spiderman Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bruce Levine leaving little doubt, saying that Garland Will be traded for younger players and that he doesn't see any trades for Blalock, etc because the White Sox are looking to cut their payroll back a bit. With arbitration, and the rising costs of starting pitching this off-season, Garland could get as much as $9 million for next season, and has already turned down a 3 year, 24 million dollar contract. Also are looking for another lefty/right out of the bullpen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 3 years $24 million is a joke for Jon Garland, and I am not surprised at all that it pissed him off to the point where he wants to be a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:38 AM) 3 years $24 million is a joke for Jon Garland, and I am not surprised at all that it pissed him off to the point where he wants to be a free agent. I can't say I blame Garland for wanting to test free agency, where he's likely to get a 4 to 5 year deal for at least 9-10 million per year as opposed to the short term/less money per from the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:38 PM) 3 years $24 million is a joke for Jon Garland, and I am not surprised at all that it pissed him off to the point where he wants to be a free agent. Well usually the initial offer isnt apposed to be a really high one..... and im sure that it was offered b4 the monster contracts Toronto gave out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I agree that you can't blame Jon but you also can't blame Kenny for knowing he's going to have to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Again, conjecture being passed off as fact. However, in Bruce's defense, he's spot-on...of course Garland is going to be traded. I'm also happy to hear the Sox are not going the Blalock/Crede route and are looking to land a reliever and presumably some prospects. I'm sticking to my guns: Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Broxton/Edwin Jackson ...a deal surrounging two of those three players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heirdog Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:44 AM) Again, conjecture being passed off as fact. However, in Bruce's defense, he's spot-on...of course Garland is going to be traded. I'm also happy to hear the Sox are not going the Blalock/Crede route and are looking to land a reliever and presumably some prospects. I'm sticking to my guns: Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Broxton/Edwin Jackson ...a deal surrounging two of those three players. Please stay away from Edwin Jackson, Kenny! I hate the converted OFs that are now pitchers. Broxton looks like Jon Adkins but hopefully he would pan out. Billingsley is a must to make the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:47 PM) Please stay away from Edwin Jackson, Kenny! I hate the converted OFs that are now pitchers. Broxton looks like Jon Adkins but hopefully he would pan out. Billingsley is a must to make the trade. If the Sox trade Garland to the Dodgers, and don't get either Billingsley or Guzman included in the deal, then that's a bad trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:49 AM) If the Sox trade Garland to the Dodgers, and don't get either Billingsley or Guzman included in the deal, then that's a bad trade. Agreed. Billingsley is the deal-breaker. He simply has to be included in a deal of that magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:50 PM) Agreed. Billingsley is the deal-breaker. He simply has to be included in a deal of that magnitude. Which he very well might not be. Guzman is such an exciting young prospect that could still be the centerpiece of a good deal for the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AddisonStSox Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:52 AM) Which he very well might not be. Guzman is such an exciting young prospect that could still be the centerpiece of a good deal for the Sox. How is Joel defensively? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:44 PM) I'm sticking to my guns: Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Broxton/Edwin Jackson ...a deal surrounging two of those three players. Billingsley won't be traded by LA. Broxton maybe. But I'm going with two guys: * I think any deal will have to include LHP Greg Miller. A guy with his control and stuff can pitch in the majors for 10-15 yrs, from the bullpen or the rotation. *Justin Orenduff [a BMac type guy with control and good stuff; someone who may not be a #1 type SP, but with solid numbers wherever he's been Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthraxFan93 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 If with the Dodgers.. Dewyln Young.. Otherwise no deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bingo. I like that trade. Preferably it'll be both Guzman and Billingsley. It has to be at least one of them. I don't think Levine told us anything we already didn't know unless he said it would be before ST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:55 AM) How is Joel defensively? We'll have him work at 3B. We'll make him good if he likes it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:49 PM) If the Sox trade Garland to the Dodgers, and don't get either Billingsley or Guzman included in the deal, then that's a bad trade. Billingsley is the Dodgers version of Bmac for the sox last yr. Not going in any deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:59 AM) Billingsley is the Dodgers version of Bmac for the sox last yr. Not going in any deal. Well then, we will ship Garland elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I want Scott Elbert, Brazoban and a MI prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bingo. I like that trade. Preferably it'll be both Guzman and Billingsley. It has to be at least one of them. I don't think Levine told us anything we already didn't know unless he said it would be before ST. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did I win our sig bet already? B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:40 AM) I agree that you can't blame Jon but you also can't blame Kenny for knowing he's going to have to move on. I agree with this. Both sides just want what they consider fair, and, from the White Sox perspective, they probably only have money now (after the Vazquez acquistion) for Contreras OR Garland. Now, I'd much rather see the White Sox add players who can help this season, so it's a little disappointing that we may trade an 18 game winner for possible future help. Personally, I'd love to keep all 6 starting pitchers, but, from a budget standpoint, this seems highly unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:00 PM) Well then, we will ship Garland elsewhere. You make it sound like the only guys worth anything in the Dodgers system are Guzman and Billingsley. About the only team that can fit the sox request for two top pitching prospects is the Dodgers. the sox can and probably will make a deal that doesn't involve those two guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:55 PM) How is Joel defensively? I've been told that he makes B.J. Upton look like a Gold Glover. Guzman projects as a corner outfielder or 1b now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) You make it sound like the only guys worth anything in the Dodgers system are Guzman and Billingsley. About the only team that can fit the sox request for two top pitching prospects is the Dodgers. the sox can and probably will make a deal that doesn't involve those two guys. Beck check my post, I dont think those are their only two players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Also are looking for another lefty/right out of the bullpen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did Levine say that the Sox want to add a lefty AND a righty or just one or the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:49 AM) If the Sox trade Garland to the Dodgers, and don't get either Billingsley or Guzman included in the deal, then that's a bad trade. I agree. The Sox should be getting one of the very best in a deal of Garland. He's a 26 year old pitcher that has came into a zone. If thats not worthy of an organizations best prospect, than I don't know what is. And I don't care that he is going to possibly be a free agent. The Dodgers or any other team on the left coast can negotiate a long term deal with him. Billingsley/Broxton and a position prospect of sorts would be nice. Broxton slides into the pen with Tracey. The 3rd guy could be Edwin Jackson. I don't know why people act as if he should be the 2nd guy the Sox acquire. Jackson's status isn't what it once was. However, the stuff is there and I think a change of scenery would do him good. Another package that would be filthy would be Billingsley/Greg Miller/Broxton, but I highly doubt we could grab 3 pitching prospects of that magnitude. If we did, they'd automatically (imo) be the 3 best we have in our org (pitching wise). I'd rate them ahead of Broadway for the time being. The Sox should be able to get two of the Dodgers best prospects, one of which must be Billingsley or Guzman. The Dodgers have a pretty good catching prospect if they wanted to go that way, but I'm always leery on catching prospects (its probably the hardest position to develop in baseball). 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.