hitlesswonder

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 01:48 AM) No but if he was so much better than anything we have in our system Id think I would of known about him. Not neccesarily and Im not discrediting if he is a good prospect or not just the statement that he is so much better than anything in our system. I guess we'll know in 3 years or so. Obviously I could be wrong, I'm sure there are people know a lot more about baseball than I do that think I'm wrong -- you may be one of them. I'll even own up to being a typical internet fan (I haven't seen a minor league game in almost 4 years). I just wish each of the Sox top 3 prospects didn't have a huge question mark on them: Fields: Ks too much Sweeney: Singles too much Broadway: Gets hit too much, too few MPH Maybe the Yankees system is a better comp, they have Duncan, Tabata, and Hughes which are similar position-wise to the Sox top 3 and a relatively thin system outside of that.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) Broadway has dominated in AA and no he doesnt have ace stuff but id say his ceiling is better than a bottom of the rotation guy... not an ace but u discredit him 2 much. Broadway hasn't come anywhere close to dominating AA. He's giving up more hits than IP (143/136) and his K/9 rate is nothing to write home about (around 6 or so...). Couple that with a max 90 MPH fastball and it's hard to see him as more than a fifth starter in the bigs at best. I will admit, I haven't seen him pitch and perhaps he's more impressive in person than on paper. I hope I'm wrong and he has a great career, but the numbers don't look great. As for Malone, age is less important for pitching prospects than hitters. I don't what Malone's stuff is like now, and his control isn't great. But he's a LHP and will probably be a good FA pickup for someone. I think he could spend a few seasons in the bigs in someone's pen. Whomever said that the Sox system is one of the worst, I have to agree. St. Louis is usually regarded as a pretty poor system, but the have Rasmus and Reyes. The Sox have no prospects even close to those two.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Aug 1, 2006 -> 06:58 PM) We should start doing one of these for Brian Anderson. Batting average by month March/April: .161 May: .167 June: .196 July: .313 Anderson-o-meter? Brian-o-meter? I agree it's too Cubsesque. But if it were to happen, it should be the "BArometer"

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) My only hope is that in three years, we won't look back and think "what the hell were we thinking by making McCarthy an untouchable", in the same way that we were with Borchard a few years ago. I like McCarthy, but he's no sure thing to become a #1 or 2 starter. I doubt McCarthy is untouchable. It's really impossible from second or third-hand reports on trade rumors to know what the deal really was. I agree with whomever it was posted that the deal probably wasn't straight-up. I think most people realize that McCarthy will be lucky to have Jon Garland's career. A SP that can post a 4.5 ERA for league minimum is still pretty valuable, so that's not a huge knock on him. I do think KW would do that trade staright-up since Jones has another contract year. But it really wouldn't fix what's hurting the Sox, and Jones won't get them into the playoffs. I wouldn't want KW to trade BMac for a rental position player, because I don't see any of them getting the Sox the wild card. As for Borchard, he brought a pretty good lefty reliever

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) But I guess he sucks because his ERA is in the 3's for the season. Obviously he doesn't suck, but he could be injured for all anyone knows given his current slump. Linebrink is good, but I think there are a couple of reasons why he's not a great fit for the Sox. He has a groundball to fly ratio of around 0.8 for his career (not great for the Cell). And he's a RHP that is having trouble getting out right-handed hitters (.830 OPS). That means Ozzie will use him in completely the wrong way (i.e. bring him in to face the toughest righties...)

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Jul 26, 2006 -> 12:06 AM) Drafting Lance Broadway over hometown guy Cesar Carillo was really the icing on the cake. Cesar had better numbers, better stuff, and was still passed over for "pitchable" Lance Broadway. Carillo and Broadway pitched in the same league this year and Broadway arguably put up better numbers. Plus, as someone noted earlier, Carillo is now on the shelf with an injury. It's true that BHAM is a pitcher's park, but an objective assessment right now would be that Broadway has pitched at least as well as Carillo in the minors. It's not clear to me that Carillo would have been a better pick at this point. I don't like "safe" picks like Broadway and Carillo either. Best case scenario looks like they turn out to be bottom rotation guys, posting ERAs close to 5 in the AL. I don't see a lot of value in that (especially for team willing to sport a 100M dollar payroll). A lot of "stuff" guys don't pan out, but you only need one to succeed to make a huge impact on a rotation and payroll. As for Garza, so many teams passed him over that I think it would be wrong to simply rip the Sox for not drafting him. In fact, so far Broadway looks like a better pick than a lot of other first-rounders. And I say that thinking Broadway will not make it in big leagues (IMO the Sox should trade him now while his value is at a peak). I think it's more accurate to say that the Twins are probably the best team in baseball at identifying young pitching talent and developing it. They are just amazing.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:39 AM) You've got to remember, Chase Field is one of the best hitter's parks in all of baseball right now. His road ERA was 4.40 with a .280 BAA and 19 HRs allowed (he had 16 at home). Chase may not have helped him, but it wasn't his only problem last year. Pitching at the Cell and in the AL doesn't make me optimistic. Baseball is filled with under-performing pitchers who star pitching coaches thought they could fix and failed (Kris Benson with the Mets and Rick Peterson just to name one). I hope it works out for the Sox.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:28 AM) Well, we subtract El Duque's $4.5 million for 2006 and add Vazquez's $11.5 million in 2006 and $12.5 million in 2007. So that's $7 million added to our payroll in 2006 and $12.5 million added to our payroll in 2007. I still hope the Diamondbacks are sending us the Yankees $3 million per season for Vazquez's contract. That would make Vazquez's contract a little easier to stomach. From MLB.com: I really think Hernandez doesn't have much value at 4.5M a year. If it is just Young and Hernandez, I think it's likely the Sox pick up the whole deal. If JG gets 7M in arbitration, moving him for prospects makes the moves revenue neutral. I know people have a lot of faith in Cooper, but I'm just worried Vazquez isn't the pitcher he once was. An ERA of 4.5 in the NL just is not good. Especially for 12M a year.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:16 AM) I don't really like BMac using a year of service time in the bullpen. Especially after what he showed at the tail end of last year. I don't think there's any way that happens. McCarthy will be in the rotation. It sounds like the Sox are picking up all of Vazquez's salary, so someone making big money will be moved from the rotation. The Sox will trade either Contreras or Garland. If the Sox don't think Contreras will pitch well with Hernandez gone, it could very well be him.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:11 AM) I'm thinking that Garland will be on another team's roster by the beginning of 2006. I think you're right. I'd rather the Sox keep McCarthy anyway. Maybe the Sox can trade Garland to AZ for Chris Young...

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 01:07 AM) There's no way McCarthy starts next season in AAA. So where do you think he will start? I'm thinking maybe Tampa Bay or Cincinnati.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:56 PM) I think they want cost certainty vs. the "possibility" they'll get someone in free agency. Not sure why you're not getting that picture. The White Sox have always pursued cost certainty, they did it not long ago with a similar scenario, Loaiza/Contreras. Timeline: - Garland turns down 3 yr. contract offer. - Guillen golfs with Vazquez. - Sox get aggressive about Vazquez. It fits. If Garland signs, none of this is being discussed. It's the way the White Sox do business. I don't doubt they are pursuing Vasquez to fill the rotation for a couple of years. But the difference between the Loaiza trade and this would be: 1) Loaiza was pitching terribly at the time of the trade 2) Contreras cost 6M a year. Even adjusting for baseball inflation, JV is much more expensive This trade may be what the Sox want to do, but I don't think it's a good idea unless the Sox don't pay all of JV's salary.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:15 PM) Right, how do you feel about a veteran of some sort sharing the job with Owens, whom Guillen has raved about? I wouldn't want Owens in CF. I know people say BA has defensive questions too , but the people on FutureSox seem to think he's much superior to Owens. And I think CF defense was big key for the Sox last year. A veteran for a year would be fine, if he can play defense and isn't a complete cipher at the plate. Brady Clark might be OK (although I don't know much about his D, or what he would cost ). So it looks like Hernandez and Anderson for Vasquez, and then Garland to LAA for Darin Erstad

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:04 PM) Let me add this. Assuming Chris Young and Ryan Sweeney and Jerry Owens are as good as Guillen has said, why do you need Brian Anderson after 2006? Of the group, only Young I think has the ability to play above average defense in CF. If Young has a great season at AAA this year, then maybe you can trade BA. But if you trade Anderson now, the Sox need a new CF for 2006.

QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 12:02 PM) Does anyone think that Garland does not want to stay? Maybe this is the crux of the issue? He is from southern California. His fiancee is from Hawaii per The Underground. He knows damn well he can get a great contract after '06, as good as or better than what the White Sox are offering. That's believable. And if the Sox were to trade Garland straight up for Vasquez at 10M per year I would think it was a reasonable trade. But Vasquez at 12M per? Or Garland + Young for Vasquez at 12M per? No way.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:41 AM) Remember what the Dbacks supposedly had lined up for Vazquez.....Granderson and a top pitching prospect. I highly doubt they would want Duque in a trade, as they're loading up more for about 2 or 3 years from now. I agree. And AZ definitely wants a CF. Garland and Young/Anderson is probably about the same value as Zumaya & Granderson. I thought that would be terrible trade for Detriot. And I think it would be bad for the Sox, too. Does anyone know why Vasquez is till so highly regarded? At this point, it's not like he just had a bad half-season in NY. He hasn;t pitched well in a while.

QUOTE(R.J. @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) Despite the surplus of starters it'd give us (which is not all that bad guys), El Duque + Young would be something we should do. Barring a career renaissance as a middle reliever, El Duque is not going to be of much use to us at all. And god bless Chris Young, he's a fantastic prospect, but we have outfielders all over the place and 3 spots to play them. Garland + Young is absolutely friggin ridiculous. That's a slap in the face. I have to disagree. With Young gone, the only real CF prospect in the system is Anderson. I'd rather keep Young in case Anderson fails to perform this season. Neither Sweeney (sp?) or Owens is supposed to be good enough defensively to handle CF. Also, I wouldn't be shocked to see McCarthy pitch at least as well as Vasquez this year for 11M less. I'd hate to see him in AAA or the bullpen.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 11:23 AM) Garland is not more valuable. He has had one good year and is a free agent after 1 year. Players are always undervalued when they are a "rent-a-player" even if they have been consistently good. We may think he turned a corner last year but no one knows. If Hernandez is part of the deal then Young or one of the other top OF prospects probably Young is involved. This is because of the uncertainty of his health and the DBs desire for OF help especially CF. I'll admit that no one on this board really knows what JG is worth on the market. But I think he is more valuable than Vasquez. Vasquez has nice career numbers, but his last 2 years have not been good at all. Paying 12 million a year for 2 years of someone posting a 4.4 ERA in the NL? How is that kind of risk and salary worth more than 1 year of Garland at 7M with draft picks when he leaves? At very worst it's a draw. If Garland reverts to pre-2005 form he still wouldn't pitch worse than Vasquez did this year.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 13, 2005 -> 10:54 AM) It would be nice to keep them, but this seems like a completely logical move. If Jon doesn't sign and bolts, the Sox get nothing in return. The Sox would probably get 1 or 2 draft picks. Assuming Garland pitches well this year, they could pretty safely offer him arbitration. Garland would most likely decline, but if he accepted the Sox would get another year of his service for whatever the market rate is. So even though JG will likely opt for free agency after this year, whomever trades for him would probably get draft picks as compensation. I would think he's worth more than just Vasquez, especially if the Sox pick up vasquez at 12M a year. They should demand a good prospect as well. As for Buehrle, whether Garland is here or not, I think he's going to be Cardinal.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 09:12 AM) What will Giles be, 39 years old by the time that contract is up? :headshake Yep. And Thome will be 38 or 39 when his contract is up. He has a vesting that could kick in to give him a fourth year, which would mean he'd be under contract for his age 39 season. I don't know how much of that year the Sox would have to pay, but it's conceivable they will be on the hook for 8 million year for the next 4 years to Thome. It's not that different from what the Jays are offering Giles (plus Giles hasn't really had injury problems yet, I think). I don't think the Jays offer is that ridiculous.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 10:10 AM) Yeah, Mike Jacobs is a Supa Stah Scouts hate Petit. But yeah, that was an unbeatable deal. Jacobs may not be very good, but he was a Mets rookie with 100 good ML at-bats which means he got a lot of pub. Maybe the Marlins just like over-hyped east coast prospects? That would explain dealing Beckett for Hanley Ramirez. I imagine for the Sox to beat this deal would have meant trading McCarthy (whose minor league numbers are a lot like Petit's) and maybe Sweeney (that's one problem, the Sox don't have a 1B prospect even as good Jacobs). Plus taking on $41 million for three years. So, yeah, they definitely could have beaten the Mets deal, but it would be a big price to pay for someone who apparently doesn't like Chicago

QUOTE(timotime @ Nov 22, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) uh...they were all juicing. everyone knows that. say hi to your best friend tim kurkjan for me if you also believe that palmiero should be in the HOF. Did you reply to the wrong post? Southsideirish said there was no way Thome used steroids. My point was that he may have, and that has to be considered when deciding what to trade for him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2005 -> 11:35 AM) I would say that the 10 or so prior injury free years, and the fact that he has always been a hulking monster since he came up with Cleveland would be two huge holes in your theory. It would be kinda stupid for him to start doing the juice right when MLB starts testing for it. I don't have a theory; I'm just saying I don't know if he was on juice or not. Giambi was injury free for a long time as was Palmeiro. It's true he's always been big, at least from what I remember, but I still don't think there's anyway you or I could know for sure. Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's hard to know what kind of performance you'll get from Thome, and given that the Sox shouldn't be in a hurry to give up too much to get him. I'm not against the idea of trading for him.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Nov 22, 2005 -> 11:07 AM) Simply, NO. Does that mean you're sure he wasn't on the juice? How can you know? He had a mediocre second half in 2004, got hurt in 2005, and is the sort of power bat that fits the profile. I have no idea if he used steroids or not, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. The bottom-line is that Thome is 35 and coming off an injury. So even without the possibility of steroid use, he's not a sure bet to be what he was a few years ago. Even then, he's not a perfect player, he strikes out a lot and hit .203 with runners in scoring position in 2004. It would be great to add him to the lineup, a lefty power bat is obviously a Sox need. But there's no way it should cost Rowand and McCarthy/Contreras. The Red Sox got Josh Beckett for no major league ready talent. I don't see why the Sox should give up more than Rowand and a prospect not named Chris Young for Thome, at the very most. Especially with a pretty small market given his preference for the midwest.

OK, from 1999 on Foulke hasn't had an ERA over 3 in any season, Hermanson hasn't had an ERA below 4.2 on any season (and most were much worse). Anyone that thought Foulke was that bad when he was traded was just wrong. They just aren't even comparable. If you look at Hermanson's stats, I think it's easy to understand why a fan would be happy to see him go. It's not a huge signing, but I just don't understand it. Aside from saving a few games at the end of one season, Hermanson doesn't appear to me to be a better reliever than Felix Diaz. IMO it's money poorly spent. Someone like Osuna or Rincon would have been cheaper and probably better. I hope Hermanson is great, but I think it will be a bad signing.