Chisoxfn

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:43 PM) I'd imagine a salary floor would be more likely to pass within the union than a cap. Force Tampa, Kansas City, whichever other teams hold low payrolls to spend atleast 50 million. I agree, I think this would be the 1st step and the owners would be taking a serious risk in this. They'd essentially have to agree to a floor with the hopes that when the bargainin agreement came up 4 years later (or whenever the agreement would end) that they would look at it and than come up with a max number as well (I don't think the owners would risk this).

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) I wouldn't mind it. You dont' even need to set it at $70 million. $100 million is fine. Obviously, the luxury tax isn't helping lower market teams very much. Something is wrong with baseball when the Yankees outfield is paid more than the entire Devil Rays roster. I'd set the max around 100 mill, but the min would be somewhere pretty high as well (something like over a 3 year period your avg payroll must be a certain amt. The problem is sometimes you can put together a very winning team at a lower payroll because you have prospects at good values. I dont' think teams should necessarily be punished for that. At the same time players need to know that if there was a salary cap, teams couldn't just sit way below it still. The cap works in the NFL because teams are almost always spending roughly the same amount.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) Now if you were Jon, would you rather play on a Championship team for $8 million a year, or a losing team willing to pay you $10-11 million a year? Considering the winning team wouldn't offer him more than 4 years (and I don't know if they'd go to that point) and the losing team would offer him at least 5, possibly 6. I'd take the extra 12 million over the 4 year deal, plus your guaranteed another 10-11 mill for 1 or 2 extra seasons (which would be 24 million).

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) 1st one looks about even, but the Orioles want a marquee name to replace Tejada. Offer 2 is a pipedream for the Cubs. I guess Jim Hendry isn't done trying to rip off teams. Are you kidding me. Offer 2 is such the stronger package.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) Orioles will laugh at offer A, and offer B would be a terrible trade for the Cubs. Agreed. Although I don't see the O's dealing Bedard in any deal with the Cubs (imo).

QUOTE(VAfan @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) I can't seem to copy their stat lines over from ESPN, but Brazoban's ERA was 5.33 over 72 innings with 6 blown saves, 32 walks, and a WHIP of 1.40. Broxton's line was worse: 13 innings, 5.93 ERA, 12 walks, 1.83 WHIP, 1 blown save. Luis Vizcaino, by comparison, pitched 70 innings, posted a 3.73 ERA, walked 29 guys with a WHIP of 1.47, and blew only 3 saves. So other than the fact that you think these guys arms are great, it looks like Vizcaino performed quite a bit better than both last year. Sure, Brazoban and Broxton are both quite a bit younger than Vizcaino, but that may or may translate into performance next year or beyond. I'd rather have a 6-deep dominant rotation than to be worried all year that we're screwed if any of our starters go down. Especially with 3 of them putting in extra innings in the World Baseball Classic. (Remember Buehrle's foot injury at the end of spring training last year? Luckily, it wasn't anything.) Look at Broxton's periphs. The guy was fresh into AA and he's possibly the best closer prospect in the minors right now. As far as Brazoban goes, teams would love to have him. He hit a funk when he lost his closers role, but he has had success at the major league level. The problem was he got rushed into the closers spot. And in Elbert we are getting a guy that would be our top pitching prospect along with Broadway.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) This is exactly the type of deal he's trying to make. I'd be excited over it and if the relievers panned out it would give the Sox two guys that they'd have control over for quite a few more years and thats really key if you want to have a good bullpen (its really hard to keep your bullpen strong via FA, imo).

Ok lets presume Kenny wants two relievers in a deal: Elbert or another prospect from the Dodgers, Broxton, and Brazoban. Brazoban is a major leaguer reliever that started to really struggle late last year, however he did notch 22 saves and has a power arm. Broxton is a converted reliever who was called up late last season and has a power arm and a good slider. Elbert is an A ball rookie thats on par with Gio Gonzalez. Not a bad looking deal cause the Sox can slide Brazoban and Broxton into the back of there pen and let the two develop. Plus you have a shot at letting Tracey compete. Would this not be a fair enough deal?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:30 AM) I'm not sure I see why your so down on the pen right now. We have 4 very talented guys in there right now if you include Brandon, one who can be very solid if healthy, and imo a prospect that is a perfect fit for the pen in Tracey. I would like to see Kenny add another reliever or two if possible but our pen certainly isnt in bad shape imo. I'm a believer of putting in as many good arms as you can because you always have guys get hurt or guys that end up having a down year. That way if you have more talented guys the odds of more of them panning out are greater. When it comes to relievers they tend to be more inconsistent so its nice to have plenty of options. Plus Jenks hasn't exactly been up for an extended period of time and he has had arm troubles. If he stays heatlhy I'm confident in him.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:23 AM) That's the problem. KW doesn't want to enter the offseason with a hole in the starting rotation. If he goes in with MB-FG-JG-JC-BM as his rotation he is gonna lose JG and have to fill that hole. Instead he has a rotation that will be together for 2-3 years I understand that part.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:25 AM) How about the Indians and Twins than . As for closers im 100% confident in Bobby Jenks.... and if he gets hurt or cant handle it I have no problem going to Cotts or if he is ready to play Hermanson. The Twins pen helped them get 3 consecutive division titles and the Indians pen helped get them close (had it not stunk right at the beginning of the season theyd' have been in better shape).

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:20 AM) Not many here were excited when the White Sox got Jenks, or Politte, or Cotts or even Marte who was very good for a time. Point being, they've been pretty good at identifying pitchers they believe can blossom or turn things around. Maybe some weren't, but I saw talent in each of them. I give the Sox credit for all those moves. However, if you trade Garland for guys that are suspect relievers than its stupid. A Garland trade can rejuvenate our farm system while at the same time getting us a guy like Jonathon Broxton who can come into our pen from the back. Than all you have to do is give up some of our prospects or find a non-tender guy the club has interest for the other pen spot (or they could get ballsy and enter spring training as is and see what Tracey/Baj/Broxton do and hope two of them earn the job). My point is that giving up a starter for relievers is stupid when were talking about a front line starter. I dont' know why I'm getting so riled up over what Levine said and I am happy Kenny knows he needs to fill the pen, but getting a mediocre reliever or two is far worse than getting a couple big time arms from the Dodgers or someone else. I am willing to wait and see how things play out. I know one thing, Garland is going to have another good year next year.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:14 AM) Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out? I read at least 1 piece a few weeks ago talking about how teams were dumping huge amounts of cash on "Established closers", when at the same time teams like the White Sox and the Nats and the Marlins were discovering that it really wasn't hugely difficult to find people who have the ability to come in and close games for much less money than say, a BJ Ryan is going to earn. (Mariano Rivera, btw, remains in a class by his own). No, but I have zero problem having two badass relievers that will be cheap for a long time. Relievers are inconsistent, they tend to have some awful years mixed in (well most of them) and they can get hurt. I have zero problem ensuring we have depth and if we are dealing Garland we should be getting some darn good relievers in return. I want talent in the pen and our pen is lacking that at this moment. A deep bullpen will be such an aid to get into the playoffs. Almost always teams with strong strong bullpens make the playoffs in this day and age. Not many teams have them, but when you do, you don't blow your leads and are able to get momentum. You also are able to keep your team in games which lead to come from behind victories. The Sox were able to do that last year, this year we need arms. If Kenny is just looking for similar arms to viz and Marte, we better not be dealing Garland to get them, that would be foolish. Unless we are also getting a #1 prospect along with that (in which case I say great, go for it).

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:13 AM) I agree with it, but you're a smart enough fan to be able to read KW's actions/words. There's a reason so many of us will be shocked if Garland's on the 2006 roster. I would definitely rather just get value for Garland, and worry about filling the relief spots after that. When KW sets his mind on something, he usually puts in a ton of effort to get the move done. Thats what I fear

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:59 AM) His son obviously had no class: "Heroes: the D.C. Snipers, cause they let ya'll crackas kno tha ya'll aren't carzy race in the world" That is off is website. Not that class makes you deserve death any more/less. I hope to hell that page isn't his sons page. If it is, I hate to say it, but i feel a whole lot less sad. I just feel for his family that lost him, but looking at that site, the guy looks like a 1st class prick.

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:31 AM) I woke up and heard this on ESPNradio. This is such a sad story. His son, 18, was pronounced dead earlier this morning. Tony went from being on top of the world last week to being absolutely crushed and at the bottom of the world. Needless to say he left the team and went to Florida. This is a terrible occurance. My prayers go out to the Dungy family. Horrible news. Tony Dungy is such a great and classy coach. Thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) You know I agree with that. Everyone knows he wants to deal him now. And if he has his mind set on that, then we may be in some trouble. Consequently, if he hangs onto him what are the positives and negatives: Positives: Bullpen is better with BMAC Pitching staff is better with Garland Maybe increase his value at trade deadline May increase offers May open doors for more extension talks Negative: May only get draft picks May hurt BMAC's dev He may regress into the Garland of old. Exactly, I'd be in no hurry to move him. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. Plus, if were going to pick up a reliever, I'd probably rather deal our own mionr leaguers for one and than let Garland get us some stud prospects because thats better value on the most part. Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years. Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:04 AM) Redding isn't very good at all. It will take a couple of injuries for him to ever get an actual chance to be a contributor with the Sox. In the end, I think the Sox just hope he can stick around Charlotte and help out the Knights. I doubt anyone is going to offer him a major league job at the end of spring and if they don't, I think he'll report to AAA.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:03 AM) I know that the biggest fear I have, as well as RockRaines, is that KW is so set on trading Garland, that he might take a lesser offer just to get rid of him. If KW is just set on getting relievers, then we're not going to get full value for Garland. Unless that reliever is Brad Lidge. Here's a total odd ball thing to throw out, but what would people think about a package surrounded by Krod. I doubt the Angels would even listen, however, Krod has had some durability issues and the Angels could turn Escobar into there closer. Shields would obviously be great, but we'd have to get a front line prospect along with him and I can't see the Angels doing that. Stoneman never gives up prospects and instead he's always just sitting and waiting for guys to develop. Thats why Angel fans are going to have to watch Jose Focking Molina be there everyday catcher.

QUOTE(WSFAN35 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour Not the higher ups. The key players at McDonalds (ie the guys in the corporate office) are getting paid very well I'm sure (plus there are more key players involved in McDonalds than MLB).

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:40 AM) http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sox22.html That part of the article is laughable. Redding had one good season in 2003 with the Astros but has pretty much been horrible his entire career. But I guess he's worth a shot as a long reliever / injury spot starter if he has a good spring training. I remember him getting shellacked with the Yankees last season though. He's implying that he'll get every shot to start during spring training since the Sox guys are going to be pitching in the WBC. Regardless this isn't a horrid move. He could be the last guy out of the pen if he's healthy.

You know whats crazy, but if the Sox follow the Angels model and I tend to think they will (ie how the Angels have totally turned into a major market team playing 40 miles outside the 2nd largest market). Well I just talked to my Angels tix rep and according to them the team is expected to be entirely sold out before single game seats go on sale. They will be wait listing season ticket holders for the 1st time in franchise history (ones that want to become season tix holders). I think if the Sox do things right and win for the next few years (I mean get into the playoffs and compete) than I think thats what the future beholds. Although I assume, even when wait listed, there must be some sort of individual tickets or am I wrong?

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:53 AM) Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid. They aren't overpaid. They just accept what they get offered. I absolutely despise the idea that some people get jealous because athletes make so much money. Its a billion dollar industyr (the sports industry) and the key players are going to make big bucks. Why the hell shouldn't they?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) You cant put contreras as the best pitcher on the team at this point. He had a great second half, and a good postseason. But He has posted and ERA of over 5 in 2 of his 4 full seasons in the MLB. Jon hasnt posted a single season above 5 when he pitched full time. And since Mark has been starting full time, he has only broken a 4 ERA ONCE from 2001 to 2005. Last season the best starter for the full season was Jon Garland...hands down. I love Buehrle, but he really hit a funk at one point and Contreras was amazing in the 2nd half but had a so-so 1st half (maybe even worse than so-so). Get your heads out of your asses and realize this. We will be trading our best pitcher of last year whose entering his prime and instead go with a guy in Vazquez who has great stuff but has b****ed and moaned the last two places he has gone while not living up to his potential. I'm sorry, I hate this move and I wish the Sox would take its chances on Garland. Worse case we get draft picks. I liked this team better before we made the Vazquez deal cause the Vazquez deal meant he was going to replace Garland in the rotation. However, financially I understand some things. But we are defending world series champs, keep the god damn pitching staff in tact or upgrade it, but don't give up our best starter from last year unless your getting a s***LOAD in return. Ken Williams will get hammered by me if he doesn't make some good moves. I don't buy into this Jon only will play on the west coast either. He's being smart, but no one is going to tell me if you didn't offer him up a 5/60 deal he wouldn't at least think long and hard. I'm not saying do it, but maybe you throw it his way near the middle of the season and move someone else. Garland has been steady and really turned a corner next year. I'll be shocked if he isn't amongst the NL's best next year (if he does go to the NL).

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:23 PM) Would all the Garland bashers who say such ignorant bulls*** like Garland had a "so-so" second half take the time to back their s*** up? Oh wait, if they looked at Garland's second half splits, they'd see that while there was a minor drop off in production stats, he averaged barely over a hit an inning and had a 3.65 ERA. He also had a bad month in August and then bounced back to a solid September and a great start in October. Hey guess what guys, Freddy Garcia had an ERA of 4.28 in the second half. Mark Buehrle had an ERA of 3.84 in the second half. Only Jose Contreras had a better second half ERA startingwise than Garland. And all of you are ready to chuck him out the boat? Why aren't you people saying the same stupid s*** about having a bad career prior to this season about Contreras? Jesus f***ing Christ, open up your goddamn eyes. I think Garland is possibly our 2nd best starter. I happen to think he can be better than Buehrle, but he is hands down better than Freddy.