Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 My guess is we give up at least three out of Pacheco, West, Wylie, Wing, An, Bullard, and whoever else they asked Kenny to throw in there. How can you say this is a good trade if we don't know what we gave up? In the past Kenny would get out-negotiated by GM's; now he can get out-negotiated by an "acting" GM. If you were Cincy, why would you NOT ask for Pacheco? In fact, I bet they even asked for Reed. Why not ask for him? Kenny never says "no." He should have been a woman. I can just see it. Pacheco and Reed with another pitcher or two thrown in because Cincy wanted them. Is Sullivan better than Schoen? Yes. Therefore, Kenny probably gave up a lot more than he gave for Schoen. Sullivan is essentially a free agent at the end of the season. Although I think KW gets outmaneaved in some instances the only trade that has cost us is the Ritchie trade. We have Pachero because Colorado gave up on him and we got him for absolutely nothing, same thing for Damaso Marte. I love how many people on this site think we should be picking up players for nothing. The Giants gave up Ortiz and Livan Hernandez and although they running away with the NL West, these were very questionable moves. I remember reading that giving up Joe Valentine would be the end all for the White Sox, well Joe Valentine is now with the Reds and was a throw in for Jose Guillen. Somehow Neil Cotts was a nothing in the deal and now he is in our rotation and if he was traded this whole site would be up in arms. I think Alomar was a steal even if Royce Ring becomes the next Gramhe Lloyd. everyone wants us to get Bonds and A-Rod and what not but we are not suppossed to give up any minor leaguer that has any ability at all. Other than Kip Wells, whom I never really liked, KW has not cost us anything and somehow has a rotation and lineup that thas made me interested. In 2000 I did not think we had a chance becasue our starting pitching was pathetic. This year I am not sure what is going to happen but I like the team we put out there everyday. After this season teh A's will have none of the players from the Foulke trade, we will have all three, two of them on teh major league roster. Sounds like a good trade to me. Thank you for that post. You read my mind. I don't understand why some people can't get their heads around the concept that, no matter how highly rated they are, or how well they're doing in the minors, ALL prospects are gambles. Whenever you have a chance to pick up a PROVEN major league player for a pennant chase, you give up any minor leaguer you have to. There's a draft every year, you can always get more "prospects." Imagine what you could have gotten for Joe Borchard a year or two ago.. "No! Not our future savior Joe Borchard!" Well, Joe f***ing Borchard is impressing NOBODY at any level any more, and with each passing day he looks more and more like another over-hyped prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 It will not be West and most likely not Wylie. Both are on the DL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I doubt the Sox gave up more than an average prospect for Sullivan. He has a club option for 2004 and the Sox pick up half his remaining salary this year. Cincinatti is going nowhere, they traded Sullivan for financial relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Let me just say this, if you think Joe Borchard would be traded for Scott Sullivan, find a room and lock yourself in it and don't come out ever again. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Let me just say this, if you think Joe Borchard would be traded for Scott Sullivan, find a room and lock yourself in it and don't come out ever again. That is all. I would trade Joe Borchard for Sullivan, if Sullivan A) Wasn't coming off arm surgery, and B) had a longer-term contract. Borchard is a right-handed Dan Pasqua. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I dont know how that smiley got in that last post. It's a typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hold2dibber Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Let me just say this, if you think Joe Borchard would be traded for Scott Sullivan, find a room and lock yourself in it and don't come out ever again. That is all. I would trade Joe Borchard for Sullivan, if Sullivan A) Wasn't coming off arm surgery, and B) had a longer-term contract. Borchard is a right-handed Dan Pasqua. Borchard is a switch hitter. And while I am not too confident in Borchard's future, I can guarantee that he would bring more in trade than 35 games of Scott Sullivan. Borchard is NOT the PTBNL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Lopez Ghost (old) Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 1. No way the Reds want a high priced player, so you can forget Konerko or Koch. that's not gonna happen. 2. Even though a guy is on the disabled list today, that doesn't mean that he won't be the guy later. Both teams agree it's Joe Blow with the sprained ankle, then we Joe gets healthy, he can be the ptbnl. 3. I agree Borchard has been disappointing, but I don't see the White Sox forgetting the 5 million they already gave him. They'll keep him in the minors for six years in hopes of him finding his way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Let me also qualify my statement by saying that I wonly make this trade to fill a necessary hole in a pennant race. If the Sox are at .500, and 20 games out, then of course you don't trade Borchard for a middle reliever that's a free agent at the end of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I don't understand why some people can't get their heads around the concept that, no matter how highly rated they are, or how well they're doing in the minors, ALL prospects are gambles. Whenever you have a chance to pick up a PROVEN major league player for a pennant chase, you give up any minor leaguer you have to. You mean like Dontrelle Willis?? I get your point and it is valid to a point, but at the same time, you have to be somewhat judicious in who you are willing to give up out of your farm system. If you are always winning to give up your best to "go for it", you better damned well win it, because your system will be dry after that. If you are dealing from depth, you gotta hope you keep the guy that will pan out and trade the guy that doesn't. But yes, sometimes you have to give up a good player, I won't argue with you on that. In this situation, all the speculation in the world doesn't help. We'll just have to wait and see who the Sox gave up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 You mean like Dontrelle Willis?? I get your point and it is valid to a point, but at the same time, you have to be somewhat judicious in who you are willing to give up out of your farm system. If you are always winning to give up your best to "go for it", you better damned well win it, because your system will be dry after that. If you are dealing from depth, you gotta hope you keep the guy that will pan out and trade the guy that doesn't. But yes, sometimes you have to give up a good player, I won't argue with you on that. In this situation, all the speculation in the world doesn't help. We'll just have to wait and see who the Sox gave up. or Matt Guerrier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chosk8 Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I don't know how reliable this is, but it says Tim Hummel will be the PTBNL... http://cincypost.com/2003/08/22/reds08-22-2003.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I don't know how reliable this is, but it says Tim Hummel will be the PTBNL... http://cincypost.com/2003/08/22/reds08-22-2003.html Probably pretty reliable...... Except for their listing of Hummel's stats.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafacosta Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 For Tim Hummel? If that's true, great, great move by KW. Props to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 You mean like Dontrelle Willis?? I get your point and it is valid to a point, but at the same time, you have to be somewhat judicious in who you are willing to give up out of your farm system. If you are always winning to give up your best to "go for it", you better damned well win it, because your system will be dry after that. If you are dealing from depth, you gotta hope you keep the guy that will pan out and trade the guy that doesn't. But yes, sometimes you have to give up a good player, I won't argue with you on that. In this situation, all the speculation in the world doesn't help. We'll just have to wait and see who the Sox gave up. I agree, you don't call up the Reds and say, "We need Scott Sullivan, take whoever you want from our farm teams." The Cubs got a good starter(Clement) and at the time a good closer(Alfonseca) for Willis, who was a throw-in. Clement is a big reason the Cubs go to the playoffs if they make it, Willis only got called up because of injuries and the fact that the MArlins had nobody else to start. Willis still has only about 2 months of success in the majors. Lets see how long he keeps it up before we lambaste the Cubs for shipping him off. Although, it is fun lambasting the Cubs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafacosta Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 You mean like Dontrelle Willis?? I get your point and it is valid to a point, but at the same time, you have to be somewhat judicious in who you are willing to give up out of your farm system. If you are always winning to give up your best to "go for it", you better damned well win it, because your system will be dry after that. If you are dealing from depth, you gotta hope you keep the guy that will pan out and trade the guy that doesn't. But yes, sometimes you have to give up a good player, I won't argue with you on that. In this situation, all the speculation in the world doesn't help. We'll just have to wait and see who the Sox gave up. I agree, you don't call up the Reds and say, "We need Scott Sullivan, take whoever you want from our farm teams." The Cubs got a good starter(Clement) and at the time a good closer(Alfonseca) for Willis, who was a throw-in. Clement is a big reason the Cubs go to the playoffs if they make it, Willis only got called up because of injuries and the fact that the MArlins had nobody else to start. Willis still has only about 2 months of success in the majors. Lets see how long he keeps it up before we lambaste the Cubs for shipping him off. Although, it is fun lambasting the Cubs! Agreed. Willis is getting too many attention. He needs to prove more before he gets the 'next Cy Young' label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Ok, can anyone clarify his contract status for next year, in case we like him? Do the Sox have the first option to retain him for $3.1 mill or is he an outright free agent? Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSOX45 Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 I don't know how reliable this is, but it says Tim Hummel will be the PTBNL... http://cincypost.com/2003/08/22/reds08-22-2003.html Sounds good. I like Hummel, but we really needed Sullivan. Hummel would have only been a utility infielder anyway. Man Kenny must really like the name Scott, second time we've gotten a pitcher with the initials S.S. Who's next, Scot Shields? CWSOX45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Ok, can anyone clarify his contract status for next year, in case we like him? Do the Sox have the first option to retain him for $3.1 mill or is he an outright free agent? Forkit! Scott Sullivan RHP CIN Signed Feb 2001 - 3 years/$6.95M 2001: $1.7M 2002: $2.2M 2003: $2.8M 2004: Team option $3.1M or $0.25M buyout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 So if the player to be named later is Hummell, this looks pretty good at face value. We got a potentially solid right handed sidearmer... We apparently blocked KC from getting this guy... We traded Hummell for him, not several high ceiling prospects... We even have an option on him for next year. To quote someone else...I likee! Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsgdf Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 LOL - did Kenny tell them Hummell's hit 25 homers this year? Wishful thinking on that Cinci writer's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANDYTHECLOWN Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 As a Chicago sports fan, im pretty god damn tired of waiting for the future. I understand what you are saying, and i could be fine with it if we were the Yanks,or the Braves, but were not, were a franchise that hasnt won the show since any of us have been around. Im not going to say "f*** the future" cause i dont feel that way, but i do applaude KW for his efforts to try and give this team enough to work around a horse s*** manager. tony i feel your pain believe me i do.. but if it werent a pipe dream and someone was really tryin to put together something awesome here then we would just drop the whole ball and get guys like bonds et el... to play for us for one season to win it all....... patching up this s*** with a stitch here and some glue there isnt exactly throwing together a contending team........hell we wouldnt even be in any race right now if we were still considered the west division.........good thing our division sucks so badly its the only thing keepin us alive......just some food for thought...... Are you even a Sox fan, or just some big mouth who criticizes everything? Why don't YOU shut the f*** up with your constant negativity. I assume you would be happier with a non contending club so you have more to b**** about? YOU NEED TO GET LAID. :dips*** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Where's the love? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Do I have enough time to get lunch before the show starts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=mlb The White Sox are responsible for half of Sullivan's $596,000 salary. "The waiver wire complicates things, but you have to play the blocking game and make sure competitors don't get your behind," Williams added. "You play the game, and if someone is out there you need and can afford, you make the deal work from a match-up standpoint. We were able to match up today." ................... I'm sick of you guys dumping on SOX prospects when they're traded. Hummel is not left over junk. He has remained the heir to either 2B or SS for the better part of 3 yrs. The only reason he is not in a SOX uniform today is because Val coming off a solid year signed a home discount contract with the SOX, & Jimenez was once considered the highest prospect in the NYY organization. Frankly speaking, there were accomplished Major leaguers that kept Hummel for stayin the MLs. Here are his true numbers: .284A 126G 468AB 72R 133H 78RBI 25DB 3TP 15HR 45BB 82K 9SB 3CS 349OBP, 447 SLG. The numbers don't tell all of Hummel's success this year. That's not a 284A built on a mix of hot & cold months. It's built on consistency month after month. Led the Knights in hits (136), walks (51), sacrifice flies (9) , multi-hit games and ranked second in doubles (33). Rated by Baseball America prior to the 2003 season as the No. 17 prospect in Sox organization. Here's another stat many people over look R+RBI. Hummel led the Knights this year in R+RBI. Or what some call the $$$ stats. Hummel: 72+78 = 150 Miles: 73+44 = 117 Borch: 49+49 = 98 This is as good a trade for the Reds as it is for the SOX. They are picking up what amounts to the buy out price of Sullivans contract & receiving what amounts to the Knights best offensive player of the year in return. Considering there are less than 35 gms in the season & the Reds are going no where, that's a pretty good deal. The Reds clearly have no plans to pick up Sully's option, so unless the SOX do they will still have a chance to pick him up as a FA. Bottomline: It was a good move by KW but he gave up a talented player in return. 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.