DBAHO Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 From the Boston Herald, Randy Johnson ain't a foregone conclusion yet folks. Barry Zito and Mark Mulder are being shopped by Oakland. Besides the Red Sox, other teams who are believed to have shown interest are the Yankees, Orioles, Mets, Blue Jays and White Sox. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would take Mulder way before I ever took Zito. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 For some reason, this sounds like a red herring, having two guys available who are locked up for two yrs and are relatively cheap. Hudson is the guy they have to trade, as he'll be too expensive after 2005. Beane could be trying to take the focus off Hudson, like he doesn't have to trade him. I don't buy the two stud LH's being available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys. This could work to the Sox advantage. "You b****es want Garland, Konerko, AND prospects for Johnson? Damn I can get Mulder for that!" *not actual KW conversation, this is strictly a reinactment. KW was not harmed in the filming of this clip.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would rather take one of the big 3. Mulder would be the ultimate choice of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would rather take one of the big 3. Mulder would be the ultimate choice of those. Let's outline the Pro's and Con's of the big 3. MULDER Pro's - Local Boy, Former #2 pick, Lefty, Won 17 games in 2004. Con's - Chronic Hip Problem, Wore down late in 2004 season, gave up 25 HR's. ZITO Pro's - Former Cy Young Winner, Fantastic Curveball, Best K/9 ratio in 2004 out of 3. Con's - High ERA of 4.48, gave up 28 HR's. HUDSON Pro's - Most consistent out of the big 3, Lowest WHIP in 2004 out of 3. Only gave up 8 HR's in 27 games. Only 44 BB's in 27 games. Con's - Missed time due to injury this season. Could cost the most out of big 3. When you look at these things, I think it's hard not to go after Hudson. He doesn't give up many home runs at all which would be a huge plus at the Cell, doesn't walk hitters much and he's been extremely consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 If the Sox could grab any of those 3 it would be huge. How bad is Mulder's "Chronic" hip problem? Is it just a nagging sore hip or is it something more than that? If it is more then I would have to say stay away from him then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 If the Sox could grab any of those 3 it would be huge. How bad is Mulder's "Chronic" hip problem? Is it just a nagging sore hip or is it something more than that? If it is more then I would have to say stay away from him then. Not particulary sure but this is what I've found. Clubs are scared off by Mulder's chronic hip condition and poor finish, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I just wonder if its a degenerative hip condition or just a nagging type injury. I suppose it would be fairly simple to find out though. Have him take a physical and then you would know. If it is degenerative then I wouldn't want anything to do with him. He wouldn't last long enough. If its a nagging injury it could be a slight miss in his mechanics that could be fixed and take that out of it. Its worth looking into though. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Unless he signs an extension soon, Hudson is the most likely guy to get traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys. This could work to the Sox advantage. It should definitely lessen the price. Teams have a lot of SP options [though true aces are few]. That's why I don't buy into the theory that "the big 3" are all available. And think Beane is trying not to sound desperate in having to trade Hudson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I feel much more comfortable going through with a trade similar to the RJ one, if we're guaranteed some years with these guys. RJ really scares me with his age and the fact that we might not have him but a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkokieSox Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price? Did they do away with arbitration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I wonder with these guys on the market, plus the FA pitchers available (Pedro, Pavano, etc) if that will drive the price down for some of these guys. This could work to the Sox advantage. "You b****es want Garland, Konerko, AND prospects for Johnson? Damn I can get Mulder for that!" *not actual KW conversation, this is strictly a reinactment. KW was not harmed in the filming of this clip.* Nah, with KW the way he is he'd probably throw in Lee just for the hell of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price? I'd take Mulder for 5-10 over RJ for 1-2 in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'd take Mulder or Hudson. I always loved that Zito curveball...but his win total has gone down and his ERA has gone up. I think we can all agree that to consistently win in this league, you have to have a pretty decent fastball as your #1 pitch (see Clemens, R., Johnson, R., Schilling, C., Martinez, P.). If your out pitch is offspeed, it better be damn good and damn consistent (see Foulke, K.). Batters have figured out, to a degree, Zito's curve. Although, I wouldn't be upset if we got him, he would be choice three of the big three. Still ahead of a lot of other FA's out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUCKREINSDORF Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I would take Mulder way before I ever took Zito. I agree.Mulder and Beuhrle are out of the same bag.They keep you in the game and eat up innings,thereby making it a lot easier on your bullpen.Mark Mulder?? YYYEEEESSSSS!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Let me ask this question then. Would you rather 5 to 10 years of Zito, Hudson or Mulder OR 1 to 2 years of Randy Johnson for almost the same price? I didn't realize that Zito, Hudson, and Mulder were locked up for the next 5-10 years. :rolly Who's says they're going to sign extensions with us? Didn't Bartolo say he wanted to stayy in Chicago, but refused the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the White Sox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagar69 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'd take Mulder for 5-10 over RJ for 1-2 in a heartbeat. 5-10 years, what r you talkin about? since when does JR give out more than 3 year deals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 5-10 years, what r you talkin about? since when does JR give out more than 3 year deals IMHO, there's nothing wrong with not going over three years, too. One injury could ruin a pitcher's career; so staying on three year contracts, with team options or player options for the fourth year is the way to go, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I didn't realize that Zito, Hudson, and Mulder were locked up for the next 5-10 years. :rolly Who's says they're going to sign extensions with us? Didn't Bartolo say he wanted to stayy in Chicago, but refused the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of the White Sox? I agree, especially considering that we already have Buehrle, Freddy, and Contreras locked up for a while. I doubt that we would invest that much money in 4 starters for the next few years. If we got one of those guys we'd only be guaranteed whatever is left on their deal. Unless we offer them something huge before they are FA, I don't see why they would resign. Those guys could just about name their price. It is much more likely that we would take a one or two year shot at Randy. However, if that falls through I certainly wouldn't complain about a year of Hudson or two of Mulder, assuming the hip isn't a huge issue (not so confident in Zito). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Did they do away with arbitration? They are not gonna be arbitration eligible when their current contracts are over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 They are not gonna be arbitration eligible when their current contracts are over. Everybody is arb eligible after 3 years. If you are a FA, the team that last had you can offer you arbitration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 if we take Mulder we can't have one of those great buehrle-mulder 90 minute games...... 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.