fathom

You don't have a 6 man rotation where 5 of the starters will likely all being making at least 7.5 million per season. There are still so many possibilities that KW can look at if they do acquire Vazquez without trading one of our main starters, but I would believe that when I see it. However, as of now, I would much rather see KW just sit back, relax, and be pleased with how this offseason went.

There's not a chance in hell we're going to trade Duque for Vazquez, and then put McCarthy in the pen. That would be one of the most expensive starting rotations in baseball. If we bring in Vazquez, you can bet your ass there'll be another trade with Garland or Contreras involved in it.

After reading that article on the official site, I think it's a matter of when, not if, either Garland or Contreras gets traded. I would put the percentage at about 95 pct likely Garland goes, and I think it will happen within the next 10 days.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 02:16 AM) It has everything to do with the White Sox looking for cost certainty while maintaining an excellent pitching staff. So the pitching staff gets older, more expensive, and worse? I think that's the reason for the 25 page thread.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:29 PM) You can see why he is such a clubhouse problem at times. Or maybe it's cause he witnessed a parent get killed in front of his very eyes?

QUOTE(Sox Hustler @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:16 PM) Holy crap, I just logged on to see Vazquez could come to the sox. I am not going to read through 22 pages, but does any know if he will wave his no trade clause? 18 holes of golf last week make it likely.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 09:09 PM) Chris Young isn't some kind of superstar, you know. Well, if that's the case, then no one was a superstar when they were in the minors. Young's potential is leaps and bounds higher than any other Sox prospect right now.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) Young and Garland?? That would be horrible. I don't give a damn if Garland walks at the end of the year either at that expense. I hope to hell Rosenthal is wrong. Including Young in the deal would be just as bad as trading Kazmir for Victor Zambrano.

QUOTE(joeynach @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) Garland is a sinker baller, Vazquez is a fly ball pitcher, another Freddy G. Garland @ Cell for 1 Year >> Vazquez @ Cell for 2 yrs Chris Young for 6 years is greater than either Garland for 1 year or Vazquez for 2 years.

I think Jones will actually put up real good power numbers at Wrigley. His upper-cut swing and power to the left field gap will allow him to hit a ton of homers when the wind's blowing out.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:59 PM) If the Sox have all this money lying around, why not make a run at Johnny Damon? Blow Boras away, show him the cash. He is AJP's buddy.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:56 PM) I think they want cost certainty vs. the "possibility" they'll get someone in free agency. Not sure why you're not getting that picture. The White Sox have always pursued cost certainty, they did it not long ago with a similar scenario, Loaiza/Contreras. Timeline: - Garland turns down 3 yr. contract offer. - Guillen golfs with Vazquez. - Sox get aggressive about Vazquez. It fits. No, I understand it, I just think it's really stupid thinking by the White Sox. If this was a top-notch pitcher we were talking about, it would make more sense. However, Vazquez is far from that the last few years. I think KW learned his lesson this season, and that lesson is to lock up players to extensions that you know you want to bring back before the offseason hits and the market goes through the roof. We're lucky we were able to bring back PK. This is something that the Cubs have done rather successfully since Maddux left them a long time ago.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:50 PM) You are right, nothing ensures a repeat. That's why you have to keep a close eye on the "now" and 3 years from now. This is what KW has always tried to do, and he's doing it now as well. Exactly, and with three years in mind, it would make more sense to keep Garland for one season and keep our prospects. Then, you have more money to spend next season in a deep FA class, instead of having another season with 12 million tied up to Vazquez, who can easily have an ERA over 5 at the Cell.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:31 PM) I thought he was talking about Owens? If so, I'm sorry. And yes, I've heard that Owens is Pods-esque in the outfield.

QUOTE(rcpweiner @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:23 PM) I've said it before and I'll say it again: The only reason Jon-Jon had a career year last year was the vastly improved defense. By the team not giving up extra outs, Jon was able to stay away from those huge innings he gave up in years past. Jon had a career year because he drastically improved his control. Not only did he walk fewer batters, but he also didn't leave as many meatballs over the heart of the plate.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:20 PM) The question marks are arm strength and route running. The route running issue supposedly has improved. Guillen raved about the guy, he is making the calls basically, so that's good enough for me. Arm strength for Anderson? I thought his arm is supposed to be much, much, much better than Rowand's arm was this season.

I don't have a problem trading Brian Anderson, as long as you go get a 1 year replacement like Brady Clark. Then, I'll take my chances with Chris Young being ready by then.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) Let me add this. Assuming Chris Young and Ryan Sweeney and Jerry Owens are as good as Guillen has said, why do you need Brian Anderson after 2006? For a right fielder? Owens and Sweeney don't project to have much power. Of course, it's not like the Sox have a great track record of developing players into stars anyways.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:56 PM) That makes no sense- but an attractive package of Garland, Anderson and Fields for Crawford would work. This of course would have to be after the Vaz for Duque and Young Wow i love speculating. Maybe it's me, but I'm not a big fan of giving up basically our entire farm system this offseason!

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:53 PM) Garland and Young for Vazquez? The Sox would be willing to pay $16 million or more (considering what is left on Vazquez's deal and what Garland would get in arbitration) just to have a guy who has been mediocre at best the last year and a half signed 1 additional season, and give up one of their top prospects? Why don't they just give Garland a 2 year deal worth $20 million and keep Young? They would still come out $4 million ahead. This whole thing I thought was far-fetched, but Rosenthal has been pretty accurate for a while now, and his scenerio is scaring me. No doubt, that would be a disaster of a trade. Just like when the whole Burnett trade speculation started, I get the same feeling where I just want to say "KW, please stay the f*** away from the DBacks!"

Remember what the Dbacks supposedly had lined up for Vazquez.....Granderson and a top pitching prospect. I highly doubt they would want Duque in a trade, as they're loading up more for about 2 or 3 years from now.

There's a lot of teams in the market still for a big-time pitcher. Teams like the Reds (and my boy Adam Dunn), the Cardinals, and others would definitely be interested in acquiring Garland.

I don't think there's a chance in hell the DBacks will want anything to do with Duque.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:18 PM) If Arizona paid Vazquez's entire contract, maybe. Otherwise, that's huge, massive, utterly ridiculous overpayment. Obviously, I was being extremely sarcasitc with this. If KW does this move, it would basically negate all the good moves he's done the last few years (minus the World Championship!).

Garland and Chris Young for Vazquez sounds pretty fair.