heirdog

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 02:11 AM) i thought danks was pitching very well for his experience and age and then it was clear he just got fatigued. Home runs were getting hit on him, but early in the season they were a lot of solo shots that happened because he was challenging batters when no one was on base. I liked what I saw early on. I think he can be a reliable #4 this year. I think he was challenging batters early on (and in spring training) by throwing strikes early in the count. With that, you will give up the homers but he was effective in that a lot of them were solo shots. He tried to be too finesse after the ASB and tried to nip corners, etc. and he fell behind a lot. Then he was forced to challenge batters with hitter's counts and when that happens, you struggle. Yes, he might have been fatigued but I think the bigger change in the performance pre and post ASB was his approach early in counts...throwing strikes vs. falling behind.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) Yeah, who was the GM in Toronto then, Gord Ashe? Do you think Gord Ashe hired a Baseball Prospectus writer to work in his front office? f*** no. Law was hired by JP Riccardi, a year after Ashe got s***canned in part because of the Wells trade. By your logic Law never would have been hired by the Jays were it not for that trade. Nice try at revisionist history though. Between your anger and sarcasm, I think I see your point...so Law wasn't in the Bluejays front office when the Sirotka deal went down? And he would not have had a job in the front office if it were not for that trade? Law worked for Baseball prospectus, and then the Bluejays and now back to Baseball prospectus?

QUOTE(rockren @ Jan 31, 2008 -> 09:17 PM) Lets not forget Law worked for the Blue Jays when KW dealt them Sirotka for Wells. Remember how KW seemingly mocked Toronto management in the media after they complained about Sirotka being damaged goods? Law hates KW and the WSox. Then shouldn't he be mocking KW by putting DLS at 10, Gio at 15 and Sweeney at 45 or something like that to make it seem like the idiot KW gave up way too much for Swisher? In reality, no writer/analyst would stake their reputation and credibility by pursuing a personal vendetta 10 years later...he just really thinks our system is not very good (much like most experts).

QUOTE(rockren @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 08:10 PM) I agree that was probably a sticking point....we wanted Figgins....they wanted to give Matthews. Something along those lines was probably the deal breaker. However if they had the chance to get Erv, Howie and Speier for Konerko....they should've jumped all over it and have worried about who their leadoff hitter was later. Hell if we got Kendrick...I could stomach Jerry Owens in CF leading off. But that would then require Kenny to admit that he traded the great Aaron Cunningham for nothing...he wants Richar to be his under the radar stud. But in all seriousness, Kenny would take Kendrick in a heartbeat. I think the discussion is similar to the Garland to Houston trade last summer...ask for way more as "throw in" (Hunter Pence) and if you get it, you do a deal. This year that throw-in is Kendrick for a Konerko deal to happen. But again, I think Kenny's eventual target in any of these deals is Bedard. Its also interesting to see what Kenny said after the Alexi Ramirez signing that he could become "one of the best short stops" in the game or something to that effect. Does Kenny see a Ramirez, Richar DP combo as the Sox future?

My prediction: 3-way deal (January 23rd) between Sox, Angels and Orioles: Sox trade Kong, Crede, Uribe to Angels Sox trade Danks and Shelby to Orioles Sox receive Bedard, Figgins and Speier Angels trade Figgins and Speier to Sox Angels trade Kendrick, Santana, Wilson to Orioles Angels receive Kong, Crede, Uribe and Hayden Penn Orioles trade Bedard to Sox Orioles trade Penn to Angels Orioles receive Kendrick, Danks, Santana, Shelby and Wilson White Sox fill all holes in one punch with a formidable top 3 rotation of Bedard, Vasquez and Buehrle, a lead-off CF, and another decent bullpen arm. Swisher plays 1B primarily and bats 3rd. Sox have a competitve, balanced team in 2008 and 2009 for that matter. Angels get pop in their line-up with Kong and Crede. Uribe covers SS until Wood is ready to go in 2009. Izturis plays 2B and leads off. Orioles get a nice haul for Bedard with an up-and-coming star at 2B, 2 young starters with upside, a back-up C and a CF of the future. After the trade, Kenny states "it was a large price but guys like Bedard, Figgins and Speier don't come around very often. We are now ready to compete in 2008." He will then trade (maybe before) MacDougal for a prospect or two.

What does the line about the rules prohibit trading 4 of your top prospects mean? Can a team only trade up to 3 of their top prospects and what rank list is this based off?

Did anyone else notice that pink/magenta thing (highlighter?) Roger was holding in his right hand? At first, the way he was rubbing it, I thought it was a lucky rabbit's foot, then I wasn't quite sure what it was. But my synopsis of the interview: Roger was vague Roger never said that McNamee was lying Roger said he got B-12 (take a vitamin) and lidocaine shots (why put this through systemically when it can be used locally?) Roger said he popped Vioxx like they were "skittles" because he trusted the people that told him they were safe Roger averted the lie detector question by saying who knows if they're accurate Roger was steaming mad at being questioned Roger is not sure if people will believe him but people that know him, know what's he about (a cheater?) Roger likely will not play baseball again...unless he decides he wants to play again My take: Roger was lying [but he didn't pull a Palmeiro with his penetrating eyes, bushy mustache scowl, and pointed finger]

QUOTE(The Critic @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) [REAL MEN OF GEEEEEENIUUUUUUS!] Here's to YOU, Mr. Sensitive Online Gratitude Displayer [Mr. Sensitive Online Gratitude Displaaaaaaayer] When you feel like sharing your innermost thoughts, you go to just the right place - an anonymous message board! [Nobody knows yooooou] Posting a gushy "thank you" message in the Pale Hose Talk section just shows that YOU MEAN IT, MAAAAN! [Why not Sex, Lies and Music???] So here's to you, Internet Man-Hugger - your buddies would give you grief for this....if anyone knew who you really were.... [Mr. Sensitive Online Gratitude Displaaaaaaaaayyyyyerrrrrrrrrrrrr] [Anheuser Busch - why, it's just fine, thanks for asking!] Like the 3 or 4 guys before me, I will display by on-line gratitude to you Mr. Critic for providing such comic relief and totally diluting Steve9347's thoughtful message. Critic, is there a way you can work in "Steve9347" into the chorus portion...would be fun with the rambling of numbers and all. Steve9347 if you have had a life-changing event occur as a result of reading this board, I apologize in advance but it was just so funny.

I loved Gio and think he will be the best of the bunch but I also loved Robert Valido and thought he would be awesome (at least by next year...I don't think that's happening). But I doubt I will regret this trade because I still don't regret the Chris Young trade. I think Vasquez is better for this team and would take a starting pitcher of his caliber (if he continues to pitch like he did last season) at the reasonable salary rather than have a 30/30 CF. And I'm being serious. You have to trade something to get something. Nick Swisher gives us what we need, has a nice contract and is still very young. Nick Swisher doesn't just make us better in 2008, he makes us better in 2009 and 2010, when the guys that we traded for him might or might not be ready. In the meantime, we can either have a competitive team or trade big names for prospects and retool via the draft with our revamped scouting. For all those that talk about rebuilding...when do we actually try to start winning? I think Kenny has made us a lot younger in MLB ready players over the past two seasons and I think that can help make it more palatable to watch the Sox rather than what we dealt with in the late '80s, pulling for Ivan Calderon, Baines and Guillen to carry this franchise.

I like the trade. I am not too concerned about losing Sweeney (reminds me of Ross Gload) or DLS. I think Gio will be real good for a 2-3 year window in the bigs but you have to trade something to get something. Swisher and Quentin is a nice start to a young, up and coming outfield. I don't know why getting a proven 27-year-old that is signed basically through 2012 to a reasonable contract is considered bad in terms of the future? We gave up 3 unproven guys and if one pans out, oh well, its not like we got a 6-month or 1 year rental in return.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) I like Swisher and all, but I don't see how this move makes us contenders for next season. Our rotation still blows, and our bullpen has added overrated s*** face Linebrink. big whoop. We get another power hitter who at least knows how to take a walk, but we completely destroyed our farm system. If we don't make the playoffs next year, Kenny Williams must be fired, because he f***ed this team up big time for the long term. How many more games would we have won last year (especially Danks and even Floyd given the lack of run support they received in their post-ASB starts) with a few more runs scored. That's why it makes us better next season. Are we contenders, maybe not. But we're definitely better next year.

QUOTE(R.J. @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) If this works out for us, that would be great, but I can't start getting too excited about this organization until we have a couple of building blocks for the future. How about Swisher, Quentin, Fields, Richar and Danks? A player can be a building block for the future if he is in the Majors...he doesn't necessarily need to be in the minors. Outside of Swisher, these guys don't have a lot of pro experience but have shown some abilities at the Major league level so are more of a building block in my mind that a guy that hasn't really cracked the bigs yet.

QUOTE(Skeet @ Dec 25, 2007 -> 04:30 PM) How 'bout this. Put together a package including Floyd and many OF prospects to pry Bedard away from the O's. Then swing Bedard [a Canadian] to their divisional rivals in Toronto for Alex Rios and let him man CF for the Sox for as long as he likes. The Jays can worry about signing Bedard to his monster extension and the Sox get a dependable young outfielder to replace the junk they have out their now. That would be the extent of my phoney fire sale. Floyd and OF junk is not going to net you Bedard. It would take Floyd and Danks/Gio, DLS and Sweeney and perhaps Fields in place of Sweeney. I don't know if I would trade all of that for Rios, which is your end game result.

QUOTE(palehose23 @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 11:31 PM) Jordan without Pippen= Zero Championships Jordan without Pippen= Getting beat 4 straight vs. the Lakers because the Bulls could guard "tragic" Johnson without Scottie. Jordan without Pippen= Triple teams and 2007 Kobe Paxson gets so much of a pass here in Chicago. Signing Ben Wallace for way too much money and years, letting go of Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry (which are the exact players the Bulls need), and not finding a way to get Kobe Bryant on this 2007 Bulls team is terrible. You clearly are missing my point. Yes, we needed Pippen and all the other players to win but the Pippen without Jordan = zero championships and zero trips to the finals. Maybe a few playoff wins but that's it. Let's not lose focus that we had the greatest player ever to play...not arguably the best player currently but the greatest player ever. You can go through and say all of these things about how Pippen was the key (and I agree to a degree) but we could much more easily replace Pippen with another player of equal caliber and still win...there was no one in Jordan's stratosphere. About my facts, I was wrong about Konerko but my point was he knew to hang on to Konerko even though he struggled and then was inconsistent. In either case, he made all the right moves in 2005. And finally, don't take a post so personally...I sense some irritation in your post but not sure why...this is an opinion and fact board so why get so hot under the collar if someone does not agree with you?

Kenny has no intention of dealing Buehrle but he will listen. This is similar to the Garland dealings last year. Astros offer Hirsh, Bucholtz and Tavares and KW says add Pence and you have a deal, knowing it won't happen and if it does, then he'll take it. Here, Reds probably offered Hamilton and Votto for Buehrle and KW said add in Cueto and you have a deal and then the Reds turned their attention to the Rangers and got a #5 in Volquez for Hamilton.

QUOTE(max power @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 09:19 PM) Krause isn't available. Krause inherited Jordan...Paxson inherited Jalen Rose. Please stop the comparisons. Paxson has done well and his true legacy will be decided based off whether he can take a semi-talented, hard working team into a championship by pushing the right buttons coming up in the next year or so. He took an underachieving, lazy team with a few bad contracts into a hard-working, asset laden team with a nice contract structure in place. They haven't performed this year so it looks bad but give this team Jordan in his prime and we would be talking a different tune about Paxson. Yes, every team needs a supporting cast and other superstars but let's not kid ourselves, Jordan is the reason we won six...not Krause, not Pippen and not JR. Kenny was the talk of the town when we won the WS and we all talked about how he brought us the championship with his moves...sticking with Garland, Crede and Rowand. Trading for Konerko, Contreras, Garcia, Pods. Signing AJ, Dye, El Duque etc. He pushed all the right buttons and we felt like he was robbed for GM of the year by Shapiro. Then we won 90 and fell flat after the AS break and it was written off as a bad half. We underachieved last year and our bullpen was a joke (which was Kenny's doing) so now he sucks! Maybe he was given too much credit when we won but now it seems, he is taking too much heat but that's how it was before the 2005 season so let's hope for a similar result.

My qualm about "people acting like its their money" is directed more at the two posters in this thread (and others in the past) that say things like "getting him off the books is worth it" and "I'd rather have the $4.5 million and nobody"... Its a 1-yr deal for $4.5 million. It does not affect next year and if we aren't doing anything else with the money (i.e. signing another player), then why does it matter? Uribe has shown some value and having him is in fact better than nobody and any AAAA player we use in his place (i.e. Andy Gonzalez-type). If our team salary is $105 million with him and $100.1 million without him, does it really matter? That's my only point. I think we need to put it in perspective. If using his money would have helped us land a bigger player, then yes, by all means he is not worth having "on the books" but if it means that we have no one instead, then I'd rather have Uribe and his $4.5 million "on the books."

I still don't understand why everyone acts like its their money? Its not like we save anything by getting Uribe off the books and then not using the money. I'd rather have him, his salary, and his major league competence than a AAAA player taking a bench spot.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 05:28 PM) Right now, none of our guys will fit into that great stuff, highly drafted, highly viewed category that guys like Garza, Price, Kershaw, etc. fit into. Not Danks, not Gio, not Egbert, not Floyd, etc. Egbert doesn't throw 98 with a killer slider, so most baseball people will not count on him for anything until he proves it in the big leagues. And they probably shouldn't. But as we all know, just because someone isn't highly touted doesn't mean they won't crack the big leagues or will be stuck at the back end of the bullpen. I'll give you an example. This pitcher named Mark Buehrle never once appeared in BA's top 100 prospect list. Garland appeared once, ranked #32. Teams may not give you Delmon Young for guys like Egbert or give you a top ranked guy like say, Corey Patterson in 2000 for a guy like Buehrle, but sometimes the game of baseball is a funny one. And hopefully we can get a little luckier with these guys than people think we will. I would argue that Floyd had the same type of hype when he came up as the names mentioned above. Danks was considered one of, if not the best lefty prospect a couple years ago. Danks has been pushed up very quickly and Floyd hasn't met expectations. Those names mentioned above may face a similar fate. But in terms of stuff, some of our guys have it or had it and we will see how it plays out. Gio and Egbert have both performed well last year. In my opinion, Gio has the stuff to be an ace and Egbert could overachieve but I think he's more bottom of the rotation on a good staff.

Nice...now he can cast his voodoo spell on Wedge to play him every where, every day just like he did to Guillen. We could use that type of productivity in the line-up of our division rivals.

Yes. I think Danks and Floyd could be top of the rotation starters in the bigs. [weak attempt to get this thread back on topic] Seriously, I think given their stuff, Floyd is a potential ace and Danks #1 or 2 but with their make-up and development, I think Danks will end up as a 1 or 2 (a Buehrle type that is a #1 but not an ace) and Floyd a #3. Out of all our guys, I think Gio is a budding ace and Danks, Floyd are more low-top or middle of the rotation. Jury is still out on Poreda and DLS, although their is potential there. Broadway, Egbert and McCulloch are bottom of the rotation or bullpen arms.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:04 PM) There's a thread on WSI. Some guy in Boston radio claims its in place just waiting on the Santana situation to evolve. Does that mean, if they don't get Santana? Because if they do then one of Coco or Ellsbury will be involved (probably Ellsbury) so that would make Coco a necessity for the BoSox...unless they're really high on Shelby or even Brian Anderson (if he's involved in the trade). More than likely, it means that if they do not get Santana, then they would do this deal. Will be interesting to see what we have to give up if it ever comes to fruition.

If we can make this deal without involving Gio or DLS, I would be surprised and very pleased. Shelby, Broadway and Carlos Vasquez? I wouldn't mind getting Crisp and Bowden for that.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) Didn't we just sign him to a 5 year deal that has three left on it? That would be banking on him. That's the point...we signed him to a 5-yr, reasonable dollar deal and he has 3 yrs left so either we are sticking with him or we can trade him (since he has a reasonable deal and is still a performer). There are plenty of guys that get signed and then traded within the deals (unless they have full NTCs and then they still might get traded if they waive it). In regards to your question about what option to go with in terms of the draft...I think you pick the high ceiling guy as the Sox farm system has quantity but not necessarily top of the line quality. We have had "safe" picks with Broadway and McCulloch and while these guys may be nice 5th starters or bullpen arms in the future, we should be going for the ace or stud in the first round. Don't let the Borchard signing scare you off KW, that was just your love for Stanford guys! You already got that guy in Quentin this year so go for the High School or college stud.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 10:10 PM) Lets see, Kenny already drafted him, likes the family and traded for his brother. We have had a piece from the sox beat writer late last year talking about Jordan Danks meanwhile overlooking the much better Pedro Alvarez. And we have a long history of passing on talented guys for the "bargain" in the bunch. How many of those guys are represented by the anti-sox guy. And most of all, when Kenny locks on a guy how many times does he let him go. It would be lovely to believe that kenny will take the best available talent thats available. But if that was the case Porcello would be in our system, and some of the other "bargains" wouldnt be in our system now. Actually this is a question to BureauEmployee if he reads this. Please tell us that Jordan Danks isnt the forgone conclusion on draft day. And we don't have a 2nd rounder taking away our hope that KW might think he could drop to us in the 2nd round. We have two third basemen and we're letting go of all of our young 1B so either we're banking on Kong for awhile or looking to trade him and get a 1B back (unless we think Smoak is our guy and will fall to us). We have enough young pitching that is filled with "top of the rotation guys" according to KW's assessment of what other GMs think. Sounds like we're set up to get an OF since that's our biggest need now and guess who is an OF with "all" the qualities you listed above and "all" the qualities we are looking for...the Grinder Danks!