fathom

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 06:58 PM) How do you figure that they'd be the division winner? Their rotation gets considerably weaker without Prior and you obviously don't think that Bedard a viable replacement. I don't see how you could think they're a division winner with that pitching staff that I mentioned in my previous post. Houston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis will all have better pitching staffs, and St. Louis has a pretty strong offense to go with it. I could possibly see them finishing second if Houston doesn't bolster their lineup and Roger retires, or Milwaukee doesn't have enough of a bullpen or offense if Fielder doesn't produce right away, but I can't see them getting by St. Louis when they still have the deepest rotation in the division and the trio of Pujols-Rolen (yeah, health is an issue)-Edmonds. The Cubs bullpen is going to be much better than it was last season. As much as I dislike Pierre, he's still a much better leadoff hitter than anything they had last season. Tejada will absolutely destroy the ball at Wrigley, and it wouldn't shock me to see their 3-4-5 all hit between 35 and 40 homers. As much as I think Bedard's overrated, I've long thought that Prior's hype doesn't match his productivity. The Cubs pitching would keep them in games, but their offense would be extremely good next year.

If the Cubs do make this trade, I think they're in the driver's seat in the division (and no one hates the Cubs more than I do). However, I don't think this trade is going to happen. BTW, Bedard is very overrated on this site.

Manny's a better player than Prior, but to say Manny has more value than him right now is false.

In a few years, he'd be a great addition if we needed a 4th outfielder.

QUOTE(GreenSox @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) He's a lot better than Eaton - and Eaton brought in some decent talent. I have yet to see a trade proposal that nets the Sox what the Padres got for Eaton. Well said. Also, there are rumors of the Dodgers trading some of the same prospects we've talked about for David Wells.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:50 PM) Supposedly, the Cubs have two offers on the table for Miguel Tejada: Offer A: Jerome Williams, Corey Patterson, Felix Pie, and Brian Dopirak for Miguel Tejada Offer B: Mark Prior and Felix Pie for Miguel Tejada, Erik Bedard, and Nick Markakis Orioles will laugh at offer A, and offer B would be a terrible trade for the Cubs.

With Gagne out for the Dodgers, I can't see them giving up Braz.

-The Astros won't trade Lidge unless they get a marquee bat in the deal. - Jenks is our closer for 2006. - Relievers are so inconsistent, I really would rather get starting pitching prospects are stud position player prospects than guys who are just as likely to put up a 4.5 ERA as they are a 2.5 ERA. - The only young reliever that would excite me as a possibility is H. Street, but there's no chance the A's deal for Garland.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:11 PM) Exactly, I'd be in no hurry to move him. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. Plus, if were going to pick up a reliever, I'd probably rather deal our own mionr leaguers for one and than let Garland get us some stud prospects because thats better value on the most part. Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years. Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero. I agree with it, but you're a smart enough fan to be able to read KW's actions/words. There's a reason so many of us will be shocked if Garland's on the 2006 roster. I would definitely rather just get value for Garland, and worry about filling the relief spots after that. When KW sets his mind on something, he usually puts in a ton of effort to get the move done.

All this McDonald's talk is making me hungry. Can we get back to talking about Garland please?

Redding isn't very good at all. It will take a couple of injuries for him to ever get an actual chance to be a contributor with the Sox.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) We better get two damn good relievers. Cause if I read that right...a major league one, and one on the cusp I think of Brazoban and Broxton and I'd throw up at the idea of that. Its not getting enough. We have something EVERYONE wants and we better not get talent for it. I'm sorry, we gave up Chris Young for Vazquez (there were financial reasons as well) but nothing tells me we shouldn't get a little more for Jon Garland. I know that the biggest fear I have, as well as RockRaines, is that KW is so set on trading Garland, that he might take a lesser offer just to get rid of him. If KW is just set on getting relievers, then we're not going to get full value for Garland.

Can we avoid trashing the loyalty of these guys though? We have no clue what the contract offers were, and why they might not want to stay. We could question the loyalty of all players, but I would much rather this thread stick to what type of relievers we could try and trade for Garland.

I like Garland, and think he's matured a lot in the last year. However, there's no comparison between the character of PK and the character of Garland.

I could care less if we get another lefty reliever. I'd rather just get quality arms for our bullpen, righty or lefty.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:20 PM) Bingo. The pool of players should consist of LaRoche, Guzman, Billingsley, Jackson, Miller and Broxton. If LA doesn't at least offer two of them, KW would be wise to hang up. Here's my overstated philosophy: KW depleted our farm system to get some highly skilled players who are question marks. If we're going to trade a highly skilled player with probably fewer question marks, then he needs to replenish our system with great prospects, not 2 or 3 average prospects.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:02 PM) Nomar, kind of. True, but don't you think that was a unique situation? Good job though Rowand!

One of the reasons so many teams do make trades with KW is that they know he's not afraid to give up big time players/prospects. This is one time where he needs to find another General Manager that's willing to take the chances he is.

When's the last time a team traded a major contributor at the deadline when they were still in contention?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:44 PM) Which is why I think Kenny will wait for the deadline. That's when you could rip off teams for their prospects. I know we talked about this in chat a little, but why in the hell would KW plan on trading Garland at the deadline? The ONLY way we trade Garland at the deadline is if we're out of contention. KW's putting all of his resources into the next few seasons, and if we're in a situation where Garland is traded at the deadline, this season would be a disaster. Especially after the White Flag stuff, there's no chance we trade a major contributor during the season, unless we're so far out of first that even KW and Ozzie don't think we can catch up.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:25 PM) That would be scary. Check out his control. He sucks on and off the field. No thanks!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:20 PM) I never thought Grant Balfour was that bad of a pitcher. He was in the Twins organization and had some decent periph's as a reliever. I have no idea if he had injury problems or anything like that. He's had big time injury issues. He does have electric stuff when healthy.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:50 PM) I could see the Dodgers Adding Wade Miller to their Rotation. Miller had another surgery. He's such a health risk that teams can't count on him to be in their rotation.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:55 PM) How is Joel defensively? I've been told that he makes B.J. Upton look like a Gold Glover. Guzman projects as a corner outfielder or 1b now.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:50 PM) Agreed. Billingsley is the deal-breaker. He simply has to be included in a deal of that magnitude. Which he very well might not be. Guzman is such an exciting young prospect that could still be the centerpiece of a good deal for the Sox.