sircaffey

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 20, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) Just looking at the market, could a deal swapping Crede for Brett Myers be possible? I know he is sort of scum, and had an off season, but based on his contract, he could be available, and if you acquired him early enough, he could be stretched out into the 4th starter. Just kinda thinking out loud. Phils aren't going to deal any MLB pitching for Crede.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) PK to Arizona makes sense for Arizona. I couldn't help but laugh at Arizona's anemic lineup during the playoffs. On the other hand, I don't know how much sense Arizona makes as a trading partner for the White Sox unless there's a 3rd team involved. I think they make a good amount of sense. They have a good young replacement 1B in Jackson, they have a plethora of quality OF, and they have a few pen arms that we could use.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) Cabrera does do one thing much better than Iguchi and that's making contact and avoiding strikeouts. He strikes out about half as much as Iguchi which is one thing you really like from a 2 hole hitter. Agreed, but overall, I don't see Cabrera being any better than Iguchi was in '05 and '06.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:13 PM) If he was that good, the sox would have kept him and signed to a 3 yr deal. 2005 and 2006 he was a very good 2 hitter. He dropped off last season. You said we haven't seen a good 2 hitter for years. Orlando isn't going to give us anything better than Iguchi did in '05 and '06.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) What in the world could we get for Uribe? I think KW is going to find himself stuck with Uribe and wondering why he said "ok" to the 4.5. Maybe we can get Garland back.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) Gio, Fields, and DLS are only prospects -- and none are considered elite by places like BP, BA, etc. Cabrera is an elite major league player under control for 2 seasons. Given the current direction of the Sox, trading Gio, Fields and DLS for Miguel Cabrera would be a perfect fit. The current direction? What is that? A blind attempt at competing in this division? Even with Miguel Cabrera, we don't stand a chance to compete with Detroit and Cleveland with our current pitching staff. If anything, I think the perfect fit for the current direction of the Sox to trade guys away.

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) In 2005, every move KW made turned out to be Gold. I remember his constant fiddling period from 01 through 04, and there were lots of head-scratching moves like this one. The fact of the matter, even if we had say, Chris Young or Aaron Rowand on the 2006-07 White Sox, the same end result would have occured. What moves has KW made that kept us from winning? Please, don't tell me about the reported Astros/Garland trade. The downfall of this club was the deterioration of Garcia and Contreras, along with the implosion of the bullpen and the aging of the offense. Almost like a perfect storm turning against the club, after the way everything meshed so perfectly in 2005 and the first half of 06. Who's responsible for putting together this aging offense and explosive bullpen, and now shotty rotation? For a GM that saw a team win a World Series title with 4 dominant SP and a lights out bullpen, he sure has become obsessed with offense.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) The only way he ends up at 3rd base is if we trade Fields in package for Miguel Cabrera. If not, Fields will be our 3rd baseman. Ideally, that would be the only way. This is Kenny Williams though.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) Iguchi was a guy they fit into the #2 spot. Iguchi himself said [and Ozzie] he wasn't used to that role of giving up AB's hitting to the opposite filed, bunting, taking pitches, etc. He was always a power guy in Japan. But still, Gooch was damn good in the 2 spot.

If Uribe ends up at 3B, somehow...I will boycott the Sox until KW is fired.

Hu might even be easier to get. Kent's on his last legs, and Abreu is set to take over 2B. God the Dodgers are loaded at every position. Martin, LaRoche, Hu, Abreu, Loney, Either, Kemp, Young could all start in 2009 at a minimal cost (if Pierre wasn't there) and actually wouldn't be a bad lineup. Not that it will happen, but it definitely could and be effective. Compare that to our young talent and you get 1 starting quality position player maybe two. How can we suck that much?

So the Yanks would have the most out of position infield in the history of the game. Arod is the best SS the Yanks would have. Lowell would be the best 3B they would have. And Jeter is the most overrated defensive player in the league. Why would Lowell want to move to 1B? He has the best fielding percentage at 3B in the history of the game. What a horrible horrible idea.

A 1-2 of Crawford and Soriano is awfully sexy.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 10:51 PM) Hill's value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marshall's value That's actually probably pretty close to the truth when it come to the number of ">". Hill is a definite no-brainer over Marshall.

I wouldn't mind signing Jones to a one year deal. At worst, we end up with a couple of draft picks. If this organization could draft well, I may like it even more. At best, we hold one of the bigger offensive trading chips at the deadline. Basically by signing Jones to a one year deal, we are paying to replenish our pathetic farm system, and taking a lukewarm shot at competing this season. I'd rather sign Jones to a one year deal than sign Hunter to a 5 year deal, personally. Signing Jones to a one year deal may not solve our CF problem long-term, but it may help solve another problem long-term (deadline trade; draft). Meanwhile, still having the $15 million that we would have given Hunter, to play around with in a much deeper free agent class in 2008. I think for the direction this team seems to be headed in the next 2-3 years, it's wiser to sign Jones to a one year deal. The big issue being whether or not Jones is willing to sign a one year deal.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) So you believe a player performance is directly related to a players contract status? There's no arguing with that logic. I'm not basing it directly, but I think you have to consider it a possibility. From things I've read, a lot of people had the opinion that Andruw was pressing a lot. He fell off the table pretty damn fast without any direct effect from an injury.

QUOTE(Lemon_44 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 06:15 PM) Why not look into trading Garland the Red Sox. KW obviously knows who he would like to get from Boston after last year's trade deadline talk. Delcarmen and one of their young pitching/hitting prospects(Bucholz is out of the qusetion) would be a pretty good return. KW already likes Delcarmen for the pen. The Red Sox staff is starting to age and money to re-sign Garland would not be an issue. Don't think Boston really has a need for SP with Schilling back. Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, Lester/Buchholz.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Yes, that would be the rational way of thinking, of course people do not think that way. They look at stats and numbers and value players accordingly. Fans I would agree with, for the most part. GMs, scouts, other baseball execs, I would disagree with. I find it hard to believe NL teams value Jon Garland any differently than AL teams.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 05:06 PM) It has nothing to do with smarts. We're talking about athletes here. Athletes, especially, potential HOF athletes like Jones, have an incredible amount of faith in their ability. I guarantee that Jones thinks his 2007 season was just a speedbump on his road to the HOF. He believes he'll be back hitting 40+ HR next season and for the foreseeable future. Boras clients are after one thing. $$$ and the most they can get. They'll pass on deals that buy out their FA years while still arb eligbile. They'll forego the guaranteed money now for the promise of future riches later... Another Boras client, Jeff Weaver, is an example of what can go wrong when the athlete is unable to hold up his end of the deal. He's signed 1-year deals in each of the last two seasons. He was looking for a 5-year deal two seasons ago. And at least a 3-year deal last off-season. To his, and Boras' surprise, there wasn't much market for a below-average innings eater.... Now he's on the outside looking in. If Boras and Jones don't get the offer they're looking for, in both in years and overall $$$ amount, they'll find away to get him back on the market as quickly as possible. It's their MO. Andruw already had a contract year. It happened to be his worst year of his career. Why would he want to go through that again next season? He obviously was effected by it.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) There is no such thing as having a secure bullpen for the most part. There are only so many good middle relievers, bullpens are inconsisant from year to year(for the most part), you just never know. Bullpens are inconsistent from season to season, but many factors go into that. However, bullpens can be consistently effective from season to season. The thing that is inconsistent is at what level they are effective. 2007's collapse was not due completely to "inconsistencies." The collapse was due to poor building. Bullpens are not feast or famine, but the one we have now, is. That needs to change.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) People here seem to be thinking of last year's bullpen as a single beast. Really, there were two different bullpens. The opening day pen had one good month, then basically imploded. Most of the pieces that imploded were either demoted (Aardsma, Masset, MacDougal, Haeger, Sisco, Day), and look at the lousy numbers they put up. Then there were the few that stuck it out - Jenks, Logan and Thornton - and all three had far better numbers post-ASB than pre-ASB. Then they added a couple guys - Bukvich (who sucked) and Wassermann (who did well). Bukvich is gone. So... You now have "last year's bullpen", at the end of the year, made up of four guys were were quite solid - Jenks, Logan, Thornton and Wassermann. THIS bullpen, of the end of year 2007 Sox, was not nearly as bad as the final year numbers indicated. So before people get too up in arms about how bad the pen was, remember that those 4 core guys who are NOW in the pen, from the end of last year, are actually a pretty good group. This bullpen does not need to be blown up, and it would be a huge waste of money to try to do so, given how iffy most bullpen pitchers are year-to-year. They need 1, maybe at most 2 new guys. I'd say 1 quality, experienced reliever is plenty. Then leave the 6th slot for one of the remaining "prospects" in the system (Day, Aardsma, MacDougal, Hernandez, etc.). Now we're going off one good half of baseball, to be secure in the bullpen? I know we are desperate to find some reassurance in the bullpen, but that doesn't do it for me.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) A couple of notes... The Cubs were willing to give Furcal 5 years. Furcal will reach FA again next year at age 31, at which point you have him getting a 5-6 year contract. Unless you can provide data which indicates that 32 year olds receive deals in excess of a year shorter (and for less money) than their 31 year old counterparts, you're just shaping the argument to meet your preconceived conclusion. Exactly, and Furcal took the 3 year deal instead of the 5 year deal? Why? So he could cash in on another 5-6 year deal. Why not take the Cubs 5 year offer, if you knew you'd get another 5 year deal at age 33? Because he knew he probably couldn't get a 5+ year deal at age 33. Andruw Jones' situation is certainly not the norm. He is at the prime age at where players, historically, like to cash in on, but he's coming off his worst year. He could take a one year deal, certainly. He could. But he then takes the risk of following up with another horrible season, and proving he's not the player he was. Or he could take the 5-6 year deal worth $16 mil+ per, and be happy. If he takes a one year deal, he not only risks not getting a 5+ year deal next season, but he's risking getting less than the $16 mil per. I think he's going to cash in now, and be done with it. It's the smart investment move.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) Furcal took a 3-year deal to hit the market again quickly. Drew took a 5-year deal with an opt out to hit the market again quickly. more comparable... Kevin Millwood, looking for a per annum contract in the low teens when in Philly, had a poor season. Signed with Cleveland for a year at a discounted rate. Then got his 5/$60M the next season from the Rangers. Furcal did that so he could get to the prime age to cash in on a long-term contract, age 31. Age 31 is the perfect time to maximize your earnings. You'll be in your declining years for half the contract while still getting paid like you are in your prime years. If Furcal would have hit the free agent market at age 34, he would get far less of a contract. If he would have taken a 5-6 year deal instead of the 3 year deal, he'd be getting paid for his prime years for that amount of time. Now, by taking the 3 year contract, he will get paid like he is in his prime years for those 3 years plus his next contract of 5-6 year for a total of 8-9 years instead of the 5-6. It was a wise move by Furcal to take the 3 year deal originally. Andruw Jones, not coincidentally, will be 31 at the beginning of the 2008 season, and thus, is very unlikely to sign a 1 year deal, IMO. Anyone want to guess how old Kevin Millwood was when he signed his contract with Texas? 31.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) Ding, ding, ding. Thank you. Why was our pen excellent in 05? Why was it medium in 06? Why was it a trainwreck for a good chunk of last year? It's a crap shoot. Those pitchers are up and down. What options do you have? Go out and sign 5 veteran relievers to $4-5 million/per multi-year deals? Not worth it. There's a degree to which that success, winning and such are 'contagious' just as much as failure, losing, sucking. If we played the 2007 season 100 times, I imagine the bullpen would not almost all crumble at the same time and for that long more that 5 times. And the 05 bullpen wouldn't do that well more than 10 times Our bullpen situation last year and now is completely different than it was in 2005. 2005's bullpen was filled with a handful of guys who have had consistent, key word consistent, success. Politte, Hermanson, Marte, and Vizcaino all showed in multiple years that they could perform well. Sure, none Rivera-like consistent, but the main point was they were consistently useful. There was little chance of this bullpen falling flat like 2007's. None of them were going to bomb like Mac or Thornton (barring injury like Hermanson and Politte of '06). The bullpen we have now, there is not one guy outside of Jenks that has shown any consistency like the guys we had in 2005. They either have had one career year (Thornton), been at both extremes (Mac), or no major league experience whatsoever (Logan, Wassermann, Haeger, etc.). You need guys with some consistency because you are not going to get all 5 of these arms (Thornton, Mac, Logan, Wassermann, Haeger) to perform well in the same season in all probability. In fact, the probability of all these guys failing at the same time is much higher than them all succeeding at the same time. God forbid if Jenks were to have a year like Shingo, we'd be completely f'ed. We need a couple of guys like we had in Politte/Marte/Vizcaino going into 2005. Guys we knew would be useful, and then let the higher ceiling relievers see if they can figure it out (ala Cotts and Jenks in 2005). And if those guys want to pitch in career years like Politte in '05, then all the better, but if they don't at least they still are effective.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 13, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) Tell Barry I said whats up, and he should have signed in the NL central. On avg, emphasis on avg, pitchers decrease their ERAs by about a point, and no this is not based on one pitcher and one year. Granted. The AL does score more runs than the NL, but what's the point though? Jon Garland is Jon Garland. He doesn't turn into a more dominated pitcher if an NL team trades for him. His stats just adjust to the league.