Felix

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) If you want left righty matchups then you go with the best left hander in the 3rd spot. Blalock doesn't get on base enough to hit in the 3rd spot. He's not a good enough hitter to hit 3rd. Thats the lineup I would go with if the Sox traded for him, although I would think about moving Gooch to 6th, and Blalock to 7th.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 01:24 PM) 1. POds 2. Uribe 3. Blalock 4. Paulie 5. Thome 6. Dye 7. Guchi 8.AJ 9 Anderson Damn.. I likey! Blalock wouldn't hit third, and if he did, something is wrong. Blalock would probably hit 6th or 7th, while Gooch hit in the other one (6th or 7th).

I guess BMac doesn't count since he hasn't done much thus far, but if he continues to look like he did during his second stint in the majors last year, I think he'll have panned out. Past him, yea, what everyone else said. September/playoff/late game Joe Crede panned out, as did Buehrle, Rowand, Magglio, and Carlos Lee.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:43 PM) I'm doing Garland for Lidge every day of the week and I think the Stros would consider it Ok, but I didn't say anything about Lidge in my post. I was refering to this part of the original post: QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 06:07 AM) The article mentioned Willy Taveras as possibly available.

There's a 14 page thread on it here: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44350

Pods, Dye, Anderson/Owens, Mackowiak, Ozuna All 5 can play outfield, right? You could even include Willie in that list, but I think he won't be around. I like DaVanon, but I don't think we need him. Then again, if its a small deal, I have no problems with it.

Trade someone, probably Garland, for a bunch of prospects. It would be a crime to start out 2006 with McCarthy in the bullpen.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 09:18 PM) Yes, you said possible 40/40, you said he is going to be a 30/30 guy like it was a guarantee. I think he will be a 30/30 guy. Its not guarenteed, but I merely gave what I thought on the matter. And anyway, most people had a problem with me saying 40/40, not 30/30.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 09:14 PM) You didnt say possible, your wording made it sound like he was guaranteed to be a 30/30 guy. QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) He's a future 30/30 and possibly 40/40 guy.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 08:10 PM) Very good in terms of prospects. He's got the ability to be a perennial all star, but at the same time he has the chance to belly up. I don't see him busting and I see him turning into a 30-40 HR CFer, with potentially 50 HR power who will compete for gold gloves and hit for high avg's. Ie, I think he's going to be great, but the odds of him actually fullfilling all that, not that great. Thats his ceiling though (ie, he's a high ceiling guy). How come when I say he's a possible 40/40 guy, I get mocked, but when you say he'll hit 30-40 and possibly 50 HR's, nothing is said to you?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:30 PM) Sometimes I think the splits think is a bit overrated. Okay, he hits better at home than he does away. So do a lot of guys. The thing with Blalock is that at home, his numbers are good. On the road, his numbers are worse than Scott Podsednik. Most players have a downgrade in their stats when away from home, but its not as severe as Blalocks. He hits with a .150 OPS lower (I just pulled that number out of my ass, so sorry if its not completely accurate) when on the road than at home, and when your home ballpark is the biggest hitters park in the league, teams should definitely worry about what he'll be like when not hitting there 81 games a year, and from all signs, it doesn't look good.

Brian Anderson >>>>> Willie Taveras For the type of player Taveras is, he needs to put up a much higher OBP to be good, and considering the fact he sucked anywhere outside of Minute Maid Park, I wouldn't want to see him in Chicago.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 09:42 PM) yes, Felix, we understand you have a hard-on for rowand. you've stated it a million times. root for philly already. i thought you were a white sox fan, not an aaron rowand fan... guess i was wrong. Er.. I don't think you've read anything I've posted. I think that the Rowand trade was fine, and I was fine with trading Rowand for Thome. The only reason I had any problem at all with that trade was because we gave up two top lefty prospects, but I was still fine with the trade, despite overpaying. And I think that what TLAK is trying to say is that he knows that Kenny is trying to make this team better, but its still a sensitive thing ripping apart the team that brought a championship to this city for the first time since 1917. In this sense, I agree with it. Its a pretty dick thing to start trading away a fifth of the team after they won a championship. It might be a smart thing to do for the team in 2006, which it is in this case (with the exception of Vazquez unless Garland is traded IMO), but its still quite hard to see these players leave.

Hell, its not popular, but I agree.

Horrible idea

QUOTE(greg775 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:48 PM) Without reading the million posts or starting a new thread .. tell me bout Chris Young. How good is he? Is he a star in the making or just another guy? I like the pickup but I worry bout losing Young. He's a future 30/30 and possibly 40/40 guy.

Garland is expendable, just as Rowand was. We have a better person waiting to start in his spot (McCarthy), and Jon wasn't going to be in Chicago in 2007 anyway, so trading him now makes sense.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) No it isn't, but Chicago has a better defensive team behind him than the Expos did. The D-Backs and the Yanks didn't have a good a defense behind him either. Talk about confidence...when you have a bunch of vacuums behind you...that's what gives a pitcher confidence. Defense won't matter if the ball is flying out of the ballpark..

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:19 PM) take a look at his Montreal stats. Yea.. thats nice. Except Chicago isn't Montreal.. that might be a problem..

QUOTE(Wedge @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:13 PM) This guy's basically a Garcia clone that strikes out guys more often. Except Garcia is much better.

QUOTE(captain video @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) OK.......call me crazy.....but with all the good moves Kenny keeps making, I'm getting a bit delirious........the Rangers need pitching.....how about Uribe and Garland to Texas for Mike Young and a reliever. He'd be a far better hitter from the 2 hole! And I like that .380+ OBP This isn't MVP.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) 141 488 61 124 33 3 3 45 12 .254 .322 .352 Not great stats. Look at his away splits. Then look at his defense. Then look at the fact that he was a rookie.

QUOTE(Ricky3353 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:21 PM) From what i heard he sounds like juan pierre. Who told you that? Young is close to being a 30/30 guy.. Pierre is a 5/60 guy.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:22 PM) Borchard had pretty good speed when he was in the Minors. He had monster power (still has that) and hit for a good average. What about Olivo? He was supposed to be the next Pudge Rodriguez. Never happened. Jeremy Reed? They are different people. Different prospects. Different talents. Completely different. And Reed did well last year for a rooke in Safeco.. whats your point?

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 03:15 PM) Joe Borchard had great numbers in the Minors. Young is a prospect and prospects are suspects until proven otherwise. Comparing prospects is like comparing apples and oranges. Each one is different..