Chisoxfn

Done...thank goodness.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) agreed I Hell considering the names that were mentioend, I could see some sort of package. Or the Sox could ask for less (Cause I doubt the Dodgers would give up both of those prospects, who I may add would probably be 2 of the 10-15 best in baseball). Hell, I think the Dodgers would have interest in Garland and if you think of the Sox needs what about Billingsley or Guzman plus Jonathan Broxton (the reliever). Broxton could come in and develop as a reliever (he'd be ready, imo). Plus the Sox would be getting some depth for the minors (in Billingsley or Guzman) either of which would instantly become our #1 prospect. The guy is almost Jenks Jr. (in terms of big heavy set guy who can throw the piss out of the ball). I forget just how loaded the Dodgers are. Plus Greg Miller was looking good near the end of his season (which started late thanks to some injuries). Dodgers have a lot of different options (and good ones at that) if the Sox are going to go the way of prospects with Garland.

Didn't you or someone else post this a while back? Its somewhere I know that.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:15 PM) Bob Nightengale posted that LA was looking at Zito. If they'd want one rent a player, why not Garland? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/columni...14-majors_x.htm The Dodgers should make a run at winning now. Esp in that division. That team has to be one of the top contenders for him, esp. as they have a good minor league system If we got Billingsley and Guzman for him, I'd scream like a girl in excitement. Those two are two of the very best in baseball. Its the one circumstance where I'd deal Garland for prospects (well one of the few).

I agree Kenny has taken chances. I've long said if Thome isn't healthy thats a horrid move. If Thome ends up being healthy and putting up two more 40 HR seasons (I can live with the 3rd year being a wash due to injuries simply because two 40 hr seasons would be well worth it). As far as Vazquez goes, I hated giving up Young, especially cause I'm not a vazquez guy. I put faith in Coop and Ozzie working there magic. I hope that with Vazquez in a place he wants to be (and happy) that he'll figure out how to better utilize his stuff. I do think that he's a good starter and I was glad to see us get rid of Duque. The one thing that I'm worried about with next year (aside from injuries) is our bullpen. Its seriously a lot weaker and I love Tracey's stuff but I don't like asking rooks to come in and be a major part of the club right away. It looks like we may be relying on him and Baj. I think both are capable, but you also have Hermy (whose hurt), Politte (coming off a major career year), Jenks (has had arm trouble in the past and has dynomite stuff, but could see a regression), and Cotts (a total horse). Its not the deep pen it once was. If we brought in another good reliever, I'd be a lot happier.

Very good in terms of prospects. He's got the ability to be a perennial all star, but at the same time he has the chance to belly up. I don't see him busting and I see him turning into a 30-40 HR CFer, with potentially 50 HR power who will compete for gold gloves and hit for high avg's. Ie, I think he's going to be great, but the odds of him actually fullfilling all that, not that great. Thats his ceiling though (ie, he's a high ceiling guy).

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:36 PM) Footwork supposedly quite improved in AFL, For what that's worth. I think Blalock's footwork is pretty good though. I have my doubts on Fields, but he really made progress as the season progressed last year. He has the tools, although I think the Sox are rushing them if they send him to AAA. Plus the Knights park does awful things to a hitters swing (at least it seems to).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Houston has some high level pitching prospects don't they? Carlos Hernandez seems to ring a bell, but I don't know their system at all. That was a few years back. Lefty IIRC, but he's had injury problems and was in the majors a few years ago. Haven't heard anything about him in a while though.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) I think you are saying what they should want. THe Soriano for Kazmir offer suggests something else That offer could just be BS speculation by the media though. The media reports a lot of crap.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:51 PM) No disagreement there. Wood is in that class with Delmon Young and pretty much no one else. Here's a legitimate question, and mind you it loses some steam as the Rays won't be able to sign Garland to an extension, but how about BJ Upton for Garland. They are yo-yo-ing Upton around as they have concerns with his erratic D. Just a thought. Another possible match is with Scott Kazmir. This is more realistic. Kazmir was offered for Alfonso Soriano (who is in the identical boat as Garland in terms of contract and resignability). It wouldn't really solve the glut of starting pitchers but would give us a guy we can control for a long time The Drays don't want a pitcher like Garland. They can't resign him. They want pitchers like McCarthy, young guys who they would control there rights for at least a few years. Basically put the Drays wouldn't trade us Carl Crawford for Garland, let alone BJ Upton, they have zero interest in Jon. The only thing they'd do with Jon is trade him to another team.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) He very well may be because Stoneman has shown a reluctance for moving prospects that you don't see from Big market teams by and large. I do however think you could get someone near that ilk for Garland. I mentioned Wood because the Angels are a natural fit since he'd want to resign there and some of the Angels prospects (Mathis, Kotchman, Morales) play positions we won't trade for. I don't know as much about Hendrick or Aybar but I'm sure our scouting staff knows a bit about them Stoneman's an idiot, but he isn't going to trade Wood.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 01:37 PM) If he won't resign and is for sure going to test the FA market next season, I wouldn't mind trading him for something so that we don't completly lose out on something unless he becomes one of the players that gets us a draft pick if he goes somewhere else. Remember, we can always let him walk and get 2 high draft picks for him (although that won't result in immediate help to our farm system, its a good way to start).

QUOTE(spiderman @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) After skimming through all the fun trade scenarios, whether it's trading Garland (and others) for Blalock, Tejada, Crawford, etc, would you be happy if Kenny Williams trades Garland for a good prospect or two ? I know the minor league system is one reason we were able to get Thome, and Vazquez, but I also want to repeat next season. I'd rather have Garland, and McCarthy out of the bullpen (as insurance in case of injury) then have the minor league system get reloaded (potentially). What say you ? No, I'd rather hold onto him in case any of our other starters get injured and than if necessary we can always deal him at the deadline to fill another hole or get prospects. I like the idea of building up our farm system, but we better get a hell of a lot in return for a 26 year old coming off a very strong season. At the same time, I like strengthening our team and I think Kenny does as well. He ain't going to be dealing Garland for prospects, he's gonna do it for a good major league position player, plus a reliever (or a hell of minor prospect that he thinks can come right up and be a good reliever) and than maybe a prospect on top of that (depending on if we give up something else).

Good post fathom.

QUOTE(LDF @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 11:39 AM) mlb, espn, fox sports, cbs anaylsis of trades, let alone some sports writer all mention that the trade favored the other team, but in they know why kw did the trade. i guess most are judging on 2 levels, talent vs talent and then as a side note, how it will effect the team. i don't know, that is how i am reading it. In the end all that matters is the W/L. Kenny's deals really paid off and he's a fair trader. Two years ago everyone was saying we gave up too much for Freddy, they aren't seeing that now. We absolutely reamed the Yanks when we got Contreras. Kenny makes deals and everytime they make sense. The Vazquez deal was odd, but it makes sense from the financial standpoint and for the reasons that it will take less pressure off the Sox and put more on guys like Contreras and Garland.

I think you both are onto something. I think thats who it will be. It can't be Quentin, just too damn obvious. This weeks episode was great though.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:30 AM) Well, I don't think it's quite as obvious for the reasons you gave in the latter part of the post. We can's possibly know if they--the D'Backs--preferred Young over Milledge. Actually, from all I've read, I've got great reason to believe Milledge is the better of the two prospects--difference being, Young has the power numbers. Milledge makes a whole lot of sense to me as does a combination of Wilkerson and Danks/Diamond. The organization seems to have a working relationship with the Danks family and Wilkerson is a prototypical-Williams type player--although he really has shown anything goes as of late--and Danks and Diamond both project to be front-of-the-rotation pitchers. Keep Crede and Blalock out of it. That situation is a mess. I'll take Young over Milledge every day of the week.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:14 AM) I'd pass.. he's not my type.

So are you guys saying you wouldn't do Blalock, Wilkerson and Danks or Diamond for Garland and Crede? I hate giving up Crede, but if Crede's back is going to be an issue, I'd make the move. I think Blalock has a heck of a lot of talent, but he has definately struggled as of late.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 05:25 AM) http://www.justiceforkurt.com/ http://www.cobaincase.com/ http://www.deathofkurtcobain.com/ Courtney Love hired someone or did it herself. I'm convinced. I've long said this too.

Well, lost an A in one of them today. Decided I was too lazy to study. Best news is, only two more down and tomorrow at this time I'll be home free. Well I'll be halfway towards drunk.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:10 AM) Then he can kiss Kenny's ass (well actually he may like that so no he can't). Why would we give up Brian Anderson and one of our 4 horsemen for essentially Aaron Rowand (slightly better offense, slightly worse defense and more expensive) and a middle reliever? Garland has to net us more and I hope its either part of a blockbuster (Tejada) or some stud prospects (catcher, pitcher, infield). I liked the idea initially of getting Kotsay and Duscherer or Calero for Garland but I think Garland can get us more (stud prospect) and certainly not cost us our #1 prospect (Anderson) as well. I didn't say both, rather one or the other.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:44 AM) IIRC, he fumbled the first punt he ever saw in the NFL when the 49ers shellacked the bears 49-7 a few years back. That was our warning, we missed it. Please, never ever ever speak of that game. My buddy and I had the great idea of driving 7 hr's to San Fran to see that game. My god what a whooping we saw.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 11:02 AM) Indeed. They could go with an outfield of Nick Swisher in LF, Milton Bradley in CF, and Jay Payton in RF. And the Big Hurt at DH (cause if they keep all of these guys, then it makes no sense for them to sign Big Frank). Well, plus I think if they made a deal with the Sox they may have interest in Sween or Anderson (probably Anderson). Think payroll reasons too.

I'm not a fan of going after Griffey. If I'm dealing Garland, I'd rather offer him up for Ichiro or another very good player that doesn't have history of injuries. Plus I don't think Griff can play center (who knows if Ichiro could either). If I'm dealing Garland, I'm getting a CFer (or Tejada cause Tejada is the man) thats signed for a few years and is already good (must be able to play some D) and a bullpen arm (a good one). Mark Kotsay and Duerscherer or Kiki Calero would make sense, but I don't know if the A's would want Garland (although Beane has never had a problem taking guys with a year left on there contracts). Especially cause over the long run he'd be saving cash. He could also want a guy like Brian Anderson.