GreatScott82 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Jose will sign with us. Its just the first part of negotiations. I can see a 2 year deal with a 3rd year club option happening. Hmm i wonder what Kenny will do if he can't sign one of both Jose and Jon? He won't trade both. Maybe just ride out Jon and Jose for the 2006 season as we go for our repeat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 If Contreras and Garland dont want to resign at a fair price.... trade them both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:04 AM) If Contreras and Garland dont want to resign at a fair price.... trade them both Before anyone jumps on Jose, consider that maybe the Sox offer was insulting. If they offered 2 years/15 million or so then its a joke of an offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) both Jon and Jose know that the Sox can play em one more year, and their value could come down after a weaker 05-06 campaign. i'm also thinking Jose is the more likely of the two to have a setback next year. not just age, but over his MLB career he has been less consistent than Garland. and whoa that is pretty inconsistent. so maybe for these reasons, coupled with the fact that he's had a tough time getting comfortable in the majors... he'll take a reasonable extension. so even though 2 yrs 15 would be a slap in the face....i really do think he'll get at least a little less than 2 years for 20. and if it's a ways less, then i'd infer that to mean he is, in truth, 48 years old. Edited December 20, 2005 by Princess Dye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:30 AM) Williams will have to sign Contrereas. There's no other option. I'd rather enter the 06' offseason with a complete rotation than having to worry about acquiring, or trading for, another starter. Think this offseason is ridiculous? Wait until next year. We'll be complaining again how subpar talent is ranking in ridiculous contracts. Anyone with a season remotely resembling Contreras' post season success or Garland's resurgence will be well out of our range. This is where abandoning minor league talent to accomodate a "window of opportunity" will kill an organization. If I'm Cooper, I'd attempt to teach Cotts a third pitch. Not for the 07' season, but for 08' and beyond when we'll really be in trouble if Williams resists overpaying. He'll have to do it, eventually. Our path in the upcoming years has to be either an increasing payroll, or more of a reliance on developing talent. Offseasons such as this years cannot persist. If KW can't bring back either Contreras or Garland, then the Vazquez trade was a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:33 AM) If KW can't bring back either Contreras or Garland, then the Vazquez trade was a disaster. The Vazquez trade was insurance in the case that happens. How is covering your ass "a disaster"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:39 AM) Why? If anything, Williams made sure there's only one spot, at worst, in the pitching rotation which needs to be filled. Hey, atleast we'd receive four draft picks for Garland and Contreras. That's until those draft picks show promise--then they're included in a trade package. Because for the same amount of money that Vazquez is going to be making during his contract, you could have brought back either Garland or Contreras. At least with those two, you know how they'd perform at the Cell. If KW is able to bring back one of the two guys, then I have no problem with the Vazquez trade. If he loses both guys, and replaces them with a high priced Vazquez, then that money spent/giving up our best prospect isn't my idea of a great trade. However, KW knows a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on, so I'm not going to freak out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:39 AM) Hey, atleast we'd receive four draft picks for Garland and Contreras. That's until those draft picks show promise--then they're included in a trade package. I'm not really happy with what looks to be the organization's theory of: if you don't want to sign an extension, then YOU GONE! Between that and KW's willingness to trade our highest rated prospects, our payroll's going to have to get bigger and bigger to afford extending guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:48 AM) I'm not really happy with what looks to be the organization's theory of: if you don't want to sign an extension, then YOU GONE! Between that and KW's willingness to trade our highest rated prospects, our payroll's going to have to get bigger and bigger to afford extending guys. So we should just let them walk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:52 AM) So we should just let them walk? No, but if we start trading them away in the offseason before their last season, it just seems like we're going to be hurting our MLB team that season. I'm a much bigger fan of just playing with your players, and if you're doing well, try to win the whole f'n thing. If your season isn't going well, then trade the player for prospects. However, don't keep using the prospects as chips to trade for high-priced players. The reason for that is that those players are going to be in the same situations that Garland and Contreras are currently in, so we're just as likely to start trading them if they don't want to sign extensions. BTW, this really isn't that big of a deal right now. I think we'll eventually get Contreras signed to a 2 year deal with a player option, but there wasn't a chance in hell that Contreras and his agent agreed to the first proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 11:57 PM) No, but if we start trading them away in the offseason before their last season, it just seems like we're going to be hurting our MLB team that season. I'm a much bigger fan of just playing with your players, and if you're doing well, try to win the whole f'n thing. If your season isn't going well, then trade the player for prospects. However, don't keep using the prospects as chips to trade for high-priced players. The reason for that is that those players are going to be in the same situations that Garland and Contreras are currently in, so we're just as likely to start trading them if they don't want to sign extensions. BTW, this really isn't that big of a deal right now. I think we'll eventually get Contreras signed to a 2 year deal with a player option, but there wasn't a chance in hell that Contreras and his agent agreed to the first proposal. What was the 1st proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:57 AM) No, but if we start trading them away in the offseason before their last season, it just seems like we're going to be hurting our MLB team that season. I'm a much bigger fan of just playing with your players, and if you're doing well, try to win the whole f'n thing. If your season isn't going well, then trade the player for prospects. However, don't keep using the prospects as chips to trade for high-priced players. The reason for that is that those players are going to be in the same situations that Garland and Contreras are currently in, so we're just as likely to start trading them if they don't want to sign extensions. BTW, this really isn't that big of a deal right now. I think we'll eventually get Contreras signed to a 2 year deal with a player option, but there wasn't a chance in hell that Contreras and his agent agreed to the first proposal. We'll see what happens, but I think they have to move at least one of these guys if they can't sign them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:00 AM) We'll see what happens, but I think they have to move at least one of these guys if they can't sign them. Oh, I'll definitely agree with that. I know I use hyperboles often, but I'll be stunned if Garland is on the 2006 White Sox roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:03 AM) You might have been able to sign Garland or Contreras for the amount Vazquez will earn, but I doubt Garland (in particular) would accept a two year deal for 22 million. Not even three years for 33 million would likely be enough. Perhaps Contreras would; so it may have been Williams intention to replace Vazquez with Garland. We have Vazquez under our control for possibly three years. I think Contreras would if you had a 3rd year option in there (maybe even one that kicked in if he threw 200 innings the next two years). I think you could do some sort of 2 yr extension worth 22 mill and than a 3rd year that could push the total package to 3yr 33 (that automatically hits if he throws a certain number of innings). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:13 AM) I agree Contreras would. But with Garland, it's useless giving him the desired amount (>11mil) he'll seek without adding years. Many years. Williams' move to acquire Vazquez isn't exactly a bargain except for the few amount of years he'll be under contract. It's probably Williams attention to avoid long term deals--which Garland will surely receive. For that reason, as I was trying to convince Fathom, it's important to have atleast one replacement available for a worst case scenario of Contreras/Garland leaving. I think we'll be set, but Garland isn't going to sign anything less than a 5 yr deal, imo. The Sox don't like giving out long term deals and I think the reason Kenny got Vazquez is because the Sox know they got his rights for the next 3 years (which isn't too bad at all). They find themselves in a good shape and if they resign one of the two they'll be in real good shape. Would Garland take a 5yr 60 mill deal, he just may (although on the open market he'd get more), but I can't see the Sox offering him that. I could see them waiting a year and if he pitches well, go out and offer that sort of contact (the sox would also have to have a strong season). But thats still only if they have an open spot at that point. It'll be interesting, but I really can't see Garland taking a 3 yr deal. Unless its 3 yr 39 mill (maybe he'd go for it). The Sox aren't going to offer it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 well whatevr the case we should have 5 quality starters to begin the 06 season... than even if we lose Contreras and Garland we will have 4 good starters and Ive heard in a couple places that a guy like Broadway might be ready for the 07 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Hopefully we can get something done with Jose, he's a guy I definitely want to have around for the next few years. Whoever said trade them both I completely disagree, unless we acquire another good starter you have to keep one of them and I prefer to keep JC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Yeah, I don't think trading both Jose and Jon would be the best option for the Sox. Most players turn down the first offer, sometimes it is due to money, and sometimes years, so I don't think this is a big deal. My prediction is Jose is signed for 3 yrs for $10 mill a year. If there is more to this than we know, could it be something to do with the El Duque trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Not the news I wanted to hear regarding Jose at all. I think it's just paramount that we get this guy re-signed. If you leave it like Paul Konerko, if he pitches as well he did in the 2nd half of 2005, he's going to get a LOT of money. I'd have no problem offering him a 3 year deal around 30-33M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:26 AM) To earn a spot that quickly Broadway would have to be dominating the minor leagues, as McCarthy did. Were his numbers this year consistent of someone you'd expect to fly through the system?. Seems doubtful to me. That's something the Royals would do. Not really because Broadway will start the season in AA. So if he has a good season he will be invited to spring training and if he pitches well and we have a spot open I wouldnt be surprised at all to see Broadway in 07. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 11:11 PM) Not really because Broadway will start the season in AA. So if he has a good season he will be invited to spring training and if he pitches well and we have a spot open I wouldnt be surprised at all to see Broadway in 07. It's an interesting situation. There's no real stud SP prospects for us at AAA or even AA. Liotta, Lumsden and Broadway could all start the season down at B-Ham. Broadway's numbers down at Winston - Salem weren't great, but let's see how he does down at B-Ham. Don't forget he was pretty tired when he was down there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Considering how Contreras finished up and the deals pitchers are getting this offseason, it isn't exactly the most ideal time for the White Sox to be negotiating a new contract with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 As someone pointed out a week or so ago, KW has basically sent a signal to JC and JG along the lines of: "One of you will be re-signed, the other will likely be traded. Let the games begin." And I think that's exactly what is going on here. KW will pick the one of the two of them that is the best value, and will try to move the other one, to be replaced by McCarthy in the rotation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 3 years for 30 million is acceptable. Esspecially w/ todays pitching market. A KW smart move would be: 2 years for 21 mill and a 3rd year club option for 12 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Daily Southtown reports that the next White Sox announcement may be Contreras' contract extension. Cowley indicated talks heated up Monday afternoon. 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.