The Gigantic all encompassing TRADE THREAD

[VAfan]

Uribe especially.  That in large part is why he was given the chance to be the starting SS.  Personally I don't think home grown has anything to do with it, they're all professionals.

 

The most insignificant things are important to team chemistry.  Herm Schneider.  Man Soo Lee.  How Guillen gets along with the coaches.  How Rowand has helped Crede come out of his shell, and how much the other players get a kick out of that.

 

It is a complex (there's that word again) and unique balance.  And KW and Guillen will be very careful about changing it.  Adding to it? Yes.  Changing it?  Hmmm ...

 

Who was the person that posted the article about "Stand Pat" Gillick who couldn't pull the trigger on July trades to help the 116-win Seattle Mariners reach their postseason potential?

 

You also have to remember the Sox have a zero-sum salary structure. They can't really add a Jason Schmidt or AJ Burnett without subtracting enough to carry the new salary.

 

The one add-on guy that I could see acquiring is Roger Clemens, and I'd be willing to give up just prospects to get him, as long as BMac is not among them. To me he's the ultimate rent-a-player. Of course getting Houston to part with him and getting Roger to want to come here are both such long shots that it's a pipe dream. But stranger things have happened.

[GreatScott82]

You also have to remember the Sox have a zero-sum salary structure.  They can't really add a Jason Schmidt or AJ Burnett without subtracting enough to carry the new salary. 

Not True. Mr. Reinsdorf gave KW the okay to add to payroll. With the increase in attendance Reinsdorf lets KW do whats best.

[VAfan]

Uribe is one of ozzie's guy i am thinking. Probally wouldn't make him too happy to see him go but i don't know that for sure. Also, we would be plugging in a three year deal for another one while losing 13 years at a primary position that is hard to find really defensive players at. You also have to think uribe has alot s*** load of potential... i know i do anyway.

 

I just don't think vizquel's vizquel puts us over the top and he is not worth uribe. You have to also remember uribe is not old enough for the giants.

 

I actually don't see Uribe's offensive potential. Not the way he stands at the plate. It doesn't strike me as a position from which he can judge the strike zone or do much with a lot of pitches. Hey, if we had the Uribe of 2004, I wouldn't be making this proposal.

 

I have thought of an alternative, but not a player to fill those shoes. Instead of Timo Perez, the Sox need a left-handed utility guy that can play SS and 3B. I like Ozuna, but a lefty could be better.

[southsider2k5]

You also have to remember the Sox have a zero-sum salary structure.  They can't really add a Jason Schmidt or AJ Burnett without subtracting enough to carry the new salary. 

 

 

 

This is 100% wrong not only has Jerry Reinsdorf gone on multiple media outlets to say that there was still money in the budget, but attendance is also up over 10%, which is the primary determining factor in increasing payroll. I did some quick and dirty figureing just a 10% increase in attendance this year (which it could be way more) would result in about $10 million in new revenues for the Sox. Potentially the Sox could be sitting on $15-20 million extra to spend, either this year or next, maybe more with a deep playoff run, and a big jump in 2006 season tickets sales.

[VAfan]

Not True. Mr. Reinsdorf gave KW the okay to add to payroll. With the increase in attendance Reinsdorf lets KW do whats best.

 

I understand payroll can go up THIS YEAR. (I think JR would even take on the rest of Roger Clemens' $18 million if Houston would trade him.) I don't see it going up by $10 million more next year if we traded for a Jason Schmidt or AJ Burnett and kept them, especially when even if it does, we will have to incorporate hefty raises for Jon Garland, figure out what to do with Konerko and Thomas, re-sign Pierzynski, etc.

 

I wrote this before seeing Southsider's post. What I ask you to do is figure in raises for Garland, Crede, what it will take to re-sign Paul Konerko and Frank Thomas, and any other increased costs of retaining current players. How much extra is that going to be? (We should lock Garland up for several years, for example.) Then tell me if you still believe the Sox could add Jason Schmidt's $10.5 million option to that or re-sign AJ Burnett for at least that much given JR's history, when the result might be paying El Duque $4 million for long relief?

 

Since El Duque has no trade value, I just believe the best way to make a deal work is to find a team like the Giants who have something we could use and that might also take Jose Contreras as part of the deal. Such a deal would give the Sox maximum flexibility this year and next.

Edited July 1, 2005 by VAfan

[Balta1701]

Who was the person that posted the article about "Stand Pat" Gillick who couldn't pull the trigger on July trades to help the 116-win Seattle Mariners reach their postseason potential? 

Going along with this poster's reasons for why it's not always a good idea to make a trade...

 

People at this page seem to love pointing to the Mariners as a team that could have traded to make itself better to win a W.S., and maybe didn't win because they didn't make the trade.

 

On the other hand, let's look at a couple of different examples.

 

In 2002, the Anaheim Angels won the World Series. Guess how many veterans they traded for during the season? The only trade they made was Jorge Fabregas going to Milwaukee for Sal Fasano and Alex Ochoa. Hardly the stuff legends are made of. Now let's imagine this...let's say the Angels decided to get serious about "Winning now" in June of 02, and sent this young guy named Francisco Rodriguez somewhere for a veteran pitcher. Where would the Angels have ended up? Or lets say they traded off Dallas McPherson. Would their team be as set for the future as they are this year?

 

The 2003 Marlins are a very similar story - they made as far as I can tell exactly 1 trade during the year...a week after Todd Hollandsworth went on the DL, they traded Denny Bautista and another pitcher to the Orioles for Jeff Conine, and other than changing managers, that was it for them. No other trades. Now, it's not like they didn't have pieces to work with either - let's imagine that the Marlins had decided that they wanted to "Win now" in 2003, and moved a young guy named Miguel Cabrera, who was platooning in left field basically and hitting under .270, to get some added help? Or lets imagine that they figured they needed a veteran starting pitcher to lead that staff, so they decided to move another young guy named Josh Beckett, a guy who had never pitched more than 107 innings in a season and had never ended up a season even with a winning record.

 

Where would those teams have wound up if they'd made some deals for "Veterans" to plug some of their other holes?

 

A trade can save a team, like the 2004 BoSox, or it can really hurt a team and seriously damage its future, as would have happened if the Marlins or Angels went shopping.

[Wedge]

A trade can save a team, like the 2004 BoSox, or it can really hurt a team and seriously damage its future, as would have happened if the Marlins or Angels went shopping.

 

Bravo!

 

Since I'm silly and lazy and don't want to look something up... who did the 2004 BoSox trade for during the season that was such a big deal?

 

If you're referring to the Nomar deal, was it really that big?

[ZoomSlowik]

Unless the Chavez thing happens or Houston goes crazy and decides to deal Oswalt, I don't see how we're going to make major improvements. Every starting position player we have contributes something valuable to this team. It's going to be hard for us to replace guys like Uribe and Crede without losing something, and every other spot is pretty much set. As for the pitching, it's starting to look like Shingo is back, meaning I don't really think we need to add another arm in the pen anymore. He was lights out last year, and he has been very good of late. Also, the cost of adding someone like Jason Schmidt or A.J. Burnett seems to outweigh the benefit. I don't really see the point of adding Burnett since it would be unlikely that we resign him. He's pretty much been the same pitcher as Garcia, only on an NL team in a more favorable park. He's good, but I don't think the improvement he would make would be worth giving up our two top prospects. The same goes for Schmidt, only more emphatically. Our starting staff is in good shape. Our top 3 guys have been excellent, Contreras is solid as a #4 starter, and although we have some issues in our 5th spot for the moment, I don't really see that being too important considering our current position. We've got a 10 1/2 game lead and the 5th starter isn't going to start a single game in the playoffs, and our 4th starter is going to see limited action. If we acquire another top starter, one of our top guys is only going to see a couple of starts, which minimizes the potential benefit. The 4th starter just isn't that important. Take a look at pretty much every competitor over the last 5 years. Few if any (the only one I can think of is the Marlins with Beckett/Redman/Willis/Pavano, and I'm not even sure that was the setup, and all of those guys were not effective in the regular season) had four credible starters. The Cardinals only had 4 mediocre starters in Marquis, Williams, Morris, and Suppan. Those last two aren't exactly what I'd call credible starters (or the first two for that matter). The Astros NUMBER 3 starter in the playoffs was Backe, and they made it to game 7 of the NLCS. The Red Sox only had two dependable starters and got help from Wakefield, Lowe, and Arroyo, all of whom got rocked with regularity last year. The Yankees had Mussina and Vazquez as their top two, and they beat Schilling and Pedro. The rest of their guys sucked. Starting pitching depth is simply not an issue in the playoffs, and few if any (certainly none in the AL) have been as good as our top 3. A starter would simply be a waste of assets. This team can beat anyone they run into, so I'd be inclined to leave the team as is.

Edited July 1, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[upnorthsox]

The Sox are always going to hit a great deal of homeruns, the Cell is a long ball park.  This year we are playing "smarter" ball.  Small/Smart ball has to do with a number of things: Good baserunning, speed, good defense, situational hitting, to name a few.  I said early in the season that the Lee - Pods deal was good and could very well be the key to a good season and even with Lees HR totals I still think we are a much better team w/o him. Lee was not a good outfielder, every once in a great while he would make a great diving catch of a ball that 85% of the other outfielders in the game would have made a routine play on. He was one of the worst baserunners in the game, I can recall numerous times seeing him getting thrown out at a base that he shouldn't have gone for anyway.  He would also never change his swing, never trying to hit to the right side w/ a runner on. I also don't think his second  half will compare to his first, teams are going to start pitching around him a bit and he will start chasing. Also remember that money saved from dealing him also landed us AJ, who has handled the staff well and is the kind of player I love.

 

Comiskey is 8th this yr in HR's, amazing how having a decent pitching staff can change the dynamics of a ballpark.

 

Going along with this poster's reasons for why it's not always a good idea to make a trade...

 

People at this page seem to love pointing to the Mariners as a team that could have traded to make itself better to win a W.S., and maybe didn't win because they didn't make the trade.

 

On the other hand, let's look at a couple of different examples.

 

In 2002, the Anaheim Angels won the World Series.  Guess how many veterans they traded for during the season?  The only trade they made was Jorge Fabregas going to Milwaukee for Sal Fasano and Alex Ochoa.  Hardly the stuff legends are made of.  Now let's imagine this...let's say the Angels decided to get serious about "Winning now" in June of 02, and sent this young guy named Francisco Rodriguez somewhere for a veteran pitcher.  Where would the Angels have ended up?  Or lets say they traded off Dallas McPherson.  Would their team be as set for the future as they are this year?

 

The 2003 Marlins are a very similar story - they made as far as I can tell exactly 1 trade during the year...a week after Todd Hollandsworth went on the DL, they traded Denny Bautista and another pitcher to the Orioles for Jeff Conine, and other than changing managers, that was it for them.  No other trades.  Now, it's not like they didn't have pieces to work with either - let's imagine that the Marlins had decided that they wanted to "Win now" in 2003, and moved a young guy named Miguel Cabrera, who was platooning in left field basically and hitting under .270, to get some added help?  Or lets imagine that they figured they needed a veteran starting pitcher to lead that staff, so they decided to move another young guy named Josh Beckett, a guy who had never pitched more than 107 innings in a season and had never ended up a season even with a winning record.

 

Where would those teams have wound up if they'd made some deals for "Veterans" to plug some of their other holes?

 

A trade can save a team, like the 2004 BoSox, or it can really hurt a team and seriously damage its future, as would have happened if the Marlins or Angels went shopping.

 

The 2003 Marlins also traded Managers which was probably the biggest turning point in their season(the '03 Sox on the other hand kept their manager and finished 2nd, again).

 

The 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins both got huge contributions down the stretch from rookies that season, the Angels with Lackey and FRod and the Marlins with Willis and Cabrera. Those additions helped offset the need for major trades.

Edited July 1, 2005 by upnorthsox

[Balta1701]

Bravo!

 

Since I'm silly and lazy and don't want to look something up... who did the 2004 BoSox trade for during the season that was such a big deal?

 

If you're referring to the Nomar deal, was it really that big?

Yes, the Nomar Deal really was that big - it gave them defense. It put Cabrera at shortstop, which instantly made their pitching staff (Ground ball guy Derek Lowe in particular) far, far better. It also gave them Mientkewicz as a late-inning replacement at 1b, which allowed them to take Millar out (Or Ortiz if they were playing against the NL) and make sure that they didn't screw around at 1b late in games.

 

That team went on their big run to get back into the Wild Card slot right after they made that trade. And it more than likely saved their season.

[upnorthsox]

Oh, one more thing before I forget. The 2003 Marlins were set to trade their starting 3rd baseman, Mike Lowell, but unfortunately he got hurt right before the deadline and was lost for the season.

[ZoomSlowik]

The 2003 Marlins also traded Managers which was probably the biggest turning point in their season(the '03 Sox on the other hand kept their manager and finished 2nd, again).

 

The 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins both got huge contributions down the stretch from rookies that season, the Angels with Lackey and FRod and the Marlins with Willis and Cabrera. Those additions helped offset the need for major trades.

 

The two guys on the Angels both came out of the pen, meaning they weren't huge changes (although they pitched well). Willis was absolutely horrible in the playoffs, and Cabrera didn't even start several games (I don't even think he played against the Giants). Beckett absolutely kicked ass, but he had been there all along. The point is that none of these guys were important pieces during the regular season, they were all on the roster, and they played major roles in the playoffs. Contreras is basically an older Beckett: great stuff but can't put things together. Who knows, we might call up Baj or Jenks late and they could end up pitching like K-Rod, or Anderson could provide a boost off the bench like Cabrera. Stuff like that happens in the playoffs. No team is absolutely perfect, and you never know what is going to happen. You could have Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson in the rotation and still lose. That's why adding a 4th starting pitcher doesn't have that big an impact. It's a small sample size, so all you need is one great game to make an impact. Also, these guys made a major impact because there were holes on the team that needed to be filled. These guys were given an opportunity to produce largely because of a lack of dependable options. We don't exactly have a lot of places where we need help, certainly fewer than that Angels team or that Marlins team had.

Edited July 1, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

The 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins both got huge contributions down the stretch from rookies that season, the Angels with Lackey and FRod and the Marlins with Willis and Cabrera. Those additions helped offset the need for major trades.

So...is there some reason why our guys cannot do the same thing? Especially when the rosters expand and Anderson comes up, along with probably Baj, certainly BMac if he's not on the 25 man at the time, etc.

 

Those teams went with what they had and won, and they've both been contenders the last 2 seasons as well. Why? Because they didn't mortgage anything the years they did win, they plugged in young guys as they were ready, and used the salary savings to add in other places. (Florida - Delgado, Anaheim - Vlad the Impaler).

[Balta1701]

Oh, one more thing before I forget. The 2003 Marlins were set to trade their starting 3rd baseman, Mike Lowell, but unfortunately he got hurt right before the deadline and was lost for the season.

They were set to trade him for prospects because he was having a great season and the Marlins got off to a terrible start - the Cubs were 1 interested team, but the Marlins wanted Zambrano I believe, and the Cubs wound up getting Ramirez from Pitt. It was going to be a surrender trade, not a trade to win that year.

 

He was supposedly a free agent last winter, but he re-signed with the Marlins.

[Wedge]

Balta, you're on fire, Bravo!

 

Anyways, you're exactly right. This team is good enough to get to the post season as it is. The question remains if we will have the necessary "play-off heroes" on our squad to go the distance. We have enough talented role players that I think we're set for the post-season. Mortgaging the future is a mistake at this point. If we can get a great player cheaply, then that's really great and I'd appluad KW for his shrewd GM skills. Otherwise, I think we should be pretty happy with the squad.

[upnorthsox]

The two guys on the Angels both came out of the pen, meaning they weren't huge changes (although they pitched well). Willis was absolutely horrible in the playoffs, and Cabrera didn't even start several games (I don't even think he played against the Giants). Beckett absolutely kicked ass, but he had been there all along. The point is that none of these guys were important pieces during the regular season, they were all on the roster, and they played major roles in the playoffs. Contreras is basically an older Beckett: great stuff but can't put things together. Who knows, we might call up Baj or Jenks late and they could end up pitching like K-Rod, or Anderson could provide a boost off the bench like Cabrera. Stuff like that happens in the playoffs. No team is absolutely perfect, and you never know what is going to happen. You could have Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson in the rotation and still lose. That's why adding a 4th starting pitcher doesn't have that big an impact. It's a small sample size, so all you need is one great game to make an impact. Also, these guys made a major impact because there were holes on the team that needed to be filled. These guys were given an opportunity to produce largely because of a lack of dependable options. We don't exactly have a lot of places where we need help, certainly fewer than that Angels team or that Marlins team had.

 

Huh?? Cabrera hit .333 vs the scrubs with 3 hr 6 rbi and 9 runs scored, he hit .287 with 3 rbi vs the giants and ended up playing in all 17 of their post season games hitting .265 4 hr 12 rbis.

 

Willis went 14-6 for the Marlins, they don't get to the playoffs without him.

 

Lackey started 18 games going 9-4 for the Angels and came up big for them in the playoffs. FRod was mainly only a factor in the playoffs but then what a factor he was.

[Balta1701]

Huh?? Cabrera hit .333 vs the scrubs with 3 hr 6 rbi and 9 runs scored, he hit .287 with 3 rbi vs the giants and ended up playing in all 17 of their post season games hitting .265 4 hr 12 rbis.

 

Willis went 14-6 for the Marlins, they don't get to the playoffs without him.

 

Lackey started 18 games going 9-4 for the Angels and came up big for them in the playoffs. FRod was mainly only a factor in the playoffs but then what a factor he was.

Willis also went 14-6, but he was 9-1 before the AS Break. He wrapped up the season going 5-5 with a 4.60 ERA after the break, including a horrendous 6.92 ERA in August.

 

In the Postseason he was 4-3 with a 3.55 ERA.

[VAfan]

Going along with this poster's reasons for why it's not always a good idea to make a trade...

 

A trade can save a team, like the 2004 BoSox, or it can really hurt a team and seriously damage its future, as would have happened if the Marlins or Angels went shopping.

 

I would agree you have to assess each team's strength's and weaknesses and what is available in the market to decide whether a mid-season trade is prudent.

 

I also think you have to look at the longer term. I'd like the Sox to be like the Indians and Twins have been and rule this division for the next 5 years, not just this year.

 

But the extra factor here is 1 pennant in 87 years for the Sox, and the realization that a WS victory could transform this franchise for many years. In that context, the Sox have to consider "going for it." That doesn't mean trading the farm for a rent-a-player, but it does mean taking everything into consideration.

 

I still think swapping out a high-quality starter for Jose Contreras is perhaps the best way for us to ensure we go far in the postseason.

 

Let's say we draw the Angels in round 1 b/c Minny has won the Wild Card.

 

Game 1 is Buerhle v. Colon

Game 2 is Garcia v. Washburn

Game 3 is Garland v. Lackey

Game 4 is Contreras v. Byrd

Game 5 is a repeat of game 1.

 

In this scenario, we may have a slight edge in all 4 games, but it is not much of an edge against a team with a stronger offense and playoff experience.

 

But let's say we've survived the Angels by winning in 5 games. Now we get the Red Sox. And let's say the Red Sox beat the Twins in 4 games.

 

Game 1 is Garcia v. Schilling

Game 2 is Garland v. Clement

Game 3 is Buehrle v. Wells

Game 4 is Contreras v. Wakefield

Game 5 is a repeat, etc.

 

Here, our only clear edge is Buehrle v. Wells, which does not bode well when the BoSox have the strongest offense in the AL.

 

Having Jason Schmidt instead of Jose Contreras in both series could make an immense difference. Contreras, if he's on, might have the edge against the Angel's or BoSox's 4th starters, but given his inconsistency, I'd rate the games a tossup. But Schmidt, if he pitched the 4th game or slid Garland to 4th, would have the edge over both teams' #3 guys and Garland would have a clear edge over the #4 guy.

 

So at the end of the day, the way I look at it is the addition of a guy like Jason Schmidt means we will be no worse than even matching up Buehrle and Garcia against anyone else's 1-2, but we will gain a clear matchup edge in the 3-4 matchups.

 

That is a formula for winning the World Series. It may not be the only formula, but it is the easiest one to fit into this 2005 White Sox team.

[RockRaines]

Balta, you're on fire, Bravo!

 

Anyways, you're exactly right.  This team is good enough to get to the post season as it is.    Mortgaging the future is a mistake at this point.  If we can get a great player cheaply, then that's really great and I'd appluad KW for his shrewd GM skills.  Otherwise, I think we should be pretty happy with the squad.

 

Would you mortgage the future for a WS title??? I would, in a heartbeat. There comes a time when you get one chance to take it all, and you do what is necessary to go the final step. Look at cubs fans, all they can talk about it what if, what if. I dont want to be content with just making hte playoffs, I want to win it, if it means trading a prospect, then so be it. Because a prospect is just that, someone who is not proven. And there are NO cant-miss prospects. I would trade a future role player for a title any day of the week, hands down.

[upnorthsox]

Willis also went 14-6, but he was 9-1 before the AS Break.  He wrapped up the season going 5-5 with a 4.60 ERA after the break, including a horrendous 6.92 ERA in August.

 

In the Postseason he was 4-3 with a 3.55 ERA.

 

So then what you do before the all star break doesn't count? Quick, someone tell Gar and Burly that.

[Balta1701]

Would you mortgage the future for a WS title??? I would, in a heartbeat. 

Of course I would. But you know as well as I do that there is absolutely no way to guarantee a World Series title. None at all. We could pick up Clemens and Schmidt and still lose. Who could have predicted that Josh Beckett would suddenly turn into a God among men in the playoffs for the Marlins? Or that the Yankees would suddenly stop hitting in game 4 in last year's ALCS?

 

If I could guarantee a world series title by trading anyone, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

But without that guarantee, I see no other solution but to play percentages. And the percentages tell me that once you reach the playoffs, there is enough variability and enough unpredictability that it is a large mistake to put all of your eggs in 1 basket and go for everything in 1 year at the expense of your next 5.

 

There will always be teams who make the playoffs several years in a row and don't win - the 8 team playoff format ensures that. But what you have to do first is get there, and second, you have to hope that someone from your team catches fire at the right time and can carry you.

 

The best team doesn't always win the world series, and making a trade for the best player won't always win you a world series. So, I would contend that your odds of winning the world series are far better if you reach the playoffs several years in a row and you can hope that at some point your team just finally clicks at the same time as someone else slumps. That, in my opinion, is easily the best way to increase your odds of winning the W.S. - be back every year.

[Balta1701]

So then what you do before the all star break doesn't count? Quick, someone tell Gar and Burly that.

That's not the point I was trying to make. The debate was over whether or not Willis helped them down the stretch and in the playoffs, and I was throwing some numbers at that point.

[DBAHO]

Is Jason Schmidt in his current form going to be an upgrade over Jose Contreras in a playoff series?

[Kalapse]

Is Jason Schmidt in his current form going to be an upgrade over Jose Contreras in a playoff series?

But at what cost?

[ZoomSlowik]

I would agree you have to assess each team's strength's and weaknesses and what is available in the market to decide whether a mid-season trade is prudent. 

 

I also think you have to look at the longer term.  I'd like the Sox to be like the Indians and Twins have been and rule this division for the next 5 years, not just this year.

 

But the extra factor here is 1 pennant in 87 years for the Sox, and the realization that a WS victory could transform this franchise for many years.  In that context, the Sox have to consider "going for it."  That doesn't mean trading the farm for a rent-a-player, but it does mean taking everything into consideration.

 

I still think swapping out a high-quality starter for Jose Contreras is perhaps the best way for us to ensure we go far in the postseason. 

 

Let's say we draw the Angels in round 1 b/c Minny has won the Wild Card. 

 

Game 1 is Buerhle v. Colon

Game 2 is Garcia v. Washburn

Game 3 is Garland v. Lackey

Game 4 is Contreras v. Byrd

Game 5 is a repeat of game 1. 

 

In this scenario, we may have a slight edge in all 4 games, but it is not much of an edge against a team with a stronger offense and playoff experience.

 

But let's say we've survived the Angels by winning in 5 games.  Now we get the Red Sox.  And let's say the Red Sox beat the Twins in 4 games.

 

Game 1 is Garcia v. Schilling

Game 2 is Garland v. Clement

Game 3 is Buehrle v. Wells

Game 4 is Contreras v. Wakefield

Game 5 is a repeat, etc. 

 

Here, our only clear edge is Buehrle v. Wells, which does not bode well when the BoSox have the strongest offense in the AL.

 

Having Jason Schmidt instead of Jose Contreras in both series could make an immense difference.  Contreras, if he's on, might have the edge against the Angel's or BoSox's 4th starters, but given his inconsistency, I'd rate the games a tossup.  But Schmidt, if he pitched the 4th game or slid Garland to 4th, would have the edge over both teams' #3 guys and Garland would have a clear edge over the #4 guy.

 

So at the end of the day, the way I look at it is the addition of a guy like Jason Schmidt means we will be no worse than even matching up Buehrle and Garcia against anyone else's 1-2, but we will gain a clear matchup edge in the 3-4 matchups. 

 

That is a formula for winning the World Series.  It may not be the only formula, but it is the easiest one to fit into this 2005 White Sox team.

 

Who's to say Schmidt is really any better than Contreras? It's all a crap shoot. Both have the ability to go 7 or 8 innings of dominance, both have the ability to let up 3 runs in 6 innings, and both have the ability to get rocked. Also, Contreras has had a much better year. Schmidt has gotten his ERA down to 4.81 with a few good starts. Contreras' ERA has gone up to 4.15 after a few bad ones. After his start on June 7th, Contreras' ERA was 3.13. Think about that one for a second there. I like our chances with Contreras against Byrd and Wakefield. As for your assessment that you don't like our chances with Garcia/Garland against Schilling/Clement, we can't really assess those two players on the Red Sox at this point (and Garcia and Garland have been pitching just as well as Clement anyways). Schilling has had exactly one good start going back to last season's ALCS on the major league level, and Clement has a history of dominating for stretches and then sucking. We don't really know how they will be pitching by the time the playoffs come around. Anyways, I don't see the problem with one clear edge and 3 toss ups. You're pretty fortunate if you get a pitching matchup in you favor, which is bound to happen with the way our guys have been pitching. The only way we are in trouble then is if we have some really bad luck and loss all of the close games and end up down 3-1. I highly doubt that happens. Our top 3 have shown no signs of faltering. That's the important thing to consider going into the playoffs. Our top two prospects and $10 mil for next year is an awful lot to pay for basically one, perhaps two starts in the playoffs.

 

Edit- Also, I doubt that Contreras pitches in the ALDS. The way the days off are spaced, it'd be a lot more likely that we repeat one of our top three starters unless we are already up 2-1. I do think that is highly possible (I really like our chances with Garland vs Lackey and Garcia vs Washburn, plus a decent chance of beating Colon), but that doesn't mean it will happen. That would mean that Contreras would more likely pitch game 2 of the ALCS after the remaining pitcher of our big 3 pitches game one, instead of a more important game 4. Also, you're assuming that Boston would be able to lineup their rotation how they want to, which is far from a certainty, especially given their shaky bullpen and the fact that they only have two reliable starters, even if Schilling comes back healthy and Clement doesn't slide.

Edited July 1, 2005 by ZoomSlowik