heirdog

I think 72 wins for last years team was an aberration. Were they a 90 win team? No they were not. But expect a bounce back year from at least half of the players (Buehrle, Konerko, Thome) and you have at worst an 81 win team (this includes starters and position players). Add 5 wins that Bedard could get you just by being in the rotation over Garland and you have an 86 win team. Let's say O. Cabrera over Uribe gets you only 3 more wins and you have an 89 win team. I would roll the dice on that and see if we can't get a little production from our other guys and compete. Detroit may be a 100+ win team this year but a couple of bad years like we had last year or a couple of injuries and we could be right there. And no, I don't agree with KW that Detroit can now compete with us, we are clearly trying to keep up with them. But a rotation that includes Bedard, Buehrle and Vasquez is comparable in my mind to Verlander, Bonderman, and Willis/Rogers or Sabathia, Carmona and Cleveland's number 3. We still need one more piece and if its not Markakis then someone else but I think Bedard would help us more than Miguel Cabrera or another position player. I never thought of the Greek connection with Markakis and maybe we don't have the pieces that the O's want but that is who I would go for...Bedard. And in my mind, he is an ace. Santana is phenomenal and the best pitcher in baseball but will that continue? I think he will be an ace for the near future but will he be as dominant? 33 homers given up last year and struggled after the AS break so Bedard's future potential just might be worth more than Santana's past production. Any way, I've said my piece on this and just think "trying" to get Bedard would be the smartest move as trading our farm of good prospects for a few great prospects from another team may well be worth it. If we can get an 5 great prospects (4 from another team in deals for Bedard and Kong along with our 1st round draft pick this year) to go along with Quentin, Owens, Richar, Gio, Buehrle etc., and then add free agents, rebuilding woudn't be a 7 year plan as someone suggested earlier.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) You do know why he is untouchable, right? I wasn't commenting on the untouchable part. I was only commenting on the part you said, "not even worth discussing, etc. etc." But you could have said untouchable about a bunch of guys that have been traded so if you want to enlighten me on something that I don't know about an "untouchable" young player, then go ahead.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 02:03 PM) He is going to be less valuable in one year. The Sox are not winning anything this year that they would win with Bedard. Thus, the package of prospects you are going to get is not going to be nearly as good as the one you are giving up. It's a pointless trade in that regard. The Sox are better off trading away pieces or keeping the current team together and adding a free agent CFer than they are trading a big package for a starting pitcher who is going next year or the year after. Perhaps less valuable but still will command the type of haul that Santana is commanding now. If a Markakis deal is being compared to the Delmon Young deal that certainly Bedard and Santana can be compared.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) Yeah I know what you said. The part I'm confused about is you thinking we can get that kind of package from the Yanks for 1 yr of Bedard, when they have been reluctant to even add Hughes for 1 yr of Santana. Not to mention Markakis if the original O's deal. Reluctant? Perhaps. But point is they would have and had it on the table but the Twins didn't bite.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) Are you insane? Fields/Danks/DLS/Sweeney/Anderson for 1 yr Bedard/Markakis/Cabrera/Hughes/Horne? What planet do you think this is? Follow the thread before asking questions like this. The comment was in response to the fact we were gutting the farm for 2 yrs of Bedard and I simply said we would spin off Bedard after one year if our attempts to win it all were not successful and we wanted to rebuild in 09.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) If they are asking for Kershaw, I really don't think there's anything we have that would be a match. Even DLS isn't considered at that level yet. A dominant year at AA next year would push him upwards, but Kershaw is a nearly MLB ready left hander and is considered by many the best pitching prospect in the minors. If that's their price, we really don't have anything to talk about. That was my original point...that it would take quite a lot and probably still not be enough...

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) Yeah, he's not being "added in." If anything, it'll take another large package of prospects for him. He's certainly not an add-on. Large package of prospects for Markakis? I agree he's not a add-on but I had a pretty stacked package from the Sox so it was more about balancing the trade then adding in a Markakis. But I do not agree that Markakis will bring in the same haul as a M. Cabrera if that is what you are suggesting.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) Markakis is absolutely untouchable. He is not available, period, end of discussion. Thank you Peter Angelos.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:15 PM) What does Eric Bedard do in the next 2 years for the Chicago White Sox that would make them a good enough team to be a favorite to win the division going into the season? Then, and only then, do you make a package that big for anybody. If you make that trade for Bedard, have only Gio in the system, lose Crede next year, and Bedard, Dye, and Thome the year after that, you are looking at about a 7 year rebuilding period. If it does nothing for us in 08, then you spin Bedard for stud prospects....likely the Yankees if the Red Sox get Santana. Or the Red Sox if the Yanks get him and either one if neither gets him. If we can turn Fields, Danks, DLS, Sweeney and Anderson into 1 yr of Bedard (10 more wins than Danks in 08), Markakis, Melky Cabrera, Phil Hughes and Horne, I am fine with that (or replace with Ellsbury, Lowrie and Lester).

QUOTE(NCsoxfan @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) IMO it would be ridiculous to give up that much I laid out a large price because that's what the O's would want. I agree that its a lot but a core of Fields, Danks, Sweeney and Anderson ain't gonna do it. You will need to add in a Gio or DLS. With Markakis added in with Bedard, you really are gaining another young impact player and don't have to wait on Sweeney and Anderson to finally develop. Bedard is a stud lefty who after 08 could be spun out for stud prospects if our go for it all plan in 08 doesn't work.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 12:55 PM) Every half ass scout knows BA has holes in his swing. Nobody is going to change their opinion based on what his agent says or doesn't say. The proof is in the pudding. We'll see in ST if the pudding is sweet or rancid. I agree wholeheartedly and was originally just saying that this is PR BS from his agent. Saying something provocative like my guy has finally seen the light and taking this seriously now is a means to say that he will now be the stud everyone expected. I just think that they are taking a proactive approach to addressing BA's "issues" but I don't think this is the biggest issue (the holes in the swing are). The only odd thing the agent said in my mind was that he didn't want to go hit in the Mexican league and face pitchers that had tough breaking balls. Does he think the majors are like hitting off a tee? Whatever, we will find out soon enough.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) From the Boston Herald: So the Dodgers offered Kemp and Broxton and the Orioles countered with Kemp, Kershaw and LaRoche. So it would take Fields, Gio, Danks, DLS, Sweeney and Anderson to get Bedard? If we can pull Gio out or get Markakis added, then I might still be fine with that. But from Angelos' history, our package would probably be laughed at as he would want even more.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Dec 7, 2007 -> 09:47 AM) Well his agent could have left off the very unflattering "For the first time, Brian is approaching this like a professional." Too little, too late. If he left that part off, then it could be interpretted that he and Brian are not really sure why he has sucked so far. Since he is young and looking for a big time gig, its better to say he had some growing up to do versus: "He is really working out this year to make sure his body is healthy and working on fixing the holes in his swing." While neither is good, its better to have "attitude issues" versus "skill set issues" when you are young because someone will feel that its "all a part of growing up" or that a "change in scenery" will do him some good and perhaps trade for him and make him a starter.

Big Caveat 1: This is his agent saying this. What else is he going to say? No one from the Sox brass has noted what they have heard or seen so good for Brian that he's eating his veggies and drinking his milk. Big Caveat 2: No Mexican League because of pitchers throwing tough breaking balls? I don't care how well you take care of your body, if you're not ready to hit breaking balls in December from the Mexican League, you will be useless by the time spring training rolls around. He had gaping holes in his swing before the injury and if they got bigger, well then trade him fast for Jeremy Reed and bring this thing full circle.

Losing 5 players in the Rule V just tells me that we have a nice group of minor league players currently in the minors. It takes prospects and impact players to help the major league ball club and for trades but these guys that get drafted here are simply short-term plugs (utility players or bullpen arms that may have a good couple of months in the bigs). I, in no way feel that losing players in the Rule V speaks to the value of the farm system as Scott Merkin alludes to in his article on the MLB site.

WHITESOX RANDY is like the Bruce Levine of Soxtalk. One of these days, one of his ideas will stick to the wall and we will all be sorry!

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 05:19 PM) Terrible idea by the Brewers....Iguchi might need a cut-off man to reach 1b. ha ha ha...that was very funny. No seriously, that was hilarious.

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Dec 5, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) I'm scarred for life from watching people like Steve Lyons, Carlos Martinez, and Kenny Williams try to play 3B. I'm not in favor of giving one away for nothing. Herbert Perry

Ho hum... Let's just sign Cabrera in 2 years after he settles into the midwest and we can offer him $25 million per for 8 seasons. Wait, when we don't do that, let's talk about how Rick Hahn dropped the ball...since Kenny will be long gone by then with his foolish moves

The longer this trade goes without a KW comment makes me think more and more that Quentin will be flipped in another deal. I hope that's not the case unless the next deal really blows our socks off...Crawford, Cabrera, Bedard? Anyone heard any comments from the Sox brass on the deal?

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) The positional aspect makes sense but since when do 25 year old prospects have higher ceilings than 20 year old prospects? That's hard to do unless the 25 year old is considering one of the better young players in the game. The fact that we were able to land Quentin for Carter would suggest that that's not the case and that the last couple seasons have hurt his value some in the eyes of MLB front offices. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of this deal, but if we traded a 20 year old for a 25 year old who can play right now and has a higher upside Kenny just pulled off the steal of the decade and I'm not willing to go quite that far. It means that when Carlos Quentin peaks (let's say age 28) and when Chris Carter peaks (let's say age 27), Quentin will be better at his peak than Carter was at his peak. For the White Sox, they get the higher ceiling guy and may get his peak very soon, whereas they may have to wait 5-7 years for Carter to peak. Given positions of strength (OF for DBacks) and the fact that the DBacks have a glut of prospects that are in the Majors now, they may want to reload their next stream of prospects instead of wasting Quentin. Based off players still with the team, it looks like the deal with the DBacks is now: Chris Young, Aaron Cunningham & Chris Carter for Javier Vasquez, Danny Richar and Carlos Quentin. I would do that trade any day of the week. Of course, replacing BA with CY would make it look like highway robbery but perhaps we couldn't have completed the other two deals if Arizona wasn't happy with the results of the first.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) I know why Quentin is more valuable than Carter for our organization: we're in win now mode and he can step in right away and fill a major hole. Why do people think that the Marlins clearly prefer Quentin over Carter? Because the NL does not have a DH spot.

I definitely want Quentin, Fields and Danks to stay and would be happier to see them perform well in '08 and become future stars rather than getting one superstar and creating 2 holes now and more in the future.

I like this deal but anyone else think it could be a prelude to a bigger deal...meaning Quentin, Fields and Danks for Cabrera or Bedard?

I like the trade. Quentin has all the tools and he has done well at all levels but struggled last year. His value was low and looks like we jumped on that. Carter is not a great fielder and we can put anyone at 1B over the next few years if we only want a bat. Carter could be good too in the future but Quentin can play right now.