NorthSideSox72 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Miami Herald still sees the Sox among the teams in the race for Cabrera, along with LAA, CHC and LAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allsox Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Makes complete sense for the Angels to get Cabrera and they have the young prospects the Marlins crave. No way can the Angels afford A-Rod and his 350 million ransom when they're not exactly turning a profit out there and Moreno's a smarter guy than that. If the Angels get Cabrera and Boston resigns Lowell, Bora$$ is going to have some 'plaining to do with A-Rod since the Dodgers will be the only team that can sign/want him. I just hope the Yankees keep to their word. Love to see Bora$$ be made into a complete fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:17 AM) The fact that he states that the Red Sox and Yankees are interested totally discredits this report. The Yanks have come out and said they won't deal multiple young arms for Miggy. Boston is trying to re-sign Lowell. I totally believe the Dodgers/Angels interest, but this all sounds like pure speculation on Rosenthal's part. No, they just stated they won't deal Joba for sure. I could see the Yankees eventually parting with Ian Kennedy to get a Miguel Cabrera, especially for what ARod is demanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa1334 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) Miami Herald still sees the Sox among the teams in the race for Cabrera, along with LAA, CHC and LAD. fields, maybe 2 picthcers,id do in a second. i dont see why the cubs would be listed as a possibility. one can only dream... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) No, they just stated they won't deal Joba for sure. I could see the Yankees eventually parting with Ian Kennedy to get a Miguel Cabrera, especially for what ARod is demanding. Yeah -- that public stuff is just posturing by the Yankees. Seriously, they won't deal Ian Kennedy to get Cabrera and keep him from BOS and LAA? That's ridiculous. I agree that they won't deal Joba, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Hughes moved for Cabrera. It's not like dealing for an older player -- Cabrera isn't even at the age where performance typically peaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Really, what would it take for us to get Cabrera? Everyone else to balk and Florida to say, "We're trading him, that's it"? "No, you can't have Billingsley and Kershaw and you certainly can't have both." Yankees: same. Red Sox: same. Angels: same. (I think the Angels should, instead of spending on 'A-Rah') But let's say all these teams balk. Then what? Then Florida has to say, "Okay, we'll take your Fields and your Gio and your DLS and your Broadway" right? And I don't see that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitlesswonder Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Really, what would it take for us to get Cabrera? Everyone else to balk and Florida to say, "We're trading him, that's it"? I pretty much agree. The Sox don't have the talent to outbid any other team (and I mean any) for Cabrera. But, I think Florida would take a package of Jenks, Danks, Fields, and DLS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Really, what would it take for us to get Cabrera? Everyone else to balk and Florida to say, "We're trading him, that's it"? "No, you can't have Billingsley and Kershaw and you certainly can't have both." Yankees: same. Red Sox: same. Angels: same. (I think the Angels should, instead of spending on 'A-Rah') But let's say all these teams balk. Then what? Then Florida has to say, "Okay, we'll take your Fields and your Gio and your DLS and your Broadway" right? And I don't see that happening. Our prospects arent nearly as good as what they are after from the other teams. From the Angels they could snag Wood and several other guys, from the yankees, some top young arms, and the Red Sox have some pieces, and the Dodgers have the best minor league pitcher. We just dont have enough to compete with these teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Yeah, that's sort of my point. EVERYONE else would have to refuse and even then, Florida would have to be willing to accept our, uh, leftovers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) Yeah, that's sort of my point. EVERYONE else would have to refuse and even then, Florida would have to be willing to accept our, uh, leftovers? If the option is between the White Sox's leftovers and having Cabrera walk in a year for 2 draft picks after costing you an additional $12 million you can't afford, don't you take the leftovers as opposed to starving? Honestly, I wouldn't think it's totally out of the question either. Look at the lack of deals the last few years at the trading deadline. This year we had Tex moving and that was it. Teams just aren't willing to trade anything resembling a prospect for an established guy because of the rapidly growing money difference. It's gotten incredibly extreme. It's actually possible that this is where the value in the market lies right now; trading a few prospects for veterans, because that's what no one else is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBetsy Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:28 PM) If the option is between the White Sox's leftovers and having Cabrera walk in a year for 2 draft picks after costing you an additional $12 million you can't afford, don't you take the leftovers as opposed to starving? Honestly, I wouldn't think it's totally out of the question either. Look at the lack of deals the last few years at the trading deadline. This year we had Tex moving and that was it. Teams just aren't willing to trade anything resembling a prospect for an established guy because of the rapidly growing money difference. It's gotten incredibly extreme. It's actually possible that this is where the value in the market lies right now; trading a few prospects for veterans, because that's what no one else is doing. I mean, that's a good analysis only if the Sox are the only team in the market for Cabrera. Sure, the White Sox leftovers are better than the 2 draft picks that you have to pay that money too. But as soon as another team is willing to pay more than that, it's irrelevant. It's a bidding situation, which will drive up Cabrera's trade value. Making a better trade offer is what got the Sox Freddy Garcia. Brian Cashman at the time was quoted as saying that he simply couldn't compete with the Sox's offer of giving up Jeremy Reed (who hit .400 in Birmingham in '03), Miguel Olivo (lefty crushing catcher with great arm), and Mike Morse (big, projectable SS/3b). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 And there has been talk of the Sox acquiring Florida Marlins third baseman Miguel Cabrera -- a move that could mean dealing Fields. Could someone other than Crede or Fields play third base for the Sox in 2008? ''Is there a chance? Hell, that's what we're all here for, to explore possibilities,'' Williams said. ''But I wouldn't bet on it.'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwolf68 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I don't think we have the goods to get Miggy, but he is the exact type of player I'd love to move on at whatever cost is reasonable. I HATE dealing for aging, on the downside of their career, one year too late players. We have several now we can't get rid of and KW is still obsessed with acquiring the best team he can...for the year 2002. However, Miggy isn't this type of player. He is young and gifted beyond belief. He would immediately become our best player BY A MILE. And he'd be young, so we wouldn't have to worry about quickly eroding talent (which will happen with almost every other player KW has a woody for, see Erstad) In the very minimum, this deal would cost us Fields and Gonzalez...however, that would only be the start. They would likely also want another prospect, be it DLS/Sweeney or whoever. And even then Im not so sure they couldn't get a much better package from the Dodgers or Angels. I want to get YOUNGER...with the case of Miggy we also GET BETTER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) If the option is between the White Sox's leftovers and having Cabrera walk in a year for 2 draft picks after costing you an additional $12 million you can't afford, don't you take the leftovers as opposed to starving? Honestly, I wouldn't think it's totally out of the question either. Look at the lack of deals the last few years at the trading deadline. This year we had Tex moving and that was it. Teams just aren't willing to trade anything resembling a prospect for an established guy because of the rapidly growing money difference. It's gotten incredibly extreme. It's actually possible that this is where the value in the market lies right now; trading a few prospects for veterans, because that's what no one else is doing. I shudder at saying that i agree with you! (Did it just get colder outside?) I am just wondering why everyone on here seems to think that it will take 5 or 6 players to get him in a trade? Trading Fields, Danks and 2 or 3 others would just be dumb. 4 prospects for Tex, 1 good, 1 mid and 2 low level guys. And that was thought to be high for Tex. Not 2 MLB potential starters and 2 or 3 top picks. Cabrera would be good for the Sox, but not that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chombi Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) I shudder at saying that i agree with you! (Did it just get colder outside?) I am just wondering why everyone on here seems to think that it will take 5 or 6 players to get him in a trade? Trading Fields, Danks and 2 or 3 others would just be dumb. 4 prospects for Tex, 1 good, 1 mid and 2 low level guys. And that was thought to be high for Tex. Not 2 MLB potential starters and 2 or 3 top picks. Cabrera would be good for the Sox, but not that good. Ok we will need to move more then any other team involved because we have by far the weakest package. The Dodgers are looking at 3 guys of several that we don't compare with Chad Billingsley, Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier, Andy LaRoche, Clayton Kershaw, Scott Elbert, and Jonathan Meloan... We don't have anyone on their level. Any of them. Same goes for the Yankees w/ Melky, Hughes, Joba, Kennedey and even Sanchez IMO. Boston, although I hate Jon lester as a player, it's the same thing. We don't an ellsbury, lester, Bard, Buchholz. The list goes on....What we have is a surplus of low B talent. A bunch of 3 starters and a decent 3rd baseman. We have no real A talent in that farm we have. As far as the Mark Teixeira...Salty was one of the top catching prospects in baseball and they chose him over Kotchman so that should explain the talent. Especially for all those who wouldn't deal him for Paulie because they know how talented Kotchman is. I dont think salty is an A talent but I'd give him a B/B+. He is a switch hitting catcher. If you move him b/c of defense, he still has the power to fit in at 1st. They got Elvis Andrus who is going to be a stud. Long-term, I'd say he is more of an impact player for them over Salty. He is easily a B+/A guy and would be our top prospect. We might have even just brought him up over Uribe if we had him. They got Matt Harrison. Not the guy he was supposed to be because of shoulder problems but even w/his shoulder problems...the Braves still had his as their #1 pitching prospect. He is probably going into last season at the same level as Gio. Maybe higher? They got Feliez who is a developmental project but still has rediculous stuff. If we would have that arm in our system, we'd be lucky. So The Rangers got a ton for Tex. If we think we have anything that could've matched that deal for him, we live in a dream world. So, you can only imagine what it might take to get Cabrera if they really hunker down and demand value. (sorry to re-do the whole Tex trade review but the "low level" guys implies they are nothing when they are actually extremely highly rated, especially Andrus.) Edited November 8, 2007 by Chombi and the Fungi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 (edited) It is still should not take 5 guys to get 1. Especially with pitchers supposedly being the premium. Edited November 8, 2007 by Alpha Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chombi Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 It is still should not take 5 guys to get 1. Especially with pitchers supposedly being the premium. It shouldn't but most organizations have a top-flight guy when they enter in these biddings. We really don't so it's unfortunate but true I think. I have said it a few times and haven't gotten much feed back. To me, Jenks would be our equivalent to anything anyone else has to offer. He is a young, proven closer. Would they bite on him or no? Jenks, Danks and Fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 It's just that the basic outline of a deal looks like impossibly bad for Florida. Rotoworld is throwing out Wood, Santana, and Mathis. They admit that it would be a great deal for LA, but how does that not get laughed out of the room? If the price really falls that far, I think the Marlins just kill the talks. But if they still want to trade him, you have to start wondering if it's possible. Meh...I think eventually the Yanks, Sawx, or Dodgers blink and offer a good package. But we'll see... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 01:45 PM) It shouldn't but most organizations have a top-flight guy when they enter in these biddings. We really don't so it's unfortunate but true I think. I have said it a few times and haven't gotten much feed back. To me, Jenks would be our equivalent to anything anyone else has to offer. He is a young, proven closer. Would they bite on him or no? Jenks, Danks and Fields. If we dealt Jenks we would have to go after Cordero to shore up that spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chombi Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Cordero I wouldn't mind. Maybe a one year deal for Gagne (Boras). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanne Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) If we dealt Jenks we would have to go after Cordero to shore up that spot. I don't know. I just feel that Jenks is probably the Sox most "untouchable"...him leaving would leave such a gaping hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Which is exactly why he's very "touchable". Kind of scary, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chombi Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I don't know. I just feel that Jenks is probably the Sox most "untouchable"...him leaving would leave such a gaping hole. I'd be ok w/ that gaping hole if it meant we landed a HOF bat. I don't think Jenks is going to turn into Rivera or Hoffman. Also, am I the only one concerned about Jenks arm? Doesnt he have like a screw holding it together or something? We all have voiced are complaint on Miggy's "weight problem" but I am much more concerned w/ Bobby's. I have no problem keeping Jenksy. I love the Michelin man. I do have my concerns with him and they outweigh Miggy's, both figuratively and literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 QUOTE(Chombi and the Fungi @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 09:40 PM) I'd be ok w/ that gaping hole if it meant we landed a HOF bat. I don't think Jenks is going to turn into Rivera or Hoffman. Also, am I the only one concerned about Jenks arm? Doesnt he have like a screw holding it together or something? We all have voiced are complaint on Miggy's "weight problem" but I am much more concerned w/ Bobby's. I have no problem keeping Jenksy. I love the Michelin man. I do have my concerns with him and they outweigh Miggy's, both figuratively and literally. No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 How come Tony Gwynn didn't get slammed for being a fat man? 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.