give up Carlos Lee and 2 to 3 prospects, plus cash for Eric Byrnes???? That would be nuts, imo. I think it's because I'm not sold that Oakland's really terribly interested in Konerko. If they are, it's a completely different story...I mentioned something similar to that earlier in the thread. You capitalize on that and take advantage of Beane being stupid. If we could get Hudson for Konerko plus 2 or 3 prospects or so, I would do it in a heartbeat. You just have to know that if Beane were to trade Huddy, he'd try to see if anyone could top Konerko and prospects for Huddy...and I think the Yankees could very easily just say yeah, here's Jorge Posada, plus we take on all of his contract, for Tim Hudson. Beane upgrades at C while not taking on any payroll. We'd then either have to outbid New York, or let them have Huddy for Jorge alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Cards Part Why the f**k would the cards trade a spec and 4 million for a guy they couldve easily signed last year. He was overpaid by a whole lot last year and looks even more overpaid after a very disapointing season. Therefore, the a's should pretty much unload rhodes which i doubt beane wouuld do because of his ego and tehy would pay for 15-25% of his contract. Also, konerko and lee part. the a's are a team that wants value-they dont want guys who have relatively low obp's and are paid at relatively face value. This trade has many many other flaws as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 Cards Part Why the f**k would the cards trade a spec and 4 million for a guy they couldve easily signed last year. He was overpaid by a whole lot last year and looks even more overpaid after a very disapointing season. Therefore, the a's should pretty much unload rhodes which i doubt beane wouuld do because of his ego and tehy would pay for 15-25% of his contract. Also, konerko and lee part. the a's are a team that wants value-they dont want guys who have relatively low obp's and are paid at relatively face value. This trade has many many other flaws as well. I did throw out the Cards part in a later post, realizing how much the White Sox saved. Also...Konerko's OBP was .360 this year with an OPS of .894(even though he does not end up in Oakland in the given trade), Lee's OBP was .366 and he had an OPS of .891, and Kendall's OBP was about .400 the past 2 years, and his OPS was .815 in 03 and .790 in 04. That point holds little value. There are flaws to the trade...that's obvious. There are flaws to every trade. And Beane's ego plays little part in the moves he makes. He knows he f***ed up...and I would guess you see Rhodes in a different uniform next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 It is a matter of whether Hudson's pitching, plus Byrnes's offense, plus Gload's offense is better then the s*** we get from the 5th starter now(or who we would sign, whichever) plus Lee's plus Konerko's. I think it is. I would make that trade for RJ. But trading for RJ restricts us a ton financially, no matter the move we make(unless we, again, overpay and have someone take on Konerko, and then we are losing even more offensively, because we still need to find another OFer). RJ also has to accept any trade before he can be moved, and odds are pretty good he would not accept a trade to Chicago, though I can't say that with 100% certainty. He's due to make $16.5 mill or so next year, almost exactly $10 mill more then Hudson. Hudson's also much younger and has a future in front of him I want to agree with you on that, but regardless, the senario you setup to get both Byrnes and Hudson is way too much. I think if we traded for RJ, KW could get some money out of Arizona. You made the point that Hudson is younger and has a future ahead of him, but what does that matter if both RJ and Hudson are free agents after this year? People talk about the health of Randy, but what about Hudson? Doesn't he have a chronic hip problem? If you gave me a choice between getting RJ or Hudson for 2005, I'd take RJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I want to agree with you on that, but regardless, the senario you setup to get both Byrnes and Hudson is way too much. I think if we traded for RJ, KW could get some money out of Arizona. You made the point that Hudson is younger and has a future ahead of him, but what does that matter if both RJ and Hudson are free agents after this year? People talk about the health of Randy, but what about Hudson? Doesn't he have a chronic hip problem? If you gave me a choice between getting RJ or Hudson for 2005, I'd take RJ. Great Point! Many dont understand that youth over "old" doesnt matter if they become fa's right after the year. If they are both equal injury prone wise and the "old" wont decline, it all depends on who is more talented Youth DOES NOT matter at all in this situation w/ deciding either hudson or RJ. I think RJ is a better pitcher and would rather have him mainly because we wouldnt have to give much if at all and if we do, arizona would pay a significant amount of his contract. Hudson, however, is much more valued because he is cheaper and "younger" even though imo he has less talent than RJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Youth DOES NOT matter at all in this situation w/ deciding either hudson or RJ. I think RJ is a better pitcher and would rather have him mainly because we wouldnt have to give much if at all and if we do, arizona would pay a significant amount of his contract. You do know how much the diamondbacks want for him right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisox05 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 You do know how much the diamondbacks want for him right? Look, what they want and want they will get are 2 very different animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Look, what they want and want they will get are 2 very different animals. Since they do not have to trade him, it will be more like what they want is what they get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 I want to agree with you on that, but regardless, the senario you setup to get both Byrnes and Hudson is way too much. I think if we traded for RJ, KW could get some money out of Arizona. You made the point that Hudson is younger and has a future ahead of him, but what does that matter if both RJ and Hudson are free agents after this year? People talk about the health of Randy, but what about Hudson? Doesn't he have a chronic hip problem? If you gave me a choice between getting RJ or Hudson for 2005, I'd take RJ. It may very well be too much. I think I have finally figured that out while reading the thread. For 2005...I'd take either Hudson or RJ...whoever I give up the least for. If given a choice between the two with the price being the same, I would make the trade for Hudson, assuming I can resign him. If I can't resign him...it's whoever the Yankees want less that we get. Not sure about the chronic hip problem though. Someone maybe could help out with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Not sure about the chronic hip problem though. Someone maybe could help out with that. I thought that was Mulder, but I could definitely be wrong about that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 Here's what I have found on hip problems regarding the Big 3 Zito - nothing Mulder - missed the latter part of 2003 due to tendinitis in his hip Hudson - a hip problem was the reason he pitched as poorly as he did in the postseason of 2002. I did not find anything about lingering effects or it being a chronic problem. Here are the links to the pages... Mulder Hudson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.