fathom

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.

Since we don't have anything close to a replacement for AJP in our system, it was vital to bring him back. Great move, and not too much money at all.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 08:56 PM) http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws "Aware fo the situation. Whole world is aware of the situation." Listen around 6:00. But yah. KW is bluffing. Blah blah blah. ftw You really want to argue about the semantics of a person that has been notorious for overstating things in the press?

The funny thing is that I think the Sox would have to give up both Garland and Crede for Blalock. Not for one second do I believe that the Rangers would include another MLB player in the deal, and I highly doubt a minor league top prospect would be included. They've wanted a ridiculous package for Blalock all along, and their new GM is Chuck LaMaar Jr.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 08:49 PM) I agree that Garland will likely not be back. So you trade him for someone good. YOu don't trade him for a bad to average player that can't hit lefties and can't hit on the road. THat is the definition of not getting value. Last offseason, we traded a big time slugging outfielder for one of the worst statistical outfielders in baseball. When you're in a position where you're determined to give up a player, you can't always hold out for top value.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 08:47 PM) KW said that. KW said that Crede was doing well in the offseason and that he will be good to go. The thing is he said that he couldn't go into the season knowing that something bad could happen that he previously knew about, without doing something to back it up. Buts its possible KW doesn't know what hes talking about. I mean he's only the GM Yeah, since I'm sure KW would be telling EVERY baseball executive that he has fears about Crede's health!!! Come on man, he's saying the "smart" thing. It's just like when he was saying that Duque would be the 5th starter, etc. If you haven't caught on to KW's lingo yet, then pay more attention to his quotes. You can tell an awful lot by what he says in the media.