RockRaines

Jays fans are saying Molina was deemed 1000% untouchable at one point. Pretty good sign for us.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) CST_soxvan Daryl Van Schouwen Did not anticipate would take sergio to get him. whitesox Chicago White Sox KW on Molina: We are very happy we were able to acquire him. He was on a very short target list. MDGonzales Mark Gonzales "We had no intention of trading him" said Santos was caught off guard but understood Pretty telling there. We employ a Jays scout that said here is a guy that will help you fill holes moving forward. Unfortunately it took Sergio, but we are dealing from a position of strength.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:07 PM) My prediction for next trade is one of our starting pitchers to Reds I agree with you on what we are trading, no idea on the target club. Danks and Floyd have to be in play here.

Man that contract for Sanots is so team friendly. I hope he doesnt turn into the dominant closer for the Jays that I thought he could be.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) Don't be jealous. HAHA, you got me. Surprising I like the trade quite a bit. Clearly this signals that we are relying on our developed kids (Reed) and are looking to fill some holes in the near future (sp).

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) That's a good call. Like it as well. These are the type of deals that need to made for the future of this organization. I forgot about that. Hopefully this guy is as good as his numbers project, I have to admit I have never heard of the guy. Is there anyone with some knowledge of the Jays system that can give us an overview?

QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) Also, based upon your projected pitching staff in the other thread where you no longer have Danks and Floyd, why would Buerhle willingingly return for less years (and money) for a team that appears to be quasi-rebuilding? Why not take more years and more money and sign with Florida or Washington? #1 he has a built in no-trade clause here already #2 Buehrle cares alot less about money than most pro athletes. If we are in the ballpark he comes back.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:53 AM) Marty did. Yeah but when you say trade everyone you are bound to hit on one.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) This team if definitely being blown up. No reason to trade a very affordable closer like this. Unless they forsee some serious holes in the rotation that they need to fill in the next year or two.

Didnt see this one coming. Addison Reed should be getting a chance to close next year, not bad.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) And the thing is, if the moves happen that you think might, we would be reloading our farm system. I'm of the opinion that KW won't go balls out for rebuilding. He'll try to compete while rebuilding at the same time. Exactly. The moves I've mentioned for months and that are now getting airplay in the press essentially bring in a pretty heavy return of young players which is what KW is reportedly asking for. You unload: Thornton Quentin Danks Floyd Pierre Omar (Aj) And bring in all of the players you get in return which is most likely >6 players. You also are now injecting a former first round draft pick into your rotation and your #1 prospect into RF. We would now have at least 4 draft picks in starting (IMO) roles (Flowers, Morel, Gordo, Sale) and several other signees (Viciedo, Alexei, Santos) in important roles. Dont forget we also have Santiago and Reed playing pivotal roles in the bullpen (draft picks). Thats 9 internally drafted or signed younger players taking up spots on the roster with perhaps 2-3 other impact young players coming from the trades you made in the offseason. I think KW sees this as rebuilding on the fly without jeopardizing most of the fanbase as well as his job. Whoops Santos just got traded. So already another impact prospect coming over.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:40 AM) To me, keeping one out of Buehrle/Danks/Floyd doesn't make sense. You either keep two of them and go for it all or you keep none of them and rebuild. Keeping one of them means you are failing to maximize your ability to win in the future while at the same time failing to maximize your ability to win in 2012. Not especially. Trading both Floyd and Danks is you selling out your present for the prospects they would both bring in a trade. Buehrle is then your basic 3 year lynchpin in the rotation while you move out pieces and build around talent you acquire with your more established players. Losing Buehrle and keeping Danks and Floyd is probably a band aid until you can unload at the deadline or through offering arb and getting a pick. As White Sox fans I am extremely surprised at people thinking they will unload every older player they have for 5 years of cellar dwelling, it just wont happen.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Has a chance to compete, but a small one. 4/5 of that rotation could be awful. We still don't know what Humber will do as an encore (I think he's a back of the rotation piece), Sale will probably have some growing pains as he enters the rotation for the first time, Stewart is a wildcard who might profile better as a reliever, and Peavy could continue to Peavy. On top of that you need to bank on Rios and Dunn bouncing back, Dayan to not miss a beat, as well as Morel and Gordon to progress offensively. Sure the team could be competitive, but so many things have to work out. It's just as likely to be battling the Twins for the cellar. I'm of the opinion that losing both Danks and Floyd would severely hurt this team's chances. Dunn going back to his career norms from an outlier season is extremely probable. Rios is Rios so who knows. Outside of that I fully expect the lineup to be good enough to compete in our division which is pretty weak from top to bottom. I expect Sale to be a very good starting pitcher right out of the gate. I also expect improvement from Peavy with an entire offseason of conditioning. If they dont unload Danks and Floyd then I would take Buehrle and Stewart out of the rotation. 1. Peavy (whatever) 2. Danks 3. Foyd 4. Humber 5. Sale

QUOTE (WHITESOXRANDY @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) Well, I don't believe that the White Sox will see the playoffs again in this decade so.....why not? If they traded who i think they will trade here is the lineup you will most likely see: 1. De Aza 2. Alexei 3. Dunn 4. Konerko 5. Viciedo 6. AJP/Flowers 7. Rios 8. Gordo 9. Morel 1. Buehrle 2. Humber 3. Peavy 4. Sale 5. Stewart/Whoever You dont think that team at least has a chance to compete within this division?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) Seriously, how f***in cool would this be? It would be ok, you would have to tweak that model a bit. And like with any other tournament you wouldnt always have the best team in the country be crowned the champion simply because of matchups or a great run. It would be incredibly exciting however.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) The Sox are not going to resign Buehrle. Why is there so much speculation that they will?! Let it go, people. Because it is still in the FO's plans to bring him back. I have firsthand knowledge that this is part of their plan granted some team doesnt give him 4 years at 15 million. But hey, continue with your statements.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) On a side note, I actually really like Kyle Orton but it was quite funny how he got hurt on his first play. It was funny how he got hurt and then his reaction to the finger injury. He even tried to call the coaches onto the field to check him out after he showed every camera that it was dislocated.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 06:52 AM) Michigan is much, much better than VT, and that is coming from somebody who went to Notre Dame AND Michigan State. I fully expect them to demolish VT by 20+, and thats from a buckeye.

just saw this: Kinda made me think about my previous choice.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:51 PM) But it always has been about money. That's my point. The BCS has nothing to do with it. Once the eligible teams are set, the bowls choose the teams regardless of ranking. The Big Ten played a conference championship game voluntarily to make money. I don't want to hear people whine about how they are effected by their own actions. In a wonderful happy world should other teams be there because they "deserve" it? Sure. But it never has and never will be that perfectly wonderful happy world. Last year MSU would have gotten in. Their own conferences choice to have a CG did them in. Oh well. If there is no BCS does MSU make a BCS bowl before Michigan?

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:10 PM) Right. I said outside a few parameters to determine eligibility. But MSU isn't the one everyone is whining about. Nope, actually thats exactly what I was referring to when you incorrectly stated that the BCS had nothing to do with bowl selection. Michigan as the 3rd or 4th best Big Ten team made a BCS bowl by doing nothing but watching a team that beat their ass lose the championship game that they themselves werent good enough to make. Your opponent is the worst AQ school to be in a BCS bowl in the history of the system, but hey, the BCS has them #11 while actual rankings have them 17th. As for BSU and K-state, both should have been given a shot at the Sugar Bowl, unfortunately fan base was the main factor and UM is the obvious choice, and that probably had nothing to do with BCS rankings whatsoever. Thats a straight money game.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 06:51 PM) The entire Big Ten has a shot to win their game except for Wisconsin. Its a bad matchup for them. On the plus side, Oregon isnt really very good in BCS bowls, and the Wisconsin offense should be on the field almost the entire game.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 06:52 PM) sucks that Keenum couldnt get an invite. 45 TDs to 5 INTS. Over 5000 yards passing. I guess Houston not having a television contract with ESPN killed his chances of an invite. His performance against MSU pretty much killed any chance. He was terrible.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) I'll take Purdue because I dont know anything about WMU and I think Ohio St beats Florida. Little Caesars Western Michigan vs Purdue Insight Iowa vs Oklahoma Meineke Car Care of Texas Northwestern vs Texas A&M Kraft Fight Hunger Illinois vs UCLA TicketCity Houston vs Penn State Outback Michigan State vs Georgia Capital One Nebraska vs South Carolina Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl Ohio State vs Florida Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio Wisconsin vs Oregon Allstate Sugar Virginia Tech vs Michigan Thats what I have looking at it negatively. Michigan got handed one of the worst BCS teams in recent history so they should win that game. Neb, ILL, Pur, OSU should be toss ups that could go either way. The rest dont look so hot. I honestly dont think Wisconsin has a chance against Oregon, it is possibly the worst matchup for them, especially this year with their defense.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 06:42 PM) That's good for you, but the average fan doesn't think that way. If the Sox are losing, their overall attendance will drop guaranteed. They've already seen a drop from last season and thats before trading players and having a 60-70 win rebuild season. The stadium would be empty.