Offer Made For Randy Johnson

[SuperSteve]

Why don't they offer this deal without the prospects included for Tim Hudson. At least he's only 29.

It comes down to more than just baseball. JR and KW seem to find guys they fall in love with, and cannot let them go. RJ looks like one of these guys. I think RJ brings respect, credentials, attendence, and leadership to the South Side if he comes here. That on top of his talents could be huge for this club.

[AngelasDaddy0427]

Either way this is all moot.

No way in hell does Johnson approve to be traded to a launching pad like the Cell.

[greasywheels121]

Exactly. I don't think he guarantees a WS championship. And I really don't see RJ sticking around after '05, if it were to happen.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/basebal...sports-baseball

 

 

What a horrible trade in my opinion.

Holy s*** thats a bad move. Konerko and Garland for a 40 something starter? How many years do you think he has left in that arm of his and who the heck is gonna hit anything for us next season if Konerko goes? Lee? Thomas? Neither of them inspire a lot of confidence in me.

 

 

Bad move!

[Molto]

Wow.  This is a tough one.  On the one hand, this is a #1 starter we are talking about.  This isn't a guy who could lead a team to the World Series, this is a guy who has led his team to a World Championship.  When he is healthy, he is one of the best big game pitchers in all of baseball.  It would be a steep price to pay, but do you go for it, or do you wait with the possibility of losing PK and Garland for nothing anyway.

 

I gotta say, I would do this deal.  You have got to try to seize the day.  You have got to try to take this town back from the Cubs.  You have got to try to win it all.  Even if PK and Garland have breakouts, there is no guarentee that the Sox could have resigned them anyway, and the most important thing to me, is that we are getting the best player in the deal.

I agree. Although I would try and keep Garland and add two pitching prospects (preferably starters). I say that because with Buehrle/Garcia/Johnson/Contreras/Garland our rotation would be fine for a couple years. So I'd say, go all out. Stack your rotation and do whatever you can. If it means that we are bad in 2007, who cares. I have no problem losing in '07 thru '10 if we give ourselves two really good opportunities to win it all over the next two seasons.

[santo=dorf]

We've locked up Buerhle, Garcia and Contreras for the next 2 to 3 years. Don't forget Randy Johnson in 2003, only won about 11 games I think, and was dogged with injuries. This trade could backfire on us bigtime. And what if we don't even make the playoffs?

He had surgery to repair whatever injuries he had and came back in a very stong form last year did he not? If you're concerned about guys who had injuries whithin recent years, I would like to know if you want Everett, Vizquel (failed a physical last year,) and Thomas on the team next year. This negative chicken-little attitude is getting old, especially for a franchise that hasn't won a World Series in 87 years. We haven't made the playoffs with Garland and Konerko for the past 4 years, and if we didn't make the playoffs in 2005, who's to say that it's RJ's fault we didn't get there? Jeckle is saying Garland is guaranteed to win you 12 games, yet RJ will win 15 max. :rolly

 

Unless one of you has a time machine to prove otherwise, I'm not convinced that a Sox team with RJ won't make the playoffs, and RJ will only win a max of 15 games.

[Guest JimH]

Interesting stuff in this thread.

 

As far as trading Konerko and Garland + prospects for Randy Johnson, my feelings are:

 

1. It depends who the prospects are. I wouldn't give up Anderson or Sweeney.

 

2. It also depends on what else they do in the offseason. Adding RJ alone doesn't fix this pitching staff, they'd still need another starter, at least one.

 

3. Gload to me is not a starting 1B for a World Series contender. A nice complementary player, but not a starter.

 

4. As much as more pitching, they need a pain-in-the-ass leadoff hitter, a guy who drives other teams nuts.

[whitesox91403]

If this trade can be done, then get it done. The Big Unit will put people in the seats and give The White Sox a little more of a National following. Jon Garland has got to go, he needs a change of scenery. 12 wins by Jon Garland is not acceptable. Yes, he's only 25, but he's been with The Sox since 2000 and has shown no improvement. The Sox need a draw, Randy Johnson is that draw. I wouldn't mind Jason Grilli as the number 5.

[AddisonStSox]

Now's the chance to step up to the plate for all of the Garland bashers and small-ball (Or as Ozzie calls it, "Little Ball") advocates out there.

 

This trade would mean two things....*possibly three*.

 

1)Gload is the starting 1B for the Sox in 2005

2)s***head Garland will be out of the rotation, creating another 5 spot hole

*3)Could mean the loss of Anderson, or another top-notch prospect*

 

 

No.

 

Bad trade on the grounds that we are giving up too much for a rent-a-player. I can't stand Garland, I don't think he has what it takes in between the ears to make it at this level, but he would be the best fifth starter in the league if the Sox were to just go out and sign a FA.

 

I have no problem with trading Paulie Walnuts.

 

AND...we might lose Anderson, a guy I think is going to thrive on the Sox in the not too distant future.

 

Good idea KW, but again...giving up way to much.

[southsider2k5]

*Mini Thread-jack alert*

 

Pedro or the Big Unit?

 

Me, I'd go for Pedro.

[CanOfCorn]

I agree with many of you...no to the trade if it includes Anderson, Sweeney, or Fields. Yes, to Konerko going. But, here's the rub. OK, Garland isn't a number 1 starter like he was hyped up to be. Maybe he's a 4 or 5. But, what he is is an innings eater. He hasn't been injured, he pitched over 200 innings (which for a back half rotation guy is pretty good), and he's won double digit games for three straight seasons. Again, pretty good for a back-half rotation guy.

 

Wouldn't trade him for Johnson...would trade him for Hudson/Mulder/Zito.

 

PS...RJ ain't going to waive his no-trade clause to come here.

[southsider2k5]

I agree with many of you...no to the trade if it includes Anderson, Sweeney, or Fields.  Yes, to Konerko going.  But, here's the rub.  OK, Garland isn't a number 1 starter like he was hyped up to be.  Maybe he's a 4 or 5.  But, what he is is an innings eater.  He hasn't been injured, he pitched over 200 innings (which for a back half rotation guy is pretty good), and he's won double digit games for three straight seasons.  Again, pretty good for a back-half rotation guy. 

 

Wouldn't trade him for Johnson...would trade him for Hudson/Mulder/Zito. 

 

PS...RJ ain't going to waive his no-trade clause to come here.

There is a thread in the sports bar that has a bunch of player notes in it. It said that RJ would be willing to waive his no trade, in exchange for a one year extention at about $16m. Would that change the trade views in anyones eyes?

[beck72]

The key to me is two fold, just taking into consideration the proposed trade of PK and Jon for Randy Johnson, forgetting about what other moves are made [as RJ's salary of $16 mill and PK's and Jon's combined $12 mill is a bit of a wash, and shouldn't keep the sox from making other moves to improve]:

 

1] which combo of players [RJ and Gload or PK and Garland] helps the Sox best get to the playoffs, and 2] which combo of players best helps the Sox win once they get there?

[Molto]

Interesting stuff in this thread.

 

As far as trading Konerko and Garland + prospects for Randy Johnson, my feelings are:

 

1.  It depends who the prospects are.  I wouldn't give up Anderson or Sweeney.

 

2.  It also depends on what else they do in the offseason.  Adding RJ alone doesn't fix this pitching staff, they'd still need another starter, at least one.

 

3.  Gload to me is not a starting 1B for a World Series contender.  A nice complementary player, but not a starter.

 

4.  As much as more pitching, they need a pain-in-the-ass leadoff hitter, a guy who drives other teams nuts.

1. I agree. With Ordonez gone and Lee the next possible FA to go, Anderson and Sweeney should be kept.

 

2. Well, if they are expecting for the rotation to be their main and only strength, then they need another starter, but if they are going to add reliever and a bat, then a #5 isn't vital.

 

3. You can look back at pretty much every WS team or contender and find a player on their team that isn't/wasn't a "World Series caliber" player.

 

4. I agree, but there aren't many of those guys around the game anymore, let alone available. I wouldn't mind having Rowand leadoff. Not a typical leadoff hitter, but he won't hurt you in that role.

[Molto]

*Mini Thread-jack alert*

 

Pedro or the Big Unit?

 

Me, I'd go for Pedro.

Johnson before Pedro. I haven't thought much of Pedro over the past years. Still a quality pitcher, but not the same or even close to what he was before.

[beck72]

There is a thread in the sports bar that has a bunch of player notes in it.  It said that RJ would be willing to waive his no trade, in exchange for a one year extention at about $16m.  Would that change the trade views in anyones eyes?

Whatever team RJ waives his no-trade clause for, should be able to sign him for 2006 as well. If I were RJ, I'd make sure I had an extension for 2006 before waiving his clause.

[santo=dorf]

If this trade can be done, then get it done. The Big Unit will put people in the seats and give The White Sox a little more of a National following. Jon Garland has got to go, he needs a change of scenery. 12 wins by Jon Garland is not acceptable. Yes, he's only 25, but he's been with The Sox since 2000 and has shown no improvement. The Sox need a draw, Randy Johnson is that draw. I wouldn't mind Jason Grilli as the number 5.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah that.

 

I'm glad you too are thinking about the marketability of having Johnson on this team. I didn't think of the amount of national attention we would get for having one of the greatest left-handers of all time on our team.

[Guest JimH]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

the marketability of having Johnson on this team.

It'd sell some tickets for sure. And that's an important consideration.

 

If this deal gets done, it will still depend on what other moves they make. We can all debate the merits of individual players like Gload, Harris, Grilli, etc. and I'm sure the front office is doing so as we speak.

 

By the way ... Cleveland has apparantly backed out of the Kendry Morales derby, they were the frontrunners. He's a switch hitting first baseman, a defector from Cuba and I know the White Sox scouted him.

 

I wonder ...

[beck72]

Now's the chance to step up to the plate for all of the Garland bashers and small-ball (Or as Ozzie calls it, "Little Ball") advocates out there.

 

This trade would mean two things....*possibly three*.

 

1)Gload is the starting 1B for the Sox in 2005

2)s***head Garland will be out of the rotation, creating another 5 spot hole

*3)Could mean the loss of Anderson, or another top-notch prospect*

 

 

No. 

 

Bad trade on the grounds that we are giving up too much for a rent-a-player.  I can't stand Garland, I don't think he has what it takes in between the ears to make it at this level, but he would be the best fifth starter in the league if the Sox were to just go out and sign a FA.

 

I have no problem with trading Paulie Walnuts.

 

AND...we might lose Anderson, a guy I think is going to thrive on the Sox in the not too distant future.

 

Good idea KW, but again...giving up way to much.

A few points:

*Almost all people who favor this trade would say no [and have posted this] if any top prospects were included. With two guys like Pk and Jon, AZ would most likely take midlevel prospects at best in trade.

*The Sox spending $3 mill on a #5 starter [garland] is pretty high IMO. There are vets who can put up his numbers for a little over $1 mill. that could be brought in to compete for the 5th spot

*You are basically arguing that you want the best 5th SP over getting the best #1 SP. That's your right. I'd rather have the best #1 out there, over a guy who would be in the bullpen should the Sox make the playoffs.

*Both Garland and PK are basically rent a players, who probably won't be resigned for 2006. So they and RJ are in the same boat--signed for 1 more year

*Signing a FA, like the other big names out there, means signing another SP to an expensive, long term deal [when the sox have MB, Freddy and Jose locked up for the next few yrs--the risk someone will go down is greater with this scenario than w/ RJ for one, maybe two yrs

[Flash Tizzle]

There is a thread in the sports bar that has a bunch of player notes in it.  It said that RJ would be willing to waive his no trade, in exchange for a one year extention at about $16m.  Would that change the trade views in anyones eyes?

Yes, it completely changes my opinion of this trade. It's simply too much of a risk to hope a 41 year old Johnson remains healthy through two seasons.

[beck72]

Yes, it completely changes my opinion of this trade.  It's simply too much of a risk to hope a 41 year old Johnson remains healthy through two seasons.

That's a point any team trading for him could and would make. It would bring down the price in terms of talent teams would need to cough up for him. Knock off the prospects, and would the 3 player deal work? I think it would

[AddisonStSox]

A few points:

*Almost all people who favor this trade would say no [and have posted this] if any top prospects were included. With two guys like Pk and Jon, AZ would most likely take midlevel prospects at best in trade.

*The Sox spending $3 mill on a #5 starter [garland] is pretty high IMO. There are vets who can put up his numbers for a little over $1 mill. that could be brought in to compete for the 5th spot

*You are basically arguing that you want the best 5th SP over getting the best #1 SP. That's your right. I'd rather have the best #1 out there, over a guy who would be in the bullpen should the Sox make the playoffs.

*Both Garland and PK are basically rent a players, who probably won't be resigned for 2006. So they and RJ are in the same boat--signed for 1 more year

*Signing a FA, like the other big names out there, means signing another SP to an expensive, long term deal [when the sox have MB, Freddy and Jose locked up for the next few yrs--the risk someone will go down is greater with this scenario than w/ RJ for one, maybe two yrs

*You are basically arguing that you want the best 5th SP over getting the best #1 SP. That's your right. I'd rather have the best #1 out there, over a guy who would be in the bullpen should the Sox make the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

Survey Says...BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong!

 

Remember what mommy said about people that assume

 

Johnson is not the best #1 in the game anymore. He was. He isn't anymore. Case in point.

[Flash Tizzle]

That's a point any team trading for him could and would make. It would bring down the price in terms of talent teams would need to cough up for him. Knock off the prospects, and would the 3 player deal work? I think it would

You believe this organization would spend an additional 16 million on an aging pitcher (albeit Randy Johnson) in order to lower the demands of Arizona? I just don't see it happening. Williams would rather give up prospects and cripple the future of this organization.

[beck72]

Survey Says...BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong!

 

Remember what mommy said about people that assume

 

Johnson is not the best #1 in the game anymore.  He was.  He isn't anymore.  Case in point.

Excuse for calling Johnson a #1 SP. But I guess you can name at least 5 SP's you'd rather have than RJ starting game 1 in a playoff series for your team, right?

 

And relax cowboy, I didn't jump down your throat. I made a few respectful points of disagreement.

[beck72]

You believe this organization would spend an additional 16 million on an aging pitcher (albeit Randy Johnson) in order to lower the demands of Arizona?  I just don't see it happening.  Williams would rather give up prospects and cripple the future of this organization.

It's hard to say. We'll all see soon enough. I know the 2005 salaries would basically be a wash. Yet for 2006.....