jackie hayes

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) And people think our writers are morons. Lets see El Duque or Buerhle. LOL Lets see Sosa or buerhle. LOL It's not such a dumb question. He wasn't including Sosa in the discussion. Even if you go Buehrle over El Duque (and, in fairness, Hernandez has been great so far this year -- not saying it will last, but it's still something to say you'll sit a guy with a sub-3 era), you still have to sit either Glavine, Pedro, Maine, or Perez. I don't see any clear-cut choice.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 26, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) You're right, but if you think they want to hold off the Cubs in that division and win in the postseason with Dave Bush and Claudio Vargas, rather than Mark Buehrle, I think you'd be mistaken. They've won plenty of games without Weeks. I'm not saying they would definitely move him, but I think he would be a guy they would consider before some of the other players which Kenny might demand. Right now, they have 6 starters, with Sheets, Capuano, and Suppan guaranteed spots. (Suppan mostly because of the contract, but he's there, anyway.) That leaves Gallardo, Vargas, and Bush for two spots. Add Buehrle and those three are battling for one spot. It's true that it helps their staff, but it's not really fixing a glaring hole, it's adding insurance. A move like that isn't worth hurting the offense, especially by taking away a player that can be as electric as Weeks. The team that most needs a starter is still Atlanta, and I have to think that they're the most likely partner at the end of the day. They need a starter badly, they have a top prospect who's blocked, they've publicly discussed trading him. The Yankees, maybe. Or maybe a team that sees a big injury. But these Red Sox and Brewers rumors don't make much sense, imo.

The Brewers already have a logjam of starters, so much so that they've discussed moving Gallardo to the pen. I'm sceptical. In any case, the last thing they're going to do is hurt the offense to help the rotation. Braun and Weeks aren't going anywhere. (Gallardo too, but for other reasons.)

Sounds farfetched. It's not like the Red Sox don't know columnists in the Boston papers, so they could have easily cut off the speculation early. If it was a plant, I think at least it was one that the Red Sox were happy to go along with.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) Definitely. I still find it funny that he eventually worked his way back from being a mega bust and is now a semi decent reliever for the Tigers (but god the Sox got lucky on that one cause that would have been the original Joe borchard like bust). However, the one thing that tends to bother me is that if the Sox get burned just once doing something, they tend to shy away from it for a long long time. Case in point, they pretty much will never offer another draft pick over slot money thanks to Joe Borchard not panning out (however, you know in advance that the draft is a crap shoot, however, you still have to know the more you spend both on your scouts as well as on being willing to give more money to players, enables you to have a far better player development system). I should also say the Sox are not known to be a "cheap" organization in terms of the draft but they also aren't the Angels (who consistently invest in picks, including those high impact projected top couple round guys that slide due to strong commits or high salary demands). I would love to see the Sox take guys like Jordan Danks (first round talent that slid or the guy they took around the 20th round this year) and convert a couple of them and get them signed for top couple of round money (ie you give a 20th rounder projected to go top 2 rounds the amount he would have gotten had he went there) because it would essentially allow you to have more first round picks than you otherwise did. Well Tex is a Boras client and I think I'm missing one or two other guys that they have. They definitely did get burned pretty badly by Boras though so I wouldn't be shocked if they did start straying from them (considering how much bigger the Rangers offer was than any other team...but again it is ownership and management that eventually agrees to meet Boras demands). I've never thought of it as being cheap. Reinsdorf is ARDENTLY an "organization guy". He was the only one to oppose Cuban's ownership of the Mavericks (iirc), presumably bc he didn't want anyone so outspoken (as opposed to standing by the league). (And I know it's a little odd to claim someone's an organization guy bc he was the only vote opposing something -- but I think I makes sense in this case.) I've always thought that probably played a large part in the Sox drafting strategy. I'm sure he wants to minimize the amount by which the Sox violate the 'slot money' guidelines.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) Some posts have implied, but I am curious. Are there any other teams openly opposed to dealing with Boras? It gets mentioned with Baltimore, but they lust after Teixera and just drafted Wieters, so they're definitely willing to make exceptions. Obviously Matt Bush went 1 bc Boras was repping Weaver and Drew. Not sure if that's still true for SD.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) good riddance... we were willing to give you a second chance, everyone was... you f***ed it. A poor decision and a laughable overreaction to a young guy's first night back home.

The guy would inspire more confidence if his statements made sense. Just because other teams are willing to deal with Boras doesn't mean they avoid non-Boras players. The only ones who get "pushed down" are Boras clients. They may go lower than talent would dictate, but others can only go higher.

QUOTE(infohawk @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) I don't think Manaya was in charge then, but this is the same franchise that traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. That's why Minaya got the job. So you think he'll make the same mistake that got his predecessor fired, just bc something's in the water in Queens?

QUOTE(Al Lopez @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 07:27 AM) Rogers has flip-flopped on the Garcia and McCarthy trades several times now. If you searched the Tribune archives, about 6 weeks ago he wrote a column saying 'I admit I was wrong to criticize these moves.' Screw him. Actually, if you look at that article ("Sox make right call on Garcia, McCarthy"), he somehow forgot to mention what his initial reaction was. Probably just an oversight. He's just a windsock.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jun 25, 2007 -> 01:17 AM) How can you guys talk about these types of trades without mentioning Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano? Another one that comes to mind is David Cone for Jeff Kent (and someone else who never panned out) in August of 1992. Zambrano wasn't a rental, and that one gets bracketed anyway because you can't expect staggering stupidity every year. Cone's a good example, but were there compensation picks back then?

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 08:27 PM) Week and Braun for Buehrle? Interesting So the meeting where everyone got together and decided to humor the most outlandish trade proposals -- when was it and how did I miss it?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 11:58 PM) Well, you could sort of argue Garcia, or the other one that comes to mind is Randy Johnson a while back. Neither is a GREAT comparison, but both got pretty decent talent (well, at the time in Freddy's case). But when you compare the expectations here to the return as it seemed at the time, it shows how absurd it is to expect to decimate any team's system. The Mariners picked well, but neither Garcia nor Guillen was a BA top-100 prospect at the beginning of 1998. Garcia had done well, just not well enough to be that highly ranked. Guillen had been a top-100 prospect the year before, but fizzled in 1997. They also got John Halama, who was older, but sort of like Garcia numbers-wise (ie, solid, not spectacular). Not one was a BA top-100, I doubt any one of those three was considered an A prospect by many, and this was for Randy Johnson when he was striking out 300+ in a season. By contrast, people are asking for Pelfrey, Milledge, and Humber -- or Buchholz, Ellsbury, and Bowden. These packages are beyond ridiculous. I also wonder if people realize how rare A prospects really are. If you don't want to trade Buehrle under any condition, fine. But just say that, don't set up comical trades as benchmarks.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 06:55 PM) Please no, not as a centerpiece, only as a throw-in with something good coming along. No, I was mostly just hoping to piss off Kalapse.

Coco Crisp, Coco Crisp, Coco Crisp, Coco Crisp.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 06:47 PM) Is it safe to say the contract agreement rumor was bogus? Is it safe to say that question was rhetorical?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 06:33 PM) I'm with Maggs on this one. Obviously you are taking a risk, but I wait it out with Mark, at least for a few more weeks. Buehrle has shown no signs of slowing down, and the longer you wait, the better chance that more teams enter the equation due to injury, playoff contention, ect. I'm not. This has been talked about for a while, and I'm sure he has enough offers to have a rough idea of the market. Mark was brilliant last year too -- until that last start before the ASB. If you have a good offer now -- not just acceptable, but a very good offer -- you don't hold off on the off chance of getting the #20 prospect instead of the #30 or one more okay A-ball prospect.

Damn you no-stream radio stations. And you no-Steam radio stations, too. It's just an awesome, awesome group.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) Lets just say for the sake of argument that the Red Sox were given a 72 hour window to sign Buehrle to an extension. The Sox best be getting Bucholtz and a couple more major pieces back if this is the case. I don't buy it for a second but if it is true then I expect a King's Ransom of top flight talent to be on its way to Chicago right about now. That's true -- if there's an extension, it's a different story.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) Then we don't have to trade him, and certainly don't have to do so right now. So you're saying don't trade him unless we get back Buchholz or an equal-ceiling player as part of the package? Just keep waiting for that offer?

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) Honestly, somebody needs to abuse one the baseball beat writers/reporters by "leaking" that the Yankees are close to acquiring Buehrle and we will see how soon Theo picks that phone up and offers Buchholz. Why? It's not like the Yankees are going to give us Phil Hughes. So why would the Red Sox suddenly panic, thinking they'd been one-upped? Mark Buehrle doesn't guarantee anything and some prospects really are untouchable. Some of the expectations amaze me.

You know when the announcer starts a sentence, and you imagine the conclusion before he says it? When Hawk said, "This season", I immediately imagined the end of the sentence being "is ova." I haven't been too worked up with the last few series, but I expected at least one win here. It's not very surprising -- just a little heavier, a little more finality, a little more somber. As bad as I thought they were, I managed to overestimate them. Putrid.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 24, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) In the next series, we face Kazmir, JP Howell and Shields. Our batters are probably just busting at the chomps to get a hold of that after facing the dynamite Cubs pitching. That's a new one.

Yahoo's gonna need a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to update the box score, here.