BlackBetsy

QUOTE(S720 @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 10:00 AM) Since you put it this way, for Garland to receive $11 mil per year for 2 years, I think, is a little bit too much. Why in the world Kenny want to give Garland that much money? On our pitching staff, Garland is going to be a 4th or 5th starter anyway, and you don't pay the 4th or 5th starting pitcher that much money! I actually think it's a great deal because it's for fewer years. What free agent is willing to sign a 2-year deal for market price? Look at Millwood, Washburn, AJ Burnett, etc. They all asked for and got 4+ year deals. A team is willing to pay more for less years - see Furcal. This is a pretty good deal for Jon, too, inasmuch as he will be a free agent when he is 29. Pre-30 pitchers do a lot better on the free agent market in terms of money and length of deals. Contrast Millwood to Burnett; Millwood has had a better career, yet he only got $1 million more per year, and the last year isn't even guaranteed. In addition, the Sox will have Garland for his 26, 27 and 28 year old seasons. Those are a pitcher's prime years. If Garland is going to have a career year, it's most likely to happen in the next three. Buehrle is super cheap at $9.5 million in 2007, now. He'll be hard to lock up for less than $12 - $13 per season from 2008-20011.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 07:34 PM) Question: If Contreras pitches for the Sox throughout 2006 and then leaves as a free agent, do we still get draft picks? If so, do we know how many and what round they would be in? The Sox wouldn't. Since Contreras has had fewer than 6 years of major league service time, he wouldn't even be eligible for free agency after '06 EXCEPT for the fact that his contract with the White Sox (originally signed by the Yankees) requires the White Sox to release him as of November 15, 2006 (or thereabouts) if they have not re-signed him to another deal. If you release a player and he is signed by another team, you don't get draft picks. The Yankees just went through this this offseason with Hideki Matsui.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) just eyeballing your figures, i would say the Score isn't including the money we got from the other teams into things. The difference comes to about $10 million, which is about the difference in the numbers. That sounds reasonable to me. The Sox are getting $5 for Thome, $2 for the Count, $2.5 for Vazquez. That's $9.5 million right there. I just can't see them keeping Contrerars at $7 million if everyone else is locked up and McCarthy is available at $350k. I just worry that McCarthy now becomes trade bait. He's probably the most valuable trade piece the Sox have right now b/c of his low salary and good performance. And we all know that Kenny LOVES to trade away prospects.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) The Score just said the payroll is at $102 million right now....Who knows if that number is correct, but you'd have to assume that they, according to KW, would want that payroll in the mid-90's. I don't get this estimate. My own estimate is about $90 million: 2006 1 Konerko $12.00 2 Buehrle $7.65 3 Garcia $9.00 4 Contreras $7.00 (Yankees pick up $2 million of $9 million salary) 5 Dye $5.00 6 Vazquez $9.00 (D-Backs pick up $2.5 million of $11.5 million salary) 7 Thome $7.50 (Phillies pick up $5.0 million of $12.5 million salary) 8 Hermanson $3.00 9 Mackowiak $2.50 (Sox agreed to pay difference in Marte/Mack contract) 10 Iguchi $2.40 11 Podsednik $1.90 12 Politte $1.20 13 Uribe $3.15 14 Widger $0.65 15 Anderson $0.35* estimate - club control 16 McCarthy $0.35* estimate - club control 17 Ozuna $0.50 18 Jenks $0.35* estimate - club control 19 Cotts $0.35 20 Crede $2.00* estimate - arbitration 21 Pierzynski $4.00 22 Garland $7.00 23 RP $1.60* estimate - free agent 24 OF $1.00* estimate - free agent 25 IF $0.60* estimate - free agent Total $90.05

Jon Garland for Brandon Wood, straight up. Would you take it? Jon Garland and Joe Crede for Brandon Wood and Kendry Morales. Would you take it? [edit] FYI- The Angels reportedly offered the Royals Brandon Wood AND Casey Kotchman for Mike Sweeney. Allard Baird, not knowing his head from his ass, reportedly turned the Angels down.

Gee, the Rangers have never had any problems giving 5-year deals to a Boras pitching client.

If I'm the Orioles, I don't give up Bedard at all. The whole point of this deal is to shore up a shaky rotation. Sure, Prior is better than Bedard, but the difference between Prior and Bedard is not worth Tejada (and all Patterson and Hill would be are throw-ins, anyway). You still have a rotation slot to fill. If you are the O's, you are looking for a rotation like Prior-Bedard-Cabrera-Chen-Lopez. Relatively solid 1-5. Prior-Cabrera-Chen-Lopez-Penn won't get you anywhere in the AL East.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 06:04 PM) Just to clarify... Collusion IS legal in baseball, but not other sports. MLB is unique among professional sports in that the courts have held in more than one case that MLB is ONE business, with 30 operating units. Therefore, they can collude if they want to. Not true when it comes to labor issues. MLB has an "antitrust exemption" that allows it some amount of protection against antitrust lawsuit by competing leagues (e.g., the Federal League in 1915) and against claims by individual owners that the league is restraining trade by not allowing them to move their team into a new city. Not terribly long ago, the owners and players went to Congress after they had agreed that the antitrust exemption should be removed for labor issues. Thus, collusion among teams when it comes to player salaries is no longer OK. In the collusion proceeding relating to the 1986 and 1987 free agent markets (Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk got a bunch of money out of this), I believe that the owners had agreed NOT to collude in the labor agreement that came out of the 1985 collective bargaining agreement (if you recall, baseball had a 2-day strike in 1985). Thus, when they did collude, it was thus subject of an arbitration over the terms of the contract. I believe the owners paid something like $270 million (maybe it was $170 million) as a result of losing that arbitration.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:07 PM) Garland's agent, Craig Landis, has a good relationship with the White Sox (see: Paul Konerko). Note how Konerko took less to stay here. Note how Garland does not want to negotiate with the White Sox. Paul Konerko did not take less money to stay with the White Sox. See the facts here.

I doubt that there is anything suspicious here - if El Duque or one of the players didn't get their physical by Friday, they probably could not submit the paperwork to the Commissioner's Office. The Commissioner's Office is shut down this week and next. I wouldn't be surprised to see the trade made "official" as late as Jan. 3rd.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 12:40 AM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...yson&id=2261063 Edit: Who spells their name Jayson anyway? He's making me look dumb without my mod powers too. You know what this column is? It's not only an insult to most baseball fans, but it's just a symptom of laziness. Jayson Stark can't come up with any real material and he decides to rifle through some e-mail and make fun of people. What a jackass. What about normal readers being baseball columnists? Do you think I would write as much false or misleading information in about potential trades, or be wrong so often? Do you think I would pimp Red Sox prospects like Peter Gammons when they aren't worth a quart of piss? Hello, Freddy Sanchez! Not only that, but there have been TWO trades in the last 2 weeks that I thought were more ridiculous than the Santana/Pujols idea (FWIW - Pujols 2-year VORP is 202.3, Santana's is 171.8), such as the Soriano trade and, like it or not, the Vazquez trade. So I don't rate fans that much worse than, say, Jim Bowden.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 03:32 AM) Vazquez never would have hit free agency. The D-Backs weren't backed completely into a corner, if Vazquez did tear up his contract in March, there's not a chance in hell he'd get money anywhere near what he's making now. He demanded a trade but would have recinded it before March. I don't agree with that. I think that in March, he would have commanded a premium for a team that needed one more starter. Even if he wouldn't have gotten $25 million for 2 years, I'd guarantee that he would get more guaranteed money, like $33 million for 3 years or $40 million for 4 years. So while he'd probably have to give up a bit in terms of average annual value, it's almost a certainty that he would get an increase in total guaranteed dollars, which is very important to players.

I LOVE Brandon McCarthy and am pissed the Sox traded Chris Young, but McCarthy and Uribe for Tejada is a no-brainer. I mean, not even a second of thought on that one. Of course, I would love it even more if the Sox shipped Vazquez and Uribe to Baltimore for Tejada.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:40 AM) Why should I care about Chris Young? We have other minor league pospects rated higher than Young who can be our "next centerfielder for 10 years". By the way, that "next centerfielder for the next 10 years" thing is a pipe dream. You And these centerfielders rated higher than Chris Young are?

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Dec 10, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) SP1: Haeger, Charles SP2: Liotta, Ray SP3: SP4: SP5: That's the scariest part of it all. There are no clear starters for Birmingham beyond these two. And it alo means that Liotta's time in W-S is all he's getting at the High-A level. Luckily, B'Ham is a pitcher's park, so I doubt that he will be shell shocked by going from low-A to AA in 4 months of season. I think that Lance Broadway goes to AA if he shows anything in spring. Birmingham is going to be hard up for starters otherwise. I would guess Wes Whisler is another possibility, but he was so bad at W-S last year, that it's tough to see why he would warrant a promotion. But in any case, I think that B'ham will have 1-2 non-prospects as starters. I don't think that Josh Fields has done what he needs to do to get promoted to Charlotte, but I can see promoting him to let him hit in a pitcher's park and to test him against slightly better competition. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see him in Birmingham by July.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 03:02 PM) Becuase those are the players who filled in for us as 5th starter when we didnt think it was important. Then we finished in 2nd place. Then we put together a rotation with 5 proven starters, got rid of boppers and brought in defensive players, including Uribe who is underrated at this point, and we won the world series. Now people are drooling at the prospect of trading a little pitching to bring back those boppers again. I say why go in reverse to the way that didnt work? Even if we got rid of Garland, we would have 5 proven starters (or, if you would like, 4 proven starters and 1 great prospect who had a sub-2 ERA down the stretch last year). We can't have a 6 man rotation. So it's just a matter of getting a return for the 6th starter.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 12:12 PM) Stop gap? Stop gap? Keep saying that in your head, and then picture Arnie Munoz, Felix Diaz and Danny Wright in your head. Calulate how many wins that loses us and come back to me. Our team is stronger and better with our pitching intact, than it would be if we traded one of them for a little more offense. Apparently nobody watched us win the WS last year? Now everyone wants some boppers and we can "fill in" some SP Why picture Munoz, Diaz & Wright? El Duque would be the 5th starter, not any of them (Wright is cooked anyway). So it doesn't lose us any wins. That's my calculation. You only need someone if one of the 5 get hurt. Even then, you can skip starts to avoid putting too many starts in the hands of a replacement. The alternative is to keep 6 starting pitchers on the team. That's just dumb at the end of the day. At least one will be unhappy, and going to a 6 man rotation really isn't an option. You are taking away starts from your best pitchers to give to your worst. So if you have 6 starting pitchers, you trade one of them. The logical person to trade is El Duque. However, he won't get much in return at this point. The point of this whole thread is what it would take to get Tejada (if they even want to trade him). Moving Garland makes sense because the Sox made a run at re-signing him and failed. He's a free agent after 2006 and I can't see the Sox having 4 $9-$10 million guys in the rotation in '07. In fact, I think Garland probably gets $11-$12 million anyway if was a free agent today. So the Sox are probably going to have to replace Garland after '06 anyway. In '06, they have someone in place - El Duque - and can plan for '07. They'll have to plan for '07 anyway; might as well get value for Garland in the mean time. If the value you get is Tejada, who is a plus plus offensive shortstop (and very good defensively, too), you have to take it. Because the Sox are likely to get nothing out of Garland after '06 anyway.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 11:34 AM) As much as I love Juan, Tejada is a huge upgrade and would be a welcomed addition. That being said I would not trade Garland, period. I wouldn't trade Jon straight up for Miggy, our pitching staff is to damn good and when you have the 5 guys we have, that alone can lead you to a championship. I don't want to go through a whole season with the Duke as the 5th starter again even with an improved offense, it would make this team worse. Pitching>Hitting. The key difference to me is that Tejada is signed for 4 more years, Garland has 1 year left. Garland for Tejada straight up is a no-brainer. Garland and Uribe (who the Sox wouldn't have a space for after Tejada comes aboad) for Tejada is a no-brainer, too. If that happened, you would use El Duque as a stopgap 5th starter next year. Since Gio and Haigwood are gone, you either pray that Broadway can be ready by 2007 (not likely) or look to the free agent market after the 2006 season.

QUOTE(TheHammer @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) I wonder what it would take to get a player of his caliber. I would consider him the best SS in the majors. Juan Uribe, El Duque, two top prospects and maybe a slightly lesser one? I just don't see anything less than McCarthy or Garland + Uribe + prospects getting Tejada. And I'm not sure the Orioles would even go for that.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) He was part of the trade for Jimenez I think. It may have been the one where we got that sidearm reliever from them (Scott Sullivan), but I thought it was the Jimenez deal. It was the Sullivan deal. Hummel to the Reds for Sullivan for the rest of '03. The Sox got Scott Dunn for Jimenez. Quintero - Jimenez - Dunn w/ Bittner & Glover - Schoeneweis & Doug Nickle.

The Sox picked up former farm hand Tim Hummel in the minor league portion of the Rule V draft. Welcome back, Tim.

Gammons is reporting on ESPN- blurb on ESPN.com. LINKY Andy Marte is one of the top prospects in the game. The Red Sox must be convinced they are getting Lugo...

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) Steve Phillips on ESPN News had the followig Dodgers give --- Lowe and Drew Boston gives Manny and Nixon Phils give Abreu Dodgers - Manny Phils - Lowe/Nixon Boston gets - Abreu/Drew I would like to think I am missing something but don't the Phillies get jobbed her? All money is about the same. Manny played for Grady Little as did Lowe.......... Wow...that would be a terrific deal for the Red Sox. OF would be Abreu (RF), JD Drew (LF) and Damon (CF) (assuming re-signed). That's a TON of production out of the outfield. 2005 VORP: Abreu 56.8 Damon 49.2 Drew (using 2004 VORP) 78.7 Total = 184.7 2005 VORP: Manny 68.6 Damon 49.2 Nixon 21.6 Total = 139.4 Shoot, JD Drew was pretty good in 2005 even though he played only 72 games.

QUOTE(Randar68 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:54 AM) Because he's nowhere near ready for the MLB and protecting him would have meant exposing someone more likely to be selected and able to help us this year if needed. I would be shocked to see him kept on a MLB roster all year, but stranger things have happened. Castro is kind of your prototypical Rule V draft guy anyway. If you keep him, he's the 12th guy in your bullpen and he doesn't get much work anyway. Since he's a lefty, he can be a LOOGY next year. He's not a starter in the minors, so you don't have to worry about setting him back a la sending Johan Santana to the bullpen (Twins 1999). Not to say that Castro WILL stick in MLB next year, but he's the type of guy most likely to stick. That's why 10 of the 12 guys drafted in Rule V were pitchers.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 11:22 AM) Did KC stay on with the top pick or did they trade it? Not clear, although Jim Callis said they might have traded it in the Redman deal.