Chisoxfn

Konerko is probably the list guy shipped out and right now I can't imagine they'd deal him unless they got something decent. He's the captain. Than again, you deal him and you send a signal that you are dealing the rest of the vets as well, which I'm not opposed to. Still its ridiculous to think the Mets are going to make much of an offer for him since they will get Delgado back and than are stuck with two quality players at one spot and neither can play anywhere else on the field.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:27 PM) The reason I asked is because Thornton himself volunteered to go back to starting when we acquired him for Borchard. I know there was one other time when the question was raised. If Thornton failed as a closer, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to give it one last shot to make him a starter. Of course, he's already 31 or 32 and the likelihood of picking up 2nd and 3rd pitches that are consistent and effective at this point are not great. Thornton's fastball is too flat and his slider isn't reliable...but I think the odds of getting something out of Thornton as a starter are still higher than McCulloch or Broadway ever being consistent winners in the rotation. We have Poreda, Richard, Thornton and Santos Rodriguez that are all lefties who can throw 92-98 with marginal offspeed stuff. If just one of those guys could break through and be successful (#3 starter or above), that would be a great help to the rotation. Richard and Colon have both had successful starts this year throwing 85% fastballs. It's just very difficult to do on a consistent basis against good hitting teams, but Clayton has been effective against TB, NY and TOR in his short career, so the ability is there. It's just repeating and building upon that success that is the biggest question mark. But Thornton is much more valuable in the bullpen, you turn him into a closer and if you need to you can spin him for prospects in the future as well because you've just maximized his value. I'm not saying Broadway or McCulloch are long term fixes in the rotation, but someone is going to have to get a shot and this team is bad as is, so its not a big deal if you give one of those guys or someone just a shot in the rotation. Maybe Omogrosso is the guy and if he fails there you slide him to the pen, I don't know. I'm also not stating that we'd be able to get a front line starting pitching prospect, unless of course Jenks is dealt in which case I would expect us getting a high impact arm. Thorton and Poreda are very similar, but Poreda does have very good sink to his fastball which is the only way he'd potentially be able to get away as a good major league starter (since he doesn't have a great repetoire of secondary pitches). Santos Rodriguez is a good arm but still 2-3 years away if he even pans out and Richard is worth a look cause he seems like a potentially valuable piece (4th or 5th starter or a solid reliever in the pen).

QUOTE (OilCan @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:42 PM) It pisses me off that we couldn't get this guy, instead we had to draft Lance Broadway... Matt Garza is the guy that would look really good right now, but your right, Ellsbury would have filled a major need as well. And for those that don't say the Twins make mistake, look at how awful that Delmon Young/Garza swap is looking right now.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:39 PM) I really want a legit leadoff as well, but really? Who are you suggesting?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) You want to make Thornton the closer or make him a starter? Don't know if I had a typo, but the closer.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:14 PM) I wonder with Delgado having hip surgery would the Mets be interested in Kong.... Carlos Delgado To Have Hip Surgery By Tim Dierkes [May 18 at 5:16pm CST] An update from the Mets on Carlos Delgado: he'll have hip surgery tomorrow, and will probably be out until the All-Star break. We discussed possible replacements a few times here at MLBTR, but the Mets might be able to make it a few months with in-house candidates. I wondered the exact same thing when I saw that scroll across the ticker. However, what do the Mets do when they have Konerko and Delgado. I realize Delgado's career is near an end but he's still good enough to play and in this economy that would be a lot of money for one of those two to sit on the bench. Unless he's out for the season or the Mets just collapse in the standings and need to make a move to stay in the race, I don't know if Paulie makes sense.

I'll get Schuster added in the morning. Forgot about him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:10 PM) So you draft him, and if he doesn't sign you get the #1 pick again next year, plus another top 3 pick or so from how bad Washington is going to suck. No, they wouldn't get the #1 pick next year if he doesn't sign. They would get another first rounder, but not the #1 pick. They would lose a pick and go down to at least the #2 spot. Not a big drop, but still a drop none the less. Drafting him and not signing him would be a bad move for the franchise though and they really do have to take him. Even if it took 20 million it would behoove the Nationals to do it cause a year from now they could probably deal him with ease and get a ton of cash savings or whatever if they are in a horrid financial position.

f***ing stellar Hudson...stellar. I keep waiting for his name to make the hot list.

Nix is far more valuable to the Sox since you aren't going to get any sort of haul by trading him.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ May 18, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) Say Figgins walks as a FA, Sox get very good draft pick compensation for Figgins, salary savings (Konerko next season) and thus it is a very valuable trade. If they sign him, at least they have a leadoff hitter. We can argue and discuss how over-rated Figgins is, but he adds value. Bottom line, I don't mind that deal at all. If the Angels would rather have Linebrink I'd do it too to be honest, because I value the 2 picks we'd get for Figgins and to me two high draft picks and financial savings is worth moving a relatively high priced and aging (yet productive) reliever and an aging slugger. I don't know if the Angels do it, but it might not be a bad move for them. Maybe they prefer Dye and in that case I'd ask for a bit more, but again, getting Figgins is pretty valuable because he's the type of guy the Sox could afford offering arbitration too and would probably get top flight compensation for if he walked. If Dye was involved though, I'd probably ask for something in addition to Figgins as he is a bit more valuable. Say you move Konerko in a seperate deal, than it might not be that bad to ask for Morales, whose been playing pretty darn well in Anaheim. I would do Dye/Dotel/Linebrink (in fact, I'd move all three) in a large deal with the Angels for Figgins and Morales. Morales slides into the offense and gives you a younger bat thats MLB ready. Figgins gives you a leadoff hitter or compensation depending on the route you take. Angels get much needed power and more importantly a major boost to there bullpen. Again, I'd prefer to keep one of the relievers and package him elsewhere but it wouldn't be the worse deal in the world. Plus I think the Sox have a few nice looking relief arms that would be best suited getting there feet wet this year, ie, Poreda, Link, Omogrosso (maybe he starts?).

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:51 PM) I need to wait at least two more weeks before throwing in the towel, but I'm close, especially because there are so many shortcomings on this team - even playing fundamental baseball seems out of reach. If this division wasn't so weak it would be much easier to concede now, as most seem to be doing. I'm not blaming you, but it just seems too early. And if Danks and Floyd can stop getting behind in the count, they will be much improved. Add Colon and Richard...things could get interesting. We still have a pretty solid pen. Notice I prefixed my entire post with the exact same thing and added the June 1 was my time table and I wasn't going to throw anything way for at least another 10 days regardless. But if this team is still mired in a slump 10 days from now, I am 100% on board. Good post though!

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) Fields and Getz do not appear to figuring anything out. I liked them both as players but they started nicely and have regressed to a point where they are adding nothing to this team along with Lillibridge. Phillips can play third that is why I mentioned him. You'd be writing off Getz based on like his last 24 at bats or so. That seems very very ridiculous. Especially since its his first cup of coffee and it should be expected that he struggle and go through a period where he needs to make an adjustment. Defensviely he's fine and he's even had to go through injuries and being a leadoff hitter on a supposed contender so all in all I think he deserves at least half a season before any sort of judgement should be made.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Who said anything about Whisler or Cook? I've said before I think Cook is being underutilized, but for pitching, I am NOT saying Whisler is some great prospect. I do think that the pitchers I mentioned are intriguing though. And I'm saying Carlos Torres is no different than those other players. They are what they are and they might get a chance somewhere but if you plan on winning it won't be in Chicago. They might find a home with the Pirates as a 5th starter for a few seasons just logging innings and than eventually develop into a decent relief piece but they aren't anything more and if thats what we have to get excited about than I throw up at that thought. Link is the only thing remotely passable down in AAA, maybe Cassel if he figures his stuff out but his velocity is poor since the injury (and it wasn't good to begin with) and he doesn't have enough of the other stuff to succeed, imo. Lucy isn't bad as a potential backup catcher, again, nothing more.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) No no, don't trade with the Cubs. Their players are so overrated. Also, I think I might have a stroke if I see one of my favorite Sox players of all time closing out a World Series for them (no, I'm not talking about Neal Cotts). I highly doubt the sox/cubs would make a deal, but for the right package, I'd always consider a trade. The problem is both teams feel they'd have the need to rob the other team blindly and thats why a deal would never go down.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) Maybe the best bet would be if Mariano Rivera got injured. Of course, there's a team in Chicago that could desperately need a closer if they want to keep Marmol in the 8th inning. They also have some intriguing names. For example, I'd take my chances on Vitters, only problem being the Sox have a ton of 3rd base prospects already.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:01 PM) Here's the thing...the Sox obviously don't have a tendency of having players come up from their minors and contribute right away. If you're counting on Beckham, Poreda, Allen next year, it's probably going to be a trying season. It all depends on in what capacity your counting on them. I'm not asking any of them to be stars, rather solid players. I expect the Sox to hit FA to fill at least two positional needs, one relief need, and one rotational need and with 30 or so mill to play and in this economy they should be able to do that. Another name that I left out is AJ. I don't know if he'd have enough value to make it worthwile or not to trade him, but I kind of like keeping him around as he's a firey guy and I think would be good to have around the younger players.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:00 PM) Giants wouldn't do that...they have their closer in Brian Wilson (as long as he's not facing Mets). Not really sure what big time teams need a closer right now. Oh, I wasn't really saying they would, and your right, Wilson is legit, but thats the type of package that might just work. Like I said, I see Jenks as valuable to the Sox the next 3 years so I want a good offer to get rid of him. Angels don't really have the prospects, otherwise they'd be legit. Royals got lots of guys to like, but I don't know if they'd go for Jenks. I know they have a solid closer but it would be a major f***ing statement move by them. Drays are always an option.

No offense NS, but these team will suck a long time if they consider Torres or Whisler a long term option. Same with Cook. Maybe they find a way as a last man in the pen or in Cook's case a 4th or 5th outfielder but anything more and its a bad sign.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) Which is why the rebuilding likely would be for two years from now and not aiming at competing next year. Very few teams can blow up their team one year and compete the next season. Danks and Floyd will be fine, Buehrle too, add a veteran via FA (1 or 2 year deal) and your in business, imo. Plus if you get one in a trade or something, even better. Thats just fine of a rotation, especially in the AL f***ING CENTRAL.

QUOTE (Frankensteiner @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) I just want to know who's going to pitch for this team for the next 3-4 years and allow us to contend. I see nothing but question marks after Buehrle and Danks (and even those guys have relative question marks). You keep Danks/Floyd/Buehrle and hope they all pitch. They have the ability so it than turns into a matter of finding two guys, you hope you develop one more of them and than can go the veteran FA route on a shorter-term deal to fill up the back-end. As Buehrle gets older, he slides down and hopefully you've developed another starter or two by than. Its not a bad rebuilding plan, imo, as I still have a lot of faith in Danks/Floyd being above average major leaguers for a long time.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) I assume you're thinking of Bumgarner and Alderson, i imagine they'd be off the table for anything other then young positional talent. Of the Brandon Wood, Beckham type. Jonathan Sanchez, however, would be somewhat more obtainable. Oh ya, they are completely unobtainable. Now if they wanted Bobby Jenks, that is the type of name I ask for. For example I'd do Jenks and one of our hitters for a package around Alderson. I think the Giants at least consider it too, depending on what else is out there.

In the case of Konerko, maybe you don't trade him for a good prospect, rather a solid ball player that is out of a spot or isn't that important on his current club. So it wouldn't be like a pure salary dump in that sense. There are just tons of options out there, imo. Whether it can be done or not, I don't know, and I still think you have to think of the ecomics of it and moving him could be a huge blow to the fan support. Buehrle definately stays though, unless the Dodgers wanted to offer up Kershaw, haha.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) But if you're going all out for rebuilding (which will never happen under KW/Ozzie), why even worry about having Jenks at the end of the game? The biggest thing I've stressed to people about rebuilding is you can't be afraid to lose games. If you're going to rebuild yet hold on to certain players that have the most value, then you're just hurting yourself in the long run. Is KW really going to want to sign Jenks to a 3 year, 30-36 million dollar contract in 2 seasons? Because he's still a viable asset and there is no reason to force a trade (cause you can hold onto him with ease) . Having a strong pen is a necessity once you are ready to compete and I'm not talking about an extended rebuilding plan. Ideall the club is competing next year, assuming the Sox go out and spend some f***ing money and things pan out. I'm not saying they are series contenders but there is no reason they can't be divisional contenders in a year (at least in the Al Central).