Konerko Speculation

[jackie hayes]

I'd still call Garland better than league average. A bad month after the ASB really cost him a sub 4 ERA this season, and the guy pitches half his games in argubly the worst pitchers park in the MLB today.

 

Perhaps I'm aiming too high, but the Sox are dealing from a position of strength here, and we need to be targeting these type of impact prospects if we want to rebuild quickly into the future (I'm talking like Flash here). The Sox could always include a Ryan Sweeney for example, to give the Cards a possible replacement for Rasmus.

 

I'm not settling for Reyes and Anderson for Garland. I've rather head to the Dodgers and ask for Hu or Furcal in some sort of deal instead, or talk to Seattle and see if they would trade their stud OF prospect (Batemian I think his name, not Adam Jones).

Wladimir Balentien. Rasmus is younger and puts up better numbers, puts up great numbers. Sweeney's stock fell really far this year -- he doesn't cushion the loss much at all.

 

I mean, by all means, ask for Rasmus. But our need for impact players won't make other teams stupid enough to trade them. At least Seattle has Bavasi...

[CWSGuy406]

Yes, but you are comparing 3 players to 2 players. At very least you would need to include the VORP of the current Sox player being replaced by the extra player in the deal.

 

Yes -- I'm comparing three to two because that's the trade. Fine, want me to include Jerry Owens' and Darin Erstad's VORP in there to make things better. I'm sure those two make a huge difference.

 

Shields, Figgins, and Kotchman also out VORPed Manny Ramirez and Dustin Pedroia (70.5), but I doubt Boston is making that trade.

 

That just makes no sense, but keep going.

 

You are also using just one year of data, and one that is TREMENDOUSLY skewed by Figgins having a career year with the bat (his 36.2 VORP this year outpaced his 14.2 from 2006)

 

And instead of using his best year, you choose to use 2006, Figgins' worst year. How about this -- we split the difference and go with his 2004-2005 numbers, where he put up an approxomate line of .295/.350/.410 while being a plus plus baserunner and a plus defender. The Sox don't have any CFer who can come close to doing that.

 

and Konerko having a down year (his 25.4 VORP is way down from his past 3 years of 38, 46, 47.7).

 

For the 19th time, Konerko is 32. Players at age who are 32 don't usually get better.

 

I disagree.

 

Fine. Prove to me that having Konerko + Garland will be better for the Sox in 2007 than Figgins, Shields, Kotchman and upwards of $20 million dollars.

[Chombi]

I hear the Cardinals are targeting Garland. Any thoughts on what we could get in return from them?

 

I don't know. I am unsure if there was any real interest from them in trying to get Buehrle before or after his contract. They seem to love him and I thought they would overtrade to get the hometown hero. It didn't happen so I don't know what to make of Garland.

 

Major League wise. I want nothing they have (excluding Albert). Reyes and Wainwright are their guys and I just don't think they are worth it. Maybe Wainwright if we move him back to the pen. Please no Chris Duncan talk.

 

Rasmus I'd imagine is out of the question. Unless Sweeney and like Egbert type were in it too.

 

Jaime Garcia I would assume is untouchable as well but then again, he seems to have slipped a little in their eyes.

 

Adam Ottavino and Chris Perez. I cant remember which one, but one of them is being groomed to be their "Closer of the the future".

 

Bryan Anderson is probably available, but I'd rather kill myself then take another chance on a Brian Anderson. He is a catcher though? They have Molina who is still young.

 

Jon Jay, Cody Young, Joe mather seem to be their OF's we could get. Mark Hamilton was a guy I was high on but I don't think anyone else is. Lot's of power and that average isn't coming around.

 

That Peter Kosmo or Kozma guy they took in the draft this year I kind of like. SS. so maybe he is available or I think Tyler Greene is still there. He may be coming up though to replace Eckstein.

 

I went to school in Missouri so I have dealt with many Cardinal fans and had to hear about how amazing all these guys are. Picture Cub fans but with some actual Positive history. It's rough.

 

*Edit* I texted a buddy and he says it is Chris Perez that they're grooming to be their closer and has replaced Garcia as their "untouchable" arm to go with Rasmus.

 

Obviously, the Ankiel burst/surprise shocked them a little this season. Rasmus has apparently lost untouchable status but remains higher in their eyes. They just think they can get a whole lot for him to help now since they feel he is a "maybe" for out of the gates next year. Mid-Season seems to be a definate. I highly doubt they'll deal him to us.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Chombi and the Fungi

[sircaffey]

Would the Angels really keep Santana in the pen? With Garland, they still have Lackey, Weaver, Saunders, and Tubby McGoo. We need to get Santana in this deal. If there is ever a time to acquire Santana, this would be the time and the deal. I almost fear that KW has enough blind faith in Floyd that if given the choice, he'd choose Shields over Santana to go along with Kotchman and Figgins.

[Kalapse]

Colon is as good as gone, he's a free agent. Don't forget Escobar who was their 2nd best starter this year. I WOULD NOT however accept Santana as a major piece in any deal, he just has way too many negatives.

[witesoxfan]

If the Angels have soured on Santana, I'll take him over Shields in the deal. Saves some money, gets rid of that middle reliever in the deal which I absolutely hate, and adds another live arm to the potential rotation. At the worst, I figure Santana is a swingman for the Sox out of the pen, but he still has a pretty live arm and I wouldn't be surprised to see him turn into a 3-4 at some point.

 

And then the Sox will finally have their Santana.

 

 

[beck72]

I'd rather have Shields than Santana. Mostly because he's what the sox need from a bullpen guy. Santana may not be better than Floyd or Danks. And he's unproven for the bullpen. IIRC, Santana's a FB pitcher, too.

 

The deal for PK and Garland would have to include a very solid minor league arm--maybe someone in AA from the Angels.

[witesoxfan]

It's been pointed out in the thread already, but Shields' ERA in the second half was 7.36, his WHIP 1.81, and his control was awful. Considering he'll turn 33 next year, is signed through 2010, his second half, and the volatility of relievers in baseball, I'm not about to trust that. Ervin Santana, overrated as he may be, will be 25 next year and nearly has 500 innings at the MLB level. Add to it a 4.84 career ERA - albeit, a very inconsistent 4.84 ERA - and I tend to think he's a solid candidate to bounce back and have not only a solid year next year, but to have a pretty solid next 3-4 years.

 

I'm a Shields fan, but at this point, trading for him is not nearly worth the risk; he just screams Billy Koch to me. I'd much rather take a shot on a guy like Dotel, Julio, or a Japanese reliever than have Shields be a big part of a deal.

 

 

 

What people seem to be forgetting is the possibility that a deal like this also opens up Rowand and Eckstein coming to Chicago. Free up $20 mill, give Rowand $12 mill and Eckstein $7 mill. Just playing devil's advocate, as I don't consider myself a doom and gloom type. I would, however, absolutely hate to ever see Eckstein in a White Sox uniform. I imagine they'd just be evil as hell and pick up Erstad's option too just for s***s and giggles.

[RockRaines]

Ok. So who's ready to see what the angels fans thought of this trade?

 

Hmmm? 2 old guys for 3 young guys? Dont think so. But i will take a Garland for Willets deal. We get a veteran arm who can eat innings with playoff experience. And you guys get the good leadoff hitter with speed and a high obp that you guys have been wanting. Sounds like a deal made in Angel heaven.

 

No way, Rock. We don't really need Garland and Figgy, Shields and Kotch seem to outweigh Konerko.

 

Even ignoring the huge disparity in salaries I wouldn't do it.

 

For 2007,

Kotchman OPS+ was 125

Konerko OPS+ was 117

 

Konerko may have just had a bad year or he could be declining. Kotchman, just completing his first full year, should continue to improve. On defense, Kotchman is far better.

 

Garland is a good pitcher which has value but outside of 2005 he's been barely better than average the last 6 years.

 

Figgins may have just had a career year, but it was a very,very good year. Shields had a bad 2nd half but has been lights out for years and is still a primary part of our bullpen. Both are cheap given their production. I think when a team would have to add this much salary the expected improvement would have to be much higher than this trade would give.

 

Kotchman's a nice player, nothing more. I'd trade him in a second in the right deal.

 

I don't think this trade is out of line, but it is a bit too much to give up, especially considering that Shields might bounce back to the elite reliever he has been the last few years.

[Steve9347]

Who exactly wants to get rid of Kotchman?

 

FWIW, the trio of Shields, Figgins and Kotchman out-VORP'ed Konerko and Garland by a rather large margin (77.2 to 52). Even if you don't believe in VORP, those numbers show who's getting the better end of the deal, and that doesn't even take into account the ~$50 million off the books.

 

As far as the Angel fans who want to get rid of Kotchman, let's hope that their GM is also in that camp. The more I think about a deal like this, the more I realize this deal would be a huge victory for the Sox -- arguably better than Kenny's swipe of Bartolo Colon.

Wonder if they'd give up on Ervin Santana and put him in the deal instead of Shields. I know he hasn't performed away from Anaheim, but I still think he'd be a valuable chip to try to fix, moreso than a reliever who won't be dominating when this team is truly ready to compete again.

[witesoxfan]

Ok. So who's ready to see what the angels fans thought of this trade?

I'm really sure you can say the same thing from Anaheim's perspective too.

 

That's about what I expected.

 

And that dude who suggested Willits for Garland (and spelled f'ing Willits wrong), I mean, does he want the Sox to like include DLS and Gio too? That's dumber than some of the stuff people say around here. Willits is a fringe starting player whose entire productivity relies upon hitting for average. If he hits .250, he's probably a worse player than Jerry Owens.

 

Wonder if they'd give up on Ervin Santana and put him in the deal instead of Shields. I know he hasn't performed away from Anaheim, but I still think he'd be a valuable chip to try to fix, moreso than a reliever who won't be dominating when this team is truly ready to compete again.

 

You just like to steal my ideas

 

If the Angels have soured on Santana, I'll take him over Shields in the deal. Saves some money, gets rid of that middle reliever in the deal which I absolutely hate, and adds another live arm to the potential rotation. At the worst, I figure Santana is a swingman for the Sox out of the pen, but he still has a pretty live arm and I wouldn't be surprised to see him turn into a 3-4 at some point.

 

And then the Sox will finally have their Santana.

 

 

[Steve9347]

You just like to steal my ideas

Two great minds...

[LVSoxFan]

"Tubby McGoo"

 

LMAO!

[witesoxfan]

Two great minds...

 

I heard they think alike or something.

 

And it's a good idea too, if the Angels would be willing to do it. I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Santana outproduces Garland next year, but it's obviously something that's not likely.

[sircaffey]

I'd rather have Shields than Santana. Mostly because he's what the sox need from a bullpen guy. Santana may not be better than Floyd or Danks. And he's unproven for the bullpen. IIRC, Santana's a FB pitcher, too.

 

The deal for PK and Garland would have to include a very solid minor league arm--maybe someone in AA from the Angels.

 

You can't seriously want an aging Shields over Santana. He's just coming off a bad year for whatever reason. The guy has filthy filthy stuff. For what it's worth, Ervin was 2-2 with a 2.96 ERA (6 G, 4 GS) in September and October (27.1 IP, 22 H, 13 BB, 30 SO). If you take on Shields instead of Santana, you are pretty much forced to keep Contreras. If you get Santana, you'd be able to move Contreras in either a pure dump or for another similar contract (Furcal). The move from Contreras to Santana at worst is a lateral move, IMO. So in essence, you have the ability to rid yourself of 3 expensive contracts and replace them with 3 cheap contracts. You have to take Santana over Shields if given the choice. It makes much more sense.

[sircaffey]

Hypothetical situation...

 

Say that some kind of Contreras for Furcal swap is doable.

 

Would you be interested in a Konerko/Garland for Kotchman, Santana, and Shields + B level prospect deal? I'm not really in favor of giving a contract to either Rowand or Hunter, but you'd have the cash to do so, and probably would be the end result if this situation were to occur.

 

1. Furcal, SS

2. Rowand, CF

3. Thome, DH

4. Dye, RF

5. Kotchman, 1B

6. Fields, LF

7. Crede, 3B

8. Pierzynski, C

9. Richar, 2B

 

1. Buehrle, LHP

2. Vazquez, RHP

3. Santana, RHP

4. Danks, LHP

5. Floyd/Gio/Haeger

 

CL -Jenks

SUvRH -Shields

SUvLH -Thornton

MR -MacDougal

MR -Logan

MR -Wassermann

LR -Haeger

 

Would this be something that would be ok with you?

[Fantl916]

i have a couple things to say on this trade that i think some people are missing...

 

first, it's tough to imagaine trading konerko because he has been one of the hearts of this team over this century, but this trade addresses what i see as the W. Sox greatest problem: we lack any top level young talent. We are a very old team, as a whole, and are in danger of becoming the next SF Giants because we cannot develop star young talent (I know we have Danks and Fields, but the rest of the star players on this team are 30+). Kotchman, to me, fits the mold of a very good young player. He reminds me a little of Adrian Gonzales with the bat, and he's very good with the glove. He too could become a fixture at 1b much like Konerko was, and there might not be as much of a gap between the two going forward as some might indicate.

 

second, Garland, while unbelievably solid, is also replacable. including him in this deal if we can get Figgins and Santana/Sheilds would make a ton of sense. Yes, i know Garland just wins, and personally he's one of my favorites, but he's in line for a contract that we may not be willing to match, and it does make sense to trade him now while we can leverage his full value. Santana before this year was very very good, and if he can return to that measure it would make this trade a wash by him alone. Shields, if its not Santana, can step in and immediately be the lockdown setup guy we need, and he's great. I love Scot Shields, and to me a 8th and 9th with Shields and Jenks would be game over. Figgins is the leadoff guy we wanted Pods to be ever since we traded for Pods. He has a higher OBP, steals bases, and moreover is incredibly versatile. Having the option of putting Figgins at CF, 3b, 2b, or ss makes him twice as valuable. i love him in that aspect as well.

 

third, with the excess money we fill other holes more effectively, much like we did in 2005 when we won the WS when we traded C. Lee and had excess money. the prospects of that make this trade appealing.

 

Do i think the angles need to add an A-level prospect like Adenhart or Wood? no, and i think that's wishful thinking. But they have a plethora of C & SS prospects that we might be able to pry away a la Conger, Mathis, Sean Rodriguez, etc. at the same time they might require us to throw in something they can use, in which case i would not hesitate...

 

At this point, this is how i see the W. Sox and their most fundamental problem: If you were to take every player in MLB and put them in a pool where each team got to draft them and build a franchise around them (think they would draft according to talent and age) the W. Sox currently have nobody who would be taken in the top 75, and i argue that they may not have anyone who would be taken in the top 100 (fields and buehrle would come close). That has to be remedied for the Sox to become a sustainable entity, and this trade does help them in that aspect.

 

and im spent

[Fantl916]

Also, I very much doubt that you could convince the Dodgers to take Contreras for Furcal unless we took on almost all of Contreras's contract and paid almost all of Furcal's...

 

Nobody wants Contreras, no matter how desperate they might be for pitching. And moreover, nobody will give up anything of value, no matter how much a burden to their team he might be (Furcal to the Dodgers) as a form of compensation. Contreras is far more of a burden to carry...

[witesoxfan]

You can't seriously want an aging Shields over Santana. He's just coming off a bad year for whatever reason. The guy has filthy filthy stuff. For what it's worth, Ervin was 2-2 with a 2.96 ERA (6 G, 4 GS) in September and October (27.1 IP, 22 H, 13 BB, 30 SO). If you take on Shields instead of Santana, you are pretty much forced to keep Contreras. If you get Santana, you'd be able to move Contreras in either a pure dump or for another similar contract (Furcal). The move from Contreras to Santana at worst is a lateral move, IMO. So in essence, you have the ability to rid yourself of 3 expensive contracts and replace them with 3 cheap contracts. You have to take Santana over Shields if given the choice. It makes much more sense.

 

Take September ERAs for what they are worth.

 

 

[RockRaines]

I wish someone would read the angels fans perspective on the deal. I know we all want to rape another team and all, but its not going to happen with the crazy trade all of this salary for better plays stuff.

[gosox41]

What people seem to be forgetting is the possibility that a deal like this also opens up Rowand and Eckstein coming to Chicago. Free up $20 mill, give Rowand $12 mill and Eckstein $7 mill. Just playing devil's advocate, as I don't consider myself a doom and gloom type. I would, however, absolutely hate to ever see Eckstein in a White Sox uniform. I imagine they'd just be evil as hell and pick up Erstad's option too just for s***s and giggles.

 

 

I'm not even trying to imitate a nd movie quote, but after reading this I started tasting throw up in my mouth. I agree here and the thought of paying Eckstein and Rowand a combine $20 mill is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.

 

KW should be fired for that.

 

 

 

Bob

[witesoxfan]

I wish someone would read the angels fans perspective on the deal. I know we all want to rape another team and all, but its not going to happen with the crazy trade all of this salary for better plays stuff.

 

There are also better ways the Angels could spend $20 million.

[rockren]

Don't try and steal my nickame

 

Welcome to the board and I think you are right with your opinion of the trade

 

Unless we were clearing salary to throw money at A-Rod....*drooling*....

 

Quick! Someone get me a towel...

 

[beck72]

You can't seriously want an aging Shields over Santana. He's just coming off a bad year for whatever reason. The guy has filthy filthy stuff. For what it's worth, Ervin was 2-2 with a 2.96 ERA (6 G, 4 GS) in September and October (27.1 IP, 22 H, 13 BB, 30 SO). If you take on Shields instead of Santana, you are pretty much forced to keep Contreras. If you get Santana, you'd be able to move Contreras in either a pure dump or for another similar contract (Furcal). The move from Contreras to Santana at worst is a lateral move, IMO. So in essence, you have the ability to rid yourself of 3 expensive contracts and replace them with 3 cheap contracts. You have to take Santana over Shields if given the choice. It makes much more sense.

I did say I'd want Shields over Santana. Yet I also said the Angels should put in a young pitcher who could help in a year or two [that should have a higher ceiling that Santana]. That way, the Sox would be better in the short term, with the contracts for Dye, AJ and Mark showing the sox plan on competing right away. But the young pitcher would be help for the future as well. That way, both sides are covered. Santana has struggled for a few yrs now and IMO doesn't fit in the Cell with his FB tendencies.

Edited October 12, 2007 by beck72

[witesoxfan]

I did say I'd want Shields over Santana. Yet I also said the Angels should put in a young pitcher who could help in a year or two [that should have a higher ceiling that Santana]. That way, the Sox would be better in the short term, with the contracts for Dye, AJ and Mark showing the sox plan on competing right away. But the young pitcher would be help for the future as well. That way, both sides are covered. Santana has struggled for a few yrs now and IMO doesn't fit in the Cell with his FB tendencies.

 

The Angels are probably getting the short end of the deal as it is, giving either Santana or Shields; why would they then include another high ceiling arm as well?

 

They are taking on $20 million, getting older than the Sox, and are forced to resign Garland. Why would they take on $20 million that way when they can just spend $10 mill more, get ARod, and keep Shields, Figgins, and Kotchman, especially knowing how gunshy they have been about making trades in the past?