fathom

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 05:09 PM) Garland for Vasquez. Those guys are just the centerpieces for this possible trade. We don't know any more than that. There could be money, prospects or other ML players involved. Let's see what the trade actually is before we judge it. But what fun would that be???

What if it ends up being that the Sox trade Contreras instead of Garland? The DBacks have liked Contreras for a long time.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:06 PM) Thanks, all I heard on The Snore was that they offered him a 3-year contract. For all I know, it might have been the same source relaying that information to everyone.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 04:01 PM) Where did you hear that? Just curious. Besides for what was speculated by the Chicago media, those were the approximate figures that were rumored at the Winter Meetings.

Consensus was that it was 3/24 for Garland. And yes, this trade would suck, as 2/24 for Vazquez would be a bad trade.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:41 PM) This trade is too much IMO. I don't see this making us better. I'm starting to think that if we do too much more this offseason, we're just making ourselves worse. It kind of reminds me of the Yankees after they won their WS's. Change is necessary, but not this much. Especially as Garland seemed to step up as one of the leaders of the team. He showed a ton of maturity on and off the field last season.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) I'd be stunned if it's not the White Sox or Orioles (trying to please Tejada). Thanks, I didn't know that. Well, that was part of me hoping it might be the Orioles, as I really don't like the sound of this trade.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) Here is what the D-Backs GM had to say about the Vazquez situation yesterday: "One team in particular has stepped forward in the last few days," said Byrnes, who declined to identify the team. "I think it's close enough that it could happen, but you never know." From the Dbacks website. I'd be stunned if it's not the White Sox or Orioles (trying to please Tejada).

Two things about payroll: - Sox are in a great position because they don't have any real bad contracts (besides Duque). - If you want to have a competitive team year-in, year-out, it's going to get expensive. If the Sox keep winning and fans come to the games, I'm not too concerned about payroll.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) We will need to have some cheap players at certain positions to also be able to afford our pitching. With the way that FA is now, that goes true for almost every team.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 03:08 PM) If we keep Garland, he is likely gone after 2006 when he starts getting $10 million per year contract offers as a free agent. I guess it comes down to whether you would rather have one year of Garland or two years of Vazquez. I'd rather take my chances of having Garland for one more season, see how that goes, and if you lose him, you have some money to play with in a deep FA class. If we were talking about Vazquez having like 3 or 4 more years left on his deal, then maybe the trade would make more sense.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:59 PM) Adam Dunn? Why would KW go after an outfielder via trade when we are stocked with outfield prospects? He's a corner outfielder who is better now than any of our prospects, besides maybe Young, can ever dream of being.

QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:57 PM) I think that if you put Chicago's Defense behind Vazquez, you will see an improvement in his #s. And the improve offensives in the AL will then take away from any change. Unless the defense is able to prevent homers (35 allowed by Javier last year), I'm not so sure defense will make that much of a difference. Maybe it's just me, but I don't look forward to Vazquez giving up bombs to guys like Hafner on a frequent basis. Just cause a pitcher does well vs the Sox, it doesn't mean they're a star.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) Ack. There goes our agreement. We don't need anymore hitting. Pitching, pitching pitching, especially if we are trading away JC or JG. If you acquire Dunn, then you can use other assets to acquire pitching. I just don't believe we use two of our biggest assets in Garland and Contreras to acquire a player that not many baseball people believe is ever going to be a superstar again.

A lot of people on here know that I feel that if the Sox do trade Garland or Contreras, they should talk to the Reds about seeing what type of package involving them that would take to acquire Adam Dunn. Getting Vazquez just makes no sense at all, as he'll make more money than Garland would in the first year of whatever Garland's new deal would be.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 02:47 PM) TWIW, but Gammons said last week if Arizona were to trade Vazquez, they would not pick up any of his contract, including the $3 million the Yankees send them to help pay it. That means, if their position hasn't changed, the Sox would be on the hook for $11.5 million this year, and $12.5 million next year. The way Vazquez has performed the last season and a half, I would prefer to hang on to Garland and/or Contreras at that price. I am one who doesn't think this is going to happen. I just hope KW/OG love fest for Vazquez doesn't cloud their decision making here.

My biggest problem is this: Vazquez just isn't that good. If you're going to trade Garland or Contreras, you should be able to get a solid player, as well as a big prospect. A big market team like the Yankees would give anything to get someone like Garland. But to trade them for the high-priced underachiever wouldn't be a good trade at all.

I definitely don't want to see this deal go down. If we're going to trade Contreras or Garland at peak value, at least the pitcher we get should be someone with a good contract/value. For his contract, Vazquez is not that person. Also, I think if they trade Garland, you're basically writing Buehrle's ticket out of town when his contract is up also.

Felix Heredia? No thanks, I wouldn't even want him pitching for our AAA team. Eischen is a solid lefty, but I heard the Nats want to bring him back.

QUOTE(illinilaw08 @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 08:16 PM) Get well soon Mike Brown Get your head out of your ass Brian Urlacher.

Absolutely no reason to bring in Rex today. As others have mentioned, this is a no-win situation. His ass better be starting next week, as Orton is a disgrace at the position.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 08:04 PM) Put in Rex, Lovie. I honestly think the best thing to happen to the Bears the rest of this game would be for Orton to disgrace himself and throw a few interceptions.

Maybe it's just me, but I think today's thrashing might be a nice little wake-up call for the Bears.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 08:01 PM) Show proof that he was. Innocent until proven guilty in this country. Canseco did say that Tejada was a juicer. Does that make him guilty? NO. However, it does make you suspicious.

FWIW, Phil Rogers seems to think Borchard will be the 4th outfielder.