SSH2005

We might have to give up Felix Diaz in that deal.

I guess we will just have to see what happens then. The fact that Chris Young's name was brought up with this trade rumor is a bit scary. I definately wouldn't want to see him involved in any deal.

Well, if KW ends up giving up Garland and Young for Vazquez the deal would be horrible regardless of "cost certainty."

Why did Burnett sign a 5-year, $55 million contract instead of a cheap 3-year deal for $30 million? Because he could. Money talks and bulls*** walks. It's almost always about the green with these players. And if Garland signed with a west coast team like the Angels for huge money, he would still have a real chance to win another World Series. But since Garland already won a Championship, you have to realize that he is more likely looking for the big payday now.

^^^ Excellent find.

Exactly. Even if Garland doesn't even have a good season in 2006, he's still going to get paid. And if he repeats on his 2005 season, he's going to break the bank. Garland and his agent would have to have the collective IQ of a fish to agree to a crappy 3-year deal with the Sox now. KW has to weigh the value of having Garland for likely only one season or Vazquez for three seasons.

If KW is truly considering dealing Garland, he must be pretty sure that Garland is intent on going for a massive payday after 2006. And honestly, why wouldn't he? Look at the contract A.J. Burnett just received and he's been plagued with injuries over his career. 31 year old Kevin Millwood is going to get a massive contract soon as well. Garland will only be 27 after 2006 and he has never had any significant injuries. I personally think that Garland wants wants to get a big long-term contract from a west coast team like the Angels so he can go back home.

Ahhh, it's making more sense now: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...t=.jsp&c_id=cws The fact that we would control Vazquez for 3 years, and not just 2, makes the trade make a lot more sense. But not if we are giving up Garland and Young for him. But listen to the interview at WhiteSox.com about the Mackowiak addition. Kenny made it a point to pause and reiterate that now is the time for Garland and Contreras to get serious about re-signing with the Sox. And Garland just turned down a 3-year contract offer just a week ago.

I love that we still have arbitration rights to Contreras after next season. I was scared that he would be a free agent after 2006. I forgot that Contreras has only been in the MLB for 3 years. And even though Garland is much younger, Contreras has much better stuff and could be signed to a cheaper 3-year deal. Garland could get one of those Burnett deals after 2006. Contreras will be a free agent after 2006 but we will still have arbitration rights to him.

I can't believe the A's also got Antonio Perez in the deal. What a steal. The Cubs could have used both Bradley and Perez. Instead, they paid more for just Pierre.

I knew you would come through.

Per Zach Zaidman of The Score!

Look at what the Cubs gave up for Pierre. Now, look at what the A's gave up for Bradley. And now, he appears to have interest in Jock Jones. Hendry is a horrible GM.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5164460

^^^ BRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCE!!!

I love seeing the Cubs miss out on another potential right fielder.

Thank you, Kenny. Garland and Young for Vazquez would be retarded.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6396/splits Garland (Pre All Star): 3.38 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, .247 BAA Garland (Post All-Star): 3.65 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, .265 BAA If we give up Jon Garland and Chris Young for Javier Vazquez, it's a horrible trade regardless of whether or not the Diamondbacks throw in cash.

Kevin Millwood is 31 years old with past injury issues and he's been rumored to be close to a 4-year, $44 million contract with the Mariners. Now think what a 27 year old Jon Garland with no injury issues in his career will receive.

Thanks, all I heard on The Snore was that they offered him a 3-year contract.

Where did you hear that? Just curious.

I'd rather have Garland for one year at his arbitration price than Vazquez for two years and $24 million. Garland leaving would suck but we would have that money freed up for 2007. Unfortunately, no one reported any figures. Just that it was a 3-year contract offer.

http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=ari You can keep him at that outrageous price.

Well, if that's true who the hell would want Vazquez at $24 million for 2 years? They would almost have to include cash to deal him. I just assumed that the Diamondbacks would be including the $6 million from the Yankees in any trade.