backman Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 ive voted for borchard im not saying we get anything good for him but hes a hit a few in spring training, and im hopin other gm's are just going to look at st! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Of course one could say that Davis is more likely to be traded/released than Burke. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would strongly disagree. Ben Davis has a major league contract which is guaranteed. If the Sox released Davis they would still have to pay him his $1 million. Jamie Burke is a Non-roster invitee. The Sox could just release Burke without paying him. But you would be right about Davis being more likely to be traded though. Davis is much younger than Burke and he's a former 1st Round pick. A team might want to take a chance on him like the Cubs did with Michael Barrett. Edited March 17, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Jamie Burke is a Non-roster invitee. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Burke fell on some hard luck with respect to options. If he had any left he probably would have been claimed off waivers. But not having any options means a team claiming him must find a spot on their 25 man roster. They can't even add him to their 40 man any more. After a player has served 3 yrs of combined ml+ML service he has 3 option yrs. Those are yrs in which he can be added to the 26-40 man roster spots. Once that happens an option yr is consumed. The team can then call him up & send him down as many times as they want in that year. When a player is out of options he can no longer be added to the 40 man roster spots. He must either be signed on the 25 man roster or to a ml contract. As I understand it, Diaz, Cotts, Adkins, & Borchy have already been added to the 40 roster so the WhiteSox have consumed an option year from all of them. That means Adkins, Cotts, & Borchy are out of options after 2005 & Diaz has 1 more option year left. It seems so small but it really is a big deal. How many options a player has left can definitely affect their trade value because of the flexibility it provides the team claiming or trading for them. A player with options is a lower risk than a player with no options. Harris looks to have been a late season call-up in 01, & a 40 man in 02 & 03. He was definitely a 25 man in 04 so he should have 1 option yr left. At present he's on the 25 man roster so the Sox have not used up an option yr on him yet. Edited March 17, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Burke really got screwed by both ANA (02) & the ChiSox (03). They both purchased his ml contract in Aug of those years & he played a total of 2 games. That decision ate up 2 of his option years. As a non-roster invitee the Sox have 3 options: release him from camp, offer him an ml deal or offer him a ML deal. As a non-roster invitee there is no designated for assignment choice. It appears Davis has all 3 option yrs left. He's started each season on the 25 man roster & I can not find any reference to his being send down. After 3 yrs of combined ML+ml service a player has 3 option years. Those are yrs in which the player can be added to the 40 man roster but not the 25 man roster. In that capacity the team can send down or recall that player as many times as they want. In Sept when the 25 man rosters players called up for the first time do not count toward option years. I think the fact that Burke is out of options hurts his trade value the most. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think we will just sign Burke to a minor league contract and he will play at Charlotte. But I don't think you realize that every MLB team had the chance to claim Burke when we designated him for assignment. If any team wanted him they could have had him for nothing. Barring injuries, why would a team want to give up anything for him now? I love Burke as our third catcher at Charlotte but he has no trade value. Edited March 17, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 If any team wanted him they could have had him for nothing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not true. They would have to open up a 25 man roster spot for him. That's the only option they had once they claim him off waivers. He can't be added to a 40 man roster again. Ever. Designating him for assignment is at Burke's discretion. At that time he can refuse & become a FA. So a team claiming him off waiver's w/out a spot on the 25 man roster risks losing their waiver priority & getting nothing in return. No team is going to do that. That waiver priority is a big deal because it applies for the whole year including the Aug 1-Aug 31 period where a team claiming a player off waivers only earns the right to trade for that player. These are usually the firesale players that can still help a contender but usually cost some bucks. There is usually more than 1 team vying for these guys so priority makes a difference. We don't normally think of it that way but a team claiming Burke now risks their right to claim a potential impact player in the 2nd 1/2. No team is going to do that & it has little to do with what Burke's accomplished. Unfortunately when the WhiteSox added Davis to their 25 man roster they dropped Burkes trade value as well. Any team seeking Burke would have to question why he didn't make the team. I think it was a stupid move on KW's part (as Davis clearly needs ml seasoning more so than Burke). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I made a big mistake on Davis' option situation. He's in his 8th yr & used up his options before being traded to Sea from SD. He's also used up his arbitration years. So the only way to keep Davis was to sign him to the 25 man roster. KW didn't have any other choice there. I guess KW had no other choice. Both Davis & Burke were out of options so the player KW kept would have to be guaranteed a 25 man spot. Burke had only 133AB to Davis 1512AB. Davis was the logical choice. He had until the first waiver deadline to decide whether to add Burke to the 25 man or get another catcher. That gave him time to sign AJP. If he doesn't sign Davis then the Sox would have had no C on their 25 man roster. What does that do for KW's bargaining position vs FA C's? In the end KW did the only thing he could do. Probably could have gotten him cheaper though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Just put it this way, JUGGERNAUT. The Dodgers needed a catcher badly since they traded Paul Lo Duca last season, failed to trade for Charles Johnson last season and this offseason, Brent Mayne pretty much retired, and Dioner Navarro is not MLB-ready yet. They could have claimed Burke when we designated him for assigment on 1/7/05. Instead, the Dodgers signed Paul Bako on 1/11/05. Burke went unclaimed and the Sox outrighted him to Charlotte on 1/14/05. The Dodgers would rather pay sucky-ass Paul Bako $650,000 to fill a roster spot than claim Jamie Burke. They now have the stellar catching duo of David Ross and Paul Bako. What does that tell you? Once again, Burke has no trade value. How much more proof do you need? Edited March 17, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 If no team is willing to give up waiver priority or give Burke a roster spot, he has a VERY MINISCULE trade value. And that's being exceedingly generous on the issue. Hang it up Jugger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 If no team is willing to give up waiver priority or give Burke a roster spot, he has a VERY MINISCULE trade value. And that's being exceedingly generous on the issue. Hang it up Jugger. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mean Burke doesn't have alot of trade value even though he has a .331 AVG and a .379 OBP in a whopping 133 career at bats? Also, doesn't being 33 years old make Burke more valuable, like a finely aged wine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 01:52 AM) You mean Burke doesn't have alot of trade value even though he has a .331 AVG and a .379 OBP in a whopping 133 career at bats? Also, doesn't being 33 years old make Burke more valuable, like a finely aged wine? DOH! I totally forgot about the wine thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I can see Diaz getting moved in a deal for a 3rd baseman before the season starts. He has been throwing with some velocity and showed well versus KC yesterday. KW may get a few calls in the next few weeks regarding him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 02:41 AM) I can see Diaz getting moved in a deal for a 3rd baseman before the season starts. He has been throwing with some velocity and showed well versus KC yesterday. KW may get a few calls in the next few weeks regarding him. You have anyone in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 03:42 AM) You have anyone in mind? Not really. I just think that Diaz may get his next MLB opportunity with a different franchise. EDIT: Okay, now that I think about it... Maybe he could go to Arizona for Cintron. Edited March 17, 2005 by knightni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Not really. I just think that Diaz may get his next MLB opportunity with a different franchise. EDIT: Okay, now that I think about it... Maybe he could go to Arizona for Cintron. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would like that as well but I think Arizona likes Cintron as their utility guy. The Pirates could use a 5th starter and could be interested in Diaz or Adkins... http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/NASApp/m...t=.jsp&c_id=pit Quote of the day: "If a guy goes out and has one bad outing, that's not going to say that he's out of the mix of competing for the fifth [rotation] spot. If a guy has one good start, it doesn't mean that he locks it up. We are going to continue to evaluate. There are a lot of different things that go into that process." -- McClendon on the fight for the fifth spot in the starting rotation Rob Mackowiak continued his torrid spring by going 3-for-4 on Wednesday with a pair of home runs and three RBIs. Mackowiak is batting .577 (15-for-26) in Grapefruit League action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I admit that I, as well, want Mackowiak on the Sox. But, seriously Jabroni...you are starting to sound like Anthrax and his unnatural love for Orlando Cabrera. We should be realistic. Most likely, Pittsburgh will probably not trade him unless they get a better offer than Borchard, Adkins, Diaz..etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) I admit that I, as well, want Mackowiak on the Sox. But, seriously Jabroni...you are starting to sound like Anthrax and his unnatural love for Orlando Cabrera. We should be realistic. Most likely, Pittsburgh will probably not trade him unless they get a better offer than Borchard, Adkins, Diaz..etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could see them taking Willie & Diaz or Willie & Adkins. They would get a possible 5th starter in either Diaz or Adkins and could play Willie in CF or platoon him with Jose Castillo at 2B. Of course, I'd rather dump Diaz than Adkins since I can't stand watching his slow, straight fastball get rocked. :puke Edited March 17, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 IMO, the LAD are a poor example of a GM making good decisions. They have Ross & Bako as their #1, #2 at C. Both have poorer CERA than Burke. So you can't even make that argument for Bako. What's the risk that Burke will hit worse than Bako over 300 AB+? Low. He's a good guy. If he gets a chance I think he'll continue to hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Changed my mind. I just read an article in Fox Sports that leads me to believe the first to go will be Ben Davis. They look at the fact that the majority of AB for JB in CL play have come at C. Trying him out at 1st & 3rd has more to do with targeting him as a strong RH bat off the bench then planning to use him as UCIF. They look at his team leading BA in CL play as a strong sign he's all but earned a spot on the 25 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) Changed my mind. I just read an article in Fox Sports that leads me to believe the first to go will be Ben Davis. They look at the fact that the majority of AB for JB in CL play have come at C. Trying him out at 1st & 3rd has more to do with targeting him as a strong RH bat off the bench then planning to use him as UCIF. They look at his team leading BA in CL play as a strong sign he's all but earned a spot on the 25 man roster. Too...many...abreviations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:07 AM) I could see them taking Willie & Diaz or Willie & Adkins. They would get a possible 5th starter in either Diaz or Adkins and could play Willie in CF or platoon him with Jose Castillo at 2B. Of course, I'd rather dump Diaz than Adkins since I can't stand watching his slow, straight fastball get rocked. :puke Trading Harris and Diaz (or Adkins) for Mack would be an absolute waste. One backup who doesn't do anything particularly well for two young guys, all three of which can have an affect on the team in the upcoming years -- or used in a better trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 QUOTE(Pauly8509CWS @ Mar 16, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) No kidding, not even Freddie Adu has power from both sides... Feh. Can't hold a candle to Bian McBride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Too...many...abreviations... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:07 PM) I could see them taking Willie & Diaz or Willie & Adkins. They would get a possible 5th starter in either Diaz or Adkins and could play Willie in CF or platoon him with Jose Castillo at 2B. Of course, I'd rather dump Diaz than Adkins since I can't stand watching his slow, straight fastball get rocked. :puke The thing is Pittsburgh already has a lot of guys like Diaz and Adkins who are too good for AAA yet borderline major league starters. If they want a CF they could just pick up Alex Sanchez, and it looks like they are going to trade for Encarnacion possibly as well (he's the so called power bat they need). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 (edited) The thing is Pittsburgh already has a lot of guys like Diaz and Adkins who are too good for AAA yet borderline major league starters. If they want a CF they could just pick up Alex Sanchez, and it looks like they are going to trade for Encarnacion possibly as well (he's the so called power bat they need). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This just goes to show that if the Pirates are willing to trade for an overpaid scrub like Encarnacion, they would probably be willing to give up Mackowiak for a scrub like Diaz. Do I have to even mention the Aramis Ramirez trade? :headshake The Pirates can be robbed. Littlefield is a putz. Edited March 18, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:22 PM) This just goes to show that if the Pirates are willing to trade for an overpaid scrub like Encarnacion, they would probably be willing to trade Mackowiak for a scrub like Diaz. Do I have to even mention the Aramis Ramirez trade. :headshake Just because a team may make one bad deal (and we don't even know who they're dealing for Encarnacion), doesn't mean they're going to make another one for the hell of it. Dave Littlefield's pulled some good ones in his time as GM, and they're not going to trade an excellent utility guy for a guy who's probably not even going to be their 5th starter, now and in the long - term. 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.