Balta1701

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) We are saving lets say 4-5 million bucks if not more, but for what? Hunter?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) Cabrera is also a free agent after this upcoming season. Do we happen to know whether he'd be in the "Type A" group of players?

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 12:21 PM) I honestly believe the Sox are probably going to get older, slower, with more injury issues by going after players on the downside.

1. Jerry Owens 2. Orlando Cabrera 3. Jim Thome 4. Paul Konerko 5. Jermaine Dye 6. Josh Fields 7. OF 8. AJ Pierzynski 9. Danny Richar

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) Oh and hes making almost 9 million this season. Yes!!!!! The Tribune says the Halos are throwing in some cash.

Well, the good news is...we have a #2 hitter. The other good news is, our bench just got stronger. The bad news of course is...we didn't get any younger.

Tribune blog:

25 minutes from a bowl game....

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 01:10 PM) So, you're in favor of trading Garland, and then rounding out the rotation with Contreras and 2 of the youngsters ? I understand the thinkingl, especially if Kenny doesn't believe he can resign him, but I just have so much concern about having 3 guys I don't really trust. I do agree with you on the need to save money in certain spots. That's why I would lean to giving Owens a shot in LF next season should they be able to add a CF, and making Richar the primary starter at 2B along with a young starter in the #5 hole. I really only see one expensive addition, and that looks to be CF. If my options are trading no one and going with a rotation of MB, JV, JG, JC, and Danks/Floyd, versus trading JG and going with a rotation of MB, JV, JC, Danks, Floyd, then I would say yes, I would prefer the latter option due to salary constraints and our needs. But that makes a couple assumptions. 1: I'm assuming we can't trade Jose without picking up a portion of his contract. If someone would give us a bag of balls for him but we didn't have to pick up the contract, then I'm fine with keeping JG. But if that won't happen, and if I were another GM it wouldn't, then I see little choice but to keep Jose. It also assumes we could get a fair deal for Garland where we brought back some legit talent; if that wouldn't happen, then hold him and take the draft pick. Yes, going with that 2 kid rotation and Jose is a big gamble. It's safer to go in with Jon. But when I look at the roster, I think it's a much bigger gamble to not upgrade our position players or to keep that much money locked up in average guys in the rotation than it is to go with the kids there. At least if the kids fail...they're bloody cheap.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) Eye in the Sky - Alan Parsons Project Sky Blue Sky - Wilco (Sky Blue Sky, 2007)

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) It seems that a consensus is building that keeping Garland as the #3 starter is a major key to getting this team back on track. Adding another relief pitcher would be another smart move, but it would be extremely hard to compete with a shaky (at best) starting rotation. The way I look at it...right now we have so many different places where we need to spend money that at some point, we have to gamble a bit on what we have and save money in a place or two. Based on what Floyd, Broadway, Danks, Gio, etc. have done recently, which for many of them is simply "Not suck for an entire year", I think SP is a good place to try to do that. I can give the same logic for why I think we need Owens and Richar in the lineup next year; we just don't have the money to find someone better at every slot, and our money would be better spent finding another OF/#2 hitter, an upgraded SS, and another RHP out of the bullpen.

QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) It isn't a bad idea, however I don't think the WSox want to give Garland an MB contract. Not that he isn't worth it to them, but I don't think they want to tie up another SP for multiple seasons at 12 mil/year. And the frightening thing is...JG for $12 million a year right now might well be a bargain compared to what he'll get on the open market next year.

Well, at least I get to see 1 new band marching down Colorado this year.

QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) Agreed, although Garland is certainly a player they'll look to dump for multiple young Grade B arms. While your point is taken...I think it would be foolish to insist on pitching as a return for JG given the state of our minor leagues and the fact that we're mildly stronger on pitching talent than on position players. Naturally, if someone offers you a Kershaw you laugh all the way to the bank, but barring that, I would put a higher priority on finding someone who could play the field somewhere.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) As far as pitching, I just don't think this team will be near the top of the division if they have to depend on both Gavin Floyd and John Denks as the #4 and #5 starters. If the White Sox are unable to sign Hunter, might they be willing to look at resigning Garland instead with this money ? Just an idea, but it's hard to compete with a mediocre starting rotation. If we were talking about a seriously dominant pitcher, like a Buehrle, I might agree with you here. But when I look at it, I see a Jon Garland who puts up an awful lot of innings as an average pitcher. He's had 1 year where his ERA dropped below 4. Yes, he could do that again, but when I look at how this team is built, I see a couple noteworthy things. Right now, as it currently sits, we have over $45 million tied up in starting pitching next year. That's nearly half our salary in 4 guys. 2 of those guys put up average to poor numbers last year; Jon and Jose. Jose, I still doubt he's movable. Jon is certainly movable, the only question is how much we could get teams to give up for him. I for one don't see it as a huge jump to expect that we could get either Floyd or Danks to give us a 4.5 ERA or better next year, and I think Floyd if no one else probably could put up 200+ innings if we threw him out there all season (hopefully he'd do well enough to earn those innings). And I still look behind them and see a lot of other guys who we might be able to throw in next year and have them be average also, and that's sort of what I'm shooting for here; a guy who gives us decent innings with average numbers, because that's what Jon currently does. If we were to trade Jose, without having to pick up his contract, I have no problem holding onto Jon and either trying to resign him, trading him at the deadline if we're out of it, or letting him walk next year for picks. But I just can't see how it pays for this team with its salary constraints to pay $45 million for a starting rotation that has 1 average guy and 1 currently below average guy. Tying up that kind of money in one area of the team was one of the reasons we struggled in 03-04; we had like 60% of our salary tied up in 4 bats. Now a ton of it's tied up in pitching and Konerko/Dye, and just as our pitching staffs struggled in 03-04 when we had all that money tied up in a couple guys (remember the 5th starter woes?) now we have all this money tied up in pitching but we have a couple of big question marks in the field that we might not have money to cover (Uribe, OF).

Curt Schilling's contract gets him an extra $2 million if he meats 6 different weigh-in goals during the year. Best diet plan in the country.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 12:25 PM) Paper Tiger - Beck Eye of the Tiger - Survivor (January 1, 1982, Album Eye of the Tiger/Rocky III Soundtrack)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) You don't give a guy much to work with. Bad Moon Risin' - CCR It's only a paper moon, Jazz/Pop Standard, Originally written by Harold Arlen, 1933

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 11:31 AM) Bad - Michael Jackson Bad - U2 (The Unforgettable Fire, 1984)

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 07:19 PM) I dunno. Fans upset about cheating/strike? Well, let's give 'em a bunch of home runs! Just that now we've had so many homers for so long, it took something special to wow us again. What the hell will baseball do now, when home runs are the problem? I think what he'll do is exactly what we've seen done; just enough to hopefully make it go away. And in case you didn't notice, home runs were WAY down across baseball last year. One year does not a trend make, but it's certainly worth noting.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 05:13 PM) Have read that he is willing to waive that to get the hell away from St. LaRussa And seriously...how many people would say "No" to going to the Red Sox? To the World Champs, who have a ton of money? Unless you're really set on an area, you do that deal.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) I don't think GP is really arguing with you. He asked the question and got his answer. But I agree with him that it's a fair question. The issue is whether baseball has any right to punish a player for doing something that violates the law but not the rules of MLB. I'd say that would be an unfair punishment. Obviously the legal system can still punish him. I think the remarkable thing about this is, at least based on my understanding, MLB has precedent for this as well. Before the 1919 World Series, firm rules for how gambling in baseball was to be treated were not established. But, when Landis was named commissioner, he took the job with the singular goal of cleaning up MLB. And he did so, most notably by banning the guys, despite the fact that as far as I understand it, there was no written rule outlawing their behavior, and on top of that, they were found innocent after a couple of their confessions disappeared. The Black Sox scandal to my eyes clearly sets precedent that a commish can punish people for actions against the law but not against the rules of baseball, because as far as I can tell, that was what was done.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) Why does the game need to spell out that anything banned by the law is also against the rules? Isn't it implicit by the fact that a country's legal system trumps a game's rulebook? But...as I keep pointing out...this question is moot. Because the game in fact did spell that out. ONe might be able to argue in some abstract sense that he wasn't breaking a rule of the game if Vincent had not sent around that policy memo, but he did, and so it was clearly in MLB's rules that you could not take an illegal substance, including anabolic steroids.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) Yes, I do. I was genuinely asking -- is there a rule he broke? I do know that for a long time Barry Bonds and many others had issues with steroids because they considered it cheating and believed it tainted the game but as to whether or not there was a rule he was breaking was up for discussion. But yes, I'd call that "cheating." I wouldn't if it were just a law. According to the Vincent Memo, baseball's rules banned MLB players from taking any illegal substance, and that memo specifically referenced steroids, which were made illegal in 1988 or thereabouts. So if your question is, did Barry Bonds break a rule? The answer must be yes. He clearly broke a rule; you were not allowed to take an illegal substance.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 06:09 PM) Certainly, the fact that it was illegal is a consideration to be given, but that makes him a criminal rather than a "cheater" if we take "cheating" to be "breaking the game's rules". And another Q, for those of you who know the rulebook: is it a formal rule that you couldn't, or shouldn't, steal signs? It's somewhat a tangent but I'm curious. But, I think I just pointed out...as of 1991, it was clearly against MLB's rules, according to the statement laid down by the commissioner, to use steroids. The problem was that the rule was not enforceable, as the Union wasn't bargained in on it, and you could probably spend some time arguing over what exactly was banned and what wasn't since "Steroids" is a pretty generic classification. So, here's the question I'll put back to you which I think is the more accurate one: do you consider him to be a cheater if he broke an unenforced rule, and an unenforceable (at the time) rule? Because, if that memo from Commissioner Vincent is setting the rules MLB plays by, Mr. Bonds broke that rule but knew at the time that MLB couldn't punish him for it.