Chisoxfn

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:00 AM) So Braxton definitely isn't starting games anymore? I know he started all games he pitched in for 2004 and was mixed between starting games and working out of the pen last year. No, the Dodgers converted him to the pen when Gagne was shut down for good. 5 weeks later he was called up to the big leagues. He was fast-tracked so to speak and many scouts believe in the end his home is as a closer. He's basically as highly touted of a closer prospect as there is right now (simply put you usually don't have highly touted closer prospects) and well they are almost always converted relievers. With rare exceptions. Koch was drafted as a closer, Houston Street, Cordero.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:58 AM) It's not just Coop, though, or the 'Ozzie' factor. He's going to be pitching in front of a defense that was #2 in converting balls in play into outs. Likewise, wherever Garland goes, his defense will be worse, which can mean bad things, especially for a guy who doesn't K a whole lot of batters. Vazquez was the right guy to go after. I still don't like that they gave up Young, but if there was ever a guy to rebound, Vazquez is the guy. That I don't have a problem with. I like that argument and I hope your right. I also have to say the fact we got rid of Duque was nice. Put it this way if we can get Vazquez to pitch like Garland did last year (which is a possibility, although I have some doubts and I sure as hell don't guaranatee it). Than we swing a deal with the Dodgers for one of Elbert/Billingsley/Guzman, Broxton and Edwin Jackson (or some sort of deal like this) than we'll have essentially dealt Chris Young, Viz and El Duque for 2 more years of Garland (ie Vazquez putting up Garland like numbers) a potential Bobby Jenks clone, a #1-2 potential starter, and than a guy in Jackson who has the stuff of a frontline starter. Not a bad deal considering Kenny likes pitching.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:57 AM) That's an IF though, Jon has proven more recently that he's a better pitcher. While I have confidence in coop and even moreso that Kenny sees something in Javi that can be fixed you can't just put him on a higher pedastile then Jon right now. That being said it obviously is possible for Vaz to turn it around then you have another stud in the rotation for 3 years, so we'll see. All I'm saying that as of right now I think Jon is the better pitcher but that can change very quick. The only reason this works out as a wash is because we control the rights to Javier for 2 more years than Jon. Thats the only reason too, cause we gave up a stud CF to get him. However, if we are able to turn that stud CF into a couple stud pitching prospects, than you won't see one complaint out of him. As a whole I like what Kenny's done this off-season. I'm not much of a fan of Vazquez, but I admit the stuff is there. However, he has attitude problems and I'm not going to just assume Coop can turn him back into the pitcher he once was. Hopefully he can though.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:46 AM) Joe Borowski was dealt from the Sox to the Orioles for Pete Rose JR in '91, I highly doubt KW had any input into that deal. BTW, the Koch - Foulke trade, looks pretty damn good to me right about now. Seriously, people forget we got Cotts in that deal. I also remember a lot of people crying because we gave up Joe Valentine (who was just non-tendered by the Reds).

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:52 AM) If Cooper can straighten out Vazquez, I think he will be a better pitcher than Garland. He has much better stuff and is a strikeout pitcher. Not every other team has the kind of insane infield defense that we had last season which saved Garland from giving up some runs. Vazquez will probably still struggle at the Cell like Garcia because he gives up too many flyballs though. Technically speaking Vazquez gives up a ton of hr's, but he's not exactly a fly ball pitcher. Hell he's had some years where he was a ground ball pitcher. I can only hope part of the reason for the HR's this past year were because he was in AZ (and for whatever reason the ball jumps out of there). AZ (I don't know what the stats show) is one of the better hitters parks in the NL.

I want to reiterate one thing for everyone here saying Brazoban is >>> Braxton. I realize Braxton has only pitched 14 major league innings, but Braxton has a better arm. To top things off, he actually has the ability to throw a slider and a damn good one while Brazoban is a one pitch pitcher and once everyone figured that out they started to shell him (ie when the Sox clobbered him early in the season). Brazoban has a great arm too, but he has a big time lack of command on anything else he throws (his fastball included at times). Broxton = Big Time Closer Prospect. Between him and Jenks we'd have two of the very best bullpen arms in baseball (I'm talking from a pure arm standpoint). The 22 k's in 14 innings tells me all I need to know. The guy whiffed Pujols for his 1st major league K and made Pujols look like a fool. Broxton is a must in any trade because he slides in and helps the Sox now and in the future. Bullpen pieces are becoming expensive so being able to find young ones that you have control over for a few years is key. Broxton is one of those guys. Aside from that I'd love Billingsley, but If I couldn't get Bill, I'd ask for Elbert and Edwin Jackson. Elbert is a really good young lefty while Jackson has a killer arm and I think everyone forgets the guy is still 21 years old (he was rushed so the Sox can slow him down; plus a change of scenery will do the guy good). To top things off, he can be the insurance plan if any starter goes down (and I think as we slow him down and just let him ease back into things, you'll see him take off). Elbert, Broxton, Jackson would be a very good deal. Elbert ranks somewhere near Gio in terms of a prospect. They both were in the SAL last year (well Gio got promoted eventually) and both have high K numbers. I think Elbert has a better build, but both are potential front of the rotation guys.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) Ah so last year makes him ALOT better? Yes, what Vazquez did in Montreal is a few years away. He hasn't done s*** since the 1st half of the year with the Yanks (after that he was completely terrible and was very up and down for the Dbacks last year). Vazquez has good stuff, but just cause every guy has good stuff doesn't mean the Sox can just take him in and work there magic, turning them into aces. But who knows, maybe Coop is the 2nd coming of Mazzone.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:42 AM) Based on what? It's really hard to judge either of them or predict what they will do this year. I don't see how Garland is A LOT better than Vaz. If you base on past success Javy is far better, base it on last year Garland is better. Last year was Garlands first good year, whereas Javy used to be great and has been down a bit recently. Based on the fact that Garland has had succes with the Sox. He's 26 years old and has been a workhorse with the Sox (not that Vazquez doesn't throw innings). He's continually improved and even when he was busy dissapointing most Sox fans he was still a solid 4th starter. Last season he made the adjustments and was arguably our best pitcher over the full course of the season (obviously Contreras was dynomite in the 2nd half). Why not Garland. Look at Vazquez ERA the past two seasons, not exactly something to write home about. He has good stuff, but I'll take Garland every day of the week over Vazquez. Plus Garland is a great guy and doesn't whine like a little baby like Vazquez does. I only hope that Vazquez being with Ozzie (whom he obviously likes) allows Vazquez to be happy and pitch up to expectations, but I know Garland can, so were trading a guy who will repeat what he did last year for a guy whose going to have to really step it up and pitch better than he did the prior season (plus he's coming back to a hitters league, so that ERA should jump up .3 or so from that). That means he's gonna have to be about a full run better this year if he wants to come close to what Jonny boy did.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:37 AM) I agree. He has the stuff, plus he would be the #4 or 5 reliever on the team. He'd be great whenever he came in. Broxton >>> Brazoban

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:49 AM) Yep, makes sense to me. Why would a team rather have half a season of Garland over a full season of him? Its more the fact that mid-season if you have a good pitcher on the block, every team thats in competition is going to be gunning for him. Some teams will be gunning for him simply to block him from another team. Because you have so many "buyers" per say, it means that the seller has all the leverage and will be able to max his return. However, I think the Sox are kind of forced to deal Garland now, or at least thats the inkling due to payroll. Personally I think we've downgraded our rotation cause Garland >>> Vazquez. I don't care what anyone tells me, but I like the fact that we'll have him for a few more years.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:35 AM) Would anyone else be a little aprehensive about offering over 8 mil a year to guy that was complete average until this past year? Not at all, that would be a bargain considering this market. I'd offer him 10 mill a year for 3 or 4 years and I don't think that would be enough to sign him.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:33 AM) I'm calling BS. If Arizona was able to get a five-tool, potential superstar in Chris Young for a pitcher who has been league average for the past two years, and who carries a big contract -- then we NEED to land either Billingsley or Guzman. If we don't get those two, it better be one helluva package that includes both Miller, Jackson, Broxton, and possibly another prospect. If given the choice between Billingsley and Guzman, I think I'd take Billingsley, just because we're going to need a cheap starter besides B-Mac in the next year or two. I'm also slightly worried about Guzman's 3/1 K/BB ratio (almost 130 K's); but that's me also doing a bit of nit-picking, as he was only 20 last year in AA. If a team doesn't want to give KW a knock-your-socks-off type deal right now, wait till the trade deadline. Because, I'm pretty sure Garland would be the TOP commodity at the deadline. Gosh, I'm so hoping for a Kazmir-for-Zambrano type, lopsided deal. Billingsley = STUD

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) He's had big time injury issues. He does have electric stuff when healthy. Alright, that makes some sense. I was kind of puzzled when I saw his name there. I know the Twins were really high on him and two years ago he was really talked highly by the minor league people in the Sox organization. I assume he isn't expected to be healthy at the start of the season? If he is, I'd definately offer him a minor league deal or something along those lines and give him a shot to make the back end of our pen.

I'm confused, did he or didn't he get non-tendered? One article says one thing, the other says another.

How the hell is Joel Pyrzbilla going to do anything for the Bulls. The guys going to get a huge ass contract and doesn't deserve it as far as I'm concerned.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:02 AM) What the hell has mike brown done this year to deserve going? Brown has played tremendous aside from the Packers game.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:31 AM) Good call Jason. FX screwed up with that leak. A lot of people thought the same as you. Ya, what a total bust on seeing it early. When the cop was telling that story I was like she's so in cahoots. Odd episode, but I can't call it a total dissapointment. At least we know.

I never thought Grant Balfour was that bad of a pitcher. He was in the Twins organization and had some decent periph's as a reliever. I have no idea if he had injury problems or anything like that.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:59 AM) Billingsley is the Dodgers version of Bmac for the sox last yr. Not going in any deal. Bmac would have been dealt at the trade deadline if Garland was on another team and the Sox could have worked out a deal for him, imo. Billinglsey is close to untouchable, but for the right deal (and Coletti needs pitching and in Garland he's getting a guy just entering his prime) he'd give it up. If he doesn't give up one of his 2 top prospects (Guzman/Billingsley) and than 2 more prospects (one of which should be Greg Miller or Jonathon Broxton) than I say no dice.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:55 AM) How is Joel defensively? Terrible, but he has good tools. Who knows if he'll be able to stay at 3rd.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:49 AM) If the Sox trade Garland to the Dodgers, and don't get either Billingsley or Guzman included in the deal, then that's a bad trade. I agree. The Sox should be getting one of the very best in a deal of Garland. He's a 26 year old pitcher that has came into a zone. If thats not worthy of an organizations best prospect, than I don't know what is. And I don't care that he is going to possibly be a free agent. The Dodgers or any other team on the left coast can negotiate a long term deal with him. Billingsley/Broxton and a position prospect of sorts would be nice. Broxton slides into the pen with Tracey. The 3rd guy could be Edwin Jackson. I don't know why people act as if he should be the 2nd guy the Sox acquire. Jackson's status isn't what it once was. However, the stuff is there and I think a change of scenery would do him good. Another package that would be filthy would be Billingsley/Greg Miller/Broxton, but I highly doubt we could grab 3 pitching prospects of that magnitude. If we did, they'd automatically (imo) be the 3 best we have in our org (pitching wise). I'd rate them ahead of Broadway for the time being. The Sox should be able to get two of the Dodgers best prospects, one of which must be Billingsley or Guzman. The Dodgers have a pretty good catching prospect if they wanted to go that way, but I'm always leery on catching prospects (its probably the hardest position to develop in baseball).

I hope Willie is back. He's a better player than a lot of you think. I would probably take Willie over Gload simply because we know Ozzie likes speed. The second the Sox got Makoviak, I think Gloads days in this org were done (imo). Byrnes wouldn't be bad (I happen to like the guy). I think he's pretty solid all around, but IIRC he had a rough 05. Still I think someone will give him pretty decent money. Also, when did Byrnes move to RF? I remember with the A's the guy was always in left.

Eva

Its going to be the 2nd day of the season. (the ring ceremony).

Ya, ignore my idea. I just read that the Swallows were interested in him and he's pretty much told everyone he will only sign if he can start. I don't think he'll get that opportunity in the majors so he's gonna be on his way back to Japan. He pitches good against lefties though, so it would have been nice and I'm sure dirt cheap.