shoota

QUOTE(Craig Grebeck @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 11:32 PM) Shoota, care to explain why Garland is a better pitcher than Garcia or Vazquez? Freddy/Javy/JG are all around the same quality, but at least Garcia and Vazquez have had sustained success. Jon had one good year, and the rest have been brutal. Please, no one ever enter wins into a discussion about pitching quality ever again. Page 5, post #72 explains my thoughts in more detail, but here's a shortened, reworded version: I'd rather Garcia or Vazquez traded instead of Garland because of how I believe each man will pitch in 2007, not because I think Garland has had the most "sustained success." I believe Garland is the safest pick of the three based on age, injury history/risk, mechanics and performance. On a pitching staff where 4 of the 5 pitchers had physical, mental or mechanical problems that could continue into 2007, I think it'd be a poor decision to trade away the one who didn't suffer those problems.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 10:53 PM) Well you have to remember that KW has actually traded away a lot of our prospects for the likes of Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez. But I think KW has found out the value of good young pitching, because of the price you have to pay in Free Agency to actually get quality starting pitching there. Hence why he is interested in trading for Danks, Masset and possibly Hurley, because they're young, cheap and under our control for 6 seasons. We don't want to be a team that basically goes all out for a World Series, and then drops back down the division because we don't have enough young players being worked into the mix, especially if you have the likes of Dye, Garcia, Iguchi and Buehrle leaving in the next off-season. That's reasonable. KW does need to supply the team with good, young talent but can't rob the parent club much to obtain it. I'm in favor of good deals no matter how they come; if KW can trade a little present success for a lot of future success, I can't disagree with that. Remember that Crede, Garland, Dye, Buehrle, etc were all prospects too, and now that they've blossomed to expectations, it's time to win with them. Again.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 09:16 PM) Garland had a 4.51 ERA for us in 2006. Who's to say Brandon McCarthy in a whole season in the rotation can't produce that, and win 18 games for us like Jon Garland did? And the money you save from dealing Garland and trading for stud pitching prospects, can then be used to upgrade over parts of the team, such as getting a good setup pitcher in Justin Speier, or upgrading in LF/CF with a new leadoff hitter. With the way our farm system is and the age of some of our guys in our lineup, we need to work more young guys into the team over the next few seasons to stay competitive. How do you figure the Minnesota Twins have been so good over the past 6 seasons? I agree McCarthy could produce numbers better than Jon Garland in 2007. But since I believe Garland is currently a better pitcher than Garcia and Vazquez, I think the 2007 staff is best with both Garland and McCarthy in the rotation. So instead of comparing Garland to McCarthy, as you did, I'd prefer to compete with the best 5, and trade the 6th along with prospect(s) to upgrade LF or SS. To your important point of working young, good, inexpensive talent into the team, my philosophy is to maximize the talent of an already World Series-contending team and play for a championship, aka the reason for playing. The Twins do a lot of things right, but in the past 6 years, winning the World Series isn't one of them. You're also presupposing the only way to acquire young talent is by trading current, good players from the team. I suggest the organization supplies this talent through better drafting, scouting and development. QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 09:40 PM) As soon as I heard Masset was a converted starter, I had a feeling he was another Jenks. Power guy, good heavy stuff who's effective when the ball is down in the zone, these are the type of guys KW wants to acquire for the pen, as you've seen from the Aardsma acquisition. I like the Hurley, Danks, Masset for Garland and BA idea, but the only reservation I have is how the Sox are going to fill the LF/CF need. If you can acquire a guy like Figgins without having to give up too much, then by all means pull the trigger on the Garland deal. How does replacing a starter with someone who can put up similar numbers, and free salary for other needs weaken the 2007 team? Because Garland is a better pitcher than Garcia and Vazquez, and trading Garland instead of Garcia or Vazquez (as suggested in beck72's scenario), results in a weaker pitching staff.

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 09:13 PM) Trading Garland would be for prospects and probably a bullpen arm. But Bmac would take his place in the rotation. I don't think that's a huge drop off. Esp. if 2 of Freddy, Mb, Javy and Jose return to form. Okay, that posts gives me a clear understanding of your thinking, and I wasn't factoring a new, quality bullpen arm for 2007 in my thinking. But why make moves to improve the 2008+ teams by weakening the current, Series-contending 2007 team?

QUOTE(beck72 @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 08:27 PM) It may boil down to the type of SP prospects the sox can get in return for one of their SP's. Only Garland may be able to net the top SP prospect the sox need. If Danks can be around for 10 years being a #1 or a #2, it may be worth the cost of garland for 2 years. Trading Freddy or even Javy, may only net #3 type SP who can give the sox 5 decent years. The sox don't have a top of the rotation type prospect in their system, someone who can help the sox late in 07 and definitely in 2008. Garland may be the cost. In the short term, the question should be, can Bmac give the sox Garland type numbers? 2006 numbers pretty sure. 2005 numbers, not yet. Since Garland is the best of the three, I understand why potential trading partners would offer more value to acquire him than they'd offer for Vazquez or Garcia. I believe trading Garland for pitching prospects downgrades the current, World Series-contending team by losing its best pitcher and not upgrading other areas of the 2007 team. With the construction of the current team, KW must play for the present.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) Honestly, I don't see how anyone can think that Garland is our best pitcher unless these people who do decide to erase all of their histories except for the last two years -- and even then, I think Garland comes off looking weaker than all of them except for maybe Javier. About SS: I don't think it's that large an area of need. If we can upgrade Uribe, then sure, go for it, but I don't think we can without overpaying and taking on a big nasty contract. Our priority shouldn't be replacing Uribe and it shouldn't even be too high up on our list, IMO. I like having him on the bench, too. I agree that Buehrle, Contreras and Garcia have all pitched better at some point in their careers than Garland did last season, but that history has no influence on each man's 2007 performance. My statement that Jon Garland is currently the best and most reliable pitcher on the Sox was proven on page 5 of this thread: Perhaps my positive perception of JG is higher than it should be because he's the best and most reliable pitcher on a staff of inconsistent, injured pitchers. Buehrle followed a great first half with the worst half of his career; Contreras is old and fell very short of his peak ability because of injury; Vazquez's mercurial starts are the antonym of reliable, and his performances hint at mental hinderances; Garcia's body failed him by sapping life from his fastball, and will try to prolong his career deceiving hitters with an arsenal of junk. My belief is that the Sox should trade one of their six starting pitchers not named Garland or McCarthy in an attempt to upgrade SS and LF to improve of the overall talent of the team.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) Williams' willingness to trade his "best pitcher" might have to do with the fact that Garland, ah, might not be the best pitcher in his eyes. Yes, it may be true that KW does not believe Garland is his best pitcher. I did make that assumption and constructed my thoughts with that opinion. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) Or, perhaps, it might have to do with the knowledge that God needs a rotation spot in 2007 and that he should acquire some arms that'll contribute to the club, soon. As I stated, I understand the need to eventually replace the team's current pitchers, but don't think it is a higher priority than the immediate need for improvements at SS and LF.

QUOTE(R.Sweeney @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 05:54 PM) Well with 2 starters and 1 arb. eligable for 08 hes does need to get something going for the future. All we have for youth as of now for 08 is Broadway unless KMc grows up real fast. We all know that KW doesnt live on the free-agent market. Good point, I see the importance of obtaining young, quality pitching; my puzzlement is born from KW's seemingly willingness to trade his best pitcher, Garland, before two other pitchers of value: Vazquez and Garcia. With 6 legitimate starters, I agree with the philosophy of trading from this position of strength to improve a position of weakness. I disagree with KW using his only expendable player of high value on the parent club to improve minor league pitching before upgrading SS and LF.

QUOTE(bunkbang @ Nov 18, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6185140 The current construction of the White Sox is that of a contending World Champion. Thus, I find it puzzling that KW is allegedly in pursuit of acquiring unproven players in exchange for his best pitcher.

QUOTE(TaylorStSox @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Are you writing a corporate mission statement? You're a fan for christ sakes. You're not part of the organization. The internet can be beyond weird. As a White Sox fan, Flash Tizzle has an interest in the team. He is a consumer of the organization and demands a quality product in return. What makes that weird, or different from buying any other product? I wonder how any Sox fan could disagree with Flash's desire to want the Sox organization to make the best decisions possible, but you've been an irrational supporter of horrible performers Juan Uribe and Joe Crede (when he sucked), so it's believeable for you to not desire quality.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:43 AM) Son, I like the way you're put together. Extracting this philosophy of holding our organization to high standards, which I often cite, is why I EXPECT Williams to orchestrate a trade which heavily favors us this offseason. Such a scenario centers around our starting pitching staff. If he's unable to sell any of our five starting pitchers above what an impartial observal may deem equal value, something is wrong. Especially in this market of outrageous demands where so few candidates are worthy of their contracts. Why should I expect so little in return when I know if the situation were flipped, and we were the ones acquiring a veteran pitcher, Williams would overpay for a starting pitcher. The entire purpose of shopping all five starters to the most generous bid during peek demand is making sure we don't have to "give something to get something." /time for my prozac now!111 I'm glad we share the same organizational philosophy, and count me in your camp that finds it unacceptable the team hasn't found/produced a Johan Santana or Francisco Liriano.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) And I'm sure the fans of every other ballclub would love this too, as would the general managers of each team who would love to pull trades like this. Right, and since I'm a fan of the White Sox, I want my general manager to be the smartest and most influential GM in sports. QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:25 PM) But, in order to get something, you have to give up something. Not true. Bad trades still occur, and I desire the Sox's GM to frequently win and never lose those types of trades. Also, I find it acceptable for my GM to draft the best future major league players.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 09:49 PM) Why are people gushing over a 4.50 ERA? I don't understand it. The ONLY thing Garland did was pitch well during a stretch where our pitching was pretty much all-around horrible. Perhaps my positive perception of JG is higher than it should be because he's the best and most reliable pitcher on a staff of inconsistent, injured pitchers. Buehrle followed a great first half with the worst half of his career; Contreras is old and fell very short of his peak ability because of injury; Vazquez's mercurial starts are the antonym of reliable, and his performances hint at mental hinderances; Garcia's body failed him by sapping life from his fastball, and will try to prolong his career deceiving hitters with an arsenal of junk. I value Jon's stability because that feature is linked with future performance. Jon's 2006 campaign like his entire major league career reveals a pitcher who doesn't fall to injury or even missed starts, has never had to alter his pitching motion to mask pain, and is a good pitcher. Jon's combination of pitching performance and stability are qualities that forecast good odds for future success.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) Bruuuuce the goose Levine said JG for young arms??? Jon Garland is currently the Sox's best pitcher. He should be untouchable since he will be needed to meet the team's objective of winning the World Series. Perhaps I have a severely selfish outlook, but I hate trades in which quality players depart. KW needs to acquire phenomenal players without giving up anything of value. I only approve lopsided trades favoring the Sox, trading for players with a poor history who immediately turn into All-Stars once on the Sox, drafting MVPs and free agent signings. I frown on mistakes, so perfection is desired.

Does anyone remember this geek Tony Brown, and his hilarious episode of Made: I want to be a ladies man? He keeps this out-of-date website http://www.mrbrown.net/ I want to know where I can get a copy of his Made episode, but can't find it on the internet. I was hoping someone here recorded it and I could buy a copy of it.

There's no evidence that Brian Anderson has hurt clubhouse chemisty or acted in a way that upset Ozzie, but there is evidence Ozzie Guillen doesn't put his team in the best position to win.

I don't understand the disbelief that Crede didn't win the Gold Glove. Must be a homer-based emotional reaction, because Crede's certainly not worthy of a Gold Glove.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 1, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) Freddy Garica is the #1 pitcher that will be traded from the team this year, his age, shoulder stiffness and velocity decline makes him alot more expendable than your best pitcher of the last 5 years. Since 2001 Buehrle has been a cornerstone of the rotation and has been one of the most valuable players on the team. He had one off year and suddenly he sucks to you? Your idea alone of trading an extremely valuable pitcher for Sheffield is already terrible, saying you would trade Buehrle for him before Garcia is even worse. Not even; Buehrle had one bad half.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 12:11 AM) For starters, you're not going to convince anyone with any knowledge of baseball at all that Derek Jeter is a better defensive SS than Juan Uribe. No one. Secondly, that 20th is a completely objectional number to me. How many SS's is that exactly? 30? 40? 60? 100? That 20th could put him in the upper half, which, along with gold glove defense, is pretty goddamn valuable. That ISOD was also the worst of his career. I would put money on that improving next year. He's not disciplined at all, but I going to go out on a limb and say 13 walks will remain a career low for Uribe in a season with atleast 450 PAs. How about his ISO of .206? That's only 17 points lower than Mr. Everything, Joe Crede. Hell, it's 65 points BETTER than AJ Pierzynski's. And you're trying to say he's a trash ballplayer. I would imagine you're the only person on this site that feels that way. He's not the only poster who thinks Uribe is a bad player. I've had enough of his impatient, CLUELESS plate approach combined with his overall poor hitting success. I'm not worried about Uribe's criminal activity potentially hurting the Sox because his departure is addition by subtraction.

QUOTE(cuddlyboy26 @ Oct 2, 2006 -> 03:40 PM) Joe Crede had a great year this year and proved his performance in the playoffs last year was no fluke. Was he signed to a new contract yet that I did not hear about, or will he be and for how much and how long? I don't like your posts. May I suggest you cease posting about this subject until you become moderately informed. And by "subject," I mean baseball.

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Oct 1, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) we've been the DEFENDING world champions since april i hate how everyone still says we are at the beginning of the season everyone goes back to zero we're the defending champs until after the series Not "defending," but REIGNING World Champions.

I didn't even watch the game. My interest in baseball dropped immensely after the Sox got swept in Oakland.

QUOTE(rudylaw @ Sep 30, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) I hate hearing all of the talk about trading Garcia. I think that now that he has realized that he also throws a splitter he has been amazing. I think that he is a very valuable part of this team. I would rather see Javy or MB go than Big Freddy. I had wanted Freddy G gone since midseason, but now he's changing my mind. I think KW needs to think about keeping Freddy and trading Contreras because of his age, contract, injury and value. QUOTE(beck72 @ Sep 30, 2006 -> 12:42 PM) The offense isn't blameless, is what I'm saying. I wasn't ranking the causes of the sox 2006 downfall. If you think the sox offense is complete, so be it. I don't. And what's the deal with the Buerhle hate? One bad season and he's all that in your sig?! Actually only a bad 1/2 season. His first half was great.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) We just need guys who could get on base. Speed is overrated, especially if you can't get on base. Podsednik was great last year because he got on base at a fairly decent clip, and when he did, he was a lock to be in scoring position. Now he sucks at getting on base and when he does get on, half the time he's getting thrown out. I just want to see this team as a whole have a higher OBP. QFT. Unfortunately, Ozzie values speed from a leadoff hitter more than OBP.

There's one reason why an upgraded World Champs team couldn't make the playoffs the following year: Ozzie took the Championship trophy to Chavez and snubbed Bush.