hitlesswonder

QUOTE(southsida86 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 10:17 PM) I don't think that Garland can bring back more than one B prospect. If we could trade him for a B prospect, a reliever with good stuff who hasn't put it all together yet and a failed top prospect then I think that would be a good haul, but that is probably the absolute best Kenny could do and highly unlikely. I think that if Garland is actually traded that the return would be a C prospect, a failed top prospect, the reliever that I mentioned and maybe a player in low A ball with high upside. Grading prospects is pretty vague, but a C prospect on Sickels scale is a guy like Jerry Owens, Dewon Day, or Sean Tracey. A B prospect is a guy like Josh Fields or Ryan Sweeney or Brent Lillibridge. Anyway, I can't see how a team with some payroll resources and a need for a pitcher (Seattle or LAD) wouldn't be willing to offer a B and C prospect for 1 year of a major league pitcher that will in all likelihood give you 20 quality starts, doesn't require a risky long-term deal, and will net you draft picks. If you wanted to contend next season, wouldn't you trade the equivalent of Ryan Sweeney and Jerry Owens for Garland and draft picks? I'd do that deal in a heartbeat.

QUOTE(southsida86 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) So yeah, I do think that Garland and Dye would bring minimal return( A combination of 2/3 the following C prospect/B prospect/a reliever with good stuff but bad results/a failed first round pick) and the rest of the roster would bring back a bag of balls. Well, I agree with that. That being said, Lillibridge is a B prospect and I think Garland could bring back a player like that (I don't think ATL can add the payroll, though). Balentien from Seattle would also be a fair return. To be fair to Garland, he pitches a lot of innings and he gives a team a bunch of quality starts (18 this season...something like that). His ERA is right about par with that of #3 starters on good teams (per the Hardball Times) when you factor in park effects. $12M is a bunch of money, but the team trading for him gets a 28 year-old pitcher for 1 year. You can't get a comparable performer as a FA without a risky long-term commitment. And Garland should give you draft picks as a free agent. So the trade would really be Garland + picks. The thing that really drops his value IMO is complaining about shoulder pain and that coinciding with poor performances. If he keeps it together throughout Sept. I think a B and 2 C prospects should be attainable. And that's fine. Just don't trade for relievers....

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 02:36 PM) Gio Gonzalez + Gavin Floyd? Gonzalez was a B prospect coming into the season, so I think that's about right.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) If Kenny trades Garland (or any starter other than Contreras) for veteran relievers I'm going to hurl. John Sickels rated Garland's trade value as a B prospect and maybe a C grade guy or two. Garland's value was a lot higher when his ERA was under 4 and he wasn't complaining about his shoulder -- that was the time to trade him. At this point, the Sox would be lucky to pick up a solid major league reliever for him. I'd rather take a B grade position prospect over a reliever any day, but the point is that he has little value. Garland will be a $12M rental next year and he's pitching poorly and is likely injured. You can't get much for that.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Wow, everything I've posted in this thread has just been completely wrong. No more information from me unless I'm 100 percent sure. I've made myself look like a moron. I think there's a big difference between being wrong and looking like a moron. I've done both on this board, so you should trust me on this -- I don't think your posts make you look like a moron. So, just my opinion, but I hope you won't let being not 100% certain stop you from posting. As far UK and UI recruiting go, it will be interesting to see when Jereme Richmond announces his breaking his verbal to UI and heading to Kentucky instead. Honestly, I think he'd be foolish not to. He apparently has NBA potential and UK will be a much healthier situation.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 09:20 AM) the only thing that will put weber's job in significant jeopardy is if the team starts losing on the court. now, it can be theorized that this will hurt the program, but i do find it funny that so many people who have been clamoring for an assistant coach change for months are now sounding the program's death knell because an assistant coach left. I agree that wins and losses will be the determining factor, but given the ebbing talent level at UI I think the losses will come. Losing Richmond, as seems likely, will probably be the last straw. I think Weber's tenure at UI will look a lot like Mike Davis' at Indiana. If people have been calling for Webster to go, they were idiots. Webster has repeatedly been mentioned very positively by every recruit he's worked with. The fact that Gillispie hired Webster speaks volumes about his abilities. The UI assistant coaches aren't responsible for UI's recruiting woes.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) webster=he gawn I really think this puts Weber's job in significant jeopardy. Gillespie (sp?) will be recruiting Chicago very hard with Webster on his staff, and I don't think Weber can compete with Izzo, Matta, Sampson, Self, Gillespie, Calipari, etc. Richmond's family reaffirmed his commitment to UI, but I really think the writing is on the wall. The fact the Webster made a lateral move to leave UI is in itself interesting, and can easily be spun very negatively. It's just a bad situation. On the plus side, US News ranked UI the 8th or 9th best public university in the US. So there's that....

Strong rumors that UI assistant basketball coachTracy Webster will be leaving to join Kentucky's staff. He's regarded as Iliinois' best recruiter (responsible for the Richmond commitment). It almost goes without saying that the rumor is that Jereme Richmond will break his UI commitment and join Webster at Kentucky

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) I love beating the Tigers and yes they are looking like the 2006 White Sox, their pitching has failed them and what looks like a great offense has gone silent at the wrong times. They're still in the wild card though. This was a big loss for them tonite. DET is on pace to win 85 or 86 games I think. And it will be impressive if they do that, since they have been really scuffling lately. When all is said done, I think the 2006 Sox might look like a significantly better team than 2007 DET. Sort of surprising.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 10:35 AM) Wow, I'm finding myself totally in agreement with Flash about guys currently in our system. I find that fairly remarkable. I honestly don't fault Williams for how he assembled the 2008 bullpen. It was a decent plan that just happened to fail spectacularly. Doing what the orioles did would be a 1000 times worse. Their bullpen is terrible as well and they have a load of lousy contracts tying up money for years. I could possibly understand Williams trying to sign one single free agent reliever to be what MacDougal should have been this season. But beyond that, giving up talent in a trade or anything beyond a $3M per year 2 yr deal would be crazy. Wasserman, Aardsma, Perez, Egbert, and Floyd all are guys that should have a shot at the right handed relief slots and I would expect at least 2 of those guys could do a decent job next season (which 2, I don't know).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) If Mack is brought back this offseason then that was a very good trade by KW. He got a nice arm for him (Link has done well at WS), he saved $1M off the '06 payroll, he got someone else to pay Mack's $300K buyout for him ($1.3M in savings overall) and he can bring him back via free agency at a discounted rate, maybe $1.3M a year on a 2 year deal (this way the Padres sort of pay Mack's '08 salary)? Mackowiak is a good ballplayer who can be a very good role player on a Championship team, will be relatively inexpensive, grew up a Sox fan in Oaklawn and seemingly loved it here for the 1.4 seasons that he was in Chicago. It's a good fit. I'd be pretty happy with bringing Mack back, but I doubt Guillen would use him well. Mack is a useful guy and wold be nice insurance if someone at 3B/2B/LF flames out plus he gets on base OK. The sad part is that Ozzie refused to use him in the infield or at the top of the order where he would be more valuable.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) Well Jim Callis doesn't scout the Sox farm system either. He knows a whole bunch more about the Cubs system because he's a huge Cub fan. Doesn't mean his opinion/insight don't have merit. But it also doesn't mean just because he says the Sox have the worst farm system that it's gospel. I'll concede that I should have said "arguably the worst farm system". Debating if it is the worst is probably futile. But we should be able to agree that it is undeniably bad and one of the worst in baseball. I don't see how one can look at the AAA, AA, and A ball rosters and think anything else.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) What is your evidence to this as I am led to believe the Reds and/or Pirates have the worst systems in the MLB? How many other organizations fo you regularly scout? I'm not going to try to find the link, but Jim Callis said the CWS would likely be his pick for worst farm system. Houston is the Sox main competition. The Reds (Bailey, Votto) and Pirates (McCutchen and Lincoln) both are better from what I've read... And for what it's worth, I think calling up Phillips is a good decision -- the Sox should pitch him and see if he does well enough to elicit any trade interest since they'll need to decide what to do with him and this season is shot anyway. I don't see the point in calling up Broadway. I was just concurring with GP that odds are strongly against these guys being effective major leaguers for the Sox

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) If we jettison Thome, our best hitter, and consider sticking with Uribe, our worst hitter, then I think our league worst offense will be worse next season, regardless of whether or not we sign Rowand. I'm going to go ahead an agree with that. Why do people want to drop Thome? It makes no sense for a number of reasons: 1) He's the best hitter on the team, the only one with OBP skills. 2) He's not that expensive and is a relatively short term commitment. 3) He has a no trade clause 4) If you want more speed from the DH slot...well, whatever. If "plodders" are a concern Crede and Konerko are the ones you should look at. 5) If you want to trade a bat, Konerko is the one. LAA and BALT probably still like him and his contract is more onerous than Thome's. Plus it should be easier to come close to replacing Konerko's production. You can argue the Sox should semi-platoon Thome against LHP and I'd agree...

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 08:44 PM) If Chad Durbin, Jason Grilli, and Todd Jones can all remain in the Detroit bullpen, then anything's possible. Grilli and Durbin were much better prospects than Broadway and Phillips. Jones was a very effective major league pitcher at one time. I do agree those 3 guys aren't that great. So what would that say about a team looking to Broadway, Floyd, and Phillips who aren't anywhere close to as good as Grilli, Durbin, and Jones? If those 3 guys are on the Sox staff next season, they'll be headed for something historically bad.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 07:38 PM) Love the insight. What more is there to say? The Sox have the worst farm system in baseball. GP said all that needs to be said.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 11:39 AM) Someone who knows how to shut out all the bulls*** and prepare for a game properly, IMO. Like a new manager?

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 07:34 AM) but hopefully KW will supply Ozzie with the talent he needs to get back to the fundamentals he loves to win by. No more 3-run homerun or we'll probably lose team. Yeah, 3-run homers suck. That's why the Sox are losing. If the Sox just had more players like Owens everything would be peachy.

"I hope somebody out there cares the way we care," What? As Cheat pointed out elsewhere, last night Ozzie kept Dye glued to the bench in favor of scrubs in crucial RBI situations and then let Sosa face a LHP when he can't hit righties to save his life. I don't see Ozzie managing like he cares. Which is fine, I'm hoping the Sox can catch the DRays for the worst record in baseball. But it would be OK with me if Ozzie really took a hard look at his managing and decided he could change some things. I also liked that Ozzie suggested bringing up AA players. Half his starting lineup was in AAA to start the season. Pretty soon he'll be saying the Great Falls team should get called up. What does he expect Owens,Fields, Richar, and Gonzalez to do?

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) Ryan is an excellent GM. His downfall is his continued non-aggressiveness at the deadlines. Maybe that means he has a big ego, maybe that means he's stubborn? Who knows, it's all how people choose to spin it. I agree with that. I think the budget situation in Minnesota has made him very, very conservative with regard to trading prospects. I think he feels that he can't afford to part with cheap talent without significantly risking the future of the team, and who knows if the Twins owner would even shell out a few extra million for a mid-season pickup.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) Everything about baseball has a huge amount of luck involved. Why would "making the playoffs" be the measure of a GM, but not winning a World Series? Isn't the ultimate goal to win the whole thing? I don't doubt that making the playoffs would be a solid business goal, but in terms of the game, the ultimate goal is to win the World Series. Why that should not be a measure of a GM seems foolish to me... I think it's a sample size argument. Excellent teams can have a stretch of 7 games when they play terribly. But over 162 games, the strongest teams and organizations should be the ones that make the playoffs -- for the most part. I think luck has less influence over the larger stretch of games. I think a GM that gives his team the more shots to win the series, i.e. one that makes the playoffs more often, is better than a guy that has given his team one shot and won it on that one try.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) I suppose the argument is there, would you rather a Terry Ryan who's much better at building a system but hasn't had major success, or a Kenny Williams who's more aggressive and has won a world series, but can get into trouble sometimes with his moves that he's made? Or a Mark Shapiro as well, who's starting to have some success with the Indians now. To me, winning a World Series has a huge amount of luck involved. I think making the playoffs is the measure of a GM. To say that Ryan hasn't had major success is as silly as me writing that KW isn't even mediocre (I'm going to go edit that now....).

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 29, 2007 -> 08:34 AM) While I'm no fan, winning a championship does qualify him for a lifetime of at least mediocre. When I started that post I meant to type "anything more than mediocre", which is more accurate. Should probably edit that....

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) When did 1 playoff appearance in 7 years and a team in year #7 that is in last place at the end of August with a bad farm system and old and very expensive MLB squad make you one of the more successful GM's in the game? Seriously -- Williams is without a doubt one of the least successful GMs in major league baseball. In the course of 7 years he's built the worst farm system in baseball and has demonstrated this season that his plan to rectify that is to find scapegoats. Impressive stuff. Anyone that thinks Williams has proven he's even more than a mediocre GM is delusional.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) I guess everyone else has already clarified this point, but Jim Thome has been an infinitely more productive hitter than Josh Fields this season. It's interesting that some people have decided Thome is a problem. It's true he's not hitting well right now, but he's still the only player with real OBP on the team. And it's likely he'll still be able to get on base and pop 25 to 30 HRs next season as well. His unique skill on the Sox (OBP) makes him worth what he's getting paid this year and next. There's a lot more dead salary that is less productive: Erstad, Crede, Ozuna, Cintron, Pods and either Contreras and/or Garland are all players who could be replaced by cheaper players with less dropoff in production than moving Thome. And the money in those combined salasries is much bigger than what Thome makes. You can argue Thome should be semi-platooned against LHP & that probably would be a good idea. Maybe Fields could pick up some at-bats at DH next season on those days...