Frankensteiner

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 28, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) The fun thing is...we could keep Poreda, Richard, and Hudson, and spend $20 million to grab another pitcher this offseason or next offseason if we really wanted to go that route. And I doubt we'd have to be locked in for as long as we would be with Peavy. I've read this a couple of times, but I need some actual names who we can sign and/or acquire with that money. Because I don't see anyone as good as Peavy becoming available.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 28, 2009 -> 10:39 AM) I'm thrilled we didn't get him. No doubt in my mind that in 3 years, we'll be better off having Poreda, Richard, and Hudson in the organization than having Peavy making near 20 million. Give me those 3 guys, and spend the 20 million on other holes. I am shocked anyone would say this. In terms of talent, this deal was a no-brainer. No other team in the league will trade an ace pitcher for such a below market price. We have no guarantee any of those guys can even stick in a major league rotation, and you wouldn't trade them for a 27 year old Cy Young pitcher? Really? As far as the $20 mil salary, that's not entirely accurate as he would only be making that much for one year of his contract. In terms of holes, we have one starting pitcher with an ERA under 4 right now. I'd say that's our most significant hole.

QUOTE (BaseballNick @ May 28, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) He's afraid to pitch in the AL, he's making a ton of money, and most of all, he doesn't want to be here. I'm not saying he wouldn't improve the team, but I can understand why people didn't want him. I, personally, don't like the idea of one player taking up nearly 1/5 of the team's payroll - unless that player's name happens to be Albert. Peavy's salary is pretty much the going rate for a top of the rotation starter, give or take a couple of million. If you don't want to pay that much money, then you're not going to trade for a #1 starter. Now, if you personally would not rather allocate the money into one pitcher, I can understand that. However, there were some here who want and think we can trade for another comparable pitcher with a comparable contract. I don't think that's possible.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 28, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) According to Cowley and Linebrink, the Peavy deal is finally dead. ANAHEIM, Calif. - Just in case there were some White Sox fans still holding onto that Jake Peavy hope - let your hands go and embrace the fall. "I think it is [dead],'' Sox reliever Scott Linebrink insisted on Wednesday. Linebrink would know. After all, he was given the recruiting responsibilities by general manager Ken Williams to talk to Peavy - who he played with in his San Diego days. "I saw and read that maybe there was some hope still being held out there for a deal to happen with him in the future, but the second time I talked to Jake after he rejected it, he expressed to me that he felt comfortable being in the National League,'' Linebrink added. "It wasn't he was necessarily afraid to come to the American League, but when you've been in a league and you get to know it, especially being a starting pitcher, it's probably a bit more comfortable to stay over there. "The thing I did express to him again was that no matter where you do go - because I think it's pretty inevitable that he's being traded - you might want to get this thing behind you as quickly as possible so you can get somewhere and get acclimated as soon as possible. I certainly know what it's like to have a trade rumor hanging over your head, and you certainly don't want that to be a distraction for the rest of the season. That was the last time we talked, about a week ago.'' Well, that's that. I guess we can now discuss why Team X will trade Top Young Pitcher Y for a couple of our prospects and some scraps.

I think the best bet is for Peavy to change his mind closer to the deadline, because trading for any of the other pitchers mentioned on this forum is completely unrealistic. I can't believe some people here were happy we didn't get Peavy.

This is very depressing. I would have loved this team's chances with a true ace.

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ May 21, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) It's for parents....the massive drinking of O'douls afterward is what you should be pumped for....soak it in man...you got a few more years then real life is gonna hit and all you have to live for is trade threads on soxtalk. Yup, work is a mind-numbing routine. After 3 yers, I will be going back to school this fall and can't wait. Enjoy it while you can.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Honestly, this is just ignorant thinking. There's 162 games in the season, and every team has a game like this. Or 5 or 6 in the case of the Sox.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) Why can't you sell off players while trying to reload for the following season at the same time? I'd have absolutely no problem with this. Let's be honest...getting Peavy this year means nothing unless Gavin and Contreras can do something to contribute. 3 reliable starters won't get the job done unless you have a strong offense. 3 reliable starters is more than any other team in this division, imo. Also, our softball offense is going to hit once we get into June.

I mean, if the Sox don't want to pick up his option, then they are completely retarded or this is all just PR. Baseball 101 says guy with a NTC will want his option picked up.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 21, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Pitching wins, but to guarantee a $22 million option 4 years from now is insane. If he doesn't want to be here, let him go to play for the Cubbies, I'm already sick of it, although if Broadway is involved ....................................... Not like we don't have a roster of overpaid guys at the moment.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) And what in the last 2 decade of Sox baseball has made you think our players from the minors will be close to above average in their first 2-3 years? I love Slayer more than anyone, but there will be a learning curve for these guys I'm sure. I just worry about our offense the next couple of years, and would rather we use more of the money to get a leadoff hitter, etc. Yeah, I'd rather have Figgins than Peavy also.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) With the way the economy is, I can guarantee there will be good deals to be made if we're willing to pick up contracts. And for the last time, I completely disagree with this. There's only a handful of potential aces in the league, and I doubt, even in this economy, there are going to be any teams who are willing to foolishly part with them. The Padres situation seems to be a perfect storm of events.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) Peavy's pitched basically his whole career in one of the best pitcher's parks in league history. Oswalt, meanwhile, has had a hell of a career pitching at a park with a 315 foot fence to left field. I'm just saying that if we're willing to take on a huge pitching contract while giving up valuable resources, it's very possible there will be Plan B, C, to come. I wonder what Javy Vazquez's career stats would look like if he pitched his whole career in San Diego? He's doing damn good in Atlanta now. Oswalt is 31 to Peavy's 27. But you still haven't answered any of my questions: 1. Why would the Astros trade Oswalt? 2.What are the specific guys who will be available for the Sox to target? All you've given is generalities and one name who sounds like an even bigger longshot than Peavy. I just think it's insane to not get excited over Peavy when he's our best (and only) bet for setting up our rotation for the next 3-4 years. No one else will even come close.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) If the Sox are willing to take on that much money and willing to give up the prospects that have been mentioned, they could realistically be involved with a lot of marquee names (guys like Oswalt who could be available). A lot of marquee names? I am asking you for some specifics. First, I don't see why Houston would be compelled to trade him. Second, he's not as good as Peavy.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) For the amount of money we'd be paying Peavy, you can find good pitching. His contact would surely limit KW's ability to bring in "star" players to fill in some of the other holes we're going to have (right field!). Oh really? Please name at least one other player with Peavy's track record and stuff who the Sox could acquire for less money? I am not seeing anyone.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:39 AM) That's fine...we still have 3-4 glaring holes on offes offensive players, so I really don't think Peavy is the missing link. There's a lot of overreaction by people right now. Peavy is good, but I wouldn't say he'd be close to being a great pitcher in the AL. Good pitching is much harder to get than offensive players. See White Sox, 2005. Good starters, good bullpen, mediocre line-up. I don't see much hope for this team if they're running Buehrle and Danks and a bunch of question marks.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 21, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) I won't be sad at all if this happens. In 3 years, Peavy's going to have an albatross of a contract. Just keep that in mind when you see Floyd and/or Contreras pitching this season.

This would be an unbelivable trade if it goes down. My biggest problem with this team is the lack of pitching depth for the next few years. This deal obviously solve those problems.

I just want to know who's going to pitch for this team for the next 3-4 years and allow us to contend. I see nothing but question marks after Buehrle and Danks (and even those guys have relative question marks).

I would just like to know where our pitching is going to come from for the next 3-4 years. Buehrle and Danks are pretty good, but what comes after that? We can't give up on Floyd, but it's obvious even if he bounces back, he can't really be pencilled-in as a consitent #3. Oh well, I guess I should thank the Sox for providing me with a stress-free summer.

Any fire sale should start with Kenny being the first one out the door (not that it's going to happen).

QUOTE (fathom @ May 17, 2009 -> 01:41 PM) Yes, last year was a success. We took a team that had no business competing and beat our rivals for the AL Central crown. Last year has nothing to do with this year, which is shaping up to be a disaster in virtually every aspect. Not only are we losing, but our core group of players for the future are struggling to prove they can be counted on. So you're basically saying a fluke year = successful year.

I remember people were calling last year a success (although I wasn't one to think this) because we had found a young core of Quentin, Alexei, Danks, & Floyd. In hindsight, would people say that today?

We can talk about any guy on the roster but it's a moot point if Danks and Floyd don't pitch like they did a year ago. I really don't understand why we jumped the gun in giving Floyd that contract extension.