Jordan4life_2007

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) I think you need to look at those not coming back and the salary we have saved already. Am I wrong that Juan Pierre was getting $8.5 M a year? I didn't say I was against trading anyone other than Dunn or Rios just that we need more of a return than some maybe prospect for Matt Thornton. Trade Ohman or Frasor and you save a few million too. I don't think it will necessarily boil down to money with Mark Buerhle but how many years he is offered. He will get a raise no doubt. I think what bothers me the most is the fact we so undervalue our own players and are willing to open up a hole or holes in the line up for so called minor league prospects. lol. Oh my goodness. Where the hell is Kalapse's payroll resource? You do realize that we have over $90 million in guaranteed committed salary next year WITHOUT Danks and CQ's inflating salaries? MB at $13-15 million a year puts us probably right at or above last year's payroll.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) well then that does look kinda bad. I hate to keep referring to this specific incident. But KW did look Gio Gonzalez in the eyes and promised him that he wasn't going anywhere after reacquiring from the Phillies. I seriously doubt he'd be worried about a potential backlash from trading Sergio, even after the recent extension.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) And it than begs the question, should Alexei be available. The Sox do have a lot of valuable assets. The problem is they have three of the worse contracts in baseball and a weak farm system that has ultimately cost them the playoffs the past couple of seasons. Even at his age, I wouldn't even entertain dealing Ramirez right now. Maybe if the Sox had a capable replacement a year or so away (I don't like Escobar). The SS inventory in baseball currently is gross. You've basically got the elite: Tulo, Reyes, Hanley; the good: our Ramirez, Andrus, Hardy, Castro, Asdrubal, Yunel, and animal species after that. Alexei also strikes me as one that, as long as he's healthy, will age gracefully.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) I think w have already cleared some salary to make a run for Mark B. Question is does KW really want him back? Well, you being totally against trading anybody not named Adam Dunn or Alex Rios, makes it impossible for the Sox to resign Mark and shed any meaningful salary for '12.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) Buehrle fills a need in rebuilding though. He'd suck up innings. I can think of a lot cheaper ways to merely "suck up" innings.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) Keith Law of ESPN.com hears that the Pirates don't consider Andrew McCutchen "untouchable." The Pirates have attempted to discuss a multi-year contract with McCutchen, but the two sides haven't made much progress until this point. It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of a trade altogether, though they would likely have to be blown away in order to actually deal him. The 25-year-old remains under team control through 2015. Blah. This has, IMO, less validity than when the Dbacks were "shopping" Justin Upton last year. This is just offseason filler. You might have 3 or 4 teams in baseball that could possibly put together a package worthy of McCutchen. Not saying they wouldn't trade him at some point (which would be really sad), but 2014 would be the earliest you cross that bridge.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) I'd imagine the original post came from a report that the Pirates have declared that he is not off limits. However, his contract runs til 2015 so they'd be idiots to deal him anytime soon. What report was this? I actually don't check MLB sites as much anymore since 2K5 went Twitter crazy. I just go to DC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) Not really. He was more interested in actively trying to trade Santos. Big difference. Meh. Same thing to me. But I will concede that there is a distinct difference between "getting" calls and "taking" calls. For some reason, when I initially read the thread title, I saw it as the latter. So sorry, Marty, gotta take back my "vindication" prop. I know that means so much to you.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) If we are talking about the second tier of top prospects, I want other players to go with him to fill weak spots. Closers are getting 4/5 year deals at upwards of $12 million a year. Santos is signed up through the 2017 season, with zero seasons over $9 million. The last three years, are all options. The Sox could only keep him for three years and pay as little as $8.25million. In other words we could get four full years of Santos, for just over one of Paplebons. That is as team friendly of a contract as you can ever have. Not only is it super cheap, but it is also massive team friendly. So a deal centered around a Martin Perez type? Fair enough. There we go. That's what I recall Marty endorsing and being shot down by the same people that wouldn't have traded Gordon Beckham for anybody not named Pujols two years ago.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) With the money closers are getting this winter, and Santos essentially with a deal longer than Paplebons, yes, the return has to be pretty much insane for a deal to get done. Otherwise, it isn't worth it in terms of the contract we are giving up, plus the player we are giving up. Define insane? I think that's where the disconnect is. We're not talking Starlin Castro or Andrew McCutchen here. Hypothetically speaking, if the Rangers offered up Martin Perez, a top-flight pitching prospect, yet one with flaws, do you make the trade?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) What are you talking about? This article states that people are calling about Santos. No one would have suggested that wouldn't happen. How is Marty "vindicated"? I only seem to recall him being shot down because he wanted to trade Santos, and the responses were that that was a silly idea unless the return was insanely good. OK? I'm not trying to be his mouthpiece. But isn't that exactly what he was endorsing from the start? I don't remember him saying "insanely" good. But a really good one. I for one wouldn't require a Matt Moore clone (though it'd be nice) to deal a cheap closer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) Unless we get a massive haul, it is, which is exactly what the factual article is saying. The other one is some guys speculation. Didn't Marty say the same thing, only to get repeatedly shot down?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 08:30 AM) NO one though the Sox wouldn't get calls. Most everyone thought he would stay put because of his super-friendly contract. I know that. Point was the idea of trading a 29-year old closer, even one with a team-friendly contract, isn't anywhere near the potential travesty that some are making it out to be.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) Unless he gets traded, no. Actually, he is. Most here thought the idea was ridiculous. It makes sense under certain circumstances.

And Marty is now vindicated.

QUOTE (Nokona @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 01:15 AM) Swing a deal for McCutchen Kenny! May as well aim high and ask for Cole and Taillon in addition to AM.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 29, 2011 -> 12:18 AM) Seems insane to buy season tix for this bunch. Wouldn't a 10-game plan suffice? If somehow they seem like they actually are into it in April/early May u could buy more tix. If they are zombies like last year, u could pass and golf more and mow the lawn more. Classic, greg.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 28, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) If he does, I know I couldn't blame him. I can only imagine at what being caught up in a terror attack like that would do to my mind. Hell, if I hear a plane over downtown Chicago, I stop and watch it until it clears the skyline. And I was 1000 miles away on 9/11! I could see being a little spooked by planes. But NY itself? Kinda silly if true.

Mark has a fear of NY since 9/11? Um, huh?

All I know is I need a donation for a new liver. My s*** is shot.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 26, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) The playoffs were absolutely horrific. Remember, he was injured (but again, we expect this with Boozer). The Bulls, even with the way Taj played last year in spurts, aren't really in a position where they can kick a guy who averaged 18 points and 10 boards over the course of the season on 51% shooting to the curb. Maybe that assbag can even not trip over some luggage, participate in training camp like the rest of the NBA, and get back to the numbers he had the year prior (20/11/56%). Yeah. Can't kick that guy to the curb... even if he was captain frustration last year. I'm not saying kick him to the curb. But if he's your second option, you're in trouble come playoffs. He's so easy to expose. I can't stand him.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 26, 2011 -> 08:54 PM) One interesting nugget I read is the fact that the amnesty clause need not be used by teams in year one. In fact, they can use the clause, one time only, at any point during the CBA. This benefits the Bulls, because as is you want Boozer on the team this year and maybe next, because when healthy he can get you quick buckets. However, at the end of the deal (the final two years), when we can all expect him to be horrific... bye bye Boozie. He's borderline horrific now. A jump-shooting PF that plays no defense and goes into seclusion against athletic front-courts. He's turrible

QUOTE (Wanne @ Nov 26, 2011 -> 06:34 PM) I have a hard time believing AZ would trade any of their young pitchers...unless it was a ridiculous return. Their pitching inventory is stupid deep at the moment.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 26, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Which is what most fans seem to not understand. You cant even give these guys away without giving another team vasts amount of money. At this point, it's so unfeasible to get another team to take them on that it's best for the Sox to just hold onto them. elrockin begs to differ.

this pacxkers team is the best ive ever seen. 19-0