fathom

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:53 PM) ^^^ No joke. I am glad to see these guys go just so I don't have to listen to the over the ledge crowd complain about them... unfortunately, they will just find someone else to b**** about, just call it faith. Were the Timo jokes that bad after the new policies on this board? I thought things cleaned up pretty well.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:48 PM) Urbina would be a good pick up but I think many people would be very upset with him coming to the Sox. I remember how many people didn't want Pierzynski because of the clubhouse cancer rumors. Of course, attempted murder charges are a bit more serious than being a clubhouse cancer. Don't worry, Urbina's rep for being a clubhouse cancer is about equal to his attempted murder charges. However, that's a discussion for another day. Let's get back to the real reason for this thread....the end of the Timo era! You can argue he's the only member of the playoff roster who didn't do a damn thing to help us in the postseason (Hermanson is the only other person who didn't really contribute).

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) Will he have one of those things around his ankle? Not sure, but I don't think too many people would mess with him if he hit someone intentionally.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:44 PM) Oh, come on. Timo was a good bench guy in 2004 but he was very bad in 2005 and should have never been leading off for us at any point in the season. I think everyone agrees and I'm not the only one who is extremely happy with this move. As happy as I am that Timo is gone, I'm just as happy with the organizational approach I see so far where they're not letting sentiments/personal friendships get in the way of making the SMART baseball decision. With that in mind, I still think we're more likely to see U. Urbina pitching for the Sox in June than we are Jon Garland.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) Nothing could be more tiresome than seeing Timo Perez leading off for your favorite team.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:38 PM) Watch Perez get non tendered and then brought back on a minor league deal, ha. Still better than paying him a million dollars like we did in 2005.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:38 PM) Watch Perez get non tendered and then brought back on a minor league deal, ha. I could see him being brought in as Uribe's translator.

Timo's going to have a lot of clutch hits next season...in the Independent League.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:35 PM) To many good players on this team. Isn't it something how much the talent's been upgraded this offseason?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 04:35 PM) And Soxtalk has officially run out of whipping boys. cough cough LF defense cough cough

Wohoo!! OMIT TIMO!

Here's the one thing to keep in mind with Contreras.....you don't have to worry about him wanting to test free agency in order to get the big money from the New York teams. I think only King Kong had a worse experience in New York than Contreras did.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:00 AM) We'll see what happens, but I think they have to move at least one of these guys if they can't sign them. Oh, I'll definitely agree with that. I know I use hyperboles often, but I'll be stunned if Garland is on the 2006 White Sox roster.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:52 AM) So we should just let them walk? No, but if we start trading them away in the offseason before their last season, it just seems like we're going to be hurting our MLB team that season. I'm a much bigger fan of just playing with your players, and if you're doing well, try to win the whole f'n thing. If your season isn't going well, then trade the player for prospects. However, don't keep using the prospects as chips to trade for high-priced players. The reason for that is that those players are going to be in the same situations that Garland and Contreras are currently in, so we're just as likely to start trading them if they don't want to sign extensions. BTW, this really isn't that big of a deal right now. I think we'll eventually get Contreras signed to a 2 year deal with a player option, but there wasn't a chance in hell that Contreras and his agent agreed to the first proposal.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:39 AM) Hey, atleast we'd receive four draft picks for Garland and Contreras. That's until those draft picks show promise--then they're included in a trade package. I'm not really happy with what looks to be the organization's theory of: if you don't want to sign an extension, then YOU GONE! Between that and KW's willingness to trade our highest rated prospects, our payroll's going to have to get bigger and bigger to afford extending guys.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:39 AM) Why? If anything, Williams made sure there's only one spot, at worst, in the pitching rotation which needs to be filled. Hey, atleast we'd receive four draft picks for Garland and Contreras. That's until those draft picks show promise--then they're included in a trade package. Because for the same amount of money that Vazquez is going to be making during his contract, you could have brought back either Garland or Contreras. At least with those two, you know how they'd perform at the Cell. If KW is able to bring back one of the two guys, then I have no problem with the Vazquez trade. If he loses both guys, and replaces them with a high priced Vazquez, then that money spent/giving up our best prospect isn't my idea of a great trade. However, KW knows a hell of a lot more than I do about what's going on, so I'm not going to freak out.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 07:30 AM) Williams will have to sign Contrereas. There's no other option. I'd rather enter the 06' offseason with a complete rotation than having to worry about acquiring, or trading for, another starter. Think this offseason is ridiculous? Wait until next year. We'll be complaining again how subpar talent is ranking in ridiculous contracts. Anyone with a season remotely resembling Contreras' post season success or Garland's resurgence will be well out of our range. This is where abandoning minor league talent to accomodate a "window of opportunity" will kill an organization. If I'm Cooper, I'd attempt to teach Cotts a third pitch. Not for the 07' season, but for 08' and beyond when we'll really be in trouble if Williams resists overpaying. He'll have to do it, eventually. Our path in the upcoming years has to be either an increasing payroll, or more of a reliance on developing talent. Offseasons such as this years cannot persist. If KW can't bring back either Contreras or Garland, then the Vazquez trade was a disaster.

In today's market, anyone that thought this would be an easy negotiation was being naive.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 11:35 PM) Isn't their hitting coach Rudy Jamarillo or something like that, the very respected hitting instructor? I don't get the homer-or-nothing comment, what's that about? Thanks. I think it's basically how a lot of their players became the Rockies of the AL. By this, I mean how they all put up great numbers at home, but when they go on the road, they're unable to change their approach and really struggle. Another thing with Blalock is that before last season, he was untouchable. Now, you can possibly get the Rangers to "sell low". I think it's definitely a move worth making, but I have seriously doubts it's even possible.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 11:30 PM) Blalock had a terrible last 6 weeks of the season, I seem to recall he had some nagging injuries but not certain. If the White Sox can somehow land him I will be ecstatic. No doubt, I would much rather have Blalock than Crede. If we got him and he batted 6th in our order, you would have a terrific 3-4-5-6 in Thome/PK/Dye/Blalock. I think he's also a tremendous talent to be locked up to his contract.

BTW, I've said this before, but I think it's time to repeat it. An AL scout told a close friend of mine that Blalock's work ethic and attitude were really poor last season (reminds me of 2 guys we traded for last season). They think that the whole homer or nothing approach done by the Rangers has robbed Blalock of his tremendous hitting approach. The scout definitely thought the player needed a change of scenery.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 11:18 PM) Most statistics? They show he is one of the worst hitters in the league away from Arlington. Well, if we're going to use statistics, Pods should have never been batting against Lidge in the 9th inning of Game 2 because he was one of the worst clutch hitters in all of baseball.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 11:14 PM) No Blalock is not "clearly" the better player. That is your opinion. And I would predict about 98 pct of the executives in baseball.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:48 PM) Most people get it. VAFan doesn't. Why don't we try to trade Garland and Crede to the Padres for Brian Giles?

QUOTE(hi8is @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:10 PM) if that was the case, id imagine we could just trade young for vazquez straight up then we could flip duque to someone else for prospects or something i doubt you know the way a deal is structured. I'd hope not. One of the biggest reasons the Sox are doing this is to unload Duque's contract. If this trade fell through, KW would be better off keeping our best offensive prospect in a long time, and using some of the money he would have spent on Vazquez elsewhere.