Something to consider on the potential trade front.

[SoxPride56]

The day Buerhle is dealt is the day i will truly be heartbroken as a Sox fan. He is seriously the only guy i could say that about in my 20+ years of being a fan.

Agreed, 100%

[nickofypres]

So since it appears the consensus here is that you trade Hudson before Buerhle, and he has more trade value anyways, who are some players we should be targeting to acquire for him?

 

Ideas?

 

Brett Gardner?

 

Edited October 16, 2009 by whitesox901

[iamshack]

Brett Gardner?

 

I would hope we aim higher than Brett Gardner if Hudson is in the discussion...

[nickofypres]

I wasn't sure how well he may or not may of performed. I just remember that he was hyped by New York a year or two ago.

[LittleHurt05]

I dont want to see Buehrle traded at all, but I havent even seen discussed which teams would even want to trade for him. He's a #2/#3 pitcher with 2 years/$28 mil left which is lot, especially in todays times. I dont think he really is trade bait now anyway, so lets enjoy the fact that we have Peavy/Danks/Floyd in front of him and lets win another WS.

[greg775]

Why would Danks and Floyd be ahead of Mark? Peavy yes. Those other 2 guys have not passed Mark just yet.

[Quin]

If we traded Buehrle (or Paulie) I'd cry. He's the heart of the franchise.

 

Plus, you're not getting a great return for him Post-Perfection.

[kitekrazy]

Why would Danks and Floyd be ahead of Mark? Peavy yes. Those other 2 guys have not passed Mark just yet.

 

They want to cut down on Mark's innings.

[soxfan-kwman]

Pierre is a dumb ball player. Too many mental mistakes.

Plus Scotty Pods arm is like Jesse Barfield's compared to Juan Pierre. 5 Million for Juan Pierre would be way to much.

[longshot7]

They want to cut down on Mark's innings.

 

Moving a guy down from #1 to #4 is not going to do that significantly.

[knightni]

Floyd should be the #1 trade piece in the Spring if Hudson is lights out..

 

 

[knightni]

Basing long term plans on spring stats should not be a the teams strategy.

True, but trading Buehrle is the third rail and Danks is untouchable. Peavy is going nowhere and Garcia has no value.

 

Floyd's the only guy who has value and is expendable. He has a decent contract, he's a righty, and he is under 30.

 

 

[simba43]

How about a trade for josh hamilton ? Yeah theres risk but alot of good also we could maybe get him fairly cheap after a down year and with the fact the rangers have alot of young OFS borbon boggs murphy cruz . possibly resigning marlon byrd so he could be had for a couple of decent prospects and could provide us with a very good OF in right an provide lefthanded power if he can stay healthy. Just a thought what do any of you think ?

Edited October 17, 2009 by 1977 sox fan

[simba43]

I would only trade buehrle if we were getting proven major league talent in return and if the trade would make us better . I wouldnt trade him for prospects .But there are no players on this team i feel are untouchable even beckham for the right player or players i trade him .

[Chisoxfn]

Floyd should be the #1 trade piece in the Spring if Hudson is lights out..

Why the heck would the Sox trade a guy that is cheap, has posted back to back above average seasons, and is only getting better (as evidenced by his dominant May-Hip Injury). IT was be absolutely stupid to trade Gavin Floyd...stupid.

 

Another team would have to blow the Sox out of the water to get Floyd and I don't see that happening. Not to mention, the Sox need to trade guys that make a lot of money or are due to make a lot of money. Floyd is a f***ing bargain.

 

[Chisoxfn]

True, but trading Buehrle is the third rail and Danks is untouchable. Peavy is going nowhere and Garcia has no value.

 

Floyd's the only guy who has value and is expendable. He has a decent contract, he's a righty, and he is under 30.

Considering Floyd has been better than Buehrle, imo, the past two years, I'd much rather move Buehrle than Floyd. The order goes something like this: Peavy, Floyd, Danks (you can interchange Danks/Floyd...but everyone here knows about my man-crush on Floyd...although Danks is real real good too). Buehrle is trade-able, although I highly doubt the Sox would get the value for him in a trade.

 

I see Floyd and Ramirez getting talked about in trade proposals. Both are dirt cheap players with plenty of upside and both have been pretty good (Floyd being the better of the too). Ramirez was in his first full year at short, he'll be much better next year.

 

If the Sox want to retool drastically, they'll have to move some in the group of: Linebrink, Jenks, Konerko, Buehrle.

 

All guys that make a lot of money and aren't stars. Buehrle is a borderline star and I f***ing love him, but of all our starters he's the most expandable because of his salary and the fact that he's said he's retiring in two years. Peavy is a bonafide ace and Danks/Floyd are young mid of the rotation starters with #2 potential.

 

I am not advocating we deal Buehrle, but if someone were to offer 2 top 50 prospects (one being a top 25 prospect), I'd think long and hard about it because 2 major league ready top 50 prospects and 14 million could be very very valuable to a team that has quite a few holes. The problem is you might have opened up a hole in the rotation, however, there is always Jon Garland who you could slide in as a #5 (while letting Huddy develop and seeing what Garcia can do).

[nickofypres]

I can't believe some of you. We finally have a 2005-esq 1-4 rotation and you want to trade that away!?!?! I know its a long shot, but I see Peavy, Danks and Floyd as the next Smoltz, Maddux and Glavine.

 

And as for trading Ramirez, he's young and cheap. Why the hell would we move him?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

For those who think Buehrle is overpaid/makes too much money, here is a list of contracts for the other starters in baseball with Buerhle-esque high contracts who are guaranteed money beyond 2009. I am omitting arb and pre-arb players as well as those players who signed security deals which took them out of arbitration because it would be very unfair to compare Buehrle's extension with Cliff Lee's deal or Greinke's deal for example. The only arb-negating security contracts I've put on are the ones that were supposed to take the player well into a FA period.

 

Roy Halladay 09:$14.25M, 10:$15.75M

Roy Oswalt 09:$14M, 10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$16M club option ($2M buyout)

Derek Lowe 09:$15M, 10:$15M, 11:$15M, 12:$15M

Javier Vazquez 09:$11.5M, 10:$11.5M

Jeff Suppan 09:$12.5M, 10:$12.5M 11:$12.75M club option ($2M buyout)

Chris Carpenter 09:$14M, 10:$14.5M, 11:$15M, 12:$15M club option ($1M buyout)

Kyle Lohse 09:$7.125M, 10:$8.875M, 11:$11.875M, 12:$11.875M

Carlos Zambrano 09:$17.75M, 10:$17.875M, 11:$17.875M, 12:$18M, 13:$19.25M vesting player option

Ryan Dempster 09:$8M, 10:$12.5M, 11:$13.5M, 12:$14M player option

Ted Lily 09:$12M, 10:$12M

Dan Haren 09:$7.5M, 10:$8.25M, 11:$12.75M, 12:$12.75M, 13:$15.5M club option ($3.5M buyout)

Vicente Padilla 09:$12M, 10:$12M club option ($1.75M buyout) - Texas ate this

Barry Zito 09:$18.5M, 10:$18.5M, 11:$18.5M, 12:$19M, 13:$20M, 14:$18M club option ($7M buyout)

Jake Westbrook 09:$10M, 10:$11M

Carlos Silva 09:$11M, 10:$11.5M, 11:$11.5M, 12:$12M mutual option ($2M buyout)

Johan Santana 09:$20M, 10:$21M, 11:$22.5M, 12:$24M, 13:$25.5M, 14:$25M club option ($5.5M buyout)

Oliver Perez 09:$12M, 10:$12M, 11:$12M

Kevin Millwood 09:$11M, 10:$12M

Aaron Harang 09:$11M, 10:$12.5M, 11:$12.75M ($2M buyout)

Bronson Arroyo 09:$9.5M, 10:$11M, 11:$11M club option ($2M buyout)

Josh Beckett 09:$10.5M, 10:$12M club option ($2M buyout)

Daisuke Matsuzaka 10:$8M, 11:$10M, 12:$10M (add the $51M negotiating fee and it doesn't look so cheap)

Aaron Cook 09:$8.75M, 10:$9M, 11:$9.25M, 12:$11M mutual option ($0.5M buyout)

Gil Meche 09:$11M, 10:$12M, 11:$12M

Dontrelle Willis 09:$10M, 10:$12M

Nate Robertson 09:$7M, 10:$10M

Jeremy Bonderman 09:$12.5M, 10:$12.5M

Jake Peavy 09:$8M 10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$17M, 13:$22M club option ($4M buyout)

CC Sabathia 09:$14M, 10:$23M 11:$23M 12:$23M 13:$23M 14:$23M 15:$23M

AJ Burnett 09:$16.5M 10:$16.5M 11:$16.5M 12:$16.5M 13:$16.5M

Compare all these contracts to Mark Buehrle's contract: 09:$14M, 10:$14M, 11:$14M

 

The bolded and underlined names (Beckett, Halladay, and Haren) are all definitely better bargains than Buehrle.

 

The bolded, italicized names could be similar bargains or better:

Oswalt - ace stuff, but I wouldn't expect him to put up better numbers in the Cell than Mark. Buehrle is cheaper and a safer bet IMO. I'd rather have Mark.

Javy - ace stuff, typical success when the pressure is off. I don't buy it. I'd much rather have Mark.

Carpenter - if he stays healthy then he's a better bargain than Mark.

Zambrano - paid like an ace but plays like a #3. I'd rather have Mark.

Santana - if he comes back healthy and stays that way then he's definitely the better pitcher, but that contract is enormous and he's owed $93M through 2014 before the buyout option comes around. I'd rather have Mark.

Matsuzaka - that deal is actually more like 10:$16M+, 11:$18M+, 12:$18M+ when you add the negotiating fee to it. If you don't consider that fee then the deal is better than Mark's, but when you do, I'd rather have the guy who doesn't walk the world and who didn't miss a ton of time due to injury this year. I'd rather have Mark, again, because you simply cannot ignore that fee.

Peavy - If he's healthy over that span then he should be a better deal than Mark, at least through 2012.

Sabathia - same thing as Santana. If he's healthy and stays that way then he's the better pitcher, but if we had that contract and CC got hurt then our club would be crippled for years. I'd rather have Mark because CC's deal is just way too dangerous.

Burnett - Javy with more heat and an injury history. No f***ing thanks. I'd rather have Mark and bet that Burnett isn't going to suddenly become Mr. Consistency and evolve into the perennial Cy Young candidate he was supposed to become back when he was in Florida.

 

There are 32 pitchers on that list including Buehrle. The only players on that entire list whom I would say are or will be better bargains than Mark are Beckett, Halladay, Haren, Carpenter, and Peavy. In my mind, Mark's deal is the 6th best deal out of that group of 32. He is not overpaid and his salary is not hurting our chances of improving the ballclub. I believe Buehrle's deal is actually below market value and if Buehrle was free agent this offseason he'd get a better deal than he currently has with us. John Lackey reportedly turned down $15M per over 4 years from the Angels and is seeking more than that. Given Lackey's injuries, I'd also rather have Mark's deal over what Lackey will get.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kyyle23]

How about a trade for josh hamilton ? Yeah theres risk but alot of good also we could maybe get him fairly cheap after a down year and with the fact the rangers have alot of young OFS borbon boggs murphy cruz . possibly resigning marlon byrd so he could be had for a couple of decent prospects and could provide us with a very good OF in right an provide lefthanded power if he can stay healthy. Just a thought what do any of you think ?

 

Honestly, WHY would Texas trade Hamilton at this point? The kid has been a revelation, even if he was injured last year for a while. You have to ask yourself if you were the guy in charge of Texas, why would you trade away someone as good as Hamilton? You cant just throw names out there and say "why dont we trade for this guy?" without thinking about the other teams position

 

 

I would only trade buehrle if we were getting proven major league talent in return and if the trade would make us better . I wouldnt trade him for prospects .

 

and this kind of thinking is what got JP Ricciardi fired. Trades are risks by both sides(most of the time), and they are calculated risks. Sometimes teams trade away players who are very close to breaking out for high ceiling, cant miss prospects, sometimes underachieving players are traded for other underachievers, but no matter what the teams are both trying to make themselves better. You cannot automatically assume that the trade you are going to make will make your team better, although that is what you are aiming for. Sometimes it is a wash(swisher), sometimes it is a look to the future(Peavy and Rios).

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Considering Floyd has been better than Buehrle, imo, the past two years, I'd much rather move Buehrle than Floyd. The order goes something like this: Peavy, Floyd, Danks (you can interchange Danks/Floyd...but everyone here knows about my man-crush on Floyd...although Danks is real real good too). Buehrle is trade-able, although I highly doubt the Sox would get the value for him in a trade.

 

I agree with this and would rather move Buehrle than Floyd right now. But for me, that's like saying I'd rather rip out my toenails with a pair of pliers than cut off my foot with a hacksaw. The bolded part I agree with completely.

 

I see Floyd and Ramirez getting talked about in trade proposals. Both are dirt cheap players with plenty of upside and both have been pretty good (Floyd being the better of the too). Ramirez was in his first full year at short, he'll be much better next year.

 

Very much agree. Ramirez is very underrated here. He had a bad offensive second half after a horrid start to the season at the plate. He's made quite a few mental errors and he's lacked hussle on the basepaths at times (remember how he took that pop-up for granted, over-ran the bag, then got called out because he wasn't paying attention?) but all things considered, he still has great upside, he did improve at short defensively over the year, and his production faaaaaar outweighs his contract and will continue to do so for the next few years.

 

If the Sox want to retool drastically, they'll have to move some in the group of: Linebrink, Jenks, Konerko, Buehrle.

 

Take Mark out of that group and I agree.

 

I say we should shop Jenks and try to get either a couple prospects and salary relief or a Major League player who fills a hole and makes less than Jenks does.

 

The Mets want power at 1B and don't want to give up talent to get it, and they are looking at taking on a contract, so I think we should see if they will take Paulie. If we could get out of Paulie's entire deal then we should let him go without asking for anything at all in return.

 

We should shop Linebrink around to every team in the league and try to find someone that will take a good portion of his salary, hopefully in exchange for a smaller bad contract so we don't have to straight eat salary. If we could save some money there then great.

 

But those are the players we should look to cut payroll with, not Buehrle. If we can come up with enough payroll space to sign a couple of risky free agents by moving those contracts then fine, but the last thing we should do is move our good contracts (and I believe that Buehrle is definitely a good contract) without trying as hard as possible to get out of our not-so-good contracts.

 

All guys that make a lot of money and aren't stars. Buehrle is a borderline star and I f***ing love him, but of all our starters he's the most expandable because of his salary and the fact that he's said he's retiring in two years. Peavy is a bonafide ace and Danks/Floyd are young mid of the rotation starters with #2 potential.

 

This "Mark is going to retire after his contract" stuff is overblown and sounds eerily similar to the "Mark is going to leave and sign with the Cardinals" bulls*** we all heard before he signed an extension with us. The 2011-12 offseason is a long ways away and people change their minds all the time.

 

I bet Mark doesn't retire, and even if he does, why wouldn't we want him to retire in a Sox uniform? We'd actually rather have a couple of prospects than retire Mark Buehrle in a Sox uniform? How petty is that? We could do more for our farm system than a Buehrle trade would by simply adding another $3M or so to the amateur draft or international free agency budget, maybe not even that much. We probably could have gotten Goodwin, Jones, and Morgado for around that price, and what are the odds a Buehrle trade brings back that kind of talent? I don't think they're all that high.

 

I am not advocating we deal Buehrle, but if someone were to offer 2 top 50 prospects (one being a top 25 prospect), I'd think long and hard about it because 2 major league ready top 50 prospects and 14 million could be very very valuable to a team that has quite a few holes. The problem is you might have opened up a hole in the rotation, however, there is always Jon Garland who you could slide in as a #5 (while letting Huddy develop and seeing what Garcia can do).

 

If we get MLB-ready prospects then the odds are they're going to - at the very least - suck some ass while they learn to play at the Major League level. This isn't going to help us contend in 2010 barring a Beckham-like miracle.

 

I understand the thinking is that Sox could move Buehrle for prospects while freeing up cash to spend elsewhere.

 

Here's the problem. Let's say they do this and they give like 2/$22 to Abreu (because on the open market that's a realistic figure for him IMO) and sign a reliever or whatever with the remaining amount. I know the idea is that, in this example, the difference between Hudson and Buehrle is more than made up by the addition of Abreu's bat at DH and the reliever to the bullpen, and the prospects are just the gravy on top.

 

I would counter that by saying, 1) Hudson is being drastically overrated, and if we relied upon him as a starter, he should be viewed as a #5 in 2010 as opposed to a #2/#3 like Buehrle, so the difference between the two is enormous; 2) Abreu would be paid for his age 36-37 seasons which means he is a greater risk than Buerhle for close to the same salary, and even if Abreu is healthy he will *not* make up the difference between Buehrle and Hudson; and 3) the reliever is at best a shot in the dark, because the really good ones that we'd be able to put considerable, almost Buehrle-like faith in will get closer jobs that pay them well over the $2-3M we could offer.

 

There are all kinds of player combinations that you can put together with Buehrle's salary, but I'd still argue the same basic points. The bats out there that we can reasonably afford (not Jason Bay, not Matt Holliday) are all mostly old players (Abreu, Matsui, Damon, etc.) who will be looking for guaranteed money as they decline. Others out there are reclamation projects (a non-tendered Coco Crisp or Jeremy Hermida for example). Others are injury risks (like Nick Johnson). No matter what, we would have to compete against *every other interested team* in order to sign them, meaning we would have to pay full market value to sign a player who we will *not* be as confident in as Buehrle, who I believe is on a deal that is still below market value. This means we are potentially looking at trading one good contract for 1-2 bad contracts. Not smart at all IMO.

 

However, it does make sense to take those risks if you can clear up salary by moving some combination of Jenks/Paulie/Linebrink, because in that group we are giving somewhere around $25M to a 1B who would be expected to produce at around a league average or just above pace for 1B, plus a reliever who falls apart in the second half, and a closer who at this point doesn't look a whole lot better than Thornton. All three of those players are pretty much replaceable for less than their contracts pay them.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Honestly, WHY would Texas trade Hamilton at this point? The kid has been a revelation, even if he was injured last year for a while. You have to ask yourself if you were the guy in charge of Texas, why would you trade away someone as good as Hamilton? You cant just throw names out there and say "why dont we trade for this guy?" without thinking about the other teams position

 

 

 

 

and this kind of thinking is what got JP Ricciardi fired. Trades are risks by both sides(most of the time), and they are calculated risks. Sometimes teams trade away players who are very close to breaking out for high ceiling, cant miss prospects, sometimes underachieving players are traded for other underachievers, but no matter what the teams are both trying to make themselves better. You cannot automatically assume that the trade you are going to make will make your team better, although that is what you are aiming for. Sometimes it is a wash(swisher), sometimes it is a look to the future(Peavy and Rios).

What he is saying is smart baseball management if you're a team like the Sox. Unlike the Blue Jays, the Sox do not NEED to dump a good player's salary in order to pay a bad player to suck.

 

What got JP Ricciardi fired was giving out massive contracts to several players, with Vernon Wells and BJ Ryan being the most devastating ones. Ricciardi didn't get fired because he didn't trade Halladay. The Halladay situation only came up because the Blue Jays spent a ton of money on a team that was performing so poorly dollar-for-dollar that they were forced to cut payroll because the fans weren't showing up.

 

The Blue Jays because of their commitments to bad players do *not* have a choice to try to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees. If they did then they would target the kind of players the poster was talking about, proven talent that makes the team better. The Jays are forced to target prospects simply because they will not be able to compete again until a lot of these horrible deals are off their books.

 

I agree though that Ricciardi SHOULD have traded Halladay, but trade or not trade, that franchise was already screwed.

[lostfan]

Today's vocabulary lesson for the day: "Brevity."

[iamshack]

Mark's deal probably is below-market value for a pitcher of his durability and track record. What is happening is we have the good fortune of having Floyd and Danks, which is making what we pay Mark look like a bit much when you compare his performance against the other two.

 

The emergence of Hudson is also beginnng to make it appear as though we have a cheap in-house replacement for Mark.

 

The addition of Peavy and Rios have also made what appeared to be a year where we would have a lot of financial flexibility be one where we no longer do.

 

Therefore, people are looking for ways to improve the ballclub by trading away our most expendable assets and Mark's salary is making him a target.

 

In the grand scheme of things, however, Mark is probably one of the more integral parts of the whole if indeed we are to be successful.

 

The bottom line is we do have a very strong core, one that I would argue will be one of the stronger and more complete cores coming into the offseason. If we can find some basic pieces to get us rolling in the first half of the season, I think we'll be in good shape to add the pieces necessary before the trade deadline.

[Kyyle23]

What he is saying is smart baseball management if you're a team like the Sox. Unlike the Blue Jays, the Sox do not NEED to dump a good player's salary in order to pay a bad player to suck.

 

What got JP Ricciardi fired was giving out massive contracts to several players, with Vernon Wells and BJ Ryan being the most devastating ones. Ricciardi didn't get fired because he didn't trade Halladay. The Halladay situation only came up because the Blue Jays spent a ton of money on a team that was performing so poorly dollar-for-dollar that they were forced to cut payroll because the fans weren't showing up.

 

The Blue Jays because of their commitments to bad players do *not* have a choice to try to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees. If they did then they would target the kind of players the poster was talking about, proven talent that makes the team better. The Jays are forced to target prospects simply because they will not be able to compete again until a lot of these horrible deals are off their books.

 

I agree though that Ricciardi SHOULD have traded Halladay, but trade or not trade, that franchise was already screwed.

 

 

It was but a small example of my point. The larger focus was "why would Texas trade away their star? What is the point?" and then "I wouldnt trade X player unless, and only if, the team became better".

 

Many things JP did got him fired, I totally agree. This thinking, in my opinion, was part of it.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Today's vocabulary lesson for the day: "Brevity."

Tell that to whoever wrote the latest revision of the Illinois Fire Code. While my posts are always long as hell, they are similarly important.