DBAHO Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) Thornton would make a solid closer. They could sign Grudz for cheap to play 2B. I don't know about Thornton. He's got the stuff, but I don't know if he's up to it mentally. I'd probably look at a closer such as Hoffman to be honest (if you could get him for around $6M), and then turn to closer's job over to Poreda from 2010. The Sox should look into signing a guy like Otsuka or Cordero, who could close down the line also, if they fully recover from injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) What does that mean? That Swisher is a 34% better hitter than Uribe? He should be. Uribe is a fringe starting SS while Swisher is supposed to be a corner OF/1B. I don't care what anyone says, Nick Swisher had one year that is the type of year you want from a corner OF/1B. Everything else was sub-par. I just compated Uribe and Swish because their names were tied together in another post. Swisher was an OBP guy, something the Sox were horrible at in '07, Swisher didn't produce this year, but his OBP was still OK. He filled a need in the batting order. The Sox still led the league in HRs with Swish as a corner and 1b player. Sometimes you can break traditional roles if it's being madeup in other places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 So would you have rathered kept Garland for 2008, and left Uribe to be the starting SS (and then who would have played 2B from opening day)? Strawman. No, you trade Garland for a package of younger players, or a REAL CF. Just don't trade a SP rental for a SS rental when you already had an option there (with similar defense and OPS but cheaper and a better attitude.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (DBAHO @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) Ok so the Sox do that. Do they then turn 2B over to a Getz/Nix platoon, and either A - Give the closer's job to Thornton B - Go out and sign a FA closer. Fuentes seems like a good candidate for the Mets. Not sure why'd they give up one of the most valuable players in the majors for anything less than a king's ransom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:45 PM) No, Garland was getting traded all along. It's disappointing that the person we got for him won't be around in 2009. I don't think any of this would have thought that would be the case around this team last year. But this is the thing. When we traded Garcia, KW was widely panned for only getting 2 prospects, 1 who people thought was a bust, and one who was one of our best pitching prospects. Instead, after a 72 win season, KW traded Garland for someone he thought could help the team in 2008, and now he's getting panned for it, even though OC will get more compensation back than Garland would if we would have kept him. It's a no win situation really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 (edited) So we might be seeing a platoon at 2b and 3b, and a reasonably large pick-up for CF. I also think we'll see a six-year deal for the cuban kid, and we'll be fast-tracking not only Beckham, but also Danks 2. Edited November 13, 2008 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) Strawman. No, you trade Garland for a package of younger players, or a REAL CF. Just don't trade a SP rental for a SS rental when you already had an option there (with similar defense and OPS but cheaper and a better attitude.) In a perfect world yes, but Garland was also going into a FA year. We don't know what KW was offered for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) Fuentes seems like a good candidate for the Mets. Not sure why'd they give up one of the most valuable players in the majors for anything less than a king's ransom. Exactly, especially when he's available for 4/40. I don't know why Minaya would be after Jenks to be honest, especially considering what he would have to give up to get him. And say what you will about Bobby's declining K rate, but the guy has got it done for 3 straight seasons, and his ERA is always good. He keeps the ball in the park, and let's the defense do the work behind him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 i really want to go on a bunch of yankees boards and post "yankees get swisher and TEIXEIRA" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) Strawman. No, you trade Garland for a package of younger players, or a REAL CF. Just don't trade a SP rental for a SS rental when you already had an option there (with similar defense and OPS but cheaper and a better attitude.) Uribe was declining horribly offensively in 2007 though (OBP was only around .270 IIRC). There was no way I was willing to give him another shot as a starter. Not saying I agree with the move, but I think KW had to make one there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (dww879 @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 09:39 PM) Konerko, Thome or Dye all should have been traded instead of Swisher no way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 KW says that Marquez will have a shot at the rotation next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 So in 2009, our lineup could be: C - Pierzynski 1B - Konerko 2B - Beckham 3B - Viciendo SS - Ramirez RF - Quentin/? CF - ? LF - Quentin/? Not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) So in 2009, our lineup could be: C - Pierzynski 1B - Konerko 2B - Beckham 3B - Viciendo SS - Ramirez RF - Quentin/? CF - ? LF - Quentin/? Not bad. That's more like our 2010 lineup. Viciendo, even if he is signed, isn't starting off in the big leagues at age 19. He just isn't. And Dye is still in the OF for now. And Anderson is still in CF, for now. And Beckham is going to still get another year in the minors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 KW says that Marquez will have a shot at the rotation next season. Vazquez to go before we trade for Taveras or some other CF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxbrian Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 How was Betemit's defense when he did play SS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (DBAHO @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:49 PM) Exactly, especially when he's available for 4/40. I don't know why Minaya would be after Jenks to be honest, especially considering what he would have to give up to get him. And say what you will about Bobby's declining K rate, but the guy has got it done for 3 straight seasons, and his ERA is always good. He keeps the ball in the park, and let's the defense do the work behind him. A huge screw, declining k rate, and the fact that Bobby doesn't dominate like he did when he first came up are great reasons for concern. I'm a huge fan of his, but he can't throw 101 like he used to(before the Sox), and nor can he simply just overpower hitters like he used to(see Game 1 of World Series against Houston when he had Bagwell on his knees). He makes things way more than interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daa84 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 theres no chance we give a starting gig to a rookie who hasn't played above A ball, or a 19 year old who hasnt ever played on american soil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) uh...so how is that different from what I said? Sorry, I quoted the wrong post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 AS of now, next year is looking like C AJ 1b Konerko 2B Getz/NIX 3B Fields/Betemit SS Missle Rf Dye Cf Anderson Lf Q DH Thome Don't call me out on this, because i think we'll get a CF (not TAVERAS!) But in two years it gets really juicy. We're talking Allen, Beckham, Danks 2, Viciedo, Armstrong and maybe even Shelby on the bench, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 KW, trying to build a team of spanish speaking players one trade at a time. I kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paint it Black Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:47 PM) Strawman. No, you trade Garland for a package of younger players, or a REAL CF. Just don't trade a SP rental for a SS rental when you already had an option there (with similar defense and OPS but cheaper and a better attitude.) It is possible that teams knew Garland really wasn't that good. He took what he could get for Garland, and the deal still made sense. OC works because he was the bridge to get Alexei to short (which should happen IMO). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 04:53 PM) Nope, not bad. Terrible. I should've put start in there. No, we're not going to win a WS with that, but as soon as you plugin LF and CF, things look mighty bright. DH will probably be new too. Those INF spots usually gave the Sox trouble. (Crede couldn't hit and when he did, he couldn't defend, Uribe is the tazmanian devil, willie harris stinks, Konerko has no range). I mean, if it works out like it projects to work out, the Sox have a very very nice INF. C is the only spot I think KW will have trouble replacing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa1334 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 05:55 PM) AS of now, next year is looking like C AJ 1b Konerko 2B Getz/NIX 3B Fields/Betemit SS Missle Rf Dye Cf Anderson Lf Q DH Thome thank god for that . i would love to be able to get freddy and dejesus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Nov 13, 2008 -> 10:55 PM) AS of now, next year is looking like C AJ 1b Konerko 2B Getz/NIX 3B Fields/Betemit SS Missle Rf Dye Cf Anderson Lf Q DH Thome Don't call me out on this, because i think we'll get a CF (not TAVERAS!) But in two years it gets really juicy. We're talking Allen, Beckham, Danks 2, Viciedo, Armstrong and maybe even Shelby on the bench, Juicy good ! ? 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.