Dam8610

I agree with what pretty much everyone else is saying here that there's 0 chance of him being the starting LF next year. Furthermore, I think his path to the big leagues is blocked pretty well for the next 2 seasons at least, which is why I think he'd make an excellent trade chip.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) With as much as its rumored the Rays are asking for Crawford... the guy I would really love to see the Sox shoot for is Vernon Wells....not sure if Toronto would even consider trading him... Not a chance they would. They've sunk a lot of money into trying to compete, so I doubt they're going to just up and trade one of they're most key cogs to competing. Oh, and the rumor I've been hearing most prominently about Crawford is Ervin Santana to Tampa for Carl. Anyone think there's any chance a Fields + Lumpy package would beat that out, and is there a chance Kenny Williams might do that? Crawford could play CF this year and maybe next year, but would eventually be replacing Pods in LF, which is why I like the idea of trading for him so much.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 06:39 AM) While I did mention that Garland could be dealt in the off-season, getting Madson this year wouldn't affect the rotation at all. Madson would be strictly for the bullpen, where he's had proven success. His struggles in the rotation may have shown Philly that he's strictly a bullpen guy--though very valuable at that. The sox need a young Scott Shields type bullpen guy, who could add/ replace what BMac does so he could be moved into the rotation at some point. A deal along the lines of Josh Fields, and two pitchers of Haeger, Tracey and Phillips might be enough for this year to acquire Madson for the final bullpen guy this year. FWIW, Garland is worth more than Madson. I believe I posted Garland for Madson +. The Phils could use a consistent SP like Jon. Though if Jon gets back on track like '05, pitching with confidence and great movement with his pitches, he won't be going anywhere. You went from wanting to trade Garland for him, to now wanting to trade a couple of above average pitching specs and a great 3B spec for him? That seems like a wide range of things you'd want to give up there, one end of the spectrum undervaluing Madson, the other end overvaluing him. I disagree that Garland is worth more than Madson, especially to the Phillies, because Madson has great potential, and his worth as a reliever has already been shown. Garland has little to no potential, and is only valuable as the amazingly mediocre SP, which IMO wouldn't be worth Madson's potential to the Phillies.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 12:53 AM) (the two who were basically traded for one another) This trade was just about done, Garland was on his way to Cali and Erstad was comming here, it was nixed at the last second, it was much more than just a rumor. Nearly would have been a better word than basically. Oh okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 12:48 AM) I love comparing Garland and Erstad (the two who were basically traded for one another) almost all the time as players. Both are mediocre, both have and probably will, live off one GREAT season, then turn back to mediocre (good lookin contracts for both after that GREAT year) Been saying that ever since this season ever started (I wanted to look stupid as Garland proved me wrong, hasn't happened yet) And both are getting overrated quite a bit. (Erstad's D, Garland's potential) Huh? That was a rumor that had Garland going to the Angels and Erstad coming to the White Sox. The Sox got Garland for Matt Karchner (sp?) from the Cubs back in 1998. Compare those two, you'll get an even better kick out of it.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) It's not like Garland is 35. And it's starting to look like he's coming around the corner anyway. Not to mention NL pitchers have it easier, not pitching to a DH. Madsen has a big upside, but I think people give Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months. Will you be saying the same if Garland gets that ERA under 4? I know Garland isn't 35, but he's already had 6 seasons in the bigs, so pretty much what you see is what you get at this point IMO. I'm not "giving Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months" either. I simply look at his career stats, seeing several years of 4+ ERA, and see an incredibly mediocre pitcher. IF he could get his ERA under 4, then he'd show that last year wasn't a fluke. However, at this point, I'm inclined to think it is (after all, he regressed back to his career averages after the 8-0 start in 2005). Madson, on the other hand, as you said, still has a TON of upside, not to mention he's proven his abilities as a reliever. It just seems like a dumb trade on Philadelphia's end IMO.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 12:33 AM) After I in person saw him go out to the mound with a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the 1st at The Cell in 2004, only to promptly give up 6 runs and not complete the first inning.....I decided I did not like Mr. Madson. In 2004, Ryan Madson posted a 2.34 ERA, a 1.13 WHIP, a .238 BAA, 55 K and 19 BB in 77 IP in 52 games (1 start) for the Phillies. The fact that he gave up 6 of his 23 R in 1 outing that year only makes those stats more impressive.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 12:10 AM) How do you figure? Garland is a proven major league pitcher who can toss 200 innings. Madson has proved? Garland has proven that, other than one year, he can toss about 200 innings as an average pitcher. Madson has proven that he can be a good-great reliever and has tremendous potential. Madson hasn't shown what he's capable of as a starter yet, Garland has, and it's nothing great. In fact, I'd say it's amazingly mediocre.

Trading Garland for Madson is a great idea for the Sox. Unfortunately, it's also a horrible idea for the Phillies.

Jon 2 Reds 1 Gotta love it.

Jim recovering from an injury only adds to my fear of playing him in the field. He was brought in to DH, and that's the only thing he should be doing. I'd hate to see him get injured ala Frank in 2002.

I'm glad to see 0 votes in the "yes" column.

You're looking at a deal involving Fields to net Madson. He's young and talented, although he has yet to show it as a starter at the big league level.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 11:21 PM) Whoa.. don't compare a .293 career hitter to a .258 career hitter ever again. Victor can go hot and cold, but not like Uribe. I wasn't comparing Martinez to Uribe, just pointing out Martinez's bipolar April and May. He was in the .400s in April, and in the .100s in May.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) Uribe is like a tempermental puppie, one day, he'll s*** on your carpet, the next, he's catching frisbees in his mouth and biting that annoying neighbor lady. You're just not sure you want him for 12 more years, but it might be worth it. I like that analogy. QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) A very streaky hitter no doubt. Could hit like .400 in a month and then the next hit like .100. That's one negative that I would like him to at least work at. Try to be semi-consistant in each month. He gets in major hot and major cold streaks. But that's a great hitter, isn't it Victor Martinez?

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 11:01 PM) I noticed Ozzie used Mackoviack as a late inning defense replacement when we had a 3 run lead... So is Ozzie just a complete moron or was Anderson hurt... I'd hope neither, but only one of those choices is feasible, so if I had to choose between the two, I'd go with BA being hurt.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 10:07 PM) Not to mention they were 71-91 last year. They would have to have a +28 game improvement to do what the Sox did last year. That would be one of the greatest one year improvements in the history of baseball and very hard to do. The others that improved by that much were terrible teams that became mediocre, such as the 2004 Detroit Tigers who had a +29 game improvement by going 72-90 because they were only 43-119 the year before. So there you have it. Well, they did it before, so obvoiusly they're capable of doing it again.

Look at the rookies the White Sox drafted. You should see quite a few of those names.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) Fine. If the Tigers sweep the Cubs, don't complain if we finish w/in 3 games of the Tigers at the end of the regular season. That's what you'd have wanted.

The AL is already the far superior league talent wise, and now you want to make things HARDER on the NL in interleague play?! By the way, I'm in favor of DH throughout baseball.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 09:21 PM) 32-11 You know, as annoyed that we are that Detroit keeps winning, they absolutely cannot shake the Sox. Now we simply play the waiting game. What are we waiting for? A. Their pitching to fall apart (Not very often do 5 starters and most of a bullpen all have great seasons, plus rookies in Verlander and Zumaya are bound to hit a wall). B. 10 head to head games in July and August. Either way, it won't be much longer.

Brian won't win the Gold Glove. He's the best defender, but it seems like those awards are all about flashy highlight plays and offense. Brain makes a few highlight plays, but his bat isn't good enough to win it. I know that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

I want J. Weaver...just not that one.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 08:39 PM) A sweep would be really nice going into a tough series at St. Louis. I suppose the Tigers get the Royals during that series?

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 08:32 PM) .........If JG decides he wants to show up! Herein lies the problem. Garland in a HR friendly park. Even if he does show up, he could (and probably will) easily give up 5 runs.