Felix

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:28 PM) You're being hypocritical. You want Milledge because you can have him for 6 years and he is predicted to be good. Makes you wonder what the Mets are thinking if they have a superstar in the minors but keep looking for corner outfielders, even considering Sammy Sosa. Ever heard of the term plugger? Sammy Sosa isn't the long term answer to their outfield problems, they know that. They are also likely looking at Sosa to get more publicity, and rival the Yankees in terms of popularity in New York.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) Buerhle could be gone in a couple of years. I don't know if we can sign him. Trade him next offseason! Trade him! Except if Buerhle walks, we get draft picks. If Contreras walks, we get nothing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:26 PM) Corey Patterson was a top prospect, a can't miss guy. He turned into a guy who usually missed. I like the horse that led the White Sox to the world title. Felix Hernandez was a top prospect. Albert Pujols was a top prospect. Frank Thomas was a top prospect. Whats your point about Corey Patterson?

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:23 PM) But they KNOW Contreras is a great pitcher in the league. Again, I thought to be great you would have to prove to be sucessful year after year. I guess I'm wrong though.. whoopsie. And this debate is getting pretty pointless. The same thing is being said over and over again, and it all started because the original article said the Mets would probably have to part with Milledge. It didn't even say that Milledge was involved in any potential deal, it just said that he would likely have to be.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) Wow. Just wow. Number 1 starter in all three series. Shut down Boston in a HUGE game for this team in the postseason, shut down the Angels twice, and 3 in 7 to Houston. You are reaching now. Well, as I said in my post, I was talking about the World Series, you obviously weren't. And by the way, Matt Clement was Boston's #1 starter. Does that mean he was good? No, so pointing out "Number 1 starter in all three series" means nothing.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:18 PM) But you are advocating trading him for a guy who hasn't batted once in the major leagues. Yes, because I, unlike most Sox fans on this board, don't hate prospects, and in fact like them, especially ones that are top 10 in the league. The way I see it is we can get 1 year of Contreras or 6+ years of Milledge. Take your pick, I'd take Milledge anyday of the week.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:13 PM) Meanwhile, Jose showed it on the BIGGEST STAGE that you can show it on. I'm assuming you are talking about the WS, if not, sorry in advance. He had a 3.86 ERA in his only 2005 WS start. Now, thats a small sample size, yes, but that doesn't look too ace-like. (not to mention his 5.68 ERA in the 2003 WS)

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) LOL. PROSPECT. Which means NOTHING at the big league level. Hey, believe what you want about prospects. Joe Borchard has the majority of the people here paranoid about prospects, and you need to get over it. And no, this trade doesn't help the White Sox at the major league level, unless you believe McCarthy will do better starting than Contreras will, which is what I do believe. In 2004, Contreras sucked in New York and Chicago. In the start of 2005, Contreras was average. In the second half of 2005, he was superb. That makes one of the best pitchers in the league? I thought pitchers had to be consistantly good to be one of the best, silly me. He sucked in Chicago too, or did you forget about that? How does it appear KW agrees with you? This is the offseason, there is no limit on when the deals can be made. Hell, spring training hasn't even started yet. If a deal with Contreras is being worked on, its going to be worked on for awhile, mainly because it will be a rather big deal for our team.

QUOTE(jphat007 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:53 PM) Most GMs in the upper half of payroll who have a chance of winning the WS don't trade one of hte best pitchers in the league for a player like Milledge. I didn't realize having a spectacular half year made you one of the best pitchers in the league. And Milledge is one of the best prospects in the league.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:22 PM) So basically the argument is that Contreras won't be any good in 2006. I disagree, and will remind people that pitching wins. The gamble would be trading a guy who was your best pitcher the second half of a season you won the WS and was the starting pitcher for the first game in each postseason series for a prospect who probably wouldn't even be on your major league team in 2006. From July on he was better than Buerhle, better than Garland, better than Garcia and better than Vazquez. Considering the $95 million investment JR has in this year's team, trading Contreras for a prospect is insane. I know pitching wins, and I agree. However I think that Brandon McCarthy can do what Contreras will do in 2006, so I'm not too worried about that. And Milledge isn't just a prospect, he's one of the best prospects in the game..

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 07:14 PM) Why is it that a lot of people on this board say the White Sox can't afford to let Contreras go for nothing? You get his services in 2006. His services for 2006 might not be good, and trading him now, when his trade value is at an all-time high, can net the White Sox a quality group of prospects or players in return. How many teams would give something of value up for an aging injury prone DH?

He must be reading the VAFan threads!

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 06:41 PM) Ok I didnt say great... there is a difference between good and great so get that right first....... and the point is when he pitched he was effective and above avg. which makes it good. Dont remember exactly why he didnt pitch more if injury or some other matter but he was good when he pitched in 03. He might have put up good numbers, but he didnt have a good year because he didn't even pitch for the whole year. 71 innings is a half year.. and thats pushing it (its more like a third of a year, but who cares). So to say he had 2 good years and 1 bad year just doesnt work. I'd say he had 1 good year (2003 + second half of 2005) while having one complete suckage year (2004) and being average in half of a year (first half 2005). Just my opinion, but that doesn't add up to ace in my book, and to get a top 10 prospect in the MLB for him would be a steal, especially because Contreras is a FA after this year, and when he walks, we get nothing.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 06:36 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/players/...ching&year=2003 58.2 IP as a starter in 2003 13.1 IP as a reliever in 2003 I know, I'm just wondering how someone can say he had a great year if he only pitched in 71 innings. As you pointed out, its not like they were 71 innings of relief either. How can you judge how good a year a player had on half a year of baseball?

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 06:20 PM) He has had 2 good years and 1 bad year.... so dont know where your coming from..... why is it people forget 2003 so easily? He pitched in 71 innings in 2003. 71.

That kicks ass.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) You are giving up a grade A pitcher for a AA level minor league player even up? Please take a deep breath and settle down. I'd do it in a heart beat, but then again, I tend to think Contreras is extremely overrated on these boards, and getting one of the best prospects in baseball for him would be a steal.

Most White Sox fans here are way too paranoid about outfield prospects, or any prospect actually, thanks to Joe Borchard. Get over it, not everyone is Borch..

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) True, it would be horrible if he's a bust but it's not like we would be trading a pitcher who is under contract for 3 years. Or young, Contreras is probably pushing 40..

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) And if one of them goes down? Cotts?

So let me rephrase: arguably the second best outfield prospect in baseball. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/featu...228top1004.html

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) That .487 SLG% isn't all that great when you consider his .337 BA. I'd like a little better than a .150 iso out of a power hitter. So wait, you don't want to trade a pitcher who has had 1 spectacular half of a year while being average the rest of the time for argueably the best outfield prospect in the league because he doesn't have Barry Bonds power in the minors?

Timo Perez is just as good as Barry Bonds come playoff time!

Lastings.. If we could get him, I would get over losing Chris Young.

Throwing exclamation points at the end of posts make you look smart!