whitesoxfan101 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) Last year, yes, he would have been, but last year was the worst imaginable year for almost everyone in our rotation. Next year, he could well be the 5th best. Well in this senario, we trade Freddy and he's better than B-Mac and Vasquez., so he's at least #4 right there. Then you ask about him vs. Garland, Buehrle, and Contreras. It's an interesting discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 For all of the lets just keep crede people. Tell Crede to do the following and he will be safe from trade. 1.) Fire Scott Boras as his agent. The most important and will start the rest of the chips to fall. 2.) Sign a fair, but not rich long term deal. 3.) Agree to minor recommended back surgery. Remember as much as Joe has given us lip services about how he would never let his agent get in the way, he already is. The Whitesox want him to get some surgery on his back, he doesnt want to on the recommendation of his agent. He could sign a deal, however his agent wants to burn his arbitration years and get his man to jackpotland. You can either negotiate a fair deal, like Kong did where he chose less money and less years to be here. Or you can sign Boras as your agent and decide that you want to buy have the state of Missouri. Joe will be a very very rich man, and his family will never have a want in the world. I cant blame him, but lets stop acting as a group that KW is either trying to be cheap, or is being foolish. KW is a pretty smart GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 There's only one reason to pick Scott Boras and it's because you want some GM to break his piggy bank for you. I'm not begging KW to get rid of Crede but if he does, I won't blame him, provided we get a sweet deal out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 10:58 AM) Well in this senario, we trade Freddy and he's better than B-Mac and Vasquez., so he's at least #4 right there. Then you ask about him vs. Garland, Buehrle, and Contreras. It's an interesting discussion. You're still underrating BMac. But we'll let those chips fall where they will, as long as BMac ends up in our rotation next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) How about this, why in the name of god would we send young cheap pitching with the current climate for a bat. Pitching is much harder to obtain and develop than any player no matter how special. We have had numerous teams that had monster beasts who could kill you 5 ways to sunday with the bat, then we trotted out poop and stink for pitching and watch the twins run off with the division. If we pick up Santana, I am for keeping him. And start to build a top flight rotation. We won in 2005 based on a terrible offense for most of the season, they got hot in the playoffs and all, and lights out pitching and a good pen. Take a look at the teams for the most part that have won it all over the last 6 years. How many of them had a great offense and so so pitching. Keep the arms and build around that. If we wanted the OF strength over pitching we would of never have shipped off Young. I completely agree with this. I'd MUCH rather have Santana and Figgins than Crawford alone or even Crawford and Figgins. The former two would give us one of the league's elite base-stealers in the leadoff spot, solid defense in LF, and a very young and inexpensive starting pitcher with electric stuff who already has modest major-league success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 What time is Murph having this beat reporter on at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:10 PM) What time is Murph having this beat reporter on at? im not sure, he mentioned hed be on in the 1 oclock hour, but i havent heard anything about it since Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(daa84 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) im not sure, he mentioned hed be on in the 1 oclock hour, but i havent heard anything about it since SI.com is now reporting Cubs offered Schmidt 3/45, so he may focus on that for now (I threw up the link in its own topic in Diamond Club) Edited November 28, 2006 by SoxFan562004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(daa84 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) im not sure, he mentioned hed be on in the 1 oclock hour, but i havent heard anything about it since The only update so far is moronic people calling up talking about how Rex Grossman is not buff, or tall based on how they stood close to him when they were stalking him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Santana would be locked up a minimum for the next several years. I dont know if people realize how young he really is. Not to mention he probably would have the 2nd best stuff out of anyone in our rotation. He is sure to improve. With BMAC and Santana you have 2 good top of the rotation guys sewn up for the next several years at a minimum price. That my friends is how great teams maintain their greatness. QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:13 PM) SI.com is now reporting Cubs offered Schmidt 3/45, so he may focus on that for now Yeah, I posted that in the MLB forum earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Santana would be locked up a minimum for the next several years. I dont know if people realize how young he really is. Not to mention he probably would have the 2nd best stuff out of anyone in our rotation. He is sure to improve. With BMAC and Santana you have 2 good top of the rotation guys sewn up for the next several years at a minimum price. That my friends is how great teams maintain their greatness. Yeah, I posted that in the MLB forum earlier. Well why don't the Angels maintain their greatness that way then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Santana would be locked up a minimum for the next several years. I dont know if people realize how young he really is. Not to mention he probably would have the 2nd best stuff out of anyone in our rotation. He is sure to improve. With BMAC and Santana you have 2 good top of the rotation guys sewn up for the next several years at a minimum price. That my friends is how great teams maintain their greatness. buuuttt buuuttt how will we survive without Freddy Fastball and the Rally Crede..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Well why don't the Angels maintain their greatness that way then? Because the Angels have other pieces they can put into holes like those they'd create by this deal, and the Angels have different needs from the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) Well why don't the Angels maintain their greatness that way then? Take a good look at the Angels minor league system and then rethink it. They won 89 games last year in a down year where they were shifting young players and playing them quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) Because the Angels have other pieces they can put into holes like those they'd create by this deal, and the Angels have different needs from the White Sox. It bothers me that Santana's name comes up so often...It seems they are down on him for some reason or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) It bothers me that Santana's name comes up so often...It seems they are down on him for some reason or another. I think his name comes up for the same reason McCarthy's name comes up...other teams want him. We're not down on BMac as far as I can tell, and they're not down on Santana, it's just that if the Halos want to get a Tejada or a Crawford, or the White Sox want to rent a Soriano, that's what the other teams want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) It bothers me that Santana's name comes up so often...It seems they are down on him for some reason or another. Or other teams are extremely interested in him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:17 PM) Take a good look at the Angels minor league system and then rethink it. They won 89 games last year in a down year where they were shifting young players and playing them quite a bit. I understand that. And I realize they have Nick Adenhart ready to step in in a few years as well. But it seems to me that they have had an awful lot of position players who were highly touted prospects begin to fade. McPherson, Kotchman, and now Wood struck out 150 times last year and they think he isn't as far along as they thought he was. I don't know, it just seems like they should be dealing some of their position prospects if they really need a bat this badly, not Ervin Santana... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:20 PM) I think his name comes up for the same reason McCarthy's name comes up...other teams want him. We're not down on BMac as far as I can tell, and they're not down on Santana, it's just that if the Halos want to get a Tejada or a Crawford, or the White Sox want to rent a Soriano, that's what the other teams want. Young, cheap arms with high ceilings. How many of them come around in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:20 PM) Or other teams are extremely interested in him? You don't think teams are extremely interested in Weaver too? Or Lackey? But how much do you hear their names? I'm just saying that Santana was reportedly offered for Tejada and Crawford, yet there have been no deals there.... I understand your point, I do...it just seems like they certainly don't squash out the rumors about Santana the way that KW squashed the ones regarding McCarthy. It just gives me a feeling that the Angels know something about him that the rest of us don't... Edited November 28, 2006 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Young, cheap arms with high ceilings. How many of them come around in baseball. They come in all the time with other teams. Hell, even we find good arms sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) I understand that. And I realize they have Nick Adenhart ready to step in in a few years as well. But it seems to me that they have had an awful lot of position players who were highly touted prospects begin to fade. McPherson, Kotchman, and now Wood struck out 150 times last year and they think he isn't as far along as they thought he was. I don't know, it just seems like they should be dealing some of their position prospects if they really need a bat this badly, not Ervin Santana... How long does it take for a position player to learn how to hit in the majors? Their guys are good, and they have great prospects, but how old is Vlad and Garrett. What is their window. The angels rely on getting a lead, getting to their bullpen and getting the game over. Take a good look at their lineup, and tell me what they are missing. That would be real protection for Vlad. To beat the Angels, you basically pitch around Vlad. Garret provides some of that, but he is hurt a lot, and is older. They could go right with vlad, left with garret, and then right with Crede. Thats not a bad 3-4-5 punch right there. They can score more for their good pitching staff. They are offensive starved and need that more than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) How long does it take for a position player to learn how to hit in the majors? Their guys are good, and they have great prospects, but how old is Vlad and Garrett. What is their window. The angels rely on getting a lead, getting to their bullpen and getting the game over. Take a good look at their lineup, and tell me what they are missing. That would be real protection for Vlad. To beat the Angels, you basically pitch around Vlad. Garret provides some of that, but he is hurt a lot, and is older. They could go right with vlad, left with garret, and then right with Crede. Thats not a bad 3-4-5 punch right there. They can score more for their good pitching staff. They are offensive starved and need that more than anything. I love Joe, I do...but if this were you, would you deal Santana for a guy like Crede, if your primary need was offense? I sure wouldn't. It just seems like they are always willing to discuss Santana, yet they shoot everyone down when the positional prospects are mentioned....just seems curious to me, that's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawnhillegas Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) For all of the lets just keep crede people. Tell Crede to do the following and he will be safe from trade. 1.) Fire Scott Boras as his agent. The most important and will start the rest of the chips to fall. 2.) Sign a fair, but not rich long term deal. 3.) Agree to minor recommended back surgery. Remember as much as Joe has given us lip services about how he would never let his agent get in the way, he already is. The Whitesox want him to get some surgery on his back, he doesnt want to on the recommendation of his agent. He could sign a deal, however his agent wants to burn his arbitration years and get his man to jackpotland. You can either negotiate a fair deal, like Kong did where he chose less money and less years to be here. Or you can sign Boras as your agent and decide that you want to buy have the state of Missouri. Joe will be a very very rich man, and his family will never have a want in the world. I cant blame him, but lets stop acting as a group that KW is either trying to be cheap, or is being foolish. KW is a pretty smart GM. the whitesox would violate the CBA and a whole lot of labor laws if they told joe crede to fire his agent or else..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 QUOTE(iamshack @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) Well why don't the Angels maintain their greatness that way then? I think that there's some concern about his durability. He had an elbow injury in the minors and his frame (6'2", 160 lbs.) is a bit small for a guy who throws 94-96. But he's been healthy since and has almost two full major-league seasons under his belt with a moderate degree of success. Since KW has given up on signing Crede to a long-term deal, I'd pull the trigger... especially if we could get Figgins as well. 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.